Get used to it.

Peer-reviewed research from MIT suggests Earth's climate is self-regulating.

Earth Can Regulate its Own Temperature Over Millennia, New Study Finds
Charles Rotter
Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check. . . .

 

In a First, Rich Countries Agree to Pay for Climate Damages in Poor Nations

SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt — Negotiators from nearly 200 countries concluded two weeks of talks early Sunday in which their main achievement was agreeing to establish a fund that would help poor, vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters made worse by the pollution spewed by wealthy nations that is dangerously heating the planet.

The decision regarding payments for climate damage marked a breakthrough on one of the most contentious issues at United Nations climate negotiations. For more than three decades, developing nations have pressed for loss and damage money, asking rich, industrialized countries to provide compensation for the costs of destructive storms, heat waves and droughts fueled by global warming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/...te=1&user_id=fecdfdffdaaa11107b72f0f4f6e429cc

 

“On the one hand, it’s good because we know that today’s global warming will eventually be canceled out through this stabilizing feedback,” says Constantin Arnscheidt, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “But on the other hand, it will take hundreds of thousands of years to happen, so not fast enough to solve our present-day issues.”

 

Yes, and . . . ?

 

The good news is that nothing has been worked out regarding who gives and who gets. That should keep things tied up for a long time. And of course the Republican House will block any funding.

 

Sea level rise? Not so much.

NASA Jet Propulsion Lab Misleads About Sea Level Rise
SEA LEVEL NOVEMBER 22, 2022

". . . The study makes three significant mistakes. First, the accelerated rate of sea level rise (SLR) the researchers perceived in recent years appears to be an artifact of switching between different satellites during the period of measurement, not an increase in the rate of rise. . . .

The second is that the record is only 27 years long, so we really don’t have enough data to draw many conclusions. This is particularly true since the variations from a straight line are quite small.

Third, the rise was right along the linear trend line up until 2005. So, there was no acceleration before that time. Then the rate of rise started decreasing around 2005 … deceleration rather than acceleration? Why? And then, according to the spliced dataset, it started rising faster around 2011. Again, why? Assuredly those three, first a straight line, then deceleration, then acceleration, are unlikely to be caused by a monotonic rise in CO2. Nor do they conform with any expected pattern of acceleration. . . . "

 

“There’s No Emergency” – Dissident Climatologist Dr Judith Curry on Climate Change
Guest Blogger
“Earth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing”. An eye-opening interview.

 

Another alarmist claim debunked.

Sorry, NPR, Dead Sea Is Receding Due to Water Diversion, Not Climate Change
SEA LEVEL NOVEMBER 28, 2022

 

Man Lee they have you so terrified it’s pretty amazing to me.

Answer this: why is Las Vegas NV building tons of closets (they are called homes by the politicians) when their is a SEVERE drought going on that has reduced Lake Mead to basically a puddle?
These greedy politicians scream climate change yet approve TONS of housing that require TONS of water.
Lee, the politicians are the problem, and so are the citizens who trust them.

 

Climate models remain junk.

A Look At Climate Models: “Obviously Do Not Represent The Physics”…”Not At All Capable”
By P Gosselin on 30. November 2022

Share this...
Models still remain “crude statistical tools”…”not at all capable of reliably informing the world’s decision makers”



What Do The Current Climate Models Really Do?
By Die kalte Sonne, Frank Bosse
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)

A recent article describes the performance of upcoming models, made possible by an improvement in computing power over current high performance computers: the “exaflop” generation, i.e. 1 exaflop =10 to the power of 18 = 1 trillion floating point operations per second. They should then also make local climate calculations possible, primarily through a narrower grid and stored physics where today parameterization is still required.

That is pie in the sky, much more interesting are the statements about the models so far in the article.

Tim Palmer, Oxford professor puts it this way:

A highly nonlinear system where you have biases which are bigger than the signals you’re trying to predict is really a recipe for unreliability.”

Many of the laws and physical equations of the climate system are known, it’s just that people haven’t been able to implement them, for computational time reasons. Björn Stevens of Hamburg’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) puts it this way:

We were somehow forbidden to use this understanding by the limits of computation.”

And further:

People sometimes forget how far away some of the fundamental processes in our existing models are from our physical understanding.”

This in no way refers to only local phenomena. Stevens describes it this way:

When we finally succeed in physically describing the pattern of atmospheric deep convection over the warm tropical seas in models, we can understand more deeply how this then shapes large waves in the atmosphere, guides the winds, and affects the extratropics.”

After all, we keep hearing that the models represent “the physics.” They obviously do not, even for large scale phenomena. These are very frank words about the current models.

In the light of what may one day be possible, they seem to be rather crude statistical tools than representations of reality. Thus the article describes at the end the goal of modeling with the help of “exascale computing”. A real image of the real terrestrial climate system, a “digital twin” is to be created. What we have today is characterized by Bjorn Stevens as:

…that the world’s decision makers will have to rely on climate models in the same way that farmers have to rely on weather reports, but that change will require a concerted – and expensive – effort to create some kind of common climate model infrastructure.”

What have we not been told about the performance of climate models! And now it turns out that so far they are not at all capable of reliably informing “the world’s decision makers.” In fact, they are far from it.

In this context it is also understandable that the last state report of the IPCC just for the first time did NOT refer to the many models that were created especially for it, called CMIP6 family. Rather, the IPCC obtained the most important core information, “How sensitive is our climate system to CO2 increase?” from one paper that combined various estimates without using models.

This one paper unfortunately contained some flaws and could also be updated, Lewis (2022) reduced the most likely value assumed by IPCC AR6 significantly, by over 30%.

Thus, in climate science, much remains in flux and (as is always the case in science) nothing is set in stone. I wonder if this will also find its way into our media at some point? Or to the frightened ones, who are convinced they are the “last generation” before a climate collapse, informed by just these media and as they pretend: “The science”? Or was it instead of science, such works as “Hothouse Earth” and “Climate-Endgame“?

Let us remain optimists!

 

This is excellent news.

NASA Cancels Satellite CO2 Monitoring Project
Eric Worrall
The Geocarb Project cancellation leaves a lot of questions – like how NASA managed to spend $170 million on the CO2 monitoring project without putting anything into space. . . .

 

Don't be so obtuse.

 

Minor progress, but progress nonetheless.

In France, solar just got a huge boost from new legislation approved through the Senate this week that will require all parking lots with spaces for at least 80 vehicles – both existing and new – to be covered by solar panels.

The new provisions are part of French president Emmanuel Macron’s large-scale plan to heavily invest in renewables, which aims to multiply by 10 the amount of solar energy produced in the country, and to double the power from land-based wind farms.

Starting July 1, 2023, smaller carparks that have between 80 and 400 spaces will have five years to be in compliance with the new measures. Carparks with more than 400 spaces have a shorter timeline: They will need to comply with the new measures within three years of this date, and at least half of the surface area of the parking lot will need to be covered in solar panels.

According to the government, this plan, which particularly targets large parking areas around commercial centers and train stations, could generate up to 11 gigawatts, which is the equivalent of 10 nuclear reactors, powering millions of homes.
https://electrek.co/2022/11/08/france-require-parking-lots-be-covered-in-solar-panels/

 

It's a fair question when your point is not discernible.

 

The point is obvious.
“On the one hand, it’s good because we know that today’s global warming will eventually be canceled out through this stabilizing feedback,” says Constantin Arnscheidt, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “But on the other hand, it will take hundreds of thousands of years to happen, so not fast enough to solve our present-day issues.”

 

Yes. Not in dispute so your point remains indiscernible.

 

This explains why so many alarmist climate forecasts are so spectacularly wrong.

“Colorful fluid dynamics” and overconfidence in global climate models
Posted on December 2, 2022 by curryja | 86 comments
by David Young

This post lays out in fairly complete detail some basic facts about Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling. This technology is the core of all general circulation models of the atmosphere and oceans, and hence global climate models (GCMs). I discuss some common misconceptions about these models, which lead to overconfidence in these simulations. This situation is related to the replication crisis in science generally, whereby much of the literature is affected by selection and positive results bias.

Continue reading →

 

What does "so not fast enough to solve our present-day issues.” mean to you? What issues are being referred to?

 

I assume that refers to climate alarmism, which is fine by me.

 

Pretending to be obtuse is unbecoming.

 

You are arguing against a point that was never made.

 

I see. So the point of posting the article was to present a theory having no consequence on human's for thousands of years. Curious.

 

I post science. The general point of natural variability is worthwhile.

 

I'm sure you believe that.

 

Another alarmist claim debunked, again.

Wrong, The Conversation, Evidence Shows People Are NOT Under Greater Threat From Hurricanes
CLIMATE RECORD DECEMBER 2, 2022