Global warming has become a religion
This is the opinion of Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever , Prof. Richard Lindzen, and many others. Climate change alarmism has a surprising number of attributes of a medieval or even ancient religion. Nevertheless, real religions have some pre-requisites, like a tradition spanning at least few generations. So the proper name for climate alarmism is a cult. And these are the telltale attributes:
1) Climate alarmists pretend to possess indisputable truths about the past, present, and future. From minute details of the paleoclimate to the world state 200 years in the future, alarmists know everything.
2) The alarmist movement stubbornly refuses to debate its dogma, calling it “settled science” and viciously attacking its critics. The attacks are not limited to name calling but include prohibiting scientific research that contradicts this dogma. Significant figures within the movement call for criminal persecution of those who publicly disagree with the dogma and, in some cases, for those who do not follow it. Proposed punishments for “heretics” and “infidels” include prison and even death.
3) The alarmist movement has a formal doctrine-setting body — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reports and summaries by this body are considered by the alarmists to be the main source of authority on all things related to climate, energy, the biological cycle, and consequentially, everything else. The cult followers (individuals, organizations, and even governments) regularly quote these unholy texts and use them to justify their decisions.
4) The alarmist movement has its own priest class: taxpayer-funded impostor “climate scientists” who have no independent (of the climate alarmism) scientific achievements.[1]Frequently, they do not even have scientific degrees.[2] The alarmists sincerely believe that only members of the priest class are capable of understanding and seriously discussing “climate science.” Physicists, biologists, meteorologists, engineers, mathematicians, and other outsiders need not apply.
It is worth noting that this priest class was appointed by politicians (mostly from developing countries) and is completely disconnected from the eminent scientists who founded climate change research at the peak of their scientific careers and produced the most results prior to 1985. All the eminent scientists who have publicly spoken on the topic since the early 1990s strongly opposed climate alarmism and were attacked or defamed by the alarmists. The list of these “sceptics” and “deniers” includes Freeman Dyson, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, and Roger Revelle. None of the founders of climate change research support the alarmism.
5) The climate change cult appears to worship the computer models that its shamans built with their own hands — literally man-made idols. Needless to say, much of the content of IPCC’s texts comes from these computer models.[3]
6) The alarmists deny, ignore, or distort elementary scientific facts, some of which should be known even to kids:
– Photosynthesis. Plants grow by converting atmospheric CO2 into biomass. Significant parts of the world agricultural output are due to additional CO2 fertilization.[4]
– Archimedes’ principle. Melting of Arctic ice cannot increase the sea level because Arctic ice floats in water.[5]
– Sunspots and the effect of solar activity changes.[6]
7) The alarmists appeal to medieval science errors. These errors can be described as beliefs that nature has existed forever in some unchanged state. The inability of a common man or a medieval scientist to observe such changes was the cause of these beliefs. The alarmists revive these errors by denying, ignoring, or underestimating natural climate change; evolution (including species’ disappearance and adaptation); higher CO2levels in the geological past; natural sea level increases in the current interglacial period; tectonic movement; the complex trajectory of the Earth’s motion around the Sun; and the astronomic observations of stars similar to the Sun.
8) The alarmists have created and spread climate mythology, sometimes intentionally modeled on archaic misbeliefs that many alarmists attributed to religion. The common logical fallacy can be described as an appeal to everyday experiences, not applicable to the discussed natural processes (the “Flat Earth fallacy”). Some samples:
– Incorrect association of CO2 with warming because of the word “greenhouse”—the mother of the global warming scare. Most city dwellers only know that greenhouses are warm and contain elevated levels of CO2 and easily led to believe that CO2 causes warming. Most farmers also know that CO2 is added for fertilization and does not cause greenhouse warming. This is why states with many farmers (like Oklahoma) are skeptics of the climate change cult and states with many professors (like Massachusetts) arebelievers.
– Incorrect claim that (allegedly anthropogenic) global warming causes glacier melting or Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Ice cream does melt faster in a warmer room, but glaciers and ice sheets are influenced by totally different physical processes and on a totally different timeframe. See West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat and The Arctic is especially sensitive to black carbon emissions.
– Incorrect claim that global warming causes droughts. Droughts are popularly associated with high temperatures but not caused by them. See Weaker solar activity means colder, and colder also means drier.
– False attribution of wildfires, New Orleans’ devastation from Hurricane Katrina, current California water shortages, and various disasters to global warming. These disasters are caused by environmentalist politics, not by global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 upon landfall. New Orleans was supposed to withstand all hurricanes up to the highest Category 5, but the required barriers were not built because of the resistance by environmentalists.
– Time scale confusion. Processes that take hundreds of years are described as if they happen overnight.
9) Like an established religion, the climate change cult has its own “start of the time”—usually 1880 (sometimes the 1880s), which is allegedly the beginning of instrumental temperature records.
10) Climate change cult has its own eschatology—calamities, catastrophes, and the end of the world caused by global warming. To avoid this horrible end, we have to repent (i.e., accept the climate change cult dogma), stop sinning (releasing CO2), and generously pay whomever the IPCC or UNFCC will tell us.
11) The climate change cult calls its dogma science but fails to make any scientific (i.e., non-trivial and testable) statements. For example, “Climate change is real” is a trivial statement. The statements about temperatures in 2100 are not practically testable. When alarmists were making testable statements (such as the infamous 1988 James Hansen testimony before Congress and early IPCC reports), they were proven to be incorrect.
12) The climate change cult seeks and actually exerts control over governments.
To add to the above, the climate change cult has survived multiple exposures of its frauds—something that a normal fraud cannot survive. Nevertheless, many cults involve fraud, and even true believers are not against profiting from their position in their cult. The climate change cult has been elevated by the Obama administration into state religion. Both the White House and NASA appear to have converted to this cult.
References
[1] James Hansen may be the only possible exception. But he is an outlier among “climate scientists” in many other respects. His climates fantasies are not approved by the cult mainstream. If the cult were not state sponsored, he would become a schismatic.
[2] See Donna Laframboise, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
[3] This may sound extravagant, but this is the actual state of “climate science” today. 25 years ago, there was a clear distinction between the science and the misrepresentation of the science. For example, the IPCC First Assessment Report reviewed the science, while its Summary for Policymakers misrepresented it. Since then, the quality of the science has been steadily deteriorating, apparently both through intentional fabrication and the race to the bottom in the competence of the “climate scientists.” Existing physical models were used outside of their applicability space, and new models were developed and applied without proper validation. Some models were intentionally fabricated to produce politically desirable outcomes, other models were developed by “undistinguished scientists” through incompetence, impatience, and ideological zeal. One might guess that there was some amount of competition between the models, leading to their evolution and the survival of the fittest (models and modellers). The fitness criteria was conformance to the alarmist agenda. Apparently, the surviving models were then compared and then tweaked to better match each other. In parallel, the models have been tweaked to accommodate real-world data. When tweaking individual models was not enough, “ensembles of models” were created. Model runs were called experiments. New models were developed and parametrized based on the output of such “experiments,” then “verified” against existing models. The output of the new models became new “data” and so on. Today, the climate-related models are not understood by the modellers themselves, the models lead their own lives and describe their own imaginary worlds (like the latest Hansen paper). Today, much of the peer-reviewed literature in the “climate science” (including IPCC AR5) simply does not distinguish between the real world and computer models. This is more appropriately called worship than scientific research. This is not limited to global circulation models but permeates many parts of “climate science.”
[4] Yes, some “climate scientists” are photosynthesis sceptics (and the rest have not heard of photosynthesis). From National Geographic, published by The National Geographic Society: High CO2 Makes Crops Less Nutritious. Another one, from the University of Gothenburg: Increased carbon dioxide levels in air restrict plants ability to absorb nutrients. Photosynthesis skepticism is a booming research field! The leading alarmist websitecalls the fact that CO2 is plant food “a climate myth” and explains that “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”
[5] The claim that the melting of “polar ice” causes the sea level to rise has been frequently accompanied by evidence that the Arctic ice area was shrinking, especially in the periods when the Arctic ice area was really shrinking. The Antarctic ice cap has not been shrinking. I am not trying to figure out who among alarmists are ignorant of the Archimedes’ principle and who intentionally mislead the public.
[6] A few weeks ago, Sun sceptics struck again. International Astronomical Union announced: Corrected Sunspot History Suggests Climate Change since the Industrial Revolution not due to Natural Solar Trends. “Corrected Sunspot History” sounds like something from Orwell when it appears on Discovery News, CBS News, and Nature News. I understand that as an acknowledgement that the uncorrected sunspot history suggests otherwise and that Dr. Willie Soon has been correct. Of notice, the history was corrected based on a pdf file uploaded to arxiv.org, not on a peer-reviewed (or even pal reviewed) paper. Dr. Nir Shaviv has called the paperirrelevant to 20th century warming because there are other proxies confirming the increasing solar activity over the 20th century.
Actually Lewis Loflin (at http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/original_2.htm) has been stating that CAGW is a religious cult for many years.
I have pointed out that the “progressives” are a cult for a couple years, like in my comment here last year:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/04/weepy-bill-mckibben-steps-down-as-chairman-of-350-org/
I don’t pay attention to making parallels between the prototypical ritual-focused religion, such as Catholicism.
I pay attention to how plain-ol’ everyday people get drawn in to passionately adopt and defend the cult thinking.
I call CAGW, and a lot of the progressive agenda, a virtue-cult. we are familiar with religious cults – they are easy to comprehend. A persuasive leader informs you of The Truth, and saves you from being one of the unwashed masses. You get to go to heaven, or whatever the religion says.
The progressivism cult is different; you don’t get in line with the one true God; instead, you get to hold the virtuous knowledge and beliefs, and so you get to be superior to everyone else.
You get lured in by everyday political discussions and issues. As you pay attention, you receive and hold more than an informed view on a political topic; you get the impression that you need to advocate for this position because the counter position is held and promoted by a monolithic group of people who are essentially evil. Across issues – global warming, population overload, the environment, racism, war on women, etc. – you get receptive to “progressive”-spun information which makes you feel smart and informed, but all the narratives have the same monolithic enemy / evil.
The evil is a shadowy presence. but it really boils down to the enemy of Marxism. Their dreaded enemy is the unholy trinity hegemony of nukelar family, Christianity, and capitalism. Many are invested in the progressive agenda to virtuously wage war against this hegemonic evil.
Hang around these devoted individuals, reflect on this, and you will start to see it.
Many WUWT readers are agnostic or atheistic enthusiasts of science. Many of you have been fed the concept that Christians are dumb, and anti-science, etc. This is all rhetoric from this virtue-cult. They need you to adopt those beliefs in order to innoculate you against any point of view I, or other Christians, might have. And, you can dismiss anything I have to say once you discover I am a member of any of these evil groups: square nukelar family man / “intolerant” (now you can grasp the political need for the “tolerance” meme); Christian, or in favor of any sort of capitalism/free trade views.
So, the thought structure is all aimed at the enemy. Why? The cult thought structure does not accord with reality, and so cannot stand up to scrutiny. It falls down pretty easily. To protect the virtue thought structure, automatic knee-jerk responses need to be built in to attack the messenger rather than address the message.
Here is a crystal-clear example of how easy it is to make the house-of-cards thought structure fall: how Leah Remini left Scientolgy: she asked where the leader’s wife had been lately. They could not handle the threat posed by the simple truth.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-leah-remini-left-scientology-2015-4
So, she woke up and left.
Unfortunately many nominally Christian commenters here do display their contempt for science, just as they are characterized by their opponents.
Avowed Christians here frequently state their uninformed and unscientific objections to the facts of evolution, the great age of the earth and other observations of the natural world which don’t comport with the doctrines of their religious cults.
Again, see the concept of memes, and memetics.
How is the neologism “nukelar” different from English “nuclear”?
So Gloria,
I’m curious as to how you linked “Christians” to the opposition to “evolution” or a very old earth.
I belong to neither of those two camps, but nor am I ignorant of them.
And last time I checked, the Biblical story of a “6,000 year old earth”, or the “Creation of all species in six days”, predates Christianity by thousands of years; and I’m not aware of any citation of those ideas anywhere in the “New Testament” which is post Christianity, well at least in the “King James” version.
I don’t know of anywhere in any of the four gospels, where Jesus Christ is cited as making reference to any such notions.
But then I could be wrong. Like I said I’m not an adherent or a scholar of Biblical texts, but I did read some of it once; a long time ago.
Somehow, Christians do catch it from a lot of angles. What sets them up to be the whipping boys.
I just read a learned scientific article about the reality (or not) of the “scientific” concepts known as “String Theory” and the other theory of “Multiverses”.
After an in depth discussion of the history and nature of both concepts as scientific theories; which have one property in common; neither one is capable of experimental verification; by any means known to science, the authors of the paper ended by saying that only time will wean the disciples of these cult ideas from their absurdity.
Well they stopped short of ROFLMAO. They were too polite to declare both notions BS.
So cultists come in all shapes and sizes.
My own view of that is that nothing that “wggles” (in any fashion) can be fundamental,
as it must be constructed of even smaller moving parts.
And anything that can be observed by any means whatsoever; which is to say can register a difference between its presence, and its absence is a part of THE universe.
Anything that can not, even in principle be observed by any means, is simply not a part of science.
Well those are just my opinions of course. Not to be cited in your PhD thesis for credit.
(they will give you an F).
G
George,
Has it really escaped your notice that on this blog people claiming to be Christians frequently attack evolution and the age of the earth?
I agree with you that the largest Christian denominations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, Greek and Russian Orthodoxy and Mainstream Protestantism, accept the validity of evolution and the great age of the earth, yet there are millions of adherents to allegedly Christian cults who do not. Unfortunately many of those adherents pollute comments here, making it easy for Warmunistas to associate “climate change” skeptics with anti-evolutionist crazies.
Last. Thank you for your good comments on religion. I also appreciate you tying modern, politically correct progressives to the origins of political correctness (PC), loathing and hating yourself and your country, as coming from the ideology of Marx. These PC progressives do owe their philosophy and beliefs the the Marxists – Leninist communists. Finally, they share the same response when being caught in a lie of a crime. Deny everything, admit nothing, and counter attack with outrageous claims and smears.
Gloria,
You are either lying or imagining things. I suspect the latter, blinded by your own preconceptions, you are remembering things that do not exist.
Desert,
I could copy here anti-evolution rant after rant from commenters on this blog. My memory is accurate. They have been so common that Warmunistas often quote them to show how anti-science skeptics are.
For starters, just read the comments on this recent blog post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/17/hot-news-evolution-cools/
Now, don’t you feel foolish?
And here’s a blog post in which you yourself respond to creationists:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/26/erratic-environment-may-be-key-to-human-evolution/
Desertyote:
It appears that the liar and/or sufferer from faulty memory is you.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo. I recall that from my Altar Boy days as a thoroughly “Brain Washed Catholic”. From my recollection my indoctrination excluded Evolution as an approved thesis. Now since my mind is completely purged from RELIGION my conversations with GOD are PURER and CHEAPER.
I bought a Trilogy of Darwinism form Amazon, i.e., “Darwin Day in America” by John G. West, “Darwin’s Doubt” by Stephen C. Meyer and “Debating Darwin’s Doubt ” by David Klinghoffer. The first I’ve started Darwin Day subtitles “How our Politics and Culture have been Dehumanized in the name Science”captured my imagination. When I’m done with all three maybe I’ll have a clearer conclusion.
But one thing I’m clear about is that RELIGION is the OPIATE of the MASSES.
carbon bigfoot
August 29, 2015 at 7:22 am
Catholic doctrine officially now accepts the fact of evolution, although IMO in its latest version it also allows for divine intervention at any point. Its doctrine might be called theistic evolution.
Of course there is no scientific reason for imagining divine intervention in the evolution of life on earth, but if some feature appears to someone to require it, that’s their lookout. ID advocates find that some or all bacterial flagella were divinely ordained. Why the Designer wanted to make pathogens more effective at killing people and other living things is a puzzlement. Maybe it had to do with the Fall.
Those would not be the first three books on evolution I’d read, but coming from your background, maybe not so bad. Anyway, I hope you’re happy living without the faith foisted upon you in your youth.
Lots of great books have been written on evolution since even before Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection, but, since science marches on, IMO it’s best to read the most recent work, if you’re limited to just three works. For instance, some of the most popular books from the 1980s, ’90s and ’00s would now seem quaint. Gould in particular has not worn well, although his work is still worth reading.
Here are five from the past decade that I can recommend. Shubin’s own paleontology is already outdated, but his experience as a human anatomist and fossil hunter remains valuable (although his grasp of English is sometimes shaky; he uses “disinterested” to mean “uninterested”, for instance):
The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins, 2010
Why Evolution is True, Coyne, 2009
Your Inner Fish, Shubin, 2009
The Making of the Fittest, Carroll, 2007
Relics of Eden, Fairbanks, 2007
Dawkins of course is perhaps the most famous militant atheist in the world, but that doesn’t detract from his solid scientific work.
Some of these five are targeted at refuting the blatant lies of creationists, while others are more general. The list emphasizes genetics over other lines of evidence showing evolution to be a constantly observed, scientific fact. A list just as good could be made of books on fossils, for instance.
Gloria— one can have FAITH without religion and don’t shed a tear for me. At 72 I’m quite comfy with myself and my relationship with GOD—I don’t need middlemen or women. I don’t know if you ever read the series ” Conversations With God,” Books 1,2 & 3 by Neil Donald Walsh. The first books I’ve ever read about OUR CREATOR that actually makes some sense.
Based upon the EVIDENCE I’ve seen we are genetic alien hybrids. The proof is all around but difficult to comprehend with all that Religious Propaganda we have been fed. Back when I was taught Catholic Doctrine ( Catechism ), I was informed that it was a Mortal Sin to believe in Evolution and that included Eating Meat on Fridays, Mass in anything but Latin, women covering their heads in church, etc. Birth Control is next on their agenda if the Malthusians have their way. I’ve read all your references and they are not compelling.
Carbon,
I don’t know about Catholic doctrine on evolution when you were a lad, or perhaps the personal belief of the teachers, priests and nuns with whom you came in contact, but official doctrine now supports theistic evolution.
I don’t think there is any evidence in favor of the conjecture that humans are alien hybrids. It’s possible that all life on earth is in a sense alien, ie having arisen from microbes carried here from outer space by meteors or comets, but IMO not likely.
I’m impressed by your religious faith if you’ve actually read all five of those books and still aren’t convinced of the objective, scientific fact of evolution. I’ll grant that none of them is perfect. In fact, all lack some obvious examples of observable evolution, but it would take an enormous book to fit in all the evidence, since all the evidence in the world confirms the fact of evolution and none is against it.
I’m glad to see that the usual creationist suspects who would have polluted this comment section with their foul lies just weeks or months ago are no longer in evidence.
For whatever reason this consummation devoutly to be wished has occurred, I give thanks!
O ya, it’s like I always say, “Don’t get your cosmology from a Jesuit priest.”
Thank you!
The sea ice/sheets/caps on Antarctica/the Arctic/Greenland/Iceland are shrinking/growing yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Polar bears and penguins are endangered/having a hard time/pretty much as usual yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The sea levels are rising, land is subsiding yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
The global temperatures are rising/falling/flat lining based on satellite/tropospheric/sea surface/land surface with or without UHI/TOB/homogenization/adjustments/bald faced lying yes/no/maybe depends on who’s counting.
Nothing but sound and fury, tales told by people missing the point, signifying nothing. The only meaningful question is what does CO2 have to do with any of this? How are these contentious topics connected to CO2?
IPCC’s dire predictions for the earth’s climate are based entirely on computer models, models which have yet to match reality. The projections began with a 4 C increase by 2100 which has since been adjusted down to 1.5 C.
The heated discussions mentioned above, led by warmists shrieking “See, we told you so!!, “ attempting to retroactively validate or refute those models, models driven by the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 and other GHGs. IPCC AR5 TS.6 says that the magnitude of the radiative forcing/feedback of CO2 “…remains uncertain.” (Google “Climate Change in 12 Minutes.”) Implying that IPCC was also uncertain in AR4, 3, 2, 1.
IPCC is not uncertain about one issue, though, redistribution of wealth and energy from developed countries to the underdeveloped ones to achieve IPCC’s goal of all countries enjoying above average standards of living.
Besides, the greatest threat to mankind isn’t CO2, it’s poverty & hot lead.
Excellent synopsis and conclusion Nicholas
I agree with Djozar, an excellent synopsis of the entire controversy, Mr Schroeder.
Good summary Nicholas. Though if we get to the global flow of hot lead there will be considerable danger of nuclear induced shock waves.
Hot lead doesn’t kill people, people using the hot lead does and that tends to be governments and the thugs they hire.
Just so…. the majority of those whose lives were taken prematurely, in the 20th Century, had their lives snuffed out BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS…
Neither warmists nor their opponents can either validate or refute the climate models as the statistical populations underlying them do not exist. One can “evaluate” these models but cannot “validate” them.
Yes Terry Oldberg, having created many models for warfare, fortunately we never validated the warfare models created for USSR -vs- USA … and complaining that our models were “wrong” is silly, as are current complaints about climate models.
steveb:
An additional characteristic of today’s climate models is for the mutual information between the condition space and the sample space to be nil. Non-nil mutual information is, however, a necessity for control of the climate. To attempt to control an uncontrollable system is folly but this is what the Obama administration is attempting to do with respect to the climate system.
[6] A few weeks ago, Sun sceptics struck again. International Astronomical Union announced: Corrected Sunspot History Suggests Climate Change since the Industrial Revolution not due to Natural Solar Trends. “Corrected Sunspot History” sounds like something from Orwell when it appears on Discovery News, CBS News, and Nature News. I understand that as an acknowledgement that the uncorrected sunspot history suggests otherwise and that Dr. Willie Soon has been correct. Of notice, the history was corrected based on a pdf file uploaded to arxiv.org, not on a peer-reviewed (or even pal reviewed) paper.
This is grossly incorrect. The Corrected Sunspot Number is based on this peer-reviewed [and accepted by the Journal Solar Physics] paper http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf and on http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
Dr. Nir Shaviv has called the paper irrelevant to 20th century warming because there are other proxies confirming the increasing solar activity over the 20th century
This is highly [and cleverly] misleading. The corrected sunspot number and the ‘other proxies’ are also increasing during the first half of the 20th century but all decreasing since the mid-century maximum. The point of the new reconstruction is that solar activity in every century since 1700 increased to approximately the same height and decreased to the same floor every ~100 years, thus have no long-term trend over the past 300+ years:
http://www.leif.org/research/GN-Since-1600.png
Hide the incline!
Climate scientists seem to be allergic to raw data. They can’t touch it unless it’s been run through a computer model or somehow “adusted”. The satellite sea level data, the ARGO buoy data, the surface temperature data, the satellite energy flux data all “adjusted”. And now sunspots. All adjusted to better conform with a predetermined outcome based on CAGW theory.
Nonsense. You have no idea what you are railing against. Read the papers and learn before putting foot in mouth.
I always recall this old tale of how the first Argo data was licked into shape by “peer pressure”:-http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/printall.php
The above ping-pong exchanges leads to nowhere.
What appears to matter is not intensity of solar activity but periodicity and polarity of its magnetic field.
Even so, it may not be the sun in itself that is driving the climate change, but a particular part of the globe, mainly north American tectonic plate the location of the last Laurentide ice sheet.
The North east Canada (location of one of the globe’s strongest magnetic and gravity anomalies) has magnetic oscillations synchronous in periodicity and phase with solar magnetic field. Further more, the well known ~60 year oscillations of the nearby N. Atlantic’s SST (the main component of the global temperature natural variability) are synchronised and phased in with the every third solar magnetic cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E1.gif
Why that should be so is the major unknown, since it strength of the ~ 60 year quasi-periodic magnetic oscillation is an order of magnitude grater than the intensity of the solar field impact reaching the Earth’s orbit.
It is clear that the solar input has no sufficient variability to alter the global temperature to degree required, but the oscillations of the sea floor to the west of the mid Atlantic ridge may be sufficient to affect the strength of the N. Atlantic’s drift current and so change intensity of the heat transport from the equatorial region pole-ward.
Vuk, you know this is nonsense, so spare us.
No we do not know that. If you do know so, do tell us.
Have told you many times, but you are a slow learner. No need to rehash it here.
That isn’t a very compelling rebuttal.
Let me help out a bit in order so you can be more convincing.
Average amplitude of the geomagnetic 22 year cycle in the vicinity of Hudson Bay is 70nT, which is about strength of a major geomagnetic storm
Amplitude of geomagnetic 60 year cycle is around 600nT, or about an order of magnitude stronger than a major geomagnetic storm
Bi-decadal change in the geomagnetic field tracks sunspot cycles (inverted correlation) with 2 micro Tesla p/p amplitude, about two orders of magnitude of strength of the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HB.gif
What we can safely assume is that these oscillations are not induced (but could be synchronised) by much weaker impulses of the major geomagnetic storms from the even numbered sunspot cycles, or alternatively (and possibly more likely) both the solar and geomagnetic oscillations could have a common origin.
None of what you say is correct. You misunderstand and mix unrelated things.
The 22-yr geomagnetic cycle is tiny [5 nT] and runs from maximum to maximum. There is no 60-yr geomagnetic cycle, etc, etc. All just pure misinterpretation.
That isn’t a very compelling rebuttal.
It is hard to rebut something that is of the ‘not even wrong’ variety.
What we can safely assume is that […] both the solar and geomagnetic oscillations could have a common origin.
No, one cannot ‘safely assume’ that. And in any case it is just unsupported assumed supposition.
“There is no 60-yr geomagnetic cycle”
That is rather bold statement in face of overwhelming evidence, since in both filter and spectral periodogram its existence is exceptionally clear (see graph above posted at 1.51pm).
Undoubtedly application of the climate science paradigm: ignore data ‘science is settled’, no further discussion is required.
Lets take a another look at the above graph (posted at 2.58pm)
There are six minima inflections starting at around 1680 ending around 2000, that would make it 5 complete cycles superimposed on the longer term curve, or 320yers/5 = 64 years, which is the current length of the qusi-periodic Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, better known as the AMO, the principal component of the global temperatures natural variability. Without accepting existence of the data content any further discussion can not be productive.
Contradicting data is not advancing science, it is obstinate support of dogma in the face of obvious.
Re your last misquote:
“What we can safely assume is that […] both the solar and geomagnetic oscillations could have a common origin.”
Total distortion of my comment:
“What we can safely assume is that these oscillations are not induced (but could be synchronised) by much weaker impulses of the major geomagnetic storms from the even numbered sunspot cycles, or alternatively (and possibly more likely) both the solar and geomagnetic oscillations could have a common origin.”
It is clear that the ‘Safely assume’ can not be attached to ‘possibly more likely & could have’ as you have attempted to graft them together. Not a practice to be recommended in a fair exchange of views.
bye for now
You are confusing the main geomagnetic field with geomagnetic activity
The former is generated in the core of the Earth and the latter by the solar wind. Two very different animals. There is no evidence for any of your suppositions.
And there is no 60-yr cycle in solar activity:
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-GN-1610-2015-V1.png
There are the usual 11-yr cycle and some power north of 100 years.
Dr. Svalgaard, your comment smacks of desperation how to counteract reality. I was expecting that you could do a bit better.
Geomagnetic field is what it says on the tin ‘geo’ & ‘magnetic’ i.e. what is measured by the magnetographs, or magnetic needle if you wish, here on the terra firma, and that is the data I am using.
If you care to read on what you are commenting about, your wouldn’t stray into irrelevancy.
Let me remind you:
The geomagnetic field intensity (as contained in the available data from NOAA and gufm1 data bases) for the North American tectonic plate, it has its highest intensity in vicinity of the Canadian Hudson Bay, which has one of the greatest gravity (& geoid) anomalies on the Earth and in the distant past was the center of the .Laurentide ice sheet
Analysis of data shows:
– Existence of 22 year component of an average strength comparable to the strength of a major geomagnetic storm (i.e. disturbance of the Earth’s field due to impact of a CME). The 22 year component is synchronised in periodicity and phase with alternative sunspot cycles (i.e. positive going peaks are in phase with even and negative going peaks in phase with odd numbered sunspot cycles. In the graph above geo-magnetic signal is inverted).
– Spectral analysis of the data also shows strong presence of ~ 60 year periodicity which appear to have peaks synchronised with peaks of the every third even, and the troughs with every third odd numbered sunspot cycle. This does mean that the sunspot cycles have 60 year periodicity.
– In addition, this ~ 60 year quasi-periodic oscillation is coincidental with the well known North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature quasi-periodic oscillation known as the AMO. The N. Atlantic’s western half with the Gulf Stream moving warm waters northwards is on the N. American Tectonic plate with the above geomagnetic data applicable to.
Your argument would be more convincing if you comment on what is said, rather then opposing a non-existing statement.
I was prepared to accept your justification of the sunspot number series corrections, but judging by the methods employed in the above discussion, I am not so sure any longer that I should do so.
Thanks for your consideration, but only justifiable and objective argument to what I wrote will be effective.
This does mean that the sunspot cycles have 60 year periodicity.
No: http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-GN-1610-2015-V1.png
correction:
This doesn’t mean that the sunspot cycles have 60 year periodicity.
Now , now, Dr. Svalgaard, that is a bit naughty of you, and bad practice.
I posted my comment at 3.55 am.
As soon as I finish reading I spotted typo and posted correction 3 min later at 3.58 am.
Then you come in 3 and half hours later at 7.28 am and insert your comment in before my correction issued 3.5 hours later.
Not only I could not do that, I wouldn’t do that
By using such tactics you are damaging credibility of your arguments with fair minded readers.
I don’t control where comments are put.
There are lots of little peaks with periods longer than 11 years, but with the exception of the 100+ yr peak none of them is significant. Most of the little peaks may also be subharmonics of the 11-yr peak. The noise is too great to make any definite statement.
another correction
it should be “3.5 hours earlier”
If so, I owe you an apology and here and now I do apologise !
There is no 100+ peak in the GSN spectrum, the nearest ones are at 85 and 121 years ( see my graph further below (at 6:48 am) and neither is good enough for ‘the sun is now as it was 100 years (or even less precise ‘century ago’).
You have to drop that one if you wish to stick to GSN as the correct representation of solar activity.
I have no sympathy with your self inflicted predicament.
It is not the GSN, but the GN [Group Number]. And all we can say is that there is power around 100 years [and 11 years]. Anything else and you are just fooling yourself.
Ok, it is GN then. Ignoring ‘tongue in cheek’ comment I tend to agree. I reject anything below 6db below the dominant peak, and any periods longer than 1/3 of the data series length:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GN-spectrum.gif
but there is nothing at ~100 years, and I reiterate 121 years doesn’t agree with ~100 years as found in the sunspot number data.
Clete and you have to explain how this came about, and you have to discard your narrative ” the sun is now the same as a century ago…”
There is no use avoiding this uncomfortable fact.
The GN is the sunspot data [an improved and updated version].
Slide 37 of http://www.leif.org/research/The-July-Seminars-2015.pdf shows how well the GN predicts the EUV and its effect on the daily geomagnetic variation. The GN is solar activity.
“A century ago” does not mean 100.00000 years ago, but simply that there are minima approximately 100+ years apart. The 121.2 years is your number, so your program doesn’t work if you repudiate that number.
I was puzzled by the difference between old SSN and GN spectra at longer periodicities. It is suspected that the solar cycles were unusualy long during Maunder minimum and possible prior to it.
Let’s look at GN spectrum since 1700 and compare to SSN spectrum since 1700, and
Voi la !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GN1700-spectrum.gif
Hundred year periodicity is back!
Your narrative is still alive and well!
My recommendation to Clete, Svalgaard and Co
Exclude the Maunder Minimum Group Number from the spectral anlisys.
Once upon time I pointed to the Met Office at the error in their calculation, to their credit they changed the algorithm, to their eternal embarrassment they refused to acknowledge it.
I hope you do better.
We actually don’t do spectral analysis in any of our papers, so no need to accord the Maunder Minimum any special considerations in that regard. If you would care to actually read our papers, you will find that http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf ends with
“Solar activity appears to reach and sustain for extended intervals of time the same level in each of the last three centuries since 1700 and the past several decades do not seem to have been exceptionally active, contrary to what is often claimed: “most active in 11,000 years” (e.g. Solanki et al., 2004). That makes the “core” of the Maunder Minimum (1660–1700) stand out as a unique event since the telescopic observations of solar activity began”
And thus an interesting resarch topic in its own right.
Lesson:
If you want to compare spectra, always use the same time interval for both series [as you have just discovered].
Come, come Dr. S
why do you show this graph at least twice ( it is titled GN 1610-2015) and link at least once to it, if you knew that it is wrong ? ?
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-GN-1610-2015-V1.png
Let’s see what you get for 1700-2015, and compare to the above (I have saved for the future reference) both can’t be right.
Your Maunder minimum section of suspect data corrupts more accurate data since 1700. Further below you said ‘no cherry picking’, whole data series since 1610 has to be included!
It is not wrong. It shows the spectrum over the entire interval 1610-2015. As most of the peaks are spurious there is little change that it would look in detail like the spectrum for 1700-2015.
Lesson: only compare the same time periods.
Dr. Svalgaard:
“Lesson:
If you want to compare spectra, always use the same time interval for both series [as you have just discovered].”
….
And again “Lesson: only compare the same time periods.”
Not necessarily so.
Eliminating GN 1615 to 1700 reduces data span by 85 years out of 400 or 21%
Now let’s reduce SSN from 1700 to 1800 by 100 years out of 315 or 32%, a much larger proportion.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSNx2.gif
As you can see 100 years is still there (shift is minute), despite the fact that anything above 214/3 or 71 years may be inaccurate.
Do you ever consider or admit that you could be wrong?
I’m done for now. Bye.
(Sigh). Stable feautres like the 11-yr cycle and perhaps the 100-yr feature are always there. To see the spurious peaks and possible harmonics and weak subharmonics you must use the same time intervals. End of lesson.
“Lesson: only compare the same time periods.”….
“…you must use the same time intervals. End of lesson.”
It is a lesson I have learned some 30 years ago, when I wrote bits and pieces of FortranIV for simple extraction of fundamentals in audio signals.
Lesson was:
1 – data series is 0 (zero) symmetrically padded to the same length 2048 elements, which I still use when the data span is shorter than about 1600 -1700 samples, in that way each side is extended by at least 10% of the total data span.
2 – If a highly accurate record of the higher components (harmonics) are required then a further step in the process can be used in order to minimise ends effect.
If linear regression shows significant rising or falling ramp (this is not particular problem with SSN, but it is for the global temperature spectrum, see result in the graph below ) , or sitting on a pedestal then data is de-trended in order to eliminate characteristic content of the triangle waveform or end ringing components of a pedestal.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT4-Spectrum.gif
Global temperature clearly shows (beside ENSO and 9 year AMO) presence of the two most significant components found in the N. American tectonic plate ‘oscillations’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/E1.gif
Now we are back were we started;
Lesson you can take note of is:
a) when you do your FFT on the GN apply the same principle.
b) If found same spectral components in two sets of data that can be related do not apply dogma (oh, it is another spurious correlation…) apply science and attempt to find out why it is so.
Nonsense. A low pass filter applied to the data still shows that the long term solar activity, which drives the climate, has been steadily increasing since the end of the LIA. The peaks are higher and the cycle durations longer.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/ssnfilt_zpsbgautent.jpg
More nonsense. It is not what you know that gets you in trouble, but what you know that ain’t.
Here is the correct plot:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
and here is comparisons between the Solar Open Flux, GCR modulation, and revised Group Number
http://www.leif.org/research/Usoskin-et-al-2015.png
The two blue curves from
Ilya G. Usoskin, Rainer Arlt, Eleanna Asvestari, Ed Hawkins, Maarit Käpylä, Gennady A. Kovaltsov, Natalie Krivova, Michael Lockwood, Kalevi Mursula, Jezebel O’Reilly, Matthew Owens, Chris J. Scott, Dmitry D. Sokoloff, Sami K. Solanki, Willie Soon, and José M. Vaquero, Astronomy & Astrophysics, July 21, 2015
You should refrain from spreading misleading stuff.
You just filtered less, and your plot still shows an increasing trend.
The less filtering the better.
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
The blue curves in the second plot [open flux, GCR modulation] are not filtered yearly means.
No. Filtering mimics the smoothing of the input via thermal time constants for Earthly heat retention. Those time constants are long, decades surely, undoubtedly centuries for distribution of heat throughout the oceans.
The issue is what solar activity was. Not how you interpret the data according to your particular religion.
No. The issue is how solar input has affected surface temperatures on the Earth. That means you have to low pass filter the data to get an idea of how the Earth has responded to that input.
Perhaps the best technique is to take the time integral of insolation. The longer a more powerful sun shines on the tropical Pacific, for instance, the warmer the water should get.
At least you should filter the whole record [here: http://www.leif.org/research/gn-data/GN-1610-2015-(Version-2015-06-08).xls ] instead of cherry picking starting point [and filter length]. And again: you interpret according to your particular religion.
No religion about it. Just standard signal processing and thermal physics.
Here it is with your beloved 50-yr running average:
http://www.leif.org/research/50-yr-Running-Average-GN.png
No long-term trend since 1700.
Beloved? Strange choice of words. I showed 50 year and 100 year moving averages above. I chose two different averaging widths to show two samples of possible response types with progressively decreasing bandwidth (corresponding to longer equivalent time constants of the Earthly response). This shows that, the longer the time constants, the more monotonic the response (no surprise there). No cherry picking. Nothing other than what the CMIP modelers do when running different scenarios to get a feel for possible responses.
I took the data for total sun spot number from here. If you repeat the processing for those data, you should get the same result.
I took the data for total sun spot number from here. If you repeat the processing for those data, you should get the same result.
This is where the cherry-picking comes in. The sunspot number at your source was derived from only one observer on any given day before 1981, and it is generally accepted that while useful for analysis of variations on a time scale less than one year, the Group Sunspot Number [GSN] derived from all available data [typically ten observers per year] is superior for long-term studies. Hence the use of the GSN by most people. So, you should have used the revised Group number, also available on the SILSO website at http://www.sidc.be/silso/groupnumber . If you do that you should get the same result as I: no trend the past 300+ years:
http://www.leif.org/research/50-yr-Running-Average-GN.png
I’d ask you to justify in greater detail why it should be considered superior – I have a study suggesting group carries less information – but, I don’t really care to get into it with you.
Make it 100 years and you will see a distinct 20th century trend. Cherry picking? Maybe. Who knows what the dominant time constants involved are, or on a more descriptive level, the overall bandwidth and characteristic modes of the response?
But, it establishes in any case that, taking the group number as the bee’s knees, there is still an avenue for increased solar forcing to be responsible for the warming observed in the 20th century, and this rejiggering of the SSN numbers has not foreclosed it, even assuming you’re really, positively sure you’ve got it right this time.
The main reason it is superior is that modern data shows that the number of spots per group is not constant [Wolf assumed it to be 10, hence his formula SSN = 10*Groups + Spots] but varies at least by a factor of two [it is currently about 5]. Another important reason is that the SSN is based on only one observer per day [before 1981], while the Group Number uses all available observers [typically 10]. So, repeat your analysis with the Group Number and come back here to report and show your Figure.
Post Normal Sunspot Science
Dr. Svalgaard: “And there is no 60-yr cycle in solar activity:”
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-GN-1610-2015-V1.png
Hmm… No 100 year periodicity in the ‘NEWly tailored sunspot data’ by Clete &Svalgaard
Svalgaard: the sun is same now as it was 100 years ago, and 100 years before then….
I suppose that one has to be abandoned from now on.
Vukcevic: That graph for the GSN looks a bit of a mess, this is what the Group Sunspot Number Spectrum should look like
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSN-spectrum.gif
How’s about that then:
– 11 years on the nose
– 60 years (another Dr.S i.e. Dr. Sc….tta would be over proverbial ‘moon’, sorry meant to say ‘planets’)
– 85 years, Gleissberg cycle, not anything 70-100, but 85.
–
I don’t like too much this new Group Sunspot Number science, not that spectrum is wrong, but compilation of the data doesn’t appear to confirm and conform with what we already know about solar activity.
“…the number of spots per group is not constant [Wolf assumed it to be 10, hence his formula SSN = 10*Groups + Spots] but varies at least by a factor of two…”
If that is the case, how is Groups better than 10*Groups?
“So, repeat your analysis with the Group Number and come back here to report and show your Figure.”
I did. As mentioned, if you apply the 100 year running average, you will see a distinct upward trend in the 20th century. Try it yourself.
The issue is not ‘groups’, but ‘spots’. If the number of spots per group varies [as it does] the SSN = 10*Groups + Spots formula gives a poorer measure of solar activity.
Try it yourself
You are not paying attention:
http://www.leif.org/research/50-yr-Running-Average-GN.png
Show your Figure [if you have one]
No long-term trend. Lots of short-term trends. E.g. the decline from mid-20th century.
“If the number of spots per group varies [as it does] the SSN = 10*Groups + Spots formula gives a poorer measure of solar activity.”
Than just Groups alone? How do you pull that off with just a scaling factor?
“Show your Figure [if you have one]”
Yeah. I got pretty much the same result as you.
Then, I increased the averaging time to 100 years. Result: marked trend in the 20th century.
It all depends on how rapid the Earthly response is. How long do you thing it would take to boil a pot of water the size of the oceans? We’re talking long time constants.
Do it yourself if you want to see. It’s a trivial change to what you did with your graph above. Just double the averaging time.
Than just Groups alone? How do you pull that off with just a scaling factor?
I have no idea what you mean. The formula assumes that the number of spots per group is 10. It is not. It varies, so extra variance is introduced, not representative of real solar activity.
Yeah. I got pretty much the same result as you.
Then, I increased the averaging time to 100 years. Result: marked trend in the 20th century.
Show your Figures. Here is mine:
http://www.leif.org/research/100-yr-Running-Average-GN.png
I would not call that a ‘marked increase’, and it is matching with an equal decrease from the 18th and 19th. It looks that your ‘religion; is getting the better of you.
How long do you thing it would take to boil a pot of water the size of the oceans?
Bad physics. We don’t need to boil the oceans. Most people in this ‘business’ [e.g. Shaviv] find a time constant of ~10 years. With that you get:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparison-GSN-14C-Modulation.png
“The formula assumes that the number of spots per group is 10. It is not. It varies, so extra variance is introduced, not representative of real solar activity.”
Your group number also varies by proportionately the same amount. You can’t say in one breath that the group number taints the total count, then in the next that the group number alone is untainted.
“I would not call that a ‘marked increase’…”
Plot just the part from 1750 on at full scale, and you will.
“Most people in this ‘business’ [e.g. Shaviv] find a time constant of ~10 years.”
Ridiculous. The oceans do not be reach steady state temperature from top to bottom in 10 years.
You can’t say in one breath that the group number taints the total count, then in the next that the group number alone is untainted.
As usual, you are not paying attention. The group number is fine, it is the sunspot number that is tainted.
Plot just the part from 1750
Judicious cherry-picking certainly helps. The point is that the 20th century was no more active than the 18th.
Ridiculous. The oceans do not be reach steady state temperature from top to bottom in 10 years.
Your grasp of thermal physics is totally lacking. The oceans are highly stratified and the top can vary a lot without the bottom changing much.
“The group number is fine, it is the sunspot number that is tainted.”
By the group number. The group number measures some number of spots. You would say, to be a valid contribution to the total count, it needs to be weighted by the actual number of counts in each group.
But just so, each group must be comparably weighted relative to other groups to have a uniform basis of comparison. Your group number is just as tainted as the FOM you claim is tainted by it.
“Judicious cherry-picking certainly helps.”
Doesn’t matter if it is. The cherry pick is still a valid potentiality. You have a contention: there is no possible relationship between solar activity and Earthly temperature variations. That is your thesis. It takes only one contradiction to invalidate a thesis. The cherry pick is such a contradiction.
“The point is that the 20th century was no more active than the 18th.”
The 100 year running average says no.
“The oceans are highly stratified and the top can vary a lot without the bottom changing much.”
You demonstrate no grasp of physics at all. The full effect is experienced when every element reaches steady state after the onset of the impetus. In a diffusive phenomenon such as this, one would, in fact, expect a “fat tail” response in which convergence to the steady state takes a very long time, indeed.
Since you’ve resorted to ad hom, I’m going to assume you have nothing more to contribute except a bludgeoning insistence on keeping your eyes closed. Have a nice day.
By the group number.
No, by the number of spots. A group is not just a collection of spots, but the eruption of a [shredded] flux rope generated at depth forming what is called an ‘active region’. Experience shows that the number of active regions is the important parameter for solar activity. Adding the number of spots would make the measure better, but the number of spots per group varies with time so the ‘better’ solar activity measure would be SA = a*G+S, except that a varies with time and is generally unknown for the early times. Setting it to 10 was Wolf’s ‘panic’ and pragmatic solution to at least get ‘some’ measure. So, the real measure to use is the Group Number.
You have a contention: there is no possible relationship between solar activity and Earthly temperature variations
Nonsense, I contend that the influence is small [not the major driver], not that it is non-existent, but only that it is almost buried in the noise [of the order of 0.1 C].
The 100 year running average says no.
The 100-running average has two maxima:
1755 4.82 groups which is greater than
1954 4.81 groups
and the average group numbers for
18th century is 4.74 while for
20th century it is 4.51
So on both accounts, your statement is false
And that alone invalidates your silly and physically wrong argument.
But, as you say: time to end the discussion as you don’t make any progress.
“Experience shows that the number of active regions is the important parameter for solar activity.”
Ah, yes, the old “trust me, I know this is right” plea.
“So on both accounts, your statement is false.”
Your claim was “The point is that the 20th century was no more active than the 18th”. I showed that was incorrect. So, now you’ve moved the goalposts.
You conclusions are ill informed. But, there is no point in continuing the argument as you are out of your depth.
Your claim was “The point is that the 20th century was no more active than the 18th”. I showed that was incorrect.
You have shown no such thing. As I pointed out [but you do not seem to be paying attention]:
The 100-running average has two maxima:
in 1755 4.82 groups which is greater than
in 1954 4.81 groups
and the average group numbers for
18th century is 4.74 while for
20th century it is 4.51
Bart says, August 27, 2015 at 8:18 pm:
“You conclusions are ill informed. But, there is no point in continuing the argument as you are out of your depth.”
You have my full support on this one, Bart. Leif speaks of “your religion” prohibiting you from this and dictating that, when it is obvious to everyone that he is the one displaying religious fervour on this subject. Even changing the historical record to apparently ‘suit’ his preconceived idea (dogma?) that the Sun does NOTHING when it comes to long-term climate change.
But like you point out, it is how the global climate system responds to long-term (incremental) changes in solar forcing (on various levels) that matters. And on this, Leif of course doesn’t hold the sacred Truth any more than the next person. And so the 50 and 100-year filtering that you do is indeed a relevant exercise to simply see what is possibly the case. Looking at even his own plots, it seems pretty obvious that the Sun is ‘ramping up’ ever so gradually from the low-point in the 17th century. Yes, there’s an early peak, but that doesn’t mean that the total energy content of the climate system has already reached its peak in the 18th century. Leif seems to assume that global temperature should simply follow directly the general outline of the solar curve, when it is much more likely that it is a slow, cumulative effect over centuries, a gradual (“background”) trend increase superimposed on cycles of internal (oceanic) variability, starting from the chilling depths of the LIA and building steadily towards the more benign, balmy conditions that we experience today.
I’ll say this for you Mr. Svalgaard, you keep everybody honest – an absolutely invaluable commodity in my humble opinion, especially in an arena where there has developed a tendency to knee-jerk reaction.
And you always give me homework.
I didn’t know that gratuitously bullying everyone around is “keeping everyone honest.”
Alexander: Svalgaard is caustic for sure. But he’s not here to be nice. A drill sergeant isn’t supposed to be nice – he’s supposed to keep you from getting your head taken off. And the important issue is whether or not he’s right.
My position is simply this: If there are flaws in any given skeptic argument, I want them addressed, discussed, and fully vetted – because we can’t EVER be wrong, not even trivially. Warmists can be wrong all day, every day, and repeatedly make the most wild, asinine, arrogant statements and it simply doesn’t matter. And we can cry about the double standard all day, but we still have to DEAL with it. At this point this is a propaganda war (in which the stakes are enormous) and the fact is, we are at a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing we have on our side is honesty and truth. Tamper with that at our peril.
Dear Leif,
The article refers and links to the press release by IAU. The press release mentions only the pdf file by Clette et al. If the press release is not correct – protest IAU. I did not endorse IAU statement and its coverage by the leftstream media, but ridiculed them. Just to be clear, I have not expressed opinion on your research.
Likewise, I have recited opinion of Dr. Shaviv regarding the paper from the press release, and linked to his blog. BTW, your 2015 paper has not been published on Solar Physics as of today.
Regardless of your back-peddling here, your reporting was highly negative and misleading. The preprint referred to links to the major paper published in 2014:
Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Cliver, E.W.: 2014, Revisiting the Sunspot Number.
A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle. Space Sci. Rev. 186, 35. DOI. ADS.
My paper in Solar Physics is accepted for publication in a Topical Issue to be published later this year. A preprint is available on my website http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Group-Number-1610-2015.pdf as well as on Arxiv.org.
The press release is not based on unpublished work. A very public Wiki summarizes to Workshops held
the past several years http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
Your tone was inadmissible [‘struck again…’] and unworthy serious discussion. Shame on you.
BTW, my paper was accepted more than a week before the press conference. Such acceptance was a pre-condition for IAU to issue the press release.
The IAU press release (http://www.webcitation.org/6b7Jfq3AQ) relies not on papers, led and cited here by Dr. Svaalgard, but on a single unreviewed paper where the leading author is Frédéric Clette. There is no doubt that IAU conference has accepted that paper, just as there is no doubt about why they have accepted it.
Solar scepticism (a bizarre claim that Sun does not significantly affect our climate) was around since at least 1996. For example, this article in National Astrologic (National Geographic) is dated by 2006. Not to hurt anybody’s feeling, but alarmists do not really need Dr. Svaalgard research, or any other research for that matter. They already have their opinion, and will not allow facts to confuse them.
Ari H. August 28, 2015 at 3:44 am
The IAU press release (http://www.webcitation.org/6b7Jfq3AQ) relies not on papers, led and cited here by Dr. Svaalgard, but on a single unreviewed paper where the leading author is Frédéric Clette.
No, this is incorrect. Said paper only deals with the sunspot number after 1981. In our discussions with the IAU we stressed and they agreed that the revised sunspot series are the result of many peoples work over the past five years and based on several peer-reviewed papers during that time cited in the Clette paper. A better [or at least, additional] reference would have been Clette 2014.
There is no doubt that IAU conference has accepted that paper, just as there is no doubt about why they have accepted it
There is no doubt that they accepted it because it is good science and because the sunspot number is an important parameter for studying the Sun [e.g. the solar dynamo]. The IAU has always regarded the sunspot number as a valuable reference and it is because of the urging by the IAU back in 1980 that the sunspot series be continued [by Brussels] after Zurich stopped the sunspot work. In addition, there were some members of the IAU who were not happy with including the reference to climate [being a hot potato some people are afraid to touch], but the climate connection is also an important issue so needs to be addressed as well. Insinuating that there were darker motives is unfounded and unworthy of the subject and shows your personal bias.
When the climate STOPS changing , THEN we should be worried !!
John Brignell, 2007, posted this:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Thought there was an Amendment for that. Here it is..
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
The ‘Cult’ of Climate Change (née Global Warming)
HEAD KNIGHT: We are the Knights Who Say… ‘Ni’!
Which spelling is correct?
So what.
Nobody knows with any certainty what sunspots have done for the past 400 plus years. What is the equivalent to UHI & ToBs for sun spots? What warming?
The CAGW alarmists have not proven their case because:
1) mankind is not responsible for the net CO2 increase, 2) CO2 RF imbalance is inconsequential, 3) IPCC’s GCMs are junk.
This whole argument should have been put to bed before it ever got underway. Everybody assumes that because you can put heat through the base of a pot of water and cook your spuds that heat can also pass freely through the surface. Its understandable but its wrong. The surface of water does not obey the laws of thermodynamics and blocks the heat.The molecules at the surface of water rearrange themselves to create surface tension. The surface of the water is not exactly the same as the body of water.You can not heat a gas and have that heat penetrate the surface of water, try heating the surface using a gas gun. Only radiation will put heat into water.
Its just as well that the planet works this way because if there was the ability of heat to freely pass through the surface of water the coast of say would become very warm in summer and the water would almost certainly reach temperatures well above the 26.5degs at which cyclones are triggered. Because the surface of water ignores the laws of thermodynamics there is no such thing a AGW
RMB, *everything* obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps you can clarify your point some?
Water does behave differently. It is the only common liquid in which gases are more soluble when it is cold and expands when it freezes. Were it not for these charactoristics life as we know it might not exist. Similar to Sir Fred Hoyles comment that carbon must have been designed by a calculating intellegence and that Darwins theory was math
The first part of this statement is not correct, water is not the only common liquid in which gases are more soluble when it is cold.
I think that Ari.H. might have forgotten a Cult trait and that is “No other teaching but theirs is allowed”.
The overall idea of this post is right ,
However it has missed out another feature of religion/cult , the need for a ‘evil other ‘ and the notion of ‘heretic’ , neither of these ideas have a place in science but climate ‘science’ puts a great deal of energy into claiming the ‘unbelievers’ are not merely wrong but mad or bad , while any who dare to go one step from the true path are attacked has ‘heretics’
Excellent point about “evil other”
There is a report on the news about a symposium in California about “CC’, sponsored by the IPCCC and of course we have reached another “tipping point”, (FOX , Breitbard, CNN etc)
Thanks for the excellent essay.
Science is a human endeavour. Pursuing it as a religion in its own right rather than a challenging discipline to be practised for the good of a greater humanity is the great divide in this issue.
People are going to have to pick sides at some point.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/its-not-rocket-science-its-a-matter-of-conscience/
Pointman
In support of #7 above: A new reporter for the Washington Post wrote a piece that can be seen here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/no-arctic-sea-ice-is-not-going-to-be-okay/ . Perhaps if she had even checked back issues of her own paper, she would know a little history, as can be seen here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp
Left out: “Everybody else is wrong!”
Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
Government-induced “climaphobia”…Honest, unbiased science is the cure!
Nice post. The trends identified by Crichton, in his article “Environmentalism as a Religion:, seem well fulfilled by some climate alarmists.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2049
Here are the latest cult accessories, for those who haven’t seen yet…
http://s13.postimg.org/9tacg1k9j/License_plate.jpg
http://s12.postimg.org/y40uvm81p/FRAME.png
The future must not belong to those who slander the profiteers of alarm.
I see what you did there…
Another aspect that makes it a cult is that humans are somehow impure, the original sin is not the eating of the apple, but of FIRE. Combustion is the very symbol of evil. Human kind can only find redemption by worshiping the “natural” world and erecting windmills and solar farms to placate their guilt.
Another device borrowed (intentionally or otherwise) from religion is GUILT. Traditional religions usually made any and all expressions of human sexuality into targets to feel guilty about. This was fertile ground for imposed guilt because most of us have difficulty in not giving in to sexual urges so we (almost) all had something to feel guilty about. The important thing about guilt is – YOU FEEL GUILTY ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CAN’T STOP DOING!
With AGW, we are supposed to feel guilty about nothing more than being members of the human race and, by everything we do, destroying the perfect, timeless Arcadian paradise (not unlike the Garden of Eden when you think about it, and of course, equally fictitious) that existed before those evil fossil fuels started destroying paradise.
Redemption, of course, is at hand, if we just – believe!!!
I would consider that most religions treat sexuality as an essential and beautiful part of life. It is the Johnny come lately monotheistic religions that say otherwise.
If we consider only the “primitive” religions they appear to be scientific in that they are attempting to explain the origins and working of the world and its contents. The evolution of monotheism mirrors the development of priestly monopoly of control over people’s lives and thoughts.
If this is indeed so then religions can be considered to be false (pseudo) science. However I do not condemn those that believe, but leave them to believe in peace and ask that they leave me to not believe in peace also.
One might also compare them to the old guild system of commerce. If you are not a member, you can’t get work there. Might explain why many scientists are silent.
It is definitely a cult. But the root of the dogma is anti-capitalism. Every once in a
while, one of the disciples accidentally
acknowledges this.
How did this hypothesis ever come so to dominate and corrupt science, when it was born falsified? Indeed, it was still-born from having already been shown false the first time it was hatched, in the first half of the 20th century.
At least at that time, scientists practiced the scientific method, so that AGW advocates like Guy Callendar (whose seminal 1938 paper found an ECS of 1.67 degrees per doubling of CO2), admitted their hypothesis had been falsified by the bitter cold of the postwar decades (in his case specifically the winter of 1962).
Yet after the PDO switch of 1977, this already shown false hypothesis was conveniently revived, with a world government apparatus behind it to enforce orthodoxy, no matter how much Mother Nature said no.
The immediate global temperature response to the zooming upward of CO2 in 1945-76 was cooling. This fact alone should have showed science that AGW is a myth. The present flat to cooling GASTA only confirms this inconvenient truth.
How can man-made CO2 be the primary driver of climate since 1945 when for 50 of those 70 years the climatic response to increasing CO2 (usually at an accelerating rate) has been cooling to flat global average temperatures? Yet this anti-scientific belief is what climate cult orthodoxy requires.
In fact, the trend line of 1977 to ’96, during which time rising (rather than falling or flat) T happened accidentally to coincide with rising CO2, is itself chimerical. What really happened was a one time step increase in 1977, the effect of which can be extended as a trend line for the next 20 years before petering out. The heat blown off by the super El Nino of 1998 dissipated the last vestiges of the 1977 event and ushered in our presently cooling world.
‘How did this hypothesis ever come so to dominate and corrupt science,’
Massive amounts of cash , jobs for the boys and it suited certain political outlooks , there is no grand conspiracy just normal human self serving interest combined with arrogance and an inability to admit mistakes .
Ask yourself this , if tomorrow you could push a button and make CAGW ‘go away ‘ would that mean less or more status and cash for climate ‘science’ after you do that you can guess which route the people working in this area tend to take .
Except that there is a conspiracy, plainly evident before the Climategate emails, but conclusively demonstrated by them.
One can speculate as to the motives of each conspirator, but the fact of a conspiracy is not in doubt.
Gloria
it is currently unfashionable and impolite to state the truth out loud
likely illegal in the near future
Reb,
All the more reason to do so as often as possible now, before being thrown into a reeducation camp or worse.
So I will again. The conspiracy fact is that the Green industrial-academic-government complex will stop at nothing to suppress the facts of “climate change”. To include willful murder, as in the tens of thousands of excess winter deaths per year in Europe, if not more.
There’s no such thing as man made global warming. There’s no evidence. Global temperature is flat, has been for almost 2 decades despite an increase of human CO2 emission of 53%. Hypothesis failed!
All they have left is their “belief”!
But that doesn’t matter, this is no longer about science, facts, logic, pollution, weather or CO2. In fact, it’s not even about the climate ..
It’s all about the money!!
And the rent and grant-seekers are defending their income viciously.
https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/
As above, IMO it’s even more significant that the first 32 years after the war, the planet cooled, despite rapidly rising CO2. That’s why in the ’70s alarmists were worried about the imminent return of the ice sheets, not about putative sea level rise.
The past 20 years of flat to cooling temperatures simply confirms the evidence against AGW, let alone CAGW, of the first 32 postwar years.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
There’s a reason I refer global warming alarmists as “cultists” and their movement as the “Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Click through for more.