by Judith Curry
Climate science is baaaack
Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
From the Secretary’s Foreword:
What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.
To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.
Climate Working Group (CWG)
These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG). Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]
- John Christy
- Judith Curry
- Steve Koonin
- Ross McKitrick
- Roy Spencer
The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:
To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.
—— Disclaimer: the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.
This Group was assembled in April. I decided to accept Secretary Wright’s invitation for the following reasons:
- I was impressed by what Secy Wright wanted to accomplish
- I was familiar with the other group members and figured I could work with them
- Most importantly, I saw an opportunity to set the record straight regarding what we know and what we don’t know about climate science, that would reach an important audience
I was happy to help with this but in the beginning, I confess that I was not at all sure that I would put my name on any report that came out of this. I tend to fly solo, and had not contributed to any multiple authored assessment report in several decades, for a number of reasons. While I had previously met each of my coauthors several times and was familiar with their work, I was not at all sure how this would go. Further, I was concerned about the short deadline for completing the report.
Short summary: all exceeded any hopes and expectations that I had.
Climate assessment report
The Report is a remarkable document, particularly since this was written so quickly and by a small team. I encourage you read the whole thing, it is relatively concise by the standards of climate assessment reports (closest in spirit and length to the IPCC First Assessment Report).
Given the time constraints, we had to be selective about which topics to cover. We selected topics that we judged to be of particular importance and relevance in the context of US climate and energy policy deliberations. The areas of expertise of the CWG members were also a factor in selection of topics.
While each CWG author has approved this document on a line-by-line basis, this is not a “consensus seeking” document. Uncertainties and areas of disagreement are clearly described.
The CWG framed the overall climate change issue somewhat differently from the IPCC and the US National Climate Assessments (NCA). Our assessment is very much data driven and considers natural climate variability as well as human causes. We consider a number of issues that we regard to be important, but have received short shrift (or were completely ignored) in the IPCC and NCA reports. Some examples:
- Chapter 1 discusses the scientific rationale for considering CO2 as a pollutant (or not)
- Section 2.1 examines “global greening” including the benefits to agriculture
- Section 2.2 provides a concise assessment of ocean alkalinity and the so-called ocean acidification problem, including the recent rebound of coral reefs
- Section 3.2 provides clear justification against using extreme emissions scenarios in policy-relevant analyses
- Section 3.3 provides a comprehensive assessment of the urban heat island effect
- Chapter 4 assesses the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, with prominent discussion of Nic Lewis’ most recent work.
- Chapter 5 challenges climate models with observations; it is difficult to argue that global climate models are fit for any policy-relevant purpose
- Chapter 6 provides a comprehensive analysis of extreme weather in U.S., using the entire available data record back to 1900 (earlier where possible), with a context of natural climate variability
- Chapter 7 challenges the extreme projections of sea level rise, and emphasizes the importance of vertical land motion in local sea level changes
- Section 8.2 challenges conventional notions of attribution of global warming in terms of problems with the statistical analysis methods and inadequate assessment of natural climate variability
- Section 8.4 highlights the declining planetary albedo and cloud cover since 2015, including analysis of contributions from natural variability
- Section 8.6 assesses challenges and problems with attribution analyses of individual extreme events
- Chapter 9 on agriculture shows that increasing CO2 and warming is expected to be a net benefit to US agriculture
- Section 10.3 addresses mortality from temperature extremes (both heat and cold), including a section on mortality risks and energy costs
- Section 11.1 clarifies the unimportance of global warming in economic growth
- Section 11.2 assesses the deep uncertainties associated with estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon
- Chapter 12 concludes that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.
If you only have time to read a few chapters, my favorites are Chapters 6, 8 and 11. But each chapter is pretty interesting – you will be surprised at what you learn from reading this! While a single individual took the lead on each chapter, every chapter had at least 2-3 team members providing substantial input. I regard this effort as being a case where the whole is substantially greater than the sum of the parts.
Information quality and peer review
This report has been evaluated under DOE guidelines to meet Federal standards. This includes an internal review from eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE. The reviews were quite interesting and varied, and several were very useful. The CWG made a number of fairly minor changes to the Report in response to the reviews, and added a number of references, and we are responding in detail to their comments. As I understand it, the DOE will arrange for a more formal external peer review.
DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments. The CWG expects to expend considerable time responding to the comments. We’ve already seen a pretty broad range of comments from the DOE scientists; it will be interesting to see what the what the public comments look like
Speaking from the perspective of individuals who have commented on the IPCC and NCA reports only to see our comments ignored, we plan to take a different approach. Rather than primarily seeking to defend our Report, we regard the open comments as an opportunity for dialogue, learning, and clarification of areas of disagreement. We expect to spend considerable time and effort in responding to the comments.
At some point, I assume that the CWG will be charged with writing a revised, more comprehensive report that responds to the external comments (we shall see).
JC reflections
The full significance of the DOE CWG Report remains to be seen. Here is what I’m hoping for:
- Redirection of climate science (at least in the U.S.) away from alarmism and advocacy and towards better understanding of the fundamentals of climate dynamics.
- Motivation of future climate assessment reports to address important issues raised by the CWG (that the IPCC and NCA have previously ignored or inadequately assessed)
- A comprehensive approach to assessing US risk from extreme weather and climate events (along the lines described in my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk)
- Breaking the link between energy policy and human-caused climate change, whereby anthropogenic climate change currently “mandates” emissions targets, preferred energy production methods, etc.
Hopefully the CWG Report will kick start some of this.
The looming US policy issue is the EPA Endangerment Finding (2009). Based on my meager understanding, this is more of a legal issue than a scientific one (JC note to journalists: I have no comment on the endangerment finding). But the bigger issue is this. In the U.S., one major political party (~half the population) think that fossil-fueled climate change is an existential threat, while the other major political party (the other ~half of the population) wants to ignore this issue and focus on energy abundance. The net result of this dichotomy is a political/policy windshield wiper effect, where we’ve seen: in the Paris Agreement (Obama), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump I), back in the Paris Agreement (Biden), withdraw from the Paris Agreement (Trump II). This is not good for energy policy, climate policy, or climate science.
What is needed is some sane middle ground that realistically assesses climate risk. An honest assessment of climate change science is a starting point (the CWG Assessment Report), which acknowledges uncertainties and areas of disagreement. It seems like Secy Wright has the right approach to energy policy (from his Foreword):
Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.
We stand at the threshold of a new era of energy leadership. If we empower innovation rather than restrain it, America can lead the world in providing cleaner, more abundant energy—lifting billions out of poverty, strengthening our economy, and improving our environment along the way
A hugely important issue falls between the cracks of energy and climate policy, and that relates to extreme weather and climate events. Attributing extreme weather events to fossil-fueled warming has been a key propaganda tool to spur “Climate Action,” with the inference that bad weather would go away if we stop burning fossil fuels. This kind of thinking has led us to ignore the real sources of our vulnerabilities to extreme weather, allowing us to throw up our hands and do nothing because “climate change.” Although there is little to no link between extreme weather events and fossil-fueled warming (see the CWG Report), the U.S. currently has substantial vulnerabilities (and electric utility systems are hugely vulnerable to extreme weather events). Assessing and managing such risks requires good weather and climate data, improved weather and seasonal climate forecasts, and better warning systems – much care is needed to avoid gutting critical information and services in the current budget cutting zeal.
And finally, I can make one prediction with confidence. The Michael Mann wing of the climate debate will hate this Report because: the CWG authors are reputable scientists outside of their “tribe,” the Report demonstrates that Mann et al. are losing control of the climate narrative in the U.S., and because Trump Derangement Syndrome. There is a preview from a July 8 NYT article that caught a hint of the DOE activity
Their usual strategy of ad hominem attacks won’t be effective against the CWG Report, which is evidence based, thoroughly documented, and logically argued.
JC recommendations for climate science/scientists: Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science. Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue. US federal funding for climate research is being decimated by the Trump administration – good riddance to much of this, but if we are to salvage this field of scientific research, then different foci and types of behavior are needed.
Media: Andrea Woods in DOE’s Office of Public Affairs is handling things, please contact her if you have any questions. andrea.woods@hq.doe.gov. The ringer on my phone is turned off. And a reminder: I have no comment on the endangerment finding.
For my assessment/analysis of related topics, see my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk:
- Chapter 4 Mixing Science and Politics
- Chapter 10 Climate Risk and its Assessment
- Chapter 14 Mititgation and the Energy Transition
- Chapter 15 Climate Risk and the Policy Discourse
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AlanJ and TFN say “yeah, but they aren’t climate scientists” in 3…2…1…
Curry, Christy, and Spencer have backgrounds in climate science or adjacent fields. Koonin and McKitrick do not. And that’s the full author list. Just five people claiming to credibly assess an enormous range of technical domains from climate attribution, atmospheric physics, extreme event modeling, carbon cycle dynamics, regional projections, integrated economic impacts, and policy. Not one of them has recognized expertise across all these areas, and collectively they fall far short of the multidisciplinary depth required for such an assessment. Curry favorably compares their report to the IPCC AR5 in breadth and scope. The idea that five individuals, however credentialed, can substitute for the hundreds of experts involved in assessments like the IPCC’s AR5, where over 800 scientists contributed, is beyond laughable.
The author’s of this paper have scientific backgrounds at least as good as any of the so called scientists on the global alarmist team.
My plumber has as much knowledge in his domain as my electrician, but I don’t assume they can do each other’s job interchangeably. I certainly wouldn’t believe my electrician if he told me he could re-engineer my city’s entire grid in an afternoon.
Hypotheticals with no empirical proof are another argument fallacy. Have you studied debate at all. It certainly appears that you have no ability whatsoever to create logical arguments based on foundational facts.
It is an analogy, a standard rhetorical tool meant to illustrate the structure of an argument, not to serve as evidence alone. The point is still unaddressed: domain-specific expertise matters. You don’t need “empirical proof” to understand that a team of five individuals, no matter how educated, cannot credibly replace the interdisciplinary contributions of hundreds of specialists across distinct scientific fields. That’s why the assessments from the IPCC or USGCRP have hundreds of authors and expert contributors with explicit domain expertise. This DOE report simply does not meet that bar, and no amount of deflection changes that foundational reality.
And it matters because this report is being positioned as a tool for policymakers, many of whom don’t have the technical background to spot selective framing, omitted evidence, or the lack of peer-review rigor. It is actively being used to justify sweeping regulatory rollbacks and constitutes outright scientific malpractice.
You are a puppet. I don’t know who pulls your strings, but they are utterly failing you in making a cogent argument.
Analogies can not be used to complete an argument. They are not pertinent to any facts about the premise being argued. Analogies might be used to influence another participant, but offer no proof of anything.
If you are wanting to argue about someone’s ability to adequately address scientific issues then you need to provide facts and evidence that support your assertion. You have not done this. Consequently, your argument is entirely faulty and of no consequence.
Answer these questions that I have already asked and you might salvage your assertion.
My argument is cogent and valid; you are attempting to sideline the point to focus on rhetorical structure. This is just evasion on your part, signaling that you cannot grasp what is being discussed (or are afraid to actually engage it).
Five non-experts cannot possibly have comprehensive domain expertise across every field and subfield the assessment critiques. It is not humanly possible. Frameworks for such large scale assessments already exist and involve literally hundreds to thousands of scientists with targeted domain expertise and take many years of intensive collaboration and meticulous research. All of that has been bypassed here.
The five authors have simply written their own personal interpretations of fields they have no in-depth knowledge of and have published them as a definitive interpretation of the state of the science under the imprimatur of a federal agency so that it can be used as a political tool by policymakers who have no domain expertise themselves to evaluate the arguments being forwarded.
This is unequivocally a circumvention of scientific process in the pursuit of ramrodding through sweeping regulatory cuts without due consideration or input from the scientific community whose work is being critiqued.
You think I’m claiming that these authors are bad scientists. That is false. What I’m claiming is that even five of the greatest scientific minds on planet earth could not to author such a sweeping assessment of the entire state of scientific knowledge across a complex technical field. Indeed the foremost experts in the field would look at such a mandate and laugh.
Your argument is bunk. It is a strawman argument. “Five non-experts cannot possibly have comprehensive domain expertise across every field and subfield the assessment critiques” First it’s not 5 non-experts. But, you saying that just makes it more of a strawman. Nobody is claiming they are all experts in solar physics, etc.. ad infinium. You setup a straw man and blew him down, congratulations you are now the smartest person on the blog <sarcasm>
I disagree firmly with your assertions about the breadth and depth of knowledge and skills of “renaissance man” types. Few people need to limit themselves to one specialty and many do not. You give as an analogy example a plumber and electrician being separate skills to build a house. Well plenty of people can build the whole house. I’ve done it a couple of times myself: Poured the foundation, framed it, roofed it, wired it, plumbed it, et al…. Done competently too: City inspectors said so.
Many other areas need their practitioners to understand systems in depth as a whole more than microscopic knowledge of a tiny bit of it. Naval officers are expected to learn everything that can be learned about their ships because if the guy whose specialty something is buys it, you could, right then, be in charge of it. And it has happened that very junior officers found themselves commanding ships or even fleets in the middle of a battle. Similarly, fly boys are called to memorize gobs of finicky numbers and other stuff about those large aluminum modern art sculptures they strap to their butts every working day lest the ground riseth up to smite thee.
Myself, I became an operating engineer after it became clear I wasn’t going to make the “Wrecking Crew.” In the end I spent most of my working life operating hot mix asphalt plants. An asphalt plant is similar to a ship or airplane in that it consists of a lot of smaller machines connected together so they all have to work in sync to produce. The crew needs to know every electric motor, gearbox. hydraulic valve, relay, wire, pipe, etc. in the whole thing and how to fix it when it goes sploing. Fun is when something breaks in the middle of a big day and you’re trying to weld it up, wrench it back together, or swap it out with the boss, and likely several truck drivers, looking over your shoulder mumbling “Make it go, buddy.”
Likewise, climate seems to be a system of interconnected and interacting parts. Achieving understanding of it as a system will be far more important than all the details of a tiny part. A generalist approach is much the better idea.
Therefore, you do appear to have overindulged in the well known Italian sausage and found the lion’s share of your discourse in the pile behind the barn.
Excellent post. Anyone with an engineering degree has, at least once, asked themselves why classes in so many different scientific areas is necessary. Thankfully, older and wiser professionals recognized the need. It is one reason AlanJ is obviously young and will remain irrelevant until he recognizes the need for a broad perspective.
Freeman Dyson said this about climate science. See https://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
AlanJ’s dismissal of this eminent and distinguished scientist will be noted.
“understand that a team of five individuals, no matter how educated, cannot credibly replace the interdisciplinary contributions of hundreds of specialists across distinct scientific fields”
Those hundreds of climate specialists did not detect the lengthening of the growing season world-wide. A few agricultural scientists did. Those hundreds of climate scientists did not detect that the GAT was going up because of minimum temps, ag scientists and HVAC engineers did by looking at heating-degree day values.
You are quite literally full of baloney.
The IPCC discusses the lengthening growing season, in both AR6 and AR5. The IPCC reports also explicitly detail that the minimum daily temperatures are warming faster than maximum daily temperatures. The scientists making these observations contribute to and have their work cited in the IPCC reports. This is an example of engaging with domain experts – these “few agricultural scientists” are part of the hundreds involved in these scientific assessments.
Which means that AR1 – AR4 did not address them. Who do you think informed them of the temperature profiles and agricultural increases.
Do you really think climate scientists picked this up through their own modeling of CO2 based models?
How many climate scientists performed the initial studies on agronomy and what was changing in temperature profiles (Tmax vs Tmin and seasonal changes?
Do you have the thermodynamic training to design HVAC systems?
Tell us what steam tables have to do with heat.
Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating why it is absolutely, unequivocally vital to have domain experts contribute to sections of these assessments relevant to their fields instead of relying on superficial treatment by nonspecialists. If I’ve heard a more ringing endorsement of the IPCC process and damning condemnation of this DOE report, I certainly can’t recall it. I’m glad you’ve finally joined my side in this debate.
“these “few agricultural scientists” are part of the hundreds involved in these scientific assessments.”
A load of more baloney. Ag science was *NOT* part of climate science. It’s why it took till AR5 for climate science to tumble to the actual observations of reality.
And while ag science and HVAC engineering have used degree-days forever, climate science has *still* not moved to using this measure for heat accumulation over time. While not as good a metric for climate as enthalpy, degree-days is a much better metric for climate than the daily mid-range temperature climate science stubbornly clings to.
Again, being totally incapable of reading and understanding the actual report…
.. AlanJ resorts to childish and petty mindless rhetoric.
Ever seen anything designed by a committee of 100’s…. It is always a total heap of crap.. especially when most of them are brain-washed scientific illiterates.. eg IPCC report.
Five very knowledgeable people do a much better job of getting to REALITY.
Read the report..
Argue the report
Then show us any warming, sans El Nino events, in the UAH data.
I think Einstein said if he was wrong it would only take one scientist to prove it. Are you implying Einstein was wrong? And, are you saying it would take hundreds of scientists to show that the high sensitivity models don’t match the actual temp changes? That one piece by itself is the basis for endangerment finding.
That is not the basis of the endangerment finding. You adroitly demonstrate in glaring black and white the danger of having laypeople poorly versed in the field trying to offer critiques of it.
So without accelerated warming shown by the hockey stick and its curved matched follow ups, you actually believe we would still be having this conversation. Interesting. Without “unprecedented ” warming, the argument it is man made and not natural fails to meet the criteria of pollutant. But you were unable to refute my point or answer my questions only an ad hominem attack, exactly an example of what those defending the indefensible do.
A master electrician has far more practical knowledge of things like phase lag, resistive loss, induction (including in a high amperage service box), motors, capacitance, etc. than 99.9% of the elected officials in government pushing the “Green Agenda” of wind and solar. That master electrician could do a far better job at sizing the nations electric grid than government officials.
They also have to have a license to do what they do, unlike climatologists and politicians.
Both are needed to build the house, and to determine how each function interacts, and a plumber can certainly learn enough of the other’s trade to know the competency of the other. Beyond that, your comparison is pedestrian at best, a mindless distraction with little application to the subject at hand.
Mr. Whitney: Pedestrian, the perfect word for Mr. J’s “analogy”. Sticking with Einstein, I’ll bet he would have accepted the criticism of a statistician (McKitrick) on his math, just to pick one. We’re gonna have to put Mr. J on a shelf.
Albert would also have had a laugh at the “Science, party of 800.” reference, since it only takes one to present any necessary evidence, or refutation to that effect. This guy must be a real fan of echo chambers.
I’m just an ordinary professional engineer who worked for 45 years in building related areas which required in depth knowledge of the plumbing, electrical, mechanical, energy and structural building codes. When I built my house I did the plumbing, electrical, HVAC work myself as well as the carpentry. But my college degree is a B.S. in Math. I learned the trades by doing the work with skilled practitioners, observing and doing a great deal of studying. Even though I did not have an engineering degree I was able to obtain a Professional Engineering license based on experience and passing the national EIT and PE exams.
As for your “800 scientists” bologna, that’s just a just silly scientific consensus claim that is a fallacious argument from authority that carries no weight. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” – Richard Feynman
“I spent 45 years gaining explicit domain expertise across multiple fields of construction and engineering through intensive study and by apprenticing for a multitude of highly skilled tradesmen that ultimately enabled me to build a single house” is not the takedown of my argument you think it is. Now instead of a house, imagine you wanted to build a hydroelectric dam. Best of luck.
Modern scientific disciplines are immense, highly technical fields of study spanning decades to centuries of iterative development by tens of thousands of highly specialized individuals. No one person (or five) knows everything there is to know about any field of modern science with enough depth to author a comprehensive and sweeping critique that overturns foundational ideas and findings across the entire discipline.
It only takes on person to do brain surgery.
Argue the report.. you know you CAN’T !
Most of what the IPCC puts out is erroneous religious mantra from rabid anti-CO2 cultists. Hardly the stuff of actual science.
Strawman see above. And oh wait! Relativity-Einstein. The dude who got doctors to wash their hands before surgery. He didn’t know everything about everything in medicine but he overturned foundational ideas in medicine. The two communication engineers that created a data compression algorithm that by the mathematics fields concensus compressed data farther then possible. This is fun! anyone else care to join in.
If I had been given the task of building a hydroelectric dam (not as far fetched as you might think given I worked for a company that had a division the designed and supervised major dam projects around the world) – I would have had a large budget and a highly qualified team to work with. Managing such projects is much more about leadership, sound planning and delegation to competent team members than personal execution of the tasks involved.
John Roebling designed the Brooklyn Bridge but his wife supervised the construction acting a Chief Engineer after he became incapacitated. She didn’t have the formal credentials but was clearly brilliant and had a pretty good mentor.
There it is. I don’t understand why you waste your time arguing with me about things we both agree on. Large and complex projects requiring wide and deep subject matter expertise across a broad array of disciplines require large and diverse teams of cross-discplinary specialists. Not a tiny handful of plucky generalists self-fashioned as autodidactic polymaths who think they know better than the experts.
You seem to have no understanding of actual engineering practice. It is not a “consensus” process. One design engineer is responsible for the project signs off on the design documentation and makes the final decisions on technical questions. He/she is also the one that ends up in legal jeopardy if the product fails. One might wonder if CGM model would be different if their authors could be fined or imprisoned if their projections proved to be wrong.
Maybe a class action suit by taxpayers defrauded into paying taxes to subsidize unneeded “renewables”.
It only takes one person to smell bullshit.
RC makes the correct counterpoint. Some people are not qualified to be a plumber, electrician, mathematician or climatologist. Some people are qualified to be all those things. The proof is in people who have demonstrated it by doing it. I know a few.
800 people, and so brain-washed or cowardly that not one of them has the guts to stand up for reality.
Group-think at its worst. The Borg have nothing on this cult.
Poor Alan has fallen into the all too common trap of confusing expertise with expert opinion (the latter and five dollars will get you a cup of mud at Starbucks), not to mention the fallacies of ad populum and ad verecundiam.
“My plumber has as much knowledge in his domain as my electrician, but I don’t assume they can do each other’s job interchangeably. “
I think a better use of the analogy would be to ask whether the plumber could learn to be an electrician and whether the electrician could learn to be a plumber. I think the answer would usually be yes and I know from experience that some humans are certified to be both.
Honestly they probably could. But, I am neither and I can spot most US code violations for either. So, my not having a title doesn’t mean I don’t know **** doesn’t flow uphill. Scientists by are usually smart, have an in depth scientific background and are fast learners. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at model outputs compared to actual temps and go “one of these is not like the others “
Yet every one of them has magnitudes more scientific credibility that AlanJ will ever have.
The so-called “scientists” at the IPCC are, more often than not, manic paid AGW activists or Greenpeace shills.
Climate attribution particularly, is a fantasy science, putting fake model against fake model and pretending the results mean something.
Climate science actually ignores and corrupts atmospheric physics.
Extreme event modelling.. farcical.
Regional projections are meaningless when taken from climate models that do not remotely represent Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate policy is just a cult religion based scam.
Read the report and show where it is wrong, without using corrupted data or model based fiction.
Then show the CO2 warming in the 45 years of the UAH data.
I realize it’s been unfair limiting your side in an endless, stupid, useless, poisonous flame war, so I just moderated AlanJ
Thanks.
If he continues to regurgitate mindless climate mantra, I think it is fair that I should have the freedom to shoot it down.
Mr. Rotter: I’m sorry he forced you to it, but this string is just an appeal-to-authority one trick pony for Mr. J, he won’t move off it.
Shucks! And I was in an argumentive mood enjoying pointing out his childish logic. But, you do have a point 🙁
It is glarlingly apparent that those IPCC “scientists” are not physical scientists at all but are blackboard statisticians that have never been trained in metrology at all. Thus the common misconception that temperature = heat, that all temperature measurements are 100% accurate, and that sampling error is the same as measurement error. Thus we get measurements of “heat” down to the hundredths of a degree all comingled into ever more “accurate” averages.
Yeah but Temps “records” and “anomalies” presented down to hundredths / thousandths” of a degree Celsius looks so, so –
“SCIENCY”
I want to comment on the report asking if we even have enough data to know what the heat(energy) delta is one year to the next and if we know what it was preindustrial revolution. If the answer is we don’t then all we are doing is arguing hypotheticals. I know we can’t use just temperature that changes too much year to year. Dependent on which way the wind blows. Literally. Elnino/Elnina. Regardless of what the CO2 level is.
As some who works with statistics I can assure you that climate scientists don’t have a clue about that subject. If they did they would realise that using models to predict future events at the accuracy they claim is total and utter BS.
You really are an ignorant dickhead
So in which fields does Michael E Mann shine?
Michael E Mann is a distinguished purveyor of –
Lying, Cheating, Obfuscation, Bullying …
From what I’ve seen Mann, like many so-called climate scientists, is skilled at writing dense opaque computer code that will produce outputs that appear to confirm his pre-conceptions.
“The idea that five individuals, however credentialed, can substitute for the hundreds of experts involved in assessments like the IPCC’s AR5, where over 800 scientists contributed, is beyond laughable.”
To paraphrase Einstein
“Why 800? If I were wrong, 5 would be enough.”
Alternatively, – “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein
I wonder why they did not even reference Will Haper’s recent papers.
This isn’t original research, it is an assessment report intended to be used to guide policymakers, who lack requisite expertise to evaluate the scientific arguments being made in the report. This idea that politicians can just assess the assessment and determine whether it is good or not is ludicrous. It is absolutely vital that assessments like this engage with the scientific community doing the research in the fields the report touches.
From post:”This idea that politicians can just assess the assessment and determine whether it is good or not is ludicrous.”
So you agree then that it was a bad idea to accept the “endangerment finding” in the first place.
The absolutely vital thing is that the report is not totally biased by religious AGW fervour. !
That is what you get with these five people. Actual science, not scientifically baseless mantra.
One day you may be able to tell the difference… but not any time soon.
Except, it is not 800 scientists is it now? And majority/ numbers of scientists means nothing. Take the funding away and let scientists speak freely. But that is not how the system operates, sadly..
Most of those 800 are blackboard magicians torturing numbers they simply cannot relate to reality.
Quite simply…
.. If they are not always questioning their religious mantra…
.. they cannot be called “scientists”
But if a climate psychotic does question the mantra.. they get ex-communicated.
You know who is ‘laughable’?
Hmmm, 23 comments and 36 downvotes. It may be a logical fallacy, but I’ll go with the wisdom of the crowds on this one.
One could go further: if 97% of people here create a consensus that AlanJ is wrong will he accept that he is?
One might argue this channel is biased but then one has to offset that with the bias of the IPCC etc. The lie is pretending the IPCC is a non biased independent institution where the created consensus is the truth.
Bingo
You adamantly oppose anyone making assertions without peer reviewed sources. Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Show us the peer reviewed resources that prove what academic training is required to assert scientific claims about climate change.
Your claim that the assertions made by these well educated people is laughable requires you to certify that you have the credentials to do so. Show us your credentials that prove you have the chops to do so.
Otherwise, you argument is a perfect example of the argumentative fallacy of Appeal to Authority and your argument fails.
and that’s been the whole basis of the climate religion all along –
self-promoting scientists / activists as deities, saviors, prophets, almighties, shamans, etc, etc, etc
We’ve seen this play many times before..
Amply demonstrated in Piller’s book, “DOCTORED”. Different field of ‘Science’… likely more importent.
The number is irrelevant. The evidence is all that matters, and it seems that all are welcome to comment and evaluate the findings. That is what science is, not inflicting dogma and silencing dissent, the hallmarks of the alarmist clique. 800 scientists contributing to an echo chamber designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion is hardly something to aspire to.
Your comment raises another question: how many alarmists does it take to unscrew a lightbulb?
It is all fine and well that they DOE is receiving public comments on the document, but the document is already being used by the EPA to justify rescinding the 2009 Endangerment Finding, prior to any public comment or peer review. So it is rather laughable to pretend like this public comment period is going to materially affect the outcome of this assessment. The thing is a hack job with the sole purpose of providing flimsy political cover for sweeping regulatory rollbacks, nothing more and nothing less.
Gee… didn’t this same process occur to put the regs in place?
You certainly aren’t going to be able to make any comment that counters the facts in the report.
You have proven that already.
Your arguments are totally empty.
Excellent! There was nothing to justify the Endangerment Finding to begin with. Laughable is the religious zeal with which the faithful defend the hack job that is called “climate science” used to invoke sweeping regulations, and silence any who would question the dogma. When you can provide evidence to support the draconian controls, do come back.
So you can’t refute anything they say.
Figures.
Mr. J: Einstein only asked for one, but you’re way smarter than him across so many fields, right? So you have five times as many as would satisfy Einstein, and still not enough for you? Maybe Einstein had an open mind, and you don’t?
It only takes one to prove a theory wrong. If they have shown that any part of the data is wrong or of such uncertainty that it is unusable then the whole fails. Talking about core, not extreme weather or oceans being less alkaline.
The head of NASA’s climate group is a mathematician. Many in the organization modellers are physicists and Koonin has related skill set to evaluate the modeling effort including its dependence of poorly understood assumptions. His book particularly called out the practice of cherry picked durations that led to conclusions that fell apart when longer durations of data were applied.
McKitrick expertise is in statistics, a critical skill that many scientists don’t have a strong understanding and the source of many study errors. He has worked on assessing the application of statistical methodology of climate studies for several decades.
Well the army of credentialed IPCC and ARP scientists you defer to are invited to comment on this work and the authors appear committed to engaging in substantive dialog to address perceived errors or misunderstandings. So their expertise is invited and welcomed. It is just that in this forum they are going to have to address critical scrutiny that they were shielded from in the IPCC and ARP efforts where Curry, Spencer et al were denied the opportunity to participate in the debate. So bring it on and let the data and sound scientific principles guide us to the best “consensus” we can achieve on an issue of such expanse and import.
100%!
Any sign of hope is now well out of your sight.
Feynman wasn’t a rocket scientist. Just a really good physicist with an enquiring mind. Yet somehow he was able to successfully investigate the Space Shuttle disaster. His “Minority Report” (Appendix F) summary on NASA’s idea of risk demonstrates very clearly how competent people like Feynman can perform simple calculations to show how wrong a bunch of clever, group thinking specialists can be.
And after all climate models are “just physics” aren’t they?
Most people with a high level of science education and practice in relevant disciplines of maths, physics, statistics, geoscience etc can perform high level reviews and spot the problems, what is not being said, what is being hidden etc. The team assembled is more than capable of doing that and all have followed the papers, publications and arguments for decades. In addition Koonin also has a strong and highly relevant track record in computational physics.
Koonin came into this due to chairing the American Physical Society CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP. The workshop specialists comprised Christy, Collins, Curry, Held, Lindzen and Santer so three from each camp. The transcript is one of the best reviews out there for honesty and was published in 2014. I highly recommend people read it too.
You have grossly misconstrued my position. Yes, lone scientists can challenge consensus, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Scientific revolutions don’t succeed because someone has an “inquiring mind.” They succeed when new ideas are rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and earn the confidence of the broader expert community.
The Feynman analogy doesn’t work. He didn’t rewrite the field of aerospace engineering, he exposed a specific failure in NASA’s risk assessment, within his domain of expertise, as part of a broader commission. And his findings supplemented institutional inquiry, they didn’t replace it (his report was part of a much larger commission, and he worked closely alongside other experts).
That’s a far cry from five individuals, some of them working outside their fields, publishing an unreviewed, sweeping critique of climate science under a federal agency banner. They didn’t consult the original researchers. They didn’t follow any recognized assessment process. And yet this document is already being used to justify dismantling decades of emissions policy.
And, your opinion on the expertise of anyone is worth exactly as much as the ink in this post is worth.
Opinions vary. In my experience well educated people with physics, maths, statistics and geoscience backgrounds are more than able to pull apart the holes, flaws and circular reasoning in the arguments that many in the “climate science” field produce. I am sufficiently well educated in enough aspects that I can form my own opinion on it. All that’s needed are decent bullshit detectors.
Climate science is a highly interdisciplinary field with probably over a 100 disciplines represented. The authors expertise and knowledge cover a wide range and are eminently qualified to contribute to this report. Having said that I don’t think the report is the be all and end all. Reading some of the sections that I’m interested in I notice that what I consider important factoids are not included. But all in all a good overview that gets to the crux of the CAGW argument in a easily understood manner and disposes of it.
The IPCC’s charter restricts it to considering “human-induced climate change” and not anything that affects climate. This is a fatal flaw. To some extent this has been slowly changing but is still an overpowering influence, especially in the Summary for Policymakers which in large part is controlled by government personnel and not scientists in the working groups. Many distiguished scientists have resigned from the working groups because of these problems.
We ought to just ignore pathetic loser AlanJ. Why keep engaging him on his dishonest and utterly closed-minded terms?
Alan J likes communism as his prior posts attesting to the fact that he dislikes white, old, fat rich men getting richer shows. Only communists do that, it’s the hallmark of the entire idea.
Arguing with people who continue to support antique and failed ideologies is a waste of time. They never get the clue because they are the “True Believers” that Eric Hoffer described in his book of the same title some 75 years ago..
I think this report might give some resolve to
squishy Republicans, whether legislators or
judges. The Democrats are too far gone
to back down from The Green New Deal, and generally have constituencies with a worse
case of TDS than themselves.
Instead of going binary w Dems vs Reps and create a friend and foe narrative why not concentrate on the general public and the voice of reason? So that other people who are not even voting and the world in general can take note of the kind of progress we’d like to see?
I am from Europe and follow this and other channels to be better informed. Even though this is an american report please dont limit and drag it into yr particular political (US) corner. It is too important. Because this subject is beyond who is the next US president. With that it is the same as the climate alarmists. It is in essense about the Truth.
The British Labour and Conservative parties are like the Democrats on climate change, as are all major German parties except AfD. Most western ruling parties are also nominally supporting Paris.
What those politicians pretend to ignore is that the PRC and India are not into their fantasy.
That is besides the point i was making. Which was making a point about political grandstanding.
I live in Ireland and am fully aware of the UK situation. I believe in holding on to the idea of pursuading people by both argument and making them doubt the clear forced alarmist narrative.
Very nice Judy we are making progress.
A couple issues I am surprised that the weather station issue wasn’t mentioned. It is criminal that class four and five stations are being used.
Number two, yes it is unfortunate that things go back and forth like the Paris Climate Treaty. If it had been handled like a treaty this wouldn’t have happened because it would not have passed muster in congress. It is not our sides fault that the other side didn’t follow proper protocol.
Number three you stated that the other side wanted climate action now and our side wanted abundant energy. While it is true our side wants abundant energy I think the more important issue is the lying and cheating openly taking place by the other side and we would have been fools to let them get away with it. Lying and cheating should never pass for science.
Keep up the good work, I’m pulling for you.
The Truth is on NO SIDE.
However, one should be on the side of the truth.
Agreed. That is where i am or at least want to be. Sometimes the truth is admitting the uncertainties of stated facts. In regards to ‘climate’ the complexity of the system alone should make people humble and any estimation of variable and interaction should come w a caveat much like the paper that comes w a medicine.
The reason i stated my post which has been disliked by some is that the truth does not care which side YOU are on. It is supposed to be non biased.
Reminds me of that belt buckle worn by some German soldiers that said “Gott Mit Us”.
My cynicism says ‘they’ won’t accept the challenge of responding. Well done and worthy though.
It won’t be seen in the mainstream media.
A commendable report, which should move the debate to more scientific grounds.
Given that the observed climate trends over the past 300 years are consistent with Earth’s relationship to the Sun, I am looking for this aspect to return to its rightful state as the driver of climate:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/04/high-resolution-earth-orbital-precession-relative-to-climate-weather/
Once the true driver of Earth’s climate is back in the discussion, we may look at the changing landscape of Greenland in a different light:
?w=680&ssl=1
We may begin to focus more on the increasing elevation and winter warming at elevation than ice loss near sea level. The coming glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere will be from high elevation in the north and flow down then south.
The SH has remained glaciated from 60S for the past 10Ma or so. Glaciation north of 40N comes and goes. This time around Greenland remained mostly glaciated but the ice at elevation is already recovering there. .
Glacial ice exhibits negligible absorption of visible light. Glacial ice is persistent even under sunlight so ends up being melted as it calves into oceans or lakes.
The rising trend of winter temperature in the Arctic is the result of increasing advection. That can only come with increasing snowfall because the heat flux is approximately 50% latent heat and 50% sensible heat.
See my post about the Danish Met Office readings since 1958. The Arctic isn’t warming.
Not warming in summer , but the winters are .
😉
As regards the Arctic ( + 80N) I’m fond of looking at ocean.dmi.dk which shows no change in Arctic melting of a degree on so C for a month or so in the NH summer since 1958
I wish we could have a committee with John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer in Australia. We need someone to rip our science & energy bureaucracy’s hands off the scales.
Same here for the UK
Ideology is baked in.
Ideology and rationality cannot occupy the same mind space at the same time.
Australia’s Bowen however has neither in play –
he’s just one of those classic, ever-available grifter “useful idiots” so abundant in socialist circles.
Will take any crumbs dropped from the table in their direction.
Canada’s Trudeau was another classic “useful idiot”.
I guess I see the strategy here, and I commend JC for the measured, calm, logical approach. The ball is in the Climate Liar’s court. I predict the usual first line of attack to be the logical fallacies of ad hominem and “consensus science” from the usual suspects. It will be amusing if nothing else.
Alan J first out of the block w the usual bsjit.
And yes, consensus is really not a valid argument, not on a scientic level anyway. My bar is laid at those who use the ‘consensus’ as a faux scientific argument and disregarding the funding element. As if these scientist all came up w the same conclusions willy nilly. I would like to play red/ blue team w funding going into both and let the arguments battle it out. This almost never happens.
Looking at the chosen members everyone already knows their position in regards to the climate and especially the influence of CO2, the risks and uncertainties involved.
I agree w most of their assessments but the group seems heavily biased to one side, the side i support btw. This will be seen by the opposition as the ‘climate deniers’ group and used that way in various forms of propaganda. It is not a good look for balance’ sake.
I would have liked to see some lukewarmers in there just to not have the created image of a one sided group.
However, im looking forward to the report and this will be a great asset in presenting a credible counter narrative to luke warmers and those w growing doubts about the climate alarm narrative. Because i am getting tired of discussing the topic w ignorant people.
I hope it is not too thick. I still use Koonin’s book as a way of pursuasion.
Wouldn’t Ms Curry regard herself as somewhat of a “lukewarmer”? I don’t think I’d call her a “denier” from what I’ve seen of her other work and comments etc.
She calls herself a denizen. A statement that she disagrees with the politics of climate alarmism, if you search “denizen” on her webpage you should find more reasoning why she chooses this word – I happen to disagree with it, as anyone with good critical arguments is a sceptic.
That is a fair point. But she denies the created alarm. She wrote her book about risk. So, she will be labeled as a ‘denier’.
Im ok w her stance on CO2 as with any reasonable person who can argue a point.
I think she was genuinely pissed-off by the way she was treated when she broke ranks with a climate psychotics by even a tiny amount.
It has driven her to realise that just how scientifically empty the alarmist side of the argument is.
The report is 141 pages long, so I’ve only skim-read it, but it looks as if there is a lot of very relevant stuff in there. It is, in essence, doing what the IPCC ought to be doing.
From the article: “But the bigger issue is this. In the U.S., one major political party (~half the population) think that fossil-fueled climate change is an existential threat, while the other major political party (the other ~half of the population) wants to ignore this issue and focus on energy abundance.”
I’m only speaking for myself, but I’m not ignoring the issue, I just think the science for this issue has never been established. There is no evidence that CO2 is doing what Climate Alarmists claim it is doing. I couldn’t say this if I ignored the issue.
Assuming CO2 will cause the Earth’s weather to change is pure speculation and assumptions and nothing more, and this has been the case since the very beginning of this speculation. So, to date, climate alarmist *can* be ignored because there is no evidence for climate alarm. But it is being ignored because the science doesn’t back it up, not because the issue is being denied.
“Climate change” should be able to be recognized based on changing climate. I have yet to see anything from the so-called CAGW crowd documenting where on the globe we are actually seeing widespread *climate* change from one classification to another. Certainly in the US the High Plains are still -semi-arid and the coastal areas are still just what they have always been.
Defining “climate” to be the average of weather conditions for an area over just 30 years was a godsend to the climate cult.
A deliberate move?
Recently went down to Cronulla beach where I grew up.
High tide was no higher than it was 50 years ago.
Does that mean that we can ignore Gore? (still?)
Well said , Tom.
Destroying societies with baseless anti-CO2 agendas is total idiocy that can only happen under a cult mentality.
No-one has ever been able to present any measured scientific evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 have any “bad” effects on the planet.
How the idea ever saw the light of day still perplexes me. It all so stupid. !!
Climate only became an “issue” because it was ginned up as one by the IPCC and the resulting Climate Industrial Complex. There is nothing “wrong” with the climate, although there is plenty wrong with the pseudoscientists pretending to study it. We’ve warmed up a bit since the LIA. So what? Sure, study the climate, but look at long term trends spanning centuries. And don’t do what the Climate Liars did (or tried to do), like getting rid of the MWP, and deny that the LIA ever happened, and other shenanigans. Where are we headed? No one knows, but if history is a guide, we probably can expect a period of cooling, perhaps even soon. History tells us that it is cooling, not warming that causes problems for humanity.
CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
.
The IPCC, etc., has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to 1) increase command/control by governments, and 2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 40 years; extremely biased, money-losing CNN, NPR, PBS, Colbert’s Late-Night Show, come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
The “authors” are the same 5 geriatric politicians that have been trotted out repeatedly by deniers over the years.
So they’ve all had quite a few years to get themselves well experienced in what makes climates tick.
Great!
And yet they haven’t. No stadium waves
Ad hominem much?
Yes they do
I think you deserve the medal. You clearly are on this platform to..learn😆
This platform is about propaganda, not learning
And have been correct at nearly every point..
Unlike the climate alarmist psychotics, who have been provable wrong.
Not at all. Judith Curry claimed the world would cool from 2015 to the 2030s. The stadium wave was shown to be as nonsensical as the rest of her claims
“same 5 geriatric politicians”
I didn’t see Biden or Bernie in the list !
Exactly
I believe that Section 3.3 should have mentioned what the USCRN shows as to the effect of UHI in the U.S. Most of the studies that concluded there was little effect were made prior to the advent of USCRN data, i.e., prior to 2005. While there is only about 20 years worth of data, there is no reason to suspect the next 10 – 20 years of rural temperatures will suddenly increase exponentially.
The USCRN establishes a baseline for temperature in the United States and illustrates three major items. 1) The use of Tavg ((Tmax – Tmin)/2) and annualized anomalies simply can not show the detail necessary to determine what is occurring with temperature. Winters and nighttime temperatures have much more change than daytime high temperatures. This needs to receive much more media attention than it currently does. 2) The differences in temperatures between rural and populated areas is easily seen. 3) The lack of high temperature growth is not just regional in the U.S. It is broadly evident in the USCRN data that temperature increase is common to rural areas across the entire 48 states.
“Here is what I’m hoping for:
Redirection of climate science (at least in the U.S.) away from alarmism and advocacy and towards better understanding of the fundamentals of climate dynamics….”
“Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue.”
Much respect to Dr. Curry for her work, her book, and her contributions to this report.
In my view, when one properly considers the fundamentals of climate dynamics, and applies what is known from objective physical science to quantify the “climate issue”, one immediately recognizes the unsoundness of any expectation that the minor radiative effect of incremental CO2 will cause anything bad to happen. Its influence is vanishingly weak in the context of energy conversion in the atmosphere, as computed within the ERA5 reanalysis model.
I invite readers here to consider the comment I entered recently on a related EPA (proposed) rule concerning power plant emissions.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2025-0124-0141
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
“Redirection of climate science (at least in the U.S.) away from alarmism and advocacy and towards better understanding of”
Agreed. If USA’s government were going to spend the money anyway, I’d be happier if USA’s citizens got something useful out of spending it. It almost feels like someone tapped the breaks of science because it was moving too fast, and they did it by redirecting science-minded thinkers into a rabbit hole of far-future weather prediction. All that wasted smartness could have been pointed somewhere more practical.
Perusing the document I see one thing that is missing from analyzing the United States climate – the USCRN weather station reference network. While the data is limited in time, ~20 years, it does provide serious information that has not been adequately used by climate scientists to validate the conclusion of a global nature.
I have also been interested lately in determining what optimum temperature we should be shooting for. This is of vital importance. 99.99% of climate science is based upon the fact that warming over the last 100 – 200 years is a catastrophic event. That is a given by the use of ΔT’s over any baseline period such as the late 20th century. The fact that this is just accepted is a travesty. I have found studies that indicate the optimum temperature for the globe would be around 20°C. The globe has not begun to approach that as of yet. Here is an unusual article about this. The universal evolutionary and ecological significance of 20 oC.
One must know where they are headed in order to accomplish a goal. Just assuming that any warming is a bad thing is certainly not an adequate assessment of a scientific property.
“Just assuming that any warming is a bad thing is certainly not an adequate assessment of a scientific property.”
Excellent point!
Interesting paper, 20 degrees C has long been roughly an important (de facto?) point to pass in temperate species coming out of winter in spring. Oceans don’t guarantee optima. They concluded– “A lack of attention to the importance of 20oC in studies on temperature relationships amongst species and ecosystems probably reflects different study aims and data sets with limited temperature ranges.” However, claimed reduced diversity above there requires some thought though as temperature might overshadow other factors which they or their references should and might have considered, besides ‘global warming.’
My whole point is that little scientific work has been done on determining an optimum temperature. From day one, climate science has promulgated the idea that any warming at all is to be treated as bad. While working on learning Python so I could do some time series analysis using ARIMA, it dawned on me that If someone asked me what the best temperature for the earth was, I couldn’t tell them a temperature with any degree of certainty.
Freeman Dyson had a lot to say about this.
Here is a transcript of an interview with him that is pertinent to the subject of climate.
Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment – Yale E360
USCRN , and the redundant ClimDiv (since it is adjusted to USCRN) show that the only warming in the USA came as a sort of step change at the 2016 EL Nino.
Either side of that, even with the 2023/24 El Nino, the trend is basically ZERO
The trend matches UAH USA48 very closely as well
Roy Spencer
Please be so kind commend on this.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for about 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C.
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html
In chapter 8.4, page 92, we read:
“In summary, the decline in planetary albedo and the concurrent decline in cloudiness have emphasized
the importance of clouds and their variations to global climate variability and change. A change of 1- 2
percent in global cloud cover has a greater radiative impact on the climate than the direct radiative effect
of doubling CO2. ”
Nevertheless, the authors have not tried to relate reduced albedo, detected by CERES, to global temperatures, e.g. Spencer’s UAH. This is like a “sin of omission”. Dr. Nikolov and Dr. Zeller have done so, and found that all warming since year 2000 is due to reduced albedo. GHG have had no influence. See:
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7418/4/3/17
Maybe all warming since 1980, when satellites began to measure global cloud cover, is due to reduced cloud cover, see Nelson & Nelson https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=131993
Since CO2 seems to have no measurable influence, it is time to look for an alternative climate paradigm, see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386573736_Toward_a_New_Theoretical_Paradigm_of_Climate_Science
“Maybe all warming since 1980, when satellites began to measure global cloud cover, is due to reduced cloud cover,”
The UAH data shows that warming happens ONLY at major El Nino events.
Data shows there has been a continual increase in absorbed solar radiation due to changes in cloud cover, which is mainly affect the tropic oceans where El Nino occurs.
N & Z are not the only ones to support the reduced cloud theory (see attached)
The quoted comment makes total sense, and has solid scientific validity (unlike the CO2 warming fantasy)
Judith Curry is the only climate scientist I know of who refused to bow to the climate cultists, and look what happened to her… Virtually every university/college in the country now has a climate studies department of some kind. What college’s professor is going to stand on the collegiate mountaintop and tell the university they are teaching crap??
Why do “climate scientists” seem to always find warming (or some other anomaly) caused by climate change? Check the funding source, and you’ll know the result of the research.
Oops – almost forgot Dr. Peter Ridd in Australia….
What we need the DOE to do now is critical assessment of the cost and uncertainties of a net-zero grid from engineering experts unencumbered by a government utility authority.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright says
Climate change is real, and it deserves attention
I disagree. By its plain definition, climate change is real and has been happening for billions of years. But that’s not what “climate change” means anymore. Thanks to the incessant braying of the alarmists and the media, “climate change” means “imminent, catastrophic human-caused climate change.” That isn’t real. We should stick with the modern perverse meaning and declare unequivocally that climate change is not real. Keep it simple. Stop arguing a point that no one is bringing up and stop conceding ground you don’t have to give up. The facts are on our side. Climate change is not real. It’s a massive hoax.
Ms. Curry,
The US population is not divided between the Democrat and Republican parties.
The actual registered voter split is more like 25% Democrat, 25% Republican and 50% independent.
The independents, individually, vote wildly differently on different issues.
And with respect to the AGW question, the voter population differences are even more profound: the top 10% by education and wealth are overwhelmingly “climate change is a danger and is bad” whereas the rest of the population is much, much less so.
The problem is that this top 10% dominates the US government bureaucracy, the upper and middle management, the professionals (doctors/lawyers) etc etc so their views are pushed by the mainstream media and government policy.