Sea Ice Update

More statistics that only fools would deny.

Open Mind

This year witnessed a September minimum of Arctic sea ice which was only the 2nd-lowest on record. But the year’s minimum isn’t the surprising thing about this year’s sea ice. That would be the surprising lows observed during May and part of June, and now, it seems, during the most recent few days of October. Here’s the data, with 2016 in red:


View original post 134 more words

It’s the Ice, Stupid

Open Mind

Earlier this month the WUWT blog treated us to a bizarre post about how this year didn’t set a new record for lowest Arctic sea ice extent (it only came in 2nd-lowest), in spite of “two very strong storms.” Doubling down, they offer another post trumpeting “record Arctic sea ice growth in September.” Which makes me wonder: are those guys trying to make themselves look like idiots?

View original post 570 more words

1.5 Degrees: Meeting the challenges of the Paris Agreement

This is my comment on an article by Carbon Brief
Highlights: Day one at the 1.5C conference on climate change in Oxford

The website related to the conference can be found at “1.5 degrees

My comment on Carbon Brief:

Thanks to Carbon Brief and Rosamund Pearce for an excellent report.

There are a few points I will make.

[1] In the embedded  video, Professor Corrinne Le Quere says

“[to keep within 1.5°C] it is necessary to be “completely de-carbonising the economy in just a few decades.”

Earlier this year Carbon Brief said

Analysis: Only five years left before 1.5C carbon budget is blown”.

There is a big difference between “a few decades” and five years.

[2] Corrine also says “Global emissions have stalled in the past few years”. Apart from the fact that “stalled” is nowhere good enough to keep within 1.5°C , this reduction is not yet seen in the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Continue reading 1.5 Degrees: Meeting the challenges of the Paris Agreement

Brian Cox’s Denier Takedown: a High Point for Climate Journalism

The BBC should let Brian Cox give the same treatment to Lord Nigel Lawson and the sceptics of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The BBC have been reprimanded for giving Lawson too much credence in the past.

Open Mind

Many have enjoyed the smackdown which Brian Cox delivered to Malcom Rogers on Australian TV’s program “Q&A”. Myself included. Cox is a scientist, and one of the most popular science communicators in Britain (perhaps England’s answer to Neil deGrasse Tyson?). Roberts is a politician, a senator no less, in Australia. He’s also a climate denier.

View original post 411 more words

Watch out for melting permafrost … It isn’t in the IPCC models

Not much to say except…

Don’t drive cars & Don’t eat beef because…

In simulations of future warming we find that the permafrost carbon feedback increases global mean temperature by 10–40% relative to simulations without this feedback, with the magnitude of the increase dependent on the evolution of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

From Anthony et al. Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. And these feedbacks aren’t in the IPCC climate models. Conformation: A last message from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Will the new government department sideline climate warnings?

I expect it will.

Degrowth: My megaphone comment on LinkedIn

What upset Jeff Selingo (@jselingo) ?

Yesterday morning I made a comment to a posting on LinkedIn. The posting was “What Happens When Millions of Jobs Are Lost Because of Automation?” by Jeff Selingo author of the bestseller, “There Is Life After College”.

My comment referenced my other blog. Yesterday this several more hits than usual. However, the comment has disappeared from LinkedIn in normal viewing mode – although I can find it through this “deeplink“. The deeplink address contains “hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_LIKE_TOP_LEVEL_COMMENT”. The comment had 19 “likes”.

I don’t use LinkedIn very often but I have just learned two things. (1) LinkedIn has a larger reach than I knew and (2) comments can be deleted on slim grounds. (A friend tells me that authors can delete comments they don’t like.)  If Jeff Selingo did delete the comment, I would like to know what he didn’t like.  I do wonder if there were any comments, other than

Geoff Beacon I have not see such a moronic conversation since the democratic convention. De-growth… I think there is a cup of Kool-Aid with your name on it and it’s empty.

My comment?

As we stand at the present, enough market generated jobs can only happen if we have economic growth that will destroy the planet. (“The job apocalypse and climate change”, ) In the short to medium term we need degrowth, lower productivity, nicer jobs, less consumption and a universal basic income.

That doesn’t sound very “megaphone” to me. In fact it’s rather boring for such an important topic.

Hansen’s predictions right so far but will 300 mph storms happen?

Hansen’s predictions were right in 1981. Will his prediction for 300 mph storms happen?

Open Mind

In 1981 James Hansen and colleagues published research in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science titled “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” They discussed the result of basic physics, that carbon dioxide in the air inhibits Earth cooling off, thus heating the planet. They also reported the results of computer simulations of Earth’s climate in a world with ever-increasing CO2.


View original post 921 more words

Operationalism was stupid. Economists are still operationalists. It follows that …

Nearly a century ago economist Lionel Robbins read Percy Bridgman. Neither understood science.


Bridgman thought anything that could not be directly measured was not scientific.
That would have meant “electron” was unscientific as philosophers of science soon realised.

Operationalism, however, has continued to seduce psychology  more than half a century after it was repudiated by philosophers of science, including the very Logical Positivists who had first taken it seriously.

Operationalism still seduces economics. Continue reading Operationalism was stupid. Economists are still operationalists. It follows that …