Articles on this Page
- 12/31/18--13:27: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--13:56: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:08: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:15: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:17: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--14:19: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:21: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:32: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/31/18--14:46: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:53: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--14:53: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--15:08: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--15:55: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--16:50: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--16:58: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--17:04: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--17:09: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--17:14: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--17:20: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--17:22: _ Comment on 201...
- 12/31/18--13:27: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Rick Kargaard
- 12/31/18--13:56: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by JCH
- 12/31/18--14:08: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by aaron
- 12/31/18--14:15: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Michael Rath
- 12/31/18--14:17: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/31/18--14:19: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by bigterguy
- 12/31/18--14:21: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by garyh845
- 12/31/18--14:32: Comment on Week in review – science edition by swood1000
- 12/31/18--14:46: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by prcgoard
- 12/31/18--14:53: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by curryja
- 12/31/18--14:53: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Beta Blocker
- 12/31/18--15:08: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by jim2
- 12/31/18--15:55: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Jim D
- 12/31/18--16:50: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by Nick Stokes
- 12/31/18--16:58: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by popesclimatetheory
- 12/31/18--17:04: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by bernie1815
- 12/31/18--17:09: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by RiHo08
- 12/31/18--17:14: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by sandscondocommunity
- 12/31/18--17:20: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by popesclimatetheory
- 12/31/18--17:22: Comment on 2018 –> 2019 by dpy6629
Roy Spencer estimates 2018 will be the 6th warmest so I think I can give you a win by a nose on that one.
There is a reason her claiming a win based on that is not likely to happen.
Happy new year!
Thanks for all you do here.
I love your blog. Keep up the good fight.
The following was on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning before you posted the above excellent prognostications piece.
I want to seriously debunk this moron from ever reporting on any media. What would be your take on it? You can see my comment on it at Scientists Skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming on FB.
Happy New Year (we can only hope it will be).
Re: Changes in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes over global land areas
Authors Zengchao Hao et al promote a combined index of heat and drought as more severe and more widespread than heat and drought used alone. Their conclusions include that "The changes in the severity of compound dry and hot extremes over global land areas are evaluated, based on a compound dry and hot extreme index using the CRU data for the period 1951–2016. Results show a significant increase in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes in the western US, .... and eastern Australia, indicating an increased risk of compound dry and hot extremes in these regions. A significant temporal trend of the increasing severity is also shown, along with increased area coverages of different severity levels of compound dry and hot extremes.
Their analysis depends on temperature and rainfall being independent variables. Patently, they are not. Here is part of a paper in prep by colleague Dr Bill Johnston, who from about line 50 onwards shows many graphs from sites where rainfall is plotted against temperature (dropping out the time factor usually plotted with both). It is easily seen that a great deal of the temperature variation is statistically explained by rainfall. Rain cools. Johnston uses the T-rain relation at a site to seek outliers and to help adjust for trend breaks caused by factors unknown from the spare metadata.
Zengchao Hao et al. also claim "A significant temporal trend of the increasing severity. Simple analysis of the raw T and rain data from the BOM fails to show this to be the case. The claim can be made in some sub-regions, not in others. See the T/time plots from Johnston, both before and after his adjustments based on rainfall.
Overall, the paper reviewed is an example of data mining. Statistical associations are calculated when mechanical processes need to be. Rain cools. Evaporation removes relatively large heat quantities; and cloud cover is often associated with rainfall, reducing the heat from sunlight.
Heat waves in Australia's main capitals are NOT becoming longer, more frequent and hotter, as the Establishment claims.
(Sorry for the length. There is just too much that is contestable in this paper, but as usual, a careful rebuttal can be longer than the original paper, especially one that starts : "Global warming has been shown to affect weather and climate extremes, such as droughts, floods, windstorms, cold waves, and heat waves."). Geoff.
Thank you for your efforts. You are a hero of science!
Happy New Year!
Indeed, I considering moving further away [1/2 a block] from the coastline in about 3,846 AD.
The approach in vogue on the left now, and followed with gusto by Krugman, is the one put forward by Herbert Marcuse in his essay <a href="https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm" rel="nofollow">Repressive Tolerance.</a> The idea is that tolerance of evil or permitting free speech promoting ideas that bring harm to society are not desirable. He argued instead for “liberating tolerance,” which he said means “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”
In the context of climate change, to treat skeptics as deserving of a respectful hearing would be tolerance of evil. Instead, they are to be treated with disdain and receive ad hominem insults, the hope being that the more vicious such insults become the greater the chance those who wish to avoid similar treatment will refrain from espousing such views. It can’t be denied that this approach is effective in stifling dissent, but it also can’t be denied that such a tactic is a sure indication that the person believes himself to be unable to achieve victory on the merits.
Krugman talks about the evil tobacco companies who tried to hide the truth of smoking but the argument that smoking causes cancer and other diseases was incontrovertible so people rested on the force of the scientifically demonstrated proof. The facts pointing to catastrophic AGW are just not there, requiring this resort to threats and bullying since their goal is not simply climate change but is also to rein in capitalism and redistribute wealth, but it is more difficult to get people on board with arguments to those ends.
In your coming hurricane report, would you, please, include west Pacific typhoons and cyclones to give a world-wide cover, not just the USA?
Happy New Year!
Yes! The atlantic has the longest/best data, but West Pacific is pretty good also, so both are covered. I also provide information on global tropical cyclone activity (in fact I am writing that chapter now)
Happy New Year to Judith Curry and to the denizens of this excellent blog, pro-AGW and anti-AGW alike..
Looking forward into 2019, the events I will be observing most closely concern how far the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will be moving in pushing their anti-carbon agenda, given these two predictable certainties about the next two years:
-- Any anti-carbon legislation written and passed by the Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2019 and 2020 will be rejected by the Republicans in the Senate; and
-- In January 2021, a Democrat will be taking office as president and the Democrats will be in full control of the Congress by substantial majorities in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate.
In 2021, when the Democrats are once again in full control of the federal government, it is guaranteed they will be enacting a series of massive spending programs for supporting a variety of renewable energy technologies and projects.
But the question arises, will they also be putting a price on carbon in 2021, a price high enough and broadly enough applied to promote the quick and effective reduction of all of America's GHG emissions, not just those from coal-fired and gas-fired power plants?
Just as important two years from now, will the Democrats be using the EPA to its maximum possible effectiveness in directly regulating <em>all</em> of America's carbon emissions -- something they refused to do when they were last in full control of the federal government?
If the answer to these latter two questions turns out to be 'yes', then we should believe that the Democrats are truly and honestly concerned about the dangers of climate change.
But if the answer to both questions turns out to be 'no', then we can rightly conclude that their talk about the dangers of climate change is just that -- talk.
Happy New Year to the Denizens, including the Climate Crazed!
I have spent way too much of my time posting here, so my New Years resolution is not to.
The prediction was for "global average 2018 surface temperatures".
During the Medieval Warm Period, the Vikings moved all the way to Greenland. The Chinese mapped the Arctic Ocean because it was open then. During this warm period, warmer than now, it snowed enough to cause ice in cold places to build for several hundred years and then advance. This drove the Vikings to move out of Greenland and move more south and closed the Arctic Ocean and caused the Little Ice Age. This natural, normal and necessary warm period will last a few hundred years while ice accumulates in Greenland and other cold places and then this warm period will end when the sequestered ice advances again and causes another little ice age. Climate changes in natural cycles and we did not take over regulating climate. It works the same way it always has worked.
We can move to adapt or we can use fossil fuel to power heating and cooling to help us adapt. We already do that to adapt to day and night, sunny and stormy and summer and winter.
Many thanks for all the fine work and seemingly unending patience. May 2019 bring you good fortune and good health.
Although not formally a guest poster, Robert I Ellison remains a voice of science on this post and in some way should be recognized; ie, as a contributor to the advancement of our scientific knowledge.
The: Scientists Scientist award. His thinking and clarity and documentation counts for a lot!
Much appreciated Jim D!
Sorry about shooting fish in a barrel!
Dr. Curry, all the best and thanks!
If the democrats win and do this dumb stuff to end carbon emissions, it will be their last term, stupid only goes so far. Look at what is happening in France and other countries. People are fed up with alarmism. The alarmism in the UK helped bring about BREXIT.
They will need to find another Chicken Little, The Sky Is Falling, disaster to scare people to tax and control them. The backers for climate disaster get rich selling windmills and solar panels that generate electricity that is much more expensive and much less reliable and still must be backed up by fossil fuel generated power. People fell for it, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, , , , forever!
Happy new year to you Judith Curry. Best wishes for continued success and happiness.