Restoring Scientific Debate on Climate

Guest essay by Jim Steele

The political genius of Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to unify the country during America’s most divisive time has been attributed to assembling a “team of rivals”. Likewise, scientific research is published so rivals and supporters of a hypothesis can independently and critically examine it. The great benefits of a team of rivals is also the basis for convening red team/blue team debates.

In 2017, Dr Steve Koonin, a physicist who served as Obama’s Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy, urged convening red-team blue-team debates for climate science in his article A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science.  “The national-security community pioneered the “Red Team” methodology to test assumptions and analyses, identify risks, and reduce—or at least understand—uncertainties. The process is now considered a best practice in high-consequence situations”.

Unfortunately, the public climate science debate has been framed as “deniers” versus “alarmists”, or “honest saintly scientists” versus “corrupt perpetrators of a hoax”.  The media pushes exaggerated claims of a crisis while some scientists misleadingly shield their hypotheses claiming the “science is settled”.  But science is a process and never settled. However, all sides do agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and concentrations have increased. All sides agree the climate is changing. That science is indeed settled. But complex climate dynamics are not driven solely by CO2 and many unsettled questions remain.  Scientists still debate whether climate has a higher or lower sensitivity to rising CO2. Answering that question depends on the unsettled science regards competing contributions from natural variability and landscape changes. And because rising CO2 and warmth benefits photosynthesizing plants, scientists debate the beneficial contributions of rising CO2.

Climate models could not replicate recent warming when only natural climate change was considered. But models could simulate recent warming since 1970s after adding CO2. That was the only evidence that supported the notion that increasing CO2 caused observed warming. However, there’s a flaw in such reasoning. Models limited to just natural climate dynamics failed to explain recent changes simply because our understanding is still incomplete. For example the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a major driver of natural climate change was only recently characterized in 1997, but has been shown to account for 100 years of changing climate along the coasts of the north eastern Pacific.

Urban Heat Island profile Image from Lawrence Berkeley Labs

Abundant peer-reviewed research shows changes in landscapes dampen or amplify warming. Regional modeling studies determined landscape changes could generate extreme temperatures similar to a doubling of CO2 concentrations.  Urban heat islands and deforestation undeniably amplify temperatures and alter regional climates. Such landscape effects best explain why 38% of US weather stations display cooling trends, and why the best tree ring science suggests natural habitat temperatures haven’t exceeded the warm spike of the 1930s and 40s. The misleading downplaying of such important landscape changes in climate models led to the resignation of climate scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Unable to model the 1940s warming spike, climate scientist Tom Wigley, emailed colleagues suggesting “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”. Subsequently the “40s warm blip” was removed from many data sets arousing widespread distrust. Public red team/blue team debates examining such data adjustments could clarify the reasons for those adjustments.

In 2016, climate scientist Michael Mann co-authored a paper titled Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism correctly arguing, “science is debate” and “public debate and skepticism are essential to a functioning democracy.” But schizophrenically, Mann opposed red team/blue team debates as a “disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers”.

Mistrust for Michael Mann and his colleagues in the “high CO2 sensitivity and catastrophic climate change” school of thought increased as they campaigned to denigrate skeptics as “deniers” or “contrarians” who can’t publish in peer-reviewed journals. Simultaneously however, Mann worked to suppress skeptical publications. Two Harvard astrophysicists, Dr Soon and Dr Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper synthesizing 240 scientific papers and suggested recent temperatures are similar to the Medieval Warm Period. With his hypotheses threatened by such research,  Mann railed “the peer-review process at Climate Research [the journal] has been hijacked by a few skeptics.” 

Trying to suppress skeptical science publications he emailed colleagues, “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” They then discussed how to rid any editors tolerant of skeptical arguments to prevent further skeptical publications. 

Undeniably, some climate scientists have been covertly marginalizing honest skeptical scientists. Trust the science, but only when it agrees with their hypotheses. They have argued don’t debate skeptics because “debate actually gives alternative views credibility”. But the scientific process demands thoroughly examining alternative explanations. It is the rigorous vetting by rivals that makes science trustworthy but such biased gatekeeping erodes public trust. Hopefully developing transparent public red team/blue team debates can restore our trust and more accurately guide public policies.


Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Published in the Pacifica Tribune September 30, 2020

150 thoughts on “Restoring Scientific Debate on Climate

  1. If you have to “fudge” the data to make it match your understanding, then you’re wrong.

      • “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” They then discussed how to rid any editors tolerant of skeptical arguments to prevent further skeptical publications.

        What has only recently become known as cancel culture was revealed as being rife in climatology by the ClimateGate emails.

  2. “All sides agree the climate is changing. That science is indeed settled.”

    Climate changes, always has, but…

    • “All sides agree the climate is changing”
      Only if all sides agree what ”climate” is. Is a repeating wave a change?

      • Yeah and I’m not convinced that it’s that much warmer today than it was in the 1930’s and certainly warming out of the LIA to that point was natural, as was probably most of the cooling from then until the late 1970’s.

      • As I keep asking the AGW trolls ….

        “In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?”

        Odd that they never even attempt to answer. !

    • I think Jim made a little mistake there. This was the preceding sentence:
      “But science is a process and never settled.”
      Saying ” That science is indeed settled.” does rather contradict his previous sentence. It would be better – and still make perfect sense – if this sentence were removed.
      Chris

      • I agree. I think that it’s most likely true that higher CO2 (driven by higher temperature and human fossil fuel burning) generates some extra warming at least under most circumstances. I also think that fossil fuel burning at a rate twice as high as the rate of increase in CO2 concentration is the most likely cause of CO2 concentration increasing.

        But the science is not settled. I can’t rule out the possibility that negative feedback mostly compensates for any additional warming due to CO2’s radiative effects under some circumstances or even results in net cooling. I also can’t prove that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is not mostly sequestered by the local biosphere while CO2 increase in the bulk atmosphere is driven mostly by ocean temperature. I would be very surprised to see proof of those alternative explanations, but cannot conclude that they are impossible.

        We can reasonably say that something is “settled” if the observations over a long period are never at odds with the predictions of our theory. Even then, we just mean that our current theory is going to consistently predict an answer that is not meaningfully different from reality. Newton’s laws of motion are not exactly correct in every circumstance, but we can rely on them for all practical purposes.

        Looking at climate observations, how can we possibly talk about “settled science”? Which model explains the Little Ice Age, or the timing and magnitude of the succession of warm periods?

  3. Can you imagine if a cabal of senior geologists/academics in the 1960’s had argued against plate tectonic theory being able to be debated and discussed in peer reviewed journals or not allowed to be debated on campus? Of course it would have been accepted sooner or later, just as the Catholic Church had to finally accept that the good Earth was not the centre of the solar system.

    What is the difference between plate tectonics and and the even more complex subject matter of atmospheric physics? The longer this cartel goes on about the science being settled and there is nothing left to discuss, the harder the entire field of climate science will implode some day. And that day may be soon, when observations don’t match models, which never were a substitute for hard data. The real issue is the sensitivity of all human activity, including CO2 emissions, but just not CO2 itself that is causing all of the warming. We can’t even explain natural variation very well yet, so how would we know as compared to what the climate would have been had humans not advanced and populated the planet.

    A climate theory consensus that allows no discussion or debate is antithetical to science itself, and should be the first clue for politicians, journalists and other academics to open their eyes and encourage a healthy robust debate. This is the only way we will advance as a knowledgable civilization. And I might add, that a slight warming is a great insurance policy of any major cooling event that comes out of left field. Which it always does, sooner or later.

    • “What is the difference between plate tectonics and and the even more complex subject matter of atmospheric physics?”

      Plate Tectonics as a concept can’t be used to control people.

    • This is not new for science, Classical physics died in 1919 with GR and the final nail put in it’s coffin in 1925 with the Pauli exclusion principle. Yet 100 years on in many schools even today they still do not explain that what they are teaching is an approximation because it is conceptually simpler.

    • The Marxist solution to reality SEEMINGLY not matching ideology is political re-education of dissidents – or a bullet.

  4. It always gives me great glee to point out that Dr. Michael Mann is a self-confessed fraud. The reasoning for this is as follows.

    Mann sued Dr. Tim Ball for saying something like:

    Mann belongs in state pen, not at Penn State.

    Mann then dragged out the proceedings so long that the Judge pitched out the case because of inexcusable delays on Mann’s part. In particular, Mann never appeared in court so that he could be cross-examined.

    Mann’s problem is adverse inference.

    The adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive.

    By not presenting evidence that he did not belong in state pen, Mann basically admitted that Ball was right. We can therefore reasonably infer that Mann does indeed belong in state pen. If there is actual case law to the contrary, I’m dying to hear it.

    • My understanding is that the judge ruled that that particular phrase was just a bit of felicitous wordplay and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

      But “Lone Pine” Mann clearly is a crook.

  5. “do agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas”

    Wow, how meaningful: CO2 is an IR absorbing gas.

    A sponge is a water absorbing solid. Some scientists believe that sponges make a spill wetter due to backmoisture and others are not insane.

    How can you have a debate with people who are exceptionally dumb or pathological liars?

    Is that mean? Well, too bad; some people are just scum and they need to be called out.

    Look at how much money scum has received. And you want to play fair?

    A ~250 year old experiment failed to show the bottom layer reach temperatures beyond what the sun provided, and yet scum still believes in a greenhouse effect.

    What is wrong with these people? I don’t get it.

    • Zoe

      Could you please explain why the average temperature of the Earth is about 15 degrees Celsius?

      If there is no greenhouse effect and no back-radiation, what are the physical processes that produce the Earth’s current temperature distribution?

      • Retention of energy due to atmospheric mass.

        That is the REAL so-called “greenhouse effect”.

        Anyone that doesn’t realise that the atmosphere holds energy in relation to its molecular density and incoming/outgoing energy, really needs to brush up on their basis of REALITY.

        • fred250

          Do you believe that the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1 degree Celsius over the last 100 years?

          If so, is it because the atmosphere is retaining more energy because it is becoming more massive? (your theory would suggest this explanation)

          • I don’t agree with his theory but your description of massive is also wrong … 1K degree on 287K is hardly a massive change. So neither argument flies for me at the moment.

          • Sheldon, do you beleive that the coldest period in 10,000 years was only 150-200 years ago.

            Do you believe that was “normal” ?

            Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            In what ways has the “global” climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • It is retaining more heat because more heat is being put in.

            https://i.postimg.cc/Hk5PgR0m/Solar_vs_CET.jpg

            Do try to keep up with simple principles if you can.

            Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • Shelton –> Cloud and water vapor dude. Fewer clouds, more energy to the troposphere. Why fewer clouds? How about 70’s cooling?

        • “Do you believe that the average temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1 degree Celsius over the last 100 years?”

          Let me butt in here and say, No, I do not think the average temperature of the Earth has increased at all in the last 100 years. It was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today. Globally. Do I need to get out the charts?

          Look at the unmodified portion of the chart included with this article. It shows that it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today.

          And there are regional temperature charts from around the globe that show the very same temperature profile: It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.

          There has been no increase in the last 100 years, there has actually been a decrease in temperatures going by unmodified charts from all over the world.

          CO2 is not overheating the world. Not even close.

      • Zoe reminds me a lot of Michael Mann.

        Lots of handwaving.
        Lots of appeals to science that she clearly does not understand.
        Lots of insults towards anyone who disagrees with her.

      • Earth’s surface temperature is primarily determined by two things – the temperature at the top of the atmosphere and the barometric pressure below that. If you accept the idea that incoming and outgoing radiation are in balance at the top of the atmosphere, then the simple adiabatic lapse rate will tell you what the average temperature is at the surface below. The higher the pressure, the hotter the temperature. GHGs will slow the rate of cooling by radiation, but that’s all they do. They don’t make the surface warmer that it would otherwise be.

        • “GHGs will slow the rate of cooling by radiation, “

          There is no evidence that CO₂ does that..

          Only H₂O has the ability to alter the cooling rate.

          • Other than H2O’s latent heat absorption as it changes phase from ice to liquid to gas, and then its release as that reverses, how is H2O different from CO2 in its response to absorbed IR? Water vapor is so much more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2, which is just a trace gas. 3-4% vs .04%. That is the main difference. But your main point is correct. Increasing total GHGs from 4.04% of the air to 4.08% will have an unmeasurable effect.

            The dominant method by which heat is removed from the surface is not radiation at any rate. It is conduction and convection. Radiation doesn’t begin to be a significant factor until high up un the atmosphere, above the troposphere.

          • WHen the atmosphere is humid, it cools a lot more slowly than it does when the atmosphere is dry.
            That is evidence that green house gases can slow the rate of cooling by radiation.

          • 1. Because it hold latent heat… and

            2. Itss specific energy is also very different from that of dry air.

            Therefore the amount of H2O in the atmosphere changes the lapse rate significantly

            Formulas for lapse rate even take this into account.

            CO2’s specific energy is very close to dry air, and there is so little of it.

            It actually increases the lapse rate by a tiny immeasurable amount.

          • Latent heat doesn’t matter until it cools enough for water vapor to start condensing.
            Even without condensing, humid air cools more slowly.
            Humid air is also less dense than dry air.

          • “Latent heat doesn’t matter until it cools enough”

            Its a huge transfer of energy, upwards. !

          • MarkW wrote “WHen the atmosphere is humid, it cools a lot more slowly than it does when the atmosphere is dry.
            That is evidence that green house gases can slow the rate of cooling by radiation.”

            I used to think that too, but I considered this effect very carefully, and concluded that the effect you are observing has a much simpler explanation related to heat capacity. Water has a much higher heat capacity than dry air does, so it cools (and warms) a lot more slowly for a given energy transfer rate. Does that eliminate the need for radiation effects that no one has been able to observe? (especially radiation from cooler/lower-energy molecules to warmer/higher-energy ones, which does not exist)

        • Lee,
          “The higher the pressure, the hotter the temperature.”

          It’s the other way around. Remove the temperature, and all that gas becomes solid and falls to the ground. It still exerts pressure, but there is no temperature. (No = Zero)

          The lapse rate is called “lapse” for a reason. It goes from hot to cold.

      • The reason the earth is at its current temperature is because the sun is continuously heating it. Radiative cooling at night cools only to a certain temperature before the sun returns. We are on a rotisserie. The air temperature CAN’T cool down to the black body temperature because energy from the sun prevents it. Heating from the sun is fast. Cooling at night is slow, via radiation only. During the day, heat rises, warming the upper boundary layer. That heat has to be lost at night – and how does that warmed air reach the surface to be radiated? Via conduction and a small amount of radiation, half of which goes toward space. That’s why the surface becomes colder than the air above it at night. Any weather balloon data, from decades ago show that exact action.

    • “Wow, how meaningful: CO2 is an IR absorbing gas.”

      Thank you, Zoe !!

      CO2 in the atmosphere acts nothing like a “greenhouse”does, except to aid in plant growth.

      Its mechanism in enhancing plant growth has NOTHING to do with warming.

      Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” is an intentional MIS-NAMING which too many people fall for and continue to use.

      • CO2 in the atmosphere acts nothing like a “greenhouse”does, except to aid in plant growth.

        That’s a great explanation.

        Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that’s why green house owners buy it and feed it into their greenhouses !!

        • “that’s why green house owners buy it and feed it into their greenhouses !!”

          NO, they don’t buy it because of it mythical heating properties

          The buy it because it is one of the three main things needed for quality plant growth.

          • They use heaters if they want it even warmer tha the greenhouse convection constraint makes it.

            And they open vents at the top of the greenhouse if the temperature gets too warm.

            (or use fans and side ventilation.)

      • Yes. A greenhouse works because glass is transparent to short wave incoming radiation and opaque to long wave radiation trying to escape. The atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (a misnomer) tries to explain that the mass of the atmosphere radiates energy (as does all matter that is above absolute zero) and that radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the matter’s Kelvin temperature. So the difference in 278K^4 and 279K^4 is about 1.5% for a change in T of 0.36% (Temp in Kelvin)/

        • Greenhouses work because they block convection, not because they are blocking radiation. If you could raise the height of the roof to the top of the troposphere, you might be able to compare how a greenhouse blocking IR works vs how the real atmosphere works.

          • Greenhouses block convection, true, but they also do block radiation selectively by wavelength. The heat that they “trap” is the heat that would have been lost if the glass were to be transparent in the infrared.
            The atmosphere does not “trap” heat as a greenhouse does, and that’s where the analogy fails. CO2 selectively absorbs both incoming and outgoing radiation in the infrared at wavelengths that excite vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule (resonance) and spreads that now kinetic energy to other molecules through collisions. ALL the atmospheric molecules radiate energy in all directions as a function of their temperature (and mass and emissivity, etc.) The NET effect depends on the radiation balance – radiation absorbed and radiation lost by whatever mass. And the NET effect always must be that energy flows from the warmer body to the cooler body. Icebergs radiate. Humans radiate (like a 100W bulb). Oceans radiate.

        • Plastics also work as a “greenhouse” but let most LWR through.

          “Glass is opaque to long-wave radiation losses, but polyethylene will allow up to 74 percent of radiation to go right through it unless a barrier is present.”

          Sorry, but a greenhouse works by blocking convection.

          • Both effects are at work. Blocked convection and the prevention of (at least some) of the outgoing LWR.

    • A sponge is a water absorbing solid. Some scientists believe that sponges make a spill wetter due to backmoisture and others are not insane.

      Speaking from bitter experience, if something spills on the laminate floor, and you toss a sponge on it and promise to finish cleaning it up when you get back home, it doesn’t end well. The floor boards warped exactly where the sponge was. Back moisture is your floor’s worst enemy.

  6. Ha ha ha ha . That bloke in the white dust coat in the picture really looks like he knows what’s what!

    • Any moron can wear a lab coat to a conference….. and look like a total twat !

      Can even point at a propaganda sign if they are not too drunk.

      • I don’t remember the pathetic “pro science” French blogosphère/twittosphère (like Hervé Seitz, CNRS) REACTing (ah ah) to these white coat clowns, or to Obama’s consensus claim based on (fake) “polls”. But when Dr Raoult (which I despise BTW) wants to use polls to justify:

        – the fact that he has better reach of French population than journalists
        – that French people mostly agree with him on “La Méthode”
        – that a lot of medical doctors follow his recommandations

        he is scorned!

    • Mike October 3, 2020 at 7:15 pm

      Here’s one of his better quotes:

      <I?The odds are that what we can expect as a result of global warming is to see more
      of this pattern of extreme cold. – – – Dr. John Holdren, The White House – 1/8/2014

  7. The “settled consensus” of “climate science” is as consensual and settled as the 9-11 truthers have internal consensus! [Those agree the gov lied and essentially did it, but they can’t convince each others of anything more SPECIFIC (not even no-plane-pentagon).]

    Humans are causing climate change is as non specific as “gov did it”.

    The signs of climate change are … changing. No snow ever, less snow, more snow… more rain, no rain, less rain… Etc.

  8. Having a Climate Theory consensus which will allow no discussion or debate is the opposite of what science is supposed to represent. However Politicians, Journalists and many Academics see absolutely no problem with this, as this is exactly the system that they themselves prefer and are used to.

  9. Here’s a list that is probably incomplete for the Red & Blue teams to commiserate about:

    Thermal expansion causes world-wide sea level rise
    Climate change will diminish our food supply
    More CO2 causes food to be less nutritious
    When glaciers disappear the rivers run dry
    Water down moulins lubricates glacier flow
    Deep warm water melts glaciers from below
    A warming world is a looming catastrophe
    Antarctica and Greenland are melting
    Forest fire frequency is increasing
    Multi-meter sea level rise by 2100
    Predicting more extreme tornadoes
    Methane is more powerful than CO2
    2nd hand smoke causes cancer
    Polar bear extinction

    • Here’s a list that is probably incomplete for the Red & Blue teams to commiserate about:

      Thermal expansion causes world-wide sea level rise
      at measurements of MM/Century
      Climate change will diminish our food supply
      except that CO2 fertilization is dramatically increasing production levels
      More CO2 causes food to be less nutritious
      at such a small percentage to be measurably but practically meaningless
      When glaciers disappear the rivers run dry
      Glaciers have been disappearing since the existence of the Great Laurentide Ice Sheet
      Water down moulins lubricates glacier flow
      certainly does
      Deep warm water melts glaciers from below
      natural geologic processes can also create the “Deep Warm Water”
      A warming world is a looming catastrophe
      <especially in the virtual world of models which constantly overestimate warming and thereby it's effects and in the heads of Climate Catastrophists
      Antarctica and Greenland are melting
      at rates that will take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to vanish. Well into the next Milankovitch cold cycle
      Forest fire frequency is increasing
      Multi-meter sea level rise by 2100
      at rates of 2-3mm per year, 20-30 mms (1-1.3″) per decade at best it will rise 8-10″ in the next 80 yrs
      Predicting more extreme tornadoes
      and yet there is no increase to date not in total quantity or EF 4-5 count(another failed prediction since 1988)
      Methane is more powerful than CO2
      and has a significantly shorter residence time in atmosphere before it’s oxidized into CO2 and H2O
      2nd hand smoke causes cancer
      ABSOLUTELY … so what does that have to do with the Price of Onions in Bangkok?
      Polar bear extinction
      NOT HAPPENING…Polar Bear numbers have been increasing census on census since the 1960s and more healthy bears counted

      WELL 3/13 isn’t a very good start to your argument

      • CO2 has been the “restricting” growth factor for a long time.

        Of course in a cropping situation when you remove the main restriction to growth, you have to make sure that other essential minerals are kept available.

        That is what fertilizers are for. REAL farmers know that.

      • Bryan A October 4, 2020 at 8:04 am
        Water down moulins lubricates glacier flow
        certainly does

        Ice skates work because the pressure of the blade on the ice provided by the mass of the skater’s body produces a film of liquid water allowing the skater to slide across the ice. Pressure from hundreds of feet of ice will also produce a film of water allowing the glacier to slide along its way. More water from moulins if it ever get that deep won’t make it slide any faster. Thanks for the reply.

      • Bryan A October 4, 2020 at 8:04 am
        2nd hand smoke causes cancer
        ABSOLUTELY … so what does that have to do with the Price of Onions in Bangkok?

        The list from my files was more comprehensive than just regarding climate Change, I thought I culled out all but climate related. I missed one, sorry ’bout that.

    • More CO2 causes food to be less nutritious

      This is a gross oversimplification to the point of outright falsehood. Primarily, CO2 enhances plant growth reducing water consumption and thus allowing greening of former desert. How much protein and other nutrients are there in dry sand? How could CO2 reduce their value by making plants grow where there were none before? In various plants enhanced CO2 changes many nutrients in minor ways, some increased, some decreased. As always, a palaeo-climate perspective exposes as utter nonsense the argument that elevated CO2 decreases nutrient quality. How did brontosauruses survive on plants with atmospheric levels of CO2 of 1000-2000? As so often, the merest glance at the deep time perspective causes alarmist doom arguments about CO2 to evaporate as vacuous and meaningless – way beyond merely “false”.

      Almuhayawi, M.S., AbdElgawad, H., Al Jaouni, S.K., Selim, S., Hassan, A.H.A. and Khamis, G. 2020. Elevated CO2 improves glucosinolate metabolism and stimulates anticancer and anti-inflammatory properties of broccoli sprouts. Food Chemistry 328: 127102.

      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/sep/a9.php

      • I wondered about that manufactured “statistic” myself. First thing I thought:

        Did the larger plant mass with increased CO2 have LESS (absolute) vitamin content, OR did it have a lower PERCENTAGE, but still more in absolute terms.

        If I put a piece of steak on my fork, it has a certain mass of protein in it, which could be expressed as a percentage of the total mass. Now, add a chunk of potato … protein content would rise a smidge, but the percentage of total mass of that bite would be less. Gadzooks. Stop the presses.

        Does anybody have a short answer to this question? Or a link to the paper? Curious

  10. The bigger part of English-speaking society is in the middle of a revolting revolt against quality and excellence in many aspects of normal life.
    My most recent example of this degradation, this race to the worst, can be seen at Quadrant online where author Mark Powell wrote “Endorsing the Slut-industrial Complex” informing us of hard pornography being sung by a group of 10 year olds, as if this indicated progress in society.
    Similar degradation is well under way in the sciences, led by climate research people of limited intellect but high disregard for science excellence. Geoff S

    • You left out there is some leftwing PC topics that may not be discussed take the case of Alessandro Strumia. Who knew that being a sexist trash talker excluded you from being a good scientist? We can extended to Peter Ridd who had the audacity to criticize another college.

      What we have found in all this is these left wing prats are thin skinned pseudoscience types who do not like any descent from the PC agreed message …. for most of us we call that a religion.

  11. Jim,
    Thanks for trying to bring some wisdom and sanity to the debate! Unfortunately, the high priests of the Church of Climastrology, Michael Mann and Man Bear Pig, do not entertain questions regarding the truth of their holy dogma! Like St. Greta the All Seeing, they consider any doubts to be heresy of the highest order!
    If we can ever get a red team/blue team debate I have little doubt that the skeptical side will win; I just think the alarmists will never admit to there being another point of view. But we’ll keep trying and hopefully Mother Nature will provide us with the evidence to blow their models out of the water!
    I hope everything is well in Pacifica and that the fires south are fading memory! If your down that way give my best to Moss Beach and Half Moon Bay; lots of happy memories of that area!

    • You may be amused. Last week, there was a huge snow storm, covered most of the South Island of New Zealand.
      This week, forest fire at Lake Ohau, more or less middle of said island, burnt down the village.
      Kind of blows up the heat causes fire argument. Available fuel, on the other hand, can burn at any time.

      Still 2 months to summer. There will be fires, but not, I dare say, where they were last summer.

      Same as it ever was!

  12. I read the French twittosphère A LOT.

    [I mean like thousands of tweets. That’s the virtue of TT, you can read tons of sh*t in a short time, unlike most other social websites and blogs where you waste a lot of time reading tiny amounts of sh*t. (The Web is mostly sh*t, but that’s instructive. The TV series “Scrubs” had a song about sh*t and how you can learn essentially anything from it.)]

    In the French TT, a lot of criticism of Dr Didier Raoult (a man that I strongly dislike BTW, he embodies what’s wrong in academia and science publishing) gets criticized A LOT for his white coat in interviews and videos done in his IHU (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire). Apparently Raoult’s white coat hit a nerve, notably among French scientists.

    Well, duh. I guess when you have a white coat you must wear in some rooms, you get used to it and wear it whenever you are in the IHU. (It could be used to impress morons though.)

    But we have never seen him in a white coat elsewhere.

    Unlike these (so called) “scientists”:

    https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/scimarch-debateover-chalkboard.jpg

    (hoping images work)

  13. It is quite clear that weather is controlled by the energy in the oceans.

    If the surface temperature of oceans falls below 271K then sea ice forms. So the lower bound for ocean surface temperature is quite specific. Once sea ice forms, the ocean surface insulates the water so cooling slows dramatically.

    The upper bound on ocean surface temperature is not as specific as the lower bound but it becomes a very steep mountain. The convective available potential energy (CAPE), the fuel for storms, increases to the 4th power of temperature above 277K. Convective instability that enables storms to form occurs above surface temperature of 290K. When ocean surface temperature reaches 302K, the CAPE can be as high as 3000J/kg. The updraft vertical velocity under that potential is 77m/s. That is sufficient to power sever storms that can become cyclone/hurricane as the storm moves from tropics to higher latitudes. The CAPE above ocean surface of 306K is as high as 5300J/kg; consistent with updraft over 100m/s; a very severe storm.

    Storms clouds and, particularly those in cyclones/hurricanes, reflect a huge amount of solar energy. They have a strong cooling influence on ocean surface causing temperature to drop by up to 1C in the wake of a cyclone/hurricane. This clip shows the development and track of hurricane Florence starting from Africa:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcYeZMNAbNs
    It provides a good indication of the cloud and its reflectivity over the long period from development to eventual rain depression in the mid latitudes over the USA.

    Any weather observer knows that storms have a cooling influence. In the tropics, the wet season can have lower temperatures over land than the dry season. In fact, the first monsoons are of the season are welcomed because they take the searing heat away. The intensity of storms over water increase dramatically when surface temperature exceeds 302K. It is not quite like the hard limit of sea ice but it is not far from it. At that temperature, storms will form daily and can become cyclones if there is sufficient ocean surface area above 302K.

    If you think that the physics of clouds and tropical storms, as detailed above, is basic atmospheric physics that coupled climate models embody then you would be mistaken. None of the physics involved in the formation of storms and the associated clouds is used in climate models. Clouds are just parameterised inputs. The models do not have the required resolution to develop the instability that results in tropical storms or the development of the convective PE that fuels them.

    The formation of sea ice at the cool end of oceans and the formation of tropical storm at the hot end provide the temperature limits for oceans between 271 to 302K. The numeric average is 287K. The global area average for SST is a function of the distribution of water and interconnectedness to distribute heat throughout the oceans but is not much different to the numeric average of the extremes.

    Climate models are a joke. Using them as the basis for predicting future climate is pompous foolery.

  14. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/24/the-medical-thought-police-theyre-coming-for-you/#comment-3093605
    [excerpts}

    CLIMATE POLITICS EXPLAINED – THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT AND THE MACRAE-KENT COROLLARY

    BACKGROUND – THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT

    First, watch “the Best of Jaywalking” to understand the intellect of the general populace. 🙂

    THE DUNNING–KRUGER EFFECT – DEFINED

    In Layman’s Terms:

    “Stupid people are too stupid to know that they are stupid.”

    THE MACRAE-KENT COROLLARY TO THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT

    “Intelligent people have no idea how stupid really stupid people actually are.”
    ___________________________________

    Climate skeptics think we can explain the highly-credible scientific disproofs of the failed catastrophic human-made global warming hypothesis to global warming alarmists, but we might as well be talking to a brick wall. Upon careful observation, one realizes that these warmists have an endless-loop script running in their heads, and there is nothing of substance behind their eyes. My friend, the very talented Dr. Kent is always flummoxed by the incredible stupidity he sees around him, and I frequently have to explain to him that the average human is only of average intelligence, and half of them are stupider than that! (h/t George Carlin).

    Good people of the climate skeptic camp, you cannot persuade the average warmist that he is just plain wrong – you are relying upon science and logic, and the warmist does not speak your language.

    • The video is hilarious.
      Here in Michigan my wife tells friends their properties were under an ice glacier 20,000 years ago … then I smack them upside the head with a rolled up Sunday New York Times before they can reply: “97 percent of scientists say … “

  15. Jim, climate models reproduce air temperature since 1970 because they’re tuned to do so. The simulation of the 20th century temperature trend is little more than curve-fitting.

    Climate models have no predictive value None. Whatever.

    CO2 photo-physics transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere. Whether this process results in any detectable increase in sensible heat (warming) is utterly unknown. However, the trailing of CO2 behind air temperature through the last seven ice ages says the impact is likely to be close to zero.

    Likely CO2 has an effect indistinguishable from zero, because the hydrological cycle includes enormous energy and is hugely adaptable. It can speed up or slow down, modifying energy transmission to space as energy input changes. The total energy in the climate system then remains nearly constant. This is especially true for the tiny perturbation (about 0.04 W/m^2/year) that is CO2 emissions.

    It’s not that the science is not settled. It’s that the science of climate change is absent.

    The physical theory of the climate is not adequate to calculate the effect of CO2 on air temperature, if any at all. All of the AGW consensus rests on pseudo-science. All of it.

    • Dr. Frank, you are as usual correct. I would back up what you say with the following. If CO2 had the warming capability warmists insist on, then that capability would be noted in specific heat tables, the Shomate equation, and the NIST data sheet for CO2.

      If I have 1 kg of CO2 then it will take X amount of energy to raise the temperature 1 C.

      If I have 2 kg of CO2 then I will get half the temperature rise using the same input (Q) not a higher temperature even having doubled the amount of CO2.

      Thermodynamics is very clear in that the energy input can be in any “form”. IR does not cause CO2 to cause warming.

      Q = Cp * m * dT.

      • mkelly,

        Specific heat tables are based on the intrinsic property of the substance in question and the concept of sensible heat for a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular energies/velocities at the temperature(s) under consideration.

        The change in the “temperature” (i.e., internal energy and entropy) of a given molecule at a given energy state, either increasing or decreasing, can happen via LWIR photon absorption/emission (BB-type absorption/emission as modified by specific spectral lines characteristic of the substance, resulting in step-changes in effective molecular “temperature”) as well as by molecule-molecule collision-induced energy transfer across a range of ALL available relative-energy differences present in the specific gas being considered, and ALL other gases present if that substance is in a mixture of gases (resulting in smooth, statistically-dependent continuum-changes in effective molecular “temperature”).

        IR absorption in an ensemble of CO2 molecules (a “gas”), with thermalization, can indeed result in increasing the CO2 gas temperature (more properly its statistical average internal energy and entropy), and thus enable that same CO2 gas quantity to radiate more energy under either mode given above. Anything intercepting that increased radiation from that quantity of CO2 (and its intermixed gases, if present) would scientifically and correctly be said to be “warmed” by such.

        Thermodynamics 102.

        BTW, the equation Q = Cp * m * dT applies only to an ideal gas (one having constant Cp), but CO2 is far from being an ideal gas. For example, CO2’s Cp varies by about 10% over the relatively small range of 250 K (-9.4 F) to 325 K (126 F).

    • People forget a few things about CO2. First, it is said to be well-mixed, but ALL of it is emitted at the surface (except for aircraft), and ALL of it is absorbed at the surface. The atmosphere is also densest at the surface, although that doesn’t mean it isn’t well mixed. It isn’t well mixed because both the source and the sink are earth’s surface.
      Another thing that people don’t get is that 95% of the annual emissions of CO2 are completely natural. Man contributes only about 5%. 5% of 400 ppm is 20 ppm. Warmists would insist that the 20 PPM is responsible for ALL OF THE GLOBAL WARMING, because that is the human contributed amount. If humans immediately stopped emitting ANY Co2, nothing would happen. The climate would not change BECAUSE of the CO2 reduction.

      • John, a few things:

        1) CO2 is in fact well-mixed in the troposphere due to (a) LOCALIZED vertical atmospheric convection associated warm air buoyancy compared to cold air, cloud formation, weather front movements and development of thunderstorms and cyclones, and (b) GLOBAL-SCALE atmospheric circulation patterns known as the N&S Hadley cells, N&S mid-latitude cells, and N&S polar cells. With the exception of water vapor, the mixture ratios of the primary constituents of the troposphere (N2, O2, Ar, and CO2)—when summed together with water vapor comprising 99.96% of the troposphere on a volumetric basis—are constant to an average altitude of about 80 km above sea level (ref: http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/loic/chemistry.html ). Since the average thickness of the troposphere varies from a low of about 6 km at the poles to a high of about 18 km in the tropics/equator, there is no question that the gases across Earth’s troposphere are well-mixed, albeit the total density of the mixture varying with altitude as a result of pressure and temperature influences.

        2) You stated, regarding CO2: “. . . and ALL of it is absorbed at the surface.” This is not correct. When clouds produce precipitation, the condensation droplets start as essentially pure liquid H2O (pH = 7.0), but during their size growth (coalescence) and subsequent descent to Earth’s surface as rain drops they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere resulting in natural, unpolluted rainfall at Earth’s surface actually being a weak carbonic acid, having a typical pH of about 5.6 (ref: http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html#:~:text=Carbon%20dioxide%2C%20produced%20in%20the,of%20acidity%20in%20unpolluted%20rainwater.&text=Carbon%20dioxide%20reacts%20with%20water,%2D)%20(Equation%202). ) That “acid rain” can chemically react with things, like rocks, well before it can be viewed as being “absorbed by the surface”.

        Yes, I agree that people do often forget a few things about CO2 . . . or perhaps they never knew them in the first place . . .

  16. Irregardless of what the science of climate change says, the Real problem is that without a massive nuclear power generation build-out, there is no viable emissions-free path to de-carbonized electricity generation in the world’s economies, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd World. The only path that decarbonized, renewable electrical generation delivers is extreme energy poverty across all 3.

    Wind and solar are woefully inadequate and always will be due to low density nature of the energy source. Further, as we all know here at WUWT, the manufacture of wind turbines and solar PV equipment make things much worse for mining, extraction, environmental impacts, and shifting those extraction related emissions to the 3rd World, where they are universally worse conditions for everything involved.

    And there simply is no solution to avoiding using large amounts of oil and natural gas to sustain world agricultural grains and other food outputs. That includes the farming machine energy, energy for drying grain harvests, for moving them to processing facilities, to move them to food production facilities, abnd so on to human mouth. And then there are the absolutely required fertilizers and pesticides that comes from mostly natural gas-driven petrochemical industry. There simply is no substitute for oil and natural gas in all this food production. Period. None.

    So really, whatever the science says or doesn’t say about climate is totally irrelevant until the Greens accept the need to massive nuclear power build-outs across th world. Having the debate is meaningless unless any actions needed on emissions are realistic to the fact of 7 billion humans.
    And when the Greens say we need to de-populate the world, then we know them for what they really are… genocidal maniacs that want to see they world burn in a cataclysm to make the wars of the 20th Century look like child’s play.

  17. Irregardless of what the science of climate change says, the Real problem is that without a massive nuclear power generation build-out, there is no viable emissions-free path to de-carbonized electricity generation in the world’s economies, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd World. The only path that decarbonized, renewable electrical generation delivers is extreme energy poverty across all 3.

    Wind and solar are woefully inadequate and always will be due to low density nature of the energy source. Further, as we all know here at WUWT, the manufacture of wind turbines and solar PV equipment make things much worse for mining, extraction, environmental impacts, and shifting those extraction related emissions to the 3rd World, where they are universally worse conditions for everything involved.

    And there simply is no solution to avoiding using large amounts of oil and natural gas to sustain world agricultural grains and other food outputs. That includes the farming machine energy, energy for drying grain harvests, for moving them to processing facilities, to move them to food production facilities, and so on to human mouth. And then there are the absolutely required fertilizers and pesticides that comes from mostly natural gas-driven petrochemical industry. There simply is no substitute for oil and natural gas in all this food production. Period. None.

    • So really, whatever the science says or doesn’t say about climate is totally irrelevant until the Greens accept the need to massive nuclear power build-outs across th world. Having the debate is meaningless unless any actions needed on emissions are realistic to the fact of 7 billion humans.
      And when the Greens say we need to de-populate the world, then we know them for what they really are… genocidal maniacs that want to see they world burn in a cataclysm to make the wars of the 20th Century look like child’s play.

    • So really, whatever the science says or doesn’t say about climate is totally irrelevant until the Greens accept the need for a massive nuclear power build-outs across the world.
      Having the debate is meaningless unless any actions needed on emissions are realistic to the face of 7 billion humans.
      And when the Greens say we need to de-populate the world, then we know them for what they really are…

      • Getting close, there. Malthusian “concerns” override any attempt at creative reason, in other words the deep belief mankind is an animal herd, to be culled. These Malthusians do not even call themselves “greens”.
        This top-down overweening eco-imperialism is not hidden – it’s just the average six-pack Jack does not believe he is on a hit-list.
        The same with 100% surveillance – Jack will say I’ve got nothing to hide, I’ve done nothing wrong. As Bill Binney pointed out – Jack does not get to decide if he did nothing wrong, they do.
        It’s when Jack gets the idea he is being herded, expect trouble.
        Shelley got it right :
        At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature.

  18. Abraham Lincoln’s actions were the reason the Southern states seceded – they had every right to do so, a point Lincoln made n his 1848 speech before Congress, recommending that Illinois secede from the Union because of the Mexican War. Lincoln was willing to let the Confederacy go its own way, as long as the Confederate states continued paying the exorbitant taxes levied on them by the Northern majority. He also promised to push thru a Constitutional amendment which would declare slavery legal for eternity. So much for Lincoln, the most dishonest President.

    • Abraham Lincoln’s election, not any actions, were the final straw to drive the Southern state to secede before he was even inaugurated. The South knew that Lincoln and northern Republican-led states would not allow new states to join the Union with slavery.

      And you seem to think that Men cannot ever change from the rashness of youth (1848) and become wiser in 12 years (1860). Keeping the Union together at all cost was Licoln’s goal in 1861, not 1848.

      Go read some real history books on the US Mr ColMosby.

      • Joel,
        As a Civil War tragic with a substantial library of books on both the Civil War and Lincoln, may I support your comments on the maturing of Lincoln from 1848 to 1860.
        By 1860, Lincoln had as his central aim maintaining the Union, whatever he had said as a junior Whig Congressman in 1848.
        In 1860, Lincoln was not prepared to let the Confederacy go its own way if it paid the Union Treasury for the privilege.
        I say this notwithstanding the fact that some of my Irish forbears who migrated to the US rather than to Australia fought for the South.
        One was the secretary of the Confederate Veterans association in his district in the 1890s.
        My great aunts bequeathed to me his obituary.
        Fascinating history. They fought and died for a cause even if, as Grant said,“ that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought…”

        • “They fought and died for a cause even if, as Grant said,“ that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought”

          Many people in the South were fighting to defend their homes, not slavery.

          What would you do if an Army is bearing down on your neck of the woods? Are you going to run away and give all you own up, or are you going to fight to defend your home?

      • Joel,

        I very much enjoy and agree with your comments on most, if not all, occasions, but respectfully disagree with you on Lincoln. We all know slavery was / is morally abhorrent, but that’s that’s not what Lincoln was about; he was strictly a politician obsessed with funding the centralization of US political power at the Federal level. I was born and raised in upstate NY, so was steeped in the entire litany about how Lincoln “freed the slaves” and “saved the Union”. Now that I’m older, and have read historical accounts by non-cultists such as Tom DiLorenzo, I am convinced that it was all a bs narrative concocted by the media of the day to salvage the Federal government’s reputation and authority post-Lincoln. I infer from many of your posts that you disdain the heavy hand of government on the scales of economics and science. While I know you didn’t initially invoke Lincoln in this thread, we should all keep in mind that if we don’t consistently condemn Lincoln’s role in the coercive expansion of federal power, we really don’t have much standing to oppose the furtherance of such coercion at the hands of today’s left.

      • Lincoln, against extending slavery to the western territories, was assumed to be against slavery in the southern states too.

        Note that Lincoln”s Emancipation Proclamation excluded the slaves in the border states that fought with the Union, and was ignored by the Confederate States. So the only slaves it freed were the few who escaped from the ‘Confederate States to the Union States.

        Slavery ended in almost all nations in the world in the 1800s. Only ONE nation seemed to require a civil war to end slavery. And that was the U.S.

        I see the need for a civil war to be a huge failure. Since Lincoln was president during the Civil War, and so many Americans killed each other, I consider Abe Lincoln to be the worst president in American history, by far.

        I repeat, for emphasis, that OTHER nations got rid of heir slavery WITHOUT a horrible civil war, except for Lincoln’s U.S.

    • further ColMosby,
      You seem to be “making shit up” as the saying goes on US taxes in the 19th Century.
      The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9., states (same as it stated then)
      “No tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

      Section 10. has this:
      “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.”

      So those taxes you seem to think happened, in fact did not. What you’ve apparently read are myths propagated on various internets blogs and sites. Things like “the South paid 80% of the US governments taxes” is utterly and demonstrably wrong. In 1860, most ( > 90%) of the US government’s revenue came from taxes levied on imports on goods through New York harbor, Boston Harbor, Charleston.

      If you want to ding Abe Lincoln, the most damning thing he did was the Emancipation proclamation that freed slaves only in the states that were under rebellion.

      • Joel,
        ColMosby sounds like he’s an adherent of the Zinn Communist history of America! I’m surprised ol’ Howie didn’t claim that we had gulags, since Communists/Progressives always accuse their opponents of the actions they themselves are doing! See Hillary Clinton and the Russia Collusion Hoax for reference!
        I was wondering if you’ve read the excellent biography of John and Jessie Fremont; “Passion and Principle,” by Sally Denton?
        How one goes from presidential candidate and military commander who issued the first emancipation proclamation during the Civil War, to destitute and living off the wife’s wits is a story well worth telling! Throw in what was one of the biggest and richest gold mines in US history and it makes for a story that any Hollywood producer would throw as being too improbable for the audience to accept!
        Thanks for the wide range of knowledge you bring to debate! Go nuclear now! CO2 to 1,000ppm!

  19. “Such landscape effects best explain why 38% of US weather stations display cooling trends, ”
    NO.

    1. That is not US stations.
    2. We go to pains to explain that this is a SIMPLIFIED analysis that does not take into
    account the spatial distribution of stations. It is merely an INDICATOR that
    a) there is an phenomena to investigate
    b) the variability due to station length

    The final analysis showed NO EFFECT

      • Anomalies are the culprit. Using an anomaly hides the ongoing base temperature differences between stations. It is a consequence of concentrating on CO2 and rising temps as an effect of CO2.

    • “The final analysis showed NO EFFECT”

      And it is total BS. !!

      Pretending that UHI has no effect on temperatures is just DENIAL at its worst.

      Just shows your mob were clueless as to what was rural and urban.

      Bad methodology, almost certainly.

    • I have had a weather station collecting five minute data, 24/7/365, since 2002. I can assure you that here in eastern KS there has been a cooling trend in maximum temperatures. This summer we had ZERO days over 100degF and only a couple that hit 95degF. That is a *big* historical drop in maximum temperatures.

      And, yes, this is a phenomena to investigate. Yet I see no climate scientists doing so. They all trumpet that an increasing average global temperature means maximum temperatures are going up and we are all going to cook in our own juices.

      I would also note that short term trends many times become long term trends. Ignoring short term trends is not a survival strategy.

  20. ” Public red team/blue team debates examining such data adjustments could clarify the reasons for those adjustments.”

    below this you show a fraudulent chart from heller

    1. It shows USCHN. NOBODY USES USHCN
    2. It shows adjustments to USHCN USING METHODS NOBODY USES IN GLOBAL DATASETS
    3. Heller averages temperature data This mistake has been detailed many times.
    A) you cannot average temperatures from stations that have missing time data and SHIFTING
    distributions in latitude and longitude over time.
    B) you cannot simply average temperatures without AREA WEIGHTING AND AVERAGING.

    Next

    there have been TWO red team events looking at adjustments.

    1. Berkeley earth, including Judith Curry
    2. GWPF– the skeptic organization in the UK

    GWPF did a call for submissions and provided a list of questions and data requests, promising a red team review by skeptics. Submissions were made……..

    CRICKETS

    its been about 5 years

    YOU HAVE NO RED TEAM.

      • Jim Steele October 3, 2020 at 11:39 pm
        You don’t have to look any further than NASA’s Land Ocean Temperature Index
        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
        Every month several hundred changes, all the way back to the 19th century, are made. So far in 2020 here are the number of monthly changes:
        Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
        319 240 313 340 298 404 319 370
        Those changes overwhelmingly follow a pattern where temperatures from early years are reduced, and those from more recent years are increased. Here’s what the changes since 2010 look like when plotted out:
        https://i.postimg.cc/VNXqjVzc/image.png

    • Berkley Earth is a con job, a Blue team, infected with the AGW virus….. you know that.. you are part of it.

      USHCN is well-maladjusted.. of course it shouldn’t be used.

      Only the original data.. shown in BLUE should be used

      Funny that the “ADJUSTMENTS” have a near perfect correlation with CO2 rise, isn’t it…. 😉

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/USHCN-Average-Temperature-Adjustments-Final-Minus-Raw-vs.-Atmospheric-CO2-1.png

      Heller showed that shifting stations have made the calculation warmer. (loss of northern stations)

      So the “adjustment ” should be downwards , not up wards

      UHI adjustment should be downwards as well, not just ignore by pretending it doesn’t exist (ala BEST)

      UHI effects should NOT be smeared all over the place like BEST, and other climate scammer do to match “regional expectations”.

      Not even you can seriously justify the massive tampering of data through the AGW scam..

      You don’t have the credibility. Your attempts will be LAUGHED at.

      Enjoy your next reincarnation

      https://i.pinimg.com/originals/12/d8/a5/12d8a508d3d918d189a7978076dc9113.jpg

      • Fred –> Not sure I agree any more that UHI temps should be changed. If they are real temps they should be used. The only reason for adjusting them is concentrating on CO2 effects only.

        The world could be burning up due to UHI and no one would know because of the adjustments to isolate CO2 effects. This also affects model forecast viability.

    • The little snippet below tells it all……

      You iterate until the “anomalous trends” (which would be the NON-URBAN zero or negative trend sites) become the same trend as the urban sites.

      You even STATE that is what you are doing, but don’t realise how ANTI-science it is.

      Should ????? not science.

      Its a FARCE. !!

      “In the full averaging procedure sites have their weights adjusted via an iterative procedure which compares their time series to the reconstructed Tavg sites that deviate substantially from the local group behavior have their weights reduced for the next iteration
      Thus, the influence of sites with anomalous trends, such as urban heat island effects areas unaffected by urban heat island effects, swould be reduced by the averaging procedure even when sites with spurious ,warming cooling are part of the dataset being considered.

      • “You could go and try to argue with Tony Heller”

        I would like to see that! Of course, it won’t happen. Heller would be dueling with an unarmed man, and the unarmed man knows it.

    • If Steve was even half a actual scientist he would realize you also can’t area weight and average because that by definition removes localization such as terrain and site specific effects. The problem with averages is they are the easiest thing in science to corrupt … take the average females in a population by doing a survey of gender who enter a female toilet. You can not weight out what is badly sample no matter how much you torture the data.

      • Climate is the *entire* temperature profile, not just the average temperature. If I tell someone the average temperature is 50deg no one can tell me what the entire temperature profile looks like and, therefore, can’t tell me what the climate is doing. It’s no different with the “average global temperature”.

        Average global temperature is just something easy for so-called climate scientists to use. It is truly meaningless, however.

    • Mosher –> Global Average Temperature is NOT a real temperature! It is a calculated representation of a conglomeration of data points.

      It is no more real than a simple average of absolute temperatures is real. Your disparagement of other ways to calculate a representative number means nothing.

      You want to do something useful, figure out a way to calculate a temperature from surface stations that allow a direct calculation of TOA radiation.

  21. A well thought out article by Jim Steele. As a retired Utility engineer, I would suggest a major, perhaps more important, red/ Blue effort focused on “solutions.”
    All costs to adapt solar/ wind technologies must be identified and quantified, so a clear policy choice can be made. All the hidden costs of adding intermittant energy, all the regulatory accounting, all the credits and trading costs, etc are missing or unrelatable to a mostly uninformed public.
    Include ethanol, land areas, environmental damage, …and then show the unknowns and uncertainties of CO2 caused climate.
    Both processes together will indicate whether the current path or adaptation or strong , resilient, productive economies are the better choice.
    Thanks Jim

  22. I think what convinced me CO2 was not a control knob was seeing the proxy data from ice cores showing temperature change preceding the CO2 change. That and nearly all the predictions of the “alarmist” side fail over the last 40 years.

    CO2 should not be labeled a pollutant, and scientists should absolutely stop telling the public that there’s going to be a runaway tragedy. And they should absolutely stop mentioning Venus when they do so.

  23. Additionally…all the personal sniping only degrades this extremely useful site. …and the critical need to stop this insane policy!

  24. My favorite is all the fainting hearts regarding water levels in the Great Lakes. Record lows due to global warming followed by record highs due to global warming.

    • Wasn’t the lows caused by global warming and the highs caused by climate change? Next it will be climate weirding, to explain anything that fits their narrative. But it is funny that just less than a decade ago, the Great Lakes would never refill again. And few mention that the levels are largely controlled with dams and weirs and controlled storage and releases. Future generations are going to have a riot looking back at our folly of the early 21st century.

  25. but “honest saintly scientists” versus “corrupt perpetrators of a hoax” is exactly waht we have …

  26. From the article: “However, all sides do agree carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and concentrations have increased. All sides agree the climate is changing.”

    Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and concentrations have been increasing in the atmosphere, and the climate does change, within limits, but there is no evidence that CO2 is causing any changes to the climate.

    • Abbott
      It is a reasonable assumption that more CO2 should cause some warming. But no one knows if that is 0.1% of the warming since 1975, or 100%, since natural causes of climate change could account for all the climate change in our lifetimes … since natural causes of climate change were in progress for the past 4.5 billion years, and did not suddenly end in the 20th century. We have assumptions about the CO2, based on closed system lab experiments, using artificially dried air. And those experiments justify a rollback of the industrial age??

      Mr Abbott, it is a well known fact that Earth’s climate was PERFECT on June 6, 1750, at 3:05pm EST, and it is a well known fact that ANY change from that absolute perfection, in either direction, is an EXISTENTIAL CLIMATE CRISIS !
      And don’t you forget it.

    • There seems to evidence that increasing global CO2 levels is causing global greening.

      Or I have heard an argument that global greening is not occurring and it seems increased levels of CO2 would cause global greening.
      AND global greening is likely to effect the climate.

      Or if made the Sahara desert become once again a giant grassland, it seems this have large effect upon global climate. And some greening of region around Sahara Desert would have small effect upon regional climate.

  27. My vote is for Jim Steele columns reproduced here as often as possible. They are consistently good. His name in the byline means “must read” to me. There are only a few “must read” climate science writers for me, and another is Richard Lindzen.

  28. From the article: “Trying to suppress skeptical science publications he emailed colleagues, “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” They then discussed how to rid any editors tolerant of skeptical arguments to prevent further skeptical publications.”

    In other words: Blackmail. Michael Mann prefers blackmail to scientific debate.

    Michael Mann, along with the other Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn, should be sued for Trillions of dollars of damages over their lies about the Earth’s climate. They should also serve some jail time.

    The Climategate Charlatans couldn’t prove CO2 is causing problems in the Earth’s atmosphere if their lives depended on doing so. All they can point to is a computer-generated global surface temperature Hockey Stick LIE as their proof. In other words, they have nothing substantive to back up their claims.

    The bastardized surface temperature chart shown in this article above is evidence that it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, and is also evidence of the fraud perpetrated on the world through the adjustments the Climategate Charlatans have made to the original temperature chart.

    It is obvious the Climategate Charlatans are taking unmodified temperature charts (raw) and changing them into Hockey Sticks by cooling the past to make the present look warmer than anytime in human history. And it’s all a BIG LIE perpetrated by Michael Mann and his cronies on the alarmist side.

    Look at the detrimental economic gyrations these lies have caused around the world. Foolish politicians bankrupting their economies in an effort to reduce their CO2 production because they believe these lies.

    It’s Fraud on an international scale. Someone should pay. And we know the names of those someone’s, don’t we.

    • Tom Abbott;

      i have been commenting for years on WUWT, pointing out that it is SO2 aerosols, both volcanic and man-made (from the burning of fossil fuels), and not CO2, or changing solar irradiance, that is the control knob for our climate.

      I guess the concept is too simple for the “brains” on this site to be able to comprehend, or too dangerous to their own theories or careers, for them to accept, even if they are CO2 deniers, and my posts are usually ignored.

      I have searched for a way to provide a simple proof that even non-scientific policy makers can understand, and I believe that I have found the evidence that I need: I recently had a peer-reviewed article published that is titled “Experimental proof that Carbon Dioxide does NOT cause global warming”

      http://www. scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se/

      You should read it. For example, it explains why the 30’s were as warm as they are today On the other hand, perhaps you, or another, can point out a significant flaw that the reviewers missed.

      If not, yes, the perpetrators should be held accountable.

  29. What amazes me most is all our prestigious universities are absolutely married to this insanity. Will Yale or Harvard even give you a diploma unless you pledge eternal feilty to the eternal molecule?

  30. Restoring discourse will be essential to return science to this issue and, eventually, to repeal the EPA’s preposterous Endangerment Finding (the only real endangerment). Historical events demonstrate that the pursuit of money has infected the scientific establishment, which, when its financial interests are at risk, does not pursue truth but rather suppresses it – by silencing discourse.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/27/agw-gatekeepers-censor-the-co2-climate-debate-by-refusing-to-publish-authors-response-to-criticism/

    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-politics/example-of-how-professional-societies-block-scientific-discussion-of-climate-change-to-assist-their-political-party/

    Restoring science to the issue should not be expected unless the financial incentive to obstruct science has been removed.

  31. Lincoln’s election precipitated the 5 year bloody civil war, so that may not be a good place to start. On the other hand it strikes me that the ideological divisions today might be as great as they were in 1960, but without the geographical setting. Time will tell.

    • “Lincoln” is never a good place to start. Once “conservatives” or other folks who profess to believe in limited government, including those of us who have reason to believe CAGW is a crock, cede the high ground to Lincoln, they’ve effectively opened the door to whatever policies / means “climate change” activists seek to impose.

  32. Two points: 1st, I think what’s needed in order to persuade people is much more explanation of why we need something like this. 2nd I think red and blue teams is just one potential option within what needs to be a much larger system of checks and providing structure and balance. I also wonder if the red/blue team approach is going to struggle to do a proper job because of the way the debate has been framed.

    I think this needs to be a priority for us all; to understand and explain to others why this is so important so that it hopefully then opens the door to introducing systems that greatly improve the way science is done for high consequence situations. Unless the current system is fine, but my concern is the way science is generally done (including high emphasis on and trust in; experts, consensus, peer reviewed papers process, precautionary principle) is not suitable for high consequence situations like this; instead it needs a system more like engineering where I think the system is forced through many painful lessons to work very differently:

    A system based on learning lessons from mistakes, implementing procedures, independent audit, certification and a system that causes customers (who will also have power) to be sceptics e.g. customers, particularly when they’re other large engineering companies or large businesses I suspect naturally become like a red team and their supplier, probably also a large engineering company, like a blue team. Sorry, I’m probably saying a similar thing in different ways with each comment here, and maybe I’m wrong about all this, but I haven’t seen much evidence many people are thinking along same lines and no one has told me I’m wrong.

    I think one way to understand and explain the need is by looking back through history. I think aircrash investigations are one good source, e.g. the recent 737Max issue; I think the latest conclusion is the FAA failed to remain independent of Boeing and in doing so failed to correct Boeings lack of following suitable procedures. Which I think shows why procedures, independent audit, certification etc are so important, if that system is not present or fails it is likely to go disastrously wrong.

    Or maybe another way is to get us all to think why we do or don’t trust certain goods or services, e.g. would we eat in a restaurant if it had no food hygiene certificate, would we fly if we knew the pilots were not trained in the use of the relevant procedures. To my mind it’s not so much about whether they’re the experts, and all convinced they are right, it’s more about the system.

    I think I’ve asked in earlier comments if the same applies to climate science and as far as I’m aware no one has answered yes or no, I’m not seeing much evidence that it does and if there was e.g. no requirement to audit the global surface temperature network, that would seem to suggest to me there is not much of such a system. If there was no answer, if the answer was no, or showed failure then shouldn’t we treat it like we should in other similar situations like a restaurant that could not produce a suitable valid food hygiene certificate and not eat there until they did? It’s not so much that we know it means the product is wrong, but means we have no idea if it is wrong or not. But if there was no requirement for the restaurant to be checked then I think we can’t blame the restaurant; instead it is the system at fault and the first thing to do is change the system asap.

    • I like your systems approach but the very first thing that should have been chosen is a proper measurement for determining whether the globe is warming or not and where the effects are occurring.

      Because of water vapor’s latent heat, which is not sensible, temperature is not a good proxy for the total heat energy in the atmosphere. Temperature is also not a good proxy for humidity and cloudiness. The concentration on temperature, including adjustments to the past data, is solely for the adherents of CO2 being the one and only control knob.

      • Many thanks Jim.

        I have to admit my thermodynamics is not nearly good enough, however I have also long felt that I do not understand how we can understand what is going on by apparently focusing primarily on temperature, and averages of temperature, etc. So I agree with the point about temperature as a proxy and my concern is we’re approaching it the wrong way and this should have been sorted out at the start; and that would probably be my second question to them after asking about the system they work in.

        I think, first we need the system in place, then it should help and guide us through all the next steps after first defining the project, then e.g. how we approach the thermodynamics etc.

  33. Camille Ferey: “Populism against science: a new political cleavage?, Part 1”
    Posted on October 4, 2020 on the “Equality by Lot” site

    “many commentators talk about the threat of “distrust” that undermines the authority of science, if not of the authority of Truth itself, in our democracies. Furthermore, this dominant narrative confounds this phenomenon of skepticism (which is very real) with a different phenomenon, a political one: populism. The political cleavage is then reduced to a binary opposition between reason and populism, and consequently all criticism of scientific and political institutions is ruled out.”

    https://equalitybylot.com/2020/10/04/ferey-populism-against-science-a-new-political-cleavage-part-1/

  34. Camille Ferey: “Populism against science: a new political cleavage?, Part 1”
    Posted on October 4, 2020 on the “Equality by Lot” site

    “many commentators talk about the threat of “distrust” that undermines the authority of science, if not of the authority of Truth itself, in our democracies. Furthermore, this dominant narrative confounds this phenomenon of skepticism (which is very real) with a different phenomenon, a political one: populism. The political cleavage is then reduced to a binary opposition between reason and populism, and consequently all criticism of scientific and political institutions is ruled out.”

    https://equalitybylot.com/2020/10/04/ferey-populism-against-science-a-new-political-cleavage-part-1/

  35. Here are two paragraphs on this topic that I made on June 10, followed by a link to the comment itself:

    Christopher Monckton wrote here, early in June, in “Big Oil must fight on the science or die”:

    “By the very nature of that disciplined and generally even-handed forum, both sides must be fully and fairly heard, and each can cross-examine the other. There is virtually no other forum where such a debate between the skeptics and the cultists can take place. For the latter, having lost just about every face-to-face debate that has been held on the climate question, go to elaborate lengths to avoid debate with the former. They know their shoddy case cannot withstand examination.”

    This made me think of a suggestion for Big Oil [or a charitable WUWTer]. Fund debate-sponsoring institutions like the Oxford Union … [or Harvard] to hold a series of annual climate-change debates. For instance, to hold twelve debates over the course of a week, one-third on attribution, one-third on impacts, and one-third on responses, paralleling the structure of the IPCC reports.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/08/climate-litigation-big-oil-must-fight-on-the-science-or-die/#comment-3013114

    Or a more modest one-day series of debates could befunded as a starter for the more ambitious plan above.

  36. “But science is a process and never settled” followed by “That science is indeed settled”
    Although I have great respect for Jim and his understanding of climate science, the second statement seems to be a genuine faux pas.
    Jim, you were correct the first time. Science is never settled and it’s definitely not settled that all scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (should such a thing really exist rather than simply being a misnomer) or that concentrations have increased (over what time period?).
    A greenhouse works by preventing convection. To my knowledge, CO2 does not possess that ability, at least in any significant degree.
    Measuring CO2 at the top of a volcano and claiming that to represent the amount in the earth’s atmosphere is also somewhat hokey at best. According to NASA in December 2016, CO2 is NOT at all evenly distributed in our atmosphere. Maybe they lie…
    Granted, our ever-changing climate is changing, at least as far as we know. However, so is our science and that’s unlikely to change for a long, long time.
    That being said, thanks Jim for your work.

    • Dale, My Whats Natural articles are aimed at a general audience reading the newspaper that usually have a very limited knowledge of the science. I think the biggest mistake skeptics make is going to deep in the weeds and using vocabulary that the general public is unclear on.

      I used the word “anthropognenic” and people did not know what I was talking about. Your “Greenhouse argument” is technically correct. Greenhouse suppress convection. Nonetheless the term “greenhouse gases” has been used for decades and its common meaning and usage is understood to means gas that absorbs longwave radiation. For my article to go deep into the weeds on convectiion and radiation and real greenhouse would be counter productive.

      To state the science is settled regards rising CO2, that it is a greenhouse gas in common usage, and that climate is changing simply provides some common ground with the general public’s understanding. I have been amazed how many pHd colleagues think a climate skeptic believes the climate doesnt change. They dont understand there is natural climate change.

      If I used your linguistic arguments, I would lose the general audience

      • Steele.
        Your communication skills are excellent. There is no excuse for people with good knowledge of climate science to use big words that confuse most people.

        Most people already start out confused about the climate and seem to need a government bureaucrat “scientist” to tell them how their local climate has changed over the decades. Not even realizing the bureaucats only talk about an “average climate” that not one person lives in.

        Leftists here in Michigan often look shocked when we tell them their property was located under an ice glacier 20 000 years ago.

        And then I ask how many decades of hearing about a coming climate crisis would be required, with no crisis, before they start wondering if the crisis prediction was right? The last person I asked said 50 years. I told him some U.S. scientists began predicting dangerous global warming in the late 1950s. … Suddenly the 97 percent of scientists hoax was declared to be “PROOF” OF THE COMING CLIMATE CRISIS !

  37. A major characteristic of climate “science” is the high chance that a new paper has no proper analysis of its errors and uncertainties. If a proper uncertainty was expressed for each new propsed paper, most would never reach the final publication stage because the assertions and inferences could not be regarded as accurate or capable of replication.
    To illustrate with a minor example, here in Australia summer approaches. A pattern of past summers has been claim after claim of new records being broken for highest ever temperatures. As we have seen, same happens in USA where a few years ago a NASA or NOAA claim of hottest year ever relied on a national average only 0.1 deg C hotter than any previous year. Some people rightly rejected this by saying the average could not be measured that accurately. Some even said it could not be measured to better than +/- 1 or even +/-2 deg C.
    This lack of certainty applies to many core nmbers in climate research, such as the top of atmosphere energy balance, the amount sea level rises or falls for a 1 deg change in global temperature and most emhatically, the change in global CO2 in air per 1 deg change in global T, the climate sensitivity.
    The main foundations of climate research are so uncertain that they have no adequate strength. Geoff S

    • Let me second your assertion. Too many people in science have been trained by Excel and other statistical software that the uncertainty of the mean is also the uncertainty in measurements. They think confidence levels tell you the accuracy of the means. These are statistical parameters based based upon the data points in a distribution. They don’t realize that measurement uncertainty also exists.

      Too many scientists have no idea that measurements include uncertainty because they have never had to live or die by making something with their hands. Every engineer and scientist should be required to spend at least a semester in a machine shop making high precision products or in a laboratory making certified high precision/accurate measurements. That would teach them that EVERY measurement has uncertainty and that uncertainty adds as more and more operations, be they calculations or physical, are done with a measurement.

  38. And where would that lead us? I believe the Red team and you believe in the Blue!
    The argument I always hear is “NASA/NOAA (or some other government agency) say “…………” and then we hear an opinion from their website written by some James Hansen protégé who has selected some poorly peer reviewed study or internal assessment weasel worded to imply some expected future event may be happening now.
    What we should campaign for is a clean up of our government agencies quality control processes.
    As pointed out, the peer review process is full of corruption and allowing agencies to make recommendations or express opinions without a far more rigorous quality process will always undermine good climate science. Secret science, such as that supporting the “Hockey Stick”, should be excluded. The temperature record homogenizing process should be openly vetted. Statistical analysis standards established. Journals universities that abuse an open peer review process should be excluded.

    • Very well said!!

      “What we should campaign for is a clean up of our government agencies quality control processes. ….. the peer review process is full of corruption and allowing agencies to make recommendations or express opinions without a far more rigorous quality process will always undermine good climate science. ”

      The same is also true for most COVID related studies.

  39. Tweeted, ’20 Oct 10:
    ——

    Storms, fires, floods, quakes, temp.s, etc, all,
    worse thru few doz. previous decades
    — w/ CO2 much lower; yet,
    the assumption, “All worst now”, was loaded into
    Q.’s to Pence & Harris in ’20 VP Debate.
    (Q’s c/o USA Today.)
    Old data shown & explained:
    https://youtu.be/6y3ObG5Xyys

    ——-
    That explanatory video, kindly & clearly narrated by “Toto”, is courageously hosted by the YouTube channel, “Tony Heller”.

Comments are closed.