Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Week in review – science edition

Week in review – science edition

via Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

I’ve studied Larsen C and its giant iceberg for years – it’s not a simple story of climate change [link] 

Southern Ocean Decadal Variability and Predictability [link]

Record cold wave in Greenland [link]

New book out on mechanisms of extremes.  [link]

NASA Detects Drop in Global Fires [link] Fewer and less severe with 24% decline in land lost.

NASA-MIT study evaluates efficiency of oceans as heat sink, atmospheric gases sponge [link]

New meteorological case study of Aug 2016’s long-lived great Arctic cyclone -> affected sea ice loss too [link]

Latest in a string of papers suggesting Eurasian winter cooling is caused by internal climate variability and not by Arctic sea ice loss [link]

Investigating the impact of CO2 on the low frequency variability of the AMOC in HadCM3 [link]

Tree rings, ice cores, corals etc combine in major new timeline – 2,000 years of global temp history [link]

Steve McIntyre’s critique [link]

Skillful seasonal predictions of winter precipitation over southern China  [link] 

Here’s how scientists use water vapor to unlock climate mysteries [link]

Remember the North Pole winter thaw? New study finds rising trend in warming spikes in winter. [link] 

There is virtually zero evidence that permafrost will catastrophically melt in our lifetimes. [link]

Weather responsiveness of crop yields: US evidence and agricultural impacts of climate change [link]

Study shows China’s severe weather patterns changing drastically since 1960 [link]   ALL STORMS DOWN 50%.

New paper connects volcanic cooling to crop failures, impoverishment, and hunger in 17th-century Finland [link] 

Scientists Have Discovered a 600-Mile Coral Reef [link] 

3 New Papers: Greenland 3-5°C Warmer With 40 Kilometers Less Ice Area 4,000-10,000 Years Ago [link]  

A collection of sea-level rise research published  [link]  

Measuring forecast performance in the presence of observation error [link]

Black Death 1347-1351 May Have Had A Surprising Effect On The Environment  [link]

Climate scientists predict wet future for California [link]

Surface mass balance of ice sheets simulated by positive-degree-day method & energy balance approach [link]  

2 Recent Papers Show Sea Level Variability Have Little To Do With CO2 [link]

Why Are Arctic Linkages to Extreme Weather Still Up in the Air? [link]

Ozone depletion following future volcanic eruptions [link]

River networks dampen long-term hydrological signals of climate change [link]

Greening of the Sahara suppressed ENSO activity during the mid-Holocene’ [link]

Study examines increasing likelihood of extreme sea levels [link] 

More evidence for feedbacks between solid earth and surface carbon cycles and climate, mediated by volcanism [link]

The changing ocean carbon cycle [link]

Contrary temperature trend stalls upgraded climate model’s debut [link]

. suggests how we might reconcile insights into decadal climate variability coming from proxies and models: [link]

How are warm and cool years in the California Current related to ENSO? [link]

The -Subarctic sea ice system is entering a seasonal regime: Implications for future Arctic amplification [link]

Air-ice-ocean feedback mechanisms and ice oscillation on milllennial time scales [link]

Paleo study: No conclusive support for current Arctic warming > than peak of medieval climate anomaly [link]

Arctic sea ice response to the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón and Pinatubo [link]

via Climate Etc. http://judithcurry.com

July 15, 2017 at 08:48PM

Uncategorized

Top international award for UNSW Sydney climate scientist–Warning, breathe through your mouth.

Top international award for UNSW Sydney climate scientist–Warning, breathe through your mouth.

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

From Eurekalert Public Release: 13-Jul-2017 The prestigious Tinker-Muse Prize for Science and Policy in Antarctica for 2017 has been awarded to (University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney) scientist Professor Matthew England in recognition of his outstanding research, leadership and advocacy for Antarctic science. The US $100,000 prize, awarded by the Tinker Foundation and administered … Continue reading Top international award for UNSW Sydney climate scientist–Warning, breathe through your mouth.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

July 15, 2017 at 06:00PM

Uncategorized

Alarmists Alarmed About Alarming Alarmism

Alarmists Alarmed About Alarming Alarmism

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

According to Michael Mann et al., too much alarm makes people give up on attempting climate ‘action.’

The climate change debate has entered what we might call the “Campfire Phase”, in which the goal is to tell the scariest story. – Oren Cass (twitter)

David Wallace-Wells has a recent cover story in NYMagazine:  The Uninhabitable Earth.  Subtitle: Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.  The article has generated a firestorm of controversy and debate.

In terms of what is technically wrong with the NYMag article, Andy Revkin pretty much sums it up perfectly with this tweet:

Scariest stuff isn’t worst-case science; it’s bad fit of  & time scales with indiv. & collective human risk/response traits.

Apart from the predictable takedowns by the AGW ‘unconvinced,’ there has been substantial resistance to the NYMag article from elements of what is usually regarded as the ‘alarmed’ contingent:

  • Mann et al. in WaPo: and ECOWatch: Such rhetoric is in many ways as pernicious as outright climate change denial, for it leads us down the same path of inaction.
  • Climate Feedback: Sixteen scientists analyzed the article and estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’.  A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: , , .
  • Chris Mooney in WaPo: Scientists challenge story about ‘uninhabitable Earth’
  • Ars Technica:  In both the popular and academic press, scientists argue against worst cases

If this reaction seems surprising to you, you are not the only ones surprised:

Ryan Maue (twitter): Privately more than one journalist told me they were afraid to push back against the NY Mag climate horrors piece.

IMO, the most interesting articles are those that defend development and discussion of worst case scenarios:

A few other articles with interesting points:

Fabius Maximus: After 30 years of failure to gain support of the US public for massive public policy measures to fight climate change, climate activists now double down on the tactics that have failed them for so long. This post explains why it will not work. Nor should it. Instead they should trust the IPCC and science, showing both the good and bad news.

SF Chronicle: If you honestly believe that climate change will end all life on Earth (it won’t) or lead to some dystopian hell, what policies wouldn’t you endorse to stop it?

Consensus enforcement in the Age of Trump

So, what is going with Mann et al. in trashing the alarming NYMag article?

I saw many such ‘alarmed’ articles (perhaps not as comprehensive) in the Age of Obama, spouting alarmist predictions and concerns.  Further, the White House seemed to encourage this, as evidenced by the whitehouse.gov web site and the statements of Science Advisor John Holdren.  I never saw any push-back on this from the consensus-enforcing scientific establishment.

In the Age of Trump, alarmism clearly doesn’t influence the policy makers; the best that consensus-enforcing scientific establishment can hope for is to enforce the not very scary IPCC consensus.

And why does this matter to them? Surely this consensus enforcement is antithetical to the scientific process and progress.   It seems to be all about ‘action’ — presumably as defined by the Paris Agreement.  According to Mann et al., too much alarm makes people give up on attempting ‘action.’  Never mind that the proposed actions will have a small impact on the climate (even if you believe the climate models) during the 21st century.

Others disagree, such as Weizmann and Wagner (e.g. Climate Shock), who push the alarming ‘fat tail’ argument as the rationale for ‘action’ (greater uncertainty increases the urgency for action).

Well, I suspect that neither approach will spur ‘action’ — what is needed are new technologies.  Until then, people, corporations and nations will pursue their short-term economic well being.

Deep Uncertainty

In understanding climate change risk, and deciding on the ‘if’ and ‘what’ of ‘action’,  we need to acknowledge that we don’t know how the climate of the 21st century will play out (Deep Uncertainty, folks).  Four possibilities:

  1. It is possible that human-caused climate change will be swamped by much larger natural climate variability.
  2. It is possible/plausible  that the sensitivity of the climate is on the low end of the IPCC envelope (1.0-1.5C), with a slow creep of warming superimposed on much larger natural variability.
  3. It is possible/plausible that the IPCC projections are actually correct (right for the wrong reasons; too much wrong with the climate models for much credibility, IMO).
  4. It is possible that AGW and natural variability could conspire to cause catastrophic outcomes

We can’t put probabilities on these possible scenarios, the uncertainties are too deep.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 15, 2017 at 05:21PM

Uncategorized

Christopher Booker: Trump Took The Heat, But The Rest Of The G20’s Posturing Won’t Hide Their Rising CO2 Emissions

Christopher Booker: Trump Took The Heat, But The Rest Of The G20’s Posturing Won’t Hide Their Rising CO2 Emissions

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions. India, the third largest emitter, will treble its CO2 emissions.

Golly, what excitement there was over President Trump’s refusal to sign the G20 communiqué backing the “Paris Accord” on climate change.  Trump was in a minority of one against all the other 19 governments (plus the EU) which supported an agreement that the world must phase out fossil fuels. We were even told that the US now stood alone against all the other 195 countries that signed up to that non-binding Accord.

But, just as happened at the time of Paris itself, everyone completely missed the real story. Before Paris, each of the 196 participating countries, as I reported at the time (thanks to that expert analyst Paul Homewood on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog), was asked to submit an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), setting out its energy plans for the years up to 2030.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions

All the major “developing” nations, led by China and India, paid lip service to the conference’s intentions, showing how they would be investing in “renewables” such as wind and solar, so long as they were generously subsidised to do so by the “developed” nations out of a Green Climate Fund worth $100 billion a year.

But they then explained how, to keep their economies growing, they planned to build huge numbers of new fossil fuel power stations, which would lead to a massive increase in their CO2 emissions.

China, the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to double its yearly emissions, by an extra 10.9 billion tons. India, the third largest emitter, will treble its emissions, adding 4.9 billion tons, All the other major “developing” nations, plus Japan and Russia, are equally planning to build more coal-fired power stations.So 13 of the countries which signed that G20 communiqué last week, intend to contribute to what the INDCs show will within 13 years be a 46 percent rise in global emissions.

The only G20 countries left committed to CO2 reductions (by 1.7 billion tons) are now those in the EU, plus Canada and Australia, between them responsible for just 11.3 percent of global emissions. Most of the remaining 88.7 percent is emitted by countries which plan to increase them. Is it surprising that President Trump wanted no part in such a grotesque display of international hypocrisy?

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

July 15, 2017 at 04:50PM