Week in review – climate edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks

This is important.  ‘Freshwater forcing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation revisited’ nature.com/articles/s4155 – ‘the AMOC may not be as sensitive to FW fluxes and Arctic freshening as is currently projected for the end of the twenty-first century’ 

Shifts in water availability due to global tree restoration [link]

International satellite to track impacts of small ocean currents [link]

The 60-year old scientific screwup that helped Covid kill [link]

Salt scourge: the dual threat of warming and rising salinity [link]

Marine Heatwaves Offshore Central and South Chile: Understanding Forcing Mechanisms During the Years 2016-2017: [link]

Saravanan: How to judge a model beauty contest? Model evaluation metrics and meritocracy [link] Note: this is the best new climate science blog i’ve seen in awhile.

Climate control of terrestrial carbon exchange across biomes and continents doi.org/10.1088/1748-9

The new CMIP6 ensemble of climate models has too many models with high climate sensitivities. End-users need to take that into account in impact studies, argues a new commentary. [link]

How well do we understand the land-ocean-atmosphere carbon cycle? [link]

Global decline in ocean memory over the 21st century [link]

The ocean is still sucking up carbon – maybe more than we think [link]

 ‘Natural Fluctuations’ Dominant Reason For Gulf Stream Changes climatechangedispatch.com/study-natural- the North Atlantic is cooling – a striking contrast to the majority of ocean regions. , natural fluctuations have been the primary reason for this cooling.

Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy [link]

A lidar’s eye view of how forests are faring – supporting forest health, wildfire resilience, study wildlife habitats [link]

Did volcanoes accelerate the fall of Chinese Dynasties? [link]

first detection of groundwater beneath an Antarctic ice stream. scripps.ucsd.edu/news/groundwat

Predicting slowdowns in decadal climate warming trends with explainable neural networks [link]

How is the ocean anthropogenic carbon reservoir filled? [link]

Improving temperature reconstructions from ice-core water-isotope records. cp.copernicus.org/preprints/cp-2

A new clue to Antarctic ice shelf collapse [link]

A new way to assess global warming potential of short lived pollutants [link]

“Winter and spring climate explains a large portion of interannual variability and trend in western U.S. summer fire burned area” iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108

Climate change and future pandemics [link]

Greenland’s Vikings may have vanished because lack of water [link]

Global carbon budget 2021 [link]

surface warming, not the wind change, is the primary mechanism for ocean current change. [link]

Robust evidence for the reversal in aerosol effectiveness in reducing climate forcing trend [link]

How the 18.6 year lunar cycle can slightly affect the climate through the modulation of ocean tidal mixing (in a model) – egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022

California wildfire risk is… tricky. Lots of competing influences to untangle, as in this example projecting up to 30%+ rainfall increases by 2100.  agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20

Two degrees:  the history of climate change’s speed limit [link]

Global warming is speeding up ocean currents.  Here is why [link]

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 [link]

Hot springs suggest how the Tibetan Plateau became the roof of the world [link]

linking astronomically-driven climate change to human evolution. [link]

The methane mystery [link]

Arctic was much warmer 6000 years ago 90% of glaciers smaller [link]

Technology and policy

Must read: The new geopolitics of energy [link]

The US has more clean energy projects planned than the grid can handle [link]

Is behavioral public policy a distraction from finding systemic solutions [link]

Vaclav Smil’s new book is a must read “How the World Really Works: The science Behind How We Got Here and Where We’re Going [link]
.
The world’s first electrochemical ocean CO2 removal plant is live [link]

About science and scientists

Smarter people are more likely to endorse freedom of speech. journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117

“It’ll take more than professorial op-eds… to get our nation back to a place where we can disagree without wanting to ruin the lives of people with whom we have… disagreements. [link]

Breaking the certainty trap [link]

On effective activism and intellectual honesty [link]

Dismantling the ivory tower’s knowledge boundaries [link]

Musk, twitter and moderation [link]

Elon Musk: “He’s made very consumerist products in a way that offends the sensibility of climate activists who think we need to be tightening our belts. He wants everyone to have a high-consumerist lifestyle and a low-carbon one, and it just creates so much friction”  [link]

Scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors. philpapers.org/archive/DANSCN

Diverse viewpoints, one truth [link]

“The false equivalence of academic freedom and free speech” acme-journal.org/index.php/acme

The dangers of lying to ourselves about the future [link]

Dorian Shuyler Abbot: Science and Politics: Three Principles, Three Fables [link]

Daniel Kahneman shared his insights on how we make decisions, the “noise” that besets human judgments, and how organizations can improve decision-making. Read: ow.ly/j7SF50IMXob
.
Willingness to accept criticism is the key to learning [link]
.
Why the past decade has been uniquely stupid [link]
.
Leading by example: a quiet but effective form of activism [link]
.

153 responses to “Week in review – climate edition

  1. FYI: this wired.com article is May 13, 2021, a year old.

  2. Pingback: Review of the week - climate edition - News7g

  3. The “scientific screwup that helped Covid kill” was listening to “Doctor” Fauci instead of listening to this man. Lockdowns, social distancing, and the rest were endlessly destructive. Fauci killed millions with his medical malfeasance.

    w.
    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-public-health-prophet-we-did-not-heed/

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        The teeny tine scientific error that helped covid kill

        Armed with the new scientific knowledge of how a respiratory virus spreads, they devise mitigation protocols that the now know will not work!

        Lo and Behold – two years later – we have solid data that those mitigation protocols did not work – Duh!

    • Millions died by social distancing?

      Any evidence of that? What idiocy!

      • Clyde Spencer

        Similarly, even if masks were totally ineffective, which I find improbable, I don’t see how they could have contributed to increased deaths from using them while going about critical activities like buying food to eat.

      • Exactly. We might debate whether social distancing and masks were ineffective and unnecessary but I doubt many people died from wearing a mask or practicing social distancing.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        A more accurate statement would be that Fauci saved no lives with his medical malfeasences

      • Similarly, even if masks were totally ineffective, which I find improbable

        * Danish controlled trial ( Wuhan era ) found no statistically significant difference between N-95 mask users and the unmasked.
        ( https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817 )

        * CDC case data on a county wide basis across the US ( omicron era ) indicates no difference in rates between mask mandate status or not.
        ( https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1513920816169299968 )

        * When mask mandates were lifted in US states, (omicron era) cases continued to decline and did not stall or increase.

        * UK Health Service COVID (omicron era) case rates were slightly higher for self reported unmasked, but very close ( 4.3% to 3.8% ? )

        More papers:
        https://covidreason.substack.com/p/your-mask-study-cheetsheet

        The aerosol story from Wired would have led one this conclusion.
        Aerosolized COVID can very easily enter and exit masks.

        If one can stand to wear a mask for a long period of time ( because it’s not sealed ) it’s probably not doing any good.

      • >Joe,

        The CDC was the worst by screwing up the early testing and having little or no national plan on day one.

        “For want of a nail the shoe was lost, For want of a shoe the horse was lost, For want of a horse the rider was lost, For want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.”

        The NHI (Fauci) is where the money and intuitional power is. They decide who and what gets research dollars. The FDA & Dept. of Agriculture also dropped the ball a few times as well.
        I assumed the virus was airborne because of the cruise boat outbreak (the perfect petri dish) and started to mask up with N95 in Mar. of 2020. I’m still masking up till there is a durable vaccine available. That’s not looking good with the current mRNA protocol of boosters and the virus is still mutating. Novavax, a more traditional designed vaccine, maybe better but we don’t have much data on how safe or durable it is yet.

      • “If one can stand to wear a mask for a long period of time ( because it’s not sealed ) it’s probably not doing any good.”

        Exactly. For the general public, or even hospital staff, the wearing of a perfectly sealed N95 mask, tested to the point of not being able to detect odors, is not feasible for any length of time. Thus it would be ineffective other than to offer some protect to someone caring for an infected person.

        For children not to have gone to school or be masked was ridiculously anti-science and inhumane. It was known by the SARS lab researcher even before the outbreak that novel chimera corona viruses were harmful in direct relation to the age of the mice infected. It was known throughout the infectious disease community by March 2020 that children had less risk from Covid than from annual flu.

      • “For want of a nail…”

        This is the precise logic that forms the foundation of the claims of “existential threat” of climate change.

        But the logic is valid when it comes to taking small steps to impede an early virus replication rate. It is well understood now that exposure time and concentration are critical factors for overcoming a threshold of innate immunity to Covid (or any airborne virus.) The logic would further stand that other factors that boost the threshold would boost innate immunity, cutting the infection rate.

        The logic taken by Fauci was that any treatment not perfectly understood with controlled randomized trials should not be promoted for fear of possible mistake, even if harmless. But this applied only to medicines and supplements, not to masks or distancing. Strange.

        Vitamins, especially D and zinc were not promoted though it is known that vitamin D deficiencies are common and any type of deficiency will lower innate immunity. Hydroxychloroquine was banned with misinformation about its toxicity promoted by the CDC even though HCQ was effective in vitro against SARS1 and in vivo in small Covid studies.

        The RCT that were set up for HCQ lacked the accompaniment of zinc and were administered to patients that were fighting for their lives but past the viral ramping stage. We still do not know if HCQ, Ivermectin or Fluvoxamine were made available to people with the first sign of symptoms along with zinc and vitamins whether the mortality rate could have been mitigated. We only have the anecdotal results of those doctors that took this approach by using common logic.

    • Willis gives himself too little credit.

      Had he not prescribed potentially lethal doses of cardiotoxic chloroquine as a covid panacea to readers of Judy & Watts

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/of-quinine-and-chloroquine-willis.html

      America’s death toll might still be short of the million mark.

  4. Nothing gives modeling a bad name more than does climate science…

  5. A wonderful list of articles. Thanks.

    From the first article.

    “ Freshwater (FW) forcing is widely identified as the dominant mechanism causing reductions of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a climate tipping point that led to past abrupt millennial-scale climate changes. However, the AMOC response to FW forcing has not been rigorously assessed due to the lack of long-term AMOC observations and uncertainties of sea-level rise and ice-sheet melt needed to infer past FW forcing.”

    “….due to lack of long term AMOC observations….”

    A decade doesn’t count. Although, some papers seem to think a decade of any trend is significant. The establishment has fallen into the trap that even a century is long term and thus sufficient to draw conclusions. What is needed more than anything is more long term observations that is rigorously assessed on every aspect of climate science.

  6. ‘India to reopen more than 100 coal mines as energy crisis worsens [link]’

    Modeling vs real world… much like, drinking margaritas on a patio in Cancun to solve a human caused global warming crisis vs heating a bottle of milk for the baby.

  7. This statement from the fascinating article on climate meritocracy had me howling with laughter:

    “With the increase in the number and complexity of climate models, the spread in their predictions has increased.”

    For forty years or so we have an increasing spread in predictions, and an increasing spread in estimates of ECS … and this is supposed to be a science?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/knutti-ECS-estimates.png

    w.

    • Hmm … image didn’t display. Let me try again.

      w.

    • “With the increase in the number and complexity of climate models, the spread in their predictions has increased.”

      Manabe has spoken about this.

      Remarkably, he wrote most of the earliest GCMs by himself or with a single collaborator. Because computation was very limited, the parameterizations were necessarily simple, but with the advantage that he knew exactly what each was and was familiar with how they might interact.

      Recent models are hugely complex written by independent teams that may never meet face to face and no one knows what other parameterizations are or how they might interact.

      There may be more complexity but at the same time, less knowledge in the models.

      • Thomas Fuller

        Manabe also warned about using models to predict future climate. Of course, he also said that his warning would be ignored…

    • Rob, what part of ‘ heuristic’ don’t you understand?

      As surely as the BEST study left Watts and Eschenbach looking very silly indeed, the more climate model physics and atmospheric science empirically converge , and computational hydrodynamics increases in spatial and temporal resolution, the dumber it becomes to deny the progress that results. Which is how Willis, like Christopher Monckton, is trying to make a living .

      The authors of the critique of scenario hype just published in Nature are the climate modelers themselves, who have shown far more grit in arguing with their policy driven colleagues than any erstwhile climate skeptics or activists.

      If you re-read the Nature article with greater care you will discover an object lesson in how science can and does recover from attempts to deform it politically .

      There is no trace of such self correction at the Heartland Insititute

      • Clyde Spencer

        ” Which is how Willis, …, is trying to make a living .”

        Perhaps you are just taking literary license, but WE is retired. To the best of my knowledge, no one is paid for submissions published on WUWT. I never have been.

      • The output of climate models isn’t scientifically verifiable. Yet, we see that output being used in some of the latest hockey-stick papers, making them “not scientific.” The climate model output certainly should not be used to shape energy policy for nations. We can see how that’s working out for Europe and we need to get smart fast or we will be the next ones to have our economy wrecked.

      • Real scientists don’t read Nature. It is a preening science facade.

        What all the alarmists get wrong is that the entire global warming issue is an issue of centuries, not decades. Under even the more severe assumptions no challenging problems arise before about 2150. To spend time and money on that time frame is absurd.

      • Thomas Fuller

        I can also testify to the unpaid nature of contributions to WUWT. Also happy to serve as a character reference to WE.

        The latest batch of climate models ‘converging’ on ECS of 6C are not a great example of the point Russell is trying to make. We can hope it’s a case of 2 steps forward, 1 step back, but it kinda looks like the obverse.

      • Rob Starkey

        Russell

        I understand that you do not have a clue and offer word salad responses.

        A model that does not reasonably match observed conditions needs to be discarded from use until it has been corrected. Averaging the output of models with known wild defects with other much better models is bad model use.

        GCM developers can argue all they want that that a bad, inaccurate model has potential value. That is only true if that model is fixed, not for policy development.

      • Clyde Spencer

        Logically, there can only be one best model (unless there is a tie) from a collection of models. Averaging the results of the less-skilled models with the best one(s) will result in a prediction that is inferior to the best model. The mean values will be shifted and the variance increased, meaning that the output will have a wider range of probable values than the best model.

        Thus, what the modelers need to do is determine the best metrics for determining the skill of a GCM, identify the best model, and determine what makes it perform better than the others. The others then need to be modified to make them perform at least at the same level as the best one, with the goal being to improve them to be better than the current best one.

        It seems that is not being done. Although, there seems to be an informal opinion that the Russian model performs at a higher level of skill than the others.

      • Metrics? Run them all back 5000 years and see which one has the least deviation from the best historical recreation.

      • Clyde Spencer

        1. We don’t have actual measured temperatures or precipitation going back 5,000 years. At best, we have sparse proxies that are probably not very accurate.

        2. All the models are tuned to give close fits to the temperatures for the last ~100 years. That might be a reasonable metric: judging how close that are able to fit the good historical measurements without going off the rails, by measuring the correlation between the real data and the fitted data.

        However, the purpose of the models is NOT to see how well they can fit historical data. The goal is to predict the future. One approach might be to fit to historical data one year less than what is available, and to decrease the fitted history one additional year at a time and see how well the projections fit the unfitted data.

        Another approach might be to fit to only half the historical data, randomly selected, and compare that to the unused data, and compare projections from both sets of data.

        As I have suggested previously, another approach might be to see how the regional projections compare to the temperature and precipitation definitions of the Koppen-Geiger climate classifications.

        There are lots of more practical “metrics” than comparing the back-projections to poorly known values.

      • To build a model one must know all the critical factors of degree of physical effects. If we know that the global mean temperature dropped significantly from 1000AD to 1650AD and rose significantly from 1650AD to 1800AD (before fossil fuel), but we don’t know why, how can we model it? And if we can’t model the GSM without CO2 change how can we validate a model it with it?

      • I meant GMT but GSM (grand solar minimum) is also something that a GCM (climate model) needs to replicate.

  8. ‘Why the past decade has been uniquely stupid [link]’

    The Left’s hatred of Americanism has turned industrialization into a paralyzing Tower of Babel and English into a liars language. The success of capitalism also sustains a trusting, rusting, random hapless and rank helpless group of 47%’rs that has become a charlatans’ mark that Leftist activists, plaintiff’s lawyers, government opportunists and bureaucrats rush to exploit to their personal advantage at the expense of the productive. The result has been the emergence of a contentious class of professional government gadflies that has attached itself to the body of the republic with the sole purpose of increasing job-killing burdens on manufacturers and providers of services.

  9. The 60-year old scientific screwup that helped Covid kill [link]

    A good read along with take-ways:

    The science is never settled no matter who tells you what.

    Old news, based upon expert opinion is hard to dislodge.

    Academics as well as politicians perpetuate their expertise with their assuredness of presentation, all the time blathering like fools. This has public and policy consequences as the aerosol/droplet dichotomy charade has had on recommendation by CDC and WHO.

    A bit off topic: the same academic/politician hubris is found with obesity & BMI; climate change and others like stomach ulcers.

    It is difficult to educated someone as powerful people’s egos are on the line.

    • Old news, based upon expert opinion is hard to dislodge.”

      This probably stands to reason.

      Anything that’s simplified enough for public consumption is probably wrong or at least incomplete.

      I recently read Propaganda which included slogans as a key tool.

      So my new rule of thumb:
      Question anything that sounds like a Rule of Thumb!

      • Turbulent Eddie

        “So my new rule of thumb:
        Question anything that sounds like a Rule of Thumb!”

        I am not claiming expert status therefore my “rules of thumb” stand! will stand; should stand; might stand; more likely than not stand; might be disregarded altogether. The again, I am not claiming expert status.

      • A parabole about self righteousness with a rule of thumb about driving in traffic.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1521865473280954368
        When there is traffic, merging early extends the congestion back further interfering with more traffic.

        *(A rule of thumb that I use is to merge early if traffic is free-flowing. If merging requires braking from anyone, wait until the merge point.)

  10. Vaclav Smil’s new book is absolutely a must read!

    I have read several of Smil’s books and his latest could be considered an executive summary of much of his earlier work. It is fairly short (not quite 250 pages of text), and he addresses the following areas: energy; food production; the material world (concentrating on ammonia, steel, plastic and cement); globalization; risks; the environment; and the future.

    The take away is that fundamentally changing the way we energize the global economy is going to be a good deal more difficult and take much longer than many realize. But perhaps the ‘net zero at 50’ crowd really don’t believe their own hype?

    This book is a quick study and well worth the time it takes to read.

  11. Clyde Spencer

    I particularly liked the blog article by Saravanan on models.

    If the intent is to simulate reality with climate models, shouldn’t we also be concerned about global variance as well as the mean? That is, a mean with variance much greater than reality suggests compensating for errors. Focusing on a single number is a poor way of evaluating a population. Similarly, a variance much smaller suggests a problem of clamping that doesn’t allow the model to work as the laws of physics predict.

    Another suggestion I have is to subset the predictions by The Köppen climate classification regions and see if the predictions reasonably agree with the definitions of the regions. If they don’t, it is prima facie evidence that the claimed ‘physics-based’ models are not performing as advertised. It would also be of interest to see if some regions are changing more than others, or in opposite directions. That would provide more insight on what is driving the changes.

    • “Perhaps you are just taking literary license, but WE is retired. ”

      Would that he were, but the Heartland Institute continue to list him as a fellow.

      • Russ

        There are retired fellows all over the world. Everyone in my golf group is a retired fellow. Poor golfers, but retired fellows.

      • Ckid
        Looking at russels profile I would guess he is also retired or just about to.

        If he is reading this his work on micro bubbles looks interesting. If he has a link to a short readable paper on the subject perhaps he could link to it

        Tonyb

      • Clyde Spencer

        “… the Heartland Institute continue to list him as a fellow.”

        I specifically looked to see who is listed as “Senior Fellows.” While Fred Singer (deceased) is listed among those, Willis Eschenbach is not. (Which raises an interesting point. If someone is listed as a senior fellow who is deceased, is it a paid position, or an honorary one?) In fact, doing a search with all “Roles” checked also fails to produce a hit for Eschenbach.

        What have I missed? Are you providing unverified, second-hand information?

      • Many institutions list dead fellows along with Senior ones , Clyde, witness the sidebars at WUWT and elsewhere.

        But those that denigrate climate policy as a global concern are far ahead of the curve in extending equal employment opportunity to the brain dead as well.

      • Clyde Spencer

        You haven’t answered two fundamental questions I have asked: What evidence do you have that Willis E is a Heartland fellow and that he is being paid?

      • “You haven’t answered two fundamental questions I have asked: What evidence do you have that Willis E is a Heartland fellow and that he is being paid?”

        Clyde, I never said he was worth paying, but just as he continues to credit himself as a “Heartland Fellow ” in his WUWT postings, you can find him credited as such on the Heartland website.

      • Clyde Spencer

        “…, I never said he was worth paying, …”

        You are being disingenuous! You specifically said, “Which is how Willis, …, is trying to make a living .”

        I also told you that I made a reasonable attempt to verify your claim that Willis was a “fellow” of Heartland and could not find it. It is your claim and thus the onus is on you to provide the evidence, which you haven’t done. You have one more chance to provide the proof. If you don’t, I’ll write you off as a liar and ignore any future postings.

      • Clyde,

        Apart from noting Willis’s Credentials as :

        California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).

        B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA(1975)

        and reporting that he has never published any science.

        https://www.desmog.com/willis-eschenbach/

        tells us that:

        Eschenbach was a speaker on “Panel 19” at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9

        Eschenbach was a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7).

        Eschenbach was a speaker at the Heartland Institute‘s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change(ICCC 4)

        As was his editor, heartland fellow Anthony Watts

        His work speaks for itself :

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/11/covid-authority-blames-sea-level-rise.html

      • Clyde Spencer

        All that you have provided is a list of Red Herrings. You specifically said that he was earning money as a Fellow at Heartland. You have provided no evidence to support your accusation, despite being given opportunity to support what was intended as an ad hominen attack. You have not demonstrated any evidence to support what appears to be an outright lie intended to smear Willis’ reputation. You cannot bring yourself to admit you lied and owe Willis an apology. You have demonstrated that that you have no scruples and anything that you say cannot be trusted. I and others have our issues with Willis, but we don’t stoop to lying to impugn him with falsehoods. Think about the parable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
        Sayonara!

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        I am not going to praise or condemn Willis E’s credentials –

        Only noting that is quite a bit of hypocrisy to condemn someone based on an article from Desmog . – kinda like basing climate knowledge from what you read at skeptical science
        complete lack of self awareness

  12. The claim:

    Scientists devised an ingenious low-cost system that pulls water from the air, allowing crop development in arid regions around the world:

    The headline:

    Remarkable solar-driven system allows for agriculture in the desert by drawing in water from the air

    Talk about burying the lede … it turns out that it produces one liter of water per square meter of solar panel per week.

    Not per hour.

    Not per day.

    Per week.

    w.

  13. A very long list. So here is another:
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/05/10/consider-signing-the-world-climate-declaration-1/

    Many commenters here qualify for signing the WCD.

  14. The Wired article is better than the nonsense that was put out by the CDC until April 2021, but it misrepresents the state of the science when the pandemic began. The NAS issued a report in April 2020 that acknowledged the possibility of aerosol spread. It took 50 years to accept measles and TB were transmitted via aerosols and that was accepted about 50 years ago. IMO there can be no pandemic without aerosol spread.

  15. Global warming is net beneficial, not harmful. It is beneficial for:
    • ecosystems
    • agriculture
    • forestry
    • energy
    • health
    • and probably for storms and fresh water availability

    It is slightly negative for sea level rise. But sea level rise over the next 100 years will probably be only slightly higher than last century, i.e. probably 150 mm to 300 mm. This is negligible and the economic impacts will be trivial.

    Therefore, there is no valid justification for policies to attempt to reduce global warming.

    • Peter,
      It’s not global warming that is the biggest problem.
      I don’t think the global ecosystem is very healthy. Over 80% of all species are under stress. It’s particularly notable with flying species like birds, bats and insects. Vast dead zones surround our continents where oxygen levels can’t support life.
      We are currently producing 350,000 types of chemicals (over 70 billion tons/yr) and yet less than 1% of the chemicals registered for commercial use in the United States have undergone toxicity characterization, whether they are used for medicinal purposes or for fracking. We will easily double than number to over 500,000 chemicals in the next couple of decades.
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00481-9

      RE Nuclear power: China (who has led the world in patents for the last 5 years) just announced 6 new nuclear power plants to be completed by 2025.
      Anyone check to see how much fuel grade uranium is located in the US and how long will it last?

      • Yes, Jack. E O Wilson had the right idea – saving species and their unique DNA – is the most important ecological problem we are facing. We don’t even have an order of magnitude idea of how many species there are on Earth. We have derived so many medications and other useful compounds from natural species, yet each time one goes extinct we lose that information, honed over millions of years of evolution, for all time.

        https://eowilsonfoundation.org/living-on-earth-a-plan-to-save-more-than-80-percent-of-earths-species/

      • That must be some oddball definition of “toxicity characterization.” Show one commercial chemical that doesn’t have a MSDS or SDS that show biological evaluations. I won’t hold my breath. This, like just about everything else you wrote, is a fact-free rant.

      • jacksmith4tx “I don’t think the global ecosystem is very healthy. Over 80% of all species are under stress”

        Evolutionary theory suggests every species is always under stress, nothing new here, just an understatement. The system is always as healthy as it can be.

        We are currently producing 350,000 types of chemicals (over 70 billion tons/yr) and yet less than 1% of the chemicals registered for commercial use in the United States have undergone toxicity characterization, whether they are used for medicinal purposes or for fracking. We will easily double than number to over 500,000 chemicals in the next couple of decades.

        We are made up of thousands of different types of chemicals and nature is made up of millions. Toxicity?
        Everything is potentially toxic to something else eg witches and water or flying houses.
        What emerges for life to survive is the ability to resist, or adapt to toxicity or to become toxic to survive.
        The more we produce the better we can respond.

      • angech,
        Better not to worry about it anyway. They say free will is just an illusion.

        Jack Smith
        Apex Predator.

      • They say free will is just an illusion.

        Agent Smith?

    • Lang and Gregory (2019) ‘Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming’
      https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575

  16. Nuclear power is the way to go, not renewables

    1.1 Renewables are expensive, unreliable, short life

    Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) are hugely expensive, unreliable and have short operating lives (e.g. 15 to 30 years). And they require huge energy storage capacity.

    The disposal costs for solar panels and wind turbines will be very high, adding to the cost of the electricity they generate.

    The transmission costs are huge because the transmission line to each renewable plant must be sized to carry the full output of each plant but, on average, transmit only 15% to 35% of the output capacity of solar and wind plants.

    Also, the transmission lines must be very long because the renewable plants are widely dispersed in country areas away from where the power is used. The transmission lines need to run to energy storage sites (pumped hydro and batteries) and from the energy storage sites to the areas where the power is required.

    The transmission system will become increasingly vulnerable to disruption by foreign powers. The economic cost of disruption can be huge as it disrupts manufacturing and transport.

    1.2 Nuclear power is safest and cheapest

    Nuclear power is the safest and can become the cheapest way to supply power as:

    • The enormous regulatory impediments that are making them so costly to build are removed;

    • Small modular reactors (SMR) are built in factories, shipped to site and installed rapidly;

    • Their costs come down as more and more are built on production lines in factories, and they are improved and their production and construction costs come down;

    • They can operate for up to 60 to 80 years, thus greatly reducing the cost of replacements;

    • Transmission costs can be greatly reduced over time as smaller reactors replace large ones and they are installed close to demand centres; and, eventually, as micro reactors replace SMRs. Micro reactors can be sized for industrial estates, commercial properties, shopping centres, apartment complexes, and eventually for individual residential properties, thus greatly reducing the size of and, eventually, the need for an electricity grid.

    • The bulk of the SMR costs are the civil works to house and protect the reactors. Building reactor components in factories is not new.
      I seriously doubt SMR’s will be built in vast quantifies; mass production significantly reducing costs is essentially a myth. Further, the regulatory related costs are immense and those excessive costs wash through design, manufacture, construction , and operation of the plant. The NUSCALE reactor required over 1/2 billion dollars just to get part of a license. The build cost remains uncertain.

      At the risk of bursting a lot of bubbles, small reactors are unlikely to be commercially viable and will be wards of the state (I.e. heavily subsidized by the taxpayer).

      • Beta Blocker

        NuScale’s SMR design, now slated to go operational in eastern Idaho in late 2029, is well ahead of the pack in the NRC regulatory approval process.

        It will be a 6 unit 462 Mw plant. IIRC, the targeted range of capital cost is between $4,500 / kw and $5,000 / Kw for the very first plant, and $3,600 / Kw or less for subsequent plants.

        A major investor and partner in NuScale is Fluor, which has a solid track record as an EPC in delivering major industrial construction projects on time and on budget. Fluor will be the EPC for the Idaho plant.

        The launch customer for the first NuScale plant is Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) which is under the legislative gun to reduce its carbon emissions while being thoroughly realistic about maintaining service reliability.

        The operator for the Idaho plant will be Energy Northwest which has thirty-five years of experience in operating a nuclear power plant.

        The NuScale project team is now in the process of creating a manufacturing infrastructure for their SMR design, one that will be fully compliant with the NRC’s quality assurance requirements.

        The task of proving that a nuclear power plant can be constructed on cost and on schedule here in the US now rests squarely on the shoulders of the NuScale project team.

        If the NuScale team delivers, new build nuclear will have a chance for success. But if they don’t, then it will be twenty years or more before another serious attempt is made at building a utility-scale nuclear power plant here in the US.

  17. Read: Lang (2017), “Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone”
    https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

  18. I read the Wired story on aerosol definition almost a year ago. Great detective story, and it speaks volumes about how much “knowledge” we take for granted and how hard it can be to get (closer to) the truth.

    • Joe - the non epidemiologist

      I also read the wired story when it came out. In hindsight, it does point to the futility of most of the mitigation protocols, such as the masks, the “washing your hands”, etc. The only viable mitigation strategy to reduce the spread was hard or near hard lockdowns,

      However, the only long term solution, which unfortunately few seem to be able to come to grips with is that we need to develop immunity through out the population, preferably with naturally acquired immunity.

      • Rob Starkey

        Hard lock downs did Not stop the spread of covid. The lock downs only delayed the inevitable spread of an highly transmissible virus.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Rob Starkey – we certainly agree on the broader point – Its a respiratory virus, everyone is going to catch it, covid aint going away and the only solution is immunity throughout the population

        As kevin roche at healthy skeptic stated – “When are scientists going to wake up and accept that nothing is going to stop infections. The lack of common sense and the resistance to the obvious is startling. ”

        Scientists seem to forget history – pandemic history – the 1918 flu is still with us – yet we got immunity, so it no longer kills. Same thing is going to happen with covid. (note that third major wave ended in february 2022 which will likely be the last major wave in the US and Europe.

      • Rob Starkey

        Joe

        We do generally agree. I would not go as far as you write in

        “we need to develop immunity through out the population, preferably with naturally acquired immunity.”

        I do not have a preference on what type of immunity and imo vaccine immunity saved lots of lives.

        I tend to believe that lockdowns early in the pandemic (pre vaccine) did more harm than good and we would have been better off isolating the vulnerable until vaccines were available.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Rob – I was quite excited about the vaccines in the early stages – I thought they were a game changer.

        However with the effectiveness dropping below 50% after 6 or so months and even shorter effectiveness with the boosters, I have become less sold on vaccines.

        the consensus is that a vaxed person will have much less serious infection when they do catch covid than an unvaxed person. The data that I am seeing indicates to me that reduced severity of covid illness is absolutely true for 10% maybe upwards of 20% of vaxed individuals. For the other 80%, having the vax has little to no effect on the severity.

        I am basing that statement on two factors A) personally knowing approx 70 individuals who caught covid with about a 50/50 mix vaxed and unvaxed. With the exception of one individual, the severity was very similar. B) I think there is some intentional bad data classification. In several jurisdictions, the reported per capita death rates and the per capita hospitalization rates of the unvaxed have increased 3x-6x from the height the Dec 2020 wave and the height of the dec 2021 wave. Increases of the death rates and hospitalization rates of that magnitude are simply implausible.

        See data reported at healthy skeptic dot com

      • Rob – I was quite excited about the vaccines in the early stages – I thought they were a game changer.

        However with the effectiveness dropping below 50% after 6 or so months and even shorter effectiveness with the boosters, I have become less sold on vaccines.

        I’m so angry at myself for similarly being excited at the prospect of the vaccines. Who can blame us for this emotion? A pro-active step which we thought would end the lockdowns and collective social misery.

        But this emotion blinded us all to many questions we did not ask.

        I am also not an epidemiologist, vaccinologist, nor evolutionary biologist.

        I had not heard the term ‘antigenic sin’ nor ‘antibody dependent enhancement’ nor was I aware of the adverse effects of incomplete vaccine antibodies on the function of the innate immune response. Nor had I considered evolution of variants of the virus especially to those being infected while getting partial vaccinal effects. Nor was I aware that RNA viruses are much more mutable than DNA viruses and that single stranded viruses are more mutable than double stranded ( COVID is a single stranded RNA and is predictably highly mutable ).

        There will not be a counter-factual, but there is a compelling case to be made that the vaccine campaign, particularly in the environment of widespread infections was a grave mistake. Those of us now vaccinated have locked in our antibody response to just the spike proteins of the original Wuhan strain which is now irrelevant. But because of this, we are increasingly vulnerable to new strains because our immune response will be increasingly ineffective and the antibodies can even lead to enhanced infection. Antibody enhancement can occur from natural infection as well as from vaccines, and is thought to be the reason for the deadly follow on waves of the 1918 flu.

        We will never know what would have happened had we not vaccinated, but natural infection has the benefit of ‘learning’ about all the proteins of the virus, not just the spike proteins. So step-wise mutations are less likely to fool the naturally immune.

        Geert has been correct so far in predicting increasingly transmissable and break-through variants. Unfortunately, he now predicts increasing death and virulence, particularly among the vaccinated, based on evolutionary principles.

        He says he hopes he’s wrong and I hope he’s wrong, but if he’s not, the worst is yet to come.

      • Lockdowns. Shutting down businesses didn’t really do anything. Asking people not to travel during the pandemic could have. We did the opposite: we claimed we “locked down” because the NYC restaurants were closed, but ignored the fact that the NYC residents fled. Studies showed traveling New Yorkers were the source of Covid infections everywhere east of the Rockies.
        The only lockdown that would have worked would have been keeping NYC residents in their city until it burned out. I don’t think we could have done that or even tried. I’m just pointing out that “lockdown” has two definitions- 1. don’t go out with friends to a bar and 2. don’t go to Florida.

  19. The article about too many renewables projects and the grid can be summed up as “we want others to pay for grid upgrades otherwise are project is uneconomic”. That is it. They can hide it behind flowery words and ecobabble but if a power station is to be built a long way from the market, then the developer builds the grid connection and upgrades to market… Otherwise, why ship coal from Wyoming across the country?. Easier to burn it next to the mine.

  20. IPCC AR6 WGII final draft chapter 9 claims: “By 2030, about 250 million people may experience high water stress in Africa,with up to 700 million people displaced as a result.”

    I tried to trace back how these estimates were produced by following citations and phrasings. They apparently originate from a 2004 modelling study (250m), and a 2007 Christian Aid pamphlet estimating the global number of people displaced by development/construction projects by 2050. Along the way the numbers are miscited, exaggerated and conflated, like “broken telephone”.

    https://ilmastotiede.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/escalation-of-displacement-estimates-in-climate-change-literature/

    • François Riverin

      Thank you for your work. I am really grateful to people like you who spent time and energy to look for truth. I blame all of UN for disinformation.

  21. Quote “Did volcanoes accelerate the fall of Chinese Dynasties?”

    The date 1644 is a precise point in the Eddy cycle; a root. These points indicate the collapse of many civilisations in the past – at 980yr cycle period. Has been so for the earlier 8 cycles, circa 6200bce.

  22. “To get off Russian fossil gas, Germany is going big on deploying electric and hybrid heat pumps.”

    That’s all fine and dandy, but it is not clear exactly how Germany is going to get the energy required for the industrial task of generating heat pumps for every house, since their response to getting of Russian oil is going to be mass de-industrialization and belated implementation of the Morgenthau plan, i.e. becoming an impoverished third world country.

    • Don’t forget that they commanded their auto manufacturers to switch all the cars to electricity. That would be the electricity they can no longer make unless they spend money they no longer have, which would only cause inflation they can no longer sustain.
      Western governments have a real crisis in competence. Unfortunately, “Science!(TM)” is currently less competent.

  23. I am in a liberated mood at the moment.
    Sussmann trial is due to start

    “On effective activism and intellectual honesty [link]“

    Lovely topic.
    I did my part a few weeks back calling for a push or putsch against Putin.
    No response so far.

    Re global warming the only way out is for the world to cool back down on the systems and criteria we use though this usually takes time.
    Of interest the current decreased heat input.
    , ? Clouds or diminished sun output is showing up in a large number of areas.
    Arctic Sea ice 14th lowest and trending to midline (take note Jim Hunt)
    Antarctic sea ice only just below average.
    La Niña threatening to ramp up.
    Global surface temperatures now 8th lowest for the year (attention Nick Stokes).
    A true fall must be accompanied by a diminution in CO2 levels ( is this happening, angech?)

    Intellectual honesty and effective activism are poles apart.
    Willard and Mosher and Hot whopper and Willis E ,
    Real Climate, ATTP, WUWT and Open mind all offer intellectual honesty but ineffectual activism.

    Intellectual honesty, honestly?
    Since the first thing we must admit, honestly, is that we do not know everything the only honest attitude that can be adopted, intellectually, is skepticism of those claiming to be honest brokers or honest used car salesmen.
    JC is to be applauded for her attitude of explaining that we cannot know everything and must be prepared to investigate and learn.

    CAGW may be real, that is the hard part for an antagonist to accept.
    It may be real.
    On the other hand it might all be Fake news, that is the hard part for protagonist to understand.
    It may be fake.

    Committed activists have no such concerns,
    They are intellectually honest in their own minds.
    Not in the pay of big oil or in it for the money.

    They are there to save their version of humanity and make it ours.

  24. William F. Schilling, Sc.D. MIT

    Thank you Dr. Curry, I wait for the day when true scientific debate can be reestablished sans political interference. Above all, sciences such as ones dealing with climate are very far from “settled.

  25. Michael Cunningham aka Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

    “A few things that caught my eye …” Judith, if that’s your definition of “a few,” I’d hate to see your version of “many things.” :-)

  26. UK-Weather Lass

    Thank you, Dr Curry.

    The blog item by R. Saravanan, ‘Model Beauty Contest’, is an excellent read even if it does struggle to truly lead the IPCC out of climate model mediocrity.

    I was also impressed by the Nature paper discussing an astronomically lead movement and development of human beings especially in the NH. This seems a really rich area for discovery of how often our species was driven to move on and why. What would our ancestors have learned from the recent eclipse and ‘Blood Moon’ and how would they have responded? I have a feeling it would have been much more sensible than anything the IPCC would advocate.

  27. The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New equation.
    Here it is the planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related New equation:
    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

    The New equation is based both, on precise radiative “energy in” estimation and on the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
    We are capable now for the THEORETICAL ESTIMATION of the planetary mean surface temperatures.
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  28. To those who wish the US was “managed” like China – it ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

    China’s economy is paying the price for the nation’s Covid Zero policy, with industrial output and consumer spending sliding to the worst levels since the pandemic began and analysts warning of no quick recovery.

    Industrial output unexpectedly fell 2.9% in April from a year ago, while retail sales contracted 11.1% in the period, weaker than a projected 6.6% drop. The unemployment rate climbed to 6.1% and the youth jobless rate hit a record. Investors responded by selling everything from Chinese shares to US index futures and oil.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-16/china-s-economy-contracts-sharply-as-covid-zero-curbs-output?srnd=premium

  29. Bill Fabrizio

    “We Created the Pandemicene”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/how-climate-change-impacts-pandemics/629699/

    Well … that ties the narrative knot. Anyone have a sword handy?

    • It is difficult to reject ‘cancel culture’ without becoming part of it.

      But this kind of biased article led me to cancel my decades long subscription long ago.

      I’m not going to pay to filter through such nonsense.

    • Hey Bill, I got your ‘sword’ right here. We just need to fix human behavior.
      https://news.gsu.edu/2022/05/13/georgia-state-researchers-find-crispr-cas9-gene-editing-approaches-can-alter-the-social-behavior-of-animals/

      “[using] CRISPR-Cas9 technology to eliminate the actions of a neurochemical signaling pathway that plays a critical role in regulating social behaviors in mammals. Vasopressin and the receptor that it acts on called Avpr1a regulates social phenomena ranging from pair bonding, cooperation, and social communication to dominance and aggression. The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), finds that knocking out the Avpr1a receptor in hamsters, and thus effectively eliminating vasopressin’s action on it, dramatically altered the expression of social behavior in unexpected ways.

      “We were really surprised at the results,” Albers said. “We anticipated that if we eliminated vasopressin activity, we would reduce both aggression and social communication. But the opposite happened.”

      Instead, the hamsters without the receptor showed much higher levels of social communication behavior than did their counterparts with intact receptors. Even more interesting, the typical sex differences observed in aggressiveness were eliminated with both male and female hamsters displaying high levels of aggression towards other same-sex individuals.

      “This suggests a startling conclusion,” Albers said. “Even though we know that vasopressin increases social behaviors by acting within a number of brain regions, it is possible that the more global effects of the Avpr1a receptor are inhibitory.”

      Aldous Huxley was a prophet.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        > Aldous Huxley was a prophet.

        True.

  30. The author of the salt scourge does what many authors do. In writing about effects of AGW that also have other factors in play, invariably the other factors are downplayed and the thrust of the article is global warming. Salt intrusion into the waters of the Mekong Delta, the rivers of Bangladesh and the Indus River of Pakistan is partially a result of SLR certainly, but subsidence, alteration of the river channels in the upper reaches of the watershed, tectonics and thousands of years of natural forces are at play as well.

    When discussing the Flint drinking water crisis, he mentions the salty Flint River, as a cause, while ignoring the muckups by politicians and bureaucrats that led to the use of Flint River water, polluted by decades of road salting.

    One of the links has this in reference to the increased salinity of the Rio Grande River.

    “ Anthropogenic salinization of rivers and lakes is increasingly recognized as an emerging threat to freshwater resources, biodiversity and ecosystem functions [1]. The ‘salinization syndrome’ [2] is the result of the combined effects of anthropogenic salt inputs, accelerated geological weathering and weathering of construction materials (i.e. concrete and cement). Humans release salts in the form of a variety of ions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, etc.) via diverse activities such as industry, agriculture, resource extraction and transportation [3]. In addition to accelerating weathering by releasing strong acids, humans also now move more geological material than natural processes by an order of magnitude [4,5], speeding up weathering by exposing more rock. The problem of increased inputs is further compounded by increased evaporative concentration of salts resulting from human activities. Damming of rivers has been linked to increasing evaporative concentration, causing 12% of the salinization along the Colorado River [6].”

    Much like other articles about the scourge of AGW, if you scratch the surface you will find nuggets of what else is causing the problem.

  31. Planet Mars black-body temperature (effective temperature) Te misfortunate coincidence.

    We have calculated the Corrected Effective Temperature for Mars Te.correct.mars = 174 K

    But let’s see what happened when the Effective Temperature of Mars was not yet corrected. Te.mars = 209,8 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html)

    Tsat. mean.mars = 210 K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)

    We have here planet Mars mean temperature measured by satellites:
    Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
    We have the Mars black-body temperature
    Te = 209,8 K

    These temperatures the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and the black-body temperature Te.mars = 209,8 K are almost identical.

    These two very important for planet Mars temperatures are almost identical, but it is a coincident.
    It is a coincident, but with very important consequences.

    Let’s explain:
    Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K measured by satellites is almost equal with Te.mars = 209,8 K
    When measuring by satellites the Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K and calculating Mars black-body temperature Te.mars. = 209,8 K scientist were led to mistaken conclusions.

    First they concluded that the planet’s effective and planet’s without-atmosphere mean temperatures should normally be equal, which is wrong.
    Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have an average surface temperature equal to the black-body temperature (effective temperature), Te.earth = 255 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html)

    Then they compared the Te.earth = 255 K with the measured by satellites Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K (https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/)

    The difference of 288 K – 255 K = Δ33 oC was then attributed to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.

    Now we have the Mars Corrected Effective Temperature
    Te.correct.mars = 174 K.

    The fact that the Corrected Effective Temperature of Mars is Te.correct.mars = 174 K, which is not even close to the satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K debunks the above syllogism that the planet the calculated black-body temperature Te (effective temperature) is equal to the planet without atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.

    The above wrong syllogism happened because of the wrongly estimated Mars black-body temperature.
    It was calculated assuming planet absorbing incoming solar energy as a disk. We know now that planet absorbs the incoming solar energy as a sphere, and not as a disk.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Clyde Spencer

      “We know now that planet absorbs the incoming solar energy as a sphere, and not as a disk.”

      And not uniformly on the surface of the sphere because 71% of the surface is water and reflects specularly instead of with approximately Lambertian diffuse reflectance. The specular reflectance off water varies from a minimum of about 2% at local noon, for water, up to 100% at the terminator (and even rough solid objects at glancing angles). One can observe the high reflectance when the sun is near the horizon even in the dirt and stubble of a harvested corn field.

      • Clyde:

        “And not uniformly on the surface of the sphere because 71% of the surface is water and reflects specularly instead of with approximately Lambertian diffuse reflectance. The specular reflectance off water varies from a minimum of about 2% at local noon, for water, up to 100% at the terminator (and even rough solid objects at glancing angles). One can observe the high reflectance when the sun is near the horizon even in the dirt and stubble of a harvested corn field.”

        “…and reflects specularly instead of with approximately Lambertian diffuse reflectance.”

        Yes, yes, and yes!!!

  32. “Saravanan: How to judge a model beauty contest?”

    I suggest looking into each of the following.

    The Model is comprised of:

    1. Specifications for the target response functions for each application domain

    2. Specifications for the success criteria and success metrics for the target response functions

    3. Local Instantaneous continuous fundamental equations for each subsystem

    4. Modified fundamental continuous equations that set a tractable, well-posed mathematical problem

    5. Solution methods, generally discrete numerical approximations, for the modified fundamental continuous equations

    6. Consistency, stability, and thus convergence of the numerical solution methods

    7. Specifications for the many aspects of the overall structure of the coding for all the software

    8. Coding of the numerical approximations, and all other aspects of code for all the software pieces parts

    9. Verification of all the coding against all the specifications

    10. Mathematical Verification of all numerical methods

    11. Determination of the application order of the solutions of the discrete approximations for each application domain

    12. Application procedures and processes for each application domain

    13. User qualifications for each application domain.Users are a part of The Model.

    14. Validation of The Model for all application domains. See Step 1 and Step 2

    Copious documentation is required at each step, and specifications for the documentation must be met

    It’s an iterative process, and return to previous steps can happen at any step

    Each step in the process represents tons o’ work.

    • Curious George

      Where do you fit the requirement “Get the physics right”?
      To quote ‘Gavin’, “What the appropriate form for L [the specific heat of water vaporization] is depends on what the total energy function is in the atmosphere. If the specific heats of condensate and vapour is assumed to be zero (which is a pretty good assumption given the small ratio of water to air, and one often made in atmospheric models) then the appropriate L is constant (=L0). (Note that all models correctly track the latent heat of condensate).” … “Eventually, all the models will do this properly (some do already), but it is not trivial – but neither is it hugely important.”

      If we build on the “pretty good assumption”, how beautiful will the model be? Ten years later, the CESM models still use it. Three percent here, three percent there .. who cares?
      https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-234131

      • Dan Hughes

        Where do you fit the requirement “Get the physics right”?

        1 through 4 and then Validation at 14. Validation is the process of ensuring that the whole ball of wax has “the right physics”, where “the right physics”, for each response function is determined by the specifications.

        Considerations like run-time requirements sometimes enter the specifications, for example. Some target response functions might not require “exactly correct physics”. Also, it costs just as much to maintain unnecessary Lines of Code as it does to maintain necessary Lines of Code. Pathological situations sometimes arise, in which unnecessary Lines of Code could unknowingly nuke extensions to additional application domains and response functions. A truly sad, sad situation.

        The question, “How good is good enough”, is frequently more important than exactitude in physics.

      • Curious George

        Dan, thanks. You write on a plane that’s too lofty for me. Target response functions etc.. I never ask the question, How good is good enough? I only ask, Is this good enough?

  33. This graph shows the percentage of LA homeless suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. When I noted the great variance in findings by the 3 studies, it made me think of the Kahneman article.

    While these findings don’t exactly match up with the intent of Kahneman’s book and research, it raises issues about how supposed experts can come up with such disparate conclusions. Another area providing an opportunity to tell whatever story you want to tell and have experts to back you up.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTDjoOKVsAASC5F?format=jpg&name=large

  34. The LIA was a long negative feedback response period.

    The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.

    It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
    But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation absorption.

    Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
    On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface.

    This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
    The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
    The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.

    On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
    And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
    https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table

    Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
    Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
    Sea ice melts at 0 oC.

    The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.

    When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
    When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.

    This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity ε = 0,95, compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.

    Needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
    And the Arctic region insolation absorption is very poor even in the summer.

    That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
    On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.

    Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself. Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.

    The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
    The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend.
    This process appears to be a negative feedback.

    The LIA was a long negative feedback response period.
    The general trend was then and is now a continuous orbital forced global warming.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Clyde Spencer

      “It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.”

      There is a band of about 3 deg latitude where specular reflectance off the Arctic ocean is equal to or greater than the diffuse reflectance of snow.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/

      During the N Hemisphere Winter, the Arctic receives no direct sunlight, so the difference in reflectivity is unimportant. At the Equinoxes, the far side of the Earth is not illuminated, so there is only a 50% ‘duty cycle’ of illumination. However, during the the Arctic Summer, that band of 3 deg specular reflectance becomes important because the southerly bounds of the Arctic that might be ice free actually have a higher reflectance than snow.

      • Clyde:

        “The total reflectivity of Earth is important in energy budget calculations and in Global Circulation Models used to predict climate. If the value used is too low, it will contribute to models predicting more warming than is correct. ”

        Unfortunately… the value used is too low!

  35. Nothing would do more to reduce inflation and pressure Russia to end the war in Ukraine than an AntiFragile Enegy policy.

    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 (I’d like to get into this, but I’ll save it for another time). 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.

    In the meantime, nothing would do more to reduce fuel consumption & traffic than to get people to accelerate faster, pay attention & avoid using brakes. After that, replace speed limits with adjustable Target Speeds. And get rid of unnecessary stop signs.

    🧵

    https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1524490112746283016

  36. “ Less than 20% of the world’s population has managed to stockpile more than half of the globe’s maize and other grains, leading to steep price increases across the planet and dropping more countries into famine.

    The hoarding is taking place in China.……

    According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, China is expected to have 69% of the globe’s maize reserves in the first half of crop year 2022, 60% of its rice and 51% of its wheat.“

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Datawatch/China-hoards-over-half-the-world-s-grain-pushing-up-global-prices

  37. Total US Federal Debt is ~$30 Trillion. Of that amount ~$6 Trillion the Federal Government owes to itself. That is mostly owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

    The balance is known as the Publicly Held Debt and is ~$24 Trillion.

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

    Of the ~$24 Trillion, the Federal Reserve holds ~$6 Trillion on its balance sheet. The ~$6 Trillion owed to the Social Security Trust Fund and the ~$6 Trillion on the Federal Reserve balance sheet are the same amount just by coincidence.

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

    In addition to the general public and Federal Reserve, foreign and international parties hold some of the Publicly Held Debt in the amount of nearly $8 Trillion.

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

    The Federal Reserve has said that they will be reducing their balance sheet holdings of the Publicly Held Debt. The interesting unknown is how will global capital markets react to the additional debt from increased annual deficits and the unwinding of the Federal Reserve balance sheet.

  38. 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

  39. Climate models do not produce a unique solution trajectory regardless of how well trained they are. They produce a family of divergent solutions that evolve from small differences in feasible initial conditions. The solution trajectories are treated as probabilistic with broad uncertainty expanding over the simulation period. Where the means of the family of solutions runs too hot – it seems more likely that models don’t quite get the physics right. That doesn’t mean that other CMIP models get the physics exactly right.

    e.g. – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL086705https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

    While the interest is in the temperature projection models have other and more interesting uses.

    CERES instruments – btw – are accurate despite specious speculation on specular and diffuse reflection. What matters with reflected SW measured at TOA is the colour of the surface and not its roughness.

    Nuclear costs are competitive now – despite a few misadventures in the US and Europe. Cost overruns largely unrelated to safety regulations.

    ‘The rising costs of nuclear plants are often assumed to be associated with increasing stringency of safety regulations (e.g., MacKerron and Komanoff49,86). Here, we estimate that prescriptive safety requirements can be associated with approximately one-third of the direct containment cost increase between 1976 and 2017.’
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512030458X?dgcid=author

    Small modular reactors both reduce upfront capital risk and allow for automated production of multiple units. Small fast neutron gas cooled reactors take it to another level.

    https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors#:~:text=General%20Atomics%20Electromagnetic%20Systems%20(GA,efficiency%2C%20safety%2C%20and%20economics.

    General Atomics and Framatome are working on a 50MWe plug and play version.

    https://www.ga.com/general-atomics-and-framatome-collaborate-to-develop-a-fast-modular-reactor

    The hydrogel experiment decried by Willis produced 3.4 L of water from a 0.6×0.3 m solar cell over the 30 day period of the trial. As well as increasing electricity generation by some 10%. It involves a hydrophilic gel and diurnal change in temperature and humidity. It is a perfectly adequate bench scale proof of concept. Meanwhile solar cell costs are set to decline further with perovskite cells coming onto the market.

    e.g. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220210005747/en/Global-Perovskite-Solar-Cells-Market-to-2027—Featuring-Alfa-Aesar-BASF-and-Fujifilm-Among-Others—ResearchAndMarkets.com

    And finally – from the best climate blog Judith has seen in a while.

    ‘Another reason to talk about potential tipping points is that it can help underscore the urgency for mitigating action. But it would be better to discuss tipping points in general terms, without implying that there are precise global warming thresholds or mitigation time intervals. Numbers associated with tipping points typically come with many caveats about the uncertainties. If the caveats are lost in translation to the public, the numbers can end up feeding into doomist narratives predicated on faux certainty.

    Dystopian headlines about doomsday glaciers and methane bombs attract attention and may perhaps spur more climate activism in some people. Casual talk of climate tipping points as if they were imminent can push other people past real emotional tipping points. This can result in debilitating climate anxiety and passive sharing of “doomer memes”, rather than activism.’ https://metamodel.blog/posts/predict-tipping-points/

    My thinking is that the uncertainties of tipping points are the most compelling reason to transition as quickly as possible to low carbon energy.

    • What constitutes “quickly”? Is cost irrelevant? Is widespread environmental damage from massive green energy projects also irrelevant?

      My point is a middle-of-the-road-approach that emphasizes cost effectiveness is a superior approach while recognizing that rationally applied technology invariably reduces costs, with the happy byproduct of reduced pollution.

      The history of power generation demonstrates that innovation driven by competitiveness invariably finds good solutions. That includes advanced reactors, but the government bureaucrats really need to stop trying to pick winners and losers.

      Ultimately, policy driven by hysteria only serves to enrich the elite.

      • We are in the era of hyper-technological innovation. Entrepreneurs deliver – the rest is ideological cr@p

      • Elision, as usual, you resort to personnel attacks.

      • Governments need to reduce spending – and I now post COVID include Australia in this. That’s what fuels inflation – along with keeping interest rates too low for too long. But a few billion for R&D on FOAK technology in private/public partnerships is the price of democracy.

        If you can’t get the slice of that very small pie that you wanted because you don’t have the dollars to put your money where your mouth is – is not my problem. That you then complain about it is sour grapes.

        I am so over people here imagining that they are fiscally purer than I am and spouting the same motivated cr@p endlessly. And if you imagine that calling it ideologically motivated cr@p is a personal attack – you’re a snowflake.

    • Clyde Spencer

      “CERES instruments – btw – are accurate despite specious speculation on specular and diffuse reflection. What matters with reflected SW measured at TOA is the colour of the surface and not its roughness.”

      Accurate compared to what? What do you mean by “colour?” Solid materials typically have complex spectra consisting of regions of absorption and often have reflectance features on the order of wavelengths of microns. Humans will perceive the same color with differently shaped spectra.

      “Specious” is in your vocabulary, but I don’t think that you know much about the physics of light.

      • The amount of light absorbed or reflected from a surface relates only to its colour. Why do you imagine that grass looks green?

        As for CERES instruments on various platform – there is s great deal of information available with which you should get across before making more of an a$$ of yourself.

        e.g. https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/

      • Clyde Spencer

        “The amount of light absorbed or reflected from a surface relates only to its colour. Why do you imagine that grass looks green?”

        Grass looks green because red and blue light are absorbed to be utilized for photosynthesis; green light is reflected. The color of something isn’t determined by the AMOUNT of light, but rather by the relative amount of light across the visible spectrum. You can have something with a low reflectance appear to have the same hue as another material with high reflectance. Plants are also generally more reflective in the Near-IR than they are in green, but humans don’t perceive IR, therefore it doesn’t affect our perception of color.

        As I said, you know little about the physics of light and how it interacts with solid materials. Please don’t continue to share your ignorance unless you are trying to demonstrate the Kruger-Dunning effect.

      • Grass is green because it absorbs blue and red light and reflects green. This is elementary optics and not worth discussing further. Especially with the likes of you.

        The point was that surface roughness makes no difference to power flux measured by CERES instruments from Earth orbits. Reflectance is a surface property independent of surface roughness.

      • Robert:
        “The point was that surface roughness makes no difference to power flux measured by CERES instruments from Earth orbits. Reflectance is a surface property independent of surface roughness.”

        The city of New York area reflectance is much less than the nearby rural area’s. Incident solar energy gets captured in the city’s deep streets’ canyons.
        When we say “surface roughness” in relation to the incoming solar energy reflection, it is not on the microscopical level.

        The power flux measured by CERES instruments from Earth orbits measures the planet’s diffuse reflection only.
        The power flux measured by CERES instruments from Earth orbits completely ignores planet’s specular reflection, because planet’s specular reflection never reaches the CERES instruments’ measuring sensors.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • CERES instruments – btw – are accurate despite specious speculation on specular and diffuse reflection. What matters with reflected SW measured at TOA is the colour of the surface and not its roughness.

      There’s not a counterfactual observation against which to evaluate CERES.

      Reflection of shortwave radiation is an-isotropic, particularly with respect to the clouds which cover most of earth.

      Satellites represent a single moving point of observation.

      Such a single angle of observation suffers from failing to capture directional variation which might occur in the full field of view of incident incoming solar.

      Does the limited observation angle of CERES capture most of the significant trend? Answering this would be answering out of ignorance.

      I do find the CERES trends interesting, and if these trends are accurate, much of recent warming has been from absorbed solar and not greenhouse forcing, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the uncertainty.

  40. This Federal Reserve chart indicates that recent inflation is even higher than the 1970s-1980s, which is surprising to me.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COREFLEXCPIM159SFRBATL

    It’s the “ Flexible Price Consumer Price Index less Food and Energy”, but for anyone who has lost a sizable fraction of their net worth in the last few months, it’s probably of little interest.

    • I wonder how many of people in the University of Michigan consumer inflation expectations survey are holding crypto?
      It seems to me the most volatile metric is which party in in power.
      https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/fetchdoc.php?docid=69959

      • The most volatile metric is progressives, Dimowits, BLM, (not) AntiFa, and their people running wild committing crimes in the streets.

      • Jim2, I think you may have discovered the way to cut inflation!
        Let’s put all those progressives & leftist in prison.
        As of July 2021, the United States had the highest number of incarcerated individuals worldwide, with almost 2.1 million people in prison. At least 60% of prisoners are working for private companies who pay an average around 63 cents per hour.
        President Donald Trump expressed approval of a concentration camp for Uighur Muslims in China during a private meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to former national security adviser John Bolton.

        Land of the free, home of the brave.

      • Nice try, but it’s more like 0.6%. We can put away more of the real criminal. The ironic thing is the BLM and (not) Antifa rioters in many cases were burning down Black-owned businesses. One guy in Kenosha was able to prevent more crimes from 3 rioters, but it will take a lot more than one guy to handle this Dimowit endorsed crime wave.

  41. In other news Stephen McIntrye of ClimateAudit.org just published a bombshell of an article in The Federalist with Hans Mahncke on the FBI’s lying to the DOJ revealed by the FBI notes declassified this week.

    The kicker is at the conclusion that Durham has no apparent authority to prosecute government authorities since it is now apparent that he was holding back evidence criminally implicating officials, past and present, only releasing the evidence days after the 5-year statue of limitations ran out on them. Only a Clinton lawyer and the ex-Brookings Institute Russian analyst (who fabricated the Trump dossier for Steele) have been charged to date.

    This effectively makes Barr and Durham accessories to the coverup. The prosecution of the lowly foot soldiers is essentially a “limited hang out” to close the matter of the greatest known government conspiracy to overthrow an elected US president ever known to us.

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/19/handwritten-notes-from-2017-show-fbi-agents-mislead-doj-on-the-trump-russia-investigation/

    • Interesting. If Durham’s ‘authority was limited’ then whomever put that limit on the investigation was obstructing justice, not Barr and Durham as you allege.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Yes, it is interesting. Barr appointed Durham as Special Prosecutor. If Barr had appointed Durham as an Independent Counsel we might have had a different result. Barr kept it limited.

    • Barr, even today can only emotionally accept a limited level of conspiracy. It’s understandable that he’s in denial that a once flawless institution he worked in disintegrated, rotting from the head, to becoming a cesspool.

  42. Peter Zeihan on:

    1. Why “renewables” are not going to work globally.

    -and-

    2. Why CO2 emissions may accelerate because cut off nations around the world will resort to coal.

    I’m not sure he grasps climate or climate change and what I believe are the limited extents of adverse climate, but he does intimate understanding that the models are poo.

  43. The investigation of the probable lab origin of SARS2 is now being pushed to by the single most influential public health activist in the world, Jeffrey Sachs.

    A year after it was leaked that Eco Health Alliance proposed inserting a furin cleavage site into novel coronaviruses in the Wuhan Inst of Virology Sachs says this looks suspicious because Covid has this unique feature, which allowed it to be super infectious, he noted. This is like the NYT admitting that the laptop from hell really was Hunter Biden’s.

  44. The Green Energy Extremists talked Europe into abandoning oil and gas development and build instead intermittent and unreliable windmills and solar panels. Now they have to come begging for fossil fuels because they have no local source. Hope the Europeans wake to the Green Energy scam before they freeze to death.

    Less than two years ago, Engie SA scrapped plans to buy US liquefied natural gas, handing a victory to environmentalists that urged the French energy giant to drop the purchase on pollution concerns.

    Fast forward to 2022 and that deal has been signed, alongside agreements with Bulgaria to Poland to bring in American fracked gas to European shores.

  45. The age of steam is over because we are running out of steam. Unless we can harvest the hot air on green extremists – its time for other technology to provide cheaper and much more abundant energy. Getting from here to there is the problem. These are fossil fuel reserves at current production rates.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left-1.png

    There is a video above on the coming energy wars. Three years he said and we are doomed. Nuts. All because there are neither the materials nor the wind and sunshine to replace fossil fuels. The materials he lists – metals mostly – are needed for any advanced technology. And some old ones. The world is tooling up to provide enough of them.

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Severe Colorado snowstorm.
    Snow and sub-zero temperatures in the Dakotas.

  47. The hypocritical Green Energy Extremist Dimowits cause high gasoline and diesel prices then have the nerve to blame it on the companies they are trying to eliminate. These people do not deserve to be anything other than maybe the garbage collector. Even at that, they would probably screw it up.

    Many Democrats blame price-gouging companies for the worst surge in Americans’ cost of living in more than a generation. But economists, including several who are left-leaning, disagree.

    Desperate to avoid a wipeout in November congressional elections, House Democrats passed a bill Thursday they present as a centerpiece of their response to record high gas prices. It would confer power to bar the sale of consumer fuels at “unconscionably excessive” prices.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-19/-greedflation-pits-democrats-against-like-minded-economists

    • Nothing would do more to reduce inflation and pressure Russia to end the war than an #AntiFragileEnergy policy.

      In the meantime, Nothing would do more to reduce fuel consumption & traffic than to get people to accelerate faster, pay attention & avoid using brakes. After that, replace speed limits with adjustable Target Speeds. And, get rid of unnecessary stop signs. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1524490112746283016

      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.

Leave a Reply