Here are a couple:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/GRL.AMO.Droughts.August.26.2011.pdf
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/PDF/environmentalresearchweb.3-12-2015
Rural temp’s, e.g. Australia:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php
Modeling future climate is not possible without solar forecasts. To see when the AMO will next again be cold like the mid 1970’s, takes knowledge of why the solar wind was so strong then, and when that will next occur. Which will be in the the mid 2040’s.
Let’s try 3rd time lucky through the filter.
Matthew,
That was just J.s defence of the comment.
Here is the comment;
” On the the contrary. When the “labels” fit, when they point out just how loathsome, just how evil, just how rotten these AGW fraudsters are and have always been, there should be no holding back, no restraint, no respite.
When the popular perception of these “Never let a crisis go to waste” leftist pseudoscientists is such that they find themselves at risk of physical assault whenever and wherever they show themselves in public, we can slack off”
I’ll say… JC is good lookin…. :)
I can’t put my finger on what’s exactly wrong with the climate models, but their inability to match the last ten years’ surface AND troposphere temperatures tells me they do have something wrong:
The models are too complex, the grid is too coarse, the parameterizations can’t really be tested, and a large portion of the physical processes aren’t tied down. The coupling between the atmosphere and the ocean is clunky. The input pathways for CO2 concentration are science fiction, the carbon cycle has gaps. It’s impossible to grasp the output, the processing time is too slow to allow sufficient experiments to figure out the glitches, and the whole mess is so political I don’t see anybody willing to discuss these matters in the open.
There will likely be an agreement, but it will not amount to much. In any case the science is irrelevant to the talks. Money is center stage.
The purpose of Paris is to guarantee there will always be another Paris…
For what it’s worth, my analysis shows a CO2 concentration peak at around 630 ppm, driven simply by fossil fuel depletion, which drives consumption down as prices increase. The assumption being that a steep fossil fuel price increase leads to replacement by SOMETHING, or demand destruction as poorer nations can’t afford the price of energy.
I realize many of you are cornucopians, believe the fossil fuel resources are quite ample, but that’s not what I see looking at it from within the extraction industry. We are simply unable to find new fields or concepts we can exploit profitably. By 2030 to 2040 the most critical problem we will have is very high energy prices as the world starts ramping down oil production.
Alarmists Outraged! Joaquin will not hit USA.
Further to my comment above, let’s assume I’m right, and fossil fuel exhaustion causes co2 emissions to peak.
During subsequent years emissions will decline.
The carbon sinks will keep absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere as a function of concentration (not emissions).
It’s also possible the carbon sink ability to remove or sequester CO2 will continue to be a function of concentration.
Meanwhile the emissions rate will be declining.
Draw a graph, X axis is time, y axis is gigatons of co2. Now sketch two curves, one is the rate of emissions, declining from left to right. The second is the carbon sink removal rate, which is increasing, but reaching a plateau. Eventually the two curves cross over. At this point co2 atmospheric concentration will start dropping. This implies that TCR is indeed a key parameter to consider, simply because CO2 concentration will peak and start to drop before the climate reaches equilibrium.
I realize I simplify these topics too much, and may have errors in the way I visualize the system dynamics. But I also suggest you try to divorce yourselves from preconceived notions and start thinking about the consequences if I happen to be close.
Intro for Paris – several months in a row where LOTI has record highs in both ocean and land component. Check.
Possibly three months in a row with GMST anomalies above .90C.
Back-to-back warmest years.
This is what will drive Paris. It will be held in the middle of a global heatwave never seen by anybody alive today. That will be its stadium wave. Great time to fire the climate scientists.
I display JimD’s comment here in full:
Jim D | October 1, 2015 at 11:52 pm |
This tribalism just dilutes the outrage your lot had with RICO being applied. It shows that RICO in the other direction would have been wholeheartedly supported. It’s not a moral issue, just tribal. Don’t use these things as some kind of morality argument when you would do the exact same thing.
*******************
This tactic is typical of those used by Michael, Joshua, Willard, and JimD. Side A gets upset over event A happening to side A but does not get upset over event B happening to side B.
The obvious question is does event A = event B?
In the current case the question becomes: Is applying RICO to skeptical climate scientists on the basis of unsettled science equal to a situation where a climate scientist is investigated for having violated laws concerning grant money?
Obviously, the two events are very asymmetrical. Yet JimD acts as if they were exactly the same. Joshua and Willard are probably worse than JimD in this regard.
Another difference is the legitimate question if RICO should be used in this manner at all. As a citizen, I say it should not be used against companies or climate scientists. The former are legal entities that have a 10 foot stack of laws and regulations already to control them. The latter have broken no law.
But then, let’s assume scenarios A and B ARE exactly the same. When fighting for individual freedom, it is OK to be happy that the other side took a hit. This blind avoidance of tribalism no matter what the situation will be the death of Western Civilization if we in the West don’t snap out of this faux guilt trip over being successful in an imperfect world real soon!!
“It is very difficult to shame someone who has an arrogant sense of self-righteousness, combined with group think and a need to save the world.”
You mean the Left in general and Progressives in particular.
“It is an example of “The White Wall of Silence” — white lab-coated scientists unwilling to speak out against even the most egregious misbehavior of their colleagues out of some misguided sense of solidarity — “Colleagues don’t report on other colleagues — it just isn’t done, you know”.”
Or out of something more primal, fear. Shame on them!
opluso goes with the conspiracy theory of science. As that is an hermetically sealed, closed loop of circular reasoning as are all conspiracy theories, I rightfully take it as a concession.
Kyle asserts an ability to read other people’s minds, makes unwarranted self-congratulatory statements, distorts what our host believes to fit his own arguments, and apparently thinks that his premises are the only valid possibilities. Paris awaits you with open arms. Bon voyage!
Re “…EPA claims reducing ozone alleviates asthma. Child asthma rates are up 131% since 1980, despite falling ozone levels.” From linked website, the organization in the link is The Institute for Energy Research (IER), a 501(c)(3) non profit think tank that says its organizing principles include:
.
(1) a “scholarly approach to energy analysis and free-market energy and environmental policy based on Free Markets, private property rights, market exchange, and rule of law have resulted in affordable energy, improved living standards and a cleaner environment.”
(2) Objective science .. not emotion or improbable scenarios that invite wealth-reducing government activism, which often impairs society’s resilience to change.
(3) Public policy tradeoffs, policies that attempt to correct “market failure” in energy markets must be tempered with the reality of “government failure.”
It is inappropriate to compare idealized government actions with real-world market outcomes. Government policies are implemented by politicians and bureaucracies, not by unbiased and informed academics.
(4) Efficient outcomes: The welfare of energy consumers, energy producers, and taxpayers can and should be considered together.
(5) Impartial and unbiased: Government policies should be predictable, simple, and technology neutral. This approach will spur capital formation in the energy industry and promote technological innovation.
.
I very much agree with IER’s organizing “principles.” But the green movement and the current EPA appear to different principles. The EPA would expand regulation and control without strict and true assessment of risk and benefits.
.
In the case of the stricter ozone regulation addressing the major benefit is improving the increasing risk of asthma in children. It is true that child asthma rates are up 131% since 1980, despite falling ozone levels… the percentage of the U.S. population with the disease increased from 3.1 percent in 1980 to 8.4 percent in 2010, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile average ozone concentrations nationwide dropped by 33 percent from 1980 to 2014. Regions in California are the worst out of compliance areas under the (old) 2008 limit of 75 ppb. So one might say a logical conclusion would be to divest the state of California … more seriously, we should focus on fixing problems where there is a genuine problem and not restructure the entire national energy industry on a whim and dream.
.
In this re: noteworthy is a new paper published yesterday in Science Translational Medicine, “Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma” (paywalled) which was reviewed in various new media already (including WSJ) It is already known but not well understood that many modern illnesses (including asthma) derive from change in lifestyles and excessive use of antibiotics. The authors of the new study found that loss of (good) microbes – especially early in life – has a demonstrated link to development of asthma in children … “good germs, the ones we get from mom, are just disappearing.” “Using DNA sequencing, four bacterial species were found (there could be more) whose low or undetectable levels predicted with “100-percent accuracy” whether the babies would suffer early signs of asthma, such as wheezing and skin allergies, by 1 year old. None of the infants with high levels of these bacteria in their stool at 3 months old developed such symptoms. The study emphasizes that in that first 100 days the structure of the gut microbiome seems to be very important in influencing the immune responses that cause or protect us from asthma.”
.
The EPA should take acknowledge and take note of all good, relevant and reliable scientific studies.
We’ll see how it goes, and whether they really have anything. You don’t mess with the NSF as Salby found out.
“New paper by French mathematicians determines battle against global warming is “absurd, costly & pointless crusade”
Crichton’s address “Aliens Cause Global Warming” discusses the future in a different way:
“Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses? ”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
One of the top students at the Gore Academy. Oops, what am I thinking?
=============
Given that Whitehouse even said that there isn’t a specific RICO case yet, there was a heck of a lot of fuss on the blogosphere.
AK, using biologics as proxies is always prone to biologic responses.
However, the range and uncertainty of all the proxies does not support ‘constant’ nor 300ppm.
We know what happens to many plant species in 1000ppm CO2 environment, because we create those environments on purpose in greenhouses for the benefit.
As I mentioned before, this doesn’t prove that raising the pCO2 to 800-1000ppm would produce catastrophe
Doesn’t prove – doesn’t even indicate.
but there is certainly the risk that it would produce sudden changes to the climate, the global ecosystems, or both.
Can you be specific and not general?
Increased temperature alone doesn’t change much about gradients.
Increased humidity means energy imbalances can more readily be resolved by latent heat meaning, as indeed Manabe theorized decades ago, reduced temperature variability and reduced kinetic energy.
These risks cannot be quantified at this time
It would be progress if you could even identify them, much less quantify them.
and certainly wouldn’t (IMO) justify dramatic restructuring of the world’s economic structure. But if it’s possible to transfer away from fossil fuels without impacting energy prices or availability it would certainly be a good idea.
Indeed. Most don’t care about the source of their energy.
They do care about the cost, availability, and reliability.
Right now, the winner in those three categories is natural gas, which is a compromise win for everyone.
However, given demographics, it probably irrelevant.
But that’s what governments are best at: solving non-problems and leaving future generations to fix unintended consequences.
Enigmatic = nonsensical = concession?
