by Judith Curry
A few things that have caught my eye these past few weeks
Scafetta: Testing the CMIP6 GCM Simulations versus Surface Temperature Records from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021: High ECS Is Not Supported [link]
Svensmark, Shaviv et al. Large effect of solar activity on Earth’s energy budget [link]
The discovery of whale bones and marine shells at ancient beach sites along the shores west Greenland 32 to 36 m above today’s shorelines have been dated to 5000 to 9000 yrs ago. Beach sites were still ~6 m higher than now 1500-2000 yrs ago. [link]
Oceanic harbingers of Pacific Decadal Oscillation predictability [link]
Impact of Indian Ocean on climate predictions for Australia [link]
Consistency and Challenges in the Ocean Carbon Sink Estimate for the Global Carbon Budget https://bit.ly/3mxtmEz
Global and regional increase of precipitation under global warming [link]
A dynamical adjustment perspective on extreme event attribution https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021
Robust detection of forced warming in the presence of potentially large climate variability [link]
Indian Ocean variability since 1675 [link]
Amplified extreme temperatures over tropical land [link]
Ever wonder how the eastern equatorial Pacific (EEP) was warm AND biologically productive during the Pliocene? [link]
A 993 AD storm on the sun produced a pulse of radiation so strong it changed the chemistry of trees on Earth — and recently helped scientists pinpoint the exact year Vikings arrived in the Americas [link]
Interesting analysis of deaths from cold versus deaths from heat [link]
Global Survey of the MJO and Extreme Precipitation. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094691….
UN Climate Disaster doubling revisited [link]
Changes in North Atlantic major hurricane frequency [link]
Greenland temperature variability over the last century [link]
Useless green energy hitting the wall [link]
New papers on the medieval warm period [link]
Land based measures to mitigate climate change [link]
“Lasting impact of winds on Arctic sea ice through the ocean’s memory” https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/4703/2021/…
Recent increases in tropical cyclone precipiation extremes over the US east coast [link]
How unusual was the 31 year NAO trend that ended in the 1990s? Models say it is much rarer than observations do, pointing to a possible new model error. [link]
A second of two recent papers showing a decrease in peaks of more frequent floods but an increase in the peaks of larger more rare floods, and why: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169421010441…
vidently sea level rose over 2.6 meters during the 8200-years-ago (8.2 ka) event. That’s a lot. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/doi/10.1130/G49296.1/608090/New-estimates-of-the-magnitude-of-the-sea-level
Decadal climate variabilityin the tropical pPacific [link]
Decreasing subseasonal temperature variability attributed to human influence [link]
Interesting modeling study projecting future flood damage under adaptation assumptions https://nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01158-8…
Cooling in Antarctica [link]
Towards usable predictive climate information at decadal time scales [link]
New article showing how important simulating rain-on-snow events is for getting high flows right during the cold season, but also their role in exacerbating hydrological drought months later. https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169421010222…
Intensified water cycle slows down global warming, new study finds [link]
our paper on the hydroclimate of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool is out! We investigate the IPWP hydroclimate during the last deglaciation using an isotope‐enabled Earth system model, and explore its implications for isotope records. [link]
ur paper on Science Advances today shows that global fire emissions have been stable despite the substantial decline in global burned areas over the past two decades because we tend to have more emissions from forest fires. [link]
The inherent uncertainty in precipitation variability [link]
New Australian drought report. Recent drought cannot be connected unambiguously to human causes [link]
Future projections of northern hemisphere extratropical climate based on climate model simulations substantially underestimate the uncertainty from large-scale atmospheric circulation variability https://nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00268-7
Does the presence of moisture make the weather more predictable? In a new @AMS_atmos paper w/@MHell we argue that it does at mid-latitudes by increasing the persistence of annular mode anomalies (the leading mode of variability in mid-latitudes) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/aop/JAS-D-21-0055.1/JAS-D-21-0055.1.xml…
North Atlantic jet stream projections in context of the last 1,250 hears https://pnas.org/content/118/38/e2104105118
Methane release from Siberian permfrost following the 2020 heat wave [link]
Policy & technology
The developing world needs energy – and lots of it [link]
Past world economic production constrains current energy demands [link]
The emerging Republican climate policy framework [link]
Using artificial intelligence to safeguard the world’s energy infrastructure [link]
Global potential for harvesting drinking water from air using solar power [link]
UNEP: Current climate commitments are weak promises [link]
The promise of integrated electricity planning [link]
Reliance on renewable energy runs into reality [link]
Why is california shutting down its last nuclear power plant? [link]
Japan to restart nuclear power plants amid carbon cutting push https://cityam.com/japan-to-restart-nuclear-power-plants-amid-carbon-cutting-push/…
France bets o more nuclear power in face of European energy crisis [link]
Is nuclear power ready at last for its ‘Model T’ moment? [link]
How to power a planet with lava [link]
Drivers of exceptional coastal warming in the northeastern United States [link]
European wind drought [link]
California’s new energy infrastructure: A transition to nowhere [link]
Asian Development Bank plans to buy out coal plants [link]
#UK Government Announces #NetZero Strategy That Includes Large-Scale #Nuclear And New #Reactor #Technologies https://nucnet.org/news/government-announces-net-zero-strategy-that-includes-large-scale-nuclear-and-new-reactor-technologies-10-2-2021…
Geophysical constraints on the reliability of wind and solar power world wide [link]
Contrails: How tweaking flight plans can help the climate [link]
Recycled lithium batteries good as newly mined [link]
Why India can’t wean itself off coal [link]
Making giant batteries out of iron [link]
Renewable energy paradox Solar Panels and their toxic waste [link]
In global energy crisis, anti-nuclear chickens come home to roost [link]
Bangladeshis really a climate success story [link]
U.S. Beef and dairy sectors can be climate neutral by 2050 [link]
California is poised to launch a groundbreaking program to buy vulnerable beachfront homes and rent them out until sea-level rise makes them uninhabitable. [link]
“Lack of electricity is one of the biggest and most intractable problems affecting Africa’s most populous country, where power cuts lasting hours or days are commonplace and millions of people have no access to any electricity at all.” [link]
How to prevent mega fires in the Sierra Nevada region [link]
Floating farms boost flood resilience [link]
What went wrong? Three decades of failure with carbon capture and storage [link]
About science and scientists
Follow the science? On the marginal role of social scientists in the Covid-19 pandemic [link]
MIT abandons its mission. And me [link]
The cancellation of a geophysics professor simply for having reasonable views on affirmative action does not bode well for academic freedom at MIT. https://realclearscience.com/2021/10/22/cancel_culture_has_a_lot_to_answer_for_800146.html
Ed Yong: How public health took part in its own downfall [link]
Funtowicz: A quick guide to post-normal science [link]
Provocative new book: The Dawn of Everything. Human history gets a rewrite [link]
#TheTrick — a drama about the 2009 hacking of emails from the Climatic Research Unit — is broadcast on BBC [link]
New ideas are struggling to emerge from the sea of science. Ossification of canon [link]
Australia High Court rules Peter Ridd firing by James Cook Uni was justified “Dr Ridd criticised the scientific organisations, alleging their work was not properly checked or replicated. He said some scientists were “emotionally attached to their subject”” https://abc.net.au/news/2021-10-14/qld-peter-ridd-high-court-appeal-loss-academics-free-speech/100535328
Nobel winners Card, Angrist, and Imbens didn’t just discover interesting stuff about the economy — they made economics more like a science. [link]
Why the latest campus candellation is different [link]
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 2021 #NobelPrize in Physics to Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi “for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems.”
what even counts as science writing anymore? [link]
Science is political, and we must deal with it [link]
Who gets to decide what is misinformation? The social science monoculture doubles down. [link]
Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know [link]
“The cancellation of a geophysics professor simply for having reasonable views on affirmative action does not bode well for academic freedom at MIT.”
America is already irreversibly on decline to a Soviet Style collapse, circa 91. Or at least we can hope we are so lucky to have a semi-non violent collapse of that nature.
Russia and China are at least a decade ahead of America’s clown show defense establishment in the most important technologies of war, missiles and hypersonics.
The Head of Engineering at the dump I work just claimed excitedly that they are supporting the push to have a form of engineering without the math, more oriented toward recruiting ‘people who just want to solve problems’.
This collapse is long overdue and should be celebrated by all people of good will. There will be painful moments, and many of those fancy pants scientists who are smirking about their more keen colleagues who are laid off for not getting an experimental drug are going to find that their future is selling vacuum cleaners and mowing lawns.
Of course, post Soviet collpase there was great hardship, runaway homicide rates, and many other challenges. Those most able to adapt and those who do not try and hold on to the old, dying way will fare best in the US fall. Monetary matters will become less important and unusual skills like converting computerized cars to analog, or those who can get a hold of things through connections, or barter skillfully will be the way of the survivors.
I wince to think how helpless the stuffy scientific crowd will be in this new world. Just posturing and relying on peer reviewed, inbred nonsense are not going to cut it. No doubt it will be too much for many of them.
Buckle up, its not that far off at this point.
Is anyone surprised that it was the MIT department responsible for climate science that canceled Dorian Abbott? Are there no adults left in the room at the Academy?
Mark Silbert wrote:
Is anyone surprised that it was the MIT department responsible for climate science that canceled Dorian Abbott?
Why didn’t Lindzen object and correct this?
Maybe because Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., retired in 2013 ?
Why so little indignation at Facebook’s self-cancellation ?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/10/zuckerberg-drops-atemic-bomb-global.html
v-v-attsupwiththat, please keep redirecting traffic to your page.
https://youtu.be/cC4WiBCoVeo
https://youtu.be/ZQP-7BPvvq0
See video above at 06:25
The change 5500yrs ago (3550bce) was abrupt, – Peter de Menocal says in one or two centuries, – and in no way that could be from the slow orbital changes of the earth.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-OpUWRHIK4 at 31:21 Described as wobble in earth’s axis. The evidence is a shift in the earth’s axis.
If you can get PBS- Skeletons of the Sahara-pt2 (cannot find link) at 02:41 gives series of dates of abrupt changes. These correspond to other evidence pointing to earth axial shifts. Those correlate with data here from one of links above https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/doi/10.1130/G49296.1/608090/New-estimates-of-the-magnitude-of-the-sea-level see dwnld pdf fig4
An ENSO transition from La Nino to El Nino dominated states some 5500 years ago.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/moy-2002.png
I’d put it down to higher solar activity.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
Video here. First minute.
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/014e344c-14dd-465d-bc68-69c80c94fd81/skeletons-of-the-sahara-part-2/
The dates show abrupt changes. Same date can be found in several proxies. Change lasts several centuries, cannot be linked to short-term solar changes. Climate change is a collateral event. Instances like the 6200 and 5200bce dates are linked to geological changes.
I applaud Sarah Hunt’s clarity on ways forward for Republicans.
https://issues.org/conservative-republican-climate-policy-agenda-hunt/
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I applaud Sarah Hunt’s clarity on ways forward for Republicans.
Who cares? Republicans have been enemies of action on climate change for decades. They clearly could not care less. Nor could you.
Activists have been failing on climate change and much else for decades.
Robert I. Ellison commented:Activists have been failing on climate change and much else for decades.
Like deniers have been doing better!! LOL
Mr. Apple:
Pro-fracking Republicans led the way for a US reduction of CO2 emissions that exceeded targets. You are too fast to criticize, and too slow to think, before commenting.
While there are obvious uncertainties, for the period of record, CERES data indicate that the absorption of solar radiation has increased at a rate nearly twice the rate of greenhouse gas radiative forcing.
I have produced an analysis of some CERES parameters here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance
The increased absorbed solar radiation appears to be fairly uniform by latitude ( figure 3f ).
This is not simply a matter of cloud area, which indicates a marked increase over the tropics and decreased cloud cover over the extratropics ( figure 6f ).
Cloud optical depth appears decreased over most latitudes with the exception of the Antarctic and Arctic ( figure 7f ).
Mr. McGee
I recommend your articles and many charts
to others with open minds.
Unlike other substack websites I’ve visited,
all the articles appear to be free.
My favorite price !
Richard – Thanx.
+1
“While there are obvious uncertainties, for the period of record, CERES data indicate that the absorption of solar radiation has increased at a rate nearly twice the rate of greenhouse gas radiative forcing.”
“Of note, the trend of CERES absorbed solar radiation at 6.7 W/m2 per century is nearly twice as large as the NOAA greenhouse gas radiative forcing trend of 3.5 W/m2 per century. To the extent that the CERES absorbed solar radiation estimate is accurate and to the extent that this effect on the radiation budget is reflected in temperature trends, most of the warming for the period 2000 through 2020 is due not to greenhouse gas forcing, but rather increased absorption of solar radiation.”
This is nothing more than junk science on steroids. The effort is top notch. The analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
I assume that the increase in solar irradiance referred to is the normal increase when a star ages. The 6.7 W/m2 per century is too high. NASA has estimated the increase to be 0.05 % per decade or 0.5 % per century. At 340 W/m2, that would be an increase of 1.7 W/m2 per century.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation we can estimate how much that would raise the temperature of the planet. That would be < 0.5 C. Not anywhere near the effect of greenhouse gases.
Then there is the matter of comparing solar radiation with radiative forcing. If ever there was an apple and oranges comparison, that's it. Radiative forcing is a measure of the inertia of the planet to temperature change. If a planet had no inertia, then radiative forcing would always be zero, and the temperature of the planet would never change, no matter what happened. Comparing solar radiation to radiative forcing means nothing.
So what should we compare solar radiation to determine it's relative impact. That would be back radiation from greenhouse gases. That number is 150 W/m2. Increases in solar radiation due to star aging are not responsible for the planet warming we are seeing.
JJ, he’s talking about absorbed solar radiation (incoming minus reflected), which is variable (clouds).
Your right! My bad.
You still need to compare it to back radiation of greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing is a completely different animal.
I estimate the temperature rise to be 1.8 C if the solar radiation increases by 6.7 W/m2. About the same as is expected if the COP-26 agreement become reality.
The other thing to remember is that the effects are additive not complementary. I find it hard to believe with increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere that cloud cover is going to decrease.
I’ve posted an analysis of CERES data ( 2001 through 2020 ).
There are, of course, uncertainties, but the trend of increased absorbed solar is nearly twice the trend of greenhouse gas radiative forcing.
This trend is fairly uniform with latitude.
Cloud area fraction appears increased in the tropics, decreased elsewhere
Cloud optical depth appears increased at the poles, decreased most elsewhere.
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance
“The trend of increased absorbed solar is nearly twice the trend of greenhouse gas radiative forcing.”
How do you come to this conclusion, which doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere in your collection of figures?
Good morning, Jim.
Figure 3e indicates that CERES absorbed solar radiation increased at 6.7W/m2 per century. The period of record of the NOAA AGGI greenhouse gas index indicates a forcing trend of about 3.5W/m2 per century.
I wrote more explicitly about this in last month’s post ( figures 2 & 3 ):
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/earth-radiance-trends
There are, of course, great uncertainties, exemplified not the least by the differences of trends and absolute values between satellite assessment, reanalysis, and prognostic climate models.
Still, CERES was designed specifically to answer these questions.
Good afternoon Steve (UTC),
My comment disappeared into moderation, but seems to have reappeared. Together with some of your comments too?
What’s your preferred explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the CERES v AGGI numbers?
And the discrepancy between CERES and ERA5?
Jim,
What’s your preferred explanation for the apparent discrepancy in the CERES v AGGI numbers?
And the discrepancy between CERES and ERA5?
Well, for the Outgoing Infrared Radiation of figure 3 at
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance
the AGGI is the forcing ( on the right hand side ).
Warming the atmosphere increases the outgoing IR back toward balance.
But the trend for CERES indicates an increase in outgoing IR.
The discrepancies between CERES and ERA5 may be within the large uncertainty range, but the ERA5 reanalysis even uses CERES as an input.
What about cloud brightness temperature as a function of droplet size?
One would expect that deforestation in the tropics would reduce aerosols – increasing droplet size – thus reducing reflectivity.
“New papers on the medieval warm period [link]”
4 interesting studies
there seems to be that all the long proxies that used in the reconstructions have a shaft but no blade.
Anybody have a site that has all the proxies in graph form – where we can observe the blade and the shaft for the proxies used in the various reconstructions such as pages 2k
thanks
Joe,
You might have seen recent studies by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, where a similar conclusion comes from PAGES group data. Long handles with no blades. Geoff S
Geoff – Steve does an excellent job showing the temp reconstruction for individual proxies and I really appreciate his efforts. The fraud is in the shaft, not the blade.
I posed the same question at Skeptical science – where there are true believers. Knowing full well that an anti-science websites including the pages2k website would not have temp graphs of the individual proxies
My latest on the science:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/28/clintel-catalogs-ipcc-errors-in-time-for-un-cop-26/
The beginning:
Teaming with the Irish Climate Science Forum, CLINTEL has produced a 17 page catalog of “misrepresentations” in the 40 page IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers, better known as the SPM. Now they have sent this error list to the IPCC Chair and other world leaders. You can read it here: https://clintel.org/clintel-letter-to-world-leaders-serious-misrepresentations-in-latest-ipcc-report/.
The analysis begins with a summary cover letter to Dr. Lee, Chair of the IPCC, titled: “Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM)”. It is signed by Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL and Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF.
The principal conclusion of the detailed critique is stated in the letter, as follows:
“We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scentific integrity within the IPCC.”
David
“We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality.”
I completely agree as the empirical model for the 30-year global mean temperature moving trend below shows deceleration until about 2040:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EA001015
from the link to Foreign Policy:
“In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered companies owning backup diesel generators to operate them nonstop when electricity demand is high in order to avoid rolling blackouts. In Britain, exploding natural gas prices have shuttered factories, bankrupted power companies, and threaten to cause food shortages. Germany, meanwhile, is set for the biggest jump in greenhouse emissions in 30 years due to surging use of coal for power generation, which the country depends on to back up weather-dependent wind and solar energy and fill the hole left by its shuttered nuclear plants.”
The irony here is that the current situation is because governments listened to climate crusaders. Governments believe CO2 poses an existential threat, therefore they want to reduce emissions and they followed the plans set by the crusaders.
Then discovered the climate crusaders’ plans don’t reduce emissions. As a result, they look for plans that do and discover that climate crusaders do not want those.
People are problem solvers. If you claim a “problem” and refuse to solve it, people reasonably conclude it’s not a problem. Or they solve it without you. Because it’s very expensive and not good politics to try to solve global warming without the support of climate crusaders, option one wins.
But…. COP26!
Again, people (including politicians) are problem solvers. The problem is two-fold: politicians don’t like to say they were wrong, and climate crusaders have convinced the media to avoid admitting the policies were bad- we only lack infinite spending and a willingness to be without energy as a result.
So politicians solved the problem: they make “non-binding pledges” to continue ineffective policies with deadlines set to go into effect when somebody else will be in power.
And they build energy infrastructure with fossil fuels.
MONTH TOTAL DEATHS
SEPTEMBER, 2020 27,798
OCTOBER, 2020 24,271
NOVEMBER, 2020 38,500
DECEMBER, 2020 77,967
JANUARY, 2021 99,352
FEBRUARY, 2021 74,211
MARCH, 2021 39,672
APRIL, 2021 24,923
MAY, 2021 20,271
JUNE, 2021 10,436
JULY, 2021 9,090
AUGUST, 2021 27,410
SEPTEMBER, 2021 60,182
OCTOBER, 2021 52,027
I have moved here to be easy to find and be out of the way!!!!
Positive 31,654
Tests 624,000
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 422
Positive 22,668
Total 356,363
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 109
Positive 71,096
Tests 2,754,935
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 903
Total deaths October 35,449
DATE POSITIVE TOTAL % DEATHS
11/1/2021 27,745 1,291,863 2 283
11/2/2021 43,196 4,321,915 1 777
11/3/2021 71,630 1,872,343 4 1,343
11/4/2021 76,977 1,762,296 4 1,464
11/5/2021 73,476 1,615,563 5 1,302
11/6/2021 31,654 624,000 5 422
11/7/2021 22,668 356,363 6 109
11/8/2021 37,119 1,417,844 3 313
11/9/2021 60,486 3,099,610 2 1,103
11/10/2021 80,589 1,679,392 5 1,213
11/11/2021 39,082 731,462 5 537
11/12/2021 81,491 2,265,759 4 869
11/13/2021 31,232 418,576 7 472
11/14/2021 19,443 1,327,632 1 110
11/15/2021 52,307 2,737,470 2 224
11/16/2021 79,162 1,931,796 4 1,154
11/17/2021 97,512 1,369,340 7 1,437
11/18/2021 88,318 1,697,828 5 1,013
11/19/2021 104,844 2,031,031 5 1,171
11/20/2021 36,621 444,160 8 404
11/21/2021 28,195 9,262,782 0.3 420
11/22/2021 59,918 1,867,339 3 315
11/23/2021 71,096 2,754,935 3 903
11/24/2021 95,768 1,653,035 6 1,444
11/25/2021 15,723 894,423 2 275
11/26/2021 29,342 774,533 4 296
11/27/2021 17,892 484,733 4 91
11/28/2021 15,706 59,841 26 79
11/29/2021 48,867 2,387,334 1 269
11/30/2021 75,815 1,899,175 4 496
Positive 27,745
Tests 1,291,877
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 283
Positive 43,196
Tests 4,321,915
% of total tests 1
Total deaths 777
Positive 71,630
Total tests 1,872,343
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,343
Could you explain exactly
what these numbers are
and what they mean?
71,630 is the total number of positives out of the 1,872,343 tests done in the USA
71,630 is 4 % of 1,872,343
1,343 is total deaths that day from COVID-19.
Positive 76,977
Total tests 1,762,296
% of total tests 4
Total dead 1,464
Positive 73,476
Tests 1,625,563
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,302
I’m puzzled why you did not start the COVID death counts in March 2020 — that would seem to be the natural month to start tracking the COVID epidemic.
While 2021 has not yet ended, I believe it is very safe to say US average COVID deaths per day in 2021 will exceed US average COVID deaths per day in 2020,
I compared the last 9 months of 2020 with the first 9 months of 2021.
2021 was 17% higher than 2020.
I believe the same methodology for counting COVID deaths was used in both periods.
Therefore, my conclusion is that COVID vaccines have not reduced COVID deaths, and they have added additional deaths (and serious injuries) from the vaccines themselves.
This is not what was promised when the vaccines were introduced, and is especially disappointing because the percentage of the US population with natural antibodies has been increasing every month since March 2020.
Your opinion?
The purpose of starting in September was to show the testers and contact tracers what a good job hey have done. Monthly deaths was just a shocking number to use.
From January 31 2021 to present just shows them what the administration has done and how well they are holding it down!!!!
By November 3, 2020 242,473 people in the US had died of Covid.
By January 20, 2021 429,917 people in the US had died of Covid.
By December 31, given the winter uptick started last week, the number will be exceed 880,000.
With well over half the country previously infected, 59% fully vaccinated, and 68% vaccinated… how is this happening? Why is the current president going to be responsible for most of the deaths – in country where over half the population was vaccinated or recovered by the time he took over?
The numbers after January 1,2022 won’t be comparable, since the CDC is requiring labs to switch to tests that distinguish between the flu and Covid (current tests don’t). This should affect case rates as well. Information on the test issue is from a bulletin on the CDC website.
Less than 20% of the country is unvaccinated and uninfected.
A clue to what is going on is in the Scotland numbers where 2/3rds of the cases and 80% of the deaths are fully vaccinated.
As a side note: Indonesia which had a recent peak of around 57000 cases per day is down to 500. The decline occurred after they started issuing a 7 day supply of drugs and vitamins to new Covid patients. The decline from the previous peak was a factor of 3 not a factor of 100.
Positive 37,119
Tests 1,417,844
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 313
Positive 60,486
Tests 3,099,610
% of positive tests 2
Total deaths
Total deaths 1,103
Positive 80,589
Tests 1,679,392
% of total tests 5
T0tal deaths 1,213
Positive 39,082
Tests 731,462
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 537
Positive 81,491
Tests 2,265,759
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 869
Positive 31,232
Tests 418,576
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 472
Positive 19,443
Testa 1,327,623
% of total tests 1
Total deaths 110
8th, 9th and 10th testers and contact tracers had 3 very good days. Let us see if this is how well the 6 day rule works!!!!
Positive 52,307
Tests 2,737,470
% of total tests 2
Positive 79,162
Tests 1,931,796
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,154
At least the testers and contact tracers are keeping the % in single digits!!!!
CLOSE THE BORDER!!!!
Positive 97,512
Total 1,369,340
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 1,437
Positive 88,313
Tests 1,697,828
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,013
Positive 104,844
Tests 2,031,031
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,717
Total deaths 1,171
Positive 36,621
Tests 44,160
% of total tests 8
Total deaths 404
Positive 28,195
Tests 9,262,782 ??
% of total tests
Total deaths 420
Positive 59,918
Tests 1,867,339
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 315
Robert D Clark | November 23, 2021 at 7:09 pm |
Positive 71,096
Tests 2,754,935
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 903
Positive 95,768
Tests 1,653,035
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 1,444
Positive 15,723
Tests 894,423
% of total tests
Total deaths 275
Positive 29,342
Tests 774,533
% of totaltests 4
Total deaths 296
Positive 17,892
Tests 484,33
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 91
Positive 15,706
Tests 59,841
% of total tests
Total deaths 79
% of total tests 26
Positive 48,867
Tests 2,387,334
% of total tests 2
total deaths 269
Positive 75,815,752
tests 1,899,175
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 496
Testers and Contact tracers averaged over 1,775,000 daily tests in November.
Positive 112,817
Total 2,784,186
% 0f total tests 4
Total deaths
Total deaths 1,483
Positive 116,397
Tests 1,604,307
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 1,1367
Positive 133,662
Total 2,354,227
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 1,199
Positive 55,701
Tests 780,534
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 492
Positive 26,658
Tests 213,603
% of total tests 12
Total deaths 140
Positive 73,094
Tests 2,167,418
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 409
Positive 86,995
Tests 3,741,736
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 1,264
Yesterday, stay in Mexico began. Next Saturday is 6 days later.
What will the % do?
Positive 114,684
Tests 1,992,410
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 1,229
About 18000 years ago the new ice age began. Until the land mass grew enough the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere kept growing. About 18000 years ago the green foliage was not enough to stunt the growth of carbon dioxide. As the oceans dropped and as the land mass grew the carbon dioxide level began to drop. About 16000 years ago the land mass, and green foliage, was enough to overcome nature. 8000 years ago, man plus nature began to make more carbon dioxide than the growth of green foliage could overcome, and the carbon dioxide began to rise until present.
ALL YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FROM THIS IS THAT THE NEW ICE AGE BEGAN ABOUT 18,000 YEARS AGO!!!!!
The ice at the poles is not melting off. The ice at the poles is breaking off.
COMMON SENSE!!!
Please move again.
President Biden is now telling the world how much he understands the urgency to control GLOBAL WARMING.
A 42 mile stretch of Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, the Arctic’s largest remaining ice shelf, has broken off and shattered near Greenland, according to the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden has lost over 60 square miles of area since GEUS’ 1999 survey. Recent record temperatures have hit the shelf particularly hard.
As that massive block of ice melted, which was originally resting on solid earth when it was formed, the volume of water would have a tendency to raise the height of the oceans It had an overhang from the 39′ water melting the bottom of the ice block
Greenland ice mass gains this winter
appear to be slightly above
the 1981 to 2010 30 year average.
Source:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20211105.png
(CNN)The world’s largest iceberg has calved from Antarctica over the past few days, a giant floating piece of ice close to 80 times the size of Manhattan.
The iceberg broke off the western side of the Ronne Ice Shelf in Antarctica’s Weddell Sea, the European Space Agency (ESA) said Wednesday.
The iceberg is shaped like a giant ironing board, measuring around 170 kilometers (105 miles) in length and 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) in width. That makes it slightly larger than the Spanish island of Majorca, ESA said.
Just 2 samples of how nature is keeping a constant surface temperature of the earth and a constant height of the oceans.
Now think about the tour boats in Alaska that sit by the blocks of ice and they watch the ice shear off, go straight down until they hit bottom or become buoyant, lie flat and drift away.
The water volume of the above is probably small compared daily break-off.
Senator Dick Durbin talked about the the importance of changing our way of life to fight GLOBAL WARMING.
Why is it no-one is understanding the truth about GLOBAL WARMING and GLOBAL COOLINGiiii
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and losses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is constant since absolute zero is constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
Absolute Zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’. Radiant heat striking the earth surface every day is larger than that radiated from the surface to the black sky. That retained by the surface is dependent by the surface area of the earth covered by warter.
The average surface temperature of the earth surface is about 63.5’f. The difference between the earth’s average surface temperature and absolute zero is 522’F. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is constant. Because the sun is an active star the average temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation, we began the making of ice, thus the new ice age. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
The Vostok Ice core shows 4 Ice Ages in the last 4 hundred thousand years. I will assume that during that time the CO2 emitted by the actions of nature is constant. The lowest CO2 level is about 190ppm and frozen during the Ice Making somewhere in the middle of the Ice Making cycle, but the actual end of the Ice Making cycle is much later. The beginning of the rise in CO2 is the beginning of the next Ice Making cycle.
The last Ice Age, from lowest ocean level to lowest ocean level, was about 120,000 years.
The first 8,000 years taking ice from the continents and putting the water in the oceans. RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE OCEANS.
The next about 8,000 years, taking water from the oceans, freezing it, dropping the ice on the frozen parts of the continents. The ocean levels begin to drop. The radiant heat radiated to the black sky is equal to that retained by the earth from the sun.
When the ocean levels began to rise, as it got to the new ice blocks the 39-degree salt water began melting the underside of the ice blocks. WHEN THE HEAT MELTING THE ICE BREAKING OFF THE ICE BLOCKS EQUALED THE HEAT LOST TO THE BLACK SKY THE OCEANS STOPPED GOING DOWN.
THAT IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.
IN ABOUT ANOTHER 100,000 YEARS THE ICE BLOCKS WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE, THE OCEAN WILL DROP FOR ABOUT ANOTHER 8,000 YEARS. AS THE iCE IS PUT BACK ON THE CONTINENTS.
The high CO-2 level is good for the green foliage. The farmers, lumberjacks, etc. will like it. The down side is more foliage waste on the floor of the forests.
I sent a copy of this to Bjorn Lomborg. We will see if he at least recognizes there is a possibility I am correct.
Nothing on Mr. Lomborg’s sight yet.
I guess it is all about the greenbacks.
In this true science means nothing.
With the virus human life is of no value
Robert Clark, global cooling, LOLz.
Dumb denier.
The average surface temperature remains constant around 63 degrees farenheight as it is now.
Robert D Clark wrote:
The average surface temperature remains constant around 63 degrees farenheight as it is now.
False.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
I still say the average surface temperature has remained relatively constant over the last 400,000 years. That is what the ICE CORE shows.
Robert D Clark commented:
I still say the average surface temperature has remained relatively constant over the last 400,000 years. That is what the ICE CORE shows.
Just a plain stupid, unintelligent, dumb, obviously untrue claim.
Goodbye Robert D Clark.
You are probably correct. My wife agrees with you. She is never wrong.
I AM CORRECT.,
IT TAKES A SIMPLE MIND TO UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE AND PERFECT DESIGN!!!!
This year, winter in the US begins on the first of November.
https://i.ibb.co/8d66Rh7/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png
Another useless comment of ren, waste of space and time.
“Lasting impact of winds on Arctic sea ice through the ocean’s memory.”
Nowhere does the paper define the ocean’s memory. Undoubtedly, the oceans also have feelings. Never offend their feelings. Offer a sacrifice to ocean’s gods before sailing.
Did you not read this part of the paper George?
“The Arctic liquid freshwater content varies on a quasi-decadal timescale as a memory of wind forcing (Proshutinsky et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2018)“
Are ice cores a memory? Are sediments a memory?
I don’t like when people redefine meaning of words, be it “memory”, “marriage”, “gender”, or “bipartisan”.
Curious George wrote:
“Lasting impact of winds on Arctic sea ice through the ocean’s memory.”
Half of Arctic sea ice gone since 1979.
Wanna comment on that??
Sure David.
Please see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-november-2021/
4644 / 16855 = ?
It’s not a half, it’s about 70%. However, do you find the “mystery”?
https://i.imgur.com/VGh6y7d.png
Evening Frank (UTC),
We’ve already been through this recently. It’s no “mystery”:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#comment-961303
An alternative way of putting things, from Armour et al. (2011):
https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3823.1
“We can expect the thicker MY ice to thin at a greater rate than the thinner FY ice.“
frankclimate commented:
It’s not a half, it’s about 70%.
Your trend extrapolation ends in 2012, ignoring the last 9 years of data!
The best, current linear fit shows a loss of 50%.
“The best, current linear fit shows a loss of 50%.”
Gotta link to an image that illustrates the point you are endeavouring, but failing, to make?
Here’s one “Tamino” made earlier?
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Tamino-3segments.jpg
Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?
Jim Hunt wrote:
Please see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-november-2021/
4644 / 16855 = ?
What’s your point?
What numbers are these?
What does your calculation mean?
Afternoon David,
Can I safely assume that you have yet again neglected to click one of my helpful links?
With apologies to the moderator if this doesn’t work either:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1d472MwGiQ&w=560&h=315%5D
Which it didn’t.
At the risk of repeating myself:
What’s the secret incantation that allows embedding of YouTube videos on here?
Hi Jim, I don’t think that Amour et al (2011) tells the whole story. In their fig.6 they estimate a SIV of 1/6 after the shift, we have 1/3 and no sign of further reducing. I want to introduce Stroeve et al ( 2018) https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/12/1791/2018/tc-12-1791-2018.pdf . They find a negative feedback for the Sept. SIV and it’s growing to the next April. I replicated it with this figure:
https://i.imgur.com/5WKWt6o.png
Thin ice grows faster then thicker ice.
(Sorry for the link, in older times WordPress replicated those figures.)
The trenslope is highly statistical significant and steeper for the years after 2012. The negative feddback is mighty, therefore some trend-extrapolation excercises loose sense.
And yes: The forecast of the Sept. Sea Ice is more complicated, it’s now more or less a weather forecast, not a climate forecast. Therefore some outlooks ( e.g. SIPN) don’t make too much sense IMHO.
Afternoon Frank,
“In older times WordPress replicated those figures”
The current inability to illustrate one’s point with an image is a right pain in the posterior!
“No sign of further reducing”
I beg to differ:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/the-last-ice-area-in-the-arctic/
What little sea ice that remains in the Arctic is being redistributed:
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CS2-SMOS_Anom_20211025.png
“Thin ice grows faster than thicker ice.”
It most certainly does!
“The forecast of the Sept. Sea Ice is… now more or less a weather forecast, not a climate forecast.”
It most certainly is. Another summer with weather like 2007 and Prof. Wadhams’ forecast might finally come true!
Jim,
the killer for the youtube videos is likely the html code at the end
( the % 5 D ). Specifying youtubes with only the ?v=xxxxxx seems to work.
I’m not quite sure why videos are okay, but images are not, but that’s evidently where we’re at.
Jim,
wait- what I wrote about youtubes may not be accurate.
I loaded your link, then copied the URL from the youtube page and pasted.
That link doesn’t include any parameters, but is simply ( remove spaces ):
[ h t t p s : // youtu.be / r1d472MwGiQ ]
Without parameters it appears to display the youtube title image.
Thanks Steve,
However as far as I can see that’s precisely what I’d been doing, for my first few attempts at least.
One more try:
https://youtu.be/CcuATGjvdXI
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.
The secret seems to be copying the video’s URL from the browser address bar rather than using the one offered by the “Share” facility.
With that mystery finally solved, the moving pictures reveal that the Northern Sea Route was “open” for a much shorter period this year than in 2020. However now that the ESS and Laptev Sea are largely ice covered there has been a “brief hiatus” in extent increase. In the absence of the ability to embed images see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-november-2021/#Nov-06
Hi Jim once again and with some humour this time:
“Prof. Wadhams’ forecast might finally come true!”
I beg to differ. The forecast was from 2012 ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice ) and it can’t get true anymore. We are NOT in 2016. :-)
If I remember correctly there also was some rumble between him and Gavin Schmidt. IMO in this case Gavin war right.
best Frank
Evening Frank,
I also beg to differ once again, since I was referring to a different quotation from Peter Wadhams:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
“In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”
Jim Hunt, I clicked your link and read the page, but am not going to analyze it so deeply until I can match a number you gave. Please be clear what you’re doing with some simple words of explanation.
Note that that graph ends in 2001 and is missing the last 20 years of data!
Jim Hunt, the problem with using the monthly minimum is it fluctuates from year to year. Instead I used the all the monthly averages from PIOMAS, fit a straight line to them, and calculated the fractional loss from it. That gives a trend of -302 km3/yr, an ice loss of about 11 trillion tons, with a fractional loss (according to the line) of -50%.
Regardless of the exact calculation, the point is about half of all Arctic sea ice is gone in just over 40 years. That’s astonishing and concerning.
Jim Hunt, your Tamino graph is for extent, not volume.
For Arctic SIE I calculate (linear regression) a loss of -19% since 1979.
Good evening David (UTC),
“Tamino” was using annual average extent, rather than the daily minimum.
At any rate, we finally seem to have established our different assorted calculation methods. And agreed that volume is the most relevant metric, albeit not the easiest to measure.
And whichever way you slice and dice it, the rate at which Arctic sea ice has been declining over recent decades is undoubtedly a cause for concern.
I’ll comment, Mr. Apple:
Half the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area is NOT gone since 1979 !
And Southern hemisphere sea ice are is almost the same as 1979
Total global sea ice in 2021 was almost the same as in 1978.
Total Northern Hemisphere sea ice area is down in the 10% to 20% range
Data above from NSIDC, accessed Spring 2021
You must be comparing winter sea ice extent in 1979
with summer sea ice extent in 2021. ha ha
Evidently you haven’t been paying close enough attention Richard? FYI:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963494
Jim Hunt commented:And whichever way you slice and dice it, the rate at which Arctic sea ice has been declining over recent decades is undoubtedly a cause for concern.
Thanks. That was my point all along.
The same circulation as in the graphic above (Maunder’s Minimum) is currently observed over North America.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7122/maunder_minimum_temperature.gif
https://i.ibb.co/kXmgG55/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
Sunspots are very faint during this solar cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/wrfZ5Z2/solradmon-eng.png
http://wso.stanfor.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gifd.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Lack of synchronization of the activity of the solar hemispheres.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north
Sorry.
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Reading the news coverage, I do not understand how they think COP26 could even address these calls for action. This is a UNFCCC business meeting with a very specific agenda. National Plans are not on it. Neither are global resolutions to stop using coal or hit net zero by 2050, neither of which could possibly pass in any case. As last chances go this is no chance, but the press is full of calls for action or ambition. This is not what COPs do.
Safely managed drinking water (SMDW) delivering 5L/day/person of solar-driven atmospheric water harvesting (AWH). 5L is something – but it remains expensive water. Bill Gate’s high tech toilet for the poor comes to mind. There are low tech alternatives.
‘Here we show that AWH could provide SMDW for a billion people. Our assessment—using Google Earth Engine13—introduces a hypothetical 1-metre-square device with a SY profile of 0.2 to 2.5 litres per kilowatt-hour (0.1 to 1.25 litres per kilowatt-hour for a 2-metre-square device) at 30% to 90% RH, respectively. Such a device could meet a target average daily drinking water requirement of 5 litres per day per person14.’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1G2oC2cuTw
Hydrophilic surfaces have potential when combined with traditional materials and exceptional design.
e.g. https://www.warkawater.org/projects/
The question is not IF, but WHY models run hot. I am afraid the “critical side” has not yet realized the problem. Models, or ECS estimates in general, are build on two simplifying assumptions: a surface emissivity = 1 (or almost) and clear skies.
The idea is, these simplifications would have little impact on the result, but the opposite is true. They introduce huge errors, with 2xCO2 dropping to 2W/m2, and radiative vapor feedback to only 0.5W/m2 once realistic parameters are allowed for. Remarkably they have no effect on lapse rate “feedback” (technically it is not a feedback), which makes WV+LR feedback negative all over.
ECS turns out to be well <0.5K once the radiative models are done correctly.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
No – that’s not the problem.
It is not the problem because of a ..mental illiterae?! Define your point pls!
I posted the Tapio Schneider video because of his sensitivity calculation.
But a ‘mental illiterate’ – whatever that means – is sufficient to tell me where you are coming from.
Contrarians suffer from epiphanies in which they have tremendous certitude. Alarmists suffer under simplicities that they regard as unassailable wisdom.
Not particularly convincing.
Clouds are not predictable because they’re not resolved among other problems – but proceed with model games anyway?
Of course, clouds may not even be accurately measured, much less predictable.
But, understanding that there is great uncertainty, I have done a brief analysis of CERES cloud changes here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance
Absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of GHG forcing.
Cloud area increased at low latitudes, but decreased at high latitudes.
A brief comparison of GISS Model E and ERA5 reanalysis of cloud area fraction is visible in figures 8a and 8b from:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
Reanalysis may be erroneous, of course, but barring any better objective test, there is certainly no demonstrated skill in climate models of clouds.
Not convincing.
Clouds are not predictable because they’re not resolved among other problems – but proceed with model games anyway?
Of course, clouds may not even be accurately measured, much less predictable.
But, understanding that there is great uncertainty, I have done a brief analysis of CERES cloud changes here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance
Absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of GHG forcing.
Cloud area increased at low latitudes, but decreased at high latitudes.
A brief comparison of GISS Model E and ERA5 reanalysis of cloud area fraction is visible in figures 8a and 8b from:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
Reanalysis may be erroneous, of course, but barring any better objective test, there is certainly no demonstrated skill in climate models of clouds.
Schneider et al model at cloud resolving scale – which is what makes it such an interesting study. To do so at a global scale would require quantum computing.
‘As the climate system responds to warming, changes in clouds, water vapor, surface albedo and temperature further alter EEI. These properties also respond to internal variations in the climate system occurring over a range of timescales, causing additional EEI variability. Examples of internal variations include weather events, which vary from days to weeks, El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (Philander, 1983), which vary on interannual timescales, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Mantua et al., 1997), which varies on decadal timescales.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Low level marine stratocumulus is a positive feedback to sea surface temperature.
McGee wrote:
Absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of GHG forcing.
Citation?
I don’t know if it’s true or even how it might be determined. But it is clear that there are influential climate changes independent of anthropogenic forcing.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/hadcru.png
‘Increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) have led to an imbalance between how much solar radiant energy is absorbed by Earth and how much thermal infrared radiation is emitted to space. This net radiation imbalance, also referred to as Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI), has led to increased global mean temperature, sea level rise, increased heating within the ocean, and melting of snow and sea ice (IPCC, 2013). In addition to anthropogenic radiative forcing by WMGG, EEI is influenced by aerosol emissions and land use change as well as by natural forcings associated with volcanic emissions and variations in solar irradiance. As the climate system responds to warming, changes in clouds, water vapor, surface albedo and temperature further alter EEI. These properties also respond to internal variations in the climate system occurring over a range of timescales, causing additional EEI variability. Examples of internal variations include weather events, which vary from days to weeks, El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events (Philander, 1983), which vary on interannual timescales, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; Mantua et al., 1997), which varies on decadal timescales.’
Evidently you’re still here David!
Have you seen this yet?
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963259
Robert I. Ellison commented:
But it is clear that there are influential climate changes independent of anthropogenic forcing.
Why?
Seriously, why???
McGee wrote:
Absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of GHG forcing.
And this is better how??
McGee wrote:
Absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of GHG forcing.
Dude thinks greenhouse gas forcing just simply goes away with absorbed solar.
LOL LOL LOLz
The Australian October 2021 CO2-e abatement auction contracts for 6.8m tonnes of abatement at $16.94/tonne.
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/PublishingImages/auction-results-october-2021/13th%20Auction%20Oct%202021_Contract_portfolio.png
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/auctions-results/october-2021
The BBC program “The Trick” linked above is a simply laughably biased view of “Climategate”, although very much in line with the BBC’s thoroughly partisan position that basically makes the organization a mouthpiece for environmentalism. No other viewpoints get any kind of representation any longer.
‘Elon Musk says he is willing to spend $6 billion to fight world hunger—on one condition’
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/elon-musk-tells-un-food-chief-hell-spend-6-billion-to-fight-hunger.html
Elon Musk wants to know how it is to be spent. $6B could help about 60 million kids avoid stunting with a benefit of $30 for every dollar spent providing exceptional value. The best way is to piggyback on local health clinics supplying micronutrient supplements to mothers to be and infants.
e.g. https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/third-copenhagen-consensus-hunger-and-malnutrition-assessment-hoddinott-rosegrant-torero
Scafetta: 1980–1990 to 2011–2021 is from stronger solar wind states driving a colder AMO, to weaker solar wind states driving a warmer AMO. Does that sound like all forced warming?
Svensmark: Low cloud cover has declined since 1995 in the same time frame that GCR’s have increased. That didn’t work out very well.
The 8.2kyr event: I though the Lake Agassiz release was about 150 years earlier?
“Quantifying the rarity of extreme multi-decadal trends: how unusual was the late twentieth century trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation?”
The NAO was positive when the solar wind was stronger, that’s why the AMO was colder then.
“ In 1910, a devastating series of wildfires known as the Big Blowup destroyed 3 million acres across Idaho, Montana and Washington in just two days.”
The combined population of those three states in 1910 was 1.7 million.
“ Now, the Forest Service estimates anywhere from 6-9 million acres in California need treatment such as mechanical thinning or controlled burning to reduce the amount of dry fuel. But the agency estimates it is only treating around 200,000 acres per year in California and that it will take anywhere from 30 to 45 years to catch up.”
California’s population is approaching 40 million.
http://2hiwrx1aljcd3ryc7x1vkkah.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/US-Forest-area-burned-1926-2017.png
Forests don’t naturally change just because we want to live there.
CKid wrote:
“ In 1910, a devastating series of wildfires known as the Big Blowup destroyed 3 million acres across Idaho, Montana and Washington in just two days.”
Wow, can any semi-intelligent person think of any reason — any reason at all — that fires might have grown and spread in 1910 when they wouldn’t in 2021?
ANYONE????
A front from the north will cause a “lake effect” and snowfall in the Great Lakes region.
https://i.ibb.co/0JfLs8S/Screenshot-2.png
Such large anomalies over the continents increasingly convince me that during periods of low solar activity, as humidity in the upper troposphere decreases, anomalies near the surface will increase, and this will be true in both summer and winter.
Already a large high is visible over central Canada and the US.
https://i.ibb.co/V3tpMZT/gfs-mslpa-Norm-us-1.png
My favorite tweet about the movie The Trick:
https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike/status/1450705729439125504
Looks like WordPress is not going to expand it. From 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐅𝐚𝐫𝐪𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐫
@grant_farquhar:
Mike Dombroski wrote:
Splicing low resolution paleoclimatic records to high resolution thermometer records, then removing those same paleo records that trended down…
And you would handle the divergence how?
The per capita death rate from COVID19 in Peru is 2,000 times that of China.
CKid wrote:
The per capita death rate from COVID19 in Peru is 2,000 times that of China.
Wow are you clueless. It’s sad.
What is your point. I was simply conveying a fact without interpretation. Talk about being clueless.
Joshua | November 5, 2021 at 9:21 am | Reply
The per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Mississippi is 1,300 times that of China.
Just sayin’”
The reported death rate is China is credible?
Gullible maybe
“The reported death rate is China is credible?
Gullible maybe”
Josh sees stars; gas giants are his inspiration.
The per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Mississippi is 1,300 times that of China.
Just sayin’
What is the source of your data on Chinese deaths? Do you find it reliable?
I think all questions about reliability for any COVID19 data are fair. That has been true during the entire pandemic. The below link was my source. Go to column “deaths/million” click at top of column and countries will be reordered from highest to lowest.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
Thanks boyz
This couldn’t have possibly worked out any more perfectly!
Kid and I used the same source for per capita death rate in China.
But when I use that source, ideologically oriented “skepticism” crawls out of the woodwork. No one asked Kid about the validity of the China stat. Must be a coincidence, of course. Lol
(Kid, to his credit, responded to the questions directed at me – recognizing that the question should be applied to him as well)
That, my friends, is why I put skeptics in quotes at this site.
And no, i have no particular faith in the per capita numbers in China.
But again, notice the selectivity in the skepticism in why I was asked about the reliability for the numbers in China but not for Mississippi. Not to say that I think they are equally validity – but the validity of COVID outcome stats are problematic across the board
The NAO is falling again, and the forecast doesn’t show much change. This means precipitation and gradual cooling in Western and Central Europe. Demand for gas and coal will increase further. High gas and coal prices will continue.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
Western and Central Europe should see major cold spells in February and March 2022, when gas storage levels would be at their lowest.
The collapse of the consensus on Covid-19 being of natural origin last May is now grudgingly being replaced by a new consensus informed by mounting evidence focusing on the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
“A letter from Lawrence Tabak, the National Institutes of Health’s principal deputy director, to Kentucky congressman James Comer confirms that the NIH funded research at the WIV during 2018–2019 that manipulated a bat coronavirus called WIV1.” https://www.city-journal.org/new-evidence-for-lab-leak-hypothesis-of-covid-origins?wallit_nosession=1
Tabak admits that the WIV was engaged in gain of function research on a lab created SARS virus designed to infect humans. He also admits that the funding was coming from the US NIH through Eco Heath Alliance’s Peter Daszak and that they did not properly follow safety protocols. However, the virus they were working on was WIV1 is not the SARS-COV2 virus. So all if good. Right?
Only conspiracy nuts would think that the WIV would be thinking about inserting a Furin cleavage site, (known to make viruses deadly to humans), into a SARS virus. Wait… It also came out just weeks ago that Peter Daszak proposed doing just that in 2018 in a grant application to DARPA, the US Defense Dept.’s advanced weapons research program. But it was turned down. So all is good. Right?
Here is an amazing debate moderated by Science Magazine over Zoom with Alina Chan and other virologists, including a co-author on the DARPA grant proposal who kept the secret to himself for two years because… it’s not his property to divulge. Watch while he calmly points the finger at the US when Alina Chan asks him who had the bright idea of inserting a Furin cleavage site. https://www.science.org/content/article/lab-leak-and-natural-origin-proponents-face-civilly-forum-pandemic-origins
Ron –
It’s certainly very interesting that you think that discussion was a “debate.”
But perhaps even more interesting is that you think that discussion was evidence of a “collapse” of a natural origin consensus.
Fascinating.
Ron –
> …including a co-author on the DARPA grant proposal who kept the secret to himself for two years because… it’s not his property to divulge. Watch while he calmly points the finger at the US when Alina Chan asks him who had the bright idea of inserting a Furin cleavage site.
I love this.
Instead of looking at his response with good faith – where you’d assume he’s being honest and straightforward, you interpret his response from a conspiratorial mindset.
Consider the cultural differences here. Consider that within a Chinese frame, responding that it wasn’t his place to step outside the hierarchical structuring of responsibility to report on the unfunded research proposal submitted to the defense department, might not well justify conspiratorial ideation.
Consider, also, when he said that the idea for the research came from the an American university, he wasn’t “pointing the finger at the US.” Just fascinating what you assume about him because he’s Chinese (as a scientist working in Singapore).
Nicely done!
Joshua wrote: “Consider, also, when he said that the idea for the research came from the an American university, he wasn’t “pointing the finger at the US.” Just fascinating what you assume about him because he’s Chinese (as a scientist working in Singapore).”
I try to keep an open mind. Assuming that somebody is guilty is just as illogical as assuming they are innocent. And, even people who a jury would judge guilty might not judge themselves so. Dr. Wang identifies himself as Chinese but that is only a minor factor. Peter Daszak and many of his researchers are not Chinese. So it’s not about nationality or race. It’s more about institutional power dynamics and their effect on corrupting the truth when it becomes inconvenient.
Joshua, do you think Alina Chan’s asking Wang about whose idea it was for the furin cleavage site was inappropriate? Did you think that Wang seemed transparent, pointing to the University of NC rather than an individual? Do you think he doesn’t know the individual or is protecting someone like Ralph Baric? Remember, Wang knows that Baric is a letter signer calling on the Chinese to be more transparent. Wang is not a signer.
Ron –
> Joshua, do you think Alina Chan’s asking Wang about whose idea it was for the furin cleavage site was inappropriate?
Inappropriate? No. But let’s be clear that it extends from different lines of origin. One is scientific or factual curiosity. Another is from a conspiratorial or blaming mindset. Both are fine, and ojwrahos there was a conspiracy, but the implication of a conspiratorial mindset shouldn’t just be hand-waved away.
This was discussed in the pod, I think by one of the co-signers on the letter asking for more investigation of the lab leak origin. He said that it’s important to disaggregate the conspiracy-based lab leak explanation from the non-conspiracy based theories.
> Did you think that Wang seemed transparent, pointing to the University of NC rather than an individual?
Transparent? I think he could certainly have been more proactively transparent and that would be better. But I wouldn’t assign any kind of motivation to him, reverse engineering from Sub-optinal transparency without more evidence.
> Do you think he doesn’t know the individual or is protecting someone like Ralph Baric?
I wouldn’t know. But if that were the case there could be multiple reasons why that were the case. Again, if you want to reverse engineer a conspiracy it some kind of nefarious intent, that’s your right. But own it if that’s what you’re doing and YOU should be proactive about your lack of confirmatory or dispositive evidence.
> Remember, Wang knows that Baric is a letter signer calling on the Chinese to be more transparent. Wang is not a signer.
Again, I favor circumspection about reverse engineering. For example, he may well think that the best way to get the Chinese government to be more forthcoming is through positive engagement. I think there are plenty of scientists who are legitimately focused on finding the best way to reinforce scientific partnership with the Chinese because they believe that partnership is crucial to advancement in preventing future pandemics.
“I think there are plenty of scientists who are legitimately focused on finding the best way to reinforce scientific partnership with the Chinese because they believe that partnership is crucial to advancement in preventing future pandemics.”
Likely most all can agree on that and also that we don’t know Wang’s personal motivations or degree of involvement other than being a bat coronavirus expert and associate of Daszak and Zheng-li who didn’t feel the need to share to the world that Daszak and Zhengli were keenly interested in seeing what happened when already dangerous SARS viruses are souped up with a furin cleavage site, this being the precise item that prompted virologist Kristian Anderson to email Fauci at midnight on Jan 31, 2020 that SARS2 looked “potentially engineered”.
I guess I’m just a little more curious about the whole origin thing than you and the legacy media are. If the virus did come from the lab I have a hard time believing that nobody had any knowledge pointing to that, especially considering that Zheng-li was caught covering up that a particular mine shaft was connected to SARS-like virus deaths in 2012. This was the same location she secretly visited several times per year for several years and published only one of nine SARS viruses found there, the one that happened to be the closest known virus to SARS2 on the planet. Both the mine shaft and the nine viruses remain off limits to world investigators. Zheng-li claims to have lost any physical sample of the one published virus, RaTG13. Do you find that to be plausible? Do you believe her? Why would she lie? What could she be covering up?
Baric remained silent until Chan and others got him to join their letter. Daszak and Wang are on the other side of that call for openness. You want them to be in a friendly discussion. I don’t care if its friendly or a heated. I think the world deserves more of these open forums, not just on civilization-threatening viruses and their origins, but on climate and all sciences.
Ron –
> . You want them to be in a friendly discussion. I don’t care if its friendly or a heated.
You should try to avoid (mis)characterizing my views. No, I don’t care if the discussion is friendly or heated. I care about whether it’s productive.
More to the point, given the vast issue of China and pandemics, I care about fostering scientific cooperation to whatever extent its realistically and producti,vely possible. There’s no need to run with conspiratorial assumptions, such as those based on speculation about perceived artifids when someone’s answered a question, that lack evidentiary support. If you have actual supporting evidence, go for it.
Speculate all you want. That’s fine also. But before you trot out your speculation into a public exchange with someone, you should weigh the probable costs and benefits.
Ron –
> I guess I’m just a little more curious about the whole origin thing than you and the legacy media are.
I certainly think this is all an important subject for investigation, and that transparency is key.
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/?utm_campaign=theintercept&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
That’s true irrespective of whether this pandemic started with a lab leak.
Joshua, thanks for the link. Transparency is indeed the key. On that point Peter Navarro just wrote and op ed calling for Fauci’s removal and arrest for his concealing of NIH funding in Wuhan from the presidential commission on the pandemic.
Did you stop beating your wife, Trunks?
Do I have some blanket trust on what the government of China has to say on this kind of issue?
Well, since I’m a CCP apologist, like everyone to the left of Atilla the Hun, of course I do.
But if I were going to hand out advice, I’d say to not have blind “trust” in what any country has to say on issues like this, least of all an authoritarian country like China.
But in the end, you have to figure out how to navigate these issues. Given the amount of wet markets in China and the huge reservoir there as a source for pandemics, taking a route that is guaranteed to result in the least cooperation possible may well be sub-optimal. At some point you might determine that’s the best course to take, but just following the lead of a self-serving, interventionist politician who leverages anti-China rhetoric and fear-mongering to advance his personal and political welfare…
Hey, if you think that’s a good idea that’s your prerogative.
But thanks for that link. A very informative discussion.
Here is another informative link. It shows how the media crafted and fostered the disinformation about Covid’s origin even before anyone in the Trump administration pointed a finger and before the Peter Daszak orchestrated Nature letter. The conclusion is that the media’s corporate heads are now so in bed with China financially that they barely need any prodding from the Chinese to promote the PRC and PPL’s point of view.
Ron –
> Joshua, I don’t take offense at your declining to bare your soul.
I’m happy to tell you my views on any issue.
Apparently you think that I’m not.
What explains your erroneous conclusion? Will you exfernslize the reason, perhaps in conjunction with some kind of conspiracy theory in association with denigrating people for their political views, or accept responsibility for it?
My money is on the former.
Here is an excellent article analyzing exactly how the corporate media constructed the false consensus on Covid 19’s likely origin.
Why they engaged in a coordinated disinformation campaign is open for speculation but the author lays out an air tight case for the willful creation of fake news.
Ron –
That article deliberately conflates a “lab leak” theory with a bioweapon theory. Even thought they overlap they obviously aren’t the same thing – and any article that just conflates them isn’t of any value except as a rhetorical device.
For example:
> Cotton’s line at the time was difficult to distinguish from mainstream coverage of The Lancet paper,
That simply isn’t true. There’s a clear line of demarkation.
Ron
That article deliberately conflates a “lab leak” theory with a bioweapon theory. Those different origin theories can overlap, but they obviously aren’t the same thing. No treatment of those theories that doesn’t make that distinction is of any value except as a rhetorical device.
For example:
> Cott*n’s line at the t*me was diffic*lt to dist*nguish from ma*nstream cov*rage of The Lanc*t p*per…
That’s ridiculous. There’s a clear line of demarkation.
This is good, too – a classic argument from incredulity:
Notice that there’s no mention of C*tton’s long record of hawkish, anti-China rhetoric.
This kind of junk isn’t good on either side of these issues. It’s not good if people on one side just conflate talk of a leak of a preexisting or even scientifically created virus with talk of a bioweapon. That did happen here to some extent.
But neither is it any good to just pretend like no one was talking about COVID being a bioweapon, or that there’s no inherent logic to connecting C*tton’s fully certain rhetoric about origin of the virus to the bioweapon accusations that WERE out there with a through line being his hawkish anti-China rhetoric (bold added):
Also notice here – C*tton says
Here’s what the dude said:
So the dude is saying it should be investigated and expresses concern about the impact on collaboration. Notice what C*tton leaves out?
Everyone is missing nuance. It doesn’t help for either side to pretend otherwise. Agreed, in a sense it’s worse for news coverage to exclude nuance. We should, hopefully, have a higher bar for investigative reporting than we have of a politician. But the motivations behind such occurances should not just be assumed and then folded into conspiracy ideation. Nor should reasoning by incredulity be substituted for clear-headed analysis. The irony is to see that in investigative journalism about a lack of nuance in investigative journalism.
This is good, too – a classic argument from incredulity:
Notice that there’s no mention of C*tton’s long record of hawkish, anti-China rhetoric.
This kind of junk isn’t good on either side of these issues. It’s not good if people on one side just conflate talk of a leak of a preexisting or even scientifically created virus with talk of a bi*weapon. That did happen here to some extent.
But neither is it any good to just pretend like no one was talking about COVID being a bioweapon, or that there’s no inherent logic to connecting C*tton’s fully certain rhetoric about origin of the virus to the bioweapon accusations that WERE out there with a through line being his hawkish anti-China rhetoric (bold added):
Also notice here – C*otton says
Here’s what the dude said:
So the dude is saying it should be investigated and expresses concern about the impact on collaboration. Notice what C*tton leaves out?
Everyone is missing nuance. It doesn’t help for either side to pretend otherwise. Agreed, in a sense it’s worse for news coverage to exclude nuance. We should, hopefully, have a higher bar for investigative reporting than we have of a politician. But the motivations behind such occurances should not just be assumed and then folded into conspiracy ideation. Nor should reasoning by incredulity be substituted for clear-headed analysis. The irony is to see that in investigative journalism about a lack of nuance in investigative journalism.
Sorry for the long chain of comments – but it was the only way I could get past the filter.
The funny thing to me is to read an article so certain there’s a conspiracy in the media to cave to China’s interests, even as I read people on the other side of the political divide quite certain that the media is pushing the “foreign policy blob’s” anti-China rhetoric.
One thing’s for sure. “The media” is the most convenient fodder possible for people looking to blame someone for events they don’t like.
Is China mostly honest, Josh?
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-964514
Josh answers: “Do I have some blanket trust on what the government of China has to say on this kind of issue? Well, since I’m a CCP apologist… of course I do…But if I were going to hand out advice, I’d say to not have blind “trust”…”
Josh has blanket trust, but not blind trust. We await in titillating anticipation for you to describe the difference between blanket trust, and blind trust.
Trunks –
I apologize for overestimating you. I figured you’d be able to pick up that I was mocking you with the comment about blanket trust in the CCP from anyone on the left.
It won’t happen again, I promise.
You can never be overestimated, Josh. Unfortunately your blanket trust of China was never really a question; you quack enough like the duck you are.
Mr. Webster, may I coin a word please: ignoranus—defined as an ignoramus who talks out their arse ad nauseam.
Joshua wrote: “That article deliberately conflates a “lab leak” theory with a bioweapon theory. Those different origin theories can overlap, but they obviously aren’t the same thing. No treatment of those theories that doesn’t make that distinction is of any value except as a rhetorical device.”
It’s hard to believe you read the article and missed the point: the corporate media intentionally conflated lab leak with bioweapon. They created a straw man in order to group any criticism of China as racist conspiracy ideation, a Marxist tactic that we see regularly from liberals on the political landscape today in all topics, from health to climate.
I do agree with you that there is overlap between the theories, where the leak was from China military directed research. I actually see it as the most plausible. It would explain the secrecy attached to the Mojiang mine Shi Zheng-li covered up in relation to 9 novel SARS viruses collected over the years immediately following the miners secret deadly illness, information that should have been shared extemporaneously with the international scientific community. Though the leak was likely an accident. There were many official actions taken by China to cover it up, and in doing so spread it to the world. The line between negligence and malice is thin. I do not see this as an implausible “conspiracy theory.” In fact, I challenge anyone to come forward with a theory that better explains all the known facts. A natural spread from the wet market has multiple scientific road blocks and voids in an expected biological trail. Natural spread from a southern China traveler would meet the same problems.
Ron –
> It’s hard to believe you read the article and missed the point: the corporate media intentionally conflated lab leak with bioweapon
There you go again. You don’t have mind-probing abilities and neither does the author of the article. That conflation happened all around. And there are multiple, and obvious possible reasons why it happened.
And as I stated above, the author of the article also conflates the two. Ironically. As well as fell into a series of other logic traps – such as reasoning from incredulity. I’m guessing that’s why you liked it so much.
And Ron –
> a Marxist tactic that we see regularly from liberals on the political landscape today in all topics, from health to climate.
Great point. Clearly the author conflates the two because Marxist tactic of librulz.
It’s really quite remakable just how much of your world view boils down to “… because Marxist librulz.”
Joshua wrote: “It’s really quite remakable just how much of your world view boils down to “… because Marxist librulz.”
You don’t have to “mind probe” my world view because I would tell it to you freely. Each individual has a responsibility to do the best they can to be as productive as they can to add to the health and well being of themselves, other people, other animals and future generations on and off the planet.
What is yours? And how does a rural accent fit in?
“Clearly the author conflates the two because Marxist tactic of librulz.”
For goodness sakes, we’re talking about a situation where people expressing a legitimate question were attacked as paranoid conspiracy theorists, their social media was suppressed or shut down to prevent the discussion, they were dismissed by the media as quacks without evidence. They were shouted down, silenced, their reputations attacked, they were gaslighted, and a gaggle of hard core activists tried to claim any questioning of the Chinese government had a racial component.
Those actually are “Marxist tactics” – we have history books, you know – that actually was supported and instigated by a self-described Marxist government in China. It’s no more ridiculous to describe this Marxist tactic as such as it is to claim selling oil is a “Capitalist tactic.” Well, yes, it is.
The pivot is because there expressly was no real investigation of the origin, they investigated only a zoonotic origin and didn’t find one. They suppressed any investigation of a lab leak. Even the WHO admits they didn’t actually investigate the origins and now concedes that, perhaps, they should try to find the origin of a novel virus that has killed millions of people globally. And what do you know, it is suddenly legit to look at the coronavirus lab with lousy safety protocols at the epicenter of the epidemic as a possible source.
The emperor is caught without clothes, after hanging a few honest observers, and now wishes us to have a “nuanced” discussion of his naked parade.
Me? I think the most plausible explanation is a leak, the Chinese government knew about it and freaked out- believing that some nations might consider the accidental murder of over 3 million people an act that warrants sanctions. The rest of the globe saw a heavily-armed autocratic nation going into an angry, defensive crouch and decided to soft-pedal. Reasonable, but you don’t gaslight and suppress conversation in democracies. Period. You de-escalate in other ways. JFK dealt with the Cuban missile crisis, he didn’t ignore it and get NBC to label the movement of missiles to Cuba as a paranoid fantasy of those prejudiced against Hispanic peoples.
“… he didn’t ignore it and get NBC to label the movement of missiles to Cuba as a paranoid fantasy of those prejudiced against Hispanic peoples.”
That was when journalists were actual journalists and not leftwing shills for the Democratic Party. I’ve never seen bias and dishonesty in the press like it is today. Just breathtaking how much they push their Woke agenda.
Ron –
> What is yours?
Is that you acknowledging that you don’t know what my world view is?
If you don’t know what my world view is, do you think my view on that article is attributable to a “Marxist librul” mindset?
>And how does a rural accent fit in?
“Rural acccent” seems pretty inaccurate (what is a “rural accent – and why would I think you have one?) but I get your point.
I mock that vernacular not because it’s “rural,” but because it’s reflective of your use of a tribalistic and hate-filled framing, in order to parse the explanation for any differences in viewpoint.
It would be best if I avoid it, indeed. It’s as childish and useless (actually counterproductive) for me to employ that rhetorical device as it is for you to boil differences in viewpoint to “….because Marxist liberals….”
Ron –
Here’s some more information for you to dismiss with conspiracy theories about Marxust librulz.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/health/covid-origins-market-theory/index.html
The comments of Jeffnsails850 and Ckid above are excellent.
I think we all agree that the misinformation and bigotry in the world today is very heavily weighted toward those whom, ironically, can’t stop talking about it. They seem clueless to the fact that bigotry is derived from the instinct to be discomforted by the unfamiliar and therefore it’s cure is to promote dialogue and friendly, productive engagement. This is also the cure for misinformation, not censorship or smears.
“If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
– Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
It would be a good exercise to compose your world view for us, Joshua. We really are curious and do not want to fill that void unfairly. You saw, for example, how I apparently wrongly thought that you were mimicking a rural accent with “librulz.”
Ron –
> It would be a good exercise to compose your world view for us, Joshua. We really are curious and do not want to fill that void unfairly.
I take you at your word that’s your intent. However, your behavior runs counter to that goal. For example, I’m not sure who, exactly, you’re referring to with “we” but Jeff has repeatedly, and obviously, deliberately lied about what I have said (I don’t make that charge lightly as differentiated between someone mistakenly believing, and lying, is can be a very difficult assessment to make – as you can never know what’s truly going on in someone’s head. But I’m quite confident about making that charge against Jeff, based on what he’s done after having been corrected on numerous occasions).
You, yourself, seem intently focused on assigning me guilt by association, with broad tribal characterizations about categorical differences between groups of people for which you have zero empirical substantiation (I know because it doesn’t exist). That tendency on your part specifically puts up roadblocks to meaningful engagement as to what my views actually are.
I offer for you to Google “fundamental attribution error” as an instructive model of the operative cognitive bias.
> You saw, for example, how I apparently wrongly thought that you were mimicking a rural accent with “librulz.”
At least that had some substantive basis, as I was indeed mocking something and it’s understandable why you interpreted as mocking “rural” people. As such, that error was of a much less figment of your own imagination, fantasies, and biases than what I have often encountered in exchange with you.
Here’s an interesting model for discussion, IMO, related to what you spoke of as a good exercise:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules
IMO, if you can’t in good faith portray something that you think believe in such a way as to meet a very basic standard – that I would agree your portrayal is what I actually believe – then you are failing to effectively account for your own biases.
Two questions you’ve ignored, Josh:
Ron: “It would be a good exercise to compose your world view for us.”
Closely related, I asked: “Is China mostly honest, Josh?”
If you could speak frankly; it could eliminate needless spattering about.
Joshua, I don’t take offense at your declining to bare your soul. I realize that would make you vulnerable criticism and put you on a defensive, a place nobody wants to be. Part of my world view has evolved as I have aged to the point that if I find myself embarrassed an aspect about my world view I question why that is and see if I can adapt. I feel more free when I have no fear of defending my beliefs because I am not married to them. I even don’t mind rewarding someone with the satisfaction that they enlightened me on my way.
As you know, I feel that a fundamental dynamic for successful socialization, and thus civilization, is building trust. Our conversations are interesting to me as I try to better understand the impediments of trust building. Perhaps trusting others with your true thoughts is not only good for your soul, it might be good for society.
If the use of “librulz” was mimicking something but you can’t define what it was that might be a something to analyze. My hunch is that you saw it commonly used in your circle of trusted people. And since that group, the liberals, see themselves as currently on a crusade against bigotry they would never engage in bigotry themselves. The dangers of blind trust of the familiar and friendly is the other side of the coin for the danger of blind suspicion of the unfamiliar.
My theories are always evolving because I have a strong hunch that people have a natural misperception that their righteousness is dependent upon rigid adherence to core beliefs. I am interested in yours not to confirm that mine are superior but to check to see if mine can be improved.
Imagine if all the world had that view. I hope you agree that it would be a more trusting and enlightened world.
Ron –
Let’s see if I can get it in the right place this time.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-964617
Joshua wrote: “I’m happy to tell you my views on any issue.”
What is your best theory on the origin of SARS2 and did it evolve over time or has it remained the same since the beginning?
Ron –
> What is your best theory on the origin of SARS2
I don’t have any theories on the origin, let alone a best theory.
… and did it evolve over time or has it remained the same since the beginning?
Huh? Are you asking me if I think there have been strains, some of which have become dominant?
“I don’t have any theories on the origin, let alone a best theory.”
Joshua, after you have spent literally hundreds of hours weighing in on every aspect Covid 19, including theories of its origin, you have no thoughts of your own? I would have to go back and look but it’s quite possible you never did express anything other than criticisms of others.
“Huh? Are you asking me if I think there have been strains, some of which have become dominant?”
Are you really unsure? I thought everyone on the planet was aware there are evolving strains. I was asking if you have been keeping an open mind and plugging in facts as they develop to reach a working belief. Do you really not do this? Are you really uncurious? Would it make no difference to you if the Chinese knew the nature of Covid months before they informed the world?
Ron –
> Joshua, after you have spent literally hundreds of hours weighing in on every aspect Covid 19, including theories of its origin, you have no thoughts of your own? I would have to go back and look but it’s quite possible you never did express anything other than criticisms of others.
I have no theories on the origin of COVID-19. I’m not lying to you. I haven’t expressed criticism of theories of the origin – I have no expertise on which to do so – although it’s possible I expressed some views on the plausibility of conspiracy theories about the origin.
> “Huh? Are you asking me if I think there have been strains, some of which have become dominant?”
>> Are you really unsure?
Am I really unsure about what? Am I unsure that different strains have evolved, some of which have become dominant?
I think that there is an extremely high likelihood, that different strains have evolved, some of which have become dominant. Not because I have any direct, first-hand knowledge on the topic, but because I think it would be extremely unlikely that a vast network of immunologist and virologists and public health professionals, who have careers and expertise in researching these issues, would just make it up that that has happened over the course of the pandemic.
> I thought everyone on the planet was aware there are evolving strains.
I think that many people are aware that scientists and researchers have reported that there are evolving strains. I see that as being different than “being aware” there are evolving strains. But maybe that’s just semantics.
> I was asking if you have been keeping an open mind and plugging in facts as they develop to reach a working belief.
? I actively seek out information provided by scientists and researchers to increase my understanding. As the information changes so does the pool of information I used to inform my understanding.
> Do you really not do this?
This? What is “this”?
> Are you really uncurious?
Uncurious? I actively seek out information from a variety of researchers and scientists. I’m having a hard time figuring out where you’re coming from here. For example, I thanked you for providing the link to that discussion among experts. I listened to it and told you it was interesting.
Likewise, I subsequently gave you a link to a recent article regarding research on the early cases in Wuhan – just as I have looked at some other information you provided and given you other links. You have much direct evidence that shows that I am not “uncurious.” It seems really odd that you’d ask me that question – as it seems obviously in stark contrast to information you already have.
> Would it make no difference to you if the Chinese knew the nature of Covid months before they informed the world?
Yes, it would make a difference to me. To some extent it would help to identify the origin – and understanding the origin is certainly key information as to the science about pandemics going forward. The more information we have about the origin, the better we can be prepared to prevent future pandemics.
It seems to me that you’re dancing around saying something directly by asking a series of (what I think are fairly bizarre, have you stopped beating your wife type) questions.
I’m happy to answer your questions about my views, but it would be nice if they weren’t bizarre and leading questions that seem to be suggestive of accusations against me that are in direct contradiction to information you already have. That is a type of engagement that will get very old very quickly.
Again, I refer you to this:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rapoport%27s_Rules
And I ask again you to look at the “fundamental attribution error.”
Ron –
Here’s some interesting information related to your bizarre questions
https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1462231887670235140?s=20
Joshua, I think the productivity of a conversation is directly related to the sincerity of those engaged, coupled with their willingness to respect the legitimacy of the other point of view with genuine empathy. This type of engagement would build trust and find common ground whereupon a foundation of assumptions could lead to fruitful exploration of logic.
The opposite of such engagement is to employ evasions to beat an irrelevant straw man or diversions to a topic of known irreconcilable disagreement. Of course, there are many other forms of rhetorical attack that evade sincere discussion that can be recognized under the heading of “trolling.”
Taking the familiar middle school class clown, for example, everyone is aware that a smart-Alek answer will be forthcoming from one. But they have the classmates as a sympathetic audience, so the unproductive time is supported. The reasons for the support could vary from the momentary relief from learning requirements to the exhilaration of rebellion against authority. The term “nobody likes a smart-Alek” is not necessarily true. But it becomes more true when maturity of responsibility is expected.
When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wiped her computer in January 2016 she responded, “Do you mean with a cloth?” followed by a cackle.
I suppose many of her most loyal followers cheered at her saucy retort to the assumed “alt right” villain who asked the question. But I think the independents saw it as an unjustified evasion.
The same is true with Kamala Harris answering the question of whether she had been to the Mexican border (since she was appointed “border tsar”), with the retort that she had not been to Europe either. If she had been being interviewed by a rightwing reporter she would have gotten away with it but she doesn’t give interviews to them. Lester Holt just let her smarty pants answer hang with a long silence. That killed her polling numbers be a handful of points right there.
Joshua, I think you could have gained points if you answered my questions that you trusted the media reports that the virus was natural because you assumed that any virologist that disagreed with that would have spoken up loudly. Therefore, it was perfectly reasonable to label a non-virologist saying it may have come from a lab as irresponsible. Since that time I have revised my view a bit and see that the media should not have been trusted. Even more disturbingly the virologists should not have been trusted since their government funding has left them severely conflicted on political matters, which now includes medicine.
The productivity of a conversation is directly related to the sincerity of those engaged, coupled with their willingness to respect the legitimacy of the other point of view with genuine empathy. This type of engagement would build trust and find common ground whereupon a foundation of assumptions could lead to fruitful exploration of logic.
The opposite of such engagement is to employ evasions to beat an irrelevant straw man or diversions to a topic of known irreconcilable disagreement. Of course, there are many other forms of rhetorical attack that evade sincere discussion that can be recognized under the heading of “trolling.”
Everyone is familiar with the smart-Alek middle school class clown. There the unproductive finds support among peers. The reasons could vary from the momentary relief from learning requirements to the exhilaration of rebellion against authority. The term “nobody likes a smart-Alek” is not necessarily true. But it becomes more true when maturity of responsibility is expected.
When Hillary Clinton was asked if she wiped her computer in January 2016 she responded, “Do you mean with a cloth?” followed by a cackle.
I suppose many of her most loyal followers cheered at her saucy retort to the assumed “alt right” villain who asked the question. But I think the independents saw it as an unjustified evasion. The same is true with Kamala Harris answering the question of whether she had been to the Mexican border (since she was appointed “border tsar”), with the retort that she had not been to Europe either.
I think you could have gained points if you answered my questions that you trusted the media reports that the virus was natural because you assumed that any virologist that disagreed with that would have spoken up loudly. Therefore, it was perfectly reasonable to label a non-virologist saying it may have come from a lab as irresponsible. Since that time I have revised my view a bit and see that the media should not have been trusted. Even more disturbingly the virologists should not have been trusted since their government funding has left them severely conflicted on political matters, which now includes medicine.
Ron –
> I think you could have gained points if you answered my questions that you trusted the media reports that the virus was natural because you assumed that any virologist that disagreed with that would have spoken up loudly.
Ron, I’m not seeking to “gain points,” least of all with someone who apparently judged me and assign guilt by association to me merely beciswe is his mistaken assumptions about people whom he disagrees with politically.
But let’s break that down a bit. You have asserted that: (1) I ” trusted” media reports. That isn’t true. The interesting thing is why you think that’s the case.
(2) you have asserted I “assumed any virologists who disagree with that would have spoken up loudly.”. If course there’s circulatory there that’s hard to parse (what is “that?”), but neither have i made any assumption about “any virologist(a). As near as you can tell, what you’re referring to is my view that it’s rather implausible that ALL virologists would either be dumb or corrupted – and if there were some vast attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, at the expense of tends of millions of deaths, some virologist(a) would speak up. It’s. It a lock. Conspiracies do happen. But the problem with your regular conspiracy ideation is that you rarely (it seems to me) account for the plausibility of the conspiracies which you believe took place.
>Therefore, it was perfectly reasonable to label a non-virologist saying it may have come from a lab as irresponsible.
? What? Did u do that somewhere? No, I didn’t. Hence your statement makes no sense. I accept that different virologists have expressed different views in this topic. I don’t just dismiss any particular viewpoint – as I completely lack the knowledge and esortose to do so.
> Since that time I have revised my view a bit and see that the media should not have been trusted.
I’m glad you’ve done that. I agree and have for decades (my father was a fan of the I. F. Stone Weekly)
> Even more disturbingly the virologists should not have been trusted since their government funding has left them severely conflicted on political matters, which now includes medicine.
For me, “trust” is not particularly relevant. I don’t don’t I can mind probe. The best I can do is try to assess probabilities (with the understanding I will likely fail).
I don’t [trust]. I can’t mind probe.
Did I say [I] do that somewhere?
Circularity.
Virologist(s)
Joshua wrote: “As near as you can tell, what you’re referring to is my view that it’s rather implausible that ALL virologists would either be dumb or corrupted – and if there were some vast attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, at the expense of tends of millions of deaths, some virologist(a) would speak up. It’s. It a lock. Conspiracies do happen. But the problem with your regular conspiracy ideation is that you rarely (it seems to me) account for the plausibility of the conspiracies which you believe took place.”
I did not take me long to find this: https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/23/collapse-of-the-fake-consensus-on-covid-19-origins/#comment-950599
“So the truth should be obvious to any virologist, yet none have any sense of ethics, and thus none have come forward to blow the whistle – or if they have, they have been squelched media that has no one who isn’t deluded because Trump.
So basically, a vast conspiracy.
But don’t call it a conspiracy theory, ’cause some snowflakes might get their feelings hurt and that wouldn’t be politically correct.
Look, conspiracies happen. If you believe in a conspiracy theory, feeakin’ own it. Don’t okay the victim card.
The problem with conspiracy theories is usually the plausibility issue. How plausible is it that X number of people could be directly or indirectly (but knowingly) involved in perpetrating or tacitly supporting a fraud, at the potential expense of significant suffering and death? The biggie the X, usually the less plausible is your conspiracy theory.
Since you’re the easiest person for you to fool, ask yourself if the alignment of your conspiracy theory with your ideology or advocacy (say, oh I don’t know, your advocacy against the consensus view among climate scientists about the risks from ACO2 emissions…)
Avoid motive-impugning, and employ some cognitive empathy to see if maybe you can find alternative explanations for what other people do rather than malign intent or indifference to suffering.
And then if you still think there’s a conspiracy afoot, freakin’ own it – and take on the plausibility issue.”
Joshua, the problem is that you are naïve about the dynamics of power and like many people.
You find things implausible that are not. Some people would think it implausible that a man would rape a woman on the subway while a crowd would watch and do nothing to stop him. That happened just a couple of weeks ago. The explanation boils to fear and intimidation. If you were a virologist and knew that lab leaks were very common and also that China was doing gain of function research in Wuhan on coronaviruses what is your motivation to go to an unfriendly press and attempt to tell them they are spreading BS by calling it a conspiracy theory? Speaking out against power is common with those who have little to lose or have powerful allies. The virologists had their careers to lose and had only a handful of rightwing leaders as allies when they know the NIH is controlled by “librul” Fauci.
Admit it. You fell for the propaganda, hook, line and sinker. If you don’t you surely will repeat the fault.
The paper by Cole et al. was re-examined and reinstated after being challenged. It studies the relationship between greenhouse gases and their concentrations individually and mixed in the atmosphere. It also explores the effect on warming using the magnitude of the greenhouse effect described by climate scientists. All of this uses the HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra. It is concluded that water vapour does most of the warming, CO2 and the other GH gases have only minor roles. Future warming from emissions will have only a small warming effect with an ECS of 0.5k.
I found the values much more believable and closer to reality than the corresponding figures from the climate models. But then the latter are hugely complex, expensive and not fully developed., rather like trying to use nuclear fission to crack a nut. The greenhouse effect is basically a spectroscopy exercise and a library like HITRAN provides the detailed measurements. Perhaps climate scientists shun this approach because it gives the right answers?
It is Coe, not Cole. Here is my take:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/12/climate-sensitivity-to-co2-lower-than-un-models-project/
ECS doesn’t mean much if the CO2 increase doesn’t follow from human emissions. New research from Drs. Salby and Harde:
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
From my reading of Part 2 (Figures 5 and 9 are especially persuasive), it looks like game over for human emissions being sold as the control knob of climate.
“The greenhouse effect is basically a spectroscopy exercise and a library like HITRAN provides the detailed measurements.”
Peter, how do you think that works for the 2/3 of the Earth’s surface that is cloudy?
Why can’t water vapor be compared to CO2 increases? It takes additional water vapor as they say. I suppose they may not be able to measure it. And why can’ t they measure CO2 in 50 places? How hard can that be?
On a policy note: They’ll be comin round the mountain.
https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/28/is-climate-alarmism-tearing-itself-apart/
https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/02/cop-26-greta-thunberg-sings-shove-your-climate-crisis-up-your-a/
I agree but for different reasons.
Don’t even have to read Wojick to know it’s a joke.
Mcauliffe or Youngkin?
Virginia won last night.
And as predictable as the Detroit Lions having another losing season, charges by the usual suspects that it was racism raising its ugly head and that it was a white supremacy vote, somehow neglecting to mention a Republican black woman was elected Lt Governor. You can’t make this stuff up.
No denying Youngkin used racist dog whistles.
If you hear the whistles, you’re the dog. By definition.
USA won last night. Make America Great Again!
‘Observational support for the link connecting atmospheric ionization with cloud changes has been pursued using naturally occurring week-long suppression of atmospheric ionization of the order 10–20%. Such events are called Forbush Decreases (FDs)17 and are caused by a magnetized plasma cloud from the Sun hitting Earth, thereby shielding part of the cosmic ray flux. Initially, FD studies gave conflicting results18,19,20,21,22,23 (see section 7.4 in23) but by sorting the FDs according to their strength a significant response was found in both aerosols and clouds in the case of the strong FDs23.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99033-1
There are a number of sources of cloud condensation nuclei for low level cloud over ocean. I am happy to add ionization by cosmic rays to the list.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/cloud-and-dimethyl-sulfide-e1536287377755.jpg
CCN may not be limited over tropical and subtropical oceans – suggesting that the bistable nature of marine stratocumulus cloud cells – cloud cover positively correlated with sea surface temp – is the cause of cloud changes.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
‘Global mean (a) shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) and (b) net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux anomalies for March 2000–September 2017 from CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Ed4.0. Thin lines denote monthly anomalies, thick lines are 12-month running means. Vertical black bars show the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). Anomalies are calculated relative to climatology over the entire period. SW and LW TOA flux anomalies are defined as positive upwards and net TOA flux anomalies are positive downwards.’
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
Closed cells persist for longer over cooler oceans before raining out to leave open cells.
‘The presence of open or closed-cell stratocumulus clouds offer clues about the distribution of precipitation. Uninterrupted decks of closed-cell clouds generally produce little to no rain, whereas open cells open up as rain begins to fall. In this image, rain is likely falling in the linear band of open-celled clouds that cuts through the center of the image.’
Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage
“”I don’t think it was good clean data,” the employee said of the data Ventavia generated for the Pfizer trial. “It’s a crazy mess.”
A second employee also described an environment at Ventavia unlike any she had experienced in her 20 years doing research. She told The BMJ that, shortly after Ventavia fired Jackson, Pfizer was notified of problems at Ventavia with the vaccine trial and that an audit took place.
Since Jackson reported problems with Ventavia to the FDA in September 2020, Pfizer has hired Ventavia as a research subcontractor on four other vaccine clinical trials (covid-19 vaccine in children and young adults, pregnant women, and a booster dose, as well an RSV vaccine trial…”
I’ve been looking at COP26’s virtue signalling 1.5 C target and the phase out of coal. 1.5 C became a safe target after Paris. It bothers me if anthropogenic warming in total was about half the warming of the past 40 years. With the rest being due to natural – if spatiotemporal chaotic – cloud cover changes.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/hadcru.png
As for coal phase outs… one would really need a plan B.
‘Although the COP26 virtuous don’t want you to know it, rebounding economies and the ongoing global energy crisis have vaulted much-maligned coal to the top of the energy food chain, once again.
President Biden’s energy-climate policies have apparently been more friendly to coal than those of President Trump.
New federal data has U.S. coal-fired power generation leaping 22% in 2021 to 945 terawatt-hours – the first annual increase for coal since 2014.
Coal will generate nearly a quarter of U.S. electricity this year, with competitor natural gas prices doubling since June to over $6.00.’ https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2021/10/27/king-coal-roars-back/
Of course there is already a plan B.
https://www.energy.senate.gov/2020/12/murkowski-manchin-house-colleagues-reach-agreement-on-energy-package-for-year-end-appropriations-bill
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5523?s=1&r=1
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/great-american-outdoors-act.htm
https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/dem/press/release/growing-climate-solutions-act-reintroduced
Climate scientists behaving badly.
https://twitter.com/LabradorIce/status/1452808142220320778
Posted a graph that was irrelevant to the point while throwing random insults. Apparently didn’t even read any of conversation he responded to to give cover to another climate scientist misleading others.
The apparent decrease in specific humidity at the top of the troposphere (300 hPa) since 2000 primarily signifies the strong influence of decreasing solar activity on wind strength in the tropics (20N – 20S). Especially during the La Nina period, this will cause a decrease in water vapor in the mid-latitudes. Therefore, it is now important to focus on seasonal temperatures because in summer the presence of water vapor decreases surface temperature and in winter it increases. A stationary high over the Grand Prairies in summer will cause record heat and a similar high in winter will cause record low temperatures. This is exactly what will happen this winter. The slowing of jet currents during periods of very low solar activity is already evident in the stratosphere.
Therefore, global temperature over the next few decades will have little to do with weather.
https://i.ibb.co/x7gC0Mj/climindex-217-96-138-234-306-0-54-6.png
The sun’s magnetic activity is very low, as evidenced by the level of high energy UV radiation that produces ozone from oxygen. This already has consequences in the circulation in the stratosphere, where ozone due to its higher temperature affects the circulation in the stratosphere similarly to water vapor in the troposphere. The difference is that, being a heavier gas than air, it sinks rather than rises as water vapor does in the troposphere.
Figure 4. Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The Wilcox Solar Observatory’s solar dipole plot shows a steady decline in the Sun’s magnetic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/MgJnfDZ/Dipall.gif
Plasma Climate Forcing | Vortex and Jet Streams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzXKxjFfao&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=4
https://i.ibb.co/FmH2KPg/Screenshot-1.png
It’s amazing how many people associate higher solar activity with a warmer AMO and El Nino conditions, when the AMO is clearly warmer in this and in the previous centennial solar minimum, and El Nino conditions also increase during centennial solar minima.
https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA?t=1379
Ireneusz Palmowski = ren, of other comments here, on Spencer’s blog, and elsewhere.
Ashamed to admit his real name.
A reader prompted me to look again at a 2016 article. Apropos of COP26 – it seems a timely reminder. Thank you Katie for being you.
‘It is difficult to imagine a more poorly framed science and public policy issue than climate change – and it is equally difficult to imagine that this will change anytime soon. Much of the sturm and drang is obstinately misguided, horribly superficial and utterly inconsequential. We are likely to continue to muddle successfully through the morass of smug and superior, progressive idiocy. Technology will evolve, the movement to restore agricultural soils is growing and the need to conserve and restore ecosystems is met when economic resources are sufficient. At the nexus of development and environment is the opportunity to create comprehensive, integrated and practical responses across broad policy areas – while keeping democracy and capitalism thank you very much.’ https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/01/10/climate-policy-at-the-nexus-of-development-environment-and-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-13321
Capitalism is the big problem no professionals or politicians will dare mention.
Fossil fuel capitalists will burn the planet into cinders in order to make slightly higher next-quarter profits.
We all know it. So does Robert.
Pragmatists disagree – I certainly do.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
“Capitalism is the big problem no professionals or politicians will dare mention. Fossil fuel capitalists will burn the planet into cinders in order to make slightly higher next-quarter profits. We all know it. So does Robert.”
Pragmatists disagree – I certainly do.
Wishy-washy “pragmatism” is a big part of the problem — can’t do without, can’t solve anything.
Pragmatism means status quo in practice. BAU. A very bad recipe for the future.
Climate pragmatism is about energy innovation, conserving and restoring agricultural lands and global commons and building resilient infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us – whatever the origin.
Robert I. Ellison commented: Climate pragmatism is about energy innovation, conserving and restoring agricultural lands and global commons and building resilient infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us – whatever the origin.
Has never happened.
The Lords of Fossil Fuels insist on remaining Kings. They won’t give up no matter how much govt corruption is required. They don’t give a sh!t about the environment. They will burn up the entire world for ever more profits.
Pragmatism LOL
Innovation LOL
Restoring LOL
Commons LOL
Resilience LOL
Wake up dude
Ever the hipster doofus dude.
No one pollutes the air like the communist nation of China.
Is communism what you prefer, Mr. Apple?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Ever the hipster doofus dude.
Another intelligent, thoughtless comment, just like ‘photons have infinite momentum.’
Seriously?
David said – and I won’t quote.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963379
As for photons. They are particles with no mass and infinitude momentum the relativistic math says. Or they are waves with no mass and no momentum. Yet somehow they manage to impart some momentum to solar sails. A mystery of wave/particle duality. I find the former to to be a better working theory. Perfectly inelastic collisions with a reflective surface that retains all of it’s momentum – a fraction of infinity is still infinity – but still manages to impart some momentum to sails.
But David is a doofus hipster who imagines a photon hitting the Earth with world shattering effects. That obviously isn’t so.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
As for photons. They are particles with no mass and infinitude momentum the relativistic math says
Robert, this kind of stupid really ruins everything else you have ever written.
You fail to understand that the equation you like to apply isn’t defined for velocity=c or mass=0.
Did you ever take a physics class, Robert? Seriously.
What happens when a photon of, you claim, infinite momentum strikes the Earth in its orbit?
You’ve been avoiding this question for weeks. Time to answer buddy.
Everything David says testifies to his lack of credibility.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Everything David says testifies to his lack of credibility.
LOL — no smart person in the world thinks photons have infinite momentum.
The question you’re afraid to answer: what happens when a photon from the sun, of infinite momentum, strikes the Earth which has finite momentum?
Where does the Earth go?
Can you do simple physics, Robert?
No sign so far that you can.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Perfectly inelastic collisions with a reflective surface that retains all of it’s momentum – a fraction of infinity is still infinity – but still manages to impart some momentum to sails.
Initial momentum = final momentum in the absence of friction — did you learn that, Mr Enviro engineer?
So solar photon of infinite momentum strikes the Earth.
=> final momentum of Earth = infinity
=> velocity of Earth = infinity
Explain, Enviro Engineer.
Explain how why our planet now has infinite velocity.
RE, the simple question he won’t answer:
A photon from the sun, ‘having infinite momentum,’ strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum?
It implies that a photon mass is zero and momentum can be calculated. The math is given in the video. It always was. This is still a mystery at the core of quantum mechanics AFAIAC.
p = h/λ
p is momentum, h Planck’s constant and λ the wavelength.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics.”
But David goes off on a tangent and just never gets anywhere useful ever. He’s not the sharpest tool in the box.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
It implies that a photon mass is zero and momentum can be calculated.
Actually it can be measured.
But why so unwilling to answer this: A solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth, which initially has finite momentum.
Using conservation of momentum, what is the Earth’s final momentum?
Its final velocity?
Robert Ellison wrote:
p = h/λ
p is momentum, h Planck’s constant and λ the wavelength.
Therefore a photon of “infinite momentum” has a wavelength of zero.
Tell me Robert — what is a photon with no wavelength?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
As for photons. They are particles with no mass and infinitude momentum the relativistic math says.
You don’t understand math.
Typical engineer.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
I have a degree in engineering specialising in hydrology and hydrodynamical modelling – and a Masters in environmental science specialising in biogeochemical cycling.
And yet still you are an ignoramus when it comes to first-year physics.
For that you should have all your degrees taken away from you.
PS: Did you get your degree in AUS? (LOL)
Come on, Robert: a solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
The math in the video is there in black and white – despite the math that implies infinite momentum we must deduce zero mass instead. There are problems with that. But the big problem here is David’s lack of brights.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The math in the video is there in black and white
Dumb AUS enviro engineer thinks he can plug numbers into an equation without examining its assumptions.
You couldn’t afford to come to the US for your education? A shame.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The math in the video is there in black and white
Genius AUS enviro engineer still afraid to answer:
A solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
I have a degree in engineering specialising in hydrology and hydrodynamical modelling – and a Masters in environmental science specialising in biogeochemical cycling.
Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. The alternative is the politics of despair.
If David want’s to marginalise me as an ‘enviro engineer’ he may try.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
If David want’s to marginalise me as an ‘enviro engineer’ he may try.
I don’t care how many degrees you have, buddy. You’re ignorant of basic quantum physics.
David is ignorant of Earth system science, economics and environments. Did he get a degree in a cornflakes box?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. The alternative is the politics of despair.
Robert, you’re an intellectual a$$ who comes to sites like this and pretends to be smart.
You arrogantly think you have nothing to learn.
Really smart people with real degrees all superior to your’s can see right through you. We don’t need to mention our degrees. We just enjoy shoving down into the hole of your own dull stupidity.
It’s so satisfying, because no one here is a bigger jerk than you and it’s “infinite” fun to make a fool of you for saying such stupid things as a photon has infinite momemtum.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
David is ignorant of Earth system science, economics and environments. Did he get a degree in a cornflakes box?
Genius AUS enviro engineer thinks he can escape his obvious ignorance by changing the subject.
Robert: a solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
It never quite computes for David.
The math in the video is there in black and white – despite the math that implies infinite momentum we must deduce zero mass instead. There are problems with that. But the big problem here is David’s lack of brights.
And then he turns nasty.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The math in the video is there in black and white – despite the math that implies infinite momentum we must deduce zero mass instead.
Robert is the perfect, unthinking example of why I quit my engineering major after my first semester in college and changed to physics.
I mean, *PERFECT*
Never looked back.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. The alternative is the politics of despair.
https://watertechbyrie.com/
{wink}
Robert: a solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
Hope you do not mind adding one to your list of reads, Judith. This one questions the basis of temperature homogenization as currently performed. Well worth a read because it changes a lot – and I think author Moritz is correct with his logic. Geoff S
https://osf.io/huxge/
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
Hope you do not mind adding one to your list of reads, Judith. This one questions the basis of temperature homogenization as currently performed.
LOL LOL.
Unpublished, unpeer-reviewed manuscript says something about temperatures, amateur deniers of course assume it’s on par with the best work by career scientific experts, hawk in on denier blog.
LOL LOL.
A nice comment from a professional PhD, who believes – not, knows – that when you have sufficiently many equations, it does not matter if they are correct.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/10/radiative-energy-flux-variations-from-2000-2020/#comment-962554
Curious George wrote:
A nice comment from a professional PhD, who believes – not, knows – that when you have sufficiently many equations, it does not matter if they are correct.
What is a “correct” equation?
The analysis at your link was wrong. I explained why.
It is a very interesting article. Geoff.
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, it is an interesting article but how accurate it may be is impossible to say. The person is clever
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/moritz-buesing
Whether that qualifies them to write on this subject I cannot say.
However paint is well known to affect thermometer housings
tonyb
tonyb,
The important postulate by Moritz is that some disturbances to the response of a thermometer in a housing are short-lived, but are wrongly being corrected by adjustments of long duration, even continuing forever. The paint colour is an example.
Moritz then reverse engineers corrected data to include duration of disturbance and finds that his corrections successively move closer and closer to UAH data.
Dr Bill Johnston works with Australian data, making short-term corrections to long term data segments separated by metadata breaks and statistical break points. This gives a similar improvement, starting with different causes of excursions. See bomwatch.com.au
The authors of the main global land sets like GISS and Hadley and BEST need to read and learn.
Science really can advance in ways like this. Geoff S
The Australian, our best newspaper, supports strong action to avert climate change, although many of its columnists do not agree. My exchange with The Australian online this morning: I would be interested to know your reasons for rejecting what I consider to be a pertinent comment on a major issue. The general sentiment seems to be shared by other commenters. Note that there was no comments option on the Pip Marlow column, but it was pertinent to the Westacott column. My comment:
“Unsurprisingly, business people are driven by business imperatives. Businesswoman Pip Marlow (“Business the best chance our planet has”) is clearly not driven by an understanding of science and reality, with references to a non-existent “climate emergency,” a “climate crisis” and the need for “net zero.” There is no climate crisis, and even if there were, humans’ capacity to forecast and control climate is at best very limited, more likely non-existent.
“Similarly, the often-sensible Jennifer Westacott inadvertently bells the cat – the imperative is not dealing with climate issues per se, but managing a business in a commercial world which has decided, for whatever reason (but surely driven more by business imperatives than selfless concern for fellow humans), to prioritise emissions reductions. In a woke business world which adopts a moral stance on a non-moral issue – and sees many new business opportunities as the world restructures to deal with what many perceive as a global problem – it is perhaps rational to seek advantage in acquiescence to the zeitgeist rather than recognising the reality; which IMHO is that climate is a complex, chaotic system which we neither fully understand nor can control; that the costs of attempting to control it will far exceed any cost if warming continues and perhaps proves net harmful rather than net beneficial (far from proven); and that in an uncertain world (cf the 2008 GFC, the pandemic and the rise of an aggressive China), we are best served by increasing our capacity to deal with whatever unknown future befalls rather than structuring it about a single questionable risk.
“In addition to which, all efforts to address this non-problem involve an ever-increasing role for government and its control over our lives, when to me, as an economist, all the evidence suggests that a smaller, less intrusive government fosters resilience, well-being and economic growth.”
I think that this is an important issue – I’ve been engaged with it since the 1980s, and advised governments on it prior to my retirement – and probably have a much greater background than most who comment on it. Most commenters on this issue at the Oz have similar views to mine, but most also have less of a background on the issue.
Aus response: Hi Michael. Most of it looks fine, but we aren’t going to run comments flat out saying there is no climate crisis when the mainstream of scientific opinion doesn’t appear to support this.
My reply:
Thanks. Many eminent climate scientists take a different view. And many who think that dangerous warming is occurring also make extreme comments – e.g re “tipping points,” and “saving the planet” – which have no scientific basis.
Hi Michael
Tipping point are inevitable in a globally coupled, nonlinear, spatiotemporal chaotic system. We may not be able to predict – but the past is prelude to the future nonetheless.
https://www.dandebat.dk/images/1466p.jpg
Energy innovation and increases in efficiency and productivity are intelligent ways to reduce the risk of pushing the planetary system past a threshold.
Under the headline banner “Europe’s record 2021 summer” UK Met Office climate attribution scientist, Dr Nikos Christidis claims:
“This latest attribution study [using a large collection of computer simulations to compare the climate as it is today with the climate as it would have been without human influence] is another example of how climate change is already making our weather extremes more severe. Our analysis of the European summer of 2021 shows that what is now a one in three-year event would have been almost impossible without human induced climate change.”
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2021/2021-european-summer-temperature-impossible-without-climate-change
Science or sorcery?
“Science or sorcery?”
Well, more like hot air, really. There is a press release, supposedly based on some study, but there is no link to the actual study. I tried searching for the study itself yesterday and could not find it.
The methodology described is at best dubious since it involves “the climate as it would have been without human influence”. How anyone can really know this beats me. From what I read previously, I think it assumes a) all recent climate change is caused by “human influences” and b) natural variations in the climate are trivially small. If you start with such assumptions, then I think the conclusion is already decided before you conduct the study.
‘Hot Air’?
Oh the UK Met Office just love the words Hot, Heating, Extreme, not to mention the fact that their own comprehensive monthly summary records (going back quite some way) suggest that temperature ranges are not significantly different in the UK to what was around decades ago. But I guess that doesn’t fit their agenda.
UK-Weather Lass wrote:
Oh the UK Met Office just love the words Hot, Heating, Extreme, not to mention the fact that their own comprehensive monthly summary records (going back quite some way) suggest that temperature ranges are not significantly different in the UK to what was around decades ago.
Prove it.
Dare you.
Britain needs next-generation nuclear reactors
http://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/777/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/777/pub/777/page/97/article/235629
Fast neutron reactors solve the waste problem by converting fertile to fissile material in a closed fuel cycle. Leaving fission products as waste – about 3% of conventional waste with much shorter half lives.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
About another “decline” noticed by an UEA scientist: Corinne Le Quéré’s study shows a temporary antropogenic CO2 emission dip in 2020 due to Covid lockdowns all around but specially in PR China here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01001-0
while NOAAs Moana Loa station record never blinked: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide
Strange..
Today’s strong increase in solar wind speed will result in an increase in wind speed along the equator and a decrease in the Niño 3.4 index.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
With the increase in solar activity in the coming days, the Niño 3.4 index may drop to -1.5 C in November.
https://i.ibb.co/0JRXK6f/planetary-k-index.gif
My latest on the new global methane reduction policy:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/04/cop-26-methane-madness/
Most countries will have to cut livestock or rice production to hit 30% by 2030. They won’t.
Mr. Wojick’s articles are must reads for me, and this article covered a subject no other COP26 article I read bothered with.
Read Wojick’s short article.
He destroys the 30% methane reduction “target”.
After reading the article, you’ll think the logic is so simple
that anyone could have written a similar analysis.
But no one else did, that I know of.
Rice is a staple food of Asia and parts of the Pacific and over 90% of the world’s rice is produced and consumed in the Asia-Pacific region. 56% of the world’s population live in that region including an estimated 640m undernourished people.
A 30% reduction in rice production by 2030 would k!ll millions.
Do these COP people live in the real world?
“ Helsinki’s local government has decided that as of next year it will no longer be serving meat at city events after recommendations from its climate team manager.
The local government of the Finnish capital will no longer serve any meat products at official events, only serving seasonal vegetarian food and fish. Oat-based “milk” will replace cow’s milk for coffee and tea.”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/04/helsinki-stop-serving-meat-events-fight-climate-change/
What about all the poor fish killed by global warming making the oceans more acidic
Rob Starkey | November 4, 2021 at 5:23 pm |
What about all the poor fish killed by global warming making the oceans more acidic”
The oceans are akeline/base
In order for the oceans to become more acidic – they have to start out as being acidic.
A competent chemist will descripe the change as becomining neutral
A non-scientist/climate scientist is going to call it becoming more acidic.
A chemist knows better
Rob Starkey wrote:
What about all the poor fish killed by global warming making the oceans more acidic
Also victims.
They don’t justify anything. What’s wrong with your ethics?
joe – the non climate scientist wrote:
The oceans are akeline/base
In order for the oceans to become more acidic – they have to start out as being acidic.
Such a stupid response.
Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH.
When the measured acidity is increasing, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.”
That’s the case with the ocean.
Appell lecturing on ethics. A real chutzpah.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-817514
Safer Than ever from climate deaths … despite the hysteria.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-activists-disasters-fire-storms-deaths-change-cop26-glasgow-global-warming-11635973538?st=e8ioa5zzf98vek3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Bill – what’s your point? A link explains nothing. Use your words.
Dave … If we are in a catastrophe then it’s only fair to ask where is it? At this point, it seems there is no evidence of increasing catastrophe. If so, why would we want to spend trillions on avoiding a problem that hasn’t surfaced? That money, those limited, precious resources, should be used to alleviate problems that are already here. There’s a huge difference between resources used for adaptation for current conditions versus wholesale change for a future we know very little about. I think we have had enough experimentation with solar and wind to see their limitations. Probably the greatest information we’ve gleaned is that capital flows are not inexhaustible. Meaning, money spent on wind and solar, and then on engineering to enhance grids, etc is taken away from other potential projects to enhance energy security, and our ability to adapt to potential catastrophes, not to mention other pressing societal issues. As you know, there’s not an infinite supply of money. Lomborg is asking where should our priorities be, based on claims of future catastrophe that have not shown themselves, or dealing with what we have today? From my observations, I don’t believe there’s been an honest assessment of where we’ve been and where we are … with the process of changing our energy portfolio, or other strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. It seems more like a headlong rush to change for change’s sake, ignoring the facts on the ground. I’d rather we took Popper’s advice on ‘piecemeal engineering’. Experiment, analyze the data from the field and see where corrections are needed. The greatest danger humans face, today and tomorrow, is our own hubris. So I ask, where are we now and what have we learned?
Bill Fabrizio commented:
Dave … If we are in a catastrophe then it’s only fair to ask where is it? At this point, it seems there is no evidence of increasing catastrophe.
Please define “catastrophe.”
Are we NOW in a catastrophe? I don’t know any climate scientists who say that.
Though of course it depends if you or family members and love ones have already suffered and died as a result of climate change. Over a thousand people died in the late June monster heat wave in the Pacific Northwest of the US. Is that a “catastrophe?” Lots more examples like this, many far worse.
The potential catastrophes are in the science. In the numbers and projections. Sea level rise is one of the biggest concerns, but not the only one.
Dave …
> Are we NOW in a catastrophe? I don’t know any climate scientists who say that.
> Though of course it depends if you or family members and love ones have already suffered and died as a result of climate change. Over a thousand people died in the late June monster heat wave in the Pacific Northwest of the US. Is that a “catastrophe?” Lots more examples like this, many far worse.
I really don’t see what you’re saying, Dave. Are you saying there’s no catastrophe, but …? You seem to say that people do die of climate change, ‘…died as a result of climate change.’ And you site +1000 from the recent heat wave in the PNW. Also, saying there are ‘many far worse.’ For argument sake, let’s say you are correct on your examples, does your answer deny Lomborg’s statement that there have been FEWER deaths from climate related disasters in the last 100 years? Are you saying that if 1000 people die of a particular cause that we have to spend trillions to alleviate a cause we don’t know is primarily responsible? Did those people have other mitigating conditions? Are you looking at only ‘heat related deaths’, and not cold?
Too many questions, Dave. And you’re not giving me any answers. Sorry, I’m not convinced. But, thanks for trying.
David
Bills link went directly to a graphic which was self explanatory in as much these deaths are very sharply down.
I think lomborgs data came from here and he has removed several categories.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters.png
Clearly landslides needs to be factored back in.
Tonyb
I don’t see catastrophe. They have been predicting catastrophe for 40 years.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=120-012
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=130-001
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=1612340
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-011
Still looking for a catastrophe.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=680-140
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=645-011
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-053
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=230-051
Catastrophe seems illusionary.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410660
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9755371
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=810-003
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=555-011
Tonyb commented:
Bills link went directly to a graphic….
I don’t click on links that don’t explain why I should. Just a lazy commenter.
Tonyb commented: Bills link went directly to a graphic which was self explanatory in as much these deaths are very sharply down.
Obviously global deaths from natural disasters have a declining trend over the 20th century.
For a hundred reasons.
What is this supposed to prove??
Bill Fabrizio:
Please define “catastrophe.”
CKid wrote:
I don’t see catastrophe. They have been predicting catastrophe for 40 years.
Who is “they?”
Proof?
CKid wrote:
I don’t see catastrophe. They have been predicting catastrophe for 40 years.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=120-012
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=130-001
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=1612340
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=170-011
Meaningless cherry picking.
Two can play.
Charleston SC: Over the last 20 years, 1 inch of SLR every 32 months.
Upcoming catastrophe?
Charleston SC – Complete and total Cherry Pick. Why would it be so bad in C,SC; but not everywhere else be just as bad?
jim2 commented:
Charleston SC – Complete and total Cherry Pick
CKid also cherry-picked. Why not complaining about that? I merely did the same.
Shows your bias.
Key West: 1″ sea level rise every 43 months over the last 20 years.
Norfolk VA: 6.1″ of SLR in last 20 years.
17.5″ since 1927.
David
It must be a real bummer to be so emotionally chained to a loser theory that you can’t even recognize reality.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=040-221
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=050-051
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=9410170
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8418150
I’m afraid you will have to wait centuries for that parabolic curve. But then there is that life expectancy thing. Tick tock, tick Tock.
EPA said 40 years ago there would be 10 feet of SLR in decades. Wrong again. Some have waited decades to see the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus too, but to no avail.
Bill Fabrizio commented:For argument sake, let’s say you are correct on your examples, does your answer deny Lomborg’s statement that there have been FEWER deaths from climate related disasters in the last 100 years?
There’s nothing at all surprising about this. But what’s the relevance of Lomborg’s statement?
Bill Fabrizio commented:
Are you saying that if 1000 people die of a particular cause that we have to spend trillions to alleviate a cause we don’t know is primarily responsible? Did those people have other mitigating conditions?
So it’s OK if they died in the heat wave if they had mitigating conditions??
Are you looking at only ‘heat related deaths’, and not cold?
As discussed earlier, the fossil fuels that cause the warming you seem to want to reduce cold deaths cause 1 in 5 premature deaths in the world.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/
So to reduce a few “cold deaths” you want to warm up the entire world and prematurely cause 1/5th of all deaths???
And that makes sense to you??
Bill Fabrizio:
Do you heat your residence by insisting that the world burn enough fossil fuels to create enough global warming until you are comfortable in your living room?
Ckid does more cherry picking. Surest sign of a denier.
Won’t dare analyze sites that don’t meet his ideology — or even global averaged data.
There’s a reason why I filter his comments straight to trash.
David
I know severe cases of cognitive dissonance can sometimes wreak havoc on the nervous system. Why don’t you ring up Greta to see how she is coping with her emotional disappointment. I understand Tai Chi has a soothing effect on one’s stress. As fellow travelers you could share war stories with her.
David
Globally there are decadal and multi decadal variations in regional SLR, including 60 years and 18.6 years tidal variations. Along the East Coast, including South Carolina we have this
“ A distinct 12–14-year spectral peak appears in all tide gauge stations along the US east coast from Charleston to Eastport with record lengths at least from 1930 to 2012 (Figure 1 of Kenigson and Han 2014).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-016-9386-y
Further, subsidence is a global phenomenon, caused by a variety of natural and mad made action. In the Charleston area we have this.
“ Groundwater has been pumped from the Charleston aquifer by the City of Charleston, MPW and other users since development started in the late 1800s.”
“ A consequence of these regional declines in groundwater levels has been that Charleston, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties have been designated by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) as a Capacity Use Area (CUA) (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2001)”
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/sa-water/science/simulation-groundwater-flow-charleston-aquifer-near-mount-pleasant-sc?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
“ Reevaluation of first-order leveling data for the South Carolina Coastal Plain shows evidence of recent vertical crustal movements. These movements do not appear to be due to internal systematic errors in the data but rather to external processes such as near-surface water withdrawal or neotectonic movements. Dislocation modeling of the observed movements near Charleston provided a nonunique solution; thus the geodetic data do not provide a constraint on the tectonic model for the Charleston area.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JB091iB09p09056
“In summary, for the region from Virginia to South Carolina (38°N to 32.5°N) approximately 50% of present-day land subsidence is related to groundwater depletion and consequent aquifer compaction.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068015
Mornin’ Kid (UTC),
Can you by any chance provide links to learned journal articles on David’s suggested “global averaged data” to make your point?
Like this one for example:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2591-3
“Global-mean sea level (GMSL) has increased by approximately 1.5 mm yr−1 over the twentieth century, modulated by large multidecadal fluctuations. Changes in GMSL are the net result of many individual geophysical and climatological processes, with some of the largest contributions coming from ice-mass loss and thermal expansion of the ocean. The level of agreement between the sum of these individual contributions and the observed changes in GMSL—often described as the ‘sea-level budget’—is a key indicator of our understanding of the drivers of sea-level rise.“
The Charleston Tide Gauge shows a100 year trend of 3.36 mm/yr. Most likely the above GMSLR trend is partially due to subsidence, some of which is from groundwater abstraction, as explained above. The recent decadal upswing is not dissimilar to 1930-50. Wait a decade and that will likely drop against the long term trend.
Several years ago a paper came out identifying a recent trend of SLR in the Northeast that was very high. But the study period was only 7 or 8 years. Since then the rate is much lower. Each ocean basin and each region has it’s own idiosyncratic dynamics within its own distinct time frames. More than one paper has cautioned against drawing any conclusion about a SLR rate without looking at the trend over 120 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8665530
You should be seeing flooding around the thousands of miles of US coast line, not just a handful of places! I thought you were a scientist!!?? David. The reason we aren’t seeing problems everywhere on the coast can be summed in one word: subsidence! (Well, in some cases just bad judgement where to build. New Orleans comes to mind,)
Hi Jim
“ Can you by any chance provide links to learned journal articles on David’s suggested “global averaged data” to make your point?”
The purpose of my graphs was not the GMSLR but rather the lack of acceleration in the rate, which is an issue David and I have covered numerous times. Without acceleration there is no catastrophe. Sea levels began rising in the late 1700s, pre AGW. It’s rising at benign rates, between 2.5mm/yr and 3.5mm/yr. My reference to the EPA 40 years ago was meant to suggest that they would have assumed an acceleration that didn’t happen. The same assumptions are being made today about an acceleration. Not going to happen.
There are numerous unknowns and uncertainties about the current SLR and the dynamics involved. These are some papers which identified issues with the question of acceleration in the GMSLR.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1189/2019/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JC016551
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JC010716
Thanks Kid,
Mind you “Tamino” recently referred to Dangendorf too.
From “Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s”
“We find a persistent acceleration in GMSL since the 1960s and demonstrate that this is largely (~76%) associated with sea-level changes in the Indo-Pacific and South Atlantic.”
Tamino’s “bottom line”:
“Based on global sea level estimated by tide gauges and by satellite altimetry, the current rate of sea level rise is about 4.5 mm/yr, probably not less than 3.5 or more than 5.5. This is relevant to sea level rise around the world, including the coast of New Jersey …“
Jim
You need to expand your horizons beyond Tamino. I can produce a dozen papers that say there is no to insignificant acceleration. Plus, I hope you read the papers I linked identifying reasons for caution. There are too many complexities to give much credence to any numbers for periods less than 50-60 years. The horror stories that the MSM trot out are always locations with subsidence rates that are significant and at times multiples of the GMSLR. I can’t imagine why anyone would quote Tamino as a source.
Here is a tip. Compile a few hundred bookmarks of studies and graphs and reports on SLR like I have. You might have a more nuanced view of the issue. Just like every AGW subject, the deeper you dig the more complex it becomes.
Evenin’ Kid,
My horizons extend a lot further than “Tamino”. They even include you!
However in my experience Tamino is significantly less patronising.
Kid –
Do you have any kind of actual response to Tamino’s analysis, on a scientific or analytical basis?
I’d like to read about the methodological or scientific flaws in his analysis, and since you have a “more nuanced” view resulting from your extensive research and accumulated expertise, it would seem that you’d be the perfect go to for just such a critique.
J
He can read. I can read. That makes us even. I don’t need to know what more of the brainwashed think.
Jim Hunt – It’s on you to show that flooding due to sea level rise is happening at all. FLOODING, Jim. It’s easy to determine if FLOODING is actually occurring on the coast, other than a few select places due to subsidence. You guys always cherry pick a few places.
Evenin’ Jim,
The Kid quoted Dangendorf at me with apparent approval. I quoted Dangendorf back at him.
The ball’s still in his court since he fluffed his return.
Joshua | November 8, 2021
“Do you have any kind of actual response to Tamino’s analysis, on a scientific or analytical basis? I’d like to read about the methodological or scientific flaws in his analysis”.
+
Interesting comment.
=
Tamino does graphs.
He chooses time frames that suit a narrative, sites that suit a narrative and choose time periods that suit a narrative
I would encourage people to read the comments of the commentators at his site over many years.
The quality of comments and commentators can be a good indicator of the the quality of the thoughts being put forward.
–
Dave …
> There’s nothing at all surprising about this. But what’s the relevance of Lomborg’s statement?
Adaptation. Whether the natural disasters that Lomborg notes have been increasing or not, the data seems to show that humans have adapted to the conditions.
If you have reservations about the definition of catastrophe, or maybe even disaster, how about we change the word? Let’s substitute harm. What has been the harm(s) caused by the increase in CO2 during industrial times? Before we list them we need to site only the actual harms, not potential harms. Why? Because all life encounters potential harms every moment. And, usually, life is reactive when it comes to harms. Another words, harm has to be demonstrated for life to take adaptive measures, or react, against it. So, we need to site the actual harms caused.
Why go through all this? To spend trillions of scarce dollars on massive changes to how we live, it seems prudent to ask if the harms sited by climate change supporters are actual, and if they do indeed exist, whether we can adapt to them, as Lomborg seems to have shown.
Catastrophe in the sense of Rene Thom is inevitable. But torturing data until it confesses is not the way to prove it. Most warming over the past century happened in the past 40 years in a context of declines in global albedo. Sea level rise acceleration is much ado about statistical trifles.
‘Thus, both revised TOPEX time series reflect an increasing rate of sea level rise, both with an acceleration marginally significant at the 2-σ level. Watson et al. (2015) found their quadratic coefficients also larger after drift adjustment, although none of their coefficients (for a slightly shorter time series) was statistically significant.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013090
This is a depiction of how Glacial Isostatic Adjustments affect the relative sea level rise at locations on the east coast of NA, and is representative of the process elsewhere with rebounding solid earth from post Ice Age melting. Some coastal communities have shorelines that are rising but most are sinking. This is in addition to other processes such as groundwater abstraction, sediment compaction and tectonic movement.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/ed728817-5ee7-48cb-a2ab-f973ffd5bcec/grl21953-fig-0001.png
There is great variability across the globe with relative sea level rise rates varying from Ft Prachula Chomklao, Thailand (+16.8mm/yr) and Churchill, Canada
(-9.21mm/yr), the differences being affected by a whole host of geological, atmospheric and oceanic forces with temporal timescales of decades to millennia.
But having said that, it still wasn’t my original focus. It was and continues to be, where is the evidence that there is a catastrophic rate of acceleration that we can all have confidence in? Where is the inflection point on the tidal gauges that demonstrates these huge increases in SLR by 2100.
Geopotential height anomalies over the Arctic Circle have reached the higher troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2021.png
Stop posting irrelevancies, ren.
Don’t count on a warm winter in Oregon.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
DA
Take your own advice. But further, catch up on the science. You are still trying to hang on to the past like some South Pacific Island holdout.
The ozone hole in the South could be at a record high again this year in November and December and break the 2020 record in those months.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_SH_2021.png
We are carbon based lifeforms. Methane from livestock is carbon lost from production. It calls for smart responses.
https://www.future-feed.com/
A “smart response” is eliminating beef from the human diet. It’s also what’s right for the cows.
Just beef or all meat? Let’s get down to brass tacks.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Just beef or all meat?
Beef and pork. Pork’s too smart, beef’s too bad for the enviro.
There are 5 billion hectares of grazing land. It provides livelihoods for 1.3 billion people and food from marginal resources for many more. These are landscapes created by people and they simply can’t be responsibly managed without grazing. And life without bacon isn’t living.
‘Our planet has 5 billion hectares of grasslands. Almost all of it is less healthy than it could and should be, and much of it is in desperate condition. We use properly managed livestock within the framework of ‘holistic management’ to increase biodiversity on all the land we manage.’
https://atlasofthefuture.org/futurehero-tony-lovell-5-billion-hectares-hope/
David, I’ve seen your photos.
Sadly, you’re not in a position to advise anyone on diet.
Nearly all chronic disease, including heart disease, diabetes,
neuro-degenerative conditions, including Alzheimer’s, and other diseases stem from obesity. Of note, immune response to all disease is compromised by obesity which is why the greatest risk factor for COVID-19 is obesity.
Coincident with obesity appears to be sarcopenia ( loss of muscle ) and osteoporosis ( loss of bone ). Muscle and bone are composed of amino acids most completely available as meat. The human body has receptors which monitor protein intake. If protein is insufficient, hunger results. But if that hunger results in eating high caloric foods, but not foods containing protein which would satisfy the signal, obesity results.
I don’t believe CO2 is a problem or will be even for a century.
And, I’m not a fan of moralizing about such things.
But if one is considering social cost:
1. Overeating in general may have a higher [sic] carbon footprint than eating meat ( those tractors and factories that make seed oils and high fructose corn syrup are fossil fueled – and seed oils and HFCS are the number 1 and 2 sources of calories in the US diet ).
2. Overeating processed junk creates a huge social cost of medical care ( beyond the individual’s self induced long term suffering ).
BTW, I am sympathetic to modern humans.
Being busy with work and life, I never paid attention to diet.
Like most people, I steadily gained weight through adult life.
Then, at around age 50, I went on a business trip and started having chest pains whenever I would climb the hotel stairs.
I was scared for myself and for a family I might leave behind, but I didn’t know what to do. Fear, however, is a beneficial motivator for change.
I came across a video by Tom Naughton that assailed the ideas of Ancel Keys. Keys was the popular figure who erroneously demonized saturated fats. I followed the ‘low carb’ approach and lost 60 pounds. I am in much better shape at age 60 than I was at age 50, so it is possible.
Now, it may be that ‘low carb’ was not the key aspect. I turns out that any diet that is a conscious choice may be effective simply by making the individual think about what they are eating. Further, low carb doesn’t mean -no- carb. Carbs seem to be important in creating glutathione, the body’s master anti-oxidant. A better model might be the
the Protein/Energy ratio identified by Ted Naiman.
Simply put, fat represents stored energy and muscle represents stored protein. Increasing the protein to energy ratio improves body composition, correlates with improved nutrient intake and allows one to eat less because of increased satiety.
Dr Ted is agnostic on vegan/carnivore. However, no indigenous peoples around the world is purely vegan or carnivore, so omnivory would appear to be natural. Further, humans have much shorter large intestines than any of our primate relatives, indicating humans evolved for eating nutrient dense meat rather than fibrous plant matter. Further, we do know that the omega-3 fatty acid DHA is required for brain function. Trouble is, the largest source is cold water fish, which wouldn’t have been present in evolution. No cold water fish, but plenty of animal brains, which contain the necessary DHA. What it takes to make human brains is found in other animal brains.
Diet science, like climate science, is necessarily short of controlled study, but it’s important to consider what we do know in terms of evolution.
I am not unsympathetic to the average modern human.
Like most, I was preoccupied with life, knew little of nutrition, didn’t pay attention to my diet, and gained weight(fat) steadily through adulthood.
Then, on a business trip around age 50, I started having chest pains when climbing up the hotel stairs. I was scared at passing and leaving behind a family, but that fear was quite beneficial.
I didn’t know much, but came across a Tom Naughton video assailing Ancel Keys. Keys was key in erroneously demonizing saturated fat. I went on a low carb diet and lost 60 pounds. In retrospect, low carb may not have been the most important aspect. Supposedly, ANY diet leads to thinking about what one is eating, and can be effective. And low carb is not NO carb – carbs are important in creating glutathione, the body’s master antioxidant. Having bacon and eggs for breakfast instead of Coco-Pebbles also reduced fructose. Fructose metabolism necessarily creates fat in the liver.
Dr. Ted Naiman says the important aspect is not so much carbs, but energy. Simply put, he says, fat represents stored energy and muscle represents stored protein. Being over-fat, especially since it coincides with being under-muscled and under-boned, argues for a higher protein-to-energy (P:E) ratio.
Dr. Ted says he is agnostic on vegan, omnivore, or carnivore diets, declaring such ideas as religious. Vegans can succeed, he says, but they must be very selective.
However, no native cultures appear to be exclusively vegan or carnivore, so omnivory appears to be the common case. Further, humans have very much shorter large intestines than our primate cousins indicating a diet rich in nutrient dense animal matter versus nutrient sparse and highly fibrous plant matter.
We can’t and probably wouldn’t want to eat the same things as our evolutionary ancestors did. But eating meat, including beef, is probably key to proper nutrition and to eating less and has allowed me to eat less and maintain MUCH better health at age 60 than I had at age 50.
TE: No one needs to eat beef, period. It’s not necessary for “proper nutrition,” is harmful to coronary systems, and the way we treat these animals is a horrendous moral monstrosity. Same goes for pork, one of the most intelligent nonhuman species.
Plus both are terrible for the environment, even before considerations of climate change.
Meat substitutes will replace beef (at least) over this century, which is a good thing for several reasons.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
And life without bacon isn’t living.
Clearly you’re afraid to examine the ethics and morality of your dietary choices.
It’s a very common characteristic.
Not true. The latest review of pig welfare was in 2018.
‘All pigs farmed in Australia are governed by the Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of
Animals – Pigs, which was approved by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council on April 2007. The
original Model Code of Practice was approved by the Australian Agricultural Council in 1989 and the
code has been subsequently updated in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 to incorporate the latest research
findings and new technologies in the area. This review is a comprehensive documentation of recent
findings on pig welfare at all stages of their production cycle. Furthermore, comparisons are made
between the current Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Pigs and the
current Codes or Standards in Canada (Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs, 2014), the
United Kingdom (UK, Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Pigs, 2002), the
European Union (EU, Council Directive 2008/120/EC) and New Zealand (Pigs – Animal Welfare Code
of Welfare, 2018). These countries were selected because their high standards of pig welfare have
been widely recognised.’
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Not true. The latest review of pig welfare was in 2018.
LOLz!!!
Who asked the pigs???
Systematically treating food animals humanely is moral and ethical.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Systematically treating food animals humanely is moral and ethical.
Says what?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Systematically treating food animals humanely is moral and ethical.
Humanely LOL.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Systematically treating food animals humanely is moral and ethical.
I doubt you’d think that if you were food for a more violent species.
Someday.
Right for the cows??? You have to be kidding! Humans eat meat. It’s normal and natural. Get over yourself. Get a rifle and go hunting. Get back to your animal roots! Right for the cows! LOL!
David A. appears to believe he can read the minds of highly domesticated cows. Otherwise, modern farming practices help ensure a supply of affordable, high-quality protein for the poor and middle class. Otherwise, only the rich would have the right to “abuse” food animals. Just another symptom of the myopic left.
https://twitter.com/drsplace/status/1460397581549383687
David Appell | November 4, 2021 A “smart response” is eliminating beef from the human diet. It’s also what’s right for the cows.
–
David Appell , practicing vegan?
Somehow I just don’t think so.
angech commented:
David Appell , practicing vegan?
Not eating beef or pork, that’s for sure
LOLz
What one might term fractured morality.
No one is safe from it or above it.
We cloak ourselves in moral hypocrisy.
Then try to put these values on everyone else.
“Not eating beef or pork, that’s for sure”
Not catching fish [very cruel] or eating fish?
Not stepping on ants and snails.
Not stomping on spiders .
No Christmas turkey.
No chicken.
Might have to have a Spanish Christmas,
ham is treated as a vegetable in Spain.
Might have to give up milk in your coffee as well, comes from cows,
Feeds millions of babies.
Shh, nobody mentions the milk dependency.
No leather seats in your Audi, David.
“that’s for sure”
from a cynical meat eater
who admires vegetarians for their higher morality.
But is just not up to that standard.
Ever since the local DA was paroled from postal incarceration he’s been cranky. His cell inmate must have roughed him up a bit. Beef up; a higher protein diet could help somewhat, DA.
Glasgow climate crusader demands:
turn the power off and freeze in the dark
eat tofu
Give $1.3 trillion per year to “poor” countries
pay no attention to China or Russia
Listen to the peer-reviewed Greta
It’s the 1962 Mets of political and environmental movements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can%27t_Anybody_Here_Play_This_Game%3F#:~:text=Can't%20Anybody%20Here%20Play%20This%20Game%3F%20is%20a%20book,1962%20New%20York%20Mets%20season.&text=The%20title%20of%20the%20book,over%20the%20team's%20spectacular%20ineptitude.
jeffnsails850 wrote:
Glasgow climate crusader demands:
turn the power off and freeze in the dark
Who said that?
Be specific.
Let Mr. Apple eat whatever he wants to eat,
and let’s not insult his apparent weight
— many American adults are overweight.
That’s their problem.
The Arctic from Siberia is freezing fast.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts_4km.png
Perhaps that should read “has frozen fast”?
It seems that embedding YouTube videos is still possible here, so let’s try this:
https://youtu.be/CcuATGjvdXI
That doesn’t seem to have worked! What’s the secret?
In the meantime see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/10/facts-about-the-arctic-in-november-2021/#Nov-05
Afternoon Jim. Over the autumn the devlopment of the arctic SIE one can see in this figure:
https://i.imgur.com/EHp7VRZ.png
( as usual sorry for the link, there is no other way to show a graphical message) The refreeze in 2019 and 2020 was much slower and ( of course) some specialists saw a climate related issue, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/alarm-as-arctic-sea-ice-not-yet-freezing-at-latest-date-on-record . The cited Laptev refreeze in this year showed 100% on the 26th October as one can see in “MASI” Of course the trend to a later refreeze is real, but: some weather related issues ( or inherent variability ) should be considered because the weather can change and i a retrospective view those exaggerations are not very helpful.
best
I just love the latest Pielke’s syllogism: “Under IPCC scenarios, humanity on average will be better off in the future under all scenarios, all of them, even the ones with the most climate change“, retweeted by the host.
But Growth !
I am sure that humanity on average was better off in the 50’s than in the 30’s. Would that have been predicted under all the economic scenarios in 1930, do you think this sophism would have made a compelling argument to consider that the risks of a 2d World War were alarmist? A good reason to attack the Cassandres trying to prevent the conflict? Or does it really make magically a World War a good thing for humanity (on average)?
What about decency, intellectual integrity, ethics, etc.?
But Growth !
You and I and our fellow humans are not going to like shrinkage.
Ort wrote:
I just love the latest Pielke’s syllogism: “Under IPCC scenarios, humanity on average will be better off in the future under all scenarios, all of them, even the ones with the most climate change“
Ort makes a good point. Pielke Jr is really making an assumption, not a calculation. Anyone can project existing trends. What’s difficult — and always relevant — are the unforeseen obstacles in the future, especially possible climate tipping points, but also how ecosystems and agriculture react to global warming of potentially 3 C (regional warmings will be significantly higher).
Pielke Jr’s is lazy and facile thinking.
Mr. Apple:
It’s so refreshing when you waltz in here
and insult everyone you disagree with.
A science website needs comic relief.
And you provide it.
Thank You
‘A dynamical adjustment perspective on extreme event attribution’
“The 2009–2010 winter European cold spell associated with an extreme negative NAO phase would have been significantly colder without human influence that mitigated the region-averaged amplitude of the extreme cold event by 33 %.”
Yet the following December in 2010 was the second coldest for 360 years in Central England, colder than any Decembers in the Maunder and Dalton minimums, the coldest was in 1890, by 0.1°C.
Our understanding of climate and weather is going nowhere without first realising that these cold events, the Russian 2010 heatwave, and all the major northwest European heatwaves, are discretely solar driven.
Prediction of the very cold Jan-Feb 2010 was possible with a simple 179.05 years heliocentric analogue, at any range.
The 1934, 1949, 1976, 2003, and 2018 heatwaves all shared the same type of Jovian T-square responsible for stronger solar wind states driving positive NAO/AO episodes. The greatest heatwaves of 1540, 1757, 1936, and 2006 shared another type of Jovian T-square.
This is what schools should be teaching, but that won’t happen anytime soon with so many experts who think they know better. Nada Rudan of the Serbian Met told me that Milankovitch had proposed planetary ordering of solar activity driving weather anomalies, he was denounced as insane.
“Climate warming is unequivocal and exceeds internal climate variability. However, estimates of the magnitude of decadal-scale variability from models and observations are uncertain, limiting determination of the fraction of warming attributable to external forcing. Here, we use statistical learning to extract a fingerprint of climate change that is robust to different model representations and magnitudes of internal variability. We find a best estimate forced warming trend of 0.8°C over the past 40 years, slightly larger than observed. It is extremely likely that at least 85% is attributable to external forcing based on the median variability across climate models.”
I would suggest that at least 85% is due to weaker solar wind states since 1995 causing a warmer AMO, driving a decline in low cloud cover, and driving Arctic warming.
Energy innovation is happening everywhere. Without innovation economies stagnate and decline.
‘While Schumpeter provided this general framework and theory of economic growth, interestingly, he simultaneously argued that all historical economic developments are in part socio-economic and historical developments themselves, predicated upon consumers’ values which evolve naturally or by the work of entrepreneurs that change the economic environment. Personal values determine economic values, thus specific explanations of a market’s or company’s growth relate to their customer’s values and tastes. “Technologically as well as economically considered, production ‘creates’ nothing in the physical sense. In both cases, it can only influence or control things and processes… mechanical, chemical, and other processes. But it is always a question of changing the existing state of the satisfaction of our wants, of changing the reciprocal relations of things and forces, of uniting some and disconnecting others. Technologically as well as economically considered, to produce means to combine the things and forces within our reach”⁶.
Schumpeter maintained that values would constantly evolve or grow because of the unceasing wants of humankind, adding to his economic and technological sentiment that progress is theoretically limitless.
Schumpeter added: “Improvements can always be made, and the striving after improvements is always limited by the given conditions and not by the perfection of what exists. Every step forward opens new prospects. Every improvement leads further away from the appearance of absolute perfection. The possibility of profit, therefore, and with it, the ‘potential demand,’ have no definite limit… However, these possibilities of profit are powerless and unreal if they are not supported by the entrepreneur’s personality”⁷.’ https://miro.medium.com/max/1050/0*wzekVDjA5tjxwbxq
Windmills and solar panels are not “energy innovation”.
They are highly subsidized, mandated, unnecessary changes driven by government regulations and spending.
They are not free market solutions:
(1) to make electric grids more reliable, or
(2) to make electricity cheaper, or
(3) to reduce CO2 emissions for the next few decades (since they require the largest increase of mining and manufacturing, powered by fossil fuels, in our planet’s history.)
Real life doesn’t always match economic text books and theories.
Groundhog Day (the movie) on CE doesn’t qualify as innovative thinking.
Innovation is the foundation of economic growth is what the textbooks tell us. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is another option.
Mr. Ellison
What does groundhog day mean?
Economic growth is the sum of productivity growth
and labor force growth = more output of goods and services,
after adjustment for inflation.
That output growth could be expanding government
bureaucracies, or expanding the national stockpile
of nuclear bombs and missiles.
Or the worst case —
Governments spending lots of money
to fight wars — killing people and destroying
foreign infrastructure.
Growth can take place with no innovation,
from population / labor force growth alone.
Building windmills and solar panels
to replace nuclear power and coal power
is not innovation because the spending
REDUCES the reliability of an electric, grid
at great expense.
PS: I liked the Groundhog Day movie !
Groundhog day is of course an allusion to the same ideas presented day after day.
An increase in population does not result in the exponential increase in labour productivity seen in the 20th century. For that we need new ways of doing things. But apologies – I neglected to include a link to the source I was quoting.
https://miro.medium.com/max/525/0*wzekVDjA5tjxwbxq
https://medium.com/@b3tweenthelines/a-brief-history-of-innovation-economics-67754f916998
You conflate technology and policy. The latter in your hands largely straw man arguments. No one serious is championing 100% wind and solar.
You can look at it two ways. In a democracy people may tax and spend as they vote. If you are losing that argument – it has nothing to do with technology and it is just sour grapes. The other point is that there is considerable innovation in energy. Including in wind, solar, batteries… That benefits from appropriate emerging industries policy as much as development and deployment of modular nuclear reactors. Dollar for dollar public private partnerships with termination clauses. There is an energy transition happening like it or not. It will produce the next great surge forward.
To economics perfesser Ellison:
Replacing any portion of an electric grid (I never said 100%)
is not innovation, when it makes the electric grid less
reliable and makes electricity more expensive (including subsidies).
Innovation is sources of power that make the electric grid
more reliable and/or make electricity cheaper !
The money / labor invested in windmills and solar power
is money / labor not used for other more productive
purposes. And don’t tell me wind and solar will reduce
CO2 emissions — they will require a HUGE increase of
mining and manufacturing powered by fossil fuels
that will INCREASE CO2 emissions for several decades !
Innovations of goods and services that people want
and will VOLUNTARILY buy are a lot different than
government subsidized and mandated changes..
There are not many people in the world who want
a less reliable electric grid, and want to pay more
for their electricity. Apparently you think
that is meaningful “innovation” ?
Elected governments may tax and spend as they will. Most people want viable, pragmatic responses to AGW.
And Richard is wrong about wind and solar at low penetrations. Power from these sources can easily be balanced by hydropower especially. Frequency fluctuations are equally easily and precisely regulated with virtual rotational inertia. At low unit cost. This can never be more than generation at the margins – but all in all could provide useful capacity in a mixed bag of sources.
Somehow I doubt that Professor Greene has the capacity to pick winners.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Energy innovation is happening everywhere. Without innovation economies stagnate and decline.
Where is energy innovation happening?
Please be specific. What is the growth rate in the percentage of global energy derived from renewable sources?
What *is* a renewable source, anyway?
—
You are ignoring the issue of political corruption — ironic, given you are Australian, where corruption by fossil fuel interests is huge. As in the US.
Source of Global Primary Energy
2009 = 80.3% from fossil fuels
2019 = 80.2% from fossil fuels
The “war” on fossil fuels seems like a lot of Blah Blah Blah
Greta was right !
China, India, Africa, and most other developing nations, are not fighting that war.
Therefore, NET ZERO, whether you are for it, or against it, is just virtue signalling.
Perhaps China, India and Africa are fighting a different war. Perhaps they are fighting against poverty by trying to get reliable electricity to their populations.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s with atmosphere average surface temperature measured by gridded thermometers is about 288 K.
Robert, people are very much interested…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The comment below was a more general observation – not directed at Christos per se – but if the shoe fits.
Robert, people are very much interested…
“Earth’s with atmosphere average surface temperature measured by gridded thermometers is about 288 K.”
How do you know that?
If yo are a voice in the wilderness you have to figure that people are not interested.
Robert,
People are very much interested in my method. It is the planet temperatures comparison method.
Robert, when comparing different planets temperatures, along with other planetary features, like planet rotational spin – a whole world of mysterious phenomena gets disclosed.
It has become for me very much obvious that the Mars’ fast rotation makes Mars’ average surface (mean) temperature almost the same as Moon’s.
Please have a look at the data:
On Moon solar flux is 1.361 W/m²
On Mars solar flux is 587 W/m²
Nevertheless
Tmean.moon = 220K
Tmean.mars = 210 K
Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker than Moon, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
And… for the same albedo, Mars and Moon would have the same satellite measured mean temperatures.
For Moon Tmean = 220K Moon’s Albedo a=0,11
For Mars Tmean= 210K Mars’ Albedo a=0,25
You see, Robert, a mystery can be disclosed by a simple numbers’ comparison…
28,783^1/4 = 2,316
So, when comparing Mars/Moon the planetary features, rotational spins relation’s forth root equals the solar flux relation’s ratio!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A more balanced observer would note that nearly everyone is unconvinced – and endless repetition is not going to change that.
The fundamental problem is that unless there is a mechanism experimentally validated for changes in albedo or atmospheric gas concentration with spin is it all made up. A wild claim based on dodgy analysis.
“A more balanced observer would note that nearly everyone is unconvinced – and endless repetition is not going to change that.
The fundamental problem is that unless there is a mechanism experimentally validated for changes in albedo or atmospheric gas concentration with spin is it all made up. A wild claim based on dodgy analysis.”
“nearly everyone is unconvinced” – yes, I know that
“endless repetition is not going to change that.”
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium
“At about 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn “to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses.”[70]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism
“Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609. In December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence confronted one of Galileo’s friends and followers,”
November 7, 2021 – Robert, we still say the sun is rising, and we still consider Earth flat. And it always requires some mental effort to remember that we are on a rotating sphere (planet) which is the scientifically correct.
The blue sky is always considered as a protective dome covering flat Earth. That is why the greenhouse effect is so easily “understood” and accepted.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Description
By using ozonesonde measurements during July–August in 2016, 2019, and 2020 at Golmud and Qaidam, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) next-generation reanalysis ERA5 data, satellite-borne Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer data products, and backward trajectory calculations from the chemical Lagrangian model of the stratosphere (CLaMS) model, this study analyzes vertical ozone distributions and explores the influence of deep stratospheric intrusions and wildfires on ozone variation in the northern Tibetan Plateau (TP) during the Asian summer monsoon period. Large ozone partial pressures were observed between 20 and 30 km, with a maximum of ~16 mPa at approximately 27 km latitude. The comparisons between the vertical ozone profiles with and without the occurrence of stratospheric intrusions showed that their relative ozone difference was up to 72.4% in the tropopause layer (15.8 km), and a secondary maximum of 66.7% existed in the middle troposphere (10.1 km). The stratospheric intrusions dried the atmosphere by 52.9% and enhanced the ozone columns by 26.1% below the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. A case study of deep stratospheric intrusion exhibited the occurrence of large ozone partial pressure in the middle troposphere in detail, with an ozone peak of ~6 mPa at 10 km, which was caused by a tropopause fold associated with the westerly wind jet at the north flank of the Asian summer monsoon anticyclone. The stratospheric intrusion processes effectively transported the cold and dry air mass with high ozone in the stratosphere downward to the middle troposphere over the northern TP. This study also confirmed that by long-range transport processes, large wildfire smoke occurred around central and eastern Russia on 19-26 July 2016 greatly caused ozone pollution in the troposphere (6 km depth from the surface) over the northern TP.
https://www.frames.gov/catalog/63593
The geographic and temporal variations in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone columns from individual swath measurements of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), on the NASA Aura spacecraft, are reasonably well simulated by the University of California, Irvine (UCI) chemistry transport model (CTM) using 1°×1°×40-layer meteorological fields for the year 2005. From the CTM we find that high-frequency spatial variations in tropospheric column ozone (TCO), including around the jet streams, are not generally correlated with variations in stratospheric ozone column, but instead are collocated with folding events involving stratospheric-origin, high-ozone layers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47690377_Correlating_tropospheric_column_ozone_with_tropopause_folds_The_Aura-OMI_satellite_data
https://i.ibb.co/KzrFxd5/gfs-t70-nh-f00.png
Another ivermectin study retracted.
https://t.co/WZa11T5DVG?amp=1
I await the discussion from “skeptics” who jumped in the “miracle drug” train to deal with this.
Ivermectin may have some benefit. Increasinglyz the data suggest if there’s any benefit it’s relatively small. When will the “miracle drug”ers and the” crime of the century”ers step up and be accountable?
Over 60 positive studies of Ivermectin versus COVID.
You could “pull” half the studies and still have
overwhelming evidence of ivermectin success.
Great success in India, Indonesia,
African nations and more.
Used in Japan too
Ivermectin is safer, more effective
and MUCH cheaper than new drugs
by Merck and Pfizer about to be
released.
We are the smart people.
Because we examine all the evidence.
You are the big dummy.
You start with a conclusion
about ivermectin
then search for one “pulled”
study to claim you were
right all along.
Confirmation bias.
By the way:
US average daily COVID deaths
in the first 9 months of 2021
were +17% higher than US average
COVID deaths per day in the last
9 months of 2020.
What say you about that
evidence of COVID
vaccine failure?
I can’t wait to hear !
Joshua is right.
The only studies showing anti-covid benefit of horse-wormer are fabricated ones.
https://youtu.be/OjEd-cnum3Y
Mad Hatter – that video is from July. That’s a century in COVID time.
65 ivermectin studies, early treatment, with some stats:
https://c19ivermectin.com/#early
Here’s a clearer breakdown of the studies and clinical trial for Ivermectin:
https://ivmmeta.com/
Hatter, you have demonstrated that two people here
have no idea what they are talking about
on the subject of ivermectin, drug used 4 billion
times for humans. The horse wormer insult
proves you are biased, and a f o o l !
You are not entitled to your own facts (factoids)
I seriously love it that some “skeptics” are hangers-on to the “miracle drug” narrative.
Is there any better evidence for why everyone should put quotes around skeptic when they refer to these boyz?
Pissant progressives like to tar opponents with the brush of creationists, flat earthers, tobacco apologists, aids deniers or anti-science climate sceptics. Whatever it takes to feel modern, superior and sciency.
Progressives don’t have to tar anyone. Conservatives stand up and proclaim what you say proudly.
You might as well add white nationalism, anti-science and anti-intellectual with regards to everything and not just climate. How else do you account for their embrace of covid remedies promoted on the internet and by the talking heads on Faux news over proven vaccines? Should I go on?
Then of course there are their economic policies. Here’s something I wrote ly on Quora that discusses conservatism and economics:
https://www.quora.com/Will-Conservatives-or-Republicans-ever-abandon-the-wealthy-or-the-top-1?top_ans=191897821
Politics, economics, and history aren’t your thing either. Exactly what is?
Conservatives love this country so much they want to overturn democracy and install some form of fascism with the Orange Wonder as “fearless leader.”
So he’s is a chemical engineer. Makes sense. Then he cites himself on Quora whining about the 1%. Here’s somethin I wrote on economics.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
I just skimmed the article you wrote. Right up front you claim that to solve poverty we must increase global production. In other words, supply-side economics on steroids. We’ve been doing that in the US for the past 40 years, the result — massive income inequality at a level that is unsustainable.
I take it you are opposed to socialism. In capitalism demand controls supply. Keynes recognized that years ago and its as true today as it was then. What do you think “just in time manufacturing” or “monitoring the supply chain” is all about? In socialism supply controls demand. In socialism there is always more demand than supply.
In socialism increasing supply is what produces economic growth. In capitalism increasing demand is what produces economic growth. Why would a “smart guy” like you propose a solution that is best suited for an economy based socialism. I got the impression that you believe in capitalism. Maybe, you have no clue what you believe in.
What happens when you try to increase supply in a capitalist system by putting money in the pockets of suppliers is that they pocket the money or buy back stock or increase dividends and wait till demand picks up. That’s preferable to lowering prices to meet demand. If you gave them no money, they would be forced to lower prices to stimulate demand. It has the opposite effect of what is supposedly intended. Of course, the effect produced is exactly what was intended in the first place.
This is a conservative wet dream. They pad the bank accounts of the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes.
I don’t have time to get into the rest of it. I would say you have a warped view of economics. Which is pretty much what I would say about all your views.
JJ should read and comprehend not skim and indulge in neo-socialist bias.
It’s about economic stability and the growth that emerges from that. Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product.
e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Economic growth
Demand is the product of billions of consumer decisions. Supply is provided by business who take risks and compete to make money meeting demand Growth is the product of entrepreneurs who create products, markets and build more productive and efficient systems.
That is a word salad that says nothing. Of course, you reference the Heritage Foundation. The think tank that gave us supply-side economics. Which is a rehash of the laissez-faire with new branding. The latter gave us the Great Depression and the former the Great Recession. In between they managed to line the pockets of the wealthy and cause income inequality only rivaled by the “gilded age” of the 1920s. See the parallel? Trust me. It’s no coincidence.
Conservatives never have “new ideas” they just bring back the “golden oldies” and rename them. In the end the rich get richer and everybody else gets screwed. That’s what conservatism is all about. Everything else is smoke and mirrors to trick the public into voting for that nonsense.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that societies with massive income inequality do not survive for long. If you want a working society, capitalism and socialism have to coexist. If you can’t strike a proper balance, fascism or communism is the result. At the current moment, we are leaning toward some form of a fascist government. We’ve been at this point before — during the Great Depression. We dodged a bullet there. I’m not so sure we are going to dodge it again.
There are foundations of economics that are mainstream. In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
These are indeed tried and true principles. They emerged in the Austrian school of economics as a way of preventing bubbles and crashes in the business cycle. All bubbles burst – without a doubt. F. A. Hayek expanded to include social insurance and a philosophy of freedom and democracy that owes much to the Scottish Enlightenment.
What we get from JJ is foolish neo-socialist memes.
Really funny!
RIE is a disciple of Hayek and his discredited theories. His solution to recessions and depressions was to liquidate everything and do nothing else. That nonsense was disproven by the Great Depression. Of course, conservatives were arguing those policies as the solution for the Great Recession. That would have led to the Greater Depression. Luckily, Shrub was leaving office. If he was at the beginning of his term, like Hoover was, who knows how much damage conservative solutions could have caused. I can guarantee the corporations and the wealthy would have been protected at all cost. That was Shrub, hat in hand, going to Congress for $700 Billion to bail out banks. The Shrub administrations handed out the money with no stings attached. Some corporate executives paid themselves bonuses for the their handiwork. After all, it takes real talent to put the US economy on the verge of a depression. The “little people” didn’t get bailed out and got stuck with the misery. To conservatives, that’s why God created them.
RIE likes to refer to me as a neo-socialist. He’s believes in neoliberalism which has failed the US for the last 40 years. He and his ilk want us to sit through the same bad movie over and over while they keep telling us we are going to like it this time. As much as they try, you can’t put lipstick on a pig and try to pretend it’s not a pig.
I suggest RIE go visit the website of the Mises Institute or the Ayn Rand Institute that honor Hayek and the other wackos promoting failed right wing economic policies. I can’t remember which one, but one of those sites has a idiotic take on monopolies.
Mises and the Austrian school – to which Hayek contributed – advised managing the money supply and interest rates to prevent bubbles and crashes. This is mainstream economics – not a rote learned neo-Marxist rant such as JJ’s. .
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/inflation-long-run.gif
Hayek et al theories are mainstream economics only in the conservative bubble. In the real world, their theories don’t work.
The Great Depression and Great Recession were the result of lack of regulation of the financial markets and the application of their theories as a remedy. The conservative Fed had a tight money policy during the early stages of the depression. They were fighting imaginary inflation instead of the real problem — deflation. The conservative Supreme Court threw out New Deal programs left and right until FDR threatened them into reversing course. The recovery would have been faster without their conservative mindset.
Keynes won his debate with Hayek. It was no contest. Reality trumps fantasy every time.
Targeting inflation to avoid bubbles through monetary policy works.
Beyond that are the pillars of economic freedom.
‘1. Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness)
2. Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health)
3. Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom)
4. Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom).’
Really?
Targeting inflation wouldn’t have prevented the Great Depression. We had low inflation and we still had a housing bubble that resulted the Great Recession. Another conservative myth and why, after the economy crashes, they demand a tight money policy. The stupid just goes on and on.
I always tell conservatives that keep yaking about “free-markets” that the words free and markets together are an oxymoron. I also tell them that if they want to experience a conservative utopia for “free-markets” they should move to Somalia. A model for what happens when “free-markets” are allowed to run wild. I also tell them to be sure to use your Second Amendment rights to purchase as many guns as possible before they go. They’re going to need them.
Then there is the case of the North Marianna Islands, a US territory, and the conservative experiment in “free-market” capitalism in the 2000s. US labor law didn’t apply to the islands. You can get a taste of what happened here:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5492833
There’s a lot more information out there where you can read all about the sweat shops, force abortion, and sex slave trade. All this occurring while Republicans in Congress were praising the islands as the model for what occurs when government keeps hands-off markets. The fact that the sweat shop owners were lining the pockets of conservative politicians I’m sure had no impact on their views.
You must lead a sheltered life. You need to get out more.
Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter or any matter? Try thinking and reasoning. It’s going to introduce you to a whole new world. I guess it’s just too much trouble for you. Either that or you have the IQ of a turnip.
We have had several commentators condemning Florida’s policies along with condemning sweden’s policies
Florida currently has approx 281 covid deaths per 100k which is behind only NY and NJ.
the over age 65 group accounts for approx 85% of covid deaths.
The covid deaths for the age 65+ group in the various states are
Florida 1050 per 100k
Michign 950 per 100k
Colorado 1100 per 100k
Mass 1100 per 100k
Minnesota 1220 per 100k.
The death rate for the over 65 age group is remarkably similar regardless of each states mitigation protocols and compliance with those protocols.
Mother nature controls !
Joe –
> We have had several commentators condemning Florida’s policies along with condemning sweden’s policies
You’re a liar.
So many liars so little credibility.
J
So early in the morning and that comes out? Things must be pinching in a delicate place.
We can expect no less from Josh; like all red dwarfs his gaseous flares are rather unpredictable.
JJ
You need to get current with the Depression. Your ideas about its cause have been out of date for 50 years since the US History on Monetary Policy was written. You might want to catch up on what real economists know, that what the Fed did and didn’t do had a greater impact than lack of regulation. Having the Gold Standard didn’t help either. That is why Bernanke threw in the kitchen sink and everything else in 2008. That is why their balance sheet is $8.5 Trillion, 1,000% more than years ago.
Your discredited ideas on economics are about as out of date as your discredited ideas on climate.
Do you mean the conservative revisionist economic history that blames the Great Depression on FDR?
The laissez-faire/supply side economics policies of the Harding/Coolidge administration did not cause the Great Depression. They caused the financial markets to crash in 1929 which should have led to a bad recession. There is a second set of conservative economic policies that conservatives endorse to this day that was responsible for the Great Depression.
The conservative economic policies of the 1920s were the brain child of Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury in the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administration. After the market crash, Mellon advised Hoover to “let it all burn” and do nothing. Hoover didn’t quite do that. He increased spending but mostly to bail out banks. He started a few programs to increase employment, but Hoover didn’t believe in creating jobs. The FED had a tight money policy to fight inflation when the problem was deflation. Hoover imposed a tariff which many conservatives, to this day, claim was the problem. It certainly didn’t help but foreign trade was <1% of GDP. You could have eliminated all foreign trade and it wouldn't have made much difference. Unemployment soared to 25% by the end of 1932. The came FDR and Keynesian economics. FDR reduced unemployment from 25% to 10% by 1940.
You can learn more about Andrew Mellon and what he did to America in the link I provide below. He one of the most influential men of the 20th century that hardly anyone knows about.
https://prospect.org/culture/books/the-rise-and-fall-of-andrew-mellon/
Fast forward to today. What are conservative economic policies? They're the polices of the 1920s rebranded as supply side economics. In 2009, what did conservatives recommend be done about the Great Recession? No stimulus — not a single conservative voted for the stimulus bill. Mitt Romney wrote an editorial supporting the liquidation of the US auto industry. Conservatives wanted the FED to institute a tight money policy to fight imaginary inflation. Sound familiar? The conservatives love the "golden oldies" — recession, depression, and disease.
JJ
Read harder. Research the history of the role of the Federal Reserve by any number of authors. Don’t keep embarrassing yourself. It’s not that hard to find the actual facts.
Leftwing extremists are so predictable, whether it’s economics, the history of taxation or climate. I’ve yet to see anything imaginative from the left. Reading from the same hymnal never has been taxing on the brain.
You think I’m going to read what conservatives write about economic history? I already know what they have to say.
Look at this way, both the Great Depression and Great Recession occurred under conservative control of government with the same conservative economic policy in full force. You think that’s a coincidence?
If Shrub was at the beginning of his term instead of the end when the markets crashed, what do you think would have happened? My money is on Great Depression II.
Stop watching Faux News and get out of the conservative bubble. It’s not healthy for you or the country.
You can start your reeducation with this link:
https://www.quora.com/Why-didn-t-Reaganomics-work?top_ans=220949996
Might as well start with Saint Ronnie.
JJ
Rolling out the ol’ Reagan did it strategy, eh? How pathetic. And myth driven, fact free drivel. One of the reasons I switched sides from being Liberal to Conservative was because Democrats were blaming the 81-82 Recession on Reaganomics. Any Econ 101 student knew that Recession was purposely created by Volcker raising Fed Fund rates to 20% and restricting M2 Money Supply to reduce inflation which began with expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in the late 1960s.
Blaming The Gipper for income inequality is also a typical oversimplification of a more complex, multi decadal phenomenon. Much like global warming. These are some of the factors that involved a shift from labor to capital over the last 70 years.
Embracing Taylor”s Scientific Management principles.
Manufacturing employment going from 40% of workforce in 1944 to single digits today. High added value, capital intensive jobs replaced by lower such service jobs.
Related, loss of union jobs from 35% of private workforce in 50’s to 6% today.
Tax treatment changes of Subsection S Corps so pre 1986, much of 1% income not shown in AGI.
Triple % of households with single person. Single persons = single income.
Proportion of higher educated, higher income 2 income families and lower educated, lower income single mother households. The income gap has grown.
Globalization of markets mean access to millions of customers instantly. That is why small companies are valued at $ billions immediately. Contrast that with stories of the past when millionaires earned their wealth over decades. Vanderbilt started a ferry service rowing customers between Staten Island and Manhattan.
Many internet companies have marginal production costs that are virtually nil.
Capital gains were 1.5% of AGI in 1954 to nearly 10% today.
Those are a few factors creating income inequality. The top marginal tax rate is chump change, either way. In 2016, I heard Hillary say on TV income inequality “exploded” after Bush reduced taxes. In fact it exploded under Bubba, when AGI of millionaires went from $176 Billion to $817 Billion. Under Bush it went from $817 Billion to $1.07 Trillion. The top marginal tax rate also doesn’t help with the deficit and Clinton balanced the budget not because of raising taxes but because of the Internet bubble and the real growth rate of taxable income was 22 times greater than Bush2. The effective tax rate went from 13.4% in 1988 when the top marginal tax rate was 28% to 13.5% after 2 tax rate increases in 1991 and 1993.
When Reagan entered the presidential race of 1980, he had no economic policy. He latched on to supply-side economics theory that Jack Kemp and the Heritage Institute were championing. It was called “Voodoo” economics by his primary opponent Bush Sr.
I was in progressive politics in 1980. No one I know of blamed Reagan for the recession of 1981-1982. Progressives objected to Reagan taking credit for the subsequent boom as interest rates were lowered and Reagan spent like a drunken sailor on defense. Reaganomics was a complete failure, and Reagan subsequently raised tax rates as he realized his policy had failed.
No one talks much of the stock market crash of 1987 — first since 1929 — or the S&L bank failure, which required bailouts. Both were the result of lack of regulation, and they would portend the Great Recession.
I was never a fan of Bill Clinton. I voted for Bush Sr in 1992 because I thought he did a good job. I knew of Bill Clinton from his time as governor of Arkansas. Let me put it this way. He didn’t get the name “slick willie” for nothing.
I got out of progressive politics because of Bill Clinton, Bob Rubin, and the DLC. They pushed the party to the right. Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm – Leach – Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the Glass – Stegall legislation that was part of the Banking Act of 1933. That removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, which was the final impediment to the fiasco that caused the Great Recession. I’m not sure how much actual impact that had. Ayn Rand fanboy – Alan Greenspan – had not been diligent about enforcing the law for years.
The funny thing about conservatives, they always talk about personal responsibility, but they never take responsibility for the harm their “ideas” cause. All your other comments are nothing more than excuses. All those excuses would not be necessary had the “free-market” been designed to work for everybody rather than the chosen few.
The term free and market is an oxymoron. Markets run on rules. What do you think lobbyists do for a living? They shape the market. Let’s say you decided that you wanted to ship jobs to countries with a lower standard of living. You have laws enacted and tax policy that favors that. That’s what we did. The “free trade” agreements we signed were more about geopolitics than getting a good deal for American workers.
Let’s say you wanted to bring jobs back to the United States. How could you shape tax policy to do that? You design a progressive tax on the revenues of anything sold in the US. Then you reduce the tax for employment in the US. Once a company passes 50% of its total employment based in the US, you reduce the tax linearly until the company pays no taxes at 100% employment.
Here’s something else you can try to make up excuses for:
https://www.quora.com/Will-Conservatives-or-Republicans-ever-abandon-the-wealthy-or-the-top-1?top_ans=191897821
JJ
No one blamed Reagan for the 1981-82?
You weren’t paying attention. It was repeated incessantly that Reaganomics was to blame for the recession. The Democratic Party had a standard line on the evils of Reaganomics which was on the evening news daily. Of course when the economy exploded in 1983, the Democrats dropped any reference to Reaganomics.
You do realize that the Trump tax cuts, which if listening to the leftwing media resulted in massive reductions in individual income tax revenue, actually broke all records for INCREASES.
For perspective the increase between FY 2015 and FY 2016 was only $5 Billion, going from $1.541 Trillion to $1.546 Trillion. It took 16 years to go from $1 Trillion in FY 2000 to $1.546 Trillion in 2016.
Trump cut marginal tax rates in 2018. Instead of tax revenues going down they had increased to $2.044 Trillion by FY 2021. So much for tax cuts resulting in massive tax revenue reductions.
Here’s what the Congressional Research Service had to say about Trump’s tax cuts:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2019/05/29/a-new-congressional-study-finds-little-economic-benefit-from-the-2017-tax-cuts/?sh=68830dde549e
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45736
Here’s a longer study that congressional Republicans tried to suppress, but it got out anyway:
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42111.pdf
Bottom line is tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth and do not pay for themselves. What a surprise!
You spend too much time in the conservative bubble and watching the talking heads on Faux News. Try bringing more than conservative talking points and propaganda with you next time. The only thing thing tax cuts do is line the pockets of the wealthy and hurt everyone else. Is that anyway to run an economy?
The link to the long term CRS report, for some reason, didn’t make my last post. Here it is:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42111/10
All those tax cuts over the last 40 years and all that resulted was massive income inequality. I guess it was an unfortunate accident. Let’s keep doing it. I’m sure eventually it will all work out. LOL.
JJ
Here is my point. The leftwing extremists said the tax cuts would result in massive reductions in tax revenue. It didn’t. It broke records for increased tax revenue.
Case closed.
That’s not case closed.
Whatever revenue increases they caused wasn’t enough to offset revenue losses. They didn’t bring the economic growth promised. They did line the pockets of the corporations and the wealthy.
Here’s something else you may not be aware of. The tax cuts are permanent for corporations and get phased out for average Americans. Not that they were more than a pittance for the average American in the first place.
You picked the wrong guy to have a debate on conservative economic policy. I could go on and on.
Stay on point , JJ.
“ Whatever revenue increases they caused wasn’t enough to offset revenue losses.”
That’s the most bizarre statement I’ve ever read. We are only talking about 1 number. Individual….Income…..Tax….Revenue. That is it. We are not talking about anything but the Individual Income Tax Revenue. It was $2.044 Trillion, an all time high.
I’m not even talking about the fact that in 3 years under Trump, the Median Family Income increased more than it increased in 8 years under Obama. Nor am I talking about the fact that the % of families in Poverty reached an all time low of 7.8% in 2019.
You should feel privileged to know these facts, since given that the Media never has positive news about Trump, you are probably one of the 0.0001% of liberals that are aware of these numbers.
Those are your points and poor ones. What difference does it make if he increased revenues and it’s not enough to make up what was lost? He promised 5, 6 or higher % growth. Did you see any of that?
If you actually look at the numbers and not cherry-pick them, you’ll see the Trump’s economy was about the same as Obama’s economy. Obama had to deal with the mess left him by the last conservative administration — the Great Recession. As usual, Trump and conservatives try to take undeserved credit.
Beside all the lying and the double dealing, all you need to know about Trump is that his “cure” for the pandemic was to inject yourself with bleach and shine UV light in your lungs. Let’s not forget his personal endorsement of hydroxychloroquine.
As for Republican administrations since the Great Depression, Eisenhower was a good president, but he wasn’t conservative. Do I even have to mention Nixon? Ford was a decent man, but incompetent. Ronald Reagan wasn’t playing with a full deck, he took the usual conservative base of the wealthy, racists, xenophobes, and homophobes, and added the bible thumpers for a governing coalition. Beside the disaster of supply-side economics, he treated the constitution like toilet paper with the Iran-Contra affair. Bush Sr was a good president. Shrub was incompetent, lied us into Iraq, put supply side economics on steroids and crashed the economy. On top of all that we end the saga with Trump. A grifter and incompetent boob who was a closet fascist and wanted to tear up the US constitution and install himself as dictator.
You should be embarrassed with that record. Yet, you delude yourself into thinking conservatism is a good idea.
JJ
Are you having trouble staying on point because of first language problems or is the ADD kicking in?
Your income loss theme makes no sense at all. You might want to take some remedial economic classes. Or have a long talk with Kamala Harris. She is the resident genius in the Democratic Party. Right after Paul Krugman.
Look, median family income increased more under Trump in 3 years than under Obama in 8 years. That means your fantasies don’t hold up. That is income. That is growth. There was no loss of income.
What exactly did Trump do? The only thing I see him doing is taking credit he didn’t deserve. He benefited from what Obama did after the last conservative economic fiasco.
Name a program he put forth. Oh, he did make it a lot harder to get food stamps. I guess that’s something.
What income loss? You mean the fact that his tax cuts cost more than they brought back in revenue or that they did nothing for economic growth?
If that’s the best you can come up with to justify conservatism, you would do better by saying nothing at all.
Stratospheric intrusion with high ozone levels will now hit the northwestern US. Temperatures near the surface will fall well below average for the day.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f000.png
Mr. Palmowskt
It may be cold today,
but it will be hot talmale
The latest geoengineering talk is of increasing the salinity of the Arctic seas by blocking river discharge to the Arctic, including to the big Russian north flowing rivers the Lena, Ob and Yenisei:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1755-y
Judith / you are connected with policy people, can you tell us how far advanced plans already are for the invasion of Russia to save the climate? Presumably it will begin with a pre-emptive nuclear strike? The pre-war vilification is of course well underway.
Hatter Eggburn commented:
Judith / you are connected with policy people, can you tell us how far advanced plans already are for the invasion of Russia to save the climate? Presumably it will begin with a pre-emptive nuclear strike?
OMG what a degenerate weirdo LOLz
Mr, Apple:
If you ever posted a friendly comment that was polite
and respectful of others …
we’d know you had hired a ghostwriter !
Judith Curry wrote:
A few things that have caught my eye these past few weeks
Svensmark, Shaviv et al. Large effect of solar activity on Earth’s energy budget [link]
From the press release:
“The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate…..”
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-large-effect-solar-earth-energy.html
It is of course doesn’t mean what David thinks it means.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963552
🤣
https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963540
Robert I. Ellison commented:
It is of course doesn’t mean what David thinks it means.
Genius AUS enviro engineer still desperate to change the subject.
Q: a solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
It never quite computes for David.
The math in the video is there in black and white – despite the math that implies infinite momentum we must deduce zero mass instead. There are problems with that. But the big problem here is David’s lack of brights.
And then he turns nasty.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The math in the video is there in black and white
Typical engineer LOL.
Just plugs numbers into an equation without first thinking where the equation came from and how it was derived.
So so funny.
Robert: a solar photon of “infinite momentum” strikes and is absorbed by the Earth.
What is the Earth’s final momentum??
Hence, what is its final velocity???
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
The math in the video is there in black and white – despite the math that implies infinite momentum we must deduce zero mass instead. There are problems with that.
What are the problems with “that,” Robert?
Please explain them to us.
Robert I. Ellison commented:But the big problem here is David’s lack of brights.
And then he turns nasty.
LOL, AUS engr can dish it out but can’t take it.
What we’ve all come to expect from AUS
The math originates with relativity theory.
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4
At rest it resolves to the familiar:
E = mc^2
Since we deduce tat photons have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum.
‘Now there is an interesting additional effect contained in the general equation. If a particle has no mass (m = 0) and is at rest (p = 0), then the total energy is zero (E = 0). But an object with zero energy and zero mass is nothing at all. Therefore, if an object with no mass is to physically exist, it can never be at rest.’ https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
It is all a completely irrelevant game played with David’s usual nastiness.
Mr. Ellison
It seems like some of your comments
are intended only to get Mr. Apple riled up.
… They are very effective.
Is La Niña already in effect in Australia? Heavy rainfall in eastern Australia.👍
It is already apparent that the accumulation of ozone over the Bering Sea will cause a strong tropopause ripple and result in a significant temperature drop along the west coast of North America.
https://i.ibb.co/8XkmWX7/gfs-toz-NA-f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t70_nh_f00.png
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xYsHiyTLwjk
Almost there Greta. Keep poking. It’s all blah, blah.
Someone please prove me wrong.
1) Relevant to the Earth’s radiation, CO2 only absorbs and re-radiates a small spike between 13 and 18 microns, peak 15 micron LWIR.
2) According the the Blackbody calculator at SpectralCalc 15 micron LWIR is consistent with a Blackbody of temperature of -80C.
3) Ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR
4) CO2 backradiation won’t even melt ice
How can 1 molecule out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere vibrating at the energy consistent with something of temperature of -80C warm an atmosphere of 15C? Does a glass of water get colder with each ice cube I add to it? Or does the temperature stop at 0C, no matter how many ice cubes I add?
The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule do not support warming or climate change. Change my mind:
1) CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18 micron LWIR
2) Those wavelengths are associated with a temperature of -80C
3) Ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR
4) if CO2 could warm water, Ice would melt itself.
How can adding energy consistent with -80C warm the lower atmosphere or the oceans?
You can check my math at Spectralcalc and U of Chicago Modtran.
There is a problem with Planck’s equation. You get different answers depending on if you integrating variable is wavenumber or wavelength. The problem is particularly acute for absorption bands close to the blackbody radiation peak — CO2
If you integrate Planck’s equation with wavenumber, you’ll find 18 mm wavelength corresponds to a wavenumber of 555 cm-1. The blackbody temperature for that wavenumber is 294 K or 21 C — not -80 C.
If you want to see the effect, go to the MODTRAN site, look at the plot. It’s in wavenumber. CO2’s 15 mm band is close to the peak. Switch to wavelength and see where the 15 mm band is located. Its moved completely away from the peak.
I have been asked many times why CO2 at 400 ppm can gave a large impact on climate. I have developed a standard answer which I’m going to paste in:
“When you talk about CO2 having a ppm level, that’s a relative number. It depends on the other gases in the atmosphere. Take away all the other gases, and the CO2 is at 1 million ppm. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 is there. It could be one molecule of CO2, and the concentration is still 1 million ppm.
Take a transparent empty box, and put some CO2 in it, and shine a fixed-rate full spectrum of infrared radiation through the box. Some photons will hit CO2 molecules, and if they are of the right wavelength, they will be absorbed, and less radiation will be measured leaving the box. Double the amount of CO2 in the box, and even less radiation will leave the box. All while the concentration of CO2 remains at 1 million ppm.
Now add an equal number of N2 molecules to the box. The concentration of CO2 is 500,000 ppm. The CO2 molecules still roam the same volume. N2 does not absorb radiation in the CO2 absorption band. Photons in the CO2 absorption band pass right through N2 like it wasn’t there. The odds of the right photon hitting a CO2 molecule is the same. There is no change in the amount of radiation leaving the box even though the concentration is half.
The magnitude of CO2 ppm doesn’t correlate with CO2’s greenhouse effect. When you say that the planet was cooling when CO2 ppm is 10Xs today’s ppm, that’s not a valid argument. Something other than CO2 could be controlling the climate, or there may be less of the other atmospheric gases, so that ppm seems high, but it could have the same or even less of a greenhouse effect.
A perfect example is a comparison between the planets Venus and Mars. Both have CO2 concentrations > 95%. The temperature on Venus is 460 deg C. The temperature on Mars is -63 deg C. CO2 has a large impact on the temperature of Venus and little effect on the temperature on Mars. Why? The pressure on Venus is 90 atm, and the pressure on Mars is 0.006 atm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars. That’s why the difference.
Another example is to imagine the earth’s atmosphere as 100 molecules of CO2. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 1 MM ppm or 100% CO2. What would be the greenhouse effect? Virtually nothing.
What we should be doing is using molecules/volume or molar density to correlate the greenhouse effect. We are stuck with ppm because it is easy to measure. So why does the greenhouse effect increase with ppm? It doesn’t correlate with the actual value of ppm. It correlates with the change in ppm. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere, gravity keeps the CO2 close to the earth. You’re adding CO2 and increasing the molar density. Gravity doesn’t totally maintain the volume, and there is some increase in the “height of CO2 in the atmosphere. That increases the odds that a photon will hit a CO2 molecule. That means CO2 absorbs more photons, and molar density is not a perfect measure of the greenhouse effect but is infinitely better than ppm.”
JJBraccili commented:
There is a problem with Planck’s equation. You get different answers depending on if you integrating variable is wavenumber or wavelength.
The problem is with your math — you have to change the differential element as well. This is discussed in every basic textbook that introduces the Planck equation.
There is NOTHING wrong with my math.
“Evidently, the location of the peak of the spectral distribution for Planck’s law depends on the choice of spectral variable.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Go to this website:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The plot on the left is from Planck’s equation. Note the CO2 absorption band is at a wavenumber of 666 cm-1 or 15 mm wavelength. Below the graph is a box where you can switch from wavenumber to wavelength. Switch to wavelength and note where the CO2 absorption band is relative to the peak. It has moved to a completely different position.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
JJBraccili wrote:
“When you talk about CO2 having a ppm level, that’s a relative number. It depends on the other gases in the atmosphere. Take away all the other gases, and the CO2 is at 1 million ppm
No. “ppm” almost always (you have to be clear) means ppm by mole fraction, viz by molecule count. CO2=400 ppm means 400 of ever 1M molecules is CO2. This obviously depends on the other gases present and their own molecule counts.
PPM is a relative concentration. Moles/liter is an absolute concentration. Do you know the difference? Apparently, not.
co2.is.life wrote:
Change my mind
Bad physics. Atmo CO2 because it isn’t a blackbody.
JJBraccili commented:
PPM is a relative concentration.
Reread what I wrote. By “ppm” people most often mean ppmv, parts per million by mole fraction. It means the number of particles per million particles.
“When humans burn fossil fuels, like gasoline and coal, carbon dioxide is produced. This number tells how many parts of carbon dioxide there are in one million parts of air. So, if carbon dioxide is at 412 parts per million (or ppm), that means in one million particles of air there are 412 particles of carbon dioxide.”
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/health-report-air/
JJBraccili commented:
There is NOTHING wrong with my math.
There is — you’re confusing spectral distributions.
Planck’s equation is about PHYSICS — it’s not going to give different physical results based on YOUR choice of integrating variable.
Reread that entire Wikipedia section, “Correspondence between spectral variable forms.” The important point is that
B(lambda) B(nu)
You can’t just plug numbers into the MODTRAN site without knowing the assumptions used (here the spectral distribution).
Your’s is a very common mistake — everyone makes it at one point or another. Learn from it and move on.
Oh Please!
It gives you a different answer and all your “tap dancing” isn’t going to change that.
Explain this, genius
Typically, when they represent the earth radiant profile they use a blackbody curve for 300 K. That puts the blackbody curve peak at a wavelength of 10 mm convert that to wavenumber and it comes out to be 1000 cm-1.
Here’s an IR spectrograph of the earth:
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/airborne-sensors/first
Look at a wavenumber of 1000 cm-1. Does that look like it’s at the peak? Explain that away.
I didn’t make a mistake. You have no idea what you are talking about and you keep on talking and talking and talking. I guess under the theory that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Apparently, not in your case.
JJBraccili wrote:
Go to this website:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The plot on the left is from Planck’s equation. Note the CO2 absorption band is at a wavenumber of 666 cm-1 or 15 mm wavelength. Below the graph is a box where you can switch from wavenumber to wavelength. Switch to wavelength and note where the CO2 absorption band is relative to the peak. It has moved to a completely different position.
No it hasn’t. What’s happened is that the units on the vertical axis (Intensity) have changed, from W/m2/wavenumber to per wavelength.
You only think the absorption band position has changed because you haven’t accounted for the change in intensity units.
Again your same error.
You don’t get it.
The units on the y-axis are IMMATERIAL. It moved the position of CO2’s 15 mm absorption from where it should be to the left of the radiant energy peak on the wavelength plot. To way to the right of the peak. Where it shows the 15 mm band, it can have any more impact on the planet’s temperature. I’m not going to explain it to you because you’ll never understand it.
The units on the vertical axis are for spectral irradiance. They are reported that way so that the area under the radiant profile is total radiant energy. A point that seems to be lost on you.
No matter what, the position of the 15 mm absorption band relative to the peak is important and cannot change just because you change the integrating variable.
JJBraccili wrote:
The units on the y-axis are IMMATERIAL. It moved the position of CO2’s 15 mm absorption from where it should be to the left of the radiant energy peak on the wavelength plot. To way to the right of the peak.
It didn’t. You’re confusing the absorption bands because they change width and depth when plotted in wavenumber vs when plotted in wavelength.
LOL!!!
You can’t even read a plot.
JJBraccili wrote:
You can’t even read a plot.
You fail to understand that a function looks different when you change variables, but physics stays the same.
The RELATIVE position to the radiant peak has to remain the same. Move the absorption band on the other side of the radiant peak makes a big difference. On one side, it’s a significant greenhouse gas. On the other — not so much.
O3 is in the wrong position, but still is on the correct side of the radiant peak.
co2islife wrote:
The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule do not support warming or climate change. Change my mind:
1) CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18 micron LWIR
2) Those wavelengths are associated with a temperature of -80C
Bad physics. You can’t apply blackbody equations & calculations to atmospheric CO2 because it isn’t a blackbody. By definition a blackbody absorbs all radiation incident upon it. This obviously isn’t true for atmospheric CO2. Hence it doesn’t have a blackbody temperature.
JJBraccili wrote:
Let’s talk about black holes. The temperature of a black hole approaches absolute zero. Why? Because the intense gravity prevents molecular motion.
False.
The temperature of a black hole is 1/M, M=its mass.
(in natural units)
Thus black holes radiate.
Did you read my source? Did you decide to ignore it because it doesn’t agree with your position? Maybe, you didn’t understand it? Which is it?
Here’s another source:
“Just outside the hole, however, the material being pulled into the hole’s gravity well is accelerated to near the speed of light. The molecules of the material collide with such vigour that it is heated up to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees. When astronomers study black holes, this is the material that they see.”
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/are-black-holes-hot-or-cold/
Gravity causes the molecules to accelerate near the speed of light. That’s kinetic energy. The collisions cause the kinetic energy to be converted into electromagnetic energy.
Inside the black hole, gravity prevents molecular motion and the kinetic energy is converted into mass. The temperature of the inside of a black hole drops near to absolute zero because of the lack of kinetic energy.
You are wrong, again.
Moreover, even empty space has a BB temperature, if you accelerate through it.
Yet it has no kinetic energy.
Wave a thermometer through empty space — it will register a temperature.
Despite the absence of kinetic energy.
1/T = PS/PU, P=partial derivative, U=internal energy.
U does not equal kinetic energy.
This is very well known. Taught for over 100 years.
Who told you it’s well known? A thermometer or any temperature device measures kinetic energy. It does not measure electromagnetic energy directly. Electromagnetic energy has to be converted to kinetic energy for a thermometer to measure it.
“U does not equal kinetic energy.”
Sure, it does for a reversible process.
dU = dq + dw
dw = -pdv
dU = dq – pdv
as constant v
dU = dq
dq is heat which is kinetic energy whether heat is transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation. Radiation becomes kinetic energy when it is absorbed.
Have you ever studied advanced thermodynamics, JJ?
I used to teach it. Chemical Engineers don’t take the mickey mouse thermodynamics they teach to scientists and other engineers. We take that course and then we take a much more advanced course. About 50% of what I do involves thermodynamics — mostly phase equilibria.
Did you ever study thermodynamics? You wouldn’t know it.
JJBraccili commented:
The temperature of the inside of a black hole drops near to absolute zero because of the lack of kinetic energy.
Bullsh!t. The temperature of a black hole is 1/M. Go look it up. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
I did look it up. I provided you with sources. Did you read them? Apparently, not.
Trying learning something for a change, instead of making stuff up as you go along.
JJBraccili commented:
The temperature of the inside of a black hole drops near to absolute zero because of the lack of kinetic energy.
Just wrong. The temperature of a black hole is 1/M. Go look it up.
Judith is again blocking very a simple comment of mine because, apparently, it contains a phrase like “black” – “hole”
Absolutely ridiculous.
Judith again blocking
JJBraccili commented:Did you read my source? Did you decide to ignore it because it doesn’t agree with your position?
Judith isn’t allowing me a real response.
Dear David,
Perhaps that’s because you’re consistently triggering Judith’s auto bot detector?
Luv,
Snow
JJBraccili commented:
Who told you it’s well known?
It’s well known to people who know physics.
Go study the Unruh effect.
JJBraccili commented:
Did you ever study thermodynamics? You wouldn’t know it.
I have a PhD in physics. So I can tell you have a very elementary view of temperature.
Unfortunately, we engineers live in the real world where temperature is coupled to kinetic energy. We don’t live in a fantasy world where they don’t expect results. String theory comes to mind. Have they found a practical use for any of that or is that still more religion than science?
davidappell02 | November 12, 2021 at 11:07 pm |
“The sun radiant energy doesn’t come from energy it absorbs.
That’s not a requirement of a blackbody.
How do you know the sun absorbs energy like a blackbody?
Because the Sun absorbs all radiation incident upon it, to a high degree of certainty”
–
Can it?
I understand it is putting out energy over a large range.
It might still have some reflective colors/properties.
Reds and yellows might bounce of it seeing they are the same wavelengths they might not be able to be absorbed?