Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry: Part II

From Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

My follow up interview on the Strong And Free podcast [link].

My previous interview with Christopher Balkaran was discussed in this post. I also very much enjoyed our 2nd conversation.

At this point, the only interviews I’ve been giving are long-form discussions (order one hour). I have no interest in scoring sound-bite points, and I’m not very good at it anyways. I also like talking with interviewers from other countries.

A transcript of the interview is provided below. I have heavily edited this to make it more coherent and something that people hopefully want to read, while preserving the content of interview. I am really a much better writer than speaker, especially with off-the-cuff responses to questions.

We covered a lot of range, I hope this interview will stimulate some interesting discussion.


​​Christopher Balkaran

So, there’s been a lot of feedback from our first conversation and I wanted to dive right in, because I think that’s what a lot of people want to know more about. Now I will say the vast majority of people who reached out were very positive. But the folks that were very critical raised some very compelling arguments that I’d love for you to discuss. And the first was about climate modelling when it comes to climate change. And I know in the past, people have asked you about why you’re so critical about of climate change modelling in particular. And some of your critics say, well, there’s so much robust data out there. It’s been tested time and time again, and it kind of flies in the face of being critical of climate change modelling. What are your thoughts about that?

Judith Curry

The IPCC AR 6 published a report last August, and I have to say they joined me in a lot of the criticisms of global climate models. In fact, for the first time, for their projections to 2100, while they show all the models, they constrained the projections, picking the ones that they like, which happened to be on the lower end. There’s also a growing movement not to use these big global climate models for policy purposes, but just to use simple climate emulators, that input some very basic things like which emissions scenario, which value of climate sensitivity, and off you go. The other thing that the IPCC had to say, which joins me, is that these climate models do not simulate extreme weather events. Their resolution is too coarse.

So any projections about future hurricanes, rainfall rates, whatever, are semi empirically based on observations, they’re not directly spit out by the climate models. And then the third factor is with regards to regional climate change. The IPCC AR6 thoroughly acknowledges that global climate models cannot simulate regional climate variability with any kind of skill because they don’t get the magnitude and the timing of the major modes natural internal climate variability, which have a dominant role in regional climates. In fact, the IPCC spent three chapters devoted to regional climate change. And at first I was really excited. Do they have a recipe for how we should do this? But they didn’t, you have to distill multiple lines of evidence – models, historical data, paleo climate data, process models, physical reasoning. There’s no simple answer, but you sure as heck can’t just use what the global climate models spit out.

A model that simulates the warming since 1970 based on CO2 emissions does not constitute proof that CO2 has caused the warming. The latest post on my blogs cites some papers that show that solar variability can explain pretty much all of the recent warming. So you can have models that get the right answer or something close to the right answer for the wrong reasons.

Christopher Balkaran

That’s very fascinating. Two follow-up questions on that. Judith. What were some of the reasons why the IPCC kind of walked back from alarmist reports from the past, which, mentioned high levels of global warming that would happen in the very near future if drastic action hadn’t been done?

Judith Curry

Two things they’ve backed off quite a bit.  The first is the really high emissions scenario. It used to be called business as usual. It’s not business as usual. It’s some crazy extreme scenario that is highly implausible, if not impossible. So they backed off on that one. The other thing is that the latest generation of climate models in the so-called CMIP6 simulation series, about a half of them were running way too hot, with equilibrium climate sensitivities of over five degrees. And they don’t do a good job of reproducing 20th century temperature history. So, what happened? Those models included some new cloud feedback processes, sort of arcane details about how clouds interact with aerosols. On one level, it’s improving the physics, but on another level they didn’t include countervailing negative feedbacks that were needed to really make this work in the model. As a result, the models were just running way too hot. And so the IPCC sort of danced around it and then did a constrained selection of the climate model simulations, resulting in much more moderate temperature projections than prediced by the CMIP6 models.

Christopher Balkaran

The second follow-up to that – the comments I received back from our first conversation was Judith Curry is basing this on her own modeling and discounting the vast data that’s out there. 

Judith Curry

I don’t run a climate model. I don’t have my own climate model. I interpret the results from other climate models. I rely much more heavily on observations, including a longer historical record. And I also look at paleo climate observations in my analysis. I do not have my own climate model.

Christopher Balkaran

There are many individuals who have reached out with very detailed data and are very passionate about this topic. And it seems like if you’re not “on the right side” you’re lambasted instead of having a nuanced conversation, it’s definitely you’re either an unbeliever. You’re a believer. And I’d love to know from your perspective, being someone who’s been in that space and has been in many ways, accosted for your views. What do you believe are some of the underpinning reasons for that to be, which is specific to the climate change space?

Judith Curry

First of all, this whole issue has become a big part of tribal political identity. Somebody who’s in the right tribe can publish something that’s moderately critical or skeptical and they get away with it. Somebody who’s not in the right tribe, who says the same thing can’t get away with it – it either gets ignored or people in the other tribe try to squash it, and this is asymmetrical since one side has the political power. The other thing is there are certain aspects of climate science that are fairly basic, there’s a lot of data out there  and much of climate science is based on basic physics and thermodynamics. And so a lot of people who understand statistics or basic physics say, I can look at that problem or I can try to analyze this. And so there’s a lot of passionate armchair scientists out there cranking through numerous aspects of climate science.  Some if it is crankology. But some people have genuinely made really good contributions who are not PhD educated climate scientists.

My colleague, Nic Lewis is a case in point he’s, he’s a financier. He has degrees in physics and math from Oxford, but not a PhD.  He’s very good at statistics and he’s taken on the climate sensitivity problem and has published maybe a dozen papers, in reputable journals and even co-authored with a number of distinguished mainstream scientists. Nic is an example of somebody who started off in this armchair mode, but actually ended up taking it to the next level and making contributions that are recognized by the mainstream and even cited in IPCC reports.

So the challenge is to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it’s really good for the populace to be engaged and thinking about the problem and looking at the data and so on. Alot of interesting research is having difficulty getting published in what I would call mainstream climate journals, but the minute they go a little farther afield and publish in astronomy and space physics or environmental engineering journals or something like that, where it’s not quite so religious, then they can get it published. So, it’s not a good situation, this whole tribalism thing has polluted the science. A lot of the ‘big’ journals and editors do gate-keeping that seems politically motivated. That’s very unfortunate for promoting reasoned, scientific debate and dialogue which is what the journals are supposed to do.

Christopher Balkaran

Yeah. I think that warrants a separate discussion on what journal articles are getting approved and funded and, and how that shapes public opinion. I wanted to talk to you because people said, “Christopher, you agreed too much with Judith Curry on your podcast!” So you need to challenge her.

One thing that some mentioned was that in your articles, you talk a lot about food security, water and energy. And it kind of is divorced from the emissions discussion. And so I wanted to know from you, because here in Canada, we’re experiencing really severe weather patterns in the west coast and British Columbia right now. And as I was reading those, I was thinking exactly about what you said, which is why don’t we focus on our wastewater management. It seems that when we talk about climate change, that’s muddled into the emissions discussion. And reducing emissions seems to be the number one priority. Why do you think it’s important that we separate the two and respond to each kind of differently?

Judith Curry

The whole issue of climate change adaptation has taken second or third seat behind emissions. Even if we do manage to fix the emissions problem, you’re still going to get crazy floods and storms in British Columbia. I mean, they’re not going to go away. You can say, well global warming makes it 3% worse – maybe it does, but it’s not like these storms still aren’t going to occur. So the whole issue of reducing vulnerability and adapting to weather extremes and sea level rise should transcend the global warming debate.

We need to reduce our vulnerability to these weather and climate extremes. Many places have too much water or too little water, even in the same region during different seasons. So, the challenge is to better manage the reservoirs and sewage systems. You need to figure out how to manage your water so you can buffer against the extreme wet and the extreme dry. And building in floodplains and right on the coast just causes problems. These issues are soluble and the big driver here is not that they might be  impacted at a few percent level by man-made global warming. Even if we fix man-made global warming, these problems won’t go away.

That’s why I emphasize solutions that support human wellbeing, minimize losses and so forth and so on. And food is another issue. We produce enough food globally, the challenge is getting it distributed in the right places. Helping places produce their own food in developing world, making better decisions about their agriculture, would substantially support human well-being.

My company just got funded for a new project to develop an agricultural forecast system for one of the states in Pakistan. We’re working with an NGO and agronomists who are on the ground in Pakistan. We provide the forecast information so they can make better choices about which seeds they plant for a given season. They can time their planting based on monsoon onsets. And they can maximize irrigation based on understanding when the monsoon break periods will come along. They can use information about severe convective storms and wind gusts to make sure they pick their crops before they all get flattened by the wind and on and on. So there’s a lot of little things like that that do not cost a heck of a lot of money where you can use information to optimize your yield to the extent that countries can grow their own food. This really makes the global food supply much more secure. A lot of little things like that that you can do, and that’s not to mention all the new hybrids and GMOs and whatever that improve the hardiness and the nutrition of the crops.

And then if you go to energy security, I mean, what is the point of all this? If we destroy the energy security of the planet, by having electricity that’s intermittent, unreliable and too expensive, that’s not helpful to anyone. We’re headed towards a real reckoning here, you can’t run industrial economies on wind and solar.  People are starting to realize this.

Within the last few months alot of people and some governments are suddenly saying nuclear is the answer. Well, yeah, it sort of is, but why are you just realizing this now? The realities of wind power are being realized.  In the North Sea, they have all these offshore wind turbines. In 2020 these produced 25% of England’s power, which is fabulous. But in the first 10 months of 2021, they produced 7% of the power. So England and the rest of Europe is scrambling, having to pay too much money for natural gas and then with all the political problems with the natural gas supply from Russia. So, being able to produce your energy from within your country has a lot of appeal.

The one advantage of solar and wind as it gave some local autonomy to the countries, but wind and solar are not enough to run an industrial economy. And nuclear power gives you the best of both worlds. And also if the countries were to frack for natural gas, that’s another energy source that could be more local. The most important issue is energy security, so that its abundant and reliable, and you’re not held hostage to other countries or crazy price spikes.

I have no problem with going to cleaner energy sources. Everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy. But energy security has to be first and foremost, we have to have reliable, affordable energy. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.

Christopher Balkaran

I’m so glad you raised energy security. Cause that was one thing I wanted to talk to you about. It’s so complex and you raise a lot of really important points that are politics being one of them, for sure. Canada, we are a naturally wealthy country and shipping natural gas to China helping them lower their CO2 emissions is great. But that requires a lot of pipeline development here in Canada. There’s a lot of environmental regulations working with Indigenous communities and organizations. So it’s very challenging sometimes and often it’s people see the short term, the pipeline development and how that’ll affect the local ecosystems and not potentially the long term, which is potentially lower CO2 emissions. And the biggest polluter in the world’s emissions will go down and that’s a good thing.

But I do think that most people see the real cost with introducing new technologies, like wind and solar to replace entire energy systems because energy security is the critical point here. Why do you think that there’s this push specifically for wind and solar for governments to adopt, despite the fact that its inefficiencies are so evident and, and the costs being so high? I see this consistent narrative that with more investments, those costs will come down. It will be more affordable for developed nations to use as a viable solution. Caveat to that too, is I think if we do use solar on a large scale amount doesn’t, it require a lot of land mass?

Judith Curry

Wind power requires a huge amount of land use. There are ecosystem disruptions,  raptors being killed by wind turbines. In the old days, the environmental narrative was you couldn’t disrupt wildlife habitats, but now it’s okay to wholesale kill raptors with wind turbines. What happened to the traditional environmental values and concerns? They’ve all been thrown out the window because of global warming. The other issue I see is the waste, the end of life, what to do with all this toxic stuff from the solar panels and the wind turbines.  For these to make environmental sense,  there needs to be a lot of recycling and reuse, the circular economy.

Then there’s the issue of mining, all these batteries and the solar panels need cobalt, lithium, copper, on and on it goes. In the seventies and eighties, there were wars in the Middle East because of oil. Now, will there be wars in the countries that are naturally rich in terms of these minerals? This is where the next geopolitical conflicts are going to be. Again, if we go nuclear with Thorium, we bypass all this.

If you go back to like the 80s, when people were first talking about, oh, we need to stop this whole CO2 thing, there were two groups that jumped on this. It was the petroleum people and the nuclear people, they wanted to squeeze out coal. The oil and gas people ended up being ascendant as anti-nuclear sentiments took over. And then there was the big push for renewables.  We’ve already seen the problems with wind and solar. But what really irks me is burning wood pellets, cutting trees down in North Carolina, making them into wood pellets, and then putting on a ship and having them burnt in the UK to produce electricity. And this is a big part of the UK’s claim to be producing renewable energy – does this make any environmental sense?

And so we have given birth to a whole lot of nonsensical policies. Wind and solar are niche solutions. Small modular nuclear reactors seem to be far and away the best solution, at least on the near term horizon. We’re just starting to see these plants. But on the time scale of 10 years, they should be very common. There may be other better sources that come down the pike. It takes a certain amount of time to develop prototypes, but scaling up and taking it to market and the infrastructure and whatever all takes time. So I think in the near term, the, the small modular nuclear reactors are the best solution for the next decade, but even going to natural gas, converting from coal to natural gas, I think is, is a fairly significant help.

Christopher Balkaran

When I look at wind and solar if I were an investor or a leader of a country – the value proposition just isn’t there yet. And it doesn’t mean that it can’t get there at some point. But right now, if I’m struggling with energy security, those forms of energy like wind or hydroelectricity, or have good sun exposure – coal makes sense. But I want it to follow up with that because again, and I don’t want to say that these folks who emailed me are fringe, but there were individuals who said, “Judith Curry is connected to the fossil fuel industry. And she’s a renegade that’s been disproven!”

Judith Curry

My company has some clients in the energy sector, here are some examples.  We make hurricane forecasts for electricity providers in Florida, so they can figure out when a storm is coming so they can prepare and and do their best to bring electricity back up quickly. My oldest client in the energy sector is a petroleum company. And my involvement with them is for natural gas trading. This began about 15 years to go to help stabilize natural gas prices, following hurricane Katrina and all that mess in the Gulf of Mexico and the natural gas prices skyrocketed. My company also provides temperature forecasts to support natural gas trading, but the biggest, the growing part of the natural gas trading is forecasts of wind power. And to a lesser extent, solar power. Forecasts of wind and solar power are very important because they’re so intermittent. Knowing when the wind is going to blow or the sun isn’t going to shine makes a big difference in how much natural gas you need to buy for backup. So all of this supports having adequate natural gas supply in the face of these intermittences and keeping the price stabilized. So how is that evil? I’m not exactly sure.

My climate research is not supported by fossil fuel companies. Some energy companies are customers for my companies weather forecast products (about 25% of the total revenue for my company). So how this puts me in bed with with fossil fuel companies, I don’t know. Any weather company or meteorologist in the private sector is dealing with energy companies. They’re the biggest single consumer of weather information. So that is my involvement with energy companies.

Christopher Balkaran

And that’s the very disgusting part of the climate science space. It’s that, that smearing, that divisiveness takes us away from the real, like you said, food security water management issues. And then you see the ramifications of not focusing on that. Not making the connection that somehow governments are looking at this and not thinking about infrastructure development, because I’m sure they are. But if there was as much focus on that than there are on emissions reductions, you just wonder…

Judith Curry

All the money and effort that we’ve spent on renewables could have been used to improve the electricity transmission grid, and reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather events, which are going to happen anyways.

Christopher Balkaran

Exactly. I also have this idea, I was talking to a friend of mine who’s big on electric vehicles. And I said to that person, I said, wouldn’t it be kinda neat if we just kept focusing on making the gas powered engine way more efficient getting a thousand kilometers out of a single tank of gas instead of just jumping into an electric vehicle where we still don’t really know all the risks with the technology as yet? Whereas with the gas powered engine, we’ve got a hundred plus years. Why don’t we just make that more efficient? I mean, doesn’t it produce more heat than anything else, I don’t know.

Judith Curry

Well, I don’t know how much more efficient they can be made, but I like hybrid vehicles because the batteries are simpler. So I think the hybrid vehicles are a good intermediate solution. And the other issue too, everybody gets excited about electric vehicles, which are going to double, triple, quadruple, our need for electricity. Wind and solar alone aren’t going to cut it. We will need much, much more electricity, Bitcoin and and who knows what else will emerge. Electricity is key to innovation and prosperity, so we want as much of it as we can get.

Christopher Balkaran

What are your thoughts on COP26 and is the outcome what you anticipated? So for me, looking at it, making a global climate change agreement is exceptionally challenging and it lends itself to nothing too specific. What are your thoughts about just global climate change agreements all together? Do you think that they’re kind of they’re that they’re, I wouldn’t say pointless. But that it just shows a commitment from the global community towards climate change?

Judith Curry

Well, I think Greta nailed it with her blah, blah, blah. There’ve been a lot of these COPs. It’s mostly hot air. And the thing that really irks me is all these ‘important people’ flying in on their private jets and driving around intheir gas-powered big limos and whatever.  Excuse me, can you please walk the talk at least in some superficial way? COP26 looked like this big opulent blow out, and and here they’re telling all these developing countries, we’re not going to let you develop grid electricity and fossil fuel power plants.  It was hypocrisy, at its finest.  But all of these promises are really political games. At the end of the day, very few countries are going to sacrifice their own economic wellbeing over this issue.

A few European countries seem inclined to, but most of the others don’t no matter what they say. The US is an interesting microcosm because in the absence of a very stringent federal policy, you have the different states going in different directions. On one hand you have California. They’re going full force to wind and solar and shutting down their last nuclear power plant. And, the electricity prices are sky high with outages and on and on it goes, there’s no end of problems. And people are leaving California in droves. We’re seeing a few states that are in the Northeast that want to follow in California’s footsteps. And then you have other states that want to keep burning coal.And then in Northern Minnesota where they do all the iron ore smelting and all the really big, big, heavy industry stuff, I mean, coal is really the best fuel for that. So it’s hard to get them off coal also. At the end of the day, it’s wrong for the UN to ask countries to stop, burning fossil fuels when there aren’t any obvious alternatives for them, or if they don’t have enough electricity already, it’s just, it’s just not right.

Also, the actual level of alarm over global warming has dropped a lot. We used to hear five degrees centigrade, four degrees, crazy, horrible, scary stuff. Okay. Now with the AR6, with the medium emissions scenario, they said their best estimate was 2.9 degrees centigrade. And this is 2.9 degrees since pre-industrial times. So it’s really, we’ve already warmed 1.2. So we’re already halfway there with no particularly dire results. And then actually according to the International Energy Agencies, our emissions are coming in lower than the IPCC medium emission scenario. The estimates are now like maybe 2.6 degrees is the business as usual. And then if you put in everybody’s promises, that goes down to 2.2 and then net zero for the more developed countries, then it’s down to 1.8 degrees. Not meeting the made up target of 1.5 degrees is deemed to be code red for humanity, but how meaningful are these targets?

These timelines totally ignore natural climate variability. It looks like all the modes of natural climate variability are tilted towards cooling over the next three decades. It looks like we’re heading towards a solar minimum. Any volcanic eruptions by definition are negative. And we expect the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation to shift to the cold phase on the timescale of about a decade. So all of these modes of natural variability point to cooling in the coming decades, which would push these off by decades. This buys us decades to figure out what we should do. So we’re talking about less than one degree of additional warming, it doesn’t sound so scary when you put it that way.

Christopher Balkaran

What are your thoughts on environment and corporate social governance? If ESG is this new term that’s floating out there especially in the financial circles about companies and individuals directing their investments to companies that already have some type of environment or social governance policy or platform to their line of work. Now just as an individual, I’m concerned about that because I always think, well, there’s no real way to audit a company on their environment or environmental, social governance. And I worry that a lot of money is going into this space now, similar to sole sourcing windmill development to one company and signing up large government contracts. And what I saw at COP26 was there’s a lot of money on the table that’s dedicated to this. And again, as a layman investor, I would say, well, show me your assets, show me your liabilities. And I can tell you if you’re profitable or not, I’m concerned about this. Cause it could kind of in a way, inflate an entire sector without really looking at its profitability?

Judith Curry

Those people might very well end up losing money because those might not necessarily be the smartest decisions on the timescale of a decade. There’s a lot of greenwashing going on. People who are voting with their politics and their green conscience are becoming people who are voting with their wallet, we’ll see who wins financially.  The same thing is going on with property along the coast in the US.  Every one is alarmed about sea level rise, and then President Obama just bought a big mansion at Martha’s Vineyard, right on the coast. Like, how worried are you about sea level rise? At some point, there’ll be Republican and Democrat neighborhoods, the Democrats won’t buy houses on the coast and the Republicans or the climate deniers will. And who’s going to make money out of these deals, and will there be net benefits or disasters to living on the coast? We’ll see.

Many people have overinflated the financial risk of all this. The scientists who prepared the socioeconomic pathways and the emission scenarios have stated that by 2100, everyone will be better off than they are now, at least on average, even for the highest emissions scenarios. So why are we, doing all this now – our grandchildren who will be better off than we are. We have a fairly naive understanding of the risks we’re actually facing in the 21st century. Climate policy could end up being like treating a head cold with chemotherapy, while when the real medical problem is something very different. And by putting so much resources into an ineffective solution for climate change, we use up the insurance money that we have for all our threats, and we could overall end up more vulnerable as a result of this exercise.

Christopher Balkaran

And I think about everything that we’ve talked about, and I think about elections in the United States and around the world and this Canada went through its own election here in September. And it seems like there’s this blind adoption of, we must do something for climate change. And we’re going to sign on to every international agreement and we’re going to commit Canada and the United States to these record low emissions levels, but it’s less sexier to talk about, well, guess what, we also built up our water waste management in, Northern Alberta, or other parts of Canada and the United States. And so I wonder, is all this too far gone? Can we elect politicians now and leaders of countries that want to revert back to evidence-based discussions and less on the political platitudes?

Judith Curry

Oh, but the science is ‘settled’ everyone knows that. They’ve been so brainwashed about global warming that there’s only one thing that’s going to change it. if I’m right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality, but how much confidence do I have in that prediction? How much money am I going to bet on that? I don’t know, but it’s a very plausible scenario that natural variability will lead to cooling in the coming decades, or at least slow down the warming. So we’ll see if that transpires. If it does, that would be the single most effective thing at bringing the dialogue back to normal in some sensible way, so people look at this problem more broadly. On the current path, we are not managing this risk in a sensible way that would leave our countries stronger and less vulnerable to whatever my transpire in the future.

Christopher Balkaran

And I think voices like yourself and those that are advocating for more sensibility when it comes to energy security too, it’s, it’s very, very appealing to talk about wind and solar. It’s less appealing to say coal is not a choice. It’s a necessity for some countries in some regions and it’s not that these regions don’t want cleaner energy. It’s just, we haven’t gotten to that point yet for that area. And so I think that’s why I’m so thankful that you’ve agreed to come back on here and talk for a second time.

4.8 36 votes
Article Rating
102 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James H
December 4, 2021 11:23 pm

Great discussion. I like the points Dr. Curry made about energy security. Industries cannot weather blackouts. Equipment gets damaged and takes months and big money to repair.

On the other hand, intermittent energy might be a crisis some politicians hope for as an excuse for more government control of energy. All actions seem to be aimed at forcing change from de-centralized energy (natural gas and oil/gasoline) to electricity, which is already more centralized and easy to nationalize or control by the federal government in the future.

James H
Reply to  James H
December 4, 2021 11:28 pm

Oh also, I think Dr. Curry touched on why politicians are rushing to lock in a path to electric by 2030. By then, it may be obvious (if it comes to pass) that natural variations like solar cycles and AMO are shifting into a cooling phase. That will bust the crisis bubble and politicians will have to move to some other thing to centralize power and control. Bummer, as carbon dioxide is really good since literally every activity people have can be impacted in some way.

michel
December 5, 2021 12:04 am

An excellent interview. She is really a voice of sanity, moderate, evidence based, connecting the various considerations in a systematic way.

The thing that perhaps was missing from the interview was the connection or lack of it between the diagnosis of a climate emergency and the local actions proposed.

As long as the non-Western world continues to increase fossil fuel use, and this is obviously what everyone intends, nothing done locally will make any difference to either the level of global emissions or global temperatures.

And yet, you still have these irrational demands that various things be done that are impossible, and even if possible would have no effect on the supposed problem.

JC makes the correct point that you cannot run industry off intermittent electricity. You could also make the point, from what Blair’s foundation has pointed out, that it is simply impossible to do what the UK government needs to do to achieve its Net Zero target.

It is just impossible to install all those offshore wind turbines. Even could you install them, the result would be a grid that would not work, because no storage and the intermittency and fluctuations from hour to hour, day to day, month to month and year to year.

And then at the end of the whole process, could you even make the grid work, your carbon reductions would be eaten by China in a few months.

It is a totally insane project. But we are all still being told to accept these nonsensical and useless policies ‘because climate’, when climate is no reason whatever to justify them.

Ebor
Reply to  michel
December 5, 2021 6:54 am

“The thing that perhaps was missing from the interview was the connection or lack of it between the diagnosis of a climate emergency and the local actions proposed.”

This is exactly the point that I bring up with some of my colleagues who are top-notch engineers but have fallen in with this climate hysteria: setting aside the question of to what extent any current warming is driven by human activity – why should any given US state take drastic “climate” actions when, in a well-mixed atmosphere, anything they do will be offset 10x by what China and India don’t do? The blank expression I get in return is disturbing…it’s as if I’ve questioned religious dogma…oh, wait I guess I have…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ebor
December 5, 2021 8:13 am

In the past I could count on most fellow engineers to look at things rationally; apparently not any more. BTW, do they have any comments to go along with the blank expressions?

Ebor
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 5, 2021 11:21 am

Nothing really concrete, more along the lines of “that’s why International accords need to be reached” so I guess we just have to damage ourselves in the interim to drive the point home? Frankly, I detect an under current of the weird elitist tradition of self-loathing about our human nature. You know, as if we deserve to suffer for all the sins we have unleashed on the innocent Mother Earth.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ebor
December 5, 2021 11:37 am

Ebor, have you asked them to predict when China, India, et al will commit to economy-damaging “international accords?” Or even what the existing accords actually say. Greta says “blah, blah, blah.”

Last edited 8 months ago by Dave Fair
StephenP
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 6, 2021 1:15 am

If we enter a cooling phase it will be credited to the actions that are being imposed on us.

michel
Reply to  Ebor
December 6, 2021 12:10 am

I would suggest pointing out to them, also, that a belief in CAGW is globally confined. Its the political and liberal academic classes in the US, UK, Australia, parts of the EU. The countries doing 75% of global emissions have no intention of reducing, in fact they positively intend increasing.

They disguise it in public presentations in the form of assurances that they will reduce carbon intensity, ie they will reduce tons emitted per unit of GDP. At the same time as planning on increasing GDP so that total emissions rise.

So the question to put to your colleagues is, if they favor some kind of local action or restriction ‘because climate’, ask them to tell you how much difference this is going to make to global emissions. Answers in tons, please.

And if they argue that the US has to set an example, ask what evidence there is that the contemporary world thinks the US is an example to follow in anything. Again, demand that it be made specific. How many reductions is the US example supposed to lead to, and by who, and when?

jacques serge Lemiere
December 5, 2021 1:07 am

the question doesn’t change, where are the evidences that models are a predictive tool ? i merely can admit it is the only tool we have to TRY to predict future climate .
but as long we ignore things..it is a guessing game…

Tom
Reply to  jacques serge Lemiere
December 5, 2021 5:47 am

All the evidence proves that the climate models are NOT a predictive tool – whether they are the only tool you have, or not. If your only tool is a hammer, the first thing you have to do is to Stop BEATING YOUR HEAD WITH IT.

RoHa
Reply to  jacques serge Lemiere
December 5, 2021 10:22 pm

Evidence? What do we need evidence for?

PT Garrett
December 5, 2021 1:27 am

“So England and the rest of Europe is scrambling, having to pay too much money for natural gas and then with all the political problems with the natural gas supply from Russia.
So where is Judith’s hard evidence of her hear-say political problems with Russia that Russia has not been a completely reliable and economic  energy supplier to Europe since before  the darkest days of Cold War V1.0 and the collapse of the Soviet Union?  Like the always elusive evidence of the AGW hypothesis, the evidence only exists in the hive minds of US MSM news zombies and the anti Russian political agitprop promoted by American LNG gas producers eager to force Europeans to rely on much more expensive American LNG imports at truly sucker prices. Europeans are scrambling only because of their enormous malinvestments in unreliable wind and solar energy which simply cannot run modern industrial economies.

mark stevens
Reply to  PT Garrett
December 5, 2021 5:08 am
PT Garrett
Reply to  mark stevens
December 6, 2021 3:29 pm

Mr Engdahl’s 2016 analysis has been overtaken by events. The US’s still born“ Assad must go” policy has been defeated by the Russians and the Iranians and he isn’t going anywhere except back into the good graces of the  Arab League.  It is now the US who must go from the Syria and Iraq.   
What the West does not appreciate is the energy game has fundamentally changed and Russia does not need the European energy market but the Europeans will absolutely need Russia’s energy to maintain their industrial economies which have been ham strung by malinvestments in wind and solar. The Russians could now care less if Nord Stream 2 is never approved by EU regulators because the Chinese and Asians are ready and willing to buy that energy at premium prices via existing  pipelines like the Power of Siberia. So who exactly are Europeans fooling but themselves? The reality is Europe’s economic future lies to the east with the vast human and natural resources of Russia Eurasia and China. 

MarkW
Reply to  PT Garrett
December 5, 2021 6:57 am

Amongst other things, Russia is currently massing it’ forces on the border with the Ukraine.
Even if this doesn’t result in an invasion, it is an aggressive act designed to intimidate the Ukraine and by extension any other country in the region. We could also include the other invasions and incursions committed by Russian troops over the last few decades.

RoHa
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2021 10:23 pm

The Ukraine is massing its forces around the Donbass.

PT Garrett
Reply to  MarkW
December 6, 2021 12:56 pm

That is about as much sense as accusing America of massing its Army, Navy and Air Forces in America. Where else would Russia mass her forces but in Russia? It is the US and NATO who have recklessly rolled their paper tiger forces right up to Russia’ s border and not vice versa. God help Europe NATO and the US if they fail to restrain their UkroNazis puppets from attacking Donbass. The correlation of military force dictates that Russia will finish that war and NATO cannot do a damn thing about it but pray that Russia’s tank armies will stop at the Polish border. Our crash test dummy President is making empty promises to defend Ukraine and is providing Ukraine with weapon to attack Donbas. What could possibly go wrong?

griff
December 5, 2021 1:47 am

now it’s okay to wholesale kill raptors with wind turbines

No, it isn’t… and wind farms built since the 1980s DO NOT kill raptors in anything other than tiny amounts.

Because the figures we keep seeing being quoted are from first generation, badly sited, wind farms like Altamont Pass. and we don’t do that anymore.

The UK RSPB conservation organisation has stopped more windfarms than any other body – when they would have posed a threat to birds. But it otherwise backs wind and has a turbine at its HQ.

Greytide
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 2:03 am

That’s because there are so few left.

Ron Long
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 2:08 am

griff, your comments about “…and wind farms built since the 1980’s DO NOT kill raptors in anything other than tiny amounts.” is known to me, by personal observation, to be a totally false contention. Sure, there are some examples of where the mayhem was so egregious that the windmills were removed, but the majority continue. I have personally walked underneath a long line of windmills, NE of Casper, Wyoming, and seen dead and dying raptors, including eagles, hawks, and falcons /also buzzards who were probably attracted by the dead “food” opportunity). griff, have you ever walked along underneath a line of windmills? NO? Here’s an idea, walk underneath one of the offshore windmill lines.

LdB
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 4:36 am

Show us data or you are dribbling as usual Grifter.

whiten
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 6:04 am

griff.

It is an example, to show, from the position of the green blob insanity point, in one way, the hyper feverish hypocrisy of the greens.

Even when put as you put it:
*DO NOT kill raptors in anything other than tiny amounts.*

Still.
That *tiny amount*, it is a very very real loss, rather grotesque in comparison to the amounts of the number of non existing species going extinct every other day….
according to the line of greenies “logic, so to speak.
(though, thou’s double speak)

(look and consider the UK loonies running wild and in crazed heat, by that extinction banner, for nothing at all)

cheers

MarkW
Reply to  whiten
December 5, 2021 7:00 am

An oil company was fined millions of dollars when a handful of geese died because they landed on a pond that contained contaminated water.

whiten
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2021 8:01 am

Double speak more often than not is connected and related with double standard actions, and double standard application of rules and laws… the very path of arbitrary non forgiving discrimination.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 6:58 am

It really is fascinating how griff believes whatever he is told to believe.

RoHa
Reply to  MarkW
December 5, 2021 10:29 pm

No different from most people. The say

“The Earth is warming up rapidly and catastrophically”
“Iran is on the verge of making nuclear weapons”
“Giant Hogweed will kill us all”
“Russia is planning to invade”
“Covid vaccines are safe and effective”

and people just suck it in.

aussiecol
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 1:32 pm

Griff, as Judith said, ”...this whole tribalism thing has polluted the science.’

MARTIN BRUMBY
December 5, 2021 2:03 am

It has to be said that Judy Curry is one of a comparatively small number of scientists in her field who think it important to think rationally and speak the truth.

So she is well worth listening to and, indeed I have had the pleasure of doing so in person, when she addressed the GWPF in London.

But really, apart from some points of recent detail, you might have read a very similar discussion twenty years ago.

Not least because 20 years ago it was obvious to anyone whose IQ score was higher than their hat size, that using weather dependent energy for anything more than a bit of virtue signalling on the side, was absolutely crazy. Period.

Only thing that has really changed in that 20 years is that the opportunities of reading such a discussion are much reduced, because policy based evidence making has continually doubled down and refused to even consider the obvious implications of their mad schemes.

But it is also clear that the collapse of the “West” isn’t a bug in the plan, it is the main feature.

Willem Post
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
December 5, 2021 2:59 am

97% of “settled-science scientists” are RE-end-of-world-by-2030 consensus folks,
Curry is part of the other 3%

whiten
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
December 5, 2021 6:23 am

The main feature can not be removed by debugging within the program or the plan.
The entire program or the plan must be removed from process and functionality, for the collapse to be avoided.

cheers

Dave Fair
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
December 5, 2021 8:28 am

Best phrase in a long time: policy based evidence making”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 5, 2021 11:43 am

Governmental funding drives CliSciFi. Governmental funding is based on decades old policy that CO2 induced warming is dangerous (in some unexplained manner). Study proposals that do not reflect that policy will not be funded.

Peta of Newark
December 5, 2021 2:13 am

sigh
sorry sorry sorry,,,
So much talk about the New Phlogiston, how is that gonna solve anything.
So many points revolving around basically “If I ruled the world……’
So many things about ‘Climate’ ##

Science, are these people scientists?
To my mind, No they are not
Why do I say that?
Quote:”Well, I don’t know how much more efficient they can be made”

(They were discussing Fossil powered cars versus Electric cars)

If scientists supposedly knowledgeable about ‘Climate‘ and the ‘CO2 and the Green Gas Effect‘ don’t know about Carnot’s Heat Engine Rule/Law formula –

We. Are. Completely. Lost.
(wrap up warm, it’s a cold place we’re all headed)

## I’m wrapped up warm right so perfectly willing to be a Devilz Avocado…
Climate is not an average of anything.
What everyone wants is a Nice Climate – a place and times where you do not get killed by Climatic Events

Climate don’t kill, It is the One Off Event that kills you. It is weather that blows away your house, car, wife and kids.
One Tornado or Hurricane or Ice Storm or Over-flowing River every 30 years makes a nice low average for tornadoes etc but if it is known that those things occur at wherever place you put your house, you you still put it there?
Would that mean that that place had a Nice Climate?
How would your choice compare to that of any insurance company?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 5, 2021 5:27 am

In the late 1970s Honda produced the CVCC, Compound Vortex Controlled Combusion, engine. This engine was much more efficient than traditional engines of the time. So much so that no catalytic converter was required. The Civic into which this engine was fitted acheived mid 50s mpg, not that different from a modern Toyota Prius. Not having a catalytic converter aids fuel economy.

The problem was that with the technology of the 1970s maintaining efficient combustion was difficult. But after 50 years developments in electronic controls for engine management there maybe an opportunity to revisit the technology?

Paul C
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 5, 2021 11:44 am

Guess it will be similar to the k-series engine lean-burn technology which was more efficient and less polluting than other ICE engines of the time, but emission standards set by the German-led EU (with a large automotive lobby) meant the British technology was effectively outlawed in the EU by setting of extreme low limits for nitrous oxides. The lower limits could not be achieved by the higher temperature and more efficient lean burn, so engines had to be configured/(de-)tuned to the stoichiometric point such that unburnt fuel in the exhaust could power a catalytic converter.
http://mgf.ultimatemg.com/group2/engines/development_history_of_the_K.htm

alastair gray
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 5, 2021 1:24 pm

although within the context that the engine does work on something like a Carnot cycle Which dictates the maximum efficiency that can be achieved by any heat engine. I think that efficiency is of the order of 25%. Real engine efficiency is decreased by excessive waste of heat, inefficient combustion friction etc . Since the cars of today work on the same thermodynamic cycle as they always did I would like to see someone address how much we have actually increased the efficiency of car engines, Of course if you want to increase a car’s efficiency just make it lighter

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 5, 2021 8:43 am

If scientists supposedly knowledgeable about ‘Climate‘ and the ‘CO2 and the Green Gas Effect‘ don’t know about Carnot’s Heat Engine Rule/Law formula –

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Is it that you dislike the oblique suggestion by Curry that there is little hope for significant improvement, or are you suggesting that somehow ICE aren’t impacted by the phenomenon of ‘diminishing returns?’

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 6, 2021 1:36 pm

(Carnot’s Heat Engine Rule)

It isn’t just the theoretical efficiency of the gas powered engine, but actually the efficiency of the car itself that must be considered. The engine is only one component (an important component) of that. For example, being able to store energy from breaking instead of just generating heat is one way to improve efficiency.

A hybrid-car approach has so many promises if someone would bother to build one correctly. Electric motors on the wheels allows you to convert kinetic energy back into stored electric energy for example. Rather than build an engine that must remain highly efficient over a wide range of speeds and torques, you can tune an engine at a narrow range for the production of electricity. Electric motors at the wheels greatly simplify the gas engine (or maybe turbine engine) used and removes a lot of weight and parts, like the transmission. the differential, etc.

You remove the need for most of the batteries and lot more weight. You fuel the car as you would any normal vehicle – fill the gas tank.

Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 3:07 am

“And some of your critics say, well, there’s so much robust data out there. It’s been tested time and time again, and it kind of flies in the face of being critical of climate change modelling.”

duh… even if there is a lot of data and even assuming it’s good data (which it often isn’t)- that has no bearing on the integrity of climate models- but the interviewer doesn’t seem to know that

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 3:13 am

Another stupid question: “The second follow-up to that – the comments I received back from our first conversation was Judith Curry is basing this on her own modeling and discounting the vast data that’s out there. ”

The guy is an idiot. Just because Judith has her own modeling (??)- doesn’t mean she’s discounted “the vast data”. Just because there’s a vast amount of data doesn’t mean everyone making models must use all of it since the quality of that data is variable and incomplete.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 3:16 am

OK, that comment was because I hadn’t read further to see she doesn’t have any models. So, I’m just a forester and I’m not the interviewer – but that interviewer should have done his homework and known that Judith doesn’t have her own model.

BillR
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 6:11 am

He did his homework… He was putting facts on the record.

Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 3:25 am

hmmmmm
Judith says, “I have no problem with going to cleaner energy sources. Everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy.”

Is energy clean or dirty? Or is it energy production? She has no problem with wind and solar? Does she think all fossil fuel is dirty energy?

Ebor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 8:04 am

Yes, and if you factor in all the industrial/material input required to site e.g., a field of windmills and the all the battery capacity for the required energy storage – what’s “clean” about all that?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 8:34 am

I also balked at Judith’s dirty energy comment. CO2 is not “dirty” in the sense of everybody’s conception of pollution. That is why the alarmists have packaged CO2 as a pollutant.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 5, 2021 5:21 pm

Remembering Dr. Curry’s comments in the past, her dirty energy remark is aimed at Coal Power Generation Plants. In her opinion, even with new technology, burning coal is a dirty process that will always emit aerosols into the atmosphere. ie she was not referring to CO2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 8:47 am

She acknowledges that she considers herself a better writer than public speaker. This is essentially a transcript of what she said off the top of her head. It seems that you are nit picking her choice of words. I think that most people, other than literalists, got the point she was trying to make.

Peta of Newark
December 5, 2021 3:27 am

am back again..
hopefully this link will work – it’s the Alumni podcast from my old skool at Leeds
https://foreverleeds.captivate.fm/

The interesting bit, to me anyway, is in the latest podcast = Podcast 3 (top of page)
There are 2 interview/talks in there, consecutive from 14:00

Is there any similarity inside the 1st one (14:00 on) you that resonates with the guy in the first one – OR especially, with Climate Science
Does anything resonate?

Following on, The Cottingley Faeries
If that don’t describe Climate Science, wtf does?

Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 3:33 am

Judith says, “But what really irks me is burning wood pellets, cutting trees down in North Carolina, making them into wood pellets, and then putting on a ship and having them burnt in the UK to produce electricity.”

She has no clue about this issue. The forests there are going to be managed/harvested whether or not there is a market for pellets. The American southeast is the wood basket of the planet. Most of the mgt. is “even age silviculture”. They plant a forest, thin it a few times, then clearcut, then replant. Most of the wood goes to sawmills, some to pulp plants, some to firewood- but the least valuable goes to pellets. Without that market, the forestry firms will simply build big piles of that “junk wood” and burn on the site- in the open. THEY ARE NOT CLEAR CUTTING TO PRODUCE PELLETS FOR DRAX. Something like- only 3% of the wood cut in the American southeast goes to the pellet industry. AND, unlike fossil fuels, wood is renewable- those forests have been managed for centuries- AND, a wood pellet power plant provides base load power- AND it’s hated by the greens. Anyone who thinks the greens love wood pellets has no clue. I’ve been arguing with them here in New England for a decade. They hate it worse than they hate coal.

Then she says, “does this make any environmental sense?”
Yes, it makes terrific environmental sense- it’s all part of good forestry. There is a small pellet industry in New England. I had to work without it for 35 years, living in an area without that market. Then I moved to an area with that market and I found that it helps foresters do better work. Many people in New England love their pellet stoves- but most of the pellets come from thousands of miles away because the enviros here won’t tolerate an expansion of the pellet industry- which is nuts- New England is forest land- we should use our local resources. Ironic, but that’s always been a principle of the greens- you know, buy local food, buy products made locally- but they’d rather see the landscape paved over with wind and solar rather than have some of our “junk wood” turned into pellets. Long before pellets, New Englanders have been burning wood- in this nasty, damp and frigid environment. Here, we could produce far more pellets than we need and sell them to the world- the market is expanding in many countries- but no, not allowed by green Nazis and moronic politicians- sure, just pave over the forests with wind and solar and convert to more urban sprawl. The real enviros are the wood industry who want to keep forests as forests! To see the excellent forestry possible with a woody biomass industry, check out the Facebook albums of another forester, Mike Leonard: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums

Last edited 8 months ago by Joseph Zorzin
KyBill
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 5:02 am

Great link – I appreciate it. You know more and have more qualifications concerning wood pellets than my zero knowledge. However, didn’t I recently read that England is in the process of ending the government subsidies for Drax and this was expected to have very significant effect on the plant? Second, didn’t I recently see a Schellenberger documentary that was devastating to the clear cutting for pellet business in the USA?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 6:55 am

Joseph,

Interesting post.

Forty years ago there was a man teaching people in certain rural areas of Southern Africa how to build clay stoves. These people depended on wood fires for heating and cooking. The stove could be easily made by rural people from clay, with the only metal part being the round heating plate on the top and required less than half the amount of wood. It was safe and halved the time they spent collecting wood. This is a good example of appropriate or intermediate technology. We need to take smaller steps and not a leap to high tech solutions that are doomed to fail in many parts of the world.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
December 5, 2021 7:40 am

Giving people high tech solutions such as tractors for agriculture where other solutions such as drought resistant crops is as useful as giving them the starship Enterprise.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 5, 2021 11:50 am

Ben, one cannot do modern agriculture without tractors. The whole point of development is to wean people off the old, unproductive agriculture practices. The U.S. went from 90% of its populace involved with agriculture to less than 10% in a relatively short period of time because of reliable energy availability and technology advances.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 5, 2021 1:14 pm

The US went from draft animals to simple tractors that were more durable and easier to maintain than are modern tractors. As tractors got bigger and more complicated, an infrastructure to maintain those tractors also developed. Something like this needs to happen in less developed areas today.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 5, 2021 2:26 pm

I apologize for my faulty memory. The percentages of Americans employed in agriculture according to “The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy” by the USDA, June 2005:

85% in 1800
41% in 1900
16 % in 1945
1.5 % in 2005

h/t “Lukewarming” by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger

buggs
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 6, 2021 10:49 am

You may have got the 90% number from Borlaug’s biography as I recall a number similar to that in early chapters of the book. More accurate numbers are always better of course.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 8:52 am

Without that market, the forestry firms will simply build big piles of that “junk wood” and burn on the site- in the open.

That might make more economic and environmental sense than shipping it across the pond. Although, I would hope that the forestry firms could find a better solution for the cellulose or potential heat content.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 5, 2021 5:24 pm

FYI, Britain doesn’t count the CO2 from their biomass energy in their CO2 data. Britain says because it is renewable therefore don’t count it.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 6, 2021 1:49 pm

It really isn’t the use of wood pellets that I question, it’s the transportation of them from America to England in order to replace local coal that seems inherently wasteful to me. Wood pellets are not the densest form of energy storage, and yet you must burn significant amounts of fossil fuels in the long distance transport (to the dock, load the ship, across the ocean, unload, and to the power station).

In the end your have a local power station (in England) dependent on a foreign source of fuel that was transported far across the world in order to not burn local coal. You could have reduced pollution from the coal burning, trapped some of the CO2 for other other uses, or god-forbid fracked local gas instead.

If you can produce wood pellets from waste wood then it seems most productive to use them as local as possible. Why aren’t state and federal governments encouraging this is wood pellets are Net Zero?

taxed
December 5, 2021 4:09 am

lts been my interest in the weather since childhood that has made me doubtful about CO2 been the cause of any recent warming.Because its made me understand just how linked weather and climate are.You don’t get changes in the climate without changes in the weather.

When l read the written records of the cold winter weather during the LIA. lts clear to me that this change of climate was in a large part due to increased amounts of northern blocking over the Atlantic and europe. What’s important to the climate of europe is the how and where, of areas of high pressure form over the North Atlantic.

As l have posted before l have kept a 44 year record of the first snowfall of the season for my local area here in England. Over this time there has been no delaying of the timing of the first snowfall towards been later in the season. You need a good understanding of the UK weather to understand why this matters.
Here in England for early season snowfall (ie pre December snowfall ) to happen, we are very dependent on the supply of cold air coming from the Arctic. Snowfall this early in the season will rarely happen without it. So warming within the Arctic should have impacted on the timing of the first snowfall here in England. The fact that it has not has convinced me that any warming within the winter months here in England, has been due to shifting trends within the weather patterning during the winter months. Any warming within the winter months has not been due to the any changes in the timing of the onset of winter. But rather due to changing weather patterns within the months of winter.

December 5, 2021 6:13 am

Judith you rightly say “These timelines totally ignore natural climate variability. It looks like all the modes of natural climate variability are tilted towards cooling over the next three decades. It looks like we’re heading towards a solar minimum. Any volcanic eruptions by definition are negative. And we expect the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation to shift to the cold phase on the timescale of about a decade. So all of these modes of natural variability point to cooling in the coming decades, which would push off these by decades. This buys us a lot of time to figure out what we should do. So we’re talking about ,less than one degree of additional warming, it doesn’t sound so scary when you put it that way.’”

However the data are vey clear that we passed the peak of a millennial solar activity cycle in 1991 and passed the associated delayed temperature cycle peak in 2003/4. See Figs 1-5 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
You could usefully point this out to your clients who are making infrastructure investments with payouts beyond a 10 year horizon. Feet free to use any of my Figures with suitable attribution. Regards Norman
“Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals
Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter”

Ebor
Reply to  Norman J Page
December 5, 2021 10:18 am

“However the data are vey clear that we passed the peak of a millennial solar activity cycle in 1991 and passed the associated delayed temperature cycle peak in 2003/4.”

Spot on. Why isn’t this – the correlation between the Sun’s magnetic field strength (as mapped by cosmic ray fluctuations) – the hypothesis to be disproven? (rhetorical question). It seems to be the most consistent signal brought out by the data, so I have a very hard time taking anyone seriously if they don’t have a good reason why it isn’t. So far, I haven’t heard one.

Reply to  Ebor
December 5, 2021 3:18 pm

Ebor You say “ Why isn’t this – the correlation between the Sun’s magnetic field strength (as mapped by cosmic ray fluctuations) – the hypothesis to be disproven? “
It certainly is as you say the most consistent signal brought out by the data.
Here is the start of an attempted explanation.

COP 26: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Never in the field of human history has so much complete nonsense been spoken at one place by so many. Apocalyptic forecasts and imaginary impossible non -solutions to a non existent problem provide a cacophony of Blah, Blah ,Blah, Blah,Blah as Greta correctly said – or as Johnson said “Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change. It’s one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock and we need to act now,”
The West’s Main Stream Media notably the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, NBC ,ABC, CBS,PBS and the US Cable networks have been the greatest propagators of this blizzard of misinformation. They have produced a generation of scared and psychologically disturbed teenagers and green fanatics who believe that the world has no future if fossil fuels continue to be used.
The whole COP 26 Net Zero campaign is founded on the IPCC published model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases  A very large majority of the consensus establishment  climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the ” CO2 Derangement Syndrome. ” Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .
The first is the abandonment of any consideration of the thermodynamics of energy flows, the different energy densities of the different energy sources or the extreme difficulty of transitioning from the reliable high density power of fossil fuels to the diffuse inconstant power of solar and wind systems or the entropy losses inherent in suggested hydrogen systems.  Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded.  Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think, the messiah complex and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to delude first themselves, then politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.
The second is a total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent cyclic patterns which are trivially obvious in the astronomic data , and in solar activity and drive earth’s temperature with a delay caused by the oceanic temperature inertia…………………………………..

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:19 am

From the article: “The other thing is that the latest generation of climate models in the so-called CMIP6 simulation series, about a half of them were running way too hot, with equilibrium climate sensitivities of over five degrees. And they don’t do a good job of reproducing 20th century temperature history.”

There are two kinds of 20th Century temperature history. There is the bogus, computer-generated temperature record, and the legitimate, written temperature record. And these computer Climate models don’t match either one of them. That’s how bad things are. 🙂

Mark BLR
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 6, 2021 4:47 am

There are two kinds of 20th Century temperature history. There is the bogus, computer-generated temperature record, and the legitimate, written temperature record. And these computer Climate models don’t match either one of them.

A touch “absolutist”.

Below is a copy (a screenshot, I haven’t found a clean “image file” version on the Internet … yet …) of Figure 7.19 from the most recent AR6 (WG1, 2021) report from the IPCC.
The time period with the “least bad” available data (monthly time resolution, almost global coverage) is the “Post 1975” box.

Note that the (2) “ECS < 2°C” models basically “nailed it”.
The ones with ECS between 2 and 5 degrees were between “inside the confidence interval / error range, at least” and “a bit hot”.
The “ECS > 5°C” ones, however ?

As Judith (correctly !) put it, they were among the “about half of them” models that were “running way too hot”.

Screenshot_AR6_Figure-7-19.png
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark BLR
December 7, 2021 4:28 am

“Note that the (2) “ECS < 2°C” models basically “nailed it”.”

Nailed what? The bogus past temperature record? They are nailing science fiction, if that’s the case.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 7, 2021 6:13 am

Nailed what?

I repeat : The time period with the “least bad” available data …

David Strom
December 5, 2021 6:21 am

Another thoughtful discussion from Judith Curry, thank you very much.

About the possible cooling in the next several decades, I would be interested if this would be on a global or regional or hemispherical scale? Seems to me if solar input goes down, that would be noticeable globally. If the AMO switches to cooling mode, is that regional or hemispherical, or global in effect? Really just wondering if there is cooling in the next decade or two, where would that be noticed, i.e., measured.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:24 am

From the article: “A model that simulates the warming since 1970 based on CO2 emissions does not constitute proof that CO2 has caused the warming.”

That’s correct. It could just be a coincidence that CO2 is rising today while temperatures are rising. We know that CO2 rose from 1940 to 1980, too, yet the temperatures cooled by 2.0C during that time period. CO2 certainly wasn’t raising temperatures then.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:29 am

From the article: “A lot of the ‘big’ journals and editors do gate-keeping that seems politically motivated. That’s very unfortunate for promoting reasoned, scientific debate and dialogue which is what the journals are supposed to do.”

I would describe it as outrageous.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:37 am

From the article: “Well, I think Greta nailed it with her blah, blah, blah.”

Yes, she did! That says it all.

Ebor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 10:32 am

It feels ironic to agree with Greta…but there it is

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:41 am

From the article: “At the end of the day, it’s wrong for the UN to ask countries to stop, burning fossil fuels when there aren’t any obvious alternatives for them,.”

Nor is there any obvious reason for doing so, since there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be regulated in the first place.

This whole CO2 crisis thing is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:44 am

From the article: “Also, the actual level of alarm over global warming has dropped a lot. We used to hear five degrees centigrade, four degrees, crazy, horrible, scary stuff. Okay. Now with the AR6, with the medium emissions scenario, they said their best estimate was 2.9 degrees centigrade. And this is 2.9 degrees since pre-industrial times. So it’s really, we’ve already warmed 1.2. So we’re already halfway there with no particularly dire results.”

On top of that, the Earth has cooled 0.6C since we reached that 1.2C figure in 2016. Meanwhile, CO2 in the atmosphere increases. CO2 increases, temperatures cool. Not what the alarmist claim is supposed to happen.

Sara
December 5, 2021 6:45 am

Judith Curry: I don’t run a climate model. I don’t have my own climate model.

Finally, there is someone who shows clearly in the interview that she has a high end volume of common sense, which is sorely missing from the climate fanatics and those following in the wake.

If the erratic temperature swings we’ve had in my general area, in addition to the past 15 years of early and late snows (photos on my hard drive which have dated files), plus erratic weather patterns that come and go like smoke from a fire are any indication that things are changing, what IS it about the Greenbeaners (and they sycophants who pony up tons of cash) that makes any of them think they can control anything at all on this planet?

Well, I hope that 30 years from now, WUWT is still going strong and I will have many more photos (date stamped, thanks!) that clearly show erratic weather events like April snow, late blooming of wild flowers (usually May, but now not until June), and other sundry records that confirm the proposed cooling ahead.

That is all.

Last edited 8 months ago by Sara
Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:52 am

From the article: “These timelines totally ignore natural climate variability. It looks like all the modes of natural climate variability are tilted towards cooling over the next three decades.”

Yes, they are.

It’s going to be interesting over the next few years. The alarmists are starting to get nervous. We may be starting on the downhill side of the temperature cycle. It happened in 1940 after similar warming to today, in the 1930’s. The temperatures dropped 2.0C from 1940 to 1980.

Are we in for another such temperature drop? The alarmists say that’s not possible with all the CO2 in the atmosphere. We shall see. Mother Nature may have something to say about that.

Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 6:58 am

From the article: “Oh, but the science is ‘settled’ everyone knows that. They’ve been so brainwashed about global warming that there’s only one thing that’s going to change it. if I’m right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality”

Yes, I think the only thing that is going to break the spell of Human-caused Global Warming is for the temperatures to drop like they did from 1940 to 1980.

The alarmists will be squirming terribly, all the way down the temperature scale.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 5, 2021 11:53 am

It will take a few more years to see if cooling drops out of the fog. Until that occurs, CliSciFi politics can do alot of damage.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 7, 2021 4:32 am

This is true.

Carlo, Monte
December 5, 2021 8:04 am

So any projections about future hurricanes, rainfall rates, whatever, are semi empirically based on observations, they’re not directly spit out by the climate models.

Because they are programed only to project (not predict) global average temperature, which averages away any and all other information. It tells absolutely nothing about climate—this might be the biggest irony associated with the AGW Chicken Little movement.

December 5, 2021 8:20 am

No Net Warming For 18 Years!!
Here is a quote from
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
“As shown in references 1-10 above, the anthropogenic CO2 Radiative Forcing concept on which the climate models’ dangerous warming forecasts are based is inappropriate for analyzing atmospheric temperature changes. Solar sourced energy flows in and out of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone provide the net negative feedback which has kept the earth within a narrow temperature range for the last 600 million years. The effects on temperature and climate of major meteorite strikes, periods of flood basalt outpourings and major volcanic eruptions are superposed on this solar sourced background. The sample lengths in the IPCC reported model studies are too short. The models retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, “solar activity” cycle is millennial. The relevant system for comparison should include the entire Holocene.
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/11 was + 0.08 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 18 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in ”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers, occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts.”

mkelly
Reply to  Norman J Page
December 5, 2021 9:11 am

Norman, you are correct. The emissivity of CO2 is almost zero at the temperature and pressure we live in. So how can they say CO2 radiates enough energy back to warm anything?

mkelly
Reply to  mkelly
December 5, 2021 9:15 am

I forgot the graph.

55D67851-7CE2-4244-AEC4-B7F4C4DA1009.jpeg
Dave Fair
Reply to  mkelly
December 5, 2021 9:35 am

Radiatively active gasses trap and reradiate photons; it has nothing to do with their emissivity.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 5, 2021 11:57 am

Also, usually before the photons are reradiated, the increased vibrational energy is transmitted to adjacent molecules by collisions, resulting in an increase in temperature.

Last edited 8 months ago by Dave Fair
DMacKenzie
December 5, 2021 8:23 am

“…The estimates are now like maybe 2.6 degrees is the business as usual…”
Even Judith is duped by the RPC watts per sq.M. narrative. The amount of CO2 that causes a degree of warming has not been determined sufficiently accurately with calculations and measurement in agreement (at 2 to 6 degrees per CO2 doubling, but maybe .5 to 8), a 400% range, to be able to say that X megatons emitted will result in 1.5 C warming or whatever number is chosen.

mkelly
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 5, 2021 9:21 am

She is duped because there are no experiments that show CO2 warming. They would be everywhere if they existed. Griff would post one with every comment. If CO2 caused warming then the would be a separate column in specific heat tables for with and without IR. But there are, so it doesn’t. Thermodynamics is very clear on that.

2DE5E5B3-DB4C-43D2-BDE6-73EC4241F06F.jpeg
Anthony Banton
Reply to  mkelly
December 6, 2021 5:58 am

“She is duped because there are no experiments that show CO2 warming. They would be everywhere if they existed.”

They do exist and Google is your friend …. or not, as I suspect as you don’t want to know.

Otherwise you would have discovered them yourself.
If you need a sceptical scientist friend to show you – add Roy Spencer to the Google enquiry.

Here is a 10 year experiment measuring downwelling LWIR at two locations on days of clear skies.
Note the increasing trend caused by the invisible GHG present.
And what would that be?

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html

Last edited 8 months ago by Anthony Banton
Beta Blocker
December 5, 2021 10:15 am

The world has been warming for at least 150 years, probably longer. IMHO, the world will continue to warm for another 150 – 200 years with shorter pauses and even mild downturns occurring here and there along the way. 

We will not know that an inflection point indicating that a state of permanent cooling has been reached until the thirty-year running average of global mean temperature turns down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years. 

Going back into Memory Lane, Javier wrote an article on Climate Etc in late winter of 2018 explaining his own theory of cyclic warming & cooling — an explanation I thought was being well supported by the evidence he was then presenting.

So I asked Javier to predict when the inflection point indicating a change towards a permanent state of cooling might occur; i.e., to predict that date in the long term future when the thirty-year running average of GMT turns down and then stays down for another thirty to fifty years.

Javier’s answer given in early 2018 was that according to his analysis, a permanent inflection point towards cooling, one which fits the criteria I’ve offered, will occur in about the year 2200. 

I said this in response: As long as the earth continues to warm, regardless of how slow the rate of increase might be, the debate over AGW will continue uninterrupted. 

This means we are in for another 180 – 200 years at the very least of contentious AGW debate. In other words, learn to love it. Because it isn’t going away any time soon.

DocSiders
December 5, 2021 10:40 am

All well and good…but on the GROUND…the US population is going crazy about paying a $1.50 more for a gallon of gas right now. More than just a little anger is being hurled at the perpetrator…the bumbling senescentv president.

Paying an extra $300 – $400 an month for energy will be met with actual armed insurrection. A real insurrection, not the Press made up insurrection by a guy wearing antlers.

Telling more and LOUDER LIES isn’t going to change the reality on the ground…ESPECIALLY when that reality includes China doubling their CO2 emissions with no consequences.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DocSiders
December 7, 2021 4:51 am

“not the Press made up insurrection by a guy wearing antlers.”

The Democrats are going to jail him for four years for being a dufus.

The radical Democrats are more than willing to destroy people’s lives for political gain. That’s what is going on here.

The new Republican Congress coming soon, needs to investigate this, along with a long list of other Democrat crimes.

We need to root out these enemies of freedom. They have had the upper hand for far too long, to the point of becoming dangerous to the freedoms of all of us.

Last edited 8 months ago by Tom Abbott
Pat from kerbob
December 5, 2021 11:52 am

Re the comments about BC floods.
I have been searching for comparison of actual flood levels, have read this November flood was much lower than 1948 or 1896 floods. The difference is this was record fall rain from a Pineapple Express vs those other floods were from spring melt combined with rain.

But end result is the same. People have been pointing out for decades that the flood infrastructure has been crumbling and will be inadequate when the flood comes.

But now because it came from a record rain event, climate change absolves all from responsibility
Buck passing continuous apace.

Thomas Gasloli
December 5, 2021 12:11 pm

“semi-empirical” wow, now that is a great neologism.

n.n
December 5, 2021 12:50 pm

I wonder how many records have been set by naturally sourced and forced transient or impulse events that color our judgment of its range.

Last edited 8 months ago by n.n
Geoffrey Williams
December 5, 2021 2:34 pm

It is so refreshing to hear the voices of reason from Judith Curry and Christopher Balkaran.
It gives one hope that more people will slowly but surely see the light.

Philo
December 5, 2021 4:11 pm

Ms. Curry has a good grasp of the science involved, and that it is overwhelmingly complex and completely empirical.

The real problem is that the ENTIRE problem was never about the climate or problems arising with it or anything else. From the beginning, when Maurice Strong inveigled himself into the UN as head of the United Nations Environmental program. Its all in the records and various propaganda websites the UN runs. It always has been a program to generate large sums of money for the UN and fund it as a world government. Strong realized this and was the first to develop a program to do that.

The first step was the establishment of the United Nations Environmental Program in 1972. This started several other programs, some actually effective for poorer nations. It also started programs that could be used to get money from the richer nations.

The next step was by the WMO(World Meteorological Organization)starting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for “scientific” research in 1988.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) was started in 1992 and its treaty was completed in 1994.

The following yearly meetings, the Council of Parties, were used to by governments to develop a “climate programs” which have mostly been cash payments to the UN to fund programs in the less developed countries, and also “climate research”.

ALL of the research into climate change has been aimed at establishing a useful “scientific goal”, global warming, to set the stage for world wide UN regulations and disperse cash to less developed countries for their needs to stop climate change.

None of the UN funded or accepted research was ever intended to solve any climate problem. It was all developed to provide a basis for International Agreements and Payments.

It’s time to change the direction of the UN climate programs. I don’t know how to do that. There is a ton of money going the other way. Hopefully the current Grand Solar Minimum(which btw was accurately predicted by a group of solar scientists using (god forbid) solar electromagnetic models to predict the suns future behavior). Other scientists used other methods at least in part based on the historical records of sunspots.

Gary Pearse
December 5, 2021 4:38 pm

“…that natural variability will lead to cooling in the coming decades… If it does, that would be the single most effective thing at bringing the dialogue back to normal in some sensible way, so people look at this problem more broadly.”

The one scenario avoided entirely by the climate cognoscenti is that there may never be a problem with climate. Maybe it’s just “weather as usual”. Until very recently the hysteria as been all about what is GOING to happen down the line to our grandchildren.

After 40yrs of this with nothing unprecedented happening with CO2 rise (except the Glorious Great Greening of the planet, our ‘Planet B’ perhaps? and burgeoning harvests), climate worriers began to get an inkling of the reasonableness of this sceptical proposition. The obvious ‘tell’ is that they now say not only that we are facing hell on earth, but it is happening now! This ‘Whack a Moley’ debating style by the Worriers has been the methodology for development of modern climate science.

I think practitioners of the art would do well to familiarize themselves with Bertrand Russell’s tiny Orbiting Teapot:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 7, 2021 5:11 am

Bertrand Russell: “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.”

I think that sums it up nicely.

Last edited 8 months ago by Tom Abbott
Bob Hunter
December 5, 2021 5:33 pm

Has nothing to do with science but the question, Is Dr. Curry funded by the fossil fuel industry ignores the opposite. ie a climate scientist or climate researcher will not get grants from most governments or foundations if their hypothesis questions AGW. And those working for CDN, US or European Govt depts will have ended their career with the govt if they question AGW.

n.n
December 6, 2021 12:34 pm

President Obama just bought a big mansion at Martha’s Vineyard, right on the coast

This follows his Chicago model. Did he receive a discount for an “underwater” property?

Robert of Texas
December 6, 2021 1:26 pm

When climate models predict everything that could possibly happen but most don’t – are they really predictive models? No, they are simulated astrologers – they should use tarrot cards which would likely improve their predictive capabilities.

Rational debate is impossible when most people are controlled by their feelings (mainly fear), not by rationale thought. Power production is just too complex for most people to be able to understand the big picture. This leaves them vulnerable to believing in simplified pictures crafted to result in a particular mental outcome and hence, support a specific agenda. I read through rules, regulations, and laws concerning the investment, production, distribution, and protection of intermittent power and have a lot of trouble understanding the finer points – and that is just one part of the bigger picture. It is a complex landscape of rules designed to warp the free market.

Like Judith, I “sense” that the production of wood pellets in America to burn in England is inherently wasteful, but good luck in actually proving anything. This is just one case of a warped market system caused by bad policies and regulations. It boils down to a set of “accounting tricks”. And this is just one tiny example of the complex puzzle they have created.

I am pleased to see she champions adaptation. That is the one strategy that results in positive outcomes no matter what the future issues truly are. If the climate were to suddenly trend colder, adaptation still works.

I am also pleased to see she supports nuclear power. I can see no other alternative for the future other than nuclear power – my assumption is that economical fusion power is still a long way away and there is no way to guess when it might (if ever) be ready. On the other hand, nuclear power improvements can be made right now allowing for lower costs and less waste materials. We just nee the spine to execute on developing the new generation power vessels.

%d bloggers like this: