The Next ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ book — Towards a new theory of climate

174084165By Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD

Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs

Founder, Climate Lab Pty Ltd

Visit the Blog www.jennifermarohasy.com

As the editor of the last book, and the next book, in the Institute of Public Affairs’ Climate Change: The Facts series I spend a lot of time pondering the nature of ‘facts’.

A fact is something that has become known as true.  A fact may be dependent on accumulated knowledge.  Facts are considered superior to an opinion or an interpretation.   But sometimes the facts change.

There is the famous quote variously attributed to John Maynard Keynes, and sometimes Winston Churchill: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

Right up until the city of Brisbane in my home state of Queensland was flooded back in January 2011 — flooded following the emergency release of water from the overflowing Wivenhoe Dam — the considered opinion from Australian experts was that the dams would never fill again. This was accepted by many as a ‘fact’.

After that exceptionally wet summer, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology continued to forecast below average rainfall even for Australia’s Murray Darling Basin through the exceptionally wet spring of 2016.    Now there is drought again across much of eastern and southern Australia, and what farmers really need to know is: “When will it rain again?”

Of course, droughts in Australia always break, and with flooding rains.  But there is no indication from the Bureau when we can expect this break.

Many claim such flood events are unpredictable. In which case, we arguably don’t have a scientific theory of climate.  A scientific theory is something substantiated: a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and that can be confirmed through accurate prediction.

There is no doubt that the Western World is currently being significantly affected by climate change activism.  But, the more rational amongst us — who are not necessarily those with a more formal education — can perhaps already see that very little of what is currently being articulated by this populist movement resembles fact.

Currently what we see from activists is more prophecy than numerically verifiable prediction— certainly no testing of falsifiable theory through what might be considered the scientific method.

Indeed, the leaders of the current populist movement against climate change seem unaware of the history of science or the history of climate change embedded in the geological record.

And while obsessed with climate, they seem unable to make a practical forecast for next week or next year when it comes to issues such as when the drought here in Australia might break.

This is a long introduction to the next book in the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts series, which will be available for sale early next year.

It will be a book by dissidents, obsessed with facts, who understand that the climate is always changing.

As Editor, I get to choose chapter authors.   The four most important chapters will be on ‘water’ and it is my intention that they will move us towards a new theory of climate.

The four chapters are variously about cosmic rays, cloud cover, tropical convection and water vapour.  Indeed, water — in its many forms rather than carbon dioxide — will be dominant in the new emerging theory of climate.

This theory perhaps has its origins in a little noted paper written by Richard Lindzen, Ming- Dah Chou and Arthur Hou back in 2001.  It got physicists like Peter Ridd thinking.

Dr Ridd is contributing one of the four seminal water chapters in the next book.  He will explain how deep convection, which can be thought of as a huge heat engine — is an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy from greenhouse gases.  The other important chapters in this section on water are by Henrik Svensmark, Geoffrey Duffy and the great Richard Lindzen.

I am seeking your support for the book’s publication.

The IPA has a dedicated appeal page at www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020.

If you can spare more than A$400, you have the option of your name being printed in the book. I am proud that will be my own name will on the front cover of the book alongside Duffy, Svensmark, Ridd, Lindzen and other fine scientists.

The last book in the ‘Climate change the facts’ series sold more than 30,000 copies.  It has made a difference, in a small way.

My hypothesis is that this next book will sell three times as many copies, and eventually be recognised as articulating the beginning of a new theory of climate, with Peter Ridd’s contribution significantly building on the earlier work of Richard Lindzen.

But these four water chapters will be controversial, with technically complex elements, but the book will also include chapters that are easier to digest, and a few that are more philosophical.

One of the most popular chapters in the last book (our 2017 edition) — and the least technical, and most literary chapter — was by legendary poet and writer, Clive James, which

was an amusing poke at ‘climate change’ and catastrophism as popular culture.

My colleague at the IPA, Scott Hargreaves has already written something literary for the next edition (CCTF2020) and he has drawn on Clive’s James’ translation of Dante’s Inferno to help describe the nine circles of ‘climate skepticism’.  This will perhaps be the last chapter in this next 2020 edition.  What Scott has written is so insightful and also fun.

There will be about 20 chapters in total in the next book, including several chapters on Antarctica.  So of course, there is a chapter on penguins, and perhaps two on volcanoes.

Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, and has a complex climate that is central to understanding global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns — including drought and flood cycles in Australia.

The history of science suggests that paradigms are never disproven until they are replaced. So, now more than ever, it is important that you back this book that will challenge the current consensus, which is the current dominant paradigm.

Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas Kuhn, explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only process that historically has ever actually results in the replacement and then eventual rejection of one previously accepted paradigm or theory.   It is so important that alternative voices are heard, that there is opportunity for a new theory of climate to emerge.

If you are at all skeptical of the catastrophist’s claims that the current drought in Australia is the very worst on record, sea levels at record highs, and the planet about to melt — and most importantly, if you would like to contribute in a practical way to a fact-based new theory of climate change — then make a financial contribution to the IPA’s next book in the ‘Climate Change the Facts’ series via the dedicated appeal page at:  www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Ends.

Advertisements

133 thoughts on “The Next ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ book — Towards a new theory of climate

  1. Could be out of date already:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/

    from the conclusion:

    “We are able to quantify the degree of adiabatic lit surface energy partition in favour of the air by using the process of inverse modelling, a standard geoscience mathematical technique. The issue of atmospheric opacity then becomes a passive process, and the purported atmospheric action of greenhouse heating by back-radiation can be discounted. We believe that our modelling work presented here should lead to a fundamental reassessment of the atmospheric processes relating to energy partition, retention and flow within the Earth’s climate system.”

    The so called greenhouse effect is shown to be a consequence not of back radiation from radiatively active atmospheric components but rather of atmospheric mass being convected up and down within a gravity field.

    • I don’t see anything about water, so I’m still looking forward to the new book. Why? Water is the most potent greenhouse gas, true, but the greenhouse gas theory in general misses the boat. All the GCMs, IMHO, calculate heat loss as if the atmosphere is a static system. There are clues here and there, “…well-mixed in the atmosphere…” etc., that give it away without having to dig into the code line by line. But the real 500 lb gorilla is the phase change of water. In fact, water is the only atmospheric component that can exist in all 3 states (liquid, solid, gas) in the atmosphere under normal conditions. And that alone blows a hole, literally, in the GHG theory.

      Water changes phases by the addition or giving off of heat, that phase change changes the density of the air which causes that air to rise or fall, where it then changes temperature which causes the phase change back again with the heat moving the other way. It’s a conveyor belt, and when a thunderstorm forms, it transports huge amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it can give off the heat to space, blowing a hole right through the atmosphere and all its Long Wave Infrared “back radiation” (a mythical concept if there ever was one).

      I arrived at that theory based on what I have read here at WUWT, many thanks to Willis Eschenbach and all the others who have contributed pieces to this idea. Ms. Marohasy, how much does the theory of climate change in this book line up with this idea?

      I do know something about heat transfer, I have a B. S. Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University and I’m a registered engineer in two states, as well as a Certified Energy Manager by the Association of Energy Engineers. I can’t give my real name because I work for a contractor whose sole client(s) is(are) part of the United States government or military (multiple contracts with different branches), and I’m afraid there are people in said government/military who could cause problems for me or my employer if I get out of line on CAGW.

      • 1 – The alarmists seem to dismiss water by considering only non-condensing greenhouse gasses.

        2 – The standard heat budget gives a relatively tiny role to convection and latent heat. link On the other hand, the amount of heat moved around, from lower atmosphere to upper atmosphere, and from the equator toward the poles is huge.

        This article explains the counter-intuitive fact that the equator is cooler than the tropics, due to convection and latent heat.

        IMHO, you can’t understand the Earth’s energy budget without understanding the role of latent heat and convection. The standard energy budget seems to give them short shrift.

        • Evaporation and condensation are what is supposed to create the missing upper tropo hot-spot. The fact that this hot-spot is barely detectable in observations ( ie much weaker than in models ) indicates that the heat never gets into the lower climate in the first place, rather than it being evacuated by “an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy “.

          That also is consistent with Trenberth’s “missing heat” problem. The excess heat is missing because it is corrected by natural feedbacks reducing incoming energy.

          This is essentially what Lindzen’s poorly named “iris hypothesis” is saying.

          • I have to go out and really have to check this when I get back but …

            Based on 2500 cm of rain per year and 4 kwh of sunlight striking the surface, nearly all the solar energy striking the equator goes to evaporating water.

      • Water is what determines Earth’s climate. GCMs do not model the water cycle from “basic physics” because we do not have sufficient understanding to write it down as mathematical equations and models do not have the spacial resolution do it even if we did have the equations.

        This means that models are useless for extrapolation into the future, and of very limited use for anything else since they simply embody guesses and assumptions, not known physics.

        Lindzen’s “iris effect” is at least a credible alternative but the metaphor is poorly chosen and confuses more than it explains about what his hypothesis is.

        Good to see Ridd getting a chapter. It will be interesting to see what he can contribute to the physics.

        • Even if we did have the equations, we don’t have the computing power to run those equations at any meaningful level of resolution.

      • Stop calling things “greenhouse gas” for a beginning move. Call them re-emissive gasses. Then qualify them as “like-emissive” and “unlike-emissive” to indicate whether they can absorb their own emission or not.

        So water is the most prevalent like-emissive VAPOR in the atmosphere (gasses don’t condense out of atmosphere, prfs same bailiwick) but it is not the most unlike-emissive gas in the atmosphere as that is Ozone. Ozone is the most powerful unlike-emissive atmospheric gas. Methane is a geophysical gas not atmospheric and it does something weird… instead of being unlike-emissive it is unlike-combustive… it generates heat energy that it doesn’t absorb and in so doing it turns into a gas that also doesn’t absorb that frequency.

        So, in my example above I perfuse the *exact* inverse of the method by which the warmists try to spread their scare. I dissemble the “colloquial ignorance” out into precise separate definitions which have specific and unreversible meanings.

        We are NOT in a “greenhouse” nor do greenhouses operate due to any gasses. <– try saying that to people who are dumb enough to say "greenhouse gas" and make sure those around you hear it clearly. Idiotic ignorance should be slapped out of society on the spot, that's how we got to HVAC and fire-proof construction methods.

        Even using the term supports ignorant warmisim.

      • The point of our work is that by completing the up and down adiabatic loop (instead of ignoring the downward section as per Trenberth et al) you get an enhanced surface temperature for a planet with no GHGs at all so water vapour is as irrelevant as CO2.
        That is why one sees a similar temperature at the same atmospheric pressure on multiple planets after adjusting only for distance from the sun.
        The radiative theory cannot account for that observation whereas ours does.

      • Kudos to Red94Viper for pointing out the huge role of the latent heat of phase changes of water in the climate.

        Some climate modelers like to assume constant “relative humidity” in their climate models, so that (according to them) a slight rise in the air temperature due to IR absorption by additional CO2 will result in a higher water vapor concentration, which would amplify the IR absorption effect.

        The problem with this theory is that the additional water vapor must come from somewhere, such as a body of liquid water in contact with the atmosphere. In order to evaporate the water, heat must be transferred into the liquid water.

        If a cubic meter of air originally at 70 F (21.1 C) at 80% relative humidity was heated to 72 F (22.2 C), about 324 calories of heat would be required, presumably from IR absorption by CO2. But to maintain the air at 80% relative humidity, about 1.04 grams of water would have to be evaporated, which would consume about 608 calories of heat. At constant relative humidity, the 324 calories absorbed by the air, after being dissipated to evaporate water, would only warm the air to about 70.7 F, or about 34% of the initial predicted temperature rise, resulting in a negative feedback of 66%, or -0.66.

        So that climate models that assume constant relative humidity are over-predicting temperature rises by about a factor of 3, by neglecting the heat of vaporization of the water required to maintain constant relative humidity.

        The other major error that climate alarmists make is to assume that a slight rise in the air temperature over Greenland and/or Antarctica will cause major melting of the ice caps. At 0 C or 273 K, a cubic meter air can be warmed by 1 degree C by about 312 calories of heat. But to melt a cubic meter of ice, about 73 MILLION calories of heat are required.

        The total mass of the atmosphere over 1 square meter of the earth’s surface is equivalent to about an 8,000 meter column of air at 273 K and sea-level pressure. To heat this column of air by 1 C would require 8,000 * 312 = 2.5 million calories. If this heat were used to melt ice, it could melt about 0.034 cubic meters of ice, or about a depth of 3.4 cm = 1.35 inches.

        The actual sea level rise due to such a warming of the atmosphere would be much less than 3.4 cm, because (1) the melting can only occur in summer, when temperatures may rise above 0 C, (2) most of the warmed air is not in contact with ice (in temperate and tropical areas), and (3) some areas of central Antarctica and central Greenland never reach an air temperature of 0 C, even in summer.

        The large latent heat requirements for melting of ice or vaporization of liquid water turn the oceans and ice caps into gigantic heat sinks, which dampen out any minor heating effect of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough additional heat absorbed to melt much ice.

    • Without radiation from the upper atmosphere to space, your model would quickly come to a standstill.

      • Isn’t it true! One can convect and advect all they want, but eventually there has to be radiation from somewhere — high troposphere, tops of thunderstorms, polar regions, high plateaus and mountains, or dry deserts, in order to maintain energy balance without excessive surface temperature.

      • No standstill is possible for convection and advection because of uneven surface heating leading to unavoidable temperature and density variations across the surface.
        For a radiatively transparent atmosphere all radiation to space goes from the surface at whatever height the surface might be where there are peaks and troughs.
        The reason the term ‘greenhouse effect’ was originally used was because descending air prevents convection as does a greenhouse roof and it also dissipates clouds to allow radiation in just like a greenhouse roof. That old knowledge was lost when the radiative theorists took over in the 1980s because they knew nothing about non radiative energy transfers as described in basic meteorology.

    • NO. The lapse rate is due to the gravity caused convection, not the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is due to partially trapped energy from back radiation from aerosols and optically absorbing gases. They do not increase the energy, they just initially slow the energy transfer until a higher altitude is reached, and this combined with the lapse rate result in a hotter surface necessary to eliminate the surface energy to maintain equilibrium with solar energy.

      • What happens if you heat a gas – any gas – in an open system? It expands. No one has yet been able to tell me why heating the atmosphere, regardless of it’s composition, will simply increase it’s volume and increase the rate of radiation to space without changing it’s equilibrium temperature (governed by gravity) is wrong. In other words the only way to increase the equilibrium temp is to do extra work on it like if we were closer to the sun for example…
        (I’m no physicist)

      • Movement of heat within the atmosphere is not the greenhouse effect, including back radiation to the surface (which can be measured), but rather an energy loop that simply moves heat around. Earth loses energy gained from the Sun in one way, by slowing the rate of IR radiation loss to space. One effective way to accomplish that is by increasing the atmospheric height at which that final IR emission occurs into a region that is colder (T^4 effect). Increasing concentration of non-condensable gases do that. Water is more complicated.

        • …including back radiation to the surface…”

          You did pretty good except for that use of the despicable term “…back radiation…” Ain’t no such thing. What you do have is an insulating effect of air which “…slow[s] the rate of IR radiation loss to space…”, and does that pretty well in a static system, which is what I said above. Air is a pretty good insulator if you can keep it from moving, that’s why your wall is full of that yellow or pink stuff, to keep the air from moving around (or at least slow it down). Except the atmosphere has no such yellow or pink stuff, the air does move around, and in fact becomes a heat transporter (and for there to be heat transport there has to be a heat source, that being the Sun).

          The addition of water vapor, which has a much greater heat capacity/mass than dry air to begin with, combined with the heat required to make that water change phase, multiplies the heat transport capacity 100-fold, maybe even 1,000-fold (some other commenter posted the actual numbers, in SI units where I would have used BTU but still a good exercise, so I’m not going to go look them up just to repeat the exercise in English units), there is your positive feedback!!!

          So I repeat, latent heat and convection (not just the circulation of the air but also the circulation of the oceans) are what determine our climate, completely overwhelming any puny effect of CO;#8322. Any variations must arise from as yet undetermined (not completely, but mostly) largely cyclical variations in the Sun’s output, water vapor and (atmospheric and ocean) circulation.

          • Only hydrogen gas and helium gas have a greater specific heat than water.
            Water checks in at about 4 (in Joules per gram times the size of a C degree)
            Ice is interesting. At exactly freezing, to raise it to not freezing takes about 2. Then it’s water (see above). And water takes that same -2 to turn to ice.
            Air is about 1.
            Hot air rises.
            If it is that simple, what is the IPCC doing? If it is that simple why are they not shut down?

    • I still prefer the old “The evaporation tanks disagree with your unproven theory, get off my land” approach.

  2. Jennifer Marohas

    “And while obsessed with climate, they seem unable to make a practical forecast for next week or next year when it comes to issues such as when the drought here in Australia might

    break.

    This is a long introduction to the next book in the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts series,

    which will be available for sale early next year.”

    Just a heads up…funky “breaks : )

  3. Jennifer Marohasy

    “I am proud that will be my own name will on the front cover of the book alongside Duffy, Svensmark, Ridd, Lindzen and other fine scientists.”

    I have no idea how to correct that !

  4. Jennifer Marohasy

    “One of the most popular chapters in the last book (our 2017 edition) — and the least technical, and most literary chapter — was by legendary poet and writer, Clive James, which

    was an amusing poke at ‘climate change’ and catastrophism as popular culture.”

    The book sounds great….

  5. “Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas Kuhn, explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only process that historically has ever actually results resulted in the replacement and then eventual rejection of one previously accepted paradigm or theory. “

  6. I made predictions on this blog back in 2013 that El Nino conditions would increase a year or so after solar 24 maximum, and drive increased drought in Southern Australia and Northern India. On the 650 comment marathon of me versus Leif, Pamela, and Willis, over my solar based forecast for a very cold Jan-Feb 2014.

  7. Regarding the present drought in parts of Australia, I
    thought that the 1898 to 1903 , also known a the
    Federation drought, was the worst one.

    But in the climate game historical facts are not to be
    used.

    MJE VK5 LL

    • Michael

      “… I thought…”

      Why don’t you simply bring facts around helping us to accurately compare the two periods?

    • In my area, eastern Queensland, south of Brisbane this year is the driest for the year to date since 1893, when full records started here. 1893 still holds the record for the wettest year, & 2017 was the highest flood in living memory, by about 3 meters.

      The period 1898 to 1903 was not particularly dry here in total, but 1902 is the driest full year on record. It was only a little drier than 1993 & 94 which have the lowest total for consecutive years.

      Other very dry years were, 1914, 1924,1960 & 93 &4 already mentioned.

      It is totally impossible to read ant trend into this 125 year record in any way. Hope this is of interest.

  8. The Next ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ book — Towards a new theory of climate

    Unless this information is on CNN, Sky News, BBC, ABC etc etc then nothing will change. Currently this wishful thinking amounts to something indistinguishable from zero.

    Greta and XR get more coverage in one small TV slot than all the AGW sceptical scientific papers and newspapers and blogs and videos and internet discussions and podcasts put together.

    Solution? Dunno. Maybe it has to come from the world’s most influential governments. Trump started it, Bolsonaro ran with it ……

    • Sometimes the facts I thought I knew turn out to not be the case and I therefor change my mind.
      Or, briefly, “Sometimes the facts change.”

      • > “Or, briefly, “Sometimes the facts change.””

        Then they weren’t facts to begin with.

        Glib language trickies such as you’ve demonstrated here are the very core of propaganda.

        • Hi ianl, I will demonstrate a case. There was an idea floating around in my youth (lo these many years ago, sigh) of a clockwork universe. If you knew the position and momentum of every particle you could predict the entire future. It was an accepted fact that Newton’s Theory worked, period. They believed in this fact so well they called them Laws. Laws of nature. You do know the rest of the story I’m quite sure. Facts change.
          I don’t quite know how to react to being called glib. It may be a first. And, being good at propaganda is being good at persuasion. I like being thought good at persuasion.
          Of course, you are technically correct. “Then they weren’t facts to begin with.” is a true statement. Under that assumption, though, the sentence “Sometimes facts change” is self contradictory with “facts” being inherently unchanging and all. Under the assumption that the utterance makes sense to the original speaker, then [reread this post].

        • ianl, in that case there are no facts, ever. Because we never know when our knowledge will improve to the point where what we once thought to be facts, turn out not to be.

          • You have arrived at a true understanding of science. Be civil but always be ready to challenge the “accepted facts”.

    • In the context of that quotation, it means “the known facts change”, it can also mean that facts about the current state of affairs changes through time. “Facts” also relates to our accepted perception of what the facts are. That can also change.

      Churchill was a politician, he was not making a statement about the ideal gas laws.

  9. The title is similar to a BBC program “Climate change – the facts”, passionately known as “climate – change the facts”.

  10. ”who understand that the climate is always changing.”

    I have serious reservations about this often repeated meme.

    climate …………

    n.
    The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
    n.
    A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions.

    Where on this planet have these prevailing meteorological conditions changed?

    Neither of these two true definitions are acknowledged in the current discussion. Eg; the ”prevailing meteorological conditions” in my area are….dry summer, occasional rainfall, warm to hot temperatures, wet winter, cool to cold temps, light occasional frost. An average minimum of about 7C and an average maximum of around 27C. None of these CLIMATIC conditions have changed as long as I have lived and probably for several hundred thousand years. What does change is the weather. We have drought years, ( for example when I first moved here my neighbour told me he had never seen such a dry year for 50 years – since then it has been ”normal”) floods, great heat waves, occasional snow flurries, very low humidity, very high humidity etc, etc, sometimes long lasting sometimes not. For the BOM to tell me this is the warmest month for 20 years or the coldest day for 30 years or the driest year for 15 years and so on may be of passing interest but is completely meaningless when it comes to our prevailing climate which – barring some astronomical influence, will not change. Warming temperatures over 50 years is NOT evidence of climate change given that it is not unprecedented. How can it possibly be? So to me, it is far more accurate to say the weather always changes, not the climate.
    If the tropics miss their monsoon for a couple of years, is that climate change? If it rains in the Sahara for 3 years in a row, is that climate change? Was the MWP climate change? IMO – no.
    So, whenever someone cries ”climate change” it should be their responsibility to prove that. This is where the ridiculous definition of climate being the average of 30 years’ weather should be seen for what it is – a definition which at the moment serves a political purpose but in reality is meaningless. Lets reject the new definition for the old one. ie one of the two at the top of this post.

    • Mike – That’s “climate,” though you should add that terms need an operational definition. Same with “change.”

      • The operational definition of climate is the 30 year average of the weather conditions in a particular location.
        Climate change is when the 30 year average changes.
        Which happens to some degree all the time, although the changes are typically small and often represent fluctuations in somewhat longer term cyclical phenomenon relating to ocean currents and wind patterns.

        • We already know there is a 30-year cycle in the PDO, meaning 30 years warmer and 30 years of colder, which actually yields 60 years for a complete cycle. If we wanted a definition that didn’t have to change every year (or at least changed less) we would insist on defining climate as a 60 year average. The problem being, most places on earth lack a 60 year continuous record to be able to average. More data collection. Which is all I have ever wanted with climate research.

          • Proposed definition:
            Climate Change is an abrupt change in the weighted 60 year moving average.

    • ” An average minimum of about 7C and an average maximum of around 27C. ”

      As long as you add the key word “about” to allow an unspecified amount of change you can claim anything is unchanging ( while it changes ).

      The common language definitions are the origin of the expectation that climate never changes and thus any change must be abnormal. Yet the tiny changes like 0.7 deg in a century do not go against the idea that the tropics still have a different climate from temperate regions, despite all our emissions ( and all the propaganda ) central Europe has not become even subtropical so far !

      • ” Yet the tiny changes like 0.7 deg in a century ”

        But even that is not a change if it is part of a cycle, frequency, wave, phase or whatever you’d like to call it. You can look at it as measuring part of the amplitude of decades long waves as apart of measuring the peak or trough. The fact that humans have trouble looking much further than their noses doesn’t help. I think half the trouble comes from the fact that we can now measure what was probably always there.

  11. Leitmotif

    Exactly, I would absolutely love this information to be known by the general public, across all media channels and not just “the AGW sceptical scientific papers and newspapers and blogs and videos and internet discussions” I find peace on this site, but I still avoid the news channels and newpapers as the lies about climate change are constant. We need a group of at least 3/4 people who are very well spoken and loud and very knowledgeable about the facts and science on the weather. We need to force ourselves on to tv shows, news channels, it time we challenged the climate liers!!

  12. Dr Ridd is contributing one of the four seminal water chapters in the next book. He will explain how deep convection, which can be thought of as a huge heat engine — is an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy from greenhouse gases.

    You sneaky woman! It occurred to me a few years ago that a big gap in lab tests with CO2 is that they can’t reasonably contain atmospheric-sized convection. If convection can move a lot of heat (I don’t know enough to come up with numbers, but hey, start by looking at a cloud) then increasing greenhouse effect that traps warmth near the surface should forced increased convection. Hmm, we do have a decent idea of how much heat is in a pyrocumulus cloud.

    I saw something a while back the suggested the energy transfer isn’t adequate for a significant effect, but it wasn’t really looking at that. I’d love to see a good analysis of the effect.

    It certainly sounds like I have no choice but to donate to the project. I don’t know about A$400, I was going to give more to Peter Ridd’s legal fund, but we’ll see.

  13. Jennifer,if Bob Tisdale is correct in saying that the Southern Ocean is cooling according to raw argo buoy data,it follows that there will be less ocean evaporation and thus less water vapor ,less rain. The australian drought may well be the kind of costly climate change nobody is prepared for. The kind that has been happening every 200 years or so.

    • Evaporation depends on many factors, and the only place on the water column that the water temp matters is an the surface.
      ARGO buoys measuring deep water are irrelevant.
      What matters is the surface temperature of the water.
      And other factors can easily outweigh small changes in SST.
      Factors like wind, waviness, humidity of the air at the sea surface, sunshine.
      And like politics, all evaporation is local.
      It is easily possible for the average sea surface temp of the whole ocean to decrease, but overall evaporation to increase.

  14. Both parties engaged in this fantasy come off looking like 12th century primitives; the witch-doctors pretending to communicate with the gods, the stupid bumpkins begging witch-doctors to save them from the flood or draught (take your pick).

    The so-called scientists abused their supposed position of knowledge for their own professional and financial gain.

    The uneducated fools who pay for (as taxpayers) and accept these pronouncements are simply willfully suspending whatever embryonic critical thinking capacity they may possess. Most of this crowd has difficulty balancing their checkbook.

  15. “they will move us towards a new theory of climate”

    Jennifer Marohasy, the IPA and their paymaster – one of the world’s richest women from her inherited coal and iron ore interests – Gina Rhinehart, need to be treated with extreme skepticism when it comes to “facts”.

    More likely “they will continue the disinform, muddy the waters, monger doubt and generally push a do-nothing, BAU, nothing to see, move along line. Shame.

    • 10 years ago, when I first sought climate science material to study, the first thing I had to look up was what “ad hominem” meant.

      • So as you read the thousands of posts personally attacking Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and dozens of other “alarmists” you what – just hold your nose, necessary evvil all in a good cause?

        • What are their scientific qualifications and credentials in a climate science related subject?

        • I could tell you my tale of discovery, my transformation from being a person having no interest in reading any “environmental” news whatsoever when ever it showed up in my daily newspapers, to my shock, horror and dismay at what I discovered about the state of climate science once I started to take a look.
          I have a background in computer science, software engineering, electrical engineering and mathematics prior to my start at looking into climate science.
          I have become an expert at what constitutes the politics of climate science. I sought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on climate science and I don’t consider most of the alarmists, especially the one you just mentioned to be scientists.
          The thousands of comments disparaging alarmists are warranted in my opinion. By the way, that isn’t what ad hominem means.

          I am embarking on a climate modeling project as well as developing an extensive software project all about climate science, code named “Project Wattson”. I spend too many hours a day thinking about the climate alarmism that I decided I might as well dedicate the year of 2020 working on the projects I just mentioned and hopefully help kill off this beast sooner rather than later.
          I also really enjoy reading the posts by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. That reminds me, one piece of knowledge i am missing is on the mechanism of feedbacks in general. I will be studying the electronics form over the upcoming holiday season.

          • Gary Mount,
            In order to understand the climate science that underpins all of this, I recommend that you start with the series of essays that we published here on WUWT:
            1. Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space
            2. An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget
            3. Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus
            4. Return to Earth: A New Predictive Model of the Earth’s Climate
            5. Using an Iterative Adiabatic Model to study the Climate of Titan

            The key part of the story is the misapplication of the Vacuum Planet equation, derived from astronomy, to planetary climate. The Vacuum Planet equation is designed to calculate the output radiative power intensity flux to space from a solar illuminated planet. We fully acknowledge the utility of this equation and its role in astronomy, but climate is a planetary surface meteorological process that takes place under atmospheric load.
            Our new climate model starts with a full mathematical replication of the Vacuum Planet equation using the indisputable fact that all planets are only ever lit on one hemisphere. The equivalence of these two modelling approaches shows that back-radiation from greenhouse gases is not required. The Vacuum Planet equation by its very form has no atmospheric component. Our diabatic model is created by using a fully transparent nitrogen atmosphere with all absorption and radiative emission taking place at the base of the atmosphere. The role of turbulence is missing from the diabatic model, only when convection under surface solar forcing is added to create an adiabatic model is the mystery of the enhanced planetary surface temperature solved.

            In addition to explaining the enhanced surface temperature of a planet, our adiabatic model also explains “The mystery of the missing heat” (Chahine, 1992 p.378)

            Present estimates of heat transport by the oceans are deficient in other ways — The oceans and the atmosphere together transport 3.7 pW northwards, far less than the 5.3 pW required to balance the Earth radiation budget according to satellite data.

            Here is a clear example of the role of invisible potential energy transport by the Hadley cell. We now have here a value for this global heat transport mechanism, it is 1.6pW. Note how the balance of energy transport is therefore 1.6/5.3 = 30% of the total system budget as adiabatic auto-compression. The remaining 70% is sensible heat and latent heat fluxes.
            Reference
            Chahine, M.T. 1992 The hydrological cycle and its influence on climate.

          • Thanks, Philip.
            It really is time that people started taking our work seriously. The potential for catastrophe from accepting the false radiative theory is becoming widely clear from the dangerous antics of the Extinction Rebellion crowd.
            It cannot be allowed to continue.

          • Thanks Philip for the links and information. I have previously read at least some of the articles already.
            I have about 5000 pages of study material already lined up to read. This includes however foundational topics such as general physics (a university physics book from my early 1980s university courses), a newly acquired book about how satellites are used for atmospheric data, which I put aside to study up on quantum mechanics as a prerequisite. I need to review a lot of calculus.
            I spent 15 years studying the finite element method, so the numerical computation part of my climate model studies is well grounded knowledge for me.

          • Stephan,
            You’re welcome.

            We believe that our climate model contains the components that permit the proper integration of the atmospheric radiation and mass movement fluxes which explain the so-called greenhouse effect.
            Our work has been refused publication because it sits outside the parameters of the current climate paradigm of radiative feedback. This is in spite of our analysis being fully grounded in meteorology, and is predictive of the height of the radiative emission zones of Venus, Earth and Titan.

        • @Loydo Should people keep quiet because your heroes are either being manipulated (some psychologists suggest abused) or are manipulating carpetbaggers?

    • Loydo, if the new book only serves to highlight to the great unwashed the abyss of scientific knowledge about how / why / when / where clouds form and affect climate(s), it will be a very worthwhile contribution.

      Only a 4% change in global cloudiness will negate/overwhelm any claimed effects of manmade CO2 on climate.

      Seems to me that “the science” should be addressing itself to the overwhelming major dominant variables before they start splitting the atoms of manmade CO2 conjecture.

    • Uh-oh, looks like somebody got triggered.
      “inherited coal and iron ore interests” Look at that, the old “In the pay of Big Coal” smear.
      Loydo – I have to tell you, that one is just too old. It got used up a long time ago. You need new material.
      But I want to be constructive.
      Climate Change: The Facts series are not political or ideological tomes, like some other works in the field. You can challenge the theory and even the data set out in these works.
      Get one of these books, dig into it. Tell us specifically where a chapter author is wrong, and why. The one great thing about science is that it does not change according to who pays for it. The facts remain the facts. Now do not get me wrong, I know money has a huge influence. For instance, Big Government finances a set of studies which promote Global Warming Alarmism, people say money changes the science.
      I say NO, money created a political movement, it did not chance the actual science. Perhaps that movement dresses up as science, but that does make it so.
      As an aside:
      Big Government money created the US GCRP, the US Global Change Research Program. That group releases the NCA, the National Climate Assessment periodically. It looks like science, it is not.
      On Halloween, my neighbors dress up their dog in a tiger costume. It looks like a tiger, but it is really still a dog.

      So, Loydo, look at the science, argue the facts, argue the theory.

      • If Marohassy wants to comment on her area of expertise: weed management and environmental management then I might be *slightly* less skeptical. You cannot ignore the uber-vested interest leaning over her shoulder just by designating it a “smear”. Are you saying you don’t believe there are any vested interests? Do you really think multi-billionaire Gina Rhinehart gives a flying @#$% about the “facts”?

        “I have never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change…” She can afford to buy her own facts and so she does.

        From the book’s webpage at the IPA

        “It’s an unfortunate truth that our public institutions are becoming intolerant of debate on climate change. That is why it is more important than ever to have the discussion.”

        Let me decode that for you:
        Let’s continue to insinuate there is not broad, global agreement that modern warming has been caused by human activity – in “fact” it would be even warmer had the sun not been going through a quieter period and aerosols were not masking some it. So it’s an unfortunate truth that we need to keep dragging it backwards into the weeds from where we can sow enough doubt to paralyse policy.

        It is important to continue reincarnating every zombie myth, every red herring, to exaggerate every doubt and downplay every climate extreme so that “discussion” never ends and mitigation policies are never implemented.

        • “discussion” never ends and mitigation policies are never implemented.”

          So you think it’s ok to implement destructive and unworkable policies based on an hypothesis?

          • @John doe …. a rather silly comment which only demonstrates extreme ignorance (or worse). I know that Facts are mainly a stranger to climate alarmists but you don’t have to highlight that here, keep it for alarmist echo chambers and the gullible .

        • “If Marohassy wants to comment on her area of expertise:”

          This from the person defending Al Gore ant Greta???

          If Loydo didn’t have double standards, she would have no standards at all.

          I see Loydo is still trying to pretend that those scientists, who’s jobs would disappear altogether if it were to be proven that CO2 wasn’t a problem, don’t have vested interests in protecting the scam.

        • Loydo, you clearly seem to have the marxist-socialist playbook by your side or at least studied it closely.

          Does it tell you how to maintain XR propaganda in the face of Facts? I’m interested because much of their claims are in total contradiction to IPCC orthodoxy. I’m assuming you treat IPCC as gospel – many of us don’t see the IPCC that way because of multiple inconsistencies ……..

      • TonyL says:
        Uh-oh, looks like somebody got triggered.
        “inherited coal and iron ore interests” Look at that, the old “In the pay of Big Coal” smear.

        Yeah, I agree, that one is SO old & worn out. Because even if it were true, the amount of money “available” from such interests is chicken-scratchings compared to what’s backing, every day, the climate-change industrial complex.

        Loydo: “Hey, look at the squirrel!!!!!”, while behind is the stampeding herd of elephants. So clueless……..

    • Funny how alarmists equate the realist position as one of do nothing. They want to take the moronic flaying about approach purely for the sake of “doing something” or really being seen to be doing something e.g. wind power. Realists prefer a) do the right things b) do things right.

      Just more label and spraying insults when the have nothing of substance to offer.

    • Typical Loydo, when you can’t refute the facts, attack the person.

      Funny thing, huge amounts of government money absolutely never corrupt scientists.
      At least that’s what those who get their paychecks from government keep telling us.

  16. Many of those who accept CAGW do not have trouble balancing their checkbooks. I lived in Silicon Valley and most of my friends had advanced degrees in science, many in physics, and they swallowed the idea hook, line, and sinker. After all, 97% of scientists, world-class climate models, etc., etc. they simply aren’t willing (they are surely able) to put a critical eye on the issue. It’s a bigger dynamic in that many want government to be our mechanism for management of moral behavior. And “protecting the environment” is a very moral thing to do.

    • It’s called “hubris”. They think that because the got an advanced degree, that either proves they are, or makes them, smarter than anyone else. At the opposite end of the scale, let me tell you of a humbling experience… About 13 years ago I moved from a suburb of Houston to west Louisiana, and I lived there 3 years. I bought a house off the foreclosure list, the water came from a well and although there remained the hole in the ground, the motivator had been stolen. I called a guy who provided a compressed air motivator, and he eventually got it working just fine. Then I needed my car aligned, someone directed me to a guy down some country road, and when I got there, it was the same guy. I think I found out he had several other businesses.

      I came to the conclusion he may have been smarter than me, and he was most certainly more ambitious than me, he just never had the opportunity to go to college like I had. Getting a college degree doesn’t make you smart.

  17. “Right up until the city of Brisbane in my home state of Queensland was flooded back in January 2011 — flooded following the emergency release of water from the overflowing Wivenhoe Dam — the considered opinion from Australian experts was that the dams would never fill again. This was accepted by many as a ‘fact’.”

    Flannery should be held accountable for his predictions that led to deaths.

  18. Although I can think of another equally good cause to donate to, the IPA series of Climate Change the Facts books is one of the few compilations of information that mounts a challenge to the conventional wisdom on climate. It is well worth supporting, as is Anthony’s blog. The rivers of money from big oil are an illusion, but the rivers of government cash from Big University and Big Scientific Organisation to the climate alarmists is real.

    We should not forget how effective blogs like this or the CCTF series have been in raising awareness of the deficiencies in conventional climate theory. A little cash goes a very long way.

  19. Droughts and floods are weather, not climate.
    No theory of climate will ever be able to predict local weather on short time scales, such as when a certain drought in a certain place will end.
    Of course, this person is not a climatologist, or any other sort of atmospheric scientist, so it hardly seems surprising that she is unable to understand any of this.
    But she is a scientist, and as such ought to be able to do the small amount of research necessary to find the error in her reasoning.
    That she cannot says more about her and the ruination of proper scientific thinking among these policy analyst class, than it says about anything having to do with the atmosphere.
    While she does seem to be properly skeptical, she has become lost in confusion due to buying into the idea that weather events are synonymous with “climate change”.
    Weather is not synonymous with climate change, weather events are not climate events, and climate change does not mean adverse weather.
    If she understood this, she would not be making the inferences she is making.
    In fact, arid climates can expect to have periods of drought and periods of heavy rain, forever.
    In fact, just about every type of climate zone can expect this on various time scales.
    This is exactly why we have separate words for weather and climate.
    A drought in a moist climate does not mean the climate has changed.
    It means that weather is highly variable, on every time scale, even with no change in climate.

    • Not sure what you read but Jennifer Marohasy is a firm follower of the scientific method and has caught out the BOM fiddling the Australian temperature record on a few occasions .

      • Not sure what you read but I am a firm follower of getting things right.
        She asserts that a proper “theory of climate” ought to be able to predict weather.
        Does having “caught out” a few occasions of the ongoing fraud negate her misapprehensions, in your estimation?

        Other than that, I can tell you what I read: I read the article posted at the top of this page.
        Did you read my comment?
        I said nothing about whether or not she was aware of data adjustment fraud.

      • “Many claim such flood events are unpredictable. In which case, we arguably don’t have a scientific theory of climate.”
        Now, what part of the words “scientific theory” or “climate” would lead one to believe that having an omniscient knowledge of future weather events, and the timing thereof, is even possible, outside short term local forecasts of a few days?
        Even those, while better than in past times, are still problematic and only sometimes accurate.
        Precipitation is far more difficult to predict even a day or two in advance than such things as temperature.
        No one who is trained or experienced in weather forecasting or the science of meteorology thinks that we have the technology or the knowledge to say when a regional drought event will end, except in very limited circumstances, such as when a large wet weather system is moving into an area undergoing a drought.
        And even in that case, it can be shown that weather systems often collapse when moving into a dry zone.
        She does not know the difference between climate and weather, and if you did not understand the point I was making, perhaps you could use some boning up on the old textbooks as well.

  20. How will these Names be presented/highlighted in the book – at the beginning or at the end?
    If I would contribute $405 USD?
    Just wondering…..
    I have a very limited income … but I would like to contribute.

    -JPP

  21. ”Flannery and others were completely wrong about Aussie rainfall since 1900.”
    Not surprising given that 95% of what comes out of his mouth is pure drivel.

    • Don’t be too hard on him, he recently admitted his 20 years of “climate activism” has been a colossal failure and, unlike Greta, wasn’t nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for that activism.

  22. I hope this addresses the main variable in this that really drives it all. Solar output variability. There are so many things that interact that have varying degrees of inertia and others not entirely understood. Magnetic field of the planet that varies and how it might impact things. One thing is for certain, it is easy to blow the “settled” science claims out of the water since there are too many things that fail to meet their predictions and models.

  23. With respect to the author, do a little philosophy before interpreting the term ‘fact’ in such a loose and colloquial term.

    Misunderstanding what us fact, what is hypothesis and what is knowledge is at the heart of how we are trcked with fake science and indeed successfully lied to.

    Paraphrasing Wittgenstein facts are ‘whatever is the case’. That is, the underlying reality of some sort of Existence – no matter whether we comprehend it or not – is the “One True Fact”.

    Facts that are mapped by a metaphysical process into experience are what the scientist knows as ‘data’ – possibly as near true fact as it is possible to get. Data reflect the underlying Reality, but data are always measured in terms of human concepts like mass space, time and so on, so it is less’ pure’.
    Algorithmic compressions of data by the use of hypothetical propositions, leads us to abstract knowledge. What do I mean by that? Simply, experience of everything at every moment in its entirety is not possible for us humans. So we simplify – we ‘compress’ the totality of the days experience into e.g. “I went to see a show today”. The salient features of human interest are remembered as part of the narrative we store in memory, whilst the actuality of “I trod on 17,234 blades of grass and 15 ants today”. is ignored and discarded. Compression takes terabytes of experience each day and retains only what the human considers useful or singular. The algorithm we use is ‘what is of human interest’.
    So we see a hierarchy of ‘facts’ here. At the bottom is the incomprehensible mystery of existence . Incontrovertibly a fact, but otherwise unknowable.
    Out of that we extract experience. For those who believe in the existence of a physical world with physical beings, in a space time matrix, that this the experience of being alive. The direct sensory experience. I note that I consider this to be only one interpretation, but since for most it is THE interpretation, it will suffice as an example.
    Experience is then further compressed into a model of the world, containing objects that are discriminated by the mind into all sorts of grades and the whole shebang mapped into time and space and relationships over time then become expressions of causality and there we have it. The rational materialist’s world view. A human view of reality. Into which whatever classifications we use can turn experience into objects, relationships into causality and so on. An a world view in time is what I call a narrative. A story – a human story – of what the world ‘is really made of’.

    And the underlying reality of ‘whatever is the case’ becomes the phenomenal world of the scientists in which the One True Fact becomes ‘data’.

    So within the Rational Materialistic world view, facts are ‘stuff that really happened’. Data. Not theories. Not constructions about the data, Just the data.

    What then are scientific theories?

    Abstractions. Further levels of very precise algorithmic compressions. That we arrive at by a weird use of the imagination. Knowledge, and especially scientific knowledge, consists of creating an imaginary world that cannot be sensed directly, but which represents the underlying forces that govern the behaviour of the world.
    So we imagine, as Newton did, a set of forces that govern the behaviour of inert physical objects, test it and find it is accurate enough to be useful, at which point we say, absolutely wrongly, that ‘gravity’ is a ‘scientific fact’.

    It is not.

    It is a hypothesis. It is one step more abstract from the data it modelled. Because it seems to work we elevate it to a ‘theory’. Because its is a neat algorithmic compression of experience into a simply remembered narrative we call it ‘human knowledge’.

    So what a good scientific theory represents is something 4 steps removed from Reality. The One True Fact. It is a model that helps us understand relationships within the physical world., which is a model derived itself from our experience, which is a mapping if whatever the underlying reality actually is.

    And this is where the misuse of language befuddles us.

    we glibly talk of ‘facts’ at every level. but these are not the same thing. There is a hierarchy of knowledge. As we move up it we exchange accuracy for utility.

    At the base level beyond our consciousness of it the One True Fact is ‘it is’ .

    At the level we get to be conscious of it the less true but more useful facts are ‘stuff is and we are and stuff happens’.

    higher up the model hierarchy we get to the world of ordinary senses…our experience of life as the interactions of things that affect is as people and people one with another and so on.

    And furthest from the truth, but the most useful we have that collection of ‘stuff that works’ we call science.

    The world is not turtles, it is models all the way down. Models of models of models of something beyond experience and somehow it all just about works

    At each level facts are relative to that level – but the great misuse of language is to take a ‘fact’ at one level and then develop an argument as if it were a fact at a different level. This is one dimensional thinking at its most dangerous.

    To say ‘Anthropogenic climate change is a fact’ when it’s not, it is at best a nearly refuted hypothesis, and certainly not in the same space in the knowledge tree as ‘it rained today’ is an example of sophistry and a particularly evil form of it that used to be called ‘black magic’ but which we call today ‘marketing’. Or Terry Pratchett calls ‘headology’.

    Getting people to believe in stuff because believing in stuff is how we operate. And believing stuff that other people want you to believe in is how you control people, make them buy what you want, behave how you want and vote the way you want, without having a police state.

    I don’t mean God made everything and His will Passeth Man’s understanding. I dealt with that, without introducing personalities, using Wittgenstein. Reality is ‘whatever is the case’, whether we understand it or not.

    Both explain everything by explaining nothing. And Occam urges us to keep it simple. So I prefer Witters.

    No, I mean the propensity of people – particularly educated people – to become seduced by abstract ideas to the point where they believe that those ideas are more real than the world of which they are supposed to be abstractions.

    So an argument between a man and a woman is not as might be casually understood simply a pre menstrual woman wanting a bit more of her own way than the man she is currently with is prepared or even able to give her, but it becomes an example of the existential struggle of the politically oppressed female to liberate herself from the classical chauvinism of a white male dominated patriarchal capitalist state, a struggle in which one has not just the right, but the solemn duty, to intervene!

    It just depends on your world view. The Marxist world view sees everything as human conflict. Once you buy into that, because perhaps you feel life is against you, then you are liberated, angry and ready to take up arms against those who you have been happily told are oppressing you. What bliss! You no longer have to reflect on your own inadequacies, or get smart! Nope. None of it is your fault and there is nothing you need to change in yourself. It is all someone else’s fault and you should agitate for government to use someone else’s money to make you personally feel better and richer!

    Headology indeed!
    Marxist thought reflects a man who was rejected and hated by his society. A clever way to wreak revenge on it, later developed into a Cold War tool to destabilise and demoralise the West. And now taken up, for profit, by global financial and political interests….

    Once you accept the ‘fact’ of life being conflict and oppression, and not co operation and consensus, you are hooked. Never mind the winning or the losing of the argument, the evil black magicians have achieved their purpose by getting you to think in those terms at all.

    Armed with this let’s look at climate change, the headology. Why are we even thinking in terms of ‘human induced climate change’ at all?

    Because we have been and are being forced to consider if it is a major salient ‘fact’ or not, Or rather we are being told that it is.

    Once we accept the ‘fact’ of it the what remains are arguments about what to do about it. But is it a ‘fact’ at all?

    Again its down to the headology that confuses quite intelligent people. It is the subtle bait and switch.

    “Do you accept that human activity affects climate ?”
    “Of course – even a butterfly’s wings flapping in a Brazilian jungle”….
    …”Okay so you accept that Anthropogenic climate change is real, serious, and something we need to do something about…”
    “No I never said”.,..”yes you did! You accepted that humans cause climate change. Ladies and gentlemen, 97% of scientists agree that humans cause climate change…what are we waiting for? ”
    “But I never said how much…”
    “Ladies and gentlemen here is a man who is trying to confuse you Arts graduates and Language, History and Classics graduates, and students of Philosophy, Politics and Economics with hard nasty mathematics. You have managed your whole life not understanding Sums, don’t let him pull the wool over your eyes, It is a Scientific Fact that Man causes Climate Change, He has admitted it, . so what are we going to do about it?”…

    Mankind operates on narratives. There are probably 1000 species of snake in Africa, and about a dozen are deadly poisonous. Homo sapiens learnt to operate on the basis that ‘all snakes are poisonous’ It isn’t true, but it’s aconcise, easily remembered, conservative and above all effective narrative.

    The modern day Green/Left operates on the narrative that ‘all civilisation is a crime against Gaia’ which is excellent marketing and enables no end of eco taxes and Windy Mills, Silly Panels and greenwashed product to be sold to a public that wouldn’t otherwise touch it, but it is a little short sighted, because if we carry on then billions of humans will die. Taking their faux narratives with them.

    Or perhaps that is the intention.

    • Too much to bother with realy, but interesting. However if a butterfly flaps it’s wings in the Amazon the movement of air is dampened to zero almost instantaneously- work it out.

      • Try to bother.
        I am advancing a perspective that makes it easy to distinguish between different types of ‘facts’ and thereby not get conned into believing ‘facts’ that are at one level being used to generate ‘facts’ at a totally different one.

        What is needed right now is a much better understanding of the philosophy of science and some metaphysics to help people clarify ‘what is real, and what is not’.

        The game is one of creating a narrative. An emotional and moral narrative that purports to be based on ‘facts’.

        But those ‘facts’ are not supported by the science. They are not facts but hypotheses, and, worse, they are hypotheses that are refuted by the science.

        Even disregarding the lower two tiers of the knowledge hierarchy and starting with the (erroneous, but usefully) assumption that the phsyical world is the ultimate reality, we still have two levels. The level of real physical facts – observations and data – and the level of conjectures about those facts – underling laws that govern the relationship of one set of facts – like CO2 concentration – to another set of facts – like global temperature. This is the realm of scientific conjecture and it is wise to remember that no matter how solid the theory seems, science and indeed all knowledge remains no more than conjectures that have not yet been shown to be inaccurate or false.

        If we are to recover science from the hands of the marketeers, it has to be on a basis of philosophical understanding. To claim ‘scientific truths’ is as bad as promoting scientific falsehoods.

        The AGW narrative is flawed at every level.
        It states that present day climate change is real unprecedented, caused by humanities activities, dangerous and will lead to serious issues for mankind if not addressed, and even if it turns out not so serious, we cant afford to take the risk.

        Every single assertion is open to challenge.
        1. Sterling work by Anthony and others challenges the assertion that the climate is warming at all in any significant way: issues with the data and how it is measured and interpolated over large areas that have no thermometers, issues with whether (Tmax-Tmin)/2 is an average temperature that is meaningful. Is the world actually warming much at all?

        2. Even if the data is to be believed, is it unprecedented? Would we even see – e.g. a 1°C rise on 50 years in any proxy derived historical record? Or is it only that we can measure short term rapid rates of change only with thermometers?

        3. Even if the change is real and unprecedented in our (very short) period of studying it, how can we be sure its down to human activity? CO2 at Mauna Loa marches steadily upwards, but temperature does not, It stutters from one year to the next, one decade to the next never showing a clear rising signature for very long.We know that CO2 alone via the science wont give scary temperature rises. It needs ‘positive feedback’ and yet volcanic events perturb climate via albedo change and fit the data well without the positive feedback being in play, which is strong evidence that there is no such positive feedback, and without that the case of alarming warming collapses. Cf Lord Monckton et al.

        4. Even if the change is real unprecedented and down to human activity will it lead to serious effects? Ice caps take a long time to melt and act as a massive temperature stabiliser. There may be only a meter of two of Artic ice, but Greenland is kilometres deep. Its not vanishing any time soon. And would te world be a worse place with the higher latitudes open for farming? There is plenty of high latitude/altitude tundra that if it became warmer would be ideal for forestation. Coastal erosion due to Ocean currents and waves is a fact already and towns and ports that thrived 500 years ago no longer exist, and in the UK Doggerland, inhabited at the end of the ice age, is now under 30 feet of water. Humanity did not die as a result. It just moved. Humanity is not under threat, only perhaps a few cities.

        5. We should do it even if it might not be serious, because it might be and we just don’t know. The most flawed piece of blatherskite is the ‘precautionary principle ‘. No one really knows what it means because what it seems to say is that in the absence of clear facts we should play safe. But, in the absence of clear facts what does playing safe consist of? Perhaps we are actually managing to stave off an ice age by burning fossil fuels and we should not stop that and play safe just in case? In the absence of real hard evidence no one can begin to guess at what playing safe looks like.

        6. we afford to take the risk? Can we afford NOT to take the risk. Civilisation currently depends on a per capita energy burn that is simply unachievable without either massive nuclear investment or burning fossil fuel. All the concentrations is on electricity generation because there is no substitute for fuel for long haul transport. Why are we not building nuclear container ships? What is this very minor reduction n CO2 costing us, is it costing less than, say, moving new York uphill a bit Or putting it on stilts, or letting it become as Venice is. Less 5th Avenue and more fifth canal? Paul Rossiter shows the size of thee ‘green investment’ in an article adjacent. Has anyone done the cost benefit analysis of, say. just letting the earth get a bit warmer and dealing with the effects? They have, but you will not find their conclusions easily.

        7. Is ther a moral case for stopping climate change, or it it in fact better to ‘save the planet’ from humanity by ensuring that climate change is as bad as may be, in order that lots of people die? This is the level of silliness the emotional debate is reaching with a member of the public declaring at an AOC sobfest that we must ‘eat our own babies’. What is the scientific justification for a moral stance on the planet and humanity? I can’t see any scientific justification for the planets continued existence or humanities. Just what exactly are we afraid of? Is in fact the attempt to be 100% renewable more dangerous than climate change could ever be, to humanity?

        We are not supposed to ask these questions.
        We should be, loud and clear.

    • Well ”said” Leo – if not somewhat unnecessarily long. I agree. Basically, the meaning of the word ”fact” should be rigorously defended and not allowed to be diluted or twisted to suit an argument. Perhaps the book should better be named ”Climate Change – What We Know” ? The silly distortion of the word is the very reason we find ourselves in the divided situation we are in at the moment.

  24. Here is a climate factor that Jennifer Marohasy constantly ignores.

    Wilson, I.R.G. and Sidorenkov, N.S., 2019, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate
    III: Sub-Centennial Time Scales, The General Science Journal, 7927

    https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/7927

    In summary, what Paper-III is saying, is that over the last 150 years, many of the main warming and cooling events in the Earth’s atmosphere (about the long-term linear trend) can be explained by forcings of the Perigean New/Full Tidal cycle because of their influence on El Niño/La Niña events.’

    ABSTRACT

    The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean
    atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean
    temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were
    to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural
    periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean
    temperature.
    Using both the adopted mean orbital periods of the Moon, as well as calculated algorithms based
    upon published ephemerides, this paper shows that the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles exhibit
    two dominant periodicities on decadal time scales.
    The first is 10.1469 years, which is half of the 20.2937-year Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This
    represents the time required for the resynchronization of the phases of the Moon with the epochs
    when the perigee of the lunar orbit points directly towards or directly away from the Sun.
    The second is 9.0554 years, which closely matches the 9.0713-year Lunar Tidal Cycle (LTC). This
    is the harmonic mean of the prograde 8.8475-year Lunar Anomalistic Cycle (LAC) and half of the
    retrograde 18.6134-year Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC).
    Hence, if the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycle were to act as a “forcing” on the world’s mean
    temperatures, you would expect to see periodicities in the first difference of the world’s mean
    temperature anomaly (WMTA) data that were a simple sinusoidal superposition of the two dominant
    periods associated with the Equinox(/Solstice) spring tidal cycles (i.e. 9.1 and 10.1469 tropical
    years).
    This paper makes a comparison between two times series that describe these phenomena. The first
    time series represents the lunar tidal forcing (LTF) curve. This curve is a superposition of a sine wave
    of amplitude 1.0 unit and period 9.1 tropical years, with a sine wave of amplitude 2.0 units and a
    period 10.1469 (= 9 FMC’s) tropical years, that is specifically aligned to match the phase of the
    Perigean New/Full moon cycle. The second time series represents the difference curve for the
    HadCRUT4 monthly (Land + Sea) world mean temperature anomaly (DSTA), from 1850 to 2017.
    A comparison between the LTF and DSTA curves shows that that the timing of the peaks in the
    LTF curve closely match those seen in the DSTA curve for two 45-year periods. The first going from
    1865 to 1910 and the second from 1955 to 2000. During these two epochs, the aligned peaks of the
    LTF and the DSTA curves are separated from adjacent peaks by roughly the 9.6 years, which is close
    to the mean of 9.1 and 10.1469 years. In addition, the comparison shows that there is a 45-year
    period separating the first two epochs (i.e. from 1910 to 1955), and a period after the year 2000,
    where the close match between the timing of the peaks in LTF and DSTA curves breaks down, with the
    DSTA peaks becoming separated from their neighboring peaks by approximately 20 years.
    Hence, the variations in the rate of change of the smoothed HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies
    closely follow a “forcing” curve that is formed by the simple sum of two sinusoids, one with a 9.1-
    year period which matches that of the lunar tidal cycle, and the other with a period of 10.1469-years
    that matches that of half the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This is precisely what you would expect
    if the natural periodicities associated with the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles were driving the
    observed variations in the world mean temperature (about the long-term linear trend) on decadal
    time scales.

    • “ABSTRACT

      The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean
      atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean
      temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were
      to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural
      periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean
      temperature.”

      Yeah, what forcing? Fail right there!

    • Ian,
      There are some very simple editing processes that you can use in MS Word to remove unnecessary Manual line breaks (Coded as ^l).
      1. Use Control A to highlight all of the text.
      2. Use Control H to open the Find and Replace GUI.
      3. Find ^l and Replace All with a space.

      See https://www.howtogeek.com/89577/how-to-search-for-line-breaks-tabs-and-special-characters-in-ms-word/

      ABSTRACT
      The best way to study the changes in the climate “forcings” that impact the Earth’s mean atmospheric temperature is to look at the first difference of the time series of the world-mean temperature, rather than the time series itself. Therefore, if the Perigean New/Full Moon cycles were to act as a forcing upon the Earth’s atmospheric temperature, you would expect to see the natural periodicities of this tidal forcing clearly imprinted upon the time rate of change of the world’s mean temperature.
      Using both the adopted mean orbital periods of the Moon, as well as calculated algorithms based upon published ephemerides, this paper shows that the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles exhibit two dominant periodicities on decadal time scales. The first is 10.1469 years, which is half of the 20.2937-year Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This represents the time required for the resynchronization of the phases of the Moon with the epochs when the perigee of the lunar orbit points directly towards or directly away from the Sun. The second is 9.0554 years, which closely matches the 9.0713-year Lunar Tidal Cycle (LTC). This is the harmonic mean of the prograde 8.8475-year Lunar Anomalistic Cycle (LAC) and half of the retrograde 18.6134-year Lunar Nodal Cycle (LNC). Hence, if the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycle were to act as a “forcing” on the world’s mean temperatures, you would expect to see periodicities in the first difference of the world’s mean temperature anomaly (WMTA) data that were a simple sinusoidal superposition of the two dominant periods associated with the Equinox(/Solstice) spring tidal cycles (i.e. 9.1 and 10.1469 tropical years).
      This paper makes a comparison between two times series that describe these phenomena. The first time series represents the lunar tidal forcing (LTF) curve. This curve is a superposition of a sine wave of amplitude 1.0 unit and period 9.1 tropical years, with a sine wave of amplitude 2.0 units and a period 10.1469 (= 9 FMC’s) tropical years, that is specifically aligned to match the phase of the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. The second time series represents the difference curve for the HadCRUT4 monthly (Land + Sea) world mean temperature anomaly (DSTA), from 1850 to 2017. A comparison between the LTF and DSTA curves shows that that the timing of the peaks in the LTF curve closely match those seen in the DSTA curve for two 45-year periods. The first going from 1865 to 1910 and the second from 1955 to 2000. During these two epochs, the aligned peaks of the LTF and the DSTA curves are separated from adjacent peaks by roughly the 9.6 years, which is close to the mean of 9.1 and 10.1469 years.
      In addition, the comparison shows that there is a 45-year period separating the first two epochs (i.e. from 1910 to 1955), and a period after the year 2000, where the close match between the timing of the peaks in LTF and DSTA curves breaks down, with the DSTA peaks becoming separated from their neighboring peaks by approximately 20 years. Hence, the variations in the rate of change of the smoothed HadCRUT4 temperature anomalies closely follow a “forcing” curve that is formed by the simple sum of two sinusoids, one with a 9.1- year period which matches that of the lunar tidal cycle, and the other with a period of 10.1469-years that matches that of half the Perigean New/Full moon cycle. This is precisely what you would expect if the natural periodicities associated with the Perigean New/Full moon tidal cycles were driving the observed variations in the world mean temperature (about the long-term linear trend) on decadal time scales.

      • Philip Mulholland, Thank you for correcting my egregious faux pas! I was cutting and pasting the text from the screen to Wordpad and it added line breaks to the text without my knowledge.

        I greatly appreciate your kind advice. I will try to use it future when I am in a rush.

  25. I can see a few facts as a layman…
    99% of the climate model predictions are wrong – only the Russian model is close to the actual observations.
    Sea level rise has not accelerated from 7-9 inches per century for over 100 years.
    The Warm periods of the Roman times and the Medieval warm period existed before increased CO2 became a factor.
    The Vikings did a lot of livestock raising and farming on Greenland way before today.
    Most of the predictions of doom since the 70’s never came to true…
    And a lot of other facts…
    -JPP

  26. Bindidon, October 6th. Regarding details, I thought
    that those a lot younger than me could just click onto it.

    It was John Maynard Keyes,. “When the facts change I
    change my mind, what do you do Sir.”

    In my younger days like when I was 23 he was a hero of
    mine, in being able at that time to apparently explained
    the facies about what caused “”The Great Depression”
    of the 19390 tees, which then became a major factor in
    the probable cause of WW2.

    His ideas about the science of economics influenced
    hundreds of economists from the Brinton Wood days.

    But later on one of the dreaded “New Ideas” men came
    along, and I think from then on Wall Street continued to
    make a mess of the Worlds economy.

    For the record I am a hard right Conservative, but I do
    wish that economics were a lot more of a proper
    “Science”.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • Fact – Lord Maynard Keynes famous tome, General Theory, printed first in Hitler’s Germany with the following preface :
      The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.
      The other London School of Economics prof. von Hayek is even worse, basing economics on a bee hive,
      Mandevilles Grumbling Hive.

      No kidding. No science there.
      For that you need the science pf physical economy, monetarism being but a shadow.

  27. “”Australia is a land of droughts”” True so lets build
    Dams. We should not allow a drop of fresh water to
    enter the sea.

    So expect the usual scream from all of the wild river
    types, such as those who successfully blocked the Gordon
    below Franklin in Tasmania.

    If those who long to gaze at a wild river, and have no
    work worries as the rest of us have, I would suggest
    that they go to countries such as Papua New Guinea.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • There is an AU$25m project (Somewhere relatively “remote” I don’t recall where) suggested to do exactly that; Build a friggin dam! Of course, we here in Australia could have been doing this for a couple of hundred years, at least!

  28. Bonbon, October 7th. Yes what Keyes said is correct,
    just look at China. We in the West do not do things that
    way, but there is no doubt that a dictator can get things
    done.

    MJE VK5ELL

  29. Patrick,

    Most equatorial Kelvin waves are generated by the interaction between the diurnal variations in the atmospheric mean-sea level pressure and the atmospheric and oceanic lunisolar tides.

    https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-lunar-tidal-mechanism-for-generating.html

    When they are convectively de-coupled, these Kelvin waves travel from west to east along the Equator at ~ 15-20 m/sec. Sometimes, these Kevin waves become convectively-coupled off the East coast of equatorial Africa. where they develop into a slower-moving hybrid equatorial wave that has the characteristics of a (westerly moving) equatorial Rossby wave and (easterly moving) Kelvin. This new is called a Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO).

    When the lunisolar geometry is right (about every 4.5 years), these MJOs develop significant westerly wind bursts (WWBs) in the far western Pacific ocean (above New Guinea) that weaken the equatorial trade winds (that normally blow from east to west). This leads to a sudden pulse of warm ocean water across the equatorial Pacific towards the east in the form of an oceanic Kelvin wave, trigging an El Nino event.
    [Note that this is a very rough description of what really happens, so please don’t niggle over the minutia at this point].

    Major El Nino events (along with their counterpart, the La Nina) play a crucial role in the overall warming and cooling of the Earth on decadal times scales. This takes places through:

    a) a redistribution of thermal heat in the equatorial oceans to higher latitudes where it is lost to space.
    b) changes in the wind pattern and speeds in the tropics and mid-latitude (e.g. the tropical jet-stream and mid-latitude Rossby Waves)
    c) changes in the cloud patterns along the equator, in the tropics and in the mid-latitudes that alter the flow of energy into and out of the Earth’s climate system.

    Obviously, it far more complex than the simple description given here but hopefully you get the picture.

    Keeping it professional – you’re welcome!

    • Thanks for the post. Is this your definition of forcing, or just some mechanisms involved? I don’t see how this “forces” anything.

      force (fôrs)
      n.
      1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
      2.
      a. Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail.
      b. The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force.
      3.
      a. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech.
      b. Moral strength.
      c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation.
      d. One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.
      4.
      a. A body of persons or other resources organized or available for a certain purpose: a large labor force.
      b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics.
      5.
      a. Military strength.
      b. A unit of a nation’s military personnel, especially one deployed into combat: Our armed forces have at last engaged the enemy.
      6. Physics
      a. A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a body in the direction of its application. Newton’s second law of motion states that a free body accelerates in the direction of the applied force and that its acceleration is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to its mass.
      b. See fundamental force.
      7. Baseball A force play.
      tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
      1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
      2.
      a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
      b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
      c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
      3.
      a. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse.
      b. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum.
      c. To produce with effort and against one’s will: force a laugh in spite of pain.
      d. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness.
      4.
      a. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd.
      b. To break down or open by force: force a lock.
      5. To rape.
      6. To induce change in (a complex system) by changing one of its parameters: greenhouse gases that force the earth’s climate.
      7. Botany To cause to grow or mature by artificially accelerating normal processes.
      8. Baseball
      a. To put (a runner) out on a force play.
      b. To allow (a run) to be scored by walking a batter when the bases are loaded.
      9. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).

      Using the word forcing suggests to me “something” (CO2) is making “something else” (Climate) do “something” that is not “usual” or “normal”. Which of course is complete nonsense.

      • Sophist: A sophist is someone who makes a couple of good points about an issue — until you realize those points are being used to mislead people.

        This is what Patrick MJD is trying to do. He hopes that by fixating on the term “forcing”, he will be able to misdirect everyone away from the ideas that are being proposed. I will not be responding to any more of his posts.

      • I agree, Forcing is a bad term in science. It seems to be prelavent in ‘climate science’ I was trained in physics including geophysics and never heard of or used it prior to the advent of the new age ‘climate science’ Pre 1990 any climate science was in the realm of Atmospheric Physics of which I studied undergrad.

  30. The thing about water is quite simple. It’s refractive index (N2) is about 1.27 for solar radiation and about 1.33 for LWIR. With the help of Fresnel equations you can calculate the specific emissivity (LWIR) and absorptivity (solar radiation) of water and the results are very nearby. With an absorptivity/emissivity relation of almost 1, water will naturally take on the temperature of a perfect black body (where this relation is 1 by definition), which is about 279K. The little delta here makes it actually more like 278K, but anyhow.

    So with water being the dominant surface type on Earth, this is the temperature Earth would have if it was not for the atmosphere. The atmosphere effect (or “GHE”) is thus merely 10K.

    But all that and much more is to be found here…

    https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21

  31. We are witnessing the life cycle of a massive international fraud .
    Money to be made on the way up has peaked and now transition to make money on it as it deflates .
    The models are incomplete . Who knew ?
    Natural variables alter the earths temperature . Another astonishing fact with a 4 billion year history .

    Instead of working on and solving environmental problems $trillions were funneled to rent seekers and added taxes to prop up governments .

    Humans are hard wired to forget the past and be used as cannon fodder .

  32. Good in general especially about the ridiculous notion that the ice caps could be melted.
    I dont agree with the notion of ANY greenhouse gas theory of CO2. It doesnt exist, there I will fall foul of some in science. Well sorry.
    Therefore there cannot be ANY additional heat from CO2.

Comments are closed.