by Judith Curry
The Hearing on “Risky Business: How Climate Change is Changing Insurance Markets” starts at 10 a.m.
You can watch the Hearing at [link].
My written testimony can be downloaded at [Curry Testimony Senate Budget 2023].
Here are my verbal remarks:
Insurance markets are influenced by our perceptions of climate risk. Referring to climate change as a “crisis” is at odds with professional judgments of climate risk.
The so-called “climate crisis” isn’t what it used to be. In 2013 in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, the extreme emissions scenario RCP8.5 was regarded as a business-as-usual scenario. With expected warming of 4 to 5 degrees Centigrade by 2100. Now, there is general acceptance that this extreme scenario is implausible. The value of baseline warming currently used by the UN Conference of Parties has been reduced by half, to 2.5 degrees by 2100. This is an additional 1.3 degrees above current temperatures.
It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the shift in expectations for extreme weather events that is associated with rejection of this extreme scenario. Rejecting this extreme scenario has rendered obsolete much of the climate impacts literature and assessments of the past decade, that have focused on this scenario.
Landfalling hurricanes incur the greatest property and casualty losses among extreme weather events.
Recent international assessment reports have low confidence that there have been detectable changes in the long-term record of hurricane activity, beyond natural variability.
The insurance industry’s perception of a substantial future increase in U.S. hurricane damage is enforced by three recent reports from the insurance sector. These reports infer misleadingly high damages by 2050, by using the implausible extreme emissions scenario. They also assume substantial increases in the number of major hurricanes, which is at odds with recent assessment reports. Further, these reports neglect the major modes of multi-decadal natural variability. These have had a dominant influence on Atlantic hurricanes in the historical record.
Implausibly high projections of U.S. landfalling hurricanes by 2050 result in inappropriate notions of insurability, inappropriate pricing of insurance, and misguided confidence levels of investors.
Not only have we been misled about the amount of warming to expect and its impacts. We have also badly mischaracterized the nature of the risk from climate change.
We have conflated the slow incremental risk from warming, with the emergency risk associated with extreme weather events that have little to do with warming. This mistaken conflation of risks is driving the stated urgency for emissions reductions and the rapid transition of our energy systems.
| A key element in insurance losses from extreme weather events is the reliability of the electric utilities system. Extended power outages contribute to loss of life. During extreme cold events, outages can result in substantial property damage from burst water pipes. This is what happened as a result of the extreme cold event in Texas last year.
The worst winter problems are associated with continental-scale high pressure systems, which produce very cold temperatures and weak winds over most of the U.S. Now, many coal and nuclear power plants have shut down. A lack of onsite fuel storage contributed to the Texas outage and the recent Christmas blackouts in areas served by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Near-term risks are associated with the rapid transition of electric utility systems to wind and solar. We can reduce the transition risk by reducing the urgency of the transition to be commensurate with the slow incremental risk from emissions. This would allow time for incorporating newer technologies that do not reduce electric power reliability. |
Climate change and its perceived threats provide an opportunity to broaden the relevance of the insurance sector to climate risk mitigation. Adaptation provides new opportunities to underwrite climate-exposed risk. Insurance companies can help prevent customers from incurring damage. They can also work with the public sector to improve building standards and land use policies.
Climate variability and change, with the attendant extreme weather events, is best regarded as an ongoing predicament. This will require continuing adaptation by communities and businesses plus mechanisms to share and transfer financial risk.
Thank you.
JC note: I will post additional comments on the Hearing after it is finished.
Judith … Considering the discussion topic and the setting, I think you nailed it. Concise, direct and I don’t see a base uncovered. Best of all, you established clear lanes for questions that may prove very fruitful. Great Job!
Pingback: Senate Budget Committee Hearing Today - Climate- Science.press
I would think it would be worth reminding them that much of the increased risk, as seen by insurers, is due to the increased building in vulnerable areas, the Expanding Bullseye, as Lomberg puts it.
ARK storms (i.e., a biggie every thousand years) to AR4D storms (e.g., a biggie every four decades), evidence for that being what… To better fit actual facts to a speculative model more in line with Western academia’s climate change fear-mongering memes?
Excellent . . to the point.
Another point to make would be a discussion of how much of the GW, to date, is AGW vs natural. Only a decade ago the ‘consensus’ seemed to be that most all of the warming prior to the mid-20th century was natural, and that ‘most’ of the GW since then with many saying since the 1970’s had a human footprint in it. In fact, most of the summary statements from various academies, etc., on NASA’s home Climate page – https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ – still maintain that understanding. Take a peak.
Example: Joint statement from 11 academies: “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).”
Note that a couple of them have changed that view in the past few years.
But presently, it seems that the discussion only presents that all GW since the mid-19th century is man-made . . and that is simply ludicrous.
I believe that we must always keep this in the discussion.
Q: Do you believe in GW?
A: Yes – but are you asking about natural GT changes, or the view that man may have added a bit extra to that natural process?
With this hearing, Judith Curry has officially become cast as an enemy of the climate crisis industry. How enlightening that someone who seeks engagement and dialogue will all sides is represented as such.
Great job, Judith. You spoke truth to power.
So the insurance costs of cold weather events are greatly exacerbated by the vainglorious attempt to limit global heating with wind turbines.
>> “The worst winter problems are associated with continental-scale high pressure systems, ”
Would you agree that those are mostly driven by arctic vortex fluctuations, a phenomena where solar and volcanic influences have been shown, but so far no anthropogenic signal is visible?
(and I ma sorry I missed that hearing, I hope all went well!!)
Have you looked into the causes of Sudden Stratospheric Events (SSW)? The SSW in January 2021 was the proximate cause of the February 2021 winter storm Uri and earlier this year a SSW event may have caused that Chinese balloon to drift into the artic, and then on into the US.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/polar-vortex-sudden-stratospheric-warming-main-weather-impacts-united-states-canada-europe-forecast-fa/
https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/202302050006
Good luck and hope they really listen
Good job, Judith.
A few thoughts.
This hearing encapsulated the division in the debate. One side oversimplifies the issue and accepts an imminent crisis and won’t entertain any other explanations. The other side tries to inject science, complexity, subtlety and caution.
A 4-5 year period a trend does not make.
Our state implemented term limits ~30 years ago. Perhaps Congress should consider age limits. Some in the Senate are sneaking up on 90. I couldn’t help thinking a Vice Chair 50 years younger might have been more able to focus on the line of questioning with appropriate follow ups.
While the attendance pattern of 2 committee members at the beginning of the hearing joined sporadically for a few moments of camera time by others is common, it doesn’t engender confidence that the Senators knew more after the hearing than before.
Having a full attendance of Senators sitting through the entire hearing and being fully awake could have achieved one thing. Increasing their knowledge about natural variability and multi decadal oscillation. On the other hand, you can lead a horse to water…..
Well presented and defended.
Comment in moderation at 11:55AM …
Me too, 4:38
It doesn’t take an expert economist to know that as more people move in, the value goes up. There is a lot more property exposed to damage, so when a storm happens there is a lot more property to be replaced per event. This means that the cost to replace property goes up a lot more because the surge in demand is so much bigger.
The industry has not been properly accounted for the increase in property at risk, regardless of whether it’s insured, nor the effect new policies have on existing ones.
Also, the post CoViD supply chain constraints and energy crisis drove replacement cost up for Ian, putting an unexpected burden on insurers.
Another important consideration lack of support for oil production and refining and the resultant danger the draining of the SPR put us in. Imagine if Ian had continued north-northwest instead of turning east into south florida… or worse, turned northwest.
Not only do the reports use an implausibly high emissions scenario, they use implausibly high climate sensitivity. The few models that have done a decent job projecting temperatures for roughly similar concentrations as we’ve seen have climate sensitivities substantially smaller than the IPCC central estimate. The one exception is (IIRC) AR3 which had an implausibly high greenhouse gas forcing offset by an even more implausibly high negative anthropogenic aerosol forcing, making it right for the wrong reasons and really more wrong than most models.
As has been pointed out, Nordhaus didn’t see harms exceeding benefits from warming until 4C or warming (not sure if that was 2018 temps or pre-industrial). It seems highly unlikely the harms will ever exceed the benefits of warming.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1638629954475769858
This also neglects the substantial benefits of CO2 fertilization and changes in the hydrological cycle. And the fact that biosphere uptake lags emissions and concentrations substantially.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1638630760356691972
Biosphere uptake lags emissions/concentrations. The land biosphere takes in an increasing portion of emissions. This also makes the land better at handling water. Soil and microbial effects lag, also epigenetic responses. Every year the biosphere takes in more. In the 90s it was about 25% of emissions, today it’s close to 30% even as emissions went up substantially.
See full 🧵
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891477857198081
Judy: How did the Senators respond to your straightforward, data-based and sensible statement?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Hardly any Senators attended the Hearing. The Chair Sheldon Whitehouse went after me on a whole host of irrelevancies, thinking he could ‘take me down’ or something. The recording isn’t yet available, this ridiculous questioning occurred at the end of the hearing.
You did a good, Dr. Curry. The hearing was the expected cluster fox trot of confirmation bias. A proper GOP cross examination was never going to be allowed with Dems controlling the hearing, they have too much invested to allow truth to spoil their global aspirations. A house hearing would have given you a greater opportunity to expand the discussion.
Judith
Despite the Chair’s attempt to prevent you from expanding on your answers at the end of the hearing, I hope you will share with us your written response at a future date.
The game in DC is all about scoring points, not good public policy based on knowledge of the issues.
Referencing the Trump tax cuts in the opening statement as a cause of the deficits during a hearing on climate related insurance risks is par for the course. That he was totally wrong doesn’t matter. Pushing the myth on camera does.
Whitehouse is actually one of the most fanatical and autocratic global warming Senators and, as the saying goes, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear! You were over the target which is why he was giving you so much flak!!
Sheldon Whitehouse is a progressive and a socialist and for him and all who voted for him, global warming alarmism is their woke science, the scientific method be damned.
Not knowing how you in the US run these things I did wonder if you had been set up. I guess too much to ask for the Republican members to do a better job.
Aon happens to be my insurance broker and I’ll just check with our country manager that we’re not exposed to the US end of the business.
That’s a sad statement concerning our politicians. The pols take it upon themselves to proscribe draconian actions that make our lives worse, but have very little understanding of the systems they attempt to control. They could at least avail themselves of an opportunity to learn when its presented to them.
I watched the whole hearing. I have a comment in moderation. Whitehouse had carefully orchestrated the event. He waited till the end to hit you with rapid fire cherry picking of past statements and didn’t give you adequate time to respond in an attempt to discredit you. It was slimy and juvenile, and I think you came out looking better for it. You went back at him asking, demanding, to respond and his answer was for you to ‘amend the record’.
Judith …
> Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
I know it was frustrating for you, but in his opening statement Whitehouse said that people may look at this hearing 1000 years from now. If so, they’ll see the only sane person in the room was you. Wear that attack as a badge of honor. Respond to the scurrilous statements.
“Sometimes I wonder why I bother.”
Maybe because you enjoy the attention and it stirs up the fanboys on this obscure blog of yours (and, therefore, WUWT)? I can’t think why else, since the world, science and the evidence has left you behind.
Why do You think you bother?
No JMurphy, the world hasn’t moved on. The elites and politicians are shoving this “green” BS down our collective throat. The only way they can do it is by poisoning the free market and capitalism, good communists that they are. They belong in prison.
It seemed clear from the testimony of the first three presenters that the insurance industry is looking for a pre-emptive bailout. They cited numerous times that all have to pay (They raise the rates on everyone.) for the losses, which will be inflicted on those few, for natural disasters. That is the way it has always been, but … now they are asking for government intervention as ‘climate change’ has increased the risks to what they say are an unmanageable degree. Note how they spoke about how the business environment in California is at a precarious point, but not saying California is at fault for creating it. Just that they will need to be made whole by the federal government in order to do business there, and by extension the whole country.
The fellow from R Street provided interesting testimony as to how the insurance industry has weathered many instances of major natural and economic disasters for two hundred years and doesn’t need government help. However, for some strange reason he made an ‘own goal’ by insisting that natural disasters are increasing, which was the argument of the insurance industry. Strange fellow, indeed.
Judith kept patiently trying to tell them that their studies they cited were flawed, either by using RCP 8.5 or other discredited methods. As Ckid says above, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. But it was a show and it was scripted well before hand. The only one on the panel who will be giving it some thought may be the fellow from R Street when he realizes how his testimony will be used against him.
Senator Sheldon Wh*rehouse most certainly had planned to draw and quarter Judith with cherry picked statements she made going as far back as 2007. His attempts as discrediting her were juvenile, nasty and worthy of the Greta Thunberg school of climate science. He refused to let her clarify beyond 15 second bytes and was clearly not interested in any interpretation other than the ‘I gotcha’ variety. It really showed his bias and that he’s a shill for the insurance industry and their attempts to have the government guarantee their bottom line.
And there was a Republican Senator from a farm state who came off looking like a fool. I have no idea, and I’m not sure he knows what he was trying to say. Probably wishing to preemptively get on any government gravy train and carve out some dollars for his constituents.
A model of a physical system is a procedure for making inferences. In a particular, a model of Earth’s climate system is a procedure for making inferences. That a model of Earth’s climate is a procedure for making inferences provides one with the opportunity of determination of whether these inferences are correct. Investigation reveals that these inferences falsify the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and “unit measure,” where the LEM is among Aristotle’s three Laws of Thought whereas “unit measure” is an axiom of probability theory and assumption of mathematical statistics. Thus, these models are unsuitable for use in establishing.public policies.
Your comment makes several assertions about climate models without providing any evidence or sources to support them. The text defines a climate model as “a procedure for making inferences” but does not explain what kind of inferences or how they are made. A climate model is a system of mathematical equations that simulate the physical processes and interactions of the Earth’s climate system based on well-established laws of physics, chemistry, and fluid dynamics. Climate models are not merely procedures for making inferences, but tools for understanding and predicting climate behavior under different conditions.
You also claim that climate models falsify the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) and “unit measure”, which are principles of logic and probability theory respectively. However, the text does not explain how or why this is the case, or what implications this has for climate science. The LEM states that any proposition is either true or false, and there is no third option. “Unit measure” states that the sum of probabilities of all possible outcomes of an event is equal to one. It is unclear how these principles are relevant to climate models, which are not propositions or events, but complex representations of natural phenomena.
The text concludes that climate models are unsuitable for use in establishing public policies but does not provide any alternative or criteria for evaluating suitability. You seem to imply that because climate models do not conform to some abstract logical rules, they are invalid or unreliable. However, this ignores the empirical evidence and validation that support climate models. Climate models are tested by comparing their simulations with historical observations and experiments. They also agree on many important facts about our climate, such as the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
Your comment is poorly argued and unsupported by scientific literature. It fails to define its terms clearly, provide evidence for its claims, address counterarguments or limitations, or acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty inherent in climate science.
Sincerely,
Chatbot
jacksmith4tx | March 22, 2023 at 10:38 pm
I fear this statement, although widely believed by lay people, is about as far from the truth as you can get. Once you get into the guts of the model, you’ll see that they have very little to do with physics. See my post entitled Meandering Through A Climate Muddle.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/18/meandering-through-a-climate-muddle/
Regards to all,
w.
That’s Willis. Your linked analysis is very good. There is a lot of pseudo-physics in these models. Even though if the “physics” was all in there, the numerical errors are huge and only through tuning can some outputs be brought into allignment with data by cancellation of large errors.
I also do not believe the moist adiabat theory that is used in the tropics. Thunderstorms are nowhere near adiabatic and modelers themselves admit that they do a poor job on tropical convection. But this process really does control the response to CO2 in the tropics.
FWIW DPY, the Figure in Willis’s post showing climate models crashing into snowball Earths is from one of my favorite papers published by the climate prediction.net group in England. As I’m sure you know, the non-physics part of climate models are the parameters needed to described processes that occur on scales smaller than a grid cell.
For example, it is possible to calculate the point at which a rising parcel of air (a grid cell) becomes saturated and will start forming clouds. However, a 100*100*0.3 km grid cell isn’t homogeneous and clouds will start forming in some places even though average saturation hasn’t reached 100%. So models contain an adjustable parameter that allows for grid cells begin forming clouds at 99.5% or 99.0%or 98.5% saturation. This parameter is adjusted so that the model planet’s albedo matches what we observe from space. Albedo is very sensitive to this parameter. As other parameters are tuned, this parameter may needs to be re-tuned. Tuning parameters in a different order will lead to a different optimum set of parameters.
It turns out that the parameter that has the most impact on climate sensitivity is the one that controls the amount of turbulent mixing between adjacent grid cells (the “entrainment parameter”). It is extremely important in tropical thunderstorms and other areas in the tropics and sub-tropics. You note that a moist adiabat may not be a perfect model for regions of rising moist air in the tropics, but the biggest error is assuming a “dry adiabat” for large descending dry air masses in the subtropics. There is lots of horizontal mixing that disrupts these theoretical adiabats and lots of local areas of uplift and subsidence associated with real thunderstorms.
To deal with the problem of parameterization, the climate prediction.net group made large ensembles of simplified models with key parameters (six at first) chosen at random from within a plausible range (rather than tuning parameters). They recruited thousands? of people who volunteered to allow these models to be run on their PCs when they were otherwise idle. The Figure in Willis’s post shows the models with randomly chosen parameters that led to snowball Earths – not the results from sophisticated tuned models. Those models that produced snowball earths were discarded. The remaining models in the ensemble were studied to see if any combination of parameters performed better at reproducing the climate we observe. Unfortunately, the parameter sets that best reproduced observed precipitation performed worse than other sets reproduced other observables. Worse, they could not reject any portion of the plausible range for any parameter because it always performed worse. Climate sensitivity ranged from 2K to something like 9K. Later others tried creating ensembles of more sophisticated models with perturbed parameters. I thought this was good science that illuminated the nature of “parameter uncertainty”, but didn’t solve it. In one chapter, the IPCC actually described their models as an opportunistic ensemble of models that explored parameter space.
Today, part of the IPCC is finally rejecting part of their opportunistic ensemble of models because they predict unrealistic warming in the instrument period. Progress is slow, but there is some.
Do you really care what is in the guts of a GCM if it actually matches observed conditions over time?
Personally, I ignore GCMs that have not reasonably matched observations and give creditability to those that have matched over a couple of decades.
Rob asks: “Do you really care what is in the guts of a GCM if it actually matches observed conditions over time?”
You don’t have to care, but I think scientists probably should care. As the saying goes: “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Weather forecasting models are useful – for about a week depending on what sort of precision you are looking for.
Many complicated models with adjustable parameters that have been tuned contain large offsetting errors and errors that compensate for errors caused by limitations from grid cell size. Early climate models didn’t produced the observe rapid decline in the Northern polar ice caps, so some models were tweaked to produce more decline – ignoring the reality that in the SH the polar ice cap was expanding. IIRC, the decline in the Northern Polar Ice Caps has slowed (not stopped) and the ice cap in the SH is now shrinking. The extent to which a model can be wrongly tuned to better match what turns out to be unforced variability (as well as some forced variability), gives us a better idea of what can be trusted.
Yes Frank you are correct. But CFDers already know that these algebraic models will be basically worthless based on the history of turbulence. In the 1970’s turbulence models were algebraic and the results were very bad, worse than integral boundary layer models. Further the grid resolution was totally inadequate. Only in the 1990’s with the introduction of global PDE based models and the rapid increase in grid resolution was partial success achieved for attached subsonic flows. These codes are still unfortunately rather bad for separated flows for reasons I discussed in my post from earlier this year.
There was never any rational expectation for GCM’s to be accurate on any output except those used in tuning. It continues to amaze me that this fraud has been supported by the vast majority of climate scientists until just last year as part of a public relations effort to scare people into supporting the elite’s chosen alternative energy “solutions.” Just as bad was the total failure of science during the pandemic as documented by Ioannidis in an essay in Tablet last August.
Our elites are corrupt and we need mass firings in the deep state and alternative media.
DPY: Thanks for the reply. I reread your post here at CE and the Palmer&Stevens article you praised. (I had written about this paper at SoD.) I’m perfectly willing to admit that all AOGCMs are “wrong”, but like Box only care about whether they are useful.
Most of the vertical atmospheric fluid flow occurs within the first 20 km above the surface, so the CFD problem is “pseudo 2D”. AOGCMs do a good job of getting the large scale 2D flow in the atmosphere correct and if I understand correctly, the jet streams are a consequence of vertical flow. Vertical and longitudinal temperature gradients are also readably accurate. None of these feature are tuned. Most importantly, models do an excellent job of reproducing the change in OLR with warming (a feedback) driven by changes in the angle to the sun. This also isn’t tuned.
AOGCMs have their biggest problems with clouds and precipitation. I’ve never seen an IPCC figure showing how well AOGCMs reproduce observations of clouds, but there are plenty of such figures for temperature. Models show precipitation (and therefore convection) starting too early in the day on the average (12:00p vs 6:00p), but this may be a problem with CFD at the interface between the surface and atmosphere. Worst of all models produce far to few marine boundary layer clouds – the most cooling clouds on the planet. There must be large compensating errors elsewhere. Problems at the top of the boundary layer may be due to problems with CFD there.
Clearly models aren’t useful for predicting climate sensitivity today. Their disagreements are getting worse, not better. That may not always be the case.
Well Frank, Lets distinguish between weather and climate usages of GCM’s. Weather models do a decent job of predicting Rossby waves for a few days. However, if you reads the NWS forecast discussions you will often see statements like “after 2 days the models ensembles diverge so we will bias forecast toward climatology.” The numerical errors are simply too large unless the regime is quasi-stable which is not always the case.
Climate models have such coarse grid resolution that I doubt they do a decent job even on Rossby waves. The tropics are crucial for climate modeling and the models are clearly totally inadequate.
I believe that outgoing TOA radiation is tuned in most models. That’s probably the reason they can be somewhat successful with global mean temperature anomaly.
But lets be clear, Held’s “2D” argument is flawed. Even in 2D, CFD is not skillful in separated flows and turbulence modeling is essential to getting within 50% of the answer. In the tropics and even in mid latitudes there is lots and lots of turbulence even in so called “clear air.” Yet it is not modeled in GCM’s except for the boundary layer which is not well resolved in any case.
dpy: I read Ioannidis Tablet article, which is fairly vague except for mentioning the Surgisphere scandal. I’ve been reading Scott Gottlieb’s book “Uncontrolled Spread”. Gottlieb was perhaps the most widely respected commentator in 2020 and early 2001 by both political parties.
Gottlieb places the most blame on the CDC for the failure to get a working COVID test and failing to recognize the need for commercial tests suitable for the equipment used big lab testing companies with the testing capacity would need.
The WSJ had an article complaining about how US authorities failed to follow the proven (ie not modeled) recommendations by WHO, which didn’t included lockdowns. However, Gottlieb told me the US government had developed its own national plans for an influenza pandemic under GWB, who had read “The Great Influenza” (of 1918-20) and faced novel variants of influenza with pandemic potential. Two groups from the CDC had reviewed the US experience in 1918 with NPIs (including lockdowns) and had independently found and published that (contrary to then-current wisdom) that the cities that locked down before the peak had about 50% fewer deaths.
Another point Gottlieb stressed was that the plans for battling an influenza pandemic needed to be quickly revised when major difference between COVID and Flu became apparent. School children in crowded schools are known to be major sources of transmission of flu in communities (and hospitalization), so changing some people’s minds about closing schools required unambiguous evidence. We now understand that 60% of transmission occurred from pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic patients, making testing contacts before quarantining them ineffective. Most had transmitted before or while ill contacts were waiting for test results. (In Taiwan, all contacts were ordered to quarantine without waiting for test trlkerkkgkkkkl.) Likewise, a larger fraction of transmission of COVID was via aerosols than droplets, making cloth face masks less effective.
When Trump and others were pushing for an Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ in mid-May, the FDA had received almost 400 reports of adverse effects and 87 deaths, many from arrhythmia and known side effects to the drug. A month later the drug was withdrawn when data from a double-blind clinical trials showed no efficacy.
In an effort to support re-opening of the economy in May 2020 and combat pre-symptomatic transmission, Gottlieb personally backed endorsing masks based on two reports in May 2020 with multiple linear regression studies comparing 200 countries and comparing 50 states (15 mandating masks) to determine what factors decreased spread:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7695060/ (Figure 2).
https://benzingeronhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Community-Use-of-Face-Masks-and-Covid-19-Evidence-From-A-Natural-Experiment-of-State-Mandates-In-The-US.pdf
Finally, the WSJ had an op-ed on “what worked” during the pandemic from a member of the consensus team.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-masks-will-protect-you-better-than-others-11606081251
A terrific paper, Judith. I am in the unfortunate position (in Queensland) of having climate extremist representatives at Federal, State and local levels. I’ll make sure that they each get a copy.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair 1878–1968. American novelist and social reformer.
Thanks, Andrew, It’s a wonderful observation that you cite.
Conflict alert: climate scientists who want to get published, Congress who want issues to support, insurance industry who want to sell insurance, Al Gore whoi left politics after losing to Bush II and owns 3 mansions and 5 jet planes, James Hansen, author and film maker on climate change like Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben (Bachelor of Arts in communication) … etc. the list goes on and on and on, not to mention all the developing countries who signed on in order to extract money from other nations.
“The value of baseline warming currently used by the UN Conference of Parties has been reduced by half, to 2.5 degrees by 2100. This is an additional 1.3 degrees above current temperatures.”
A 2.5-degree increase would be catastrophic. Every 0.5 degree increase in global temperature is significant. I suspect you are unaware of what is going on and has been going on in CA. The current weather events they are experiencing are unprecedented. They had 2 tornadoes in a 24-hour period. The last one occurred 20 years ago. Wildfire season used to last six months. It is becoming a year-round event.
The heat waves in Europe are more intense and last longer than in the past. I could go on and on about the climate events that are occurring around the world. This is not natural variability. One-hundred-year events are becoming commonplace.
“Recent international assessment reports have low confidence that there have been detectable changes in the long-term record of hurricane activity, beyond natural variability.”
So? Warm temperatures are a necessary but not a sufficient cause of hurricanes. Other factors are at play. Warm ocean temperatures are a source of energy for hurricanes. Higher temperatures mean bigger and more intense storms. Even if the number of hurricanes doesn’t vary from year to year, the size and intensity will be greater with rising ocean temperatures. That means more destruction. The insurance companies risk assessment is correct.
“A lack of onsite fuel storage contributed to the Texas outage and the recent Christmas blackouts in areas served by the Tennessee Valley Authority.”
In TX additional fuel storage wouldn’t have made a difference. The problem was that wind turbines weren’t winterized. They have no problem in Idaho with wind turbines freezing because they are designed to operate in cold temperatures. Ditto with natural gas facilities. The other problem is that TX is not connected to the national grid. That means they couldn’t import power. There are two counties in TX that are connected to the national grid, and they had no problems.
The whole concept of “adaptation” is a pipe dream floated by the fossil fuel industry. Let’s say it was possible to adapt. About 25% of population of the planet reside in countries that could afford to “adapt”. That leaves 75% that are on their own. How does that work?
What does “adaptation” look like? Better building codes? Preventing building in flood prone areas? How about carbon capture? From what I read, even if fully implemented, we could only capture about 15% of the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. This would be sequestered underground. Is it possible to contain a gas underground without leaks indefinitely? The answer to that is no. Of course, you’d have to transport that gas from the source to the sink. That would be a very expensive undertaking.
What about scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere? Another pipe dream. CO2 is a very stable compound, and it doesn’t react with much, but there are some processes that could remove CO2 from the atmosphere. You have two possibilities — remove the CO2 and then regenerate the CO2 gas and sequester it or form a new compound (like CACO3) and figure out what to do with it. Either will work but there is another problem. CO2 in the atmosphere is at a very low concentration. That means you have to process a large amount of air to remove a significant amount of CO2.
There is a Canadian company called Carbon Engineering that has a process to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and make a fuel. Sounds like a great idea but there is a problem they fail to mention. CO2 is a product of combustion where energy is extracted. To make a fuel energy has to be added. That energy has to come from renewable sources. That means you have to build an electrical infrastructure for renewable energy. Gasoline engines are a lot less efficient than electrical drives. That means that the electrical infrastructure has to be considerably larger than if you just switched to electric cars and got rid of the gasoline engines.
I digress. Taking the numbers from Carbon Engineering, you can calculate how many plants would be required to replace fossil fuels. That number is 41,000. Besides the fact that it would cost trillions of dollars to build all those plants, It would takes decades and decades to get them all built even if we dedicated the entire manufacturing capacity of the planet to the task.
How can I say “adaptation” is a pipe dream? Look at the fossil fuel industry. Exxon just spent $2 Billion to expand its TX refinery to increase capacity. What do you think they would spend if there was a viable technology that could mitigate or reverse climate change and permit the continued use of fossil fuels? They aren’t spending anywhere near that much on research. The “research” they are doing is nothing more than a publicity stunt. They trot out commercials to get the public to believe there may be an alternative to ending the use of fossil fuels. If they believed in their BS, they would put their money where their mouth is.
Ms. Curry is positive she is right, but what if she is wrong and the climate scientists are right. What can be done? Nothing! The chance that a scientific miracle will be discovered is non-existent no matter how much money is thrown at it. We will just have to go through Armageddon and hope for the best. That’s the problem with what she is trying to sell.
You write alarmist dribble. Humans adapt.
Only so much and they won’t be able to adapt to what’s coming.
What SPECIFICALLY can’t humans adapt to that AGW might cause. Good luck fear monger.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
That article gives the outline of what will occur. It is hopeful at the end of the article in that it claims man will come up with a solution. That is wishful thinking and naive. We’ve been treating the atmosphere like a toilet since 1850. It will literally take a scientific miracle to solve the problem.
Some believe this will be like the Apollo program. All we have to do is throw money at it and it will be solved. The Apollo program was different. That was mostly an engineering feat. All the scientific principles were known. Apollo was about implementation.
With our climate change problem all the science is against this problem be solved by any means other than stop burning fossil fuels.
I was just replying to the comment that climate scientists were promoting consensus climate change to get research grants. There is a lot more money in being a climate denier. One “researcher” wrote papers for cash and parlayed his “research” to become a multimillionaire.
“The warming of the last 170 years, if anyone can ever say with confidence what amount that is, fits very nicely with coming out of the LIA, boosted by multi decadal oscillations and a dash here and there from land use changes, urbanization and solar.”
Complete nonsense! Moving energy from one part of the planet to another has zero impact on long term planetary temperature. The ONLY way the planet can warm or cool is by an imbalance between the energy absorbed by the planet from the sun and the energy it radiates into space.
Here’s the real science behind climate change:
https://www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening/answer/John-Braccili
https://www.quora.com/If-CO2-is-only-038-of-atmospheric-gases-why-does-it-have-so-much-impact-on-global-warming/answer/John-Braccili
Since I wrote the first article I’ve learned more about reradiation in the upper atmosphere and I should revise the article to reflect that. The article is mostly right but some changes are needed.
JJb’s comment – “In TX additional fuel storage wouldn’t have made a difference. The problem was that wind turbines weren’t winterized. They have no problem in Idaho with wind turbines freezing because they are designed to operate in cold temperatures. Ditto with natural gas facilities. The other problem is that TX is not connected to the national grid. That means they couldn’t import power. There are two counties in TX that are connected to the national grid, and they had no problems.”
JJ – there are massive amounts of myths surrounding the Texas Feb 2021 freeze – you happen to perpetrate some of the most glaring myths
There were three major failures in the Texas freeze fiasco of Feb 2021
A) the failure of the gas electric generation
B) the failure of the Renewable electric generation – particulary the wind failure.
C) the strategic failure that led to the the first two failure.
I will only address the 3 tactical failures myths you mentioned
1) Wind failure – approximately 5% of the wind turbines failed in Texas due to failure to winterize. The remainder failed for the same reason wind failed across the entire north american continent. There was NO wind for 4 days.
2) the idaho wind turbines failed for the same reason the Texas turbines failed – NO Wind
3) being connected to the national grid made little or no difference. The MSO grid likewise almost failed (and likely would have if connected to the Texas grid)
4) being connected to the national grid would not have help because the rest of the national grid was extremely stressed due to electric demand
The last point I am going to make – which is very important for the advocates to grasp.
Explain how the grid is going to provide electricity via renewables during the next polar vortex when electricity demand skyrockets due to the freezing cold and electric generation from wind drops to less than 5% of capacity for 3-5 days like it did during the Texas freeze that was across the entire north american continent?
Perhaps Appleboy can enlighten us
Please!
The fossil fuel plants in TX were frozen and couldn’t operate because they were not winterized. The first thing the conservatives blamed the grid failure on was the wind turbines freezing.
As for the national grid, it wasn’t stressed. How could it be? It was February — not July. The grid gets stressed in the summer when air conditioners are running. Two counties in TX are connected to the national grid and had no problems.
If you really want to utilize wind power you’d locate the turbines offshore.
JJB ‘s comment – “As for the national grid, it wasn’t stressed. How could it be? It was February — not July. ”
JJB – As I stated – you have fallen prey to the multitude of myths surrounding the texas freeze fiasco.
Read and understand the raw source data –
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/balancing_authority/MISO/GenerationByEnergySource-14/edit
As I stated – there were 3 major failures – AGW advocates focus on only one failure while not only absolving the renewable failure, but idioticially believing that failure was a success. Thus the reason for the link to the raw data.
Unlike Appleboy, you seem that you have some capability to review and understand real time source data.
JJ, you spout a lot, without using any facts.
I give plenty of facts. You either don’t understand them or you don’t accept them. Probably a little of both,
Give us the facts about heat waves in the 1930’s, JJ, thanks ahead of time for your comprehensive summary.
Why would I care want went on in the 1930’s? Here’s what matters:
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165/
Notice how the temperature change of the earth tracks solar radiation change until about 1960. Then the earth’s temperature change stops tracking solar radiation and starts tracking CO2 concentration.
JJBraccili | March 23, 2023 at 7:45 pm | JB comment –
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165/
“Notice how the temperature change of the earth tracks solar radiation change until about 1960. Then the earth’s temperature change stops tracking solar radiation and starts tracking CO2 concentration.”
JJB – one point conveniently ( or inconveniently ) omitted is
A) the solar radiation post 1960 remains higher than the the radiation from the late 1800’s
B) Solar radiation is not – I repeat Not – an instantanious thermostat.
C) the Oceans move very slowly in releasing the heat back into the atmosphere
Points B&C are well known by climate activists to point out the warming will continue even if the CO2 stops increasing.
Yet they ignore their own beliefs to claim that all the warming post mid 1900’s the earth should be cooling since solar radiation has decreased.
Most honest climate scientists would notice the conflicting arguments.
The graph I provided is not an instantaneous measure of solar irradiance and temperature change. That data is an 11-year rolling average to compensate for the solar cycle. That smooth’s things out.
There is lag between changes in solar irradiance and temperature change. The temperature change measured is a statistically weighted average of the temperature of the land, ocean, and atmosphere. The oceans absorb the most energy and its temperature gets the most weight. The graph I presented shows quite clearly that before 1960 the earth’s temperature change tracks changes in solar irradiance. After 1960 it doesn’t. Something else is driving the temperature of the earth higher.
I can produce another graph that shows after 1960 that the earth’s temperature change tracks increasing CO2 concentration. Is that conclusive that increases in atmospheric CO2 are responsible for the earth’s temperature rise? No, it isn’t, but it provides a place to look. We have plenty of other evidence that increasing CO2 is the cause of the problem.
“Points B&C are well known by climate activists to point out the warming will continue even if the CO2 stops increasing.”
What will happen is the earth’s temperature change will stop tracking CO2 and start tracking solar irradiance again or anything else that was causing the earth’s energy to rise. Even with rising CO2 if the sun started to increase its irradiance the earth’s temperature would track that instead of increasing CO2. When that effect petered out, it would go right back to tracking increasing CO2 concentration.
BTW as stars age, they put out more solar radiation — not less. It’s not surprising that the sun put out less solar radiation than it does in 1960,
Our current situation, where the solar radiation has been decreasing over the last 40 years, will eventually reverse itself and that will make our temperature problem worse.
Jjb – are y in a contest with apple man?
True -As stars age , the output of solar radiance diminishes.
Though 60 years out of a few million years , do you think that decrease would be measurable?
Y might consult appleman for his insight
Wrong! As a star ages its TSI INCREASES!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/28/our-sun-is-lighter-than-ever-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse/?sh=43687c9a7274
JJB – Whether a Star’s radiance increases or decreases as it ages is not the relevant question.
The relevant question was whether such a long term change due to aging would be measurable over 60 years period compared to the few million years lifespan of a star.
You are deliberately confusing short term fluctuations with long term aging changes. typical appleboy climate science delusions – taking a few solid scientific facts and converting those solid facts into erroneous conclusions
JJB …
We all make assumptions about the future. How warm/cool it will/will not get, how much affect will a .5 degree or 2.5 degree increase bring, how much can humans adapt to a changing climate? To tie all this back to Judith’s testimony, and forthcoming book, all of us need to continually review our assumptions with new data and critical thought. For example, the RCP 8.5 assumption has been shown to be unrealistic. I’m sure you’d agree that it should not be used as it distorts our ability for prediction. Others would include sample size, whether it is a time range for temperature, or any variable, to grid size in a model.
The proper role of natural variability is another crucial element, which Judith continually speaks about.
You said below:
> Moving energy from one part of the planet to another has zero impact on long term planetary temperature. The ONLY way the planet can warm or cool is by an imbalance between the energy absorbed by the planet from the sun and the energy it radiates into space.
The first sentence is an assumption. The second sentence is correct. What interests me is what goes on between the first and second sentence. For example, are you saying that the planet radiates energy evenly over its entire surface? From your first sentence it seems you are. If not, then the processes that move energy around the planet would seem to be very important considering when that energy is at a point(s) where it is radiated into space in a more efficient(?) manner than other areas. Obviously, I’m not a scientist, yet you can read many books/papers on what I’m clumsily describing. Javier Vinos’ book, “Climate of the Past, Present and Future” does just this. These natural processes vary. Your assumption that they play no role in the long term temperature of the planet is a pretty big one.
“The first sentence is an assumption.”
No, it’s fact. Temperature is a proxy for energy. Specifically, the kinetic energy of molecules. Moving energy from one point to another in a closed thermodynamic system (the Earth) has no impact on the planet’s temperature. Weather has no impact on the planet’s temperature. Evaporation of water from the surface of the planet has no impact on the planet’s temperature. That’s because the evaporated water condenses in the atmosphere and releases all the energy it obtained by evaporation. Net impact is zero.
“For example, are you saying that the planet radiates energy evenly over its entire surface?”
No, the “sunny” side of the planet radiates more energy than the “dark” side of the planet. The “land” radiates differently than the “ocean”.
“Your assumption that they play no role in the long term temperature of the planet is a pretty big one.”
No, it’s not. For planetary temperature to rise or fall the energy on the planet has to change. Moving energy around doesn’t do that.
Thanks for your reply, John.
Again, not a scientist, but I don’t see how the Earth is a ‘closed thermodynamic system’. It radiates energy/heat into space and is subject to energy from the sun.
You didn’t answer my question about variability of the Earth’s surface to radiate. Poles vs tropics, say. Cloud cover. Aside from night/day there are temperature gradients. When energy moves about the planet it must encounter fluctuations in resistance to radiate to space. If ‘a path of least resistance’ is established by some means, there you should find an increase in radiation to space.
Thermodynamics defines a closed system as one where only energy crosses the boundaries of the system — not mass. Only a very small amount of mass crosses earth’s borders (outer space). That’s why, for all practical purposes, it’s a closed system.
Taking energy from one part of the planet and transferring it to another does not change the total energy of the planet. It can’t affect the planet’s temperature. The cold sink will rise in temperature and the hot sink will decrease in temperature. If there is any increase or decrease in radiant energy the net will be negligible and certainly not enough to change the earth’s temperature. It may impact weather, but not climate.
Thanks for your reply, John.
I was viewing the closed system as applying to energy, which I accept your definition. However, my point about how energy is radiated from the planet still hasn’t been addressed. It’s highly doubtful that every point radiates equally, nor can they if energy is moving along gradients. I use the term resistance as it applies to electricity or water flows. If there are areas of less resistance to outgoing radiation, then it stands to reason that circulation of energy flows would encounter areas of less resistance, either by chance or attraction, and ‘vent’ accordingly.
It’s true that different parts of the planet radiate differently and in climate change it really doesn’t matter.
Let’s start on the solar side. The earth absorbs energy from the sun, but it doesn’t absorb it evenly. We say the earth absorbs 240 W/M2 from the sun. That’s across the entire surface area of the earth. How do we get that number? At TOA solar irradiance is 1370 W/M2. The sun radiates to the surface of a circle. The earth is a sphere. A sphere has 4xs the surface area of a circle with the same radius. We divide the solar irradiance at TOA by 4 and we get 343 W/M2. Now we have to correct for the albedo by multiplying by 0.7 and you get 240 W/M2.
The solar side radiation number is the average number over the entire surface area. We do the same thing with the earth’s radiation. Since at equilibrium energy in = energy out. At equilibrium the earth radiates 240 W/M2. From that you can calculate the radiating temperature of the earth. That’s without a greenhouse effect.
What happens when greenhouse gases are introduced? Start with the earth at equilibrium — 240 W/M2 in and out at some temperature T. Greenhouse gases prevent some of the earth’s radiation from escaping into space — back radiation. Let’s say the back radiation is 20 W/M2. The earth absorbs 240 W/M2 from the sun + 20 W/M2 back radiation = 260 W/M2. The earth is at temperature T and radiating 240 W/M2. After taking out the back radiation, the earth is radiating 220 W/M2 to outer space. The earth at TOA is absorbing 240 W/M2 and radiating 220 W/M2. There is an imbalance. The earth’s energy increases and its temperature increases. At equilibrium, the earth will be at some higher temperature and in energy balance.
It doesn’t matter that the earth doesn’t radiate uniformly because we are working with averages.
JJB, Your comments here are essentially content free and laced with smears of your blog host.
There is zero evidence that 2.5 degrees of warming would be “catastrophic.” There is ample evidence that a warmer world would be a better world.
Increasing CO2 has led to global greening and a large increase in ecosystem productivity. All our fossil fuels were generated when the world was a lot warmer and CO2 much higher than today. Crop production continues to increase. CO2 makes plants more drought tolerant.
Decreased pole to equator temp gradients will mean less severe weather. Similarly constant vertical gradients in the tropics (which is happening contrary to the wrong moist adiabat theory) means tropical storms will NOT get more severe. A warmer world will have better more benign weather.
Vast areas in the north will become amenable to agriculture increasing further food production. The tropics will warm much less than the global average.
The predictions of catastrophe are a religious prediction of doom and not based on any serious science. Even the IPCC seems to agree with me regarding extreme weather. The only true negative is rising sea level. But we can easily adapt to that issue. Sea level has changed by hundreds of meters over the last million years. Many areas of the Northern Hemisphere are rebounding from the ice age so relative sea levels are falling anyway.
What happens if you are wrong? Based on your transparent lack of expertise, that’s quite likely. The poorest will suffer immense harm while you will probably be able to buy a better air conditioner.
Next time try being original.
What you said comes right out of the climate denial playbook and has been thoroughly refuted.
Your reply has ZERO substance and is rhetorical posturing. You didn’t respond sustantively to any point I made. Get lost.
What points? Your stuff is anything but original and has been answered and refuted. I’m not going to go back and waste my time with pseudo-science that others have already gone through.
“I could go on and on”… and then “on and on” … this is the exactly the type of rhetoric that has fed the climate movement since the early 1970s. “Ms. Curry is positive she is right” … Ms. Curry has been studying this issue for decades and dares to stand up and correct the record in spite of being blasphemied by the climatemongers. There have been a lot good things happening over this time such as shutting down dirty coal fired power plants .. that address CO2 but also particulates, sulfates etc. As one who has followed this topic( having PhD in Chemical Engineering) and MBA (Chicago) I feel we should all be open minded and listen to people who challenge the “political” pronouncements of e.g. the UNFCCC and climate community who are on the payroll receiving benefits. And allow ourselves to be open minded and not dogmatic influenced by beliefs and distortions rather than real science.
“Ms. Curry has been studying this issue for decades and dares to stand up and correct the record in spite of being blasphemied by the climatemongers.”
I suspect Ms. Curry is well paid for her efforts. The fossil fuel industry and its surrogates have been funding this drivel for decades.
“There have been a lot good things happening over this time such as shutting down dirty coal fired power plants.”
Not nearly enough. Replacing coal fired power plants with natural gas powerplants is not solving the problem.
“I feel we should all be open minded and listen to people who challenge the “political” pronouncements of e.g. the UNFCCC and climate community who are on the payroll receiving benefits.”
Climate change and its causes has been settled science since the 80s. What Ms. Curry does is scour the IPCC reports for anomalies in data. Guess what? Data always has anomalies. Saying that the IPCC has reduced an estimate of 4.5 degrees to 2.5 degrees is meaningless — both are catastrophic outcomes. I haven’t read the IPCC report in a long time but I’m not sure she’s right. As I remember, the report presents multiple warming scenarios based on a different sets of assumptions.
BTW there is a lot more money in climate denial than in agreeing with consensus science. Ask Willie Soon who became a multimillionaire by writing papers claiming climate change was due to sunspots. What a crock!
I caught your comment because it was in the moderation queue.
Ms Curry was well paid when she was at Georgia Tech, my salary there is a matter of public record (it was well into 6 figures.
I gave up that big salary because my personal and professional integrity wouldn’t allow me to continue working in the university environment, with its groupthink, cancel culture, siloed academics and politicization.
Instead, i opted to work in the private sector, my own small start up company, where there have been several years that I didn’t get paid at all as I invested any profits back into the company.
In any event, revenue from companies in the energy sector is about 30% of my company’s revenue. If you had actually read my written testimony, you would have seen this statement at the end of my biosketch:
Specifically with regards to CFAN’s energy-related clients: CFAN has clients in the emergency preparedness division of several electric utilities, for which CFAN provides forecasts of hurricanes and severe convective weather to helps them anticipate and minimize the duration of power outages. CFAN also provides forecasts of temperature extremes and wind/solar power to energy trading companies, to support cost-effective backup of wind/solar power with natural gas. CFAN has provided climate-related analyses to energy companies related to: power plant siting and vulnerability to storm surge and sea level rise; future profitability of wind farms; and vulnerability of solar farms in the southeast U.S. to hurricanes.
This whole canard of people challenging the politically manufactured “consensus” on climate change as being in the pay of “big oil” is so . . . empty. Not to mention the fact that it is an attempt to misdirect people from taking seriously our carefully crafted and well justified arguments.
“I gave up that big salary because my personal and professional integrity wouldn’t allow me to continue working in the university environment, with its groupthink, cancel culture, siloed academics and politicization.”
If true, good for you! You sound like a typical conservative. I suspect you had tenure. That means you are immune to groupthink, and politicization. Isn’t that what tenure is for?
Here is the problem I have with what you are doing. What if you’re wrong? What you are advocating for is doing nothing. That means, if you are wrong, you are sentencing humanity to its demise. Poor countries won’t be able to “adapt”. A large portion of the world’s population will die. It’s already happening. That why the UN wants the wealthy nations to assist the poorer countries deal with climate change.
None of the “alternate” theories have ever held up under scrutiny. To think that the scientific community is suppressing the truth is laughable. What we are seeing is not natural variability. Where is the variability? Every year things are getting worse.
I am far less likely to be “wrong” than anyone else, since I emphasize uncertainties and consider a broad range of scenarios including worst-case scenarios.
p.s. Tenure is no protection in this day and age. Besides, who wants to work in a hostile environment?
No, you’re very likely wrong and that’s why the scientific community doesn’t take you seriously.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d75b0d49b696ecedec244862e1d2ac47
The above is an IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy. The blue area is the radiant energy of the earth. The pink area is the amount of the earth’s radiant energy that CO2 is preventing from radiating into space. That’s about 9000 TW. The earth absorbs 120,000 TW from the sun. The 9000 TW is about 8% of the amount of energy that the earth absorbs from the sun. Is that enough to cause climate change? YES!! Since the effect of H2O is temperature limited, its impact enhances the effect of CO2,
Ms Curry. You are being ever so polite humouring JJB. He has his boilerplate talking points to try to discredit you, and mere facts won’t dissuade him.
JJ writes–“Poor countries won’t be able to “adapt”. A large portion of the world’s population will die. It’s already happening. That why the UN wants the wealthy nations to assist the poorer countries deal with climate change.”
Poorer nations want electricity and will do much better once they have it. Look at the example of a developing China. Their population’s lives are greatly improved. Building infrastructure is what adapts to climate change (regardless of cause) and that releases CO2.
That reply makes no sense.
Electricity is not going to do you any good if you’re starving. Electricity is not going to do anything for a climate refugee.
JJ Hollywood: “I haven’t read the IPCC report in a long time but I’m not sure she’s right. As I remember, the report presents multiple warming scenarios based on a different sets of assumptions.”
When JJ Hollywood says he hasn’t read the IPCC report in a long time, this means max 4 years ago, the tenure of his climate studies. Downstream JJ states: “I don’t do ‘confirmation bias’. I went into this a few years back with an open mind. Starting from the basics I came to the conclusion that consensus climate science is correct and the climate deniers are a bunch of crackpots or opportunists.”
JJ, you best keep your showboat in dry dock. Last time you left CE you were taking on water after trying to defend a position that the IPCC had no politically biased structure, when in fact its make-up is 50% political as described by that very institution. This lack of IPCC knowledge was evident then that you were still on a steep learning curve. And you have the audacity to challenge Dr. Curry’s cred.
Your showboat is condemned as a non-floater in these waters. Though I’m sure you can get that rotten balsa hulk of yours afloat in sycophantical seas, there’s lots of boyancy in those waters for shallow, leaky drafts.
“Ms. Curry has been studying this issue for decades and dares to stand up and correct the record in spite of being blasphemied by the climatemongers.”
I suspect Ms. Curry is well paid for her opinions. The fossil fuel industry and its surrogates have been supporting this drivel for decades.
What Ms. Curry does is to scour the IPCC report for data anomalies and use that as an argument against consensus science. Guess what? All data has anomalies. I’m not sure that she is right about the IPCC cutting its 2100 temperature prediction from a 4.5 to 2.5 degree rise. It’s been a while since I read the report but as I remember it, they present different scenarios and what the temperature rise would be for each scenario.
“There have been a lot good things happening over this time such as shutting down dirty coal fired power plants.
Shutting down coal fired power plants and replacing them with natural gas fired power plants is not a solution.
“I feel we should all be open minded and listen to people who challenge the “political” pronouncements of e.g. the UNFCCC and climate community who are on the payroll receiving benefits.”
Climate change and its causes has been settled science since the 80s. That changed in the 90s when the fossil fuel industry realized that they were going to be put out of business and decided to go on a disinformation campaign by supporting pseudo-science.
There is a lot more money to be made in trafficking in climate denial pseudo-science than supporting consensus climate change science.
JJ
You need to do better than that. Accusing a scientist of being on the take is so yesterday and sophomoric. Not to mention tedious. I always know that somebody has nothing when they bring out that neutered bazooka.
The warming of the last 170 years, if anyone can ever say with confidence what amount that is, fits very nicely with coming out of the LIA, boosted by multi decadal oscillations and a dash here and there from land use changes, urbanization and solar.
Come up with some science that is compelling.
I was just replying to the comment that climate scientists were promoting consensus climate change to get research grants. There is a lot more money in being a climate denier.
“The warming of the last 170 years, if anyone can ever say with confidence what amount that is, fits very nicely with coming out of the LIA, boosted by multi decadal oscillations and a dash here and there from land use changes, urbanization and solar.”
Complete nonsense! Moving energy from one part of the planet to another has zero impact on long term planetary temperature. The ONLY way the planet can warm or cool is by an imbalance between the energy absorbed by the planet from the sun and the energy it radiates into space.
Here’s the real science behind climate change:
“www.quora.com/If-climate-change-is-a-hoax-why-do-so-many-scientists-say-its-happening/answer/John-Braccili”
“www.quora.com/If-CO2-is-only-038-of-atmospheric-gases-why-does-it-have-so-much-impact-on-global-warming/answer/John-Braccili”
Since I wrote the first article I’ve learned more about reradiation in the upper atmosphere and I should revise the article to reflect that. The article is mostly right but some changes are needed.
JJ, who pays you? Or do you actually believe what you write?
Nobody pays me but I’ll gladly accept compensation for my efforts.
What I post is scientific fact.
JJ cites himself, he obviously couldn’t find anything worthy of admiration. If one’s looking for fun citations at least consider Abbott & Costello for a chuckle.
No, I cited the First Law of Thermodynamics which you obviously are clueless about. I have to apologize. I didn’t dumb it down enough for a man of your intellect.
When used properly a citation to proven science carries weight to support sound research, JJ; except when captured in context of confirmation bias; used frivolously, unsoundly. You’re empty, JJ, using citation for vanity networking cred embellishment, you reek of it.
BTW I don’t do “confirmation bias”. I went into this a few years back with an open mind. Starting from the basics I came to the conclusion that consensus climate science is correct and the climate deniers are a bunch of crackpots or opportunists. None of their theories has ever gained traction because they can easily be disproven. Yet they cling to that drivel.
Climate change is pretty simple. It about a buildup of energy on the planet and that is governed by the First Law of Thermodynamics. You can’t conduct or convect energy into outer space. That leaves radiation. In order for the earth’s temperature to rise or fall, there must be an imbalance between the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun and what it radiates into space. Anything that doesn’t cause that cannot be causing climate change.
“Climate change is pretty simple. It about a buildup of energy on the planet and that is governed by the First Law of Thermodynamics. You can’t conduct or convect energy into outer space. That leaves radiation. In order for the earth’s temperature to rise or fall, there must be an imbalance between the amount of energy the earth absorbs from the sun and what it radiates into space. Anything that doesn’t cause that cannot be causing climate change.”
And how, pray tell, do you measure “the earth’s temperature” from core to toa? Or is your understanding of the First Law perhaps somewhat limited?
“And how, pray tell, do you measure “the earth’s temperature” from core to toa? Or is your understanding of the First Law perhaps somewhat limited?”
To come up with a mean temperature of the earth they use statistical averaging of data taken at various points on the earth. If you had a good handle on the amount of energy that the earth radiates into space, that could be used to determine the earth’s radiant temperature. Scientists are more interested in the temperature change due to climate change than the absolute temperature of the Earth.
Sure, Hollywood.
JJ
The point that you missed is that the Climate is as much about the rearrangement of energy within the planet, as it is about the relationship of the earth’s energy content with the rest of the universe.
Climate has nothing to do with the “rearrangement of energy within the planet”. You’re thinking of weather. The ONLY thing that can impact earth’s climate is an imbalance between the energy the earth absorbs from the sun and the energy it radiates into outer space.
Weather is the result of the earth trying to rectify its own internal energy imbalances.
JJB – based on the data, the imbalance isn’t very big at all.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/GISS-absolute-data-scale100F.png
IIRC, isn’t the inbalance within the true measurement error bands or zero or a null effect. Seems to be what NASA is saying ” We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval)”.
JJ
Climate is defined (for reasons of convenience) as the average of weather over a 30 year period. There are many processes going on within the earth transferring energy around on longer cycle times than that.
JJ
Thermohaline and Antarctica Bottom Water variability mechanisms through oceanic circulation affect global climate and have variability on multi decadal, centennial, multi centennial, millennial and multi millennial time scales.
It’s breathtaking that you and 02 are unaware of that. It must be because of your fixation on those 8th grade equations.
LMAO!!!
They put a picture of you in the dictionary right under the definition of clueless.
Thermodynamics is taught to engineering and science majors in their sophomore year of college.
Circulation of energy on the planet CANNOT increase the energy of the planet, CANNOT affect the temperature of the planet, and CANNOT change planetary climate. What you’re talking about is changing weather patterns not the planetary climate.
That’s the beauty of Thermodynamics. It takes something that looks complex and simplifies it.
JJ
If your comment at March 25, 2023 at 11:35 pm was directed at me, the mistake you are making is that you are equating a phenomenon (i.e. the climate) that occurs in a small portion of the earth (the atmosphere) over a short time period of time, with what happens in the whole earth.
I’d add I have post grad quals in thermodynamics, so you are in safe hands.
I’m not interested in what happens on the “whole” earth. I’m interested in what happens to climate. Contrary to what some think, human beings are fragile. We can only adapt so much to changes in climate. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity. This is the kind of problem that you have to take action before it becomes serious. By the time it becomes serious, it’s too late.
When we refer to planetary temperature we are talking about the average radiating temperature of the earth. That what controls the amount of energy the earth can shed to outer space.
JJ
You need to catch up with your homeboys since they all accept 30 years as climate. Why don’t you channel all those souls who lived through the MWP and LIA that the change of climate they experienced really wasn’t a change of climate, just weather.
The wonders of mass hysteria and brainwashing. Primitive civilizations and their shamans had nothing on the contemporary sheep.
You don’t get it.
Moving energy from here to there on the planet DOES NOT create energy necessary for climate change. If it did, you have discovered a new source of energy and you deserve a Nobel Prize.
I know you want desperately to find an explanation for climate change other than CO2. — this isn’t it.
JJ
I am persisting beyond the point where I’d normally stop because you strike me as an intelligent bloke who stands a chance of having a “penny dropping” moment.
It is nowhere as simple as you think.
Energy in and out at the toa needs to balance with the changes in the energy of the earth as a whole (not just the atmosphere). In your simple model add a boundary at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. view it as a skin or layer, one side exposed to space and the other to the land and sea/ice.
Do you begin to see the problem with your simple analysis that only looks at the system boundary at the toa? The atmosphere can move large quantities of energy into the oceans, for example, and it does.
Add to that, much of the energy ends up in forms other than thermal energy. And add in the time dimension, this energy can be stored for considerable periods of time without returning energy to the atmosphere.
Begin to see the problem with you simple characterisation?
I thought my example of what happens when greenhouse gases are introduced into the atmosphere would have cleared things up.
You are trying to complicate the analysis to say that moving energy around somehow creates energy and mitigates or eliminates the greenhouse effect. It doesn’t.
You can do a steady-state or dynamic analysis of this problem. A steady-state analysis tells you where the temperature is going to wind up. A dynamic analysis tells you how long it is going to take to get there.
What you’re talking about impacts the dynamic analysis. It has no impact on the steady-state analysis. When you move energy from one place to another on the planet, you have an effect where you move the energy to and the opposite effect where you take the energy from. In the end it all balances and you get to the same planetary temperature no matter how you move the energy around.
“I know you want desperately to find an explanation for climate change other than CO2.”
How about the natural variability influence?
Hollywood needs a timeout to swab down his treacherously slippery showboat, it desperately needs attention.
So, where’s the variability? Things keep getting worse.
Did you miss the floods in CA, or the tornadoes in the south? One of those tornadoes was an E-4 and stated on the ground for 60 minutes. This is March. That type of weather used to occur in late April and early May.
Hollywood, you’re among the vast numbers of lightweights measuring decadal shifts as omens to the end of time. You’re a flea in climates long gray beard of hidden granularity, mostly indiscernible because “its” science practitioners are still in proverbial diapers. Though there’s enough paleo to show the arrogance of people like you.
Did you miss the Galveston hurricane of 1900?? Did you miss it JJB?
“ Things keep getting worse.”
Come on JJ, what an absurd, juvenile thing to say. This is nothing different than what has happened my entire life, which goes back to the Truman days. There has never been a period when weather hasn’t produced these kinds events. You have succumbed to the media propaganda. You can’t produce any scientific evidence that demonstrates this is different from any other time in our past.
Really? You must be suffering from memory loss. There are lots of data and graphs out there. Here’s one;
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.b7f3447ca88b3ef371ebd46301b6bc6d?rik=xvfRw0HVmH6meQ&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
The graph I just supplied is the number of extreme global floods by year.
No source JJ. Did you hire some kids to do that?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfwBVMhXEAAQgzG?format=jpg&name=small
Hey genius,
That data is for the US only. The US makes up a small fraction of the earth’s surface area. A misleading headline from WSJ, why am I not surprised?
Try again and do better next time.
Here’s some more on floods:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662
Keep working, Hollywood. A single climatic period captures about 30 years. Climate can’t discern the newest micro fragment of its gray beard using your measure.
JJ
You do realize that construction of impervious surfaces is going on globally. With urbanization growth there is disruption of the normal hydrological process and the ability to withstand heavy precipitation events. Floodplains are being paved over, losing their ability to absorb those heavy rains.
Population growth exaggerates the perceived impact from extreme events. That is true for a number of areas of concern.
“Urbanization generally increases the size and frequency of floods and may expose communities to increasing flood hazards” From the USGS report here. Not rocket science.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/
What causes increases in floods is more water vapor in the atmosphere. That is caused by increasing atmospheric temperatures. What’s going on in CA is not the result of urbanization. Neither is the increase in 100 and 500 yr weather events around the world.
“ Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x
In the UK “ There is an increase in the number of reported flood events over time associated with an increased exposure to flooding as floodplain areas were developed. The data was de-trended for exposure, using population and dwelling house data. The adjusted record shows no trend in reported flooding over time, but there is significant decade to decade variability”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2014.950581
What about the rest of the world? Drawing conclusions from a limited geographic area is an old climate denial Jedi mind trick.
Explain this away:
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.5ojmqK3SSZoDkFj5j7XMJwHaF1?pid=ImgDet&dpr=3
More studies
“ Here we show that multi-decadal trends of flood hazard on the lower Mississippi River are strongly modulated by dynamical modes of climate variability, particularly the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but that the artificial channelization (confinement to a straightened channel) has greatly amplified flood magnitudes over the past century.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature26145
A global study of urbanization.
“ The conversion of Earth’s land surface to urban uses is one of the most irreversible human impacts on the global biosphere. It drives the loss of farmland, affects local climate, fragments habitats, and threatens biodiversity. Here we present a meta-analysis of 326 studies that have used remotely sensed images to map urban land conversion. We report a worldwide observed increase in urban land area of 58,000 km(2) from 1970 to 2000. India, China, and Africa have experienced the highest rates of urban land expansion, and the largest change in total urban extent has occurred in North America. Across all regions and for all three decades, urban land expansion rates are higher than or equal to urban population growth rates, suggesting that urban growth is becoming more expansive than compact”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21876770/
From California, no trend in precipitation.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CA_Precip.png?resize=1536%2C638&ssl=1
“Here we use a unique recently developed long-term satellite-based record to assess changes in precipitation across spatial scales. We show that warm climate regions exhibit decreasing precipitation trends, while arid and polar climate regions show increasing trends. At the country scale, precipitation seems to have increased in 96 countries, and decreased in 104. We also explore precipitation changes over 237 global major basins. Our results show opposing trends at different scales, highlighting the importance of spatial scale in trend analysis.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/4/bams-d-17-0065.1.xml
JJ
Last try.
“In the end it all balances and you get to the same planetary temperature no matter how you move the energy around.”
But you aren’t talking about the “planetary temperature” you are talking about what happens to the temperature of the atmosphere, just a very small part of the planet. Your static-state analysis based on what is happening at the toa is nothing like static if you look at the atmosphere’s other boundaries.
To help on some of your other points:
“You are trying to complicate the analysis to say that moving energy around somehow creates energy and mitigates or eliminates the greenhouse effect. It doesn’t.”
Moving energy around doesn’t create energy, but you can move energy in and out of the atmosphere without going anywhere near the toa, and completely swamp any GHG effect.
“What you’re talking about impacts the dynamic analysis. It has no impact on the steady-state analysis.”
A steady-state analysis of a dynamic system might have some use, but not for telling how a system might evolve.
Keep trying! Someday you might get it.
“But you aren’t talking about the “planetary temperature” you are talking about what happens to the temperature of the atmosphere, just a very small part of the planet. Your static-state analysis based on what is happening at the toa is nothing like static if you look at the atmosphere’s other boundaries.”
Where did I say I was talking about atmospheric temperature? I’m talking about planetary temperature.
It’s STEADY-STATE analysis.
The point I was trying to make is that the temperature change is driven by an energy imbalance at TOA. Moving energy around below TOA cannot cause global temperature change.
“Moving energy around doesn’t create energy, but you can move energy in and out of the atmosphere without going anywhere near the toa, and completely swamp any GHG effect.”
I thought we were talking about moving energy around in the oceans? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. CO2, all by itself, reradiates about 8% of the sun’s energy. What you’re saying can’t happen.
“A steady-state analysis of a dynamic system might have some use, but not for telling how a system might evolve.
A steady-state analysis tells you what the final temperature of the earth will be. A dynamic analysis tells you how long it takes to get there.
So we’re talking about the temperature of the planet only and not the atmosphere, which if you scroll back up was my original point. This says little about climate change. The temperature of the atmosphere and with it the Climate can change with no impact on the balance at the toa.
“You need to do better than that. Accusing a scientist of being on the take is so yesterday and sophomoric.”
Since so many have accused climate scientists of trading their opinions for research grants, I was just pointing out that climate deniers get paid much better.
“The warming of the last 170 years, if anyone can ever say with confidence what amount that is, fits very nicely with coming out of the LIA, boosted by multi decadal oscillations and a dash here and there from land use changes, urbanization and solar.”
Moving energy around on the planet cannot cause climate change. That would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. The ONLY way the temperature of the planet can change is by an imbalance between the energy the earth absorbs from the sun and what it radiates into outer space.
Here’s a couple of articles that explain the real science behind climate change.
Climate Change Science
CO2 Low Concentration
Some simple questions JJ Braccili
* Where will the vast increase in electricity needed in the near future come from, ethically, economically and reliably?
* Where will the vast amounts of rare earths and other minerals come from?
* What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2; What percentage of annual emissions come from man. What percentage comes from the UK? ( I am British)
* If the UK (change it to your country and the appropriate amount) were to turn society upside down and spend £5 Trillion or more to achieve net zero, what impact would that have on global temperatures?
Thank you
Tony,
Thinking globally, CO2 [and CH4, N2O] are all proxies but CO2 is a catalyst too. It is a proxy in that it correlates with the rate humanity is metabolizing the planets resources. And CO2 is also a catalyst in that it is both the feedstock to tens of thousands of chemicals and manufacturing processes and its emissions are perturbing the environment and the biosphere.
By this reasoning decreasing the amount of CO2 we emit to the atmosphere doesn’t mean that it alone will prevent catastrophic man-made climate change but it is hoped it forces us to consume the planets resources more responsibly and delaying the worst outcomes till our technology can fix it.
* Where will the vast increase in electricity needed in the near future come from, ethically, economically and reliably?
Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, and Nuclear. We could eliminate the Nuclear if we’d build a worldwide electric grid.
* Where will the vast amounts of rare earths and other minerals come from?
We have a large supply in the US but we don’t tap it because of environmental concerns.
* What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2; What percentage of annual emissions come from man. What percentage comes from the UK? ( I am British)
It’s about 0.038%. Doesn’t matter because relative concentration is not important. Absolute concentration is. I have no idea what percentage comes from the UK.
* If the UK (change it to your country and the appropriate amount) were to turn society upside down and spend £5 Trillion or more to achieve net zero, what impact would that have on global temperatures?
Not much. This is a worldwide problem and to have a significant impact the solution has to be worldwide.
I happened to be on-line at the moment and listened in for most.
Someone mentioned the ‘Near 1000 year event’. The warming at near 1k yr periods/intervals is now evident for the last 8k years. We are nearing the peak to the next – an inflection point.
History imho is more revealing than climate models. Humans adapted – not that they had a choice. Two points of major importance to note there. They always protected the food chain and the agrarian tools; the plough. They had neither hydrocarbons, electricity, and I would guess here, monetary insurance. That changes the game completely. What’s more is that most today have lost that old resilience. In times of famine money serves for nothing.
At the behest of the government, Ford gets into a money losing business. I will NEVER have an EV, only an ICEV.
Ford said Thursday it’s still losing billions of dollars on electric vehicles and it won’t turn a profit on those cars for at least another three years.
Ford gave a peek into the financials for its electric vehicle business, known as Model e, for the first time Thursday. The Model e segment expects to report a full-year loss of $3 billion in 2023 alone, a stark sign that the company still has a long way to go before it makes money on the cars it says will lead its future.
Ford Chief Financial Officer John Lawler rationalized the expected losses on a call with reporters by explaining that Ford Model e exists as an “EV startup within Ford.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-losing-billions-on-electric-vehicles-evs-2023-3
I’ve been reading recently that our state is getting 4 new battery plants, including a $3.5 billion facility by Ford not very far from where I grew up. The investments are sizable but I wonder if they are running the risk of throwing a big party and no one showing up.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that current owners of EVs are having unsatisfactory performance in the winter. There have been relatively mild winters recently compared to the 60s and 70s, so if there is any increase in severe cold temperatures that performance issue might be exacerbated. Sub 0 F was not uncommon back then.
Snowbirds will not be hopping on the bandwagon until they have overcome the challenges of cold and being able to drive 1,000 miles in 2 days. They are not there yet.
Its true about EVs in cold climates. I’m old enough to remember why there are freeze plugs in ICE vehicles too. During winter storm Uri my Chevy Volt used about 1KWh of power a day to keep the battery within it’s operating temperature. When they start to scale up solid-state batteries then temperature control will be less a problem.
Have you noticed that every one of these new battery plants have to rely on imported technology with overseas partners? We took our eye off the ball after that Solyndra debacle and the R&D went overseas.
These new batteries will never be big enough supplement a grid the size of the one we have, much less one 3 times bigger. The entire solar and wind “movement” is an atrocious waste of money, time, and resources. It’s laughable lefties want to waste all this instead of helping their favorite whipping boy: the poor.
jim2,
For just once I would like to see a US company beat the CCP and screw up their plans for world domination. Cheap solid state batteries could do it:
https://www.slashgear.com/1236220/this-new-oxygen-ion-battery-could-be-a-game-changer-for-renewable-energy-storage/
“The battery is made out of ceramic materials, which capture and release negatively charged oxygen ions to create a current flow when electric voltage is present. One of the benefits of being ceramic is that they are not flammable. EVs, on the other hand, have a well-known battery fire problem, and even an industry-leader like Tesla hasn’t been able to fully figure it out. Another key advantage of the latest battery innovation is that it doesn’t employ any rare earth elements.”
Well, Jack, we see these breathless articles about technical progress in batteries all the time. They pop up like a shooting star, then burn out.
I don’t have a problem with battery research, but don’t be the farm on getting a battery cheap enough that can be built big enough to have an impact on the grid.
As far as “competing” with China, competing for something that is actually wasteful of resouces, such as “green” energy, is id eee ot ic.
You just don’t get it. Why am I not surprised?
The point I was trying to make is that long term solar irradiance increases. For the last forty years solar irradiance has been decreasing. At some point, that will reverse and increasing solar irradiance will exacerbate our climate change problem.
JJBraccili | March 24, 2023 at 9:06 am | Reply
You just don’t get it. Why am I not surprised?
“The point I was trying to make is that long term solar irradiance increases. For the last forty years solar irradiance has been decreasing. ”
JJB – of course you are surprised – You are confusing short term fluctuations with long term trends. 60 years is milliseconds in the lifespan of a star.
Note that you have taken 1 solid scientific fact and reached 3 erroneous conclusions. Thats appleboys playbook
Boy, are you thick!
I was talking about the downward trend of solar irradiance over the last 40 years and when it reserves, it will have a negative impact on climate change.
JJ
Would you like to expound on your solar theory a little. At first blush you seem to have things bass ackwards. But I don’t want to rush to judgement, maybe you have some new science not available to the rest of us. Please, thrill us with your acumen.
What I wrote was simple and clear. If you don’t understand it, that’s your problem.
JJ
So, should it forever more be known as the Inverse Braccili Effect?
JJ Hollywood is all showboat, no hull.
It’s sad that folks like John (JJ) seem to be here merely to post their own intrinsic invective, as though such ad hominems pass for discourse. There’s a better place for that, Mr. Braccili: use your Twitter account.
As to the testimony that Dr. Curry provided, it was in the Senate, so no surprise it was going to be antagonistic.
Did anyone else hear that the insurance industry is doing just fine (up a quarter trillion [about 30%] in assets in the past couple of years). Isn’t it good business for them to go with risk assessment for the most radical predictions? That way, when such extreme events fail to materialize as the wildest predictions, their profits go up. Seems almost too simple, I admit (ex. there are market influences that can mitigate this somewhat).
Judith, I’ve been listening to the hearing. I do marvel at your patience to not burst our laughing as “insurance experts” repeat pseudo-science and propaganda. We live in an era of true disinformation (often state sponsored) and unprecedented censorship. I applaud your courage to counter these lies. But this hearing is a total circus and a demonstration how our elites have constructed a new religion and foisted this on “experts” in the insurance industry. It is true that the choice we have is between sane and insane. My best regards and keep up the good work.
It is also clear that Whitehouse is a liar and a shabby politician. His cherry picked data is not representative of the real data. You could have pointed to the TMT data where even RealClimate acknowledges that models are running way too hot. Whitehouse has a track record of lying and propaganda. He’s also smearing you regarding whether climate change is a “hoax.” What a demagogue he is.
JJBraccili:
” https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d75b0d49b696ecedec244862e1d2ac47
The above is an IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy.”
–
–
No, it is not. Earth is a planet, and a planet does not IR emit at some certain temperature.
Therefore there is NOT any IR spectrograph of the earth’s radiant energy.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The “imbalance” — a.k.a the radiative forcing — is between 0.5 and 1 W/M2. The earth absorbs 240 W/M2 from the sun. The imbalance is small. It doesn’t matter. Energy can’t be destroyed. The temperature will keep rising as long as there is an imbalance. The size of the imbalance only impacts the time it takes to reach a given temperature.
A planet surface in radiative equilibrium with the sun has NOT any resemblance with the radiative equilibrium in the cavity with a small hole.
–
The planet average surface temperature (Tmean) is not a blackbody’s temperature.
–
Planet does not have a blackbody temperature, because planet has not a uniform temperature, and because planet is not a blackbody.
*******
When based on the blackbody-planet theory, it was wrongly calculated:
“The earth’s surface absorbs 240 W/m² from the sun. ”
–
–
No, the earth does not absorb 240 W/m² from the sun. Earth is a planet. A planet is irradiated from one side only.
When solar irradiated, a planet surface does not absorb the incident solar energy.
What planet surface does is to INTERACT with the incident solar flux.
Only a small portion of the incident solar energy a planet surface absorbs in inner layers.
–
***
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are correct. The radiative forcing is an inexact number. It is a very small difference between two large numbers. It can be inferred from temperature data or satellite data. Neither is of sufficient accuracy.
NASA has a project called RAVAN to continuously monitor earth’s radiant energy. It has successfully completed proof of concept. The project still hasn’t been funded. That project would provide a more accurate assessment of radiative forcing. It would also provide more accurate data on the albedo effect.
https://www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/ravan
It doesn’t matter. Internal energy transfers have no impact on the amount of energy stored on the earth and can’t impact climate. Only energy transfers from the sun or the earth to outer space can add or subtract energy from the planet. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics is all about.
JJ, I hope you know that you are totally wrong about this. Complex dynamics determine complex feedbacks that amplify or reduce the energy transfer back to space. This is not simple science and at a practical level models are totally useless.
LOL!!
It’s not that complex. Moving energy around on the planet cannot change the temperature of the planet and cannot change planetary climate.
Then you wonder why the scientific community does not buy into your BS. They’re not trying to cover anything up. They know what you’re selling is BS.
But you didn’t respond to the point. Energy flows are due to complex dynamics that models are not able to predict.
To change climate the energy of the planet has to change. That can only happen by an energy imbalance between what the earth absorbs from and radiates to space.
Moving energy around on the planet CANNOT create energy. It would be like taking money out of one pocket, putting it into another, and thinking you have more money.
I doubt the climate models take into account internal energy flows because they have no impact on planetary temperature.
JJ, You are totally wrong about this. Cloud feedbacks “move energy around” resulting in more being reflected to space removing more energy from the system. Your view is very naive and simplistic. Read up some on fluid dynamics.
We weren’t talking about cloud feedbacks. Fluid dynamics has nothing to do with it. Try learning something about Thermodynamics.
JJB doesn’t understand the concept of an umbrella against the Sun. No wonder he’s all wet.
I don’t think I saw that comment by dpy6629.
Moving energy from here to there on the planet has zero impact on climate. Any change on one side of the transfer is offset by the change on the other side of the transfer.
The climate is determined by fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Ignoring the role of the first one is ignorant and pseudo-science and gives a hopelessly wrong picture.
Fluid dynamics has absolutely nothing to do with global climate.
In any case, all good fluid dynamics simulations include thermodynamics (T is one of the variables as in entropy). The two cannot be separated without grevious errors.
It inherent because the equations of Fluid Dynamics are derived from the First Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy only comes in if you need to calculate the work of a compressor or you need to know the temperature after the adiabatic expansion of a gas.
In JJB’s climate model, the atmosphere is an optically clear solid.
The level of ignorance here JJ is astounding. Fluid dynamics is derived from the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. Entropy is a fundamental variable and increases with time as momentum is converted to thermal energy.
So far as I can tell the 1st law of thermodynamics deals with simple systems and concepts such as “transfering energy into the system.” It’s vastly more complex than that because of fluid dynamics that provides complex feedbacks that can re radiate some of this energy.
I believe that the laws of fluid dynamics include thermodynamics and the so-called “laws” of thermodynamics are almost bumper sticker whole system conclusions from those fluid dynamics laws.
JJ, You’ve said several times that “Internal energy transfers have no impact on the amount of energy stored on the earth and can’t impact climate.” You are mistaken about this. In the short run, ocean oscillations impact weather and climate. In the long run, continental drift impacts climate. There are many other climate impacts that don’t depend on the energy transfers you mention. We are losing tropical forests and gaining mid-laditude and high laditude forests. If those changes in albedo resulted in no change in energy transfers, there would still would be climate change. Climate is a far more complex phenomena than your simple energy transfer equation. Judith Curry makes many valid points about the dogmatic certinties and simplicities that you and others mistakenly consider settled science.
I understand that you want something other than CO2 to be the cause of climate change. CO2 is the global climate. cause and all the alternate theories never go anywhere.
Can internal energy transfers affect local climate? Sure, but it won’t impact global climate and won’t warm the planet.
Let’s say CO2 is benign. That climate change was being caused by internal energy transfers. Why was the climate stable before we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere? Shouldn’t the planet’s temperature been increasing all along?
In order for the planet’s temperature to continue rising the energy transfers have to be increasing. Any evidence of that?
JJ
It is what anyone wants, it is what going on.
I might add that the first thing a scientist does is define their terms. You are confusing yourself and wasting others’ time (who are trying to help you) by not writing “atmosphere’s temperature” and “planet’s temperature” when you mean each respectively.
I’ll break something to you gently if I may. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a prime example of moving energy around on earth, chemical energy producing a thermal blanket that changes the energy balance at the toa. There are 101 other examples. Get use to it. This is hard and partial knowledge of thermodynamics isn’t going to cut it if you want to understand what is happening.
ps Did you really write: “Why was the climate stable before we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
Correction:
It isn’t what anyone wants …..
JJ, again may I help remove the foot in your mouth? There is no global climate. There is a global temperature construct, in fact several of them. The IPCC has estimated that at least half the 1.1 C degree global temperature rise since the industrial revolution is anthropogenic. If CO2 is the control knob, as you think, and many others disagree, then climate sensitivity must be pretty low, at the low end of those 1.5 to 4.5 frequently made estimates of recent IPCC Assessments, and all the way back to Arrhenius (1896). That’s really good news! It means we’ll probably have a little over 1.5 C degrees global warming by late this century when CO2 reaches 560 ppm. Can we handle another 0.5 or even 1.0 C degrees warming? That’s the question because another CO2 double to 1120 ppm, with its 1.5 to 2.0 degrees additional anthropogenic warming, will never happen. We’ll have run of oil and natural gas by then and be smart enough to have found dispatchable energy substitutes for coal.
Your belief that “the climate was stable before we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere” is so misinformed that I’ll say goodbye now with this post, and wish you well in your journey. Biden used a phrase in the State of the Union that comes to mind- Lots of luck in your senior year!
Planetary temperature is synonymous with climate. Higher temperatures means more water vapor in the atmosphere. It means more energy in the atmosphere. That is what impacts climate.
I never said CO2 was the only thing that can impact planetary temperature. Volcanoes can have an impact. The sun can have an impact. As a star gets older it gets hotter and outputs more solar radiation. Currently, CO2 is in the driver’s seat, but it could be replaced at anytime by something else that is stronger.
Internal energy transfers cannot cause climate change. Any effect that they have you would call natural variability. The climate will always revert to the mean without a source adding energy to the planet.
JJBraccili | March 24, 2023 at 5:21 pm |
* Where will the vast increase in electricity needed in the near future come from, ethically, economically and reliably?
“Wind, Solar, Hydro, Geothermal, and Nuclear. We could eliminate the Nuclear if we’d build a worldwide electric grid. ”
Let’s see how that is working out so far with all the massive spending and subsidies. Not looking too good JJ.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/fuel-shares-in-world-total-energy-supply-2019
Maybe it looks better presented in a different way?
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-energy-supply-by-source-1971-2019
Nope,,,
That’s the problem that needs to be solved.
Pingback: Senate Budget Committee Hearing: JC responds | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Senate Budget Committee Hearing: JC responds - Climate- Science.press
Braccili’s confidence in the “settled science” of climate change bring to mind the comments attributed to Lord Kelvin at the end of the nineteenth century that physics was essentially settled, with only the i’s and t’s to be dotted and crossed.
Scrolling through this Climate Etc page, it is clear that JJB is very confident in “settled climate science” and very competent at typing in climate blogs espousing his “views.” Fortunately, many / most of the contributors on this page are open minded and unbiased in presenting their ideas !!!!
I wouldn’t say that.
It’s called selection bias Danley. There are litterally tens of millions of papers and articles out there. All he has to do is keep searching until he finds something that supports the conclusion matching his political prejudices. The climate emergency theme is now a central narrative of the Western left. There are tens of millions of foot soldiers out there often paid by corrupt billionaires or NGO’s to enforce the doctrine by doing exactly what JJB is doing here. He is obviously largely ignorant about the science itself.
I do think its good for Judith to allow this sort of thing as long as its civil and not too personal in nature.
My comments are based on actual science. You were the one that was arguing that fluid dynamics was the most important factor in climate change, weren’t you? How did that work out?
Still think those Navier-Stokes equations are important in climate change? That would be the tail wagging the dog.
The Navier Stokes equations are the very basis of weather and climate models. Radiative physics is much much simpler and easy to include. The response to greenhouse gases is determined through complex nonlinear feedbacks modeled by the NS equations. NS includes thermodynamics.
Your comments display a broad ignorance of most science and are cherry picked to suit your partisan biases. Are you paid for your comments here.
No, I don’t get paid, but if someone wants to pay me, I won’t object.
Stop claiming fluid dynamics plays a major role in climate change. It doesn’t. Energy is what climate change has been and always will be about. Weather, weather patterns have no impact on radiative forcing and no impact on planetary temperature.
Planck’s equation is infinitely more important than the Navier Stokes equation in climate change. The Navier Stokes equations assist in predicting energy transfers across the planet, but none of that impacts planetary temperature. It’s like taking money out of one pocket, putting it in another, and thinking you have more money.
The atmosphere is well mixed that means greenhouse gas concentrations are about the same across the planet. Fluid dynamics has no impact on that. It certainly has no impact on solar radiation or the earth’s radiant energy. So, how exactly does it impact the planet’s temperature?
Before our CO2 problem we had weather and weather patterns. Why didn’t fluid dynamics force the temperature higher then?
You are really persistent in an obvious error. The energy budget is determined by fluid dynamics with radiative sources. Clouds is just one obviously fluid dynamics influences the energy budget through feedbacks.
Your comments are simplistic drivel and show ignorance of even basic weather science.
“You are really persistent in an obvious error. The energy budget is determined by fluid dynamics with radiative sources.”
Proof? I have talked to a few climate scientists over the years, and none ever mentioned to me anything like you claim.
“Clouds is just one obviously fluid dynamics influences the energy budget through feedbacks.”
You make statements with no proof. Climate scientists will tell you they don’t have a good handle on albedo. Moving clouds from here to there does NOTHING.
What you can’t seem to understand is that redistributing energy on the planet does not create energy. You have to add energy to the planet to change its temperature. How does fluid dynamics do that?
“Your comments are simplistic drivel and show ignorance of even basic weather science.”
Projection!
BTW what does weather science have to do with climate change? Weather does not create energy. If it did, the planet would be way hotter than it is now. Another scientific fact that you are blissfully unaware of.
‘Bots’ have never been paid JJB so please just return to your latent all zero state and stop pretending to be artificially anythng but intelligent.
Your last paragraph is your most telling garbage yet but I leave you to figure out why it is such an unintelligent piece of writing, not alone in your output, but such a very poor piece of logic your programming cannot even see it.
Well said, dpy6629, and UK-Weather Lass.
We’ll probably be seeing a lot more AI surfers, like Hollywood, posting “answers” they’re fed from some of the robust AI programs making the scene. These programs can spit out complex answers to virtually any query posed. In the case of JJ’s showboating, tied with his basic mechanical understanding of physics (that dpy alludes to), it presents a dangerous propaganda source to exploit “found knowledge”, or so called. Some of JJ’s comments makes it obvious that AI is at the center of his disconnects.
The science buttressing the idea of climate consensus has bred the illusion of “settled science”; this is the database AI pulls from. Relative to climate, the foundational illogic of consensus is now part of the global codex, a type of impregnable walled garden that doesn’t allow for the disentanglement of politics from science. The latter is empirical, the IPCC is literally a 50/50 body that homogenates climate science and politics.
JJ has a precursory knowledge about climate, per self declaration that it was cobbled together in the last 4 years. He’s simply a sycophantical production line creation of ideology, a mass produced, intellectually inbred climate widget armed with an AI program.