16 thoughts on “Climate Risk”

  1. One of the biggest problems associated with climate change risk assessments is that there is no simple way to articulate danger associated with a warmer climate.

    Hence the endless graphics headlining climate change articles and communication showing something on fire. Buildings, forests, whatever. Sometimes the whole earth with flames coming off it.

    “Can you improve this study by articulating what the danger is?”
    “We don’t need to, the image we’ve included on the first page will take care of that.”

      1. Why is always assumed that warmer is bad? From what I’ve read, in the tropics there isn’t much change. What’s getting “warmer” are nights, especially winter nights, in northern areas. This leads to longer growing seasons, and more areas available for crops.

        Twenty thousand years ago much of North America was under a thick sheet of ice. Is that the climate they desire? Obviously not, as there seems to be this assumption that the current climate is the best possible, and any change from it is bad.

        1. It is thought by some that tropics warms {will warm a lot}.
          Or they predicted the hot spot which didn’t happen.

          Here they claim is climate myth:
          –There’s no tropospheric hot spot
          The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. Yet in the observed record of the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, the predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent (source: Christopher Monckton) —

          So calling above statement by Monckton, a climate Myth and you can read why they explain it’s myth.
          But at the bottom, they do say:
          ” However, as observations improve, if it turns out the long-term hot spot is not as strong as expected, the main question will be why do we see a short-term hot spot but not a long-term hot spot?”

          And I would say “skepticalscience” still imagines or is expecting the tropics to warm.

          And I would say tropics roughly remains constant forever- whether or not in glaciation periods or interglacial periods.

          Though you of course have the El Nino cycle which has gone on forever. And btw, we in La Nino period, currently {which part of why it might seem somewhat cold] and will eventually go back to El Nino {it might take couple of years or sooner – or no can predict them, other than- they will go back and forth and they could have large and have various global effects}.

        2. Context. We live in a society unmoored from the context in which we presently exist and is incapable of grasping the nature of our existence.

          Warm is bad because they need it to be bad and because of that, cold is bad too. Average doesn’t exist, it is almost always some deviation from the average that is measured. There are always deviations, dips, and spikes. This is why choosing nature as the antagonist is so smart. No matter what happens, variability means endless opportunities to claim not being average requires Marxism.

      2. It’s also interesting watching the climate hoaxsters fuss about the Azolla Event (which created the icehouse Earth we live on, about 42 million years ago). A friend of mine got angry at me about this stuff and said, “We can’t put Miami on a raft and float it away!” I replied, “No, but we can get in our cars and drive to Atlanta in just a few hours!”

          1. If people in Miami are really worried about sea levels, Crockett and Tubbs need to get back to work and find out which South American cartel is moving in killer weed by the ship load.

  2. “The congruence of the IPCC assessments and UNFCCC policies enforces the belief that climate change is a simple or tame problem, with science Progressive Marxism trumping all practical questions and conflicting values and purposes.”

    Fixed ^

    “However, the issues with the current CO2 increase and warming are social, not environmental.”

    Yes, it has been obvious for a long time that Progressive Marxist societal change is the driving force behind global warming alarmism and that the term “science” is wielded as a weapon to prevent people from disagreeing with their totalitarian anti-human ideology.

    1. Watermelon(q.v.): a sarcastic reference to some individual that is “Green” on the outside and “Red” on the inside as shown by their behavior.

  3. The average temperature of US states varies by 24.5 C, or 16.8 C if you don’t count Alaska. So which ones are within the narrow 2 C climate band that is able to support civilization, and what do we tell to the residents outside that band?

      1. And Europe is about 9 C and China about 8 C

        Europe is warmed a lot by the Gulf Stream, by about
        10 C, or would like Canada which averages about -3 C
        Of course most Canadian live within about 200 km of US
        border. British Columbia is about 1.5 C
        Saskatchewan about 1 C
        And going live where warmer, so, Canadians as guess live mostly around 4 C.

        1. My friend in Tampa swears that most Canadians live in Florida, where it would be 22.5, but that’s probably just in the winter.

          Perhaps climate alarmists should explain why Canadians vacation in Florida, California, and Mexico, and Scandinavians vacation in Florida, the Caribbean, and southern France and Spain, while the reverse doesn’t seem to be true.

  4. There’s a great post in WattsUpWithThat from 4 days back from Willis Eschenbach that takes a bit of a deep dive into the GISS GCM Model-E (or Muddle-E as Willis refers to it). Read about it here:


    A fascinating look. With precautionary tales of lack of “Murphy Swichgauges”, non-physical “guard rails” and discussion of accumulated errors in iterative modelling. Having spent a few decades in hardware modelling, to paraphrase a famous quote; I find their lack of ‘assertions’, disturbing. This can not make more clear the difference between modelling and experimental science. Esp. in such complex domains as climate which (unlike even nuclear reactions) make formal validation I would say next to impossible. When climate modelers get serious will be the day when they start to decompose the problem into simpler subdomains that CAN be validated when compared to the physical world. Until then, this seems to me largely make believe. Historians of Science will record the early decades of the 21st Century as the ‘Dark Age’ when modelling was allowed to trump theory and experiment until Science lost all cred and much of its public funding. Supercomputers are great if your domain is understood. Otherwise the principle of GIGO holds. What supercomputers can do for you is send you a lot more GO, a whole lot faster.

Comments are closed.