Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability

Posted on June 27, 2021 by | 916 Comments

by Judith Curry

I recently participated in a Technical Conference sponsored by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

This was a very interesting conference. Unfortunately there is no podcast or record of the written statements submitted by the panel

The main part of my written statement is provided below

JC remarks to FERC

The remarks that follow respond to issues raised for Panels #1 and #2, in context of CFAN’s experience in dealing with extreme weather- and climate-related issues for the energy sector.

How extreme can it get?

Extreme weather events are rare, by definition. When planning for future weather extremes, several different approaches are used:

  1. recent climatology: 1-in-10 or 1-in-20 year standard
  2. 50- or 100-year return time
  3. worst cases in the historical record
  4. incremental changes to #1 – #3 associated with manmade global warming.

The extreme events of 2020 (e.g. TX cold, record number of hurricane landfalls, extensive fires in CA) belie the utility of a 1-in-10 or 1-in-20 year standard. The return period approach doesn’t help much either. For example, Texas saw three 500-year floods during 2015-2017. The 100-year event is not based on history, but on estimated probabilities that assume stationarity of the climate record. However, the climate is not stationary on any time scale – apart from the secular trend of global warming, there is multi-decadal to millennial scale natural climate variability that provides an envelope for decadal and interannual climate variability.

Here is an anecdote that relates to a client who needed help in assessing the vulnerability to hurricanes of a new power plant that was to be located on the Gulf of Mexico coast. A risk assessment firm calculated 100-yr storm surge to be 10.1 ft, and the 500-year storm surge to be 13 ft. A quick look at the historical hurricane record shows an estimated storm surge of 12 feet near that location in the 1920s, and an estimated 15 ft storm surge from a hurricane in the 1840’s – periods with significantly cooler climates than now. Neither conventional statistics on return periods or climate model-driven expectations of slightly more intense hurricanes by 2100 provide a complete picture of what the power plant may be facing over the next 30-50 years from a hurricane storm surge. When I recommended moving the power plant inland, the client said that this site was previously approved for an earlier power plant, and getting a new site approved would take a decade.

In assessing the risk from extreme weather events, I advise clients to develop an understanding of the entire historical record of events impacting the locale, as well as any relevant paleoclimatic data that is available. If it has happened before, it can happen again. 

What about the role of global warming in changing the intensity or frequency of extreme weather events? Apart from the a reduced frequency of the coldest temperatures, the signal of global warming in the statistics of extreme weather events remains much smaller than that from natural climate variability, and is expected to remain so at least until the second half of the 21st century.

Rather than focusing on the relatively small and uncertain impacts of global warming on extreme events, a broader range of extreme weather events from the historical record can provide a better basis for avoiding ‘big surprises.’

How can we assess regional vulnerability to weather extremes for the next 30 years?

While much of the climate change literature focuses on projections to 2100 from global climate models, the electric utilities sector needs projections of regional climate variability and change on decadal time scales.

To bridge this gap, there is a growing number of companies and university groups that are producing regional, decadal climate projections from global climate model simulations. Specifically, the 21st century climate simulations prepared for the IPCC assessment reports are bias-corrected based on a comparison of historical climate simulations with observations. The same bias correction is applied to the 21st century simulations, which are then ‘downscaled’ to a finer horizontal resolution. The downscaling approach may be statistical or dynamical; dynamical downscaling uses the coarser resolution outputs from a global climate model simulation as the boundary conditions for higher-resolution simulation using a regional climate model.   

The problems with using global climate models as a basis for assessing future regional weather extremes are:

  • The climate model simulations used for the IPCC assessment reports include only scenarios for future emissions; they do not include predictions of natural climate variability (solar output, volcanic eruptions or the evolution of large-scale multi-decadal ocean circulations).
  • Because the global climate models do not adequately represent the multi-decadal ocean circulations, they do a poor job at simulating regional and decadal-scale climate variability.
  • Climate models do not accurately simulate the magnitude or frequency of extreme weather events.
  • Downscaling doesn’t help, if the underlying global climate model is not producing an accurate simulation.

In the absence of climate models that are fit-for-purpose for predicting future extreme weather events on regional and decadal time scales, alternative methods are being developed. CFAN has developed a semi-empirical methodology for providing scenarios of regional extreme weather events for the next 30 years. This approach combines historical data and climate dynamics analysis with scenarios of natural climate variability plus the outputs from global climate models. Multiple scenarios are selected for each driver of the forecast – emissions, solar, volcanoes and large-scale ocean circulations – with an emphasis on plausible scenarios, rather than extreme scenarios that cannot completely be ruled out. Based on recent information provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA), emissions scenarios to 2050 are best represented by the IPCC RCP4.5 or RCP6.0 scenarios (not the oft-used extreme RCP8.5 scenario).

The multiple outcomes derived from different combinations of the scenarios for each driver are organized using a possibility diagram that portrays the distribution of scenario outcomes. The likelihood of a particular outcome is associated with the plausibility of the input scenarios and also the number of different combinations of inputs that produce a particular outcome. Regional extreme weather events are then linked to these scenarios of climate change. This linkage is made through an analysis that relates the extreme weather categories to atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns and global temperature change.

In several regional climate impact assessment projects that have involved CFAN, the client has hired 2-3 different groups to assess the regional impacts of climate change. Apart from different methodologies, such assessments invariably involve expert judgment, and ‘which expert’ matters. The bottom line is that currently there is no generally accepted ‘best practice’ for making regional projections of extreme weather events on a decadal time scale.

Overall, the climate research community has not focused on the scientific problem of projecting future regional impacts of extreme weather events. Given the importance of such projections for adaptation to climate change, FERC could usefully motivate a focus on these applications.

However, in my opinion there has been an over-emphasis on manmade climate change as the cause of increasing extreme weather events. Natural climate variability remains the largest driver of variations in extreme weather events, with at most incremental changes associated with manmade global warming. Greater attention is needed to understanding the full range of climate variability that contributes to extreme weather events.  Many of the worst U.S. weather disasters occurred in the 1930’s and 1950’s, a period that was not significantly influenced by manmade global warming. The 1970’s and 1980’s were a relatively quiet period, with weather disasters increasing again in the 21st century.  The evolution of natural multi-decadal modes of climate variability suggest that we could see another quiet period in coming decades, followed by a more active period.  Until the influence of natural climate variability on extreme weather is better understood, we may be misled in our interpretations of recent trends and their attribution to manmade global warming.

Probabilities, possibilities and uncertainty

As the time horizon of a weather or climate forecast increases and the spatial scale decreases, forecast uncertainty increases.

For a very short-term weather forecast, the uncertainty in the forecast is low and there is deterministic skill.

On timescales of 1-14 days, ensemble global weather forecast models provide meaningful probabilities in the sense of the forecasted mean being better on average than a climatological forecast, and the 90% range of the ensemble envelope nearly always bounds the actual outcome.

On timescales of 3-6 weeks, there are forecast periods with ‘windows of opportunity’ where the forecasts do better than climatology, but often the actual outcome occurs outside of the bounds of the 90% range of the ensemble forecast.

On seasonal time scales of 2 to 9 months, forecasts are commonly presented in terciles, with outcome probabilities provided for near average and above and below average outcomes.

The collection of climate model simulations to 2100 used by the IPCC are not predictions; they should be interpreted as a sensitivity analysis of climate change to different scenarios of emissions. These simulations are possible outcomes that are contingent on the assumptions made about: emissions, the lack of variability in solar and volcanoes, and the absence of meaningful phasing of the multi-decadal ocean circulation patterns. Attempts to create probabilities from the CMIP climate model simulations and regard them as predictions lead to misleading interpretations.

With regards to CFAN’s regional decadal projections, the objective is to bound the range of plausible outcomes for the frequency of extreme events and the plausible worst case.  There is weak justification for providing likelihoods of the individual outcomes, which is referred to as scenario uncertainty.

Reducing vulnerability of electric utilities to extreme weather events

Electric utilities are vulnerable to extreme heat and cold waves, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, droughts and wind gusts, with regionally-varying levels of risk from each of these.

There are two broad approaches for reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events:

  1. Strategic adaptation  hardening of infrastructure and increasing reserve capacity
  2. Tactical adaptation – planning and strategies for readiness and mitigation of damage from an anticipated severe event.

Strategic adaptation in terms of infrastructure and reserve capacity is developed in response to expected conditions over the relevant time horizon (nominally 30 years).  The question then becomes ‘how much resilience can you afford?’ This is a choice between the robustness provided by 1-in-10 year versus 1-in-20 year standards. It is not cost effective to harden the infrastructure to accommodate every plausible worst-case weather scenario, which may not occur during the infrastructure lifetime of 30-50 years.

When an extreme event occurs that is outside of the expectations used in designing the infrastructure, too often the response is to passively watch a cascading disaster unfold and then clean up afterwards. Tactical adaptation strategies can be developed from considering plausible worst case scenarios. Such strategies develop response protocols and then deploy them in a phased manner in response to probabilistic weather forecasts. Such strategies can result in better outcomes, with less damage and more rapid restoration of services,

Since 2013, CFAN has been working with an electric utility provider whose service region is impacted by hurricanes. Reconstructed landfalling winds from historical hurricanes are used to drive their outage models to produce a range of possible outage scenarios. A catalog of synthetic worst-case storms provides an additional basis for stress-testing their system using their outage model and for assessing their response strategies.

When there is a possibility of a hurricane expected to impact their region, risk management begins 7 days prior to the possible landfall. CFAN provides extended-range probabilistic forecasts of tropical cyclone tracks, intensity and landfall winds that are used to drive their outage models. Based on CFAN’s ensemble forecasts of landfall winds, estimates are made of manpower requirements, allowing for early requests for mutual aid so that repair crews are in place several days before the actual landfall.  The catalog of synthetic worst-case storms is used to assess the worst-case possibility for the pending landfall.

My main point is that protocols developed for worst-case scenarios can be usefully deployed for forecasted extreme events to produce better outcomes.

FERC questions

There were 5 panels at the Conference; I participated in Panel 2. Here the questions formulated for the first three panels. These questions obviously address very important issues, and the formulation of the questions is interesting in itself.

Panel 1

This panel will explore the ways in which planning inputs and practices—including those used in resource adequacy planning, transmission planning, integrated resource planning, and asset development and management—should evolve to achieve outcomes that reflect consumer needs for reliable electricity in the face of patterns of climate change and extreme weather events that diverge from historical trends.  The panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions:

  1. With respect to typical inputs to planning, such as expected future load, weather, temperature, etc., how can such futures-based inputs be projected more accurately (or usefully) than simply extending historical trends forward?
  2. Are there best practices for developing probabilistic/stochastic methods for estimating these typical planning inputs, including through use of expert-developed climate scenarios such as the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios for baseline CO2 projections developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
  3. Are there best practices for conducting climate change and extreme weather vulnerability assessments?  How should these assessments (and any resulting climate change resilience plans) interact with existing planning processes, e.g., transmission planning and resource adequacy planning?
  4. Are there expert-developed climate change scenarios, including “down-scaled” ones for smaller regions, that can be incorporated into planning processes at all relevant levels?  What additional information, if any, do utilities need from government, academia, or other entities with expertise in climate change and meteorology to develop effective vulnerability assessments?
  5. How should climate vulnerability assessments be translated into actions that promote least-cost outcomes for consumers?  What are the specific steps and considerations that lead from identification of a climate vulnerability to least-cost solution that addresses that vulnerability?
  6. What are the planning best practices that proactively protect the needs of vulnerable populations?
  7. What, if anything, should FERC consider to encourage or require jurisdictional utilities to better assess vulnerabilities to climate change or extreme weather and implement appropriate corrective action plans?

Panel 2

This panel will explore how well existing planning processes address climate change and extreme weather events and possible improvements to planning processes.  This panel will engage in a broad ranging discussion of relevant best practices throughout the industry for assessing the risks posed by climate change and extreme weather and developing cost-effective mitigation. The panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions:

  1. To what extent do existing resource adequacy processes (e.g., Loss of Load Expectation Analysis, Effective Load Carrying Capacity Analysis) assess the risk of common mode failures?  How can these processes be improved?
  2. Given the increasing incidence of extreme weather events, is the existing 1-in-ten-year standard, commonly used as a benchmark for resource adequacy, still an appropriate resource adequacy standard or is a new approach needed?  What role do existing, modified, or new Reliability Standards have to play in addressing planning issues associated with climate change and extreme weather?
  3. How should risks of climate change and extreme weather be incorporated into transmission planning processes? How does the appropriate approach change depending on specific threats most relevant to the region (e.g., extreme heat, drought, sea-level rise, etc.)?
  4. In light of the potential for increased instances of extreme weather, is a more probabilistic approach to transmission planning necessary? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach?
  5. To what extent do existing transmission planning processes assess the benefits that transmission facilities provide during infrequent (e.g., one in twenty year) events? Should changes be considered to better assess the benefits of such facilities? If so, what should these changes look like?
  6. How do transmission planners evaluate the need for, and benefits of, increased inter-regional transfer capacity? In evaluating potential transmission projects that would increase regional import capability, do transmission planners consider the potential reliability benefits these projects would provide during extreme weather events? If not, should such benefits be considered and if so, how?  Should the establishment and maintenance of some minimum amount of interregional transfer capability be required, and if so, how should the particular amount be determined and by whom?
  7. To what extent is the Value of Lost Load (VOLL) currently used as an input to resource adequacy processes and transmission planning processes?  Would incorporating more accurate estimates of long-term and short-term VOLL into resource adequacy processes and transmission planning processes result in more cost-effective solutions to address the challenges of climate change and extreme weather?
  8. How can innovative mitigation strategies be incorporated in the various planning processes, such as planning for controlled sectionalization of parts of a grid to improve resilience?
  9. Are there potential rate incentives that rate regulators may consider to encourage investment in infrastructure to address the risks of climate change and extreme weather?
  10. What additional actions, if any, should FERC consider to encourage or require jurisdictional utilities to adopt robust planning practices that adequately consider climate change and extreme weather?

Panel 3

This panel will explore the ways in which existing operating practices—including but not limited to those pertaining to seasonal assessments, outage planning and coordination, reserve procurement, demand-side management, unit commitment and dispatch, short-term asset management, and emergency operating procedures—may necessitate updated techniques and approaches in light of increasing instances of extreme weather and longer-term threats posed by climate change.  This panel may include a discussion of the following topics and questions:

  1. How can market structures or rules be reformed to give generators and other resources stronger incentive to be prepared for the challenges of climate change or extreme weather that they may face?  Can new market products (e.g., seasonal products), or enhancements to existing market structures, be designed based on defined reliability/resilience needs in order to address the challenges of climate change and extreme weather?
  2. What current practices exist with respect to recalling or cancelling non-critical generation and transmission maintenance outages during a reliability event; are these practices sufficient to ensure that all possible resources and infrastructure needed to address an extreme weather event are available when such events happen unexpectedly?
  3. Given the dependence of electric system reliability on other systems (gas, water, etc.), what situational information related to those other systems is critical to electric system operator awareness during extreme weather events?  Should electric system operators consider modifications to their control rooms or software to enhance their situational awareness related to these other systems?
  4. Can the use of market-based congestion management tools such as redispatch, seams coordination, and market-to-market processes, be expanded to more areas of the country in order to help address the challenges of climate change and extreme weather? In particular, are there opportunities to improve coordination between RTOs/ISOs and neighboring non-market areas so that RTOs/ISOs will no longer have to rely on the traditional Transmission Loading Relief (TLR) process to manage excessive transmission congestion at those borders instead of the market-based approaches RTOs/ISOs use internally? If so, would this type of market-to-non-market coordination require the negotiation of joint operating agreements (or other arrangements), and what are the tradeoffs with replacing the TLR process in this scenario?
  5. What best practices exist in the use of innovative mitigation strategies (such as controlled sectionalization, microgrids) in operations to reduce loss of load and improve resilience during extreme weather events?
  6. What are the most effective means of engaging flexible demand to mitigate emergency conditions?  Are there methods to improve the use of flexible demand in addition to the solicitation of voluntary load reductions through mass communications during extreme weather events? Do existing interoperability and communications standards enable robust participation of flexible demand resources to address climate change and extreme weather challenges, or is more consensus-based standards development work needed by relevant stakeholders?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

916 responses to “Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability”

  1. curryja | June 27, 2021 at 10:09 pm |

    I DETEST the new wordpress editor, it is quixotic and non intuitive, making it very difficult to post. As a result, i abandoned adding to this post once it was sort of complete. Sufficient to start to some new discussion (i realize a new post has been needed, but I have been busy, and I dread trying to format a post using the new wordpress editor.

    • Andy West | June 28, 2021 at 7:26 am |

      Ditto. But writing something completely in Word and then cutting and pasting it en-masse into the editor, seems to work. On my trial run it seemed to preserve all formatting and embedded links etc (including any text boxes), ignoring only the graphics which have to be uploaded to the media library and tacked in afterwards. It doesn’t solve the updating issue, but I guess in principle one could update in Word too, then edit the post to just delete all blocks and paste the new entity whole. However, you’d have to manually reattach the graphics again ):

    • PaulM | June 28, 2021 at 10:10 am |

      I’ve had a great deal of experience with FERC. It’s the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    • Bill Fabrizio | June 28, 2021 at 1:48 pm |

      This is a test, as it wouldn’t take a post at the end of the last thread. Hope this goes through.

    • oldbrew | July 6, 2021 at 8:27 am |

      If you select Post (not Block) then options (3 vertical dots, top right) you can choose Code Editor which is the equivalent of the old editor. The ‘Exit code editor’ prompt is above the post title.

  2. David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:19 pm |

    Judith, it’s hard to believe you’re not writing about the huge heat wave here in the Pacific Northwest. This is a 4-sigma event that feels like almost unreal and unbelievable. And it’s only June here. I haven’t read any scientist who doesn’t think climate change isn’t playing a significant part. If this is a sign of the future we’re in real trouble. Coupled with the drought in the West, crops are failing and the wildfire risk is going through the roof. What’s it going to take?

    https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1409113893285335041

    • Alan Lowey | June 27, 2021 at 10:28 pm |

      “What’s it going to take?”

      What’s it going to take for you to read the point that Dr. Curry is making in that manmade climate change has been emphasized too much and natural variability underrated?

      • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:42 pm |

        Alan Lowey: What’s it going to take for you to read the point that Dr. Curry is making in that manmade climate change has been emphasized too much and natural variability underrated?

        What’s it going to take for you to realize that for the first time in my life I woke up wondering how I was going to get through today’s weather?

      • Willis Eschenbach | June 28, 2021 at 12:53 am |

        David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:42 pm |

        What’s it going to take for you to realize that for the first time in my life I woke up wondering how I was going to get through today’s weather?

        Really? If that’s the case, you desperately need to up your game. Because if two days of 110°F weather makes you wonder if you’ll survive, consider that last year Phoenix had no less thanfifty-three days over 110°F … and the 1.6 million people living there came out just fine.

        w.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:16 am |

        Willis wrote: Really? If that’s the case, you desperately need to up your game. Because if two days of 110°F weather makes you wonder if you’ll survive, consider that last year Phoenix had no less thanfifty-three days over 110°F … and the 1.6 million people living there came out just fine

        Not very smart, Willis. In fact, I lived in Tempe for a year and a half in the mid 1990s, where it was routinely 110 F or higher in the summer, often above 100 F at night. Highest I saw was 122 F in 1995 — they closed down Sky Harbor Airport, because apparently they didn’t have specs on how well passenger planes flew above 120 F.

        Here’s the thing, Willis: everyone in Phoenix has A/C. Only about half the households in Oregon do. I don’t. Nor am I a spring chicken. So, yeah, a temperature forecast of 114 F really worried me. Go ahead, Willis, call me a wimp. Call half the state of Oregon wimps. If you are so hard-hearted you simply don’t care about how climate change affects people, if not here then in all of the developing world, which I suspect you don’t, having read the kind of uncaring, disingenuous, almost always wrong — and clueless — stuff you write at morally vacuous sites like WUWT — then go for it. Do your best. You’ve long been on the wrong side of this subject and no matter how hot it gets you still can’t see the evidence, or care to, so you’re just wrong, and ever more all the time.

      • Alan Lowey | June 28, 2021 at 4:03 am |

        “Not very smart, Willis.” – David

        It’s not very smart to advocate for net-zero carbon emissions like yourself & RIE when causality is only inferred and natural variability at least 50% of the issue with an added possibility of new physics gravitational forcing reducing inferred manmade contribution even further.

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 28, 2021 at 4:27 am |

        David accused me of advocation doing nothing yesterday and Alan of advocating it all today.

      • Bruce Hall | July 1, 2021 at 9:37 am |

        I think Willis’ reply regarding Phoenix weather is spot on. Yes, there are extremes, but that doesn’t mean “we’re all gonna die”. I moved from Wisconsin to Florida in 1965 and spent three years there. I hated the weather during that period of “global cooling” (so much doomsday reporting about the coming ice age). When you are used to summers with highs in the 80s and relatively low humidity and then you are faced with summers in the upper 90s with 80% humidity, you think “no one can survive this”. But, of course, Floridians survive it every year.

        I served in the Air Force in the late 60s and early 70s and was stationed in North Dakota. I remember going out to our remote station during a blizzard when the actual temperature was -35º and the wind was over 50 mph. I thought “no one can survive this”, especially when our vehicle broke down. Then a minister on his way to church stopped and took us to a nearby gas station. Just another day on the way to doing the Lord’s work.

        Climate change is just another political bogeyman to frighten money out of our wallets.

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 1:37 pm |

        Bruce, what you, Willis and others here seem not to understand, perhaps on purpose, is that there are billions of poor people on the planet who cannot buy air conditioners, who cannot check into hotels during heat waves, who will not get picked up by a pastor when their car breaks down because they don’t own a car. They are the ones who are going to suffer in the droughts and heat waves of climate change — isn’t doing the “Lord’s work” having a great concern for their well-being and their future, as well as the future of your children and grandchildren who will see warming of 2 C and perhaps 3 C, or does it just mean picking up stranded people alongside the road?

      • mesocyclone | July 1, 2021 at 2:28 pm |

        “Bruce, what you, Willis and others here seem not to understand, perhaps on purpose, is that there are billions of poor people on the planet who cannot buy air conditioners, who cannot check into hotels during heat waves, who will not get picked up by a pastor when their car breaks down because they don’t own a car. They are the ones who are going to suffer in the droughts and heat waves of climate change ”

        They are the ones already suffering from the depredations of the climate warriors. For example, their forests are being cut down to provide “green” wood chips. Their economic development is hobbled by the huge worldwide waste of money on so-called green energy nostrums that not only are terribly expensive, but also ineffective – such as solar power and wind.

        When you obsessively focus on one issue – the effect of warming – you are not solving the world’s problems, you are looking at only a piece of the picture.

      • Joshua | July 1, 2021 at 2:36 pm |

        meso –

        > When you obsessively focus on one issue – the effect of warming…

        What I like is that we have this in a thread where another “skeptic” is arguing that considering externalities is “absurd.”

      • Bruce Hall | July 1, 2021 at 6:16 pm |

        David Appell, before you make proclamations about the ravaging effects of 2-3ºC increase in average global temperatures, perhaps you should look at the other side of the coin. I recommend you read the study referenced in The Lancet, May 20, 2015: “Climate and health: mortality attributable to heat and cold”.

        You might also look into the disparity between urban and rural temperature trends and consider the very strong reality that the average temperature increases you fear are less related to soaring high temperatures, but more related to less overnight cooling due to the heat sink effect of urbanization on weather stations. This accounts for much of the disparity between urban and rural weather station trends.

        Your absolutism needs some tempering.

    • matthewrmarler | June 27, 2021 at 10:35 pm |

      David Appell: If this is a sign of the future we’re in real trouble. Coupled with the drought in the West, crops are failing and the wildfire risk is going through the roof

      Extreme events are quite common, nearly all ignored.

      • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:38 pm |

        Mark: 4-sigma events over such a large region are not “quite common”

      • Joshua | June 27, 2021 at 11:04 pm |

        Matt:

        > Extreme events are quite common.

        Judith:

        > Extreme weather events are rare, by definition

      • matthewrmarler | June 28, 2021 at 7:08 pm |

        Joshua:
        Matt:

        > Extreme events are quite common.

        Judith:

        > Extreme weather events are rare, by definition

        Good catch. When extreme weather events are identified after the fact, in places where they were not predicted to occur, it turns out that such events happen quite often. With 10,000 or so places to look, and numerous weather indices (wind speed, rainfall, lack of rainfall, high temp, low temp, snowfall) 4 sigma events happen at least as often as every week. If you specify time and event and place in advance (e.g. heavy rain in Queensland Australia) it may well be that they happen seldom, at that time and place and in that manner..

        I experienced a 4 sigma cold spell a few years ago that killed all my blackberries: it was no big deal and did not make national news. A few years later a 4 sigma snowfall felled hundreds of trees in the valleys and hillsides nearby. One July about 5 years ago a 4-sigma rainfall damaged our small town and some agricultural establishments nearby. As I wrote, these were mostly ignored.

        David Appell: 4-sigma events over such a large region are not “quite common”

        Most such are never remarked, or not remembered. Recent catastrophic crop losses in China, for example, and cold waves east of Siberia.

    • matthewrmarler | June 27, 2021 at 10:40 pm |

      JC wrote: apart from the secular trend of global warming,

      Why do you need an essay from her about a particular warming?

      • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:52 pm |

        Because it’s an event of great significance to a significant region of the country? Does that matter at all?

        Because it’s so large and anomalous that it cries out for attention. The high in Salem OR today was 113 F. The normal high is 78 F.

        Because coupled with the long-term drought here, the crop failures, the water shortages and the growing wildfire danger we have a confluence of problems just as is expected from AGW, hitting tens of millions of Americans smack in the face, and I’d think a scientist who writes about climate change might care to address how it all matters to real people who are stuck dealing with it.

        Or not. Ignoring it speaks just as loudly.

      • dpy6629 | June 28, 2021 at 12:39 am |

        I think David you are exaggerating. Water supplies are fine and snowpacks were above average last winter. We were just in the Skagit valley and agriculture is doing fine due to significant rains a couple of weeks ago. The Skagit river is bank full. So far there have been little in the way of wildfire activity. In fact, there is no causal chain that I’ve seen to show climate change caused this strong wiggle in the jet stream.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 12:56 am |

        dpy6629: I think David you are exaggerating. Water supplies are fine and snowpacks were above average last winter.

        Yes, last year’s snowpack is always the best way to measure this year’s snowpack, isn’t it? LOL

        Oregon snowpack, June 18th:

        https://www.oregonlive.com/resizer/EhEX0AtJuCzLBH7xGnGm_bt5ngc=/1280×0/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/7TBDI25S6VAETNRWFGEHVB2ULM.jpeg

        via:
        https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2021/06/were-just-trying-to-survive-at-the-moment-oregon-agricultural-sector-hit-hard-by-severe-drought.html

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:17 am |

        pope – the 4-sigma calculation wasn’t about drought. Learn to read.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:20 am |

        popesclimatetheory: duh, it gets hotter when there is less water to evaporate.

        Why is there less water to evaporate?

      • dpy6629 | June 28, 2021 at 1:30 am |

        I’m thinking if this is misleading this late in the season. In March snow pack was above average for Washington state anyway and if memory serves for northern Oregon too. Right now, the pack is mostly gone so 100% of essentially zero and 4% of essentially zero are both still essentially zero and the statistic is not helpful. Would have thought a science writer might check into the full season story.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:42 am |

        dpy – what makes you think snowpack right now should be zero or close to it? Can you cite any data?

      • Philip Mulholland | June 28, 2021 at 6:57 am |

        what makes you think snowpack right now should be zero or close to it? Can you cite any data?

        Maybe it’s our lying eyes.

        WorldView 27 March 2021

        WorldView 27 June 2021

      • dpy6629 | June 28, 2021 at 5:30 pm |

        Here’s annother article I found with about 5 minutes of searching.

        https://www.kptv.com/weather/blog/best-mid-february-snowpack-in-years-plus-a-few-more-storm-stats/article_5a2f168c-71ac-11eb-a84d-bbecfc651cb9.html

        As I said, just north in Washington, the March numbers as I recall were order 100-130%.

      • DMacKenzie | June 28, 2021 at 8:54 pm |

        Once I get to 5 “Appelllations”, I move to another thread….too monotonous…

      • dsjl | June 29, 2021 at 6:47 am |

        for those water supply folks, remember snowpack is just one part of timing. both david and dpy are right in their respective locations (OR, WA), but it’s not uniform. Peak snow (~Apr 1) doesn’t account for abnormally dry mar+ conditions in PNW, with WA seeing more above median peak snow conditions for NRCS Snotels, which are limited in elevation range. Current streamflow conditions (commonly used as an aggregate indicator of upstream influences such as snowpack) are quite low outside of WA, as indicated by USGS n-day avg % norm (n ranges from 7 days to a month): https://waterwatch.usgs.gov/index.php?id=pa07d.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 11:10 am |

        Here’s an article on snowpack in the Sierra’s: “The Sierra snowpack was 59% of its historical average for April 1, [May 1 it was 22%], but shrank to 0% by June 1.”

        https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/23/where-did-sierra-snow-go-this-spring-not-into-california-rivers-and-water-supplies/

        This year the Northern Sierras snowpack delivered only 1.6 Maf instead of the average of 6.3 Maf. That’s after two very dry winters in the years immediately before.

      • Rob Starkey | June 29, 2021 at 11:29 am |

        David
        The climate changes, frequently for the worse; and its not always due to CO2.

        The world WILL HAVE higher CO2 concentrations in the future. Adapt.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 12:09 pm |

        Rob Starkey: The climate changes, frequently for the worse; and its not always due to CO2. The world WILL HAVE higher CO2 concentrations in the future. Adapt.

        But *this* climate change *is* due to anthropogenic GHGs.

        What about the billions of poor people around the world who can’t easily adapt?

        What about the cost of adaptation? Are you ready to bail out the all the homes and businesses that will have to leave because of sea level rise? Because us taxpayers will be doing so. (We already are.) What about the ecosystems that will be lost, and the species that go with them? Paying for new water infrastructure to replace the water sources that will be lost? Deal with climate refugees? And so on.

        Just “adapt.” As if nothing matters more than you getting to keep polluting for free, using the atmosphere and ocean as a garbage dump.

      • mesocyclone | June 29, 2021 at 5:54 pm |

        “Regardless of the hurdles, we have to stop emitting carbon or the world will keep warming. Quickly. We’re probably guaranteed 2.0 C now for the GMST, which is 5.4 F on land.”

        David, you are wishing for a unicorn.

        So how about being specific about how this is to be achieved, and who is to suffer from the costs of the end of carbon emissions, and who is to gain? How about quantitatively comparing that to the costs of adaptation? And, of course, please explain how you will achieve cooperation throughout the world – especially China and India.

        Elsewhere you evinced concern for the very poor. Do you think they will be better off with your program?

        Otherwise, it is a platitude that is pretty meaningless.

        Oh, and the 2.0C is not guaranteed, it is imagined. It may happen, it may not.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 6:14 pm |

        mesocyclone: So how about being specific about how this is to be achieved, and who is to suffer from the costs of the end of carbon emissions, and who is to gain?

        This isn’t the place for that, and I’m not the one to specify it. There is plenty you can read and watch, if you’re interested. You know that.

        Yes, it’s a very difficult problem. Yes, the Chinese and Indians know they will be affected by climate change too. Americans emit more per capita than either of the people in those countries. And America has emitted about twice the CO2 that China has since 1850, and about 10 times India. Does China deserve the same opportunity to improve their standard of living? China leads in the deployment of renewables. Building EVs, I believe. Batteries? If anyone it’s China that is leading the way to solving this problem, certainly not the US. Sometimes it seems, sadly, that the US is happy to sink into technological mediocrity.

      • mesocyclone | June 29, 2021 at 10:49 pm |

        “This isn’t the place for that, and I’m not the one to specify it. There is plenty you can read and watch, if you’re interested. You know that. ”

        Then how about you stop making your empty recommendations!

        You assert we must cut CO2 emissions to zero. But you don’t say how.

        Not very convincing.

        “Yes, it’s a very difficult problem. Yes, the Chinese and Indians know they will be affected by climate change too.”

        And don’t seem to care, given that they emit more than the US and are building coal fired plans at a rapid rate, even as they make empty promises.

        ” Americans emit more per capita than either of the people in those countries. And America has emitted about twice the CO2 that China has since 1850, and about 10 times India. Does China deserve the same opportunity to improve their standard of living?”

        That reads more like a “blame America” argument than any attempt at a rational answer. It says nothing about what we are to do about things. And “deserve” is irrelevant. But I’d ask: don’t the poor in Africa deserve an opportunity to improve their standard of living – which *requires* low cost, reliable electricity?

        “China leads in the deployment of renewables”

        And in the deployment of coal fired plants. Your point?

        “Building EVs, I believe.”

        Again, your point?

        “Batteries?”

        See Elon Musk. China leads in a lot of manufacturing due to their mercantilistic practices in stealing markets and stealing intellectual property, and their low labor costs.

        ” If anyone it’s China that is leading the way to solving this problem, certainly not the US.”

        Yeah, by building coal fired plants as fast as they can.

        “Sometimes it seems, sadly, that the US is happy to sink into technological mediocrity.”

        That you would equate the development, of technological nostrums that will not even come close to solving the problem, with technological progress is weird. As an engineer, I look at your viewpoint and just sigh.

        But I do agree that the US is not being very smart about keeping our technological edge – because we are too happy educating other nations’ kids while ours turn into lawyers or diversity bureaucrats, instead of physicists, mathematicians and engineers. The one saving grace is that a lot of those kids from other nations stay here. The bad news is that too many are potential spies as they have family that can be pressured in China.

        You need to take a good numerical look at the problem. Batteries and EV’s will not make a significant dent, if any, in CO2 emissions. And plenty have pointed out that producing enough batteries and EV’s to replace the fossil fuel powered transportation fleet will be environmentally and economically catastrophic. Batteries are dramatically too costly to back up intermittent energy sources favored by greens and pushed as “technological progress.”

        Electric vehicles are a really an elegant technology, and I’d have one if I had money to waste. But they are not a solution – they mostly displace the production of CO2 from the car to the power plant. And no, solar and wind are not going to fix that. It just plain does not work. Nice hand waving idea, lousy solution. Read the past posts on this blog by “A Planning Engineer.”

        If you want to actually solve the problem, start with making nuclear power inexpensive. It is low on CO2 emission (since the actual generating process produces none), and it is highly reliable and thus dispatchable. And then, you can slowly increase the fleet of EV’s, but hopefully without wrecking wherever on earth the raw materials are mined (using fossil fuels, I’d point out).

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 6:30 pm |

        dpy, Re: snowpack. This isn’t March. You can get daily reports on Western snowpacks here. They’re quite low compared to the median.

        https://bit.ly/35YLpgz

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 10:58 pm |

        mesocyclone: You assert we must cut CO2 emissions to zero. But you don’t say how.

        There is *plenty* written on this that you read, which you know. You just want an argument. This isn’t the place for a long, detailed plan on how to eliminate CO2 emissions, a huge and complex problem as you know, and I’m hardly an expert anyway. I’m certainly not going to waste my time reproducing other’s arguments just to please you.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 12:28 pm |

        “There is *plenty* written on this that you read, which you know. You just want an argument. This isn’t the place for a long, detailed plan on how to eliminate CO2 emissions, a huge and complex problem as you know, and I’m hardly an expert anyway. I’m certainly not going to waste my time reproducing other’s arguments just to please you.
        ”

        You are wasting everyone’s time by claiming we must get to net zero emissions without addressing the real issues of how to do it. By displacing that onto “long detailed plan” you just seek to avoid reasonable debate in this forum.

      • jacksmith4tx | June 29, 2021 at 11:16 pm |

        mesocyclone,
        There is a plan but we aren’t following it.
        See Project Drawdown: https://www.drawdown.org/
        I suspect humanity will gamble on technology to save our butts. Either hack the biosphere or genetically modify our species to avoid extinction.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 12:27 pm |

        “There is a plan but we aren’t following it.
        See Project Drawdown: https://www.drawdown.org/
        I suspect humanity will gamble on technology to save our butts. Either hack the biosphere or genetically modify our species to avoid extinction.”

        I looked at the electricity part and saw unicorn emissions as primary. I.e. I didn’t see anything serious.

        Global warming, even if the most extreme global warming fantasies materialize, will not eliminate the species. The extinction of our species from global warming, even if we had no technology, would not happen. But we do have technology, and we have a long history of adapting, including to climate change.

        Historically, the climate change that has caused the most damage (and deaths) was cold spells.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | June 30, 2021 at 2:43 pm |

        “jacksmith4tx | June 29, 2021 at 11:16 pm |
        There is a plan but we aren’t following it.
        See Project Drawdown: https://www.drawdown.org/
        I suspect humanity will gamble on technology to save our butts. Either hack the biosphere or genetically modify our species to avoid extinction.”

        Surprising that anyone with a basic background in engineering and basis science would endorse “drawdown” , especially someone from Texas after the winter freeze fiasco in Feb 2021.

        The advocates of green renewable energy blame the 40% loss of electric generation from fossil fuels for those 48 hours starting Feb 15th which affected only Texas. They completely ignore the 9 day loss of approx 70-90% of electric generation from wind and solar across the entire north american continent.

        A 2-3 day loss of 70+% electric generation from wind and solar is a common 2-3 times a month during the winter across large sections of every continent, not necessarily at the same time. That means retaining and maintaining backup generation for the maximum load possible.

        The advocates / the authors of lockdown propose, the conversion of gas home heating to electric heating including heat pumps (as if heat pumps are efficient at 30f and as if heat pumps provide any heat below 0f.

        Then they advocate battery storage, current battery storage in the US will cover approximately 3 minutes.

      • dpy6629 | June 30, 2021 at 4:46 pm |

        David, Reposting the snowpack graphic doesn’t change the fact that its not that significant because 1.0epsilon~0.04epsilon~epsilon. You were shown a satellite image showing very little snow south of the Columbia.

      • jacksmith4tx | June 30, 2021 at 5:08 pm |

        RE: Project Drawdown
        Meso, & Joe,
        CO2 emissions from electricity generation is just a fraction of the carbon budget. Project drawdown looks at the bigger picture which apparently eludes small minds who don’t have a plan and little foresight. If you do the math you could see their most effective idea was to educate women and slash the population growth.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 5:18 pm |

        “CO2 emissions from electricity generation is just a fraction of the carbon budget. Project drawdown looks at the bigger picture which apparently eludes small minds who don’t have a plan and little foresight. If you do the math you could see their most effective idea was to educate women and slash the population growth.”

        Eludes small minds?

        Sigh. “Educate women” – meaning convince them to do what you want. Why is it that environmentalists hate mankind?

        Are you aware that world population is expected to be dropping well before 2100? Yeah, didn’t think so.

      • jacksmith4tx | June 30, 2021 at 5:45 pm |

        Mesocycle,
        The ultimate question could be formulated as; What is the carrying capacity of humans on the planet with 9+ billion people living at your or my standard of living?
        From the section on Health & Education:
        “Currently, we humans number 7.7 billion, and the United Nations estimates the human family will grow to between 9.4 billion and 10.1 billion in 2050. As we consider the future of climate solutions, it matters how many people will be eating, moving, plugging in, building, buying, using, wasting, and all the rest. Population interacts with the primary drivers of emissions: production and consumption, largely fossil-fueled.

        It’s critical to note the vast disparities in emissions from high-income countries compared to low, and between the wealthiest individuals and those of lesser financial means. For example, almost half of consumption-related emissions are generated by just 10% of people globally. The topic of population also raises the troubling, often racist, classist, and coercive history of population control. People’s choices about how many children to have should be theirs and theirs alone. And those children should inherit a livable planet. It is critical that human rights are always centered, that gender equality is the aim, and that benefits to the planet are understood as positive ripple effects of access and agency.”

        I highly recommend a visit to the Long Now Foundation:
        https://longnow.org/

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 6:00 pm |

        “The ultimate question could be formulated as; What is the carrying capacity of humans on the planet with 9+ billion people living at your or my standard of living?”

        That’s not an interesting question unless it can lead to policies that make a difference.

        A big weakness I see in most global warming, err… climate change, errr… climate catastrophe alarmists is the failure to adequately account for the social and political obstacles to their pronouncements.

        It simply doesn’t matter if the policies are right if they will never actually be followed.

        Until, for example, the issue of the behavior of totalitarian regimes, hostile regimes, and democratic countries with lots of poor people is accounted.for, the rest is just hot air, so to speak.

      • jacksmith4tx | July 14, 2021 at 12:17 pm |

        I know this thread is getting long but there was a new analysis of the Feb. Texas grid crisis that highlights a few thing missed in the earlier reports.
        Most interesting new item was that the natural gas suppliers were actually paid to cut supplies!
        ““Days before ERCOT called for blackouts, natural gas was already being curtailed to some natural gas consumers, including power plants,” the report’s authors wrote. Natural gas output started to decline rapidly before the electricity forced outages began early on February 15, with production declining about 700 million cubic feet per day from February 8-14. This decline is likely due to weather-related factors and not a loss of power at natural gas facilities.”…
        “The UT researchers said that 67 sites, mostly gas refining and pipeline infrastructure locations around Texas, were allowed to sign up for a voluntary “emergency response” program coordinated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which runs the state’s power grid.

        Of those 67 locations receiving payments from ERCOT, at least five sites “later identified themselves to the electric utility as critical natural gas infrastructure,” according to the UT researchers.”
        https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin%20%282021%29%20EventsFebruary2021TexasBlackout.pdf

    • Willis Eschenbach | June 28, 2021 at 12:29 am |

      David, did you include the 100-year droughts around the year 1200 in your four-sigma calculation?

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CA-drought-cycles-1623760739.0965.jpg

      w.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 12:53 am |

        Willis, LOL, the 4-sigma calculation wasn’t about drought.

      • popesclimatetheory | June 28, 2021 at 1:05 am |

        Of course he did not, he only considers his lifetime, actually, only a part of his lifetime, a tiny fraction of a thousand year climate cycle. IT is hotter than he remembers.

      • popesclimatetheory | June 28, 2021 at 1:06 am |

        OK, not about drought, duh, it gets hotter when there is less water to evaporate.

      • Ckid | June 28, 2021 at 6:15 am |

        David

        Ok then temperatures. How often were there similar temperatures during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods? Don’t know? Then there is no basis to make any judgment about probability. Unless you’re newscasters who used the word unprecedented inappropriately a few hundred times over the weekend.

        Take a cold shower.

      • CKid | June 28, 2021 at 6:30 am |

        Dave

        If this is traumatizing you so much I can only imagine what kind of basket case you would have been in the 1930s in the Dust Bowl or for that matter any time in the South with no air conditioning 100 years ago and much higher humidity. Talk about being miserable.

        It was only a week ago that here in the north north woods of bear, elk, turtle crossings, critters on restaurant walls and unreliable WiFi and cellular, that I woke up to 39F. Have you considered moving east?

        PS Is wimp capitalized?

    • jim2 | June 28, 2021 at 8:21 am |

      David, you should do what millions of others are doing in the face of less and less reliable electricity supplies – buy a generator! Also, get a small window heat pump unit to cool or heat one room. You have to be prepared for a scenario where you can’t count on electricity being there for you due to unreliable (not) green energy sources.

      • Philip Mulholland | June 28, 2021 at 8:26 am |

        Jim2
        You’re advocating adaptation as a solution, that ‘s not the politically correct agenda.
        For magic electricity to work we must change the weather using the magic climate control knob.

    • Thomas Fuller | June 28, 2021 at 2:00 pm |

      Well, hello from a fellow Portlander. We did beat a century-old record by one degree, but I didn’t see anybody lying in the street that wasn’t lying in the street last winter.

      One little remarked aspect of humans dealing with weather is how our lives have change so much more than the weather has over the past century. We hang out inside more than our grandparents did and aren’t as used to harsh weather as they were. Not that it knocks us over dead, but it takes longer to get used to being outdoors in hot weather–or cold.

      I blame it all on computer games. Well, and the television. Well, and the internet. When I was a kid we’d go out and play in 109 degree temps in Northern California. I just don’t think kids do that now. Not because they’re wimps–because what’s on the screens is more fun than watching the grass grow outside.

    • mesocyclone | June 28, 2021 at 4:25 pm |

      You simply cannot scientifically justify the attribution of human CO2 emissions as the cause of this event. Four sigma events happen with no forcing at all, they just happen rarely.

      Furthermore, I have yet to see a single plan that would realistically reduce anthropogenic warming enough to make a difference. If you have one the addresses the real issues, post it. Good luck with getting totalitarian, imperialist China to beggar its economy by meeting any climate promises it has made. Beyond that, what do you tell the poor people of Africa, India, Latin America, etc, who currently live in energy poverty? Their quickest path out of that situation is fossil fuel energy, except in a few cases where solar provides a slight improvement in their situation. Bring the US to net zero and you won’t even be able to measure the difference in the year 2100, but the economy (and hence the poor) will suffer substantially. We already pay higher prices due to Quixotic quests to magically reduce our CO2 emissions.

      Adaptation and planning are what’s needed, and Dr. Curry addresses that in part of her post. For Portland, I would hope that individuals prepared with stocks of water and maybe ice. One would hope the authorities and NGO’s were ready to provide cool shelter and other facilities to those who cannot take the heat and cannot provide for themselves. We do things like that here in Phoenix – not everyone has air condition, especially the heat pump A/C needed when the humidity rises during the hot monsoon months.

    • Robert I. Ellison | June 28, 2021 at 5:28 pm |

      ‘In this example, distinguishing stationarity from nonstationarity is a matter of answering a simple question: Does the thick line of plateaus in Fig. 3 represent a known (deterministic) function or an unknown (random) function? In the first case (deterministic function), we should adopt a nonstationary description, while in the second case (random function, which could be assumed to be a realization of a stationary stochastic process), we should use a stationary description. As stated above, contrasting stationary with nonstationary descriptions has important implications in engineering and management.’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227670614_Hurst-Kolmogorov_Dynamics_and_Uncertainty

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/koutsoyiannis-2010.png
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227670614_Hurst-Kolmogorov_Dynamics_and_Uncertainty

      This is a synthetic series used to illustrate a point – but it shows characteristics of Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics. The difference between the descriptions is the degree of uncertainty. The system is uncomputable in any realistic sense – in what can be considered an invariant stochastic process in a stationary series. There is persistence of flood or drought over what can be very long periods – with sometimes extreme changes between what hydrologists call regimes. Persistence is why there can be relatively frequent 100 year floods. Dynamical complexity is what drives shifts in climate states at all scales. In a nonlinear world in which humans are changing boundary conditions.

      The pragmatic response is energy innovation, ecological conservation and restoration and building resilient infrastructure. All it takes is wealth created in the economic freedom of prosperous communities. Rich economies can afford environments as seen in progress on many fronts in recent decades. It makes a virtue of necessity. Poor societies are not going to sacrifice development on the pyre of AGW. That is obvious from every climate conference of the past three decades – including the country commitments of the Paris accord.

      Economic freedom brings economic growth – that if powered by fossil fuels – as in Shared Socioeconomic Pathway #5 that could see emissions rival RCP 8.5. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.

      • Matthew R Marler | June 29, 2021 at 12:02 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: ‘In this example, distinguishing stationarity from nonstationarity … .”

        It’s the point of this article, as well:

        CHANGE POINTS AND TEMPORAL DEPENDENCE IN
        RECONSTRUCTIONS OF ANNUAL TEMPERATURE: DID EUROPE EXPERIENCE A LITTLE ICE AGE?

        BY MORGAN KELLY AND CORMAC Ó GRÁDA
        University College Dublin

        We analyze the timing and extent of Northern European temperature
        falls during the Little Ice Age, using standard temperature reconstructions.
        However, we can find little evidence of temporal dependence or structural
        breaks in European weather before the twentieth century. Instead, European weather between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries resembles uncorrelated draws from a distribution with a constant mean (although there are occasional decades of markedly lower summer temperature) and variance, with the same behavior holding more tentatively back to the twelfth century. Our results suggest that observed conditions during the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe are consistent with random climate variability. The existing consensus about apparent cold conditions may stem in part from a Slutsky effect, where smoothing data gives the spurious appearance of irregular oscillations when the underlying time series is white noise.

        Stationarity is well-defined. Non-stationarity is defined only by exclusion, as “everything else”.

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 29, 2021 at 3:57 pm |

        Not the point at all – and Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics are not white noise.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/nile-e1624996429189.jpg

      • matthewrmarler | June 29, 2021 at 4:56 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: ‘In this example, distinguishing stationarity from nonstationarity … .”

        …

        Not the point at all – and Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics are not white noise.

        However, we can find little evidence of temporal dependence or structural breaks in European weather before the twentieth century.

        You don’t think identifying structural breaks is a kind of “distinguishing non-stationarity”?

        Finding “little evidence of temporal dependence” is also an important result.

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 29, 2021 at 5:18 pm |

        No and no.

      • matthewrmarler | June 29, 2021 at 6:47 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: No and no.

        Are you running aground on the distinction between “stationarity” and “white noise”?

      • matthewrmarler | June 30, 2021 at 9:43 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: No and no.

        I am surprised that you do not consider detecting a changing mean to be an example of detecting nonstationarity.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 12:28 am |

        ‘Change is not synonymous to nonstationarity, since even an ideal stationary white noise process involves change, which however becomes less and less distinct as the time scale of viewing the process (e.g., time scale of averaging) increases. However, the climatic and all geophysical processes demonstrate more prominent change at large scales in comparison to white noise or even to typical stochastic models such as Markovian. This does not reflect nonstationarity. Rather it warns us to change our perception of natural processes as resembling these simple idealized mathematical processes and to move towards a new type of stochastic dynamics.’ D. Koutsoyianis

        I am not surprised at all that you exclusively focus on the marginal point and get that wrong. It is an symptomatic inflexible and self important mindset.

      • matthewrmarler | July 1, 2021 at 12:01 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: ‘Change is not synonymous to nonstationarity, since even an ideal stationary white noise process involves change, … .

        A change in the mean, as I wrote of, is nonstationarity. Assessing whether a change in mean has in fact occurred, in the presence of fluctuation, as in the AOAS paper I cited, is a problem, but if you conclude that a change in mean has occurred, that implies nonstationarity.

        I was responding to a quote about detecting non-stationarity, not a marginal point when discussing climate change, and I am correct that change in the mean, as in the AOAS paper, indicates nonstationarity.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 1:03 pm |

        That isn’t the definition in the paper quoted. That says that these terms are misunderstood and misused.

      • Matthew R Marler | July 1, 2021 at 7:33 pm |

        Robert I Ellison, quoting: ‘Change is not synonymous to nonstationarity, since even an ideal stationary white noise process involves change, which however becomes less and less distinct as the time scale of viewing the process (e.g., time scale of averaging) increases.

        Kelly and O Grada also refer to the “Slutsky effect”, seeming oscillation in an independent series.

        Shumway and Stoffer (Time Series Analysis and its Applications, with R examples, second edition), pp 23,24 give definitions of Strictly Stationary and Weakly Stationary (aka “wide sense stationary”). Both definitions entail constant mean. These are the same defintions as in all time series books.

        Running means and other smoothed versions of data series will produce changing means even when the underlying mean is constant.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 8:34 pm |

        ‘The nonstatic, ever changing hydroclimatic processes are often described as nonstationary. However, revisiting the notions of stationarity and nonstationarity, defined within stochastics, suggests that claims of nonstationarity cannot stand unless the evolution in time of the statistical characteristics of the process is known in deterministic terms, particularly for the future. In reality, long-term deterministic predictions are difficult or impossible. Thus, change is not synonymous with nonstationarity, and even prominent change at a multitude of time scales, small and large, can be described satisfactorily by a stochastic approach admitting stationarity. This “novel” description does not depart from the 60- to 70-year-old pioneering works of Hurst on natural processes and of Kolmogorov on turbulence. Contrasting stationary with nonstationary has important implications in engineering and management. The stationary description with Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics demonstrates that nonstationary and classical stationary descriptions underestimate the uncertainty.’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227670614_Hurst-Kolmogorov_Dynamics_and_Uncertainty

        You stupidly continue to insist on inapplicable textbook definitions. In hydroclimatic series means are not constant. They do not revert to a mean like white noise. They are not deterministically predictable.

      • matthewrmarler | July 2, 2021 at 12:52 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: Thus, change is not synonymous with nonstationarity, and even prominent change at a multitude of time scales, small and large, can be described satisfactorily by a stochastic approach admitting stationarity.

        For what it’s worth, I have not written anything contradicting that: Kelly and O Grada address the difficulty of detecting nonstationary, given that even stationarity is compatible with constant change.. Would you like to proffer up a definition of stationarity that we can all check on?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 2:17 am |

        I am beyond trying to fathom whatever it is you ever try to say. I introduced the Koutsoyiannis paper in response to Judith’s throwaway nonstationary comment. It suggests that it is useful to revisit incomputable geophysical series as stationary in order to realistically evaluate uncertainty.

      • matthewrmarler | July 3, 2021 at 1:19 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: I am beyond trying to fathom whatever it is you ever try to say.

        Distinguishing stationary time series from non-stationary time series is not intuitive. Kelly and O Garda provided one approach applied to some temperature time series. They identified a long period of stationarity and a break in the regime.

        You are not beyond trying to fathom that.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 2:43 pm |

        ‘Our results suggest that observed conditions during the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe are consistent with random climate variability. The existing consensus about apparent cold conditions may stem in part from a Slutsky effect, where smoothing data gives the spurious appearance of irregular oscillations when the underlying time series is white noise.’

        That’s the problem with a purely statistical approach. Everything in climate is completely deterministic if seemingly random. The LIA had a cause.

      • matthewrmarler | July 3, 2021 at 1:29 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: You stupidly continue to insist on inapplicable textbook definitions.

        Some definitions you like: NAS definition of “abrupt” climate change; “integrability” of integrable systems of nonlinear differential equations; Helmholtz decomposition; autocorrelation and Hurst coefficients. Others not so much: stationary, bifurcation; Slutsky effect; catastrophe; “strange attractor”.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 2:26 pm |

        More persistently ridiculous nonsense.

      • Matthew R Marler | July 3, 2021 at 7:47 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: That’s the problem with a purely statistical approach. Everything in climate is completely deterministic if seemingly random. The LIA had a cause.

        Where is the evidence for any LIA, or any non-stationarity in the epochs they describe?

        You keep avoiding the topic that you introduced: distinguishing stationary from non-stationary:
        Robert I. Ellison | June 28, 2021 at 5:28 pm | Reply

        ‘In this example, distinguishing stationarity from nonstationarity is a matter of answering a simple question: Does the thick line of plateaus in Fig. 3 represent a known (deterministic) function or an unknown (random) function? In the first case (deterministic function), we should adopt a nonstationary description, while in the second case (random function, which could be assumed to be a realization of a stationary stochastic process), we should use a stationary description. As stated above, contrasting stationary with nonstationary descriptions has important implications in engineering and management.’

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 8:38 pm |

        I quoted Dimitris Koutsoyiannis. In the contest deterministic implies predictability and random unpredictability. Random events may give an illusion of periods of higher or lower values purely by chance. The so called Slutsky statistical effect. This is what Matthew’s source suggested was behind the little ice age – on the basis of statistics without any natural science.

        e.g. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/14/585/2010/

        ‘Deciding which of the two dominates is simply a matter of specifying the time horizon and scale of the prediction. Long horizons of prediction are inevitably associated with high uncertainty, whose quantification relies on the long-term stochastic properties of the processes.’

        Nile River flows are in part determined by North Atlantic conditions that are associated with shifts in northern hemisphere weather and climate. It was long ago shown empirically that Nile River flows exhibit Hurst-Kolmogorov climate dynamics – a function of turbulent fluid flow governed by the Navier-Stokes partial differential equations in the Earth system. Dimitris Koutsoyiannis says that hydroclimatic series should be considered stationary – despite Matthew’s ‘breakpoints’ – to enable quantification of uncertainty.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/nile-e1624996429189.jpg

        There is something going on here – but Matthew doesn’t know what it is.

      • matthewrmarler | July 3, 2021 at 11:25 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: Dimitris Koutsoyiannis says that hydroclimatic series should be considered stationary – despite Matthew’s ‘breakpoints’ – to enable quantification of uncertainty.

        You mean that global mean surface temperature did not begin to rise in the late 1800s, as substantiated by Kelly and O Garda, and assumed by proponents of AGW?

        As much as I like Nile river statistics, possibly your favorite example, I think you are confused.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 11:40 pm |

        There are shifts in climate due to shifts in the state of the Pacific Ocean that influence surface temperature and Nile River flows. That goes way back well past the shift to more El Nino like conditions at the start of the 20th century.

        But the NH has its own dynamic that emerges from the Arctic circle and is not white noise.

        https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate_3.gif

        Do you pretend to obtuseness to cover your ignorance or does it come naturally?

      • Philip Mulholland | July 4, 2021 at 2:53 am |

        “I quoted Dimitris Koutsoyiannis. ”
        Who is an esteemed hydrologist.
        Hydrology is the proper study of climate.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 4, 2021 at 3:00 am |

        ‘Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological…’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

      • matthewrmarler | July 4, 2021 at 11:44 am |

        Robert I Ellison: Do you pretend to obtuseness to cover your ignorance or does it come naturally?

        I get some enjoyment from reading your convolutions and contradictions, as in: it’s important to distinguish stationary from non-stationary (one of your quoted texts), but it’s always stationary (a different quote); stationary does not even have to be defined; “breakpoints” require scare quotes but “.tipping points” do not.

        Measurement systems always produce random variation, variation that is non-predictable and non-reproducible; hence, the best you can hope to observe in weather time series is deterministic process plus random noise. Whatever other knowledge you bring to analysis, you always need statistical methods of diverse kinds to evaluate seemingly disparate hypotheses. Kelly and O Garda showed one way. K & K used a Hurst model supplemented with periodic components for the variance of stationary time series.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 4, 2021 at 12:52 pm |

        ‘I get some enjoyment from reading your convolutions and contradictions, as in: it’s important to distinguish stationary from non-stationary (one of your quoted texts), but it’s always stationary (a different quote); stationary does not even have to be defined; “breakpoints” require scare quotes but “.tipping points” do not.’

        Paraphrasing thus seems deliberate obfuscation – it is all of a piece with ‘scare quotes’ and invoking measurement imprecision.

        ‘Change is Nature’s style and occurs at all times and all time scales (i.e. Πάντα ῥεῖ). The frequent use of the term nonstationarity lately indicates that it is confused with change. However, change is not synonymous with nonstationarity: While change is a general notion applicable everywhere, including to the real (material) world, stationarity and nonstationarity apply only to models, not to the real world, and are defined within stochastics. The confusion about these terms extends also to the world of models, as several properties related to stochastic dependence of processes are often interpreted as nonstationarity. Nonstationary descriptions are justified only if the future can be predicted in deterministic terms, and are associated with reduction of uncertainty; however, misuse of nonstationarity results in underestimation of variability, uncertainty and risk. In the absence of credible predictions of the future, admitting stationarity (and larger uncertainty) provides a more consistent and more effective modelling option.’
        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2014.959959

        On top of which you continue to confuse the ‘Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-or-Egg Causality?’ of Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz with ‘Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty’ by Koutsoyiannis. The latter takes Bologna rainfall analysed for Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic change at different timescales. Rather than regressing to a mean like white noise – geophysical time series are more extreme at longer timescales.

      • matthewrmarler | July 5, 2021 at 1:23 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: The latter takes Bologna rainfall analysed for Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic change at different timescales.

        That is a good place to end: a single time series that did not require the addition of periodic components to the Hurst model of the variance.

        With any luck, we’ll have stimulated our audience (?) to read the papers that we have been referencing.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 6, 2021 at 10:26 pm |

        A good place to end your misrepresentation and misunderstanding would have been many comments ago.

      • matthewrmarler | July 7, 2021 at 1:08 am |

        Robert I Ellison: On top of which you continue to confuse the ‘Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-or-Egg Causality?’ … .of

        I confused? Not so.

        Temperature and rainfall are aspects of the weather, and examining time series of measurements on them is part of assessing climate and climate change. In common to both attributes is assessing change and stationarity. What the methods have in common is the fitting of relatively simple (stationary) and more complex models (various kinds of non-stationary), and performing statistical tests to help elucidate whether the improved fit of the more complex models is likely to arise even when the series are stationary.

        Or, you can simply skip the stages of multiple model fitting and statistical testing, simply graph and compute whatever statistics might make sense for your favorite model; and then “announce” that this or that indicates something like “tipping points” or their absence. The Hurst coefficients, to pick one example of summary statistics, do not refer to the same things in stationary and nonstationary cases.

        Writing of temperature series and rainfall series is not confusing them.

        Think I am confused? Quote what you think is confused and make your case.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 7, 2021 at 1:22 am |

        You keep referring to the Hurst dynamics paper as K &K – which I presume is Koutsoyiannis and Kundzewicz who co-wrote the hen or egg paper. The latter not being relevant to stationarity. I did link both so you would understand your confusion and correct it.

        The rest is twaddle as well.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 7, 2021 at 2:00 am |

        ‘However, this is often missed, which has led to misuse of the term “nonstationarity” as a synonym of “change”. A simple rule to avoid such misuse is to answer the question: can the change be predicted in deterministic terms? Only if the answer is positive is it legitimate to invoke nonstationarity…

        Nonstationary descriptions are justified only if the future can be predicted in deterministic terms, and are associated with reduction of uncertainty; however, misuse of nonstationarity results in underestimation of variability, uncertainty and risk. In the absence of credible predictions of the future, admitting stationarity (and larger uncertainty) provides a more consistent and more effective modelling option.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2014.959959

        I have quoted that and the linked ‘Negligent killing of scientific concepts: the stationarity case’ above. The question to be answered before choosing the best model of the future – stationary or nonstationary – is can geophysical series be deterministically predicted? I hesitate to leave that open to you and the resultant twaddle. The answer is no. The past reveals regimes and tipping points that are more extreme over longer timescales.

        This is not a model – this is based on data. It is the difference between the real world and your stubborn abstractions.

      • melitamegalithic | July 7, 2021 at 4:58 am |

        Reading through this long exchange I came across a piece that can be both true and false, depending on the perspective.
        From matthewrmarler | July 4, 2021 at 11:44 am quote “Whatever other knowledge you bring to analysis, you always need statistical methods of diverse kinds to evaluate seemingly disparate hypotheses.”
        Statistics rarely ever show abrupt change from a tipping point. The dynamics involved do not emerge from any technical consideration of the subject/s in question. Worse these ‘tipping points’ will not be present in any short time-span being considered. And not so evident in the science being considered either (though it may be found in proxies, once stumbled upon).
        Yet historically from totally other considerations of the human experience these abrupt changes cum tipping point have occurred repeatedly and regularly over a period of 8k years. One may then ask how – statistically- those changes were just ‘noise’?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 7, 2021 at 3:06 pm |

        There are dozens of coupled nonlinear oscillators in the Earth system. Turbulent flow in atmosphere and oceans is the basis for tipping points.

        e.g. https://stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov/

        ‘Hints that the climate system could change abruptly came unexpectedly from fields far from traditional climatology. In the late 1950s, a group in Chicago carried out tabletop “dishpan” experiments using a rotating fluid to simulate the circulation of the atmosphere. They found that a circulation pattern could flip between distinct modes. If the actual atmospheric circulation did that, weather patterns in many regions would change almost instantly. On a still larger scale, in the early 1960s a few scientists created crude but robust mathematical models that suggested that global climate really could change to an enormous extent in a relatively short time, thanks to feedbacks in the amount of snow cover and the like.(22)’ https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

        This is a paradigm – inferred from data – rather a model of how things should be. The fundamental mode of the climate system is deterministic spatiotemporal chaos.

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/

      • matthewrmarler | July 7, 2021 at 4:34 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: The latter not being relevant to stationarity.

        There you are mistaken. The estimation methods depend on stationarity.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 7, 2021 at 5:31 pm |

        The latter refers to the hen or egg paper that you confused with the Hurst dynamics paper.

        Such deliberate obscurantism is unforgiveable.

      • melitamegalithic | July 7, 2021 at 4:51 pm |

        “In spatio-temporal chaos the question is fully open,–” No question there. The geological rearranging in the Mediterranean is chaotic as is becoming evident in recent research -block tectonic rotations are now a commonly studied subject. It is the same in other studied regions. Those changes do impinge on how weather/climate patterns change.
        Yet there is also a regular pattern of cold and warm periods that is very evident in the last 8k yrs. The driver is not recognised, neither is the point at which abrupt change occurs (an element of chaos there).

        This study here https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2021/07/changes-in-earths-orbit-enabled.html is targeting ‘orbit change’. There is evidence that seem to demand changes in earth dynamics, and simply cannot be explained by the usual suspect ‘climate’ theories.

      • matthewrmarler | July 7, 2021 at 5:43 pm |

        melitamegalithic: Statistics rarely ever show abrupt change from a tipping point.

        The papers that we have been citing treat of this in detail. As Koutsouyiannis and Kundzewicz note, climate can seem to be changing while nevertheless being stationary. Kelly and O Garda make the same point (Slutsky effect), and propose a method for detecting non-stationarity. K&O find evidence for a change in temperature series in the late 1800s; they do not find evidence for distinct “Little Ice Ages”.

        Here is an illustrative quote from K&K: It appears that the diffrenced temperature time series are consistent with the condition implied by stationarity, i.e., H = 0 for the diffrenced process. The same does not look to be the case for the CO2 time series, particularly for the Mauna Loa time series, in which the Hurst parameter appears to be close to 1/2. Based on this, one would exclude stationarity for the Mauna Loa CO2 time series. However, a simpler interpretation of the graph is that the data record is
        not long enough to reveal that H = 0 for the differenced process. Actually, all available data belong to a period in which [CO2] exhibits a monotonic increasing trend (as also verified by the fact that all values of D ln[CO2] in Figures 11 and 12 are positive, while stationarity entails a zero mean of the dfferenced process)         [p 16-17]

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 7, 2021 at 6:21 pm |

        The difference between white noise and Hurst-Kolmogorov climate dynamics is profound. White noise over time reverts to a mean. Real world geophysical series do not. Climate is not white noise despite K&O.

        ‘Hurst’s environmetric observations in the 1950s first sparked interest in the natural phenomenon of anomalously fast growth of rescaled range in hydrological time series, most famously from the Nile river1,2. Rescaled range is a measure of the variability of a time series and is calculated by dividing the range of the values by the standard deviation. This is done for increasing window sizes which are than averaged2,3.” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09068

        Evaluating uncertainties in predictions – as per Koutsoyiannis – is best served by treating the series as stationary.

      • matthewrmarler | July 7, 2021 at 11:57 pm |

        melitamegalithic: Statistics rarely ever show abrupt change from a tipping point.

        Continuing my earlier response. K&K show from computations that the CO2 record from Mauna Loa is not stationary, but they note that the non-stationarity might be an artifact due to their not having a complete time series. In Figure 3, et seq, they present the bivariate CO2-T time series from ice cores, and they assert with no computational test that the series is stationary. In Figure 4 they present the autocorrelation functions, whose computation does depend for its meaningfulness on the stationarity; they do not compare the results from computations based on stationarity to any computations derived from any sort of non-stationarity.

        Part of what is remarkable is that the CO2-T bivariate series show sharp peaks, with rapid rises followed by slower declines. In other contexts, such sharp unequally spaced peaks might be taken as evidence of “tipping points”. It would be interesting to see what stationary mathematicalstatistical model would produce such a sample path. It is hard to accept that the auto- and cross-cross correlation functions are actually the same immediately to the left of the peaks and immediately to their right.

      • matthewrmarler | July 8, 2021 at 12:02 am |

        Robert I Ellison: The latter refers to the hen or egg paper that you confused with the Hurst dynamics paper.

        As I showed by my quotations, the K&K “hen or egg” paper does address stationarity.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 8, 2021 at 12:27 am |

        ‘The climacograms of the differenced time series used (actually four of the six to avoid an overcrowded graph) are shown in Figure 13. It appears that the differenced temperature time series are consistent with the condition implied by stationarity, i.e., H = 0 for the differenced process.’

        H being the Hurst exponent of course.
        Mentioned in passing in the results without explaining what it means. You continue to attempt to wriggle out of making admissions even on such a trivial point of confusing the studies. But note the temperature series is stationary and didn’t become nonstationary near the turn of the 20th century – negating the little ice age as random noise at the same time. I wonder what motivates that.

      • matthewrmarler | July 8, 2021 at 12:02 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: ‘The climacograms of the differenced time series used (actually four of the six to avoid an overcrowded graph) are shown in Figure 13. It appears that the differenced temperature time series are consistent with the condition implied by stationarity, i.e., H = 0 for the differenced process.’

        Good quote. Those differenced Temp time series are stationary, whereas the Mauna Loa differenced CO2 time series was judged non-stationary, over the recorded interval. Distinguishing stationary from non-stationary is what I have been writing about. Note that they used constant mean in their criteria for stationarity, as in the definition that I cited.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 8, 2021 at 2:21 pm |

        Mauna Loa CO2 series may simply not be long enough. As they say. The criteria Koutsoyiannis uses is whether it is predictable or not. If it isn’t – future uncertainty in geophysical series is the entire range of historic values – viewed as stationary with that range. Change or no change may be simple – but it is not the point at all.

      • Matthew R Marler | July 8, 2021 at 5:14 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: The criteria Koutsoyiannis uses is whether it is predictable or not.

        The criterion of stationarity that K&K used is as I quoted, constant mean: For a stationary stochastic process x(sub tau), the differenced process ˜ x(sub tau) has mean zero and variance: []equation 11

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 8, 2021 at 5:36 pm |

        For a stationary stochastic process the
        ‘differenced process’ has zero mean and variance.

        And the only stationary series tentatively identified is Mauna Loa CO2 – and that doesn’t have a constant mean. How do you not test your weird ideas against reality?

      • matthewrmarler | July 8, 2021 at 9:38 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: And the only stationary series tentatively identified is Mauna Loa CO2 – and that doesn’t have a constant mean.

        How did you get that? from K&K: Actually, all available data belong to a
        period in which [CO2] exhibits a monotonic increasing trend (as also verified by the fact that all values of D ln[CO2] in Figures 11 and 12 are positive, while stationarity entails a zero mean of the differenced process). Had the available database been broader, both positive and negative trends could appear. Indeed, a broader view of the [CO2] process based on palaeoclimatic data (Figures 3 and 4) would justify a stationarity assumption.
        processes.

        “Had” … been broader, “could” appear, “would” justify, but in fact the Mauna Loa CO2 data exhibit non-stationarity over the observed interval; but the bivariate CO2-T series of the ice core data are judged stationary.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 8, 2021 at 6:07 pm |

        Apologies – the nonstationary time series is the Mauna Loa CO2 record.

        ‘The climacograms of the differenced time series used (actually four of the six to avoid an overcrowded graph) are shown in Figure 13. It appears that the differenced temperature time series are consistent with the condition implied by stationarity, i.e., H = 0 for the differenced process. The same does not look to be the case for the CO2 time series, particularly for the Mauna Loa time series, in which the Hurst parameter appears to be close to 1/2. Based on this, one would exclude stationarity for the Mauna Loa CO2 time series.’

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 8, 2021 at 6:10 pm |

        Correction – the nonstaionary series identified is the Mauna Loa CO2.

        ‘The climacograms of the differenced time series used (actually four of the six to avoid an overcrowded graph) are shown in Figure 13. It appears that the differenced temperature time series are consistent with the condition implied by stationarity, i.e., H = 0 for the differenced process. The same does not look to be the case for the CO2 time series, particularly for the Mauna Loa time series, in which the Hurst parameter appears to be close to 1/2. Based on this, one would exclude stationarity for the Mauna Loa CO2 time series.’

      • matthewrmarler | July 8, 2021 at 9:40 pm |

        Robert I Ellison: Correction – the nonstaionary series identified is the Mauna Loa CO2.

        Sorry, I missed that. Good catch.

    • Larry | June 28, 2021 at 6:42 pm |

      David,

      Where is the evidence that temperatures area normal distribution? Only then are such statements meaningful.

      This a common error with people looking at large moves in financial markets, declaring them to be move of 4, 5, or even 8 standard deviations. In fact the distributions of these markets range from skewed to very skewed (in several ways).

      The great Jack Traynor wrote about this after the 1987 stock market crash. To no avail. It’s too fun an error to die.

      Having a statistics program does not make one a statistican.

      • dougbadgero | June 28, 2021 at 8:51 pm |

        Plus many on this comment.

      • Larry | June 29, 2021 at 12:14 am |

        Doug,

        Thanks for the positive comment. But a question about simple math is ignored in the flood of bickering.

        That’s the climate science debate today. Everybody is having too much fun to bother with the basics.

      • mesocyclone | June 29, 2021 at 12:10 pm |

        To some extent I agree. However, one could, with a bit of license, use the terminology in the sense of the probability based on a normal distribution.

        So, a “4 sigma event” means roughly 1 in 10,000. It matters not what the distribution is for that sort of handwaving, but useful terminology.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 5:58 pm |

        Larry: Where is the evidence that temperatures area normal distribution?

        Here’s the reply to a Twitter discussion I started. I’m not sure I understand the response:

        https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1409878758920790020

        I’ve been keeping track of the daily weather in Salem, Oregon since 9/1/2011, so 3,589 data points. I’ve calculated the average temperature for each day (Tmax+Tmin)/2, and then the day’s Tanomaly compared to the normal highs and lows (baseline= 1981-2010).

        Yesterday’s anomaly was 27.0 F, the highest in my record. I’ve plotted a histogram, and it certainly looks like a normal distribution. I’m not going to spend time doing any statistical tests since this is just a blog comment. The average of the dataset is 1.40 F, and the standard deviation is 5.69.

        So yesterday was 4.5 standard deviations above the mean.

      • David L. Hagen | June 29, 2021 at 9:29 pm |

        David Appell Your “4 sigma” arguments might be more useful if you incorporate Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics, as nature has not yet learned how to obey normal distributions. Study D. Koutsoyiannis’ publications.
        D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and uncertainty, Workshop on Nonstationarity, Hydrologic Frequency Analysis, and Water Management, Boulder, Colorado, USA, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.36060.39045
        https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/944/
        Presentation
        https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/944/1/documents/2010Colorado_HKdynamics.pdf
        ITIA pubs on Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics
        https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/search/?title=Hurst&authors=&supervisors=&proj=&tags=

    • Richard Greene | June 30, 2021 at 1:10 pm |

      That’s weather Appleman, not climate.
      You “forget” about actual climate history, when it is not “convenient” to support your climate alarmists junk science agenda.

      US long term trend climate trends:
      — Hurricanes down
      — Tornadoes down
      — Heat waves down since 1930s
      — Average Maximum Daily Temperature at All USHCN Stations down
      (peaked in 1930s)

      — High temperature records by state peaked in 1930s
      (prior to 2021 only two state had maximum temperature records after 1995)

      — Wildfire acres burned down since 1930s
      — Climate related deaths peaked about 100 years ago

      Looks like you forgot a few actual climate trends, while making your frantic weather forecast, Appleman.

      “What’s it going to take?”
      Less lying and exaggerating from you, and more truth telling from me.

    • Russell Seitz | June 30, 2021 at 9:14 pm |

      It is deeply shocking to see Watts scoop Judy with swift WUWT reports on yesterday’s alarming and unprecedented fall in temperatures in the Pacific Northwest

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/06/climate-denial-records-shattered-as.html

    • Russell Seitz | June 30, 2021 at 9:28 pm |

      Watts has scooped Judy with shocking WUWT reports of record-breakng rates of cooling in the Pacific Northwest yeaterday

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/06/climate-denial-records-shattered-as.html

    • Russell Seitz (@RussellSeitz2) | June 30, 2021 at 9:48 pm |

      Watts has scooped Climate Etc. with deeply shocking WUWT reports on record breaking cooling in the Pacific Northwest yesterday.

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/06/climate-denial-records-shattered-as.html

    • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 7:26 pm |

      Bruce, the temperature change I’m citing is in the global mean surface temperature. Cities are a tiny percentage of the globe and the UHI contributes almost nothing to that. 70% of the temperature stations effectively come from from the sea surface anyway.

      If this heat dome killed several hundred people in the Pacific Northwest, imagine what it would have done in India or Africa.

      • Bruce Hall | July 2, 2021 at 9:56 am |

        No doubt that those living in trailers or other structures that trap heat and act as an oven can die from heat stroke or dehydration. However, the preponderance of temperature related deaths is still overwhelmingly related to cold weather.

        A couple of hundred heat-related deaths among NON-ACCLIMATED people is tragic, but not an indication that this weather-related event is beyond human endurance when you are comparing that to the population of the area. I recall my first trip to Phoenix in early September several decades ago. It was 105º and the news was headlining that this major cool front had brought relief from the 120º weather they had been experiencing.

        It is doubtful that you or I would do well if dropped into Mumbai in the middle of summer to live as the people there do. But somehow, hundreds of millions of poor Indians live in conditions we could not tolerate any more than they could tolerate the conditions that the Inuit live in during the long Arctic winters.

        From the EPA:
        “In recent years, U.S. death rates in winter months have been 8 to 12 percent higher than in non-winter months.1 Much of this increase relates to seasonal changes in behavior and the human body, as well as increased exposure to respiratory diseases. Cold temperatures can also worsen pre-existing medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. For example, death rates from heart attacks increase as temperatures drop, likely due to the way cold affects blood circulation, blood vessels, and other factors.2,3 Even moderately cold days can increase the risk of death for many people. People exposed to extremely cold conditions can also suffer from direct effects such as frostbite and potentially deadly hypothermia, especially in places where people are not accustomed to cold temperatures.”

      • mesocyclone | July 2, 2021 at 2:32 pm |

        We have heat related deaths every year in the Phoenix area. But we have way over 4 million people living in this desert. Many do not have refrigerative air conditioning, or any at all, and yet our usual death toll is in the tens.

        Some of them are hikers who venture out on the trails when they shouldn’t. A few weeks ago, during one of our heat waves (one not very unusual), the Fire Department rescue crews had 12 of their own sickened from heat during rescues, two of whom had to be hospitalized.

        But Phoenix shows that mankind can adapt. And, 1000 years ago, there were plenty of people living here, and you can be sure they had no air conditioning. The city got its name because it rose from the ruins of the former dwellings, whose residents, when they were here, built a substantial canal and irrigation system, some which are still in use today..

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 3:05 pm |

        mesocyclone: But Phoenix shows that mankind can adapt.

        Almost everyone in Phoenix has air conditioning.

        So you propose that we keep using fossil fuels and everyone just adapt. Even though that means temperatures will keep rising, ice will keep melting, the sea will keep rising, the ocean will keep acidifying, poor people around the world will have great trouble adapting and will likely become climate refugees by the hundreds of millions, water supplies will be threatened, crop yields will be under great strain, weather will get more extreme, wildfires will get worse, and on and on…. all because you don’t want to buy an EV or subscribe to a renewable power source.

        And this scenario makes sense to you??

      • mesocyclone | July 2, 2021 at 3:27 pm |

        “So you propose that we keep using fossil fuels and everyone just adapt. Even though that means temperatures will keep rising, ice will keep [long hysterical ran…]”

        When I challenged you on what to do about this globally – crickets.

        Once again, what are you going to do about autocratic China? What are you going to do for the people in energy poverty in many countries?

        All the solutions I see proposed assume that the whole world will go along, or at least the largest population countries. But you can make all the detailed proposals you want, and it won’t make enough difference to avoid the long list of scary things you think are going to happen.

        Until you address that issue, the rest of the policy suggestions are simple folly.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 2, 2021 at 3:31 pm |

        David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 3:05 pm |
        “So you propose that we keep using fossil fuels and everyone just adapt. Even though that means temperatures will keep rising, ice will keep melting, the sea will keep rising, the ocean will keep acidifying,”

        David – I would expect a competent scientist to be able to use scientifically accurate terminology instead of using terminology for something that does not exist.

        In order for the oceans to keep acidifying, the oceans must be acidic. Until the point in time the oceans become acidic, it is impossible for the oceans to keep acidifying. Ocean acidification is a non-existent phenomenon / talking point invented by the AGW that does not exist. Currently the oceans are base/basic/alkaline and are base by a large margin.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 4:03 pm |

        mesocyclose: When I challenged you on what to do about this globally – crickets.
        Once again, what are you going to do about autocratic China? What are you going to do for the people in energy poverty in many countries?

        You work on it! Instead, you see obstacles and give up. Others are determined to find a solution no matter what. Because we have to or the Earth will keep getting warmer and warmer and future generations are going to suffer. Do you really not care???

        China emits less per capita than the US does. And a fair fraction of its emissions go to crap sent to the US and Europe. Almost all CO2 is emitted by those in the top 20% income percentile. How much of the electricity we use is for ridiculous signage, half of which goes straight up? There are a million places to start. You’d rather throw up your hands and give up before even trying.

        China certainly knows it’s vulnerable to climate change. They’re vulnerable to sea level rise and crop failures and droughts and water shortages. Now that they’re getting food from Africa they’re even more vulnerable. Do you think they want food riots? Do you think they want their fishing grounds to peter out due to acidification? China is putting in huge solar farms. They’re beating us on rare earth metals. On several crucial 21st technologies. They will/are developing the technology needed to fight climate change, then sell it to the rest of the world. Pretty smart. Biden just banned Chinese solar panels from being imported, because we can’t compete with them.

        Do you think you’re going to built huge coal powered power plants throughout Africa? Most of the place has poor roads and poor infrastructure that would never allow such a thing. So put in local solar just like they bypassed land lines and went straight to cell phones. Put in home and business solar. Why cover the place in aerosol pollution and ruin their water with mercury, like we’ve done here and like China and India are doing to its poor heavily polluted cities? Why use a 19th century technology in the 21st century — just to sell them coal, which will keep changing the climate?

        There are lots of solutions, and lots of people determined to make them work. That’s how progress goes, by hard work, by trying and failing and trying again. What’s missing is the political will, in the face of corruption by fossil fuel interests. But people are fighting — they aren’t giving up without trying. Perhaps you could too, if you care about the world left to the future, if you care about people dying in heat waves, if you care about the money you’re spending to deal with sea level rise.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 4:06 pm |

        Joe:

        a) I’m not a scientist.

        b) Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH. When the measured acidity is increasing, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.” That’s the case with the ocean.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 2, 2021 at 4:39 pm |

        David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 4:06 pm |
        b) Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH. When the measured acidity is increasing, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.” That’s the case with the ocean.

        moving a a base or alkaline solution to a lower level on the ph scale is called neutralization. It is not called acidification, though we can credit the AGW activists for creating and using an invalid scientific term.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 5:10 pm |

        joe, you’re wrong. Ask a chemist. I have.

      • stevenreincarnated | July 7, 2021 at 11:58 pm |

        Joe is correct on the appropriate terminology.. Your chemist friend is wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if using the wrong terminology was common practice however.

    • Richard Greene | July 2, 2021 at 5:03 pm |

      Appleman is here.
      Cleanup on aisle two.
      Grab your shovels and hip boots
      This is a climate website.
      Appleman comes here to whine about his local weather.
      too hot for a few days. Lose some weight.

      The temperature dropped 45 degrees F from about 6pm on the hottest day in Seattle (at airport) to about 6am the following morning — a record decline in a roughly 12 hour period. Appleman forgott to mention that record !
      Of course.

    • Geoff Sherrington | July 4, 2021 at 7:05 am |

      It is not a 4 sigma event. If you use proper units and a proper time scale of temperature measurements, not that silly anomaly stuff in degrees F, but K.
      Show your calculations if you disagree, Geoff S

    • Phil Salmon | July 6, 2021 at 5:01 am |

      I’m equally baffled by the absence of articles on the above average se ice around Antarctica all this year, as well as the abnormally cold weather outbreaks in South America and Australia.

    • bill hunter | July 7, 2021 at 9:54 pm |

      David you are off base here. First 4 sigma projections of the likelihood of a solstice period coinciding with a maximum Chinook wind event in the PNW is hardly beyond crystal ball gazing. It is expected we should have more frequent events of this nature since our temp record is only about 170 years and the last unexplained warm period was about a thousand years ago and we don’t have weather records from that period. We just know it was generally warmer than the intervening thousand years.

      Second air conditioning is a new phenomena. In 1960 the population of Phoenix was over half a million and practically nobody had air conditioning in their homes.

      I spent most of my youth in the desert and never had air conditioning. There is probably more than a billion people living in areas of the world that experience such heat waves and the vast majority don’t have air conditioning even today.

      As to record temperatures in these warm regions the record high temperature is from about 90 years ago a record that surely will be broken someday, perhaps by an 8 sigma event.

      If you understand statistics and the complexity of natural systems. . . .that ‘has’ to happen. . . .even with nothing unusual going on.

    • jimmww | July 22, 2021 at 3:31 am |

      David, it’s now July, and we’re having an unusually cool time of it here in Oregon. I think we should distinguish weather from climate, and avoid attributions until obvious.

      Droughts in Oregon and – woh! – California; and floods in Colorado and Germany and China. Quelle surprise!

      What’s it going to take?
      Patience.
      CO2 is not in control of climate, and we are not in control of CO2.
      Just pretend you are a medieval monk, and understand that the world is always going to, if not surprise, at least displease us.

  3. Alan Lowey | June 27, 2021 at 10:24 pm |

    Thank you for the post Dr. Curry.

    Anton, a dedicated youtuber, made a recent point about solar variability and that a coronal mass ejection of high strength, which if directed at the Earth, would render almost all electrical/information systems to fail/malfunction. The threat is highly underrated, with an expected timescale of 10,15 or 25 years.

    He points out that China is especially vulnerable due to it’s high tech society and fears a nuclear war could be triggered due to the confusion of their sudden system failures.

  4. Robert L. Bradley Jr. | June 27, 2021 at 10:34 pm |

    David, there is weather and there is climate. You have to soberly examine the statistics–add this extreme to it.

    I could take Texas’s freeze (which I was in the middle of) and say ha, ha, ha global warming, but that is silly. (‘Global weirding’ for Texas a la John Kerry is weird too.)

    A record and extreme is always happening somewhere in the world. The ‘dust bool’ in the 1930s was wild too. Issac’s Storm in Galveston in 1900 was beyond crazy as far as weather goes.

    Stay sober my friend!

    And the point of the above post is that from weather to climate, adaptation is the key, not expensive, useless mitigation.

    • Peter Lang | June 27, 2021 at 10:38 pm |

      Robert Bradley,

      “adaptation is the key, not expensive, useless mitigation”

      Yes! Excellent point!!

      • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:46 pm |

        Peter, the wheat crop (at least) here in the Pacific Northwest is ruined for the year. How do farmer’s adapt to that? How do consumers?

        The snowpack in the Cascade Mountains, which provides the water source for the communities to the west, has been in steady decline. How do they adapt to that? How do consumers?

        Lake Mead has never been lower. How do the states below it, which millions rely on for water, adapt to that? How do consumers? How do farmers?

      • popesclimatetheory | June 28, 2021 at 1:18 am |

        Lake Mead has never been lower. How do the states below it, which millions rely on for water, adapt to that? How do consumers? How do farmers?

        Lots of lakes have had a time they were lower than ever before, and after that they were never lower than their lowest record. Some of this is nature and some of this is from poor management.

        There is almost always floods in some places and droughts in others. Build water pipelines and/or canals and move water from where there is an abundance, or move to where there is adequate water, that is how humans have survived in past times. A fraction of the money spent on worse than useless wind and solar could have built a lot of water pipelines, something more important.

        If the coal power plants had not been shut down, more people could have kept their air conditioning on during these extreme hot times when the wind tends to not blow.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:22 am |

        pope: If the coal power plants had not been shut down, more people could have kept their air conditioning on during these extreme hot times when the wind tends to not blow.

        Where have people not been able to keep their air conditioners on?

        Please name those towns and cities.

      • David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:25 am |

        popesclimatetheory: Lots of lakes have had a time they were lower than ever before, and after that they were never lower than their lowest record

        Which of those lakes were as big as Lake Mead, and which supplied water to as many people and farmers?

      • Joe - the non climate scientist | June 28, 2021 at 8:04 am |

        David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:22 am |
        “pope: If the coal power plants had not been shut down, more people could have kept their air conditioning on during these extreme hot times when the wind tends to not blow.

        Where have people not been able to keep their air conditioners on?

        Please name those towns and cities.”

        David – HAve you ever heard of a state named California?

      • robertok06 | July 6, 2021 at 3:08 am |

        David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:46 pm |
        Peter, the wheat crop (at least) here in the Pacific Northwest is ruined for the year. How do farmer’s adapt to that? How do consumers?”

        LOL! Cereal production at global level is STEADILY increasing since decades. Record production this year.

        “World cereal markets heading towards a record production in 2021/22 ”

        http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

        Please stop the nonsense.

    • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:40 pm |

      Robert, 4-sigma events over such a large region are not common. I haven’t read a climate scientist on twitter who doesn’t think climate change isn’t playing a significant part.

      • Robert Bradley | June 28, 2021 at 4:58 pm |

        David: I get your point and scare. Imagine what millions of Texans went through with freezing temperatures and no electricity–from renewables, by the way, on second analysis (another story).

        Air conditioning is the solution, not hoping that net zero will happen in the next ten or twenty years to shift things a hundred of a degree in your lifetime. And affordable power to run the A/C.

        My paternal grandfather in Houston would head home for a nap with the fan on during mid-day in Houston along with his other law partners. Then return and work into the early evening. That was pretty standard. Ice fans would come in time. The A/C

        You are lucky in the whole scheme of things. But get that A/C, and maybe even retail establishments can mist machines.

        Adaptation is key.

      • dpy6629 | June 29, 2021 at 9:49 pm |

        Yes, fossil fuels are like sex in the Middle Ages. The “official” dogma was that they were bad and must be strictly controlled. Those railing the most were often the ones with the biggest sins. And of course, all this preaching had almost no effect on human behavior.

  5. Peter Lang | June 27, 2021 at 10:35 pm |

    This is a very interesting commentary by Mark P. Mills (Manhattan Institute):

    Inconvenient Energy Realities
    https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy

    The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”

    The full report is here: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

    Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a McCormick School of Engineering Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University, and author of Work in the Age of Robots, published by Encounter Books.

    • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 10:47 pm |

      I’m not going to read a link unless you summarize them and give me a reason to. It’s the least we can expect.

      • jim2 | July 3, 2021 at 1:29 pm |

        Fossil fuel companies operate under the same tax laws as any other mining company. I note the article linked doesn’t specify what “subsidies” oil companies get. This is just more lefty propaganda – AKA lies.

      • paul courtney | July 11, 2021 at 11:04 am |

        Mr. Appell: Don’t read it, then. The title and source would be enough for an inquisitive mind.

    • Tonyb | June 29, 2021 at 7:19 am |

      David

      If you look at the first link by Peter ‘economics’ it goes to a succinct 41 point document that is very interesting.

      The second link looks much more daunting

      Tonyb

      • Peter Lang | June 29, 2021 at 7:23 am |

        Thanks Tony. I hope your comment will prompt some CE followers to actually read it and discuss it – constructively!!.

      • jeffnsails850 | June 29, 2021 at 8:39 am |

        ” I hope your comment will prompt some CE followers to actually read it and discuss it – constructively!!.”

        This year (July of this year to be precise) is the tenth anniversary of James Hansen’s essay where he reveals his discovery that belief in renewables was the equivalent of believing in the “Easter Bunny” and “Tooth Fairy.”
        CE readers knew that 10 years before. It’s amazing that anyone still needs to read this. it’s like handing out grant money every year for a “study” that reports the moon still isn’t made out of cheese. Because Willard still needs convincing. And Joshua can claim that they never said “cheese,” just “dairy like substance” that we should still commit a trillion dollars to mining in order to reduce queso deficits.

        Hey Judith, I think this is an anniversary worth celebrating.

        The July 2011 essay that made Hansen no longer a climate “expert.”
        http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

      • joe - the non climate scientist | June 29, 2021 at 8:45 am |

        Interesting read – While some of the comparisons in the 41 points may be overstated, the paper does highlight the detachment from the engineering hurdles and physical realities of converting to renewables by those who advocate the conversion to renewables.

      • Alan Lowey | June 29, 2021 at 9:07 am |

        “It’s like handing out grant money every year for a “study” that reports the moon still isn’t made out of cheese. Because Willard still needs convincing. And Joshua can claim that they never said “cheese,” just “dairy like substance”. – jeffnsails850

        Very funny!! :)

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 1:25 pm |

        joe – the non climate scientist: the paper does highlight the detachment from the engineering hurdles and physical realities of converting to renewables by those who advocate the conversion to renewables

        Regardless of the hurdles, we have to stop emitting carbon or the world will keep warming. Quickly. We’re probably guaranteed 2.0 C now for the GMST, which is 5.4 F on land.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 1:33 pm |

        Tonyb,

        OK. But it’s from the Manhattan Institute, so first of all you have to consider the source.

        https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

      • joe - the non climate scientist | June 29, 2021 at 1:52 pm |

        “David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 1:33 pm |
        Tonyb,
        OK. But it’s from the Manhattan Institute, so first of all you have to consider the source.
        https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research”

        Several rabid left wing organizations trashing a right wing organization. Whodu thunk!

        I will defer to the group that has actual engineering expertise

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 2:04 pm |

        See, joe, you just said they’re “right wing.” And they are. Look at the fossil fuel interests who have given them funds. Why do you think these institutes exist?

        All think tanks, right and left, hire people with advanced degrees who are “experts.” They all have their biases.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | June 29, 2021 at 2:38 pm |

        “David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 2:04 pm |
        See, joe, you just said they’re “right wing.” And they are. Look at the fossil fuel interests who have given them funds. Why do you think these institutes exist?

        All think tanks, right and left, hire people with advanced degrees who are “experts.” They all have their biases.”

        david – Who cares where the funding is coming from. Anyone with a basic knowledge in physical science, engineering and basic critical thinking skills should be able to recognize that the mark jacobsons of the world and similar advocates have a serious detachment from reality. Anyone with a science background, such as yourself, should likewise be able to ascertain the quality of the experts.

      • jeffnsails850 | June 29, 2021 at 4:55 pm |

        ” Look at the fossil fuel interests who have given them funds. ”

        “Fossil fuel interests” love the climate change gang- they are systematically forcing Europe to switch from nuclear power to natural gas and working overtime to ensure that China, Vietnam, India, and soon all of Africa, will import coal from Australia and North America.
        Climate “policy” has done literally nothing harmful to fossil fuel interests and, in fact much to their benefit. Germany’s “climate chancellor” has been Russia’s best gas salesman. America’s climate president (Obama) doubled oil and gas production in the US and made it an exporter of fossil fuels for the first time since the 1950s.
        That’s probably why Russian gas interests have been funding climate activists for years.

      • dpy6629 | June 29, 2021 at 6:00 pm |

        Yes, fossil fuels are like sex in the Middle Ages. The “official” dogma was that they were bad and must be strictly controlled. Those railing the most were often the ones with the biggest sins. And of course, all this preaching had almost no effect on human behavior.

      • Willard | July 1, 2021 at 1:20 am |

        > Willard still needs convincing

        Why are you pulling me in again, JeffN: last time wasn’t enough?

      • Willard | July 1, 2021 at 11:13 am |

        Here’s a fair warning:

        As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs from air and water pollution, and climate change impacts on current and future generations.

        Source: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 1, 2021 at 11:36 am |

        “Willard | July 1, 2021 at 11:13 am |
        Here’s a fair warning:
        As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs from air and water pollution, and climate change impacts on current and future generations”

        Willard –
        That argument is absurd – that is equivalent to stating that Farmers dont pay for their full share of the costs to society because they dont pay for the cost of disposing of the waste product after the food is consumed by humans . (sewage ).

      • Willard | July 1, 2021 at 11:47 am |

        Joe,

        What you call absurd is basic economics:

        Climate change seems like this complicated problem with a million pieces. But Henry Jacoby, an economist at MIT’s business school, says there’s really just one thing you need to do to solve the problem: Tax carbon emissions.

        “If you let the economists write the legislation,” Jacoby says, “it could be quite simple.” He says he could fit the whole bill on one page.

        Basically, Jacoby would tax fossil fuels in proportion to the amount of carbon they release. That would make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive. That’s it; that’s the whole plan.

        https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

        You won’t win that one with silly analogies.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 1, 2021 at 3:55 pm |

        “Willard | July 1, 2021 at 11:47 am |
        Joe,
        What you call absurd is basic economics:”
        “Willard | July 1, 2021 at 11:13 am |
        Here’s a fair warning:
        As long as fossil fuels are cheap, they will be burned. But fossil fuels are cheap only because they do not pay their costs to society. Costs include direct and indirect subsidies, human health costs from air and water pollution, and climate change impacts on current and future generations”

        Willard –
        That argument is absurd – that is equivalent to stating that Farmers dont pay for their full share of the costs to society because they dont pay for the cost of disposing of the waste product after the food is consumed by humans . (sewage ).

        Willard – stick to the subject you started –

        By the definition of “externalities” invented the AGW activists, no producer of any product bears the full cost that society bears.
        Gotta love how the AGW activists redefine terms to fit their agenda
        another example Such tax subsidies for fossil fuels

      • Willard | July 1, 2021 at 8:35 pm |

        > that is equivalent to stating that Farmers dont pay for their full share of the costs to society because they dont pay for the cost of disposing of the waste product after the food is consumed by humans .

        You just don’t get it, Joe. That farmers do pay for disposing waste. And farmer subsidies are a fact. Third, farming is a business like any other else:

        https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-land-portfolio-biggest-private-farmland-owner-in-america-2021-1

        But that does not imply that what I’m saying is equivalent. It’s not. Taxes are paid by consumers, not producers. So at best you could argue that you are not paying your fair share when you buy your food.

        At best it’s an analogy. And it sucks. Here’s a primer on How to Reason by Analogy:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/06/16/how-to-reason-by-analogy/

        What Jim is suggesting is far from absurd. In fact it’s basic supply and demand. As long as fossil fuels is subsidized, people will buy it. As soon as carbon will be taxed for what it costs us for real, their prices will rise.

        Unless and until you produce another kind of economics, you got no case.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 10:42 pm |

        joe – the non climate scientist: That argument is absurd – that is equivalent to stating that Farmers dont pay for their full share of the costs to society because they dont pay for the cost of disposing of the waste product after the food is consumed by humans . (sewage)

        With fossil fuel pollution you can put the cost on the supply side or the demand side. It’s just a lot simpler to put it on the supply side. The supplier will pass it on the consumer anyway, so it’s effectively the same thing.

      • Joe - The non climate scientist | July 3, 2021 at 3:58 pm |

        Always humorous seeing individuals with no background in federal taxation and federal tax policy pontificating about the tax subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. They are basically relying on talking points without a clue of the subject matter.

        The only tax subsidy actually given to oil and gas producers is percentage depletion in excess of basis which the integrated oil companies are not entitled to. The other claimed “tax subsidy” is IDC which is only a timing difference. IDC remains a deduction for an actual cash expenditure. Further, the CBO has a well known history of a basic logic/math error in the computation of the amount of accelerated tax revenue to be derived from capitalizing IDC. Tax revenue decreases in the subsequent years as the capitalized IDC is being amortized. The only real portion of the so called subsidy is the time value of money on the deferral of payment of the income tax. With the going interest rates below 5%, that so called subsidy is very small

        A few items that are ignored in the computation of the Tax subsidies for Fossil fuels
        1) Severance tax ranging from 4%-8% on the GROSS revenue, not the net income.
        2) Royalty payments to the federal government on the GROSS revenue for production on federal lands, same with production on state lands.
        3) The federal governments exemption from development costs on production on federal lease.

        certainly no reason to mention those costs since they dont fit the agenda

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 4:48 pm |

        Joe – The non climate scientist: Always humorous seeing individuals with no background in federal taxation and federal tax policy pontificating about the tax subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. They are basically relying on talking points without a clue of the subject matter.

        You don’t need to be a tax expert to know we should no longer be subsidizing (in any way) an industry whose product is warming the planet and changing the climate for the next 100,000 years, and where things are only going to get worse. It’s time to bring the use of fossil fuels to an end, and with it the industry that produces them, not subsidize them in any way or give them tax breaks, even the same ones other businesses get. Given the damages done by fossil fuels it’s completely appropriate that wind and solar be given subsidies and tax advantages that fossil fuels do not get, it’s fair and appropriate that we institute a carbon tax (and, my choice would be, a dividend) domestically and on all imports, and do whatever else it takes to end the use of fossil fuels once and for all, starting in this country (which has already emitted twice as much CO2 as any other country on Earth, and is one of the top emitters per capita) and working to bring emissions to zero across the globe.

        GHG emissions have to end or the planet will keep warming and even the the laughter and mirth displayed here about that will eventually cease.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 3, 2021 at 5:07 pm |

        David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 4:48 pm |
        Joe – The non climate scientist: Always humorous seeing individuals with no background in federal taxation and federal tax policy pontificating about the tax subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry. They are basically relying on talking points without a clue of the subject matter.

        APpell’s comment – “You don’t need to be a tax expert to know we should no longer be subsidizing (in any way) an industry whose product is warming the planet ”

        Your comment along with your prior comments tells me that you have little, if any, knowledge of the subject matter. All your comments are coming from the talking points of activists who have bastardized the term subsidy beyond a meaning recognized under any economic concept.
        Further you seem unable to acknowledge the additional costs and taxes paid by the oil and gas industry which greatly offset any so called subsidy

        Further you seem unable to acknowledge the huge subsidies the renewable energy sector receives which by some estimates exceeds the so called subsidies received by the oil and gas industry by a factor of 100x + measured by the amount of energy produced.

        If you wish to make an argument about Subsidies, lets be intellectually honest and consistent.

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 9:37 pm |

        joe: Further you seem unable to acknowledge the huge subsidies the renewable energy sector receives which by some estimates exceeds the so called subsidies received by the oil and gas industry by a factor of 100x + measured by the amount of energy produced.

        If that’s true, fine. It’s highly appropriate. Should be higher. It’s not like these are industries that should be competing on an equal basis. No no no. Fossil fuels need to be eliminated. Period. Whatever it takes to do that, we should do. Whatever it takes to bring renewables to a sustainable point, we should do. Institute a carbon tax and dividend and keep ratcheting it up until fossil fuels are squeezed out of existence and we’ve living in an electric world powered by sustainable sources. Because as long as we keep using fossil fuels the world will keep getting warmer and there will be more climate change.

      • mesocyclone | July 3, 2021 at 11:08 pm |

        “Whatever it takes to bring renewables to a sustainable point, we should do. ”

        You just utterly blew what credibility you might have left.

        If you don’t know that renewables will never reach a *sustainable point” in the foreseeable future, then you really shouldn’t be talking about them.

        I write this as an engineer who has studied them. THEY ARE INTERMITTENT, and BATTERIES ARE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE TOO EXPENSIVE AND RESOURCE INTENSIVE TO USE.

        About the only way I know of where renewables would work is if you used hydrogen to store any excess energy (and you’d better generate a lot given the low capacity factor of wind and solar). But storing energy in hydrogen is itself thermodynamically quite energy intensive.

        It is for that reason that anyone who wants to cut CO2 and has any sanity advocates nuclear energy. Follow Bill Gates, he’s damned smart, and he figured it out. A number of other global warming alarmist technical types have too.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 3, 2021 at 10:33 pm |

        ‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

        The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’
        https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/climate-pragmatism-innovation

        To be pragmatically effective the Glasgow COP will focus on cost effective responses. And not David’s one dimensional tax agenda that has failed consistently over decades.

        e.g. https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

        Advanced nuclear reactor deployment will ramp up this decade. As will carbon sequestration in this ‘decade of restoration’.

      • robertok06 | July 6, 2021 at 3:35 am |

        @David Appell
        “But it’s from the Manhattan Institute, so first of all you have to consider the source.”

        There’s ample use of DATA in the report of the MI… and the DATA prove their point (I’m not a fan of free-market think tanks, by the way).

        Ex.: one year of Tesla Gigafactory production is good for storing 3′ of US average electricity consumption. This is REALITY, nothing to do with the political/ideological leanings of MI. Do you get it David?

        You, on the other hand, should consider your sources…

    • Philip Mulholland | June 29, 2021 at 7:31 am |

      “26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.”
      And without oxygen or water…

    • matthewrmarler | June 29, 2021 at 1:52 pm |

      Peter Lang | June 27, 2021 at 10:35 pm

      Thank you for the links.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 7:37 am |

        Ragnaar –

        Here is what I consider to be a responsible take on Ivermectin.

        It explains well, understandable reasons for why it hasn’t been widely adopted even as it is optimistic about its potential. Brett’s failure to contemplate non-psychopathic explanations for opinions other than his own clearly derived from a lack of expertise, motivated reasoning, or a desire to exploit illness, death, and tribalism.

        If people like Brett and Heather would adopt this kind of approach rather than claiming Galileo status, and self-victimizing, and polarizing the issue, and then exploiting the mess to sell t-shirts, I’d have no criticisms.

        https://t.co/b5g3HZjJab?amp=1

      • Ragnaar | July 8, 2021 at 9:42 am |

        J:
        You say Weinstein may have:
        “…or a desire to exploit illness, death, and tribalism.”
        Which is in a way what he said. The most likely explanation for the establishment’s behavior is money. A generic versus a patented. We understand. He’s linked to a number of favorable studies. I suppose given everyone’s track record, with Weinstein exploiting all the time at Evergreen State College and out in the field. I am still going with him.

      • Ragnaar | July 11, 2021 at 10:16 am |

        J:

        Responsible. Is is responsible to get vaccinated now? It’s not so clear. I learned something. Are you sure Weinstein is not trolling people like you? I put on Facebook a picture of myself with my telescope during a lunar eclipse. And then said I was confirming the value of Pi or something. If someone honestly says, I have delusions of grandeur… You see?

    • joe - the non climate scientist | July 2, 2021 at 9:58 am |

      Willard ‘s comment – “What Jim is suggesting is far from absurd. In fact it’s basic supply and demand. As long as fossil fuels is subsidized, people will buy it.”

      Willard – care to tell us what tax subsidies fossil fuel actually receive

      We dont need to talk about the phantom subsidies that exist only on the minds of the activists

      1) is it the severance tax that fossil fuel companies pay to state and federal governments 4-8% of gross revenue – willard were you or any other activist even aware of the existence of the severance tax?
      2) is it the tax deductions for out of pocket cash expenditures?

      or is it the actual cash given to renewables such as
      1) the tax credits given to wind and solar developers
      2) or the required take or pay contracts given to wind and solar farms
      3) or is it the no costs for damages to the environment for the wind and solar farms, the additional infrastructure, the destruction of avian population
      4) the additional costs not borne by renewables due to the lack of fully dispatchable power.

      • Willard | July 3, 2021 at 11:47 am |

        Just noticed your comment, Joe. Here’s my response to your questions:

        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

        Next time, put your comment at the right place. I uninstalled my RSS reader. Oh, and make sure you scratch your own itch too:

        https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=%22fossil+fuel+subsidies%22

      • Ragnaar | July 3, 2021 at 12:10 pm |

        I have looked at the fossil fuel subsidies. I’d say over 60% of them spelled out are B.S. Faster than normal depreciation is one example. It’s a simply a timing difference that undoes itself over time. You have that same amount of dollar either way. Why is that so hard for activists so hard to understand?
        If you get one class 5 hurricane now and get one less class 5 hurricane later, what’s the difference in total class 5 hurricanes? That’s faster than normal depreciation you con-artists.

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 1:00 pm |

        “A Treasury Department office estimated that eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel companies would boost government tax receipts by more than $35 billion in the coming decade.”

        Reuters 4/7/21
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-tax-plan-replaces-u-s-fossil-fuel-subsidies-with-clean-energy-incentives/ar-BB1foARo

      • jim2 | July 3, 2021 at 1:31 pm |

        Petroleum companies operate under the same tax laws as any other mining companies. I note the article linked doesn’t specify what “subsidies” oil companies get. This is just more lefty propaganda – AKA lies.

      • matthewrmarler | July 3, 2021 at 1:47 pm |

        David Appell: Reuters 4/7/21
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-tax-plan-replaces-u-s-fossil-fuel-subsidies-with-clean-energy-incentives/ar-BB1foARo

        Thank you for the link.

        A Treasury Department office estimated that eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel companies would boost government tax receipts by more than $35 billion in the coming decade.

        The “Made In America” tax plan did not specify which tax breaks for fossil fuel companies would be targeted. It said the subsidies undermine long-term energy independence and the fight against climate change and harm air and water quality in U.S. communities, especially communities of color.

        Which fuel-specific tax increases would have the claimed benefits are not mentioned. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel companies (rather, their customers) deliver far more tax money to the federal and state governments than they receive in “subsidies”.

        How exactly we can promote the US economy by taking more money from US fuel purchasers (or depressing fuel sales), and using it to subsidize the solar panel manufacturers in China requires more detailed working out than anyone has provided so far.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 3, 2021 at 4:02 pm |

        A few subsidies for renewable which proponents never mention.

        1) The PTC provides a corporate tax credit of 1.3 cents/kWh for electricity generated from landfill gas (LFG), open-loop biomass, municipal solid waste resources, qualified hydroelectric, and marine and hydrokinetic (150 kW or larger). Electricity from wind, closed-loop biomass and geothermal resources receive as much as 2.5 cents/kWh. The PTC is phased down (40%) for wind facilities and expires for all renewable energy technologies commencing construction after December 31, 2021
        2) The ITC is a dollar-for-dollar credit for expenses invested in renewable energy properties, most often solar developments. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 extended the ITC through 2019 as a 30 percent credit for qualified expenditures.

        3) mandated pay contracts

        4) wind and solar not incurring any of the costs associated with running back up generation for the frequent times that wind and solar are generating little or no electricity

        5) wind & solar not incurring any of the costs associated with maintaining system reliability and frequency stability due to the heavy oscillation of electricity output.

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 4:27 pm |

        jim2: I note the article linked doesn’t specify what “subsidies” oil companies get.

        Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs
        July 29, 2019
        https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 4:32 pm |

        joe wrote: or is it the no costs for damages to the environment for the wind and solar farms, the additional infrastructure, the destruction of avian population

        Here are some data on bird deaths. Far more birds are [in 2014] killed by generating power with coal and oil than with wind and solar, even on a per unit energy basis:

        Solar: 1,000-28,000/year
        Wind: 140,000-280,000/year
        Oil and Gas: 500,000-1 million/year
        Coal: roughly 7.9 M/yr
        Nuclear: 330,000/yr

        “Avian Mortality by Energy Source,” US News, 8/22/14
        http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

        Of course nobody cared about bird deaths until they thought they could score points with it against renewable energy.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 3, 2021 at 4:32 pm |

        jim2 | July 3, 2021 at 1:31 pm |
        “Petroleum companies operate under the same tax laws as any other mining companies. I note the article linked doesn’t specify what “subsidies” oil companies get. This is just more lefty propaganda – ”

        Its partly lefty propaganda –
        What they have done is grossly misinterpret the CBO reports & the joint committee on taxation which accompany every tax proposal. A big push was made to redefine any tax deduction as a tax subsidy, not withstanding that all industries have tax deductible expenses unique to their industry. The CBO reports & joint committee on taxation that came out with the various obama proposed tax law changes 2010/2011/2012 were especially off base on a number of points, some of which were laughable. A couple of examples are 1) the additional tax revenue from marginal well tax credit, during times when the market prices exceeded the ceiling and 2) the additional revenue generated by treating PTP’s as corporations, yet were assuming there would be tax revenue generated in years when most PTP’s were losing money.

      • jim2 | July 3, 2021 at 5:57 pm |

        Appell puts forth another study backed by no facts whatsoever about coal plants and oil fields killing birds.

      • jacksmith4tx | July 3, 2021 at 9:08 pm |

        Anybody know what happened to the reclamation bonds of Arch coal, Patriot Coal & Peabody Energy when they went bankrupt? They were adding a surcharge to every ton of coal mined that was supposed to cover the cost of restoring the land and water that was polluted by the mines.
        I know they dumped the employee pensions and medical coverage and the government had to pick up the costs.

      • jim2 | July 4, 2021 at 10:53 am |

        Jack, if you bother to search, you might find nfo on coal project reclamation …

        Peabody Chief Financial Officer Mark Spurbeck said the deal provides support for the company’s “long-standing commitment to reclamation.”

        “We are grateful for the tremendous collaboration with our surety providers to reach a first-of-its-kind solution that offers a greater line of sight into Peabody’s future collateral requirements,” he said in a statement.

        https://county17.com/2020/11/09/peabody-insurers-reach-first-of-its-kind-reclamation-deal/

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 12:14 pm |

        Fossil fuel subsidies. I claim authority as an active and current CPA who does mostly personal and some small businesses income taxes returns.

        From Appell’s list above:

        Last In, First Out Accounting (26 U.S. Code § 472. Active). The Last In, First Out accounting method (LIFO) allows oil and gas companies to sell the fuel most recently added to their reserves first, as opposed to selling older reserves first under the traditional First In, First Out (FIFO) method. This allows the most expensive reserves to be sold first, reducing the value of their inventory for taxation purposes.

        No. LIFO is a common option available to people and entities. The same rules as everyone else.

        Foreign Tax Credit (26 U.S. Code § 901. Active). Typically, when firms operating in foreign countries pay royalties abroad they can deduct these expenses from their taxable income. Instead of claiming royalty payments as deductions, oil and gas companies are able to treat them as fully deductible foreign income tax. In 2016, the JCT estimated that closing this loophole for all American businesses operating in countries that do not tax corporate income would generate $12.7 billion in tax revenue over the course of the following decade.

        No. Semantic word game. The argument as to why it should be a credit is that most them are paid to governments. Because governments around the world have nationalized their oil fields. Get it? If it looks like a tax, it is one. Individuals like you who pay taxes to foreign governments from your after tax mutual funds, get the same credit Exxon-Mobil does, subject to your situation and the foreign tax credit rules.

        Master Limited Partnerships (Internal Revenue Code § 7704. Indirect. Active). Many oil and gas companies are structured as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). This structure combines the investment advantages of publicly traded corporations with the tax benefits of partnerships. While shareholders still pay personal income tax, the MLP itself is exempt from corporate income taxes. More than three-quarters of MLPs are fossil fuel companies. This provision is not available to renewable energy companies.

        Somebody always shows the income. Whether the it’s shown at the entity level or by the individual, somebody always shows the income. The IRS may allow the income to move from the entity to the individual like with an S-Corp or Partnership, but it very rarely disappears the income. Another case of B.S.

        I earlier ranted over calling faster than normal depreciation a subsidy. These pikers don’t seem to have done that. Enough people like me must have pointed out to them that they don’t know accounting and ought to stick to something they know about such as basket-weaving.

      • Willard | July 4, 2021 at 12:21 pm |

        > No. Semantic word game.

        Look who’s talking, Ragnaar:

        A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.

        https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 12:42 pm |

        Willard:

        Happy white guys holiday to you.

        “A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction.”

        I get to deduct the property taxes I pay on my office building. That is a benefit given to my business by the government. As it means I have less taxable income. I disagree that that is a subsidy.

        Setting aside income taxes, it’s normal accounting. Falling into the category of 95% of all accounting. One of the purposes of accounting is to say, how much money did I make? Deducting property taxes on my office’s building is part of the normal process of determining that.

        If the property tax deduction I take is a subsidy, so are these things I pay: wages, postage, office supplies, copier costs, light bill.

        Here is a subsidy. You get 30% of the cost of your solar panels as a credit. It has nothing to do with accounting. It falls out of the sky.

        I my case, I have to pay someone’s wages. Here’s a pile of money that dropped out of orbit and landed in your lap. That’s a subsidy.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 12:48 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > Enough people like me must have pointed out to them that they don’t know accounting and ought to stick to something they know about such as basket-weaving.

        Doncha just hate it when people weigh in on issues where try clearly laclnte requisite knowledge and skills? Especially if they go in highly popular podcasts to support misleading claims about something as important as COVID vaccines?

        Here Brett and Heather promote retracted study: https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1411447438481756162?s=19

        Read about the retraction:

        https://factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-flawed-paper-on-covid-19-vaccines-deaths-spreads-widely-before-retraction/

        This is reason why Brett shouldn’t act like an expert on shot he knows nothing about.

        @uberfeminist
        · 18h
        Replying to @tgof137 @BretWeinstein and 2 others
        Bret Weinstein has to walk way more back than just the thinks you mention https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1411093840304410627

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 1:21 pm |

        J:

        Here Brett and Heather promote retracted study: https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1411447438481756162?s=19

        They did a full apology on their recent podcast. People make mistakes. Part of the context is Heying saying, she hadn’t looked at the paper. That’s called a qualified endorsement. Beware. Get it? People make mistakes including them.

        So were still play the appeals to authority game. This libertarian highly suspects your authorities are corrupt. And that Weinstein and Heying are not. They are fighting as individuals and not with the weight of a corrupt hierarchy behind them.
        You team is corrupt through regulatory capture. In that light. That happens a lot.

        And happy, it’s your fault we fought the Revolutionary over slavery day, to you.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 1:38 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > They did a full apology on their recent podcast. People make mistakes.

        Yah. People make mistakes. And people leverage the mistakes that other people make to build vastly far-reaching conspiracy theories and promote those conspiracy theories on podcasts watched by many people, on extremely important topics.

        > Part of the context is Heying saying, she hadn’t looked at the paper. That’s called a qualified endorsement. Beware. Get it? People make mistakes including them.

        Part of the context is that they promoted the view that 2 people die from the vaccines for every 3 that are saved by it. Think of how many people have been vaccinated and how dramatically the death tolls have dropped. Think of that in the context of Israel. Does that claim seem remotely plausible to you?

        She then went on to talk about how it’s young people are dying from the vaccines, as a kind of sacrifice for older people being saved by the vaccines. Yeah, so “part of the context” is the old “THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!”

        > So were still play the appeals to authority game.

        Heather and Brett have monitized leveraging their own authority – on issues where they CLEARLY lack the relevant knowledge and experience. Read the Factcheck article on the retraction. You don’t have to trust that they are unbiased to see that their description makes it completely obvious that anyone with the level of qualification that Brett and Heather claim for themselves, to see around corners and sniff out vast conspiracies, whould have known that the article was sh*t. And why are they talking about how 2 die for every 3 saved WHEN THEY HAVEN’T EVEN READ THE ARTICLE????!!!!

        > This libertarian highly suspects your authorities are corrupt. And that Weinstein and Heying are not.

        Lol. Who could have predicted that you would judge “authority” on the basis of how much you agree with their conclusions?’

        > They are fighting as individuals and not with the weight of a corrupt hierarchy behind them.
        You team is corrupt through regulatory capture. In that light. That happens a lot.

        Totally selective assessment. They are obviously building their own form of “regulatory capture’ – and you are willingly participating in the process, It’s your right, of course.

        > And happy, it’s your fault we fought the Revolutionary over slavery day, to you.

        Huh? Look, I know many people like to think they’re engaged in a pitched battle with the forces of evil, that they’re 21rst century Paul Reveres. It helps them to feel more important. But if that means with I think it might mean, maybe you’re taking this whole 3-cornered hat fantasy just a tad too far?

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 1:43 pm |

        But I will say, Ragnaar – I am impressed with how impervious your idolization is for folks like Brett and Scott. Your level of trust and loyalty is impressive. I admire it. In a way.

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 1:48 pm |

        J:

        Find the crony-capitalists.

        Weinstein and Heying, along with Rogan and Taibbi.
        Less then a 10% chance of them being the crony-capitalists.

        Your team. More than a 50% chance of a significant amount of crony-capitalists being in positions of power on your team.

        Pick your side. If you exist within a corrupt hierarchy, it hurts you. Your own hierarchy that is J, becomes corrupt. You still have a choice to disagree with the societal corrupt hierarchy, but you are not doing so. So your own personal hierarchy adapts and accepts it, more or less. So you have to figure out what the hell you are, and then say if it matches what society is.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 1:59 pm |

        Look at her discussion of the “number needed to vaccinate.” Read the Factcheck article relative to that number. Why would someone with her self-claimed authority be discussing that article without the appropriate discussion of the caveats?

        She accuses Israeli health officials of “monkeying with the baseline.”

        Read what the Factcheck article has to say about using reports of problems with the vaccines as non-longitudinal data. Read what it says about the numbers in the article related to “dying from vaccination,” a phrase she throws out there as if she knows what she’s talking about.

        Does she?

        This is like that nonsense you posted where they were pushing the Ivermectin in India numbers. Did you read this?

        https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/no-data-available-to-suggest-a-link-between-indias-reduction-of-covid-19-cases-and-the-use-of-ivermectin-jim-hoft-gateway-pundit/

        You never actually commented except to complain that I hold their arguments to a high standard. Is there a reason I, or in fact you, shouldn’t?

        This isn’t about someone being wrong. It isn’t about someone having the right to make arguments. It’s about the quality of the arguments being presented, and people monitizing bad arguments and capitalizing on ideologically-motivated idolization.

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 2:00 pm |

        J:

        How lame. They are causing a conspiracy. Everything is right wing conspiracy to you including Evergreen State College.

        Yes they made a mistake and yes you suck if your old and are sacrificing children for your benefit. That’s some kind cult. Witches used to be accused of doing that. Are you doing that?

        I said your authorities are corrupt. It has nothing to do with them. Your authorities have proven this over and over again across time and space. They’ve corrupted science, K-12 education, young people’s finances, fought wars for who knows why? Lost the war on poverty and drugs. That’s your team.

        I think you idolize the State. And like to engage in witch hunts. They’re witches. The way you go after them, that’s all I can figure.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 2:04 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        This about people arguing about “censorship” as a smokescreen for bad arguments that are justified by people making inflated portrayals of their own authority.

        Brett and Heather spend a considerable % of their time building up their own authority – exactly for the purposed of building up “trust” as you just described.

        Brett sat there while Eric talked about how 3 of the 4 Weinstein siblings were robbed, robbed I say, of the Nobels they deserve.

        Your selective approach to appeals to authority deserves some due diligence. As a CPA, you should apply your mad due diligence skillz

      • Willard | July 4, 2021 at 2:08 pm |

        Ragnaar,

        There’s no need for your patronage. The question isn’t if this or that is a subsidy according to the only tax code you know. The question is what is a subsidy. Like porn, everybody can recognize what it is just by looking at it:

        A subsidy or government incentive is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy. Although commonly extended from the government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

        Many Denizens are not from your country anyway.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 2:10 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > I think you idolize the State.

        With zero evidence. Only what you imagine is evidence, that I criticized the obviously weak arguments of people you “trust.”

        The idea of me being a statist is laughable. You have zero evidence of such.

        > And like to engage in witch hunts.

        You consider criticism of their arguments, and their deliberate monitization of self-portrayals of their authority, as a “witch hunt.”

        The beautiful irony is that it takes place in the frame of people complaining about people who are intolerant of criticism. I criticize obviously bad arguments and it only becomes more evidence for you that I’m part of the conspiracy. Totally unfalsifiable.

        > They’re witches. The way you go after them, that’s all I can figure.

        Read my words.

        THEY. AREN’T. WITCHES.

        They’re people who put their pants on one leg at a time. They’re people who make bad arguments. They’re people whose arguments should be scrutinized. They deserve exactly as much “trust,” as much benefit of the doubt, as anyone else. No more. No less.

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 2:18 pm |

        J:

        The Revolutionary War was fought against a corrupt hierarchy. At a smaller scale and at a different time a similar thing is going on now. You may be what is called a loyalist. Of those that say you cannot speak against the King. As time goes on, you will decide if the King deserves your loyalty? You’ll do that next month and next year. And you will decide how to treat those that do not agree with the King.

      • Ragnaar | July 4, 2021 at 2:26 pm |

        Willard:

        On of your goto arguments is: Freedom Fighter. And it often apt, I admit.

        Weinstein, Freedom Fighter, what? I think you would admit he’s gathering. Ascending. Now take him out as a Freedom Fighter as you are shown you are so able to do. That is one of your strengths. A perfectly fine answer is, that doesn’t apply in this case.

        It occurs to me, we may have an actual freedom fight this time. Maybe not.

      • Joshua | July 4, 2021 at 2:32 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > As time goes on, you will decide if the King deserves your loyalty?

        Your evidence of my “loyalty” is that I criticize bad arguments.

        I see Brett and Heather are selling T-shirts. Do you have one yet? If you do, you should post a pic with it on.

      • Willard | July 4, 2021 at 2:37 pm |

        Ragnaar,

        I don’t know much about Bret since I’m not on Twitter anymore. All I know comes from Reddit, but most importantly from the Decoding Gurus. Here’s the lastest I heard from him:

        https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/two-gargantuan-intellects-stare-into-the-abyss

        As for the Freedom Fighter brand, I have little merit. Freedom complements Justice, so SJWs are logically completed by FFs. So it’s basically a truism. Same as Progress and Conservation, in a way.

        So put Freedom, Justice, Progress, and Conservation in quadrants and you got something trivial. Yet it powers most memes.

      • joe the non climate scientist | July 5, 2021 at 8:38 am |

        Appell’s citation – Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs
        July 29, 2019
        https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs- ” Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 U.S. Code § 263. Active). This provision allows companies to deduct a majority of the costs incurred from drilling new wells domestically. In its analysis of President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that eliminating tax breaks for intangible drilling costs would generate $1.59 billion in revenue in 2017, or $13 billion in the next ten years.”

        Appell – did you catch the obvious math / logic error in the JCT computation. Its blatantly obvious to anyone with basic accounting knowledge. Hint – it is an error well known in the industry.

      • Ragnaar | July 5, 2021 at 8:21 pm |

        Willard:

        Because he thinks he’s a freedom fighter and probably has a three cornered hat. No they aren’t out to get us. Haven’t I seen you criticize freedom fighters?

        I am asking you to have a go at him. I know you’re capable. I’ve seen your Guru’s link. Is it that different from what Fox News does always finding the evil Democrats and making fun of them?

        Here’s Weinstein, here’s how he did with the Willard test. Am I asking a lot?

      • Ragnaar | July 5, 2021 at 8:36 pm |

        J:

        Your evidence of my “loyalty” is that I criticize bad arguments.

        I asked for one specific thing Weinstein has said you can criticize. I don’t think I got much of an answer. You can’t mention the retracted paper, because I say both the mention of it and their mention of the retraction. Let’s try again, give me one bad argument he’s made and link to it with a timestamp if that applies. It’s as if, he’s had students like you in his classes that try to point out any wrong thing he says.

        There is a King. Your loyalty to them exists or does not exist. You’ve been arguing the King’s side all along. You look up the hierarchy to know what to do. There are many contributors from the base of the hierarchy. All knowledge does not descend upon us like gifts from the heavens.

        It would be nice if you could plug your own hierarchy into the King’s hierarchy and just go on autopilot. There are many examples of others doing that. Just float through life like a leaf on the river.

        Yes. I ordered the T-Shirt. This bleep show since Trump was elected, since we did what the government wanted with the pandemic. Since CRT, it’s time to break out the T-Shirts.

      • Willard | July 5, 2021 at 9:35 pm |

        > have a go at him

        No time, Ragnaar. YOLO.

        You might like:

      • robertok06 | July 6, 2021 at 4:15 am |

        @jim2 | July 3, 2021 at 5:57 pm |
        “Appell puts forth another study backed by no facts whatsoever about coal plants and oil fields killing birds.”

        The basis of his statements is a paper by B. Sovacool, notorious antinuclear pasdaran and pro-renewbabbles.
        You can download it for free if you are on researchgate:

        “The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update”
        January 2013Renewable Energy 49:19-24
        DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.074

        Here’s a small excerpt:

        “For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on.”

        So, again CAGW dogma, nothing else. :-(

      • Joshua | July 6, 2021 at 1:51 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > I asked for one specific thing Weinstein has said you can criticize.

        There are, of course, many. And I’ve pointed you to some. Of course, saying things I can criticize isn’t in itself that important. The bigger problem, IMO, are the constant appeals to self-authority and the flat out bad arguments that are madd with an attempt to carve out some kind of exclusion from criticism based on the grandiose and inflated appeals to self-authority.

        The references to the obviously flawed paper, that anyone with the level of expertise they appoint to themselves should have realized immediately, is a reflection of the problematic dynamic. But attracts fans as it seems fans of self-victimization and appeals to tribalism often do

        > I don’t think I got much of an answer.

        HEre’s just one.

        > You can’t mention the retracted paper, because I say both the mention of it and their mention of the retraction.

        Except their endorsement of the 2 (young people) dead for 3 (old people save) conclusion is exactly the point irrespective of whether they mention the retraction. The point is that their initial endorsement belies their self-appointed authority which they have leveraged to attract a lot of admirers and sell T-shirts.

        > Let’s try again, give me one bad argument he’s made and link to it with a timestamp if that applies.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/23/collapse-of-the-fake-consensus-on-covid-19-origins/#comment-954375

        I mean seriously, listen to their pods – isn’t the self-comparisons to Galileo just a bit of a warning signal for you? The claims that three out of the four siblings were robbed, robbed I say of a Nobel Prize they deserved?

        As for the rest of you comment, ‘fraid I couldn’t understand it.

      • Ragnaar | July 6, 2021 at 3:51 pm |

        J:

        Here’s your example of the one thing I asked for that Weinstein was wrong about:
        ————————–
        Dr. Weinstein: Well, again, I think the only way to evaluate these things properly is using scientific tools. And that is my home turf as it were. I would say we have to think in terms of hypothesis. And the problem for me is that the only hypothesis that I have heard of or thought of that explains our seeming biases is that what is driving is a desire to vaccinate as many people as possible. And the only reason to vaccinate as many people as possible seems to be that there is profit in it.
        -snip-
        So the only hypothesis he can think of for why people might want to vaccinate as many people as possible is the profit motive?
        —————————-
        Let’s say they want to vaccinate children and people that have all ready had Covid-19. Does what he said make sense now?
        Vaccinating children is risky. And vaccinating people that have all ready had Covid-19 has risks. These are experimental vaccines and there’s no way in hell that 1 in 20 children’s vaccinations have been deployed this quickly. Or said another way, with a tiny amount of exceptions, no vaccine for children has even been deployed this quickly.
        Why are they doing two things that seem stupid? Money. It’s a good bet. Notice he said, “…seems to be that…”
        CPAs call that a qualification. As I said elsewhere, he must have students like you looking to find one time he screwed up.

      • Ragnaar | July 7, 2021 at 10:50 am |

        Willard:
        Thank you for acknowledging me. I am glad we’re still on speaking terms because I’ll keep on asking you for things because I am needy.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 11:22 am |

        Ragnaar –

        > —————————-
        Let’s say they want to vaccinate children and people that have all ready had Covid-19. Does what he said make sense now?

        I’m aware of the arguments. That doesn’t change thst Brett’s mind-probing sucks. I don’t know if it’s because he’s just motivated (as we all are) or if it’s because he inflated his qualifications or and believes them or if it’s because he’s malignant. I assume it’s mostly a mixture of the first two.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 5:11 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        Another intersting article on Brett and Ivermectin.

        https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/

        And I let me repost this in the correct place.

        Ragnaar –

        Here is what I consider to be a responsible take on Ivermectin.

        It explains well, understandable reasons for why it hasn’t been widely adopted even as it is optimistic about its potential. Brett’s failure to contemplate non-psychopathic explanations for opinions other than his own clearly derived from a lack of expertise, motivated reasoning, or a desire to exploit illness, death, and tribalism.

        If people like Brett and Heather would adopt this kind of approach rather than claiming Galileo status, and self-victimizing, and polarizing the issue, and then exploiting the mess to sell t-shirts, I’d have no criticisms.

        https://t.co/b5g3HZjJab?amp=1

      • Ragnaar | July 7, 2021 at 6:58 pm |

        J:
        Quillete airs the narrative on ivermectin. Read all of the Twitter comments on their Tweet of the same story twice. While I follow Quillete and give them my money, the stories have something like 50 likes and few retweets. I think their core is mad at them over the article. I told them I was. Try to find the paper they refer to in the article by Lawrie. It’s not a paper. They don’t mention her recent paper that was a peer reviewed paper that I’ve mentioned here. It’s a Guardian style hit job. Lehmann has a prior criticism of Weinstein and I gave my two cents to her on that one too. Lehmann can do whatever she wants. We will see how it all plays out.

      • Ragnaar | July 7, 2021 at 7:05 pm |

        J:
        You link right above this one. I want to talk about ivermectin as a preventative and that it’s safe. Yours starts out as, treatment of Covid-19. You can look at ivermectin as a preventative against the delta-variant. Since your good with your vaccine for that one. Ivermectin has a broad attack. Your vaccine, not so much.

      • mesocyclone | July 7, 2021 at 9:02 pm |

        “You can look at ivermectin as a preventative against the delta-variant. Since your good with your vaccine for that one. Ivermectin has a broad attack. Your vaccine, not so much.”

        Ivermectin has never been shown to be effective in a good trial. There is now a large trial in Brazil, testing all sorts of already available medications, including ivermectin. It will be interesting to see the results, but until we do so, nobody should rely on ivermectin. If you want to take a dose in the safe level, fine. Science doesn’t back you up but you should be free to do so.

        BTW, that trial already ended for HCQ – finding it ineffective at any stage of the disease including pre-infection (i.e. for prophylaxis). Note that HCQ also had a good story going for it – an in vitro positive result. But many things that look good in vitro don’t work in the human body at tolerable dosages.

      • Willard | July 7, 2021 at 7:14 pm |

        > I’ll keep on asking you for things because I am needy.

        I noticed ;-)

        Fine with me, as long as you beware your wishes.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 7:34 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        She wasn’t the only author. Why do you focus only on her?

        Of course you think it wa a hit job – because it was directly critical of your boy. You don’t offer any actual criticisms of their arguments, and basically say the readers who are no doubt fans don’t like it either. I’m shocked.

        Anyway, I have no dog in that particular fight. Their criticisms Dr legit to me, but there more about the details and I don’t know enough about it and I’m skeptical that non-experts, a category in which I def include Brett, are in a position to eclauge the desrils either. It’s basically a bunch o’ Google jockeys arguing with each other. It’s somewhat intersting to watch but I don’t particularly take a position.

        Where I DO take a position was in the editorial by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about. That article is a actually the devastating takedown of Brett – because it shows how a real scientist looks at the issue. What makes it devastating is that it’s so different then Brett’s approach. What does mean? It means that the realm why he and Heather spend 50% of their podcasts telling their audience why they’re Galileos and have been robbed of Nobel a and what experts they are is because, well… I’ll let you figure out what I think about that.

        I linked another article also, which is somewhat optimistic about Ivermectin but likewise lays out why Brett and Heather aren’t what they crack themselves out to be…

        Here it is again – notice the similarity to the editorial.

        https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/whats-the-deal-with-ivermectin-and-covid/

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 7:44 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > Ivermectin has a broad attack. Your vaccine, not so much.

        I think there’s def an issue with the vaccines w/r/t “escape.” and what makes that problem worse? People who spread misinformation about the vaccines that increase hesistancy.oee hesitancy = mutations.

        But anyway, yeah, “escape” is a pro kwm with the vaccines. But you don’t freakin” have ANY actual idea about the mechanism of Ivermectin. Therefore you don’t freskin’ know what would happen if hundreds of millions of people started taking it.

        You’re advocating for an experiment as you’re saying “wah, I’m afraid of an experiment!”

        You’re a libertarian. You’re supposed to be big time into unintended consequences.

        The funny thing about so much of what I see about “concern” about unintended consequences from people who self-idenfify as libertarians is how sometime it’s very selective and based on a binary mentality. Like it’s all or nothing re unintended consequences in one side versus the other.

        Real life ain’t binary.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 7:49 pm |

        > > Ivermectin has a broad attack. Your vaccine, not so much.

        How do you know how broad it is (let alone how broad it is relative to vaccines – which have. Wen effective against variants do far) id. I one actually knows what the mechanism is?

        I didn’t realize you were a virologist before you got your CPA.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 7:50 pm |

        … when no one knows what the actual mechanism is….

      • Ragnaar | July 7, 2021 at 9:31 pm |

        J:
        “Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.”
        I think this is it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
        Ivermectin has a broad attack. So I say. I don’t know what you see but some would think a more general purpose drug would handle variants better. It’s an anti-viral. You got shot with an anti-this virus. This argument seems self-evident. So your’e bet is, it will evolve but not away from your vaccination. That’s a good plan. People were vaccine hestitant with or without Bret and with or without frontline doctors around world. This could solve that problem. But you keep attacking the King’s enemies like a robot. Free the robots.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 10:07 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        Jesus.

        You don’t know what you think you know (just watched a documentary on Rumsfeld).

        Did you read the editorial I linked for you. Tjdf guy knows what he’s talking about. You don’t. Here’s what he says:

        -snip-
        Counterbalancing these arguments are the general lack of biologic plausibility and coherence for the use of ivermectin in the treatment of a viral infection
        -snip-

        There’s a long way between antiviral properties and efficacy as a treatment – “broad” or otherwise.

      • Joshua | July 7, 2021 at 10:39 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        Just to make sure I fully understand, now you’re prescribing Ivermectin for Zika, HIV, Dengue, AND SARS-COV-2?

      • Ragnaar | July 8, 2021 at 10:14 am |

        J:
        Your above link:
        Where does this leave us? There are arguments to be made both in support and against a potential
        benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. In borrowing from Sir Bradford Hill’s causal criteria
        framework 21, there are clear elements of strength of association (the pooled estimate of reduction
        in mortality was over 50%), there is consistency across studies (and meta-analyses) with relatively
        little heterogeneity in effect sizes, and there is evidence of temporality, which is provided by the
        prospective randomized study designs. Counterbalancing these arguments are the general lack of
        biologic plausibility and coherence for the use of ivermectin in the treatment of a viral infection.
        Since it does not appear to be active in standard doses as a direct-acting anti-viral, we are forced to
        speculate about anti-inflammatory or indirect antiviral effects. Perhaps Most Puzzling is the Degree
        and Extent of Benefit Identified – Across Disease Stages, Dosing Regimens, and Viral and Clinical
        Outcomes – Which Strains Belief, Particularly for a Disease that has been Characterized by Narrow
        Therapeutic Windows for Most Other Interventions.
        ———————————————–
        “…we are forced to speculate about anti-inflammatory or indirect antiviral effects.”
        What’s anti-inflammatory? Lungs inflame quickly. That’s liquid in the lungs. People are put on ventilators which is a dire situation. The ivermectin is administered too late, the inflammation has a head start. Weekly ivermectin doses reduces too late administration. You can read. I can read. I can watch Kory, I don’t think you can. He’s a credible frontline doctor with experience in this area.
        I am not prescribing anything. I think I was quoting Kory et al supporting my claim of ivermectin having a broader attack than the vaccines. It’s logical. We have our pissing contests here in the U.S. with our all our crony capitalism money. What about poor countries? Big pharma will be good to them. Just like we gave them the best reliable grid power and did good things with our armed forces and intelligence agencies for their countries.

      • Ragnaar | July 8, 2021 at 10:21 am |

        J:
        Your money quote:
        “Counterbalancing these arguments are the general lack of
        biologic plausibility and coherence for the use of ivermectin in the treatment of a viral infection.”
        We don’t understand it. Kory sees results. Results are seen across space and time. It doesn’t fit some model. But it is results. Science is never done. Because the science isn’t done, let’s use mRNA or whatever it is instead. They don’t understand it at high resolution, but at a lower resolution we see that it works. It’s a stupid resolution game they are selling. We each see different things.

      • Joshua | July 8, 2021 at 10:45 am |

        Ragnaar –

        > Where does this leave us? There are arguments to be made both in support and against a potential
        benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.

        I’m not arguing AGAINST it’s use – and neither are the docs in the two articles I linked to you. Do you still not get that?

        I’m arguing that Brett’s take on Ivermectin, and his mind-probing, like many of his takes on many issues, is crap. For example, his take on meta-analyses shows that he doesn’t really understand meta-analyses. Not all meta-analyses are the same. It’s quite remarkable.

        > In borrowing from Sir Bradford Hill’s causal criteria

        Yah. I”m a big fan of Hill’s Criteria. I’ve mentioned them here before. They’re great. You should check it out. It’s a very useful framework for understanding how to evaluate causality.

        > What’s anti-inflammatory? Lungs inflame quickly. That’s liquid in the lungs. People are put on ventilators which is a dire situation. The ivermectin is administered too late, the inflammation has a head start.

        Stop playing doctor.

        > Weekly ivermectin doses reduces too late administration. You can read. I can read. I can watch Kory, I don’t think you can. He’s a credible frontline doctor with experience in this area.

        I’ve watched him. I’ve said he seem credible. I respect frontline doctors. I respect the tension between different sources of information and different modes of evaluation.

        Do you? Did you read the freakin’ editorial I linked for you? It seems you did. Did you read the interview with the other doctor, who believes in the potential of Ivermectin?

        Do you have any responses to what they have to say?

        IMO, they are taking a scientific approach. And they have the requisite skills an knowledge. IMO, Brett and Heather fail on both accounts. They are acting like they have the requisite knowledge and skills – but they don’t. We know this because of their approach on the evidence like the meta-surveys. We know this because of their approach on the paper that putatively said that 2 lives are lost for every 3 saved by vaccinations. We know this because they call themselves modern day Galileos. Because they spend a huge percentage of their time on podcasts talking about how expert they are. Have they conducting relevant research? No. Have they published research in the field? No. In fact, I’m pretty sure neither of them have published any research on anything – of course, excusing when Brett was robbed of his Nobel-worthy research. Lol. They’re Google jockeys and they’re podcasters, and they’ve got a good gig going, I’ll certainly admit that. And the get a lot of people to “trust” them and accept that they say.

        > I am not prescribing anything.

        You said that it is “broad” in it’s’ attack on viruses, as a therapeutic, as in as a treatment. You don’t know that. Kory thinks he knows that and he may well be right. I respect his beliefs. But it should be verified before people say that it should be prescribed broadly, off-label, for hundreds of millions of people in place of a vaccine during an ongoing pandemic.

        Yah, vaccines have their problems. That’s life. There’s no free lunch.

        > We have our pissing contests here in the U.S. with our all our crony capitalism money.

        I am not a fan of crony capitalism, but not EVERYTHING boils down to crony capitalism. You’re like my new-agey friends who won’t take vaccines because…BIG PHARMA!!!!!!

        At some point, when you’re holding a hammer everything looks like a nail.
        Big Pharma exists but it doesn’t explain everything.

        That Brett couldn’t even imagine another rationale for vaccinating people who have recovered shows a number of things. Most importantly, it shows he failed a basic test. It’s freakin’ obvious what a counter-hypothesis would be in addition to “PROFITS.’ And even more, a modicum of research would show what those hypotheses are.

        So, either he didn’t do the research or he’s lying about what he found when he did. Worse, he’s mind-probing and arguing from incredulity. That’s not what good scientists do. And it CERTAINLY isn’t what modern-day Galileos do.

        > What about poor countries?

        I know, I know, “What about the poors?!?!?!” It’s always a good go-to. I get it. You care about the poors, and the many, many, many scientific researchers who are saying we should conduct better research before shipping it out to the poors don’t care about them. That’s why you think we should start shipping Ivermectin out to the poors and they don’t. Not yet.

      • Joshua | July 8, 2021 at 11:01 am |

        Ragnaar –

        > Kory sees results. Results are seen across space and time. It doesn’t fit some model. But it is results.

        There’s a reason why you don’t just go in whole-hog based on the results that some doctors see.

        This is just basic science.

        You don’t ignore what Kory sees. You put it into context. There’s a tension between the different approaches, so you work with it.

        There’s a dialog between theory and practice. You walk that line. Sometimes it will lead to unfortunate outcomes. Sometimes it will lead to mistakes. That’s life. There is no free lunch

        Read the editorial. Read the interview with the doctor whose conducting research. They describe how science is done.

        Going with information only on one side, doing bad takes, mind-probing, and calling yourself Galileo isn’t science. It’s entertainment. They’re selling a product. Funny that you miss that in your focus on profiteers.

      • Joshua | July 8, 2021 at 11:30 am |

        Ragnaar –

        Here:

        The evidence on prophylaxis use of ivermectin is not very convincing. But, you know, prophylaxis studies are really tough to do. They’re really, really tough, which is why even the vaccines, you know, they require 40,000 people to be able to determine whether or not there’s a difference between the groups. So they require massive undertakings with huge amounts of funding, and there’s no funding really for ivermectin. So the prophylaxis studies, I don’t think will ever be very useful. But also, I just don’t see the biological mechanism for the prophylaxis role of ivermectin. But I could be wrong. We used to not believe that taking an HIV drug before you get HIV could prevent you from getting HIV. And now we know that actually it does.

        I don’t see an antiviral role for ivermectin but I do see a potential anti-inflammatory role. So I can see why it might have a role in treatment, but I don’t see why it might have a role in prophylaxis. But I could be wrong.

        I want the public to understand we’re trying to do everything we can to come to believable answers.

        A frontline doctor. Who’s actually doing the research. Who believes in that Ivermectin has promise as a treatment. Who is open-minded.

        Did you read that interview?

        Here’s a hint for you re Brett and Heather.

        Look at how they treat uncertainty. Although I disagree with Judith on quite a few things (I’m not qualified to assess her technical takes), I do agree with her that how many people. some scientists included, deal with uncertainty is problematic.

        Now look at how that dude deals with uncertainty. And look at how Brett and Heather deal with uncertainty. Compare and contrast.. Report back.

      • Ragnaar | July 8, 2021 at 3:05 pm |

        J:
        Do think you’re upset with Weinstein and myself? Things you will never know because I said something about them: Ivermectin has a broad based attack compared to the vaccines which have a focused attack. That question is beyond your knowing, because I said it.
        You cannot say anything about this quote that is coherent because I brought it up:
        “Since 2012, a growing number of cellular studies have demonstrated that ivermectin has antiviral properties against an increasing number of RNA viruses, including influenza, Zika, HIV, Dengue, and most importantly, SARS-CoV-2.”
        This is it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/
        Now it seems to me, SARS-CoV-2 is some kind of cousin of this mofo virus. And that ivermectin works in the first place against the current virus is because it has a broad attack.
        You are also having trouble with my interpretation of Kory’s explanation of inflammation, lungs and ventilators and the times of the adminstration of ivermectin, an anti-inflammatory. I am doing the best I can at relaying what I think to be accurate information from two people who I think have demontrated competence. Have you got into Weinstein’s knowledge of virus evolution? Evolution applies everywhere all the time.

      • Joshua | July 8, 2021 at 3:36 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > Ivermectin has a broad based attack compared to the vaccines which have a focused attack.

        You don’t know about Ivermectin’s “attack” as a treatment, in vivo, as an antiviral. How do I know you don’t know that? Because it’s unknown. I’ve given you multiple quotes from experts regarding this. Do you reply based on what THEY said? No, of course not. You ignore what they say.

        Instead you refer to a vague and unquantified statement about antiviral properties. Vdies that mean it “attacks” COVID in people’s bodies so as to prevent it cure. You don’t know.

        Kory has retroactive, OBSERVATIONAL, evidence. But his thinking he has observational evidence, according to experts who study this, isn’t sufficient to recommend millions take it, off label. The reasons are obvious, well beyond facile conclusions about BIG PHARMA!!!

        That’s why they’re recommending, AND CONDUCTING , further research into a therapeutic they consider promising.

        They respect uncertainty because it’s a b*tch.

        There was discussion in the articles I showed you w/r/t Ivermectin as an anti-inflammatory. Did you read it? It’s curious that for all your comments, you repeat vague handwaves to “antiviral” and ignore what frontline doctors/practitioners/researchers have to say about the antiviral aspects.

        > Have you got into Weinstein’s knowledge of virus evolution? Evolution applies everywhere all the time.

        Weinstein spins Just-So stories, where he reverse engineers stories about evolution that just by coincidence align with his political orientation, all the time. And he backs it up, not with active research or even discussion of the current research by others, but with his appeals to his own authority and Galileo doncha know, and his genius mad skillz, and claims that he wuz robbed, robbed I say, if a Nobel prize (just like two of his siblings were).

        I’m glad you’re impressed. I’m not.

      • Joshua | July 8, 2021 at 3:41 pm |

        Ragnaar –

        > Evolution applies everywhere all the time.

        I couldn’t sum it up any better than that.

        Facile assumptions about the university in how evolution works, such that you can just figure it out and apply it like an generic answer across vastly different problems.

      • Ragnaar | July 9, 2021 at 7:54 pm |

        J:

        Regarding its role as an antiviral agent, its efficacy has been demonstrated on several viruses, both in vitro and in vivo. Among the many mechanisms by which it performs its function, the most consolidated one sees ivermectin as an inhibitor of nuclear transport mediated by the importin α/β1 heterodimer, responsible for the translocation of various viral species proteins (HIV-1, SV40), indispensable for their replication (Wagstaff et al. 2011; Wagstaff et al. 2012). This inhibition appears to affect a considerable number of RNA viruses (Jans et al. 2019; Caly et al. 2012), such as Dengue Virus 1-4 (DENV) (Tay et al. 2013), West Nile Virus (WNV) (Yang et al. 2020), Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis Virus (VEEV) (Lundberg et al. 2013), and Influenza (Gotz et al. 2016). In addition, ivermectin has been shown to be effective against the Pseudorabies virus (PRV, with a DNA-based genome), both in vitro and in vivo (Lv et al. 2018), using the same mechanism. Caly et al. (Caly et al. 2020) have recently shown that the drug also inhibits the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro, however not clarifying how it occurs. Since the causative agent of COVID-19 is an RNA virus, it can be reasonably expected an interference with the same proteins and the same molecular processes described above.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00210-020-01902-5

        Ivermectin has also been demonstrated to be a potent BROAD-spectrum specific inhibitor of importin α/β-mediated nuclear transport and demonstrates antiviral activity against several RNA viruses by blocking the nuclear trafficking of viral proteins. It has been shown to have potent antiviral action against HIV-1 and dengue viruses, both of which are dependent on the importin protein superfamily for several key cellular processes. Ivermectin may be of import in disrupting HIV-1 integrase in HIV-1 as well as NS-5 (non-structural protein 5) polymerase in dengue viruses.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ja201711?source=techstories.org From 2017. Not consistent with the current narrative. Article soon to be retracted.

        Ivermectin has a broad based attack compared to the vaccines which have a focused attack. It seems to me that the Delta variant has moved out materially from the vaccines target area. We all pick our horses. My horse goes back about 40 years.

  6. chaamjamal | June 27, 2021 at 11:38 pm |

    The attribution of extreme weather events to AGW is made with climate model experiment procedure called Event Attribution Science that was created by UN bureaucrats in the Warsaw meeting to rationalize their climate impact compensation program for poor third world countries.

    The methodology is flawed particularly so in its elevation from a tool for climate impact compensation to a science that determines whether an extreme weather event is a creation of AGW.

    Please see

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/29/diffenbaugh-2017-extreme-weather-of-climate-change/

    • David Appell | June 27, 2021 at 11:52 pm |

      Another blog post full of unreadably dense verbiage from someone who wants to remain anonymous. Yeah.

      Please point us to peer reviewed journal papers with the conclusion you claim.

  7. Peter Lang | June 28, 2021 at 12:23 am |

    Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more (see Table 1 below).

    Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s [1] (Section 3.6), nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost [1] (Table 3 bottom panel).

    The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.

    The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.

    A rough calculation suggests that, to internalise the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology. Table 1 presents estimates of the number of deaths per TWh attributable to electricity generation technologies, the cost per MWh and the total cost to the economy. The calculations use US$11.6 million Value of Statistical Life (VSL) [2], deaths per TWh for each technology [3,4] and US electricity generation per technology in 2019 [5].

    Table 1: Health impact of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US: deaths per TWh, cost of deaths in US$/MWh at Value of a Statistical Life, electricity generation per technology (GWh/a) and total cost of deaths per technology (US$bn).

    Technology Deaths/TWh US$/MWh GWh/a Total, US$bn
    Coal 15 174 966,148 168.11
    Oil 36 418 18,567 7.75
    Natural Gas 4 46 1,581,815 73.40
    Biofuel/biomass 12 139 58,412 8.13
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 5.1 72,234 0.37
    Wind 0.15 1.7 300,071 0.52
    Hydro 0.005 0.058 273,707 0.016
    Nuclear 0.0001 0.001 809,409 0.001

    If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:

    Technology US$/MWh
    Coal 174
    Oil 418
    Natural Gas 46
    Biofuel/biomass 139
    Solar (rooftop) 5.1
    Wind 1.7
    Hydro 0.058
    Nuclear 0.001

    References:

    1. Lang, P. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
    2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    3. Wang, B. Deaths by Energy Source in Forbes. 2012. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
    4. Conca, J. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources. 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid
    5. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total Energy, Data, Electricity, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/

    • climatereason | June 29, 2021 at 7:23 am |

      Peter

      Unless we have a ten year well funded apolo type project to develop new forms of energy I can not see any alternative to nuclear if we want to sidestep fossil fues

      Renewables just won’t begin to do the Job, and it will get worse when electricty output needs to double or treble as other sources of energy are replaced.

      However nuclear is just not on the agenda of most policy makers and is often actively disliked by greens

      Tonyb

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 1, 2021 at 4:44 pm |

      Nuclear power is safest
      The rest of your comment concerning death attribution consists of wild guesses and computer model nonsense not backed by legitimate scientific studies. Thertefore you are clueless.

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 7:34 pm |

        Nuclear power is safest

        We have no idea if nuclear power is safest because we don’t know what catastrophes might result from its waste storage over the next ~100,000 years, the period over which it will be dangerous. Our experience with nuclear power is far, far too short to make any meaningful judgement.

      • Peter Lang | July 1, 2021 at 10:28 pm |

        You are the one who is clueless. All the data used is from authoritative references.

      • Philip Mulholland | July 2, 2021 at 3:43 am |

        We have no idea if nuclear power magic electricity is safest because we don’t know what catastrophes might result from its waste storage disposal over the next ~100,000 years eons, the period over which it will be dangerous chemically active. Our experience with nuclear power magic electricity is far, far too short to make any meaningful judgement.

        There, fixed that for you.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 2, 2021 at 5:27 pm |

        Reply to Mr. Long (there was no REPLY button)
        Learn to think for yourself.
        Use common sense.
        Don’t you realize how often “experts” are wrong?

        Didn’t you notice the COVID “experts” confidently giving wrong advice, changing their minds, and stating personal opinions as if they had been proven by double blind science studies?

        How about the past 60 years of “experts” predicting an environmental or climate crisis = 100% wrong

        Authoritative references are people who often don’t know what they are talking about.

        We’ve had 64 years of “experts” and their “authoritative references” predicting a climate crisis …. and meanwhile the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants is at least 325 years.

        Half of scientific studies can’t be replicated.

        YOU WROTE:
        “the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology.”

        THE COST OF DEATHS IS COMPLETE NONSENSE.
        Wild guess speculation,
        Assumption on top of assumption.
        Far too many variables involved in human health to come to a real conclusion
        I do not care who published the data,
        It is based on multiple assumptions that can never be verified.
        If you believe the numbers, then you must believe in rule by “experts”, which is the leftist ideal, based on their appeal to authority logical fallacy.
        Unfortunately leftists ruin everything they touch.

        Someday you may come to realize how many questions exist that don’t have answers … and how many people are willing to wild guess answers with wild guess assumptions and computer games, to get attention and a paycheck.

        Computer models predict / project / simulate anything their owners and programmers want to project.

      • robertok06 | July 6, 2021 at 4:46 am |

        @David Appell
        “We have no idea if nuclear power is safest because we don’t know what catastrophes might result from its waste storage over the next ~100,000 years, the period over which it will be dangerous. ”

        ROTFL!
        Inert long-lived, high-activity waste has and will not have nowhere to go. It is totally harmless, no person has been killed or maimed by it since nuclear power exists.

        ZERO danger.

    • mesocyclone | July 1, 2021 at 9:02 pm |

      Appell writes:

      “We have no idea if nuclear power is safest because we don’t know what catastrophes might result from its waste storage over the next ~100,000 years, the period over which it will be dangerous. ”

      Wow – total ignorant fear mongering. Your definition of “dangerous” is pretty weird.

      Are you aware that the more radioactive an element is, the shorter its half life?

      Are you aware that almost all nuclear waste has very low levels of radioactivity?

      Are you aware that radiation safety standards for low level radiation are almost certainly too strict by an order of magnitude or more, due to the use of “low dose no threshold” to extrapolate safe levels from data from much higher exposures.

      Are you aware that high level waste loses its radioactivity rapidly, and can be encased in very long lasting concrete and placed below ground. Yes, Plutonium and a few radionuclides have long half lives, but they constitute a tiny amount of the waste.

      And don’t forget dilution. If you have a milligram of extremely dangerous radioactive material, it is unlikely to cause a catastrophe. Hoe much extremely dangerous material is going to be around in 100,000 years and how much will arise at the same time.

      Besides, if mankind is unable to deal with any rad-waste issue that arise, then we’re in bad shape anyway.

      Catastrophe? Har!

      Just amazing, the fear people have of radioactivity, and the irresponsible fear mongering about nuclear waste.

      • mesocyclone | July 1, 2021 at 10:19 pm |

        Appell – posts a link to Wikipedia on nuclear waste.

        Sigh – hardly a good site for something contentious. Used to edit there – very bad rules for determining “reliable sources.”

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 10:55 pm |

        mesocyclone: Used to edit there – very bad rules for determining “reliable sources.”

        Now that you’ve left it can only have improved.

        Don’t pretend there aren’t people thinking hard about the very long-term disposal of dangerous radioactive waste, like (see the link) Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years), for which more than a “milligram” exists. Nor can we possibly imagine what exposures future people might have to them no matter how well we think we store them.

      • mesocyclone | July 2, 2021 at 3:23 pm |

        “Now that you’ve left it can only have improved.

        Don’t pretend there aren’t people thinking hard about the very long-term disposal of dangerous radioactive waste, like (see the link) Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years), for which more than a “milligram” exists. Nor can we possibly imagine what exposures future ”

        And people say you are not a troll.

        Of course people are thinking about it. But a lot of the reason for that is faulty analysis up front – trying to make the hazard zero forever (or at least 10,000) years. I know some who worked on the geological risk for the site in Nevada, because of that sort of nonsense.

        The stuff is dangerous, but not when diluted, or buried well.

        You are being very much an alarmist, the sort of nonsense I see from anti-nuke folks all the time.

        Scary! Scary! 10,000 years in the future, the stuff is radioactive, who knows what will happen? We must absolutely guarantee that nobody ever gets the slightest dose.

        BS.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 3:35 pm |

        We must absolutely guarantee that nobody ever gets the slightest dose.

        No, that’s not it at all. We must guarantee that millions don’t die because of our stupidity and lack of foresight or, for all we know, the planet gets radioactively contaminated. 100,000 years is a long time and an almost unimaginable amount of things can happen in that time. [Since it’s existence we’ve had two serious accidents in plants that were said to be completely safe. Planning is always imperfect. Accidents happen.] Besides leakage, accidents and who knows what, the easiest to imagine is terrorists discovering the location of stored waste and having the technology to manufacture it into weapons that truly threaten civilization. So, yes, I think it’s dangerous. Probably nuclear energy is necessary as a bridge to a civilization built on totally renewable, carbon-free energy, but it can’t be a permanent source.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 3:39 pm |

        Anyway I’m not deeply interested in nuclear power and I don’t know a lot about it, so I not going to discuss it any more. You can have the last word.

  8. David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:51 am |

    Oops, so much for CO2 being plant food! Plants can’t get enough of it, they said — they’re starved for it. They pump it into greenhouses don’t you know!

    “Wheat farmers, experts look toward grim harvest as drought consumes Oregon”
    By BRYCE DOLE East Oregonian Jun 24, 2021
    https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/wheat-farmers-experts-look-toward-grim-harvest-as-drought-consumes-oregon/article_0d02b70a-d459-11eb-b8fd-37dcd07bd4b0.html

    • stevenreincarnated | June 28, 2021 at 6:42 am |

      The problem is we have lived in a time when climate has been exceptionally benevolent. To expect it to continue that way when all the evidence is that it tends to be much worse on average is foolish optimism. We have been living the 4 sigma event and thinking it was normal. Burn all the witches you want, it is bound to go back towards the mean eventually.

      • Alan Lowey | June 28, 2021 at 7:17 am |

        “The problem is we have lived in a time when climate has been exceptionally benevolent.”

        That’s exactly it.

      • Tonyb | June 29, 2021 at 6:01 am |

        Steve

        Well said. Looking back at The over 4000 years of climate and several thousand years of weather records that i have access to, it is evident we have been in a climatic sweet point for say a century, and so any deviation to more normal extremes is now considered abnormal.

        In 2004 Phil jones wrote an article about the benevolent 1730’s in England and the shockingly cold 1740 winter that ended it. He said he realised that climate was far more variable than he had hitherto realised

        We are well within the limits of past extremes of hot and cold, drought and rainfall, storms and calm. Sooner or later we will bump up against them again.

        It is extended cold that will kill the most people so lets hope we see few of those episodes again. Mind you we do need a plan B in case of cool weather as at present we only have a plan A

        In neither plan should renewables be considered the prime source of energy.

        Tonyb

      • melitamegalithic | June 29, 2021 at 6:44 am |

        “The problem is we have lived in a time when climate has been exceptionally benevolent.” Nearing a peak of warming in cycles of about 980yrs. Previous was the MWP, and before that the Roman WP. And before that at ~800bce; and earlier at 1750bce. The latter leads to the 3.7kyrs BP Kikkar event https://vnexplorer.net/tag/3-7kyrbp-kikkar-event

        I had started this thread earlier, then changed my mind, but here it is. The Kikkar is a depression (kik[a]kra=cup), very fertile and with plenty of bitumen pits. And thriving civilisations that enjoyed everything. At peak warming it must have been scorching in summer at that latitude. Hydrocarbons boiled out of the ground, to form an aromatic heavy haze at temperatures above the flash point. Then God said ‘boom’.

        But that’s my take on it. Still, heat kills as well. When the ‘Grazing grounds’ fail – scorching heat and likely drought as well-, there rarely is a ready alternative.

      • Peter Lang | June 29, 2021 at 7:19 am |

        TonyB,

        4200 years ago there was a massive, world wide, 200 year long drought. It did enormous damage to agriculture, animals, food supply and humanity.

        Welcome to the Meghalayan Age, the Latest Stage in Earth’s 4.54-Billion-Year History https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/welcome-meghalayan-age-latest-stage-earths-454-billion-year-history-180969699/
        “Geologists say the stage began 4,200 years ago, when a global mega-drought devastated agricultural societies”

        Meghalayan: Collapse of Ancient Agricultural Civilizations Defines Holocene’s Youngest Stage http://www.sci-news.com/geology/meghalayan-06214.html

        In short, global warming is beneficial and global cooling is damaging. We should welcome global warming and do all we can to prevent global cooling and delay the next cooling event.

        The optimum GMST for life on Earth is that which existed during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (50 Ma ago) – when GMST was around 10 °C warmer than present.

      • melitamegalithic | June 29, 2021 at 9:31 am |

        The 4k2 BP event is a cycle root, a cold period, the fifth one back starting from the LIA. Earlier the 3200bce (piora oscillation), 4375bce, 5200bce, 6195bce (Doggerland submerged). All have left their mark on humanity, and in the proxies. But so did the cycle peaks, times of change.

        There was always a toll, but humanity survived. But this peak will be different.

        The one single tool that has prime of place in history is the wooden plough. It is synonymous with agriculture. The wooden plough survived unchanged for more that six millennia up to the second half of last century (I used grandpa’s at ten). Now its a piece of antiquity, if one can find one for decorating walls. So are gone the donkeys, mules and horses. Now its the diesel engined brutes that do the work (if you have the diesel). No use for electricity there (a hundred years ago there was no electricity anywhere). So now the availability of ‘tractor fodder’ is imperative.

    • Philip Mulholland | June 28, 2021 at 7:32 am |

      From Byce Doyle’s article:
      “You may have to go into the market, with how short you are, and buy even more expensive wheat to fill what you thought were good prices, which are not that great now,” he said.

      Is it not strange that unlike commodity farmers, magic electricity companies get a free pass when they fail to supply dispatchable power on demand?

    • jim2 | June 28, 2021 at 8:52 am |

      So you bring up a farm called “Poverty Flat” as an example of global warming? It’s been there since 1918 and hasn’t been a very good farm from what I’m reading about it. Maybe you could point to the fact that you can’t grow wheat in the warmer ocean?

    • Richard Greene | July 1, 2021 at 4:24 pm |

      A meaningless Mr. Appleman comment — using a red herring to attack the people with knowledge who favor CO2 enrichment, including greenhouse owners all over the world. In fact, no one here said CO2 alone is enough to grow plants.

      But in fact, CO2 enrichment genertally improves water efficiency signidiacantly, and the plants usually prefer warmer temperatures, than without CO2 enrichment.

      Now you can go out and find an outlier study that disagrees with those generally true statements, and disregard all other studies, as you usually do, Mr. Appleman.

  9. David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 2:00 am |

    Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity
    Felicia Chiang, Omid Mazdiyasni & Amir AghaKouchak
    Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 2754 (2021)
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22314-w

  10. Philip Mulholland | June 28, 2021 at 5:06 am |

    “When I recommended moving the power plant inland, the client said that this site was previously approved for an earlier power plant, and getting a new site approved would take a decade.”

    What a great business strategy, let’s throw good money after bad.

    • D. J. Hawkins | June 29, 2021 at 4:40 pm |

      Well, there is the opportunity cost of money. It may be cheaper or more profitable to build today and beef up your preparedness than to wait 10 years to spend less on hardening your facility or on your response plan. This is a simple max/min calculation.

    • David L. Hagen | June 29, 2021 at 9:42 pm |

      The major problem at Fukushima was placing the backup diesel generators at ground level where they were taken out by the tsunami – rather than on top of the power plant where they would have survived!
      “Fukushima disaster was preventable, new study finds
      Critical backup generators were built in low-lying areas at risk for tsunami damage — despite warnings from scientists” https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/
      Listen to CFAN’s pragmatic advice!

  11. co2islife | June 28, 2021 at 8:05 am |

    Stephen Koonin is interviewed by Tucker Carlson’s Fox Nation Show and it is really worth watching. He pretty much vindicates everything that the climate realists have been saying. He also validates Eisenhourers warnings about Scientific Industrial Complex. One of the topics that he covers is the unreliability of the energy system as wind and solar are adopted. He gives a very sober analysis of the energy system.
    https://imgur.com/a0gfBCd.

  12. David Wojick | June 28, 2021 at 8:59 am |

    Regarding CMIP modeling as sensitivity analysis. By far the greatest sensitivity being analyzed is CO2 sensitivity. The models now range from around 1.0 degrees up to a number of CMIP6 models now over 5 degrees. That is a huge range! It also invalidates any predictive use of these models, with or without downscaling. The models clearly imply that we have no dea what CO2 sensitivity is, by a wide margin.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 1, 2021 at 4:36 pm |

      I believe the lowest ECR is +1.8 degrees C. for the Russian INM model, not 1.0.

      I would be shocked if any other model / simulation was lower than the Russian INM.

      Which itself appears too high, based on UAH data since 1979, and assuming, with no proof, that CO2 caused all of the warming since the 1970s.

      In fact, based on model inaccuracy for the past 40 years,the ailure to improve accuracy for the past 40 years, and NO emphasis on the “best” model — the Russian INM — which WOULD receive the most attention if accurate climate projections were the goal.

      Only one conclusion is logical:

      ACCURATE projections of the future climate are NOT the goal of these computer games. Anyone with sense can see that.

      The computer games are a political prop used to suupport a political strategy intended to create fear, and make people turn to governments for “help”:

      The political strategy consists of 64 consecutive years of coming climate crisis predictions, growing louder, and more confident, with each year, since oceanographer Roger Revelle began the concerns in 1957.
      This fake coming climate crisis is 99% politics and 1% science.

  13. David Wojick | June 28, 2021 at 9:04 am |

    Dr. Curry, I would summarize your statement as:
    1. Most climate change is natural variability.
    2. We do not understand natural variability well enough to make predictions.
    3. Therefore non-predictive methods of planning are required.

  14. jeffnsails850 | June 28, 2021 at 9:18 am |

    Summarizing the warm: weather is climate, except when it’s not, and pickup trucks cause warming today, which we have accurately modeled to forecast that today will obviously be pleasant, hot, cold, wet, or dry.
    If any of those occur somewhere on the planet, then clearly it’s “worse than we thought” and RCP 8.5 is confirmed. This is why we celebrate a non-binding pledge by the world’s largest emitter of CO2 to stop increasing emissions sometime in the next 30 years. Because that defines “urgency.”

  15. joe - the non climate scientist | June 28, 2021 at 9:20 am |

    J Curry – The conference seemed to oriented toward planning for electric generation due to changes caused by global warming and extreme events

    Was there any discussion on planning for electric generation due changes in the source of electric generation (coal/natural gas to wind and solar) and the related issues associated with reliability to the grid?
    Panel 3 seemed to skirt the issue
    thanks

    • curryja | June 28, 2021 at 10:35 am |

      Several panelists noted the conflicts between increasing renewables and reliability, and it was generally mentioned, but the focus of the conference was on extreme weather

      • joe the non climate scientist | June 28, 2021 at 12:35 pm |

        J curry – when you say conflicts between increasing renewables and reliability, was it an acknowledgment of the changes in frequency, and other problems associated with greater penetration with wind into the system. If so, were the conflicts brought up by the advocates of renewables
        Fwiw, Texas had mini scare with possible rolling blackouts on june 14th 15th when there was spike in temps (high 90’s ) coupled with drop in wind for those 3-4 days.

      • David Wojick | June 28, 2021 at 1:17 pm |

        Extremity can be a function of the generation technology. No wind is extreme for wind. Dense clouds for solar. Neither for fossil.

    • dougbadgero | June 28, 2021 at 11:03 am |

      IMO it will be political pressure that ultimately forces a reckoning with the reliability issues associated with renewables. CAISO, MISO, SPP, and ERCOT have all had load shed events in the past year. At some point renewable advocates wont be able to avoid the implications of their preferred policies.

  16. Ulric Lyons | June 28, 2021 at 10:04 am |

    “As the time horizon of a weather or climate forecast increases and the spatial scale decreases, forecast uncertainty increases.”

    Not if you can predict the solar wind conditions driving the NAO/AO anomalies.

    “The extreme events of 2020 (e.g. TX cold, record number of hurricane landfalls, extensive fires in CA)”

    Texas is very interesting as it shows that despite global warming, short term low solar can drive extreme cold events as cold as they ever have been. And just after sunspot minimum like the deep cold events in 2009-2010, I warned about this last Autumn. I had predicted a very cold first half of February, and notable cold returning early April. I had the heat in early August 2020 predicted at over a year ahead.
    CA wildfires increase after El Nino rains which boost the undergrowth fuel load, and El Nino conditions normally increase during centennial solar minima. The warm AMO increasing hurricane activity is also normal during low solar periods.

    “Until the influence of natural climate variability on extreme weather is better understood, we may be misled in our interpretations of recent trends and their attribution to manmade global warming.”

    An understanding of how the discrete solar forcing of NAO/AO anomalies and regimes drive regional and global climate variability via an inverse response of ENSO and the AMO, questions the attribution of global warming too.

  17. CKid | June 28, 2021 at 10:20 am |

    “…. absence of meaningful phasing of the multi-decadal ocean circulation patterns.”

    It’s inconceivable that any serious scientist would ignore what is covered extensively in the literature, with more papers added every year. But we’re talking about the IPCC so that has to be taken into consideration.

    • David Wojick | June 28, 2021 at 10:26 am |

      The modeling is done by dozens of national modeling centers, not the IPCC. The allowed forcings are specified by the UNWCRP, not the IPCC. The IPCC is just the messenger, not the master. This is well hidden from the press and public. See https://www.wcrp-climate.org/

  18. David Wojick | June 28, 2021 at 10:21 am |

    The FERC hearing clearly assumed that AGW was the problem, in keeping with Biden’s scare policy. Ironically the real looming threat to reliability is not AGW. It is the forced transition to unreliable wind and solar power, which Biden wants completed in 8.5 years. Fortunately this is impossible, but massive disruption is still likely.

    Investigating this mess I found something amusing, albeit darkly so. The utilities know wind and solar do not work but they love the money they are making rebuilding their asset bases. So their plans all say that when the time comes they will get the needed juice from their neighbors! This is true from California to Virginia. Of course this does not work if everyone does it. But these impossible plans are well hidden in voluminous planning documents.

  19. Alan Lowey | June 28, 2021 at 10:31 am |

    / They say everything can be replaced
    They say every distance is not near
    So I remember every face
    Of every man who put me here

    I see my light come shining
    From the west down to the east
    Any day now, any day now
    I shall be released /

    https://youtu.be/MjtPBjEz-BA

  20. dougbadgero | June 28, 2021 at 10:34 am |

    “A risk assessment firm calculated 100-yr storm surge to be 10.1 ft, and the 500-year storm surge to be 13 ft. A quick look at the historical hurricane record shows an estimated storm surge of 12 feet near that location in the 1920s, and an estimated 15 ft storm surge from a hurricane in the 1840’s – periods with significantly cooler climates than now.”

    Clearly the risk assessment firm is doing it wrong. A few weeks ago I posted that all engineering design must consider what is credible when establishing the design envelope, and the past is always credible. From ERCOT to Fukushima and beyond…how long will it take us to learn this lesson?

    • Beta Blocker | June 29, 2021 at 10:37 am |

      The factors which influence a design envelope can change over time, sometimes with enough impact to render the original engineering analysis obsolete years after the plant was completed.

      How should corporate management respond to emerging information which calls an operating plant’s design criteria into question?

      The most prominent recent example of a failure of management to respond to emerging information which greatly impacts their design criteria is Fukushima. In 2008, independent consultants warned TEPCO management that a high wave tsunami which would breach the Fukushima sea wall.was a high probability event. Not ‘could’ but ‘would.’

      Immediate steps could have been taken starting in 2009 to implement a temporary set of tsunami defenses while the permanent solution of moving the backup generators to high ground was being implemented.

      Neither TEPCO’s managers nor Japan’s nuclear regulatory authorities did anything at all to respond to the threat. A loaded cannon was pointed directly at their nuclear plants and they did nothing at all to deal with the situation.

      • dougbadgero | June 29, 2021 at 11:23 am |

        I believe the question of how they should respond answers itself. Note that doesn’t mean they should always take action to eliminate the threat….although in the case of nuclear most of the time they should IMO. They should evaluate that risk as a credible threat and decide if, and for how long, they can live with that threat/risk.

        I am aware of the Fukushima issue, but was that really new info? If it was new then it was only because they had not at all adequately evaluated the tsunami risk in their original design. Tsunamis larger than their design basis, much larger, had occurred at least twice in the previous century.

      • Beta Blocker | June 30, 2021 at 5:52 pm |

        dougbadgero: “I am aware of the Fukushima issue, but was that really new info? If it was new then it was only because they had not at all adequately evaluated the tsunami risk in their original design. Tsunamis larger than their design basis, much larger, had occurred at least twice in the previous century.”

        Let’s explore the issue of whether or not the original design basis was adequate to cover the true risks of a tsunami — not just any tsunami, but a 46 foot high wave tsunami capable of breaching the sea wall and completely inundating the facility, including the backup generator rooms and the reactor cooling pump rooms.

        In 2008, years after the Fukushima reactor complex had gone into operation, TEPCO management was warned that the sea wall was too low to handle a tsunami of a height that was known to be possible, thus rendering both the original safety analysis documents and the original design basis documents obsolete.

        Addressing Doug’s comment, here is the basic question: Was the 2008 information concerning the probability of a high wave tsunami actually new information? Or was it actually the case that in the late 1960’s, a high wave tsunami was known to be possible, but that the original safety analysis was pencil-whipped in order to reduce the analyzed probability of that kind of event occurring?

        In any case, the design basis was deficient from the very beginning, possibly to such an extent that if the original analysis had properly covered the risks of a high wave tsunami, then the Fukushima reactor complex wouldn’t have been built so close to the shoreline.

        The plant would either have been constructed further inland on higher ground with its cooling water being pumped uphill from the ocean shoreline; or else if the costs of piping the cooling water from the the shoreline had proven to be excessive, then the complex might not have been built at all.

        OK, 2008 comes around, you are a TEPCO senior manager or you are a senior manager in the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority, and you are informed that credible information has recently emerged that a high wave tsunami capable breaching the Fukushima seawall is a high probability event.

        The first thing which happens in your own mind after hearing this news is that you quickly recognize the truth of the situation. Addressing this issue properly and professionally is an expensive and time consuming proposition. The backup generators must be moved to high ground and the facility must be hardened in some number of ways against the possibility of massive sea water intrusion.

        In addition to performing the upgrade work itself, all of the necessary modifications proposed for the facility must be thoroughly analyzed ahead of time for their safety implications and for their effectiveness in addressing the threat of a high wave tsunami flooding the entire plant.

        For someone in a management position, it gets worse. The very fact that such an analysis is necessary is an admission that the original safety basis analysis was seriously deficient and that the plant has been operating for more than four decades under a very dangerous but unacknowledged safety threat.

        Making such an admission opens up an avenue of political and regulatory attack by the anti-nuclear activists. They will exploit the situation in an effort to shut the plant down permanently. Starting down the path of ‘doing the right thing’ by explicitly acknowledging the seriousness of the threat is a decision whose final outcome is far from certain.

        If you were a TEPCO senior manager or a senior manager in the Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority in 2008 and 2009, it was very tempting just to ignore the threat of a high wave tsunami and hope the loaded cannon pointed directly at the Fukushima complex didn’t go off on your watch. Which is just what these managers did.

        The people most responsible for the safety of the plant and of the community near the plant gambled big and they lost big.

  21. Ulric Lyons | June 28, 2021 at 11:20 am |

    “Natural climate variability remains the largest driver of variations in extreme weather events”

    Major heat and cold events are discretely solar driven and cause natural climate variability. Without which big heatwaves like in 2003, 2006, and 2018 wouldn’t even happen.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

  22. Roger Pielke Sr | June 28, 2021 at 12:50 pm |

    With respect to downscaling of multidecadal global climate predictions, we wrote this paper on the subject

    Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008.
    http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf

    See also

    Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairaku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2012: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective Geophysical Monograph Series 196 © 2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. 10.1029/2011GM001086.
    http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/r-3651.pdf

  23. Bill Fabrizio | June 28, 2021 at 2:16 pm |

    Dr Curry …

    > Tactical adaptation strategies can be developed from considering plausible worst case scenarios. Such strategies develop response protocols and then deploy them in a phased manner in response to probabilistic weather forecasts. Such strategies can result in better outcomes, with less damage and more rapid restoration of services,

    I hope they listened to your summary of strategic and tactical adaptation? Excellent policy advice.

  24. jeffnsails850 | June 28, 2021 at 3:22 pm |

    The push to run stories about climate catastrophe – especially out West – will be going into overdrive in no small part because California Dems are taking heat from their core voters for their climate action. You can’t maintain the coalition without the catastrophism
    The price of electricity is already going through the roof and power is unstable or unavailable at times. Therefore the state is prohibiting cheaper natural gas and plans to shut down cheaper nuclear power.
    Just as electricity prices are skyrocketing now, they are set to go even higher at the same time the state is forcing people to replace gas appliances with those that use electricity.
    Who cares, because only right-wingers complain, right?
    Yeah, not so fast. It turns out people of all stripes notice when you jack up prices and the ones who can least afford it don’t like it.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/12/15/californias-natural-gas-bans-are-drawing-fire-from-black-and-latino-leaders/?sh=43d34cdc57d3

    There’s a headline to make the warm squirm.

  25. Willard | June 28, 2021 at 5:30 pm |

    > When I recommended moving the power plant inland, the client said that this site was previously approved for an earlier power plant, and getting a new site approved would take a decade.

    Good grief.

    Good call, btw.

  26. Mike Smith | June 28, 2021 at 5:55 pm |

    Here is some perspective pertaining to attribution of the current heatwave to global warming. http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2021/06/the-extraordinary-heat-in-northwest-and.html

    As to David’s comment about “getting through” the heatwave, I’ve been to both PDX and SEA on a number of occasions. I can assure you, David, the hotels have air conditioning. Just check in for a few days and you will be fine.

    Good luck, everyone!

  27. Ron Clutz | June 28, 2021 at 7:04 pm |

    Man-made heat wave this year, Man-made cooling two years ago. Go Figure:
    https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/noaa-us-temp-2019-2021.gif

  28. Robert I. Ellison | June 28, 2021 at 9:54 pm |

    Road drainage is designed to a 10 or 20 year standard, housing to 100 years, hospitals and emergency services facilities to 500 and dams to nominally 10,000. It is based on ranking annual maximums. But generally reliable data records are at most 50 or 100 years long. Records are extended by fitting statistical distributions. Often there is no data at all and synthetic rainfall patters are used in rainfall and runoff models. With waves we have moored recording devices. Same principles – wave records are extended statistically and routed over local bathymetry. Rogue waves caused by random interference patterns are of course always possible.

    ‘In practice, the most intense part of a thunderstorm, or of a cold frontal band, is a small area, across which the rainfall values are almost the same. Values for one hour duration taken at points about 5 km apart would be almost totally independent of each other in some storms but partly related in others. For example, one could make a grid of about 100 such points in the greater Melbourne area. The 1-hour, 1% AEP (100 year ARI) value has 1% chance of occurring at each of these points in a particular year, which means that there is a good chance (63% assuming full independence of points) of a 1-hour, 1% AEP (100 year ARI) event occurring somewhere in the general Melbourne area in each calendar year.’ http://www.bom.gov.au/water/designRainfalls/rainfallEvents/why100years.shtml

    Climate is immensely variable in complex dynamical ways. Although comparatively rare at a point there is a good chance of extremes happening somewhere. It is the reason it is so difficult if not impossible to disentangle the influence of small anthropogenic changes to the Earth system from internal seemingly random variability. But then small changes can push the our nonlinear world past thresholds.

    • David L. Hagen | June 29, 2021 at 9:53 pm |

      Remember the Oroville Dam, and China’s Banquoi Dam failure. See:
      Will the Oroville Dam Survive the ArKStorm?
      a “larger ARkStorm (“Atmospheric River 1000 [year] Storm”), or one of seven larger 270 year megafloods, would likely cause California 350% or more of the damage of a 7.8 magnitude San Andreas fault ShakeOut earthquake scenario! These very real dangers of breaching the US’s highest dam, with consequent catastrophic flooding, confront us with challenging issues:
      1. Are dams designed for millennial confluences of cyclones, weather fronts, and thunderstorms?
      2. How many dams will be breached by the next “Pineapple Express” driven AD 1862 or 1605 level megaflood?
      3. How much does human global warming add to such natural variations with climate persistence?
      4. Will California rely on fragile central planning or develop robust distributed resilience?” . . .
      “This is soberingly similar to official assurances that “Iron” dam Soviet design of China’s Banqiao Dam was invincible (Si 1998). Officials had even authorized retaining another 32 million cubic meters of water above the dam’s safe design capacity. Yet some 171,000 to 230,000 people died from the 1975 catastrophic failure of China’s Banqiao Dam and Shimantan Dams, when deluged by Super Typhoon Nina being blocked by a cold front. See Britannica, Fish (2013), Si (1998), Ingomar200 (2013). That, with the domino failure of sixty downstream dams, displaced eleven million people.” https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/17/will-the-oroville-dam-survive-the-arkstorm/

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 29, 2021 at 10:22 pm |

        That post was and is complete nonsense. The Oroville Dam problem was not due to an underestimate of design runoff.

        https://www.weather.gov/media/owp/hdsc_documents/PMP/HMR59.pdf

      • David L. Hagen | June 29, 2021 at 11:09 pm |

        It could not handle below design runoff, let alone an ArKStorm one in 1000 year storm. Study Telis Koskinas: The Oroville Dam 2017 Spillway Incident – Possible Causes and Solutions December 9, 2017 https://judithcurry.com/2017/12/09/the-oroville-dam-2017-spillway-incident-possible-causes-and-solutions/ “the most intense flood events to ever occur in the Feather River basin were in 1986 and 1997. These were the result of rainstorms caused by a phenomenon called the “Pineapple Express”…” “While the emergency spillway was only active for a very brief duration, and peak discharge did not exceed 400 m3/s (15,000 cfs), large boils occurred downstream, destroying the access road below and threatening to damage the spillway crest itself by failure due to headcutting….” “local authorities, fearing the worst outcome, were forced to spring into action and order the evacuation of Oroville and other areas downstream of the dam, including Yuba City and Marysville. More than 180,000 people in total live in this area” “California Department of Water Resources responded to the evacuation order by immediately increasing outflow releases from the main spillway to 2,830 m3/s (100,000 cfs). This would drastically lower the surface elevation and stop flows over the emergency spillway and any resulting erosions there, at the cost of causing irreparable damages to the main spillway.”

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 30, 2021 at 12:22 am |

        Yet again – the problem was not with design flows.

      • David L. Hagen | June 29, 2021 at 11:19 pm |

        The area downstream of Oroville’s “emergency spillway” was failing at just 4.3% of design runoff! “under current design specifications (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1970); (California Department of Water Resources, 1974) it is expected to reach outflow discharges of around 10,000 m3/s (350,000 cfs). Seeing as erosion threatened to cause structural failure at less than 420 m3/s (15,000 cfs), the spillway’s ability to withstand PMF-level discharges is questionable.”
        Compare a full ARkStorm Scenario:
        “The key findings from the full ARkStorm Scenario report are summarized below:
        Megastorms are California’s other Big One. A severe California winter storm could realistically flood thousands of square miles of urban and agricultural land, result in thousands of landslides, disrupt lifelines throughout the state for days or weeks, and cost on the order of $725 billion. This figure is more than three times that estimated for the ShakeOut scenario earthquake, that has roughly the same annual occurrence probability as an ARkStorm-like event. The $725 billion figure comprises approximately $400 billion in property damage and $325 billion in business-interruption losses. An event like the ARkStorm could require the evacuation of 1,500,000 people….” https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/science-application-risk-reduction/science/arkstorm-scenario?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 30, 2021 at 1:43 am |

        Structural failure at less than design flow is caused by inadequate maintenance dollars. Try asking the right question. Better yet – leave it to professionals.

      • David L. Hagen | July 23, 2021 at 9:13 am |

        That is a possible but not necessarily only cause. Inadequate design flow, or inadequate structure or foundations can also be causes. See the inadequate design downstream/below the emergency spillway.

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 30, 2021 at 1:48 am |

        Nor are increased design flows the right answer to megafloods. These will happen regardless.

    • aaron | July 1, 2021 at 3:57 pm |

      The climate of North America was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean.

      #AntiFragileEnergy
      #GreenNUCLEARdeal
      #HighlyFelxibleNaturalGas
      #IncineratePlasticPollution
      #WasteToEnergy

  29. Geoff Sherrington | June 29, 2021 at 12:45 am |

    In the 1970s, soon after my colleagues discovered the world class Ranger Uranium deposits in the Top End of Australia, it was realised that the deposit was so much richer and larger than others that it could make a big profit at average global uranium prices.
    The engineers designed the processing plant at “Rolls Royce” quality. In hindsight, it operated without fuss 1980-2021, producing Uranium sales up to 2015 of some $25 billion and avoiding closure for breaches alleged by the ever-present army of greens whose main skill is invention of worry (like David Appell does here). Before we built the plant, there was no crane able to lift more than 5 tons within 1,000 miles.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/rangeraerial.jpg

    If you are going to build and operate a new electrical generation plant, you do not have the automatic option of choosing Rolls Royce standard unless your project has a particular advantage that makes it profit-rich. The trick is to examine what might make it more profitable than competitor plants. This can be a positive advantage, be it natural or man-made; or, in the other sense, the avoidance of negative natural or anthropogenic profit-losing episodes. If you have no particular advantage, it is hard to justify the RR standard and you are better off buying off the shelf plant in the Ford pickup analogue
    Two observations. There is a danger when you imagine that you have an advantage, especially when that advantage is your good self fooling yourself that you are better than others. I made this costly error a couple of times and lost wads. Also, for fossil electric generation at present, the most rewarding path to optimising anthropogenic factors seems to be paying money ahead of building, to minimise the wall of interference from regulators and law makers. Judith, this might be more profitable then spending on your excellent services, but of course it is very dependent on the where the site is. Geoff S

    • dougbadgero | June 29, 2021 at 10:18 am |

      I agree with you to a point. With electric generation it depends on what value, both economic and social, is placed on reliable electric service. For a manufacturing or mining facility the risk is loss of production considering the ability to store inventory. For an electric generation plant significant product inventory cannot be stored.

      Electric plant design should also consider that natural disasters (flooding, seismic events, etc.) will result in common mode failures of similarly designed plants. Plant failures will not be independent events. The failure to account for the risk of common mode failures is one of the most common mistakes made in risk analysis in my experience.

  30. pochas94 | June 29, 2021 at 5:23 am |

    With the reliability of computer models suspect, the KISS principle should prevail. What storm surge was produced by all US landfalling hurricanes on record? Why should this particular site be any different? What safety factor is appropriate? Producing the comprehensive historical record required will keep climate historians busy for years.

    • Philip Mulholland | June 29, 2021 at 7:53 am |

      “Producing the comprehensive historical record required will keep climate historians busy for years.”
      And geoscientists too.

  31. climatereason | June 29, 2021 at 6:12 am |

    Judith

    The trouble with ‘worst cases of extreme weather in the historical record’ is that by definition we only know of a fraction of them. Why?

    First the weather event would have had to be witnessed. With a tiny population hundreds or thousands of years ago, most weren’t.

    Then it would have to be recorded.few wrote so most events were ignored

    Then the record would have had to have lasted. Wars, fires, flooding, deterioration of the parchment, all mean most didn’t last. In the case of England we know many manorial records were destroyed during the dissolution of the ‘monasteries from 1536 . A century earlier the records of the roman and Byzantium empire were destroyed during the fall of Byzantium

    Then to the modern day, someone would have to actually find the record and use it. Unless it has been digitised most records would be invisible.

    I asked a mathematician once to work out what percentage of past extreme events likely survive bearing in mind the above. They thought between 5 and 15%

    So things at times in the past were likely much worse than today and at times somewhat better. That we are in unique times as regards extremes and deterioration of the weather is nonsensical

    Tonyb

    • pochas94 | June 29, 2021 at 9:09 am |

      You’re right about hurricanes that took place during the Roman Empire. But for a facility that will be retired after 30 years a shorter period, say 200 years, might be selected. I think that the strongest storms that happened during that interval would be recorded and remembered.

    • mesocyclone | June 29, 2021 at 12:05 pm |

      “The trouble with ‘worst cases of extreme weather in the historical record’ is that by definition we only know of a fraction of them. Why?

      First the weather event would have had to be witnessed. ”

      Paleoclimatologists would differ with you. It depends on the event.

    • melitamegalithic | June 30, 2021 at 10:35 am |

      To repeat a statement “The trouble with ‘worst cases of extreme weather in the historical record’ is that by definition we only know of a fraction of them.”

      Collate the data over the millennia and there is a repeating history. We are at a ‘warming’ period.
      That said, remember that no one before 1890 had any electricity. If anyone is to talk on reliability there, study the past century. Then remember that in the design one has to add a decent safety margin. The best option is to have experienced designers from the start at the assessment stage.
      The biggest consideration of all in risk is the human element. Competent designers are extremely rare.
      Modes of failure in power plant are numerous, with design shortcomings and QA failure as two common ones.

  32. Alan Lowey | June 29, 2021 at 9:32 am |

    / Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
    Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
    Like a snowball down a mountain, or a carnival balloon
    Like a carousel that’s turning running rings around the moon /

    https://youtu.be/WEhS9Y9HYjU

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski | June 29, 2021 at 11:42 am |

    It is interesting that no one links the climate anomalies to the unusually weak solar cycle. This can be seen in the unusually low UV radiation compared to the previous solar cycle, as well as the weak solar wind ( neutron measurements indicate low solar wind magnetic activity). Meanwhile, eastern Pacific temperatures indicate a very likely La Niña as early as October.
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
    https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/archive/20210619//plumes/sstOutlooks.nino34.hr.png

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski | June 29, 2021 at 11:57 am |

    CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. What percentage of that is produced by livestock herds? Apparently they produce more CO2 than the entire industry.

    • David Wojick | June 29, 2021 at 3:45 pm |

      That may be the so-called CO2 equivalence of the methane from domestic ruminants, which are estimated to number around 3 billion. It is a bogus number.

      • David Wojick | June 29, 2021 at 5:36 pm |

        What is bogus is the methane equivalence number, which is that methane is 36 times as powerful as CO2. That is for dry air which does not exist on Earth where methane competes with water vapor (and nitrous oxide). It is also highly saturated. In reality methane is harmless as a GHG.

      • David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 6:01 pm |

        David Wojick: In reality methane is harmless as a GHG.

        What data says that?

      • Geoff Sherrington | July 3, 2021 at 7:15 am |

        David Appell re who said that harmless think about methane?
        Well, van Wijngaarden & Happer, in their abstract, a short one-liner quote “Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent.”.
        https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/publications/

        Methane is CH4.
        Geoff S

  35. alanf99 | June 29, 2021 at 2:28 pm |

    As soon as one talks about extremes in weather it’s appropriate to use an inverse power law to estimate frequency/probability of occurrence.
    Here’s an example of its use to estimate probabilities of extreme space weather based on observations of less extreme space weather.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011SW000734

  36. David Wojick | June 29, 2021 at 3:41 pm |

    This is somewhat off topic but it turns out the extreme event that many people fear is human extinction due to CO2 driven climate change. I find this amazing, irrational and a bit scary.
    See my Unfounded fear of human extinction drives climate hysteria at
    https://www.cfact.org/2021/06/29/unfounded-fear-of-extinction-drives-climate-hysteria/.

  37. Geoff Sherrington | June 29, 2021 at 8:52 pm |

    Heat Waves.
    One cannot plan to cope with heat waves when so much is wrong or missing from their “current accepted wisdom”.
    Here is a common misconception. If local temperatures have increased (say) 1 degree C in the last century, then heat waves at that place will also become 1 degree hotter all round.
    Not so.
    Analysis of historical data from Australia confirms that peak heat wave temperatures are not rising everywhere at the same rate of global warming. Most are little changed over the last 100-150 years. Here is a detailed analysis from Australia’s 6 State capitals, for heat waves of duration 1, 3, 5 and 10 days.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/heatwave_capitals.xlsx

    The hottest of these heat waves do not show the global warmimg rise commonly assumed for no better reason that it is an easy assumption. (Maximum SST temperatures over the oceans are capped at about 30 degrees C. Heat wave temperatures over land might also be capped.)
    Analysis of land temperatures during heat waves suffers from five important, unresolved variables:
    1. Urban Heat Island
    2. Man-made homogenization/adjustment
    3. Rainfall – cools the site
    4. Clouds – heat the global climate models.
    5. Heat waves often develop hundreds to thousands of kilometres from the site being studied, so local temperature history can be non-relevant.
    Until these rather large problems are solved, it is scientifically futile to imagine that any sense can be made about mechanisms. (This shows in the repeated failure to estimate ECS.)
    Time for some bloggers here to do a similar exercise with heat wave data in the USA, UK, Germany, etc? Data trump guesswork. Geoff S

  38. Pingback: Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability – Watts Up With That?

  40. Pingback: Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability |

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski | June 29, 2021 at 10:16 pm |

    Now a stationary high will move over central Canada as seen in the stratosphere. Solar wind very weak. Circulation is slowing down.
    https://i.ibb.co/tQZspXt/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png
    https://i.ibb.co/q1jvxsT/plot-image-2.png

  42. David Appell | June 29, 2021 at 11:00 pm |

    “British Columbia reports ‘significant’ increase in deaths thought to be linked to heat wave

    The province’s chief coroner said that the service normally receives about 130 reports of deaths over a four-day period. But from Friday, the heat wave’s onset, to Monday afternoon, it has received 233.”

    By Amanda Coletta

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/06/29/canada-heat-dome-deaths/

    • CKID | June 30, 2021 at 4:19 am |

      Up to 1500 deaths in 1896 NYC heat wave.

      https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129127924

    • Ckid | June 30, 2021 at 4:30 am |

      “ In the most extensive study of American heat waves, it was estimated that the 1901 Eastern heat wave claimed the lives of 9,500 people, which makes it easily the most destructive disaster of its type in US history.[9]”

      Wikipedia

      • CKid | June 30, 2021 at 4:42 am |

        “ The 1911 Eastern North America heat wave was an 11-day severe heat wave that killed at least 380 people though estimates have put the death toll as high as 2,000 people.[1] The heat wave began on July 4, 1911 and didn’t end until July 15.[2] In Nashua, New Hampshire, the temperature peaked at 106 °F (41 °C).[3] In New York City alone, 158 people and 600 horses died.[4][5”

        Wikipedia

    • CKid | June 30, 2021 at 4:35 am |

      July, 1936 in US estimated 5,000 people died from heat wave

      https://www.weather.gov/ilx/july1936heat

    • CKid | June 30, 2021 at 4:49 am |

      “ The highest recorded temperature in Illinois, 117°F (47.2°C) occurred on 14 July 1954 in East St. Louis. This occurred in the midst of a widespread, long-lasting heat wave covering significant parts of 11 states: from eastern Colorado through Kansas, Oklahoma, part of Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas, southern Illinois, and extending to western Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and parts of the Carolinas. According to historical climate data, this event ranked as one of the top five extended periods of heat in these states since 1895.”

      Westcott 2011

    • robertok06 | July 1, 2021 at 10:57 am |

      D Appell
      ““British Columbia reports ‘significant’ increase in deaths thought to be linked to heat wave”

      One event, still cold waves kill 17 times more than hot waves, and this is true even in India.
      So, David, capitalize on this tragic meteorological event to push your ideological agenda, but DATA are clear: 17 times higher mortality from cold spells compared to hot ones. Gasparrini et al, The Lancet.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 11:41 am |

        One event, still cold waves kill 17 times more than hot waves, and this is true even in India.

        It’s not “one event” — there have been far worst deadly heat waves in recent years, Moscow, France — but is your solution to cold deaths to warm up the entire planet? Do you heat your living quarters by putting space heaters throughout your neighborhood, or town, or county, or state, or country?

        This is an absurd and heartless way to dismiss deaths in a heat wave. How about we do what’s necessary to prevent people from dying in the cold, like any decent society/world would do?

      • joe - the non climate scientist | July 2, 2021 at 12:11 pm |

        David appell comment – “This is an absurd and heartless way to dismiss deaths in a heat wave. How about we do what’s necessary to prevent people from dying in the cold, like any decent society/world would do?”

        David-
        A) As Robertok stated – cold kills 17x more the heat world wide taking into account all heat events and all cold events –
        B) To reduce people from dying in the cold, A decent society would not do stupid things such as converting to less efficient heating sources during the winter such as renewables – which become very ineffective and inefficient during the winter months. converting to renewables will kill 100x + during the winter months instead of the mere 17x.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 12:27 pm |

        joe, a decent society sees that its citizens do not die of cold while also not altering the planet’s climate and ocean for the next 100,000 years. It provides them adequate shelter, heating and clothing to ensure they are warm and comfortable. Some here would rather use cold deaths to score debating points than care that anyone dies in extreme weather, which is monstrous. Any excuse to avoid paying for their pollution.

      • robertok06 | July 6, 2021 at 2:39 am |

        @David Appell
        “Some here would rather use cold deaths to score debating points ”

        LOL! That’s EXACTLY what you are doing with the “hot deaths”, pal!
        Give us all a break!

  43. Pingback: Local weather Exchange, Excessive Climate, and Electrical Gadget Reliability – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski | June 30, 2021 at 2:13 am |

    The eastern Pacific is cool, which will promote high pressure over the area. This in turn will contribute to tropical rainfall in the southern US.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_epac_1.png
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/epac/mimictpw_epac_latest.gif

  45. Peter Lang | June 30, 2021 at 3:04 am |

    21% of the comments posted on this thread are by David Appell. This is thread bombing in spades!

    • pochas94 | June 30, 2021 at 5:54 am |

      Yep. Global Warming as told by GISS.

    • David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 11:56 am |

      I’m just replying to the people who ask me questions. Because everyone else here has the same point of view and never dares venture to other forums that might disturb that POV. Clearly you can’t stand outsiders.

      • joe - the non climate scientist | June 30, 2021 at 12:24 pm |

        David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 11:56 am | Reply
        “I’m just replying to the people who ask me questions.”

        David Appell | June 28, 2021 at 1:22 am |
        “pope: If the coal power plants had not been shut down, more people could have kept their air conditioning on during these extreme hot times when the wind tends to not blow.

        Where have people not been able to keep their air conditioners on?

        Please name those towns and cities.”

        David – Have you ever heard of a state named California?

      • Thomas Fuller | June 30, 2021 at 12:54 pm |

        Mr. Appell, I imagine you’re aware of the reception given to those of us who don’t slavishly adhere to the consensus on ‘other forums’ (fora?). Nonetheless, I and other commenters on this thread have braved the icy territories. I have more than a thousand comments on Bart Verheggen’s blog, Michael Tobis’ two efforts, Real Climate, Tim Lambert and more.

        Of course it’s an open question as to how many of those comments survived the dreaded Deletion Frenzy that grips the censorious editors of those various venues.

      • Geoff Sherrington | July 1, 2021 at 4:10 am |

        David Appell,
        Here is another question or two.
        1. Do you have evidence that heat waves generally are becoming more frequent, and/or hotter, and/or longer?
        2.Do you have evidence that heat waves are justified in being named as part of stories about climate/weather extremes increasing in danger?
        References? Geoff S

      • Richard Greene | July 1, 2021 at 7:56 am |

        People who come here are generally climate realists interested in data and climate that has actually happened. Climate reality.

        You, Mr. Appleman, are a leftist extremist interested in predictions of future climate doom and climate computer games. Climate fantasyland.

        You support predictions of future, imaginary, rapid and dangerous global warming that has not happened, in spite of 64 years of such predictions.You claim climate science is settled, when the climate predictions are always wrong. Not that science is ever settled.

        In your mind, truth is created by getting a paper pal reviewed and published in a prestigious science journal. Assuming y ou support the conclusions. That is the appeal to authority logical fallacy. And the so called authorities YOU trust are government bureaucrat “experts”, hired because they believe in a coming climate crisis, and retaining their jobs only if they continue that belief.

        The belief in a coming climate crisis gives leftist politicians a reason to seize more power over the private sector — something that leftists have wanted to do for over 100 years. The fake coming climate crisis is a strategy to get that political power. A crisis does not have to be real if enough people believe in it. Because a leftist will never lets a crisis, real or fake, “go to waste”.

        Mr. Appleman completely ignores ACTUAL mild, harmless global warming in the past 45 years, which was 100% good news. No one was hurt. there are warmer winter nights in Siberia. That’s a climate emergency?

        In the rare case that Mr. Appleman returns to reality in this thread, he has repeatedly pointed out that bad weather in the northwest states is proof of climate change. Of course weather is not climate. Unless it is unusually hot? And the CO2 that caused hot weather in Portland must simultaneously be causing cool weather here in Michigan. Apparently CO2 doesn’t like Michigan?

        Mr. Appleman completely ignores unusually cold weather in other parts of the world. For one example: The weather in Michigan has been pleasant this year — colder than usual through mid-May — so I guess we should blame climate change for our pleasant weather?

  46. Pingback: Climate Change, Extreme Weather, and Electric System Reliability – Climate- Science.press

  47. Mike Jonas | June 30, 2021 at 8:37 am |

    “The collection of climate model simulations to 2100 used by the IPCC are not predictions; they should be interpreted as a sensitivity analysis of climate change to different scenarios of emissions. These simulations are possible outcomes that are contingent on the assumptions made about: emissions, …”.

    With respect, Judith, I think that is incorrect. Because so many factors are omitted from the models – your article mentioned only a few – the models are effectively random-number generators operating within pre-set limits. These limits are set close to the pre-determined outcome based on the TCS and ECS of each model. The models outputs might look like sensitivity analyses, but this is an illusion. The fact that it is an illusion was demonstrated several years ago, when they ran a set of models, and then changed only the initial conditions by less than a trillionth of a degree and ran them again. Many of the regional temperatures in the re-runs changed by more than one degree, ie. more than a trillion times the change in initial conditions. From memory, the highest regional temperature difference between runs was over 5 degrees. That’s not sensitivity analysis, that’s random-number generation.

    PS. If anyone has a link to that study, I would appreciate it being posted here.

  48. FollowTheAnts | June 30, 2021 at 8:40 am |

    Another interesting discussion – with lots of sound and fury…etc

    I’m basically a nomadic “pracademic”.

    Managed global research programs at MIT and several European universities. Executed several global corporate turnarounds – which involved global transportation, energy, water, food and other global ecosystems.

    Learned most from what Toyota calls Gemba Walks – traveling networks on the ground worldwide. Have traveled millions of miles on all continents mapping out human industrial, commercial, government, educational systems etc.

    Trained by Toyota and Honda in how to create and sustain the largest industrial/user networks in the world. Zero defect. JIT. Zero waste. Etc

    Most recently traveled the global networks from raw material to recycling for electric vehicles (the system required for EVs at scale is far from benign)

    Helped create the CAFE laws of the US -so know how the regulatory sausage is made behind the scenes.

    So what?

    I read things like the above, and the papers submitted in support of “climate” policy – and keep seeing that the Anglo world always wants to behave more like top-down industrial networks (like the bankrupt auto companies) and much less like the ju-jitsu bottom-up network influencers like Toyota etc.

    And the more I listen to the thousand clanging cymbals of environmental/climate policy discussions…

    ….the more I think about the “ju-jitsu” solutions that are staring us in the face.

    Which auto companies manage the lowest mass industrial networks in the world? JIT systems of Toyota and Honda. They are also the most recyclable collections of “industrial mass” in the world.

    Where did humans live before they invented energy systems? In caves.

    What is the most prolific, and sustainable building material in the world? Some form of adobe. Sustainable over centuries without AC and big heaters.

    This fact keeps popping up.

    Approximately 7 meters underground, the global temperature of land mass tends to stabilize across all seasons. It is always a constant temperature in which many if not most species on Earth can sustain themselves.

    Mining companies know this because they have to balance deep earth temperatures all the time.

    One mining company exec once gave a presentation that said if most of the houses in the world dug a hole 10 meters deep in the ground- put tubing with a heat transfer medium in it to circulate between the house and ground – then heating and cooling requirements for the house would smooth out over the seasons in ways that would reduce energy requirements significantly.

    Visit the open-mouth caves of ancients in Utah. In all seasons. See why they could thrive with tiny campfires in deserts where wood is scarce. Visit the adobe cities in summer and winter. Feel “geothermal” stabilization.

    Visit the modern earth-filled “Earthships” north of Taos. Rent one for a couple of days in each season.

    Learn by doing not just talking.

    What if we stopped all the hot-air transfer (no disrespect intended) among human climate combatants – who pollute the air by flying to conferences….

    …and adapted the geothermal practices of our ancestors – and millions of animal species…

    …to our modern consumptive world

    Also – what can we learn from the recent global Covid shut down – and our massive shift from physical travel – to electronic communication?

    • Philip Mulholland | June 30, 2021 at 8:49 am |

      I guess that you are also thinking of termites?
      In any event thank you for your contribution.
      Taos Pueblo is now on my bucket list.

      • jeffnsails850 | June 30, 2021 at 9:47 am |

        It’s closed for Covid.
        From the Taos Pueblo web page: “Most members live in conventional homes outside the village walls, but occupy their Pueblo houses for ceremonials.”

        The adobe pueblo is such a superior home that those most familiar with them won’t live in them.

        I think we can improve construction methods, but let’s not fetishize the ancient just because it’s ancient.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 12:38 pm |

        “The adobe pueblo is such a superior home that those most familiar with them won’t live in them.

        I think we can improve construction methods, but let’s not fetishize the ancient just because it’s ancient.”

        Agreed. I lived in New Mexico for a long time, visited a number of pueblos and prehistoric sites, and knew some inhabitants of one pueblo. Adobe houses are good, but from a heating/cooling standpoint, the pueblos were good because they hadn’t invented glass!

        Adobe does help, because it tends to average out the temperature due to the wall thickness and heat capacity. But it doesn’t insulate well – it is basically like concrete. So while it would keep the interior from achieving the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, it doesn’t help with the average.

        The prehistoric Native Americans lived off the land, but they were vulnerable to climate change. In the southwest, I think the greatest dangers for the pueblo and other agrarian cultures were drought and warfare.

        The latter is the only reasonable explanation for the cliff dwellings, which were very defensible. Two of them are still inhabited – Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico, and Oraibi on the Hopi land of Arizona, are on top of mesas surrounded by cliffs and easily defended. Both date back to roughly the same time, about 900 years ago. Oraibi, btw, is the oldest continuously inhabited town in the US.

        I love the looks of adobe, as do many – pueblo building is the basis of Santa Fe style of architecture.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 12:40 pm |

        “The adobe pueblo is such a superior home that those most familiar with them won’t live in them.

        I think we can improve construction methods, but let’s not fetishize the ancient just because it’s ancient.”

      • Alan Lowey | June 30, 2021 at 3:05 pm |

        “The latter is the only reasonable explanation for the cliff dwellings, which were very defensible. Two of them are still inhabited – Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico, and Oraibi on the Hopi land of Arizona, are on top of mesas surrounded by cliffs and easily defended. Both date back to roughly the same time, about 900 years ago.” – meso

        There’s also the possibility of protection from harmful solar rays if there was a loss of the geomagnetic field. I couldn’t help but notice the millennial cycle timing, which if induced by a gravitational affect on the Earth’s dark matter core, would also disrupt the smooth generation of the magnetic field.

      • jeffnsails850 | July 1, 2021 at 4:44 pm |

        Meso,
        I once lived in a very old stone house- as in actual big stones made up the walls instead of a facade. I made the mistake once of letting it get cold in the winter while I was out of town for two weeks. it seemed to take forever to get that place back to some sort of livable temperature no matter how high I set the thermostat (oil heat) and how many roaring fires I had in the big fireplace. Until those stones were warm, that house just was not going to be. Once they were warm, however, you could keep the place warm cheaply.
        Summer was a different thing. Summer was the reason the place had a porch.

      • mesocyclone | July 1, 2021 at 7:38 pm |

        “I made the mistake once of letting it get cold in the winter while I was out of town for two weeks. it seemed to take forever to get that place back to some sort of livable temperature”

        Yes, many stones have a high heat capacity. I don’t know the actual heat capacity of adobe, but you can tell from feeling an adobe wall that it is significant.

      • Philip Mulholland | July 3, 2021 at 6:29 am |

        “but let’s not fetishize the ancient just because it’s ancient.”

        Do you think that we should include windmills in that list of ancient technologies?

      • Alan Lowey | July 3, 2021 at 1:42 pm |

        “There’s also the possibility of protection from harmful solar rays if there was a loss of the geomagnetic field. I couldn’t help but notice the millennial cycle timing, which if induced by a gravitational affect on the Earth’s dark matter core, would also disrupt the smooth generation of the magnetic field.”

        The southern US fits the general location of the dent in the Earth’s geomagnetic field which is currently expanding. The South Atlantic Anomaly is also the general location of the lopsided growth of the Earth’s core. It all fits for a 1:1 dark orb which has an orbital inclination on the millennial scale. The Webb space telescope will be positioned between the Earth and Sun at around three Moon distances. Wow, the cause of current climate change could be found circling in front of our noses. All will be revealed, possibly in less than a years time. Wow, what a time for humanity for both the achievements and follies that we make.

  49. nickreality65 | June 30, 2021 at 9:07 am |

    Because of the 30% albedo the earth is cooler with an atmosphere not warmer.
    If this is correct the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory is null and void.

    The Green House Gases require a source of “extra” energy to “trap”/absorb/delay/intercept/whatevah and the Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit “extra” energy.
    If this is correct the RGHE theory is null and void.

    RGHE theory says the source of that “extra” energy is from the surface upwelling Long Wave InfraRed heat as a near ideal Stefan-Boltzmann Black Body. Because of the cooling effect of the non-radiative, kinetic energy heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science, this is not possible.
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
    If this is correct the RGHE theory is null and void.

    No RGHE, no GHG warming and no mankind/CO2 caused climate change or global warming.

  50. Alan Lowey | June 30, 2021 at 10:07 am |

    / When the armies of emotion
    Go out to fight
    But while the earth sinks to its grave
    You sail to the sky
    On the crest of a wave /

    https://youtu.be/sRmHdEq_2i0

  51. David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 6:27 pm |

    “63 people died in Oregon heat wave, state medical examiner says”
    https://www.oregonlive.com/weather/2021/06/63-people-died-in-oregon-heat-wave-state-medical-examiner-says.html

    • jim2 | June 30, 2021 at 6:49 pm |

      In Chicago, 1,587 people have been shot this year. That is 195 more than 2020.

      https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html

      • David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 6:51 pm |

        jim2: In Chicago, 1,587 people have been shot this year. That is 195 more than 2020.

        Heartless.

      • curryja | June 30, 2021 at 9:06 pm |

        An estimated 700 people died in the Feb TX cold event.

      • Philip Mulholland | July 1, 2021 at 5:18 am |

        “An estimated 700 people died in the Feb TX cold event.”
        And the key question still not being addressed is this:
        Does the death rate drop BELOW typical values AFTER the weather event is over?

      • jim2 | June 30, 2021 at 7:33 pm |

        If you want to save lives, your time would be better spent in Chicago.

      • David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 9:36 pm |

        Judith, you should be ashamed of that reply. I think I’ll put it on Twitter.

      • CKid | July 1, 2021 at 7:14 am |

        What is heartless is for the Democrats and the complicit MSM to ignore the carnage in the US urban areas that goes on every week. Why is it ignored? Because the Democrats almost exclusively control the cities of the continuing unspeakable tragedy. Where are the government based solutions so highly touted by the left?

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 7:39 pm |

        How many of the 700 people who died in Texas did so as a result of gross mismanagement of their grid, gross incompetence in planning their grid, despite two decades of warnings about its vulnerabilities and about the rigid ideological choices that made it vulnerable, all while a few power companies made billions of dollars in profits during the power outage (and somehow Minnesotans were overcharged hundreds of millions)?

    • joe - the non climate scientiest | June 30, 2021 at 9:05 pm |

      the average weekly death count in the state of oregon is 700-750. the 2 day average is approximately 200.
      sounds like 63 deaths would be less than 1/2 the average

      • David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 9:38 pm |

        What is wrong with you people?? Seriously. Has your denial so ruined you that you don’t even care when people die?

        Horrible.

      • Turbulent Eddie | July 1, 2021 at 8:24 am |

        you don’t even care when people die?

        More people die from cold than from heat.

        Your personal habits are much more significant to your life outcome than is climate. Most chronic disease in the US is self induced.
        Do you even care if you die?

        This event failed to even break state records for WA, OR.

        So something that happened a century ago happened again?

        Part of experience is understanding that things that happened in the past are likely to recur.

      • James Cross | July 1, 2021 at 8:30 am |

        Don’t we have to add in all the farmers who will shoot themselves after they go bankrupt?

      • Turbulent Eddie | July 1, 2021 at 8:36 am |

        Oregon
        All-Time Maximum Temperature
        119 °F

        Pendleton, 1898, August 10
        Prineville, 1898, July 29

      • James Cross | July 1, 2021 at 11:07 am |

        TE,

        You realize those records are in a semi-desert area of Oregon, not the Willamette Valley or west of Cascades. Portland and Eugene, where they recently had to delay part of the US Olympic Trials because of heat, are on the western side. Those towns are east of the Cascades.

      • jim2 | July 1, 2021 at 11:42 am |

        Appell uses deaths from the Oregon heat wave to push his political agenda, then gets all indignant about others pointing out there is a lot more misery and deaths from other causes in the world. Pot-kettle-black. Still, his time would be better spent addressing real maladies inflicted on peoples around the world.

      • Turbulent Eddie | July 1, 2021 at 11:48 am |

        JC – sure there were different shapes and locations to the dynamics of the events, but what happened this year is probably very similar, and didn’t exceed what happened over a century ago.

        It is confirmation bias to associate this event with global warming and an even warmer event happened in 1898 when global temperatures were lower.

      • Turbulent Eddie | July 1, 2021 at 11:56 am |

        No doubt this was an extreme event, but that fact that it ended so quickly is evidence of the significance of dynamics, not global warming.

        Emotion leads people to fulfill a narrative.

      • James Cross | July 1, 2021 at 12:06 pm |

        TE,

        You’re comparing apples and oranges. West and east of the Cascades are effectively different zones.

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 1:55 pm |

        Turbulent Eddie Oregon All-Time Maximum Temperature 119 °F
        Pendleton, 1898, August 10
        Prineville, 1898, July 29

        If you understood the Pacific Northwest you’d know those towns are in a completely different climate zones than Portland/Salem/Eugene etc are where the records were blown away last weekend and Monday. And people there are prepared for high temperatures and live with them; people in western Oregon (and west of the Cascade Mountains in Washington, and anyone in Canada) aren’t. Hence the deaths, which mostly came from people 45 and above who didn’t have fans or air conditioners.

      • Turbulent Eddie | July 1, 2021 at 2:06 pm |

        Prinveille is also thousands of feet higher in elevation than Portland.
        (2,868 ft )

        This means the equivalent potential temperature at Prineville in 1898 was much higher than the equivalent potential temperature and the actual temperature at Portland in 2021.

        I understand the emotional allure. But the all time record for the state of Oregon was set over a hundred years ago, a testament to dynamic events.

      • aaron | July 1, 2021 at 4:13 pm |

        The climate of North America was much more extreme the centuries. The past 150 years been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean.

        #AntiFragileEnergy
        #GreenNUCLEARdeal
        #HighlyFelxibleNaturalGas
        #IncineratePlasticPollution
        #WasteToEnergy

      • aaron | July 1, 2021 at 4:18 pm |

        DA,

        There was massively more northern hemisphere ice prior to 1950, which reached much further south and varied more season to season. Temperature changes before then required much more energy than now.

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 5:59 pm |

        What were the temperature anomalies in Pendleton and Prineville in 1898 vs the anomaly in Portland the other day — high temperature record compared to normal for the day in the area?

    • dpy6629 | June 30, 2021 at 9:47 pm |

      These numbers are meaningless in isolation. 2.85 million people are expected to die every year in the US. The vast vast majority of these are not due to weather events. Citing them in isolation is an example of political fear mongering. You should do better than this.

      • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 10:00 pm |

        [Post of inflammatory post to Twitter about our host]

        Her comment is probably out of frustration with your very annoying, inflammatory posts with no interest in actual dialog. Hint: we are not your grad students.

      • jim2 | July 1, 2021 at 8:02 am |

        Notice how Appell does the typical lefty tactic of showing the conversation out of context. It’s a form of lying.

  52. fgsjr2015 | June 30, 2021 at 9:11 pm |

    Whether it is unprecedented heat waves/’domes’ and Westcoast wildfires, an exodus of sea life due to warming waters, Europe’s hottest year on record, off-the-chart poor-air advisories, unprecedented stalling hurricanes, the mass deforestation and incineration of the Amazonian rainforest, record-breaking floods, single-use plastics clogging life-bearing waters, a B.C. (2019) midsummer’s snowfall, the gradually dying endangered whale species or geologically invasive/destructive fracking or a myriad of other categories of large-scale toxic pollutant emissions and dumps — there has been discouragingly insufficient political courage and will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change.

    ‘Liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are overly preoccupied with criticizing one another for their politics and beliefs thus diverting attention away from the greatest polluters’ moral and ethical corruption, where it should and needs to be sharply focused.

    Still, there’s hope for spaceship Earth and therefor humankind due to environmentally conscious and active children, especially those who are approaching/reaching voting age. In contrast, the dinosaur electorate who have been voting into high office consecutive mass-pollution promoting or complicit/complacent governments for decades are gradually dying off thus making way for far more healthy-planet-thus-people minded voters.

    • mesocyclone | June 30, 2021 at 9:39 pm |

      [long list of environmental events, hyped in the media, of course]

      And what would you have politicians do? Most of the world is either too poor, or too selfish (China, for example) to do a thing. Most plastic in the ocean, and the greatest amount of CO2, comes from China.

      • fgsjr2015 | July 1, 2021 at 4:31 pm |

        Actually, I read that the greatest polluter is the U.S. armed forces (planes, tanks, ships, etcetera). …

        Governments can tell when a very large portion of the electorate is too tired and worried about feeding/housing themselves or their family, and the devastation left in COVID-19’s wake — all while on insufficient income — to criticize them for whatever environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable.

        Without doubt, mass addiction to fossil fuel products helps keep the average addict’s mouth shut about the planet’s greatest and still very profitable polluter, lest they feel like and/or be publicly deemed hypocrites.

    • dpy6629 | June 30, 2021 at 9:50 pm |

      This is classic unquantified fear mongering. There are dangers faced by modern man. Those faced before we discovered fossil fuels were vastly larger. Most people’s lives are improving. In ancient times, life was a constant struggle to stay alive from day to day.

  53. Robert I. Ellison | June 30, 2021 at 9:20 pm |

    Anthropogenic climate change is real – despite the out there nonsense of the usual suspects here. And in our nonlinear world human emissions are helping to push the system towards the next inevitable tipping point and new and incomputable extremes. The solutions are evolving globally with many millions of people contributing energy and ideas. These are signposted by such as Jack’s drawdown site linked above and Bjorn Lomberg’s Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals. But as nice as philanthropy makes one feel – substantial progress can only be made with global economic growth based on individual freedom and sound macroeconomic management.

    ‘U.S. manufacturing is firing on all cylinders, and of late, the services sector is also thriving. Consumer spending, the largest driver of the GDP remains strong buoyed by around $2.3 trillion of forced savings. The labor market is settling down gradually. Finally, consumers’ satisfaction optimization indexes remain elevated.

    The Federal Reserve raised the U.S. GDP growth rate for 2021 to 7% in June from 6.5% in March. Several globally recognized economic and financial agencies like the World Bank, the IMF, OECD and Oxford Economics also projected U.S. economic growth within the range of 6.5% to 7% for 2021 — the highest in 38 years.’ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zacks-analyst-blog-highlights-exxon-122512461.html

    There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?

    Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in the carbon intensity of manufacturing and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. The neo-socialism of such as both Alan Lowry and David Appell be damned.

    • David Appell | June 30, 2021 at 9:40 pm |

      What is the evidence the free market can solve AGW?

      EVIDENCE.

      • Robert I. Ellison | June 30, 2021 at 10:37 pm |

        Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology.

        Reducing nitrous oxide with precision agriculture? It’s a Zacks #1 ranked company in the article I quoted. Just one example in decades of environmental progress on everything from population to technology in western economies..

        https://www.deere.com.au/en/technology-products/precision-ag-technology/

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKIwUGHHASY&t=3s

        Do you have any evidence that your neo-socialism is even possible let alone able to ethically and pragmatically address multiple pressures on the Earth system?

      • Alan Lowey | July 1, 2021 at 12:53 am |

        David – why do you attack Robert when he is the only other prominent denizen who fully supports the manmade global warming hypothesis??

        Also, Robert has been honest about his high theism. May I ask whether you have had a background in high theism or is it primarily a mainstream scientific background?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 2:50 am |

        Most denizens accept the physics of greenhouse gases – including Judith Curry. Judith is on record supporting pragmatic responses – as well as endorsing Hurst-Kolmogorov climate dynamics. Ans just because there is chaotic variability that is more extreme over longer periods – is not a rational reason to ignore the large changes being made to the atmosphere.

        Alan is a guy who is full of the most incredible rubbish. Including communism, hippy dippy opening the doors of perception of heaven and hell and odd interpretations of popular cosmology.

      • Alan Lowey | July 1, 2021 at 3:15 am |

        “Including communism.” – Robert

        Where did that come from?? No, I’m against unfettered globalization and totalitarianism. Humanity needs a new mission statement.

        As the ancient Greeks used to say, we need to understand how everything is and then learn how we should live.

        In a nutshell, I’m for reducing globalization as much as possible and for living in groups as small as possible, yet sustainable.

        A pragmatic solution would be to limit the size of companies to 2000 employees, for example. But of course, it’s all fanciful thinking because those with the most power like things just as they are.

        A new common sense gravity theory would free up the minds of intellectuals to concentrate on the structure of our societies and how to improve them.

        That’s my personal mission statement.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 5:02 am |

        I am for free markets and real science.

      • jim2 | July 1, 2021 at 7:53 am |

        Where is the evidence that GW is solvable? Where is the evidence that the A in AGW even matters in the grand scheme of things?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 1:13 pm |

        The evidence implies future risk. Where is the evidence that advanced nuclear reactors are not good for business?

      • David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 1:47 pm |

        Robert I. Ellison: I am for free markets and real science

        All you’ve provided are opinions, not evidence.

        Look at how China’s emissions have grown in the last decade or two. Is it just a coincidence that it’s happened as it’s transitioned to a state capitalist economy?

        “Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”
        – Sir Nicholas Stern

      • mesocyclone | July 1, 2021 at 2:35 pm |

        “Look at how China’s emissions have grown in the last decade or two. Is it just a coincidence that it’s happened as it’s transitioned to a state capitalist economy?”

        No, it isn’t. It also isn’t a coincidence that the transition lifted most Chinese out of poverty. And it is not coincidence that increased energy use is strongly associated with decreased poverty (and incidentally, decreased population growth).

        Also, what do you propose to do about China’s continued growth in emissions, which they have no intention of stopping? Do you think Xi gives a damn about “climate change?” Do you think a zillion point “plan” will make any difference to what his totalitarian regime does in that regard?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 3:23 pm |

        Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. There are technologies developed in rich economies with which there have been evident progress on broad fronts.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/diesel-bc.png

        But China and India will continue to build coal powered power plants to drive development. As they should. Until there are practical and cheaper alternatives.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/hele-e1550170804379.jpg

        Alan has a bucolic notion of hippy communes as the unit of social organisation – David an opinion that markets have failed. Both are dead ends. Most people now live in cities made possible by industrialization – free markets respond nimbly to new information. The alternative being advanced globally is about building the future we want.

        https://drawdown.org/

      • angech | July 2, 2021 at 4:13 am |

        What is the evidence the free market can solve AGW?
        –
        What is the evidence the free market caused AGW?
        –
        The free market is something like, natural selection, you know?
        The process that aids evolution.
        It creates changes in various ways to overcome a problem.
        –
        So, if AGW is a problem, .that requires solving, and the free market
        results in change that solves problems
        and change is what is needed to solve AGW
        then that must qualify as the evidence.
        –
        Note that an apple lying next to the tree of knowledge is not evidence
        that the apple itself is related to knowledge.
        Evidence is not proof.

      • Christos Vournas | July 4, 2021 at 4:07 pm |

        Greenhouse gases are trace gases no matter what!

        https://www.ctistos-vournas.com

    • Geoff Sherrington | July 1, 2021 at 4:24 am |

      RIE, “the next inevitable tipping point and new and incomputable extremes”

      What was the last tipping point that happened to the world?
      How can you call weather events “extremes” when they are incomputable? Do you just guess that they are?
      Are you beginning to realise by now that the “social cost of carbon” when calculated fairly, is mostly beneficial as opposed to earlier declarations of harm?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 1, 2021 at 4:56 am |

        Eh… tipping points include such things as shifts in Pacific Ocean state… what we have is records of past events not computations… energy innovation, pollutant reduction, carbon sequestrations in restored ecosystems and agricultural soils and building resilient infrastructure regardless of the vagaries of climate all have greater benefits than marginal global greening. Sententious simple minded pontification by the likes of you notwithstanding.

  54. Turbulent Eddie | June 30, 2021 at 10:02 pm |

    “Washington”,”All-Time Maximum Temperature”,118,”degrees F”,19280724,19280724,”WAHLUKE”,458903,E1,””

    Something that happened almost one hundred years ago ( and probably other times before that ) happened again.

  55. Alan Lowey | July 1, 2021 at 9:23 am |

    / One of these mornings
    You’re gonna rise up singing
    Yes, you’ll spread your wings
    And you’ll take to the sky /

    https://youtu.be/9pQMb2niOO8

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 5, 2021 at 3:03 pm |

      I offer readers an alternative version of Summertime that I prefer.
      I think Janis Joplin sounds like a hog caller
      Ella Fitzgerald and louis Armstrong arer much better.

  57. Ireneusz Palmowski | July 1, 2021 at 11:33 am |

    The Gulf of Mexico must be prepared for tropical waves.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif

  58. David Appell | July 1, 2021 at 1:56 pm |

    “Wildfire engulfs village that set Canada’s all-time heat record;
    Lytton, which was 121 degrees Tuesday, was up in flames Wednesday night as massive blazes erupted in British Columbia”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/07/01/wildfires-british-columbia-lytton-heat/

    • angech | July 2, 2021 at 4:22 am |

      The average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–May 2021 was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.1°C (55.5°F) and the eighth warmest such period on record.
      –
      Might be even lower after June comes in David.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 2, 2021 at 5:52 pm |

      If you want to whine about a single wildfire in Canada, Appleman, it should be discussed as a small portion of the DECLINING long term wildfire trend in Canada.

      The number of wildfires in Canada has been in a downtrend since 1990, thirty year ago.

      I guess you forgot to mention that.

      In addition, 1994 and 1995 had the most acres burned, in the data from 1990 through 2019 — roughly double the acres burned in those years, when compared with the average year excluding 1994 and 1995..

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 6:12 pm |

        Cliff, if you’re going to resort to name calling, don’t expect me to give you any more attention. Don’t act like a juvenile.

      • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 3, 2021 at 9:20 am |

        Mr Appkleman has spent much of his time on this thread whining about the hot weather where he lives.

        Then he whined about a forest fire in Canada.

        Both are local weather events, not climate.

        When presented with actual long term Canadian wildfire data, Mr. Appleman reponded by whining about someone correcting him.

        Mr. Appleman seems most interested in local weather events, rather than the climate, so should place his weather comments on a blog that discusses weather in his area: The Cliff Mass Blog.

  59. Alan Lowey | July 1, 2021 at 3:25 pm |

    This is very interesting viewing and I believe it is relevant because the future is not only about how we manage energy but how we live with each other:

    https://youtu.be/f_P8-4bzpUY

  60. Terry Burdick | July 1, 2021 at 7:44 pm |

    Judith,

    Why do you let David Appell post here? Seems like he is a highly negative
    and mostly riles up others.

    R

    • jim2 | July 1, 2021 at 8:12 pm |

      No, it’s good to have Appell post here, even a lot. His characteristics are on display for all to see and everyone can make their own judgement. I value free speech.

    • aaron | July 1, 2021 at 11:07 pm |

      He’s a classic troll, here just to prevent constructive conversation. Make sure that the comments are too tedious for any lurkers get interested.

      • Tony Banton | July 2, 2021 at 11:16 am |

        I disagree, and note the use of the noun “Troll” to describe someone who merely challenges your views. Unlike others I can mention he doesn’t resort to ad hom and links to science (real peer-reviewed) to make his points. That ideological confirmation bias is challenged is a good thing. The phenomena of the Internet making those that, err, “dispute” the science and converse only on echo-chambers of like minds to vent there d-k syndrome, anger and plain sky-dragon slaying “physics”, or those that merely display their ignorance as a badge … giving them delusions of being any force at all.
        Very few can be arsed, for we know that no minds will be changed.
        So good on him.

      • matthewrmarler | July 5, 2021 at 1:03 pm |

        Tony Banton: So good on him.

        I agree with you. Some of David Appell’s posts are challenging.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 2, 2021 at 6:00 pm |

      Appleman increases page views.
      He is a semi-professional riler upper.
      He reminds us of what the desired socialist
      “rule by experts” would be like.

  61. Robert I. Ellison | July 2, 2021 at 12:01 am |

    Closing the nuclear fuel cycle creates a fraction of the waste of light water reactors – waste that consists of light fissions products that decay to background level of radioactivity in 100’s of years.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/16/using-all-of-the-heavy-elements-in-nuclear-waste-to-provide-energy/

  63. Alan Lowey | July 2, 2021 at 9:35 am |

    / Hello earth
    Hello earth

    With just one hand held up high
    I can blot you out
    Out of sight /

    https://youtu.be/0S0zNFzK_ns

  64. jim2 | July 2, 2021 at 10:38 am |

    After a brief introductory comment about the scientific debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, this Policy Brief documents five benefits from the historic and still ongoing use of fossil fuels. Four direct benefits are:

    Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health.

    Fossil fuels are vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks.

    Fossil fuels are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improve the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health.

    Fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.

    A fifth benefit could be added only if fossil fuels are in fact responsible for a significant part of the global warming recorded during the second half of the twentieth century. That benefit would be:

    Fossil fuels should be credited with saving lives by reducing deaths due to extreme cold weather. Weather is also less extreme in a warmer world, resulting in fewer injuries and deaths due to extreme weather.

    https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-social-benefits-of-fossil-fuels

  65. David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 12:21 pm |

    PacNW heat wave deaths are now up to at least 420:

    British Columbia 321
    Washington 20
    Oregon 79

    • CKid | July 2, 2021 at 2:19 pm |

      Let me know when the number reaches 9,500, which would equal the number of deaths in the 1901 heatwave I referenced above. Until then take another cold shower.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 3:14 pm |

        CKid: Let me know when the number reaches 9,500, which would equal the number of deaths in the 1901 heatwave I referenced above.

        So when someone in your family dies you don’t care, because after all some 2 million Americans die every year.

        You couldn’t care less about the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, because there are 30-some thousands motor vehicle deaths on American roads every year.

        Clearly you don’t think twice about the deaths of US soldiers in any 20th or 21st century — you simply don’t care about their sacrifice — because after all over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War.

        That’s some pretty warped ethics you have there.

      • CKid | July 2, 2021 at 4:36 pm |

        I think I see a pattern here. Two nights ago my wife began angrily yelling in her sleep and flailing her arms. The next morning I asked her what that was all about. She said she dreamed that Trump was trying to isolate her and wouldn’t let her leave her room. Hmmmm. As any loving spouse would do, I consulted my handy Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Under TDS there was a subheading NTDS ( Nocturnal Trump Disorder Syndrome) which it said is manifested through display of a highly agitated state while sleeping.

        This morning I received a 4 page text from my youngest daughter expressing her outrage about all the money that Trump spent on his hair. She calculated it would take her 80 years to spend the same amount.

        This all followed my vacation where my entire family yelled at me for not supporting Critical Race Theory. They were not satisfied even after I explained that one school district had as part of its CRT curriculum to take on and dissolve the institution of the nuclear family.

        And now your complaints. There is some commonality in all these events. . I’m wondering if in all these instances if it’s all part of a grand design that Trump has in dealing with his opposition in preparation for his 2024 rerun. He was blamed for AGW, which has set off people to no end. If all his enemies melt down like you have about heat waves and like my family has about him in general, what kind emotional state will everyone be in when it is time to vote in 2024. I envision a drop off in Dem turnout due to emotional incapaticitation. What a genius that Trump is.

      • Bill Fabrizio | July 2, 2021 at 5:16 pm |

        Kid …. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sooooo funny! Had me rolling.

    • jim2 | July 2, 2021 at 4:22 pm |

      China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam plan to build more than 600 coal power units

      Jillian Ambrose, The Guardian

      https://joannenova.com.au/

    • jim2 | July 2, 2021 at 4:23 pm |

      So, David, it would appear you need to make the rounds China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam. Got get ’em David!

    • joe the non climate scientist | July 23, 2021 at 3:18 pm |

      David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 12:21 pm | Reply
      PacNW heat wave deaths are now up to at least 420:

      British Columbia 321
      Washington 20
      Oregon 79

      May be worth revaluate the number of heat related deaths
      The oregon Health authority shows the following total weekly deaths
      6-21 to 6-27 760 deaths
      6-28 to 7-4 870 deaths
      7-5 to 7/11/21 690 deaths

      The heat wave was from 6/26 to 6/29

      Oregon has been averaging 770 deaths per week for 2021.
      So deaths per week for week ended june 27 minus 10 deaths
      week ended july 4 plus 100 deaths over average
      week ended july 11 minus 80 deaths.

      for the state of oregon, death where heat was the primary cause was probably closer to 15-25 deaths and not the 79 as advertised.

  66. David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 5:16 pm |

    Power Magazine
    9/1/20

    “Vietnamese officials earlier this year said they want the country to more than double its power generation capacity by 2030, to as much as 130 GW from the current capacity of about 55 GW. The Communist Party politburo has said “ensuring national energy security, and sufficiently supplying power for fast and sustainable socio-economic development” is the backbone of Vietnam’s national energy development strategy. Officials have said they will seek foreign and domestic private investment to help develop new power plants, and the government also wants to speed the privatization of state-owned power companies, as it addresses concerns about a shortage of available power as demand increases.

    “The country today gets about 38% of its electricity from coal-fired generation, and has a goal of receiving as much of 20% of its power from renewable resources by the end of the decade, while reducing its reliance on coal. Vietnam also has begun to develop infrastructure to import as much of 8 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually by 2030, to increase gas-fired power generation. Wind power is quickly emerging as a key source of renewable energy in the Southeast Asian country; Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy (SGRE) recently closed a deal for its fourth so-called “nearshore” wind project in Vietnam. The deal was part of a double order for the company’s SG 5.0-145 turbines, with a total of 36 units that will be used at the 75-MW Tan Thuan and 90-MW Thai Hoa wind farms. SGRE also signed operations and maintenance (O&M) services contracts, for 10 years and 20 years, respectively, for the two projects. The two deals also mark the first-ever cooperation SGRE has concluded with Power Engineering Consulting Joint Stock Company 2 of Vietnam and Pacific Corp., respectively.

    “Officials from the Vietnam Energy Institute (VEI), speaking at an internal meeting in July, said the country could cancel at least half of its planned new coal-fired power plant generation capacity this decade. The VEI is a government-affiliated research body tasked with drawing up the nation’s next power sector roadmap. The group at the meeting said Vietnam’s eighth Power Development Plan, or PDP8, which will take effect in 2021, would call for a rapid expansion of renewables and natural gas in the country. The group said as many as seven planned coal projects could be canceled, with another six postponed past 2030.

    “The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, along with the Green Innovation and Development Centre environmental group, in mid-July said that with lower prices for renewable energy, and the challenge of obtaining financing for coal projects, it was not likely any of the 13 projects would be revived once they were withdrawn. “In the next period, [Vietnam] will not strongly develop coal power but only proceed with the development of the projects which are already listed in the PDP7 and revised PDP7,” Hoang Quoc Vuong, the country’s vice minister of industry and trade, said at the meeting. “[We] will no longer develop new [coal] projects.”

    https://www.powermag.com/vietnam-wants-more-generation-capacity-less-reliance-on-coal/

  67. David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 5:28 pm |

    “Extreme heat is killing people in Arizona’s mobile homes
    Last summer’s heat and drought killed 520 Arizonans — twice the total deaths nationally from hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, severe storms and floods.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/07/02/arizona-mobile-home-deaths/

    • Robert I. Ellison | July 2, 2021 at 7:02 pm |

      Much of the warming in the modern era emerges from changes in the Pacific Ocean state – with a transition to a warmer state after 1900. Caused by low level cloud feedback to sea surface temperature. AGW may indeed be trivial as projected by some of the less than convincing CMIP6 models.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png
      https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml

      We are left with the incomputable distance to the next tipping point – that may or may not be entirely forced by natural variability. Risk management includes – inter alia – going advanced nuclear.

      • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 7:11 pm |

        RIE: Much of the warming in the modern era emerges from changes in the Pacific Ocean state

        All the oceans are warming. Ice is melting. Land is warming. SSTs are warming. The lower troposphere is warming.

        If natural variability is causing the warming, where is the compensating cooling as required by energy conservation?

        By the way, the stratosphere is COOLING — as predicted by greenhouse theory. Why would natural variability create a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere?

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 2, 2021 at 8:05 pm |

        Oceans are warming as a result of cloud feedback in the eastern Pacific – and have been over the satellite era – apart from a little cooling in Argo early in the record.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong2006figure7-e1542128275460.png
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml

        And rea;;y? Stratospheric temperature is neither here no there in the planetary energy dynamic. Which – as Steve points out – is by no means constant.

      • stevenreincarnated | July 2, 2021 at 7:31 pm |

        David, conservation of energy doesn’t require compensating cooling. The Earth isn’t a closed system to energy. Surely you must know this?

      • stevenreincarnated | July 2, 2021 at 7:34 pm |

        Also note the definition of was and is are not the same. The last I looked the stratosphere stopped cooling in 1995. How do you explain that? They make adjustments and it is cooling again perhaps?

      • stevenreincarnated | July 2, 2021 at 9:04 pm |

        By the way David, if the law of the conservation of energy could be applied to the Earth as a system (of course it can’t) then CO2 couldn’t possibly cause any warming since that would violate conservation of energy.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 2, 2021 at 9:39 pm |

        The change in work and heat in the Earth system is equal to energy in less energy out by the 1st law of thermodynamics. .

        d(w&h)/dt = Ein – Eout

        I think you mean if the energy content of the planet was constant.

      • Geoff Sherrington | July 3, 2021 at 7:24 am |

        David Appell,
        Nature gave the Earth 3 choices at the end of the Little Ice Age. You can cool, you can warm, or you can fluctuate between the usual past limits.

        This message will now self destruct. Your task is to raise the maximum public fear for each of these choices, so there is alarm at each of these uncontrollable options
        Geoff S

      • melitamegalithic | July 3, 2021 at 8:21 am |

        Geoff Sherrington | July 3, 2021 at 7:24 am writes “Nature gave the Earth 3 choices at the end of the Little Ice Age. You can cool, you can warm, or you can fluctuate between the usual past limits.”

        Not quite. Nature left the Earth with all options open. Including a near snowball option. But the worst option which the earth had opted to in the relatively recent past is to re-arrange geologically as well. And that has happened at very short notice. Two particular dates stick out; 3200bce and 5200bce – check the proxies. However another date that should bother present humans is 3550bce, a peak warming. The latter date is a near cycle peak, and we are approaching another peak this century.

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 11:09 am |

        stevenreincarnated: The last I looked the stratosphere stopped cooling in 1995.

        First, stratospheric trends are complicated by ozone depletion and other factors, so if you just look at stratospheric temperatures straight like from RSS or UAH, especially lower stratospheric data (which is all they publish), you won’t get a true picture vis a vis the greenhouse effect.

        This paper shows stratospheric trends in four different atmospheric levels and shows cooling through 2017 as well as “good quantitative agreement” with models that account for GHGs, ozone depleting substances and a host of other factors:

        “Revisiting the Mystery of Recent Stratospheric Temperature Trends,” Amanda C. Maycock et al, GRL 04 June 2018. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078035

      • stevenreincarnated | July 3, 2021 at 11:54 am |

        So it isn’t cooling but we have excuses…..

      • David Appell | July 3, 2021 at 12:02 pm |

        So it isn’t cooling but we have excuses…..

        Read the paper. See Figure 1.

      • stevenreincarnated | July 3, 2021 at 3:05 pm |

        OK, so what they are saying is that natural warming in the troposphere while the stratosphere cools is not contradictory. All you have to do is deplete the ozone a bit. Glad we have that settled.

    • thecliffclavenoffinance | July 3, 2021 at 1:34 pm |

      Here we go again with science denier Appleman, the weather man, cherry picking one summer, in one state, in one nation … while completely ignoring the global trend

      Global climate related deaths declined by 99% from 1920 to 2020

  68. Robert I. Ellison | July 2, 2021 at 5:28 pm |

    ‘The atmosphere, in fact, is a global public good, with benefits that accrue to all, making private bargaining solutions unfeasible. Identifying and agreeing on policies for internalization of the social costs of GHG emissions at the global level are extremely difficult, given the cost to some individuals and firms and the difficulties of global enforcement of such policies (Tirole, 2008).’ https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/external.htm

    It’s a puzzle because fossil fuels are a consumer good universally aspired to. The concern is not – except for some fringe dwellers like Alan and David – with ancillary economic growth and development but with GHG emissions and this should unconflated with the effects of health damaging pollutants. Nitrous oxide, sulfur, carbon particulates or mercury are amenable to technological interventions. Internalizing those costs is a matter of paying for pollution technology. Something that is easier in rich economies. In principle GHG from energy production can be eliminated with technology. Energy is fungible – the source matters less than the price.

    The problem is that there is no alternative technology ready for full scale deployment. Wind and solar are OK in small doses – if you have some hydro or geothermal energy to balance it with. There is little enough of that to go around. Storage is the other possibility. There are developments in liquid metal batteries and hydrogen production that may be part of a practical approach. The price of internalising costs in this is a social responsibility to develop cost competitive low carbon technology – a few billions a year. Fiddling with carbon taxes in the interim builds in higher energy costs without the compensating requirement for cost competitive alternatives. With cheap and abundant energy anything is possible. Including the most effective and ethically defensible way to limit population growth.

    • David Appell | July 2, 2021 at 7:04 pm |

      Robert, I don’t know why you think I’m opposed to economic growth. I just think there should be a proper accounting of “growth,” which includes both benefits and damages — pollution, including carbon pollution and all its consequences. For as long as they last. There is nothing like that at all today. Where that to take place there’s little chance fossil fuels would price out.

      The problem is that there is no alternative technology ready for full scale deployment.

      No one says we need instant full scale deployment today. That’s a canard. We do it as fast as we can. Of course we keep the lights on. Wind and solar prices are competitive — already much cheaper than coal, esp when you consider the pollution costs of coal. You buildout wind and solar. We’re smart people. There’s no way we can’t get to 100% renewable energy if we make it our mission. Because the alternative is unacceptable.