I Want You Not to Panic

 

I’ve been looking into claims for concern over rising CO2 and temperatures, and this post provides reasons why the alarms are exaggerated. It involves looking into the data and how it is interpreted.

First the longer view suggests where to focus for understanding. Consider a long term temperature record such as Hadcrut4. Taking it at face value, setting aside concerns about revisions and adjustments, we can see what has been the pattern in the last 120 years following the Little Ice Age. Often the period between 1850 and 1900 is considered pre industrial since modern energy and machinery took hold later on. The graph shows that warming was not much of a factor until temperatures rose peaking in the 1940s, then cooling off into the 1970s, before ending the century with a rise matching the rate of earlier warming. Overall, the accumulated warming was 0.8C.

Then regard the record concerning CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It’s important to know that modern measurement of CO2 really began in 1959 with Mauna Loa observatory, coinciding with the mid-century cool period. The earlier values in the chart are reconstructed by NASA GISS from various sources and calibrated to reconcile with the modern record, It is also evident that the first 60 years saw minimal change in the values compared to the post 1959 rise after WWII ended and manufacturing was turned from military production to meet consumer needs. So again the mid-20th century appears as a change point.

It becomes interesting to look at the last 60 years of temperature and CO2 from 1959 to 2019, particularly with so much clamour about climate emergency and crisis. This graph puts together rising CO2 and temperatures for this period. Firstly note that the accumulated warming is about 0.8C after fluctuations. And remember that those decades witnessed great human flourishing and prosperity by any standard of life quality. The rise of CO2 was a monotonic steady rise with some acceleration into the 21st century.

Now let’s look at projections into the future, bearing in mind Mark Twain’s warning not to trust future predictions. No scientist knows all or most of the surprises that overturn continuity from today to tomorrow. Still, as weathermen well know, the best forecasts are built from present conditions and adding some changes going forward.

Here is a look to century end as a baseline for context. No one knows what cooling and warming periods lie ahead, but one scenario is that the next 80 years could see continued warming at the same rate as the last 60 years. That presumes that forces at play making the weather in the lifetime of many of us seniors will continue in the future. Of course factors beyond our ken may deviate from that baseline and humans will notice and adapt as they have always done. And in the back of our minds is the knowledge that we are 11,500 years into an interglacial period before the cold returns, being the greater threat to both humanity and the biosphere.

Those who believe CO2 causes warming advocate for reducing use of fossil fuels for fear of overheating, apparently discounting the need for energy should winters grow harsher. The graph shows one projection similar to that of temperature, showing the next 80 years accumulating at the same rate as the last 60. A second projection in green takes the somewhat higher rate of the last 10 years and projects it to century end. The latter trend would achieve a doubling of CO2.

What those two scenarios mean depends on how sensitive you think Global Mean Temperature is to changing CO2 concentrations. Climate models attempt to consider all relevant and significant factors and produce future scenarios for GMT. CMIP6 is the current group of models displaying a wide range of warming presumably from rising CO2. The one model closely replicating Hadcrut4 back to 1850 projects 1.8C higher GMT for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. If that held true going from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, the trend would resemble the red dashed line continuing the observed warming from the past 60 years: 0.8C up to now and another 1C the rest of the century. Of course there are other models programmed for warming 2 or 3 times the rate observed.

People who take to the streets with signs forecasting doom in 11 or 12 years have fallen victim to IPCC 450 and 430 scenarios.  For years activists asserted that warming from pre industrial can be contained to 2C if CO2 concentrations peak at 450 ppm.  Last year, the SR1.5 lowered the threshold to 430 ppm, thus the shortened timetable for the end of life as we know it.

For the sake of brevity, this post leaves aside many technical issues. Uncertainties about the temperature record, and about early CO2 levels, and the questions around Equilibrium CO2 Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient CO2 Sensitivity (TCS) are for another day. It should also be noted that GMT as an average hides huge variety of fluxes over the globe surface, and thus larger warming in some places such as Canada, and cooling in other places like Southeast US. Ross McKitrick pointed out that Canada has already gotten more than 1.5C of warming and it has been a great social, economic and environmental benefit.

So I want people not to panic about global warming/climate change. Should we do nothing? On the contrary, we must invest in robust infrastructure to ensure reliable affordable energy and to protect against destructive natural events. And advanced energy technologies must be developed for the future since today’s wind and solar farms will not suffice.

It is good that Greta’s demands were unheeded at the Davos gathering. Panic is not useful for making wise policies, and as you can see above, we have time to get it right.

Climate Models: Good, Bad and Ugly

Several posts here discuss INM-CM4, the Good CMIP5 climate model since it alone closely replicates the Hadcrut temperature record, as well as approximating BEST and satellite datasets. This post is prompted by recent studies comparing various CMIP6 models, the new generation intending to hindcast history through 2014, and forecast to 2100.

Background

Much revealing information is provided in an AGU publication Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models by Mark D. Zelinka et al. (2019). H/T Judith Curry.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The severity of climate change is closely related to how much the Earth warms in response to greenhouse gas increases. Here we find that the temperature response to an abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially in the latest generation of global climate models. This is primarily because low cloud water content and coverage decrease more strongly with global warming, causing enhanced planetary absorption of sunlight—an amplifying feedback that ultimately results in more warming. Differences in the physical representation of clouds in models drive this enhanced sensitivity relative to the previous generation of models. It is crucial to establish whether the latest models, which presumably represent the climate system better than their predecessors, are also providing a more realistic picture of future climate warming.

The objective is to understand why the models are getting badder and uglier, and whether the increased warming is realistic. This issue was previously noted by John Christy last summer:

Figure 8: Warming in the tropical troposphere according to the CMIP6 models.
Trends 1979–2014 (except the rightmost model, which is to 2007), for 20°N–20°S, 300–200 hPa.

Christy’s comment: We are just starting to see the first of the next generation of climate models, known as CMIP6. These will be the basis of the IPCC assessment report, and of climate and energy policy for the next 10 years. Unfortunately, as Figure 8 shows, they don’t seem to be getting any better. The observations are in blue on the left. The CMIP6 models, in pink, are also warming faster than the real world. They actually have a higher sensitivity than the CMIP5 models; in other words, they’re apparently getting worse! This is a big problem.

Why CMIP6 Models Are More Sensitive

Zelinka et al. (2019) delve into the issue by comparing attributes of the CMIP6 models currently available for diagnostics.

1 Introduction

Determining the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a fundamental goal of climate science. A typical approach for doing so is to consider the planetary energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), represented as

urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0004

urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0005 is the net TOA radiative flux anomaly,  urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0006  is the radiative forcingurn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0007  is the radiative feedback parameter, and urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0008  is the global mean surface air temperature anomaly. The sign convention is that urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0005  is positive down and  urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0007  is negative for a stable system. 

Conceptually, this equation states that the TOA energy imbalance can be expressed as the sum of the radiative forcing and the radiative response of the system to a global surface temperature anomaly. The assumption that the radiative damping can be expressed as a product of a time‐invariant and global mean surface temperature anomaly is useful but imperfect (Armour et al., 2013; Ceppi & Gregory, 2019). Under this assumption, one can estimate the effective climate sensitivity (ECS), the ultimate global surface temperature change that would restore TOA energy balance

urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0014

where urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0015  is the radiative forcing due to doubled CO2 .

ECS therefore depends on the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing and on how strongly the climate system radiatively damps planetary warming. A climate system that more effectively radiates thermal energy to space or more strongly reflects sunlight back to space as it warms (larger magnitude urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0007 ) will require less warming to restore planetary energy balance in response to a positive radiative forcing, and vice versa.

Because GCMs attempt to represent all relevant processes governing Earth’s response to CO2, they provide the most direct means of estimating ECS. ECS values diagnosed from CO2 quadrupling experiments performed in fully coupled GCMs as part of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project ranged from 2.1 to 4.7 K. It is already known that several models taking part in CMIP6 have values of ECS exceeding the upper limit of this range. These include CanESM5.0.3 , CESM2, CNRM‐CM6‐1, E3SMv1, and both HadGEM3‐GC3.1 and UKESM1.

In all of these models, high ECS values are at least partly attributed to larger cloud feedbacks than their predecessors.

In this study, we diagnose the forcings, feedbacks, and ECS values in all available CMIP6 models. We assess in each model the individual components that make up the climate feedback parameter and quantify the contributors to intermodel differences in ECS. We also compare these results with those from CMIP5 to determine whether the multimodel mean or spread in ECS, feedbacks, and forcings have changed.

The range of ECS values across models has widened in CMIP6, particularly on the high end, and now includes nine models with values exceeding the CMIP5 maximum (Figure 1a). Specifically, the range has increased from 2.1–4.7 K in CMIP5 to 1.8–5.6 K in CMIP6, and the intermodel variance has significantly increased (p = 0.04).

One model’s ECS is below the CMIP5 minimum (INM‐CM4‐8).

This increased population of high ECS models has caused the multimodel mean ECS to increase from 3.3 K in CMIP5 to 3.9 K in CMIP6. Though substantial, this increase is not statistically significant (p = 0.16).  ER urn:x-wiley:grl:media:grl60047:grl60047-math-0015  has increased slightly on average in CMIP6 and its intermodel standard deviation has been reduced by nearly 30% from 0.50 Wm^2 in CMIP5 to 0.36 Wm^2 in CMIP6 (Figure 1b).

This ECS increase is primarily attributable to an increased multimodel mean feedback parameter due to strengthened positive cloud feedbacks, as all noncloud feedbacks are essentially unchanged on average in CMIP6. However, it is the unique combination of weak overall negative feedback and moderate radiative forcing that allows several CMIP6 models to achieve high ECS values beyond the CMIP5 range.

The increase in cloud feedback arises solely from the strengthened SW low cloud component, while the non‐low cloud feedback has slightly decreased. The SW low cloud feedback is larger on average in CMIP6 due to larger reductions in low cloud cover and weaker increases in cloud liquid water path with warming. Both of these changes are much more dramatic in the extratropics, such that the CMIP6 mean low cloud amount feedback is now stronger in the extratropics than in the tropics, and the fraction of multimodel mean ECS attributable to extratropical cloud feedback has roughly tripled.

The aforementioned increase in CMIP6 mean cloud feedback is related to changes in model representation of clouds. Specifically, both low cloud cover and water content increase less dramatically with SST in the middle latitudes as estimated from unforced climate variability in CMIP6.

Figure 1. INM-CM5 representation of temperature history. The 5-year mean GMST (K) anomaly with respect to 1850–1899 for HadCRUTv4 (thick solid black); model mean (thick solid red). Dashed thin lines represent data from individual model runs: 1 – purple, 2 – dark blue, 3 – blue, 4 – green, 5 – yellow, 6 – orange, 7 – magenta. In this and the next figures numbers on the time axis indicate the first year of the 5-year mean

The Nitty Gritty

Open image in new tab to enlarge.

The details are shown in Supporting Information for “Causes of higher climate
sensitivity in CMIP6 models”. Here we can seen how specific models stack up on the key variables driving ECS attributes.

Open image in new tab to enlarge.

Figure S1. Gregory plots showing global and annual mean TOA net radiation anomalies
plotted against global and annual mean surface air temperature anomalies. Best-fit ordinary linear least squares lines are shown. The y-intercept of the line (divided by 2) provides an estimate of the effective radiative forcing from CO2 doubling (ERF2x), the slope of the line provides an estimate of the net climate feedback parameter (λ), and the x-intercept of the line (divided by 2) provides an estimate of the effective climate sensitivity (ECS). These values are printed in each panel. Models are ordered by ECS.

Open image in new tab to enlarge.

Figure S7. Contributions of forcing and feedbacks to ECS in each model and for the multimodel means. Contributions from the tropical and extratropical portion of the feedback are shown in light and dark shading, respectively. Black dots indicate the ECS in each model, while upward and downward pointing triangles indicate contributions from non-cloud and cloud feedbacks, respectively. Numbers printed next to the multi-model mean bars indicate the cumulative sum of each plotted component. Numerical values are not printed next to residual, extratropical forcing, and tropical albedo terms for clarity. Models within each collection are ordered by ECS.

Open image in new tab to enlarge.

Figure S8. Cloud feedbacks due to low and non-low clouds in the (light shading) tropics and (dark shading) extratropics in each model and for the multi-model means. Non-low cloud feedbacks are separated into LW and SW components, and SW low cloud feedbacks are separated into amount and scattering components. “Others” represents the sum of LW low cloud feedbacks and the small difference between kernel- and APRP-derived SW low cloud feedback. Insufficient diagnostics are available to compute SW cloud amount and scattering feedbacks for the FGOALSg2 and CAMS-CSM1-0 models. Black dots indicate the global mean net cloud feedback in each model, while upward and downward pointing triangles indicate total contributions from non-low and low clouds, respectively. Models within each collection are ordered by global mean net cloud feedback.

My Summary

Once again the Good Model INM-CM4-8 is bucking the model builders’ consensus. The new revised INM model has a reduced ECS and it flipped its cloud feedback from positive to negative.The description of improvements made to the INM modules includes how clouds are handled:

One of the few notable changes is the new parameterization of clouds and large-scale condensation. In the INMCM5 cloud area and cloud water are computed prognostically according to Tiedtke (1993). That includes the formation of large-scale cloudiness as well as the formation of clouds in the atmospheric boundary layer and clouds of deep convection. Decrease of cloudiness due to mixing with unsaturated environment and precipitation formation are also taken into account. Evaporation of precipitation is implemented according to Kessler (1969).

Cloud radiation forcing (CRF) at the top of the atmosphere is one of the most important climate model characteristics, as errors in CRF frequently lead to an incorrect surface temperature.

In the high latitudes model errors in shortwave CRF are small. The model underestimates longwave CRF in the subtropics but overestimates it in the high latitudes. Errors in longwave CRF in the tropics tend to partially compensate errors in shortwave CRF. Both errors have positive sign near 60S leading to warm bias in the surface temperature here. As a result, we have some underestimation of the net CRF absolute value at almost all latitudes except the tropics. Additional experiments with tuned conversion of cloud water (ice) to precipitation (for upper cloudiness) showed that model bias in the net CRF could be reduced, but that the RMS bias for the surface temperature will increase in this case.

Resources:

Temperatures According to Climate Models  Initial Discovery of the Good Model INM-CM4 within CMIP5

Latest Results from First-Class Climate Model INMCM5 The new version improvements and historical validation

 

Planetary CO2 in the Long Run

This is a new slide from Raymond at RIC-Communications added to twelve others in a project entitled The World of CO2.  Below is a reprinted post with the background and complete set of exhibits, or infographics as he calls them. Recently Dr. William Happer referred to this long historical view to correct activists who claim we are conducting a dangerous experiment on the planet by burning fossil fuels and releasing CO2.  As the chart shows, CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been much higher throughout history, with today being a period of CO2 famine.  As well the graph shows that temperatures can crash even when CO2 is high, and periods that remained warm while CO2 declined. Also apparent is our current time well into an interglacial period, classified by paleoclimatologists as an “Icehouse.  See Post Climate Advice: Don’t Worry Be Happer

Previous Post Here’s Looking at You CO2 

Raymond of RiC-Communications  studio commented on a recent post and made an offer to share here some graphics on CO2 for improving public awareness.  This post presents the eleven charts he has produced so far. I find them straightforward and useful, and appreciate his excellent work on this. Project title is link to RiC-Communications.

Updates January 21 and 26, 2020, with added slides

This project is: The world of CO2

Infographics can be helpful, in making things simple to understand. CO2 is a complex topic with a lot of information and statistics. These simple step by step charts should help to give you an idea of CO2’s importance. Without CO2, plants wouldn’t be able to live on this planet. Just remember, that if CO2 falls below 150 ppm, all plant life would cease to exist.

– N° 1 Earth‘s atmospheric composition
– N° 2 Natural sources of CO2 emissions
– N° 3 Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
– N° 4 CO2 – Carbon dioxide molecule
– N° 5 The global carbon cycle
– N° 6 Carbon and plant respiration
– N° 7 Plant categories and abundance (C3, C4 & CAM Plants)
– N° 8 Photosynthesis, the C3 vs C4 gap
– N° 9 Plant respiration and CO2
– N° 10 The logarithmic temperature rise of higher CO2 levels.
N° 11 Earths atmospheric composition in relationship to CO2
– N° 12 Human respiration and CO2 concentrations.
– N° 13 600 million years of temperature change and atmospheric CO2

And in Addition

Note that the illustration #10 assumes (as is the “consensus”) that doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a 1C rise in GMT (Global Mean Temperature).  Even if true, the warming would be gentle and not cataclysmic.  Greta and XR are foolishly thinking the world goes over a cliff if CO2 hits 430ppm.  I start to wonder if Greta really can see CO2 as she claims.

It is also important to know that natural CO2 sources and sinks are estimated with large error ranges.  For example this table from earlier IPCC reports:

Below are some other images I find meaningful, though they lack Raymond’s high production values.

 

co2-levels2018

2020 Pacific Ice Rebounds

A previous post reprinted below pointed out how Pacific ice recovers in fits and starts, often see sawing between Bering and Okhotsk Seas.  Now both of them are growing faster than the 13 year average (2007 to 2019 inclusive).  The image above shows how much colder is Alaska this year versus 2019, probably related to Bering icing over.  In the last 9 days, Bering added 100k km2, now up to 85% of last March max.  Okhotsk added 150k km2 up to 67% of last March max.

The graph shows how January 2020 compared to 13 year average and some other years of interest.

This year’s recovery is matching and slightly exceeding average, and ahead of other recent years.  MASIE shows extents slightly higher than SII.

By January there are not many places where Arctic ice extent can grow.  All the Eurasian shelf seas are full, as is the case on the CanAm side: Beaufort, CAA, Hudson Bay covered completely.  Barents  and Greenland Seas have some room to grow, as does Baffin Bay.  But mainly the variability is on the Pacific side, where the usual Bering/Okhotsk see saw is reappearing.

As we have seen in past winters, ice in the Pacific Arctic tends to grow in fits and spurts, often alternating between Bering and Okhotsk Seas.  The above image of the first two weeks of 2020 shows Okhotsk on the left growing ice steadily while Bering waffled back and forth ending with almost the same extent.  Combined the two seas ice extents are slightly below the 13 year average at this time, due to Bering’s slow recovery.

The January graph shows MASIE and SII reporting the same pace of ice recovery and matching 2019.  This is somewhat below the 13 year average (2007 to 2019 inclusive) and higher than 2017 and 2018. The table below shows the distribution of ice extent among the Arctic regions on January 14.

Region 2020014 Day 014 Average 2020-Ave. 2018014 2020-2018
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 13541376 13776703 -235327 13340428 200948
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070655 1070223 432 1070445 210
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 965972 965812 160 965971 1
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087133 4 1087120 18
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897842 3 897845 0
 (5) Kara_Sea 932936 909656 23280 925247 7689
 (6) Barents_Sea 619526 508236 111290 393026 226500
 (7) Greenland_Sea 483377 610574 -127197 521896 -38519
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 1039079 1172487 -133408 1173039 -133960
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 854282 853058 1225 853109 1174
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1260192 1251600 8592 1260838 -646
 (11) Central_Arctic 3233354 3210543 22811 3194383 38971
 (12) Bering_Sea 414963 521989 -107026 241830 173133
 (13) Baltic_Sea 8863 43903 -35040 24486 -15623
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 651004 626433 24571 696684 -45681

2019 NH ice is 235k km2 below the 13-year average, or 1.7%, and 200k km2 more than 2018 on that date.  The deficits are in Bering, Greenland Sea and Baffin Bay, partly offset by surpluses in Barents, Kara and Okhotsk.

cg524a47d218458

The next month or so will show how the Pacific ice shapes up.

seesaw

 

 

 

In Praise of Jim Lehrer and Real News

Jim Lehrer was a trustworhty source of news and information for decades hosting the PBS News Hour along with Robin MacNeil.  The Dallas Morning News editorial explains why he was so valuable and what is so sorely missed in today’s news media.  Jim Lehrer’s old school journalism is exactly how we should still be doing it today Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

When he signed off from his long and excellent broadcasting career, Jim Lehrer was still the same sort of journalist that he started as. He was, as he put it, a newspaperman.

The term is dated now, but Lehrer described in a common term then something important about the kind of journalism he did. It was a journalism that was sober and serious, more attached to reason than emotion, and in relentless pursuit of the facts.

His journalism was rooted in the way he did his job early in his career on the city desk of the Dallas Times-Herald and the Dallas Morning News, before he sat in front of a camera at KERA and launched himself in broadcast.

The camera’s lights never changed the man or the way he did his work, and the nation was better for it.

In his years alongside Robin MacNeil and alone, Lehrer, who died today at 85, presented the news fairly, fully and with genuine balance, standing as an example of how the work should be done of both presenting and consuming information about our world.

And it stands in such stark contrast to the nonstop nonsense of bias, noise and garbage that presents itself as television news today. That is entertainment created to hold eyeballs and sell ads. And that wasn’t Jim Lehrer’s journalism.

Lehrer was of the old school. In public broadcasting he perhaps did have the same pressures that commercial television might have applied. But given his personal character and his strong sense of the ethics of journalism, we doubt any commercial calling would have fit him at all.

Every journalist practicing the craft today should listen to his words about how to do the job and do it well. Because that is exactly what he did.

Here is what he said.

People often ask me if there are guidelines in our practice of what I like to call MacNeil Lehrer journalism. Well, yes, there are, and here they are.

Do nothing I cannot defend.
Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and as good a person as I am.
Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything.
Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business.

Rest in peace, Jim Lehrer. You were a great newspaperman.

Footnote: 

After Lehrer and MacNeil left, the PBS News Hour lost its edge, went soft and biased.  When global warming/climate change arose as an issue, the new team proved unable to steer in the cross currents.  I wrote a few times to suggest names of experts who would provide a balance to the alarmists they typically interviewed.  But environmentalists in their audience (and staff?) did not want any contrary information, and the show followed the party line rather than offending or educating.  In the old days, Lehrer and MacNeil were my go to channel for political event reporting, but that also later collapsed into panels of progressives and never-Trumpers.  It’s now little different from the other news entertainment outlets, sadly.

Extinction Rebellion Psychosis Patient Zero

From the Telegraph Climate activist who climbed Big Ben has ‘Extinction Rebellion psychosis’, judge says. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Aclimate change activist who scaled Big Ben in a green leotard and a blonde Boris Johnson wig has ‘Extinction Rebellion psychosis’ a judge has said.

Tree surgeon Benjamin Atkinson, 43, spent three hours on the scaffolding at Queen Elizabeth Tower last October.

Atkinson climbed the tower and unfurled a rainbow flag from the scaffolding carrying the XR logo which read: ‘No pride on a dead planet’.

He appeared barefoot at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday where he denied a single trespass charge.

His solicitor Jenny Winter indicated he intends to argue necessity in his defence and will call witnesses to give evidence on his suffering from “climate change anxiety”.

Chief Magistrate, Lady Emma Arbuthnot: “No, no, no, this is about climbing a tower, necessity is saving life or preventing immediate injury, necessity is a very narrow defence.

“The court may not allow you to rely on it,” she added.

Lady Arbuthnot described his climate change anxiety as “Extinction Rebellion psychosis”.

Crowds had gathered at Westminster during the three hour stunt at 3:30pm on 18 October last year.

While on the scaffolding he told Sky News by phone: ‘I don’t think Boris is doing his job properly – he needs to get past Brexit and start thinking about the sixth mass extinction event that’s happening as we speak.’

Atkinson, of Rydal, Cumbria, denies trespassing on a designated protected site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and will return for trial on 14 April.

The maximum sentence for the offence is six months jail and or a fine not exceeding £5,000.

Footnote:

I was initially reluctant to label this sufferer as “patient zero” since there is an obvious epidemic of people showing related symptoms, especially on Fridays for some reason.  Finally I concluded that the label fits because for the first time a judicial authority has correctly diagnosed the condition as a form of insanity. However, the contagion continues:

 

The Greta/Davos Collusion

For those wondering why Greta is so welcome at Davos, an article at Spiked explains Why Davos loves Greta. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The super-rich and powerful politicians love being told off by supposedly radical greens.

Many people think Davos is a case of greedy capitalists and corrupt politicians meeting in dark rooms filled with cigar smoke – or, more realistically, with the scent of organic chai – and talking among themselves about how to become richer. Of course, big business and powerful politicians may well be plotting in Davos, and some crony deals will probably be on the agenda. But the real challenge they are engaged in is rather different – they are searching for a sense of purpose, of moral legitimacy.

Most capitalists have been convinced that making money and producing stuff is not purposeful enough. Apparently, it is too selfish and materialistic. Thus, they are constantly searching for a deeper meaning in their work, such as going greener, eliminating poverty or saving us from ‘fake news’ and online ‘hate speech’.

Politicians, meanwhile, feel more and more alienated from the ordinary people they are supposed to represent. They know that the average Joe does not share their cultural values or social-engineering goals. This is why they end up feeling more comfortable with activists like Greta Thunberg: she shares many of their views and celebrating her gives them a sense of legitimacy they cannot get from the likes of us.

Her constant berating of them, on a stage they happily provide for her, is a price worth paying for their desire to appear important and driven.

Today’s ‘radical activists’, including Greta, don’t tell politicians to get out of our lives. Instead, they call on them to play a bigger role in our lives, whether by changing our eco-behaviour, censoring hateful speech or managing our health. And that is music to the political class’s ears. The ‘1%’ needs these activists.

And the activists need the 1%. Social movements have been a force for good when they have demanded more freedom and less discrimination from the powers-that-be. But they tend not to do that anymore. Now, many social activists ask the state to take freedom away from ordinary people.

The anti-globalisation movement, Occupy and modern environmentalism all fall into this category. They have some legitimate concerns, such as the struggles of people in developing countries or the challenges of a changing climate. But behind these concerns, we can see an agenda whereby these supposed representatives of ‘the 99%’ turn to the 1% to ask them to make sure the rest of us change how we live. Be it consuming less, going local, cutting down on read meat, not flying with budget airlines, or substituting cheap and reliable sources of energy for expensive and unreliable ones, what started as campaigns to ‘raise awareness’ have become demands that the powerful force ordinary people to change.

The activists in Davos are really lobbyists. Only where the average corporate lobbyist tries to get a tax cut or favourable regulation, these activist-lobbyists are campaigning for changes that will have negative effects on all of us, especially on the less well-off in the global south. Alienated from the masses, these activists feel more comfortable with technocrats, bureaucrats and administrators who are happy to ordain them as legitimate representatives of ‘civil society’.

The world is indeed facing many critical challenges. Yet the solution does not lie in the elites meeting in mountain chalets and deciding what is good for the rest of us. The solution lies in trusting in human agency and ingenuity, and giving it the breathing space of freedom to flourish.

We can be certain this is one thing that Greta and the other activists in Davos will not be campaigning for.

Summary

There you have it. It’s not a mutual admiration society, but a dance of virtue signaling with a twist of SM theatrics: Greta playing Sadist to Billionaire Penitents. The activists get leverage for their agenda and the powerful get a veneer of legitimacy for imposing their will on the rest of us. Kabuki anyone?

Of course, someone else was there and not playing the game:

Simple Science 2: The World of Climate

Raymond of RiC-Communications  studio commented on a recent post and made an offer to share here some graphics on CO2 for improving public awareness.  He has produced 12 interesting slides which are presented in the post Here’s Looking at You, CO2.  This post presents the three initial charts he has so far created on a second theme The World of Climate Change.  I find them straightforward and useful, and appreciate his excellent work on this. Project title is link to RiC-Communications.

This project is The World of Climate Change

Infographics can be helpful, in making things simple to understand. Climate change is a complex topic with a lot of information and statistics. These simple step by step charts are here to better understand what is occurring naturally and what could be caused by humans. What is cause for alarm and what isn’t cause for alarmism if at all. Only through learning is it possible to get the big picture so as to make the right decisions for the future.

– N° 01 120 m of sea level rise over the past 20‘000 years.
– N° 02 Holocene period and average northern hemispheric temperatures
– N° 03 140 years of global mean temperature

Comment:

This project will explore information concerning how aspects of the world climate system have changed in the past up to the present time.  Understanding the range of historical variation and the factors involved is essential for anticipating how future climate parameters might fluctuate.

For example:

The Climate Story (Illustrated) looks at the temperature record.

H20 the Gorilla Climate Molecule looks at precipitation patterns.

Data vs. Models #2: Droughts and Floods looks at precipitation extremes.

Data vs. Models #3: Disasters looks at extreme weather events.

Data vs. Models #4: Climates Changing looks at boundaries of defined climate zones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in Addition

Note that the illustration #10 assumes (as is the “consensus”) that doubling atmospheric CO2 produces a 1C rise in GMT (Global Mean Temperature).  Even if true, the warming would be gentle and not cataclysmic.  Greta and XR are foolishly thinking the world goes over a cliff if CO2 hits 430ppm.  I start to wonder if Greta really can see CO2 as she claims.

It is also important to know that natural CO2 sources and sinks are estimated with large error ranges.  For example this table from earlier IPCC reports:

Since the Statue of Liberty features in the sea level graphic, here are observations from there

nyc-past-projected

Below are some other images I find meaningful, though they lack Raymond’s high production values.

 

co2-levels2018

Oranges Disprove Global Warming

Paul Noel writes at Quora in response to a question: What are the best arguments of the movement “global warming deniers” to back their version of the story? Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Well since this question has only been answered by those who want to say no such science exists It has to be answered.

Here is an absolute proof that there is no global warming going on. It absolutely has no denial possible.

In 1899 there was a large swath of the Southern USA that was used for Commercial Citrus Growing. Citrus Trees do not tolerate hard freezing. In fact they are tropical plants with only very slight ability to withstand freezing conditions. Their fruit is even more tender, and so a Commercial Producer cannot tolerate any significant extended freezing. In Florida for example the Citrus producers have methods to withstand FROST. These are pretty amazing. (See photo above)

They literally spray their trees with water so that as the water freezes it prevents the citrus from freezing as the sugar content keeps the freezing point slightly lower than water. This method only works against light freezes of short duration. It often results in having to sell the crop in a rush to juice operations at loss of value.

So Citrus Commercial Production is prevented in all but areas with 365 day growing seasons.

The large swath of growing included about 1/2 of eastern Texas essentially south of Tyler Texas. It included almost all of Louisiana south of Interstate 20. It included Most of Mississippi south of Jackson and across Alabama up to Evergreen. It then extended across Georgia essentially from Columbus to Augusta and then up South Carolina all the way to North Carolina and a coastal strip of North Carolina up to almost Virginia. It also included All of Florida.

Basically this map shows in Zone 8b and slightly into Zone 8a the region that used to raise citrus. Today none can be raised outside of Zone 9b or higher. Actually the only safe in zone 10.

Today due to severe cooling of the environment, it only includes 4 of the most southern counties along the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and the southern part of Florida. Over the past 120 years, this has almost deleted Citrus growing from much of the southern part of North America.

This is the remaining Florida range of Citrus.

There is no remaining commercial citrus in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina or North Carolina.

Now if you were to pick any location that was better for determining the global temperature you could not do it. This is the focal point for all of the global heat circulation of the world’s oceans. The heat focuses on the Yucatan Channel, goes through into the Gulf of Mexico forms a loop, shearing off much rainfall and heat into the Southeastern USA and subsequently going out the Florida Strait as the Gulf Stream, the world’s largest and warmest ocean current.

As such the temperature and climate of the area is the best representation of the world climate condition.

This is the reason that of the wettest states in the USA 4 of the top 5 are in this area.

#5 Florida
#4 Alabama
#3 Mississippi
#2 Louisiana
(#1 is Hawaii)

Now that is fact. That is solid evidence. Silly claims and graphs cannot refute it.

Now some may point to an occasional remaining group of trees or such , but the fact is that commercial citrus is out of that region. The remnants are proof of exactly what I have said here.

See Also:  Oceans Make Climate: SST, SSS and Precipitation Linked