Perhaps it is time to address the well documented failure of the climate consensus to make honest, accurate predictions. After so many years of repeated failing predictions the logical place to start is the foundational assumption.
I tried to publish (on WUWT) the following in Dec 23/Jan 24. Note- a second sunspot activity peak did occur in 2024, providing additional warming and delaying a return to normal temperatures. Re: Hunga Tonga 12/08/2023
This is just a thought process, not an analysis.
Let’s start with the eruption in Jan 2022 throwing an unprecedented 150 million tons of water as water vapor (WV) into the stratosphere, and increasing levels to 13% above normal. Given that atmospheric/stratospheric water vapor is by far the strongest greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the total worlds greenhouse effect, and given that the Jan injection had been distributed world-wide by March, one would have expected to see significant warming in eg the UAH temp record in Q2 2022, but that didn’t happen. One can surmise that, with the sun in a very low activity state, heat that was blocked by the stratospheric WV was dissipated by evaporation at the sea surface, and cloud formation blocked incoming heat due to elevated levels of cosmic rays. It seems that that atmospheric WV may have continued to accumulate until late 2022, resulting in far above normal rainfall in Southern Australia and southwestern USA (mainly California) through Q1 2023.
Then in Q1 2023 the sun went back into an active state, spiking in May 2023. The Oulu monitor showed a sharp drop in cosmic rays in Dec. 2022, followed by a larger drop in late March/early April 2023. This could have resulted in a major decline in cloud cover, a major increase in sunlight reaching the surface and a resulting rapid rise in surface temperature, as illustrated by Ryan Maue. Both sea and land temperatures rose to levels unprecedented in the modern period. Elevated temperatures persisted through summer and into fall 2023.
Now, recently, solar activity is dropping rapidly, implying a rise in cosmic rays and widespread increase in cloud cover. Over the last 3 months we have seen major and sometimes prolonged precipitation events leading to local, frequently unprecedented, flooding world-wide eg Libya, New England, NE France, the Philippines, Brazil, Afghanistan, most of Africa, etc. It seems that the excess atmospheric WV will have largely dissipated very soon and temperatures may rapidly return to normal. In fact we are seeing incidents of at least brief, unprecedented cold in many places, early snowfall in the Alps and the Rockies, and Russia 80% covered by snow, and unusual cold throughout Scandinavia in late Nov.
I have left El Nino out of all of this. Curiously there is some evidence that major volcanic events in the tropics trigger El Ninos about a year after the eruption, usually ascribed to atmospheric cooling from the volcanic aerosols. Hunga Tonga does not fit that description, but was very major, and has been followed by an El Nino. Strange. El Ninos transport heat from low to high latitudes, and result in further cooling, so 2024 could see significant cooling.
Whither next? - Also, solar cycles usually show spikes of activity 30 – 40 months after commencement, and that spike may or may not be followed by a higher one. This cycle 25 spike peaked 37 months after start. Given that the solar system barycenter (SSB) has switched from moving away from the solar center to moving nearer the solar center during 2022 (mass effect going from pull to push?) this spike might be the only one in cycle 25, and we are likely to be into a prolonged cooling period during the next 3 cycles. At least one scientist has forecast another “little ice age”, but that seems very unlikely given that the current Eddy cycle is nearing its warm peak, and the Bray cycle (see Andy May’s recent posting) is well off the bottom. Both were near bottom for the recent little ice age.
Addition 1/4/2024
Anchorage Alaska experienced record snow fall in late Nov/early Dec – about 6 months of normal snowfall in 1 month. China experienced the coldest Dec since they have been keeping records, ie since 1950. Given known cold periods that suggests the coldest since the Dalton minimum about 1810. The record warm seawater (101 deg F) measured on Florida’s west coast (Manatee Bay} has been replaced by below average water temperature for the beginning of Jan 2024. Sea water temperature at Siesta Key Beach is now near 2 deg F below average for this time of year.
Addition 1/20/2024
It seems that the record (101 degree F) Manatee Bay temperature was readings from 1 bouy that was very near shore and may have been grounded at the time of peak temperature. Of course official reports omit that detail.
A recent report (6/2024) stated that stratospheric WV has not yet declined. That must be very significant.
Also re Gavin Schmidt's observation quoted above - he and his fellow climatologists should do a scientific analysis of the impact of the Jan 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga driving stratospheric water vapor up by 15%. That is a very rare event historically, and should be very significant climatologically. For sure in 2023 and 2024 incidents of major flooding have been elevated world-wide, and, at least locally, our daily high cloud cover has been very unusual.
In all of this analysis and forecasting (modelling?) of global temperature I am amazed at the exclusion of what seem to be long term natural climate cycles. Most of the recent research papers address "tidally driven" changes in the "solar dynamo" with some efforts to connect such changes to planetary orbital changes in gravitational influence on the sun. About 1300 to 1800 AD we have seen the "little ice age" (LIA) which seems to display an approximately 375 yr +- 20 year solar cycle, that is not obviously linked to any planetary orbital gravitation driver and 2 longer cycles (Eddy cycle- approx 980 years +- 100, and Bray/Hallstat cycle of 2300 - 2700 years, all 3 of which have an impact on current warming and a sensible forecast. The 375 year cycle bottomed about 1675 (Maunder minimum), the Eddy about 1600 AD and the Bray about 1500 AD. We should now be going into another 375 year bottom, but it won't be as cold as the LIA because the Eddy and Bray cycles are moving up off their bottoms - ie warming. Solar cycles 24/25 already look like a cooling onset is imminent, regardless of anthropogenic influence, and warming may get warmer in 300-400 years regardless of green energy initiatives.
I am a scientist and an engineer and I love statistics, modelling of nonlinear systems, physics, maths, all that jazz. And I understand the claim that we "dont have enough evidence for extreme events being more frequent now than before because we dont have enough of them and not long enough time".
But I disagree that we can feel comforted by that. If you are looking for 95% certainty that your null hypothesis is wrong ("there is no more extreme events now than before"), then you might have to wait some more years. Perhaps.
But you also will agree that the higher CO2 in the atmosphere will increase heat retention by the earth, on average. And you will recognize that this will over time increase the temperature. And you will agree that the earth is a very complex system of nonlinear physics between air, earth, ice and water. Likely to be disrupted gravely by the increased heat. And that the IPCC, a body of scientists collectively much smarter than anyone on this forum, has raised enough flags for us to take that seriously.
Why wait for the 95% proof of your null hypo? We are like Schroedingers Cat in the box. There was a gun in the box firing every 30 years. Now a new gun has been added and it fires more often. We dont know how much. Perhaps every 10? We should agree that our risk is up dramatically of taking a bullet and remove the new gun. No need to wait 20 years to get a bullet to prove we are 95% likely not to be wrong.
I call for dropping this seemingly-good-but-really-a-climate-denier/strawman argument.
Actually the idea that heat is retained by CO2 is not a good explanation of the ghg effect. A better explanation of Demming's 40 year lag is to think of it as an "avoid accountability for bad predictions card". When large volcanoes go off, there is no 40 year lag. When an extreme El/La Niña occurs, there is no 40 year lag. CO2 doesn't have a special time component as part of its physics.
Perhaps it is time to revisit water in all its phases and its full range of physical properties. Clearly CO2 is not an adequate explanation
What about argument by Happer and others that further increases in CO2 will have small and diminishing effects on temperature? Of course, you are also mentioning only downsides to increased CO2 and slightly increased temperatures even though there are many upsides.
I have tried in this series to accurately reflect the IPCC AR6. Whether readers find that comforting or not is their business, not mine. I often hear that the IPCC are the new deniers because they are not extreme enough. I am happy to host arguments here on why the IPCC has things wrong.
As far as my views on climate policy, have a look at TCF, and I am happy to debate those as well.
I’d ask that you do not call me a climate denier. Thanks,
I apologise for the climate denier reference. That was uncalled for and you have not done that. I just find it frustrating that so much time is spent on poking holes in IPCC or asking them to do more or asking for xx more years to measure extreme events before we can say that we are in a new era of climate, etc. Of course we are in a new era of climate. It’s happened so fast that the integration time in a cybernetic sense hasn’t had time to kick in, the earth’s systems are rebalancing and we have seen nothing yet. But let’s not hide behind statistics which is what Exxon et al have done for decades. We know enough science to know what’s coming. Let’s support the IPCC instead of poking holes in them?
Perhaps if the climate consensus was not making so many expensive failed predictions and wasteful policy demands and instead stop censoring and misleading the public actual progress could take place. The reliance on the the intellectually dishonestvterm "climate denier" is to announce one's complete lack of seriousness.
I just love you Norskes producing fossil fuels out the whazoo and stashing all of those obscene profits away for future generations of blue eyed pure bloods to use on their saunas and electric cars. Calling those who deign to take exception with your statistical brilliance climate deniers. To quote another Scandinavian of note, "How dare you?".
If you are concerned about tipping points and too much CO2 in the atmosphere then shut down your offshore oil and gas businesses and use all of that multigenerational wealth to build some nukes. Or maybe you could take those megabucks to Africa and build a few clean coal or gas power plants to provide reliable clean electricity for those who really need it.
But I agree Norway could do more to support new technologies and wind power and build nukes and energy related charity work worldwide. But market forces rule and that’s what we have to accept as the basis for changing the energy system, with a good dose of government policy to guide those forces.
We are all (mostly) hypocrites if you dig enough. We must be allowed to criticize fossil fuel usage while driving a car. You are probably one of those who would slam Greta for flying (or whatever) and yet being a climate change advocate.
We have massive problems to solve while people all over the world live their normal lives. It’s up to scientists and policy makers to change the wheels while the car is driving.
That’s hard enough without this childish whataboutism.
Great piece, Roger. Thanks for this. I shall add Ch4 to my 'to read list'. BTW: do you think they really believe what they say in their call for donations, i.e. that they are up against "Bad actors spreading disinformation online to fuel intolerance."?
I live in northern Vt and over a 30 year period it is hard not to see changes in the climate - warmer winter nights, less snow cover, fewer extended cold periods and now in the last 385 days - 5 major flood events. This is an area without a lot of new development. But the cause of the floods in all cases was unusual rain. Help me understand - simply a blip. And not related to global warming.
I wonder about the effect of the cyclical-naturally-occurring-forcings. They are weak forcings; however, they cyclically change in strength with different periods (from daily to more than 100,000 years as dictated by planetary motions. Overlapping several different frequencies is bound to produce unpredictable "superpositions" of several weak forcings and create some of the past tipping points we have observed in the past. Please comment.
Thanks, Roger. I enjoy your work, but you make short shrift of surface temp and sea ice. These are certainties, and serious. Can you address how these are/might soon affect tipping points - e.g. Siberian methane release, the Atlantic pump, Amazon drying. They're what what keep me up at night!
Randall, Ignore Pat Robinson, he is here to troll everyone with climate denialism and strawmen and insults. You are right. Surface temp is up. Sea ice is down. These are certainties and tipping points will be hit sooner than we hope. Unfortunately people are afraid, like we should be, but some prefer to stick their head in the sand, and explain it away, or look for statistics to ignore it e.g. saying something like it is "95% likely that our null hyphothesis is wrong" kind of argument.
Roger is respectable but he is wrong on the "we cannot be sure yet if we see climate variability because we dont have enough data". This is head-in-sand-sticking and death-by-statistics.
We know what is bad for the economy, ie what both Biden and Trudeau are currently doing, because we have seen it in the past, things were tried and we know the results.
With the climate, you are still talking faith, face it.
My takeaway from this, the money shot?
“We don’t have a quantitative explanation for even half of it. That is pretty humbling” Gavin Schmidt, NASA, 15 Aug 2024“
Really Gavin?
Haven’t you and Piltdown and all the rest been screaming down everyone for 1/4 century that the science is settled?
Sort of on the same subject, I just watched Furiosa, the latest Mad Max and it was actually very good, I recommend it and not just due to its accurate portrayal of the world of Net Zero.
One absolutely essential part of this post is the debunking of statements like this:
“The damaging impacts of climate change, and in particular from more extreme weather events, such as wildfires, floods, heatwaves, more intense hurricanes, are actually in many respects exceeding the predictions made just a decade ago.”
Dr. Pielke shows in a very easy to understand way how this claim is absolutely false. And yet, this is simply boilerplate for the current climate catastrophists. Misleading claims of this nature are published daily (or weekly) by supposedly reputed outlets such as The New York Times or The Economist. Nobody even blinks anymore reading these lies and many are completely brainwashed by them. How many scientists associated with IPCC have come forward to refute this type of misinformation and to explain their absurdity, the way Dr. Pielke did?
The way these lies are virtually unchallenged and propagated as daily fare defines the current chasm between scientific reality on one hand and daily indoctrination and political decisions, on the other.
I cancelled my Economist subscription 2 years ago, a subscription I had since the 90’s and I made sure to tell them it was because of the climate rubbish they spew. The only way they stop is if everyone else does the same.
Just looking through the comments it seems to me that the conclusion that is drawn is that less should be done to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. I do not think that is the correct conclusion to draw from this and the other 5 posts in the series, and so I think the way you communicate your research is unintentionally misleading.
I'd caution treating comments like an opinion poll. So far, 30 comments and almost 30k subscribers. That said, I am more than happy to engage with people who hold views at odds to my own. THB is not an echo chamber and if I do my job right, won't ever be!
Dr. Pielke ==> "With the exception of global average surface temperatures and September Arctic sea ice area, the IPCC does not expect to be able to detect changes in the 11 other modes of climate and climate variability that it assesses in its WG1 Chapter 4." "And those changes pose risks."
Certainly, there are climate changes afoot in the future, as there have been in the past. But changes are not necessarily properly or always seen as "risks". Any change can be a risk if one does not anticipate it or adapt to it when it happens. But, "longer growing seasons in the world's breadbaskets" -- an anticipated climatic change over the next 50-100 years -- is not what we would normally call a "risk" but rather an opportunity.
The possibility of a year-around (or even seasonally dependable) northern Arctic shipping route between the Atlantic and the Pacific, between Asia and ports of Europe and the USA, is an anticipated change due to climatic conditions but is not properly seen as a risk but again should be seen as an opportunity.
There are many more examples that could be given, but the Bottom Line is:
Knowing that the North Sea didn't exist 7,000 years ago and came about due to the vast energy that it took to melt the polar ice sheet, how could any honest person conclude that the tiny amount of alleged recent warming was caused by humans ?
This is the story of Doggerland. A human settlement was discovered at the bottom of the North Sea by a fishing boat in the 1930s
Roger, you're killing me man Re: "About 20,000 years ago, the world was in an ice age." We are still in an Ice Age, one that is generally accepted to have started about 2.58 mya.
Call me nitpicky, but there is an important distinction between ice ages, occurring over periods millions to tens of millions of years and defined by periods of permanent ice sheets at both polar regions, and glaciations which occur on scales of tens to a hundred thousand years within an Ice Age and are interceded by interglacial periods which are warm periods occurring over thousands to over ten thousand years in which polar ice caps recede but no completely disappear, such as the one we are in now.
Over the years I have seen an increase in the mis-use of the term Ice Age and believe this leading to greater confusion among the public. If the current of the last million years holds, and while not in our lifetimes , we can expect to see the next glaciation to start within about a thousand years or more followed by many more inter-glacials and glacials before the current Ica Age comes to an end
And when that time comes our decedents may find it cost effective to put CO2 back into the atmosphere. As physical events, our ability to model them, and our technological abilities to mitigate and adapt to those changes all evolve, so to will the optimal policies.
Perhaps it is time to address the well documented failure of the climate consensus to make honest, accurate predictions. After so many years of repeated failing predictions the logical place to start is the foundational assumption.
I tried to publish (on WUWT) the following in Dec 23/Jan 24. Note- a second sunspot activity peak did occur in 2024, providing additional warming and delaying a return to normal temperatures. Re: Hunga Tonga 12/08/2023
This is just a thought process, not an analysis.
Let’s start with the eruption in Jan 2022 throwing an unprecedented 150 million tons of water as water vapor (WV) into the stratosphere, and increasing levels to 13% above normal. Given that atmospheric/stratospheric water vapor is by far the strongest greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the total worlds greenhouse effect, and given that the Jan injection had been distributed world-wide by March, one would have expected to see significant warming in eg the UAH temp record in Q2 2022, but that didn’t happen. One can surmise that, with the sun in a very low activity state, heat that was blocked by the stratospheric WV was dissipated by evaporation at the sea surface, and cloud formation blocked incoming heat due to elevated levels of cosmic rays. It seems that that atmospheric WV may have continued to accumulate until late 2022, resulting in far above normal rainfall in Southern Australia and southwestern USA (mainly California) through Q1 2023.
Then in Q1 2023 the sun went back into an active state, spiking in May 2023. The Oulu monitor showed a sharp drop in cosmic rays in Dec. 2022, followed by a larger drop in late March/early April 2023. This could have resulted in a major decline in cloud cover, a major increase in sunlight reaching the surface and a resulting rapid rise in surface temperature, as illustrated by Ryan Maue. Both sea and land temperatures rose to levels unprecedented in the modern period. Elevated temperatures persisted through summer and into fall 2023.
Now, recently, solar activity is dropping rapidly, implying a rise in cosmic rays and widespread increase in cloud cover. Over the last 3 months we have seen major and sometimes prolonged precipitation events leading to local, frequently unprecedented, flooding world-wide eg Libya, New England, NE France, the Philippines, Brazil, Afghanistan, most of Africa, etc. It seems that the excess atmospheric WV will have largely dissipated very soon and temperatures may rapidly return to normal. In fact we are seeing incidents of at least brief, unprecedented cold in many places, early snowfall in the Alps and the Rockies, and Russia 80% covered by snow, and unusual cold throughout Scandinavia in late Nov.
I have left El Nino out of all of this. Curiously there is some evidence that major volcanic events in the tropics trigger El Ninos about a year after the eruption, usually ascribed to atmospheric cooling from the volcanic aerosols. Hunga Tonga does not fit that description, but was very major, and has been followed by an El Nino. Strange. El Ninos transport heat from low to high latitudes, and result in further cooling, so 2024 could see significant cooling.
Whither next? - Also, solar cycles usually show spikes of activity 30 – 40 months after commencement, and that spike may or may not be followed by a higher one. This cycle 25 spike peaked 37 months after start. Given that the solar system barycenter (SSB) has switched from moving away from the solar center to moving nearer the solar center during 2022 (mass effect going from pull to push?) this spike might be the only one in cycle 25, and we are likely to be into a prolonged cooling period during the next 3 cycles. At least one scientist has forecast another “little ice age”, but that seems very unlikely given that the current Eddy cycle is nearing its warm peak, and the Bray cycle (see Andy May’s recent posting) is well off the bottom. Both were near bottom for the recent little ice age.
Addition 1/4/2024
Anchorage Alaska experienced record snow fall in late Nov/early Dec – about 6 months of normal snowfall in 1 month. China experienced the coldest Dec since they have been keeping records, ie since 1950. Given known cold periods that suggests the coldest since the Dalton minimum about 1810. The record warm seawater (101 deg F) measured on Florida’s west coast (Manatee Bay} has been replaced by below average water temperature for the beginning of Jan 2024. Sea water temperature at Siesta Key Beach is now near 2 deg F below average for this time of year.
Addition 1/20/2024
It seems that the record (101 degree F) Manatee Bay temperature was readings from 1 bouy that was very near shore and may have been grounded at the time of peak temperature. Of course official reports omit that detail.
A recent report (6/2024) stated that stratospheric WV has not yet declined. That must be very significant.
Also re Gavin Schmidt's observation quoted above - he and his fellow climatologists should do a scientific analysis of the impact of the Jan 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga driving stratospheric water vapor up by 15%. That is a very rare event historically, and should be very significant climatologically. For sure in 2023 and 2024 incidents of major flooding have been elevated world-wide, and, at least locally, our daily high cloud cover has been very unusual.
This paper just came out on Hunga Tonga
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/17/JCLI-D-23-0437.1.xml
I am sure there will be many more to come
In all of this analysis and forecasting (modelling?) of global temperature I am amazed at the exclusion of what seem to be long term natural climate cycles. Most of the recent research papers address "tidally driven" changes in the "solar dynamo" with some efforts to connect such changes to planetary orbital changes in gravitational influence on the sun. About 1300 to 1800 AD we have seen the "little ice age" (LIA) which seems to display an approximately 375 yr +- 20 year solar cycle, that is not obviously linked to any planetary orbital gravitation driver and 2 longer cycles (Eddy cycle- approx 980 years +- 100, and Bray/Hallstat cycle of 2300 - 2700 years, all 3 of which have an impact on current warming and a sensible forecast. The 375 year cycle bottomed about 1675 (Maunder minimum), the Eddy about 1600 AD and the Bray about 1500 AD. We should now be going into another 375 year bottom, but it won't be as cold as the LIA because the Eddy and Bray cycles are moving up off their bottoms - ie warming. Solar cycles 24/25 already look like a cooling onset is imminent, regardless of anthropogenic influence, and warming may get warmer in 300-400 years regardless of green energy initiatives.
I am a scientist and an engineer and I love statistics, modelling of nonlinear systems, physics, maths, all that jazz. And I understand the claim that we "dont have enough evidence for extreme events being more frequent now than before because we dont have enough of them and not long enough time".
But I disagree that we can feel comforted by that. If you are looking for 95% certainty that your null hypothesis is wrong ("there is no more extreme events now than before"), then you might have to wait some more years. Perhaps.
But you also will agree that the higher CO2 in the atmosphere will increase heat retention by the earth, on average. And you will recognize that this will over time increase the temperature. And you will agree that the earth is a very complex system of nonlinear physics between air, earth, ice and water. Likely to be disrupted gravely by the increased heat. And that the IPCC, a body of scientists collectively much smarter than anyone on this forum, has raised enough flags for us to take that seriously.
Why wait for the 95% proof of your null hypo? We are like Schroedingers Cat in the box. There was a gun in the box firing every 30 years. Now a new gun has been added and it fires more often. We dont know how much. Perhaps every 10? We should agree that our risk is up dramatically of taking a bullet and remove the new gun. No need to wait 20 years to get a bullet to prove we are 95% likely not to be wrong.
I call for dropping this seemingly-good-but-really-a-climate-denier/strawman argument.
Actually the idea that heat is retained by CO2 is not a good explanation of the ghg effect. A better explanation of Demming's 40 year lag is to think of it as an "avoid accountability for bad predictions card". When large volcanoes go off, there is no 40 year lag. When an extreme El/La Niña occurs, there is no 40 year lag. CO2 doesn't have a special time component as part of its physics.
Perhaps it is time to revisit water in all its phases and its full range of physical properties. Clearly CO2 is not an adequate explanation
What about argument by Happer and others that further increases in CO2 will have small and diminishing effects on temperature? Of course, you are also mentioning only downsides to increased CO2 and slightly increased temperatures even though there are many upsides.
I have tried in this series to accurately reflect the IPCC AR6. Whether readers find that comforting or not is their business, not mine. I often hear that the IPCC are the new deniers because they are not extreme enough. I am happy to host arguments here on why the IPCC has things wrong.
As far as my views on climate policy, have a look at TCF, and I am happy to debate those as well.
I’d ask that you do not call me a climate denier. Thanks,
I apologise for the climate denier reference. That was uncalled for and you have not done that. I just find it frustrating that so much time is spent on poking holes in IPCC or asking them to do more or asking for xx more years to measure extreme events before we can say that we are in a new era of climate, etc. Of course we are in a new era of climate. It’s happened so fast that the integration time in a cybernetic sense hasn’t had time to kick in, the earth’s systems are rebalancing and we have seen nothing yet. But let’s not hide behind statistics which is what Exxon et al have done for decades. We know enough science to know what’s coming. Let’s support the IPCC instead of poking holes in them?
Perhaps if the climate consensus was not making so many expensive failed predictions and wasteful policy demands and instead stop censoring and misleading the public actual progress could take place. The reliance on the the intellectually dishonestvterm "climate denier" is to announce one's complete lack of seriousness.
I just love you Norskes producing fossil fuels out the whazoo and stashing all of those obscene profits away for future generations of blue eyed pure bloods to use on their saunas and electric cars. Calling those who deign to take exception with your statistical brilliance climate deniers. To quote another Scandinavian of note, "How dare you?".
If you are concerned about tipping points and too much CO2 in the atmosphere then shut down your offshore oil and gas businesses and use all of that multigenerational wealth to build some nukes. Or maybe you could take those megabucks to Africa and build a few clean coal or gas power plants to provide reliable clean electricity for those who really need it.
But I agree Norway could do more to support new technologies and wind power and build nukes and energy related charity work worldwide. But market forces rule and that’s what we have to accept as the basis for changing the energy system, with a good dose of government policy to guide those forces.
Pure whataboutism.
We are all (mostly) hypocrites if you dig enough. We must be allowed to criticize fossil fuel usage while driving a car. You are probably one of those who would slam Greta for flying (or whatever) and yet being a climate change advocate.
We have massive problems to solve while people all over the world live their normal lives. It’s up to scientists and policy makers to change the wheels while the car is driving.
That’s hard enough without this childish whataboutism.
Great piece, Roger. Thanks for this. I shall add Ch4 to my 'to read list'. BTW: do you think they really believe what they say in their call for donations, i.e. that they are up against "Bad actors spreading disinformation online to fuel intolerance."?
I live in northern Vt and over a 30 year period it is hard not to see changes in the climate - warmer winter nights, less snow cover, fewer extended cold periods and now in the last 385 days - 5 major flood events. This is an area without a lot of new development. But the cause of the floods in all cases was unusual rain. Help me understand - simply a blip. And not related to global warming.
I wonder about the effect of the cyclical-naturally-occurring-forcings. They are weak forcings; however, they cyclically change in strength with different periods (from daily to more than 100,000 years as dictated by planetary motions. Overlapping several different frequencies is bound to produce unpredictable "superpositions" of several weak forcings and create some of the past tipping points we have observed in the past. Please comment.
Thanks, Roger. I enjoy your work, but you make short shrift of surface temp and sea ice. These are certainties, and serious. Can you address how these are/might soon affect tipping points - e.g. Siberian methane release, the Atlantic pump, Amazon drying. They're what what keep me up at night!
Randall, Ignore Pat Robinson, he is here to troll everyone with climate denialism and strawmen and insults. You are right. Surface temp is up. Sea ice is down. These are certainties and tipping points will be hit sooner than we hope. Unfortunately people are afraid, like we should be, but some prefer to stick their head in the sand, and explain it away, or look for statistics to ignore it e.g. saying something like it is "95% likely that our null hyphothesis is wrong" kind of argument.
Roger is respectable but he is wrong on the "we cannot be sure yet if we see climate variability because we dont have enough data". This is head-in-sand-sticking and death-by-statistics.
And P Robinson? Well, ignore.
Sadly, you are captured.
None of that is worth losing sleep over.
You are here, aren’t you picking up what Roger is laying down?
The comparison with the economy is not valid.
We know what is bad for the economy, ie what both Biden and Trudeau are currently doing, because we have seen it in the past, things were tried and we know the results.
With the climate, you are still talking faith, face it.
My takeaway from this, the money shot?
“We don’t have a quantitative explanation for even half of it. That is pretty humbling” Gavin Schmidt, NASA, 15 Aug 2024“
Really Gavin?
Haven’t you and Piltdown and all the rest been screaming down everyone for 1/4 century that the science is settled?
The consensus!!!!!!!!!
Absolute 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Yes I’m being nice.
Sort of on the same subject, I just watched Furiosa, the latest Mad Max and it was actually very good, I recommend it and not just due to its accurate portrayal of the world of Net Zero.
One absolutely essential part of this post is the debunking of statements like this:
“The damaging impacts of climate change, and in particular from more extreme weather events, such as wildfires, floods, heatwaves, more intense hurricanes, are actually in many respects exceeding the predictions made just a decade ago.”
Dr. Pielke shows in a very easy to understand way how this claim is absolutely false. And yet, this is simply boilerplate for the current climate catastrophists. Misleading claims of this nature are published daily (or weekly) by supposedly reputed outlets such as The New York Times or The Economist. Nobody even blinks anymore reading these lies and many are completely brainwashed by them. How many scientists associated with IPCC have come forward to refute this type of misinformation and to explain their absurdity, the way Dr. Pielke did?
The way these lies are virtually unchallenged and propagated as daily fare defines the current chasm between scientific reality on one hand and daily indoctrination and political decisions, on the other.
I cancelled my Economist subscription 2 years ago, a subscription I had since the 90’s and I made sure to tell them it was because of the climate rubbish they spew. The only way they stop is if everyone else does the same.
Just looking through the comments it seems to me that the conclusion that is drawn is that less should be done to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. I do not think that is the correct conclusion to draw from this and the other 5 posts in the series, and so I think the way you communicate your research is unintentionally misleading.
I'd caution treating comments like an opinion poll. So far, 30 comments and almost 30k subscribers. That said, I am more than happy to engage with people who hold views at odds to my own. THB is not an echo chamber and if I do my job right, won't ever be!
Dr. Pielke ==> "With the exception of global average surface temperatures and September Arctic sea ice area, the IPCC does not expect to be able to detect changes in the 11 other modes of climate and climate variability that it assesses in its WG1 Chapter 4." "And those changes pose risks."
Certainly, there are climate changes afoot in the future, as there have been in the past. But changes are not necessarily properly or always seen as "risks". Any change can be a risk if one does not anticipate it or adapt to it when it happens. But, "longer growing seasons in the world's breadbaskets" -- an anticipated climatic change over the next 50-100 years -- is not what we would normally call a "risk" but rather an opportunity.
The possibility of a year-around (or even seasonally dependable) northern Arctic shipping route between the Atlantic and the Pacific, between Asia and ports of Europe and the USA, is an anticipated change due to climatic conditions but is not properly seen as a risk but again should be seen as an opportunity.
There are many more examples that could be given, but the Bottom Line is:
CHANGE ≠ RISK
Agreed
Change = Risk + Opportunity
Maybe better:
Change = Risk and/or Opportunity
Knowing that the North Sea didn't exist 7,000 years ago and came about due to the vast energy that it took to melt the polar ice sheet, how could any honest person conclude that the tiny amount of alleged recent warming was caused by humans ?
This is the story of Doggerland. A human settlement was discovered at the bottom of the North Sea by a fishing boat in the 1930s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Thanks, I had no idea!
Roger, you're killing me man Re: "About 20,000 years ago, the world was in an ice age." We are still in an Ice Age, one that is generally accepted to have started about 2.58 mya.
Call me nitpicky, but there is an important distinction between ice ages, occurring over periods millions to tens of millions of years and defined by periods of permanent ice sheets at both polar regions, and glaciations which occur on scales of tens to a hundred thousand years within an Ice Age and are interceded by interglacial periods which are warm periods occurring over thousands to over ten thousand years in which polar ice caps recede but no completely disappear, such as the one we are in now.
Over the years I have seen an increase in the mis-use of the term Ice Age and believe this leading to greater confusion among the public. If the current of the last million years holds, and while not in our lifetimes , we can expect to see the next glaciation to start within about a thousand years or more followed by many more inter-glacials and glacials before the current Ica Age comes to an end
Hopefully we will stop trying to reduce CO2 at massive cost and instead let it ward off a renewal of deadly colder temperatures.
And when that time comes our decedents may find it cost effective to put CO2 back into the atmosphere. As physical events, our ability to model them, and our technological abilities to mitigate and adapt to those changes all evolve, so to will the optimal policies.