Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Dr. Willie Soon at his best, educating kids and adults at Camp Constitution about the politicisation of climate science, the exploitation of Greta Thunberg, failed climate predictions, the poor quality of mainstream science education, and the rise of the Technocracy, the growing risk from elitists who seek to subvert freedom by controlling ordinary people through manufactured fear.
Dr. Soon predicting imminent global cooling.
I once had the privilege to meet Dr. Soon in person. Climate activists hate him, because in person and in his speeches he positively radiates passion and integrity. Dr. Soon’s gift is explaining in detail the failures of climate alarmists to ordinary people, an implacable opponent of those who would ensnare us with hobgoblins and falsehoods.
Dr Soon’s got guts! The courage to fight against those who seek the power to force people to do things. Those things are meaningless if they urge rational behavior. Anyone would do that. They only have meaning if they are irrational and force unquestioning supplication on those they wish to control.
When mathematician Christopher Monckton tabled his audit results from analysis of the UN IPCC global warming hoax modelling he was cancelled and refused permission to lecture at the Copenhagen Conference and other venues.
He is not a scientist they said as their excuse, they were right of course, but auditors do not base their work on science, they are accountants.
Has Lord M got the fraud squad to act on his paper being squashed yet? As he claimed was imminent?
Have you given any evidence yet of man induced climate change as you have been requested many times?
Crickets . . .
Or apologized for saying that Susan Crockford was not a scientist? He is a hypocrite that sets standards for others that he is unwilling to live by.
As Dr. Willie Soon would say…”soon”….very soon.
Who is Lord M? is he the man to handle spy assignment for M16 and has James Bond among his team, that Lord M?
Meanwhile Dr. Soon is the man of the topic, how come you ignored him completely?
Your drive byes are childish and evidence free, got anything better to offer?
Monckton and Soon are the only people Camp Constitution ever invites to ‘teach’ the kids about climate change.
Surely there is some law against this abuse 😉
A law against teaching kids about reality?
There isn’t one yet, but I’m sure your Democrats have one in the works.
Monckton and reality became divorced some years ago.
they are
Bean counters.
Mathematicians ARE scientists. The science of math, which is the underlying science of everything that the climate alarmists depend upon to make their case, as in made up numbers from faked up modeling. That’s why Monckton is such a danger to them.
Mathematicians are scientists and Monckton is a danger to them because climate enthusiasts are not scientists; they are just extremely poor mathematicians and misguided, deluded activists. That they were ever given a platform to scream their drivel from is a problem that will take decades to resolve, if ever. They should just thank their lucky stars that most of them live in a tolerant society and may never have to face the consequences of their mistakes.
Monckton is a danger? Really?
Scientific truth is a danger to the alarmist liars, and Monckton tells the scientific truth.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bmjpg5/peer-reviewing-climate-denial
Why is there no Nobel Prize in mathematics? Officially, math is not a science. It is only an inherently racist .. something.
Young mathematicians have the Fields Medal. (Sorry , from the movie “Good Will Hunting”. btw there is a Fields Medal)
There is a Nobel in Literature. Apparently Mike Mann won that one.
Not all literature – only fiction.
If the world does cool, then guess who will claim the credit?
We are Legion.
They’ll try – but the climbing emissions (despite all of the “agreements,” “accords,” “commitments,” and other virtue-signalling crap) and climbing CO2 levels will promptly and loudly be thrown in their faces to counter the notion that their “efforts” were the “fix” to the non-crisis.
Nope, they’ll just claim particulates or smething from energy use is the cause of our rapid descent into an ice age without governments intervening.
They’ve been tryng to blame particulates for decades, without success.
That’s what they claimed was causing Human-caused Global Cooling. Then it warmed up and “poof” went their speculation.
There are still some die-hards who continue to hang their hat on particulates, but like the Global Warming crowd, the Global Cooling crowd don’t have any evidence to back up their claims.
I would like to see more accountants ‘do’ science. Peer (not pal) review and experiment evaluation/reproduction are just different forms of audits.
science – accountability = fiction
“He is not a scientist they said as their excuse, they were right of course,…”
I know of no definition of “scientist” that would exclude Christopher Monckton; there is no test or degree required to be called a scientist.
Exactly. Anyone can deduce something scientifically, “credentials” are just a way to shout down those who reveal the ignorance of the so-called “experts.”
More comets have been found by amaturs than professionals. Besides, math is the language of science and thus a mathematician is an expert in the language of science.
almost no mathematician today has the slightest concept of physical science. It’s why so many of them think uncertainty can be cancelled if only you calculate the “mean” of any data set accurately enough. It’s why the climate models are trash. Uncertainty grows within the models e\literally without bound and the mathematicians/computer programmers building the models refuse to accept that fact of physical science.
In the past decade or so, most comets have been discovered by automated equipment, such as systems scanning the skies for Earth-threatening asteroids and one that is monitoring the Sun’s outer corona. (There are very small comets that only get detected if they get only a few million miles of the sun, and some of those get disintegrated while they are only a few million miles or less from the sun.)
https://www.space.com/newfound-comet-biggest-recorded-history
They just found a big comet, maybe the biggest evah!, measuring up to 120 miles in diameter.
They going to call it Hamner-Brown?
I think the phrase a “scientist claims” is a cue to readers to turn off critical thinking:
Is 14-legged killer squid found TWO MILES beneath Antarctica being weaponised by Putin?
A KILLER giant squid that can hypnotise its prey and paralyse humans at a distance of 150 feet using poisonous venom is being developed as a secret weapon by Vladimir Putin, a scientist has claimed.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/735175/vladimir-putin-killer-octopus-organism-46-b-russian-army-secret-weapon-russia
In the old days, stuff like this used to be confined to the “comics section” of newspapers.
With standards like this, I think it is important that we take what “non-scientists” like Moncton have to say… and let the best argument prevail.
It seems to me that not only is the media bent on self-destruction but they are happy to take credentialed science along with it.
We know that mathematics, like biology, is a science, because it’s Racist!
Per-lease – you are offending me.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/23/scientists-use-ai-to-predict-sunspot-cycles/#comment-3233864
Willie Soon is a great friend. I spent time with him in Calgary and also in Boston. He is definitely one of the very best guys anywhere to drain a few beers with – brilliant, quick and funny.
Ask yourself who can print all it needs to corrupt the system and is above the law. (and eliminates by doing so the purchasing power of your savings)
No way, UN IPCC computer modelling cannot be wrong, the garbage the hacked email senders and recipients exchanged was too well thought through for the hoax to be exposed.
Climate Gate 1 & 2 batches of hacked emails.
And in Australia the computer modelling for a warming trend cannot be faulted, the creators ignored historic weather data earlier than 1910.
Can anyone come with a better perjorative to describe any or all Climate Models? I like Fairy Tale as mine.
Hans Anderson, that great fairy tale author, wrote “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Your “any or all climate models” remind me of the clothes manufactured by the fraudster tailors.
Don’t we just need one little boy shouting, “But he has got nothing on”.
It still goes on: didn’t someone just sell an “Invisible” art work for around $20K?
Hunter?
Yes, one guy was trying to sell his invisible statue, for about $17,000. They showed a picture of him standing beside his statue, but of course, you could not see the statue because it was invisible, all you could see was the guy and a pedestal on which the invisible statue stood (I’m just assuming it was standing, since I couldn’t see it:).
But that’s not the best part. The best part is this invisible statue creator is getting sued by another guy who says his idea was stolen by the first guy! 🙂
I just call them the sacred models, because that’s how the true believers regard them.
How about “Black Box Bullshit?” 😀
Soon bleats about “failed climate predictions”, then predicts cooling.
“Top climate scientist”? What a joke.
Old Muslim proverb: “He who spits toward heaven himself besmears”
Old Italian proverb: “He that pisses into the wind gets a wet shirt.”
Old salt: Don’t piss into the wind.
Old mountain man: Don’t eat yellow snow.
Old Chinese saying when referring disparagingly to someone:
“He who speaketh from both ends.”
You don’t tread on Superman’s cape 🎶
And you don’t mess around with Jim. Doot, dooty, doot, doot.
ht/ Jim Croce
Oh what a tangled web we weave ^
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive
But how vastly we improve our style
When we have practiced for a while.
Soon isn’t “bleating”, get yourself a dictionary. You’re the one bleating as Soon is exposing your ignorance.
And your source of this questionable graphic is??? You reference absolutely nothing, making it pointless & worthless!!!
You’re right I should have given a link.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/study-global-warming-hiatus-attributed-redistribution
Now about the fact that Soon is ignoring the 98% of the warming and keeping a straight face.
And yet the oceans water level is not accelerating 🤔
PSMSL.org being a source of sea level data – government tide gages.
There are areas where the land is subsiding slowly, and areas where it is rising.
With lies from climate catastrophists, like the jerk who grafted a photo of a town sign in the Outer Banks of the US east coast onto a photo of flooding in Texas from a hurricane.
(Of course the Outer Banks are glorified sandbars, build there and you are at risk.)
With climate catastrophists blaming Globull Wurming for flooding in Germany:
But it doesn’t matter as long as nuclear power plants are shut down?
That’s a quadratic fit.
Not a linear one.
Notice that the “acceleration” is 0.097mm (If one accepts the fit). For comparison purposes, the thickness of a typical fingernail is more than five times this amount.
There is peculiar property to acceleration.
Do you know what that is?
0.097mm per year^2 is quoted.
If this is true, then over 100 years, that sea level rise from the acceleration alone accounts for 0.097 * 10^4mm, or 970mm.
That’s on top of the base linear rise, which looks something like 2mm a year, or a further 200mm over 100 years…
Hence the graph, extrapolated forward, suggests a total sea level rise of 1.2m over 100 years.
I’m not saying this is likely, or true, but the acceleration element is non-trivial, though 0.097mm is indeed a small value
Not quite. In 100 years, the rate of rise will have increased by 970mm/century, but the rise due to acceleration during that century would be about half that amount. Either way, the amount of rise due to acceleration during the graphed period is much smaller than the margin of error for a linear fit. If only there were some long term tide gauges on some stable bedrock (say New York’s battery Park) so we could get more definitive numbers.
Lol
The acceleration was confirmed to be small (0.12) in a recent detailed analysis, however, the uncertainty (2 sigma) is quite large (.07), much larger than Univ. of Colorado claimed.
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1189–1202, 2019
Uncertainty in satellite estimates of global mean
sea-level changes, trend and acceleration
Michaël Ablain, Benoît Meyssignac, et. al.
The sea level has been almost completely flat in the last two years (you can even see that in your plot if you blow it up) – if that trend continues the small (and uncertain) acceleration will become even smaller.
What warming? Less than 1 deg C in nearly 200 years, during an interglacial period between glaciations?
You mean he is ignoring 97 percent of settled scientists?
Meaningless link. When betting red or black at roulette I could have just as good of luck.
”when in fact, the heat energy likely went elsewhere”
so it could have? But maybe not! Just in case! Maybe we better…..
Loydo, the link you provided is an NCEI summary, but it has the link to the actual paper which produced the graph. There is no paywall.
The paper itself has lots of expert opinion, lots of probability (high/med/low confidence crap that’s so reminiscent of IPCC BS) and lots of big numbers to impress. Imagine calculating the number of Zeta-Joules contained in the Earth’s oceans. I think there must be dozens of papers on that calculation alone, to prove it’s obseration and counting methods fit for purpose. Miles Allen’s name is associated, so I’m sure he guided the primary authors to the exactly proper conclusions. From the AR5 WG1 upload cache:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
Some tasty acknowledgements from the Key Uncertainties section at the end:
A Tour-de-Force of climate change uncertainty!
Our politicians are not uncertain, though. They plan on spending Trillions of dollars trying to control the Earth’s climate, even though there is no evidence the climate needs to be controlled or can be controlled by humans.
The point of posting it was to show that atmospheric warming is dwarfed by oceanic. Soon would know how much energy is now ‘banked’ in the ocean, so his “prediction” of cooling is nothing but disingenuous doubt-mongering.
He would also be well aware that the “but its only warmed by .06C bs” is bs and so do useful idiots like Pat Frank. Why average down to the ocean abyssal plain when the mixed layer at the surface is where the atmosphere interacts and where the temperature anomaly is now heading towards 0.8C. Why? To disinform that’s why.
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
Now well above the trend and showing NO sign of retreating and obviously, where the ocean goes the air above will follow.
Doubt-mongering bs all the way down.
The point of the refutations of your point is that it is impossible to know the temperature of the ocean to the degree you are claiming.
Your intellectually fatuous insults notwithstanding Loydo, you haven’t refuted squat.
Analytically complete uncertainty bars would blacken the entire interior of your temperature plot.
Your claim is T±huge = physically meaningless.
And unlike you, I do the work.
And as climate models are predictively useless, neither you nor anyone else can say what, if anything at all, CO2 emissions do to the climate.
Let’s see your straight face, Loydo, when it’s pointed out to you that the entire 1980-2012 change in heat content is equivalent to 0.06 C, which is 10x below the measured ±0.6 C systematic field measurement error of Argo floats.
The error bars show your great scientists are claiming to know global ocean temperature to ±0.01 C in 1980 and ±0.0034 C in 2012. Fat bloody chance.
And even were those numbers reliable (they’re not), you have to face a cosmic so what?
On what grounds is ocean warming bad, when we know equivalent warming must have occurred during very benevolent warm periods of the past.
And not only that, but by what evidence is that warming assigned to human CO2 emissions? Climate models are utterly useless, but nevertheless constitute the only run-to authority for all your fears.
Your side lost the climate debate in 2001. Were it not for the lying liars who continue to lie about it, the whole global warming thing would have dissipated into the wind 20 years ago.
It should have done, actually, 39 years ago after Jim Hansen misrepresented his Model II scenarios before Congress. He was never called on it, to the eternal shame of the Physics establishment.
“the entire 1980-2012 change in heat content is equivalent to 0.06 C, which is 10x below the measured ±0.6 C systematic field measurement error of Argo floats.”
Nope:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022
“4.3 Temperature Sensor Bias:
No example of significant temperature drift has been identified within the Argo array. The thermistor used in the SBE41 and SBE41-CP has a manufacturer’s stated accuracy of 0.002°C and stability of 0.0002°C yr−1. Identifying temperature drift without post-mission calibration is difficult. To date, no standard test designed to identify temperature drift is performed within RTQC or DMQC [Wong et al., 2012]. However, small numbers of instruments recovered and recalibrated after 4–9 month missions have shown no appreciable drift within manufacturer’s stated temperature accuracy [Oka and Ando, 2004]. More recently, temperature sensors of a few floats recovered after 3–5 years in the field have also not drifted outside these stated accuracies.
“The error bars show your great scientists are claiming to know global ocean temperature to ±0.01 C in 1980 and ±0.0034 C in 2012. Fat bloody chance.”
Now, now:
You know they don’t.
Surely you are aware of the statistics of large sample sizes?
(Oh, of ~ 4000 Argo floats as of now).
Of course you are!
LOL the science of argumentum from personal incredulity.
https://argo.ucsd.edu/about/status/
Apparently you are not aware of the statistics of large sample sizes. Sqrt (N) metrics are only applicable to fixed populations, temporal and spatial. No one is fool enough to claim that with each cycle that a given float is sampling the same water as it did previously. Each measurement is a sample size of 1 and they cannot be chained together to manufacture greater accuracy.
Yet this is what climastrologers do, with a straight face.
Yup.
Hadfield, et al., On the accuracy of North Atlantic temperature and heat storage fields from Argo.
From the abstract: The root-mean-square (RMS) difference in the Argo-based temperature field relative to the section measurements is about 0.6°C. The RMS difference is smaller, less than 0.4°C, in the eastern basin and larger, up to 2.0°C, toward the western boundary.
Castro, et al., Evaluation of the relative performance of sea surface temperature measurements from different types of drifting and moored buoys using satellite-derived reference products.
Table 2 average RMS error of floating buoys is ±0.7 C
These are both in situ field calibrations, Not recover and re-test.
The uncertainties arise from systematic measurement error. They do not decrease as sqrt(1/N).
When systematic error is present, adding measurements can often increase the final uncertainty.
Who needs those boring, arduous measurements of actual water temperature when statistics will give the answer you want in seconds?
When you start adding temperature data to derive a mathematical average, the actual error ranges HAVE to be added together – basically the error range goes from the highest recorded datum point + error, to the lowest recorded datum point – error. Because this would produce an error range that would make any figures look ridiculous, most use a statistically derived artificial error range – a probability range that most of the recorded data would fit into without the inconvenient outliers. Basically once you start adding temperature data together, you can kiss off any idea at accuracy or precision whatsoever – any mathematically derived mean temperature that’s within about 2 degrees of reality is a frickin’ miracle.
The thermistor in the Argo float is not the major contributor to the uncertainty of its temperature measurement. The thermistor is a small part of the total system. The total system has a +/- 0.6C uncertainty due to various and sundry things such as debris in the water flow path, water salinity measurement, etc. It all adds up and there is no way to reduce it.
And, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, when you are measuring different things their average does NOT give you any kind of a “true value” no matter how accurately you calculate a mean. That implies that the mean is at *least* as uncertain as the uncertainty of the member data. In fact the uncertainty of the mean grows by the root-sum-square of the associated data uncertainties. No dividing by anything, no N or sqrt(N).
“measuring different things their average does NOT give you any kind of a “true value””
Obviously.
If you don’t like the 3rd dp then just round it.
It comes out in the statistics so why not publish it.
And so the obvious marked rise it OHC is due to uncertainties only going one way?
Obviously No.
Calibration studies show that the typical systematic measurement error in land stations is toward greater (spurious) warmth.
Systematic measurement error from uncontrolled environmental variables need not be, and most often is not, symmetrical about zero.
Taking a clever approach to OHC studies, virtually no one has done the hard work of thoroughly evaluating the sources of error of, or carrying out extensive field calibration of, pelagic buoys. That clears the arena for folks like you to make hand-waving dismissals.
“The total system has a +/- 0.6C uncertainty due to various and sundry things such as debris in the water flow path, water salinity measurement, etc. “
Could you give a link to the citation of that please?
Googled but cannot find.
I gave you links to two papers indicating the uncertainties.
Anthony,
The issue is that you are using Google rather than knowing the information, and expecting to type in “The total system has a +/- 0.6C uncertainty due to various ” only to find out that if it is something technical Google almost always fails to deliver.
Go back to the sites that tell you the world is ending and that you just have to trust the experts that make money telling you so.
That way rather than have to read technical articles and think about things like Orbital decay, error bars, adjustments to raw data, etc…
Can CO2 be a portion of the increase in temperature. Yes. Is it the control knob that regulates temperature. Maybe, but probably not. In fact rather than an out gassing of CO2 from the Oceans we are seeing the opposite, an increase in CO2 concentrations – so called ‘acidification’ which is the OPPOSITE from my understanding of what should happen with increased water temperature.
No one needed to look to the oceans until the temperature stopped rising on land which then caused the Climate Alarmists to worry they were wrong and search for a POSSIBLE explanation.
Because otherwise – what were they doing this whole time? The Gravy train would end. etc and so on.
Much of the info on the internals of the argo floats has been removed from the internet. Of particular interest is the water flow by the sensor package. As recently as five years ago you could find several articles on how that flow impacts the accuracy of the overall float. They have all seemingly disappeared. All you find now is the uncertainty of the sensor itself, not the float package.
I suspect you will have to do some digging to find the appropriate articles. Just because they have been disappeared doesn’t mean the float uncertainty is equal to the sensor uncertainty. Things just don’t work that way.
try here: https://www.seabird.com/sbe-41-argo-ctd/product?id=54627907875
It speaks a little to the efforts made to prevent water flow fouling in the float.
try here: https://www.eposters.net/pdfs/improving-argo-float-data-steps-toward-implementing-onoard-cell-thermal-mass-corrections.pdf
Thanks, Tim. That’s very useful information.
His graph is “questionable” in the same way that Adolph Hitler’s political ideology was questionable.
Hello Loydo,
If that graph is correct then it disproves the IPCC mainstream science and disproves the belief in dangerous global warming.
It clearly shows that the warming is not in the atmosphere at all, rather it is all absorbed by the oceans.
That makes sense. Water is obviously a better storage medium for heat than air.
But all the feedbacks assume the heat is in the air. The increased atmospheric water vapour needs the heat to be in the atmosphere.
And, as the heat in the oceans is unable to discernibly change the temperature of the oceans – the temperature is buffered by literally oceans worth of water – AGW is not important.
Please share the source of your graph that so perfectly debunks dangerous anthropogenic global warming.
Ah but you see, it’s asymptomatic atmospheric warming and NOAA is busy working on testing for it.
“the temperature is buffered by literally oceans worth of water – AGW is not important”.
LOL:
If ocean heat content, ergo also higher SSTs, doesn’t matter – then why does the atmosphere warm during an El Niño?
Why does it pause during a La Niña?(before AGW took hold – it used to cool)
The oceans warm the atmosphere, by virtue of land storing little (top few inches) it goes almost immediately into the atmosphere via convection. The oceans are the planet’s central heating system – especially for maritime parts of the NH – The NH gets a tad cold in winter well inland of ocean.
Ocean heat contributes a third to a half of SL rise, warmer SSTs provide more WV to the atmosphere to precipitate out. Drive storms. Feedback into the GHE (~ 60% of the total)
“But all the feedbacks assume the heat is in the air.”
Nope:
There’s one above – increased evaporation leading to WV +ve feedback to the GHE.
Warmer ocean waters penetrating into the Arctic ( Atlantification of the Barents FI) … less ice so absorb SW and melt and darker oceans (decreased albedo) allowing more SW absorption.
Warming oceans are less able to absorb CO2 – so reduced sink capacity means an enhanced build of atmospheric carbon from sources (natural + anthro).
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Arctic_sea_ice_succumbs_to_Atlantification
It’s most certainly important. Very.
Good point. Warmer oceans would lead to more atmospheric CO2 that fails to warm the atmosphere. Instead it seems it warms the oceans.
Obviously, if this extra heat was significant we would have a runaway feedback and life would not exist. Thus you illustrate well that the heat is not temperature.
El Nino and La Nina are natural variations in the ocean heat distribution that do indeed dwarf the effect of AGW.
These are an interesting combination of factors.
If the hypothetical feedbacks existed that make AGW newsworthy – and the CO2 goes into the ocean not the atmosphere – then we would all be dead (before we were even born) from an El Nino being amplified in the way that AGW is imagined to be…
But obviously isn’t. Good point.
OMG! In 1970 the oceanic heat content must have been zero ZJ. An ocean at absolute zero! I think I was around in 1970 and, living near the sea shore, didn’t notice. I wonder why.
It’s a derived “anomaly.”
It’s a
deriveddepraved “anomaly.”There fixed it for you (:-))
Thank you, spellin next was a strength of mine.
So the heat content of the oceans quadrupled within 30 years huh? Not bad
Apart from the metrologic nightmare to measure the heat content within the error levels that this graph suggests this graph is probably peak ridiculous.
Taking it at face value just shows how detached those scientists are from metrological realities and any common sense.
Btw funny that your source still claims need for better instrumentation where anyone involved in pecision measurements would probably give standing ovations to those claimed error levels for this measurement task.
But I guess it’s just a common theme to claim to know, but yet to not know precisely enough so further funding is necessary. The perfect Schroedinger’s claim.
The planet has been in a warming cycle since the LIA peaked negatively in the late 1600s but there are many indications that it is now peaking and the next cooling cycle is beginning.
What is your point?
Peter:
This is along the lines of what I was thinking when I looked at Loydo’s graph..
I had absolutely no idea the the history of the Earth’s atmosphere and the oceans started in 1980 and ended in 2012-13. I could have sworn that their histories went back thousands and millions and even billions of years before that. Oh well.
At any rate, NOAA and other govt agencies are not going to question the climate scare narrative when the guy in the White House and his administration are dyed-in-the-wool believers. They are probably very comfortable manipulating the science however necessary to provide what is need to maintain the alarmist status quo. Their jobs depend on it.
For the alarmists like Griff and Loydo, putting today’s meteorological events in historical perspective is probably worse than catching some dreaded disease. Doing so is far too threatening to the narrative.
What is this supposed to represent? The heat content in the top layers of the ocean? I see it ends in 2012 probably because the direction of the line changed to downward. If it is the top layers, the ocean has cooled significantly since then and is continuing to cool. We are heading to a cold period. South America is having a bad winter as is South Africa and if the La Niña comes back as predicted, North America historically will have one as well. Then the North Atlantic has flipped not boding well for Europe. I’m glad I live in a warmer area of the world because it is going to be “boo chilly” as they say around here.
You can post all these graphs based on phony numbers you want Loydo but when you are sitting in your flat this winter freezing you butt off because the windmills are frozen and the solar panels don’t work and there is no NG to power what is left of your power plants, reality will set in.
No, just because Loydo is “wrong” (this time) does not mean your extrapolation is “correct”.
OHC data from NOAA is only released quarterly. The “heat” data [ “h22-w0-*.dat” files ] up to Q1-2021 was posted to their “FTP” site [ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ ] on the 27th of May …
Note that the ARGO network went “fully online” around 2005, hence the increase in resolution of the “0-2000m” data from that date.
PS : For “temperature deltas” data look in the “../3month_mt/” directory, global (or “World”, hence “-w0-” …) values in the “T-dC-w0-*.dat” files.
You considered yourself a scientist? If so, then post the temperatures that these zetajoules translate to if you dare. If you don’t or can’t, then don’t use these units without understanding what they mean!
… post the temperatures that these zetajoules translate to …
NB : I am not “Loydo” !
Note also that my “MEI” line is just a 3-month (rolling, centered) average of Klaus Wolter’s “bi-monthly Multivariate El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index” dataset (V1 up to 1978, V2 from 1979), but “rescaled” by the simple expedient of dividing by 10.
Jim Gorman was not addressing your post, which didn’t exist when he posted a response to Loydo. Look at the date stamps.
“Jim Gorman was not addressing your post …”
I knew that.
Experience has shown me that when “jumping in” the person being “Replied” to does not always notice that they are now dealing with a new participant, so to avoid potential confusion a clear indication is advisable.
Mr. BLR: Many years ago, my grade school teacher mispoke and was corrected by a student, and he said “I knew that.” Can’t let the kids know you were wrong now can you, might disillusion them. Experience has shown me that warmistas can’t admit error. Prove me wrong.
What an utterly ridiculous response. That makes no sense whatever. Time stamps provide the time line and notifications are available.
Loydo
So the ocean is warming and the atmospheres not, how is that possible if CO2 in the atmosphere is the culprit?
Wasn’t there an idea a while back that the nearly 20 year hiatus in atmosperic warming (i.e. no global warming detectable in the early 21st century), might be due to the extra heat building up and ‘hiding’ in the ocean depths?
I’d explain how this was supposed to work, but I seem to lack sufficient imagination. It’s embarrassing really, I mean here I thought I could B.S. pretty well, but I’m coming up as empty as can be..
Your graph is a fake … purely and simply fabricated outtayourass.
How about taking this graph a little further back in time, like maybe to the beginning of the Holocene.
More fairy tales from failed troll Loydo. Pray tell us how we can know the temperature of every cubic metre of the ocean.
Ah, the old “ocean ate my warming” excuse
Speaking of a “joke,” the link you provided refers to the work by Karl wherein he adjusted temperatures to align with inferior ship engine intake temperatures instead of using the modern ARGO buoys as the reference standard!
The apparent increase in “Heat Content” is meaningless because the high specific heat of water, and the huge volume of it, means that any changes in sensible temperature are negligible, as in “difficult to measure reliably.”
The entire warming amounts to only about 0.001C of warming.
Since even the most accurate of instruments are only guaranteed to about 0.05C out of the box, degrading as soon as you start using them. The claim that we can measure the temperature of the entire ocean with that degree of accuracy is prima facia evidence of deliberate fraud.
Beyond that, even if the oceans had warmed up by 0.001C, so freaking what?
The authors of the graph state that it was created using yearly data from an IPCC report. Not from an underlying study or composite, but the IPCC itself. There are two fundamental problems with this:
1) Every single line of every IPCC report is subject to editing by the government appointed flunkies that make up the IPCC, who are literally paid to edit the report based on the political whims of the people that appoint them. There is zero creditable data that originates in an IPCC report.
2) The report in question (Technical Summary of AR5 WG1) does not list yearly data for ocean heat content that the authors claimed to have used, either in its main body or supplementary material. Nor do the Chapters referenced by that section of the Summary, 10 (detection and attribution) and 3 (Ocean).
The graph is doubly fraudulent. Perhaps you were showing an example of a joke scientist.
Start in 1980, end in 2012. Cherries are in season again!
Pick your period, pick your trend!
My Mark 1 eyeball sees that the “heat content” would be negative before about 1975. So what exactly is it? If its some gross number versus a reference level then without knowing the reference value we cannot determine if the increase shown is material in any way.
Misuse of graphics to make a point where the actual impact may be indistinguishable from zero and unmeasurable.
Loydo writes poorly as usual, because he makes no attempt to address the post at all.
No link posted for the poorly generated chart.
What a joke!
Mr. tommy: I think it’s a troll technique to leave off any link, expecting to be called on it so they can respond haughtily and draw more responses.
The full 275-50=225 zettajoules amounts to an increase in insolation/irradience with of 0.17% of sunshine bombardment over 32 years.
Or if you will, an increase from 86400 seconds to 86551 seconds days for a total of 20 days.
/
An increase from 50 to 275 zettajoules would increase temperature in our oceans with how much, how deep to shift CO2 solubility how much?
Reader can silly-calculate on hir own.
Oddgeir
An example of cutting big numbers down to meaningful. Likely could be done for Zeta-joules too
Terrifying. This image should be more widely known, especially among Democrat voters..
The only thing most Democrat voters want to know is when the next government check will arrive.
<<units matter here>>
4168 joules to heat 1 kg water by 1 deg C
1.37e21 kg mass (ocean)
In graph above, between 1980 and 2010, ocean absorbed 2e23 joules (200 zetajoules)
To raise ocean by 1 deg takes 4.8e18 joules.
But ocean absorbed 2e23 joules, so ocean temperature went up 28 deg C in 30 years.
The average ocean temperature increased from 4C to 4.06C.
The ocean cannot get heat to depth through the surface in 50 years. The only physical explanation for the increase in deep ocean heat is reduced cooling. That is a consequence of reduced evaporation in the Southern Hemisphere as that water dominant region of the globe cools down.
Oceans have retained more heat due to surface cooling. You need to understand the system.
Southern Hemisphere is a long-term cooling trend and Northern Hemisphere in a long-term warming trend.
I see that graph and think: “here is a starting point based on what we think we know”.
As such, I would not expect it to be very accurate.
Last estimation of trees (which are far more accessible) was believed to be off by a factor of 8.
Trillions and Trillions of Trees make that ‘giant sucking sound’ of CO2 from the atmosphere – Watts Up With That?
The area of land that trees occupy is so much smaller than the volume of the oceans the odds that volumetric estimations would be very questionable.
In addition, do you really believe that the ocean heat content increased by a factor of 6 in forty years? Since we are talking about oceans, I think something is quite fishy.
Why didn’t you put the graph in Kelvins Loydo? I’m not sure whether this is all the ocean or just the top 700m. Assuming it is the top 700m, 25 Zj is 0.025K.
Eyeballing your error bars I see +/- 0.01K. So you claim it is possible to measure the temperature of the ocean with this precision? I don’t think so.
BR,
John Edmondson
Risky prediction. Up to know every cooling prediction (Akasofu, Abdussamatov, Easterbrook) has been wrong.
Rate of warming is falling, but I see it unlikely that it will go significantly below zero. My own prediction is no significant warming in the first third of the 21st century.
Wait for the AMO shifting and the coming La Niña. We will see.
The weather patterns we have now at least in Germany are to compare with these we had around the beginning cooling in the 70th.
The Pause included a slight cooling period of 15 years and the big Niñas of 2007 and 2010. You are going to need quite a bit more to convince those that weren’t convinced then.
I was thinking about time the coming iceage was a point of discussion.
In the context of some ten millennia of global cooling, a focus on 15, 30 and even 60 year cycles is somewhat absurd and yet here we are.
30 year cycles are significant for weather but have no meaning at all in terms of planetary climate.
Chicken & egg here me thinks!!! Which came first rise in CO2 or warming!!! That’s the reason flabby Al Gore baby in his rather pathetic “An Inconvenient Truth” film, made sure his graphic artists drew the graph with the two elements well separated, so that he could make an “apparent” observation that you would have thought the two lines would fit together, which in truth was the last thing he & his fellow bleaters wanted, as it would have given the game away!!! How is he getting on in his $4M sea-front retirement home, he really did know just how gullible & naive the green public were!!!
“Which came first rise in CO2 or warming!!! “
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes at all measured time scales.
The future cannot cause the past.
The future cannot cause the past.
In Climate “Science” it jolly well can and does!!
Teleconnections don’t just work across space, they also work across time.
I’m wondering where Al Gore’s $4M sea front home is.
Or did you mean the $8.875M Montecito Villa, ocean-view, not sea-front, that the Gore’s purchased just before they “separated”, so Tipper could have a home for visitors and family. Al has a house in Nashville, and maybe some we don’t know about. For good reasons, such folks do not publicize their residential locations – note the plural.
Is the one in Nashville the one that uses more electricity than a small town? The 20,000 square foot “you little people need to reduce YOUR “carbon footprints” Gore mansion?
How dare you. Al is saving Earth from the other 97% of us.
But , more less, you are correct. It’s complicated.
Quite agree.
More than that I would say any prediction at the moment will be unjustified even if it tuns out to be right.
We just don’t know enough about the climate.
As Loydo demonstrates above, the key issue is the heat content of the ocean. We know nothing about that or about why the heat sometimes is absorbed and sometimes isn’t.
M Courtney:
” We just don’t know enough about the climate”
As I have repeatedly posted on this site, ALL of the changes in our climate are caused by changing amounts of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin so all that is needed to know about our climate is already known, but is being ignored by everyone
There is ZERO warming from CO2, and because of unpredictable volcanic eruptions, it is impossible to make any predictions about future temperatures, as Dr. Soon and others are doing.
However, I can make one prediction: if the burning of fossil fuels is abandoned, and there are no volcanic eruptions for about 4 years, temperatures will quickly soar to those of the MWP, when there were only 31 eruptions over a period.of ~ 300 years.
That excludes the ocean right?
That’s surface temperature, which has been and still is the main criteria for global warming. Good data on the ocean is too recent and too sparse. And the ocean is warming at a rate much lower than land (0.05ºC/decade for 0-700 m) and is capped at 30ºC.
Maybe you ought to use a different database (one that hasn’t been adjusted)
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2021.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2021.5
Are you attempting to show that the UAH6 trend is less than that of the HADCURT4?
Hi Javier,
Our global cooling prediction of 2002/2013 (quoted below) is still valid. UAH LT Global has cooled 0.6C since Feb2020.
I hope you are correct (“no significant warming in the first third of the 21st century”) but I will stand by my prediction of more global atmospheric cooling in the near future. I spoke with my friend and co-author Joe D’Aleo this week, and we both expect a return to La Nina conditions later this year. UAH LT Global follows Nino34 SST about 4 months later.
More importantly for humanity, we are now experiencing extreme-cold events worldwide that are a serious threat to crops – hundreds of such cold events are listed by Cap Allon at Electroverse.net.
Some extreme-cold events occurred circa 2008 at the end of Solar Cycle 23 and were the basis for my 2013 small revision of our 2002 global cooling prediction. Even though the UAH LT Global anomaly is only 0.0C, the jet streams have repeatedly dipped towards the equator, and have caused major harm to crops in both hemispheres..
In NH Summer of 2019 there was a huge crop failure across the Great Plains of North America. Joe D’Aleo and I reported that event, but it was completely ignored by the mainstream media.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
This year the global crop situation is much worse, in both hemispheres.
https://electroverse.net/a-catalog-of-crop-failures/
So I say we are already experiencing “significant cooling in the first third of the 21st century”, because any cold events that harm crops are highly significant, and they are happening now. It’s not just the average of UAH LT Global that matters, but the major cold events that are significantly harmful for humanity.
Best regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary.
_____________________
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/23/can-we-predict-long-term-solar-variability/#comment-3301171
A CATALOG OF CROP FAILURES
July 27, 2021 Cap Allon
What’s unique right now is that extreme weather seems to be pounding every key growing region of the globe, simultaneously. #GrandSolarMinimum
I would much rather have been wrong. This will end badly.
Earth is cooling – starting circa 2019 to early 2020. We predicted this solar-driven cooling in 2002. We were correct. .
Allan MacRae published in the Calgary Herald on September 1, 2002, based on communication with Dr Tim Patterson:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
MacRae updated his global cooling prediction in 2013, based on cold events that occurred starting circa 2008 near the end of Solar Cycle 23:
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
Hi Allan,
As you might remember I made a prediction for the 2018 Niño and 2020 Niña based on solar activity here at WUWT and at Judith Curry’s site:
Solar minimum and ENSO predictionENSO predictions based on solar activity
Based on solar activity and ENSO I also believed this Niña would be a 2-year one and in many comments at the time suggested that it might mean a return to Pause conditions (that would made Lord Mockton really happy).
I also wrote a very controversial article when I affirmed in 2019 that the planet was no longer warming. Great discussion.
The planet is no longer warming
So you know I am definitely in your camp, yet I don’t believe for a moment that any possible cooling until the mid-30s could be dangerous in general terms. We are not going back to the temperatures of the 1960s-70s, at most we could go back to the temperatures of the late 1980s and even that is doubtful. The most likely situation is that there is very little or no warming for the 2002-2035 period.
Thank you Javier – I hope you are correct. I’m getting old and hate the cold.
However, if we continue to have significant crop failures due to cold spikes like 2019 or 2021 then that will be enough to demonstrate my point – and I think we are there now – we will see what the future brings.
Love you Allan (and Javier), but the crop/food system globally is well-buffered from “climate change”. Not buffered from politics, but food has always been grown in the weather. Mass starvation from farm failure due to weather is NOT going to happen, although a lot of other crap probably will.
The problem for food is its price that it is tied to the price of oil.
The Media called it the Arab Spring giving the false idea that the arabs crave democracy. In reality they were part of what is called the hunger revolts triggered by high food/oil price combo that impacts the poor that expend a large part of their income on them.
Number of deaths in brackets. International interests took advantage of the revolts in Syria to trigger a war. It was a war with the ultimate goal of building a gasoduct to transport gas from Qatar to Europe. Syria is favorable to Iranian gas.
Excellent, thanks
“The problem for food is its price that it is tied to the price of oil.”
The price of just about everything is tied to the price of oil because transportation costs apply to just about everything. If transportation costs go up, the cost of the things transported goes up, too.
The cost of transportation should be kept as low as possible in order to have a thriving economy.
Thank you Mike – I am not predicting mass starvation – but I am predicting significant crop failures.
Examples:
2019 – corn and soybeans failed due to wet and cold across the Great Plains of North America.
2021 – the grape and other other early fruit crop failed due to cold in France and Germany
These have already happened – watch S Africa and S America and Australia for crop failures.
Hope not.
More on mass starvation, which I do not think will happen.:
One fallback if there are crop failures and food shortages is to take the huge USA corn crop , ~30% of which goes to fuel ethanol, and pivot it to food production. That should only take one growing season and would help if food shortages materialize.
The same could be done for palm oils used to make bio-diesel in the tropics,
To me, food-to-fuel never made sense.
“2019 – corn and soybeans failed due to wet and cold across the Great Plains of North America.”
We are having some problems with hay this year in Oklahoma because of the cool, wet weather. It is keeping the farmers out of the field too much, and will reduce the hay total by one cutting, it is estimated.
It doesn’t have to get real cold to adversely affect crops, it just has to get cold at the wrong time.
Thank you Tom – your comment rings true, but we won’t see it in the mainstream media, which obsessed about a recent ~4-day heat wave in the USA Northwest.
Here is the latest from Brazil.
HISTORIC COLD CONTINUES TO BATTER BRAZIL, WITH AN UNPRECEDENTED 33+ RIO GRANDE DO SUL MUNICIPALITIES SEEING SNOW ON WEDNESDAY
July 29, 2021 Cap Allon
The harshest ‘cold wave’ in living memory is currently sweeping swathes of South America, further ravaging already decimated coffee and corn crops.
___________________________
Here is another downside to cold weather:
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
We published this paper and then revised it when the excellent study by Gasparrini et al appeared in The Lancet. We can expect many cold-related deaths this season in South America and the African continent.
Thank you Javier.
Actually I missed your 2018 post – will study further when time.
Best, Allan
Slams Politicised Science
And where would politics be without the narrative driven media messaging service?
Recently, a new channel started broadcasting – GB News. Aiming for a diversity of opinion. They started well:
GB News criticised for platforming ‘dangerous climate change deniers’
26/06/2021
New UK broadcaster GB News has been criticised by environmentalists for giving a platform to climate change sceptics.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/gb-news-criticised-for-platforming-dangerous-climate-change-deniers/ar-AALAnhe
Compared to the Waffen BBC…
“…a thoughtful BBC Trust report on impartiality cited the discussion [at the BBC 2006 seminar] and said it had settled the argument – as far as the BBC was concerned – on climate change.
Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]. The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the “brainstorm” a historic significance: the BBC has not previously abandoned impartiality in peacetime.
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
GB News’ dangerous denier was Matt Ridley and he was allowed to speak and make his points. At the BBC, however
the Corporation has strict rules about letting on guests who might say that the climate change threat is being exaggerated, even if their view and their facts fall within that consensus range.
The BBC now has a rule that if by some oversight a lukewarmer or skeptic does get on the air, he or she must be followed by a corrective interview from a scientist, setting the record straight.
Sure enough, I was followed by Sir David King, the former government chief science advisor. (He’s a qualified chemist, while I am a qualified biologist.)
I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/01/01/the-bbc-bob-ward-and-the-climate-catastrophists-attack-on-dissent/
Good luck to Dr Soon.
I’m glad I don’t live in England. Reading these comments makes me think life would be intolerable.
Is life in Portland tolerable?
Texas billboard warns drivers to enter Austin ‘at your own risk’ after city reduces police budget Texas billboard warns drivers to enter Austin ‘at your own risk’ after city reduces police budget – CNN
It guess it depends on what you define as being tolerable.
“Texas billboard warns drivers to enter Austin ‘at your own risk’ after city reduces police budget”
That’s funny! Just what I would expect from conservative Texans. Good move! Tell it like it is.
Like most politicians, whenever they hold a “conference”, they only invite people who’s positions agree with the politicians.
Then when the “conference” is over, they declare that since all the experts agree with them, there is no need to listen to anyone else.
Sounds a lot like Pelosi’s hand picked Jan 6th commission. The one where she excluded anyone who might disagree with her predetermined position.
Along with all the exculpatory evidence.
I hear Liz Cheney does not like herself being referred to as a Pelosi Republican.
And the Pelosi Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger was blubbering like a baby during the hearing about the Jan. 6 Capitol breakin. This guy needs to go seek some mental health help. He’ll probably have plenty of free time after the next election.
I bet he doesn’t like being called a Pelosi Republican, either. Well, that’s too bad because that’s what he is and he and Liz can expect to hear it in the future.
In their questioning at the hearing, Liz and Adam should ask how many times President Trump offered National Guard assistance to the Capitol police.
The answer is: Trump offered National Guard assistance two times, once three days before Jan 6, and once the day before Jan 6, where Trump also noted the growing crowd numbers in Washington DC to the security people, and both times his offer was turned down.
That doesn’t sound like a president bent on overthrowing a government. It sounds like a president bent on protecting the government.
“GB News attracted zero viewers during some of its broadcasts this week, according to official television audience figures produced by rating agency Barb, after a viewer boycott prompted by one of its presenters taking the knee in solidarity with the England football team.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jul/15/gb-news-shows-attracted-zero-viewers-after-boycott-over-taking-the-knee
I don’t know how this man can continue to be put up by skeptics as a reputable scientist…
That is because you wouldn’t recognize one when he or she stared you in the face.
You’re famous for not knowing things griff.
Keep it up.
That’s beneath you griff. If you have a specific criticism why not describe in detail what Willie got wrong, so we can have a grownup discussion.
a grownup discussion
With a Guardianista? Good luck with that.
Don’t de-platform us Guardianistas because we disagree with you. Engage in debate.
They don’t and they won’t.
It’s easy to get banned and I did. I don’t do groupthink.
He didn’t de-platform you, he just declared that having an adult conversation with you was impossible.
Reputable like Mann 😉
If a pure ad hominem is all you have, then you are not worth listening to.
And the Griff slander starts again!
Good grief, gullible Griffy: Can you be even be stupider than that?
Whenever you think griff can’t go any lower, he does.
Character assasination is the last resort of those like Griff, who have no argument.
They can’t beat you with the facts, so they smear your character instead. It’s called “K!ll the Messenger”.
I don’t know why Eric thinks this is beneath Griff, when he does it all the time. Dr. Crockford comes to mind.
Simple. Because he is unlike some others.
I have yet to see anyone put up any evidence that Dr. Soon isn’t a reputable scientist.
I’m sure you will drag out the long disproven lie that Dr. Soon once accepted some money from an oil company.
Of course, if this line of thinking had any merit, every pro-alarmist scientist who was ever accepted any money from a government would be instantly disqualified as well.
I have yet to see anyone put up any evidence that Dr. Soon isn’t a reputable scientist.
I’m sure you will drag out the long disproven lie that Dr. Soon once accepted some money from an oil company.
It’s true. All of Soon’s funding since 2002 to at least 2012 came from fossil fuel interests, according to documents obtained under FOI.
He receives almost no federal funding so is dependent on attracting grants from the private sector. The grants totalled over $1.2 million and have included $409K from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company and $230K from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. He failed properly declare this on several of the papers (or ‘deliverables’ as he amusingly describes them) that were funded by oil and coal interests.
But what of his science? Well, this has been described by Gavin Schmidt of NASA as ‘almost pointless’. He was coauthor on the infamous Soon and Baliunas paper, a study so poor half the editorial board of the journal that made the mistake of publishing it felt constrained to resign at the failure of the review process. He is a proponent of the idea that solar activity is the cause of global warming and CO2 plays a minor role. Let us be kind and just say this puts him in a minority.
More here.
Making it the highest praise possible, considering its source. Gavin Schmidt is the epitome of a laughing stock … even worse than his predecessor.
The Climate Research Unit in England, the home of Hadley temperature data was funded by Royal Dutch Shell … so by your logic it has no value. Th very fact that Dr. Soon is independent of government for his funding proves superior integrity. Government has a far bigger axe to grind than the fossil fuel industry.
Learn some logic!
I don’t know why John Phillips is so against big oil money – Gavin Schmidt has been involved in it for decades, all major climate scientists, activist groups and charities have received big oil money grants at one time or another – some wouldn’t exist without the support of big oil money. It’s universal – to call it out for one individual is the height (or maybe depth) of insanity; are you really that insane, John Phillips?
I have no problem with oil, coal or any corporate funding. But surely we can agree that the sources of such funding should be disclosed? One of Soon’s contracts specifically prohibited him from revealing the name of the company that was paying him, which made the declaration of interests required by most journals somewhat problematic. LOL.
BFD.
Has nothing to do with the truthfulness of his message.
The funding issue is a classic example of ad hominem, where the entire line of attack is to try to discredit the person making the argument, rather than addressing the argument being made. It is often successful as it distracts from the central argument, as can be seen here.
If funding sources are a problem, then that would apply to all research, since it all has to be funded from somewhere.
The issue is more that Soon failed to disclose his funding in 11 journal articles, in contravention of those journals’ ethics standards.
I have also linked to two critiques of his woefully poor science, here and here.
What about all of the climate alarmists that failed to disclose funding from oil companies or foreign governments in their research? Why have they not been held to account on your quest for transparency?
Examples?
Examples? They are so widespread as to be practically universal. Any scientist, activist or organisation receiving money from the Rockefeller charitable foundation or the Soros charitable foundation as both are fossil fuel money (oil and coal mostly). Most of David Suzuki’s money comes or came from his fossil fuel investments. All researchers at Universities across the USA, Europe and UK receive grants from fossil fuel companies. In fact it would be fair to say that the level of climate research would simply not be possible WITHOUT fossil fuel funding in one form or another.
All true, but not examples of ‘climate alarmists that failed to disclose funding from oil companies or foreign governments in their research‘
Bullsh!t!
I notice John has no trouble with “scientists” being 100% dependent on government grants.
Especially when the politicians are making it perfectly clear that they expect the funded scientists to support the party line.
Exactly right.
Correction – the contract was with the Smithsonian not Dr Soon. It’s standard practice with the Smithsonian (and other organisations) not to disclose funding sources, especially for specific enquiry, so as to maintain a certain degree of impartiality with the researchers. Do you have a problem with impartial research, John Phillips?
“ It’s standard practice with the Smithsonian (and other organisations) not to disclose funding sources”
Of course it is not (unless you’re the GWPF, or Heartland). Nearly all journals require potential conflicts of interest, including funding, be declared before publishing research. The Smithsonian itself tightened up its policy in this area after the Soon scandal.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-year-after-a-climate-change-controversy-smithsonian-and-journals-still-seek-balance-on-disclosure-rules/
AGW true believers seem to be in love with logical fallacies. They’d have no arguments at all without them. Phillips is no exception. They always mention the Koch Bros. … but artfully omit that the Kochs also fund PBS programs like NOVA and about 100 universities. They never mention the massive disparity between their public funding and the relatively tiny amout of private funding skeptics receive.
Koch brothers bad, evil.
Soros good.
As always, liberals define good and bad based solely on whether they are benefiting or not.
You’ll notice that the alarmist AGW true believers always support the socialist/Marxist activists over valuable, productive citizens. Soros is the contemporary Maurice Strong with a record of actively trying to overthrow Western society. The Kochs have proven to be model citizens … we can’t have people like that.
This nonsense has been debunked more times then I can count.
The alarmists aren’t smart enough to think up new lies, so they just recycle the old stuff.
More lies from the master of lies.
Heartland received a single grant, several years earlier from a fossil fuel company. That grant was for a dedicated project that had nothing to do with climate change. The grant was also several years prior to Dr. Soon being employed by Heartland.
I love the way you just assume that getting grants from the private sector is disqualifying. Then again you have a long history of assuming government can’t be wrong.
I also love how you just assume that whatever propaganda you alarmists put out must be true and repeat it without pausing to think about how ridiculous your claims are.
Who mentioned Heartland? Not me. The fossil fuel grants arrived via Soon’s employment as an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian, and are fully documented. Just Google it. I didn’t link them to his science: I was just correcting the misinformation that Soon never received oil money, when almost his entire output was in fact fossil-fuel funded.
As to the quality of his science, more here.
The University got the oil money grants. Soon got paid by the University, not the oil companies.
False. Soon does not receive a salary or any funding from the Smithsonian. The outside grants are his only source of research income and were basically commissions for Soon to write specific papers on specific topics, often proposed by him. In the case of work funded by Southern Company he provided a preview copy to his sponsors ‘for comment and input’.
His failure properly to declare funding sources in some published papers triggered an investigation by the Smithsonian Inspector General. Not a good look.
So what? Unless you can show that it affects the outcomes of his research, your comments are no more than the typical ad hominem expected from alarmists. Your entire case is founded on obvious logical fallacies.
I was just correcting Tom Abbott’s misapprehension.
I’ve provided several examples of Soon’s less than rigourous scientific work.
Perhaps lacking rigor to the likes of you, meaning it fails to meet the alarmist low standards of fraudulent pseudo science. However we’re remarking on your ad hominem regarding Dr. Soon’s funding which has nothing to do with rigor. It’s just jealous, personal attack.
You said …
Gavin Schmidt needs to actually disprove that instead of calling it “pointless”. Perhaps you can provide the empirical evidence to help Gavin out … since Schmidt is only good at shooting his mouth off and nothing more. It looks like Soon is right and you people are wrong.
I made no ad hominem attack. MarkW posted this
I’m sure you will drag out the long disproven lie that Dr. Soon once accepted some money from an oil company.
I merely and truthfully pointed out, with evidence, that virtually all of Dr Soon’s research was in fact funded by fossil fuels interests, and on occasions he had been less than forthcoming about this money. I made no adverse inference about his work based on his funding, in fact I specifically wrote ‘ I didn’t link them (the grants) to his science.’
You don’t seem to have read Gavin’s critiques so here is the gist of one of them
…most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.
It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:
“The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic. It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.
Even if the correlations existed at the level Soon claims (and they don’t – see figure), it would still not indicate that CO2 had zero effect, and indeed, it could never do so”
Gavin also demonstrates that if you extend the Soon’s supposed Solar/Temperature correlation, it completely breaks down in more recent years. That’s part of what I meant by Soon’s lack of rigour.
Much the same point was made by Skeptic magazine:
“Soon’s main claim to fame, however, is his interpretation of the historical data of solar radiation on the earth, and his argument that increased solar input explains global warming. This research has been thoroughly debunked many times, mostly because Soon has misinterpreted the data source, misused statistics, and cherry-picks the results that support his predetermined conclusions. More importantly, even if it were true that the solar input were increasing (when it has actually been decreasing for the past 45 years), the difference in the amount of solar radiation is minuscule. It would not make nearly enough difference in the global temperature compared to the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Yet Soon has testified many times that the warming of the earth is due to the sun, not man-made causes, and makes his living now claiming that anthropogenic climate change is not real.”
https://www.skeptic.com/insight/willie-soon-be-gone/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/
That entire method is ad hominem. You merely provide more evidence of ad hominem. What does it matter who provides his funding? It should not be an issue at all.
Apart from your obvious Gish-galloping, there is still no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 is either causing temperatures to rise or causing any harm. Insofar as it was a C&P from Gavin Schmidt, it’s almost certainly filled with nonsense. He’s an annoying gadfly.
Please falsify the null hypothesis for us.
And he’s 100% correct about that. I’ve seen no evidence to indicate otherwise … quite the reverse in fact.
You clearly don’t understand the term. It would be ad hominem if I had said Dr Soon’s work is suspect because of his funding. Can you find where I did that? No, because I did not.
Hilariously, your non-rebuttal rebuttal of Gavin’s critique is pure ad-hom ‘it’s almost certainly filled with nonsense. He’s an annoying gadfly.’
Mike Lockwood is Professor of Space Environment Physics at the University of Reading, he has published nearly 400 papers, mainly on variations in the magnetic fields of the Sun, interplanetary space, and the Earth and solar influence on global and regional climate. His collected lectures were published in book form as The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate. No ‘gadfly’, he quite literally wrote the book. Prompted by the egregious movie the Great Global Warming Swindle – which also posited a solar explanation for GW – he reviewed recent trends in global temperatures and every type of solar activity and published the paper Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Here’s the abstract
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
I look forward to a detailed exposition of where Professor Lockwood (and many others) is wrong and Dr Soon is correct. I’ll wait.
Clearly you are defending the practice of mentioning funding to distract from the argument or discussion. That is ad hominum.
I figure it’s a fair exchange for your appeal to authority. Schmidt’s allegations are no more believable than anything else emanating from NASA. I never even mentioned Mike Lockwood
You can look forward until hell freezes over (since the issue was never about his work) but I’ll look into it when I see your falsification of the null hypothesis. Oh, and BTW please point out the source of energy responsible for warming our planet.
Clearly you are defending the practice of mentioning funding to distract from the argument or discussion. That is ad hominum.
It is not remotely ad hom. Again, I was just correcting MarkW’s false statement.
You can look forward until hell freezes over (since the issue was never about his work)
Thought so. What is the issue exactly, then? Both Schmidt and Lockwood eviscerated the solar/temperature link which is Soon’s go-to hypothesis. (others on request – Eg see also Leif Svalgaard’s writings at this very blog). Your only rebuttal has no substance and consists in full of a personal slur. If only there was a term for that type of fallacious argument 😉
The greenhouse gases we have emitted have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, causing a radiative imbalance. There’s a simple null hypothesis for objects that are absorbing more radiation than they are emitting.
They get warmer.
“There’s a simple null hypothesis for objects that are absorbing more radiation than they are emitting.They get warmer.”
Look around, John. It’s cooling. CO2 Up, Temperatures Down.
Are you actually suggesting that the The Sun is not this planet’s primary source of energy?
You’re dreaming. That’s pure wishful thinking with no supporting evidence. The planet has been warming since the end of the LIA. If humans were the culprit it wasn’t their CO2 that caused it … no correlation. During the 1940s CO2 began to rise, while temps were dropping until the late 1970s. From 1997 to the present, while CO2 rose, there have been two pauses in temperature rise.
Except this planet isn’t getting warmer. It’s cooling.
The Good, the Bad and the Null Hypothesis
By David Middleton
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/
Are you actually suggesting that the The Sun is not this planet’s primary source of energy?
I never said anything resembling that. I showed that the trend in solar activity would actually have produced cooling over the last few decades, when the global trend is actually warming.
You’re dreaming. That’s pure wishful thinking with no supporting evidence.
It is established science, measured by surface sensors and satellites. Willis Eschenbach wrote two articles about it on this very site in the past few weeks.
The planet has been warming since the end of the LIA. If humans were the culprit it wasn’t their CO2 that caused it … no correlation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
During the 1940s CO2 began to rise, while temps were dropping until the late 1970s. From 1997 to the present, while CO2 rose, there have been two pauses in temperature rise.
Do you think if there were no anthropogenic warming, the global temperature plot would be a perfectly level flat line? Of course not. The GHG warming is a gradual trend superimposed on stochastic variability. Yes there are pauses, but if you really think the decadal trend is cooling, there is little anyone can do for you.
“Yet Soon has testified many times that the warming of the earth is due to the sun, not man-made causes, and makes his living now claiming that anthropogenic climate change is not real.”
Yep, just as I thought … the Sun is warming the Earth, exactly as it always has. Nothing has changed. CO2 didn’t warm the planet in the past and it isn’t now. At best it is hypothetically one of the many, many factors which can contribute to warming, but there is no evidence that the human component is doing so at present. Of far more importance are the factors cooling the planet.
Naw, I don’t believe in faerie tales or unicorns. You have no evidence to support such a belief.
I’m not the least bit interested in “decadal” anything. I’m interested in geological trends that show that the planet is cooling. If you believe there is some change from stochastic variability, “gradual” or otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.
Are Government Temperature Graphs Credible?
“Ninety years ago, the New York Times reported unanimous consensus that Earth’s climate was controlled by the sun.”
https://realclimatescience.com/are-government-temperature-graphs-credible/
Now you are just ignoring every assertion I’ve made and inserting your own long-discredited, lame talking points.
Waste of time.
I’m merely correcting your assertions with facts. If you would only try a bit of logic and stop believing the propaganda, your mind might clear. When you begin with a faulty premise your “science” will always be wrong. There is no “climate crisis”.
You English have completely lost the plot. Marxism doesn’t work.
It’s “rigorous”.
Elementary spelling errors do nothing to improve your credibility.
Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination.
– Mark Twain.
I am English, we write ‘rigour’ and ‘colour’ rather than ‘rigor’ and ‘color’. The standard adjective would be ‘rigorous’, but rigourous is also good, if ‘non standard’.
Anything of substance to contribute?
I seem to have touched a nerve with the Phillips troll. Good!
Care to explain why global temperatures actually fell from 1940 to 1980, at a time CO2 concentrations were increasing?
<sigh> John,
1 )where do you think someone who is anti-establishment would get their funding?
2 ) RealClimate often simplifies things to the point of idiocy and often times gets things wrong as well. So can you point to all of those or do you only accept their analysis?
3 ) How many issues are there with the IPCC papers? Are Tornadoes increasing, what about wild fires, what about droughts, what about HURRICANES? Almost all of this is a HISTORIC NOPE.
Look this is not to say CO2 cannot increase temperature. The problem is that the amount of increase and long term effects are based on methods and data that are… Probably incorrect.
Not only that but there are so many issues with the science that I wish more people where at least attempting to poke holes in it.
Now that does not mean that they will always be CORRECT either. Being skeptical means you are skeptical both ways.
Why would CO2 not control the temperature. What if it does?
The truth is there are a myriad of ways to get rid of fossil fuels and the political elite ONLY allow for wind and solar. Which is foolishness.
We have no idea about the long term consequences of moving to Solar and Wind just as we did not know if there were any long term consequences to oil and gas.
Any way. Your point is simply one in which you are trying to get a rise out of others, Mann has been discredited, Hansen has been discredited, Does that make the whole of their work toxic?
Stop it and actually go through the thought process of ‘maybe this is not as bad as being made out’ and see where you get.
“Mann has been discredited, Hansen has been discredited“
I must have missed that memo. Remind me?
“I must have missed that memo.”
You need to read Mark Steyn’s book about Mann. Then you will be up to snuff on Michael Mann. Mark quotes a lot of scientists in his book that are not impressed with Michael Mann or his climate change work.
Steyn ?! Well, I was hoping for something from somebody impartial and vaguely qualified. Hey ho.
“Now, I know a lot of people won’t care. For whatever reasons, a lot of people will love Steyn’s book no matter what. They will continue to love the idea of him providing 120 quotations from “experts” they can use as talking points, no matter what. It won’t matter that some of the quotes weren’t in reference to Michael Mann, his work or anything related to it. It won’t matter that many of the quotes have their meanings distorted due to being heavily quoted mined. It won’t even matter that by my current count, 71 of those 120 quotations qualify as misquotations.”
Brandon S.
err…. you can’t fix stupid.
there always has been only a minority of sensible people.
Co2 is 0.04% of the air chemical inventory.
It’s lucky that plants are smart enough to be able to lock such a tiny amount in at all.
Halve that amount and millions may die of starvation, because very little would grow.
I don’t know
how this man can continue to be put up by skeptics as a reputable scientist…FIFY
Well, I laughed out loud reading that one! I couldn’t help it.
Griff,
Yet you fail to make a credible criticism of this post content, too hard for you perhaps?
Impossible for him.
Global cooling, So the government scientists have invented a global air conditioning system they can tax us for? (sarc)
Well I realize that he tries to speak to a non-scientific audience, but is Soon really doubting the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere?
I thought that the shortening of the free path length of photons at about 15 microns by additional CO2 in the atmosphere is a well established fact and this will affect the atmosphere and the glaciers under it (probably not as much as some alarmists predict, but still it seems to me that Soon is a bit off track here).
Keep in mind not all photons and in fact not most photons. The argument is how much impact does increasing CO2 have on temperature? Does adding one more CO2 molecule to 10,000 air molecules cause runaway warming? It has some impact no doubt, but is it relatively inconsequential or consequential?
No, the average free path length reduces for all photons of that band. The direct warming is expected to be about 1°C for a doubling from 280 to 560ppm if my memory serves me right, which if true will affect the glaciers and polar ice caps, even without the mysterious IPCC feedback.
And my question remains, if Soon denies that, which seems very odd since this seems established science, we know the composition of the atmosphere well enough and we have very good lab data about the addition of CO2 to gas mixtures.
“Expected to be” means model-based, as opposed to reality-based. Can you say “negative feedbacks”? I knew you could.
Established science seems very close to consensus science. I see no reason why it cannot be challenged, especially in the context of the entire planetary atmosphere.
I would be surprised that lab data would give you true insight into a multivariant chaotic system which is the climate. How do they do turbulence in the lab?
Like I said the direct CO2-effect is well understood.
“negative feedbacks”, “turbulence”, “challenge established science”
seem all very OFF topic when it comes to the direct CO2 effect.
Please provide sources for it!
For a good perspective on the whole doubling effect I recommend Willis Eschenbach’s recent post here:
Keeping Things In Balance – Watts Up With That?
A very excellent review of the 3 w/m2 issue in context.
The direct warming is expected to be about 1°C for a doubling from 280 to 560ppm if my memory serves me right
That “expectation” is a purely hypothetical effect, and incorporates a gigantic, vital, and in general, completely ignored assumption – it’s called “all other things held equal.”
Meanwhile, back here in what we call “reality,” those “other things” have never, are not now, and will never be “held equal.”
By the time the Earth’s feedbacks have finished with your hypothetical one degree per doubling of atmospheric CO2, the actual effect will not be distinguishable from zero.
Which is why there is no empirical evidence that supports any such “effect” of atmospheric CO2 on temperature.
You sound confused.
The 1°C per doubling is not “my number” but an empirical value based on measured data, there is no published literature doubting the effect additional CO2 has on the before mentioned average free path length.
It is your feedbacks on the other hand, particularity the strong negative ones you seem to postulate, which are highly speculative.
Any published work on those has dozens of contradictionary published answers.
This makes your argument highly hypothetical.
Do you doubt that additional CO2 reduces the average free path length for all photons of that 15micron band? What is your evidence?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241188961_Water-vapor_climate_feedback_inferred_from_climate_fluctuations_2003-2008
If short of time, just jump to para 23.
“The 1°C per doubling is not “my number” but an empirical value based on measured data”
Do you have a link for that? I’m real curious about this “measured data”.
A good starting point might this be:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
“We get Tnew = 289.1K or a 1.1°C increase.”
(Please note that the HITRAN spectra changes since that web caluclation in 2008 to include cross correlations, to these numbers are about 1% too low.)
I met him as well here in Salt Lake City. He is a very calm and personable man with a reasoned presentation. No wonder he has the arrogant mob of doomsayers gibbering in frustration.
China´s per capita CO2 emission is smaller than that of Germany, even than that of Norway.
And one problem is the virus of oikophobia.
I don’t think it matters what the per capita emissions are when the CO2 molecules are heating the world like an oven (good thing that’s not happening). It’s China’s total that matters. Besides, most of the Chinese live miserable peasant lives so the party members can enjoy a high standard of living.