Completely clean grammatically AFAICT, except for a minor loss of style points for "...gobsmacking claims made by some VISIBLE scientists." Doesn't this imply that most scientists are INVISIBLE? ;)
Beaulieu result: Is this saying that the recent data is in line with the rate of change already observed through 1970? [That is it’s saying that if we are running a regression of temperature against whatever the proximate driver (linked to CO2 as the ultimate driver) is hypothesized, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the rate of change 1970-2024 is the same as 18xx to 1970?]
If so, Isn’t that still consistent with saying that weather event X is x% more likely in a world of CO2 accumulation since 18xx than without accumulation?
Zhao and Knutson: Concerning, “Our results indicate that if the future SST trend pattern continues to resemble the observed pattern from the past few decades rather than that simulated or predicted by climate models, we would anticipate a drastically different picture of future changes of high-impact storm statistics.”
Does this imply that for, policy purposes, building codes, hazard insurance premia, new infrastructure investments or retrofitting of existing infrastructure, one should not rely on observed pattern from the past few decades, or does it mean that the simulations need to be revised?
Murakami: Again, what is the correct policy response to this combined with other such results?
“actually, tell me what result you want for projected future hurricane incidence and I can produce a peer-reviewed study to support that view!”
The result I want is the one that tells me how to revise building codes, set hazard insurance premia, how much more to invest (or not) in hardening and higher design standards for infrastructure and how to revise (or not) estimates of the optimal tax on net emissions of CO2 or other policies that encourage lower net emissions of CO2.
Finally, some reality. I thought I was expected to just wait for a statistically significant "signal" that my home had been washed away by storm surge.
Thanks for sharing these articles. In future articles on this topic, I wonder if you could translate the key passages into more readable prose? This would help those of us who do not know all the climate lingo.
Yes, but in general studies like these have little implications for policy directly, but reinforce the importance of policies robust to uncertainties of the future and our inevitable limited knowledge.
We already have too much of that. That is exactly how climate science got corrupted.
Climate scientists should not be focused on policy implications. That is a completely different domain. Once scientists get into politics and policy, it will corrupt the science. They will work backwards from their ideological preferences to “update” the science so it conforms to their ideology.
More indications that the current models / projections of global warming are exaggerated. But policy makers accept those projections as facts and plan accordingly. Their plans become policy. And governments tend to double down on policies over time. So…what happens when the EU and US are “net zero” but the weather is about the same? How much more immiseration will people suffer, and how many will have suffered or died needlessly, having eaten bug paste and drank recycled wastewater etc., all while being shamed for not yet having done enough?
Unless we change direction we in North America are heading for grid instability and possible collapse, if this happens in winter, for many of us this would be the end, most housing simply cannot survive that
The October edition of C2C Journal published an article entitled A Planet that Might not Need Saving: Can CO2 Even Drive Global Temperature? It was based on two previously published papers:
1. Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020
2. Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases, Kubicki et al., 2024
The C2C Journal article used these two to conclude that the saturation point for atmospheric CO2, i.e. the point at which CO2 has all the greenhouse effect it can ever have, is so low (well below the 150 ppm point at which plant life effectively disappears) that any increases in CO2 levels will not a factor in global warming, and that any attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are both unnecessary and pointless. To quote the second paper (Kubicki et aI):
“The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence.”
Indeed! That CO2 accumulation above 150 ppm (a point reached long ago) have no effect on global warming, is quite at odds with current modeling and with the naïve idea that past coincidences of high CO2 concentrations and high global temperatures is causal.
Apparently global warming is not harming marathon times! It's remarkable that the first (modern) marathon was run in 3.5 hours and now men are very close to beating the 2 hour time. (And women close behind.) If you watch the pace on the ground (not on TV) it is completely insane. Few people can keep up that pace for even a minute.
A 2:40 marathon time is an average of 6 minutes per mile.
Until age and weight decayed my knees, I was a runner all my life. I never ran marathons, but I ran up to 18 miles just for fun and 4 miles a day five or six times a week.
But, with all that, even in my 20s, the fastest I could run a mile was 6 minutes and that was going all out. It felt like I was sprinting. I used to do 2 (12 minutes) and I was done. Longer distances took 7.5 - 8 minutes per mile.
Tactical presentation of research is probably a lot more common than tactical research itself. This occurs frequently in climate scientist interviews, in esteemed science publications like Science and Nature, and even sometimes in the IPCC decisions on which peer reviewed studies/articles to access or ignore. Mass media are the most "selective", referencing studies that advance their political agenda and ignoring or, ironically, citing political bias on studies/articles that are critical of their agenda.
How do I transition to running events? What great memories! When I was a college runner, 1959-1963, scientists and their publications declared women incapable and/or harmed by running long distances. The longest Olympic distance for women was 800 meters. When I started running the Boston and other marathons in 1973, it was only one year after the Boston Marathon allowed women to register and run it. For several years up to about 1976 I ran faster than any women entrees at the Boston and NYC marathons. That brief period of male machismo ended in 1976 when 40 year old Miki Gorman set a world women's master (over 40) record as female winner of the NYC Marathon in 2:39.11, beating over 95% of the male runners including me! I ran with her for 20 miles, partly basking in those ten's of thousands of spectators cheering her on. She pulled away from me those last six miles. Both women and master's runners have been getting faster ever since, The earlier scientific studies and articles about women being unable to run long distances was more cultural than scientific, more akin to the prohibition on women voting until the 19th Amendment in 1920. There has always been scientific tactical research and especially selective reference of research to further justify and accommodate the consensus or status quo.
“The most important implication for consumers of climate research is to recognize that our near-term climate future likely encompasses a much wider range of possibilities than we (collectively) generally expect or hear discussed.” That’s an argument for planners and impact folks using scenarios instead of one or a few model outputs, which makes sense. I think water planners already do this, based on an article you posted a while back.
And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that we don’t understand specific regional or local impacts of large scale projections either. And I wonder why there is so much concern about global averages (well I know modelers model global systems) but it seems a bit esoteric if our worry is supposed to be about local and regional impacts.
I guess we don’t get to select what shows up on the buffet table of research info.
GREAT comment, thank you. Are you familiar with Kirsten Peters' works? Something I took from one of her essays was "Was Superstorm Sandy caused by greenhouse warming of the planet? In a word, no. Individual storms arise from specific conditions in the atmosphere. Since records have been kept, hurricanes have varied in number and intensity each season with cycles going up and coming down. The temptation to attribute any specific weather event to global warming distracts us from considering and adopting adaptive strategies, such as improving and expanding irrigation for agriculture and the water supply for cities, that will serve us well when climate changes inevitably arrive on our doorstep."
Your point is exactly correct: worrying about esoteric models derived from partial differential equations (theoretically having an infinite number of solutions) that predict averages does little to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts from local and regional impacts.
It seems obvious to me that, from the political point of view, the Catastrophists will have to go after the IPCC report sooner or later. What could be done to thwart any effort to subvert the science, without advancing the Know-Nothing opposition?
Agree. For ideologues, first attack the naysayers, then attack anyone who does not completely, adhere to the narrative. Even if you believe the IPCC is only providing a veneer of scientific discipline, there is no room for any dissent if we are to be create the requisite fear to convert the masses.
Yes, I think the IPCC is getting further and further away from the narrative of climate activists with each decade. At some point, this will reach a breaking point.
It will be fun to watch what happens when this occurs!
Good stuff here, Roger. Thank you for it.
“ gobsmacking claims made by some visible scientists.” 😂😂😂🤡🤡
Such a nice man.
Completely clean grammatically AFAICT, except for a minor loss of style points for "...gobsmacking claims made by some VISIBLE scientists." Doesn't this imply that most scientists are INVISIBLE? ;)
Frank
I was born visible but am now invisible and therefor I identify as trans-parent.
Well, we are getting a bit meta here ;-) But yes, I'd argue that most climate scientists are in fact invisible. Probably a good future topic!
Climate scientists should be invisible.
Is FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression involved in your lawsuit?
Beaulieu result: Is this saying that the recent data is in line with the rate of change already observed through 1970? [That is it’s saying that if we are running a regression of temperature against whatever the proximate driver (linked to CO2 as the ultimate driver) is hypothesized, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the rate of change 1970-2024 is the same as 18xx to 1970?]
If so, Isn’t that still consistent with saying that weather event X is x% more likely in a world of CO2 accumulation since 18xx than without accumulation?
Zhao and Knutson: Concerning, “Our results indicate that if the future SST trend pattern continues to resemble the observed pattern from the past few decades rather than that simulated or predicted by climate models, we would anticipate a drastically different picture of future changes of high-impact storm statistics.”
Does this imply that for, policy purposes, building codes, hazard insurance premia, new infrastructure investments or retrofitting of existing infrastructure, one should not rely on observed pattern from the past few decades, or does it mean that the simulations need to be revised?
Murakami: Again, what is the correct policy response to this combined with other such results?
“actually, tell me what result you want for projected future hurricane incidence and I can produce a peer-reviewed study to support that view!”
The result I want is the one that tells me how to revise building codes, set hazard insurance premia, how much more to invest (or not) in hardening and higher design standards for infrastructure and how to revise (or not) estimates of the optimal tax on net emissions of CO2 or other policies that encourage lower net emissions of CO2.
Finally, some reality. I thought I was expected to just wait for a statistically significant "signal" that my home had been washed away by storm surge.
Thanks for including the shoe paper into the list. What a fascinating topic!
Maybe because women are smaller and lighter than men they don’t compress or crush the shoes as much and therefor get more bounce from the tech.
Thanks for sharing these articles. In future articles on this topic, I wonder if you could translate the key passages into more readable prose? This would help those of us who do not know all the climate lingo.
Thanks.
Yes! Will do 👍
Not just more readable prose, but what are the policy implications.
Yes, but in general studies like these have little implications for policy directly, but reinforce the importance of policies robust to uncertainties of the future and our inevitable limited knowledge.
We already have too much of that. That is exactly how climate science got corrupted.
Climate scientists should not be focused on policy implications. That is a completely different domain. Once scientists get into politics and policy, it will corrupt the science. They will work backwards from their ideological preferences to “update” the science so it conforms to their ideology.
More indications that the current models / projections of global warming are exaggerated. But policy makers accept those projections as facts and plan accordingly. Their plans become policy. And governments tend to double down on policies over time. So…what happens when the EU and US are “net zero” but the weather is about the same? How much more immiseration will people suffer, and how many will have suffered or died needlessly, having eaten bug paste and drank recycled wastewater etc., all while being shamed for not yet having done enough?
Unless we change direction we in North America are heading for grid instability and possible collapse, if this happens in winter, for many of us this would be the end, most housing simply cannot survive that
The October edition of C2C Journal published an article entitled A Planet that Might not Need Saving: Can CO2 Even Drive Global Temperature? It was based on two previously published papers:
1. Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases, Wijngaarden & Happer, 2020
2. Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases, Kubicki et al., 2024
The C2C Journal article used these two to conclude that the saturation point for atmospheric CO2, i.e. the point at which CO2 has all the greenhouse effect it can ever have, is so low (well below the 150 ppm point at which plant life effectively disappears) that any increases in CO2 levels will not a factor in global warming, and that any attempts to reduce CO2 emissions are both unnecessary and pointless. To quote the second paper (Kubicki et aI):
“The presented material shows that despite the fact that the majority of publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to the anthropogenic increase in CO2 and its impact on Earth's climate, the shown facts raise serious doubts about this influence.”
I would be interested in your views on this.
Indeed! That CO2 accumulation above 150 ppm (a point reached long ago) have no effect on global warming, is quite at odds with current modeling and with the naïve idea that past coincidences of high CO2 concentrations and high global temperatures is causal.
Of course it’s casual as there have been periods with low co2 and high temps and vise versa.
With all the chaff out there how will any make any bread without loads of ersatz wheat.
Apparently global warming is not harming marathon times! It's remarkable that the first (modern) marathon was run in 3.5 hours and now men are very close to beating the 2 hour time. (And women close behind.) If you watch the pace on the ground (not on TV) it is completely insane. Few people can keep up that pace for even a minute.
A 2:40 marathon time is an average of 6 minutes per mile.
Until age and weight decayed my knees, I was a runner all my life. I never ran marathons, but I ran up to 18 miles just for fun and 4 miles a day five or six times a week.
But, with all that, even in my 20s, the fastest I could run a mile was 6 minutes and that was going all out. It felt like I was sprinting. I used to do 2 (12 minutes) and I was done. Longer distances took 7.5 - 8 minutes per mile.
I don't know how they do 26 of those.
Tactical presentation of research is probably a lot more common than tactical research itself. This occurs frequently in climate scientist interviews, in esteemed science publications like Science and Nature, and even sometimes in the IPCC decisions on which peer reviewed studies/articles to access or ignore. Mass media are the most "selective", referencing studies that advance their political agenda and ignoring or, ironically, citing political bias on studies/articles that are critical of their agenda.
How do I transition to running events? What great memories! When I was a college runner, 1959-1963, scientists and their publications declared women incapable and/or harmed by running long distances. The longest Olympic distance for women was 800 meters. When I started running the Boston and other marathons in 1973, it was only one year after the Boston Marathon allowed women to register and run it. For several years up to about 1976 I ran faster than any women entrees at the Boston and NYC marathons. That brief period of male machismo ended in 1976 when 40 year old Miki Gorman set a world women's master (over 40) record as female winner of the NYC Marathon in 2:39.11, beating over 95% of the male runners including me! I ran with her for 20 miles, partly basking in those ten's of thousands of spectators cheering her on. She pulled away from me those last six miles. Both women and master's runners have been getting faster ever since, The earlier scientific studies and articles about women being unable to run long distances was more cultural than scientific, more akin to the prohibition on women voting until the 19th Amendment in 1920. There has always been scientific tactical research and especially selective reference of research to further justify and accommodate the consensus or status quo.
“The most important implication for consumers of climate research is to recognize that our near-term climate future likely encompasses a much wider range of possibilities than we (collectively) generally expect or hear discussed.” That’s an argument for planners and impact folks using scenarios instead of one or a few model outputs, which makes sense. I think water planners already do this, based on an article you posted a while back.
And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that we don’t understand specific regional or local impacts of large scale projections either. And I wonder why there is so much concern about global averages (well I know modelers model global systems) but it seems a bit esoteric if our worry is supposed to be about local and regional impacts.
I guess we don’t get to select what shows up on the buffet table of research info.
I don't understand the contrast between "scenarios" and model projections.
GREAT comment, thank you. Are you familiar with Kirsten Peters' works? Something I took from one of her essays was "Was Superstorm Sandy caused by greenhouse warming of the planet? In a word, no. Individual storms arise from specific conditions in the atmosphere. Since records have been kept, hurricanes have varied in number and intensity each season with cycles going up and coming down. The temptation to attribute any specific weather event to global warming distracts us from considering and adopting adaptive strategies, such as improving and expanding irrigation for agriculture and the water supply for cities, that will serve us well when climate changes inevitably arrive on our doorstep."
Your point is exactly correct: worrying about esoteric models derived from partial differential equations (theoretically having an infinite number of solutions) that predict averages does little to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts from local and regional impacts.
Thanks again.
AFAICT, everyone agrees that one cannot attribute any specific weather outcome -- Sandy, Helene, or anything else --to past CO2 accumulation.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane
Maybe tell that to the world wrestling federation, I mean the world weather attribution people.
All the effort and money spent on stopping warming and little spending on mitigation. Insanity is so catching.
It seems obvious to me that, from the political point of view, the Catastrophists will have to go after the IPCC report sooner or later. What could be done to thwart any effort to subvert the science, without advancing the Know-Nothing opposition?
Agree. For ideologues, first attack the naysayers, then attack anyone who does not completely, adhere to the narrative. Even if you believe the IPCC is only providing a veneer of scientific discipline, there is no room for any dissent if we are to be create the requisite fear to convert the masses.
Yes, I think the IPCC is getting further and further away from the narrative of climate activists with each decade. At some point, this will reach a breaking point.
It will be fun to watch what happens when this occurs!