Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
I’ve already written about the epic moment, when IPCC apparently recognized that most of the recent warming had been due to the natural variability. Instead of telling that to the world, IPCC has just altered the definition of climate change in its Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001) to include natural variability and changes in solar activity, and proceeded as if nothing happened. This point should have marked the end of climate alarmism. Instead, it became a new beginning.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. We should occasionally have fun by ridiculing selected passages from IPCC texts. Let’s look at some of its self-serving terms and definitions. For example, IPCC AR5 WG1, Summary for Policymakers, defines the equilibrium climate sensitivity as:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” (p. 16)
This “definition” is found in the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers. In its usual repertoire, the IPCC gives two different definitions for the same term, and uses semantic trickery to make the reader feel they are equivalent. The definition assumes that all radiative forcing is caused by change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, something that the IPCC wanted to prove.
Also, this definition is substantially different from the Glossary in the full assessment. The following definitions are from the IPCC AR5 WG1, Glossary (starting at p. 1448; red color is in the original):
“Climate. Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
The word climate does not need to be defined. This attempt at defining it is intended to give the word climate a meaning different from the conventional one. But this definition is also formally defective because it is a) circular; and b) attempts to define the simple term climate through the complex and obscure “climate system.”
“Climate change. Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate change commitment, Detection and Attribution.”
The mother of formal fallacies in the climate alarmism. See Abusing Semantics is the First and Last Refuge of Climatism.
“Climate change commitment. Due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and slow processes in the cryosphere and land surfaces, the climate would continue to change even if the atmospheric composition were held fixed at today’s values. Past change in atmospheric composition leads to a committed climate change, which continues for as long as a radiative imbalance persists and until all components of the climate system have adjusted to a new state. The further change in temperature after the composition of the atmosphere is held constant is referred to as the constant composition temperature commitment or simply committed warming or warming commitment. Climate change commitment includes other future changes, for example, in the hydrological cycle, in extreme weather events, in extreme climate events, and in sea level change. The constant emission commitment is the committed climate change that would result from keeping anthropogenic emissions constant and the zero emission commitment is the climate change commitment when emissions are set to zero. See also Climate change.”
A whole dissertation hidden inside of a definition! It implicitly assumes that the addition of 0.01-0.02% of CO2 molecules to the atmospheric composition substantially affects climate. Further, it suggests that nothing else matters until “the climate system have adjusted to a new state”. Even better hidden is the hint that a change in the atmospheric composition is irreversible, and can only be held fixed.
“Climate model (spectrum or hierarchy) A numerical representation of the climate system based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for some of its known properties. The climate system can be represented by models of varying complexity, that is, for any one component or combination of components a spectrum or hierarchy of models can be identified, differing in such aspects as the number of spatial dimensions, the extent to which physical, chemical or biological processes are explicitly represented or the level at which empirical parametrizations are involved. Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide a representation of the climate system that is near or at the most comprehensive end of the spectrum currently available. There is an evolution towards more complex models with interactive chemistry and biology. Climate models are applied as a research tool to study and simulate the climate, and for operational purposes, including monthly, seasonal and interannual climate predictions. See also Earth System Model, Earth-System Model of Intermediate Complexity, Energy Balance Model,Process-based Model, Regional Climate Model and Semi-empirical model.”
Another dissertation, in which each sentence is false. In short, it defines that IPCC models correctly represent the climate system, all evidence to the contrary to be damned.
“Climate sensitivity. In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. …”
This definition implicitly assumes that CO2 concentration determines or significantly impacts surface temperatures – something that the IPCC wanted, but failed, to prove.
“Extreme weather event. An extreme weather event is an event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of rare vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense. When a pattern of extreme weather persists for some time, such as a season, it may be classed as an extreme climate event, especially if it yields an average or total that is itself extreme (e.g., drought or heavy rainfall over a season).”
According to this definition, a weather event that happens once a week is an extreme weather event. For example, a summer rain in Southern California is an extreme weather event per this definition. A rainy summer is classified as an extreme climate event, too. Even when treated as a broad explanation rather than a definition, this passage suffers from at two defects: a) failure to limit the definition to events with significant negative consequences associated with the word extreme; b) too broad of allowance in percentiles; outside of the range of 0.5 – 99.5 percentiles would be more appropriate. The effect and intent of these defects is typical for IPCC texts. It allows scientists to report something innocuous, and the media to use the same words to paint a scary picture.
“Global mean surface temperature. An estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. However, for changes over time, only anomalies, as departures from a climatology, are used, most commonly based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly.”
The word “anomaly” implies that the Earth has a “normal global temperature.” There is no such thing. This is something only flat-Earthers could believe. Departures from climatology are not anomalies, but variations.
“Heat wave. A period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot weather. See also Warm spell.”
“Warm spell. A period of abnormally hot weather. For the corresponding indices, see Box 2.4. See also Heat wave.”
See also weather cooking and The Hammer of Witches.
In September 2016, I submitted a long affidavit with criticism of the IPCC terminology, rules, and actions. with a Motion to Intervene in the big lawsuit Exxon against Maura Healey, a nutty Attorney General of Massachusetts (TX-ND, 4:16-cv-469-K). Enjoy reading!
Propaganda has no conscience.
+10
Yes, the same applies to dictators that take on a routine pattern of violence and extermination after hitting their stride.
It’s not so much that power corrupts; it’s that power brings out who you really are. There are many who only play by the rules because they fear reprisal from the powerful. If given the opportunity to become powerful themselves, the mask of civility quickly comes off and their basest desires are on full display. They never had a real conscience to begin with and no longer need to pretend they do. Screw the Rules, because I Make Them.
People who desire power are the last ones who should ever be allowed to have power.
They say power corrupts. But I’ve seen those with power who where not, rare though they be.
I think it more likely that the Corrupt are drawn to power, and once wielding it allow their corruption free reign.
But Propaganda IS the basis of Con-science
Given all the climate cycles the system isn’t going to adjust to a new state. Period. By the time the increased CO2 has had its full effect, we’ll be in the next glaciation.
Yes, it depends on what one means by “state”. If the past was cyclical, one use of “state” is that situation. “State” could also mean a steady state, which is what the IPCC seems to be implying.
The system was in Iowa, but it has relocated to Florida.
Exactly.
You’re driving on a hilly, bumpy road with occasional deep potholes. What is the average elevation of one of the wheels and over what time frame do you measure that elevation?
Definition: “Climate Change” – where weather is either occurring or not occurring or occurring opposite to the way it should occur unless it occurred already, then it is difficult to measured due to multiple occurrences and/or incurred variability.
………..LOL
Definition Climate Stagnation (opposite of Climate Change): Ain’t never gonna happen
Is “climate stasis” a tautology?
My thoughts exactly!
fatal error. Such a distinction is, at this point: impossible.
Game over.
I think the Fatal Error made by the UNFCCC was to define the desired result- climate changes caused by people- as somehow different than natural changes and left no way to distinguish if there were any differences. A thermometer, wind guage, tide guage, or any instrument does not distinguish what caused the change. The only way left to distinguish how to assign climate changes is by opinion.
That was no fatal error. That was on purpose. Confounding the two allows the UNFCCC/UNEP/IPCC to wash the cards – when it’s cold and rains its CAGW/CACC and when it’s hot and dry likewise.
“climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition”
————-
Human “altering” of the atmospheric composition would induce climate change is considered by the IPCC as a fact whereas it’s only an ill defined (“climate change”, WTH does that mean???), unquantified and empirically unsupported hypothesis.
It’s not even a hypothesis. A hypothesis is testable. Since there is no “control planet earth” to test against, ACC is merely a conjecture. There is no way to untangle natural variability from anthropogenic variability.
And given that the IPCC only exists to support the UNFCCC, you’d think someone would tell them they aren’t talking about the same thing.
I think Heinlein(?) said it best –
“Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.”
For a moment there I thought you were saying: Heineken said it best – good beer is what you expect, Heineken is what you get….. 🙂
Or maybe Charles Dudley Warner:
“Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” 😉
Well now we can! Yes folks! With our new improved Carbon Dioxide featuring its magic ingredient Carbon®. Winters getting too cold due to those pesky disappearing sunspots? Summers getting to hot and forcing those poor cuddly polar bears to swim due to lack of ice in the Arctic? Don’t fret. We’re on it. We’re saving the planet. Just send the IPCC shedloads of money and we’ll do the rest.
Brilliant sci-fi writer. .that quote is from Time Enough for Love.
Lazarus Long’s list is also..specialization is for insects.
I think he got it spot on with
‘The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire’.
The former is the UN writ large and the sordid collections of all those of the left.
I had gotten the impression that at some point in the past decade the word “climate” had lost all association with prevailing wind speed or direction; precipitation forms, frequencies, and durations; height or amount of cloud cover; and/or suitability for agriculture or habitation. Nowadays, if I understand the term in the modern sense, the “climate” is an indexed number in a “field” of temperature anomalies predicted by the date, latitude, and altitude of a location on the Earth. The “climate” is somewhat analogous to a stock market index, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, constructed from measure of a few places generalized to many places not measured, useful in the way that the DJIA suggests the increasing or decreasing dollarized value of business and companies that are NOT being actually evaluated or traded.
We now use the word “climate” in a way that matches what the computer simulation models actually attempt to forecast, rather than in the naive and primitive fashion that English speakers had used the word in the past.
You nailed it.
From: PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
So, the IPCC role assumes, as a forgone conclusion, that humans ARE a risk to the climate, yet IPPC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, … unless the science supports the application of a particular policy. Well, no problem there — just tailor the science to support the policy, and the IPCC role is fulfilled. After all, the science is pursued in a manner that is “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” [laugh].
A genuinely brilliant article that I sincerely hope becomes often shared.
Truth wins by being shared.
When you get statements like this, you must wonder about the sanity of those involved in Climate Science and the media who report it without any questions.
“The average surface temperature over land and the oceans in 2016 was 14.84 degrees Celsius (58.712 deg F) — 0.94C (1.69F) above the 20th-century average — according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
Complete fantasy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/temperatures-hit-new-high-in-2016-for-third-year-in-row-us-data/8193046
Which is cooler than the NOAA 1997 global temperature of 62.45ºF. 😉
Nice job Leo!
When nouns become verbs 😉
There are some that think the term “tautology” describes a tight coherent argument. It looks like they had a hand in drafting the IPCC report.
“tautology” describes a retired professor (:-))
Good, I like that thought.
I think the following fits:
Global warming activists are just like atoms, they make up everything.
Thanks for the link to the Hammer of Witches article. The quotes made me think of Al Gore, a divinity school dropout.
“The definition assumes that all radiative forcing is caused by change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, something that the IPCC wanted to prove.”
It doesn’t. It simply says that the sensitivity is what would happen if CO2 doubled. It doesn’t say it will double. It doesn’t say that temperature couldn’t change for other reasons.
Climate sensitivity is much discussed here. People have strong opinions, usually that it should be some number less than what the IPCC quotes. So how would you define it?
Nick, you keep playing the “it isn’t quite this way game” ,when it is that way all along.
Read it again,Nick:
Leo writes,
“The definition assumes that all radiative forcing is caused by change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, something that the IPCC wanted to prove.”
In referring to what the IPCC report stated:
“Climate sensitivity. In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. …”
You sure you want to play your foggy game some more?
It’s just an ordinary definition of a rate. What does it mean to say you are driving at 50 miles per hour? It means that if you kept going at that rate for an hour, you’d cover fifty miles. That doesn’t assume you will keep going for an hour. It doesn’t mean, if you do, you won’t encounter hills, traffic etc. It’s just a rate definition.
My question remains – how would you define sensitivity?
For once, on this small portion of the post, I agree with Nick.
However I am curious how much of the purported warming does he think is due to additional CO2?
Also Nick knows the lower then the IPCC senstivity numbers are not wishfull thinking, but in dozens of peer reviewed articles, right Nick.
I also take it Nick agrees with the rest of the post.
“I also take it Nick agrees with the rest of the post.”
No, not at all. It is mostly the same nonsense – taking perfectly normal descriptions and stretching them beyond all sense. I just started with the first. For further example
“The word “anomaly” implies that the Earth has a “normal global temperature.””
This is also ignorant. Anomaly refers to local temperature. It is deviation from the local historical average, which is just a matter of arithmetic. The global average is an average of local anomalies. It does not imply what is said here. In fact, the Earth’s normal temperature is not well defined, as is recognised. That is why average anomaly is used.
I see no-one has taken up my challenge to explain how CS should be defined. That extends to the rest of this stuff. How should these things be defined? Or are we just not allowed to talk about them?
Nick Stokes, “It is deviation from the local historical average, which is just a matter of arithmetic. ”
Even down to the 2 decimal places back to 1880. Ignoring paucity of data. You are such a funny fellow.
It shouldn’t be defined. There is a, probably infinite, number of different situations that could have the same global mean temperature. Any definition is thus physically meaningless in the same way that the global mean temperature is itself physically meaningless.
The best that they could, and should, manage is probably “this is what my computer model says will happen under this certain set of specified conditions”. It would also be a lot more honest.
I see that Nick failed to understand what I was getting at, since I showed what the IPCC thinks about it. The place where they brought up the idea in the first place. What the IPCC writes here is gibberish…..,since it has yet shown to exist outside of climate models…….
The idea was created out of thin air by the AGW supporters, since the empirical data doesn’t exist for it. Now you want to play foggy games about definition,when it is IRRELEVANT!
Until anyone can show real evidence that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere causes any empirically driven data based warming,there is nothing to work on.
Nick, I define “Climate Sensitivity” in the same manner as I define “Ocean Sensitivity” … I don’t because it is meaningless in the real world.
Discussing “sensitivity” needs to be with respect to something (or things) on the input side to analyze the changed output parameters.
Your question needs to be more specific.
And the IPPC definition of “Climate Sensitivity” is more aptly described as a definition of “Climate Sensitivity with respect to changing CO2 will ignoring all other potential inputs”.
… definition of “Climate Sensitivity with respect to changing CO2 while ignoring all other potential inputs”, for the sole purpose of predicting the (steady state) change in the annual ‘global mean’ surface temperature.”
“The idea was created out of thin air by the AGW supporters”
No, it is ancient, back at least to Arrhenius in 1908:
“”If the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.””
But I suppose you could say that Arrhenius was an AGW supporter. He was all for it.
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
Nick Stokes June 23, 2017 at 7:51 pm
Arrhenius was right that, if AGW existed, it would be beneficial rather than catastrophic.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that in the actual complex climate system, as opposed to a lab, adding more CO2 above 150 or 200 ppm has any measurable effect on global average temperature.
Arrhenius, “In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere.”
” “In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere.””
Just ripped totally out of context. In that presentation, he first did a calculation without wv, and got a sensitivity of 1.6C/doubling. Then he allowed for wv feedback, and got 3.9°C/doubling, which he rounded to 4.
Nick. As it happens Bertrand Russell came up with celestial teapot around the same time. The more you post your quotes, the less it sounds like a coincidence.
My latest comment in reply to Nick,remains in Moderation. Been there two days now.
After reading IPCC & UNFCCC definitions of climate change, CS is how radiative forcings act with CO2 change in the atmosphere resulting in temperature change [doubling of CO2 — it means for that change in CO2 what will be the change in temperature with the CS]. This change [CS] is not linear as used by modellers and IPCC which resulted large differences between them with extreme upper and lower limit as in nature the radiative forcing is not unlimited but follow classic sigmoid model. CS relates to only to global warming component of climate change.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Actually Climate sensitivity is defined by the IPCC “as the change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration”. This assumes that a change in the level atmospheric level of CO2 can bring about a specific measurable change in global mean surface temperature, irrespective of all other forcings, natural or anthropogenic.
All Mr. Stokes has to do is to change the definition slightly to “the change in global mean surface temperature following a halving the number of sun spots” to understand that climate scientists have been as manipulative in their use language as they have been with their construction of data .
Would lower tropospheric and sea surface temperature sensitivity work?
You are describing the sensitivity to sunspots. Not the sensitivity to CO2. I wonder if everyone here is simply taking the piss because their comments are so devoid of meaning. I mean, most of them have to be a joke, surely?
Climate sensitivity should be defined as the transient climate response because it’s the only sensitivity that can actually be clearly measured and tested.
The the delta between TCR and ECS is relatively flat and occurs over several centuries. It is unlikely to rise above the noise level, much less the natural multi-decadal and centennial quasi-periodic climate fluctuations.
Response to Dave Middleton.
Not sure that this graph actually means anything without details on the assumptions, definitions etc.
My understanding of Climate sensitivity is based on the Stephan-Boltzmann equation: T^4 = F*(1-a)/e*s. Where F is the radiation. a is the albedo, and the emissivity is s, the Boltzmann Constant.
Sensitivity is determined by differentiating with respect to whichever variable is of interest. This provides the respective slope of the graph trace.
For a plot of Global Temperature T against F (incoming radiation) the sensitivity is 0.210902, which means that for rise of 1.67 Watts/sq.m in F the resulting temperature would stabilise at an increase of 0.34 deg.C.
(Incidentally about a tenth of the IPCC prediction.)
This, of course, assumes that both albedo and emissivity remain constant.
However, similarly calculated, the sensitivity of albedo is very high in that REDUCING this from 0.30 to 0.2963 would also increase temperature by 0.3 deg.C
In fact it only requires 0.00005 INCREASE in albedo to offset any warming effect of a 1 ppm. Increase in CO2.
Generally, as I see it, sensitivity can only be applied to one variable at a time and on the assumption of “ all things being equal”. The IPCC stance on this therefore appears to have little meaning and presentations of this nature only tend to confuse.
It’s just a generic explanation of TCR vs ECS.
Cognog2,
As I understand it, the Stephan – Boltzman equation assumes a flat, black body that receives the same radiation at all points on the surface. That makes it useful for rough order (back of the envelope) calculations but useless for measuring the actual sensitivity of the earth’s ocean/surface/atmosphere system to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. A system that is, by IPCC definition a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic system”.
Yep. The basic physics is quite simple. The interactions of the atmosphere and oceans are anything but simple.
Regarding the use of the word “anomaly,” Nick is correct. It’s just a deviation from the average.
The temperature anomaly is not the same thing as an anomalous temperature or anomalous warming. A temperature anomaly of 0.00 °C would actually be anomalous… 😉
Whether or not the Earth’s average surface temperature can be calculated with such precision that a 0.5 °C anomaly is meaningful is a separate issue.
I guess that the ‘suspicion’ comes from ones choice of base line.
If temp anomalies were measured against a baseline of 1930 to 50 rather than 50/80 then the anomaly changes quite noticeably.
As long as the baseline is clearly identified, it shouldn’t be a source of suspicion.
The true margins of error of the original measurements, averaging methods, baseline and the anomalies are legitimate sources of suspicion.
Deuterium lead – CO2 lag in the Vostok ice-core shows that there is no significant long-term sensitivity of temperature to CO2 where CO2 concentration is above 180 ppm. Define climate and its sensitivity to imaginary effects as you like, just don’t make other people pay for your planet-saving ego trip.
Mr. Stokes: I’m not a scientist, just a word smith, but the first thing I’d do in defining “climate sensitivity” is to get rid of the word “climate”. If your describing global mean surface temp. change from doubling CO2, that’s not gonna last 30 yrs, is it? In other words, CO2 won’t linger for 30 yrs, or am I wrong? Putting aside the hilarious antics of our trolls who tell us stuff like “battery tech advance game changer here now”, we can double co2 but it won’t stay doubled, some of it is gonna sink, right? So if CO2 doesn’t stay stable for 30 yrs, don’t you agree that the word “climate” shouldn’t even be there? But really, I’m just havin’ fun with you, Solomon Green finished this a few posts up.
Paul, you do have a certain point, that it should perhaps be called a temperature sensitivity, because climate inludes much more than temperature. However, the point f the glossary is to define how terms are used in the publication. if they want ta call it “climate sensitivity” that is up to them. They could call it “bing bong” and define ot properly in the glossary and that would be OK.
Other than that you are talking nonsense because everything you question about longevity of CO2 is included in the definition. If it all vanishes after 5 minute it will have a sensitivity of about zero.
Very important scrutany thank you!
keeping anthropogenic emissions constant
It sounds like the prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the basis for a progressive population control scheme.
WTF !
Top of page ADVERTISEMENT reads: Saving Lives since 1984 – Donate your Zakat and Sadaqah to “islamic relief” (website) with photograph of a poor, crying mohammedan CHILD !
I’m afraid you have overstepped the bounds of decency with this one.
Political, mohammedan organisations are all controlled by “the muslim brotherhood” which sets out (in writing) its’ vile agenda to infiltrate, destroy and take-over our country and our ways of living. It is the most vile organisation on earth.
You will kindly remove the advertisement.
Regards,
WL
I’ve got an Amazon ad’ on my page. It depends where you’ve been searching or viewing online. Can be risky, lol!
Yep. On my office desktop, I get barraged with ads for HR tools, like Bamboo HR because it’s the online portal the company uses for requesting and tracking vacation days.
I have found that the ads one sees is almost always directly dependant upon the websites that they have frequented, sometimes even being related to the Last site they visited. I went to a florist website and my ads are 1800flowers. I then went to HSN to look for something and POOF my ads are HSN related.
..Install AdBlock Plus…It is free at Cnet.com
Ad block means no income for Anthony
Yes. Everyone sees different ads (or a default ad) depending on their browser history. Look up cookies. Anthony doesn’t control or decide what gets displayed.
Must splain why I don’t gets ads at work, cookies are turned off
Hey Anthony,
My ad says there are numerous single women in my are that want to date me … will you please remove it 🙂
You do realise that the ads you see are personalised, matching your browsing habits.
I see ads for new windows… yes very sad.
Climate hoe-down!
Science shin-dig!
IPCC scroot’n’anny!
Allamann left and allamann right!
Swing yer partner, swing yer cat!
Daisy Mae and dozey-dough!
CALLING POWDERED TOASTMAN
PLEASE RESPOND
Is anyone surprised? The UN are experts at rigging anything they wish, and that includes the definitions of AGW that help to shape their agenda. Entirely predictable.
Test
The fun house thing is China pushing to be the Boss Hog of Carbon Credit trading!!!
Twilight Zone
The snake oil salesman has his backside firmly planted on the living-room settee when we allow something like this to go past unchallenged….
Climate is not temperature.
‘Weather’ is brought about by temperature differences, between land/sea, mountain/valley, north/south, type & number of plants on the ground, or especially, geography
Not least human geography = how many people there are ‘on the ground’ experiencing whatever set of weather events actually occur. There are 7 billion+ different climates, and counting.
If the snake salesman cannot or will not clearly & simply explain either the GHGE or why deserts and rainforests exist at similar latitudes, the police should called to get his to leave.
Period.
A variation on my grandmother’s old adage:
Whether the experts be right or whether the experts be not.
We’ll weather the weather, whatever the weather,
Whether we like it or not.
My mother used to say this: Whether its cold, or whether its hot, we are going to have weather, whether or not…
“Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties”
Oh boy, there’s that “mean” again.
I’m still with Christopher Essex on this. The “mean” doesn’t tell you anything about the climate. (I don’t believe the one article is up any more, but there is this that explains why the “mean” is pretty meaningless: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/)
The IPCC’s definition: “The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” (p. 16)
Leo’s objection: This “definition” is found in the IPCC AR5 Summary for Policymakers. In its usual repertoire, the IPCC gives two different definitions for the same term, and uses semantic trickery to make the reader feel they are equivalent. The definition assumes that all radiative forcing is caused by change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, something that the IPCC wanted to prove.
Radiative forcing is measured in terms of W/m2. The first sentence describes ECS expressed in units of K/(W/m2). The second sentence describes ECS expressed in units of K/doubling of CO2, units that are more familiar. 3.7 W/m2 = 1 doubling is the generally-accepted factor for converting definition of ECS into the other (though there is some minor disagreement about this value).
Leo could express the heat capacity of an object units of (J/K)/g or (J/K)/cm3 or (J/K)/mole. The density and molecular weight of the material whose heat capacity is being discussed are the conversion factors. He probably wouldn’t say that this means there are three separate definitions for heat capacity. Heat capacity is the amount of energy needed to raise a particular quality of a material 1 degK.
ECS is the equilibrium warming after a radiative forcing.
The definition doesn’t assume that all forcing is caused by CO2.
My comment above does over-simply somewhat. There are number of ways to measure radiative forcing: at the TOA, at the tropopause (which is equivalent to measuring at the TOA after allowing the stratosphere to equilibrate (which takes several months). And unfortunately there is a concept called effective radiative forcing which account for the fact that different forcing agents can act by mechanisms that don’t involve the direct absorption of radiation: 1) aerosols decrease the size of water droplets in clouds and make them reflect more SWR. 2) CH4 is oxidized in the stratosphere to two different GHGs, CO2 and water vapor and this sources of water vapor is significant compared to with the amount of water vapor crossing the cold tropopause without precipitating. 3) Different forcing agents behave slightly differently in different AOGCMs because different AOGCMs make modestly different predictions about clouds and temperature.
Furthermore, ECS can mean equilibrium climate sensitivity or effective climate sensitivity. Equilibrium refers to enough warming to return the radiative imbalance at the TOA to zero. It doesn’t mean that planet’s ice caps aren’t still shrinking nor the deep ocean warming slowly. This processes are too slow to produce a measurable radiative imbalance. Effectivity climate sensitivity is the equilibrium climate sensitivity calculated for any period that takes into account forcing, warming, and the amount of heat flowing into the ocean at the end of that period.
In all cases, the concept is the same: equilibrium warming after a radiative forcing. However, the details for measuring radiative forcing and equilibrium warming differ.
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.” (p. 16)
Logical fallacy built upon logical fallacy upon fallacy. “global mean surface temperature” is not and can not be measured. “at equilibrium”, The system is Never at equilibrium but is always chasing it’s tail diurnally and seasonally. “that is caused by a doubling” Since the mean temp cannot be measured the effect cannot be measured. A fool’s errand that We should be forced to pay for a fruitless search for a phantasm.
Anomaly: “something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected”. We expect the temperature in summer months to be warmer than other months. We want to know how much warmer or cooler a particular month is than it used to be (at one particular site, in a region, or over the whole globe). An anomaly is not an abnormality; it is a DEVIATION from what is “expected” or “normal” based on the average conditions during a particular period in the past. In this case, deviation implies change, not abnormality.
Most people don’t know that the mean global temperature (before converting to anomalies) rising and falls 3.5 K every year due to the asymmetric distribution of land and ocean, whose heat capacities differ. The process of taking anomalies removes these large seasonal swings from temperature and allows us to focus on changes in limate.
Regarding the “mean” again…I did find the article that I’d been looking for. From June 23, 2007 – I doubt you can find this in its entirety anywhere else on the web. Enjoy it before they decide to pull it down….:)
“There is no such thing as global temperature. And if there is no global temperature, how can there be global warming?”
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20070623/282286725851148
4TimesAYear: The link below leads to a peer-reviewed publication (McKritrick was a co-author) about the meaning of a mean global temperature. You newspaper article is based on this paper. Actually, the paper is about the difficulty of assigning a clear meaning to the concept of a mean global temperature. There are lots of ways to calculate a mean: 1) an arithmetic mean (a+b)/2, 2) a geometric mean SQRT(a*b), 3) a harmonic mean (1/(1/a + 1/b)), 4) root-mean-square, 5) for emission, the fourth root of the mean of the fourth power, 6) the natural log of the mean exponential function of the temperature. If you use or think in terms of anything but an arithmetic mean, your concept of a mean global temperature might rarely run into problems. FWIW, I’ve looked into the T^4 issue for emission and found that the mean(T^4) is about 1% higher than (mean T)^4. It is not exactly a big deal.
If you worry about the fact that thermodynamic temperature is the derivative of internal energy with respect to temperature by some definitions and proportional to the mean kinetic energy of a group of colliding molecules according to others or you do very sophisticate statistical analyses, there are technical challenges. IMO, most people at WUWT and most climate scientists don’t need to worry about this issue (except for the modest problem with t^4 in emission). But it sure sounds good to claim that mean global temperature is meaningless.
https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Essex.pdf
“Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.
Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context that would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down.”
I usually use a single daily “mean” example to show how I arrived at my conclusion that a “mean” is meaningless: A cooler day can actually have a higher “mean” than one that was hotter. No disrespect intended to those that do the math, but I am not convinced that it works any differently with any other “mean” – however it’s computed. 🙂
“And if there is no global temperature, how can there be global warming?””
Well, from a purely logical perspective, yes there can. If everywhere on the Earth got warmer, that would be global warming. Anyone disagree?
If you do disagree, then there no point discussing further as it is pointless to discuss the meaning of the term Global and warmer. If you do agree, then clearly global warming is possible even if you accept that there is no such thing as global temperature.
The entire discussion boils down to the fact that the UN IPPC is a propaganda agency which is tasked with making people believe in a falsehood.
The IPPC wants you to believe that only human generated CO2 matters and that it will warm the earth to an unlivable temperature. The tiny fraction of anthropogenic CO2 rise is much more important than the natural CO2.
The IPPC also wants you to believe that “we” must “do something” right now. We must avoid the “tipping point”.
It has long been known that the side that gets to define and redefine the terms is at a great advantage in rhetoric. It is also known that getting to set what is investigated is also most helpful.
I have seen observations that invalidate the IPPC’s propaganda, but no one listens. I have seen proof from physics and thermodynamics that invalidate the IPPC’s propaganda, but no one is listening.
From an old song:
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen
They’re not
List’ning still
Perhaps they never will.
“The IPPC wants you to believe that only human generated CO2 matters and that it will warm the earth to an unlivable temperature.”
Do you have a source for that? It would be most instructive to get this from the horses mouth.
Steady State would be: Groundhog day. I hear the alarm. “I got you Babe” is playing on the Radio.
Then it is one more time with feeling, every day. I mean….every day. Everything else is MY FAULT FOR EXHALING.
If scientists are punished for their wrong comments then the situation will change. They know that there is no consequence for their actions and hence they are adamant and keep on befooling common people. They should be made an apology in public for each and every misleading comments.
O.T, but not funny……
The Weather Network is really lighting up my B.S. meter today !
“Methane is longer-lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and its four carbon-hydrogen bonds have the potential to trap more energy,”
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/why-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-climate-change/83423/
“Climate model (spectrum or hierarchy) A numerical representation of the climate system based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for some of its known properties.
Well, there’s an admission that the climate models aren’t representative of this planet’s climate – just some of it.
No wonder they don’t match the actual climate which actually uses all of its properties whether we know what those properties are or we don’t.
/grin
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties was written by a group who had a lot of significant doubts and didn’t compare notes with the authors of the executive summary (and vice versa) who were certain mankind was at fault for a terrible problem per their mandate.
Quite the contrary I believe. The IPCC wants a scary Exec summary to keep the politicians journalists and other opinion leaders pushing climate hype while keeping the science types in line.
A much longer criticism on the way, but I have just had a look at you affidavit. You describe climate as “Climate can be simply defined as a combination of the average ambient temperature, the average difference of the winter and summer temperatures, and the average precipitation at a given location.”
You then say “Climate is not a “statistical description,” What can you possibly mean? You just defined it by a statistical description. One objection you may have is that the “climate” is not “the description of the climate”, but the term is in inverted commas. It is describing the word “climate”, which, as you say, is a statistical description (such as average) of various physical things like rain, temperature etc.
The other objection is that you restrict the definition to a given location. So we cannot then talk of the Californian or the English climate, or the Boston climate, because each of these contains multiple locations. Oh dear, your definition turns out to be too over specific to be meaningful. You then use your incorrect definition to say that the IPCC one must be wrong.
“The opening claim, “`Greenhouse Gas’ means a gaseous constituent of Earth’s atmosphere, both
natural and anthropogenic,” is meaningless, because the Earth’s entire atmosphere is gas. ”
Possibly redundant, but not meaningless. There are non-gaseous things present in the atmosphere that absorb the radiation discussed. It is not wrong to say that these are not included in the definition, even it is not strictly necessary.
You say the definitions “are so tortured because they are devised to reconcile the predetermined outcome– that carbon dioxide emissions caused dangerous climate change – with the scientific conclusion that they did not.”
Yet you torturously point out unimportant, pedantic disagreements that would not cause confusion to anybody.
You also fail t understand what the point f these definitions is. Terms are used differently by different people. In a document you need to define how YOU are using it in the report. It makes no sense for someone to then say “You are wrong – that is not how I use the term”
IPCC = “horse doovers”…
When politics, legalese, and science collide! We get a mutant such as this:
Climate Change, Climate Sensitivity, Climate Model etc. is always singular. Australia has 6 climate zones, or 6 areas of differing climates. If climate is defined by averaging weather measurements then a ‘Global’ climate is an average of averages!
I see no-one has taken up my challenge to explain how CS should be defined.
IPCC: In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity (units: °C) refers to the equilibrium (steady state) change in the annual global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. …”
This definition is talking about sensitivity to CO2, is it not? Consequently, to speak of “all” forcing” in relation to this definition would be to speak of “all forcing resulting from CO2”, when talking about THIS definition. Of course, it does not say that CO2 WILL double – I did not see anybody making this claim. Of course, it did not rule out all OTHER forcings. BUT it SPECIFICALLY attributes a unique forcing to CO2 alone with respect to a potential doubling of CO2, and, therefore, seems to base the definition of “forcing” SENSITIVITY on CO2 ALONE.
If other forcings are acknowledged, then why is the definition of “climate sensitivity” vacant of any of these other potential forcings? I would say that because the other potential forcings are viewed by the IPCC as insignificant, therefore, not worthy of considering as existing at all in its definition of “climate sensitivity”, which is just another way of saying that ALL forcing is caused by CO2.
As to how CS should be defined, I would say first stop talking about CO2 as if it were the only game in town worth considering.
Robert. What is the climate sensitivity to argon? Zero I would think. That would fit with the definition. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is the change caused by doubling CO2. The climate sensitivity to argon is the temperature change from doubling argon concentrations. Unless you think that this is assuming a significant climate effect from argon you are talking bollocks.
Nobody thinks CO2 is the only game in town – have you not heard of methane? Are you awae that climate scientists actually use the inpit from the sun?
Lots of people get up in the morning, go to work, go home and hang out with their families, and go to sleep, and don’t have the time/inclination to get into the details think that CO2 is the only game in town.
That’s the point isn’t it … defining “climate sensitivity” (an important sounding term, with an important meaning) as being related to doubling of CO2 only is misleading.
Per the definition, the term is useless. But nobody says so.
useless for anything but propagandizing
seaice1 June 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm
“Other than that you are talking nonsense because everything you question about longevity of CO2 is included in the definition. If it all vanishes after 5 minute it will have a sensitivity of about zero.”
seaice appears to have factored in “duration” to the IPCC’s definition of climate sensitivity.
If one accepts the statement that the longevity of CO2 is included in the definition, although this has not been explicit, then must we accept that the longevity of the increase in global temperature has the same duration.
So far as I am able to read English there is, perhaps, an assumption that any increase in global temperature due to a doubling of CO2 levels will be permanent but, like much else with “climate science”, there is no evidence to support this. In fact history tends to contradict this assumption.
It is amazing that a community that can be so precise when “measuring” CO2 and temperature to so many decimal places can be so loose when creating definitions.
Words, words, everywhere,
And all the brains did shrink;
Words, words, everywhere,
Nor any thought to think.
~Max Photon
Carbon, carbon, everywhere,
And many brains do think,
How nasty is it in the air,
Yet every life it makes.
~Robert Kernodle
This speaks volumes regarding my original doubts about the science behind the first claims of manmade climate change on a global scale.
To demonstrate that human activity changes global climate presupposes that the causes and magnitudes of non-human related climate changes are at least reasonably understood.
From the inception of the theory the concentration change of trace gasses in the atmosphere (especially carbon dioxide) are a veritable thermostat for global mean temperature the scientifically and experimentally curious (like me) posed simple questions along the lines of, “What is the natural climatic variation and at what rate does it occur?” The new “climate science” study poo-pooed the ordinary scientific discipline that would require such questions to be addressed before postulating effects of a single variable (if you allow “greenhouse gasses” to be considered “single”) in a system that has produced wild variance in moments of geological time and even within a few hundred years of human history!
The fact that climate scientists let (tell?) the programmers who create their models to consider the sun a constant is in itself proof that the models are useless.
Amazingly we are now expected to believe that the natural forces that change climate, while still unable to be understood not only in magnitude but in their relationship to one another, are somehow “masking” the still certain and predictable (by the consensus of favored computer models) change of a single variable.
As a religion (which I have long said that man-made climate change has become) we’re now at the snake charming level. I still do not understand how those who consider themselves the most educated fall prey to the worst pseudoscientific rubbish imaginable. Even devout followers of religion and their preachers typically apply more critical thinking regarding some of the statements in their “sacred” texts than many PhDs do the pronouncements by witch doctors (sorry “climate scientists”) like Michael Mann.
Bourbon, bourbon everywhere,
and no one there to drink,
Ice cubes, ice cubes no longer there,
They all fell in the sink.
A good use of carbon is in Ethanol in an aqueous solution cooled by the solid phase of water. (OK, there are some esters, and other flavors that come from historical storage methods. They really make the product better. Bless Mother Nature, just don’t mess with her. I’ll drink to that.)
The hope of those who profit (in cash or power and authority) from CAGW is that the voters don’t know about the shifting definitions as long as they are left with the desired false impressions.
Trump won.
Of course, the voters being tired of “CAGW” falsehoods isn’t the only reason he won, but he did.
A political-climate-science fail?
PS When I left after voting for the last presidential election, a lady asked me for directions to the voting booths. My voting location hasn’t changed for a decade. She wasn’t old. I suspect that she hadn’t voted in years. Maybe she voted for Hillary, but I doubt it. I think she was one of those voters the pollsters didn’t count (on?).
This one is a beauty:
“When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori.”
(Ref. Contribution from working group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; On the physical science basis; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments)
Until now I had no idea how to effectively remove biases.
1) define bias as something you don’t agree with.
2) Hide or modify the thing you don’t like as it occurs.
3) But make sure to wait until the thing that you don’t agree with plays out, so you can hid it all.
No more bias in my life. Thanks
A lot in that statement. The one that strikes me after reading the first phrase is the ‘hidden’ assumption that the models incorporate ALL variables in the climate system, a necessary condition to successfully modeling a chaotic system. I don’t think we do or that we ever will for that matter. When modeling a chaotic system, ‘close’ is just as useless as ‘way off’. Even if we did know all of the states to initialize, that they are initialized at values ‘close to’ observations renders a model of a chaotic system invalid, it will not replicate the natural system’s response except by an astronomically rare chance. The model will certainly not do so over multiple runs. The lack of knowledge of all variables affecting the system is why climate models are (by my understanding) framed as boundary value instead of initial value problems.
Time has come to abolish IPCC!
“Climate model (spectrum or hierarchy) A numerical representation of the climate system based on the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for some of its known properties.”
Seems like a more precise definition would be:
Climate model (spectrum or hierarchy) AN ATTEMPT AT a numerical representation of the climate system based on SOME OF the physical, chemical and biological properties of its components, SOME OF their interactions and feedback processes, and accounting for some of its known properties.
Since the scientific value of these models is touted as the basis for fundamentally altering the world’s economies and the lifestyles of the people who inhabit it, some mention of the processes & metrics used to validate them would be helpful.
Recommended reading:
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
test
Please use the test page. See the top nav bar, visit https://wattsupwiththat.com/test/
@Bill Marsh June 24, 2017 at 5:44 am
A lot in that statement. The one that strikes me after reading the first phrase is the ‘hidden’ assumption that the models incorporate ALL variables in the climate system, a necessary condition to successfully modeling a chaotic system…….
Donald Rumsfeld’s comments come to mind.
https://youtu.be/daZaaNICWo0