Heat waves and hot air

by Judith Curry

Heat waves are the new polar bears, stoking alarm about climate change.  Climate scientists addressing this in the media are using misleading and/or inadequate approaches.  How should we approach assessing whether and how much manmade global warming has contributed to recent record breaking  temperatures?  Read on for some outside-the-box thinking on this.

Much has been written in recent weeks on the record-breaking heat wave in the US Northwest and Canada

There have been four categories of scientific contributions to answering this question, that have appeared in the media, blog posts and publications:

I.  Hot air:  scientists spouting off in the media

Climate scientists are writing op-eds and spouting off on twitter, about AGW causing, or at least exacerbating, the heat wave.  Scientists in this category are those who spout off on the topic, use heat waves to advocate for their preferred climate policies, without having done any actual work on the topic.

For one high profile example, see this article in the NYTimes by Michael Mann:  Climate change is behind the heat dome.

One argument in the hot air line of reasoning is based on this diagram:  as the average temperatures increase, then the frequency of heat extremes increases also.

However, analysis of historical data belies this simple interpretation:

The changing shape of Northern Hemisphere summer temperature distributions

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2016JD025292

Need for caution in interpreting extreme weather statistics

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/23/jcli-d-15-0020.1.xml

For an easier to read summary, see this report by Prescient Weather, which shows that the higher moments of the temperature distributions are critical also, and that the variance may be decreasing.

The other piece of the hot air argument relates to a hypothesis that the jet stream is made ‘wavier’ by global warming, an argument made by Michael Mann among others.  There is a ton of recent papers debunking this idea, and some recent papers even suggest that high-pressure domes such as occurred during the heat wave will weaken under global warming.

It is intellectually lazy for scientists to spout off on this (or any other topic) without actually having done some work on the topic or at least having read and analyzed recent research on the topic.   A convenient, but unjustified, storyline that supports your activism and preferred policies is not helpful.

II.  Scientists analyzing historical data

John Christy has provided the following analysis of historical data, included in Cliff Mass’ blog post:

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html

(did i tell you i HATE the new wordpress editor.  See Cliff’s post for the figures prepared by Christy)

<begin quote>

As shown below, there IS NO INCREASING TREND for more record high temperatures over our region (Oregon, Washington) during the past century.  In fact, the past decade (2011-2020) had no all-time records. 

Average number of days with temperatures above 99F in OR, WA? Also no trend.

These results are consistent with what others have found.  For example, the U.S. National Climate Assessment found the warmest day of the year over the Northwest actually COOLED between a historic (1901-1960) and a contemporary period (1986-2016).

Dr. Nick Bond, Washington State Climatologist, said that he and Associate State Climatologist Karin Bumbaco found similar results, published in a peer-reviewed paper.

<end quote>

A single heat wave event can be evaluated against the historical record of previous historical heat waves (e.g. past ~100 years).  Apart from some technical disputes surrounding which data set, the perils of homogenization, etc., what exactly is the logic for using historical temperatures records in heat wave attribution arguments?

A. If a record is set, does that lead to a necessary conclusion that AGW was a major contributing cause?

B. If a record is not set, does that lead to a necessary conclusion that AGW was not a major contributing cause?

C.  If there is an underlying trend in heat wave frequency at that location, does that lead to a necessary conclusoin that AGW was a major contributing cause for a single heat wave event?

D.  If there is no underlying trend in heat wave frequency at that location, does that lead to a necessary conclusion that AGW was not a major contributing cause for a singe heat wave event?

E.  If there is a global trend in frequency/severity heat wave events, does that say anything conclusive about a role (or not) of AGW in influencing a single local heat wave event?

F.  Does the magnitude by which a temperature record is broken say anything at all about a role (or not) of AGW in influencing a single local heat wave event?

While providing a historical context for a local heat wave event is critical for understanding the situation, the answer to each of these questions is ‘no.’  A, C, E and F, in combination, would stack the deck in favor of a ‘yes’, but data does not provide a quantitative answer to how much warming from the heat wave was caused by AGW.  Getting to an unequivocal ‘no’ answer simply from analyzing the temperature record is more challenging.  But if a local heat wave record is set, it is worth digging deeper to try to understand the proximate (weather) causes and any underlying climate influence (multi-decadal natural variability and/or AGW).

III.  Scientists conducting climate model-based attribution analysis.

As described by Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/rapid-attribution-of-pnw-heatwave/#.YOYxqur28iM.twitter

“The way that climate-model based attribution for extreme events works (as discussed previously on RealClimate here and here etc.) is that you look at the situation with and without the anthropogenic global warming signal and calculate the ratio of probabilities. If an event is say, twice as common with the GW, then one can give a fractional attribution of 50% to anthropogenic forcing and the return time is half what it used to be. If it is five times more likely, the attribution is 80% = 100*(5-1)/5 and the return time is a fifth of what it used to be. In this case, we are seeing probability ratios of 150 to 1000s, suggesting that these, improbable, temperatures can be almost entirely attributed to global warming. Without the anthropogenic signal, temperatures this extreme wouldn’t have happened in thousands to tens of thousands of years.”

The rapid report from the European team is found [here]

This effort involves a massive amount of number crunching.

This report has gotten a lot of media attention, as an example see this article from Time.  https://time.com/6079744/climate-weather-attribution/

So, what’s wrong with this picture?

1. A time series of order a hundred years (from observations or a model simulation) is insufficient to develop meaningful statistics about being a 1 in 10,000 year event.

2.  The atmospheric dynamics in global climate models are fairly ‘blah’; the coarse resolution of climate models is fundamentally unable to capture the kind of blocking events that causes heat waves, or resolve hurricanes, or resolve extreme convective events that cause flooding, etc. 

3.  This approach implicitly assumes that all climate change is caused by emissions, and ignores or mischaracterizes multi-decadal natural internal variability (since climate models do not have the correct phasing and amplitudes).

Cliff Mass has done a masterful job of critiquing the report from the European group.  I don’t disagree with anything he says.

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-report-leads-to-false.html

This entire climate model-based approach to extreme event attribution is fundamentally flawed.  Until climate models are able actually resolve circulation features (requiring a horizontal of resolution of ~20 km), they simply are not useful for attribution of extreme weather events.

IV.  Scientists conducting process-based analyses

NOAA scientist Marty Hoerling has likened extreme weather event attribution to conducting an autopsy.  You have some clues, but the conclusion requires linking them together in a mechanistic sequence of events.

Cliff Mass has provided the best autopsy report so far on the heat wave.

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html

He provides the follow summary of the proximate sequence of events leading to the heat wave:

“Record amplitude of a ridge/high pressure over our region, forced by a tropical disturbance in the western Pacific, that produced a downstream wave train.   An environment that allowed the resulting wave to amplify.  The ridge had to be in exactly the right position relative to our terrain.  An upper-level trough had to develop in just the right location offshore and move in the optimal direction to cause strong southeasterly flow, fostering the supercharger noted above.  We needed a period when the sun was very strong.  And a summer stretch without smoke, which has a profound cooling effect.

The meteorological dice had to come up all sixes.  And they did.”  

Process-based analyses are different from hand waving ‘story lines’.  Here is what Mass considered:

1.  The state of Washington has warmed by 1.5C over the past 120 years

2.  Whether the drought and dry soils contributed to the heat wave (no, as per regional model simulations and the fact that there is no trend in drought in the Pacific northwest)

3. Whether global warming produces stronger ridges of high pressure (no, as per data analysis and climate model simulations)

4.  No observed trend in heat waves (Christy’s analysis)

5.  Use of regional climate model (no, CO2 doesn’t produce more heat waves)

6.  Analysis of regional weather dynamics supported with regional climate modeling results shows a paradoxical pathway for cooling in the region

So do we have an unambiguous ’cause of death’ here, i.e. an unambiguous ‘no’ answer to the question as to whether AGW was the cause, or at least had an influence, on the heat wave?

A simple consilience of this evidence does not lead to an unambiguous ‘no’ conclusion.  However Cliff’s analysis is arguably sufficient to infer that CO2 was not the sole, or even dominant, cause of the record temperatures.

V.  A fifth way

We need a better logic for attributing extreme weather events to global warming, and some outside-the-box thinking on how to attribute the causes of extreme weather events.

Considering the strategies described above, I and III are unsatisfactory, and frankly not at all useful.  Especially for III, a massive amount of resources and brain power are wasted on this approach, for which global climate models, at their current resolution, are simply not fit-for-purpose.

II is very useful, but the logic in evaluating this information for attribution is ambiguous.  IV provides useful insights, but doesn’t provide a quantitative answer regarding attribution or a clear role of CO2‘s contribution.

We need a fifth way, that builds on II and IV, provides a better logic for conducting the autopsy, and considers some new approaches.

Extreme weather events can be extreme in terms of the magnitude of individual events, the frequency of events crossing some threshold, or clustering of extreme events.  It needs to be acknowledged that extreme events are by definition rare, and short historical records (even century long records) are insufficient for formulating meaningful statistics about return times.

A thermodynamic and dynamical storyline of the extreme event needs to be assembled, similar to how Cliff Mass framed the problem.  Here is an alternative approach for understanding and quantifying the effect of an increase in CO2 on severe weather systems.  The example provided here is targeted at NW US heat wave.

Single column models of the atmosphere coupled to the land surface can provide a quantitative assessment of the direct contribution of CO2 forcing to the surface temperatures. This is a better approach than looking at the historical record of annual average surface temperatures, and assuming that any increase is caused by CO2 and would increase the magnitude of any heat wave by that same amount.

Experiment #1.  For this particular event, on the day of the maximum record breaking temperature, a local vertical profile of temperature and humidity can be obtained from a radiosonde or the operational analysis from numerical weather prediction centers.  This can be run through an atmospheric single-column model with radiative transfer model and land surface model to calculate the surface temperature in response to pre-industrial CO2, current levels of CO2, future levels of CO2.  This is a simple calculation that answers the question:  all other things being equal, how much difference have emissions for the past 100 years made to the surface temperature for the heat dome event that emerged, just through the radiative effects of the CO2?   Cold, dry situations with no clouds amplify the impact of CO2 on the surface temperature.  It is fairly easy to calculate exactly what effect the increase in CO2 would have on surface temperature under the local conditions for Portland, OR. Without having done the calculation, an outcome of 1-3 F wouldn’t surprise me.

Experiment #2. This experiment builds on #1 to address the impact of the fast thermodynamic feedbacks on the surface temperature change.  This can be accomplished by using the shape of the temperature profile and relative humidity from the original radiosonde or operational analysis to adjust the temperature and humidity profiles to the resulting surface temperature for the calculations in experiment #1 for altered CO2.  This provides a better assessment of the direct radiative effects of altered CO2 in this particular weather system. 

The next set of experiments address the dynamical effects of increasing CO2 on the particular weather system that influenced the record high surface temperatures.

This heat wave was exceptionally well forecasted as much as 10 days in advance by global ensemble weather forecast system.  Global ensemble weather forecast system with high resolution (at least 20 km) can be used to simulate the daily forecasts from 14 to 1 days in advance of the event, with a CO2 concentration of 300 ppm.  Not clear at this point whether a single forecast simulation at each lead time is adequate, or whether the full ensemble is needed.

Experiment #3.  Make no change to the weather forecast model except to the CO2 concentration.  Compare ‘forecasts’ with altered CO2 concentration with the original forecasts:  500 and 850 mb geopotential heights and temperatures in the vicinity of the heat dome, also the surface temperatures in the NW US and SW Canada.  It may turn out that Experiment #3 is sufficient to infer the role of more/less CO2 on the evolution of the omega block, heat dome and record high temperatures.  But experiments #4 and #5 should be considered, since there are caveats to interpreting experiment #3.

Experiment #4.  Alter the global sea surface temperatures (SST) in a way that preserves the global pattern of SST for this period, but have magnitudes more consistent with a 300 ppm climate.  I would use NOAA’s 20th century reanalyses for this

Subtract the annual average (or summer average) SST for each ocean grid point for a 300 ppm climate (around 1910) from the current gridded values;  subtract the gridded difference from the SST field for this case used in the weather forecast models.  Run the same set of experiments as in #3; compare with the original forecasts and the reduced CO2 forecasts from #3.  Note: not clear how quickly the initialized atmospheric temperature profiles will adjust to the altered SST, and how much this would influence the evolution of the atmospheric dynamics.

Experiment #5.  For Experiment #4,  the initialized atmospheric temperatures are too warm and specific humidity is too high relative to the lower SST values.  Humidity initialization doesn’t really matter, since the model rapidly creates its own humidity field.  However, the initial temperature field may matter.  Its the temperature gradients that influence the circulations.  During summer, the pole-to-equator temperature gradient wouldn’t change much between high and low CO2; melting Arctic sea ice would be just underway at the end of June in 1910, whereas it is well underway in June in the current climate.  Convective lapse rates would also be different for high vs low CO2.  I’m not sure how quickly the atmospheric temperatures would adjust to the altered SSTs in #4.  Initialized atmospheric temperatures would be out of balance with the colder surface temperatures, making the marine atmosphere too stable.  Somehow initializing with atmospheric temperatures more suited to 1910 while preserving all of the temperature gradients would be ideal.  The team doing the 20th century reanalyses could maybe figure out how to do this.

What this set of numerical experiments would do is allow for inferences to be made that compare the thermodynamic and dynamical effects of reduced/increased CO2 on the surface temperatures and the dynamics of the heat dome.  The exact logic of how such inferences should be made, with what caveats and uncertainties, would require more attention than I can give it here.

Such an analysis would only take us so far:  the question remains as to whether increased CO2 is changing the overall hemispheric dynamics, making such heat dome events and omega blocks more or less frequent.  Experiments with high-resolution (20 km horizontal resolution) coupled global climate models with increased/decreased CO2 can provide some insights (the essential ingredient is for the model to have sufficiently high resolution to resolve blocking patterns).

Analysis of global reanalysis data (ERA5 back to 1950, 20th century reanalysis actually back to the 19th century) can provide some important insights:

  • Is increasing CO2 changing the multi-decadal ocean oscillations?  I’ve done a literature survey and there is no evidence of this yet.
  • Is additional warming changing ENSO?  I’ve done a literature survey and yes ENSO has changed since 1950; whether these changes are CO2 caused is debated.
  • Are the atmospheric teleconnection regimes (e.g. AO, PNA etc) changing?  This is something I’ve looked at (since 1950), and no changes apart from minor variations associated with multi-decadal climate variability.

With regards to the wavy jet stream hypothesis and its influence on blocking, I follow the literature on this topic, but haven’t done a formal literature review on this. Basic dynamical reasoning does not support the wavy jet stream hypothesis.  There is more theoretical research to be done, and the ERA5 and 20th Century Reanalysis should prove a good data set for this, but the value lies in how these data are interpreted.

And finally, machine learning and network based methods are increasingly being used for attribution analyses in a range of different fields.

So I’m tossing these ideas out for discussion, I look forward to your further outside-the-box ideas on how to approach this problem.

Heat versus cold

And finally, I address the alarm over heat waves.  I was in Utah in late June, where the local temperature reached 112F.   It is not pleasant.  Fortunately I could mostly stay inside where it was cooler.  There is no question that excessive and unusual heat causes health problems.  People have adapted to very hot temperatures (see this article about Pakistan) .  This issue is unexpectedly hot temperatures, for which broad segments of the population are unprepared for and have no experience in dealing with.  By this standard, the record breaking temperatures in Portland were more difficult to deal with than the relative routine and substantially higher temperatures in Pakistan.

While heat kills, cold temperatures kill more than an order of magnitude more people than heat.  Pat Michaels has been on this issue for decades, and its not particularly controversial.  This recent article in the Guardian is interesting:

Title –  “Extreme temperature kills 5 million people a year with heat related deaths rising study finds”

Subtitle –  “More people died of cold than heat in past 20 years but climate change is shifting the balance.”

The only conclusion I can draw here is that global warming is associated with fewer temperature related deaths.  Which is completely at odds with the impression the Guardian article is trying to make with its alarming headline.

441 responses to “Heat waves and hot air

  1. Average number of days with temperatures above 99F in OR, WA? Also no trend.

    It’s absurd to look at Cliff Mass’s graph for this statement and claim there is no trend — you can see there’s a positive trend just by looking at it, as Gavin pointed out on RealClimate. (Cliff didn’t have a good response to that.)

    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/rapid-attribution-of-pnw-heatwave/#comment-792678
    https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/07/rapid-attribution-of-pnw-heatwave/#comment-792733

    Also, why doesn’t Cliff link to the data he used so we can check his work on this? That’s standard for a blog post.

    The World Weather Attribution paper is a much more serious and thorough analysis of this event.

    BTW, the death toll from the PNW heat wave is now up to 686, according to my records.

    • We discussed this graph on my blog a few days ago, where Willis digitized it and gave the data (it’s in the comments).

      The trend is +0.42 C/decade.

      You can calculate the uncertainty of the trend in various ways, of course. With rank-1 autocorrelation, the uncertainty is 0.37 C/decade, making the trend’s statistical significance 74%. Not much to quibble over.

    • DavidA, It appears Cliff Mass got his statistical information from Christy and the state of Washington climatologist in a peer reviewed paper. He appears to not have rerun the statistics. Gavin’s claim however that there is an increasing trend in the 99+ temps has no statistical analysis so he has no way to know if its statistically significant.

      The in line replies at RealClimate are a particularly annoying concensus enforcement and make give and take impossible.

      There also seems to be to be some world class evasions on the climate model resolution issue. They claim that models miss many of these blocks and so the real situation may be worse than the model shows. But this is I think very weak inference. For CFD specialists the finding would be that the models are inconclusive until resolution is adequate to reduce numerical errors to a small fraction of the signal being sought. In fact underresolved simulations often find spurious features, such as spurious separation reported long before it really occurs. If the BL is too thin, the inviscid flow will have exaggerated features.

      Judith’s point is a fair one. It is scandelous how much money and time is spent running these models given their well documented deficiencies. There are scores of papers on the SST pattern misses causing ECS to be higher than observations suggest.

      • Cliff is an honest , if opinionated analyst.
        I wish his fans ,were too, but their views exclude so charitable a characterization

      • David Appell

        Russell commented: Cliff is an honest , if opinionated analyst.

        The scientists who wrote the World Weather Attribution paper are no less honest.

        But had the advantage of checking each other’s work as they went along.

        And they’re quite a bit less opinionated. They’re content to let others judge their work in the traditional scientific context. If Cliff ever turns his blog post into a real and proper scientific paper the scientific community will do the same.

    • The other thing that I observe is that Mass has a literal avalanche of data including data on high pressure events. Schmidt picks one graph, without doing a balanced assessment of all the data. And the ad hominems are childish. All in all this episode exemplifies what is wrong with climate science. Especially with respect to models its just a bunch of amateurs speculating about things that are quite underresolved.

    • “It is absurd … ” This sort of statement conveys no information. Please plot the data used by Cliff Moss and then draw a polynomial curve through it to make your conclusion. In your reply please show this graphical result. State how many parameters this polynomial contains and the sum of squared differences between fit and data.

    • In comments at Cliff’s blog, he asserts that the >99 temp chart shows no trend over the last 50 years when there would be an influence from global warming. Perhaps we need to not place too much importance to the multiple readings of this single chart.

    • David….look at the last 50 years when GW is supposedly happening…there is no trend. And even over the entire period, the trend is not significant. So come on…your argument is without merit…cliff mass

      • > Perhaps we need to not place too much importance to the multiple readings of this single chart.

        Good point. Let’s look at others:

        https://www.realclimate.org/images/fig4_pnw-e1625674013256-1536×739.png

        A pity it does not go back to Kristallnacht.

      • Did similar events in 1898 and 1928 leave Oregon hotter than in 2021?

        Irregular observations and no observations of the upper air will leave the question open.

        But there is evidence in the surface record of past such events:
        file:///home/smcgee/Pictures/Climate/HCN_OR_TMAX.gif

      • Ask Judy to delete your comment, Teddie.

        Or reconfigure your personal computer.

      • Willard, Your graph when 2021 is omitted shows pretty much the same thing as Cliff’s graph. Over the last 50 years, there is not much of a trend. What remains is that Schmidt in typical fashion kind of put words in Cliff’s mouth using the execrible in line comment feature they have devised to ensure the message is not polluted by actual give and take.

      • David Appell

        CLIFFORD MASSDavid….look at the last 50 years when GW is supposedly happening…there is no trend.

        There is a positive trend Cliff — for the last 5 points I get a trend of +0.20 C/decade.

        Then we can talk about problems calculating a trend with just 5 data points.

        I have a spreadsheet of the monthly Tmax numbers for Oregon from 1895 to Oct 2020. Taking the annual averages, the trend of the last 50 years is +0.29 C/decade.

        For Washington state I have the equivalent data up through 2018, and for the last 50 years there I get a trend of +0.21 C/decade.

        So assuming “Pacific Northwest” means Washington+Oregon, I’m not at all convinced there is no trend in PNW global warming in the last 50 years. Try doing proper statistics as Tamino suggests — for one thing, stop grouping by decades and use all the data available, which can give you annual averages.

  2. I liked the assessment made by Chuck Wiese on Ed Berry’s blog.
    In particular this part where he demonstrates why the record June temperatures just recorded relate to the seasonal position of the sun:

    On August 8th, the total surface radiation is 2.0920000 x 10^7 Jm-2 and likewise, over a 14-hour solar day gives an average surface solar insolation of 415 Wm-2. The difference between these two numbers is substantial at a whopping 46 Wm-2!

    But this difference is mitigated some due to the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun which between June 27th and August 8th adds an additional 8 Wm-2 of solar insolation to TOA or 6 Wm-2 to the surface at the perpendicular angle to the atmosphere. With the noon solar angle of the sun calculated at 60.49 degrees above azimuth on August 8th, that reduces those values further at Portland’s latitude to 5.2 Wm-2, with the final difference in solar radiation being 40.8 Wm-2 further reduced to 36.72 Wm-2 with a surface emissivity of .9. This is still quite substantial.

    If we divide this difference into the rate of change of flux with respect to temperature of 6.45 Wm-2K-1 given above, we get a surplus temperature of 5.69 deg C or 10.2 deg F compared to the earlier heatwaves of record on July 30, 1965, and on August 8h and 10th of 1981. Add this to these old records of 107 deg F and you get 117.2 deg F. That comes within 1.2 degF of what the new all-time high-temperature record is that was just set for Portland at 116 deg F yesterday.

    • Phillip, this is numerology at its best! Why didn’t Wiese include differences in solar irradiance, changes in downward IR from greenhouse gases, or more cooling from more pollution over Portland? The urban heat island effect? And on and on. Weise obtained a number he liked and stopped there without considering anything else. That’s not science.

      • Philip Mulholland

        It is hot air.

      • Philip Mulholland

        It is intellectually lazy for scientists to spout off on this (or any other topic) without actually having done some work on the topic or at least having read and analyzed recent research on the topic. A convenient, but unjustified, storyline that supports your activism and preferred policies is not helpful.

        David,
        In my opinion Chuck Wiese applied the null hypothesis when making his analysis.
        YMMV

  3. I would opine that 1910 is an inappropriate date to begin making comparisons. It is in a cyclical cooling regime, while we are now coming out of a cyclical warming regime. Some year in the 1930’s cyclical warming regime should be more appropriate.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Dave,
      Australia’s BoM starts their official homogenised ACORN-SAT temperature data set in 1910 for all of Australia. We have no choice of other than a 1910 start, except to revert to the data as collected, earliest of which on the official record is Melbourne 1856 IIRC. Geoff S

  4. Great post. Thanks.

  5. This is an unimportant aside:
    Dr. Curry, this is the first time you’ve sent (almost) your entire post via email… (I can appreciate your frustrations with the platform!) Is there something else we should know? :)

  6. Climatologists may cavil, but rest assured Josh and Lords Lawson & Monckton will find no fault with your analysis.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/lord-lawson-gets-f-for-hiring-josh.html

    • You have nothing to fear. The vast majority of climatologists being state-funded, they will find no fault with the alarmism that advances the vested interest of their paymaster.

  7. Matthew R Marler

    Judith Curry, thank you for the essay.

    The other piece of the hot air argument relates to a hypothesis that the jet stream is made ‘wavier’ by global warming, an argument made by Michael Mann among others. There is a ton of recent papers debunking this idea, and some recent papers even suggest that high-pressure domes such as occurred during the heat wave will weaken under global warming.

    For that, could you list the 5 best or most recent publications?

    Similarly for other assertions that refer to publications?

  8. Matthew R Marler

    If a process is stationary, the observed maximum will get larger over time. Noting that a selected process has just achieved the maximum or near maximum after a short (ca. 100 year) observation period doesn’t imply much.

    There are thousands of time series of many kinds that have been observed for about 150 years or less. A better approach is to select some of them at random at the start of each year, a different random draw each year, and then do the same kind of analysis on each one at the end of the year.

  9. Matthew R Marler

    fwiw, I liked your suggested experiments, but I still recommend that series be sampled randomly at the start of each year, instead of being selected after it is known that they have a recent, possibly local, extreme.

    It takes a lot of work, including computing time, but non-random or convenience sampling slows the rate at which accurate, or true, results can be obtained, There isn’t a justification for choosing a method that will almost certainly be biased, when unbiased procedures are available. I wrote a similar comment about the use of placebo-controlled blind clinical trials with random assignment for assessing treatments for COVID-19, All this time later a more clear result would likely be available if researchers had started at the beginning with the most reliable method.

  10. > The meteorological dice had to come up all sixes.

    How many dice were there?

  11. Judith, I’m not sure about your modeling ideas. My guess is that the best shot would be the weather models even though as you point out there are some big issues involved in proper initialization for the low CO2 simulations. Weather models at least have the resolution to be skillful regarding Rossby waves.

  12. Geoff Sherrington

    It is hard to understand heat waves when you work with daily data. Why don’t readers here do some of the simple math for their own regions, by looking at the average Tmax over 3, 5, 10 consecutive days, as I have for Australia’s State capital cities? Data tells a better picture than natter does. It throws a whole new complexion on what you are encouraged to believe.

    Here is but one example, from Sydney, Australia, using BoM official adjusted Acorn-Sat v.2 data for 3-day heat waves.

    http://www.geoffstuff.com/black_swan_heat.jpg

    Points of note.

    1. The USA 1930s heat waves were not strong in Sydney, suggesting local not global mechanisms. Years 1934, 1936 and 1939 barely made the Top 40.
    2. The intensity of 3-day Sydney heat waves has been dropping, not increasing with time, since 1910 when these records start. Same with 5-day and 10-day events.
    3. Sydney probably has UHI influence in recent years, making the drops more severe than the graphs show.
    4. The heat wave in 1960 is like the black swan event claimed for N-W US earlier this year. The Sydney average temps from the graph were about 7 degrees C (12 F) hotter than the average of the next 40 hottest heat waves, or about 30 degrees C hotter than Jan-Feb long term average Tmax in Sydney.

    The worst heat waves in Sydney and Melbourne develop 1,000 miles away in Central Australia and come sweeping in on occasional, rare, North-Westerly winds. The past weather records in Syd and Melb have little relevance to how long or hot the heat waves there are. That is set more by the strength and heat of these N-W winds from the Centre affecting how long and how hot it gets 1,000 miles further on. (This is not the same mechanism for the NW US heat waves of a few days ago).

    Meanwhile, up North of Sydney, on the Gold Coast, we have some more black swan events to confuse the experts with new things happening every day. Geoff S
    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x318270

  13. Geoff Sherrington

    Oh bother,
    These links work fine when I test them alone, but do not want to link when I insert them into the Climate Etc blog. Please copy them into your browser and control-click if they are troublesome. Geoff S

  14. Pingback: Heat waves and hot air – Watts Up With That?

  15. Dr. Curry, thanks for the very interesting post.

    A scientist friend of mine believes the “more wavy jet stream” theory and I took him at his word. Thanks for the clarification on that issue.

  16. Pingback: Heat waves and hot air |

  17. Pingback: Heat waves and hot air – Watts Up With That? | Blue Anon News

  18. Pingback: Heat waves and hot air – Watts Up With That? – newsmagazineblog.com

  19. Not only is there record breaking heatwaves in the US Northwest & Canada, cold temperatures in Texas but now devastating floods have hit Germany and the Netherlands. The scenes have been compared to those of WWII.

    When it’s closer to home, it’s much more alarming, that’s for sure.

  20. The southern annular mode with low solar activity and high polar surface pressure currently pushing a cold front onto South Australia and spinning up the South Pacific Gyre.

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-222.54,-75.50,297

    The emerging La Nina will intensify and increased domain albedo will cool the planet. I predict that we will lose much of the warming of the past 120 years this century with a good chance of a grand solar minimum and amplifying feedbacks in wavy polar vortices in both hemispheres.

    e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

    Climate is more likely than not to remain relatively balmy with a chance of blizzards and heat waves. The future will resemble the past – merely more extreme over longer reference frames. The argument about attribution will go around in circles with little more sophistication than seen today. Nothing is certain but that the same stories will be repeated endlessly.

    I doubt that this story will turn around until emissions have turned around. Politicians would be well advised to get on the populist side of it with pragmatic policies that reduce emissions and preserve economic freedom and growth.

    https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/climate-change-american-mind-march-2021-3.1-1536×1084.png

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE, #comment-955556
      A few comments before yours I gave data from 110 years of obs showing that 3-day heat waves in Sydney are not becoming more extreme. Indeed, the hottest by far was in 1960.
      There are many more examples, particularly from Aust State Capitals, where there have been no increases to cause fear from “more extremes” in the future. There are also cases like Perth that show rather more of a drop in heat wave intensity for 3, 5 and 10-day heat waves (worst in 1933 and 1956). Conversely, some like Adelaide that show an upward pip since year 2000 (worst 1939, 2009, 2014).
      What is wrong with accepting that much of Australian capital data comes from where the records are longest, best managed, where there is most of the national population, where most hospitals are there to treat hot and cold ailments – then looking at the data in detail like I have, to conclude that heat wave threat in Australia is simply a product of vivid imaginations for most Australians?
      There is no credible basis for fearing future extremes of hot or cold, of flood or drought. I have not yet read a paper that stands challenge to such claims based on past data rather than future assumption. Have you?
      Geoff S

      • It is not the point of my original comment. The was about the public discourse not turning around anytime. Politicians would be well advised to get on the right side of it and proffer pragmatic responses. Not pay heed to such as Geoff endlessly repeating their stories about how it ain’t happening.

        But I suspect that his heatwave is a lot less rigorous than it should be.

      • …. that’s heatwave definition….

    • Future uncertainty is the range of past extremes – and that is broader over longer periods.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/koutsoyiannis-2010.png

      And if you need reminding of the last time CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere was in the order of 1000 ppm.

      https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/climateqa_hottest_comic.png

      But the nation has warmed and we might reasonably expect more frequent hot days. Whatever the source of warming is.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/

      As for relevant papers – we can compare and contrast this balanced effort to you amateur shenanigans.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720340432 .

      But the point you missed in a deliberately ironic comment was the unsophisticated voter and the futility of conceited contrarians like you arguing your nonsense endlessly in interweb echo chambers.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE, “But the nation has warmed and we might reasonably expect more frequent hot days.”
        No matter what the BoM says, the data I am talking about shows that it is quite unreasonable to expect more frequent heat waves. We are not talking about hot days, but about heat waves that endure for several days.
        Even if the baseline has shown warming of 1 deg C per century, this does not come through as heat waves being 1 deg C hotter in most of the cases I’ve analysed. Quite different time series patterns to hot single days. And, in these data sets, no sign of any reason to panic if, in the past, you predicted the future to the Positive Now.

        Probable-Possible, my black hen,
        She lays eggs in the Relative When.
        She doesn’t lay eggs in the Positive Now,
        Because she’s unable to postulate How

        Geoff S

      • The maps are from 1910 to date – and it comes through in number of hot days in Queensland in the period of recent warming. Three or more hot days are classed as a heat wave – as is pretty much the opening statement in the linked paper. They extrapolate to modest future warming.

        Far from not being able to postulate as to causality – the past is discussed in terms of known mechanisms. These mechanisms as I said persist into the future.

        You are quite simply incorrect and irrationally so. More hot days not translating into more heat waves is a fantasy of an ossified brain looking for confirmation and repeating endlessly your bias in comments dripping with misplaced conceit and condescension.

      • Curious George

        “Future uncertainty is the range of past extremes.”
        In very bad models.

      • The future is incalculable but climate can always revisit past states. Very bad modelers underestimate uncertainty.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Robert I. Ellison | July 16, 2021 at 4:35 am |
        Robert writes “it comes through in number of hot days in Queensland in the period of recent warming.”
        Heat waves calculated for 3, 5 and 10 consecutive days for Brisbane Queensland show no such relationship over time. There is no startling change of character sine the start of the data set. Boring.
        I have already noted that single day data patterns are not similar to heat wave patterns.
        Brisbane is the only Queensland site I have brought to presentation standard. Should I do more to illustrate the clear point that heat waves in Australian State capitals mostly DO NOT show the official mantra of getting hotter, longer and more often? Of course, I have read the relevant BoM etc. papers. I find some fundamental misconceptions, which I why I am clearly illustrating what happens in reality.
        Geoff S
        http://www.geoffstuff.com/brisheat.jpg

      • And I have already noted that warmer temps increase the number of hot days necessarily. You start with misguided preconceptions and imagine that I should prefer your homework to that of competent specialists. Defying common sense – although not that I have seen much of that from you.

        You should graduate to more comprehensive coverage and include 2020.

        https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0048969720340432-gr1.jpg

        http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/13886.tmax.2020.aust.HOR.png

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Robert I. Ellison | July 17, 2021 at 12:09 am |
        Robert requested “You should graduate to more comprehensive coverage and include 2020.”
        ……….
        Robert, that is a bit hard to do.
        Melbourne regional 86071 closed a few years ago.
        Sydney Observatory 66062 closed 30 Aug 2020.
        Addition of 2019 and 2020 to other State capitals does not significantly change the trends. They were not hot enough to make Top 40 hottest heat waves. (Though Sydney 2020 part-year just made it as a low Top 40, decreasing the trend.)
        You really should attack the data, for that gives insight.
        Attacking me does not change the findings. I know these heat wave matters thoroughly.
        Geoff S

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720340432 .

        Thank you for the link.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: I have given you numbers, maps and competent, published analysis that unlike yours passes a simple sanity test.

        from the paper by Trancoso et al: (rtwt):
        The dynamical downscaling was performed following the Hoffmann
        et al. (2016) approach where monthly sea surface temperatures from
        GCMs were bias corrected for mean and variance and used to force
        the global variable resolution Cubic Conformal Atmospheric Model
        (CCAM) in downscaling experiments (McGregor and Dix, 2008;
        Katzfey et al., 2016; Syktus and McAlpine, 2016; Grose et al., 2019;
        Chapman et al., 2020). Table 1 lists the CMIP5 models used for downscaling under high-emissions scenario using the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) radiative forcings. In order to assess
        heatwaves under 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 °C of global warming, a warming
        rate of at least 3 °C by the end of the century is required. The RCP8.5 scenario is the only Representative Concentration Pathway where ensemble runs consistently meet this condition, producing global warming
        in excess of 3.7 °C by 2100 In addition, projections were tailored to support climate adaptation policies in Queensland, such as the Queensland State Heatwave Risk Assessment.Assessments of future risk usually assume worst-case scenarios to avoid neglecting unknown risk and build appropriate community resilience and preparedness.
        Dynamical downscaling is generally performed over a limited region,
        using high-resolution Regional Climate Models driven by initial
        and boundary conditions from a host GCM to derive smaller-scale information and is considered a more robust approach to obtain high resolution climate simulations from GCMs than statistical downscaling
        (Giorgi and Gutowski, 2015). In our approach we used global variable
        resolution climate model driven by sea surface temperatures and sea
        ice from selected CMIP5 GCMs to produce high-resolution regional projections for Queensland centered over the 9.5–32°S and 132–158°E domain (Fig. S1). We use a two-stage dynamical downscaling approach,
        which allows a gradual increase in spatial resolution in order to achieve
        physical consistency in simulations. First, 11 CMIP5 models were downscaled using bias corrected sea surface temperatures and sea ice and RCP8.5 radiative forcings as prescribed by CMIP5 experimental protocol (Taylor et al., 2012) to produce a set of CCAM global 50 km uniform [continued at great length]

        That heavily model-based approach does not pass a “simple sanity test.” Such a test would be passed by Geoff Sherrington’s analysis based on observed data only.

      • ‘We used interpolated daily temperature surfaces (minima and maxima) with 5 km spatial resolution for historical records (period 1950–2016) for the entire Australia obtained from the Australian Water Availability Project – AWAP (Jones et al., 2009; Raupach et al., 2009).’

        http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmax.aus.0112.42219.png

        Blah, blah, blah.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: ‘We used interpolated daily temperature surfaces

        Indeed they did!

        And what use they made of‘ interpolated daily temperature surfaces: a method that passes a simple sanity test? No, merely adjusting the GCM outputs not to be too inaccurate.

      • No – they used the historic data to conclude that heat waves increased in the past 67 years. As common sense with a warming continent would dictate. No model needed for the past.

      • John Anderton

        It is interesting that the maps of Au. temp anomalies from 1910-2020 are based on a reference range from 1961-1990…. Why those start and end years for comparison? Why does the 29 year reference range begin after the midpoint of the period? That would seem to paint an inconclusive result.

      • That graph shows anomalies – the difference from average temps in the reference period. No great mystery there.

  21. Pingback: Warmth waves and sizzling air – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News

  22. Pingback: Heat waves and hot air – Climate- Science.press

  23. Dr. Curry, I share your frustration with the new wordpress block editor. I have taken to making the first block in a post a classical format, which then allows me to cut and paste as I have in the past. Some care is required not to have a new block inserted, as it will be in the default block edit format if not again set as a classical one.

  24. They are discussing protectionist policy in the EU parliament and riots in the US Congress. Therefore, for the next couple of weeks, Portland Oregon must be hotter and safer than ever before, even though neither is true.

  25. If rising CO2 has a positive influence on the Northern Annular mode, then by default it should intensify positive NAM driven heatwaves of typically longer duration, and reduce the brief hot plumes which are dependent on neutral to negative NAM conditions. If NAM was strongly positive the circulation would be more zonal, inhibiting brief plumes.

    The brief Saharan plumes in the Summer of 2019 in Europe were dependent on strongly negative NAO conditions, so they are predictably more common during centennial solar minima. The 1880-1890’s has several similar examples:
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetdl1772on.dat
    (Sorry Friederike Otto)

    Maybe the critical question with the US west coast brief hot plume, given that NAM was around neutral, is what caused the warm SST anomaly driving the blocking pattern?

  26. Today’s WSJ …

    “The floods coincide with a bout of severe heat and drought in parts of the U.S. and Europe, and some scientists say there is evidence of extreme weather events becoming more frequent as climate change progresses.

    An October 2020 report by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction found that the number of major natural disasters in the period 2000 to 2019 had risen 74.5% compared with the period 1980-1999, with a large part of the difference accounted for by weather-related events such as floods, storms and droughts.

    While not all extreme weather events can be explained by climate change, many scientists have warned that global warming would lead to more unpredictable weather patterns and an increased occurrence of extreme events, according to Mr. Marx, the Helmholtz-Center researcher.

    Mr. Marx noted that Germany had experienced similar disasters in the past 15 years and that it is difficult to establish a clear link between individual events and global climate change.

    “But it is also true that such events are expected as the climate changes: a heated earth surface means more water in the atmosphere, and that can lead to severe rains and we are seeing this take place now,” Mr. Marx, who specializes in drought research, said.

    There is clear evidence that extremely wet periods that regularly take place are getting wetter, while extremely dry periods are becoming drier due to climate change, he said.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/floods-in-germany-belgium-leave-at-least-100-dead-as-rescuers-race-to-find-survivors-11626427590

  27. This is a very interesting discussion. I am by no means an expert in climate modelling, but I have worked on a number of global industrial pollution models underpinning both stationary and mobile source emissions regulations.

    (So I know that the relationships between even simple models, and complex reality are “interesting” to say the least.)

    So what?

    My take on the dialogue above is that it argues “it is extremely hard to prove that temperature events limited to a few day’s duration, and small parts of Earth…result from systemic changes in the Earth’s atmosphere….caused by human behavior….that is only “milliseconds” long in geological time.”

    I could be dead wrong, but that’s my gestalt reading.

    But even if I am wrong, here are facts from the part of human behavior and industrial reality….that I do know intimately.

    Covid induced the largest single, almost instant drop in worldwide DRIVING since automotive transport was invented.

    Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) dropped worldwide about 50% to 70% for the first time in modern automotive history.

    Especially notable is that VMT collapsed to even lower levels in most of the “urban heat islands” of the world.

    This is also notable, because the modern vehicle fleet of approximately 1.4 to 1.6 Billion vehicles is a much larger pollution-generation device than the automotive fleet (parc) pre-1950.

    So the current collapse in VMT is a huge event – in terms of the ratio of environmental insult (driving) to the total global “atmosphere”

    This may be a crude layperson’s language – but my math is correct. The emissions mass of the modern global vehicle fleet is a much larger percent of “the atmosphere” than it was even 70 years ago.

    So such a sudden collapse for 6-8 months should be noticeable on the widespread, highly sophisticated, earthbound and satellite-based, sensors that can track human effects on the atmosphere.

    In addition global air traffic dropped by more than 90% – and stayed at that level for months – for the first time in modern aviation history.

    Air traffic collapse is also important, because many pollution experts argue it it ‘injects the bad stuff”…directly into “some of the most sensitive parts of the atmosphere”.

    (I am paraphrasing the scientific regulatory documents submitted to government regulators here. Those regulators who argue that climate change is caused by humans are asserting that air travel is especially dangerous.)

    So what?

    Unlike the temperature sensors of 150 years ago, modern human society has one of the largest, most sensitive, globally dense system of sensors – in human history.

    We have them on Earth and in space.

    Climate warming advocates cite this amazing array of technology as the most credible source “proving” human effects on the atmosphere and (long term) climate.

    And….

    …I can’t find any source, anywhere that is commenting on this historic, global collapse in the human pollution emitted by 7 billion people.

    Might be there.

    But I can’t find it anywhere.

    So what?

    Hypothesis:

    If the densest global array of sensors tracking human emissions and resulting insult to “the environment” – in history did not record this inadvertent human “global human emissions reduction experiment”…..

    ….then why in the world should 7 billion people believe the assertions of a few thousand humans – who assert that they have special knowledge of the human effects on the climate…

    …when they seem unable to detect, process, or discuss….

    …what may have been the largest human climate dynamics experiment in modern history?

    I’m just a poor country boy in this world.

    But I do know that the vast array of atmospheric sensors around the world should have been able to detect the largest emissions experiment in human history.

    Until I see papers emerging on this….or until my county-boy observations are proven irrelevant…

    ….I’m not sure we should bet $ Trillion global infrastructure changes…

    ….based on the assertions of a few thousand researchers….

    ….who seem to have ignored the data emerging from ground-level transportation monitors…again…in what is perhaps the largest in vivo global pollution experiment in history.

    Just sayin’

  28. A decade or two of no heating and/or global cooling means nothing to the climatists who will obsess about a heat wave in the Northern Hemisphere because, where Western Leftists live, any heat wave is by definition a runaway heat wave– a ball of fire coming out of the depths of the ocean to consume all life.

  29. FollowTheAnts

    Adding to my comment above.

    I know there is not a direct connection between my observations of the short term global transportation collapse and “the climate.”

    A 14 month event can not possibly change the climate, even though in terms of pollution sources, this collapse was historic, measurable, and even quite visible to non-scientists who were seeing clear skies for the first time in decades

    My expertise is not in forecasting the climate.

    It is in tracking the effects of global human behavior on natural resources, transportation, communication, waste, recycling, other human networked behavior, etc.

    I know for example that the primary ENVIRONMENTAL effect of Electric Vehicles will not be in terms of mobile source emissions. It will be in terms of the massive mining, smelting, water use, electricity source use, and scrap and recycling.

    I also know that few of the policy advocates for EV’s have measured the global effects of such transportation ecosystems. The IPCC documents contain nothing resembling professional assessment of these post-use networks.

    And it is clear to those of us who track these systems on the ground that the rule in myopic blanket policy implementation is UNINTENDED consequences, not the intended ones.

    But – the collapse in global traffic mobile source emissions is unprecedented.

    Climate regulators might argue that the drop in a few billion or trillion miles of driving is not so significant now….

    ….because these climate regulators had the foresight to put catalysts on cars for decades, etc.

    But then one can read the assertions by these same regulators that even though petrol cars have cleaned up most of their sulphur, nitrogen, etc emissions…

    …they are still “very bad actors” …because they still emit CO2!!

    Think about this.

    The “policy industry” always needs a villain to slay, or they are out of business.

    So over the years, they have moved from sulphur, nitrogen, carbon particulates as villains (because they were reduced by vehicle technology changes)….

    …and if it were not for the remaining villain of CO2….they would not have a global enemy to justify billions of dollars of funding.

    So my observation is very simple.

    The massive, historic, global drop in Vehicle Miles traveled is unprecedented.

    It is not a theoretical modeling event

    It was the sudden cessation of 50-70% of CO2 emissions for the entire global transportation sector.

    For scientists this is a godsend.

    How often can you reduce by 70% the (arguably) “largest threat to Earth’s climate”…CO2…

    …IN VIVO…

    ….not in some lab experiment…combined with some limited models…edited by editors with vested interest in funding?

    To those of us who drive long distances, the lay person’s eye could see the smog above cities was almost gone last year.

    Is this science? Perhaps not.

    But it might be similar to the Apple on Newton’s nose.

    Or Einstein’s fantasy looking out the window at trains while operating a telegraph.

    (I am not arguing that I’m like Einstein – not in any way)

    But as one who helped create the fuel economy and emissions regulations – and who witnessed the back room, real world negotiations on those rules….

    ….it is clear that an honest assessment of global human behavior with respect to both atmosphere and climate…

    …should at least include some analysis of the global transportation collapse…

    …which at the very least represents proxy data that might be woven into increasingly more sophisticated environmental science and policy.

    • Who cares whether or not 2020’s car and airplane transportation pause had any kind of measurable impact on the earth’s climate system?

      What is far more measurable and is far more important as a question to be answered is the effect the 2020 transportation pause had on the world economy’s ability to support our current human population.

      It is clear from the 2020 experiment that the world and our human population can get by reasonably well without cars and airplanes. It is also reasonably clear that we cannot get by without farm tractors, cargo ships, and freight trains.

      Take the farm tractors, the cargo ships, and the freight trains away and the world’s human population is in deep trouble.

    • The drop in emissions in 2020 was some 6.4% Hardly a blip. There is a much bigger picture. EV batteries can be recycled – the problem is to scale up and automate. And battery chemistries are evolving constantly. The underlying imperative is to supply enough power. With cheaper, safer, less wasteful and proliferation resistant nuclear energy anything is possible. Population management, fueling economic growth, meeting energy demand and ensuring food security. In the interim there are sufficient fossil fuels to power progress.

      https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711

      Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

      Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. 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.

      The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

      • ….
        More than two dozen electric Proterra buses first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016 are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.

        The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020 due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the powerful battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes. The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.

        The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.
        ….

        Yes, this exemplifies the ludicrousness of the RIE approach to reality.

  30. You could say, Noah’s flood was ’caused’ by the acts of man, which in fact is part and parcel of the biblical account but then, you’d have to believe that acts of man caused the melting of the glaciers, too. While true for some it’s not a very scientific view of the nature of things. Doesn’t it seem more likely that the climate change that caused the melting of the glaciers had nothing to do with acts of man?

    • ‘By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self-similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst.’ Benoit B. Mandelbrot, James R. Wallis, 1968, Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology

    • The ice on Greenland, Antarctica and other Glaciers and ice sheets are always flowing and thawing and pushing ice on land and into oceans and causing cooling.
      In cold times when the polar oceans are covered with sea ice, the sequestered ice on land dumps into the oceans and cools them and supports the sea ice. When the land ice is depleted, the warm tropical gulf stream thaws the sea ice and evaporation and snowfall rebuilds the sequestered ice on land. Warm times with sea ice removed is necessary to rebuild and maintain the sequestered ice on land in polar regions.
      This is simple common sense knowledge supported by ice core records.

      Lake effect snow falls on Buffalo New York when Lake Erie is Thawed.

      Lake effect snow does not fall on Buffalo New York when Lake Erie is Frozen.

      Ocean effect snow in polar regions works the same way.
      It snows and rebuilds sequestered ice in warm times when the sea ice is gone. In cold times the sea ice prevents evaporation and snowfall and the sequestered ice on land flows into the oceans an keeps it cold enough to support sea ice until the sequestered ice is depleted.

      This explains why the polar regions promote alternating warm and cold periods.

      This is simple, easy to understand stuff, all supported by ice core records.
      Ice accumulation is most in warmest times and least in coldest times.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A low falling from the north will bring relief to the west coast of North America.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The spots currently on the Sun continue to show very weak magnetic activity (weak flares). The current solar cycle promises to be extremely weak, much weaker than the previous solar cycle, which was also weak.
    https://i.ibb.co/4Wzjg95/AR-CH-20210715-hres.png

  33. JC … If I were a graduate student I’d take you up on your experiment suggestions. Ever the educator, you continue to share and show the way. This was an excellent post. Thank you.

  34. https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/flawed-heatwave-report-leads-to-false.html#comment-form

    Follow up post from Cliff on the attribution paper highlighted at Real Climate.

    • Did you catch the irony of Cliff criticizing the WWA report because it was rushed and wasn’t peer reviewed!

      • Curious George

        Only David Appell can criticize a report for not being peer reviewed.

      • Thomas Fuller

        Mr. Appel, Cliff has been tending his specific garden (NW climate) for decades now. He has the data, the context and the background to provide very quick analyses of the situation.

        With all the goodwill in the world, the 27 scientists you reference may not have been able to get up to speed as quickly or as thoroughly as Cliff.

      • Tony Banton

        As a fellow (retired UKMO ) meteorologist:
        My conclusion is that it is difficult to attribute the Meteorological set-up that provided the heatwave – but that (and I believe he thinks the same) there was at least an extra 2C added to the extreme because of AGW.
        In the end you cannot divorce weather from climate (in the sense of it proving the energy available for weather to ‘happen’.

      • David Appell

        Curious George: Only David Appell can criticize a report for not being peer reviewed

        So someone can miss the irony of Cliff Mass criticizing a report for not being peer reviewed.

        I stand corrected.

      • Herman Pope

        Peer Review, that is the 97% practicing, you scratch my back and I will scratch your back. You write stuff that conforms to consensus and it will be approved. If you are on the 97% list of approved experts, your stuff can almost be sure to be rubber stamped. Just write it complicated enough that no one could understand it anyway.

    • Perhaps but that’s mostly irrelevant. The criticisms he presented looked correct to me. It is more telling that RealClimate, a site designed to further political goals and which has beaten the weak filter of peer review drum for decades now goes with a hasty non-peer reviewed and flawed report. Cliff’s most telling points are about the authors apparent lack of knowledge of NW weather and climatology. It would have been simple enough to send it to someone who had that detailed knowledge before release.

      Some of it is very striking such as the admission that the models used didn’t find any nonlinear changes to weather patterns over the NW. But as Cliff points out, the models would be expected to be completely incapable of finding those things anyway even if they did exist. The use of models for regional climate I thought had been conclusively shown to be not useful.

      The most convincing argument to me is that its temperature gradients that control how severe the weather is. With global warming the pole to equator gradient will go down. That might account for example for the way severe tornadoes have been in a strong decline in the US.

      • David Appell

        dpy, so you too criticize the WWA report for being “hasty” and “non-peer reviewed,” while accepting the same in Cliff’s blog post.

        Very telling.

      • David Appell

        dpy6629 wrote: Some of it is very striking such as the admission that the models used didn’t find any nonlinear changes to weather patterns over the NW. But as Cliff points out, the models would be expected to be completely incapable of finding those things anyway even if they did exist. The use of models for regional climate I thought had been conclusively shown to be not useful.

        Cliff is hardly an expert on climate models, but if the models can’t find nonlinear changes, which isn’t too surprising to anyone, climate scientists have been talking about similar things for at least 20 years, then they can’t find nonlinear changes. No one claims models are perfect. This is a worrisome development, if the heat wave in the Pac NW is in fact some new nonlinear development, and/or the extreme rainfall in Europe, some new climate domain, then we’re in trouble, with climate weirdness going on that we can’t model. What’s your point?

      • OK, you are pointing to issues of form. How about the substance.

      • We are back to the pseudo-scientific observation that a rare event happened. As Cliff points out such regional events happen every few years somewhere on the planet.

        Cliff has access to regional high resolution models that I believe he referred to in his post. Those would have a better chance of resolving any nonlinear changes.

        But even more telling is that climate models have little skill at predicting patterns of change and therefore are unreliable indicators of things like ECS.

      • David Appell

        Whether climate models can model nonlinearities *is* substance.

        Whether we should believe Cliff’s hasty blog post, or a 10-day deep dive by 27 other scientists, let’s talk about that. Cliff was very quick and on his own — this big group in effect peer reviewed each other. You presumably know how it is when a big group works together, versus a lone individual.

        Hasty. Non-peer reviewed. Yeah.

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Heat and cold waves are perfectly visible in the lower stratosphere. During periods of very low solar activity the distribution of ozone over polar circle is very uneven. This leads to an inhibition of the latitudinal circulation in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. The stagnation results in the formation of stationary jet current loops in the mid-latitudes. This leads to both prolonged heat and prolonged precipitation.
    https://i.ibb.co/cJXgVsq/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f120.png
    https://i.ibb.co/9V003jY/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png

  36. Record breaking heat may result in both record breaking cherries, and a record breaking rise in temperature record cherry-picking

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/cherry-picking-record-is-latest-heat.html

  37. Record breaking heat may give rise to record breaking cherries and a record breaking rise in temperature record cherry-picking.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/cherry-picking-record-is-latest-heat.html

  38. Tamino posted a thorough and independent analysis: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/07/16/northwest-heat-wave/

  39. Matthew R Marler

    Was the record snowfall in Wyoming a few months ago a 4-sigma event?

    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/mar/14/record-breaking-snowstorm-blankets-wyoming/

  40. Matthew R Marler

    Was the record flooding in Australia a few months ago a 4-sigma event?

    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/mar/24/40000-evacuated-at-least-2-dead-in-massive/

  41. Matthew R Marler

    Continuing in this vein, how many rare events have happened so far in 2021? How many rare events will happen in the rest of the year? Where will the rare events happen?

    Can Mann and company tell us? For one high profile example, see this article in the NYTimes by Michael Mann: Climate change is behind the heat dome.

    Why or why not? Can we prepare now to start assessing the models’ accuracy?

  42. Matthew R Marler

    Was the record-breaking widespread winter storm in the US last February a 4-sigma event?

    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/feb/16/winter-storm-not-over-yet-for-much-of-the-country/

    To interested readers: How many other rare events can you find from scouring the news? Any in Central Asia or S. America?

    • Matthew R Marler

      oops, I forgot to mention the oceans.

    • I live in Chile and haven’t heard of anything super inusual here or in nearby countries, although so far winter has been cold but very, very dry both in here and in Argentina. Sadly it has been that way for the past few years :(

  43. Claude Guyot-Sionnest

    The worst known flood in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages is the most telling argument one can find to refute Anthropogenic Global Warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood

    • Very interesting – thx. The date of 1342 and the accounts of the preceding & following extreme weather puts it in the poorly named Little Ice Age. I interpret this as evidence of the millenial climate cycle, being an overall increase in tidal energy from the Sun, which is the phenomenon humanity is slowly entering into today.

      • David Appell

        Alan Lowey: The date of 1342 and the accounts of the preceding & following extreme weather puts it in the poorly named Little Ice Age. I interpret this as evidence of the millenial climate cycle, being an overall increase in tidal energy from the Sun, which is the phenomenon humanity is slowly entering into today.

        1) It’s well established that the LIA wasn’t global

        2) There is no evidence for an “overall increase in tidal energy from the Sun,” and you’ve never provided any.

      • The LIA was global – but just why is another story.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pages.png

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote: The LIA was global – but just why is another story.

        “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”

        — “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

      • Herman Pope

        The ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica do show that the warm and cold cycles did not match. The Little Ice Age was in the Northern Hemisphere and data in the Southern Hemisphere cycled differently. This is recorded in the Ice Core Records.

      • “The Little Ice Age was in the Northern Hemisphere and data in the Southern Hemisphere cycled differently. This is recorded in the Ice Core Records.” – Herman

        Yes, there’s certainly evidence of a shift in emphasis between the hemispheres in both the millennial climate cycle and glacial cycle. It was referred to as a “see-saw” effect in ice age theory.

        This points to an orbital driver imv, with the Sun’s core tilting above and then below the plane of the planets to give the millennial cycle.

        The orbit of Earth itself would go above and then below the plane of the planets to account for the 100kyr glacial cycle.

        (Due to climate change being currently more pronounced in the Northern hemisphere it suggests the last millennial cycle was more pronounced in the Southern hemisphere – unless current climate change is due to a smaller ~215yr cycle for example)

      • It sure looks global on Figure 2 of the “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013 – that I linked earlier. And with a hint of antiphase polar temperatures.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/pages.png

    • Setting aside the AGW issue, this from the Wikipedia article.

      “ The volume of the eroded soil during this short incident (a few days) is determined to be more than 13 billion metric tons,[2] a volume that is washed away under normal climate conditions over a period of 2,000 years.[3]”

      If close to accurate, what an enormous impact. Fascinating.

    • Claude Guyot-Sionnest commented: The worst known flood in Germany at the end of the Middle Ages is the most telling argument one can find to refute Anthropogenic Global Warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Mary_Magdalene%27s_flood

      Was that flood worse than today’s? I’ve seen today’s described as a 1-in-1000 year event.

      In any case, it doesn’t refute AGW, it provides evidence for it. It’s very unlikely that such another severe flood would be happening again, *now*.

      According to the Wikipedia entry, the 2002 floods wasn’t as bad, but close. Now again we have flooding as bad(?), nearly as bad(?), worse(?).

      Twice in 20 years? That’s very suspicious.

      It indicates something new is at play, some new factor.

      The obvious new factor is AGW, with which more extreme downpours are obviously expected (since more water vapor is in the air — observed), and for which there is evidence:

      Papalexiou, S. M., & Montanari, A.(2019). Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resources Research, 55,4901–4914. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067

      • David

        When are you going to stop coming up with whiffs?

        From IPCC5. 2.6.2.2

        “ In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low con- fidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

        Science, David, Science. Try it sometime.

      • > From IPCC5. 2.6.2.2

        Why not quote it in full. It’s 3 paragraphs long:

        AR4 WGI Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007) did not assess changes in floods but AR4 WGII concluded that there was not a general global trend in the incidence of floods (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). SREX went further to suggest that there was low agreement and thus low confidence at the global scale regarding changes in the magnitude or fre-quency of floods or even the sign of changes.

        AR5 WGII assesses floods in regional detail accounting for the fact that trends in floods are strongly influenced by changes in river management (see also Section 2.5.2). Although the most evident flood trends appear to be in northern high latitudes, where observed warming trends have been largest, in some regions no evidence of a trend in extreme flooding has been found, for example, over Russia based on daily river discharge (Shiklomanov et al., 2007). Other studies for Europe (Hannaford and Marsh, 2008; Renard et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Stahl et al., 2010) and Asia (Jiang et al., 2008; Delgado et al., 2010) show evidence for upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude and frequency of floods, so that there is currently no clear and widespread evidence for observed changes in flooding except for the earlier spring flow in snow dominated regions (Seneviratne et al., 2012).

        In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf

        Not sure how it relates to David’s point, persuming he has one, but if Denizens RTFR, who cares?

      • Persistence in hydrological series in not at all surprising. There are decadal regimes in both evaporation and precipitation – but no trend. My guess is that there is no reason for increased water vapor in a warmer atmosphere to not stay there.

        https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/hess-24-3899-2020-avatar-web.png
        https://www.moviebytes.com/scifi-screenplay-contests.cfm

      • David Appell

        Ckid, the Papalexiou & Montanari 2019 paper came out (obviously) after the IPCC AR5, so it wouldn’t have been included in it.

        Climate science is a rapidly changing field. Let’s see what the AR6 says.

      • “Other studies for Europe show evidence for upward, downward or no trend in the magnitude and frequency of floods,”

        OMG… It’s worse than we thought! Up, down, and no trend – all clear and convincing proof!
        Behold.. the existential threat is here, the Swedish teenagers will see you now.

  44. The hypothesis of climate change being due to increasing tidal energy from the Sun, which has unexplainable gamma-ray anomalies, has supporting evidence from extragalactic gamma-ray research:
    ….
    The finding raises questions about our fairly simplistic model of how gamma-ray bursts are produced, suggesting more complex physics may be at play . “If that suddenly gets question marks, then it’s really exciting,” said Reville.
    ..
    Scientists hope to clarify, too, whether the object produced at the center of a gamma-ray burst is a black hole or a neutron star.
    ..
    Half a century after their accidental discovery, we are now beginning to study these events like never before. “We’re learning very quickly,” said Taylor, “and what we’ve learned in the last 20 years has not shown any evidence of stopping us being surprised.”
    ..
    https://www.wired.com/story/what-causes-gamma-ray-bursts-their-ultrabright-flashes-hold-clues/amp

    • Alan Lowey commented: The hypothesis of climate change being due to increasing tidal energy from the Sun, which has unexplainable gamma-ray anomalies,

      Alan, you get more ridiculous every day, which is saying a lot.

      Gamma rays have nothing to do with tides.

      Do you have any evidence of “increasing tidal energy from the Sun?” If not then stop it.

  45. Radical environmentalists who have found a welcome home on the Left are the new Neanderthals of the 21st century. “Don’t be fooled by the fanfare in Paris,” says Mario Loyola (Twilight of the Climate Change Movement)

    • Many comments here suggest reports of the old Neanderthals ‘ extinction may have been somewhat exaggerated..

  46. Matthew R Marler

    Here is what I posted at Real Climate:

    There have been a number of extreme events so far in 2021. Here is a short list:

    https://www.npr.org/2021/07/17/1017256168/europe-germany-floods-death-toll-water-receding
    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/mar/14/record-breaking-snowstorm-blankets-wyoming/
    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/mar/24/40000-evacuated-at-least-2-dead-in-massive/
    https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/feb/16/winter-storm-not-over-yet-for-much-of-the-country/

    Have there been more? Can you do the same kind of analysis on these (and others) as described in the rapid attribution paper? Can that combination of modeling and statistical analysis be used to forecast the extreme events likely to occur in the remainder of 2021, including their geographic distribution?

    For 2022, instead of waiting for an extreme event to occur and then doing the rapid attribution analysis for it alone, could you select at random at the start of the year some 20 or so regions of equal size and perform the rapid attribution analysis on them all at year-end?

    And for every year after, sampling places randomly with replacement as the models are improved?

    The authors write as though the models are reliable enough for the results of the analyses to be believed, but I think a more systematic approach as I outlined would be more informative. Right now I am doubtful that such analyses are sound enough to be relied upon, but I am hopeful of seeing actual accurate predictions (without post hoc excuse mongering) in my lifetime (I am 74.)

    Thanks to the site managers. I saw the rapid attribution paper elsewhere first, but I am thankful that it was linked here. It repays close study, and is, I think I hinted, a good method to repeat in the future.

  47. Science shows just how uncertain the future is. Hurst’s statistical analysis of the long Nile River record revealed structure in the data – long term persistence and transitions – that was not independent or random Gaussian white noise. Dimitris Koutsoyiannis has dubbed it Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics.

    e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2015.1125998

    ‘Climate dynamics is characterized by high complexity since it involves the spatio-temporal evolution of numerous geophysical variables (i.e., multivariate stochastic processes) interacting with each other in a nonlinear way, forming, among others, the hydrological cycle. Nevertheless, even if we could determine a set of physical laws that describe in full detail the complexity of climate dynamics, it would be impossible to combine the equations for the purpose of predictability due to the existence of chaos, i.e., a nonpredictive sensitivity to initial conditions.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/8/2/59/htm

    The spatiotemporal evolution of Earth’s flow field has many characteristic nonlinear globally coupled oscillators seen as ocean and atmospheric indices. If the flow is perturbed these turbulent patterns – governed by the incalculable 3-D Navier-Stokes partial differential equations – may change a little or a lot. Future uncertainty encompasses all past variability.

    Pragmatic policy responses ‘would be to approach the object of emissions reduction via other goals, riding with other constituencies and gathering other benefits…

    The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ The Hartwell Paper, 2010

    • Robert I. Ellison commented: The spatiotemporal evolution of Earth’s flow field has many characteristic nonlinear globally coupled oscillators seen as ocean and atmospheric indices. If the flow is perturbed these turbulent patterns – governed by the incalculable 3-D Navier-Stokes partial differential equations – may change a little or a lot. Future uncertainty encompasses all past variability.

      Yes yes yes yes yes you’ve been saying ad nauseum. To no effect whatsoever.

      Everyone knows this. Everyone.

      Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world, where we’re living with 0.30+ C of land surface warming every decade.

      We can all just sit back and count our chickens until a dear Robert’s Glorious Tipping Point(tm) happen, if it ever does this millennium, or we can get on with the hard work of shoving these prickly theoretical types aside and starting cutting emissions drastically until we live in a sustainable, carbon-free society where just maybe Wall Street profits might have to take a little bit of a shave on next quarter’s profits oh my oh no what a huge terrible disaster let the rich have to sell maybe just one of their spaceships.

      He’ll squawk just a little bit but it’s nothing we can’t live with and put underfoot very easily in the name of true human progress.

      • David abuses science by recycling – ad nauseum – fixed ideas in pursuit of a socialist cultural agenda. He squawks a lot.

        My comment develops ideas in climate science that David doesn’t approve of, quotes a new paper and spells out a new notion – to me – of future uncertainty.

        Finally it quotes again from the 2010 Hartwell Paper on pragmatic responses that are the basis for real world progress.

        He may try to cancel me all he likes but he is a hopeless monomaniac.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2021/05/01/capability-browns-oblique-approach-to-climate-policy/

      • David Appell

        For RIE, it’s a “socialist agenda” to simply want to reduce carbon emissions and hence global warming.

        Which displays a (willing) ignorance about the socialism already in place that props up the fossil fuel economic system, and the market and capitalistic possibilities behind a carbonless, renewable economy.

        Why would someone deny the latter? One reason could be that they have economic interests of their own in the fossil fuel economy. Just one.

        In any case, it’s a stunning lack of knowledge, foresight, interest and concern for the future to dismiss out-of-hand a sustainable future because one can’t admit that fossil fuels have done great damage to the environment over the last 150 years, pushed by the profit motive-at-any-cost imperative of capitalism. No wonder RIE wants to ignore external costs — admitting them raises questions he is in no way prepared to address.

      • It is how they see it happening that is ideology and science is used as a stalking horse for invidious aspirations. I have asked David to come clean but he didn’t. A cultural agenda that dare not speak its name. A myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the scholarly journals.

        He obviously doesn’t read my comments. I have interests in a Chinese EV maker, I am long in metals like copper for the inevitable energy transition, I have shares in companies providing equipment for precision agriculture including John Deere, I have a bit of Dominion Energy. To cover my bases I have a bit of Chevron – because I expect prices for fossil fuels to rise with exponentially growing demand. US gas by the boreal winter – with low storage and an increase in US exports of 20-25% this year.

        ‘Dominion Energy is building a clean and sustainable energy future for
        our customers, communities, and you, our shareholders. Whether through the largest offshore wind development in the Western Hemisphere, or an
        ambitious solar and storage buildout, or the nation’s largest investment
        in renewable natural gas, your company is committed to combating
        climate change and serving 7 million customers safely and reliably while
        keeping rates affordable. Onward to net zero: We have cut enterprise wide carbon-equivalent emissions by about 55%.’
        https://s2.q4cdn.com/510812146/files/doc_financials/2020/ar/Dominion_Energy_2020_Summary_Annual_Report.pdf

        Can they do it? They have a comprehensive package – including extending operation of their current nuclear fleet and ultimately deploying advanced nuclear reactors. I’m betting they can.

        Energy is the cornucopia that makes civilisation possible. Whatever David imagines it costs the truth is that it is worth much more. I am all for an orderly transition to low cost low carbon energy but we are not technologically there. There should be R&D on technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. But there is no justification for deploying technology that cannot work at the scale required or at a reasonable cost. That cannot solve the problem and impoverishes us all.

        The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

        Cheap and abundant energy powers economic growth. 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.

        My cultural bias is freely admitted. The rule of law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness), government size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health), regulatory efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom), open markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom). The rights bestowed on humanity by God. In concert they provide guidelines for human progress.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: My cultural bias is freely admitted. The rule of law…government size…regulatory efficiency…open markets…The rights bestowed on humanity by God. In concert they provide guidelines for human progress.

        By God. Does this God say “business freedom” mean they can pollute the air, water, and atmosphere, killing people, sickening people, changing the climate for the next 100,000 years?

        Is that part of human progress? Or does progress stop once we learned to burn fossil fuels? What’s the next step to overcome the very serious *problems* burning fossil fuels are causing and will cause more of?

        And who is going to stop them? Regulate them? God? Or governments, i.e. the people? Do the people have a right to insist on clean air, clean water, a stable climate, one where heat waves don’t kill hundreds or thousands, where wildfires don’t burn down town or run so amok there’s no hope of stopping them until winter does it for us (hopefully)? Where the world’s coastal cities aren’t slowly drowned? Ecosystems ruined, species driven to extinction?

        Take you eyes out of your Ayn Rand books and look at the world around you. Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics is your neat and tidy answer to everything yet it explains nothing, has no evidence behind it and most of all, helps no one deal with the problems “open markets” — neoliberal unregulated global capitalism, which is not your father’s capitalism — have and are causing.

        We’ll have 2 C of warming. Would you like 3 C? 4 C? When will you wake up? Your God is not going to save anybody.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Or does progress stop once we learned to burn fossil fuels? What’s the next step to overcome the very serious *problems* burning fossil fuels are causing and will cause more of?

        Elsewhere RIE has written in support of small modular reactors, and much else of value like improved water management and soil restoration.

      • Actually, David, progress took a GIANT LEAP when we learned to burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels fuel our progress even today. And will continue to do so in the future.

      • @David Appell

        “Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world, where we’re living with 0.30+ C of land surface warming every decade.”

        Where do you get 0.3+C per decade? According to UAH it’s about 0.15C per decade, HADCRUT 4 about the same, BEST is about 0.2 per dec, GISStemp is a bit less than 0.2.

  48. CO2 is a trace gas 400 ppm in the very thin Earth’s atmosphere.

  49. Judith – I hated the new editor too so I downloaded and activated the “Classic Editor” plugin on my own blog. Everything went back to normal.

  50. The Australian Institute of Marine Science has found that 85% of the Great Barrier Reef has increased in hard coral.

    https://youtu.be/1vsTrf0GlP8

  51. Geoff Sherrington

    Judith, if you permit, this story partly continues comments above with Robert I Ellison, who occasionally posts here.
    I was trying to make the point that simple analysis of 6 Australian capital city heat waves using little more than adding and subtracting numbers does not support the official mantra that heat waves are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent; that the patterns in heat waves of 3,5,and 10 days duration have different time series patterns to single day values; and do not seem to show the alleged national warming of 1 deg C or so per century. One can get different patterns by using tailored, new definitions of heat wave indices that involve, for example, minimum temperatures whereas mine are all based on maximums. Modelling introduces more uncertainties than simple addition and subtraction and creates greater scope for cherry picking.
    Brisbane, Queensland was discussed. This top graph of 5-day heat waves, using raw T data as recorded, showed a big event in 1968. Put the raw data through a type of model to homogenize it, then the 1968 dominant peak disappears and the linear trend goes from horizontal to increasing warming. All done by homogenizing some 2 deg C out of the raw data for the dates of 17—21 Nov 1968.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/brisadj.jpg
    There is no doubt that a heat wave happened. This next graph of raw CDO shows daily Tmax for 5 locations near Brisbane, all less than 70 km away, through November.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/brisneigh.jpg
    In summary, there was a heat wave in 1968 in Brisbane that was the strongest in 70 years of analysis. There is no warming trend in this 5-day heat wave time series.
    After homogenization modelling, the 1968 peak has been disappeared by the ACORN-SAT process of the Bureau of Meteorology, by subtracting 2 deg C from each of the 5 hottest days of the heat wave. The trend line now shows a warming. The idea of global warming seems confirmed!
    Procedures of this type abound. It takes hours of diligence to reveal the true story, then nobody wants to hear about it. Geoff S

  52. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy Roundup #463 – Watts Up With That?

  53. Pingback: Hitzewellen und heiße Luft | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

  54. Pingback: Hitzewellen und heiße Luft – Aktuelle Nachrichten

  55. I’m just saying, has anyone like, looked at what the sun did prior to that…coz I warned a plant researcher in Canada about a week before that.

    But then, it’s also kinda difficult to dismiss other effects, which would certainly get my labelled as a conspiracy theorist. And I’m not even talking about HAARP.

    So anyone been checking the EMF… and some *cough* how would I say, subtle, easily dismissed, difficult to track, very common elements…perhaps even glamourized in society in sanitation?

    Coz I also noticed the birds are dying from a combination of what I mention there.

    But hey, I’m just a crazy antivax antiscience conspiracy theorist ex-physicist, geometer and such.

    • There was a solar storm which appeared responsible for the disappearance of 5000 racing pigeons. It shouldn’t be held directly responsible for the extreme weather events though.

  56. Additionally, I’ve been wondering about the reports of all those exploding greenhouses utilizing co2 with runaway temperature increases.

    Huge amounts of irrefutable data there, if you think about it.

    Let us practice our utmost willful ignorance and remember that other elements in the atmosphere have no thermal transfer capacity and such.

  57. Can anyone solve this astronomical mystery?? (It seems obvious to me after a few moments of consideration):
    a
    ….
    An international collaboration of astronomers, including scientists from India, has identified a curious occurrence of nine stars like objects that appeared and vanished in a small region within half an hour in an old photographic plate.

    Scientists from Sweden, Spain, the US, Ukraine, and India investigated an early form of photography that used glass plates to capture images of the night sky from the 12th of April 1950, exposed at Palomar Observatory in California, US, and detected these transient stars which were not to be found in photographs taken half an hour later and have not been traced since then.
    ….
    https://www.livemint.com/science/astronomers-identify-appearing-disappearing-stars/amp-11626432720092.html

  58. Germany experiences ‘once-in-a-millenium’ floods, which have extended to neighbouring countries and are not receding quickly:

    https://youtu.be/kfcJjh2q8s0

    • 13. August 2002 once-in-a-millenium in Dresden
      7. April 2006 once-in-a-century in Hitzacker
      6. Juni 2013 once-in-a-century in Wien
      .. and these are just random searches for “Jahrhunderflut” and “Jahrtausendflut”, I am pretty sure there are more in Europe over the last 20years..

  59. In August, we will hit the 40-year anniversary of the publication of a paper in the journal Science entitled “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.957), the abstract for which said:

    “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

    40 years ago!

    A couple of weeks ago, following weeks of drought there was a heat wave in western North America. Where I live in BC, Canada, we recorded the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada — three days in a row. In Lytton, BC (before it was all but burned out of existence), it was hotter than the hottest temperature ever recorded in Las Vegas.

    Then a team of scientists ran some models (using peer-reviewed methods) and assessed that climate change made the “Heat Dome” 150 times more likely (https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/western-north-american-extreme-heat-virtually-impossible-without-human-caused-climate-change/).

    Prediction. Realization. Attribution.

    In the face of that science and empirical evidence you provided this: “Cliff Mass has provided the best autopsy report so far on the heat wave. https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html“.

    I was almost convinced you were right when I saw that reassuring picture of an arrow with the word “TRUTH” on it. That’s much more convincing than references to peer-reviewed science (didn’t see any of those). That blog post was a roundup rant of “common sense” climate science — the closest thing to science in it were the repurposed charts and meteorological graphics.

    We can agree that in recent years there have been several very severe weather-related events that have been very costly in lives and property. The North American food supply is threatened by the current drought. The question for policy makers is: Is climate change the cause and will rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels help?

    They could base their decisions on a massive body of scientific evidence showing a clear 40-year sequence of prediction to realization to attribution.

    Or they could listen to you and Cliff: “The meteorological dice had to come up all sixes. And they did.”

    • Science has come a long way in 40 years.
      The fundamental mode of the Earth system is shifts in globally coupled patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation driving changes in ice, atmosphere, hydrosphere, cloud and biology. Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics superimposed on which is greenhouse gas warming. Way back in 2002 the NAS said that this may trigger unwelcome surprises.

      Can we distinguish an intensification of the hydrological cycle against a backdrop of intense variability?

      e.g. https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

      Or indeed AGW from natural variability?

      e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

      But the real question is what you imagine these policy makers should do about it?

    • Curious George

      “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include (1) the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, (2) erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and (3) opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

      40 years ago!”

      We are only starting the 21st century, and I don’t feel qualified at this stage to tell which of the three predictions you quote might come true. So far, all of them are hidden in noise. Do you believe that the current drought is worse than the 1930s dust bowl?

      While it was undeniably hot in Lytton, BC (116F), a record for Las Vegas is 117F.

      Regarding peer-reviewed methods, a couple of excerpts:
      “This assumes that the influence of natural forcings—variations in solar radiation and volcanic eruptions—is small compared to the anthropogenic ones, which is usually the case.” Quite an assumption.

      “As climate models usually have biases, we define the event by its return period and not by its amplitude. ” For this event, they apparently broke the peer-reviewed methods.

      “[We] combine all observational estimates under the assumption that they are highly correlated, as they are based on the same observations of the same sequence of weather… Finally we combine observations and models.”

      I am not sure what the observational estimates might be. I am not impressed by peer-reviewed methods.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      mdander,
      My studies of global warming span only 30 years and have a different viewpoint.
      The standard of science has been poor. Sure there are some high quality papers, but many simply chase research grants, often by making links between natural events and climate change mantra. (e.g. High quality papers have proper estimates of uncertainty, not numbers from an Excel plot.)
      Most of my work is for Australia. We have enormous $$$ going to barrier reef research, to climate modelling, to elimination of fossil fuels, to weird educational policies that will cripple the intellects of some children.
      The underlying driver is a thought process that CO2 affects global temperatures, so that materials or processes that are sensitive to temperature change are therefore affected by CO2, hence we must condemn fossil fuels.
      This elementary logic is unsustainable.
      .Over the last 3 decades there has been a drift in errors. Current temperature trend estimates do not reconcile with old observations. Nobody is much interested in this widening gap, which is partly from the imagination of people following the herd and the $$.
      In Australia at least, we cannot reconcile 1850-1950 near-surface land-air temperatures from then-official publications with modern versions. Ditto for sea temperatures around places like the Reef. Ditto for old heat waves. Sure, there has been some gentle land-air warming, maybe 0.4C per century at most, not the claimed 1.2C. That claimed figure has a lot of one-sided estimation, where it is ok to add new work to the old average provided it shows more warming. This creep accumulates to gives a rate of warming large enough to alarm alarmists.
      Reality is, modest beneficial warming.
      Reality is, no need to curtail fossil fuels.
      Correction is taking too long.
      If you start with wrong data you will reach wrong conclusions.
      Geoff S

      • Geoff Sherrington

        mdander wrote ” If the drought had been a little less severe and the heat wave had been a few degrees less hot, Lytton would not have burned.”
        You have no basis whatsoever for that claim. Then, you talk about ‘uncertainty’.
        I have been trying to show that heat wave intensity in cases I’ve examined carefully has not been increasing over the last century, therefore bushfire intensity should not be increasing if it is related to heat waves. There are many covariates with bushfires that make correlations hard, not the least incidence of arson.
        I am not interested in criticisms of the style of authors when one can find reasons to question measurable quantities and their interpretations. Geoff S

    • Try it again? Unless you in the right theoretical ballpark it will never make sense. Reality is that climate change has only just kicked off, uncertainty is a Hurst-Kolmogorov certainty and Geoff and George have a snowball’s chance in the US NW of predicting the future. Actions have consequences and the future matters. Unless they are #&*% sure I suggest they pull their heads in.

      https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.66e0efc517643c2b8109ac/1607769322818/planetary-boundaries-cover-1620.jpg
      https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

      • David Appell

        Curious George: To declare – forgive me for using my own words – that the warming up after the Little Ice Age will continue well into the 21st century – contributes nothing to an understanding of anything.

        CO2, methane, N2O — they’re greenhouse gases. They absorb the infrared radiation given off by the Earth’s surface. More of them in the atmosphere, and more water vapor, absorbs more infrared radiation.

        This is basic physics that was known in the 19th century. By now the physics has been worked out in enormous detail. And it keeps getting warmer with no natural cause in sight.

        To deny this is to deny the basic laws of physics. Why would you possibly want to do that?

      • David invokes radiative physics of greenhouse gases as the only explanation for climate change. Recent climate change in the Earth system as a whole is observed in changes in radiation at TOA.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’
        TAR s3.4.4.1

        It is unequivocally observed in cloud in the right region. It suggests positive cloud feedback to SST – but oddly he still doesn’t get it.

        e.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract

        CERES confirms it.

        e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        Limiting climate to the physics of greenhouse gases is an astonishing ignorance of the Earth system.

      • You have seen me dissing those who deny greenhouse gas physics. There are other things going on – but you don’t know what they are – do you David Appell?

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison You have seen me dissing those who deny greenhouse gas physics. There are other things going on – but you don’t know what they are – do you David Appell?

        Give it a rest. EVERYONE knows there are other things going on. If you think radiative physics is all that goes into climate models you are sadly mistaken. But the energy balance of the planet is primarily determined by the enhancing greenhouse effect and its feedbacks. Maybe there’ll be one of your beloved nonlinearities as a consequence of that. Maybe there already has been.

        But it’s nothing you can forecast or project or predict or warn about. You can only hope. Meanwhile the rest of the planet has to deal with the consequences of continued warming, which climate models are projecting quite well.

      • This is basic physics that was known in the 19th century. By now the physics has been worked out in enormous detail. And it keeps getting warmer with no natural cause in sight. David Appell

        He has an exceptionally short memory on top of a far too narrow view of Earth sciences.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Brian Rose has a model exercise that shows that conditions ranging from snowball earth to ice free earth are all possible with today’s insolation and GHG forcing by changing ocean heat transport.

        https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs2015jGRD..120.1404R/abstract

      • stevenreincarnated

        Link doesn’t work but the title is Stable “Waterbelt” climates controlled by tropical ocean heat transport: a nonlinear coupled climate mechanism of relevance to Snowball Earth

      • David Appell

        Here’s a link to the Brian Rose paper Steve mentioned:

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022659

        Thanks for noting the paper, Steve.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Thanks for posting a good link!

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented:David invokes radiative physics of greenhouse gases as the only explanation for climate change. Recent climate change in the Earth system as a whole is observed in changes in radiation at TOA.

        ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades…

        **DECADAL CHANGES**

        Decadal changes. Everyone knows this!!

        Everyone knows that on a decadal scale there are many things going on that affect climate — solar fluxes and cloud changes and the PDO and AMO going up and down and ENSOs and yadda yadda. Young people fall in love and make families.

        Your problem is that’s ALL you seem to know.

        The long-term climate of a planet is set by its energy imbalance, and in our case that will be set by our emissions of GHGs. Over the long-term, i.e. many decades (a century or so), changes in the sun’s irradiance are zero or miniscule compared to our emissions, the PDO and AMO and ENSO average to zero, cloud changes will be mostly determined by climate feedbacks, etc. Yes yes yes there’s a lot of stuff rolling and turning in the atmosphere and ocean, fluid dynamics and all that, it’s complicated, etc., but the energy imbalance and hence climate change will be determined by GHG radiative forcing.

        Maybe we pass a tipping point somewhere, or more, maybe we don’t. Nobody knows how to predict that now, including your messiahs Hurst and Kolmogorov. Parroting their names every chance you get impresses no one and is of no practical use whatsoever.

      • The Pacific state doesn’t sum to zero over any timeframe. It’s Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and not Gaussian white noise.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/moys-2002-2.png

        Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 11,000 years. It shows periods of high and low El Niño activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance some 5000 years ago that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). The red intensity in excess of 200 at times. For comparison red intensity in 97.98 was 99.

        The state of the Pacific modulates the global energy budget through demonstrated cloud feedback. Satellites since 1980 show warming in shortwave dominates cooling in infrared. The start of the 20th century saw a transition to a warmer Pacific that has persisted for 120 years in this the modern climate optimum. Anthropogenic warming has barely kicked off – we may trigger a tipping point. Much more likely at 1000 ppm CO-e in the atmosphere than 400 ppm. But something to be kept in mind.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: The Pacific state doesn’t sum to zero over any timeframe. It’s Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and not Gaussian white noise.

        What does this mean?

        How can it be deduced from the figure you provided?

        Define “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics.”

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented: The start of the 20th century saw a transition to a warmer Pacific that has persisted for 120 years in this the modern climate optimum.

        Where is the data showing that?

        Anthropogenic warming has barely kicked off – we may trigger a tipping point. Much more likely at 1000 ppm CO-e in the atmosphere than 400 ppm.

        Everyone knows this. Everyone.

      • I go away for half an hour and come back to multiple comments directed at me from David. I gave him a 360 page book as homework. Surely he gave it not a glance. Supposedly I have to prove what is fundamental knowledge without which it is all just pisin’ in the wind.

        Hurst used a statistical rescaling procedure on almost 1000 years of recorded Nile River levels. ‘Alternative names for Hurst phenomenon are Hurst effect, Joseph effect, Long term persistence, Long range dependence, Scaling behaviour (in time), Multi-scale fluctuation, etc.’ The essence is persistence in hydrological regimes – a behaviour familiar to hydrologists. The corollary is abrupt transition. The Hurst exponent defines divergence of geophysical series from Gaussian white noise.
        Nile River basin precipitation emerges in large part from the state of Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

        ‘Climate dynamics is characterized by high complexity since it involves the spatio-temporal evolution of numerous geophysical variables (i.e., multivariate stochastic processes) interacting with each other in a nonlinear way, forming, among others, the hydrological cycle. Nevertheless, even if we could determine a set of physical laws that describe in full detail the complexity of climate dynamics, it would be impossible to combine the equations for the purpose of predictability due to the existence of chaos, i.e., a nonpredictive sensitivity to initial conditions.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/8/2/59/htm

        Understanding the Lorenzian model of the Earth as a coupled, nonlinear chaotic system reveals the origin of regimes and transitions. It remains incalculable.

        ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’ Edward Lorenz

        To paraphrase Feynman – honest dumb is OK wilful ignorance is not.

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented: I go away for half an hour and come back to multiple comments directed at me from David. I gave him a 360 page book as homework

        LOL. Links are easy. I give you links to radiative physics and never hear from you again.

        Given a process defined by a parameter X as a function of time t, X(t), specify how to determine whether it follows “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics,” a phrase you smugly enjoy throwing around here at every opportunity.

        Prove that your so-called “climate regimes and transitions” follow Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as defined above.

        Show observational evidence that any climate parameter follows Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics, as defined above.

        What are the practical consequences of this idea towards solving the climate change problem?

      • The difference is that I have studied atmospheric radiative physics – you remain wilfully ignorant of hydrodynamics.

        https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/849/

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison wrote: Understanding the Lorenzian model of the Earth as a coupled, nonlinear chaotic system reveals the origin of regimes and transitions.

        What does this mean – “reveals the origin of regimes and transitions?” Show this mathematically. Not in some toy model.

        It remains incalculable

        LOL. People are calculating this stuff every day. And quite well. And not just in climate science.

        But you once read the same paper by Lorenz that everyone reads, and came across the phrase “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics” that you think makes you sound smart, and want to tell the rest of us that therefore nobody knows anything and we should all just sit back and watch Australia burn and the world fry and say,

        ‘darn, we mighta put this thing out if it wasn’t for Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics!’

        ‘nobody said there could be tipping points until that guy starting going on about Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics!’

        ‘I blame Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics for that last flood that took my ’72 Chevy down the creek. I just put a new clutch in that thing!’

      • What a very odd rant.

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented: The difference is that I have studied atmospheric radiative physics – you remain wilfully ignorant of hydrodynamics.

        It doesn’t matter what you studied as a kiddo, it matters what you know, and you haven’t shown you now know anything at all about radiative physics.

        All you keep harping on are decadal changes and imagined “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics” that you can’t even define in your own words, let alone show what use they are.

        But you have links!

      • No. I have references to scientific literature that you are incapable of even considering and 1000’s of years of data on various things. You have absurd rants about 130 ppm of extra CO2 burning up the planet.

    • The replies to my comment kind of miss my point.

      I referred to the paper by J. Hansen et al, not because it is exemplary of excellent climate science, but to reference the enormity of effort that has gone into establishing the likely effect of GHG emissions on our climate over four decades. This blog makes it a sport to hunt down the mistakes and bits of bad science, but it barely scratches the surface.

      I’m not interested in defending peer-reviewed science by countless credentialed (and I’m sure mostly ethical) climate scientists — or indeed defending the peer-review process.

      I’m just here to call Judith Curry out for highlighting that blog post by Cliff Mass (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html). Let me explain another way.

      Cliff Mass writes:

      “This concurrence of a number of factors coming together at one place and time was why the extreme heat occurred, with a very small assist from global warming, which added a few degrees to an already extreme event.”

      How many is a few degrees? What does he think the attribution study is saying?

      There are three things that contributed to the severe forest fire that almost completely destroyed Lytton, BC.

      1. An intense heat wave (max 121.3F, not 116F).

      2. Intense and persistent drought conditions.

      3. Poor forest management (that is true of BC in general, but maybe not near Lytton, not sure).

      The heat wave and the drought were exacerbated by climate change. If the drought had been a little less severe and the heat wave had been a few degrees less hot, Lytton would not have burned.

      My problem with Cliff Mass’ post is not that it is incorrect — I’m not the one to judge that. It is that it is not science and it does not properly refer to any science. Find me some climate science that properly reviews and references the science that the attribution study does and comes to a different conclusion (note: I didn’t say “refutes”).

      There’s one more thing that I want to call Judith Curry out about.

      How many times have we seen her write about climate “uncertainty”? How does deep uncertainty apply to narratives that she agrees with? How does deep uncertainty apply to Cliff Mass’ blog post? It doesn’t seem that Cliff Mass or Judith Curry are the least bit uncertain about any of it.

      Personally I think that Judith Curry is losing her edge. Maybe she should spend less time moonlighting as a maverick COVID-19 scientist and stay on task as a maverick climate scientist.

      • Well said, mdander. Always funny to see the so-called skeptics criticising others for relying on data, etc. without any reference to uncertainties, etc. Here she is praising Cliff Mass and his supposed certainties – “This…was why (it)…occurred,…” “…a few degrees…”. Very certain, isn’t he? And Judith seems to be certain that he “has provided the best autopsy report so far on the heat wave”!
        Perhaps Judith could tell us, after having judged this to be the best report (relying, as I’m sure she does, on the analysis of the data provided) how she is certain that Cliff is correct as to why the heat wave happened and how many are “a few degrees”?

      • Curious George

        “The heat wave and the drought were exacerbated by climate change. If the drought had been a little less severe and the heat wave had been a few degrees less hot, Lytton would not have burned.”

        You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just that, not a science. Hourly data from Lytton on June 30 show the maximum temperature 36.8C at 16:00, end of data, the station probably burned down. The temperature on June 29 reached 47.7C.

      • Hi Curios George.

        I purposely made the assertion that you quoted (just like Cliff Mass did when he said “The meteorological dice had to come up all sixes. And they did.”) hoping that someone would notice how useless a statement like that is without numbers to back it up.

        Cliff Mass’ assertion is one that begs for a statistical analysis. Exactly how likely is it for the all the meteorological dice to come up sixes?

        The attribution study that Judith Curry has criticized above — saying that Cliff Mass’ analysis is so much better — IS that statistical analysis.

        It said that all the meteorological dice are 150 times more likely to come up sixes with the effects of climate change than without. It is a quantitative result.

        To dispute the accuracy of the result, you can say you don’t like one assumption or another used (a common Judith Curry tactic), but it is simply not effective unless you provide an alternate quantitative analysis of the data.

        Judith Curry and/or Cliff mass need to say “all the meteorological dice are x times more/less likely to come up sixes with the effects of climate change than without” where x is something other than 150. And they need to show their math.

        Four decades after we started to understand this problem, that is the minimal effort and complexity required to do this kind of climate science. Judith Curry and Cliff Mass clearly are either not willing or are not capable of doing that.

      • Curious George

        “Four decades after we started to understand this problem”.
        That’s where our opinions differ. To declare – forgive me for using my own words – that the warming up after the Little Ice Age will continue well into the 21st century – contributes nothing to an understanding of anything. We are still at the stage of rolling dice. You think that we are past it. I envy you.

      • stevenreincarnated

        https://wwwbeaufortwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/coulthard_hydrological_processes2015.pdf

        Severe drought doesn’t appear to be unusual in BC. Perhaps they should be better prepared for it.

      • Tony Banton

        “Judith Curry and/or Cliff mass need to say “all the meteorological dice are x times more/less likely to come up sixes with the effects of climate change than without” ”

        Actually they don’t ….. in their world.
        It’s about keeping doubt going – amongst the faithful.
        How many myths are there out there that have been debunked with decades/centuries old science?.
        Yet the faithful keep spouting them.
        Science just doesn’t come in to it.
        FI: Roy Spencer recently did an “analysis” of CMIP6 model runs which had fundamental problems.
        Nick Stokes pointed these out (on WUWT and on Spencer’s Blog).
        Roy? ZERO comment.
        SO it stands … amongst the faithful.
        Ideological motivation is a powerful thing.
        Like, You know:
        There really, really is a baby- eating paedophile ring operating out of a pizza restaurant that Trump was (secretly) trying to eliminate.
        SEZ Mr/Mrs Qanon.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Commenting on extreme events being caused by CO2 is a joke unless you can show statistically they are occurring at an unusual rate. Nobody even has a clue as to how many are possible. This idea of waiting until it happens and then pointing at it is about as convincing as saying you knew that lottery number would come up after it already has.

      • They are using a microscopically small slice of history in using these analyses. The use of the word “ever” IS a total joke.

        When they can show it’s significant during the Holocene they will have something. They don’t have reliable paleo data so all they have is wishin’ and hopin”.

      • stevenreincarnated

        CKid, I’d like to see some paleo data that even supports the premise that climate is more extreme now. Everything I’ve seen so far indicates exactly the opposite. As far as I can tell they are just going off the instrumental record which is a joke when you are talking about extreme events.

    • Matthew R Marler

      mdander: “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

      Those were not predictions; they were forecasts, scenarios, extrapolation, etc. This has often been explained to us when so-called “predictions” have not come true.

      • Yes. Thanks for the correction Matthew R Marler.

      • Matthew R Marler

        mdander: Yes. Thanks for the correction Matthew R Marler.

        You are welcome.

        There are many other events that didn’t happen after forecasts/scernarios/non-pedictions: No more heavy rainfalls in Queensland; flooding of Manhattan’s Eastside Expressway; ocean acidification decimating the population of coccolithophores; snow will be a thing of the past; there will be hurricane Katrinas every year; mass starvations decimating the human population after crop failures; vast increases in malaria and other vector-born diseases. The list is quite extensive.

  60. I am a bit over this new blog format.

  61. Judith, have you published anything since 2011? Your cv looks a bit dusty in your bio.

    • OMG, Sue!!! If she hasn’t published anything recently, she might as well not exist!! Right!!!??? Nevermind she is using her knowledge to help save human lives! Of course that is worthless since it’s not in the academic domain!!! How could she?? (I’m betting she is accomplishing far more than you ever will)

    • Your business customers do not count your publications. They want to know that you can solve their problems. And nothing more.

  62. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The increase in SOI has been followed by a decrease in Niño 3.4.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Is Germany already warned of another wave of heavy precipitation?
    https://i.ibb.co/3rSvPwv/hgt300.png

  64. Bezos.returns. Another magnificent achievement through Free Market Capitalism.

    • Bezos’ mission relied on *decades* of government-funded research into physics, rocketry, and space travel. Without that they’d still be paving the launch pad.

      • Right on cue. Just as expected.

        Solutions to whatever CO2 related problems the world faces will be found by innovation and invention through Free Market Capitalism. Government will be paralyzed by its permanent inertia and won’t be able to get out of its own way.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented: Solutions to whatever CO2 related problems the world faces will be found by innovation and invention through Free Market Capitalism.

        So where ae these solutions from the free market?

        Are you really trying to deny that Bezos’ company relied on decades of basic research and space flight engineering funded by government, paid for by taxpayers?

      • The government centric mindset is so predictable and is one factor in a priori skepticism of global warming. This constellation of views will be subject of social psychological case studies for generations to come as they perform autopsies on the CAGW induced global hysteria we now have.

      • David Appell

        Ckid: But are you denying that Bezos’ company and his accomplishment has utilized and relied on decades (if not a century) of government sponsored research in fundamental and applied science?

        That what he did today would never be possible without all that work by government funded scientists and engineers and many other government employees paid for by taxpayers?

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote: The government centric mindset is so predictable and is one factor in a priori skepticism of global warming.

        Do you suppose “THE GOVERNMENT” has been altering the absorption frequencies of carbon dioxide, do you?

        Or maybe an Executive Order changed the value of Planck’s constant because secret administrators decided you must — must!! — be seen driving a pretty pink little EV with your nose squashed up against the windshield? No soup for you!

      • The top down approach that is why Kyoto failed and every COP since deadlocked. Rinse, repeat and expect a different outcome. Just what would you have governments do – in this your stubborn silence is not golden it is contemptible.

      • Being psychologically dissected like a frog by social scientists in these inevitable post mortems to find out why otherwise reasonable people had to be talked down from the edge of the ledge isn’t the worst legacy for someone, I guess. In time, this whole issue will be as much about social science as about physical science.

      • David Appell

        RIE, CKID: Government put men on the Moon 50 years ago. They defeated fascists. They built the US interstate highway system. They provide homes and businesses with water and sewage and regulated electricity. They provide national defense and local police and fire protection. They deliver the mail. They fund enormous amounts of fundamental and applied science, subsidize new businesses, and provide tax advantages to businesses and corporations everywhere.

        Private corporations exist in this context. Set a young Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk down in the middle of Somalia and they’d still be trying to build a decent structure to live in, if roving gangs hadn’t already killed them by now.

      • I’ve long suspected there was an association between the level of affinity for government and the level of affinity for Che’s Corps. More recently I’ve wondered about the level of affinity for the Grand AGW Narrative and Government and thus by extension parallel affinities for the Grand AGW Narrative and Che’s Corps. Some would say a Trifecta of misguided views, or even a Tripartite Pact redux.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented: I’ve long suspected there was an association between the level of affinity for government and the level of affinity for Che’s Corps.

        Is that honestly the best you can do? LOL

  65. UK-Weather Lass

    One thing we should have learned from battles with SARS-CoV-2 is that when we change our human behaviours suddenly because of our assessment of risk of damage, the resultant effect of that sudden behaviour change has an impact upon what happens next. Did the variants appear more rapidly because we changed behaviours, would they have happened anyway, or would the whole event have played out differently?

    Is it likewise with climate change? What is the effect of sudden change in what we burn (even in constructing alternatives etc.) to produce energy, where, and when? Has anything we have done in the past eighteen months changed anything and how long will it be before we know it?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      When you go into orbit, you will see how weak man – he is as weak as the earth’s atmosphere is thin as seen from orbit.

      • Yes, earth’s atmosphere is very thin. Earth’s atmosphere is not capable to develop any greenhouse warming effect.

        They believe in that very mistaken narrative – they believe Earth without atmosphere would have been a snowball…

        Moon is in our immediate neighborhood. But Moon is not a snowball.
        Moon has very high daytime temperatures and very low nighttime temperatures, but snowball it is not.

        And Moon does not have atmosphere…

        What then?
        Then the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon has been already discovered.

        The Rotational Warming is what makes the Earth’s surface on average a warmer than Moon planet.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • A brilliant illustration you provided for the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!

        Yes, thank you Robert!

        Homer: “… in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”

        Even Homer claims that.

        Rotational Warming obey the laws of Thermodynamics!

        Thank you Robert!

        You always accepted – from the very beginning – and you always supported the New physics about the planet surface temperatures.

        You even – jokingly – lovingly – called the Rotational Warming a Planetary Rotisserie Phenomenon.

        I know, you did it to help readers understand the very essence of what is going on with the planet surface temperatures development. You resembled a rotating planet with a chicken on rotisserie as a populistic approach to a very serious scientific issue.

        Thank you for your help. I hope you will continue propagating the New Planet Rotational Warming Theory by always sharing and widely spreading the basic ground:

        Rotational Warming obey the laws of Thermodynamics!

        Thank you again Robert!

        You are the hope for the New knowledge to become widely known and thoroughly explained to the wide range scientific community…
        Ok, it is one step at the time. Our truth will eventually prevail, because of its rightness.
        And always we shall have you Robert by our side. We are together in the New science’s fortresses!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Science is more than irrational bubbles.

  66. Free markets do not imply carte blanche David. Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.

    In a practical way there is need to consider climate policy in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?

    I am trained in engineering and environmental science and have spent decades in environmental planning and management. I ask them – these paragons of science and morality – what it is exactly they have in mind. To be met with silence or yet more sententious piffle.

    • Curious George

      “I ask them – these paragons of science and morality – what it is exactly they have in mind. To be met with silence or yet more sententious piffle.”

      I am afraid that the silence is the best available description.

    • “Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?”

      Have you seen “progressive” cities in the US lately? They already chose the former, we’re just quibbling at this point about the degree of expansion.

      Speaking of economics and markets, the news this week is that the Biden administration dropped all objections to the new Russian gas pipeline to Europe. Just in time for Germany’s approved plan to switch its largest factory to run on gas. This is an example of a government (Germany) interfering with the market in order to make its economy reliant on an autocrat. The government’s rationale for this is the simple fact that using gas emits less CO2 than coal- an undeniable truth except when the topic is an American gas pipeline built by Americans in the US to benefit the US economy, in which case it is bad and must be stopped.
      If gas improves the economy of a democratic, capitalist nation- it’s bad for the climate. If gas funds the army of an autocrat, it’s good for the climate. That’s your “science” lesson for today. Oh, and don’t forget, the New York Times will happily tell you that the $11 billion spent on Nord Stream 2 and the half billion spent to switch Wolfsburg transition was entirely unnecessary- they could have done it with solar panels on the roof cheaper and more reliably. But they were prevented from doing so for no other reason than Greta doesn’t get enough attention.

    • Robert I. Ellison: Free markets do not imply carte blanche David. Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context

      And that’s exactly what isn’t happening in a world dominated by global corporations, where they pick and choose what country in which they will pay (viz. avoid) taxes, where political “contributions” (unlimited in the US) ensure corporate interests come first in any legislation, where armies of lobbyists and check writers see that corporate interests are always first in legislators minds.

      That’s your “democratic context” in many of today’s democracies — or what’s left of them.

      Meanwhile there’s still no constrain on carbon pollution, over a century the link between CO2 and global warming was established scientifically and 30 years after James Hansen announced that warming was rising above the background rate.

      Your idealized notion of regulated open market capitalism is not what we have today. We have neoliberal, raw, crony capitalism where the interests of the public come second and the human race a distant last. Greed and profits rule and corporations are more powerful than ever and their power rivals if not exceeds governments.

      With respect to fossil fuel pollution and it’s just as corrupt in Australia as it is in the US. Meanwhile there is no substantial action on cutting carbon emissions nationally or globally, and warming will continue.

      “Ideally.” LOL.

      • “And that’s exactly what isn’t happening in a world dominated by global corporations, where they pick and choose what country in which they will pay (viz. avoid) taxes, where political “contributions” (unlimited in the US) ensure corporate interests come first in any legislation, where armies of lobbyists and check writers see that corporate interests are always first in legislators minds.”

        This is mind-numbingly ridiculous when the offered “alternative” is a political system where the unelected politicians and owners of industry are one in the same – China, Cuba, etc. etc – and everywhere this is the case, the least cost, dirtiest forms of energy production are used. China is coal powered, Cuba – situated in the trade winds with abundant sun – is powered by diesel fuel.

        There is nothing to tax in an economy that doesn’t produce. This is why I keep banging on about Germany- it’s the economic engine of the EU and its only hope of providing all those glorious social programs and unfunded pension obligations is to make and sell a whole lot of Volkswagens. That can’t happen if you tax or regulate the Volkswagens to the point where nobody will buy them. The first iteration of “climate policy” was to build them in China and hope everyone would be cool with Germans enjoying the fruits of Chinese labor. The second iteration was to ignore the climate glitteratti and cement the dominance of natural gas, in the EU, for the next 40 years. Good job.

      • ‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2021, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/about

        Some countries more than others.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

        We get an idea of where David is coming from with his narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems.

        In a reality David has departed from only democracy and free markets can drive peaceful transitions to prosperous, resilient and sustainable communities in vibrant landscapes.

      • So we get an idea of where David is coming from with his narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems.

        In reality a peaceful transition to prosperous, resilient and sustainable communities in vibrant landscapes is possible only with free people in free markets.

        ‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2021, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

      • Geoff Sherrington

        DA
        I have lived in Australia since the 1940s.
        In that time, I have been unable to find a single piece of harm or detriment to me or to others, from climate change.
        That beautiful sun rises on cue each morning, some days get hotter than others, surfing at the beach is just as pleasant as ever ….
        Just give me one example of how my country has suffered from climate change, so I can start to become a believer.
        I do not want examples like cyclones. They happen. Or more frequent cyclones – no evidence. I want examples where the writer has actually been hurt, as in injured or had to go to hospital or moved to another place to avoid intolerable climate change developments. Real harm, not computer modelled projections.
        Nobody has ever said to me, face to face, that they have been harmed by climate change. Geoff S

      • David Appell

        “Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom….”

        “U.S. Life Expectancy Plunged in 2020, Especially for Black and Hispanic Americans,” 7/21/21
        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/us/american-life-expectancy-report.html

        31% of UK children live in poverty
        https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

        19% of Scots lived in poverty, before the pandemic
        https://uk.news.yahoo.com/almost-one-fifth-scots-living-114218825.html

        I can’t provide any more links (a dumb policy), so here are just headlines:

        31 million Americans don’t have health insurance

        “US ranked among worst countries to raise a family, study says,” 7/23/20

        “Ratings of Black-White Relations at New Low,” Gallup 7/21/21

        “The wealth gap between America’s richest and poorer families more than doubled from 1989 to 2016”

        “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos paid no income tax in 2007 and 2011. Tesla founder Elon Musk’s income tax bill was zero in 2018. And financier George Soros went three straight years without paying federal income tax”

        “The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%,” [1975-2018]

        US: “top 0.1 percent hold roughly the same share of our wealth as our bottom 90 percent.”

        In short, global neoliberal capitalism works for some. It does not work for all, and of necessity it leaves many behind. And this doesn’t even consider the underdeveloped world.

      • David Appell

        Geoff Sherrington:DA
        I have lived in Australia since the 1940s.
        In that time, I have been unable to find a single piece of harm or detriment to me or to others, from climate change…..
        Just give me one example of how my country has suffered from climate change

        I’m not going to do that, Geoff.

        You are apparently so uninterested you won’t even do this tiny bit of research for yourself. Two seconds for a Google search. Everyone interested in climate change knows the answer to your question and all you’ve done is show your willful ignorance on the topic.

      • David Appell

        jeffnsails850 wrote: This is mind-numbingly ridiculous when the offered “alternative” is a political system where the unelected politicians and owners of industry are one in the same – China, Cuba, etc. etc

        I don’t know who offered you that alternative or why you ever thought it was the only one, except that it’s convenient for your ideology to think so. But you display a dreadful lack of imagination.

      • ‘In short, global neoliberal capitalism works for some. It does not work for all, and of necessity it leaves many behind. And this doesn’t even consider the underdeveloped world.’

        The US may not be the best example of free markets – but it is the best you have.

        ‘The United States’ economic freedom score is 74.8, making its economy the 20th freest in the 2021 Index. Its overall score has decreased by 1.8 points, primarily because of a decline in fiscal health. The United States is ranked 3rd among 32 countries in the Americas region, and its overall score is above the regional and world averages.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

        The long traditions of classic liberal markets have worked spectacularly well for much of the world. That there are pockets of disadvantage even in developed nations is not a case for dismantling capitalism. Nor are whines about the rich not paying taxes. I’d look for some more objective reporting before throwing the baby out.

        forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/06/08/richest-americans-including-bezos-musk-and-buffett-paid-federal-income-taxes-equaling-just-34-of-401-billion-in-new-wealth-bombshell-report-shows/?sh=1524c5ed7fe1

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison wrote: The long traditions of classic liberal markets have worked spectacularly well for much of the world. That there are pockets of disadvantage even in developed nations is not a case for dismantling capitalism. Nor are whines about the rich not paying taxes. I’d look for some more objective reporting before throwing the baby out.

        Why is it “whining” to insist the rich pay taxes?

        How is the reporting now objective?

        Why hasn’t modern free market capitalism solved anthropogenic climate change?

      • David

        If the last few months of UAH data have triggered these recent frenetic rants, I can only imagine what kind of behavior we can expect when the near zero warming continues for oh, say 100 to 150 months. There goes all those equations out the window.

        You’ll always have low frequency internal variability to fall back on, if things fall off the track.

        First, they had to get rid of the MWP. Then they had to get rid of the hiatus. Then they had to get rid of the AMO. Then they had to get rid of the forest fire graphs. I imagine all those tidal gauge graphs showing insignificant rise will be next. I’ve printed a bunch, just in case.

        You’ll always have your faith to fall back on, if the cognitive dissonance gets too troublesome.

      • “You’ll always have your faith to fall back on, if the cognitive dissonance gets too troublesome.”

        David’s faith is in the physics he has been taught from when he was a schoolboy. He follows it unquestioningly, just like someone of high theism, of whom he’s quite willing to disparage.

  67. “Heaviest rainfall in 1000 years” in central China. Shocking scenes which are destined to become much more familiar unfortunately:

    https://youtu.be/1BPk7cUv5Is

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      When air temperatures are high and there are no strong winds in the upper troposphere, water remains in gaseous form. When a jet stream pulls air from the tropical ocean, precipitation can be extremely heavy.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      AL
      Much more frequent via what specific, demonstrated mechanism?
      (Dreaming excluded). Geoff S

  68. Rainfall continuing in central China with a years worth falling in 3 days. A 20m breach in a major dam doesn’t bode well with the forecast of more flooding and water rising in next 3 days:

    https://youtu.be/2SH0c0HIr6Y

  69. “Global satellite data shows clouds will amplify global heating,” 7/19/21
    https://phys.org/news/2021-07-global-satellite-clouds-amplify.html

    paper:
    Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming, Paulo Ceppi and Peer Nowack, PNAS July 27, 2021 118 (30) e2026290118;
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118

    from the abstract:
    “We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability. Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 ± 0.35 W⋅m−2⋅K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K.”

  70. Matthew R Marler

    Thorium Nuclear Reactor News:

    https://newatlas.com/energy/china-world-first-thorium-nuclear-reactor/

    A story to follow.

  71. It is unsurprising to find a few advocates for a strong free market economy here.

    I prefer my science to be as politics-free as possible.

    Right leaning politically motivated climate science enthusiasts tend to favour one of four broad categories of arguments:

    1. AGW is not happening

    2. AGW is not as bad as is claimed (Lukewarmers)

    3. The science of AGW is not conclusive / flawed.

    4. Mitigating AGW is too hard / costly.

    Whether or not you believe any one of these arguments is valid, they do all act to politically polarize policy discussions around climate change, resulting in weaker government regulation.

    I come to this site because I have yet to see a post by Judith Curry that doesn’t forward some nuance of arguments 2, 3 or 4. Her “Deep Uncertainty” narrative masterfully combines 3 and 4. If a scientist consistently and frequently makes arguments that conform to a particular political agenda, it is suspicious and probably not good science.

    It is not surprising that this blog makes its way into the filter bubbles of so many free market advocates.

    Here’s the thing:

    In the free market, innovation needs two things: a problem to solve and money.

    Judith Curry and others like her have done such a great job of minimizing the threat of AGW that the problem does not seem urgent.

    Also, if you’re an old person with money invested, raise your hand – now, if you’re a millennial who doesn’t own a car and lives in a rental apartment, raise your hand. The filter bubbles that feature this blog surround much of the money that fuels the free market.

    Judith Curry is an anesthetic for climate change innovation.

    • Policy is determined on a far broader basis than science. Pragmatic policy must be considered in a context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment.

      Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Wind and solar can’t turn that around – let alone address the other sources of greenhouse gases. Advanced nuclear reactors might. Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a 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. It can best be done by free people in free markets.

      Climate is dominated by Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic on which is superimposed greenhouse gas warming. Future possible climate states include all past climate states -and the future is incalculable. It is the basis for ‘tipping points’. This is the mainstream climate science paradigm.

      Your science is crap and your policy driven by a misbegotten cultural identity whether you recognise it on not.

      • Robert I. Ellison: Your science is crap and your policy driven by a misbegotten cultural identity whether you recognise it on not.

        Wow. Hurtful.

        I haven’t done much science since I published a paper while writing my MSc Physics thesis. I designed and ran numerical iterations of systems of nonlinear differential equations, so I know how climate models work. I didn’t win the Nobel prize and I’m sure “your science” is much better than “my science”, but calling it crap isn’t very sporting.

        As for my policy being driven by a misbegotten cultural identity … um … I’m a middle-aged male WASP. Not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t have a political affiliation if that’s what you mean. I vote purely based on what I assess to be the most potentially effective climate change policy … and I don’t generally like the party that I vote for. I believe that we need both regulatory and free market solutions.

        As for your mention of the “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic”, could you please just refer to “Deep Uncertainty”? Dropping names doesn’t make your point more clear.

        Judith Curry’s blog posts on Deep Uncertainty are designed to create uncertainty in policy makers. When faced with deep uncertainty, the proper action is not to throw up you hands and say “let’s see what happens”, it is to do analysis, determine the best action and act. In case you were wondering, that is what the IPCC was designed to do. You can blather about the flaws in the IPCC all you want, but at least it wasn’t designed to help policy makers feel okay about doing nothing and saying “let’s see what happens”.

        Once more I will emphasize that Judith Curry and others like her have not only managed to polarize and weaken efforts to create climate policy, they have also disrupted the normal response of the free market to the biggest engineering challenge that humanity has faced. No matter how bad you think the effects of climate change will be, in the last decade Judith Curry has only acted to slow our response to it from every direction — and both the environmental and economic consequences will be worse as a result.

      • Having run hydrodynamic models for decades – I understand that climate models are based on discretized simulacra of partial differential equations. And of course that is very different to the spatiotemporal chaos of the Earth system. This is the source of what Harold Hurst observed in the almost 1000 year long Nile River instrumental record – linked to what Andrey Kolmogorov observed in early studies of turbulent flow. To reduce it all to 4 facile categories is indeed crap science. It is the basis for the real climate risk – in the Lorenz model of abrupt climate shifts – AKA tipping points. More likely at 1000 ppm CO2-e than 400 ppm. AGW has only just kicked off.

        It leads to incalculable future climates that really could be anything seen in the past few million years.

        Pragmatic responses don’t seem to be what the IPCC is meant to do. But have it your way. Tell me what is it you envisage – way beyond science as I said – is the way forward. In enough detail to be meaningful and without the political waffle.

        In the interim – there are many other critical problems to be getting on with.

        https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.66e0efc517643c2b8109ac/1607769322818/planetary-boundaries-cover-1620.jpg

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison wrote:
        Climate is dominated by Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic….

        Prove this and show the supporting evidence.

        IF AND ONLY IF you can, explain its practical significance in dealing with the problem of climate change.

      • Prove that the Earth system is a fluid flow problem governed in principle by the nonlinear set of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations 3 dimensions?

        Stop being foolishly obtuse. It is elementary flow dynamics.

        https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/equirectangular

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: Prove that the Earth system is a fluid flow problem governed in principle by the nonlinear set of Navier-Stokes partial differential equations 3 dimensions?

        Prove that it contains Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics.

        Show the observational evidence.

        IF AND ONLY IF you can, explain its practical significance in dealing with the problem of climate change.

      • Prove that there are climate regimes and transitions coincident with changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature? Why are these things so difficult for him?

        https://teara.govt.nz/files/g-7788-enz.gif
        ‘The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) is a natural variability in climate, including sea temperature, over decades. This graph shows the variations in the index derived from global sea surface temperatures. New Zealand experienced significant climate cooling in 1950 and again in 1977, after which the pattern shifted to a warmer phase.’

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote: Prove that there are climate regimes and transitions coincident with changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature?

        No.

        Define “H-K dynamics.”

        Prove that these “climate regimes and transitions” follow H-K dynamics.

        Show the observational evidence that supports your proof.

        If proven, explain the practical consequences.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison wrote: ‘The Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) is a natural variability in climate, including sea temperature, over decades. This graph shows the variations in the index derived from global sea surface temperatures. New Zealand experienced significant climate cooling in 1950 and again in 1977, after which the pattern shifted to a warmer phase.’

        Oh I thought we were discussion global climate.

        But now you’re just in one tiny little corner.

        OK.

        So then H-K dynamics means (?) the IPO goes up and down and so does New Zealand’s temperatures.

        And this is your big huge insight??

      • One tiny little corner? Your a bad joke. The eastern Pacific warms over most of the global tropics and subtropics and the planet warms – oceans and atmosphere with cloud feedbacks. But I thought you wanted proof of persistence and transitions – the essence of Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics and decadal shifts are most relevant and obvious to all but the most obtuse.

        But it happens at all scales – https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/15/heat-waves-and-hot-air/#comment-956028

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented: One tiny little corner? Your a bad joke. The eastern Pacific warms over most of the global tropics and subtropics and the planet warms – oceans and atmosphere with cloud feedbacks.

        Oh, OK — New Zealand warms the planet. I see.

        Now then.

        Define “H-K dynamics.”

        Prove that these “climate regimes and transitions” follow H-K dynamics.

        Show the observational evidence that supports your proof.

        If proven, explain the practical consequences towards solving the climate change problem.

      • That was the caption on the diagram. But the world was warming in the period. I assumed you knew that.

        As for the rest – feel free to educate yourself.

        http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/2000/15/documents/StochasticsOfExtremes1.pdf

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote: As for the rest – feel free to educate yourself.

        You can’t even define “Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics,” a phrase you smugly enjoy throwing around here at every opportunity.

        You can’t prove that your so-called “climate regimes and transitions” follow Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics.

        You have no observational evidence that you can show supports your claim of Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics.

        Nor can you say anything whatsoever about the practical consequences of this idea towards solving the climate change problem.

        Four strikes. All you have is an empty phrase.

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented Oh and… yes.
        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3304

        LOL. You’re fooled again by decadal changes.

        “Here, our model experiments with multiple ocean sea surface temperature (SST) forcing reveal that, although the Pacific SSTs play essential roles in the GW rates, SST changes in other basins also exert vital influences. The mid-twentieth-century cooling results from the SST cooling in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic, which is partly offset by the Southern Ocean warming. During the recent hiatus, the tropical Pacific-induced strong cooling is largely compensated by warming effects of other oceans. In contrast, during the acceleration periods, ubiquitous SST warming across all the oceans acts jointly to exaggerate the GW.” (Abstract)

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3304

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented: Global warming can be solved…. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. It can best be done by free people in free markets.

        So why isn’t it being done? Global emissions have never been higher (excepting the pandemic).

    • stevenreincarnated

      So if anyone consistently takes the opposing view of 2, 3, and 4 they are making arguments that conform to a particular political agenda and aren’t likely to be doing good science?

      • Exactly, Steven.

        Anyone who favors the survival of our species can’t be objective enough to do any good science.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Willard, you of all people I would expect to see how ridiculous the comment was. Basically anyone that agrees with me is pure of heart and those that don’t just aren’t. Losing you basic logic skills?

      • Steven,

        My point was to show how ridiculous your rhetorical question was.

        Next time, don’t argue by rhetorical question.

      • Climate is predictable and catastrophic therefore we need poor wee willies economic AI overlord.

      • We need moar straw, Chief.

        Freedom is at stake!

      • Not exactly, Steven.

        Good science does not presuppose a political point of view.

        You can indulge in all the whataboutism that you want, but this blog by Judith Curry exhibits a clear, consistent political bias.

        My point is that her bias not only achieves its purpose (to weaken government legislation), it inadvertently weakens free market innovation.

        How else does an Elon Musk have an entire decade to innovate, build EVs, improve the accompanying software and establish a massive proprietary charging network while the rest of the auto industry goes “huh?”

      • Poor wee willies economic policy is to hand decisions on what and how much to produce to a computer. I suppose anything is possible in a socialist theocracy but it’s a pretty weird idea.

      • stevenreincarnated

        mdander, if you have a problem with a particular point of view Judith has then spell out what it is and why she is wrong instead of trying to assign motives. (Like that better, Willard?)

      • Indeed I do, Steven. Thanks!

        And I even agree with you. The Contrarian Matrix needs no motive:

        Here are all the contrarian lines of arguments in online climate debates. They are ordered by six levels, ranging from climate science to investigative journalism:

        0. Lots of Theories
        1. No Best Practices
        2. Do Not Panic
        3. Do No Harm
        4. Future is Bright
        5. We Won, You Lost, Get Over It

        https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/

      • Speaking of AI overlords Robert…
        www . hpcwire . com/2021/07/13/quantum-roundup-ibm-rigetti-phasecraft-oxford-qc-china-and-more/
        “July 13, 2021
        IBM yesterday announced a proof for a quantum ML algorithm…
        We’re excited to announce a quantum kernel algorithm that, given only classical access to data, provides a provable exponential speedup over classical machine learning algorithms for a certain class of classification problems.” Classification problems, of course, are one of the most fundamental problems in machine learning…

        Wonder how long it will take till the Chinese duplicate it now they have taken the world record for Quantum Supremacy?
        “The computational cost of the classical simulation of this task is estimated to be 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than the previous work on 53-qubit Sycamore processor (Google). We estimate that the sampling task finished by Zuchongzhi in about 1.2 hours will take the most powerful supercomputer at least 8 years. Our work establishes an unambiguous quantum computational advantage that is infeasible for classical computation in a reasonable amount of time. The high-precision and programmable quantum computing platform opens a new door to explore novel many-body phenomena and implement complex quantum algorithms.”

        Finally, we are getting close to bioengineering our way out of classical evolution. Why not will leverage the biosphere itself to solve our climate problems:
        www . nature . com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2
        science . sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/07/19/science.abj8754

      • ‘Good science does not presuppose a political point of view.’

        Still he attempts to redeem the irredeemable. Judith has a more profound understanding of climate than most. Certainly more than the run of the mill climate activist.

        Uncertainty implies taking pragmatic action just in case. And despite Elon Musk – EV’s are not ready for Broadway. It is a high end early adopter model. But there are many other approaches.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2021/05/01/capability-browns-oblique-approach-to-climate-policy/

    • stevenreincarnated

      Willard, I like rhetorical questions. It’s a quick and easy way to show someone how ridiculous their position is. By the way, there are probably a whole lot of people that think they are trying to save the world from the people that are trying to save the world.

      • Steven,

        Arguing by questions can be fine from time to time, but it can be annoying as hell. It’s just better to state one’s point.

        Recall how it ended with Socrates?

    • Geoff Sherrington

      mdadnder
      Which is the single, specific harm from man-made climate change that causes you most fear? In which way have you been harmed already?
      You see, until you can describe specific present harm, you have to be driven by imagined or predicted future harm.
      I am afraid of snakes. There is hard proof of their harm. I have no fear of alleged man-made climate change because I have seen no proof of past harm. Geoff S

    • Matthew R Marler

      mdander: 2. AGW is not as bad as is claimed (Lukewarmers)

      3. The science of AGW is not conclusive / flawed.

      4. Mitigating AGW is too hard / costly.

      Whether or not you believe any one of these arguments is valid, they do all act to politically polarize policy discussions around climate change, resulting in weaker government regulation.

      I come to this site because I have yet to see a post by Judith Curry that doesn’t forward some nuance of arguments 2, 3 or 4.

      I think your polarization claim is off: advocates of expensive climate policies polarized the policy discussion before there was much study of 2, 3, and 4. Now there is lots of evidence supporting 2, 3, 4 (and much dispute), so reminders of the scientific bais of 2,3, 4 are an essential part of public policy dialogue.

      People here frequently dispute Dr Curry, and some provide links to informative counterarguments.

  72. Ultra shocking footage of passengers submerged to the shoulders in subway train in floodhit central China:

    https://youtu.be/EIQG87c8GlI

  73. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Temperatures above the 80th parallel have already reached their maximum this year.

    Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2021
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2021.png
    http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_map_thick_LA_EN_20210720.png

  74. Clearly 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 vociferously criticizing one another for their politics and beliefs thus diverting attention away from the planet’s greatest polluters, where it should and needs to be sharply focused. (Albeit, it seems to be the conservatives who don’t mind polluting the planet most liberally.)

    Still, there’s hope for spaceship Earth and therefor humankind due to environmentally conscious and active young people, 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 and making way for voters who fully support a healthy Earth thus populace.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      fgsjr2015,
      Please list the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming and climate change of which you write.
      If a particular mechanism troubles you, must be able to say what it is and why it troubles you, otherwise you are just riding on the back of a populist movement. It also helps to explain its validation. So, what do you fear most? I have zero such fear.
      Do please recall that nobody has been able to agree on the most fundamental number for manmade go bal warming, namely the sensitivity linking a change in atmospheric CO2 with a change in global air temperature, or the reverse.
      I do not find it strange, as a scientist, to question a mechanism for which the most fundamental parameter is missing. Like (E=m?squared). How do you explain away that basic impediment? FWIW, I am helped by an analogy with the tulip collecting mania of many decades ago. It also passed without substantial permanent harm to mankind. Geoff S

    • “Albeit, it seems to be the conservatives who don’t mind polluting the planet most liberally.”

      World’s biggest polluter, the one that added more coal power last year than the entire rest of the world combined? China.
      It’s okay, one day you might care enough about climate change to actually think about it. Today is clearly not that day. When you get around to it, give us a call.

      • David Appell

        Jeff, China emits more CO2 because it has more people. It is supposed to apologize for that?

        The US emits more per capita. It’s emitted twice as much in total. It has emitted far more than developing countries, yet most of them will suffer more.

        Have you thought about that?

      • Appell replies with a meaningless statistic and, charitably, an incomplete story..
        China emits more CO2 because it’s been growing its economy like gangbusters. In part thanks to the cheap electricity, but also due to the slave labor that’s always present in “communal” political/economic systems and the efforts of the “climate concerned” to force western industry to move east and be powered by dirtier energy.

        Per capita? The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita, it cares about total global emissions. If the climate concerned’s claims about the abundant availability of “cost competitive” alternatives to fossil fuels were even partly accurate, there would be no need for Chinese emissions to rise either in total or in per capita terms. If the climate concerned’s claims that capitalism is at the root of emissions were even partially true, Chinese emissions wouldn’t be growing. But the climate concerned haven’t said anything accurate about economics or alternatives for many, many years now.

      • David Appell

        Jeff you avoided any discussion of population and the hard questions and instead choose to take meaningless potshots at ideological targets.

        China emits more CO2 because it has a larger population. Should it apologize for that?

        Should the US apologize for emitting more CO2 than Tuvalu?

        Should the US apologize for having already emitted twice as much CO2 as has China?

        The atmosphere doesn’t care about per capita emissions. But ethics and environmental justice does.

      • Appell, I’m being nice to you.

        “China emits more CO2 because it has a larger population.”

        That statement isn’t true.
        Chinese emissions were lower than those in the US as late as 2004. Lower than the EU as well. China had a larger population at the time.

        What changed? They decided to have an economy. The climate concerned decided to help them grow their economy by moving western industry from cleaner energy grids to dirtier Chinese grids. Anti-capitalist climate activists sought the growth in communal slave labor.

        This chart is courtesy of “climate action.” Great work guys.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

      • David Appell

        Jeff,

        Is the US allowed to have an economy?
        Is China allowed to have an economy?

        China emits more because they have a larger population. They emit less per capita than the US.

        *WHO* decided to move western industry to China? It wasn’t the CEOs of the individual industries? Those concerned about climate forced them to move? Ridiculous.

      • “Those concerned about climate forced them to move? Ridiculous.”

        It’s such a “ridiculous” claim that the US Senate had to pause to vote unanimously to specifically tell climate campaigners to stop doing it. And yet they still do it today.

        Even the Guardian admits this:
        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/18/britain-outsourcing-carbon-emissions-china

        The Senate
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/senate-resolution/98

        But thank you for stating that emissions=economy and no emissions=no economy.

      • David Appell

        Jeff, it’s noticeable you avoided the questions on the issues of population and economies and ethics, so I’ll assume you don’t have any good responses there.

      • David Appell

        Jeff, your Guardian link is meaningless. Recall what you wrote:

        The climate concerned decided to help them grow their economy by moving western industry from cleaner energy grids to dirtier Chinese grids.

        That’s not what the Guardian article supports. No one made a conscious effort to send business to China to outsource carbon emissions. They did it because manufacturing is cheaper in China.

        What you wrote is still ridiculous — there was no such “decision.”

      • Australia is castigated for selling coal and natural gas to India and China. While at the same time being a world beater in emission reduction on a per capita basis – and not too shabby otherwise. We have done everything we said we would and more. The goal posts keep moving. It’s a monumentally irrational monomania.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/04/25/100-renewables-by-2030-and-no-adani-mine-groan/

      • Collective human existence has for far too long been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line. Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated. Yet, stupid-sounding catchphrases are frequently uttered/regurgitated, like “It’s the economy, stupid!” (Seriously, what exactly is that line supposed to mean?)

  75. Wow. Not only are the manmade global warming crowd pointing out that wild boar need to be kept under control but also men in general:

    ….
    FIVE WAYS MEN CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS THAN WOMEN

    How they travel, what they eat and how they spend their money all play a role.

    According to researchers in Sweden, single men emit over 18 per cent more greenhouse gases than women.
    ….

  76. UK-Weather Lass

    All other things being equal dice fall as they choose to fall … Cliff Mass makes a comment about all the dice coming up sixes and people jump all over him. No wonder he is sceptical.

    How long have humans desired to harness energy and, like a rich business owner, reach outer space? Who knows where the first firework shot straight up into the sky like a rocket to encourage that desire? Observation of the ‘exact first’ event may or may not have been witnessed. It may or may not have been recorded. The person could have been a celebrity – at another time. And, all of this, determined by chance alone.

    Two to three thousand years ago, over a period of months of daily positions, plotted on parchment, an observer recorded retrograde motion of a planet in the night sky, somewhere in modern day China, but it took a very long time for western civilisation to catch up with what that motion would prove to science in general. We still cannot be sure what it meant to those who recorded and witnessed this movement at the time because it will always be just a plot of forward, backward, forward motion on a piece of paper. Was it even the first time such motion had been observed? Did the observer comprehend what it could mean? Was this record treated as just another case of a planet misbehaving, the usual random background noise of objects moving in the night sky? Or, was it treated as a potential problem because discovery can sometimes cause a whole heap of trouble unless kept quiet. If you know how badly people deal in new knowledge and the trouble it can cause you may not want to share anything. Ditto, In modern times – for the right or the wrong reasons – even when we are politely asked to, There is very good reason not to be as open as we may feel the need to be. And are we all guilty of this or is it really just a conceited few for whom decits and deceptions appear to work very well for when it comes to money matters?

    Infinity can eat itself an infinite number of times and still be empty … randomness occurs everywhere when logic fails … blindness happens whenever we blink … records are missed when witnesses don’t make them … records are made when witnesses do make them and even when they didn’t happen. Logic and illogic work side by side trying to prove wisdom and/or folly and often we plebs forgiveably don’t know which is which. Is folly now more commonplace than ever before given a growing population and are computers compounding that because they cannot do random properly?

    And if there isn’t infinite randomness in everything then how come we have made such an awful mess of understanding a viral pandemic to the extent that our leaders thought it better to cripple our lives, manipulate our minds and paralyse us with fear with some scientists, who really should know better but clearly do not, egging them on? Who could have seen that coming without first registering that we have already been led up several garden paths by people who claim to understand climate matters (as long as they can both lie outrageously and deceitfully magnify problems on a daily basis) and make a lot of money out of it? The charlatans have loud voices and we encourage them with lots of public money … we should all feel sorry for the dedicated and honest scientists.

    • IMO a good analysis of the situation.

      One small thing. You say “Two to three thousand years ago, —— catch up with what that motion would prove to science in general.” Well, three thousand years before that, planetary motion had been discerned, enough to use the science – and the maths involved – to create precise solar calendars. It had all been lost for millennia, for precisely the reasons you give.

  77. In Germany 🇩🇪 , one gets the impression that the culture of global warming fear-mongering somehow led to paralysis and inaction after prior warnings of flooding, leaving reservoirs full to the brim when warnipgave ample time to lower their levels.

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/529927-germany-floods-failure-climate-change/

    • Very interesting – thx

      ….
      But the sad tragedy is that this latest catastrophe was calculated.

      The first signs of a catastrophe were detected nine days before the event by a satellite in orbit 500 miles above the Rhine river. A team of scientists sent the German authorities a series of remarkably accurate forecasts about the impending extreme flooding along the Erft and Ahr rivers and of towns such as Hagen and Altena. Despite at least 24 hours’ warning that precisely predicted which would be the worst-affected districts, hundreds of people were caught unawares when the deluge came. Close to 200 people needlessly perished as a result, with many still missing.

      Hannah Cloke, professor of hydrology at Reading University, who helped set up and designed the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) in the early 2000s to deal with disasters such as this, expressed alarm that a “monumental failure of the system” had led to one of post-war Germany’s deadliest natural disasters.
      ….

  78. My last post generated quite a long discussion.

    However, the accusations that I made against Judith Curry went unchallenged. Is there nobody willing to defend her?

    Judith Curry does not do science. She provides her credentialed and respected opinion about developments in climate science.

    She is very clear that she believes that strong government regulation to enforce carbon emission reductions are a bad idea — I have no objection to her having and clearly expressing this opinion.

    However, every opinion about climate science that she expresses on this blog is 100% in line with that political/economic opinion. The fact that this pattern is expressed across a broad set of climate science opinions (Lukewarmism, natural variability, deep uncertainty, promoting Cliff Mass’ pseudo-scientific blog post over attribution science in this post, etc.) makes the bias even more obvious.

    ACCUSATION #1: Judith Curry’s scientific opinion is worthless, because it demonstrates a consistent bias conforming to a specific political agenda.

    Having made that accusation, I pointed out that this bias also disrupts free market innovation.

    People read posts by Judith Curry and come away thinking that we don’t need to take urgent action to mitigate AGW. Readers of this blog are more likely to have lots of money to invest than to have lots of years left to live.

    ACCUSATION #2: Judith Curry is an anesthetic for climate change innovation.

    This blog misrepresents the threat that AGW represents (because it is obviously biased) and it is a drag on humanity’s ability to mitigate and adapt to AGW. This is true whether you are a fan of strong government regulation or free market solutions.

    If I missed a genuine effort to dispute my accusations (as I was scrolling through the many long, irrelevant references to the Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic by Robert I. Ellison), I apologize. Hopefully this comment states them more clearly and someone will come to Judith Curry’s defense.

    • Before I respond to your comments, I would like more information from you. Questions:

      How long have you followed this blog?

      What is your background?

      How many actual climate science studies have you read and what was the subject matter of those studies?

      Have you read any of the IPCC reports?

      • Hi CKid.

        When I said that Judith Curry’s opinion is worthless, it was a bit harsh. What I meant is that her consistently demonstrated bias negates the weight of her credentials and past scientific contributions.

        By that standard, my opinion is also worthless.

        My observations and accusations are what a Judith Curry fan should want to debunk — nothing about who I am or my character is relevant.

        Maybe you can provide a counterexample of a post that shows my observation about her bias to be incorrect. Maybe you can provide an argument of a way that Judith Curry has demonstrably encouraged free market solutions to mitigate climate change.

        Have at it.

      • Over the years I’ve noticed clusters of comments with new names and fly by criticisms. It seemed they were showing up as part of a school term paper or project. You haven’t demonstrated this isn’t another one of those situations. That is why I asked those questions.

        Beginning in the late 1970s I was budget director of a large natural resources and environmental protection agency. I worked with scientists for decades. Judith has always conducted herself with the utmost fidelity and integrity and commitment to the highest standards of science. No one I worked with possessed any better attributes.

        Many denizens here have had long and illustrious careers and recognize what a true scientist Judith is.

        They also recognize ankle biters.

      • It is nice to know that you have an informed opinion of Judith Curry relative to other scientists.

        Judith Curry has undeniably had an illustrious career, probably more so even than the “many denizens here” that you refer to. She worked for NOAA. She has excellent credentials as a climate scientist.

        That’s the problem. If she had “gone with the flow” and wasn’t a mainstream climate science skeptic, she could have had a good career, but nobody would know her name.

        As a climate science maverick, she has become one of the most sought after, argued about, high profile scientists in the world.

        Wealth and fame are strong motivators for someone to compromise their scientific integrity, but it is not proof that someone would and it is nice that she gets your endorsement.

        However, her fame and influence is a perfectly adequate reason for me to seek reassurance that her “utmost fidelity and integrity” is not compromised.

        I’ve read a lot of her posts and I have noticed the bias that I have accused her of.

        As for me being an ankle-biter — I most certainly am an ankle-biter relative to Judith Curry. I have a MSc in Physics and a Bachelor in Applied Mathematics, I know how to design a process to numerically iterate a system of nonlinear differential equations. So maybe I’m not such an ankle-biter relative to a budget director, scientifically speaking.

        The accusation stands and can be disproven with a single counterexample.

      • Unsupported allegations repeated interminably. Does he have any substantial scientific or policy point? That isn’t merely tribal allegiance?

        These guys have always insisted that they are the defenders of science. That’s wearing a very this as cognitive dissonance kicks in. The big threat is now tipping points. Based on a 100 year old science they never understood and now deny. Something has to give. I think it is their sanity.

      • How has she misrepresented the science? What studies have you read that would indicate she is not following the science.

    • Happily she needs no defense against your nonsensical claims. Have you read her numerous scientific publications? Or looked at her company’s innovative weather forecasting methods?

    • stevenreincarnated

      Prove it.

      • I couldn’t possibly. My accusations are pretty much impossible to prove, so I guess you win.

        But being unproven isn’t the same as untrue.

        Fortunately, if the first accusation falls, the second one is on pretty shaky ground. Meanwhile, a single counterexample is all that is needed to prove that my first accusation is untrue.

        So, stevereincarnated, you could cement your victory by just finding one substantial counterexample of the bias that I described.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Describe in detail exactly what would disprove you because I consider this discussion a waste of time. You are obviously too biased to think objectively.

      • Accusation: mdander is a budding dictator racist pedophile who disposes of his gum under the seats in movie theaters.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t believe the gum accusation for a minute.

      • steve –

        > I’d really like to see your specific arguments on how you know Judith is biased.

        I’m going to guess that you’ve read Judith’s blog quite a bit. You’ve read her advocacy on many different issues, on climate science and related sociological and/or political issues. Even on issues largely unrelated to climate science.

        Have you never seen any indication of bias on her part in all that time? If you have what was it?

      • Groupthink is a cognitive disorder. Challenging the farcical left climate memes and how they are employed in political and social interactions is not bias.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshua, I’m not interested in trying to figure out what I disagree her on and trying to label it. That’s a lot of work if you want to maintain your objectivity.

      • > Joshua joins the debate on bias

        To say that speculating about “motives for bias” is foolish, Chief.

        But go ahead: we need moar hippie punching!

      • steve –

        > Joshua, I’m not interested in trying to figure out what I disagree her on and trying to label it. That’s a lot of work if you want to maintain your objectivity.

        That’s really interesting. You’re not interested in assessing yourself whether Judith shows any biases, but you’re very animated about challenging someone who suggests that she’s biased.

        That fits almost perfectly with theories of motivated reasoning. You’re only interested in investigating ideas if they don’t match your preexisting views? And you think that way lies you maintaining your own objectivity?

      • stevenreincarnated

        I don’t think this started out as merely “I think Judith has biases.”

      • Prove it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        I’ll call you as my witness.

      • I saw you chew gum before going to see a movie.

        Where’s your gum?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Now you know why I didn’t believe it. The evidence said otherwise.

      • mdander –

        See there? Mere mention that Judith is biased, like anyone else I might add, sends these boys into an highly agitated state. A tither, one might say.

        Judith’s sainthood is sacrosanct.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Well Joshua, since you are in agreement with mdander that anyone with bias doesn’t do good science and since we agree that everyone has bias, I guess you are arguing that there is no good science. Now I can see why you never argue the science. Where to start?

      • Steve –

        > since you are in agreement with mdander that anyone with bias doesn’t do good science…

        Stop fantasizing about me. I never said that, nor did I even imply it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        That’s exactly what you said when you said the argument was only over merely having bias.

      • Steve –

        > That’s exactly what you said when you said the argument was only over merely having bias.

        Lol

        OK. Fantaize away to your heart’s content.

        It’s clear there’s no way to get you to stick to what I’ve actually said.

      • stevenreincarnated

        You didn’t say the argument was only over having bias? Am I imagining your comments in my head? Anyone here a shrink? If you think that was all the argument was about then you must consider everything else that was alleged in the ‘goes without saying’ category.

    • Curious George

      Accusation: mdander is a budding dictator.

      • Curious George

        We should not let this blog degenerate into an Attorney General’s Weekly. Trading accusation would be inappropriate even there.

      • Inference: Curious George is suggesting that his accusation has the same weight and basis in reality as my accusations against Judith Curry.

        Whereas Judith Curry has the ear of both policy makers and investors, I do not. Her opinions influence important people, so her motives and her integrity should be challenged.

        You can challenge my motives and integrity all you want — I assure you that there’s a vanishingly small amount of people that care.

      • Curious George

        Will you respond to my accusation?
        Do you expect other people to respond to your accusations?

      • mdander, are you aware that Dr. Curry was very much part of the climate establishment up until the late 2000s?

        You make a good point that scientists are individuals and thus have personal opinions, and like everyone else, want to be proven correct. The scientific method was conceived to mitigate this natural bias. Agreed?

        mdander:

        In your mind are your accusations an application of the scientific method?

        Do you believe that consensus = scientific method?

        Do you think that big oil has ever funded Dr. Curry?

        Can you provide one example of falsification for personal profit by Dr. Curry?

        Do you know what Climategate was about?

        Do you know what Mike’s Nature trick was?

        Can you point to a paper that Dr. Curry has authored or co-authored that you dispute?

        By the way, look at Webster 2005 and tell us how this was biased against the climate alarm industry?

      • What you are calling the climate establishment is a pervasive and invidious group think that demonizes any departure from the accepted narrative. They are militant and commonly daft defenders of memes that impose a stranglehold on open science. It justifies in the minds of the hyper irrational the tyranny of technocrat.

        Real science progresses despite the gatekeeping but it hardly matters for realistic policy. The future is inevitably cyberpunk.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/19/cyberpunk-is-the-future/

      • Ron Graf:

        Q: In your mind are your accusations an application of the scientific method?

        A: What? No. They’re accusations of bias — an attempt to establish that this blog is not a BALANCED source of climate science review.

        Q: Do you believe that consensus = scientific method?

        A: What? No.

        Q: Do you think that big oil has ever funded Dr. Curry?

        A: That would be a motive for bias — I don’t claim to understand Dr. Curry’s motives.

        Q: Can you provide one example of falsification for personal profit by Dr. Curry?

        A: No. That wouldn’t be bias. That would be malfeasance.

        Q: Do you know what Climategate was about? A: Yes.

        Q: Do you know what Mike’s Nature trick was? A: Yes.

        Q: Can you point to a paper that Dr. Curry has authored or co-authored that you dispute? A: No.

        Perhaps you don’t understand what I mean by bias. I’ll point you to the same example that I gave atanb:

        Search Resplandy on this site.

        There is a five part saga detailing how Nic Lewis found a problem in the Resplandy et. al. Ocean Warming paper that concluded with the retraction of this paper (you can read the retraction in Nature — it credits Nic Lewis for his help identifying flaws in their method).

        Honestly, I was impressed with Nic Lewis’ work and followed the saga with interest. I learned stuff.

        Tell me why there was no follow up post when the paper was republished.

        If this were a balanced blog, it absolutely would have highlighted that conclusion to the saga because Nic Lewis played a huge part in getting it there.

        My answer is that the republished paper was no longer flawed, but the conclusion was not something that Dr. Curry would like to highlight.

        It’s not falsification. There is no malfeasance or breach of ethics. It is just a simple, obvious bias against science that shows that AGW is a bigger threat than is portrayed here.

        Does that mean that Dr. Curry is a liar? No.

        I said that Dr. Curry’s scientific opinion is worthless. I said that to get a rise out of people and generate a discussion about bias (sadly it mostly generated random abuse). I actually believe that her opinion is not worthless if taken with a clear understanding of the bias.

        I mean come on. She’s owner / president of CFAN:

        “CFAN’s owners President Judith Curry and Peter Webster brings a wealth of experience and expertise for supporting litigation related to climate change. The following services can be provided for litigation:

        Provide factual information and background relevant to the decision/policy and the litigation

        – Consult with attorneys and examine documents

        – Assist attorneys in deposition and cross-examination of experts

        – Prepare expert and rebuttal reports

        – Assist attorneys in preparation pre- and post-trial submissions

        – Testify at trial”

        Who would hire her if she suddenly started reviewing good scientific papers that indicated that fossil fuel emissions were contributing to climate change and were to some extent responsible for so some recent very costly extreme weather incidents?

        I don’t claim to understand the motives for Dr. Curry’s persistent bias, but that’s not to say she doesn’t have any.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Show me a person that says they have no bias and I’ll show you a person that is too biased to have an objective opinion.

      • Stop repeating your nonsense. The real scientific question is not ocean warming but how much is natural variability and how much anthropogenic forcing. What should sensibly be done in the light of that uncertainty should not be the sole domain of the farcical left.

      • Accusation: George is playing squirrels.

      • stevenreincarnated! We just had a breakthrough. I admitted that Dr. Curry’s scientific opinion is not worthless, and you admitted that she is biased.

        You met me half way on accusation #1.

      • mdander –

        > I don’t claim to understand the motives for Dr. Curry’s persistent bias, but that’s not to say she doesn’t have any.

        IMO, speculating about “motives for bias” is foolish. We all have motives for bias. It’s our very nature to have them. Unless you know someone well, personally, you can’t possibly know what motivates their biases.

        In fact, one of the things I always find most amusing about this website is to watch “skeptics” so frequently floundering about, making accusations so entirely sure that then can determine what someone else’s motives for bias are. The great sign of bias is a total unawareness on display when someone’s very sure that they can divine someone else’s motives for bias.

        That said, I do think there are many clear examples to be had of Judith’s bias. But I hope you know that she has a fan club here, who take it very seriously if anyone deems to even suggest that Judith is subject to bias just like anyone else.

        Judith’s sainthood is sacrosanct.

      • stevenreincarnated

        mdander, I am biased. You are biased. We are all biased. The objective should be to understand your biases and try to adjust for them. Now do you know anything about climate science because I’d really like to see your specific arguments on how you know Judith is biased. Let’s see if you even know enough to find my biases. Perhaps if nothing else you can find some of your own.

      • oops. wrong place…

        steve –

        > I’d really like to see your specific arguments on how you know Judith is biased.

        I’m going to guess that you’ve read Judith’s blog quite a bit. You’ve read her advocacy on many different issues, on climate science and related sociological and/or political issues. Even on issues largely unrelated to climate science.

        Have you never seen any indication of bias on her part in all that time? If you have what was it?

      • Joshua joins the debate on bias. Now there’s an unintended irony.

      • Chief –

        You butt in to a conversation I’m trying to have with someone else, to do nothing other than level an insult.

        Looks like your butthurt about being called out for unintentional irony hasn’t healed yet, eh?

      • The farcical left climate groupthink inevitably devolves into ridicule and insults. Magnified with Joshua, poor wee willie and others of that ilk because that’s all they have. It is a matter of ‘cancelling’ people – Judith for bias in this instance.

        The CMIP-6 models assume by and large that greenhouse gases and feedbacks drive all climate change. They can’t all be right.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png

        The divergence can be explained in terms of nonlinear math.

        ‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

        Models can reproduce measured radiative flux at top of atmosphere – but this entails ditching treasured notions of the precision of models and their powers of prediction.

        ‘We compare top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes observed by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) and simulated by seven general circulation models forced with observed sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-ice boundary conditions. In response to increased SSTs along the equator and over the eastern Pacific (EP) following the so-called global warming “hiatus” of the early 21st century, simulated TOA flux changes are remarkably similar to CERES. Both show outgoing shortwave and longwave TOA flux changes that largely cancel over the west and central tropical Pacific, and large reductions in shortwave flux for EP low-cloud regions. A model’s ability to represent changes in the relationship between global mean net TOA flux and surface temperature depends upon how well it represents shortwave flux changes in low-cloud regions, with most showing too little sensitivity to EP SST changes, suggesting a “pattern effect” that may be too weak compared to observations.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705

        The inability to come to terms with new data that challenges memes is cognitive dissonance as part of a farcical left groupthink cognitive disorder.

      • Joshua suggests that speculating about “motives for bias” is foolish.

        Chief hears that “it is a matter of ‘cancelling’ people.”

        You can’t make this up.

      • Rest assured that poor wee willie has no problem making it up.

      • Joshie has a consistent pattern of reading people’s minds and diagnosing “bias” in other vastly more qualified people. He himself is totally unqualified to diagnose bias as his comments usually totally lack meaningful content or scientific quantification, but feature cherry picking, quote mining, and other behaviors that lead others to point out that he is troll. It’s a sad track record of wasted life energy. My suggestion to you Joshie is that you go back to school and learn some science, math, and logic so that you can avoid embarrassment.

        Judith has a point of view like most scientists. She has a massive opus on the internet so people can judge for themselves. I believe her main contribution is pointing out how climate science is itself systematically biased by political activism. It also doesn’t adequately consider uncertainty. I would caution Joshie that Judith is highly qualified to make these observations.

      • Oops.

        mdander –

        See there? Mere mention that Judith is biased, like anyone else I might add, sends these boys into an highly agitated state. A tither, one might say.

        Judith’s sainthood is sacrosanct.

      • The assertion – repeated over and over again –
        is that nothing Judith says has any value because she is biased. Then Joshua and poor wee willie dogpile on in a farcical left fervour. It is a pattern all too familiar. And being butthurt is supposed to silence me?

      • Chief –

        > The assertion – repeated over and over again –
        is that nothing Judith says has any value because she is biased.

        I never said that once, let alone repeated it over and over. In fact, I’ve never even. Implied it. In fact, I’ve commented that I think she’s right to focus on the importance of uncertainty.

        Stop fantasizing about me. .

      • Seeing as it mdander’s repeated assertions in dispute – Joshua may fantasize about my butthurt all he likes. I’m quite sure I don’t want to know.

    • ‘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.’ https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

      Here’s a Tim Palmer video that goes into some detail on the vagaries of atmospheric circulation.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU

      The atmospheric patterns that drove elevated temperature in the US Pacific north-west are the result of a stochastic process in which small initial instabilities can produce extreme events seemingly by chance.

      “We have made trillions of small adaptations to optimize our society for the historical range of temperature, precipitation, etc., that we have experienced,” Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, told Axios via email.

      “As the climate changes, that range is no longer the relevant one, and the mismatch between what we are adapted for and what we actually experience can generate huge negative impacts that seem to suddenly appear out of nowhere — even though we’ve been predicting them for literally decades,” he said.”

      And that is utter nonsense. Climate has always changed not incrementally but as shifts in regimes. Seen in analysis pioneered by the giants Harold Hurst and – in a different field – Andrey Kolmogorov – almost 100 years ago.

      There have been megadroughts and megafloods. Regionally as much as a 16 degree C change in temperature in as little as a decade. Whole continents transitioning from grassland to desert. With civilisations coming and going. Preparing global communities for inevitable surprises can’t just be a matter of carbon taxes and deploying wind and solar. Even less dismantling democracy and capitalism. There is a need to repair soils and ecosystems, build resilient infrastructure and deploy powerful energy technology. Economic growth provides the resources.

      I have defended Judith Curry. Not that she needs it. She knows a lot more of science and pragmatic policy than any of the tendentious amateurs pontificating hereabouts.

      Here – just for David – is the Wikipedia entry for the Hurst Exponent.

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

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: Climate has always changed not incrementally but as shifts in regimes. Seen in analysis pioneered by the giants Harold Hurst and – in a different field – Andrey Kolmogorov

        Not so. The calculated Hurst coefficients merely show that the autocorrelation function is more complex than would be predicted from iid or first-order autocorrelated data — they confirm what are called “long memory” models, nothing about shifts in regimes. No “Kolmogorov Modelling” of weather data time series has shown anything about regime shifts in climate.

        The best (only?) statistical analysis of time series of weather data that supports a claim of “regime shift” is this, which I have cited before:
        The Annals of Applied Statistics
        2014, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1372–1394
        DOI: 10.1214/14-AOAS753
        © Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2014

        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.

        Sorry to be so repetitive. If another analysis has demonstrated a “regime shift”, I hope someone will cite it or link to it.

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

        They called it the Joseph effect for a reason. And it must of course shift between self similar states well known to hydrologists. I can’t imagine what you think a ‘long memory’ is. But it is the fractionally dimensioned state space model of Lorenz that is more realistic. And we all know what happens there. But you have a single study that says the LIA was white noise and the breakpoints happened in the 20th century. And you are of course sticking to it because that suits you pettifogging purposes.

        Kolmogorov studied turbulence and the phenomenon of shifts in spatiotemporal flow patterns is well known in hydrodynamics. This from the AIP history of abrupt climate change.

        ‘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.’ https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

        The link between the scale of local turbulence and planetary hydrology is the remarkable Navier-Stokes equation that can mathematically be unpacked into millions of equations describing micro-eddies to planetary waves. The fractal nature of turbulent flow.

        ‘Big whorls have little whorls
        Which feed on their velocity,
        And little whorls have lesser whorls
        And so on to viscosity’

        Lewis Fry Richardson, 1922

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers

        Is that “regime change” or a “regime” that includes alternations between extremes, a little more complicated than a harmonic oscillator or stochastic Brusselator? They don’t even demonstrate non-stationarity in the observation interval.

        but, I thank you for the link.

      • No you are woefully mistaken and despite years of disputation make no progress..

      • I don’t get why you’d try to dunk on the only person who tries to engage with you on your favorite topic, Chief.

        What’s in it for you, and do you realize why MattStat earned his nick?

      • You have to suspect ulterior motives from a card carrying member of the ‘farcical left’.

        But I apologise to Matthew – I hadn’t read his comment. Just not in the mood for pettifogging disputation.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: Here – just for David – is the Wikipedia entry for the Hurst Exponent.

        Take the HadCRUT5 time series and calculate its Hurst exponent.

        Then tell us what its value it lends towards solving the problem of climate change.

      • Changing patterns of atmospheric and ocean climate driving system feedbacks is climate change. Superimposed on that are anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: And that is utter nonsense. Climate has always changed not incrementally but as shifts in regimes.

        Specify what are the climate regime shifts over the Holocene.

        https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_climate_change_holocene.jpg

      • Can’t go wrong with MotherJones. Science source of record.

      • David Appell

        Robert Ellison: There have been megadroughts and megafloods

        Megafloods are usually outburst floods, such as the result of ice dams bursting, as with the Missoula Floods, not sudden climate regime shifts.

        As for megadroughts…well, yes, I’m living in one right now. One that exacerbated the recent Pacific Northwest heat wave. One that’s been drying up the entire western US leading to smaller snowpacks, reservoirs at historic lows, larger wildfires, and — isn’t this ironic — one town giving up on economic growth for lack of water:

        “A Drought So Dire That a Utah Town Pulled the Plug on Growth: Groundwater and streams vital to both farmers and cities are drying up in the West, challenging the future of development,” NY Times 7/20/21
        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/utah-water-drought-climate-change.html

        Lakes Mead and Powell, the big water supplies of the US southwest and, in part, southern California, are both at historic lows:

        http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2021/07/not-just-mead-powell-will-soon-drop-to-the-lowest-level-since-filling-in-the-1960s/

        Climate change has toppled over the burgeoning problems of overpopulation and overbuilding, and “economic growth” isn’t going to magically provide more water. Conservation will help. More and better regulations will help. But something has to change — there can’t be more BAU, more of the same.

      • David Appell

        CKid: Can’t go wrong with MotherJones. Science source of record.

        You’re easily triggered. It’s just a graph. Do you have any scientific problems with the graph? Any criticism of the graph itself?

      • “Climate change has toppled over the burgeoning problems of overpopulation and overbuilding, and “economic growth” isn’t going to magically provide more water.” – David Appell

        Yes, this appears to be a major issue affecting humanity. I’ve been reading about lack of drinking water in Iran and Lebanon etc.

      • Just like magic – all it takes is dollars.

      • Matthew R Marler

        I think maybe the word “regime” is used in two senses, which I shall call “global” and “local”. Consider a system such as the Earth’s revolutions about the sun: the basis system has been well-studied (and well-modeled by Newton ‘s laws), and has not changed for millenia.: the regime, in the global sense, has not changed. but in its revolutions, the Earth goes through different areas of state space, and each region might be though of as a different regime. It may be a matter of perspective: for flora and fauna, the seasons are distinctly different regimes, even though for us the overall governing regime is constant.

        For another example, the revolutions of the moon about the Earth has a constant regime, but the result at the surface of the Earth is the wave of tides that circles the Earth. The global regime is unchanging, but for life near the seashore, we may say that the regime changes.

        Kelly and O'[Garda showed that for hundreds of years before about 1890, the statistical measurements in a region of Europe were stationary, a constant “regime” until the mean surface temperature began a consistent rise; but during the stationary time there were unusually warm epochs and unusuall cool epochs that might be different “regimes” in what I call the “local” sense.

        Either way, Hurst coefficients are calculated from the sample autocorrelation function, the calculation of which assumes that the process has been stationary throughout the recording interval. They do not support an inference of “regime change” in any sense.

        Something similar is true for any model, including a model exhibiting Kolmogorov dynamics: the estimation of model parameters assumes that the same model and parameters hold through out the recorded interval. “Local” regime change may be identifiable from eyeballing a graph of computed model output; but “global” regime change is assumed not to be present.

      • ‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific basin; however, evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here, the authors report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml

        Regimes change over decades to millennia.

      • ‘The Hurst exponent is referred to as the “index of dependence” or “index of long-range dependence”. It quantifies the relative tendency of a time series either to regress strongly to the mean or to cluster in a direction.[5] A value H in the range 0.5–1 indicates a time series with long-term positive autocorrelation, meaning both that a high value in the series will probably be followed by another high value and that the values a long time into the future will also tend to be high. A value in the range 0 – 0.5 indicates a time series with long-term switching between high and low values in adjacent pairs, meaning that a single high value will probably be followed by a low value and that the value after that will tend to be high, with this tendency to switch between high and low values lasting a long time into the future.’ Wikipedia

        Geophysical series tend to have a H value larger than 0.5. Rainfall patterns change with seasons but these are not hydrological regimes.
        Perhaps we could call it epochs for those more imaginatively challenged.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png

      • Robert I Ellison

        https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

        Thank you for this excellent article summarizing a great deal of historical thinking on climate up to recent times. My take away message:

        “People can see only what they find believable.”

        The message seems applicable to many issues today including vaccines etc.

        What strikes me about climate science as it is espoused today, the paradigm of atmospheric CO2 is the driving force in the changes in climate we are seeing today is asserted without consideration that other forces/issues may be in play and a future paradigm is possible, really, seems likely.

      • David

        Criticism? Of course, the obvious. That graph’s shelf life expired long ago. The science is moving at warp speed, and left the hockey stick in the dust. But if it’s a security blanket for you, the more power to you.

        I’d be embarrassed linking stuff that is so irrelevant.

      • You’re posting teh Goddard’s crap, Kid.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: It quantifies the relative tendency of a time series either to regress strongly to the mean or to cluster in a direction.[5]

        That’s one way to put it. I wrote that it distinguishes between “long memory” models and “short memory models” such as first order autoregressive. The coefficients are computed from the sample autocorrelation function on the assumption that the process is stationary over the observation interval. They say nothing about “regime changes” (at least within the observed interval) by any definition of regime.

        I think you are ignoring the importance of the stationarity assumption in the calculation of the autocorrelation function and the Hurst coefficients. Maybe “stationarity” is one of those “pettifogging” details that you alluded to but did not list explicitly.

      • Long memory is the tendency for similar sized – autocorrelated – events to occur in a period. Then there is a different period with a different mean and variance. It is the only way that it is put. The definitions of stationary and nonstationary are a bit vague but nonetheless irrelevant. Whether nonstationary simply implies change – or there is some quality of change that distinguishes nonstationary series does not matter in the least to the procedure.

        Climate series vary and are somewhat thoughtlessly classified as nonstationary. Stationary series include series in which random variations occur around a mean. In this case the best forecast is the unconditional mean. In a real world it is safer to assume determinism.

        In this series we see breakpoints around 1250 AD and at the beginning of the 20th century. Analyse that.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png

        In the sense of a stochastic process – of which statistics is a unidimensional subset – stationarity implies that future uncertainty encompasses the range of past variance.

      • Matthews one unreplicated study – using econometric tests and fuzzy physical thinking – says that temperatures in Europe before 1900 were random variations but that changed to something or other after that. And he calls himself a sceptic.

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

      • And that’s why I was in no mood for yet more pettifogging disputation.

      • W

        What crap? You mean like this?

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01-01044917_shadow.png

        Nope. Didn’t do that.

      • Re REI link https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png

        If the first ‘break point’ was ~1250CE, the next is still to come -the end of the shaded area- , sometime late in the 21st century. Both points coincide with the peak of the Eddy cycle. The previous peak was around 270CE, the Roman WP peak. Times of change. ( before that was 770BCE, and earlier 1750BCE – the 3k7 Kikkar event when Sodom disappeared. Coincidence?? . Seems God moves in predictable ways).

      • ‘Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. ‘ https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml

        The shift to more El Nino like conditions may have something to do with solar activity – with the modern maximum last century. Cosmogenic isotopes increase in periods of low solar activity. I suggest that you have discovered a pattern that doesn’t exist.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: The definitions of stationary and nonstationary are a bit vague but nonetheless irrelevant. Whether nonstationary simply implies change – or there is some quality of change that distinguishes nonstationary series does not matter in the least to the procedure.

        The assumption of stationarity matters much to what inferences can be supported. “Stationarity” is well-defined; non-stationary is everything else, but drawing much of an inference requires accurately modeling the potential kinds of non-stationarity (this was the topic of my PhD dissertation, fwiw.)

        Obviously it is true that you do not think the assumption of stationarity matters much, as I guessed. Obviously, we disagree on this.

      • In hydrology as in much of climatology events are still regarded as independent. Like a coin tossed many times. Harold Hurst discovered persistence, self similarity. long range memory… A structure in geophysical series that is not random.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/nilometer.png

        Considering the Nile River series as stationary implies that any of the flow regimes can be revisited in future increasing future uncertainty.

    • “She is very clear that she believes that strong government regulation to enforce carbon emission reductions are a bad idea.”

      Really? I have been following this blog for years now, and do not have that impression. If I were to characterize her political leanings I would characterize them as liberal and as more likely to have voted for Biden than Trump, although, and admittedly she has not implicitly stated her political position. I would also think that she believes in strong government regulation, and have not seen any indication that she is either libertarian or conservative. I guess we could debate this, but I would insist on looking at a broad range of positions, not just on this one issue. For example, her position on vaccinations, masks, government restrictions during COVID, GMO’s, the debt, immigration, etc. most of which she has not taken a public position on.

      “ACCUSATION #1: Judith Curry’s scientific opinion is worthless, because it demonstrates a consistent bias conforming to a specific political agenda.”

      I think you are grasping at straws. Dr. Curry was one of the IPCC authors and as I recall wrote a paper on the increased incidence of hurricanes that Dr. Pielke took issue with. It appears that she has a different take on the incidence now, but to say that a specific political agenda has anything to do with it is a stretch. I suggest you educate yourself on the heresy portions of this blog and ask yourself if she had a different political view previously (as she would need to in order to be consistent with your argument) , what made her change her mind? For my part I assume that she has not changed her political leanings (most people do not), but simply broadened her view on the science.

      “ACCUSATION #2: Judith Curry is an anesthetic for climate change innovation.”

      This statement must be from ignorance. I suggest that you read up on what she actually says. Innovation can take a number of different forms. That currently she is leaning toward adaptation and low hanging fruit innovation rather than your preferred “innovation” does not give any credence to your accusation.

    • This is especially stupid: “However, every opinion about climate science that she expresses on this blog is 100% in line with that political/economic opinion.”

      If someone’s scientific opinions contradicted their politics/economic opinions and they held both that would make them irrational. Every rational person has scientific opinions that are in line with their politics/economic opinions.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      mdander writes “Judith Curry’s scientific opinion is worthless, because it demonstrates a consistent bias”
      That is a meaningless phrase because ‘bias” is not defined.
      However, if you have special qualifications with original research of your own about bias, then you should state it and so be more likely to be heard. Geoff S

  79. Thank you Dr Curry

  80. 40% less rainfall in Iran this year has lead to violent street protests and possibility of power shortages adding to the misery of water running dry:

    https://youtu.be/j1x7rFTTI5Q

  81. CO2 concentration has increased in by some 130 ppm. Overwhelmingly in the past 40 years. It is increasing by a few parts per million every year. Distinguishing natural variability from AGW has always been problematic – but it is some 50% of late 20th century warming and almost all the early century warming. It is hardly an existential threat at this time – especially considering that natural warming of the past century is more likely than not to be lost this century.

    Drawdown is encouraged – by Judith as much as anyone – just in case there are inevitable climate surprises.

    e.g. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18373/abrupt-impacts-of-climate-change-anticipating-surprises

    But the criteria must be pragmatic and not ideological,

    https://drawdown.org/drawdown-framework

    But

  82. Meanwhile Kimberley in South Africa receives some highly unusual snow ❄️

    https://youtu.be/l1ShxXkcIVo

    Nice to see African children enjoying the snow without having to negotiate white saviour climate activist-journalists – no risk of them showing up to this kind of climate anomaly!

  83. I don’t climate blogs too often. For good reason apparently. I have just been cancelled on Tamino’s ‘open mind’ – for the sake of the children – for posting this video from a doyen of climate modelling Tim Palmer. What stunning hypocrisy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-IHJbzRVVU

    Apparently the proof that models and climate are are not chaotic is the predictive skill of models.

    The range of models mean outputs in the latest IPCC opportunistic ensemble is shown in blue and yellow. Above and below the mean of means. Some models are run in centres with large computing facilities. Models can be run many times with slightly different initial conditions and wildly divergent solution trajectories. Some have more modest origins. The range is from benign to potentially catastrophic.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png

    Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. Below is an example of a single model run 1000’s of times. The rest is a work in progress. Yet they somehow continue to insist on the verisimilitude of models.

    It’s a sort of madness comparable to the more extreme contrarian crap.

  84. And now for something completely … well somewhat different as there’s much hot air on this. I thought this was funny.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-stephen-breyer-retirement-politicization-blumenthal-cnn-11626989813?st=oshubjgexqgw7af&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

  85. ‘Much is said and written about hydroclimatic hazards: storms, floods, droughts. Such hazards have existed and will always exist, while the usual scaremongering on them is of little help to avoid them. Instead, what is needed is a cool look at risk, based on measurement data, using scientific methodology, and ultimately employing technology in the service of reducing hazards and their consequences.’ Dimitris Koutsoyiannis, 2021, Stochastics of Hydroclimatic Extremes: A Cool Look at Risk – http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/2000/

    I have no more patience for trying to discuss science with alarmists. They are frauds, liars and willing dupes. Uncertainty is the last thing that they want. They need certainty of imminent disaster to sell by proxy the great reset. Unfortunately for them – uncertainty is what we have.

    This is not to say that we haven’t added 130 odd ppm of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or that won’t trigger a transition to a new climate state sometime in indefinite future. The fabled tipping point in a canonically chaotic climate. It’s just that David Appell says it’s not worth worrying about – so I won’t.

    Instead – we should focus on way to profitably feed the world. Rattan Lal – Distinguished Professor of Soil Science – too many honours to mention – estimates that the carbon content of 157 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be returned to soils and ecosystems this century.

    https://cmasc.osu.edu/

    That’s a substantial proportion of the 130 ppm added – with minimal warming – to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. We may have to burn more fossil fuels.

    This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates.

    That sort of innovation is driven by farm economics. Reducing input costs and increasing output. This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, cover drops, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates.

    Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

    The 4 per 1000 soil carbon initiative was announced in Paris at COP21 and is now a global movement.

    https://www.4p1000.org/

    • Robert I. Ellison commented:
      I have no more patience for trying to discuss science with alarmists. They are frauds, liars and willing dupes. Uncertainty is the last thing that they want. They need certainty of imminent disaster to sell by proxy the great reset. Unfortunately for them – uncertainty is what we have.

      You just can never get off your high horse and your insistence that you are the smartest person in the world. Yet your continued need to insult everyone who disagrees with you betrays your confidence and security at every turn.

      Everyone — everyone — knows about uncertainty. Uncertainties CUT BOTH WAYS – resolving them might worsen future climate projections and strengthen attributions as much as diminish them, so they know it’s not a reason to not to act. Scientists have been talking about uncertainty for decades — at least since Stephen Schneider.

      Then you write this lie:

      This is not to say that we haven’t added 130 odd ppm of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or that won’t trigger a transition to a new climate state sometime in indefinite future. The fabled tipping point in a canonically chaotic climate. It’s just that David Appell says it’s not worth worrying about – so I won’t.

      A lie. What I’ve written is that you can’t define your H-K dynamics in your own words, can’t show how to test a process X(t) for it, post hand-wavy graphs that are drawn by eye, after the fact and with no methodology, can’t prove it appears in any climatological time series, or show what use it has in practically dealings with the climate change problem.

      I still haven’t see you do any of these things.

      Everyone knows tipping points might be problems, going back at least to a NAS report 20 years ago (which I ordered — they ended up sending me the book for free — and read):

      https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136/abrupt-climate-change-inevitable-surprises

      A second report came out about 10 years later:

      https://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18373

      Not two years ago an article in Nature discussed tipping points:

      “Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against: The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions,” Timothy M. Lenton et al, Nature 11/27/19
      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

      The existence of possible tipping points isn’t not in any way a reason to sit around and kvetch until they happen. Because meanwhile the world is warming at 0.2 C/decade and, as we’re seeing, that’s already causing problems and is going to cause more problems. BAU — energy and economic — is what got us into this problem, and it won’t get us out — see the quote by Einstein about the definition of insanity. Yes, there are many solutions we can and must try, and to your credit you have, more than once, listed and discussed them, as in your last reply. But for you they are too often secondary, because your first priority is always to tell us that “H-K dynamics” mean, essentially, no one knows what’s going to happen. When until now scientists have largely been quite accurate about what was going to happen, and it’s happening. That’s the main story.

      • This study was the start for me of a 40 year journey. The authors discovered alternating multi decadal regimes of flood and drought.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers

        Persistence in hydrology is a phenomenon whereby similar sized events occur consecutively. In the Nile River as much as in NSW coastal streams. It emerges from global patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation that drive changes in ice, cloud, water vapor, precipitation, sea surface temperature and biology. It beggars belief that they imagine immense natural variability can be distinguished from minor anthropogenic warming over mostly the past 40 years.

        Can these spatiotemporal chaotic patterns be predicted? Not as more than probabilities a week or so in advance. Then they wax delusional about how predictable it all is.

        I don’t have any more patience for David repeating ad nauseum his simple climate memes mixed with a sort of neo socialist fervour.

  86. A similar story to the inaction in Germany after flood warnings were given, Chinese subway authorities similarly failed to take responsibility to halt the trains & start evacuating when the floodwaters started to rise.

    This is the shocking reality that will be played out again and again around the world. Drastic action is needed to prepare for the decisions required in the face of extreme natural disasters:

    https://youtu.be/qjTMfgGlUcE

    • 6:12 Graphic images warning dead bodies of children on the subway platform show evidence of having their eyes cut out due to the lucrative cornea industry.

      This is what communism leads to. This is the direction the west is heading too.

  87. Ireneusz Palmowski

    I strongly ask German friends not to underestimate the coming storms. Although there is little rain from the Atlantic, the jet stream will bring moisture from the Mediterranean. Already yesterday night storms occurred in the area of Munich.

  88. Bjorn Lomborg says:
    We need to hear the full story on heat and cold deaths

    “100,000 more heat deaths, but 200,000 fewer cold deaths from climate change”

    “Headlines from around the world tell us of hundreds of deaths caused by recent heat waves. The stories invariably blame climate change and admonish us to tackle it urgently. But they mostly reveal how one-sided climate-alarmist reporting leaves us badly informed.
    https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623860

    • Where does the 200,000 number come from?

      If climate change causes more extreme events, there might be more cold deaths as well as more heat deaths.

    • Bjorn Lomborg says:
      We need to hear the full story on heat and cold deaths
      “100,000 more heat deaths, but 200,000 fewer cold deaths from climate change”

      Bjorn Lomborg is another idiot who thinks his living room should be kept warm by heating up his entire city.

      I wonder if he prefers furnaces placed everywhere across the ground in a 5×5 meter grid or space heaters hung from all the telephone poles.

    • Bjorn Lomborg says:
      We need to hear the full story on heat and cold deaths
      “100,000 more heat deaths, but 200,000 fewer cold deaths from climate change”

      Bjorn Lomborg is another genius who thinks he should heat up his living room by warming up his entire city.

      I wonder if he prefers furnaces placed everywhere across the region in a 5×5 meter grid or space heaters hung from all the telephone poles. Had he formed a commission to study that?

  89. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Thunderstorms are predicted for July 24th in the area of recent flooding in Germany.
    https://i.ibb.co/qJQb8P0/gfs-cape-eur33.png

  90. G20 environment ministers meet in Italy following floods in Germany, Turkey and China with wildfires in western America.

    The rhetoric to reduce CO2 emissions is becoming ever for feverish:

    https://youtu.be/wtIHTsTiHdI

    It’s unimaginable to comprehend how the Webb space telescope is destined to unravel a new gravity theory, allowing a new driver of climate change to enter the public consciousness.

  91. In an earlier post, I accused Judith Curry of bias and I substantiated this with my observations of the consistency and frequency that her posts are aligned with a preference for weak governmental regulation.

    There were lots of replies, but only atanb actually stepped up to disagree with me and refer to his observations of what Judith Curry writes — it was refreshingly unstupid.

    Judith Curry, Robert Pielke Jr., Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe — they write books, they appear on expert panels. Why do you suppose that politicians want them on their panels? It is because they can be relied upon to be consistent with the message that their fame/notoriety is built upon 100% of the time. It’s their brand and it makes their reactions to new developments in climate science unreliable.

    If you read this blog for a balanced understanding of the latest developments in climate science, you are kidding yourself. If you read this blog because you are comforted that a credentialed scientist of Judith Curry’s stature agrees with you, then at least understand that this blog is promoting Judith Curry’s brand.

    Get your climate science from as many disparate sources as you can manage. Being well informed is better than being brand loyal.

    • No, the reason most read this blog is that it covers the science and the uncertainties inherent in climate science. I noticed you didn’t respond to my questions above.

      Your problem is you don’t understand enough about the science to question Judith’s views nor are you qualified to judge any of the motivations of the skeptics.

      Spend some time actually researching why there are so many uncertainties and learning about the nuances in developing appropriate public policy options.

      Do more homework.

    • I have found that the “weekly” postings of web links to be pretty balanced. There is something for everyone in them. The good, the bad, and the ugly. I have found stuff that I just wanted to scream at because it is so ignorant and based on faulty logic and unverified premises that it was just awful. I have also found articles that were well written and challenging to my assumptions about the world. Further I have found well written articles that confirmed my assumptions. There is a whole lot of in-between articles as well.

      Sure, I agree that this site is consistent with her branding. However, I disagree with you over what that brand is. I have found it to be more in line with reviewing everything, allowing everything (within limits) and deciding which we agree with and which we don’t. I like this site because I find that the moderation is light enough to allow for discussions without fear of being moderated for an unenlightened viewpoint. She allows very unscientific discussions to take place as long as they are not demeaning and just mudslinging, although I find that she does allow some of that to take place. The fine line of moderation is a difficult one at best, and though I don’t know where she draws that line every time, I have grown accustomed to her moderation and am okay with it enough to not worry about it. Other sites that I have visited are either a free for all hostile environment where only trolls hang out or too censored to have a reasonable conversation. She allows you do freely demean her as host apparently without repercussion as can be seen by your preceding posts.

      If you are really so concerned with the residents of this blog being informed then you are free to inform us! I would bet that if you sent her a well written blog page she would even post it for you. She has done so in the past for articles on both sides of an issue. It would be an improvement from your accusations that can neither be proven true or false and simply attack the messenger rather than the message. This you can freely choose on this site, or you can choose to become a troll (she allows some of those as well). Your choice.

      • Thanks again atanb for another well argued defense of Judith Curry with some good points and useful perspective.

        You referred to my “accusations that can neither be proven true or false”. This is the only thing that I would like to correct. To disprove my accusation #1, you simply need to provide a counter example of the bias I have accused her of. She admits that climate change is at least partially caused by human CO2 emissions. Show me a post where she says that the threat from that climate change is sufficient that something is warranted — government regulations or individuals should invest their money / change their lifestyles / take any little bit of responsibility to move the emissions needle in the other direction. Really, anything that would make a U.S. senator think twice about including her on a panel of experts.

        It is actually much more difficult for me to provide proof. I’d have to show bias in every one of Judith Curry’s posts. The best that I can do is provide an example that demonstrates bias.

        Consider Resplandy et. al. (search Resplandy on this blog).

        This was a peer reviewed paper (Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition) that claimed to provide ocean heat uptake estimates using a new, independent method. Their result suggested “that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise.”

        Judith Curry’s statistician pal Nic Lewis found errors in the paper. I applaud him for this.

        This one paper was hoisted high as an example of how flawed the peer review process is. It exemplified what is wrong with mainstream climate science.

        The paper was retracted. The authors mentioned Nic Lewis in the retraction and admitted that the results were weaker than they had originally estimated.

        The last post that I see on this blog that mentions this paper is the announcement of the retraction: https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/25/resplandy-et-al-part-5-final-outcome/

        However, the paper was later re-published WITH the corrections recommended by Nic Lewis (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z). You’d think that this would be highlighted in Judith Curry’s blog.

        Oh, but “The correction did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming but led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties.” So the paper still represents a completely independent method of estimating ocean warming that suggests ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates — it is just less certain.

        Suddenly it’s not so interesting, despite Nic Lewis’ contribution.

        It is not on brand.

        I call that an obvious example of exactly the kind of bias I have been talking about.

      • stevenreincarnated

        mdander, you are a lost puppy. Judith has never claimed anything else other than man was at least partly responsible for climate change and she has always advocated for expenditures towards improving infrastructure which would be useful regardless of what happens. Now say your apologies and move along.

      • stevenreincarnated

        BTW, in case there is any confusion, I have absolutely no authority here :)

    • ‘In an earlier post, I accused Judith Curry of bias and I substantiated this with my observations of the consistency and frequency that her posts are aligned with a preference for weak governmental regulation.’

      I have to admit that this particular interpretation has never occurred to me. Posting endless crap contrarian science to be sure. Hosting weird science comments yes. Perhaps this particular opinionated troll could let me know what strong government regulation is so I know the difference.

  92. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Temperatures in the lower stratosphere over the southern polar circle are dropping to a minimum this winter.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6590.png

  93. What we need is more cows and fewer self appointed saviours of the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x67Q58dJw4E

    Mmmmmm…

  94. China is a nation of economic contrast. Pockets of wealth and privilege in a setting of stubborn poverty.

    ‘China remains a mostly unfree economy. The modest improvements in its economic freedom score in recent years have resulted mostly from gains in the property rights, judicial effectiveness, and business freedom indicators. Overall, the economic freedom that does exist in China continues to lack depth and breadth, and the government needs to ensure that business-friendly policy changes are understood and implemented nationwide, not just in Beijing or the major commercial centers.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/country/china

  95. I am an occasional visitor to this site, a Ph.D trained time series statistician and an avid consumer and analyst of climate data. Kudos to Judith Curry for maintaining this site. Having said that, I am done with David Appell’s incessant jibberish, naysaying, and half-baked climate alarmist propaganda! He knows just enough statistics and climate science to impress CNN and MSNBC viewers. He does not belong in a serious discussion and should be given a time-out so serious and productive discussion and debate can proceed.

  96. I ran the Column Radiation Model on the June 29 0Z Medford sounding, for CO2=304 and CO2=419 ( about the increase of the last century ).

    RF at the tropopause increased 3.5 W/m2, implying about 1C.

    The heating rate was negative ( cooling ) up to about 400mb.
    Interestingly, the heating rate for this depth decreased further with increased CO2, from -2.23 K/day to -2.26 K/day!

    I then rand the same scenario for the 2021-1-1 12Z Fairbanks AK sounding.
    The radiance at the tropopause increased.
    The heating rate, which was positive,
    increased with increased CO2 for the cold inversion,
    from +3.86 K/day to +4.11 K/day.

    So, increased CO2 -cooled- the heatwave and -warmed- the Arctic inversion,
    apparently acting to moderate extreme temperatures, somewhat in contrast to the radiative forcing.

  97. In WordPress, you can go back to the classic editor. It is a maintained plugin.

Leave a Reply