I read the Kerry Emanuel paper, and while he does make the statement you highlighted it seems to me he is still coming from the position that tropical cyclones will become more frequent and/or stronger. The paper tries to argue against the position in Chand et.al. where the conclusion was decline in TC activity on regional and global scales during the twentieth century.
Emanuel thus argues that the available data are not suited to support this conclusion. He then argues that this also means there might still be an increase as some models say, we just cannot see it.
You read this, in my view correctly, as Emanuel back paddeling on his earlier insistence that TC activity is on the increase. Others will read it as Emanuel confirming that TC activity is on the rise despite our inability to detect it due to lackluster data.
If, despite huge and looming obstacles pointed out by many, wind and solar do become by 2035 the sole energy source in boreal Canada, perhaps the lump of coal that we used to dread getting in our stockings will be a welcome Christmas gift, given that the traditional tangerines will be impossible to transport from their country of origin ;)
Why haven't the greens put out a proof of their basic hypothesis, that more CO2 will absorb more of Earth's radiation? They have had 30 years and written million of words, all carefully avoiding putting forth a proof.
This lack means that hte entire "GreenEnergy" hysteria is bsed on an unproven assumption. Not Science.
1. the first paper "This highlights the insufficiency of incremental changes and the need for a radically stronger effort to meet the climate target." Or it might highlight the need for different approaches, including revising the climate target.
2. the Vanity Fair article. a) political science study topic.. when agencies disagree like DOE and NIH... do they just each go their own way? When does the EOP step in to adjudicate disagreements? Did it happen in this case or not? How many Administrations went by while this disagreement lingered?
b) does anyone but me care that the international wildlife disease samplers seem to be double or triple dipping USG funds via NIH, USAID and Defense? or maybe NSF and DOE are also in the game?
I, like most of my acquaintances, just don't get the hysteria. Its quite obvious that the crisis narrative doesn't jive with the obviously normal weather we are typically experiencing. I'm of the camp that believes a warmer, greener, wealthier world is better that what was the "pre-industrial world". I prefer indoor toilets and reliable energy. Lets get those benefits to the rest of the world that lacks the basics.
First, energy transition. Yes, it has barely begun and yet even with minuscule penetration rates it’s succeeding in beggaring advanced economies. Imagine what success would look like?
Hey, I look forward to your December reports. COP28 exists because it can. It's like a college class assignment. In some respects the entire progressive movement is a college finals paper requirement. You're wealthy, your folks support you, you're not doing anything, so write a paper on how to destroy America, then act on it. They are doing it because they can... They're enabled.
Imagine tomorrow and you can't get gas for your car, your stove won't light and there's no electricity in your home. So suddenly you have to walk and chop wood to keep warm. But isn't there an effort you're working on to ban all smoke...
Now your folks can't work and pay your way. The slum lord, George Soros stopped funding your organization. You need to hike out of town to pick apples and make a few bucks. You bundle-up with all your synthetic petroleum-based thermal gear and step out into the cold. The street is dark, no street lights or Christmas ornaments glow. You hear a loud pop and a rumble. An old biker rides his chopper onto the street, his loud pipes reverberate off the adjacent homes. Bikers fought for freedom and know how to score underground, high-test fuel. He pulls up parallel to your sidewalk. "Would you like a lift," the bearded outlaw shouts over his rumbling exhaust.
Suddenly, the warm ICE engine feels good and the crisp sound from his exhaust is a sign of real freedom, mobility and something more. The sparkling chrome engine pieces and the polished metal-flake paint shout creativity, adventure and romance.
What happened? Will nobody let the truth shine. Someday it will, again.
Thank you for the updates, and I hope you and your family had a safe and warm Thanksgiving.
A request: My attempts to open the Ju et al paper on possibilities of net-zero policies took me to the link for the Kerry Emanuel paper. Could you look into that, and provide a working link to a non-paywalled paper? Thank you.
A curiosity question: what the hell do 70,000 people do at one conference? I struggled with ANS conferences of 500 or more. Can a conference that is that large produce anything of value besides copious consumption of wine and cheese? Seriously, 70,000 people is the size of a large mid-western town. Lasting a week or more (with set-up/tear down on both ends of the event) there must be a substantial carbon footprint?
If the monies spent on all aspects of this conference were spent on adaption measures, how many lives could be saved? Such trade-offs are usually lost in the conversation, but it demonstrates, to me anyway, that we have lost sight of the objectives, and that issues of sustainability and practical application have been tossed aside for social prominence. My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Thank you again for your posts. Always a pleasure to read.
In addition to boondoggle, self-interested scaremongering. From what I've read, the global climate crowd is not interested in reasoned debate. If it were, Roger Pielke jr. would not have this Substack.
Thanks for the update. Though I agree that industries forming are in and of themselves not harmful, this particular one is horribly dangerous and by its nature authoritarian. Typically when an industry forms around a given market, it is simply exploiting a demand that exists in a latent but unknown or an existing fashion. So, the autombile industry came to be because Americans and Europeans were unknowingly waiting for a cheap mode of transportation to build itself. In the Climate Industry however, there is no market, there are only control economy proponents mixed together with well meaning, unscientific bureaucrats, captured, unscientific bureaucrats, captured academics, and marketing/corporate actors who know a handout when they see it. On the very fringe are scientists like yourself who have a healthy understanding of the tension between possible anthropomorphic change (I would be extremely hesitant to agree with the rationality and hubris surrounding the role of modelling in predicting much in overly complex, dynamic systems like the climate) and adaptation methods of people. The rapid increase in global travel by the exact, ego-driven elite that our activist class is supposed to be fighting against, displays aptly the speed with which every major institution in the US and generally in the West has been captivated by climate catastrophism. A willing participant in a raging scientism that was spoken of by wise men over a hundred years ago, the climate business seems uninterested in anything rational, but rather governmental authority over every energy system extant. That sounds to me like a Soviet concoction free of logic or consideration of the world's poor.
I skimmed the PNAS brief which was very interesting and hopeful in its content. That said, immediately I became aware of a falsehood perpetuated by the Kinseyan group mind, viz - that he was pilloried largely because of puritanical reasons in America. While that is true to a degree, Kinsey was and continues to be looked at as a voodoo practitioner by reasonable social scientists because his methods were devoid of the extreme measures needed in positing hypotheses in difficult to quantify data in the social sciences, and due to his repeated inclusion of his own sexual interests in his "science". Kinsey had a sexual relationship with at least one participant in his research and without demonstrating data to support his position, made wild claims about children and adults sexual proclivities. Using him as a beacon against censorial prigs is a bad place to start a paper.
I'm so pleased you continue to bring interesting data and thoughts on our unspiraling world. Please keep up the good work.
I read the Kerry Emanuel paper, and while he does make the statement you highlighted it seems to me he is still coming from the position that tropical cyclones will become more frequent and/or stronger. The paper tries to argue against the position in Chand et.al. where the conclusion was decline in TC activity on regional and global scales during the twentieth century.
Emanuel thus argues that the available data are not suited to support this conclusion. He then argues that this also means there might still be an increase as some models say, we just cannot see it.
You read this, in my view correctly, as Emanuel back paddeling on his earlier insistence that TC activity is on the increase. Others will read it as Emanuel confirming that TC activity is on the rise despite our inability to detect it due to lackluster data.
If, despite huge and looming obstacles pointed out by many, wind and solar do become by 2035 the sole energy source in boreal Canada, perhaps the lump of coal that we used to dread getting in our stockings will be a welcome Christmas gift, given that the traditional tangerines will be impossible to transport from their country of origin ;)
Why haven't the greens put out a proof of their basic hypothesis, that more CO2 will absorb more of Earth's radiation? They have had 30 years and written million of words, all carefully avoiding putting forth a proof.
This lack means that hte entire "GreenEnergy" hysteria is bsed on an unproven assumption. Not Science.
Great roundup, Roger! Thank you!
1. the first paper "This highlights the insufficiency of incremental changes and the need for a radically stronger effort to meet the climate target." Or it might highlight the need for different approaches, including revising the climate target.
2. the Vanity Fair article. a) political science study topic.. when agencies disagree like DOE and NIH... do they just each go their own way? When does the EOP step in to adjudicate disagreements? Did it happen in this case or not? How many Administrations went by while this disagreement lingered?
b) does anyone but me care that the international wildlife disease samplers seem to be double or triple dipping USG funds via NIH, USAID and Defense? or maybe NSF and DOE are also in the game?
I, like most of my acquaintances, just don't get the hysteria. Its quite obvious that the crisis narrative doesn't jive with the obviously normal weather we are typically experiencing. I'm of the camp that believes a warmer, greener, wealthier world is better that what was the "pre-industrial world". I prefer indoor toilets and reliable energy. Lets get those benefits to the rest of the world that lacks the basics.
Edited:
“ Coming soon — a look back at when the climate was perfect”.
Finally.
Are we going to get a definition?
The perfect temperature?
The perfect level of co2?
Maybe you can partner with Piltdown Mann? He knows everything after all.
First, energy transition. Yes, it has barely begun and yet even with minuscule penetration rates it’s succeeding in beggaring advanced economies. Imagine what success would look like?
Widespread starvation?
If the trend continues COP 2037 will have over 4 billion attendees.
Hey, I look forward to your December reports. COP28 exists because it can. It's like a college class assignment. In some respects the entire progressive movement is a college finals paper requirement. You're wealthy, your folks support you, you're not doing anything, so write a paper on how to destroy America, then act on it. They are doing it because they can... They're enabled.
Imagine tomorrow and you can't get gas for your car, your stove won't light and there's no electricity in your home. So suddenly you have to walk and chop wood to keep warm. But isn't there an effort you're working on to ban all smoke...
Now your folks can't work and pay your way. The slum lord, George Soros stopped funding your organization. You need to hike out of town to pick apples and make a few bucks. You bundle-up with all your synthetic petroleum-based thermal gear and step out into the cold. The street is dark, no street lights or Christmas ornaments glow. You hear a loud pop and a rumble. An old biker rides his chopper onto the street, his loud pipes reverberate off the adjacent homes. Bikers fought for freedom and know how to score underground, high-test fuel. He pulls up parallel to your sidewalk. "Would you like a lift," the bearded outlaw shouts over his rumbling exhaust.
Suddenly, the warm ICE engine feels good and the crisp sound from his exhaust is a sign of real freedom, mobility and something more. The sparkling chrome engine pieces and the polished metal-flake paint shout creativity, adventure and romance.
What happened? Will nobody let the truth shine. Someday it will, again.
Thank you for the updates, and I hope you and your family had a safe and warm Thanksgiving.
A request: My attempts to open the Ju et al paper on possibilities of net-zero policies took me to the link for the Kerry Emanuel paper. Could you look into that, and provide a working link to a non-paywalled paper? Thank you.
A curiosity question: what the hell do 70,000 people do at one conference? I struggled with ANS conferences of 500 or more. Can a conference that is that large produce anything of value besides copious consumption of wine and cheese? Seriously, 70,000 people is the size of a large mid-western town. Lasting a week or more (with set-up/tear down on both ends of the event) there must be a substantial carbon footprint?
If the monies spent on all aspects of this conference were spent on adaption measures, how many lives could be saved? Such trade-offs are usually lost in the conversation, but it demonstrates, to me anyway, that we have lost sight of the objectives, and that issues of sustainability and practical application have been tossed aside for social prominence. My two cents, adjusted for inflation.
Thank you again for your posts. Always a pleasure to read.
In addition to boondoggle, self-interested scaremongering. From what I've read, the global climate crowd is not interested in reasoned debate. If it were, Roger Pielke jr. would not have this Substack.
Thanks for the update. Though I agree that industries forming are in and of themselves not harmful, this particular one is horribly dangerous and by its nature authoritarian. Typically when an industry forms around a given market, it is simply exploiting a demand that exists in a latent but unknown or an existing fashion. So, the autombile industry came to be because Americans and Europeans were unknowingly waiting for a cheap mode of transportation to build itself. In the Climate Industry however, there is no market, there are only control economy proponents mixed together with well meaning, unscientific bureaucrats, captured, unscientific bureaucrats, captured academics, and marketing/corporate actors who know a handout when they see it. On the very fringe are scientists like yourself who have a healthy understanding of the tension between possible anthropomorphic change (I would be extremely hesitant to agree with the rationality and hubris surrounding the role of modelling in predicting much in overly complex, dynamic systems like the climate) and adaptation methods of people. The rapid increase in global travel by the exact, ego-driven elite that our activist class is supposed to be fighting against, displays aptly the speed with which every major institution in the US and generally in the West has been captivated by climate catastrophism. A willing participant in a raging scientism that was spoken of by wise men over a hundred years ago, the climate business seems uninterested in anything rational, but rather governmental authority over every energy system extant. That sounds to me like a Soviet concoction free of logic or consideration of the world's poor.
I skimmed the PNAS brief which was very interesting and hopeful in its content. That said, immediately I became aware of a falsehood perpetuated by the Kinseyan group mind, viz - that he was pilloried largely because of puritanical reasons in America. While that is true to a degree, Kinsey was and continues to be looked at as a voodoo practitioner by reasonable social scientists because his methods were devoid of the extreme measures needed in positing hypotheses in difficult to quantify data in the social sciences, and due to his repeated inclusion of his own sexual interests in his "science". Kinsey had a sexual relationship with at least one participant in his research and without demonstrating data to support his position, made wild claims about children and adults sexual proclivities. Using him as a beacon against censorial prigs is a bad place to start a paper.
I'm so pleased you continue to bring interesting data and thoughts on our unspiraling world. Please keep up the good work.