Date: 23/11/18
Andrew Montford, GWPF
Some climate scientists still struggle to cope with people who disagree
So a few days back, Cliff Mass – a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington as well as a radio weatherman – decided to write something about the wildfires in California, and in particular, the question of whether climate change had played a role. At the end of a long analysis of climatological trends in the area, he drew his conclusions:
Was Global Warming A Significant Factor in California's Camp Fire? The Answer is Clearly No. https://t.co/FjphH8N5tj pic.twitter.com/MhbjsEjSnN
— Cliff Mass (@CliffMass) November 20, 2018
Unexceptionable, you might think. Agree or disagree: show us your data and talk about it.
Well, not in the Alice in Wonderland world of climate science. Take a look at some of the replies, particularly those from a moderately prominent climate scientist called Sarah Myhre.
This. Is. Propaganda. https://t.co/8loAkr0Ey4
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) November 20, 2018
There were many other responses in similar vein. One more moderate-minded reader tried to bring a little sanity to the exchange, but was told in no uncertain terms to be quiet:
Sorry Charles. That's white male identity politics to a T.
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) November 20, 2018
Read the rest of this sad episode here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s green-male identity politics yoda!
Dr. Sarah. Myhre. Is. An. Idiot.
she did have a point what she says IS propaganda ….
I came across this article on a google search for a picture of the rabid feminist.
The have history Cliff and the ”Dr”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/07/the-sad-case-of-dr-sarah-myhre/
Thanks for the link.
As the television detectives occasionally observe, “Dr.” Myhre has form.
I spent a little time looking at her website. In a video justifying her activism she stated that the world is (referring to the purported anthropogenicly-caused warming climate), “burning up.”
Many of her statements and assertions would embarrass any self-respecting scientist.
I searched WUWT for “Myhre” and two okr three posts came out at the top including the one linked to above. (Followed by many apparently irrelevant threads.) Here’s the link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=myhre
I wish this was an isolated incident in climate science, but I fear it is more the norm than the exception. Not all discussions of climate change devolve into feminist/identity politics, but they all devolve into something that is decidedly not climate science, and have for a long time.
Sticking with the science is considered rude, and now synonymous with violent propaganda! The science is not only irrelevant, but dangerous! The facts are a threat to the agenda, and those speaking to the facts must be dealt with quickly and harshly…for the good of the people and the future of our children.
It is very difficult to be a good scientist. It is very easy to be an angry, self-justified social justice warrior saving the planet! When the ends justify the means, the discipline of reality becomes an annoying distraction from the noble cause.
Climate science is dogma
dog·ma
Noun
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
🐶-🤶❓ (…asked Harpo)
Her LinkedIn page explains a lot…
Couple all of that with undergraduate degrees in biology and advanced degrees in climate change communication and you get a highly educated left-wing bag of hammers.
And then couple all of that with the moon!
She’s also the founder of the Rowan Institute…
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rowan-institute/
She’s basically a professional propagandist.
In addition to being a full-on nutjob (why mince words?)
😉
She might be more effective in her crusade if she had a higher opinion of herself. /sarc
that Linked in excerpt is more bogus than NOAA’s adjustments to 20th century temperature data
She’s a …. “national thought leader” !
I can just imagine her trail of thoughts winding through the skies, like a chemtrail!
In a nutshell, she’s an empty suit trying to self-promote her way to greatness or some other personal goal. Like Paris Hilton, she wants to be well-known by making herself famous (or is it famous by making herself well-known?)
(Sorry to say, we’re kind of helping her in her quest).
I don’t understand how she can start with
and get to
Or does she just have to “feel” it and she can “self-identify” as whateverthehell she pleases?
What we’re dealing with is a basic misunderstanding of science. The group that’s attacking Cliff thinks that valid science must disprove their unproven assertions, i.e., science constrained to their framing of the argument. Presenting a conflicting theory from data/facts is “blatantly self serving, and incredibly narrow minded”.
Found here > https://twitter.com/CliffMass/status/1064927873557913600
hypothesis, not theory
I think the whole conjecture is still a few bricks short of a hypothesis, even. Let’s see what www(dot)dictionary(dot)com says…
Well, if you go with definition 4., maybe you’re getting there.
that moron never heard of the null hypothesis.
or “keep it simple stupid”.
The comment is really born of someone not knowing the first thing about either side of the clisci argument but so desperately wanted to say something. hence the fallacious, moronic even, comments
David
You have been a “geo” in the oil patch.
I was one in mining exploration and then got into the investment business.
An old, but instructive definition of a promotion from the old and speculative Vancouver Stock Exchange:
“At the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”
Thus, for all in the climate game–it is all about money and power.
It’s always about money and power…
However, when we “promote” a prospect to a potential partner, we usually shoot for a “third-for-a-quarter.” The partner pays 1/3 of the dry hole cost for a 1/4 interest in the well. The promoter reduces his risk exposure and the promoted winds up with a working interest in what will hopefully be a new discovery. This sort of promotion is beneficial to both parties. This only works if the promoter is capable of delivering something of value.
A shady promoter would promote all four quarters for four thirds and keep an override. A really dishonest promoter would promote more than four quarters for more than four thirds and hope for a dry hole. The climate science promoters deliver nothing but additional demands for more money and power… They’re in the more than four quarters for more than four thirds category… And they don’t have to worry about results… Most of then will be dead by 2100.
Also see initial public offerings (a/k/a “IPOs”), penny stocks, venture capital partnerships, oil/gas drilling tax shelter partnerships, real estate tax shelter partnerships and other scams designed to separate fools from their money.
Dr. Myhre must think that putting periods after each words makes a point super cereal. S.H.E.I.S.A.M.O.R.O.N.
Maybe the use of ‘periods’ is a concept unique to feminism and is some secrete time to exert control over men or more specifically white men that dared to speak during their (feminist’s) period of absolute dominance – During a period of mental flashes of anger and hatred, the period is just used to signify that there will be no questioning what they have proclaimed to be so – Men have no periods to use so no questions or statements to make – There are just too many maligned periods in use today – How long will men (white ones) be subject to the unrelenting abuse as a result of abusive periods – This abusive use of periods is redefining English grammar, social order, human interactions, public discourse, and even the institution of marriage – We are living in an era of extreme periods and excessive use of periods –
We. must. stop. abusing. the. use. of. periods. period.
I think it has something do to with the phase of the moon. 😉
Sorry Sarah, that’s female hysteria.
Funny… Just for kicks, I scanned the Comments all the way to the bottom and nary a feminine moniker was seen. Just sayin’
Incidentally, my dear wife has a PHT — Put Hubby Through — doubtless of more human caring significance than Ms. Dingbat’s PhD
Sarah Myhre has been discussed before on WUWT, here and here.
It seems that Sarah Myhre is something of a SJW bully. She apparently struggles with seriously aggressive impulses toward Susan Crockford, Judith Curry, and Cliff Mass.
She’s also called Anthony Watts, “a notorious climate-denialist and troll-barker, demonstrating the depth of her commitment to respectful and accurate characterization.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Anthony invited her, and Sarah agreed, to post her deeply thought-through ideas about climate and CO2 here, so we could all engage her in a properly respectful intellectual fashion.
Sarah also thinks that “denialism,” i.e., scientific skepticism, and misogyny go together. One wonders how she would fare in a conversation with Sallie Baliunas.
One could make the case that Sarah herself is a misogynist as her bizarre behavior, which she might likely represent as a gynophilic standard, is of a kind to asperse mindful women.
But Pat, it is an accurate characterization.
One doubts either term is pragmatically definable, Ron. That true, Sarah’s characterization is pretty much meaningless. Probably like most of her considered opinions about people or cliamte.
Sorry Frank, my comment went several miles over your head. Her characterization of the proprietor of this blog is accurate.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Ron; hoping you were being ironic and didn’t mean that.
As, by your own testimony, you did mean it then let’s see you substantiate your position.
Give an example of Anthony Watts denying the climate. Also one of him barking a trollism. Be specific. Provide a link.
Your reputation as an astute observer of reality depends upon you vindicating yourself. Also your standing as an honest person.
Ron, do you have any facts to back that up, or are you just like Sarah?
LOL @ur momisugly Frank, “Give an example of Anthony Watts denying the climate”
…
Please re-write your request so that it makes sense. For a man that has solar panels on his roof, and drives an electric car, you should view the selection of articles he posts on his blog. When someone rejects the science of AGW, they deserve the ridicule fostered upon themselves. You belong to the same cohort.
Frank, if you accepted the science of AGW, you would not be spending your time commenting on this blog. You are here merely because you need to be accepted by like minded individuals who reject the current science. Makes you feel like your viewpoints are vindicated by others that reject the science.
“When someone rejects the science of AGW, they deserve the ridicule fostered upon themselves.”
IOW, AGW is unquestionable, right?
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.
Frank laughably states: “The plain meaning of a “climate denialist” is one who denies the climate.” I guess I have to expect a “plain” meaning coming from a “plain” mind.
…
Seriously Frank, you know full well that you cannot “deny the climate.” That is what does not make sense.
…
Lets dispense with your “plain meaning” and get to the heart of what the words mean. They refer to the rejection of the fact that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet.
….
Oh, and by the way, irrespective of what your published opinion is, the AGW hypothesis has yet tobe falsified.
…
PS applying measurement error analysis to a climate model is both meaningless and without merit. Climate models do not measure anything.
Ron Manley, you say one, “cannot deny the climate” and yet that’s exactly what “climate denialist” means.
If you dislike the plain meaning of your own words, then you ought to modify them before posting.
It’s hypocritical to repudiate your own stated declarations.
Bottom line: you were incautious in your alliance and then got hoisted by your own poorly conceived petard. Actually, it was the petard you adopted from Sarah Myhre; another person not known for thoughtful speech.
You claim it’s a fact that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Let’s see your demonstration of that fact.
Your dismissal of my paper is without substance. That paper does in fact falsify the entire AGW claim: the climate model part, the paleo-temperature reconstruction part, and the global averaged air temperature part.
This one, also peer-reviewed, falsifies the specific claim based upon climate models.
You show no evidence of having read any of my work. Your dismissals are therefore indistinguishable from ignorant.
Climate models simulate the climate, Ron Manley. They make simulation errors; model calibration errors to be specific. I propagate model calibration error, not measurement error.
Your reference to measurement error just shows that you don’t know anything about what you’re dismissing out of ignorance. That’s ignorance squared.
Seriously Frank, your “published” opinions are just that, opinions pal reviewed or not.
….
Climate models are a logical form of If A, and if B, and if C, ………and if X, then result. No “error” involved in a logical deduction.
..
All your paper does is say that the models need improvement, it doesn’t even come close to falsifying the AGW hypothesis.
…
In order for you to falsify the AGW hypothesis, you need to make detailed measurements that show that CO2 does not behave as a green house gas. Show us the measurements that do that, because as I have said, a climate model is not a measurement.
Ron Manley, logic is not science, no matter that science is logically coherent.
If by your lights all published analyses are mere opinion, then by your lights all the evidence you suppose to prove AGW are also mere opinion.
You have logically confuted your own position. And in the very same post that you tout logic. Good job.
Your “ifs” are assumptions. Mere deduced consistency with assumed conditions says nothing about physical reality.
Assume unicorns, deduce unicorns, tendentiously infer unicorns. There’s your proof of AGW, Ron Manley style.
Physical science is about physical reality, Ron. Climate models, to the extent they contain physics, are about physical reality.
My papers demonstrate that climate models are entirely unable to resolve the effect, if any, of CO2 emissions on air temperature.
Climate models are the entire basis of the AGW hypothesis. Refute the models, refute the hypothesis.
You’ve now posted twice, all the while you’ve avoided providing the science or facts to establish your assertions. It appears certain you personally can’t do it.
Neither can Sarah Myhre, in fact.
” Mere deduced consistency with assumed conditions says nothing about physical reality.”
…
True.
…
But also deduced inconsistency with assumed conditions says nothing about physical reality.
…
Your mistake is thinking the failure of the models falsifies AGW. It does not. Try harder Frank.
Frank cracks a joke here: “Climate models, to the extent they contain physics, are about physical reality.”
No, you are dead wrong there buddy. Here’s an analogous statement that shows how dumb your claim is: “Economic models, to the extent they contain economics, are about physical money.” ….. Climate models are not about physical reality, they are simulations, tools that we use to try to understand physical reality, but YOU CANNOT USE THEM TO PROVE NOR DISPROVE anything about physical reality. If you wish to falsify AGW, you need to take measurements of physical reality to do so, and a climate model is not a measurement.
….
You say: “climate models are entirely unable to resolve the effect, if any, of CO2 emissions on air temperature.” Fine. That doesn’t prove a thing about PHYSICAL REALITY Why don’t you do something like measure the infrared radiation from the Moon as it passes through varying angles through the Earth’s atmosphere? Something similar to what was done in 1986 by Arrhenius?
Frank says: “Climate models are the entire basis of the AGW hypothesis.”
…
Nope, see my previous comment about Arrhenius.
…
Maybe if you learned about how the AGW hypothesis evolved, you’d stop looking foolish.
Frank, everyone knows all climate models are wrong, some are more skillful than others. Since they are all wrong, your use of them as “evidence” that the AGW hypothesis is wrong is faulty logic.
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.
Frank says: ” their failure to simulate physical reality.”
…
If they fail to simulate physical reality they cannot be used to falsify AGW
…
Thank you Frank, you’re helping me prove my point.
Secondly Frank you missed the forest for the trees. The basis of the AGW hypothesis flows from Arrhenius work, and not from climate models.
….
You are wrong about climate models. They are simulations. This is why your work is worthless, you don’t even know what a climate model is. Again, all climate models are wrong, but some are more skillful than others. Once this tidbit of truth is planted in your brain, you’ll come to understand why your “work” to falsify AGW is pointless.
Frank thinks climate models cannot make accurate predictions: https://phys.org/news/2012-04-climate-eerily-accurate.html
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.
Frank, I don’t need uncertainty bars on the graphic to see that the predictions it made came true.
…
Please stop trying to build a false strawman in an attempt to obscure the fact that the model made a very accurate prediction.
..
The problem you have Frank is that your attempt at falsification of AGW is a failure. You attempt to falsify AGW because the models fail. That logic is bogus. How many times do I have to tell you that ALL climate models are wrong, but some are skillful?????
…
Your argument that bad models proves the AGW hypothesis false is dead wrong. Your starting point of models which every one will tell you are wrong cannot produce a consequence of the premise that is true. Your methodology is flawed.
…
For you to falsify the AGW hypothesis, you need to provide measurements of reality that disprove it. Using the output of models that are wrong from the get go cannot falsify AGW.
…
You post: “AGW does not even rise to a scientific hypothesis”
…
Obviously it must be a scientific hypothesis, otherwise you would not write a bogus paper that attempts to falsify it.
…
AGW is most certainly within the domain of science. It states simply that the CO2 emitted by humans is raising the temperature of the planet. If it is not within the domain of science, why do you exert so much effort in attempting to falsify it? You are a scientist aren’t you? AGW is not an “inference” it is hypothesis that states that increased atmospheric CO2 increases the temperature of the planet by retarding the emission of IR to space. There is no way that anything you have ever said, or done that will falsify the physics of IR emissions that underlie the AGW hypothesis.
…
You say: “Causal attribution to CO2 requires climate models. ” dead wrong One does not need a climate model to understand that when outbound IR is retarded, the surface warms. You can deduce that fact from addition and subtraction of energy flows, without the need of a climate model. Simple thermodynamics will help you out since you don’t seem to understand how a closed thermodynamic system works.
..
“skillful has no real meaning ?????”
…
Obviously from that statement, I suggest you stick to chemistry and leave the physics of climate to people that actually know what is going on, because you don’t.
….
Frank says: “No air temperature projection ever published sports physically valid uncertainty bars.” The reason is because they are not needed. Tell me Frank, when you watch your local weather forecast, do they sport uncertainty bars?????? Nope, they don’t. Why don’t you tell all of us why weather forecasts do not sport uncertainty bars?…..I’ll tell you but if I do, it will prove all of the work you have done on the “uncertainty of climate models” to be nothing more than a waste of time.
…
But after Frank watches the weather forecast, if they call for rain the next day you can bet your bottom dollar Frankie boy will make sure he has an umbrella handy. (without any uncertainty bars)
Uncertainty bars in a climate model do not add nor do they subtract from the model’s skillfullness. Frank attempts to denigrate any/all climate models based on his “requirement” that they provide predictive constraints on the output is just another “strawman” that he constructs in his attempt to negate AGW. Frank needs to provide hard observable evidence to falsify AGW, not try to falsify it with models that everyone will tell him are wrong to begin with.
…
Frank’s requirement is bogus.
…
Frank’s attempt to falsify AGW because the models (which are wrong ) fail is a logical failure. Nothing can be deduced from a false premise.
Frank, your methodology for falsifying AGW is incorrect. You cannot use climate models as a starting point for your argument.
@Ron Manley, once again, you’re getting it backwards. WRT AGW, there’s nothing to falsify. Rather, you and your fellow travelers need to provide evidence to support your claims of AGW. Failing that, the null hypothesis holds, that is, nothing is happening that hasn’t already happened before. Many times. So, you get to do the heavy lifting. Your bet has been called, pot’s right, show your cards.
Frank, since (as I have asserted) all climate models are wrong, how can you deduce from a premise which is false any true conclusion? You cannot deduce that the AGW hypothesis is false from the fact that the (false) climate models don’t accurately predict.
…
Do I need to school you on basic logic?
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.
Frank says: “AGW does not have a physical falsification option. ”
…
Nope.
….
To falsify the AGW hypothesis, all you need to do is to provide measurable, observable evidence that something other than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for the warming of our planet since the onset of the Industrial revolution (circa 1850)
“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.”
…
All climate models are wrong. You cannot make ANY assertion about CO2 emissions from models that are WRONG to begin with.
…
Do you have any evidence that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?
Frank, a model that fails to predict doesn’t falsify the AGW hypothesis.
…
It that too hard for you to comprehend?
Frank, if you want to falsify the AGW hypothesis, the way to do it is to show that “factor X” is responsible for the warming of the planet that has occurred since 1850. When, and if you can do that, then the CO2 explanation will be discarded. Please make sure that “factor X” is an observable and measurable item, and not the output of some model
@Ron Manley… WRONG First you need to demonstrate, with a controlled experiment, and describing your methodology so others may replicate your work, that CO2 has ANY affect on climate. You have not done that. Arrhenius did not do that, so don’t go hiding behind his skirts. Show us the data! By anyone. Frank doesn’t have to do a damn thing except sit back and relax and wait for you to present EVIDENCE!!!!!! Proving climate models wrong was just an added benefit, done for enjoyment while he waited for you to produce…
Red94ViperRT10 wants evidence “that CO2 has ANY affect on climate”
…
Here you go: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
Paywalled. FAIL! Does not actually prove a link between CO2 and climate, only supposed radiative readings that find a change likely within the margin of error (I can’t tell, I can’t get to the data). FAIL! Says it’s for how many years? Data sample too small. FAIL! Is this a pay-to-publish website? FAIL! Try again.
Frank
…
1) The AGW hypothesis states that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet.
…
2) CO2 levels have been increasing from about 280 ppm in 1850 to over 400 ppm today
…
3) GAST has increased over 1 degree C since 1850
…
4) The physical evidence supports the AGW hypothesis
…
Now Frank how do you refute the evidence?
Correspondence does not prove causation! And you don’t even have correspondence, about half the time temperatures were declining while CO2 increased. And if you take the raw data, before all the “adjustments”, even the 1 degree of warming goes away. FAIL!
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.
Ron Manley, your November 27, 2018 at 7:47 pm can be condensed to an assertion that correlation equals causation.
Fail. It doesn’t.
There may be no more basic scientific mistake than the one you just made.
If Sarah Myhre actually represented mainstream women, misogyny would just be good common sense.
+1
+ another. 🙂
“Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. ”
-Wikipedia. Describes perfectly the climate alarmist campaign, and the sales pitch for wind turbines.
‘White male identity politics to a ‘t’.’
Boy – fascism was only the acorn, wasn’t it?
Contrary to popular Progressive opinion, THIS is how Hitler did it.
Well good luck to her and her life with cats instead of a man n kids
Cliff Mass’s blog is worth the read, as well as the comments following. Most are supportive, but the ideologues also participate. Searching for “Myhre”, I found no comments by Mass’ colleague on his blog. It is telling that the a Social Justice “scientist” finds Twitter to be a place that is more conducive to her style of argument, than one that is basically free form, with no constraints on message length. It was also amusing to read a comment by “snape” who discovered that there has been a trend of -0.01″ of precipitation per decade in the summer months between 1895 and 2017 coupled with an increasing temperature trend of +0.02 F per decade in the vicinity of Sacramento. Eight of those decadal intervals surely relied on Stevenson Screens for both the temperature and precipitation measurements, and perhaps all twelve of the decadal intervals relied on Stevenson Screens. Even if we assume that “snape”‘s stations were amongst the 3% of Stevenson Screens that were of Class 1 quality, the minimum and maximum temperatures that were recorded are basically +/- 1 C, and computing an average for the day based on min and max temperatures introduces another source of error. And these measurement errors are not random and uncorrelated, particularly if the Screen had been relocated next to an asphalt parking lot. Averaging more and more of them will not improve the accuracy of the measurement. To conclude that minute trends can be discerned in such data requires a leap of faith that must challenge even the most devote Social Justice Warrior. Perhaps 144 characters is one measure of the maximum span of that leap of faith.
So, you americans, one of the largest poluters in the world, got out of the paris climate agreement.
And now California is suffering the worst drought in 1200 years and everything starts catching fire, you simply denie it all. Dispite of ice caps shrinking, sea temperatures warming and ice rocks the size of islands come loose.
We europeans look at you and laugh at your ignorance and fake, political driven reports.
Europe1,
If you want to convince “you Americans” to change their minds, then stop drawing a line between “you Americans” and “we Europeans”. By your own words you make it an us-versus-them war, not a challenge of ideas.
Flex your great mind muscle and convince me, one of those “you Americans”, that what you’re doing is verifiably the best option for the world.
Don’t feed the troll. The Europeans are already lost and it is more than likely just a Russian in a 3rd rate office.
“We europeans look at you and laugh at your ignorance and fake, political driven reports.”
Europe1 must be talking about the American Democrats. They *are* ignorant and deserve to be ridiculed, and they do produce numerous fake, politically driven reports.
Proof positive of Dr. Sarah’s approach to responding to critics. I went on her Twitter feed and noticed that she was booking appointments at AGU and inviting folks to take a slot. I replied that I “hoped you’d bring data to these discussions vs. your usual gender-based cheap shots” and was immediately blocked from any further posts and from following her. Granted, my tweet was a bit pushy, but not inaccurate, given her other comments in the thread about White Privilege, but clearly she want to keep her bubble intact.
“Sorry Charles. That’s white male identity politics to a T. — Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) November 20, 2018”
So rather than explain or defend a point of view using data and facts, she uses a broad type of the “ad hominem” attack and seeming to indicate is is both sexist and racist.
I wonder if such people understand how disgusting they come across when they behave this way? It is, once again, an act very much like those found in fanatical religions where unbelievers are constantly attacked for having different beliefs. It is an example in intolerance for others and other opinions.
She doesn’t care. She’s a dumb cat lady.
Education != intelligence
Like with Schmidt, the faux arrogance is just a defense against admitting they are liars and fools
What is it in our “modern” education system that induces so much sociopathy? Between the university and social media it seems as if the percentage of sociopaths like Dr. Myhre has been expanding rapidly in recent years. Disconnection from reality is one the more obvious signs of a sociopathic or psychopathic personality; a characteristic that is widespread in climate activists and other SJWs. I guess it is still true that you can lead the pupil to data but you can’t make him think!
Look up “Critical Theory” Cowboy Steve. Especially Critical Race Theory.
None of them is actually critical, and none of them is a theory. Every critical theory is a sociological construct that assumes what it should demonstrate. Sociological data are always at least equivocal, and more typically polyvocal. That allows every data set to be twisted and tortured until the study confirms the assumptions. Critical theory, validated again. And so it goes.
In one form or another, this garbage taught throughout the Humanities and soft sciences of the academy. Including in Departments of Law, incredibly. With derivatives right down to Kindergarten.
Those too emotionally damaged, too intellectually deluded, or too thick to think their way out of it become the SJW’s you see everywhere.
My only comment, after viewing some of her twitter comments is: OMG! And she gets to teach our younger generation????
“Violence!” cried the person advocating use of government force to get her way.
Not only Mhyre, ugh the road to hell is paved with male feminists
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Screenshot-2018-11-25-at-21.14.21.png
Classic NPD person. Likely was abused as a child, most likely by her father. Hence, she has created a world view from which she can attack those whom she blames for that pain.
Much of her world view is based on dangerous AGW. To even consider that it might not be a problem would destroy her entire basis for existence. It’s not that she is stupid, she is broken. No facts will change her view.
Expert Witness Training done in 2012 really getting put to a lot of use by Dr. S. Wish I could get me some of that skill set now that I see how much better it is than the archaic “Because, shut up!”