‘A Form Of Violence’?

Ron Manley, you asserted that Sarah Myhre’s “is an accurate characterization. Her characterization — one one you assert is accurate — was that Anthony Watts is a “a notorious climate-denialist.”

The plain meaning of a “climate denialist” is one who denies the climate. Now you say that meaning doesn’t make sense, even though it’s the plain grammatical sense of your “accurate characterization.”

Your jocular self-contradiction is symptomatic of a confused mind, Ron.

You then go on to assert a “science of AGW.” Describe that science, Ron. Let’s see if you know what you’re talking about.

For my part, I’ve published on it and know there isn’t any.

So put up or shut up, Ron. Describe the science of AGW.

And do try hard to not contradict yourself.

Ron Manley, the inconsistency of climate models follows from their failure to simulate physical reality. That inconsistency is not a deduction. It’s a physical demonstration.

Next: Arrhenius knew nothing of climate dynamics. His calculation implicitly assumed nothing in the climate changes except atmospheric CO2. That calculation is climatologically unphysical. So is your acceptance of it.

Nothing of Arrhenius’ calculation demonstrates AGW, because his calculation is not an adequate, much less complete, physical theory of climate.

Your little logical analogy, “ Economic models, to the extent they contain economics, are about physical money.” includes a logical nonsequitur. Another good job by Mr. Logic.

A correct analogy is “Economic models, to the extent they contain a falsifiable physical theory of goods, services, and capital, are about economic systems.” No economic theory is about money because money is an extensive variable with an assigned (or inferential) magnitude.

Climate models are portrayed as deploying the physical theory of climate, Ron. They are not themselves simulations. They used to make simulations — predictions of how the climate will respond to CO2 emissions.

Their predictions of warming are the entire basis of the AGW claim. I have demonstrated their predictions have no physical meaning. The AGW claim is therefore also without physical meaning.

You assert that a meaningless claim is meaningful. You apply a calculation to climate that has no climatological content.

In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Thereby perfectly capturing the state of being of the entire AGW arena.

First, Ron Manley, if climate models cannot accurately simulate the climate, then their projections have no explanatory value. That makes all the scary projections about future warming meritless and empties CO2 of any AGW threat.

Next, Ron Manley, climate models include the Arrhenius calculation by way of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

The fact that models cannot simulate the climate shows that the Arrhenius calculation also cannot simulate the climate — meaning it cannot predict the effect of CO2 emissions on air temperature.

If you think it does do, then suppose you point out the parts of the Arrhenius equation dealing with terrestrial clouds, evaporation, condensation, and precipitation.

That all wouldn’t need saying, typically. But since it’s you, the climatological irrelevance of the Arrhenius calculation needs to be made explicit.

Third, Ron Manley, the inaccuracy of climate models means the AGW proposal is physically meaningless.

AGW does not even rise to a scientific hypothesis. It is no more than a poorly grounded inference.

There is nothing to falsify, in other words. AGW is not within the domain of science at all. It’s an inference with no data except for a convenient 20th century coincidence.

Falsification of climate model projections — my work — explicitly refutes the model-based AGW inference.

Fourth, Ron Manley, you claim that the basis of the AGW [inference] is not from climate models. The IPCC itself says you’re wrong. Causal attribution to CO2 requires climate models. Thus spake the IPCC.

Thus also do Gabriele Hegerl and Francis Zwiers.

No climate model is known to be more accurate than any other. “Skillful” is a statistical term that does not reflect physical accuracy.

With respect to climate models, even skillful has no real meaning because climate models are tuned and parameters are manually adjusted to give desired outcomes.

Climate model skill is like tying a string between your bow and the target, attaching your arrow to the string with a loop, and then crowing about hitting the bullseye.

Fifth, Ron Manley, you contradicted yourself yet again by first agreeing that models cannot simulate the climate and subsequently posting about their eerie accuracy. Pretty funny, but at least you’re consistent.

As to your eerie accuracy, look really closely at the linked graphic. Do you see any physically valid uncertainty bars?

Not-a-one. No air temperature projection ever published sports physically valid uncertainty bars. That makes their claim of accuracy totally specious.

The truly eerie aspect of your linked graphic is that apparently some physicists have set aside their training concerning indicators of physical accuracy.

Finally, after seven more posts, you still have not provided any science to sustain your assertions about AGW. It seems you know of none.

Ron Manley, I have established that AGW is not a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

AGW does not have a physical falsification option. Nor a verification. Not until climate models can resolve energy perturbations on the order of 0.035 Watt/m^2 per year. Good luck with that.

I have also demonstrated that climate models have no predictive value. That means they tell us nothing about the impact of CO2 emissions on climate. That disproves the AGW assertion (not the same as falsifying a theory).

The Arrhenius calculation likewise tells us nothing about the impact of CO2 emissions on climate, because it is not a physical theory of climate and includes nothing of climate dynamics.

You are left bereft of any ground to stand on, Ron Manley.

And your recourse to derision got you nothing in a debate about science. Imagine that.

Ron Manley, you wrote, “Frank, I don’t need uncertainty bars on the graphic to see that the predictions it made came true.”

Incredible. You have no idea of the meaning of physical uncertainty, or of prediction in science.

Large uncertainty bars on a prediction mean the prediction predicts nothing, Ron. That doesn’t change if some model expectation value trend happens to course along near observations.

The statistical closeness does not imply a physical meaning. This is basic scientific reasoning.

I’ve already pointed out that skill is not accuracy, and that tuned and adjusted skill isn’t skill. Your continued insistence amounts to nothing.

Next, my November 27, 2018 at 5:49 pm post includes links to the IPCC and to a published paper showing that only climate modeling can provide detection and attribution of the impact of CO2 on the climate.

But climate models cannot predict the climate. They cannot detect or attribute anything about CO2 emissions.

That makes the AGW claim baseless. You can’t see that. Too bad. It’s true anyway.

Next, air temperature can change without any change in energy flux. That’s a standard property of coupled oscillators. Richard Lindzen pointed that out more than 20 years ago.

All AGW stalwarts, including you clearly, have ignored that ever since. And why wouldn’t you? It dismantles your assertion. Global air temperature can rise or fall without any external perturbation at all.

You wrote, “One does not need a climate model to understand that when outbound IR is retarded, the surface warms.”

How do you know that increased evaporation/condensation won’t radiate that excess energy out into space, Ron?

The answer is that you don’t. It would take an accurate physical model of the climate to know how the climate will respond to that energy. Your ignorance-based assertion is not only groundless, it’s anti-science.

You still insist on “AGW hypothesis,” when AGW is no such thing. It is an inference from an inadequate base. No hypothesis is established in science merely because no one including Ron Manley can think of alternative causes.

Your claim that “You cannot make ANY assertion about CO2 emissions from models that are WRONG to begin with. flies in the face of the entire IPCC effort since at least 1995, and is contrary to every single climate model study since at least Jim Hansen’s 1986 GISS Model II paper.

You’ve just denied the entire basis for your position and you don’t even know it.

Next, CO2 injects kinetic energy into the atmosphere. The central question is how the climate responds to that extra KE. Climate models can’t answer that question, and neither can you. You merely assert a passive warming response and then pretend you know something.

That truth, by the way, obviates your November 27, 2018 at 7:43 pm link to Feldman et al., 2015 in Nature. Measuring the radiative transfer of CO2 does not validate an air temperature increase, because no one knows how the climate responds to that energy. Climate models can’t resolve such a small perturbation.

Weather models are updated with fresh data every 2 hours or so, Ron. Were they not, their predictions would rapidly depart from reality. That truth makes your weather forecast analogy empty of significance.

Climate model projections of future climate can’t be updated at all. One can justifiably infer their predictions rapidly depart from reality. They certainly produce large physical uncertainty bars.

I do hope it makes you feel better to write your disdainful personal references, Ron. Because you’ve totally lost the debate.