The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Dr Judith Curry gives the 2024 Annual GWPF Lecture on the subject of ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk’.
Transcript
[Host]
Welcome, everybody, to our annual lecture. I’m extremely pleased to welcome Professor Judith Curry as our special guest, someone who may actually know something about the science. She is one of the world’s leading climate scientists, an author of over 180 scientific papers, and she’s currently president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network and hosts one of the world’s most popular climate science blogs. She’s here to talk tonight about the subjects in her new book called “Climate Uncertainty and Risk.” Thank you very much, Judith. Over to you.
[Dr. Judith Curry]
I’m delighted to be here tonight to talk with you about my favorite topic: climate uncertainty and risk. To provide some context for climate uncertainty and risk, let’s first consider the so-called climate certainties: the Earth’s climate is warming, a warming climate is dangerous, we’re causing the warming by emitting CO2 from burning fossil fuels, so we need to prevent dangerous climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions. These alleged certainties fuel apocalyptic rhetoric from UN and our national leaders. Here are some of my favorites: “The clock is ticking towards climate catastrophe.” “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” The UN Paris Agreement targets net zero emissions by 2050 to keep warming to within 1.5 degrees. Policymakers and others are grappling with a number of issues in addressing the Net Zero challenge. These include the technical, economic, and political feasibility, the priority of climate change relative to other problems, and unintended consequences of a rapid transition of our energy system.
Some example headlines I’ve spotted over the last two years: “Almost half of UK adults fear falling into fuel poverty before the year’s end.” “Why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts.” “Rich countries’ climate policies are colonialism in green.” African nations expect to make the case for a big rise in fossil fuel output. So how did we come to be between a rock and a hard place on the climate issue, where we are allegedly facing an existential threat, and the proposed solutions are both unpopular and infeasible? Well, in a few words, we’ve put the policy cart before the scientific horse.
In the 1980s, the UN Environmental Program was looking for a cause to push forward its agenda of eliminating fossil fuels and anti-capitalism, with the help of a small number of well-positioned activist climate scientists. A 1988 UN conference recommended that the world reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% by the year 2005 as an initial global goal. The implicit assumption was that the small amount of warming observed over the previous decade was caused by emissions, and that warming was dangerous. Now, 1988 was the year that the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. The first assessment from the IPCC in 1990 concluded that the recent warming was within the magnitude of natural variability. While that didn’t hinder the UN, they went ahead with the 1992 treaty from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed by 196 countries to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change caused by emissions. The second IPCC report in 1995 found pretty much the same thing as the first one. However, in the meeting with policymakers to write the summary, there was substantial pressure for a stronger finding. They came up with the word “discernable” and then went back and changed the body of the report to be consistent. At that point, the IPCC lost any pretense of being independent or uninfluenced by politics. Apparently, “discernable” was sufficient to justify the Kyoto Protocol.
A number of leading scientists were deeply concerned. Pierre Morell, director of the World Climate Research Program, had this to say: “The consideration of climate change has now reached the level where it is a concern of professional Foreign Affairs negotiators and has therefore escaped the bounds of scientific knowledge and certainty.” William Nordhaus, Nobel laureate in economics, stated: “The strategy behind the Kyoto Protocol has no grounding in economics or environmental policy.” Mixing politics and science is inevitable on issues of high societal relevance such as climate change. However, there are some really bad ways to do this, and we’re seeing all of these with the climate change issue. Policymakers misuse science by demanding scientific arguments for desired policies, funding a narrow range of projects that support preferred policies, and using science as a vehicle to avoid Hot Potato policy issues. Scientists misuse policy-relevant science by playing power politics with their expertise, conflating expert judgment with evidence, entangling disputed facts with values, and intimidating scientists whose research interferes with their political agendas.
This Dilbert cartoon sums it up well: “What does the data tell us to do?” “How we only have bad data.” “Well, does the bad data suggest that we do what we wanted to anyway?” “Well, yes.” “That’s called good data.”
Apart from politicization, arguably the biggest issue is that we’ve oversimplified both the climate change problem and its solution. The UN has framed climate change as a tame and simple problem with an obvious solution that is demanded by the science. The precautionary principle has been invoked in the context of speaking consensus to power. However, climate change is much better characterized as a wicked problem with great complexity and uncertainty and a clash of different societal values. When viewed as a tame problem, the climate change problem is framed as being caused by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which can be solved by eliminating fossil fuel emissions. Both the problem and solution are included in a single frame, whereby the science demands this particular solution.
This framing dominates the UN negotiations on climate change. There’s another way to view the climate change problem and its solutions. The framing on the right views climate change as a complex wicked problem. This framing shows two separate frames, one associated with causes of climate change and the other associated with solutions that can help reduce vulnerability to climate change. The larger frame on the right includes natural causes for climate change, such as the sun, volcanoes, and slow circulations in the ocean. This framing is provisional, acknowledging that our understanding is incomplete, and that there may be unknown processes influencing climate change. The frame on the left is about controlling the climate, whereas the frame on the right acknowledges the futility of control. Solutions on the right focus on managing the basic human necessities of energy, water, and food. Economic development supports these necessities while reducing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes.
My own understanding of climate change and human well-being is squarely in the framing on the right. Now, wait a minute, don’t 97% of climate scientists agree on all this? Doesn’t science demand that we urgently eliminate fossil fuel emissions? Well, here’s what all scientists actually agree on: surface temperatures have increased since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However, there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues: how much of the recent warming has been caused by humans, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, whether warming is dangerous, and whether urgently eliminating the use of fossil fuels will improve human well-being. Nevertheless, we’re endlessly fed the trope that 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is dangerous and that science demands urgent reduction in CO2 emissions.
So, how do we come to the point where the world’s leaders and much of the global population think that we urgently need to reduce fossil fuel emissions in order to prevent bad weather? Not only have we misjudged the climate risks, but politicians and the media have played on our psychological fears of certain types of risks to amp up the alarm. Psychologist Paul Slovic describes a suite of psychological characteristics that make risks feel more or less frightening relative to the actual facts.
In each of the risk pairs on the left half of the slide, the second risk factor, in bold, is perceived to be worse than it actually is. For example, risks that are common, self-control, and voluntary, such as driving a car, generate the least public apprehension. On the other hand, risks that are rare and imposed, and lack potential upside, like terrorism, invoke the most dread. Activist communicators emphasize the man-made aspects of climate change, the unfair burden of risks on poor people, and the more immediate risk of severe weather events. The recent occurrence of an infrequent event, such as a hurricane or flood, elevates perceptions of the risk of low probability events. This then translates into perception of overall climate change risk.
And so, our perceptions of climate risk are being cleverly manipulated by propagandists. In spite of the recent apocalyptic rhetoric, the climate crisis isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013, with the publication of the IPCC 5th assessment report, the extreme emission scenario RCP 8.5 was regarded as business as usual, with expected warming of 4.5 degrees by 2100. Now, there is growing acceptance that RCP 8.5 is implausible, and the medium emission scenario is arguably the current business-as-usual scenario. According to recent reports issued by the Conference of the Parties, only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed the medium scenario, with two to three degrees of warming, was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 degrees seems to be within reach, the goalposts have been moved to reduce the warming target to 1.5 degrees. The most recent Conference of the Parties is working from an expected warming of 2.4 degrees by 2100, and half of this warming has already occurred. Instead of acknowledging this good news, UN officials continue to amp up the apocalyptic rhetoric. The rationale for continuing to increase the alarm is that the impacts are worse than we thought, specifically with regards to extreme weather. However, for nearly all of these extreme weather events, it’s difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency. Even the latest IPCC assessment report acknowledges this. Nevertheless, attributing extreme weather and climate events to global warming is now the primary motivation for the rapid transition away from fossil fuels. This rationale commits the logical fallacy of conflation. There are two separate risk categories for climate change: the first is the slow creep of warming, such as impacts on sea level rise; the second is extreme weather events, which has little of anything to do with global warming.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. The urgency of addressing emergency risk is being used to motivate the urgency of reducing the incremental risk from emissions. Reducing emissions will have little to no impact on extreme weather events and, ironically, attempts to reduce emissions are exacerbating energy poverty and unreliability, which increases emergency risk. One would logically think that if warming is less than we thought but impacts are worse, the priorities would shift away from CO2 mitigation towards adaptation. However, that hasn’t been the case. Underlying all this is an important moral dilemma that is implicit in climate policy debates. There’s a conflict between possibly preventing future harm from climate change versus helping currently living humans. The UN policies are directing at possibly preventing future harm from climate change. However, the UN climate policies are hampering the UN sustainable development goals that focus on currently living humans. In 2015, the world’s nations agreed on a set of 17 interlinked sustainable development goals. These goals include, in ranked order, no poverty, no hunger, affordable and clean energy, and development of industry, innovation, and infrastructure. So, why should one element of goal 13, related to net-zero emissions, trump these higher priority goals? International funds for development are being redirected away from reducing poverty and towards reducing carbon emissions. This redirection of funds is exacerbating the harms of weather hazards and climate change for the world’s poor.
Efforts to restrict the production of oil and gas are hampering the number one goal of poverty reduction in Africa and are restricting Africa’s efforts to develop and utilize its own oil and gas resources. The number two goal of no hunger is being worsened by climate mitigation efforts, including restrictions on livestock and fertilizer. Industry and infrastructure require steel and cement, which are currently produced by fossil fuels. Neglecting these sustainability objectives in favor of rapidly reducing CO2 emissions is slowing down, or even countering, progress on the most important sustainable development goals. This statement from a recent UN progress report particularly struck me: “Shockingly, the world is back at hunger levels not seen since 2005, and food prices remain higher in more countries than in the period 2015 to 2019.” Leading risk scientists and philosophers who don’t have a particular dog in the climate fight have expressed their concern about how all this evolved and where it’s headed. Norwegian risk scientist Terje Aven has this to say: “The current thinking and approaches have been shown to lack scientific rigor, the consequences being that climate change risk and uncertainties are poorly presented.” The climate change field needs to strengthen its risk science basis to improve the current situation. Political philosopher Thomas Wells has this to say: “The global climate change debate has gone badly wrong. Many mainstream environmentalists are arguing for the wrong actions and for the wrong reasons, and so long as they continue to do so, they put all our futures in jeopardy.”
This diagram summarizes the UN view of climate risk. I call this the “climate is everything” view, based on a recent cover story in Time Magazine. Under this perspective, climate change is a big umbrella that subsumes extreme weather and energy policy and causes many of the world’s problems. The most recent problem that I spotted is that climate change is harming Indonesian trans sex workers. Don’t figure. The “climate is everything” perspective is reinforced by a broader worldview espoused by the UN and others that the environment is fragile, there are too many people, capitalism is bad, and therefore we need global control of all these issues. The right-hand figure provides a different view that is more consistent with a human-centric perspective and the UN sustainable development goals. Further, this view is consistent with human flourishing and thriving to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Most importantly, this view regards climate change, extreme weather, and energy policy as three different issues, albeit with a small overlap. Energy policy is regarded as primary since abundant energy is needed to manage whatever challenges from climate change and extreme weather that we may face in the future and to spur human development. Energy is the motive power that pushes the frontiers of human knowledge and achievement. Once we separate the incremental risk of warming from the emergency risk associated with extreme weather, the problems and their solutions become more tractable.
My book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” argues for a reset of climate and energy policy that is consistent with the human-centric perspective. First, we need to face some inconvenient truths about climate risk. Risks from climate change and extreme weather are fundamentally local. The risks are entwined with natural climate variability, land use, and societal vulnerabilities. Blaming weather catastrophes on fossil fuel emissions deflects from the real causes of our vulnerabilities, which includes poor risk management and bad governance. And finally, many people fear a future without cheap, abundant fuel far more than they fear climate change. There are also inconvenient truths about the UN climate and energy policies. The urgency of meeting net-zero targets is causing us to make bad choices about future energy systems. Wind and solar power is impairing grid reliability and increasing the cost of electricity. If we somehow manage to reach net-zero by 2050, we will notice little, if any, change in the climate before 2100, relative to natural climate variability. And finally, we can’t control the climate or extreme weather events by eliminating emissions. Given that the UN has mischaracterized climate risks, it will come as no surprise that we are mismanaging the risks. The left-hand side of the slide summarizes elements of the UN approach to climate risk management.
The right-hand side of the slide is a perspective that I describe in my book, informed by modern science. This includes elements of what has been called “climate pragmatism” and “decision-making under deep uncertainty.” On the left, we have a tame problem, while on the right, we have a wicked problem. On the left, we have a global problem and global solution, while on the right, problem and solutions are regional. The left-hand side seeks to control the problem, while the right-hand side seeks to understand the problem and manage its impacts. On the left, the focus is agreeing on the problem, while the right focuses on agreeing on solutions. On the left, there’s a focus on consensus and speaking consensus to power, while the right hand acknowledges uncertainties and disagreements. On the left, we have the precautionary principle, while on the right, we have robust decision-making. The UN strategy imposes targets and deadlines, whereas the strategy on the right uses adaptive management that is flexible and incorporates new understandings as they become available. In terms of politics, the UN strategy is deeply polarizing, whereas the strategy on the right seeks to secure the common interests of communities.
Let’s return to this diagram for a second. Once you separate energy policy from climate policy, the way forward for energy policy is fairly straightforward.
A more pragmatic approach to dealing with climate change drops the timelines and emissions targets in favor of accelerating energy innovation. The goal that everyone can agree on is abundant, secure, reliable, cheap, and clean energy. The energy transition can be facilitated by accepting that the world will continue to need and desire more energy, removing the restrictions of near-term targets for CO2 emissions, developing a range of options for energy technologies, using the next two to three decades as a learning period with intelligent trial and error, and evaluating all technologies holistically for abundance, reliability, life cycle costs, and environmental impacts, land, and resource use, without focusing on CO2 emissions. Odds are that this strategy will lead to cleaner energy by the end of the 21st century than by urgently attempting to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar.
The wickedness of the climate change problem is related to the duality of science and politics in the face of an exceedingly complex problem. There are two common but inappropriate ways of mixing science and politics. The first is “scientizing” policy, which deals with intractable political conflict by transforming the political issues into scientific ones. The problem with this is that science is not designed to answer questions about how the world ought to be, which is a domain of politics. The second is the politicization of science, whereby scientific research is influenced or manipulated in support of a political agenda. We have seen both of these inappropriate ways of mixing science and politics in dealing with climate change. There’s a third way, which is becoming known as “wicked science.” Wicked science is tailored to the dual scientific and political natures of wicked societal problems. Wicked science uses approaches from complexity science and systems thinking in a context that engages with decision-makers and other stakeholders. Wicked science requires a transdisciplinary approach that treats uncertainty as of paramount importance. Effective use of wicked science requires that policymakers acknowledge that control is limited and the future is unknown. Effective politics provides room for dissent and disagreement about policy options and includes a broad range of stakeholders.
My book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” provides a framework for rethinking the climate change problem, the risks we’re facing, and how we can respond. This book encompasses my own philosophy for navigating the wicked problem of climate change. As such, the book provides a single slice through the wicked terrain of climate change by acknowledging uncertainties in the context of better risk management and decision-making frameworks. With abundant energy, there’s a broad path forward for humanity to thrive in the 21st century. Thank you.
[applause]
Judith,
This is the best short description of this problem that I have had the pleasure to read in 30 years of researching the CC topic. Crisp, logical, unemotional, leading to conclusions that should offend nobody.
It remains that you were among the first of people recognizing uncertainty and its effects on the problem, asking relevant questions – though answers from others are scarce.
Geoff S
Oh I can think of a few here whom it will offend, Geoff.
The Rusty Nail, Lusername, Big Oily Boob to select just a few of the most egregiously hopeless cases.
Judith’s approach is blasphemy against their cherished religious beliefs.
Curry is a scientist who avoids science, as if her audience is too stupid to understand numbers.
“The wickedness of the climate change problem is related to the duality of science and politics in the face of an exceedingly complex problem.”
The so-called wicked CO2 (non-)problem can be reduced to nothingness by recognizing the reality that NOAA conflates the atmospheric CO2 increase with man-made emissions increases by comparing them with two different units, ppm and gigatons, that convert at 7.80432 Gt/ppm. Their graphic deceptively makes it look like MME are completely driving the atmospheric CO2 increase.
The reality is 2022 MME only managed to equal 1.1% of the 2022 Mauna Loa CO2, ie 37.1 Gt divided by 3263.9 Gt (418.2ppm * 7.80432 Gt/ppm), properly shown below on the same scale:
This leads to the obvious conclusions there are very large unaccounted-for natural CO2 sources and whatever CO2 warming contribution MME can make, if any, is highly overstated.
Manmade CO2 emissions were roughly double the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1850
That means nature was a net CO2 absorber
Conservatives who can not admit that humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere are not very bright and make all conservatives appear to be science denying fools.
Stop the ridiculous claims.
Leftists love science denying conservatives.
If your claims make leftists happy, then you become worthless in the effort to refute CAGW scaremongering.
Again, RG disses actual science and data, with blather. !
Human emissions are only about 4% of the total CO2 . NATURAL emissions are the rest.. 96%.
RG should stop his ridiculous anti-science claims, they expose his deep-seated AGW cult-lukewarmer cultism.
Why do you remain perpetually clueless?
The carbon cycle has roughly equal CO2 emissions and CO2 absorption over a year. You conveniently “forget” the absorption. It is a seasonal cycle. It does not add to CO2 level year over year.
In fact, nature has been a CO2 absorber most likely for all 4.5 billion years. The CO2 level naturally declines
The manmade CO2 is 4% (or 3%, or 5%) myth is beyond wrong. It is stupid and only repeated by stupid people.
Tell us what part of nature caused a 50% rise of atmospheric CO2 since 1850, genius.
And where roughly +250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 “disappeared” to, genius.
You remain evidence and science free.
And it seems you are totally incapable of doing anything about it.
No attempt to answer two simple questions because you have no answers. You remain a CO2 is Natural Nutter.
You failed the challenge
Insults are a diversion.
They refute nothing.
https://www.che-project.eu/news/how-do-human-co2-emissions-compare-natural-co2-emissions
This says the manmade CO2 is about 4% of the entire carbon cycle.
Every year has
(1)
Carbon cycle CO2 emissions
(2)
Carbon cycle CO2 absorption
(3)
Manmade CO2 emissions of about +5 ppm
(4)
About 2,5 ppm of those +5 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions are absorbed by nature
The net change in atmospheric CO2 year over year is the manmade CO2 emissions of about +5 ppm less about half of those emissions absorbed by nature (-2.5 ppm), which equals a +2.5 ppm year over year atmospheric CO2 increase.
So simple a 12 year old child could understand the process. Go find a 12 year old child to explain this to you.
Atmospheric CO2 content rises as natural astronomical cyclical warming of the planet occurs over decades, centuries and millenia.
Oceans covering 70% of Earth’s surface give up significant volumes of their stored CO2 to the atmosphere during cyclic planetary warming, I understand.
We actually can’t say –
“what happens in the oceans stays in the oceans”
as if natural events there are like a weekend in Las Vegas.
As humans add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, causing warming oceans, the warmer oceans absorb slightly less of the manmade CO2 emissions than they would have absorbe without any warming
But oceans are still net CO2 absorbers
The estimated CO2 outgassing by warming oceans, per ice cores, is 15 to 20 ppm of CO2 per +1 degree C. warming.
Ocean outgassing of 15 to 20-ppm of CO2 resulting from the +1 degree C. temperature rise of the oceans since the 1800s, can not explain the +140 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2, from the +250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions.
That’s a true statement followed by a hellaciously wrong conclusion, Bnice, and we’ve been over this ground how many dozen times?
It is absolutely TRUE that fossil fuel emissions are about 4% of total CO2 entering the atmosphere, with about 96% coming from natural sources.
What you always refuse to acknowledge is that there are huge seasonal fluxes both INTO and OUT OF the atmosphere. You highlight the seasonal flux into the atmosphere and deny the seasonal flux out of the atmosphere.
Natural sinks (fluxes OUT of the atmosphere) amount to about 98% of total CO2 sources. There are no anthropogenic sinks. Nature is a NET SINK, fossil fuel emissions are purely a SOURCE. The remaining fossil fuel emissions that nature isn’t able to soak up are what cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to creep steadily higher year after year.
All of the nature-sourced CO2 plus roughly half of the anthropogenic CO2 gets sucked out of the atmosphere by natural sinks each year. Nature cannot be both a net source and a net sink simultaneously. Unless you adhere to the idea that math is racist.
And your desire to deny these facts reveals the fact that you accept the LIE that CO2 is harmful and will overheat our world. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Denying reality harms the climate realism cause.
“that you accept the LIE that CO2 is harmful and will overheat our world.”
Wow.. what an incredibly stupid comment. !!
CO2 only promotes plant growth and if it does have any warming effect, it is so tiny as to be totally immeasurable.
You seem to be another AGW-believer that thinks CO2 comes only from humans. !
It’s hard to believe that you’re not being disingenuous, bnice. But maybe you really are not reading carefully, or are that math-challenged.
I am saying that your apparent motivation is to say that CO2 rise is nearly all natural therefore the warming, although harmful, is mostly natural. Not my fault man! It was like that when I got here!
That argument assumes that warming comes from CO2, and that it’s bad, which I say is a lie or at least an unwarranted unproven assumption.
My position, which you apparently misunderstand, is that warming and enriched CO2 are both good things, and that we do not know if any or all of the recent warming has been the result of enhanced CO2. Almost certainly, other factors are in play to some degree, and anyway the warming thus far has been beneficial.
You claim to agree on that, yet you deny basic math to continually make the claim that fossil fuel emissions are not responsible for rising CO2. You emphasize over and over that fossil fuel emissions only represent 4% of total CO2 flux into the atmosphere, but you refuse to acknowledge the other side of the ledger. Why would you deny reality unless you were afraid that conceding the point was tantamount to saying that fossil fuel emissions cause dangerous AGW? Free your mind of that hangup!
Imagine that someone works at McDonald’s making $15/hr ($600/wk before taxes) and their parents, in addition to letting them live rent-free in the basement, give them $25 a week as an allowance. (A mere 4% of their total income). Now after taxes, car payments, insurance, food, student loans on their grievance studies doctorate, and of course cannabis expenses, it turns out that they spend $612.50 a week, consistently $12.50/wk more than they earn from their job. Yet their savings account accumulates $12.50 a week. Even though this loser makes $600 a week, he spends all of it plus half of the allowance from the parents. But the parental contribution is irrelevant, right? It’s only 4%! Without that $25/wk pittance, what difference would it make?
By your logic since we can ignore the spending side and only look at income, with $600 a week in income, this person will surely be a millionaire in about 32 years. The $25/wk from mum and pop is an insignificant 4% of their income and won’t have any relevance.
Look, enhanced CO2 is a huge positive ’externality’ of fossil fuel burning. It is largely responsible for avoiding mass famine.
Denying the reality that fossil fuel emissions are raising CO2 concentration just makes you and the rest of us climate realists look like ignorant science deniers.
Please stop, it’s not helping.
You were on the mark until the end.
BeNasty is a climate science nutter but even he is not dumb enough to believe a climate emergency is coming. Only leftist Nutters believe that. BeNasty is a conservative Nutter. He won’t even admit humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. The +50% CO2 increase since 1850 was natural in his weak mind.
If you want to convince him of something, try hand puppets and a comic book.
“Conservatives who can not admit that humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere are not very bright and make all conservatives appear to be science denying fools.”
You’re not very bright Richard Greene if you can’t perform or recognize unit analysis.
“Leftists love science denying conservatives.”
This has nothing to do with conservative/liberal either, it has everything to do with competency & honesty.
“Stop the ridiculous claims.”
Really Richard, please stop with your data-free hand-waving assertions.
“Leftists love science denying conservatives.”
Then they must love you a whole lot, that is if you are actually a conservative, not that it matters to this conversation.
Since you obviously don’t have the ability to counter my argument with facts, why did you comment at all Richard?
where is your argument?
There is no argument in your comment
No science
No data
No attempt to refute anything I wrote
Just a long winded, childish character attack
“where is your argument? There is no argument in your comment”
It’s a perverse joke for you to come back at me asking me for my argument after I already gave it in my first comment, which you haven’t addressed with anything but rhetorical denial, which is not a refutation.
It’s not like you haven’t had the opportunity to refute what I originally said, but you haven’t refuted it, you’ve only denied it. Where is your argument?
“Just a long winded, childish character attack”
Since when have you been concerned about long winded childish character attacks? What do you think most of your blog comments are if not those kind of attacks? Excuse me Richard, but you’re describing yourself, it’s called projection.
Let’s go back to my original comment, where I used annual CO2 data from
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law2006.txt
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.csv
If you didn’t see my argument in that first comment, here it is again.
The reality is 2022 MME only managed to equal 1.1% of the 2022 Mauna Loa CO2, ie 37.1 Gt divided by 3263.9 Gt (418.6ppm * 7.80432 Gt/ppm).
1.1%. Wrap your mind around that. Where’s your argument Richard?
CO2 unit analysis is like converting currency. Can’t you do that?
“This leads to the obvious conclusions there are very large unaccounted-for natural CO2 sources and whatever CO2 warming contribution MME can make, if any, is highly overstated.”
and
“The reality is 2022 MME only managed to equal 1.1% of the 2022 Mauna Loa CO2, ie 37.1 Gt divided by 3263.9 Gt (418.6ppm * 7.80432 Gt/ppm).”
“CO2 unit analysis is like converting currency. Can’t you do that?”
You cant!
You forget all the MME CO2 that has accumulated before 2022
IE: The MME of CO2 are cumulative in effect and hence your graph of single years emissions that does not iteratively add them is bogus.
The atmospheric content is likewise – the ppm in the graph has accumulated
Total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stands at ~ 1.5 trillion Gtons(10^12).
That is what is driving ppm in the atmosphere (less around 55% absorbed by the biosphere).
https://www.stableclimate.org/graphs
That’s nonsense. All the MME 1750-2022 together add to just 1773 Gt out of the measured 3263.9 Gt, assuming all remain, a bogus assumption.
Your last graph shows it in red. You haven’t even appreciated that in it there is a need to fill the gap between the red and green/blue lines from another source of CO2, a very large natural source.
You also forgot that at least about 80% of your accumulated MME would normally be sunk at the similar rate ML CO2 sinks at every year. leaving ~20% net, so that means your red line would shrink by 80%.
After accounting for sinking, this leaves a maximum possible ~10.9% of MME remaining in Mauna Loa CO2 in 2022.
You made a mistake in thinking I preferentially chose to present my data as I did. I based my analysis here today solely on the NOAA graphic I first linked to which shows annual MME vs atmospheric CO2 concentration, not cumulative MME vs atmospheric CO2 concentration as you imply I should have done.
I was following NOAA’s lead, but I’ve also used cumulative MME.
Robert,
You mentioned MME of 1773 GT, 1750 to 2022
Please show that graph
Then show a delta graph, I.e., subtracting raw MME (red line) from shrunk CO2 (green/blue line)
Had there been no shrinking, ppm In atmosphere would be much higher.
I found your original post, which I had responded to, and reread it
Still claptrap
You claim:
“This leads to the obvious conclusions there are very large unaccounted-for natural CO2 sources”
That is a giant baloney sandwich
The increase ffrom 280ppm CO2 in 1850 to 420ppm CO2 in 2023 was ONLY from manmade CO2 emissions. Alost 100% of climate scientists would agree with that statement.
The Nutters who claim the increase was natural never specify what the natural source(s) was or why the +250 ppm of manmade CO2 emissions were not a cause of the +140 ppm CO2 increase since 1850
When asked, Nutters go deaf, dumb and blin. Mainly dumb.
Richard,
CO2 been absorbed, due to annual greening, plus some of it is absorbed by other sinks.
Any CO2 into the ocean gets converted to many chemical compounds.
Only the top layer has some free CO2 in balance with CO2 in the air, per Henry’s Law
What is measured at Mauna Loa is the total of natural and human sources
No science.. No data. Just blather…. and long winded childish attacks.
A very apt description or every RG post.
You must be looking in a mirror, Climate
Nutter. Coull you please upgrade your insults. I deserve higher quality insults from the Forrest Gump of climate science.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA, did you forget some details he provided already, do you suffer from short term memory of something, why not just address what he posted instead of the handwaving that doesn’t impress anyone.
You haven’t posted anything but screaming, you on drugs or something, why not stick to the barely used counterpoint method instead?
LINK
Bob,
I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone. Ok sometimes I enjoy rolling around in the mud grappling with the likes of Lusername, but I’m not looking to pick a fight with you. Anyone who agrees with me that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY is my ally.
A simple proof that you’re in error—the number of tons of CO2 corresponding to the annual rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is roughly half the tons of annual fossil fuel emissions. Where did the other half go?
Why waste your time denying a simple fact? More CO2 is a good thing.
“A simple proof that you’re in error—the number of tons of CO2 corresponding to the annual rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is roughly half the tons of annual fossil fuel emissions.”
I can do that too you know. Here is my simple proof you are in error.
Here are the measured CO2 vs MME CO2 changes in gigatons since 1750:
Note, the black line (MME) is the total before sinking, whereas the blue line (Law Dome) and the green line (other) are the net CO2 after sinking. The growing gap between the black and blue lines came from somewhere.
Sinks are about 80% of annual CO2 rise, from which we can use to estimate the net MME as being 20% of the total MME, for an even lower % Net MME/Net ML.
From there I am not seeing where Net ML is roughly half the Net MME increase.
The growing gap between the green & orange lines came from somewhere.
I think it’s time for you to stop wasting your time denying these facts Rich.
First I need to decipher your nomenclature.
MME, I take it, is your abbreviation for “man-made emissions”, but it is being expressed in ppm. Presumably it is derived from the annual mass of CO2 emissions divided by the total mass of the entire atmosphere. It is, I surmise, the imputed annual rise in atmospheric CO2 to be expected if none of our emissions were being absorbed by the biosphere and oceans. Is that a correct understanding of your intent?
ML is an abbreviation for “Mauna Loa”? (i.e. the measured concentration of CO2 at the observatory in Hawaii). Expressed in ppm, it would be the instantaneous fraction of CO2 mass in the atmosphere divided by the total mass of the atmosphere. You call it “Net CO2” for reasons not entirely clear. Actual or measured CO2 concentration would be a more conventional description.
You do not define or explain your methodology for measuring “Net MME after sinking”. How can you possibly directly measure the portion of our CO2 emissions that are NOT absorbed by nature? I do not see how it could be measured independently of the other two measurements?
Could you please clarify that point?
ppm is CO2 molecules per million dry air molecules
Humidity is measured to make the adjustment
Bob,
Interesting graph. Thank you
Could you also show a cumulative line for human CO2 emissions since 1750?
Also, it would be useful to have a Mauna Loa CO2 ppm line and scale
Bob, you have nailed it by adapting the phrase Curry used to “wicked CO2 problem.”
If our atmosphere was only nitrogen we would all die.
If our atmosphere was only oxygen we would all die.
If our atmosphere was only CO2 we would all die.
If our atmosphere had no water vapour H2O we would all die.
These and other trace gasses are essential and have been in balance since the first humans walked this earth. If it were not so, humans and all life would have perished. It is ludicrous that people imagine they can determine the perfect amount of each gas and engineer perfect climates for every region of the world. Since the first written records over 4000 years ago we know people have been able to adapt to the different climates and weather conditions in every area. Some tribes did so by moving to another area and some did not and died out. QED
I was only able to read half of this tedious, long winded, mainly non-science transcript … that seems like Curry is being paid by the word.
By “non-science”, I mean this pitch contains very little data.
In science, data can usually be communicated with numbers and charts.
Curry, in my opinion, is almost worthless in the ongoing battle to refute CAGW scaremongering. Very political, trying to avoid controversy with Climate Howlers and Climate Realists.
Curry talks about uncertainty and risk
That generic talk can not possibly refute the IPCC with their certainty of global warming being a high risk.
The IPCC has been certain since 1988 and they have certainly been wrong with their predictions of climate doom.
Ridicule the IPCC again and again.
Show that climate predictions are not science, especially when 100% wrong — they are climate astrology.
Here is some of what was missed in the first half, that I did not expect to read in the last half:
We have had 48 years of global warming.
Was the warming bad news, as predicted by climate alarmists since 1979?
Where was the most warming?
When was the most warming?
Does anyone really know how much warming had manmade causes?
Give a half dozen examples of the 100% wrong predictions of CAGW since 1979 — CAGW that never showed up over those 44 years yet is still being predicted.
Discuss the very wide range of current predictions of the climate if the CO2 level doubles, which would take 168 years at the current +2.5 ppm a year rise rate.
The predictions range from very little warming to catastrophic warming. The obvious correct answer is “no one knows the future climate” … but the past 48 years of global warming were very pleasant. That we do know.
The coming climate emergency is just a prediction, not reality.
A prediction by government bureaucrat scientists paid for that prediction, who have never made an accurate long term climate prediction.
Concerning the alleged climate consensus:
About 175 nations, out of 195 (total combined population of almost 7 billion of the 8 billion people on earth) are not interested in reducing their CO2 emissions.
They include China and India.
Does that sound like a consensus to you?
Who benefits from climate scaremongering ?
Governments gain great power over the private sector by taking control of their energy use.
Maybe political power and control are the actual goals of climate fears created by climate scaremongering?
I think they are the only goals.
Half is good going, I couldn’t get beyond the first paragraph of your post.
Pity you started with your normal attack on realist scientists presenting a realistic point of view..
Sorry you lack the ability to understand “uncertainty” in science and data…
… and that it is very much a political issue, both of which Judith Curry covers very well.
You should listen and try to learn.
You should look at your posts… they are decidedly “non-science”.
The future is always uncertain
We don’t need a lecture to prove that
We have a century of wrong “certain” predictions as evidence of uncertainty.
If you really think my posts are non-science, then why do you never attempt to prove that claim, El Nino Nutter, Volcano Nutter, There is No AGW Nutter and CO2 Does Nothing Nutter bNasty?
Poor little RG.. always resorts to the “nutter” tag because he has no other argument.
Still in denial of warming by El Ninos
Still thinks water is heated best from above
Still thinks urban warming is “global”
Still has no evidence of warming by human CO2.
Poor little boy !
You remain a climate Nutter
I’m delighted to be able to find common ground and enthusiastically endorse those points, bnice.
The science is secondary to The Science ™ in this war.
I was only able to read half of this tedious, long winded, mainly non-science transcript criticism of Curry’s amazing intelligence on climate uncertainty and risk. Did you manage to graduate from third grade? Doesn’t sound like it.
I even graduated from the 4th grade.
I would have preferred to stay in the third grade forever, because teacher Miss. Rubin was a hot tamale.
Pity your mind never progressed much further. !!
You have dispatched the hapless old fool in cold blood so to speak, Sangfroid. Bravo
Be ashamed Richard Greene for your mockery of really serious business which you could at least try to think about..
Dr Curry has talents that fools like you, Mr Greene, should pay more attention to aspiring to.
Dr Curry was once on your side of the climate fence until science (i.e. real science) intervened with her understanding and her very real sense of integrity (which obviously you have little or no ability to comprehend or understand the meaning of) took over and she admitted to her errors of judgement and the presented data she had used. At the time not even Mann could deal with her in a professional and sincere manner. Like you on here today he behaved like trash when he could and should have acted like a true professional would. Does a consensus ever have any real scientific integrity? Know the answer to that and you will have learned something very important.
Dr Curry advises science against having (or even wishing to have) consensus because numbers and thinking in science are forever changing. Dr Curry has tasted the bitterness of opposition, isolation, and rejection when maintaining her academic, personal and professional integrity as a scientist something you will probably never, ever feel or even gain the right to be exposed to feeling. And as the complete coward you post your trash and garbage as if it is worth reading by anyone with a brain cell.
You know you have been beaten. You even know where you belong. It must hurt you like hell Mr Greene to know that we all on here know just where you belong too.
Curry has repeatedly posted on her website that CO2 emissions are a problem that must be solved.
I have repeatedly politely asked her why CO2 emissions are a problem.
A few times she responded with a word salad non-answer.
Her public appearances that I have viewed on video do not say that.
She apparently has a public and private opinion on CO2 emissions.
Scientists I trust, such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, are very definitive about what they expect from future CO2 emissions. They make predictions and reveal their calculations. Curry is a mystery, with CO2 implications that seem to change with her audience.
Curry is a middle of the road, play it safe “lukewarmer” scientist, with a climate related business that probably benefits from that “try to please everyone” view.
And RG is a rabid AGW-believing lukewarmer, that still believes that CO2 causes warming (no evidence of course)
RG still denies most of the atmospheric warming in the last 45 years is from El Nino events and the sun.
Still heats his water from above.
Basically a total, all-round nutter !!
You’ve not quite understood Richard Greene, love. His schtick is to attract attention to himself and generally speaking dispute almost every comment that anyone else makes. He makes an odious spectacle of himself to be sure. But he is not a climate alarmist. He is a narcissist.
It is my goal to refute conservative climate myths that are too often used to fight leftist climate myths, but they get laughed at.
Even by almost all skeptic scientists.
It is “CAGW will kill your dog leftists” versus “there is no AGW conservatives”
Both are extremists and Nutters.
And it is about time that a libertarian like me let the Nutters know they are Nutters.
CAGW scaremongering and Nut Zero are political strategies to control us by implementing leftist fascism, and they are working
Conservative Nutters with junk science theories, such as there is no AGW, are a gift to the leftists. Our freedom is on the line. We can not win the climate propaganda battle with climate Nutter junk science.
For the billionth time, Richard, not for your benefit but to dissuade anyone who might confused by your ‘argument’…
Yes our freedom is on the line.
No amount of sound or unsound science is going to make the slightest difference.
The battle is 100% in the realm of politics and that means PERSUASION of persuadable people.
That means cultivating allies, even with those who may hold incorrect views about certain scientific points. That means making a positive emotional connection and avoiding negative emotional interactions.
We must convince 50% of voters plus one to oppose the economic suicide of the West.
The rallying cry as best as I can formulate one, is THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Everyone who agrees with that statement naturally opposes policies that harm our well-being or our liberty, at least to a sufficient degree that we can defeat the anti-human forces.
Everyone who agrees that THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! must be respected as an ally and not ridiculed.
It does not matter whether any climate realist ally has a correct understanding of any science whatsoever. What matters is that they vote against extreme alarmist politicians.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Amen
What a bunch of pompous tripe RG. Nobody is interested in your review of Dr Curry’s talk.
Curry’s lecture was a nearly data free nothing burger. Rarely have so many words been used to say so little.
Muahahahahahahahahaha….. how many of her PUBLISHED papers and her latest book have you read where her positions are well known?
From the post:
Maybe you should stop being a handwaving little ass!
Much respect for Dr. Curry.
“And so, our perceptions of climate risk are being cleverly manipulated by propagandists.”
There it is, in a nutshell.
Has it ever been estimated how much the massive urbanization on the planet in the past few centuries has contributed to the trivial amount of warming? Tens of millions of acres of roads, parking lots, buildings must be contributing something. I would think that this determination would be easier than estimating any warming from CO2.
Good point. Changes to the solar-absorbing characteristics of the surface are a plausible cause of warming. Still trivial, but this is more credible than what incremental CO2 is claimed to be doing.
Just how did the 71% of Earth’s surface that is oceans change?
And how much did 1% of Earth’s surface that is urban change?
Nice to hear from you, Richard. Glad you are still not dead.
I said “trivial,” which means not worth worrying about answering your questions.
More credible than evidence of CO2?
There are no accurate measurements of albedo changes or UHI changes since 1850
But there are accurate measurements of the warming effect of CO2 using lab spectroscopy.
No data are better than actual data?
Richard, you say,
“But there are accurate measurements of the warming effect of CO2 using lab spectroscopy.”
The lab-confirmed absorption and emission properties of CO2 are not in dispute in any of my posts or replies. You keep missing the key point that the static radiative effect (of incremental CO2) does not control the result, as dynamics and clouds so plainly dominate the performance of the circulating atmosphere itself as an emitter to space.
As always, you labor mightily to miss the point Richard. The historical measurements have mostly all been taken where the people are. And it is not only fully urban sites that are impacted by development.
I don’t think anyone is trying to say that there isn’t a warming trend at the moment. The question is just how much warmer is it compared to earlier periods where we have no satellite or buoy data and have to rely on spotty UHI-contaminated data that overweights US data that may not be representative of global data?
Is there any comment that you won’t hotly dispute?
Just ask RG… RG knows everything….
…. thing is, he is too arrogant and egotistical to admit that he is wrong about a large proportion of it.
” RG knows everything”
Compared to you, that’s true
We have satellite UAH data since 1979
Almost 1 degree C. warming since 1975
The oceans are warming with no albedo changes.
There is a lot of Arctic ice melting in the summers but Arctic warming is in the winters
Most of the post 1975 warming was at night
That is a symptom of greenhouse warming.
“Albedo has great influence on the pavement surface high temperatures in the daytime (6 °C per 0.1 albedo change on a hot sunny day with solar radiation of 1000 W/m2) and no significant impact on pavement low temperatures in the nighttime”
Albedo – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
So what Richard? I already stipulated that there is a measurable warning trend under way. The amount of warning is small. It may be consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect but I’m not convinced that uncertainty is low enough to declare that definitively. In any case 1 to 3 or maybe even 6° is probably still net beneficial. THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
We don’t really know if we can extrapolate sketchy data for North America and Europe to the rest of the world where we had scarcely any data. So we don’t really know much of anything on a global basis going back more than 100 years or so. We certainly can’t be certain of how much warmer the climate was during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan, Egyptian, or Holocene Climate Optimum warm periods. before we even had thermometers.
My point is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other. THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! Warmer is better for human flourishing. An expansion of the tropics and temperate zones would be a positive development. Every policy that hurts economic well-being or individual freedom is unjustifiable if THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Whether today’s warming is cyclical and mostly natural or will continue for centuries due to our emissions, THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
We do not need everyone to come to the same conclusion on arcane scientific points in order to build a consensus that THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
He doesn’t know how to make cogent arguments, I bet he isn’t married because that requires good communication skills which he profoundly lacks.
Ha! In mine it is in order:
Nah, not really, just be ready to analyze the situation!
You forgot to mention the added heat solar panels add. Just place your hand on the back of a solar panel that has been in the sun for several hours or more. I doubt you can hold your hand on the back for more than a few seconds. Has anyone done a study to determine the amount of heat the the tens of thousand of acres of solar panels add to the temperature rise? I’ve only seen one paper where they tried to capture that heat with solar water heating systems to use energy from the sun to warm water for storage in a hot water cylinder or thermal store. Just an added cost to solar energy that is not mentioned.
“Has anyone done a study …” Well, . . .
Anthony Watts made readers aware of such things in 2018:
Death Valley’s “hottest month ever” was likely a product of nearby solar panels and RV’s – Watts Up With That?
Plus, the solar “farm” next to my ‘hood, about 18 acres – they bulldozed the entire site- installed the panels- but didn’t restore the soil- they stripped off all topsoil first- now it’s mostly just sand between rows of panels- all absorbing and re radiating heat. No grass on the site.
Warm is good, such as during the RWP and MWP, and the PWP, cold is bad, such as during the LIA.
We need more CO2 to green the earth and reduce desert areas, and revitalize flora and fauna
CO2 played only a 0.7% retained energy role regarding the atmosphere in 2023
Government measures to reduce CO2 is a path to suicide, more deserts, less flora and fauna
“CO2 played only a 0.7% retained energy role…”
And even this minor effect is presumed rather than measured, as there is no way to isolate the presumed effect for reliable attribution.
The above method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2.
How CO2 performs that role, the A-to-Z processes, will keep many academia folks busy for many years to find their version of “reliable attribution”, per IPCC-sanctioned, gobbledegook science, which it owns.
Addition:
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere
The RE in atmosphere is ONE net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and what grows on the surface and in water.
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 16.1 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 6.3 kJ/kg
2) Tropics, enthalpy of moist air, at T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
RE of dry air is 27.2 kJ/kg; RE of WV is 43.3 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
Worldwide, enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241 kJ/kg CO2 @ 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.
.
RE In 2023; 16 C
World: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.4%, 27.9% and 0.69% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 40.6
Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1,448 x 10^5 EJ.
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 38.5%, 61.2% and 0.22% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 279.4
The Tropics is a major RE area, almost all of it by WV. At least 35% of the RE is transferred, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
.
RE in 1900; 14.8 C
World: (14.8 + 5.8 + 0.106) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 1.066 x 10^5 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 71.5%, 28% and 0.51% RE roles. WV RE/CO2 RE = 54.7
The 2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089
.
NOTE: My calculations are based on three well-known items. I assumed 16 C in 2023 and 14.8 C in 1900, as the temp of the entire atmosphere, which is overstated, but helps simplicity. The RE ratio would not be much different, if complex analyses were used, such as how the three items vary with altitude and temp. The complex stuff would subtract from both REs, leaving the ratio in tact.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no RE role in the world’s driest places, with 423 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm, i.e., blaming CO2 for global warming is an unscientific hoax.
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
Thanks for explaining what you mean by “retained energy”.
As an Earth Scientist, Judith should know that the weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field is the elephant in the room of “climate risk”
CO2 increasing at 2.5 ppm per year isn’t a “risk”
“ is the elephant in the room”
There are lots of “elephants in the room” that are ignored by “political-science”.
(The Sun, the oceans helping to keep “the dark side of the Earth” warm at night, green things that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, etc.)
But they focus on Man’s CO2 because that gives them an excuse to control Man.
PS Kudos to her and other genuine scientist in the spotlight for remaining honest (right or wrong, continuing to “call it as they see it”) despite the pressures.
Too much of so-called science is advertising that you know the solution due to your ‘science.’ It is one thing to evaluate management strategies but another to “wear two hats.”
Then there’s this. Heinrichs H (2018) Sustainability science with Ozzy Osbourne, Julia Roberts and Ai Weiwei: The potential of arts-based research for sustainable development. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 27(1): 132–137.
https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.8.
Instead of good old Henry’s Law– Kubicki, J., et al., 2024. Climatic consequences of the process of saturation of radiation absorption in gases. Applications in Engineering Science. 17: 100170 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apples.2023.100170
A good article that elucidates the fact that scientists themselves have participated in perpetrating propaganda for their own power and enumeration.
I have spent the last several years studying how well the data being used allows the teasing out of values to the one-thousandths place. My research shows that climate science uses, without any admission of uncertainty as Dr. Curry points out, data that is not fit for purpose.
Dr. Curry needs to also remember to use this in her representations of climate science. The problem begins with the first calculation of a “daily average”. Regardless of one’s definition of what measurement uncertainty is, this calculation results in an uncertainty that far outweighs any anomaly that can be calculated from the temperature. Using the most liberal definition of measurement uncertainty results in an uncertainty figure of ±0.5°F [(√0.5²+0.5²)/√2) = 0.5°F]. This is about ±0.3°C. In any other scientific endeavor this would restrict measurement calculations to a resolution of one decimal place. Using NIST and GUM protocols this figure should be added to the reproducible uncertainty of temperatures over a month’s time which expands the uncertainty to a very large value.
Dr. Pat Frank has tried to deal with this issue in climate science. His attempts have fallen on deaf ears primarily because paying attention to this issue destroys the ability for CAGW scientists to claim they KNOW what is occurring.
From her talk: “The goal that everyone can agree on is abundant, secure, reliable, cheap, and clean energy.”
I take issue with — that everyone can agree on.
Many people object to this concept, believing instead that it is immoral — see Greens.
Arguments about data and science have no sway with true-Greens (aka ClimateCult™). They exist in a parallel universe, or something. To them, the recent post about “Germany’s economic bloodbath” is good news.
Building millions of solar panels is going to burn a whole lots more coal in China than if we built natural gas power stations in the west.
You are going to need the natural gas power stations whenever the sun doesnt shine, so build them first
“carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.”
=====
The paleo record shows poor correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Theory says this is impossible. Yet the data says otherwise.
Science clings to theory while discounting the data. Even 97% of climate science.
Just another bad framing of the real problem.
Yes, temperatures have CONTINUED to rise since 1880, but it started a couple of centuries earlier.
Yes, human are adding CO2 to the CARBON cycle. Atmospheric levels are affected by many factors and there is much disagreement as to how much of it is due to human emissions and how much is naturally determined.
Yes, CO2 does have a warming effect, but once saturation levels of the absorption bands is reached low in the atmosphere, a cooling factor comes into play which cancels out all the warming.
Once the issues are laid out in more detail, the uncertainty shows up more clearly. It’s not even an issue that deserves much funding at all.
“Yes, CO2 does have a warming effect, but once saturation levels of the absorption bands is reached low in the atmosphere, a cooling factor comes into play which cancels out all the warming.”
Saturation is never reached and the coolimng theory is claptrap.
My article on the CO2 Saturation myth
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: The Greenhouse Effect: The CO2 is Saturated Myth
Judith is excellent, as always. CR, thanks for cross posting from her blog.
I avoided commenting on Dr. Curry’s presentation to see the comments that came in. As usual, the Thread-jackers polluted the discussion with their inane quibbling over CO2 issues and hurling insults all around.
While her presentation is thoughtful and high-minded, Dr. Curry continues to make the mistake of assuming that the majority of people on the opposing sides want to assure clean, cost-effective and abundant energy for the world’s populations. Even a cursory review of the ongoing warfare, however, shows that Leftist participants will lie, cheat and steal to further their personal and affiliated-groups’ financial and ideological interests. Even the so-called ‘enlightened’ Western governments are willing to lie to and manipulate their citizens to enrich their supporters and to advance anti-capitalist agendas.
This is political warfare that will be won or lost at the ballot box. If the socialists win it there will be a permanent boot on the face of mankind.
Well said. Unfortunately, with respect to the ‘political warfare that will be won or lost at the ballot box’, the most frustrating aspect is that the Republicans we are relying upon to take our fight to the Left don’t appear to be particularly ‘thoughtful and high-minded’:
https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show/did-the-house-just-vote-to-ban-the-bible
After finishing the transcript at Climate Etc.,I left the following comment”
“The pitch repeatedly talks about a climate problem.
Could you explain in plain English, with numbers, if possible, what the climate problem you refer to is.”
At her website Curry repeatedly talks about a climate problem. But she never defines wht the problem is. After 26 years of climate reading, I have not yet discovered a climate problem, so I am very interested to know what she thinks the problem is.
Of course at Climate Etc, ,I would never say her pitch was a huge number of words that said very little. And included almost no data. I’ve heard science requires data, but Curry seems allergic to data.
What is science?
You state a theory, or conclusion, and then back it up with as much evidence as you have. You also list contradictory data and theories, and provide some evidence why your theory and data are better,
The listener to this pitch does not walk away with any data supported talking points to refute CAGW scaremongering.