Thongchai Thailand

Author Archive


bandicam 2020-01-15 11-51-47-431











  1. At the risk of using unfortunate phraseology, Arctic sea ice has been a hot topic for many years now. The Arctic is often called the world’s air conditioning system because of the pivotal role it plays in controlling the planet’s climate largely due to the enormous ice sheet sitting on top of Greenland and the vast body of sea ice that ebbs and flows in the Arctic Ocean. So if those two bodies of ice start to diminish, then you can expect the air conditioning effect to change as well.
  2. There seems to be a constant debate about accuracy of measurement up in the Arctic. The implications of single year anomalies in the dataset get disputed as does the accuracy and calibration of different measuring instrumentation, margins of error in climate modeling, and value differences from calculating techniques from one monitoring agency to another.
  3. But really speaking, it doesn’t matter which organization you prefer or which dataset you choose to use from one year to another or even which graph or chart you find easiest to read. My personal favorite is Jim Pettit’s spiral graph, by the way. The trend line of every single reputable Arctic sea ice dataset, graph, and chart is an inexorable trajectory downwards toward zero. bandicam 2020-01-15 12-42-22-784
  4. And when I say zero, I should probably clarify a couple of important caveats. The first is that “zero” in climate science terms means a sea ice extent that is less than one million square kilometers. The second is that there is no suggestion that this will be a year-round phenomenon – at least in the short term anyway. It is likely that the first time we get an Arctic sea ice extent that is less than one million square kilometers it will stay that way for a couple of weeks towards the end of September before building back up again when the colder months start to encroach but the heat that will have got into the water while the ice was missing will make it extremely likely that once we’ve had a Blue Ocean Event , we’ll continue to get them every year thereafter. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-03-47-967
  5. And there is an understandable human curiosity that drives the climate science community to try to make predictions about when that zero mark might actually be reached. At one extreme end of this prediction scale 2017 was touted by some as an almost guaranteed date for the first Blue Ocean Event right up until the 2017 minimum actually arrived and the sea ice bottomed out at about 4.7 million square kilometers. At the more conservative end of the scale, organizations like our own UK Met Office point to the slowdown in the Atlantic Overturning Meridional “Currents” as an indicator of a much longer timeline perhaps to the end of the century. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-18-47-868
  6. Conversely, the American Geophysical Union or the AGU has just released a new report pointing to a long term warming phase in the tropical Pacific which they suggest may mean a Blue Ocean Event could occur in the next twenty years or so. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-23-38-448
  7. Others use different extrapolations to of graph trends to hit various possibilities. This graph of prior ice measurements from 1980 to the present day has no fewer than five different overlay fit-lines including a straight linear trend line, an exponential fit, a second order polynomial fit, a log fit, and even something called a Gompertz fit. Pick your favorite line on this graph and you can have a Blue Ocean Event anywhere from about 2024 to 2050. All of that is fascinating stuff. It’s a bit frustrating and confusing for the non-scientific on-looker. bandicam 2020-01-15 15-47-13-056
  8. But attempting to put our finger on when in the next 80 years this Blue Ocean Event is likely to descend upon us is perhaps distracting us all from the real question which is what will happen after a  Blue Ocean Event and what can we do now to mitigate its worst effects. So this video contains no predictions from an English layman about Blue Ocean Event timelines. Instead we will have a look at the inextricably interconnected nature of the Arctic and its local environment and the wider global climate to establish the top ten most significant potential outcomes of an ice free Arctic. bandicam 2020-01-15 16-14-44-019
  9. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#1: LATENT HEATAs long as there is ice in a body of water, then any surrounding heat energy is carried towards the ice to try and make it melt. But the energy needed to make it change state or phase from solid ice to liquid water is the same amount of energy that would heat an equivalent volume of liquid water all the way up to 79C. So that’s your first problem. Once all the ice is gone, the water gets much warmer very quickly indeed. And then you’ve got consequence #2 which is Albedo change. 
  10. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#2: ALBEDO CHANGEOnce all the ice goes you no longer have a nice big sheet of reflective white stuff to bounce the sun’s heat safely back out into space. Back in program 17 we did a little experiment with a digital thermometer, a couple of halogen lights, and some black and white cards and it was pretty obvious that the dark cards was immediately absorbing loads more heat than the white card. And that’s exactly what happens when ice disappears from the top of a dark blue ocean. So all that energy that was previously being reflected back by the ice were now being absorbed by the water. bandicam 2020-01-15 16-41-35-357
  11. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#3: ALBEDO CHANGE:  ACCELERATED MELT OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET:  But hold on I hear you say. The Greenland Ice Sheet is on land not in the sea, so it’s a completely different thing, right? Well, yes. But the rapid warming of a continent size of water right next to the land mass means that ambient air in the region will also be getting warmed up. That warmer air will be pulled inland and across the surface of Greenland and it is this that will contribute to the accelerated melting of the ice sheet. 
  12. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#4: ALBEDO CHANGE:  INCREASE IN WATER VAPOR:  So we’ve got more liquid water from the melting ice and we’ve got a warmer atmosphere because of the various feedback loops that we just looked at. Physics tells us that for every 1C of warming, our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture. So now we’ve got more water vapor in the skies directly above the Arctic and water vapor is itself a very potent greenhouse gas. As dense low clouds drape a warming blanket over the land and sea, we get ourselves one more feedback loop to add to the list. 
  13. But because our global climate system is so interconnected, all the extra moisture in the air coupled with the warmer atmosphere also means a huge increase in energy to whip up storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and extreme flooding all over the world. We’ve already got just over a degree of warming compared to 1850 levels and that’s quite clearly having a big impact on extreme weather events around the world. According to a recent report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), most of the natural hazards that affected nearly 62 million people in 2018 were associated with extreme weather and climate events with 35 million hit by floods. Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael were just two of 14 $1 billion disasters in 2018 in the United States. Super Typhoon Mangkhut affected 3.4 million people and killed 134 mainly in the Philippines. Kerala in India suffered the heaviest rainfall and worst flooding in nearly a century.  bandicam 2020-01-15 18-20-17-993
  14. And all of that is without a Blue Ocean Event . The regularity and severity of these things will most likely see a very rapid increase as a result of an Ice Free Arctic and all that extra water will also result in consequence #5. bandicam 2020-01-15 18-30-46-946
  15. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#5: SEA LEVEL RISEAs water gets warmer, it expands and as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts at an ever increasing rate, that melting ice will flow down into the sea, an both of those things together will result in rising sea levels; not just in the Arctic but all around the globe. They are already rising as a consequence of human induced climate change of course but after a Blue Ocean Event, we’ll stop talking in tenths of millimeters a year and start talking in tens of centimeters a decade or so. And then it won’t just be hundreds of millions of people in vulnerable places like Bangladesh who suffered the loss of their homes and livelihoods as well as famines, disease, and premature deaths, something we’ve become a bit numb to here in the West because it only happens on the telly as far as we’re concerned. No, no! Now the water will coming after us comfortable affluent <people> as well. Most of the major cities in the financial centers of the world are in coastal areas and most of them face significant or even catastrophic destruction as water levels encroach on the lower lying districts. But there are some political leaders out there who wave a bit bravado about and tell their citizens they will simply use human ingenuity and technology to keep the water out. Miami for example, is already spending $500 million to install a massive pumping system to pump water back out into the ocean. And you know, good luck with that! bandicam 2020-01-15 19-46-55-059
  16. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#6: SEVERE JET STREAM DISRUPTION : A Blue Ocean Event will significantly accelerate the phenomenon known as Arctic Amplification for all the reasons we just talked about. The Arctic has already warmed by nearly 2C just over the last 30 years – much faster than the rest of the planet. And that is reducing the differential in temperature between the high latitudes and the equatorial region. And that causes the jet stream to slow down and meander about much more. A slower more meandering jet stream drags colder Arctic air down to lower latitudes for prolonged periods of time giving us things like The Beast from the East that we got in Europe in the year 2018; and many of the severe cold snaps that North America has been suffering in the last couple of years. But crucially, it dragged warm equatorial air much farther north way up into the Arctic Circle also for prolonged periods. So we witnessed ridiculously high temperatures like +11C in the North Pole in September. And of course that amplifies the Arctic warming still further and strengthens all the effects we’ve already looked at. 
  17. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#7: METHANEWe’ve all probably seen headlines like the 50 Gigaton Methane Bomb; or The Ticking Time Bomb of Methane . So what’s this all about? Where is all this methane coming from? And why does it need to be included in this Blue Ocean Event consequences? The 50 Gigaton number was first brought to light by scientists specializing in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) as far back as 2008 during the European Geophysical Conference. The ESAS continental shelf is extremely shallow, only about 50 meters deep. In a 2013 paper by Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope, and Peter Wadhams. They explain that as the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50 gigaton reservoir of methane stored in the form of hydrates exists on the Siberian Arctic shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the sea bed warms steadily over 50 years or so. Or suddenly! According to Peter Wadhams, even if only 8% of the methane were released, this would very rapidly add about 0.6C to our global temperature; and rapidly rising temperatures will have a DEVASTATING effect on the main food growing regions of the world. bandicam 2020-01-16 10-44-43-879
  18. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#8: Global Food Crisis:  Abrupt global warming will mean that “these vital food growing regions”  {Brazil, Argentina, Indian Subcontinent, China, SE Asia}, will begin to experience such extreme temperatures and weather that agriculture will become practically impossible. The report in Time Magazine [LINK]  summarizes the predicament very well. Globally we rely on a very slender thread of genetic diversity. More than 50% of all human calories come from just three plants – rice, maize, and wheat. And the rice maize and wheat come from {Brazil, Argentina, Indian Subcontinent, China, SE Asia} all of these regions are going to be MASSIVELY affected by climate change and global warming – especially following the Blue Ocean Event. Our current human activity puts us on a path toward 4C warming above pre-industrial by the year 2100.  The map of the world at that stage will look something like this. bandicam 2020-01-16 12-40-24-493
  19. It is noted in the map above that Canada will grow most of the world’s crops, Northern Europe under huge pressure for habitable land, Russia has arable land and a habitable zone, the SW USA is a desert, North Africa, the Middle East, and Southern USA are uninhabitable, Africa is mostly desert, Southern Europe suffers from desert encroachment, Southern China is an uninhabitable dust bowl, Amazonas is an uninhabitable desert, Bangladesh and South India are abandoned after Himalayan glaciers have melted, Australia is useful only for Uranium mining, and Patagonia remains an arable zone.
  20. So the comfortable insulation and detachment we currently enjoy in the West will be pretty much shattered as we struggle to find enough food to feed our population. Here in the UK for example, we get 50% of our food from outside the country much of which is sourced from these vulnerable countries. And these huge swaths of once fertile land now turns into a dust bowl with summer temperatures exceeding 50C, a temperature way to high to grow anything. They will become places where human activity is more or less impossible. bandicam 2020-01-16 12-49-12-326
  21. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#9: CLIMATE REFUGEE CRISIS:  Commentary from Alfredsdottir, Icelandic lawmaker and former Minister of Foreign Affairs in a 2017 NATO report. It says that the refugee crisis shaking political stability throughout much of the Middle East and posing serious problems in Europe could be a harbinger of things to come. The huge economic and social costs linked to mass movements on this scale are self evident. It is distinctly possible that global climate challenges could trigger mass movements particularly in regions which no longer have the water and agricultural resources needed to support life. 
  22. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#10: REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CONFLICT.  In that same NATO report, Philippe Vitel, French legislator, says that it is a moral imperative to reduce hunger and thirst in the world. But it is also a strategic imperative. If the Middle East and North Africa cannot achieve sustainable food and water security, we will see many more crises in the years to come. Alfredsdottir concludes that the potential for conflict between regions affected by climate change should not be ruled out. And that’s ultraconservative NATO speaking, not Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth.  bandicam 2020-01-16 17-37-20-939
  23. Of course none of these consequences represents an existential threat to the planet itself . Our earth doesn’t care what the temperature is or what the relative concentration of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are. Its self regulatory systems have always re-calibrated themselves over long periods of time so that they always get back to equilibrium. The point is that for the last 11,000 years, since the dawn of human civilization, we’ve been able to design our entire societal infrastructure in every corner of the globe about a remarkable stable and predictable climate with an average global temperature that has never varied by more than 0.4C in all of that time until now. Our governments are perfectly well aware of what lies ahead but they are not taking the radical actions necessary partly in fear of the fossil fuel money that controls the modern political landscape, and partly in fear of inducing panic and unrest amongst their population. So thet need to be shown that their populations do want them to take radical action. That’s the objective of groups like and Extinction Rebellion.  And not forgetting of course the kids school strike movement inspired by the astonishingly determined and focused Swedish teenage activist Greta Thunberg. You might feel there is very little you can do as an individual to mitigate such an enormous issue but that doesn’t mean there is nothing you can do at all. If you feel it’s within your gift, get involved with one of these groups or the very least hassle your elected representative and don’t take no for an answer. On a practical level, take your money away from those doing harm. Change your energy supply to a green energy supplier or better still get solar powers on your roof. And don’t give up if you live in an apartment block. Get together with the other residents and sort out a communal system. That’s already happening in many European cities. Change your bank, your life insurance, your pension provider if you’ve got one, to an organization that has divested all its funds away from fossil fuels. If you can, get rid of your internal combustion engine car and walk or cycle wherever possible. And if you do need to have a car from ability reasons or you’ve got 5 kids, then the next time you buy a new one, make sure it’s an electric vehicle. Change your diet to minimize the amount of meat you consume specially beef. A kilogram of beef is 30x more impactful on the environment than a kilogram of plant protein. Ideally, move to a plant based diet altogether. It’s much cheaper and it’s far healthier for you anyway. Each of us has a personal choice to make about how we respond to this climate crisis. I know a lot of you out there are really taking positive actions of your own.






In paragraph #3 above, TBGY says that the long term trend of year to year changes in September minimum sea ice extent is “an inexorable trajectory downwards toward zero” with the clarification that anything under 1E6 sq-km of Arctic sea ice extent counts as zero and that this state of Arctic sea ice extent, previously called the ICE FREE ARCTIC is described by TBGY as a Blue Ocean Event (BOE). After quoting some forecasts about when the BOE might happen, TBGY admits that all prior forecasts of the BOE have turned out to be wrong.

The long list of failed BOE forecasts is presented in a related post as “the ice free Arctic obsession of climate science[LINK] and a recent forecast of the BOE {Thackeray, Chad W., and Alex Hall. “An emergent constraint on future Arctic sea-ice albedo feedback.” Nature Climate Change 2019} is discussed. Like TBGY, the paper acknowledges failures of prior BOE forecasts but attributes these failures to deficiencies in climate models that the authors claim have now been corrected by re-calibrating climate models with the deep seasonal cycle of sea ice extent. Based on the re-calibration, the authors predict an ice free Arctic (BOE) at some time between 2044 and 2067. Unlike prior forecasts of an ice free Arctic (BOE), this forecast uses a long time horizon of more than 20 years into the future and a large error margin > 20 years. It is a sign that climate science is now weary and apprehensive of the BOE game having failed so many times in the past.

In this lecture, TBGY takes a very different and radical approach in the strategy to continue the BOE game in the face of dramatic and humiliating failures of the past and it is in this context that he says in paragraph#5 above that “And there is an understandable human curiosity that drives the climate science community to try to make predictions about when that zero mark might actually be reached. At one extreme end of this prediction scale 2017 was touted by some as an almost guaranteed date for the first Blue Ocean Event right up until the 2017 minimum actually arrived and the sea ice bottomed out at about 4.7 million square kilometers. And now the AGU forecasts the BOE in 20 years and the UK Met Office projects a BOE by end of the century. These statements are an acknowledgement of the failure of climate science to predict the BOE.

It is here and in this context, that TBGY makes the defining statement of this lecture when he says that {attempting to put our finger on when in the next 80 years this Blue Ocean Event is likely to happen is distracting us all from the real question which is what will happen after a  Blue Ocean Event and what can we do now to mitigate its worst effects. So this video contains no predictions about Blue Ocean Event timelines. Instead we will have a look at the inextricably interconnected nature of the Arctic and its local environment and the wider global climate to establish the top ten most significant potential outcomes of an ice free Arctic}. THEREFORE THIS LECTURE DESCRIBES A HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF THE WORLD AFTER A BOE HAS OCCURRED. THIS HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF THE WORLD IS DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic

TBGY identifies the top ten climate consequences of a BOE as:

  1. SPO#1: LATENT HEATAs long as there is ice in a body of water, then any surrounding heat energy is carried towards the ice to try and make it melt. But the energy needed to make it change state or phase from solid ice to liquid water is the same amount of energy that would heat an equivalent volume of liquid water all the way up to 79C. So that’s your first problem. Once all the ice is gone, the water gets much warmer very quickly indeed.
  2. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#2: ALBEDO CHANGEOnce all the ice goes you no longer have a nice big sheet of reflective white stuff to bounce the sun’s heat safely back out into space.  When ice disappears from the top of a dark blue ocean all that energy that was previously being reflected back by the ice are now being absorbed by the water.
  3. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#3: ACCELERATED MELT OF THE GREENLAND ICE SHEET:  The rapid warming of a continent size of water right next to the land based Greenland Ice Sheet means that ambient air in the region will be warm and that warmer air will be pulled inland and across the surface of Greenland by the cold causing an accelerated melt of the Greenland ice sheet.
  4. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#4: INCREASE IN WATER VAPOR: Physics tells us that for every 1C of warming, our atmosphere can hold about 7% more moisture. So now we’ve got more water vapor in the skies directly above the Arctic and water vapor is itself a very potent greenhouse gas even as dense low clouds drape a warming blanket over the Arctic. 
  5. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#5: SEA LEVEL RISEAs water gets warmer, it expands and as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts that melting ice will flow down into the sea, and both of those things together will result in rising sea levels; not just in the Arctic but all around the globe in tens of centimeters a decade. And then it won’t just be hundreds of millions of people in vulnerable places like Bangladesh who suffered the loss of their homes and livelihoods as well as famines, disease, and premature deaths. Most of the major cities in the financial centers of the world are in coastal areas and most of them face significant or even catastrophic destruction by sea level rise. 
  6. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#6: JET STREAM DISRUPTION : Blue Ocean Event will cause Arctic Amplification. The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world and that is reducing the differential in temperature between the high latitudes and the equatorial region making the jet stream slow down and meander and drag colder Arctic air down to lower latitudes and to drag warm equatorial air up into the Arctic Circle. So we witnessed +11C in the North Pole in September.
  7. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#7: METHANE : Peter Wadhams says that as Arctic sea ice declines the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. There is 50 gigatons of methane hydrates on the Siberian Arctic shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the sea bed warms steadily over 50 years. Or suddenly! Even if only 8% of the methane were released, this would add 0.6C to our global temperature; and rapidly rising temperatures will have a DEVASTATING effect on the main food growing regions of the world.
  8. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#8: Global Food Crisis:  The BOE will cause abrupt global warming making agriculture impossible in vital food growing regions. More than 50% of all human calories come from rice, maize, and wheat. And the rice maize and wheat come from regions that are going to be MASSIVELY affected by climate change and global warming following the Blue Ocean Event.
  9. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#9: CLIMATE REFUGEE CRISIS:  A Blue Arctic Event could trigger mass movements particularly in regions which no longer have the water and agricultural resources needed to support life creating a global refugee crisis. 
  10. The top ten most significant potential outcomes (SPO) of an ice free Arctic: SPO#10: REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CONFLICT.  If the Middle East and North Africa cannot achieve sustainable food and water security, there is a potential for conflict among regions affected by climate change.


Though the ten “consequences” of a hypothetical Blue Ocean Event are painted in horrific terms in over-hyped fear mongering language, the reality is that none of these events have happened and none is likely to happen because they are projections of a purely hypothetical scenario. What the actual data show is a repetitive pattern of high pitched alarms about an imminent and catastrophic ice free Arctic in September. This pattern can be traced from at least as far back as 1999. An unacceptable number of these alarms have been invoked on a regular  basis since then and all of them, except for the ones that are still in the future, have been proven false because they did not happen [LINK] .

The BOE alarm about an ice free Arctic in September assumes that the observed year to year decline in September Minimum Sea Ice Extent (SMSIE) in the Arctic is driven by fossil fuel driven AGW and that therefore it can and must be attenuated by reducing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Yet, the required relationship between climate change warming and SMSIE has simply been assumed. No supporting empirical evidence has been provided. In fact, no such evidence exists. As shown in related posts on this site, correlation analysis between surface temperature and SMSIE does not show that that SMSIE is responsive to changes in AGW surface temperature [LINK]  [LINK] . The single-minded obsession of climate science with fossil fuel emissions [LINK] makes it impossible for the science to include natural geological sources of heat in their analysis of ice melt phenomena even in regions known to be geologically active [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]



That climate science must now resort to a hypothetical BOE scenario to present the fear of AGW in terms of the alarming “consequences” of the BOE is not evidence of things to fear but a tacit admission of the failure of the science. The science is proven wrong and its forecasts of the horrors of an ice free Arctic are discredited. 



PRINCIPLE #1: THE NATURAL AND THEREFORE THE DESIRABLE STATE OF THE PLANET  IS ONE WITH NO HUMANS ON IT: A clean and pure pristine primeval planet earth existed for a billion years in natural perfection, wholeness, and wholesomeness – unpolluted, untainted, untarnished and uncorrupted in the perfection of the harmony of nature.

  1. The geology, biology, and climatology were in a state of perfection.
  2. The climate was stable and unchanging with no extreme weather.
  3. Living creatures both plants and animals lived in peace and tranquility as essential elements of nature itself.
  4. There was no ozone depletion, no climate change, no skin cancer, no hurricanes and no species extinction from bad weather.
  5. Modern day ecofearology is a yearning of humans for this humanless state of nature – a yearning by humans for a return to what the planet was like before humans came along.


PRINCIPLE #2: HUMANS ARE POLLUTION: Meanwhile a planet far far away was being poisoned to death by evil humans. After their planet died from fossil fuel poisoning these humans set out to find a new planet to live on. They found the planet earth.

  1. The devil thus appeared on earth in the form of humans who came on spaceships from outer space . Humans are not part of nature but an external force alien to nature and an abomination. They will soon turn this heavenly planet into a living hell with human activity because their nature is to consume and destroy.
  2. At first the alien humans were relatively harmless living off the land as hunter gatherers in harmony with nature. But they were just biding their time and waiting for their numbers to grow.
  3. When their population reached 6 million, they made their first move for the conquest of the planet. It was a fundamental change in human behavior that has come to be called the Neolithic Revolution.
  4. In the Neolithic Revolution, the humans gave up their eco-friendly hunter-gatherer lifestyle and cleared forests to build homes and farms and to grow crops and raise animals in an extensive and intensive land use change that would forever alter the ecology of the earth. The strategy was immensely successful for the humans who now commanded incredible wealth and power over all other life forms. Their numbers grew rapidly in a population explosion from 6 to 60 million.
  5. By the year 1750 the population of humans had surged to one billion. Their affluence from agriculture, tool-making, medical care, and new knowledge about the earth had rapidly increased their power against nature. But the greater and more devastating change was yet to come in the form of the Industrial Revolution.


PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3: THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION OF THE HUMANS IS THEIR GREATEST ECOLOGICAL EVIL:  The Industrial Revolution was made possible by the humans with a transition in their source of energy from animal power, wind, and running water to machines burning hydrocarbon fuels dug up from under the ground.

  1. This new found energy source and the machines that burnt this new energy source gave the humans immense power that will create a population explosion of humans and a power the humans can use to kill the planet. Nature is now at their mercy.
  2. By the year 1950, the population of humans had more than doubled to 2.5 billion and more and more machines were invented so that almost everything the humans did was driven by fossil fueled machines. These included cars and trucks for surface transportation, fossil fueled ships for crossing the oceans, and fossil fueled aircraft for their conquest of the atmosphere.
  3. Nuclear bombs were invented, tested, and used. Space travel was opening up new tools and ways for humans to conquer nature. The Anthropocene was now in full force. Whereas humans had once been at the mercy of nature, the tables had been turned, and nature and the planet itself were now at the mercy of the humans and human activity.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4: THE PLANET IS THREATENED BY THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: The consequences of these changes and of the implications of the complete capture of nature by humans for the ability of nature to sustain humans in the future are the primary concerns of the new science of Ecofearology. The science involves the study of nature and human activity as a way of protecting nature and managing nature to preserve its ability to sustain humans. The study of Ecofearology is guided by nine foundational precepts that provide the guidelines needed to understand the human impact on nature.

  1. PRECEPT#1: There are no natural or cyclical changes on earth. All measured changes in nature are trends, all trends are bad, and all trends are human caused.
  2. PRECEPT#2: The concentration of all chemicals in the atmosphere and ocean is important. If the concentration is going up it’s a bad thing and its accretion is caused by human activity. Higher concentrations of this thing will be the end of the world.
  3. PRECEPT#3: If the concentration is going down it’s a bad thing and its depletion is caused by human activity. If we run out of this thing it will be the end of the world.
  4. PRECEPT#4: All human caused trends lead to catastrophic results for the environment and by extension, the planet itself. It is not possible for a human caused trend to benefit the planet because humans are not part of nature but space aliens and unnatural.
  5. PRECEPT#5: Human scientists can save the planet from the other humans because the impact of bad human intervention in nature can be undone only by the impact of good human intervention as prescribed by the human scientists because human scientists know the science and care about nature. Therefore, human intervention is necessary to save the planet from human intervention.
  6. PRECEPT#6: Even if human science deniers find fault with the science of human caused catastrophe, we must ignore the human science deniers because we can’t take the chance that the scientists could turn out to be right.
  7. PRECEPT#7: If you don’t find any human caused planetary emergency that threatens the destruction of Nature and the world, it is because you have not looked closely enough. You must work harder and keep looking until you find it.
  8. PRECEPT#8: The human invaders of this once pristine planet are now the managers of nature and the operators of the planet. Therefore we humans must take care of nature and run the planet because nature can no longer take care of itself like it once did now that the human invaders are here.



bandicam 2020-01-09 17-31-11-443







bandicam 2020-01-09 17-50-28-333

  1. Earth System Models (ESM) are used by the IPC and climate scientists project what will happen if we emit carbon dioxide. These are simply global climate models with carbon cycles and other geochemical cycles added to them and remarkably, they project that if emissions ceased, the temperature would stay elevated at that level for hundreds of years. That’s because the slowly falling airborne carbon dioxide levels would be counteracted by the move from the transient climate response to the equilibrium climate response and some carbon cycle feedbacks as well.
  2. The implication of this is that in Earth System Models, warming is proportional to the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide emissions. You emit so much carbon dioxide, the temperature goes up so much. You emit another amount, you get … , the temperature goes up in proportion to the amount emitted.
  3. This why people talk about carbon budgets. The carbon budget is simply cumulative emissions to meet some particular {political?} target, so take not more than two degrees warming. And I’m sure these Earth System Model derived carbon budgets are what’s driving policy so {in nevins?} you’ve got this 95% reduction in emissions proposed. I am sure that is driven by a desire to meet a … some kind of carbon budget. I don’t think you will actually achieve that but I think that’s what driving {post?}. bandicam 2020-01-09 18-19-29-611
  4. So these are the socio-economic scenarios that’s produced projected in emissions is with the representative concentration pathways with actually emission based … this one we used in the last IPC report to drive these Earth System Models the top one the IPC 8.5 is often referred to as business as usual in the press, it’s actually a very pessimistic worst case scenario. I don’t think it’s realistic even if there is no further mitigation. I will focus on RCP6, the next one down, which I think is more in line if one didn’t {foo?} further mitigation. And there’s a couple of other scenarios.  bandicam 2020-01-09 18-21-54-097
  5. So in the IPC 5, a report, 5 years ago, 6 years ago, they produced projections by the Earth System Models of a warming, that line, in relation to cumulative emissions, from {dog side?} this is both since about 1870 so they got the {sicklish?} historical projections – these are all simulations not observations. Up to there and then these different scenarios separate off so you – what you can see is that the warming is very similar in all scenarios. It’s slightly higher in relation to cumulative emissions on the RCP8.5 scenario – that’s because that scenario has extremely high methane emissions – {had a long scenario?}. But otherwise they’re going up pretty well the same. And I am {dawning?} here on green this 1.5 degrees target they’re pushing these days and that corresponds to cumulative emissions of about 625 gigatons of carbon. A gigaton is a thousand million tons – and – this is just measuring the carbon content. You can also measure it in terms of the total carbon dioxide weight which will give you a higher figure so you they use both measures. What’s remarkable here is, as of today, we got {tumitive?} to come to 25 gigatons of carbon, slightly more. So warming is not 1.5 degrees, it is actually about 1 degree. So these models have already been falsified.  bandicam 2020-01-09 18-53-28-427
  6. So clearly the carbon budgets that came from these models are ridiculously low. They’ve already been proven wrong. There is a simpler way to project future warming in relation to emissions and this is to use something called the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions (TCRE). This is the warming for every thousand gigatons of carbon emissions that you put out how much warming will result. This is {sipply?} measured over a period of about 70 years but it’s not critical and indeed in these Earth System Models it doesn’t matter what the period is. And you can measure this easily enough in models you can also measure it from observations, which is my interest. bandicam 2020-01-09 19-45-04-330
  7. So, in these Earth System Models, the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions averages out to about 1.65 degrees for every thousand gigatons. It’s got a wide range, and in the last IPC report they fixed the range to 0.8 to 2.5 degrees. And again, the models, this only came from models in the very bottom end with inference {bio-projection}. I’ve made an estimate of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions from observations, I haven’t got this material in a paper yet but it’s calculated on completely consistent properly probabilistic basis, this I am quite happy with it and that comes out to 1.05 degrees so you can see it’s a long way below the models. And also the range is quite narrow and the top end is only 1.6 degrees rather than 2.5 degrees. That has a big influence on what’s gonna happen in terms of climate damages. bandicam 2020-01-09 20-12-24-320
  8. So the way you project future warming is very simple. You take your future emissions, multiply them by the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and you add in an estimate of warming from human non-CO2 emissions because that’s a {paid sloong fee?} you can just use a model for that without any real accuracy. Remarkably, this is exactly what the IPC did. The first time they didn’t use their 3D complex models for their projections. In the special report on 1.5 degrees last year, it used exactly this method. However, they use of course the IPCC range from AR5 of TCRE=[0.8 to 2.5] and its midpoint is exactly the average for their Earth System models. So the result is that their result reflect the models. The link is now indirect. So I thought well what’s the … This is what the corresponding graph – the key graph in SR1.5 report so this is once again relates warming to cumulative emissions since about 1870 or 1875 but there are differences from the corresponding graphs in AR5. So we got the AR-5, the ones up there, the simulations 2005 and then on up the {aucity?} 8.5 line, this has got the actual observed warming, you can see that it’s up to 1 degree up to the star, that’s 2017 there, it’s only 1 degree not 1.5 degrees where it would be in the IPCC AR5 projections and then they project on from there. So, the green line is using their original model for non-carbon-dioxide-warming. And that original model simply mimics the earth system models, they’re using the Earth System Model range of Transient Climate Response to Emissions and therefore unsurprisingly the green line goes up parallel to the red line but it’s lower because effectively they corrected their over-estimates, their historic over-estimates, but they kept the same sensitivity going forward which may seem a bit stupid since it didn’t work in the past. They’ve also got another model on this yellow line, you can see that, for the non-CO2 warming which is less than even their main projection average. bandicam 2020-01-09 20-27-55-335
  9. So that’s the key graph on the SR15 report and that now is projecting about on RCP6 level about 2.6 degrees warming rather than by decades or centuries rather than 3.2 on the AR5 estimates. I found the same thing in the SR1.5 report, but I a using now my observationally based estimates of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and the simple model for the non-CO2 emissions using my observational estimates of the Transient Climate Response and the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. I’ve got he old IPCC AR5 ones there; and these are mine, are the solid lines, So, black is observed and you can see the point where the IPCC was projecting we get to in 52,000 {nunkeys?} on RCP6 it’s just going to get frequent  warming. If you go down to the same level of cumulative emissions on my estimates, it’s only 2 degrees warming. So this is quite significant. This is warming from the 1870s so this is the same base as essentially the 2 degrees Celsius composite. And this makes quite a lot of difference. bandicam 2020-01-09 22-21-13-725
  10. If I didn’t use Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions and used my own carbon climate model I’d actually get it slightly lower still but about 1.8 degrees but this one I can do a very solid probabilistic uh it would  be publishable. It’s much more difficult if you are using carbon climate models you get many answer.  Finally, I move on to forced invitations as I see it of these {cynics?}. On the IPCC, I think the IPCC AR5 Earth System Models projections linking warming to cumulative emissions are still driving climate policies even though they’ve been shown to be wrong so far and these are driving carbon budgets so I, the policies the cheapest carbon budgets. And these imply rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions in order to meet these carbon budget targets, certainly, 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees, probably rapid reduction. Whereas if you use the observation based projection then the implications are that you’ve got a much longer so you can have a slower reductions in emissions and still meet these targets. I would say that if we are post 2100, then if we really want to stick to this 2 degrees target then emissions even on even on minus would have to be pretty low by then but you certainty don’t have to be low by 2050.
  11. And finally some depressing thoughts. Many climate policies are stupid and wasteful and they’re not going to achieve much. It’s not Europe that’s going to drive emissions in the future. It’s the Chinas the Indias the Indonesia, whatever. And some of them are harmful … things like biofuels is crazy, Also, it is unclear that a warming of 2C or 3C is a serious problem – if we go above the 2 degrees or maybe it’s foolish and certainly in climate models everything is incredibly linear. It doesn’t fall apart if you get to 3 degrees of 4 degrees or even 5 degrees, it just gets warmer. AGW is a long term problem. We should adjust policy adaptively we should look at the adaptation measures.  bandicam 2020-01-09 22-57-02-935




RESPONSE#1: Climate Sensitivity:

    1. Nic Lewis proposes that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity and therefore of future warming are too high because his estimates from observational data are lower. As seen above under “Conclusions”, Nic computes climate sensitivity values of λ=1.7 for long time scales and λ=1.35 for multi-decadal time scales from observational data and finds that these values are 25% to 45% lower than those derived from climate models (2.27 & 2.45). He uses these findings to challenge IPCC assessments about future warming.
    2. Listed below are a large number of estimates of climate sensitivity both short term sensitivity (multi-decadal) and long term ECS. They do not show that climate science is homing in on the correct value of sensitivity nor that there is a correct value of sensitivity. Instead, what we see in these estimates of climate sensitivity is a failure of climate science to estimate the sensitivity value. The large uncertainty implied by these findings do not show that therefore the values of λ=1.7 and λ=1.35 presented above are low and therefore correct and that therefore the IPCC is incorrect. They show instead that the new values of λ=1.7 and λ=1.35 are yet more numbers to be added to a mountain of disparate numbers that have not led to a a useful conclusion about climate sensitivity. The mountain of disparate values already contains similar estimates. This new estimate does not tell us that now we know what the climate sensitivity is. When considered along with all the other values presented here, it tells us that we don’t know what the climate sensitivity is and whether it is a relevant or useful concept in understanding AGW.
    3. The uncertainty problem in climate sensitivity has driven many climate scientists to abandon the sensitivity idea and move to the TCRE as seen for example in Knutti 2017  “Beyond Climate Sensitivity” where Reto Knutti and co-authors Rugenstein and Hegerl acknowledge that the search for sensitivity has failed. They propose that the sensitivity idea should be abandoned and that we should move on to the TCRE metric offers the only reliable relationship between emissions and warming.
    4. As a historical note, in Callendar (1938) [LINK] used observational data for the period 1900-1938 to estimate a multi-decadal climate sensitivity of λ=2. More recently, James Hansen and NASA GISS, have claimed that AGW as a measurable phenomenon began in 1950 with Hansen making the further claim that data for the 30-year period 1950 to 1980 provides clear evidence of human caused global warming and climate change by way of the heat trapping effect of carbon dioxide [LINK] . As of this writing, the Hansen hypothesis can be extended to 2019 but it still remains in the multi-decadal category at time span of 70 years. A similar claim is made by climate scientist Peter Cox for the period “1970s” to 2018 (a 44-year period if “1970s” is interpreted as 1975). He uses an observationally constrained climate model to show a strong proportionality between surface temperature and Ln(CO2).
    5. Using Mauna Loa CO2 data and HadCRU and UAH global mean temperatures 1959-2019, some  estimates of multi-decadal climate sensitivity can be made at these time spans. The multi-decadal sensitivities found are tabulated in the chart below. Their time spans range from 30 to 70 years . sensitivity
    6. The chart shows multidecadal sensitivities from a low of λ=1.3 to a high of λ=3.2 for the full span and sub-spans of the HadCRU dataset 1959-2019 and a consistent value of λ=1.8 for the full span and sub-spans of the UAH satelllite data for mid tropospheric temperature 1979-2019. These sensitivities are supported by strong correlations and statistically significant detrended correlations between temperature and Ln(CO2) as seen in the chart below. correlations


  1.  In a recent post Dr. Frank Bosse, Senior Scientist of Molecular Neurobiology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf uses Earth Energy Imbalance data to estimate that the multidecadal climate sensitivity is  λ=1.72 for the period 1999-2018. [LINK] It is noted that the Bosse estimate closely matches the UAH 1979-2019 estimates of multidecadal sensitivity at 31-year and 41-year time spans. 
  2. In a related post, climate sensitivity estimates in the literature up to the year 2012, both from observational data and  climate models, are summarized in charts  provided by the Late Stephen Schneider [LINK] . The relevant charts are reproduced below. They show a number of sensitivity estimates of λ<2.
  3. A history of sensitivity estimates compiled more recently is also presented [LINK] . It shows estimates from observations, from climate models, from observations constrained by climate models, and from climate models constrained by observations as follows:
  4. Observations: Callendar 1938 λ=2, Johansson, 2015 with corrections for the ‘pause’ in 2000-2014. λ=3.25 90%CI = [2.0 – 4.5]. Aldrin, 2012 90%CI=[1.2 – 7.7]
  5. Climate Models: Charney:  λ=[2.0-3.5], λ=[2.6-4.1], and λ=[1.5-4.5], [λ=3]. Hansen 1981: λ=[2.0-3.5], Knutti 2002: λ=5.7 with 90%CI λ=[2.7-8.7], Murphy 2004: 90%CI=[2.4–5.4],  Stainforth, 2005) very large ensemble model study λ=6.7  90%CI = [1.9 – 11.5].
  6.  Observations Constrained by Climate Models: Andronova 2000: λ=[0.94-2.35],  Gregory 2002: 1860-2000: λ=6 with long tailed distribution skewed right. 90% CI λ= [1.1 – infinity] but with certain assumptions, Gregory is able to reduce the 90% CI to λ=[1.7 – 2.3]. , Frame 2005: λ= 2.4 with 90%CI = [1.4-4.1],  Kummer, 2017 λ=2.3, 90%CI=[1.6-4.1].  Aldrin 2012:  90%CI= [1.0 – 2.7], [1.0 – 3.5], [1.0 – 4.2], [1.3 – 4.9], [1.5 – 7.8], [1.5 – 7.3], and [1.0 – 7.0],  Lewis and Curry 2018 90%CI=[1.05-4.05]. Paleo Data Constrained by Models: Hegerl 2006: 700-year paleo data indicate 90% CI=[1.5-6.2] although values as high as λ=7 to 9 were observed .
  7.  Climate Models Constrained by Observations: Gregory 2002 & Forest 2002: λ=4.2 Symmetrical distribution with 90%CI of λ=[1.4 – 7.7].




RESPONSE#2: Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions


bandicam 2020-01-09 20-12-24-320


  1. The TCRE is a regression coefficient derived not from a theoretical relationship but an observational one. It is derived from the observation of a near perfect proportionality between temperature and cumulative emissions in any given time interval t-1 to t-2. It should be noted that the temperature at any given time from t-1 is cumulative annual warming from t-1. Therefore the near perfect proportionality between cumulative annual warming and cumulative emissions is a correlation between cumulative values – between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions.
  2. In a related posts we show that a time series of the cumulative values of another time series contains neither time scale nor degrees of freedom. Therefore a time series of the cumulative values of another time series does not contain information. Therefore, neither the correlation between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions nor the regression coefficient of cumulative warming as a linear function of cumulative emissions has any interpretation in the real world in terms of phenomena that they apparently represent. [LINK] [LINK] .
  3. As it turns out the proportionality between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions derives from a fortuitous sign pattern in these variables. The sign pattern is that emissions are always positive and , during a time of warming, annual warming values are mostly positive. The information contained in the TCRE is this sign pattern and nothing more.
  4. Specifically, the TCRE contains no information about the responsiveness of temperature to emissions. Yet, this erroneous interpretation of the TCRE guides its use and function in climate science as well as in this Nic Lewis video. The TCRE is a spurious correlation and the relationship between warming and emissions it implies is illusory.
  5. This is why the use of TCRE based carbon budgets suffer from the Remaining Carbon Budget (RCB) problem as explained in a related post [LINK] . The remaining carbon budget anomaly is the creation of a spurious correlation and an illusory carbon budget but is interpreted in climate science as an Earth System Model issue and additional variables are sought and found that will resolve the RCB issue. That a spurious correlation and an illusory TCRE statistic play such important roles in the science of climate science discredits the science and the work of the scientists.

Thus apparently scientific analyses of climate using the TCRE, such as “I’ve made an estimate of the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions from observations, it’s calculated on completely consistent properly probabilistic basis, this I am quite happy with it and that comes out to 1.05 degrees so you can see it’s a long way below the models. And also the range is quite narrow and the top end is only 1.6 degrees rather than 2.5 degrees. That has a big influence on what’s gonna happen in terms of climate damages” contain no actual information about AGW and its claimed relationship between emissions and warming.




RESPONSE#3: Responsiveness of Atmospheric Composition to Emissions

  1. The essence of AGW is that humans burning fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide much of which (40% to 50%, the so called Airborne Fraction) is thought to remain in the atmosphere and cause accumulation thereby increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
  2. This relationship is the critically necessary foundation of AGW because without it none of the other steps of AGW is possible. Yet, no evidence exists for this relationship [LINK] .  The carbon cycle mass balance equations used in this attribution suffers from circular reasoning because it assumes the airborne fraction and overlooks uncertainties in carbon cycle flows to carry out the mass balance [LINK]In the same post it is shown that when the uncertainties in carbon cycle flows declared by the IPCC are included in the mass balance, fossil fuel emissions cannot be detected because the system balances with and without fossil fuel emissions [LINK] .



bandicam 2020-01-04 08-49-45-873









bandicam 2020-01-04 11-47-35-170

  1. This week we are looking back at some of the events that helped make 2019 a pivotal period for our planet’s climate. So sit back and get yourself ready for a roller coaster ride through twelve dramatic months in the next 15 minutes.
  2. Here in the Northern Hemisphere, we catapulted into January on the back of an Arctic Report Card from the NOAA that showed the Arctic continuing to warm twice as fast as the rest of the planet resulting in younger thinner Arctic sea ice covering less area than in the past. The NOAA data show that the twelve lowest sea ice extents in the satellite record had occurred between 2006 and 2018 … and that increasing temperatures were continuing to drive decreasing snow cover and increased melting across the Greenland ice sheet.
  3. Ironically, we also witnessed record breaking snowstorms in the heart of Europe causing chaos and mayhem even in well prepared nations like Germany and Austria where 12 people tragically lost their lives.
  4. Meanwhile over in South America, severe flooding dominated the first month of the year with more than a third of the population in six major regions of Argentina getting evacuated to safer ground; and the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo in Brazil receiving 20 inches of rain in just 72 hours displacing more than 2,000 people
  5. And similar numbers of casualties were suffered in Sulawesi in Indonesia as heavy rains, strong winds, and high tides caused rivers to over-flood??. The province recorded over a foot of rain in 24 hours (12.5) damaging thousands of homes and displacing at least 6,000 people (0.03%).
  6. Back at the start of the year, Australia broke 17 temperature records in the first month with Adelaide at 46.6C and Port Augusta reaching an all time high of 49.5C. But even on the driest inhabited continent on earth the flood still arrived with with 20 inches of rain in 48 hours up in Northern Queensland forcing the state government to declare a disaster situation.
  7. February brought the first climate report of the earth when the United Nations released what they called a road map to the December climate summit stating that 2019 was the LAST CHANCE of the international community to take expected action on climate change. In that same month Britain’s Institute for Public Policy Research published its own major report simply titled “THIS IS A CRISIS”! ???? … it was quite stark. Mainstream politics and policy debates have failed to recognize that human impacts on the environment have reached a critical stage; potentially eroding the conditions upon which socio-economic stability is possible.
  8. And then, as if to reinforce the argument, a meandering jet stream and collapsing polar vortex caused the worst cold period in the United States for decades, effectively dumping the Arctic winter weather straight across the Midwest. At least 21 people were killed and 90 million (out of 480) endured temperatures of -17C with some regions dropping as low as -40C making them colder than the North Pole.
  9. Almost everywhere else on the globe, a thing was beginning to take shape that would arguably come to define the entire year’s weather pattern; and that thing was severe flooding. February brought major floods and landslides to Peru killing 51 and injuring 79. Homes in Peru were washed away after the Perene River burst its banks. Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia all got battered by rains and landslides causing at least 20 fatalities and displacing thousands.
  10. And over in Pakistan, almost three months of flooding began on the 21st of February with 25 fatalities Baluchistan Province.
  11. As we press relentlessly into March, a teenage climate activist named Greta Thunberg came to global attention for the first time when her climate protest strategy of bunking off school every Friday and sitting outside the Swedish Parliament holding a Strike for Climate placard caught the imagination of millions of other school kids and inspired the global school-strike-for-climate movement that went completely viral all over the world.
  12. In the renewable energy arena, for the first time ever, solar and wind power were both declared cheaper than most coal fired electricity production, marking a key tipping point in the ongoing demise of the fossil fuel industry.
  13. The month was marred by yet more extreme weather events with the deadliest cyclone ever to be recorded in the Southern Hemisphere, crashing into Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe. In an excruciatingly slow 5-day crawl across these three countries, cyclone Idai left a trail of utter destruction including 1,300 fatalities and countless missing.
  14. Even as far south as New Zealand, a state of emergency had to be declared on South Island as bridges and roads were washed away; and power and communication lines were destroyed by what that country’s water institute described as “an atmospheric river” with its footprint stretching for 5,000 km all the way from the Seymour Sea. More than 3 ft of rain fell within 48 hours (19 mm/hr), the highest ever total for New Zealand.
  15. And just when the farmers of the American Midwest were breathing a brief sigh of relief after the February Arctic freeze, the relentlessly torrential rains arrived there as well. The first “course” of 2019 was the wackiest on record in the United States. At least 3 people were killed. New record river levels were set in 42 different locations and at least a million acres of US farmland in 9 major grain producing states were completely flooded. By the end of March, only about 56% of the expected corn and soybeans planting had actually taken place.
  16. Northern Hemisphere springtime marched “always” into April. And also marching onwards was a new bunch of upstarts calling themselves Extinction Rebellion or XR. This lot hit the international headlines as they mobilized tens of thousands of people from every region in the United Kingdom to converge on London bringing large areas of our capital city to a complete standstill for two whole weeks in an entirely peaceful very disruptive exercise to get across the four demands for climate mitigation. The XR movement has now gone pretty much global so expect to see a a protester glued to a building near you very soon.
  17. April also saw the publication of the International Renewable Energy Agency’s “Roadmap to 2050” explaining how we might transform our energy and electrification over the next three decades. And of course, here at JHAT we had a good look at what they were suggesting, all of which you can see in more detail by clicking up there somewhere [LINK] (full text below).
  18. The skies kept putting pressure on poorly prepared communities all over the planet. Floods continued to ravage countries across the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East – including Syria where the water has completely displaced the already displaced refugees in the camps of Idlib Province. India and Bangladesh were hit by Cyclone Fani, the strongest cyclone seen in that part of the world since 1999. Cyclone Kenneth hit Mozambique and Tanzania with a force greater than any storm those countries have experienced since records began killing at least a hundred people and causing damage estimated at a hundred million dollars. Meanwhile, just to the north, severe drought pushed nearly 11 million people in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia towards extreme hunger and disease including cholera as crops failed, cattle died, and water sources became contaminated.
  19. A couple of starkly contrasting declarations hit us greens in May of this year. Starting with the UK government, who, having met with a delegation from Extinction Rebellion, and also because of pressure from their own committee on climate change, officially declared a “Climate Emergency” and set the target for meeting net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – the first major economy to do so.
  20. In that same week, in the 11th Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech celebrating the rapidly declining Arctic sea ice and welcoming the almost unimaginably exciting commercial opportunities that would soon be made available by the newly opened Northwest Passage and access to previously unavailable Arctic fossil fuels – even going as far as to describe methane as “freedom gas”.
  21. June marked the start of a long Northern Hemisphere summer dominated by extreme heat events. With almost 400 all time high temperatures being set, kicking off in India where some regions experienced temperatures surpassing 45C for almost 3 weeks. June 10th was the hottest day ever recorded in Delhi, of 48C. And this year also brought the hottest July ever recorded in that country. 65% of the population were exposed to temperatures above 40C every day! for over two months, the longest heat wave in India’s history.
  22. Similar deadly heatwaves were also endured in Europe, North America, and Japan. And then, the wildfires began. Of course, wildfires happen every year but rarely with the magnitude we witnessed in 2019. California’s annual fires are probably the best known and this year’s wildfires there were particularly brutal. But fires were also raging out of control in the Arctic circle, in Southern European countries like Greece, Portugal, and Croatia. And all over South America during July and August.
  23. China reaches into September with the second costliest typhoon of all time. Typhoon Lekima killed at least 28 people and a million people had to be evacuated to safety.  Storm Dorian battered the Bahamas turning out to be the strongest Hurricane ever to hit that country and one of THE strongest Atlantic Hurricane on record. Storm Imelda made land landfall on the Gulf Coast as the 5th wettest storm in US history dumping 40 inches of rain on Texas. And the relentless floods kept coming and coming causing major problems wherever they struck. In some cases, they struck places that hadn’t fully recovered from the first and last deluge during the year.
  24. November proved to be a bit like ground hog day in the United States as a repeat of the polar vortex collapse at the start of the year that caused the Arctic to dump its frozen temperatures yet again across vast swaths of the lower 48 bringing record breaking low temperatures, closing many schools, and causing the cancellation of more than a thousand flights.
  25. As we tumble into the final month of 2019, the United Nations held the COP25 climate conference in Madrid, Spain where the nations of the world spent two weeks discussing the new global carbon pricing program as to how it has significantly increased over nationally determined contributions towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions before concluding the conference with a complete failure to agree on how to move forward on either of those two crucial challenges.
  26. And while all that was going on in the Northern Hemisphere, down in the Southern Hemisphere, Australia was witnessing the onset of late spring bush fires that would go on to reach catastrophically uncontrollable proportions. Right now, as I am standing here talking to you in the very last week of the year, the map of Australia looks a bit like most of it is on fire. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison has kindly returned from his family vacation in Hawaii and actually conceded on national television that there is no argument about the human influence on climate change and it’s impact on the severity of the bush fires his country is currently enduring.
  27. And yet still, after all we witnessed around the planet in this dramatic and potentially pivotal year for our climate, cynics will be gently swaying in their rocking chairs saying things like so we’ve had some bad weather and some casualties but most people seem to be getting on with their everyday lives more or less as normal. So should we really be so upset and concerned about these apparent changes in the climate? I know sane folks will be comforting themselves with the re-assuring notion that our climate has always been changing and always will. It’s nature’s way; and we humans are spectacularly good at adapting and overcoming.
  28. Trouble is though, right now, as we prepare to go into 2020, we’re only just at the very bottom of an exponentially rising curve of climate consequences. All the scientifically accepted indicators suggest that what we witnessed this year, far from being a freak year for weather, is actually set to become the baseline norm as we go through the next decade and beyond. The year 2019 showed us just 1C of extra atmospheric warming above pre-industrial can dramatically and dangerously alter our planet’s climatic balance.
  29. On our current emissions trajectory, it will be 1C warmer than today in 20 or 30 years’ time and at least 3C warmer than today by the end of the century. So 2020 really does look set to be an historically important year in the fortunes of our civilization. Not to mention countless other species that are relying on us humans not screwing up.
  30. Can our nations finally come together to reach consensus on rapid implementation of climate mitigation strategies? Will developed and developing nations cooperate and make sacrifices for the greater good of humanity? Or will we continue along the road of political polarization and inward looking tribal nationalism? I’ll let you have a think about that as you go through your Christmas dinner leftovers.


bandicam 2020-01-04 19-58-04-180




RESPONSE: In the lecture, TBGY has presented 23 instances of extreme weather. It is claimed that they were caused by climate change and that such events can and must be controlled or moderated by taking climate action and that therefore their severity and tragic impact on human well being provide the needed rationale for urgent climate action to mitigate climate change as a way of relieving humanity from the dire impacts of extreme weather described in the lecture. The extreme weather events described in the lecture are listed below.

However, no evidence is provided to support the causation hypothesis – that these extreme weather events are not natural and they would not have have happened without AGW and that therefore these extreme weather events must have been caused by AGW. Instead the causation relationship between AGW and extreme weather is subsumed into the presentation of their harmful effects in terms of the damage done to life and property.

By contrast, climate science uses a procedure called “Event Attribution Science” to find evidence of such causation [CITATIONS] . Weaknesses in this procedure are described in a related post [LINK] . Briefly, Event Attribution Science derives from a bureaucratic tool of the UN called the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) devised to determine whether compensation for damage sustained by non Annex countries in extreme weather events were fundable under the UNFCCC. The procedure uses a large number of climate model runs to determine the probability of the extreme weather event with and without fossil fuel emissions in the industrial era. A sufficiently higher probability with emissions leads to a positive attribution.

The many flaws in this event attribution procedure are noted in the related post on event attribution [LINK] the most salient of which is that post hoc attribution is likely to contain confirmation bias [LINK] particularly so when the scientists in question have a vested interest in a positive attribution in the context of their openly stated position as climate activists [LINK] [LINK] .

However, in spite of its shortcomings, the Event Attribution procedure currently used by climate science is the minimum required evidence for attribution of extreme weather events to AGW. This minimum required procedure has not been carried out and TBGY has simply taken it upon himself to determine that the examples of extreme weather presented are the creation of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and their impacts contain a horrific extent of human misery and that therefore they can and must be controlled with climate action in the form of cutting emissions.

Climate scientists are fairly diligent with respect to the evaluation of extreme events with the event attribution procedure but it takes some time for the work to be carried out and for the results to be published. Therefore, at this early stage in 2020, it is unreasonable to expect these studies to be available. Below is a list of event attribution studies published in 2019. None of the 2019 events are included in these papers. It is unreasonable to expect event attribution studies of events in 2019 to be available in 2019 or so early in 2020. The implied attributions in the TBGY lecture are therefore rejected on this basis.



  1. Record-breaking snowstorms in the heart of Europe.
  2. Flooding caused by heavy rains in Argentina and Brazil.
  3. Flooding caused by rain in Sulawesi, Indonesia.
  4. Very high temperatures as well as heavy rains and flooding in Australia.
  5. A meandering jet stream and a collapsing polar vortex caused the worst cold period in the Midwest of the United States for decades.
  6. Major floods and landslides in Peru where the Perene River burst its banks.
  7. Rain and landslides in Brazil, Ecuador, and Colombia.
  8. Three months of flooding in the Baluchistan province of Pakistan.
  9. The deadliest tropical cyclone ever to be recorded in the Southern Hemisphere struck Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe.
  10. In the South Island of New Zealand heavy rains and flooding washed away roads and bridges and destroyed power and communication lines.
  11. Torrential rains and flooding in the American Midwest setting record river levels and destroying crops.
  12. Severe flooding in the Middle East displaced refugees in refugee camps in Syria.
  13. India and Bangladesh were hit by Cyclone Fani, the strongest cyclone to hit this part of the world since 1999.
  14. Cyclone Kenneth hit Mozambique and Tanzania with a force greater than any storm those countries have experienced since records began.
  15. Severe drought pushed 11 million people in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia to hunger, disease, crop failure, dying cattle, and contaminated water.
  16. Summer heat wave in India with temperatures surpassing 45C for 3 weeks, the longest heat wave in India’s history.
  17. Similar deadly heatwaves were also endured in Europe, North America, and Japan.
  18. Brutal wildfires in California, in the Arctic Circle, and in the Southern European countries of Greece, Portugal, and Croatia.
  19. Typhoon Lekima hit China as the second costliest typhoon of all time killing 28 people and dislocating a million people.
  20. Hurricane Dorian battered the Bahamas. It was the strongest Hurricane ever to hit that country and one of the strongest Hurricanes on record.
  21. Tropical Storm Imelda hit the Gulf Coast of the USA as the 5th wettest storm in US history dumping 40 inches of rain in Texas; and the relentless floods kept coming and coming.
  22. In November, the Arctic Polar Vortex collapse brought brought “frozen temperatures” across the Lower 48 of the USA causing the cancellation of more than a thousand flights.
  23. Australia was witnessing the onset of late spring bush fires that would go on to reach catastrophically uncontrollable proportions.



  1. Imada, Yukiko, et al. “The July 2018 high temperature event in Japan could not have happened without human-induced global warming.” SOLA (2019): 15A-002. The high temperature event in July 2018 caused record-breaking human damage throughout Japan. Large-ensemble historical simulations with a high-resolution atmospheric general circulation model showed that the occurrence rate of this event under the condition of external forcings in July 2018 was approximately 20%. This high probability was a result of the high-pressure systems both in the upper and lower troposphere in July 2018. The event attribution approach based on the large-ensemble simulations with and without human-induced climate change indicated the following: (1) The event would never have happened without anthropogenic global warming. (2) The strength of the two-tiered high-pressure systems was also at an extreme level and at least doubled the level of event probability, which was independent of global warming. Moreover, a set of the large-ensemble dynamically downscaled outputs revealed that the mean annual occurrence of extremely hot days in Japan will be expected to increase by 1.8 times under a global warming level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
  2. Knutson, Thomas, et al. “Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I. Detection and Attribution.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2019 (2019).  An assessment was made of whether detectable changes in tropical cyclone (TC) activity are identifiable in observations and whether any changes can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Overall, historical data suggest detectable TC activity changes in some regions associated with TC track changes, while data quality and quantity issues create greater challenges for analyses based on TC intensity and frequency. A number of specific published conclusions (case studies) about possible detectable anthropogenic influence on TCs were assessed using the conventional approach of preferentially avoiding type I errors (i.e., overstating anthropogenic influence or detection). We conclude there is at least low to medium confidence that the observed poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the western North Pacific is detectable, or highly unusual compared to expected natural variability. Opinion on the author team was divided on whether any observed TC changes demonstrate discernible anthropogenic influence, or whether any other observed changes represent detectable changes. The issue was then reframed by assessing evidence for detectable anthropogenic influence while seeking to reduce the chance of type II errors (i.e., missing or understating anthropogenic influence or detection). For this purpose, we used a much weaker “balance of evidence” criterion for assessment. This leads to a number of more speculative TC detection and/or attribution statements, which we recognize have substantial potential for being false alarms (i.e., overstating anthropogenic influence or detection) but which may be useful for risk assessment. Several examples of these alternative statements, derived using this approach, are presented in the report.
  3. de Abreu, Rafael C., et al. “Contribution of Anthropogenic Climate Change to April–May 2017 Heavy Precipitation over the Uruguay River Basin.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 100.1 (2019): S37-S41.  The Uruguay River is a transboundary river of great economic importance in South America. Its headwaters lie in southern Brazil, the middle reach forms part of the Brazil–Argentina border, the lower reach forms the Argentina–Uruguay border, and it then empties into the La Plata River with a catchment area of 3.65 × 105 km2. The river basin has a temperate climate with annual mean precipitation of 1,750 mm with little seasonality. During the late twentieth century, the Uruguay basin had a positive trend in precipitation (Barros et al. 2008) and streamflow (Pasquini and Depetris 2007). Based on hydrological modeling, Saurral et al. (2008) attributed the 1960–2000 streamflow trend mainly to the increase in precipitation rather than land cover change. The upper Uruguay River catchment has relatively high relief, low soil storage capacity, and land use is mostly pasture and cropland. Therefore, the catchment has a fast hydrologic response in which flood occurrence is more dependent on meteorology than on initial conditions of soil moisture and flow (Tucci et al. 2003). A cascade of hydroelectric dams is used for flood control operations. However, when more persistent and intensive rainfall systems develop
    over the upper catchment, the high soil moisture, fast rainfall runoff response, and limited storage capacity of reservoirs overwhelm the flood control operations and result in downstream flooding. Flood related impacts have also increased, resulting in a growing concern regarding the need to identify the causes of increased flood frequency and establish effective mitigation efforts
  4. Stone, Dáithí A., et al. “Experiment design of the International CLIVAR C20C+ Detection and Attribution project.” Weather and Climate Extremes 24 (2019): 100206.  There is a growing research interest in understanding extreme weather in the context of anthropogenic climate change, posing a requirement for new tailored climate data products. Here we introduce the Climate of the 20th Century Plus Detection and Attribution project (C20C + D&A), an international collaboration generating a product specifically intended for diagnosing causes of changes in extreme weather and for understanding uncertainties in that diagnosis. The project runs multiple dynamical models of the atmosphere-land system under observed historical conditions as well as under naturalised versions of those observed conditions, with the latter representing how the climate system might have evolved in the absence of anthropogenic interference. Each model generates large ensembles of simulations with different initial conditions for each historical scenario, providing a large sample size for understanding interannual variability, long-term trends, and the anthropogenic role in rare types of weather. This paper describes the C20C + D&A project design, implementation, strengths, and limitations, and also discusses various activities such as this special issue of Weather and Climate Extremes dedicated to “First results of the C20C + Detection and Attribution project”.
  5. Kirchmeier‐Young, M. C., et al. “Attribution of the Influence of Human‐Induced Climate Change on an Extreme Fire Season.” Earth’s Future 7.1 (2019): 2-10.  In the coming decades, climate change is expected to dramatically affect communities worldwide, altering the patterns of many ambient exposures and disasters, including extreme temperatures, heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods. These exposures, in turn, can affect risks for a variety of human diseases and health outcomes. Climate epidemiology plays an important role in informing policy related to climate change and its threats to public health. Climate epidemiology leverages deep, integrated collaborations between epidemiologists and climate scientists to understand the current and potential future impacts of climate-related exposures on human health. A variety of recent and ongoing developments in climate science are creating new avenues for epidemiologic contributions. Here, we discuss the contributions of climate epidemiology and describe some key current research directions, including research to better characterize uncertainty in climate health projections. We end by outlining 3 developing areas of climate science that are creating opportunities for high-impact epidemiologic advances in the near future: 1) climate attribution studies, 2) subseasonal to seasonal forecasts, and 3) decadal predictions.
  6. Young, Hannah R., et al. “Event Attribution science in adaptation decision-making: the context of extreme rainfall in urban Senegal.” Climate and Development (2019): 1-13.  Event attribution assesses the effect of climate change on individual extreme events. While scientists have suggested that results could be relevant for climate adaptation policy, this has had little empirical investigation, particularly in developing regions. Taking the case of Senegal, the national adaptation policy context regarding extreme precipitation and flooding in urban areas, and the scientific information needed to support this policy is investigated using key informant interviews, a workshop and document analysis. Flooding in Senegal was found to be viewed primarily as an urban planning concern rather than a climate change issue, with actions to address the impacts focussing on current vulnerabilities of urban communities without considering changing climate risks. While stakeholders thought event attribution might be useful to inform about climate change impacts and future risks of extreme events, it is unclear whether there would be an opportunity for this at present, due to the limited role climate information has in adaptation decision-making. While addressing vulnerability to extremes is necessary whether or not the risk is climate change-related, if long-term planning is to be resilient then knowledge about future changes in risks of extremes will need to be considered, even if individual events are not attributed to climate change.
  7. Owen, Rebecca. “Actuaries are Paying Attention to Climate Data.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 100.1 (2019): S5-S8.  magine it is July in a city in the upper Midwestern United States. Usually it is hot and muggy in the summer, with bugs flying and the lush greenery steaming. But this week the temperatures have soared far above the usual high 80s, and the nights bring no relief. Day after day triple-digit heat leaves most everyone limp and tired. But for some people, the heat is more than just a tiresome nuisance; it is life threatening. The city has a large low-income elderly population, with a large percentage suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, congestive heart failure, and kidney disease. Their old houses and apartments do not have functioning air-conditioning and they are reluctant to go outside or to ask for help. The heat wave is life threatening for them and they have few resources and amenities to cope with the heat stress. The hospitals that serve them are stretched to capacity normally; now the emergency rooms need to turn away ambulances and there are no more vacant beds for patients in extremis. The euphemism for the result is “increased morbidity and mortality due to heat-related causes.” The blunt statement is that the heat is making people very sick or even killing them. This is of course, not a far-fetched scenario, since we have read the news stories including from Chicago, Paris, and Sydney. Nor are scenarios featuring floods in the Southeast or tornados in Oklahoma or drought-exacerbated fire in the West. These events are all driven by climate, and in a world where the climate is changing, so is the risk of any of these scenarios occurring. In this article I provide an overview of how and why actuaries assess various risks, and the role a changing climate can have in those calculations. For climate scientists, I hope this provides insight into how event attribution research can be relevant to actuaries.
  8. Ribes, Aurélien, Soulivanh Thao, and Julien Cattiaux. “Describing the relationship between a weather event and climate change: a new statistical approach.” (2019).  Describing the relationship between a weather event and climate change – a science usually termed event attribution – involves quantifying the extent to which human influence has affected the frequency or the strength of an observed event. In this study we show how event attribution can be implemented through the application of non-stationary statistics to transient simulations, typically covering the 1850-2100 period. The use of existing CMIPstyle simulations has many advantages, including their availability for a large range of coupled models, and the fact that they are not conditional to a given oceanic state. We develop a technique for providing a multi-model synthesis, consistent with the uncertainty analysis of long-term changes. Lastly, we describe how model estimates can be combined with historical observations to provide a single diagnosis accounting for both sources of information. The potential of this new method is illustrated using the 2003 European Heat Wave and under a Gaussian assumption. Results suggest that (i) it is feasible to perform event attribution using transient simulations and non-stationary statistics, even for a single model, (ii) the use of multi-model synthesis in event attribution is highly desirable given the spread in single model estimates, and (iii) merging models and observations substantially reduces uncertainties in human-induced changes. Investigating transient simulations also enables us to derive insightful diagnoses of how the targeted event will be affected by climate change in the future.
  9. Wehner, Michael F., Colin Zarzycki, and Christina Patricola. “Estimating the human influence on tropical cyclone intensity as the climate changes.” Hurricane Risk. Springer, Cham, 2019. 235-260.  Quantifying the human influence on individual extreme weather events is a new and rapidly developing science. Understanding the influence of climate change on tropical cyclones poses special challenges due to their intensities and scales. We present a method designed to overcome these challenges using high-resolution hindcasts of individual tropical cyclones under their actual large-scale meteorological conditions, counterfactual conditions without human influences on the climate system, and scenarios of increased climate change. Two practical case studies are presented along with a discussion of the conditions and limitations of attribution statements that can be made with this hindcast attribution method.
  10. Harrington, Luke J., and Friederike EL Otto. “Attributable damage liability in a non-linear climate.” Climatic Change 153.1-2 (2019): 15-20. Addressing questions of loss and damage from climate change in courts is limited by many scientific, legal and political challenges. However, modifying existing extreme event attribution frameworks to resolve the evolution of the impacts of climate change over time will improve our understanding of the largest scientific uncertainties.Loss and damage from anthropogenic climate change has been formally realised in the Paris Agreement of 2015 as a third pillar of climate change action next to adaptation and mitigation (Paris_Agreement_text 2018). However, political obstacles have resulted in intergovernmental compensation measures being explicitly excluded as a means of addressing loss and damage (Paris_Agreement_text 2018).





ISSUE#2: THE LAST CHANCE TO TAKE CLIMATE ACTION:  TBGY states in his lecture that “February brought the first climate report of the earth when the United Nations released what they called a road map to the December climate summit stating that 2019 was the LAST CHANCE of the international community to take expected action on climate change. In that same month Britain’s Institute for Public Policy Research published its own major report simply titled “THIS IS A CRISIS”! ???? … it was quite stark. Mainstream politics and policy debates have failed to recognize that human impacts on the environment have reached a critical stage; potentially eroding the conditions upon which socio-economic stability is possible.” 

RESPONSE: So now that the LAST CHANCE has come and gone while we are already in a CRISIS are we doomed? Or is there going to be yet another LAST CHANCE as in all those TIPPING POINTS that have come and gone? There is an optimum level of fear at which climate research funding is maximized. The idea that global warming is past the “tipping point” or a point of no return is well beyond that optimum. No funding for climate action or climate activism will be forthcoming if mitigation is not possible. Yet this LAST CHANCE tipping point argument has been used repeatedly in the past and as we see here, it is still being used. Things like this make it difficult to take climate science seriously as the objective scientific inquiry that it claims to be.

Ahead of the Bali meeting in 2007, climate scientists flooded the media with press releases that were increasingly alarmist in their pitch to save the planet from fossil fuels, so much so that they got carried away and announced that it was too late to save the planet for we had passed the tipping point because the damage done by the carbon dioxide already in the air had put into motion irreversible non-linear changes that would lead us to climate doom whether or not we cut emissions. Soon thereafter, having realized their folly, they quickly reversed themselves just in time for Bali by saying that there was still time to save the planet after all.

Between 2005 and 2007 the UN repeatedly declares that we have passed the tipping point and that it is “already too late to late. The planet is doomed. But in 2009, Ban Ki Moon contradicts his staff and describes the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on climate as “our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss”. That we are not at the abyss yet and there is till time to act.




ISSUE#3: RENEWABLE ENERGY IS CHEAPER THAN FOSSIL FUELS: In the renewable energy arena, for the first time ever, solar and wind power were both declared cheaper than most coal fired electricity production, marking a key tipping point in the ongoing demise of the fossil fuel industry. 

RESPONSE:  Our energy infrastructure is a work in progress. It has evolved in the past from windmills, water mills, and beasts of burden to the energy portfolio we see today; and it will continue to evolve; but these changes will come in terms of innovation within the context of the market economy. If you have a better idea, bring it to the market and the market will separate winners from losers within an overall regulatory regime. If activism is needed to push your idea through, it is probably not a winner and if the electrification rate approach TBGY cited is a good idea it will be a big success in the marketplace. All the modern technological advances we enjoy today were selected through this natural competitive process. There is no room for activism in such matters. In fact, the need for activism suggests that it is not a good idea.



ISSUE#4: TROPICAL CYCLONES AND CLIMATE CHANGE: The lecture cites 9 tropical cyclones as impacts of climate change. They are Cyclone Idai, Cyclone Fani, Cyclone Kenneth, Typhoon Lekima, Tropical Storm Imelda, and Hurricane Dorian. 

RESPONSE:  The attribution of these tropical cyclones to AGW is assumed but no evidence, citation, or even a rationale is provided for this attribution. The assumed attribution is rejected on this basis. A high profile study from MIT back in 2005 did conclude that climate change has made North Atlantic Hurricanes more “destructive”. However, this study contains several fatal statistical flaws. As a result its findings have no interpretation. This study is described in a related post [LINK] . Tropical cyclones are called “cyclones” in the Indian Basins, “typhoons” in the West Pacific Basin, and “hurricanes” in the North Atlantic Basin although they are really the same thing. Their generic name is “tropical cyclone”. If climate change were increasing total global cyclone energy, we would see a rising trend in this measure globally for all tropical cyclones. However, no such trend is found in the data as seen in a related post on this site [LINK] . The generally held belief that tropical cyclones have gotten stronger and more destructive in the industrial era because of fossil fueled climate change derives from the idea that global warming increases sea surface temperature in the regions of the ocean where cyclones form and higher sea surface temperature puts more energy into them. A testable implication of this relationship is that there ought to be a statistically significant correlation between total global tropical cyclone energy and sea surface temperature; but no such correlation is found in the data [LINK] . It is also noted that the strongest tropical cyclone on record is the Bengal Cyclone of 1737 that occurred in pre–industrial times and that the strongest tropical cyclone of the modern era is the Bengal cyclone of 1970 that happened during a sustained period of global cooling when a return to Little Ice Age conditions was feared [LINK] .



ISSUE#5: EXTREME TEMPERATURE EVENTS: The lecture cites a number of localized extreme temperature events with an implied causal connection to AGW. Examples are: Adelaide 46.6C , Port August 49.5C, Delhi 48C, and extreme cold in the USA due to a meandering jet stream and a collapsing polar vortex caused by AGW. 

RESPONSE: AGW is not a theory about localized temperature events but about long term trends in global mean temperature. To claim localized temperature events as impacts of the long term trend in global mean temperature a causation hypothesis supported by the data must be presented. Below are four GIF images that cycle through the 12 calendar months showing lower troposphere temperature trends 1979-2019 for global means, the Arctic, the Tropics, and for Australia. The red line through the data represents a 3rd order polynomial regression curve. These curves represent the theoretical effect of AGW. To claim that localized temperature events were caused by these curves, the evidence for that causation must be presented at the least in terms of attribution analysis. That relationship cannot simply be assumed.








CBC News Technology and Science

Greta Thunberg has talked about a ‘carbon budget.’ [LINK]

What is it, and why does it matter?




  2. Hello, people! This is our weekly newsletter on all things environmental, where we highlight trends and solutions that are moving us to a more sustainable world.
  3. “If we are to have a 67 per cent chance of limiting the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees [C], we had, on Jan. 1, 2018, 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide left in our CO2 budget. And of course, that number is much lower today. We emit about 42 gigatonnes of CO2 a year. At current emission levels, that remaining budget is gone within 8 1/2 years.” Those words were delivered by youth climate activist Greta Thunberg to the French parliament on July 23, 2019.  She said she has not heard much on the subject of a “carbon budget,” either from politicians or the media. But what’s left in our carbon budget is of utmost importance if we hope to limit global warming.
  4. Simply put, this budget refers to how much carbon — which includes CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane — we can emit into the atmosphere before we pass the point of warming the Earth to 1.5 C or 2 C. The carbon budget was discussed in the first of three special reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in October 2018. The final installment, the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), will be discussed in Morocco this weekend, with a summary due to be released next Wednesday.
  5. The Paris Agreement seeks to limit a global temperature rise to 2 C above pre-industrial levels this century (with a goal of keeping it to 1.5 C). The key to understanding the carbon budget is that even if countries keep in line with the Paris accord, if the budget is depleted by then, it won’t matter. The damage will already be done. And it will be irreversible.
  6. “If you think about annual emissions and reducing emissions without thinking about the carbon budget, you could really blow past the Paris Agreement,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists. “That’s the trouble.”
  7. After a few years of stable global CO2 emissions, they rose in 2018, and there are concerns they may rise again in 2019. If we don’t pay attention to the carbon budget, it increases the chance of a host of global problems: the loss of coral reefs, no summer sea ice in the Arctic, more severe weather events and changes in crops that could lead to further food scarcity. If it sounds dire, Ekwurzel said, but we have the power to change the trajectory.
  8. “Whenever we’ve been faced with a problem before and really … lean into it, we make big changes,” Ekwurzel said. “And a lot of those changes we’re calling for, we can do.” She said we need to look at deep de-carbonization of our energy supply, as well as doing “nature-based enhancements,” including the expansion and protection of carbon sinks such as forests, wetlands and mangroves, as well as seagrass. Ekwurzel stresses that economists say the transitions are economically feasible.
  9. Like Greta, Ekwurzel said it’s time that everyone — governments, organizations, businesses, and yes, consumers — begin to pay more attention to that budget that is nipping at our heels. She insists that together, we can make a difference. “Yeah,” Ekwurzel said. “We can do this.”
  11. The Carbon Budget is constructed with the TCRE [Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions] regression coefficient that expresses the responsiveness of surface temperature to cumulative emissions. The TCRE is a creation of the near perfect correlation between temperature and cumulative emissions discovered by Canadian climate scientist Damon Matthews in his now famous 2009 paper {Matthews, H. Damon, et al. “The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions.” Nature 459.7248 (2009): 829}.
  12. The TCRE regression coefficient shows that a trillion tonnes of carbon emissions will  cause approximately 1.5C of warming with an uncertainty range of 1C to 2C regardless of how fast, how slow, or what pattern of emission rates generated the amount of cumulative emissions. The versatile and powerful TCRE metric has revolutionized and re-invigorated climate science and rescued it from a  dead end in the climate sensitivity metric imposed by an unmanageable uncertainty problem as described in Knutti 2017 {Knutti, Reto, Maria AA Rugenstein, and Gabriele C. Hegerl. “Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity.” Nature Geoscience10.10 (2017): 727}.
  13. In “Beyond Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, Knutti writes {The quest to constrain climate sensitivity has revealed important insights into the timescales of the climate system response, natural variability and limitations in observations and climate models. Estimates of the transient climate response are better constrained by observed warming and are more relevant for predicting warming over the next decades. Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective of climate sensitivity being at the high or low end}. The Matthews 2009 and Knutti 2017 papers together are the climate science origin of the climate action metric now known as the carbon budget.
  14. And yet, in their excitement for a savior that will rescue them from the climate sensitivity uncertainty dead end and provide them with a tool for climate action in the form of the carbon budget, climate scientists overlooked fundamental issues in statistics that render the TCRE and therefore, the carbon budget as creations of a spurious correlation that has no interpretation in terms of a relationship between emissions and warming that is assumed in climate budgets.
  15. These issues are described in related posts at this site listed below.
  16. Related Post#1: The spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values of time series data [LINK#1]
  17. Related Post#2: The absence of useful information in the carbon budget [LINK#2]
  18. Related Post #3 & #4: The Remaining Carbon Budget problem in climate science that demonstrates the futility of the carbon budget concept [LINK#3] [LINK#4]
  19. Related Post #5: The statistics of the Remaining Carbon Budget problem in climate science [LINK#5]
  20. CONCLUSION: Although the carbon budget appears to be a useful concept in climate science, its utility is illusory because it is based on a spurious correlation that has no interpretation in the real world.














  1. While still in his teens, John D. Rockefeller went to work as a cashier and book keeper but within four years he left the job to start a merchant company with great success. The oil boom had started by then and John saw an opportunity and built an oil refinery. The success and expansion of this venture led to the Standard Oil Company. His astute business instinct soon led to a series of acquisitions in the oil business such that in a year or two he controlled the oil business in the Cleveland area and followed up in this success with takeovers to control the whole of the oil business from drilling to pumping gasoline. The meteoric rise of John and the Rockefeller family as oil barons, in finance , in political influence and in social influence through charities is one of the most remarkable stories about America [LINK] . The philanthropic activities of the family gave them great influence in American society, politics, education, and scientific research. In a strange sort of way they helped to shape America into the country we know today.
  2. It now emerges that the charitable giving of the Rockefellers in research and social change is the origin and the momentum of the climate change movement – or so it is claimed in a new book by Jacob Nordangard. The extraordinary influence of the Rockefellers through philanthropy is supported by a GlobalResearch article online [LINK] .
  3. Jacob’s book “Controlling the Game” [LINK] is a history of climate change research and climate policy and activism. And there in that history he finds “a peculiar connection” of these activities to charitable foundations and organizations controlled by the Rockefellers. In other words, it appears that the people who started the oil business are now trying to shut it down. He says that it was the Rockefellers that founded the UNFCCC and the IPCC and it is through their foundations that both climate research and climate activism (such as Greta and Extinction Rebellion) are funded.
  4. In the GlobalResearch article, author Elizabeth Matsangou traces the strange history of the Rockefellers and their enormous social and political influence through philanthropy and charitable foundations; writing that “more remarkable still is the impact the Rockefellers had on education, medical research, equality, social science and the arts. Their support has trickled down to so many different organisations, helping millions upon millions along the way. John alone gave away $540m throughout his lifetime, but the true cost of the family’s ongoing philanthropy is simply unknown”. The GlobalResearch article does not come out and make the clearly stated accusations of complicity in the climate movement that Jacob Nordangard book does but it supports the Nordangard emphasis on their immense social influence through philanthropy.
  5. These findings imply that us deniers are up against the Rockefellers. The odds don’t look good. You can analyze the data and argue the science all you want but it isn’t about the data or the science but about the Rockefeller foundations, their money, and their influence.
  6. I noticed that the DESMOG blog keeps track of Jacob [LINK] . Here he is.

Jacob Nordangard



It is noted that what Jacob Nordangard found was “a peculiar connection to charitable foundations and organizations controlled by the Rockefellers”. This data in and of itself does not show a bias in this vast philanthropic system (see an outline below of its history and philosophy) that would indicate that Rockefeller Foundation funding has a bias for climate activism. Given the size and diversification of this institution among education, research, environmental causes, and the general well being of people, that some of this money went to climate activism may be understood only in terms of its size and diversity and not in terms of a bias for climate activism. For that it must be shown that the funding pattern and policy contains such a bias. This evidence has not been provided. Therefore, that a charitable organization of the size and diversification of the Rockefeller Foundation has provided some funding to organizations engaged in climate activism does not in itself show a bias for climate activism in the Foundation because the portfolio of causes to which this large organization has donated is highly diversified and unlikely to be internally consistent. Please see item #3 below with respect to the independence of managers in individual units of the Foundation.

  1. The Rockefeller theory of giving is “to solve the problem of giving money away without making paupers of those who receive it.” He said: “I investigated and worked myself almost to a nervous breakdown in groping my way, without sufficient guide or chart, through the ever-widening field of philanthropic endeavor. It was forced upon me to organize and plan this department upon as distinct lines of progress as our other business affairs. “I have always indulged the hope that during my life I should be able to establish efficiency in giving, so that wealth may be of greater use to the present and future generations. If the people can be educated to help themselves, we strike at the root of many of the evils of the world.” [LINK] .
  2. The Rockefeller Foundations: Rockefeller benefactions from 1855 to 1934 totaled $530,853,632, of which the greater amount went to the four great foundations he established for the purpose of handling his charities. They were the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, in memory of his wife, and the General Education Board. The University of Chicago was another large beneficiary.
  3. A philosophy of charity on a business basis : A system of selecting good men for the particular job at hand and then giving them free rein. His gifts were free from restrictions and the trustees were empowered to use the principal as well as the interest to further the projects they were supportingThe Rockefeller system of philanthropy was not to undertake directly the alleviation of a situation or condition that seemed to need correcting, but to provide the funds for a research group to carry out the work.
  4. Interested in Education: A list of Mr. Rockefeller’s organized charities shows that he was chiefly interested in education, scientific research, the Baptist Church and other religious or social organizations. His chief agency of distribution was the Rockefeller Foundation, established in 1913 with a $100,000,000 capital fund, later increased by $25,000,000 in 1917. It received up to 1934 from Mr. Rockefeller $182,851,480.90. This organization was formed “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.”
  5. World-wide in scope, its activities were largely directed to medical research in recent years. The 1936 annual report declared it to be devoted to the “advancement of knowledge with research as the chief tool.” It financed work in the natural sciences, social sciences, medical science, the humanities, public health. It does no research of its own. 
  6. The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, founded in 1918, concerned itself with public administration of government activities through the clearance of information promotion of experiences among officials and government units the demonstration of innovation and installation of improved administration methods and devices. In 1929 the Spelman Memorial was merged with the foundation and the activities were carried on jointly, with the announcement that its aim was “primarily the advancement of knowledge.” 
  7. Supported Health Board: The foundation, throughout its existence, has supported the international Health Board, an independent organization engaged in cooperation with government agencies in demonstrations for the control of hookworm disease in fourteen Southern States of this country and in twenty-two foreign countries, of yellow fever in five South and Central American countries and of malaria in ten Southern States in this country. The Rockefeller Foundation provided the funds in 1917, partly as a war measure, for the organization by the International Health Board of the Commission for Prevention of Tuberculosis in France, which conducted campaigns of public education in hygiene and provided for the training of French women as health visitors.
  8. In 1914 the Rockefeller Foundation established the China Medical Board to encourage the study of medicine and hygiene in Chinese medical schools, hospitals and training schools for nurses. In 1919 it opened the Peking Union Medical College, together with pre-medical schools.
  9. In 1920 it established a Division of Medical Education, which recommended large gifts for the development of medical centers in London and Canadian cities. It also made grants for the support of schools of hygiene at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Fellowships have been provided for students of medical education and public health from many countries.
  10. The Rockefeller Foundation contributed $22,444,815 for war work from 1914 to 1919. It gave $8,083,772 to the American Red Cross, more than $5,000,000 to the United War Work Fund and large sums for relief in the small countries devastated–$1,498,000 to Belgium, $610,000 to Armenia and Syria, and $163,895 to Serbia. It also spent large sums in support of medical research, such as Dr. Alexis Carrel’s work on his serum for wounds.
  11. The General Education Board has appropriated large sums for various institutions. Its general practice has been to make gifts contingent upon the raising of additional sums. It gave $500,000 toward the endowment of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard in 1919 and $1,000,000, the largest gift ever made to an institution for training teachers, to the building fund of Teachers College Columbia University, in 1920.
  12. Medical Schools Benefit: Among medical schools which have received appropriations from the General Education Board are Washington University, $2,345,000; Johns Hopkins, more than $2,200,000; University of Chicago, $2,000,000 (joint fund with Rockefeller Foundation 1916); Vanderbilt $4,000,000 (1919); Rochester, $5,000,000 (1920); Yale Medical School, $1,582,000; and the Meharry Medical College (for Negroes), Nashville, Tenn., $150,000 (1920).
  13. The resources of the General Education Board for aiding medical education were greatly increased by Mr. Rockefeller in 1920, when he made a special gift of $20,000,000, both principal and interest to be expended in the United States during the next fifty years. The total the board received was $129,209,107.10. Outside of the appropriations of the General Education Board, Mr. Rockefeller gave $34,708,375.28 to the University of Chicago, which he founded in 1892. Before giving the first $100,000 to establish this institution, he caused a careful survey to be made to discover the largest community, whose needs could be served by such a university. He refused to allow the university to be named after him, but continued his gifts for twenty years, when his final contribution brought the total up to the figure mentioned above.
  14. The money given by Mr. Rockefeller to the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial was largely for the continuing of charities established by Mrs. Rockefeller. These charities were chiefly for the benefit of women and children.
  15. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research was the first of Mr. Rockefeller’s philanthropic organizations in point of time. The Rockefeller Institute was incorporated in 1901. Scholarships and fellowships for research work in medicine were distributed throughout the country during the first year, but at the second annual meeting it was decided to centralize all research work in the institute’s own laboratory. The institute laboratories were established on the Schermerhorn property, fronting the East River at Sixty-sixth and Sixty-seventh Streets, New York City. Dr. Simon Flexner resigned as Professor of Pathology in the University of Pennsylvania to become director of the institute. The chief purpose of the institute is medical research. It endeavors to apply the latest discoveries in science to the prevention and cure of disease. It has departments of pathology, bacteriology, physiological and pathological chemistry, physiology, comparative zoology, pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. The hospital gives close scientific study to obscure pathological conditions, such as heart disease, pneumonia and infantile paralysis. Among the specific tasks done by the institute have been cooperation with the Health Department of New York City in the study of the milk supply and the health of children in the tenements; cooperation with city commissions to study acute respiratory diseases and cerebro-spinal meningitis; cooperation with Harvard University to study smallpox in Manila, and appropriations to assist important investigations in various places from year to year.
  16. Apart from his gifts to Baptist institutions, the Y.M.C.A. and colleges, Mr. Rockefeller was a heavy contributor to the Anti-Saloon League, giving that organization $510,042.95. It was the Rockefeller money that provided the bulk of the war chest that brought about adoption of the prohibition amendment.The only other donations in which the pattern of giving departed from the norm were $118,000 to the Republican National Committee and $250,000 to the American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Rockefeller made smaller gifts that aggregated less than $100,000 each but totaled $5,962,839.93. He also had a small list of private pensioners that was not included in the list of his public benefactions.His charity system was not without its critics. There were those who said that his benevolent trusts served to entrench privileged interests and promote class education. His gifts were denounced as being made with tainted money, an indirect slap at his business methods.
  1. Carbon budgets are derived from the TCRE (Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions) correlation between cumulative warming and cumulative emissions. The value of the TCRE is the regression coefficient of cumulative warming against cumulative emissions. 
  2. In related posts it is shown that the TCRE correlation derives not from the responsiveness of warming to emissions but from a sign pattern in which annual emissions are always positive and, during a a warming trend, annual warming is mostly positive. [LINK] [LINK] [LINK]
  3. Since emissions are always positive, the TCRE regression coefficient in this proportionality is determined by the fraction of annual warming values that are positive. Larger fractions of positive warming values yield higher values of the TCRE regression coefficient and it is the regression coefficient that determines the value of the carbon budget. 
  4. Because of the random nature of the annual warming values, it is highly unlikely that the fraction of annual warming values that are positive in the full span of the carbon budget period will be the same as the fraction of annual warming values that are positive in the two halves of the full span. 
  5. Therefore we find that in general the TCRE regression coefficient for the full span of the carbon budget period, that for the first half of the carbon budget period, and that for the second half of the carbon budget period will be different.
  6. It is this simple statistical issue that imposes the remaining carbon budget problem because for the carbon budgets in the two halves of the carbon budget period to be the same, the positive fraction of the annual warming values would have to be the same in the two halves and in general they are not and that creates the Remaining Carbon Budget anomaly. 
  7. Therefore, the Remaining Carbon Budget anomaly does not have an interpretation in terms of the climate science of additional forcings or feedbacks in climate models or of additional climate variables in earth system models – but an interpretation only in terms of the statistics of the fraction of annual warming values that are positive
  8. The more relevant consideration is of course that the TCRE regression coefficient has no interpretation in terms of climate phenomena because it is a spurious statistic – a creation of the oddities of the time series of the cumulative values of another time series as described in related posts [LINK] [LINK] .