Climate Science’s Myth-Buster: It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

From City Journal

Guy Sorman Winter 2019

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We hear louder and louder demands to impose limits, to change our wasteful ways, so as to save not only the bears but also the planet and ourselves.

In political discourse and in the media, major storms and floods typically get presented as signs of impending doom, accompanied by invocations to the environment and calls to respect Mother Nature. Only catastrophes seem to grab our attention, though, and it’s rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits, such as expanded production of grains in previously frozen regions of Canada and Russia. Nor do we hear that people die more often of cold weather than of hot weather. Isolated voices criticize the alarm over global warming, considering it a pseudoscientific thesis, the true aim of which is to thwart economic modernization and free-market growth and to extend the power of states over individual choices.

Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.”

Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one.

But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.”

This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

This has long been true in environmental science, she points out. The global warming controversy began back in 1973, during the Gulf oil embargo, which unleashed fear, especially in the United States, that the supply of petroleum would run out. The nuclear industry, Curry says, took advantage of the situation to make its case for nuclear energy as the best alternative, and it began to subsidize ecological movements hostile to coal and oil, which it has been doing ever since. The warming narrative was born.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration played a role in the propagation of that narrative. Having ended its lunar expeditions, NASA was looking for a new mission, so it built some provisional climate models that focused primarily on carbon dioxide, because this is an easy factor to single out and “because it is subject to human control,” observes Curry. Even though it is just one among many factors that cause climate variations, carbon dioxide increasingly became the villain. Bureaucratic forces at the UN that promote global governance—by the UN, needless to say—got behind this line of research. Then the scientists were called upon and given incentives to prove that such a political project was scientifically necessary, recalls Curry. The UN founded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to push this agenda, and ever since, climatologists—an increasingly visible and thriving group—have embraced the faith.

In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct.

If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.

Read the full article here.

Advertisements

142 thoughts on “Climate Science’s Myth-Buster: It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry.

  1. I can only imagine what future historians will say about our era. There is no fooling history.

      • —not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—

        I wonder if historians will be able to find the date and the document by which the USA “withdrew” from that agreement.

        Despite all his rhetoric, Trump has man ZERO legal moves to withdraw. He simple decided to send any more money to the Green Slush Fund at the UN.

        • I can help you find the date.
          June 1, 2017.
          The day President Trump made it official that the US would no longer honor any Paris Accord commitments. On that day the Paris Accords became a dead letter. Note that the Accords was never sent to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, and so the President was fully within his authority.

          What other actions do you think would be necessary or desired?

          I can help here too.
          The US must withdraw from the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
          The reason may seem a bit technical, but here it is. A while back, the UNFCCC extended recognition to Palestine as an independent state. The US has a federal law prohibiting the US government from participation in any international organization which has recognized Palestine. Until the US withdraws, it is in violation of its’ own law.
          I note here for the record that the UNFCCC is the group which oversees both the UN IPCC and the Paris Accords. To withdraw from the UNFCCC is also to withdraw from those two other groups.

        • “Despite all his rhetoric, Trump has made ZERO legal moves to withdraw.”

          Trump declared the U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement and that’s all the legal action he needs to take. After the declaration, there is a waiting period and then it becomes official. We are still in the waiting period.

          • I did some research on the legal basis of the Paris Accord. As Obama never submitted the pact to the Senate as a formal treaty, it was never ratified, and has the status of an executive order. The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on foreign executive orders, only domestic policies, so one must presume that Paris would be given the same status as domestic executive orders. If so, Trump had total authority to exit the Paris Accord, as it relied on the authority of the President, and Obama’s authority lapsed when he left office.
            Trump really should do more, as in revoking the CO2 Endangerment Finding, and reform of the regulatory procedures in general, but that has nothing to do with Paris per se.

          • As it was not a treaty ratified by congress, technically the waiting period is irrelevant, the US is not bound by any provisions of the accord (it would have to have been ratified to be binding). We were in the Paris accord at the pleasure of the president (Obama) and we left the accord at the pleasure of the president (Trump). period.

        • I agree with the several comments in response to yours, but my question is, have you ever even read the agreement? Even accepting, just for the sake of discussion/argument, that Obama’s approval of the Paris agreement meant anything, the process for leaving is specified in the agreement. Trump has started the process. Do a little research.

    • How about the fiction that the “New Deal” of the 30’s was so fantastic that we need a “New Green Deal” now?

    • “God cannot alter the past, though historians can.” Samuel Butler

      Facts cannot be altered, but they can be hidden, misinterpreted, surrounded by lies, etc. As a general ‘rule of thumb’, History tends to be kind to those possessing power.

    • Earthling2

      Likely the era of the worst genocide ever conceived.

      120,000,000 people in the developing world expected to die by 2050 (WHO) from respiratory conditions directly related to burning wood and cow dung to cook and heat with over open fires. Jim Yong Kim, former President of the World Bank, an Obama appointee, who left his post three years early recently refused to assist with funding for fossil fuelled power stations to alleviate this crime because of climate change.

      1,000,0000 estimated to die every year after going blind. Their poor diet contains insufficient vitamin E but a solution has been available for some years now, Golden Rice. It is a simple genetic modification which adds a gene of corn to rice which provides a subsistence level of vitamin E. Greenpeace, amongst others have stopped it being distributed.

      500,000 people dying every year because of appalling (more accurately, no) sanitary provision also alleviated by the provision of cheap, reliable fossil fuel derived electricity to provide at the very least, clean running water.

      That’s 195,000,000 unnecessary deaths by 2050, all with known, avoidable causes.

      Worst of all, no one has satisfactorily, scientifically, and by empirical means, demonstrated that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm so all these deaths are based on a fraudulent distortion of scientific principles.

      I trust there will be a suitable inscription engraved on the headstone of every participant in this genocide.

      • Allowing indigenous people to live their lives as they choose is not ‘genocide.’ Your demand for colonialism is evil.

        • Gamecock

          Firstly, the west is not “Allowing indigenous people to live their lives as they choose”. The World Bank, who’s remit is to eliminate poverty by 2030, is deliberately denying them access to cheap, reliable, fossil fuelled electricity.

          The money is there, the authority is there, the objective is clear and the resources to achieve the objective are largely there but Jim Yong Kim was obsessed with climate change, which we are all well aware is a fraud, and determined not to allow the bank’s money to be spent in places like Africa.

          Instead, he sent much of it to China!

          America (or parts thereof) was a British colony, Canada, Australia, Bermuda, Hong Kong, Singapore etc. etc.

          They didn’t turn out so bad. I have no idea what your invective about Colonialism is about.

          • Yellow rice is about vitamin A, HotScot, not vitamin E. But your points are well-taken.

            By the way, for Gamecock, “indigenous people” do not call themselves indigenous people. They have their own names for themselves. They use those names to distinguish themselves from the others nearby.

            Calling them “indigenous” is just liberal materno-colonialism — homogenizing and infantilizing divergent peoples to gather them into your care.

            As an aside, no peoples are indigenous. No group of people evolved in situ, or have occupied their piece of land since forever. All people extant today acquired their present territory by prior conquest. “Indigenous people” is a false but politically expedient construct.

        • Perhaps you should have a word with the Chinese then. Currently they are colonising Africa at a furious rate. And incidentally people eking out a subsistence living don’t live their lives as they choose, they do what they need to do to survive and often they don’t succeed at that.

      • Statistics are subject to the bias of each side of the argument. You didn’t mention how many would die if everything you are bothered by is “cleared up”. One fact you didn’t mention is how many babies would be killed through doctor approved abortion – this is one thing that could be cleared up today if people wanted to and it would not cost the taxpayers anything.

    • Pretty much the same things we say today about the “science” of phrenology as practiced in the 1800s. It was much the rage amongst the intelligentsia and business and political leaders in its day.

    • “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.” Climatologist Richard Lindzen

    • Sorry but history as taught is highly selective and you get a very different account of the history leading up to the second world war if you talk to an ex banker, ex concentration camp inmate. I was taught that the rise of the Nazi party and the intense anti Semitism was some sort of inexplicable aberration rather than the backlash against the currency manipulation and resulting hyper inflation caused by one group of rich and influential bankers and the support from the Jewish community who ended up paying for their actions.
      He said he prayed that if this same group’s descendent meddled in European politics again the Jewish community would ostracise them and give them no support at all publicly but felt his prayers would not be answered.
      Sadly the reverse has happened and instead of learning from their mistakes these powerful people are playing the same game on the world stage using climate change and also meddling in the politics of Europe.

      • I was taught Germany was a socialist country under Hitler. As socialism usually dissolves into violence and brutality the wealthy, influential Jews may have been either making as much money as they could before fleeing or attempting to stop Hitler by the only means they had to hand, finance and intelligence.

        I’m not sure why he would then go on to persecute and murder Jews across Europe though. Maybe he was just paranoid and insane. Just your everyday psychopath on steroids I guess.

        • The “scientists” of Germany in the late 19th century were already saying that Jews were actually a missing link in evolution. Hitler just tapped into an already virulent anti-Semitic stream in German culture.

      • It’s always the fault of the Jews isn’t it.
        Anti-semitism isn’t pretty but it sure gets votes in Europe.

        • MarkW

          Whoa. You have missed the point in the UK, at least, by a country mile.

          The current debate over the labour party’s anti Semitism is more about their overt support for Palestine. I can’t recall comments from the current left saying “Jews are bad” it’s more the political spin of their support for Palestine that’s the issue.

          They take a position on Palestine, I don’t understand why because it has nothing to do with British politics. The Conservative don’t have flag waving support for Israel, or Palestine.

          I guess the left believe that expressing support for a community who claim to be oppressed incites more people to vote for them, but it’s sure bitten them on the arse.

          More concerning are the public displays of support for terrorism and communism from Corbyn (the leader of the labour party, a ‘victim’ of a privileged upbringing) and his second in command Mcdonnell (videoed preaching communism).

          Perhaps they’ll think a little more carefully about the unintended consequences of introducing overseas issues into their campaigns in the future. But then I doubt it, they are that stupid.

          Ironically, the brother of Jeremy Corbyn (labour leader) is Piers Corbyn, a well known and respected scientist critical of AGW.

          Make it up? You couldn’t.

    • I remember when Dr Curry first came on here, I think it helped her to focus on how entrenched Climate Science had become.

    • It’s complicated. link I wouldn’t be surprised if the industry had, at one time, supported a particular environmentalist group.

      • I’ve always wondered how much money the coal industry directed toward the anti-nuclear forces. After all Nuclear was a major threat to their industry.

      • I do not think so.
        I remember when the Nuke at Seabrook, Cow Hamshire was getting built. The site had absolutely *huge* protests every summer. These were big events where people came from all over the country to participate, or just for the party. Of course, such a huge event dominated the national news media for days. The protests has three distinct evolutions as the years progressed.
        Stage 1) Peace and Love type Flower Children. Everybody is holding hands and singing Joni Mitchell songs. Radicals and troublemakers are present but relatively few in numbers. All the big environmentalist groups have a major presence and are showcasing their brands.
        Stage 2) The radicals have taken over. Although the protesters are very aggressive, there are no pitched battles between the State Police and the protesters. Things never really escalate past the point of skirmishes. The State Police act with uncommon restraint. Ambulances carry the losers of the skirmishes off for medical treatment.
        Stage 3) It is Old and tired. Seabrook authorities open the site for an “Earth Day” type of event featuring Alternative Energy displays, poster sessions, and speeches over the course of a week. Worst of all, everybody is behaving themselves. Boring! A very strong, but polite police presence encourages people to keep things under control.

        In the utterly inflamed and divisive environment which existed then, I can not imagine the Nuke industry sending money to the environmentalist groups. Remember, Nukes were the *big* issue. Oil and coal were distant seconds at best, and Global Warming was not on the radar screen yet.

          • I know, hilarious. The gas industry funds the enviros to attack “Big Coal”. Which they do, of course. Then the enviros launch their anti-fracking campaign.
            Who could have seen that one coming?

            I do not think the Nuke industry did that, though.

      • How about some link to the money flow. I have worked in the nuclear industry for over 50 years,30 in management positions. and have NEVER heard one word about contributing money to this myth. Was never asked to contribute money to this myth. Further, All Public Utility Commissions (the state regulatory commission) that controls the price of utility monopolies and their price hikes performs annual audits of all expenses of the company. These Public controlled utilities were prohibited from “advertising” that pushed increased use of their product and have to be “public Service” in nature that only have an advantage of getting out their name into the public and the good things they do. Ads like electrical safety, NG safety, Why they trim trees, etc. Any monies given to these organizations (in your link) other than reasonable membership dues, would be a prohibited expense. Thus the money flow from utilities is miniscule, bordering on non-existent. The manufactures, i.e. Westinghouse, GE, Babcock & Wilcox, etc. have given essentially nothing to these organizations, because the environmental groups have no way to direct the local utility to buy the product that the Manufacturer is selling.
        Now use your brain and think about the daily onslaught of anti nuke films, stories, etc. back then, e.g. Godzilla. etc. I clearly remember a CBS Children’s News show, shown during the Saturday Cartoon show of :how a Nuclear Reactor Works. In it they took a film clip of a H-Bomb test, decreased it in size to a thumbnail size and put thousands of them in the “cutaway view” of the Reactor. Just what impression does that give a seven – nine year old kid? Who paid for that? ANS, NEI, or WIN? Guarantee it was NOT the Rockefeller Foundation.
        Need Proof? It is all around you. NPPs are shutting down and spending two to three times as much to build a different type power plant (NG) as it costs to extend the life of the NPP for ten more years WHY. Yet power generated by nuclear power emits about the same amount of CO2 as a Hydro power plant. For the same amount of power five times the Nameplate rating of Solar/Wind Turbine capacity needs to be built, covering almost a thousand times more area. And either Solar or Wind power causes more deaths in any one year than Commercial Nuclear power (in the USA) has caused for the entire existence of commercial nuclear power in the USA. All of the fear is HYPE. Personally know two people that have received a “Once in a lifetime dose” over 40 years ago and BOTH are alive and NEITHER have any form of cancer. Thus the Fear Mongers are winning. And the Fear Mongers are the Pseudo Environmentalists.
        How much lower would the US Co2 emissions be if the USA had 75% of their Electric power generated by Nuclear? How many EVs could be getting their power from a NPP?

  2. “…2016 Paris Climate Accord.”

    Minor point but Paris Agreement was 2015.

    And any discussion of this topic needs to include the ClimateGate emails and the behavior they showed by key players. One can suspect a lot of things about motivations, but when you them in their own words, there is litle doubt left about where science fits into those players views of their work.

  3. ” Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others.”

    Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • The UN climate game was rigged from the very beginning. And it hasn’t changed a bit. We are not dealing with honest people there. They have an agenda which is to prove that human-caused CO2 is affecting the behavior of the Earth’s atmosphere. They accept everything that reinforces that view and reject everything that does not.

      The Truth is not a consideration at the UNIPCC when it comes to human-caused climate change.

    • Of course every worker in the company must obey company rules.

      Pachauri have the most perfect education and the most perfect professional authority to choose the best of the best science specialists from climate science.

      After all he represents UN and UN is honest to all humanity.

    • Here is the UN resolution that created the IPCC:

      http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm

      Note that human-caused climate change is a given in the entire resolution; the entire charter of the IPCC is not to figure out if it is human-caused or not, but to simply figure out how to work with Governments to address the results of the assumed human-caused climate change.

      It’s a foregone conclusion we’re to blame. In that light, Pachauri’s rigging of the staff seems completely in-line with the UN resolution. “We know we’re to blame, so let’s decide how best to solve our problem”. The IPCC is NOT about researching climate change; it is about determining how to deal with the foregone conclusion that we have it, its us that is causing it, and we need rescuing from it.

    • [snip “Kym Smart” is just another fake persona (probably our favorite persona non-grata from Oregon) with a fake name, fake email, and an IP address obscured by a proxy server. All comments ever made by this person on WUWT are hereby removed, per our policy.

      Here endeth the lesson – Anthony]

      • Jon P Peterson

        Damn! Anthony got to his post before I had time to see it. I was looking forward to a good laugh this morning.

    • Jackson. You clearly have difficulty comprehending written English if you think that

  4. An excellent interview clearly summarising the issues. It would be nice if those who disagreed would actually make their arguments with evidence, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. Then I would listen!

  5. “In political discourse, and in the media … rarely mentioned that warming would also bring some benefits”

    Speaking of which, I just came across some such good news, via an unexpected source, CTV News (normally they just moan and complain about CO2, like all Canadian TV networks, but not this time). Mind you, this is on their web site, I *didn’t* see it featured in regular TV programming, nevertheless, enjoy:

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-added-an-amazon-s-worth-of-greenery-in-2-decades-nasa-1.4321918

      • Yes, this is good news. And NASA is downplaying a bit, of course:

        “””””The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”””””

        Because we are not even near real greenhouses amounts of CO2 (over 1000ppm) I think plants are screaming “more please more”. I try my best to satisfy their need.

        Sahara desert is getting smaller, it´s turning back to grassland, like it was some 6000 years ago. Wildlife loves it.

      • Whoops, brain fart again.

        That should be 35 years ago since satellite observations began.

        No one picked me up on it….Phew.

        Or perhaps no one bothers reading my post’s except for F1nn.

        🙂

        • I just got here.
          In any case, Roy and John at UAH begin their chart in 1979.

          Now you need to say 40 years.

          Further there is a claim that some images pre-date that, but maybe not with temperature sensing. I don’t know.
          Because most folks reference UAH, let’s call it 40.

        • No we picked up on it, we just decided not to prod the old man about his mental burp..

          🙂

    • I like the last sentence in your link, “humans are incredibly resilient.” Now if we can get the scaremongers to accept that 1deg C increase in temp is well within our ability to adapt to.

      • From the bottom of the Little Ice Age to the top of the Medieval Warm Period is closer to 5C and humans survived.
        (The obvious side to that is that humans had a lot more trouble with the bottom of the LIA than we did with the top of the MWP.)

  6. Love Curry for her “middle of the road” way of explaining things. She does not get over excited, don’t get more scientific than needed and still manages summarize the essentials.
    Like Morano too, but his aggressive voice will probably meet more resistance among the believers.

  7. The end game of earlier attempts at global scares begins when successively more ‘converts’ change course under mounting scientific evidence that dead horses were flogged.
    One reason why Judith Curry gets so much flak could be that others realise the significance of her stand.
    She is a brave person, deserving of enormous respect.
    Geoff

    • Geoff Sherrington

      This is what the rest of the world thinks of climate change.

      An on-line UN study of almost 10m people on 16 life affecting events like education, housing, jobs and internet access……. ‘action on climate change’ came 16th………… behind internet access.

      http://data.myworld2015.org

      • And if the “survey” consisted of a list of the most important “issues” supplied BY the people responding, as opposed to being pre-selected by the “surveyors,” then for most responders, not only would “action on climate change” be last, IT WOULDN’T EVEN BE ON THE LIST.

  8. Yesterday, the Guardian published the “Dear Europe letter” by President Macron – a pure EU propaganda piece.

    “Getting back on track also means spearheading the environmental cause. Will we be able to look our children in the eye if we do not also clear our climate debt? The EU needs to set its target – zero carbon by 2050 and pesticides halved by 2025 – and adapt its policies accordingly with such measures as a European Climate Bank to finance the ecological transition, a European food safety force to improve our food controls and, to counter the lobby threat, independent scientific assessment of substances hazardous to the environment and health. This imperative needs to guide all our action: from the Central Bank to the European commission, from the European budget to the Investment Plan for Europe, all our institutions need to have the climate as their mandate.”

    You read right: “The EU needs to set its target – zero carbon by 2050.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/europe-brexit-uk

    Macron works selectively with history, ignores that EU regulations are hurting small and medium businesses and does not see how Brussels is stifling beneficial scientific research. My opinion is that Macron is a pompous ass who is going to get his ass kicked. I hope that those doing honest climate science will start this process.

  9. A group of climate scientists studying the Thwaites ice shelf in Antarctica has dubbed it “The Doomsday Glacier.” But I don’t expect any confirmation bias to affect the results of their study. (sarc)

  10. “Not everyone agrees, but you don’t get elected as a congressional representative for one of the New York’s districts for being stupid”

    I guess it depends on how you define stupid. The stupidest people in Congress are Democrats from big cities, who evidence the fact that being deceitful, manipulative and sometimes having non-white skin color are really all that’s required.

    • I can’t remember who it was, he was from NYC area, but a few years ago there was a Congressman who actually felt that if we increased the number of our military on Guam that the island would actually tip over!!! I kid you not!!! Who says you don’t get elected for being stupid? He sure did.

  11. “She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree.”

    I take issue with this. We simply do not have enough data to be able to make such a statement. 80-90% of the world at that time did not have instrumentation to be able to factually determine what the temperatures were there, so how can she make that statement?

    • She said “degree”, not “tenths of a degree” or “hundredths of a degree.” In fact, the best resolution possible from surface stations is a tenth of a degree. All those results with 3-and-4 decimal place accuracy aren’t possible from the starting measurements.

      • Yeah, I know what she said. How can you realistically get “degree” when 80-90% of the world in the early 20th century didn’t have instrumentation to measure max/min daily temps? That “degree” is based on made up data.

        • That “degree” is based on made up data.

          In many ways, so is todays current “warming”. Is it any surprise that the areas of the globe that are claimed to be warming the most also happen to be the areas with the least coverage?

        • About the only places with an adequate number of thermometers were western Europe and northeastern US/Canada.

          Better than 95% was either unmeasured, or inadequately measured. (The oceans, about 73% of the earth’s surface was pretty un-measured.)

          • Even when it is global, one station could still be an outlier (for any number of reasons, poor siting of the station being a prime example) and as you have no other stations, you’d have no way of knowing if it was.

        • Actually, with enough data AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE READING ERRORS (i.e. characterize the skew if any of reading errors). It is possible to know averages (for instance) to hundredths of a degree…from data with resolution at the integer level.

          Please consult a knowledgeable statistician…that is if you are interested in the truth.

          • Yeah, but you don’t have a knowledge of the reading errors. Remember it was by mark 1 eyeball. Literally different people of different heights would get different readings. I was involved in some of those weather observations. That is why I take it with ton of salt.

      • “the best resolution possible from surface stations is a tenth of a degree.”

        I believe the error margin of measurements made in the early 20th century is +-1 degree. That makes today’s resolutions irrelevant when compared with past data.

        • To the nearest whole degree F was the standard in England, Canada, Australia, and the US. I don’t know what the metric world used. To the nearest 1deg F is more precise than 1deg C (1deg F=0.56deg C). Did they use to the nearest 1/10th, the nearest 1/2, does anyone know? I know that just even that point raises an apples and oranges issue.

          • @MarkW
            True. But weather observations is the above-mentioned countries in the early 20th century and earlier were measured to the nearest degree F. I was wondering what precision in degrees C the rest of the world was using.

          • That as may be mark, but in the US F was used, not C.
            For instance, Thomas Jefferson purchased a thermometer from a local Philadelphia merchant while in town for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. He noted that the high temperature in Philadelphia, Pa., on July 4, 1776 was 76 degrees (do you really think it was 76 °C? hint: that would make it 168.8 °F). Jefferson made regular temp. observations at Monticello from 1772-78.

            “By the beginning of the 19th century, the mercury thermometer graduated in Fahrenheit degrees appears to be most commonly used in the Canadian records”
            “McCord’s 1831–1842 observations are the first readings calibrated in Fahrenheit to show no bias towards even numbers, suggesting his thermometers were graduated in such a way as to be able to be read to the nearest 1 °F”
            https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gdj3.11

            Even in the UK, °F was commonly used until relatively recently. It wasn’t until the 15th of October 1962 that the UK switched from °F to °C for weather forecasts.
            http://metricviews.org.uk/2012/10/50-years-of-celsius-weather-forecasts-%e2%80%93-time-to-kill-off-fahrenheit-for-good/

            Bottom line, historically (particularly in the US) Fahrenheit was used more often than you seem to think.

          • @John
            I’m sorry but you are misunderstanding me. I fully agree that the records for the English speaking countries were recorded to the nearest whole degree F. I am curious as to whether those who used the Celcius scale recorded their observation to the nearest degree C or to a fraction of a degree C. In any case using records that are to the nearest deg F, with records that are to the nearest 1/10C and records which are to the nearest 1/10F (which is more precise than 1/10C) and claiming a precision of better than 1deg F (0.56C) to the results is fraud. It was pounded in my head in college chemistry and physics that you can claim no greater precision for your results than the least precise of your inputs. Therefore when claiming the “warmest year” by 0.04C is BS. If the early records in the non-English speaking countries were to the nearest deg C then 1deg C is the best you can use. (0.56 deg C if the earlier Celcius records were to 1/10 C because 1deg F=0.56degC)

          • Sorry, Richard, my reply was addressing mark’s contention “Even back in the 19th century, most scientific instruments measured in celsius.”. It was not in reply to your post. Unfortunately the forum only allows so many levels of reply, which makes it less clear what post was being replied to. sorry for any confusion

          • @John
            That’s why I try to use the @ sign to make it clear who I am talking to. Glad to see that we are on the same page.

      • 10th of a degree today. The older thermometers were read to the nearest degree.
        And that completely ignores the fact that we would need somewhere between 100 and 1000 times as many thermometers compared to what we have today, in order to come close to being able to accurately measure the temperature of the whole earth.

  12. From the article: “She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree.”. . .

    “In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause.”

    end excerpts

    This would be a true statement were one using a Hockey Stick chart as your guide.

    Ms. Curry says “almost half” the warming came about in the first half of the twentieth century (1910-1940). That’s what you would see if you were looking at a Hockey Stick chart.

    But if you look at a chart like the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart, you would not describe events that way.

    You would say that the warming from 1910 to 1940 was of the same magnitude as the warming from 1980 to the present, and that the peak of the warming of 2016 was not quite as warm as the peak in the 1930’s.

    The 1910 to 1940 time period represents *all* or most, of the warming since 1910, because after 1940 the temperatues cooled to the point that scientists were declaring a Global Cooling emergency in the 1970’s, and it cooled to levels equal to the 1910’s, and then the temperatures warmed up from the 1980 to the present, but did not exceed the temperatures in the 1930’s.

    Current temperatures are only back to where they were in the 1930’s. So no new heat was necessary to raise the temperatures to current levels. That heat was already available to the Earth in the 1930’s.

    There is no unprecedented heating of the atmosphere going on. The only way you would see it differently is if you are looking at a Hockey Stick chart that makes things appear to be getting hotter and hotter and hotter and that shows the 1930’s as being not nearly as hot as today. It’s all a deliberate fraud.

    So no net heat has been added to the Earth’s atmosphere if you look at the proper chart. It took a certain amount of heat to raise the temperatures up to the levels in the 1930’s, then the temperatures dropped for decades, and now the temperatures have climbed back up to 1930’s levels. Mother Nature was the driving factor for the 1930’s and there’s no reason to assume Mother Nature is not in the driver’s seat today, since both time periods look essentially the same and Mother Nature drove one of them.

    The current warming is not warmer than the past so there is no new warming created by CO2, or at least not enough to be detectable.

    Here is the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart alongside a (bastardized) Hockey Stick chart:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    Judith Curry is looking at the Hockey Stick chart on the right when she makes her comments implying there is more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere today than in the 1930’s.

    She should be looking at the Hansen 1999 chart on the left, which shows the *real* surface temperature profile of the globe. The temperatures go up for a few decades, then they go down for a few decades, and then they go up again, and in this case they only went up again to 1930’s levels and have *not* exceeded those levels, despite the lies of the CAGW promoters and Hockey Stick creators.

    Combine the Hansen 1999 chart with the UAH satellite chart and you have the closest thing we are going to get to a global temperature profile, considering how unreliable the current official temperature data is.

    The Hockey Stick charts are a lie and don’t represent reality. The Hansen 1999 temperature profile is representative of many (if not all, I haven’t seen all of them) unmodified charts which show the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years.

    These charts are from all around the globe and show esentially the same thing the Hansen 1999 chart shows. None of the unmodified charts I have seen resemble the Hockey Stick chart. That’s a lab creation meant to sell a product: CAGW.

    Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C hotter than 1998, and that makes 1934 0.4C hotter than 2016 (using UAH). The Earth’s atmosphere is not experiencing unprecendented warming. The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts are the only thing saying that.

    • *rollseyes* mods can you do something about Johann’s constant posting of google search. Nobody cares about his google search results, they’re useless and annoying.

  13. Dr. Curry is spot on with her commentary.

    Note that she does not engage in spitball wars, declaring climate change is a “hoax” or a left wing Democrat conspiracy. She points out how the UN crowd of “climatologists” are heavily self selected, and treat their theory as if it is a religious faith, which is all true. Mostly she points to facts that clearly show that the theory of AGW is not nearly as self-evident as the AGW alarmists claim it is.

    Facts, calm fact citing and logic are the way to defeat the alarmists. Not name calling, or partisan politics. Indeed, get politics the hell out of the entire conversation, because politics, regardless of whether left or right or any other kind, is the antithesis of the science that is needed to truly understand how our climate works, and therefore what we can and cannot do about the climate.

    Dr. Curry hits just the right tone.

    • Duane,
      I don’t want to totally disagree with your point, some part of it I agree with you. If by “hoax” you mean a conscious conspiracy of thousands of miscreants in collusion to push a known lie, then granted that is loony toons. (It’s the largely unconscious, even self-deluding pursuit of individual self-interest on the part of thousands of independently-acting individuals to support what is politically-correct and oppose what is not. It is functionally the same outcome as if it were a collusive hoax, but it’s rash to label it as such).

      Politics of the Right primarily enters into the discussion as an explanation for why others are pursuing anti-scientific claims and why they refuse to entertain any contrary hypothesis despite good evidence. It is the Left that first linked loyalty to climate alarmism with their politics. It is the Left that invented and persists in using slurs like “climate denier”. It is the Left that talks about non-sequiturs like “Climate Justice” to “Save the Planet”. The Right isn’t pushing climate skepticism in a plot to Pave the Planet. You can’t go to war unarmed because you are against the use of violence. The Left is going to attack whether you provoke them or not.

      Politicians on the Right who talk loudly about climate change hoaxes (OK, let’s admit, there’s only one Donald), are merely emulating a successful strategy that they have seen their rivals on the Left employ, throwing red meat to the base. It’s certainly true that when those of us on the Right make a political argument to discredit an alarmist claim, it is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone who is not already in agreement.

      Nevertheless, in the right forum, at the right time, with the right audience, it is still important to recognize and fully understand the agenda that motivates climate alarmism. AOC and the Green New Deal has done skeptics a great service in putting the lie to the anti-anti-socialists’ argument that we are imagining Soviet agents behind every hockey stick. She has done us the service of coming out and admitting that she is pushing this to advance socialism.

      To fail to engage politically and understand the opposition’s motivation risks seeing politicians of the Right and Center negotiate in good faith and be taken advantage of by bad faith partisans. This has so often happened with middle-of-the-road, go-along-to-get-along, controversy-averse politicians that conservatives get stuck supporting. We make a big and concrete concession in return for a promise of a future concession that somehow never materializes. For example maybe we agree to a carbon tax in return for more sensible regulation of nuclear power. We’ll certainly get the tax.

      Where I strongly agree with you is that in an environment where this political polarization is so obviously in play, it is very wise strategy on Dr. Curry’s part to scrupulously avoid any hint of partisan opinion. She wants to be able to persuade the persuadable and be a reference for centrist politicians who might support a sane policy. It is wise strategy as well to take a “lukewarmist” stance, accepting ECS ~ 1.5 which stays on the edge of the IPCC range, rather than attempting to defend ECS ~ 1.2, which she likely would not rule out as a possible answer. Spineless politicians of the “center” would be terrified to accept skeptical science that is tainted in any way by association with conservative politics.

      Bottom line, we can no more take politics out of it than we can take science out of it. We can no more take politics out of it than we can take violence out of warfare. Those who stick to the science will still be attacked by the politically-motivated. I for one am not a pacifist willing to go down without a fight.

      • Almost all, very good. But then you say this:
        “It is wise strategy as well to take a “lukewarmist” stance, accepting ECS ~ 1.5 which stays on the edge of the IPCC range, rather than attempting to defend ECS ~ 1.2, which she likely would not rule out as a possible answer.”

        I disagree most strongly. If Curry thinks the ECS is 1.2, then she should say 1.2. What is wrong with 1.5?, you say. Well, it validates the whole IPCC range of 1.5-4.5, and you have accomplished nothing. And, of course, you allow people to go on and on about 4.5, because you, yourself have validated 1.5-4.5. You lose.

        If you think it is 1.2, say 1.2. Force them to acknowledge the new research and adopt 1.2-3.6, or defend 1.5-4.5.
        Why is this so important, you ask? You said it best yourself:
        “politicians of the Right and Center negotiate in good faith and be taken advantage of by bad faith partisans. This has so often happened with middle-of-the-road, go-along-to-get-along, controversy-averse”
        Exactly Correct.

        As it turns out, the latest Lewis and Curry paper shows, and argues for ECS of 1.2. No doubt she would support it.

        • TonyL,
          If she establishes herself as a trusted non-partisan, then she will be able to argue for an ECS of 1.2 and be believed. My only point is that in order to establish herself as the voice that the persuadable, confused middle turns to, she needs to be perceived as not taking any extreme positions. Saying that the IPCC’s low end is too high is not the sort of thing a middle-of-the-roader is going to see as reasonable.

      • We have to take the politics out or we will lose.

        Every time Trump shouts “Hoax!” it drives down the numbers of skeptics – ditto with any of the rest of us who engage in political baiting and name calling and sloganeering. Having Trump as our spokesperson on climate science is like having Kim as our spokesperson for human rights.

        The policies that follow from whatever the science says, that is the part that IS about politics. But if we cannot persuade persuadable people to believe that the science is not as settled as the warmists claim it is, then we have already lost the war.

        Once the facts are agreed upon, then the policy decisions are much clearer.

        For instance we should never say that the earth is not warming. It is of course warming, but also fluctuating, ever since the peak of the last glaciation period. Our arguments need to be focused on acknowledging that there has been warming, but that it has come and gone over various time cycles, and for reasons that are not yet very clear, though theories abound. What we know for a fact is that climate has varied radically about two dozen times over the last 2.6 million years, during which period our ancestors managed to not only survive but to produce our current civillization. We humans have ALWAYS adapted to these natural climate changes, and we will do so in the future, regardless of what the causes have been or will be in the future.

        See – that approach makes this a rational, calm discussion of what the facts are, and what we should make of them, and acknowledgment that human kind is not going to blow up due to climate change. It totally defeats the alarmists, without trying to convert a discussion of science into one focused on political ideology.

        • I’m afraid you put too much stock in the prospect of rational, calm discussion, Duane. There is zero chance that climate change policy is going to be depoliticized. No matter how dispassionate you want to be about it, the other side is going to continue to use emotional and irrational appeals, with plenty of unfair ad hominem attacks.

          I’m not going to dispute that unhinged rants are unhelpful, but our argument needs to have an emotional appeal that technical discussions about 1.2 vs 1.5 ECS can never hope to achieve. Elderly are going to freeze in their apartments eating cat food, our children are not going to have decent jobs, majestic raptors are being slaughtered, miles and miles of previously pristine wilderness are marred by wind turbines, children in Africa are going to die because they don’t have access to affordable energy. Those are arguments that will persuade people who have no desire to discuss scientific details.

          Those sorts of discussions need to occur out in the real world, one-on-one. As great as WUWT is as a learning site for those of us interested in the science, I seriously doubt that there are very many middle-of-the-road, non-technical folks stumbling onto WUWT and sticking around to grasp the nuances of the El Nino Southern Oscillation. They aren’t going to be engaged so they also are not going to be turned off when one of us goes on a political rant from time to time.

        • We have to take the politics out or we will lose.

          You can’t take the politics out of politics. And that’s all climate alarmism has ever been – politics. If “rational, calm discussion” was capable of taking the politics out of politics, there never would have been climate alarmism to begin with.

          • Maybe if we all just go have a beer with AOC, and an amicable, reasoned discussion, this whole unfortunate misunderstanding can be put behind us and we can focus on the goals that we all have in common.

          • Don’t forget the rest of the transcript:

            SF: uh, how do you open this thing, Bruce?

            BM: How would I know?

            SF: Do you want one?

            BM: no, of course not.

            SF = Sen. Fauxahontas
            BM = husband Bruce Mann

          • Even better is the part where she says to her husband “Thank you for being here. I’m glad you’re here” it’s their home, why wouldn’t he be there? why would you need to thank your spouse for being in the home you share?

        • “Having Trump as our spokesperson on climate science is like having Kim as our spokesperson for human rights.”

          I kind of like having Trump as my climate change debunker. I like that one he did at the rally the other day. He was joking about the Green New Deal and windmills, and how windmills don’t produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow and he illustrated the absurdity of using windmills by pretending he was asked a question by his wife, “Honey, is the wind blowing now because I would like to watch some television? ”

          I thought that was pretty funny. The crowd did, too.

          One thing about Trump, he will speak up. The others run for the hills.

    • Duane

      Facts, calm fact citing and logic are the way to defeat the alarmists.

      It never works on any alarmists I have spoken to. They simply refuse to distinguish fact from their alarmist propaganda.

      I have argued the point with my 37 year old son using only fact but he just trots out “well, 97%….”, “the polar bears”, “rising sea levels”, “worsening weather”, “the Arctic/Antarctic melting”, “population explosion”, ocean acidification” etc. etc. and then circles back round to them when I corner him (intellectually not physically of course).

      Others just listen, smile and look at me as though I’m the idiot as they think “well, 97%….”, “the polar bears”, “rising sea levels”, “worsening weather”,”the Arctic/Antarctic melting”, “population explosion”, ocean acidification” etc. etc.

      Now I just look at them slightly aghast as they go on and on about all the catastrophes I have mentioned then walk away thinking “how utterly dumb can you be?”

      • Of course we will never convince the alarmists, and we don’t need to for they are the true believers, just like the true believers who shout “Hoax!” instead of citing facts and logic … our resistence to climate alarmism has to be focused on convincing the persuadable ones who, because very few people are scientifically literate, are simply trying to figure out whom to believe.

        Using politically loaded rhetoric makes it way too easy to the persuadables to write off the skeptic crowd as political right wingnuts and ideologues who really are anti-science as the alarmists routinely charge.

        Using the language of partisanship and ideology – both of which are the antithesis of science – in a argument about science and science based policy is always self defeating.

        The persuadables are probably somewhere between 30% and 50% or more of the total population today. That’s where the action is at.

        Dr. Curry has it down just right. She understands that it is not necessary to destroy a global warmist to discredit their arguments. And she understands that persuasion is all that matters at this point.

        • our resistence to climate alarmism has to be focused on convincing the persuadable ones who, because very few people are scientifically literate, are simply trying to figure out whom to believe.

          And those “the persuadable ones who” are not “scientifically literate” aren’t persuaded very well by by “Facts, calm fact citing and logic”. They tend to be persuaded by emotion. Which is why alarmist have been working so hard to scare the shit out of them. Remember the words of Stephen Schneider: “We have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have”

        • Duane,
          No, not persuasion. I think that correct science is the fundamental message for a scientist to express in a primary way.
          So much of the foundational science of global warming remains incomplete and incorrect that it is astounding that the scare has got this far. Geoff

          • Geoff, it’s “got this far” *because* it’s not about the foundational science. Stephen Schneider expressed it thusly: “We have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have”.

            That’s been the playbook from day one. And the reason that’s the playbook is precisely because the science isn’t the goal.

            If you are wondering what the goal is, just listen to UN Climate Change Official Christiana Figueres: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”

            It’s always been a matter of persuasion from the climate alarmists. Why do you think you keep hearing so much about the need to send the right “message” to convert people to their “cause”? Why do you think they came up with the 97% consensus myth? it’s always about persuading their way into power.

  14. “Do we know how history may treat the climate alarmists?” asks someone at the top of this thread.

    My guess is that the world will warm modestly and they will take credit for, and be treated as heroes, for having prevented catastrophic warming even though they can offer no evidence of having done anything more than run model after model.

    Suppose, though, they turn out to having been spectacularly wrong. Then I imagine the outcome will be like the controversy of Lord Kelvin and the five million year old earth. Kelvin was an old man by the 1890s, but he was the dean of physical sciences, and so what he thought ended the matter. He had become an “authority.” On the basis of some temperature measurements in mines, and some measurements of thermal properties of rocks, plus some modeling of the Ninetheenth century version, complete with assumptions about the original thermal state of the Earth, he gave it an age of a few tens of millions of years. Putting a finer pencil to the calculations he eventually arrived at five million. And his views had the imprimatur of other Cambridge academics.

    The geologists of the time were having fits. They knew the sedimentary record required hundreds of millions of years at least. But arguing against Kelvin was futile.

    The end of this story is that Kelvin never suffered for this nonsense, which should be treated as a cautionary tale about authority and hubris. Instead, the cover story is that Kelvin was right except that he didn’t know about radioactivity. Yet, radioactivity has nothing to do with why Kelvin was wrong.

    The physicist Heaviside and the geologist Perry showed that if one is open to considering other, very reasonable assumptions about heat transfer within the earth, that the temperature measurements are compatible with practically any age of Earth. Kelvin’s very precise calculations meant absolutely nothing.

    You are unlikely to read the real history unless you take time to follow the debate in the letters section of Nature Magazine. At least the skeptics didn’t have to pass peer-review.

    • But Kelvin wasn’t proposing the entire remake of the global economic system nor that the nations hand over all political power to him and his ilk…based on his (wrong) assertion about the age of the planet.

  15. One thing that frustrates me about such articles, and I’m not blaming Dr. Curry because I know she avoids placing certainty on uncertain specifics, is the ambiguity of statements like “there is a warming” and “there is sea level rise” with no follow up by the interviewer. Although Curry elaborates, a reader may remain unsure that sea level rise has been measured in a few millimeters per year going back more than a century, and the total warming going back to the 1800’s, as far as we can tell, is less than one degree C.

  16. My most sincere hat tip to Guy Sorman for his essay/reporting on Judith Curry.

    And an even greater respect to Judith Curry for her adherence to true scientific principles! She is truly an icon and role model that her students should carry into the future. I trust that many will become worthy leaders in their chosen careers and fields of interest.

  17. But aren’t oceans rising today…? “Yes,” Curry replies. “…gradually…we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.”…

    The qualifier “…significant acceleration…” is important. As near as I can tell there seems to be some acceleration as the tide gauges tell us. Here’s a quick and dirty Excel graphic that plots the 2nd Order polynomial (quadratic) for six long running tide gauges with their listed linear extrapolations in inches out to 2100 as follows:

    2100 Station
    3.2″ Brest
    4.7″ San Francisco
    9.1″ New York
    4.7″ Honolulu
    3.4″ Sydney
    5.4″ Fremantle

    https://i.postimg.cc/WbjZBtWV/image.png

    For five of the stations it’s about a foot by 2100 when acceleration is taken into account. Honolulu shows some negative acceleration and would be 3.9″

    • >For five of the stations it’s about a foot by 2100 when acceleration is taken into account. Honolulu shows some negative acceleration and would be 3.9″<

      Yes, but there are not 7 meters! Since 1850 there is a trend with about 2.5 to 3 mm / year. That has not changed much. You can not just extrapolate this into the future, this trend will vary over time.

      • marty – at 7:50 am
        My bad, I left out a few things, the data to generate the graph came from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
        https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
        Their convention is to use a 7000 mm (seven meter) base for all tide gauges. The “Y” axis is in millimeters.

        With respect to extrapolating out to the future, it isn’t what common sense would put much stock in, but it’s what our friends in the Climate Science community do, and no one seems to ever call them on it. See the following:
        Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
        If you follow that link you will find that Dr. R. Steve Nerem of Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group did exactly that to come up with 0.65 meters by 2100. Here’s the money quote from the abstract:
        “…simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100”

        • @ steve There have been predictions of up to 7 meters of sea level rise over this century. My estimate is more at 20 – 30 cm but 65 ± 12 cm by 2100 is ok given the uncertainty.

    • You assume that:
      1) The acceleration is real, that is not a artifact of our measuring system.
      2) It is going to continue.

      No reason to assume either.

      • MarkW March 5, 2019 at 8:53 am

        You are exactly correct. And we let Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group get away with it with a much shorter time series. See my post from a year ago.

        • Decleration will be a sign of cooling doom. We’ve had it when sea level ceases to rise.
          =========================

  18. Well put.
    Global Warming the place for Scientific brown nosers where science is abandoned and alternate views ridiculed and dictatorship the ultimate goal.

  19. The big guns are the United Nations, well funded and with lots of clout.

    Solution is for Trump to stop paying the US money to the UN, unless it completely changes the composition of the IPCC and similar organizations, to also working to find out the natural factures driving climate.

    That would require firing all of the present staff and starting again.

    It will not happen, so best to simply stop supporting the UN in any way.

    Its just a soap box today, for all the nations who’s belief is that the rest of the world, those with white faces should pay up, again and again.

    Enough is enough, wake up World.

    MJE

  20. Any Scientist that doesn’t follow, and adhere to,
    the Scientific Principle, should be stripped of their
    tenure and title as a Scientist…..

Comments are closed.