The following post is officially Anthony approved.
Quoting me:
I know I can be brusque. I can also be funny. I can even be kind. Who knows what the wheel will bring on the next spin?
\pontification
Two days ago I received this story tip:
WUWT Tip submission
Lack of sunspots to bring record cold, warns NASA scientist November 12, 2018 by Robert “It could happen in a matter of months,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. ________________ “The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018. https://www.iceagenow.info/lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/
Yesterday I received this one:
WUWT Tip submission
NASA Scientists: Lack Of Sunspots To Bring Record Cold https://www.technocracy.news/nasa-scientists-lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold/?fbclid=IwAR3GFqIvnTlNW0IINWAArB8jTYTKn7bSTSM7TtM5LiXNZT1AtdzilxR9NYo
These story tips set off my incongruency radar.
Here are excerpts from the iceagenow.info story
“It could happen in a matter of months,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center.
and
Record cold in a matter of months
“If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold,” says Mlynczak. “We’re not there quite yet, but it could happen in a matter of months.”
This story gave me pause. Who is this NASA scientist saying these heretical things? So I looked up the original article from which the above two derived their stories and quotes.
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
Here are quotes from the article that provide context.
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
And
“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.
Mlynczak was speaking of the thermosphere on the edge of space, not the surface climate where people live. His statements in context are not remotely controversial. It is accepted by most mainstream astronomers, atmospheric scientists, climate modelers, climatologists, solar scientists, atmospheric chemists, and just about every field of mainstream climate science that:
The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum (sic).
I view this little episode as illustrative of much of the state of the anti-climate alarmism movement.
My current assignment in charge of this blog is open-ended, unlike the specific length of my previous assignments. I have no idea if I’ll be here five weeks or five years. I intend to try and enhance real skepticism, in context arguments, and real scientific discussions on this blog.
I long for the romantic days when the Godfather of Climate Science skepticism, Steve McIntyre, was active at Climate Audit and there were brilliant discussions, biting comedy, as well as heated arguments, and not just the same echo chamber talking points we so often see today. Yeah, I’m old and I miss 2008 and the days of baby ice for you insiders. Even though some may remember that, did you know I was “jeez”? Those were also the exciting days of Anthony’s making huge waves with his Surface Station project.
Ponder this, Rud Istvan is Iionized here, and Steve Mosher is vilified. Many, if not most of you don’t know that it was Mosher’s prominent “Free the Code” movement that influenced NASA to open up its model code and greatly move toward transparency. A bunch of you recently learned he outed Gleick’s forgery. I understand Mosher is snarky and often behaves like a prick, but most here don’t realize it is because long ago he became fed up with the lack of skepticism and quality arguments I noted in the beginning of this essay.
If you were to sum up the primary scientific disagreement between Istvan and Mosher, it is that both have thoroughly examined the historical temperature record and one believes it is fit for the purpose of analyzing climate and other doesn’t . They can have rational, intelligent, scientific discussions over this disagreement and still stay friendly. Obviously differing policy choices logically flow from this disagreement.
But a core level it all comes down to a legitimate disagreement on the interpretation of data.
There are massive amounts of good here at this blog. I want to nurture that good and make it grow. But the echo-chamber aspects are not helpful to convincing others, or to being taken seriously by the currently unconvinced. I want this blog to be a force for education and to grow in influence and that requires upping our game, and maybe even some growing pains.
\end pontification
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A rather pointed, and sufficiently documented, example of how an overblown story gets going. Nice work.
Trust, but verify.
How hard is it for adults to figure this out?
Apparently it’s real hard.
You literally do not have time to check everything. The solution is that, if you don’t know for sure that something’s true, shut up about it.
Jordan Peterson’s Rule #8 is “Tell the Truth, or at least Don’t Lie”:
It’s not nearly as easy as it sounds.
Peterson’s flag for determining what to say is that untruths, or things he didn’t know for sure, made him feel weak. I suppose that’s a good place to start. If you have inner reservations about something, then shut up.
Yes, I found that saying “I don’t know but I can find out/ask someone who does” gained far more respect than waffling and being found out.
When in doubt tell the truth. It will confound your enemies and astound your friends.
-Mark Twain
A friend of mine could spin some great lies always with enough truth in them to sound plausible and if challenged would have two replies.
I always tell the truth……as I see it.
Or
I always tell the truth…..but I also tell lies.
Leaving you to work out what was fat from fiction.
James Bull
If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the news paper, you are mis-informed.
-Mark Twain.
No I didn’t know you were ‘jeez’
I remember asking you to look after baby ice whilst I went on holiday for a couple of weeks and you utterly failed to safeguard the poor little creature. Shame on you.
I like and respect Mosh but do wish he would cease his recent habit of conducting snarky one liners from his phone.
Nick Stokes is a model contributor. always patient even if we disagree with him
Honestly, if you expand your scope you’ll realize this is hardly restricted to the climate change debate – it’s simply how the press operates.
I am interested to find out if CTM
will censor a comment
critical about his
ranting and raving,
er, I mean
his “article”.
.
Charles the Moderator
claims he is a pontificator,
but I think he is a bloviator.
He found two rare examples of
global cooling bias headlines,
that misinterpreted the underlying science.
Why pick on that very small subset
of climate-related articles?
On the “other side”,
are wild guess articles
about a coming
global warming disaster
published every day.
Why not pick on them?
Oh, wait, isn’t that a primary purpose
of a climate skeptic website?
I’ve been reading about climate change
since 1997, and not a year goes by
without at least one article predicting
a coming global cooling.
Well, we are living in a pleasant interglacial,
so I suppose global cooling is the next thing
on the agenda to worry about.
But after 21 years of reading, the one thing
I learned, perhaps only one thing, is to ignore
predictions of the future climate,
in either direction !
.
.
.
Charles the Moderator wrote:
“I intend to try and enhance real skepticism,
in context arguments, and real scientific
discussions on this blog.”
What does that mean?
I’d like to remind you that
the causes of climate change,
other than planetary geometry,
are unknown — just unproven theories.
That’s why there is no “correct”
climate physics model,
to support a good global circulation model
that makes reasonably accurate predictions
of the future average temperature.
There are lots of climate change theories.
There are lots of climate predictions.
There is a lot of politics,
and junk science,
with little real science.
If you are intend to focus
this website on real science,
does that mean ignoring
all the climate change
junk science / speculation
in the mainstream media?
.
.
.
CTM wrote:
“But a core level it all comes down to
a legitimate disagreement
on the interpretation of data.”
THAT’s WRONG.
The surface data, with all the infilling
and multiple “adjustments”, is not fit
for any real science.
And only 150 years of real time surface
measurements, out of 4.5 billion years,
is too short a period of time !
Even the 150 years of real time measurements
include little data from the Southern Hemisphere
before World War II.
This all adds up to
surface temperature data
not sufficient for serious analyses,
even if government agencies
falsely claim
a ridiculous margin or error
of +/- 0.1 degree C. !
The real question is whether to
“interpret” the surface temperature data
or completely REJECT IT !
I am definitely guilty of bloviating.
“The real question is whether to
“interpret” the surface temperature data
or completely REJECT IT !”
I would go with “interpret”. But I think it’s a good question to ask.
I believe we are still recovering from Little Ice Age, which means I believe there has been global warming. Though not global warming which means the same thing as human caused global warming.
Or global average temperature since “about the time of LIA” has warmed by about 1 C. I see no evidence of acceleration of warming, nor would claim it’s been somehow a completely uniform rise in global temperature, but can’t give a good number of how much it’s accelerated or decelerated from any one point to another point in time since time of Little Ice Age.
I don’t believe there was ever a snowball Earth, and far as I know the last million years have coldest global temperature ever on planet Earth.
And it’s completely irrational to not want global temperature to increase, and there nothing to indicate the pre-industrial times were better in any way as compared to the present time- especially in regards to global climate or global weather.
Tom Halla
After forty years of wrong climate predictions,
why would anyone with sense read any article
predicting the future climate,
in either direction ?
There have been “coming global cooling” articles
every year since I began reading about climate change
in 1997.
But the “coming global warming” articles
must outnumber them by 1000 to 1.
I don’t understand why CTM would focus on
a few “coming global cooling” articles when
they are so rare.
I realize the writers misinterpreted the science
article they intended to summarize.
With any articles or papers that claim
to predict the future climate, there is no
real science — just unproven speculation.
Skepticism is not a full time “job”,
it is a pro-real science attitude,
and a very important characteristic
of real scientists.
Skepticism is a characteristic
that seems absent
in the government bureaucrats
with science degrees who scaremonger
about the global warming catastrophe.
“I don’t understand why CTM would focus on
a few “coming global cooling” articles when
they are so rare.”
Well, we might not have the global warming hype without first having the ice age scare.
We aren’t going to have any significant global warming or global cooling anytime soon.
Why?
Because global average temperature is directly related to average temperature of the entire ocean and it takes a long time to change this temperature.
Global weather or weather is different, as it can change pretty fast. Though no one can predict it if talking about months or years in the future.
Being able to predict weather is important and Solar min and max seem to have something to do with weather, rather than global average temperature.
I think we could have cold weather this winter and cause all kind of mayhem, but not much opinion of whether or not we will get global cooling in next 6 months
Well said, CTM. And let me add that we need people like Nick Stokes, to hold us accountable. I learn a lot from the (rational) responses to him (here and at Climate Audit) that buttress my skepticism, much more than I do from the reflexive anti-Gore crowd that spews invective rather than logical argument. We can win this battle by challenging each other as much as we challenge the warmists.
Nick Stokes has a lot of knowledge, good with statistics, and a very good programmer. The easy thing for us skeptics in countering him is that we have the truth on our side. However he does keep us on our toes. The main problem is that Nick doesn’t believe in conspiracies and blindly accepts what the climate scientists from the government agencies feed him. He refuses to believe that they have committed fraud.
Like most of the scientists on the side of the IPCC, Nick can’t accept that such well funded and ostensibly intelligent scientists could be so incredibly wrong about something so important to the future of the world and for so long. The problem is that it’s not just about the science. If that was all it was about, the skeptics would have prevailed decades ago.
The science can be settled by the obvious answer to a simple question that I have posed to Nick and many others, yet nobody has an answer.
How can the climate system distinguish the next Joules of incident W/m^2 so they can be many times more powerful at warming the surface (4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions each) than any of the other Joules arriving at the same time (1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions each)?
Once the sensitivity is recognized for its predictable and measurable average value of about 1.6 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of incremental solar input (forcing) which when converted into a temperature change starting from 288K is about 0.3C per W/m^2, all this CAGW nonsense goes the way of an Earth-centric Universe.
Climate modelers aren’t scientists. Neither is Nick Stokes. Maybe that’s why he has such an easy time believing them.
more personal attacks
good skeptic
Perhaps a better wording is he isn’t qualified to really comment on this area. After some of my interactions with him I would definitely say that is true he simply doesn’t have enough science background to not be consider a layman. I would also add Steve above to that category his use of his English Lit degree is lacking even in comments and it is of little help to the field we are talking about.
Mosh, perhaps you can explain SR5 and the claim of .7C rise since 1970 citing Marcott 2013. A claim Marcott specifically denies.
There were apparently 90 climate scientists involved in SR5.
You aren’t a scientist either, Steve. That’s a fact, not a personal attack.
I’ve shown the freshman mistakes of climate modelers at the link given just above, and also here at WUWT; mistakes no one trained in a physical science would ever make.
Anyone who wants the gory details can download my reviews and responses, (44.6 MB scanned zip file) and see for themselves the incompetence of climate modelers as regards physical error analysis.
They all might be wonderful people (I’ve not met any of them) and skilled at mathematics, but scientists they’re not. It’s not a personal attack to point that out.
And by the way, your “more” implies I’ve made personal attacks here in the past. I categorically reject that and challenge you to find one; just one Steve.
If you can’t prove your claim, it becomes a canard, and you, Steven Mosher, become guilty of … guess what … a personal attack.
Are your comments directed at me, LdB? If so, what interactions are you talking about?
No Frank sorry I was referring to discussions I have had with Nick where he got basic science wrong. It was obvious his science background is very limited and a much badly out of date, like pre 70’s stuff.
Steven. Personal comments are OK when discussing the psychology of people
How else can one do it?
They are not relevant when discussing impersonal science.
You knee jerk response is disappointing.
The topic under discussion was how, given that he is not totally stupid, the Stokes can come up with defence of indefensible hypotheses. The implication is that he believes the hypotheses not because they are supported by the data, but because they are supported by an establishment he holds in respect.
If that is what you call and ad hominem attack then that merely shows that you yourself are playing games with emotional narratives and polemic.
And devalues any position you might have adopted.
Your choice.
Another drive by post from Mosh, good English major.
Steven Mosher – November 15, 2018 at 5:50 pm
A prime example of the lefty liberal’s Political Correctness (PC) going amok.
And the very reason that parents and/or guardians are prohibited/prevented from nurturing their children to becoming well mannered, productive members of their communities.
Also, the very reason that teachers and/or public school personnel are prohibited/prevented from nurturing their students to becoming well educated, productive members of their respective societies ….. and thus the reason that America’s students are now sucking hind tit in the world’s educational ranking in science and math.
Its only a matter of time until the lefty liberal’s Political Correctness prohibits any and all “personal attacks” against Lawyers, witnesses, accusers or defendants who become engaged in either civil or criminal Court litigations.
If everyone is innocent and not held accountable for anything they do or say, ….. then no one is guilty and our society as we know it will collapse into anarchy and never rise again like the fabled Phoenix.
Pat Frank
You are WRONG WRONG WRONG
about climate modelers.
In summary, the modelers
are real scientists
being paid to do junk science,
and the money is obviously
more important to them,
than real science is:
Climate modelers
who have science degrees,
could call themselves scientists,
and work on real science.
They should be capable
of real science.
But that’s not what their bosses
pay them for.
Modelers are being paid
for junk science,
just like “real scientists”
were paid by cigarette companies
to claim cigarettes were safe.
The computer games
the modelers play
are not real science,
because they make
very wrong predictions
of the future average
temperature,
yet no insiders
reject the models
as being wrong !
Wild guess predictions
of the future climate
are not real science,
especially when the
predictions are wrong,
yet the computer
gamers never go back
to the “drawing board”
and try again.
They’ve made the same
wrong predictions
year-after-year,
for three decades
or more.
It is as if they HAVE TO
predict a +3 degree C. warming
for a doubling of the CO2 level,
or else they will lose their jobs !
The politicians
leading the way
simply declare
the science is settled,
which is the most
anti-real science
statement one could make !
The “science”
apparently was settled
in the 1979 Charney Report,
and never changes.
The wrong predictions
never change, because
wrong predictions
don’t seem to matter.
Nothing can be falsified.
Infilled numbers
can never be verified.
Any prediction of climate change doom
in the future will be accepted
by the leftist-biased media,
and published without questions.
I believe a climate scaremonger
could get an article printed
claiming man’s favorite organ
is going to shrink significantly
due to climate change,
and it would get published !
I’m surprised that has not
yet been claimed !
WE know skepticism is the
primary characteristic
of a good scientist.
But the government bureaucrats
with science degrees know
high confidence predictions,
with no skepticism or doubt,
is what THEY are being paid for.
And in return,
they get to play computer games
all day, for a good salary and
excellent benefits !
Modern climate “science”
especially the computer games,
is junk science,
supporting a leftist
political agenda
(“we need more political power
to save the Earth for the children”).
Never mind that the Earth
doesn’t need saving, and
our current climate is wonderful.
Reality has no place in junk science.
My climate change blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
LdB, thanks. That you might have meant Nick occurred to me later. 🙂
‘more personal attacks – good skeptic’
Hey Mosher – have you ever once gone public against the accusations of ‘murder’, ‘genocide’, comparisons to Holocaust deniers, or demands for Nuremberg trials? Or have you just sat there with your bad grammar, spelling errors, and typos making snarky comments when someone is called out for obvious bias?
Och, I had a lengthy response typed out but just deleted it. It’s broken record v broken record. I’ve said it all before and it was just a waste of time it seems. Though I will say this: you certainly don’t appear to be a sceptic Alan.
If you were you wouldn’t be so easily convinced by the CAGW conspiracy theory stuff.
Nor would you be so confident in your suggestion that the sceptics on here counter Nick Stokes easily. I’ve seen very little evidence of that. He does a very good job or keeping the train on the tracks when it’s inclined to veer off all over the place.
Nor would you be suggesting that sceptics have “truth” on their side. No-one has a monopoly on truth and of that particular “substance” there’s not a lot to be had that isn’t very contestable indeed, especially in relation to Global warming.
A real sceptic would be very sceptical of all of these. A real sceptic would be directing his scepticism at least as forensically in his own direction continuously, at every view and hypothesis that enters his/her mind.
As for the “inner reservations” mentioned by commieBob, I disagree. I think they should be expressed. Reservations are a good place to start in any debate. Certainty rarely is, if ever.
Great head post by CTM. Thank you. Real scepticism is a very demanding standard. Our egos and the particular type of apophenia covered in a recent post, plus confirmation bias and all the other numerous biases are constant and seductive threats to it, and to the achievement of accurate knowledge and understanding, or acceptance that we don’t have either.
Apologies for any typos. I suspect that senility is conspiring against me, and unfortunately the evidence is accumulating!!
What I meant was that if you’re worried about the truth of what you’re about to say, you shouldn’t say it. As you day, expressing doubts about things is always a good starting point but that’s not what I was talking about.
Apologies for that commieBob. I see what you mean now.
However, CO2 is a gas like any other gas, has both IR and Raman spectra, and emits according to its temperature. All gases are greenhouses gases or all are not. With no atmosphere, earth would be about 200 deg C in daylight and -100 deg C at night. Instead, Earth hovers around 15 deg C. So, the atmosphere cools the day, by allowing conductive and convective cooling, movement of heat to altitude, away from the surface, and it warms the night by slowing the losses of energy to space.
The specific, narrow emission peaks for CO2 are minuscule and meaningless compared to the over all Raman emissions of atmospheric gases. We have a gas that has been politicized and demonized into a planet killer based on the confidence that the public is scientifically ignorant, most scientists are not aware of IR versus Raman IR spectroscopy, and a multibillion dollar budget to push their junk science.
Charles:
I’m afraid you have it exactly backwards. The overall Raman emissions of atmospheric gases are miniscule and meaningless compared to the specific, narrow emission peaks for CO2.
The article creating a stir in Slayer circles is written by someone who is utterly ignorant of spectroscopy.
Water vaporhas9 absorption bands whereas CO2 has 3. Moreover, from Arrhenius to NASA, the effects are inseparable
My issue with Nick Stokes is that he repeatedly picks out a single, nearly irrelevant detail to dissect and skewer while completely ignoring the big picture faults of the Warmist arguments.
It appears to me to be willful blindness.
Alan,
The main problem is that you and others believe in conspiracies.
You aren’t clear on who you consider the others to be. I would say from comments those who believe in any conspiracy are a very small minority. I would say that the largest group believe that CAGW is a political game.
We could also add there a number on the CAGW side who believe in conspiracies just search the wording “shill of the oil companies” or is that conspiracy okay to you?
I wonder if there is such thing as politically correct conspiracies #myconspiracyisjust
LdB – Tim Ball for one regularly posts about global conspiracies being the cause of
the global warming scare. Donald Trump has claimed it is a hoax invented by the Chinese while just today the new foreign minister of Brazil has claimed it is a plot by “cultural Marxists” to promote the growth of China.
More fundamentally if you don’t think that global warming is a conspiracy then you have to either think that the overwhelming majority of scientists who have studied it have made a basic error that no-one in the science community has spotted or else that they are publishing what is probably correct. To me at least the importance of the consensus is that it suggests that any errors are extremely subtle and that the basic over-all picture is most likely correct.
Take for example the consensus about Newtonian gravity — it was wrong but only
very slightly. We still teach it in schools and universities and use it to put people
on the moon etc. The consensus on climate science is similar. It is almost certainly
not 100% right but it is good enough to use on a regular basis.
The problem with your statement is you have to rate the “number of scientists” that have looked at the problem as being capable of understanding it properly. Sorry I don’t rate many at all, I think Ramsdorf was about the only one rate. I also find far to many of the Climate Scientists are activists which causes me problems in taking anything they say at face value, does that make me a conspiracy believer?
I can also go the other way, I totally ignore most scientist on GR because many who commented on it didn’t have a clue or worst were so wrong it hurt. Stephen Hawkings is rated by many as a great scientist but some of his last papers are nothing short of junk that flies in the face of data. We have a running joke where we refer to him to him as the idiot in the wheelchair a joke picked up by Simpsons Writers and they tried to tactfully deal with it.
So this leaves the problem how do we decide who knows enough to have there views considered as valid and what is the significance of a consensus. The answer to both questions in no-one and nothing and that is just the way science operates. I don’t rate your consensus at all and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy I just think too many refugees from other fields invaded Climate Science and I don’t rate there science skills.
As for Newtonian gravity we still teach it because the formulas are easy to use and useful. I would hope most teachers explain it’s actually wrong and sometimes not in a minor way but can lead to major misunderstandings.
As you say the question in Climate Science becomes do we trust it enough to make very real hard decisions now and what options do we have. I am pretty sure the whole world has already voted that they don’t trust it because our emissions are still going up in contrast to what has been proposed, every major country will fail there 2020 and 2030 targets. They other question of what should we do is actually a question that was never asked to the world or even other areas of science that now a hell of a lot more on specializations than climate science. So the field finds itself in a mess wholelly of it’s own making and it has become toxic to most people.
Are you so simple minded that you think there is on simple single explanation?
ALL of tehse may be true at least in part.
For sure Margaret Thatcher was happy to embrace AGW to have a stick to beat the coal miners with. Whether she believed it or not is unknown.
Here we have an classic assumptive close. No I don’t believe it was a planned and coordinated conspiracy not wholly anyway and neither do I believe that its a basic error – not wholly anyway. You simply wont allow of any other possibility will you?
Dealing with the science first. It was a a plausible hypothesis. However of and by itself CO2 effects on radiation would lead to a climate sensitivity of less than 1C in all probability. Barely worth mentioning. So a hypothesis almost impossible to pick out of the climate noise and confirm or refute. Of no use to anyone.
Then it was noted that climate had been getting warmer since the 1970s a lot faster than that. And this is where the mistake was (deliberately?) made.
The hypothesis became not merely the direct effect of CO2 but a mysterious positive feedback to amplify its effects!
There was absolutely no good scientific reason to suppose that this feed back existed as against say something else unknown affecting climate. And many good reasons to deny it could exist, not the least being that the historical and geological record shows swings unconnected with CO2 or leading CO2 and the fact that had such an effect been present the effect of say pinatubo would have been amplified way more than happened. Predicted tropical hotspots were refuted by balloon evidence, the hypothesis of <feedback without which AGW is really insignificant, was blown to bits. And of course post 1998 the world slowed its warming down to such a level they had to start adjusting the data to keep the ball rolling
And this is where it should have been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Enter big business, Enron and a gas pipeline. Coal (and nuclear) compete with gas in a a way that renewable energy does not. Let’s give Al Gore some money to create a convenient lie, and call it an inconvenient truth!.
The Big Lie is always the best.
And start to channel money into scientists who will ‘say the right thing’ even with a lot of ‘mights’ and ‘coulds’ as caveats.
Well it worked, but then something else happened. It got out of control, and became what I have termed a bandwagon of convenience. Journalists, media tarts, politicians, green activists, windmill manufacturers, solar panel manufacturers, everybody was making money out of the plebs by jumping on ‘climate change’ and ‘renewable energy’ It became a trillion dollar business. Government wase handing out money to anyone who said ‘climate change’
It was an excuse fore the Left to justify even bigger government.
No one cared about the truth Who knows? Who, in fact, cares if AGW is real or not? Like any bubble, maximise your profit, watch for the warning signs and get out before the crash.
The Donald has called time. The smart money that’s still in – and most of it left 5 years or more ago – is leaving. Scientists don’t want to talk about it, and are busy finding other stuff to do. The public is bored with it. It’s losing political traction.
AGW isn’t quite dead yet, but it smells that way, It was a mixture of honest mistake, a theory that might have been true but wasn’t, that was promoted as part of a small conspiracy that grew into a global movement because it suited so many people to pretend to believe in it, because it matched te ignorance and prejudice of hoi polloi exactly.
A MOST CONVENIENT LIE all round.
Now to get all those windmills back into museums
@ur momisugly Leo Smith – November 16, 2018 at 2:20 am
Leo, that was a super great commentary that pretty much condensed the past 38+ years of “climate science” flim-flamming hysteria that much of the world’s population has embraced because of its “Cash Cow” value that personally enriches their socio-economic status.
@ur momisugly Percy,
It’s not hard to understand a conspiracy when at every meeting by those involved in the IPCC are advocating an overthrow of western democracies in favor of a communist system. Nor is it hard to understand a conspiracy when the explicit agenda is spelled out. The support for such an idea is rooted in obfuscation, lack of transparency, and outright manipulation of data in favor of that agenda. Neither is it hard to understand that those same people can convene at international conferences without being considered foreign agents.
It’s a high hurdle to jump when every negative adjective has been thrown at anyone who disagrees with AGW for any reason. ” Commit any crimes against humanity ” lately? I will think the same thing about the AGW community if the solar activity puts us in another LIA. I will/am think they knowingly lied.
After all the money that has been spent, nobody knows any more about how warming and cooling occurs. And that is a problem. That is the entire reason people started studying the stars, weather, and keeping records.. it affected the crops, and that affected governing regimes.
I’m not much on conspiracies usually. It’s just too hard to keep everybody quiet about them. But I do believe in conspiracies of common interest. With AGW it is the career lifeline for scientists who are ambitious and environmentally minded. For Lefties it is an opportunity to bash industry and get control of “the means of production”. For politicians it is a vehicle to power-the only thing they are interested in. For manufacturers and service providers in the renewables industry, the benefits are obvious and measured in dollars. For opportunists like Gore it is just another brand of soap to sell.
As long as they all have their reasons they have no interest in the truth.
Never suspect conspiracy when hubris and Groupthink will do just fine as Lindzen described it so well-
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/lindzen-on-why-the-educated-elites-are-so-vulnerable-to-being-fooled/
Are you saying that no conspiracies have ever existed Percy?
If one can provide evidence of a conspiracy, and we have, why is believing in the evidence bad?
Anytime more than one person gets together with another to pull something shady, it’s a conspiracy. That’s why the word exists.
It’s also become a knee-jerk defense to call the most obvious and outrageous examples of wide-spread chicanery ‘conspiracy theories’.
There is a serious problem with using the word ‘conspiracy’ in connection with climate change. It triggers an emotional response in those who embrace what is now the dominant paradigm. They will cease to listen to anything you have to say, if you use the word ‘conspiracy’, and justifiably so. ‘Conspiracy’ implies a conscious attempt to hide the truth, in the same way, by a very large number of people, from all over the globe. I posit that such a thing is impossible! People are not that willing or able to fully participate knowingly in a scam. When you suggest that is what is happening, your listeners will turn away, feeling that you are full of excrement.
A paradigm is not a conspiracy, although it could possibly have its roots in one. A paradigm is a story that is believed to be true by those who embrace it. This belief ‘by the many’ does not add any credence to the story in a scientific or logical sense, although the many will profess that it does. This is the argument of consensus. Climate change arguments that do not begin with the acknowledgement of the overriding, emotionally anchored paradigm in which they reside, are doomed to pointlessness.
False paradigms are defended by those who have something to gain from the paradigm being seen as correct, even if all that they gain is a feeling that their world view is cognitively coherent. This does not make them conspirators. It makes them human. If a false paradigm fits your world view, you will likely embrace the paradigm as true, with no need or desire to look deeper into the facts.
On the other hand, if the paradigm is true, but does not fit in your world view, it can take an overwhelming amount of evidence to convince you.
Most of us grew up in a world where the role of humanity was much different than in past generations. Our forebears believed in a nearly Divine role for humanity. They were taught that humans had dominion over the creatures and the land. The were taught to struggle and aspire for greatness; to reach for the stars.
Over the last 100 years, that paradigm shifted to one in which humanity was viewed as a disease upon the planet. Reaching for the stars shifted from a noble cause to one of greed and selfishness. Humans are now considered a threat to the planet, and consequently, to future generations of humans. Both paradigms were emotionally anchored in the fabric of society. Shifting a paradigm cannot easily be done with cold hard facts, but require a reweaving of the overriding world view in which the paradigm resides.
The story of catastrophic global warming would never be accepted in the old world view, even if we were indeed warming the atmosphere. The warming would have been embraced as a grand achievement; a huge gift to future generations. Now, in our current paradigm, the very same possible scenario is viewed as a huge catastrophe!
It is not a conspiracy. It is a paradigm that fits nicely in the current world view. If you want to change someones mind about climate change, you will first need to change how they FEEL about humanity. And to do that, you will first need to show understanding of how they feel about the future of their children, and that you have similar concerns. Only then do you have a chance of them listening to facts.
Indeed. And who among us has not battled with exactly the same disbelief … Surely they can’t be…and yet having gone back over and over all the evidence we are forced to conclude that yes, indeed they did…
It is the problem of the less than first rate minds that are still smart. Perhaps less than 1% of people are really able to think for themselves and less than 5% are able to at least critique others thinking. The rest who may be well above average intelligence and know it, are forced to take authority on trust.
And that has been noted by those who would subvert that process.
Stokesy is just another victim.
We have all been there. We came out the other side. He hasn’t.
“We have all been there. We came out the other side. He hasn’t.”
“Nothing, perhaps, is more painful than disillusion, but all the same, nothing is more necessary.”
—H.L. Mencken
You tell me it is cooling and I say: great minds get the sane results as mine.
I’ve heard through the grapevine that this story may have played a role in the recent spike in natural gas prices.
Although, the spike is more likely due to the fact that the weather has been unseasonably cold over much of the nation recently and we’re entering withdrawal season with natural gas storage at the lowest level in quite a long time.
It is difficult to heat your home with Solar power in the Winter
Actually that depends on where you live–it is very easy to heat with solar during the winter and costs practcially nothing–of course whent he sun goes down.. you have to have other fuels. but it saves 50% of the bill if you build the right solar window boxes.
https://www.instructables.com/id/Window-Mounted-Solar-Hot-Air-Furanace-Aluminum-Sof/
They really work–I built one and used it in the Utah mountains–the amount of heat the box roduced was amazing–it was passive but if I’d installed a solar fan it would have heated more than the room I had it in.
yeah i tied to get the mens shed(retired and talented blokes) to help me make these to give out for cost of materials(what had to be bought that we couldnt scrounge) they werent interested at all yet we have a lot of pensioners and low income people like myself who would benefit greatly even saving daytime heating when days are 9c or so.
meanwhile govt bribes are offering discounts on?
flatscreen tvs! new ones to replace older higher poweruse ones..and less help on new fridges!
priority to entertainment agitprop media over NEED.
on the upper levels cooling issue, well doesnt that blow co2 warming anything and the non existent warm spot further outta the water?
if its cooling up high then it is NOT warming is it?
nature trumps(lol) unicornfart modelling
I have been a day trader for the last 10 years, as a profession. I trade futures and stocks. The natural gas spike was due to a hedge fund (that was short) blowing up and having to unwind a position, that is all. The price went right back down again today as the markets digested the trade.
Thanks for that Rurik.
An aside regarding Martin Mlynczak. His actions precipitated Ferenc Miskolczi’s departure from NASA.
“The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA Langley Research Center (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.
When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90,000 /year) job.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/the-curious-case-of-dr-miskolczi/
Whoa!
The possibility that a journalist may have misrepresented a scientist’s paper has me gob smacked!
I’ve been a lurker for some years. I have read here daily to improve my awareness. But I didn’t comment, because I knew I did not have the education/knowledge to do other than try to learn from what I read.
But I came here (among other sites) so I could read reports and comments by people I didn’t know from Adam but whom seemingly knew what they were talking about. I could then make up my own mind about what made sense to me and what didn’t.
Recent posts seem to be more focused on a personality cult. The big “I.” It may be safe to return when the focus is more on climate and its impact and ramifications than on someone’s ego. Until then…
The person who is responding to you now apologizes for the use of first person, while that person who is responding to you was attempting to make a bigger point.
Sure. Thanks and accepted. Now try writing it without I/me/my and the “bigger point” may have a bigger impact.
Excellent advice.
Thank you for that.
I mostly concur as a fellow lurker, I come for the critiques in the comments as much as the reports. I can get personal attacks etc. on CBC’s website.
Please do not overdo the 3rd person as the first person is also valuable. It can point to personal knowledge of the point being made while the 3rd person can obscure the source.
Although I visit the site every day at least once, I rarely comment because (a) I do not have sufficient expertise to enter the bullring and make a sensible and knowledgeable contribution (not that deters others) and (b) making snarky comments doesn’t achieve much (have I just broken that rule?)
It’s strange that I was bemoaning to myself only yesterday that Nick Stokes, whose past regular contributions have made an enlightening and thought provoking contribution to the blog (see point (a)) seemed to have given up. Although I don’t agree with many of the points he makes, I read and think, rather than merely clap my hands or boo and hiss. Welcome back Nick.
Is the blog getting back on track? I hope so.
I agree skepticism is a fulltime job, and you gotta love it.
There is presently ongoing solar minimum cooling at the surface and in the ocean.
There’s already been a lot of early cold and snow records set worldwide this fall.
Oct 22 I said The bluer it gets, the lower TSI is, the colder it gets. This morning was very cold in the US:
A blue sun:
US weather this morning:
The northern hemisphere is already an icebox five weeks before the solstice!
The solar minimum blues are just starting…
CTM ==> Reference my essay: Researchers: Never Let the Press Office Quote You
Bottom Line: No researcher/scientist should ever let the Press Office quote them or their work without demanding the right to pre-approve the entire press release or article.
But they do it all of the time, and purposely (IMO) leverage that asset for their own purposes. What does that tell us?
Tells us bad things about the ethics of powerful scientists in today’s (construct your own) world.
Good comments CTM.
Don132
Good article Charles. It highlights some considerations I have been giving to the lack of indisputable evidence when the hypothesis of AGW is being pushed by alarmists. Just today I came across an article in Aeon Magazine entitled “Believing without evidence is always morally wrong” (https://aeon.co/ideas/believing-without-evidence-is-always-morally-wrong?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=087c65b77d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_14_01_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-087c65b77d-69639613). It is well worth reading and, I believe, worth aiming the moral angle at alarmists when countering their rubbish. Possible not the “great unwashed” but certainly supposedly knowledgable scientists.
You’d have to be careful though. Presumably Mann would take you to court for suggesting he is immoral!
The problem is that people like to pretend that the two sides of the debate are equal. But that is just wishful thinking. Those who warn about cooling may be wrong as far as the timing, since no one can know with certainty what our future climate will be. And that is the point. The Warmunists claim they do, in fact know, and blame man. And make no mistake; Warmunism has run rampant throughout governments, the MSM, various and sundry NGOs and even once-respected scientific organizations. It has become the default “knowledge” of climate. So that is what we skeptics/climate realists are up against. There is no level playing field, nor has there been. To pretend otherwise is the height of naivete, or just stupidity.
Is it better to go up against an honest opponent with a weak argument or a strong argument?
Is it better to go up against a dishonest opponent with a weak argument or a strong argument?
It is better not to use red herring arguments or straw man arguments.
One who wants to know the truth about some statement looks into the strongest counterclaim. A person who has looked into those tough questions is willing to face all who appose.
One who merely wants to be on the popular side of an issue only engages weak counterclaims and evades the rest. This is also the tactic of those who know their position cannot be defended.
SR
I’d have upvoted this if I could.
Is it better to play along with a known dishonest opponent (knowing that they don’t care if YOUR argument is pulled from your arse, or that it came straight from God) & try to outmaneuver them;
or is it better to try to call attention to dishonest opponents’ advantage before bringing argument.
To Bruce’s argument, we skeptics are not playing with a full deck of cards, the Ace is under the table.
Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
“Skepticism is a Full Time Job”
Indeed it is. And one constant requirement is to check the dateline on stories, because they keep coming back.
In fact the thermosphere article did appear in WUWT here, in September, pretty much as described.
Looks as if Anthony did a far better job than those sources the users submitted.
Yes, the text is much better
Rare but I agree with you Nick.
However I have to confess I am very skeptical that sunspot number has anything to do with climate change so perhaps it is a personal bias 🙂
Well said. It was better back in 2008 when the science was debated and interesting things were discussed.
We could always ignore the interminable, unprovable solar battles.
Yet the site turned into a mini-Breitbart. All political. Never primarily empirical.
It was no place for me.
But I do miss it and wander back occasionally for old times sake.
What would you expect M?
This topic is political and CAGW is an extension of eugenics programs, thinly veiled under the mantra of science. This had always been about wealth redistribution and energy austerity. Where is the real science? Does not every damn leftist MSM rag scream the sky is falling? Every day! I get bombarded in my phone’s feed of all this unsubstantiated catastrophic propaganda.
The science discussion is settled, this is normal variation with human intervention seen primarily as Urban heat island. Period. All the rest is noise, adjusted, or corrupted.
They had to hide the decline for Pete sake.
Maurice Strong.
For those who have grown weary of the politics… Too bad. That’s life. These misanthropes will stop at nothing to implement the globalist Utopia, and all the useful idiots will continue to parrot the narrative. I don’t care if that’s uncomfortable or you think I’m wearing a tin foil hat… It’s reality.
History, words, intentions, patterns, and finally all of those coming into fruition in the modern day have vindicated our concerns.
Ten years ago, when people were warning of global carbon tax initiatives, they were dismissed as kooks. How’s that kookery looking now? Exactly.
Polar bears? Hmm, not exactly.
No snow? Hmm, not exactly.
Catastrophic Rising Sea levels? Hmm not exactly.
Tuvalu drowning? Not exactly.
More hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods? Not exactly.
And then I see some nonsense from NBC claiming climate change will kill sperm!!!
C’mon Man! It’s a friggin joke
If it’s not political, why then is the Arizona scandal dragging on? Are they not scientists bound by ethics? Why wouldn’t they submit unadulterated emails, which in public University ought to be publicly available?
This is political and whatever the hell has become of the modern left, appear to be incapable of critical thinking. Maybe that has something to do with critical theory..
The more the world turns, the more it stays exactly where it is. History repeats, and dominators never satiate their desires to dominate, this is just another chapter of world domination by the few sociopaths, and their minions who think they are “in the club”.
Well said, Liberty!
Some people fear being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, as it’s seen as a pejorative character trait and definitely not p.c. Some can’t bear to contemplate living in a world in which conspiracies exist at a political level. Yet they have always existed. Just look back in history. Why would they stop now? When certain groups can’t achieve their aims openly, they resort to secrecy and subterfuge. If they have power and can use it to monopolize and brainwash a largely uninformed public, after a while most people fall in line – few want to be left out in the cold of unpopular beliefs.
+ 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
M Courtney/Honest liberty
When a high level UN official i.e Christiana Figueres, and others, make statements like “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” can we, should we, ignore or dismiss the possibility of the mobilisation of wholesale global political change by an influential, central, global agency?
Perhaps Christina meant to ensure the political shift of China and others to capitalism, perhaps she doesn’t. I don’t know.
But the fact is, the intention of global political change, using climate change as an agent, has been stated a number of times by different people in positions to influence that desire.
So I’m not sure the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is appropriate. It is a stated desire even if it is just wishful thinking. However, numerous tyrants have expressed similar desires, some have mobilised those desires with disastrous consequences. Some had the best intentions at heart, some were perhaps foolish, some just greedy, some simply ideological, but all were blind to the law of unintended consequences of abrupt, wholesale political change. I’ll dispense with the usual list of names here.
There’s nothing wrong with vigilance. Condemning people with genuine concerns over the stated intentions of powerful people as conspiracy theorist’s is unwise.
Indeed, is it a conspiracy if the desire has been articulated by people with the means to effect change?
It’s appropriate here to quote a famous comment from long ago:
“A ckonspiracy is unnecessary when a carrot will suffice.”
Way back around 2010 I urged that WUWT delete all political comments (even if correct) and all celebration of cool-weather events. They’re fun to read, but they lower the site’s tone. Similarly, mere ankle-biting comments, which have increased over the past three years, should be deleteted. Similarly, low-class remarks inside otherwise OK comments should be snipped.
Back in 2008 through 2010 (?) comments were pre-moderated, which made such snipping and deleting easier. And the volume of threads and comments was much lower, again making tighter moderation easier.
Roger
When wuwt started winning awards the number of commentators increased, as did the number of topics. The politics also became decidedly more right wing and strident.
The net result is that individual articles now rarely get the chance for a detailed and considered discussion taking place over several days as a variety of non regulars become aware of a post of particular interest to them and participate
It would be good to see more considered guest articles from those we might disagree with but I suspect this forum would be largely rejected by them after the mauling richard Betts received
Tonyb
Feel free to use tips and notes to make suggestions, and ideally give me email addresses. There is almost no one in the “opposition” I would not consider offering a guest post.
I never took that article seriously despite seeing it posted in several places, it never made sense to me.
Meanwhile the echo chamber problem is all over the place not just here, which is partly due to alarmist/warmists not being here and when they are, they are often poor at debating. They have a bad habit posting ad homs, fallacies and consensus baloney, they rarely concentrate on the story or the science behind them.
The problem occurs because Skeptics have won the science side of the debate long ago, but still have to deal with the Media side who continue to falsely promote climate babble, which is what alarmist/warmists feast on these days.
Budget Surpluses, Fire and Water in California: Governor Jerry Brown continues to declare that all of this year’s forest fires (including “Camp Fire,” “Woolsey,” “Hill Fire,” and “Rocky Peak Fire) have been caused by climate change. In fact, the WSJ points out that the State Of California has MISSPENT 10 times more on electric vehicles than on controlled forest fires and underbrush removal, $335 million to $30 million, in the last fiscal year.
Then, there is the matter of spending billions and billions of dollars annually on the bullet train that is expected to cost north of $100 Billion, which many knowledgeable people suspect will never be completed.
Additionally, the plethora of forest fires this year have likely put as much pollution into the atmosphere as has been reduced through emission reduction strategies in 2018. Also, the State has a $9 billion surplus this year, while spending only $30 million on forest management.
Finally, a February report by the Little Hoover Commission, the State Oversight Committee for the State of California, found that CA has “ignored the gathering underbrush and dead trees in their forests for 100 years by underfunding any systematic removal of it.” As the Committee put it, these forest fires probably nullified California’s “hard-fought carbon reductions.”
One can only wonder what would have happened if the California had spent as money on forest management as they spent electric vehicles?
I don’t know, but Governor Jerry Brown has an excellent reason: Electric cars are glamorous . The clearing of underbrush is not.
Curious George
Golden Bullet syndrome. Like most climate alarmism.
Instead of eradicating poverty in developing nations and thereby deal with innumerable problems like deforestation, malnutrition, infant mortality, population growth, terrorism etc. spend lots of taxpayers money on material items such as electric cars for the wealthy west.
Propose more Golden Bullet solutions like extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, cloud seeding and, of course, expensive, wasteful and virtually useless renewable energy because they are quick fixes.
Good housekeeping is better than building a new house.
fantastic post.
I have not been at all comfortable with the echo chamber – and the way we too have been criticising real research because the results don’t fit what we want rather than because the methodology is flawed.
Mosher is just one case of a wider pattern …
Good to see Steve McIntyre back on the case recently.
I think part of the issue is that the global debate long ago ceased to be primarily about science. Politics took over – for many in the UNFCCC it was only ever about politics. Once that happens, partisanship often gets in the way.
I agree , we won the science debate a decade ago.
The problem is that CAGW was always political.
Now that I know this,the fire is gone,all that awaits is the drudgery of exposing the fools and bandits,hopefully removing them from the public trough.
What the IPCC and our own government agencies has shown us is Policy Based Evidence Manufacturing, is their new standard of evidence for policy making.
And after “A blinder well played” it is clear the ruling cabal of bureaucrats and media really do not care what the sceptical taxpayer might think.
What sets me back,is the realization that the only reset may be of the 1789 French styling.
Corruption is widespread and self supporting, kleptocracy is the chosen path.
So yes the science conversation is rather stale just now.
Kudos to Anthony he does offer up great articles of interest but the Climate wars are over.
With all due respect to the editors/moderators who put in so much time here, I’m afraid the site’s effectiveness as a “force for education” won’t improve much unless they become better able to judge head-post quality.
I’ll bite my tongue here about Mr. Istvan’s head posts since I’ve taken to ignoring them. But Christopher Monckton’s posts, for example, have been execrable. Critics of those posts haven’t brought up a mere “legitimate disagreement on the interpretation of data”; they’ve identified errors of rudimentary math and logic. Yet the editors seem unable to recognize those high-school-math errors even after commenters have pointed them out.
That may be one reason for Steve McIntyre’s dismissal of Monckton-theory discussions with “I discourage people from thinking in over-simplistic terms. If you wish to pursue, better to do so at WUWT.”
That isn’t to say that the site has become a laughingstock. It hasn’t. But promoting absurdities such as Lord Monckton’s work does tend to bring us skeptics into disrepute.
I sincerely hope the current regime can find a way to do better.
The beauty of Monckton’s essays are the generating of a LOT of comments over them. I recall having to moderate YOU, Monkton and others for getting too worked up in the comments at times, even deleted some to try keeping it from falling apart.
Joe –
I agree very much with CTM’s sentiments and the general disapproval of reflex, political and insubstantial commenting, and even of reflex and insubstantial head-posts, of which there have been plenty lately. But you are wrong about Monckton. I thought his recent contributions were challenging and direct in a way that provokes deep consideration, and I think he was able to make a good fist of answering his critics. I know that he particularly irks you (irks many, indeed) but that is because of his strident single-mindedness, and fixation on certain points and a certain method of delivery. He really drew out some very useful points of view, both opposing and tangential to his argument. I learned a great deal from it, whether or not he is right or wrong. I don’t think you should put him in the same category as those that we criticise above. He stands and answers all his critics, does not run and does not dissemble, unlike many others. He sets an excellent example.
Look, I recognize that Lord Monckton has a lot of fanboys here, but that’s the problem: since this site promotes him, a lot of people think his point is arguable.
It isn’t. His last seven posts here were based on one clearly incorrect theory: that where feedback is concerned the usual approach to extrapolation is a “grave error.” That isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s just plain mathematically wrong. Just as 2 + 2 = 5 isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s wrong to a mathematical certainty.
The same is true of that “irreducibly simple climate model” paper sponsored here a few years back. It was based on the proposition that the response of a time-independent system with memory can be approximated as a time-dependent stateless system. That’s as incorrect as saying that xy can be closely approximated by x + y: occasionally it can, but you have to do the multiplication anyway to see how close.
His propositions are just plain wrong, but because his language is flowery and his writing has so many latent ambiguities he gets a large following. In short, this site is helping him dupe its readers. I don’t like seeing that.
I recognize that you disagree. I’m okay with that.
(You seem to forget that you and others who didn’t agree with him manage to post many times against his essays, you had just as much freedom to dispute him as he did with you, you come across as a whiner here) MOD
Well, I also took issue with Monckton’s Irreducibly Simple paper, since showed on a rather too mathematical post at Judith’s Climate Etc both that it was easily further reducible , and that when plugging those further reducible constants, his no feedback sensitivity was just wrong.
Monckton and I have tangled over many of his papers, usually at CE rather than here, for the obvious reasons you note.
Well, no.
Your post at Dr. Curry’s site was really a puff piece. You said “The mathematical derivation of the ‘irreducibly simple’ equation is impeccable.”
It wasn’t even close to impeccable. Nor was it “rigorous,” as you also said.
The central problem, again, is that he treated a time-invariant system that has state as a stateless time-variant system. There’s nothing “impeccable” or “rigorous” about that. It’s a fundamental flaw that yields wildly inaccurate results, and you said nothing about it.
Again, yours was in essence a puff piece. It merely quibbled about some minor details: it praised his theory with faint criticism.
3 rounds and Monckton is a clear leader in points in all 3.
Sorry Joe.
Apart from being a bit [very] verbose and repetitive and too detailed in the science for me, Monckton has always brought a clever sense of humour to his bouts to go with the detailed scientific explanations.
Disagree with him “Monckton and I have tangled over many of his papers,”[Rudd] but Joe be clear [and short] in your answers and drop the denigrations and need to constantly win.
Joe Born,
The modern blog is a recent invention, still evolving its rules of conduct and etiquette. One might expect some friction as blogging evolves to a more regular form.
That does not excuse ad homs. You are not being kind to Lie Moncton. I do not know if you have spoken in person to him. If you had, you might feel like using respect, not slagging, if you did feel compelled to describe the person.
Chris Monckton has a mind that I have seldom seen matched. But this is by the way when the objective is to discern the plausibly of scientific assertions. Here, he clearly has a valid point, however well he expresses it, or you comprehend it. It is logical to question why a physical method, feedback here, is said to have different conditions before and after a date or era defined by society. If classical feedback as misunderstood by many, where is the energy source that powers the process, when earth operates on a near constant, closed source of Salar irradiation?
If you wave your arms, proclaim he is wrong without detailing why, your acceptance will be less than if you detail your objections. Ideally you should pay out an alternative mechanism that debunks his. Can you do that? Geoff
Yes I can. And I have.
As to the “irreducibly simple” model, Anthony Watts published two of my posts. The math and physics are there. If you think anything I said is incorrect, make your case. All Lord Monckton did was spray a lot of jargon to frighten the natives. Those of us who know even undergraduate linear-systems theory know that what he said was just gibberish. I’m pretty sure you didn’t really understand what he said; if you had, then you, too, would have known it was gibberish.
As to this year’s seven Monckton posts about the “grave error,” I’ve set the problems out in detail. However, since Lord Monckton took to calling me a liar (without proof), Mr. Watts wouldn’t run my piece. So you won’t see it. (Yes, Mr. Watts suppressed incongenial facts.)
But if you know the basics of how to do high-school extrapolation, all you have to do is go through the slide at the end of Lord Monckton’s last post (plot E against R) and you’ll be able to see his clear error.
But I doubt that you will. I suspect you’ll be content with conclusory aspersions. That’s what his fanboys do.
Anticipatory adjustments to text are a pain.
“Lord Monckton”. Apologies, Geoff
Joe,
In a few of your simplest words, how do you, personally, refute Lord Monckton’s general observation that feedback factors used on new or changed input values are (wrongly) treated differently to existing values? Geoff
Mr. Sherrington:
“how do you, personally, refute Lord Monckton’s general observation that feedback factors used on new or changed input values are (wrongly) treated differently to existing values?”
No, no, no, no; that’s Moncktonspeak: it’s gibberish. It’s too vague to make sense of.
If you want to have an adult discussion, show that you can justify what Lord Monckton said at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/, namely, “Here’s the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.” That slide encapsulates his seven WUWT posts and two YouTube videos—all of which are embarrassingly bad.
In that slide he erroneously infers from two values of E as a function of R a third value of E for a third value of R by basing it on the average slope; i.e., he computes it as
, where 
. If you have mastered secondary-school math, you’ll be able to see why it’s not a “grave error,” as Lord Monckton contends it is, instead to base estimation of that value on perturbations 
and 
, i.e., to compute the equilibrium climate sensitivity as 
. (Or, rather, it wouldn’t be a grave error if the E and R values he gives us were correct and meant something.)
Lord Monckton contends that circuit theory, from which many feedback results were obtained, dictates using “entire” values instead of the perturbations he says “climatology” uses. I may be just a lawyer, but I can assure you that circuit theory dictates no such thing; using perturbations is precisely what circuit theory dictates.
Now, if you could come up with a convincing argument for why I’m wrong about that, then I’d be willing to discuss the matter.
But I know you can’t, so I’m not. No offense meant, but I’m an old man, and I’ve no intention of wasting any more of my remaining hours on high-school-caliber debates.
To the nameless entity behind the “MOD” moniker:
You miss the point. I don’t at all forget that I “manage to post many times against his essays.” But allowing a comment doesn’t provide nearly the same emphasis as running a head post. And if this blog is to “be a force for education and to grow in influence,” then “upping our game” will necessitate this site’s placing at least as much emphasis on rigorous refutations as it does on making such refutations necessary by hosting mathematically incoherent theories.
Yet ever since Lord Monckton has taken (without foundation) to calling me a liar Mr. Watts has refused to run my proposed head posts. So it borders on hypocritical, or at least lacking in self-awareness, for this site to criticize such a lack of intellectual hygiene when it occurs among alarmists.
Now, I’m fairly sure—or at least I’d like to think—that the reason for rejecting my proposed posts is not a desire to suppress dissent. It appears instead to be the editors’ ignorance of the relevant disciplines (feedback theory in the case of Lord Monckton’s more-recent posts and linear systems in the case of his “irreducibly simple” climate model). After all, they wouldn’t have run Lord Monckton’s appalling posts in the first place if they had mastered those disciplines’ rudiments. And that ignorance is understandable if regrettable; none of us can know everything. I, for example, must confess that I’m clueless about many if not most of the disciplines that arise on this site.
But the fact remains that someone will need to find a way to base head-post selection on something other than ignorance of math and physics if it is to achieve Charles the Moderator’s goal of “upping our game.”
Monckton is right about one thing, which is that the misapplication of Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis to the climate is the root of all that’s wrong with the IPCC’s version of climate science. He didn’t apply the analysis properly either, mostly because it doesn’t apply, but it seemed that his motivation was to try and fix it within the constraints of consensus terminology that assumes there’s actual amplification taking place, which per Bode means adding new energy to the system.
What’s being observed is not amplification, but is the redistribution of existing energy across time, where the energy from old surface emissions gets intercepted and temporarily stored by the atmosphere, some of which eventually returns to the surface and accumulates with new solar forcing in support of a higher surface temperature then solar forcing alone can do while the rest is combined with surface energy not intercepted by the atmosphere and emitted into space to achieve balance.
The atmosphere is not a mysterious, incomprehensible collection of ill defined feedbacks and couplings, but is simply a conduit that quasi-chaotically modulates the attenuation in the radiant path between the surface and space which on average allows about 62% of the radiant energy emitted by the surface to find its way off the planet. All that really matters is the result, not how it got there.
Only 62% makes its way off the planet?? What do you think happens to the rest?
co2isnotevil is impervious to instruction; he repeatedly regurgitates the same unintelligible thing.
But there is a sense in which “only 62% makes its way off the planet.” The sense is that, because there’s some internal re-emission, you multiple-count at the surface some of the power that leaves the planet. Here’s a simplified example I’ve used before to show that it may appear that 2.2 times as much power leaves the surface as leaves the planet.
Because of convection and conduction, an altitude layer in the real atmosphere can emit more or less radiation than it absorbs. To keep things simple, though, let’s imagine that there’s no convection or conduction: at equilibrium each layer has to emit all it absorbs. Also, although the real atmosphere absorbs some solar radiation directly, the atmosphere in our hypothetical is completely transparent to solar radiation; it absorbs radiation only from the surface and other layers.
Each atmosphere layer in this (no-convection, no-conduction, lumped-parameter) hypothetical absorbs ¾ of the radiation it receives, and it emits all the radiation it absorbs. Also, 1 W/m^2 comes from space and the same amount is returned to space, but the surface emits 2.2 W/m^2. If you go through the arithmetic you can confirm this. (If you so change it that each atmosphere layer absorbs all the radiation it receives, then the surface will emit 3.0 W/m^2.)
The point is that no energy is created or destroyed, yet the surface emits 2.2 times as much power as the system receives from space (the sun). Each atmospheric layer receives more, too.
Joe
I agree with you, but the idea that only 62% finds its way to space is nutty.
All the energy leaving the surface eventually exits the planet, it just takes longer as a result of the the “multiple- count” you mentioned.
I explained it to myself this way:
Imagine that a runner starts from one side of a 100 meter field every second, and makes it to the other side in 10 seconds. Soon, there will be 10 runners on the field, one exiting at the same moment another enters.
Now, imagine instead, each runner must first run 50 meters, turn around and go back to where he came, before starting again…….this time being allowed to cross the whole field and exit.
At a steady state (in 20 seconds), there will always be 20 runners on the field. TWO runners starting every time ONE runner exits.
Snape,
Joe’s example is non physical and has no correspondence to what we actually measure. First, he asserts that 86.25% of the emissions by the planet originate from the atmosphere while 54.5% of the energy received by the surface also originates from the atmosphere. 86.5% of 240 W/m^2 is 207.6 W/m^2, while 54.5% of 390 W/m^2 is 212.7 W/m^2, which means that the atmosphere is providing 420.3 W/m^2 which it must be absorbing, while there’s only 390 W/m^2 available to be absorbed by the surface and there’s still the 13.75% of the emissions to space that need to be accounted for. His numbers just don’t add up.
He also fails to understand that any black box system can be uniquely quantified by the behavior at its boundaries and that’s all I’m doing here where the atmosphere is being considered a black box.
If you think that all the radiant power that leaves the surface leaves the planet, then you need to explain either how the emissions of the planet are not 390 W/m^2 or how the surface can emit only 240 W/m^2 at a temperature of 288K. I’m not trying to be condescending here, but it seems like you don’t know that 1 Watt is the same as 1 Joule per second and that applying COE to W/m^2 is as valid as applying it to Joules.
Snape:
Good analogy. If my experience is any indication, a very sizable minority of this site’s regulars (such as co2isnotevil) will never get what you have.
And some of these are the guys who write this site’s head posts. For example, co2isnotevil wrote the post at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/. Remarkably, some of his fellow electrical engineers have agreed with him.
Don’t get me wrong. My legal career had me dealing extensively with electrical engineers, and some of the smartest people I’ve known were among them. It was EE’s who taught me all I know about feedback, for instance.
Like scientists, though, not all EE’s know what they’re talking about–even about feedback, which EE’s should be the champs at. And, having the credentials, they tend easily to mislead laymen by throwing around a lot of jargon.
That’s why I welcome Charles the Moderator’s goal of upping the site’s game.
“If you think that all the radiant power that leaves the surface leaves the planet, then you need to explain either how the emissions of the planet are not 390 W/m^2 or how the surface can emit only 240 W/m^2 at a temperature of 288K. ”
I’ll try again, despite knowing that it’s fruitless.
It is a lag in the system.
Back radiation delays LWIR photons exiting to space.
SW Solar is not delayed incoming through the atmosphere.
What is the outcome of that?
Answer:
More gets absorbed than is emitted in any given time period.
The more delay (more GHG’s) the greater the delay and the greater the surface temp and consequently the greater the surface emission ratio to that at TOA.
It’s the same W/m^2 as entered Earth IT JUST STAYS LONGER before leaving and so there is a build-up.
Joe,
You’ve made a classic error when decomposing the atmosphere into multiple layers. You should start with a 1 layer equivalent model and then extend to 2 layers. If you don’t get the same answer, then your 2 layer equivalent model is not representative of the 1 layer equivalent model. Whether you break the equivalent model of the atmosphere into 1, 2 or N layers, if you’re not getting the same result regardless of the number of layers, then your layer decomposition methodology is flawed.
I’ll give you a hint. You’re double counting the absorption of surface emissions and treating the second absorption by the atmosphere as new energy entering the atmosphere when it’s actually representative of energy being retained by the atmosphere.
Snape,
Isn’t it obvious that the rest is returned to the surface and that this is the net result of GHG’s and clouds as they affect the surface temperature? Despite what Joe may want you to believe, the net bulk behavior of the atmosphere is not any more complicated than this. Don’t get so hung up on the low level details of how the atmosphere manifests this bulk behavior. You need to understand where it’s going before you have a chance of understanding how it’s getting there.
The math is pretty simple. The average surface temperature is about 288K, making the net average radiant emissions of the surface about 390 W/m^2. The average emissions of the planet are 240 W/m^2 which is about 62% of 390 W/m^2. What makes this so hard to grasp?
If you think latent heat or thermals affect the net radiation leaving the surface, then you need to explain what effect these plus the return of that energy to the surface has on the average temperature and the average emissions other than the effect they’re already having on the average temperature and average emissions.
You still haven’t answered the question about how the climate system can distinguish the next Joule from from all the others so that it can be so much more powerful at warming the surface than any other. Don’t you believe that COE and the SB Law are valid first principles laws of physics? What other laws of physics can override them? If you still insist that some W/m^2 of incident forcing contribute only 1.6 W/m^2 to the surface emissions while others can contribute 4.3 W/m^2, you going to need to show your work. If you’re going to deny the validity of the question, you’re going to need to explain what laws of physics support your position.
I get that you don’t want to admit that the climate system can’t tell the difference, because once you take that leap, it’s all over.
notevil
It didn’t make sense to me that 390 w/m^2 could be emitted by the surface, but only 240 at the TOA.
The “runner” example (above), although a great simplification, made it clear how this could work. Did you read it?
2 runners enter the field every time one leaves, and yet there are never more than 20 runners on the field.
This is possible because only one of the two is new to the system, so to speak. The other is “re-emitted”.
Thanks, Joe
I’ve learned a lot from some of the engineers who comment at the UAH blog. Really smart people.
Of course, there’s a few Inspector Clouseau’s running around as well.
Snape,
Yes, I saw your runner example. Runners enter at 1 per unit time and leave at a rate of 1/2 runner per unit time, where the other half of a runner returns to the starting point. And yes, this is kind of how GHG and cloud (i.e. atmospheric) absorption works. What doesn’t leave is recirculated back and this is exactly what I’ve been saying.
In the steady state of your example, you have 2 runners entering the field (a new one and the one that was recirculated back and then turned around) but only 1 runner leaving the field. This is analogous to less power leaving TOA than is entering from the surface. What you neglected is that if every other runner is returning to the starting point and there’s a queue of new runners waiting to go, where do you put the returning runners? To conserve runners at the start of the field, the one that returns must start over along with the next runner in the queue, otherwise, runners will accumulate at the start without bound. You need to conserve runners on both sides of the field just like you need to conserve W/m^2 at both ends of the atmosphere. Moreover; for your example to be representative of the steady state, the rate of new runners entering the field must be equal to the rate of runners exiting the field.
From a narrow perspective, energy leaving the surface and returned will leave again in the future and ultimately find its way off the planet. i.e. every runner will eventually find their way off the field, but the final drain can only happen when no new runners are starting and it doesn’t drain immediately once the runners stop entering the field, but is spread out over future time. Furthermore, upon staring new runners after all have been drained, it takes time for the returning runners to build up and reach a steady state.
I’m only considering what happens to surface emissions when they leave the surface the first time. The second time it leaves after returning and being re-absorbed by the surface is associated with a different transaction between the surface and space and at a different time. Moreover, the returned Joules are indistinguishable from new Joules arriving from the Sun and must be treated the same.
…at this point Lat shows his total ignorance about the thermosphere…..
Isn’t the thermosphere really hot?…..if it’s hot, wouldn’t that slow heat radiating away from the planet??
…and if it’s cooler….wouldn’t heat radiate away faster?
Where does the thermosphere get its heating from Lat?
“The thermosphere is so hot because it absorbs a large amount of the ultraviolet and x-ray radiation coming to Earth from the sun, converting it to heat. Its temperature is extremely variable, based on both the time of day and the sun’s activity.”https://www.reference.com/science/thermosphere-hot-1f78fd00f4e36926
The thermosphere does not move heat from the surface.
Saying the thermosphere is hot or cold is pretty meaningless given it contains very few atoms in each litre of space. Direct solar radiation heats more when in the thermosphere.
well….but doesn’t the heat from the surface have to go through it to escape into space?
..and if it’s cooler, it’s a lot smaller/thinner and closer to earth….that would make space a lot closer and shorten the time for heat to escape….wouldn’t that make heat go through it easier and faster??
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
“The thermosphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. Within this layer of the atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation causes photoionization/photodissociation of molecules, creating ions in the ionosphere. Taking its name from the Greek θερμός (pronounced thermos) meaning heat, the thermosphere begins at about 80 km (50 mi) above sea level.[1] At these high altitudes, the residual atmospheric gases sort into strata according to molecular mass (see turbosphere). Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,700 °C (3,100 °F) or more. Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to be refracted and thus be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at about 600 km (375 mi) above sea level, the atmosphere turns into space, although by the criteria set for the definition of the Kármán line, the thermosphere itself is part of space.
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Despite the high temperature, an observer or object will experience cold temperatures in the thermosphere, because the extremely low density of gas (practically a hard vacuum) is insufficient for the molecules to conduct heat. A normal thermometer will read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.
The dynamics of the thermosphere are dominated by atmospheric tides, which are driven by the very significant diurnal heating. Atmospheric waves dissipate above this level because of collisions between the neutral gas and the ionospheric plasma.
The International Space Station orbits the Earth within the middle of the thermosphere, between 330 and 435 kilometres (205 and 270 mi).”
Think of the thermospheric temperature as only being an indicator of the amount of the ultraviolet and x-ray radiation coming to Earth from the sun. It has no bearing on surface temperatures.
Yet, this phenomenon is also a reflective of the heliospheric dissipation of GCR flux, so the Svensmark theory would suggest that cloud cover increases might cool the oceans and surface to the point that the global temperature would subsequently drop. Only time will tell.
Thanks Pop!
Just a coincidence that I studied it after Dr. Phillips posted it on Spaceweather.com but glad I could help, brother.
It has no bearing on surface temperatures.
The TCI is half based on F10.7cm flux, which correlates with TSI that has a realtime direct and cumulative surface warming/cooling effect. So therefore TCI is an indirect proxy for solar warming/cooling at the surface. The authors of the several articles glossed over or neglected to mention the indirect connection.
…so the Svensmark theory would suggest that cloud cover increases might cool the oceans and surface…
No. Time has told:
notevil
Sorry for posting here. There was no “reply” attached to your last comment.
” To conserve runners at the start of the field, the one that returns must start over along with the next runner in the queue….”. Yes, that’s the idea. Each runner has to run 50 yards and back before being allowed to proceed across the whole field and exiting. 100 % of the runners make it to the other side, the initial “wind sprint” just makes it take longer. 20 seconds instead of 10.
Here’s a much better analogy for the GHE:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html?m=1
The fact still remains that in order for 1/2 the runners to leave the field, twice as many must be starting to run across. And the runners starting to run across are ‘surface emissions’, the runners leaving the field are ‘planet emissions’ and the new runners entering the race are the ‘solar forcing’. Also, 100% of the runners don’t make it across the next time either, as half of those need to run back to the start too as they can not be distinguished from the new runners who started running from the start of the field when they did. You need to model the steady state, so new runners must keep being added at the same rate that the runners are finishing. So, 1 runner per interval is entering, and 1 runners is leaving across the same interval, but in order for this happen, twice as many runners must start than are entering the race. These are returning runners, which in the steady state are returning the the start at the same rate new runners are adding and that old runners are finishing.
notevil
(Glad you found my post.)
When a steady state is reached (takes 20 seconds), 1 new runner will enter the field every time a runner exits at the far side. I’m not sure why you think I need to change the model…..this is already how it works.
(A runner who has just completed a wind sprint, turns around and joins the new runner. They are side by side until at 50 meters, the old runner continues on, while the new runner turns around and heads back to the starting line.)
The point being:
a) two runners enter the field from the near side every time only one exits from the far…….and yet this is the steady state.
b) every runner makes it to the far side in 20 seconds. Nobody is trapped.
c) given a constant rate of entry, the longer it takes each runner to make it across the field, the more runners will have accumulated when a steady state is reached.
Snape,
OK. So you agree that it’s possible for the energy rate emitted by the surface to be more than the energy rate emitted into space as long as the energy rate emitted by the surface is the same as the rate of new energy arriving plus the difference between the rate leaving the surface and the rate emitted into space. So to answer your original question, the rest of the power beyond 62% is sent back to the surface and this comprises the extent of the ‘excess’ warming effect from GHG’s and clouds.
The implication that nobody is trapped is incorrect as in the steady state the recirculated runners are all trapped once they are turned around at the end. When new runners stop entering the field, the runners stored in the field will eventually work their way out. Trapped only means temporarily stored on the field and is analogous to what it means relative to surface emissions energy ‘trapped’ by the atmosphere.
A better model of the atmosphere would be that 76% of the runners are trapped and of these, half are returned to the start and the other half eventually leave the field. You can conceptualize this as when half way towards returning to the start, half the trapped runners turn around and leave the field while the remaining half continue back to the start.
If only 24% of the runners entering the field make it the first time and 1/2 of the others made it the second time, .24 + .76/2 = 0.62 , or 62% of the rate of runners entering the field are exiting the field. Note that the RATE of runners is not the same as identifying individual runners and its the rate that’s relevant to W/m^2 which is also a rate.
Equilibrium is when the rate of new runners entering the field is equal to the rate of runners exiting the field. The rate of runners entering the field is the rate of new runners plus the rate of returning runners, thus 1 = r + .76/2 where r = .62 , or 62%. Note that 76% of the runners are running twice the distance as the others.
If all of the runners entering the field were forced to turn around the first time (analogous to 100% absorption), half would still exit, except that they would all be traveling twice the distance. This sets an upper limit on the maximum possible rate of runners starting the race to be twice the rate of new runners entering the race. In other words, runaway runners is precluded.
“It is accepted by most mainstream astronomers, atmospheric scientists, climate modelers, climatologists, solar scientists, atmospheric chemists, and just about every field of mainstream climate science that:”:
sounds familiar. just sayin
Regarding the possibility that the World may be getting colder the IPCC should take advantage of that, and thus claim the credit for it. Ie that their proposed measures are finally paying off, but no, they will continue to claim that it is in fact its still getting wormer, and that somehow its all hiding in the deep Ocean. Well the ARGO bouys say otherwise.
MJE
Michael
Give them time.
They reduced warming expectation from 2.5C to 2.0C because observational temperatures weren’t doing what they wanted.
When it came time to reduce them to 1.5C they realised that to release that news would be to big an admission of their models failures, so they made up the current scare story about only having 0.5C to go before complete climatic collapse within 12 years.
The scare story successfully diverted the MSM’s attention away from the fact that they are gradually backing away from the global temperature claims they made.
I have maintained for some time that there is an announcement coming that efforts to save the planet by renewables, house insulation, energy conservation (switching off power stations as in Australia) et.c etc. have all bee successful in saving the planet so we must redouble our efforts!
Skepticism is required by science. Too little and you’re gullible, too much and you’ll never accept anything new. You need just the right amount, and that amount varies depending on the situation. From my observations, your skepticism is very well balanced
Regarding the possibility that the World may be getting colder the IPCC should take advantage of that, and thus claim the credit for it. Ie that their proposed measures are finally paying off, but no, they will continue to claim that it is still getting wormer, and that somehow its all hiding in the deep Ocean. Well the ARGO buoys say otherwise.
MJE