by Judith Curry
In a recent invited talk at the American Chemical Society annual meeting, I attempted to explain the climate debate in 15 minutes.
This talk was given in a session on sustainability. Other invited speakers included James Green (NASA Chief Scientist), Marilyn Brown (Georgia Tech) . Our talks were followed by a panel discussion. This was an extremely interesting session, but was not recorded owing to an ACS glitch (you can read the abstracts at the link above).
My presentation slides can be downloaded [here].
Ok, with the new word press editor, no idea how the ppt file will show up. Below is the text of my remarks.
Slide 2 IPCC
The climate crisis can be summarized as:
- Its warming
- The warming is caused by us
- Warming is dangerous
- We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming
- Once we stop burning fossil fuels, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme
A few weeks ago, the Intergovernmetal Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, issued its 6th Assessment report. In response, the secretary general of the UN stated that
“This is code red for humanity.”
Slide 3 what’s wrong with this narrative
In my talk today, I’m going to present you with a different perspective on the climate change problem and how we can approach solutions.
So what’s wrong with the crisis narrative? It is my assessment that
- We’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions
- The complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change is being kept away from the public and policy debates.
- Rapid reductions in emissions are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale
- And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.
Slide 4 97% consensus
Even people that don’t know much about climate science have heard that 97% of climate scientists agree. But exactly what do they agree on? Not nearly as much as is portrayed in the media. Everyone agrees that:
- Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
- Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and
- Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet
However, there is disagreement on the most consequential issues:
- How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans
- How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
- Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
- And how we should respond to the warming, to improve human well being
Slide 5 21st century warming
For policy making, the most consequential issue is how much warming we can expect in the 21st century. This figure from the latest IPCC report shows climate model simulations of global surface temperature anomalies over the 21st century. There’s a large range of warming shown in this diagram, from 1.5 to more than 4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial temperatures. We’ve already warmed by about 1 degree centigrade, so whether the future warming is on the low or high end has huge implications for climate policy. The largest amount of warming is associated with an extreme emissions scenario, SSP-8.5.
These simulations should not be regarded as predictions for the following reasons:
- First, and most importantly, the IPCC does not include future scenarios of natural climate variability. These include solar variability, volcanic eruptions and multi-decadal ocean circulation patterns.
- Second, the IPCC does not assess the plausibility of the different emissions scenarios
Slide 6 Emissions scenarios
There are two primary factors that contribute to this large range of temperatures for the 21st century. The first is the emissions scenarios, which determine how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere, these are indicated by the SSPs. The second factor is the sensitivity of warming to a given amount of added CO2.
On the previous slide, recall that the largest amount of warming was associated with the emissions scenario SSP-8.5. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report regarded the 8.5 scenario to be our most likely future, and it was referred to as the business-as-usual scenario.
However, its becoming increasingly apparent that the 8.5 scenarios are implausibly high. The two lines at the bottom of this figure show projections of emissions made by the International Energy Agency out to 2040. The higher projection shows the expected emissions based on current policies, and the lower projection is based on current commitments under the Paris Agreement. Both of these show fairly steady emissions through 2040, that are much lower than the 8.5 scenarios.
Nevertheless, the most recent IPCC report emphasizes the 8.5 scenario. Not surprisingly, this extreme emissions scenario is the source of alarming impacts.
—-
The second major source of uncertainty is the sensitivity of the global temperatures to a doubling of CO2. For decades, the likely range for climate sensitivity has been between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade, which is reflected by the assessment from the IPCC AR5 published in 2013.
The red bars in this figure shows the range of climate sensitivity from the most recent climate model simulations. The sensitivity values range from 1.8 to 5.7 degrees, and overall are much higher than those from the AR5, whose highest value was 4.6 degrees
The IPCC AR6 substantially narrowed the likely range of climate sensitivity to between 2.5 and 4 degrees, rejecting the highest values from the climate models. However this narrowing of the range is disputed, particularly on the low end. The whole issue of climate sensitivity to CO2 remains unsettled, with a high level of uncertainty.
The bottom line here is some good news. The extreme tail risks from global warming, associated with very high emissions and high climate sensitivity, have shrunk and are now regarded as unlikely if not implausible.
Slide 7 Is warming dangerous
The next area of disagreement takes us away from science and into the realm of values. How dangerous is global warming? The IPCC 5th Assessment Report used a burning embers diagram to portray reasons for concern. The level of concern increases with the amount of global warming. Note that the IPCC does not use the words ‘dangerous’, ‘crisis’ or ‘catastrophe’ in its report; rather it uses ‘reasons for concern.’
Any evaluation of dangerous climate change must confront the Goldilocks principle. Exactly which climate state is too hot versus too cold? Some answer this question by stating that the climate we’re adapted to is ‘just right’. However, the IPCC uses a preindustrial baseline, in the late 1700’s. Why anyone thinks that this is an ideal climate is beyond me. This was during the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the millennia. Think George Washington and the horrible winters at Valley forge.
While the categories of concern in the burning embers diagram seem a bit nebulous, the 6th assessment report focused on extreme weather and climate events. Lets take a look.
Slide 8 Extreme events
The recent IPCC report did not detect any global trends in flooding, meteorological or hydrological drought, winter storms or tornadoes. Trends were identified in heat waves, heavy rainfall events and fire weather.
The report concluded that it is likely that the global proportion of major hurricanes has increased over the last four decades. Global hurricane data supports this conclusion. However, there’s a large amount of natural variability in hurricane activity.
The diagram on the left shows the number of major hurricanes that have struck the U.S. since 1900. The year 2005 stands out as the highest, which was followed by a period of 11 years with no major hurricane landfalls. Also, there were a large number of major hurricane landfalls during the first half of the 20th century, when surface temperatures were significantly cooler
The large amount of natural variability makes it difficult to identify meaningful trends, and even more difficult to attribute any trend to manmade global warming.
The right hand side shows US heat waves, which have been the big climate story this past summer. As the global average temperature increases, it makes sense that heat extremes would increase and cold extremes would decrease. However, reality isn’t so simple. This figure from the EPA shows that heat waves in the 1930’s were horrendous and much worse than in recent decades, even though the average global temperature was significantly lower in the 1930’s.
An important issue is the mortality associated with heat events. Numerous studies have found that there are more deaths from cold events than from heat events, by as much as an order of magnitude. The inescapable conclusion is that more warming leads to fewer deaths from temperature extremes. So which would Goldilocks prefer?
Slide 9 Adapting
So far, the world has done a decent job at adapting to weather extremes climate change. The upper left figure shows the change in yield for major crops, with yields for many crops doubling or even quadrupling since 1960.
The figure in the lower left shows losses from global weather disasters as a percent of GDP. The spikes are associated with years that showed large losses from tropical cyclones. Overall for the past 30 years, there has actually been a slight decline in losses.
The diagram in the lower right shows the number of deaths per million people from weather and climate catastrophes. The large numbers early in the 20th century were mostly associated with tropical cyclone landfalls in south Asia. Over the past century, climate related deaths have dropped 97%.
Slide 10 urgently reduce emissions
Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world is attempting to reach netzero in carbon emissions by 2050. I refer to this as Plan A.
Using the precautionary principle, Plan A is based on the premise that rapidly reducing CO2 emissions is critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate.
The other side of the policy debate rejects the urgency of reducing emissions. They argue that any near term reduction in warming would be minimal and at high cost. An effective strategy requires global reduction in emissions, which is highly unlikely for developing countries.
They argue that its best to focus on keeping economies strong and making sure that everyone has access to energy. And finally, the argument is made that there are other more pressing problems than climate change that need to be addressed with the available resources.
Slide 11 Emissions
In spite of the numerous UN treaties and agreements to reduce emissions, the atmospheric CO2 concentration relentlessly continues to increase
The challenge to getting to netzero by 2050 is illustrated by this diagram from the International Energy Agency. This figure shows the pathways for emissions reductions that the major economies need to take to reach netzero by 2050. Europe and the US have already turned the corner, but they still have a very steep path to netzero. By 2050, global emissions will be dominated by whatever China and India have done, or have failed to do.
The IEA roadmap finds that there is a possible but very narrow pathway to netzero by 2050, provided that there’s a huge leap in energy innovation and major efforts to build new infrastructure. Others find that reaching netzero by 2050 is a social and technological impossibility.
Slide 12 Wicked mess
How did we come to the point where we’re alleged to have a future crisis on our hands, but the primary solution of rapid global emissions reductions is deemed to be impossible? The source of this conundrum is that we have mischaracterized climate change as a tame problem, with a simple solution. Climate change is better characterized as a wicked mess. A wicked problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time. A mess is characterized by resistance to change and contradictory and suboptimal solutions that create additional problems.
In decision making, a problem is associated with deep uncertainty if prediction models are inadequate, there is heavy reliance on subjective judgment, and there is disagreement on desirable alternative outcomes.
For such situations, treating a problem as if its tame can result in a situation where the cure is not only ineffective, but worse than the disease.
We clearly need a Plan B, that broadens the climate policy envelope. By considering climate change as a wicked mess, climate change can be reframed as a predicament for actively reimagining human life. Such a narrative can expand our imaginative capacity and animate political action while managing social losses.
Slide 13 pragmatism
Here’s a framework for how we can get to a Plan B.
In addressing the climate change problem, we need to remind ourselves that climate isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change isn’t the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human wellbeing in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can. Climate-informed decision making that focuses on food, energy, water and ecosystems will support human wellbeing in the coming decades.
We need to recognize that how the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises.
Alarmism about climate change misleads us and panic makes us less likely to tackle climate change smartly.
A more pragmatic approach to dealing with climate change drops the timelines and emissions targets, in favor of accelerating energy innovation. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
So what does a plan B look like? Local solutions that secure the common interest can avoid political gridlock. There are a lot of relatively small things that we can do to reduce atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, that have justifications independent of climate mitigation. Individual countries and states can serve as laboratories for solutions to their local environmental problems and climate-related risks.
Progress can be made on a number of fronts related to land use, forest management, agriculture, water resource management, waste management, among many others. Human wellbeing will be improved as a result of these efforts, whether or not climate change turns out to be a huge problem and whether or not we manage to drastically reduce our emissions.
Slide 14
Encroachment of politics into socially-relevant science is unavoidable. Problems arise from many sources, and scientists, policy makers and the media are all culpable. The issue of greatest concern to me is when scientists filter research results and their public statements of facts with an eye to downstream political use. Governments exacerbate this by funding a narrow range of projects that support their preferred policies.
Climate science is far from the only area of science that has been politicized. Others include COVID19, gender studies, genetically modified food. Cancel culture is alive and well in the sciences, where scientists that disagree with an interpretation that supports desired policy objectives are ostracized, with some even losing their jobs.
Slide 15 Personal statement
In conclusion, a personal statement. I regard my job as a scientist to critically evaluate evidence and to challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence. While I regard manmade climate change as a cause for concern, I do not view this as a crisis or an apocalypse.
This perspective has placed me at odds with the activist branch of the climate science community, who regard my perspective as inconvenient. The academic political pressures from activist scientists and even politicians caused me to retire prematurely from my tenured faculty position.
I’m now working in the private sector, helping businesses to understand and manage their weather and climate related risks.
I am also active in engaging with policy makers and the public. I have a blog Climate Etc. that provides a forum for scientists and the interested public to engage in discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.
JC remarks
Well its been awhile since I’ve had an invited talk in a mainstream academic venue. 15 minutes is longer than 5 minutes, but this is still alot of territory to cover. This is the first thing I’ve written publicly on the IPCC AR6. I have been crazy busy for months, currently exacerbated by hurricanes.
I do have some material in the pipeline for blog posts, i will try hard not to let two weeks pass between posts.
Judith, thank you for a new post. I can’t imagine how you manage it while making predictions for Henri and Ida.
As always, Dr. Judith, most fascinating. I was curious about this statement:
===
” There are a lot of relatively small things that we can do to reduce atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, that have justifications independent of climate mitigation.”
===
Could you name say a half-dozen of the “lot of relatively small things”? Thanks.
And in addition, many thanks as always for your blog and your host of other contributions to the ongoing climate dialog.
Best to you and yours,
w.
(1) Plan your car trips to do those chores about town.
(2) Write and speak up about keeping nuclear power plants operating
(3) Enable the engine shut off of your car when at long stops
(4) Properly maintain your car and heating/cooling system
There’s a start,..
(5) Confiscate the private jets of Al Gore and A. Schwarzenegger
Problem with autoshutoff is it shuts off for brief stops. Very bad. How to predict though?
Thanks, Pete, but I fail to see how those “have justifications independent of climate mitigation” …
Best regards,
w.
Keeping nuclear power operating for longer where it is safe and economic to do so. Lowering carbon intensity through efficiency gains as we have since the 1970’s oil shocks. Reduction of pollutants – including nitrous oxide, sulphate, black carbon and methane. Restoring soils and ecosystems. Reducing energy risk by diversifying energy sources.
The Copenhagen Consensus has 19 smart development goals – all with potential to reduce population growth – and benefit to cost ratios in excess of 15.
John Doe wrote:(5) Confiscate the private jets of Al Gore and A. Schwarzenegger
What’s your proof that either has a private jet?
I don’t expect you to answer, since you’re too afraid to comment under your real name.
I think you ask a fair question Willis, particularly the part about independent justification.
The top of my list would be improved heating/cooling system efficiencies for buildings, to the extent that costs are recovered within a reasonable time frame (5 years?). Adequate insulation, zoned heating, well maintained boilers/furnaces (if applicable), heat recovery air exchangers, passive solar, etc.
For some buildings, in some locations, there are no gains to be made but I think there’s still a lot of low hanging fruit out there. I recognize there are several examples of governments royally screwing up energy efficiency programs. I don’t have a good answer for that, and also note that the vast majority of people don’t have extra cash laying around no matter what the future savings will be.
“Climate science is far from the only area of science that has been politicized. Others include COVID19, gender studies, genetically modified food. Cancel culture is alive and well in the sciences,…”
Not politicized at all, unless you want it to be.
When you don’t like the solutions, when your interests are threatened, when your worldview wants to see another path taken, what do you do?
When you don’t want to give up all that lovely oil money, what do you do?
When you don’t want to be told what to do (e.g. wear a mask and take a vaccine), what do you do?
When your conservative/religious views on sex and sexuality are affronted, what do you do?
What do you do? You fight back against the science and the evidence from your political barricade, using your political arguments….and proclaim “This subject is poilticized so let’s carry on arguing and do nothing!
(*Rubs hands in delight*)
I agree. Judith seems to ignore the high risks of a mass extinction due to human behavior and climate change, by appealing to complexity and whataboutism.
Willis See my comment at 09/ 11:26 AM below
See Fig 1 Thanks Noman
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot. com
Fig 5 sums everything up pretty well.
Judith,
Despite the passage of years, with different reading and research sources, being continents apart, it is nice to note that you and I see these matters very much eye to eye. Thank you for your continuing expressions of reality. Geoff S
The Climate Crisis™ is a very inflamed case of ‘the tail wagging the dog’ science. The belief that climate change determines the frequency of heatwaves, when really the frequency of heat and cold waves determines climate change. Because they are discretely solar driven via the NAO/AO. I will be predicting the Arctic outbreaks for next winter way before Judah Cohen can blame them on a lack of sea ice.
I’m sorry to report my strongly negative review, because I do respect Ms. Curry as a scientist, who has met the cancel culture. But I believe honesty is the best policy. I also regret disagreeing with the comment by Eschenbach, whose great articles at WUWT are must reads.
The pitch is unemotional, and has no passion.
It is not persuasive.
It does not focus on the main point of the climate debate:
Climate Predictions versus Climate Reality
There are no obvious errors of fact,
but it generally fails to address the real problem:
ALWAYS WRONG IPCC PREDICTIONS:
The IPCC has made 32 consecutive wrong predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
The coming global warming crisis predictions appeared to have begun with oceanographer Roger Revelle — Al Gore’s hero — back in 1957.
These predictions have been wrong for 64 years in a row, because the current climate is wonderful.
The planet is greening from more CO2 in the atmosphere.
And Northern regions of the Northern Peninsula have a better climate today than in the 1970s — think of warmer winter nights in Siberia.
No one was harmed by the ACTUAL global warming in the past 45 years.
Has anyone in the audience been harmed?
THE PLEASANT CLIMATE CHANGE REALITY:
There have been 45 years of mild, harmless global warming, including a period from 2003 to mid-2015 with almost no global warming at all.
The best US weather station network, NOAA’s USCRN, shows nearly a flat temperature trend since 2005.
US major (Cat. 3+) land falling hurricane counts were in a downtrend from 1900 through 2020.
US major (EF3+) tornadoes were in a downtrend since the mid-1950s.
US heatwaves peaked in the 1930s.
US droughts peaked in the 1930s.
US wildfire acres burned peaked in the 1930s.
Summary:
IPCCs SCARY GLOBAL WARMING PREDICTIONS ARE ALWAYS WRONG !
ACTUAL GLOBAL WARMING SINCE THE 1970s HAS BEEN MILD, AND WAS GOOD NEWS !
I ASK YOU TO TRUST CLIMATE REALITY A LOT MORE THAN ALWAYS WRONG CLIMATE PREDICTIONS OF DOOM !
“Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.” ~Philip Stott
Classic example of “if can’t solve it all then why do anything?”
There is nothing to “solve” James!
Wagathon wrote:
“Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.” ~Philip Stott
Who says solving climate change requires turning off energy production?
No one I know.
No one at all.
So, you’re saying the occasional polar bear stranded on a floating chunk of ice in the middle of the Atlantic– facing certain death due to humanity’s CO2 – maybe an acceptable trade-off in the modern world?
“ We’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions”
This can’t be emphasized enough. Pretending the control knob theory is relevant doesn’t help gaining support from those who have a modicum of critical thinking skills. If this was purely a scientific question, the complexity of climate would be obvious. Since it’s a political question instead, complexity detracts from the preferred narrative. Marketing instincts are more valuable than just being inquisitive for the sake of being inquisitive.
Ms. Curry fails to change minds because she misses the main point:
(1 Predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming
began in the late 1950s.
The IPCC joined the bandwagon in 1988.
(2) Actual global warming began in 1975.
It has been mild and harmless.
The key point is that the coming climate emergency
is nothing more than a prediction, that has been wrong
for the past 64 years, since Roger Revelle in 1957,
Actual global warming since the mid-1970s has been good news:
Greening the planet and mainly warming colder areas of the N.H.,
mainly during the colder months of the year, and mainly at night.
The large gap between the climate predictions
and climate reality is the main point.
I would spend 13 minutes of a 15 minute presentation
on past environmental predictions of doom, compared
with reality. Every prediction has been wrong.
CO2 doesn’t heat anything.
It creates a partial barrier between Earth’s surface
and the infinite heat sink of space.
It disrupts Earth’s ability to cool itself.
The greenhouse effect, mainly from water vapor,
prevents outdoor plants from freezing every night.
The effect of CO2 is unknown, but appears to be mild
and harmless. The first 100 ppm of CO2 has the
most effect. It is unknown what the next +100 ppm will do,
but no one is willing to say “we don;’r know”
I agree, CO2 does not heat anything. You are comparing CO2 to insulation and all insulation does is slow down the rate of heat loss. This does not create any higher temperatures. All it can do is to maintain temperatures for longer and so the average looks higher, but the energy is eventually lost.
The main point about the atmosphere is that it is not capable of holding enough energy to heat the surface. The mass and specific heat of air and water are the key factors. Do a simple calculation of heat exchange between a volume of water and air. The air would have to be at a very high temperature to heat the water by 1C. The atmosphere does not heat the surface.
I suggest that high economic growth scenarios could – if powered by fossil fuels – drive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to in the order of 1000 ppm. That would indeed be a concern.
Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigating greenhouse gases requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Advanced nuclear engines seem a key emerging technology.
Some of the answer is under our feet. Rattan Lal – winner of the 2020 world food prize and a scientific treasure – estimates that some 500 gigatonne carbon (GtC) has been lost from terrestrial systems. ‘Soil is like a bank account – we must replace what we have removed.’
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates.
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 and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology.
This is far from speculative. It is happening on the ground and across the planet. It is made possible with free markets and economic growth continuing to deliver the progress that they have. There is a dark cultural alternative that views capitalism and economic growth as the root of the problem and government control of production and consumption the solution. They require imminent catastrophe to initiate the transformation of economies and societies. The rest of us require optimism.
Ellison wrote”
“I suggest that high economic growth scenarios could – if powered by fossil fuels – drive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to in the order of 1000 ppm. That would indeed be a concern.”
Pure speculation.
Our C3 plants would have faster growth at 1,000 ppm,
and would grow in more areas as the CO2 levels increased.
The C3 plants would support more life on our planet.
If the global average temperature was warmer at 1000 ppm,
which is an assumption, it might be a degree
or two warmer, which would be no danger at all.
The same amount of warming occurs every morning
in several hours after sunrise, and no one even notices.
The global warming in the past 45
years has been mild, and most affected colder
areas of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the
six coldest months of the year, and mainly at night.
There is no reason to assume the timing and pattern
of global warming in the future would be completely different.
Your “concern” about future global warming
is speculation that completely ignores the mild
and harmless actual global warming in the past 45 years.
‘While I regard manmade climate change as a cause for concern, I do not view this as a crisis or an apocalypse.’ JC
I was echoing this. But I suspect Richard didn’t read either the post or the rest of my comment.
I read the article and your comment, Mr. Ellison.
and resent your accusation that I did not.
.
There is no climate problem that needs ANY concern
The climate change in our lifetime has been good news.
In fact good news since the cold, late 1600s
The only possible concern would be that the mild, harmless warming in progress since the 1970s, would stop, and global cooling would begin.
I guess you didn’t understand my comment.
Global warming is a concern just as Judith says. Richard may disagree.
RIE,
Your promotion of increased soil carbon touches on romantic idealism, in the Rousseau noble savage style. You write that “Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.”
Most soils, when left alone, do not either exhaust their carbon content, nor allow it to grow to a product like coal. They reach a ‘stable’ level of a couple of percent total carbon, some forms more available than others, which varies from region to region and with local conditions. It is hard to define a Goldilocks concentration to target.
If it is correct that we are depleting soils of carbon, then there is theoretical merit in restoration, if only for virtue. We can restore carbon to soils by adding lumps of low grade coal, but experience has shown this to be ineffective and uneconomic.
Any scheme to raise soil carbon concentrations requires the input of work and work generally equates to money. People tend to spend money on investments with the greatest perceived rewards.
Suppose that there is a big effort somewhere, to increase soil carbon. There are various ways to do this, but you seem to concentrate on ways that also increase agricultural yields. Much past effort to increase yields has been through addition of fertilizers, but not all fertilizers are equal. Additions are usually made with a nutrient selected as the most lacking, combined with its cost.
So, in what form do you favor the addition of carbon as a fertilizer? Can you refer us to the responses of agricultural yields after carbon has been added in various forms? Can you show us studies of plant and animal nutrition that elucidate mechanisms and pathways? Studies that compare cost:benefit of selected carbon forms as the fertilizer, versus say urea or phosphate or potash?
It is hard to escape an impression that you are promoting a very old technology, hoping that it will revive because it can be linked to the trendy, modern topic of climate change. Farming methods to increase soil carbon have included horse and cart dragging of seaweed from a beach the farm, then spreading it. Now, seaweed has about the nutritional value of an old rubber boot in NPK terms. I doubt if the seaweed path leads to prosperity.
Is animal and crop nutrition a simple problem or a wicked, complex problem?
Are you promoting old, abandoned technology anew, in similar unsafe style to recent promotion of new windmills for old for electrical generation? What has been suppressing modern farmers from making more money by adopting this beautiful dream of higher soil carbon? Maybe it does not work without promotions and subsidies?
Do you recognize a point where the promotion of faulty ideology needs to be abandoned because it is harmful, or even because better choices exist to solve the problem?
Much of this is quite relevant to the points Judith makes in her 15 minutes.
Cheers Geoff S
“Your promotion of increased soil carbon touches on romantic idealism, in the Rousseau noble savage style.”
I wondered if you were a professional writer?
Farmers are adopting regenerative agriculture globally. Increasing soil organic content is based on photosynthesis of course – with the adoption of management practices that encourage retention. It’s not rocket science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj_RgbhJ7XM
GS
Actually, permaculture and no-till/no-dig agri/horticulture are ways to increase soil carbon which have very attractive features:
1. The amount of work is greatest at the start and decreases sequentially over the first 7 years.
2. The benefits increase continually and incrementally as soil fertility increases, biodiversity increases and water retention improves.
Although these technologies have only been beautifully proven on smallholder scale, there are significant experiments going on at farm scale in several geographies right now to allow successful ‘mechanised agriculture’ using minimal tilling.
You can find really good data on no-dig horticulture experiments over a 10 year period at http://www.charlesdowding.co.uk . The data on yields are now being added to through collaboration with soil scientists to investigate soil ecology.
The effects of no-till agriculture are most prominent in three arenas:
1. Reduction in weeds without the need for fertilisers like glyphosate.
2. Superior response to dry periods of weather.
3. Better drainage during sustained rainfall events.
I can personally vouch for the fact that this works as I have maintained a no-dig vegetable garden now for 7 years and the improvement in soil structure and yields is only too clear.
“I suggest that high economic growth scenarios could – if powered by fossil fuels – drive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to in the order of 1000 ppm. That would indeed be a concern.”
I don’t know about that…
But everybody would be able to get a ready good crop from the tomatoes they grow on their patios.
I was fortunate to catch most of the symposium and all of Prof. Curry’s presentation, which was very good. Just a coincidence that this symposium was 10 years, almost to the day, that Prof. Curry and others presented (remotely!) at symposium held in Denver at another ACS meeting. For a walk down memory lane try this:
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/24/acs-webinar-on-climate-change/
Thanks Judith! Hope the air in Reno has cleared a bit,
https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/24/acs-webinar-on-climate-change/
Deja vu, or for the Alvin Lee fans here, “10 Years After”, an earlier presentation at an ACS meeting by Prof. Curry.
> And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.
This, of course, is a claim often made but NEVER validated. What societal problem is less solved due to the ficus in climate change?
The irony, of course, is that the same people who make this claim would be likely to be the first in line to block any resources from being fivetyed to addressing other societal problems.
> And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.
This, of course, is a claim often made but NEVER validated. What societal problem is less solved due to the focus on climate change?
The irony, of course, is that the same people who make this claim would likely be the first in line to block any resources from being diverted to addressing other societal problems.
Joshua, perhaps your reading skills have suffered. Hundreds of scientists, writers and even blog commenters have written at length about how the top-down approach to reducing carbon emissions will impact other societal problems.
Global GDP is currently about 84 trillion US dollars. A good portion of that is spent on food, shelter, healthcare and other things recognized as necessities. Some of it goes to what is perceived as luxury goods and services.
Including aid for Covid, the world $161.2 billion on aid in 2020, a record high. If that looks like a stingy low percentage, it is. It is also an indication of what the world has been prepared to give in aid to date.
You could bring relevance to this conversation by preparing a top-down budget that includes the trillions required for climate mitigation and adaptation. Show what budget items we will have to cut or how much various national debts will need to increase through 2030 and 2050 to pay for it. Or more optimistically, show how climate mitigation and adaptation will spur enough economic growth to cover the costs.
Neither the IPCC nor anyone else to my knowledge has done this–Stern tried but used horrible starting assumptions that have already been rendered obsolete.
You’d be doing the world a favor. Might even be more fun than complaining about how others in the debate don’t satisfy your various criteria for conversation.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/02/california-coastal-commission-goes-berserk-mandating-future-coastal-sea-level-rise-hype/
The California Coastal Commission has established that the state must plan as a minimum for 3.5 feet of coastal sea level rise over the next 30 years. That will cost billions. Are you sure that these billions could not be used to solve societal problems?
Tom –
Your response isn’t on topic with my comment. That happens. Sometimes I’m not clear. Sometimes folks just missed something I said.
Sometimes I take time to try to work with responses to get a discussion going that’s in alignment.
Given your track record with me, that doesn’t seem like a worthwhile expenditure of time.
Try reading what I said again and see if you have a response that’s on topic. If so, that might signal that further exchange could prove fruitful.
Lonborg has listed half-a-dozen areas that should have more priority than climate change mitigation.
Lomberg has identified many higher priorities for limited resources. The ruling economic principle is opportunity cost. Joshua’s notion that his assertion that no one has proved – in essence – opportunity cost is the topic is risible.
Roger –
> Lonborg has listed half-a-dozen areas that should have more priority than climate change mitigation.
Because he’s of the opinion that there are other higher priority issues doesn’t imply that absent focus on climate change advancement on those other issues would accelerate.
This is a basic logic problem and it’s amusing that no one who’s responded has even remotely addressed that logic problem.
It’s particularly interesting since, in a general sense, those who most strongly object to the focus on climate change are those who are most resistant to spending more resources to solve those other problems.
While finite resources is a real problem, it’s not like we don’t make more progress on hunger because of the focus on climate change. We don’t make more progress on hunger because (1) it’s a very complex problem and (2) the will to address hunger is lacking. We have all the capability to end hunger tomorrow if the will were there. Finiteness of resources isn’t what prevents us from solving hunger. Nothing other than the lack of will, in the end, is what keeps the problem from being resolved. Even the real difficulties that exist could be resolved with greater will.
Less focus on climate change won’t be some magical balance fairy that then manufactures the will to solve other (solveable) problems.
I object to the notion that 100% wind and solar solves anything. Or that climate change is the biggest challenge of the day. And that there are not a number of other, more fruitful, synergistic approaches possible to fix environmental and social problems.
e.g. – https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html – https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
The 2010 Hartwell Paper proposed ‘that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’
I just can’t see that Joshua has ever offered up anything similarly constructive.
One billion people in poverty with no electricity
Air pollution over large Asian cities.
Those are real environmental problems
getting no attention from so called environmentalists.
Notice two responses, neither of which offered any evidence to show that focus on climate change materially diminshes progress on ANY other social problem.
That other problems exist is a given.
Whether other problems are more deserving of attention or more easily resolved certainly is a reaonable discussion and I, for one, don’t rule that out in the least.
But this constant refrain, that focus on climate change blocks progress in other areas, is often made but NEVER validated.
So the question is why this clakm is often made, and why people think that expressing antipathy towards others, and exploiting social problems to do so, is an effective strategy.
Resources (money / labor) used for climate change is NO LONGER AVAILABLE for other things. The economic concept is “opportunity cost”. Your thought process makes no sense.
Richard –
> Resources (money / labor) used for climate change is NO LONGER AVAILABLE for other things.
There are two basic problems there, as I see it.
The first is that we could say that about anything.as a theoretical construct. Spending on defense is a great example. So why single out climate change?
The second is that what I asked for was actual evidence, not a theoretical supoositon, that what gets spent on climate change reduces what gets spent on addressing other social problems:.Evidence that’s what actually happens. Let’s just start with your reasonkng as to why, absent spendkmg on climate change, more would get spent to address other social problema. What evidence do you see that’s the case? Where do you see the causal linkage? How do you know that absent spending on climate change, there wouldn’t be EXACTLY THE SAME level of resistence as there is currently for spending on other social problems? How do you know that the (incredibly complex) process by which decisions are made for spending on other issues aren’t made based on how people feel about spending in those issues, specifically? Where do you see, in the decision-making process, people saying “Well, we’d surely support more soending in X if we inky spent less on climate change? Pleas explain which issues, specifically, you think would be more completely addressed absent spending on climate change.
Joshua’s comments are acts of cultural warfare aimed at the incorrigible other group. The language betrays it.
He distracts with pettifogging plaints from broader consideration of practical solutions to the social and environmental issues discussed in the links I provided.
Iriai is a Japanese word meaning to enter into the joint use of resources. There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?
FWIW, I suspect butthurt is the answer
Joshua I didn’t see a reply button on your next comment so I’ll respond here:
You have asked for something that is impossible to provide.
You have asked for proof of what governments would spend money on in the future if they stopped spending money on climate change.
No one can predict or prove what will happen in the future … just like the IPCC has failed to predict the future climate … for the past 32 years.
In case you haven’t noticed, leftist politicians such as the Biden Administration / Congress, will spend every dollar of tax revenues they receive, and borrow a lot more money for even more spending.
Money spent on climate change is money spent on a non-existent problem.
Money spent on defense is money spent on “insurance” against an attack.
We have 45 years of experience with actual global warming.
It was nothing like the rapid, dangerous global warming that has been predicted since the late 1950s.
So there is no climate problem that must be solved.
Not that the US alone could solve the problem.
I can’t tell you what politicians would spend the money on in the future if they stopped spending money on climate change (subsidies, tax breaks, loans, mandates forcing utilities to spend their money, and raise electricity prices).
But I can predict, with high confidence, that leftist politicians would find SOME WAY to spend every dollar they can get their hands on.
Trump / Congress was pretty good at spending money too.
Such tedious plaints and irrelevant calumny repeated obsessively is the reason I don’t generally bother with Joshua’s comments.
Richard –
> You have asked for something that is impossible to provide.
So then you and I agree that there’s no validation for the following claim from Judith:
And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.
Joshua claims that those who hold antithetical views on climate change are those most unlikely to support health, nutrition and education goals. Purely unjustified cultural warfare from a culture warrior. Economic realists look for bang for the buck.
‘The Post-2015 Consensus Project brought together
renowned experts from the UN, NGO and private sectors with 60 teams of economists producing 100+ research papers to establish the most effective targets
for the post-2015 development agenda within the UN
Open Working Group’s 22 core issue areas.’
https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/post2015brochure_m.pdf
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.
Getting there requires cheap and abundant energy. We could spent trillions on wind and solar and achieve very little. Or spend a few billions on accelerating deployment of safer, more proliferation resistant, more efficient and producing much less and more tractable waste and cheaper, modular nuclear engines.
Chief –
Usually I don’t bother correcting your nonsense, but I’ll take pity on you this time.
> Joshua claims that those who hold antithetical views on climate change are those most unlikely to support health, nutrition and education goals.
Not in the least. First, I was speaking generally. Libertarian types (of the type we have in the US, if not libertarians like yourself) tend to resist focus on climate change as well as resist actually doing something about other “societal” problems.
Second, it isn’t that they wouldn’t support “goals,” it’s that they tend to disfavor SPENDING towards goals. They disfavor international support for addressing those goals and they disfavor domestic spending.
Again, this discussion takes place in the context of some strange notion of a zero sum relationship between focus on climate change and focus on other problems.
There’s no reason why some generic “support” for health, nutrition, and education goals suffers because of a focus on climate change. There’s an endless reservoir of generic “support” on those issues.
Money and other concrete resources, not so much. But there’s no universal law that says that “support” on one issue only comes at the expense of “support” for another issue.
At any rate, it’s amusing how you chase me around and feel compelled to respond to me (while laughably claiming to not read my comments) under the guise of responding to some audience rather than having a discussion with me. I attribute that behavior to butthurt.
Anyway, you can talk to me, Chief. Really. Don’t be afraid.
And as always, thanks for reading. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.
It’s particularly interesting since, in a general sense, those who most strongly object to the focus on climate change are those who are most resistant to spending more resources to solve those other problems.’
This is the unproven observation I class as cultural warfare. The irony is that Joshua is unaware of the irony. Thanks for responding Joshua – but I generally prefer to talk past you to brighter and more balanced minds to raise points that you pointedly avoid.
Joshua’s ‘topic’ was unsupported and demonstrably untrue – a claim that in effect there is no opportunity cost. That we can spend whatever is required on one issue without neglecting anything else. Unless one is a true believer in ‘new economics’ and think that governments may print cash with impunity. A particularly dangerous delusion of the neo-progressive. He defends his ‘topic’ with a moving goalpost strategy.
The economy is a zero sum game unless productivity increases. Philanthropy is a zero sum game as there is competition for limited funds. Aid is a zero sum game for the same reason. What Lomberg argues for is an economic cost/benefit approach to assigning priorities for government spending and international aid. Something Joshua dismisses summarily as Lomberg’s opinion but for which he compiles considerable peer reviewed research.
Ellison 1
Joshua 0
Chief –
Handwave towards some theoretical opportunity cost all you want but you have zero evidence that “support” on any other societal problems is diminished in some material way by focus on climate change.
Meanwhile, the policy of the Libertarian Party in the US states opposition to foreign aide. If course, there’s a principle behind that position and that doesn’t mean libertarians don’t “support” the “goals” of addressing societal problems. Which is precisely why I never claimed that, as you mistakenly asserted.
BTW, some friendly advice : if you want to avoid making such foolish mistakes, you should quote me when you’re wishing to address something i said. Just making stuff up and attributing it to me just makes you look foolish – which conflicts with the grandiose image you try to project.
Limited resources is not remotely theoretical. As I said, when the emphasis is shifted from problems to solutions to problems it allows for cost benefit analysis and the identification of priorities. It also allows for a gap analysis – what are feasible solutions and how comprehensively do they address the problem.
Joshua provides no solutions – just the habitual disparagement of others on the basis of specious ideologically based sophistry. We haven’t proved that magical thinking on climate change distracts from other problems Joshua insists. And that the libertarian party in the US objects to foreign aid – without much support or success. Seems to be the thrust of his contribution.
So what. It is self evident that climate monomania infests the public space to the exclusion of much else. But that is beside the point.
Chief –
> Limited resources is not remotely theoretical. .
Once again, a bad faith characterization of what I said, plus just flat out wrong as a characterization of what I said. I didn’t say that “limited resources” is theoretical. In fact I said THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
Once again, if you quoted what I said you would save yourself from appearing so foolish.
Look, I really do appreciate that you’re constantly reading my comments. I can’t tell you how much it means to me. But when you respond to my comments, as you so often do, please quote what I say – as it would make a reasonable discussion possible (and make you somewhat less likely to appear foolish).
I can only surmise that your insistence on constantly reading and responding in bad faith is explainable by butthurt.
Chief –
Here’s what I said:
> While finite resources is a real problem, it’s not like we don’t make more progress on hunger because of the focus on climate change.
Here was your comment in response to me (while childishly pretending that you were responding to an audience, of course).
> Limited resources is not remotely theoretical. .
Because I said this:
>Handwave towards some theoretical opportunity cost all you want but you have zero evidence that “support” on any other societal problems is diminished in some material way by focus on climate change.
Stop just responding because you’re butthurt. The foolishness of your responses only makes it worse.
‘While finite resources is a real problem, it’s not like we don’t make more progress on hunger because of the focus on climate change.’
So says the culture warrior with his endless pettifogging plaints and cancel culture posturing.
What Lomberg has said is that existing ‘solutions’ to climate change are hugely costly for very little benefit far off in the future – if at all. Those actions are a low priority. But there are more strategic approaches to climate change that could change the equation. Innovation on cheap and abundant low carbon energy brining with it global productivity benefits and economic growth for one. There has been substantial progress on poverty – much more from economic freedom than philanthropy. That’s the sound foundation for further progress.
Chief –
> There has been substantial progress on poverty – much more from economic freedom than philanthropy. That’s the sound foundation for further progress.
Even if we assume that’s 100% true, that still doesn’t make the case that progress on poverty or any other social problem has been materially diminished by focus on climate change.
Which is why you write comment after comment, some muacharacterizing what I’ve said, and still provide no actual argument.
Because none exists and you don’t want to admit it.
But as always, thanks is for reading. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.
Seems like an endless spiral with Joshua ultimately disappearing up his own arse. His complaint is frivolous at best and he has added nothing of any substance – well – ever in my opinion.
Compare and contrast where this started with that latest assertion by aspersion from the trifling culture warrior.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/03/15-minutes/#comment-959120
Judith
As one more voice from your potential audience of almost 8 billion worried people on this planet – THANK YOU for your courage in speaking your “qualified to comment” truth. The fear mongering out there is really scary.
50 years ago I studied chemical engineering – then 20+ years in the corporate world – followed by almost 3 decades as a strategic vision and planning facilitator with organisations around the world.
My question is simple – to elicit truth signals from the loud, fear inducing human activity caused global climate change background noise..
Our planet’s climate has experienced continual change for 4600 million years.
Yes – the industrial age has relatively recently put an extra one molecule of CO2 amongst an existing 8300 molecules of surrounding atmosphere.
And yes – that extra molecule of CO2 can absorb infrared heat re-radiated by the Earth and can thus warm the 8300 neighbouring atmosphere molecules..
Even though those 8300 air molecules can also radiate away that additional heat – we are assured “the science is in” – the ambient atmosphere temperature will rise by multiple degrees.
We are all doomed. Be fearful.
As a metaphor, I imagine trying to warm 1cc of milk amongst 8 one litre cartons of milk so that all the milk heats up – despite that milk constantly radiating that extra heat out into the surrounding kitchen air.
Can you explain – so I too can explain to clients – how one extra molecule of human activity released CO2 can sustainably heat up 8300 molecules of atmosphere?
That is my question.
Please keep holding your truth torch high – and guard your flanks. The fear mongers are playing hard ball. They won’t appreciate your experienced voice raining on their fear mongering parade.
Us mere citizens do !!
Again – THANK YOU.
David Powell
Physics says that oceans and atmosphere will warm with more greenhouse gases until a transient energy equilibrium is established at the top of the atmosphere – where all power flux is electromagnetic.
The amount of future warming is the question, for which the answer is not known.
I submit that this planet’s climate has never been in equilibrium, and never will be. “Transient equilibrium” is an oxymoron.
It says no such thing. It says that would happen if nothing else was going on, including negative feedbacks. An abstraction is not a prediction.
Exactly so, David.
When the state of a system is postulated/assumed, all conditions necessary to attain that state must be carefully considered and validated. Earth’s atmosphere cannot be considered in isolation from its interactions with the systems with which it exchanges mass, momentum and energy, and from variations within the atmosphere itself.
Postulated/assumed states are significantly different from consideration of the continuous local-instantaneous physical phenomena and processes occurring within and interactions between subsystems.
I’m with Ellison.
Tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling follow directly from radiative transfer physics.
The Arctic maxima of warming follows indirectly from tropospheric warming and lower tropospheric humidity increase for a constant amount of meridional mass exchange.
However, there are significant discrepancies in observations and climate model predictions about climate model predictions of wind, humidity and clouds.
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
Because of the understood limitations of models to predict atmospheric dynamics, there is no basis of validity in predicting changes of storms, droughts, floods, and the other scary phenomena which the unscrupulous are attempting to use to hijack amygdalas.
As above, somethings are still predictable results of global warming.
Manabe has indicated that precipitation at high latitudes should increase. This would make sense, because, if humidity as modeled increases globally, a constant amount of merdional exchange would still lead to increased water vapor at high latitudes, which would precipitate.
Where I’m less certain is Manabe’s statement that subtropical precipitation might decrease. He argues that this would result from decreased water vapor. Unlike increased polar precipitation which would occur if the dynamics of exchange were unchanged, decreased subtropical water vapor does NOT follow directly from radiative transfer, -or- follow indirectly from global warming. Instead, subtropical humidity decrease would require a change of dynamics, something that the general circulation models appear to fail at, even though that’s what they’re designed to predict.
When perturbed the system tends to energy equilibrium at TOA due to the Planck feedback. But never quite gets there as the system is always changing.
4.5 billion years of climate change
with no human input.
Never an equilibrium.
No “normal” temperature.
Just a judgement on whether the current temperature / climate is good.
I say the current climate is the best climate for humans, animals and plants since the late 1600s, and we should be celebrating, not fearful
of some imaginary climate crisis in the future.
If the interglacial ends, that would be a climate crisis.
A degree or two warmer in the next 100 years — that’s no crisis, not even a problem.
Thank you, Judith, for everything you do!
Slide 10 says:
Reducing CO2 emissions is critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate.
Renewable energy is preferred particularly solar and wind.
Indeed that’s the conventional wisdom, spurred on by very successful renewables propaganda. But elimination of fossil fuels will call for roughly a threefold rise in electricity generation plus commercialisation of an entire suite of presently unknown new electrification technologies. That’s because in the USA (as here in Australia) only 38% of fossil fuel consumption occurs in power stations. The other 62% goes into hundreds of different uses – transport is of course a large one. To clean up emissions they all need electrification. Overall the barriers to net zero emissions are huge, especially if solar and wind are the means of choice. The safest prediction is that it’s not going to happen. Which leaves learning to live with climate change and hoping it’s not too bad.
“Which leaves learning to live with climate change and hoping it’s not too bad.”
There is no need to hope.
We already know.
We have ALL lived with climate change for our entire lives.
CO2 levels rising for our entire lives.
Temperatures rising for the past 45 years.
No one was harmed.
Colder areas of the Northern Hemisphere had the most warming, mainly in the colder months of the year, and mainly at night.
The planet is greening.
That’s climate change reality.
We have eight billion witnesses to some, or all, of the warming in the past 45 years.
The IPCC spouts always wrong scary climate change predictions — fairy tales to scare adults. They have no credibility !
Fantastic post. It’s close to criminal to not have this on video, so I hope 2 or more cameras will be present next time to ensure that people around the world can see and learn from these presentations and talks.
Thank you for staying true, Judith
Actually there is not that much “uncertainty” once we identify the “mistakes” in ECS estimates and consider their impact. Noteably we have this little gem:
“The newer estimates of radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 are between 3.5 and 4.1 Wm−2 with the relevant species and various overlaps between greenhouse gases included.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf
Opposed to this claim by Wiijngaarden, Happer (2018):
“..with all the other greenhouse gases at their standard concentrations. Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause a forcing increase .. of ∆F{i} = 3.0 W m−2”
So the IPCC claims allowing for overlaps would yield 3.5 to 4.1W/m2 2xCO2 forcing, while WH2018 say (only) including overlaps with other GHGs drops 2xCO2 to only 3W/m2. Why this dissent?
I can actually reproduce both figures with modtran and what the IPCC says is a straight forward lie. You get 4W/m2 without overlaps and a surface emissivity = 1, 3.7W/m2 equally without overlaps but a more realistic surface emissivity = 0.97. Allowing for the overlap with other GHGs, dominantly vapor, it is indeed only 3W/m2, as HN2018 have it.
However that is only the onset to a much deeper problem. Why does the overlap with vapor have such a severe impact of 2xCO2? It is about the net-forcing of CO2 and how much emissions there were without it. Due to vapor these emissions will be lower than that of a perfectly emitting surface, otherwise assumed, so that the net GHE of CO2 is lower, but also that of a doubling of CO2.
But vapor is not the only factor mitigating emissions underneath the CO2 band. Surface emissivity is not 1, nor 0.97, but only about 0.895(!!), as we know from analysing the spectral hemispheric emissivity of water. Then we have clouds, meaning another important overlap to account for. Allowing for all of it, 2xCO2 is no more 4, or 3.7, or 3, but only 2W/m2! Just enough to drive temperatures by 0.53K.
This little “mistake” or “omission” to account for real conditions is responsible for over half of ECS estimates, as any feedbacks will only react to this base perturbation.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
Incentives for the innovation absolutely necessary to achieve Netzero are blunted by policies that subsidise today’s renewables into existence. This also means we are spending vastly more money supporting today’s inefficient renewables technology, than we are on the innovation so desperately needed/
So what we should do is scrap all government support for renewables operators and put all/some of the money saved into R&D.
Punksta comment – “This also means we are spending vastly more money supporting today’s inefficient renewables technology,”
Renewables are very efficient – presuming you are using LCOE (levelized cost of energy) as your basis to measure efficiency. Of course, anyone using LCOE doesnt have a clue about the true cost.
Yes, ignoring the external costs they impose does make them look efficient.
The warm don’t care about climate, they care about virtue signaling.
The “climate chancellor” issues press releases about renewables and pays for a Russian Natural gas pipeline.
She is celebrated for shutting down zero emissions energy plants (nuclear) and her approval of natural gas power for factories is ignored.
The activists’ “plan” in north america is to heat New York City and Vancouver with solar panels, at night, to offset one or two percent of the increase in emissions they specifically permitted in China.
30% of Americans live in states with “100% Renewable” mandates that 100% of scientists know are pure fantasy- therefore those states are labeled the “pro-science” states by the media.
Government resources actually are finite and the “pro-science” crowd ignores statistics- particularly demographics.
The reason the “climate chancellor” is doing these things is because she rules a nation of old people that expect a pension she hasn’t funded that she expects to pay for by building cars in Germany. All of her EU friends are in the same or worse boats.
“100% Renewable” mandates that 100% of scientists know are pure fantasy- therefore those states are labeled the “pro-science” states by the media.””
But – But – but Mark Jacobson, Skeptical science and other followers such as Appell believe that 100% renewable power can electrify the USofA.
Back to reality
I recently read JD Unwin’s fascinating Sex and Culture
https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Culture-Joseph-Daniel-Unwin/dp/1979867046
( free here: https://archive.org/details/b20442580/page/n5/mode/2up )
In this long book, Unwin cites detailed historical correlates of the rise and fall of civilizations with sexual mores and other cultural criteria. It’s definitely not for a 15 minute talk.
How on earth is this relevant to climate change?
1. Weather Control In the book, Uniwin categorizes cultures, from lowest to highest, into zoistic, manistic, deistic, and rationalistic. One aspect of these levels was how individuals reacted to ‘natural’ versus ‘super-natural’ events. Zoistic cultures reacted on biological needs in the immediate and individual and did not reflect on causation of events. Manistic cultures tended to have ‘shamans’ or ‘priests’ which interpreted supernatural events and engaged in ‘magic’ or other rituals to provide a sense of control and comfort against harm. Deistic cultures had a more specific conception of eternal god(s) to explain the ‘unnatural’. Finally, rationalistic cultures applied reason to explain as much as possible, which increased the ‘natural’ and reduced the amount of godly ‘unnatural’.
What I find interesting is that Unwin observed that the more primitive manistic cultures tended to have ‘priests’ or ‘magicians’ to apply Weather Control to protect the population from weather they could not otherwise explain as natural. An example of Unwin’s survey is here:
https://archive.org/details/b20442580/page/82/mode/2up
To be sure, some of ‘climate change’ belongs to rationalistic culture ( radiative forcing, increased global mean surface temperature, decreased stratospheric temperature, maximal Arctic temperature increase, are all grounded in theory and confirmed by observations ). At the same time, other imagined climate change phenomena, including the kinds of events manistic cultures sought magic comfort from ( tropical cyclones, floods, droughts, tornadoes, etc. ) are not supported or even contraverted by theory or observation.
Populations and maybe even individuals can exhibit a range of thought and behavior correlating to Unwin’s cultures. How much of ‘climate change policy’ is an appeal to magical thinking of weather control, no different from past primitive cultural states?
2. Collapse of Civilization Unwin’s survey of numerous past civilizations is an uncomfortable reminder of what we already know from our general education of history – all past civilizations have risen and fallen, often falling as a collapse. More troubling, Unwin identifies the most significant correlate being the cultural norms of marriage and children. Current US statistics of Unwin’s criteria indicate collapse within a generation, perhaps softened by a recent tradition deism and rationality.
It is easy to dismiss Unwin ( which would be confirmation bias ) because he explains much of the data in terms of Freud’s sexual sublimation theories. I find this quite speculative. However, many smart people are wrong about some things and right about others. Regardless of theory, Unwin’s painstaking observational criteria indicate high correlation with civilizational collapse.
I’m pretty sure there’s not an IPCC scenario that accurately includes such events in part or whole.
Depending on your available time, I highly recommend a critical reading of Sex and Culture to better understand history, culture, civilization, and Weather Control.
First: thanks for bringing this up. The matter goes way beyond the present day ‘climate blinkers’.
Re your point 2. ‘Collapse of Civilization’. On a suspicion I checked the book’s date – 1934-. A lot has now been written recently about Civilisation Collapse, from diverse research, and in most cases it is apparent that collapse started with the food chain (the first horseman; Famine). It had next to nothing to do with CO2.
A second point is the regularity with which widespread collapse starts. I have not seen this data collated but I have done some and the evidence is startling, not because it happens but because its so regular. The cycle is near millennial, and can be traced back across the last six millennia.
A third point (which links to this thread, pg 12 and 13) is, not the ‘deep uncertainty’ but the near total blindness to the ‘wickedness’ of what may be involved. For as long as the plough had been invented from before the fourth millennium bce, it had not changed, nor the related agrarian work. After every collapse the existing technology was simple and was somehow retained (but not the science). Since the advent of steam power all that has changed. The more advanced a civilisation, the more problematic will be the retention of gained technology. Stop the flow of modern fuels (diesel) and collapse follows quickly (we may begin to have a taste of it). These factors are presently taken for granted. Making a wooden plough was easy; the manufacturing chain to support a basic tractor is long and complicated. Large cities depend on that. Most people’s idea of food is only the trip to a supermarket.
As to ‘gods’ it is wise to see the Sumerians’ perspective. Their gods they despised, for their wickedness and their rapacious demands. They – the gods- always demanded, but never actually delivered. And most of them ultimately finished with broken noses. The lesson there is that science is a tool not a latter day god. The belief that tomorrow’s science is the answer to everything is foolhardy.
Thanks for your ideas.
Unwin wrote before the human genome project.
Terrifyingly, knowing what I now know, it seems to me that replacing any paragraph containing Freud or sexual energy with a description of the relevant evolutionary biology yields a much higher fidelity model.
Civilizations rise from cultures that practice, wittingly or not, eugenics.
Civilizations fall because the freedom and well being they engender are dysgenic.
Those words (eu- and dys- genic) alone raise emotion but let’s immediately bypass some of those emotions -> Unwin repeatedly pointed out that high cultures arose in all peoples on all continents.
The eugenic/dysgenic cycle of civilizations was not related to race, but occurred within cultures. That still has numerous troubling ramifications, but I think it is important to understand what’s happening to us as humans and to tell the truth as far as we can understand it.
Unwin describes loose sexual mores ( prenuptial sex or no nuptials at all ) versus absolute monogamy marked by: nuptials, prenuptial celibacy, and post-nuptial monogamy. Prenuptial pregnancies were terminated by ‘abortefactants’ or infanticide with various forms of ostracizing or punishing man, woman or both. There was extreme patriarchy with legal possession of both children and wives. Infidelity was punished by matricide. Unwin cites evidence of this tendency, in varying degrees, occurring in many cultures including ancient Babylon, ancient Greece, and ancient Rome.
I am not advocating for murder or partriarchy or any other idea but I am for understanding what he identified. Think about what this meant for the genetic traits – strong selection for traits associated with sexual temperance, sociability, and intelligence. These mores were cultural and cultural selection may well explain civilizational rise.
At the same time, Unwin noted that as civilizations rose, civil codes, including Hammurabi’s code and laws from Greece and Rome, softened from extreme monogamy to more rights for women and more sexual tolerance of all kinds. Of course, this tends to further civilization – freedom of women doubled the productivity and intelligence of society. But this history also points to the dark side. The ending of the barbaric infanticide and matricide stopped the selection against impulsivity and stopped the selection for rule following civility. And in high civilization, intelligent women have fewer children
(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/images/databriefs/301-350/db332_fig04.gif)
See the movie: Idiocracy
Where are we now? Perhaps history rhymes not repeats.
There’s not much change from the last few decades:
https://miro.medium.com/max/2000/1*lwhUh9fU2ZebhLCbGwwNPA.png
Still, the change from the 1960s is significant.
And the US has the highest percentage of single parent children:
https://s.financesonline.com/uploads/2021/03/financesonline_infographics_Single_Parent_Statistics_23032021_v1-1024×1024.png
Contraception has never been more widely available and fertility rates are falling everywhere, so these things are different.
Unwin wrote that in all the available data, when civilizations exhibited unrestricted sexuality, they reverted back to ‘zoistic’ culture within three generations. What exactly that may look like is unclear, but if we compare 1960s single parenthood rates, we may encounter this result soon.
Thank you, Judith Curry, for giving well reasoned voice to this retired geologist/environmental engineer skeptic of the man made, catastrophic climate change narrative. Thanks, also, to all of the thought provoking commentors.
JCurry Comment – “The diagram on the left shows the number of major hurricanes that have struck the U.S. since 1900. The year 2005 stands out as the highest, which was followed by a period of 11 years with no major hurricane landfalls. Also, there were a large number of major hurricane landfalls during the first half of the 20th century, when surface temperatures were significantly cooler”
Curry’s comments on Hurricanes highlights one of the major deficiencies in climate science. There is a well known adage that “you can’t know where you are going if you dont know where youve been. ”
How do you know that increasing SST are causing more or stronger hurricanes if comparable strength hurricanes were occurring in the 1st half of the 20th century.
How do you know the HS shaft is flat when the proxies used are low resolution and so few of the proxies have a straight shaft and with so many conflicting proxies that get excluded with ex post screening.
How do you know “physics ” requires a blade when you dont know why there was a shift from cooling to warming when co2 went from 280ppm to 281ppm circa 1850-1880.
100% of the warming may be caused by humans, or none of the warming may be caused by humans. Curry’s comment that we know too little about natural variability at this point is correct . It certainly doesnt help when the past is unknown and much of the past is misrepresented for the cause.
Dr. JC –
Did you receive pushback and/or support from the panel?
Another Judith Curry nothingburger.
Curry excels at the unique skillset of filling a page with words but adding little in insight.
Unlike Curry, who asserts the flawed analysis methods of Bjorn Lomborg as though action on climate was a zero-sum game, there are teams that actually develop a list of solutions from which policymakers can select to decarbonize the economy. And these policy options include practical ones that address health and well-being. They are exactly the Plan B type of actions that are practical and attainable that Curry believes are lacking in the debate.
Curry does a dis-service to those who review her web sight by not looking at these solutions critically, both positively and negatively.
Project Drawdown identifies Health and Education as one such sector, where 85.42 gigatons CO2 equivalent is reduced or sequestered from 2020-2050.
“Climate and social systems are profoundly connected, and those connections open up solutions that are often overlooked. Some initiatives, designed primarily to ensure rights and foster equality, also have cascading benefits to climate change. They include access to high-quality, voluntary reproductive healthcare and to high-quality, inclusive education, which are fundamental human rights and cornerstones of gender equality.”
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education
Was this comment an attempt to make your point about wordiness lacking content?
Mr. Jeff, did you ever try to absorb what Bjorn Lomborg actually suggests what societal benefitting expenses could be? Go borrow his book ‘Cool it’. And please, don’t concoct a climate connection between it and today’s fashionable promotion of healthcare, gender equality and such. Real change happens with access for all peoples to cheap energy and electricity. That is, the latter by nuclear power of today’s benign kind (check with Mr. Shellenberger), and not through here-and-there sun and wind, akin to gambling on something that needs to be reliably available.
Typical liberal nonsense.
Drawdown studies are so superficial that they make mark jacobson’s studies look credible.
Here is our latest contribution on this subject
Pielke, Sr. R.A., J. Adegoke, F. Hossain, and D. Niyogi, 2021: Environmental and social risks to biodiversity and ecosystem health – A bottom-up, resource-focused assessment framework. Earth, 2, 440–456. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth2030026
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/r-400.pdf
we have proven solar wind drives climate. not CO2.
my recent article in Greek press summarizes our findings.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fslpress.gr%2Fidees%2Fpoios-eythynetai-gia-tis-klimatikes-metavoles-yperthermansi-i-ptosi-thermokrasias%2F
my papers are available in ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342573527_What_Is_Solar_Wind
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301540681_Documentation_of_the_solar_activity_variations_and_it's_influence_on_climate
Dimitris Poulos:
“we have proven solar wind drives climate. not CO2.”
It is time to realize that CO2 does not drive climate!
Dimitris Poulos has developed a very persuasive theory, which is confirmed by measurements and observations.
“Nearly 1 in 3 Americans live in a county hit by a weather disaster in the past three months, according to a new Washington Post analysis of federal disaster declarations. On top of that, 64 percent live in places that experienced a multiday heat wave — phenomena that are not officially deemed disasters but are considered the most dangerous form of extreme weather”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/09/04/climate-disaster-hurricane-ida/
Nothing to see here. Move along.
“weather disaster” is not a meteorological or scientific term.
The best US weather station network, NOAA’s USCRN, shows nearly a flat temperature trend since 2005.
US major (Cat. 3+) land falling hurricane counts were in a downtrend from 1900 through 2020. None made land fall from 2005 to 2012, a US record.
US major (EF3+) tornadoes were in a downtrend since the mid-1950s.
US heatwaves peaked in the 1930s.
US droughts peaked in the 1930s.
US wildfire acres burned peaked in the 1930s.
And last, but not least, the global average temperature in the first half of 2021 was cooler than in 2020.
Don’t expect honest science data from The Washington Post — they still believe Trump colluded with Russians, after four investigations found no evidence that he did !
WAPo looked at areas actually declared disaster areas by FEMA.
Jim
“ Nothing to see here. Move along.”
Perfectly compatible with being 200+ years into the post LIA era, influenced by AMO and IPO warming for the last several decades, having 250 million more people in those counties than in 1900 and adding a sprinkling of AGW.
Kid –
Some people in the media say Trump’s a lair but you and I know he’s a truth teller.
“Just as I promised the American People from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reform in American history.”
Joshua … Are you saying:
– Climate change is a social problem.
– There are infinite resources to spend on social problems.
Therefore, spending on climate change doesn’t take any spending away from other social problems.
If not, please explain.
Bill –
Thanks for trying to clarify what I’m saying.
No, I’m not saying we have infinite resources to spend on addressing social problems like climate change.
Please read what I wrote again. I think there’s an obvious interpretation other than the one your asking me about. If you try again I think you’ll find it. If not, I will clarify it I’m surprised that you didn’t see it immediately,and thus I want to double check that you’re reading to understand what I’m saying rather than just to disagree.
Bill –
It seems to me that it’s certainly reasonable to ask whether spending on climate change brings, or is likely to bring in the future, a positive net return. A very difficult question to answer, imo, but a good question to interrogate.
I seem to recall after Irene there were a number of programs launched where there was spending on measures to mitigate future storm damage.it would be interesting to track that spending down to see if it had any impact on mitigating the damage from this recent storm (of course that again would probably be very hard to assess).
Of course that’s a different category of spending than spending on emissions mitigation – but that in its own right is perhaps even more complex if you think it’s necessary to include externalities as a key consideration in that evaluation.
Thanks for your reply, Joshua. I’m sorry it didn’t get posted under your original comment. The vagaries of Word Press.
I found your comment interesting and so I was just trying to breakdown the issues surrounding social spending on climate change. The first thing that occurred to me in your comment was the link between climate change and social problems. I can see where you may think that climate change is a social problem. Would I be correct that you think it is a future social problem and not a present one? If so, then the sociological literature would either not define it as a social problem, or with a wider interpretation, one that is subjective vs objective. There is little, if any, demonstrable negative consequences from climate change that we’ve seen. More heat isn’t/hasn’t been a problem. More CO2 hasn’t been a problem. Landfall hurricanes have not increased. I don’t want to belabor the point, but if you can list problems that currently affect society then I’m willing to review. To my view, no one or group has been negatively affected by climate change, to date. Therefore I believe it’s inaccurate and misleading to call climate change a social problem.
Obviously, you agree that there aren’t unlimited resources for spending on social problems or other social concerns. For an example of what I will call social concerns vs problems, you mentioned defense. I can see that your opinion of climate change, not mine, is akin to defense spending. You see the threat (I assume), I don’t, at least not yet.
Maybe these thoughts are helpful for clarification. If not, I have dinner to prepare.
Enjoy your evening.
Hey Bill –
It was a cooking day for me. I make “tomato pies” with the tomatoes I grow. I make a buttermilk crust, and inside goes my heirloom tomatoes with caramelized onions and roasted garlic and zukes from the garden and basil from the garden and a mixture of cheeses. All baked together (after blind baking the bottom crust) in basically a lasagna pan….then when I cools I cut them into lasagna-like squares and freeze them. Mid -winter we start eating them, frozen solid they go directly into a hot cast iron pan and then after the bottom crust is crisped, into a hot oven for another 45 minutes or so. The fresh-tasting tomatoes mid-winter is a real treat.
Anyway…
> The first thing that occurred to me in your comment was the link between climate change and social problems. I can see where you may think that climate change is a social problem. Would I be correct that you think it is a future social problem and not a present one?
Maybe making too much of semantics – I think a social problem is something that a significant chunk of society considers a problem. If a significant chunk of society considers something a problem, IMO, by definition it is a societal problem.
> If so, then the sociological literature would either not define it as a social problem, or with a wider interpretation, one that is subjective vs objective.
Again, perhaps being too semantic (in response to what’s maybe a semantic point), I’m not sure which societal problems aren’t pretty much subjectively determined. Even now, many people don’t think that COVID is really a “problem,” or some people think that the lack of widespread dissemination of Ivermectin is a societal problem of truly historic standards.
> There is little, if any, demonstrable negative consequences from climate change that we’ve seen.
So I’m not just going to take your word for that. There are some experts who say that (anthropogenic) climate change has exacerbated extreme weather to some extent. Some experts say that it hasn’t. I’m not capable of evaluating the science itself. Attribution science is VERY complicated. I’d be inclined to go with a large consensus since it exists, with the caveat of confidence intervals and margins of error, but I don’t consider it dispositive.
Then there’s the question of whether it’s a problem if there will be exacerbated extreme weather in the future. Again, disagreement among experts, a fairly significant consensus, and a lot of uncertainty. And again, I can’t evaluate the science myself. I will say that it seems logical to me that we’re adding heat to the system, and that means adding energy to the system, and that likely means more extreme weather (whether by frequency or degree of “extreme”), so on that basis I’d subjectively say it’s a “societal problem.” But I recognize the inherent subjectivity in making such an evaluation.
> More heat isn’t/hasn’t been a problem. More CO2 hasn’t been a problem. Landfall hurricanes have not increased. I don’t want to belabor the point, but if you can list problems that currently affect society then I’m willing to review. To my view, no one or group has been negatively affected by climate change, to date. Therefore I believe it’s inaccurate and misleading to call climate change a social problem.
Again, despite your certainty about “facts,” I’m not as convinced like you are.
But anyway, all that aside, I’m not sure exactly how it comes into play with the original question. The question of whether we agree that climate change IS or WILL BE a problem still doesn’t affirm the argument that focus on climate change detracts from the degree of resolution of other societal problems (assuming we can agree that some phenomena are indeed, societal problems).
> Obviously, you agree that there aren’t unlimited resources for spending on social problems or other social concerns.
Of course I agree with that. But again, that question isn’t directly on point to what my point was.
> For an example of what I will call social concerns vs problems, you mentioned defense. I can see that your opinion of climate change, not mine, is akin to defense spending.
Well, I would say that the majority of defense spending is justified as addressing a societal problem that I don’t think is a societal problem.
But again, the question of whether I agree that defense spending addresses a societal problem or you agree that climate change addresses a societal problem doesn’t validate the claim that spending on climate change detracts materially from addressing societal problems that we might agree are societal problems – and that’s true irrespective or whether there’s a limited pie of resources available for addressing societal problems.
> You see the threat (I assume), I don’t, at least not yet.
Maybe these thoughts are helpful for clarification.
Not really, as I think they’re basically off topic to what my point was.
Again, just as a kind of analogy for my point. During the Trump administration and two years of Republican control of both Houses and 4 years in control of the Senate, climate change was a reduced priority. is there evidence that reduction in priority meant more spending or even just more generally an accelerated progress in the resolution of other societal problems?
> If not, I have dinner to prepare.
Whaddya make?
It is more fruitful to focus on solutions to problems. Thus one can estimate costs and benefits and determine priorities. It has the added virtue of cutting through specious sophistry.
In keeping with the theme of semantics, I suppose I should put quotes around “adding” energy to the system. But I think you know what I meant.
Also, while I’m at it – just thinking about it a bit more and I should clarify a bit on my understanding of the attribution science of evaluating whether climate change is now a “societal problem.”
My understanding is that at some level, we haven’t had a long enough sample period to really evaluate the trend over time in extreme weather. Since the events by definition are “extreme,” then you might well need a long period of time to clearly distinguish signal from noise and really have much certainty about a trend. As such, I kind of consider the question of “have we seen problems caused by climate change?” as a bit of an ill-posed question. The more relevant question to me is whether we are taking the risk of increasing extreme weather in the future – and if so, whether that should be considered a “societal problem.”
The Hartwell Paper 2010 proposed ‘that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’
Joshua …
A nice salad with a few seasoned beef soft tacos. Heirloom tomatoes are nice, but for flavor you can’t beat San Marzanos. Try them raw, room temperature.
As for extreme weather, aka landfall hurricanes, and climate change, here’s a short piece, which he’s repeated many times elsewhere, by Lomborg.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hurricane-ida-henri-climate-change-united-nations-un-galsgow-conference-natural-disaster-infrastructure-carbon-emissions-11630704844?st=p74vw8t643gch2p&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I think we can agree that homelessness is a social problem. For example, in Los Angeles County the number of homeless is approximately 66,000. The prior year it was approximately 41,000. If the number was say 1,000 would we call it a social problem? Probably not. Homelessness ‘becomes’ a social problem when it reaches certain proportions/numbers. Would we say covid-19 is a social problem if the number of deaths were equivalent to an ordinary flu season? Probably not. It ‘became’ a problem as deaths soared.
So I’m having difficulty saying climate change has reached the threshold of a social problem. There are no bodies stacked up, or stacked out. Landfall hurricanes have not increased precipitously, nor at all depending on the time frame, or so it seems. I do agree with the possibility that climate change ‘may become’ a future social problem, although I wouldn’t bet Robert’s farm on it. Instead, I’d grow those lovely, little, delicious San Marzano tomatoes. I had a neighbor in NY who procured seeds. He grew fantastic ones! I’m on the lookout for them in Arizona. Can anyone help me with tips to germinate seeds?
Bill –
I have around 10 San Marzanos. Just coming in heavy now. I use them mostly for sauce, Marcella Hazan recipe is the best…
I grow them from seedlings.
The strategy:
1- Exaggerate uncertainty. We don’t know. We don’t know. Therefore, do nothing.
2- Devalue even incremental solutions. If we can’t reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels, why bother?
3- Ignore any benefits. Those solar panel and wind farm jobs don’t count as benefits..
4- Argue for better uses for resources. Never identify what they are.
5- Argue we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
1. We don’t know, so spend trillions of dollars on conjecture.
2. Overvalue green energy and spend trillions of dollars on insignificant global CO2 reductions.
3. Ignore the downside of green energy’s massive impacts on the environment
4. Utilize immense amounts of resources on ineffective green energy.
5. Argue that 100% green energy is the only way.
> 1. We don’t know, so spend trillions of dollars on conjecture.
Spending on every single problem is “spending on conjecture.” Spending on defense is spending on conjecture. Spending on incarceration is spending on conjecture.
It’s interesting to me that largely the same crowd that accepted the 3rd largest rise in the deficit relative to the size of economy in history, under the Trump administration and based on conjecture, are so worried about spending on climate change because its based on”conjecture.”
Under the Trump administration, even when Republicans controlled both houses, there was less focus on climate change as a problem on our governmental institutions. In fact, it was an explicit policy during that period of time to focus less on climate change.
Did spending on other social problems go up? Which ones?
In fact, the deficit sky-rocketed. Was that becise of more spending on social problems? Is massive spending on weapons spendkng in social problems? Is massive tax cuts (disproportionately benefitting the most wealthy segment of the population) spending I social problems?
Please explain how less focus on climate change, during that period, manifested in progress on addressing other social problems.
I await edification.
Joshua
Educate us on the actual numbers of the Trump “massive tax cuts “.
Specifics please.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/03/15-minutes/#comment-959105
J
Something can be biggest but still not be massive.
Increasing spending on Social Programs from $2.8T (2016) to $4.4T (2022) qualifies for the word massive.
Increasing Total spending from $3.8T (2016) to $6.0T (2022) qualifies for the word massive.
Having the Biggest tax cut, resulting in Increased tax revenue of $130 Billion, does not qualify for the word massive. It isn’t a massive tax cut since it increased, not decreased, tax revenue and given the total budget of $6 Trillion it’s relatively a minor component.
Increasing or decreasing Individual top marginal tax rates has never qualified as massive. Taxes were increased in 1991 and 1993 and the effective tax rate went from 13.4% in 1988 to 13.5% in 1993 resulting in an additional $4B per year, when Total spending was $1.4T. Biden proposes increasing the top marginal tax rate from 37% back to 39.6% in 2022 which increases Tax revenue by $31B, again, given a $6T Budget, is hardly a massive increase.
More like Dwarfian. But it has an emotional appeal. Sticking it to the rich satisfies the sadistic instincts surpassed only by mounting their heads on a pike.
Not sure why you skipped the military spending bit, Kid.
Since tackling AGW would never qualify as massive according to your own logic, should we infer that Denizens satisfies their sadistic instincts of sticking it to hippies?
W
You mean the military bit of increasing military spending from $600B (2016) to $770B (2022)? Given a $6T Total budget, the $170 Billion increase didn’t seem to even rise to Dwarfian. I didn’t want to pile on.
Notice I didn’t mention something that would qualify as massive. The massive increase in Income Inequality under Clinton when income of millionaires went from $176B to $817B.
kid –
It was very aege by historic standards, at least with respect to corporate taxes.
If you’d prefer, I’m happy to call it very large by historic standards. Whether you call it very large by historic standards or massive doesn’t change the logic problem of those who argue that focus on climate change prevents significant improvement on societal issues. Now go find another hobby horse.
Now I’m quite sure why you missed the bit about sadistically punching hippies, Kid.
Bill might not be responsible for the widening gaps in wealth inequality, family income, racial wealth (which increases with age), liquid retirement savings, debt, and asset building. After all, he wasn’t the American president since the sixties.
And since the US of A spends something like 50% more than the rest of the world combined, you might have pretty big dwarves in your garden.
Hey. I’ve got an idea. Instead of calling it a massive tax cut OR a very large tax cut by historic standards, let’s just call it “rocket fuel for the economy..”
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/politics/trump-tax-cuts.amp.html
> And since the US of A spends something like 50% more than the rest of the world combined
… in weapons, that is.
We’ve enjoyed the mild harmless global warming since the mid-1970s. Another 45 years of similar global warming would be wonderful.
Warmer winter nights in Siberia !
More greening of our planet !
Replacing a reliable electric grid, powered mainly by fossil fuels, AT GREAT EXPENSE, with an unreliable electric grid, powered mainly by wind and sun, makes absolutely no sense.
It seems like a plan Communist China would propose for the US, to give their manufactured products even more of a competitive advantage !
And they will sell us the solar panels too !
No one can beat the price when they are made with slave labor
The money spend on ourselves, to make our electric grid less reliable, would have improved the planet far more if used to bring electricity to the one billion people who live in poverty and have no electricity.
But who cares about them?
Let’s waste money on ourselves
… while China, India, other Asian nations, Africa and South America ignore Net Zero, so CO2 emissions will keep increasing anyway.
Dr. Curry
Thank you for presenting Plan B as I have heard much regarding Plan A and its attending alarm.
Regards to adding to the general environment of alarmism:
“The issue of greatest concern to me is when scientists filter research results and their public statements of facts with an eye to downstream political use.”
I am struck by the similarity of scientists’ following Stephen Schenider’s “double ethical bind” re: offering up scary scenarios to garner broad based media support promoting their belief system, and what is displayed in popular media whereby individuals will post vile content just to achieve “Likes”. That such content by scientists regarding climate change is read and repeated, which then self promotes their own career, is also not to be discounted.
Such behavior does bring rewards as at NASA GISS.
On carbon in soils. The world’s largest agro country is now (probably Brazil) with a 300 M T of grains/a. nearly all crops are grown on porr, acid soils that are corrected (limestone) & with added fertilizer. Planting is now “direct” on 40 M ha. ié no ploughing or organic material removal. For those interested, the site:
https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-solucoes-tecnologicas/-/produto-servico/3577/recomendacao-do-plantio-direto-para-aumento-do-sequestro-de-carbono-e-melhoria-da-qualidade-quimica-e-fisica-do-solo-no-cerrado has the data on savannahs (google translate works well with Brazilian Portuguese). In a nutshell the increased carbon layer is 1,61 yo 1,48 Mg C ha-1 ano-1. This huge biome is now a major sink and I am not sure if this is considered.
Of course, this does not excuse the felling of parts of the Amazon biome and which has serious consequences in terms of drought.
I note that this is included in Brazils carbon accounting.
‘We don’t have unlimited resources Where can the world spend a dollar and do the most good for the future?’ Bjorn Lomberg
This is an old video where Bjorn Lomberg speaks about priorities. Economic growth, free trade and technical innovation are the basis for progress. Spending trillions on wind and solar is not an efficient use of resources. Spending a few billions on energy innovation is.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_global_priorities_bigger_than_climate_change/transcript?language=en#t-553120
“Spending a few billions on energy innovation is [an efficient use of resources]”.
Would replacing cars with horse carriages be called “innovation”?
Would reductio ad absurdum be classified as a fallacy?
RIE, I know that you don’t consider wind and solar an innovation. Neither do I. Is there an “energy innovation” available within let’s say five years?
Factory built using 21st century materials and automation and dropped into bunkers. There is enough energy in stockpiled nuclear waste to provide power for 400 years. It could provide electricity, industrial heat, transport fuels and chemicals and fertiliser.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/em2-summary-e1514320391410.png
‘- Fast neutron reactors (FNRs) are a technological step beyond conventional power reactors, but are poised to become mainstream.
– They offer the prospect of vastly more efficient use of uranium resources and the ability to burn actinides which are otherwise the long-lived component of high-level nuclear waste.
– Over 400 reactor-years of experience has been gained in operating them.
– Generation IV reactor designs are largely FNRs, and international collaboration on FNR designs is proceeding with high priority.’
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
The skies the limit.
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/avengers-helicarrier.jpg
RIE, thanks. I read your world-nuclear.org link. Current FNRs fall in just two categories – Experimental and Demonstration, with Demonstration mostly in the future. Not available in five years. Maybe 10 – I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
It is technology with some 400 years of operations under the belt. The correct terminology for advanced designs is prototype and demonstration.
Why does it differ from a terminology for current NFRs? How do you demonstrate a design without a prototype?
You said experimental rather than prototype. There is an distinction to be made. Demonstration plants will be online within 5 years.
I did not say it, you did – or your link did. Please don’t imitate a U.S. President.
There were ‘experimental’ prototypes – some running for a long time – some still running. Demonstration and commercial facilities are under constriction – some nearing completion. Lot’s of designs in the pipeline with lots of opportunity to manage costs. Automated mass production with reproducible designs is the key.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-reactor1-e1433377796375.jpg
Pingback: Climate Change in 15 Minutes – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate Change in 15 Minutes |
Pingback: Climate Change in 15 Minutes - Times News UK
Pingback: Local weather Alternate in 15 Mins – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
Pingback: Climate Change in 15 Minutes – Watts Up With That? | Blue Anon News
Pingback: Climate Change in 15 Minutes – Climate- Science.press
Joshua … I’m sooooo jealous!
If I take the seeds from a tomato what’s the best way to get them to sprout?
Any advice on soil type/fertilizing?
Bill –
I would give you advice on growing from seed but you’d be better off Googling. I have a friend who’s got a green thumb and has been at it for years and grows everything from seed if you’d like want me to ask.
As for growing from seedlings, I have no special sauce. Just as much sun as possible (I took down a few big trees this year and got an extra 1.5 hours). I have to bring in all my soil as here we have no top soil to speak of (but if you’re interested in Bluestone this is the place). Built a new raised bed this year so these tomatoes all have a nice mix of mushroom soil, top soil, mulch and sandy loam. The production in my older garden was getting diminishing production each year as you need to rotate tomatoes to stay on top of blight and I had no room to rotate until the new raised bed. Every year I battle with tendency to crowd too many plants in, in the illusion of more production that way but in the end I actually get more tomatoes when I space them out more (and allow for more breathing space). Plant really deep if you go with seedlings (giving you effectively more roots). I used rock phosphate when I planted this year to seemingly good effect. Prune, prune, prune lower down on the plant despite the natural hesitancy against cutting healthy growth. This year I built a trellis system with strings fixed at the base of each plant and that technique’s definitely a keeper.
You’d better get started, though. I just read an article at CNN that talks about coming water shortages in Arizona. Looks nasty.
What part of Zona are you in?
Joshua … Thanks much for the info.
I live in Prescott. High desert. +5700 feet. I have a rain gauge and this years’ ‘monsoons’ were about 15% over average. Last winters’ snowfall was more than double.
I drove down to Phoenix about two weeks back for the first time in two years. I used to make the drive fairly often. My first impression years ago of the terrain was Martian. Two weeks ago it was absolutely verdant, the whole way! So, I’m not sure about a shortage. Although it is always a threat in these parts, as things can change quickly, nevertheless the greening has been astounding.
One more word of advice.
Sungolds!!!
Judith Curry,
Thank you for this post.
A north Atlantic jet stream moves the hurricane westward.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/natl/mimictpw_natl_latest.gif
During the coming winter in the Northen Hemisphere , the global temperature of the troposphere will return to the 1991-2020 average.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210831.nino_summary_4.png
How do you know the climate this coming winter?
Have you successfully predicted the climate in the past?
You would be the second person, if you had.
I was the first person.
I predicted the future climate in 1997, with 100% accuracy:
“The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets cooler”
“Climate change” is nothing more than a prediction of climate doom …
made by people with decades of experience proving they are unable to predict the future climate.
Without predictions, the “coming climate crisis” disappears.
And we can finally celebrate today’s wonderful climate …
and focus on real problems, that need solving.
CO2 is not pollution — it is the staff of life on this planet.
The global temperature of the troposphere will not rise until El Niño forms in the Pacific.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/coraltemp_v3.1_global_current.png
Rather than seizing on the 97%-figure, which originates erratically anyway, it’s more interesting to cite best-available-figures on actual consensus in (disparate) climate communities on something like the SPM claim. Estimates of this uncertain figure (~10 yrs ago) gathered around some 2/3, very roughly.
Thank you, Dr. Curry – very nice summation. I’m currently reading Steven Koonin’s “Unsettled,” btw. A physicist’s take on the climate science.
Dr Hans Rosling has done all the hard yards about HUMAN improvement since 1810 to 2010 in his 5 minute BBC video of 200 countries over 200 years.
He used 200,000 data points and found that we have never been wealthier and healthier than we are today. Big surprise NOT.
AND THE IMPROVEMENT HAS MOVED HIGHER SINCE 2010.
Life expectancy under 40 in 1810 ( LIA then but the same as the last 200 K years, DUH) and today in 2021 life exp is 72.8.
When are we going to wake up to these dangerous Malthusian donkeys??
Sorry, above should read 120,000 data points NOT 200,000 DPs.
Our poorest continent Africa has shown us the most extreme rate of progress over the last 50 years.
In 1970 these 53 countries have increased population by 1 billion people ( 363 million in 1970 to today 1370 million) and life expectancy from 46.5 to 63 in 2021.
And world pop has increased from 3.7 bn in 1970 to 7.8 billion in 2021 and life exp from 56.5 to 72.8 today, DUH.
Unbelievable but true and YET we’re told we are now facing an EXISTENTIAL threat or CRISIS or APOCALYPSE etc and have on a very short time to respond.
Who believes any of this nonsense, because the DATA easily proves they are wrong.
When will they wake up?
So can anyone tell us how to change our climate back to say 1950 or 1900 or 1850 or perhaps the wonders of the LIA and pre-industrialization?
I’m not so sure anyone would really like to live from hand to mouth AGAIN and become very POOR and SICK AGAIN, but who knows?
And of course the cost of this wondrous winding back would cost endless trillions $ and for no measurable difference at all.
Here’s the WIKI graph for co2 emissions since 1970 and NOTE that USA + EU emissions are no higher now than 1970 and lower than 1990.
And ALL other countries + China’s co2 emissions have soared for 25 years.
Starting to WAKEY, WAKEY YET?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png
Mark Mills explains why the TOXIC, dilute solar and wind energies would be a disaster and a ruinous waste of money and achieve NOTHING.
Most of this is just commonsense, but the L W DEMs actually BELIEVE they can change the climate back to some wonderful period like the LIA when everyone was poor and sick.
Amazing that people actually vote for these fools and believe that Gore, Kerry etc are heroes and are helping to save the world. Can’t they add up simple sums?
My guess is that you have already read articles from Mark Mills that provide a lot more detail. If not, here are a couple of links – there are many others.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-reality-check
I doubt that wind/solar can generate sufficient energy to power the machinery needed to reproduce themselves. From a post at WUWT: “For example, the Caterpillar 797F dump truck is powered by a 4,000 horsepower turbocharged diesel engine. At full power it will require 2.98 megawatts of energy. Assume the truck runs at 50 per cent of maximum power for an eight-hour shift. It would consume around 12 megawatt-hours of electricity. It would need 120 of Tesla’s latest automotive batteries to power it. The batteries would weigh 64 tonnes
This is just an example of the impossibility of converting large machinery to electric. Not to mention converting a Boeing 787”
So, if I understand things correctly, which I may not, charging the batteries for that one dump truck would require a single 1.5 MW Windturbine operating at full capacity for 8 hours. But, we know that wind turbine capacity factor is between 30-35%, so, unless wind conditions are ideal all the time, a single wind turbine operating at 8 hours would not do the trick. If we go to a Cat 785 dump truck, that has a little more than one third the horsepower of the 797F, so maybe a single 1.5 Wind Turbine could theoretically keep the batteries charged, but that is doubtful. Regardless, that’s one dump truck at one mine and does not account for the power requirements of other heavy mining equipment like hydraulic shovels, graders, loaders, dozers, scrapers, etc. And that’s just the mining portion. Materials must then be processed, transported, and fabricated. Once fabricated, they need to be transported to their ultimate destination and the cite must be prepped – for wind turbines, that means putting in roads to each turbine, creating enormous bases made largely of concrete and steel rebar and laying lots of copper to connect each turbine to the grid. Then you have assembly, life-cycle maintenance, ultimate decommissioning, and disposal. Not going to happen without using fossil fuels at every step, which is why I contend that wind turbines and solar panels are fully dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave.
Barnes I agree with your points,but never forget that S&W are a TOXIC ,unreliable, dilute disaster and only last for about 15 to 20 years.
And they end up in LANDFILL FOREVER. And of course no MEASURABLE change to climate or temp at all. Just look at the data since 1990 and China + developing countries’ SOARING co2 emissions.
Agree 100%
‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom…
For twenty-seven years the Index has delivered thoughtful analysis in a clear, friendly, and straight-forward format. With new resources for users and a website tailored for research and education, the Index of Economic Freedom is poised to help readers track over two decades of the advancement in economic freedom, prosperity, and opportunity and promote these ideas in their homes, schools, and communities.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/about
With economic freedom anything is possible. Low carbon energy, progress on social and environmental factors, resilient infrastructure… Changing the ground on which the culture war is fought is the key to victory.
“The rule with regard to contentious ground is that those in possession have the advantage over the other side. If a position of this kind is secured first by the enemy, beware of attacking him. Lure him away by pretending to flee—show your banners and sound your drums—make a dash for other places that he cannot afford to lose—trail brushwood and raise a dust—confound his ears and eyes—detach a body of your best troops, and place it secretly in ambuscade.” Sun Tzu
What all the little things add up to is that it is a scam. The perpetrators of the scam were surely emboldened by the surprising success of the ozone scam.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5Uq
With a decrease in high-energy ultraviolet radiation, we can see a decrease in the temperature of the upper stratosphere in winter in high latitudes from 2020. The ozone hole has immediately expanded. In 2021, you see the ozone hole growing rapidly again.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2020.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
Sunspots are currently magnetically weak and produce weak flares, resulting in a decrease in high-energy solar radiation.
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-flares.html
A decrease in stratospheric temperature results in a decrease in surface temperature, which is evident this year in the Southern Hemisphere. During the winter, the stratospheric polar vortex invades the troposphere.
https://i.ibb.co/j3qdbcZ/zu-sh.gif
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_extn_hires.png
Judith, thanks for abbreviated presentation. Encourage more to help thjis dummy understand.Very Nice to meet RIchard Greene, his logical, comprehesive, and sincere worldview. Like to know more about him, how to reach him.
A hurricane in the Atlantic continues to move westward. It may reach over very warm surface waters.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
In this comment made over on WUWT, I discuss past efforts by the environmental law community to push the Clean Air Act to its limits in supporting EPA’s anti-carbon regulations:
Enabling the Clean Air Act for Carbon Regulation — A short history 2005 – 2012
By 2012, a strong legal foundation had been established by the environmental law community for using the Clean Air Act to its maximum possible effectiveness in reducing all of America’s carbon emissions, not just those from coal.
But the Obama administration never moved forward with using the Clean Air Act for regulating all of America’s GHG emissions, and the climate activists never called him to account for not doing so.
And so the question is, why didn’t the climate activists ever call Obama to account?
Why are they not calling Joe Biden to account for not formally declaring a climate emergency and for not using the full power of his office in forcing a quick reduction in America’s carbon emissions?
Judith wrote about hurricanes: “The report concluded that it is likely that the global proportion of major hurricanes has increased over the last four decades. Global hurricane data supports this conclusion. However, there’s a large amount of natural variability in hurricane activity.
The PROPORTION of major hurricanes is irrelevant. The NUMBER of major hurricanes is relevant. If the IPCC could say that the NUMBER of major hurricanes has shown a statistically significant increase, they almost certainly would have done so.
Judith wrote: “The diagram on the left shows the number of major hurricanes that have struck the U.S. since 1900. The year 2005 stands out as the highest, which was followed by a period of 11 years with no major hurricane landfalls. Also, there were a large number of major hurricane landfalls during the first half of the 20th century, when surface temperatures were significantly cooler.”
If given that there is a large amount of natural variability, should you focus landfalling hurricanes in the US – which is certain to be noisier than the global record? You open yourself up accusations of cherry-picking unless you have a good reason for showing a subset of the global data.
Judith wrote that……..
” There are a lot of relatively small things that we can do to reduce atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, that have justifications independent of climate mitigation.”
Then Willis asked………
“Could you name say a half-dozen of the “lot of relatively small things”? Thanks.”
I’d be fascinated to read Judith’s response to Willis’ question and just what these relatively small things are that would/could make a difference to reduce atmospheric co2 and other GHGs?
You see I cannot forget China, India and OTHER countries’ co2 emissions since 1990 and also the likelihood of their ongoing co2 emissions INCREASE again by 2030, 2050 etc.
Again, I’m very interested in Judith’s reply to Willis.
Here’s the CSIRO’s DATA for co2 levels at Cape Grim Tasmania. Note the decadal trends and also note that the ENTIRE SH is a NET co2 SINK and the NH is the NET co2 SOURCE.
SH population is about 0.8 billion and NH is 7 billion people. Here’s their quote from Seasonal variation and the link.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data
“Seasonal variation
“Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink).
The Cape Grim baseline carbon dioxide data displayed show both the annual cycle and the long-term trend”.
Low temperature of the subsurface equatorial Pacific Ocean.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC002/IDYOC002.202109.gif
This could mean low winter temperatures in North America, given the level of ice in the Chukchi Sea.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts_4km.png
Countdown to COP26 on the road to failure
By David Wojick
The beginning:
“It is less than 60 days until COP26 convenes in Glasgow. We can expect a flood of climate horror stories (including flooding). But there will also be some discussion of the actual issues, so here is a brief breakdown of the big four.
Keep in mind that the alarmists have a bit of a civil war going on, between what I call the moderates and the radicals. The moderates have been at it for over 30 years and the radicals are fed up. The moderates now have a net zero target of 2050, while the radicals want 2030, so the difference is pretty stark. The last two COPs were partly paralyzed by this split, especially COP25. This fight will be a major factor in Glasgow.”
The rest is in the article:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/07/countdown-to-cop26-on-the-road-to-failure/
COP26 could be fun. Speeding up to hit the wall harder.
Always appreciate Dr. Curry’s perspective. As a layperson, it helps me stay centered in reality. Or, at least what I think reality is. It has always appeared to me that the “Con” begins with the selection of the Little Ice Age temp as a baseline.
Pingback: The Latest IPCC Report | Transterrestrial Musings
Dr Curry’s presentation is very clear, concise, and easily understood.
Between the Uncertainty Monster and the Wicked Mess, Dr Curry could easily be the Mary Shelley of the 21st Century She could write a book and call it The Frankenstein’s Monster of Climate Science
I sense a best-seller and a classic coming to an Amazon near you.
Wonderful,Judith.
I could wish you had been a bit more confrontational. For example, the temp rise out of the LIA began around 1840, not 1880, which is when human CO2 took off. No causality. Indeed, there has never been a temp reversal preceded by CO2 change in the last 550 million years.
We emerged from the LGM without preceding CO2 change with multiple warmings and coolings up to the present not preceded by CO2 change – the Younger Dryas, the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings with interval coolings – none preceded by CO2 change.
Granted the journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. But still…
Up until some 40 years ago CO2 was a temperature feedback – although not as ocean outgassing. Oceans are a sink with both the chemical and biological carbon pumps.
High economic growth powered by fossil fuels changed that. I’m all in on economic growth – but can’t predict what happens if CO2 concentrations reach levels last seen in the Eocene by 2100.
https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/images/1_Global_Page13-e.png
Hurricane threatens Bermuda, may approach east coast of North America. Increased geomagnetic activity affects the latitudinal jet stream over northeastern Canada.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
South of Bermuda we have a wide strip of very warm ocean.
https://i.ibb.co/ZSQJC2V/cdas-sflux-sst-watl-1.png
Larry is predicted to interact with an incoming cold front, which could enhance rainfall to some degree, as happened with Ida.
Yet another hurricane forms in the tropical Atlantic. Proof positive that CO2 is doing its dirty deed. At least that is what billions of brains have been brainwashed into believing. Even the one on Pennsylvania Avenue.
What ever happened to Homo sapiens high level of cognitive functions, right up there with walking and chewing gum at the same time?
I sympathize with people who think this way because it will not protect them from the effects of disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, winter front attacks, etc.
Less Than 5 Minutes with Music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RojrBSg20w
I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Modeller
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler,
Ecologist, empiricist, there’s no one Aristotle-er,
Employing mathematics, theoretic and statistical,
And arcane correlation computations syllogistical;
I prove that human action, agricultural, industrial,
Will overheat with CO2 the planet, therefore must we all
Obey the Queen of England’s populational reduction goals
And late at night I like to ogle Greta Thunberg videos.
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg viddi-iddi-oes!
I’m getting paid to demonstrate the world is far too populous,
Especially the poorer dark complexioned countries where we must
Kill off six billion babies, adults, teenagers, and toddlers:
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
To kill six billion babies, adults, teenagers and toddlers,
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!
The climate factors cosmic and galactic I must disregard,
They contradict the green agenda, I refuse to think so hard.
Atomic power doesn’t produce very much of CO2,
But ’twill increase potentials of the population, that won’t do;
‘Twould mean from pole to pole more Northern, Southern, Central ‘Mericans,
‘Twould mean More Europeans, and more Asians and more Africans,
From poverty, disease, and hunger many people could be saved,
And dear old Bertrand Russell would be spinning in his honored grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky-inky grave!
My opposition to the Peaceful Atom isn’t brains I lack,
But geopolitics taught me that “Green is Good.” and “Snow is Black.”
And if your mother disagrees, I may well have to throttle her:
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
And if your mother disagrees, he may well try to throttle her,
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!
The Green New Deal and Great Reset will stop greenhouse pollution
And to the Human Question is a Final End Solution,
But even a first strike at China and at Russia I would goad,
Protecting the environment from progress on the Belt and Road.
Alas, I fear too many people are beginning to defy
My peer-reviewed and flawless calculations proving they must die,
Perhaps they’ll organize to generate eight thousand gigawatts
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot.
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their precious brains on pot!
And then we’d see the living standards of the population zoom,
For radical Malthusians like me there would be no more room,
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
I’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler.
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
He’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler!
The people of oppressed regimes are much more important than this climate crap. Can we save the women and children in Afghanistan? The religious prisoners in China? Keep Iran from nuking someone? Way, way, way more important than mostly made up first world problems.
Judith says “We need to recognize that how the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. ……..Climate change is better characterized as a wicked mess. A wicked problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time. ” .The uncertainty arises because
the sample lengths in the IPCC reported model studies are too short. The models retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, “solar activity” cycle is millennial. The relevant system for comparison should include the entire Holocene.
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. in my paper ” Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals”
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the Millennial Temperature Turning Point at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/8 was + 0.18 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in” Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.” Here is the Abstract of paper linked above:
“This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur.
Judith’s presentation prompted me to read the latest on hurricanes from AR6. I’ll paste some text and then comment (partly to help me remember what I learn).
SPM A.3.4: “It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence) but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale.”
The PROPORTION of major storms isn’t relevant; the NUMBER is. Section 11.7.1.2 in the main report tells us that the trend in the four decades of the satellite era is insignificant due to high natural variability. So the only issues are an UNQUANTIFIED increasing rainfall associated with TC’s and a poleward shift in tracks in one basin, the North Pacific. Not a lot to get excited about here.
Chapter 8 (Section 8.3.2.5) has some information of hurricanes, but nothing that isn’t discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 11.
Pingback: 15 minutes — Climate Etc. | Standard Climate
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: September 20, 2021 - Master Resource
Pingback: AWED Newsletter: Covering COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections - Dr. Rich Swier
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: September 20, 2021 – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: September 20, 2021 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: September 20, 2021 |
Pingback: September 20, 2021 – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News
Pingback: Media Balance Newsletter: Sept 20, 2021 - Australian Climate Sceptics blog
Pingback: Climate Action Council Predictably Uses Flooding As Excuse
Judith – how about releasing a YouTube video of your slides & your commentary …
Pingback: Energy, Climate Policies in Democrats’ Spending Bill Lack Transparency
Pingback: Power, Environment Plans in Democrats' Costs Costs Absence Openness - The True USA
Pingback: Costly Energy, Climate Policies in Democrats’ Spending Bill Lack Transparency – TX OILFIELD NEWS
Pingback: Costly Energy, Climate Policies In Democrats’ Spending Bill Lack Transparency | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Costly Energy, Climate Policies in Democrats’ Spending Bill Lack Transparency
Pingback: The Stupidity of “Net Zero Carbon” | dickstormprobizblog's Blog
I cannot agree with Judith’s presentation. I think it’s wrong-headed.
The issue of climate change boils down to AGW which, in turn, boils down to the status of GHGE. What status does GHGE have? Is it a conjecture (just a model), a testable hypothesis, a full theory, or something else?
How do we know what status GHGE has?
Is it Theory?: If it’s a theory it must once have been a testable hypothesis. Who wrote the tests for this hypothesis? Was anyone stopped from authoring tests? How many of these tests are validations and which are falsifications? Did anyone write a book collecting the evidence together in one place?
Is it a Testable Hypothesis?: Likewise. If it doesn’t have the status of a full Theory can we call it an ‘Hypothesis’. IMHO: only if it has tests, and none of these tests failed.
Is it Conjecture?: It can’t be a conjecture. This has been going on for over 5 decades now. It dominates the news, the political and economic policy agenda. It consumes $ trillions.
Fake Science: The GHGE is fake science. At no stage was it ever formulated as a Testable Hypothesis; so it cannot ever have become a Theory. Given that leaves only Conjecture – how can a conjecture be dominating public debate; after so long. GHGE is fake science.
Pingback: Hard Fact: New York's Climate Act Is All Pain for No Gain
Thanks for this 15 minutes article.