A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition

by Judith Curry

I have a new article published in the latest issue of International Affairs Forum.

The topic of this issue is Climate Change and Energy.  Mine is one of twenty papers.  A range of topics are covered.  My article is the least alarmed among them.  You may recognize several of the authors, which include Don Wuebbles and Bill McKibben.

Here is the text of my article:

A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition

Climate change is increasingly being referred to as a crisis, emergency, existential threat and most recently as ‘code red.’  Climate change has become a grand narrative in which manmade global warming is regarded as the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we urgently stop burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved. This sense of urgency narrows the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing not only with our energy and transportation systems, but also regarding complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.

So, exactly what is wrong with this grand narrative of climate change?  In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem of climate change and its solutions.  The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debates.  The dangers of manmade climate change have been confounded with natural weather and climate variability. The solutions that have been proposed for rapidly eliminating fossil fuels are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

How did we come to the point where we’re alleged to have a future crisis on our hands, but the primary solution of rapid global emissions reductions is deemed to be all but impossible?  The source of this conundrum is that we have mischaracterized climate change as a tame problem, with a simple solution.  Climate change is better characterized as a wicked mess.  A wicked problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time.  A mess is characterized by resistance to change and contradictory and suboptimal solutions that create additional problems.  Treating a wicked mess as if it is a tame problem can result in a situation where the cure is not only ineffective, but worse than the alleged disease.

Specifically with regards to climate science, there is some good news.  Recent analyses from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that the extreme tail risks from global warming, associated with very high emissions and high climate sensitivity, have shrunk and are now regarded as unlikely if not implausible.

Further, the IPCC’s climate projections neglect plausible scenarios of natural climate variability, which are acknowledged to dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales.  Apart from the relative importance of natural climate variability, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century – if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.

How urgent is the need for an energy transition?

Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world is attempting to reach Netzero in carbon emissions by 2050.  I refer to this as Plan A. Using the precautionary principle, Plan A is based on the premise that rapidly reducing CO2 emissions is critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate.

In spite of the numerous UN treaties and agreements to reduce emissions over the past two decades, the atmospheric CO2 concentration relentlessly continues to increase.  By 2050, global emissions will be dominated by whatever China and India have done, or have failed to do. The IEA Roadmap to Netzero finds that there is a possible but very narrow pathway to Netzero by 2050, provided that there is a huge leap in energy innovation and major efforts to build new infrastructure.  Others find reaching Netzero by 2050 to be a social and technological impossibility.

Terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘code red for humanity’ are used by politicians and policy makers to emphasize the urgency of action to stop burning fossil fuels. Note that the IPCC itself does not use the words ‘crisis’, ‘catastrophe’, or even ‘dangerous’; rather it uses the term ‘reasons for concern.’ Apart from the scientific uncertainties, the weakest part of the UN’s argument about manmade global warming is that it is dangerous. The highest profile link to danger relies on linking warming to worsening extreme weather events, which is a tenuous link at best.

Any evaluation of dangerous climate change must confront the Goldilocks principle.  Exactly which climate state is too hot versus too cold?  Some answer this question by stating that the climate we are adapted to is ‘just right’.  However, the IPCC uses a preindustrial baseline, in the late 1700’s.  Why anyone thinks that this is an ideal climate is not obvious.  This was during the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the millennia.  In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states.  Property along the coast – with its vulnerability to sea level rise and hurricanes – is skyrocketing in value.  Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as dangerous. While politicians in developed countries argue that we need to address climate change for the sake developing countries, addressing climate change ranks much lower in these countries than developing access to grid electricity.

The planet has been warming for more than a century.  So far, the world has done a decent job at adapting to this change.  The yields for many crops have doubled or even quadruped since 1960. Over the past century, the number of deaths per million people from weather and climate catastrophes have dropped by 97%. Losses from global weather disasters as a percent of GDP have declined over the past 30 years.

In addressing the challenges of climate change and the energy transition, we need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing.  The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.

All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy.  However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure, increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes and harming our environment in new ways.

How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign.  Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises.  We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with.  We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies.  Alarmism about climate change misleads us and panic makes us less likely to tackle climate change smartly.

Towards a ‘Plan B’

Even without the mandate associated with global warming and other environmental issues, we would expect a natural transition away from fossil fuels over the course of the 21st century, as they become more expensive to extract and continue to contribute to geopolitical instability.

The problem is with the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels, driven by fears about global warming.  By rapidly transitioning to this so-called clean energy economy driven by renewables, we’re taking a big step backwards in human development and prosperity. Nations are coming to grips with their growing over dependence on wind and solar energy.  Concerns about not meeting electricity needs this winter are resulting in a near term reliance on coal in Europe and Asia. And we ignore the environmental impacts of mining and toxic waste from solar panels and batteries, and the destruction of raptors by wind turbines and habitats by large-scale solar farms.

Opponents of Plan A reject the urgency of reducing emissions.  They state that we stand to make the overall situation worse with the simplistic solution of urgently replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, which will have a barely noticeable impact on the climate of the 21st century.

Opponents of Plan A argue that its best to focus on keeping economies strong and making sure that everyone has access to energy.  And finally, the argument is made that there are other more pressing problems than climate change that need to be addressed with the available resources.

Does all this mean we should do nothing in the near term about climate change?  No. But given the problems with Plan A, we clearly need a Plan B that broadens the climate policy envelope. By considering climate change as a wicked mess, climate change can be reframed as a predicament for actively reimagining human life. Such a narrative can expand our imaginative capacity and animate political action while managing social losses.

We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 8 billion inhabitants.  We should work to minimize air and water pollution.  From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change.  Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

Here’s a framework for how we can get to a Plan B.  A more pragmatic approach to dealing with climate change drops the timelines and emissions targets, in favor of accelerating energy innovation. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

To thrive in the 21st century, the world will need much more energy. Of course we prefer our energy to be clean, as well as cheap.  To get there, we need new technologies.  The most promising right now is small modular nuclear reactors.  But there are also exciting advances in geothermal, hydrogen and others. And the technology landscape will look different ten years from now.

Developing countries don’t just want to survive, they want to thrive. We need much more electricity, not less.  Going on an energy diet like we did in the 1970’s is off the table.  We need more electricity to support innovation and thrivability in the 21st century.   Consumption and growth will continue to increase throughout the 21st century.  We need to accept this premise, and then figure out how we can manage this growth while protecting our environment.

In addressing the climate change problem, we need to remind ourselves that climate isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change isn’t the only problem that the world is facing.  The objective should be to improve human wellbeing in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.  Climate-informed decision making that focuses on food, energy, water and ecosystems will support human wellbeing in the coming decades.

So what does a Plan B actually look like?  Rather than top-down solutions mandated by the UN, Plan B focuses on local solutions that secure the common interest, thus avoiding political gridlock. In addition to reimagining 21st century electricity and transportation systems, progress can be made on a number of fronts related to land use, forest management, agriculture, water resource management, waste management, among many others.  Human wellbeing will be improved as a result of these efforts, whether or not climate change turns out to be a huge problem and whether or not we manage to drastically reduce our emissions.  Individual countries and states can serve as laboratories for solutions to their local environmental problems and climate-related risks.

Conclusions

It is an enormous challenge to minimize the environmental impact on the planet of 8 billion people.  I have no question that human ingenuity is up to the task of better providing for the needs and wants of Earth’s human inhabitants, while supporting habitats and species diversity.  But this issue is the major challenge for the next millennium.  It is a complex challenge that extends well beyond understanding the Earth system and developing new technologies – it also includes governance and social values.

To make progress on this, we need to disabuse ourselves of the hubris that we can control the Earth’s climate and prevent extreme weather events.  The urgency of transitioning from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy under the auspices of the UN agreements has sucked all the oxygen from the room. There’s no space left for imagining what our 21st century infrastructure could look like, with new technologies and greater resilience to extreme weather events, or even to deal with traditional environmental problems.

Humans do have the ability to solve future crises of this kind.  However, they also have the capacity to make things much worse by oversimplifying complex environmental issues and politicizing the science, which can lead to maladaptation and poor policy choices. In 50 years time, we may be looking back on the UN climate policies, and this so-called green economy, as using chemotherapy to try to cure a head cold, all the while ignoring more serious diseases.  In other words, the climate crisis narrative gets in the way of real solutions to our societal and environmental problems.

Climate change is just one of many potential threats facing our world today, a point made clear by the Covid-19 pandemic. Why should climate change be prioritized over other threats? There’s a wide range of threats that we could face in the 21st century: solar electromagnetic storms that would take out all space-based electronics including GPS and electricity transmission lines; future pandemics; global financial collapse; a mega volcanic eruption; a cascade of mistakes that triggers a thermonuclear, biochemical or cyber war; the rise of terrorism.

We can expect to be surprised by threats that we haven’t even imagined yet.  Vast sums spent on attempting to prevent climate change come from the same funds that effectively hold our insurance against all threats; hence, this focus on climate change could overall increase our vulnerability to other threats.  The best insurance against any and all of these threats is to try to understand them, while increasing the overall resilience of our societies.  Prosperity is the best the indicator of resilience.  Resilient societies that learn from previous threats are best prepared to be anti-fragile and respond to whatever threats the future holds.

1,015 responses to “A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition

  1. “Climate change is just one of many potential threats facing our world today, a point made clear by the Covid-19 pandemic. Why should climate change be prioritized over other threats? ”

    Fairly good article. BUT…

    I disagree that global warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are a threat. They are both hugely beneficial.

    The world is currently in an icehouse phase – i.e. permanent ice in the arctic and Antarctic – and steep temperature gradients from equator to poles. For 70% of the past 540 Ma there has been no ice at the poles. Extra-tropics were much warmer than now. Ecosystems thrived in warmer times – tropical and semi tropical rainforests from arctic to antarctic and dinosaurs weighing up to 70 tonnes.

    Global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems, global economy, human health and well being.

    Therefore, there is no valid justification for attempting to reduce global warming – it is net beneficial, not net harmful.

    Climate policies and actions are doing enormous harm to the global economy. We need to stop these polices and actions asap.

    We do need to move off fossil fuels for health reasons, not climate change reasons. We need to transition to nuclear power, not renewables.

    • Peter Lang:

      Yes, we need to transition to nuclear power, not renewables..

      HOWEVER, the cleansed air will cause temperatures to soar to those of the MWP, or higher, if there are not sufficient volcanic eruptions to provide dimming SO2 aerosols to cool our planet, in the absence of any industrial SO2 aerosol emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

      • Warming is net beneficial, not harmful. Therefore, the more the better.

        The MWP was hardly any warmer than now.

        8 ka to 5 ka ago the Sahara was covered in dense tropical rain forests, with huge rivers and huge lakes:

        “When the Sahara Was Green” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQP-7BPvvq0

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        Warming is net beneficial, not harmful. Therefore, the more the better.

        Why don’t you post your article again so we can look at it, the one with the graph of change in GDP vs temperature, and it only turned negative after 3 C of warming I think.

        The MWP was hardly any warmer than now.

        The MWP wasn’t global, and it wasn’t warmer.

        8 ka to 5 ka ago the Sahara was covered in dense tropical rain forests, with huge rivers and huge lakes:

        So you’re saying large and rapid ecosystem changes are possible on planet Earth. What causes them?

      • UK-Weather Lass

        I hadn’t realised that there is any certainty that noted warm periods in our historical records were not global since it depends upon which experts you choose to believe are right and which you believe are wrong and because some have been driven by an agenda and not a need to be, as in the article above, smart.

        The evidence in the UK certainly suggests our islands were considerably warmer than they are now for a long time up to and including the Roman invasion and that conditions encouraged trade in the UK from many far way and exotic places. We also know the British Isles were occupied and abandoned by our ancestors several times for a period of one million years or so. Why were they abandoned? We do not know.

        The hockey stick was designed to get attention and cause panic and in that panic we have made many poor decsions just as we have with SARS-CoV-2. The IPCC have not lead by example and not have the COP sessions. They have demonstrated one rule for them and quite another rule for the rest of us. The safety of our electricity grids has been compromised by internittents because before they were developed the problem of storage of the electricity they produced has not been solved and still remains a technology too far.

        Why have politicians irresponsibly avoided nuclear and natural gas solutions to replace our coal fired generators which would allows us the benefits of fossil fuel elsewhere. And what of the wood chip nonsense? How the hell is that ‘green’? Where is the anaysis of the many and several harms caused by wind turbines and solar farms to humans and to our environment in the longer term?

        I just see muddled, haphazard, and unintelligent thinking and action that has absolutely no hope of achieving what it is claimed it is aiming to achieve. So when are we going to have a chance to democratically hear all sides of the problem, what sensible options we have and then vote on it? Human beings have never done well when faced with dishonest academics backing corrupt politicians.

      • The reference to the Sahara was intriguing. But the message is not correct.

        See this video here: https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/014e344c-14dd-465d-bc68-69c80c94fd81/skeletons-of-the-sahara-part-2/

        At 0:48 ,, note the dates, those were great changes. But there is a date missing; the 5500BP. Than date can be found in this next video
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwnF7BQKbjM

        Go to 33:23 where P DeMenocal indicates the abrupt drying of the Sahara.

        All the dates are abrupt change markers. The later ones corroborated by several proxies.

      • melitamegalithic,

        The first link you posted confirms that the Sahara was green and wet for thousands of years. about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. There are fossils of two types of humans (thousands of years apart: 10,000 to 6,000 and 5,200 to 2,200 years ago) and bones of fish, tortoises, hippopotamuses, rhinos, etc.

        “It was a time known as the Green Sahara and it lasted 5,000 years”. … “This was a paradise of linked oases at one point:”

        The second link at 33 mins states that the Sahara dried abruptly over 1 to two centuries, around 5,500 years ago.

        Clearly, a warmer world is better for ecosystems!!!

      • Peter Lang:

        Yes, ‘a warmer world is better for ecosystems’ – Agreed, but with caution.

        The dates are times of abrupt change. Missing are the 3550bce and the 3200bce. Both times of terrible events, as the evidence that is now collecting is showing. The last two millennia were milder, but that can change.

        Even more, the changes have been quite regular, and spaced to the Eddy cycle of ~980 years. Cycle peaks are good times, roots are adverse times. We are presently nearing a peak, but that will change (as it has done for the past 10k years)

        These changes can be followed historically as well. Note that from Sumerian times, and before, agriculture technique – and human numbers- did not vary at all. The last two cycles/millennia were better. This last half cycle, from the last root -the LIA- much has changed. We -humanity- need to take good stock if we/it wants to keep the benefits gained in the last century (I have personally seen that happen for the last three quarters).

        Plan ‘B’ is very necessary, to build resilience and also gain a clear perspective of where We stand (just another Earth species seemingly now heading for extinction out of ignorance).

        Important: the Sahara is an eye-opener. The change occurred near a cycle peak, a warm period. The result was desertification. That was seven cycle peaks ago.

      • David Appell

        UK-Weather Lass commented:
        I hadn’t realised that there is any certainty that noted warm periods in our historical records were not global since it depends upon which experts you choose to believe are right and which you believe are wrongz

        No, it depends on DATA.

        Not on believe in experts. On DATA.

        That’s science.

        The evidence in the UK certainly suggests our islands were considerably warmer than they are now for a long time up to and including the Roman invasion and that conditions encouraged trade in the UK from many far way and exotic places.

        The UK is not *global.*

        The hockey stick was designed to get attention and cause panic

        Really? And you know this how? What’s your proof of this claim? Do you have any proof whatsoever? I sincerely doubt it which means you need to retract this forthwith.

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        The first link you posted confirms that the Sahara was green and wet for thousands of years

        Peter Lang, so where’s that link to your economics paper that showed that nice smooth curve (LOL) for change in world GDP (I think) as a function of change in global GMST that showed an increase until 3 C, I think?

        I’d like to see that again.

        Because by then most coastal cities in the world will be under a few meters of ocean water, or soon there, so it’s tough to see how that can lead to an increase in GDP.

        But I’m willing to read it again. So link please?

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        Clearly, a warmer world is better for ecosystems!!!

        Why?
        Which ecosystems?

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 19, 2022 at 8:41 pm |
        UK-Weather Lass commented:
        I hadn’t realised that there is any certainty that noted warm periods in our historical records were not global since it depends upon which experts you choose to believe are right and which you believe are wrongz

        No, it depends on DATA.

        Not on believe in experts. On DATA.

        That’s science.

        Appell – you are absolutely correct – it does depend on the data – It depends on the quality of the underlying data. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the underlying data have significant issues, ie the proxies, have their limitations and often conflict with other well known historical events.
        Did you ever wonder why the original version of yamal keeps getting included in the HS reconstructions? Did you ever wonder why law dome is omitted from all the pages2k reconstructions.

        You posted the oshman 24k reconstruction published in nature several times over the last few weeks.
        did you notice it is a simply a regergitation of marcott?
        Are you even aware of the issues associated with the marcott reconstruction?
        Did you notice that the proxies used have a 200 year resolution with only proxies with more than a 1000 resolution getting excluded ?
        Ever wonder how proxies with 200+ year resolution are going to show a blade, or show the MWP or the LIA?

    • Peter Lang, you need to read this:

      “The First Step Toward Saving the Planet Is Ignoring the Economists: The U.N.’s latest climate report shows that we don’t know how expensive the climate crisis will be, which means cost-benefit analyses weighing how to combat it are pointless,”
      By ANDREW DESSLER, Rolling Stone, 3/4/22

      https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ipcc-climate-report-climate-change-economics-1316106/

      • David Appell

        jeffnsails850 commented:
        Because Obama’s bill to energy more expensive failed and was then proven unnecessary.

        You completely misunderstood Andrew’s point.

        Obama’s bill was intended to cut emissions, not make energy more expensive. The Heritage Foundation economists predicted that reaching Obama’s emissions cuts would necessarily be a disaster for the economy. The bill failed, but the emissions goals were reached anyway, without any of the economists’ predictions coming true.

        Those economists’ cost-benefits were completely wrong.

      • I, too, thank you for that link. It’s yet another example of what I’ve said elsewhere (https://naptownnumbers.substack.com/p/climate-scientists-make-us-skeptical): a principal cause of climate-catastrophe skepticism is alarmists’ poor reasoning.

    • For Peter:

      “The First Step Toward Saving the Planet Is Ignoring the Economists,” Andrew Dessler, Rolling Stone, 3/4/22
      https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ipcc-climate-report-climate-change-economics-1316106/

      • The article’s premise-

        ‘we don’t know how expensive the climate crisis will be, which means cost-benefit analyses weighing how to combat it are pointless”

        Two faulty conclusions.
        1. That there is a climate crisis.
        2. Cost benefit analysis are pointless when there are unknowns

      • The first step toward saving the planet is:
        – ignoring the climate alarmists (including the IPCC and the vast majority of the climate academics),
        – honestly and objectively analysing the empirical data of the impacts of global warming on the eight main impact sectors, and
        – objectively and honestly analysing and reporting the economic impacts of global warming for the world.

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        The first step toward saving the planet is:
        – ignoring the climate alarmists (including the IPCC and the vast majority of the climate academics),
        – honestly and objectively analysing the empirical data of the impacts of global warming on the eight main impact sectors, and
        – objectively and honestly analysing and reporting the economic impacts of global warming for the world.

        The point of Dessler’s article is that economists don’t do this — and he gave examples — and the issue is too complicated anyway — and he gave examples.

        You don’t appear to have read his article or tried to reasonably counter his points.

      • I genuinely thank you for this link to Dessler’s article. It’s amazing. First- the great timing: when everyone in the country is unhappy with $5/gallon gas, he wants $6/gallon permanently and smugly argues that nobody would be unhappy with it.

        Then come two of the most amazingly disingenuous paragraphs in climate communication history. He rails against “economists” who predict doom from high energy costs from Obama’s carbon tax bill. Then the second paragraph insinuates that a high price on carbon reduced emissions:

        “Yet, even without the bill, the U.S. reached the emissions-reduction and clean-energy goals of the legislation. The economy didn’t burn down, energy prices didn’t soar, the GDP didn’t drop, and unemployment didn’t spike. We can now see that the predictions were not just wrong, but excessively so. The economists making these estimates are the true alarmists in the debate. ”

        And why didn’t we have those awful problems? Because we achieved this goal by fracking for natural gas and switching from one fossil fuel to the other. We made cleaner natural gas cheaper- energy cheaper – and cleaner. And why did we do that? Because Obama’s bill to energy more expensive failed and was then proven unnecessary.
        So Andrew is arguing for more fracking and lower energy prices, right? No, he’s arguing that an example of lowering energy prices is proof that there would be no damage if you raised prices.

      • Jim Veenbaas

        According to Dessler, economic models bad. Climate models good. Hmm. The smart money skips both.

      • Dessler’s point that economic models often underestimate innovation is a fair one. It is also fair to apply that point specifically to the issue of the impact of the carbon taxes.

        But Dessler’s broad generalizations against economics are ignorant and morally careless. In particular, one needs some framework for evaluating the benefits of prosperity vs. the various potential calamities of climate change, especially for the 7 billion poorest people (who are most vulnerable).

        Both climate models and economic models rely on an immense range of assumptions. One can cook up a range of scenarios in both cases, especially far off into the future.

        Would Africans be better off with no access to fossil fuels today and a GDP per capita of $20K in 2100 or full on access to fossil fuels today and a GDP per capita of $60K in 2100? How badly will it damage African economies to choke off access to fossil fuels ASAP, which is what many NGOs are striving to achieve? Is Greenpeace morally culpable for working to halt African oil and gas projects?

        India and China are largely independent from beliefs of Western elites, and will do everything they can to continue and accelerate economic growth. Africa, however, is largely dependent on Western aid. The neo-colonial aid industry is unilaterally deciding that African growth should depend only on “renewables,” which mostly means unreliable wind and solar.

        Dessler seems obsessed with US political battles. Yet he makes broad generalizations that completely ignore the realities of the global poor. While railing against potential environmental costs that might be neglected in cost-benefit analysis, I don’t see Dessler demonstrating any awareness of the benefits for the global poor of moving from poor to rich.

        A blindness of many of those who are concerned about climate change is the need of the global poor to become prosperous. I would have thought a few decades ago that all decent human beings would want all human beings to have access to running water, indoor plumbing, the conveniences of home appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, propane or electric stoves, refrigeration, air conditioning, etc.), convenient transportation, etc. As economies develop, poor people’s lives improve by gaining access to countless consumer goods which tangibly improve their quality of life. Growth in GDP per capita is statistically indistinguishable from improvements in the Human Development Index (life expectancy and education improve alongside economic growth). As economies become prosperous, resilience against weather improves dramatically, as has often been noted by Roger Pielke Jr. (and which should be obvious). “Cost/benefit analysis” can and should encompass these kinds of benefits.

        If Dessler wants to offer a more nuanced cost benefit framework that would be fine. But blanket condemnations of economic analysis on behalf of climate righteousness is neither intelligent nor compassionate towards the global poor.

        There are certainly individuals and organizations committed to climate action who also demonstrate an awareness of the need not to sacrifice the global poor in doing so. Dessler, at least in this article, does not reveal himself to be among those who have such an awareness.

      • “Saving the Planet” is a dangerous idea.
        For those deluded enough to think that they actually are “Saving the Planet” then anything, including genocide, is justified.

        Nobody’s ‘saving the effin planet’ because the planet is not in danger. And measurements seem to indicate that life on the planet is INCREASING.

      • David Appell

        Michael Strong commented:
        I don’t see Dessler demonstrating any awareness of the benefits for the global poor of moving from poor to rich.

        Oh please get off your high horse. That wasn’t at all what he was writing about. You’re changing the argument in a lazy and pathetic way to try to attack him by any means.

        Why should the rich continue to use fossil fuels?

        How about we let the global poor use fossil fuels but require the global rich to use sustainable, carbon-free energy?

        You OK with that? Huh??

    • “When Antarctica was Green”

    • “When the Sahara was Green”

  2. All of the above, especially fossil and nuclear ;)

    The UK is reportedly considering extending the life of the Sizewell B nuclear power station on England’s east coast by 20 years in light of Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

    The move is part of several options which are currently under consideration as the government prepares its new energy supply strategy.

    The Business and Energy Secretary had previously confirmed that the new guidance will supercharge the UK’s renewable energy and nuclear capacity and will support the North Sea oil and gas industry.

    https://www.energylivenews.com/2022/03/16/will-the-uk-extend-the-life-of-nuclear-plant-by-20-years-amid-energy-crisis/

  3. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition - News7g

  4. Rognvaldur Hannesson

    The Goldilocks climate seemingly identified by IPCC is not the 1700s but the mid- to late 1800s, which they for no good reason call the pre-industrial age. I suspect this point of reference is simply due to longer temperature series not being available in sufficient abundance to measure the global temperature. Why an ideal climate should happen to coincide in time with our ability to measure temperature is not easily explained. One could say that the IPCC has never stated explicitly that the pre-1850 climate was ideal, but all the hullabalhoo about the danger of rising temperature since that time seems to imply just that–that appreciable difference from 1850s climate is to be avoided. Not only is it arbitrary; the moderate warming that has happened since then seems mainly for the better. So why this should be an existential problem beggars belief.

  5. Judith Curry:

    You continue to characterize Climate Change as a “wicked” problem, when in actuality it is extremely simple. It has NOTHING to do with CO2, but is totally driven by varying levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin.

    You need to read and comment on the following paper:”A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”, and not ignore it.

    http://www.skepticmedpublishers.com/article-in-press-journal-of-earth-science-and-climatic-change/

  6. I wouldn’t characterize CO2 as “dirty.” It is a gas present naturally and is integrated into the carbon cycle – AKA the cycle of life. Without it, we will all certainly die. Mercury, yes I would call that dirty, but not CO2.

  7. Wicked Problems Explorer

    Mr. Henry:

    Simply Stated: A wicked problem exists as Climate Science [Not Climate Change/Global Warming] points in a full bodied comprehensive Empirical research direction.

    Over the years, Professor Curry has provided on-going evidence throughout her blog to keep Climate Science as a marker (foundation) for sound and practical discourse.

    Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

  8. Judith wrote:
    However, the IPCC uses a preindustrial baseline, in the late 1700’s. Why anyone thinks that this is an ideal climate is not obvious.

    Ideal for whom? We do share the planet with about 10 million other species.

    And, the Little Ice Age wasn’t global, so it’s a poor gauge of global climate in the 1700s.

    • “And, the Little Ice Age wasn’t global, so it’s a poor gauge of global climate in the 1700s.”

      So the authors of the hundreds of papers finding evidence of the LIA all over the globe are wrong. Time for you to go back into your delusional bubble.

      • Antarctic ice core records did not have a little ice age that corresponded to the cold in the Greenland ice core records, not so global.

      • “ Abstract. Increasing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that 1 Introduction the Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global climate change event.

        Understanding the forcings and associated climate system
        feedbacks of the LIA is made difficult by the scarcity of
        Southern Hemisphere paleoclimate records. We use a new
        glaciochemical record of a coastal ice core from Mt. Erebus
        Saddle, Antarctica, to reconstruct atmospheric and oceanic
        conditions in the Ross Sea sector of Antarctica over the past
        five centuries. The LIA is identified in stable isotope (δD)
        and lithophile element records, which respectively demon-
        strate that the region experienced 1.6 ± 1.4 ◦C cooler aver-
        age temperatures prior to 1850 AD than during the last 150 yr
        and strong (> 57 m s−1 ) prevailing katabatic winds between
        1500 and 1800 AD. ”

        https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1223/2012/cp-8-1223-2012.pdf

      • “ The largest climate anomaly of the last 1000 years in the Northern Hemisphere was the Little Ice Age (LIA) from 1400–1850 C.E., but little is known about the signature of this event in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in Antarctica. We present temperature data from a 300 m borehole at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide. Results show that WAIS Divide was colder than the last 1000-year average from 1300 to 1800”
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2012GL051260

      • “ All these data indicate that during the LIA, the Ross Sea experienced cooler and drier conditions, characterized by stronger katabatic winds, cooler sea surface temperatures, and larger polynyas than today (Bertler et al., 2011).”

        “Therefore, we propose that cooler climatic conditions occurred from ∼1600–1825 AD in the Ross Sea region, while the deeper ASL led to stronger winds, and thus enlarged the Ross Sea and Mc- Murdo Sound polynyas, providing penguins with more open-water access for food and perhaps shorter foraging trips.”

        http://people.uncw.edu/emslies/documents/Yangetal.2017oceanographicmechanismsRossSeaLIA.pdf

      • Mozambique

        “ We suggest that strong ENSO variability and greater occurrence of La Niña events triggered the generally wet and unstable MCA in southern Africa. From around 1250 CE, a shift towards a predominance of El Niño induced drier conditions in south-east Africa during the LIA. Our study of vegetation and hydroclimate proxies in parallel suggests that savanna tree and shrub cover was relatively resilient to the abrupt shifts in hydroclimate over the MCA, but more sensitive to the long-term progressive drying over the LIA.”

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818118300754

      • Tanzania

        “Several cold periods are observed, between 3300 and 2000 cal. BP and since 630 cal. BP, the latter corresponding to the Little Ice Age.“
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379118301628

      • South Africa

        “The most significant phase of forest expansion, and more humid conditions, occurred during the transition between the MCA and the most prominent cooling phase of the LIA. The LIA is clearly identified at this locality as a period of cool, dry conditions between c. AD 1600 and 1850”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683620950444

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        popesclimatetheory | March 18, 2022 at 1:15 am |
        Antarctic ice core records did not have a little ice age that corresponded to the cold in the Greenland ice core records, not so global.

        Law dome which is one of the highest resolution ice cores of antarctica shows an elevated mwp and cold lia – though mann2003 (?) underweighted law dome, most versions of pages2k and gergis excluded law dome – the common expost screening the inconvenient results.

      • “ Much of the evidence for the ‘Little Ice Age’ in southern Africa suggests that in the summer rainfall region drier conditions prevailed during the period of cooling. At the same time the winter rainfall region became wetter.”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095968369200200310

      • Chile

        “ Our data provide quantitative evidence for the presence of a Medieval Climate Anomaly (in this case, warm summers between AD 1150 and 1350; ΔT = +0.27 to +0.37°C with respect to (wrt) twentieth century) and a very cool period synchronous to the ‘Little Ice Age’ starting with a sharp drop between AD 1350 and AD 1400 (−0.3°C/10 yr, decadal trend) followed by constantly cool (ΔT = −0.70 to −0.90°C wrt twentieth century) summers until AD 1750. ”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683609336573

      • “Relatively warm conditions prevailed between 1000 and 725 cal yr BP (the Medieval Climate Anomaly). ► Relatively cool conditions prevailed between 725 and 121 cal yr BP (the Little Ice Age). ►“

        “ Vegetation, climate and fire regime changes in the Andean region of southern Chile (38°S) covaried with centennial-scale climate anomalies in the tropical Pacific over the last 1500 years”

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379112001631

      • “ The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”

        https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837

      • “ Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP”

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001GL014580

        I don’t have time to cite the other hundreds of papers finding conditions in concert with the MWP across the globe.

      • “ A tree-ring reconstruction of summer temperatures from northern Patagonia shows distinct episodes of higher and lower temperature during the last 1000 yr. The first cold interval was from A.D. 900 to 1070, which was followed by a warm period A.D. 1080 to 1250 (approximately coincident with the Medieval Warm Epoch). Afterwards a long, cold-moist interval followed from A.D. 1270 to 1660, peaking around 1340 and 1640 (contemporaneously with early Little Ice Age events in the Northern Hemisphere).”

        “ Tree-Ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America”

        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-1186-7_4

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        CKid –
        Why so many SH proxies that got missed by the hard work of the climate scientists ?

        Oh wait – must be that ex post screening of those inconvenient proxies.

        A person cant legitimately defend the multitude of HS if you dont understand the issues associated with the underlying proxies used (and/or excluded) in the those studies.

      • Joe

        Some don’t want to look for the evidence since they are so ensconced in their own ideology. The evidence for global MWP and LIA is there if one wants to look for it.

        Here is yet another paper finding evidence of MWP and LIA in South Africa.

        http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/tyson.pdf

        I read all those frantic papers that were included in the above article. I just don’t understand the mentality that concludes with such certainty the most apocalyptic future. None of it is coherent.

        I hope some day, (in 30-40 years) there will be case studies involving interviews of the people with these views to learn their own doubts that they didn’t want to admit to others or to themselves. They must have doubts, subliminal at a minimum anyway.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        “ Abstract. Increasing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that 1 Introduction the Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global climate change event.
        Click to access cp-8-1223-2012.pdf

        This paper concludes

        “The MES stable isotope record suggests that the Ross Sea
        region experienced 1.6 ± 1.4 ◦C cooler average temperatures
        during the LIA in comparison to the last 150 yr.”

        How does that imply a global LIA?

      • Appell

        Read the rest of the paper.

        Repeating to yourself there is no MWP and LIA 100 times before you go to sleep or writing on the chalkboard 100 times there is no MWP and LIA doesn’t mean it is fact.

        It’s obvious to all of us you haven’t read the literature.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        “ The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”
        https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837

        Did you read this paper? See their Table 1. Their study relies on only 7 proxies, all in the IndoPacific, within an area of about 4 deg lat x 4 deg long.

        How can that lead to global conclusions?

        You’re good at copy-and-pasting. Not at reading.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        “ Vegetation, climate and fire regime changes in the Andean region of southern Chile (38°S) covaried with centennial-scale climate anomalies in the tropical Pacific over the last 1500 years”

        I’ll ignore anything that present local results, since they say nothing about a global phenomena.

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        A person cant legitimately defend the multitude of HS if you dont understand the issues associated with the underlying proxies used (and/or excluded) in the those studies.

        Still waiting for some peer reviewed journal papers I can read to understand these issues.

        Unreviewed blog posts by a nonexpert in proxies aren’t science. You should read higher than the lowest common denominator that reinforces your biases.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 18, 2022 at 11:46 am |
        the non scientist commented:
        A person cant legitimately defend the multitude of HS if you dont understand the issues associated with the underlying proxies used (and/or excluded) in the those studies.

        Still waiting for some peer reviewed journal papers I can read to understand these issues.

        Unreviewed blog posts by a nonexpert in proxies aren’t science. You should read higher than the lowest common denominator that reinforces your biases.

        FYI –
        A) McIntyre was a peer reviewer but was “kicked off the team” when he started pointing out the errors.
        B) McIntyre is probably one of the foremost authorities on the individual proxies.
        C) your refusal to even explore the issues with the proxies shows your bias

      • Appell

        Deal with it. There was a global LIA. There is too much evidence to ignore it.

      • “ These new data support the concept of a global LIA, and for at least the intense dry episodes might reinforce the claim for solar forcing of parts of the LIA climate.”

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683614551232

      • “ Regardless of the potential variability in timing among these three advances, all appear to have occurred during the time of the Northern Hemisphere LIA suggesting that LIA advances occurred in the Antarctic Peninsula.”

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379121004029

      • Peru

        “The observed geomorphic features in the Huancané valley can only be explained by a change in the mean climate state and require some degree of cooling.


        During the LIA, we reconstruct air temperature coolings at the ice cap of between ∼0.7 °C and ∼1.1 °C, corresponding to regional SST coolings of between ∼0.4 °C and ∼0.6 °C.”

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379115300676

      • David Appell

        the non climate scientist commented:
        A) McIntyre was a peer reviewer but was “kicked off the team” when he started pointing out the errors.

        When? Where? Proof?

        B) McIntyre is probably one of the foremost authorities on the individual proxies.

        Why?

        C) your refusal to even explore the issues with the proxies shows your bias

        I keep asking you for reading material, yet you seem to have nothing to offer.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        Read the rest of the paper.

        That’s not an answer, it’s an evasion.

        Answer the question — how do those seven proxies allow a global conclusion?

      • “ A 350-year-long, well-dated δ18O stalagmite record from the summer rainfall region in South Africa is positively correlated with regional air surface temperatures at interannual time scales. The coldest period documented in this record occurred between 1690 and 1740, slightly lagging the Maunder Minimum (1645–1710). A temperature reconstruction, based on the correlation between regional surface temperatures and the stalagmite δ18O variations, indicates that parts of this period could have been as much as 1.4°C colder than today”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01767

        Appell. Read the paper and read all the other papers which destroy your absurd claim of no LIA in the SH.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 18, 2022 at 1:12 pm |
        the non climate scientist commented:

        C) your refusal to even explore the issues with the proxies shows your bias

        I keep asking you for reading material, yet you seem to have nothing to offer.

        David ” i refuse to read the material provided ” Appell

        Ckid has given you 8-10 citations today
        I have provided numerous citations in the past
        Everyone on the blog knows that we have provided you with citations

      • Joe

        I just counted the citations I provided Appell. It’s 20 citations that he hasn’t been able to refute.

        It’s obvious the reason the establishment narrative includes denial of a global LIA. It’s the same reason they wanted to get rid of the MWP. It was so they can say this warm period is unprecedented. Obviously, it is not. The LIA further demonstrates natural variability.

        The evidence of previous global warm periods and the global LIA is overwhelming. They apparently think no one can do research of the scientific literature.

      • David Appell

        joe – the non climate scientist commented:
        Ckid has given you 8-10 citations today
        I have provided numerous citations in the past

        I’ve told him, and I’ll tell you again.

        Listing local studies in localized times proves nothing about a claimed global phenomena.

        Nothing.

        You have to combine all those local studies over all those time periods, which is exactly what MBH, PAGES 2k, Osman+ and all the others do via statistical techniques.

        As I said before, I’m not responding to studies hyperlocalized in space and time.

        I’m sure you understand that but for some reason pretend not to. I suspect I know why.

      • Yep, David, they used statistical techniques to turn red noise into Hockey Sticks on top of using proxies (Bristle Cone Pines & others) that don’t track temperatures. You choose to ignore the scientific malpractice revealed over time by McKittrick, etc.

      • Also, David, in response to your “… which is exactly what MBH, PAGES 2k, Osman+ and all the others do via statistical techniques.” I reference the following:

        In 2011 Professors McShane and Wyner in 2011 published a paper critical of MBH in the “Annals of Applied Statistics” stating (among other major criticisms) “The ‘long-tailed’ handle of the hockey stick is lacking [statistically] in the data.”

        As well as being told that their proxy series (especially bristlecone pines) are problematic, the paleo climatological community (Mann’s Hockey Team) has repeatedly been told by statistical experts their methods of statistically manipulating multi-proxy data sets are totally wrong. They refuse to change and refuse to include professional statisticians in methodology design and implementation. They are CliSciFi profiteers, not scientists. People need to read:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        “ A 350-year-long, well-dated δ18O stalagmite record from the summer rainfall region in South Africa

        How can such a local study say anything about a global LIA?

        And why do you always avoid such questions?

        (We know, of course. It doesn’t.)

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        Peru

        Peru does not equal the globe.

        Q.E.D.

      • David Appell

        CKid wrote:
        “ Abstract. Increasing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that 1 Introduction the Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global climate change event.
        https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1223/2012/cp-8-1223-2012.pdf

        You’re lying.

        Here’s what that paper’s abstract actually says:

        “We use a new
        glaciochemical record of a coastal ice core from Mt. Erebus
        Saddle, Antarctica, to reconstruct atmospheric and oceanic
        conditions in the Ross Sea sector of Antarctica over the past
        five centuries.”

        This is why I’m not replying to you anymore — you CONSTANTLY misrepresent the science that’s actually in papers, and then CONSTIENTLY refuse to discuss them when I call you out on them, saying something useless like “read the paper.”

        You’re completely fake. Anyone who looks at all closely sees that.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        Here is yet another paper finding evidence of MWP and LIA in South Africa.

        Just how dense can you be? A paper about South Africa is not proof of a global MWP or LIA.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Yep, David, they used statistical techniques to turn red noise into Hockey Sticks on top of using proxies (Bristle Cone Pines & others) that don’t track temperatures. You choose to ignore the scientific malpractice revealed over time by McKittrick, etc.

        LOL. Dozens of studies after that replicated MBH by over a half-dozen statistical techniques. Never enough for the rotten watermelons.

        http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

        Plus the simplest of arguments for why the hockey stick HAS to be true, which ALL OF YOU ignore and have never refuted:

        1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
        2) CO2_forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
        3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.

        Hence, if CO2 isn’t changing, as prior to 1850, CO2_forcing=0 and there is no temperature change — that’s the flat handle of the hockey stick.

        If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as post 1850 during the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly (ln of an exponential = linear) and hence so is the temperature change – which is the blade of the hockey stick.

        QED

      • David, you are a base liar. You served as one of the mouthpieces for Michael Mann in his vicious attacks on two honorable men: Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit blog) and Ross McKittrick. As part of Mann’s Hockey Team you obstructed honest inquiry into the scientific malpractice of Mann and his cohorts in the paleoclimate clique; the final unmasking took years of peoples’ valuable time in the face of your and others’ dissembling, distractions, ad hominin attacks, and withholding of scientific data and methods.

        Anybody reading this and thinking I’m unduly harsh in my judgement of David Appell needs to read:

        1) “The Hockey Stick Illusion”
        By Andrew Montford

        2) “A Disgrace To The Profession”
        The World’s Scientists (in their own words)
        On Michael E. Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science
        By Mark Stein

        3) “Blowing Smoke – Essays on Energy and Climate”
        Essays: “Let’s Play Hockey Again” and “A High Stick Foul”
        By Rud Istvan

        David, I don’t care to read anything more you have to say on any topic because you are a known liar and a nasty SOB base on your treatment of upright people.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        David, you are a base liar. You served as one of the mouthpieces for Michael Mann in his vicious attacks on two honorable men

        You’re the liar. As if Mann and his co-authors, or any of the dozens of scientists who have replicated his work, aren’t honorable.

        Listen to yourself. You believe in conspiracy theories, not science. And based on those, you insult me and all the others.

        You’re absolutely sure you’re right and everyone else is wrong, even though you don’t know the science — and you know you don’t know the science.

        So you insult blindly. That reveals your character.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        1) “The Hockey Stick Illusion”
        By Andrew Montford
        2) “A Disgrace To The Profession”
        The World’s Scientists (in their own words)
        On Michael E. Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science
        By Mark Stein
        3) “Blowing Smoke – Essays on Energy and Climate”
        Essays: “Let’s Play Hockey Again” and “A High Stick Foul”
        By Rud Istvan

        In what way do you think any of this is science?

        Why do you think any of this matters?

        Do you know what science *IS*, Dave Fair?

        Can you give an answer beyond calling me names when you get frustrated?

      • I’m an engineer; I have a scientific background; I can do maths; I’ve prepared and reviewed many technical, economic and financial papers and reports: I tell you and everybody else that Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick destroyed Michael Mann’s two hockey stick papers and the subsequent hockey stick papers prepared by Hockey Stick Team members.

        An aspiring Team member, a newly minted PhD Marcott, joined in the parade of hockey stick manufacturers by fraudulently changing the published beginning and end dates of a number of proxies such as to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and provide a hockey blade post 1900, as shown in the Marcott et. al. peer reviewed paper in the journal Science, 2013. While this and other paper defects were missed by the peer reviewers, it only took 11 days from the paper’s publication for non-climate scientists to identify its defects. Thanks to Rud Istvan this was brought to my attention in his ebook “Blowing Smoke.” In a recent personal communications with Rud, he said that neither Marcott’s employer, Oregon State University, nor Science has taken any actions in this case of this clear fraud.

        But you know all of this, David. You choose, however, to be a shill for the post-normal science which I accurately label as CliSciFi. You, too, are a disgrace to the profession along with your puppet master, Michael E. Mann.

      • Appell

        Speaking of dense. I’ve just provided 20 links showing LIA all across the Southern Hemisphere in all the continents and you still don’t grasp the import. There are 20 studies demonstrating that the LIA was global and you haven’t refuted a single one.

        You ought to be embarrassed having so little knowledge about the science. They certainly conned you. What do you think led to your being such an easy mark? Most leftwing extremists are like that. All emotions. No critical thinking skills.

      • This paper just reinforces an obvious given, that there is significant internal variability affecting regional and global temperatures.

        “ Previous studies have shown that Southern Ocean multidecadal to centennial deep convection variations have broad impacts on the global climate”

        “ Multidecadal to centennial variability in the Southern Ocean (SO) is difficult to detect and characterize due to limited in situ observations. Paleoclimate tree ring records over adjacent continents do show long time scale variations in the past hundreds of years (e.g., Cook et al. 2000; Le Quesne et al. 2009).”

        “ Given the significant differences in Southern Ocean convection and multidecadal variability characteristics among climate models, we attempt to investigate the potential causes underlying these differences. We find that the Southern Ocean mean stratification state is critical for the frequency of SO low-frequency variability whether the stability perturbation is generated from the surface or deep oceans, while the amplitude of variability is largely determined by the magnitude of the subsurface heat reservoir.”

        This link is not used to prove global LIA.I have provided substantial citations for that. Rather, the paper demonstrates the importance of multi decadal and centennial internal variability dynamics in understanding long term global temperatures trends. There is much more to know than the control knob.

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/3/JCLI-D-20-0049.1.xml

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        In 2011 Professors McShane and Wyner in 2011 published a paper critical of MBH in the “Annals of Applied Statistics” stating (among other major criticisms) “The ‘long-tailed’ handle of the hockey stick is lacking [statistically] in the data.”

        Funny you can’t even link to it.

      • Typical CliSciFi shill misdirection. You, David Appell, were there at the beginning of the Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick exposure of the Michael E. Mann scientific fraud and personally attacked two honorable men in support of a corruption of paleo climatological science. It is all laid out in:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

        The fact that I don’t link something does not change the fact that you are lying about the Hockey Stick not being debunked. Mann and his “Hockey Team” used inappropriate paleo data (e.g. bristlecone pines and Gaspe cedars) and unscientific computer statistical algorithms.

        Quit lying about the hockey sticks.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

        These missives are a perfect illustration of what an engineer thinks science is…and why he’s so badly ignorant.

    • You certainly aren’t the one to pick an optimal temperature, Appell.

      • David Appell

        jim2 wrote:
        You certainly aren’t the one to pick an optimal temperature, Appell.

        I’m not the one claiming anyone should, LOL. Pay attention.

    • David Appell:

      You state that the LIA wasn’t global.

      You are mistaken. It WAS global

      See “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”

      https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170

      • David Appell

        Burl Henry commented:
        You state that the LIA wasn’t global.
        You are mistaken. It WAS global.

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

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


        PS: Didn’t you write a paper that global warming is caused by recessions??

      • David Appell:

        The MWP was much warmer than it is today. They were farming in Greenland, and the Alps were nearly (totally?) ice free.

        The cause of the MWP was a dearth of volcanic eruptions, only 31 in 300 years, making it a global event. Other parts of the world, such as in Central America, and our West experienced severe droughts, destroying civilizations.

        And ,NO, I did not claim that global warming is caused by recessions,

        I found that decreased SO2 aerosol emissions during American industrial recessions caused TEMPORARY increases in average anomalous global temperatures.

      • I did not read all the post here (too much back and forth), but revently stumbled over Don J. Easterbrook blog articel from 2011:
        https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf

        Not exactly LIA, but I hope related.. he states
        “Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world all confirm the presence of a global Medieval Warm Period. Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP, only two showed no evidence, and 21 of 22 studies in the Southern Hemisphere showed evidence of Medieval warming. Evidence of the MWP at specific sites is summarized in Fagan (2007) and Singer and Avery (2007). Evidence that the Medieval Warm
        Period was a global event is so widespread that one wonders why Mann et al. (1998) ignored it.”

      • David Appell

        morfu03 commented:
        I did not read all the post here (too much back and forth), but revently stumbled over Don J. Easterbrook blog articel from 2011:
        ….Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP, only two showed no evidence, and 21 of 22 studies in the Southern Hemisphere showed evidence of Medieval warming.

        As it happens, I wrote an article for Scientific American that showed all the many logical flaws in that Soon & Baliunas paper. It was a truly terrible paper, and I can’t imagine they didn’t know it at the time. They refused to even answer questions about it.

        “Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate,” Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web) and August 2003 (print), pp. 20-22.
        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/

        My article was so good it was later reprinted in a book:

        reprinted in “Critical Perspectives on World Climate,” ed Katy Human, The Rosen Publishing Company, 2006 pp 169-173.

      • You served as a mouthpiece for the know liar, Michael Mann. You have no credibility in CliSciFi.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        You served as a mouthpiece for the know liar, Michael Mann. You have no credibility in CliSciFi.

        What a weak, pathetic, desperate argument. You can’t argue the science, so you resort to personal attacks. You call names, like a child.

      • So you didn’t serve as a mouthpiece for Michael Mann in attacking Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick when they were analyzing the fraudulent methods used by not only Mann himself but all the subsequent Hockey Team members’ studies that used the same or similar data and methods?

        I suggest everybody read:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford

        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan

        “A Disgrace To The Profession” by Mark Stein

        You have nothing more to say to me.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        CliSciFi.

        You repeat this over and over because you think it’s so clever, when it’s just juvenile and weak. As an adult you should be embarassed.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        So you didn’t serve as a mouthpiece for Michael Mann in attacking Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick when they were analyzing the fraudulent methods used by not only Mann himself but all the subsequent Hockey Team members’ studies that used the same or similar data and methods?

        No. I wrote about the real science as best I could. Not blog posts, which aren’t science. Not un-peer-reviewed self-published (?) books by Montford, Istvan and Stein. I know the value of the peer reviewed literature, even if you don’t. The work of experts.

        You have nothing more to say to me.

        This is like your third or fourth threat. So leave already.

      • What a joke, David: Peer review does not check data and methods so it is incapable of determining the scientific validity of any particular study. In this case it is a cursory review by the paleo climatological pals of the authors.

        As fully documented by Andrew Montfort in his “Hockey Stick Illusions” and through the Climategate whistleblower revelations, paleo climatological CliSciFi practitioners refuse to reveal their data and methods for studies funded by taxpayers. It has been almost a quarter Century and Michael Mann still hasn’t come clean.

        The snobbery about blog postings is hallmark of CliSciFi apologists such as yourself. There are real scientists, mathematicians, statisticians and economists posting on blogs. It was Steve McIntyre and the expert people posting on his blog, Climate Audit, that revealed the data and methodological mistakes in MHB98 and MHB99 (plus the errors in numerous other Hockey Stick studies), not any of your vaunted peer reviewers. Peer review did not detect the outright fraud of Marcott et. al., 2013. Peer review, indeed!

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      David Appell | March 18, 2022 at 11:36 am |
      CKid commented:
      “ The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.”
      https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837

      Did you read this paper? See their Table 1. Their study relies on only 7 proxies, all in the IndoPacific, within an area of about 4 deg lat x 4 deg long.

      How can that lead to global conclusions?

      You’re good at copy-and-pasting. Not at reading.

      Appell – What it good for the goose is good for the gander

      Note that pages2k only uses 3-4 long proxies in both the 0-30s latitude band and in the 30-60s latitude band.

      Note that none of those 3-4 long proxies individually show a HS, but after the peer reviewed statistical techniques, the composite of those proxies do show a HS. – Impressive work

      But who cares – pages2k was “peer Reviewed ”

      Let me know when you have actually looked at the individual proxies before reaching a conclusion

      • David Appell

        the non climate scientist commented:
        Note that pages2k only uses 3-4 long proxies in both the 0-30s latitude band and in the 30-60s latitude band.

        Why do you need long proxies to make a composite time series?

        But speaking of long proxies, this is from Osman et al 2021 (that didn’t find a global MWP or LIA):

        “To ensure that the proxy data have sufficient
        temporal resolution and length to inform our reconstruction, we
        required that records be at least 4,000 years long, have a median time
        resolution of 1,000 years or less…. The temporal criteria were relaxed for several (seven) sites in the Southern Ocean to increase coverage in this data-poor region. Conversely, some SST records that met these criteria were excluded due to complications related to proxy interpretation and (or) their location (Methods). In total, our vetted compilation consists of 539 records….” (pp 239-240)

        “Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum,” Matthew B. Osman et al, Nature v 599 pp 239–244 (2021).
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4

        Happy now?

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation9,10 to produce the first proxy-constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present at 200-year resolution.

        “To ensure that the proxy data have sufficient
        temporal resolution and length to inform our reconstruction, we
        required that records be at least 4,000 years long, have a median time
        resolution of 1,000 years or less…

        resolution of 200 years
        Resolution of 1,000 years or less

        do you know what that means

    • “Little Ice Age wasn’t global, so it’s a poor gauge of global climate in the 1700s.”
      Did someone average the recorded temps to postulate that? It seems the argument for “global” is based on averages across the globe not regional anomalies…

      • David Appell

        J. Anderton commented:
        “Little Ice Age wasn’t global, so it’s a poor gauge of global climate in the 1700s.”
        Did someone average the recorded temps to postulate that?

        Yes!!!!!

        I’ve provided innumerable links to the many papers on the hockey stick. I’m not going to do it again. See my blog for a link.

      • Yes!!!!! All of those papers used the same bad proxy series and statistically invalid methodologies used by Michael Mann. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick blew them out of the water. Read:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

        Respond to what the authors’ said, not by your cavalier, offhand dismissals.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Yes!!!!! All of those papers used the same bad proxy series and statistically invalid methodologies used by Michael Mann.

        No Dave. Over the years the papers use more and more proxies and more and different statistical techniques.

        Osman+ 2021 used 539 records:
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4.pdf

        Wahl and Ammann 2007 used a different statistical technique than MBH.
        Tingley and Huybers 2010 did as well. (I wrote about their work for Scientific American.)

        Somewhere there’s a paper that used seven different statistical techniques all in the same paper, but I can’t find it right now.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Yes!!!!! All of those papers used the same bad proxy series and statistically invalid methodologies used by Michael Mann.

        Be specific!!!

        Talk science.

        Give citations to the scientific literature.

        Show that ALL methodologies are erroneous.

        Disprove my incredibly simple argument that a hockey stick is required by the basic laws of physics.

      • David, do the laws of physics require paleo climatologists to use bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies from two isolated places in the SW U.S. that don’t respond to local temperatures? Do the laws of physics require calibrating those proxy series to the average temperature of the entire Northern Hemisphere, not the local or regional temperatures? Do the laws of physics require novel statistical algorithms (short-centering Principle Components (PCs) not recognized by the statistical profession) that overweight the proxy series that incorrect calibration methods give to 20th Century upticks? Do the laws of physics require prescreening out proxy series that show actual MWP and LIA conditions (cherrypicking)? Do the laws of physics require graphically and otherwise hiding the divergence of tree ring proxies from recorded temperatures in the 20th Century, casting doubt on the ability of tree rings to track temperature? Do the laws of physics require researchers to hide adverse verification statistics that would indicate their studies gave invalid results? Do the laws of physics require researchers to withhold data and methods such that reviewers have no way of validating the study results?

        Have you read my citations of:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein?

        In 2005 the House Science Committee had the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (North Expert Panel) reviewed issues surrounding Mann’s hockey stick and the other contemporary hockey stick studies. Rather than charge the Panel with answering the specific questions raised by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair (what were the questions critical of MBH98, whether the information required for its replication were available, whether others were actually managed to replicate it and other questions), the NAS head simply gave the Panel some general questions concerning hockey stick studies, not specifically MBH98. Some results of the Panel:

        1) Hockey stick results for periods earlier than 400 years from present were invalid statistically.
        2) Paleo studies should not use bristlecone [nor, presumably, foxtail] pines.
        3) The paleo studies should use multiple statistical validation measures, including R^2 and Durban-Watson tests. [None of the paleo climatologist-developed studies revealed the results of such tests; they are all statistically suspect as a result.]
        4) [Most importantly!] The use of short-centered PC analyses as performed in many, if not most, hockey stick studies is not a valid statistical technique.
        5) During the hearings, prominent paleo-climatologist Rosanne D’Arrigo testified that pre-screening proxy series to remove the series that don’t support the authors’ opinions as to what the temperature reconstruction should show is a common practice in the paleo-climatological community. As she put it: One has to pick cherries to make cherry pie. The euphemism used by the paleo community is to say they screen out proxy series that don’t show a temperature response.

        In 2006 the House Energy and Commerce Committee engaged eminent statistician Edward Wegman to produce a report (Wegman Report) on MB98 and the other hockey sticks. It concluded:

        1) The paleo climatological practice of short-centered PCs is an invalid statistical method.
        2) The methodologies used in the hockey stick studies invariably produced hockey sticks.
        3) Accepted the McIntyre and McKitrick conclusions as to the deficiencies in Michael Mann’s work.
        4) Wegman produced a “social network” study of the links between the paleo climatological community, with Michael Mann at the center. They concluded that the community is insular, self-centered and close-knit network, with self-reinforcing feedback. Their work is so highly politicized that they can’t reverse prior public positions and they all believe passionately in dangerous global warming.

        In 2006 the House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (Chairman Ed Whitfield) held hearings to review the above-listed national studies and question their Panels’ leaders, North (NAS) and Wegman. Both North and Wegman agreed that McIntyre and McKittrick’s statistical analyses and criticisms of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick and all the other hockey stick studies they reviewed were valid.

        David, you have reversed the criteria for determining if the individual hockey stick studies are erroneous: It is up to the study authors to show their study does not violate any of the criteria published in the above-listed national studies. Like all shills, you shuffle and dance around trying to distract from the true nature of CliSciFi’s defects and lies.

    • Dave Fair commented:
      In 2011 Professors McShane and Wyner in 2011 published a paper critical of MBH in the “Annals of Applied Statistics” stating (among other major criticisms) “The ‘long-tailed’ handle of the hockey stick is lacking [statistically] in the data.”

      Odd that you, or no one here, or no one in any of your books or blogs, can refute the simplest argument that shows the hockey stick has to be true:

      1) temperature change = (climate_sensitivity)*(change in forcing)
      2) CO2_forcing = constant*ln(CO2/initial_CO2)
      3) Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial era.

      Hence, if CO2 isn’t changing, as prior to 1850, CO2_forcing=0 and there is no temperature change — that’s the flat handle of the hockey stick.

      If CO2 is increasing exponentially, as post-1850 during the industrial era, its forcing is changing linearly (ln of an exponential = linear) and hence so is the temperature change – which is the blade of the hockey stick.

      => hockey stick.

      Q.E.D.

      • Wrong-o, David! The climatological community estimates of cumulative CO2 forcing since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is, on average, about one percent (1%) of the total energy flows in Earth’s climate system. That is much less than the measurement errors for all of the other natural energy transport systems we must consider in determining the role of CO2 forcings in actual temperature changes. Look at Trenberth’s Energy Balance diagrams.

        Your argument for CO2 forcings driving the 20th Century hockey stick blade is “not even wrong.” As indicated later, the blade is manufactured in part by grafting measured temperatures onto the various graphs of paleo climatological proxy reconstructions purporting to have eliminated the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and LIA.

        You ignore the natural drivers of temperature change which are obviously operating in the present (the 18+year pause) and have operated in the past. Notwithstanding the hockey stick lies, numerous studies have shown that temperatures have varied significantly over our current interglacial, the Holocene.

        The only evidence offered of mankind’s CO2 emissions significantly affecting temperatures are the UN IPCC CliSciFi models. They have been shown to run hot (see NASA’s Gavin Schmidt), about double the estimated surface temperature rates. The models also show a tropical tropospheric hot spot that has never been measured. Without the hot spot, there is no way that the minor theoretical temperature impacts of CO2 can be amplified by water vapor.

        Other than graphing recorded temperatures on the end of paleo reconstructions, the blades of the hockey sticks come mainly from improper use, calibration and statistical manipulation of bristlecone and foxtail pine proxy series:

        1) Bristlecone and foxtail pines are of the stripbark type of tree where the uneven sloughing off of bark corrupts the formation of otherwise symmetrical rings. Dr. Graybill and other dendrochronolists actually taking the cores of the stripbark trees tell us in no uncertain terms that they are not to be used for temperature reconstructions.

        2) Michael Mann and others calibrated the bristlecone and foxtail pine proxy series during the 20th Century timeframe to the entire North American temperature record, not to local or regional temperatures which do not track with stripbark pine tree ring widths and densities. Mann made the grand assertion that growth of the trees in a couple of minor, remote locations in the desert SW U.S. were responding to the average North American temperatures through his “teleconnections,” not local or regional temperatures. While there could be other reasons, Dr. Graybill has speculated that the growth of the stripbark trees could be due to CO2 fertilization because their proxy series was not responding to actual local temperatures. In any case, the stripbark trees were not responding to local temperatures so they couldn’t give Mann his hockey stick blade without his and other paleo climatologists’ wild assumption of “telecommunication.”

        Hockey stick blades also come from the Gaspe, Québec cedar tree series that have an unbelievable 3 standard deviation excursions in the 1970s as documented by Steve McIntyre. Mann also used the old version of Twisted Tree, Heartrot Hill (simply infilling 1975 data in each year up to 1980) when a newer version was available up to 1992 that showed tree ring widths reversing throughout the 1980s, losing all of its previous gains in 20th Century warming.

        McIntyre’s correction of Mann’s Australian-New Zealand PC1 compellation removed the sharp 20th Century uptick and completely eliminated the hockey stick in the Southern Hemisphere in MBH98.

        The graphing representations of the “spaghetti” graphs of hockey stick blades also come from splicing thermometer readings at the end of the paleo data and truncating Keith Briffa’s paleo reconstruction data graphing in 1960. They all hid the “divergence” problem of the majority of tree ring proxies not tracking rising temperatures after the mid-20th Century which threw doubt on historical temperature reconstructions using tree ring proxies. The paleo climatological community has not dealt with this issue.

        The flat handle of the hockey stick comes from:

        1) Using the old, invalid Polar Ural series and ignoring the existing updated and corrected series, and the use of other unrepresentative tree ring proxies.

        2) Overweighting the bristlecone and foxtail pine proxy series with the algorithm that exaggerates the weighting of those proxies that have a 20th Century blip such that the lack of warming shown in the pre-20th Century portions of bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies dominate earlier (pre-20th Century) combined-proxy reconstructions.

        3) Throwing in a bunch of proxies that average out to essentially close to zero trend pre-20th Century as window dressing to be drowned out by overweighted bristlecone and foxtail pine proxies.

        4) Mann’s use of the Central England Temperature Record (CETR) series, but adjusted to June, July and August temperatures, not the full year averages as is normal for other proxy series, and truncating the CET at AD 1730 instead of using the full series back to 1659, reducing the full 350-year series to only a 250-year series, cutting off a significant cold portion of the LIA.

        5) Mann’s use of the Central European Temperature Record was truncated at 1550 instead of the full period of 1525, cutting off a significant portion of the MWP warmth.

        Steve McIntyre corrected all of the proxy database errors in MBH98 and ran a simulation of Mann’s algorithm: The MWP popped back up, at warmth greater than modern temperatures.

        As a further check, when the bristlecone and foxtail pines’ proxy data are removed from the reconstructions by McIntyre, the MWP and LIA reappear in MBH98, MBH99 and other hockey stick reconstructions.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        The climatological community estimates of cumulative CO2 forcing since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is, on average, about one percent (1%) of the total energy flows in Earth’s climate system. That is much less than the measurement errors for all of the other natural energy transport systems we must consider in determining the role of CO2 forcings in actual temperature changes.

        What are those measurements errors? Give numbers. Tell us where you got them.

      • Go to Roy Spencer’s site. What do you think are the measurement errors? Are they less than 1%?

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Your argument for CO2 forcings driving the 20th Century hockey stick blade is “not even wrong.” As indicated later, the blade is manufactured in part by grafting measured temperatures onto the various graphs of paleo climatological proxy reconstructions purporting to have eliminated the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and LIA.

        My argument has nothing — nada, zero, zilch, zip — to do with proxies. I didn’t mention proxies anywhere in it. Read it again.

      • You choose to misunderstand what I wrote: You assert that CO2-driven temperature increases drives creation of the hockey stick blade. I pointed out that the graphed blades are partially the result of grafting measured temperatures on the end of spaghetti graph paleo reconstructions, Keith Biffra’s reconstruction being truncated at 1960 to hide the decline of tree proxy temperature estimates post mid-20th Century.

        Since temperatures stopped rising in the late 20th Century for 18+years, how can increasing CO2 be driving any sort of hockey stick blade? Additionally, the theory that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations drive significant temperature increases is only found in the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. You are aware, aren’t you, that the models can’t hindcast temperatures accurately and don’t track 21st Century temperature realizations?

        Your claim that global temperatures cannot increase without additional CO2 (the hockey stick handle) is ridiculous on its face. Holocene paleo climatological reconstructions show significant temperature variations without much variation of CO2 levels. Certain statistical reconstruction methods will get rid of past temperature variations by using tree proxy series that are not temperature dependent; tree ring width and density do not accurately reflect temperature changes over longer periods of time.

        You claims are not physics based. Physics seems to indicate that CO2 has the potential to increase global temperatures about 1 C/doubling, everything else being equal. Current energy balance calculations indicate that the ECS of CO2 doubling is less than 2 C.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Notwithstanding the hockey stick lies, numerous studies have shown that temperatures have varied significantly over our current interglacial, the Holocene.

        But not over the last 2,000 years.

        If you disagree, cite those studies.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        The only evidence offered of mankind’s CO2 emissions significantly affecting temperatures are the UN IPCC CliSciFi models.

        False. Empirical evidence:

        “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

        “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

        “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

        “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

        “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)

        “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate,” W.F.J. Evans, ams.confex.com, Jan 2006

        “Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models,” Gastineau et al, J Climate, vol 27, 941–957 (2014).

        Links and more papers on this subject are listed here:
        http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

      • David, your citations are not saying what you apparently think they are saying (that GHGs are significantly affecting global temperatures). As is consistent with the physics, researchers have been able to detect decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) associated with increasing GHG concentrations. They have not been able to quantitatively associate such decreases in OLR to temperature changes on the Earth’s surface.

        Chapman et al. (2013) was clear that “… Observed decreases in BT [brightness temperature decreases associated with OLR decreases] trends are expected due to ten years of increased greenhouse gasses even though global surface temperatures have not risen substantially over the last decade.” The UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models still fail.

        While I’m not going looking for it, a recent study indicated that relatively recent increased surface temperatures were caused by increasing downwelling solar shortwave (SW) rather than increasing downwelling longwave (LW). In other words, less solar SW was reflected by clouds and GHGs had little influence.

      • BTW, David, your AGW Observer website is run by a bunch of rabid CAGW types.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        BTW, David, your AGW Observer website is run by a bunch of rabid CAGW types.

        They cite published papers.

        Instead of confronting their results, your excuse is (typically) juvenile and pathetic.

      • No, David, their contentions have been dealt with many times before, including on this thread. I’m not going to waste my time plowing old ground. It is up to you to show the validity of their assertions.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        No, David, their contentions have been dealt with many times before, including on this thread. I’m not going to waste my time plowing old ground. It is up to you to show the validity of their assertions.

        LOL. You can never support your claims. Ever.

        Your replies are all useless. I don’t know why you bother.

      • I’m only going to do this once, David, so pay close attention:

        A peer reviewed study by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick in the journal Energy and Environment “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere series” (MM03) came out on October 27, 2003. As revealed in Andrew Montfort’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” pages 93 to 97, the next day you posted Michael E. Mann’s responding lies on your site. Later that day you posted more Mann stuff which partially contradicted the earlier post. Your postings the next day, October 29, 2003, presented McIntyre’s response to Mann’s lies, but you avoided the implications.

        Subsequent published McIntyre reviews of MHB98, MHB99 and other extant paleo climatologists’ studies revealed similar and sometimes exact deficiencies that were never effectively corrected by the CliSciFi practitioners. Unacknowledged (hidden) data manipulations, poor statistical validation results and invalid, vaguely described statistical algorithms are rampant in the insular paleo climatological field. “Pal review” does not pick up these data and methodological errors.

        So you can bug off on the “show me the peer reviewed science” response to everybody’s postings. And scientific studies, most especially paleo climatologists’ CliSciFi papers, have no validity without real peer review (including by statisticians) of their data and methods which has rarely, if ever occurred in climate science.

        The “Hockey Team” publishes studies with no outside review of data and methods, so they mean nothing to me. It took dedicated, unpaid outsiders to reveal the data manipulation and invalid statistics used in the insular paleo climatological field.

        You know all of this but continue to shuck, jive and evade addressing known facts on numerous subjects. You are a CliSciFi shill. I suggest everybody read:

        “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montfort
        “Blowing Smoke” by Rud Istvan
        “A Disgrace to the Profession” by Mark Stein

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        David, your citations are not saying what you apparently think they are saying (that GHGs are significantly affecting global temperatures). As is consistent with the physics, researchers have been able to detect decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) associated with increasing GHG concentrations. They have not been able to quantitatively associate such decreases in OLR to temperature changes on the Earth’s surface.

        It follows from the 1st law of thermodynamics, something that doesn’t need to be reproved.

        EVERYTHING is warming and melting — the land surface, the ocean surface, land ice, sea ice, and the ocean. The only thing cooling is the stratosphere, WHICH IS A PREDICTION OF GREENHOUSE THEORY.

        QED LOL

      • David, thanks for deflecting away from my comment. BTW, not EVERYTHING has been warming, evidenced by the 18+year pause in LIA-rebound warming.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Keith Biffra’s reconstruction being truncated at 1960 to hide the decline of tree proxy temperature estimates post mid-20th Century.

        OMG, you still don’t understand the Divergence Problem.

        I guess that’s not unexpected from people like you.

        Here’s your chance to learn, which of course you will pass up:

        “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
        tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

      • Since your link doesn’t work, David, I’ll have to skip the long version and go back to the “Hockey Team” truncating Biffra’s reconstruction at 1960 to, as the Climategate emails put it, “hide the decline.”

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Since temperatures stopped rising in the late 20th Century for 18+years

        When? LOL

        Be a man for once and admit you’re wrong.

        NASA GISS:
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html

      • Hee, hee, David. Even your graph shows the 18+year pause beginning in 1997.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Go to Roy Spencer’s site. What do you think are the measurement errors? Are they less than 1%?

        Give me a Roy Spencer peer reviewed paper, if he attempts any anymore.

        When are you people gonna learn that blog posts aren’t science!

      • David Appell

        By the way Dave Fair, it seems both you and Roy Spencer missed this, which IS the addition of the Trenberth components of energy imbalance:

        Geophysical Research Letters
        “Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate,” Norman G. Loeb et al
        First published: 15 June 2021
        https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093047

        “We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.”

      • David Appell

        Please let Roy know, Dave

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 26, 2022 at 1:45 am |
        Dave Fair commented:
        Keith Biffra’s reconstruction being truncated at 1960 to hide the decline of tree proxy temperature estimates post mid-20th Century.

        Appell’s response to David fair – “OMG, you still don’t understand the Divergence Problem.”

        Gotta be impressed that Appell man understands the divergence problem when the scientists studying the issue are still trying to understand the cause. – he even gave us a citation to DArrigo who opined in his self serving study, to support his prior detro work.

        I linked to google scholar below which lists 30-40 studies on the divergence problem. The biggest take on the divergence problem from the climate scientists studying the issues is that the cause of the divergence remains unclear.

        It should be noted that the divergence problem means the calibration computation is valid for 50-60 years out of 100 year calibration period.

        https://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/on-the-divergence-problem/

        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=divergence+problem+dendro&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44&as_vis=1

      • Joe, that would be the Rosanne D’Arrigo that embarrassed the paleo climatological community at the Congressionally directed National Academies of Science 2006 panel on hockey sticks. She came right out and told the whole world that the climatological community regularly “cherrypicked” data by pre-screening the proxy data series to obtain a result they liked. She blandly explained that “one must pick cherries to make cherry pie.”

        People wonder why I refer to climate science as CliSciFi. The above and the invalidated UN IPCC models are more than sufficient reasoning.

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Fair – that would be the same DArrigo

        Interesting point omitted from all the studies on the divergence problem.

        All tree species have the highest rate of growth when growing conditions are in the “sweet spot” – ie not too cold, not too hot , not too wet , not too hot ( explanation simplified for illustration purposes). As it gets colder from the optimum, the growth rate slows, same with it starts getting hotter, growth rate also slows. Almost a bell curve growth pattern. This bell curve growth pattern is more pronounced in tree species with narrow geographical range. FWIW, I am not opining on whether the above botanical facts are a factor in the divergence, just noting that the aforementioned factor was notably absent from the scholarly articles done by the climate scientists ( or dismissed as a substantive factor)

      • Joe, the “scholarly articles” consistently omit any information that might confuse the narrative. Peer review has been shown to be inadequate to validate studies’ data and methods. Policy considerations corrupt the flow of science dollars such that it influences all individuals and institutions in the “science-producing” game. Academia demands high volumes of new and “significant” study results for researchers’ continued employment and advancement. Institutions demand high levels of success in procuring grant monies to cover increasing overheads.

        All of this has resulted in the fundamental corruption of Western science. The only solution I can think of is for governments to fund people like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick and independent groups to rigorously audit all government-funded science. Peer review is not up to the task. It is usually unpaid work and time-limited in scope such that it doesn’t ensure quality, unbiased science like the Appells of the world insist it does.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        my understanding was that McIntyre was actually a peer reviewer during the early history of the climate science, though was quickly fired when he insisted on seeing the data.

        Something about actually peer reviewing

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Go to Roy Spencer’s site. What do you think are the measurement errors? Are they less than 1%?

        Energy imbalance isn’t determined by adding up all the terms in the Trenberth energy balance diagram.

        As Andrew Dessler explains here, only two terms are involved:

        https://twitter.com/andrewdessler/status/1507462340714901507?s=11&t=69EuWTi0hdSWcJ5hnxWW8w

        Read his entire thread. The result is an energy imbalance, according to Loeb et al 202, of

        0.77 +/- 0.06 W/m2

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

        The corollary, as Dessler notes, is never believe anything Roy Spencer claims on his blog, believe the peer reviewed literature.

      • Dressler citing Loeb has nothing to do with my comment; determining exactly Earth’s Energy Imbalance is a separate issue. My comment had to do with the accuracy of measuring the huge energy flows in the Earth’s climate system.

        It is immaterial if the energy balance is a particular (miniscule) value, however Loeb says: “Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space.” Its less than Spencer’s rough estimate of ~1% overall, but about the same as Spencer’s value ( ~0.25%) determined by only using ARGO heat content changes over its period of operation. BTW, Loeb uses ARGO as a check on his satellite data.

        The question is how accurately do we measure the huge energy flows in, within and out of the Earth’s climate system. The miniscule energy imbalance (~0.25 to ~0.3%) pales in comparison to the uncertainties involved in making those large measurements.

        You continue your shuck and jive distractions as a CliSciFi shill.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        A peer reviewed study by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick in the journal Energy and Environment “Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere series” (MM03) came out on October 27, 2003

        Dave, you’re apparently unaware that the journal Energy and Environment was a joke back then.

        Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen was editor of the journal Energy & Environment from 1998 to 2017.

        “When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”[14]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen#Views_on_climate_change

        The Guardian reported that Boehmer-Christiansen published – against the recommendations of a reviewer – a paper in Energy & Environment claiming that the Sun is made of iron.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen#Third-party_views

      • David, you need to critique MM03 directly to have any credibility.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:

        I have only the vaguest idea who Andrew Montford is, and he doesn’t publish science, just commentary. I stick to the science.

        If the hockey stick is so wrong, where are all the peer reviewed publications saying so?

        Instead, there are dozens of peer reviewed papers that have replicated it.

        http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

        As I’ve presented repeatedly, there is a very simple heuristic argument for why the hockey stick HAS TO BE TRUE.

        The “Hockey Team” publishes studies with no outside review of data and methods, so they mean nothing to me.

        They’ve only published in peer reviewed, quality peer reviewed journals, and you know that.

        The people you cite are amateurs who avoid the peer reviewed literature at all costs, because they know their work isn’t up to it. Even McIntyre does.

      • Fabulous, David! Why do some of those papers have Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages? Have you personally verified that every one of the long list of papers adhered to data collection and retention standards, did not cherrypick data to reach a conclusion, used statistical methods approved by statistical professionals or otherwise to produce a paper that was designed to tell a story? I’m pretty sure that none of the papers’ peer reviewers went to that trouble because peer review is not designed to detect fraud nor are exhaustive enough to verify data and methods.

        There are a number of those papers that used the Sheep Mountain Bristlecone Pines that Dr. Graybill, the series originator, told them not to use because he thought CO2 fertilization caused 20th Century growth, and later investigators surmised that the stripbark (sloughing) process distorted ring growth. Also, some (many?) papers continued using Mann’s statistically erroneous short-centered Principle Components algorithm.

        One spectacular example of improper data selection is a paper published by PNAS in 2008 that Malcom Hughes co-wrote with Michael Mann going back 1,300 years that used Graybill’s old Sheep Mountain bristlecone pine series even after Hughes’ PhD student Linah Ababneh’s 2002 thesis updated the series through the 1980s and 90s. The update showed no surge in 20th Century tree ring growth in response to rising instrumental temperatures. No hockey stick.

        The PNAS study also used an improper 40-year smoothing algorithm of the temperature record. Mann and Hughes concocted a method of faking future temperatures so they could use those in their 40-year smoothing. Additionally, this is the first study (Kaufman et al was the second) that famously inverted (used upside down) Mia Tiljander’s lake sediment series. Mann, however, was steadfast in denying the study did so. Removing/reversing the both of the Tiljander and Sheep Mountain errors revealed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period.

        The above and many more examples, including hiding data and methods, are the reasons I do not trust paleo climatological practitioners. The UN IPCC AR’s, beginning with the Third Assessment Report’s Hockey Stick, reinforce that mistrust.

        David, you believe physics demands the hockey stick because you think CO2 drives temperatures. Analysis of the history of glacial and interglacial periods, however, reveals that CO2 follows temperatures by about 200 to 800 years. Also, both the temperature rise of the early 20th Century and the 18+year pause beginning in the late 20th Century show that CO2 does not drive temperatures.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        David, you need to critique MM03 directly to have any credibility.

        Hardly. The paper is 19 years old and, clearly, has gained no traction in the scientific community.

        You shouldn’t be citing papers that appear in junk journals run, then, by an admittedly biased editor with obviously poor scientific judgement if you expect to have any credibility.

      • OK, David, I’m not going to do your work for you so please explain why the paleo climatologic community hockey stick graphs don’t match known historical events nor the elevation and poleward movements of tree lines.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote:
        David, you need to critique MM03 directly to have any credibility.

        Here’s a critique:

        “NOTE ON PAPER BY MCINTYRE AND MCKITRICK IN “ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT”
        Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes

        The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771, 2003) claims to be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998) or “MBH98”. An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following
        the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the
        work of MBH98, and is no way a “correction” of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98. The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the
        criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity…..”

        https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/EandEPaperProblem_03nov03.pdf

      • I said you critique it, not spout vague Mann lies. Since Mann never provided his data and methods and the study had vague and inaccurate descriptions of what he did, how could anybody exactly duplicate his work?

        You do not address the use of stripbark pines nor short centered Principle Components, two of the fundamental weakness of Mann and others’ hockey sticks.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        OK, David, I’m not going to do your work for you so please explain why the paleo climatologic community hockey stick graphs don’t match known historical events nor the elevation and poleward movements of tree lines.

        Be specific.

        What “known historical events?” When?

        What elevation and poleward movements of tree lines? Be specific. Show your data.

      • Historic events: Thermopylae battle site sea level change, Vikings settling Greenland and being forced out by climate change, Thames ice fairs not possible before and after, Otzi the ice man’s body revealed by melting ice, peoples’ diaries and news events, & etc.

        Tree line changes: Mendenhall and other glaciers’ retreat revealing ancient tree trunks dated to 1,000 and 2,000 years ago, tree trunks being revealed in peat bogs & etc.

        Those are just off the top of my head. If you are not aware of them and many more, David, you haven’t been paying attention. It doesn’t take a CliSciFi paleo climatologists to observe common facts and draw obvious conclusions.

      • David Appell

        By the way Dave Fair, what really helped sink MM E&E 03 was their Fig 8 p 766. Nothing seen like it in the literature before or since. I remember reading Ray Bradley writing in his book about how mystifying he found this figure.

      • What, David? Neither you nor Ray Bradley, the renowned paleo climatologist of MBH fame, like pictures of sheep? Could it be you’ve had bad love-life experiences? Or could it be that you resent McIntyre and McKitrick showing large numbers of grazing sheep to visually support their documented contention that overgrazing contributed to the large uptick of bristlecone pines’ growth in the area, as had occurred elsewhere in the American Southwest.

        I suspect the real reason you and Bradly ridicule it is just more baseless shucking and jiving by CliSciFi practitioners and shills to hide their piss-poor science. It is clear from this example, among numerous others revealed by McIntyre and McKitrick, that they don’t screen their proxy data for suitability. I trust paleo climatologists about as much as I trust UN IPCC CliSciFi climate modelers – not in the slightest.

        BTW, it has been shown by professional statisticians that Mann’s short-centered Principle Components algorithm produces hockey sticks on its own. Using bristlecone and foxtail pines is just icing on the cake.

      • David Appell

        “McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 (GRL, EE) did not make allegations of misconduct and fraud….”

        • Steve McIntyre, 1/16/14, http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-question-rescued-polar-expedition-1.14510#comment-1204277838

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Historic events: Thermopylae battle site sea level change

        Can you be specific, and present some documented data on this?

        Vikings settling Greenland and being forced out by climate change

        Can you be specific, and present some documented data on this?

        Thames ice fairs not possible before and after

        Can you be specific on this, and present some documented data on this? I’ve heard that possibly the Thames was so contaminated with junk and so shallow that it froze then very easily. What’s the truth.

        Otzi the ice man’s body revealed by melting ice, peoples’ diaries and news events, & etc.

        Otzi was found at 3,210 meters. Why was ice melting there?

        “People’s diaries.” That’s certainly convincing evidence, whatever that means.

        “and news events.”

        Yes, please publish these words.

        “& etc.”

        Very convincing.

        Dave, all of this, ALL OF IT, is uttterly useless scientifically.

        You clearly have no idea what scientific evidence consists of.

        You’re just wasting our time.

        SMH.

      • It is certainly enough to show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, David. One doesn’t need exactitude to identify warming and cooling periods in history. You can do your own research, but there are a number of paleo climatological studies establishing the Medieval Warm Period as a worldwide event.

        I’m not on blogs to prove or disprove the validity of any specific scientific study. The preponderance of general information is sufficient to oppose fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems. That’s all I care about determining. You, David, can continue on your merry way serving as a CliSciFi shill.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        I said you critique it, not spout vague Mann lies.

        Why are these lies? Be specific.

        Since Mann never provided his data and methods

        MBH98’s methods were published in their papers. It was published before it was customary to share data via the Web, but clearly M&M got ahold of it, right?

      • OK, David, since you mentioned the picture of those lovely sheep in MM05(EE), here goes. Part of the final Discussion in MM05(EE):

        “In addition, we are struck by the lack of policy both in paleoclimate publications and in climate policy reports (e.g. IPCC, ACIA) regarding the reporting of results adverse to their claims. While it may be assumed that results adverse to their claims would be generally disclosed, we are unaware of any paleoclimate journal which explicitly articulates this as a requirement to authors. In contrast, for a prospectus offering securities to the public, officers and directors are required to affirm that the prospectus contains “full, true and plain disclosure”, which requires the disclosure of material adverse results. In MBH98, there are a number of examples, where results adverse to their claims were not reported (and in some cases, actual misrepresentations), as listed below (most of which we have discussed passim above):

        • MBH98 did not report the results adverse to their conclusions from calculations excluding bristlecone pines (contained in the BACKTO_1400-CENSORED directory). [Only by scouring through unrelated material did MM find this hidden directory.]

        • For steps prior to 1820, MBH98 did not report verification statistics other than the RE statistic. Unlike the above case, we cannot prove on the present record that Mann et al. had calculated these other statistics, but we consider it quite likely that these statistics were calculated and not reported. (In this case, we believe that diligent referees, even under the limited scope and mandate of journal peer review, should have requested the reporting of this information.)

        • MBH98 did not report results from calculations using archived Gaspé tree ring data (which did not contain the extrapolation of early values). [Mann filled in the missing 1400, 1401, 1402 and 1403 data with 1404’s data. It was done to get that series into the reconstruction which got rid of the Medieval Warm Period] Again, while we cannot prove that they actually carried out calculations using the archived version, we find it inconceivable that this unique extrapolation would have been made without previously doing a calculation using the archived version. Although the Corrigendum (six years after the event) disclosed the existence of this extrapolation, it did not disclose its uniqueness or the actual effect of this previously undisclosed extrapolation, disclosure which we believe to be essential for full disclosure, since the very existence of the extrapolation had been hidden from referees and previous readers by a misrepresentation of the start date of this series.

        • MBH98 incorrectly stated that conventional PC methods were used, which necessarily means centered calculations. [Conventional PC methods use the full length of data for PC centering instead of Mann’s short-centered method which resulted in hockey sticks.] This error in their prior disclosure should have been prominently disclosed in the Corrigendum together with its effects on PC calculations described, especially since it was at the heart of our submission then Mann et al. could then try to argue in that context that the effect was limited (an argument with which we obviously disagree). Instead, the prior incorrect disclosure was not mentioned at all in the printed Corrigendum SI, the incorrect prior disclosure is not specifically mentioned; the method itself is acknowledged, but it is not prominent and even carries a denial that the method made any difference (a claim discussed at length above).

        • The aggressive claims that MBH98 methods were “robust” (see discussion above) are extremely problematic. As noted above, Mann et al. had carried out a sensitivity study on the exclusion of the bristlecone pines and knew that their 15th century results were not robust to these sites. We also believe that they knew the instability regarding the Gaspé series (or else they wouldn’t have done the extrapolation.) We find it difficult to understand how the claims to robustness could have made under these circumstances. We are also struck by the extremely limited extent of due diligence involved in peer review as carried out by paleoclimate journals, as compared with the level of due diligence involved in auditing financial statements or carrying out a feasibility study in mineral development. For example, “peer review” in even the most eminent paleoclimate publications, as presently practiced, does not typically involve any examination of data, replication of calculations or ensuring that data and computational procedures are archived. We are not suggesting peer reviewers should be auditors. Referees are not compensated for their efforts and journals would not be able to get unpaid peer reviewers to carry out thorough audits. We ourselves do not have explicit recommendations on resolving this problem, although ensuring the archiving of code and data as used is an obvious and inexpensive way of mitigating the problem. But it seems self-evident to us that, recognizing the limited due diligence of paleoclimate journal peer review, it would have been prudent for someone to have actually checked MBH98 data and methods against original data before adopting MBH98 results in the main IPCC promotional graphics.”

        Yep, MBH98 (and other hockey stick studies) is peer reviewed science at its finest.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        You do not address the use of stripbark pines

        What’s the issue? So many replications since have found a hockey stick, some using only sea surface proxies, like Osman+ 2021….

        nor short centered Principle Components

        Covered in papers after that, and in Mann’s book as well. It’s a nonissue.

        As shown by how many replications there have been of the hockey stick, using completely different statistical methods.

        As shown by the simple heuristic argument I’ve presented here many times that no one has ever been able to refute.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Why do some of those papers have Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages?

        Which papers have global MWPs and global LIAs?

        List them.

      • Why don’t you list the ones with hockey sticks, plus the proxies and Principle Component centering method used? I’m not about to wade through a bunch of paleo studies that don’t provide their data nor methods. The Climategate whistleblower, along with McIntyre and McKitrick and other auditors, provide all the evidence an objective observer needs to conclude the paleo climatological field is hopelessly corrupt.

        “Heuristic” – a nice big word. What is your argument? CO2 drives temperatures? Hee, hee.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Have you personally verified that every one of the long list of papers adhered to data collection and retention standards, did not cherrypick data to reach a conclusion, used statistical methods approved by statistical professionals or otherwise to produce a paper that was designed to tell a story?

        Because they’re published in high quality peer reviewed journals, and followed by many papers that replicate the papers by other methods.

        I’m pretty sure that none of the papers’ peer reviewers went to that trouble because peer review is not designed to detect fraud nor are exhaustive enough to verify data and methods.

        Why are you sure of this?

        What’s your proof of and fraud whatsoever?

        Why don’t they verify data and methods?

        Why would you know anything at all about any of this?

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Dressler citing Loeb has nothing to do with my comment; determining exactly Earth’s Energy Imbalance is a separate issue.

        It’s not a separate issue!

        Loeb et al is how the energy imbalance is determined, as Dessler pointed out.

        Dave, you’re getting so useless to respond to, I’m done with you. You have no science to present, just hyperbole.

        Bye.

      • To repeat, David: “My comment had to do with the accuracy of measuring the huge energy flows in the Earth’s climate system.” Please try to keep up.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        To repeat, David: “My comment had to do with the accuracy of measuring the huge energy flows in the Earth’s climate system.”

        No one has tried to measure them.

        Because you don’t need them to determine the Earth’s energy imbalance.

      • Trenberth and others have, David. One of the Trenberth graphs I recall had the uncertainties listed for each energy flow estimate.

        Only with the advent of ARGO do we have the ability to estimate EEI. It appears to be between 0.25% and 0.30% over approximately the last 15 years (and that includes back-to-back Super El Ninos). Big whoop-de-do!

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Why don’t you list the ones with hockey sticks, plus the proxies and Principle Component centering method used?

        Again, here’s the list. You can read through the abstracts yourself. But there are many other statistical methodologies, which all get hockey sticks, which shows the robustness of the hockey stick.

        http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html

        “Heuristic” – a nice big word. What is your argument? CO2 drives temperatures? Hee, hee.

        Yes, it does.

        Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think Earth doesn’t emit it?

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair,

        • MBH98 did not report the results adverse to their conclusions from calculations excluding bristlecone pines (contained in the BACKTO_1400-CENSORED directory). [Only by scouring through unrelated material did MM find this hidden directory.]

        So?

        Etc for your other points. Because MM wrote them doesn’t mean they’re correct. In fact, others like Amman disagreed with MM.

        MBH wasn’t perfect. But it was still a great advance, and all the subsequence similar findings, dozens since, show that MBH were correct — there is a hockey stick. MBH98 was original new work and, importantly, included error bars and changed the paleoclimate field.

        You know the Bohr model of the atom? It wasn’t correct either, but it changed physics forever. It’s biggest flaw was that it ignored that electrons moving in circles around the nucleus were accelerating and thus, according to classical laws of electromagnetism, would have been radiating. You can show they should have spiraled into the nucleus in ~10^-10 seconds. The Bohr model doesn’t explain the Zeeman effect (due to spin) or Stark effect. It rarely works for large atoms.

        But the Bohr model was an enormous advance in the field.

        So was MBH98, and it was a far far better model than the Bohr model. There’s a reason Mann has received so many awards, many voted on by his colleagues, and advancements in his field.

        So many other statistical methods have some along with the same results that one wonders why you’re so obsessed with MBH. In 2008 Mann+ showed that even without tree rings, other proxies give a hockey stick since 1300 CE. And they didn’t use PCA analysis, they used both CPS and RegEM.

        Osman+ Nature 2021 used SST proxies only and got a hockey stick over the entire Holocene.

        It’s time for you and everyone else to drop your obsession.

      • David, you are repeating the same crap you and the Hockey Team were spouting during Mann’s hockey stick wars. MBH98 was one of a number of early attempt to use multiple different proxy types in reconstructing past temperatures using statistical methods. One of Mann’s failings was that he developed novel statistical techniques without the input of professional statisticians (Mann admitted he wasn’t a statistician).

        Since you mention Ammann, I note Ammann and Wahl’s paper to the Geophysical Research Letters journal (GRL) tried to refute McIntyre and McKitrick’s MM05(GRL) paper which analyzed MBH98 negatively. Ammann’s paper was rejected by the GRL editor after it was submitted and reviewed twice by two different sets of reviewers. The rejected Ammann and Wahl paper purported to be, among other things, a justification for Mann using a Reduction of Error (RE) verification statistic benchmark of zero which was shown by MM05(GRL) to be incorrect.

        The original Ammann and Wahl 2005 paper purporting to recreate MHB98 was submitted to the journal Climatic Change (CC) without a full suite of verification statistics. The original paper cited the then-rejected GRL paper as justification for the RE benchmark of zero. Since the GRL paper was rejected, there was no justification for Mann’s benchmark of zero. Accordingly, MBH98 failed its RE statistical test and therefor is not a “robust” recreation of temperatures back to AD 1400. The paper was still being cited much later after its rejection by the Hockey Team and Sir John Houghton who was in charge of the IPCC science section.

        Ammann and Wahl’s original CC paper was eagerly grabbed up by the IPCC for AR4 to bolster its claim that hockey sticks describe past temperatures. The problem is that the paper was not the one finally accepted by GRL, Ammann and Wahl 2006 [AW06(CC)]. The CC editor, Stephen Schneider of “honesty vs effectiveness” fame, allowed the politicized IPCC, led by Sir John Houghton, to cite an unpublished paper.

        The final version of the paper AW06(CC) as approved by GRL, after much pressure by Steve McIntyre, contained the real and proper verification statistics. The verification statistic R^2 varies from 1 (100% correlation) to 0 (no correlation). MBH98 as reconstructed in AW06(CC) had maximum R^2 verification statistics for all of the year-sections in the handle of the hockey stick at 0.156 and a maximum of 0.189 for the blade. It got so bad they had to add an extra couple of zero in the AD 1700 step of the handle to get 0.00003! Can’t have zero correlation, you know. Had those correlation statistics been in UN IPCC AR4 15 years ago, we might not be in the insane position we are in now with respect to climate change hysteria.

        But you know all of this, David; you were there cheering on the Hockey Team. Did you get a team T-shirt? My next reply will cover more of your crap comments. Stay tuned.

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        oshman & teirney have 200+ year resolution on the shaft – Resolution that low is never going to show elevated or depressed temp periods

        the study is oddly silent on the time resolution of the blade in their reconstruction – Appel – can you point to the time resolution of the proxies in the blade

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        One of Mann’s failings was that he developed novel statistical techniques without the input of professional statisticians (Mann admitted he wasn’t a statistician).

        Why is this a failing?

        The math is too difficult for an engineer, but not for a physicist.

      • Yeah, David, but I don’t have to rely on my math skill; there are professional statisticians for that. From Mark Stein’s “A Disgrace to the Profession:”

        Drs. Blakely B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner are both statistical experts and academics. In 2011 they published a paper in the Annals of Statistics called “A statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years reliable?” A reading of their conclusions indicates they aren’t reliable and there are fundamental weakness in the various hocky stick studies they reviewed:

        “… the proxies do not predict temperatures significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature … The proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and the sharp run-up of temperature in the 1990s … thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena … several hundred years ago… We conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a “long handled” hockey stick … is lacking in the data. … limited amount of proxy data … is weakly predictive of global temperatures. … Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s … Even proxy based models with approximately the same amount of reconstructive skill, produce strikingly dissimilar historical backcasts; some of those look like hockey sticks but most do not. … It is not clear that the proxies currently used to predict temperatures are even predictive of it at the scale of several decades let alone over many centuries.”

        I’m not going to bother quoting other statistical critiques of Mann and his “Hockey Team” covering a number of studies. Suffice it to say that there are many credible studies such as the 2009 study by Dr. Bo Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute of 9 Mann-involved studies plus a number of others with “different” methods that blow up the hockey stick studies.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Ammann and Wahl’s original CC paper was eagerly grabbed up by the IPCC for AR4 to bolster its claim that hockey sticks describe past temperatures. The problem is that the paper was not the one finally accepted by GRL, Ammann and Wahl 2006 [AW06(CC)]

        Big deal LOL. So the paper was revised and submitted to another journal. Happens a thousand times a day in the scientific community.

        BTW, MM 2005 was rejected by Nature.

      • No, David. Both versions of the same study were handled by the journal Climate Change (CC) with Stephen Schneider (of “honest vs effectiveness” fame) being editor. The version sent to the IPCC did not have the final version’s failing validation statistics that Steve McIntyre forced them to put in.

        The IPCC’s Sir John Houghton had to have a study to bolster his hockey stick claims to keep the hysteria at a high pitch, but a paper with failing validation statistics would be seen by the world for the farce it was. Accordingly, with a wink and a nod, Schneider sent over a version without the paper’s failing validation statistics, then surreptitiously published the version with the failing statistics as CliSciFi eyewash. As far as the world knew, the version in AR4 was the real Ammann and Wahl 2006 (CC) paper.

        You know all of this but you continue to shuck and jive in your role as a CliSciFi shill.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Trenberth and others have, David. One of the Trenberth graphs I recall had the uncertainties listed for each energy flow estimate.

        Please cite it. I’d really like to read that paper.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Only with the advent of ARGO do we have the ability to estimate EEI. It appears to be between 0.25% and 0.30% over approximately the last 15 years (and that includes back-to-back Super El Ninos). Big whoop-de-do!

        The EEI is what’s causing our 0.2-0.25 C/decade surface warming trend. That’s what will cause a 3 C warming by 2100 — that’s half the warming of an Ice Age.

        You think a half-Ice Age’s worth of warming is a “Big whoop-de-do.” Based on what reasoning?

      • Prove all of the mild temperature increase was CO2-driven, David. We need exact figures and no UN IPCC CliSciFi models allowed.

      • David Appell

        Mind, that’s a half Ice Age’s worth of warming in 250 years.

        The last time it happened it took about 6,000 years.

        So our warming is 24x.

      • Prove it, David.

      • David Appell

        not a scientist commented:
        oshman & teirney have 200+ year resolution on the shaft

        Osman et al:

        “Assimilation of the LGM-to-present climate evolution at 200-year
        intervals directly reflects our underlying proxy data compilation. ~96%
        of the proxy records have a median resolution that is higher than 200
        years (Extended Data Fig. 1). However, if all >60,000 compiled data
        points are considered together, >90% of the paleoclimate data have
        sample resolutions of ≤ 200 years.”

        MBH98 assembled a proxy network of 415 records, some with annual resolution.

        PAGES 2k 2013 had 511, including a 30-yr resolution pollen series starting in 340 AD

        PAGES2k 2018 had 692 proxy records.

        It’s never enough. You’ll always find something to complain about, because for some reason you’re biased against the hockey stick and for some reason you’re obsessed about it, no matter how many times it’s been replicated by experts using over a half dozen different statistical methodologies and hundreds of proxy records of high- and low-resolutions.

        And no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you that a very simple heuristic argument implies there HAS to be a hockey stick according to fundamental physics.

        I’m done discussing the hockey stick with you people until you can point to a current peer reviewed study that refutes it. Actually, a few dozen of them. I’m not going back to history 20 years ago because it’s now utterly irrelevant. You only present it because you don’t have any science to present in refutation.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 30, 2022 at 2:13 pm |
        “Mind, that’s a half Ice Age’s worth of warming in 250 years.”

        “The last time it happened it took about 6,000 years.”

        “So our warming is 24x.”

        Appell – the resolution of the oshman/tienery reconstruction and the marcot reconstruction are 200+ years while the mondern day resolution is no worse than monthly – The accuracy of the conclusion is limited by the precision of the measuring devise. It worse than precision as fine as millimeters when the most acurate measuring device available is a yardstick without any incremental markings.

        Tienery made several twitter comments that the best resolution for most of the proxies was only 150-50 years. In otherwords, she admitted that the reconstruction was not nearly as robust as advertised.

      • David Appell

        “Over the Common Era (CE, the past 2,000 yr), palaeoclimate proxy-based observations of temperature and climate forcings are available at up to sub-annual resolution and cover much of the globe.”

        “To be used in this assimilation, PAGES 2k v2.0.0 records need to exhibit annual (or better) resolution, as well as at least 25 yr of overlap with the instrumental datasets to calibrate the PSMs [Proxy System Models].”

        PAGES 2k Nat Geo 2019
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0

      • “ I’m done discussing the hockey stick with you people …..”

        No you aren’t. You have too little self awareness to ever pass up the bait.

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        Tienery made several twitter comments that the best resolution for most of the proxies was only 150-50 years. In otherwords, she admitted that the reconstruction was not nearly as robust as advertised.

        The reconstruction isn’t made with a single proxy, is it?

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        Appell – Proudly stating –
        “MBH98 assembled a proxy network of 415 records, some with annual resolution.”

        “PAGES 2k 2013 had 511, including a 30-yr resolution pollen series starting in 340 AD”

        “PAGES2k 2018 had 692 proxy records.”

        Appell – we should be impressed with mbh98 – “some with annual resolution”

        Appell – we should be impressed with the 415 proxy records, and the 511 proxy records, and the 692 proxy records !

        Appell how many of those proxy records are long proxy records – 50%, 20% less than 10%.?
        Appell – how many of those long proxy records have a blade?
        Appell – how robust are those long proxy records that dont have a blade?

        When you have an answer – let us know

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 30, 2022 at 4:19 pm |
        the non scientist commented:
        Tienery made several twitter comments that the best resolution for most of the proxies was only 150-50 years. In otherwords, she admitted that the reconstruction was not nearly as robust as advertised.

        The reconstruction isn’t made with a single proxy, is it?

        Appell your question is completely non responsive to the statement tierney made on twitter . Try to read her statements before you make further statements completely unrelated to her comments

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        Appell how many of those proxy records are long proxy records – 50%, 20% less than 10%.?
        Appell – how many of those long proxy records have a blade?
        Appell – how robust are those long proxy records that dont have a blade?

        You can do the research for yourself about the 50%, 20% and 10% numbers. The proxies are all gathered in a nice database now, by PAGES 2k.

        Likewise you can do the research on blades, long proxies with and without a blade. I’m not here to be your tutor.

        For the last time, you don’t proxy records that cover the entire period. (Although Osman+ has them.)

        That’s why they’re called r-e-c-o-n-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n-s.

        They all the proxy information they have and stitch it all together to get a time series. You put them together and they do or don’t overlap in time, with error bars, and that goes into determining the error bars of the final curve. MBH98 was notable for including error bars for the first time. They’re pretty wide, too, the further back in time one goes.

        The blade comes mostly from measured temperatures. There’s a calibration period over which proxies can be calibrated because temperatures are known.

        You should know this.

        Now I’m done. If you think the research is in error, document it with your reasoning, sent a letter to the relevant journal where the editor will review it, send it to some peer reviewers if she/he thinks it looks worth it and, if it passes, publish it with a reply from the authors. You’re an expert and that’s how experts do it.

      • David Appell

        The reconstruction isn’t made with a single proxy, is it?

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        Tienery made several twitter comments that the best resolution for most of the proxies was only 150-50 years. In otherwords, she admitted that the reconstruction was not nearly as robust as advertised.

        Did she say she doesn’t stand by her paper?

        If not, and you’re quoting her favorably, then you must think their Figure 2 is right.

      • David Appell

        Osman+ Figure 2 is a hockey stick with a flat 8,000 year stick, a 1 degC blade over the 100 years or so, and no global MWP or LIA. Just a little downward blip of a Younger Dryas too, on a global scale.

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        Tienery made several twitter comments that the best resolution for most of the proxies was only 150-50 years. In otherwords, she admitted that the reconstruction was not nearly as robust as advertised.

        I’ve been through her Twitter timeline and don’t see where she wrote anything like this. Got links?

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 30, 2022 at 4:58 pm |
        the non scientist commented:
        Appell how many of those proxy records are long proxy records – 50%, 20% less than 10%.?
        Appell – how many of those long proxy records have a blade?
        Appell – how robust are those long proxy records that dont have a blade?

        You can do the research for yourself about the 50%, 20% and 10% numbers. The proxies are all gathered in a nice database now, by PAGES 2k.

        Likewise you can do the research on blades, long proxies with and without a blade. I’m not here to be your tutor.

        Appell
        – you are the one chearleading the 500-600 proxies used in the pages2k etc, Yet you are oblivious to the number of long proxies that extend into the mwp . You are oblivious to the calibration issues associated with those few long proxies,

        You keep repeating the robustness of oshman & tierney, yet you are display obliviousness to the 200+ year resolution and obvious limitations of measurements with such low resolution

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented on A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition.
        “in response to David Appell:
        Mind, that’s a half Ice Age’s worth of warming in 250 years. The last time it happened it took about 6,000 years. So our warming is 24x.”
        Prove it, David.

        3 C warming from 1850 to 2100 = 1.2 C/century

        Last Glacial Maximum (LGM): 23,000 years ago
        Start of Holocene: 11,000 years ago
        Ice Age warming from LGM = 6 C
        so warming from LGM took 12,000 years.

        That is, 3 C in 6,000 years.

        warming rate from LGM to Holocene = 6 C/12,000 yrs = 0.05 C/century

        so current rate will be 1.2/0.05 = 24 times faster.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Prove all of the mild temperature increase was CO2-driven, David.

        Don’t need to. Other GHGs are involved too, esp CH4 and N2O. Aerosols (mostly SO2 air pollution) are a cooling factor. You’ve surely seen this chart before which shows only the tiniest of influence from the Sun, and otherwise all anthropogenic:

        https://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg

      • OK, David, according to HadCRUT5 from the 10-year period averages 1850-1859 to 2005-2014 the world warmed by about 0.91 C. How much of that warming was caused by the anthropogenic forcings shown in the UN IPCC cartoon?

        UN IPCC CliSciFi models are not proof: They don’t track past and present temperatures (Early 20th Century warming and the Pause are just 2 examples.), have the missing tropical troposphere Hot Spot and generally make a hash of all the regional climate metrics. They are not sufficient evidence to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Drs. Blakely B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner are both statistical experts and academics.

        McShane works in the Marketing department — he’s not a scientist. Neither is Wyner.

        Their paper has just two equations!

        https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-statistics/volume-5/issue-1/A-statistical-analysis-of-multiple-temperature-proxies–Are-reconstructions/10.1214/10-AOAS398.full

        and rejoinders exist:

        Craigmile and Rajaratnam, same journal 2011:

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51888609_Discussion_of_A_statistical_analysis_of_multiple_temperature_proxiesAre_reconstructions_of_surface_temperatures_over_the_last_1000_yearsreliable

        Wahl and Ammann, same journal 2011:

        “…despite a good effort to capture the various points of contention in the reconstruction arena, MW provide an incomplete, and at times inadequate, review of the existing literature considering reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures over the past millennium. In particular, the evaluations cited regarding the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) reconstruction (1998/1999) and MBH’s use of principal component (PC) summaries of dendroclimatic proxy data fail to address this issue properly, and in the process propagate errors that have been fully addressed in the literature. Similarly, MW omit important information in their examination of the methodology outlined and used by Ammann and Wahl (2007)….”

        https://t.ly/bTvh

        That’s a pretty devastating critique.

        The proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and the sharp run-up of temperature in the 1990s … thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena … several hundred years ago

        Here’s a great example of where their lack of knowledge of the field shows their limitations. This was the well known “divergence problem” that everyone in the reconstruction business new about, and which I’ve already mentioned to you:

        “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
        tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.

        So just because a paper exists doesn’t mean it’s truth and you have to be wary of people coming from outside a field because they’re not familiar with all the work that’s gone on like the experts do.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Drs. Blakely B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner are both statistical experts and academics.

        McShane works in the Marketing department — he’s not a scientist. Neither is Wyner.

        Their paper has just two equations!

        https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-statistics/volume-5/issue-1/A-statistical-analysis-of-multiple-temperature-proxies–Are-reconstructions/10.1214/10-AOAS398.full

        and rejoinders exist:

        Craigmile and Rajaratnam, same journal 2011:

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51888609_Discussion_of_A_statistical_analysis_of_multiple_temperature_proxiesAre_reconstructions_of_surface_temperatures_over_the_last_1000_yearsreliable

        More in the next comment.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Drs. Blakely B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner are both statistical experts and academics.

        Wahl and Ammann, same journal 2011:

        “…despite a good effort to capture the various points of contention in the reconstruction arena, MW provide an incomplete, and at times inadequate, review of the existing literature considering reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures over the past millennium. In particular, the evaluations cited regarding the original Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) reconstruction (1998/1999) and MBH’s use of principal component (PC) summaries of dendroclimatic proxy data fail to address this issue properly, and in the process propagate errors that have been fully addressed in the literature. Similarly, MW omit important information in their examination of the methodology outlined and used by Ammann and Wahl (2007)….”

        https://t.ly/bTvh

        That’s a pretty devastating critique.

      • And I can’t get a copy of the paper.

        Oh, David, Wahl and Ammann are not statisticians, ether.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote:
        Joe, the “scholarly articles” consistently omit any information that might confuse the narrative. Peer review has been shown to be inadequate to validate studies’ data and methods

        Nobody claims peer review is perfect.

        What’s better?

      • What’s better, David, is the paleo climatological community freely and promptly providing their data and methods. And I mean fully describing the methods used to screen, sort and process data and the methods used to statistically validate their models.

        Since most all of the proxy series have been around for some time their properties are well known, which can affect the collection, scaling and processing of proxy data (“Data Snooping”) prior to designing the study protocols. Of course, we know the Hockey Team would never do that.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        with Stephen Schneider (of “honest vs effectiveness” fame)

        So now you need to denigrate him too.

        Why not be fair and quote him in full?

        “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)”

        I hope that means being both.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider#Media_contributions

        Not interested in rehashing the rest of your (always fallacious) takes on history.

      • Eyewash, David.

      • Scientists are humans. Humans have feelings and humans think according to their feelings.
        Scientists think according to their feelings.

        Humans should always tell the truth. Scientists should always tell the truth.

        When someone doesn’t tell the truth, he losses the ability to know when others do not tell the truth.

        But even more important – when someone doesn’t tell the truth, he losses the ability to know, about himself, when either he tells the truth, or not.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        What’s better, David, is the paleo climatological community freely and promptly providing their data and methods. And I mean fully describing the methods used to screen, sort and process data and the methods used to statistically validate their models.

        Data and methods are described in the papers. The papers are written for scientists, not amateurs. If you want to understand them you’re going to have to put in a lot of work to get up to their speed. They’re not going to write to an amateur level because there’s too much demand to publish peer reviewed work in journals and it’s too time consuming and costly to publish each page.

        Watson and Crick’s famous paper on the structure of DNA was only one page.

        Since most all of the proxy series have been around for some time their properties are well known, which can affect the collection, scaling and processing of proxy data (“Data Snooping”) prior to designing the study protocols. Of course, we know the Hockey Team would never do that.

        PAGES 2k now has a comprehensive database where all proxies are stored in a machine readable format. It’s somewhere on their PAGES 2k Network site.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        OK, David, according to HadCRUT5 from the 10-year period averages 1850-1859 to 2005-2014 the world warmed by about 0.91 C. How much of that warming was caused by the anthropogenic forcings shown in the UN IPCC cartoon?

        You should know this.

        The science says > 100%.

        Some of the warming is countered by anthropogenic aerosols.

        UN IPCC CliSciFi models are not proof: They don’t track past and present temperatures (Early 20th Century warming and the Pause are just 2 examples.), have the missing tropical troposphere Hot Spot and generally make a hash of all the regional climate metrics. They are not sufficient evidence to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems.

        The GCMs are certainly good enough to show that global mean surface temperature is proportional to cumulative emissions, and the data shows that too. That alone shows the planet’s species are in big trouble if we keep emitting CO2 and GMST keeps increasing. GCMs certainly don’t need to project every twist and wiggle in the curve (and the tropo hot spot has too large of observational uncertainties to make conclusions about; see my blog about Fred Singer’s lecture at Portland St University maybe 10 years ago). Would you like 2 C of GW? 2.5 C? 3 C? How much longer are you going to keep denying?

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        And I can’t get a copy of the paper.

        Not my problem. Ask your local librarian. Write to the paper’s lead author and ask. Politely.

        Oh, David, Wahl and Ammann are not statisticians, ether.

        Big deal! Statistics isn’t that difficult. The two statisticians you cited aren’t scientists. As I pointed out, as did W&A, they didn’t even know about the existence of the Divergence Problem. That kind of thing really subtracts from their credibility.

      • David, your desperation is beginning to show. Maybe Robert I. Ellison is getting under your skin.

        “Statistics isn’t that difficult.” Really? You have personal experience in the field? Your “scientists” that misuse statistics should be your target, not the professionals pointing out their errors.

        Could it be people weren’t aware of the divergence problem because the dendrochronology practitioners were not up front about it and actively tried to hide it by truncating Biffra’s graph at 1960?

        What does it matter that statistical professionals were unaware of Mann and the Hockey Team’s dirty laundry? The whistleblower initiating Climategate was fed up with the lack of integrity exhibited by Mann and the boys which carries over into all of their dealings. They still use stripbark pines and short-centered principle component analysis in defiance of the National Academies of Science telling them not to do it.

      • Right! They took Michael Mann’s “Statistics for Dummies” course. :)

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        “Statistics isn’t that difficult.” Really? You have personal experience in the field?

        Yes — it’s just logic and algebra.

        What would you know about it?

        Do engineers ever learn anything beyond differential and integral calculus?

        Vector calculus? Linear algebra? Special differential equations? Complex analysis? PDEs? Differential geometry? Group theory? Spinors? Riemannian geometry? Path integrals?

        All basic math necessary for physics graduate students.

        So, yes, statistics isn’t difficult.

        But, as your statisticians showed, knowing the basic science, such as the divergence problem, requires more work than they were willing to put in.

        Could it be people weren’t aware of the divergence problem because the dendrochronology practitioners were not up front about it and actively tried to hide it by truncating Biffra’s graph at 1960?

        No. The problem was so well known that a REVIEW PAPER was written in 2008, three years before the statisticians from the Marketing department:

        “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
        tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
        http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        “Statistics isn’t that difficult.” Really? You have personal experience in the field?

        Yes — it’s just logic and algebra.

        What would you know about it?

        Do engineers ever learn anything beyond differential and integral calculus?

        Vector calculus? Linear algebra? Special differential equations? Complex analysis? PDEs? Differential geometry? Group theory? Spinors? Riemannian geometry? Path integrals?

        All basic math necessary for physics graduate students.

        So, yes, statistics isn’t difficult.

      • Hey, David, if it is so easy why don’t you try:

        GRL Vol 32 October 21, 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick’s Reply to comments by Huber on “Hockey sticks, principle components and spurious significance”

        Tell us what it says.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Could it be people weren’t aware of the divergence problem because the dendrochronology practitioners were not up front about it and actively tried to hide it by truncating Biffra’s graph at 1960?

        No.

        But I’m tired of Judith censoring my replies.

        Dave Fair thinking he can argue about anything, no matter how poor his knowledge.

        Robert’s endless insults as he tries to balance himself and regain form.

        And besides I have work to do.

        So I’m out of this post. Good luck boys, and you can all have the last words.

  9. I read the other articles from your tweet. To say your article is the least alarmed is a huge understatement.

    After I finished the gloom and doom articles, I thought I had imagined the contrary evidence that I have been reading over the last several years and it was just a bad dream. I must have missed something. How could I come up with so much uncertainty when these other authors were so convinced of their frantic positions.

    We can all cite the litany of reasons not to be alarmed. The only conclusion I can come up with is that those authors are intentionally ignoring it.

    • Jane Fonda

      “ Scientists have been very clear: We have to cut our fossil fuel emissions in half by 2030,” she said. “We have eight years — that’s just four election cycles — before the point of no return. And there’s no question that the obstacle between saving the planet and not is the money that has a stranglehold on our politicians.”

      I take back everything I said. I was wrong. When Hanoi Jane speaks, I listen.

  10. So what climate would you select as being representative of the late 1700’s?

    Tonyb

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Jane Fonda? Geoff S

    • Geoff

      I wasn’t sure if your question about Jane Fonda was a comical question to Tony or a serious question to me that you really didn’t know who she is.

      In case it is the latter, she is one celebrities of many who I liked and admired in the 1960s and 1970s as performers, (also Barbra Streisand and many others) but have lost their way and turned the corner.

      • Jane Fonda tried to kill me in Vietnam by providing material and propaganda to Hanoi and almost succeeded. I’d execute Hanoi Jane in a heartbeat.

    • Jane Fonda was and is known as “Hanoi Jane.”

      Among all the soldiers, officers, spies, politicians, socialists, anti-war activists, and draft dodgers, somehow actress Jane Fonda became one of the most controversial figures during the Vietnam War. And while the Oscar-winning actress is still enjoying a successful career to this day — currently starring in the comedy “Grace and Frankie” and the Robert Redford romantic drama “Our Souls at Night,” both on Netflix — she has still not been able outrun the notoriety of her actions in Vietnam.

      Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s PBS documentary series “The Vietnam War” digs into Fonda’s 1972 visit to North Vietnam in Episode 9, titled “A Disrespectful Loyalty.” Although many of her actions, including speaking on Radio Hanoi and denying the reported conditions of American POWS, drew criticism, it was her posing for a photo on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun that sparked widespread hatred among veterans and the South Vietnamese alike, and earned her the nickname “Hanoi Jane.”

      https://www.indiewire.com/2017/09/the-vietnam-war-jane-fonda-vietnam-photo-hanoi-jane-pbs-1201880919/

      • That’s what real treason looks like. And yet, she lived without being harassed or killed.

      • Hi Jim2,

        I was in the Navy on the gunline off of Vietnam when Jane did her antiwar tour. I wasn’t offended. By that time I agreed with her and marched against the war after I got out.

        “It is because I love my country that I want her to be just.”

      • TF – I wasn’t commenting on the rightness of the war. I have mixed feelings about it myself. But consorting with the people who were killing our soldiers was and still is wrong.

    • This should warm the cockles of your heart!

      Recovering additional historical weather observations from known archival sources will improve understanding of how the climate is changing and enable detailed examination of unusual events within the historical record. The UK National Meteorological Archive recently scanned more than 66,000 paper sheets containing 5.28 million hand-written monthly rainfall observations taken across the UK and Ireland between 1677 and 1960. Only a small fraction of these observations were previously digitally available for climate scientists to analyse. More than 16,000 volunteer citizen scientists completed the transcription of these sheets of observations during early 2020 using the RainfallRescue.org website, built using the Zooniverse platform. A total of 3.34 million observations from more than 6000 locations have so far been quality controlled and made openly available. This has increased the total number of monthly rainfall observations that are available for this time period and region by a factor of six. The newly rescued observations will enable longer and much improved reconstructions of past variations in rainfall across the British and Irish Isles, including for periods of significant flooding and drought. Specifically, this data should allow the official gridded monthly rainfall reconstructions for the UK to be extended back to 1836, and even earlier for some regions.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/26/rescued-victorian-rainfall-data-smashes-former-records/

  11. Thank you for essay. I appreciate the argument for thoughtful pragmatism.

    Nitpick: I noticed the sentence “Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.” appears as the last sentence of two consecutive paragraphs in the Towards a “Plan B” section. I suspect you were making editorial decisions between the two paragraphs but left both versions in this copy.

  12. Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D.

    Plan C should be to knock down hard on plan “A” as an entirely false narrative promoted centrally by deliberate falsifiers who benefit from the fame of their outrageous claims. Evidence is not allowed. The null hypothesis does not exist. We are in the realm of “post-science,” a close relative of the “post modern” nonsense of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Every outrageous claim gets credence from its outrageousness.Judy, I fault you on giving any credit to the Keeling “curve” , the thin reed on which a lot of this nonsense is based. Data from a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean shows CO2 going up and up and up. Yes, that might be frightening but no-one really knows what it means, if anything. First of all, it is not really a curve, not deviating significantly from a straight line. Secondly, contaminants in the immediate atmosphere from rapid economic growth on the big island, huge commercial jets arriving at Kona on a daily if not hourly basis, tremendously increasing highway traffic and abundantly increasing manufacture of cement. This is taken as the most authoritative and often cited “evidence” of man-made CO2, and the feeble and inconsistent increase in global temperature is taken as the correlative ’cause.” The emperor has absolutely no clothes, my friends. If you know anything about what science really is including the rudiments of scientific method, you should be throwing up your hands in horror. That is the true crisis here.

    • Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D. commented:
      Data from a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean shows CO2 going up and up and up.

      You seem to think no one else has ever thought of this before.

      Or that there aren’t good reasons against your objection.

      Or that CO2 isn’t measured in a great many other places around Earth.

    • Ronald G. Havelock, Ph.D. wrote:
      First of all, it is not really a curve, not deviating significantly from a straight line.

      The Keeling Curve is clearly not a straight line. LOL.

  13. Excellent article, Judith, thank you. While I disagree with your portraying global warming as any kind of problem, there is much in the article which has some sort of chance of persuading those not rusted onto CAGW and greenism that there is a better way forward. If only there was some sort of chance that those people might actually read it.

  14. We should delete all references to monetary compensations as well as trading in carbon credits.
    Once this has been achieved (as difficult as it appears – problems with rent seekers here), maybe the world can continue on peacefully.

  15. Charles Rotter

    Resistance to nuclear power can be eliminated by renaming the plants Zelensky Cleantech Centers.

  16. The current approach to Net Zero is bound to fail as the price to be paid(in both senses) is too high for most economies too great. However, a cautious approach using a gas transition to nuclear power would work. This has the further advantage that even if the hysteria proves unjustified we still end up in a good place.
    A lighthearted suggestion on how to do this is at the TCW Defending Freedom blog under the title ‘The Sensible Speech on Climate the PM will never make’.

    JF

  17. Robert D Clark

    It is still just GLOBAL ICE MAKING And GLOBAL ICE MELTING with simple High School science to explain the rast!!!!!

    • Robert D Clark

      I went back and read my explanation of GLOBAL ICE MAKING and GLOBAL ICE MELTING. The coldest temperature of the salt water at the bottom of the oceans is 28 degrees farenheight.

  18. Prosperity and thriving both require healthy eco-systems. COVID and resource wars are both symptoms of ecological collapse. We have been in chronic global ecological overshoot for over fifty years and climate change is just one symptom. We are seeing escalating inflation and stagflation this reflects the fact that money becomes increasingly vulnerable during ecological collapse. We need to address the cultural causes of ecological collapse https://medium.com/@barbarawilliams1/cultural-causes-of-climate-injustice-b59fb7d7f6de

    • Ecological collapse has not a darn thing to do with any of that. Wow! You are having Unicorn Nightmares. Wake up and smell the roses. Have a nice, thick, juicy steak. Or a 3 inch thick pork chop BBQ’ed over mesquite. Much better than those insects! Yuck!

    • Barbara

      With respect, I agree with your first sentence about healthy eco-systems but inflation is a result of fiscal and monetary policy of the last few years. From 2000 to 2020 we had an annual inflation rate of ~2%. At an annualized rate, inflation tripled in the first part of 2021. Both FY 2020 and FY 2021 Federal spending was 50% above trend. Also, the Federal Reserve increased its balance sheet significantly. Both affected the increase in the M2 Money Supply. All 3 amounts are interrelated.

      These 2 charts illustrate perhaps the most significant factors in our current inflation.

      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WSHOSHO

  19. I would agree that weather can be a wicked mess but not climate – climate, by definition, occurs over a 30-year period so rational adaptation is expected if we actually knew enough to know something bad was really coming and that solves the problem. The big reason it’s hard to actually ‘know’ is that global warming actually brings benefits and maybe in that positive, irrespective of what we may or may not do.

    • Niels Bohr said, “it is very difficult to predict — especially the future.

      • not michael mann

        Wagathon | March 19, 2022 at 12:33 pm | Reply
        Niels Bohr said, “it is very difficult to predict — especially the future.

        So yogi berra stole it from Niels Bohr – isnt that acedemic fraud? asking for a friend.

      • David Appell

        Wagathon commented:
        Niels Bohr said, “it is very difficult to predict — especially the future.

        As climate scientists have been pointing out for decades, it’s impossible to predict the future, only to project it.

        I see the message still has eluded many.

      • Prediction is associated with fraud whereas projection is associated with superstition and bias. Either can be the product of animus and self-serving charlatanism.

  20. Dear Dr. Curry,
    I read what you wrote, twice, and skimmed it a couple more times.
    I read some of the other nineteen pieces and skimmed all the rest.

    You wrote:
    Vast sums spent on attempting to prevent climate change come from the same funds that effectively hold our insurance against all threats; hence, this focus on climate change could overall increase our vulnerability to other threats. The best insurance against any and all of these threats is to try to understand them.

    That could best be done if we first understood the natural causes of climate change and that would allow the removal of the “Wicked” label.

    We can never understand the climate change threats if we do not even try to understand the natural causes.

  21. Your article is the least alarmed among them!
    You say that it is still wicked.

    Climate Change has made all of our current life forms on Earth more resilient, this is what evolved and survived all the previous changes.

  22. “To make progress on this, we need to disabuse ourselves of the hubris that we can control the Earth’s climate and prevent extreme weather events. ”

    We can control Earth’s climate.

    We live in an icehouse climate because we have a cold ocean- the average temperature of the ocean is about 3.5 C.

    And I would want Earth to have a warmer ocean.
    And I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting a colder ocean.

    But generally our ocean has been getting colder and when it’s about .2 or .3 C cooler, we should be entering a glaciation period.
    I don’t think/imagine most people want live in a glaciation period.

    If we explore Mars, and you do have some people who want colder conditions, Mars might be suitable for them.

    I think some people could want it colder due to “religious reasons”, they are following a feeling, a unconscious yearning.

    And planet Mars is certainly in the heavens. And Mars doesn’t have extreme weather events, unless you count global dust storms as an extreme weather event.
    I think it would good idea to stop those global dust storms, but since it’s natural, the Martians might prefer to keep the dust storms.

  23. What we really need is a energy dense, cheap, safe, abundant and reliable energy source. And productive cropping and grazing. Then most of the planet can stop wondering if human emissions and the atmospheric CO2 spike this interglacial are purely coincidental. The latter is known to be with great blogoscience precision most certainly nothing to worry about.

  24. “I have no question that human ingenuity is up to the task of better providing for the needs and wants of Earth’s human inhabitants, while supporting habitats and species diversity”.

    Really? In the slightly over 50 years I have been around I have not observed much that doesn’t imply the opposite. The curve of bio-diversity disappearing can be directly overlaid with the curve of our numbers increasing… Of course we need to stop burning fossil fuels, releasing the equivalent of n Hiroshima bombs of energy every few seconds was never a good idea, and it also acidifies the oceans. The laws of thermo-dynamics reign supreme – not Human guess work as to what they can get away with!

    Human wellbeing cannot improve without improving the environment.
    Pollution is one of our major worries, and above all we should absolutely stop expanding our numbers. Human ingenuity came up with contraception, Human stupidity, greed, fear held back its use.

    The fact that Human casualties have been going down in the past doesn’t mean in any way that this trend will continue in future. Remember the warnings they give on financial products about past performance not being an indicator of future one.

    Human metabolism can only take a certain degree of warmth combined with a certain humidity. It has neither changed, nor adapted to what is coming our way.

    • I award you an A+ for Green Extremist Alarmism. You are a astute student of Green Propaganda. I’m sure your parents are proud.

      • Esther Phillips

        My parents may or may not have been proud of me but I am not proud of them. My father was a physicist, his speciality was thermo-dynamics. He knew perfectly well what was coming my way and I wish he had thought things through some more. I have hardly spent a day on this Earth when I wasn’t bemoaning what Humans are doing replacing untold beauty with their all to often ugly debris and hubris, terribly upset about what is happening to bio-diversity, and frankly with the cruelty of the whole thing, that is no longer compensated by its sheer beauty.

        He should have known better than siring a child, and we don’t have any.

      • Esther Phillips | March 18, 2022 at 12:03 pm |
        “My parents may or may not have been proud of me but I am not proud of them.”

        One of the good things about getting older is that we can sometimes change our views with the information that living longer brings.
        A good way of looking at one’s parents is to imagine what good advice they would say to you if they were aware of how you were going.
        My parents have passed away, when I think of them; I only think of how good they were and only of all the good things that they did for me and others.
        Having good thoughts and ignoring negative feelings is a productive way of coping with life’s exigencies.

        “My father was a physicist, his speciality was thermo-dynamics.”

        Intriguing.
        “Of course we need to stop burning fossil fuels, releasing the equivalent of n Hiroshima bombs of energy every few seconds was never a good idea, and it also acidifies the oceans.”

        The energy of a Hiroshima nuclear bomb is a terribly emotive and distressing image.
        Perhaps if you used your father’s skills you would be able to work out .
        a. How many Hiroshima bombs of energy hit the earth every day thankfully warming up our world to where we can live.
        b. How few bombs are actually involved in the energy released every few seconds by burning fossil fuel. Also known as not very much.
        c. The variation in the number of bombs depending on climate sensitivity which the burning might invoke.
        Not quite the same as your actual claim.
        d. Ocean acidification ? An interesting claim.

    • Yes Esther, good points. If innovation works, why has it gotten us to this point, in a sixth mass extinction, rapid climate change, polluted cities, fossil fuels that prematurely kill 1 in 5, an acidifying ocean, sea level rise, even rapidly increasing space junk.

      We have decades of data showing that “innovation” does not work.

      So MORE innovation is supposed to solve our problems? The issue is that greedy multinational corporations will use any innovations to make even more profits at the expense of the environment, which they clearly do not care about despite all their lip service.

      It’s rampant, destructive runaway multinational global capitalism that needs to be regulated, because there is no end to its greed and political corruption and all the environmental metrics show it.

    • “Pollution is one of our major worries, and above all we should absolutely stop expanding our numbers. Human ingenuity came up with contraception, Human stupidity, greed, fear held back its use.”

      What’s your plan for reducing the population? Ours is increasing energy which increases wealth and access to education and is proven to result in significantly lower birth rates. Countries with high birth rates are poor and without access to energy. If you want more people and less effort on pollution- make people poor.

    • Esther – go out and have a nice meal. Steak, pork chops, or even a well prepared chicken. You are just too pessimistic and miserable. Life has survived millions of years, with and without mankind. You probably know that when it comes to species extinction, the most narrow definition of a species is used. If 10 minnows have adapted to a pond in a cave somewhere, they are considered a species. DNA is much more adaptable than that. Species have always come and gone. It still happens that way. If your Dad is still alive, you should apologize to him. That might actually make you feel better – more human.

  25. Regarding “optimum temperature”.

    The planet doesn’t have one. It just responds to whatever variables influence it. In the last billion years the global average has varied between 5C and 25C.

    Human civilization does have an optimum. Everything from house design to the height of docks and naval facilities, to the design of railway tracks is optimised for local conditions when they were built. Most of our infrastructure dates from the mid 20th century and is optimised for a global average temperature around 14.0C.

    We are now almost 1C warmer and it’s showing. The Norfolk,Virginia naval base is repeatedly flooding as sea levels rise. In Alaska, Canada and Siberia structures built on permafrost are collapsing as the underlying soil thaws.

    In India pre-monsoon heat waves are bringing cities above the 35C wet-bulb temperature which is the human maximum tolerance.

    While Earth has no optimum temperature, we certainly do.

    • It would also appear that certain pollutants affect reasoning capacity. Considering the benchmark from where we’re starting this has to be terrifying – I mean how low can we go when only the tiniest fraction understand the word “finite” to start off with.

    • Lots of well meaning words that essentially mean nothing. The climate is always changing. If temps were dropping there would be challenges as well. Just different. The best way to meet these challenges is to create wealth and unleash innovation and adaption. What we know for sure is the US is better equipped to deal with rising sea levels in Norfolk than India is with wet bulb temps. And it’s not like India is suddenly deluged with 35C wet-bulb temperatures. They’ve always had to deal with these. There may be more days like this now, but greater wealth will make them better equipped to mitigate them. And what we also know is that India will burn all the coal it needs to make this happen.

      • David Appell

        Jim Veenbaas commented:
        The climate is always changing.

        How much so? How much did climate change in the 10,000 years before the industrial era?

  26. I have not seen any discussion in your blog about methane pyrolysis as a component of Plan B. Did I miss any thoughts about that?

  27. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That?

  28. “The dangers of manmade climate change have been confounded with natural weather and climate variability.”

    One can become a cult hero these days for getting AGW to own individual extreme weather events.

    • Ulric Lyons wrote:
      One can become a cult hero these days for getting AGW to own individual extreme weather events.

      It’s what the data show, of which you seem to care little.

      “Among its [IPCC AR6 WG1] key conclusions is that it is an “established fact” that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have “led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial times”.

      “Explainer: What the new IPCC report says about extreme weather and climate change,” CarbonBrief, 10.08.2021

      https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-and-climate-change

      • The historic data shows larger summer floods in Germany and China when the globe was cooler. Cliff Mass did a good study on the US heat dome, AGW not a factor. Otto’s attribution study on the 2019 European heatwave is irrational, the negative deep NAO conditions which the Saharan plume depended on, are of the wrong sign to associate with higher CO2 forcing, but are predictably more common during centennial solar minima, as are stronger Atlantic hurricanes, and as is AMO and Arctic warming. I care little for fake scientific claims.

      • David Appell

        Ulric Lyons commented:
        Cliff Mass did a good study on the US heat dome, AGW not a factor.

        It wasn’t a “US heat dome,” it was in the Pacific Northwest.

        And his analysis was a joke. Here’s an example of how bad it was: an obviously incorrect claim of “no trend” by Cliff Mass:

        https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/07/an-obviously-false-claim-from-cliff-mass.html

      • David Appell

        Ulric Lyons wrote:
        The historic data shows larger summer floods in Germany and China when the globe was cooler.

        Data?

      • Greater summer floods in China and Germany are mostly during a warm AMO phase, and which is normal during centennial solar minima. Attributing them to AGW is strictly antiscience. Increased climate forcing leads to drier summers in NW Europe and southern China.

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

        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/08/05/german-floods-update/

  29. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? – ChicHue.com

  30. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News

  31. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition |

  32. David Appell:

    You say that the MWP wasn’t much warmer than today

    During the MWP, they were farming in Greenland, and the Alps were nearly ice-free . MUCH warmer than now!

    The MWP was also global, with severe droughts around the globe

    • Burl Henry commented:
      You say that the MWP wasn’t much warmer than today
      During the MWP, they were farming in Greenland, and the Alps were nearly ice-free . MUCH warmer than now!

      I haven’t said anything about the warmth of the MWP, only that the science shows it wasn’t global.

      Warmth in two regions doesn’t show it was global.

      And the farming in Greenland might have been short-lived and even a public relations claim to get people to move there, as was naming it “Greenland.” It’s not scientific proof of anything.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 18, 2022 at 10:21 am | Reply
        Burl Henry commented:
        You say that the MWP wasn’t much warmer than today
        During the MWP, they were farming in Greenland, and the Alps were nearly ice-free . MUCH warmer than now!

        ‘And the farming in Greenland might have been short-lived ……” ” It’s not scientific proof of anything.”

        Appell – contrair – It is scientific proof that the proxies are poorly calibrated. simply put – it as example of proxies which dont reconcile to known historical events.

  33. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? - News7g

  34. Alarmism more often than not leads us to do the opposite of what’s appropriate. Sudden change of coarse sunk the titanic, exposing its side chambers to damage. Also why we have “Don’t Veer for Deer” campaigns. Our instincts are often not suited for the novelty of the modern world.

    Another instance is high gasoline prices back in the 2000s erased much of the engineer fuel efficiency improvements at the time and may do so again.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1503705571240955904

    • aaron commented:
      Alarmism more often than not leads us to do the opposite of what’s appropriate. Sudden change of coarse sunk the titanic, exposing its side chambers to damage.

      Good one, thanks.

      By all means, let’s steer straight into the iceberg. And the one after that, and after that, and the next one, ad infinitum…..

  35. Pingback: 기후 변화 및 에너지 전환을 해결하기 위한 ‘플랜 B’ – 와트 업? – Blog Ciencia

  36. Judith

    There is only Plan A. The free world is on its way. Although if we count size of government, taxing and spending neither Australia or the USA ae in the top 10 of the Heritage Foundation index of economic freedom. The future is cyberpunk. The singularity occurs on January 26th 2065 when an automated IKEA factory becomes self-aware and commences converting all global resources to flat pack furniture. Until then – endless innovation on information technology and cybernetics will accelerate and continue to push the limits of what it is to be human and to challenge the adaptability of social structures. New movements, fads, music, designer drugs, cat videos and dance moves will sweep the planet like Mexican waves in the zeitgeist. Materials will be stronger and lighter. Life will be cluttered with holographic TV’s, waterless washing machines, ultrasonic blenders, quantum computers, hover cars and artificially intelligent phones. Annoying phones that cry when you don’t charge them – taking on that role from cars that beep when you don’t put a seat belt on. Space capable flying cars will have seat belts that lock and tension without any intervention of your part. All this will use vastly more energy and materials this century as populations grow and wealth increases.

    The finite, foreseeable but incalculable risk of sudden and unwelcome cooling, floods, droughts, heat waves, seems less the point than the exciting energy and other technologies emerging at an accelerating pace from the cornucopia of innovation. Safe, cheap, reliable, abundant energy is now coming from nuclear fuels. More so as more advanced designs reach the market.

    There are some new voices under this post I see. All well and good. Now if you could persuade your climate curmudgeons from their echo chamber ratbaggery – discussion might move beyond perennial talking points.

    Robert

    • Robert I. Ellison wrote:
      Now if you could persuade your climate curmudgeons from their echo chamber ratbaggery – discussion might move beyond perennial talking points.

      Translation: it really annoys Robert when people disagree with his self-recognized genius, because only he has all the answers.

      • I was more talkin’ unicorns and flowers snark – and not David’s flying butt monkeys. I do it all for chuckles not ego. 🤣 I was just thinking about the vanishingly small probability of a whale and flowers appearing in the stratosphere and plummeting to Earth? In infinite time and space the probability of anything however improbable approaches unity. The Adams principle. My God corollary is that Sartre showed that being and nothingness can’t coexist and therefore the universe is infinite, eternal and full of God. Don’t panic David.

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented:
        I was more talkin’ unicorns and flowers snark – and not David’s flying butt monkeys. I do it all for chuckles not ego. 🤣 I was just thinking about the vanishingly small probability of a whale and flowers appearing in the stratosphere and plummeting to Earth? In infinite time and space the probability of anything however improbable approaches unity. The Adams principle. My God corollary is that Sartre showed that being and nothingness can’t coexist and therefore the universe is infinite, eternal and full of God. Don’t panic David.

        I don’t have a clue what any of this means besides you getting yourself off. Hope you had fun.

      • ‘Now if you could persuade your climate curmudgeons from their echo chamber ratbaggery – discussion might move beyond perennial talking points.’

        If DA could stop it the discussion would never get past the same old contested climate memes.

  37. Here is a good use of stranded natural gas. Make bitcoin! Jack! Pay attention!!

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7v49n/inside-a-bitcoin-mine-at-a-natural-gas-well-in-texas

    • Wait till you see how much energy it’s going to take to run the metaverse! Once the Singularity arrives it will put a stop to this nonsense (humanity).

  38. Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Climate- Science.press

  39. Good article.

    So many Climate Change “humanists” seem to forget all about the starvation, water quality, shelter, flooding, healthcare, literacy and other issues that affect so many incredibly people in this world — and then they (e.g. Bill Gates) turn around to act so very concerned about ocean rise possibly causing displacement of similarly disadvantaged populations 5% of the total size of the poor populations which would greatly benefit from more abundant energy.

    These humanists also express no gratitude for, and discuss no credible explanation for, the increased food supply that is now supporting 8 Billion vs. the 4-5 Billion “breaking point” I grew up hearing about. I believe this food supply increase to be the direct result of increased fertilizer (fossil fuels), biotech, pesticides, fuel-driven machinery, irrigation, and increased levels of CO2.

    Your article uniquely puts these critical issues back into the mix of priorities we need to address.

    They (e.g. Al Gore) also never come back to apologize for alarmingly overstating the predicted damages — as proven in real life experience vs. some of their shorter term predictions that have simply proved to be false. The ignore anything except “worst case” and never give their irrationality a second thought.

    Also, the exact same people who fought nuclear generation of electricity to near death have now flip-flopped to become supporters. They shouldn’t even be allowed to weigh in without disclosing their previous anti-nuclear positions.

    Thank you for saying “carbon dioxide” instead of “carbon”.

  40. Interesting article. I disagreed with much of the analysis, for example, I see political, financial and eco-obsessive traits making the alleged climate crisis a “Wicked” problem rather than complex technical issues (ambiguity intended). Nevertheless, the subject is very complex and poorly understood. It has always been so, I see no need to worry about it.
    But we arrived at the same outcome which is that Net Zero is dead. It is not possible for a start. The Germans thought that the answer to wind intermittency is more turbines. Amazingly, the IEA think that too, but then it consists of energy ministers so what do you expect? Germany has found that when the wind isn’t blowing, they simply get a lot more turbines that are doing nothing. But worse than that, their electricity prices have to turn negative to get rid of the stuff. Politicians have never understood that supply and demand must always balance. Net zero has many other problems too, but being impossible, impractical, hugely expensive and unfit for purpose will do for now.
    Finally, I do agree with the modular nuclear suggestion, but it does bring different problems. Solving these for the longer term future deserves decent investment. Renewables are not really the answer to anything. They require subsidies of some sort in order to have a business case and then they are hugely expensive in many ways that are not obvious to politicians.
    I tend to find Happer and Wijngaarden’s work far more credible than the IPCC brand of science and I just fail to understand why the models have even a shred of credibility. Dr Curry, I suspect that you reject the idea of band saturation and the value of HITRAN compared with useless models. Why is that?

    • Peter commented:
      Nevertheless, the subject is very complex and poorly understood. It has always been so, I see no need to worry about it.

      Holy cow. How does a problem being “poorly understood” make it not worth worrying about?? By that logic a great many issues aren’t worth “worrying about” — releasing genetically modified organisms into nature, COVID-19, the future of artificial intelligence, and so on and so on.

      Poorly understood problems, especially one coming on as strong as climate change, are worth worrying about *more*, because the trend is very bad and is leading to half an Ice Age’s worth of warming in 200 years. That will utterly transform the planet, just as such warming did 20,000 years ago and in all the Ice Age warmings in the past, and hyperthermals in the past.

      I think your statement is illogical.

  41. “So, exactly what is wrong with this grand narrative of climate change? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem of climate change and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debates. ”

    What wrong is the propaganda tool of expression “climate change”.
    We are not “vastly oversimplified”. The simple fact is we are in an icehouse global climate. We are simply in an Ice Age and in last couple million years of this Ice Age has been the coldest period within our 34 million year old icehouse climate.
    We also are not at the peak global surface air temperature of the Holocene interglacial period which was about 8000 years ago.

    Few seem to aware of what global warming would look like, I suggest looking back 8000 years ago, when it was warmer.
    From that starting point, determine why it would different 8000 years year later, if it got close to such higher global temperatures.

    What we doing is looking at tail end of the Holocene period with significantly colder ocean of about 3.5 C, and imagining CO2 levels are going to make difference.
    All we have roughly done is recover from the coldest period of the Holocene
    {from the “Little Ice Age”} and not clear we are much warmer the past warm periods in the last 5000 years of cooling which caused the greatest “climate change” of turning the grassland of the Sahara desert into a vast inhabitable desert.

    It seems to me that if our 3.5 C ocean were to warm back to 4 C, the Sahara Desert could turn back into grassland or return to African Humid Period, which has always happened in previous interglacial period when there at their peak temperatures. Though it might require centuries of warmer conditions for this to happen- have most of Sahara desert being a grassland, with forests, rivers and lakes.

    • gbaikie commented:
      The simple fact is we are in an icehouse global climate. We are simply in an Ice Age and in last couple million years of this Ice Age has been the coldest period within our 34 million year old icehouse climate.

      I’m baffled why anyone thinks this is a clever argument.

      It’s utterly irrelevant. We live now, not 34 Myrs ago. Climate is changing now, not then. Temperature change matters now, not millions of years ago.

      “Ice Age” anything is irrelevant to anything to do with us. Our climate is changing very rapidly and we have to deal with that here and now and it doesn’t matter what it was 200 years ago or 2000 years ago or 10,000 or 1 Myrs ago.

      • –I’m baffled why anyone thinks this is a clever argument.–

        It is not an argument, rather it’s a known fact, Wiki:
        “The Late Cenozoic Ice Age began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing”
        So, it’s, you are here. And here is called the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
        Which has been going on for about 34 million years.
        What could count as argument is we going to continue in this Late Cenozoic Ice Age for millions of years.
        Now, you might argue that Ice Age is only 2 million years as this is taught in elementary school.
        And this correct. Of the last 33.9 million the last 2 million year has been considerably colder.

        –It’s utterly irrelevant. We live now, not 34 Myrs ago. Climate is changing now, not then. Temperature change matters now, not millions of years ago.–
        Well, 30 million years ago, it was much warmer. But you can much warmer, just 8000 years ago, during Holocene’s peak temperature and this would be related to “temperature change matters now,”,
        And obviously, Earth is not warm now.
        It is claimed the Earth has been in snowball global climate, which is much colder, then our current icehouse global climate, and Earth has had many greenhouse global climate, which a lot warmer then at any time within our 34 million year Ice Age.

        Now, for sake of having an argument:
        If average all with the glaciation periods {much longer then the interglacial period} with all interglacial periods the average surface air temperature of the last 33.9 million years, it should be slightly warmer than present average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.

        That is my opinion and you could argue with that.
        The basis for this argument is that the early 32 million part of our Ice Age was much warmer as compared to last 1.9 million years

        Or I would say last 1.9 million year didn’t have average ocean temperature much above 4 C, whereas in early 32 million part, the average ocean had been as warm as about 6 C.
        Other aspects of 32 million part didn’t have ice sheet on Greenland- and Earth had less desert areas
        It should noted that a 6 C average temperature of ocean is still a cold ocean, and our ocean at the moment is about 3.5 C

        So, one could argue with this.

      • David, show us any non-Hockey Stick paleo reconstructions that show that [climate] “changes right now are extremely rapid” compared to Holocene variations. And I don’t mean splicing thermometer readings on to the end of paleo reconstructions. Marcott’s fraudulent study had paleo temperature resolutions of 300 years compared to the daily resolutions of thermometers.

      • Fair comment, my words were perhaps poorly chosen and require some explanation. We know that the development of life survived atmospheric CO2 concentrations much higher than today, for example, 8,000 ppm. There is no evidence of tipping points, in fact our climate is remarkably stable. This also suggests a dominance of negative feedbacks. Positive feedbacks are associated with instability and we have the opposite.

        The apparent breakdown of the IPCC favoured response to increasing GHG concentrations can readily be explained by the W&H explanation of band saturation. Photon absorption appears to be at its most effective when the gases first enter the atmosphere and rapidly become less effective at higher concentrations. I suspect that the electromagnetic interaction between the IR photon and molecules with dipoles has less impact when the background dipole flux is relatively high.

        Whatever the effect, it is very fortunate for mankind. It appears that snowball earth was warmed to a comfortable temperature, suitable for life, but then the warming per additional gas molecules reduced, leaving our planet temperature in the Goldilocks zone.

        Temperature oscillations are not unusual in our recent history though they are not fully understood. However, they are well documented and there is no doubt that the Roman period, Medieval Warming Period and much earlier ones have changed our climate from time to time. It seems that such periods were generally warmer than today.

        There are plenty of possible explanations. I don’t subscribe to the “CO2 controls our climate” cult. I tend to believe that a number of ever changing variables are quite capable of delivering our ever changing climate. This is not the time to discuss these but clearly cloud coverage, solar effects and ocean oscillations must be high on the list.

        Then we get to the assessment of evidence and science. Sadly, we seem to be in the “Lost Decades” period when the science has been politicized to such a degree that scientific evidence is funded to support the policy decisions. I have no time for the concept of settled science. Science is never settled, and particularly not when there are over a hundred different models with clearly different results trying to simulate one climate. The ECS is not settled either. After decades and trillions of dollars, the IPCC brand of science has failed.

        The W&H work on saturation is based on measured spectral transmission, not failed climate models. The W&H work is confirmed by satellite measurements. So when I review all of the points made in this comment, I can say that greenhouse warming is not a concern. It does not worry me at all.

        But I am worried. The junk IPCC science, level of alarmist propaganda and exploitation of the scientific ignorance of our politicians does worry me a great deal. We are creating a future based on fantasy science, fantasy energy solutions and technology that may never exist.

        To give a simple example, as stated recently, we may be 12,000 years into a 10,000 year interglacial warm period. How will we survive if we enter a very cold period and our energy policy is based on wind turbines with frozen bearings and solar panels covered in snow? I won’t even mention the effect of cold weather on electric vehicles but thank goodness the people of the Ukraine are not dependent on electrically powered vehicles in their flight for survival.

      • david clark

        David Appell–” Our climate is changing very rapidly and we have to deal with that here and now ”

        That is untrue and you know it. Today’s climate is was warming at the same rate as the late 1800s, mid 1900s and late 1900s. I said was warming since we are currently at teh 30 year average temperature.

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        david clark | April 1, 2022 at 1:25 am |
        David Appell–” Our climate is changing very rapidly and we have to deal with that here and now ”

        “That is untrue and you know it. Today’s climate is was warming at the same rate as the late 1800s, mid 1900s and late 1900s. I said was warming since we are currently at teh 30 year average temperature.”

        There is also the claim that the current warming is the fastest in the last 10k years or the last 20k years. Whether that claim is true or not, it simply cant be determined since the resolution of the proxy is by far too low to provide sufficient insight to make that determination. Everyone who has studied the proxy data knows that

      • David Appell

        Joe wrote:
        “That is untrue and you know it. Today’s climate is was warming at the same rate as the late 1800s, mid 1900s and late 1900s. I said was warming since we are currently at teh 30 year average temperature.”

        But the present warming is lasting much longer at this rate.

        There is also the claim that the current warming is the fastest in the last 10k years or the last 20k years. Whether that claim is true or not, it simply cant be determined since the resolution of the proxy is by far too low to provide sufficient insight to make that determination. Everyone who has studied the proxy data knows that

        No. For one thing, there are many scattered proxies all over the globe. Their windows cross over one another, they aren’t laying exactly on top of one another.

        For another thing, climate models of the past show absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any anomalous warmings or coolings in these 200-year gaps you’re trying to imply exist. Do you think there might be a 3 C cooling spike hidden between 12,000 BC and 11,800 BC???

  42. “…we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem of climate change and its solutions”. Of course. But I want to emphasise that oversimplifying the solutions is by far the worse of those problems. And the biggest obstacle is the people who should know better – from our universities, learned academies and societies, professional bodies, think tanks, media, energy corporations, etc. There is an institutionalized ignorance that leads to a universal simplistic false conclusion that solar and wind energy will “fix climate change”. OK, these renewables have a wonderful image and they do put out lots of nice clean electricity. But the clean electricity “problem” was solved 60 years ago. It simply doesn’t rank today.

    Forgotten, or more likely unknown, is the plain fact that of the world’s total consumption of fossil fuels only 31.6% is fed into power stations (data for 2020, see latest BP statistical report). So, 68.4% is not. (Apologies for spelling that out but the level of innumeracy in energy commentaries is another alarming fact.) Cleaning up existing power generation goes less than a third of the way to eliminating the need for fossil fuels. Who knew that? All of the other two-thirds needs somehow to move away from fossil fuel energy, or chemicals, sources. This is a massive problem, unrecognised at the political level. What’s more there are sound reasons to expect it to be extremely hard to solve. After all fossil fuels didn’t come into use as substitutes for some other existing inferior source. They were the very genesis of the technologies and products that brought us to our present prosperity.

    Our real alarm should be focussed on the naivety and magical thinking that drive present climate and energy policy.

    • Tom,

      There is a misunderstanding about the impacts of global warming. Empirical data for the eight main impact sectors (agriculture, forestry, storms sea levels, health, ecosystems, water, energy) indicates that all except sea levels benefit from global warming, or the impacts are negligible. Therefore, there is no valid justification for policies and actions to try to reduce global warming. It is beneficial, not harmful.

      These two figures show the economic impacts for the Energy impact sector:

      https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-12-03575/article_deploy/html/images/energies-12-03575-g009-550.jpg

      Figure 9. Economic impact of US energy expenditure as functions of GMST change, relative to 2000. Pink solid line is the Julia FUND3.9 projection. Pink dashed line is the projection with non-temperature drivers constant at 2010 values. The orange dashed line is from the EIA data.

      https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-12-03575/article_deploy/html/images/energies-12-03575-g015-550.jpg

      Figure 15. FUND3.9 projected global sectoral economic impact of climate change as a function of GMST change from 2000. Total* is of all impact sectors except energy.

      Source:
      https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm

    • Global warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are beneficial, not harmful. Here are a few key facts.

      1. Global mean surface temperature (GMST) of the planet has been warmer than now for 90% of the past 540 Ma. It was 17.5 °C warmer 250 Ma ago, 13.2 °C warmer 93 Ma ago and 10.5 C° warmer 51 Ma ago [1].

      2. The planet is currently in one of the coldest icehouse periods in the last 540 Ma. There has been no ice at the poles for 70% of the past 540 Ma. The icehouse phases occur at about 150 Ma intervals. The coldest icehouse phases occur at about 300 Ma intervals. They last about 70 Ma. We are currently about 20 Ma into the current icehouse phase.

      3. Currently, GMST is about 15 C, average tropical temp is about 26.4 °C, and average polar temp is about -15.8 °C. 51 Ma ago GMST was 25.5 °C, average tropical temps were 31.4 °C, and average polar temps were 9.0 °C. Therefore, a 10 °C increase in GMST increases average tropical temps by about 5 °C and average polar temps by about 25 °C. That is, the polar temps increase 5 times more than the tropical temps.

      4. Life thrived when the planet was warmer and struggled when colder. 50 Ma ago forests extended from pole to pole (except in the driest inland deserts).

      5. Dinosaurs lived in much warmer times. They weighed up to 70 tonnes. Huge dinosaurs and other animals lived in the Arctic and Antarctic.

      6. During the last ice age (21 ka ago) GMST was about 6° C colder than now and the planet was much more arid than now. There was much less vegetation and animal life.

      7. Global warming saves lives. Deaths due to warming are about half as many as deaths due to cooling. Warming causes a much greater reduction in deaths in extra-tropical latitudes than in the tropics.

      Reference:

      1. Scotese, C.R.; Song, H.; Mills, B.J.W.; van der Meer, D.G. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years. Earth-Science Reviews 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103503.

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        Global warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are beneficial, not harmful. Here are a few key facts.
        1. Global mean surface temperature (GMST) of the planet has been warmer than now for 90% of the past 540 Ma.

        Proves absolutely nothing about what’s beneficial, since humans were around for essentially 0% of those 540 Myrs.

        My God, you’d think any even semi-intelligent economist would know and recognize this.

        This is why the vast majority of climate scientists think climate economists are completely useless.

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        2. The planet is currently in one of the coldest icehouse periods in the last 540 Ma.

        Even worse!

        Humans live now, not then. So do all the other ~10M species on Earth.

        A 10-year old knows this. Why doesn’t a climate economist??

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        4. Life thrived when the planet was warmer and struggled when colder. 50 Ma ago forests extended from pole to pole (except in the driest inland deserts).

        Self-proclaimed expert in climate economics doesn’t understand the most basic fact, which is that the issue isn’t about *climate* it’s about the rate of CLIMATE CHANGE and whether todays 10M species can adapt to it’s nearly unprecedented rate.

        Honestly, how can anyone NOT know this?

      • David Appell

        Peter Lang commented:
        7. Global warming saves lives.

        No proof, no comprehensive data, no evidence given whatsoever.

        Really Peter, you could not have posted a better comment that shows you don’t have a single clue. You have no ability whatsoever to analyze this topic in a real, analytical, meaningful, convincing way. None whatsoever.

        You are utterly inept, Peter.

  43. Judith,

    You remarked, “In spite of the numerous UN treaties and agreements to reduce emissions over the past two decades, the atmospheric CO2 concentration relentlessly continues to increase.”

    That is not surprising because there is no unequivocal evidence that drastically reducing anthropogenic CO2 will have the desired results.

    2020 had the largest decline in anthropogenic emissions in history. Yet, the 2020 seasonal CO2 ramp-up phase is indistinguishable from 2019, and the annual, average global 2020 temperature is at least tied with the 2016 El Nino event. Some apologists say that the reason the global temperature (and atmospheric CO2 levels) did not respond to the anthropogenic decline is that even with improbable declines in anthropogenic emissions, it will take several years to be measurable — several years that some say we don’t have. That is another way of saying that there is currently no empirical evidence to support their beliefs that draconian reductions of fossil fuel use will result in a cessation of the growth of atmospheric CO2 levels. We are asked to accept as an article of faith that re-organizing our energy infrastructure will ‘save’ us. That is about as believable as saying “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

    • Clyde Spencer:

      There is a paper which is supportive of your comments :

      “Experimental Proof that Carbon Dioxide does NOT Cause Global Warming”

      http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se

      • Clyde Spencer

        Burl,
        Actually, what I am claiming is that the small anthropogenic contribution of around 4% of the total CO2 flux is not only swamped by temperature-induced variations in out-gassing and bacterial decomposition, but if anthro’ emissions were to disappear, the reduced partial pressure would allow for increased out-gassing to at least partially compensate for the loss of anthro’ CO2. Temperature is driving CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

      • David Appell

        Burl Henry wrote:
        “Experimental Proof that Carbon Dioxide does NOT Cause Global Warming”

        Complete bull, of course.

        Whatever it claims, it’s wrong.

    • Clyde Spencer commented:
      2020 had the largest decline in anthropogenic emissions in history. Yet, the 2020 seasonal CO2 ramp-up phase is indistinguishable from 2019, and the annual, average global 2020 temperature is at least tied with the 2016 El Nino event.

      Completely false.

      If you think otherwise, let’s see your proof. With numbers. With links to the data.

  44. Fascinating article about the devastating consequences when Sri Lanka forced ag producers to adopt organic farming. Although not directly comparable to climate change, it forcefully demonstrates the economic devastation that occurs when ideology trumps common sense.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/

    • Jim … great piece. Thanks.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        Jim Veenbaas | March 18, 2022 at 9:27 pm | Reply
        Fascinating article about the devastating consequences when Sri Lanka forced ag producers to adopt organic farming. Although not directly comparable to climate change, it forcefully demonstrates the economic devastation that occurs when ideology trumps common sense.

        I will add the comment about ideology trumping common sense – while my comment is not climate related – it does point to the dangers of ideology.

        As noted by Thomas sowell, Sri lanka is suffering from ethnic violence for the last 40-60 years, fueled in a large part by identity politics similar to the current white guilt / CRT promoted by the progressives here in the USA.

      • David Appell

        Joe – the non climate scientist commented:
        I will add the comment about ideology trumping common sense – while my comment is not climate related – it does point to the dangers of ideology.

        Fascinating that you think you don’t have an ideology.

    • It boils down to land rights. People need title and tenure in land to feed themselves and others securely. Organic or inorganic no difference – it’s like a bank account. What is taken out must be replaced. To grow more needs more organics in living soils. The best place to take carbon from to build organic life is the sky. I think it evolved that way.

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison commented:
        It boils down to land rights. People need title and tenure in land to feed themselves and others securely.

        Why?

      • Nitrogen and phosphorus. Increasing CO2 helps with this, CO2 concentrations increase plants ability to share both more water and calories with the soil bacteria and fungi which can make these available, assuming there is phosphorus available in the dirt to convert to biologically available form.

        Ironically, subsistence farmers and the organic industry I probably able to exist primarily because of rising CO2.

        I dread what might happen if carbon capture storage becomes economical.

  45. As Investopedia wisely instructs, in a market economy consumer preferences and resource scarcity determine which goods are produced and in what quantity. “The prices in a market economy act as signals to producers and consumers who use these price signals to help make decisions. Governments play a minor role in the direction of economic activity.” In a centrally planned command economy, decision-making is centralized. “The government controls all of the supply and sets all of the demand. Prices cannot arise naturally like in a market economy, so prices in the economy must be set by government officials.”

    That pretty much defines the EV market today and as it will exist in the future under government mandates that will force the auto industry to stop selling internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. Consumers will have no choice in the matter. As Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said the other day, “it will not be voluntary.” Governments plan to control prices, investment and consumer decisions, regardless of the reality of costs.

    https://financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-myth-of-the-10-ev-recharge

  46. I think population levels should be mentioned at some point. Many are unaware that fertility and reproductive rates are plummeting. The automatic “there are too many people in the world” should be reexamined, and will affect priorities, as an ageing population will not replaced entirely by a younger one. Work will change and technology can replace some of those hands on deck, but its necessary to have able and healthy people out of doors, picking crops and in touch with the real world.

  47. Susan
    “Work will change and technology can replace some of those hands on deck, but its necessary to have able and healthy people out of doors, picking crops and in touch with the real world.”

    Yes, Susan, you are completely right!
    Ones the human population on planet starts mitigating, there will be a non stop process of plummeting.

    I did a simple calculation. If every family has one child, in two hundred years the total human population will be 10 millions.
    Yes, from the present about 10 billions the total human population in two centuries will be 10 millions.
    Christos.

  48. “So what does a Plan B actually look like?… In addition to reimagining 21st century electricity and transportation systems, progress can be made on a number of fronts related to land use, forest management, agriculture, water resource management, waste management, among many others…. Individual countries and states can serve as laboratories for solutions to their local environmental problems and climate-related risks.”

    I really enjoyed this essay, all great ideas for plan B’s would be welcome, including those dealing with the aforementioned.

    Scientific consensus as a group think phenomena not only perpetuates rigid one-sided analysis about causation, but also all ideas that deal with mitigation solutions, these include: wind, solar & EV’s, ban fossil fuels, tax the world; wind, solar & EV’s, ban fossil fuels, tax the world; wind, solar & EV’s, ban fossil fuels, tax the world; solar & EV’s, ban fossil fuels, tax the world—these are the key considerations of CAGWers code red plan A; did I miss anything?

    There have been significant inroads towards curbing release of CO2 at the organic level within society. Education (even false education) facilitates at minimum caution; this initiates a self-correcting societal mechanism that promotes environmental stewardship to deal with the issue. But thriving culture and economies won’t function if driven into the self destructive Orwellian ditch by nature of the Lefts want for draconian plan A mitigation measures. Plan B is past due.

    While political pressure has certainly served as impetus for self-correcting actions, the media rarely gives credit where it’s due, there is a plan B organically evolving. The conscious efforts within most in industry to find alternative ways of doing business is quiet, virtually invisible; this notwithstanding, once a goal-oriented mindset is established, the internalization of the goal becomes organically self-fulfilling. Capitalism is very good at ferreting out what works, and what doesn’t. I subscribe to several industry news feeds, even the evil fossil fuel industry is advancing technology, one recent example is innovation with blue hydrogen, this hit my inbox the other day: https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/reducing-emissions/carbon-capture-and-storage-baytown-blue-hydrogen-video/ This is just one small example, but even the evil fossil fuel industry isn’t sitting still.

    My plan B would include a serious study utilizing Earths remote oceanic deserts to explore artificial growth of phytoplanton to encourage sequestration of CO2, possibly massive amounts; while also promoting the fertility of these virtually dead oceans. A denizen in the prior thread posted this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Experiments The science thus far appears intriguing, and not all that far fetched; is the science behind this being intentionally ignored? The arguments against it deal with risks to coastal fisheries, etc; but the latter is a nonsensical argument in that these areas are already over fertilized “unnaturally”; critics are looking in the wrong place to find fault IMO.

    Remote oceanic deserts, dead zones, cover vast areas of the worlds oceans. The South Pacific Gyre, covering 14 million square miles is generally considered a desert in terms of marine biology. Surely we could carve out 100k square miles within the most remote oceanic regions, to at least explore a few gingerly implemented phytoplanton experiments utilizing variations of iron fertilization chemistry. Iron fertilization occurs naturally anyway.

    The South Pacific Gyre is just one example of oceanic desert. These deserts are expanding https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/an-ocean-full-of-deserts Is it possible to “stock the ocean”, turning what is near lifeless into productive oceans, and sequester massive amounts of CO2 simultaneously?

    I would enjoy an essay about this if Dr. Curry finds it a worthy topic to delve into.

    • Another potentially beneficial consideration if fertilizing remote oceanic deserts proved beneficial at sequestrating CO2. The South Pacific Gyre is among the clearest oceans in the world; as a desert, there’s little organic matter floating around. The clarity of the regions waters make them darker, therefore they’re warmed at a deeper depth than oceans with more albedo, because sunlight penetrates to greater depths. What would a phytoplankton sun screen do relative to cooling deeper waters, and ocean circulation?

  49. President Biden’s policy goals for climate action and for securing American energy independence cannot be met without imposing stringent and far-reaching energy conservation measures on America’s economy.

    How far could Joe Biden go in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels using his own authorities as President — authorities already granted to him under current law?

    This essay, posted on WUWT, uses the conceptual framework of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) as a vehicle for examining this question:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/18/a-plan-b-for-addressing-climate-change-and-the-energy-transition/#comment-3480244

    Earlier versions of the essay have already appeared at various times on WUWT. The March 19th 2022 update incorporates the energy policy impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine into the plan.

    With reference to climate change, as the President’s argument goes, America’s leadership in quickly reducing our own carbon emissions is essential for convincing other nations, especially China and India, to quickly reduce theirs.

    With reference to American energy security, Brian Deese, Biden’s chief economic advisor, said this on March 8th, 2022 concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s long term energy security: “The only viable path to energy independence for the American economy is to reduce the energy intensity of our economy overall; and ultimately, to get us in a position to where we are no longer reliant on fossil fuels.”

    Brian Deese’s recent statement is an acknowledgement of the fact that President Biden’s policy goal of quickly reducing America’s consumption of energy is central to achieving both his climate objectives and his national security objectives.

    Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, wind and solar, is claimed to be the best solution technically and economically. At the time of this writing, funding for renewable energy and for the Green New Deal is stalled in the Congress. Progressive members of Congress have called upon President Biden to declare a climate emergency and to use the full power of his office in quickly reducing America’s production and consumption of fossil fuels.

    However, even if the Green New Deal were to be fully funded, it is impossible to install enough wind turbines, enough solar panels, enough energy storage facilities, and enough new transmission lines nearly as quickly as President Biden and progressive members of Congress say it must be done.

    If President Biden and progressive members of Congress want to achieve the carbon emission reductions and the energy independence goals they claim are necessary, strictly-enforced energy conservation is the only way to get from here to there as quickly as they claim is necessary.

    • US now looking to replace Russian barrels with Venezuelan? You can’t make this stuff up – desperate times require desperate measures.

      A reminder of the folly of energy policy over the past decade. Canada, with the 3rd largest reserves, could have supplied the US and the world.

  50. Michael Cunningham aka Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

    Terrific article, Judith, it deserves a very wide dissemination. I’ve flagged it on The Australian site. Re “We can expect to be surprised by threats that we haven’t even imagined yet,” I’ve been arguing this for over 20 years, advocating developing greater resilience in the face of whatever future emerges rather than focusing on one distant and probably not very serious issue.

  51. I have an interest in Chinese EV maker NIO. I like their style. From Formula e to today. Their flagship eT7 luxury 1000km EV roadster goes on sale this month for delivery later this year. This car can drive you to a battery swap station – there are some 800 and counting – swap the battery and drive off in minutes. By it self. It will share the software with their sleek eT5 commuter. And surely taxis and minivans to come. The batteries can be leased.

    https://www.nio.com/et7

    The eT5 especially with battery leasing is cost competitive in China. So it depends on the market and China’s is huge.

    • Great graphics design on the link – I note that the eT7 is ‘purer and more progressive’. 🤣 Perhaps it means something different in China.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        We attended in China the release of a new tea made from the leaves of camellias with yellow flowers. Among the ailments it cured was “thirst”.
        Geoff S

    • Robert … a 600 mile range? Remember when Volkswagen got caught when testing the range of their diesels? All car companies fudge a bit to the positive. And that’s with stringent CAFE standards. So far, there isn’t much bureaucratic attention paid to the range stats on electric vehicles. So, in this environment who would you trust more? Ford or the Chinese? What happens when you swap out your new battery stack for one that’s old and is down to about 60% efficiency? Or worse?

      • I’m just going by press releases. An EV that is a real old road roadster. A luxury living room on wheels. They are moving into Europe this year. They would use fast charge there presumably. Fast charge points are popping up all over. Swap out battery packs in China – up to 150 kW – would be charged at the automated stations. Bad ones need recycling.

  52. Clyde

    Co2 measurements are derived artificially by completely drying out the water content. In the real world with moisture co2 concentration is typically at 520ppm or more

    Tonyb

  53. Teresa Ghilarducci says if you are in the lower classes and inflation if hurting you, just suck it up, proletariat. Instead of sucking it up, we need to vote out “progressives” who want us to live in energy poverty by killing fossil fuels and vote out or demote anyone who bows to the Green Energy Extremists!!! These people screw up everything they touch.

    If your income is more than $289,000 a year, the run-up in gas prices may be alarming — but it’s unlikely to hammer your overall finances. After all, Americans at that level spend no more than 1% of their take-home pay on gas and oil, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    For those earning much less, it’s a different story. Those at the median, with income of about $50,000, spend more than 3% of it on gas and motor oil. Low-income households making between $7,000 and $19,000 spend about 9%. The latest inflation numbers show gas prices jumped 6.6% in February from a month earlier — even before President Joe Biden banned U.S. imports of Russian oil.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-03-13/inflation-stings-most-for-those-earning-under-300-000

  54. Investors and lenders like to see tenure security, smallholder land security is a human right, there are 1000’s of common lands for billions that can be better managed for diverse values by informed locals. If government and business can cough up a few bucks without getting in the way – that would be great. Multiple projects and sectors encourages multiple sources of funds.

    https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/2022/03/15/sara-scherr-2/

  55. Funding for landscape regeneration is haphazard. I’m thinking cloud based AI with a questionnaire and a funding app.

    https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/2022/03/15/sara-scherr-2/

    ‘CONNECT. SHARE. LEARN. ACT. The world’s largest knowledge-led platform on sustainable landscapes. Browse our events, news, courses, knowledge products and join the movement!’ https://www.globallandscapesforum.org/

  56. Clearly “manmade climate change” has 2nd place! RUSSIA is the source of all…

  57. Dave Fair commented:
    David, show us any non-Hockey Stick paleo reconstructions that show that [climate] “changes right now are extremely rapid” compared to Holocene variations.

    The hockey stick is reality. There is no “non-hockey stick paleo reconstruction.”

    If you think there is, show it.

    • Why? I’ve already referred you to sources debunking Mann and the Hockey Stick Team’s misuse of proxy series and invalid statistical manipulations. Mark Stein’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” has quotes from real scientists referencing studies that show the MWP and LIA. Of course, you are continuing to dodge and weave in your position as shill for paleo climatological CliSciFi.

  58. Clyde Spencer commented:
    Besides that being an ad hominen because you are not addressing the arguments and evidence, but rather who is publishing the argument,

    Of course it’s ad hominem. Like Watts has ever refrained from attacking people personally. LOL. Get real.

    Lie down with dogs, get fleas. Next time publish somewhere better than in a den of thieves.

    • Appell,

      You are having an exchange with ME, not with Anthony Watts. I provided links to data sources that you asked for.

      You are providing lame excuses for not dealing with my analysis and data. Just because I found it convenient to publish where I did does not diminish the strength of my argument.

      Why are you hanging out here if the only thing you will accept is government USDA Grade A studies, or your own beliefs? You are like a Christian who believes that other religions don’t have any wisdom to contribute to humanity, and when someone offers you counter evidence you refuse to read it because it isn’t in the King James version of the bible. I have to assume that you are either some sort of provocateur or aren’t capable of independently analyzing scientific discourse. Either way, you aren’t coming off looking competent. Anthony was probably right to ban you. You can’t even defend your own statements except to cite the party line.

  59. CKid, you can link to all the papers you want. All of those studies go into a database of proxies that are then considered in statistical reconstruction of temperatures like PAGES 2k, Marcott et al, Osman et al, etc. They piece everything together and get their resulting regional and global curves. None show a global MWP or global LIA.

    • And the paleo climatologists making those studies have been repeatedly informed that bristlecone pines and Gaspe cedars are not representing temperatures. Marcott et. al. 2013 is outright fraud: It changed the dating on a number of proxy series to move temperature increases from the Medieval Warm Period and put increases in the post-1900 period. Additionally, real statisticians have blown apart the methods of manipulating multi-proxy reconstructions used by the Hockey Team.

      Of course, David, you know all of this and yet you still remain a shill for CliSciFi. Why are you lying here to people about the non-existence of the MWP and LIA?

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/more-evidence-for-extreme-climate-stability

      The inset diagram in figure 3 shows the global mean surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. It reveals that from 1000–1900 AD the global climate was astoundingly stable. Global mean surface temperature variations were less than 0.1°C. The inset diagram also removes any doubt about the past century’s global warming. Since 1950, the global mean surface temperature has steadily risen to a level that is now more than ten times greater than the average temperature variations observed from 1000–1900 AD.

      The temperature record derived by Osman’s team reveals that Earth’s climate over the past 7,000 years has been more stable than what any previous research team has concluded. Over that time period, the global mean surface temperature has not varied by more than ±0.15°C. Osman and his colleagues discovered that Earth’s climate is four times more stable over the past 7,000 years than what Foster and May had derived.

      Seriously – global temp variation of only 0.1c over the last 1,000 years ?
      Seriously – large glacier advances during the LIA when the the temp variation was less than 0.1c?
      Just another study that conflicts with the well known history of human civilization.

    • 02

      What should be obvious to anyone reading the literature is that data and research have been rare in the Southern Hemisphere until recently and that is the reason some have concluded the MWP and LIA were not global. That scarcity is repeated over and over by the authors of papers covering areas in the SH.

      Consequently, it has been more an absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence that some have used as an excuse.

      If you would actually read the studies that are out there, and I don’t mean those 20 I’ve linked to but the hundreds of studies that demonstrate compelling evidence for those 2 periods.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        Appell man constantly reminds us that there are numerous studies reaching the conclusion that the MWP and the LIA was not global.

        He continually provides us with links to those studies
        We continually provide the links to the underlying data used in those studies.

        As noted by Mcintyre regarding pages2k

        0-30N latitude band
        PAGES2019 Proxies with Values Prior to AD1200

        The primary purpose of “2000 year” proxy reconstructions of temperature is to compare modern temperature to estimates of medieval and first millennium temperatures. There are 41 proxies in the 0-30N network, but only three proxies with values before AD1200 and only one (!?!) proxy with values prior to AD925 (see diagram below).

        The single long proxy with values through the first millennium is a temperature reconstruction from Mg/Ca values from an ocean core offshore northern Africa. Its values decline erratically through the past two millenia, with very minor recovery in 20th century. If this is the ONLY data for the 0-30N latband through most of the first millennium, how can PAGES2K say with any confidence that modern values are higher than first millennium values?

        pages2k 0-30S latitude band

        The PAGES2K 0-30S proxy network has 46 proxies (as compared to 8 proxies in the 60-30S network). It has one – yes, one – proxy from an ocean cores and two proxies from land. 43 of 46 series are very short coral series.

        The 0-30S network only has two (!?!) proxies with values prior to AD1500: the ocean core (a temperature estimate from Mg/Ca at Makassar Strait, Indonesia [Oppo et al, Nature 2009] and the classic ice core d18O series from Quelccaya, Peru (as updated in 2013) that had been staple of Mann et al 1998-99, Jones et al 1998 and many other studies. Neither of these series contains a hockey stick; if you squint, you can discern lower values in each in a generalized LIA period.

        pages2k 30-60s latitude band

        No Ocean Proxies

        Although the 60-30S is almost entirely ocean, PAGES 2019 did not use a single ocean proxy in its data. They used only eight series (out of 19 PAGES 2017). Seven tree ring series: two from New Zealand (both less than 500 years), three from Tasmania (one long, two less than 500 years), two from southern South America (both less than 500 years) and one weird lake sediment from Chile (a “singleton” proxy using pigments in the sediments).

        Only One Long Proxy

        Only one proxy in the network has values prior to AD750 and only two proxies have values prior to AD1450. Thus, the only information directly comparing medieval and modern values comes from these two proxies: Mt Read, Tasmania (a series used as long ago as Mann et al 1998 and Jones et al 1998) and many times since and the Laguna Aculeo pigment series – neither of which have shapes remotely similar to the PAGES2K 60-30S latband reconstruction – see below. (The latband reconstruction was calculated from the enormous file at NOAA here).

        Of course there is also the Dome C and law dome (law dome being one of the highest resolution proxies in antarctica which clearly shows a elevated MWP and low LIA. Naturally gergis and pages 2k routinely use ex post screening to exclude law dome. – Appell never asks why -because the climate scientists do the “hard work”

      • Thanks Joe, I’m anxious to see what Appell has to say. Probably not anything coherent.

      • David Appell

        not a scientist wrote:
        As noted by Mcintyre regarding pages2k

        LOL

        A blog isn’t science.

        Science is published in peer reviewed scientific journals. It’s reviewed by experts and read there by experts. Discussed among them, in seminars and colloquia, analyzed and incorporated into further studies.

        McIntyre writes a blog that the scientific community doesn’t pay attention to, because scientists don’t read blogs, because the peer reviewed literature is their domain. They only read the best work, which rules out blogs. That’s how their trained, for good reason.

        In addition, McIntyre in so truculent and arrogant no one wants to deal with him, naturally.

        So no one cares what his blog says. It’s his own fault. If he wants to be taken seriously he must publish in the peer reviewed literature.

        And you, Joe, need to learn this. Blogs aren’t science. But McIntyre seems to be all you read.

      • OMG, David; If it is not approved by the gatekeepers it is not science? What a joke. The Climategate revelations showed the efforts the paleo climatological “Team” would go to to restrict access to “scientific” journals. It has been revealed that the journals went along with the censorship. Read anything about Climategate or the Hocky Stick wars. You were there and you should know.

        Existing standards for peer review does not require analyzation of data nor rigorous review of statistical algorithms which are the foundation of the scientific studies being reviewed. This fact has been documented by everybody involved in the peer review process. Nobody has enough time to do a thorough job. Significantly, with the paleo climatological community it is all pal review.

        Throughout the whole Hocky Stick affair Michael Mann and his supporters refused to provide paleo data and the algorithms used to manipulate the data. You were part of the organized effort to hide the data and algorithms and to attack people (McIntyre and McKitrick especially) that questioned Mann and the “Team’s” methods.

        The peer review by “experts” of MBH98, MBH99 and every other hockey stick paleo study missed the data deficiencies and methodological errors. Your scientific “experts” ignored the real science as reflected in McIntyre and McKitrick’s scholarship because it contradicts the prevalent narrative of the uniqueness of the 20th Century warming.

        David, you are a CliSciFi shill and cannot be trusted.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        The Climategate revelations showed the efforts the paleo climatological “Team” would go to to restrict access to “scientific” journals. It has been revealed that the journals went along with the censorship.

        A serious charge. What the proof the journals censored anyone regarding the hockey stick? I want to see the proof, citations, etc. — something you never provide.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Existing standards for peer review does not require analyzation of data nor rigorous review of statistical algorithms which are the foundation of the scientific studies being reviewed. This fact has been documented by everybody involved in the peer review process

        Really?? Show me that documentation. Citations, links.

        BTW, is this also true of peer reviewed journals in engineering? Are engineers designing thigs based on poorly reviewed papers in engineering journals? Airplanes? Chips? Bridges? Skyscrapers? Lord help us.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        The peer review by “experts” of MBH98, MBH99 and every other hockey stick paleo study missed the data deficiencies and methodological errors.

        What were those deficiencies and errors? Name them. Stop the nebulous hand waving.

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        not a scientist wrote:
        As noted by Mcintyre regarding pages2k

        LOL

        A blog isn’t science.”

        Noticably absent from Appell’s response is any discussion of the specific points raised

        There are 41 proxies in the 0-30N network, but only three proxies with values before AD1200 and only one (!?!) proxy with values prior to AD925 (see diagram below).
        The 0-30S network only has two (!?!) proxies with values prior to AD1500: the ocean core (a temperature estimate from Mg/Ca at Makassar Strait, Indonesia [Oppo et al, Nature 2009]
        Of course there is also the Dome C and law dome (law dome being one of the highest resolution proxies in antarctica which clearly shows a elevated MWP and low LIA. Naturally gergis and pages 2k routinely use ex post screening to exclude law dome. – Appell never asks why -because the climate scientists do the “hard work”
        Only one proxy in the network has values prior to AD750 and only two proxies have values prior to AD1450. Thus, the only information directly comparing medieval and modern values comes from these two proxies: Mt Read, Tasmania (a series used as long ago as Mann et al 1998 and Jones et al 1998)

        Appell – you continually fail to address the spefic points
        Appell – you continually resort to attacking the person
        Appell – you continue to claim blogs are not science –
        Appell – failure to address the specific deficiencies isnt science

        Appell – Can you point to any climate scientist that has addressed the specific issues –

      • David Appell

        the non scientist wrote:
        There are 41 proxies in the 0-30N network, but only three proxies with values before AD1200 and only one (!?!) proxy with values prior to AD925 (see diagram below).

        What diagram below?

        The 0-30S network only has two (!?!) proxies with values prior to AD1500: the ocean core (a temperature estimate from Mg/Ca at Makassar Strait, Indonesia [Oppo et al, Nature 2009]

        Where does this paper say that, and so what? Quote it.

        Of course there is also the Dome C and law dome (law dome being one of the highest resolution proxies in antarctica which clearly shows a elevated MWP and low LIA.

        Of course an Antarctic-only proxy doesn’t prove global MWP or global LIA.

        All you’re doing is cutting and pasting from a non-peer reviewed, nonpublished blog by someone you’re biased towards and presenting as what you think in fact.

        That’s total bull.

        All you have here is gossip. Word of mouth. Hand waving. No details whatsoever. You haven’t proven anything. The above raises more questions than it answers. It’s useless.

        You clearly don’t know what science is, have no experience debating it or presenting it, and your hand waving arguments are useless.

        Blogs aren’t science.

      • Joe - the honest non climate scientist

        Appell man –

        A) I have repetitively given you links to the specific comments – you have chosen to remain uniformed on the specific deficiencies
        B) “blogs arent science ” – neither is the failure of the climate science comunity’s refusal to address the welll known deficiencies . Time for the climate science community to respond to ths specific deficiences as adults. Same to the defenders of the indefensible.
        C) you supposedly have a degree in mathematics – try to apply some of the basic mathematical principles – Proofs, reconciling the answers with known historical events, etc.
        D) You have yet to respond to any of the specific criticisms – If fact , you appear to not even be remotely aware of any of the issues.
        E) pages 2k & gergis have maybe 5-6 proxies going back prior to 1500AD for 2/3 of the SH – Does anyone with a Mathematics degree (other than Appellman) seriously believe that trivial level of coverage provides sufficient scientific insight into the MWP for the SH?

        Try to address the criticism like an adult.

      • David Appell

        the non scientist:
        A) I have repetitively given you links to the specific comments – you have chosen to remain uniformed on the specific deficiencies

        Comments aren’t science. Comments are useless in the scientific realm, always made by amateurs.

        B) “blogs arent science ” – neither is the failure of the climate science comunity’s refusal to address the welll known deficiencies .

        Where are these deficiencies discussed in the peer reviewed literature?

        Want to do something useful? Point to a peer reviewed, published paper that excludes the proxies you claim are deficient and whose reconstruction doesn’t give a hockey stick.

        That’d be useful. Your whining is not.

      • David Appell

        the non scientist wrote:
        C) you supposedly have a degree in mathematics – try to apply some of the basic mathematical principles – Proofs, reconciling the answers with known historical events, etc.

        You have yet to even give details on what that means — “known historical events” — other than something about, was it, citrus trees in China?

        Point to the SCIENCE, not your assumptions and hearsay. Assumptions aren’t science. Data is science. You really don’t understand that.

      • joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 26, 2022 at 7:12 pm |
        the non scientist wrote:
        C) you supposedly have a degree in mathematics – try to apply some of the basic mathematical principles – Proofs, reconciling the answers with known historical events, etc.

        You have yet to even give details on what that means — “known historical events” — other than something about, was it, citrus trees in China?

        Point to the SCIENCE, not your assumptions and hearsay. Assumptions aren’t science. Data is science. You really don’t understand that.”

        Appell – you are really confused about data and Science – Historical events etc.

        Those citrus trees growing in China during the mwp 200k+ north of the present day range is data – its also known botanical science, Its also a known historical event. What is not science is the “climate Science proxies” which show the MWP was cooler than the present day.

        Same issue with the multitude of other known historical data that conflicts with the “proxy records” and the failure to reconcile the discrepancies.

        Hope that gives you a clue about “known historical events ” and the mathematical principle of reconciling your answer.

      • “ Appell – you are really confused about data and Science – Historical events etc.”

        That is demonstrated almost every day.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        “ Appell – you are really confused about data and Science – Historical events etc.”
        That is demonstrated almost every day.

        This is the kind of useless continual snark that makes it so easy to automatically filter your comments straight into the Trash folder.

    • Decades later DA is still selling hockey stick schlock. I find it all too mad.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pages2k.png

      • David Appell

        Robert I. Ellison wrote:
        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pages2k.png

        Thanks — these data are exactly why PAGES 2k concluded there was no global MWP or LIA.

      • What they actually suggest is that global asynchronous cooling in the middle of the last millennium was caused by volcanoes or a decrease in TSI. That story relies on feedbacks to have much effect.

      • joe - the honest non climate scientist

        David Appell | March 23, 2022 at 3:23 pm |
        Robert I. Ellison wrote:
        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pages2k.png

        Thanks — these data are exactly why PAGES 2k concluded there was no global MWP or LIA.

        ? – with the exception of SA (7of 8) regions in the chart, the graph looks like the MWP was global while all the regions in the graph show the LIA to be pretty much global

      • David Appell

        the non scientist commented:
        ? – with the exception of SA (7of 8) regions in the chart, the graph looks like the MWP was global while all the regions in the graph show the LIA to be pretty much global

        So there’s a global LIA except where there isn’t.

        Ha ha.

        And no there isn’t.

        Plenty of grids in the PAGES 2k showing white or yellow or orange between 1600 and 1800.

        The authors aren’t liars or idiots. They concluded what they did for a reason.

  60. On Plan B, I agree with Robert Ellison that the no regrets policy includes:

    “… progress can be made on a number of fronts related to land use, forest management, agriculture, water resource management, waste management,”

    Implementing these tactics are really a no brainer for the US as well as the rest of the world’s agricultural sectors by including regenerative farming.

    Sometimes the simplest solutions are just under our feet.

  61. Putin, Xi profit from media’s climate myopia
    Chris Mitchell
    The Australian
    21. Mar 2022
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/putin-xi-profit-from-medias-climate-myopia/news-story/b616ecae06034accc8830e909187fd9e

    https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/6b7fdddeae01e7de97b32081b1853be1
    Energy will prove an enduring story from the invasion of Ukraine, and the bedrock upon which February’s pact between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping was built.

    As fracking looks set to make a comeback in Britain in the wake of sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, it’s worth reflecting on the role of Russian disinformation in the global environmental campaign against the hydraulic fracturing of underground gas-bearing shale and coal deposits.

    Several British newspapers have reported Prime Minister Boris Johnson is open to ending the ban on fracking, which was imposed in 2019. The London Daily Telegraph reported on March 10 that Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was pushing for the lifting of the ban and quoted a spokesman for Johnson saying “all options would be considered”. Johnson had personally intervened “to stop the concreting in of England’s only two viable shale gas wells”, the newspaper said.

    And Russian disinformation? Matt Ridley reported in The Sun on March 15 that Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom, the world’s largest publicly listed gas company, had criticised fracking for years to protect the price of Russian gas being exported to Europe. The success of the fracking revolution in the US had put downward pressure on global gas prices.

    • The reason I voted for Johnson instead of Clinton was because she would’ve been the greatest gift to Russia and OPEC ever imagined. Well, before Biden anyway.

      (2018) Russia campaigning against Hillary Clinton is like Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown in the briar patch. To believe Russia preferred Trump over Hillary, that his interests were more conflicted than hers, is incredulous. You have to throw out hundreds of years of history and everything we know about what Russia’s interests are and what we know about how they operate to believe this.

      Russia’s primary method of influence is class division and class warfare. After that, it’s romantic environmentalism and using that to prevent competition in the energy industry by constraining growth and productivity in foreign energy interests. This has been the case since before the Soviet Union existed. The government is primarily concerned with political power, military, and energy. Its economy is over 20% energy and over 50% of government revenue is from energy, largely oil and natural gas. The HC campaign pledged to stop fracing and curtail natural gas production. At the same time, she told voters she would aggressively push for a massive wind and solar power expansion which would in turn require massive amounts of natural gas to manage variability.

      Anti-fracking sentiment has already caused problems on the east coast. Despite a glut in natural gas supplies, they have not updated and expanded pipelines to make use of domestic supplies, resulting in actually importing gas from Russia despite sanctions last winter. Hillary basically had the perfect platform, had she been campaigning for US president in Russia.

      Whenever people start talking about OPEC, like to point out this Paul Krugman paper from 2001, http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/opec.html. When people say that the US cannot affect the price of oil, I like to point out several things: 1.) That’s a good thing because every bit we produce goes to our GDP. 2.) That’s a good thing because every bit we don’t import adds to our GDP. 3.) That’s a good thing because every bit we don’t import reduces our trade deficit. 4.) That’s a good thing because it means lots of tax revenue (see and 2). 5.) Don’t be so sure about that, a little competition could spur production in lots of other places.

      Many producers produce inefficiently (and messily) because they believe price rises will keep them wealthy. E.g. Venezuela, Russia in the 1990s… They don’t keep their equipment maintained and they waste/spill a lot. US hoarding sends a signal to oil producing nations with two implications: 1). Alternative Energy is nowhere near ready, otherwise the US would be extracting its oil before prices fall; the US likely doesn’t expect alternatives to ever be better than fossil fuels. 2). Current producers can make money by keeping production low.

      If the US told the world it believes alternative energy R&D would pay off within the next 50 it would mean nothing, unless they back it up with extraction for the medium term. I believe that if the US said that there was no future in oil, and backed it up by pumping full- tilt to take advantage of the current high prices, we’d see both alternative research take off as well as exploration, extraction, and productivity throughout the world.

      Reagan wasn’t the Great Communicator because of how he talked. Actions speak far louder than words.

      • David Appell

        aaron commented:
        The reason I voted for Johnson instead of Clinton

        Aaron, you wrote that Koonin should sue SciAm and ICN for their reviews but, when challenged, would not say why. Why not?

        Isn’t there ANYONE here who will challenge ICN’s five items that Koonin got wrong?

      • Even having read the ICN piece I missed exactly what five things Koonin got wrong.

  62. Lest anyone think Ridley was just doing the bidding of the Murdoch media, there is plenty of evidence from the US congress and from left-wing news sources that Russian trolls had been pumping out false information about fracking for years.

    The Guardian reported Russia was behind attempts to discredit fracking on June 20, 2014. It quoted former NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen saying “as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations”, Russia engaged with environmental organisations working “against shale gas to maintain European dependence on Russian gas”.

    The Chicago Tribune went further, reporting on March 1, 2018, that Russian troll factories had used Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to inflame US political debate over climate change. It quoted a report from the House science, space and technology committee providing evidence Russia used social media to inflame concern about fracking.

    US political website The Hill noted on March 1 this year the Guardian’s Rasmussen report, and said the US media and Democrats had ignored evidence of Russian disinformation attempting to distort the US energy market. The Hill reveals a 2017 letter by Texas Republicans Lamar Smith and Randy Weber to then Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin quoting former secretary of state Hillary Clinton telling a private gathering in 2016: “We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were being funded by the Russians.”

  63. Much of the Western world’s media is so tied up in environmental campaigning it can’t even see the trap many democracies are sleepwalking towards. Here there has been little media mention of renewed interest in preserving old coal-fired power stations in Germany and Britain, or a wider push by the EU to open the way for new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

    The London Telegraph reported on March 16 that the British government was looking at watering down “net zero” rules on North Sea exploration so the UK could wean itself off Russian gas. The gas shock comes after months of high energy prices over winter when renewables generation faltered across Britain and much of the EU.

    Reuters quoted German Finance Minister Christian Lindner on March 13 saying Germany should rethink its ban on new North Sea oil and gas drilling. “Against the changed geopolitical background, I think it is advisable to examine the entire energy strategy of our country without any prohibitions on thinking,” Lindner said. Germany is Russia’s biggest gas customer.

    The EURACTIV EU news website quoted several German politicians and energy specialists on March 10 confirming Germany would now need to keep some coal power stations – that were scheduled for closure – open and in reserve, as the nation started to wean itself off Russian gas. Germany has effectively bankrolled Putin’s military with its gas purchases.

  64. Much of the Western world’s media is so tied up in environmental campaigning it can’t even see the trap many democracies are sleepwalking towards. Here there has been little media mention of renewed interest in preserving old coal-fired power stations in Germany and Britain, or a wider push by the EU to open the way for new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

    The London Telegraph reported on March 16 that the British government was looking at watering down “net zero” rules on North Sea exploration so the UK could wean itself off Russian gas. The gas shock comes after months of high energy prices over winter when renewables generation faltered across Britain and much of the EU.

    Reuters quoted German Finance Minister Christian Lindner on March 13 saying Germany should rethink its ban on new North Sea oil and gas drilling. “Against the changed geopolitical background, I think it is advisable to examine the entire energy strategy of our country without any prohibitions on thinking,” Lindner said. Germany is Russia’s biggest gas customer.
    The EURACTIV EU news website quoted several German politicians and energy specialists on March 10 confirming Germany would now need to keep some coal power stations – that were scheduled for closure – open and in reserve, as the nation started to wean itself off Russian gas. Germany has effectively bankrolled Putin’s military with its gas purchases.

  65. It’s no wonder neither Putin nor China’s leader-for-life Xi Jinping attended the Glasgow COP26 climate conference last year. China and Russia, the biggest and fourth-biggest CO2 emitters respectively, will not be meeting net zero emissions targets by 2050. But they most certainly will be attempting to profit economically and politically from the decisions of other nations to do so.

    The Carnegie Foundation’s Moscow Centre news site sets up Putin’s view, in a piece published last September. “Worryingly, while Russia acknowledges the dangers of a rapidly warming world, it does not appear to be preparing for a transition. Putin has even hinted at a potential brighter future for Russia thanks to climate change: one in which it is an agricultural powerhouse in a famine-stricken world; and where the Arctic makes Russia’s strategic position in trade routes indisputable.”

    China was praised at COP26 for promising in September to stop building coal-fired power stations outside China as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Media dupes accepted this as a face-value sign of Xi Jinping’s commitment to net zero by 2060. Yet China signalled early this month a massive increase in its domestic coal production.

    Bloomberg reported on March 13 that China wants domestic coal production increased by 300 million tonnes a year. Total Australian annual thermal coal production is 550 million tonnes, so China’s domestic increase is about 60 per cent of our total annual output, most of it exported. China depends on coal for about 60 per cent of its electricity.

  66. Meanwhile, our media continues with fraudulent reporting suggesting both China and India (the world’s third-biggest emitter) are phasing out coal. Environment writers here applaud the early closure of coal-fired power plants as part of an energy transition that promises to produce far more challenges than most journalists understand. This column made those technical challenges clear in an interview with former Energy Security Board chief Kerry Schott, published on February 28.

    And the prissy ABC Media Watch program continues to police journalists straying from a strict climate change agenda as the national broadcaster, Guardian Australia and the Nine newspapers remain silent on the most important energy story out of Europe in our lifetimes.

    Energy will prove an enduring story from the invasion of Ukraine, and the bedrock upon which February’s pact between Putin and Xi was built. The West has allowed its own industries and jobs to be exported to countries with rising CO2 emissions so it can reduce emissions in Europe and North America for no net benefit to the planet.

    US President Joe Biden is refusing to expand domestic oil and gas production to keep faith with the left of his Democratic Party on emissions, while reaching out to Russian client oil states Iran and Venezuela in the hope of winning a price reprieve for American motorists. Putin and Xi must be laughing as their own emissions soar.

  67. Judith,

    I posted a series of comments quoted from this article in The Australian:

    Putin, Xi profit from media’s climate myopia
    CHRIS MITCHELL
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/putin-xi-profit-from-medias-climate-myopia/news-story/b616ecae06034accc8830e909187fd9e

    However, only the last three comments have been posted. I presume the previous comments are in moderation. Could you please release them.

  68. Michael Cunningham aka Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

    Chris Mitchell is my favourite journalist. His 2016 book “Making Headlines” is well worth a read.

  69. Gautam Kalghatgi

    People on this thread might be interested in this – https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/10/Kalghatgi-Net-Zero-Challenges.pdf

    • It’s always nice when idealism crashes head on with pragmatism.

      There are many issues to think about in this report but this caught my eye.

      “ The demand for batteries – both for BEVs (battery electric vehicles) and for grid-scale energy storage – will become enormous, and the availability of the materials will be of increasing concern. One study estimated that to replace all LDVs (light duty vehicles) with BEVs, the UK would require twice the current global cobalt production, nearly all neodymium production, three quarters of lithium production and at least half of copper production.”

      For the sake of discussion, let’s assume those numbers are correct. That means 1% of the world’s population would need a sizable fraction of the current global production of those essential materials. I’m headed to the futures market.

      Thanks for the report. Many provocative numbers to think about.

      • Dave Andrews

        The International Energy Agency recently published a Commentary on EVs (30th Jan 2022) which noted that the price of lithium carbonate for batteries rose by 150% in 2021 and that the world faces potential shortages of lithium and cobalt as early as 2025.

        “EVs are set to enter a new phase in which raw material and component supply come to the fore. For the first time, supply side bottlenecks are becoming a real challenge to electrification of road transport.”

  70. Biden and the Dimowits have tried to do everything in the Federal Government’s power to kill the fossil fuel industry. They have bumbled and fumbled their way into causing an energy crisis that punishes all of us, especially the poor. This has led to a food crisis, with food inflation pumped up due to high diesel prices and high natural gas, which is used to make fertilizer, prices. They are directly financing Russia because the world can’t stop using Russian fossil fuels – they are indirectly killing Ukrainians. All of this, due to the Green Energy Extremists and “Progressives.” Never was their a greater misnomer than the term “progressive.”

    ..the United States will pursue green recovery efforts, initiatives to advance the clean energy transition, sectoral decarbonization, and alignment of financial flows with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, including with respect to coal financing,…

    …identify steps through which the United States can promote ending international financing of carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based energy while simultaneously advancing sustainable development and a green recovery…

    …delivers environmental justice; and spurs well-paying union jobs and economic growth, especially through innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. …

    …a carbon pollution-free electricity sector no later than 2035…

    …The Secretary of the Interior shall review siting and permitting processes on public lands and in offshore waters to identify to the Task Force steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to increase renewable energy production on those lands and in those waters…

    …the Secretary of the Interior shall pause new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters…

    …the Secretary of the Interior shall consider whether to adjust royalties associated with coal, oil, and gas resources extracted from public lands and offshore waters, or take other appropriate action, to account for corresponding climate costs….

    …any fossil fuel subsidies provided by their respective agencies, and then take steps to ensure that, to the extent consistent with applicable law, Federal funding is not directly subsidizing fossil fuels…

    …The heads of agencies shall identify opportunities for Federal funding to spur innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies…

    …to ensure that Federal infrastructure investment reduces climate pollution, and to require that Federal permitting decisions consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions…

    …identify steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to accelerate the deployment of clean energy and transmission projects…

    …The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall seek, in coordination with the heads of agencies and the National Climate Advisor, to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies from the budget request for Fiscal Year 2022 and thereafter….

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

  71. Thanks to the Green Energy Extremists’ energy policy, energy poverty is a reality in America.

    For Chelsi Lewis, things started getting tight again in December. She found herself carving a little from the money budgeted for the electricity bill toward buying groceries. She wondered how she was going to fill her tank to take her high school twins to their track meets and jobs.

    The tighter times began when the child tax credit expired, said Lewis, 48, a Rockville, Md., single mother of three and full-time student at Bowie State University. She still gets food stamp SNAP benefits of $800 per month, but that lasts about three weeks. She also used to get enhanced unemployment, after losing her seasonal UPS job during the pandemic, as well as pandemic-EBT to supplement school meals, but both expired.

    “I’ve been winging it,” said Lewis, who is studying history. “There are some nights I don’t eat because I only have enough to feed them. I’ll eat whatever is left over on their plates. I just tell them I’m not hungry.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/higher-food-prices-pushing-more-low-income-americans-back-to-food-banks/ar-AAVjvFw

    • If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

      The Northern Hemisphere climate was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNuclearDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

      https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1507058975631720454?cxt=HHwWjIC-oeqJk-opAAAA

  72. Dimwits do all they can to thwart the oil industry, then turn around and blame that very industry for high oil prices. It costs millions to drill an oil well. Who in their right mind would spend that kind of money knowing the full force of the Federal Government is attempting to shut down the oil business. Dimowits are hypocritical liars.

    The left are urging a green energy revolution. The right are sounding a battle cry of “Drill, baby, drill”. And American voters, tired of political excuses, are feeling angry.
    Joe Biden in Maryland in February. Recent surveys have shown an uptick in support for Biden though his overall ratings are still mired in the low 40s.
    Will Biden’s handling of the Ukraine crisis prove popular with US voters?
    Read more

    Rising gas prices pose a fresh election year headache for Joe Biden. Republicans accuse him of pushing “a radical anti-US energy agenda”. Democrats put the blame on greedy oil companies and the assault on Ukraine by the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/higher-food-prices-pushing-more-low-income-americans-back-to-food-banks/ar-AAVjvFw

  73. Republican Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted is calling out Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her efforts to shut down a major oil pipeline that carries Canadian oil across the Midwest.

    Whitmer, a Democrat, contends that Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 poses a risk of a “catastrophic” oil spill in the Great Lakes. She and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel have launched legal challenges to close the pipeline built in 1953 that moves oil through northern Wisconsin and Michigan to refineries in Ontario.

    The ongoing Line 5 dispute is getting renewed focus at a time of high gas prices, a ban on Russian oil imports and efforts to boost oil and gas supplies domestically.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-lt-gov-blasts-michigan-gov-whitmer-shut-down-oil-pipeline

  74. The Green Energy Extremists want you to starve and freeze for the sake of “fixing” “climate change.”

    Europe and the UK and other countries are looking to cut their reliance on Russian oil and gas this year. Many are turning to coal or imports of liquefied natural gas as alternative sources.

    But Mr Guterres warns this short-term approach heralds great danger for the climate.

    “Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use,” Mr Guterres said.

    “This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.”

    Countries must “accelerate the phase out of coal and all fossil fuels,” and implement a rapid and sustainable energy transition.

    It is “the only true pathway to energy security.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60815547

  75. News from Belgium (translated):

    The federal government will take the necessary measures to extend the life span of Doel 4 and Tihange 3 nuclear power plants by an extension of ten years.

    The Minister of Energy is invited, to be fair, to follow up the discussions with the European Commission on the impact of the prolongation on the capacity remuneration mechanism (CRM). The suitors with the operator Engie will also sue.

    https://news.belgium.be/fr/prolongation-de-la-duree-de-vie-des-centrales-doel-4-et-tihange-3

  76. The ideal plan starts with not following the lead of the Eurocommies – it hasn’t worked out in the real world, e.g., dependence on the petrochemicals of authoritarians… humanity cannot live on platitudes alone.

  77. UK-Weather Lass

    “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” — Albert Einstein

    I have struggled to read all the material available in this package to which Dr Curry is the only one to offer the case for uncertainty over what the future holds for humanity.

    I note all the memes present in this material – they infect and spread just like a common or garden virus. It is noticeable where the authors involved have a vested interest in using these memes and not providing the detailed evidence that has convinced them, not just that humanity is facing a realsitic disaster, but that the solutions on offer are sound, practical and attainable without massive disruption to far too many people who need to be cared about and not punished. There is very little of substance in the offered wyas forward other than hardship and additional expense for those of us considered to be villains who have made this happen. Those who attended COP26 are noticeably claimed to be without sin.

    None of the authors aside from Dr Curry take this on. One author even has the audacity to us ‘Don’t Look Up’ as a key part to her argument. Another begs for more money for the UN via increased taxes!

    If this is the standard of our common bureaucracies and academic institutions then something has gone badly wrong with our ideas of value for money and practices to achieve high standards in so many important places. These people are patently careless with the truth just as are many alarmists.

    Let Einstein complete the message this material conveys and asked yourself who should be trusted with important matters like climate mitigation if these folk cannot be..

    • I am shocked ***SHOCKED, I SAY!!!*** that the UN is asking for more money. What is the World coming to???

  78. Next:

    Even if the moratorium on fracking were to be lifted, it would take years of drilling before production could begin – far from the quick fix that some are calling for. By that time, the UK may not even need the gas: to meet the targets of a totally green power system by 2035 and a net zero economy by 2050, the nation’s gas consumption will have to fall dramatically.

    Wow, you can see why these guys are the academics and we sceptics are just banging rocks together. So far they have dismissed the idea that there might be substantial reserves, and anyway no-one is going to let anyone see if there are substantial reserves, and anyway if we let you look it won’t be worth it because even if you did find any it would be too late to be worth bothering with. We won’t need gas in 2050 because by then our unicorn farms will be fully operational.

    Next the authors claim that the BGS’s estimate might be too high because the local geology is more complicated than was thought. However, we’re still not sure, because no-one is looking at it. Any interested companies have fled the scene, so it’s game over, dude.

    Right, so you ban fracking and wonder why no companies are interested in fracking? Why don’t you ban Scotch and then tell everyone that the distilleries are all shut because they are just no longer interested in manufacturing spirits?

    https://cliscep.com/2022/03/06/why-fracking-is-not-the-answer-to-soaring-uk-gas-prices/

  79. William Van Brunt

    Thank you, Dr. Curry. Your views are scientific, reasonable, thoughtful and insightful.

    What has been overlooked in the exchange of views concerning climate change is that, since 1976, average annual global evaporation, driven primarily by El Niño driven sea surface temperature increases in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or “ENSO” region (5°N–5°S, 170°–90°W) has slightly exceeded average annual global precipitation.

    The result – a cumulative increase in global total precipitable water of 2.7 kg m-2, an increase of 15%. This increase is roughly equal to 0.3% of annual average global precipitation, a tenth of an inch.

    Since water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas this has had two effects:

    1. The obvious one – average annual global heating increased by 2.6%; driving a 1C increase in the average global temperature.

    This means that an increase of a tenth of an inch in average global precipitation, can return the average global temperature to the temperatures of the mid-seventies. (See: Van Brunt, W. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences > Vol.10 №4, October 2020 Autonomous Changes in the Concentration of Water Vapor Drive Climate Change DOI: 10.4236/acs.2020.104025)

    2. The latent heating power of the atmosphere increased by 15%; trebling, according to The Munich Reinsurance group statistics, the number of catastrophic weather-related events, globally, and increasing annual weather-related losses by more than $100 billion/yr. The correlation between the annual number of catastrophic weather-related events and the average annual global temperature is strong. The correlation coefficient is 0.84.

    Therefore, this tenth of an inch increase in avrage global precipitation would also reduce catastrophic weather-related events by 75%.

    • William, is The Munich Reinsurance group data normalized to inflation and growth in infrastructure placed in harm’s way? If not, it is useless for determining any correlation with estimated temperatures or extreme weather events.

      Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is the premier expert on determining historical normalized losses vs extreme weather events. His peer reviewed studies and reports (among others) show that there has been no increase in normalized weather related damages for at least the last 100 years. One may, however, prove anything one wants to prove by cherry picking historical periods.

      • William Van Brunt

        The data to which I correlated is number (not the value, so inflation is irrelevant) of catastrophic weather events.

      • William, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has shown that the number of adverse weather events tracks with its normalized loss calculations and neither has increased for at least the last 100 years. As I said, one may cherrypick any shorter period to prove anything one wishes. Look at the underlying data, not the media release.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Activist sites such as Skeptical Science (the anti science website) regularly posts “studies” showing the “inflation adjusted weather related losses have had a significant increase since the 1950’s.

        What those “studies” omit are
        1) the failure to adjust for population growth
        2) failure to account for the increase in global wealth/ GDP increases well above the inflation rate. As an example, the average size home in the US in the 1950’s was 1,000-1,200 sq feet where as the average size home in the 21st century is closer to 2,000-2,400 sq ft. Same with the infrastucture.
        The point being is many of those studies showing an increase in weather related disaster costs are intentionally misleading.

      • William Van Brunt

        The data to which I correlated is number (not the value, so inflation is irrelevant) of catastrophic weather events.

      • William, the data you rely on should be presented. I’m pretty sure they were cherrypicked.

      • William Van Brunt

        My comment is based on “Risks posed by natural disasters. Number of relevant loss events by peril 1980–2019” Retrieved and adapted from: Munich Re. If you cannot cite a reference from qualified source of data that supports your point of view, everything you say is unsupported and unworthy of attention.

      • 1980 to 2019 is only a small slice of the relevant data; remember, I talked about cherrypicking. 1900 to 2019 tells a completely different story. Please see:

        Roger Pielke, Jr. “25 Years of Climate Change Research” updated 28 March, 2018. https:// rogerpielkejr>pielkeonclimatchage

        “Pielke, Jr. on AR6” Iowa Climate Science Education, 10 August, 2021

        “Normalized Hurricane Damages in the Continental United States 1900-2017” Nature Sustainability nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0615-2

        “Normalized Hurricane Damage in the Continental United States” Weinkle, J., et al Nature Sustainability

        William, please don’t fall for propaganda; research for yourself. CliSciFi is a self-licking ice-cream cone: If your salary or profit margins rely on a meme, you will support that meme. Munich Re profit margins depend on climate disaster fears.

      • William Van Brunt

        None of these cites are relevant.

        The Munich Re report covers 5 categories for the number of natural disaster events (not damages) for each of the 40 years since the onset of global warming. Hardly cherry picking. This is historical data, not estimates of future risks.

        There are numerous sources insurance actuaries can use to use to crosscheck this historical data. If Munich Re misstated or misconstrued the facts, the insurance industry would be up in arms.

        I have done my own research.

        The Munich Re event data is reasonably correct. The correlation with global warming is strong.

        Finally, I not that WUWT is not a peer reviewed journal.

      • OK, William. Please reference the Munich Re report again. Your description is consistent with my memory of cherrypicking, but I am willing to check. It is clear from all sources that weather-related natural disasters have not increased since 1900.

      • William Van Brunt

        Same comment. This applies to all future unsupported comments.

      • William, you are relying on press releases by interested institutions. The facts contradict the company’s assertions, as documented by Roger Pielke, Jr. and others.

      • Additionally, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has shown in previous communications that Munich Re produced erroneous data and statistics. You should read his stuff before uncritically accepting stuff from CliSciFi profiteers such as Munich Re.

      • Munich RE is an insurance company, not a science journal – not that there’s a whole lot of difference at this point.

      • Oh boy, Jim; how right you are. Munich Re is a global reinsurance company that makes its profits off leveraging the distributed risks of smaller insurance companies in relation to aggregated risk assumptions vs overall realizations that the smaller companies can’t bear. The more assumed climate risks there are there is a higher assumed insurance risks of insured property, therefore the higher insurance premiums are justified and the more profits there are if risks don’t materialize in the future payouts. As usual, the financers and bankers (and their political backers) win no matter the results.

      • You ought to tell the competitors to Munich Re that it asks for unreasonable premiums, Charlie.They’ll make so much money you might get a little something for the tip.

        Junior’s old rants about that were not serious.

      • Willard, who the hell are Charlie and Junior?

      • Munich Re didn’t see this inflation coming because they have been blinded by the government baubles offered to promote Green Energy Extremists energy policies. They completely missed the fact that making business life difficult for fossil fuel companies would cause high prices. Real geniuses they are. We need to vote out and/or demote anyone who pushes the Green Energy Extremists energy policies.

        https://www.reinsurancene.ws/munich-re-predicts-a-bumpy-economic-recovery-and-longer-increased-inflation/

      • Thanks, Jim. The Munich Re statement is blathering nonsense. Typical bureaucratic dancing around past and present uncertainties.

      • Junior is Junior, Charlie, and Charlie is you.

      • FU2, Pinhead.

      • Oh, and as for your “bureaucratic”:

        https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/MUNICH-RE-436858/

        If only I had access to that market.

      • Pinhead, reference the Munich Re study; I couldn’t find it on their site.

      • Patience, grasshopper.

        One day you’ll make it.

      • Thanks for your cogent input, Snarky.

      • My pleasure, Charlie. You don’t seem to recall you were calling yourself Charlie.

      • That was a long time ago when I thought it was cute to use the pseudonym “Charlie Skeptic,” a play on “Charlie Cong.” I began using my full name when I realized that hiding one’s full identity was a cheap trick, Snarky.

      • Showing what you claim is your real name isn’t the same thing as revealing your identity, Dave.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        They don’t meet the definition of climate

        They’re “events,” not “climate.”

        There has been no change in average global weather since at least the year 1900.

        What data says that? Cite it.

      • UN IPCC Assessment and Special reports say that, citing work by Roger Pielke, Jr. This blog is not a science symposium and common knowledge is good enough for the average educated person. I don’t do dueling science papers; there is not enough time in the world to read and understand all the poorly peer reviewed papers and articles. When I do cite and quote sources, you just dismiss or ignore them anyway.

      • > And the [SREX] cherry picks 1950, not 1900.

        You got to work with the data you got, Dave, e.g.:

        Theoretical understanding of the thermodynamic controls on tropical cyclone (TC) wind intensity, as well as numerical simulations, implies a positive trend in TC intensity in a warming world. The global instrumental record of TC intensity, however, is known to be heterogeneous in both space and time and is generally unsuitable for global trend analysis. To address this, a homogenized data record based on satellite data was previously created for the period 1982–2009.

        https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117

        That’s from the paper you just spat on, BTW.

        ***

        The points you fail to dodge are the following:

        Junior did not say what you made him say.

        Junior misrepresents the SREX.

        These points won’t disappear because you keep clowning around, you know.

      • Willard, how is it that other researchers can estimate TC activity back much further than 1982?

      • You don’t get to JAQ off after saying stuff, Dave.

        I don’t make the rules. Sorry.

      • Willard, you need to discuss your fantasies with Dr. Pielke, Jr. directly. His August, 5 2020 paper was published in Taylor & Francis Online, “Economic ‘normalisation’ of disaster losses 1998-2020: a literature review and assessment.”

        His conclusions: “This paper reviews 54 normalisation studies published 1998–2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate, reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

        Peddle your crap elsewhere.

      • > finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate

        Don’t you get tired of moving the goalposts, Dave?

        Thank you for “reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”!

      • Willard, I already explained that Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. and other researchers compare numbers and intensity of extreme weather events to the normalized damage loss estimates. Such cross checking verifies the normalized damage estimate’s accuracy.

      • My work here is done, Dave.

        Why are you doing this to yourself – have you been drinking again?

      • Willard, why don’t you, without the snark, explain to us exactly why you think extreme weather events are increasing on a centennial scale? And, yes, the AMO and other multi-decadal climate oscillations affect the occurrence of extremes such that one may cherrypick any trend one wants.

      • Why do you still beg a silly question I already answered, Dave? Do you think your “but AMO” baiting will work? Why don’t you cry “cherry pick” somewhere else?

        You should not have jumped on Matthew like that. It is important that you learn how to welcome voices, otherwise you’ll turn into another Chief or (gasp!) DA.

        You won’t get a food fight. All you’ll get is another lesson in manners.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        David, I don’t keep copies of most of the studies I read. Why don’t you (politely) ask Dr. Pielke for a copy of the study as you just suggested I do.

        You make the claims, you back them up. Your memory is meaningless.

        You almost can never cite/prove any of your claims. It’s a theorem.

    • Dave Fair wrote:
      Munich Re is a global reinsurance company that makes its profits off leveraging the distributed risks of smaller insurance companies in relation to aggregated risk assumptions vs overall realizations that the smaller companies can’t bear…. As usual, the financers and bankers (and their political backers) win no matter the results.

      Munich Re insures insurance companies.

      No one is forced to do business with them.

      They exist and flourish because, it seems, they provide a valuable service on the free market that is needed and desired.

      • None of the motherhood and apple pie things you say about Munich Re has anything to do with the validity of their assertions about the increases in extreme weather, David. They cherrypicked the period 1980 to present because there was a temporary (statistically reasonable) period of increasing adverse weather events.

        Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. and other researchers have shown there is no increase in adverse weather phenomena since about 1900. Their analysis of normalized weather related damages tracks with the historical occurrences of extreme weather related events.

        David, your misdirections and untruths indicate you are a shill for the organized Leftist efforts to trick people into believing there is a climate crisis. Shame on you.

      • > there is no increase in adverse weather phenomena since about 1900.

        That’s not what Junior has shown, Charlie.

        Revise and resubmit.

      • Why don’t you tell us what it is exactly that Roger Pielke, Jr. has shown, Pinhead? [I, too, can throw around snarky, disrespectful names.]

      • Hey! Instead of Pinhead, why don’t I just call you Snarky?

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair wrote:
        Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. and other researchers have shown there is no increase in adverse weather phenomena since about 1900.

        Really? Where are your citations?

        “Among its [IPCC AR6 WG1] key conclusions is that it is an “established fact” that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have “led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial times”.

        “Explainer: What the new IPCC report says about extreme weather and climate change,” CarbonBrief, 10.08.2021

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-and-climate-change

      • David Appell

        “Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
        http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508

        “Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501–515 (2015).
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y

        Evidence for more extreme downpours:

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

        “Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.”

        – Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.

      • As late as 2018 the IPCC was saying there was “low confidence” that there was any increase in frequency or severity of hurricanes and tropical cyclone activity. And low confidence for tornadoes.
        And medium confidence that some regions might have had some additional flooding.
        But now, “some weather extremes” are an “established fact.”
        Like the record snowfall in some places this year?

        Name the massive hurricanes that changed their minds since 2018 (Maria was in 2017.) It’s been 17 years since we had a year that even ranked in the top 10 for ACE. Six of the top 10 years for ACE were before 1962.
        Major storms? Top ranked is 1950. More than half of the years with the most major storms are prior to 1965.
        Most storms? It’s been 12 years since we had a season that ranked. Three of the top five most active seasons are pre-1970s.
        The period 1950-1965 was far more active than 2000-2022.

        Insurance companies operating in big American coastal cities have been hit harder by losses from unrestricted looting, riots, and business shutdowns over the last two years than they have from weather.

      • What he said, in spades. Thanks, Jeff.

      • > Why don’t you tell us

        You go first, dear Charlie.

        Your empty assertions are dismissed.

      • Snarky, it is up to you to provide peer reviewed studies showing a statistically valid increase in adverse weather events since 1900. Minor warming and increases in precipitation are not adverse weather events: UN IPCC AR6 summaries are worded so as to imply there are increases in truly adverse weather events like hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts & etc. when they have documented only minor warming and precipitation increases. The world has greatly benefited from such warming and rain.

      • I won’t do more work than you do, Charlie.

        Wait. Does that mean you did nothing?

      • I don’t care, Snarky. Your CAGW opinions are worthless.

      • “But CAGW” is all yours, Dave. It’s in fact the central square of the Bingo:

        https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-cagw

        It begs so many questions it’s hard to know where to start.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        UN IPCC AR6 summaries are worded so as to imply there are increases in truly adverse weather events like hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, droughts & etc. when they have documented only minor warming and precipitation increases.

        Define “minor.” Give numbers. Give citations.

        The world has greatly benefited from such warming and rain.

        Prove “benefits.” Give numbers. Give citations.

        Your claims without numbers are meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. You’re essentially posting jibberish.

      • Warming from 1850 has only been about 1 C. Pick any citation you want; it is still minor.

        The world is experiencing bumper crops and global hunger has been vastly reduced. Since the 1980s the world has greened anywhere from 15% to 30%. Sever weather has been reduced from the levels of the Little Ice Age. Pick any citations you want: My memory is good enough such that I don’t have to keep a bunch of scientific studies at my fingertips. For example, I don’t keep any studies that say the average human body temperature is about 98.6 F.

        David, why don’t you produce scientific studies disproving my assertions? You seem so certain that I’m posting jibberish [sic].

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Warming from 1850 has only been about 1 C. Pick any citation you want; it is still minor.

        Minor? The difference between preindustrial and 2 miles of ice over Chicago is only 5 C.

      • David Appell

        Dave Fair commented:
        Sever weather has been reduced from the levels of the Little Ice Age. Pick any citations you want:

        I’ve given you citations that say the opposite. You ignore them.

        My memory is good enough such that I don’t have to keep a bunch of scientific studies at my fingertips.

        Clearly not.

        David, why don’t you produce scientific studies disproving my assertions?

        I have. But this is always what the fakes say: prove me wrong. That’s not how it works in debate or in science, dude. You have to prove yourself right. LOL.

      • David Appell

        jeffnsails850 commented:
        As late as 2018 the IPCC was saying there was “low confidence” that there was any increase in frequency or severity of hurricanes and tropical cyclone activity. And low confidence for tornadoes.
        And medium confidence that some regions might have had some additional flooding.
        But now, “some weather extremes” are an “established fact.”

        Did they? Then why didn’t you quote them saying so? With links? That’s how you establish facts in a debate.

        All you’re doing is making meaningless claims without citations that no can verify — which is probably your aim all along, that way no one can check up on you, you can’t be proven wrong and you’ll always have been found out or have to apologize.

        That’s how you guys play the game.

      • This is a science related blog, David. Everybody should know generally what the IPCC reports say. IPCC reports consistently say extreme weather over the last 100+ years has not increased in frequency nor become more severe. Get over it.

      • Chapter 8 page 60 IPCC6

        “ In summary, there is low confidence in recent changes in the total number of extra-tropical cyclones over
        both hemispheres. It is as likely as not that the number of deep cyclones over the Northern Hemisphere has
        decreased after 1979 and it is likely that the number of deep extra-tropical cyclones increased over the same
        period in the Southern Hemisphere.”

        Appell has become the laughing stock of the world repeatedly demonstrating he doesn’t know the literature, doesn’t know the IPCC and doesn’t know science.

        His citation for no MWP and LIA was what looked like a 1st grader’s crayon project. He had no data, no facts, just pretty colors.

        That is emblematic of his knowledge about climate science. A rainbow of elementary school colors.

      • > IPCC6

        The Synthesis Report is due September 2022.

        The chapter on Mitigation is due next month.

        Impacts and Adaptation was published last month.

        Let’s check over there, page 80:

        Risk to Tropical Forest.

        Nope.

        Care to try again, Kid?

        You know me – there’s a cost in making me work.

      • The IPCC AR6 on the scientific basis came out in 2021, Willard. It shows there has been no long-term increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather. Slight warming and wetting and some regional balancing of drought is not alarming.

      • So you say, Dave. So you say:

        Have another spoon:

        The prevalence and occurrence of some livestock diseases are positively associated with extreme weather events (high confidence).

        That’s on page 49.

      • So what, Willard? It doesn’t say that extreme weather events are becoming more common or more extreme.

        UN IPCC CliSciFi report summary fiction writers are known for implying something not backed up by data. For example, slightly warmer temperatures, minor increased rainfall and a regional balancing of some kinds of drought are called “increasing extreme weather events.” Hoo-ha!

      • So now that your bluff is called you run away with “But Modulz,” Dave?

        It’s fine. I’d do the same if I had no argument.

      • W

        Nice to see you’re back. We’ve been wondering where you have been. Some have speculated you’ve been locked up in a convoyed livestock semi in Alberta.

        And your point was what? 02 asked for a cite from IPCC6. I provided it.

        You’re losing your edge. Maybe a another hiatus can sharpen you up a little bit. Or maybe another lesson on all the Democratic myths about taxes would be right down your alley. I know you’ve always loved them.

      • > from IPCC6

        Wrong on two counts, Kid.

        First, David was asking for a citation with links.

        Second, “IPCC6” isn’t a document.

        Since you’re making me work:

        Climate-related extremes have affected the productivity of all agricultural and fishery sectors, with negative consequences for food security and livelihood (high confidence).

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

        That’s on page 4.

        Did you want to suggest that climate-related extremes won’t affect farming and fishing, by any chance?

        I hope not.

      • W

        I’ve wondered from time to time if English was your first language. The issue was about hurricanes, not fishing. But happy to talk about blue gill fishing any time.

        Yes, the IPCC 6 report is a document. More fruity semantics without any sane point. What you ought to be worried about is the next 30 years raising huge questions about CAGW. We all should be wondering what the EPA was smoking when they made this absurd prediction. The same kind of prediction that is being made every day. Just more predictions in the wings building up the inventory of failed predictions for the future.

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg

      • Once again you’re incorrect for two reasons, Kid.

        The issue is about your incapacity to provide a link to what you call “IPCC6.” We both know why you can’t give one. You’re using secondary sources.

        The topic is about Munich Re’s assessment. “But Hurricanes” is a common deflection, in fact it’s a secondary square in my Bingo:

        https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-hurricanes

        Since you’re making me work, have another cookie:

        Impacts on food availability and nutritional quality will increase the number of people at risk of hunger, malnutrition and diet-related mortality (high confidence).

        Op. Cit, page 5.

        Do continue to wriggle. I need to work on my Bingo.

      • And the science behind that “high confidence” statement …… models?

      • You don’t get to JAQ off in public, Dave.

      • UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models are unbelievably ugly, Willard. As the B-girls would say, nebba happen, GI.

      • But Modulz.

        But Modulz.

        But Modulz.

        Just tell me when to stop, Dave!

      • Willard, you keep posting things that have no substance. I ignore them.

      • Dave,

        Counterpoint:

        https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/17/a-plan-b-for-addressing-climate-change-and-the-energy-transition/#comment-974825

        You post “But Modulz,” I call you out.

        If that’s fine with you, it’s fine with me.

      • Willard, your thread citation leads to a endless loop of the same trivial post.

      • Quoting and citing the IPCC’s deliverables suits me fine, Dave.

        Don’t project your inner emptiness onto otters.

      • Appell quoted JeffSails IPCC low confidence in hurricane frequency. Appell said he provided no citation. I did. Case closed.

        I didn’t realize loss of sight was a symptom of losing the CAGW debate.

        Intervention by a professional might help with those symptoms.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

      • Still wrong, Kid.

        Dave quoted William. Search for “Munich Re is a global” because he decided to welcome a newcomer. Then he switched to “but extreme events,” and he cited Junior, to provide comic relief. Then DA sealioned Dave, because that’s what DA does. Then Jeff coatracked his usual talking points. Because that’s what Jeff does.

        Then you piled on by citing “IPCC6,” which we both know isn’t a document.

        ***

        Now, correcting you is work. You know what this means? Yes, another spoon:

        Currently available management options have the potential to compensate global crop production losses due to climate change up to ~2-°C warming, but the negative impacts even with adaptation will grow substantially from the mid-century under high temperature change scenarios (high confidence).

        Op. Cit. page 6.

        Did you know that farmers bought insurance, and how do you feel about a 4C world?

      • Oh, and why not. Let’s be sport and gain some time. You cited section 8.3.2.8.1, Extratropical cyclones and storm tracks. That’s a lot of numbers, don’t you think?

        Search for summaries instead. For instance:

        Regional changes in the intensity and frequency of climate extremes generally scale with global warming. New evidence strengthens the conclusion from SR1.5 that even relatively small incremental26
        increases in global warming (+0.5°C) cause statistically significant changes in extremes on the global scale and for large regions (high confidence).

        That’s in chapter 11. The title is Weather and climate extreme events in a changing climate.

        So yeah, you’re not even citing the good chapter.

      • The IPCC should append “… according to our CliSciFi climate models.” to every such statement.

        Mark Twain: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

      • Oh, Dave.

        You’re such a clown.

      • David Appell

        Willard commented:
        in response to David Appell:
        Did you know that farmers bought insurance, and how do you feel about a 4C world?

        Are you responding to me? Because I have utterly no idea what your point is in any of your reply.

      • Are you Kid, Dave?

        You’re mixing responses via your WP box and via Judy’s. That makes threads unreadable.

        Also note that MM03 does not really exist, and that I have the Bishop’s political hit job.

      • Willard, we go back to Andrew Montfort’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion:” MM03 was submitted to Nature in response to MHB98. It was peer reviewed and the comments from the reviewers was overall complimentary and it received a “favourable revise and resubmit,” in other words some amendments were required but both MM03 and Mann’s reply to it were recommended for publication.

        Then the paleo climatological professional fun began: The Nature editor required the resubmitted MM03 paper be limited to an unwritten 800 word limit for its Communications Arising section, among other hoops to jump through. Over three months after the revised MM03 was submitted, the Nature editor rejected it (additionally mentioning a 500-word limit). One must wonder what went on during that lengthy period given the evidence of manipulation by the “Hockey Team” of peer review and journal editor pressures revealed by the whistleblower in Climategate. Heaven forbid that someone might question the gatekeeping practices of the paleo climatological community.

      • First things first, Dave.

        It’s 2005.

        There are two papers.

      • MM05 (GRL) blows up Mann’s short-centered PCs and lousy verification statistics.

        MM05 (EE) blows up just about everything about Mann’s hockey sticks, including dishonest manipulation of data.

        Since the paleo climatological community continues to abuse data and employ invalid statistical methods, older critiques of failures are still relevant. PAGES2k is a prime example.

      • W

        I linked to the IPCC6, not secondary sources. Apparently you have never read the IPCC reports. I didn’t get mixed up. You got mixed up by not reading the thread. My citation was to a specific reference to hurricanes.

        Still haven’t gotten your sight back, eh.

        Even your comrade, Appell, has no idea what you are talking about.

        Did I ever tell you that US income inequality exploded under Clinton? Hillary tried to blame poor Bush 2. But it’s Bubba’s fault. Millionaires income went from $176 Billion to $817 Billion under the Intern Stalker.
        Did I ever tell you how Individual Income Taxes exploded after Trump cut taxes? 4 years after he cut taxes they went up by $500 Billion. The last year under Obama they went up by a paltry $5 Billion.
        Did I ever tell you how in 3 years Family Poverty under Trump hit an all time low of 7.8% and median Household income rose more than what it did under 8 years under Obama?
        And now under your Boy, what do we have.

      • > I cited the IPCC6

        You didn’t, Kid. In fact you can’t. The IPCC6 does not exist. What you cited, after being asked multiple times over a few days, is the WGI from the AR6. Not the correct document – damage estimates are in WGII. And you quoted a nugget from Supplementary Material section about non-tropical cyclones from the incorrect chapter. Srsly. I hope you did not charge your clients too much to fill up their income taxes.

        However, let’s fall for your bait. No, not the one about Dubya. The one about Changes in Water Cycle, which is orthogonal to Munich Re’s claims. Here’s the summary of the global water cycle constraints:

        Global mean precipitation and evaporation increase at a lower rate than atmospheric moisture per C of global warming (high confidence) leading to longer water vapour lifetime in the atmosphere and driving changes in precipitation intensity, duration and frequency and an overall intensification but not acceleration of the
        global water cycle.

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

        No wonder you go for “but hurricanes” in non-tropical regions!

      • Willard

        Good to see you back. Hope you have been keeping well?

        tonyb

      • As I said, I linked to the IPCC6. Thanks for proving it. Again.

        You take being wrong almost as bad as Appell.

      • David Appell

        CKid commented:
        You take being wrong almost as bad as Appell.

        “acceleration is .0042 mm/yr”

      • > I linked to the IPCC6

        You did not, Kid, for the IPCC6 does not exist!

        You rather identified to what you were referring by “IPCC6.”

        It’s called the AR6 WGI.

        Language is a social art.

        Oh, and more work means more quotes:

        New evidence highlights the potential for multi-hazard risks to push the poor into persistent traps of extreme poverty (Räsänen et al., 2016). Risk of extreme impoverishment increases for low-income people
        experiencing repeated and successive climatic events, whereby before they have recovered from one disaster, they face another impact (Forzieri et al., 2016). Cascading and compounding risks arise from multiple
        climate hazards producing ‘overlaying impacts,’ for example, in mountainous regions, where the combination of glacier recession and extreme rainfall result in landslides (Martha et al., 2015). There is robust evidence that this effect has been observed around slow- and rapid-onset climate events related to drought, i.e., rising temperatures, heatwaves, and rainfall scarcity, with devastating consequences for agriculture (Vogt et al., 2018; Bouwer, 2019). Particularly the urban and rural landless poor face difficulties rebuilding assets following one-off disasters or a series of shocks (Garcia-Aristizabal et al., 2015)

        That’s from the AR6 WGII, the tome you should be quoting.

        Pay attention, Dave: “robust evidence,” not stoopid modulz.

      • Gotta love UN IPCC CliSciFi language, Willard: Their “climate events” are nothing more than current extreme weather events. They obviously have learned the social art of language. [Nothing in this section relates to CO2 increases.]

        The message should be that the West should encourage economic development in the Third World (including more reliable energy) such that improved infrastructure can better handle past weather extremes.

      • Should I apply your own policy to your Color Commentator act, Dave?