IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread

by Judith Curry

The IPCC AR6 WGI report has been released [link]

I’m reading it now. So far I’ve read the Summary for Policy Makers, the Technical Summary and Chapter 1.

Detailed comments will be forthcoming later in the week. But there are some new approaches that represent a marked break with the AR5. Some are good.

Roger Pielke Jr has a thread of comments, that is well worth reading

A summary of key findings from Zeke [link]

Lots of breathless alarm in the media.

More soon.

1,387 responses to “IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread

  1. I was a reviewer of the first and second drafts of this report. My reviews can be read at

    Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2019: A Review of the AR6 First Draft of IPCC Working Group I (WG1) report, May 2019. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-wg-final-3.pdf

    Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2020: Comment on the AR6 Second Draft of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) report. February 2020
    https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-letter-1.pdf

    In my initial read of the final WG1 report, they did not respond (either to refute or to include) relevant peer reviewed papers which I included in the reviews.

    • Mike Edwards

      Thank you Roger, much appreciated.

    • Roger Pielke Sr. thank you for your comment and the links to your comments on the 1st and 2nd drafts of the IPCC AR6 Working Group 1 (WG1) report.

      I suggest the ECS and TCR estimates published in IPCC AR6 WG1 Ch. 7, Section 7.5.4.3 Table 7.12 and Section 7.5.5 Tables 7.13 and 7.14 (pages 7-110, 7-112 and 7-113) alone are sufficient to discredit the IPCC WR6 report.
      https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf

    • Gerald Browning

      A less than honest modeler reviewing climate models. Definitely trust him.

      • Please explain how Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. is a “less than honest modeler.” Are you a UN IPCC CliSciFi modeler? If not, please explain any expertise you may have such that you could second-guess Dr. Pielke.

      • Gerald Browning

        Roger spent his entire career on mesoscale models without any
        discussion of the impact of boundary errors due to the generation
        of gravity waves from the interior mesoscale storms conflicting with
        boundary data provided by large scale exterior models or the impact of errors in parameterizations on the instantaneous errors in the vertical velocity of a storm or the error due to the excessive dissipation needed to keep discontinuities in the physics from destabilizing the model and destroying the numerical accuracy. Need I elaborate further?

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        I am a student of Professor Heinz
        Kreiss and trained in Partial Differential
        Equations and Numerical Analysis.
        I suggest you read the extensive literature
        on systems with multiple time scales by Heinz
        and our collaborative work using that theory in JAS.

      • Geral Browning

        FYI all global weather and climate models are based on the wrong
        dynamical system of equations, a system that is ill posed for
        Initial and initial boundary value problems. The correct mathematical system is called the reduced system and is well posed for both the initial and initial boundary value problems. It is derived using the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory.

        Jerry

      • stevenreincarnated

        These don’t sound like they would be problems modelers weren’t aware of already. If you don’t have a fix for the problems that everyone is already aware of then is not talking about that dishonesty or merely not wasting people’s time? I guess what I’m asking is there some reason to believe these were problems unique to his models where it would be his personal responsibility to point them out or are they as they sound to me common problems?

      • stevenreincarnated

        My last comment hasn’t appeared yet but I think you answered my question already. I wonder how many other problems are common throughout the models that haven’t been fixed yet. My guess is quite a few.

      • Gerald Browning

        Steven,
        To be aware of the problems and then claim the models can be used as if predicting reality is as dishonest as it gets. They use the pseudo spectral numerical method and then destroy its accuracy using discontinuous forcing. Then claim they are accurately approximating the continuum dynamical system that is in fact the wrong one. These are people sweeping the errors under the rug, not addressing or discussing them.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        I replied to you and the comment was redacted. It is one thing to be aware of problems and another to sweep them under the rug and then pass them off as having something to do with reality.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Judith,
        You stated that you are reading or have read the report. Do the climate modelers document the changes they have made since the last report?
        I would especially be interested in changes to the amount of dissipation or damping with increased resolution. And of course any justification for changes in the physics.

        Jerry

      • Why don’t you read the report yourself, Gerald?

      • stevenreincarnated

        It’s in the literature or you wouldn’t know what the models were doing so now it is just a matter of if using tuned and parameterized models is dishonest. I’ll just disagree with your characterization and say that mine with be a suboptimal situation and leave it at that.

      • Gerald Browning

        Dave, why don’t you read the mathematical theory of differential equations with multiple time scales and the requirements for a numerical method to accurately approximate a well posed system of time dependent equations . Then you would know that climate models are junk. I asked Judith a relevant scientific question and if she does not want to answer that is her choice. I was hinting at what any good scientist should be asking about the IPCC climate model results. If they have nothing to hide then they should have no problem documenting
        the tuning they are doing.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning wrote: If they have nothing to hide then they should have no problem documenting the tuning they are doing.

        What tuning are they doing?

      • Gerald Browning

        David,

        Surely you can’t be that naive. If the models are converging to the continuum solution of the incorrect dynamical system, all should provide the same answer as the mesh size becomes smaller. Yet different models provide different results because the physics in each is
        tuned using slightly different parameterizations and/or parameters.

        Global weather models go off the rails in a few days because the boundary layer approximation destroys the dynamical approximation
        (Gravel et al.). Only by inserting new observational data ever 6 to 12 hours do they remain on track. How is this accomplished for climate models? It is not and the errors accumulate in time (Pat Frank).

        Jerry

      • > the errors accumulate in time

        Pat surely knows how to propagate nonsense:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/

      • David Appell

        Gerald Browning wrote: Yet different models provide different results because the physics in each is tuned using slightly different parameterizations and/or parameters.

        Climate models aren’t all built with the same parametrizations or parameters. That allows different choices to be made to compare their results to observations. In this sense they’re used as a kind of experiment.

      • Gerald Browning

        All,

        A numerical model is not a proof of anything unless

        1. It numerically approximates a well posed dynamical system that has a differentiable solution. ( Neither is the case for climate and weather models.)

        2. The numerical method is accurate and stable. ( One cannot prove accuracy for discontinuous solutions.)

        3. As the mesh is refined the numerical solution converges to the continuum solution. ( Note that there are multiple reasons the climate models are not converging. One is that the modelers are continually changing parameterizations and thus the continuum solutions. If the equations they are using are ill posed, as the mesh size is reduced the numerical solution will grow exponentially unbounded quicker and quicker unless the dissipation is increase more and more meaning a larger continuum error.)

        Clearly these are the reasons I asked about the amount and type of dissipation and parameterization differences between the previous and current climate models used in the IPCC.

        Climate modelers used to run their models over centuries until caught with discrepancies between obs and model solutions. Now they have only run them over decades where there are better obs and the results have gotten worse (see new thread). This is no surprise given the above
        problems and the accumulation of errors pointed out by Pat Frank.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        Pat had trouble with publication because modelers want the truth buried. If he is wrong why don’t you or the people you refer to publish a mathematical manuscript in a mathematical journal proving so.

        It is well known in numerical analysis that truncation errors can and do grow over time. Orbital computations had this problem and so higher order numerical methods were developed to reduce the truncation errors so the numerical solution would be accurate for longer periods of time.

        If the error in the forcing of a hyperbolic system is wrong, then the error can grow linearly. Then if the solution is restarted at a later time that error will be present in the initial conditions, i.e., it will not go away and can continue to grow.

        Note that adding dissipation can keep the numerical solution stable, but
        at the expense of numerical accuracy plus the addition of a continuum error. That is what the climate modelers have done (Browning, Hack, and Swarztrauber)

        Jerry

      • Gerald downing

        David Appell,

        An experiment is one thing, claiming it has something to do with reality is another. The very fact that there are different parameterizations states clearly that the climate modelers do not yet understand the true physical processes or how to accurately approximate them if they did. Thus there are errors in the physical forcing (in addition to truncation and nonlinear cascade) that don’t just disappear as time goes on.

        Jerry

      • David Appell

        Gerald downing wrote:
        The very fact that there are different parameterizations states clearly that the climate modelers do not yet understand the true physical processes or how to accurately approximate them if they did. Thus there are errors in the physical forcing (in addition to truncation and nonlinear cascade) that don’t just disappear as time goes on.

        News for you, Gerald: All models are approximations. Modeling microscopic processes especially is difficult, which is why climate modelers spend a lot of time trying different parametrizations and trying to improve them. Are you really so arrogant that you’re going to fault scientists for doing science and trying to improve the science they’re doing? Or do you think everyone gets to live in a mathematician’s world where perfection is necessary and attainable?

      • Gerald Browning

        David,

        These are not scientists but trial and error tuners.. I am not opposed to numerical models when they satisfy the requirements that are required by theory.
        I am opposed to models that abuse all those requirements and then claim they represent reality.

        Jerry

      • Jerry,

        Here’s a very simple explanation as to why Pat Frank’s pet theory is nonsense:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmTuPumcYkI

        Have you considered that he had problems publishing it because he’d be propagating nonsense?

        If you could also spare the “Gravel & al” schtick, that’d be great. That’s your own paper.

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,
        Are the Gravel results wrong? They were computed using a real weather model compared to the best obs over the U.S. The error progation is due to the discontinuity betweent the ad hoc boundary layer parameterization
        and the interior dynamical equations. The vertical integral used in the hydrostatic equations spreads the error vertically instantaneously. Note that Kreiss was also a coauthor and he fully agreed with the results.
        We wrote that manuscript to determine which parameterizations are the most important in the early stages of a global forecast and to our surprise the boundary layer error is the most dominant. That is a completely arbitrary fix to slow down the unrealistic growth of the velocity at the surface/ It clearly illustrates how arbitrary parameterizations can lead to serious problems very quickly.

        And in case you claim the Canadian model is different from other weather models, there are graphs showing it does just as well forecasting as other global weather models including the ECMWF model.

        Note that the well posed reduced system based on the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory does not have such a vertical integral. In fact that system exponential decreases small scale surface errors (Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 2020 manuscript dedicated to Heinz).

        Jerry

      • Jerry,

        Not “the Gravel results.”

        Your results.

        As for your leading question: have you posted your data and your code somewhere?

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        A talk at a conference is not the same as a peer reviewed article in a math journal . I await for that article to appear in a reputable journal.

        BTW when comparing three different numerical models for computations of the swe on the sphere, the error grew
        linearly in time due to the truncation error as predicted by numerical analysis (Browning, Hack and Swarztrauber) anfd Pat Frank.

        And when the dissipation used in current weather models was added, the spectral accuracy was destroyed because of the large continuum error due to the artificial term.

        Jerry

      • Jerry,

        Pat’s argument is the same, if only because Pat’s argument is always the same. A bit like you, but at least Pat tries to publish it, even if it’s in a predatory journal. Front. Earth Sci. isn’t a mathematical journal, btw.

        You seem to prefer to spam climate blogs instead. I started at the Auditor’s, where I could enjoy you derailing thread after thread.

        You might like the second part:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/

        As a fair warning, please don’t try to thread bomb AT’s.

      • Gerald Browning

        David Appell,

        You seem to have forgotten all of the contributions mathematicains have made to numerical analysis, e.g. the CFL criterion that helped to explain the failures of early models. And eigenvalue problems, higher accurate methods for ode’s, and on and on. It is mathematical analysis
        that has explained the problems with the ill posedness of the hydrostatic equations and has produced a well posed accurate replacement for that system.

        It is the modelers that ignore the mathematics and then make serious mistakes by misapplying the basic tenets of partial differential equation and numerical analysis theory that I find disturbing. The climate modelers are just one example of this.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Well Willard all our work is published in peer reviewed math and atmospheric science journals. In fact my latest manuscript was reviewed by two rather prominent atmospheric scientists. The manuscript introduces the correct well posed reduced system alternative to the hydrostatic equations. I used to work at NCAR so I know all the skeletons in the met models as do a number of other programmers that worked there.

        When I added the nonluinear terms to the hydrostatic equations for Dave Williamson’s normal mode initialization technique, there were complex eigenvalues, i.e. the hydrostatic system is ill posed for the initial value problem. Of course they immediately removed those terms so assumed the mean state of the atmospheric has no velocity. Obviously this is not the case and a subsequent analysis by Heinz and me showed the ill posedness thru continuum mathematics.

        Have you produced any mathematics to dispute our work? I would love to see it.

        Jerry

      • Gerry, I guess I don’t understand how it is possible for the Naiver-Stokes equations (or any system claiming to capture the same conservation laws) to be well posed as a time dependent simulation in the presence of chaos. Even a simple computation of the evolution of a vortex filament in 2D with some simple forcing leads to chaotic multiplication of vortex filaments.

      • Jerry,

        Here’s what I think is the paper you constantly self-cite without really providing a citation:

        http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/browning.pdf

        I don’t see where it has been published. Your abstract contains no provocative thesis. I can’t quote from the PDF because it’s an image. Need I go on?

        So as I see it you’re challenging me to dispute your results for pure machismo’s sake. Nobody could! Your results simply fail reproducibility.

      • Gerald Browning

        dpy,

        Scientists thought the turbulence equations were chaotic. But Heinz mathematically proved that all derivetives exist for the full nonlinear 2d and 3d turbulence equations. As you might guess he had considerable difficulty publishing the manuscript as it upset the apple cart. But in the end it was published because the theory could not be disproved.

        The theory indicates how much resolution is required to accurately compute the solution. When that resolutuon or more was used, the solutions converged. Anything less would blow up. See manuscripts by Henshaw, Reyna and Kreiss.

        Jerry

      • I’m not so sure that existence of derivatives imply a well-posed problem. In any case, even massively resolved Euler and RANS simulations show the hallmarks of ill-posedness such as multiple solutions, nearly singular linearized systems, etc. That’s really a pretty universal finding to my knowledge.

        It is hard for me to believe that transition to turbulence is well-posed given the tremendous effort expended and the continuing uncertainty in the results. Likewise vortex sheet evolution is a notoriously difficult problem even when resolution is very high and it appears to be chaotic in most simulations that are not under resolved.

      • Gerald Browning

        dpy,

        The 3d atmospheric equations are very different than the 2d ones.
        Simplifications can lead to erroneous results. For example in 3D the horizontal divergence cancels to one order of magnitude with the remainder in balance with some vertical velocity terms. In 2d there is only one horizontal term so that same balance is not possible.

        The HKR theory is for the turbulence equations without forcing. Once forcing is added one can obtain any result one wants. Thus the choice of doing the estimates for the spin down case.

        Note that the Lorenz equations are a vastly over simplified version of the atmospheric equations involving only a few spectral modes. There is no assurance that those chaotic equations are anyhwere close to the real atmospheric equations. Amusing mathematically but not necessarily an indication of the real atmosphere.

        For the 3d atmospheric equations, the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory
        shows that if the initial conditions are chosen properly, the solution will evolve slowly and deterministically for a given period of time. Of course eventually the fast modes will be excited and then the motion can become much more complex.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        I have an original version and had Kinkos copy it so I could post it.
        Unfortunately they didn’t do a very good job. As with Pat, the modelers did not want to publish the result. But the results speak speak for them selves. Sylvie did give a seminar on the manuscript at CSU. Sylvie worked at the Canadian met office so was as surprised as we were.

        Please post something other than denounciation of known facts.
        The reviewer agreed with the findings, he just didn’tr want to publish them
        because he was a modeler.

        Jerry

      • David Appell

        Gerald, suddenly you went from complaining about parametrizations to instead complaining about numerical analysis of modelers in general. I think you just want to complain, in language you realize no one here will understand or grasp. You’re seriously in the wrong forum. You’re like the mathematicians who complain that quantum field theory has infinities all over the place and then physicists subtract them out with brutal, mathematically unjustified means, yet get the right answers anyway. Climate modelers are doing the best they can with the most difficult calculation humans have ever attempted. Maybe someday some group will build the perfect model and you will be happy. Maybe you’ll be a part of that group! That will be a very nice day and you’ll get pats on the back and maybe even a medal. Until then you can continue to act arrogant and huffy and modelers will ignore you just because of that alone. Meanwhile the world keeps warming and it’s very important that models help us understand by about how much that might be, given all kinds of uncertainties and imperfections. So far they’ve done a good enough job. Not perfect, unlike your work, but good enough to know we have a serious problem on our hands.

        “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

        “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
        https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378

        figure:
        https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en

        Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
        https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png

        Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
        https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago

        https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        The only results that are not reproducible are those from climate models.
        Our publications are in the most prestigious mathematical and atmospheric journals. Where are yours (if any)? In climate journals?

        And you have not stated that Sylvie’s results are wrong. A rather damming
        statement of the state of weather models.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        David Appell,

        Your claim about the accuracy directly conflicts with the previous thread.
        Did you read it. The two manuscripts were accepted for publication
        and support Sylvie Grave’s manuscript results.

        So you are a climate modeler defending the indefensible. Have at it.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        dpy,

        Did I answer all of your questions adequately?

        Jerry

      • > The only results that are not reproducible are those from climate models.

        That diversion won’t float, Jerry.

        You yourself appealed to your paper.

        Where’s your data and code, pretty please with sugar on it?

      • David Appell

        Gerald Browning wrote:
        I am opposed to models that abuse all those requirements and then claim they represent reality.

        Their results speak for themselves:

        “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

        “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
        https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378

        figure:
        https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en

        Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
        https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png

        Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
        https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago

        https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ad8f11375841adc34eacf4d5006e392af25fc481/0_0_4642_5476/master/4642.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9372a1598623c39149bd2eb99a74cfdc

      • Gerald Browning

        My reply to David Appell:

        Please answer each of my points with yes or no

        Gerald, suddenly you went from complaining about parametrizations to instead complaining about numerical analysis of modelers in general.

        1. Are climate models using discontinuous forcings?
        2. Can a numerical approximation be shown to be accurate when a discontinuous forcing is approximated by a numerical method?
        3. Is excessive dissipation used to prevent the discontinuous forcing causing the model to become unstable?
        4. Does the excessive dissipation result in a large continuum error?
        5. Are the hydrostatic equations ill posed?

        I think you just want to complain, in language you realize no one here will understand or grasp.

        6. If an answer to any of the above questions is yes, is it appropriate to apply numerical methods to a system of PDE’s?

        Climate modelers are doing the best they can with the most difficult calculation humans have ever attempted.

        7. Is a major part of the conclusions of the IPCC based on climate
        models?

        8. Because the models are complicated does that mean they are realistic?

        Until then you can continue to act arrogant and huffy and modelers will ignore you just because of that alone.

        9. Do the modelers ignore the mathematics because they know that it does not support the game they are playing?

        Meanwhile the world keeps warming and it’s very important that models help us understand by about how much that might be, given all kinds of uncertainties and imperfections.

        10. So given all the flaws in the models, you still claim they represent reality?

        So far they’ve done a good enough job. Not perfect, unlike your work, but good enough to know we have a serious problem on our hands.

        11. When a volcano alters the climate as some have done in the past,
        is that eruption represented in the model?

        12. Does the model know when that erruption occured?

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        Where’s your data and code, pretty please with sugar on it?

        1. The continuum equations that we use are listed in every one of our manuscripts along with mathematical proofs of their accuracy for different scales of motion.

        2. The numerical results are used to demonstrate the mathematical results, not to prove them.

        3. The numerical methods used to demonstrate the mathematical proofs are explained in detail, especially in our earlier manuscripts and one need only use those descriptions to reproduce the results.

        4. Note that no dissipation is required when the initial conditions are chosen according to the Kreiss Bounded Derivative Theory for short term forecasts (unlike the hydrostatic case).

        Jerry

      • The paper I cited contains no proof, Jerry.

        Thanks for playing.

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        Good try. Neither Heinz or I was first author on the unpublished manuscript. Please cite one of our published manuscripts.

        Clearly an effort to side step the facts. Now Ross has two threads on this site both showing the climate model nonsensical claims.

        Jerry

      • Gerald Browning

        Willard,

        Dishnesty becomes you. Mathematical proofs stand as stated forever.

        You forgot to mention I just published a manuscript in 2020 reviewed by two prominent atmospheric scientists. It specifically shows why the hydrostatic equations are the wrong dynamical system and that system is used in all global climate and weather models.

        I haven’t forgotten my math but evidently you have lost your integrity.
        Please cite any manuscript you or others have written that disproves any of our work.

        Oh and BTW please provide your last name so I can look up some of your publications and credentials. I suspect you will not do so because you
        are afraid of what people could find out.

        Jerry

  2. “Lots of breathless alarm in the media.” – curryja

    Unfortunately it’s this level of information which politicians seem to listen to.

    • IPCC scientists are being featured on MSM alarmist youtube clips giving the ‘doomsday rhetoric’.

    • Curious George

      It is a red flag – for the UN. What a useless bunch of parasites!

  3. From Chapter 3 of new IPCC WG1 report

    “Since AR5, the accumulation of energy in the Earth system, quantified by changes in the global energy inventory for all components of the climate system, has become established as a robust measure of the rate of global climate change on interannual-to-decadal timescales. Compared to changes in global surface air temperature (GSAT), the global energy inventory exhibits less variability, which can mask underlying climate trends.”

    Yup. Originally recommended in

    Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf

    I concluded

    “ The earth’s heat budget observations, within the limits of their representativeness and accuracy, provide an observational constraint on the radiative forcing imposed in retrospective climate modeling.

    • A snapshot at any time documents the accumulated heat content and its change since the last assessment. Unlike temperature, at some specific level of the ocean, land, or the atmosphere, in which there is a time lag in its response to radiative forcing, there are no time lags associated with heat changes.

    • Since the surface temperature is a two-dimensional global field, while heat content involves volume integrals, as shown by Eq. (1), the utilization of sur- face temperature as a monitor of the earth system climate change is not particularly useful in evaluating the heat storage changes to the earth system. The heat storage changes, rather than surface tem- peratures, should be used to determine what frac- tion of the radiative fluxes at the top of the atmosphere are in radiative equilibrium.

  4. Steinar Midtskogen

    One thing that caught my eye:

    “the Gulf Stream [is] projected to weaken [in the 21st century] (medium confidence)”

    but

    “The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in September at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report”.

    and

    “practically ice-free Arctic in September by the end of the 21st century under high CO2 emissions scenarios (high confidence)”.

    That seems a bit contradicting, unless the reasoning is that an ice free Arctic will weaken the Gulf Stream (and the Sun is moving around the Earth).

    On a general note, the SPM seems to focus more on extreme weather events this time. Since “living memory” is about 5 years when it comes to weather, maybe that’s more catchy.

    • The two “ice free” statements are not contradictory. The first refers to a single event. The second is a projection that the Arctic will be ice free during September in most years. An event must happen “at least once” before it happens regularly.

      Where did the report make a link between weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Arctic ice?

      • Steinar Midtskogen

        The contradiction isn’t between the two “ice free” statements, but the weakening of the Gulf Stream and the “ice free” statements. If the inflow of warm water from the Atlantic side of the arctic weakens, ice melt should decrease, not increase, since water temperature has the greatest influence on sea ice.

    • I don’t agree with that deduction. If ice melts then water become colder hence Gulf Stream weakens…

  5. We need more detail and timely analyses to ward off the anticipated misdirection and hype in the media. Thank you.

    • David Wojick

      Too late for that. Google news search on “IPCC Report” full of “Code red for humanity” headlines. Does the IPCC actually say that or is it from the UN Sec Gen?

  6. David Wojick

    Here is CLINTEL’s statement on the new AR6 WG1 SPM, including a link:
    https://clintel.org/statement-clintel-new-ipcc-report-provides-little-objective-basis-for-policymaking/
    Seems the IPCC ignored the ScienceMag critique of the CMIP 6 models and opted instead for “insanely scary and wrong” forecasts.

  7. David Wojick

    Here is a truly extreme prediction: “Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century.”
    https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/08/IPCC_WGI-AR6-Press-Release_en.pdf

    Every year!

    • How do you know it’s truly extreme, David?

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Last I checked there was no sea level acceleration globally, based on direct readings of tidal gages. Further, these predictions are a bit over 6 inches per century rise, albeit other sources say it’s closer to 12 inches. One might want to check NOAA’s tide map for details.
        With these numbers how can anyone claim something extreme, especially since the ocean is a huge mass and temperature sink. Looks like an alarmist contest for the craziest prediction.

      • Last I checked the claim wasn’t supported by direct readings of tidal gages, whatever that means.

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Call me a simpleton, Willard, but how more accurate can one get than dipping one’s finger in the water, so to speak. That’s what tidal gages do. Unless you prefer convoluted, corrected, simulated, indirect and model derived predictions. Satellite readings fall under this category.

      • David Wojick

        Willard: A 100 year event every year is extremely extreme, which is even more extreme than truly extreme.

      • Your incredulity is duly noted, David.

        ***

        > call me a simpleton

        Which part of “Climate change is intensifying the water cycle” you do not get, simpleton?

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Wow, Willard, it does not get more non-descriptive than the ‘climate change intensifying the water cycle’. What part of climate change, the wind, the ocean level, the ocean temperature, the sun intensity, the cloud coverage, the aerosol influences, etc. Are you including the results or just the causes of climate change? What water cycle? Clouds, rain, wind, ice, snow, water circulation in the ocean? Fresh water influx? What intensifies what? Add a little pixie dust and it all becomes clear.

      • It’s a press release, simpleton.

      • David Appell

        Dietrich: Tide gauges do show an acceleration in global average sea level change:

        https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png

      • Chris Morris

        As usual David, you don’t give the full picture. Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data.

      • “Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        David, I don’t know the origins of your graph. Here is NOAA’s map of global sea level trends. Lots of green arrows for 0 to 1 ft per century, and some yellow ones for 2 to 3 ft/c. The rest is sprinkling. Only the color blind can’t see.
        https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      • David Appell

        Dietrich, you can’t possibly discern acceleration from such a map. You need a analyze a time series.

        Here is the entry page to AVISO’s time series for global average sea level, given usually every 10 days, starting in 1993. Fitting a second-order polynomial to it, I find an acceleration of 0.069 mm/yr2 and a current sea-level rise of 4.4 mm/yr.

        https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/home.html

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Certainly the NOAA map shows broad trends, but applying numbers like yours of 0.069 mm/yr2 makes them disappear in the coarseness.
        When perusing the Aviso site I find satellite data (which you used) requiring quite a few corrections for drift and propagation. Especially drift is a significant error to be compensated for. Topex-A’s was 1.6 +/- 1.2 mm/yr, and generally for all such satellites from -0.35 to +0.45 mm/yr. The altimeter radar wave is perturbed during atmosphere crossing for ionospheric, wet and dry tropospheric and ocean surface. Calibration is done via tidal gage data from the CLOS-Clivar network. This leads me back to the physical gage readings.
        A quick search revealed seven graphs that are spread worldwide. Isostatically influenced data were excluded, like those from the Mississippi delta and Alaska. From my study days I remember the number of five samples being statistically significant. Here are data from seven random tidal gage graphs.

        Brest, France 1815 – 2017 4.25 in/century no acceleration
        Hawaii 1905 – 2015 5.8 in/century deceleration by 1.05 in/century
        Battery NY 1840 – 2015 11.2 in/century no acceleration
        Sidney AU 1885 – 2011 2.55 in/century no acceleration
        Newlyn U.K. 1915 – 2016 1.2 in/century no acceleration
        Charleston SC 1921 – 2000 12 in/century no acceleration
        San Francisco 1855 – 2010 5.33 in/century no acceleration

        Acceleration should be clearly discernible. It is not.

        Note that worldwide past sea level rise was 6.3 inches per century, with a corresponding 1.34 degree C global air temperature increase.

      • Dietrich, we went through this before. I downloaded the data for The Battery, NY — I find an acceleration of 0.010 mm/yr2.

        Are you doing calculations, or just eyeballing data? You have to actually do calculations.

      • Chris Morris wrote: Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data.

        See the just published IPCC 6AR WG1 Ch2 Fig 2.28c p 2-200.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

        It shows very clear and obvious acceleration in sea level rise.

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Here’s what I found. Nothing to see. Most such graphs actually state the numbers for acceleration and deceleration, if there are any.

        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bettery+NY+tidal+gage+graph&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/the-clever-ruse-of-sea-level-alarm.jpg

      • Tony Banton | August 10, 2021 at 3:47 am |

        wrote
        “”
        “Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png
        “”
        >> sorry, I am having trouble with the reply option..

        But you are aware that the residuals between the data and the model have systematics, high in the middle, low at the edges (that probably the reason why they are not shown in your diagram), which is a strong indication that this is a wrong model

      • > they are not shown in your diagram

        Where are they?

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        Well, David, it takes some digging to go through the new IPCC document, and I dare not pick details within this short time lapse. Since I had dissected the previous version I have not much confidence in its veracity, assuming the same alarmist slant is repeated. Tidal gages still rule.

      • Bjarne Bisballe

        GWPF State of the Climate 2020 p32 has the required curve “Holgate 9” https://www.thegwpf.org/state-of-the-climate-2020/

      • @David Appell
        “I find an acceleration of 0.010 mm/yr2.

        Are you doing calculations, or just eyeballing data? You have to actually do calculations.”

        Downloaded the data… second order coefficient of the fit is 4.88E-6 m/yr^2… which makes a difference of ~ 12 cm in 2100 compared to the extrapolation of the linear fit they give on NOAA’s website, 2.88 mm/yr.

        Compare this with the doomsday scenarios of the IPCC AR6!…

      • @Tony Banton
        ““Give a graph that goes to 2020 and gives the source of the data”

        https://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2020-10/gmsl_2020rel1_seasons_rmvd_4.png

        Sorry, but you can’t compare piece-wise reconstructions which overwhelmingly measure the area of the ocean far from the coasts where the thermosteric component of the water column dominates with the real acceleration AT THE COAST, measured by tide gauges.
        Those give a MUCH smaller acceleration component, basically ZERO (one-few 10 cm) at end of the century.

        Ex.: The Battery, NY… just fitted the data: acceleration coefficient of the fit is 0.00488 mm/yr^2, compared to your 0.097… which is ~ 20x bigger.
        Plus, 2021-1993=28 year interval… at the limit of the 30 yr minimum as per WMO guidelines to establish a “climate trend”.

      • And how do you do any kind of trend analysis with piecemeal gauge measurements, Roberto?

      • robertok06 wrote:Compare this with the doomsday scenarios of the IPCC AR6!…

        OK, go ahead and compare….

    • @David Appell
      “Dietrich: Tide gauges do show an acceleration in global average sea level change:”

      NOT!
      Not even close to reality!

      Do find ONE graph in this series of tide gauge data from NOAA which shows acceleration:

      https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global.html

      The acceleration of the tide gauges’ data is fake science at its worst.

  8. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The upcoming La Niña may be weak, but that means a longer pause as the subsurface western Pacific will not be warmed enough for an El Niño to form.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
    The graphic is updated every four days.

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The upcoming La Niña may be weak, but that means a longer pause as the subsurface western Pacific will not be warmed enough for an El Niño to form.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      The Earth’s Climate at Minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles
      Ruzmaikin, A. ; Feynman, J.
      Abstract
      The recent extended and deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810-1830 and 1900-1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90-100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun, solar wind, and at the Earth. The CGC has been identified in the Total Solar Irradiance reconstructed for over three centuries. The Earth’s climate response to the prolonged low solar irradiance involves heat transfer to the deep ocean with a time lag longer than a decade. The CGC minima, sometimes coincidently in combination with volcanic forcing, are associated with severe weather extremes. Thus the 19th century CGC minimum, coexisted with volcanic eruptions, led to especially cold conditions in United States, Canada and Western Europe (“a year without summer”). Using the reconstructed solar forcing and modeled and reconstructed Earth’s temperature data we identify the timing and spatial pattern of the Earth’s climate response that allows distinguishing the solar forcing from other climate forcings.
      https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AGUFMSH43D2593R/abstract

  10. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Javier:
    August 9, 2021 7:29 am
    “One factor that Pierre Gosselin did not take into account is that the QBO just turned Eastward in June, and solar activity is still low. Low solar activity during QBOe years has a devastating effect on the winter Polar Vortex in the Northern Hemisphere. We can expect a disorganized polar vortex, with meandering Jet Stream, cold air masses intrusions into mid-latitudes, higher snow fall. As more warm air goes to the Arctic and escapes to space, the Earth cools down.”
    https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo_wind.jpg
    There is even some QBO anomaly visible in the middle stratosphere, perhaps related to the decrease in UV radiation.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2021.png

  11. What extreme events are occurring in the Southern Hemisphere and what impact does human activity have on them?
    https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/smos/curent_SIT.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png

  12. Pingback: Fil de discussion sur le nouveau rapport du GIEC | Mythes, Mancies & Mathématiques

  13. A laundry list of scenarios with no likelihood attached is the sort of maybe, could be, possibly, might, may kind of ‘science’ that gave wings to the anti-vaccine, fear-mongering catastrophists of the covid-19 pandemic.

    • David Wojick

      If there are six, with none more likely than the others, then none is likely. In fact each is highly unlikely, so there is no rational basis for action on any.

  14. Progress in Climate Science:
    Estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity:
    1979 ECS = 3 ± 1.5C Charney Report
    1990 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC FAR
    1995 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC SAR
    2001 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC TAR
    2007 ECS = 2.0 – 4.2C – IPCC AR4
    2013 ECS = 1.5 – 4.5C – IPCC AR5
    2021 ECS = >1.5C – <4.5C – IPCC AR6

    • All those increases in resolution do not appear to have increased knowledge.

      Have these forty years of models and tens of billions of dollars spent been a waste of time, effort and money?

      That Charney Report entry was simply a mean of Manabe’s (low) and Hansen’s (high) estimates.

      In 1983, Manabe wrote a report in this book:
      https://www.elsevier.com/books/advances-in-geophysics/saltzman/978-0-12-018825-3

      He made eight significant predictions, some of which clearly occurred, others which are ambiguous, not yet testable, or partially contradicted.

      Our state of knowledge would appear to have ended in 1983.

      Manabe said as much in this interview:
      https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe

      He wrote about resolutions increasing, but increased resolution does not change the non-linearity of the parameterizations. He wrote that his early models necessarily had simple parameterizations, necessitated by limited compute resources. But the advantage was, especially since he wrote the whole thing, was that he understood what was in them.

    • Manabe on the parameterizations:

      “Back then you had to make the parameterisation as simple as possible, otherwise you could never complete a computation as it took too long. My main job was to make parameterisation as simple as possible. Now they can make those parameterisations very, very complicated and include just about every factor you can see from your window.

      That means that qualitatively they are more sophisticated and complicated. However, there is no guarantee that the parameterisations are quantitatively realistic. You can never compete with nature in complexities.”

  15. Why would Figure TS.10 compare zonal wind speed trends from ERA5 for the satellite era (1979 through 2019),
    but choose to use Radio Occultation data for a much shorter period ( 2002 through 2019 ) when comparing temperature trends?

    Is it because the ERA5 for this period does not indicate a Hot Spot?

    Also, wrt to this Figure, contrary to the weakened jet idea, the modeled zonal wind speed trend appears to increase, not decrease with global warming.

  16. Summary for Policy Makers A.1.5

    “” There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability.”

    Not likely to get much play.

    • More from A.1.5

      “ It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed surface melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet over the past two decades, but there is only limited evidence, with medium agreement, of human influence on the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss.”

      Limited evidence.

      I’m curious if they even mention geothermal activity on WAIS.

    • “The Greenland Ice Sheet was smaller than at present during the Last Interglacial period (roughly 125,000
      years ago) and the mid-Holocene (roughly 6,000 years ago) (high confidence). After reaching a recent
      maximum ice mass at some point between 1450 and 1850, the ice sheet retreated overall, with some decades
      likely close to equilibrium (i.e., mass loss approximately equalling mass gained).”

      TS 43

      • How do you figure all of that? Some of it makes sense and some of it is just wrong. There was less ice on Greenland during parts of the warm period (roughly 125,000 years ago) I agree, data is consistent with that.

        and the mid-Holocene (roughly 6,000 years ago) (high confidence)
        You have no proof of that, Greenland ice core records show more ice accumulation leading up to that. That is not consistent with actual data. I classify that as just alarmist BS.

      • Alex

        I’ve simply quoted from the Technical Section. In all my comments I am providing quotes from the IPCC6. The entire report is over 3900 pages.

      • “ In some regions of western North America and the Mediterranean,
        paleoclimate evidence suggests that recent warming has resulted in droughts that are of similar or greater
        intensity than those reconstructed over the last millennium (medium confidence).”

        Chapter 8 page 42

        Are we to believe these are the only locations where this is true?

    • “ Under the higher CO2 emissions scenarios, there is deep uncertainty in sea level projections for 2100 and beyond associated with the ice-sheet responses to warming.”

      “deep uncertainty “

      TS44

    • “ Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has decreased since at least 1978 (very high confidence), and there
      is high confidence that trends in snow cover loss extend back to 1950. It is very likely that human influence
      contributed to these reductions.”

      Meanwhile, Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent

      https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

    • “With a heat capacity about 1000 times greater than that of the atmosphere, Earth’s ocean stores the vast
      majority of energy retained by the planet. Ocean currents transport the stored heat around the globe and, over decades to centuries, from the surface to its greatest depths. The ocean’s thermal inertia moderates faster
      changes in radiative forcing on land and in the atmosphere, reaching full equilibrium with the atmosphere
      only after hundreds to thousands of years (Yang and Zhu, 2011).”

      Chapter 1 Page 38

    • “ Overall, there is medium confidence that past projections of global temperature are consistent with
      subsequent observations, especially when accounting for the difference in radiative forcings used and those
      which actually occurred (limited evidence, high agreement). FAR regional projections are broadly consistent
      with subsequent observations, allowing for regional-scale climate variability and differences in projected and
      actual forcings. There is medium confidence that the spatial warming pattern has been reliably projected in
      past IPCC reports (limited evidence, high agreement).”

      Chapter 1 Page 50

    • “ Changes in several components of the global hydrological cycle provide evidence for overall
      strengthening since at least 1980 (high confidence). However, there is low confidence in comparing
      recent changes with past variations due to limitations in paleoclimate records at continental and global
      scales.”

      Low confidence

      Chapter 2 Page 6

    • “ In summary, biophysical effects from historical changes in land use have an overall negative ERF (medium
      confidence). The best-estimate ERF from the increase in global albedo is -0.15 W m–2 since 1700 and -0.12
      W m–2 since 1850 (medium confidence; Section 7.3.4.1). Biophysical effects of land-use change likely
      resulted in a net global cooling of about 0.1°C since 1750 (medium confidence;”

      Land use changes net global cooling
      Chapter 2 page 28

    • “ In summary, proxy-based reconstructions suggested that the AMOC was relatively stable during the past 8
      kyr (medium confidence), with a weakening beginning since the late 19th century (medium confidence), but
      due to a lack of direct observations, confidence in an overall decline of AMOC during the 20th century is
      low. From mid-2000s to mid-2010s, the directly observed weakening in AMOC (high confidence) cannot be
      distinguished between decadal-scale variability or a long-term trend (high confidence).”

      Chapter 2 Page 80

    • “ In summary, there is low confidence that an observed decrease in the frequency of NH summertime
      extratropical cyclones is linked to anthropogenic influence “

      Chapter 3 page 46

    • “However, expert opinion differs as to whether recent Antarctic ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been driven primarily by external forcing or by internal variability, and there is
      no consensus (Bamber et al., 2019).”

      Chapter 3 page 54

    • “ Hence, we assess with
      medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper
      tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an
      overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”

      3-24

    • “ Furthermore, Williams et al. (2020) used
      a combination of hydrological modelling and tree-ring reconstructions to show that the period from 2000 to
      2018 was the driest 19-year span in southwestern North America since the late 1500s. Nonetheless, tree rings
      also indicate the presence of prolonged megadroughts in western North America throughout the last
      millennium that were more severe than 20th and 21st century events (high confidence) (Cook et al., 2004,
      2010, 2015). These were associated with internal variability (Coats et al., 2016; Cook et al., 2016b) and
      indicate that large-magnitude changes in the water cycle may occur irrespective of anthropogenic influence
      (see also McKitrick and Christy, 2019).

    • “ In summary, there is medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models can reproduce broad aspects of
      53 precipitation changes during paleo reference periods, but large discrepancies remain.”

      Chapter 3 page 30

    • “ Dunn et al. (2017) confirmed earlier findings that global mean surface relative humidity increased during
      1973-2000, followed by a steep decline (also reported in Willet et al., 2014) until 2013, and specific
      humidity correspondingly increased and then remained approximately constant (see also Section 2.3.1.3.2),
      with none of the CMIP5 models capturing this behaviour. They noted biases in the mean state of the CMIP5
      models’ surface relative humidity (and ascribe the failure to the representation of land surface processes and
      their response to CO2 forcing), concluding that these biases preclude any detection and attribution
      assessment.”

      Chapter 3 page 32

    • “ Based on these results we assess that despite some improvements, CMIP6
      50 models still have deficiencies in simulating precipitation patterns, particularly over the tropical ocean (high confidence)”

      Chapter 3 page 33

    • “ Owing to
      observational uncertainties and inconsistent results between studies, we conclude that there is low confidence
      in the attribution of changes in the seasonality of precipitation.”

      Chapter 3 page 36

    • “ Global land precipitation has likely increased since the middle of the 20th century (medium confidence) while
      there is low confidence in trends in land data prior to 1950 and over the ocean during the satellite era due to
      disagreement between datasets (Section 2.3.1.3.4).”

      Chapter 3 page 35

    • “ In summary, an anthropogenic influence on the frequency or other aspects of SSWs (Sudden Stratospheric Warmings)has not yet been robustly
      detected. There is low confidence in the ability of models to simulate any such trends over the historical period because of large natural interannual variability and also due to common substantial biases in the
      simulated mean state affecting the simulated frequency of SSWs.”

      Chapter 3 page 47

    • “ A fingerprint analysis using the CESM large ensemble suggests that this internal variability accounts for 40-50% of the observed September Arctic sea ice decline (Ding et al., 2019; England et al., 2019).
      Internally-generated decadal tropical variability and associated atmospheric teleconnections were suggested
      to have contributed to the changing atmospheric circulation in the Arctic and the associated rapid sea ice
      decline from 2000 to 2014 (Meehl et al., 2018).

      “Despite large differences in the mean sea ice state in the Arctic, Arctic sea ice loss is captured by all CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Nonetheless, large inter-model differences in the Arctic sea ice decline remain, limiting our ability to quantify forced changes and internal variability contributions.”

      Chapter 3 page 49

    • “ In summary, considering together the SROCC assessment that atmospheric warming was very likely the primary driver of glacier recession, the results of Roe et al. (2017, 2020) and our assessment of the dominant role of anthropogenic influence in driving atmospheric warming (Section 3.3.1), we conclude that human influence is very likely the main driver of the near-universal retreat of glaciers globally since the 1990s.”

      Chapter 3 page 53

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AlpineGlaciersDisappearing_shadow.png

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-01-01044917_shadow.png

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-11-08182715_shadow.jpg

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017_08_10_05_38_50-down.gif

    • “ In summary, there is now medium confidence in many ice sheet processes in ice sheet models, including
      grounding line evolution. However, there remains low confidence in the ocean forcing affecting the basal
      melt rates and low confidence in simulating mechanisms that have the potential to cause widespread,
      sustained and very rapid ice loss from Antarctica through MICI.”

      Chapter 9 page 69

    • “Overall, although there is high confidence that the dynamic
      response of Greenland outlet glaciers is controlled by bedrock topography, there is low confidence in
      quantification of future mass loss from Greenland triggered by warming ocean conditions due to limitations
      in current understanding of ice-ocean interactions, its implementation in ice sheet models, and knowledge of
      bedrock topography.”

      Chapter 9 page 57

    • “A remaining challenge is low confidence in reproducing historical mass changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet”

      They have low confidence in reproducing mass changes of the past and yet they seem to know it’s outside of natural variability. Strange logic.

      Chapter 9 page 57

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Image1824_shadow.png

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image525_shadow.png

    • In Chapter 9, page 64 it says the Antarctic contribution to GMSLR for the period 1992-2020 is 7.4mm, which averages 0.264 mm/yr.

      That is lower than the 0.27 mm/yr in IPCC5.

      The good thing is no more jokes about how the total contribution to GMSLR from that huge continent is equal to precisely 1/5 the thickness of a US dime. A brand new dime, at that.

    • “High geothermal heat flux areas underneath glaciers and high
      energy dissipation in the flow of water and ice causes additional mass loss of the glaciers in Iceland
      (Jóhannesson et al., 2020), accounting for 20% of the mass loss since 1994.”

      Chapter 9 page 82

      So, let me get this straight. In Iceland geothermal activity causes mass loss in Iceland but not a single mention of the dozens of studies showing evidence of geothermal activity underneath the Ice Sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. To be continued.

    • The following is from Johanessonn et al 2020 which is cited in Chapter 9 page 82 regarding basal melt in Iceland. It makes a case for including a discussion of geothermal activity in Greenland and Antarctica.

      “ Geodetic mass-balance studies in recent years have shown that traditional mass-balance measurements are often biased by several tens of cm water equivalent per year (Zemp and others, 2013; Andreassen and others, 2016). The reported biases are on the same order as the annual non-surface mass balance in many cases. Therefore, it is important to consider the non-surface mass balance explicitly in order to correctly assess the glacier mass balance. The geodetic mass balance differs from surface mass balance, typically measured by in-situ measurements, in that it refers to a direct measurement of the change in the total volume or mass of the glacier (Cogley and others, 2011). This type of measurement includes mass-loss processes that take place at the glacier terminus (calving), the glacier bed (geothermal melting and energy dissipation due to sliding and flow of water along the bed) and internally within the glacier (dissipation in the flow of ice and water).
      Apart from its importance for the mass balance, subglacial geothermal heat flux and associated basal melting has attracted increasing attention in recent years as an important component in the dynamics of glaciers, in particular for the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. The magnitude of localized geothermal heat flux under the Greenland ice sheet has been inferred to be 15–30 times the continental background at the onset of the NEGIS ice stream in northeastern Greenland, and subglacial melting at this location exerts a strong influence on the ice flow (Fahnestock and others, 2001; Smith-Johnsen and others, 2020). Furthermore, the geothermal heat flux under the Greenland ice sheet shows substantial spatial variations (Greve, 2019), which influence ice flow via the temperature of the ice and the thermal conditions at the base. Localized high geothermal heat flux has also been measured and inferred below the ice sheet in Antarctica and is believed to be an important parameter in ice stream dynamics and the formation of subglacial lakes, in particular for West Antarctica (Fischer and others, 2015; Schroeder and others, 2014; Loose and others, 2018)”

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote:
        The following is from Johanessonn et al 2020 which is cited in Chapter 9 page 82 regarding basal melt in Iceland. It makes a case for including a discussion of geothermal activity in Greenland and Antarctica.

        Cited in the AR6. I guess there’s no way the experts could be aware of this paper then, or of the issue. Surely CKid knows what they do not. Good thing he’s here to tell the professionals climbing all over the ice and writing the reports how to do their job.

      • David

        This should be an obvious question. Apparently not for you. Why am I constantly explaining science to you?

        The issue is not whether there is a significant impact on ice discharge and thus GMSLR. It’s simply this. Geothermal is a part of the system. All parts of the system should be analyzed. If it is insignificant, so be it.

        They obviously found cause for including it in the discussion of Iceland. The least they should do, if this is a true scientific document, is to explain how Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets differ. All of it is self evident and a no brainer.

        More reason to view the IPCC report for what it is….a political propaganda document.

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote: They obviously found cause for including it in the discussion of Iceland. The least they should do, if this is a true scientific document, is to explain how Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets differ.

        Explain why there are vast amounts of geothermal activity under Yellowstone National Park but not New Hampshire or Madagascar.

      • David

        What absurd logic. This has nothing to do with that. Is it really so difficult to understand the issue?

      • CKid, why should geothermal under Iceland imply geothermal thousands of miles away?

      • I had to do a quick google search to remind myself:

        ….
        Newly Discovered Volcanic Heat Source Under Antarctic Glacier Is Half As Hot As Iceland’s Most Active Volcano
        ….
        https://oceanleadership.org/newly-discovered-volcanic-heat-source-under-antarctic-glacier-is-half-as-hot-as-icelands-most-active-volcano/

      • David

        “ CKid, why should geothermal under Iceland imply geothermal thousands of miles away?”

        I’m thinking “Cool Hand Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate.”

        I think I know your problem. You are not aware of the dozens of studies finding geothermal activity under the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets. It never occurred to me that you weren’t aware of that.

        My basic point wasn’t the substance of how much or where.

        It was logic and reason. If the IPCC felt geothermal activity in Iceland was worthy of being in IPCC6, why wasn’t it worthy enough to mention it when it’s known to be under Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets.

      • David Appell

        How much geothermal heat is under Greenland? Is it enough to make a substantial difference? Has it increased in recent decades — because the melting of the Greenland ice sheet sure has. Temperatures have increased in Greenland too. Surface melting is easily observed. So is increased iceberg calving. How does the heat increase from global warming and downward IR compare to basal geothermal heating? Did the geothermal studies of Greenland come out before or after the AR6’s deadline for the inclusion of studies? Why isn’t Greenland on the geothermal hot spot map I showed you but Iceland is? Greenland is *huge* — are the geothermal hot spots under it as huge, per unit area, as those under Iceland?

        Instead of acting like you’re some kind of expert who’s easily picking apart a report that real experts spent 2-3 years carefully putting together, why don’t you write to one or two of them and politely ask them about geothermal under Greenland. Ask if they thought about it. See what they say. I suggest you start with Jason Box of Ohio State University. He’s probably out on the Greenland Ice Sheet right now, but he seems to also be often on the Internet and Twitter, so I suspect he’ll eventually get back t you. Or write the Lead Authors from that AR6 chapter, or for that subsection. But be polite about it.

        Please let us know what you find — I’m definitely interested.

    • “ Non-surface mass balance is more important for Icelandic glaciers than for most other glacier regions. There are, however, several glacier regions in other areas on Earth with volcanism or high geothermal heat flux, for example in Alaska, Kamchatka, New Zealand, parts of Antarctica and northeastern Greenland. Moreover, dissipation melting will be important for glaciers with a wide elevation range and large mass turnover, such as in parts of the Himalayas, Alaska and southern Greenland. This indicates that non-surface glacier mass balance may be more important in the global context than most often assumed and warrants further analysis of this process in studies of the effect of glaciers on global sea level. The effect of geothermal heat flux and basal melting on ice-dynamics is also a subject that has recently been discovered to be of great importance, e.g. for northeastern Greenland (Smith-Johnsen and others, 2020), and may be essential in ice-flow modelling of this part of the Greenland Ice Sheet.”

      The above is more from the Johannesson et al 2020 paper.

      https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/nonsurface-mass-balance-of-glaciers-in-iceland/6A3EED05D023C9DA34874E98BBDAC8EB

      • David Appell

        Regarding changes in extreme events:

        “Many climate extremes are projected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration over the course of the twenty-first century1,2,3. For instance, recent studies project a significant increase in extreme heat events over most continents even by the year 2035 4 and an increase in temperature-induced drought episodes over roughly half of the global land surface for the period 2071–2100 5. These projected changes in climate extremes are consistent with observed trends. In particular, heatwaves and heavy precipitation events have already increased over the past decades6,7,8,9. In addition, increasing occurrences of synchronous hot and dry extremes10, hotter droughts11,12 and a temperature-induced intensification of dry seasons13 were observed over the course of the last century. In this regard, rising temperatures have led to a substantial increase in the occurrence of compound warm season droughts over Europe during recent years14.”

        Citations here:

        “Increasing impact of warm droughts on northern ecosystem productivity over recent decades,” David Gampe et al, Nature Climate Change (2021).
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01112-8

      • Even Gavin Schmidt admitted the UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs run unreasonably “hot.” So, do we take the “cool” Russian model with the intermediate scenarios? Or do we take wildly hot models with the idiotic high scenarios.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote: Even Gavin Schmidt admitted the UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs run unreasonably “hot.” So, do we take the “cool” Russian model with the intermediate scenarios?

        Dave, you’re replying to a comment that was about observed events and trends, not about models.

    • “ In summary, there is low confidence in overall changes in extremes derived from paleo-archives. The most robust evidence is high confidence that high-duration and severe drought events occurred at many locations
      during the last 2000 years. There is also high confidence that high-magnitude flood events occurred at some
      locations during the last 2000 years, but overall changes in infrastructure and human water management
      make the comparison with present-day records difficult. But these isolated paleo-drought and paleo-flood
      events are not evidence of a change, or lack of a change, in the magnitude or the likelihood of relevant
      extremes.”

      Chapter 11 page 31

      Translation: In spite of what the climate zealots want to believe they don’t know how much has changed in extreme events.

    • “ Identifying past trends in TC metrics remains a challenge due to the heterogeneous character of the historical
      instrumental data, which are known as “best-track” data (Schreck et al., 2014). There is low confidence in
      most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics due
      to changes in the technology used to collect the best-track data. This should not be interpreted as implying
      that no physical (real) trends exist, but rather as indicating that either the quality or the temporal length of the
      data is not adequate to provide robust trend detection statements, particularly in the presence of multidecadal variability.”

      Chapter 11 page 88

      • “… This should not be interpreted as implying
        that no physical (real) [declining TC] trends exist, but rather as indicating that either the quality or the temporal length of the
        data is not adequate to provide robust trend detection statements, particularly in the presence of multidecadal variability.”” Again, another UN IPCC CliSciFi sales job rather than simply writing a factual report. And people wonder why governmental institutions are losing credibility and support.

  17. Captain Climate

    I noticed that they still pretend to have (+/-)0.1C error bars on temperatures from 1850. This is statistical garbage. You can’t know the global temperature anomaly to (+/-)0.1C since 1850 with (a) a spatially incomplete data set (b) thermometer that can only detect (+/-)0.5C and (c) noise functions in temperature stations that are not proven to cancel. This is fake science.

    • When you have 12% SH coverage and 50% NH coverage in 1880, you call it magic. In 3,949 pages they have hid a lot of magic.

  18. Climate Skeptic

    Is the IPCC just moving the goal posts back to 1850, to accomplish the 1.5 degree celsius increase it predicted in IPCC3?

    IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.

    But this is the IPCC’s argument in the 6th report: “The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming.”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg​1​-20210809-pr/

    So because they now start the clock 140 years sooner, not only can they achieve the 1.5 degree increase predicted, but they can even achieve it in 20 years, much sooner than initially predicted!

    • So exactly when were these “pre-industrial” temperature levels recorded, or are they a theoretical construct?

      • Climate Skeptic

        I’m not a scientist, so I don’t feel qualified to comment on the proxy data they use to arrive at the conclusion that there has been “1.1 degree C of warming since 1850-1900.” But needless to say, I share your concern.

      • Rune Valaker

        This is based on measurements. Berkley and HadCRUT date back to 1850, NOAA and GISS back to 1870.

        http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

        But as I write in another post, there is no temperature trend from 1850 to 1920. Virtually all heating has occurd after 1920.

    • David Appell

      Climate Skeptic wrote: IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.

      How so? Numbers?

      • Climate Skeptic

        Please see either of the graphs John Christy put together, both labeled “5 Year Running Mean . . . .”

        https://clintel.org/new-presentation-by-john-christy-models-for-ar6-still-fail-to-reproduce-trends-in-tropical-troposphere/

      • David Appell

        Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see either of the graphs John Christy put together, both labeled “5 Year Running Mean . . . .”

        Nope, those aren’t for the global surface temperature, they’re for the tropical temperature in a small slice of the troposphere.

        What numbers do you have for the global surface temperature, which is what your IPCC quote was about?

      • Climate Skeptic

        Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”

        https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/testimonials/ChristyJR_Written_160202.pdf

        Let me guess: Cue the bogus arguments “discrediting” it published by Skeptical Science?

        If it helps, you can read Gavin Schmidt’s comments in Science, in the article titled “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

        “Already scientific papers are appearing using CMIP’s unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100, adding fire to what are already well-justified fears. But that practice needs to change, Schmidt says. ‘You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.'”

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

      • Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”

        Nope again — that’s a chart about the mid-troposphere, not the surface, and you quotes the IPCC about the surface.

        Besides no one believes that unpublished, unpeer-reviewed Christy graph.

      • Climate Skeptic: Quoting Gavin Schmidt from Science is irrelevant. You quoted the IPCC making a specific statement, and said “actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.”

        So give a number for “actual warming” for the surface since 1990 and show it’s “falling short” of “predictions.”

      • “Climate Skeptic wrote: Please see the graph on page two, entitled “Global Bulk Atmospheric Temperature, Surface to 50K Feet.”

        Nope again — that’s a chart about the mid-troposphere, not the surface, and you quotes the IPCC about the surface.”

        Are you saying mid-troposphere and surface temperatures don’t correlate?

        If you are not, the what’s wrong with using it show projections have failed?

        If you are, can you explain why you think they do not?

      • David Appell

        agnostic wrote: Are you saying mid-troposphere and surface temperatures don’t correlate?

        Why would they? One’s on the surface and the other is way up there. What’s the data say?

      • “Why would they? One’s on the surface and the other is way up there. What’s the data say?”

        Well, the data suggests they correlate very well, with perhaps with a very slightly greater upwards trend at the surface. So the question really is; why wouldn’t they?

        And given that they do, why would it not be appropriate to use that to show that IPCC3 predictions way over-estimated warming?

      • David Appell

        agnostic2015 wrote: Well, the data suggests they correlate very well, with perhaps with a very slightly greater upwards trend at the surface

        Do they?

        Let’s see the numbers.

      • agnostic2015: That’s UAH lower troposphere, not mid-troposphere.

      • ‘agnostic2015: That’s UAH lower troposphere, not mid-troposphere.”

        So? The question was regarding surface temperatures and IPCC 3 predictions failing for surface temperatures. The correlation is the same for the entire of the troposphere incorporating the mid-troposphere.

        What evidence do you have that the mid-troposphere will be in any way significantly different?

      • agnostic wrote:
        What evidence do you have that the mid-troposphere will be in any way significantly different?

        What evidence do you have that it won’t?
        What does the data say?

        Anyway who cares. The first statement here was about the surface temperature. In response to that we got a graph about the “Bulk atmosphere,” then yours was about the “mid-troposphere.”

        Where’s a graph or data about the surface temperature??

      • “Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:”

        Except they didn’t though. That was the whole thing about the “hiatus”. Prior to 2015 – or 2012 according to the IPCC – the world WASN’T getting (significantly) warmer. The recent years were all El Nino conditions, and only since last year have we seen La Nina.

        But that is beside the point. The point that you appeared to be contesting was that someone posted mid-troposphere temperature to show that IPCC TAR had failed it’s predictions for surface temperatures. I showed that they correlate and thus substantiated the claim that the predictions had failed.

        Also, it’s not contested that the world has warmed, but the issue is that there has been a LACK of warming, much less warming than there should have been to justify the level of alarm, and shows that model predictions which encapsulate our understanding of the climate system produce too much warming and in fact too much variability as well. The claim has always been that natural processes are not fully understood or accounted for the standard climate model.

        Can you assert with evidence that ALL natural processes have been fully accounted for and understood and that the IPCC TAR predictions have been validated?

        “In response to that we got a graph about the “Bulk atmosphere,” then yours was about the “mid-troposphere.”

        Other way around. Mine was not about mid-troposphere. Given the level pedanticism here, that surely is germaine.

        “Where’s a graph or data about the surface temperature??”

        It is on both graphs I posted….CRUTEM is for surface temps. They correlate closely with both UAH lower troposphere (close to the surface) and RSS (bulk). Therefore the fact that mid-troposphere was used in showing that surface temps had failed prediction is an irrelevant quibble.

        Are you standing by the IPCC TAR predictions of over 1.5C?

      • agnostic2015 wrote: That was the whole thing about the “hiatus”. Prior to 2015 – or 2012 according to the IPCC – the world WASN’T getting (significantly) warmer.

        That’s just false. Look at any graph — warming resumed strongly around 1975:

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to:2021

      • agnostic2015 wrote:
        The point that you appeared to be contesting was that someone posted mid-troposphere temperature to show that IPCC TAR had failed it’s predictions for surface temperatures.

        My point was that someone made a claim about surface temperatures and then posted (a) bulk atmospheric temperatures and then (b) mid-tropospheric temperatures.

        Just analyze the surface temperature, since that’s what the claim was about!

      • agnostic2015 wrote: Can you assert with evidence that ALL natural processes have been fully accounted for and understood and that the IPCC TAR predictions have been validated?

        Which natural processes are missing?


        PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.

      • “Which natural processes are missing?”

        The ones that aren’t accounted for:
        – Solar indirect effects
        – Centennial and Millennial scale ocean current changes.


        “PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”

        Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.

      • David Appell

        agnostic2015 wrote:
        “Which natural processes are missing?”
        The ones that aren’t accounted for:
        – Solar indirect effects
        – Centennial and Millennial scale ocean current changes.

        Examples of the first?

        The second aren’t forcings.

        “PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”
        Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.

        Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.

      • “Examples of the first?”

        There are plenty of discussion of solar indirect effects on this blog. These may or may not be involved in recent climate change, but the point is they are not understood well enough for conclusions about anthropogenic effects to be so certain.

        This is why understanding past climate change is so important; clearly the climate has changed both gradually and rapidly over short and long time periods all on its own. Understanding how the climate changed naturally will lead us to disentangle how we might be affecting it.

        “The second aren’t forcings.”

        So what?

        “PS: The TAR didn’t make predictions.”
        Yes they did. This why we are having this discussion.

        Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”

        Which are used as predictions.

        Like it or not those “projections” are the basis for alarm. The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.

      • agnostic2015 commented: There are plenty of discussion of solar indirect effects on this blog.

        I haven’t always followed this blog. So what are these solar indirect effects? Just list some.

      • agnostic2015 commented:
        “The second aren’t forcings.”
        So what?

        Because forcings are what drive long-term climate change.

        Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”
        Which are used as predictions.

        Not by anyone who knows the difference.

        The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.

        Prove this.

      • “Because forcings are what drive long-term climate change.”

        Not necessarily. Changes to ocean circulation can have the same effect, by redistributing heat flux (ENSO is a short term example) and by affecting cloud formation which in turn can increase or decrease albedo. An example is the hypothesis that AMOC was disrupted by a melting glacier that gave us the younger dryas: https://www.pnas.org/content/109/49/19928

        “Climate models can’t make predictions, they can only make projections.”
        Which are used as predictions.

        Not by anyone who knows the difference.”

        Tell that to the IPCC.

        “The climate has not followed those projections, or even the predictions that follow those projections.

        Prove this.”

        We already have. This is what this entire thread is about.

    • Rune Valaker

      The IPCC has not moved any goal posts. Whether You begin in 1850 or early in the 20th century – around 1915 – 20, does not matter. All series show that the temperature trend from 1950 to1920 was almost completely flat. Take a look at SPM – 7 in the report.

      • Climate Skeptic

        That’s some fine proxy data in SPM – 7. Pardon me if I don’t think that the same people that developed 102 incorrect climate models used in IPCC3 can “reconstruct” temperature data with enough precision to conclude that 1 degree celsius, as actually measured, is considered to be an anomaly. Also, is it appropriate for their reconstructed data not to show the medieval warming period or the little ice age?

      • Rune Valaker

        To Climate Sceptic: I value scientific skepticism, but often “skepticism” is confused with ignorance. It is not “the same people” who are behind the PAGES 2K consortium that has developed the climate models. MBH98 is now part of the history of science and paleoclimatology has evolved over the last 25 years. And PAGES 2K has not erased the LIA, take a look at SPM -7. There was a global colder period from approx. AD 1200 to 1850 compared to earlier. But the hypothesis of the so-called MWP seems to have been weakened. There was hardly any global peak in temperature around the AD 1000, it was warmer in parts of the world, i.a. around the North Atlantic, but the MWP was hardly global. This boils down to pure logic, if it was significantly warmer 1000 years ago this would have been reflected in GMSL, and we have reasonably good proxy data which states that the variation in GMSL over the last couple of thousand years is in the order of a couple of decimetres. It is a distinctly “skeptical” myth that GMSL has risen more or less continuously over the last 10,000 years.

      • Climate Skeptic

        Rune Valaker- “reasonably good proxy data.” Is one degree celsius within its margin of error? Because if we are going to say that current temperatures are a statistically significant anomaly, it can’t be, correct?

        And how exactly to we calculate the margin of error for tree rings?

      • Rune Valaker

        To Climate Sceptic: What You really are asking is how much the global temperature has varied over the last two to three thousand years. And if you use available science as a basis, the answer is approx. +/- 0.3 C. Then I mean the long-term development, not single years or shorter periods (decades) which can be both colder and warmer. There is also no known physical cause that should give a different answer. We even have a good physical explanation for why global temperatures have evolved over the last hundred years as they have.

        So if you are of the opinion that the last hundred years of temperature development does not represent an anomaly, I would like an explanation, I’m all ears.

      • David Appell

        Climate Skeptic wrote: And how exactly to we calculate the margin of error for tree rings?

        There is a long and vast scientific literature on tree rings. Books too. Don’t act like no one knows how to do this or it can’t be done scientifically just because you don’t know. Go read it instead of suggesting the science must be wrong. There are people who devote their entire careers to this — they might know a little more than you do.

      • And the people compiling tree ring data assert they are poor proxies for temperature, especially Bristlecone Pines. Too many confounding inputs.

      • Rune Valaker

        To Climate Sceptik; I forgot to answer your question about the quality of the proxy data. The proxy data I referred to concerned sea level. There we have several older port facilities and the fishtanks outside Rome that are at about the same level in relation to the sea level now as when they were built. In my hometown, archaeologists have excavated an old port facility from around AD 1000, and this is pretty much as high above today’s sea level as the land has risen in the past 1000 years.

        Had it been 1C warmer globally for a long period 1000 years ago, these instalations would not have been located where they are. An annual increase in GMLS of 4 mm may sound like a trifle, but it amounts to 4 meters in 1000 years.

      • Climate Skeptic

        Rune Valaker, no, i’m not asking how variable the historical climate was.

        I am asking how confident people should be in the precision of historical temperature calculated using proxy data instead of actual measurements. In other words, the precision of what you call “the available science.”

        Because if someone is going to make the claim that it is 1 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago, there had better be high confidence in the precision of temperature measurements made using proxy data. If they are potentially off by even 2 degrees, then the comparison is useless.

      • Climate Skeptic wrote:
        Because if someone is going to make the claim that it is 1 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago, there had better be high confidence in the precision of temperature measurements made using proxy data. If they are potentially off by even 2 degrees, then the comparison is useless.

        Why?

        What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?

        PS: Paleoclimatologists think a lot about uncertainties and confidence levels, and publish them in their graphs, too.

      • “Why?

        What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?”

        Because understanding past climate change is vital to understanding the current context.

        If the temperatures were hotter than they were now, then the climactic effects that are supposedly catastrophic should have been apparent then. For example, much hand-wringing goes on over permafrost melt and release of methane as a substantial positive feedback. That should occur regardless of what caused the warming – whether it was CO2 forcing or some other natural phenomenon we have yet to explain.

        And given that it might have been as warm or warmer, understanding WHY it was and the processes that cause intermittent centennial scale variability such as the MWP, LIA, Roman Warming, Dark Ages Cooling, Minoan Warming etc, is important to place current warming in that context. Could the same processes that caused those climactic shifts be occurring now? Because the IPCC clearly don’t think they are.

        Criticism is that these processes are not well understood, and are not accounted for in the standard climate model.

      • agnostic2015 wrote:
        “Why?
        “What difference does it make to the current situation what the temperature was a thousand years ago?”

        If the temperatures were hotter than they were now, then the climactic effects that are supposedly catastrophic should have been apparent then. For example, much hand-wringing goes on over permafrost melt and release of methane as a substantial positive feedback. That should occur regardless of what caused the warming – whether it was CO2 forcing or some other natural phenomenon we have yet to explain.

        OK, you make a good point, thanks.

        But people have looked at past temperatures with the best available science, and found that the MWP, LIA, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period etc weren’t global. The world is the warmest now that it’s been since the Eemian 125,000 years ago.

      • “But people have looked at past temperatures with the best available science, and found that the MWP, LIA, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period etc weren’t global. The world is the warmest now that it’s been since the Eemian 125,000 years ago.”

        Well the IPCC restricted itself to “the last 2000 years”. Since the end of the younger Dryas temperatures were higher than they are today and the temperature declined. The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global. The argument that they WERE, more-or-less is the way they correlate to temperature changes today. A good example is the CET which correlates to global UAH…not perfectly…and I do acknowledge that global climate change is anything but global.

        Ice core data does not suggest that we are warmer now than we were prior to MWP let alone the Eemian. Can you support that assertion? It’s the first I’ve heard of it.

      • David Appell

        agnostic2015 wrote:
        Since the end of the younger Dryas temperatures were higher than they are today and the temperature declined.

        a) Citation needed.
        b) So what?

        The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global.

        Science never says anything with “certainty.”

        “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

      • Rune

        Presumably you mean 1850 to 1920? Clearly GISS shows a temperature rise. As does CET.

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/tbrown_figure2.jpg

        However here we have an instance where historical context is important as the temperature rise since 1800 is very noticeable in the graphic referenced and even more so from 1700 in CET although it is not a linear increase.

        The growing warmth of the early part of the 18th Century was noted here by Hubert Lamb on page 12 and 13 of this study;

        http://tinyurl.com/5vvvp9r

        “The remarkable turn of the climate of Europe towards greater warmth from soon after the beginning of the eighteenth century and affecting all seasons of the year in the 1730’s seems to have produced little comment at the time, though by then the temperatures were being observed with thermometers and entered into regularly maintained observation books in a number of places.”

        Our modern bouts of amnesia regarding previous climatic conditions can be seen to be nothing new by reading the comments from the annals of Dumfermline Scotland from 1733/4, when it recorded that wheat was first grown in the district in 1733. Lamb wryly observes that was not correct, as enough wheat had been grown further north in the early 1500’s to sustain an export trade (before the 1560’s downturn).

        From America we have this contemporary comment;

        “The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary)

        This intriguing comment also enables us to see prior to 1880 which was a staging post and not the starting post of rising temperatures (and sea level and glacier melt)

        From the records of the Canadian Horticulturist monthly of 1880 (page 7).

        “I do not know whether or not the climate of Ontario is really becoming permanently milder than formerly, but I do know that for the past 18 years or 20 years we have not experienced the same degree of cold as the seven years preceding.”

        So it is useful to look at the historical context and that not everything should be measured from 1880.

        tonyb

      • Interesting that the Brits are now running about two tenths of a degree C less than the consensus of the Americans.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Something a lot of people that argue the previous warmings weren’t global don’t seem to catch is that global or not there are many things that can be learned from those warming periods. For instance the methane in the Arctic permafrost isn’t going to behave differently just because the Antarctic wasn’t also warming and the polar bear couldn’t have cared less about what is happening in the Antarctic either.

      • “a) Citation needed.”

        – GISP2
        – Vostok

        “b) So what?

        The best available science cannot say with certainty that the MWP, LIA etc were not global.

        Science never says anything with “certainty.””

        Yes it does. It is “unequivocal” that recent warming is entirely anthropogenic. From the AR6 SPM “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

        I agree with you though, it shouldn’t.

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

        “…but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000″.

        You should really finish the quote.

        It’s a quibble to say that naturally forced variability does not happen all at the same time. The fact that they happen on their own – ie understanding what causes the warm and cold periods is what is at issue. Global warming even now is not entirely global with some parts of the world not warming relative to others.

      • David Appell

        agnostic2015 commented:
        “Science never says anything with “certainty.””
        Yes it does. It is “unequivocal” that recent warming is entirely anthropogenic. From the AR6 SPM “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

        No, science doesn’t.

        The word “unequivocal” is from the Summary for Policymakers. If you read just above the first use of that word, you’ll see

        “This SPM provides a high-level summary of the understanding of the current state of the climate.”

        “Based on scientific understanding, key findings can be formulated as statements of fact or associated with an assessed level of confidence indicated using the IPCC calibrated language.

        (emphasis mine)

        Viz, they’re writing for policymakers, not scientists.
        .

      • And they are lying to policymakers, David. Show me anything in the scientific portions of WG1 that supports Mannian hockeysticks of any provenance.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote: Show me anything in the scientific portions of WG1 that supports Mannian hockeysticks of any provenance.

        https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-tale-of-two-hockey-sticks/

      • Oh, Gawde! Mann quoting Mann and Mannians? Tell me that paleoclimate practitioners trust bristlecone pines as accurate representatives of temperatures. Really; tell me.

      • David Appell

        Dave, do they trust bristlecone pine proxies? How would you know? Should they? Should they not? Again, how would you know? You’re an expert? Because you read something on some blog? Is the blog writer an expert? Compared to dendrologists who get PhDs in the subject and spend their careers studying proxies, doing research, writing papers, going to conferences, presenting papers, discussing with colleagues, refereeing papers, reading the scientific journals? And you think some bitter blog writer compares to the professionals just because he tells you what you want to hear? They don’t know what they’re doing but McIntyre does? Yet he’s afraid to publish in the scientific literature, or even write letters to the journal editors, letters that will get peer reviewed? Instead he writes his blog that doesn’t get peer reviewed, that no scientists will read, complaining all the while that no one will pay attention to him while he takes no risk to play in the big league. Oh yeah sure he’s Mike Trout he says, except he won’t leave the Pony League.

        That isn’t science. It’s more of your sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      • Hi TonyB,
        The mentioned time “1850 or early in the 20th century – around 1915 – 20” is of particular significance in climate research. Since the end of the LIA around 1850 the overall Northern Hemisphere temperatures were fairly even https://1ocean-1climate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3a.jpg but suddenly increased dramatically since summer 1918, causing a pronounced warming of the NH; in N-America until 1933, in Europe until 1939. There is sufficient prima facie evidence that naval war around Great Britain up to the North Cape caused or contributed to the significantly the so called Early Arctic Warming, see https://oceansgovernclimate.com/1885-2/

        The air pressure from England to Svalbard was extraordinary during WWI, see Fig. 4 in a paper by A. F. More et al. ; in ‘agupubs’ in September 2020 titled: “The Impact of a Six‐Year Climate Anomaly on the “Spanish Flu” Pandemic and WWI”, and discussed at: https://oceansgovernclimate.com/the-great-climate-anomaly-in-world-war-i-is-still-not-understood/

        It seems the IPCC again has failed to address the issue. How important it would be to address human activities at sea and its impact on climate has been recently discussed here. https://1ocean-1climate.com/if-the-ipcc-cant-answer-it-well-do-it/ or to explain why the North and Baltic Seas show the highest levels of warming worldwide, which cannot be due to higher CO2 values; discussed at https://1ocean-1climate.com/the-influence-of-the-baltic-sea-climate-reinforced-by-humans/
        All the best,
        ab

    • Climate Skeptic wrote:
      IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.

      Let’s do some simple analysis.

      Here’s the latest Copernicus Climate Service monthly global mean temperature anomalies:

      https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2021/07/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_12month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2T_202107_1991-2020_v01.csv

      From Jan 1990 to July 2021 the linear trend is 0.22 C/decade.

      That’s an interval of 378 months (=3.15 decades), so the change over that time period is approximately 0.70 C.

      If we were to extrapolate that to 2100 (=11 decades), it’d imply a change of 2.4 C.

      So in fact the IPCC’s prediction is NOT falling “well short” of those predictions. Climate Skeptic was wrong.

      ==

      In fact, as I showed here, warming is actually accelerating according to the Copernicus data, and by that trendline warming just by 2050 would be 2 C. By 2100 it’d be 5.5 C. Of course, this is not how you calculate warming to 2100 — you’d use a climate model. But it does show that global warming is accelerating lately.

      https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/08/more-on-acceleration-of-global-warming.html

      The 30-year linear trend is increasing:

      https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/08/global-warming-is-accelerating.html

    • Climate Skeptic wrote:
      IPCC3 predicted a 1.5 to 5.8 celsius increase in surface temperature between 1990 and 2100. Clearly, actual warming is falling well short of those predictions.

      Let’s do some simple analysis.

      Here’s the latest Copernicus Climate Service monthly global mean temperature anomalies:

      https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/ftp-data/temperature/2021/07/ERA5_1991-2020/ts_12month_anomaly_Global_ERA5_2T_202107_1991-2020_v01.csv

      From Jan 1990 to July 2021 the linear trend is 0.22 C/decade.

      That’s an interval of 378 months (=3.15 decades), so the change over that time period is approximately 0.70 C.

      If we were to extrapolate that to 2100 (=11 decades), it’d imply a change of 2.4 C.

      So in face the IPCC’s prediction is NOT falling “well short” of those predictions. Climate Skeptic was wrong.

      • Actually you are right: I don’t think you could characterise temperature rise as “falling well short”. It’s imprecise language but “well short” to me might be 0.1C/decade. According to UAH: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2020/plot/uah6/from:1990/to:2020/trend

        …the rise is 0.133 C/decade…near enough to 1.5C to qualify your objection.

        I am skeptical that the rise is a forced acceleration – it is increasing, because the rate of temperature increase for the whole period is 0.11 C/decade. But the reason for the recent increase is because of the very large and long El Nino from 2015. We were in El Nino conditions then, and usually these are followed by La Nina conditions. We got La Nina conditions last winter, things are neutral now but 2nd year La Nina is forecast. After these La Nina’s are done and we have a period of relative neutrality we might have better gauge of how much genuine increase in average temperatures occurred during that period that was not because of ENSO.

  19. The IPCC has become an extreme alarmist organisation, like Greta Thunberg.

    Empirical evidence clearly shows that global warming is beneficial for the global economy and ecosystems, not harmful. Therefore, there is no valid justification for actions to attempt to reduce global warming. Such actions are costing and enormous amount and are doing substantial harm to the world economy and human well-being.

    Climate alarmism is a new religion, not honest, objective science.

    • The money and time being wasted in this global warming bs is just beyond belief….I’m so sick of the whole crock.

    • David Appell

      Peter Lang wrote: Empirical evidence clearly shows that global warming is beneficial for the global economy and ecosystems, not harmful.

      What about your ridiculous finding that a temperature increase of 3 C will cause a GDP change of only -0.2% due to sea level rise, when it will swamp most of the coastal cities of the world and much of Florida?

      That shows why people think climate economists are a silly joke who can’t think their way out of a paper bag.

      • I made no such finding re sea level rise. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, as usual.

      • David Appell

        Peter, awhile back you posted a graph from your research that showed GDP losses/gains (pct change) as a function of temperature change, for various climate factors. Sea level change was in a bright blue. How about posting it again?

      • All the solid lines plotted in that chart are FUIND projections of impacts up to + 3C GMST from 2000, plus two dashed lines that are our projections from empirical data of the economic impact of energy consumption. Read the paper and try to understand it!
        https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575

  20. I wonder if the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 will include Nobel economic prize winner William Nordhaus’ calculations showing optima temperature increase by 2100 is 3.5 C?

  21. So there is an increase in heat waves, but no increase in droughts

    Then it is not surprising, there is an increase in concurrent heatwaves and droughts.

    But there may also be an increase in concurrent heatwaves and no droughts. So what?

  22. “In northern high latitudes, the report concludes – with high confidence – that there has already been a “detectable” increase in rainfall..”

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science

    This concurs with the UK official data of an 8% increase in precipitation over the last 30 years.

    It’s consistent with the gravitational forcing hypothesis as an alternative to Milankovitch insolation theory which can account for climate change upto the glacial cycle, with extra warm equatorial waters being pushed to higher latitudes, which falls as snow in polar regions & accumulates until the extra tidal energy decreases.

  23. Bill McKibben “….smokescreen thrown up by the fossil fuel industry” ….
    Wrong Bill, your own flatulence is clouding your view of reality.

  24. The 3rd IPCC report had the very scary (and fraudulent) hockey-stick. The 4th report talked a lot about 3 degrees C of warming. The 5th report talked about 2 degrees of warming, and now in the 6th report the headline number is down to 1.5 degrees.

    It looks to me like we can relax and continue to enjoy the benefits of global warming for another two or three IPCC reports, by which time the predicted warming will have gone down to zero.

    • Rune Valaker

      Have you considered reading some of the report before commenting on it?

      First, the report shows the most pronounced hockey stick I have ever seen, see SPM 7. The blade is almost as long as the shaft.

      And the IPCC has long since abandoned an ECS of 1.5 C. The ECS is now estimated at:

      “..the AR6 report says, resulting in a central estimate of 3.0C, with a likely range of 2.5 – 4C and a very likely range of 2 – 5C.This is much narrower than the AR5 likely range of 1.5 – 4.5C and very likely range of 1 – 6C. ”

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science

      • Rune Valaker – your quote is about ECS, not the global temperature.

      • The “3 degrees C of warming” you complain about is related to sensitivity, Mike.

      • Steve McIntyre rips this “new” hockey stick to shreds.
        https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/

      • You might have missed:

        “Curiously, this leading diagram of the Summary of Policy-Makers does not appear in the Report itself.”

        It’s not curious when we observe that the Auditor has mainly be interested by curiosities.

      • No, its just that the politician lying liars got ahead of the CliSciFi “scientist” lying liars. Incompetent liars get caught out before the practiced liars. Therefore, the CliSciFi “scientist” lying liars were behind the politician lying liars in the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6.

        Lying liars also lie when confronted by what they consider (in derogative terms) to be “Auditors.” Lying liars fear Auditors.

        [Recognize yourself, Willard?]

      • You’re a crank, Charlie.

        Calm down.

    • Rune Valaker

      Mike Jonas. The Holy Grail to the climate issue for at least 40 years has been linked to the ECS, or “” Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.”And we have discussed that at Climate etc. for a long time.

      Since we do not know anything about the future emissions, “somebody” has agreed or decided that the scale of global warming should be measured after the CO2 level has doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski

    During times of low solar wind magnetic activity, a weakening of the jet current (slowing of the zonal circulation) is observed. Why does this happen? When the solar wind is weak there is an increase in galactic radiation (primary and secondary) at high latitudes. The distribution of this radiation depends closely on the geomagnetic field. Similarly, the distribution of ozone, as a diamagnetic, is highly dependent on the geomagnetic field. The geomagnetic field over the Arctic changes very rapidly. There are two geomagnetic field maxima at the moment, one over northern Canada (weakening rapidly), the other over Siberia (strengthening). Where the geomagnetic field is weaker the concentration of both GCR and ozone increases.
    “A map of cutoff energies as calculated in real time at the University of Bern is shown in this Figure. Red shading at the borders of the map is for regions where protons with energy below 125 MeV can penetrate to the atmosphere (20 km above the ground), while energies above 15 GeV (green colour within the closed contour) are required in equatorial regions above southern Asia. The contours of equal cutoff energy are curved, because the axis of the terrestrial magnetic field is inclined with respect to the rotation axis. Overall one notes that the closer one approaches the magnetic equator, the higher the minimum energy required for cosmic rays to reach the atmosphere. The cutoff energies are higher within the closed contour above southern Asia, because the Earth’s dipole is located somewhat outside the centre of the Earth, closer to southern Asia than to the region on the opposite side of the Earth above the western Atlantic Ocean.”
    https://www.nmdb.eu/public_outreach/Bern_cutoff.jpg
    https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif

    The concentration of ozone and GCR in regions of weaker geomagnetic field in high latitudes is responsible for blocking circulation in the lower stratosphere, which is especially important during the winter season.

  26. The IPCC is an agency of the UN reporting to and taking orders from the bureaucrat in chief Antonio Guterres

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/10/links-to-ipcc6-posts/

  27. Deja Moo, the feeling that you’ve heard this bs before.

  28. What else is a panel on Climate Change, unspecified expected to find?
    The Climate is not changing and we do not have a reason for existing?
    They have no choice and no insight.

    It’s like what other reason for existing does a climate alarmist have for existing [Willard, Zeke]] other than to promote climate alarmism.?

    The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are
    What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
    What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?
    .

    These basic questions and their answers should be front and centre of the IPCC manifesto.

    Perhaps Judith could expand on this point with another post dedicated to these two questions.
    Please.

    After all, is the optimum temperature some time in 1850 when we first determined the capacity to determine and record temperatures around the globe. Why is it the best temperature rather than 2 or 3 degrees warmer which led to the most prolific times for expansion of life on earth.?

    What makes the 1900 level of CO2 and the preceding millennia so special?
    Does having a low level of CO2 brought about by the burial of immeasurable amounts of CO2and the lack of building up of levels due to repeated ice ages stunting growth really determine what an adequate amount of CO2 for both animal and vegetative lives need?

    Should we really be back at higher levels to encourage growth and food production and evolution?
    What is the right level of CO2.
    – Optimum Temperature.
    – Optimum CO2
    Why does the IPCC insist that change is dangerous without specifying exactly where we should be and why we should be there?

    • Steve Fitzpatrick

      Good questions all. Of course the IPCC is going to find many reasons for alarm; finding cause for alarm is the reason the organization exists. Of course they will always ignore data which suggests warming has not been and will not be especially harmful. And heaven forbid anyone suggest warming to date has actually been net beneficial, though plainly it has. Of course the IPCC will focus on the most extreme scenarios, just as they have since their first report. Just as they always will. The IPCC is an advocacy organization, created by the UN to advance specific policy outcomes favored by those inclined to have a ‘world governing’ organization that is superior to national governments and the voters that elect those governments. The IPCC does not and never will present any kind of balanced representation of ‘the science’. Public policies will be set based on a wide range of inputs, all of which are tilted by the political preferences of individuals. It really has little to do with science, and much to do with politics.

      • David Appell

        Steve Fitzpatrick wrote: And heaven forbid anyone suggest warming to date has actually been net beneficial, though plainly it has.

        How has warming obviously been beneficial?

      • McGee commented: More people suffer cold related deaths than do suffer heat related deaths.
        Presumably, global warming is a net benefit by reducing cold deaths

        Is this in fact true? I’m skeptical.

        Who dies from the cold?

        Do you think it’s a good idea to warm up the entire world to prevent those deaths — thereby changing the climate, acidifying the ocean, increasing wildfires, threatening crops, changing ecosystems — or do you think it’s better to find out why people are dying from the cold and address their needs — stopping homelessness, giving the poor better furnaces and better home insulation?

        Do you heat your own home by warming up your entire neighborhood or your entire country? I’m curious….

      • The local DA: “How has warming obviously been beneficial?”

        A couple quickies:

        Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        A roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over the last 40 years; probably more than this today, post 2016 scientific audit.

        Of course you know these things, DA. Willful ignorance doesn’t defend your case, you’ll need to dig a little deeper in those dog eared assets within your briefcase if you want to impress denizens.

      • jungletrunks wrote: Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        How do you know?

      • > Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        Citation needed.

      • Joe - The non climate scientist

        David Appell | August 10, 2021 at 11:03 am |
        jungletrunks wrote: Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        How do you know?

        Willard | August 10, 2021 at 11:04 am |
        > Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        Citation needed

        Willard & Appellman

        Do you two really need a citation for that?

      • What is “that,” Joe?

      • Specifically for the US, heat is responsible for more deaths; though deaths from heat has been in decline since 1995

        https://www.statista.com/statistics/203755/fatalities-caused-by-extreme-weather-in-the-us/

      • From the National Center for Health Statistics: “During 2006–2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather-related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning.”

        Cold related deaths are twice heat related in the U.S. It is my understanding that the worldwide data is similar if not worse for cold.

        Lying liars just got to lie by using obscure statistics. In this case it was using EXTREME cold and heat events that are not representative of the general climate people live in. Mark Twain said it all.

      • Nice try, Trunks, but no cookies. Search for “the findings cannot be interpreted as globally representative.”

        So in return here’s something more recent and relevant:

        The number of excess deaths is largely associated with population size.

        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

        Unless you believe that there will be less people in 2050, I suggest you modify your claim that there will be “fewer deaths from extreme climate.”

      • Will, I’ll take that last sugar cookie.

        You should read your own citations. The citation you post states 74 deaths per 110k from cold, and 7 deaths per 100k from heat:

        “The large sample size and its representativeness improved the generalisability of our results. We found that 5 083 173 deaths were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% of all deaths and equating to 74 excess deaths per 100 000 residents. Most of these excess deaths were explainable by cold temperatures.”

        “Average excess deaths related to non-optimal temperatures accounted for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of global deaths (74 deaths per 100 000 residents), with 8·52% of deaths explainable by cold temperatures (67 deaths per 100 000 residents) and 0·91% explainable by hot temperatures (seven deaths per 100 000 residents; table 2”

      • > You should read your own citations.

        Not only did I read my citation without an s, Trunks, but I already read yours. None extrapolate the way you do about future deaths.

        Now, try to read your own words:

        Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        You’re not mentioning a ratio, but an absolute number.

        Unless the world population grows by less than a third of a percent, I suggest once again that you revise your claim.

      • jungletrunks

        Will, always attempting to obfuscate. I didn’t extrapolate about future deaths, it’s an unknown, the models are your playground, not mine.

        angech starts this particular discussion by questioning what the optimum temperature should be, Steve supplemented this by stating that warming has not been harmful, and in fact warming has been beneficial. My statement “Fewer deaths from extreme climate” implictly follows this linear logic, that warming has not caused more deaths. The statistics prove it.

        The relative magnitudes of two quantities; what is it you can’t see here? Globally 67 deaths per 100k residents die from cold, versus 7 per 100k residents who die from heat.

        I’ll extrapolate that the ratio between cold and heat deaths has continued to narrow since post little ice age; we know it has gotten warmer, humanity has demonstrably benefited from this.

      • David Appell

        jungletrunks wrote:
        https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

        Nope. Only looked at well-off countries. Only one in the tropics. None in Africa. Seriously incomplete.

        https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

        Nope — a snapshot.

        You claimed “Fewer deaths from extreme climate.” That means you need to make a comparison — one point in time compared to and earlier point in time when it wasn’t as warm. Neither of these studies does that.

      • jungletrunks

        BTW, I meant to mention that I used the phrase extreme climate to as a reference to todays commonplace media narrative, the belief that we’re already living in an extreme climate. I mock it as nonsense, cold kills many more.

      • jungletrunks

        For the local DA: Willards 2021 citation is better than mine, it uses recent global statistics. He didn’t read it, or he wouldn’t have posted statistics that prove cold is a bigger killer than heat around the globe.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,

        If you think your citation suggests cold doesn’t cause more deaths than heat, then you need to sharpen your reading skills. The conclusions are very clear: cold kills far more than heat.

      • Here, Trunks:

        “How has warming obviously been beneficial?”

        A couple quickies:

        Fewer deaths from extreme climate.

        The only way for your “fewer deaths from extreme climate” to answer “how has warming obviously been beneficial” is to attribute a (very small) reduction in the ratio of deaths by cold to the temperatures themselves, and not (say) our level of preparedness. Think of Junior’s trick of normalizing hurricane damage.

        A few degrees won’t eliminate the need to heat yourself, and do consider that most deaths from cold are in Africa.

      • > If you think your citation suggests cold doesn’t cause more deaths than heat, then you need to sharpen your reading skills.

        Since I’ve said nothing of the sort, Steve, I duly submit that you should go first.

        But I’m willing to commit to the claim that cars kill more than cold, if you’re interested.

      • jungletrunks

        “A few degrees won’t eliminate the need to heat yourself”

        Lovely. But a cooler planet means the need to heat yourself ever more, right? It’s a diminishing return for dung and tree burning in Africa.

        What’s the ideal temp anyway, Will? There’s significant greening of the planet from elevated CO2 levels, this is obviously beneficial.

        Let’s turn the table: how would cooling obviously be beneficial?

      • > But a cooler planet means the need to heat yourself ever more, right?

        I thought you were not into the business of extrapolating, Trunks.

        Do you think the Earth’s temperature exist for real?

      • jungletrunks

        Will: “I thought you were not into the business of extrapolating, Trunks.”

        Common sense logic isn’t that difficult, Will, you should try it.

        Alternatively, you’re big into extrapolating, so I’m sure you have plenty to share with denizens about how a cooling planet will benefit humanity. I doubt we’ll hear a peep from you on this subject.

      • Not sure about your common sense, Trunks, but mine tells me that my central heating thermostat does not mind much if it’s -10 or -15 outside.

        Which suggests to me that energy poverty appears to be a confounding variable in what you won’t even spell out.

      • jungletrunks

        “Not sure about your common sense, Trunks, but mine tells me that my central heating thermostat does not mind much if it’s -10 or -15 outside.”

        I’m sure you believe that your central heat runs the same amount, whether -10, or -15. I wouldn’t suggest dung burners rely on your logic though.

      • David Appell

        jungletrunks wrote: What’s the ideal temp anyway, Will?

        The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.

        Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction.

      • jungletrunks

        “Funny you mention dung, Trunks”

        What’s the relevant coincidence in the broader context of benefiting the planet?

        Okay, maybe some common sense extrapolation wouldn’t hurt here either. We burn more clean plentiful natural gas than our grandparents, or great grandparents did. In historical context all people lived by burning wood fired stoves to stay warm, and for cooking. Wood stoves and bad ventilation creates bad indoor air pollution. While Africans today are vulnerable to cold, I’m sure they burn less dung than they did 100 years ago when it was cooler; so their lungs are better off. Though surely we wish they still had it better. But I guess in this way a warmer climate and technology have both improved indoor air pollution, and outdoor pollution in smaller context since natural gas is cleaner than historical methods for staying warm; coal, wood, dung. Good reasoning this time, Will.

        Have you thought about the benefits of a cooling planet? There’s a cookie in it for you if you can deliver anything to make humanity wish such an outcome.

      • > What’s the relevant coincidence in the broader context of benefiting the planet?

        Columbo was likeable, Trunks. You’re not.

        The point you’re trying to dodge is that the reason people die from cold isn’t because the planet is cooling or warming, but because they can’t afford to warm themselves.

      • jungletrunks

        The local DA had a lightbulb moment.

        “The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.”

        Nobody is talking about just surviving, DA. Is the goldilocks climate cooler than todays climate? How is cooler better for the planet? Willard dodges, but I’m sure you have something in that briefcase of yours to opine about.

      • jungletrunks

        “The point you’re trying to dodge is that the reason people die from cold isn’t because the planet is cooling or warming, but because they can’t afford to warm themselves”

        I’m not trying to dodge what you assert, Will.

        As you say, because they can’t afford to warm themselves, they die from cold; I extrapolate the poor don’t die from heat as much because they can’t afford to cool themselves, though.

      • David Appell

        jtrunks wrote: How is cooler better for the planet?

        The planet is a rock. There is no “better” or “worse” for a rock.

        Perhaps you’re thinking of the ~10M species living on the planet. Each is adapted to its local climate. And, usually, dealing with the inhospitality of humans and the destruction of ecosystems. You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal. It’s too late for that — we’ve screwed too much of it up.

        In any case the temperature’s not going down anyway.

      • jungletrunks

        DA: “The planet is a rock. There is no “better” or “worse” for a rock.”

        There’s better for humans and all other species though.

        I consider all living species valuable, I’m not saying humans haven’t done bad things to the planet, humans should be good stewards of the planet.

        Let’s stick to the conceptual discussion, and make it much simpler. If humans were to disappear entirely; is a warmer climate better, or is a cooler planet better for the remaining ~10M species living on the planet?

      • > I extrapolate the poor don’t die from heat as much because they can’t afford to cool themselves

        You might need to rewrite that one, Trunks.

        Meanwhile, enjoy this tid bit:

        Between 1998 and 2017 climate-related and geophysical disasters killed 1.3 million people and left a further 4.4 billion injured, homeless, displaced or in need of emergency assistance. While the majority of fatalities were due to geophysical events, mostly earthquakes and tsunamis, 91% of all disasters were caused by floods, storms, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events.

        https://www.preventionweb.net/files/61119_credeconomiclosses.pdf

        I’m sure these folks will be happy to learn that they have a fraction of a percent less chance to die from cold.

      • jungletrunks commented:
        If humans were to disappear entirely; is a warmer climate better, or is a cooler planet better for the remaining ~10M species living on the planet?

        If humans were to disappear, warming would halt in about a decade, and aerosols would drop out of the sky bringing about a 0.5 C cooling.

        What does “better” or “worse” even mean in this context? Better in what sense, according to what metric(s)? Or worse?

        Is a warmer or cooler planet “better” for the 10M species? They’re adapted to the climate they’re living in. They have evolved to eat the plants (or animals) around them that exist in the ecosystem that exists in that climate. In some cases their reproductive systems are geared to the temperature they live in — altering it has been observed to change reproductive characteristics. Plants have evolved to certain ranges of temperature and rainfall and soil moisture etc. This is why extinctions have been associated with climate changes in the past.

      • It is consent that the warming from the 1850 was beneficial.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5DSgt2q9g

        Richard Lindzen said, it’s not a sign of intelligence to assume the climate reached a kind of optimum in1850.

        5 points all reject alarm:

        1. Climate Optimum was significantly warmer and greener than today, see new reconstruction with marine proxies. Green deserts, forests in the Tundra = significantly larger habitable lands.
        2. No tipping points observed during Climate Optimum, neither Gulf Stream shutdown, nor permafrost methane apocalypse nor whatever.
        3. Climate sensitivity lower than thought. Temps may even pause until 2060 due to coming AMO/PDO cold phases.
        4. Extreme weather damages normalized to GDP are small and decreasing,
        5. Cost of precipitous action larger than modelled benefit.

    • “How has warming obviously been beneficial?”

      More people suffer cold related deaths than do suffer heat related deaths.
      Presumably, global warming is a net benefit by reducing cold deaths, even if there was increased extreme heat, which is not a given.

      US combined heating & air conditioning requirement has decreased.

      In controlled experiments, CO2 increases plant growth, crop yield and drought tolerance. Presumably, this partially explains the increased plant life on earth and would seem to have aided increased crop yields and decreased necessary agricultural water use.

      Increased temperature also correlates with increased photosynthesis, presumably also explaining the satellite observed increased in plant life.

      Since all life ultimately depends on photosynthesis, total biomass correlates with plant biomass, and given the increase in plant life, this broadest measure of all life on earth has probably increased.

      Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans.

      Increased precipitation presumably increases the availability of fresh water for humans.

      Hypothetically, global warming decreases the meridional ( latitudinal ) temperature gradients which would tend to reduce extreme temperature events and extreme kinetic energy events. There’s no counterfactual to this, but violent tornadoes in the US have certainly decreased since 1950.

      These are enough for now.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        McGee,
        It is almost pointless to offer facts to those like Appell who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited. It is much like whispering into a hurricane; no matter what you say, they will not hear tou.

      • McGee wrote: US combined heating & air conditioning requirement has decreased.

        Do you have data on this?

        What about for the globe?

      • Steve Fitzpatrick commented: It is almost pointless to offer facts to those like Appell who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited.

        Stick to the science.

      • McGee, certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?

        They do decrease the Earth’s albedo and so are a positive feedback on global warming.

        As for crop yields…. Yes, CO2 increases photosynthesis, but it also increases temperature and changes precipitation patterns. These affect crop yields too.

        “Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”

        “Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.

        “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14

        Let’s hear from someone for whom it really matters:

        General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press, 8/30/2015:

        “We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”

        I could go on — the scientific literature if full of studies that cast doubt on the idea the more CO2 is good for agriculture.

      • McGee, certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?

        They do decrease the Earth’s albedo and so are a positive feedback on global warming.

        As for crop yields…. Yes, CO2 increases photosynthesis, but it also increases temperature and changes precipitation patterns. These affect crop yields too.

      • “Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”

        “Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Appell,
        The ‘best’ public policies WRT global warming are mainly political questions, and like all political questions, they are based on personal values, goals, and priorities. To ‘stick to the science’ is to ignore political reality. You seem to me a very highly motivated advocate for “green policies”, and I rather suspect you are closer to AOC on virtually every public policy question than you are to Ron DeSantis. That is perfectly OK, but it means that your preferred public policies are not, and never will be, just based on ‘the science’: they are in large measure a reflection of your world view, your priorities, and your values. You look only at what you perceive as negatives of fossil fuel use, and seem always to ignore the obvious positives, like falling poverty, increasing lifespan, and greater material wealth… all of which have come about due to widespread fossil fuel use. Above angech raises provocative questions about what the ‘ideal’ world would be in terms of CO2 and temperature. You ignore those questions. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

      • “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14

        Let’s hear from someone for whom it really matters:

        General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press, 8/30/2015:

        “We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”

        I could go on — the scientific literature if full of studies that cast doubt on the idea the more CO2 is good for agriculture.

      • “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”

        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14

      • > they are in large measure a reflection of your world view, your priorities, and your values.

        I value the human species, Steve.

        What about you?

      • Oh no, Steve is calling me by my last name only! I must have really gotten through to him.

        Steve, instead of addressing the science you’re determined to pigeonhole me based on your assumptions about my politics. Perhaps you aren’t able to debate the science so politics is your only entry point, but I’m not going to reciprocate. Make whatever assumptions you want, I really couldn’t care less.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        I like humanity quite a lot.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        David Appell,
        “I must have really gotten through to him.”
        Thanks, that gave me a chuckle. Which is rare for climate blog wars.

        The issues involved are primarily political. It is one thing to say “average temperature will increase by 1.5C by 2120”, but quite another to conclude that is “bad”. It seems to me are ducking what are primarily political questions with your “stick to the science” take on everything. It is not just science, it is mostly politics. In fact the only reason I ever paid any attention at all to climate science is that the entire field is highly political…. it is not like the physics of light emitting diodes. The science does not give value judgements and does not set public priorities or policies…. people provide those value judgements and determine public policies. Some are just a lot more honest about it than others.

      • > I like humanity quite a lot.

        How about truth?

      • McGee,
        “Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans.”
        The CO2 content in the ocean is going up so it’s not surprising that ocean dead zones have increased dramatically, up over 400% in the last 50 years I think.

        But the oceans may turn out to be the ultimate tool we have to manipulate the climate. I’m watching for a genetically engineered novel algae that could metabolize and sequester most all man made CO2.
        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/scientists-coax-cells-world-s-smallest-genomes-reproduce-normally
        A Win-Win outcome!

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        “How about truth?”
        .
        I like truth quite a lot as well.

        Including the truth that global warming policies are very highly political, and the advocates on both sides are selective in their presentation of “the truth”. The biggest problem is that most people working in the field are also strong policy advocates for “green” policies. To ignore this is a bit like ignoring that ‘political science’ departments at most universities are dominated by people with strong left of center political views. In both cases, indeed in ANY politically charged field, the political inclinations of the individuals influence their ‘scholarship’.

      • Science has always been political, Steve:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/science-has-always-been-political/

        It still is the best tool we got to tackle the AGW problem.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        “Science has always been political..”

        I agree that *bad* science has always been political (eg Trofim Lysenko)…. and it still is. Climate science is political in the extreme. So is epidemiology in the time of covid-19. Seems to me a lot of really bad science arises from political motivations. Of course, for those who share the same political motivations, that bad science probably looks attractive.

      • I’m not saying that bad science is political, Steve.

        That’s just self-serving crap by libertarians who forgot to grow out of their adolescence.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        “That’s just self-serving crap by libertarians who forgot to grow out of their adolescence.”

        What a mature comment!

        Sorry, that was a typo… correct is “What a manure comment!” Cio.

      • Only the people that Steve disagrees with politically are influenced by their politics. And his politics don’t influence his belief that’s the case.

        So that means that his views on climate change and the pandemic are free from any political influence, of course, as are the views of any scientists on climate change and the pandemic.

        As long as he agrees with them.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Joshua,
        “Only the people that Steve disagrees with politically are influenced by their politics.”

        Nah. Everyone is influenced by their politics when the subject is politically charged, even very nearly perfect people like you and me. A few less perfect people are even influenced by their politics when the subject is *not* politically charged… some say that requiring an engineering student to calculate the second derivative of a polynomial is inherently racists… but I digress.

      • Here’s an affair on which you might wish to ponder, Steve:

        hroughout the past years, and precisely starting from my invited lecture at the International Category Theory Conference 2010 presenting the preprint “The unification of Mathematics via Topos Theory”, I have been repeatedly accused by some of the most influential category theorists of “over-selling” my research, or of proving results that were already known (but admittedly never written down or stated in public or recorded occasions). Another recurrent accusation has been that of being arrogant or disrespectful of the experts of the old generation. These accusations have led to a widespread attitude of suspect and denigration surrounding my work, which materialized in a number of difficulties in getting my papers published throughout the past years and in unfair treatments in the context of my applications for academic positions. Most importantly, this attitude has prevented, or at least strongly discouraged, many young people from studying a promising subject and hence contributing to the development of a research direction in topos theory which has already proved to be very fruitful. The serious problems in the attitude of a specific mathematical community towards the work of a young researcher documented on this page are unfortunately not unique and are apparently becoming more common these days, thus affecting more and more young researchers in different areas of mathematics and natural sciences. It is a responsibility of the leading specialists of a given field to encourage and promote the development of a new theory which promises to bring many novel insights and applications. Not only this has not happened to any extent in this case, but some of the leading category theorists have pretended to completely ignore the theory of ‘topos-theoretic bridges’ introduced in the above-mentioned preprint, labelling it, depending on the person, as “absurd”, “uninteresting”, “irrelevant”, or “well-known”, and to utter personal attacks against me (such as the generic accusations of being “full of myself”, “arrogant” or “disrespectful” of the main experts of the field) so to discourage everyone from pursuing any closer investigation. What is even more unfortunate is that, as the development of the theory progressed and more applications were obtained, this aprioristic attitude of hostility did not decrease, and even amplified in some cases. I have had therefore no other possibility, after five years of silent suffering from these ungrounded accusations, to organize a public debate in order to promote a return to scientific objectivity and a serious ethical conduct.

        https://www.oliviacaramello.com/Unification/InitiativeOfClarificationResults.html

        I don’t think category theory is of much political impact.

        Never forget Sayre’s law.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        Maybe you could first contemplate and explain what *you* think is the lesson from this passage before suggesting others to do it. In any case, category theory is not motivating things like the ‘Green New Deal’, so it seems of little general import.

      • I already told you, Steveorino:

        Science has always been political.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        Nah, just looks like grand poobahs defending their poobah fiefs. Not politics. Besides, without digging into the controversy at length, I can’t even say if the grand poobahs are right or wrong. But no matter, it is a hurricane that fits easily in a teacup.

      • Steve ->

        > Nah. Everyone is influenced by their politics when the subject is politically charged,

        Even Stevie Mac?

        Well, anyways you and I do agree on that one. Let’s throw a party!

      • Why do you say “nah” when the rest of your comments confirms that science has always been political, Steve?

        Everywhere there’s a scientific field, there’s a poobah. You don’t like it? Stick to engineering, where there’s has “never” been a poobah.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        Of course there are always grand poobahs (read the faculty list at any ivy to find a bunch), and they will almost always defend the status quo and their favored theories. Those are often the same theories that made them poobahs in the first place. That is true whatever the field… including art history and music. The other commonalities of grand poobahs is that they are often petty, often wrong, and often inhibit real progress in their fields. But grand poobahs of art history are not advocating enormous cultural and economic change for the entire world based on their analysis of 15th century painting styles. Climate scientists are. And that is political.

      • Steve,

        If there are poobahs everywhere humans gather around to study something, chances are that asking that there be less poobahs amounts to an impossible demand.

        As for your concerns regarding the change required, I think you’re protest too much, e.g.:

        Can the United States meaningfully reduce carbon dioxide emissions without crippling the economy? A new policy model suggests it’s not only possible but also less costly than many think. The model, developed by Stanford Graduate School of Business accounting professor Stefan Reichelstein and research associate Stephen Comello, sets a stringent limit for new natural gas power plants on CO2 emissions – just 80kg/MWh – then gives electricity producers 10 years to develop and deploy carbon capture technology to meet the standard, with tax credit incentives for early adoption.

        https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-cost-reduce-carbon-emissions

        Even if we accept Morgan Stanley 50 trillion figure by 2050, it’s only twice what COVID costed in two years.

        One thing is sure: the more we stall, the more it’ll cost.

        So if contrarians are serious about costs, they should stop trying to stall.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        “One thing is sure: the more we stall, the more it’ll cost.”

        Only if we are limited to the options you want considered. And therein lies a big part of the political disagreement. Forcing development of carbon capture via tax burden is one of your preferences, and maybe you also like wind and solar, but rapid approval and construction of a few hundred new nuclear plants would do more to reduce CO2 emissions, cost less, and not depend on wishful ‘then a miracle happens’ programs like carbon capture and storage. It would cost a relative pittance to put sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere and reduce solar intensity by 1%, should cooling the surface really be needed in the future. There are multiple options to reduce CO2 emissions, just not ones that are inexpensive and meet with broad public approval. Please feel free to become apoplectic about any options you disapprove of.

        FWIW, I think the real long term dilemma humanity faces is not at all global warming, but rather a shortage of inexpensive energy, aggravated by long term depletion of key raw materials like reduced carbon (AKA fossil deposits). We can create reduced carbon to replace depleted fossil materials (and do the same for other depleted raw materials) of course, but it is going to take a huge amount of energy to do it. That is not going to be from solar power and windmills.

      • > Only if we are limited to the options you want considered.

        No, Steve. That false claim won’t work as a bait and switch.

        Go peddle elsewhere.

      • Seve Fitzpatrick

        Willard,
        “No, Steve. That false claim won’t work as a bait and switch.

        Go peddle elsewhere.”

        Did anyone ever tell your your comments sometimes are incomprehensible? I think I remember Lucia (The Blackboard) telling you exactly that years ago. Cio.

      • Steve,

        Since your rhetorical question mentions Lucia’s, let me respond to you by using her favorite trick:

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peddle
        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/peddling

        So far you peddled “but AOC,” “but the GND,” “but Lysenko,” “but renewables” or other Freedom Fighter talking points. They’re irrelevant, and most importantly boring.

        Find another mark to con.

    • “What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
      What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?”

      Two excellent questions.

      In the last post a denizen, Joshua, excoriated me for mentioning left thinking.

      The asking of the above questions is a perfect example of critical thinking, of testing ideas I personally see lacking in left dogma, but I am subject to bias and thus cannot know this. Ironically, climate change being seen as a problem for the sake of it being change seems like a classical rightwing type bias, that of the sanctity of conserving the status quo and originalism. This bias stems likely from a natural respect for the prior unknown knowledge from lessons embodied the evolution of the status quo stability. This has some logical validity for complex sociological order, but does it for complex physical systems like the hydrosphere? Real question.

      • Ron –

        > In the last post a denizen, Joshua, excoriated me for mentioning left thinking.

        Geeze. Don’t take my critique so personally.

        First, I didn’t “excoriate” you. I criticized a vapid argument that you made.

        2nd, it wasn’t for “mentioning” skmtbjng. It’s that you were arguing for some vague concept, not even defined, as a “left minset” even though you had zero evidence that your vague characteristic is any more characteristic of “the left” than it is of “the right” (regardless of rhwfhwr that difference is some generic characterisric or even just a cultural characterisric). And then amusingly gave an “example” proving this “left mjndset” merely by a circle argument by assertion.

        Again, I have no idea why you think of a criticism of a vapid argument is a personal “excoriaton,” let alone an “excoriaton” for “mentioning” something.

        Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Ron.

        It’s always intersting to me when an interlocutor crosses over from an online convo with me to a convo about me or about what I said with some putative online audience. It’s intersting to note exactly when it happened on the other thread, and that you’re continuing on that manner in yet another thread.

        It’s a curious pattern.

      • > Two excellent questions.

        From a contrarian perspective, I agree.

        Rhetorical questions are the best.

      • Two retorts to two excellent questions and their analysis, one ignores the questions altogether to make personal criticisms for taking things “too personally” while also establishing that he is personally offended by such and such….This person also is a self-claimed expert on circularity.

        The other asserts two questions are rhetorical at best, and no response is necessary.

        Restating Angech’s questions –
        “The two pertinent questions the IPCC does not consider and has never answered are:
        What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
        What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth?”

        Willard, subject to your correction, the leftist consensus answer is: “The level that is optimal is the one that would been if not for human habitation.”

        If that’s it we can have an interesting discussion because many would say that is theologically based.

        Of which theology would be an even more interesting discussion.

      • If they’re excellent questions, Ron, I’m sure you researched them.

        Where’s your homework?

      • Willard, these are the first questions on any logical troubleshooting diagram: “What are the optimums?”

        One must define if there is indeed a problem before all else. Just fifty years ago we still thought a warmer planet was optimal, back when some suspected we might be cooling it with smoke stack aerosols. For all the time before that a warmer world was seen as optimal as well.

        Interestingly, the father of the Greenhouse Theory envisioned warming through industrial CO2 emissions as an enhancement to the planet, both in warmer habitat and in fostering food and vegetation. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/13/6995/

        Arrhenius never predicted more severe weather or temperature extremes. We still have not seen this born out statistically, only politically. Sea level rise would be an issue regardless or CO2 unless we could hold the planet on the delicate precipice of re-glaciation in a perpetual Little Ice Age.

        My advice for the sake of optimal global climate would to be focus technology on cooling the poles, or perhaps just the south pole, or increase precipitation there.

        Also, if we could defuse tropical cyclones to eliminate the 100-year storm surge sea level ceases to be a problem as well as the cyclone force wind. Spending all of our technological might on sucking up the CO2 and harming crop yields and promoting re-glaciation is insane.

      • Ron,

        Logic has usually two values. Trying to find an optimum is another kind of calculus altogether.

        Please beware that the best is the enemy of the good, and that if you are making an impossible demand, it *will* be flipped against you.

        So I will ask again: have you done any kind of homework regarding what you regard as excellent questions?

      • “Have you done any kind of homework on what you regard as excellent questions.”

        Willard, why don’t you regard them as excellent questions? Why do you say they are rhetorical? Is it that you believe the answers are too obvious to deserve mention? Why not prove how obvious with an explanation? Angech, me and others would love to hear it.

        Regarding homework, you and I have been part of a discussion on climate research for at least 7 years. What specific homework would qualify in your request? What have you found in your homework on these questions?

        Doing a search on optimal global mean temperature the best NASA result was that a higher sea temperature skews the balance of female to male sea turtles. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2878/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

        Benefits of warmer GMST are clearly beyond NASA’s purview. Also, NASA does not answer if sea turtles experienced a population problem during the Holocene optimum 6000-8000 years ago.

      • Ron,

        That you can’t show your homework regarding these questions speak louder than anything else you can mutter.

        Grown ups take responsibility for their judgements.

        You need to change. Denizens need to change.

        As Doc said, change is hard.

        I have faith in you.

        Best.

      • Willard, you don’t seem to understand. The question of what is the optimal Earth mean surface temperature is a central and primary and overlooked question. The same is true for the optimal CO2 concentration. I realize there are different answers depending on different political values and geographic affinities. But that does not make them rhetorical.

        Realizing your absurd error you then cover up by demanding some unspecified documentation. The whole point is that the questions are ignored by the climate industry because the answer is not beneficial to them. You should be the one doing homework to prove us all wrong.

        But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

        I found that initial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration dramatically enhanced winter wheat growth through the CO2 fertilization effect. However, this CO2 fertilization effect was substantially compromised with further increase in CO2 concentration, demonstrating an optimal CO2 concentration of 889.6, 909.4, and 894.2 ppm for aboveground, belowground, and total biomass, respectively, and 967.8 ppm for leaf photosynthesis.

        So we have about another doubling from current CO2 concentration before we start to get to optimal fertilization effect on wheat according to the science.

        Best,
        Ron

      • Cool. At least wheat has posted its vote for optimal levels of CO2. Anybody else for optimum world average temperatures and CO2 levels? Personally, I’m OK with 17 C and 800 ppm.

      • Ron,

        I’m afraid it is you who does not understand.

        First, you can’t simply assert that some question Q is crucial. You got to argue for it. Where’s your argument?

        Second, you can’t fish out some random link and pretend it’s your homework. You got to establish some kind of relevance. Where’s your framework?

        It’s your itch, and you haven’t scratched it yet. This is suboptimal, to say the least. Next time, try not to peddle “but plant food.”

        Good luck!

      • So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall on the planet surface by producing more fertile air and less harsh winters but you are all upset because I am citing actual science rather than a speech from Al Gore of John Kerry after they flew in on their private jet to get an award?

        I realize that less harsh winters are not good for everyone. Ski resorts are important. Robert Way, of Cowtan and Way (2014), once complained his native Inuit community was having to rely more on slower boat transportation rather than the faster trucks and snowmobiles. Beside that disruption sea level rise is killing the beach front real estate markets around the world. Wait… That last claim is not true. The values are skyrocketing. And, every rich lefty politician, which is just about all of them, has a beach estate.

        Did you ever see the Robin Williams movie “The Survivors (1983)” ? In the end the leader of the alarmist cult is found to have a briefcase filled, not with the plans for surviving the imminent apocalypse, but with bearer bonds not expiring until far into the future. Of course, you will never be let down because climate alarmism is not a cult, it’s mainstream.

        Do we need to get off fossil fuel? Absolutely. Should we find ways to improve the planet rather than just fight a losing battle of preserving the way it was in the past? That’s a religious question. My feeling is yes.

      • > So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall

        Slow down, cowboy.

        That’s not what suggests the single 2015 study cited 20 times or so you fished out of a quick search. Start with the title:

        The optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration for the growth of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)

        In fact, have you read past the abstract or are you stuck past the paywall?

        Nevertheless, please consider:

        While elevated CO2 makes carbon more available, plants also require other resources including minerals obtained from the soil. Elevated CO2 does not directly make these mineral elements more available and, as noted above, may even decrease the uptake of some elements. The ability of plants to respond to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis and growth may therefore be limited under conditions of low mineral availability. This effect has been best documented for nitrogen.

        […]

        Another environmental factor that interacts with elevated CO2 is atmospheric ozone (O3), a gaseous toxin. Ground-level O3 concentrations have been increasing worldwide (and are expected to continue to increase) due to increased emissions of pollutants that react to produce O3 (Vingarzan 2004).

        […]

        One of the most important determinants of species differences in response to elevated CO2 is photosynthetic type. Most plant species (~90%) utilize a photosynthetic process known as C3 photosynthesis.

        […]

        In contrast to C4 species, another group of plants, legumes (members of the botanical family Fabaceae) may be especially capable of responding to elevated CO2 with increased photosynthesis and growth (Rogers et al. 2009). For most plants, growth under elevated CO2 can alter the internal balance between carbon (obtained in extra quantities through enhanced photosynthesis) and nitrogen (either unaffected or taken up in decreased amounts due to decreased uptake of water).

        […]

        A number of experiments have found that some plant species that respond positively to elevated CO2 when grown alone experience decreased growth under elevated CO2 when grown in mixed plant communities (Poorter & Navas 2003). This effect likely results because the direct positive effects of elevated CO2 are outweighed by negative effects due to stimulation of the growth of competitors.

        https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

        You’re not far from trolling, Ron.

        Try to be serious for a change.

      • Ron Graf wrote:
        But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

        That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

        “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.

        [this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]

        “Rising temperatures hit India’s wheat crop,” Climate News Network, 7/28/14.
        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/07/28/rising-temperatures-hit-indias-wheat-crop/

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

        “Wheat farmers, experts look toward grim harvest as drought consumes Oregon”
        By BRYCE DOLE East Oregonian Jun 24, 2021
        https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/wheat-farmers-experts-look-toward-grim-harvest-as-drought-consumes-oregon/article_0d02b70a-d459-11eb-b8fd-37dcd07bd4b0.html

      • Ron Graf wrote:
        But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

        That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

        “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.

        [this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

      • Ron Graf wrote:
        But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

        That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

        “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.

        [this last paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]

      • Ron Graf wrote:
        But here’s the first hit on my search on Google scholar:
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176161715001674

        That’s wheat planted in “growth chambers,” not the real world. Here’s the real world:

        “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
        — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

      • Here’s more of the real world for growing wheat:

        “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.

        [this paper means the plant isn’t as nutritious]

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

      • Here’s some wheat in a very real world:

        “Rising temperatures hit India’s wheat crop,” Climate News Network, 7/28/14.
        http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/07/28/rising-temperatures-hit-indias-wheat-crop/

        “Wheat farmers, experts look toward grim harvest as drought consumes Oregon”
        By BRYCE DOLE East Oregonian Jun 24, 2021
        https://www.eastoregonian.com/news/local/wheat-farmers-experts-look-toward-grim-harvest-as-drought-consumes-oregon/article_0d02b70a-d459-11eb-b8fd-37dcd07bd4b0.html

      • Bad news for real world wheat:

        “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
        — “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

      • Wheat grown under higher CO2 is less nutritious:

        “Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.

        “Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
        – University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14

      • Ron Graf commented: So higher CO2 improves crop yields and life overall on the planet surface by producing more fertile air and less harsh winters

        The first claim is wrong…and what does warming do in the tropics, Ron? 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics.

        What do “less harsh winters” mean for communities that rely on snowpacks for their water supply, like all of the US west? What does it mean for wildfires in the following season if the forests are drier than usual?

        What do higher temperatures mean for crops? For people? For ecosystems, plants and animals? What about your higher CO2 acidifying the ocean — what’s the effect there? What about the sea level rise from your higher temperatures — how much of the coastlines of the world are you prepared to sacrifice for your “less harsh winters?”

        What about people and plants and animals who LIKE winter? You speak for them?

        I don’t think you’re thinking this through, Ron.

      • Thank you for stepping on my toes, David.

        If you ever wonder why I tell you why I don’t like you, please recall this episode.

      • I didn’t know people could own threads, Willard. I guess I’ll have to learn to live without your approval. Poor pitiful me.

      • Nobody’s asking you for room service, David.

        You’re no better than Chief.

      • David Appell

        I’m not here for your personal opinion of me, Willard. And I won’t give you mine of you.

      • Oh, I do know that, dear David.

        You’re here to make sure everybody hates you.

      • David Appell

        Willard wrote: You’re here to make sure everybody hates you.

        I’m here to put some real science into the discussion. Like most blogs of this ilk, everyone hates it when anyone else comes in to their sandbox and kicks some sand around. You’re all freaked out merely because I responded to Ron without your permission.

      • That you use an expression like “the discussion” shows you have little social skills, David.

        Are you on the spectrum by any chance?

      • David Appell

        You’re very tedious, Willard, and not just with me. Bye.

      • Let’s go with the basics, David:

        What is turn-taking?

        Turn-taking occurs in a conversation when one person listens while the other person speaks. As a conversation progresses, the listener and speaker roles are exchanged back and forth (a circle of discussion).

        Why is turn-taking important?

        Turn taking is an important skill for children to develop, in order to effectively participate in social communications. If a child is not able to take turns during interactions, they may interrupt the other person who is speaking or may not actively listen. Children who struggle with turn-taking in social situations may also experience trouble building friendships in class.

        https://cstacademy.com/articles/why-is-turn-taking-important-in-speech-and-language-development/

      • Willard, I hope you are coming to see that Angech’s basic questions: (What are the optimums for CO2 and Earth temperature?), are not trivial. They expose the media’s created fallacy that mankind is spoiling Eden when the truth is more complex.

        It turns out that science experiments show that wheat, a global staple crop, thrives at double the CO2 than we have now. You pasted some technical text that shows plants are not limited only be CO2, but by nutrients, water, sunlight, competition and optimal temperature. The last one is the hardest for farmers to control, which brings us to question #2. What does CO2 do for temperature?

        David points out that heat kills. He neglected to mention that cold kills more. Growing seasons are most often defined by winter’s length, not summer’s. In fact, the evidence is that CO2 is making winters shorter and less harsh rather than making summers much hotter. This is backed by the temperature records and explained in the Greenhouse Effect Theory. Longwave radiation emitted by night that cools the Earth is partially inhibited by greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 in the 13-18 micron wavelength band. This leaves less temperature drop by sunrise, starting at a higher temperature than otherwise would be the case. CO2 partially blocks shortwave sunlight but not nearly as much to make up for the head start. The tropics are least affected and the poles the most. The result is an expansion of the planet’s habitable zone.

        Of course, there are some losers in any change. That’s unavoidable.

        Before we decide to take away people’s hard earned money and liberties in order to save the planet remember we will have to someone in charge as supreme leader. Who do we want that personality to be? Give me an example of the person? David, would you want Willard to be supreme ruler? Willard, would you like to take your orders from David?

      • > I hope you are coming to see that Angech’s basic questions: (What are the optimums for CO2 and Earth temperature?), are not trivial.

        I never said they’re trivial, Ron.

        I’m saying that the whole ordeal is ridiculous.

        Hope this helps.

      • David Appell

        Ron, don’t be so sure that warmer temperatures are better for plant growth or growing season:

        “Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
        — Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
        http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167

        Abstract:
        Ongoing climate change can alter conditions for plant growth, in turn affecting ecological and social systems. While there have been considerable advances in understanding the physical aspects of climate change, comprehensive analyses integrating climate, biological, and social sciences are less common. Here we use climate projections under alternative mitigation scenarios to show how changes in environmental variables that limit plant growth could impact ecosystems and people. We show that although the global mean number of days above freezing will increase by up to 7% by 2100 under “business as usual” (representative concentration pathway [RCP] 8.5), suitable growing days will actually decrease globally by up to 11% when other climatic variables that limit plant growth are considered (i.e., temperature, water availability, and solar radiation). Areas in Russia, China, and Canada are projected to gain suitable plant growing days, but the rest of the world will experience losses. Notably, tropical areas could lose up to 200 suitable plant growing days per year. These changes will impact most of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems, potentially triggering climate feedbacks. Human populations will also be affected, with up to ~2,100 million of the poorest people in the world (~30% of the world’s population) highly vulnerable to changes in the supply of plant-related goods and services. These impacts will be spatially variable, indicating regions where adaptations will be necessary. Changes in suitable plant growing days are projected to be less severe under strong and moderate mitigation scenarios (i.e., RCP 2.6 and RCP 4.5), underscoring the importance of reducing emissions to avoid such disproportionate impacts on ecosystems and people.

      • David, as Willard has pointed out, one needs to read the entire paper, not just the abstract. The projections first assume that the most IPCC models will be accurate for 80 years when they are challenged to project even 5 years accurately. Their bias is even more evident in their highlighting of RCP 8.5 as their headline assumption when that level of emissions is not contemplated by any serious climate expert.

        The paper itself acknowledges that their assumptions include no attempt at adaption by the crops or farmers for the likely overly pessimistic climate projection. Remember, the plants and farmers will have 80 years to adjust locations and crop types, even ignoring genetic engineering.

        These type of papers are routine for academics as such predictions are a win win. It brings to mind such unenlightened futurists as Professor Paul R Ehrlich and his best selling book “The Population Bomb.”

        He is the Bing Professor Emeritus of Population Studies of the Department of Biology of Stanford University and President of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology.

        Ehrlich became well known for the controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb… which they famously stated that “in the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich#cite_note-leaders-4

        The book has been criticized since its publication for its alarmist tone, and in recent decades for its inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the book despite its flaws stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future” and believe that it achieved their goals because “it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future.[win win]”

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

      • Ron,

        Your “but RCPs,” “but Academia,” and “but Erhlich are duly noted.

        The first meme leads you to your first conundrum:

        If CO2 is plant food and more of it can only be beneficial, then you should welcome that we BURN ALL FOSSIL FUELS! Include coal and calthrate should be enough to lead us above 6C or more by 2100. If you feel luckwarm, add a decade. For more on this, cf.

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/but-rcps/

        I’m not saying this is plausible. I’m saying that it’s what your meme compels you to accept if you let it dominate your thinking.

        And curbing your enthusiasm regarding “but plant food” forces you to admit that yes, indeed, life sciences study complex systems.

        Then you realize that uncertainty is not contrarians’ friend.

        I don’t think you can get out of it with the Cornocupian way, but you can try!

      • Willard, we both agree that one should be self-skeptical of bias. It is all too easy to make rationalizations that are unfalsifiable. With this in mind let’s look at your last comment.

        `Your “but RCPs,” “but Academia,” and “but Erhlich are duly noted.’

        Basically, I hear you saying that you have heard all these points before and they did not persuade you then, so why start now? There are names for this thinking but I would like to keep your trust with my discretion.

        You should try to get away from the thinking that you must be correct since you have invested so much time in your POV. I am sure you agree that being staked in positions is the opposite of keeping an open mind.

        ‘The first meme leads you to your first conundrum:

        If CO2 is plant food and more of it can only be beneficial, then you should welcome that we BURN ALL FOSSIL FUELS! Include coal and calthrate should be enough to lead us above 6C or more by 2100. If you feel luckwarm, add a decade. For more on this, cf.’

        You don’t have to guess on my opinions. I have openly stated that we must get off of fossil fuel. Simple logic tells us it is a limited resource and thus our time is limited to find alternatives. I favor nuclear fusion research while we also improve all of the other alternative energies, particularly storage. I am on your side.

        ‘And curbing your enthusiasm regarding “but plant food” forces you to admit that yes, indeed, life sciences study complex systems.
        Then you realize that uncertainty is not contrarians’ friend.’

        We both agree that life sciences (and atmospheric physics) are complex. We both agree that policy should not be influenced by memes and popular phrases. We need to dig deep, look at the science, use good logic and beware of money influences and bias. All agreed.

        ‘I don’t think you can get out of it with the Cornocupian way, but you can try!’

        I am not trying to “get” anything over on you. I am just explaining my reasoning for my thoughts based on the research I have seen. There is no ulterior motive. I am not trying to take away your liberties or money. I am advocating for truth, transparency and freedom for you and your grand kids. (And also David’s)

      • Ron,

        I’m glad we both agree that we need to get to Carbon Zero ASAP.

        Once we agree on that, there is no need to pussyfoot about the optimal level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Even Doc should be able to see that. Suppose he offers you to play Russian roulette. The only reason why you’d bother to calculate the odds would be if you’d accept. Once you refuse to play, no need to determine optimal strategy.

        Same for CO2 levels.

        Doc’s riddle only matters to those who feel lucky.

        Those who, like you and me, want to get to Carbon Zero ASAP don’t need to answer it.

        ***

        So to recap, here are the Bingo squares you played so far:

        – “But Life”
        – “But RCPs”
        – “But Politics” (I need to add your jab toward academia)
        – “But Predictions” (I need to add Erhlich’s name)
        – “But Nuclear”

        Here is how I parry your last one:

        [N]uclear energy needs to compete with fossil fuels, not renewables like wind or solar. This point rests on the basic observation that the only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels. This point also rests on the idea that the path toward sustainable energy requires more nuclear energy than anything else, a conclusion that seems to be supported by the work of David Mackay.

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/

        As you can see, you meandered quite a bit.

        Thank you for helping me see how contrarians rope-a-dope in the squares!

      • Meandering is a natural consequence of discussion. You brought of the point of meandering which then presents a new point to discuss. See? If you take an inventory of how many of my points you addressed compared to the reverse you will find you have been controlling the direction more than I.

        “I’m glad we both agree that we need to get to Carbon Zero ASAP.”

        ASAP in my definition is to promote the best use of our research and engineering resources toward all alternative energy, including nuclear fission and fusion. And, this should be done without any federal or international emergency declarations that require the self-assignment of special powers and special authorities. I value the wisdom embodied in the USA’s founding as a sovereign constitutional republic.

        I think we part ways on that. Also, you seem to be inclined to uncritically believe whomever sounds the loudest alarm, leaving your suspicions left only to those who dare to ask questions and investigate such claims.

        One claim that I do not dispute is that there is some limit to fossil fuel and some limit to CO2 before it’s less optimal levels. I am believing at this time that the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere to bring levels from 280ppm to a more life-sustaining 420ppm was a happy accident. Further, I never said “Zero.” If we limit the use of fossil fuel an equilibrium will be reached where the oceans are absorbing as much CO2 as being newly added from fossil sources and we could keep the slope of the Keeling curve at zero.

        I believe in good management of resources. A little sacrifice in prosperity now for prosperity of future generations is an investment. It used to be referred to as posterity. Liberty is also a resource but if we surrender it now it will never be returned to our future generations.

      • David Appell

        Ron Graf commented
        I am believing at this time that the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere to bring levels from 280ppm to a more life-sustaining 420ppm was a happy accident

        What’s the evidence 420 ppm is more “life-sustaining,” and what’s the definition of “life-sustaining” anyway?

      • Well, David, the greening of the earth might be one example. I’m not aware of any drawbacks. Do you have any?

      • Meandering is fine, Ron, but if you’re using the exchange to peddle the usual contrarian crap, I don’t think we can call it a conversation anymore.

        It does not matter what ASAP means. That’s a similar trick to the one about the optimal CO2 level or temperature. We don’t need to know what it means to make us commit to a common goal.

        Take COVID vaccines. We needed them ASAP. The timeline that we estimated at first has been shattered by some lucky bounces. Should we complain?

        Same for the AGW problem.

        As long as you get my point against Doc’s trick, my job is done here. Which means that you’ll have to find another spring board to peddle contrarian talking points.

        Be well.

      • Contrary to what?

      • Every alternative energy source has unique down sides. There is no technology yet that is completely renewable. Wind mills are terrible for wildlife and landfills. Same with solar voltaics and they require scarce metals. Same with batteries. Nuclear fission is limited by fissile materials and produces terrible waste.

        Nuclear fusion is the utopian energy source but is going to take huge investments and accelerated timetable. But lefties are not thrilled about it because it has nuclear in it. What is your opinion?

      • David, if you were presented if irrefutable evidence that 420ppm was more life sustaining than 280ppm, (overall after slight adaptations), would you change any of your feelings on the willingness to sacrifice liberty and treasure in exchange for a political promise to lower it?

        If not, then you are experiencing religious ideals, not rational ones.

        If so, then the question of what is the optimal CO2 level is perhaps an important un-analyzed question, and not a rhetorical one, Willard.

      • David Appell

        Ron Graf commented: David, if you were presented if irrefutable evidence that 420ppm was more life sustaining than 280ppm…

        Do you have any evidence?
        Do you have a definition?

      • Evidence? Uh, try increased prosperity and life expectancies.

      • David Appell

        Ron Graf commented: David, as Willard has pointed out, one needs to read the entire paper, not just the abstract….

        That’s interesting, Ron, giving that all the evidence for wheat you’ve given is one paper about it being grown in an isolated GROWTH CHAMBER.

        About as far from the real world as one can get.

      • David Appell

        Ron Graf commented: Every alternative energy source has unique down sides.

        Of course. That’s obvious and everyone admits it.

        Wind mills are terrible for wildlife and landfills.

        Fossil fuels are far worse for wildlife.

        And as for landfills…fossil fuels use the entire atmosphere and ocean as a landfill. Or rather, the companies that produce them do. And for FREE!!

        Privatize profits, socialize costs.

      • Gee, there’s no benefits of fossil fuels and plastics to humanity.

      • > Every alternative energy source has unique down sides.

        And now you’re into “But renewables,” Ron.

        I already countered that one. The only way to replace fossil fuels is to replace fossil fuels. Your peddling is irrelevant.

        I can also add that you posit a false dilemma: the AGW problem is so big that we’ll need all the weapons we got.

        That’s it for me. I tag David.

      • Are you drinking, Willard? The above is nonsensical.

      • I could ask you the same question, Dave.

        You seem to be looking for a fight.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote:Well, David, the greening of the earth might be one example.

        Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?

      • The only rational response to your “Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?” is FU2.

      • Dave Fair wrote: The only rational response to your “Why is the greening of the Earth a “good” thing? Good by what measures?” is FU2

        Dave, every time I ask you for the slightest bit of support for your claims you freak out and fold like a cheap chair on a trailer park patio. You clearly weren’t educated in science. LOL

      • OK, David, lets turn it around. Why is the greening of the Earth a “bad” thing? Bad by what measures? FU2^2.

      • David Fair, hello, and don’t worry, I welcome all to join in, especially since I have to come back to threads sporadically.

        Boy’s you can be nice and answer some of David Fair’s questions. (Then at some point you could answer one of mine.) There are about a dozen or more hanging to choose from. Now it occurs to me It’s not really fair because if one doesn’t answer one of Willard’s questions, even if it is disingenuous and vague, he will repeat it like a lawyer badgering a witness until he get’s an answer or will make his own for you.

        David A asked, “What’s the evidence 420 ppm is more “life-sustaining,” and what’s the definition of “life-sustaining” anyway?”

        There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts. But I don’t know the net gain or loss of land that supports robust ecosystems, not that desert animals aren’t important, (please don’t write me hate mail now.)

        Another thought about 280ppm is that it would be reasonable to assume that the our current position on the 41-Ka Milankovitch cycle, placing us precariously on the edge of reglaciating, would leave mankind and countless other species vulnerable to sudden catastrophic cooling at any time, cooling that would start advance of glaciers that would not relent for another 120 Ka. Not everybody in NYC thinks about the fact that where they are sleeping was a mile beneath a glacier just 13 Ka ago.

        If one thinks critically and lines up the potential global incidents that would suddenly warm the Earth versus the ones that would suddenly cool, Mr. Freeze wins, hands down. Super volcano, asteroid strike, nuclear exchange, grand solar minimum, the climate alarmists prediction of the imminent ceasing of the thermohaline global conveyor, they all lead to cooling and global famine.

        Researchers point to the most recent scenario which appears similar to what we’re experiencing today, the Little Ice Age. This period, lasting from around 1300 to 1850 AD marked bitter cold conditions in Europe, famine, drought, and widespread population decline. While scientists are unsure the exact mechanism that brought on this cold period, a leading hypothesis is the melting of high latitude North Atlantic ice and subsequent slowdown of ocean circulation.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/11/27/global-ocean-circulation-keeps-slowing-down-heres-what-it-means/?sh=41c7d4c66720

      • David Appell

        Ron Graf wrote:
        There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts.

        Why is that “good?”

      • The TD with the David Appell persona strikes again with a brilliant question.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote: OK, David, lets turn it around. Why is the greening of the Earth a “bad” thing? Bad by what measures? FU2^2.

        So Dave, you said the greening of the Earth was a good thing, and now it’s clear YOU DIDN’T HAVE A SINGLE REASON FOR SAYING THAT.

        lolz

      • The TD with the David Appell persona strikes again.

      • “There is plenty of evidence as David Fair pointed out one obvious one, the greening of former deserts. Why is that good?”

        “Good” is highly subjective but taking the example of cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas, humanity has an affinity for green space and converting things toward that direction if given a choice. Green provides shade, evaporative cooling and generally is supportive to ecosystems. Green puts vapor into the air, which moderates daily high and nighttime low temperature, the same as CO2 does.

      • In summary, comparing 420ppm (2021) CO2 to 280ppm (1850) we see benefits of:
        1) less extreme daily and annual temperatures, expanding habitability.

        2) Global support to photosynthesis, making crops grow faster, longer and in less hospitable conditions, including dryer.

        3) A mitigation against the risk of runaway reglaciation, as was possible just 150 years ago in the event of a super volcano, asteroid strike, solar minimum or slowing of the global conveyor, or other unknown cause of sudden cooling, like undersea disruption.

        4)Overall increase in precipitation, increasing fresh water supplies.

        Liabilities:

        1) Increased tropical cyclones and intensity. — No statistical evidence as of yet.

        2) Increased wild fires. — solved with better forest management.

        3) Acceleration in sea level rise — No statistical evidence as of yet.

        The last one is the only one I think deserves concern. But there are ways to mitigate this besides lowering CO2. And lowering CO2 doesn’t stop, let alone reverse, sea level rise. After all, it has been occurring at 280ppm since the last glacial maximum.

        Sea level rise is mainly a problem by making tropical cyclones more damaging. Why not put a lot more research into studying tropical cyclones. Maybe there is a way to engineer their dampening by seeding precipitation in their paths, for example. That same technology could be used to seed precipitation on wild fires, Greenland glaciers and Antarctica.

        *I forgot to cite the problem of less zinc in foods. Sorry.

    • Rune Valaker

      With these two questions, You reveal yourself as a climate rookie:

      “What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?

      What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”

      There is no optimum temperature, there is no “ideal” CO2 level in the atmosphere. Humans and animals have for many hundreds of thousands of years – the animals for many billions of years – adapted to the climate they have been served at all times. What neither animals nor humans appreciate so much are changes over a period of time they do not feel in control of and can adapt to.

      I feel completely convinced that both I and my family could live well within 980 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and seven meters higher sea level for the next eight hundred years.

      But not so fast,

      Let me repeat: Asking the questions;

      “What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?

      What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”

      Are so startlingly silly that we should establish a new Nobel Prize.

      • Rune Valaker |

        “What is the optimal temperature for life on earth?
        What is the optimal level for CO2 levels on earth? ”

        Rune Valaker “There is no optimum temperature, there is no “ideal” CO2 level in the atmosphere.”

        Others disagree

        Willard > “Two excellent questions, I agree. I refuse to answer them as it would expose my biases.” {My} Science has always been political.
        I value the human species, {but I never said} I like humanity”

        Joshua “I’m with Willard’ I have lots of opinions but no opinion on these questions. They hurt too much “‘

        Ron Graf “The asking of the above questions is an example of critical thinking”

        Steve Fitzpatrick “The issues involved are primarily political. It is one thing to say “average temperature will increase by 1.5C by 2120”, but quite another to conclude that is “bad”.
        Above questions are raised about what the ‘ideal’ world would be in terms of CO2 and temperature.
        Soe people ignore those questions. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
        It is almost pointless to offer facts to those who are convinced humanity is just a problem to be controlled and limited.””

        jacksmith4tx “Phytoplankton, the base of the oceanic food pyramid, also photosynthesize carbon dioxide, meaning increased CO2 probably increases life in the oceans”.

        David Appell ” I’m scared of change”. “It can never be good”
        ” certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?”
        “You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal” ????
        “‘Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction.
        How has warming obviously been beneficial?”

        jungletrunks “a light-bulb moment.“The ideal temperature/climate is the one to which a species has adapted.”
        Is the Goldilocks climate cooler than today’s climate? How is cooler better for the planet?

        Fear of change seems to be the primary driver along with the refusal to put out an acceptable or optimal range.

      • angech wrote: David Appell ” I’m scared of change”.

        I never wrote that — you’re a liar.

      • David Appell

        angech wrote: David Appell ” I’m scared of change”.

        I never wrote that — you’re a liar.

        Fair enough.
        I just did a summary of your comments in a short sentence.

        If I apologise, and I do, and write it as my comment on your comments

        David Appell is scared of change”.
        because of these comments that he wrote.

        viz
        David Appell quotes
        “It can never be good” [change]
        ” certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there.
        Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?” [change]
        “You can’t just dial the temperature down and expect it will all be back to normal” [change]
        “‘Deviations cause stress. Occasionally extinction. [change]
        How has warming obviously been beneficial? [bad change].

        That would makes us both feel better?

        I am bemused that someone with your history would suddenly get so stroppy about a little comment on the way that you feel about change?
        Indigestion or a struck nerve?
        Grammar?

        By the way, Darwin put it as stress causes deviation [change] and that leads to evolution, [change].
        Evolution or change has been happening forever and is usually considered a good thing.
        Your emphasis on change only being dangerous, deviant,It can never be good etc is pathetic if you do not admit to the good things that change, even Climate change, could bring.

      • > Grammar?

        Nah, Doc.

        People tend to dislike being put words into their mouths and ideas into their mind.

        But riddle me this. How can you say that AGW will be good if you don’t know what’s the ideal climate for humans?

      • Rune Valaker

        To Ancech: “Others disagree.” Such a view must be based on a belief that humanity is capable of geoengineering the globe to “optimize” the climate to suit as many people, as possible. The funny thing is that it is the same people who think that we have so little understanding of the climate system that we should ignore the IPCC, which on the other hand claims that there is an optimal temperature or an ideal CO2 level. I agree that we understand relatively little of the climate system. We know that further warming will be beneficial for some parts of the world, but unfavorable for other parts. But we do not have the faintest idea where this would end up with x or y ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. We are beginning to gain some insight into global temperature with x or y ppm CO2. But we know almost nothing about what this will entail in terms of changes in precipitation patterns and a number of other climate / weather phenomena of great importance to both humans and animals.

      • Rune: “Such a view must be based on a belief that humanity is capable of geoengineering the globe to “optimize” the climate to suit as many people, as possible.”

        What are you saying that technology will not be capable of by 2100? Doesn’t it depend on what we prioritize? If so, don’t those priorities depend upon politics? If so, aren’t discussions like this how political priorities are developed? If not, how are political priorities supposed to be developed, by indoctrination of children and censorship?

        Rune: “We are beginning to gain some insight into global temperature with x or y ppm CO2.”

        What was the IPCC estimated range for warming per doubling of CO2?
        1979 1.5-4.5C.
        2021 1.5-4.5C. Where is the “gain” in insight?

        Rune: “But we know almost nothing about what this will entail in terms of changes in precipitation patterns and a number of other climate / weather phenomena of great importance to both humans and animals.”

        This does not stop every extreme weather event being blamed on CO2.

  29. 3:00 – the IPCC report admits that the world is greening with “Changes in vegetation productivity have also been observed, as well as longer growing seasons.”

  30. The high priests have delivered their decisions. The earth will be destroyed by fire and flood. The analogy with faith or religion is not new but it is remarkably good. The believers insist that the models are true and meaningful even when it is perfectly obvious that they are wrong. Those who question them are branded heretics and are cast from society.

    This has now gone on for too long. As Roger Pielke pointed out recently, the fundamental pillars of climate science have now drifted so far from reality that they are now false foundations for current and future development.
    Empires built on shaky ground cannot be sustained indefinitely and I know that this one will soon be toppled. The basic science is wrong.

    For decades, scientists have produced evidence aimed at backing up their belief system when they should have been finding out how our climate actually functions. We now have a highly complex belief system that is no help at all in predicting the real climate. Worse than that, by predicting false disasters it will lead us into real, self imposed ones.

    When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped. It was unsafe to continue and better to start again, checking against reality as you go. That would be my advice for young scientists today. It is far too late for the high priests who are wedded to the wrong understanding and are unable to contemplate that reality.

    • David Appell

      Peter S wrote: When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped.

      “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

      “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
      https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378

      figure:
      https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | August 10, 2021 at 9:34 am | Reply
        Peter S wrote: When models were first used in science and engineering the advice was that failed models should be scrapped.

        “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

        Personally, I dont find the claim that models have been skillful in predicting / matching observed warming to be very impressive. The world has been on a long term warming trend since the late 1800’s. Predicting continued warming reasonably consistent with the long term trend isnt something all that impressive. (similar with predicting any continued long term trend) . odds are always in favor of a continuing trend.

        What would have been impressive is for scientists to have predicted the shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend (ie the emergence from the LIA).

    • Hi Peter,
      You said: “The earth will be destroyed by fire and flood.”
      It won’t be destroyed by flood but I would not rule out the fire scenario. Ever notice the IPCC never models the climate effects of a global nuclear war?
      Looks to me like China, Russia, USA and N. Korea are ramping up their nuclear arsenals. The odds of a catastrophic man-made climate change event are rising.
      The best thing I can say is it will be mercifully quick for most of the industrial world.

  31. “we assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”

    From
    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

    If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount.

    • “..because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.”

      I couldn’t help but notice that the gravitational forcing hypothesis would account for warm tropical waters being pushed to higher latitudes creating an increase in upwelling of cooler water from beneath.

    • > If SSTs are overestimated, global sfc air T would be overestimated by this amount.

      Unpacking that one might help improve what I call the meteorological fallacy.

    • Hello Roger!

      My impression of this is that IPCC authors are rationalizing the lack hot spot response in the longer term data. They’re making the case that models predict a hot spot response to increased tropical SST, but that nature was not cooperating. They indicate that nature has begun cooperating by citing the radio occultation temperature estimate for 2002-2019 instead of the reanalysis, sonde data, or MSU data.
      ( see Figure TS.10 on page TS-117 of the Technical Summary ).

      Of course, this could be the case.
      However, it also could be confirmation bias, particularly on the choice of the much shorter time frame of the immature occultation data set which does not extend to lower levels.

      Another factor may be the co-occuring increase of absorbed solar for this timeframe.

      I’m working on a brief analysis of model response for the RAOB era, the MSU era, and the Twenty-First Century that I’ll ping here.

    • stevenreincarnated

      I suspect some portion of the warming was due to increased poleward ocean heat transport and that is going to keep SSTs in the tropics at a lower level than if it were all warming from direct forcing.

  32. It is surprising to find so many quotes of “warm Pliocene, Miocene & Eocene during periods of high pCO2” in the report and raised as possible future scenarios. Recent reviews of the Eocene (Hutchinson et al 2021) and Miocene (Steinthorsdottir et al 2020) are clear that TERRESTRIAL pCO2 was ~presnet for both warm eras & that no existing model can reproduce the observed conditions. This is a nuisance as it delays research on these periods.

    • Could you expand or clarify this comment? I don’t fully understand your point and I would like to.

      • alan cannell

        These were probably periods of higher air density (based on several proxies) and thus via Henry’s Constant more CO2 is absorbed into the seas. The high latitude warmth was thus due to adiabatic effects.

  33. What is the best way to deal with everyone else panicking around you, I wonder? I mean, other than avoiding the alarming news headlines?

    • Curious George

      Tell them that their tax dollars are used to manufacture lies.

    • Tell them that in 1983 the EPA said in several decades sea levels could rise by up to 10 feet in the next several decades. They’ve risen 3-4 inches.

      Or you could quickly become over 70 and realize you have seen these doomsday scenarios from a variety of causes for decades. Being sanguine is easier that way.

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg

      • David Appell

        “Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t;
        The anticlimate-science blogosphere’s trophy cabinet is bare.”
        SCOTT K. JOHNSON – 8/6/2021
        https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

      • AMO length has a range of 20 or more years. PDV is unpredictable. Don’t give up. Cooling is in your future.

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote: Tell them that in 1983 the EPA said in several decades sea levels could rise by up to 10 feet in the next several decades. They’ve risen 3-4 inches.

        So their knowledge has gotten better in 38 years. Has yours?

        What did they say about a coming megadrought in the US west? Did they get that one right?

        Or the 2021 killer heat wave in the Pacific Northwest? Surely they foresaw that one, huh?

        Their prediction on wildfires setting the west ablaze every year now must have been spot on, I’m sure. Why don’t you tell us.

  34. Continuing the analogy with religion or a belief system, it is clear to all that challenges to the “settled science” are not always welcome. Some people have been driven from their jobs. There are sites dedicated to smearing or degrading their reputations. But such events have no place in science so I shall move on.

    Scientists vigorously defend their beliefs. This is clearly true. Can scientists be vigorous and objective and scientific? Of course. But if scientists, cherry pick, conceal data or seek to mislead, then that is a matter of concern. We all know of high profile organisations on the public payroll who fail badly in this respect. Why are there so many temperature records recorded next to the Northern runway at Heathrow Airport, the busiest in the world? Why do adjustments to temperature records almost always have an outcome in one direction?

    Government scientific Institutions need to be seen to be squeaky clean, not biased. How many associated with climate are seen to be biased, not clean?
    The remit of the IPCC is to investigate the impact of CO2 on climate and report this to governments. I haven’t looked it up but that is what it used to be. It assumes that CO2 impacts on climate.
    Perhaps that seems obvious to you. But it means that the rigorous study of the major factors that influence climate was never carried out. It wasn’t required. It also means that the effect of CO2 was a given. It was never questioned. I do not suggest that CO2 was wrongly implicated, but it was put in the frame at the start and the investigation focussed on finding incriminating evidence.

    That set the scene and since then, thousands of scientists have been paid by governments to charge, convict and punish CO2 for crimes against climate. This has had many consequences. The most important ones are this. The science seems to be settled. In reality it has been specified and procured. Politicians have effectively funded evidence of global warming.
    The second and more serious consequence is that the science is all wrong. Who is being funded to find alternative climate mechanisms? Who is being funded to understand alternative GHG theory? Why do these questions sound frivolous when the IPCC is so certain?

    The models run hot. The ECS is so wide as to be useless. The CO2 control knob idea is losing ground by the day as ocean oscillations, are shown to influence or control almost everything. Solar cycles are not ruled out either. We have another 6 year temperature hiatus. The treatment of water vapour is a fudge. It is our most powerful GHG so we ignore it.
    Do we spend trillions on possible Mickey Mouse science? That is fast becoming a real question. Climate scientists can get real or lose. One thing is certain. They have got it wrong so far

    • Government scientific institutions squeaky clean? Not possible, given human nature (desire for more money). Better approach: deep skepticism about the government and figure truth lies somewhere in middle.

  35. jungletrunks

    Nearing peak global CO2 emissions?

    ttps://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/

      • David Appell

        jungletrunks wrote:
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/

        OK but note this only includes CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, and not from land use changes, cement production, or other GHGs.

      • I acknowledge the anecdotal nature of the graph trends, DA, which is why I formulated my comment in the form of a question. But I find lifestyle trend shifts due to COVID interesting relative to the global CO2 footprint regardless. This particular chart I posted doesn’t calculate total inputs (though I dare say as a practical matter that there was, i.e., less cement produced in 2020 too). COVID has obviously influenced the carbon footprint over the last year. How much will lifestyle change permanently effect CO2 is an interesting question.

        But there’s other interesting data intriguing to the question of when peak CO2 is reached. Year-on-year growth change in CO2 emissions also presents a narrowing, and less volatile, range over the last 100 years while atmospheric CO2 accumulated. The measure in the following chart is strictly the year-over-year percent increase, or decrease of humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I consider dwindling yr/yr volatility just as interesting, it’s a measure of technologies effect on CO2 emissions that began well before wide spread AGW policy solutions were implemented, before most people were aware there was a debate to begin with. It’s simply intrinsic to the nature of finding efficiency through technology, efficiency requires fewer inputs by default. The rate and volatility of increasing human CO2 has demonstrably fallen since post WWII.

        3rd chart down
        https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

        Obviously total CO2 discharge has remained at about 35 billion tons since 2012. Asia is the primary reason it hasn’t declined, the free ride politics is stifling, but that’s another issue.

      • David Appell

        jungletrunks commented:COVID has obviously influenced the carbon footprint over the last year.

        Absolutely. But just this week the EIA projected that US energy-related CO2 emissions for 2021 will go up 7% compared to 2020.

        https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/

      • jungletrunks

        “US energy-related CO2 emissions for 2021 will go up 7%”

        US emissions dropped 11% in 2020, that makes the stat the DA posts a net gain yr/yr for US atmospheric carbon reduction.

        https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47496#

        U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions declined by 11% in 2020 – Today in Energy – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
        Based on data in EIA’s Monthly Energy Review, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020 primarily because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions fell in every end-use sector for the first time since 2012. Within the U.S. power sector, emissions from coal declined the most, at 19%.
        http://www.eia.gov

        If the local DA wishes to ankle bite 24/7 at least do it honestly. COVID must be hampering your ambulance chasing business to be gratuitously trolling here. And lying by ommision is also quite sleazy BTW.

      • David Appell

        jungletrunks commented: US emissions dropped 11% in 2020, that makes the stat the DA posts a net gain yr/yr for US atmospheric carbon reduction.

        Suddenly we’re doing a detailed analysis here? Right.

        EIA also projected 2022 will see a 1% increase over 2021.

        I see no point in arguing over a couple of percentage points of a PROJECTION. It’s a silly pedantic waste of time. Point is the large 2020 dip in US CO2 emissions isn’t going to last.

    • Obviously COVID had an impact on 2020, but given that fertility rates are falling for every country on earth and that the global baby boom demographic is firmly in retirement, senescence and decline, it would not at all be surprising if 2019 was the year of peak CO2.

      The effects of demographic collapse on the global economy is a real problem people should be concerned with.

      • jungletrunks

        I agree with all your points, McGee. Also the shift in commuting to work, many will probably work from home on a permanent basis, or work part of the week from home. It will be interesting to see how much the CO2 needle moves as a consequence to this trend.

        Population is a poorly understood metric in climate change as well. A paper in 2017 “Using population projections in climate change analysis” The two leading sources of long-range population projections, the United Nations (UN) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), currently disagree on the most likely end-of-the-century world population by over two billion people. Because climate change policy models are influenced by population uncertainty, this poses an underappreciated problem for analysts. Furthermore, long-range population projections have not been predictably stable over time and climate change policy models have not consistently used one set of population projections.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        I am not convinced global population is going to collapse, at least no time soon. It is true that birth rates are very low (and often falling) in most economically developed countries. But growth in Africa and a few other places will likely increase total population by about 1.5 to 2 billion between now and 2050. The people in the countries with rapid population growth are now pretty poor, but are going to generate new demand for electricty, transportation, and material wealth. Aside from a short term dip due to special causes (recession, pandemic, etc), I doubt peak CO2 will happen for at least a couple of decades, and probably longer than that. Of course, adopting nuclear power in a big way might shorten the time to CO2 emission peak, but so far nuclear power is verboten among most who are worried about rising CO2.

      • Steve F:

        I am not convinced global population is going to collapse, at least no time soon. It is true that birth rates are very low (and often falling) in most economically developed countries. But growth in Africa and a few other places will likely increase total population by about 1.5 to 2 billion between now and 2050.

        Yes, the sub-replacement fertility countries are all in the developed world.
        African countries, though all have falling fertility, still have quite high absolute fertility rates. They also have quite low CO2 emissions. Of course, development requires energy use. It will be interesting to see what happens.

        Geopolitics folks such as Peter Zeihan point out the effect of geography.
        Africa has huge limitations. Impassable Sahara Desert, impassable interior jungle, no navigable rivers for transport make development very difficult, although there is a wealth of natural resources. To the extent Africa can develop, it will occur with energy use, the kind that eco-religious would deny Africans and condemn them to continued poverty.

        The demographic decline of the developed world, including China, is not without consequence, particularly wrt CO2. If working populations decline, the only way for economic growth is through improved efficiency (robots).

        Since 2019 is past, this is an easy relatively near term outcome to subject to test. COVID is still a factor, but within a few years, we can see if 2019 is peak or not.

    • Steve Fitzpatrick

      Very interesting graphic.

      I note that nearly all of the (modest) reduction in total CO2 emissions came from drops in Europe and North America. That may continue, but I suspect there will be at least some return to commuting to work and some increase in non-work related travel, so the drops in those regions may not be long lasting.

  36. ‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

    The IPCC summary for policy makers is the product of bureaucrats, the science precis suffer from selection and confirmation bias. The intergovernmental purpose is political not scientific. To reset communities and economies to some profoundly impractical and unrealizable socialist ideal. Nothing new – just a different vehicle for ambitions that would be socially, economically and environmentally damaging.

    It’s been a long time since I have read anything from the IPCC. But we are pushing global systems into new territory – in a system that is chaotic and with a future that is uncertain. The politically strategic answer is not contrarian anti-science that is frequently quite mad or at least unsophisticated. It is in policy that increases economic opportunity, builds resilient infrastructure and conserves environments.

    • “It is in policy that increases economic opportunity, builds resilient infrastructure and conserves environments.” And socialism by any name and centralized bureaucracies have never accomplished any of that. Free market capitalism has given us unprecedented growing human welfare.

      • 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 ado about nada is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.

      • I usually regret responding to your long-winded diatribes, so I’ll just say: Where did I mention laissez faire capitalism?

      • You are not an anti-government loony?

      • Yes. I am an anti-unquestioning-trust-in-government. Been there, done that, got the scars. Spend some time working with or lobbying lawmakers and you will learn to control your gag reflex.

      • Much is permitted in robust democracies. Not everything is up for grabs. I keep an eye on the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom.

        ‘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.’
        https://www.heritage.org/index/

      • That is the same as saying much is permitted in robust Peoples Democratic Republics.

      • Yes – if you lose the politics in a robust democracy and become irrelevant you are up sh1t creek.

      • The only “robust” democracy is one that has an equivalent of the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.

      • It requires a commitment to individual freedoms that are the core of your constitution. Not absurd breast beating about guns.

        ‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.’ https://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

      • It appears the opposite situation as described by Hayek has developed; progressives are mounting cultural wars to shut down opposing opinions. If you need for me to detail all the methods they are employing, you haven’t been paying attention. Academia and government are examples of organized hostility to ideas that do not fit the constantly evolving and increasingly irrational progressive dogma.

        High-minded liberalism has degenerated into progressive neo-Marxist intolerance and active suppression of others with differing opinions, including personal violence against others. Antifa, BLM and other like-minded Marxists have proven they are quite willing to assault, beat, maim and actually kill people to enforce their will.

        Democracy? Over 80 percent of Americans support increasing immigration enforcement at our southern border. A majority want a wall built. The results? Nada, except for shipping many thousands of Covid19-positive illegal aliens around the interior of the nation. What we get are platitudes about fixing Guatemala’s economic and social problems. It is only one of many current insanities exemplifying the complete disconnect between our governing class and the average citizen.

        Does any of that indicate that any of the radicals mentioned above have your “… commitment to individual freedoms that are the core of your constitution.” Those individual freedoms were codified in our Constitution by its first ten Amendments. Its 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with “absurd breast beating about guns.” It recognized the pre-existing right of a free person to protect self, family and property, with firearms as necessary. Since the document was establishing a new government, it mentioned the need for armed citizens to protect against a tyrannical takeover of said government from any source, interior or exterior.

      • At last a thoughtful if misguided response. Democracy is defended with the rule of law and the will of the people. Not by invoking the blood of patriots. Losing the politics and thus control of the legislature means that the support of the majority is absent. Unless the election was stolen – and that seems more unlikely as time goes by and nothing conclusive emerges. At the very least you should ensure that future elections are unassailably fair and transparent. But claiming you are in the majority and blaming lefty loon ideologue sounds like something a loser says. Frankly – it’s cringeworthy.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote: Academia and government are examples of organized hostility to ideas that do not fit the constantly evolving and increasingly irrational progressive dogma.

        You mean like banning the teaching of ideas like critical race theory, white privilege, institutional racism, Project 1619, and ideas like that?

      • stevenreincarnated

        It’s one thing to have an idea that’s wrong. It’s quite another to teach an idea you know is wrong as fact.

    • David Appell

      Robert I. Ellison wrote: ‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

      From the AR6:

      “The observed slower global surface temperature increase (relative to preceding and following periods) in the 1998–2012 period, sometimes referred to as ‘the hiatus’, was temporary (very high confidence). The increase in global surface temperature during the 1998–2012 period is also greater in the data sets used in the AR6 assessment than in those available at the time of AR5. Using these updated observational data sets and a like- for-like consistent comparison of simulated and observed global surface temperature, all observed estimates of the 1998–2012 trend lie within the very likely range of CMIP6 trends. Since 2012, global surface temperature has warmed strongly, with the past five years (2016–2020) being the hottest five-year period between 1850 and 2020 (high confidence). {2.3.1, 3.3.1, 3.5.1, Cross-Chapter Box 3.1}”

      AR6 Cross-Section Box TS.1

      • This is a mechanism that is neither regional or summing to zero over decades. The warmer Pacific Ocean state that emerged at the start of the 20th century is overwhelmingly likely to shift dramatically – it always has.

        ‘This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’

        ‘Because EEI is such a fundamental property of the climate system, the implications of an increasing EEI trend are far reaching. A positive EEI is manifested as “symptoms” such as global temperature rise, increased ocean warming, sea level rise, and intensification of the hydrological cycle (von Schuckmann et al., 2016). We can therefore expect even greater changes in climate in the coming decades if internal variability associated with the PDO remains the same. If the PDO were to reverse in the future, that reversal would likely act to decrease the rate of heat uptake. Further modeling studies are needed to fully understand the impact of the increasing trend in EEI on global and regional surface temperature, sea level rise, and changes to the hydrological cycle.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

      • Robert Ellison wrote:
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

        You keep citing the same few papers long after they are explained to you.

        All this paper is doing is closing the energy budget. In no way is it saying warming from anthropogenic GHGs isn’t happening.

        Norman Loeb will be the first to tell you that AGW from GHGs is real. I saw him give a presentation in Boulder than spent an hour in his office talking to him about it. Greg Johnson will tell you the same.

      • David Appell has a blind spot. I have no idea why he imagines that I reject greenhouse gas warming. Simply that the total picture is more complicated than he comprehends.

        ‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’

      • Loeb et al 2021 is too new to have had much of a mention – or to feature in AR6. But the conclusion does say that the climate future depends on the unpredictable future state of the Pacific Ocean.

        People like David might ‘explain’ all they like – the fact is that they have been wrong for so long that it’s hard to break a habit.

      • “1998–2012 period, sometimes referred to as ‘the hiatus’, was temporary (very high confidence). ”

        Then what proportion of the warming that followed that hiatus was anthropogenic and what proportion was ENSO? I kept an eye on the ENSO throughout that period and it was consistently El Nino conditions of varying magnitude. Did the IPCC quantify the contribution from ENSO versus anthropogenic forcing?

        If there was no or next to no warming during the 1998-2012 period and ENSO neutral and averaging out, where was the anthropogenic signature?

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote:
        ‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’

        Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists, everyone knows that. The temperature wiggles up and down as it increases over time.

        You get your wiggles.

        The rest of us are focused on the longer picture, the long-term increase in temperature over decades. It’s going up and up — have you noticed? Or are you just paying attention to the wiggles?

        Because I think you’re just paying attention to the wiggles. The wiggles are all you write about. You’re obsessed with the wiggles. You giggle about wiggles.

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html

      • David Appell

        agnostic2015 wrote:
        Did the IPCC quantify the contribution from ENSO versus anthropogenic forcing?

        Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:

        https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html

      • Five year period with a Super El Nino on top of minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age. Since the UNIPCC CliSciFi AR5 they have further dicked with observational records and re-tuned the hindcasts of the GCMs. That was an effort to deceive, not inform.

      • Dave Fair,

        What is “minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age?”

        Since the UNIPCC CliSciFi AR5 they have further dicked with observational records

        You mean adjustments? They correct biases. Scientifically necessary.

        re-tuned the hindcasts of the GCMs.

        Such as?

        That was an effort to deceive, not inform.

        If you have evidence people are intentionally trying to deceive, let’s see it. Nothing you wrote here comes anywhere near showing that — it’s more likely you just don’t like the science, can’t disprove it and find it easiest to accuse people of fraud and deception without evidence. It’s all a big conspiracy, isn’t it Dave. Better watch your back.

      • David:
        1) Warming from the Little Ice Age is manifest.
        2) See Tony Heller for a description of the adjustment game.
        3) UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers described how they shifted off primarily aerosols onto clouds to justify high ECSs.
        4) Real scientists such as Roger Pielke, Jr. are now picking apart the numerous lies, exaggerations and convoluted circumlocutions contained in the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6. Additionally, any reasonably educated, math literate, science-informed and expert report writer (such as myself) readily identifies the tricks employed to mislead the casual reader. Expect more revelations in the coming months.

      • Christos Vournas

        David Appell wrote:

        “Dunno but ask yourself why ENSO years of each variety — La Nina, neutral, El Nino — keep getting warmer and warmer over time:”

        Everyone and their mother knows this, David.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote:
        Warming from the Little Ice Age is manifest.

        What does that mean?

        Tony Heller is a joke. He has no clue about adjustments, isn’t trained in the science of them and has been caught muffing it all up. I don’t take my science from people like him, I take it from experts who publish in the peer reviewed literature.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair:

        #3 and #4 are just vague unsupported claims. Nothing that can be discussed without tangible details. There are a lot of such vague claims in these comments.

      • Norman Loeb and NASA colleagues confirm a robust mechanism of internal climate change centered on the eastern Pacific. Sea surface temperature variability results in a cloud effect feedback that warms and cools the planet. The Pacific Ocean state varies over years to millennia. It shifted to a more frequent and intense warm state early in the 20th century.

        e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml

        They may continue to wave this away as a minor inconvenience – as they have for decades. The question is – how much of the modern warming was natural and how much of that will be lost this century.

      • Robert Ellison wrote:
        Sea surface temperature variability results in a cloud effect feedback that warms and cools the planet.

        A feedback isn’t a forcing!!

        Do you know what a forcing is?

  37. Greenland low end contribution to GMSLR under SSP5-8.5 for 2100 is 0.09 m. Antarctica low end contribution to GMSLR under SSP5-8.5 for 2100 is 0.03 m. Will never be reported.

    Chapter 9 page 7

    • David Appell

      CKid: Why would reporters report on Greenland and Antarctic contributions — their readers don’t care, they care about local and global sea level rise,
      eustatic + steric.

      • The point is that these low numbers don’t conform to the scary scenarios and catastrophic narrative intended to terrify the masses. Reporting the truth about the very low probability of meters of SLR doesn’t get clicks or readership or ratings. It’s too bad journalistic ethics have all but disappeared. They are just propaganda shysters who have become sellouts.

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote:
        Reporting the truth about the very low probability of meters of SLR doesn’t get clicks or readership or ratings. It’s too bad journalistic ethics have all but disappeared. They are just propaganda shysters who have become sellouts.

        Who’s reporting meters of sea level rise?

      • David

        It took me all of 3.5 seconds to find this. 2.5 meters is plural.

        Do your own homework. Try to keep up with the science. It’s fast moving.

        https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

      • More meters, this time from EPA. Another failed prediction.

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg

        It must be a bummer to be made to look bad.

      • David Appell

        Ckid wrote: 2.5 meters is plural.

        That page says, “On future pathways with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, sea level rise could be as high as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100.”

        Is that an incorrect claim?

        What does your homework tell you?

      • David

        2 meters, in Nature no less.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote: 2 meters, in Nature no less.

        Quote the sentence.

      • You can read the Nature paper yourself. All these links prove my point.

      • CKid: I’m not hunting through papers trying to guess at the numbers you’re referring to. Quote them in context.

        12 feet

        This one you took completely out of context — it says “potential sea-level rise.” How is that untrue?

        If you can’t do better I’m not going to respond to these anymore.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David appell – you mention where did “meters” come from –
        “In 2015, the NPCC projected the sea level rise for the mid-2020s, -2050s, -2080s, and for 2100. These projections were calculated relative to the 2000–2004 average sea level, at varying levels of confidence. At the 90th-percentile level—in other words, the level where 90 percent of the multiple forecasts from different teams using different methods fall below it—the ocean is forecast to rise 10 inches by the middle of the decade of the 2020s, 30 inches by the mid-2050s, 58 inches by the 2080s, and 75 inches (more than 6 feet) by the end of the century.”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340215599777

        See also the nature study linked by CK

        David – ask your self – how credible are those studies and projection?

        To get to the 6 ft SLR rise by the 2100, its going to require SLR to accelerate to a pace 15x -20x the current rate of rise.

        You have stated / claimed that several studies show the current SLR for charleston SC and NY to be in the range of 6mm-9mm per year. Rates that are 2x – 3x the historical average for the last 50 years. How credible are those SLR measurements – think of the probability of measurement errors.

      • You cited a table named “Observed contributions to global mean sea level (GMSL) change for five different periods,” Kid. They end in 2018.

        Now you’re citing projections.

        Do better.

      • Apple

        You doubted meters of SLR. I gave you several links.

        I hadn’t gotten to Chapter 9 page 78 when I said scare tactics in the media use meters. Here is what IPCC6 says.

        “ A new study by Garbe et al., (2020) suggests that 6C sustained warming and associated mass loss of ~12 m
        SLE may be a critical threshold beyond which the ice sheet re-organises to a new state, leading to large
        losses from East Antarctica (including the Aurora Subglacial Basin) and leading to a further 10 m sea level
        contribution per degree of warming; other studies also show much higher mass loss per C at higher levels of warming.”

        This is not just a meter of SLR. THIS IS 10 METERS PER DEGREE OF WARMING.

        Talk about frightening people for the sake of frightening people.

        So I repeat. The scare stories of meters of SLR abound. This paragraph will definitely be picked up by the media in the next few years and used for more catastrophic narratives just like the last 40 years.

      • David Appell

        Oh no, now it’s CKid who has lost his cool and turned disrespectful.

        End of discussion.

      • Fascinating. A Trolling Device has been programmed to feign hurt feelings. I wonder exactly the words Kid posted.

      • Here, Kid:

        The decline of the ice sheet occurs in several disjunct stages. Initially, below 1 °C of warming, the ice volume in the quasi-static simulation in fact increases slightly owing to the effect of additional snowfall9, especially in East Antarctica. The influence of enhanced snowfall is, however, minor compared to the overall mass losses of Antarctica in response to warmer temperatures. At warming levels between 1 °C and 2.5 °C, grounding lines in West Antarctica start strongly retreating (Supplementary Video 1), resulting in mass losses equivalent to more than 2 m of sea-level rise in equilibrium and even exceeding that value in the quasi-static simulation (that is, at a warming rate of 0.0001 °C yr−1). The quasi-static curve up to 4 °C of warming as obtained here is con- sistent with Antarctic palaeodata from the past five million years43 as well as corresponding simulations with a different ice-sheet model29 as shown in ref.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2727-5

        Try to read properly before screaming.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair, respond with some specifics and science instead of vague claims and there can be a discussion. Vague claims mean nothing and are a waste of time, a form of trolling of their own.

      • David said “ Who’s reporting meters of sea level rise?”

        I gave several sources plus the Big Enchilada, direct from IPCC6 Chapter 9 page 78,…..” leading to a further 10 m sea level
        contribution per degree of warming; ”

        Not just meters but meters PER DEGREE OF WARMING.

        Apple “End of discussion.”

        Translation. Apple proven wrong again.

      • David Appell

        I gave several sources plus the Big Enchilada, direct from IPCC6 Chapter 9 page 78,…..” leading to a further 10 m sea level
        contribution per degree of warming; ”

        Not just meters but meters PER DEGREE OF WARMING.

        After the last glacial maximum, sea level rose 125 meters with 5 C of warming. That’s 25 m/degC.

        That’s all until you stop acting like a juvenile in high school.

      • David

        You were wrong. Bottom line. And you have yet to show you understand the issue with geothermal activity in Antarctica and Greenland. If it’s over your head, we will get it.

        Pick up your game. Show us you understand the science.

      • David Appell

        125 m with 5 C of warming after the LGM isn’t wrong. Go look.

        Pardon me if I don’t take you as the world’s expert on geothermal under Greenland and Antarctica. LOL.

    • Come on David, come out of your cave. Statements with “could be meters” have been common for decades. You can’t be serious with that absurd question. Even some peer reviewed papers say that.

      • David Appell

        Ckid wrote: Come on David, come out of your cave. Statements with “could be meters” have been common for decades. You can’t be serious with that absurd question. Even some peer reviewed papers say that.

        I get it — no proof required for Ckid’s claims, we just accept them because he says so.

      • Kid, David Appell has developed the persona of a Trolling Device (TD). This TD has adopted the trick of posting inane observations and insincere questions. Treat the David Appell as a TD and avoid attempts at a real discussion or debate.

  38. ‘The purpose of this review is to describe the global scope of the multidecadal climate oscillations that go back at least, through several hundred years. Literature, historic data, satellite data and global circulation model output have been used to provide evidence for the zonal and meridional jet stream patterns. These patterns were predominantly zonal from the 1970s to 1990s and switched since the 1990s to a meridional wind phase, with weakening jet streams forming Rossby waves in the northern and southern hemispheres. A weakened northern jet stream has allowed northerly winds to flow down over the continents in the northern hemisphere during the winter period, causing some harsh winters and slowing anthropogenic climate warming regionally. Wind oscillations impact ocean gyre circulation affecting upwelling strength and pelagic fish abundance with synchronous behavior in sub Arctic gyres during phases of the oscillation and asynchronous behavior in subtropical gyres between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833

    The northern and southern annular mode zonal or meridional patterns are biased to one state or the other by changing polar surface pressure related to solar variability in part. With a dimming sun cooling is indeed possible. With a THC feedback it might be dramatic. Humans adapt to conditions with technology. I suggest that micro nukes might come in handy.

  39. Fear
    In 2014, Joe Duggan started reaching out to climate scientists to ask them a question: how did climate change make them feel?
    “[Professor] Katrin Meissner “It makes me feel sad. And it scares me,” Meissner wrote.
    Prof Lesley Hughes, pro vice-chancellor, Macquarie University
    “I have some very dark moments”
    Dr Roger Bodman, University of Melbourne
    “So, the future, basically, looks bad. Hard to stay hopeful. Change is too slow, too late”.
    Prof Dave Griggs, Monash Sustainable Development Institute
    “I feel scared for the future”

    • Scientists displaying Gretaesque sentiments.

      We should all feel scared for the future when even scientists have succumbed to this world view.

      Have they heard of Jonestown?

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote: Scientists displaying Gretaesque sentiments.
        We should all feel scared for the future when even scientists have succumbed to this world view.

        Maybe the scientists know more about what’s coming than you or Joe Duggan, whoever he is.

  40. The Australian census was yesterday – along with the usual kerfuffle from the religiously irreligious lefty. Someone noted today that the oversight was not to include climate change as a religious option.

    The paper was full of IPCC predictions of fire and brimstone. Pragmatically – Australia has no option but net zero by 2050. Practically we do it with land management and technology.

    • David Appell

      Robert I. Ellison wrote: Australia has no option but net zero by 2050. Practically we do it with land management and technology.

      Glad to see if — if you can get your many lunkhead politicians out of the way. Do it however you can. We all need to do the same.

      • Australia will meet and exceed our Paris commitment for a 50% per capita reduction by 2030. As the Prime Minister says – targets without a plan mean zilch. Wind and solar is not a plan.

      • Australia estimated 2021 total fertility rate: 1.74

        I think you all can back into it.

  41. Pingback: New climate report got you shakin’ in your boots? - Right USA

  42. UK-Weather Lass

    I have never trusted politicians or their views about anything. I have never trusted the political machines. I do not trust modern day media with its painfully obvious agenda and built in bias. They have all conspired to make finding the truth hard work when once upon a time it was a case of reading or listening to all the arguments and making up your own mind what was most likely to be a reasonable assessment of ‘truth’. Nowadays we seemingly cannot be trusted with argument or discussion and face ostracism for daring to even believe that there may be a better way to reach conclusions that may actually work for all humanity. Being press ganged now has a new 21C meaning.

    Policy makers are only concerned with the relatively short term value of a vote. That also applies to their advisers of all types and sizes, their backers, and the whole bureaucracy supporting their framework. Politicians have always told lies as a means to an end and now scientists and other academics and professional classes are doing the same. It saves their job; it gets them promoted; it’s made so easy to follow and only the very strong minded will resist and find relief only in their honesty, integrity and strength of character (the true gifts of life).

    Nobody in the UN or any of its offshoot bodies today will be around in 2100 to answer for their utter failure to act honestly and genuinely for the people they claim to represent now. These so called representatives are too busy enjoying their very privileged lifestyle to bother with the truth since truth could see them in poverty or jeopardy tomorrow. Our politicians let us down over foreign affairs and finances in the first decade of this century and have now added almost everything else to their list of complete and utter failures, but, no worries, they are all singing the same hymn from the same hymn sheet.

    If the UN’s WHO got and is getting so much wrong about COVID-19 mitigation over a twenty month period, then why trust the IPCC to get anything right about climate and/or weather mitigation at all over twenty years plus? And, if there is a problem with a viral epidemic, or our weather and climate, then what are the answers to those problems and where is the evidence that these privileged people know what they are doing other than maintaining their selfish interests? How has locking us up in our own homes or relying upon intermittent energy sources helped us in any way, shape or form? Have any of the bureaucrats really saved lives or are they costing lives and encouraging a truly dystopian future?

    For both a serious virus and serious climate change there should have been global plans in place long ago. For a virus of any danger there should have been a complete mitigation policy to protect the most vulnerable whilst honestly stating to the rest of the population what the serious risks were to people as compared to any other daily risks. For climate change there should, in the last century, have been a serious move towards the development of larger and smaller scale nuclear energy production since that would have tempered any fear that burning too much fossil fuel might just be harmful for humans in the future. And innovation in the nuclear sector may just lead to discovery of other new technologies of great benefit to livelihoods, unlike throwing good money after bad with the insane worship of wind and solar. What we can reason from politics is that the planet is not burning up, Covid-19 is just another coronavirus of which there will be many more, and conceit has never been a good place for the human race. We have no control over Earth. Nature can swat us aside in less than a heartbeat and all our literature from the most ancient of times tells us that including our many religious texts.

    In no case where strong leadership is needed have we seen clear, open and honest policy from the UN or politicians in general. And so the echoes running throughout politics (especially in the west) suggests the agendas on climate, Covid19, and perhaps much else besides, are all false and part of a very misleading narrative being enacted by dangerously self- interested and selfish people who fool themselves by failing to understand that nobody wins in dystopia – nobody.

  43. Geoffrey Williams

    There are some interesting if complex comments on this site and it is beyond my intellect to respond to them. However, I do have an opinion on the latest IPPC report AR6.
    To me it is just more of the same, ie the same as we have received for the last 30 years or more. Admittedly the arguments may be more subtle and to some people more convincing. I don’t see it like that at all. I remember well Prince Charles’ speech to the EU parliament in 1989. The rhetoric and the warnings were the same then as they are today and we are still waiting for armageddon.
    You can cry wolf too often before the mass of people start to see the truth.

  44. Geoff Sherrington

    Problems arise because it has become quite difficult to get publication or publicity for scientific studies that disagree with the IPCC views. For example:-

    On sea surface temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef, no significant change since an 1871 ship survey by scientists. See Trends in sea surface temperature at Townsville, Great Barrier Reef on the blog bomwatch dot com dot au

    On heat waves getting hotter, longer and more frequent, this official wisdom does not stand scrutiny for the 6 Aust State capital cities, home to 70% od the population, using a simple analysis of official BOM records back to the 1960s. Updated version is at http://www.geoffstuff.com/hw6capsjuly2021.docx

    On the accuracy of past temperature data sets, Australian versions adjusted by BOM induce cooling of the early years, hence an artificial warming trend – look around on the waclimate blog of Chris Gillham

    More on the accuracy of historic Aust temperatures, see Gillham again, comparing what was the best data in the 1950s with temperatures from 2000 to now. One can find warming of Aust of no more than 0.8 deg C, not the 1.4 deg C officially claimed.
    http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html

    It is annoying that detailed, inclusive studies like these almost always show significant problems with the quoted official versions. There are more, but readers seldom get interested enough to read and learn from examples like these. Geoff S

  45. Pingback: New climate report got you shakin’ in your boots? – Climate- Science.press

  46. I am very surprised, no one is talking about the, I will call it, late modern peak. In the last decade in the 18th century the people, at least in Europe, were confronted with a warm phase. Temperatures up 0,5 degrees C. You could cross the danube on foot (source: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_R4NMAAAAcAAJ/page/n9/mode/2up ), two winter later Napoleon crossed the frozen rivers in the Netherlands. It is not about the MWP, its about this short time period we have to think about. Do you have data from the US or China? Some say the Fr. revolution was not about freedom it was about hunger bec. of the failed harvest in the 1790s.

    • If you like to look at the historical perspective, take a look at this: https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/The_Curse_of_Akkad.html

      Quote section:
      ““She started going up through the core,” DeMenocal told me. “It was like nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Then one day, I think it was a Friday afternoon, she goes, ‘Oh, my God.’ It was really classic.” DeMenocal had thought that the dolomite level, if it were elevated at all, would be modestly higher; instead, it went up by four hundred per cent. Still, he wasn’t satisfied. He decided to have the core re-analyzed using a different marker: the ratio of strontium 86 and strontium 87 isotopes. The same spike showed up. When deMenocal had the core carbon-dated, it turned out that the spike lined up exactly with the period of Tell Leilan’s abandonment.
      Tell Leilan was never an easy place to live. Much like, say, western Kansas today, the Khabur plains received enough annual rainfall—about seventeen inches—to support cereal crops, but not enough to grow much else. “Year-to-year variations were a real threat, and so they obviously needed to have grain storage and to have ways to buffer themselves,” deMenocal observed. “One generation would tell the next, ‘Look, there are these things that happen that you’ve got to be prepared for.’ And they were good at that. They could manage that. They were there for hundreds of years.”
      He went on, “The thing they couldn’t prepare for was the same thing that we won’t prepare for, because in their case they didn’t know about it and because in our case the political system can’t listen to it. And that is that the climate system has much greater things in store for us than we think.””
      See the last four lines.

      • My current favorite is Roman wine.

        So far contrarians had little to say against:

        https://lerkekasa.no/

      • Willard, enjoy.

        You should try Sicilian wines from around Etna. I hope their vines will survived the 48+ degC temperatures.

        My favorite is my home-made of about 12yrs ago, which I had forgotten about. Nice, fruity, and with a decent kick to it. But there is no way I’m going to consume it anytime soon in the 42deg heat.

        And that’s the last of it. Most of my vines did not survive the lack of rain these past eight yrs. The last I saw the surviving few vines I found there is no leaf growth. The few grape bunches have reduced in size since the vine is sucking back the stored water to try to survive. I looked at the surrounding vines in my locality, better cared for than mine; all are in the same situation. The years of increasing drought are taking their toll. Seven decades ago my patch of soil had a perennial spring; its all cracked earth now.

        Enjoy your wine – while you can afford it.

      • What a coincidence: I just tasted the Marabino Eureka and the Fedelie Terre Siciliane two days ago from a friend who fell in love with Sicily!

  47. Bill Fabrizio

    Steve Koonin in the Wall Street Journal …

    “But two experts, Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens, write in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the lack of detail in current modeling approaches makes them “not fit” to describe regional climate. The atlas is mainly meant to scare people.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-un-united-nations-global-warming-floods-wildfire-stevens-palmer-koonin-11628631428?st=4ajupxy35zbl7sk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    • The meteorological fallacy strikes again!

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote: The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.

        The scientific answer is less than zero.

      • David Appell
        Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists, everyone knows that. The temperature wiggles up and down as it increases over time.
        How very unscientific of you,
        David.
        Almost mendacious.

      • “Less than zero” does not mean there’s no variability, Doc. It just means that natural variability does not swing the way contrarians would like it to swing.

        Almost mendacious of you indeed.

      • angech commented: Yes yes yes natural variability. Of course it exists

        It wiggles. Nothing natural is causing any net warming.

      • Willard | August 11, 2021
        “Less than zero” does not mean there’s no variability, Doc.

        I’m not sure which of you is the most pedantic in the sense of picking up other people’s grammar.
        I suspect you would edge David out.
        No disrespect to David, or you, I like it as well.

        So in the interests of context when David says
        “The scientific answer is less than zero.”
        in answer to RIE’s
        “The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.”

        The answer less than zero is not about whether natural variability is variable, is it, after all it is in it’s description.

        The answer David gave to the question of how much [not how variable]
        in terms of percentage or temperature did natural variability contribute to the warming.

        “Less than zero”

        Is wrong in the context of the paper IPCC AR6 WG1.
        and worse wrong in the context “The scientific answer”

        Were you or he actually interested in the science, ie if either of you had read the paper, you would both have noted that the scientific answer in IPCC AR6 WG1. was not less than zero. It was positive.

        This leads to the sad state of affairs whereby David [and yourself?] would have to admit that you did not actually read the paper, or worse he was less than honest with the truth when he used the term less than zero.

        Apart from that simple observation one would like to comment on the negative correlation used by David here and the so often by AGW in general.
        A negative correlation in science is a warning sign that the person making conclusions has got them wrong. Or has mixed up his positives and negatives somewhere in his work.

        In this case if the IPCC is absolutely sure that natural variation has little impact over the time frame they considered then they have set a benchmark for standard deviation that is either impossibly correct or impossibly loose scientifically.

        It means that natural variability does not swing the way AGW would like it to swing.”

      • I’m not picking on grammer, Doc.

        I’m tearing your logic apart.

        Cheer up: your wild goose chase will keep Ron busy!

    • From the WSJ artikle:

      “The models fail to explain why rapid global warming occurred from 1910 to 1940, when human influences on the climate were less significant.”

      I have nothing against skepticism, but am tired of “climate skeptics” repeating and recycling myths that were refuted many years ago. And I’m even more tired of all the climate politicians on Climate.etc who have nothing to contribute but other than political statements, covid skepticism and that Trump actually won the election.

      When it comes to heating from approx. 1920 to approx.1940 it is well explained and understood. It was a combination of a positive PDO:

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:1950/mean:60

      and a positive AMO:

      https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1900/to:1950/mean:60

      This in addition that AGW began to strike. It is a typical “skeptic” myth that CO2 and other anthropogenic contributions had no effect before 1950.

      But the fact is that the anthropogenic forcing pr.1950 was about 25% of what it was in 2010. And now the “skeptics” can claim that 25 % is insignificant or that the warming from approx. 1920 to approx. 1940 is unexplained.

      • The technical question is how much modern warming was natural. The policy question is what you want to do about it.

      • Rune,
        I have nothing against skepticism
        meaning I have something against skepticism.
        Confirmed by the later use of the word but.

        now the “skeptics” can claim that 25 % is insignificant
        or that the warming from approx. 1920 to approx. 1940 is unexplained.

        Your claim appears to be based on using 2 of about 100 different reasons AGW uses to try to explain inconvenient facts.
        An extremely biased way of doing things.
        Pick two reasons you already know are positive in that time and rely solely on them ignoring the other 98.
        Otherwise known as cherry picking.

        I think that it is you who has made the claim that 25% is insignificant, certainly not the IPCC or skeptics.
        You have provided good evidence that natural variability can have a great impact in 1920-1940.
        Why would skeptics want to dispute that?

        The argument is that CO2 increase provides a modest, probably beneficial increase in global temperature and that the multiplier effects ascribe to CO2 do not exist.
        Hence some not dangerous warming from CO2.
        A little more if CO2 continues to rise.
        Natural variability has a far wider range than the IPCC admits at the moment and reasonably strong inhibitory dampening factors at either end as the temp goes up or down, not accelerating ones.

      • Sverre Bønsnæs

        According to Michael Mann there is no AMO
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w

      • Richard Greene

        There is no logical reason to be confident of any global average temperature compilations before 1979 when satellite data became available as a check and balance.

        Southern Hemisphere surface coverage was insufficient before 1950 and extremely poor before 1920.

        Ocean measurements were mainly in Northern Hemisphere shipping lanes before 1950.

        The sea surface measurement methodology repeatedly changed, with no attempt ever made to measure the sea temperature in one (or more) locations using all different measurement instruments to see whether some of the measurement methodology changes caused a warming or cooling trend.

        I do not trust sea surface data before the ARGO floats were used approximately 20 years ago.

        While lab experiments suggest rising CO2 levels ought to cause mild global warming, the assumption that the global warming since the mid-1970s was caused mainly (or completely) by CO2 has never been proven.

        There are too many variables that can affect the global average temperature to determine exactly what CO2 does.

        So the effect of CO2 is guessed, and asserted — mainly by declaring (without proof) that natural causes of climate change, in progress for 4.5 billion years, suddenly became just “noise” in 1995, as declared by the IPCC.

        When all natural causes of climate change are arbitrarily assumed to be “noise”, the ONLY possible causes of climate change are man made.

        This is junk science, not real science.

        (1) Poor measurements before 1950 — worthless measurement before 1900.

        “(2) Adjusting” inconvenient data (global cooling from 1940 to 1975, as CO2 levels rose, has been “adjusted” from -0.5 to -0.5 C. cooling, as reported in 1974, to almost no global cooling, reported in 2021 = science fraud).

        (3) Assumptions about CO2 stated as if they are proven facts.

        (4) Always wrong predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming in the future, while completely ignoring the actual mild, harmless global warming in the past (1975 to 2021).

      • Use satellites from 1979 and ARGO from 2003. They both cover periods of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and can be directly compared. They are not contaminated by coverage area uncertainties, changing measurement methods, arbitrary adjustments to data, UHI effects, aerosol assumptions & etc. Compared to older methods, device errors are minimized. Additionally, algorithms to estimate temperatures from gathered data are clear and well-justified.

    • Rune Valaker

      To Robert Ellison:

      >>> The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.

      How can I know? Do you know the answer to this question or are you just asking a “Catch You” type question? Is David Apple’s answer correct where he claims that the aerosols have inhibited AGW and that without the aerosols we would have had a further rise in temperature?

      I have a fairly simple approach to this and it applies to GMSL. Had there been major temperature changes in the last couple of thousand years, this would also have had similar consequences for sea level, where we have reliable proxies at least a couple of thousand years back in time.

      Nor can I see what physical mechanisms can raise global temperature in such a short time without involving an anthropogenic contribution. So you can choose from the top shelf, if you have the answer I will gladly welcome it.

      Next question:

      “The policy question is what you want to do about it.”

      And to that question I have to answer with a series of proxies.

      – in 1940 DC – 3 was among the most advanced passenger planes, 23 years later Boing 747 had the 747 ready on the drawing board

      – in 1943 Werner von Braun had already designed the V-2, 20 years later he had already sketched and by and large designed the Saturn and what led to what happened on July 20, 1969.

      – 10 – 12 years ago, a fool named Elon Musk appeared who claimed that the future was electric, and yesterday i received an e-mail from BOS (the Norwegian Mercedes importer) I was informed that the Mercedes EQS has a price of NOK 971,000-. The winter tires come in addition.

      Is it necessary to say more? Since I obviously need to say more, I can also announce that the West must immediately take nuclear power far more seriously, otherwise we risk having to buy it from China.

      • Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years – and most of the early 20th century warming – as a cloud effect feedback over the eastern Pacific.

        e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml

        Policy is another matter. The measure there is pragmatism.

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

        Advanced nuclear reactors are a start. There are many billions being spent on development. But mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.

        Conservation and restoration of soils and ecosystems is of critical importance. The 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. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. Winner of the 2020 World Food Prize soil scientist Rattan Lal estimates that the carbon content of 157 ppm atmospheric CO2 could be sequestered by 2100.

        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.

        There are the Decade of Restoration that started this year and the French 4 per 1000 soil carbon initiative revealed in Paris in 2015 that are more promising solutions than wildly unrealistic and demonstrably nonsensical notions of 100% renewables and banning fossil fuels immediately. But they are solutions that don’t require the social and economic reset agenda that emerges from avowed but impossible certainties of climate catastrophe.

      • Robert Ellison wrote:
        Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years – and most of the early 20th century warming – as a cloud effect feedback over the eastern Pacific.

        A feedback isn’t a forcing.

      • The cloud feedback is to SST that varies over years to millennia due to shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. He tries hard not to get it.

      • Robert I. Ellison | August 11, 2021 |
        Internal variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years –
        The technical question is how much modern warming was natural.

        David Appell | August 11, 2021 at 5:56 pm |
        The scientific answer is less than zero.

        Both using absolutes .
        My take is if the difference is let’s say 0.35 C over 40 years
        Internal variability has to have a range of uncertainty of 1.05 C [at least] in that 40 years.

      • Strictly speaking I said that natural variability was responsible for some 0.3 degrees of recent (last 40 years) warming. Implying uncertainty. The number comes from the Kravtsov et al paper.

        And there is a whole lot more to digest in that comment.

  48. Pingback: Don’t Be Afraid: The UN’s Climate Report Is A Politicized Debacle | altnews.org

  49. Bill Fabrizio

    Rune … I share your concern with any side in a debate that use myths, or otherwise dubious information. And it seems that the climate debate is full of it. UK – Weather Lass posted a nice statement above on politicians and politicization. Suffice to say that with humans, inevitably, the drama tends to overshadow reality. So, it is with great regret that I say we need to pay attention to the drama if only to keep those at bay who would have us view reality through their lens. Regret because, as you said, who wants to keep dealing with the misdirections, etc.

    Here’s something which I hope will give you a chuckle. Human drama … there’s no limit.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/08/11/former-criminal-justice-professor-arrested-for-allegedly-setting-fires-near-massive-dixie-fire/

  50. Jim Veenbaas

    Wow. The first time I couldn’t read the entire comment section. Some really childish stuff going on here. It’s frankly tiring and boring to watch a couple people natter at each other.

  51. Geography and climate
    E. Linacre

    4/’99

    “Summary

    Fair success may be achieved in deducing the location of a place from a given small set of climatic data, using crude empirical relationships between climate and geographic averages. Conversely, monthly mean temperatures can be inferred approximately from geographic information. The extent to which these normative estimates differ from actuality offers clues on the effects on climate of regional features of topography and ocean circulation, as well as on microclimatic effects.”

    Below is the link to the article and to the Graph

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/geo_clim.html

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap16/Image64.gif

  52. I see Steve McIntyre is on the job already about the Hockey Stick. https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/
    I find this stuff hard to understand. Do they care if people trust their work?

    • Rune Valaker

      >>I find this stuff hard to understand. Do they care if people trust their work?

      Who should trust whom? On the one hand, we have all these climate scientists who – in some people’s opinion – only follow orders from the head of the UN to create a socialist world order. On the other hand, we have thousands of scientists – so-called scientists – where at least some of them are “scientists” in the deeper understanding of the term.

      We are talking here about a market where the “skepticism” has been fed with a lot of money from Heartland, Exon and Southen Energy. A market that even on Jutith Curry’s blog can claim that the greenhouse effect has been falsified, or that global sea level rise has been going on for thousands of years, and that what we now observe is not an anomaly.

      I do not consider myself a climate Aramaist, I will handle this “problem” quite calmly. But I’m starting to get pretty fed up with the obvious deniers that Climate.etc is overpopulated with.

      • So, Rune, manufacturing and publishing bogus Hockey Sticks is a scientific endeavor? And I want some of that manufactured skepticism money. Tell me where Heartland, Exon and Southern Company are handing it out so I can get in line.

      • Rune Valaker

        Dave, if you claim that the hockeysticks prepared by the PAGES 2K network is bogus, you can easily show that by writing a rebutal, I think you will find all the information you need here:

        http://pastglobalchanges.org/science/wg/2k-network/intro

        When it comes to money, I suggest you write an email to GWPF:

        https://www.thegwpf.com/

        I can not guarantee the outcome. But GWPF distinguishes itself by demanding full transparency from everyone else, but refuses to disclose from where they get their own money. They also regularly publish articles that pretend to be climate science, but where even an amateur like me easily reveals it as complete rubbish.

      • “obvious deniers”. Rune, I posted a link to the rebuttal you claim to want to see. Don’t know if you’re familiar with him, but he was an expert reviewer for IPCC AR4 (https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/). He is also the go-to expert on details of paleoclimate reconstructions, starting with his disagreements with Michael Mann’s original work, since acknowledged by the entire field except maybe Michael Mann.
        In this link he repeats what he has pointed out for more than a decade, discussing it on every new major publication: many of the critical errors of paleoclimate reconstructions have never been fixed and recur with every iteration – and that they are serious enough to make the results useless.

      • ‘On the one hand, we have all these climate scientists who – in some people’s opinion – only follow orders from the head of the UN to create a socialist world order. On the other hand, we have thousands of scientists – so-called scientists – where at least some of them are “scientists” in the deeper understanding of the term.’ Could be you’re a beginner on this issue. Both sides here are climate scientists. There are certainly not “thousands of scientists” doing paleoclimate reconstructions; the major studies are done by maybe a few dozens of scientists, all very familiar to Steve McIntyre and they with him. He is published in major journals and so are they.
        He tends to disagree with some parts of a lot of their work, but that is no reason to jump into some political nonsense mode (socialist world order, Heartland…). Scientists disagree among themselves too.

      • David Appell

        MikeR wrote: [McIntyre] is also the go-to expert on details of paleoclimate reconstructions

        LOL

      • @David Appell. https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/ Where a Skeptical Science contributer says that McIntyre made a major contribution at the time, and that Mann was unequivocally wrong, and never admitted it. “I don’t think these are minor points. I think they get major points correct.” “The Tiljander debate showed that Mc was right on that issue.” etc.
        In public, of course, Skeptical Science never admitted a thing; David Appell’s comment is similar to their typical obfuscation.
        This ship has sailed. Anyone who followed these issues knows which side won. Then.
        Since then, anyone who followed these issues sees that every so often new studies are published by the same people, McIntyre goes through the studies and points out the reasons they haven’t fixed the issue – and people like Appell are there to pretend that no one in the field takes him seriously. Except in private.
        Don’t be surprised when I ask if anyone is expected to trust their work. Richard Muller from BEST (who is on their side) said this long ago.

      • Nice to see you dropped the numbers after your name, MikeR.

        The Antarctica episode wasn’t about any paleo-reconstruction, and if you’re to re-hash Robert’s remarks, why not quote from his first comment:

        I don’t believe in publicizing someone’s stolen correspondence (even if it were to reflect well on the person), it is simply wrong. On a previous thread [the Auditor] lectured me on “honor”, well what is honorable about this? I was a co-author on a climate paper and I had my correspondence stolen so somehow that gives you the right to publicize it and have hundreds of people read through my personal commentary?

        https://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/#comment-450323

        Considering that Robert’s overall conclusion is that tone is important, what you conclude about trust applies to your own contributions.

        Also, I’m not sure on which side RichardM is on exactly, but he used to be a contrarian, and after checking the data for himself, he reconsidered.

        What about you?

      • David Appell

        MikeR: McIntyre has an unreviewed blog. Does he ever write and submit papers or letters to the journals he thinks are publishing bad papers? That’s how science works. McIntyre knows that. Scientists don’t communicate with one another by blogs, they don’t read blogs, and they don’t take them seriously. McIntyre can pedantically say whatever he wants, his fans will shake their heads and say yes aha aha, no experts will look at it, and on and on. He refuses to participate in the science or act like a scientist. I wonder why.

      • David Appell

        McIntyre also gave my private correspondence to someone, who then published it.

        Robert Way is right, it is a very dishonorable thing to do.

      • Willard:
        This on the Way link from one Geoff Sherrington
        “ Robert,
        Suggest you vacate the field of “communicating the message” and immerse yourself in pure research. Warning – do not try to direct your research according to your beliefs. That is one of the biggest, most frequent no-nos we encounter.”

        Well I larfed

      • @Willard. Hey, Willard! Long time no see. The numbers may return if I ever manage to log into WordPress again. As for Robert Way’s comments, I sympathize. It must have been awful for him, having his honest opinion publicized. I mean that seriously; it was a private conversation, and Skeptical Science tries to present a certain public face, and he is partially to blame for wrecking their propaganda, and maybe they blame him.
        But it is standard journalistic practice to publicize newsworthy things, even though the people they are about don’t want you to. And even when the information was obtained illegally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the publisher is not to blame and the news remains news.
        And you agree with everything I’ve said, when it comes to private info about Donald Trump or anyone you don’t like. This is definitely newsworthy. The substance proves something about Skeptical Science and the nature of the field, and I understand if you don’t like it, but truth is truth.

      • @David Appell “That’s how science works.” Not anymore. And you know that well, but you’re trying to pretend. There are math discussion groups where unknown people have made major advances in the field. Even in my time in math, back in the ’80s (!), anyone with any sense took preprints and emails and any communication seriously. “Your paper has a major error.” No one would have been foolish enough to say, I’ll look at it after you publish the response. Oh, in a reputable journal, with referees… Because we wanted to get it right, not to score political points. You’ve been making this claim for years and it wasn’t true then either.
        And as Way made clear in his private comments, the people in the field do take McIntyre seriously, to the extent that Way says that he was advised to steer clear of the section of the field that McIntyre basically destroyed.
        Could be by now they’ve managed to shrug it off, but – so much the worse for the field. You’re being a spokesman for their public face, but we know what’s behind it. There’s math and physics, and there’s gender studies, and they’re making a bad choice if they prefer their field to look like gender studies. There are sincere scientists doing real work there, and there are political hacks, and the sincere scientists probably ought to get rid of the hacks for their own good and the good of the field.

      • @Willard “Also, I’m not sure on which side RichardM is on exactly, but he used to be a contrarian, and after checking the data for himself, he reconsidered.” Did he reconsider on the parts that he said (very strongly) were unethical garbage? Or did he verify that some other parts of the field were right?
        https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2012/8/2 – at about 50 minutes.
        This is a scientific discussion, and each side can be right about different issues. Political hacks, on the other hand, can never admit that the other side is right about anything. You choose.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        MikeR’s comment regarding paleo reconstruction and treatment of McIntyre – “Could be by now they’ve managed to shrug it off, but – so much the worse for the field.”

        Yes they have shrugged it off – note that according to McIntyre, the bristlecone pines are back in the latest pages2K along with few upside down proxies. repeating the same errors does not validate the HS

      • MikeR,

        You are rationalizing your hero’s behavior. That puts you into the political hack category.

        Thanks for playing!

      • MikeR, get one thing straight: I’m not a spokesman for anybody. I’m not even a scientist. What a ludicrous thing to write.

        Gender studies? WTF does that have to do with the science? Nothing. You talk politics because you can’t talk science.

        Science works the same way it always has — how would you know if it didn’t? Because you studied math a zillion years ago? What do you know about how scientists work now, about what they’re publishing now, about what they’re discussing now, about what they’re thinking now? Anything whatsoever, Mike? What makes you think scientists don’t want to get it right NOW, Mike — just because you don’t like their results?

        Too bad for you. Tough. Deal with it. Whine all you want. Meanwhile the world is moving forward based on the science.

        There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods. None needed McIntyre or cared what he thought. He hasn’t responded to any of them in the scientific literature but only on his unreviewed blog where he delights in taking potshots at everyone.

        You don’t know enough to know who the “hacks” are — you judge based on whether you like their results or not. THAT’s political.

      • David, ad hominins all the way down.

        If you took the time to honestly read and try to understand the various McKitrick and McIntyre analyses you would not denigrate their scholarly work. Mannian hockeysticks and their various clones have been conclusively shown to be scientific frauds. Marcott is probably the most egregious example.

        You are a CliSciFi pimp. Prove me wrong.

      • Oh, and provide a detailed critique of McKitrick and McIntyre analyses. Anything less is CliSciFi evasions and lies.

      • David

        “ There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods.”

        Produce the links.

      • How about the Auditor’s own reconstruction, Kid:

        Padding as Mann did with the Gaspe cedars had a very small, local effect. The M&M sffort to replace with missing values triggered a large response. But it was an artefact.

        https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/03/mcintyre-mann-and-gaspe-cedars.html

      • Wow! Gaspe cedars by themselves prove all the Mannian hockeysticks are valid.

      • Ckid wrote:
        David
        “ There have been dozens of papers that have confirmed the hockey stick, by many different statistical methods.”
        Produce the links.

        Hockey sticks in the scientific literature
        http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

      • David

        What you provided was mostly a list of information that either didn’t provide a link, or studies a decade or more old, or specific locations not global or not covering the proper time period.

        Useless junk.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        Willards comment “How about the Auditor’s own reconstruction, Kid:

        “Padding as Mann did with the Gaspe cedars had a very small, local effect. The M&M sffort to replace with missing values triggered a large response. But it was an artefact.”

        Out of a couple hundred errors in the numerous HS studies, willard cherrypicks an error that has a minor effect on the results, ignoring the 100+ errors.

        Willard thats a strong rebuttal

      • There’s no “error” there, Joe. That’s an editorial decision from the Auditor.

        Nick did what Ed Wegman failed to do, which is to check what the Auditor did:

        One thing not often now mentioned is that in that paper, M&M actually did what many other critics should have done. They repeated the calculation with their criticism made good, to see what effect it had. This was in their Figure 1. They showed the effect of marking those four Gaspe years as missing, and then the effect of using a centered mean rather than Mann’s famous calibration mean. They got a surprisingly large difference, which has been much cited in recent days. This post reports on my investigation of that surprise.

        “But MBH” might very well be the biggest nothingburger in the history of the Climate Ball.

      • > Useless junk.

        Alright, Kid. You’re on. Show us what you got:

        Deming’s cartoon?

        Tony’s storytelling?

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Willard – Again you cherry pick one item out of the few hundred errors in the HS reconstructions ., the one which has the smallest effect

        Kinda like the ex post screening done with the proxy selection in most all the HS reconstructions

        Willard that is a really strong rebuttal – rebut all the errors using the smallest of the errors.

      • Joe, speaking of cherrypicking, have you noticed how the Auditor chopped half of the figure he criticizes?

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Willard | August 13, 2021 at 2:45 pm |
        Joe, speaking of cherrypicking, have you noticed how the Auditor chopped half of the figure he criticizes?”

        Willard – speaking of cherrypicking

        Have noticed the number of proxies that get excluded due to ex post screening? law dome? oroko? mt read? yamal revision/update, just to name a few.

      • Joe,

        The figure you keep harping about does not figure into WGI. Were you interested in the science half as much as you pretend to be, that’d be the end of it.

        You lost as soon as you cried about cherrrypicking. That’s all you got. If you got a better recon, I’m all ears.

        Science marches one funeral at a time. Contrarian zombies are already dead.