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.
“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
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?
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.
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.
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?
Peter Lang commented:
Clearly, a warmer world is better for ecosystems!!!
Why?
Which ecosystems?
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/
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.
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.
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.
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”
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/
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition - News7g
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.
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/
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.
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!
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
Patagonia
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00040851.1995.12003128
“ Finally, Kreutz et al. (1997) found evidence of a synchronous onset of the LIA when comparing their results from studies of West Antarctic ice cores with the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2).”
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/45035645/Historical_records_of_San_Rafael_glacier20160424-27880-kj2b8e-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1647605966&Signature=YS3JERb-PMxSyA-CfZHvpl0RQH~UCyIC1QM89A-iJ3d3VtuSAlp9jUB2ili~QrJrEL1BWq8PtKg7OVWwILfhxwM9xGZ2YUVr2SJPyl9MpDXVA6jwhjMK55jkIDFO7U71Yawz~0Ghm54yjPN90JUwAzSZG0RnSPJ0O3RurZTYZcysW69hmEJG4zYsroP-UlBMnsyRTiJLd5PApVM~RGrVv1p1zK0zKnlFptHO-pQtDbWHJp293UdfziAy8UnogZmGPclAOXUHBMUSLiyP4K0KdaSKsIWvSxx18Y7ms-P-ELak5TBsp1xEzQrYdG-OE5MIjUaste-dScaLAtI77gVv8w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
“ 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
CKid commented:
Peru
Peru does not equal the globe.
Q.E.D.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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%?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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!
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.”
Please let Roy know, Dave
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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 – 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
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
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.
The reconstruction isn’t made with a single proxy, is it?
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. :)
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
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.
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.
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.
So what climate would you select as being representative of the late 1700’s?
Tonyb
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Resistance to nuclear power can be eliminated by renaming the plants Zelensky Cleantech Centers.
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
It is still just GLOBAL ICE MAKING And GLOBAL ICE MELTING with simple High School science to explain the rast!!!!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
To David Appell – You might like my ideas to inspire voluntary IPAT Degrowth by addressing the cultural causes of climate injustice. https://medium.com/@barbarawilliams1/cultural-causes-of-climate-injustice-b59fb7d7f6de
Yep, David, socialism is the solution to all our problems. Just get rid of that nasty capitalism that gave all our material wealth, health and long lives. You are the classical example of a watermelon: Green on the outside, red at the core.
Dave Fair commented:
Yep, David, socialism is the solution to all our problems. Just get rid of that nasty capitalism that gave all our material wealth, health and long lives
Capitalism has good points and bad points. Rapacious, unregulated capitalism has mostly bad points. If you can’t see that you are blind, and willingly so.
The happiest countries in the world are all democratic socialist:
https://worldhappiness.report/news/amid-war-and-disease-world-happiness-report-shows-bright-spot/
Dave Fair commented:
You are the classical example of a watermelon: Green on the outside, red at the core.
And you’re an example of a rotten watermelon: black everywhere.
“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.
http://jeffnelsonsails850.wordpress.com/ You might like my ideas to inspire voluntary IPAT Degrowth by addressing the cultural causes of climate injustice. https://medium.com/@barbarawilliams1/cultural-causes-of-climate-injustice-b59fb7d7f6de
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.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q0D70WhV6JM
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.
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?
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?
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That?
“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.
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
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/
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? – ChicHue.com
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition |
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.
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.
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Watts Up With That? - News7g
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…..
Pingback: 기후 변화 및 에너지 전환을 해결하기 위한 ‘플랜 B’ – 와트 업? – Blog Ciencia
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.
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.
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).
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy transition – Climate- Science.press
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”.
lnicholson50 commented:
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
That’s such a crock of sh!t, I can’t believe you would even try to pass off such a lie. Who do you think is trying to solve those problems — CONSERVATIVES? OIL COMPANIES? MEGACORPORATIONS? MULTINATIONAL CAPITALISTS?
Who?
Oooh. David finds his territory being invaded by infidels…
I don’t think your comment is relevant to my observations. What “lie”? I said nothing about who is addressing these issues — but I do know that they are rarely included in a balanced discussion of climate change by climate change advocates as the most existential threat to much of the world’s population. To a billion or more people in this world, “existential” is food, water, shelter, etc. for the next month. We just don’t happen to be in that “billion”. For example: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html#:~:text=Globally%2C%20more%20than%20785%20million,have%20safe%20water%20to%20drink.&text=The%20proportion%20of%20the%20global,%25%20from%2061%25%20in%202000.
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.
“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 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.
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
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???
“…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.
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.
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??
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
OK, I’ll see you and raise you one. My evidence:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
Now, let’s see your evidence for your unsupported claim of “Completely false.”
Clyde, a WUWT link isn’t scientific evidence. Please.
Please link to legitimate scientific data, from GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT, JMA.
Climate models aren’t scientific evidence either, but they are featured in one of the latest hockey stick papers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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?
Some links:
An ocean full of deserts
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/an-ocean-full-of-deserts
Iron-Stimulated Phytoplankton Blooms https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41976-019-00012-y
There’s a ‘Desert’ in The Middle of The Pacific
https://www.sciencealert.com/in-the-heart-of-the-ocean-lies-a-desert-and-scientists-just-found-what-lives-in-it
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.
https://twitter.com/sonyasavage/status/1500579398545657856
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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/
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/
Clearly “manmade climate change” has 2nd place! RUSSIA is the source of all…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 –
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chris Mitchell is my favourite journalist. His 2016 book “Making Headlines” is well worth a read.
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.
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.”
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/
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Peace through energy independence!
“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???
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/
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 1C 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.:
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.
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?
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
“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.
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].
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
Appell
“ acceleration is .0042 mm/yr””
Thank you, David, I’m going to book mark your reply to show you agree with me there is no significant acceleration. I’ll put it next to your link to the Houston paper showing an insignificant acceleration of .0128 mm/yr.
Only a third grader would think in the context of those discussions we had, a 2 is a big deal. But then look who we’re dealing with.
This reminds me of a protracted exchange I had several years ago with JimD when in spite of IPCC5 saying explicitly the Antarctica contribution to GMSLR was only .27mm/yr he refused to admit I was correct. In a few years it will all be moot when the tidal gauges just keep trucking along at 2-3mm/yr.
“ That’s from the AR6 WGII, the tome you should be quoting.”
That is what I linked to.
The discussion by you that there is no “document “ reminds me of Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of is is.”
Repeat after me, Kid:
“IPCC6” does not refer to anything precise.
IPCC’s deliverables include AR6 WGI, WGII, and so on and so forth.
More work, more quotes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
Flood insurance is an important market.
Thanks to your obduracy, I can report more science. What’s not to like?
CKid commented:
“ acceleration is .0042 mm/yr””
Thank you, David, I’m going to book mark your reply to show you agree with me there is no significant acceleration.
Do whatever you want. I agreed to no such thing. The point of my comment was to show you don’t know the units of sea level acceleration, you repeated those incorrect units several times, and refused to admit your error many times when it was repeatedly pointed out to you.
You’re beyond tedious, always choose to be slippery, and never give a straightforward reply to anything. That’s why I mostly ignore you anymore.
Dave Fair commented:
Their “climate events” are nothing more than current extreme weather events.
LOL
What do you expect events to be???
They don’t meet the definition of climate, roughly “average weather in a given location over a long period of time.” There has been no change in average global weather since at least the year 1900.
W
All of it is very Appellesque of you except you still haven’t provided evidence that the citation I gave was incorrect and you don’t tap dance as well. I especially enjoyed watching you engaging in interludes straight from Three Christs of Ypsilanti including instructions on when a document is really not a document since a new definition of the word document is being created by the moment and on the fly, ala when is a man not really a man and when is a woman not really a woman.
> you still haven’t provided evidence that the citation I gave was incorrect
Not sure what you mean by “incorrect,” Kid, but I’m quite sure I did better than that in at least two ways.
First, I helped you produce the damn link. It sure took you a while, and you still refuse to use the proper name for what you cited, but you did it. So thank you.
Second, I used that link to show how irrelevant was your quote. Not only you took it from the wrong tome, but you searched in the wrong chapter and the wrong section.
You know what they say – teach a man to fish and he’ll stink for the rest of his life. But since you insist, compare and contrast:
[JEFF] 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
[KID] “In summary, there is low confidence in recent changes in the total number of extra-tropical cyclones over both hemispheres.”
Notice any difference?
So yeah, right.
Now, you made me work. So I’ll read to you another bit you kinda “skipped over”:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
Page 11.
I’m sure an accountant never forgets that it’s the compounding effect that matters.
Short version of this long string:
Appell says “let’s us Munich Re when discussing today’s AGW disasters”
Jeff says “how about IPCC, which says there aren’t any today’s AGW disasters.”
Willy says “but they swear it will happen some day. (Just like they said it would happen before today, but it didn’t) and, anyway, there is no IPCC.”
Kid says “the IPCC is a real thing”
Willy says it isn’t real when it’s talking about observed reality, but it is real when it predicts an alternate reality he needs to justify posting on a beautiful weekend.
Even shorter:
[WILLIAM] Here is a paper I wrote.
[DAVE] I don’t like it, and I don’t like you. And what Junior said.
[DA] What did he say?
[W] Not what Dave makes him say.
[JEFF] But hurricanes.
[DA] Citation needed.
[KID] Look up IPCC9.
[W] That… does not exist.
[KID] Alright, here you go.
[W] That… does not support Jeff’s claim.
Here we are.
I don’t make Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. say anything. Read his work and you will find his statements that severe weather events frequency and severity track his normalization of costs; they cross verify as a check to his normalizations. If you are so knowledgeable, Willard, you should know this because it has been widely reported. Do a little homework and visit Dr. Pielke, Jr.’s site.
Oh, Dave. You clown. Why don’t you repeat what you said first, because you don’t recall?
Here it is:
You don’t see any normalization there, now, do you?
Also note that you’re like six or seven years too late. Start here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/extreme-events/#comment-74832
There are many other threads.
“Here we are”. Indeed.
In 3122, when the hem of Lady Liberty is finally moistened, in some university’s anthropology curriculum they will be offering a course entitled “The Workings of the 21st Century Warmist Brain:Did it?”
The question of in many circles of Wokeism, one that I have admittedly pondered from time to time in my deepest meditative state is what is the meaning of the word “document”? It’s not without its complexities. Some neuro scientists rank the question up there in importance with the molecular mechanisms regulating dendritic arbor complexity,
Since I don’t have a proclivity of making insensitive comments ala Chris Rock, I won’t weigh in on why Willard would spend hours writing on this thread and coming to the same conclusion that Kid and Jeff barely broke a sweat in coming to, and in only 15 seconds, namely that the subject citations were from the same document known as IPCC6, and alternatively IPCC6.
The World Wonders
Delicious Freedom Fighters tears in the morning.
This is on the house:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/extreme-events/#comment-74947
“Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme.” Yep, Willard, that proves extreme weather has been increasing. And the UN IPCC CliSciFi SREX cherry picks 1950, not 1900. How to identify a CliSciFi shill. Add in a few ad homs and you have the whole picture.
That’s hilarious, Willy!
For those of you who don’t know, the climate ballers hate “Jr.” because he keeps catching them. They would say “there have been more hurricanes!” and he would point out that the data say that isn’t true (and that the IPCC even concedes this.) And then he does it with floods, rain, drought, tornadoes, etc etc etc.
It’s terrible for the crusaders. How can you make Greta cry for the cameras if you can’t give her a catastrophe to cry over?
So now we get the new Jr-proof standard. There are, probably, “some extremes” somewhere but we won’t specify what extremes or where because “Jr” will just show that we’re wrong again. And, anyway, it’s really really hard to tell if there have been more (or less) extremes so even when we say there weren’t any (“low confidence”) you should assume there were some. And note that word “extreme”- it includes cold weather, snow, more ice, all the stuff they said won’t happen anymore.
Quick reminder that this discussion started based around the fact that Munich Re is raising people’s insurance rates based on this new standard. You have to pay more to insure your property against things that aren’t happening. Because… greed.
Your villainous monologues are misguided, Jeff:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
Try to “normalize” this!
Willard, I’m happy that the UN IPCC thinks so, but the data disagrees. The CliSciFi trick is to conflate minimal warming, small additional changes in rainfall and regionally balanced minor drought with disaster; political wording tricks.
Nobody died and made you the Data King, Dave. You disagree. That’s fine. “But Data” is another square:
https://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-data
You’re still wrong:
I get that you’re trying to become Judy’s Color Commentator. That’s OK. Slapping William like you did was not OK. It makes Judy look bad, and you like a fool.
From Willy’s link:
“There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones.”
Weren’t hurricanes the star “catastrophe” of our “existential threat”? Why yes, yes they were. You can’t make Greta cry without a storm!
“But, but,” sputters Willy, “there have been some warm days! Look! It says the growing season is longer! It says that, in some places, some times, it rains! And some days it doesn’t!”
My how far we’ve come from James Hansen listing the NYC roadways that will be permanently underwater by 2020. “An Inconvenient Truth” with its hurricane imagery or “The Day After Tomorrow” with its apocalyptic tornadoes and snow hurricanes.
Now we’re to be weeping over the possibility that Stiffington Babbcock IV may be noted to have perspired at the “trust-fund millionaires for climactic socialism” convention (do try the endangered species stew if you can park the private jet in time).
Is Munich Re only raising insurance rates on farmers (presumably the ones who don’t want rain and good growing seasons)?
“Global increase in major tropical cyclone exceedance probability over the past four decades,” James P. Kossin et al, PNAS June 2, 2020 117 (22) 11975-11980.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/22/11975
Cherrypicking 1980 as a start date. Why not 1900? Hurricane frequency is cyclic; NAO and other cyclical phenomena affect them.
jeffnsails850 commented:
Is Munich Re only raising insurance rates on farmers (presumably the ones who don’t want rain and good growing seasons)?
It’s been made clear here that Munich Re only insures insurance companies. Hence the “Re.” Not farmers.
> Weren’t hurricanes the star “catastrophe” of our “existential threat”?
No. You’re confusing with the favorite contrarian claptrap, i.e. “But CAGW.” Try again.
Added to:
http://tinyurl.com/the-bingo/but-hurricanes
Many thanks, and keep the slow pitches coming!
Dave Fair commented:
Cherrypicking 1980 as a start date. Why not 1900?
Do a minute’s worth of reading and find out.
“To address the heterogeneities in the best-track data, a new global record of intensity was previously constructed (7) by applying a well-known intensity estimation algorithm (the advanced Dvorak Technique, or ADT) (15, 16) to a globally homogenized record of geostationary satellite imagery (the Hurricane Satellite record, or HURSAT) (17, 18). The original version of the ADT-HURSAT record spanned the 28-y period 1982–2009.”
HURSAT started in 1978 because that’s when the necessary satellites started becoming available.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00997
Same as for lots of other satellite products, i.e. RSS and UAH.
See my comment to Willard about Roger Pielke, Jr.’s August 2020 paper. No long term changes in TC intensity nor frequency. Has the method you summarized been validated?
> See my comment
Good grief, Dave. Lack of homogeneity is one of the reasons to normalize data!
Besides, you might like:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744
I love it Willard. You have one guy that disagrees with the standard methodologies in the normalization field of study. He doesn’t give a competing normalization, just calls for more study of statistical methods. He has in no way shown Roger Pielke, Jr. and the other practitioners have produced erroneous results, he just doesn’t like them not following his method for determining elasticities. Statistics is a bitch.
You’re just saying stuff, Dave.
Good night.
Stuff you don’t like, Willard.
Stuff that is wrong, Dave, more like:
Junior’s not the only guy in that town.
I’ll stick with Roger Pielke, Jr., Willard. How much of a difference did Estrada find?
Of course you’ll stick to Junior, Dave.
And I’ll stick with my second favorite life-long Republican:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mit-climate-scientist-responds-on-disaster-costs-and-climate-change/
I’ll let you read the other more important point.
We are talking about a short and minor 538 article in 2014, not a study. It is limited to a simplistic look at GDP. In his studies, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. considers many factors, not just GDP, including the relative robustness of infrastructure built at different times. His normalizations are cross-referenced to the incidence and severity to weather events.
Call me when Kerry Emanuel does a normalization study. He can expand upon his “number of bears in the woods” theory. That’s more along the lines of “its not bad now but just you wait” school of CliSciFi hysteria. He likes to use climate models when looking at hurricanes.
> We are talking about a short and minor
Not exactly, Dave. We’re talking about Junior’s overarching point. A point he was hammering in the 90s, A point he tweets about as we speak. He even declares vindication by citing studies that start with:
https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/sigma-2022-01.htm
I’ll let you find the study Kerry mentioned he did, and slow down a bit. You definitely need to catch your breath.
Willard, thank you for the citation I had previously seen that validates the reasons for using Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s normalizing methods. I am well aware of Emanuel’s work cherrypicking start dates for hurricane analyses.
And you need to quit dodging and weaving, ignoring central points, Willard.
All you got are talking points, Dave, and everything confirms what you knew all along, Dave. Junior’s your man. My stack is on those who put money where their mouth is.
Speaking of which, you might like:
https://www.reinsurancene.ws/climate-change-a-growing-concern-for-global-re-insurers-pwc/
Nay not worry, cybercrime does not cover online contrarianism.
Yep, Willard, that climate change fear is a big moneymaker.
Insurers and reinsurers fear only one thing, Dave. You know what? No, not online contrarians like you.
Losing money.
Like what’s happening to them right now:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2022/04/01/660918.htm
I have no idea why you’re trying to poison your own well, but do continue. That adds to my “But Hurricanes” page.
Note they are responding to higher prices. FJB.
And you’ll never guess where these come from, Dave. For instance:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rise-in-flood-claims-tied-to-climate-change-1.943878
The problem you got, Dave, is quite simple:
You believe people are selfish idiots.
Most are not.
All this anger will kill you from inside.
Let go of it.
Peace.
No, Willard, on the contrary; I believe (generally) that people are selfish and smart. Were we not both, the species would have never made it out of the blocks and we wouldn’t have to deal with politicians and used car salesmen. Idiots are not successful on their own.
Despite your ducking and weaving, the subject is the usefulness of normalization of damages methods vs the use of straight cost or other single or multiple-metric techniques for determining the evolution of extreme weather damages. Since there are numerous normalization studies performed by academics in the field which are accepted by the UN IPCC, I’ll go with them as opposed to anecdotal insurance industry factoids.
I’m done with this subject since you have given me nothing to justify changing my mind. I’m happy to let you continue to pontificate to the gullible.
If you were truly committed to the idea that people are smart, Dave, you would not claim that the “subject” is what you tried to peddle in this thread. Hint: search for “Munich Re.” Neither would you try to intimate that you or Junior know more than insurers and reinsurers. And you would not try to pretend I did not address your bait. I did. Many times.
There’s no point in trying to convince contrarians bent on fooling themselves. I’m not here for you, but to remind everyone that you suck as a Color Commentator.
Be seeing you,
Thanks for your no-information comment, Willard.
My pleasure to meet pure denial, Dave.
Thank you for putting me in the large group of real scientists and mathematicians, most especially Steve McIntyre, Willard.
The Auditor is neither, Dave, in fact words fail me to characterize his current output.
What’s quite sure is that you’re not him, Junior, a mathematician or a scientist. You’re just a silly Color Commentator who can’t buy a clue.
Willard, I know its tough when people more talented than you, such as Steve McIntyre, point out your buddies’ errors but calling them deniers is beyond crass.
I call them “contrarians,” Dave, but “But Denier” is indeed a Bingo square:
tinyurl.com/the-bingo//but-denier/
What a long and silly thread.
‘When it comes to certain types of natural hazards, there are more bears in the woods. For example, there is a clear upward trend in overall North Atlantic hurricane activity by virtually all metrics, over the past 30 years or so, though the cause of this is still uncertain.’ Kerry Emmanuel
With a length of data of the same order as decadal variability we can’t say what caused an increase in bear numbers – if there is one. But I don’t expect anyone much to understand the statistical niceties. Certainly not poor wee willie.
But whatever the reality – poor wee willies plan to hand production over to a metaverse AI to impose a ‘solution’ is nothing short of progressive madness.
As a lapsed civil engineer I would suggest just building more resilient infrastructure – building for past extremes as it is commonly put.
Dave Fair commented:
In his studies, Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. considers many factors, not just GDP, including the relative robustness of infrastructure built at different times.
What RPJr doesn’t do, as many have pointed out, is include the costs of building to minimize storm damages (dykes, levies, roads, buildings, emergency services, weather satellites and services, etc), which acts to decrease future costs and deaths.
David, what the hell do you think “… relative robustness of infrastructure built at different times.” means? All you are doing is a continuation of the nasty practices of your and Mann’s Hockey Team of attacking anybody that counters the narrative with whatever misdirection, leaving out important information and outright lies you can come up with. CliSciFi is nothing but an edifice built on political money.
Dave Fair commented:
David, what the hell do you think “… relative robustness of infrastructure built at different times.” means?
I don’t know — what does it mean?
And where does RPJr include that? Or Lomborg?
Dave Fair commented:
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.
They can do whatever in the hell they want!!
They’re a private company. They can do what they please. If you don’t like it take your business elsewhere.
David, how about Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s review of 54 studies published between 1998 and 2020 showing no statistical increase in extreme weather events:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2020.1800440?journalCode=tenh20
Shuck and jive your way out of that one.
Dave Fair commented:
David, how about Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s review of 54 studies published between 1998 and 2020 showing no statistical increase in extreme weather events:
No, I asked you where RPJr included the cost of “infrastructure improvements” in his damage costs over the last century. I’ve seen people criticize him for that, so can you point that out for me?
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.
I, too, have seen people criticize Dr. Pielke’s work, but it is all misdirection, CliSciFi attacks and cancellation attempts.
> cancellation attempts
In a thread where our new Color Commentator succeeded in peddling more than fifty comments on his favorite Mike, no less.
If you have done all this research into historical weather events, supply some links. So far, you have supplied nothing but hot air.
Based on the comparisons I have made, I am comfortable that the Munich Re data is not incorrect. If you doubt that it is, do your own research.
Dr. Curry would probably be happy to post your work on climate events. That way you can have your say, but back it up with data. That would be way more effective.
It will all be out in my new paper to be published in Journal of Science Frontier Research, this month.
Hopefully, we won’t have to pay to read. In that case, I believe you can comp Dr. Curry a copy.
I have no idea whether there are charges to read my forthcoming article, but I have the right to copy it and publish it.
How do I bring it to the attention of Dr. Curry, to have it posted on Climate Events.
curry.judith (at) yahoo.com
Thank you!
Larry Fink has done some productive lobbying … for himself. Not us. Who is ‘us’? The common person.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cattle-ranchers-meatpackers-beef-price-inflation-11647874135?st=9c2onrto3cb528v&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Sorry, wrong link. Although that was an interesting article, as well.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gary-gensler-stages-a-climate-coup-securities-and-exchange-commission-blackrock-11647899043?st=4o86btbl0pcgah9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Certainly seems like collapse of democracy stuff.
Investing in index funds certainly did make sense because of lower expenses.
But the popularity of index funds and ETFs meant an abdication of shareholder voting rights and a consolidation of power to the likes of Black Rock and Vanguard. That power is then corruptible in the hands of a few power brokers.
Libertarians note the presence of regulatory capture when corporations lobby, infiltrate, and co-opt regulatory agencies. While this case is about SEC regulations, the first capture appears to have been of Black Rock by climate zealots. I’m pretty sure that Black Rock is more interested in profit than of any cause, but they may be thinking they can use climate idiocy to their advantage. That ESG funds have huge management fees is interesting. Perhaps by this move they push more investing in these stupid but lucrative funds? Am I complicit by investing in index funds?
Where should one invest?
Prioritizing these non-productive measures means inefficiency of capital and so, public harm. Seems as if our digital connected and consolidated world will be our downfall. Lord help us all.
Having someone like Fink gain control of company boards via ETF shares is a major problem. Investors need to shun those. But then, retirement funds also use them. Don’t know how we would influence those.
The business world has never been democratic, so to speak. Not sure I would want it to be either. But you’re right that this is a threat to democracy, or our republican form of it. So is any institution, bureaucracy or business entity that has enough power to drastically alter the way we live, in a direction we may not have chosen, that is to our financial and social detriment.
Nothing new, actually. Just a recent iteration. Is Fink any different than Musk? Isn’t Fink just the logical progression from Musk? Reminds me of the Willie Sutton quote: Why do you rob banks? Cause that’s where the money is.
By the above, I am not in support of the term stakeholder. That’s another socialist invention of a seemingly harmless (cool?) term used for political control. I am in support of anti-monopoly/trust.
I can’t answer your question of where to invest. Except that giving institutions your shareholder vote may not be in your best interest. It takes more work to be a self investor. And you can never fully keep your resources from being used by others, i.e. bank accounts. However, you can limit it … and be aware of it.
You probably have heard Charlie Munger’s take:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-munger-expects-index-funds-to-change-the-worldand-not-in-a-good-way-11645055334?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink&st=qr71ph0j87ctzdw&utm_source=pocket_mylist
It’s the Wizard of Id in reverse:
The Fink is a King.
Judith … please release my comment.
Thank you!
I have a comment in moderation, and I have no idea why. However, answering your question about where to invest, one of the things to keep in mind are capital flows for investments. Blackrock is moving capital from traditional energy investments to alternative ones. And, they also do what they can to protect those investments, i.e. shareholder votes, lobbying agencies, etc.
Here’s an article on Koch Industries investments in alternative energy. Certainly not the darlings of progressives. And while I’m sure they are still investing heavily in oil, etc … they see the capital flows and the policies that are protecting them. So, they dabble in it as well. Nothing like a good hedge.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/koch-industries-built-on-oil-bets-big-on-u-s-batteries-11647946147?st=or14193mdhb2mui&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
When investing considerations of right or wrong are nice, but the goal is to make money. That said, one must try to find a balance.
Nuclear it will be.
In recent weeks, some of Silicon Valley’s most famous technologists have hailed a historically polarizing energy source — nuclear power — as a solution to both cutting carbon emissions and weaning the world off now-controversial Russian gas.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that nuclear is “critical” to national security, while the risk of radiation is overplayed. And venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called for “1,000 new state-of-the-art nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe, right now.”
The war galvanized a sentiment which has been building in recent years in the startup world, where billionaires including Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel have opened their wallets to back next-generation nuclear companies. None of the advanced reactor startups has yet produced an operating commercial product, but some believe that the combination of tech advances and a new urgency around ditching fossil fuels could be a catalyst for the sector — which has mostly languished in regulatory purgatory since the 1970s.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/tech-billionaires-rally-around-nuclear-as-energy-crisis-looms?srnd=premium
I was at a kid’s baseball practice the other day where four dads (including me) were watching NCAA tourny games on our cell phones.
Tech is a massive electricity suck and growing exponentially. A world where every house has four devices streaming from tech’s massive server farms and two EVs on home chargers is a world that will need a ton of stable, plentiful, low-cost electricity.
The climate gang has been telling kids for years that they can have that world, and have it powered by solar panels, all while demanding that governments mitigate by “conserving” energy.
It makes sense that the tech world is the first to wake up, and the group least susceptible to climate BS.
But the climate gang has painted themselves into a corner. Once people accept that nuclear is the obvious answer, the climate gang loses half its political base. The Sierra Club et al are never going to fight for nuclear. The Democratic Socialists are never going to give up on their dreams of millions of federally funded solar panel installers (with work-optional policies!) Center Left Democrats are going to suddenly realize this means people on social media will note they were wrong for decades on nukes. And that their stealth VAT – the “carbon tax” – is entirely unnecessary for a nuclear transition.
That leaves a “climate concerned” coalition of Libertarians For Big Government and Conservatives For Top-Down Federal Policy on Everything.
They can hold the next Climate Conference in a booth at IHOP.
> millions of federally funded solar panel installers
Just wait till you see how much nukes power plant cost, Jeff. More importantly for how long. You might be wishing for a stealth VAT too!
New nuclear LCOE is cheaper than wind and solar (without batteries) in many parts of the world.
Try it yourself – https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
“For a clean energy future, GA-EMS is bringing together the team and technologies to realize a community-friendly, advanced nuclear plant that works seamlessly with renewables,” said Dr. Christina Back, vice president of Nuclear Technologies and Materials at GA-EMS. “There is strong interest across the industry in the future commercialization of the FMR. Our design will employ technologies for safe and reliable operation that can be sited virtually anywhere to expand distributed electricity generation.” https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-and-framatome-collaborate-to-develop-a-fast-modular-reactor
They have just reopened a refurbished a TRIGA fuel core fabrication facility. The convert and burn core is what makes it special. It is on schedule for prototype operation by the end of the decade. It’s a version of GA’s EM2 model.
‘EM2 evolved from a parallel design and cost modelling effort to enable rapid feedback between design decisions and their impact on power cost, thus identifying key cost drivers and targeting them for reduction. Because the cost of capital is one of the largest challenges for nuclear plant construction due to long, uncertain construction periods, EM2 is designed for factory fabrication and modular construction. All components are road transportable. These approaches allow a four-unit EM2-based plant to be completed in just 42 months.
Its higher operating temperature and direct-drive power conversion unit allow EM2 to achieve a 53% net thermal efficiency, compared to 30% to 35% for current light-water reactors. The simpler direct-drive system also means reduced construction costs, since elements such as the steam generators, the main steam system and the feedwater-condensate system are eliminated.
The “convert and burn” approach means EM2 utilizes its uranium fuel much more efficiently, generating more power from the same core volume. EM2 can also use a variety of fuels, including spent fuel from light water reactors.’ https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
In addition to not using required battery storage for costing unreliable wind and solar electric generation for LCOE calculations, the IEA calculator puts a $30/ton of CO2 penalty on FF generators.
The point was that nuclear is cheap in large parts of the world. The nuclear renaissance happening at the moment will make nuclear cheaper yet. And one can set the carbon price to zero in the IEA calculator. As I always do.
LCOE is a useful metric for wind and solar at low penetration. And I am so far from endorsing 100% wind and solar.
Dave is a ridiculous little poseur who cant see past his ideological blinkers.
Robert, your “poseur” comment was uncalled for: What is ideological about pointing out that the IEA doesn’t include storage in unreliables’ LCOE estimates and noting they put a $30/ton price on FFs? I don’t bother making changes to their inputs and running their LCOE calculator; none of it matters to me because all of the assumptions going into LCOE means one can get any result desired. I’ve conducted, directed and approved financial studies of alternative electric power facilities to make investment decisions. EIA LCOE estimates are worthless for actual decisionmaking.
I assume your nose is frostbitten from its place high in the atmosphere, Robert.
It is absolutely called for. We know that renewables are intermittent. We don’t need Dave to pipe up every time to remind us. Let me say just one more time that wind and solar do not require batteries at all at current penetrations. The hydro resource in Australia has capacity factor of some 2%. It would be (1) absurd to claim that
that hydro generation needs battery backup and (2) it is used to maximise the value of both hydro and wind and solar – plus biomass or landfill gas. Oh the ennui in going over this again for twits like Dave to simply repeat his memes.
We know what LCOE is and Dave objects to it because it doesn’t suit his ill informed and unquantified assertions. I don’t care.
Not changing the carbon price – I assume he didn’t look close enough before reflexively spouting nonsense – and then whine about it is BS. And then he typically invents a post hoc justification of his error. He doesn’t change the slide bar conveniently and prominently provided because it is beneath him. What a crock.
I assume Dave’s many problems and intellectual pratfalls is the result of oxygen deprivation from having his head so far up his own arse.
At current penetrations to electric supply systems wind and solar unreliables impose real costs on other parts of the system, generation and transmission. As they increase their penetration, the rest of the system will lose its ability to compensate for frequency excursions and generation shortages caused by intermittent wind and solar generation. As an electric system professional I tell you those are the general facts, Robert. None of your supercilious blathering and gratuitous insults will change them.
I cut my teeth on systems analysis and operation of a hydro-heavy regional generation and transmission system, Robert, in contrast to your ignorance. Part of the reason for Australian’s hydroelectric low capacity factor is that the the projects have multiple uses, including flood control and irrigation as well as electric generation. Hydroelectric’s ability to quickly ramp up and down is a valuable contribution to the reliability and stability of existing electric systems. Absent a change in societal attitudes, however, there will not be much more of it installed to meet future growth in demand.
The only “carbon” price is that imposed on CO2 emissions by ignorant government fiat. You know, CO2 taxes and the cap and trade nonsense to create scarcity, both of which are being paid for by lowering the standards of living for ordinary citizens. With the now-obvious high energy prices (including gasoline) I’m hopeful voters will kick out the feckless Leftists causing energy shortages.
As an electric system professional, Robert, I know exactly what LCOE is and isn’t. One cannot use generalized LCOE figures for electric system planning nor financing. Everything is situational and system and site specific. Future system planning based on unrealistic government-issued LCOE charts is insanity; it will blow up in investors’ faces.
What are these “errors” and “post hoc justification” I’ve made, Robert? What is this slide bar I don’t change? I respond to comments that show up in my email inbox, generally in sequential order but not always. I respond to comments and questions as they are presented, not necessarily in some commentor’s preferred sequence or manner. Get over it.
I don’t know what Dave does with his time. It doesn’t seem to be reading. Or maybe just climate echo chambers. And he says the same things over and over. The mark of a zealot.
Learn something new Dave.
Robert, I will respond to you with the same level of discourse used in your comment: Screw you, too. Now we can just trade insults; no discussions needed.
I always start with civility. Dave has exhausted any claim to it.
Robert, you are the most self-unaware person I’ve encountered in a long time.
Says Dave deep in hypocrisy.
Oh, screw this. I grow tired of your tediousness, Robert. Bye.
The hydro capacity factor is 12% and not 2%.
But I was in fact discussing nuclear costs. Something Dave ignored and instead repeated his meme.
I know how much nuclear power plants cost Willard, a big percent of the electricity I use comes from a nuclear power plant. That’s why I pay much less than people in California do.
Nice to see you back (seriously, no snark, I was a little worried Covid had you down for a while).
Just a reminder re nuclear is that the current hot topic amongst the climate glitteratti is Andrew Dessler’s attempt to hand-way away “cost-benefit” analyses.
The current climate-ball approach is to pivot to the claim: “you don’t know how bad Climate will be, so you should estimate a ridiculous cost.”
But that misses the actual debate. Which is, of course, “if you really want to cut emissions in half by 2035 or 2050, then we should use a cost benefit analyses on the different options.”
Which one tribe- and only one tribe – refuses to do because they insist only one option exists. Cost benefit analyses exist for nuclear v renewables (MIT in particular) and the outcome isn’t even close to being close. But we’ve all known that since Rio.
Call me crazy, but to my mind Ellison and
Fair are more in agreement than disagreement. The only big difference is the extent to which you need wind and solar on a grid that is mostly nuclear.
You need something in addition to nuclear. If it’s solar/wind then you need nuclear + solar/wind + fossil fuels to back up the solar/wind.
Carbon price in that scenario is just tax revenue, not a means of making any transition.
Wind and solar don’t work in any realistically achievable scenario. The erratic output defies efficient management. In the near term, more nuclear plants, probably many of those SNRs. And natural gas plants to load balance. Just do away with the Green Energy Extremists’ unreliable wind and solar.
Jim,
Well… yes. It appears some people have the idea that as long as we put a few solar panels on the roof, the green movement will allow nuclear power plants.
You don’t need the panels, of course, other than for political cover. The green movement doesn’t care enough about climate to take that deal- they want something else.
An analogy would be that one tribe wants 100% bicycle transportation and the compromise is a bicycle rack inside the airplanes. Who actually wants that? Nobody. But reality dictates the airplanes will happen, with or without the racks. So politicians cheer the bike people, allocate $1 million for “bike lanes” and $100 billion for “airport improvements” and CNN calls them “green.”
Chief does not always conflates cost (as in the size of an investment or simply or an amount required in payment for a purchase) and levelized costs, but when he does he points to a document where wind and solar have the cheapest LCOE:
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
Perhaps he missed the graph? Perhaps he used a 10% discount rate? Who knows!
Dave Fair commented:
Robert, I will respond to you with the same level of discourse used in your comment: Screw you, too. Now we can just trade insults; no discussions needed.
Fair enough. Robert can rarely refrain from personal insults, so he certainly deserves them in reply.
Why is it that it seems the two most opinionated and obnoxious posters on Climate Etc. have an ongoing feud?
A couple of years ago, I ran across two NASA papers on polar melting and the potential for sea level rise. They both observed that sea ice is irrelevant, as it’s already part of sea level. They both observed that the conversion of polar ice to sea ice is large, fast moving, and dramatic. However, the one paper on the Antarctic (a continent 5X the size of the non-continent Arctic) observed that although the perimeter was indeed calving off into sea ice, the interior was building up vertically at a rate that might well overcome the Arctic mass losses in a decade or two. So, while people tend to focus on the loss of perimeter ice and polar bears seemingly adrift, the total mass of ice in the combined poles might be approaching stability, as the Earth slowly shifts its patterns without regard to man’s concerns.
I also found that this is not the first time the Arctic has melted, even completely. It’s just so inconvenient when it happens in our lifetimes. But the result of that, thousands of years ago, was not global disaster or sea level rise. It apparently has to do with the wobbling tilt of the Earth’s axis.
There is another argument that says CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, creating an increase in acidity that threatens marine life and eventually, man. The oceans are a huge collector of CO2, converting it to carbonic acid. Measurements of increasing acidity attempt to go back as far as the 15th century to make the claim that we are on a road to perdition. The Global Development Research Center notes that the ultimate impact is unknown: “…most of the dissolved carbon dioxide is eventually returned to the surface via ocean currents – but this can take centuries or millennia.” Measurements of ocean pH is problematical even today, with water covering over 70% of the planet, to miles deep. Researchers, attempting to make their case, focus on the Industrial Revolution. But the derivation of what the acidity of the oceans was hundreds of years ago compared to today is indirect, complex, and random, involving the inspection of how skeletons of crustaceans and corals were constructed back then. Meanwhile, we see frequent marine biologist comments about how resilient the corals are in places like the Great Barrier Reef, SE Asia and Hawaii.
Just thought I’d chime in with that. New contributor.
Many governments subsidize new nuclear innovation. Including the US federal government.
You going to let them solve global warming? It is real and may – in typically reticent scientific terms – trigger abrupt climate change.
fs
Plan C.
Works a treat.
Instead of worrying about the Gordian knot of climate change adopt a little human psychology.
–
In the current clime of fear and hysteria plan B, being a logical approach, will not be allowed to work.
Instead use plan C.
Do not fret the small stuff.
Let the waves wash over your feet like Canute.
Think how lucky you are to be at the seaside with a tide coming in, swimming, ice-creams, dreamy people to look at.
–
Within 6 hours the tide will recede.
Always does like clockwork.
This is not a Tsunami or a King Tide,only an average sized seventh wave.
Make sure you have a life ring and paddle around until the seaweed drifts back out to sea.
–
This approach works with elections for both Democrats and Republicans alike.It just takes 4 years instead of 6 hours but a change always comes.
Not in the logic unfortunately.
–
Climate science fear will only be eradicated by a change back in the climate which can work on cycles of 60- 600 years.
Human nature is already dictating that the issue will be solved by more drilling, fracking and acceptance until the fossil fuels run out.
$8 petrol will see to that very quickly.
angech
“Human nature is already dictating that the issue will be solved by more drilling, fracking and acceptance until the fossil fuels run out.”
–
Exactly. The fossil fuels will run out. In a thousand years, or in a few thousand years? But fossil fuels will run out definitely.
–
What with, the humans, will replace the petrochemicals in a million years from now?
In ten million years?
–
Humans will be on the planet for billions years to come. What planet we are going to inherit to future people. Let’s think about it.
Will it be a planet without fossil fuels sediments?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nuclear costs will break even with natural gas in the US – this decade I think. At which stage there is no economic advantage in building gas fired generators.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/em-break-even.jpg
CV
Fossil fuels are a historical record of our past .
I can see a world in which obtainable resources do become hard to get.
At that stage though uranium and hydrogen, solar and good old wind and wave energy will be easily harnessed in ways we cannot yet conceive.
I see no problems with future energy production.
Forgot to mention thermal energy.
Humans will continue to use fossil fuels until they run out.
It is too easy to do so.
Hopefully they keep an oil lamp and a series of fractionated oil to re3mind people of our past.
I very much appreciate the idea of having cheap, clean and renewable energy.
–
What worries me though is a single characteristic of them that is not susceptible to dealing with them: that they are intermittent, that is, wind and sunshine do not appear either constantly or predictably.
–
This feature has important consequences, as in the final scenarios of the green transition, renewables should be proposed only as the fossil fuels saving factors.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech says “Hopefully they keep an oil lamp and a series of fractionated oil to re3mind people of our past.”
angech your comment sent me 70 yrs back in time. Then the kerosene lamp had replaced the 2000+ year old lamp burning olive oil, but there were several of those still around. Wind was already king, counting 80+ Chicago Air Motors on the horizon. And the main beam of the donkey driven water bucket chain -for calm days- had Bethlehem Steel stamped on it (wondered then what it had to do with christmas).
But I see many problems with future energy availability (Fukushima and Chernobyl remain a big problem, in many and varied ways).
I am working on addressing the problem of ocean acidification and alkinization which suggest different approaches to the question of CO2 level rise causation.
I note Clyde Spencer’s comment above
The approach taken is to consider the globe changed to a giant test tube with the walls made of earth rather than glass.
with the atmosphere over the ocean extending up the walls and above the test tube but kept in place by gravity.
This then enables the concept of the true cause of CO2 rising to be elicited.
Happy to have constructive feedback on this important issue.
CO2 rise is closely correlated with temperature rise due to outgassing of CO2 from the sea.
No other mechanism is required.
The refusal to debate this obvious point is reminiscent off the treatment of Hunter Brandon’s laptop.
So this means the debate is going to be X rated?
Another mechanism is required to explain why this interglacial is different. Added is the fact that oceans are a CO2 sink and not a source.
I have corrected you before on this. So it is not a debate. It is just a foolish meme repeated.
https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/images/1_Global_Page13-e.png
C Kid “So this means the debate is going to be X rated?”
–
More X- agge-rated I think.
–
The basic premise is that the Ph of the whole earth surface is basically 8.06 or whatever the current Ph of the ocean is said to be.
This surely stands to reason and is not contentious.
As an aside we are doing plate tectonics at science at the moment and this led to two controversies of interest, sort of.
–
One is the expanding earth concept. 4 billion years of accretion of meteors and space dust is enough to cause significant expansion of the earth. One estimate is
The other is the consistent loss of hydrogen and helium to space over that 4 billion years.
“Scientists estimate that the Earth gains about 40,000 tonnes of material each year from the accretion of meteoric dust and debris from space. They also estimate that about 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen gas are lost from the Earth’s atmosphere to outer space each year.”
–
What chemical and weight [mass] loss is involved there?
–
If we assume the Universe is composed of acid and base a reasonable assumption is that the average Ph of the material in the universe should be 7.0
i.e. in balance.
If we allow for the outgassing of so much hydrogen it could be claimed that the Ph of the earth has increased from Ph 7.0 to Ph8.06 due to the loss of all those potential hydrogen irons.
–
*Step 1
CO2 rise is closely correlated with temperature rise due to outgassing of CO2 from the sea.
*This is step 2.
Concluding that the Ph of the whole earth surface is basically the same as the Ph of the Oceans for very obvious reasons.
Robert I. Ellison .
Your input, as always, is valued.My statement.
“CO2 rise is closely correlated with temperature rise due to outgassing of CO2 from the sea.No other mechanism is required.”
–
Your opinion,
“Another mechanism is required to explain why this interglacial is different”
Relies on the graph you attach of an 800,000 year period which includes a lot of 10,000 year [on average ] interglacials.
–
The observed value at the end is the 426 PPM of CO2 that has been measured.
Arguments against include
The CO2 may have been quite higher in previous interglacials and not captured by dint of melting as it was so warm that no new layers formed with the higher CO2 levels in them [very weak argument but fun to make.]
The recording measures have increasing levels of inaccuracy with time, like tree rings, that the possibility of a 50-200 year stretch of CO2 > 426 could exist and not be detectable. This is true at 10,000 years and much more so at 800,000 years. [very strong argument]
The CO2 might leach out of the ice under increasing pressure and if the record shows such long term stability through such turbulent surface temperature changes it may be that what is being measured is not the CO2 at the time of entrapment but merely a physical response to pressure and time.. [just an argument].
You then say
“Added is the fact that oceans are a CO2 sink and not a source.”
–
The first part is true, oceans are a CO2 sink.
The second part is not correct, oceans are a CO2 source.
It is a fact that gases when heated will put more CO2 into the atmosphere.
When they contain CO2 and carbonate they become a CO2 source with rising temperatures.
“I have corrected you before on this. So it is not a debate.”
–
oceans are a CO2 source. There is far more CO2 in the ocean than in the air.
So what drives a CO2 level in the air?
The amount in the water.
Without question there is a strong correlation between the trends of the increasing average global temperature and the increasing concentration of CO2. The correlation coefficient is 0.94.
Therefore, since an increase in the concentration of CO2 increases the atmospheric radiant flux, the reasoning goes, the increasing concentration of CO2 is the driver of these increasing temperatures.
While the focus is, as it should be, on the trend in the average global temperature since 1976, the year over year changes in temperature, are significant, well in excess of measurement errors, as much as 0.28 ºC in a single year, 28% of the total change in the average global temperature between 1976 and 2019. This is not “noise” in the data.
If changes in the concentration of CO2 were the cause of changes in temperature, there should also be a strong correlation between the yr./yr. changes in average global temperature, which are significant and the yr./yr. changes in the changes in the concentration of CO2.
However, there is absolutely NO correlation between yr./yr. changes in the changes in concentration of CO2 and yr./yr. changes in average global temperature. The correlation coefficient between yr./yr. changes in average global temperature and yr./yr. changes in the concentration of CO2 is, 0.16 – no correlation.
It appears that the correlation between the trends of the increasing average global temperature and the increasing concentration of CO2, shows that the increasing average global temperature is the driver of the increasing concentration of CO2 (most likely from the decreasing solubility of CO2 in the seas, as the average global temperature of the seas increase).
The assertions from believers that the increasing concentration of CO2 is the driver of these increasing temperatures, that the yr./yr. changes in average global temperature are the result of variations in “natural” atmospheric factors is absolutely correct.
The “natural” atmospheric factor is water vapor. The correlation between the increase in the average global temperature and the increasing concentration is water vapor is almost exact. The correlation coefficient is 0.998.
The correlation between yr./yr. changes in the changes in concentration of water vapor and yr./yr. changes in average global temperature is also almost exact. The correlation coefficient is 0.98.
In terms of greenhouse heating, this is wholly consistent with water vapor, being the dominant greenhouse gas.
Finally, as to any argument or assertion that any of this is wrong because it is inconsistent with the predominant climate change “science”, I will not respond.
If one cannot prove that the underlying physics of what I show in
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 and it’s erratum: Van Brunt, W. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences > Vol.11 №3, July 2021Erratum to “Autonomous Changes in the Concentration of Water Vapor Drive Climate Change” [Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 10 (2020) 443–508] DOI: 10.4236/acs.2021.113032,
is wrong, such assertions are meaningless and irrelevant. Physical science is not a matter of belief or opinion.
I suspect that out-gassing only plays a significant role in the tropics and in coastal regions that experience significant deep-water up-welling.
An underappreciated effect is the biological decomposition of organic matter, which not only proceeds in the Winter, but is a major contributor to the seasonal ramp-up. Also, respiration from roots of trees appears to be important, particularly in the Taiga of Siberia and the boreal forests of North America.
CO2 does show a correlation with temperature, most notably during El Nino events. However, the R^2 value is not very high. That means, less than half the variance in CO2 can be explained by the temperature.
angech
“The CO2 might leach out of the ice under increasing pressure and if the record shows such long term stability through such turbulent surface temperature changes it may be that what is being measured is not the CO2 at the time of entrapment but merely a physical response to pressure and time.. [just an argument].”
–
I think, it should also be said, that we do not know the actual atmospheric pressure at the time of entrapment. We do not know the atmospheric density at the time of entrapment.
–
Thus, the measured the CO2 content in current atmosphere is not exactly comparable with the measured CO2 content at the time of entrapment.
–
What we actually do is to compare the CO2 content in various different atmospheres.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Plan A is the continued use of fossil fuels until something better comes along. And some urgently needed conservation and restoration global natural systems. Both something better and better management of land and water have been underway for decades. It helps to have economic resources to pay for it. That’s going to take a lot of safe, cheap and abundant nuclear energy coming on line soon and in a town near you.
e.g. https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
‘Driven by the economic success of industrialized and emerging economies, this world places increasing faith in competitive
markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are
increasingly integrated, with interventions focused on maintaining competition and removing institutional barriers to the participation of disadvantaged population groups. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological
systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.’ file:///C:/Users/rober/Downloads/2%20(2).pdf
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism?
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies. Much is made of a laissez faire concept of capitalism – but this has never ever been a model of practical economics.
*Step 1
CO2 rise is closely correlated with temperature rise due to outgassing of CO2 from the sea.
*Step 2.
Concluding that the Ph of the whole earth surface is basically the same as the Ph of the Oceans
*Step 3
The concept of ocean alkalinity.
Because the ocean and the earth share the same basic Ph of 8.06 and act as a gigantic buffer solution it is impossible for small amounts of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere to ever cause ocean acidification.
–
The message is that the CO2 level goes up and down with the temperature of the planet and the oceans but the acidity stays the same.
–
A bold statement but where can it possibly be wrong?
SMH – experts require some 10,000 hours to have a solid insight on a topic. These guys have nothing of the sort – but make blanket claims as to the incompetence of science as a whole it seems. Not a hint of intellectual humility at the state of their ignorance. An increase in the partial pressure of CO2 reduces the buffering capacity – inter alia – of seawater and the oversaturation of shell forming calcite and aragonite. It’s the Revelle ‘sensitivity’ factor. Not a difficult calculation.
‘The consumption of H+ and CO2 by reaction with CO32− counteracts much of the H+ and CO2 increase providing the principal buffering of seawater…
As reactions (3) and (4) proceed, the carbonate ion concentration decreases, resulting in a decrease in the saturation state of calcium carbonate (Ω).’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GB003407
Logic doesn’t come into it – they don’t know enough to make logical conclusions.
Step 3
The concept of ocean alkalinity.
Because the ocean and the earth share the same basic Ph of 8.06 and act as a gigantic buffer solution it is impossible for small amounts of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere to ever cause ocean acidification.
–
The message is that the CO2 level goes up and down with the temperature of the planet and the oceans but the acidity stays the same..
The amount of CO2 available to go into the ocean and atmosphere is absolutely fixed by the overall Ph of both the land and water.
Why is this so?
Imagine the ocean was acidic and the land basic.
Over a few millenia they would always neutralise each other and the result Ph would depend on the amount of acid to base.
Which after 4 billion years is definitely a lot more base because the ocean has been buffered to the Ph of the land.
–
* Step 4 The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is only dependent on the amount of existing CO2 dissolved in water in contact with the atmosphere.
This water is not just the oceans, rivers and lakes but moisture in the atmosphere, in clouds and rain and subterranean water with any exposure to the atmosphere.
*Caveat, we are talking about the system, not other sources like volcanoes and vegetation, at this stage
*Step 5 The amount of all gases in the atmosphere is dependent on the same way on their various solubilities in water.
Oxygen, Nitrogen, Methane etc for example.
Knowing the concentrations of each in the average seawater solution of salts at 15C tells us exactly how much Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide is in the atmosphere at that time.
Plants must use what CO2 is in the atmosphere, they do not make more that stays there.
CO2 must equate with the gigantic mass of CO2 and carbonate dissolved in water.
Any small exotic imports by mining or volcanoes is quickly, quickly buffered and retires to the depths.
–
OK shoot down the logic logically.
angech
I’m not sure that you can assume that the world has an average pH of 7. Rainwater has a pH of about 5.3. Many large swamps have an even lower pH because of organic acids. Ocean water pH is controlled by the (bi)carbonate and borate buffering systems. Fresh water is unbuffered and subject to variation with the regional bedrock, evaporation rates, and rain fall.
Clyde Spencer | March 23, 2022
“I’m not sure that you can assume that the world has an average pH of 7. Rainwater has a pH of about 5.3. Many large swamps have an even lower pH because of organic acids. Ocean water pH is controlled by the (bi)carbonate and borate buffering systems. ”
–
I assume the world surface has an average Ph of 8.06, the same as the average Ph of the Ocean not Ph 7.
The earth is comprised of multiple levels of varying Ph but the only important part is the surface component of land where it merges with water,
The water which is in contact with air then determines the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
The overall land surface must be at the sdame Ph as the ocean as the solid v liquid interface determines the composition of the water and its Ph.
Nothing to do with the atmosphere.
The reasoning is simplistic.
If you put acids and bases together they interact and end up at the Ph of the prevailing majority which in the case of the earth and Oceans is alkaline.
–
Rainwater is acid because the CO2 in the raindrop is not buffered as it is in the ocean or on land.
Rainwater is at the true Ph of purish water.
In other words if you put pure water in a glass and exposed it to the air it too would become acidic from absorption of CO2.
Water acidity in the ocean, in swamps and rivers and lakes and the earth itself is not determined by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but by how much the mineral salts, (bi)carbonate and borate buffering systems and plant material is in the water actively making CO2 or buffering it.
angech wrote:
The concept of ocean alkalinity.
Because the ocean and the earth share the same basic Ph of 8.06 and act as a gigantic buffer solution it is impossible for small amounts of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere to ever cause ocean acidification.
Not at all. It’s happening as we write here.
Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH.
When the measured acidity is increasing, i.e. the pH is decreasing, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.”
That’s the case with the ocean.
“Every solution has a property called “acidity,”
You would like us to believe that an alkaline solution can simultaneously be acidic? That is contradictory double-speak! The point of calling something “acidic” or “alkaline” is to succinctly convey information about its chemical and physical properties. Saying that everything is acidic is nullifying that convenience — all for the sake of a ideological propaganda. The pH scale clearly delineates acidic solutions (pH7). You and those like you want to re-define chemistry terms to scare people who are unfamiliar with concepts such as “electron donor” and “electron acceptor.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali
David Appell | March 23, 2022 at 3:36 pm | Reply
angech wrote:
The concept of ocean alkalinity.
Because the ocean and the earth share the same basic Ph of 8.06 and act as a gigantic buffer solution it is impossible for small amounts of extra CO2 added to the atmosphere to ever cause ocean acidification.
Not at all. It’s happening as we write here.
Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH.
When the measured acidity is increasing, i.e. the pH is decreasing, the solution is properly said to be “acidifying.
Appell
Most chemistry textbook calls it moving to neutral
Most chemists I know call it moving to to neutral
Though I have to say climate scientists do call it becoming more acidic – of course climate scientist know more about chemistry than chemists.
Come to think of it , climate scientists know more about tree rings than botanists (sarc)
Clyde Spencer commented:
You would like us to believe that an alkaline solution can simultaneously be acidic?
I wrote no such thing. Please reread and understand.
David Appell | March 24, 2022 at 11:24 am |
Clyde Spencer commented:
You would like us to believe that an alkaline solution can simultaneously be acidic?
“I wrote no such thing. Please reread and understand.”
Appell – that is what you imply along with others who toture the english language by calling a solution moving to base or neutral by claiming “acification”.
the non scientist wrote:
Appell – that is what you imply along with others who toture the english language by calling a solution moving to base or neutral by claiming “acification”.
It is “acidification” — the acidity is increasing.
David Appell | March 24, 2022 at 12:51 pm |
the non scientist wrote:
Appell – that is what you imply along with others who toture the english language by calling a solution moving to base or neutral by claiming “acification”.
“It is “acidification” — the acidity is increasing.”
Appell – thought I would help you out with an 8th grade textbook-
pH is a measure of the concentration of H3O+ ions in a solution.
Adding an acid increases the concentration of H3O+ ions in the solution.
Adding a base decreases the concentration of H3O+ ions in the solution.
An acid and a base are like chemical opposites.
If a base is added to an acidic solution, the solution becomes less acidic and moves toward the middle of the pH scale. This is called neutralizing the acid.
If an acid is added to a basic solution, the solution becomes less basic and moves toward the middle of the pH scale. This is called neutralizing the base
Not a scientist wrote:
Appell – thought I would help you out with an 8th grade textbook-
This is about acidity, not pH. pH is not acidity, it’s a function of acidity.
Acidity is the relative concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. Call it Ah+. Then
pH = -log10(Ah+)
A change in acidity dA relative to an original value A1 is related to the change in pH (dP) via
dA/A = 10^(-dP) -1
Thus in the ocean dP=-0.1 approximately, so dA/A rounds to 30%.
The acidity is increasing.
See.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html
Appell,
You wrote, “Every solution has a property called “acidity,” regardless of its pH.”
The set of “every solution” includes those with an alkaline pH, i.e. those with a pH greater than 7. Ergo, you claimed alkaline solutions have a property of acidity. At the very least, your claim generates an oxymoron.
However, I suspect that you don’t understand that your statement is self contradictory.
Every solution has a property called “pH.” Whatever the value is, it determines whether the solution is acidic or alkaline, which are mutually exclusive, and are at opposite ends of the pH range.
Your claim is about as logical as saying that density is a property of all matter, and the numerical value does not predict whether something will float or sink in water. Your logic says something can float while it is simultaneously sinking. Words have meaning!
Appell, you said, “pH is not acidity, it’s a function of acidity.”
The definition of pH is the negative logarithm of the hydronium ion concentration. The hydronium ion concentration is NOT acidity. It is rather the complement of the hydroxyl ion concentration, such that the sum of the two equals the ionization constant of water, approximately 10^-14. Thus, when the hydronium and hydroxyl ion concentrations are equal, 10^-7, there are no free electrons available to facilitate chemical reactions.
Instead of inventing your own definition, why not use the internationally recognized definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
David Appell wrote that “Acidity is the relative concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution.”
David is categorically and inarguably wrong.
The correct statement is
“Acidity is the relative activity of hydrogen ions in a solution.”
There is a relation between concentration and activity that depends on what else is in the solution, with concepts like total ionic strength. The math can become complex. See for example the Debye–Hückel equations.
Sea water has enough total ionic strength for there to be a significant error in the assumption that concentration is interchangeable with activity. It is not.
Bit, this is just another example of the runaway approximations, beliefs and ignorances that are now the hallmark of climate research and its poisoning of proper, hard science. Geoff S
Using the word acidity in association with the alkaline ocean is just a PR trick. The charlatans use this trick to associate in people’s mind “acid” and “ocean.” It’s just a subtle form of BS and it stinks just a much.
Clyde Spencer commented:
Ergo, you claimed alkaline solutions have a property of acidity.
Yep, that’s correct.
Geoff Sherrington commented:
The correct statement is
“Acidity is the relative activity of hydrogen ions in a solution…. Bit, this is just another example of the runaway approximations, beliefs and ignorances that are now the hallmark of climate research and its poisoning of proper, hard science.
If you’re going to make such sweeping assertions, show the correct science with the right math and give the actual numbers.
Do you think there aren’t lots of chemists studying ocean acidification and publishing papers on it, the papers that say acidity has increased by 30%?
Geoff Sherrington commented:
There is a relation between concentration and activity that depends on what else is in the solution, with concepts like total ionic strength. The math can become complex. See for example the Debye–Hückel equations.
Tell me why this matters if the other species are constant and the temperature is essentially constant.
Nothing I’ve ever read about ocean acidification anywhere considers anything other than the activity as the concentration of hydrogen ions. Why is that? (No, it’s not enough to call them all idiots.) Tell me why you need the full D-H apparatus.
Clyde is mad. Like Joe, he can only call me by my last name. Shows he’s REALLY mad. They’re both mad. Mad mad mad.
Clyde wrote:
Instead of inventing your own definition, why not use the internationally recognized definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH
From the 1st paragraph of the 2nd sentence of that article:
“The pH scale is logarithmic and inversely indicates the concentration of hydrogen ions in the solution.”
angech wrote:
Plants must use what CO2 is in the atmosphere, they do not make more that stays there.
CO2 must equate with the gigantic mass of CO2 and carbonate dissolved in water.
Any small exotic imports by mining or volcanoes is quickly, quickly buffered and retires to the depths.
What is “quickly?” Give a number. How many years?
David Appell | March 23,
“Any small exotic imports by mining or volcanoes is quickly, quickly buffered and retires to the depths.”
–
What is “quickly?” Give a number. How many years?
-Quickly,
means faster than you thought.
Give a number.
We are not playing Bingo here.
How many years?
A sensible question at last.
How long do ships and fish stay away from an underwater volcano making the sea acid with expelled CO2 into the water?
Answer no time at all.
The ship hulls do not dissolve, the fish do not die, the ocean does not turn acidic.
It gets absorbed and buffered. Very quickly, milliseconds for anthropogenic CO2 meeting the water.
angech commented:
What is “quickly?” Give a number. How many years?
-Quickly,
means faster than you thought.
Give a number.
We are not playing Bingo here.
How many years?
A sensible question at last.
How long do ships and fish stay away from an underwater volcano making the sea acid with expelled CO2 into the water?
Answer no time at all.
So you clearly can’t specify what “quickly” means, not at all.
The ship hulls do not dissolve, the fish do not die, the ocean does not turn acidic.
It gets absorbed and buffered. Very quickly, milliseconds for anthropogenic CO2 meeting the water.
Then explain why the average pH of the ocean is decreasing.
angech wrote:
The message is that the CO2 level goes up and down with the temperature of the planet and the oceans but the acidity stays the same..
Really?? What’s the evidence that supports your claim? Cite it.
David
This is interesting
Acidity and Ph are not always the same.
“The pH value of a solution is directly dependent on the temperature. A pH value without a temperature value is incoherent. pH decreases with increase in temperature. But this does not mean that water becomes more acidic at higher temperatures. A solution is considered as acidic if there is an excess of hydrogen ions over hydroxide ions. In the case of pure water, there are always the same concentration of hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions and hence, the water is still neutral (even if its pH changes). At 100°C, a pH value of 6.14 is the new neutral point on the pH scale at this higher temperature. [H+] also increases due to a decreased tendency of forming Hydrogen bonds, thus leading to a reduction in the pH.
”
angech commented:
Acidity and Ph are not always the same.
I never said they were.
In this link I derive an equation that relates the change in acidity to the change in pH:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Myke Tyson.
The punch in the mouth is the energy crisis and the ensuing economic crisis.
All climate plans are dead. Welcome to the energy rush. CO2 is no longer of consequence. Acts will always speak much louder than words.
Javier commented:
All climate plans are dead. Welcome to the energy rush. CO2 is no longer of consequence.
LOL. CO2 is as consequential as ever. So are the consequences of 2 C, 3 C or more warming. Want to avoid the geopolitical consequences of fossil fuels? Switch to energies based on solar and wind, which don’t need to be imported from any other country, can’t be held hostage by dictators and don’t pollute the atmosphere, don’t dangerously warm the planet and don’t prematurely kill 1 out of 5 humans on Earth.
Try to explain to the people that have less energy that the increase in GHGs will become dangerous in 2100 according to models. Do it from a safe distance, though.
Diesel hasn’t been this expensive ever. In Spain truckers (and also farmers and ranchers) are no longer making money so truckers have been on a strike since March 14 (two weeks) and there are a lot of fresh products missing at stores. Some industries are closing for lack of supply or finished product transport. The government is going to subsidize fuel, which might not be such a good solution considering Spain’s debt.
This was predicted in 2016:
When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation
https://www.amazon.com/When-Trucks-Stop-Running-Transportation/dp/3319263730
The climate crisis fantasy has collided with reality. I just hope I can publish my book before nobody cares about the climate anymore.
Javier commented:
Try to explain to the people that have less energy that the increase in GHGs will become dangerous in 2100 according to models.
Climate change is dangerous now. According to the facts. Observations. Real life. I’ve lived through it. Many others have too. People have died because of it. You don’t seem to care. It will only get worse. You don’t seem to care about that either.
Appell – the actions you advocate will not appreciably change the CO2 growth curve over the next century. They will harm the US citizens alive today however.
Humanity will easily adapt to a changing climate
David Appell | March 29, 2022 at 2:04 pm |
Javier commented:
Try to explain to the people that have less energy that the increase in GHGs will become dangerous in 2100 according to models.
Climate change is dangerous now. According to the facts. Observations. Real life. I’ve lived through it. Many others have too. People have died because of it. You don’t seem to care. It will only get worse. You don’t seem to care about that either.
Appell – “You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a land of delusion, self-abasement, suicidal ideation, and madness disguised as science. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone!”
Judith, I believe the alarmism is the greatest threat the planet faces because it continues to divide us with a religious like fervor. Until experts such as you can briefly describe the likely impacts on the climate, weather, coasts etc. with Plan A Plan B or some combination, alarmism is going to win the day.
Can someone please lay out on a regular basis the Plan B approach, backed by Plan A supporter’s science so that citizens can share and educate on an ongoing basis. Until this information hits social media, schools, etc. like CRT insanity hit moms in suburbia, alarmism and grifting off of alarmism with be the face of the climate. Ford is building a huge battery plant and electric car plant in TN not because of alarmism but because of Plan B thinking. Judith and others like her, please find a way to share Plan B but do not forget to include the likely impacts of CO2 on climate as mentioned above. Doggerland is the area under the North Sea where early man lived and hunted as recently and 4000-10000 years ago. Artifacts have been found there by fishing boats for years. Now scientists are worried the sea floor could be damaged by wind farm cables, installations. The fact of what man has done to adapt to hundreds of feet of sea level rise is lost on a navel gazing society focused on inches of sea level rise. AND we are losing young people to depression and suicide due to the alarmist academic and grifter crowd, many of whom claim the high moral ground, but alas are in it for the money and for fear of losing grants. I look forward to better mass communication regarding Plan B. Thanks, David Horn
David Horn (@davidhorn5656) commented:
The fact of what man has done to adapt to hundreds of feet of sea level rise is lost on a navel gazing society focused on inches of sea level rise.
LOL. SLR has been about 1 m in the 5000 years before the industrial era, an average of 0.2 mm/yr.
In an era before coastal towns and cities, or much of anything of substance along the coasts.
Now SLR is 4+ mm/yr, and accelerating, 20x greater, and higher in many spots, with a great deal of infrastructure along the coasts, the seas already greating problems along the US east coast in places like Miami, Charleston, Key West, VA and NJ, costing US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
So David Horn’s comments and thoughts are ridiculous with even a modicum of thinking. No wonder, with thinking like his, he wonders why people are alarmed.
David
Perhaps you would care to read books such as ‘Outrageous waves’ By B Cracknell subtitled ‘Global warming and Coastal Change in Britain.’
Sea levels have risen, fallen and risen again, swamping Roman, Saxon, Viking and Norman Towns, villages and ports, then stranding them again.
Sea levels have been higher than today and lower than today. ‘Times of Feat Times of Famine’ by Ladurie covers Glaciers around the world and again we can see they have been larger than today and smaller than today
tonyb
David Horn
Don’t pay attention to Appell. As you can see above in reply to me and in other links he actually believes acceleration is .0042 or .0128, take your pick. He has these moments where he forgets where he is and what fantasy he is engaged in. The rest of us have learned to cope with these episodes. He is harmless.
CKid commented:
Don’t pay attention to Appell. As you can see above in reply to me and in other links he actually believes acceleration is .0042 or .0128, take your pick.
This is how you lie.
I’ve said several times it isn’t about the numbers, it’s about the units.
Several times you got the units wrong when you tried to cite accelerations.
Despite this you continue on with your bullsh!t.
There’s no reason to respect you or take you seriously.
David
Somebody must be taking your numbers seriously. They don’t appear to be worried, either.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FO5hkS4XsAYvPgn?format=jpg&name=medium
Appell
And as I said repeatedly the context is everything. Acceleration is all you need to know. At that point the unit is a given. Not hard to understand.
But more to the what our leaders are doing. Why aren’t you outraged by the hypocrisy in the picture. They obviously are saying one thing and doing another. Why the huge investment if they were really concerned about SLR.
The answer. They aren’t.
David Horn
Please see my reply to the other David regarding sea level rise. As you say, some people believe current rises are unique whereby we have seen them (and falls) throughout recorded history
As regards the battery plants and EV’s. I understand that lithium has risen 500% in price and that of nickel has jumped
A recent study said that the UK’s plans alone for EV;’s Heat pumps and general electrification over the next 20 years, would use all the words known supplies of a variety of rare earths so lets hope that Battery plant has some other technology to fall back on.
as Batteries are a large part of the cost of an Ev or of course for Battery storage from renewables, then presumably we will see a substantial rise in EV car prices
tonyb
Hi TonyB
For those living in the northern climes, there is a practical consideration with EVs, at least for the time being. Cold weather has an effect on the length of a charge. I remember in the 1960-1970s having dead batteries in the morning. I’m sure progress has been made and will continue to be made on battery technology, but for the time being this picture presents a very real challenge for the consumer.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FO5ebz2X0AMxdTr?format=jpg&name=large
TonyB & Ckid
Cold weather is a massive engineering hurdle that the marc jacobsons of the renewable world can seem to understand
Consider renewables in the northern states, canada and northern europe during the winter months
solar panels where the sun only shines for 4-5 hours per day
heat pumps become very inefficient below 10f
Wind is much calmer during winter ( utilized capacity is less than 30% of the summer capacity)
Batteries charged life is much shorter as its gets colder.
Consider the conversion of transportation and heating from fossil fuels to electric – Reality doesnt enter into the activists world
We need to be aware of it – but is there any risk of a real go at economic degrowth? I don’t think so. Plan A for the vast majority of the world’s population is ongoing human progress. Technology is driven by entrepreneurs – happening everywhere but more powerfully in free markets. And rich economies are better at environments. If Judith want’s a playbook on how to organise society – it comes with democracy and the rule of law.
‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2022, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.
For twenty-eight years the Index has delivered thoughtful analysis in a clear, friendly, and straight-forward format. With new resources for users and a website tailored for research and education, the Index of Economic Freedom is poised to help readers track over two decades of the advancement in economic freedom, prosperity, and opportunity and promote these ideas in their homes, schools, and communities.
The Index covers 12 freedoms – from property rights to financial freedom – in 184 countries.’
https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Plan C …
Democrats have increasingly pushed their expansive climate agenda through the financial sector and legal system as Congress has failed to implement Green New Deal reforms.
“Congress is really unwilling to impose much in the way of costs and to address climate change,” David Kreutzer, the senior economist at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Frustrated by that, people in Washington want to use non-legislative ways to impose these costs and raise the price of energy-intensive goods and energy in general.”
The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a sweeping set of rules Monday that would require companies to disclose their carbon emissions and how they were planning to transition away from fossil fuel reliance, the latest example of the sustainable investing movement.
“This is just an attempt by the left to use the business community, the finance sector, companies … to accomplish with other people’s money, what they can’t accomplish at the ballot box,” Andy Puzder, the former CEO of CKE Restaurants and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told the DCNF in an interview
https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/23/sustainable-investing-esg-democrats-climate-change/
Robert I. Ellison | March 23, 2022
An increase in the partial pressure of CO2 reduces the buffering capacity – inter alia – of seawater.
It’s the Revelle ‘sensitivity’ factor. Not a difficult calculation.
–
Perhaps you should tell that to the experts,or perhaps they know better.
–
“Although the Revelle factor has been invoked in many studies, it is typically reported as a modeled estimate [Goodwin et al., 2007] or calculated from small variations in input parameters in numerical simulations [Sabine et al., 2004]. Surprisingly, to our knowledge, no exact explicit formula for its value has ever been published (see below).”
–
The experts get it right again, or do they?
–
] Broecker et al. [1979] as well as Sarmiento and Gruber [2006] neglected borate in their approximations of the Revelle factor. At first glance this is understandable since borate only accounts for a few percent of seawater alkalinity. However, we shall see that borate actually contributes nearly a quarter of the buffering of seawater for pH above 7.5. Finally, an exact derivation of the Revelle factor was provided by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow [2001]; unfortunately, their final formula is made unusable by a ruinous typographical error
I guess titrating samples of sea water to find the buffer capacity is beyond their ken. That is, reality is beyond their ken.
You are right, jim2.
–
Activists ignore the obvious to put the emperor in new clothes.
–
When you have to prove that the cart (CO2 in the air)
drives the horse (CO2 and bicarbonate in the ocean)
You have to twist your arguments into knots.
–
One would like to ask RIE and Appell how the CO2 gets back in the champagne when the cork is popped.
I do not think the CO2 producing people at a party could do it.
–
But I will revel at their attempts to prove it.
It gets more foolish by the moment.
I thought some of you might find this interesting. Liberal elitism from H.G. Wells.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/godfather-american-liberalism-13171.html#.YjykIYeE-Y4.mailto
It gets a bit mad. I provide a reference that develops 6 explicit equations for buffering factors. The confidence limits of these equations are some 20-30%. Yet angech quotes preliminary remarks defining the problem as a conclusion of the paper. The less said about Jim the better.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GB003407
Knowledge requires diligent and open minded study. The problem with activists is that they scan documents and look for either confirmation or grounds for refutation. Neither side pays any attention to methods and data.
I have seen someone say that it is easy to refute science. One simply has to find a word to object to.
Robert I. Ellison | March 24, 2022
Knowledge requires diligent and open minded study. True
–
The problem with activists is that they scan documents and look for either confirmation or grounds for refutation.
–
Key words, problem, activists,
Replace problem with method for
Replace activists with scientists.
–
The method for scientists is that they scan documents and look for either conformation or grounds for refutation.
–
Activists, like Appell, simply find a word to object to.
–
You made the comment
“
It’s the Revelle ‘sensitivity’ factor. Not a difficult calculation.
–
The authors of the paper you quote make a number of comments showing that it is a difficult calculation.
It is prone to error, with enough factors to draw an elephant,
Confidence levels you could drive a truck through and fudge factors that different hydrologists can put in or leave out.
–
I pay attention to the methods and data. It is not easy to refute science.
One has to find valid objections
“Neither side pays any attention to methods and data.
I have seen someone say that it is easy to refute science. One simply has to find a word to object to.”
” If you think that science is certain -that’s your error.’ Richard Feynman
The authors in preliminary comments define the rationale for the work. angech quotes these preliminary remarks and doesn’t quite get to the resolution and instead insists on a facile characterisation of science itself. .
There are all sorts of memes repeated endlessly by contestants outside of science. One of these is that uncertainty invalidates science.
I introduced this paper on buffering in seawater because of a deeply ignorant repetition of memes that have been done to death.
I noted yesterday that nickel prices had jumped 38% overnight. It’s pissed day traders and hedge fund managers looking for a safe haven. It is just as likely to unwind with a crunch. Global nickel reserves are some 95 million metric tons. The fifth most common element – there is no shortage. To make consistent profits one would need to be a low cost supplier. I investigated Rio Tinto and this caught my attention.
‘Rio and Talon last year announced they were working with California-based Carbon Capture, which is developing a technology that would directly remove CO2 from air. Rio Tinto has also invested $4 million directly in that company.
CO2 removed from the air by Carbon Capture’s machines would be mixed with mine tailings-and-cement concoction before it’s stored underground.
The magnesium-rich rock that often accompanies high-grade nickel deposits naturally reacts with carbon dioxide, turning it into rock. This happens over thousands of years. The goal with direct carbon capture is to greatly accelerate that mineralization process.’ https://www.startribune.com/rio-tinto-and-feds-put-up-6-million-to-research-carbon-capture-at-proposed-minnesota-nickel-mine/600147083/
It is one more technology of many in development – and that includes wind and solar – to meet climate challenges of concern to most people. That it is not a concern for a few denial diehards is unconvincing, boring and best ignored.
e.g. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/PG_2021.09.14_Climate_0-01.png
Devising solutions to climate change is assuredly not beyond our capacities. It’s a puzzle then why contrarians have spent so long on obsessively reiterating narratives they adorably imagine is science. The denials of any risk at all range from the modestly eccentric to the utterly mad. They are all in – now imaging scenarios in which the deluded proletariat wake up to themselves. Frankly – even if the world cools – and I’d say it’s 50/50 – I would claim abrupt climate change.
It leaves the field open to Joe Biden to claim victory with modular nuclear reactors or mine site sequestration in magnesium rich rock. Contrarians need to suck it up and recalibrate or be relegated to a historical footnote along with Luddites and flat Earthers and taxers.
Robert, please explain how to calculate the value of sequestering a ton of CO2 such that society might decide how much to spend on the effort. R&D is a different cat.
Tedium squared. The cost can be determined precisely.
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/auctions-results/october-2021
The total cost is a few billion dollars. The decision to make that expenditure is political – and in that Dave is on a hiding to nothing.
Robert, that government auction is part of an overall scheme to reduce the amount of CO2 released by various Australian entities. The scheme limits CO2 production to a fixed and declining over time amount such that if someone wants to produce more CO2 they must by “carbon” credits on a state-run market. That has nothing to do with the cost (or damages) of emission of a ton of CO2.
Not at all. The scheme buys carbon sequestration or emission reduction from individuals for a tendered price. Some $4B is committed so far. It is achieving some useful things. What is reducing to zero in 2030 is subsidies for wind and solar.
Robert, you need to read better: The scheme issues CO2 emission credits (not money) to entities willing to undertake CO2 (not carbon) sequestration or emission reductions. Those credits are sold to entities needing them to stay under government mandated restrictions on CO2 emissions. It is the same as a government tax on those entities buying the credits.
“What is reducing to zero in 2030 is subsidies for wind and solar.” Why would the government need to subsidize wind and solar when the government raised the cost of FF generation such that they can’t compete? We’ll see if the government reinstates wind and solar (plus battery) subsidies as new nuclear generation begins coming online; you think it will be cheaper than wind and solar.
The Emission Reduction Fund contracts for emission reduction or land sector sequestration. There are a couple of dozen approved methods at a committed cost of A$4B. The 2030 expiring wind and solar credits are paid upfront. I could get a credit for solar of a few thousand dollars. I’ve done the numbers. It still isn’t cost competitive to what I got – except perhaps in high summer when we run the aircon a lot. The technology is still evolving – but we are reaching the limits of silicon.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
I could get a credit for solar of a few thousand dollars.
You get a subsidy paid by other ratepayers.
That you approve of because it’s not your ox getting gored.
I don’t get a subsidy. It costs some 10% on my electric bill. The wind and solar subsidies expire in 2030 as I said. Natural gas costs – we pay the Japan spot price that exporters can get – and gold plated poles and wires are bigger cost imposts. Gas exploration and frackng are expanding – and they have ceased issuing cost plus contracts for electricity infrastructure.
All we really need at the moment is a gas generating plant or two and we’re humming. If the price of that is a few windmills and solar panels so be it.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
‘Rio and Talon last year announced they were working with California-based Carbon Capture, which is developing a technology that would directly remove CO2 from air…. It is one more technology of many in development – and that includes wind and solar – to meet climate challenges of concern to most people.
There are a zillion direct air capture companies forming now, but direct air capture will never happen on the necessary scale — it’s simply too energy intensive.
DAC’s goal is about 5 GJ/t CO2 just to extract the CO2 from air, which doesn’t include the energy to bury it or run all the other operations.
So to remove 10 Gt CO2/yr, which the DAC industry is talking about doing by 2050, would require about 50 EJ/yr, or 1.6 TW. That’s 50% of today’s electricity usage. Today’s civilization runs on about 18 TW, so we’re talking about 10% of today’s entire global energy consumption.
And it has to be carbon-free energy. And the energy used to make all the CO2-extracting plants and CO2 burial operations has to come from carbon-free energy plants as well, or these numbers go up. And it’d be good if their employees owned electric cars.
DAC just doesn’t look energetically possible at the scales required.
Direct air capture is just one of the many technologies in development. It is premature to write off any technology. There is lots of fundamental work to be done and the results can be surprising and rewarding.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Direct air capture is just one of the many technologies in development. It is premature to write off any technology. There is lots of fundamental work to be done and the results can be surprising and rewarding.
The numbers just don’t support the case for DAC–it requires too much energy to make a difference. I’m hardly the only, or first person to think this.
The IPCC SR1.5 says that limiting warming to 1.5 C requires reductions in CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030, net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. It’s extremely unlikely that won’t happen without massive DAC.
Why do these inventors hate trees so much?
Huh?
Trees are a form of semi permanent CO2 capture.
One wonders how many giga tonnes of CO2 are already locked up in buildings tables desks and chairs.
If they stored instead of burning woodchips all our problems would be solved.
[Hah].
New Zealand has masses of wood hundreds to thousand years old lying under the dirt, Carbon storage for a thousand years at no cost.
Robert,
read Water Vapor Myths A Brief Tutorial(copyright 1998-2020)
Author: Steven M. Babin, MD, PhD
[Feynman – one obvious wrong result invalidates a theory]
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
“Logic and maths are your friend.”
Indeed! What we have to rely on is observation, logic, and maths. Also, when it is possible, an experiment.
But logic and maths should always be present.
angech
“The T mean is always lower because the energy distribution is uneven and when averaged out is equal but the temperatures when averaged out from those uneven energy amounts is lower(SB),
Rotation only partially smooths out the energy distribution.
Since the energy distribution is always unequal the average temperature must always be lower than the Te.”
–
Example:
The theoretical effective temperature for Earth is Te =255K.
“Since the energy distribution is always unequal the average temperature must always be lower than the Te.”
–
angech, doesn’t that mean the Earth’s without-atmosphere average (mean) surface temperature must be lower than
Te =255K?
If true, how much lower than 255K?
–
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Moon fact sheet NASA
Black-body temperature (K) 270.4
Earth 254.0 Due to albedo differences.
“angech, doesn’t that mean the Earth’s without-atmosphere average (mean) surface temperature must be lower than
Te =255K?
If true, how much lower than 255K?”
–
Good question, The earth would not have a Te of 255K though with no atmosphere.
–
If the Earth had no atmosphere it would have to have no surface water of note [as this would perforce give an atmosphere].
–
The best way to answer it in that sense would be to say it would be a rock like the moon with the same albedo as the moon and since they are the same distance from the sun on average.
–
The Te would now be that of the moon,
ie Te 270.4
and the T mean would be lower than 274 but higher than that of the moon as the earth is rotating with reference to the sun 29 times faster than the moon.
It would have a slightly higher T mean than the moon by a couple of degrees, perhaps.
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
“It would have a slightly higher T mean than the moon by a couple of degrees, perhaps.”
–
Exactly. And where it leads the alleged Earth’s greenhouse warming effect?
288K -220K=78K and because of Earth’s faster rotation a couple degrees less, perhaps.
–
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” And where does it leave the alleged Earth’s greenhouse warming effect?
288K -220K=78K and because of Earth’s faster rotation a couple degrees less*, perhaps.”
–
If the earth was an airless rock, your example fails . It could not have a GHG atmosphere so it would not be 288K in the first place
–
As it has a faster rotation it would be a couple of degrees warmer than the moon surface,not less*. so warmer than 220 K. As a bare rock.
–
As a planet with an atmosphere and GHG it has a temp of 288C at the surface where a surface is defined as the liquid and solid components of the earth.
–
If you wish to claim the GHG effect is as high as78K instead of 33K, go ahead. It would not help your argument claiming it is non existent.
–
At the surface it has a black body temperature of 254K, not 220+K, as this takes into account the back radiation from the clouds and the radiation from the absorbed IR in the atmosphere [not a GHG effect as this only happens on the way out].
–
The earth is exposed to an extra 32 K [rough approx] that comes from having an atmosphere, which the moon does not have.
The TOA emissions is therefore at a temp of 254 K, The surface temp is 33 higher due to the GHG effect [back radiation of outgoing IR] adding to the component of warming that occurs purely due to having an atmosphere.
The difference of 78 oC does not match with “absorption and emission profiles”…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
–
“As a planet with an atmosphere and GHG it has a temp of 288C at the surface where a surface is defined as the liquid and solid components of the earth.
–
If you wish to claim the GHG effect is as high as78K instead of 33K, go ahead. It would not help your argument claiming it is non existent.”
–
No, I do not claim the GHG effect is as high as78K instead of 33K. What I say is the GHG effect on Earth is so much insignificant it can be neglected as a non existent.
–
What we should compare is an airless Earth having Moon’s Albedo a =0,11 and having the measured mean surface temperature Tmean =220K (as you say “It would have a slightly higher T mean than the moon by a couple of degrees, perhaps.”). And we compare the 220 K against the Earth with atmosphere and ocean of Tmean =288K.
–
288K – 220K =68 oC
–
But the real Earth has Albedo 0,306.
If Moon had Albedo 0,306 its measured temperature would be less than 220K, it would be 210K.
–
288K – 210K =78 oC (here we compare Earth with atmosphere and with not atmosphere but with the same Albedo, since in the effective temperature formula the Earth’s Albedo of a =0,306 is present.
Effective temperature is defined as the planet without-atmosphere theoretical surface uniform temperature, in which the actual planetary Albedo is applied.
–
angech
“If you wish to claim the GHG effect is as high as 78K instead of 33K, go ahead. It would not help your argument claiming it is non existent.”
–
Yes, it helps, because the difference of 78 oC for Earth GHG warming effect is too much to even consider about.
–
angech
“This is why the Earth is 33 degrees warmer.
It has an atmosphere with GHG whose absorption and emission profiles exactly match that needed to make the temperature differential occur.
Exactly. Fact”
–
The difference of 78 oC does not match with “absorption and emission profiles”…
And that is why I cite Feynman:
[Feynman – one obvious wrong result invalidates a theory].
–
Thank you again
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
“This is why the Earth is 33 degrees warmer.
It has an atmosphere with GHG whose absorption and emission profiles exactly match that needed to make the temperature differential occur.
Exactly. Fact
That is why we have radiative science and are able to measure temperatures from satellites. Fact
This would happen whether the planet is rotating or not. Fact
A rotating planet helps push the Tmean up to the Te for an airless planet
A rotating air planet is warmer than an airless planet at the surface
The Te does not change for an airless or air planet”
According to the greenhouse warming “theory”, how much higher should be over the +33 oC the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect then?
[Feynman – one obvious wrong result invalidates a theory]
Thank you.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A rotating air planet is warmer than an airless planet at the surface
The Te does not change for an airless or air planet”
–
“According to the greenhouse warming “theory”, how much higher over the +33C should the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect be then?”
–
According to the greenhouse warming “theory” the GHG effect is 33C.
That is due to the effect of back radiation the surface layer warms up 33 C.
Whatever the measured mean temperature of the earth is the difference between that and the Te is the GHG effect on the temperature.
This basically allows one to ignore the albedo effect.
–
Back radiation is a difficult concept because it leads to a confusion between stored energy [which cannot happen]
and apparent time of escape to space of energy.
–
One way to look at this is to imagine a pot of boiling water on the stove.
Turn off and take away the heat source.
What happens to the energy in the water in the pot?
–
The usual answer is that the energy is stored and decreases slowly over time.
Which is wrong.
The energy in the pot leaves the pot at the speed of light in that medium.
Poof.
Gone.
But the water is still hot and the temperature goes down slowly, there must be stored energy or heat.
Stored in the motion of the molecules.
–
Rubbish.
The reason the pot stays hot is back radiation from the atmosphere around it. The energy leaving is nearly balanced by the new energy coming in.
Note this is true for the pot metal sides as well as the water.
–
The energy that came from the heat source leaves but is continually replaced in part by energy from the surrounding atmosphere until the water and pot return to room temperature.
The pot and the water are never storing energy.
Here is yet another inconsistency between climate change mitigation and the real things to do to make the UK better casefile.
3,200 road bridges are described as substandard. The bridges range from those crossing small streams to those spanning large rivers (e.g. Hammersmith Bridge in west London which crosses the Thames and has opened and closed many times in the last two decades due to faults found in its foundations). The problem is finance and yet this is a Kingdom that is splashing out a huge amount of money on climate mitigation (disasters) such as wind turbines, solar panels, electric fires rather than gas fires for heating homes, heat pumps etc. No matter that a vehicle has to make a fuel guzzling diversion of several miles in order to get from A to B. Who are the idiots in charge?
There just isn’t any joined up thought in Government or expertise anymore. They are all busy fighting their own corners for whatever cash is around and bugger the rest.
Is this the Thatcher generation in all its ugliness?
The gender dysmorhia’d lass has decided that spending on climate change could be better employed. Too bad he isn’t president.
> There just isn’t any joined up thought in Government or expertise anymore. They are all busy fighting their own corners for whatever cash is around and bugger the rest.
Spot on.
90,000 Dams In America: Just 2,500 Produce Hydropower
By Alex Kimani – Mar 22, 2022, 3:00 PM CDT
Hydropower represents about 7% of total U.S. electricity generation.
Hydropower powers an estimated 30 million homes.
Tens of thousands of outdated dams are negatively impacting ecology and public safety.
Research shows that non-powered dams could produce enough power for 9 to 12 million homes.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/90000-Dams-In-America-Just-2500-Produce-Hydropower.html
The paper mentions the word “irrigation” exactly zero times.
Once the dam is full, just as much water flows as before. Whatever irrigation is there now, will still be there.
With variable run-of-the-river flows there won’t be much irrigation, especially in remote locations. Whatever water is extracted by irrigation (absent return flows) is unavailable for electric generation.
The multi-use provisions of hydropower development affect the amount of water available for electric generation.
“Whatever irrigation is there now, will still be there.”
This is too ZEN for me.
Reservoirs built for irrigation attract irrigation, little cricket.
Had to laugh this morning seeing all my gains on the NYSE had disappeared overnight. I’m not worried – I play long games. I’ve always suspected that Judith runs this site as a sociological experiment. I’m hoping to make it as a footnote. Perhaps if I make a public service announcement.
My physical capacities are slowly returning. With the full knowledge and support of my medical team – yay team – I am an experiment. Seeing how far I can walk on my hideously deformed feet before they break. The theory is that with the underlying conditions in Charcot arthropathy under control for a few years my feet have cemented into gruesome and painful but stable appendages.
Charcot is an uncommon complication of diabetes. Some 50% of late onset diabetes cases are the result of autoimmune attacks on pancreatic beta cells. These people need artificial insulin from day 1. For the rest it is insulin resistance that can benefit from diet and exercise.
For the pain I have lemon skunk. Smells and tastes as bad as it sounds. Mild effects -emotionally calming, mentally stimulating and a wonder for acute pain.
CE started as a forum for an e-salon exchange of informed views. To get to any there is a flimflam of distorted and simplistic memes repeated endlessly over years now to go through. Some of it seems to meet Einstein’s criteria for insanity. Many seem inexorably stuck in one trench or another. C’est la guerre climatique.
The future is ours to make. I see a triumph of freedom, economic growth, a technological cornucopia and new cities in a new global garden of Eden. The 21st century is when it all changes.
In the nexus between today and tomorrow – in the dawn of a new era for the world – a new song cycle is ignited in the moment expanding to embrace eternity and infinity. A shining city takes shape in the our imaginations.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/11/03/the-shining-city-of-humanity/
I had a young man’s vision of shining cities decades ago. Now I dream dreams.
B12 injection 1 mgm/ml 1 ml S/C stat in a month then 3 monthly [used to be called neocytamen] Dr cam give .
There is a spray for under the tongue but skeptical.
and fglic acid 5 mgms daily.
Might be more helpful than you think.
Best of luck
Robert I. Ellison commented:
I see a triumph of freedom, economic growth, a technological cornucopia and new cities in a new global garden of Eden. The 21st century is when it all changes.
Just like we’ve had to far, right? No need to look at past trends, or where they’ve gotten us to now. The future is ALL GONNA MAGICALLY BE DIFFERENT, why, BECAUSE, that’s why!
Robert is as sadly delusional as ever. But hopefully his health continues to improve.
I know it’s hard for you, David, but you got to learn to read the room.
‘As people increasingly “vote with their dollars” for the kinds of businesses they want in the world, society is witnessing a massive shift toward corporate social responsibility, cooperative ownership and innovative solutions for a whole new kind of economy.’ https://bioneers.org/category/eco-nomics/
People vote with their votes. While there is oodles of cash splashing around global markets – ESG might not be their primary focus. And I was an ESG professional for decades. Government and corporations can save money and reduce risk. Cooperative ownership by locals of common pool resources preserve them for future generations. I love innovative solutions in energy, systems, materials, transport, production, methods, efficiency, productivity… It is the source of human progress.
In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with free people, government at some 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade. This is the old economy that DA objects to.
‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2022, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/about
If DA imagines that people are, will or can abandon political freedoms and economic growth for nebulous assertions by socialists – it is he who is delusional.
Some good news on recycling aluminum. Obviously as commodity prices go up recycling becomes more economically feasible. There’s so much that can be done with waste. Not the least of which is burning combustibles for power. But … we can keep throwing it in the ground or the ocean if you wish.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/aluminum-makers-seek-old-cans-shredded-cars-to-fuel-new-plants-11648287002?st=dxsdfhwym3djjs4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Have all of us been misled about the harms wind turbines cause?
Well, the Australian Supreme Court in Victoria’s decision to demand overnight shutdowns seems to imply they do harm even if the decision is based upon audible noise and not infrasound. How long will it be before the health and safety guys study the available medical data and determine the risk at any time may be just too great to ignore since infrasound damage is truly harmful?
After all is said and done we have all been locked down because of a virus that harms relatively small numbers of vulnerable people and is nowhere near as harmful as an inaudible low frequency pulse that doesn’t much care how healthy you are just as long as you are in striking distance of its unheard threat and,worse of all, you will be totally unaware what is happening to your body. And all of this discovery long after the event is unnecessary and destabilising of the trust we should have of authority.
Why, oh why have we made climate mitigation so much more problematic than it needs to be, just as we made such a dog’s dinner of SARS-CoV-2 (and continue to do so)? Nuclear has always been a way out of the energy mess which also solves much of the problem of burning an excess of fossil fuel. Isolating the obviously infected patients was and is always the answer to an infectious disease control until it can be proven the infection can be better managed in other ways, e.g. natural immunity, etc. But you don’t lockdown and you don’t shut schools and other public services including your health services.
You do not scare people in such situations. You do not sow seeds of an environment of fear where leaders do not know what they are doing. Leaders must appear to know exactly what they are doing and lead by example. We can extrapolate leadership deficiency into the way we have recently handled Afghanistan and the Ukraine for example.
We need leaders and experts who are fit for purpose. Where are they
because pretty soon there will truly be a very serious situation arising where there’ll be no room for any hesitation or stupidity in decision making at all and the virus and climate change fiasco will be truly put into perspective?
UK-Weather Lass:
What does more harm, properly sited wind turbines or power, heat and transportation generated by fossil fuels?
To the person being harmed it matters that the harm is not being controlled by the very same person who agreed to that harm being built on their doorstep in the first place. For those people, their torture is not just high fuel bills, it is but also being sleep deprived with daily worsening health.
Of course those on your side of the fence provide absolutely no coherent solution to the demands they make for less fossil fuel burning other than flag waving wind and solar which, in reality, solve absolutely nothing and just make matters worse. You are guilty of not thinking through the logic of what you see witth one eye and what you refuse to see with the other. Are you really that dumb?
Nothing wrong in my books with reducing fossil fuel use but everything wrong with thinking that wind, solar, and EVs are going to solve anything. They are making matters worse; so how about explaining why you are directly or indirectly promoting them and then how you are going to unravel the harm ‘you’ have already done. You are long on blaming fossil fuel but short on solutions unless you admit that solar and wind are a bad joke and nuclear was always the way to go until we have new reliable ways to generate electricity. What do you think is a realistic recompense to those you and your kind have deliberateky misled and harmed?
There are no properly sited wind turbines.
People act as if the earth has never been warmer, and that today is somehow abnormal for the climate. Nothing can be further from the truth. Simply go to Curiosity Stream and watch “How Climate Made HIstory.” It documents the tremendous variability of the climate over just the Holocene. Simply Google Map Thermopylae. One of the best know historical events known to be coastal. It is now 2km inland, as is the ancient city of Troy. Clearly the Bronze age was warmer. Climate Change Denialists are the ones seem to believe that the climate only started wtih change with the industrial age. Altering atmospheric CO2 will have no impact on the climate.
CO2isLife wrote:
People act as if the earth has never been warmer,
Ha. Who do you think discovered the Earth was once warmer?
It documents the tremendous variability of the climate over just the Holocene. Simply Google Map Thermopylae. One of the best know historical events known to be coastal. It is now 2km inland, as is the ancient city of Troy. Clearly the Bronze age was warmer.
It wasn’t global.
Altering atmospheric CO2 will have no impact on the climate.
This is a profoundly ignorant statement. Well established, completely accepted science says you’re wrong.
CO2isLife wrote:
People act as if the earth has never been warmer,
Who do you think discovered that it’s been warmer??
Simply go to Curiosity Stream and watch “How Climate Made HIstory.” It documents the tremendous variability of the climate over just the Holocene. Simply Google Map Thermopylae. One of the best know historical events known to be coastal. It is now 2km inland, as is the ancient city of Troy. Clearly the Bronze age was warmer.
It wasn’t globally warmer.
Altering atmospheric CO2 will have no impact on the climate.
Not even wrong, as Pauli once said. Well established, completely accepted science says you’re wrong.
Why do you even bother anymore?
“One of the best know historical events known to be coastal. It is now 2km inland, as is the ancient city of Troy. ”
–
Yes, that is right. I always questioned, why the Thermopylae is so far from the coast? I have visited the site and it was the first thing came to my mind.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: AWED Media Balance Newsletter: We cover COVID to Climate to Ukraine, as well as Energy to Elections. - Dr. Rich Swier
A reversal, of sorts, by a USA regulator on natural gas pipelines. Reality has intervened.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mugged-by-energy-reality-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-richard-glick-joe-manchin-russia-ukraine-11648155246?st=3hnsqch3m1y89x0&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Pingback: The Media Balance Newsletter: 28/3/22 - Australian Climate Sceptics blog
Pingback: Energy and Environmental Review: March 28, 2022 - Master Resource
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
–
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
–
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
–
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
–
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
–
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
–
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
–
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
–
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
–
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An airless planet, with all features as the planet Earth has, that planet has Tmean =288K.
–
A planet without-atmosphere and with Earth’s Rotational spin N, with Earth’s average surface specific heat cp, with Earth’s solar flux S, with Earth’s average surface Albedo “a” , and with Earth’s solar irradiation accepting factor “Φ” (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient) – an airless planet, with all these above features as the planet Earth has, that planet, according to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, has an average surface temperature Tmean =288K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas
An airless planet, with all features as the planet Earth has, that planet has Tmean =288K.
–
You are describing Mosher’s unicorn.
–
A planet without-atmosphere and with Earth’s average surface Albedo “a”
–
Also known in physics as the step “in which a miracle occurs”
–
When an outcome is known for a maths problem.
E.g. Tmean = 288 K
And all the known factors and some contrived ones fail to produce that temperature one simply adds the magical variable constant, 0.47 in this example needed to make he pudding.
–
To be clear an airless planet could not have oceans under the other conditions listed. The moon is the perfect example of what an airless earths temps would be.
The only thing missing is water and an atmosphere and ahh, albedo.
Thank you, angech, for your respond.
“To be clear an airless planet could not have oceans under the other conditions listed. The moon is the perfect example of what an airless earths temps would be.”
–
Yes, exactly. If Earth had Moon’s albedo 0,11, had Moon’s average surface specific heat cp =0,19 cal /gr.oC, and had Moon’s Rotational spin 1 /29,5 rot /day, that airless Earth would have
with all these above features as the Moon has, that airless planet Earth, according to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, would have an average surface temperature Tmean =220K.
–
Because what makes Earth’s average surface temperature warmer than Moon’s by 68 oC is Earth’s the five (5) times higher the average surface specific heat capacity cp =1 cal /gr.oC.
And, also, because Earth rotates N =1 rot /day, which is twenty nine and a half (29,5) times faster than Moon’s with reference to sun.
–
Thank you again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, please notice:
Earth’s Φ =0,47
and
Moon’s Φ =0,47
–
Also Φ =0,47 have Mercury, Mars, Europa (of Jupiter) and Ganymede (of Jupiter).
–
The “Φ “, for smooth surface planets and moons without-atmosphere is Φ =0,47
And the “Φ ” , for heavy cratered (rough surface) planets and moons is Φ =1.
–
The discovery of “Φ ” brings order in planets and moons satellite measured average surface temperatures comparison explanation.
–
There is nothing magical in “Φ “.
“Φ ” is an analogue to the very well known and very precisely measured physical coefficient. It is analogue to the drag coefficient Cd =0,47 for smooth surface spheres in the parallel (laminar) Re <5.000 fluid’s flow.
–
Thank you.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
N – planet rotational spin (rotations /day)
cp – planet average surface specific heat (cal /gr.oC)
–
The “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” states:
“Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals), as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth (16) root.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Plan D – produce more oil. While the US falls needlessly on its Green Energy Extremists’ policy sword, China will not only continue to build more coal plants, it will also push to produce more oil and gas. Making the people of the US suffer by pushing unreliable, “green” energy is id = eee = ot = ic!!! Vote out or demote anyone who pushes Green Energy Extremist policy!
Sinopec will spend record amounts this year to increase oil and gas drilling as China aims to bolster its energy security and insulate itself from volatile global commodity markets.
China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., as it’s officially known, will increase capital expenditure 18% to 198 billion yuan ($31 billion), including a 22% boost in drilling, it said in its annual report Sunday.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-27/china-s-oil-refining-giant-gets-boost-from-economy-s-recovery
What if demand declines (for everything, not just energy) because human population is in falling? Did you not notice the record # of job openings and lowest unemployment claims since the 60s?
Plan F:
https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/podcasts/03282022/alex-nowrasteh-population-growth-immigration-and-economic-implications-us
“Population growth over the last decade is the lowest that it’s been in American history. Total population increased by 7.4% only during that time period, so now we’re slightly above 330 million people in the United States, but only a 7.4% increase during that time period. What bodes very negatively for the future is that the population under the age of 18 actually declined by 1.4%….
Add to this the slow acting poison of a failing education and healthcare system and we are missing the big picture.
Unfortunately, a declining population won’t fix the fatal problems with unreliable wind and solar. We used petroleum with a smaller population in the past. It worked just fine.
Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled”, published last year, is a great primer on the subject of climate change– very much in line with what you say, I think. I would urge everybody to read it!
I have Koonin’s book and wholly agree with you, Peter.
Peter Kenny commented:
Steven Koonin’s book “Unsettled”, published last year, is a great primer on the subject of climate change
Why?
Many of his claims have been shown to be wrong.
“A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong:
In Unsettled, Steven Koonin deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don’t understand the risks well enough to take action,” Scientific American 5/13/21
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/
“Dissecting ‘Unsettled,’ a Skeptical Physicist’s Book About Climate Science: Five statements author Steven Koonin makes that do not comport with the evidence,” InsideClimateNews 5/4/21
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052021/dissecting-unsettled-a-skeptical-physicists-book-about-climate-science/
Read this last piece — it clearly lays out five significant and egregious errors Koonin made that are unacceptable.
I could tell you 6 impossible things DA believes before breakfast.
“In 2020, scientists detected a trend of increasing hurricane intensity since 1979 that is consistent with what models have projected would result from human-driven global warming. Rapid intensification of hurricanes has increased in the Atlantic basin since the 1980s, which federal researchers showed in 2019 is attributable to warming. A 2018 study showed that Hurricane Harvey, which hit Houston the prior year, could not have produced so much rain without human-induced climate change.”
DA, was this peer-reviewed? Are they redefining climate as a three-year average of weather? Acceptable to you?
lol
SA and ICN should be sued.
aaron commented:
SA and ICN should be sued.
Why?
Curious George commented:
DA, was this peer-reviewed?
No. Was Koonin’s book? Are any of his WSJ articles?
Are they redefining climate as a three-year average of weather?
No.
DA, please either stop posting references to non-peer-reviewed papers, or stop complaining that others do so.
BTW, please point out a significant and egregious Koonin’s error in the snippet I posted. There should be one, according to Marianne.
Curious George commented:
DA, please either stop posting references to non-peer-reviewed papers, or stop complaining that others do so.
The reviews are journalism, just like Koonin’s book and WSJ articles.
BTW, please point out a significant and egregious Koonin’s error in the snippet I posted. There should be one, according to Marianne.
The ICN review shows 5 major errors by Koonin. The Sci Am review has others.
Apparently none of you care.
List a summary of Koonin’s errors, David. I’ll check my copy of his book against your list.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
I could tell you 6 impossible things DA believes before breakfast.
Instead of your typical diversionary snark, why don’t you take on the five errors in Koonin’s book discussed in the ICN review?
DA cites an article lacking any reference to sources by a social activist journalist and expects me to critique it.
The first 5 impossible things DA believes are covered in the superficial climate news opinion piece. The other impossible thing he believes before breakfast is thinking that he should be taken seriously.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
DA cites an article lacking any reference to sources by a social activist journalist and expects me to critique it.
Look how you trivially label people in order to avoid confronting their arguments.
Saves you time, I guess.
That’s about all.
Dave Fair commented:
List a summary of Koonin’s errors, David.
Why don’t you start on the 5 errors listed in the ICN review, linked above?
An excellent comment for the April Fool’s Day. Actually, I reposted one of those ‘errors’ – and you did not even notice.
This whole “food insecurity” “issue” pushed on the gullible press by the Green Energy Extremists isn’t panning out. No current problems with weather can be shown to be due to a few parts per million of extra CO2. In fact, the extra CO2 is probably helping food production!
India is the only major global supplier of wheat at this point, thanks to massive surplus stocks at home. The rally in global prices and a record slump in the Indian rupee against the dollar also make wheat shipments attractive to Indian sellers.
Indian warehouses are brimming with wheat after five consecutive record harvests – largely a result of favourable weather, the introduction of high-yielding seed varieties and state-set support prices for growers.
Wheat harvests will again scale new peaks in 2022, with farmers set to harvest 111.32 million tonnes from next month, up from the previous year’s 109.59 million.
https://www.reuters.com/world/indias-wheat-exports-surge-world-prices-soar-2022-03-09/
Food production needs to double by 2050 – while there are still billions malnourished. CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t going to feed the world.
And that has nothing to do with “climate change.”
Oh yes it does. Jim is just far too busy cutting and pasting from right wing media to notice.
Lomborg op-ed on climate obsession …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-war-climate-change-john-kerry-guterres-war-existential-threat-ukraine-fossil-fuel-oil-gas-russia-invasion-11648590114?st=kyc3vnmljpybo2a&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
It seems to be both theoretically and empirically step transitions in climate – and more recently a bit of theorized – albeit with solid radiative physics – anthropogenic warming.
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788/figures/8
Robert I. Ellison commented:
It seems to be both theoretically and empirically step transitions in climate
No, they’re no more than small changes in temperature — 0.1 C or 0.2 C — over a time period of no less than 50 years. That’s not a “step” transition.
The uncertainties in this data far exceed DA’s utter nonsense.
Binning is required to mitigate age uncertainties, trees don’t capture low frequency variability well, low resolution records redden the series exaggerating low frequency over high… The different series have widely different detail.
But nonetheless – a striking feature emerges.
‘A striking feature is that in all cases, both HR and LR composites display a long-term cooling trend until the 19th century, after which an abrupt warming takes place…’
There are two blogoscience views. No change until the late 19th century – the hockey stick. And that internal variability invalidates radiative physics. Both are dumb ideology pursued relentlessly in the same well rehearsed talking points reiterated over decades now.
Internal warming is some 0.3 degrees C over the past 40 years. That leaves about 0.3 degrees C to AGW.
Starting in 1977 the world warmed in a natural mode – just when emissions took off. The natural warming happened with less reflected solar irradiance.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/ceres-sw.png
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The uncertainties in this data far exceed DA’s utter nonsense.
The researchers take the uncertainties into account, and get error bars on their final curve.
‘A striking feature is that in all cases, both HR and LR composites display a long-term cooling trend until the 19th century, after which an abrupt warming takes place…’
That was PAGES 2k 2017. That’s no longer found with more data used in Osman+ Nature 2021.
Internal warming is some 0.3 degrees C over the past 40 years. That leaves about 0.3 degrees C to AGW.
You keep claiming, without ever offering any evidence.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/02/ceres-sw.png
Looks like a 5th grader’s science fair project. Got any real published science?
DA’s claimed absurd precision for these proxy records – but by all means let’s look at Osman et al 2021 and ask what the temporal resolution is.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/osman-2021.png
Source: Osama et al 2021
The 0.3 degree C estimate for recent warming is based on a Nature study that I have cited for DA several times. It doesn’t seem to register with him.
The CERES data download is what it is and I have discussed it before. Osman et al 2021 at least include sea ice in estimating surface temperature – recent decadal warming involves cloud changes responding to ocean and atmospheric patterns.
Robert I. Ellison commented”
DA’s claimed absurd precision for these proxy records – but by all means let’s look at Osman et al 2021 and ask what the temporal resolution is.
The graphs you displayed are for the individual sets for each type of proxy and not for the final GMST curve which combines all proxy types. For that see their Fig 2.
DA can assume I have seen it. The proxies show different SAT trajectories. It doesn’t mean it isn’t good science – just that substantial uncertainties exist.
Robert Ellison wrote:
The 0.3 degree C estimate for recent warming is based on a Nature study that I have cited for DA several times.
That was a paper about a region of the Pacific, if I recall correctly, and not the globe.
The CERES data download is what it is and I have discussed it before.
An amateurish plot, not a published paper.
Osman et al 2021 at least include sea ice in estimating surface temperature – recent decadal warming involves cloud changes responding to ocean and atmospheric patterns.
Osman+ use HadCRUT5 for global temperatures from 1850 onward.
The Kravtsov et al 2018 paper compared global CGM to global reanalysis products. It must be a bit beyond DA.
The CERES graph of reflected SW is a NASA product. It seems a little beyond him as well. Here’s another paper – from the NASA CERES team – that is well beyond him.
‘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.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Osman et al calibrate their proxies to HadCRUT. How else would it be done?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The proxies show different SAT trajectories. It doesn’t mean it isn’t good science – just that substantial uncertainties exist.
Osman+ combined the uncertainties into their final graph. Your problem is?
My problem is as I said originally is that DA’s claimed precision is impossible nonsense.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The Kravtsov et al 2018 paper compared global CGM to global reanalysis products. It must be a bit beyond DA.
I think you use ad hominem insults to cover up your fear you might not be the smartest boy in the class anymore.
In fact, I’m pretty sure about it.
At the very least I am not the dumbest. I leave that to DA. He is relentless and abusive when challenged – he has exhausted any claim to civility from me.
The Kravtsov et al 2018 paper, Dave Fair and others talk about the “recent ‘pause’ in global warming.”
Can you show me where that is?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
Bizarrely right over his head. And I have discussed it before with him. There is no reason to continue. Let’s see what he makes of this. The lead author is head of NASA’s CERES team.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Robert, I assume you noted that NASA acknowledges the pause. Please tell David Appell.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The CERES graph of reflected SW is a NASA product.
No it isn’t. If it were it would look professional, not highly amateurish, and NASA would put their logo on it.
Oh ffs – https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Bizarrely right over his head. And I have discussed it before with him. There is no reason to continue. Let’s see what he makes of this. The lead author is head of NASA’s CERES team.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
Loeb+ 2018 is 4 years old. New data is in since then. Please show us where the “pause” is:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
Robert I. Ellison commented;
‘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.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047
Let’s note that this is over a mere 14-year period (“mid-2005 to mid-2019”), an interval which is not reflective of climate change but of CC+IV.
Everyone knows that IV is a factor over short intervals, RIE, so you gain nothing for noting that. Trying analyzing some long intervals characteristic of true climate change — 30 years or longer.
Try analyzing the 30-year period 1915 to 1945.
There is a vast difference between climate statistics and climate monitoring data used to identify causal mechanisms – and then to deduce that these mechanisms operate at many scales.
30 years is – btw – is nowhere near sufficient to distinguish decadal variability from forced change. That DA and cohort doesn’t recognise this statistical reality highlights his incompetence and/or partisan recalcitrance.
Climate science is moreover largely irrelevant to rational policy responses – that I reproduce from the 2010 Hartwell Paper below. Let DA respond to that.
“From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek
DA and many others have taken that step to fanaticism. He spruiks catastrophe to impose a daydream of a social and economic reset. That would be a disaster an order of magnitude greater than the immense socialist disasters of the last century. Not that DA and cohort can bring that off – it is a different world of robust democracies and affluent economies.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Hayek. LOL
DA and many others have taken that step to fanaticism. He spruiks catastrophe
I challenge you to cite once where I’ve ever used the word “catastrophe.”
Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek is still at the forefront of social and economic theory. Despite DA’s cogent and deeply informed critique.
Appell forgets when he whines about catastrophe. If this doesn’t qualify I don’t know what does.
“ I challenge you to cite once where I’ve ever used the word “catastrophe.”
And here it is
“ Are fossil fuels “efficient” and “effective” if they prematurely kill one in five people, change the climate for the next 100,000 years, raise sea level by meters over the next few centuries, acidify the ocean, melt tens of trillions of tons of ice, intensify storms and rainfall, degrade agricultural growing conditions, and kill more in heat waves, increase wildfires, decrease snowpacks, intensify droughts? Do you have any idea what 3 C of warming will do to the planet, then to civilization? Do you understand that 3 C of warming is half of the difference between 2 miles of ice over Chicago and pre-industrial civilization?”
Regardless of what one’s first language is, this qualifies as catastrophic.
Maybe loss of memory is another attribute of Appell. Doesn’t work well in science though.
Dave Fair commented:
Robert, I assume you noted that NASA acknowledges the pause
Here’s there GMST data. Show us the pause.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If DA can’t see it yet he is a lost cause. Loeb et al 2018 – btw – identified a connection between SST in the eastern Pacific and a reduction in cloud cover that warmed the world ‘post hiatus’. It is far from a new idea – and there have been numerous studies on this – but it is nice to have more conclusive data verify it observationally.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Loeb et al 2018 – btw – identified a connection between SST in the eastern Pacific and a reduction in cloud cover that warmed the world ‘post hiatus’.
It’s the eastern Pacific, not the globe!!
You understand nothing, literally.
You don’t even understand the word “global.” So embarrassing to see you do this to yourself time and again.
This post hiatus blip in tropospheric or surface temperature can be readily discerned. The primary source of the warming was a reduction in cloud cover over the eastern Pacific (Loeb et al 2018).
Jack: “You can’t handle the truth!”
The local DA resorts to channeling Nicholson’s courtroom antics before the court:
DA: “You understand nothing, literally.”
[laugh-out-loud]
It’s just another dog-eared drama reference promoting his innate sense of catastrophic reasoning. Alas, that’s what ambulance chasers do.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Oh ffs – https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
Does the CERES raw data need to be adjusted for satellite decay, like UAH and RSS do for their satellite?
Or does this satellite somehow not decay in orbit?
Is its sensor subject to any heating effects? Diurnal effects? Aging effects? Any other biases?
These are exactly the kinds of issues I don’t expect amateurs to pick up on when they plot the raw data, only the professionals.
DA pretends to know what he is talking about.
‘- The CERES TOA flux record is highly stable (to better than 0.2% per decade SW (1s), and 0.15% per decade LW (1s)).
– CERES TOA fluxes are based upon state-of-the-art angular distribution models for radiance-to-flux conversion. Instantaneous TOA fluxes are a factor of 2-3 better than ERBE.
– CERES processing enhances CERES temporal sampling with geostationary data.
– CERES net flux determination uses solar irradiances from the SORCE TIM instrument.
– The CERES team has conducted extensive validation of both TOA and surface radiation using TOA consistency tests and direct comparisons of surface fluxes with ground-based measurements over both land and ocean.’ https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ceres-ebaf-clouds-and-earths-radiant-energy-systems-ceres-energy-balanced-and-filled
Robert I. Ellison commented:
‘- The CERES TOA flux record is highly stable (to better than 0.2% per decade SW (1s), and 0.15% per decade LW (1s)).
etc
Yeah so you can copy and paste big deal.
Does the raw data need to be adjusted?
Does the satellite not decay?
None of what you wrote addresses that.
Is its sensor subject to changes and biases?
None of what you wrote addresses that.
Until you address such things as these, the amateurish plot you presented is meaningless.
All the answers to DA pettifogging quibbles can be found in the link.
The instruments orbit are stable and sensors replaced before serious sensor decay. In short. I suggest DA look much deeper at the reliability of the data. It would give him something useful to do.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
The instruments orbit are stable and sensors replaced before serious sensor decay.
Says who??
Just post some real science papers and not some amateur’s plot of who knows what unsourced data.
So the latest post processed data from NASA is not good enough if it doesn’t support DA’s stories?
The documentation around the CERES project is extensive – but again something not worth DA’s time it seems.
e.g. https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/
Robert I. Ellison commented:
30 years is – btw – is nowhere near sufficient to distinguish decadal variability from forced change.
Why?
I’m quite sure DA can’t learn statistics – and I don’t want to waste more of my time trying.
‘The comprehensive study by Iliopoulou and Koutsoyiannis (2020) assessed the “trends everywhere” approach using long precipitation series (>150 years). The study compared four cases of projection to the future, namely (a) the mean estimated from the entire record, (b) a local time average estimated from the recent past, (c) a linear trend fitted to the entire record, and (d) a local linear trend estimated from the recent past. The mean of the process is a neutral predictor of the future (zero efficiency), but it turns out to be better than predictions based on trends. In other words, the predictive skill of the trend model is poor, worse than using the mean, reflecting a poor representation of a complex reality. The model based on the local time average (case b) of previous years proves to be the best of the four. The reason is that in real-world processes there is temporal dependence or persistence (see below). Hence, a local temporal average (of values of the recent past) can be a better predictor than the global (or the true) mean.’ https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/
But of course someone at the forefront of hydroclimate science is not good enough for DA.
Probably need to start tree teaching in kindergarten and up that modernity is not destroying the earth.
Wagathon wrote:
Probably need to start tree teaching in kindergarten and up that modernity is not destroying the earth.
“According to the World Wildlife Fund, wild animal populations have decreased by 68 percent on average over the past 50 years.”
— from the essay “Animal, Vegetable, Capital” by Ingrid Burrington, Lux Magazine, Issue 3, via Harper’s, February 2022 pg 17.
This comes from the WWF living planet index. The IUCN provided the wildlife data. Populations decline in a few thousand species we know of.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/threats_lpi_populations_1.png
Climate is far from the major threat to these charismatic wildlife populations. Wind and solar is no answer at all to this problem.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Climate is far from the major threat to these charismatic wildlife populations.
Nobody ever said it was LOL.
It’s an additional stressor.
Many people say it is. Do you not recognise the incongruities in what you say or do you just not care?
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Populations decline in a few thousand species we know of.
Typically narrowminded.
“Humans are driving one million species to extinction,” Nature 6 May 2019
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4
DA is such a pest. The decline in populations was observed in these charismatic populations. As in DA 68% quote. We may infer a broader decline but it is not observed. He really doesn’t seem to understand geophysical or biological data.
And DA has not gone in depth through the IUCN sources and methods – as I have. He doesn’t recognise what the 68% quoted in his secondary source refers to. I should of understood that it is just something cut and pasted without any attempt to grasp it’s context.
Mr. Appel, actually, many have said that climate change is primus inter pares as a stressor for threatened/endangered species. You are incorrect. Again.
The situation is somewhat ameliorated – according to the WWF – in high income societies.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/income-and-lpi.png
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/04/biological-abundance-and-economic-growth/
Plan “no plan” …
Of course the German Green Energy Extremists stoop id ly believe more wind and solar is the answer. They seem to be as dumb as a box of hammers.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Tuesday that German politicians knew about the dangers of increasing energy dependence on Russia after its 2014 Crimea annexation — and were now paying the price for ignoring the problem.
“Actually, we as Europeans have known since 2014 at the latest … that we must become completely independent of Russian fossil fuel imports, and a strategy was put in place to diversify our energy imports,” Baerbock said in a speech at the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue.
“However, we did not tackle this, and this is now taking its revenge in the most brutal way,” she added.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-annalena-baerbock-russia-energy-risk-2014/
Plan “no plan” – Part II …
(translated)
The memory levels are currently at 25 percent. How long the gas lasts depends on many factors, above all consumption. And so Robert Habeck appealed to everyone: “We are in a situation where I can clearly say that every kilowatt hour saved helps. (…) Every kilowatt hour is a contribution, it helps a lot in this situation to get through this time well.”
As Reuters reports, physical gas flows through the Yamal-Europe pipeline at Germany’s Mallnow point have already dropped to zero on Tuesday afternoon. However, Russian gas deliveries to Europe on the other two important pipeline routes were largely stable, as data from the operator Gascade showed.
https://www.bild.de/politik/2022/politik/wirtschaftsminister-robert-habeck-ruft-fruehwarnstufe-des-notfallplans-gas-aus-79611016.bild.html
But no, they ignored a rational voice – those are pretty rare these daze.
U.S. President Donald J. Trump went right to work in Brussels at the NATO summit Wednesday morning, taking truculent Germany to task for coming to the United States for defence, while simultaneously paying billions of dollars to the Russian Federation for energy.
Speaking at a bilateral breakfast meeting with the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Jens Stoltenberg, President Trump was blunt, calling out Germany for taking from NATO with one hand while giving to Russia with the other.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/07/11/trump-starts-nato-summit-on-front-foot-blasts-hypocritical-germany-as-captive-of-russians/
Plan -57 …
President Joe Biden’s budget framework released this week appeared to suggest the federal government will not hold any offshore lease sales for at least another 18 months.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) projected offshore oil and gas lease revenues to decline from $395.5 million in fiscal year 2022 to just $25 million in 2023, a nearly 94% year-over-year decrease, according to the budget. The estimate, which marks a significant departure from U.S. energy policy stretching back years, was relegated to page 201 of the agency’s 208-page budget proposal.
It wasn’t immediately clear how the $25 million in revenue would be generated.
“The Interior Department’s budget suggests that there will not be any lease sales in the fiscal year of 2023 which ends in September 2023,” National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA) Erik Milito told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We know that because they’re not including any money that would come in through the lease sales.”
https://dailycaller.com/2022/03/30/joe-biden-budget-interior-department-offshore-oil-gas/
“ It wasn’t immediately clear how the $25 million in revenue would be generated.”
It’s not clear how revenue for the entire budget would be generated. With Elizabeth Warren type ideas like the proposed billionaire’s tax, the answer is wishin’ and hop in’. Total spending will be $6 Trillion by 2024. The annual deficit will go from $1.154 Trillion in 2023 to $1.784 In 2032.
Given the scale of the spending and long term deficits, the proposed increase from the DOA billionaires tax of $36 Billion per year, makes one wonder, why bother. But it plays well with the comrades.
More on Wind Turbines and how many citizens seem unprotected in law.
According to the Wind Turbines (Minimum distance from Residential Premises) Bill 2010 (England & Wales), the following is apparent: (WTG = Wind Turbine Generator height from ground to maximum blade height)
WTG Distance to nearest property
25 to 50m 1000m
50+ to 100m 1500m
100m+ to 150m 2000m
150m+ 3000m
The Bill allows these distances to be rendered irrelevant on written consent, lawfully obtained, from the owner of the residential properties (i.e. not necessarily the occupant). This Bill applied to England & Wales and no mention is made to either noise nuisance or infrasound.
Staggeringly, even after several attempts over the years to get this bill through Parliament, there appears to be no statutory limits at all. Obviously people with green leanings never buy properties anywhere near a wind turbine and they won’t be allowing one to be built anywhere near them either.
Studies of infrasound (ILFN) show that it can make many people, perhaps more than 20% of a cohort, feel very uncomfortable and unwell, even when the level only just under the human hearing threshold of 20Hz. As the frequency reduces the barrier necessary to obstruct the sound increases in width and even at 25Hz that barrier needs to be at least 6 metres wide. At 10Hz it needs to be 34 metres wide. It has been demonstrated that ILFN can travel up to 100km from a turbine before it ceases to be a problem.
Dr G Levanthall researched ILFN for DEFRA in 2003 and stated that it causes extreme distress to a number of people sensitive to its effects.
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/research/lowfrequency/documents/lowfreqnoise.pdf
The WHO recognises ILFN as an environmental problem which needs to be taken into account where equipment (it’s a considerable list) is known to produce ILFN are planned to be sited ‘near residential properties’.
“ As humanity moves further toward a post-carbon future
people must accept that things like eating meat and
property ownership is simply unsustainable, says
Klaus Schwab”. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
My question is where do I turn in my hamburger and 40 year old house?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPLvYc8UcAs6EI0?format=jpg&name=medium
I’m sure he didn’t mean for himself, Kid.
Appellations’ juvenile staccato assertions vs Ellison’s pugnacious assertions.
Both of them constantly supplying references that don’t match their points du jour.
Golly, gosh and gee …
DA I mostly ignore – as I do most others most of the time. I should ignore this vacuous assertion. Why do they bother with such nonsense? And how would ianl know what’s in the references?
A feature of capitalism is the constant evolution of products, services, methods and system that confer a competitive advantage. In the US (and elsewhere) per capita CO2e emissions have steeply declined since the oil shock of the 1970’s – while production sharply increased. There was the result more energy efficient production – an ongoing process. Total CO2e emissions have declined some 20% since 2005. Due to the fracking revolution of course. America has as well a 10% offset from the forestry sector. So you are more than halfway to a 50% reduction. The rest can come from natural gas generation replacing more expensive coal power, hydropower, geothermal energy, landfill gas, biomass or waste incineration. A little more wind and solar may not be that bad an idea – despite the entrenched antipathy from the usual suspects. And better land and water management. We can always do better through hard work and application of innate skills.
I’m a Motley Fool customer. They keep me from fooling myself – and I’m the easiest person I can fool. I just got this in my email this morning. We can solve this problem – any who still think there isn’t a problem are fooling themselves – and make everyone rich and happy.
Other than DA and poor wee willie of course. They just don’t get it and whatever they suggest – poor wee willies metaverse AI economic overlord for instance – are risibly ineffective, utterly impractical or abhorrent social engineering. Or all three at once.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
In the US (and elsewhere) per capita CO2e emissions have steeply declined since the oil shock of the 1970’s
Data?
Annual US CO2 emissions per capita, t CO2/person/yr:
most of 1970s: 20-22
2010s: 14-18
sources:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#environment
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/POPTHM/
14-18 t/cap/yr is still very high compared to most of the rest of the world and still far higher than is needed to halt climate change, by a massive amount.
I treat it with the seriousness it deserves. And DA’s whining about ad hominin from me seems egregious hypocrisy and cant. DA’s stock in trade come to think of it.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
So you are more than halfway to a 50% reduction. The rest can come from natural gas generation replacing more expensive coal power,
Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It can’t possibly provide the “rest” of the reduction to zero emissions, by definition. Should be obvious.
The decrease in the carbon intensity of production in the US economy since the 1970’s is common knowledge.
And honestly – we want the whole world to have a high energy lifestyle. As if DA could stop it.
The target is 50% reduction by 2030 – not 100%. Beyond that cheap new nuclear comes on line.
You see DA is not interested in science or practical energy policy. He wants to do away with democracy and capitalism. We have to keep that in mind to correctly interpret the subtext.
Sometimes, you just have to be real.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPSrzesVEAYKL1f?format=jpg&name=large
Even Putin has acknowledged the disproportionate impact of AGW on Russia’s climate
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/04/putincuts-carbon-footprint-of-invasion.html
Peer reviewed I hope.
Has anyone ever found Russel to be amusing, interesting informed or relevant? Mind you – I am no expert I stopped falling for the clickbait after the first two.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
Has anyone ever found Russel to be amusing, interesting informed or relevant?
Another example of your many ad hominem insults instead of treating a comment with seriousness and addressing it.
🤣 It is poorly executed satire that is indistinguishable from crude ridicule. This is a common affliction of progressives. Like poor wee willie they think they are funny. I treat it with the disdain it deserves.
This should go here.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/17/a-plan-b-for-addressing-climate-change-and-the-energy-transition/#comment-975133
‘‘The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf
That was 2010 and nothing has changed. The world is still using the energy they need to develop – and they will until something better comes along.
This study is interesting in finding no treeline shift in the island of Crete in the last 70 years, in spite of warming:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2197562022000021
This points to resilience, adaptiveness and emergent homeostasis of ecosystems. No sign whatever of warming bringing any impending climate or ecosystem catastrophe. Or any ecosystem harm whatever.
Phil may suggest all he likes that the Earth system is in homeostasis. I don’t believe him. Homeostasis is the ability of organisms to maintain essential physiological processes within critical limits in a dynamic – indeed dynamical – environment. Could the decadal rainfall deficit – in a context of long term Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – be part of the reason for a lack of change in tree line altitude?
David Appel claims the LIA wasn’t global.
“Global warming” isn’t global either – Antarctica hasn’t warned in 40 years, on the contrary it’s cooled:
https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice
Even ice ages aren’t global with regions of land and ocean warmer 40 kya than now.
Reality comes home to roost in the UK. Unfortunately, they haven’t faced the reality and difficulty managing unreliable wind power – this to shall pass.
The U.K. will detail plans to broaden its energy sources this week as the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia and a cost-of-living crisis forces countries across Europe to urgently revamp how they generate electricity and heat homes.
The main focus will be on nuclear and wind power, two industries that haven’t been short of controversy. Government minister Grant Shapps said on Sunday he expects to see proposals for more nuclear reactors, including smaller capacity ones, and for scaling up off-shore wind farms. He doesn’t advocate putting up more turbines onshore, though.
“I don’t favor a vast increase in onshore wind farms — they can create something of an eyesore for communities as well as noise problems,” Shapps, the U.K.’s transport secretary, told Sky News. “For reasons of environmental protections, the way to go with this is largely on-sea.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-03/u-k-to-unveil-energy-revamp-with-focus-on-nuclear-and-wind
‘As of June 12, 2019, there were 1344 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List in the United States.’ Wikipedia
Whoops. The purpose of ESG is to avoid expensive and tragic outcomes. Investors are right to insist on rigorous risk assessment.
The “E” in “ESG” is being taken care of by existing environmental laws and regulations. The “E” and “S” in woke SWJ is climate hysteria (E) and socialism (S). And no, Robert, I’m not going to argue the arcane ins and outs of corporate governance.
‘ESG stands for Environmental, Social, and Governance. Investors are increasingly applying these non-financial factors as part of their analysis process to identify material risks and growth opportunities. ESG metrics are not commonly part of mandatory financial reporting, though companies are increasingly making disclosures in their annual report or in a standalone sustainability report. Numerous institutions, such as the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) are working to form standards and define materiality to facilitate incorporation of these factors into the investment process.’ https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/esg-investing#:~:text=ESG%20stands%20for%20Environmental%2C%20Social,material%20risks%20and%20growth%20opportunities.
It is not woke anything. It is simply common sense for corporations to identify and manage risk for themselves. Who else will do it? The risk of breaching discharge standards for instance – and how to reduce that to acceptable levels. And no – I am not discussing tipping points and climate risk with the ideologically hidebound climate warrior Dave.
Robert: “It is simply common sense for corporations to identify and manage risk for themselves.” Yep, they don’t need SJWs and sustainability central planners to do it for them by compulsion. Shareholders (owners) should determine the course of private businesses in accordance with the laws of countries within which they do business.
When regulators remain within the letter of the laws governing their activities we are governed by laws, not man. When Deep State regulators start making up laws, calling them regulations, we have real problems. And NGOs are not decision making bodies. Both, often in collusion, attempt to bypass legislatures because legislators are responsible to the electorate, not the fashion of the week. And lobbying is a big feature of both.
Please note that U.S. courts are constantly striking down overreach by Executive Branch agencies. There is now a movement in the courts to overturning the rule of “deference” to Federal agencies. They are seeing the effects of such agencies overstepping their authorities to achieve ideological goals.
Dave confuses due diligence with the messy dynamics of democracy. He may whine about it but I think he is on a hiding to nothing.
Investors it isn’t. It is people like Larry Fink of BlackRock who control millions of shares through the ETFs offered by BlackRock and other big firms. The people actually investing in the ETFs don’t have the votes that come with the shares that make up the ETFs. They would probably vote in a very different manner than woke Larry Fink. Due to this situation, it is un-American to invest via ETFs. Bite the bullet and buy shares directly.
So goes the latest meme. BlackRock is a safe investment for retirement funds.
‘BlackRock’s healthy balance sheet also serves a purpose beyond ensuring that the company will likely be in business years from now. Its balance sheet, along with consistent profitability, have enabled the company to raise its dividend for 12 consecutive years. And that dividend growth streak appears as though it has plenty of fuel left in the tank.
That’s because its payout ratio — how much of net income it devotes to dividends — will rise just a bit from a modest 42.9% in 2020 to the the mid-40% range this year, a level still on the conservative side. This leaves BlackRock with plenty of room to afford its payout even in the event of a market downturn, which would temporarily lower revenue and earnings.
And with analysts forecasting 14% annual earnings growth during the next five years, the company should be able to continue delivering low-double-digit annual dividend increases in that period. This kind of growth potential, along with a safe and market-beating 1.8% dividend yield, is what makes BlackRock a buy, provided it’s trading at a fair valuation.’ https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/10/26/is-blackrock-stock-a-buy-right-now/#:~:text=This%20kind%20of%20growth%20potential,trading%20at%20a%20fair%20valuation.
ESG due diligence is not a problem. And I think most rational investors would agree.
If an exchange listed company is not taking ESG due diligence seriously – I would suggest not buying a pig in a poke.
Companies and nations were already taking weather into account. That’s what Dr. C’s company does. No government intervention is necessary. In fact, it is very harmful.
People may argue for laws and taxes as they see fit. Has no one explained democracy to you?
But that is not ESG due diligence. Nor is it limited to weather.
Robert, why is it that various governmental agencies and NGOs want to dictate to companies their non-objective versions of ESG standards? Non-financial value judgements are not the provenance of government.
RIE has some really odd concepts of democracy. Same sort of person who describes a carbon tax as a “market based” solution.
Carbon taxes simply make energy more expensive. Advanced nuclear technologies seem a better idea. But in robust democracies people may advocate for carbon taxes. If he objects – Jim needs to have an alternative – but all he has is gainsaying. In a democratic of most people wanting a practical alternative to fossil fuels – that isn’t a politically viable strategy.
… democratic context…
Jim2’s alternative. Eliminate all new wind and solar projects. Build out natural gas and nuclear power plants, natural gas first. Problem solved!
And show me reliable evidence “most people” want an alternative to fossil fuels. If they want a “practical” alternative – other than nuclear – it does not exist.
“Most people” don’t want to spend a thin dime on “climate change.”
But the AP survey also showed that Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change. A $1 per month fee was favored by 57 percent of those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 percent would be opposed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/more-americans-believe-global-warming-they-won-t-pay-much-n962001
https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above
The PI survey didn’t ask them how much they would be willing to spend on “fixing” global warming.
Using oil and gas until something better comes along doesn’t change the economics. The next big thing in nuclear technologies – absent a breakthrough in fusion – is coming out of America by the end of this decade. It is the product decades of research and development. Like all great entrepreneurial innovations it will bring great rewards. Technologies can’t be planned for – but fostering their development is a useful function of government. At a cost of billions not trillions.
Pingback: Climate Change Conundrum – The Polen Report
I visited a new art gallery yesterday. One of the exhibits mentioned Mary Wade. Mary Wade was a 10 year old who was sentenced to death – and later transported to Australia – for stealing a frock.
‘There was no way that Mary could know then, that she would go on to have 21 children and be a founding mother of early-European settler Australia. She would have thousands of descendants, including a Prime Minister.’ https://historyofyesterday.com/youngest-ever-convict-transported-to-australia-at-10-years-old-24a44a881e75
The British colonizers made two mistakes. So many convicts that they were soon outnumbered and risked armed revolution. In colloquial terms – blood has stained the wattle.
And too many Scottish and Irish dissident thinkers in the tradition of the Scottish enlightenment.
I watched the Australian Strategic Materials general manager address to their 2021 AGM this morning. Note the ‘welcome to country’ preliminary. This is a polite acknowledgement of the elders of first peoples and is now a cultural norm. It is definitely woke and emerges from our unique history – which includes timeless occupation by the longest continuous human culture in the world. If Dave Fair has a problem with it – he can go …. himself.
ASM is my next investment. They have a massive resource base and – more important for minimizing costs which is where profits are made – a new refining process that produces purer products at lower cost. They are poised to start construction of a full scale refinery. Now seems to be an attractive entry point.
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/ASM:ASX?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVpvbD6_j2AhXITmwGHdk1BUoQ3ecFegQIAxAg&window=5Y
Note the ‘compare to’ boxes below the graph. I hold shares in two of them – and I wouldn’t discount the others. My ASX positions were opened in January and are 25% in profit.
‘ASM’s four Environment Social Governance (ESG) pillars represent our commitment to people and the planet. We are building a net zero carbon footprint into our business from its foundation, and have a strong history of environmentally responsible practices, nature conservation and integrated agriculture. Our culture of innovation, equal opportunity, integrity and safety drives our commitment to all stakeholders and becoming an employer of choice.
Our products are essential for clean technologies that will change the world.’ https://asm-au.com/sustainability/
Definitely woke but note that employee satisfaction is what distinguishes great companies from also rans. Employee metrics are commonly provided in investment reports online. Identifying a dynamic enterprise culture
is a cornerstone of Warren Buffett’s investing strategy.
I haven’t reviewed ASM sustainability documentation – I have the skills and knowledge to do so but as long as it is signed off on by Australian professionals I am assured of due diligence. The products are required to support the pace of technological innovation in an increasingly affluent world.
Robert, what is the matter with you? Were in any of my communications did I say or imply that one shouldn’t respect individuals or their culture? Why in the world would you accuse me of having evil intent in thought or deed? Is it because I differ in my political philosophy?
Your investment in a woke company is no skin off my nose; I specifically stated that stockholders should [collectively] direct the course of companies they own.
This adds to the discussion how? Dave is an aggressive and abusive character who hasn’t thought things through and talks in memes.
My ideology btw is a commitment to democracy and the rule of law. Dave’s problem is that he is stridently agin many things but has no strategy for winning the politics.
Robert this is what you said in its entirety on the subject: “I watched the Australian Strategic Materials general manager address to their 2021 AGM this morning. Note the ‘welcome to country’ preliminary. This is a polite acknowledgement of the elders of first peoples and is now a cultural norm. It is definitely woke and emerges from our unique history – which includes timeless occupation by the longest continuous human culture in the world. If Dave Fair has a problem with it – he can go …. himself.”
Where in the world did you get the idea I might have a problem with it? When did common courtesies morph into woke? Cultural norms aren’t woke, they are a product of a consensus of the common people in common practice. Woke is, in part, an in-your-face attack on cultural norms.
Why are you trying to pick a fight?
I said if Dave has a problem… He has many. But if he doesn’t have that particular problem – who cares. As far as ‘picking a fight’ I suggest that in future he commence in the manner he would like to continue in.
I just read Larry Fink’s 2022 letter to CEO’s – the power of capitalism. It is insightful and forward thinking. I’d invest in BlackRock if I didn’t have a different game that’s more fun.
https://www.blackrock.com/au/individual/2022-larry-fink-ceo-letter
Contrarians indulge in crude blogospheric climate science to denounce more nuanced analysis. Their problem is that they don’t have the numbers to have much effect. Forget progressives with all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas – poor wee willies metaverse AI economic overlord comes to mind as an extreme example – the 10 most popular US governors are all Republican. Most of whom are in favour of addressing climate change. Trump was an aberration.
Capitalism can create a path to low cost and abundant low carbon energy. That’s the path to both political credibility and social progress.
Global warming (GW) is beneficial for the world economy, not harmful
It increases global greening and GDP.
GW and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are beneficial for:
• Ecosystems
• Agriculture
• Forests
GW increases humidity, increases rainfall and increases freshwater availability.
GW increases temperature at higher latitudes much more than at lower latitudes. There are currently around twice as many deaths due to cold as there are due to heat. As GW increases, deaths due to cold decrease much faster than the deaths due to heat increase. This increases the positive and reduces the negative health impacts of GW.
As the world warms, the temperature gradient from equator to poles decreases. This reduces the intensity of storms. This is beneficial.
As GW increases, energy consumption decreases [1].
As GW increases, sea level rises. However, the impacts are negligible. The most likely increase in sea level over the next 100 years is around 200 mm to 300 mm, not the much higher figures being output from computer models. The negative economic impact of sea level rise will probably be negligible. It has taken 50 Ma for deep sea temperatures to decrease by 15 °C. The oceans cannot be warmed by much in 100 to 200 years.
Reference:
1. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
‘The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both.’ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f
The quote above is the Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamical view of climate. I don’t believe Peter’s crude blogoscience. Nor does most of the world. Most of us just want cost effective solutions and a prosperous future.
‘America has made great strides in meeting its energy needs through innovation and the development of technologies that have delivered economic growth and energy abundance and affordability while progressively reducing environmental impacts. Our nation must remain competitive in order to continue the research and development needed to ensure access both here and abroad to energy that is abundant, affordable, clean, reliable and secure. The most efficient way to achieve these goals is through policies that encourage competitive markets, private investment, and expanded trade. Policymakers should resist the urge to impose centralized regulations that place a drag on the economy without delivering measurable environmental benefits.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities
Peter’s rinse and repeat – otoh – offers no politically viable way forward.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
‘The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm.
Really? Show me the Earth’s global climate nonlinearlity over the Holocene.
Robert I. Ellison commented:
https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities
Blind ideology with no rationality whatsoever. Would expect better from someone who pretends to think scientifically. But clearly doesn’t.
Peter Lang commented:
1. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
An MDPI journal.
LOL LOL LOL.
Peter Lang commented:
1. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
Look at Peter’s Figure 1 there.
Doesn’t include any uncertainty bars whatsoever.
What a complete joke.
What an unprofessional piece of absolute junk.
No wonder Peter had to submit this to sh!t journal.
Can’t believe he would flex about it here.
Peter what a shame for you.
Where is your personal pride?
Not to mention professional pride?
PM’s plan for seven nuclear power stations
http://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/931/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/931/pub/931/page/2/article/287224
Nuclear is the way to go. Renewables are lunacy.
Mini nuclear reactors are what we should be building.
UK fleet of mini reactors planned by firm linked to Musk
http://digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/931/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/931/pub/931/page/7/article/294780
Mini nuclear reactors are the way to go. They will be manufactured on production lines in factories. So, they can be improved and remodelled over time – like cars, etc. They can be produced much faster and assembled on site much faster them SMRs.
We should have gone this route 50 years ago.
Perhaps some Small Modular Reactors in the interim:
‘SAN DIEGO, (Oct. 13, 2020) – General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it is collaborating with Framatome Inc. to develop a new helium-cooled 50-Megawatt electric (MWe) Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) concept that will produce safe, carbon-free electricity and can be factory built and assembled on-site, which will reduce costs and enable incremental capacity additions. The GA-EMS led team will be able to demonstrate the FMR design as early as 2030 and anticipates it being ready for commercial use by the mid-2030s.’ https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-and-framatome-collaborate-to-develop-a-fast-modular-reactor
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg
It is version of the 250MWe GA call EM2.
https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors#:~:text=General%20Atomics%20Electromagnetic%20Systems%20(GA,efficiency%2C%20safety%2C%20and%20economics.
GA and Framatome are giants of the industry and separately and together have an unmatched depth of experience. The core design and the new materials developed for the project are what it makes it the most advanced – safest and least wasteful – nuclear reactor on the planet. It can use LW nuclear waste as fuel. The US is sitting on 5 times the energy content of global oil reserves in it’s nuclear waste stockpiles.
GA and Framatome have recently reopened a TRIGA core fabrication facility. The cores for these new models will come from there. Helium cooling means they can be sited anywhere – high temperatures and direct drive Brayton cycle turbines make them nearly twice as thermally efficient as LW reactors. The convert and burn core design means that they can be run for a decade without refuelling. And then returned to a factory for a new core to be installed. The waste as lightweight fission products will be removed using AIROX is some 3% of the volume of LW reactor waste. Fertile material will be added and the fuel returned for another burn cycle. Ionizing radiation in the fission product waste decays to background levels within 500 years. One of the new materials is a silicon carbide ‘accident tolerant’ fuel cladding that won’t melt at any feasible temperature and release explosive gases. It’s a modular fast neutron reactor – to distinguish it from the also rans.
Rolls Royce will use LW reactors in their SMR. One way to go. Factory fabrication is a Henry Ford moment for nuclear technologies. I read Peter Lang’s journalist sources on mini-nukes but there is zilch detail. They are good because there are 6 degrees of separation to Elon Musk? Hmmm…
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
‘SAN DIEGO, (Oct. 13, 2020) – General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it is collaborating with Framatome Inc. to develop a new helium-cooled 50-Megawatt electric (MWe) Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) concept that will produce safe,
blah blah blah vaporware.
RIE falls for it all.
SAN DIEGO, (Jan. 13, 2021) – General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it has been selected for the Advanced Reactor Concepts-20 (ARC-20) program, one of three programs supported under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Reactor Demonstration (ARD) Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). GA-EMS will develop a conceptual design of a new 50-megawatt electric (MWe) Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) that provides safe, carbon free electricity, and has the capability of incremental capacity additions. The FMR will provide rapid load-following capabilities for seamless integration with renewables and other intermittent power sources, on and off the electric grid.
https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-selected-for-the-department-of-energys-advanced-reactor-concepts-20-program
Germany still doesn’t understand why it’s a bad idea to listen to the Green Energy Extremists, even after all this, they shun locally developed fossil fuels. All this due to something that “may” happen in the future vs suicide and pain right now. How irrational people can be.
Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing added himself to a growing list of German executives and politicians warning of dire economic consequences if Russian energy supplies are cut off.
Already grappling with soaring inflation, Europe’s biggest economy would face “a further deterioration of the situation if there’s a stop to imports or deliveries of Russian oil and natural gas,” Sewing told a press briefing Monday where he spoke in his role as head of a German banking lobby.
“A clear recession in Germany would presumably be inevitable,” he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/deutsche-bank-ceo-sees-german-recession-if-russian-gas-cut-off?srnd=premium
The climate activists are enduring a perfect storm right now.
1. Despite 40 years of effort, not a single world government has adopted “plan A” for climate- left, right, center, oligarchy, dictatorship, democracy, socialist, communist, capitalist. All said no (because plan A is daft).
2. The handful of states that gave a good faith effort toward plan A (like Germany) got the anticipated results- doubled energy prices, less stable grid, no impact on emissions.
3. Covid demonstrated that unrestrained govt. spending (required for plan A) is inflationary. Inflation is horrible for politicians. Inflation + doubled energy prices (for no benefit) is a crisis for politicians. Inflation + doubled energy prices + energy dependance on what turns out to be a homicidal madman is an existential crisis for politicians.
4. Activists want to keep pushing for plan A using the same old playbook- ever increasing estimates of catastrophe from global warming. The problem is that, after following that playbook for 40 years there should be catastrophe now and there isn’t. So they’re stuck telling three big whoppers- everyone is underwater and dying of climate change right now, today, and 2) will drown again tomorrow and 3) we’ve learned nothing- there is no evidence plan A is daft.
Once you understand that climate activists are “plan A or nothing” people and are willing to do nothing, they make sense.
jeffnsails850 wrote:
The climate activists are enduring a perfect storm right now.
1. Despite 40 years of effort, not a single world government has adopted “plan A” for climate- left, right, center, oligarchy, dictatorship, democracy, socialist, communist, capitalist. All said no (because plan A is daft)
Perfect froth! Jeff nails. Word salad. Utter meaningless.
While President Joe Biden’s administration has repeatedly delayed and blocked new federal oil and gas leasing, environmental groups and lawmakers noted the importance of the program to sustain conservation efforts.
“When you don’t have lease sales, you’re taking money away from the Gulf Coast states for coastal resiliency, you’re taking money away from inner city parks and recreation programs, you’re taking money away from national park maintenance, you’re taking money away from conservation efforts under the Land and Water Conservation Fund,” National Ocean Industries Association President Erik Milito told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
A bipartisan bill passed in 2020 permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which environmentalists have characterized as the most important federal conservation program, using primarily offshore oil and gas lease revenue.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/03/joe-biden-oil-gas-leasing-program-conservation/
Environmental criteria include a company’s energy waste, pollution created, and treatment of animals and nature. Social criteria include whether a company supports LGBTQ rights and encourages diversity, and whether they pay a fair wage throughout their supply chain. Governance criteria include a diverse board, and embracing corporate transparency, Investopedia explains.
According to the Daily Mail, ESG is sponsored by the European Union, and if firms comply with the checklist, they receive a stamp of approval that investors can use to weigh their investing decisions.
The thread in which Musk was replying to originated with a social media clip from Politico, in which Margrethe Vestager, European Commissioner for Competition, called for shorter showers, and that when followers turn the hot shower water off early, they can say “take that, Putin.”
This is not the first time that Musk has come out in opposition of ESG criteria.
Advertisement
“ESG is social credit on a massive scale, applied to corporations and institutions. It’s social credit with a trickle down effect. They won’t have to implement direct social credit if they can convince you to modify your own behavior with a variety of social and economic levers,” Musk wrote on March 22, 2022.
https://thepostmillennial.com/elon-musk-slams-corporatist-moralism-of-esg-pushed-by-world-economic-forum
In the here and now, Plan A doesn’t exist. The logic is simple.
1. There will be periods at night when there is no wind, and of course no Sunlight.
2. It follows from item 1 that backup generation will be needed. Enough in fact to satisfy full demand.
3. Taking items 1 and 2 together, it makes sense just to build the backup plants, usually natural gas fired, and skip the wasted money for the wind and solar.
The irrational Green Energy Extremists will counter that we “just” have to do this or that. Except this or that isn’t an option because it doesn’t exist in the here and now.
‘Environmental criteria include a company’s energy waste, pollution created, and treatment of animals and nature. Social criteria include whether a company supports LGBTQ rights and encourages diversity, and whether they pay a fair wage throughout their supply chain. Governance criteria include a diverse board, and embracing corporate transparency, Investopedia explains.
According to the Daily Mail, ESG is sponsored by the European Union, and if firms comply with the checklist, they receive a stamp of approval that investors can use to weigh their investing decisions.’
So it’s conclusive then. The Daily Mail says so and Elon Musk tweeted something. I don’t know what energy waste is. Perhaps they mean energy and waste? But according to Warren Buffett – if you want to get the best out of your people you treat and pay them well.
‘A critical factor in the financial performance of investments is the investor’s ability to identify drivers of the expected risk and return of investments. Financial analysts and portfolio managers are expected to be familiar with the financial factors that drive the value of an investment. However, issues that are difficult to measure in monetary terms and that do not form part of traditional financial metrics also affect the risk and return of investments—at times, decisively. In general, these issues are referred to as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues.’ https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/policy-positions/environmental-social-and-governance-issues-in-investing-a-guide-for-investment-professionals
I’m not an investment professional – I am trained in engineering and science. Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. And if I couldn’t save corporations money and reduce risk I wasn’t doing my job. But if the CEO of an EV company and the richest man in the world says no so be it.
I know that this may come as a shock, but the future isn’t designed, it evolved.
A failure to plan is a plan to fail.
I have to say, Germany “designed” themselves one hulluva future!
‘Apple returns truly massive amounts of capital to shareholders. In just the most recent quarter, Apple bought back nearly $20.5 billion in its stock and paid another $3.7 billion in dividends. In just the past five years, Apple’s repurchase activity has cut its share count by nearly a quarter — and boosted per-share metrics dramatically in the process.
At the same time, Apple has embraced other stakeholders. Its environmental, social, and governance policies include efforts toward reaching overall carbon neutrality, social equity, diversity and inclusion, and transparent and accountable decision-making at every level of the company. For years, Apple has worked with suppliers to urge them to provide better working conditions and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes.’ Motley Fool
The best companies internalise ESG – as opposed to greenwash. It’s part of the reason Motley Fool considers Apple to be a ‘foundational company’.
“We believe that business, at its best, serves the public good, empowers people around the world, and binds us together as never before.”
-Apple’s CEO Tim Cook
https://investor.apple.com/esg/default.aspx
> Apple returns truly massive amounts of capital to shareholders.
See for yourself:
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/aapl/dividend-history
If 0,5% is TRULY MASSIVE, imagine 1%!
Retained profits are reinvested in the future of companies. If Willie had bought an Apple share in 1992 it would now be worth 400 times what he paid for it. Just think – he could have been a capitalist and not a socialist.
Funny you say that, Chief, for AAPL was my first stock ever. Even funnier than quoting corporate crap you barely understand, come to think of it. No, that’s not the funniest – the funniest is to whine about AI overlords while touting growth tech stocks!
‘In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Hayek turned to the debate about whether socialist planning could work. He argued that it could not. The reason socialist economists thought central planning could work, argued Hayek, was that they thought planners could take the given economic data and allocate resources accordingly. But Hayek pointed out that the data are not “given.” The data do not exist, and cannot exist, in any one mind or small number of minds. Rather, each individual has knowledge about particular resources and potential opportunities for using these resources that a central planner can never have.’ econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html
Willie is of the opinion that computers can solve Hayek’s knowledge problem and direct global production. Now that’s hilarious.
Chief is saying the darnedest things.
Social democracies proved Hayek wrong. Even China proved Hayek wrong. Except for a caricature of how humans plan.
I told him many times I studied under a Hayekian, but Chief just can’t let go of his caricature.
Chief really loves his caricatures.
Chief Hydrologist was a pop culture reference to Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydraulical Engineer. That it’s still used is an acknowledge of my technical expertise.
Hayek is so right on so many things. And China is proof that Hayek is wrong? Hilarious.
But this started with a deriding of Apple’s cash dividend as miserly. And neglecting share buybacks as capital return – an order of magnitude greater than cash dividends – to investors. Apple provides both an income stream and capital growth.
Chief might like:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263770/gross-domestic-product-gdp-of-china/
Perhaps he’d prefer:
https://ideadrop.co/customer-success/steve-jobs-leadership-style-what-we-can-learn/
Losers do central planning. Winners have a “meticulous eye for detail.”
I saw recently Warren Buffett say that surrounding oneself with like minded people is the key to success. As for China – what I take away is the volatility of growth. Booms and busts. Not to mention the political repression and international trade wars.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is balanced budgets, managing money supply, fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. This is what attention to detail looks like – and we can point to 157 countries that are better at it than China.
Friedrich’s point applied to autarky, not to structures that dominate most corporations, including the Big 7.
But then so much think tanks would need to revise their programmes.
No economy is an island. And I don’t think we an learn anything from a study of corporate structures. These evolve organically. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were fractal. But willy’s metaverse AI economic overlord was intended to run the global economy.
I get stock tips from all over. The plan is to slowly and carefully buy and hold and see how much I can leave on the table. I think Upstart Holdings came from Motley Fool. It is a very interesting metaverse AI product. With sales, sales growth and a huge addressable market – I am not one to take a shot in the dark. Banks are using it to assess consumer credit applications better and faster than a person can. But I’m not sure it’s up to running the global economy.
I’d say I cleaned willy’s clock – but he never has anything real to say – it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Let’s see, Chief –
You say stuff about AAPL, dividends, Hayek, and me. You can’t reconcile Jim’s contradictory statement, instead you read into it what you always say anyway. And you cleaned my clock?
No wonder you always win!
Yes I did quote on Apple dividends – from a trusted source who mentioned dividends in the context of a discussion on ESG. Apple has made investors rich – and as willy has Apple shares I don’t know what he is whining about. Willy hijacked that discussion down his own blind alley. I quoted an expert who succinctly described Hayek’s knowledge problem. The problem willy wants to solve with computers. And if he says risible things like that he deserves to be derided.
Chief,
Nobody buys AAPL for its dividends. They’re risible. They bought back shares because of a big dip, and then they bragged about it. Which is ridiculous, for the share is traded at more than 30 its earnings.
One does not simply buy a growth stock for its value.
None of this is relevant, as dividends are not that relevant:
https://www.dividend.com/dividend-education/dividend-irrelevance-theory/
But if you want real dividends, try USOI, or better look around your own institutions. Aussies have rock solid banks, which are the envy of everyone around the world.
After all these years, I bet you still think I’m a scholar or something.
It is a trite truism that people look for capital growth or an income stream depending on their stage of life. And our banks didn’t make toxic loans that they then wholesaled on global markets.
I think that willy did media studies and basket weaving at a seminary school – but why would I care.
That truism has been refuted in theory, Chief, and in practice some vehicles are more tax efficient than others.
A bit like when Friedrich and Augusto met:
https://coreyrobin.com/2012/07/08/hayek-von-pinochet/
Got to love that “but”!
All bubbles burst: laws of economics for the new millennium – https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
The Austrian School of Economics provides a mainstream framework for economic oversight. Hayek’s social and political philosophy is enlightened. He was passionately committed to individual freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I have seen this meme before. Chile was going down the tubes before the coup. Putting in place more sustainable economic practices could only help the people.
This is much more objective assessment. I’m still reading – I may be some time.
‘The outstanding initial successes were not sustainable. The price of copper was relatively high when Allende entered office. This, together with the Frei Montalva government’s responsible fiscal management, had given Allende’s government significant foreign reserves to utilize for their programs. But its policies of nationalization and expropriation isolated Chile from much of the world economy, with the exceptions of Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China. When coupled with expansionist policies and the growth of the public sector payroll, the end result was significant increases in the fiscal and trade deficits, a decline in international reserves, and a large drop in foreign investment. To maintain its programs, the government printed money: as early as 1971, M1 increased by 119% (Larrain and Meller, 1991, p. 197). Not surprisingly, by 1972 the economic situation began to change sharply, and approached a crisis stage by 1973.
With increasing public sector wages, subsidies to state-owned companies and lower tax collections, the public deficit reached 24.5% of GDP in 1972 and 30.5% in 1973 (ibid., p. 200). Inflation increased to 255.1% in 1972, and reached 606% in 1973. In August 1973, the month before the military coup, inflation was running at an annualized rate close to 1,000%. In this atmosphere, the fixed official prices triggered shortages that gave rise to an active black market. The government was forced to organize the distribution of certain basic necessities.’ http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63318/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Caldwell%2C%20B_Hayek%20and%20Chile_Cladwell_Hayek%20and%20Chile_2015.pdf
Pointless nattering – quod erat demonstrandum.
No U, Chief.
Pointless nattering – quod erat demonstrandum.
If your leaders listened to your gurus, Chief, they would kill your financial system and your business cycle. I could not care less if it derailed your coal industry, but the world needs rock solid banks like we got in Australia. Besides, it is a time where we need to think clearly about inflation. Your cult won’t help.
Go to sleep.
I was asleep when my last comment slipped out of moderation. Thank you very much. It’s hard to keep up with willy. He leaps from pillar to post.
Australia has had an inflation target of 2-3% since 1993. It is now 3.5%. This is managed primarily through the overnight cash rate. When the economy is at risk of overheating – the overnight cash rate is increased putting a damper of demand. Conversely – rates are decreased during downturns. Over the period of the target Australia has had almost uninterrupted economic growth. At the same time we had low government debt, conservative banking practices, a strong democracy, an effective legal system and low levels of official corruption.
Reason more to keep away from economic revisionism, Chief. Even Bryan shies away from it:
https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Good night.
I’m not going to respond to any comments after saying this: Australia is a pissant country only important to world powers in relation to its natural resources and as a launching platform for aggression towards or defense from perceived or real enemies, much like the Third World. Get over it Willard and Robert, Australia is not a mover nor a shaker.
Australia has stood with the US on every battleline since WWII. We are your biggest defence customer and we coordinate with forces across the Asia and the Pacific. Sometimes I wonder why we bother.
Mind you – we do like to make a China bob from all our rich resources.
So we shouldn’t manage cash rates to target inflation? I’ll let the Reserve Bank know.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/03/17/a-plan-b-for-addressing-climate-change-and-the-energy-transition/#comment-975352
> Australia is a pissant country
DAVE HATH SPOKEN!
It’s an order of magnitude more than the pipsqueak CO2 level of 0.042 percent.
One thing is not like the other, Jim.
Yes, CO2 is an integral part of the cycle of life. Trying to cause less of it is id e ot ic.
“But trace gas” may not cohere with “But Life,” Jim.
You got to choose.
We can’t really have less carbon – it just depends where it ends up. What Jim means I suppose is carbon in the atmosphere. That carbon is a resource for increasing agricultural productivity and biodiversity with 21st century land and water management. By returning it to soils and ecosystems. It’s nuts not to do it.
Wildlife populations are crashing globally – food production needs to double by 2050. Carbon fertilisation doesn’t come close to building prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.
You are grasping at straws Willard. Even many elementary school students understand the carbon cycle. Punishing plants isn’t a good “design” for the future.
“…food production needs to double by 2050.”
Why food production needs to double by 2050?
> What Jim means I suppose
No need for any oracle:
[J1] It’s an order of magnitude more than the pipsqueak CO2 level of 0.042 percent.
[J2] Yes, CO2 is an integral part of the cycle of life.
One of these claims need to be sacrificed to the altar of FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM!
Willard skates off the edge of reality. Pity, that.
Jim can’t bring himself to concede that CO2 can’t both be insignificant and crucial. Just another day amongst Denizens. Go team!
AGW occurred largely in the last 40 years. It is about 0.3 degrees C (Kravtsov et al 2018). Not a lot to worry about yet. We are of course carbon based lifeforms.
Oh – and food production needs to double with both population and high economic growth rates.
e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00322-9
Population stops growing though. There will be less population by 2050…
Stabilising population by 2050 requires high economic growth.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
I knew it was a mistake to answer Christos’ question. I won’t make that mistake again.
He should try doing some independent research before pulling an ill informed opinion out of his arse.
“We are of course carbon based lifeforms.”
:-)
Carbon Racism.
Depending on their stage of life investors look for capital growth or an income stream. I think willy studied popular philosophy in a seminary school.
Which shows the quality of what you think, Chief, notwithstanding their precision!
Media studies with a minor in basket weaving? Gender reassignment educator? Bus driver? Why would I care? But willy is a champion at nattering on pointlessly.
This discussion was about corporate environmental and social responsibility. Do they object to corporations making a better and richer world?
Chill, Chief:
https://youtu.be/yhAttVIUvqQ
Pointless nattering – quod erat demonstrandum,
You should click on the link and listen to the podcast, Chief. It’s a good podcast and a good episode about ESG. If you prefer more contrarian and more pessimistic, this one ain’t bad either:
https://thefelderreport.com/2022/03/30/kiril-sokoloff-on-the-virtue-of-just-watching-the-river/
Business with a grand purpose – but they do have to make money of course. This is the future. But there are some who seem to have trouble separating the wheat from the chaff.
‘Since 1997, The Motley Fool has been a trusted advisor, thanks to our rigorous due diligence and thoughtful investing process. We have been a bridge-builder between those who want a better financial future and those who can help to enable it. And we have been a rule-breaker, because that’s what it takes to help the world become smarter, happier, and richer.
Now, The Motley Fool Foundation is ready to follow in similar footsteps.
With two-thirds of Americans either financially coping or financially vulnerable, The Motley Fool Foundation has a clear vision: financial freedom for all. We believe that, together, we can co-design an inclusive System and create a world where everyone has a seat at the table, and where everyone benefits when our economy flourishes.
There are key drivers that enable financial freedom: education, health, money, work, and housing. These drivers comprise “The System,” and, when they work together, people advance financially. When they don’t, people are left behind. The goal is to break down barriers that have been holding people back.
The time is now to do the important work of changing mindsets at the organizational and individual levels, working to remove the barriers that enable systems change, and give more people access to short and long-term financial resources. When that happens, more people than ever will have the ability to make important life choices.
Financial freedom for all.
Imagine the possibilities.’ https://foolfoundation.org/
Europe “designed” its future, and now reaps the “benefits” of that planning. Genius! Pure genius!
Poland signaled that it wants to use coal to produce electricity after 2049 to bolster its energy security, underscoring the challenge the European Union faces in its goal of achieving climate neutrality by mid-century.
The nation wants coal-fired power plants to be an “additional stabilizer” of its energy system, Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin said during a meeting with miners in the southern city of Katowice on Monday, Poland’s PAP newswire reported.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/poland-wants-coal-use-beyond-eu-net-zero-date-in-security-push
‘Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2022, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.’ https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Jim confuses socialist central planning with getting the policy settings right. The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.
A transition to a low carbon economy is prudent, possible and
politically pragmatic. It will occur rapidly in dynamic markets. It does require getting the policy settings right on technical innovation and land and water management.
There are extreme views on both ends of the climate change spectrum. CO2 emissions are world ending or a great boon to nature and society. Neither of these views are shared by the middle ground of politics – which is where you want to be politically to be relevant. Both views are crude blogospheric pretensions to science reiterated endlessly as well rehearsed memes with no resolution possible. It more than time that the clamour of both extremes were ignored so that more sensible voices can be heard.
e.g. https://www.conservamerica.org/
Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions across sectors requires a broader multi-gas and aerosol strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. This is also the way to economic growth and reductions in harmful pollutants.
The very small (trace gases) 0,04 % CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause any influence to the global temperatures ratios.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Judith, Graham Lloyd has cited your paper in an article in The Australian which has so far attracted 345 comments, almost all against emissions reduction policies. Very many supportive comments on your stance, many from people who have not heard of you before, some from longer term supporters. I’ve strongly advised readers to visit Climate Etc. Keep up the good work! UK voters seem to be coming to terms with reality rather than net-zero, Boris is having to fend off his wife and acknowledge reality. The European re-assessment is the one good thing to come out of the horrors of the Russian attack on Ukraine.
On climate change, center-Left parties around the world deluded themselves into thinking their high-energy economies could be powered by renewables, which energy historians have known for centuries had to be abandoned for fossil fuels in order for the industrial revolution to happen. And around the world it was liberals not conservatives who fought to shut down nuclear plants and block natural gas pipelines and infrastructure.
Liberals and progressives could have embraced a climate and energy strategy focused on domestically-produced natural gas and nuclear, as I have urged them to do for over a decade, and which Putin did, allowing him to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supplies.
Such a strategy was the only one that ever made any sense from an environmental point of view. Nuclear and natural gas are the two technologies that are most responsible for declining emissions by the US and Europe since the 1970s.
Instead, the Left in Europe opted for importing fossil fuels from Russia and the Left in the US for importing solar panels made by enslaved Muslims in China.
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-wishful-liberal-thinking-led?s=r
Russia funded the European left and green groups (mostly one in the same) that worked against nuclear and domestic gas production. The “climate concerned” are Putin’s top salespeople and have been well compensated as such.
If a set of policies don’t make any sense unless you grasp that they aren’t about climate, then they aren’t about climate.
What I’m waiting for is for the West to realize that Russia is a gnat compared to China. We in the allegedly free world need to start cutting China out of our raw materials, chips, drugs, and other critical items supply. I was sad to see India is buying Russian oil at a discount. India is more or less a representative democracy, so they should be in the European/American camp. We need to make that happen. It’s also really sad that we haven’t exerted more influence in Central and South America. We are too busy navel gazing at global warming and false gender issues to focus on what really matters: Energy and Materials security.
> Russia funded the European left
See for yourself:
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/exclusive-russia-backs-europes-far-right/
Agree on China. The whole global economy is up for review. Germany expects Volkswagen to pay for the welfare benefits of its aging population- including the unfunded pensions.
They expect it because Volkswagen is a “German” car company that they assume will make lots of cars in Germany no matter how much extra cost and inconvenience the government hamstrings them with.
But Volkswagen makes cars all over the world- particularly in the US, China, and South America. It’s “German” out of convenience at this point and there is little reason to believe their global workforce will happily ship the fruits of their labor off to wrinkly white people on the Rhine.
I said it before, but this is “perfect storm” territory for leftists. All in the same year:
1. offshoring industry to China for “climate” benefit backfired.
2. renewables caused the predicted failures and cost hikes.
3. dependance on putatively “European” foreign entities for supply or energy backfired.
4. Liberal spending policies turned out to be inflationary (just like the critics said it would) and inflation is very, very bad for incumbent politicians.
5. Activists continue to prove that they insist on Plan A or nothing and are comfortable with nothing.
Hi Willy,
Those pesky “right wing” environmentalists…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking
Chatham House “that’s my interpretation,” Jeff?
Have some receipts:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/23/oligarchs-funding-tories
700k?
Pikers
Hunter Biden got 5 times that. Bill Clinton got $500,000 directly.
The Center for European Studies found that Russia supplied “green”
NGOs in Europe with $95 million to fight for the Climate Concerned’s Plan A and cement Vladimir Putin’s control of EU energy. Those NGOs would be surprised to discover you think they’re Tories. But, then again, after Labour self-destructed who isn’t, right?
Funny you can’t find a link, Jeff. Here’s what it looks like:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2020.1739960
Link:
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FinalRR.pdf
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/385554-russian-trolls-are-pitting-americans-against-energy-industry/
Almost, Jeff.
Check note 309.
Note 309 in it’s entirety:
309 Vladislava Vojtiskova et al., The Bear in Sheep’s Clothing, at 31.
And Willy fails to mention that notes 307, 308, and 310 confirm the same thing from Politico, the Financial Times, and the New York Times. It’s not even a left-right thing, the Guardian reported on it.
So you haven’t found that document yet, Jeff.
Since the other notes you mention handwaves to it, I doubt they “confirm” anything.
Are you denying that Russia funded environmental groups or just being coy to retain plausible deniability of your denial?
Which law of CB requires activists to word their assertions such that they can deny they ever said them?
“we never said highways in New York City would be underwater today, the ‘or not’ caveat in note 1,206 was clearly available on page 332 of the supplemental information that we didn’t hand out to the media at the press event where we said the highway would be underwater. The auditor even pointed it out, after which we ridiculed him for suggesting it wouldn’t be underwater.”
Are you denying that you haven’t checked your own source, Jeff?
You should. It’s a good one.
Several years ago, Europe planned (some might say “designed”) their energy future. They designed in the unreliable energy sources wind and solar, and designed out coal, natural gas, oil, and even nuclear – the true and reliable workhorses that built the modern world. The European geniuses planned and planned, but the future isn’t designed, it evolves. Their brilliant planning is funding a bloody Russian war against Ukraine. And it has now evolved to favor coal, the alleged dirtiest of fuels. I wouldn’t let them plan a mud pie party, much less anything that actually mattered! (My bold below.)
Benchmark European contract for next year coal delivery rose for a third day, adding 6.5% to 230 dollars per ton. The May contract advanced as much as 11% to 330 dollars on ICE Futures Europe. With carbon and gas prices also rising, next year power in Germany added as much as 2.2% to 189 euros per megawatt-hour, as higher fuel prices are poised to boost the cost of generating electricity.
But even after the latest rally, profitability for generating power at a German coal plant remains significantly higher than at a gas plant , according to Spark and dark spreads, a theoretical measure of the margin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/european-coal-jumps-to-1-month-high-on-plan-to-curb-russian-fuel
Coal is not a dirty fuel for electricity generation plants. There are in use very much sufficient technologies for filtering and capturing almost the 99,9 % of the corresponded ashes.
CO2 in emission gasses is not a pollutant…
CO2 (trace gasses) 0,04 % content in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause any rise (warming) to the global surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Germany’s planners and designers have learnt nothing from their deadly Green Energy Extremist fiasco. What’s the plan? Double down on unreliables, of course!
The package envisages green energy accounting for 80% of the power mix in Europe’s biggest economy by 2030, up from about 40% now and a previous target of 65%.
“On the one hand, the climate crisis is coming to a head. On the other hand, Russia’s invasion shows how important it is to phase out fossil fuels and promote the expansion of renewables,” Habeck told reporters.
The legislation includes a new clause acknowledging that the use of renewables is in the interests of public security.
The country’s Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) also includes a goal for offshore wind energy to reach at least 30 GW by 2030 – equivalent to the capacity of 10 nuclear plants – and at least 70 GW by 2045, the sources added.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-present-renewable-energy-expansion-measures-2022-04-05/
Germany could build out nuclear power in less than 10 years and have a reliable, steady base supply of electricity.
I was surprised to see that 374 out of 441 reactors were built in 10 or less than 10 years. There is a tail of 15% that have taken longer to build. The world record is 33 years for the Atucha-2 reactor in Argentina where construction began in 1981 and was grid connected in 2014. I can only assume that construction was halted for a large number of years.
At the other end of the scale, 18 reactors were completed in 3 years! 12 of those in Japan, 3 in the USA, 2 in Russia and 1 in Switzerland. These are a mixture of boiling water and pressurised water reactors. Clearly, it does not need to take forever to build new reactors given good supply chain, expertise and engineering protocols. The mean construction time of 441 reactors in use today was 7.5 years.
There is often talk in nuclear circles that over-regulation has led to increased costs and build time. If this were the case we may expect to see an increase in construction time over time. Figure 2 shows the construction time cross plotted with reactor age.
https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/
Yes – it is time to bite the nuclear bullet. Even old nuclear is looking good.
‘At a 3% discount rate comparative costs are as shown above. Nuclear is comfortably cheaper than coal and gas in all countries. At a 10% discount rate (see below) nuclear is still cheaper than coal in South Korea and the USA, but is more expensive in Japan, China and India. Nuclear proves to be cheaper than gas in Korea and China, but is more expensive in Japan and the USA.’ https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
New nuke is much better.
‘Advanced nuclear technologies represent a dramatic evolution from conventional reactors in terms of safety and non-proliferation, and the cost estimates from some advanced reactor companies – if they are shown to be accurate – suggest that these technologies could revolutionize the way we think about the cost, availability, and environmental consequences of energy generation.’ op. cit.
Since there is no evidence of an existential crises, the common sense solution (heaven forbid) is to keep using fossil fuels until new energy technologies develop AND can be implemented in a gradual and cost effective manner.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-life-expectancy-carbon-netural-oil-coal-fossil-fuels-ukraine-war-russia-china-fossil-fuels-carbon-emissions-mining-pollution-electric-car-vehicle-11649258860?st=u6wasdkxwrhfsaj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Paris is where they pledged to increase CO2 emissions.
Pingback: A ‘Plan B’ for Addressing Climate Change and the Energy Transition
So not only are their policies making life more expensive and uncomfortable for all of us, on top of that they lie about it!
For weeks the Biden administration and their Democratic allies on Capitol Hill have attempted to pin out of control energy prices on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The White House communications team even dubbed price increases on oil and gas the “Putin price hike,” while also downplaying the amount of oil the U.S. previously imported from Russia.
But as Democrats — who have been waging a war on the oil and gas industry — continue to blame Putin, Americans and some in the media aren’t buying it. In fact, the anti-fracking records of congressional climate activists are being scrutinized.
During an interview with CNBC Wednesday morning, Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky doubled down on the need to ban fracking — which she voted for — and falsely claimed oil companies are price gouging customers.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/04/06/democrat-gets-called-out-for-voting-to-end-fracking-n2605554
OK guys, how exactly are you going to “halve emissions by 2030” with China going all-out to build new coal plants on a scale far beyond anything the world has ever seen, and India (with population almost as large as China) not far behind, and the rest of Asia and all of Africa waiting in the wings? You will not find the answer. Go through the press release and the SPM and all you find is studious avoidance of any mention of the development plans of places like China and India. Even the names “China” and “India” appear to be on some kind of taboo list. For example, here from the SPM is a chart of total world GHG emission since 1990:
Eastern Asia? I wonder who that could be.
As you would expect from these people, there is the usual assertion, based on the completely deceptive “levelized costs,” that wind and solar electricity generation are now as cheap or cheaper than generation by fossil fuels. Four “renewable” technologies are considered: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and concentrated solar. From page 14 of the SPM:
In 2020, the levelised costs of energy (LCOE) of the four renewable energy technologies could compete with fossil fuels in many places. . . . LCOE . . . includes installation, capital, operations, and maintenance costs per MWh of electricity produced. The literature uses LCOE because it allows consistent comparisons of cost trends across a diverse set of energy technologies to be made.
The SPM does mention that LCOE “does not include grid integration costs,” but fails to note that those are almost certainly a large multiple of what is included in the LCOE measure.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-4-5-reality-cannot-penetrate-into-the-fantasy-world-of-climate-campaigners
Lefties around the world designed a solar power solution for poor countries. Like just about everything else lefties touch, the future had other plans …
relates to Tesla-Backed Startup Made Cheap Power a Debt Burden for the World’s Poorest
…
The new solar solution became a darling of development banks and socially minded investors after U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled his Power Africa initiative on a tour of the continent in 2013. He called on the public and private sectors to work together to electrify 20 million homes and small businesses. The concept was seductive from every angle: Governments embraced the idea because it shifted infrastructure costs to consumers, and charitable organizations loved it because it promised to empower the poor. At a moment when the world was waking up to the threat of climate change, everyone was eager to embrace paygo’s potential.
Soon a new generation of companies such as D.light, Mobisol, and Zola were promising to provide off-grid homes with affordable, renewable energy while also turning a profit. Humanitarian agencies and the United Nations got in on the action, along with Silicon Valley heavyweights including EBay Inc. founder Pierre Omidyar and Tesla’s Elon Musk. The clean-energy researchers at BloombergNEF tracked about $300 million invested in mostly Western-owned solar paygo startups in 2020, up from $19 million in 2013. More than 8 million paygo solar kits were sold from January 2018 through December 2021, according to Gogla, an off-grid solar industry trade group, and today about 25 million to 30 million people have access to energy via paygo solar lighting systems.
…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-04-07/how-pay-as-you-go-solar-made-the-world-s-cheapest-new-energy-unaffordable
The financially inexperienced are still being misled about the costs of complex solar financing contracts, according to the people interviewed by Bloomberg Green. In some places half the loans ended up unpaid, and those who continued paying struggled. During the pandemic, one study found, 43% of paygo customers had to cut back on food consumption to keep their service. Now some of Zola and D.light’s competitors are pursuing an even more vulnerable customer base: refugees in camps in Rwanda, Uganda, and elsewhere.
New comments aren’t posting under “recent comments”
Nevermind – they are now.
Russia and China are so concerned about global warming, they have stopped using fossil fuels altogether! /sarc
Russian coal and oil paid for in yuan is about to start flowing into China as the two countries try to maintain their energy trade in the face of growing international outrage over the invasion of Ukraine.
Several Chinese firms used local currency to buy Russian coal in March, and the first cargoes will arrive this month, Chinese consultancy Fenwei Energy Information Service Co. said. These will be the first commodity shipments paid for in yuan since the U.S. and Europe penalized Russia and cut several of its banks off from the international financial system, according to traders.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-07/russian-coal-and-oil-paid-for-in-yuan-to-start-flowing-to-china
China once again has found a creative way to profit from Western Green Energy Extremists’ misguided energy policy – this time via carbon credits.
Take a look at the Dayingjiang-3 hydropower dam in China’s Yunnan province. In December, the dam’s developers sold their first credit endorsed by Verra, the largest offsets verifier. The buyers were anonymous entities via Toucan.
Since then, more than 2 million credits from Dayingjiang-3 have been converted into what’s called a Base Carbon Tonne (BCT) on Toucan’s platform, each representing a ton of CO₂ supposedly avoided by not burning fossil fuels. Those BCTs make up more than 99% of the credits Dayingjiang-3 has sold, according to CarbonPlan, a nonprofit group that analyzes climate solutions.
Credits from existing dams don’t do much to help the environment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-07/the-biggest-crypto-effort-to-end-useless-carbon-offsets-is-backfiring
Economics is a spatiotemporal chaotic networked system. Like weather and climate it is in the class of complex dynamical systems.
A mud map would look something like this:
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/jrnlcovercropped.jpg
Only vastly more complex and multi-layered. It is made up of individual players who can interact with each other, with corporations and with government. It is fueled by sweat and tears and is vulnerable to fear and greed. The key to managing fear and greed is to avoid bubbles and the inevitable bust. Rules for avoiding bubbles was the business of the Austrian school of economics more recently with an assist from the Chicago Boys. It’s measured annually by the Heritage Foundation.
‘We measure economic freedom based on 12 quantitative and qualitative factors, grouped into four broad categories, or pillars, of economic freedom:
Rule of Law (property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness)
Government Size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health)
Regulatory Efficiency (business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom)
Open Markets (trade freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom)’ https://www.heritage.org/index/
Economic stability starts with managing the money supply and targeting inflation through interest rates. There are a few warning signals of crashes that make them potentially controllable – primarily hyper price inflation with positive feedbacks. The US is nowhere near there. Even after decades of overspending and a decade of quantitative easing. An interest rate spike was inevitable. (Current oil and gas speculations notwithstanding. I take it Europe is still taking Russian gas?) Take two aspirin, raise interest rates a few times and Bob’s your uncle. More fiscal discipline going forward wouldn’t go amiss
Economic stability brings with it sustained economic growth and reduced scope for fear and greed. Economic growth is faster in well managed markets in low income regions. This leads to a broadening of economic activity and strong nodes of regional economic activity. North and South Americas, Oceania, Asia, Africa and Europe all have scope to be influential partners in the global economy. Multiple regions of economic strength provide buffers against instability in one region or other. It is no longer the case that the global economy is dominated by one region or another. A mutual interest in trade and growth provides as well a path to peace as countries recognize that co-operation is more fruitful than conflict.
Assumptions and scientific facts.
The Earth’s Greenhouse Warming Theory is based on scientific insights, but those scientific insights are very much mistaken.
Those scientific insights seemed so obvious, that no one had seen they were simply assumptions.
Assumptions so seemingly and intuitively right, those assumptions have been taken as granted, and on those assumptions the entire Greenhouse Warming Theory was based…
–
But unfortunately those assumptions, which were not considered as assumptions, but as solid scientific facts had been very much mistaken.
–
Those mistaken assumptions are:
1). The planet surface absorbs the entire not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s EM energy. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assumption).
–
Due to its sphericity, a smooth surface planet has a strong specular reflection, which is not covered by the satellite measured planet average surface Albedo “a”.
–
2). The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vise-versa. (it seems obvious, but it is a mistaken assumption).
–
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !
The T = ( J /σ )¹∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !
The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT). That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
–
Let’s see:
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)
The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”.
–
Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove. The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area. Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.
–
After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…
–
The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).
–
But the
T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2)
as the irradiated surface (vise-versa) radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
–
That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
as a mathematical abstraction, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I think Christos is mistaken.
Thank you, Robert, for your respond.
BTW what time is now in Australia? Here in Greece the time is 7:18 pm.
A Planet Universal Law Equation
As you know, to maintain a Planet Universal Law Equation one has to study all the planets’ behavior.
In that way only one may come to general conclusions. That is why I call our Earth as a Planet Earth. After all Earth is a Planet and as a Planet it behaves in accordance to the Universal Laws – as all Planets in the Universe do.
The Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation has the wonderful ability the calculated results closely matching to the measured by satellites planets’ mean temperatures. This New Universal Equation can be applied to all the without atmosphere planets and moons in a solar system.
The more we compare the planets’ surface temperatures, the more we understand the planets’ surface warming phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We cannot compare the planet Te and planet Tmean.
They are different physic terms.
–
And here is why:
1). Planet doesn’t reflect as a disk, but as a sphere.
the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is not
(1-a)S
but
Φ(1-a)S
2). Planet doesn’t absorb the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
What planet does is to interact with the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux.
When interacting with matter, only a fraction of the not reflected portion of incident SW solar flux is accumulated in inner layers in form of HEAT.
3). Also, the planet mean surface temperature Tmean is amplified by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s 2.30 am and I am awake watching markets, streaming The Devil’s advocate and commenting on CE. You have a nice evening.
The centuries old clash of ideas of state control of economies versus free markets has played out in political history as a clash of principles. Central planning and state control V. free markets, democracy and the rule of law. Being philosophically a small l liberal as we say in Australia – I’m rooting for the latter. The impetus to control is the urge to power. It is countered by economic freedom fighters.
In Chile in the 1970’s the free marketeers were the Chicago Boys – a Chicago University economics group – the usual suspects. They shaped up against the might of the totalitarian world. Represented in South America by Salvatore Allende, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Aided and abetted by 5th columnist academics and journalists. Socialist plans drift into economic collapse and totalitarianism with immense tragedy. Free markets deliver wealth and opportunity the more inclusively the better.
‘Chile had experienced high inflation and only moderate growth during the 1950s and 1960s. Development theories promoted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA), established in 1948 and based in Santiago, were quite influential in Latin America during this period. Although such theories actually have a rich previous history in economics,12 the Singer-Prebisch dependency and import substitution models provided the leading development paradigm for most countries in Latin America. The theoretical program viewed protectionism and planning as the two most important imperatives for rapid development. It was in reaction to the success of this intellectual program and its theoretical framework, plus the strong influence of Marxist ideas within certain academic circles,13 that the “Chile Project,” the cradle of the “Chicago Boys,” was begun. The project that would so greatly influence Chile’s subsequent history had its origins in Albion Patterson’s Plan Chillán in 1953.14’ Caldwell, Bruce and Montes, Leonidas (2015) Friedrich Hayek and his visits to Chile. The Review of Austrian Economics, 28 (3). pp. 261-309. ISSN 0889-3047
Today the economic plans of the climate glitterati distil to democratic socialism and control of most of the economy. In most places this would need massive tax increases to pay for massive spending. Or there is hyperinflation and the economy goes downhill fast. Democratic socialists want to have their cake and eat it too. They are for global warming. Economic freedom fighters want more fiscal discipline. We are ag’in global warming. The solution is nuclear power and inclusive stewardship of God’s bounty.
Unfortunately, there are good odds that the socialists/communists can sow discord in a system with strong individual freedoms and some degree of capitalism. There will always be poor people in any society for a number of intractable reasons. In such a society there will be some who are considerably richer. This is the grist that will bring all Chileans down to a quasi-poverty emblematic of socialism.
Chile was rocked by months of unrest in 2019 over inequality, corruption and inadequate social welfare. Many of the protesters’ demands echoed those which Boric and his contemporaries had pushed in a student movement which demanded that Chile be rebuilt with the concerns of its people at the core.
It is a vision that Boric has vowed to achieve as president – although a divided congress will probably hamper progress.
In the background, representatives from every corner of Chile are drafting a new constitution to replace Gen Augusto Pinochet’s 1980 charter. The new constitution will be put to a referendum later this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/11/gabriel-boric-chile-president-new-era
There are many reasons people need social insurance – age, infirmity, accident. And there are real storms of driving winds and pounding water that few of us can insure against. Hayek saw no reason why – at our level of economic progress – government could provide for the needs of human dignity -without loss of general freedom.
Let’s hope Chile’s new constitution champions freedom, the rule of law and democracy.
Hmmm… why government could not provide… enough at least to preserve a right to liberty and life and that hopefully brings some happiness.
I am the poor by the way. I told Daisy this morning that I couldn’t afford to buy bacon and egg wraps from the bakery every morning. She tells me she collects coins. I tell her they are my coins she collects but she still thinks she’s funny. It’s no wonder why I’m poor.
I have no objection to a social safety net. I like the idea of a negative income tax. It in and of itself should be too cushy for normal people. For those with disabilities, there can be other programs.
…should NOT be too cushy …
“I have no objection to a social safety net. ”
A safety net presumes people take a risk and get on the trapeeze.
Never forget the “uses” of a safety net- see Cloward and Piven.
The current unemployment system is a morass of rules and regulations which employs hundreds of thousands of state and federal workers to administer. A negative income tax should be cheaper to administer.
Along with the NIT, companies should pay zero corporate tax.
And suits against companies for making legal products should not be allowed, such as oil or drug companies. We all demand those products and the companies do not force us to use them.
“ I told Daisy this morning that I couldn’t afford to buy bacon and egg wraps from the bakery every morning”
Chief, I feel your pain. Well, not literally.
My wife and I went out to breakfast in January while in Florida. The bill was $45 for the 2 of us, including tip and a pastry to take home. The next morning eating at home, 2 cups of coffee, toast for her and Cheerios for me cost maybe $1. Is it any wonder we eat breakfast at home 95% of the time.
Last Fall while in South Carolina, we went into a French Bakery and without asking the price before hand, I bought 2 something or other baked goods for $17. Forget that.
We eat at home a lot.
Oh it’s worse than that. I keep bills tucked in the coin basket for emergencies or good causes. That’s the ‘coins’ she uses to fund her luxurious lifestyle.
There is if not a plan a foolish dream.
‘Amazing things will happen when people come together. The Motley Fool Foundation’s purpose is to unify those with financial ability and wealth with those who seek the same type of freedom. Our hope is that we can co-design a more inclusive society that can allow Financial Freedom for all.’ https://foolfoundation.org/
LONDON — Britain plans to build eight new nuclear reactors and expand production of wind energy as it seeks to reduce dependence on oil and natural gas from Russia and other foreign suppliers following the invasion of Ukraine.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the plans Thursday as part of a new energy security strategy that will also accelerate development of solar power and hydrogen projects. The government said it wants to almost triple nuclear power generation capacity to 24 gigawatts by 2050.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/uk-build-nuclear-reactors-amid-energy-strategy-83928424
Gallup: “Extreme Weather Has Affected One in Three Americans”
“One in three U.S. adults say they have been personally affected by an extreme weather event in the past two years. These victims express greater concern about climate change.”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/391508/extreme-weather-affected-one-three-americans.aspx
Appell
Provide links that this is any different from the last 1,000 years.
Worldwide, drought killed 1.26m in 1900, 3m in 1928, 1.9m people in 1943.
To show nature’s sense of humour, floods killed 3.7m in 1931.
In 2020 floods and droughts combined killed 6,400 people.
Source ‘Our World in Data’.
Perhaps if “one in three” Americans could get things in perspective, they wouldn’t be quite so concerned.
andrew – its the typical survey questions bias – survey questions designed in a way to achieved a desired response. Well known common trick.
People believing those type surveys are best described as gullible or easily manipulated.
Why end there –
In the last 500 million years, life has had to recover from five catastrophic blows. Yet we thrive. Imagine how we will now that we learned the Murican Way!
Not surprsingly appell doesnt recognize common errors leading to bias in the sampling questions
Our resident climate science expert falls for the well known trick of structuring questions designed to achieve preferred response. You would think someone with the highly superior intellect capable of understanding the complexities of climate science would not fall for such a low level trick
https://delighted.com/blog/avoid-7-types-sampling-response-survey-bias
A subsidiary of one of the largest U.S. providers of renewable energy pleaded guilty to criminal charges and was ordered to pay over $8 million in fines and restitution after at least 150 bald eagles were killed at its wind farms in eight states, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.
NextEra Energy subsidiary ESI Energy was also sentenced to five years probation after being charged with three counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act during a court appearance in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The charges arose from the deaths of nine bald eagles at three wind farms in Wyoming and New Mexico.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/wind-energy-company-kills-150-bald-eagles-us-pleads-guilty
Funny you mention birds, Jim, for here’s what I just heard:
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/murder-most-fowl/
And that statistics pales in comparison to cars and the worst of all: cats.
Will add it to “But Renewables.” Many thanks!
So your point seems to be that if scenario A kills birds, that justifies killing them by scenarios B, C, D, …
No, Jim.
My point is that you’re an opportunistic asshat.
One would think a PhD would be more creative and eloquent. I guess those diplomas come in degrees.
pay me and i will write you prose that will make shivers run through your spine, jim
but if you donate to Clowns without Borders, i’ll see what i can do
Try not to be such a sore loser, Willard. You have trouble admitting it, but you know in your heart of hearts that unreliable wind and solar is a losing, non-solution to, well, most things. Off-grid applications are pretty solid for solar, but otherwise …
Otherwise what, Jim – solar is kicking coal’s butt?
I thought you were tilting at windmills.
Opportunistic: exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle.
You made a rather weak attempt to besmirch me, Willard, by classifying me as “opportunistic.”
On the contrary, I am elevating good principles, not disregarding them. Unfortunately, one of the opportunities in question was provided by some dupes in power who listened to the Green Energy Extremists and used their fantasy world view to set real world policy. This has resulted in higher inflation, fuel poverty, blackouts, plant shutdowns, and worst of all, the funding of Russia to execute a bloody war against Ukraine. The principle for which is advocate is energy security in the form of nuclear energy plus whatever fossil fuels supply it takes to make energy cheap for all of us. Energy security means a high quality of life and jobs.
You, on the other hand, have no solution to the energy crisis, reminding you that wind and solar is not working out, some of the consequences of which are outlined above.
Look, Jim.
You were tilting at windmills with the usual claptrap about birds. As if you cared about them.
Then you switched to your usual lie about solar, which is beating coal’s butt. As if you cared about people who don’t have a grid.
And now you’re going all in on politics. As if you cared about anything else than to flip the script by offering a false dilemma.
That is what I mean by being opportunistic. And you’re right – it lacks principles.
I award you no point, and God have mercy on your soul.
The fact that you are attacking me rather than the concepts means you have no good argument for “green” unreliables vs nuclear and gas.
I provided arguments for both, Jim. There is no dilemma between nuclear, which considering the current invasion might not be the best time to tout, and technologies that are here to stay. Your baits and switcharoos only reinforce your asshattitude.
All you have is ad hom and straw men.
Incorrect on both counts, Jim.
An ad hom would be: you are an asshat therefore your argument sucks. I said your arguments suck so much that you can only be an asshat.
A strawman would be misrepresenting your position, which I did not. Here’s a strawman: “green” unreliables vs nuclear and gas.” The “vs” part indicates why: it’s a false dichotomy. Like I said.
Have another cookie:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.161040
A quarter of a billion birds, Jim.
Not twelve bald eagles.
I believe you very adequately have made my point. Off to better things.
Enjoy your day, Jim. Here’s a little nugget of wisdom to get you going:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Up to three quarters of the electricity flowing onto the Irish grid at any point in time can now come from variable renewable sources, according to a study by national grid operator EirGrid.
The Ireland and Northern Ireland power system is the first in the world to reach this level, overcoming “major technical challenges” associated with integrating electricity from wind farms, solar farms and interconnectors that link it with other countries.
EirGrid had previously imposed a cap of 70% on the amount of variable renewable generation on the grid at a given time.
This has now been raised to 75% following a successful 11-month trial.
The grid successfully ran at between 70% and 75% variable renewable energy for a total of 232 hours during the trial period.
There were several new all-island wind energy records set during the 11 months, including the current record of 4584MW on 5 February 2022.”
https://www.eirgridgroup.com/newsroom/electricity-grid-to-run-o/index.xml
Ort – The grid successfully ran at between 70% and 75% variable renewable energy for a total of 232 hours during the trial period. There were several new all-island wind energy records set during the 11 months, including the current record of 4,584 megawatts on February 5th.”
That statement from eirgrid group seems a little deceptive – they anounced that they successively ran 70+% renewables for 232 hours during the 11 month trial period. that is less than 10 days. What were the results for the other 320 days?
“Joe – the non climate scientist” >
There is no “deception”: you just do not seem to understand what the purpose and objectives of Eirgrid trial were exactly about, and why it is such an impressive success and another milestone passed in RE integration.
Offshore oil projects definitely are not like turning on the tap …
For Shell Plc’s highest-ranking U.S. manager, Gretchen Watkins, the answer was 1,600 miles (2,600 kilometers) southwest of Capitol Hill, floating in a shipyard near Corpus Christi, Texas. As Democratic lawmakers grilled Watkins and other executives about high gasoline prices, hundreds of workers in red and tan coveralls were putting the finishing touches on the Vito offshore oil platform. The 20-story production facility that weighs as much as a battleship is expected to begin pumping the equivalent of up to 100,000 barrels daily from beneath the Gulf of Mexico later this year.
By then, the multibillion-dollar project will have taken 13 years to evolve from the initial discovery of the Vito oilfield to production, underscoring the challenges of bringing offshore crude to market.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-08/shell-s-13-year-journey-from-discovery-to-first-oil-shows-why-u-s-output-is-flat
The culture war used to play out as thuggery, murder and genocide. Thankfully not so much these days. On climate blogs it is fought in science memes. Factoids of more or less obscure origin fired at the drooling idiot on the other side. That CO2 emissions are cataclysmic to CO2 is a great boon to humanity, nature and the planet. The 10% – split nominally evenly left and right – of the population who give a damn about AGW. The rest of us want a plan. In fact most of us – it’s in every poll – sit through the latest extreme weather event and are more inclined than ever to buy AGW insurance if it isn’t too expensive.
The answer is now nuclear without a doubt. Costs are down and nukes are safe these days. Standard designs, efficient regulation and an experienced workforce are the keys to lower cost. We know what to do with nuclear waste. Burn the 99.5% remaining energy in fast neutron reactors. Convert and burn breeder reactors. It leaves orders of magnitude less waste as short half life fission products. That decay to background levels of ionizing radiation in 500 years.
Nuclear waste can be burnt in some new nukes – AKA advanced nuclear reactors. General Atomics announced their new model in 2013 – saying they would have a fuel core assembly facility by about now. And opened just recently by General Atomics and Framatome.
‘SAN DIEGO, (Oct. 13, 2020) – General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it is collaborating with Framatome Inc. to develop a new helium-cooled 50-Megawatt electric (MWe) Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) concept that will produce safe, carbon-free electricity and can be factory built and assembled on-site, which will reduce costs and enable incremental capacity additions. The GA-EMS led team will be able to demonstrate the FMR design as early as 2030 and anticipates it being ready for commercial use by the mid-2030s.’ https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-and-framatome-collaborate-to-develop-a-fast-modular-reactor
GA’s roots go back to the origin of nuclear technologies. Framatome nearly as far. They design, build and run nuclear reactors. It’s just another model and a damn good one.
Now is the time as well to restore some atmospheric carbon to soils and ecosystems. The carbon content of 150 ppm CO2 2100 Rattan Lal – 2021 World Food Prize winner – estimates. For food security and biodiversity. Needing exponential economic growth, political security and the health and education – together the best chance to curb population growth – to pay for it. Worth every red cent.
The German regulator in control of a Gazprom PJSC unit in the country urged banks and trading partners to keep doing business with the company to avoid a market meltdown.
…
“Without being able to procure operating resources or offer services, the operational business would be at risk, while without access to financial resources, the group could face insolvency,” the regulator, known as BNetzA, said in the letter seen by Bloomberg. “The consequences for the energy supply system, not only in Germany but in Europe as well, would be severe.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-08/germany-urges-banks-clients-to-keep-business-with-gazprom-unit
Germany will step in if gas-storage operators fail to fill facilities sufficiently to comply with new requirements, as the government takes a tougher line to secure supplies for next winter.
Under the new rules — approved by the upper house of parliament on Friday and due to take effect May 1 — operators must fill storage facilities to 90% capacity by Nov. 1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-08/germany-warns-it-will-act-to-secure-sufficient-gas-storage
What’s with Vladimir Putin? To my white trash heritage ears his name is a bit Transylvanian? Just sayin’ what we are all thinking. We dropped 20 top of the line Bushmaster armoured personnel carriers on Ukraine the other day. I hope they help.
There is no oil or gas shortage. There is geopolitical turmoil and a lot of fly by night cash in global markets. It’s triggered by movement. Some of it is automated. It’s like J. P. Morgan and his ticker tape of stock prices. Except it’s multiple shimmering screens. With a few simple rules. Clear positions by sunset. Don’t short. Run with the bulls. In a market without direction – such as we have today – loose money whizzes around like a hurdy-gurdy on steroids.
As Russia amasses troops on the border with Ukraine, fears are rising that a war could disrupt Russian shipments of natural gas to Europe in the middle of winter. With the continent already reeling from high energy prices and tight supplies, Western leaders are scrambling to find alternative energy shipments, such as tankers full of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. Gulf coast and the Middle East.
Yet the prospect of dire energy shortages if Russia shuts the taps has grown so acute that it risks obscuring a far more fundamental threat to European energy security. No matter what happens in Ukraine, this winter is not an aberration. Even if Russian gas continues to flow, Europe will be increasingly exposed to the volatile price of imported gas in the years to come unless its leaders take steps to reduce the risk of energy price spikes and prepare for inevitable and unpredictable swings in energy supply and use.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/01/europe-energy-crisis-putin-russia-gazprom-gas-ukraine/
Pingback: Ein „Plan B“ zur Bewältigung des Klimawandels und der Energiewende | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Ein „Plan B“ zur Bewältigung des Klimawandels und der Energiewende – Aktuelle Nachrichten
Pingback: Ein „Plan B“ zur Bewältigung des Klimawandels und der Energiewende • Cottbuser Freiheit
Pingback: Ein „Plan B“ zur Bewältigung des Klimawandels und der Energiewende - FreeSpeech.international
This rather indigestible look at the upper crust teaching us how we should behave to be truly green should have had the punchline “But just look at the Duke’s bloody great carbon footprints! No stars for him.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/09/prince-harry-launches-new-eco-project-telling-people-who-fly-to-new-zealand-to-save-the-planet-by-re-using-their-towel/