Pat Michaels: “Worse Than We Thought”

Guest “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” by David Middleton

Climate Predictions “Worse Than We Thought”
By Patrick J. Michaels
July 14, 2020

As the temperature of the eastern U.S. normally reaches its summer maximum around the last week of July, every year at this time we are bombarded with tired “climate change is worse than we thought” (WTWT) stories. These stories take time to produce, from imagination to final copy to editing to publication, so they have usually been submitted well in advance of the summer peak. Hence, orchestrated fear.

For once, I’m in agreement about the WTWT meme, but it’s about the climate models, not the climate itself.

[…]

Real Clear Energy

Pat Michaels goes on to discuss John Christy’s analysis of the CMIP5 models which showed that only the Russian INM-CM4 model, and its low sensitivity (~2 ⁰C per doubling), was close to reality. This is from Andy May’s November 2018 post:

Figure 1. “A comparison of 32 climate models and observations. The observations are from weather balloon and satellite data. The two observational methods are independent of one another and support each other. The plot is after Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Christy 2016).”

Then he notes that the new CMIP6 models are even worse than CNMIP5:

You’d think that, in the seven-year period between CMIP5 and CMIP6, the modeling community would address the critical errors that all the other models were making. But CMIP6 models are out and are indeed “worse than we thought.” While their error in the tropical atmosphere is very close to the same as it was in CMIP5 (which isn’t good), the range of global predictions is even larger than before. This is also not a good sign, especially because it has been documented that the models are “tuned” to give an answer that the modeling team wants.

Real Clear Energy

The funny thing is that he cites a Carbon Brief article by Zeke Hausfather which is actually very good. This plot is from the article:

Figure 2. What happens when the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf raises his voice? Carbon Brief

Mr. Hausfather notes that high sensitivity models often don’t even get the past right:

Many high sensitivity models have poor hindcasts

Climate models provide both projections of future warming and “hindcasts” of past temperatures. These hindcasts can be used as a tool to evaluate the performance of models, though historical temperatures are only one of many hundreds of different variables that climate models generate.

A number of the higher sensitivity models in CMIP6 have had trouble accurately “hindcasting” historical temperatures. Some show almost no warming over the 20th century — with cooling effects from aerosols almost completely counterbalancing rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations — followed by a massive warming spike in recent decades. Others show too much warming over the past 150 years.

Carbon Brief

And he provided this excellent comparison of climate sensitivities derived from various different methods.

Figure 3. Real data (instrumental) yield an Alfred E. Neuman (What me worry?) climate sensitivity. Carbon Brief

Climate sensitivities derived from actual observational data (instrumental) yield climate sensitivities ranging from innocuous to mildly concerning. It’s also important to note that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is really a fake parameter. The transient climate response (TCR) is what matters, and it’s generally only about 2/3 of the ECS. So a 2 ⁰C ECS would probably equate to a 1.3 ⁰C TCR.

Figure 4. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR). (IPCC)

In the 3.5 °C ECS case, about 2.0 °C of warming occurs by the time of the doubling of atmospheric CO2. The remaining 1.5 °C of warming supposedly will occur over the subsequent 500 years… But will probably be well-within the noise level of natural variability… And, honestly, no one will ever bother to check these predictions in 2520.

As the great Yogi Berra may have said:

First Coast Advisers

But he also said this:

AZ Quotes

147 thoughts on “Pat Michaels: “Worse Than We Thought”

  1. One thing that confuses me about the spaghetti chart, which starts at 0.0 anomaly in 1979:
    Roy Spencer’s own satellite record shows about 0.4+ degrees of warming since 1979… (it starts at ~ -0.2 and is approx ends at at +0.2 in 2015). It’s a bit higher. Do we have a chart that runs the models through today?

    That still puts us under most projections from IPCC.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  2. There’s only one legitimate way to characterize the ECS which is as the LINEAR ratio of surface emissions to the amount of power required to produce those emissions. This is linear because no Joule is any different than any other as it relates to the work it can do and maintaining the surface temperature requires work proportional to T^4.

    An ideal BB is 1 W/m^2 of emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. The Earth produces 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, corresponding to an effective emissivity of 0.62 and a temperature sensitivity of 0.3C pr W/m^2. The IPCC’s lower bound is 0.4C per W/m^2 while the worst case scenarios they push require a sensitivity of over 1C per W/m^2 which is equivalent to over 5.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing. They try to bamboozle you by claiming that feedback can amplify 0.3C per W/m^2 into 1C per W/m^2, but that requires creating about 3.9 W/m^2 out of thin air across every m^2 of the planet and is an obvious violation of COE.

    • co2isnotevil ->>You wrote “produces 1.62 W/m^2”. Did you mean ‘produces 0.62 W/m^2?

      • The surface produces 1.62 W/m^2 of BB emissions per W/m^2 of solar forcing while each W/m^2 of surface emissions only results in about 0.62 W/m^2 leaving TOA. Amplification along the input path from space to the surface must be accompanied with an equal and opposite attenuation along the output path from the surface to space. In other words, the dimensionless amplification and attenuation factors must be reciprocals of each other where dimensionless infers linearity.

    • If anyone doubts the demonstrably linear relationships between the average incident, outgoing and BB surface emissions, consider these two plots:

      http://www.palisad.com/co2/linear/pi_se.png
      http://www.palisad.com/co2/linear/po_se.png

      The first is the relationship between the total average solar forcing in W/m^2 (X axis) and the average BB emissions of the surface based on its reported average temperatures, also in W/m^2 (Y axis). The second is the relationship between average emissions at TOA (X) and the same Y data as the first plot.

      Each little dot is a 1 month average for a 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The data covers all slices from pole to pole over about 3 decades of weather satellite data. The larger dots are the per slice averages over the whole data set. No statistical analysis is required to discern the obvious linear relationships. Note that the slope of the average relationship in the first plot is about 1 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing or about 0.2C per W/m^2 @ 288K (TCR) while the slope of the average relationship in the second plot is about 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing or about 0.3C per W/m^2 @ 288K (ECS).

      When total average solar forcing is plotted against total TOA emissions, the linear trend is only about 0.62 W/m^2 of output missions per W/m^2 of forcing. The point where the average TOA emissions are equal to the total average solar forcing happens to occur only when both are equal to about 240 W/m^2, defining the steady state average response of the system.

      http://www.palisad.com/co2/linear/pi_po.png

      When plotting the first two plots on the same graph, the steady state is where the two linear trends intersect which is also at about 240 W/m^2 corresponding to about 255K

    • It works in economics with the Federal Reserve creating money out of thin air (until it no longer works) destroying the people’s savings.

      I suppose the IPCC and the Federal Reserve use the same models.

          • Our dogs (10) speak whenever my cell phone rings or I’m in a WebEx meeting.. The joys of working from home.

          • I had a dog when I was a kid that was smarter than most warmists. But like most warmists, she had an anger-management problem and she hated fossil-fueled cars.
            She was hit by five cars and knocked out every time – once she actually T-boned the car in a fit of righteous rage – knocked out again! She had CDS – Car (Carbon?) Derangement Syndrome!
            She died at about 18 years of age, after I left for university. Next time you see a warmist barking about fossil fuels, remember my good old dog,
            😉

          • I now have a mental image of Greta bounding on all fours into the side of a new Ford Bronco, knock yourself out Great you know it makes sense..

        • Speaks to credibility.

          Well here’s the headline of your article:

          “Patrick Michaels: Cato’s Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong”

          You must find it ironic anyone uses GCM’s then?

          • I’ll take it… Now let’s apply that to the entire IPCC’s Summary for ‘Policing’ Makers… I meant to use Policing.

            OK: So we can stop talking about the scary climate models now and get on with our lives…

        • Most of the sources your reference quotes are not what I would call solid evidence.

          Climate models are inherently flawed because the climate is a chaotic problem. It’s roots go down to the sub-millimeter level in every process involved, Turbulence(chaos)drives the process.

          The climate models all depend on differential equations which can generate chaos or turbulence but there is no mathematical way to ensure that any prediction is accurate because chaotic equations never generate the exact same pattern.

          Skeptical Science??? Are you kidding???.

        • Jack, you’d need some credibility of your own (Trolls like you have none) before you can speak to anyone else’s.

        • “Jack Dale July 15, 2020 at 3:17 pm
          Speaks to credibility.”

          David Middleton’s credibility has been well proven over years.

          Your credibility follows and reflects your ad hominem and abject failure to use facts relating to the topic article.

      • An ad hominem attack as an alternative to addressing features of a contested matter itself is simply a veiled de facto admission of substantive bankruptcy.

      • Joel: When I read the link from Jack Dale, I thought he was showing us how twisted Media Matters is and that only an ignoramus would find the information of value. I can see now that perhaps Jack was posting the link as a valid source instead of an easy to dispute Leftist hit piece.

        Wow… Just WOW

        • A drone, a Gorebot; forgive him for he knows not what he does.

          Someday his grandchildren may explain it to him, but they may be too polite.
          ============

          • Thanks Kim:
            Makes sense. It’s part of being Woke… to let the MSM fill ones head with thoughts, beliefs, and feelings they can not support.

    • 1) Media Matters? Speaking of credibility, they have less that the Guardian.
      2) If getting a projection wrong eliminates all credibility, then the models lost theirs 30 years ago.

    • Dale
      Credibility is irrelevant if you cannot come up with explicit objections to his recent claims. As David says, you are attacking the person and not his argument. Now, as an expediency to save your precious time, you may decide to ignore what is said by anyone if you don’t think that they are credible. However, don’t try to claim that because YOU decide the person is not credible, that it in any way proves that they are wrong. You are just rationalizing being too lazy to analyze what he has written and produce citable objections to the claims.

      • Either that, or he knows he can’t refute the science, so his only option is to discredit the source.

      • The more priceless thing is that the Zeke Hasfather bit is a actually most damning of Fireball Warming.

    • Jack Dale July 15, 2020 at 3:00 pm

      Oh the irony

      https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-post/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-history-getting-it-wrong

      I went to look at the link. It says:

      From 1998 to 2008, the University of Alabama in Huntsville satellite record shows a warming trend that is not statistically significant at the 95 percent level (a warming of 0.074°C per decade plus or minus 0.439°C).

      Um … no. Not just wrong amount, but wrong sign. In fact, it COOLED over the period by 0.07°C/decade, it did not warm.

      Oh, the irony …

      In any case, the argument you seem to be making is “Mr. X was wrong in the past so perforce he must be wrong now”. That’s not science. It is innuendo.

      It’s also the reason you can’t introduce “prior bad acts” in a criminal trial—because they don’t mean jack.

      Now, if you have objections to the ideas, logic, math, and inferences in Pat’s post, by all means, this is the place to discuss them. It’s your chance to show he’s wrong …

      … but saying he was wrong some other time? True or not, it’s not science, not worth it.

      w.

      • Chip’n’Dale is a Leftist, and Leftists can’t do hard sums like distinguishing between a positive and a negative number.

      • Willis,

        Not just wrong amount, but wrong sign. In fact, [UAH] COOLED over the period by 0.07°C/decade, it did not warm.

        The article dates from 2013 so the satellite data referred to, both UAH and RSS, refers to their previous versions. In the case of UAH this was v5.6; for RSS it was v3.3. UAH is now on version 6.0 and RSS is on to v4.4.

        Using these current databases, for the 10 years ending on December 31 2007 the trend in UAH is -0.072 ±0.438 °C/decade. In RSS it is +0.130 ±0.454 (both shown as °C/decade to 2σ confidence).

        One shows non-significant cooling, the other non-significant warming. Therefore, in both cases, Pat Michaels’ bet that “the 10 years ending on December 31, 2007, will show a statistically significant global cooling trend in temperatures measured by satellite” is a loser.

        • “Using these current databases, for the 10 years ending on December 31 2007 the trend in UAH is -0.072 ±0.438 °C/decade. In RSS it is +0.130 ±0.454 (both shown as °C/decade to 2σ confidence).”

          Risible. Only in Climate “Science” would a tiny trend with errors far bigger than the trend itself be taken seriously.

          • Sure, but it was Pat Michaels who raised the issue of the ‘significance’ (or not, as it turned out) of a 10-year trend in satellite temperatures, not the data producers.

    • It is quite interesting that the skeptics debate the science and question interpretations of the data while the alarmists like Jack prefer personal attacks. WUWT is a solid platform that provides the opportunity for technical discussions and links to recently published articles. And yeah, there are lots of deviations and sidetracks. But no site is perfect.

      • “It is quite interesting that the skeptics debate the science and question interpretations of the data while the alarmists like Jack prefer personal attacks.”

        Personal attacks are about the only way Leftists have to argue since they can’t really argue the facts when it comes to Human-caused Climate Change (or any other subject, for that matter). When the Leftists don’t have the facts on their side, which is most of the time, then they attack the messenger, like Jack does here.

        • There’s difference between making an ad hominem argument and a personal attack.

          This is an ad hominem fallacy:

          “(Fill in the blank) cranks out fraudulent climate reconstructions because he
          is a moronic @$$hole.
          This is a valid argument which includes a personal attack:

          “(Fill in the blank) is a moronic @$$hole who cranks out fraudulent climate reconstructions by splicing high resolution instrumental data into low frequency proxy data.”

      • I agree that there is little reason to trust anything the Marxist (alarmists) say. I’m done with arguing their tortured “science “. It has become abundantly clear to all what they have been trying to hide for decades- this is all about Marxism and little to nothing to do with climate. In my opinion it is well beyond time that more scientists started growing a spine and speaking truth to the political agenda behind what they are being useful idiots for. I hope the people of science remember that should the Marxist agenda succeed they will be the first to be made expendable since they are capable of unraveling the lies we have been told for so long. Once in power the new political system has a long and sordid history of killing anyone in their way.

        • Al: what’s worse, is in this kind of leftist putsch, 90% (maybe indeed 97%!) of supporters are useful idjits who have no idea what is behind all this climate meme. The elitist politicos in the know don’t even make a secret of what really is going on. There are any number of unequivocal quotes from the those behind the curtain on getting rid of capitalism, democracy and civilization itself that anyone following this climate/fossil fuel ‘feint’ can easily see.

          Google quotes of Maurice Strong who created the UNFCC and IPCC, and Christiane Figueres who headed up the UN agency and dozens of others. They don’t really care what the 5% think and they know that the 95% don’t think at all. The latter are happy to have been handed the “talking points” by their political betters to to drown out the logic and scientific might of the few.

          Dissidents in the Soviet Union were probably 5%, but in a ruthless regime like that only a few dared to speak out. Actually Jack Dale is at least one of the more adventurous in that he comes to WUWT. Trolls are annoying, but they don’t number as many as there could be because they know a lot of their best on the science side have been made fools of on the science when they once tried to engage sceptics in debates.

          One might ask why the meme is anxious to shut the few percent skeptics make up in the skirmish when everyone else is in the bag. I think that it’s because Soltzhenitsen, Sachorov and the tiny minority were amazingly effective and deserve a fair amount of credit in the fall of the regime. The totes fear such people.

  3. Richard Feynman on seeking new laws
    Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it.
    Then, we compute– well, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say, compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.
    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.

    IMO
    1. There is not an expectation that the models must be perfect, the best two or three may be useful and worth advancing.
    2. But most models disagree with experiment, and therefore are WRONG. That’s all there is to it.
    3. Most of the 32 models MUST be discarded, once again because they are WRONG.

    • The old saying is that even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
      However, the average of the time shown on 32 broken clocks is not a good estimate of the current time.
      Taking the average of 32 climate model, where at least 31 must be wrong, does not give you a better estimate than the individual broken models.

    • “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. ”

      I still disagree with this. Experiments are often mal-formed or mis-executed, without the experimenter knowing. That’s where confirmation bias raises its ugly head. He should have said “If it disagrees with observation, it’s wrong”. Although observations can be grossly misinterpreted as well.

      • Jeff,
        That bit was from a lecture in an introductory level course, and therefore a bit of a summary. Most people don’t talk with the kind of precision lawyers use in contracts; it would be much too tedious. The good doctor was well aware that experiments must be conducted carefully and observations verified (and characterized) before claiming a theory is falsified, as he goes into great detail on those subjects in subsequent lectures.

  4. Oh Oh, looks like the Russians didn’t get the message! Their model INM-CM4 is close to reality! Which also shows it is possible to produce a reasonable climate model? Instead of the Burning Hell On Earth models? All I know for sure is that here in Argentina it has been an unusually cold start to winter, and I am not a skier. Stay sane and safe.

    • I forget them now but there are at least 3 details of that Russian model where differences from the more common run of models are very pertinent to the debate.

      Help!
      =====

      • Even more damning to the alarmist modeling community is that these pertinent differences have been known for several years.

        Was there no curiosity in the whole lot of ‘em? No urge to experiment?

        For shame and Oh, my God, what a waste of money, time, and people.
        ==============

      • Maybe I just have a dirty mind, but computers is not the first thing I think of when people start talking about Russian models.

    • Ron
      Staying safe is probably easier than staying sane when it seems that there is something in the water that is affecting sanity. 🙂

      • Heh, the Paper of Retard.

        Ot the Paper of recorded false narrative.

        See Bari Weiss.
        =============

  5. It’s also important to note that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is really a fake parameter.

    In the 3.5 °C ECS case, about 2.0 °C of warming occurs by the time of the doubling of atmospheric CO2. The remaining 1.5 °C of warming supposedly will occur over the subsequent 500 years…

    So, plenty of time for ecosystems to adapt.

      • We won’t be able to economically extract enough fossil fuel to triple or quadruple CO2.

        Besides, only above quadrupling might the plants complain.

        Besides, our warming will be trivial and pusillanimous against oncoming glaciation, of which hardly anyone dares predict the onset.

        Besides, ‘Atomkraft, Ja Bitte’!
        ==========

        • Quadrupling CO2 only gets us to a bit over 1000ppm. Most greenhouses use 1000 to 1200ppm.
          Wasn’t that long ago (geologically speaking) when CO2 levels were well above 2000ppm.

      • David
        I think that the unstated assumption is that the ECS is a constant for all temperature ranges. I don’t think that has been established. My personal suspicion is that ECS varies with temperature. That is, ECS probably becomes smaller as the temperature increases.

        • A quadrupling is only two doublings, if that is pertinent to your point.

          It seems to this untutored eye that that means ECS drops as temp rises, but I may be wrong.
          ===========

          • Well now it seems that sensitivity drops for each added aliquot of anthropogenic CO2.

            But everyone knows that. Well, not the frightened ones.
            =======

          • Clarifying, if I can. An added aliquot at 560ppm has only half the warming effect of one added at 280ppm.
            ========

          • Kim,

            To put things in perspective, if the Earth started at 0K, the first W/m^2 of solar input would increase the steady state temperature from 0K to about 65K for a sensitivity of 65 C per W/m^2. The temperature of a BB at 288K would increase by about 0.2C from an additional W/m^2 of solar forcing. The Earth modeled as a gray body with an emissivity of 0.62 has a sensitivity of about 0.3C per W/m^2 which matches the data almost exactly.

            If the Earth was at 0 K and GHG’s were not otherwise frozen, the temperature would still be 0 K no matter how many doublings occurred. This is why expressing the ECS as a function of CO2 doublings is so wrong it would be laughable if the consequences of being so wrong were not so economically self destructive.

        • TCR probably, more or less, is a fairly constant logarithmic function. ECS is a lot more nebulous and wordy.

          • The topic is climate sensitivity as it pertains to climate predictions. Learn how to read.

          • You’d think learning to read would have been a perquisite for an English-Major. He should demand a refund from his university, clearly they provided a below-par education/degree.

      • Sorry I’m lost.
        Please help.
        I thought:-
        A. CO2 =270ppm 1850-1900 average
        B. CO2 = 540ppm ( doubling) about 2070
        C. Thus TCR occurs at least 170 years on figure
        D. The TCR and ECS amounts are for temperature above the 1850 -1900 average.

        Please correct me on any of the above is wrong
        Thanks

        • Waza,
          Strictly, Transient Climate Response (TCR) is a measure which is only applicable to a non-physical, modeled scenario. It is defined as the temperature gained at the point of doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels under a scenario wherein the CO2 molar concentration is allowed to increase at 1% per year. If you run through the calculation, you find that the doubling takes 69.7 years. For any model, CO2 is increased at 1% per year and the TCR can be read off a crossplot of predicted temperature gain against time for t = 69.7 years. That’s why Figure 4 above has the 69.7 year point highlighted as yielding TCR.

      • The newest update in the Covid dashboard has this note today:

        Wednesday, July 15. The San Antonio Metro Health District has clarified its reporting to separate confirmed and probable cases, so the Bexar County and statewide totals have been updated to remove 3,484 probable cases. The local case count previously included probable cases identified by antigen testing but not those from antibody testing or other sources.

        https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83

        Still not getting it right.

        • Note the disclaimer … It’s only a hashed together display for information what do you expect?
          Proper vetted data would take lots of staff and money or wait a year or so for stuff to move thru the birth/death/marriages system.

          • It’s only a hashed together display for information what do you expect?

            I expect the San Antonio Metro Health District to get their reporting correct. It doesn’t seem other districts are having an issue.

            Is there a reason I shouldn’t expect their reporting to be correct?

          • Say wait a minute, speaking of “LdB,” aren’t you supposed to have deleted this site from yer favs months ago now?

            “Anthony and Mods so is the site which recently had overwhelmingly numbers of articles about covid19 and “I don’t want no stinkin lockdown”, now going to run relentless articles on conspiracy theories? It was bad enough having to wade thru the large number of repeated posts and comments from this small group.

            It would be kind if you could answer so I know if I should delete the site from my favorites list now.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/pseudo-science-behind-the-assault-on-hydroxychloroquine/#comment-2983974

            Here’s what you said back in May:

            “Please note I am not interested in the opinions of anyone else . . . I really don’t want to interact at all with the rest.”

            Well then what are you doing back commenting on articles about C-19 and asking me questions with already REALLY obvious answers?

            Don’t you contradict yourself?

          • The site on the main has got back to Global Warming so I frequent it again not that I have to justify that to you. As you see Mosher and a few others still post covid junk even on climate change threads which still gets tiresome.

            As it would happen I simply followed your link to see what you were on about because you made such a big deal of it. When looking at the tracking details the first thing you run into is the disclaimer. Hence your complaint about that data is a bit over the top it isn’t like they are claiming it is correct.

          • The site on the main has got back to Global Warming so I frequent it again not that I have to justify that to you.

            You “frequent it again”? Did you ever leave?

            Hey I was just asking, you were the one whining about how you were leaving because you could no longer deal with the Covid and related posts. Then you didn’t leave. Or I didn’t notice.

            I just wondered why you thought that to contradict yourself would be edifying. It would seem like a consistent bloke would avoid commenting upon that which he publicly whinged so much about, even to the point of threatening with a great, blustering whimper to take himself away (but didn’t) because he just couldn’t manage it any longer.

            I mean, it was YOUR argument after all. 🙂

            As it would happen I simply followed your link to see what you were on about because you made such a big deal of it.

            Good show checking my work. I need that from you. Did I make a “big deal” out of it? I think I had a one liner? I thought I’d made a bigger deal out of “Mosher’s” big deal than I’d made any sort of deal out of another deal, but okay.

            When looking at the tracking details the first thing you run into is the disclaimer. Hence your complaint about that data is a bit over the top it isn’t like they are claiming it is correct.

            See I thought with that disclaimer the State of Texas was saying, “If WE screw up any of the data provided to us by our respondents (e.g., the San Antonio Metro Health District) and THEN we post it to this website, you can take a flying leap if you don’t like it.” I didn’t know they were actually disclaiming for the data provided TO them as well. That’s why I was criticizing a posteriori the San Antonio Metro Health District and not the State of Texas.

            Maybe by your own admission I stand corrected.

            Let’s grant your proposition though.

            So because of the disclaimer that, “Well, we might screw it up,” you would argue that I don’t have any particular reason to EXPECT consistent and correct data from the San Antonio Metro Health District, even though none of the other districts seem to be having a problem keeping their data straight? And this all solely because of a disclaimer on the Texas Covid Dashboard that probably doesn’t even really apply to the San Antonio Metro Health District in the first place?

            The IPCC has a huge disclaimer regarding climate change. It says, “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

            But you’ve been making quite a big deal out of them attempting to do it anyway, and this for several years. Shouldn’t you have kept your mouth shut all this time?

            After all, there’s a disclaimer.

            Don’t you contradict yourself? Again?

          • “The site on the main has got back to Global Warming so I frequent it again not that I have to justify that to you. As you see Mosher and a few others still post covid junk even on climate change threads which still gets tiresome.”

            the topic is predictions.

            now we can go back to some previous posts to see how people underplyed the problem..
            we could start with the posts from Feb and march..

            or look at dave thumping his chest when texas numbers were low..

            https://youtu.be/onW4-WTNDx8?t=22

          • The topic is climate sensitivity as it pertains to climate predictions. Learn how to read.

          • the topic is predictions.

            Indeed.

            now we can go back to some previous posts to see how people underplyed the problem.

            Underplayed? Are you sure? Did David make any predictions or did he respond to yours? What about those who overplayed the problem? For example, you said this, citing a Bloomberg report:

            “Houston’s Covid-19 outbreak is accelerating at an exponential pace that will swamp the fourth-largest U.S. city’s medical infrastructure by the Independence Day holiday, less than two weeks away, a leading disease specialist warned.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/25/climate-explainer-if-humans-had-not-contributed-to-greenhouses-gases-in-any-way-at-all-what-would-the-global-temperature-be-today/#comment-302315

            What really happened? I tracked it:

            As of 7/5/2020, 15:15, Available ICU Beds – 1,203

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/25/climate-explainer-if-humans-had-not-contributed-to-greenhouses-gases-in-any-way-at-all-what-would-the-global-temperature-be-today/#comment-3029634

            opps. no independence day apocalypse massacre

            What about this prediction on July 5:

            In about 20 days you will know more.. maybe 30 days since youngster last longer on vents.
            some last 60 days..

            Well it’s 2 days shy of 20, what do the numbers say about youngsters?

            https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/ed483ecd702b4298ab01e8b9cafc8b83

            opps a bunch better die before monday martha and we’ll come back to see what’s happening after that too!

          • If that is your big point that I contradict myself … well okay … why would I care what you think? Perhaps I shall hence forth be called the master of contradiction or maybe not .. I know it’s a contradiction … live with it.

          • If that is your big point that I contradict myself … well okay … why would I care what you think?

            I’m glad to see you admit it. Admitting to sloppy thinking is the first step in correcting it.

            As to why you should care what I think about you – well when I flatter myself, I still find I get nowhere with me, so I don’t really bother with silly questions concerning why people should care about what I think about them. That’s not a particularly useful goal in my view.

            What’ll be more advantageous to you in the long run is to listen to what I’ve SAID about you and then do an honest, introspective analysis to see if I’m right. If I am (and I am in your case), then you can adjust your sloppy thinking according to that criticism should you so desire. I mean, unless you’re just a fan of continuing to prove yourself a moron on the world’s most viewed blog on climate change?

            Trust me, it ain’t all that . . . it can be embarrassing.

            I should know.

          • @Stephen … People have predictions just like they have opinions and the accuracy is usually in the eye of the beholder.

          • @Stephen … People have predictions just like they have opinions and the accuracy is usually in the eye of the beholder.

            Well maybe in your *opinion* that’s true. But in the real world where rational people live, the accuracy of predictions is in the eye of the data that either proves or disproves the prediction.

            I’m not flattering myself, I’m just saying here’s more sloppy thinking you should consider tossing out of your belief system.

          • still about predictions Dave

            woo hoo go texas

            https://news.trust.org/item/20200717011211-17cr2

            watch Mr exponential work, he dont work no geological time

            ‘The current tally of 77,217 cases surpasses the previous record set on Friday when cases rose by 69,070. In June, cases rose by an average of 28,000 a day, according to a Reuters tally. In July, they have risen by an average of 57,625 a day.”

            Take that Florida

            “On Thursday, Texas reported over 15,000 new cases, according to a Reuters tally of county data, while Florida reported nearly 14,000 new cases and California almost 10,000.”

            Texas is in the house.

        • those over counted cases are filling up hospital beds!!

          too funny

          maybe there is a dead Texan joke in here somewhere.

          anyway, when Mr exponential comes knocking at your door it’s best to move quickly..

          “In Texas, the rising numbers are hitting big cities like Houston as well as smaller communities along the Mexico border. This month, Hidalgo County, about 220 miles (354 kilometers) south of San Antonio on the border, has reported more deaths than Houston’s Harris County.

          Dr. Ivan Melendez, Hidalgo County’s public health authority, said it’s not uncommon for the body of a COVID-19 patient to lay on a stretcher for 10 hours before it can be removed in the overcrowded hospitals where intensive care space is running short.

          “Before someone gets a bed in the COVID ICU unit, someone has to die there,” Melendez said.

          Elsewhere in the second-largest state, health officials in San Antonio also turned to refrigerated trailers to store the dead, and soldiers prepared to take over a COVID-19 wing of a Houston hospital.

          An 86-person Army team of doctors, nurses and support staff was setting up a nursing station at United Memorial Medical Center and expected to begin treating up to 40 patients in the coming days.

          Some of the soldiers from around the country wore their uniforms. Others wore scrubs affixed with strips of surgical tape that had their ranks, names and medical titles.

          “This facility, working with the United States military, is something that we asked for,” said U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, standing near the soldiers as they worked. “We have exhausted medical personnel that we’re so grateful to, but we didn’t have enough.

          • those over counted cases are filling up hospital beds!!

            I’m flattered you’d reply, but can you find the real Steve Mosher please, coz I think this one is the Tardbox Addlepate MDS (Middleton Derangement Syndrome) version.

            Who said they’re “filling up hospital beds” with over counted numbers? Strawman much?

            What I said was people who shouldn’t be getting it wrong are still getting it wrong, as evidenced by the San Antonio Metro Health District until the 15th of July. What that ultimately means (and ALL it ultimately means) is, “Who else is getting it wrong, how and by how much”? I can’t say without evidence, but I have REASON to be suspicious of the numbers. Yet suddenly after all this time b*tching about rightly dividing the word of data, you’re okay with bad data being published?

            Gotcha . . .

            maybe there is a dead Texan joke in here somewhere.

            Or maybe the joke is on you? I thought we were talking about nursing homes, but you want to change the subject to Hidalgo?

            Red Herring as much as you Strawman?

            Anyway, hey at least THIS time you cited someone who’s on the front lines. Your first effort was to cite soon-to-be-award-winning-journalist turned world class data analysis expert NBC reporter Susy Khimm:

            “Across Texas, nearly 1,000 new infections of nursing home residents were reported in the week ending last Friday, July 10, NBC News found in an analysis of data from the Texas health department.”

            Now any time a skeptic makes a claim involving data, “Mosher” wants to see the code. Suddenly that doesn’t apply when it’s soon-to-be-award-winning-journalist turned world class data analysis expert NBC reporter Susy Khimm who, with her analysis of the data can also “coincidentally,” justify “Mosher’s” MDS.

            Gotcha.

            But let’s Red Herring the topic to Hidalgo. Hidalgo is a border town to Mexico. California’s got some ethnic stats, and it doesn’t bode well for Hispanics. It seems there’s data to suggest Hispanics are more likely to contract and die from the virus than others. Here’s the numbers from CA:

            Latino: 133,843
            % cases: 55.4
            # deaths: 3,283
            % deaths: 44.5
            % popul: 38.9

            “Among some racial and ethnic minority groups, including non-Hispanic black persons, Hispanics and Latinos, and American Indians/Alaska Natives, evidence points to higher rates of hospitalization or death from COVID-19 than among non-Hispanic white persons.”

            https://tinyurl.com/y55maka8

            The CDC has Hispanics 3rd in the most susceptible, at +/- 161 per 100000, much higher than other ethnic groups.

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html

            Maybe that’s why border towns are having issues what say you? How many of them are Texans? How many non-Texans are pushing hospital capacity? I don’t know. Do you?

          • Or maybe the joke is on you?

            More accurately the joke is him. The drive-by English-major is little more than a bad joke these days.

        • woo hoo go Reuters and one-time-data-analysis-expert-turned-self-inflicted-MDS-sufferer-steven-mosher

          From your link:

          “The loss of 969 lives was the biggest increase since June 10, with Florida, South Carolina and Texas all reporting their biggest one-day spikes on Thursday.”

          opps – seems there might be some underlying data reporting issues at play here – not that this would matter to one-time-data-analysis-expert-steven-mosher-turned-MDS-addled-tard when “Mosher” can use potential garbage data toward his macabre, evil plan of world domination via the destruction of David Middleton’s credibility:

          “Seven months into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, state governments and media outlets continue to publicize confusing, misleading data on the spread of the disease here, perpetuating fears that deaths from the virus are skyrocketing on a daily basis even as those fatalities are generally distributed across a period of days, weeks or even months.

          At issue is how state health departments publicize daily reports of fatalities within the state’s borders. State health officials have for months been publishing two sets of mortality statistics: deaths that occurred on the publication date in question, and deaths that have only recently been catalogued from state backlogs.

          The Arizona Department of Health Services publishes both of those figures on its coronavirus dashboard: On its ‘Summary’ page, it lists the ‘number of new deaths reported today,’ while on its ‘Covid-19 Deaths’ tab, the state lists the actual ‘deaths by date of death.’

          The distinction is a critical one: The state’s ‘new deaths’ every day do not actually reflect the number of coronavirus fatalities Arizona has logged in the past 24 hours, but rather the number of COVID-19 deaths it has identified from both new and older death certificates.

          Health department spokeswoman Holly Poynter confirmed to Just the News on Friday that the state’s ‘new deaths’ figure is not drawn exclusively from the most recent 24-hour period of fatalities.

          ‘While we had 91 new deaths reported today, the graph [on the dashboard] shows them by the actual date of death,’ she said on Friday. ‘Although those 91 were reported today, it doesn’t mean today was the date of death. Those deaths may have occurred at any time on the graph but were simply reported today.’

          A similar problem was seen in Florida this week, when the state health department on Thursday announced 156 deaths in one 24-hour period. That number was touted as a frightening new record by media outlets such as CNN, the Miami Herald, NBC, the Orlando Sentinel, and numerous others.

          [“numerous others,” e.g., like Reuters as cited by one-time-data-analysis-expert-turned-self-inflicted-MDS-sufferer-Steven Mosher]

          Yet as of Saturday aftenroon [sic], the actual number of deaths confirmed for that 24-hour period, per the state’s dashboard, was just 58—roughly one-third the ‘record’ that the state health department touted on its website.”

          read more:
          https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/holdhow-covid-19-fatality-reports-are-distorting-data

          opps – go reuters! way to follow up and show some journalistic integrity there budrow boys!

          Why didn’t I see this reporting disclaimer at Reuters?
          Why didn’t I see “Mosher” asking for Reuters to show their work?
          Why didn’t I see “Mosher” asking for Reuters to produce their data?
          Why didn’t I see “Mosher” asking for Reuters to show their code?

          Will the REAL Steven Mosher please weigh in?

          This one I’m laughing at can’t be him.

          • Sadly the one you are laughing at is him. The drive-by English major has long since lost it. His infatuation with David is merely the latest sign of how far down the rabbit hole he’s fallen.

    • How do you figure the following in this article about nursing homes gets you all hot and bothered in that . . . you know . . . that special *WAY* you’ve been getting hot and bothered about Dave recently?

      “Across Texas, nearly 1,000 new infections of nursing home residents were reported in the week ending last Friday, July 10, NBC News found in an analysis of data from the Texas health department. That’s the highest weekly increase since mid-May, when the state began publishing the data, and it reflects record increases last week in the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and El Paso regions.”

      First, nursing homes are still locked down as far as I know. I STILL can’t visit a friend of mine here in podunk cowboy land south of DFW. The most I can do is leave some cokes at the front door of the facility and wave through the glass. I can’t imagine those fancy big cities are any different.

      Wasn’t that the prescription to stop the virus, i.e., lock down? How can this be? How can it be that with the lock down STILL in place for nursing homes the virus has penetrated that all encompassing defense anyway?

      Secondly, what data and what “analysis of data from the Texas health department.” When I clicked on her link I got this:

      https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/additionaldata/

      ????

      • nursing homes locked down???
        sycomputing July 15, 2020 at 8:05 pm
        Wasn’t that the prescription to stop the virus, i.e., lock down? How can this be? How can it be that with the lock down STILL in place for nursing homes the virus has penetrated that all encompassing defense anyway?
        —————-
        what sort of lock down – are the care staff resident and not returning to their homes
        – are the cooks and cleaning staff resident and not returning home
        – are the other medical staff resident and not returning home

        testing – how many days for a result?
        catch covid 19 one morning on the bus and transfer it to the service users for 2 days before a positive result.
        Once loose in the home then lock-down is pointless other than to stop the spread to relatives.

        Trump says ‘germ is so brilliant antibiotics can’t keep up with it’ in chaotic White House coronavirus meeting
        (antibiotics do not affect viruses every body knows that!!!)

        • what sort of lock down – are the care staff resident and not returning to their homes

          As far as I know the care staff are doing as they’ve been doing from the first lock down in mid March.

          catch covid 19 one morning on the bus and transfer it to the service users for 2 days before a positive result.

          Well that can’t be it can it? The governor has mandated masks for public transportation in all Texas cities:

          https://tinyurl.com/yd88xwh2

          Houston Metro installed mesh systems to enforce social distancing guidelines in April. All their employees were furnished with masks and gloves as well:

          https://tinyurl.com/y6u7ajcs

          Then they made masks mandatory: https://tinyurl.com/yd6qdxca

          Austin has required masks even since the first Phase 1 reopening:

          “Face coverings are required when entering a building open to the public, while using public transportation as well as taxis and ride shares, and when pumping gas. In addition, face coverings are required outside when six feet of distancing cannot be consistently maintained.”

          https://tinyurl.com/y9wek8ch

          Austin even issued a stay at home order a month ago:

          https://tinyurl.com/ycthw25f

          So I don’t see how public transportation can be the problem, do you Ghalfrunt?

          testing – how many days for a result?

          For my family it was two days when the state sponsored free testing at the park in our city. That’s consistent with a friend of ours in the area, but who lives in a different city, who was also tested.

          But then test results are the problem aren’t they? The article’s author doesn’t seem to understand how to cite data as evidence for her position.

          Did you read the article Ghalfrunt? And if you did, did you click on the links she used to back up her claim? I did. I couldn’t verify her story that way. Did she go out and speak to any nursing home administrators directly and report what their front line experience is, or did she just use data that she apparently doesn’t understand how to link to when offering evidence for her position?

          I’m not saying it ISN’T happening, but if all I have is this reporter to believe, I’m dubious without better evidence.

          Trump says ‘germ is so brilliant antibiotics can’t keep up with it’ in chaotic White House coronavirus meeting

          You know, it’s really all going to be okay buddy, take yer meds, wipe the spittle off yer chin and just RELAX – he’s just a man, like you and I, he ain’t god.

          Really, the ilks of thee are beginning to worry me Ghalfrunt.

      • “Wasn’t that the prescription to stop the virus, i.e., lock down? How can this be? How can it be that with the lock down STILL in place for nursing homes the virus has penetrated that all encompassing defense anyway?”

        obviously lockdown orders are not being followed.
        we see the same thing in korea
        despite Knowing that lockdowns work, despite the government orders,
        a policy is only as good as the PRACTICE.

        some staff somewhere is asymptomatic, some staff somewhere washes their hands for 15 seconds when it takes at least 20 to destroy the virus.
        1 case becomes 20, 30, 40.

        It would be interesting to see the daily case report for transmission analysis from texas.
        opps there is none.

        Here daily we get to see.

        Hanwul Nursing Home
        index case July 1
        additional cases 11

        Related to the family in Seo-gu, Daejeon City, 1* additional case was confirmed after the index case was confirmed on 6 July. In total, 7 cases have been confirmed.

        * index case = 1 case, family members of the index case = 2, contacts from visited clinic = 3, acquaintance = 1

        another thing

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-south-korea-solved-its-acute-hospital-bed-shortage-11584874801

        https://jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e140

        • obviously lockdown orders are not being followed.

          So says you. My buddy’s facility is Covid free since June 30:

          https://tinyurl.com/y3y5l2hv

          What evidence do you have other than soon-to-be-award-winning investigative NBC reporter suddenly-turned-expert-data-analysis-technician Susy Khimm’s word?

          Where’s her code?
          Why didn’t she show her work?
          I sure can’t find it, can you?

          That’s the MacabreMosher’sMantra isn’t it? “Show your work!” In fact, her best effort (and a posteriori, YOUR best effort) to support her claim is this:

          https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/additionaldata/

          “opps.
          can’t see anything from that.
          that’s a website.”

          Why do you take Susy Khimm’s word for it but no one else? Don’t you contradict yourself there, LdB [sic]? Is that your MDS showing again?

          It would be interesting to see the daily case report for transmission analysis from texas.
          opps there is none.

          Yeah funny how lack of data or bad data makes it harder to push or accept certain propositions doesn’t it?

    • Prediction?
      Hard?
      No it’s very easy to predict a vapid drive-by from the English-major. You and Mr Pool need to learn that neither of you are Mr Middleton’s type (not to mention, IIRC, he’s a married man) so no matter how much you chase after him, he’s not going to sleep with either of you, so give it up already.

  6. Anybody who knows a bit about good, valid, models on whatever subject knows that when they evolve due to more complete underlying knowledge and generallyy in the light of experience, that they tend to converge to a final state. That is, their predictions converge on a state which we may reasonably expect to approach the real thing we are modelling.

    Climate models do exactly the opposite. Their outcomes have diverged over the years. The ECS value range has increased over the past decades instead of decreasing and converging on a narrower range. This means the ensemble is still in the ‘let’s play’ state and that a careful assessment and pruning by detailed comparison with the real world has not even begun yet.

    Only a fool bases decisions on such immature work.

    • “Climate models do exactly the opposite. Their outcomes have diverged over the years. The ECS value range has increased over the past decades instead of decreasing and converging on a narrower range.”

      The reason for this discrepancy is politics. The climate computer models are being configured with politics in mind, not science. So if the politics rrequires a more scary scenario, then the computer modellers give a more scary scenario by doubling down on the heat predictions.

      Meanwhile, the weather is just fine on planet Earth. Nothing unprecedented to see here.

  7. The legitimate search for REAL climate-sensitivity will be avoided as long as the fake-scientists are in charge. The real value is way too low for their purpose.

  8. It’s also important to note that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is really a fake parameter. The transient climate response (TCR) is what matters, and it’s generally only about 2/3 of the ECS.

    ECS = fake
    TCR=0.67*ECS=0.67*fake=fake
    TCR=fake

    David, you nailed it! What matters is the CO2 sensitivity to temperature:

    https://i.postimg.cc/MGtX0bmx/CO2-v-SST.jpg

    • They both matter. The so-called consensus grossly overestimates one and ignores the other.

      • David I don’t believe you. The CO2 story is full of holes. Here are two images from a Pat Michaels post from JCurry’s site on May 14, 2020:

        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/screen-shot-2020-05-14-at-9.34.35-am.png?w=500&h=269

        https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/screen-shot-2020-05-14-at-9.34.48-am.png

        The global primary productivity (GPP; the net change in standing vegetation per year) in the second image is highest in the southern hemisphere, which drove the greening curve in the first image. The northern hemisphere is assumed by almost everyone to dominate the CO2 cycle. These graphs indicate the GPP is concentrated in the southern hemisphere, indicating the NH isn’t clearly dominating the CO2 cycle.

        Mauna Loa May-Sept CO2 drawdown is driven by annual SST changes, not the NH CO2 cycle:

        https://i.postimg.cc/X7f651QG/Seasonal-Nino34-vs-Detrended-CO2.jpg

        The ECS and TCR are therefore fake indices and aren’t physical in practice, ie useless.

        • To be clear, for the consensus it is assumed that in every year the NH forests and grasses etc drawdown Mauna Loa CO2 from May-Sep during the growing season, after which CO2 rebounds.

          If true where is the not insubstantial SH drawdown in the annual ML CO2 curve?

          • The vast majority of temperate to boreal vegetated land is in the Northern Hemisphere. The tropics don’t have a strong seasonal signal. The boreal forests of Siberia and North America are the most significant contributors to the seasonal signal in the MLO and other Northern Hemisphere stations. The Southern Hemisphere signal is far less pronounced.

          • That’s great David, show some anger; except you’re skirting the lag issue.

            I don’t believe you for logical reasons – CO2 always lags, so your sensitivities are backwards.

            The lukewarmer slideshow had nothing new, and changes nothing because it, like you, failed to address how the supposed forcing agent lags temperature.

          • Re: lags, there are multiple phenomena being discussed. The information below should not in dispute by anyone.

            1) A warming world releases CO2 that was previously locked up in things like calcium carbonate (limestone) and water. The reverse happens during a cooling world.
            The amount of atmospheric CO2 always lags the long term changes in temperature.

            2) the immediate response from atmospheric CO2 is that it slows down the lapse rate of certain frequency bands of radiation leaving the atmosphere into space.

            There… I solved it.

          • Correct. CO2 and other greenhouse gases retard the rate of radiative cooling. While the exact sensitivity can’t be known, it can be fairly well estimated (Stefan–Boltzmann). In a no feedback scenario, TCR works out to about 1 °C per doubling, which is very close to John Christy’s latest estimate.

            Warmer oceans hold less CO2 in solution than colder oceans. Some of the CO2 since the Little Ice Age is due to warming oceans. Since we don’t have a firm quantified grasp of the natural fast carbon cycle, we can’t know how much of the rise is anthropogenic. I think I can make a case for about half of the rise being natural… But it’s far from certain.

            Alarmists (the so-called) consensus wildly exaggerate the former and discount the latter.

          • Like I said earlier: I don’t give a rat’s@$$ about what you “believe.”

            Belief plays no role in science.

          • You’re obviously not addressing the issue and wish to make it personal.

            Let me simplify: I know you’re wrong, which why I don’t believe you.

            Why should I believe what you are saying is right when the facts say otherwise?

            Do you believe you are right or do you know you are right and how can you tell the difference?

          • i don’t give a rat’s @$$ what YOU “believe”.

            I can provide you with explanations of the greenhouse effect and every skeptical climate scientist there is – John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Judith Curry – But I can’t make you read and/or understand the explanations.

          • David, you and other lukewarmers don’t address the lag issue, it’s your blind spot.

            The fact of the matter is you lukewarmers are wrong, whomever you are, whatever was published, and no amount of additional information or name-dropping or name-calling can help you lukewarmers now.

            The GHGE is not the reason for the ocean warming in the 20th century; mankind’s emissions are a minor part of the whole that is controlled by CO2 ocean outgassing, which is solar controlled

            You’re showing everyone just how unreasonable lukewarmers get when challenged.

            Why should I agree or believe you or them when the facts say otherwise?

          • Bob Weber is just antagonizing. Nothing that he says is pertinent, it’s feelings and beliefs which are not arguable. Hey when I was in my early teens some decades ago, I noticed that heating up a fish tank from 72 to 81 degrees tended to reduce the acidity… evidently, off-gassing CO2 carbonic adid… So we know the relationship between CO2 and the atmosphere, which Bob does not consider or feel has a consequence…

          • I really do wish it was as simple as some skeptics believe it to be. Fifteen years ago, I was of the same school of thought. But the data just don’t support that position any better than the alarmist position.

            While I have no doubt that subtle variations in solar activity and other astrophysical/orbital processes are the underlying drivers of decadal, multi-decadal, centennial and millennial climate fluctuations, a direct relationship has not been established.

          • No doubt, it’s a complex dynamic system with first, second and multiple order relationships in play. I do not deny any of the claims in part. That people wish for there to be a single control knob (CO2), however, that can then be used to control all of society, life and death… really bothers me. There is no dealing with those people, but that is off topic and I am just whining now.

          • I do my part whenever I can… the flack I get is worth it! The Left are imploding for all to watch. Today’s communications will make change occur rapidly… and perhaps we can snuff out for another 4 years getting back on track.

  9. Greening the planet and slouching towards Paris?
    From one of the hearts of the science – Judith Curry’s website https://judithcurry.com/ call “Climate etc”, I was reading with extra interest since hearing the latest from sleepy Joe about his climate plan which is AOC’s climate plan. Very interesting article Greening the planet and slouching towards Paris? by Patrick J. Michaels – https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/14/greening-the-planet-and-slouching-towards-paris/
    I think (since the paper is a bit hard to understand) it essentially says the extra C02 will green the plant so much that the extra green will suck so much C02 out the atmosphere that it will stop warming. “Under a plausible emissions pathway, this (greening) will pull so much carbon dioxide out of the air that we could meet the Paris Accord of keeping surface warming below 2⁰C” How crazy is that!

    • RCP8.5 is worse than bad science fiction from all aspects. An even worse science fiction argument isn’t necessary to refute RCP8.5.

      • An even worse science fiction argument isn’t necessary to refute RCP8.5.

        That was a really asinine thing for you to say David.

        The subject of the severely unreal solar forcing in RCP8.5 that drives the CMIP6 models hotter, in my graphic, was also the subject of Dr. Dean Pesnell’s talk at the recent Sun-Climate Symposium I attended who re-iterated the need for more a realistic forcing scenario for the exact same reason I gave you.

        The RCP8.5 solar forcing is science fiction, as is CMIP6. David are you going to endorse the RCP8.5 solar stupid science fiction now just to spite me?

        • RCP = Representative Concentration Pathway. Solar forcing is the same in all RCP scenarios.

          • May the wisdom prevail of adopting a more realistic solar forcing for models in lieu of the status quo such as what Dr. Pesnell suggested.

            Solar cycle forcing is key to decadal climate change. Those who want to keep the emissions scare story going use the most unrealistic solar projection in the hope no one will know why the models run so hot, nor do they talk about real solar influences.

          • Oceanic circulation cycles, which may be driven by solar variability, are more likely to be the drivers of decadal and multi-decadal climate fluctuations.

          • Solar cycles are the driver of multi-decadal ocean changes.

            Correction: the solar forcing I referred to before re CMIP6 was for CMIP5.

            In general, models using CO2 ECS and TCR don’t reproduce reality, and since ECS and TCR are moving targets, CO2 climate modelling is always a crapshoot.

            Hindcasts and forecasts are made by the dozen based on something people still can’t even decide on together, but after 30+ years of this people still act like the core idea is credible.

          • There is no scientific basis for the assertion that solar cycles directly drive climate cycles.

Comments are closed.