Model Madness – Parallels Between Failed Climate Models And Failed Coronavirus Models

PODCAST with Dr. Roy Spencer – Climate models and coronavirus models are being used to set public policy. Both have proven to be failures. It’s that old “uncertainty monster” again.

Climate models and coronavirus models have both been used to predict the future, and both have been used to form public policy. In this podcast between Anthony Watts and UAH climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, we examine the common denominator of failure they both share. We also look at why Carbon Dioxide hasn’t been visibly reduced due to the economic shutdowns.

Podcast with Dr. Roy Spencer, conducted by Anthony Watts

Advertisements

151 thoughts on “Model Madness – Parallels Between Failed Climate Models And Failed Coronavirus Models

  1. Again, models are meant to test our understanding of the thing they represent. THEY ARE NOT FOR PREDICTIVE PURPOSES!

        • It is true that everyone has a faith (e.g. assumptions, assertions, axioms). To be fair, there is a soft separation of logical domains. Still we have at least a consensus of common experience. Science is a philosophy and practice in the near-domain, where we live, observe, and reproduce.

        • The null hypothesis is that the world is real, while our perception of it is a hypothesis, albeit with a near-universal, reproducible consensus over space and time… at least of quality, but not necessarily quantity.

          • n.n
            April 30, 2020 at 5:01 pm

            Please answer this simple very simple question.

            “how do you know you have ten fingers!!!”

            There can not be consensus in this one… unless we agree to a basic condition.

            cheers

        • No there are absolutes like the law of acceleration applied to a falling body. If you jump out of a hundred floor building it fairly absolute you will die(as to death what happen to someone after death is indeed an unknow, we have little evidence our existence will go beyond that.) Much of the physical world is know like the freezing point of pure water, the speed of light in a vacuum. Far more is unknow yet we do know some absolutes at this point and time does not change.

      • GCM’s are low level models. Their failure is not cross checking results with a high level behavior model based on the bulk average behavior of the planet which MUST conform to the laws of physics. The only 2 relevant laws are the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and Conservation of Energy where the only unknowns are the albedo and the effective emissivity of matter at the average temperature of the surface relative to the emissions at TOA. The effective emissivity and the albedo are both quite consistent from year to year and easily measured to a relatively high precision. The resulting transient emissions sensitivity is 1 W/m^2 of incremental surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing corresponding to about 0.2C per W/m^2 and an equilibrium emissions sensitivity of 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing corresponding to about 0.3C per W/m^2. Note that the emissions sensitivity is the inverse of the effective emissivity of 0.62 W/m^2 at TOA per W/m^2 of surface emissions.

        It turns out that the data confirms that the average effective emissivity is independent of the temperature, forcing and just about anything else, apparently even CO2 concentrations which is most likely why high level models are not used to validate low level models.

        • The emissivity of water AT PHASE CHANGE is zero as the process occurs at CONSTANT temperature. I don’t think the models take that into account. Around 694 Watthrs. of energy per kilogram of water evaporated is involved here; so excluding it is not very sensible.

          • Alasdair,

            The problem isn’t that latent heat isn’t accounted for, but that it’s accounted for twice.
            Latent heat enters the atmosphere as water vapor and returns to the surface as liquid water. To the extent that the liquid water returning is a different temperature than the water that was evaporated, it’s effect becomes embodied by the surface temperature and its radiant emissions. Counting latent heat plus its return to the surface as contributing to the RADIANT energy balance is a red herring to inflate the bogus ‘back radiation’ term with non radiant energy in order to make it look more important than it actually is.

            The average surface temperature is the state of the system, T, and relative to the radiant balance defining that equilibrium state, only the SB missions of the surface at T matters. All other energy leaving the surface (and then returning) has a zero sum influence on the steady state W/m^2 flux at the surface since all of their effects are already embodied in the T and the NET radiant emissions arise from the T and only the T.

    • On the contrary, they are all we have. For prediction,

      The fact that in the case of climate they are wholly inadequate and in the case of a pandemic only of limited use, does not alter that.

      The myth of of Physics Envy assumes that Science and Mathematics can predict anything.

      The truth would horrify most people

    • Why are you YELLING at us, its not us that are using the models for prediction, or bastardizing science

    • simple question.

      It’s feb 17th

      The US death toll stands at 0
      The US case count stands at 68.

      The CEO of your New York city hospital wants to know

      How many cases should he plan for?
      How many beds will he need
      How many ventilators?

      These are real questions.

      How do you answer a question about the future?

      Hint? you have to model unless you have a time machine.

      So What is your answer?

      • My answer is that they should have used flu demograpthics as their baseline. They should have had a good number for how many were immunized against the flu leaving a population similar to that which would be affected the corona virus. They already know the percentage of the non-immunized for flu that get infected. They know the percentage that get the flu that require hospitalization and ventalation.

        So they should have had a baseline to start from From there it is just a matter of adjusting for infection rate and hospitalization rate of corona virus vs the flue.

        It’s not obvio9us that they did this. Based on what we’ve seen it looks like they tried to build their own model which they fed with independent assumptions. That’s why they were so far off on hospitalization numbers and ventilator numbers.

        Jeessh, if they had just used the flu model they would have been closer!

        • “My answer is that they should have used flu demograpthics as their baseline.”

          that would be wildly wrong.

          But go ahead.

          Go get the flu demographic ESTIMATES

          starting with 0 deaths and 68 cases on Feb 17th,

          SHOW US your math.

          go ahead

        • Here. use this

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

          https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2017-2018.htm#table1

          Its march 1 you have 1 case in New York. Population 19Milliom

          using FLU data, predict the Hospitalizations and deaths for New york at the end of
          2 months.

          ANNUAL FLU related hospitalizations for ENTIRE country? 808,000
          or 70K per month.
          For New York? ~6% of the population gives you 8400 Hospitalizations for march april

          Guess what? the PEAK hospitalizations for covid in New York were 20,000

          ANNUAL Flu DEATHS? 61,000 or ~5K per month. 10K for 2 months,
          600 for new york.
          Guess what your prediction is a joke.

          why?

          https://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

          Also

          https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/as-nyc-nears-1000-covid-19-deaths-how-does-it-compare-to-typical-flu-seasons/2352180/

          • Now do the IHME model. Guess what, your prediction is a joke. And yes, that includes comparisons with mitigation assumed.

          • Excuse me but you estimate in this case must be made on the assumption that this virus is new and there is no herd immunity. Even if you modeled on that you would be wrong. Models are worthless unless you have data, in this case you had not data, only what was going on in China Italy and Spain. Yet the variables will eat a modeler assumption alive. So all you got is to look at the past, and Steve in the four pandemics I been in this one coming in third. In the five last pandemics it is in forth place. If you would have perhaps figure it might been two to three time worse than the flu since it was it first run you would have been a lot closer than any of the models. If you would have modeled it on the 1957 pandemic you would have been high yet not out magnitudes off like the models were. Looking at past pandemics and WAG it would have been better ant the WAG the modelers took this time. Now Steve that someone who use to spread said computer all over the place to fix them. I learned this fifty years ago a power tool rather than by hand will get the job done a lot faster but a mistake will be as large as the speed of the tool! To bad you and the modeler don’t get this!

          • I didn’t say to use the flu model as it is.

            I said to use the unvaccinated population and the flu’s impact on that population to develop a base for the flu model. I also said to use the known infection rates and hosptalization rates. By March 1 we at least had an estimate of both based on the experience in China and Italy.

            “So they should have had a baseline to start from From there it is just a matter of adjusting for infection rate and hospitalization rate of corona virus vs the flue.”

            Perhaps you should read what people write before flying off at the handle.

        • such a system as you suggest is how we get to the point of…”Oh my, how could our assumptions come so far from a good prediction?” small input change biggv output change. but, hey its theff math, noTV the topic, that mas kes this inevitable. whethet it is future temp, or future infections, deaths….. all the number chunching for answers is highly guestimated within a +/_ range you dont want to think of dealing with.

      • How many?
        The virus is another flu with different characteristics.
        Expect the flu to spread.
        Check your medical supplies.
        Cut travel from the sources.
        We have numbers from previous years.
        We have flu every year.
        There.

      • So What is your answer?

        You would have to go with the experts because well, they’re the “experts.”

        So:

        You panic everyone on staff in your hospital.
        You panic the public.
        You start spending a lot of money on equipment.
        You cry out to the governor.
        The governor starts spending taxpayer money on equipment.
        The governor cries out to the president to build hospitals.
        The president builds hospitals.
        The governor cries out that’s not enough.
        The president comforts him (and you) by sending Comfort.

        Then . . .

        A statistically insignificant number of people (182) get treated on Comfort.
        Hardly anybody is treated in the temp hospitals Trump built: https://tinyurl.com/yd4yyboa
        You bought a bunch of ventilators you don’t need: https://tinyurl.com/y7kjg7tu

        If you’re a progressive democrat policy maker you label all this a success and start fundraising for the next election. Mind you, all the while blaming Trump for not getting Comfort and the hospitals there sooner, and for whatever other general sickness, death, mayhem, etc., you can manage to string together in a 30 second advertising soundbite.

        • sarcasm is funny. but it’s not an answer to my question.
          ‘its your admission that you cant do math

          Do the math
          show your work.

          your CEO wants an answer cause he doesnt pay you to be a smart ass.

          I’m guessing you have never been tasked with the job of estimating critical numbers
          under conditions of deep uncertainty.

          Here’ s a bet you can’t even begin to do the math and show your work.

          the challenge.

          Feb 17th
          68 cases in the USA
          0 deaths.

          Predict the end of April numbers.
          Go ahead.
          you can’t

          • sarcasm is funny.

            Dood you’re the best! Thanks!

            ‘its your admission that you cant do math

            Not even wrong.

            I can’t even begin to do math. I recently made a really embarrassing public boo-boo here by missing a simple calculation by a full order of magnitude. I wish I’d kept it, I’d link it here. It’s pretty funny. But I don’t seem to have any trouble at all reading music. Go figure?

            Here’ s a bet you can’t even begin to do the math and show your work.

            I’ll take that bet. $1000US says I’ll do the “math” showing my work and fail the prediction.

            We on? 🙂

            But seriously here’s the thing. If on Feb 17 you do the professional math showing your work, and I guess that work will be at the highest level, you too will fail the prediction. Unless you have an example of a model that didn’t.

            I didn’t get it right.
            You didn’t get it right.

            What’s the difference between us? That you got closer in the useless prediction, if you did?

            I actually did answer the question within my sarcasm. Isn’t most of what I laid out above exactly what happened when NY went with the modeling solution? Other than the snipes at democrats, where did I go wrong?

      • I’m sure the same question in a slightly different form was asked of the village shaman for thousands of years.

      • You don’t use a bottom up model with spurious accuracy. If you don’t know the key numbers, you can’t model how those numbers are made up and claim to produce the answer – you don’t know the key numbers because you don’t know the numbers that make them up. You are just modelling your ignorance at a lower level.

        If you don’t know, you don’t know. A model doesn’t change your knowledge. So you have to guess. I have no problem with that, and if people get it wrong, so be it. But claiming to be following “the science” is either a lie or ignorance of what the advice actually is.

        Ventilators? Say y% of people infected at the peak, and x% will need a ventilator. Your model is going to be no better than that.

        • A cogent and succinct description of what happened. Wags justified by “science” and ineffective models.

    • Really? Then what do you use for prediction, Mr (or Mrs) ScienceABC123? A ouija board? casting entrails? wishful thinking?

      • Most here made the wrong assumption that it was just another flu.
        Now they have to deny any data that shows this assumption was questionable.

        Kinda like holocaust d*iners

        • Tell me honestly was it worst that the 1957 pandemic, yes that was a flu, is it worse than the 1968 pandemic that was just another flu. Now is it worse than a bad flu season well the jury is out on that. It is bad but not worth destroying life as we know it and that the path were are on so grow up. The 1957 and 1968 were largely ignored due to the fact people alive back then had live through the Spanish flu WI and WII so those and this in retrospect is a scratch compared to all three or them, grow up snowflakes! I was to young to remember the 1975 pandemic yet I was delivering paper in the 1968 pandemic and read the paper every day before I delivered them it was hardly covered!

        • Right, all those reputable scientists far better qualified on this subject than you, are Holocaust Deniers. So far we don’t know how many people are infected nor how many people have actually died from it, yet you do know. Becayse your opinion, even when based on obvious and demonstrable ignorance, is always right.

          Your arrogance and unpleasantness are unlimited.

    • @Zoe

      ~340 W/m² is what is claimed for the total greenhouse gas backradiation effect, as shown in the ‘official’ energy budget here. That’s not surprising, because the greenhouse gas effect is just geothermal flipped upside down. It’s the biggest scam in climate science, and you heard it here first.

      Zoe, I believe you are the one who is upside-down on understanding why the radiation from that longwave “star” (named Earth) seems to equal the shortwave radiation it receives from that other star (named Sol). It is because virtually all of the ~340 W/m² power radiated by Earth actually came from the Sun originally. Except (as you have so diligently pointed out) for a few dozen mW/m² of escaping geothermal heat (which you somehow believe rivals Sol’s output).

      You are correct that the radiating “CSR” Stefan-Boltzmann flux is indeed inversely related to the geothermal “CHF” flux from below the surface. That is because it represents a loss term in Fourier’s heat equation, i.e. the net flux available for warming the surface is reduced by this loss (which escapes to outer space):
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation#Accounting_for_radiative_loss

      But a 91 milliWatt/m² heat flux generator could no more heat the Earth’s surface to its present condition, than a handful of AA alkaline batteries run your home electric furnace. Ohm’s Law explains that the AA cell internal resistance to current flow is too high to satisfy the current requirements of an electric furnace. In the same sense, Fourier’s Law explains that the internal thermal ‘resistance’ of the Earth (reciprocal of thermal conductivity) is too high to support enough geothermal CHF flux needed to keep the Earth at comfortable levels (to replace the much larger CSR flux radiated to space).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier's_law
      I think it will help you understand your heat theory error, if you understand that Fourier’s Law is the exact thermal analogy to Ohm’s law
      Ohm: charge flux (‘current’) is proportional to electrostatic field gradient (‘voltage’)
      Fourier: heat flux is proportional to temperature gradient

      They both describe physical flux models, which create potentials for doing work (thermal or electrical). But to flourish they must be sustained against losses, or each point will take on the average values if its neighbors such that any large system losses will tend to diminish the gradients and reduce the flux.

      The total geothermal CHF heat flux (~91 mW/m² ) is indeed negligible, compared to the radiative CSR flux induced by solar heating (~340 W/m²).

      To put it in another perspective, think of your CHF as ‘ terrestrial irradiance’ received from the ‘Earth Star’ (i.e geothermal flux from the inside of the planet Earth). Then compare that to the mean solar irradiance received by the planet Pluto, 6 billion km distant, which amounts to about 900 mW/m². That is ten times greater than the geothermal flux which leaks weakly from the inside of the Earth!
      https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/solar-radiation-in-space

      So do you think Pluto is warmer now than the Earth, because, according to your theory, geothermal flux is totally responsible for warming the Earth while Pluto receives tenfold more than that?

      • “It is because virtually all of the ~340 W/m² power radiated by Earth actually came from the Sun originally”

        Only ~165 W/m^2 reaches the surface.
        The atmosphere needs ~505 W/m^2, as is even shown in the official energy budget.

        “But a 91 milliWatt/m² heat flux generator could no more heat the Earth’s surface to its present condition, than a handful of AA alkaline batteries run your home electric furnace.”

        Wow, just shows you didn’t even read my link.

        There is an INFINITE varities of profiles that have a heat flux of 91 milliWatt/m².

        Put a frying pan on a stove. Turn it on, and watch CHF go to zero. According to you, you then can’t cook anything on it.

      • I think the problem is that you’re hung up on the number 340. The actual CSR is 332, by one measure, and 335 by another. The fact that it’s close to TOA insolation is irrelevant.

        My numbers are meant to explain surface temperatures. Surface gets 160-163 from the sun. The rest comes from geothermal.

        The conductive heat flux is just a gradient measure.

        I have two videos at the end here:
        http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

        I understanding equating conductive heat flux to radiative heat flux is a POPULAR thing to do, and yet thete NOT ONE experiment to support it. NONE!

      • “… you’re hung up on the number 340….”

        No, I merely used your figures (and acronyms) to avoid confusion.

        But you seem to be hung up on the “CSR = CHF” mantra. Of course the geothermal heat flux leaking through the lithosphere is not going to be the same as the heat flux radiating from the surface of the lithosphere. Your “CHF” is purely geothermal, and very small, less than 100 milliWatts per m², whereas the “CSR” is almost entirely a transmogrification of incoming solar shortwave radiation, thus generating a much, much larger heat flux flow from the surface.

        Your idea to solve for Tc in the Fourier law formula using the S-B relation is not new, and is not exactly what you think it is. So your Tc is not a pure geothermal top boundary of heat conduction, but a mixture of solar and geothermal. The S-B term is the “radiative loss” term in the Fourier heat equation:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation#Accounting_for_radiative_loss

        Note that this “loss” term is actually a “loss/gain” term, because it contains two temperatures: a negative u which computes the loss from Tc, and a positive v which is the temperature of the surroundings (including solar) which actually tends to amplify the final heat flow computed, because the solar effect is orders of magnitude larger than geothermal.

        So, to measure the geothermal heat flow accurately (as was done in the Davies&Davies survey for example) it was important use deep borehole measurements wherever possible, at least 30m below the surface. Otherwise the measurements are more difficult and easily contaminated by surface climate/solar/hydraulic processes.

        For example, here are some comments by Graeme Beardsmore, one of the world’s greatest authorities on geothermal heat flow measurements (his work used by Davies&Davies in their study):

        The derivation of vertical heat flow, however, requires separate measurements of vertical thermal gradient and thermal conductivity. Thermal gradient can only be calculated from measurements of temperature at two or more discrete depths. This requires that instruments be penetrated into the ground, typically down a borehole. The requirement for a borehole immediately makes a heat flow ‘measurement’ far more logistically challenging than a gravity measurement. In addition, while the gravitational constant, G, is (obviously) a constant, thermal conductivity is a variable. Ideally, it should be measured in a laboratory using rock samples representative of the interval over which thermal gradient was calculated.
        When such rock samples are not available, conductivity can also be estimated from previous measurements of the same rock type, although the uncertainty of such estimates is higher than for actual measurements. Clearly, a single heat flow calculation might only be achieved after a substantial drilling, coring, logging and testing program.
        Another challenge is that the assumption of pure steady state conductive heat flow does not always hold true. Any departure from those conditions also means a departure from the mathematical analogy with gravity. The daily and seasonal solar cycles introduce a time-varying component to heat flow, invalidating the ‘steady state’ assumption in the top 30 m or so of the Earth’s surface (Beardsmore and Cull, 2001). Borehole measurements must generally be obtained from greater depths to avoid the disturbance. Even at depths away from the surface disturbance, groundwater flow can transfer heat by advection, in which case the assumption of ‘pure conduction’ is invalidated.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314267176_Heat_Flow_The_Neglected_Potential_Field_for_Mineral_Exploration

        But you seem to think most of the Earth’s upwelling thermal radiation is geothermal. I think you are misinterpreting the Tc calculation in your CSR equation. [Or perhaps you have new borehole measurements with readings in the hundreds of watts per m²?]

        BTW, I am aware that there are hotspots where the upwelling geothermal heat flux exceeds 100 mW. Volcanoes, of course. But also certain spots in Antarctica, where lithosphere is thinner than expected. These spots are under kilometers of ice, so hard to use borehole technology, but can be found by measuring Curie depth using airborne sensors: Curie depth normally 20-60 km, but there are spots where it varies from 8-32 km
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320901105_Heat_Flux_Distribution_of_Antarctica_Unveiled_Antarctic_heat_flux_unveiled

        • “So, to measure the geothermal heat flow accurately (as was done in the Davies&Davies survey for example) it was important use deep borehole measurements wherever possible, at least 30m below the surface.”

          I use Davies and Davies. What an odd comment. If I used shallow heat flux it would indeed be tainted by thr sun and be NEGATIVE. It’s not negative.

          “than 100 milliWatts per m², whereas the “CSR” is almost entirely a transmogrification of incoming solar shortwave radiation,”

          No!

          “So your Tc is not a pure geothermal top boundary of heat conduction, but a mixture of solar and geothermal.”

          No!

          Tc is completely based on geothermal in my calculation. There is ZERO solar considered in my calculation. NONE. How do you still not understand that?

          ~340 geothermal +
          ~165 solar

          =

          ~398 upwelling ir +
          ~107 latent+sensible heat

          If I considered solar at the top, it would be 505. Of course 107 would go to sensible & latent heat, and you’d be left with 398, about 16C.

          You don’t want to be believe that the Earth is hot inside and can conduct, so you cling to the stupid belief that ~340 somehow originates from the atmosphere because ~240 has difficulty cooling. LOL. OK.

          You believe:
          Hot can’t heat cold, but cold can warn up if prevented from cooling to even colder.

          Sounds to me like a form of mental illness. Sorry to say.

        • Tc is completely based on geothermal in my calculation. There is ZERO solar considered in my calculation. NONE. How do you still not understand that?

          ~340 geothermal +
          ~165 solar

          Science is not all theory. There must be actual measurements to confirm your hypothetical calculations.

          So where are the physical measurements that show your “340 geothermal” heat flux coming from inside the Earth, all over the entire globe?

          The Davies&Davies survey (which you paradoxically seem to accept) , through analysis of almost 40,000 borehole temperature gradient measurements over most of the globe, estimated a total upwelling thermal flux of 47 TW, divided by surface area => 91.6 mW/m²

          J. H. Davies & D. R. Davies, “Earth’s surface heat flux”,
          https://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/se-1-5-2010.pdf [2010]

          So I am asking you: what is the measured geothermal flux at the surface: ~340 W/m² or ~90 mW/m²? It cannot be both.

          • Johanus,
            I wrote a whole article explaining the difference between two types of fluxes. Read it again.

            You do understand that just because both fluxes have m^2 does’t mean they measure the same thing.

            Look at where the m^2 comes in the conduction formula. It comes from k and L. L is orthogonal to the area of emergent flux. The DEPTH has nothing to do with the surface area of the emergent flux.

            By analogy:
            Do you understand that the amount of rain falling on a building has nothing to do with its height or material?

          • I think you did not answer my question directly because you know that _measured_ terrestrial geothermal flux does not fit your theory. So this means your theory is falsified by 40,000 measurements in the Davies&Davies paper alone. There are probably enough boretube calorimeters sampling continously in the world right now to falsify your theory at least a million times per day.

            Is this not enough evidence to contradict your theory, many times over?

            Apparently not. You are trying to save your theory by attempting to redefine the meaning of “heat flux”. You claim that the Fourier heat conduction law actually supports two kinds of heat flux, one that is detectable by everyone and the other apparently only understood by you.

            Look at where the m^2 comes in the conduction formula. It comes from k and L. L is orthogonal to the area of emergent flux. The DEPTH has nothing to do with the surface area of the emergent flux.

            You are right, the L unit independent of the area. So what? The m² units belong to the denominator of the heat flux expression. The ordering of the calculation steps has no bearing on nature of heat flux, because you get the same answer anyway you interpret it!

            There is only one Fourier law. Conductive heat flux is well defined and independent of your interpretation of the units.

            The real issue here is your addition of the S-B relation, which I have told you is already understood as the ‘radiative loss’ term. In any case it has to be computed as an ‘excess radiation’ term compared to the surroundings. If the surroundings are similar to Tc then this will be relatively small, and would still falsify your theory.

            By analogy:
            Do you understand that the amount of rain falling on a building has nothing to do with its height or material?

            Yes, I understand that. Using that analogy, the L term would have no effect on the heat flux, which would be false. It would have a huge, linear effect. L clearly serves as a measure of resistance to conduction. Double L and conduction is halved. And A serves as a measure of admittance. Double A and conduction is doubled.

            So you do not even understand your own theory correctly. And it doesn’t generate flux values that agree with actual boretube measurements.

            Double FAIL.

  2. RE: RGHE Model

    For energy to move (heat) from a cold system to a warm system requires the addition of work. That is an absolute iron clad law of thermodynamics. A refrigeration loop is an example of that required work.

    People who claim to measure downwelling energy from the sky towards the earth’s surface have results that clearly violate that law and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They better have a darn good explanation.

    Here’s the heart of the problem.

    A theoretical S-B calculation at an average surface temperature of 16 C, 289 K, shows upwelling LWIR at 396 W/m^2. That much upwelling LWIR cannot reach ToA because that really would violate energy conservation. There’s only 342 W/m^2 arriving from the sun in the first place.

    So, where else can it go?

    63 W/m^2 closes the balance to ToA so the remaining 333 W/m^2 has to stay in the atmosphere. Can’t leave ToA so what it must do is 100% perpetually return/loop/”back” radiate to the surface. These sky looking instruments are manipulated to confirm the presence of that downwelling/”back” LWIR energy.

    The instruments are manipulated, i.e. tweaked, to deliver an expected result. If an instrument were pointed to the sky and found nothing that would be very^4 bad. Because not only would there be no evidence of down welling LWIR there could be no net upwelling LWIR.

    I have demonstrated by experiment that the non-radiative heat transfer functions of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render ideal BB LWIR upwelling from the surface impossible.

    There is no 396 W/m^2 LWIR upwelling and no 333 W/m^2 downwelling and people who claim to measure either don’t know what they are doing.

    • A complete misapplication of the 2nd law.
      Any object that is above absolute zero radiates. Period. It matters not what the temperature of the bodies around it are, it will radiate.
      Molecules of air are objects, and they obey this rule. Some of that energy radiates down towards the earth. Some of that energy radiates up towards space.

      • 1) The earth is cooler with an atmosphere not warmer.
        2) BB upwelling LWIR is not possible.
        3) “Some of that energy radiates down towards the earth.” Per energy conservation absolutely not possible!!! It has to have that 333 W/m^2 loop which I have demonstrated as non-existent.
        4) Energy flows one direction – hot to cold and it does not matter what process. A cold system does not radiate toward a hot system, it radiates toward an even colder system – period! I think that is evident in my experiment as well.

        The amount of watts metered into the heating element left the surface. There was exactly zero evidence of the surrounding air radiating toward the heating element.

        https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW

        Experimentation, observation, data are the gold standard of science.
        What have you got?

        • Nick Schroeder – April 30, 2020 at 12:58 pm

          4) Energy flows one direction – hot to cold …….

          That is the was us humans describe the process, ….. but technically it isn’t so.

          A cold system does not radiate toward a hot system, it radiates toward an even colder system – period!

          Wrong again. Stand directly between two radiant heating stoves, one of them cooler/colder than the other, ….. and I am positive you will feel the radiated heat from both stoves.

          • I don’t understand the question. In this context net radiation doesn’t seem to have any meaning.

            Obviously since the hotter stove will emit more radiation, it will be sending more radiation to the cooler stove than the cooler stove sends to it.
            However if the cooler stove warms up a little bit, but still remains below the temperature of hotter stove, the cooler stove will emit more radiation than it did at it’s cooler temperature.
            As a result the warmer stove will receive more radiation from the cooler stove and as a result warm up.

        • Nick Schroeder – “Heat” flowing only from “hotter” to “colder” is true only of diffusive processes involving atomic and molecular collisions (in a fluid) or lattice vibrations (in a solid). And even then, it is actually not as absolute as you make out. In conduction through a gas, for example, the number of high kinetic energy molecules at the hot side exceeds that at the cold side, and the whole system seeks an equilibrium wherein the KE distribution in the gas is uniform throughout. While that’s going on, the highest-energy molecules on the cold side still “swim upstream.” There just aren’t as many swimming upstream as downstream.

          With radiative transport, the whole thing is even easier to see. Say you had two parallel black body metal plates stood off at some distance from each other, each with a temperature control, and each with a hole drilled in the middle so that you could look at each plate from the center of the other. Then you put a sensor in each hole to measure the radiative flux from the opposite plate. What you are saying amounts to the following: The hot plate radiation as seen from the middle of the cold plate would have a spectral energy distribution corresponding to the temperature of the hot plate obeying the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

          But if you measured the temperature of the colder plate from the hole in the middle of the hotter plate, you would see no radiation – because “heat” (i.e. energy) flows only from hotter to colder! That implies that the cold plate has to look as if it is at absolute zero, but only if seen from the perspective of the hot plate.

          The truth is that each plate is radiating at the other. In the absence of temperature controls, and if the two plates were in a vacuum, they would eventually equilibrate, both at some intermediate temperature.

          • What I’ve never understood is that if LWIR is actually “back” radiated to the earth then why isn’t the radiating energy from the surface of the earch increased as well.

            Consider your two plates. As the colder plate is heated by radiation from the hotter plate then the radiation from the colder plate toward the warmer plate *increases*. If it didn’t yuu would never reach equilibrium midway between the initial plate temps (which is actually probably aboslute zero as the back side of the plates radiate away!) In other words the colder plate would act like an infinite sink with an unchanging radiation level until the warmer plate reaches the same temp as the colder plate.

            To me the Earth is part of a three-plate system. One plate is space (absolute zero). The middle plate is the atmosphere, and the third plate is the Earth.

            The atmosphere plate radiates toward space and toward the earth. The earth plate radiates toward space and the atmosphere plate. If the earth plate absorbs SW radiation from the sun then its temp goes up and radiation from it heats the atmosphere plate and the space plate (an infinite sink). Now the atmosphere plate radiates back toward the earth plate and towards space. The raiation from the atmosphere plate towards the earth plate heats the Earth plate. That should cause the earth plate radiation toward space and the atmosphere plate to go up.

            Yet it would seem that the climate models want us to assume that the radiation from the atmosphere plate causes the temperature of the earth plate to rise with no increase in radiation from the earth plate.

            That would seem to violate the two-plate system you set up. It would be like the warmer plate heats the cooler plate thus increasing its temperature but that the cooler plate then never increases its radiation toward the warmer plate.

            Where am I going wrong?

          • I would never try to guess what the GCMs assume and don’t assume.

            However if the radiation from the atmosphere increases, then the temperature of the Earth will rise. If the temperature of the Earth rises, then the radiation from the earth will also increase.

            BTW, the temperature of space is about 3K. Close enough to absolute zero that it doesn’t mean much in terms of these examples.

          • Tim Gorman – April 30, 2020 at 4:38 pm

            The raiation from the atmosphere plate towards the earth plate heats the Earth plate. That should cause the earth plate radiation toward space and the atmosphere plate to go up.

            Tim, not exactly.

            It is the radiation from the “space” plate towards the earth that heats the “earth” plate. Radiation (visible light) from the “space” plate causes very little heating of the “atmosphere” plate.

            Yet it would seem that the climate models want us to assume that the radiation from the atmosphere plate causes the temperature of the earth plate to rise with no increase in radiation from the earth plate.

            Me thinks the “climate models” are programmed to cause the “atmosphere” plate to absorb the radiation from the “earth” plate and then re-radiate the majority of it right back to the “earth” plate, …. aka: increasing “global warming”.

          • MarkW,

            If the radiation from the earth plate increases then won’t it lose heat at a faster rate?

            The entire situation is more complicated than my example since the earth has a night and day. To me the issue is that, at night, the atmosphere slows down overall rate of heat loss to space thus limiting how much heat the earth can shed. That means higher temperatures are seen toward sunrise than in the past. Thus the overall oaverage would go up. But that is far from being a climate disaster based on higher maximum temperatures.

          • Samuel,

            I kind of envisioned the Sun being on the “back” side of the earth plate. It would heat the earth plate during the day thus increasing its radiation. At night the earth plate would keep on radiating toward the atmosphere plate.

            The temperature profile over 24 hours would look like sinusoidal (perhaps a distorted one). The temp of the earth plate rises to a peak when the sun is overhead and then falls as the angle of the sun falls as it approaches sunset – a sine wave. At night the temp profile of the earth plate starts starts falling toward a negative peak toward sunrise.

            During the daylight hours the net heat flus into the earth plate is dominated by the rasiation from the sun, any “back” radiation from the atmosphere is “swamped out” as we used to sa.y So the maximum daytime temp is set by the sun’s heat flus toward the earth plate.

            At night, however, the CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere has an impact on how much net heat flux the earth plate can shed during the night hours. Thus the negative peak of the nighttime temps could become less as H2O and CO2 impacts the heat flux from the atmosphere toward the earth plate.

            This is why it is reasonable to conjecture that the average global temperature is going up because the minimum temperature profile is changing while the daytime temp profile is not.

            This makes the claims of the climate alarmists that the earth is going to turn into a cinder and we are all going to die very dubious. Higher nighttime temps mean more poant growth and longer growing seasons – meaning more food for the human population and fewer deaths from cold temperatures. That’s a *good* thing, not a bad thing.

            Where am I going wrong?

          • Tim Gorman – May 1, 2020 at 5:58 am

            Samuel,

            Where am I going wrong?

            Tim,

            The 1st thing you need to do is acquire a better understanding of the science and then “restate” your first paragraph, to wit

            I kind of envisioned the Sun being on the “back” side of the earth plate. It would heat the earth plate during the day thus increasing its radiation. At night the earth plate would keep on radiating toward the atmosphere plate.

            Radiation of thermal “heat” energy back-n-forth between the earth’s surface, the atmosphere and space/Sun continues both day and night ….. and the only thing that changes is the intensity (amount) of the radiation being emitted by the 3 noted components.

            Atmospheric H2O vapor is the “wild card” in the above process.

          • Samuel,

            Since the energy from the sun is mostly short wave energy it doesn’t heat the atmosphere much from being absorbed by H2O or CO2.

            Therefore placing it “behind” the earth plate makes it an isolated source separate from the atmosphere. And the sun only radiates toward the earth plate during the day, not at night. That’s why it warming during the day than at night.

            It’s not a full picture of the system since it doesn’t account for conduction, convection, latent heat, albedo, etc but it gives a pretty good picture of the radiation components of the system if not their exact values.

            And it does explain, for me at least, why the average temp could be going up because of minimum temps going up instead of maximum temps going up.

            If it doesn’t work for you that’s too bad. And it’s too bad you have to resort to an ad hominem attack instead of correcting what the thought experiment lays out.

          • May 1, 2020 at 5:58 am “ The temp of the earth plate rises to a peak when the sun is overhead and then falls as the angle of the sun falls as it approaches sunset

            WRONG — your understanding of the science needs improvement.

            The earth’s surface is not the warmest when the sun is at the highest position in the sky (period of maximum daily insolation), the surface is warmest in the late afternoon, generally just 3 to 4 hours before the sun sets. The sun gradually warms the surface throughout the day.
            Read more @ https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/41/

            Tim, 1st you state this:

            May 1, 2020 at 5:58 am “This is why it is reasonable to conjecture that the average global temperature is going up

            Then you state this:

            And the sun only radiates toward the earth plate during the day, not at night.

            And you were talking “average global temperature” ….. which infers it ALWAYS daytime on 50% of the earth surface. So, even if its nighttime one place, sunlight is still striking the earth.

            May 2, 2020 at 7:51 am “It’s not a full picture of the system since it doesn’t account for conduction, convection, latent heat, albedo, etc

            But, but, but ……. Tim, …… conduction and convection are the two (2) most important methods of transporting thermal “heat” energy back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere, ….. and within the atmosphere.

            The “longwave” IR radiation between the surface and atmosphere …… might as well be “ZILCH” compared to the other two.

          • Samuel,

            I said: “The temp of the earth plate rises to a peak when the sun is overhead and then falls as the angle of the sun falls as it approaches sunset – a sine wave.”

            I didn’t say *anything* about the sun being at its highest peak. I said when the sun is overhead. Stop putting words in my mouth.

            If you are going to quote me then quote the ENTIRE CONTEXT!

            I said: “This is why it is reasonable to conjecture that the average global temperature is going up because the minimum temperature profile is changing while the daytime temp profile is not.”

            The average global temperature is made up of, at its finest granularity, daily average temp at a multitude of locations. At its finest granularity the location average is made up of daytime and nighttime temps. Thus the average daily temp can go up by the minimum temp profile changing. When this is carried through to a global average the same result would be seen – the global average would go up because minimum temps go up, not because maximum temps go up.

            Conduction and convection do nothing more than move heat upward (and downward). That has an impact on the temperature of the surface and the atmosphere. Sooner or later that heat gets radiated toward space, be it from the surface or from somewhere in the atmosphere. If that did not happen then the earth would have become a fireball long, long ago and humans would never have walked the face of the earth.

            You are digging yourself into a big hole by using argumentative fallacies. It would behoove you to stop digging.

        • 1) Sometimes yes, sometimes no
          2) In your world, molecules check to see which direction the earth is and always radiate the other way. The direction of radiation from a molecule is totally random and uniform when large numbers of molecules are considered.
          3) In number 2 you declare that radiation can’t be upwelling. Now you are claiming it can’t be downwelling. So what’s left, all radiation squirts out parallel to the ground? You have only demonstrated a complete mis-understanding of how radiation works.
          4) Energy flows in all directions. When you sum up all the flows, there appears to be a net flow in one direction. You seem to think that net flow is the only flow.

          What do I have, physics, raw, unadulterated physics.

      • Agreed that Nick S is mis-applying the laws of thermodynamics. He is arguing that a blanket cannot help you stay warm, because the blanket is at a lower temperature than your body. The role of the blanket is to slow the loss of heat from your body.

        The greenhouse gas argument is that, acting like a blanket, heat has a longer transit time from the Earth’s surface to final radiation out to the ultimate heat sink of outer space. As a result the concentration of heat energy in the atmosphere rise——ie the temperature rises.

        If the atmosphere were static and there were no clouds and if there were no saturation effects on the absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases, then the greenhouse gas theory would be likely be simple and true. Rising CO2 would cause warming of tge atmosphere.

        Unfortunately for the simplistic climate models that keep on failing, the atmosphere moves (transporting heat upwards with upwelling movement, especially in storms), clouds reflect light from the sun before it can heat the ground and seas, and it may be that indeed that IR absorption by the atmosphere is subject ti saturation at key wavelengths. And of course the function of the seas as heat sinks messes up any simplistic understanding of the rate of warming due to any radiative imbalance—-producing delays in the release of heat from the seas to the atmosphere both large and variable (variable because of the chaotic interaction of multiple ocean currents)

        It will be a long time before anyone can write a computer model that accurately predicts the global temp over time. Too many independent variables; too much intrinsic chaos.

      • the question is absorption … that is the 2nd law … the 2nd has nothing to do with radiating … its is about absorption … colder (lower radiation NOT ZERO) cannot heat up hotter (higher radiation) …

        • The “temperature” of an object depends on a balance between energy in and energy out.
          If there is more energy coming in than going out, the object heats up, which increases the amount of radiation going out until balance is restored.

          When a the amount of radiation coming in increases, the object will heat up until the energy out balances energy in.

          It doesn’t matter the tiniest bit what the temperature of the object that is emitting that radiation is. As long as it emits the hotter object will absorb it.

          • ‘The “temperature” of an object depends on a balance between energy in and energy out’

            LOL. No!

            The definition of temperature is average translational kinetic energy.

    • How does a photon being ejected from a molecule know in which direction to go? GPS? Is there something in the molecule that only lets it go in the direction of something colder than it is?

      If you put two plates facing each other in a vacuum, one 100K warmer than the other one, and a photon comes shooting out of the cooler plate directly towards the warmer one, will it miss?

        • There is no information in the photon indicating what the temperature of the emitting body was. The photon will be absorbed, regardless of where it came from.

    • “… people who claim….”
      Nick, objects emit photons. The energy of the summation of photons emitted is proportional to Tbody^4…when you integrate all the photons emitted and absorbed between, say, a hot and a cold body, it mathematically works out the net photon energy is proportional to Thot^4-Tcold^4. This net difference is called HEAT. Reinforcing, not breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and resulting in net flow of heat from hot to cold, even though lots of photons flow from cold to hot.
      Whatever you think you have proved re BB LWIR is simply incorrect. Think about your warm face radiating to your cold bedroom wall. You face is radiating say 490 W/m^2 worth of IR photons, but your body does not need to generate 490 W/m^2 to your face because the wall is radiating 400 watts worth of IR photons back to your face. Seems like a miracle.

      • “You face is radiating say 490 W/m^2 worth of IR photons, but your body does not need to generate 490 W/m^2 to your face because the wall is radiating 400 watts worth of IR photons back to your face.”

        Q = 490 – 400 = 90

        But the whole point of the climate scam is conserving Q, the heat flow.

        If the room temperature went up by 10 W/m^2 degree, the proper analogy of greenhouse effect would be to claim that your face warms up by 10 W/m^2.

        Q = 500 – 410 = 90

        That’s what you guys do!

        In reality, your face will still emit 490, and Q will drop to 80.

        It seems like you understand this, and yet argue against it in a different context.

        • So Zoe, you can accept that the colder wall is sending 400 or 410 W/m^2 worth of photons back to your warmer face, but you can’t accept that the cold sky sends photons back to the warmer ground, having declared the radiative greenhouse effect to be a hoax. Interesting mental conundrum you are finding yourself in.
          I’m going to give you another reality booster shot. Heat consists of photons that have been absorbed. Think about that with your warmer face toward the colder wall for a bit.

  3. I listened to this podcast yesterday. Another good interview by Anthony (Anthony, you are a much better narrator and interview than H. Sterling Burnett – I wish they would use you more). I always enjoy Dr. Spencer’s perspective on climate issues. He seems to feel pretty strongly that man is mostly responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last several decades – it will be interesting to see the outcome of the virus shutdowns on CO2 levels.

    • Trying to assess the role of human activity in increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is a matter of simple logic. Humans have been burning a lot of fossil fuels, which is not something that is part of any natural carbon cycle. Humans have also cut down a great deal of natural forest cover. So it only makes sense that human activities will have added some excess CO2 to the atmosphere. Whether all, or most, or even a significant fraction, of the observed increase in CO2 is due to human activity is unknown. And, at our present level of knowledge, it’s essentially unknowable.

      But those who argue that human activities have no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels (“it’s all the result of outgassing from the oceans as they warm due to natural causes”) really don’t make sense. They are out on the “skeptic fringe” along with the “greenhouse effect does not exist” crowd.

      Whether human addition to the natural CO2 content of the atmosphere is having a large effect, or a small effect, or no effect at all, on global temperature is an entirely separate question. Most of us who hang out at WUWT probably think that it’s somewhere between “no effect” and “a small effect”. And, as Dr. Spencer points out in the podcast, we just don’t have accurate enough data to know the magnitude of the earth’s energy imbalance, let alone how much of that unknown energy imbalance is due to human CO2, natural CO2, or any other cause we can conceive of.

      • Smart Rock,
        You say “Humans have also cut down a great deal of natural forest cover.” yes we have, but analyzed satellite data found that tree cover increased by 7.1% between 1982 and 2016. (Justfactsdaily October 2019 quoted from Nature.)

      • Petroleum, natural gas, and coal are part of the natural ‘carbon’ cycle. They were and are created naturally. They were and are oxidized naturally. There is nothing ‘unnatural’ about it.

        • It’s part of the carbon cycle, it’s just a branch with a really, really long delay built in.

          • Some of it has a ‘long fuse’. Some not. You can see natural gas releases in many lakes, swamps, and tundra pools. Naturally exposed coal seams attracted economic exploitation by man but nature was ‘exploiting’ and ‘exporting’ those seams for millions of years before man ever dreamed black rocks could burn. Natural oil seeps are all along the south California coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and the entire tar sands of Alberta.

            Mankind is a force of nature as well, living on a planet with a lean CO2 atmospheric concentration that provides less than optimal CO2 nutrient critical to plant growth. Mankind and plants are an evolving natural symbiosis. We feed the plants with more CO2 and they provide more food for all God’s creatures on Earth. Naturally.

      • But those who argue that human activities have no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels (“it’s all the result of outgassing from the oceans as they warm due to natural causes”) really don’t make sense. They are out on the “skeptic fringe” along with the “greenhouse effect does not exist” crowd.

        Terrible comment, as you’ve only created a straw man to drive off the ocean outgassing idea.

        Who claims it’s all the result of outgassing? Name someone.

        I claim most of the CO2 is from outgassing, but not all of it. In fact, I said so on my 2018 AGU poster figure 12 Ocean outgassing CO2 >>> Man-made CO2.

        https://i.postimg.cc/vm8hrNT4/AGU-Fig12.jpg

        • Just two numbers:
          1) From NASA “Between 10^15 and 10^17 grams (1,000 to 100,000 million metric tons) of carbon move through the fast carbon cycle every year.” ( the fast carbon cycle being ‘life on earth’).
          2) According to the EPA human carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were about “10,000 million metric tons of carbon” in 2014 (yes i know that is a bit old)

          So here is my problem, according to these numbers we humans either add 1,000% Or 10% of emissions to the natural annual fast carbon cycle. BTW this leaves out all other sources and sinks such as the oceans, rock weathering, volcanoes etc.
          So to me the claim that we humans are responsible for the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is simply not sustainable, we simply don’t know until we have a much better understanding of the global processes involved.

          That might put me in the fringe of skepticism, but to claim otherwise has no sound basis as far as i can see.

          Stay sane and safe,
          Willem

      • Humans have been putting out a lot of forest/bush fires that would otherwise burn uncontrolled and destroy vast tracts of forest. Lightning was not invented by humans.

        Coal seam fires are another source of non-human CO2:

        Due to fine thermal insulation and the avoidance of rain/snow extinguishment by the crust, underground coal-seam fires are the most persistent fires on Earth and can burn for thousands of years, like Burning Mountain in Australia.

        Plus volcanoes

        Can you calculate the difference with/without humans on CO2 levels?

  4. Politics, not science, drives the media to report the worse case scenarios every time. It has nothing to do with selling news/newspapers/magazines and everything to do with forming public opinion.

    • “Politics, not science, drives the media to report the worse case scenarios every time. It has nothing to do with selling news/newspapers/magazines and everything to do with forming public opinion.”

      Exactly, markl. It’s not about the money. It’s about the political power. CNN’s ratings are tanking. They don’t care. They will continue to trash Trump. The same for MSNBC. The same for all the Leftwing Media.

  5. Good doctor-to-doctor interview. Topics covered: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, antivirals, iatrogenic harm of intubation, cytokine storm, negative effects of social distancing

    One doctor mentions a drug called Tocilizumab that downregulates IL-6, which is considered the main inflammatory factor causing cytokine storms; but he wonders how much it could be used based on its high cost and low availability. A recently published paper mentions that inositol downregulates IL-6, and might be an effective treatment. It is widely available and cheap.

    Inositol and pulmonary function. Could myo-inositol treatment downregulate inflammation and cytokine release syndrome in SARS-CoV-2?
    https://www.europeanreview.org/article/20715
    Link to pdf > https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/3426-3432-1.pdf

    • There was an instance of Tocilizumab given to a nearly dead CV patient and it reversed the symptoms dramatically and the patient left the ICU in 48 hrs. I think there are a lot of possibilities with this drug and some others. Fauci downplaying HCQ will turn out to be a real bonehead move, imo. This decision probably will be responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths, which is true with a lot the FDA does in some areas.

      I’m not saying put every drug out there, but letting people die horrible deaths because HCQ hadn’t gone through all the FDA protocols is criminal. There was lots of supporting evidence it works along with the science of how it works already validated. It is a relatively benign drug used by millions of people over 70 years with little possible harm. I hate to reference twitter as a source, however … https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1255804669965864960

  6. Look at Willis updates on coronavirus all following same trend lockdowns have nothing to do with corona viruses everybody will get it eventually ~99.99% won’t even know it. Check Sweden. Good news we are reaching the peaks of infections which I suspect are just coronavirus influenza in cold climates. My guess is that the experts dont even know if is a different RNA sequence from normal influenza coronaviruses. Brazil deaths ~ total over 5 months now 5000 old sick people with preconditions out of 180 millions people about 0,0001% of normal mortality not even on the radar. BTW congratulations to Dr Spencer re Co2 rising naturally not climate change cheers

    • Unless the growth slows soon, it’s not looking good for Brazil. It is in the exponential growth phase and it looks like it could have over a million cases and 50,000 deaths toward the middle to end of June. If it does slow within the next two weeks, then cut those numbers in half.

        • At least it’s not absolutely wrong like, “everybody will get it eventually ~99.99% won’t even know it.”

      • A 5% IFR? Nothing like. That’s more than five times even Imperial’s estimates. Lots of research papers showing 0.1-0.3%, so moderate to bad flu numbers. Deaths are likely to significantly oveecounted and cases significantly under counted- as they always are in epidemics.

        I just cannot understand why you would estimate numbers like that?

    • “Look at Willis updates on coronavirus all following same trend lockdowns have nothing to do with corona viruses everybody will get it eventually ~99.99% won’t even know it. Check Sweden. ”

      wrong.

      • Steve can you tell me what percent will achieve herd immunity with this virus? No you can’t the only trues statement is it out in the wild and it will do what it will do and there not anything we can do about it. Hiding at home is like assuming you home will withstand a direct hit by any bomb. Yet in all likely hood it will die down long before a vaccine is achieves if vaccine is every achieved! The human race has never produced a corona vaccine and I would not bet we are gong to do it now!

  7. US spy agencies have concluded that the Covid-19 virus that has infected more than three million people around the world was not man-made.
    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed on Thursday that it had examined the unsubstantiated theory that the new coronavirus had been developed by Chinese scientists in a government biological weapons laboratory, however found no supporting evidence.
    “The intelligence community concurs with the wide scientific consensus that the Covid-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified,” it said, adding that it was still examining whether the origins of the pandemic trace to contact with infected animals or an accident at a Chinese lab.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/30/us-spy-agencies-conclude-covid-19-not-man-made/
    Consensus?!. Nonsense, even spies are not as good as they use to be.

    • Regardless, the “intelligence” agencies failed in their mission once again.

      Someone should ask them whether is was woman-made, e.g. by the Wuhan bat lady.

  8. Climate models and coronavirus models are being used to UNset public policy. Both have proven to be failures. It’s that old “uncertainty monster” again.

  9. For a model to predict what will happen in the future you must know everything about what you are modeling. And I emphasize everything. To leave anything out makes the model worthless. Making assumptions about unknown effects invokes the long held rule on making assumptions. It make an …. out of you. Both of these models make assumptions, omit needed contributing factors and the designers know less than 50% of the factors involved.
    As I have posted elsewhere on WUWT, The lack of this one small chunk of code and the lack of operator training on at power/accident operations of a NPP in Solid conditions changed the nuclear industry, GREATLY, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Worse, if that accident had not happened, the increase in CO2 would have been significantly lower.

  10. A very good podcast, thank you Roy and Anthony.

    Regarding two of your points:

    1. If Ed Berry is correct in his paper, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural and human CO2 emissions play only a minor part in the increase of CO2. Therefore, any human-caused downturn due to the Covid-19-driven economic lockdown will be too small to detect. Check Reference #47. 🙂

    From the Abstract:
    “Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm.”

    PREPRINT: “THE PHYSICS MODEL CARBON CYCLE FOR HUMAN CO2”
    by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/

    ABSTRACT
    The scientific basis for the effect of human carbon dioxide on atmospheric carbon dioxide rests upon correctly calculating the human carbon cycle. This paper uses the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon-cycle data and allows IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. It derives a framework to calculate carbon cycles. It makes minor corrections to IPCC’s time constants for the natural carbon cycle to make IPCC’s flows consistent with its levels. It shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle contains significant, obvious errors. It uses IPCC’s time constants for natural carbon to recalculate the human carbon cycle. The human and natural time constants must be the same because nature must treat human and natural carbon the same. The results show human emissions have added a negligible one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. If human emissions were stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.

    2. We should have followed the Swedish model and never shut down the economy, which harmed so many young people. We have over-protected the huge low-risk majority from a virus that typically does not harm them, and under-protected the high-risk elderly and infirm – killing off residents in old-age homes in droves.

    Hospitals are typically ~empty, elective surgeries have been cancelled and waiting lists have ballooned, waiting for the “tsunami of Covid cases” that never arrived. What a debacle!

    This is not 20:20 hindsight – it was apparent early in the process. I wrote in mid-March 2020:

    “This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.”

    “LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS:
    Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five.
    This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.”

    Sweden assessed Covid-19 correctly and did only a partial lock-down, while other countries over-reacted and assumed it was much worse than it really was.

    Sadly, elderly and infirm people die every day. The winter flu season in 2019-2020 was the least dangerous in many years, with far fewer-than-average winter deaths from 1Dec2019 to 31Mar2020. Then Covid-19 struck and killed a large number of elderly and infirm people who survived the winter flu season.

    Total ~winter deaths from all causes are depicted by the area under the curve in these plots, and are still (approximately) no greater than the 2017-2018 flu season – these deaths just happened later than usual. Covid-19 deaths are now sharply declining in all countries except the UK, where government policies are reportedly increasing deaths in old-age homes.
    Mortality monitoring in Europe (1Jan2016 to present)
    https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

    • Just sent to me by a physician friend.

      Doctors fret over surgery backlog after immediate COVID-19 crisis
      Medicine Hat News (Print Edition) – April 30, 2020

      Doctors say they’re becoming increasingly concerned about how they will handle the swelling backlog of elective surgeries once the immediate COVID-19 threat has ebbed.

      Hospitals have put off non-urgent surgeries to focus on the viral outbreak.

      But doctors worry their elective procedures could become urgent by the time operating rooms are available.

      “Our waiting times will increase and it’ll backlog,” said Dr. Sandy Buchman, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

      The term elective can be misleading, bringing to mind optional cosmetic surgeries, for example.
      But the term really refers to anything that’s not immediately life-threatening, and can include procedures needed to treat serious medical conditions, Buchman said.

      Most patients in Canada already wait longer than recommended for their surgeries, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

      Only 75 per cent of patients in Canada received hip replacement surgery within the recommended 182 days of when the doctor agreed to the surgery in 2018, for example.

      Only 69 per cent of patients needing knee replacements got theirs within the same recommended time frame.

      And that doesn’t include the time it takes to get a referral to a specialist.

      The number of people who have their surgeries within the benchmark time frames has been slipping slightly but steadily for several years, according to the statistics.

      “We have a good system in many ways but our waiting times have always been the bane of our system,” Buchman said.

      Buchman knows what life on the waiting list can be like. He received a hip replacement five years ago.
      He spent roughly two years waiting for his surgery from the time he first visited his doctor.

      “It was bad. I needed surgery and the surgery made a big difference in my life,” he said looking back.

      While the need for a hip replacement isn’t life-threatening, waiting an extended period could have a serious effect on a patient’s quality of life, he said, limiting their ability to work.

      There are also conditions that might seem relatively benign at first, like gallstones, that can develop into dangerous conditions like sepsis, or blood poisoning, if left too long, he said.

      Part of the problem is that surgeons are not going to be able to catch up once hospitals start getting back to those waiting list.

      While Buchman hopes the surge in virtual care and telephone appointments may help doctors assess patients more efficiently in the post-COVID-19 world, they won’t be able to suddenly start doing more surgeries than before.

      “We aren’t going to bring in more doctors to all of a sudden do twice as many procedures,” he said. “They’re working at 120 per cent as it is.”

      Even if surgeons could somehow work safely at greater speed, time in the operating room is limited.
      The pandemic has highlighted major gaps in Canada’s systems, and health care is no different.

      According to the latest estimate from the Fraser Institute, the total number of procedures people were waiting for across the 10 provinces in 2019 was over more than one million. That meant 2.9 per cent of Canadians waiting for treatment last year.

      The results of delays can be devastating, according to Bacchus Barua, the think tank’s associate director of health policy studies.

      “Wait times can, and do, have serious consequences such as increased pain, suffering, and mental anguish. In certain instances, they can also result in poorer medical outcomes – transforming potentially reversible illnesses or injuries into chronic, irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities,” he wrote in his report late last year.

      It’s not clear when hospitals will begin allowing less urgent surgeries to resume, and it will be up to individual provinces to decide.

      New federal guidelines say that in order for provinces to begin to reopen their economies, hospitals should have the capacity to handle those procedures, along with any new cases of COVID-19, including access to protective equipment for workers.

      • How many heart and cancer screenings will be postponed to a time when a window of opportunity was lost?

      • There are only two ways to ration medical services.
        The first is by price.
        The second is by time. Make the delay long enough that enough patients die before being seen that the remainder can be handled by the medical system.

        • Thank you Mark – re your “second way”:

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/13/coronavirus-the-chinese-virus-lockdowns-that-have-done-their-job/#comment-2965819

          Here in Alberta, the Covid-19 lock-down has resulted a debacle.

          Most of our deaths are in nursing homes – our policy seems to be “Lockdown the low-risk majority but fail to adequately protect the most vulnerable.”

          The global data for Covid-19 suggests that deaths/infections will total 0.5% or less – not that scary – but much higher and clearly dangerous for the high-risk group – those over-65 or with serious existing health problems.

          “Elective” surgeries were cancelled about mid-March, in order to make space available for the “tsunami” of Covid-19 cases that never happened. Operating rooms are empty and medical facilities and medical teams are severely underutilized. The backlog of surgeries will only be cleared with extraordinary effort by medical teams, and the cooperation of patients who die awaiting surgery – patients who were too impatient…

          This may look like 20:20 hindsight, but I called it this way in ~mid-March.

          Regards, Allan

          • Exactly what has happened in the UK. The old and sick continue to die, but nobody else. The only places they can be getting infected is care homes and hospitals. We sent infected patients from hospitals into care homes and they infected 30-50% of people there. The old are not getting infected from the minimal contact they continue to have with rest of the world – they are not essential workers and most don’t go out for exercise, and few shop.

            The lockdown has done nothing for 90% of us but has pushed the vulnerable into places where they are extremely likely together infected. It is an unmitigated disaster.

          • Agreed Phoenix.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/29/is-working-from-home-the-new-normal-or-a-green-fantasy/#comment-2981162

            BD:
            The UK’s management of the elderly and the poor during Covid-19 was even worse than you suggest. It’s as if they wanted to eliminate the elderly and the poor…

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/the-pandemic-cardinal-numbers-no-one-talks-about/#comment-2974344

            In Europe, Total Deaths from All Causes peaked in week 14, the week of 30Mar2020-5Apr2020.
            https://www.euromomo.eu/index.html

            Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a Scottish physician, wrote:
            https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/04/21/the-anti-lockdown-strategy/
            [excerpt[
            “Unfortunately, it seems that COVID-19 has infected everyone involved in healthcare management and turned their brains into useless mush.

            [In my view, if we had any sense, we would lockdown/protect the elderly, and let everyone else get on with their lives].

            However, the hospitals themselves have another policy. Which is to discharge the elderly unwell patients with COVID directly back into the community, and care homes. Where they can spread the virus widely amongst the most vulnerable.

            This, believe it or not, is NHS policy. Still.”

  11. One of those virus models is predicting 100,000 deaths in the U.S. if 50 percent of Americans practice social distancing.

    The current number of deaths from the Wuhan virus is 61,000 and climbing.

    So is this model being declared wrong before the story is over? It would seem that way to me.

    How close will we get to 100,000? If we don’t quite reach that point is that indicative of Americans practicing social distancing at greater than a 50 percent level?

    This model looks like it is coming pretty close to predicting the virus infection outcome.

    • That model is looking about right. When was it published, what adjustments to it have been made and when?

      • That 100,000 figure is the original low estimate from the University of Washington. The range was from 100,000 to 140,000 deaths if mitigation measures were taken such as social distancing.

        We are now at 61,000 deaths. And I heard tonight from the doctor who generates these virus models and he said his new estimate for deaths is 72,000 by August 4, 2020. So that’s an increase of about 11,000 in the next three months, which appears to be a pretty sharp reduction in deaths.

        He also said his organization is using cell phone tracking to try to see how many people are moving around, which he says has increased in recent days. He uses these numbers to try to estimate the success, or not, of social distancing.

        • You can never ever use a model to predict the outcome of human events that interplay with a random and unknown player, in the future(that is not to say you cannot model human tendencies, a measurable outcome), you can WAG to begin with and as it goes along but it is always a WAG. If you adjust you WAG as it goes along your WAG might be close, You also have to remember hindsight is always 20/20.

          • This particular WAG from the University of Washington seems to be in the ballpark, and it didn’t use hindsight to make its prediction.

            Which tells me the parameters (the WAGs) they used for the initial estimate were pretty good.

            I think all the hysteria over the virus models being wrong is way overblown. Of course, that’s because the people declaring the models wrong don’t understand the models, but think they do, and then go out and mislead lots of people into thinking their leaders don’t know what they are doing..

        • Quoting myself: “We are now at 61,000 deaths. And I heard tonight from the doctor who generates these virus models and he said his new estimate for deaths is 72,000 by August 4, 2020. So that’s an increase of about 11,000 in the next three months, which appears to be a pretty sharp reduction in deaths.”

          Well, it looks like that 72,000 figures is going to be exceeded in the next few weeks instead of the next three months. The death totals were 61,000 two days ago and today they are almost 66,000. I don’t know where that 72,000 figure comes from, and I heard two different members of the University of Washington quote this very same figure, so it’s not a misquote.

          I don’t know what the deal is but it looks like they are way off on this prediction..

  12. Those that believe we can predict the future must feel humbled now. But do they – really? Dr. Mann has just been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. The man is either a total fool or a crook. He has gotten everything wrong that could have been gotten wrong. Except for his P&L which seems to be very healthy. Disaster porn sells. He knows it and that’s what he gives the people. Who cares about reality?

  13. Many of these virus models were made before we knew much about virus R0, numbers infected, start of virus, mortality, how it spread. Too many unknowns. It GIGO.

    • Trying to determine the true R0 is ill advised as R0 is just meaningless. It’s an average that depends on many factors, many of which are not inherently biological.

  14. A Rough Transcript of the Above Podcast

    (paraphrasing (sometimes, with edits by me) – direct quotes indicated by italics or by “ “ – posted in separate comments because of WordPress getting upset about too much bold and italic or WHATEVER)

    [2:18] Spencer: People selectively use the models and inputs which will give them whatever answer they want to promote whatever agenda they want.

    [2:30] Watts: Isn’t the problem not so much the inputs, but the faulty statistics or physics or science used by a given model?

    [2:47] Spencer: Yes, however even if you had an accurate model with the most important variables, the variables have so much uncertainty in them (as we have found) that you can get just about any answer you want out of them.

    [3:22] Spencer: The virus modeling has insurmountable uncertainty. Uncertainties of: the virus itself, of human behavior (e.g., how many people is one infected person likely to transfer the virus to) – all of the variables in the virus models have such huge uncertainty ranges that any projections based on them are almost useless.

    [3:57] Watts: For example, here in Butte County, California, the models projected 76 deaths by May, 2020. There have been no deaths. And there has not been a new case in 15 days. Thus, the models were an abject failure and yet we’re using them to make public policy.

    • OH, BUMMER! Dear Moderator. Would you please put all my transcript (of the above podcast) comments together? Mr. O’Bryan and his long comment broke it up (not his fault, of course). Thank you! 🙂

  15. Well I think its pretty well baked-in now that the US is headed for a Great Depression that will last 4-6 years before employment levels appraoch their pre-lockdown state.

    Many in the restaurant industry are now saying probably 1/4 of all restaurants will not re-open, and with the expanded “social distancing” requirements for wider seating-table spacing, the reduced capacity will be a reduced revenue for the same size restaurant operation, which means at least 1/4 to 1/3 of those re-opened restaurants will fail then within 6-12 months.

    The tourism-hospitality industry is decimated now. The cruise lines are shedding capacity and jobs now with abandon. Island economies in the Caribbean that depended on robust cruise passenger related revenues will be in tail spin for years, with an obvious emigration to mainland countries. Similar to the de-population we saw in Puerto Rico will now hit many Caribbean islands. And guess where they will want to go? At least Trump has put a hold on Green Cards… for now, which will help some with our labor surplus here.

    Hotels are going to start closing. Here in Tucson, the March-April occupancy rate for the nice high-end golf resorts with big pool and spa complexes usually runs above 70%. It was in the 6%-12% range these past 6 weeks and will continue that trend because while the golf courses are open, the pools and spas and gyms and restaurants are shut down. So many hotels won’t recover from this. And hotels generate lots of high end, well heeled vacationers bringing their families to splash and play… didn’t happen this year.

    The airlines are going to start filing for bankruptcy soon, and the March-April job furloughs will become permanent losses for those pilots, aircrew, and ground workers. In the US, I expect United Airlines to be first, followed by Delta and American, but the order is not important. Overseas carriers like Virgin Atlantic will follow. Boeing orders, already decimated by the 737 Max debacle, will further erode steeply, with resulting massive layoffs coming for Washington State and South Carolina assembly plants. The grounded 737 Max planes may never carry another revenue passenger, and how Boeing will compensate those airlines means Boeing could easily be forced to bankruptcy in litigation, just as PG&E was forced to bankruptcy from litigation claims.

    Oh and then there’s the NEXT SHOE TO DROP in this politicans’ triggered economic catastrophe… the loss of sales tax, hotel tax, rental car taxes across state and local governments mean huge budget holes are opening now for the next budget cycle. Holes that will force state and local governments to lay-off substantial percentages of the current public work force. The public unions will still demand pension funds be funded, with ever more pressure on Congress to re-write bankruptcy laws to allow some way for states to file bankruptcy to shed deeply underfunded public pension funds liabilities. The Democrats in Congress, being owned by those unions, will block a bankruptcy code re-write, so States filing bankruptcy in Federl bankruptcy court likely won’t happen.

    Libraries, parks and recs departments will be the first to go at the local levels. Only state and local parks and that generate a positive cash flow (camping, picnic, boating fees) will likely survive that coming round of public service cuts.

    Yes, Great Depression of the the century is just beginning now… because politicians stupidly stuck to the model forecasts for too long and didn’t look at Sweden and see that staying open, with some limits, and gaining herd immunity quickly was the best course through this.

    • Given all that,Joel, and the possibility of a second visit from Wuhan flu next winter, I am surprised that any sensible Democrat wants to challenge Trump for what will be the most soul and reputation destroying job on the planet.
      If they were sensible they would let Trump try to sort it out, whilst making it as difficult to do so as only they know how, and then reap the rewards of recovery in 5 years time.
      Come to think of it , perhaps that is their game plan , hence the promotion of the senile Biden as the front runner as Democrat candidate.

      • “the most soul and reputation destroying job on the planet”

        I don’t think this prospect will bother Joe.
        He will have forgotten what the question was by November.

      • The Democrats are hungry for Raw Political Power. Make no mistake about that.
        If it wasn’t a Pandemic enabling their power grab, it was going to be the Climate Scam as their Tojan Horse path to raw power.

        They want the power of the US Presidency, because like Maduro gaining hold of an oil wealth-supplied Venezuela, they still have a generation’s worth of OPM to spend down before the Party is over. Maduro, since he sold oil in dollars and needed foregin currency to buy many fisnihed products, he stole the People’s money with domestic hyperinflation eroding their savings in domestic banks to nothing. Effectively robbing the People and destroying the oil industry with no capital investments, funneling that money instead to power enabling pay-offs.

        The Democrat’s if they gain full control of the Presdiency and the Congress will do the same thing Trump and Mnuchin started with this stimulus. They will just print money for the World’s fiat currency and hope the bond market doesn’t notice. They will do this for their Climate Scam Green ND schemes. But the bond market investors will notice and they put their money elsewhere. But the Democrats will still print away and Fed will buy the paper under a Fiscal Dominance scenario. And then long-predicted hyper-inflation will hit the US and will rob the people’s carefully stashed 401K’s and IRA’s of value with hyperinflation.

        That’s what the Democrats will do in their quest for power. Venezuela and Maduro wasn’t a precautionary tale for US Democrats, it is a playbook. Just like Orwell’s 1984 is already in play with sending stuff down the memory hole (videos of Dems and things they don’t like) at the Ministry of Truth (Youtube and Facebook and Google).

    • Such is the price we have to pay when fools are in charge. It’s really unbelievable how much damage they can cause in so short a period of time.

    • I agree with you JOel.

      There is now ample evidence that Covid-19 is not much worse than other flu’s. Hospitals here are ~empty, waiting for the tsunami of Covid cases that never came.

      End the Lockdown Now.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/25/uk-german-governments-plan-to-turn-covid-19-into-a-climate-action-opportunity/#comment-2978094

      IT’S TIME’: GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN CALLS ON GOVERNORS TO REOPEN THE COUNTRY
      https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/25/heritage-governors-economy-reopen-coronavirus/
      “One of the leading conservative think tanks in the country is launching a campaign to push governors to phase out their coronavirus-related stay-at-home orders and allow the U.S. to open back up.”
      _______________________

      I say “RE-OPEN BY MAY DAY – 1MAY2020” – and don’t over-regulate it – let individuals and businesses manage themselves and their risks – people are typically far more intelligent than governments.

      Better still, we should have followed the Swedish model and never shut down the economy, which harmed so many young people. We have over-protected the huge low-risk majority from a virus that typically does not harm them, and under-protected the high-risk elderly and infirm. Hospitals have canceled elective surgeries and waiting lists have ballooned. What a mis-managed debacle! Told you so in mid-March 2020. I wrote then:

      “This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.”

    • It might not be a bad idea if significant numbers of workers moved from being cafe handservants to actually producing something of value, like in an invigorated auto industry, a nationally expanded effort to make pharmaceuticals, an increase of primary production through more and diverse farming, a better forestry sector, to name a few.
      Geoff S

      • Good points Geoff.

        We need to produce ~all our own pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment and other essential goods and services within North America – no more outsourcing of vital goods and services overseas.

  16. [4:24] Watts: Climate alarm history closely parallels that of COVID 19 virus alarm:

    1) In 1988, Dr. James Hansen went before Congress and presented his models: (1) “Business as Usual,” (2) “Worst Case Scenario,” and (3) “Middle of the Road.” He said that in 30 or 40 years there was going to be a climate catastrophe.

    2) From the beginning, there was a lot of overselling. People reacted strongly. They had little data to look at.

    [4:57] Watts: The same thing is happening with the COVID 19 virus. It’s a new problem. People are worked up about it. The want to do something about it and the models become [] gospel. The models did not have good peer review. They are used hastily and haphazardly.

    [5:12] Watts: What do we do about that?

    [5:16] Spencer: I don’t know. Even if we could show people that the virus models are useless [Me: just as the climate models have been shown to be unfit for purpose and useless], people are guided by their preconceived notions: their worldviews, e.g., beliefs about personal freedom and civil liberties, their views on the role of government and the like. The climate or virus models are then just used mainly as ammunition.

    [6:00] Spencer: Even though, and, moreover, because there is so much statistical uncertainty in modeling, people can use them as propaganda to support their preconceived notions.

  17. [6:12] Watts: And combined with all that is fear. Fear has been used to make policy for both climate and COVID 19.

    [6:20] Spencer: True. And not only has fear been used in virus and climate handling, but fear is also used in weather forecasting.

    [6:30] Spencer (I included the first part for some comic relief – no insult intended – just verbal “typos”): That lead epidemiologist that President Trump has – what’s his last name? Fuci? Fauci? – yes, Faust – he admitted that they overpredict. That’s what we do with weather forecasting. With tornadoes, for instance, we over warn. Even though we know that most people will be safe from the tornado. It is all we can do. If we only warned when we were absolutely certain about the tornado’s likely damage area and degree, we would often fail to warn effectively. That is what is going on with COVID 19.

    [7:41] Spencer: The Trump administration has erred on the side of safety.

    [7:50] Spencer: On the other hand, shutting down the economies of the world increases poverty. Viruses are not the leading cause of premature death in the world. Poverty is.

    [8:08] Spencer: Where do you draw the line? The right, [Me: those who strongly supporting personal liberty] draws it in a different place than the left [Me: those who highly value state control].

    • [12:22] Watts: After Hansen went out and did his thing in 1988, citing “a model,” natural climate forcings were thereafter largely ignored. People began to focus almost exclusively on human CO2. Money for studying natural climate variation pretty much disappeared.

      [12:50] Spencer: Right. …

      [14:12] Watts: Then, there is the economic shutdown reaction to the COVID 19 situation. Much industry around the world has been shut down for a couple of months. There has not been a corresponding reduction in the level of atmospheric CO2.

      [15:38] Spencer: I don’t think we will ever see any reduction in CO2 from the shutdown. There are other, natural, sources and sinks of CO2 . For instance, ENSO. It, as a natural source or sink of CO2, can cause an annual increase of as much as 2 times as much atmospheric CO2 or ensure as little as a 0% increase (depending on whether there are prevailing El Niño or La Niña sea surface conditions). Unless you know precisely what El Niño and La Niña are doing, you don’t know how much that is contributing to what you see.
      And there are other, natural, CO2 affectors. Most people don’t realize that after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, that it actually reduced CO2 in the atmosphere for years to come.

      [17:06] Watts: Yep. I remember seeing that.

      [17:20] Spencer: What volcanoes mainly do is put a lot of aerosols into the atmosphere. The aerosols scatter incoming solar radiation. Forest canopies then better absorb the scattered light (otherwise, only the top layer gets the bulk of it). More sunlight –> increased photosynthesis. Increased photosynthesis –> caused increased vegetation which then –> used up more atmospheric CO2.

      [18:23] Watts: Right. And what it points to is that nature is in control of the CO2 rise.

    • [18:56] Spencer: I believe most of the increase in CO2 is due to humans. … [one] can’t prove it. We don’t know the natural energy flows well enough… to blame the CO2 increase on humans. It is one of those uncertainties … that is seldom mentioned.

      [19:43] Watts: Uncertainty is really the key here. Both in climate and in the COVID 19 virus modeling. The uncertainties inherent in the starting assumptions grow over time. The farther out you try to guess, uncertainties are so large that your guesses are essentially meaningless.

      [20:11] Spencer: Right. And this brings us back to politicians using only models which support their agenda. Because of the uncertainties in the models, you can come up with a model to support whatever you want.

      [20:31] Watts: Right. Models are used to endorse fear.

      [20:41] Spencer: Yes. Certainly, that is the way it is being used now. You and I support weather forecasting models. … if you’re wrong, people remind you of it the next day.

      [20:59] Watts (chuckling): Absolutely.

      [21:01] Spencer: But, with climate “forecasting,” the forecasters will be dead before anyone finds out whether they right or wrong.

  18. [8:18] Watts: The problem of “warning fatigue” is a danger here. People just tune exaggerated warnings out after awhile.

    [9:07] Watts: In support of weather models, unlike virus and climate models which are open-ended, weather modeling is getting more accurate. This is because their projections are confirmed fairly quickly with data.

    [9:48] Spencer: That is correct.

    [10:21] Spencer: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction. The main reason is: you are dealing with such a tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. Take sea surface temperature change, for instance, data since the 1990’s seems to indicate a slight amount of warming – hundreth’s of a degree. That warming is so small that it is 1 part in 300 or 1 part in 400. We do not know any of the natural energy flows in the climate system to that level of accuracy. None of them. What that means is: the warming could be natural. And we wouldn’t know it.

    [11:51] Spencer: “[Climate] models are fiddled with and fudged until there is no natural climate [forcing] in them. So, the only thing that can cause it is [] CO2.

    • AAAARRRGH! This comment belongs up above after the comment ending with the time [8:08].

      Thank you, dear moderator…. if you can help me. oh boy do I love WordPress. If it let me post it all as one comment, I would have done so, but, it won’t. It freaks out when there are too many formatting symbols.

  19. Weather models and weather forecasting has improved over the last 30 years… Agreed! Does that mean it is ‘good’? No. Here in the Puget Sound area of the Great NorthWet, locus for Cliff Mass’ forecasts on weather and epidemiology, we cannot trust the forecasts on even a 3 day basis, let alone place trust in 5, 7, or 10 day forecasts. Heck – It is not unusual for the daily forecast to be significantly wrong, usually with ‘convergence zone’ mumbling excuses after the fact. Do we have mountain vs coastal geography, making forecasting more challenging than perhaps other areas? Yes. Do we have routinely flawed weather forecasts? Yes. Should we call that ‘good’? No.

    • In my town in the Denver area, yesterday and this morning, the weather person on the radio said it would be within a few degrees of the high temp. As I write this, it’s 17 F below the record high for the date. I don’t think it will get within 10 F of the record today.

  20. Who has better Corona Virus model, Germany or Sweden?
    Well, Sweden is not doing as well as it is often assumed, it has three times more fatalities per head of population than Germany.
    Here are all EU countries + UK compared
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/EuropeCV.htm
    data from European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

  21. The interviewer and interviewee handled the political aspects of the topic very diplomatically. To be equally diplomatic, some leftist commentators have speculated on the possible effect a recession, caused by a COVID lockdown, would have on PDT’s re-election prospects.

  22. “It’s feb 17th
    The US death toll stands at 0
    The US case count stands at 68.
    The CEO of your New York city hospital wants to know
    How many cases should he plan for?
    How many beds will he need
    simple question.
    It’s feb 17th

    The US death toll stands at 0
    The US case count stands at 68.
    The CEO of your New York city hospital wants to know
    How many cases should he plan for?
    How many beds will he needHow many ventilators?
    These are real questions.
    How do you answer a question about the future?
    Hint? you have to model unless you have a time machine.
    So What is your answer?”

    If one truly understand the limitations of models(which they should if people’s lives are depending on their answer) then they should provide the model output, along with other real world realities that are unknown that will likely make the model wrong, so the user anticipates it being wrong and is prepared for that likely outcome.
    Models could never predict the outcome of an unprecedented shut down(based on human behavior that has never been modeled before) along with an unprecedented virus with scant data about its transmission rate and other key elements needed to accurately predict the outcome.

    Do use the models but use common sense in interpreting the output/projections based on applying good human judgement to make adjustments from the get go, along with not overselling their skill to yourself or others.

    If people are shut in and the human interpreting the model that is giving their expert opinion knows that affect is not properly dialed into the model………should they not dial down the model projection?

    We know that they did a poor job communicating that and spent to much time focusing on exactly what the latest models said. This is what misled people and why the models were widely criticized for being so wrong. The models actually were 100% correct. They predicted exactly what the humans programmed them to say. What the humans did not program them with made the humans using them wrong. Those humans should have known better………….should have been very aware of the not modeled, key information that was going to cause them to predict the right answer to the wrong problem.

    As an operational meteorologist for 38 years, part of my brain wants to believe a weather model that forecasts an extreme weather event on day 14. Especially if its an individual operational model. But the part of my brain that remembers the great number of times of a similar scenario, that never happened tells my entire brain to adjust my thinking so that its skeptical. Still entirely aware of that extreme solution and that it MIGHT happen but using experienced judgment about model skill when applying its practical use 14 days out.

    If somebody wanted to know how many hospital beds and ventilators would be needed very early in the pandemic, taking actions based on a model that will probably be wrong was counterproductive………….just like me, telling something that in 14 days, my weather model just told me we are going to have a blizzard over the state of Michigan and they should get prepared for it now.

  23. Anthony
    You expressed the opinion that weather forecasting models are better than they were 30 years ago. Would you attribute that improvement to better models, or to better and more comprehensive data resulting from Doppler radar and geosynchronous weather satellites? Also, I have read that there is a consensus that European computer models perform better than US models. If you agree with that, to what would you attribute the better performance?

  24. There is near-zero possibility that any virus-caused reduction of emssions of CO2 will be detected by analysis of CO2 mole fractions in the atmosphere.
    The accuracy of such measurements is no better than +/- 1 ppm CO2 2 sigma, when theorists are looking for changes of 0.2 ppm, according to some public estimates. Geoff S

  25. The most serious problem with the Climate Models is the political clampdown on the discussion of their methodologies and validity. I don’t think that has yet happened with the Covid Models.

Comments are closed.