Climate science in perspective

By August 2, 2018Other

Judith Curry has provided us with her take on an eight-year old paper by Carl Wunsch, a highly regarded oceanographer. I am sure I have read it before, but I certainly have not referred to it. I think her summary is excellent reading. I have made a few editorial changes.

Introduction

From one point of view, scientific communities without adequate data have a distinct advantage: one can construct interesting and exciting stories and rationalizations with little or no risk of observational refutation. Colorful, sometimes charismatic, characters come to dominate the field, constructing their interpretations of a few intriguing, but indefinite observations that appeal to their followers, and which eventually emerge as “textbook truths.”

Consider the following characteristics ascribed to one particular, notoriously data-poor, field (Smolin, 2006), as having:

  1. Tremendous self confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.
  2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus,whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction of the field.
  3. In some cases asense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.
  4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.
  5. A disregard for and a lack of interest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.
  6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are ’widely believed,’ even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself.
  7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.

Smolin (2006) was writing not about climate science but about string theory in physics. Nonetheless, observers of the paleoclimate scene might recognize some common characteristics.

Smolin’s point 7 is perhaps the most important in his list. Good scientists seek constantly to test the basic tenets of their field — not work hard to buttress them. Routine science usually adds a trifling piece of support to everyone’s assumptions. Exciting, novel, important, science examines the basic underpinnings of those assumptions and either reports no conflict or the contrary — that maybe it isn’t true. Imagine Darwin working hard to fit all of his observational data into the framework of Genesis (today we laugh at the so-called intelligent design community for doing just that).

The Hope for a Simple World

As both human beings and scientists, we always hope for explanations of the world that are conceptually simple yet with important predictive skills (in the wide sense of that term). Thus the strong desire that box models should explain climate change, or that simple orbital kinematics can explain the glacial cycles, or that climate change is periodic, is understandable. But some natural phenomena are intrinsically complex and attempts to represent them in over-simplified fashion are disastrous.

The pitfall, which has not always been avoided, is in claiming — because an essential element has been understood — that it necessarily explains what is seen in nature.

The extension of a simplified description or explanation outside its domain of applicability is of little or no concern to anyone outside the academic community, unless it begins to control observational strategies or be used to make predictions about future behaviour under disturbed conditions.

But strikingly little attention has been paid to examining the basic physical elements of “what everyone knows.”

The model problem

General circulation models now dominate discussions of the behaviour of the climate system. As with future climate, where no data exist at all, the models promise descriptions of climate change, past and future, without the painful necessity of obtaining supporting observations. The apparent weight given to model behaviour in discussions of paleoclimate can arise simply because they are “sophisticated” and difficult to understand, as well as appearing to substitute for missing data.

That models are incomplete representations of reality is their great power. But they should never be mistaken for the real world.

If a model fails to replicate the climate system over a few decades, the assumption that it is therefore skilful over thousands or millions of years is a non sequitur. Models have thousands of tuneable parameters and the ability to make them behave “reasonably” over long time-intervals is not in doubt. That error estimates are not easy to make does not mean they are not necessary for interpretation and use of model extrapolations.

Concluding remarks

Some of the published exaggeration of the degree of understanding, and of over-simplification is best understood as a combination of human psychology and the pressures of fund-raising. Anyone who has struggled for several years to make sense of a complicated dataset, only to conclude that “the data proved inadequate for this purpose” is in a quandary. Publishing such an inference would be very difficult, and few would notice if it were published. As the outcome of a funded grant, it is at best disappointing and at worst a calamity for a renewal or promotion. A parallel problem would emerge from a model calculation that produced no “exciting” new behaviour. Thus the temptation to over-interpret the data set is a very powerful one. 

Similarly, if the inference is that the data are best rationalized as an interaction of many factors of comparable amplitude described through the temporal and spatial evolution of a complicated fluid model, the story does not lend itself to a one-sentence, intriguing, explanation (“carbon dioxide was trapped in the abyssal ocean for thousands of years;” “millennial variability is controlled by solar variations”; “climate change is a bipolar seesaw”), and the near-impossibility of publishing in the near-tabloid science media (Science, Nature) with their consequent press conferences and celebrity. Amplifying this tendency is the relentlessly increasing use by ignorant or lazy administrators and promotion committees of supposed “objective” measures of scientific quality such as publication rates, citation frequencies, and impact factors. The pressures for “exciting” results, over-simplified stories, and notoriety, are evident throughout the climate and paleoclimate literature.

The price being paid is not a small one. Often important technical details are omitted, and alternative hypotheses arbitrarily suppressed in the interests of telling a simple story. Some of these papers would not pass peer-review in the more conventional professional journals, but lend themselves to headlines and simplistic stories written by non-scientist media people. In the long-term, this tabloid-like publication cannot be good for the science, which developed peer review in specialized journals over many decades beginning in the 17th Century, for very good reasons.

 I commend this eight-year-old summary to readers. I am trying to find the full article somewhere past the current paywall. And I was going to use Wunsch’s reflections here to deal with some comments over the past few weeks, but I’ll do that in the Comments section.

 

Join the discussion 75 Comments

  • JimboR says:

    “I am trying to find the full article somewhere past the current paywall. ”

    Here you go….

    https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/64628

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks, Don.

    Wunsch is bang on the money here.

    Describes the groupthinkers to perfection.

    And their disciples think, “if it’s good enough for my revered “experts” then it’s good enough for me.

    The last thing they get is that wonderful Feynmanian adage that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    These “experts” are like those promoting the gender agenda.

    There is no scientific evidence for any gender other than Male & Female [xx and xy] but if you believe something else, well of course it’s true and you can have as many as you like.

    Only with CAGW we have a “they” day every day.

  • Mark says:

    I got to the first comma in point two and knew the field was string theory!

  • Stu says:

    Ah, yes, Wunsch. He also had this to say.

    “Carl Wunsch 11 March 2007

    I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

    The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Like Wunch, we all “believe that climate change is real” stu.

      But, like him, you alarmists need to be equally aware that, “The science of climate change remains incomplete” and “our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise” if you want to retain any of that cred yourselves.

  • Neville says:

    Things are starting to heat up in Canada. Let’s hope the Trudeau donkey gets booted out ASAP. Certainly Canadians have had a gutful of clueless job destroying Co2 taxes that will achieve SFA for the climate or anything else.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/ontario-trudeau-carbon-tax_a_23494073/

  • Neville says:

    I still think Wunsch is a two bob each way gambler and will always stick with the CAGW cultists when push comes to shove. But I must admit he does make a lot of sense in the above observations.
    BTW it seems that most King penguin populations are increasing just like those poor Polar bears we’ve heard so much nonsense about from the usual suspects over the last 30 years.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-most-king-penguin-populations-have-been-increasing-not-declining/

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes, Neville, by actually looking around and connecting with the real world, particularly over a long period, it is plain to see that we are a lot better off than the groupthinkers believe.

      There is a new study by the U of Melb claiming that cyclones are forming further south since 1980 and that will increase our danger along with our insurance premiums.

      Based on cyclones that have occurred between 1980 and 2014:

      https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/time-bomb-tropics-expansion-nudges-cyclone-formation-into-new-areas-20180723-p4zt26.html

      Can you believe that an “expert” could or would ever come to that conclusion based on such paltry data?

      Back in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s cyclones formed much further south, along the NSW coast and we had a lot more of them.

      I am not aware of a cyclone on the East Coast of Aust that has crossed the coast south of the T of Capricorn since 1976.

      If it did it was a mild one. The ones pre-’80s were continually washing houses out to sea and causing incredible damage in the southern areas of Qld and Northern NSW. Those areas have hardly been touched by cyclonic weather in the period this study covers.

      Absolute waffle and evidence-free blither!!!

      We have never had it so good cyclone-wise but when the normal cycle returns imagine what these “elite experts” will claim if they can make those vacuous claims above simply based on their religion.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Don

    I place great stock in science and this is not to be disrupted by slanderous, indulgent, sweeping generalisations from Wunsch. To be fair he himself owned-up to this factor stating;

    “This essay has indulged in a number of sweeping generalizations
    that will surely provoke and anger a number of readers, who can
    correctly point to published counter-examples.”

    He also slandered the leading journals “Nature” and “Science” as “near-tabloid science media”.

    A true scientist would take into account the “published counter-examples”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “I place great stock in science…”

      That’s nice, blith.

      But even more in your enuresis, possibly?

      You feel it in your water?

      “A true scientist would take into account the “published counter-examples”.”

      Even when those examples are based on assumption-loaded GCMs?

      Go on! Give us an example that is based on true, measurable fact.

      Demonstrate for us all this “great stock” of yours.

  • Jonathon says:

    Lucky you’re going to die soon. You moron.

  • Jon says:

    Lucky you are all going to die soon.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Yes, I wonder why bed-wetters don’t remember their childhood:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2018/08/why-doesnt-al-gore-remember-his-childhood/

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    He also slandered the leading journals “Nature” and “Science”

    https://www.economist.com/babbage/2013/12/09/the-problem-with-science-and-nature

    ‘Nature’ has some spectacular examples of garbage science, published under their imprimatur.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan

      I am stunned at how naive or opportunist you are. I completely agree with the comments from the Economist, and no doubt writers in various journals may have similar critiques of the output of the Economist and various academic journals/outputs.

      Nothing you reference, in any way, substantiates your political slander against Nature.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        You want references?

        Parapsychology: Nature. 1968 Oct 5;220(5162):89-91.
        Identification of concealed randomized objects through acquired response habits of stimulus and word association.

        Homeopathy: In 1988, Benveniste claimed that water retains a “memory” of substances
        dissolved in it, even after a solution is so diluted that not a single molecule
        of the substance remains. This concept underlies the practice of homeopathy, in
        which “activated” water is supposed to cure disease. Benveniste’s research,
        published in Nature (vol 333, p 816), described immune responses
        mounted by human cells to repeatedly diluted solutions of allergens.

        Both were shown to be rubbish. Tell me again about my “political slander”.

        By the way: ‘What would be the perfect revenge for a scientist whose paper is turned away from Nature? A Nobel Prize, of course. Such was the case for Hans Krebs, the biochemist who nabbed the award in 1953 for discovering the citric acid cycle, or “Krebs cycle”—the cellular pathway that converts carbohydrates, fats, and proteins into energy’…’In 1988, 7 years after Krebs’s death, an anonymous editor published a letter in Nature calling the rejection the journal’s most “egregious error.’
        (extract from article in The Scientist)

        • Chris Warren says:

          In 2018, trawling back all the way to 1968 and 88, to cite two examples which have been corrected, and do occur with all science for mundane reasons, is frankly laughable.

          This looks like a political campaign to me and raises no concern w.r.t. the integrity of Nature.

          • Bryan Roberts says:

            What it looks like to you is completely irrelevant. The issue is not that they were corrected, and I can find no evidence that they were retracted, but that they were published in the first place.

          • Chris Warren says:

            If they were not redacted – why on earth did you claim “they were shown to be rubbish”. It is quite possible that other researchers could not replicate the first findings – but this often happens. This is how science progresses.

            And Wunsch was not saying that Nature was near-tabloid in 1968 or 1988.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It is always good to put climate data into perspective.

    Spencer has now released the latest satellite data;

    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

    The latest reading shows the globe is experiencing El Nino equivalent heat when El Nino conditions are absent.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Isn’t a wunsch a collective for a group of mendacious villains?

    As in a wunsch of bankers?

    Today there’s wunschery everywhere:

    “The rise of Climate superstition: Droughts, heatwaves, random noise is “proof” of anything you like”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2018/08/the-rise-of-climate-superstition-droughts-heatwaves-random-noise-is-proof-of-anything-you-like/

  • JimboR says:

    “I have made a few editorial changes”

    I struggled to spot them. With you quoting Judith Curry quoting Carl Wunch and each adding your own “editorial changes” and highlights, it becomes a challenge to work out who actually wrote what. You participants in these echo chambers could save yourself a lot of disk space by only providing the link. In this case it looks like Carl Wunch pretty much wrote it all.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    The word is retracted, not redacted.

    How old are you, Chris? Can’t you look up anything for yourself?

    The Editor at the time (John Maddox) visited the lab, and admitted that the homeopathy paper was nonsense.

    “And Wunsch was not saying that Nature was near-tabloid in 1968 or 1988”. Well, he should have been. I was in my early years as a Research Fellow, and read it religiously. My examples were not the only ones. There was a lot of high-class science, but there were also a lot of iffy, tabloid-type papers published in it.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Bryan

      No matter how long you keep paddling, still Nature cannot be fairly slandered as “near tabloid”, opportunist anecdotes notwithstanding.

      All journals, open to new ideas, will publish dodgy papers at times – and good on them because it exposes work to critical cross examination etc.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        You obviously weren’t alive at the time, so you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You demand ‘peer review’, then say it doesn’t matter, because publication of dodgy papers “exposes work to critical cross examination etc”.

        Have you ever published anything, anywhere? Have you ever refereed a paper, or a grant application? An appeal to authority in defence of a journal’s reputation is, frankly risible.

        • Chris Warren says:

          Bryan

          I have certainly published in refereed university publications. Why did you ask?

          Yes I have refereed a paper – Why did you ask?

          I have also presented at an international conference and around Australia and prepared briefs for Commonwealth ministers.

          Your statements:

          1) then say it doesn’t matter, and
          2) You obviously weren’t alive at the time

          were vicious blatant self-serving lies.

  • Chris Warren says:

    So the latest LT temperature demonstrates the real context”

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/trend/plot/rss/every

    0.8°C over near 40 years.

    This is equivalent to 2°C per century, unless something is done to reduce GHG levels.

  • Chris Warren says:

    It may already be too late.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    If these trends continue for another 100 years, the temperature anomaly will shoot off the top of the chart.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “It may already be too late.”

      But it’s never too late to add instrumental data on to proxies, for that lovely fakery at the bakery, hey blith?

      Now remind me who it is that specialises in all that.

      The real situation is this graph plus half a degree to bring us up to date:

      http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

      And that still leaves us well below the MWP.

      And then just observe the huge range of Nat Var during the rest of the Holocene.

      As compared with your adjustocene.

      And I thought enuresis was caused by imagined cooling.

  • Neville says:

    Chris there are recent PR studies that show temps during the earlier Holocene to be 6 c warmer than today and HAD 4 ( used by IPCC) shows just 0.55c / century warming since 1850.
    And most of the warming since 1979 has come from the NH and particularly N polar region. While SH is a lower trend and S polar ( no warming) is left far behind. The same co2 levels, ( both over 400 ppm) so why the difference?
    Of course when the AMO changes to the cool phase the NPolar temps will drop back and return to a lower trend for about 30 years. What then?
    But please tell us your solution because since 1990 90%+ of increased co2 emissions have come from the NON OECD countries , like China,India etc.
    Also China now generates 66.7% of TOTAL energy from coal while the US generates just 17.1%. And India has barely started to industrialize, YET and they seem to prefer coal as well.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here’s something right up your alley, blith.

    Will Steffen in full cry:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115

    “Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values….”

    But guaranteed to fail:

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/the-guaranteed-to-fail-climate-solution-behavioral-change/

    • Neville says:

      Thanks for that link SD, I’d forgotten what a good sensible writer Donna was and full of commonsense as usual.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Neville

        Who is Donna? What are the claims with what evidence?

        Is there a link?

        • Neville says:

          Chris Donna Laframboise wrote the story at SD’s link. And HAD 4 shows 0.55 c per century increase since 1850.
          See the York Uni tool and UAH V 6 trend since DEC 1978 is 0.13 C per decade.
          But please tell us how to stop your so called CAGW. I’m very interested in your solution.

          • Stu says:

            Neville,
            To quote Dr Karl today “Don’t feed the trolls. Once you agree to ‘argue’ the fundamental facts, you are wasting your time. The Jesuits had a term- ‘invincibly ignorant”. And it is a fair bet that we have a range of religiously fuelled (pun intended) attitudes at work here, man is puny, creation is bigger than us etc. In simpler terms the repeated statement that a one or two degree temperature increase is insignificant displays a total ignorance of the science, so save your keystrokes, no future here. There are more productive places to debate in.

          • Chris Warren says:

            Neville

            Donna Laframboise is a journalist linked to denialists.

            https://www.desmogblog.com/donna-laframboise

            If you go to the York tool you will find there is no such thing as “HAD 4” data.

            It seems you have not even read the latest research from the US National Academy of Sciences:

            http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/08/07/1810141115.full.pdf

    • stu says:

      Neville,
      To quote Dr Karl today “Don’t feed the trolls. Once you agree to ‘argue’ the fundamental facts, you are wasting your time. The Jesuits had a term- ‘invincibly ignorant”. And it is a fair bet that we have a range of religiously fuelled (pun intended) attitudes at work here, man is puny, creation is bigger than us etc. In simpler terms the repeated statement that a one or two degree temperature increase is insignificant displays a total ignorance of the science, so save your keystrokes, no future here. There are more productive places to debate in.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Once you agree to ‘argue’ the fundamental facts, you are wasting your time.”

        That’s because you [awa Dr Karl] don’t have any, stueyluv.

        Only your dedicated belief in your religion.

        But if perchance you have stumbled across something since we last spoke, do, by all means, produce it.

        • Stu says:

          Once again you prove my point right on cue, thank you. Cheers

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu thinks that he, by evidence-free hand-waving as opposed to my facts, proves HIS point???

            And there I was thinking that his point was about his science rather than his stupidity.

            But keep looking, stu ad do let us know if you actually find anything measurable.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Tell me anywhere in the world where a higher penetration of ­renewable energy has been associated with lower electricity prices.”

    Judith Sloan in the Aus today tells it exactly how it is.

    The real issue with renewable energy is its non-synchronous and intermittent nature. In short, it cannot produce electricity when and where it is needed:

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/its-a-universal-truth-renewables-mean-higher-costs/news-story/c2c3d834d2127034e3c4c85452dd6384

  • Chris Warren says:

    A new perspective on global warming – the hothouse risk?

    Excerpt

    “A critical issue is that, if a planetary threshold is crossed toward the Hothouse Earth pathway, accessing the Stabilized Earth pathway would become very difficult no matter what actions human societies might take. Beyond the threshold, positive (reinforcing) feedbacks within the Earth System—outside of human influence or control—could become the dominant driver of the system’s pathway, as individual tipping elements create linked cascades through time and with rising temperature (Fig. 3). In other words, after the Earth System is committed to the Hothouse Earth pathway, the alternative Stabilized Earth pathway would very likely become inaccessible as illustrated in Fig. 2.
    What Is at Stake?

    Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (12, 39, 49, 50) (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.

    Insights into the risks posed by the rapid climatic changes emerging in the Anthropocene can be obtained not only from contemporary observations (51???–55) but also, from interactions in the past between human societies and regional and seasonal hydroclimate variability. This variability was often much more pronounced than global, longer-term Holocene variability (SI Appendix). Agricultural production and water supplies are especially vulnerable to changes in the hydroclimate, leading to hot/dry or cool/wet extremes. Societal declines, collapses, migrations/resettlements, reorganizations, and cultural changes were often associated with severe regional droughts and with the global megadrought at 4.2–3.9 thousand years before present, all occurring within the relative stability of the narrow global Holocene temperature range of approximately ±1 °C (56).”

    Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/07/1810141115

  • spangled drongo says:

    You’re a bit behind the times, as usual, blith.

    Going on-side with Will Steffen does not help your cause.

    He’s not just enuresistic, he’s hysterical.

    See my post above.

    • Stu says:

      Pardon me but you seem to have a very limited and repetitive vocabulary. Or is it just that you have a strange fetish, something about your wet nurse or a difficult time in boarding school or your current nursing home?

      • spangled drongo says:

        But not quite as limited and repetitive as your hand-waving, hey stu?

        Until you alarmists broaden your blither, there is no need for rational people to broaden the argument.

        You are yet to address the facts you have been supplied with.

      • Neville says:

        Well come on Stu tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW. This should be easy using your Dr Karl data as a reference, shouldn’t it?
        Or doesn’t Dr Karl provide any data to bolster his silly BS?

        • Chris Warren says:

          Neville

          Mitigation is not the point. The goal is to keep temperature rise to around 2C which will return the planet to temp levels when the Sahara was fully vegetated.

          The key, therefore is to have a balance of GHG emissions EQUAL to whatever the biosphere’s capacity is to absorb them.

          A key gas is CO2, and the atmospheric concentration varies through three mechanisms.

          Two are human caused and the third – outgassing is a dangerous feedback.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “A key gas is CO2, and the atmospheric concentration varies through three mechanisms.”

            And just think, blith, your outgassing is acidifying the oceans.

            Apart from your general enuresisticism, that is.

            And even though the oceans’ outgassing is de-acidifying them.

            So there is more to be alarmed about in heaven and earth, blithio, than ever dreamt of in your tiny mind.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “Donna Laframboise is a journalist linked to denialists.”

    Did you read Donna’s message, blith?

    Or did you, as usual, just shoot first?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Now don’t miss this one, blith:

    Britain’s heatwave went ballistic!

    WOW!!! 47 days of “heatwave” in excess of 75F! That’s 24c. Like what we get for midwinter temps here.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-6047751/How-Britains-temperatures-got-75F-47-days-row-prolonged-heatwave.html

    “In comparison, the famous heatwave summer of 1976 saw 15 days in a row when temperatures hit at least 89.7F (32C).”

    Oh, dear!

  • spangled drongo says:

    The IPCC insist that ECS is somewhere between 1.5c and 4.5c but while they really wouldn’t have a clue, the whole world is being forced to swallow the castor oil:

    “These results suggest that there is no empirical basis for the existence of an ECS climate sensitivity parameter that determines surface temperature according to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    A parody demonstration of the failed ECS research effort is presented with data for homicides in England and Wales. It is shown that an Equilibrium Homicide Sensitivity (EHS) can be computed for the increase in homicides for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

    https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/ecs-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

  • spangled drongo says:

    No wonder blith loves this Will Steffen paper. It is full of science-free rubbish like this:

    “Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.”

    Yes, that’s all we need, “behavioural changes”, to prevent “Hothouse Earth” that already happened 60 million yago under Nat Var.

    Why don’t these idiots simply look at what’s gone before and calculate how long and how much volcanic or similar activity it would take to change our present Icehouse into this Hothouse instead of shouting panic and catastrophe.

    Our blith would do well to pay more attention to Donna and other sceptics.

    • Stu says:

      FFS, “60 million years ago”, do you have any concept of what you are talking about. That was long before humans, and mammals were just getting going in a world we would consider hostile. You really have proved your complete lack of rationality. What is your motive? Paid troll or just f’wit.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Poor, blithering, enuresistic stu doesn’t get that if it took 60 million years to change from hothouse to icehouse it’ll take a while to change back.

        He thinks that a bit of “behavioural change” is all it takes.

        And he thinks I’ve got a rationality problem?

        Oh, dear!

        It’s not hard to see the mentality that produces their panicking, bed-wetting religion.

  • Neville says:

    Geezzzz Chris I seem to remember that we’ve been told ( for 30 years) that mitigation of so called CAGW was very important and is the reason we have the Paris COP 21 agreement.
    Dr Hansen ( Gore’s no 1 adviser and no 1 CAGW alarmist) has told us Paris is just BS and fra-d because it won’t change anything, although it will waste endless billions $ every year for ZIP.
    But please tell us how you intend to cap temps by 2 c if you don’t reduce emissions of co2? ( your fear not mine) But you don’t seem to understand that the NON OECD countries couldn’t care less about your concerns.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Neville

    30 years ago, mitigation may have been acceptable. Now such policy would not be acceptable.

    We now need prevention and atmospheric carbon removal.

    Non OECD nations need financial assistance to decarbonise.

  • Neville says:

    Gosh Chris I’m sure they’ll take all the billions $ you’d like to waste on them. I’m also sure they’d rather have coal fired power as well.
    So what happened to McKibben’s 350 ppm that was also endorsed by Dr Hansen? And please tell us the steps you would take and what reduction in temp we could expect, say by 2040, 2070 and 2100.
    Don’t forget Lomborg and his team of Maths profs and Nobel prize winning economists etc have already crunched the numbers and found no measurable difference to temps by 2100, even if all countries agreed to comply with Paris to the letter. And their study is freely available and is Peer Reviewed.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Neville

      You make a lot of useless comments without any references.

      Paris was a failure – this only makes matters worse.

  • spangled drongo says:

    “We now need prevention and atmospheric carbon removal.”

    What is that, if not mitigation, blith?

    I wonder if we can mitigate for enuresis?

  • spangled drongo says:

    When you can’t win on science, just shout louder, tell lies and switch off the opposition.

    Facebook, well-known as a breeding ground for misinformation, has a particular problem with disseminating false and misleading messages about climate change science:

    https://neonnettle.com/news/4722-george-soros-pushes-for-facebook-to-ban-anyone-who-denies-global-warming
    © Neon Nettle

    Could this possibly be why some people are a little sceptical of the promoters of CAGW?

  • JimboR says:

    Did somebody say Carbon Tax?

    “Electricity retailers who fail to meet emissions reductions targets under the proposed National Energy Guarantee should be fined as much as $100 million….. retailers who fail to meet the reliability standards would face fines of up to $10 million per breach.”

    Tony spotted it but the rest of them voted it through….

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/turnbull-gains-coalition-support-on-energy-over-abbott-s-objections-20180814-p4zxdb.html

  • spangled drongo says:

    Tony Abbott also made these observations:

    “I heard at least four lower house MPs formally reserve their position on the legislation and at least a dozen express serious concerns about the NEG, or about turning the non-binding Paris targets into law with massive penalties attached.

    “This is the big question that the partyroom didn’t really grapple with: when the big emitters are not meeting Paris, why should we? Especially, as even the Chief Scientist said, the difference meeting our target would make is ‘virtually nothing’.”

  • Neville Gardner says:

    Even the Germans continue to wipe out whole towns to extend the use of
    their brown coal mines. (more co2 emissions than black coal)
    Germany was used as a poster child by the extremists promoting the use of the S&W idiocy. Yet even the Germans now understand that there is a limit to the patience of their taxpayers having to fork out higher and higher prices for their electricity, while developing countries open new coalmines and import huge tonnages from overseas to service their needs.
    Here’s the vital question – why don’t the Germans just build even more S&W energy to service their needs today and for the future?
    The answer is that S&W are a disaster and help to distort the grid at great cost and the German taxpayers have had enough. But why doesn’t this message sink in and why does OZ want to copy these fools?

    http://news.trust.org/item/20180813110020-y6ono/

  • spangled drongo says:

    More blurb, blither and nonscience from the groaner.

    What’s new?

    And how can oceans get more acidic from warming when they outgas CO2 as they warm?:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/16/sydney-rock-oysters-getting-smaller-as-oceans-become-more-acidic

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Chris Warren, doi please. Needed for peer review.

Leave a Reply