An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Emissions budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5° C Sept 18 2017

Last month I did a post on how the variance in computer model’s predictions on Hurricane paths despite decades of data and the finest computers and training available was a simple proof of the folly of relying on computer climate models dealing with “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” trying to predict events decades in the future.

You aren’t dealing with a single “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” you are dealing with EVERY complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes that exists on the earth. Every single additional item you add increases the variation of the data models. Furthermore you are also dealing with variations in the sun, variations in the orbits of the earth, its moon and more.

And that’s just the variations in natural phenomena, imagine the variation in industrial output on the entire planet for a period of 50 or 100 years.

Think of the computer modeling and tracking of that single hurricane and apply this thinking to the climate of the earth as a whole. How accurate that model is going to be over 100 years, 50 years, 25 years or even ten years?

Would you be willing to bet even your short term economic future on it, would anyone in their right mind do so?

That post got both a ton of attention and a ton of pushback by those insisting that I was comparing apples and oranges (hurricanes vs the planetary system) not realizing that my point was primarily about computer modeling and variations of data over a long period of time.

Well one month later the Independent (via insty) acquaints us with a new study that suggests global warming models “on the hot side”

the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen added.

Or in other words when you have actual data that decreases the variable involved suddenly the path to the goal of avoiding disaster seems easier.

Of course you won’t be surprised to hear that this change in data is being sold as a reason to move forward on draconian emissions control because we now have a chance to achieve temperature goals without actions that are: “incompatible with democracy” but take a look at the quote not from the news article but from the actual study that I lead this post with in which I highlight several key words in BOLD:

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Or to put it in english:   We have no idea if we’re actually right because we are making assumptions from a range of potential figures from multiple reports (whose composites, metrics and assumptions are not detailed here) so we can’t actually say how much carbon we have to restrict to keep the planet down to our temperature goal without making guesses.

But we conclude you have to make giant adjustments to your economy and tax code, that coincidently favor connected interests that fund such studies

You’re going to base the economy of your state, your country your continent on THAT?

Read through that entire report, it has more weasel words than an end user agreement writ and as you do ponder this exchange from the classic Doctor Who episode the Aztecs:

Tlotoxl: A vision is with us, Autloc. When does it rain?
Autloc: This day. When the sun’s fire first touches the horizon to the west.
Tlotoxl: At that moment shall I present her to the people. A vision is with us and shall stand before them. And I, in supplication to the Rain God, shall offer human blood. The rains will come. No more talk against us that the gods were against us and brought drought to the land. The rains will come and power shall again be ours.
Autloc: I tell you the rains will come with or without sacrifice.
Tlotoxl: Does the High Priest of Knowledge only worship him who has fallen, and not him who has made us strong?
Autloc: I worship the same god as you.
Tlotoxl: Then above all, honour him. He has made us rulers of the land. For this he demands blood. And he shall have it.

and ask yourself if we are seeing the same scenario from our elite classes demanding a sacrifice to prevent a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to maintain their positions and wealth?


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



At that time some people who were present there told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with the blood of their sacrifices.  He said to them in reply, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans?  By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!  Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem?  By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!”

Luke 11:1-5

We interrupt our Robert Stacy McCain in Massachusetts blogging to note something concerning Hurricane Irma.

When last I brought up Irma it was to use the vast differences between the US and European computer models for Irma’s projected path three days out illustrate the absurdity of making economic policy based on computer models of climate 50 to 100  years out.

Since then several of my Magnificent Seven writers have given the subject, particularly those in Irma’s projected path, their full attention but while I’ve kept an interested eye on the path of the storm I’ve been too busy with my houseguest Robert Stacy McCain and the event we put on yesterday to write anything on the subject.

There has however been a development on the subject worth of interrupting of Stacy McCain in Massachusetts blogging (which will resume after this post) namely it’s shift in path:

 Hurricane Irma’s leading edges whipped palm trees and kicked up the surf as it spun toward Florida with 125 mph winds Saturday on a projected new track that could subject Tampa — not Miami — to the storm’s worst fury.

Tampa has not taken a direct hit from a major hurricane in nearly a century.

The westward swing away from Miami in the overnight forecast caught many people off guard along Florida’s Gulf coast and triggered an abrupt shift in storm preparations. A major round of evacuations was ordered in the Tampa area, and shelters there soon began filling up.

This story brings two points to mind the first scientific:

If you were looking at the various computer models I was mentioning plus a few others this change in path would be a massive surprise as the idea that Tampa might be the possible target wasn’t really on your radar.  This is why residents of Tampa Bay are now scrambling to get ready for the storm heading their way.

In my opinion this doesn’t poorly reflect on the State’s moves to evacuate people in the path, nor on those who produced the models as they were based on the best data available.  Furthermore hurricanes being “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” it’s always possible that there will be another shift so given the immediate danger it’s better to be safe than sorry.

However it DOES reinforce my point concerning making decades long range economic decisions over computer models forecasting 50 to 100 years out. It’s one thing to take a week long economic hit when life is in clear and visible danger, it’s quite another, to redirect hundreds of billions toward the well connected for an ephemeral threat three to five generations in the future based on computer models whose variables are astoundingly vast and the hysteria of individuals who are incredibly shallow.

But there is a second point to be made, a social one:

One of the more disgraceful things we’ve been seeing from our friends on the left has been the apparent glee that they’ve expressed at the imminent danger to those they blame for the results of the election.  Despite the left eschewing all things religious they’ve apparently bought into the idea that this is a sign of God’s wrath at trump voters ,ignoring the fact that the President got few votes from Cuba and Haiti and Puerto Rico where Irma has vented so far.

So imagine their dismay at the shift in Irma’s path given the voter data Hillsbourough County including Tampa Bay from election 2016 showing that Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in Tampa Bay by nearly seven points!

Now to any properly catechized Christian the entire concept is offensive.  First of all Christ specifically warned about this type of misconception over and over again both in the quote from Luke above and in dealing with the man born blind (John Chapt 9), but more importantly for a Christian all of the people both those already affected by the storm and those potentially affected are souls of equal value before God and deserving our help and support during this time of need,  furthermore as a pluralistic society it is our obligation to help our fellow americans in this crisis no matter who they are.

But I am curious to hear how those who so confidently expressed their delight at the plight of trump voters handle mother nature’s apparent change of heart.  Isn’t Irma woke?  Has mother nature donned a MAGA hat?  Perhaps ANTIFA should declare her a fascist and the Southern Poverty Law Center will label her a white supremacist and put her on a watch list.  I can see the marches and hear the protest chants now:

Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Mother Nature has got to go!


If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level