by Judith Curry
My new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk is now published!
At last.
On amazon.com, you can read the Author’s Foreword plus Chapters 1 and 2. Here are the contents for these two chapters:
Lets discuss the Foreword plus Chapters 1 and 2. In subsequent posts, we can do a weekly book club thing, discussing individual chapters.
I very much look forward to your comments.
I appreciate your calm, common sense approach.
Judith, waiting for your book (ordered by Amazon) in France. If you are searching for a traduction, I can do it. If you are searching for an editor, I have the solution (done for Steven E. Koonin and sole others). French “climato-realistes” wish you the best ! JLL
Awesome. I preordered it a while back and Amazon said I should have it Thursday.
Bought my copy and let in my email lists aware of it. Congrats!
What?! No Audible Audio edition read by the author! :)
Interesting idea, i’ll talk to the publisher
Or find a celebrity to do the reading… :-)
Brian Blessed for the ‘shouty’ approach or Morgan Freeman for the smooth, reassuring approach.
Maybe you could get Michael Mann to read it.
It would really cool if you did an audio version, read by you.
I was startled by the comment the “issue of *dangerous* is an issue of societal values of which science has little to say.”
You are right of course, because the process of producing decision bases going from knowing that (science) to knowing how (engineering and business) to formulating an actual policy decision (macro economics) misses out the *knowing why* leaving it to the loud voices of economists like Tol and Lomberg.
However, scientists should have an equal understanding of danger, considering science has the job of measuring and calculating observable phenomena. To me, they SHOULD be consulted on questions of danger, rather than having their work gate-kept by economists. Not least because economics has not yet discovered system dynamics and the work of Forrester et al led to the “Limits to Growth” which illustrates danger in concrete terms.
It is highly likely that economic forces have worked to ringfence science into this unfortunate corner. The tone of the excerpt I read seems to suggest that you think is as it should be. Instead I’d like to suggest that there is an invisible hand in there, and it is not intent on getting scientific clarity.
The tone carries on with “risk” being presented as something that can be worked out if only you do enough science. That’s not scientific in itself. Two-factor relationships in multi-factor systems are impossible to isolate. CO2 and GDP, investment in real estate planning and weather damage, etc etc.
You cannot present the danger, or risk if you will, of something so complex as human society together with weather system variability and suggest on the one hand that humans have tampered with ecosystems that provide natural barriers without including the addition of fossil carbon into the atmosphere as similar tampering.
Your reaction to this introductory subsection rather completely mischaracterizes the book. The entire Part III of the book is Risk and Response.
Ok thanks Judith. I only had a fragment to go on. Looking forward to reading more.
I agree scientists “SHOULD be consulted” – but how? To me, a good answer lies in thoughts of William White (gasp – an economist!). When we’re talking about non-linear phenomena impacting complex adaptive systems, we can’t control outcomes; at best we can influence them. White suggests that working thru a group of credible scenarios and then minimaxing solutions is an appropriate way to address these kinds of problems. Scientists should be at the table working thru each scenario, as should economists, social scientists and politicians.
This is exactly the process described in Part III.
Congratulations!
My Kindle version has arrived…
Agust Bjarnason
Paperback version is sold out at amazon US. Still available at Barnes and Noble
Mine is on its way from B&N – despite the klunkiness of their web site.
Amazon previously reported that my paperback copy would be delivered today, Thursday, June 8; then emailed today that it would be June 16. Glitch?
Pingback: Publication day! - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Publication date! | Climate, etc. - News7g
I just read the first two chapters that are online at Amazon. Very clearly written and understandable. I think you could have used a three pound rock hammer rather than a five pound rock sledge (pardon my geological analogies) on the discussion of the dangers of forced manufacturing of scientific consensus, but maybe that just reflects my own sensitivity to being labelled a “skeptic” when I raise some of the questions on what, exactly, are the levels of confidence of “facts” and “observations” and how we arrive at them.
Admittedly, Ch1 and 2 are high level and introductory. Looking forward to Thursday, when Amazon alleges that the book gets here.
As far as creating subjective estimates of uncertainties on policies, if not science, I’ve seen some of that on the RAND web site regarding analysis of firearms law effectiveness. Gun law effectiveness analysis, like climate science, is an area where I suspect many non experts and a few experts are worshiping at the altar of confirmation bias.
A comment about formatting. It’s welcomed and appreciated to have footnotes at the end of each chapter. Not all Kindle books have this feature. I’ve already used it to remind myself about Nick Lewis post on Resplandy and the paper’s retraction. I was thus able to go back and read the follow up comments on Climate Etc. in 2019.
Footnotes are usually not of much interest to me. But there are so many revealing so many other avenues for inquiry, that I feel they might open up many new dimensions on these issues.
The 3 footnotes on the McIntyre/McKitrick hockey stick papers are especially interesting since I’m not sure I knew about their existence.
Great read so far.
After reading the two chapters online I cannot wait for my copy of your book to arrive! Congratulations!
Excellent book. For me and other future jurists, digital technology is different from climate change. It is not over-hyped, nor a passing fad.
“climate change” is badly defined.
<- how can we know whether something is currently a threat when it is so ill defined?
For example, "climate change" seems to be defined by modellers/elites/consensus/worriers/IPCC (MECWI) as man-made. In IPCC documents they use two terms: "climate change" and "natural variability".
"natural variability" – whenever the self-styled climate consensus (MECWI), AKA the IPCC and authorities, talk about non-man-made climate changes they say "natural variability". Using ONE term to discuss all the possible change vectors happening naturally, such as:
– continental drift,
– the motion of the solar system around the galaxy (time scale millions of years)
– the various Milankovitch factos: due to earth's orbital, and axial variations, of which there seem to be at least 4 important cyclical changes over periods of tens, to hundreds of thousands of years
– possible long-term changes to the atmosphere
– possible shorter term changes such as: cycles of tens to hundreds of years, often associated with planetary conjunctions, oppositions, etc.
– volcanoes (which themselves often seem to be triggered by changes to the solar wind, which may be consequent on changes to the suns magnetic cycles).
'climate change' – whenever the same people (MECWI) talk of 'climate change', they ONLY seem to refer to an hypothesized greenhouse gas effect, GHGE, which they never define. How do we know that one group of the MECWI, say modellers, are talking about the same GHGE as a different faction, such as IPCC? Even within the climate modelling 'community', there are factions, and disagreements, and it's almost impossible to know what they're modelling, as their code is oblique (written over many decades, by different people, sometimes parameterized, coded in deal languages such as ForTran, impossible to reverse engineer to fathom what science they may be using, …). So their arguments are also oblique. Also, for example MECWI papers often refer back to modelling papers, so I'm never sure that I'm reading actual science as they've conflated hypothesis, opinion, and so-called 'consensus' (more opinion), with real science.
How do we know when they (MECWI) are still talking about man-made changes but NOT talking about a GHGE? For example, local climates change due to man-made: large-scale irrigation and agriculture as well as smaller-scale habitation (such as changes to the Urban Heat Island Effect, UHIE)? Most of the temperature sensors at the land surface, seem to have been designed for meteorology being loacated at airports, and academic sites, so may be subject to an UHIE. Yet: only 30% of earth's surface is land, and 95% of us live on 5% of that (1.5% of the surface). The majority of land – 95% – has only 5% of the population. So only 5% of 30% has significant numbers of people ( = 1.5% of the surface) where most of the suface stations used to gather surface data seem to be placed. How can I trust the MECWI agenda when I can't even be sure they can impartially separate out biased data, let alone biased agendas?
How do we know when some climatologists (not in the MECWI) use 'climate change' to refer to both natural and man-made chages to the climate?
Often I cannot distinguish the MECWI agenda (of: renewables, life-style changes, activism, authoritarian control) from the 'science' and predictions the same people seem to offer up.
So, to even begin this conversation, I think we need to separate out defintions for each possible climate vector, including different effects people may have on climate (GHGE, agriculure, irrigation, UHIE, …), and different natural changes hinted at above.
Otherwise, I say climate change is important long term (over thousands and hundreds of years), but less important over the short term. If someone replies "Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle" to me, I'll say, how can we talk about a response to D-O effects unless we can agree on their causes too?
Congratulations Judith !!!
Very important book!!!
Thank you!!!
A contribution to public understanding rivaling the discussion of Kelvin waves in James Taylor & Anthony Watts magisterial Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students.
To do the Climate and Uncertainty audiobook credit , its publisher should engage the namesake of Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students‘s lead author to sing it as a round for loop replay in the nation’s elevators to reinforce the messaging Watts and Curry provide on Fox News.
Russell, Why do you smear good scientists? You as a non-scientist aren’t qualified to even comment on this new book. Judith’s Fox news footprint is quite sparse so far as I know, despite your snide lies.
Ooops:
dead languages such as ForTran
Its death must be kind of recent.
Fortran 2023, ISO standard to be published July 2023, is the informal title of the revision of the Fortran standard after Fortran 2018. Previously it was referred to as Fortran 202X.
Congratulations, eagerly awaiting my pre-order to arrive from the publisher!
Congratulations on the release! Got the Kindle version. So far I have read the material noted in the head post. I’m pleased to see that the social psychological aspects get about equal billing in the opening chapters, especially catastrophe narrative and the social dynamics of consensus building that can lead to non-evidence-based positions. I think these aspects are typically underplayed or even ignored, but we seem to have got to the stage where one can’t have a reasoned exchange about physical climate change without first having some idea about the social processes that have so heavily influenced prior exchanges, so that the two can be separated.
My own book coming out soon, The Grip of Culture, examines the bulk social processes associated with climate change that occur across publics world-wide. These processes have measurable outputs in publics and so are more straightforward to analyse, but it’s much harder to navigate the entanglement of such processes with science, because there isn’t a way to objectively measure this. However, your navigation of this difficult area where bias meets science looks to me to be very well mapped indeed, and with clear language too.
Summary: It’s great so far!
P.S. I did skip-read Chapter 4 as well, ‘Politicising Climate Science’, which looks excellent, and I’m looking forward to settling into a proper read of it later.
Andy
I hope you alert us when your book is released.
As someone with a little bit of background in the study of the social sciences, I’m as fascinated with that aspect of the issue as the physical sciences.
Yes Kid, I intend to alert the denizens, and also if Judith is amenable, provide a short post similar to this one in order to facilitate discussion on the book.
Ah, Judith is amenable, See below :)
Look forward to a guest post on your new book!
Thank you Judith! Shouldn’t be too long now (on second proofs). BTW, I sympathise very much with your comment a while back on going into a book project with naivete. Was much longer and far more challenging than I thought!
My comment has fallen into moderation. Summary for Chap 1 & 2: It’s great so far!
I thought I might receive the book (paperback version) about now.
Instead I get this email from Amazon about how there’s going to be a delay and they’ll let me know.
And I placed the order with them on May 4th – a month ago!
Seems like it might be a hot item. Congratulations!
Both paperback and hardcover books are sold out at amazon US. I was told the same thing by amazon re my hardcopy order! Note both paperback and hardback are available at Barnes and Noble
I am waiting for an update from Anthem re the situation at Amazon.
Congratulations, Judith. Mine is on order.
In 2.2 Why Scientists Disagree, footnote 22 provides coverage of a 2014 APS Workshop where a number of participants were to discuss aspects of AR5.
One of the speakers discussed the development of models and these are some of the quotes.
“We are trying to deal with several sources of uncertainty….”
“One of them is the huge uncertainty even in historical forcing “
“…the aerosol component is one of the most uncertain.”
“…we have very poor information..”
“…we are literally relying on high school records.”
“…the aerosol number is particularly uncertain…”
A follow up to that workshop resulted in this article about uncertainty.
https://cei.org/studies/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/
If the journalism profession had the level of integrity and commitment to the truth and facts of seventy years ago, instead of being Pom-Pom squads for CAGW, someone would have been all over this story and the revelations of inherent uncertainties in the global warming narrative.
Another comment about the footnotes. What a tremendous resource to have all these additional documents to research. Such a wealth of information.
I read the Amazon Look Inside section and bought the Kindle version. It looks like everything I was hoping for and an important part of the climate issue history. It’s hard to believe it’s been six years since you retired from Georgia Tech.
I hope you can do an interview with Michael Shermer. He does a lot of interviews with a wide range of science guests.
Got the paper back. Should be here in a few weeks.
Quote from 1.3.2 Defining Dangerous
“Among the greatest concerns about climate change are its impacts on extreme events such as floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes. However, there is little evidence that the recent warming has worsened such events“
In spite of that, the symbiotic collaborators, the media, the politicians and the activist scientists, aka, the Merchants of Oversimplification, never pass up a chance to push the narrative.
The Canadian forest fires is an example. From a prominent US Senator “These Canadian wildfires are truly unprecedented and we cannot ignore that climate change continues to make these disasters worse,…..”
I contrast that with a more nuanced, thoughtful and circumspect quote from a professional in the Canadian forest fire field, “ it is difficult to determine the impact of climate change on a single fire season,…”
This contrast is evident in every extreme event. The Merchants engage in their hustle, while the pros, the real scientists, treat the analysis with caution by acknowledging the complexity that should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it.
There is a wealth of literature indicating current levels of fires are down globally, that during the Holocene there has been more fire activity, that an endless list of variables affect the level of fires, and the chain of causality and attribution is fraught with complexity. In spite of that, those who want to push the preferred narrative continue on their merry way.
Congrats Dr. Curry. I’d love to read your book but I really have too much workload now, so will rely on the articles & comments.
Did you address the risk to society in choosing the wrong path?
What are the chances the other side will respond with they are certain enough and the risk is in not taking ‘action’?
Great! Just ordered it. Shouldn’t all of us get a discount or a kickback of some kind? Ron
Advertising is important but, stick with the science- don’t, e.g., splash paint on the works of old masters just to get attention, please … !
For those who want to sample the water first, I was able to download a substantial free sample of this book into Kindle via amazon (USA).
That sample was enough to encouraged me to make the purchase to read the rest.
Well done Dr. Curry!
Looking forward to reading the book. I’m in the process of writing a book on the sociological aspects of the “climate change” movement and, in Michael Crichton’s words, why it is such a prevalent “religion” among the secular urban “left” in Western societies.
Basically, it revolves around Max Weber’s prescient insight about the end state of Western capitalist societies reaching the “polar night of icy darkness.” The dogmatic “climate change” movement is clearly dominated and driven by an unwitting and unconscious “spiritual black hole” that dominates the minds of its members as they try to find meaning in post-Christian, “disenchanted” societies. These people are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis in that they instinctively (but mostly unconsciously and non-intellectually) realize that Christianity has been utterly demolished by modernity, but, overall, they lack the sophistication to transcend scientistic, “Iron Cage” philosophies and propagandas to give moorings to their “transcendant” urges. The end result is that they create these quasi-scientific “nature” religions because it satisfies their conceit to seem “rational” and empirical by following “the science” and gives them some sense of belonging to something larger in what is really nothing more than a transmogrification of primitive worship of something like a Gaia goddess. For anyone who isn’t part of this movement, it is obvious insanity and it seems like these people are analogous to those who were overtaken by the witch hysteria in early modernity.
I look forward to your book. I would like to invite you to write a guest post on your book for Climate Etc
Ah. “These people.”
Sounds like it contains profound insights.
There’s a better analogy than the witch hysteria of early modernity to compare to contemporary climate religion. Reflect on the following paragraph; does it sound like words spoken within the last year?
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole…This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
I welcome your book. More depth on the sociological aspects of climate change is needed. The topic has hardly been broached from the religious perspective. The climate science influencers who write the stanzas don’t all agree with the verses; and they’re far fewer (climate scientists as a whole) than the masses of disciples who know nothing but CAGW hymns.
The genesis of the green cult began in N@zi Germany. The Germans blue printed the first wind power generator, and other “natural” power generation schemes. Hitler discussed, in detail, various renewable energy sources; including environmentally appropriate hydro-power and producing natural gas from sludge as alternatives to coal. He declared “water, winds and tides” as the energy path of the future. A.H. was convinced that Germany was overpopulated, over-industrialized, and running out of space and food, all of which was destroying the biological substance of the German people. It would therefore be essential to push East in order to resolve this existential biological-environmental crisis, and this meant that, since the laws of Nature demanded the survival of the fittest species, there would have to be a massive displacement and de-population program. Racial species, like the Aryans, must be protected from extinction, as much as any animal; and a green, vegetarian diet was going to play a future role in this natural process.
But the green movement goes back deep into German history. I urge you to explore it. Many of the parallels to today are unnerving. I would go as far as to say that a seminal work dealing with todays climate religion can’t be written without first having a deep understanding of the German green movement, including all the influences that drove it.
Subjects and works to explore (laudable subjects in many cases, except for the cultural ramifications when elevated to cult):
The first German article on global warming was written by Hermann Flohn in 1941, Titled: MAN’S ACTIVITY AS A FACTOR IN CLIMATIC CHANGE. The same year he became the chief meteorologist for Luftwaffe High Command. He survived the war and went on to publish alarmist papers such as one published in the journal Umschau in 1980, (english translation: “C02-Induced Warmth More Dangerous than Nuclear Energy”).
Ludwig Klages manifesto ‘Mensch und die Erde’, anticipated just about all of the themes of the contemporary ecology movement.
Various literature on naturalist-nationalist principles of Lebensraum, Heimat, anti-urbanism, concern for health of the Volk and land, closeness to and respect for nature, maintaining nature’s precarious balance, and the earthy powers of the soil.
Ernst Haeckel was another German biologist, naturalist, philosopher, Darwinist, the pioneer of scientific ecology who developed among other philosophies “monism”; the view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system. His beliefs were integral in the philosophy of National Socialism.
Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl further developing his ecological nationalist thought. His 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a nationalist call to fight for “the rights of wilderness.” He opposed the rise of Semitic industrialism and urbanization; glorifying antimodern rural peasant values which established him as the “founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism.” –Klaus Bergmann, Agrarromantik und Großstadtfeindschaft, Meisenheim, 1970.
When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, München, 1935, p. 314.
I did a search for topics covering the previously described quote “water, winds and tides” and found this recently published essay. It provides further insights to eco-fascism, especially interesting are the relevant references to contemporary culture. It’s a fascinating, sharp read:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/06/the-totalitarian-roots-of-the-anti-human-environmentalist-cult/
Circulation in the central South Pacific remains consistent with La Nina, and SOI is again positive.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/spac/mimictpw_spac_latest.gif
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
(NOTE – wifi problems here. This has been sent once, cannot confirm you received it. I hope I am not being a pest. Geoff S)
….
Judith,
My rellies have my request for your book for when I turn 82 on Friday. It will sit beside “Surely You’re Joking, Mr Feynman” (1985) and Edith Efron’s “The Apocalyptics” (1984).
….
In Climate Etc., you have often written about decision making when risks are high because of scarce or low-confidence information. You might not have seen the studies of Prof Edward Calabrese from Amhurst Uni, Massachusetts. With the US Health Physics Society, in June 2023 they released 22 short videos following the history of the LNT theory, Linear No-Threshold extrapolation of doses to near-zero levels of toxins. H/T WUWT.
Radioactive doses were a large part of the study of past dose/harm relationships, but the topic includes medical drugs. Since I had specialised in aspects of nuclear, visiting places like Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Uranium City to name a few, I took a special interest in this work about LNT history. It is thoroughly recommended.
Videos 1 and 2 set the stage, Video 11 has critical correspondence involving Rockefeller Foundation, President Eisenhower and National Academy of Science heads starting around Feb 1952. In short summary for this event, a heap of money bought a heap of influence. It remains.
Video 22 is a 30-minute “must-read” by Dr Calabrese speculating about present and future, including about information flow.
Links are at –
https://www.youtube.com/@healthphysicssociety5037/videos
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/03/emails-reveal-bureaucrats-censor-radiation-risk-science-fraud-by-cancelling-whistleblowers-huge-implications-for-nuclear-power-and-more/
Dr Calabrese has put a lifetime of work into this. He has gone very far down paths to original materials, such as to managers of deceased estates, to buying letters from relatives of the famous, by FOI, to research in public and private libraries for original archives.
For decades, I have been unable to find why Australia has legislation prohibiting builds of nuclear power stations. Dr Calabrese might have found part, if not all of the story. That is a minor victory, though. His big victory, yet to be widely recognised, is his demonstration of how the LNT was originally debunked, then revived, the modified, then adopted as a primary weapon used by bodies like US EPA. When EPA wish to restrict some lawful activity, like use of land for some purpose, they can currently claim that doses of certain toxins will be increased by that activity, thus harm to society. The “thus harm” bit is no longer axiomatically valid.
If you enjoy this important work, Dr Calabrese has asked me to distribute it. I seldom do that, but this is good.
Geoff S
Pre-ordered months ago so looking forward to it arriving. Thank you in advance
Hardcover copy arrived today. Thank you so much Dr Curry for writing it and hello from New Zealand!
It is currently the peak of solar activity in the 25th solar cycle. It can be seen that it is no higher than in cycle 24, which was much weaker than the previous few cycles.
https://i.ibb.co/6vhby4H/353614541-733611445432501-7402278709732241978-n.jpg
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
Temperature recovery during MM
https://i.ibb.co/pQvLG0W/Zrzut-ekranu-2023-06-12-124532.png
Two of California’s largest reservoirs are near 100% capacity. Here’s where others stand
https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/california-current-reservoir-levels-snowmelt-18138048.php?fbclid=IwAR3sOpCm88YsCk458VtO9-UaJbU3JQ5gMvCQU0IsC7uRWdDAgzPgfc4r_4I
The largest temperature drops will be approaching during the local minima between cycles 25 − 26 and cycles 26–27 when the lowest solar activity level is achieved using the estimations in Figure 2 (bottom plot) and Figure 3. Therefore, the average temperature in the Northern hemisphere can be reduced by up to 1.0°C from the current temperature, which was increased by 1.4°C since Maunder minimum. This will result in the average temperature to become lower than the current one to be only 0.4°C higher than the temperature measured in 1710. Then, after the modern grand solar minimum 1 is over, the solar activity in cycle 28 will be restored to normal in the rather short but powerful grand solar cycle lasting between 2053 and 2370, as shown in Figure 3, before it approaches the next grand solar minimum 2 in 2370.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
Looks wonderful, Judith! I trust in the remainder of the book there are acknowledgements that
-CO2 at these levels is not in control of climate change and
-We are not in control of CO2
From the grid article in Judith’s last tweet:
““Utilities plan for local needs and build lines without thinking of the bigger picture,” said Christy Walsh, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council probably spend an good bit of time and money to fight right-of-ways for transmission lines up until now. If they didn’t you can bet other enviro-not-sees did.
Some might do it now, anyway.
Why is this a problem? Texas bans eminent domain unless it supports the use and ENJOYMENT of the public at large.
“In 2009, the state legislature passed Proposition 11 (also known as House Joint Resolution 14-1) which states that the taking of private property for public use under eminent domain may only be authorized if it is for the ownership, use and enjoyment of the public at large. The bill also assists property owners by prohibiting private property transfers if the main purpose is for economic development or to increase tax revenues, and also limits the legislature’s authority to grant the power of eminent domain in the future unless it is approved by a 2/3 vote of all members elected to each house. It also provides greater protection to property owners by forcing municipalities to evaluate each parcel and property individually before designating it as ‘blighted’. This will prevent large scale redevelopment/economic development projects from occurring in areas where only a portion of the property is blighted.”
I have yet to find a single person that thinks having high voltage power lines on their property is enjoyable. Same goes for hundreds of acres of solar panels and wind turbines spoiling their environment.
You should read the NYT article in the Tweet, Jack. If you haven’t.
Also, based on what you are saying here, the Church of Climate Doomers won’t only spend trillions on BS like this, but will make a lot of people mad in the process (for reasons other than spending trillions, which is bad enough by itself.)
jim2,
I did read the article (cool graphics). Since I am grid independent I could care less what everyone else ends up paying for electricity. Next on my list is getting one of those new solar panels that pulls pure water from thin air and I will stop paying my water bill too.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/05/23/new-solar-panels-produce-water-from-humidity/
I note that you will end up paying for everyone else’s electricity anyway, assuming you pay taxes.
Don’t be silly, if my taxes go up I’ll do just like did the last time my taxes went up, I’ll just raise the rent on my tenants to cover it.
I received my copy of the book and have read the first ~75 pages. It is very well written and covers the most important topics fairly and accurately. The references are at the end of each chapter, which is helpful.
Just got my paperback copy. It’s everything I’d hoped for.
Snow may continue to fall in the mountains of California.
https://i.ibb.co/1ZJcq2j/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
Received my copy Monday, only half way through first chapter.
Several good points made. One of the most striking in the climate science community –
Several million years of natural variability, Then “climate scientists consensus” is that natural variability stopped in the early 1900’s?
Whiskey tango fox ! is that really the scientific explanation?
It should have read: “Several billion years of natural variability… ”
and then the planet’s apex predator population exploded from a few hundred million to 7 billion and started to modify the biosphere while dispersing hundreds of thousands on novel man-made chemicals into the environment.
At Chapter 5 already, Kindle version. Well written, thank you. A typo: first paragraph of Ch.5 refers to Section 4.1.1 which does not seem to exist.
One thing I have never understood was why during the Trump administration there were no red blue debates even though many of the key political players White House (Happer), EPA (Pruitt) and Energy (Koonin), and I have to believe Trump himself, favored them. I continue to believe that if these were held and sponsored by the White House, they could have made a big difference. If anyone, including JC, has specifics on how and why this didn’t happen, I’d love to hear about it. The following link discusses a major league debate in 2014 and the proposal for the red blue debates, but why did the idea not take hold?
https://cei.org/studies/a-veneer-of-certainty-stoking-climate-alarm/
suspiscious 1)
Mars 200kg CO2 per square meter air column, earth 4kg CO2 per square meter air column, so Mars 50times as much
as earth, average daily temperatures on Mars over a Martian year : -35°C to -65°C
CO2 an effective greenhouse gas? works only with H2O?
suspicious 2)
Miami (near the tropic of Cancer) compared to Rio de Janeiro (near the tropic of Capricorn) similar climates, both
cites at the sea (Miami somewhat more annual rainfall) both tropical monsoon climate or close to it, Rio summertime
in January when earth is at Perihelion thus ~60W/m2 more solar radiation then, but summer and winter temperatures of
both cities are the same,
10W/m2 CO2-radiative-forcing changes temperatures and climate but 60W/m2 difference have no visual effect?
CO2 can it be that simple?
if planetary albedo of earth increases then less energy would be absorbed => lower temperatures (clouds increase albedo
see Venus), if planetary albedo of earth decreases then more energy would be absorbed => higher temperatures,
incoming wave length of sun 0.3 to 4 micro meters, outgoing radiation of earth 4 to 20 micro meters,
equation to be fullfilled : intensity-in times (1-albedo) equals 4 times intensity-out (due to spherical geometry),
if CO2 would absorb strongly in the incoming range this would lower the albedo (more absortion), but it doesn’t,
CO2 absorbs only around 15 micro meters, as can be seen from emission spectra of Venus, Earth and Mars,
one might term the solar radiation : “primary” and any emission from earth (caused by absorption of primary) :”secondary”,
so CO2 can only shuffle around secondary energy (inner energy of the system) and that can according to the first law
of thermodynamics not cause any increase in temperature,
Doesn’t that prove that CO2 cannot have any influence on the temperature on earth,
simply because it absorbs only in the outgoing far IR?
Interesting question. Of course CO2 is also a catalyst for geological and biological processes that can amplify their effects on both the surface and atmosphere, which then changes the planets albedo and surface temperatures. There has been a noticeable increase of biomass due to that increased CO2, some good and some not. Record agriculture harvests are offset by large ocean dead zones and species declines.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/
A CERES of fortunate events…
18 SEP 2022 BY GAVIN
The CERES estimates of the top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes are available from 2001 to the present. That is long enough to see that there has been a noticeable trend in the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI), mostly driven by a reduction in the solar radiation reflected by the planet, while the outgoing long wave radiation does not appear to contribute much. A paper last year (Goode et al., 2021) also reported on a two decade estimate of Earthshine measurements which appear to confirm a small decrease in albedo (and decrease in reflected short wave (SW) radiation).
Thanks, Hannes. And you could add that the land mass increases its output of IR at a rate of the 4th power of the increase in its temperature, and downwelling IR (sun and GHG) warms only the top millimeter of the ocean surface which evaporates removing 540 kCal/gm, depositing that heat in the upper troposphere.
I got your book yesterday, and devoured it. Did I read every word? No. That will take another week. But I got enough out of it to add a couple of non-science comments related to the points you make.
1. A driver of the various ways you describe the apocalyptic expectations of climate “crisis” forecasts is an embedded hatred by liberals of the oil industry. This has become multi-generational, and started, not so much in 1973-1974, as in 1978-1980. More and more, fingers have been pointed at the industry as a whole, for economic disruption, air pollution, water pollution, and wars. The suspicions of conspiracies to profit from oil have become synonymous with evil, most notably the bizarre accusation that GW Bush went into Iraq to “get the oil for his buddies”.
This near-universal hatred, and suspicion led to the idea that oil companies are controlling our lives, and feeding us a steady diet of toxic substances that they know will kill us and change the planet, much akin to the tobacco and oxycontin debacles. So it is not surprising that climate change hand wringing goes ultimately back to the culpability of fossil fuels. Some states are now proposing laws that would simply outlaw it, yet Greta and others still ride in cars, eat food, and enjoy other aspects of modern life. This aspect of fossil fuel flagellation and the desire to see the companies and current managers “pay”, will override any evenhanded scientific discussion such as yours.
2. Electric grids are not just things you mess with. Any utility engineer will tell you there are dangers and limitations to the thinking that we can just incrementally hook up variable renewable sources, which will eventually displace the fossil fueled generating plants, and lead to their disassembly. Not to mention the economic consequences for rate payers.
I have led a quest in my state to recognize that the Public Utility Commission’s basic mandate that the utility continue to supply dependable power 24/7/365 remains. Wind and solar, as I think you mention, are at much higher risk of disruption than a major power plant or fossil fuel supply chain, and the grid even more vulnerable. In this current period of extreme weather, as Tornado Alley moves around and pounds the south, and as the Atlantic hurricane season is predicted to get worse, you would think putting up and relying on windmills and solar panels would be the height of idiocy.
Hawaii is likely to be the first state to approach 100% renewable power, sometime around 2050. Yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that a backup capability for peak power will have to be maintained. That means rate payers will be saddled with maintaining two systems, one of which must be completely replaced every 20-30 years.
3. We live in a 60 cycle electricity country, and the consequences of not keeping the grid pretty close to 60 are dire. That is maintained by “spinning machines” that provide “grid inertia”, terms that can be found all over utility research and websites. In other words, a grid system reliant on variable renewable sources cannot reliably keep 60 hertz going under all conditions. That needs a liquid fuel running a basic genset.
4. The petroleum industry, worldwide, is approximately a $50 trillion industry, if you count all the value-added levels of revenue and expense that circulate into the money supply. If climate activists had their way with their magic wand, they would eradicate it tomorrow. But whether it is sudden or slow, the removal of an industry that size from international commerce has to produce dire economic consequences. Those who don’t think it matters cite the likely replacement of jobs, capital, and tax revenues with those from industries supplying renewable power and some fantasy replacement for the thousands of petrochemicals used in every facet of all our lives, and it will all balance out. Nothing could be more unrealistic.
I look forward to reading your book in more detail, and trying to get our legislators to understand it.
Montana goes for “we are helpless” defense in climate case, rather than having Dr. Curry testify.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1182999615/defense-arguments-to-begin-in-youth-climate-trial-in-montana
David – A few notes on the trial 16 youths vs state of montana
A – the youths (plaintiffs ) put forth 10 expert witnesses, which is a very high number of experts.
B- the color commentary of the experts testimony is the substantial future harms – almost rp8.5 level claims.
C – I cant locate many of the court filings, though with that many experts, there doesnt appear that there was a daubert challenge by the defendant (state of Montana). (or the equivalent to the daubert standard under Montana state law. Most states have a variation of the daubert standard)
D – based on what I am heard regarding the plaintiff’s experts testimony, it is quite speculative , thus not meeting the daubert standard.
As noted by the the ruling in the mann v steyn trial, where all but one expert failed to qualify under the daubert standard, you have to actually be an expert on the specific topic. Quesses and speculation about the future can never met the daubert standard.
Judith curry was also disqualified under the Daubert standard in the Mann v Steyn case – not because she wasnt an expert on climate change, but that she was not an expert on what was on Styen’s mind – ie expert on what Styen knew about climate change.
Judith now has a spearate post on the Montana trial
I am no scientist but I think have a logical brain. If the science is settled then why do we waste money on universities studying climate change?
This is the best book I have read on climate change as it deals with the politics.
Well, my copy of your book-ordered through our local Bookshop not the dreaded Amazon-has arrived.
It will have to take its place in the queue however behind Byzantium by John Julius Norwich and Material World by Ed Conway. I will let you know what I think in due course. Wonder if it will have the same cover as the one shown in your picture.
Just collected the book. Same cover picture. I have promoted you above Material World but first I need to see what happens to Byzantium….
Just ordered a paperback copy from Blackwells in the UK – I look forward to reading it very much.
I wrote a short comment about «Climate Uncertainty and Risk» in a Swiss German Blog called Carnot-Cournot-Network (see https://www.c-c-netzwerk.ch/2023/07/02/vom-umgang-mit-unsicherheit-in-klimawissenschaft-und-politik/ ).
I really liked all the sober facts presented by Judith. I am a forest economist and I understood almost everything. It is not a technical book and access for the layman is easy. Only the title was somewhat confusing. As an economist, I have a Knightian understanding of risk and uncertainty. Knight used these two terms when explaining profits and losses of firms. «Climate Uncertainty and Risk» is never about Knightian risk, only about Knightian uncertainty. It took me a while to overcome my confusion with the way, Judith is treating risk.
There are some references to Knight. This is certainly wrong, because Knight wrote about profits and losses in firms, not about scientific uncertainty. His point was about profits and losses as a moveable hinge between the firm, its contractual assets, and the economy in general. Knight also explains the difference between accounting profits, implicit (opportunity) costs and economic profits. Only those entrepreneurs who have great foresight or are lucky, will earn an economic profit. Thanks to perpetual uncertainty!
Hi Martin thanks for your comment on this. Yes, I had one economist on my “internal” review team, and he reacted in the same way. My use of “uncertainty” is in context of scientific uncertainty, which has a broad scope (with “statistical uncertainty” being equivalent to Knightian risk). My use of “risk” is consistent with the broader risk sciences as reflected by the Society for Risk Analysis, which provides a much broader view of risk than the Knightian framework.
Martin, I translated your comment. I find it very interesting how different people (with different backgrounds/expertise) perceive the book. I guess from the perspective of an economist, this may look like a book about climate policy. From my perspective, climate policy is discussed in Part III, but more in context of general risk management strategies and decision making frameworks rather than in context of specific policies. Part I, from my perspective, is about the philosophy and social psychology of climate science; Ch 4 addresses the broken science-policy interface. Part II is purely climate science, but more from a philosophy of science perspective.
Amazon is similarly schizo about how this is classified, with kindle and paperback book having different classifications
Climatology
Environmental Science
History and Philosophy of Science
Public Affairs and Policy Politics
And one further comment (thank you for your provocative comment!). Your comment in German states that :
“The book is written for laypeople. In view of the breadth of the topics addressed, one could also say «by layperson for laypersons».”
Actually the book is published by an academic press, who views its primary market as other academics (e.g. university libraries, to be used in university courses). The book underwent extensive peer review by academics from a range of different fields. Because of the great multidisciplinary of the book, it needed to be written in a way that is accessible to people with a broad range of backgrounds, supplemented by 1500 footnotes/references for further exploration.
Thank you for writing a few lines and reading my short commentary on the Carnot-Cournot-Network homepage. This group of practitioners (not scientists) somewhat tries to integrate natural and social sciences thinking. Those of us who work in an interdisciplinary field, like me, know how hard it really is to bring this integration forward. Some of the problems have been described by Hayek beginning in the 1940s [see Hayek FA (1952/2010) Scientism and the Study of Society. In: Caldwell B, editor. Studies on the Abuse of Reason: Text and Documents. Chicago: Univ Chicago Press. Collected Works FA Hayek 13. p. 75–166]. At first sight physics and modern economics look alike. Nothing could be further from the truth, because social sciences studies individuals with lots of subjective traits.
I did the commentary on the CCN homepage because you wrote a great book. Thank you! Your work gives a great overview und assembles lots of facts. Because it it easy accessible, I will use it like a handbook whenever I need to hit the ground running on a certain topic. I know very well that some of the parts were written and reviewed by experts. As you write in the last paragraph, «this book provides a single slice through the wicked terrain». The broad terrain covered over some 250 pages, in connection with the very different thinking natural and social sciences practice, make it an excellent work. Consider the «by layperson for layperson» a compliment.
A very unusual book. It is not so much about climate as about uncertainty and risk (and fear). More technically inclined readers have to follow copious references. The book poses questions, does not answer them.
Two minor omissions: There is no reference to operations research, a scientific discipline which handles this type of problems from a mathematical perspective, as opposed to a psychological perspective. Second, in your list of “incontrovertible facts about global warming” in the Introduction you mention a warming caused by CO2, but not by H2O. As you write later, “if you mix science and politics, you get politics”.
Professor of the history of science that is Naomi Orestes job, is surely very different to a ‘historian’ which is how you continually describe the professor.
Sorry, meant Oreskes.
Hi, Judith, first time commenting. I was thrilled to read your new book. I have read it through and plan to make some observations asap. Total untrained person living in Dublin, Ireland but immensely interested. Also, I have asked my local library to acquire a copy for others. Loving your utube pieces.
But we are now assailed in with the current heatwave hysteria which the established Climate advocates have been very quick to seize upon. It is a little disconcerting how there seems little in the way of a more measured reply from others. Perhaps this is on the way….
As I search around, I have stumbled on scientist Yong Zhong on utube. He presents some extraordinary views, immensely impressive. I am in no position to determine the validity of his radical re-working of the underlying climate assumptions but it will be great to see if he can be affirmed, or no, as the case may be.