here’s one other article that just came out that people here should find interesting
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/the-social-benefit-of-carbon/
Comment on Week in review – science edition by davidelang
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by davidelang
Even the most ardent climate change alarmists are predicting the problems to happen after everyone alive today is dead, so the chance of anyone alive today dying from climate change are basically zero. It’s all “for the children” (of the future)
↧
Comment on About by 2018 QUOTE OF THE YEAR – The Issue
[…] of https://judithcurry.com/about/ and the Bolt […]
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
JimD my intent wasn’t to debate the specifics of her proposal. It’s been costed out elsewhere and covers more than Medicare. She wants freebies on Everything.
My point was she is emblematic of the new left-divorced from reality. They don’t understand capitalism or economics or business or the banking system or capital markets or insurance. To them national wealth comes down from heaven dropped by Tinker Bell, The Tooth Fairy and Elf on the Shelf. The sad thing is that millions are such economic illiterates they fall for it.
Now let’s do something productive like discuss the Antarctica articles and how much warmer those waters are that are melting the glaciers. I’ve never seen an estimate of the temperatures at the ocean glacier interface compared to 100 years ago.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by tasfaymartinov
<i>Re-evaluating the ocean conveyor belt</i>
Not surprising that any mechanism of natural non-anthropogenic climate change will be “re-evaluates” to death.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by tasfaymartinov
On the other hand …
Good to see a study recognising internal (as opposed to externally forced) oceanic circulation variability:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL080474
↧
Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
P.S. don’t be miscued by source; it’s just a handy starter that links mainstream / other sources, multiple sources across a range should always be sampled of course.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Janet Ratliffe
You miss out the money which individuals spend on their health over and above what “the government” spends out of their taxes on hospitals and doctors. I refer to the $3,500 that a “typical” family will have to spend on drugs, dental care etc out of their own pocket. My own Blue Cross costs are about that. The total Canadian per capita spending on health is much larger than your figure. How much larger? Who knows – its not well tracked.
Tony.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ulric Lyons
‘Heat waves in Berlin and Potsdam, Germany…’
Periods of stronger solar wind driving positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions. The 2006 heatwave occurred on the same type of heliocentric Jovian configuration as all of the greatest NW European heatwaves of the last 800 years.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Burl Henry
Robert I. Ellison:
No, not a stretch. Your cited paper regarding the pause failed to identify the actual cause of the “pause”.
It was caused by Western reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions being largely offset by Eastern increases in emissions, so that atmospheric SO2 levels were relatively constant.
Total anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions in 2001 were 110 Megatons, and in 2013 only 113 Megatons (with some bouncing around in the interim)
When they dropped to about 85 Megatons in 2016, it caused the very strong 2015-2016 El Nino. (The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino was also caused by a reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions (7.7 Megatons).
Earth’s Climate is extremely sensitive to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and cannot be ignored in any study of climate change… .
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
He’s wrong on atmosphere, but I think at least partially right on ice cores. I’m dubious that there aren’t biological and chemical processes which affect CO2 in ice and smooth the data beyond the low resolution of samples.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by Robert I. Ellison
There are two papers. The one you didn’t read with any attention to detail discusses cloud change over the Pacific as the major cause with a minor contribution to SW power flux at TOA more broadly in the Atlantic and Pacific as a result of sulfate reductions in the US and China. The other discusses intensification of BC warming through coating with sulfate along with other compounds – the lensing effect. Neither of these studies are outliers.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
In other words, a hoax and a scare tactic– and Left vs right issue that’s politics not science… if not ideologically motivated, and if not a new religion of enviro-wackos, global warming alarmism is a con job– a sting on the productive.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by climateadj
Anybody know where to find current values for anthropogenic aerosol forcing.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by frankclimate
Re BH: The aerosol forcing in the real world is smaller then estimated in the AR5 ERF. The “indirect effect” ( aka “ACI”) is about 50% ( at least) smaller, see https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/29/update-on-the-strength-of-aerosol-forcing/ and the direct (ARF) effect also by about 30% , see https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.218701 . The backround: the “black carbon” ( BC) forcing is much stronger than thought due to a “coating effect” of SO2 particles. The BC forcing is positive ( it warms the planet) , the SO2 forcing is (more) negative. Result: the net forcing ( with a negative sign) is much smaller than thought. Or the other way around: The GHG forcing is stronger, when calculating the given T-increase this will reduce the sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by dpy6629
Frank too, Good comment. I would just add that the increase in sensitivity with time in GCM’s seems to be related to the “pattern of warming” argument. Basically, GCM’s get the observed pattern of warming to date rather wrong. The reasoning goes that in the long term, the real world will return to a pattern of warming similar to GCM’s. This argument is rather backwards. If the to date pattern of warming is quite wrong in GCM’s, why would one have any expectation that their long term pattern was more correct? I can’t think of any good argument for that position. It seems like more a leap of faith than anything else.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Unfortunately this is not true. There are lots of attribution studies that claim to show that present nasty weather events, in which people have died, are more or less due to human caused climate change. The whole UN category of “loss and damage” depends on this attribution.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
A great find. With Global Warming, Sweden will be unsuitable for intelligent life. I use “be”, not “become”, because the process has started already.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Curious George
That’s why I admire Dr. Curry. She had the courage to escape. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
My brother owned a factory in Canada, so I have discussed this in great detail with him and some of his workers. My son is a resident physician at one of the leading hospitals in the US.
Canada has a superior system. Our system is broken.
Americans also spend a great deal out of pocket.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
