text:
← Public ClimateBall
TORNADO →
Posted on December 4, 2021 by curryja | 237 Comments
My follow up interview on the Strong And Free podcast [link].
My previous interview with Christopher Balkaran was discussed in this post. I also very much enjoyed our 2nd conversation.
At this point, the only interviews I've been giving are long-form discussions (order one hour). I have no interest in scoring sound-bite points, and I'm not very good at it anyways. I also like talking with interviewers from other countries.
A transcript of the interview is provided below. I have heavily edited this to make it more coherent and something that people hopefully want to read, while preserving the content of interview. I am really a much better writer than speaker, especially with off-the-cuff responses to questions.
We covered a lot of range, I hope this interview will stimulate some interesting discussion.
Christopher Balkaran
So, there's been a lot of feedback from our first conversation and I wanted to dive right in, because I think that's what a lot of people want to know more about. Now I will say the vast majority of people who reached out were very positive. But the folks that were very critical raised some very compelling arguments that I'd love for you to discuss. And the first was about climate modelling when it comes to climate change. And I know in the past, people have asked you about why you're so critical about of climate change modelling in particular. And some of your critics say, well, there's so much robust data out there. It's been tested time and time again, and it kind of flies in the face of being critical of climate change modelling. What are your thoughts about that?
Judith Curry
The IPCC AR 6 published a report last August, and I have to say they joined me in a lot of the criticisms of global climate models. In fact, for the first time, for their projections to 2100, while they show all the models, they constrained the projections, picking the ones that they like, which happened to be on the lower end. There's also a growing movement not to use these big global climate models for policy purposes, but just to use simple climate emulators, that input some very basic things like which emissions scenario, which value of climate sensitivity, and off you go. The other thing that the IPCC had to say, which joins me, is that these climate models do not simulate extreme weather events. Their resolution is too coarse.
So any projections about future hurricanes, rainfall rates, whatever, are semi empirically based on observations, they're not directly spit out by the climate models. And then the third factor is with regards to regional climate change. The IPCC AR6 thoroughly acknowledges that global climate models cannot simulate regional climate variability with any kind of skill because they don't get the magnitude and the timing of the major modes natural internal climate variability, which have a dominant role in regional climates. In fact, the IPCC spent three chapters devoted to regional climate change. And at first I was really excited. Do they have a recipe for how we should do this? But they didn't, you have to distill multiple lines of evidence – models, historical data, paleo climate data, process models, physical reasoning. There's no simple answer, but you sure as heck can't just use what the global climate models spit out.
A model that simulates the warming since 1970 based on CO2 emissions does not constitute proof that CO2 has caused the warming. The latest post on my blogs cites some papers that show that solar variability can explain pretty much all of the recent warming. So you can have models that get the right answer or something close to the right answer for the wrong reasons.
Christopher Balkaran
That's very fascinating. Two follow-up questions on that. Judith. What were some of the reasons why the IPCC kind of walked back from alarmist reports from the past, which, mentioned high levels of global warming that would happen in the very near future if drastic action hadn't been done?
Two things they've backed off quite a bit. The first is the really high emissions scenario. It used to be called business as usual. It's not business as usual. It's some crazy extreme scenario that is highly implausible, if not impossible. So they backed off on that one. The other thing is that the latest generation of climate models in the so-called CMIP6 simulation series, about a half of them were running way too hot, with equilibrium climate sensitivities of over five degrees. And they don't do a good job of reproducing 20th century temperature history. So, what happened? Those models included some new cloud feedback processes, sort of arcane details about how clouds interact with aerosols. On one level, it's improving the physics, but on another level they didn't include countervailing negative feedbacks that were needed to really make this work in the model. As a result, the models were just running way too hot. And so the IPCC sort of danced around it and then did a constrained selection of the climate model simulations, resulting in much more moderate temperature projections than prediced by the CMIP6 models.
The second follow-up to that – the comments I received back from our first conversation was Judith Curry is basing this on her own modeling and discounting the vast data that's out there.
I don't run a climate model. I don't have my own climate model. I interpret the results from other climate models. I rely much more heavily on observations, including a longer historical record. And I also look at paleo climate observations in my analysis. I do not have my own climate model.
There are many individuals who have reached out with very detailed data and are very passionate about this topic. And it seems like if you're not "on the right side" you're lambasted instead of having a nuanced conversation, it's definitely you're either an unbeliever. You're a believer. And I'd love to know from your perspective, being someone who's been in that space and has been in many ways, accosted for your views. What do you believe are some of the underpinning reasons for that to be, which is specific to the climate change space?
First of all, this whole issue has become a big part of tribal political identity. Somebody who's in the right tribe can publish something that's moderately critical or skeptical and they get away with it. Somebody who's not in the right tribe, who says the same thing can't get away with it – it either gets ignored or people in the other tribe try to squash it, and this is asymmetrical since one side has the political power. The other thing is there are certain aspects of climate science that are fairly basic, there's a lot of data out there and much of climate science is based on basic physics and thermodynamics. And so a lot of people who understand statistics or basic physics say, I can look at that problem or I can try to analyze this. And so there's a lot of passionate armchair scientists out there cranking through numerous aspects of climate science. Some if it is crankology. But some people have genuinely made really good contributions who are not PhD educated climate scientists.
My colleague, Nic Lewis is a case in point he's, he's a financier. He has degrees in physics and math from Oxford, but not a PhD. He's very good at statistics and he's taken on the climate sensitivity problem and has published maybe a dozen papers, in reputable journals and even co-authored with a number of distinguished mainstream scientists. Nic is an example of somebody who started off in this armchair mode, but actually ended up taking it to the next level and making contributions that are recognized by the mainstream and even cited in IPCC reports.
So the challenge is to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's really good for the populace to be engaged and thinking about the problem and looking at the data and so on. Alot of interesting research is having difficulty getting published in what I would call mainstream climate journals, but the minute they go a little farther afield and publish in astronomy and space physics or environmental engineering journals or something like that, where it's not quite so religious, then they can get it published. So, it's not a good situation, this whole tribalism thing has polluted the science. A lot of the 'big' journals and editors do gate-keeping that seems politically motivated. That's very unfortunate for promoting reasoned, scientific debate and dialogue which is what the journals are supposed to do.
Yeah. I think that warrants a separate discussion on what journal articles are getting approved and funded and, and how that shapes public opinion. I wanted to talk to you because people said, "Christopher, you agreed too much with Judith Curry on your podcast!" So you need to challenge her.
One thing that some mentioned was that in your articles, you talk a lot about food security, water and energy. And it kind of is divorced from the emissions discussion. And so I wanted to know from you, because here in Canada, we're experiencing really severe weather patterns in the west coast and British Columbia right now. And as I was reading those, I was thinking exactly about what you said, which is why don't we focus on our wastewater management. It seems that when we talk about climate change, that's muddled into the emissions discussion. And reducing emissions seems to be the number one priority. Why do you think it's important that we separate the two and respond to each kind of differently?
The whole issue of climate change adaptation has taken second or third seat behind emissions. Even if we do manage to fix the emissions problem, you're still going to get crazy floods and storms in British Columbia. I mean, they're not going to go away. You can say, well global warming makes it 3% worse – maybe it does, but it's not like these storms still aren't going to occur. So the whole issue of reducing vulnerability and adapting to weather extremes and sea level rise should transcend the global warming debate.
We need to reduce our vulnerability to these weather and climate extremes. Many places have too much water or too little water, even in the same region during different seasons. So, the challenge is to better manage the reservoirs and sewage systems. You need to figure out how to manage your water so you can buffer against the extreme wet and the extreme dry. And building in floodplains and right on the coast just causes problems. These issues are soluble and the big driver here is not that they might be impacted at a few percent level by man-made global warming. Even if we fix man-made global warming, these problems won't go away.
That's why I emphasize solutions that support human wellbeing, minimize losses and so forth and so on. And food is another issue. We produce enough food globally, the challenge is getting it distributed in the right places. Helping places produce their own food in developing world, making better decisions about their agriculture, would substantially support human well-being.
My company just got funded for a new project to develop an agricultural forecast system for one of the states in Pakistan. We're working with an NGO and agronomists who are on the ground in Pakistan. We provide the forecast information so they can make better choices about which seeds they plant for a given season. They can time their planting based on monsoon onsets. And they can maximize irrigation based on understanding when the monsoon break periods will come along. They can use information about severe convective storms and wind gusts to make sure they pick their crops before they all get flattened by the wind and on and on. So there's a lot of little things like that that do not cost a heck of a lot of money where you can use information to optimize your yield to the extent that countries can grow their own food. This really makes the global food supply much more secure. A lot of little things like that that you can do, and that's not to mention all the new hybrids and GMOs and whatever that improve the hardiness and the nutrition of the crops.
And then if you go to energy security, I mean, what is the point of all this? If we destroy the energy security of the planet, by having electricity that's intermittent, unreliable and too expensive, that's not helpful to anyone. We're headed towards a real reckoning here, you can't run industrial economies on wind and solar. People are starting to realize this.
Within the last few months alot of people and some governments are suddenly saying nuclear is the answer. Well, yeah, it sort of is, but why are you just realizing this now? The realities of wind power are being realized. In the North Sea, they have all these offshore wind turbines. In 2020 these produced 25% of England's power, which is fabulous. But in the first 10 months of 2021, they produced 7% of the power. So England and the rest of Europe is scrambling, having to pay too much money for natural gas and then with all the political problems with the natural gas supply from Russia. So, being able to produce your energy from within your country has a lot of appeal.
The one advantage of solar and wind as it gave some local autonomy to the countries, but wind and solar are not enough to run an industrial economy. And nuclear power gives you the best of both worlds. And also if the countries were to frack for natural gas, that's another energy source that could be more local. The most important issue is energy security, so that its abundant and reliable, and you're not held hostage to other countries or crazy price spikes.
I have no problem with going to cleaner energy sources. Everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy. But energy security has to be first and foremost, we have to have reliable, affordable energy. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.
I'm so glad you raised energy security. Cause that was one thing I wanted to talk to you about. It's so complex and you raise a lot of really important points that are politics being one of them, for sure. Canada, we are a naturally wealthy country and shipping natural gas to China helping them lower their CO2 emissions is great. But that requires a lot of pipeline development here in Canada. There's a lot of environmental regulations working with Indigenous communities and organizations. So it's very challenging sometimes and often it's people see the short term, the pipeline development and how that'll affect the local ecosystems and not potentially the long term, which is potentially lower CO2 emissions. And the biggest polluter in the world's emissions will go down and that's a good thing.
But I do think that most people see the real cost with introducing new technologies, like wind and solar to replace entire energy systems because energy security is the critical point here. Why do you think that there's this push specifically for wind and solar for governments to adopt, despite the fact that its inefficiencies are so evident and, and the costs being so high? I see this consistent narrative that with more investments, those costs will come down. It will be more affordable for developed nations to use as a viable solution. Caveat to that too, is I think if we do use solar on a large scale amount doesn't, it require a lot of land mass?
Wind power requires a huge amount of land use. There are ecosystem disruptions, raptors being killed by wind turbines. In the old days, the environmental narrative was you couldn't disrupt wildlife habitats, but now it's okay to wholesale kill raptors with wind turbines. What happened to the traditional environmental values and concerns? They've all been thrown out the window because of global warming. The other issue I see is the waste, the end of life, what to do with all this toxic stuff from the solar panels and the wind turbines. For these to make environmental sense, there needs to be a lot of recycling and reuse, the circular economy.
Then there's the issue of mining, all these batteries and the solar panels need cobalt, lithium, copper, on and on it goes. In the seventies and eighties, there were wars in the Middle East because of oil. Now, will there be wars in the countries that are naturally rich in terms of these minerals? This is where the next geopolitical conflicts are going to be. Again, if we go nuclear with Thorium, we bypass all this.
If you go back to like the 80s, when people were first talking about, oh, we need to stop this whole CO2 thing, there were two groups that jumped on this. It was the petroleum people and the nuclear people, they wanted to squeeze out coal. The oil and gas people ended up being ascendant as anti-nuclear sentiments took over. And then there was the big push for renewables. We've already seen the problems with wind and solar. But what really irks me is burning wood pellets, cutting trees down in North Carolina, making them into wood pellets, and then putting on a ship and having them burnt in the UK to produce electricity. And this is a big part of the UK's claim to be producing renewable energy – does this make any environmental sense?
And so we have given birth to a whole lot of nonsensical policies. Wind and solar are niche solutions. Small modular nuclear reactors seem to be far and away the best solution, at least on the near term horizon. We're just starting to see these plants. But on the time scale of 10 years, they should be very common. There may be other better sources that come down the pike. It takes a certain amount of time to develop prototypes, but scaling up and taking it to market and the infrastructure and whatever all takes time. So I think in the near term, the, the small modular nuclear reactors are the best solution for the next decade, but even going to natural gas, converting from coal to natural gas, I think is, is a fairly significant help.
When I look at wind and solar if I were an investor or a leader of a country – the value proposition just isn't there yet. And it doesn't mean that it can't get there at some point. But right now, if I'm struggling with energy security, those forms of energy like wind or hydroelectricity, or have good sun exposure – coal makes sense. But I want it to follow up with that because again, and I don't want to say that these folks who emailed me are fringe, but there were individuals who said, "Judith Curry is connected to the fossil fuel industry. And she's a renegade that's been disproven!"
My company has some clients in the energy sector, here are some examples. We make hurricane forecasts for electricity providers in Florida, so they can figure out when a storm is coming so they can prepare and and do their best to bring electricity back up quickly. My oldest client in the energy sector is a petroleum company. And my involvement with them is for natural gas trading. This began about 15 years to go to help stabilize natural gas prices, following hurricane Katrina and all that mess in the Gulf of Mexico and the natural gas prices skyrocketed. My company also provides temperature forecasts to support natural gas trading, but the biggest, the growing part of the natural gas trading is forecasts of wind power. And to a lesser extent, solar power. Forecasts of wind and solar power are very important because they're so intermittent. Knowing when the wind is going to blow or the sun isn't going to shine makes a big difference in how much natural gas you need to buy for backup. So all of this supports having adequate natural gas supply in the face of these intermittences and keeping the price stabilized. So how is that evil? I'm not exactly sure.
My climate research is not supported by fossil fuel companies. Some energy companies are customers for my companies weather forecast products (about 25% of the total revenue for my company). So how this puts me in bed with with fossil fuel companies, I don't know. Any weather company or meteorologist in the private sector is dealing with energy companies. They're the biggest single consumer of weather information. So that is my involvement with energy companies.
And that's the very disgusting part of the climate science space. It's that, that smearing, that divisiveness takes us away from the real, like you said, food security water management issues. And then you see the ramifications of not focusing on that. Not making the connection that somehow governments are looking at this and not thinking about infrastructure development, because I'm sure they are. But if there was as much focus on that than there are on emissions reductions, you just wonder…
All the money and effort that we've spent on renewables could have been used to improve the electricity transmission grid, and reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather events, which are going to happen anyways.
Exactly. I also have this idea, I was talking to a friend of mine who's big on electric vehicles. And I said to that person, I said, wouldn't it be kinda neat if we just kept focusing on making the gas powered engine way more efficient getting a thousand kilometers out of a single tank of gas instead of just jumping into an electric vehicle where we still don't really know all the risks with the technology as yet? Whereas with the gas powered engine, we've got a hundred plus years. Why don't we just make that more efficient? I mean, doesn't it produce more heat than anything else, I don't know.
Well, I don't know how much more efficient they can be made, but I like hybrid vehicles because the batteries are simpler. So I think the hybrid vehicles are a good intermediate solution. And the other issue too, everybody gets excited about electric vehicles, which are going to double, triple, quadruple, our need for electricity. Wind and solar alone aren't going to cut it. We will need much, much more electricity, Bitcoin and and who knows what else will emerge. Electricity is key to innovation and prosperity, so we want as much of it as we can get.
What are your thoughts on COP26 and is the outcome what you anticipated? So for me, looking at it, making a global climate change agreement is exceptionally challenging and it lends itself to nothing too specific. What are your thoughts about just global climate change agreements all together? Do you think that they're kind of they're that they're, I wouldn't say pointless. But that it just shows a commitment from the global community towards climate change?
Well, I think Greta nailed it with her blah, blah, blah. There've been a lot of these COPs. It's mostly hot air. And the thing that really irks me is all these 'important people' flying in on their private jets and driving around intheir gas-powered big limos and whatever. Excuse me, can you please walk the talk at least in some superficial way? COP26 looked like this big opulent blow out, and and here they're telling all these developing countries, we're not going to let you develop grid electricity and fossil fuel power plants. It was hypocrisy, at its finest. But all of these promises are really political games. At the end of the day, very few countries are going to sacrifice their own economic wellbeing over this issue.
A few European countries seem inclined to, but most of the others don't no matter what they say. The US is an interesting microcosm because in the absence of a very stringent federal policy, you have the different states going in different directions. On one hand you have California. They're going full force to wind and solar and shutting down their last nuclear power plant. And, the electricity prices are sky high with outages and on and on it goes, there's no end of problems. And people are leaving California in droves. We're seeing a few states that are in the Northeast that want to follow in California's footsteps. And then you have other states that want to keep burning coal.And then in Northern Minnesota where they do all the iron ore smelting and all the really big, big, heavy industry stuff, I mean, coal is really the best fuel for that. So it's hard to get them off coal also. At the end of the day, it's wrong for the UN to ask countries to stop, burning fossil fuels when there aren't any obvious alternatives for them, or if they don't have enough electricity already, it's just, it's just not right.
Also, the actual level of alarm over global warming has dropped a lot. We used to hear five degrees centigrade, four degrees, crazy, horrible, scary stuff. Okay. Now with the AR6, with the medium emissions scenario, they said their best estimate was 2.9 degrees centigrade. And this is 2.9 degrees since pre-industrial times. So it's really, we've already warmed 1.2. So we're already halfway there with no particularly dire results. And then actually according to the International Energy Agencies, our emissions are coming in lower than the IPCC medium emission scenario. The estimates are now like maybe 2.6 degrees is the business as usual. And then if you put in everybody's promises, that goes down to 2.2 and then net zero for the more developed countries, then it's down to 1.8 degrees. Not meeting the made up target of 1.5 degrees is deemed to be code red for humanity, but how meaningful are these targets?
These timelines totally ignore natural climate variability. It looks like all the modes of natural climate variability are tilted towards cooling over the next three decades. It looks like we're heading towards a solar minimum. Any volcanic eruptions by definition are negative. And we expect the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation to shift to the cold phase on the timescale of about a decade. So all of these modes of natural variability point to cooling in the coming decades, which would push these off by decades. This buys us decades to figure out what we should do. So we're talking about less than one degree of additional warming, it doesn't sound so scary when you put it that way.
What are your thoughts on environment and corporate social governance? If ESG is this new term that's floating out there especially in the financial circles about companies and individuals directing their investments to companies that already have some type of environment or social governance policy or platform to their line of work. Now just as an individual, I'm concerned about that because I always think, well, there's no real way to audit a company on their environment or environmental, social governance. And I worry that a lot of money is going into this space now, similar to sole sourcing windmill development to one company and signing up large government contracts. And what I saw at COP26 was there's a lot of money on the table that's dedicated to this. And again, as a layman investor, I would say, well, show me your assets, show me your liabilities. And I can tell you if you're profitable or not, I'm concerned about this. Cause it could kind of in a way, inflate an entire sector without really looking at its profitability?
Those people might very well end up losing money because those might not necessarily be the smartest decisions on the timescale of a decade. There's a lot of greenwashing going on. People who are voting with their politics and their green conscience are becoming people who are voting with their wallet, we'll see who wins financially. The same thing is going on with property along the coast in the US. Every one is alarmed about sea level rise, and then President Obama just bought a big mansion at Martha's Vineyard, right on the coast. Like, how worried are you about sea level rise? At some point, there'll be Republican and Democrat neighborhoods, the Democrats won't buy houses on the coast and the Republicans or the climate deniers will. And who's going to make money out of these deals, and will there be net benefits or disasters to living on the coast? We'll see.
Many people have overinflated the financial risk of all this. The scientists who prepared the socioeconomic pathways and the emission scenarios have stated that by 2100, everyone will be better off than they are now, at least on average, even for the highest emissions scenarios. So why are we, doing all this now – our grandchildren who will be better off than we are. We have a fairly naive understanding of the risks we're actually facing in the 21st century. Climate policy could end up being like treating a head cold with chemotherapy, while when the real medical problem is something very different. And by putting so much resources into an ineffective solution for climate change, we use up the insurance money that we have for all our threats, and we could overall end up more vulnerable as a result of this exercise.
And I think about everything that we've talked about, and I think about elections in the United States and around the world and this Canada went through its own election here in September. And it seems like there's this blind adoption of, we must do something for climate change. And we're going to sign on to every international agreement and we're going to commit Canada and the United States to these record low emissions levels, but it's less sexier to talk about, well, guess what, we also built up our water waste management in, Northern Alberta, or other parts of Canada and the United States. And so I wonder, is all this too far gone? Can we elect politicians now and leaders of countries that want to revert back to evidence-based discussions and less on the political platitudes?
Oh, but the science is 'settled' everyone knows that. They've been so brainwashed about global warming that there's only one thing that's going to change it. if I'm right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality, but how much confidence do I have in that prediction? How much money am I going to bet on that? I don't know, but it's a very plausible scenario that natural variability will lead to cooling in the coming decades, or at least slow down the warming. So we'll see if that transpires. If it does, that would be the single most effective thing at bringing the dialogue back to normal in some sensible way, so people look at this problem more broadly. On the current path, we are not managing this risk in a sensible way that would leave our countries stronger and less vulnerable to whatever my transpire in the future.
And I think voices like yourself and those that are advocating for more sensibility when it comes to energy security too, it's, it's very, very appealing to talk about wind and solar. It's less appealing to say coal is not a choice. It's a necessity for some countries in some regions and it's not that these regions don't want cleaner energy. It's just, we haven't gotten to that point yet for that area. And so I think that's why I'm so thankful that you've agreed to come back on here and talk for a second time.
237 responses to "Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry: Part II"
Richard Greene | December 4, 2021 at 1:22 pm | Reply
The interview started with climate models and the IPCC, but fortunately strayed to more important issues, such as weather forecasting and energy sources.
The author has too much respect for climate models and the IPCC. And that is very disappointing.
The IPCC is a political science organization set up to prove global warming is man made and dangerous. They start with that arbitrary assumption, and every few years they declare global warming is man made and dangerous. That is circular reasoning, not honest, unbiased science.
Climate computer models project whatever they are programmed to project. As a group, they were never accurate, and accuracy has not improved in the past 40 years. Current accuracy appears to be worse than ever. The one model that over-predicts the rate of global warming by the least amount, the Russian IMN model, gets no special attention. It is obvious that accurate temperature projections are not a goal. Anyone who treats climate models with respect they HAVE NOT earned, is gullible, and not a responsible scientist. The "models" are nothing more than computer games that make scary climate projections, because such projections are popular, not because they are accurate !
George Turner | December 6, 2021 at 7:32 pm | Reply
I went round and round on this in a different thread a couple of months ago.
The 4th power in the Stefan-Boltzmann law means that averaging doesn't work right if you pop two or three different temperatures in the input, sum the results, and then take the fourth root of the output to get an "average temperature." That's why one of the requirements of the law is that it applies to a single body at uniform temperature and emissivity.
I think what messes people up on the algebra is that if they double or triple an input temperature, they get a flux that's 16 times or 81 times higher (2^4 and 3^4), and when they take the fourth root of that, they get their temperature back. Or they divide an object in half, with half at zero degrees and half at double the temperature, and they work it through and then back calculate the correct average, so they think the method works.
But when you take two non-zero temperatures, a and b, and run their average through a fourth power law, what comes out of ((a+b)/2)^4 is
a^4/16 + b^4/16 + (2*b*(a^3) +3*(a^2)*(b^2) + 2*a*(b^3))/8
the a^4/16 + b^4/16 is what someone might expect to come out, while the third term, (2*b*(a^3) +3*(a^2)*(b^2) + 2*a*(b^3))/8, is the "error" in what they're trying to do. If either a or b is zero, that third term disappears.
For example, if you have a warm-white lightbulb filament at 2000K, it emits 907 kW/m^2. At 6000K (daylight blue) it emits 73,488 kW/m^2, 81 times more flux. But if you have two filaments, each half a m^2 in area, their average temperature would be 4000K and they would emit a total of 37,197 kW. But if you then calculate an average temperature by taking the fourth root of that, you'd get 5060 K, not their actual average temperature of 4000 K. That's an error of 1060 K.
This shows up at Earth temperatures, too. If you have two equal areas, one at 0 F and one at 120 F, the average temperature is 60 F. But with an emissivity of 0.60 (a normal value, but irrelevant to the math), if you sum the individual radiant fluxes and take the fourth root you'd get 70.1 F, an error of 10.1 F.
It's algebra. You can't back calculate an average temperature from Stefan Boltzmann without knowing all the input temperatures and area, and if you know those, you don't need to be using Stefan Boltzmann to calculate an average temperature.
Richard Greene | December 8, 2021 at 7:01 am |
Before you start with a math analysis:
Not one person lives in the average temperature, and
prior to 1920 there were very few measurements in the
Southern Hemisphere, and coverage in the N.H. was
not great outside of the US and Europe.
Even after the use of satellite data in 1979. the average
global temperature statistic still has accuracy problems.
If people are ever harmed by climate change,
it will be from large changes to their local climate,
not tiny changes to a global average temperature.
In addition, there is no "normal" average temperature,
and no evidence the current climate is bad news.
In fact, the current climate is about as good as it gets
for humans and animals. Plants would prefer a lot more
CO2.
We should be celebrating the current climate,
not telling scary fairy tales about an imaginary
climate crisis, coming at some unspecified date
in the future. Well. I suppose the crisis
is ALWAYS coming in 10 or 20 years,
and has been "coming" for the past 65 years !
That's climate astrology, not climate science !.
George Turner | December 9, 2021 at 4:06 am |
Oh, I'm saying that even if you had perfect surface temperature data, and the NCDC hadn't massaged, averaged, and adjusted it into meaninglessness, and if you had a vast array of satellites monitoring the entire emissions spectrum of every spot on Earth, Stefan-Boltzmann still wouldn't produce the correct answer for the planet's temperature because the equation is only for a body at a single, uniform temperature. Even then it's going to be somewhat wrong, since it incorrectly says my laptop screen is 6000K based on peak emissions frequency (an error of about 6000K),
Mathematically, you can hold the average input surface temperature constant, and by letting some regions warm while other regions cool, get the back-calculated Stefan-Boltzmann average temperature to shoot up five, ten, or twenty degrees. So you're holding the input constant and watching the output swing all over the place. Conversely, you can hold the SB back-calculated output constant and let the input (the actual average temperature) vary all over the place.
So if the Stefan-Boltzmann data says the planetary temperature increased, it actual means the planetary temperature either decreased, increased, or stayed the same, which is pretty darn meaningless. And that's how the equation works with perfect numbers, perfectly entered. A simple equation or a set of numbers fed into the input explodes into a giant polynomial when that input is taken to the fourth-power, and those extra terms don't cancel out, they add.
I think SB fixation is a case of picking some measurement, which for a planet like ours can be off by 5 or 10 degrees just from the equation's algebra, and taking it as a metric, holding it up as if change in a second or third significant digit is an omens or portent. It's mostly useful for taking a good set of input data, sticking it in a blender, and generating spurious conclusions.
Ulric Lyons | December 4, 2021 at 2:00 pm | Reply
"these climate models do not simulate extreme weather events. Their resolution is too coarse."
Standard climate models can never simulate heat and cold waves which are discretely solar driven.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub
I think that there is something badly wrong with basic physics.
DOES THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT REALLY WARM EARTH'S SURFACE BY 33°C?
The standard method calculates the equivalent black-body temperature for Earth, by imagining that the solar irradiance is spread evenly over the whole sphere. Which gives a black-body temperature of 278.6K, and minus 30% albedo is 254.83K. An additional 33K of proposed greenhouse effect raises that to 287.83K, or 14.68°C
For the Moon with 11% albedo the figure is 270.6K, which is 73.3K higher than the real global mean surface temperature of the Moon, at 197.3K. So what's gone wrong?
Calculating the Lunar surface temperature for the sunlit side only, and averaging that with the mean temperature of the dark side, gives a far more sensible value.
394*0.5^0.25 = 331.31K
minus 11% albedo
331.31*0.89^0.25 = 321.8
and averaged with a dark side mean temperature of 90K (could be less)
(321.8+90)/2 = 205.9K
Note that the Lunar dark side temperature is dependent on the regolith heat capacity, which if higher would raise the dark side temperature but make little difference to maximum temperatures on the sunlit side.
Earth's sunlit side (at any given time), is cooler than the sunlit surface of the Moon, mainly due to clouds and water vapour, but Earth's global mean surface temperature is far higher than on the Moon, primarily because of the oceans keeping its dark side so warm. With a lesser contribution from longwave infrared from water vapour and clouds.
The standard model removes the night cycle, and falsely attributes all of the influence of heat capacity on mean global surface temperature to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and treats heat capacity merely as zero sum thermal dampening.
Earth's black-body temperature for the sunlit side only, after 30% albedo, 6% Rayleigh scattering, and 16% solar near infrared absorption by water vapour, is 12.5°C. As opposed to 48.65°C for the mean temperature of the Lunar sunlit side.
There are additional losses on Earth from non-radiative surface cooling, and gains from poleward heat transport, and from longwave back radiation.
The main greenhouse house type effect on Earth is in the oceans, convection sets in at night and sinking colder water gets replaced with warmer water from below, so that the surface barely cools at night. That is primarily why Earth's global mean surface temperature is 91°C warmer than the Lunar global mean surface temperature.
John Doe | December 7, 2021 at 9:06 am | Reply
Rather it is just the reason why an arithmetic averaging of lunar surface temperature is pointless.
If you average it by the power of 4 you get roughly 276K. Then you may consider the lunar surface is not smooth, so that it has a few percentage points more surface than a theoretical sphere. Without this issue it would be a little warmer, like 279K.
But one can have this a little simpler, without averaging issues. The average equatorial max temperature is 394K. With a TSI of 1368W/m2 you would expect (1368/5.67-8)^0.25 = 394K, if 1 – albedo = emissivity, which apparently it does.
And of course (1368/(4×5.67-8))^0.25 = 279K
"It looks like we're heading towards a solar minimum. Any volcanic eruptions by definition are negative. And we expect the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation to shift to the cold phase on the timescale of about a decade."
We have definitely been in a centennial solar minimum since solar cycle 24, and an empirical model shows that it will be over after solar cycle 25.
More importantly, one should expect the AMO to be warmer during a centennial solar minimum.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-13246-x/MediaObjects/41598_2017_13246_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Javier | December 4, 2021 at 4:50 pm | Reply
Solar activity was low between 1880-1935 (55 years, almost a full AMO cycle) when AMO was both positive, and then negative (1902-1927). In fact AMO became warmer when solar activity became higher.
The connection between the solar centennial cycle and the AMO is not possible as you present it, because their different lengths, c. 100 years and c. 65 years, make them non-coincident.
Ulric Lyons | December 4, 2021 at 5:44 pm |
Javier, just because sunspot numbers remained lower through cycles 14-16 does not mean the solar wind also remained lower. For example the smaller solar cycle 20 had the strongest solar wind of the space age observations, driving a colder AMO.
One can predict when the solar wind was stronger in the early 1900's, by when the colder AMO anomalies were, which is around sunspot minimum, like in the mid 1970's and mid 1980's.
In fact the interval between the Gleissberg Minimum and the current centennial solar minimum is close to 130 years, resulting in a 60 year AMO envelope and then a 70 year AMO envelope. The intervals between centennial minima ultimately dictates AMO frequency as the AMO is always warmer during centennial minima, as that proxy shows, and usually once again between each centennial minimum. Making the long term mean AMO frequency 54 years.
Robert D Clark | December 4, 2021 at 4:45 pm | Reply
The ice core shows the daily heat retained from the sun, melting the ice as it breaks off the ice blocks, is equal to that heat lost to the black sky daily.
Until you prove that statement in not accurate, I will believe we are about 18,000 years into this cycle.
Norman J Page | December 4, 2021 at 5:01 pm | Reply
Judith you rightly say "These timelines totally ignore natural climate variability. It looks like all the modes of natural climate variability are tilted towards cooling over the next three decades. It looks like we're heading towards a solar minimum. Any volcanic eruptions by definition are negative. And we expect the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation to shift to the cold phase on the timescale of about a decade. So all of these modes of natural variability point to cooling in the coming decades, which would push off these by decades. This buys us a lot of time to figure out what we should do. So we're talking about ,less than one degree of additional warming, it doesn't sound so scary when you put it that way.'"
However the data are vey clear that we passed the peak of a millennial solar activity cycle in 1991 and passed the associated delayed temperature cycle peak in 2003/4. See Figs 1-5 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
You could usefully point this out to your clients who are making infrastructure investments with payouts beyond a 10 year horizon. Feet free to use any of my Figures with suitable attribution. Regards Norman
"Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science "consensus" that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter"
curryja | December 4, 2021 at 5:24 pm | Reply
I would appreciate it if you could take this conversation to the solar thread
Is anyone taking bets on when the first comment concerning COVID will show up? Or a comment about the moon?
CKid | December 4, 2021 at 5:34 pm | Reply
Judith, one of your best posts.
" And then if you go to energy security, I mean, what is the point of all this? If we destroy the energy security of the planet, by having electricity that's intermittent, unreliable and too expensive, that's not helpful to anyone. We're headed towards a real reckoning here, you can't run industrial economies on wind and solar. People are starting to realize this."
This will dominate the conversation for decades to come, especially if level to cooling temperatures play out as expected. The confluence of poorly thought out policies and realities of the climate will force intractable tradeoffs.
We will be past the ephemeral, feel good theorizing.
Mike Keller | December 4, 2021 at 6:47 pm | Reply
Strikes me there is increasing and accumulating economic damage being inflicted as a result of excessive reliance on green energy. Discretionary spending is shrinking, owing to more and more income being diverted into heating, cooling, and transportation costs that are leaping ever higher.
I wonder if we are moving towards a severe worldwide economic downturn caused by the political elite not being bright enough to fully appreciate the logical conclusion of their actions. Variation on Thatcher's observation about running out of other peoples money.
Might want to consider the historical record of economic downturns that emerge from seemingly nowhere, with some emotionally driven upset causing the dominoes to start falling. I got a bad feeling about this. Thinking we are now too smart to repeat history more or less guarantees a dismal outcome.
David Wojick | December 4, 2021 at 6:53 pm | Reply
I get just under 5,500 words for this interview so do not expect to read it. Anything new in it?
Mr. Wojick– that was not nice!
This was easy reading compared
with the last (ClimateBall) article.
Your own columns are concise and
easy to read, but those qualities
are rare among Ph.D.s
curryja | December 4, 2021 at 9:26 pm |
Posts on this blog are rarely < 2000 words. This post is a bit long (fidelity to the interview) but it is non technical and easily skimmed.
David Wojick | December 5, 2021 at 8:03 am |
Having been here since the beginning I am very familiar with Dr. Curry's excellent views, hence my question. I do not see how else I could have put it.
Richard Greene | December 5, 2021 at 9:16 am | Reply
Ms. Curry talked like a normal person, and her words are worth reading. It's Balkaran who was a blabbermouth, with some "questions" that read like speeches. I'd have edited his questions down to one sentence each.
A transcript can be edited to be more concise, which I prefer to listening to an entire podcast.
A person who is an expert in a subject should be able to discuss that subject with others using simple, easy to understand language. Ms. Curry did exactly that. Most Ph.D.s seem to have trouble communicating that way.
David Wojick | December 5, 2021 at 6:43 pm |
Being an expert on a body of science and being able to translate down that science to nonscientific language are two very different skills.
Ironically those who can do such tranlations are often looked down upon by the science community, because the translations are necessarily inaccurate. Scientific language says something that ordinary language cannot say. But this is how knowledge moves from the expert to the non expert.
What I find interesting is that the central message is often maintained throughout the translation. The notion that ordinary people cannot have knowledgeable opinions is false.
Andy West | December 4, 2021 at 6:55 pm | Reply
Great session :) I just listened to it; the audio came across fine, there wasn't anything that was too ambiguous to grasp. The transcript is still very useful for reference though.
George Sharpe | December 4, 2021 at 7:27 pm | Reply
You are a smart lady, and I'm 100% in your camp. Math and physics will eventually have their way. When wind and solar hit their limits, only then will the focus change to Nuclear, which will take decades more to develop. In the mean time, we continue to need carbon energy. And the more of it we have, the more we can adapt to a climate that is going to keep changing no matter what! As an aside, the public and the politicians are all against producing fossil fuels… that is, until the price goes up and reality sets in.
Mr. Sharpe wrote:
"Math and physics will eventually have their way."
Wishful thinking !
Our only hope is if the climate gets colder for many years !
Math and physics have been nearly irrelevant for "climate change" since the 1980s. Scientists know math and physics, but they are NOT relevant for making always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis (CAGW). And CAGW is "climate change" — frequent predictions of climate doom.
Math and physics (and engineering knowledge) were not used for the decision to replace a reliable electric grid, powered mainly by fossil fuels, AT GREAT EXPENSE, with an unreliable electric grid, powered mainly by wind and sun.
Math and physics are not useful for estimates of future CO2 emissions, considering that China, India, and almost all undeveloped nations, don't seem interested in Net Zero. China and India do some virtue signalling, but we have no idea what they will actually do (concerning their future CO2 emissions).
Not that the US, Australia and European nations have any feasible plans for Net Zero.
So we really have no idea what future CO2 emissions will be — not even whether they will be higher or lower than today. What good is math and physics when you don't know the the future rate of CO2 growth, or decline? Also, no one knows the correct TCR for CO2 !
COP26 was a lot of "Blah Blah Blah", according to famous climate perfesser Greta Thunberg, who finally made a sensible statement !
Math and physics are very important for studies of the present and past climate, where there are data to work with. But not useful for wild guesses of the future climate. Because there are no data for the future climate (or future anything), so why would you need math and physics? Future climate predictions are more like climate astrology. Today, not one person on this planet knows if the global average temperature in 100 years will be higher or lower than today !
Danny Farnsworth | December 4, 2021 at 11:38 pm |
I believe that George Sharpe was saying that actual mathematical and physical realities will assert themselves, not that the academic fields of math and physics would regain more influence over policy. You can only unbalance the grid with solar and wind for so long before your bad math comes back to bite you, for example.
George Sharpe | December 6, 2021 at 11:55 am |
You are exactly right, Danny Farnsworth. Reality will eventually rule the day.
To Mr. Farnsworth 12/4 11:38
Who thought nuclear power will save the day when solar and wind fail to provide a reliable electric grid. I'm not confident that will happen.
Never underestimate the ability of the Green Dreamers to keep pushing for more windmills and solar panels. They'll just try to band aid the future, unreliable, mainly renewables grid, with a huge fortune spent on batteries !
If that doesn't work, they will call for portable nuclear powered fans to drive the windmills, when there is no wind, and portable nuclear powered spotlights to shine on the solar panels at night.
They'll never admit their beloved windmills and solar panels were failures!
My rules of thumb about leftists / green dreamers:
– Leftists ruin everything they touch, and
– Leftists never admit they were wrong !
Joshua | December 5, 2021 at 9:53 am |
but leftists.
The so-called climate crisis had free-reign until two real crises showed up, the pandemic crisis and the energy crisis. At the very least it means that the important climate actors now realize that exaggeration of an imaginary crisis will make them look foolish by comparison with two real ones.
It has been clear to me for a long time that the real issue is not the climate but energy. Fossil fuels cannot keep increasing and it is being hidden from people how bad their situation is. The energy transition is just barely keeping up with the increase in demand, so it is clear that we will have to do with less energy. That is going to cause a big upheaval so the climate political building will crumble.
The current theory of climate is model based, and models have become so complex that they cannot be easily modified to incorporate new elements without new problems popping up. The decision to explain away the 1950-60s cooling as aerosol caused was a big mistake. It is a corset that prevents adaptation to reality. As soon as the social environment changes away from the imaginary crisis the theory will begin to draw serious challenge that will grow over the next couple of decades as the pause shows it didn't went away with the big 2015 El Niño.
We live interesting times, that's for sure.
jungletrunks | December 5, 2021 at 8:22 am | Reply
Javier: "At the very least it means that the important climate actors now realize that exaggeration of an imaginary crisis will make them look foolish by comparison with two real ones."
You're suggesting the climate actors might be practical? Hard left ideology has it's own pragmatic rules, truth isn't one of them. You're correct to refer to these as "climate actors"; as such they adapt to the guidance of political directors, who know exactly when and how to change a stage-set.
Javier | December 5, 2021 at 10:18 am |
Hard left ideologues are just tools. The climate emergency is being driven by Big Money:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/05/who-funds-extinction-rebellion-american-uk-millionaires-some-of-americas-most-famous-families-including-the-kennedys-the-gettys/
Why do you think Davos brings in the "Little Prophet from the North" to lecture them?
Even the Pope is a tool to them.
There is a reason why the climate scare could not be defeated with rational scientific arguments, and why in many countries conservatives have aligned with radicals on the climate issue. Big money was behind it since they saw the great business opportunity it represents. They are going to sell us a worthless energy transition full of equipment at they same time they charge us an arm and a leg for energy. They've put a tax on the air, something dreamed by tax collectors since the Middle Ages.
jungletrunks | December 5, 2021 at 11:56 am |
Javier: "Hard left ideologues are just tools"
They invented the tools.
I don't disagree that big money is a large part of the climate equation now, it picked up steam the last couple decades with the advent of the new woke mega rich, the new billionaire class birthed out of the .com bubble era.
The great business opportunity doesn't hold water, as a consequence to AGW. But it's the Chinese making the cash from solar and wind, I don't think that's what capitalists have in mind if that was the goal. To the point, capitalists would have exploited new opportunities with technology anyway. There would still be electric cars without climate theatrics. Alternatives were part of R&D way before the Kyoto Accord. Earth day and sensitivity towards protecting the environment took off in the 1970's, during cooling.
It depends at what point you enter the timeline. Money has always been part of it though, mostly big government money at the start, which has always been substantial. AGW theatre, the first stage set, started with ideology, it was eventually leveraged with both media and politics, synergistically.
The largest companies in the world at the time, big oil, for example, couldn't use their capital to stop the evolving narrative. For the sake of argument, I'm not saying big oil never spent a dime, that would be a ludicrous argument; what I'm saying is that they never attempted to substantively redirect the narrative. As public companies they could never have competed with government prejudicial cash burn, favoring a particular narrative, and explain such cash burn to shareholders if they actually were to attempt to compete with the ideology driven global government pet narrative project, as a strategy.
Big money is too simplistic an argument; and it didn't start this way; except for capital investment by governments. The timeline is relevant; political pressure changed the paradigm over time. Now big individual and corporate money contributes as part of their own strategic needs, for myriad reasons, marketing being one, but this is another topic.
wallywise | December 4, 2021 at 8:46 pm | Reply
as a retired electrical engineer it was refreshing to read sensible discussion about wind and solar and also the important economic and social benefit of low cost reliable electricity. I live in Australia and see this country rushing head first into retire coal early and rely on renewables – going to end in tears
Victor Adams | December 4, 2021 at 9:32 pm | Reply
I agree with Richard Greene's comment about the Russian model IMN not getting much attention. Judging by notable no shows at COP 26 (Xi, Putin) their scientists must rely on more forgiving models, why are those models not researched and mentioned in the IPCC's releases?
I wished Prof. Curry mentioned that the AGW problem is a wicked one par excellence with at best clumsy "solutions" as she so many times has said. Also, it is a well-known fact that millions of Gen X-ers have been thoroughly indoctrinated on the perils of AGW and they all vote, thus the rush of politicians to address their anxieties. I recall Dr. Curry mentioning that AOC and Greta are shockingly ignorant in CC matters.
Also Dr. Curry should've emphasized that all dire predictions materialize at year 2100 not NOW as many naive voters think.
Great article/interview, I'll send to all my friends' so terrified Armageddon is upon us unless we go Solar-Wind now.
Pingback: Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry: Part II – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Part II – Watts Up With That? - News7g
Pingback: Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry: Part II - Western Highlights
Pingback: Part II – Watts Up With That? – ChicHue.com
Pingback: Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry: Part II |
climatereason | December 5, 2021 at 3:28 am | Reply
Interesting transcript. I will try to listen to the podcast later.
Historical Natural climate variability and extraordinary extreme weather events of the past. Two very large elephants in the room that are waved airily away by those promoting the notion such creatures are irrelevant are tiny or don't even exist.
Look at the reaction from the usual suspects when ever I, or say CKid, makes reference to extremely well documented historical events that puts the modern era firmly into perspective.
For example the ups and downs of sea levels and the impact they have on towns and villages, trading routes and prosperity, together with many of the stupendous storms that shaped the landscape over the last few thousand years, are noted here in great detail in the extremely well referenced book;
"Outrageous Waves-Global warming and coastal Change in Britain through two thousand years ."
But of course these will all be irrelevant to those that promote the notion that today is much worse than the past and that Man is solely responsible
tonyb
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 4:57 am | Reply
Why the polar vortex is still active in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/Nxyw0jT/mimictpw-ausf-latest.gif
The north polar vortex in the upper troposphere was broken into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field. This is a phenomenon that repeats when the solar wind is weak.
The center that localizes over northern Canada will effectively freeze eastern Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/yRKXHzX/icon-z500-mslp-nhem-1.png
Weather in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada
https://i.ibb.co/BgsGMbk/Zrzut-ekranu-2021-12-05-134137.png
The number of spots at the start of the 25th solar cycle (2021) is lower than at the start of the 24th solar cycle (2011).
https://i.ibb.co/mH7xPF5/ises-solar-cycle-sunspot.png
Another wave of La Niña is visible.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_west_current.png
Javier | December 5, 2021 at 10:35 am | Reply
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 5:49 am:
– "The number of spots at the start of the 25th solar cycle (2021) is lower than at the start of the 24th solar cycle (2011)."
No. It is not. It is slightly higher:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
SC25 is like SC24, only slightly higher, as I predicted in 2016:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/21/solar-cycle-25-amplitude-prediction/#comment-1937823
According to the hosting site my prediction has been seen 38,000 times.
https://i.imgur.com/j2hbCiv.png
Too bad for those expecting a Grand Solar Minimum, but good for the rest of humankind.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 12:08 pm |
You made me laugh a little with those "spots".
Solar Radio Flux at 10.7 cm shows minimums in 2008 and 2018.
https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/cls_radio_flux_f107/
Is this a new way of counting sunspots?
Counting spots becomes quite "political". I trust proven measurements of solar activity much more.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
How many spots do you see on the solar disk now?
https://i.ibb.co/jyCgy5N/AR-CH-20211204-hres.png
I only see 4 right now, and you probably see 35?
https://i.ibb.co/ZgtXWDG/Zrzut-ekranu-2021-12-05-182849.png
https://i.ibb.co/3v8963C/mdi-sunspots-1024.jpg
The F10.7 cm measurements emphatically show how faint the sunspots are at the beginning of the 25th cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/QkrXPCz/Zrzut-ekranu-2021-12-05-184856.png
Javier | December 5, 2021 at 1:16 pm |
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 12:08 pm:
– "Is this a new way of counting sunspots?"
No. That is the way SILSO, the World Data Center for the production, preservation and dissemination of the international sunspot number, calculates its monthly smoothed sunspot number, that it is used to determine solar maximum and solar minimum dates.
The graph is made by Jan Alvestad at his site:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
One of the most trusted sources for solar information. Jan Alvestad has several publications on the issue, like:
Howe, R. and Alvestad, J., 2015. Parallel Group and Sunspot Counts from SDO/HMI and AAVSO Visual Observers. Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 43(1), p.107.
I trust his information a lot more than I trust yours, and in the case of sunspots, it can be confirmed at SILSO:
https://wwwbis.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_ms_tot_V2.0.txt
2008/12 2.2 2019/12 1.8
2009/09 9.5 2020/09 10.5
2009/10 10.9 2020/10 11.9
After the same number of months from the solar minimum, solar activity inferred from sunspot number is 12% higher for SC25 compared with SC24.
You are not a source that can be trusted.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 4:57 pm |
If you don't like the data I showed then change it. You got something wrong, I am not the source of solar and galactic radiation measurements.
https://i.ibb.co/tXhsnHk/onlinequery.gif
Compare the decrease in galactic radiation in 2011 and in 2021.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 4:57 pm
– "If you don't like the data I showed then change it."
Data is not to be liked or disliked. The problem is that you show an image:
And then you say the opposite that the image shows:
As I have showed, SILSO's data agrees with the image you show and disagrees with what you say. Some people might think that you know what you talk about.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 6, 2021 at 3:26 am |
Javier, the number of spots in 2011 was higher than in 2021, that's obvious. In 2011 it was two years after the start of cycle 24 and in 2021 it was two years after the start of cycle 25. Then it is most appropriate to compare the activity in these two years.
https://i.ibb.co/Htn7dp5/wolfjmms.png
In fact, cycle 25 started very early with the increase in southern magnetic field activity.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
– "In 2011 it was two years after the start of cycle 24 and in 2021 it was two years after the start of cycle 25"
Don't cheat. SC24 started December 2008. SC25 started December 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
2011 is the third year of SC24. 2021 is the second year of SC25. You are embarrassing yourself with your insistence that SC25 has less activity than SC24.
jim2 | December 6, 2021 at 4:12 pm |
Javier – looks like it's a little early to make the call, no?
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Jim2, we are discussing how SC25 compares to SC24 SO FAR.
However a Grand Solar Minimum looks less and less probable.
Javier, the GCR readings in Oulu don't lie. You can see a clear minimum of activity in 2009. You can keep counting spots.
https://i.ibb.co/kDqYXVp/onlinequery.gif
Javier | December 8, 2021 at 8:22 am |
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 8, 2021 at 4:45 am
– "Javier, the GCR readings in Oulu don't lie."
Of course they don't, and if you have talked about GCRs I would not have responded. But you said:
That is not correct, and yet you keep insisting that you are right. SC25 is so far about 10% more active than SC24 by the most usual criterion. If you don't stick to the data and say things that are not correct you are not to be trusted, as you defend your beliefs, and science is not about beliefs.
For me it is not a problem to abandon my hypotheses if they are contradicted by the evidence, as it is the only way to be correct. For most scientists it is a huge problem and they will insist to the death no matter the amount of evidence that contradicts them, a problem we are seeing with the failed CO2-hypothesis of climate change. Humans are not well endowed to do science. Too many biases.
Phil Salmon | December 17, 2021 at 5:29 pm |
Solar cycle 25 is neither more nor less active than cycle 24.
According to the European Space Agency's prediction, they will be almost identical in intensity:
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2020/10/Solar_cycle_25_prediction_NOAA
Semeru Volcano which has a strato type with a lava dome, with the highest peak Mahameru (3676 masl) Administratively located in Malang and Lumajang regencies, East Java Province. The current activity of Mount Semeru is in Jonggring Seloko Crater, which is located southeast of the Mahameru peak which was formed in 1913. The eruptions of Mount Semeru are generally of volcanic and strombolian type, in the form of destruction of the lava dome/tongue and the formation of a new lava dome/lava tongue. The destruction of the lava dome/tongue resulted in the formation of hot avalanche clouds which are characteristic of Mount Semeru.
https://magma.esdm.go.id/v1/press-release/205?signature=eea357a33aa5033ff8930a783defb7d6b1818f11345506a8c31199fab5149d3c
Paul Aubrin | December 5, 2021 at 7:04 am | Reply
When the natural warming trend slows, like it did between the 1950s and the 1960s, the "science is settled" herd will pretend that their carbon policies are the cause of this "success".
I wonder how they will explain the temperature drop in the stratosphere?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_SH_2021.png
co2islife | December 5, 2021 at 9:19 am | Reply
Dr. Curry, there are new articles out about the Coral Reefs being bleached by an increase in INCOMING short wave visible radiation. The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule NEVER supported CO2 being the cause of the bleaching. LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron doesn't pernitrate water, nor would it bleach anything. If LWIR bleached things, your dark closet would be full of white close. Climate scientists never even asked the most basic questions about the bleaching, they just blamed CO2. That is why Climate Scientists had better hope their work gets dragged into court. Their deliberate efforts to avoid reaching the truth are so obvious. The first question climate scientists should ask is "can LWIR between 13 and 18 microns cause this observation?" Also, if LWIR was the cause of the bleaching, once bleached, they would never regain their color.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 10:08 am | Reply
Australia's Great Barrier Reef is spawning in an explosion of color as the World Heritage-listed natural wonder recovers from life-threatening coral bleaching episodes.
https://youtu.be/4APrtdbc_Yg
Russell | December 5, 2021 at 11:51 pm | Reply
Thanks are due CO2, and his cohort here, for illustrating the statistical validity of Judith's new mantra:
" there's a lot of passionate armchair scientists out there cranking through numerous aspects of climate science. Some if it is crankology…"
co2islife | December 6, 2021 at 8:13 am |
Not sure how to interpret your comment Russell, are you claiming that CO2 and its only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change, the thermalization and radiation of 13 to 18 micron, peak 15 micron LWIR can in some say 1) penetrate H20 to the depth of the coral and 2) physically bleach the coral? If so, please explain. Every climate science research paper should be forced to explain at the very beginning how LWIR between 13 and 18 can possibly explain the observation. Quantum Physics defined the GHG Effect, and if everything is viewed from that perspective you will quickly discover blaming CO2 for climate change and warming is simply not defensible. Once again, how does LWIR between 13 and 18 micron penetrate water and bleach coral. Please explain that very simple and basic question. If you can't, how in the world did any of this stuff get passed peer review?
Crickets, chirp chirp. I'm sorry Russell, did I miss your response to this " passionate armchair scientists?" Here, I'll ask it again. How does LWIR between 13 and 18 Micron, Peak 15 Micron, penetrate water and bleach Coral? Quantum physics defines the GHG effect. Each wavelength has specific properties, that is why a filter works. Please tell me in terms of the quantum physics related to 15 Micron LWIR how CO2 can bleach coral 1 meter or more below the surface. Hint, oceans are blue for a reason.
morfu03 | December 9, 2021 at 1:25 pm |
"passionate armchair scientists"
I really like that term!
I can only speculate that these guys probably expect people to shy away, because they use fancy words like quantum mechanics and try to over-complicate things. I am however fairly certain that scientists working with Quantum Theory cringe very strongly seeing how it is used here.
The fact that the sun and earth surface have different temperatures and their emission spectra have different maxima positions hardly requires QM.
That the atoms in CO2 molecules can rotate and vibrate and thus are able the absorb, emit and thermalize energy in specific bands in the so called atmospheric window does not require QM to describe the effect as it is used here.
Last not least while the exact amount certainly is debatable, the model how this effect lead to a warmer surface air temperature and additional heat transferred to the water the corals are in is well understood (see the three classical ways to transfer heat) and also does not require QM.
Barnes Moore | December 5, 2021 at 10:03 am | Reply
"if I'm right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality…"
I don't think we have decades worth of time for people to come to their senses. A possible sad reality is that there may need to be a catastrophic grid collapse that lasts more than a few days to a week that affects 10s of millions of people where the blame can't be placed anywhere but on the over-reliance on weather dependent, intermittent and therefore unreliable energy sources. The opportunity cost of investing in wind and solar is enormous. Had we spent the money on improving the grid and on nuclear, we would be in a much better place now.
Here in the US, many of us are holding our breath and crossing our fingers in the hope that Sinema and Manchin hold out to defeat the next wave of spending which would target much of what greens want in the GND. However, even if they hold the line until the 2022 midterms, and there is in fact a red wave, we are still not out of the woods. There are too many republicans who have also been brainwashed and unless they are voted out and replaced with more like Inhofe, we will still be in danger of the cancer of unreliables continue to metastasize.
morfu03 | December 5, 2021 at 11:43 am | Reply
"The first is the really high emissions scenario. It used to be called business as usual. It's not business as usual."
I thought it was (to some not too distant future when the mining cannot keep up)! Actually, I think this might be a good showcase how wrong these CMIP5 and 6 models are!
The emissions are realistic, the carbon buildup and CO2 sensitivity is flat out wrong.
Wagathon | December 5, 2021 at 11:45 am | Reply
'Somebody who's not in the right tribe, who says the same thing can't get away with it – it either gets ignored or people in the other tribe try to squash it, and this is asymmetrical since one side has the political power.'
The 'one side' being, the Democrat-Socialist DC/Eurocommies pushing an anti-America globalist agenda.
RiHo08 | December 5, 2021 at 12:08 pm | Reply
"if I'm right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to."
Scientists let their curiosity get away from themselves and just want to explore. They say they want to inform, mostly the process of their informing allows them to put bread on their table. The public in general wants to get on with their lives with the least cumbersome social and economic environment as possible. Generally, the public goes along with the direction of world events barely listening, it's all just noise. Politicians want to control others as they themselves are control freaks and government is their vehicle. The noise from the UN's IPCC, a political format advocating climate catastrophe, has a vision for global control of nations of people.
At times, the general public and populations can be persuaded to make changes to their lives/circumstances for what is proposed as a greater good, so-called "goodwill". Such altruistic behaviors though, have limits, particularly when such a alteration in one's life's trajectory becomes burdened with war, pestilence, hunger and the recently recognized issue energy insecurity, currently being discussed as electricity. As Dr. Curry says: "Electricity is key to innovation and prosperity, so we want as much of it as we can get."
When enough people and, nations as well can see that others have abundant electricity and are innovating and being prosperous, then the climate catastrophe meme will collapse. The climate catastrophe meme will be ignored as just so much noise in our world. Such a cascade downward in the press, halls of academia, political circles, upon politicians, thought leaders, and eventually on scientists, no matter how much screeching and wailing such a supposed catastrophe produces, the attitude change in society away from this bogey man will result in…silence.
One can foster the movement towards abundant, cheap, and widely distributed electricity by informing yourself of the issue, inform thought leaders, complain to your politicians and be judicious in your purchases.
Beta Blocker | December 5, 2021 at 1:09 pm | Reply
The world has been warming for at least 150 years, probably longer. IMHO, the world will keep on warming for another 150 – 200 years with shorter pauses and even mild downturns occurring here and there along the way.
We will not know that an inflection point indicating a state of permanent cooling has been reached until the thirty-year running average of global mean temperature turns down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years.
Going back into Memory Lane, Javier wrote an article on this blog in late winter of 2018 explaining his own theory of cyclic warming/cooling — an explanation I thought was being well supported by the evidence he was then presenting.
So I asked Javier to predict when the inflection point indicating a change towards a permanent state of cooling might occur; i.e., to predict that date in the long term future when the thirty-year running average of GMT turns down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years.
Javier's answer in given in early 2018 was that according to his analysis, a permanent inflection point towards cooling, one which fits the criteria I've offered, will occur about the year 2200.
I said this in response: As long as the earth continues to warm, regardless of how slow the rate of increase might be, the debate over AGW will continue uninterrupted.
This means we are in for another 180 – 200 years at the very least of contentious AGW debate. In other words, learn to love it. Because it isn't going away any time soon.
In graphical form:
https://i.imgur.com/yAdkkAU.png
21st century should have similar solar activity to 20th, perhaps a little less. But it should have two lows in the stadium-wave c. 65-yr oscillation instead of two highs. That means less warming when centuries are considered.
Fossil fuel production is peaking. Coal peaked in 2013, oil in 2018. Emissions are increasing more slowly than projected and should stall in a decade or two. Atmospheric CO2 levels should start increasing more slowly.
Reduced warming if at all until c. 2035, moderate warming 2035-2065 and moderate cooling afterwards, picking up speed after mid-22nd century. Glacial inception in 1500-4000 years. But, not relevant since we are unlikely to see any of it.
2035 is perfect timing for the start of the next cold AMO phase. From 2095 and 2200 will see the longest back to back pair of super solar minima for 3450 years.
Beta Blocker (and Javier too)
Unless you enjoy being wrong, please
do not speculate about the climate
in 100 or 200 years.
The Climate Change 'religion' is nothing
more than always wrong predictions of a
coming climate crisis. Predictions that have
been made, and wrong, for over 60 years.
The first rule of climate science should be:
No speculation about the future climate.
Humans have no ability
to predict the future climate
(or anything else in the future),
There are no data for the future,
so the predictions are merely
Most of the predictions are
for climate change unlike
the past 120 years.
Different than 1910 to 1940 warming,
with little CO2 change.
Different than 1940 to 1975 cooling,
with CO2 rising modestly, and
Different than 1975 to 2020 mild warming,
with CO2 rising.
Most predictions are for warming at a rate
at least double the warming from 1975 to 2020.
The data supporting those predictions = none
Historical precedents = none
Justification for predicting rapid, dangerous
global warming = 'because we say so' !
The goal of Climate Realists should be
to refute the Climate Liar predictions,
which have been wrong for over 60 years.
We should never add our own wild guess
predictions of the future climate —
what purpose does that serve?
It could only lead to the endless
argument of whose predictions
are better, when they're all no good !
I don't make predictions, for that reason,
But when I first got interested in climate
science and energy in 1997,
I did make my one and only
climate prediction,
and it has been right
for 24 years so far:
"The climate will get warmer,
unless it gets cooler".
I like making predictions. They are a test of our understanding on how climate works. Some of my predictions fail, others are correct. My track record is a lot better than IPCC's, in part because I learn from my failed predictions.
Here is one prediction I made in 2017 regarding global temperature until the late 2030s. So far it is going much better than IPCC's CMIP5 prediction.
https://i.imgur.com/vnsqQAR.png
alsomaninthemirror | December 5, 2021 at 1:34 pm | Reply
… a real problem with "The Tribe in control" is that they will just falsify the results of any AGW research to fit their propaganda narrative. They can do this as they are members of the "The Tribe in control" and will not be called out for their fraud. This is a very real problem in this whole affair of Climate Alarmism…. ☹
rogercaiazza | December 5, 2021 at 2:37 pm | Reply
I am the only one who disagrees with Balkarn's comment "But I do think that most people see the real cost with introducing new technologies, like wind and solar to replace entire energy systems because energy security is the critical point here." There is no sign of that in any conversation associated with New York's Climate Act.
See my comment here which notes that we see something very similar happening in the US Northwest.
jeffnsails850 | December 6, 2021 at 11:10 am | Reply
New York' Climate Act was signed in 2019. They still have no budget for it or any actual plan. It calls for massive buildout of renewables by a date nine years from now, they should be in permitting if they were serious.
For that law, the word "act" is the only operable part.
"The IPCC AR6 thoroughly acknowledges that global climate models cannot simulate regional climate variability with any kind of skill because they don't get the magnitude and the timing of the major modes natural internal climate variability, which have a dominant role in regional climates."
What they don't get is that ENSO and the AMO respond inversely to solar variability. From near permanent El Nino conditions during glacial maximum states, to a La Nina regime through the Holocene Thermal Optimum, and El Nino conditions returning from around 5500 years ago. The MWP had a dominance of La Nina conditions, and the LIA had increased El Nino conditions, with roughly a doubling of the frequency of El Nino episodes during each centennial solar minimum along with a warmer AMO as they are teleconnected. And down to seasonal to annual scales where lows in the solar wind strength promote El Nino conditions via negative NAO/AO conditions.
Judith, you know that you said "you know" over 150 times in the podcast?
What an un-nice thing to say of the kind scientist that graciously allows us to post here our thoughts. She is not a talking head so she should be given a break when expressing in an unfamiliar public venue. Most of us would do much worse than she does and she has the cool head to confront senators and representatives at hearings.
As a person that express my ideas better on writing than spoken, I also tend to use filler words. I understand that superficial people tend to judge by form rather than content. Judith's interview content is just great. That you come here criticizing the way she expresses herself speaks badly of you not of her.
Unlike yours, it is a constructive criticism. Baroness Fox of Buckley had no problem with me suggesting that she cut out the "you know" expression in the House of Lords. And there is nothing superficial about my judgement of the content in my previous comments.
Javier | December 7, 2021 at 12:34 pm |
Unsolicited Advice: What It Is and How to Avoid It
https://www.livewellwithsharonmartin.com/unsolicited-advice/
Andrew C | December 7, 2021 at 6:57 am | Reply
You counted?
"Baroness Fox of Buckley had no problem with me suggesting that she cut out the "you know" expression in the House of Lords."
Is there anyone else you've, you know, pulled up on this? Is it a hobby of yours? I'm fascinated.
Thank you for telling the truth !
"You know" and "Like" ( from young people )
are very distracting !
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 5, 2021 at 5:36 pm | Reply
Despite the decrease in stratospheric temperature, the north polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will be broken into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field.
I argue that the reason for this phenomenon is the weak magnetic field of the solar wind. The impact of Arctic air will occur in the US and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/Q8XZg4B/gfs-z100-nh-f72.png
Phil Salmon | December 17, 2021 at 5:20 pm | Reply
It's come to California already
https://youtu.be/T9VxCgtjeUE
Roger, we see something very similar in the US Northwest.
Among the region's politicians, and among those in the press who cover energy issues in the Northwest, energy security is given next to no mention in the ongoing discussions about how wind and solar will be replacing coal-fired and gas-fired generation as our primary source of electricity.
From what I can observe myself, the engineers who work inside the region's power utilities know full well what kinds of problems will be developing as wind and solar take on a greater share of the Northwest's power generation portfolio.
Unfortunately, those engineers have little or no influence on the decisions now being made by the politicians and by the utility regulatory agencies who control the long term planning for the region's energy supply.
My prediction has been for some time that the price of electricity in the Northwest will rise dramatically and that its supply will gradually become less and less reliable.
What will happen in the US Northwest in the 2030's is the same thing that will be happening in California.
After a series of major blackout events, transportable gas-fired aero-derivative turbine generator sets will be quickly deployed at great expense wherever they are needed to firm up the grid.
The same kind of thing will be happening in New York State in the 2030's, if not sooner. That's what I tell my relatives living on Long Island, anyway. Not that they believe anything I say to them concerning this topic.
Bill Fabrizio | December 5, 2021 at 10:28 pm | Reply
Judith … Great video! You did extremely well! I hope you'll continue doing interviews like this. Thank you.
America, get ready for arctic weather.
https://i.ibb.co/YDqYPp9/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
Dawson City Temperature Yesterday
Maximum temperature yesterday: -35 °C (at 23:00)
Minimum temperature yesterday: -44 °C (at 02:00)
Average temperature yesterday: -40 °C
High & Low Weather Summary for the Past Weeks
Temperature Humidity Pressure
High -17 °C (1 gru, 23:00) 83% (24 lis, 05:00) 1047 mbar (24 lis, 05:00)
Low -44 °C (4 gru, 11:00) 62% (2 gru, 17:00) 992 mbar (25 lis, 17:00)
Average -28 °C 73% 1016 mbar
https://i.ibb.co/vmQPKG5/Zrzut-ekranu-2021-12-06-145400.png
Pingback: Shape Shifting Science – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
jim2 | December 6, 2021 at 8:22 am | Reply
Green energy is killing Europe. Climate change isn't the problem. Bad policy enacted in the name of Climate Change is the problem – specifically, wind and solar. When scientists lie, people die.
In late November, Bulb, founded in 2015 and the UK's seventh largest energy company with a five per cent share of the market, became the first provider to require 'special administration' measures. It will now be run by the government through the regulator until it's rescued, a new buyer is found or customers are migrated to other companies.
In November the Chief Executive of major energy company ScottishPower, Keith Anderson, warned that customers will have to cover the cost of the recent spate of UK energy company failures through higher bills. He largely blamed these failures on the government's price cap, calling the UK energy market 'broken'.
It's not just ballooning gas prices that the UK has had to contend with. A petrol shortage in September, caused by a lack of tankers to transport the fuel, forced the government to announce plans for a temporary visa scheme to allow 5,000 heavy goods vehicle drivers to come to the UK to alleviate the crisis. That number is some 95,000 less than needed, according to industry body the Road Haulage Association.
Climate crisis: the 'significant' role of lawyers in the energy transition
Profile – Dana Hall, GC, Core Development Group
Webinar Energy Justice and Energy Law
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
The crisis forced the government to relax competition rules among petrol companies to secure enough fuel supplies. It also had to suspend competition law to enable carbon dioxide producers to continue operating after a drop in production – caused when rising energy prices forced plants to close down – threatened fresh food deliveries.
The government has needed to provide financial support to one of the sector's largest players, CF Fertilisers, which supplies around 60 per cent of the UK's CO2, after the rise in wholesale gas prices forced the company to temporarily halt its operations. The 'limited' financial assistance could cost the UK taxpayer millions of pounds, the UK's Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, conceded.
https://www.ibanet.org/Energy-supply-pressures-create-crisis-in-Europe
ST. PETERSBURG, December 6. /TASS/. Cold weather in the Russian city of St. Petersburg has broken a daily record set 128 years ago as temperature dropped to about minus 21 degrees Celsius (minus 5.8 degrees Fahrenheit) last night, Leading Expert at the Fobos weather center Mikhail Leus wrote on Facebook.
"Today, St. Petersburg set a new daily cold weather record. Temperatures in the Northern Capital fell to minus 20.9 degrees, which is 0.4 degrees lower than on the same day back in 1893," he pointed out.
https://tass.com/society/1371197
Brian Bishop | December 6, 2021 at 11:09 am | Reply
"I don't know how much more efficient [fossil cars] can be made, but I like hybrid vehicles because the batteries are simpler. So I think the hybrid vehicles are a good intermediate solution."
In theory electric cars can be simpler in toto, but the most overlooked facet of hybrid cars is that they are by their very nature generators and thus could help with the grid and hypocrisy problems, e.g.:
"telling all these developing countries, we're not going to let you develop grid electricity and fossil fuel power plants. It was hypocrisy, at its finest."
If developed countries began a concerted effort to shrink rather than grow their grids with suburban and exurban households using hybrids as backup generation and storage for home or neighborhood scale renewables we could disconnect 1/3 of the country from the grid pretty easily, especially those parts that never made sense to be served by the grid without subsidy of collective rates that socialize the costs of serving less dense housing.
Indeed, in response to your recognition that folks are leaving California in droves, because of everything from woke energy to woke education to woke law and order, progressives love to roll out last year's cold spell in texas (of course its always global warming even when its really cold). And this is the viral meme from that affair where a few people (literally) woke up and smelled the coffee because their Ford F-150 hybrids had power outlets.
https://news.yahoo.com/ford-f-150-goes-viral-164455447.html
This is such an overlooked bridge technology (I'm not saying bridge to what, i anticipate a very long bridge). All the focus on electric and hyrdrogen cars is insane by comparison. Hybrids virtually disappeared at the hybrid and battery show outside Detroit in September, but sneaking into the lexicon even of electric vehicles which at least are storage, is the term bi-directional in which electric connections operate in both directions. Teamed with hybrid technology these cars can be (actually already are in realm of electrical engineering minded folks) generators supporting a gridless infrastructure for less dense residential scale and provide a legitimate resource efficient model for developing countries rather than the 'do what I say, not what I do' attitude favored at COP26.
http://priups.com/
jim2 | December 6, 2021 at 11:20 am | Reply
Powering the grid from gasoline or diesel engines doesn't seem to be a great solution. It's inefficient. And how much gasoline or diesel would you stockpile in that scenario? Also a waste of resources.
I can connect an inverter to my plain ole car now and I do have one for emergencies. Maybe this F-150 story impressed some people, but not me.
Brian Bishop | December 10, 2021 at 10:54 am |
who said anything about powering the grid. i'm talking about getting rid of the grid. almost everyone has their own heating plant at their own home and we don't decry that as a disseminate efficiency problem. about 15% of households store their heating fuel. Nobody except the control freaks think that is a problem.
The extension of the grid universally has been grossly subsidized. Perhaps it made sense as a tool for rural development but now it's a continuing dislocation in which higher costs of exurban service are subsidized by denser clusters of ratepayers and most notably so as we stand on the precipice of this effort to dump trillions of dollars into the grid.
Sure, the vast majority of home generators that are intended solely for backup don't focus on efficiency and are about half as efficient as the modern power plant mix. But just as the latest industrial scale combined cycle gas generators are way more efficient than earlier thermal plants, small scale generation has achieved improvements directed at circumstances of more consistent operation. It is very difficult to understand the efficiency of hybrids as standalone generators but the opportunity cost of having any amount of electricity available anytime on the grid, including transmission and congestion, notably reduces the efficiencies of operation (and we all know that renewables on the grid make that worse not better) whereas the ability to control local demand reduces idling or standby losses. And for a notable part of the year CHP (combined heat and power) can beat even combined cycle gas generators because the use of waste heat can take place at much lower temps and pressures and without phase change in household heating.
most of us already use battery powered tools for heavy household work, because of the cordless convenience, although this is implicitly saving up small amounts of power and using it in more concentrated fashion. The point is really not just hybrids but all advances of technology in generation, storage and combine cycles that are thought to enable a less carbon intensive grid would quite likely enable homes to operate off the grid saving vast amounts of resources being demanded for the upgrade of the grid. I am not hostile to carbon but, as you point out in dismissing home generation with gasoline, carbon costs money.
Dense concentrations are still going to be served by grids but we don't need to think about exurbanity in the same way. This is a realm where many already use directed solar to save wiring to distant buildings or uses despite its limitations and the cost of storage. And the further technology advances the less we'll need the grid. Government and its Musk captured policies are proceeding in precisely the opposite direction and their grand plan is to try to force transportation and space heating onto the grid because the grid is extemely regulated and that puts everyone in the control of whatever faction is predominate whether through direct election or regulatory capture.
this is not something that will be realized tomorrow but i think an important pathway, even if it only constitutes 15% of households, imagine how much more sensible it would be than regriding remote parts of puerto rico or yet to be gridded parts of the developing world. So I don't think about it solely as US centric idea. I appreciate your skepticism. Always helpful to have one's ideas critqued.
John Ferguson | December 12, 2021 at 10:57 pm | Reply
Brian, help me to understand how hybrid cars are simpler than fossil (your term) cars. This seems counterintuitive. One would think that having the IC engine AND the additional electrical components plus the batteries would make a hybrid quite a bit more complicated.
John Ferguson | December 12, 2021 at 11:00 pm |
Sorry Brian, I see you were quoting someone else who I hope will take a shot at the question I mistakenly addressed to you.
I must say the quoted statement reminds me of one I heard years ago suggesting that we should run all the cars on steam because only water would be consumed.
The comments about the absurdity of the UK burning North Carolina trees is a real issue. Environmentalists in North America – the ones who allegedly wanted this "renewable" form of energy – are now trying to stop it.
If they succeed, the UK will have sunk billions of pounds into idle windmills and idle "bio" energy. Because they wanted to appease the climate crusaders. That was never really possible, so now they're stuck trying to explain an expensive, dirty waste of money to the average citizen.
Politicians are starting to learn that the first rule of climate policy is that climate crusaders are not, and never will be, your allies.
climatereason | December 6, 2021 at 12:32 pm | Reply
Most of us in the UK-including Greenpeace-think this burning of wood chips shipped in from thousands of miles away is nonsense. Take away bio mass and our record on renewables looks less good.
What lovely friendly words these are for mostly useless renewables;
"Biomass" "Solar Farms' "Wind farms'
Semi | December 11, 2021 at 4:23 am | Reply
You overlook that politicians rarely explain anything, they launch the next big thing and hope the majority of their voters forget
Daily temperatures (C) on December 6, 2021 in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/KFwDrvJ/Screenshot-2.png
Kevin Connors | December 6, 2021 at 2:29 pm | Reply
As long as Marxists own The Academy, The Press, Big Entertainment, Big Tech, The Deep State, and so much more, how in the world can we convince The American Person, the everyday American, that CAGW is a Big Lie?
No matter how much data we provide to support common sense policy, Marxists, and their Marxist Morons come up with a seemingly endless list of nonsensical rebuttals that always drown out what we have to say.
Marxists gonna Marx.
Perhaps, as one of the commenters here stated, we need a truly catastrophic event that wakes enough Wokes up to finally have a critical mass that changes this nonsense. That's truly tragic. It pains me to write it.
Most believe that the American Revolution, the Shot Heard 'Round The World, was in reaction to taxation without representation or The Stamp Act or a Boston Tea Party. Yes, those things helped create a yearning for Liberty among about a third of those living in the Colonies at the time. But the real spark came from the Red Coats marching to Lexington and Concord to confiscate ball, powder, and long guns.
Perhaps the madness of the reaction to Covid, with mandates and whatever comes next, could be that Lexington and Concord moment, that first step towards finally opening eyes and minds to the Lies of the Left, and to turning the Long March Through The Institutions?
One can only hope…
The temperature forecast for Oymyakon, Yakutia predicts dips below -60 C.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/russia/oymyakon/ext
Looks like December 14 low of -97F is near an all time low for Russia.
The perfect place for a conference on AGW. Modelers get preferred rates and a special discount for pool use to encourage them to have an extended stay.
Pingback: Winter Holidays: Persistent Parties and Democracy, Genetic Engineering, Traditional Wives – Economic Thinking
CKid | December 7, 2021 at 6:00 am | Reply
From the post
" So the challenge is to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's really good for the populace to be engaged and thinking about the problem and looking at the data and so on."
For the populace to be engaged and thinking about the problem they first have to have the tools to do that thinking. This is an open letter about the deterioration of math education in the US and more specifically California, which could be emblematic for a broader indictment of education in general and a dumbing down of the public.
Slightly OT and on a personal note, I have 2 daughters in elementary education. They both are at times consumed with students behavioral problems, some on medication, which detract from the effectiveness of their teaching. We didn't have this in the classroom in the 1940s and 1950s, although I do remember having my hair pulled once as a kindergartner.
https://sites.google.com/view/k12mathmatters/home
This is one poll that I believe, even without knowing the internals.
https://babylonbee.com/news/poll-finds-most-people-would-rather-be-annihilated-by-giant-tidal-wave-than-continue-to-be-lectured-by-climate-change-activists
Javier | December 8, 2021 at 8:49 am | Reply
That is hilarious CKid. Thank you.
co2islife | December 7, 2021 at 1:28 pm | Reply
Dr. Curry, I notice from Russel's inability to answer the most basic question regarding a question that should have been answered first in any published Peer Reviewed Paper, that there seem to be a lack of understanding in the filed of Climate Science regarding the quantum physics of a CO2 molecule. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the GHG Effect, and the GHG Effect is totally defined by the Quantum Physics of the GHG Molecule. Simply Google "Green House Gas Absorption Spectrum" and a few things should immediately become apparent.
1) CO2 doesn't absorb very much of the LWIR Spectrum relevant to the GHG Effect, it is limited to 13 to 18 Microns, Peak 15 Microns.
2) The Earth emits largely 9.5 to 10 Micron LWIR
3) Those wavelengths are consistent with Room Temperature or about 18 C
4) 15 Microns lays to the right of 10 Microns on the Spectrum
5) That means 15 Microns is consistent with a black body COOLER than the average earth temperature, -80C to be specific
6) Ice Emits LWIR of 10.5 Microns, so the radiation from CO2 specifically related to the GHG Effect won't even melt ice
Those are real problems, and rarely if ever have I seen any of the Peer Reviewed Research couch the research from the Perspective "How can 15 Micron LWIR cause Warming, Melting of Ice Caps or Bleaching of Coral."
That approach appears to be deliberately avoided, and I fear it is done for a reason. They are afraid of the answer they will find. The coral reef example is the best example.
Why does that matter? If this stuff ever does get dragged into a court of law, "arm chair scientists" like myself working with an expert witness would be certain to review the quantum physics of the CO2 molecule, that its radiated 15 micron LWIR doesn't penetrate water, that it doesn't bleach coral, and that its radiation is consistent with a black body of temperature -80C. I would also likely include an experiment for the jury shining an IR camera at a block of ice and a block of dry ice to make my point 100% irrefutable. I doubt there is an expert witness pulled from any Climate Science Department in the world that would be able to convince the Jury not to believe their eyes.
I would encourage you to demand that anyone claiming that CO2 is causing the warming, especially of the oceans, that they explain how CO2's radiation of 15 micron LWIR can cause such warming. To prove 15 micron LWIR can warm water, you need a very expensive Long Pass Filter, and I haven't seen anyone running that experiment, but I'm sure Exxon would if they get called into court, and when they do, it will be like Toto pulling on the curtain exposing the Wizard for what he truly is.
davidappell02 | December 7, 2021 at 8:38 pm | Reply
Again you are trying to assign a blackbody temperature to atmospheric CO2. Since atmospheric CO2 isn't a blackbody, this is both ridiculous and impossible.
Terrible physics. You refuse to learn.
David, how many times do we need to review this? CO2 emits a spectral spike which is a fraction of a black body spectrum. By me using the example of a black body I am stating the MAXIMUM energy CO2 could possibly emit. You pointing out that CO2 isn't a black body is simply pointing out that CO2 has LESS energy than something of -80C. There is a reason Dry Ice, frozen CO2, sublimates below -80C. If I take an IR Camera and point it at Dry Ice it will register -80C or less. Test it yourself, or Google "Temperature of Dry Ice." Thanks for making my point that you are 100% wrong…again.
Ron Graf | December 8, 2021 at 12:01 am | Reply
Physics is not my stock and trade but I notice a couple of facts.
1) CO2 lasers emit at 9-11 microns.
https://spie.org/publications/fg12_p85-86_carbon-dioxide_lasers?SSO=1
2) CO2 lasers are used by industry to cut metal. https://digilab.dremel.com/blog/can-lasers-cut-metal
Ron, Google "Green House Gas Absorption Spectrum." In the context of AGW, the wavelengths relevant to CO2 are outgoing LWIR longer than 13 microns. You will see there is an "atmospheric window" between 8 and 10.5 Microns which is basically the range that is transparent to most GHGs except O3. The vibrational modes used in the laser aren't reached my absorbing outgoing LWIR from earth. The normal vibrational modes for CO2 are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 Microns. The 15 micron bending is the least energy vibrational mode. CO2 doesn't have a natural dipole, unlike H2O. Take a look at the absorption of H2O to see what a truly potent GHG looks like. CO2 is a rather weak GHG.
Ron Graf | December 10, 2021 at 9:41 am |
The only assumption of yours that I questioned is that wavelength constrains energy. While its true that the longer the wavelength of a photon the weaker its energy, that does not stop energy from increasing by numbers of photons. Thus one can melt ice, or even steel, with IR.
I agree that water vapor is a stronger GHG than CO2.
You may want to add Climate4You to your BlogRoll
They have an interesting chart showing the cloud cover decreasing over the period of recent warming. It basically is all the evidence you need to explain the warming of the oceans and bleaching of the Coral…so climate scientist ignore it. The sun being the cause doesn't fit the narrative that is funding the AGW Gravy Train.
crypto666 | December 7, 2021 at 6:30 pm | Reply
The same is true for natural variability too; seems largely ignored by IPCC et al. Natural variability can explain any and all changes with a 20,000 warming trend for northern latitudes (orbital control), and within that trend on smaller time scales are other warming and cooling trends (changes in oscillations). In my region (western US) we see a dramatic warming trend beginning at 1,600 ybp that continues today.
The Anasazi knew climate change far better than we do today.
But CO2……
They could really bolster their claim if they could claim to have an accurate accounting of the heat, but with their global average temperatures being altered by things like ENSO, then obviously there is a sample size/distribution problem, which also seems to be ignored.
The main problem with climate is psychological.
Richard Greene | December 8, 2021 at 4:24 pm |
The IPCC was set up to prove global warming was man made and dangerous, In 1995, the IPCC declared all natural causes of climate change, in progress for the past 4.5 billion years, were now merely "noise".
Proof? Because they said so !
Geoff Sherrington | December 7, 2021 at 6:30 pm | Reply
Judith,
Is there a reason why you mention Thorium based electricity generations as opposed to Uranium based, the dominant present method?
Yes, there is a current lobby that links concepts of future-nuclear-small modular-Thorium, but is there more than that on which you rely?
My experience in the industry would lead to a preference to continue with the known U and its very good safety record, rather than preferring major new Th methods at this stage of our global progress. Geoff S
Ray Jakubczak Ph.D. | December 7, 2021 at 8:27 pm | Reply
Dr. Curry and commenters: Great article. I have never commented on one of these articles or their comment string, and I realize that most of you are climatologists, physicists, statisticians etc., rather than biologists. I would like to offer some help on some of the comments related to coral "bleaching". This phenomenon has nothing to do with actual "bleaching" by UV or any other radiation.
The color in living corals comes not from the actual coral animal but rather from symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) that live within the coral tissue. Certain stresses on the symbiotic combination can cause the algae to be expelled. This leaves only the transparent animal tissue behind which visually exposes the underlying white limestone skeleton. The corals then appear white, which is described as being "bleached."
Common stressors which cause bleaching relate to temperature (too high or low) and out of range salinity (again, too high or low). The good news is that in many cases these stressors are transitory, and the algae can repopulate the coral in time. If it lasts too long the corals will die.
Thanks or the details Ray
We may not all be PhD scientists, but we actually knew that.
The Great Barrier Reef has been "dying" since the 1960s,
we were told. We stopped listening to that nonsense
prediction decades ago.
Thanks Ray, " This phenomenon has nothing to do with actual "bleaching" by UV or any other radiation…Common stressors which cause bleaching relate to temperature (too high or low) and out of range salinity (again, too high or low)."
I challenge anyone to find a climate change peer reviewed article that identify those as the cause of the Bleaching and not CO2. If someone claims CO2 causes the warming of the ocean, please explain how. Air above the oceans has high humidity which absorb a broad spectrum of LWIR including the LWIR emitted and absorbed by CO2. With or without CO2 the emitted LWIR gets absorbed. At best CO2 could possibly slightly lower the height that 100% of the LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. This can be verified by using a Gas Cell Calculator. The Coral issue highlights the phenomenon that I've been trying to expose. Climate Scientists see an observation and immediately attribute the change to CO2 without trying to discover the real cause. They routinely attribute natural variability to CO2, and routinely ignore evidence that works against their conclusion. Once again, evidence of warming isn't evidence CO2 is the cause. Fewer clouds, more radiation reaching the oceans, the oceans warm, stress the Coral, the Coral bleaches, El Nino releases energy from the oceans, the oceans cool, the Coral color comes back. There is no need for CO2 in that cycle.
Ask anyone what if killing the coral and they will claim CO2 driven climate change.
co2islife | December 7, 2021 at 10:42 pm | Reply
Evidence of warming is not evidence CO2 is causing that warming. Simply go to Dr. Spencer's website and download the data for the South Pole. Why the South Pole? Because it is a natural control for the Urban Heat Island Effect, Water Vapor and it has a level and constant albedo. It is the best natural control to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. Dry Deserts are also good controls. When you download that data, parse it into months and chart those months what will you find? There has been no warming, and in some cases cooling, since the data began back in 1979. I'm an "armchair scientist" and somehow I was able to apply the Scientific Method and Knowledge of Multi-Variable modeling and identify countless Weather Stations across the globe. The question I have is why haven't the experts been able to figure that experiment out? The only person I've seen doing that kind of common sense research is Dr. Soon. Unless someone can explain to me why Antarctica and other wet and cold deserts show no warming with an increase in CO2, then the conclusion is clearly that exogenous factors and not CO2 is causing the warming. Simply look at West Point and NY CIty Central Park. Both have identical CO2 exposure, but only one shows warming. Clearly something other than CO2 is causing the warming.
UAH has infilling over both the North and South poles.
That would be the UAH data I would least trust.
although i do trust the UAH global average.
Currently: -57 °C. Passing clouds. (Weather station: Ojmjakon, Russia).
Currently very low solar activity. Faint sunspots on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/T4RT8VR/AR-CH-20211206.png
The chart below clearly shows that cycle 24 started in 2009 and cycle 25 started in 2019. Therefore, you need to compare activity in 2021 with activity in 2011. The difference is all too apparent.
https://i.ibb.co/188snR2/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas.png
Then you should write to SILSO at:
silso.info @ oma.be
and tell them that they have the start dates for the last solar cycles wrong.
They will be very grateful that you get them out of their mistake.
Once you convince them I will change my mind. Until then SC24 started in 2008-12 and SC25 in 2019-12 as they say.
Jeez. How many weird people among climate skeptics. It is starting to worry me.
jim2 | December 8, 2021 at 10:01 am |
Javier – Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. Just sayin'.
Yes. And strawman argumentation is also a logical fallacy. SILSO are not an authority expressing an opinion. They are the curators of the international sunspot number data. Are you suggesting we ditch data and replace it with Ren's speculations?
The scientific level of argumentation among skeptics is falling to unseen lows. I cannot read WUWT comments anymore and it appears to be spreading here too. I wonder what it portends. Perhaps Judith should make an article about it.
Javier said: Are you suggesting we ditch data and replace it with Ren's speculations?
Are you suggesting I said that?
Question for Javier: when do you predict an increase in solar activity?
I'm not Javier and he'll get upset
by my comment: Flip a coin.
Climate predictions are notoriously inaccurate.
In fact, they are counterproductive.
"Climate change" is nothing more than
a continuing series of data free
consistently wrong predictions of the future climate.
Climate science needs fewer predictions,
not more predictions !
I know people love to make predictions.
And other people like to read predictions,
especially scary climate predictions.
But what function do they serve,
besides entertainment ?.
Richard, science is about predicting. Your hypothesis is incomplete or wrong if it doesn't explain what will happen next. When I mix the reactants in a chemical reaction in the right proportions I can predict what is going to happen.
The future is unknowable but the laws of the Universe will continue to apply. Chaos is merely order waiting to be discovered (Saramago).
Ren, it is already increasing. I posted my prediction for solar activity until 2090 in 2016, and although I have refined the model, the prediction hasn't changed significantly.
SC25 should be similar to SC24 with slightly more activity. SC26 should have intermediate activity between SC22 and SC23.
https://i.imgur.com/zt9Uc2P.png
Overall solar activity in the 21st century should be similar to the 20th century or slightly higher. That is the prediction from solar cycles in the 50-2500 year range.
No increase in solar activity, so far it has remained steady at a very low level. No active sunspots (there has only been one this cycle).
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
When the neutron counts at Oulu drop below 6500, then solar activity can be said to be increasing.
Without a very good understanding of exactly what caused climate change in the past, there is almost no hope of being able to predict climate change in the future. Unless you enjoy making wrong predictions.
The global warming from 1910 to 1940 with little Co2 increase did NOT predict the cooling from 1940 to 1975. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 did not predict the warming from 1975 ro 2020. So we have had three different CO2 growth vs. global average temperature changes in just 110 years.
That experience doesn't lead to accurate predictions of the future climate, beyond saying "it will change"
I suppose the global average temperature will either increase of decrease in the future, so there's a 50% chance of being right. And that statement assumes the climate will ever be predictable, at any time in the future.
Making consistently wrong predictions without a thorough understanding of the climate change process is not useful science. If the prediction happens to be right, it will be very likely just by chance.
The worst case is making the same prediction every year (a climate crisis is coming in 10 or 20 years) and never admitting you were wrong. Make the same prediction again, and again — just change the dates. That's what "climate change" is all about these days (CAGW junk science).
Climate science is not settled enough for accurate predictions.
We already have too many predictions !
Richard Greene | December 8, 2021 at 4:14 pm:
– "Without a very good understanding of exactly what caused climate change in the past, there is almost no hope of being able to predict climate change in the future. Unless you enjoy making wrong predictions."
Our knowledge of how climate changes has improved considerably over the past decades. One good aspect of the climate scare is the amount of knowledge it has produced.
https://cforus.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-appearance-of-climate-change-and.html
– "The global warming from 1910 to 1940 with little Co2 increase did NOT predict the cooling from 1940 to 1975. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 did not predict the warming from 1975 ro 2020. So we have had three different CO2 growth vs. global average temperature changes in just 110 years. That experience doesn't lead to accurate predictions of the future climate, beyond saying "it will change""
Climate change over the 20th century has two main components, an underlying growing trend caused by natural and anthropogenic factors, and the c. 65-year stadium-wave oscillation. Knowing this it was easy to predict the result in hindcast. The problem is that the multidecadal oscillation was discovered in the mid-80s, and it was not properly understood until the early 2000s, too late to predict anything. Now we can predict absence of significant warming until the mid-2030s with some confidence.
– "I suppose the global average temperature will either increase of decrease in the future, so there's a 50% chance of being right."
A 50% chance is only for random processes with only two possible outcomes, and climate change is not random. That you can't predict doesn't mean that scientists with a better knowledge can't do it. Climate change is composed of inter-annual changes, and multidecadal and centennial trends. We can't predict volcanic eruptions, but we can predict the multidecadal and centennial trends for as long as they continue to take place, and we will continue to learn why they happen improving our ability to predict correctly. It was also said that we couldn't predict weather, and it is now done hugely better than in the past.
Ulric Lyons | December 10, 2021 at 12:36 pm |
Solar cycle 26 is the same type as solar cycles 16 & 20, it could be as low or lower than cycle 23 for sunspot number. What the solar wind will be doing is another matter.
At sunspot maximum in solar cycles not during a centennial minimum, Jupiter is normally in one of four positions. Around either quadrature with Uranus, around superior conjunction with Uranus, or around inferior conjunction with Uranus, the latter as in 1927, 1969, and 2038.
This is 1927:
https://snipboard.io/SoIxPh.jpg
I don't think the science of the Sun is "settled".
Of course not. But people that have predicted a Grand Solar Minimum have an incorrect understanding about how solar activity changes over time. That's how science works.
That list includes: Valentina Zharkova, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Irina Kitiashvili, Nils-Axel Mörner, Elena Popova, Jan-Erik Solheim, Ole Humlum, Friedhelm Steinhilber, Jürg Beer, David Archibald, Don Easterbrook, Willi Soon, Nicola Scafetta, Ian Wilson, Roger Tattersall, Ivanka Charvatova, Hans Jelbring, Rick Salvador, Richard Willson, Victor Velasco Herrera, Pavel Hedja and Harlad Yndestad among others. So this is no small peanuts.
Ulric Lyons | December 12, 2021 at 5:04 pm |
Most of them also have an incorrect understanding about how solar variability changes the AMO. They are expecting lower solar activity to be associated with a colder AMO, despite observations of the AMO being warmer in the current and in the previous centennial solar minima.
FEDERAL RESERVE graph on EU price of natural gas. How many more cold winters in their future?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PNGASEUUSDM
Some EU countries have banned fracking, which would give them a reliable supply of natural gas like the US has, but there is no activity there. Fracking is frowned upon and their Malthusian outlook, spurred on by Climate Change Fear, is costing them dearly.
Despite several years of exploratory drilling there are no commercial shale-gas wells in Europe at present. Tests of the continent's shale potential have been limited, and results to date have generally yielded little shale gas reserves. It also remains highly uncertain how much gas would be recoverable using current technologies, and even more difficult to forecast how much could be profitably extracted. Moreover, geologists know relatively little about the potential of shale-rock formations in Europe because there has been limited onshore drilling compared with the United States.
http://www.askaboutireland.ie/enfo/irelands-environment/environment-overview/other-environmental-conce/fracking/fracking-in-europe/
Climate Change Policy will render people inoperative, as in not alive. Climate change is tame compared to Climate Change Policy.
Electricity prices hit an all-time high in Germany and France
Freezing weather is forcing utilities to burn fossil fuels
Europe's energy crunch is set to last as electricity prices climb to a record, fueling inflation and raising bills for millions of households and industries across the continent.
Power prices for delivery next year surged almost 11% in Germany and 7.7% in France as freezing weather has forced European utilities to burn more gas, coal and even oil to keep the lights on. High prices this month are spilling into futures contracts for the following years, a sign that the crunch could last longer than many expected.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/energy-crunch-sends-benchmark-european-power-prices-to-record
The following essay describes how ideology was at the core of climate science before the formation of the IPCC, it details the history. From the onset, one sees how consensus building and standardization in climate science began and evolved into cooperation with politics, including persuading governments to spend billions on climate research.
"American foreign policy-makers believed the scientific enterprise was "intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order."
Excerpts from essay:
In one large historical bibliography of climate science (Weart, 2010), nearly all the papers written before 1940 were published under a single name and only a few were the work of two authors." "In the late 1960s, an environmental movement was everywhere on the rise, and officials could no longer ignore global changes.
World War II greatly increased the demand for international cooperation in science and not only toward military ends.
Fostering transnational scientific links became an explicit policy for many of the world's democratic governments, not least the United States. It was not just that gathering knowledge gave a handy excuse for creating international organizations. Beyond that, the ideals and methods of scientists, their open communication, and their reliance on objective facts and consensus rather than command would reinforce the ideals and methods of democracy. As political scientist Clark Miller (2001, 171, passim) has explained, American foreign policy-makers believed the scientific enterprise was "intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order." Scientists themselves were still more strongly committed to the virtues of cooperation. For some, like oceanographers, international exchanges of information were simply indispensable for the pursuit of their studies. To many, the free association of colleagues across national boundaries meant yet more: It meant advancing the causes of universal truth and world peace (e.g., Hamblin 2002, 14).
Study of the global atmosphere seemed a natural place to start. Study of the global atmosphere seemed a natural place to start. In 1947, a world meteorological convention, arranged in Washington, D.C., explicitly made the meteorological enterprise an "intergovernmental" affair—that is, one to which each nation appointed an official representative. In 1951, the International Meteorological Organization was succeeded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), an association of national weather services. The WMO soon became an agency of the United Nations. That gave meteorological groups access to important organizational and financial support and brought them a new authority and stature.
All the organizational work for weather prediction did little to connect the scattered specialists in diverse fields who took an interest in climate change. A better chance came in the mid 1950s, when a small band of scientists got together to push international cooperation to a higher level in all areas of geophysics. They aimed to coordinate their data gathering and—no less important—to persuade their governments to spend an extra billion or so dollars on research. The result was the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–58.
IGY with its unprecedented funding was energized by a mixture of altruistic hopes and hard practical goals. Scientists expected in the first place to advance their collective knowledge and their individual careers. The government officials, who supplied the money, while not indifferent to pure scientific discovery, expected the new knowledge would have civilian and military applications. The U.S. and Soviet governments further hoped to win practical advantages in their Cold War competition. It is a moot question whether, in a more tranquil world, governments would have spent so much to learn about seawater and air around the globe. For whatever motives, the result was a coordinated effort involving several thousand scientists from sixty-seven nations (Needell, 2000, ch. 11; Greenaway, 1996, ch. 12).
http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
Matthew R Marler | December 8, 2021 at 10:26 am | Reply
Going forward, I hope that view makes more and more an impression in the public dialogue and public policy. Especially the idea that surprisingly extreme events will continue to occur everywhere they ever have occurred.
That you for this posting, and for maintaining your interest in the public dialogue.
Another wave of Siberian frost will reach Alaska.
https://i.ibb.co/4jw6hjV/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
This is what the circulation looks like now in the lower stratosphere in the Northern Hemisphere. This could be a historic winter.
https://i.ibb.co/ZHyxMZx/gfs-z100-nh-f00.png
Just my chance, Dr. Happer just published a video that covers many of the quantum physics concepts I've been discussing. This video is really worth watching. https://youtu.be/PblYr-KjOVY
Geoff Sherrington | December 8, 2021 at 11:59 pm | Reply
Javier,
You wrote "we can predict the multidecadal and centennial trends for as long as they continue to take place"
As you should know, in classical methodology one seeks three or more complete cycles before confidence is adequate to forecast more. Because of a lack of data in many fields of climate change, I'd be cautious about your statement re centennial trends. Sunspot counts are one of the few fields with long enough data, but there are reasonable arguments that sunspot counts have little to do with anything in the realm of real physics, as opposed to the belief in old superstitions.
"for as long as they continue to take place" represents a problem, not a valid rider. When one cannot predict the end of a series of cycles, that is a common way to discount or eliminate the hypothesis.
Geoff S
When it comes to the strength of the solar magnetic field, the trend is apparent and probably won't change for a long time. It is worth tracking. The equatorial dipole gives a good indication of current solar activity compared to cycle 24.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Geoff Sherrington | December 8, 2021 at 11:59 pm:
– "in classical methodology one seeks three or more complete cycles before confidence is adequate to forecast more."
No. In science the important thing is to be right, not to be sure. Heinrich Schwabe described the 11-yr solar cycle that carries his name with only 17 years of observations (i.e. 1.5 periods). He was looking for the planet Vulcan, believed then to be close to the Sun. Had he waited for 16 more years of observations before announcing what he thought to be a cycle we would probably be studying the cycle under a different name and wouldn't know his name.
– "there are reasonable arguments that sunspot counts have little to do with anything in the realm of real physics"
Logic doesn't get you anywhere in science. Phenomenons are real or aren't, and no amount of logic could prevent the continents from moving as Weggener said and took 40 years to accept. Paleoclimatology has very clearly said that solar variability has a huge effect on climate, as I showed in my articles. No amount of reasonable arguments can make a fact disappear. The explanation, as in the case of continental drift, lies in our incomplete knowledge. Using logic to ignore a fact only delays finding the truth, because less effort is put into it.
– ""for as long as they continue to take place" represents a problem, not a valid rider. When one cannot predict the end of a series of cycles, that is a common way to discount or eliminate the hypothesis."
Not really. Sunspots are a good example. In science one has to do with imperfect knowledge of complex phenomena. The 11-year cycle stopped being perceptible during the Maunder Minimum. Had it been proposed just before, its hypothesis would have been rejected. We know it exists only because we have observed 30 occurrences. It can vary in periodicity between 9-14 years and in amplitude between 0 and 300 sunspots. It can disappear during decades. The fact that this quasi-cycle behaves in such imperfect manner doesn't discount or eliminate the hypothesis.
Geoff Sherrington | December 11, 2021 at 12:47 am |
Sorry that you are bit mixed up with exact use of English, my apologies if English is not your first language.
You wrote "No. In science the important thing is to be right, not to be sure. Heinrich Schwabe described the 11-yr solar cycle that carries his name with only 17 years of observations (i.e. 1.5 periods)."
Wrong. You can discuss some patterns after 1.5 periods, but you cannot claim the pattern is a cycle.
In the later stages of Wegener's talk about what became plate tectonic in geology, I was in the midst of the discussion via such paths as Prof S Warren Carey and his contender of the Expanding Earth hypothesis. Several long one on one talks getting to the finest of detail. But, I do not know what Wegener's talks have to do with this to and fro between you and me.
"Paleoclimatology has very clearly said that solar variability has a huge effect on climate, as I showed in my articles. No amount of reasonable arguments can make a fact disappear." No argument. But. what I was writing about was sunspot counts, not solar variability. As I wrote, "there are reasonable arguments that sunspot counts have little to do with anything in the realm of real physics, as opposed to the belief in old superstitions." In 1978 I wrote an informal paper on the correlations between sunspots numbers and a number of other factors such as wheat yields in North America, tomato yields in California, the global prices of copper metal over recent decades and several others extracted painfully from "Scientific American" articles. Not much joy was found in this early work.
You wrote "Sunspots are a good example. In science one has to do with imperfect knowledge of complex phenomena. The 11-year cycle stopped being perceptible during the Maunder Minimum." in reply to my comment that "When one cannot predict the end of a series of cycles, that is a common way to discount or eliminate the hypothesis." Your words do not answer my claim. You used a pause, I wrote of a cessation, like it would be the end of a series of cycles if the sun did not rise one morning.
This is all good fun, playing with shades of meaning, but the reality remains that much so-called climate science is far below the standards of long-established hard science.
Perhaps we should spend more disaster time on Near Earth Objects, like the bus-sized 2021 VX-4 that passed 179,000 km from earth a couple of hours ago.
A powerful snowstorm is developing in central Europe.
Highs are seen in the north and east, which will provide a harsh winter in Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/Vj4Rms8/Zrzut-ekranu-2021-12-09-090033.png
Christos Vournas | December 9, 2021 at 4:44 am | Reply
1. Earth's Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet's solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth's albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth's surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth's axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth's surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth's Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth's atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth's surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth's mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth's mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the "debate" with Javier over whether or not we need more predictions of the future climate, he mentioned how weather predictions have been getting more accurate over time.
While that is true, I don't see the relationship between local weather predictions for the next few days and predictions of the global climate in 100 years. I contend that no one alive today has any idea whether the global average temperature in 100 years will be warmer or colder than today.
I don't even recall reading about anyone in 2019 who predicted 2020 would be a relatively warm year, and 2021 would would be a relatively cold year.
Yet we still hear 100 year climate predictions based on estimates of CO2 concentration growth, estimates of ECS and TCS (there must be hundreds of different estimates) and claims that natural causes of climate change are not relevant.
Most of the predictions are identical each year, since the 1970s:
Rapid, dangerous man made global warming caused almost entirely by fossil fuel emissions. The global average temperature will get warmer, never cooler. … That's not science — that's like a trained parrot saying the same thing every year.
While there are cycles affecting the climate, that doesn't mean they are regular, predictable cycles. There are also unknown feedbacks, interactions between variables, and many unanswered questions (about subjects such as clouds, cosmic rays, oceans, etc.).
While ENSO is a cycle redistributing ocean heat, the strength and timing vary. Maybe El Ninos and La Ninas offset each other over a 30 year period … or maybe not?.
Sunspots are a fairly regular cycle but the connection with climate doesn't exist, or it's very small.
Correctly predicting that the next century will average a degree or two F. warmer or cooler than the prior century is not of much value.
An important prediction would be when the current interglacial will end.
And I have not seen progress on that question in the past 50 years.
Please visit the "Reversed Milankovitch Cycle" – page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
While the current interglacial is probably not going to end during our lifetimes, I suspect when it does end, global warming will then be viewed as good news, and people will want more global warming.
Just idle speculation !
Christos Vournas | December 9, 2021 at 10:17 am |
I believe people will still live here on Earth a billion years from now!
Richard Greene | December 9, 2021 at 5:44 am:
– "I contend that no one alive today has any idea whether the global average temperature in 100 years will be warmer or colder than today."
That is of little practical use since almost no one alive today will be alive in 100 years to check the prediction, nor would anyone care about a prediction made with a century outdated knowledge. The value in predictions is to increase our knowledge by discarding the hypotheses unsupported by evidence. A hypothesis that doesn't predict anything is a hypothesis that can't be disproved.
– "Most of the predictions are identical each year, since the 1970s:
When we are in a multicentennial trend, the safest bet is that it is going to continue. Predicting when the trend will change is fraught with uncertainties as skeptics know too well.
– "While there are cycles affecting the climate, that doesn't mean they are regular, predictable cycles. There are also unknown feedbacks, interactions between variables, and many unanswered questions (about subjects such as clouds, cosmic rays, oceans, etc.)."
That climate is one of the most complex problems the human mind can study doesn't mean that we can't learn. If we are good at one thing is at learning.
– "While ENSO is a cycle redistributing ocean heat, the strength and timing vary. Maybe El Ninos and La Ninas offset each other over a 30 year period … or maybe not?."
ENSO is modulated by solar activity, as I showed in an article here some time ago. ENSO activity is not offset over time. This has been demonstrated. ENSO activity has been growing over the Neoglaciation (last 5200 years). Moy et al. 2002 showed it. For a more recent view check:
Perner, K., Moros, M., De Deckker, P. et al. 2018. Heat export from the tropics drives mid to late Holocene palaeoceanographic changes offshore southern Australia. Quaternary Science Reviews, 180, pp.96-110.
– "Sunspots are a fairly regular cycle but the connection with climate doesn't exist, or it's very small."
You need to update your knowledge. I suggest Lean 2017 open review: Sun-Climate Connections
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.9
Figure 12 should dispel your false belief that there is no connection between sunspots and climate.
– "An important prediction would be when the current interglacial will end.
I published an article about it here in this blog. The astronomical decision to end the Holocene was taken several thousand years ago, when summer energy at high northern latitudes fell below the threshold determined from past interglacials. For the past 5 millennia, every millenium has been colder than the previous. This one we just started will not be an exception. The window for glacial inception is calculated at 1500-4000 years in the future, but there should be quite a lot of cooling before. A slow descent into LIA conditions should start in 200-300 years and take several centuries to complete. Read my article to see if it convinces you or not. The arguments are based on a good understanding of Milankovitch forcing and previous interglacials. The evidence will come when the Barnes ice cap in Baffin Island (Canada) starts growing. I don't expect that to happen for at least two centuries.
The LIA was a close call caused by reduced solar activity, but it took place too early in the interglacial, so we have recovered. The next one will do the trick and it is hilarious that we are so worried about warming. The asterisk marks where we are in the cycle:
https://i.imgur.com/KZY4Ox1.png
Richard Greene | December 9, 2021 at 10:12 am |
Javier:
Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Concerning predictions of the climate in 100 years, you wrote:
— That is of little practical use since almost no one alive today will be alive in 100 years to check the prediction,"
Internet Rule 4b requires me to find something you wrote to disagree with.
So I disagree with that statement above !
There is much capital spending already taking place, guided by government mandates, to address a predicted +3 degree C. rise of the global average temperature in 100 years. (or whatever the current prediction is with CMIP6). That's the purpose of the so called Green New Ordeal.
The predicted global warming in 100 years, a prediction I see as climate astrology, is already affecting our lives. Many nations are in the process of replacing a reliable electric grid, powered mainly by fossil fuels, AT GREAT EXPENSE, with a less reliable electric grid, powered mainly by renewables.
That enormous (and foolish, in my opinion) is based on scary predictions of the climate in 100 years.
Leftists leading the green new ordeal have never been a group to admit a mistake — they tend to :"double down" on their mistakes. I believe only many years of unusually cool weather would change minds of those under the influence of the climate change religion. And I'm not sure of that. Belief in a coming climate crisis, based on faith, are likely to be very difficult to change.
to the stew is asking for a debate with Climate Alarmists over who has the best climate prediction. That "debate" would be counterproductive, by diverting attention from more important issues. Two important issues are one step lower on the assumption ladder:
(1) Can humans predict the climate in 100 years with any accuracy?
(2) If not, why are so many government policies assuming those predictions are accurate ?
Richard, you assume that the political decisions that are being taken are due to the predictions. That is clearly not the case. The predictions are the mean to justify the decisions.
http://s9953.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Follow-The-Science-scaled.jpg
What is unsustainable will not be sustained. We have entered interesting times.
Ragnaar | December 10, 2021 at 8:46 pm | Reply
It's the same as the second coming of Christ based on science. Or Ragnarok. No we don't need the predictions. But the desire for them is an ancient one.
In answer to this question posed by Monmouth University in its poll in the US just 2% identified climate change, versus 1% nearly 5 years ago.
"Turning to issues closer to home, what is the biggest concern facing your family right now?"
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_120821/
Richard Greene | December 9, 2021 at 10:30 am | Reply
I designed some questionnaires about 20 years ago before I became a lazy retired bum. The question you listed is not very useful, and the answer is expected. No one with sense would say climate change is "the biggest concern facing your family right now"
But is climate change in their top ten concerns?
We don't know.
A better question would be to ask
how important climate change was to them:
Not very important
Not important
And even better question would be to ask if the respondent would be willing to pay a $20 a month tax to fight climate change.
I once saw a survey where people who said they thought climate change was "important' … were asked a follow up question. — it seemed that few of them were willing to pay $10 a month to fight climate change !
I can't open the link you provided, for unknown reasons, but I assume the survey was anonymous. When not anonymous, people will tend to virtue signal about 'fighting global warming'. Until you ask them for money !
CKid | December 9, 2021 at 12:29 pm |
" Until you ask them for money !"
I don't remember the specific article but it was about youth in Europe not being willing to take personal actions to fight global warming. Probably a lot of reasons for this but it seems the younger generation doesn't have an appetite for dealing with adversity.
A little off topic but I was in a store yesterday when the store manager was having a loud conversation with maybe her district manager about one of her employees just walking off the job to never return and that she was already short staffed and she had done everything she could and….. and…..and….. and on and on. I'm glad I am retired.
I will try again, this time not off Twitter.
Christos Vournas | December 10, 2021 at 3:05 am | Reply
Earth is on average warmer 68C than Moon. It is not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin.
Earth has a five (5) times higher average surface specific heat (for Earth cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean; and for Moon cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC – its soil is a dry regolith).
Earth is warmer than Moon not because of its very thin atmosphere trace greenhouse gasses content.
Earth is warmer because its surface has 155,42 times higher the (N*cp) product than Moon's surface.
Christos Vournas | December 10, 2021 at 4:39 pm | Reply
If Moon had Earth's albedo (a=0,306), Moon's mean surface temperature would have been 210K.
As we know, Earth's mean surface temperature is 288K.
Let's compare:
Tmean.earth /Tmean.moon = 288K /210K = 1,3714
(155,42)^1/16 = 1,3709
The Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets' mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products' sixteenth root.
Christos Vournas | December 11, 2021 at 11:14 am |
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Christos Vournas | December 13, 2021 at 4:26 am |
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earth's atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth's surface.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 10, 2021 at 3:20 am | Reply
Oymyakon Plateau Temperature Yesterday
As winter progresses in the Northern Hemisphere, the global sea surface temperature anomaly decreases.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Very low surface temperatures throughout the equatorial Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/2WRHBm4/gfs-world-ced2-sstanom-1-day.png
aaron | December 10, 2021 at 7:36 am | Reply
I think you are likely wrong that cooling offsetting warming will buy us time. If we are entering a cooling phase it will likely be a climate regime shift. If greenhouse warming doesn't translate into higher temperatures, it's likely to translate into more intense weather. It may be that we have quasi-cyclical oscillations where warming is generally beneficial, but we have periods where the weather gets much more intense instead of warming.
jim2 | December 10, 2021 at 8:33 am | Reply
And this brilliant line of reasoning is based on what?
Richard Greene | December 10, 2021 at 10:47 am | Reply
Mr. Aaron:
The Northern Hemisphere warming since the mid-1970s has been mainly in the Arctic, with little warming in the tropics. That REDUCED temperature differential resulted in more moderate (better) weather in the N.H.
Examples for the US include declining land falling hurricanes and declining major tornadoes (EF3+).
If that warming pattern continues in the future, the weather in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to get less intense. This is basic meteorology 101. Your speculation is not supported by reality.
jim2 | December 10, 2021 at 2:56 pm | Reply
Don't know about "intense." But we do have ample evidence it can get much, much colder.
What does intense mean? If I drive my car faster, the radiator does more intense cooling. A plant grows more intensely with more sun and rain. Our brains have intense activity compared to all other animals.
No increase in solar activity.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusiasts
Lefty Greenpeace U.K. and the spineless Scottish entity nominally known as 'the government' have placed yet another shiv in the back of the U.K. common man.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/12/02/protest-works-cheers-shell-signals-pullout-cambo-oil-field-project
It's bleedingly obvious to everyone that the U.K. needs locally sourced fossil fuels to obtain energy security, but the left, time after time, hobbles the U.K., it's businesses, and citizens. Good work, that!
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/8134269/cambo-oil-field-project-paused/
Doug Eaton | December 10, 2021 at 12:46 pm | Reply
These two interviews are just wonderful for someone like me with limited scientific training. So clear, knowledgeable and to the point. For a long time I've intuited that Judith Curry's take on these issues is the most sensible, honest and informed of anyone who purports to be an expert in climate science. To see it all stated here so concisely is a bonus.
The fact is we don't have a clue what temperatures will be like fifty years hence and anyone who pretends they do is a poseur. Thank you, Judith.
Norman J Page | December 10, 2021 at 1:24 pm | Reply
You and the "97%" may have no clue what temperatures will be like fifty years from hence but the very likely general trends are glaringly obvious. See quotes from
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science "consensus" that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur.
…………………….. As shown in references 1-10 above, the anthropogenic CO2 Radiative Forcing concept on which the climate models' dangerous warming forecasts are based is inappropriate for analyzing atmospheric temperature changes. Solar sourced energy flows in and out of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone provide the net negative feedback which has kept the earth within a narrow temperature range for the last 600 million years. The effects on temperature and climate of major meteorite strikes, periods of flood basalt outpourings and major volcanic eruptions are superposed on this solar sourced background. The sample lengths in the IPCC reported model studies are too short. The models retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, "solar activity" cycle is millennial. The relevant system for comparison should include the entire Holocene.
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/11 was + 0.08 C. (34) .These RSS/MSU global satellite temperature at 2004/3 was +0.5684 and at 2021/11 +0.5405. These satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 18 years. As shown above, the Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in "Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models" (35) says "Many of the world's leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. "It's become clear over the last year or so that we can't avoid this," says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts."
co2islife | December 11, 2021 at 12:30 pm |
If Climate Science was a real science this alone means game over "CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two."
Henry's Law defines Atmospheric CO2, that is why CO2 begins to increase AFTER the end of an ice age, and turns down AFTER an ice age starts. The Earth Warms AND THEN CO2 is degassed from the oceans, and once the ice age starts the oceans cool AND THEN the CO2 starts to decrease. There is absolutely no defined mechanism that can explain why CO2 would increase before an ice age ends or decreases before an ice age starts. Those very and fundamental questions would have to be explained before any science could be settled. Real Science uses Y =mX + b, whereas Climate Science uses X = mY + b. They exchange the dependent variable with the independent variable. Their Consensus is the equivalent of Lung Cancer Causing Cancer.
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 10, 2021 at 4:19 pm | Reply
"Grimsvotn volcano in Iceland is on an increased alert, after an earthquake swarm and a subglacial flood. The available data shows that the volcano is nearing critical pressure, now being in the final runup stages before an eruption.
Grimsvotn is currently the main candidate for the next larger explosive eruption in Iceland. As you will see from all the data, the latest activity has pushed it very near to an eruption, which could be just days away. The volcano is under increased monitoring, as it typically erupts in a violent explosive fashion, having an intense history of effects sometimes spanning the Northern Hemisphere."
co2islife | December 10, 2021 at 6:32 pm | Reply
Dr. Happer has a new video out that is well worth watching largely because he addresses the true quantum physics of the GHG Effect. The Quantum Physics of the CO2 molecule should be how every research paper starts.
https://youtu.be/PblYr-KjOVY
Dr. Happer Points out:
1) CO2 absorbs and transmits 15 Micron/666 Wave Number
2) The Earth Radiates 9.5/10 Micron/1000 Wave Number
3) Those Wavenumbers are associated with temperatures
4) CO2 is a weak GHG
5) Water Vapor absorbs most of the outgoing LWIR
6) The impact of Methane is negligible
7) The CO2 doesn't have a diople, CO2 slight bending creates the 15 Micron LWIR
8) Different wavelengths interact with different molecules
9) Doubling CO2 has very very very little impact of the total energy balance but that is assuming all else held equal
10) The Plank Curves all are tied to a temperature
11) Note how he points out that the CO2 absorption is consistent with the peak of the Plank Curve he said is consistent with the Antarctica
12) He claims burning fossil fuels is the reason CO2 is going higher. I disagree, my bet it is the warming and degassing of the oceans
13) Note how he says the variability of the annual CO2 is increasing because the earth is getting greener
morfu03 | December 11, 2021 at 10:33 am | Reply
Are we doing that every day now? I replied to you two days ago:
This 15 Micron CO2 absorption/emission happens at all temperatures!
Half of your points are either wrong or "so what, you didn't add that water is wet!"
The carbon cycle is a complicated subject with uncertainties, like climate, any simple statements about it are likely not quite right.
co2islife | December 11, 2021 at 11:22 am |
Morfu03, you can call me an Arm Chair Scientist, but Dr Happer? Dr Koonin? Many others? I've been making the exact same arguments for years that Dr Happer makes in his video that was published just a few days ago. Pretty odd coincidence for an Arm Chair Scientist don't you think? Did I just make up phony arguments that Dr Happer suddenly makes himself?
"I am however fairly certain that scientists working with Quantum Theory cringe very strongly seeing how it is used here."
The CO2 molecule absorbs 2.7, 4.3, and 15 Microns, only the 15 micron band applies to the outgoing LWIR of which is the basis of the GHG Effect. Down playing the role of QM in Climate Change is nonsensical. The entire GHG effect is 100% founded and defined by QM. Have you never used MODTRAN? The entire program is to model the QM of CO2 and other GHGs. Just why do you think they have Gas Cells and Black Body calculators?
BTW, have you ever even used MODTRAN? If not, you have no business posting on this topic.
Once gain, how does 15 micron LWIR warm water and how does it penetrate water to bleach the Coral. Those are the most basic questions that need to be answered. BTW, do yourself a favor. Go to MODTRAN, set the program to looking up from the surface, and dramatically change the level of CO2. You will see that changing CO2 near the surface doesn't result in more radiation reaching the surface. Why? Because H20 absorbs all the outgoing 15 micron LWIR, so with our without CO2, 15 Micron LWIR gets absorbed. You can use a Gas Cell to measure the difference if height at which 100% get absorbed, but 100% does get absorbed, with or without CO2, You don't see the CO2 signature until you are up about 3km when H20 has precipitated out of the atmosphere.
Really? No duh. Just what does that have to do with the 3 vibrational states for CO2 that are relevant to the GHG Effect? The GHG Effect is defined by CO2 absorbing outgoing LWIR of 15 microns. If you have a room of 68F filled with O2, N2, CO2 and remove the CO2, it will still be 68%. Once again, you have to link CO2, LWIR of 15 Microns, and the warming. Evidence of warming isn't evidence CO2 is causing that warming.
Uncertainties are not allowed in a "settled science." Are you claiming that the consensus is bogus? No matter how you try to spin it, QM isn't debatable, that is pretty settled science. That is real science that can be demonstrated through experimentation. There is a reason Climate Science avoids discussing QM and running experiments. Computer models can manipulate statistics to give you any answer you want. Just look at the IPCC Models, the are all different and none of them do an adequate job modeling the observed temperatures.
https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/24.jpg
morfu03 | December 12, 2021 at 8:25 am |
Really? No duh.""
Yes duh, please give a temperature range at which the internal modes of a CO2 molecule cannot be activated and explain why that is the case, you might get a nobel price for it as it defies our knowledge of thermodynamics!
"You will see that changing CO2 near the surface doesn't result in more radiation reaching the surface. "
Is wrong, https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
explains the well known number that a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560ppm results in about 1°C warming from the direct CO2 effect (using MODTRAN btw)
a) I have not used MODTRAN, you are wrong
b) I have used MODTRAN, you are wrong
" Are you claiming that the consensus is bogus?"
No, dont put words in my mouth, I am just telling you, that your model of the carbon cycle is naive.
You talk about about statistical physics and call it QM, which means you do not understand what you are talking about.
Your following should be used again as you hit the sweet spot. You make a very good coherent argument. Describe what can be made better, and watershed optimization is important, and point out that reducing CO2 by some small amount isn't going to solve current or long term problems. My own opinion is they all pat themselves on the back for some questionable solar panels they just placed in service that isn't fixing anything.
"Many places have too much water or too little water, even in the same region during different seasons. So, the challenge is to better manage the reservoirs and sewage systems. You need to figure out how to manage your water so you can buffer against the extreme wet and the extreme dry. And building in floodplains and right on the coast just causes problems. These issues are soluble and the big driver here is not that they might be impacted at a few percent level by man-made global warming."
co2islife
Happer's paper is great on the physics but as you point out is mainly wrong re item 12. Certainly some of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic but warming and degassing of the oceans is the main control on C02 See Comment at 1:24 pm above
co2islife | December 11, 2021 at 11:01 am | Reply
Norman, I'll believe you if you can show me some research that applies Henry's Law to the warming of the oceans and rules out the warming of the oceans. That is pretty basic science that any Chemistry Department could calculate. Facts are warm H20 and it will degas CO2. Simply warm a Coke and watch what happens. Just look at the Ice Core and Geological Records, CO2 is very volatile and it wasn't due to burning Fossil Fuels. We are coming out of a Little Ice Age so extra CO2 would have been absorbed by the oceans.
Monthly sunspot-free days (smoothed). This shows the other side of the sunspot cycle – the minima of the cycle measured by the number of days in each month without sunspots. Peaks in the number of sunspot-free days occur around the time of sunspot cycle minima.
The graph below shows that the minimum between cycles 24/25 was weaker than between cycles 23/24 because the number of sunspot-free days was higher.
http://solarcyclescience.com/bin/SpotlessDays.png
The sun is blank–no sunspots. Credit: SDO/HMI
https://i.ibb.co/Z1rzVG9/hmi1898.gif
Over the Bering Strait, a mass of Arctic air is again falling southward.
https://i.ibb.co/x7446XX/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Dr. Curry, you should challenge all your posters to defend themselves using the real science of Quantum Physics. Evidence of Warming isn't evidence CO2 is causing that warming. Almost everything I've seen come out of the field of climate science seems to identify warming and then then torture the data until they can somehow claim CO2 is the cause. That is completely backwards and inverts the scientific method. Climate Scientists seem to start with a conclusion, and work backwards. They don't try to reject the null, the status quo, the consensus, they try to reinforce the consensus. If this is "settled science" why keep spending all this money to keep proving a settled argument? Do we have Round Earth Departments that continually do studies to prove the world isn't flat? Nope. BTW, if Climate Science was settled science there would only be one IPCC Model, not countless models, and all the models would give the same result. Climate Science is far from that. 1) They have countless different models 2) the existing models don't model the observation and 3) there isn't a settle data source, you get wildly different results when you choose different data sources and reconstructions. The Hockeystick is a joke, but that is just one of the nonsensical data sources.
Anyway, Quantum Physics Defines the GHG Effect, no consensus will ever change that undeniable fact. Trying to deny quantum physics is purely futile.
Here is Dr. Happer's Video explaining the Quantum Physics.
Here is Modtran for you to check the facts yourself
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Here is a Black Body Calculator and Gas Cell
https://www.spectralcalc.com/
Here is the penetration of H2O by various wavelengths
https://www.nln.geos.ed.ac.uk/courses/english/ars/a1600/a1600008.htm
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-5-light/
https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/sites/7/2019/05/figure6.5.2.jpg
The fact will never change that the oceans determine the climate. To claim CO2 is the cause of the warming and climate change, once has to explain how CO2 can provide the astronomical energy needed to warm the oceans. The above links provide all the data sources to make that case.
Until climate scientists can demonstrate that 15 micron LWIR can warm H20, Climate Science would better be called Climate Sophistry. It is more Political Science than Physical Science.
To demonstrate that CO2 can warm water one need to create a control experiment.
1) Two Buckets of H20
2) Long Pass IR Filter that cuts off at 13 microns
3) Two Electronic Scientific Thermometers
Simply use 1 bucket as a control and the other bucket for the experiment
Place the 2 buckets in the same room separated by an IR reflecting Barrier
Shine light through the Long Pass Filter onto the 2nd Bucket (this is the marginal additional energy provided by CO2)
Measure the temperature change over time.
My bet is that adding energy consistent with -80C is like adding extra ice to an ice tea, and that the water won't warm. In fact, because the energy is limited to the top micro layer of the water, it may trigger accelerated evaporation and actually COOL the water below.
The question needs to be asked, "why hasn't this experiment been run?" It should have been the starting point of any real scientific exploration.
The Arm Chair Scientist Schools the QM Haters:
Step#1: Visit Modtran http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Step #2: Change the Settings to Wavelength and Looking Up
Step #3: Change the altitude to 0.00 km
Step #4: Save the run to the background
Step #5: Record the Outgoing Radiation 369.264 W/M^2
Step #6: Change the CO2 to 800 ppm (Double it)
Step #7: Record the new Outgoing Radiation 371.148 W/M^2 or a change of 1.88 W/M^2.
Step #8: Delete the Background
Step #9: Set the CO2 to Pre-Industrial Levels of 270 PPM
Step #10: Set this as the background
Step #11: Change the CO2 to today's level of 410 PPM
Step #12: The W/M^2 change from 270 to 410 is 0.94 W/M^2.
This entire field of Climate Science is based upon an additional 0.94 W/M^2 causing material changes to the global climate. An additional 0.94 W/M^2 is all the Climate Scientists can claim is due to the entire energy provided by Industrial Era CO2, that is it. That is the entire basis of all this climate alarmism.
Now, how material is 0.94 W/M^2?
Step #13: Change the "No Clouds or Rain" to "Cumulous Clouds"
Step #14: Record the 79.13 W/M^2 Change in backradiation
The entire industrial age CO2 provides 0.94 W/M^2 where as a single cloudy days changes the energy balance by 79.13 W/M^2. A single cloudy day can provide the energy of over 80 days of CO2 backradiation. That is just how absurd these claims of focusing on CO2 and not H2O, Clouds and the Sun truly are. If you can't explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, change clouds, and alter the sun's radiation, you can't blame CO2 for climate change. BTW, CO2 has been as high as 7,000 PPM and sea life thrived, and we didn't have CAGW.
More fun with MODTRAN. As I pointed out above, according to MODTRAN, not this Arm Chair Scientist, the downward radiation from the increase in CO2 from 270 to today's 410 is a whopping 0.94 W/M^2. Problem is, that is W/M^2, what does that mean in Temperature? Also, as I noted above, different wavelengths have different effects on H2O and other materials.
Anyway, let's put things in perspective.
1) CO2 changing from 270 to 410 added 0.94 W/M2
2) A simple cloud later alters the W/M^2 by 79.13 W/M^2
3) The Diurnal change of the East Coast of America is about 5C (eyeballing this graphic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_air_temperature_variation#/media/File:July_diurnalvariation_US.svg
4) Changing the ground temperature offset to -5C the W/M^2 changes by 28.57. All the backradiation from industrial age CO2 in only 1/30th of the average daily change change in W/M^2.
The take home message? The additional energy from CO2 is only a small small small fraction of the natural variation due to clouds and night and day, and I simply don't see how Climate Scientists can claim to be able to tease out the immaterial impact of 0.94 W/M^2 when the natural variation is far higher than that level. Also, that 0.94 W/M^2 is the result of a very very very slow accumulation, so it isn't like we woke up and the energy balance had changed 0.94 W/M^2 from the day before. Nature is very resilient and adaptive, and I'm pretty sure it is can adapt easily to huge swings in W/M^2 due to clouds and night and day, I'm sure that over 200+ years Nature can adapt to an additional addition of W/M^2 associated with a -80C Black Body amount of energy.
co2islife – You are one of the few people who seem able to see the patently obvious that whole IPCC -UNFCCC- COP circus is a disgrace for Western Science. It is obvious that China and India pay only lip service to the Dangerous CO2 Climate Crisis nonsense. Here is my view of COP 26::
COP 26: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Never in the field of human history has so much complete nonsense been spoken at one place by so many. Apocalyptic forecasts and imaginary impossible non -solutions to a non existent problem provide a cacophony of Blah, Blah ,Blah, Blah, Blah as Greta correctly said or as Johnson said "Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change. It's one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock and we need to act now,"
The West's Main Stream Media notably the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, NBC ,ABC, CBS,PBS and the US Cable networks have been the greatest propagators of this blizzard of misinformation. They have produced a generation of scared and psychologically disturbed teenagers and green fanatics who believe that the world has no future if fossil fuels continue to be used.
The whole COP 26 Net Zero campaign is founded on the flawed assumptions and algorithms which produced the IPCC model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases. A very large majority of the consensus establishment climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .
The first is the abandonment of any consideration of the thermodynamics of energy flows, the different energy densities of the different energy sources or the extreme difficulty of transitioning from the reliable high density power of f0ssil fuels to the diffuse inconstant power of solar and wind systems or the entropy losses inherent in suggested hydrogen systems. Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded. Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think, the messiah complex and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to delude first themselves, then politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth's temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.
The second is a total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent cyclic patterns which are trivially obvious in the astronomic data , and in solar activity and drive earth's temperature with a delay caused by the oceanic temperature inertia.
Here is the Abstract of my paper at
The effect of C02 on temperature is immeasurably small. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis.
For other posts on this topic scroll down through
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
"co2islife – You are one of the few people who seem able to see the patently obvious that whole IPCC -UNFCCC- COP circus is a disgrace for Western Science. "
Norman, thanks for that comment. It is much appreciated.
UK-Weather Lass | December 13, 2021 at 3:04 am | Reply
Is it instructive for science in general to observe what happens when a virus infecting a host goes through a replication process and the law of large numbers takes over? Not every replication will go as planned and this produces an indefinite and unknown number of mutations in every host. A mutation will either survive or perish depending on its fitness for purpose and, on occasion, may become a variant of concern when identified by experts. Even if one believes this is necessarily a random event the sheer numbers involved make it a very difficult to translate into a pattern.
If we look at climate then are there not similar unlikely, unexpected or unpredictable outcomes within the many processes happening to produce our local weather and influence the development of our accepted three decade definition of climate? Can we reliably find the patterns that are really there rather than the ones we imagine because, as a species, we are not very good at observing real randomness although some may be better at this than others?
angech | December 14, 2021 at 11:22 pm | Reply
Music to my ears.
They've been so brainwashed about global warming that there's only one thing that's going to change it. if I'm right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to"
…and Then There's Physics
A second La Nina wouldn't create problems, at least not in terms of understanding of global warming/climate change.
Not even a 3rd La Niña in row would be a problem.
Sentiments and reasoning I would agree with.
Indeed it would add to the understanding to have a prolonged run of La Nina's.
My comment was more directed to the nudging of the temperature scales, if it did nudge them, for a prolonged period would start to cause disquiet by amplifying one of the many contrarian claims to a worrying status.
There are two different concerns in my book.
One is what is a natural cycle and how does it differ in effect from a man made climate catastrophe.
Perhaps an acycle could explain all that we are seeing?
Acycle* A made up word , an extremely prolonged variation from the normal probability patterns of cycles but still within the allowed limits.
I'm sure there is a proper scientific term.
Denotes 50 to 200 year drought, flood or inclement weather patterns.
The second is what effect does human increased CO2 production actually do and what is it actually capable of doing.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
is more pertinent to Joshua's unintended irony.
Here the more sure we are right the more the probable answer is that we might be fooling ourselves, on both sides.
The irony being that I am prepared to look at changing my mind when I find enough compelling evidence and prepared to say it.
It is not so easy to the right or left of me.
I see statements that the evidence is overwhelming and enough to be assured already so why bother.
Those who think deeply into this should express a little bit of self doubt rather than wholesale enthusiasm for that obvious reason.
Willard, "You got your premise wrong, Doc:"
I would prefer to think of it as John Cook's premise?
Willard | December 14, 2021 at 11:24 pm | Reply
> I would prefer to think of it as John Cook's premise
You still got your premise wrong, Doc.
Try to read the paper when you have time.
angech | December 15, 2021 at 1:35 am |
Willard,
I tried on several occasions to have discussions here and elsewhere on contrarian claims about climate change.
To little avail.
The current is too strong and one gets lost in the undertow.
Judith makes the salient point that only a change in he observations sustained for a reasonable length of time will switch public opinion.
As we know from the length of time it took to try to establish global warming as a phenomenon, even if natural, it could take up til that long for people to climb off their high horses.
Sooner of course if there were big and sudden falls with a couple of large La Nina's.
The most comedic result of such a shift, if it occurs, will be Michael Mann and co claiming a pause in global cooling could mean global warming is still real for another 10 years.
Interesting that a great scientist like Feynman is feted until one of his pithy aphorisms does not suit the story.
Glad you enjoy him as much or more than I do.
Willard | December 15, 2021 at 1:51 am |
You won't succeed in baiting me.
I'm here only to call out your hypocrisy and your misreading.
Enjoy your holidays,
Have a great Christmas.
I enjoy your commentary
I appreciate your wordsmith attributes.
You have put a lot of work into your ideas and arrangements which run parallel to the Cook paper and the Skeptikal science claims.
I see this effort as important in a different light to you.
Outlining the ideas, the reasons for them and against them is helpful.
The second step is establishing the style of arguments and the ethics of the people putting up the arguments.
This step, so often omitted, can easily lend itself to AI data sorting to establish ideology and reasoning and motivated reasoning.
As only you could appreciate the language of people on winning and losing sides of an argument, [science]
and the language of people on the style and perceived outcome of their arguments, allows a deeper estimation [ethics]
Some sites, like here and Roy Spencer's site allow open and spirited discussion.
Moderation of intemperate or rude language here removes the ability to establish the ethics interpretation as well but allows for more civil scientific discussion.
At Roy's, which you frequent as well, the more liberal approach allows sledging which lets the moderate balanced observer understand the methods and motives of the competing sides.
At the cost of a little less scientific discussion and more mud slinging.
Both sites are liberating.
At other sites where moderation is employed to the interests of the site itself and the viewpoints attracted.
Life is sweet, little scientific banter or discussion gets done [it is so serious], but this can become lost amongst the backslapping.
Occasionally a little conflict, a dissenting voice or to is allowed to enter to provide a bit of circus, throwing the Christians to the lions. [ethics]
Again this is most welcome. Whether a true skeptic or a true believer site wishes to host a fan club the arguments are still there [level 1science] and the ability to see the twists in logic and the at times vitriol [level 2 ethics] is actually clear to most observers though unseen by the participants.
I do not want you to change
Equally I do not want you to improve or diminish.
My views on your behaviour and road through life have nothing to do with how you choose to act or on what you wish to believe.
I am able however to express my own views equally freely.
And equally can be taken to task for them
No man [or woman] carries hypocrisy within himself.
The only place it can be found is in a mirror.
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin.
The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I'll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected values of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet…….. Te…. Te.corrected…..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K…..340 K…0,00568
Moon………270 K……224 K…..220 K…0,0339
Earth………255 K…….210 K…..288 K….1
Mars……….210 K……174 K…..210 K…0,9747
Europa…….95,2 K……78,8 K…102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…..88,6 K…110 K….0,1398
angech | December 15, 2021 at 7:25 am | Reply
Christos can you start again after Xmas?
Perhaps follow this advice until then
Christos Vournas | December 11, 2021
"What I meant is that planet effective temperature is a mathematical abstraction. We cannot compare planets' measured mean surface temperatures with something that doesn't exist."
Ok, I'll start again after Xmas.
After Xmas in Greece is meant after the Xmas and the New Year Eve !
Let's continue in the 2022 then !
Wishing everyone Good Health. Have Great Holidays !
angech | December 15, 2021 at 6:01 pm |
Happy Xmas to you as well.
Hope you and family have a good time and its not too cold.
Rob Starkey | December 15, 2021 at 1:07 pm | Reply
slow comment day
Javier | December 15, 2021 at 1:14 pm | Reply
The latest "Week in review" post has disappeared with all its comments. We are scratching our heads.
And your comment doesn't show on recent comments. Something is amiss
CKid | December 15, 2021 at 1:50 pm | Reply
DA, alias 02, was not faring well. We can blame him.
jungletrunks | December 15, 2021 at 2:28 pm |
The local DA's parole officer probably redirected him back into postal incarnation based on an overabundance of postal misdemeanors; subsequently the weekly thread may be in the courts pending the evidentiary review process. Hopefully solitary confinement can be avoided.
Incarnation, or incarceration? Let the high court decide if a rebirth is deserving.
The post was eaten by ManBearPig!
jeffnsails850 | December 16, 2021 at 9:57 am | Reply
It contained "fake news": accurate information that Democrats don't want to acknowledge.
If you don't know about ManBearPig, see …
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Manbearpig
atandb | December 15, 2021 at 2:36 pm | Reply
The vast ether has claimed another victim. Maybe this post is next?
The squall line in Kansas and Nebraska.
https://i.ibb.co/61NWMKR/Screenshot-1.png
The winds from that look similar to ones on the ocean! Strong.
jim2 | December 15, 2021 at 4:31 pm |
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-97.86,40.66,1735
Ireneusz Palmowski | December 16, 2021 at 4:55 am |
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/12/16/1800Z/wind/isobaric/500hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-117.71,43.01,868
The "vortex" air does not mix with the midday air, but pushes it out.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2021121600/gfs_DTpres_us_1.png
TimG | December 29, 2021 at 11:15 am | Reply
I watched the Netflix "Don't Look Up" which was supposed to satirize government/institutional response to climate change. However, I saw it as satire of climate science as well that touches on many of the themes that Dr Curry writes about. Specifically, the main characters run around claiming there is 99.99% certainty of a meteor strike in 6 months when I don't believe there is any plausible way for them to be that certain because we do not know the speed and direction of the earth with enough precision. These faux claims of certainty undermined credibility of the main characters arguments just like it undermines climate science arguments.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for a blog post if someone thought it would be worth exploring in more detail.
Norman J Page | December 29, 2021 at 11:23 am | Reply
See comment above:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/04/interview-climate-change-a-different-perspective-with-judith-curry-part-ii/#comment-966109
Excellent article texasmonthly.com/news-politics/… 9 hours ago