A failure of self-correction in science has compromised climate science’s ability to provide plausible views of our collective future.
From Issues in Science and Technology
This is an excellent article by Roger Pielke Jr. and Justin Ritchie. Here are some excerpts.
The integrity of science depends on its capacity to provide an ever more reliable picture of how the world works. Over the past decade or so, serious threats to this integrity have come to light. The expectation that science is inherently self-correcting, and that it moves cumulatively and progressively away from false beliefs and toward truth, has been challenged in numerous fields—including cancer research, neuroscience, hydrology, cosmology, and economics—as observers discover that many published findings are of poor quality, subject to systemic biases, or irreproducible.
In a particularly troubling example from the biomedical sciences, a 2015 literature review found that almost 900 peer-reviewed publications reporting studies of a supposed breast cancer cell line were in fact based on a misidentified skin cancer line. Worse still, nearly 250 of these studies were published even after the mistaken cell line was conclusively identified in 2007. Our cursory search of Google Scholar indicates that researchers are still using the skin cancer cell line in breast cancer studies published in 2021. All of these erroneous studies remain in the literature and will continue to be a source of misinformation for scientists working on breast cancer.
In 2021, climate research finds itself in a situation similar to breast cancer research in 2007. Our research (and that of several colleagues) indicates that the scenarios of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the end of the twenty-first century are grounded in outdated portrayals of the recent past. Because climate models depend on these scenarios to project the future behavior of the climate, the outdated scenarios provide a misleading basis both for developing a scientific evidence base and for informing climate policy discussions. The continuing misuse of scenarios in climate research has become pervasive and consequential—so much so that we view it as one of the most significant failures of scientific integrity in the twenty-first century thus far. We need a course correction.
In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense. However, the reality and importance of climate change does not provide a rationale or excuse for avoiding questions of research integrity any more than does the reality and importance of breast cancer. To the contrary, urgency makes attention to integrity that much more important.
Farther in.
The emissions scenarios the climate community is now using as baselines for climate models depend on portrayals of the present that are no longer true. And once the scenarios lost touch with reality, so did the climate, impact, and economic models that depend on them for their projections of the future. Yet these projections are a central part of the scientific basis upon which climate policymakers are now developing, debating, and adopting policies.
The article gives background and history as to how we got here.
Why, then, did the IPCC choose RCP8.5 as its only business-as-usual baseline? Not because it explicitly judged it the world’s most likely or even plausible future, although the designation implies both. Rather, it selected RCP8.5 in part to facilitate continuity with scenarios of past IPCC reports, both SRES and earlier baseline scenarios, so that results of climate modeling research across decades could be comparable. It also chose RCP8.5 to help climate modelers explore the differences between climate behavior under hypothesized extreme conditions of human-caused climate forcing and natural variability. The difference between the high (8.5 W/m2) and low (2.6 W/m2) RCP forcing pathways created, as scenario developers explained, “a good signal-to-noise ratio for evaluating the climate response in AOGCM [atmospheric-oceanic general circulation model] simulations.” The technical requirements of climate modeling, and not climate policy, drove the design of IPCC scenarios.
And.
In our research on the plausibility of IPCC scenarios, we have discovered it is not just RCP8.5 that is implausible, but the entire set of baseline scenarios used by the IPCC. In some ways this is unsurprising. As events unfold in a complex world, even the near-term futures anticipated by scenarios will drift away from reality. As a matter of scientific integrity, however, the reputation of science as a source of uniquely reliable knowledge depends on its internal capacity for self-correction. In the case of the RCPs (as with the example of breast cancer research after 2007), what we are seeing instead amounts to a stubborn commitment to error. This wouldn’t matter if climate scenarios had no implications for the world outside of science. But they lie at the heart of scientific efforts to understand the future of climate change and society’s decisions about how to respond.
The authors sum up the issues very well.
The consequences of pervasive, implausible climate scenarios extend far beyond the IPCC process and the academic literature these scenarios have enabled. A continued focus on implausible emissions scenarios in climate research is a failure of science’s supposed internal quality assurance mechanisms and thus a failure of scientific integrity. The persistent use of implausible scenarios introduces error and bias widely across climate research. They are now woven through the climate science literature in ways that will be very difficult to untangle.
Many of these thousands of published papers project future impacts of climate change on people, the economy, and the environment that are considerably more extreme than an actual understanding of emissions and forcing pathways would suggest is likely. As scientists’ understanding of climate change continues to improve, perhaps scientists will someday conclude that the most extreme impacts are also plausible under lower emissions trajectories. But that is not the consensus at present. And so, with any attempts at scientific nuance lost in technical language, these implausible projections of apocalyptic impacts decades hence are converted by press releases, media coverage, and advocates—as in an extended game of telephone—into assertions that climate change is now catalyzing dramatic increases in extreme events such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods, events that foreshadow imminent global catastrophe.
At the same time, and unsurprisingly, some opponents of climate policies are politically exploiting problems with the IPCC emissions scenarios. Groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London and the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, are highlighting the misuse of RCP8.5 to call into question the quality and legitimacy of climate science and assessments as a whole. But unlike many attacks on climate science, in this case these organizations have a good point.
Implausible climate scenarios are also introducing error and bias into actual policy and business decisions today. For example, the US government derives its social cost of carbon estimates, which it uses for cost-benefit analysis of federal regulations, from the IPCC scenarios. The financial sector also customizes IPCC scenarios for its use. The emerging market for climate scenario products has led to a $40 billion “climate intelligence” industry, involving familiar companies such as Swiss Re and McKinsey, and start-ups such as Jupiter Intelligence and Cervest. These companies are using implausible RCP scenarios to develop various predictive products that they sell to governments and industry, who will depend on these products to help guide policy and business decisions in the future.
I strongly recommend reading the full article here.
A lukewarmer, Judith Curry calls RCP 8.5 “borderline impossible”.
“are grounded in outdated portrayals of the recent past”
With ECS numbers from IPCC #6 even higher than those in #5, the situation is about to get much worse.
If they keep pounding the Shrillness Quotient ever upward, it’s bound to become more persuasive … at least, that’s what the True Believers believe.
Or the lie becomes obvious….
This is not a lie to people like Simon….it just feels right
Outside the error bars. Extremely improbable.
Probable is a traditional standard of science, but is it plausible for modern science?
That’s the thing about models. If you exceed the error bars; the model is broken. Retroactively adjusting parameters to reflect the data doesn’t fix the model.
Even if there were a sudden increase in global temperature to the range of RCP 8.5 doesn’t mean RCP 8.5 is right. Too late, already broken.
RCP 8.5 is not “business as usual”, it’s “China as usual”.
The issue is not the “scenarios,” the issue is that all of the “scenarios” are based on the same falsehood – the notion that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s climate, and the notion that human CO2 levels drive the atmospheric CO2 level. Neither of those notions is well supported scientifically.
Less exaggerated bullshit is still bullshit. What difference does the “scenario” make when the entire premise is nonsense?
Note: Not suggesting that’s what you were saying, it’s just the point that needs to be made in this discussion, because arguing about the “scenarios” is an exercise in tail-chasing.
Perhaps RCP8.5 should be renamed “black swans as usual” instead of “business as usual”?
I have seen estimates that there is not enough mineable coal to meet RCP8.5 assumptions.
If that is true the world is going to have to rely on renewable energy since we will run out of fossil fuels by the end of the century.
“Renewables” in the sense of wind and solar cannot even support the building of wind and solar, let alone industrial society. The greens opposition to nuclear is a combination of anti-war association with weapons and general Luddism. After all, having cheap and abundant power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun, accorrding to Ehrlich.
Hahahaha. “Renewables” are totally dependent on fossil fuels for their manufacture, operation, and delivery. Try making transmission lines (or anything else) with a wind mill.
Pielke Jr. is wrong. The urgency is to de-quackify science, not to “mitigate” the climate with debased tropes.
“de-quackify science”
Love it!
Like most of the other things you know, this to is also untrue.
1) We’ve got several hundred years of oil and gas.
2) We’ve probably got about 1000 years worth of coal.
3) Even when those run out, we’ve got nuclear.
4) There will never be a need to rely on energy sources that don’t work, ie wind and solar.
Mark,
Tom is the one claiming that the world would run out of coal before RCP 8.5 comes true. Are you saying the opposite?
And what happens in your scenario after we run out of Uranium?
Thorium?
”Tom is the one claiming that the world would run out of coal before RCP 8.5 comes true.”
Another words, it will never happen.
My understanding of the claims was that we were to have run out of fossil fuels by the year 2000.
I think the claim is that if humans were able to burn all the available fossil fuels in one big fire, at one time, that this would only increase total CO2 in the atmosphere to about 800ppm or less.
Of course, humans can’t burn it all at once, it will take hundreds of years.
Advanced civilizations would be using nuclear and space-based solar power to power their civilization. A Dyson Sphere is in our future. If we make it that far without destroying ourselves.
It’s simple. The profit motive came to dominate. Which results in piling unnecessary expense on the consumer/taxpayer.
Exactly.
Anaxagoras.
Once upon a not so long ago time published, peer reviewed, main stream, scientific consensus included:
phlogiston,
caloric,
luminiferous ether,
spontaneous generation,
water filled Martian canals,
planet Vulcan,
medical humors,
four elements of matter,
cold fusion……..
And they all turned up wrong.
RGHE theory is going to join them.
I’d add the Piltdown man to that as well…that one (an outright fraud and not just a misunderstanding) persisted for at least a couple of decades.
Then there was the “dinosaurs are huge, slow, cold-blooded, tail dragging lizards” consensus that lasted well into the last century.
The luminiferous aether is making a comeback of sorts in the Higgs’ Field Theory.
I have yet to see any evidence that this is so…
I keep looking out my window. Seasonal changes, no sweat, got those. Otherwise, not seeing it.
What bothers me is how many, under the age of 40, believe that when the temperature hits the 90s in July, in the Mid-Atlantic, that its due to Global Warming. Its not about seeing for them but believing. The propaganda ministry is winning this argument despite the backing of evidence, facts, or the scientific method.
A few years ago I was on a train coming back from Christmas with my family. There were a couple of university students a few seats in front of me and, as we passed a cooling tower of a power station, they both looked at the water vapour and said “pollution”. Some people are stupid and some are ‘educated’ to be stupid. They will come round eventually when they realise they’ve been conned – it’ll take time but it’ll be worth it.
Oh, the angst when they finally discover they have been LIED to by their professors! By then, though,it may be too late!
But will “they” ever actually discover this fundamental truth?
Their reaction is to be expected when they get an indoctrination instead of an education. Part of the reason we find ourselves in the current quandary is the deplorable state of higher education where it has become a money making institution that found it necessary to lower the standards of entry (and advancement) in order to maximize the enrollment and profit.
It won’t be “worth it” if we have to take a wrecking ball to our economy in order to show them what they have been taught is false and the prescribed “solutions” useless.
OR common sense!
“The propaganda ministry is winning this argument despite the backing of evidence, facts, or the scientific method.”
It seems that way. There is no powerful voice telling the other side of the story. The climate change propagandists have the field almost all to themselves.
Almost. 🙂
I am so looking forward to the climate. I just bought a 54-ear-old classic 35-foot sailboat which has in internal wood-burning stove. Lat the cold climate come, I am ready.
Wait, it’s supposed to be warming, right? Anyhow, I am ready for when they are completely wrong, as is more likely the case.
In government and politics, you are doing well to do the opposite or believe the opposite of what they say, which is based always on agenda and not reality.
When you hear politicians like Faustus Fauci claim to follow the science, that is tantamount to him telling you that what he says next is a patent lie.
Roger is still trying to make a massive semi-truck fly by correcting problems in weight distribution and ignoring that the damn thing has no wings.
The solution is simple: Fill the semi’ with canaries, and if it touches the ground, aim for the potholes to shake up the canaries.
Agreed! In my opinion the climate predictions diverged from reality not with RCP 8.5 but with the unsupported assumption that human CO2 is the sole cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 as recorded at Mauna Loa. I think Berry’s analysis of CO2 flux is solid and the human portion is a minor part.
Gregory, you have not seen it because there is no evidence.
Evidently, absence of evidence is evidence…
Neither has anyone else!
Leftists grab hold of ANYTHING they can get their hands on and twist it to strengthen the narrative for “The Cause”, because that is all they know, they FIXATE upon it daily. there needs to be a French revolution and put their cause back 100 years.
Their cause is control over the great unwashed masses as demonstrated the past year and a half with a variant of the common cold.
2021
The consequences of pervasive, implausible climate scenarios extend far beyond the IPCC process and the academic literature these scenarios have enabled.
This should come as no surprise. Professor Stephen Schneider converted from warning of a coming ice age (In Search Of the Coming Ice Age – Leonard Nimoy) in the 1970s to the promotion of man-made global warming fears today.
1996
“On one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.” —Dr. Stephen Schneider, former IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, APS Online, Aug./Sep. 1996
“balance between being effective and being honest.”
That speaks volumes.
“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
And that speaks volumes as well. I would like to say only the obvious activist scientists do this. But it occasionally creeps into actual peer reviewed studies as well.
When the establishment starts to disavow the MSM’s most egregious statements of the coming catastrophe, they will get my trust.
“What the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
They are 100% effective.
Misquotation. People always carefully leave off the last sentence:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Schneider himself wrote about the abuse of his words :
“I expressed my frustration to Jonathan Schell, a Pulitzer-prize-winning writer doing a story on the contentious climate debate for Discover magazine. I guess my first mistake was to be a bit tongue-in-cheek — I painted a stark picture of the opposing viewpoints in the climate change debate: gloom-and-doom stories from deep ecology groups and others versus pontifications on uncertainties from big industry and others, who used that to argue against preemptive action. I complained that even though I always make a point in my interviews to discuss the wide range of possibilities, from catastrophic to beneficial, media stories rarely convey the entire range. All too often, a scientist’s viewpoint is boxed into one extreme or the other. Usually, but not always, I am put in the “it is a big problem” box rather than the “it is too uncertain to do anything” box, even though I acknowledge both perspectives have some plausible arguments.
I tried to explain to Schell how to be both effective and honest: by using metaphors that simultaneously convey both urgency and uncertainty, and also by producing supporting documents of all types and lengths. Unfortunately, this clarification is absent from the Discover article, and this omission opened the door for fifteen years of subsequent distortions and attacks. Ironically, this is the consummate example of my grievance about problems arising from short reports of long interviews.”
Mediarology
You can go to your local library, they still have those, and read the whole article. It’s just a page or two, and yes the “I hope that means both” is there, but all the inferences that it was “tongue in cheek” etc. are not.
In the famous quote, Dr. Schneider lays out the reasons why sensational statements or “scary scenarios” are an option.
A misquotation is a misquotation. I can only recommend people read Schneider’s actual words from the link I posted. Here’s a flavour
” Would you trust a scientist who advises his/her colleagues to use scary scenarios to get media attention and to shape public opinion by making intentionally dramatic, overblown statements? Would you have confidence in his or her statements if the scientist said that “each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”? Understandably, you’d probably be suspicious and wonder what was being compromised.
I confess: those were some of my words, yet their meaning is completely distorted when viewed out of context like this. You will find hundreds of places — especially on the web sites of industrial or economic growth advocates opposed to global warming policies that might harm their or their clients’ interests — in which I am similarly (mis)quoted alongside a declaration that my environmental cronies and I should never be trusted.
I’ll spend a few paragraphs telling you what I really said and why, as I want to illustrate the sorts of pitfalls that will confront a scientist or other expert diving headlong into scientific popularization, media appearances, advocacy, or some combination of these. This example illustrates the risks of stepping from the academic cloister to the wide world out there. A scientist’s likelihood of having his/her meaning turned on its head is pretty high — especially with highly politicized topics such as global warming.”
Dr. Schneider is a text book example of cognitive dissonance in action. He talks about using scary scenarios to be effective and the same time as “hoping” to be honest as well. The use of scary scenarios can only be interpreted as an attempt to galvanize people to action. Yet, in the same breath he talks about uncertainty. If you take action in the face of significant uncertainty, you run a significant risk of spending resources on a non-existent problem, or taking the wrong action. At the very least, you are foreclosing actions on other issues, because there are infinite wants and limited resources. Well, unless you’re a socialist, or a Democrat. But I repeat myself.
“I’ll spend a few paragraphs telling you what I really said and why, as I want to illustrate the sorts of pitfalls that will confront a scientist or other expert diving headlong into scientific popularization, media appearances, advocacy, or some combination of these.”
-Stephen Schneider
Yet he still fails to explain how he justifies his mendacity.
“I’ll spend a few paragraphs”….
…. desperately back pedalling because I’ve been caught out.
All my experience says it is the norm for journalists, reporters of all media, to selectively quote and distort what people say.
It is also quite common for people to come back later from any record and try to make it ‘actually’ say what seems most favorable to themselves.
Yes, most Democrats are quite adept at that trick!
In other words, he’s explaining why lying is supportable, so long as the goal is noble enough.
Inherently, Philips supports the idea that “The end justifies any means.”
The next sentence doesn’t change the meaning of the quoted text.
As usual, your attempts to disguise the ill intents of those you support falls flat.
I am willing to allow that Dr Schneider was truly ambivalent about what he wrote.
I am also convinced, that the Michael Manns and the entire Hockey Team are among the Climate Scientists who have taken that sentence (in or out of context) very literally.
Their decision on the “double ethical bind” is painfully obvious.
You rationalize the obvious endorsement of lying. Only lying half the time, or only telling a half-lie is like trying to only be slightly pregnant. One is either lying or not. You obviously also endorse lying it it advances your religious dogma.
John, a little spoiler for Schneider’s very long and convoluted rationalization of his infamous remark. “Very long and convoluted” is a ‘poker tell’ (and even a psychologists flag) that it is a self-serving rationalization after realizing this remark was defining his legacy as a climate scientist.
The advice he gave scientists in this remark was transformational and a guiding light as it was intended to be. Up to this point, scientists did feel some constraint by the need to be truthful. Schneider set them free. Hey, if we can do away with uncertainties then why can’t we also cook and alter the data to fit the theory we like? It’s like adding a bit of uncertainty which we can ignore.
Good science depends on a scientist feeling frustration on things like large uncertainties. It depends on having strong scepticism on the inside and the outside toward an idea. Schneider swept away the obstacles and he deserves to own this meme as it tumbles down.
Did you read the other day that Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS came clean about models being a way too warm and that we have to do something about this before IPCC comes out with its latest report?
Clearly over the present six years of cooling, the fears of a possible 30yrs cooling that would extend the Pause back to the 1970s wiping out the piddling 1980 to1998 warming that caused all the hype is wearing on their minds.
Misquoted is when the jist of the original talk is changed. Leaving off the last sentence did nothing to change the basic idea of the speaker – that he found it ok to exaggerate the negative climate effects, ignore any positive effects, all to promote himself! All that talk about balance is garbage, and he part of the science death spiral, where climate emergency true believers write climate doomsday porn masquerading as journal articles, that in turn inspire even more outrageous and spurious claims in the next series of reports. And more scary is that it’s driving an even more rabid process in media and politics, that won’t end with a sputter when the climate emergency doesn’t arrive, no because they aren’t paying attention to reality anyway – but end in bloody upheaval like Nazism and Communism.
The difficulty is that if you think you can be effective if you “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts [you] might have” you are by definition offering up a distortion, something incomplete, and something inaccurate. You are seeking to be effective to advance a proposition that is not founded on the exact truth of the matter, which is dishonest. His position is that distortion (effectiveness) and honesty are simultaneously possible.
I get it that we’re human and want good things to occur but if there’s any category of humans who should live and breathe fidelity to facts and method regardless of personal preference it is scientists. They don’t get “boxed in” to any extreme by ill-informed critics (or admirers) if they call it like it is or let the chips fall where they may. You are “vindicated” by absolute fidelity to what is. Period.
“I tried to explain to Schell how to be both effective and honest”
So Schneider wants to be able to lie about the Earth’s climate, yet be seen as being honest.
He’s twisting himself in knots trying to justify his making claims about the Earth’s climate that he cannot back up with any evidence. He has a personal fear of CO2 and feels justified pushing outlawing fossil fuels even though there is no evidence that CO2 is harmful to the Earth’s climate in any way.
It’s not surprising that a scoundrel like Schneider, the man without a moral compass, would try to justify his immoral acts.
Hey, fella, how about just telling the truth? And the truth is you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to humans causing the Earth’s climate to change, whether it’s Human-caused Global Cooling or Human-caused Global Warming. You are wrong on both counts.
Schneider’s lack of morals is shared by many in the climate science community, unfortunately. Lots of lying going on. Lying to themselves, and lying to everyone else. And doing it deliberately, like Schneider. For the greater good, of course. Give me a break!
That is The Science.
In other words, it sounds like he was promoting LIES as the best means to an end.
Stopped reading.
I urge you to reconsider. Imagine that the paragraph had said the opposite – can you appreciate that many of the warmists would have stopped reading at that point? Yet they are the very people that need to read this. I did read the entire article and found it to be a thoughtful, insightful explanation of the development of scenarios. Almost all the content has nothing to do with whether you believe that the world is warming or not; it is primarily focused on the history of the development of the RCP. Understanding those is key to understanding some of what the alarmists are saying and useful information. If some of the alarmists actually read this piece, it may give a few of them pause. Yes I’m probably unrealistically optimistic but I can hope.
It’s hard to see how one can counter unsupported assertions with unsupported assertions.
I dunno. When one says one takes the notion of “human-caused climate change” seriously one is adopting the basic absurdity of the AGW position. Starting out one’s article with an obeisance to absurdity in order not to turn off foolish people seems ineffective to me.
That disclaimer these days has unfortunately become a necessity if you want your paper to be read by alarmists.
I agree. It’s sad but may be necessary.
Well said, Stephen. Pielke, Curry et al have “one foot on the platform, the other foot on the train”. A difficult position, that can only be sustained until the whistle blows. At some point they may have to choose.
In some ways, the position of the self-identified lukewarmers is a mirror image of Schneider’s stance, quoted just up-thread. If they don’t say the shibboleth, they isolate themselves from the “mainstream” and they lose the ear of those who really need to listen (not that any of them seem to be listening). And they probably won’t get published.
Here’s a spectrum from full-on alarmist to full-on denialist. I composed it to put off having to do work
Not a perfect list. There’s a lot of overlap between 5, 6, 7 and 8, which is the space that most sane people occupy.
As always, it’s not about science; it’s never been about science, and you can’t win a scientific debate when your opponent only uses science as window dressing.
Smart Rock wrote:
“Pielke, Curry et al have “one foot on the platform, the other foot on the train”. A difficult position, that can only be sustained until the whistle blows. At some point they may have to choose.”
They’ll choose the platform. That they’ve remained with one foot on the platform and one foot on the train for this long means they’re cowards, and cowards will always choose the safest option… and that is to remain with the prevailing ‘consensus’ opinion.
But forget blowing the whistle, let’s move that train, shall we?
“Trust the science!”, they say… “The science is settled!”, they say… yeah, well, even physicists are wrong sometimes, and the climate activists in white lab coats masquerading as climatologists (which we know as climastrologists) are seemingly intentionally so, seemingly paid to be so in order to push a leftist narrative.
Here’s a modern example of a physicist being wrong. He lost a $10,000 bet.
We’re losing our rights and freedoms. Object lesson: Don’t be wrong.
Carnot erred in assuming that heat is never consumed as work; Clausius erred in attributing ‘heat’ to the energy density of an object (‘heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, ‘temperature’ is a measure of energy density); Kirchhoff in formulating his original version of Kirchhoff’s Law used the term ’emissivity’ when he actually meant ’emissive power’; and Planck erred in clinging to a long-debunked radiative model, and his follow-on assumptions stemming from that led to his treating real-world (graybody) objects as though they radiatively emit willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient.
Planck correctly stated:
Do remember that temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant… it is a measure of energy density.
In other words, Planck correctly stated that energy can only flow (the definition of heat) via conduction if there is a temperature (and therefore an energy density) gradient.
Where Planck erred is in his clinging to the Prevost Theory Of Exchanges (and its core tenet, the Prevost Principle) in regard to radiative energy, which led him to eschew scientific reality (that energy only flows if there is an energy density gradient), to wit:
The long-debunked Prevost Theory of Exchanges (first replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Heat, then by Quantum Thermodynamics) assumed that energy flowed without regard to energy density gradient, because only an object’s internal state determined radiant exitance. This led Planck to make the further incorrect assumption in keeping with the Prevost Theory of Exchanges:
He correctly stated that energy transfer via conduction was predicated upon there being an energy density gradient, but for radiative energetic exchange, he clung to the Prevost Principle (core tenet of the Prevost Theory of Exchanges, a long-debunked hypothesis from 1791 which was predicated upon the long-debunked Caloric Theory and which postulated that radiant exitance of an object was solely determined by that object’s internal state, thus that energy could flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient).
Except the Prevost Principle would only work for an idealized blackbody object, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations. And the object would have to be in an isolated system, and they don’t actually exist… they’re idealizations.
A graybody object’s radiant exitance isn’t solely determined by that object’s internal state, as the S-B equation plainly shows:
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
T = 4^√(e / (4σ / c))
∴ q = ε σ (ΔT^4) A_h
∴ q = ε σ (Δ(e / (4σ / c))) A_h
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1))) * m^2
It is the energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance. The climate loons misinterpret the S-B radiant exitance equation for graybody objects. Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The energy density differential between objects manifests an energy density gradient, each surface’s energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
Thus, the climastrologists cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle (whether they know it or not… and if they don’t know it, then they really have no business being anywhere near anything related to science) when they claim that energy can radiatively flow without regard to energy density gradient… and that leads to all manner of unscientific drivelry… ‘backradiation‘, ‘Global Warming Potential‘, the incorrect usage of the S-B equation in the K-T diagram and even in instruments such as pyrgeometers and FTIR spectrometers, and ultimately in their core narrative: CAGW.
It is all based upon mathematical fraudery, none of it is correct, none of it is physical, none of it is scientific. CAGW is nothing but a complex mathematics-based scam. It is little more than a rigged mathematical game of thimblerig, and few are quick-witted enough to catch the climastrologists palming the pea as they shuffle the thimbles.
1) The climate loons are, as usual, provably diametrically opposite to reality.
———-
The climate loons misuse the S-B equation, using the form meant for idealized blackbody objects upon graybody objects:
q = σ T^4
… and slapping ε onto that (sometimes) …
q = ε σ T^4
Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all graybody objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used to subtract a fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the incorrectly-calculated and thus too high ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used to subtract cooler object energy density (temperature is a measure of energy density, the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant) from warmer object energy density. Radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon the energy density gradient.
Their problem, however, is that their take on radiative energetic exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their insane take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?
They cite Clausius out of context… Clausius was discussing a cyclical process by which external energy did work to return the system to its original state (for irreversible processes), or which returned to its original state because it is an idealized reversible process… except idealized reversible processes don’t exist. They’re idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
So the climate loons are forced to either ignore entropy completely, or to claim that radiative energetic exchange is an idealized reversible process… it’s not, and that completely disproves their blather.
Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
———-
2) CO2 isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a net atmospheric coolant at all altitudes except a negligible warming at the tropopause.
———-
That’s from an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.
That’s from the Clough and Iacono study.
Gee… adding more of the predominant upper-atmospheric radiative coolant causes more emitters per unit volume, which causes more emission per unit volume, which causes more emission to space, which causes a larger loss of energy from the system known as ‘Earth’, which causes cooling… who knew? LOL
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.
Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The environmental lapse rate would necessitate that the surface also warms, given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to any given wavelength of radiation).
The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…
… which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.
The chance of any N2 or O2 molecule colliding with water vapor is ~3% on average in the troposphere, and for CO2 it’s only ~0.0415%. Logic dictates that as atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases, the likelihood of N2 or O2 colliding with it also increases, and thus increases the chance that N2 or O2 can transfer its translational and / or vibrational mode energy to the vibrational mode energy of CO2, which can then shed that energy to space via radiative emission. (And yes, t-v and v-v collisional processes do occur from N2 to CO2… if you doubt me, I can post the maths and studies which prove it.)
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the ~95.94 – 99.74% (depending upon humidity) of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space.
So can anyone explain how increasing the concentration of the major radiative coolant gases (H2O, CO2) in the atmosphere (and thus increasing the likelihood that Ar, N2 and O2 will transfer their energy to those radiative coolant gases and then out to space via radiative emission) will result in more ‘heat trapping’, causing global warming? I thought not.
———-
3) Water vapor isn’t a ‘global warming’ gas… it acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause.
———-
You know, the refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it emits radiation to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K / km).
The effective emission height is ~5.105 km.
7 – 13 µm: >280 K (near-surface).
>17 µm: ~260 – ~240 K (~5km in the troposphere).
13 – 17 µm: ~220 K (near the tropopause).
The emission profile is equivalent to a BB with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.
The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K. That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, it’s the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate loons have conflated the two.
Polyatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) reduce the adiabatic lapse rate (ALR), not increase it (dry ALR: ~9.81 K / km; humid ALR: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km) by dint of their higher specific heat capacity and/or latent heat capacity convectively transiting more energy (as compared to the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics), thus attempting to reduce temperature differential with altitude, while at the same time radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than they can convectively warm it… they increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink… they are coolants.
9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K (dry adiabatic lapse rate, due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.
Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (CO2) contribute to cooling, to a lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface.
Also remember: the atmosphere is stable as long as actual lapse rate is less than ALR… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces ALR… thus convection increases.
That’s kind of why, after all, CO2 isn’t used as a filler gas in double-pane windows… if it was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, it’d be used as such. It’s not. Low DOF, low specific heat capacity monoatomics generally are.
———-
4) Empirical examples:
———-
In fact, the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram…
… does exactly as I stated… it treats a real-world (graybody) surface as if it were an idealized blackbody object, with emission to 0 K ambient and ε = 1. That’s the only way that diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance.
That’s proof-positive that they’ve misused the S-B equation to fit their narrative. Had they used the actual emissivity, they couldn’t have arrived at 390 W m-2 (see below), and had they used the proper form of the S-B equation for graybody objects, they’d not have even gotten close to 390 W m-2 (see below).
Their use of the wrong formula increases radiant exitance of graybody objects far above what it actually is:
… which necessitates that they carry those incorrect values through their calculation and subtract a fictional ‘cooler to warmer‘ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus too high) ‘warmer to cooler‘ energy flow.
Thus, some of the loons come to believe that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer‘ (the basis of their ‘backradiation‘ blather). This violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense… energy cannot flow from lower energy density to higher energy density without external energy doing work upon the system to push that energy against the energy gradient. Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object.
The equation for the radiation energy density is Stefan’s Law and a is Stefan’s constant.
e = aT^4
∴ T = 4^√(e/a)
In other words, temperature is equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s constant. It is a measure of energy density.
Keep in mind that Stefan’s constant above equals 4σ/c (which is sometimes known as the radiation constant), and ε is the emissivity modifier for graybody objects.
Which is why: U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
This agrees with Planck’s Law: ρ(T) = aT^4 = T^4 4εσ/c, when including the graybody emissivity modifier ε.
The S-B equation integrates Planck’s Radiation Formula (which calculates the energy density for a given wavelength) over all wavelengths.
F = U – TS
Where:
F = Helmholtz Free Energy
U = internal energy
T = absolute temp
S = final entropy
TS = energy the object can receive from the environment
If U > TS, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
U = T^4 4εσ/c
The above formula is the Stefan-Boltzmann relation between energy density and temperature.
If ΔU = 0, then (ΔU * c/4εσ) = 0, thus no energy can flow.
U has the same physical units as pressure (J m-3) and U ∝ T. That is radiation pressure, which sets up the energy density gradient.
Free energy is defined as the capacity to do work. If U = TS, p_photon = u/3 = p_object, energy cannot flow because no work can be done. Helmholtz Free Energy is zero. Photon chemical potential is zero.
So in the real world, the energy density gradient determines radiant exitance, energy does not flow willy-nilly without regard to energy density gradient and 2Lot applies always and everywhere.
———-
Upside down, backwards, inside out and diametrically opposite to reality… the natural state of every single liberal. Almost as if there’s something wrong with their brains. LOL
I’m going to need to read this again with tomorrows morning coffee. I may follow up with what seems to be the consensus that a photon can leave the ground surface at say 140F yet when it is emitted at the upper atmosphere at a lower temp it supposedly has less energy. But if it gets re-emitted back to the surface it will gain energy on the way back down, (????)
Some additional reading material for you…
The climate tardlings misuse the S-B equation to show that the surface emits anywhere from 390 – 396 W m-2…
…to do so, they must use the form of the S-B equation meant to be used for idealized blackbody objects, and they must treat a real-world object as though it’s an idealized blackbody object (emission to a 0 K ambient), just with emissivity <1 (sometimes… other times, they treat graybodies exactly as idealized blackbodies)…
Their misuse of the S-B equation inflates radiant exitance far above what it actually is for all objects, necessitating that they carry that error forward through their calculations and cancel it on the back end, essentially subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but calculated incorrectly and thus far too high) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow… which leads especially scientifically-illiterate climate loons to conclude that energy actually can flow ‘cooler to warmer’ (a violation of 2LoT and Stefan’s Law).
So, given that we know that convection and evaporation accounts for 76.2% of all surface energy removal…
… and given that the climate tardlings claim the surface to emit 390 – 396 W m-2 via radiant exitance, we can calculate the amount of energy removed from the surface (and ultimately emitted out to space) by convection and evaporation, according to the unscientific climate tardlings:
390 / ((100 – 76.2) / 100) = 1638.6555 W m-2 energy removed from the surface via convection / evaporation.
So total energy removal from the surface, according to the unscientific climate tardlings is:
1638.6555 + 390 = 2028.6555 W m-2
Now, if a surface was able to radiatively emit that amount of energy (no convection, no evaporation), it would need (according to the form of the S-B equation the climate tardlings use, meant for idealized blackbody objects but which they use on graybody objects) the following temperature:
Assumptions:
1) emission to 0 K (just as the climate tardlings use)
2) emissivity of 0.93643 (ref: NASA ISCCP program)
442.11142377459703 K
-or-
336.1305627942746 F
-or-
168.961423774597 C
Now, if we properly use the S-B equation for graybody objects, and assume a sane (but arbitrarily chosen) atmospheric temperature of 255 K, we get:
… a surface temperature of:
453.86646334028137 K
-or-
357.2896340125063 F
-or-
180.7164633402813 C
As can be proven mathematically, the climate loon take on reality is so wrong as to be laughable.
We know that solar insolation at the atmosphere/space interface is ~1360.9 W m-2 TOA.
If we convert the K-T diagram:
…to percentages:
((77 / 342) * 100) = 22.514619883040935672514619883041% Reflected by Clouds, Aerosol and Atmosphere
1360.9 * 22.514619883040935672514619883041% = 306.4014619883040935672514619883 W m-2 Reflected by Clouds, Aerosol and Atmosphere
That leaves 1360.9 – 306.4014619883040935672514619883 = 1,054.4985380116959064327485380117 W m-2
((67 / (342 – 77)) * 100) = 25.28301886792452830188679245283% Absorbed by Atmosphere
1,054.4985380116959064327485380117 * 25.28301886792452830188679245283% = 266.60906432748538011695906432748 W m-2
That leaves 1,054.4985380116959064327485380117 – 266.60906432748538011695906432748 = 787.88947368421052631578947368422 W m-2
((30 / (168 + 30)) * 100) = 15.151515151515151515151515151515% Reflected by Surface
787.88947368421052631578947368422 * 15.151515151515151515151515151515% = 119.37719298245614035087719298246 W m-2
That leaves 787.88947368421052631578947368422 – 119.37719298245614035087719298246 = 668.51228070175438596491228070176 W m-2
So on a cloudless day at noon, the surface must be absorbing 668.5123 W m-2.
We can calculate the temperature:
So if there were no convection or evaporation, the temperature would rise to 360.1186689 K or 86.9686689 C or 188.54360402 F.
But convection and evaporation remove ~76.2% of surface energy:
…leaving only:
(668.51228070175438596491228070176 * ((100 – 76.2) / 100)) = 159.10592280701754385964912280702 W m-2
… which surface radiation can remove. The rest is removed via convection and evaporation.
And if we calculate for that amount of surface radiant exitance, we get:
291.5444322902133 K
– or –
18.3944322902133 C
– or –
65.10997812238394 F
Gee… that looks pretty real-world, no? LOL
Very interesting list, and I’m onboard with your observation that the debate isn’t really about science.
I’ll choose number 7.
Let’s just review the last few months and see what sort of climate scenarios are playing out…
5 heatwaves in the USA/Canada, including new record temperatures more than 5C over previous, plus baked marine life; a 1 in 1,000 year US drought; heatwaves and record fires in Siberia; record heatwave in Lapland; record temperature on W Greenland coast; top 3 record melt day for Greenland; heatwave in E Europe and Russia, with unprecedented tornado in Czech Republic;
Record summer flooding in Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and Netherlands – new rainfall record, months of rain in a day; extreme flooding event in china, year of rain in 3 days; exceptional Indian monsoon rains;
Wildfires across the Mediterranean – Sardinia, Sicilly, Greece and Turkey (record fires and 40C heatwave); heatwave in Iran and other middle East countries.
Arctic Sea ice at 6th lowest for date.
All a coincidence? Certainly not seen in the last century.
Those are the climate scenarios, exactly as predicted by climate science.
Ha, ha, ha Griffter…
As his world falls even further apart, the griffter gets ever more bitter.
Sometimes the only appropriate response is to point and laugh.
Griffy-poo, you are REALLY DOING IT TOO BROWN this time, you sap!
The drought that caused the Dust Bowl in the USA’s southwest was worse than THIS temporary aberration called weather and LASTED FAR, FAR LONGER THAN THIS SPELL OF BAD WEATHER, y’sap! LOTS LONGER!!!!
What you don’t know is a BIG LOT of stuff.
Grow up, willya? You are only letting everyone know that you live in an empty mayonnaise jar.
Everything was predicted by climate science.
And yet we still aren’t dead.
Yet after al gores projections failed to happen, but he got very rich off them, we have the bartender, AOC, scaring the gullible into believing our world is going to end in less than 10 years. 🙄
Go do some honest historical research and see what you find …. Climate is not weather to which you refer.
Griff doesn’t do honest. He believes!
There goes Griffie-poo again, confusing weather with climate. Some things will never change.
He does seem to struggle with cognitive dissonance.
He struggles with cognitive, period.
“Record summer flooding in Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and Netherlands”
it was a once in a century flood, a hundred year ago the gauge network wasnt that dense to be able to record this concentated rain. The Ahr valley floods every century catastrophically.
This should be more correctly stated “The Ahr valley has flooded catastrophically numerous times before, and has a one in 100 chance of having such a flood every year.”
Well Griff, what happened to the global temperature over the “last few months”? It has fallen considerably. According to your logic more cooling should then lead to even more heat waves. Eventually, we would have almost continual heat waves and glaciation at the same time.
The fact you don’t see a problem with your logic is quite hilarious.
Snow in Brazil, vineyards in France destroyed by cold, extreme cold and blackouts in Texas. Weather has always happened and the griffter will always be an idiot.
None of that is true, as you well know, Griff.
Pure alarmist tripe. Seems you are making stuff up while leaving out the snow in Curitiba, Brazil and many other cold events. Speaking of last century, the record-recorded high temp in Oregon was 119f in Pendleton in 1898. Let me help you with the math: 2F hotter 123 years ago. Like the article suggests, you really need to be more careful passing on bad info.
In griff’s world, record highs, are proof of global warming, even more record lows are just weather.
In griff’s world, heat waves are proof of global warming, cold events is just weather.
In griff’s world, floods are always records, even when there have been bigger ones in the past.
In griff’s world, wildfires didn’t happen 20 years ago.
In griff’s world, the arctic didn’t exist before the satellite era, and the antarctic still doesn’t exist.
Is everything you listed a coincidence? Absolutely.
And if you would bother learning the first thing about statistics and science, you would know why.
So called climate science predicts everything. Heat waves, cold snaps, drought, flood, everything. So is it surprising that no matter what happens, climate science predicted it? No.
In Griff’s world, if it hasn’t happened before in his life time, than it has never happened before. Wonder if he is aware that earth history covers some 4.5 Billion years.
Even things that actually have happened in what I presume is Griff’s lifetime, apparently didn’t happen (in his mind).
“We’ve always been at war with EastAsia”
Griff loves big brother.
Ok comrade, no one believes your alarmist BS.
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/08/agu-floods-in-germany-and-china-caused-by-global-warming/
If this is a 1 in 1000 year drought in the US, I would hate to see what it looks like when it is rainy. Where I live in Michigan, we’ve been inundated with water and cold weather. My air conditioner and sprinkler systems have been off for most of the summer. What a great way to save money. I think, Griffiepoo, that you should take a look at your data and see what is really happening. There may be some areas with a drought, but there are other areas with a lot of rain in the US. I can’t say anything about the other “facts” you mentioned, but I am sure they are just weather conditions cherry-picked for a sound bite. If you believe all the temperatures of all locations for an entire year can be averaged into a meaningful number, then maybe you should do the same with rainfall, wildfires, flooding, etc. I think your averages will be quite average.
Your unusefull and wrong comment dosn’t worth any further answer.It’s lost energy to try to convince a true believer of lies, unable to see facts or the reality and full of missing knowledge of any basics.
Only 6th lowest? So you mean sea ice is growing? Great news! And heat waves on the northern hemisphere? Yeah, it’s summer. Aren’t you the first to say “weather isn’t climate” when the weather doesn’t fit your narrative?
Griff, that’s all examples of weather that have been happening all around the globe since the earth began. None of it is unusual.
Yes, Griff could have made the same claim about any year he chose. There’s always extreme weather going on somewhere on Earth, and it was going on before CO2 became an issue.
The “Climate Science” kown for “correct predictions” following your words “predicted”
in Jan or Feb 2021 as a year of drought, the forth in a row in Germany.
😀 – wrong
The “Climate Science” kown for “correct predictions” following your words “predicted” in 2019 that we will see an El Niño in late 2020.
😀 – wrong again, even twice, because 2021 La Niña is ante portas again 😀
Don’t be angry to be seen as an usefull idiot of the warmistas.
Seaice lost ??? 😀 will you show us the lost ?
Arctic
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Antarctic
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
“…unprecedented tornado in Czech Republic.” – except for the ones in 2018, 2017, 2013, 2005, 2004, 2001 and those are just the ones in this century. Europe has a long history of tornadoes – most countries seem to get the odd one occasionally. Not rare, not unprecedented and not climate change. You need to look elsewhere for your signs of the coming apocalypse you poor deluded fool.
Griff has the historical perspective of a gnat. A young one at that.
If you have read the comments on those statements here for the last few weeks, you know those are all lies. If you keep posting this nonsense, but don’t read the rebuttals, shame on you. As just one example, the flooding in Germany is in no way a “record”. Just go back a few posts and see the pictures on the German walls showing how much higher many of the previous floods were. I’m not going to comment on the rest of your false statements, as we all know propagandists like yourself are impervious to actual facts, so doing so would be a total waste of time.
100 years…WOW! That’s a loooooooong time…..so what has happened in the years, centuries and millennia before the last century?
I can’t remember one year without fires in Mediterranean regions. So why is it an exception this year ?
Around 90% are human caused
In Southern France, where most wildfires occur, the fire size has never exceeded 6744 ha since 1991, whereas mega-fires have burned huge areas in other Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Portugal. It was interesting to find out what main factors drove the ignition of the largest fires that had occurred in this region of France.The study was carried out using the forest fires database Prométhée that records all fires occurring in the 15 départements of Southern France since 1973. However, the records preceding 1997 are not reliable, only the 1997–2010 period was investigated.Less than 1% of the fires (N = 260) recorded during this period were equal or larger than 100 ha whereas 78% of the fires were smaller than 1 ha. However these large fires accounted for 78% of the burned area and 66% of these fires occurred during the summer (July–August). The number of large fires and the burned area per year and per département were calculated and the proportions of fires causes were determined.In each département, the impact of different explanatory variables (land-cover, topographic, climatic or socio-economic) on the number of large fires and on the size of the burned area was investigated using multivariate and regression analyses.Results showed that high shrubland and pasture covers, high population and minor road densities as well as dryness in fall to spring were positively linked to the number of large fires whereas high forest cover, ruggedness, wetness in fall to spring were negatively linked to this parameter. High wildland vegetation cover, especially shrubland, wetness in fall–winter, dryness in summer during a long period, high unemployment rate and tourism pressure were positively linked to the burned area whereas wetness in summer, high farmland and pasture covers and high population density were negatively linked to this parameter. However, only shrubland cover and ruggedness were significant descriptors of both fire occurrence and burned area.The départements the most affected by such fires were those situated in the eastern part of the region, on the Mediterranean coast and the main fire cause was arson.
What causes large fires in Southern France (2013)
Jennifer Balch, a wildfire ecologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, has examined just how big a role people are playing in starting wildfires in the United States. Nationwide, humans are responsible for starting 84% of wildfires, according to a paper co-authored by Balch, published this past March in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In California, the eastern United States, and the coastal Northwest, people are behind more than 90% of wildfires. And, by starting so many fires, humans are essentially lengthening the fire season, into times of the year when natural causes—such as lightning—don’t play a major role.
Who is starting all those wildfires? We are (2017)
Abstract.
Forest fires burn an average of about 440,000 ha each year in southern Europe. These fires cause numerous casualties and deaths and destroy houses and other infrastructures. In order to elaborate suitable fire-fighting strategies, complex 10interactions between humanand environmental factors mustbe taken into account. In this study, we investigated thespatio-temporalevolution in burned areaover a 50-year period (1970-2019) anditsinteractions between topography (slope inclinationand aspect)andvegetationtypein south-easternFrance by exploitingGeographic Information Systemdatabases. Burned area decreased sharply after1994, with the advent of the new fire suppression policy which focusedon rapid extinction of fires in their early phase. Thegeographic distribution of burned area hasalso changedin the last 25 years, mainlyin regionswhere 15large fires occurred (Vardepartment). In other parts,even though forest fires are still frequent and occurinthe samegeographic locations,the total extent of the burned area is significantly reduced.Slope orientation presents an increasingly important role every decade, S-facing slopes have the greatestburned areas and increase their proportion each decade, while the opposite is observed for N-facing and W-facing ones. Fire increasingly favorslow and intermediate slopesafter the sharpdecreaseof burned area in1990.The largest part of the BA is strongly associated with the location of sclerophyllous vegetation clusters,20which exhibit high fire proneness while simultaneously expandingthe region. On the contrary, natural grasslandnumbers decline through timeasthe proportionof area burned increases.
Environmental Factors AffectingWildfire Burned Area InSouth-Eastern France, 1970-2019
Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world
Again:
So why is it an exception this year ?
Around 90% are human caused
Stephen Schneider, the one who thinks it is OK to spruik scary scenarios and lie if necessary, wrote that the world warmed by 0.6 degC from 1880 to 1940 and he wrote that humans did not cause that temperature rise (and the IPCC agrees). We have had (based on adjusted data) about the same temperature rise since 1940. So why is it not possible that the latter temperature rise is all natural, or 1/2 natural? Griff, a single equation with 2 unknowns has no unique solution. If it is only half natural then it is pointless reducing emissions because eventually the natural warming will get us to the point of our supposed hell on earth.
“Stephen Schneider, the one who thinks it is OK to spruik scary scenarios and lie if necessary, wrote that the world warmed by 0.6 degC from 1880 to 1940 and he wrote that humans did not cause that temperature rise (and the IPCC agrees).”
Yes, and the temperatures cooled substantially from the 1880’s to the 1910’s, and then warmed again from the 1910’s to the 1940’s.
What I’m getting at is the warming from the 1880’s to the 1940’s was not a straight line. The climate cooled for decades in between the two dates, just like the climate cooled for a few decades after 1940, and then the temperatures started warming again in the 1980’s to the present, which is no warmer now than in the 1930’s.
Up and down, up and down, the climate temperature profile goes, in a cyclical manner. And the bottoms and the tops stay within a certain range.
You’ve outdone yourself; this level of stupid should be made illegal.
Did you see that analysis from Cliff Mass showing that “ human-caused global warming played a very small role in the extreme heat event that we just experienced here in the Pacific Northwest” ?
It seems fairly obvious that the more away from the local average a weather behaves, the that anomaly has a global cause.
Cliff Mass doesn’t know whether Human-caused Global Warming played any part in the heat event. He’s just guessing. He is assuming things not in evidence, but implying there is evidence. If this were a court of law, and he claimed he had evidence he didn’t have, then he would be thrown out of court by the judge.
If CO2 results in net cooling of the atmosphere, then how can this be tied to an overheating event?
Cliff doesn’t know whether CO2 net cools the atmosphere, he thinks it is just the opposite, but cooling of the atmosphere is a possibilty, that can’t be dismissed by honest people.
Muller claims a two-percent increase in cloudiness will offset all human-caused CO2 warming, and he was figuring on an ECS of about 1.8C.
So Cliff Mass doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to CO2. He’s just guessing like all the other alarmists.
Fixed it for you. There is zero science behind blaming any weather on “climate change.” I don’t care how many times they draw the dotted line and claim “bad weather” is “climate related,” that’s just for fools like you who believe in bullshit.
From article:”In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, …”
No need to read whole article. If what he thinks is real why are there not addendums to thermodynamic specific heat tables for air and CO2 showing the energy needed to raise temperature with and without IR.
Mr. Kelly: What I think you are confusing is the “facility” or “ease” with which CO2 accepts (or rejects) energy, and not on the fact that the value of Cp is dependent (at the molecular level) only the number of degrees of freedom available for energy excitation…
“…we emphasize explicitly & unequivocally that human caused climate change is real, that it posed significant rusk to society & the environment…”
If they accept all that, what then do they mean by “implausible scenarios”. That quote is itself the implausible scenario.
I suppose that the extra crop yields from CO2 fertilisation will lead to significant rusks. 😉
But the additional plant growth creates more shade, and everybody knows it is colder in the shade! Pretty soon we will have hurricane force winds toppling supertrees, able to demolish tall buildings with a single crash. Al Gore is sure to make a movie about this, undoubtedly to be titled “Little Planet of Horrors!”
climate policy is based on science fiction
Not fiction. fantasy.
So in other words, charlatans and True Believers are making too much money from peddling obviously exaggerated and increasingly shrill predictions that everybody who really does know knows are false and misleading.
Since none of this politically driven crap was ever attached to reality how could it have lost touch with it? Climate science has to be retaken from the political left who have hijacked it to drive their political agenda.
Climate “Science” has been irremediably discredited and ruined by the CAGW farce. We must rescue Climatology (a once honest and empirical discipline) from the Green fanatics and Globalists.
Don’t use that word! You will be labeled an L Ron Hubbardite and Tom Cruise will come over and jump up&down manically on your couch. 😉
I believe it is a more general problem, not limited to climate science. Government funding for science has always generated jokes and Golden Fleece awards for laughable research. I remember one study of passengers on Australian long-haul flights, changing caps on salt shakers with different numbers and sizes of holes to see how passengers would react, and included observations of how many times passengers used forks to make the holes bigger.
I believe all this excess funding has resulted in generations of scientists who are desperate to find anything possible to research, no matter how pointless and meaningless it is. The soft “sciences” are clearly the worst. and not just responsible for wasting money, but responsible for all this woke nonsense and the fake studies that go with it.
If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. So we get more fake science and useless degrees. I won’t be surprised if student debt magically disappears some day too.
From the article:
A policy is a prediction.
Good starting point.
A major problem with climate models is how they are designed to operate. Rather than trying to forecast what climate will likely do (like hurricane models do) they are designed to predict what could happen. One is practical science, the other is theoretics.
Reset climate model run start points to actual observed data (satellite, balloon) and results closer to reality will be produced. The models will still be crap, but with every iteration the wild divergences from reality, like we see in the CMIP graphs, will disappear (short term) and the models’ wild deviations from historical trend will make it apparent that the models are useless. That’s obvious to the discerning eye now from looking at the CMIP graphs, but incorporating realtime feedback would make it even more obvious because year after year the models will be shown to utterly fail.
Imagine if hurricane forecasters operated as climate scientists do. They’d be laughed out of the business. Climate scientists are immune from opprobrium because they’re exempted from tying their models to reality.
Anyone can make a prediction about hurricane frequency in 2100.
What does running models and predicting the future have to do with science? Science is supposed to be the process of learning how the world works, not influencing policy.
It has a lot to do with the future if you want to plan for where a hurricane is going to go.
If you learn how the world works, you’ll have all the information you need to work that out (approximately – weather is chaotic after all).
The main problem, which is buried in the weeds, is that the background assumptions of virtually all “scenarios” don’t take in the whole picture.
The problem is mainly the Vostok ice cores and the tale they tell of the long term, the the ebb and flow of glaciations. While they are cyclical they aren’t bound as something like aerodynamics is. Almost anyone interested can demonstrate the basics of aerodynamics on the kitchen table. The ice core data shows that the causes and periodic history of the glaciations is anything but regular, defined, and caused by just a few parameters.
The end of the last glaciation was about 10,000 years ago. The simple periods in the ice cores show about 20,000 years between glaciations, except for one interglacial which devolved into 20,000 years with some 10 variations about 2000 years long that never reached either of the extremes of a warm, happy interglacial or a freezing cold, huge glaciation.
By all measures “climatology” is such an infant science it cannot pretend when mankind will take its first steps towards an understanding that can explain the fossil record.
Any effective discussion of climate has devolved into arguments about details about which we know nearly nothing. The majority of scientists seem to be middle of the roaders who will say pretty much whatever answer is currently politically desired. A few try do real research on a shoestring.
We, as scientists, must try to turn the discussion back to reality- we don’t have a clue to what is going on. CO2 is a prime example. We do know that it has varied from 250ppm, which nearly killed off much life, and 2000 ppm plus super-tropical conditions from deserts to extensive seas that birthed the thousands of dinosaur species.
We barely have a handle on where to go next.
Try 7000 ppm. 2000 ppm was exceeded by a factor of 2 during an ice age too.
“we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense.”
I can’t get past this line. How can you say this if all the research and data have been hopelessly compromised for political and ideological purposes? Wouldn’t the appropriate scientific response be that it ‘may’ be a risk that requires action, but we can only evaluate that decision with truthful analyses? In any case, forget about scenariosvand modeling, what exactly in the world of reality in the past 30 years leads you to think that it poses significant risks? 30 years is long enough to prove your case without leaning on future scare stories.
When statements like this are made, or somebody tells me they “believe the science,” I can’t help but immediately hear the song “I believe in Santa Clause” from the Christmas claymation move “The Year Without a Santa Clause.”
“In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense”
Unfortunately, There is no evidence for this statement. CO2 is a coolant and cannot and will not warm the climate. Other human activities have only local climate effects and do not do anything dangerous to anyone or anything. This, unfortunately is the money phrase, paying obeisance to the CO2 scam.
David Middleton can testify to this, I have been studying geology and in the rock strata record we see the water rising and falling repeatedly, coal then sandstone then limestone over and over.
”In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment”
Where is the empirical evidence for this assertion? There is none.
This article has a problem starting at
‘ In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense. However ……..’
Unfounded claims, that they had to make in order to be able to say
‘but please keep the funding coming’
Dr. W. Soon has predicted a 20 to 30 year period of cooler weather ahead of us.
What if he’s right, and they’re ALL WRONG????
Well, worst case scenario is that crop growing seasons will be shorter, depending on where those crops are located, which means that measures will have to be taken to offset the shorter growing seasons, right? As crops range in every variety from watermelon, peas, string beans, cucumbers, tomatoes, and sweet corn and strawberries to wheat, hard kernel and high fructose corn, hard beans, oats and soybeans, it’s entirely possible that new cold-hardy varieties will have to be developed to fill the grocery store shelves, never mind what effect this will have on livestock and poultry.
2nd part of worst case scenario might just well be what I am experiencing now: cooler than average summer temperatures, less rain, and shortened warm seasons, in addition to a higher potential for earlier and much heavier snows, with the snow lines further south (or north, if you’re in the southern hemisphere) than we now consider to be normal. If that seems silly, try looking at photos of snow levels posted last fall and winter into spring, and dig up how much snow fell in the Middle East (Jordan, the Saudi peninsula, etc.) and how much fell on the ski resorts in the Atlas Mountains in Morocco as well as the desert below those mountains last year (2020).
Just saying, what we take for granted now can quite easily be yanked away from us, which is something the ecohippies and their enablers do NOT understand.
Gee whiz, even Mars has seasons, as does Saturn’s moon Titan. There is no steady state anywhere in this universe, never mind on this planet, and that scares the cracker crumbs out of the ecohippies and their ilk.
Already happening ! France lost much of it’s wine crop with a very late frost last spring. Now there are reports of the Winter Wheat crops in the US being decimated by the cold weather. And this is just the beginning, with the worst of the GSM yet to come over the coming decades.
Thank you for the updates on those!
The winter wheat crop in the U.S. was hampered by cooler-than-normal soil temperatures, which hampers growth, and then there is a lot of wet weather, that keeps the farmers out of the fields at times. Still ongoing.
The farmers cut down the hay at certain times, and then allow it to grow back up high again, and then they cut it agan, and repeat. This year the claim is that farmers will get one fewer cutting of the fields because of the wet weather and cold start.
This applies to the south-central U.S.
“As scientists’ understanding of climate change continues to improve, perhaps scientists will someday conclude that the most extreme impacts are also plausible under lower emissions trajectories. But that is not the consensus at present.”
The article gives excellent insight into the stagnant state of climate science, but this unfortunate gratuitous statement reads like a “get out of jail free card”.
Climate wroughters have already partaken of this notion in IPCC’s 2015 report. Savaged by sceptics over projections based on “the science” that proved to be 300% warmer than observations, they simply moved the goalposts from zero anthropo in 1950 to zero anthropo in 1850 thereby bankrolling the 0.6C of natural warming coming out of the LIA onto the anthropo account to “correct” the the science’s exaggeration. (Am I the only one on the sceptical side who seems to have noticed this brazen shift?)
To further get out of jail free, they reduced the threshold for unacceptable warming damage to 1.5°C from 2°C – essentially what we would expect if recovery from the LIA continued at the same rate.
Finally, how can Pielke Jr be sure that anthropo warming is “real and poses significant risks” based on science that really hasn’t been done since the Charney report of 1979? Is he aware of how (and why) this meme got started by Maoist Maurice Strong. Look up Bertrand Russell’s teapot for the logic.
One big thing that went wrong is climate modelers ignoring multidecadal oscillations. Climate models, especially CMIP3, CMIP5 and CMIP6 ones, are tuned to hindcast the past, especially the 30 years before their hindcast-forecast (“historical”-projections) transitions. In the CMIP3, CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, the 30 years before their hindcast-forecast transitions is mostly during a time when part of the reason for global temperature increase was from periodic factors. (Have a look at global temperature from 1850 to at least 2005 according any version of HadCRUT that includes 2005.) I figure that about .16-.21 degree C of the warming in the last 30 years of hindcasting by the CMIP3, CMIP5 and CMIP6 models was from periodic factors (mostly multidecadal oscillations), but these models were tuned to maximize success of hindcasting while considering only factors other than multidecadal oscillations. So, I figure these models had positive feedbacks (especially the water vapor feedback) tuned to cause .16-.21 degree C more warming during the last 30 years of their hindcasts than was actually caused by positive feedbacks. Accordingly, I see this as an important reason to expect these models to generally predict more warming than is actually happening/will happen after their hindcast-forecast transitions. I note that Dr. Michael Mann is a big name in recent denial of multidecadal oscillations, especially the AMO.
I add here, my calculation that I did around 2009 for the magnitude of a periodic component in global temperature. I used Fourier analysis on HadCRUT3 global temperature anomaly. I did that with some oversimplification. I did not remove the linear trend, so this left me analyzing only for the cosine component instead of the combined sine and cosine components. So, I compensated by cherrypicking start time and end time of various 2-cycle periods to maximize the analyzed cosine component. My result is cosine component having a magnitude of .218 degree C peak-to-peak over a 2-cycle time stretch of 128 years, for period of 64 years, from 1877 to 2005, with positive peaks at 1877, 1941 and 2005. I published my result (originally in/around 2009) on Usenet in the newsgroup sci.electronics.design.
More recently, I realized that a small part of this result was from part of the peak in the early 1940s was from HadSST2 (the sea surface temperature component of HadCRUT3) failing to have intercalibration between different types/nationalities of ships recording sea temperature as prevalence of different types & nationalities of ships changed during the times around WWII. That factor was corrected for in HadSST3, the sea surface temperature component of HadCRUT4, which has a somewhat smaller “WWII bump” than older versions of HadSST and ERSST of versions 4 and older. I ought to do a Fourier analysis (a more proper one) of HadCRUT4 to get a better figure for the magnitude of the periodic factors in global temperature, which I think account for about .2-.21 degree C of the increase from 1973 to 2005.
The problem with the models is simple – they assume a non-fact, which is “CO2 drives temperature,” and are also incompetent at duplicating basic atmospheric physics in any event because they fail to “resolve” anything weather-wise that occurs at scales finer than their coarse resolution. Those two gigantic issues, plus a host of “fudge factors” used to “tune” the models to produce a known outcome (but only if you don’t change the start point) mean the models are nothing but GIGO.
It’s a little late, isn’t it?
If the last two years have proven anything, it’s that science, as a whole, is hopelessly lost in a political quagmire. The scientific-industrial complex is entirely concerned with political matters.
Even physics isn’t safe. When they’re not daydreaming about their Trekkie multiverses, they’re applauding ridiculous pre-prints like this week’s Google news about so-called time crystals.
And if they don’t, they lose their funding and their positions. Just ask Curry and Soon.
The public has already lost faith in capital S science. There’s no going back.
Time crystals? Do you have a reference or link for that? I try to avoid spending too much time on the internet looking for oddities, but that sounds interesting – perhaps something that someone could use in a spooky story….. sort of like Hitchcock at his best…. Hmmmm…..
Sara: https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-time-crystal-built-using-googles-quantum-computer-20210730/
Astounding:
““The consequence is amazing: You evade the second law of thermodynamics,” said Roderich Moessner, director of the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems”
Of course:
“they have used Google’s quantum computer to demonstrate a genuine “time crystal.””
Reality?
“It’s a quantum object that nature itself probably never creates”
Wait — THEY have a real quantum computer??? Where did they get it? Was it something they found at a Wally World store? Yes, I do know about Gggle’s claims, but I have serious doubts about them….
The Hockey Team, the ClimateGate players, the IPCC “experts” described by Donna Laframboise, all of these characters from the past have provided the bedrock on which modern climate science is built.
Unfortunately, it is not exactly rock, but something else entirely. Those who think I am exaggerating should ponder on the fact that the first University department on the planet to be dedicated to climate studies was created at the University of East Anglia in 1972. When a new discipline is created, who teaches the students and where does the next generation of lecturers come from?
As generations of scientists pass on their knowledge the consequences grow and grow. The science of climate change surely is Frankenstein’s Monster.
Didn’t the Monster in that story end up in the frozen fields of the Arctic?
“In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment, and that various policy responses in the form of mitigation and adaptation are necessary and make good sense”.
Then…
“Many of these thousands of published papers project future impacts of climate change on people, the economy, and the environment that are considerably more extreme than an actual understanding of emissions and forcing pathways would suggest is likely…. Implausible climate scenarios are also introducing error and bias into actual policy and business decisions today.”
Huh??? “It poses significant risks… (but then) projected future impacts… are considerably more extreme than actual understanding (suggests)…” Again, ???
The comment software sometimes forces you into using the same font as the font used in the quote.
If you don’t want to use that font, do what I do, and paste the quote into a text program and then recopy it and that will change the font to the one in your text program.
“unsurprisingly, some opponents of climate policies are politically exploiting problems with the IPCC emissions scenarios. Groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London and the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, are highlighting the misuse of RCP8.5 to call into question the quality and legitimacy of climate science and assessments as a whole.”
I’m disappointed that sceptics are so marginalized in this report. I realize if you are trying to communicate with the dark side you have to genuflect with GW is real and a risk, but it is a bridge too far to diminish sceptics role. It is no exaggeration to say that sceptics supplied all the scepticism to a science completley devoid of this self correcting essential. Indeed l the consensus agreed (conspired!) on output in the science, obviating the ‘need’ for critique.
It is also no exaggeration to say that for 2 decades climate consensus science did little other than react to the best criticisms of knowledgeable sceptics. Reactions tended toward preserving untenable positions, however. Nevertheless, sceptics constrained the free-for-all that a thoroughly corrupted science had enjoyed. They deserve recognition for this free service to all of humanity.
Let’s put this simply back in the very early 90’s when the specter of disastrous global warming and the “hovkey stick” raised their head I realized that if this was true then serious work may need to be done. Bac\k then the internet was very open and you coiuld go to university web sites and see complete information about what professors were doing. No paywalls or keywords needed. Even discussions with colleagues were all there.
To chck on the validity of the claims I started going to web sires for those pushing the idea. I found a simple statement (paraphrasing), “Some have questioned that I have ignored data which contradicts my conclusions. I have done that because the theory is so obviously true that contrary data must be discarded.”
As soon as I saw that I knew this was pseudo science and everything I have seen since them has confirmed rhat. There was no need to wait for any of the IPCC reports, let alone until the 21st century, to know the whole thing is a fraud.
Plus the ex-leadership of the UN IPCC admitted this is all about the redistribution of wealth from wealthy nations to poorer ones.
I choose to believe his admission and explanation, rather than the fear mongers who try and convince people to give up more of their hard earned money when no matter how much people allow those selling their agenda to us, no amount of money will change our climate.
griff response to comment ratio (prior to this comment): 37:1. Pretty good, pretty good…
Hey, I think I have just come up with another non-dimensional number! The Griff Number (Gn), the ratio of responses to or mentions of griff’s “name” to griff’s posted comments.
That doubles the repertoire of non-dimensional numbers original to me! [The first, the Kelly Number {Kn} is: “the right answer divided by the answer I got.” Ideally, its value is 1, but it can take on any real or complex alpha-numeric value. Hey, it got me through grad school… Not sure what use the Griff Number is, though.]
At this point I’m convinced his only purpose is to derail discussion as soon as possible.
They may have lost touch with science reality, but they certainly got in touch with funding reality.
I’m totally confused about CO2 warming above approximately 400 ppm. Going back at least 20 years when I first heard about “Global Warming” and I started reading about CO2 there was this attribute called “the logarithmic effect”. Is this not relevant? And if not why? I’ve been waiting for a while to ask this question and it appears we have a number of knowledgeable people here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Shorter response (not an explanation, just a confirmation) — yes the effect is logarithmic that’s why there’s so much reference to warming arising from a doubling of CO2
Yes. But even that is based upon the assumption all other things held equal – a set of conditions that has never, does not and will never exist. The short version being that the supposed and completely hypothetical “effect” of CO2 on temperature does not actually function as postulated here in the real world, since the “feedbacks” are negative, offsetting feedbacks and no such actual, as opposed to hypothetical, “effect” has been empirically shown.
Whatever it is that IPCC is doing exactly, it should NEVER be confused with actual Science.
That pretty-much applies to most “global warming” advocates.
I see it differently. The IPCC reports include a lot of decent science, and there’s a lot more if you read all the references. The problem is that scientists write scientific summaries, then politicians write the overall executive summary doesn’t necessarily follow from the science, and worse, the media reaches conclusions that aren’t even solidly based on the summaries. Then the media latch onto some study that isn’t good enough to get included in any IPCC report and leave the impression that all kinds of nonsensical conclusions are implied by climate science.
They also include a lot of crap that fits the “narrative,” just because it fits the narrative. There might be some “decent science” in the full report, but that’s the part that nobody reads, and the “Summary for Policymakers” is pure propaganda.
In the end the IPCC wasn’t set up to contribute to the advancement of science, it was set up to push human-induced climate change propaganda.
I find this article somewhat bland. To me In the Climate scene it is simple; as for some reason the IPCC omitted to include the basic science behind the behaviour of water in its assessments by rendering it into a feedback role to that of CO2 and positive at that.
This is a serious error which is now being brought to light with the Models running Hot against observations amongst other things.
I suspect there was an initial bias of motivation here as the IPCC needed to establish a high risk factor due to human emissions of CO2 in order to continue in business.
Homing down to the detail we have that the Planck coefficient of sensitivity in its equation is Zero at the point of evaporative phase change of water, which if not included, will result in an overvalue of the global sensitivity factor.
I suggest that what is prevailing today is a form of Global Cognitive Dissonance which will go a long way to prevent any change to the now erroneous Consensus view. The whole matter being political to the detriment of the scientific reputation.
Yeah sorry, but the very thing he’s discussing has yet to cause his own self-correction on this point. CO2 has never been empirically demonstrated to “drive” the Earth’s temperature, and there’s plenty of empirical observations that say it does no such thing, so this erroneous notion of “human-caused climate change” is nothing more than a quasi-religious “belief” at this point that he makes sure to parrot so as not to offend the “movement” too much. It certainly is NOT “science.” Observations trump theory.
The essential argument seems to be that somewhat less over-hyped climate nonsense would be more convincing than the more over-the-top climate nonsense is…not convincing either. Junk science with a bit less hype is still junk science. Since, as we’ve seen scientists indicate elsewhere, a 2% change in cloud cover can completely negate any effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and even the Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control admits (buried of course as deeply as possible in the fine print) that cloud behavior is “poorly understood” tells us there is nothing substantive about claims of human-induced climate change. Certainly they are not “scientific,” since what “science” is ignorant about in terms of the Earth’s climate is of far more significance than the things they THINK they “know.”
Here’s how it works. You notice interesting things impacting weather like Indian Ocean dipoles-
Here’s How the Negative Indian Ocean Dipole Is Impacting Australia’s Weather (msn.com)
“Why should we care?We probably have a wet few months ahead of us.
The negative IOD means the southern regions of Australia are likely to have a wet winter and spring. Indeed, the seasonal outlook indicates above average rainfall for much of the country in the next three months.
In southern Australia, a negative IOD also means we’re more likely to get cooler daytime temperatures and warmer nights. But just because we’re more likely to have a wetter few months doesn’t mean we necessarily will — every negative IOD event is different.”…….
while La Nina and El Nino get an honourable mention for thousands of years not that anyone around at the time noticed……
“But in any case, we do know one thing for sure: rising global temperatures from climate change will cause more frequent and severe extreme events, including the short-duration heavy rainfalls associated with flooding, and heatwaves.
To avoid worse disasters in our future, we need to cut emissions drastically and urgently.”
That’s doomster logic for you folks.
I don’t think the IOD gets nearly enough attention.
Pielke jr. bemoans the sorry state of medical and climate science, grudgingly credits GWPF and CEI with having a “good point”, yet still believes GWPF and CEI are bad guys supporting a bad cause.
Pielke jr. makes a good case for how bad climate science is, It’s a shame that Pielke jr. is unable to grow up enough to recognize how corrupt and politically bizarre is the side Pielke supports.
More of the same with doomster logic. We haven’t got a clue what’s going on with the AMOC and what it means-
New Signs Indicate a Major Ocean Current Is on The Edge of Collapse Right Now (msn.com)
“So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible,”…
“The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere.”
From the article: “In calling for this change, we emphasize explicitly and unequivocally that human-caused climate change is real, that it poses significant risks to society and the environment,”
An unsubstantiated assertion. I don’t care who makes the assertion, it is not substantiated.
There is no evidence that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change to the point of being a real risk. No evidence whatsoever. The evidence all goes the other way: Fewer strong storm, fewer, less intense wildfires, fewer and less tornadoes, hurricanes are no stronger or more numerous, and on and on. Where’s the risk?
The author thinks he is helping the situation by making this unsubstantiated asserion. I don’t think so.
I totally agree. The statement in question is usually used a a throw-away line in various statements about the climate. A close inspection of the record of global temperature change since the 1880’s reveals a definite pattern of alternating periods of warming and pause in warming with the periods being about thirty years in duration. This feature has remained true right up to the present. A patterned temperature change like this would seem to indicate that the cause of the temperature change would occur in the same pattern. Neither the atmospheric levels of water vapor or carbon dioxide occur in such a pattern. I see little or no discussion of this issue but rather endless detailed discussion of unrelated or scarcely related topics. If the evident pattern of temperature change continues then there will be only forty years of warming in the current century which will probably mean a temperature increase of about one degree.
If you’re wondering why nothing changes , look at Peter Ridds case. He was fired not for his views on climate change and the barrier reef but for his criticism of the quality assurance issues and the corruption of the scientific process. The decision in his recently heard appeal will be important to see if the problem of quality assurance in science and academic freedom to point it out is protected or will the law continue to allow universities to protect the scientist who refuse to allow proper scrutiny of their theories and data.. let’s hope the good guys win.