Miscommunication in Recent Climate Attribution Studies

Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Whether one calls it an artful statistical sleight of hand or poor scientific communication, several non-peer-reviewed climate attribution reports have provided misleading information that poorly informs society.

The most recent, of course, is the World Weather Attribution (WWA) report on the Northwest heatwave, which provoked stark headlines throughout the planet (see below for a sample).   Yes, even the Seattle Times featured it.


This attribution report, and most media stories that covered it, suggested a central role for global warming for the heatwave.   As demonstrated in my previous blog, their narrative simply does not hold up to careful examination.
This blog will explain why their basic framing and approach is problematic, leading readers (and most of the media) to incorrect conclusions.
Sometimes it takes a magician to reveal the methods of another practitioner of the “dark arts”, and I will do so here.

A Revealing Analogy
Consider a dam that protects a city (see below). Before global warming, the water averaged one foot high behind the dam.

But global warming puts more moisture into the air and results in more annual rainfall (this will happen here in the Northwest!), resulting in the water behind the dam increasing to two feet (see below).  The city council was wise in building the dam much higher than typical water levels!


Sometimes there are storms, resulting from natural variability, that push the water level briefly to around five feet. Well below the dam top and the city remains safe; after the storms, the water level rapidly returns to 2 ft.  The city managers felt secure because the highest water level on record over the past half-century was 11 feet.
But one day there was an extreme storm, a black swan event, in which an extraordinary concurrence of weather features came together to produce a huge influx of water that drove the water level behind the dam to 24 ft, overtopping the dam and doing immense damage to the city (see below)
This freak event, which increased the water level by 22 feet above normal was the expression of natural variability of the weather.   Natural variability can produce very extreme events.


Now we get to the contentious part and where the sleight of hand is going on.
The Physically Meaningful Interpretation
One interpretation is that although global warming made a small contribution to this event, the essential event (overtopping the dam, damaging the city, exceeding the previous record by a large margin) would have happened anyway.  The overwhelming origin of this event (22-foot increase!) was natural variability.
This situation is a good example of the golden rule of climate attribution:  the more unusual and extreme the event, the greater the proportion of the event is due to natural variability rather than global warming.The “Headline” Interpretation
Another interpretation of this event is being communicated by some climate attribution groups that produce “rapid response” reports.
They ignore the physical situation and the actual impacts.  They ignore the fact that natural variability is dominating the situation.  They only look at the top of the water column in my analog above….the 24 feet crest of the storm-swollen waters.   
They ask:  would the water have risen to 24 feet without global warming?  And they provide the answer: no.    The water would never have gotten to 24 feet without global warming.    That is true.  It would only have crested at 22 feet.

And you know the headline resulting from their analysis:  “the extreme water level over the dam of 24 feet was virtually impossible without climate change.” 
Most folks reading that headline would inevitably conclude that without global warming, the big flood would not have happened.  But that is not true.
Don’t believe me?  Ask some people whether natural variability or global warming was dominant in the recent heatwave.  I did so among laypeople, and everyone I queried had the wrong impression.  And I don’t think this miscommunication is an accident.
More Magic
But these climate assessment people don’t stop there with their magic.  They do statistical analyses using model output to appraise how global warming changes the odds of extreme events, in my analog above, in water getting to 24 feet.  They don’t look at the odds of water just cresting the dam (18 feet) and causing the damaging event. Just like magicians, they have you look somewhere else while they make the illusion occur.
For the heatwave, the attribution folks only examine the statistics of temperatures hitting the record highs (108F in Seattle), but avoid looking at the statistics of temperature exceeding 100F, or even the record highs  (like 103F in Seattle).  There is a reason they don’t do that.  It would tell a dramatically different (and less persuasive) story.
In the attribution studies, the main technology for determining changed odds of extreme weather is to use global climate models.  First, they run the models with greenhouse gas forcing (which produces more extreme precipitation and temperature), and then they run the models again without increased greenhouse gases concentrations.  By comparing the statistics of the two sets of simulations, they attempt to determine how the odds of extreme precipitation or temperature change.


Unfortunately, there are serious flaws in their approach
:  climate models fail to produce sufficient natural variability (they underplay the black swans) and their global climate models don’t have enough resolution to correctly simulate critical intense, local precipitation features (from mountain enhancement to thunderstorms).  On top of that, they generally use unrealistic greenhouse gas emissions in their models (too much, often using the RCP8.5 extreme emissions scenario)  And there is more, but you get the message.   ( I am weather/climate modeler, by the way, and know the model deficiencies intimately.)
But the problems with the climate attribution studies don’t end with poor models: there are essential deficiencies with their use of statistics and distributions, something I discussed in a previous blog.
In their problematic approach, they get HUGE, unrealistic changes in the odds of extreme events, with their identified events going from once in thousands of years to every year or every five years.  But their” findings” are the result of problematic models, careful selection and definition of extreme events, and deficient statistics.
For the dam situation noted above, their model situations, even with their deficiencies, would indicate that global warming would produce a huge increase of probability of getting to 24 ft, but a far lesser influence on water getting to the critical 18 feet.   The selection of the threshold used for the analysis has a huge impact on the results.

The bottom line
Many of the climate attribution studies are resulting in headlines that are deceptive and result in people coming to incorrect conclusions about the relative roles of global warming and natural variability in current extreme weather.  Scary headlines and apocalyptic attribution studies needlessly provoke fear.  Furthermore, incorrect and hyped information results in poor decision-making.   
Here in Washington State, several politicians fixate on climate change as the cause of current environmental events, while neglecting key actions needed to ensure we are adapted to the current climate (such as restoring our forests, dealing with problematic power infrastructure, improving water quality).  And some media outlets (like a certain major newspaper in Seattle) are aiding such ineffective leaders by pushing an often uninformed and exaggerated climate-change narrative.
There is little doubt that the Earth is warming and that human emissions are a contributing factor, but many of the extreme events being blamed on global warming are predominantly the result of natural or other causes (such as changes in land use).   If the Earth continues to warm, by the end of the century the impacts of global warming on extremes will increase substantially, something I have shown in my own research.  
We need to worry about climate change and take steps in both mitigation (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation.  But hype and exaggeration of its impacts only undermine the potential for effective action.

4.2 26 votes
Article Rating
256 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
H. D. Hoese
July 22, 2021 6:15 am

There is a new claimed communication “science” with very little science. Notice the phrase “power imbalances.” This is one of their newest journals(2017) with very little ecology and evolution to be found, one heading. (Practise [sic] ethical ecology in inclusive teams). The paper needs translation.

Trisos, C.H., Auerbach, J. & Katti, M. Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology Evolution (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w
“More opportunities for historically marginalized groups to set research agendas is an important way of redressing ongoing power imbalances….Considering these five actions calls for reformulating research questions and practices as part of a decolonizing ecology that rejects extractive knowledge and instead generates knowledge that nurtures positive reciprocity with nature.”

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 22, 2021 6:46 am

Calling them on spelling errors is exhibiting white patriarchy!

fretslider
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 22, 2021 7:05 am

2+2 = racism.

Reply to  fretslider
July 22, 2021 12:09 pm

math is racist.

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 22, 2021 7:40 am

It is a great example of the oldest profession at work.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 22, 2021 12:30 pm

“… rejects extractive knowledge …”

What does that mean? What is extractive knowledge?

paul courtney
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 12:57 pm

Mr. Jim: I think it’s Dave Middleton’s field.

Windsong
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Typical word salad these days. This was the headline of an editorial yesterday in a local newspaper that Cliff mentioned above: “Washington Prisons Require Humane Climate Resiliency.”

July 22, 2021 6:22 am

There is little doubt that the Earth is warming and that human emissions are a contributing factor…”

After a great start you reverted back to the original wrong unphysical attribution, emissions.

“We need to worry about climate change and take steps in both mitigation (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation.”

We don’t need to worry about the non-existent climate influence of emissions.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 6:33 am

Bob, exactly. These pointless unscientific statements should be called out.

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 7:28 am

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established.
Your religious convictions not withstanding.

This belief that we have to reject the clear science because doing otherwise would help the alarmists is as bad as anything the alarmists are trying to do.

Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 7:44 am

I believe you are just posturing, whereas I stand on empirical science.

If you think the science is clear you are the one with the religious conviction.

bdgwx
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 8:39 am

The science is clear and unequivocal. Polyatomic molecules like H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. including CO2 are GHGs. These molecules behavior in the infrared spectrum has been tested ad-nauseum. The mechanism is exploited to the extent that people bet their lives on it with the countless deployments of NDIR sensors that detect and measure polyatomic gas species concentrations including CO2 by how much infrared radiation they attenuate. And observational meteorology uses the mechanism to track H2O in the atmosphere. Space based radiometers detect the presence and concentration of H2O because it attenuates and even blocks the terrestrial radiation leaving only its own emission for radiometers to observe. And the newer GOES-R satellites even have a “CO2” channel that exploits CO2’s minor active band around 13.1 um to produce many of the products used for observation and forecasting of weather. Our understanding of polyatomic molecules to behave as GHGs is about as settled as anything else in science. Not even the most vocal reputable critics (like Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, Christy, etc.) challenge the fact that CO2 is a GHG and has an effect on the planetary energy imbalance and the climate system.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:27 am

and has an effect on the planetary energy imbalance and the climate system.

All other things held equal – which they are not. Hence the inability of CO2 to have ever been empirically shown to “drive” Jack-shit.

bdgwx
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 10:05 am

CO2 has an effect on the planetary energy imbalance even when other things are changing. The law of conservation of energy says so. Just because the planetary energy balance is a result of the net of all agents acting together does not preclude CO2 for being a component of that net and for participating in the overall modulation (or drive) of the climate system. Everything matters…including CO2. CO2 along with other agents has been empirically shown to be essential in explaining many of Earth’s climate change eras including the PETM, other ETMx events, glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, the modern warming era, etc.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 10:22 am

However, by ignoring the “net of all agents acting together,” i.e. the feedback relationships, you overemphasize the importance of the CO2. The question isn’t whether the polyatomic molecules have a measurable effect, but rather, what the net effect is when all parameters are considered.

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 22, 2021 11:33 am

That is exactly what Bob and AGW is Not Science are questioning above. They say and I quote, We don’t need to worry about the non-existent climate influence of emissionsand Hence the inability of CO2 to have ever been empirically shown to “drive” Jack-shit. That is what I’m responding to. And I’m not overemphasizing CO2’s importance. I’m pointing out that despite contrarian assertions it does have an effect. The magnitude of that effect is certainly debatable though.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 5:57 pm

Please note the phase lag in CO2 wrt temperature 1920-1940:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hrgRgSNj0mo/R_o5kkdVBrI/AAAAAAAAAOs/ONvfJkcveVE/s400/BeckI.jpg

The increases in ‘CO2 chemical’ follow increases in the ocean temperature greater than 25.6C, the outgassing temperature I determined in 2019:

comment image
comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 5:59 pm

The first linked image from the above comment:
comment image

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 12:53 pm

The magnitude, given repeated episodes of reverse correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2, is clearly zero.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 22, 2021 12:16 pm

“However, by ignoring the “net of all agents acting together,” i.e. the feedback relationships, you overemphasize the importance of the CO2.”

Exactly!

Alarmists ignore feedbacks, like the hot tropical sun causing water vapor to rise and form clouds and rain, which then cools the area. A little initial warmth caused a feedback that eventually led to cooling. Willis’ temperature control knob. 🙂

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 12:51 pm

CO2 along with other agents has been empirically shown to be essential in explaining many of Earth’s climate change eras including the PETM, other ETMx events, glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period, the modern warming era, etc.

No it hasn’t. They ASSUME it has an effect, because of their pet hypothesis, which again only functions assuming all else held equal. If CO2 was a major climate driver, it would be apparent throughout the Earth’s climate history, and it is not.

In the ice core reconstructions, there are repeated episodes of reverse correlation vis-a-vis temperature, which would not be possible if CO2 was a major climate influence.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:31 am

The empirical science suggests that CO2 is a very minor GHG, with minuscule effect on our complex atmospheric/oceanic system. The empirical science suggests that human emitted CO2 is a tiny percentage of the total. The empirical science suggests that reducing human emissions of CO2 will cause global poverty, war, and death. The empirical science suggest that a warmer planet would be a more pleasant planet and more conducive to life.

If you are going to wave the empirical science flag, please state the entirety of the findings. Otherwise you mislead, misdirect, and fail to fully inform.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 22, 2021 9:50 am

The empirical science suggests that CO2 yields +3.7 W/m2 of radiative forcing for each doubling.

The empirical science suggests that 30%+ of the CO2 in the atmosphere would not have been there had humans not pumped 550 GtC into the atmosphere.

The economic effect of reduced emissions and the pros/cons of of warming planet are irrelevant to the facts above and my response to Bob.

The entirety of our knowledge and understanding of how polyatomic molecules behave and the consequences of their changes in concentration is extensive. It would probably require an entire library to store. So forgive me for not stating the entirety of the findings.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:04 am

The empirical science suggests that CO2 yields +3.7 W/m2 of radiative forcing for each doubling.”

Suggested by those who take the logarithmic CO2-T relationship for granted a priori. How can we know if that is right or wrong?

bdgwx
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 1:51 pm

It’s not taken for granted a priori. It is determined by radiative transfer models developed from experimentation. Refer to the HITRAN database and read about CO2’s radiative effects in peer reviewed literature. May I recommend Myhre 1998? Make sure you descend into each of the numerous references recursively that Myhre cites and which those citations cite and so on. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying the uncertainty on that +3.7 W/m2 is zero. It’s not. I’ve seen estimates range from 3.3 and 4.0 W/m2 with 3.7 being a reasonable estimate given the what we know today. What I am saying is that the radiative forcing of CO2 is known to be positive with near certainty. In fact, I’ve not seen any estimates that put it below even 3.0 W/m2. That is far cry from CO2’s radiative forcing being non-existent.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 12:57 pm

Which all speaks to what happens under the assumption, “all other things held equal.” And tells you nothing more.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 12:25 pm

The economic effects of reduced emissions and the pro/cons of a warming planet are NOT irrelevant to this discussion, any more than the catastrophic effects of nuclear war were irrelevant to the people who designed atomic bombs.

Your ilk seek to impose tyrannical authoritarian harm to the people of Earth. Agenda 21, IPCC, Great Reset, GND, and other political warfare on humanity are part and parcel of your THEORETICAL assertions. Great evil is the goal, not unbiased “knowledge”.

Empirical means based on observation. Your claim of +3.7W/m2 has NOT been observed. It is hypothetical at best. Your claim that 30%+ of atmospheric CO2 is of human origin is NOT an empirical observation but iinstead at odds with ample data. Your claims regarding polyatomic molecular effects in a test tube are inconsistent with observation of the complex atmospheric/oceanic system and paleoclimatology.

So many theoretical assertions with deliberate blindness to the harm you wish to impart are not only irresponsible, they are profoundly dangerous and horrific.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 22, 2021 2:00 pm

The economy is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if changes in CO2 concentration have a positive or negative effect on the economy. It still perturbs the planetary energy balance all the same. Nevermind that there was no economy prior to 10,000 years ago so there is no way for the economy to alter CO2’s radiative behavior either way back then.

Just because you are not familiar with or reject the evidence of CO2’s behavior in the electromagnetic spectrum, it’s ability to perturb the planetary energy balance, and that the 550 GtC human emission contributes significantly to the 415 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere today does not in anyway mean they aren’t true. And yes, my claims of CO2’s radiative behavior ARE consistent with observations of the climate system both in contemporary and paleoclimate eras. If you disagree then you need to point out specific reasons why you think it is consistent and present evidence to back it up.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 12:59 pm

It still perturbs the planetary energy balance all the same.

Hypothetically. All other things held equal.

In reality, meaningless.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 2:06 pm

And you really believe all that? What a maroon. You people have been saying exactly the same thing for over 30 years … yet not one projection/prediction founded on that dogma has ever happened. The models based on it are always wrong and the economic sanctions enacted to “fix” it are crippling our economy.

You have no facts. You’re spouting religious belief.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 5:55 pm

I have no idea which predictions and models you are looking at Rory, but the ones I’m looking have been reasonably accurate. For example, CMIP6 predicts +0.07C/decade of warming from 1880-2020. The observed value is +0.07C/decade. It predicts cooling from volcanic eruptions. That cooling was observed from Agung, El Chichon, and Pinatubo. It predicts that OLR will increase. That is what CERES and other satellite data shows. It predicts that the stratosphere will cool. That’s what UAH and RSS show. It predicts numerous things that have been observed. So your “yet not one projection/prediction” claim is patently false. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying climate predictions are perfect. They aren’t and they never will be. But they are clearly skillful and useful. My advice for you is instead of looking at models that are subpar which ignore known climate forcing agents you should look at the ones scientists actually use and advocate.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:19 pm

. It predicts that the stratosphere will cool”
But it’s not cooling. It is flat lining and has been for decades. Given that co2 concentration is increasing at not only a linear but an increasing rate every year, the stratospheric cooling you mention should be moving in lock-step to the co2 concentrations because according to the hypothesis, it is DIRECTLY influenced by co2.


bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 22, 2021 8:47 pm

I’m not aware of any model that predicts temperatures will move in lockstep with CO2. This goes troposphere temperature, stratosphere temperature, surface temperature, ocean temperature, etc.

The stratosphere is cooling at a rate of -0.28C/decade per UAH. In fact the UAH TLT minus TLS trend is +0.42C/decade. RSS and other datasets also unequivocally show the warming of the troposphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:24 pm

 RSS and other datasets also unequivocally show the warming of the troposphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere.”

Todays temp is the same as it was in 1995 more or less. No warming. The stratosphere shows no warming during the same period regardless of your convenient starting point.
Meanwhile the co2 has increased by 10% at least.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 1:01 pm

LMAO. It “predicts” a known outcome after it has been fine-tuned to do so.

The future, on the other hand, is not so cooperative, since the “models” have consistently over-predicted warming by about a factor of three.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 6:13 am

“The entirety of our knowledge and understanding of how polyatomic molecules behave and the consequences of their changes in concentration is extensive.”

Yes, but that is still only part of the story.

Moller says a two percent increase in cloudiness would offset all CO2 warming to date.

We do know how greenhouse gases behave. What we don’t know is how the atmosphere behaves in total in conjunction with CO2. Does CO2 cause net warming or net cooling? Knowing how CO2 absorbs and emits alone does not answer this question. There are other factors involved obviously, since we are currently cooling even though CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

I know, it has only been cooling for a short time, but why is it cooling at all if CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere? Something other than CO2 is at work it would seem.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2021 8:24 am

CO2 is not the only thing that modulates the atmospheric temperature. I don’t understand this obsession here with the strawman argument that CO2 is the only thing that modulates it. The consensus does not suggest that at all. LIke…not even close. And if you think that is what the consensus says then that tells me you don’t understand the current state of the science. And if you don’t understand the current state of the science then how are you going to adequately criticize it?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 1:05 pm

I don’t understand this obsession here with the strawman argument that CO2 is the only thing that modulates it.

Well since that is essentially your argument, maybe you better go improve your “understanding.” LMAO.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 26, 2021 1:04 pm

Moller says a two percent increase in cloudiness would offset all CO2 warming to date.

And the IPCC admits that cloud behavior is poorly understood. QED.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 12:56 pm

The empirical science suggests that CO2 yields +3.7 W/m2 of radiative forcing for each doubling.

ALL OTHER THINGS HELD EQUAL – and purely hypothetical.

Here, on planet Earth, in this space called “reality,” not so much.

Joao Martins
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:32 am

There is a big, BIG gap over which you extrapolate when you go from measurements of water vapour in atmosphere and “planetary energy imbalance and the climate system”!!!

Using a scale to measure your weight NOW does not tell anything about the tendency (are you getting fat or thin?) nor with the average (or tendency thereof) of your weight during periods, say, of 5 years.

bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 22, 2021 9:53 am

There is no gap. The law of conservation of energy the 1st law of thermodynamics are unequivocal on this point. If you lower the egress of energy out of a system without changing the ingress then energy will accumulate in the system. And since no material has an infinite specific heat capacity that necessarily means the system will warm. And we know for an absolute fact that polyatomic gas species impede the transmission of radiant energy out of a system. This is has been tested ad-nauseum. It is as settled as anything in science can be settled.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 10:27 am

Your qualitative statement is correct as far as it goes. That is, if one additional polyatomic molecule is added to the atmosphere it will have a theoretical effect. However, what is important is the measurable, quantitative impact in the context of all the feedback loops.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 26, 2021 1:07 pm

Your qualitative statement is correct as far as it goes.

In other words, not very. Sort of like climbing into a space ship that never launches.

Joao Martins
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 10:39 am

I see that you did not (or did not want to) understand my comment.

Perhaps you forgot that climate is a collection of average values.

Please don’t bring to the discussion facts “tested ad nauseam” (I corrected the spelling mistake) that are unconnected to other’s (in the present case, mine) arguments.

Perhaps nothing that you have written may be contested. But nonetheless it has nothing to do respecting what I have written.

As this answer of yours has been repeated in this thread, as if it would be the anwwer that fits all questions, I shall abstain to further address any of your comments.

Last edited 1 month ago by Joao Martins
bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 22, 2021 11:22 am

Thank you for bringing the spelling error to my attention. My apologies for not more carefully proof-reading my posts. I will try to do better next time.

My post was in regards to your comment about a gap. The measurement of water vapor in the atmosphere is intimately connected to the energy budget because the measurement is made by watching for a drop in egress energy. That is what I’m responding to.

I didn’t know what your point about averaging or how it related to this subthread so I intentionally ignored it. If you want to clarify that point now I’d be happy to discuss it though.

Joao Martins
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 12:19 pm

To put it simply, plainly: assuming that the number that you get from the ATM is intimately connected with your account, what does the state of your bank account TODAY tell you about its average in the last 30 years?

You say that measurements, local, in certain moments (i.e., instantaneous), made in the atmosphere, are intimately connected to the “energy budget”. I.e., pursuing the bank account metaphor, the state of your bank account TODAY is related to your budget of the last days or weeks (or months, eventually). No doubt about that! They are connected in a time scope neighbouring the measurement. NOT in a very long period.

Returning now to the subject: the local and instantaneous measurements that you refer to are intimately connected with meteorology, not with climate. The BIG GAP is here: between meteorology (the daily measurements) and the climate (averages of those measurements in long periods). And it is this big gap that you have crossed with an extrapolation. Please re-read your post of July 22, 2021 8:39 am and check how illicit that extrapolation is: you cannot conclude anything about climate (last lines of your post) from the evidence you gave before (the connection of measurements which are local and instantaneous with atmospheric composition).

Last edited 1 month ago by Joao Martins
bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 22, 2021 2:06 pm

It’s the same with bank account. If you put a barrier on withdrawls, but allow deposits to go through unchanged your account will accumulate value. The average of the value of your account over the last 30 years regardless of whether it is steady, decreasing, or increasing does not change the fact that that dV = Vin – Vout where V is the monetary value. BTW…the astute reading of this post will notice this equation is exactly the same as the law of conservation of energy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 26, 2021 1:11 pm

If you put a barrier on withdrawls, but allow deposits to go through unchanged your account will accumulate value.

Except that, in your poor analogy, nobody put a barrier on withdrawals, nor has anybody guaranteed that the “other” deposits will continue to be the same.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 27, 2021 10:22 am

Oh, and P.S., bdgwx – In your “analogy,” your argument still boils down to “all other things held equal.” Are you actually that dense that you fail to see that?!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 2:14 pm

This is has been tested ad-nauseum. It is as settled as anything in science can be settled.

The only thing qualifying as ad nauseam is the dogma you preach. In fact the system is cooling, generally and has been cooling for ~8000 years. If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 5:58 pm

Yes. There has been a long term secular decrease in the global mean temperature over the last several thousand years. This is followed by a sharp increase after the industrial revolution. All of this consistent with the current consensus within climate science. In fact, it is THIS science that told you about the long term secular decline in temperatures over the last several thousand years.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 6:28 pm

This is followed by a sharp increase after the industrial revolution.

More utter nonsense. We’re tired … and completely bored with your message. You have no facts, just a vivid imagination and a vague understanding of climate, insufficient to inform grade schoolers.

There is no “consensus”. Every attempt to show a consensus has failed, not that a consensus has anything to do with science. That’s the problem with you people … believing that logical fallacies are consistent with science.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 8:40 pm

My references for the fact that there was significant warming after the industrial revolution are GISTEMP, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way, etc. with more modern extensions from UAH, RSS, AIRS, the many reanalysis datasets, a couple of oceanic heat content datasets, a couple of snow/ice extent/volume datasets. All…bar known…are consistent with significant warming.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:15 pm

Is there ANY logical fallacy people like you aren’t madly in love with? Look up post hoc ergo propter hoc. Which of those data sets began in 1760? There’s simply been no “significant” warming since the end of the LIA … but you are right about one thing, though. Warming did follow the Industrial revolution. Now prove it caused the warming.

Typically you make amateur causal fallacies. Are you seriously implying that the Industrial Revolution initiated the end of the Little Ice Age. You not only don’t understand the science, you’re bereft of simple logic.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 6:46 am

None of the ones I mentioned go back to 1760. To go back that far we’ll have to use the proxy datasets. Kaufman et al. 2020 is a good one though by no means the only one.

Which dataset are you looking at that shows no significant warming since 1760?

No. I’m not implying that the industrial revolution initiated the end of the LIA. I don’t think there is enough evidence to support that hypothesis. Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say the industrial revolution isn’t responsible for a significant portion of the warming from 1850 to present.

BTW…in an attempt to steer my posts back on point. All of the evidence suggests that polyatomic gas species including CO2 have an effect on the climate system in stark contrast to Bob Weber’s and AGW is Not Science’s assertions.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 10:43 am

I suggest you go back and reread the thread. You mentioned warming after the Industrial Revolution. It either caused warming or your comment was gratuitous. The Little Ice Age was a natural event consistent with the downward temperature trend of the Holocene. So far you haven’t provided any evidence to support one point you’ve tortuously attempted to make.

All of the evidence suggests that polyatomic gas species including CO2 have an effect on the climate system.

Except you still haven’t provide an iota of evidence at all for your preposterous assertions. You haven’t progressed past endlessly repeating an unsupported hypothesis. Beyond that I’ll just second Tom Abbot’s response to you.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 6:38 am

“My references for the fact that there was significant warming after the industrial revolution are GISTEMP, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way, etc.”

That’s where you went wrong.

You learn the wrong lessons looking at those bastardized computer-generated temperature charts.

Actual temperature readings made by human beings over the last many decades show a completely different temperature profile compared to those bastardized temperature charts.

The human-generated regional temperature charts show CO2 has not contributed to the warmth today because it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, while CO2 continued to increase from then to now. More CO2 now, but the temperatures are no higher than in the recent past.

If you look at those bastardized temperature charts you would think we are living in the hottest time in human history. But that’s a Big Lie. That’s the Big Lie the Data Manipulator are trying to sell us. And you bought into it. If you believe in them, then you are not looking at the situation properly, imo.

Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick

comment image

And, the true temperature profile of the Earth:

Hansen 1999:

comment image

Combined with the UAH satellite chart, gives you the true temperature profile. Keep in mind that 1998 and 2016 are statistically tied for the warmest years since the 1930’s, so 1998 is the same on both charts.

comment image

As you can see, it was just as warm in the 1930’s, as it is today, yet there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in the 1930’s. One has to reach the conclusion that CO2 has not added much to the Earth’s temperature in all that time.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 23, 2021 8:19 am

Tom, where are you seeing that the global mean temperature is as high in the 1930’s as it was today? Your charts certainly don’t show that. In fact, of the 3 charts only 1 is relevant to that topic and it shows the exact opposite of what you just said.

And as I’ve point out to you before your middle chart is only for the United States and is contaminated with biases from station moves, time-of-observation changes, instrument changes, etc. I’m curious…do you feel that you are being more or less transparent by omitting that crucial piece of information?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 6:34 am

Rory, my facts for the claim that there is a significant rise in temperature from 1850 to present are GISTEMP, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way. This is augmented by UAH, RSS, oceanic heat content, snow/ice extent/volume, several reanalysis datasets, etc. in the later part of the period. I’m not just making this stuff up on the fly here. If you know of a different dataset publishing the global mean temperature that shows a substantially different result please post it for us all to review.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 10:23 am

We all know where to find the data. It only indicates a rise in temps since the LIA. The rise is far from significant, compared to the entire Holocene. It’s really rather modest.

Do please respond once your confusion subsides.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 12:56 pm

I gave you a reference to a Holocene global mean temperature reconstruction that puts the contemporary temperature rise in context with the entirety of the Holocene. The contemporary rise can clearly be described as “sharp” in that context as well.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 2:21 pm

In other words more hand waving. I’m not looking for a reference to more dubious assertions. I’m looking for evidence proving cause. You clearly have none.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 4:33 pm

Why do you need to know the cause of warming to know that it is warming?

I’m curious…above you said it was “utter nonsense” that the global mean temperature has increased significantly since the industrial revolution. Can you post evidence supporting your position? I’m genuinely curious how you are going to do that without posting links to datasets and literature describing the evidence.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 5:19 pm

Why do you need to know the cause of warming to know that it is warming?

Where did you get the impression anyone did?

above you said it was “utter nonsense” that the global mean temperature has increased significantly since the industrial revolution.

Where? Provide the quote.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 5:42 pm

I said: “There has been a long term secular decrease in the global mean temperature over the last several thousand years. This is followed by a sharp increase after the industrial revolution.”  July 22, 2021 5:58 pm

You said: “More utter nonsense.” July 22, 2021 6:28 pm

I said: “Rory, my facts for the claim that there is a significant rise in temperature from 1850 to present are GISTEMP, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way.”  July 22, 2021 8:40 pm

You said: “We all know where to find the data. It only indicates a rise in temps since the LIA. The rise is far from significant, compared to the entire Holocene. It’s really rather modest.” July 23, 2021 10:23 am

I said: “I gave you a reference to a Holocene global mean temperature reconstruction that puts the contemporary temperature rise in context with the entirety of the Holocene. The contemporary rise can clearly be described as “sharp” in that context as well.” July 23, 2021 12:56 pm

You said: “In other words more hand waving. I’m not looking for a reference to more dubious assertions. I’m looking for evidence proving cause.July 23, 2021 2:21 pm

This is what I’m responding to. I want to know why proving cause is necessary for accepting that there was a significant increase in the global mean temperature after the industrial revolution.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 5:59 pm

You said: “More utter nonsense.” July 22, 2021 6:28 pm

Exactly. There was no “sharp” increase. You implied the Industrial Revolution was the cause. There was a slight increase following the Little Ice Age … quite consistent with all proxy temperature variations throughout the Holocene.

I said: “Rory, my facts for the claim that there is a significant rise in temperature from 1850 to present are GISTEMP, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Way.”  July 22, 2021 8:40 pm

What was wrong with my reply? You claimed the rise was “sharp” and “significant” both merely your pinions. My opinion ” rather modest” is a better fit with the available data.

“In other words more hand waving. I’m not looking for a reference to more dubious assertions. I’m looking for evidence proving cause.” July 23, 2021 2:21 pm

A very reasonable response to your apparent confusion. However it could be disingenuousness, not confusion.

I want to know why proving cause is necessary for accepting that there was a significant increase in the global mean temperature after the industrial revolution.

You have managed to get yourself into a dilemma of cross purposes. You work it out. There were some replies where cause was the issue, while in others the issue was about your “opinion” rather than fact. Mentioning the Industrial Revolution was unnecessary, within the context, and implied that it contributed to the beginning of the Little Ice age.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 6:52 pm

I didn’t mean to imply the industrial revolution was the cause of the warming. I was only using it as a familiar timing anchor. If I amend that statement to say…There has been a long term secular decrease in the global mean temperature over the last several thousand years. This is followed by a sharp increase after 1850 would that change your position that it is “utter nonsense”? Do you still need to know the cause of the warming after 1850 to accept it?

BTW…don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say the industrial revolution isn’t associated with a rapid increase in GHG concentrations. I also didn’t say that GHGs did not contribute to the warming after 1850. I’m just pointing out that Earth gradually cooled (albeit with lots of variation) for thousands of years and then experienced a sharp increase in temperature after 1850. That is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 does, despite contrarian assertions, have an effect on the climate.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 7:26 pm

There has been a long term secular decrease in the global mean temperature over the last several thousand years {****}. This is followed by a sharp increase after 1850 would that change your position that it is “utter nonsense”?

“”Sharp increase” is opinion and unnecessary hyperbole (especially when Industrial Revolution is included). Your intentions were clear. Also your statement without including (at {****}) interspersed by corresponding warm periods makes it seem that the present warming is an unusual event.

and then experienced a sharp increase in temperature after 1850

Except there was nothing unusual about the present warming since the LIA … not a damned thing. There certainly was no “sharp increase”.

That is not inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 does, despite contrarian assertions, have an effect on the climate.

Except there was no corresponding increase in CO2 in 1850. The post LIA warming indicates absolutely NOTHING about CO2 at all any more than any other warm period has … Minoan, Roman or Medieval.

Your entire response was disingenuous.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 8:15 pm

If it helps this is what I’m looking at.
comment image

That is from the Kaufman 2020 study I linked to above. I think any reasonable person would be okay with calling the post 1850 increase “sharp” and “significant”.

If you know of a different global mean temperature reconstruction using a multi-proxy, multi-dataset, and multi-analysis technique showing a substantially different result let me know. I’ll be happy to review it. I do consider temperature reconstructions evidence. I also consider literature describing the reconstruction an appropriate method of communicating that evidence. Feel free to post the publication information and I’ll look it up and take it from there.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 8:51 pm

I’ve never seen anything more preposterous in my life (apart from all IPCC reports after FAR and all the other hockey stick reconstructions). No “reasonable person” would find that reconstruction reasonable, considering the large number of reasonable reconstructions based on real science. Clearly Kaufman wasn’t expecting much encouragement from real scientists.

GoogleHolocene warm periods” and search images. You’ll see your fantasy figure among those derived through science, not politics and wishful thinking. Most studies, the consensus (for non scientists), show the present as unremarkable and neither “sharp nor significant”.

Note: reconstructions can be good evidence, provided they rely on several proxies and are vigorously checked for confirmation bias. For instance, using a tiny sample of tree rings in two locations, to determine global temperature over a 1000 years period is pathetic; especially when the authors appended measured data where contemporary proxies failed to provide the desired result and scary narrative (showing them as either stupid or fraudulent).

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 24, 2021 7:49 am

What is unreasonable about Kaufman 2020?

Can you post a link to a global mean temperature reconstruction you think is reasonable?

Would you mind posting an example of graph you found by googling so that we can review it? I’m making this request because past experience tells me you may be focusing on the graphs that only go up to 1850 or so and which do not include the contemporary warming and/or are only for Greenland or Antarctica which are obviously not global.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 10:28 am

What is unreasonable about Kaufman 2020?

Everything. It’s a hockey stick graph, fergawdsake. I told you where to search for comparisons. Now go troll someone else, you’re still missing the evidence you were asked for days ago.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 24, 2021 5:07 pm

Because Kaufman 2020 shows a sharp rise in the global mean temperature relative the entirety of the Holocene cerebrating the other global mean temperature reconstruction published prior you do not accept it?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 6:11 pm

McIntyre on Kaufman et al 2020

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/12/mcintyre-on-kaufman-et-al-2020/

Pay close attention to the comments.The paper is trash.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 9:25 am

“I want to know why proving cause is necessary for accepting that there was a significant increase in the global mean temperature after the industrial revolution.”

I don’t see anyone here asserting that there was NO rise in temperature. I see quibbling over terminology: “significant” vs. “slight”. Those are opinions, not facts, so the words being used are irrelevant.

I also see some arguing about the timeline, which could be more significant: what started first, the warming or the increase in CO2? That seems to be at least one critical point.

As for proving cause, when a cause is asserted, the person asserting the cause needs to provide empirical evidence of said cause. Empirical evidence is not people writing about it, “expert opinion”, examinations of correlation – it is demonstrable and repeatable.

If A causes B, then there should be solid proof that is the case. And if there are times that A does not cause B, that would disprove causation, regardless of any other correlation.

It seems to me that if the claim is that A causes B and there are clear instances where A happens and B does not, that is disproof of causation. If A causes B then A always causes B. Otherwise, A does not cause B; under that scenario: at most, it contributes to B.
But if B, without A or before A, that scenario even counterindicates contribution.

bdgwx
Reply to  TonyG
July 24, 2021 5:03 pm

I was told it was “utter nonsense” that global mean temperature started rising significantly after 1850. I presented evidence that not only did it rise significantly, but against the backdrop of the entire Holocene period the rise was sharp…0.7C/century.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 25, 2021 9:34 am

against the backdrop of the entire Holocene period the rise was sharp…0.7C/century.

What is the resolution of the current data and what is the resolution of the data it’s being compared to?

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:30 pm

 This is followed by a sharp increase after the industrial revolution.”
Sharp increase? It cooled from 1940 for 40 years while co2 was going up at an ever increasing rate. The trouble with people like you is that rely on ambiguous hypotheses based on calculations over what is in front of your face. Most definitely A PRIORI.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 22, 2021 8:36 pm

I’m not relying on anything a priori. This is bona-fide observational evidence. The same observations that show cooling in the mid 20th century are the same observations that show significant warming from 1850 to present. If you accept that it was cooling for part of the period then you don’t have much choice but to accept that there was significant warming over the whole period. Its the same with paleoclimate data. The same data that says the Earth underwent several thousand years of gradual cooling is the same data that shows that GHGs including CO2 are essential in explaining the temperature trends in Earth’s distant past. CO2 influences the climate. That’s what all of the data says.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 8:56 pm

Uh! 1850 was the end of the LIA!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:23 pm

The same observations that show cooling in the mid 20th century are the same observations that show significant warming from 1850 to present.

So what? It’s data. What is the significance of a tiny amount of warming after the coldest period in 8000 years? Before you can suggest that raw data proves your hypothesis, you must establish a causal relationship. You can’t.

CO2 influences the climate. That’s what all of the data says.

That’s an unsupportable belief based on very weak conjecture with no possibility of testing it. There is not only no evidence to support your belief; every model based on that belief has no predictive skill. It’s an abject failure.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:29 pm

If you accept that it was cooling for part of the period then you don’t have much choice but to accept that there was significant warming over the whole period.”

What’s that got to do with the price of fish?

” the same data that shows that GHGs including CO2 are essential in explaining the temperature trends in Earth’s distant past.”

If they are as essential as you say, explain the cooling in the mid 20’th century using the co2. And no you can’t use the aerosol excuse. That has been debunked.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 23, 2021 6:28 am

I can’t explain all temperature changes using only CO2. The planetary energy balance is modulated by the net effect of ALL agents. CO2 is but only one agent. That’s one the points I’m trying to drive home here. The mid 20th century cooling was caused by the net effect of ALL agents including the rapid increase in aerosol concentrations between WWII and 1980. Even today the human induced aerosol forcing is close to -1.0 W/m2. Compare that to the CO2 forcing of +2.0 W/m2. I’m invoking aerosols here because like CO2 and countless other agents it also matters. The CMIP suite of models using ALL forcing agents including CO2 and aerosols replicate the global mean temperature trend during this period reasonably well. So no, just like CO2 aerosols have not been debunked. In fact, they too are essential in explaining global heat uptake. See here for how well CMIP actually performs.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 12:10 pm

data that shows that GHGs including CO2 are essential in explaining the temperature trends in Earth’s distant past

What data would that be, pray tell? Do show us the “CO2 drives the temperature” data. LMFAO there is no such data.

There is, on the other hand, a great deal of data that shows CO2 has no effect on temperature whatsoever.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 10:25 am

“Sharp” because today measurements are being taken with instruments that can provide data as many times as you care to read the instruments, which you compare to “proxy” data from the past with much lower resolution.

In other words, comparing apples to hockey pucks and pretending they are the same thing.

And none of this is empirically shown to be “driven” by atmospheric CO2 levels. Quite the reverse, in fact, when one considers the preferred “proxies” of the alarmist camp – the ice core reconstructions.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:33 am

Of course, but where does this lead to the conclusion that the climate is significantly impacted. Don’t tell me correlation (that is largely imaginary) and don’t tell me ‘because it can.’ There are far too many other possible causes for a general warming. Anthropogenic influences other than GHG emissions are strong contenders.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rick
July 22, 2021 9:58 am

There are lot of contributing factors (causes) for warming. CO2 is but one among many agents that can perturb the planetary energy balance. And there are countless other agents that can modulate the distribution of heat to/from the atmosphere causing warming in the atmosphere at the expense of cooling in other heat reservoirs even without a planetary energy imbalance. That does NOT mean that changes in CO2 concentration does not have an impact on the climate system. There is nothing magic about CO2 that prevents it from having the same impact on the climate system in proportion to the magnitude of radiative forcing it yields just like all of the other agents. And just because CO2 is not a significant contributing factor for all climatic change events does NOT mean that it isn’t a significant factor for this climatic change event. The same is true of all agents that can modulate the climate.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 4:04 pm

So the only reason for attempts to lower CO2 emissions is because it is the only one we have even a modicum of control over? Why don’t we even consider all the factors that can contribute to cooling? Mitigation seems like a monumental waste of effort and wealth when we cannot even quantify the effect of CO2, much less the multitude of other contributing factors.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rick
July 22, 2021 6:00 pm

We aren’t talking about attempts to lower CO2 emissions here Rick. We are talking about Bob and AGW is Not Science’s claim that CO2 has no impact on the climate system. That is misinformation. It does have an impact. That is what I’m addressing here.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 6:35 pm

It does have an impact. That is what I’m addressing here.

Now prove it and supply the evidence. You’re merely repeating a set dogma that has had absolutely no success at predicting anything. Get a new pitch. You’re trying to sell a dead parrot.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:34 pm

” It does have an impact.”
So does me digging a hole in the ground.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 23, 2021 6:19 am

That’s right. Digging a hole in the ground does have an effect. So does lofting 100 MtSO2 into the atmosphere or 2,000,000 MtCO2 or having the Sun increase it’s output by 0.1% or a countless number of other examples.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 12:15 pm

No it’s not. The ice core reconstructions show temperature change leading atmospheric CO2 change, not the other way around, and also show temperatures beginning their rise with CO2 falling, and near its low points, and beginning to fall with CO2 levels rising, and near its high points.

Reverse correlation, which occurs repeatedly in those reconstructions, shows you CO2 influence on temperature = zero.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:33 pm

CO2 is but one among many agents that can perturb the planetary energy balance.”
By how much? What is the known (not the ”accepted”) sensitivity to co2? Come on, let’s have it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 23, 2021 6:16 am

Myhre 1998 estimates the magnitude of CO2’s effect at +3.7 W/m2 for each doubling of CO2. Other studies are consistent with this estimate with a range of about +3.4-4.0 W/m2.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 12:19 pm

Again, only assuming all other things held equal. The hypothetical effect of CO2 on temperature has never been empirically demonstrated to operate in the real world.

The assumptions implicit in the purely hypothetical “science” you’re talking about do not constitute facts, data, or proof of any real world impact.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:02 am

The science is clear and unequivocal. …”

That’s all beside the point bdgwx.

Those are not the issues that I addressed here or intended to, nor do I think it is necessary or wise to hold onto wrong ideas others we like have, who take the logarithmic CO2-T relationship for granted a priori. The entire context of CO2 driven warming is the issue.

My work on the macro climate indicates higher solar activity drives ocean warming which drives higher levels of evaporation, precipitation, and CO2; and lower solar activity yields the opposite. The amount of time under either solar state sets the climate by controlling the changes and extremes.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 12:35 pm

How about 1 single reference, if there is so much science.

bdgwx
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 2:14 pm

If I may suggest a single reference from which to jump off from I always recommend the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis. There you will find about 10,000 peer reviewed citations that you can wade through. Remember to dive into the references they cite as well and the ones they cite as well and so on. I think a good focus is the Tyndall 1861, Pekeris 1929, Plass 1956, and Myhre 1998 might provide other good jumping off points with a bit of a historical context mixed in. Obviously molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics are very relevant so I recommend reading texts on those topics as well. If you want more references on specific topics I’d be more than willing to help you find them.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:36 pm

”There you will find about 10,000 peer reviewed citations that you can wade through.”
Yes and all based on an unproved and undemonstrated hypothesis.
You don’t need 10.000 you only need one to convince us.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 22, 2021 8:28 pm

I don’t know about you Mike, but it takes a lot more than just one line of evidence to convince of me of anything. I guess I’m more skeptical than you. Regardless your claim that they ALL are based on unproven and undemonstrated hypothesis is absurd. Molecular physics is not unproven and undemonstrated. Quantum mechanics is not unproven and undemonstrated. Thermodynamics is not unproven and undemonstrated. Radiative transfer schemes are not unproven and undemonstrated. Infrared spectroscopy is not unproven and undemonstrated. Space based radiometers are not unproven and undemonstrated.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:32 pm

Well … deary me … now you’ve shown your ability with a straw man argument and more hand waving. You’re claiming that 10,000 “peer reviewed” citations support you yet you keep demurring when asked to produce one piece of evidence that proves your hypothesis. You can’t sit back and wave your hands citing “all science” … or 97% of climate scientists.

Stop relying on sciency sounding language and logical fallacies. Produce the evidence. Raw data is NOT evidence.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 6:06 am

I’m not claiming 10,000 peer reviewed citations support me. I’m saying it is WAY more than that. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that there is FAR more than just 1. So any statement or insinuation that there is no evidence is absurd and patently false. I’m literally directing you to not just one piece of evidence, but thousands. And if your bar for being convinced is only one line evidence then you should be convinced thousands of times over.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 10:18 am

I’m not claiming 10,000 peer reviewed citations support me. I’m saying it is WAY more than that.

Appeal to authority

My point was that there is FAR more than just 1.

But you can’t even provide 1

I’m literally directing you to not just one piece of evidence, but thousands.

No, you’re merely offering the same childish appeal to authority. I already know there is a very large supply of confused, dishonest people out there. They have no evidence either.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 10:50 am

That’s not appeal to authority. Appeal to authority means you assume something is true because of who said it; not because of the evidence they present. What I’m doing is appealing to evidence. We cite evidence generally by providing the lead author and date so that it is easier for you to find and so that no one accuses us of plagiarism. That is the protocol. Don’t confuse appeal to evidence with appeal to authority which are two completely different things. You will never see me claiming something is true because and only because of who made the claim.

I not only did I provided 1, but I provided thousands. Again…refer to IPCC AR5 WG1. That’s the first. Make sure you refer to the extensive citations in each chapter as well. That’s the thousands.

We can walk through this together if want. Start by downloading all of the pdf files and I’ll help you find the bibliography in each file. I’ll even do my best to point you to lines of evidence of specific importance or interest to you.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 11:03 am

You’re appealing to some imagined authorities within your purported 10,000 references. Clearly you were not referring to any skeptical papers … so appeal to authority. However, if you insist you are also using argumentum ad populum.

What I’m doing is appealing to evidence. I do that a lot.

You really have no idea that empirical evidence means, do you? Assuming that the evidence you lack in your arguments can be found in numerous other, non specified, locations will also support your position is absurd beyond belief … quite apart from being lazy. Yes, I know you “do that a lot”. It indicates you have no idea what constitutes evidence.

I not only did I provided 1, but I provided thousands. Again…refer to IPCC AR5 WG1. That’s the first. Make sure you refer to the extensive citations in each chapter as well. That’s the thousands.

Directing someone to citations of other people’s work is not evidence of your assertions. Which ones specifically have the evidence to support your assertions and what exactly is the evidence you/they are relying on. So far you’ve provided NO evidence.

We can walk through this together if want. Start by downloading all of the pdf files and I’ll help you find the bibliography in each file. I’ll even do my best to point you to lines of evidence of specific importance or interest to you.

In other words, you have no idea what evidence means and have no idea which papers contain it or even IF they contain it … yet I’m supposed to search through 1000s of papers to locate the evidence you lack.

Just provide the evidence or withdraw. You need to stop dancing around your failure to perform.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 12:07 pm

Yes. You are supposed to actually read the evidence. I’m sorry it is so abundant that even a summary of it requires thousands of pages. That’s the state of the science through no fault of my own.

If that is too much then fine. May I recommend a few important historical publications to get you started? Tyndall 1861, Arrhenius 1896, Peckeris 1929, Callendar 1938, Plass 1956 (a, b, and c), Manabe 1961, Manabe 1969, Budyko 1969, Sellers 1969, Charney 1979, Ramanathan 1985, and Myhre 1998, and Sherwood 2020. Can you at least read these? That would at least get you started. You can branch off from there as needed.

I still highly recommend reading through IPCC AR5 WG1 though. It is only a couple thousand pages so you can get through it within a few months even with the most focused of attention. A lot of people have read the entire thing. I can assure it is possible and not that difficult because I’ve done it and I’m not an expert.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 1:22 pm

Yes. You are supposed to actually read the evidence.

Clearly English isn’t your 1st language. You still haven’t provided any evidence. Directing me to where this mythical evidence can be found (provided there is any) and search for evidence to support your position doesn’t get you off the hook. You must actually provide the evidence to support your own argument.

There is no EVIDENCE supporting YOUR arguments in your second paragraph. Do you not understand the meaning of evidence? You’re suggesting that all the prosecution needs to do is cite all cases resembling the one being heard in order to prove guilt. Other people’s conclusions are not evidence of anything but their efforts. They might all be wrong (and likely are).

Why would I want to read a political document prepared for the sole purpose of providing politicians with material to perpetuate a fraud? The IPCC is not a scientific document.

I’m not an expert.

That is abundantly clear. You don’t even know what evidence means, let alone understand logic, the scientific method or fundamental meteorology. I’ve been doing this for over 40 years. Do you really believe I haven’t come across your weak alarmist arguments and climate dogma before?

Hint: a list of data sets is not evidence of cause. A list of climate papers is not evidence of cause. Opinions found in the various IPCC reports are only evidence of a particular bias. If you had any you’d have provided it by now

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 2:20 pm

What I’ve provided is universally considered “evidence” by pretty much everyone. Scientists document “evidence” by publishing descriptions of it. I’ve provided you references to those descriptions.

You say datasets are not evidence. You say description of cause are not evidence. You say the citations I give which include data, equations, experiments, etc. are not evidence. Maybe the hang up here is that you have a different definition of “evidence” than everyone else. Would you mind providing an example of what you are looking for and what it would take to convince you?

BTW…none of the references I gave you have any political commentary or motivations behind them. And English is my 1st language. I apologize if I have grammatical or spelling errors. I do try to proof read my posts, but writing was never a strong point. If my writing is style inappropriate or an impediment to communication let me know and I’ll try work on more clearly and concisely communicating information. I do want to assure you that I am making a good faith attempt at providing the information you seek.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 2:54 pm

What I’ve provided is universally considered “evidence”

Wrong!

However you want to slice it, a reference to someone else’s work is not evidence. You have to connect the dots yourself. You can’t just site an entire body of work and suggest the evidence can be found there

Data is not evidence unless it can be shown that your premise is the best explanation for their existence. Data are neutral. They can support a variety of hypotheses. With climate you must 1t falsify the null hypothesis. For instance, the historical record of the Holocene is described with proxy reconstructions which perfectly mirror the present, in all respects. The question of AGW is redundant. Describing the complexities of CO2 and other GHGs [sic] is interesting but has no provable connection to contemporary climatic conditions.

none of the references I gave you have any political commentary or motivations behind them

Nonsense. You cited 10,000 sources. If you say you’ve vetted them all for political content, you’re a liar. Everything the IPCC produces is political. 97.1% of all alarmist science is political, by definition.

The task has been described to you by many people here (you’re far from the 1st). AGW is a belief, not science. It has no empirical evidence to support it. “Climate change” is an appeal to ambiguity because change is the default condition of climate. This planet doesn’t even possess a climate which can be studied separately.

The entire basis of your attempts at argument are fiction intended to confuse and control.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 4:26 pm

Is there anything I can post…anything at all…that you would consider evidence and would convince you that the hypothesis that CO2 has no effect on the climate whatsoever cannot possibly be true?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 5:16 pm

Please direct me to where I (or anyone else) have even suggested that CO2 has “no effect on climate”. The issue is whether CO2 can do all the things currently attributed to its presence in the atmosphere.

From the 1850s, for more than a century, CO2 concentrations were static, while temps rose. From the ’40s to the late ’70s, while CO2 was rising, temps where falling. Then from the late ’90s to the present CO2 has proceeded to increase while temps have been static, for the most part.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 5:30 pm

All of my responses in this subthread are focused on these two posts.

Bob Weber: “We don’t need to worry about the non-existent climate influence of emissions.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/22/miscommunication-in-recent-climate-attribution-studies/#comment-3297339

AGW is Not Science: “Hence the inability of CO2 to have ever been empirically shown to “drive” Jack-shit.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/22/miscommunication-in-recent-climate-attribution-studies/#comment-3297468

I’ll repeat my question…Is there anything I can post…anything at all…that you would consider evidence and would convince you that the hypothesis that CO2 has no effect on the climate whatsoever cannot possibly be true?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 5:44 pm

Bob Weber: “We don’t need to worry about the non-existent climate influence of emissions.”

No we don’t, there’s nothing to worry about. If something is undetected, it cannot be said to exist.

AGW is Not Science: “Hence the inability of CO2 to have ever been empirically shown to “drive” Jack-shit.”

He’s 100% right.

You could produce some empirical evidence with real, not mythical attribution.

See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/23/pielke-jr-on-recent-climate-attribution-claims/

In today’s postings.

TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 9:07 am

Do you have any experimental evidence confirming the hypothesis? Please don’t just link me to 10000 papers, I don’t have that kind of time – if you have experimental evidence, link directly to it.

bdgwx
Reply to  TonyG
July 24, 2021 5:00 pm

We’re running the experiment right now on a planetary scale. The IPCC AR5 WG1 report does a pretty good job of describing the experiment and the results so far.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 8:37 pm

We’re running the experiment right now on a planetary scale

You’re talking nonsense again. Who is the we “running” it? What are the controls? What are the constraints? Is it reproducible? The IPCC reports are political documents. They don’t run experiments.

TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 25, 2021 9:30 am

I begin to understand the frustration of the others on this thread. That report is not evidence, it’s an assessment. There are NO experimental results reported in it. In fact, it’s full of this sort of thing:

It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010

It is likely that anthropogenic forcings, dominated by GHGs, have contributed to the warming of the troposphere since 1961

Further on it states:
In general, a component of an observed change is attributed to a specific causal factor if the observations can be shown to be consistent with results from a process-based model that includes the causal factor in question, and inconsistent with an alternate, otherwise identical, model that excludes this factor.

followed by this:
Attribution does not require, and nor does it imply, that every aspect of the response to the causal factor in question is simulated correctly. Suppose, for example, the global cooling following a large volcano matches the cooling simulated by a model, but the model underestimates the magnitude of this cooling: the observed global cooling can still be attributed to that volcano, although the error in magnitude would suggest that details of the model response may be unreliable.

So unreliable models are ok.

But even if we accept all of that, it’s still not what I requested which was:
experiment
A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

Surely with something this important, someone has conducted an experiment to determine for sure if the hypothesis is accurate? Where is that?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 2:00 pm

More assumptions – which do not constitute “facts,” “data,” or “evidence.”

There is not even a good scientific basis for attributing (there’s that concept again) the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels to human fossil fuel use. The only thing being “measured” (and even then only indirectly by “sale,” as opposed to “use” of fossil fuels) IS human “emissions,” which compared to the massive, but only estimated, natural CO2 emissions is a pittance – 96-97% of CO2 “emissions” into the Earth’s atmosphere (based on the estimates) have nothing to do with human fossil fuel burning, and they aren’t measuring the 96-97% and therefore have no way of monitoring any changes thereto. They also aren’t measuring the “sinks” for atmospheric CO2 – more estimates. And the whole of “knowledge” (using the term loosely here) of the “carbon cycle” is polluted with “assumptions” of “net flows,” none of which are supported by any actual data.

What we can say, since 1958 when modern atmospheric CO2 measurements began, is that the atmospheric CO2 level changes do not track with “emissions,” leaving the question of the reason for the rise of atmospheric CO2 questionable at best.

Absent non-existent better data, the null hypothesis is that human CO2 emissions account for no more than the 3-4% per annum (on average) that it “contributes,” and absent measurements of the rest of the “sources” and “sinks” (which don’t exist) we don’t know what natural fluctuations are occurring.

One of my favorite sayings – “When your data is crap, so is your science.” And virtually all of the (often so-called) “data” regarding “climate” IS crap, so is the pseudo-science based on it.

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, when your data is nonexistent, it is (also), by definition, crap.

[reference for “emissions” vs. CO2 level changes: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/%5D

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  bdgwx
July 24, 2021 5:02 pm

bdgwx,
One form of evidence would be an equation with a math expression linking the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over time with the temperature of the atmosphere. The so-called climate sensitivity, if you like.
Do you not find it an embarrassment that this fundamental parameter has no accepted value after many decades of looking?
I cannot recall any major scientific hypothesis that has succeeded when its basic proposition remains unestablished.
It is time for AGW enthusiasts to do the usual and define what constitutes as failure of the hypothesis. Geoff S

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 24, 2021 10:45 pm

Well put, Geoff. The burden of proof has always been on the AGW true believers to connect the dots. They’ve been getting by on a wing and a prayer for over thirty years, while the general public has no idea what constitutes valid science. The media love the drama and feel no embarrassment buying into the fraud and pseudo-science. No one is being challenged and the standard of proof is nil.

Feldspar
Reply to  bdgwx
July 25, 2021 11:06 am

I have followed this thread and I admire your persistence bdgwx. You have very nicely summarized your position in the face of a hostile group here. I think your observation about what constitutes evidence to someone like Rory hits the nail on the head. The folks here will never except AGW no matter what evidence is provided. They start with the conclusion that global warming isn’t happening/isn’t bad/is tiny/ is natural etc (it’s difficult because deniers don’t seem to have a coherent common belief) and go from there. Anyway bdgwx, you have clearly “won” this debate.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Feldspar
July 27, 2021 2:03 pm

Only a denier of natural climate changes could think that unsupported assertions “win” a debate on the issue.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:55 pm

You said...”And just because CO2 is not a significant contributing factor for all climatic change events does NOT mean that it isn’t a significant factor for this climatic change event.”

So it can be significant but sometimes it may not be?
Jeezuz! That means it’s NEVER significant. Think about it!

”Regardless your claim that they ALL are based on unproven and undemonstrated hypothesis is absurd. Molecular physics is not unproven and undemonstrated.”

Who’s talking about molecular physics? Don’t know about you but I want you to show me just exactly what co2 is doing to our climate, not what it should be doing.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 23, 2021 5:59 am

That is correct Mike. When it isn’t changing very much, but something else is then it isn’t significant. And if it is changing a lot, but other things aren’t then it is significant. The magnitude by which CO2 and other agents change ebbs and flows. No two climate change eras are characterized in exactly the same way because so many factors are involved and these factors take on a wide spectrum of values. If this still doesn’t make sense let me know I can provide intuitive analogies.

CO2’s proven ability to impede the transmission of radiant energy and thus perturb the planetary energy balance is explained in part by molecular physics and quantum mechanics. It is essential that you understand these scientific disciplines if you want to know exactly how CO2 and other polyatomic affect the climate. If you have specific please ask. I’ll do my best to answer or direct you to literature with an answer.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 10:18 pm

When it isn’t changing very much, but something else is then it isn’t significant. And if it is changing a lot, but other things aren’t then it is significant.”
No! it just looks significant relative to what is happening.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 22, 2021 2:52 pm
Tom Johnson
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 6:41 am

The science is clear and unequivocal. Polyatomic molecules like H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. including CO2 are GHGs.”

The so-called science of these molecules in the atmosphere relating to absorption and radiation of energy is reasonably understood. Their effect on climate is no more “unequivocal” than was Newton’s Theory of Gravity.

As for the effect of these “GHGs” on climate, where climate is understood to be a description weather over at least three decades, is nowhere close to being fully understood, nor even close to being “science”. To someone versed in science, a single repeatable experiment can prove an hypotheses wrong. The so called “Greenhouse Gas” effect on climate fails that test regularly.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Johnson
July 23, 2021 8:13 am

We can certainly debate how much of an effect different agents have on the climate system. There is a wide range of possibilities afterall. The point of my posts here are simply to address the unfounded assertions that CO2 has no effect whatsoever. That is where the science is clear and unequivocal.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 27, 2021 2:05 pm

It is not clear nor unequivocal. It is a hypothetical effect, not an actual effect. You continue to ignore the boundary condition for the hypothetical effect – all other things held equal. Which they are not.

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 9:30 am

You can believe whatever you want, but the fact that CO2 absorbs in the infra-red region was established well over 100 years ago and has never been challenged.

Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:49 am

Fine, change the subject, but I didn’t challenge that. I didn’t say CO2 didn’t absorb, as I know it does, and it also emits. However, the still very small level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the changes of this level since the 1850’s did not change the climate, higher solar activity changed the climate via ocean warming.

Atmospheric CO2 level is controlled by the ocean temperature, not the other way around, irrespective of MM emissions:
comment image

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 9:24 am

CO2 being a “greenhouse gas” doesn’t = CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature. The postulated effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere on temperature is based on the critical and repeatedly ignored assumption, “all other things held equal.”

Here in the real world, “all other things” are NOT “held equal,” and the Earth’s climate feedbacks are overwhelmingly negative, offsetting feedbacks. Hence the reason no effect of CO2 on temperature has ever been demonstrated – it is merely assumed by the people touting CO2 as something we need be “concerned” about.

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 9:34 am

Not true. The effect of CO2 is based on it’s physical properties.
Trying to measure the effect of CO2 is influenced by how the atmosphere responds to those initial changes.
The fact that we can’t measure the impact of CO2 does not prove that CO2 has no affect.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:31 am

However, we can say that CO2 has no measurable impact. That begs an explanation in the light of the theoretical effect.

Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 4:09 pm

Nor does it prove that it has any effect significant enough to warrant any very expensive attempts at control. Political decisions based on ifs and maybes seems foolhardy in the extreme.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 12:34 pm

Hmm, both Koonin (“Unsettled”) and Shellenberger (“Apocalypse Never”) accept that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are still leading to warming. They don’t actually reference any scientific data, nor do they address saturation.

You are in good company.

However, please provide objective scientific evidence that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are still leads to warming, and that saturation doesn’t ameliorate it. You make a bold claim, without even referencing evidence.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 9:39 am

Yes, Bob, but I think we should ALWAYS be more specific:

There is little doubt that the Earth is warming“: since when, for how long, how much? Continually, or with “pauses” or periods of cooling?

And, the second statements, definitely should be discarded:

human emissions are a contributing factor“: NO, there is NOT little doubt; YES, there IS a great doubt that human emissions (or any other human activities) are contributing to that. It has never beem measured unequivocally.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 22, 2021 9:57 am

Just adding something:

Look: saying “There is no doubt” actually equates with “there is a 97% consensus”. It is vague, it was not measured nor otherwise evaluated; it can mean a plethora of unconnected facts.

Last edited 1 month ago by Joao Martins
Rich Davis
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 11:29 am

There’s a world of difference between saying something is not real and saying something is not significant.

If you want to argue that the climate system is complex and the real effect of CO2 is small and potentially offset by negative feedback so that it’s not significant enough to warrant calling it a crisis, then I stand with you. Empirical evidence is on our side. 1.7K rise due to a doubling of CO2.

If you want to say that it’s not real, then I must disagree based on the preponderance of evidence.

As MarkW noted, it is also destructive to our cause to make unnecessary claims. You do not persuade people by ignoring your strongest evidence while harping on a controversial point that is unnecessary to your case. Especially when those whom you are trying to convince are predisposed to reject the minor point but may be open to your main point.

Consider the example of a conservative politician running in a not-so-conservative state. They may run on limited taxation, efficient regulation, and “law and order”. They may well be against abortion, in favor of gun rights, traditional marriage, etc., but they don’t need to convince the voters on every view they hold in order to be elected. It’s clear that if they spend the whole campaign arguing to ban all abortions then they won’t be in office to make any impact on that issue or any of the issues that might have been positively affected.

The best way to render the skeptical case ineffective is to base your argument on there not being a greenhouse gas effect. It’s not about being right. It’s about being effective. Alarmists are effective even while being totally wrong. That should be a lesson for us.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 22, 2021 12:39 pm

What is “our cause” exactly? The defense of human freedom, rights, and dignity perhaps? The right to own property free of tyranny, the right to acquire wealth, the privilege to eat food of our choice, to live in decent housing, to enjoy electricity, to travel by car, to have free and fair elections, to worship as we choose, to live an intact constitutional republic where human rights are paramount, perhaps?

Please state your “cause” with clarity and completeness before you include me in it. My cause may be different from yours.

Addendum: if “Alarmists are effective even while being totally wrong” as you state, then why is your strategy appeasement to their errors?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 22, 2021 3:16 pm

Mike,
Maybe “cause” was a poor choice of words, but basically I meant convincing our fellow citizens that we should not destroy the economy trying to eliminate CO2 emissions. That is the clear and present danger that we face today, that will lead to us having our standard of living devastated and effectively destroying our freedom because we can’t afford to do anything.

My “cause” is not to convince everybody or anybody that I’m right about anything beyond the premise that it is not a good idea to shutdown the economy to fight climate change. My “cause” is to be effective in persuading enough people to decide to oppose shutting down the economy, whatever else they believe, and for whatever reason they come to that conclusion.

I don’t care why they make that decision. I don’t care if they believe a million wrong things but they will choose not to shut down the economy. I don’t care if they think that there will be harmful warming and sea level rise but that adaptation is a better response than destruction of the economy. I don’t care if they are lukewarmers who think there will be significant impacts but they are best approached by nuclear power and adaptation. I don’t care if they think that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas and the whole thing is madness. I don’t care if they choose the right answer because they agree with my assessment on every topic. I don’t care if they are left-handed lesbian whale lover vegans but they don’t want to shut down the economy. I don’t care if they are teetotaler Mormons with sixteen children but they don’t want to shut down the economy.

The strategy is not appeasement. The strategy is to put your best argument forward and not get wrapped around the axle over scientific points that don’t change how a person will “vote” on the question of shutting down the economy. It is absolutely delusional and self-destructive to think that we’re going to convince people through logic and facts to abandon their emotional investments. Why limit your chances of success by setting your strategy to require that every person comes to accept that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect? Think what you’re saying man! The owner of this website believes that there is a greenhouse effect. It’s like jumping into a time machine and going back to the 1200s to convince everybody that they should be atheists.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 22, 2021 6:07 pm

Well okay then. We share the same goals. The question is what strategy avails?

There is no proof that 4 parts per ten thousand of CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a significant GHG. Theoretically perhaps, but no evidential data. The purported phenomenon cannot be measured. All is speculation.

The madness of crowds will not be quelled by acquiescence to their madness. “Well, you’re a little bit right” will not work. The drums must be banged. No holds barred. Never give an inch.

You can’t convince me that a trace gas is wrecking the planet, especially when that trace gas is the building block of life, the fundamental necessary molecule without which life would cease. You can’t convince me that warmth is bad, especially in the midst of the coldest geological epoch in the last 240 million years. You can’t convince me that huddling like slaves in mud huts in the cold and dark is a panacea. I’m not backing down nor equivocating. I suggest you do the same if we hope to overcome the madness.

PS — the owner of this site has established a new one called Everything Climate. I highly recommend it.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 22, 2021 8:08 pm

Perhaps you want to imitate John the Baptist, a voice crying out in the wilderness (Jn1:23) and I am more like St Paul, all things to all men (1Cor 9:19-22)? Which one did it wrong?

Tom Johnson
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 23, 2021 11:15 am

Your points are well taken. It is futile to attempt to convince a committed Warmist that he’s wrong. But your point that WARM IS GOOD is, indeed, a great strategy. Most people already believe that warm is good. Just emphasize the vast planes of Canada, Greenland and Siberia that will grow corn and fruit, and wine grapes in The UK and Scandinavia. Ask any of the cold refugees in Florida and Texas in the winter from Canada.

In order to refute that, the Warmists must resort to “Tipping Points” and computer models, glazing the eyes of all but the most committed believers. The convincibles will get a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 11:48 am

“After a great start you reverted back to the original wrong unphysical attribution, emissions.”

Yes, and in doing so contributes to the confusion over human-caused climate change.

What if the people who claim CO2 results in net cooling are correct? Here he is assuming it results in net warming. And, has no idea what that human-caused warming would amount to.

Cliff doesn’t cast any doubt on CO2 causing net warming. I think that is a mistake. I think that causes people to assume CO2 had something to do with the heatwave in the northwest and only question the degree of its effect.

Does CO2 cause net warming or net cooling? Nobody knows. Yet a lot of people think they know, but it’s based on limited knowledge of the situation, or wishful thinking, or unscrupulous behavior.

Dr. Happer says we are about at the limit of CO2 warming, whether it results in warming or cooling in the end. And the Earth has cooled 0.6C leading up to this heatwave in the northwest, so where’s the warming everyone is talking about?

Alarmists don’t seem to be able to understand that the temperatures are cooling. They keep thinking we are on a constant upward warming trend, and that’s the way they portray it.

I guess the only way they are going to break out of this delusion of warmth is to experience declining temperatures for several years.

So this heatwave came at the bottom of a 0.6C decline in temperatures since 2016. So when the alarmists say “warming”, what are they talking about? A figment of their imaginations, it seems. They have delusions of Hockey Sticks swimming in their heads.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 22, 2021 11:58 am

I see where NOAA is claiming last month was the “hottest June Evah!”. They never give up, do they.

Around here, June was very pleasant. I’ll take this kind of weather every time, if given the choice.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 22, 2021 4:18 pm

They seem to be trying to make the western heat wave into a global event. The evidence available seems to indicate that global temperatures were actually below the 30 year norm. I doubt that means anything, but then I doubt the heat wave meant anything either in terms of global climate.

David Dibbell
July 22, 2021 6:23 am

Scary headlines and apocalyptic attribution studies needlessly provoke fear.” Needless in reality; necessary to the climate illusionists. Even as I disagree with Cliff Mass on how much greenhouse gases can possibly matter to warming, I can greatly appreciate his reality-based posts recently on this topic. 

Latitude
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 22, 2021 8:01 am

….or global warming only contributed 1/10th of an inch

or none at all

Ron Long
July 22, 2021 6:27 am

This report was obviously written by a White Privlege person who values correct answers over feelings. Woke Up! PS…I agree with the report.

fretslider
July 22, 2021 6:30 am

 ….several non-peer-reviewed climate attribution reports have provided misleading information that poorly informs society.

That should read

...several non-peer-reviewed climate attribution reports have been seized on by the narrative driven media to provide misleading information that poorly informs society.

Attribution is legalistic junk, period.

“But Friederike Otto, a climate expert at the University of Oxford who has worked with [Myles] Allen, said her efforts to link extreme weather events to climate change have always been tied to the possibility of legal action. ‘Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind,’ she said.” 

https://eidclimate.org/climate-litigation-supporters-admit-that-attribution-science-is-failing-in-court/

Not objective in the slightest.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
griff
July 22, 2021 6:40 am

Well lets see: three ‘1 in 1,000 year’ climate events this summer and a ‘1 in 1,000 year’ drought… I think that’s plain enough…

Heat record broken by 5 degrees C, rainfall record exceeded by 50%, year’s rain in a day.. And it is dishonest to concentrate on one aspect of a set of floods across a wide area caused by truly exceptional rainfall.

climate science predicts these results. It defies reason that we could have 4 1 in a thousand year events within such a short period of time.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:02 am

Griff the UK had its first ever heat warning and the heat didn’t really even match last year

Why does nature hate you so much? Why does it choose to make you look so foolish?

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:16 am

The two “1 in a 1,000 year” phrases are convenient exaggerations.

There was higher magnitude and longer duration US heat and drought in the 1930s.

comment image

The same mechanisms are in play today – a cooler La Nina Pacific (from low solar minimum activity) yielded less evaporation and rain over the western US, starting in 2019, intensifying in 2020.
comment image

Cloudlessness returned to the eastern Pacific in June this year, clearing the US skies again for severe land heating and drying from higher insolation, higher UV index. The Pacific NW was inside a warm dry air stream originating from the central Pacific ocean.

comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 22, 2021 7:50 am

The Pacific Northwest did not have higher magnitude and long duration heat waves in the 1930’s. In fact, this region was not significantly affected by the 1930’s drought. The 2021 event was a 1-in-1000 year event. Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say the drought east of the Rocky Mountains in the mid 1930’s wasn’t extreme. It was. What I’m saying is that 2021 event was also extreme. And keep in mind that the mid 1930’s event also had a significant human influence.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:36 am

And the rest of the country was below average even while the Pacific Northwest was having it’s short lived heat wave.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:15 am

That’s right. It is warm under the ridge and cool over the trough. But notice that the cool side of the longwave did not experience the same magnitude of extreme cold as the extreme hot side of the wave. BTW…a huge contributing factor to this is the drought which lowers relative humidity in the planetary boundary layer allowing lapse to go dry adiabatic and even superadiabatic.

Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 11:48 am

“….rest of the country was below average..”

From Boston to Washington DC, the heat wave fried the NE too, right after the UVI increased to red alert levels there in late June: see UV alerts collage in my next comment down and note the red areas in the NW and NE.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:57 am

The 2021 event was a 1-in-1000 year event.” – stats please

I didn’t particularly single out the Pac NW there; agree it was extreme. My explanation was for the heat & drought in general. The hundreds of people who died from heat there was heartbreaking because in spite of all the warnings from TV weathercasters people still died unnecessarily from the extreme heat and wildfire smoke, heat and fires which directly derived from June/July high insolation.

For my 2020 AGU poster I worked on the heat last year in terms of insolation (UV Index) and loss of life, a pattern that extended into this year. Phoenix here can serve as a basic template, applied to other locations under similar UVI/heat conditions for health risk (and drought/fire danger):
comment image
comment image

Washington and Oregon experienced 1.5-2.9 UVI points above average. This UV alert maps collage starts on June 13, skips 12 days then June 25-July 5:
comment image

Contributing to the heat dome and in situ daytime heating in WA/OR was heat inflowing from surrounding states, which were consistently in the very high (8-10) to extreme range (11+) for UV index during June/July, strong sunshine.

keep in mind that the mid 1930’s event also had a significant human influence.”

If you meant farming methods I’d agree.

Editor
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:58 am

Your sure about that?

us drought in 1934 chart – Bing images

It was really bad in the mid 1970’s too worse than now.

Snoqualmie reservoir was empty in 1976 time frame, I know as I went by it on the way to Seattle.

bdgwx
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 22, 2021 1:38 pm

Yes. Notice how the significance in the Pacific Northwest is less than the significance in the middle of the CONUS. Also notice that the images from the bing search do not include Canada where the event was most acute.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:48 am

Almost a decade of 1930’s mid continent weather events = 3 days of 2021 western continent weather events.

OK, sure.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
July 22, 2021 1:36 pm

Yes. The dust bowl years experience extreme drought and heat. That does not mean that the Pacific Northwest Heatwave of 2021 was not a 1-in-1000 year event. Remember, just because extreme event A happened does not mean that extreme event B didn’t happen.

Rick K
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:29 am

“Climate science” predicts EVERY result — which is why it is “never wrong.”

Which is exactly why it is never right.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 7:30 am

None of the events were 1 in 1000. Not even close.
Last week you were claiming it was 2 months rain over 3 days. Now it’s 1 years over 1 day.
When the first lie doesn’t work, just make it bigger. Isn’t that how climate science works.

Climate science doesn’t predict these results. Something you would know if you ever actually read the IPCC reports.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:34 am

Oh dear. Much bigger German flood 600 years ago.

No one knows about one in 600 year events in USA because no one that could write was there to record it.

High snowfalls in South Africa at the moment. Guess what. No one reporting them in Britain, Dams are now full in southern cape.

The most extreme weather events I can remember were the UK winter of 1962/63, and the UK summer of 1975.

All before ‘global warming’.

Kim Swain
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 22, 2021 9:44 am

I know you meant 1976 – the “drought” summer. My recollection is that it snowed on Boxing Day 1962 and I couldn’t ride my Christmas present of a new bike for nearly 3 months – the sea froze over in places. 1976 was the second year of my Physics degree and I had no exams. Admittedly, we couldn’t get any potatoes other than those that were like squash balls but, at least, there were no beer shortages so a good time was had by all. Sounds like natural variability to me.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:41 am

There are no climate predictions, there are assumptions, following a certain agenda.

meab
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:46 am

You obviously don’t understand simple statistics, griffter. If you estimate that there’s a one in one thousand chance of a particular type of rare event happening at a particular place, that DOES NOT mean that there’s a one in one thousand chance of it happening anywhere in the world. The more places you look, the greater the chance that you’ll find a rare event happening somewhere. The more kinds of rare events you look for, the greater the chance that you’ll find some kind of a rare event happening somewhere too.

That’s what you’ve done here; you looked for extreme rainfall, extreme temperatures, and drought. You would have cited an extreme hurricane, tornado, snow storm, or hailstorm if one had happened too. Maybe even bad fog. You looked across the whole world. You found some rare events but you would have found rare events in almost any year 100 years ago too. That’s why real scientists have to do complex statistics on a lot of data to look for evidence of a change in anything that’s normally highly variable, like weather. Guess what, griffter? Real scientists have looked for a change in the frequency of extreme weather events and haven’t found any significant change in wierd weather. You’ve been schooled on this before but you keep repeating the same idiotic error. It’s bad enough that you can’t think of this yourself but you can’t even get it after it’s been explained to you.

Reply to  meab
July 22, 2021 8:59 am

Griff never heard about Gaussian distribution, what it implies and what it doesn’t imply.
And he forgot weather is chaotic.

MarkW
Reply to  meab
July 22, 2021 9:37 am

Mann’s hockey stick relied on a utter abuse of basic statistics.

Not understanding statistics seems to be endemic amongst alarmists.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 10:45 am

Perhaps the reason they are alarmists is precisely because they don’t understand statistics.

Jordan
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 1:49 pm

Mann thought his proxy-selection-by-weighting technique could be called “calibration”. McIntyre called it “mining”. Only one of them was right and the rest is history,

Joao Martins
Reply to  meab
July 22, 2021 10:57 am

But the most important fact is, the intensity of an event of such low frequency (1 in 1000) DOES NOT aftect significantly the VALUEs of climate, which are averages of 30 years.

It is very easy to see that, only the plain stupid or climate superstitious cannot see! Only superstitious people can believe that the “extreme” values are an evidence of change!

What can change an average of 30 years is a great number of events SLIGHTLY different from average values and to the same side (i.e., either higher ou lower) of that average.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joao Martins
July 22, 2021 2:38 pm

The idea that climate is based on a 30 year average is a convenient fiction that utilizes the approximate high – low variation. It suits the IPCC narrative. This planet has no “climate”. It has a multitude of them ranging in length. Some are as short as 60 – 70 years and others could be centuries long.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 3:14 am

I can agree with you. But up to now (i.e., up to the climate change madness) the 30 year average has been rather useful. It results from a balance: shortest period before variance stabilizes.

Archer
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 8:52 am

The odds of those events occuring aren’t dependent on one another, griff.

Cool-Engineer
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 9:02 am

Utter BS.
Griff, put your money where your mouth is and tell us exactly who predicted these (truly natural) events using “climate science). We’re all waiting…..

Jordan
Reply to  Cool-Engineer
July 22, 2021 1:58 pm

Cool-Engineer.
A prediction should be:
1) What type of event are we talking about (hurricane, flood, drought, etc)
2) Metrics like windspeed or depth of rainfall to set a threshold
3) Where it will happen (some defined region, small enough to make it a precise prediction)
4) What increase in frequency is predicted from a known historic baseline
5) A limited timescale for the prediction (beyond which, it’s a fail)
Then, we’d have something capable of observation and testing.

All these vague statements of “increase in extreme events” cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested, it’s not science,

wadesworld
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 9:13 am

Griff,

One in one-thousand doesn’t mean it only happens once in a thousand years. There’s absolutely nothing preventing having multiple 1 in 1000 events in one year, or having them within consecutive years or grouped over a short time span.

Furthermore, wasn’t the previous records an extraordinary event? And the one before that? What caused those previous extraordinary event and why is this one “different?”

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 9:35 am

I would look at it and wonder how they determined these are 1 in 1000 year events. It seems to me that too many 1 in 1000 year events means that the calculation of how to determine that label is completely incorrect. And of course climate science predicts these results. It predicts increased rain, drought, high temps, low temps, more storms, less storms, etc.

Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 9:56 am

Reasoning would actually say that these are really once in 250 years events which only changes the risk factor slightly. Nobody cares if their house is destroyed in 250 years. The metric of once in every few years is basically a useless and meaningless tool except to insurance companies who need to estimate the capital accumulation needed to cover losses.
If an event happens every 1000 years it is cyclical and predictable. Isolated extreme events are, most definitely, not

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 10:40 am

The recent flooding in Germany has been estimated to have been a 1 in 100-year event. Even if there are unpredictable, rare events, such as 1 in 1,000-years, that is a probability estimate and doesn’t preclude the possibility of them occurring more frequently, even back-to-back. If they keep repeating more frequently, then that is evidence that the estimate was wrong. However, for events with long periods of time in between, it is difficult to determine a good estimate!

TonyG
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 11:33 am

How long are the records, griff?

What’s the RIGHT temperature?

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 22, 2021 12:59 pm

CliSciFi predicts all weather, after the fact.

mkelly
July 22, 2021 6:45 am

Post says:”…that human emissions are a contributing factor,…”.

mkelly
Reply to  mkelly
July 22, 2021 6:47 am

Fat thumb accidentally posted,

I meant to add that I fundamentally disagree with this and your further declaration that we need to reduce Green house gas emissions.

Reply to  mkelly
July 22, 2021 8:35 am

My flatulence is a contributing factor too, but shooting me wont fix the climate

bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:09 am

That’s a pretty good way to describe it. That’s why I find it misleading when people say climate change caused the flooding in Houston from Hurricane Harvey. Sure, a warming planet may have added an inch or two to the rainfall totals that otherwise would not have occurred. But when you’re getting 50″ of rain an inch or two isn’t going to make a difference. Houston was going to flood regardless. This is true for many extreme events which some attribute to global warming in a binary manner. On the flip side it is equally inappropriate to dismiss the fact that global warming does have an impact on the magnitude of events and could possibly be causing substantial shifts in regional climate that make these events more likely now than in the past.

MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:32 am

More like a tenth to a quarter of an inch.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 8:11 am

The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship says that 6-7% more WV is available in the atmosphere for every 1 Celsius of warming.

That is ~ 3in in 50.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 22, 2021 9:39 am

Since the warming caused by CO2 is around 0.1C, we’re back to a quarter of an inch.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
July 22, 2021 11:18 am

Like this is 0.1C?
Try an order of magnitude higher ….
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 22, 2021 4:28 pm

And where is your evidence that the cause of that still very insignificant warming was all from CO2 and how much of that CO2 was from human emissions?

bdgwx
Reply to  Rick
July 22, 2021 6:06 pm

It wasn’t all from CO2. A lot of it is from CH4, NOx, O3, CFCs, solar, waning of volcanic activity, etc. Per IPCC AR5 WGI the attribution of CO2 only to the warming is about 70% (give or take a few percent). Of course, human aerosols emissions are quite large as well and offset a lot of the potential warming. In the context of the net effect CO2 attribution is actually over 100%. In other words, if you remove CO2 the planet would have cooled because human aerosols dominate over human non-CO2 gas species. IPCC AR5 WGI provides a brief summary of the evidence. You can drill down into the numerous citations for details.

Rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 8:26 am

Not in the case of Harvey. That hurricane looped & loitered along the coast as many in the past have done when CO2 levels were much lower.

As for climate disinformation? I suspect that many that previously bought into the scam are starting to see the light. Not because of the lack of accuracy in in the claims of disasters. But because of government and media misinformation and their extreme measures to control the narrative on Covid which has been so blatant that it could not be missed by most.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rah
July 22, 2021 10:09 am

That’s right. Houston would have flooded regardless if the global mean temperature anomaly were 0C or +1C. But don’t confuse that fact with the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more precipitable water.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 11:57 am

If a warmer atmosphere is “holding” more precipitable water, then there should be less precipitation, not more.

If not, then you need to redefine what your definition of “holding” is, becuase “holding” does not mean “releasing” in my view.

bdgwx
Reply to  Doonman
July 22, 2021 1:33 pm

“holds more precipitable water” means the precipitable water value is higher. More PW means a weather system can deliver more rain all other things being equal.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 7:54 pm

Yet the Earth has been cooling – ergo less precipitable water yet the floods in Germany and China. And you continue to suggest the whole thing is well understood.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 22, 2021 8:12 pm

I’m not aware of even a single dataset that show long term global cooling in the lower troposphere. They all show warming. Even the coolest outlier UAH shows +0.14C/decade. So help me out…which dataset are you looking at that supports your claim that the Earth is cooling?

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 12:15 am

They all show warming. Even the coolest outlier UAH shows +0.14C/decade.”
From a cool starting point. Start in 1939 and it isn’t.
Regardless, I’m talking about the last 7 years

co2 journal of geophysical research. - Copy (2).GIF
bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 23, 2021 5:50 am

You might check where you got that image. Here is an official copy of what HadAT2 actually shows over the same time period. Note that it is consistent with UAH and clearly shows warming.
comment image

Rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 12:58 pm

I did not and do not. It is now and has been obvious to even the casual observer here where I live that is the case. Though I will not attribute that to being caused by a little more CO2 being in the atmosphere.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rah
July 23, 2021 5:49 am

Replied to wrong post.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:34 am

Harvey was blocked from moving by weather fronts preventing its exit from the area, it wasn’t “more rain (intensity) due to warmer climate” it was “lots of rain because the storm stayed in the area longer,” so much ado about weather, not climate.

bdgwx
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 10:09 am

I’ll point you to the same response I gave to Rah.

Rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 4:22 pm

Natural variation trumps all and extracting the effect of a mole fraction more of CO2 on weather from the overwhelming noise of natural variation is beyond the capabilities of science which can’t even accurately forecast the weather 3 days out pretty frequently. Tell me exactly how much miles precip would Harvey had dropped on Houston if the the CO2 level was 300 ppm instead of 415 ppm?

bdgwx
Reply to  Rah
July 22, 2021 6:23 pm

Variation is just that…variation. It is a net zero effect over long periods of time. This is not unlike how the area under a sine wave is zero when done over several cycles. That is primarily what the natural variation is doing. It ebbs and flow on short time scales but nets out to a near zero effect on long time scales.

Yes. We can accurately forecast weather more than 3 days out. See here. Also note that forecasting weather is different than forecasting climate. The former is about exact properties at exact locations at exact times. The later is about average properties over large areas spanning long periods of time. In many ways forecasting the climate is easier than forecasting the weather because the difference in focus. Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t forecasting the climate is easy. It’s definitely not. What I’m saying is that you cannot equate forecasting weather with forecasting climate because the goals are fundamentally different.

I can’t tell you exactly how much more rain Harvey dumped on Houston. That is way out of my league. In fact, and EXACT figure is out the league of any scientist because of uncertainty. But I can give you an order of magnitude estimate of a few percent or a couple of inches. In other words, Houston would have flooded regardless.

Rah
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 9:09 pm

Can’t be certain of the amount of rain fall from a specific weather event over a region in a developed nation and yet are certain that humans are causing the weather to get worse! And people wonder why I’m skeptical?

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 10:00 am

But, but, but what is the relationship to CO2. Be precise.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rick
July 22, 2021 11:38 am

More CO2 leads to higher temperatures. Higher temperatures lead to higher precipitable water. Higher precipitable water leads to more rain. Don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say Houston would not have flooded had CO2 not increased. It would have because an inch or two of extra rain would not have changed the broad outcome in this case. What I am saying is that the amount of rain that can be delivered by cyclones today is more than than in the past when it was cooler. That is the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 2:50 pm

More CO2 leads to higher temperatures.

Nope. There isn’t an iota of empirical evidence, historically or contemporarily supporting that notion. In fact there is no correlation whatever between CO2 and warming. The small amount of warming since the end of the LIA is indistinguishable from natural variation, regardless of your hypotheses.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 22, 2021 6:30 pm

Not only is there evidence that CO2 leads to higher temperatures, but there is a mountain of it. I think what you actually meant to say is that you are not familiar with the evidence or you reject it. To say “there isn’t an iota of empirical evidence” is patently false. All I have to do is show you one piece of evidence to prove that statement wrong. I’ll refer you to the IPCC AR5 WGI citation list which is several thousand in size. And that’s only 1st order citations. If you drill down into 2nd or 3rd order citations you’re probably looking at significantly more than that. There is so much evidence that one person cannot review it all in one life-time.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 6:39 pm

To say “there isn’t an iota of empirical evidence” is patently false.

Nope. You’re getting overwhelmed by your own fantasies. We can show a correlation between warming and increased CO2. The reverse is not true, regardless what the “theory” tells you.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 8:16 pm

I’ll refer you to the IPCC AR5 WGI citation list which is several thousand in size.

What do you imagine that would show? Citing an entire list without knowing what’s in every entry is meaningless. You don’t need to be nearly so extravagant. I’ll be satisfied with one example.

bdgwx
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 23, 2021 5:44 am

It shows that there is far more than an iota of evidence.

And not only can we show that there is correlation between CO2 and temperature we even have the causative mechanism for both its modulation by temperature and its modulation of temperature.

TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 7:19 am

bdgwx, I have a couple questions:

So for sake of argument I’ll accept “CO2 leads to higher temperatures”. That statement, unmoderated like that, suggests that ONLY CO2 leads to higher temperatures. So
1: Are you saying that CO2 is the only relevant feedback, or are there other feedbacks?
2: Can those other feedbacks offset the effects of CO2? If not, why not?
3: Are you saying that increasing CO2 will result in runaway warming?
4: Was CO2 significantly higher in the past?
5: If so, how do the current levels pose a threat when the previous high levels did not?

bdgwx
Reply to  TonyG
July 23, 2021 8:10 am

CO2 leading to higher temperature does not in anyway preclude other agents from also leading to higher temperatures. LIkewise, just because other agents lead to higher temperatures does not in anyway preclude CO2 from also leading to higher temperatures. This is one of my central points in the blog post. Everything matters including CO2.

1: No. There are many feedbacks to be considered.

2: Possibly yes. For example, if the cloud feedback is negative then any increase in temperature (including that caused by CO2) will be damped. But even if most feedbacks are positive they have breaking and clamping effects that eventually exhaust the feedback effect. For example, there is only so much snow/ice that can melt. Once it is all gone the feedback clamps out. Likewise, there is only so much CO2 that can get released naturally into the atmosphere. Once it is all released the feedback clamps out. And finally the well known water vapor feedback clamps out quickly because H2O is a condensing gas so once it reaches the equilibrium defined by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship it precipitates out turning off the feedback.

3: No. A runaway greenhouse is not possible on Earth due to the Komabayashi–Ingersoll and Simpson–Nakajima limits. A moist greenhouse cannot yet be eliminated, but even that would require a substantial amount of forcing to kickstart. See Goldblatt and Watson 2012 for details.

4: Yes. CO2 was a lot higher in Earth’s distant past very likely exceeding 4000 ppm during some eras. In fact, this significantly higher CO2 concentration helps solve the faint young sun problem where solar radiation is 1% less for every 120 million years you go backward. 600 MYA the radiative forcing from the Sun was about -12 W/m2. CO2 would have had to have been 4000 ppm just to offset +12 W/m2 of radiative force. And as always remember that there is far more than just CO2 and solar radiation that modulate the climate.

5: All I’m willing to say here is that all other things being equal higher CO2 results in warming. Whether that equates to “threat” depends on how you define “threat” and whose perspective you are considering.

TonyG
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 12:36 pm

First time I’ve gotten a clear answer to challenges I’ve posed on this website, thank you for the response.

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
July 23, 2021 10:28 pm

In fact, this significantly higher CO2 concentration helps solve the faint young sun problem ”

That old chestnut?

”There is no geologic evidence in these rocks for really high concentrations of a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide,” said Dennis Bird, professor of geological and environmental sciences”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/07/faint-sun-paradox-explained-by-stanford-greenhouse-effect-not-involved/

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
July 24, 2021 8:13 am

I read the Rosing et al. 2010 paper. It’s pretty good. I have no reason to doubt their hypothesis. It makes sense. Unfortunately their hypothesis is only valid for Archean Eon between 4.0 and 2.5 billion years ago. Interestingly their model still requires higher GHG concentration than today. Anyway, their publication is not refuting the very high GHG concentration from 1.0 to 0.0 billion years ago. In fact, their model is based on albedo differences because of continental land mass fraction which they show stabilizing at 30% starting 1.5 billion years ago. What they are effectively saying is that while albedo may help explain the faint young Sun problem during the Archean Eon, it cannot explain it for periods later than 1.5 billion years ago.

Doonman
Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 3:09 pm

Four days ago, monsoonal moisture swept across our area raising the precipitable water from 0 to 1.5 inches according to the NWS. We got no rain at all and neither did anyone else in the area.

Proof positive that higher precipitable water also leads to no rain, disproving your statement.

Reply to  bdgwx
July 22, 2021 4:38 pm

Can be delivered? That is an assumption implying that more rain is actually delivered. How much CO2 leads to how much rain? How much warming leads to how much rain. And the big question, how much CO2 leads to how much warming. Being precise is important to determining significance. I don’t think anyone has even approached a level of precision on any of those questions. You certainly didn’t with your generalizations.

Steve Case
July 22, 2021 7:15 am

In Russia people knew that Tass & Pravda were lying. So far way to many people in the United States haven’t figured out that ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, NY Times, Scientific American, National Geographic etc. are all lying about “Climate Change and several other political issues.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 22, 2021 7:51 am

That’s because it is a relatively new phenomenon – it started wholesale only when Trump announced his candidacy. But I am wrong, what’s the name of the NYT reporter and a good friend of Stalin, who got a Pulitzer prize in 1930s for “disproving” a myth of famine in the USSR?

Rah
Reply to  Steve Case
July 22, 2021 8:37 am

I respectfully disagree Steve. Even my sister that used to worship the ground that Fauci walked on has started to catch on to the fact she has been lied to. And once the light shines through the natural reaction is to ask what else has the media, government, and various scientists have been lying about.

I suspect that Covid is going to do something that we have not been able to do simply because far more people have been paying attention because it has and still is directly impacting so many more people and their families.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rah
July 22, 2021 9:36 am

Let’s hope so – but I’m not seeing any sanity creep into the “climate” issue yet. Still far too many otherwise intelligent people believe the “climate crisis” bullshit.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rah
July 22, 2021 11:19 am

Hmmm, have the ratings dropped for the evening news talking heads? Print circulation has dropped but it’s because of the internet and not that people have figured out that they are printing lies. Good for your sister. I know way too many people who sit there, slack jawed, while watching Nora O’Donnell spew loads of crap.

Rah
Reply to  Steve Case
July 22, 2021 1:05 pm

Actually CNN and MSNBC ratings are pretty miserable. Especially CNN. As for the old media, anyone that hasn’t figured them out by the time their in their 30’s are most likely not going to do so.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
July 22, 2021 1:25 pm

CNN ratings have dropped through the floor. Late night “comedy” is losing audiences. Maybe there is a reaction to lies masquerading as news and comedy.

John Bell
July 22, 2021 7:55 am

Driving home from the grocery this morning I heard NPR with a piece on CC on their talk show, it was all boiler plate, like a broken record, and of course all the threats keep ramping up year after year. I think the public must be tired of the alarmism.

Jordan
July 22, 2021 8:16 am

Some people make a living out of rolling spherical dice. They predict that one side of the spherical dice will be pointing upward when it rolls to a halt. There is no jeopardy in such a prediction. It is destined to be proved correct every time, and therefore it is meaningless.
But they can always find some gullible journalist who will be fooled by this, reporting that something was predicted. So any any newsworthy bad weather anywhere in the world at any time will get a headline grabbing “Scientists say …” story.
Nobody will ever be able to produce the prediction after the event. That’s because the “individual weather events cannot be predicted” line will be trotted out.
Instead, if you ask for the prediction, you will get some vague statistical nonsense about “an increase in the chances of extreme weather”. If you really push, you will get a guessed-up sketch of the tail of a probability distribution to try to impress you with “THE SCIENCE” (shouty voice). The sketchy probability distribution is supposed to represent “any bad weather event, anywhere in the World at any time”. Meaningless drivel, sketched-up on the hoof.
/Rant off

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jordan
July 22, 2021 9:38 am

Most are unaware that the same claims of “more extreme weather” were made about the “Global Cooling Crisis” of the 1970s – which of course was ALSO supposedly caused by our fossil fuel use (through a slightly different intervening mechanism).

Michael in Dublin
July 22, 2021 8:20 am

At the beginning of 2018 National Geographic and mainstream media was reporting on the Climate Disaster in Cape Town. The alarmists breathlessly declared the city was running out of water and this would continue into the future.

The dams were very, very low when the 2018 Western Cape winter rainfall season began. They had good rains and the dams recovered considerably. They had good rains in 2019 and in 2020 by the end of the winter the dams were averaging 100%. It is not the end of the 2021 rainfall season but the dams are already over 96%. This and the greatly improved ground water means the city will have plenty of water for at least another year.

So much for the climate experts.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael in Dublin
Fran
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 22, 2021 10:14 am

I’m glad this is happening in South Africa, where the climate is similar to ours (central Chile) but, sadly, in here we’re still waiting for rains that for once fill our dams. This winter has been extremely dry so far.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Fran
July 22, 2021 11:07 am

Fran

This is happening in the south western part of South Africa where there are a number of substantially sized dams. However, along the southern coast that has summer rains the next city is Port Elizabeth. Their main dam is at 4.1% and has been low for years.

There is a twofold problem: failure for many years to build more dams and failure to pipe the water from better sources. South Africa is a land of droughts and floods with huge amounts of water running off the land, into rivers and into the sea. The present government has done pathetically little about the water situation for the past 27 years. It is not a climate problem but a human one: incompetence, maladministration and corruption.

We have to learn to adapt by sensible steps to capture, store and efficiently use water and not foolishly think we can engineer better climates.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael in Dublin
Fran
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 23, 2021 3:29 am

Oh yes, water availability is mainly a thing of management, I agree. Santiago’s water is stored in a huge dam, the Embalse El Yeso, which was built in the 60s (when we had another drought), and work has been and is being done to improve it and other works, but we should have another big reservoir near the city for sure. It is a topic of great national concern; for example this week I went to Valparaiso and I could see a lot of new reservoirs near the wineries you pass in the highway. And water rights are one of the big issues to be discussed for the new Constitution. But still you need water to fill the reservoirs and having barely any rain fall in July – which usually is a fairly wet month – is horrible. I think Argentina is also experiencing drought, which is unsual bc they are not influenced by the Pacific Ocean as we are

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Fran
July 23, 2021 11:19 am

In the Western Cape, when drought was at its worst many smaller private farm dams still had water and farmers released some of this into the city supply.

The dam you mention is a little over half the size of Cape Town’s main dam but the latter has a higher evaporation rate. The city has a population half the size of Santiago. The authorities in your area most definitely need to find some suitable spots and build another dam or two in the Andes.

Michael Moon
July 22, 2021 8:36 am

Ok, so you’re a weather/climate modeler. So, how much heat does additional CO2 add to the Atmosphere, and how was this calculated from First Principles???

AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 9:00 am

There is little doubt that the Earth is warming and that human emissions are a contributing factor

There’s plenty of doubt that “human emissions” are a “contributing factor,” because there is NO empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature, and plenty of evidence that it does not.

If the Earth continues to warm, by the end of the century the impacts of global warming on extremes will increase substantially

The notion that a warmer climate causes more extreme weather is not shown in any actual record of weather, and runs counter to logic and reason. A basic book on meteorology will support exactly the opposite – in a warmer world, extra-tropical storminess should DECLINE, not increase, because temperature differentials between the poles and the tropics shrink in a warmer climate, and it is temperature differentials, not a higher “average” temperature, that drives violent weather. It is a colder climate that results in “more extreme” weather, not a warmer one.

The fact that some of the same “scientists” (using the term loosely here) were on BOTH the “Global Cooling” and “Global Warming” bandwagons, and that the same claims regarding “more extreme weather” were made by BOTH “camps” (cooling and warming) shows this claim to be baseless speculation and hype, not science.

We need to worry about climate change and take steps in both mitigation (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation.

No, we need not worry about “mitigation.” “Mitigation” is a fool’s errand, making countries stupid enough to pursue it poorer and thereby demonstrably more vulnerable to extreme weather OR to “climate changes” of whatever variety. The only thing we need do about changes to the climate is adapt to them; this can be done infinitely more efficiently and productively than vainly attempting to dictate what the climate does, which we can never do.

Mr.
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 9:29 am

Yes ADAPTATION to changing environments is how h0m0 erectus has made it through the species’ life so far.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 22, 2021 10:07 am

AGW you are spot on in your last paragraph, except for the last few words. It is not “vainly attempting to dictate what the climate does” but “vainly attempting to engineer climate in 30 different climate zones and sub-zones.”

bdgwx
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
July 23, 2021 1:09 pm

It is probably good to understand the historical context of the 1970’s global cooling portrayal. First, read this. Understand that this was primarily driven by Reid Bryson who advocated for the “human volcano” theory which says that human emissions of aerosols will dim the planet and lead to cooling. Note that Bryson always understood the various other factors in play include GHGs which he even testified to congress would result in warming pressure. It’s just that he felt human emissions of aerosols would far exceed GHGs and thus the net effect would be cooling. And that is exactly what we observe when the aerosol effect dominates over the GHG effect (Agung, El Chichon, Pinatubo, and the WWII to 1980 period where aerosol forcing exceeded GHG forcing). In that light his theory is physical sound. What he got wrong was his prediction of human behavior. Granted it he probably overestimated the residence time of aerosols too, but that is minor compared to his failure in predicting human behavior. It is important to note that he was rather isolated in predictions among his peers. The majority of scientists understood that GHG forcing would dominate over aerosol forcing even in the 70’s. It turns out the consensus was right. But even today we have about -1.0 W/m2 of aerosol forcing compared to +2.0 W/m2 of CO2 forcing currently in play.

Steve Z
July 22, 2021 9:26 am

Whenever there is an extreme weather event of any kind (flood, prolonged drought, tornado outbreak, hurricanes/typhoons, or snowstorms) the climate alarmists are eager to “attribute” it to “global warming” or CO2 induced “climate change”, without really understanding what drives global weather.

Most people on this site are aware that the natural El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle brings different extremes to different regions of the world. An El Nino results in relatively stormy weather over the western USA, but weak monsoons in eastern Asia, and a relatively calm hurricane season in the Atlantic. A La Nina results in dry weather over the western USA, but stronger monsoons over eastern Asia and an active Atlantic hurricane season. While CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, they do not appear to either strengthen or weaken the El Nino / La Nina oscillation.

Tornados are usually driven by the contrast between cold, dry air from Canada and warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in spring. Tornados tend to be more frequent if spring weather over the northern Great Plains and Great Lakes is relatively cold, and less frequent during a mild spring over those areas. Is “global warming” (or at least local warming over the northern USA) so bad if it results in fewer, less destructive tornados?

Another prime example of faulty “attribution” occurred for Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Most hurricanes that are centered off the east coast of the USA between NC and NJ tend to move toward the NNE, with the eye remaining offshore and passing east of Cape Cod and the coast of Nova Scotia. For the New Jersey coast, such a “normal” hurricane would generate winds out of the northeast as the storm approaches, which then shift to the north and northwest as the storm move farther to the NNE. Winds out of the northeast don’t have much “fetch” (distance of water crossed) near the New Jersey coast, which is sheltered by the projection of land to the east from Connecticut to Cape Cod, so they don’t produce much storm surge.

Hurricane Sandy stalled offshore on its way north, then suddenly turned west, with the eye striking near Atlantic City, NJ. Areas along the New Jersey coast north of Atlantic City were struck by strong winds out of the east and southeast (strengthened by the westward movement of the storm), which had a long “fetch” of open water to the east, which generated a huge storm surge, which forced sea water into Raritan Bay, New York Harbor, and up the Passaic and Raritan Rivers which normally flow into Raritan Bay.

But the warm-mongers were quick to blame Hurricane Sandy on “global warming”, particularly the President who famously said that “we [Obama and his supporters] will stop the seas from rising”. In reality, a very strong, COLD air mass had formed in the North Atlantic off the coast of New England and Labrador, which blocked the northward progress of Sandy and steered it into the New Jersey coast. Several days before Sandy struck New Jersey, while it was still over the Caribbean, weather forecasters had noticed this cold-air mass and predicted that Sandy would strike New Jersey.

The unusual path of Sandy, and its high storm surge, was not caused by “global warming”, but an unusually COLD air mass over the North Atlantic in late October. As further proof of the cold air mass, Hurricane Sandy also caused heavy snowfall in West Virginia, which is unusual for that time of year.

M Courtney
July 22, 2021 12:27 pm

I repeat my comment from the German flood post.

The weather varies year on year by 20°C everywhere. The humidity with it.
Climate change predicts 2°C change in a century.

That’s a 10 x smaller effect. That’s a 100 x slower impact.

Trying to control the weather through trace gas emissions is like trying to slow a juggernaut by spitting on the windscreen.

Izaak Walton
July 22, 2021 2:29 pm

The author completely misses the point when he states that
This situation is a good example of the golden rule of climate attribution: the more unusual and extreme the event, the greater the proportion of the event is due to natural variability rather than global warming.”

In fact it is most likely the opposite. Take the example given above about water height and suppose that normally the probably of getting a flood of height h is given by exp(-h^2). Now suppose that due to climate change the probability distribution is given by exp(-(h-2)^2). That means that the more extreme an event is (i.e. large h) it is exponentially more likely to occur under the climate change scenario than it would without climate change. Or in other words a 1 in a 1000 event becomes a 1 in a 100 event.

M Courtney
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 23, 2021 5:48 am

I really can’t follow your mathematics. It looks like a Monty Hall error.

The difference we are looking at is f(h) – f(h-2)

Consider if h = 1 million
We have f(1,000,000) – f(999,998)

Clearly that is virtually no difference because the initial change is so big compared to he impact of climate change.

Indeed as h trends to infinity the impact of climate change would trend to zero.
This is independent of the function under investigation as it it is the same function for both h and h-2. If h is large relative to climate change (assumed to be 2, worst case) then climate change is still unimportant.

Ulric Lyons
July 22, 2021 2:41 pm

“We need to worry about climate change”

No we don’t. We need to predict the discrete solar forcing of NAO/AO anomalies driving most of the weather extremes, and start thinking about the regional climate impacts of the next grand solar minimum series, from the 2090’s.
A 50% increase in CO2 forcing of the climate has diddly squat to do with the frequency or probability of weather extremes.

PSU-EMS-Alum
July 22, 2021 3:21 pm

I like to think of such events as “rogue waves”: rare and impossible to predict emergences of a non-linear system.

At worst, “climate change” makes these figurative waves a smidge more frequent, a smidge bigger, or smidge of both. What it doesn’t do is make the impossible possible or unlikely likely.

If you are prepared for the worst that weather can dish out today you are prepared for “climate change”.

Last edited 1 month ago by PSU-EMS-Alum
bdgwx
Reply to  PSU-EMS-Alum
July 23, 2021 12:59 pm

Yeah. That’s a pretty good way of thinking about it. I like the rogue wave analogy.

Geoff Sherrington
July 22, 2021 11:31 pm

“they underplay black swans”.
Please pardon my repetition, but this tickles my fancy.
Here are real black swans at overplay.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x318270

(In no way is this frivolity meant to demean the serious work of the Cliff Mass Weather Blog reported here.) Geoff S