Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate Blasphemy! Jordan Peterson, whose podcasts have had over 285 million views, and famous Actor / Comedian Joe Rogan who hosts the wildly popular Joe Rogan Experience, have triggered the entire alarmist community by explaining why they think climate predictions are unreliable.
Their broadcast got so much attention, singer Neil Young is boycotting world leading podcast host Spotify for carrying such material.
Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan Talking About Climate Change Will Make Your Brain Dissolve
The big boys had a big thinky about climate change.
…
Rogan and Peterson waxed on about climate for a good 30 minutes at the beginning of the four-hour-plus (!) episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, which was released Tuesday. I listened to the whole thing and it made me want to self-immolate. I’ll spare you all the bulk of the exchange because I would like you to continue to exist in a less flammable state, but I feel obligated to share the stupidest parts here, so you can share in my pain.
…
PETERSON: Well, that’s ‘cause there’s no such thing as climate. Right? “Climate” and “everything” are the same word, and that’s what bothers me about the climate change types. It’s like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It’s like, climate is about everything. Okay. But your models aren’t based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you’ve reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it’s about everything? That’s not just a criticism, that’s like, if it’s about everything, your models aren’t right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.
ROGAN: What do you mean by everything?
PETERSON: That’s what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim, in some sense. We have to change everything! It’s like, everything, eh? The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it doesn’t mean anything. … What’s the difference between the environment and everything? There’s no difference.
…
Read more: https://gizmodo.com/jordan-peterson-joe-rogan-climate-denial-1848425540
It gets funnier;
‘Word salad of nonsense’: scientists denounce Jordan Peterson’s comments on climate models
Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Peterson claimed the climate was too complex to be modelled accurately, which was quickly shot down by scientists
Graham Readfearn
Thu 27 Jan 2022 18.05 AEDTLeading climate scientists have ridiculed and criticised comments made by controversial Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson during an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
During a new four-hour interview on Spotify’s most popular podcast, Peterson – who is not an expert on climate change – claimed that models used to forecast the future state of the climate couldn’t be relied on.
Peterson told Rogan that because the climate was so complex, it couldn’t be accurately modelled.
He said: “Another problem that bedevils climate modelling, too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model is in error.
“And that’s a huge problem when you’re trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest.”
Peterson said that if the climate was “about everything” then “your models aren’t right” because they couldn’t include everything.
…
Prof Michael Mann, an atmospheric scientist at Penn State University, said Peterson’s comments – and Rogan’s facilitation of them – was an “almost comedic type of nihilism” that would be funny if it wasn’t so dangerous.
Peterson’s claim that the climate was too complicated showed “a total lack of understanding of how science works” and could be used to dismiss physics, chemistry, biology, “and every other field of science where one formulates conceptual models”, according to Mann.
“Every great discovery in science – including the physics that allowed Peterson and Rogan to record and broadcast their ridiculous conversation – has arisen through that process,” he said.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models
Gavin Schmidt freaking out;
What is upsetting the climate community is between them Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson command a gigantic listening audience.
I haven’t listened to the full podcast, but it dives into climate prediction, EV problems and renewable energy vs nuclear right from the start, so it has me hooked.
“why are the left wing types in particular so willing to sacrifice the poor”?
The climate community overreaction may end up being more damaging to the cause of climate alarmism than the original podcast.
All those publicity hungry Youtube and TikTok personalities out there right now who are watching and taking notes have just learned, if you want a gigantic deluge of free publicity from a wide range of outraged liberal media outlets, all you need to do is shoot a few sacred climate cows.
Update (EW): Cancel campaign on – Newly appointed Biden Surgeon General Vivek Murthy in my opinion has come close to asking Silicon Valley to censor Joe Rogan – he stated that silicon valley has “an important role to play” suppressing the spread of Covid misinformation, in an interview which mentions Joe Rogan.
Update (EW): Too funny (h/t Justin Barclay)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hey hey, my my
Neil Young’s off Spotify
It’s better to sell out
Than it is to burn out
Hey hey, my my
HT, Arty at SDA
Tuning up:
A southern man don’t need him around anyhow.
Lynyrd Skinnyrd
Sorry, I didn’t catch your comment before I posted mine Markw. Good quote, anyhow.
Beat me to it.
Skynyrd
(leonard skinner; PE teacher @ur momisugly Robert E Lee in Florida)
LOL! Karen Young
I heard that Barry Manilow pulled his music from Spotify in solidarity with ol’ Mr. Young. With friends like that… 😉
I was a Neil Young fan, but I have to admit he hasn’t produced a decent album since Ragged Glory in 1990! Sorry, old man.
Well he just released a new one in December that no one knew about. Timing is everything.
so if somone is old then they don’t have the right to an opinion – one, I would point out, will cost Mr. Young, Ms. Mitchell, et al. money. At least they put their money where their mouth is (as has Spotify, of course)
Listen to Eric Clapton, noted epidemiologist. Ginger Baker could not stand him; I can see why.
HeHeHe…….. I guess Neil Young knows about climate as well as gene altering experimental drugs, but he can’t comment cos he’s cancelled himself.
And Michael Mann also cancelled himself with his barmy hokey stick misinformation.
Next up, Climategate Phil.
Pillocks……….
Even the IPCC knows that:
link from AR3
The global climate is an Icehouse Global Climate.
Predictions are our Icehouse Global Climate is easy:
We are in an Ice Age and we will stay in an Ice Age.
We say things about our 34-million-year-old Ice Age.
First, it’s got a name: The Late Cenozoic Ice Age or
also called, Antarctic Glaciation.
And everyone agrees we in the coldest period [in last couple millions]
of this Ice Age. And our last glaciation period might be the coldest and
that your interglacial will end, and we again enter another glaciation period.
But there is no agreement about when this will occur, nor is there any agreement
what counts as the beginning of a glaciation period. Or persons in 1970’s were
claiming we were in the beginning of a glaciation period. Or the ice age is coming!!
But informally speaking a glaciation period is also called an Ice Age. But can’t really enter
an Ice Age, because are still in one. But we can certainly enter a glaciation period, and possible we have already entered one. We have long past our Holocene thermal maximum,
but one could imagine that unlike the other interglacial periods, we could have double peak temperature within our Holocene interglacial period. Or there are some ideas that human activity will significantly lengthen our interglacial period- some have claim for as much as for 75,000 years- which about as crazy as it gets. No one believes we are going leave our Ice Age.
Our ocean is still cold.
Our ocean has been about 2 to 4 C for last couple million years, and for most the last 34 million years, there was many times our ocean got warmer than 5 C.
And at moment is about 3.5 C.
And has been around this temperature for thousands of years, and likely stay around temperature for another thousand years.
If ocean our were to get to about 4 C, I think we get another green Sahara desert like did during Holocene Climate optimum. This commonly referred to as the end of world, ie, CAGW.
And if gets to about 3 C, that pretty firm evidence we are going pretty fast towards a glaciation period.
Though another way to say it, is that most of last couple million years has had an ocean which is about 3 C and most of 2 million years has not been comprised of interglacial periods.
Another way of saying it, is that 15 C is cold air, but we had colder air in the past.
But the good news is that about 40% of earth surface is the tropical zone, and tropical zone stays about the same temperature whether in deepest part of glaciation period or warmest
part of interglacial period.
Or tropical island paradises are for “forever”- unless they get hit with a space rock.
The current cycle of glaciation commenced 400 years ago. That is the last time perihelion preceded the austral summer solstice. Since then boreal summers are getting more sunlight and boreal winters less sunlight.
So far the changes are less than 1w/sq.m over any month but eventually the sunlight in June over the NH will average 21W/sq.m more than present.
The lower sunlight during the boreal winter mean more moist air convergence from ocean to land with increasing boreal winter precipitation – a good proportion falling as snow. It will begin accumulating in the coming millennium.
This is real climate change based on orbital mechanics that no amount of CO2 can alter.
As the ice mountains form, the average surface temperature of earth will decline because the elevation of the ice on the land will increase by hundreds of metres. Think of Greenland like conditions across northern Europe and Canada.
Exactly. If we look at the last 200 Ma the recent 3 Ma have been the coldest including today. Even wikipedia knows that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
And why would we want to live in a glaciation period when they are much more climatically unstable than the interglacial we live in. The more ice you have on a planet, the greater the climate variability.
Or explode.
This was a wonderful piece. Says “everything” about climate change. We actually don’t know much. Thanks.
Donna Laframboise’s book shows how repeated scientific uncertainty was overlaid by alarmist Guidance for Policymakets usually issued before the science was made available. Corrupt.
Thanks, Coeur de Lion, for the reminder of Donna Laframboise’s work. In order to fully expose the corruption, it also needs to be proven that there has been no demonstrable justification for declaring a climate change emergency. In Canada, so many of our universities have signed on to this declaration. Wasn’t deception used as a rationale for wasting money on mitigation efforts like industrial scale wind turbines? Is this not racketeering?
Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan have brought this crucially important conversation into the public arena.
Mr. bob: You have truly scored on the folks who scoff at J. Peterson. Mann et al have lied so often and for so long, they forget what they said before (in IPCC reports, no less!).
Apparently Young and now Joni Mitchell are unaware of the Steisand Effect. It worked on me. I have a brand new Spotify account and watched a Joe Rogan podcast for the first time. Seems like a pretty straight shooter who has interesting and relevant looonnnggg discussions with his guests. The Peterson one was quite good and the criticisms of his climate remarks “lack context” as the official fact-checkers are fond of saying.
To overuse the Emperor’s New Clothes theme, pointing out that the moles on Mann’s or Schmidt’s butts might be a melanoma is precisely what Peterson was doing.
The grids on computer models are too coarse to model clouds, let alone thunderstorms, so Peterson is quite on point.
“Guys, for the love of everything holy, please, please, have somebody on who knows what the heck a climate model is!!!”
I think Joe Rogan should immediately invite Mann onto the show. Mann needs to promise to stay for at least 3 hours.
Doofus wears a cloth mask for a photo.
The mask is to cover the part of his head that exploded.
LOL.
That would be worth the price of admission. I want the popcorn concession.
That right there is the best idea
Invite Mann on and then invite someone like Roy Spenser and force Mann to scuttle away from the debate like the cockroach he is
Better, Rogan needs to publicly invite Mann and Schmidt to appear along with two prominent skeptics
“Or are they just Twitter warriors”!!!
Nail them
An alternative idea for a Joe Rogan podcast would be to invite Mark Steyn and Mikey to discuss passages and excerpts from Steyn’s book: A Disgrace to the Profession. The World’s Scientists -in their own words- on Micheal E Mann, his Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science (2015).
+42X42^42
Brilliant idea, Gerard. Another option would be to go for the top climate alarm dog and invite Al Gore to come on and debate his, “they won’t know what snow is” prediction, with someone ex Texas Valentine’s day white out.
Steyn would be excellent on Rogan.
Mikey Mann only goes on TV.CNN broadcasts because they pay him to appear an as on-air Expert. He wouldn’t do anything for free. Jordan Peterson is certain sat with Rogan free. Jordan’s pay “appearing” on Rogan’s podcast is PR that essentially it helps him get more YouTube viewers and book sales.
I recall seeing a program (I think it was John Stoffel) where he interviewed both Roy Spencer and Gavin la Schmidt.
But Schmidt refused to appear alongside Spencer, so they were interviewed separately. That tells us all we need to know. Schmidt is an administrator/bureaucrat/politician, not a scientist.
It’s not going to happen.
Mann avoided being cross-examined because of his inexcusable delays, in his lawsuit against Tim Ball. Thus he didn’t produce evidence under his control. Because of adverse inference, he demonstrated that he does indeed belong in the state pen. The Mann’s an admitted fraud.
Rogan would tear Mann to shreds and Mann knows it. Apparently his stupidity and over-confidence actually do have limits.
Liars of almost every stripe will do whatever the can to avoid being questioned by a competent, critically thinking, inquisitor.
I think that’s the point, though, commieBob – Rogan has a pretty big reach. Make the invite publicly, and show his entire audience that Mann won’t debate.
Not sure if it will change any minds, but it would be one of the most public and visible examples of his cowardice.
I would bet that the vast majority of people who either believe in or are on the fence about “climate chnge” have absolutely no idea who Mickey Mann is … or who any of the other climate gadflies are. They simply believe what they are told to believe by the media.
Rogan has the ability to make Mann known, if he wants to.
The description(s) of his lies, cheating, and weirdness is easy to pass on.
As I explained to someone the other day, “the Media”, are a very very small percentage of humanity, who have acquired both a power, corruption and influence out of all proportion with their actual importance and size
Well, in his defense, Mann doesn’t know what a climate model is either. He thinks it’s an inviolate, sacred ordinance that may not be questioned,; settled science and all that. Heretics must burn in eternal hellfire and sentenced by the Inquisitors to imprisonment or house arrest and censorship for crimes against the Holy Church of Climate Alarmism.
Sure he knows. A climate model is what you use to get a hockey stick graph. No-one knows climate models like mickle mann.
It is amazing how the Left always falls back on obfuscation and rhetoric:
I have an Excel spreadsheet I programmed. When you input 2 + 2 the output is always 5. I have tried it a thousand times and it “works”, the output is always 5.
And that is how the climate models “work”. And it is off limits to question the programming on the input side and when the output side does not match reality, that is when they get to work on reality, by adjusting the data and if necessary the theory.
Mann & Schmidt are correct, the models “work” perfectly, the same way my Excel spreadsheet “works”. And they use that assertion for the “other work” people really want to know the answer to: do the climate models accurately reflect and predict reality?
They use the same dodge to answer questions like: “Is the climate warming?” Answer: “97% of scientists say yes.” However that is an answer to a question that was not asked. If you ask about a murder: “Did John kill Joe?” The answer: “The jury said he did” is an answer to a question that was not asked. However, both of those “answers” fill in a space and usually suffice to throw people off the track and stop the questioning.
And that sleight of hand epitomizes the Left: We believe in science & democracy, just not the outcomes. (sigh)
I could form conclusions from climate science that are at polar opposites of each other. I simply have to pick and choose from the thousands of garbage studies out there. It would probably even work with the best.
You can get a “perfect” statistical fit of any set of data when regressed on enough variables. I question any model’s capability to predict that has more than four or five variables. Averaging the results of meaningless models gives you a more precise meaningless model.
Promise manniacal that he can have full editorial control of a copy of the show.
Let manniacal edit his tape and return it.
Play manniacal’s fantasy interspersed with comparisons from the original uncut tape.
Manniacal will put his size 13 feet so deep he won’t be able to extricate them, ever.
Michael Mann doesn’t practice science. His approving descriptions of climate models would only be misleading.
He could spend 3 hours lying about stuff. Rogan, if he prepared, could easily show the Mann lies.
Build him up as one of the eminent leaders and most knowledgeable; then ask him about the lawsuit; then ask him about why other AGW zealots confirm that his hockystick trick is, at best, incompetence; then ask him if he is truly qualified to discuss climate model.
The will never, ever debate the CAGW monster with someone skeptical, or even interrogative, in public. The official line is that it would give credibility to the flat earthers; the other way to see it is that they are afraid to be exposed.
One is not allowed to question the Holy Faith….
“HERETICS! HERETICS! Burn the heretics, burn them!!”
Tragic how so many people cannot understand the difference between religion and science.
Oh I do wish our dear Monckton could get hold of that one. It’s just so darn illogical.
The fact that we’ve made great strides with mathematical simplifications of reality does not prove that all problems are amenable to that approach.
Lorenz demonstrated that the climate can’t be modeled. link Rather than finding a way around the problem, and demonstrating its validity, folks just ignore it.
I’ve never had much respect for Dr. Mann’s thinking skills and his latest rant hasn’t improved the situation.
Lorenz never demonstrated that climate cannot be modelled. What he showed was that in a particular simplification of the atmosphere (3 nonlinear coupled ordinary differential equations) then trajectories have a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However that is very different from saying that the climate cannot be modeled. Nobody would doubt a statement that in 1000 years time winter will be colder than summer whereas anyone who claimed to be able to predict when it will snow next year is lying.
Lorenz showed that trajectories converge onto a strange attractor. And if you like you can think of the climate as being the strange attractor and the weather as being where on that you are. It is possible to map out the strange attractor and how it would change as the parameters in the model change without being able to accurately model any individual trajectory.
Incidently the link you gave has not aged well. The last paragraph states:
”The prospect of the current hiatus lasting until the mid 2030’s (as per the stadium wave and related theories of natural variability) is a decisive test for IPCC’s AGW detection arguments. Detection of AGW is a prerequisite for the IPCC’s attribution arguments. The IPCC’s statements of 95% confidence that most of the warming is anthropogenic, and expectations of substantial warming between now and 2036, has the IPCC skating on very thin ice, in my opinion.”
which was published in 2013. Since then the earth has warmed by about 0.2 degrees according to satellite measurements suggesting the stadium wave theory has been proven wrong.
Wow, 9 years proves the stadium wave theory wrong, but it takes 15 years of no warming to prove the CO2 thermostat theory wrong. Until 18 years of no warming occurred, then we just forgot about that.
In 2013 Prof. Curry predicted on the basis of the stadium wave theory that the then current hiatus would last until the mid 2030’s. In the 9 years that followed the earth has warmed and in fact the warmest year on record was during that period. So that is long enough to show that Prof. Curry’s prediction was wrong.
… or at the very least failed to take into consideration the incredibly complex poorly understood multi disciplinary aspects of “climate” that consistently show the models to also fail.
or at the very least failed to take into consideration the incredibly complex poorly understood multi disciplinary aspects of manipulating the data.
you forgot to add the Adjustments made improperly to get to that 0.1 degree higher record. It has not gotten warmer, it has just been reported as warmer by those looking for more money.
Show us this ‘prediction’.
Or was a statement issued … ‘based on this model …”
Was there a prediction by Curry? Or are you exaggerating for effect?
Excellent idea: “Show us the prediction”. I find it hard to swallow that Curry would make such a claim…like, ever.
On another note, he claims the warming at 0.2 degrees in 9 years. Yea, I’m scared (NOT). Figure that on an official NASA abacus, or did he pull out all the stops and use a slide rule?
Izaak says, “ What he showed was that in a particular simplification of the atmosphere (3 nonlinear coupled ordinary differential equations) then trajectories have a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However that is very different from saying that the climate cannot be modeled”
You bet it is. Lorenz was talking about one unknown or limitation if ONE small aspect of the vastly more complex multi disciplinary field of “climate”. Ergo, it applies in spades to climate.
David,
What Lorenz showed was that there was a strange attractor in the system to which all trajectories converge. That attractor is what makes modelling the climate possible. You can think of the strange attractor as the climate with well defined properties. The weather corresponds to the particular point on the trajectory — that is what is impossible to predict. But there are a lots of properties of the attractor that are well known such as the maximum or minimum points on it. You can also predict how the attractor changes shape as the parameters change — this is the equivalent of climate modelling and can be done without knowing what any individual trajectory will do.
Pure BS, Isick. If the strange attractor caused all trajectories to converge, you wouldn’t see the HUGE variability in future climate trajectories between models and the very large variability in individual model runs assuming that all the models have the physical processes correctly modeled. But there IS a huge variability.
You’re lying, Isick. Again. The sad thing is you thought you could BS people with common sense, let alone people like me who have physics and math degrees who understand that any strange attractor is unique to the problem being solved. If the model gets the physical description wrong you get the wrong answer whether or not that particular set of equations has a strange attractor.
You truly are a clown, Isick.
Izaak the Liar said, “What he showed was that in a particular simplification of the atmosphere (3 nonlinear coupled ordinary differential equations) then trajectories have a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However that is very different from saying that the climate cannot be modeled”.
Inadvertently, Izaak is partially telling the truth here. A the number of iterations increases, so does the sensitivity to initial conditions. IOW, after a certain point, the slightest difference in initial conditions results in gross differences in outcomes, and this sensitivity increases exponentially with time. Pat Frank has demonstrated this quite conclusively.
How would the attractor be the climate if that’s what is being modeled? Wouldn’t the attractor be the point of stability?
How about this: two attractors, two points of stability: Glacial and interglacial.
The Earth’s orbit changes over long times leading to periodic climate changes including the timing of glaciations. Look up “Milankovitch Cycles”. These orbital changes causes fundamental changes in the amount of Solar insolation, the length of seasons, and where the sun’s energy gets absorbed on the planet. This is not the result of two attractors in the same equations, it’s completely different boundary conditions at different times.
“it’s completely different boundary conditions at different times.”
Fair ’nuff. It was really just an offhand thought. Didn’t even think of Milankovitch as I was writing it.
Two very trivial tests for climate models that demonstrate they are useless:
Bottom line is climate model output is just a nonsense model driven by putative forcings. Climate model output is nothing more than linear transforms of the input forcings in W/m^2 to temperature in degK. And the models can’t even agree on the mean output temperature of the earth to better than a 3 degK range whilst claiming to model C20th increase amounting to less than 1 degK.
Key issues. If only policy makers anywhere of any stripe were aware of them.
“Bottom line is climate model output is just a nonsense model driven by putative forcings”
“Here, our focus is solely on complex climate models as predictive tools on decadal and longer timescales. We argue for a reassessment of the role of such models when used for this purpose……………..Complex climate models, as predictive tools for many variables and scales cannot be meaningfully calibrated because they are simulating a never before experienced state of the system…....It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilise observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world”
Stainforth et al ‘Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365, 2145-2161. (One of the other authors was Myles Allen of Oxford Uni)
I agree – climate models are unscientific nonsense. So is global warming alarmism (now re-labelled “climate change”) .
The Klimate-and-Kovid-Klowns (KKKs) predicted dangerous global warming and now it’s getting colder.
Conservatively, the odds of their predictive track record being this wrong are much worse than 1 in 281 trillion.
100% lies from the KKKs for ~five decades. No rational person or group could be this wrong for this long – they know they’ve been lying since Day 1.
No, he wasn’t. Go back and try and understand.
A chaotic system can have more than one ‘attractor’ and data points do not converge on them.
They may orbit them for a while before careering off in an enturely new direction.
Pardon any typos as I dictated this note.
Thank you Leo. I have some concerns about your comment regarding chaotic systems that can “orbit for a while before careering off in an entirely new direction”. I had a conversation on a similar topic with my friend Will Happer a few months ago and I pointed out that I accurately predicted the current global cooling 20 years ago in 2002 and more precisely (within less than one year) in 2013. I also cite Willis Eschenbach’s recent paper in which he discusses the incredible stability of global average temperature over many years. It seems to me that your statement about the unpredictability of chaotic systems is directly contradicted by my accurate 20 year old correct predictions of global temperature – within a few tenths of a degree.
I concede your comment could be accurate at much longer time scales, because of the existence of continental glaciers.
For the record, I also predicted in 2002, and more precisely in 2013 the current cold-weather-and- green-energy crisis in Britain and Germany that is happening now, based on solar cycles.
It is true that the warmists’ climate models are abysmally inaccurate in their predictive ability. The mainstream skeptics’ argument is that the model inputs assume that climate sensitivity to CO2 is ~3 to 5 times too high. I published in 2008 that in reality the climate models are a scientific fiction, because I proved then and Kuo et all published in ~1990 that atmospheric CO2 changes lag atmospheric temperature changes in the modern data record, and we also know that atm. CO2 changes lag atm. temperature changes by a much longer time in a much longer cycle period in the ice core record, so the climate models have the causative relationship backwards, a.k.a. “the cart before the horse” and “the future cannot cause the past”.
Both sides of the mainstream climate argument about the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing atm. CO2 are based on a scientific falsehood; nevertheless the climate skeptics are much more correct, in that their “upper bound’ (not their “best estimate”) of climate sensitivity to increasing atm. CO2 is only ~1K/(2XCO2) and there is NO real catastrophic human-made global warming crisis – it’s been a false crisis for about five decades – “wolves stampeding the sheep” for political and financial gain.
Regards, Allan
Strange indeed 😉
It was more a case of limitations of numerical analysis, and is quite an interesting field of computer science.
Sensitive dependence on initial conditions is an inherent feature of repeated iterations, where the output of an iteration is used as the input to the next. It is most pronounced near domain boundaries, such as turbulence in fluids.
Increased CPU power, more memory, larger floating point variable sizes and other advances since Lorenz’s time have pushed out the number of iterations before calculation “blow up”, but they tend to do so eventually.
One of the major benefits of knowing about the phenomenon is to realise the need to use multiple runs with different starting conditions to check the stability of the calculations.
No, He didn’t.Go back and understand chaos theory.
“Nobody would doubt a statement that in 1000 years time winter will be colder than summer…”
I cannot believe that anybody would think this somehow shows that we can model climate. How can you say something so monumentally stupid?
Satellites do not actually measure temperature directly. All they can do is measure radiation at some point in space and then use a whole bunch of assumptions, correlations, calibrations, and algorithms to estimate temperature. All very admirable but It is far less precise than we have been led to believe. We don’t know what the instrument errors are, what the correlation coefficients are etc etc but I think a change of 0.2 deg is less than their order of accuracy. Then the question also still remains: they are measuring the temperature of what precisely?
That the problem with all temperature measurement the variables will get you ever time. If you do everything right over and over you might have an error of less than .5 F. Adding up a bunch of measurements of varying errors does not then dividing them out does nothing to improve precision. “Correcting” the data does noting to eliminate the errors since you have no idea what the errors are, you only have you assumption what they are. I not a “train scientist”
I am only a technician yet I spent a life time making measurements on acting on them, more often than not the measurements and equipment is close to reality but most of time there are errors enough to mislead you.
I learn early on if you measured a precision voltage with a number of freshly calibrated precision instruments you got sightly different readings yet each meter was correct with in it error bars, adding up all the reading and dividing them out still will not tell you the correct voltage only a approximation of the voltage which most of the time that good enough.
But if you did that day in and day out you still cannot clam what the voltage would be within a few thousands of a volt. Yet they do that with temperature where the temperature is changing moment by moment.
Glad to hear from someone else who has dealt with real physical measurements and their results instead of mathematicians who have no experience in doing so.
Your remarks are right on.
I’ll be honest, I am less concerned with satellite than with surface measurements being used to find averages. Do satellites give an accurate depiction of surface temps? Probably not and they are not designed to. Do they give a more consistent interpretation of the temperature of the entire atmosphere it examines? I think it does. Why? Because they use a only a few measuring devices so that the compounded uncertainties are few.
Does the difference between a single point thermometer and sections of the atmosphere bother me? No, The consistency far outweighs far flung thermometers. What does bother me is the folks trying to compare UAH to surface measurements from the past. You just can’t do that.
Anything that can be perceived can be “modeled”…F = ma…but the efficacy of the model (in this case the ability to predict the future) is entirely contingent on the modeler’s grasp of what is and is not significant for the task at hand. So, if we live in a superdeterministic universe you only have to know everything-now in order for you to how everything will unfold (assuming your model is powerful enough to deal with everything-now and process it faster than reality is unfolding…) so the podcasters are only stating the obvious…the future is a mystery (due to ignorance of initial conditions) if on the other hand we don’t live in a superdeterministic universe then accurate predictions about the distant future become problematic….perhaps the models are telling us we DO live in a non-superdeterministic universe??? If so, the outcome is exactly the same…accurate predictions about the distant future become problematic.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Models can and do show a number of possibilities and in the short term may even show some probabilities. The thing is, I can do the same thing in a few minutes with a pencil and a menu margin.
That’s a distinction without a difference.
And they can also run off the rails when numerically resolved. And, that is with only 3 equations. What if 5 or 10 need to be used?
You also need to explain why they are only run for a year and are then restarted with the output of the previous one. Off the rails maybe! If they were truly predictive you could run the models for 30, 50, 100 years and they would stay within the boundaries established by the REAL EARTH.
What does that tell you about the models?
Fine, but we then must keep the results of models in the field of “formulating conceptual models” and never let them get anywhere near to a policy influence.
That is what happens to hypotheses before they are challenged and demolished. Geoff S
I was at a graduation where PhD students were receiving their degrees. Their theses were extremely narrowly focused. Science progresses by one tiny, excruciating step at a time, not by declaring what will happen across the entire globe over a span of decades. Alarmists who froth about science don’t seem to have any comprehension of how it really works.
Oh, the climate can be modeled. It is just that the results cannot be relied on as a prediction of future climatic conditions.
The left hate Rogan because he asks questions they don’t want asked. The cognitive dissonance he causes drives them crazy.
I remember when NPR, for example, used to ask questions to elucidate a problem. Now they only ask questions to catastrophize. Any problem of the left that is diminished through honest questioning isn’t one they want discussed. Hence you don’t ask “was Jan 6th an insurrection” but instead you ask “who were the insurrectionists and why are they at large?”
CBC here in Canada is similarly fond of such leading questions, e.g. “How dangerous is Omicron?”
I think I read that one of the rioters was actually charged with insurrection last week, but I can’t seem to sort through the noise to get any actual information.
There is more and more evidence that the 6Jan2021 “insurrection” was a Dem false-flag operation – doors opened from the inside, Capitol police inviting “rioters” into the building, the shooting of an unarmed woman who posed no threat, snowflake Dems playing the “terrified victim card”, etc. – Kabuki Theatre for partisans and gullible fools.
USA weather forecasters are currently arguing about atleast 2 models for the next 24 to 36hrs. There’s a 50:50 of a factor of 5x the snow fall in some areas. One model predicts slow, hugs the coast & drops a lot of snow. Another predicts fast moving, away from the coast (more out to sea) and results in a few inch of snow at worst.
They make estimates of more or less if they can average over a long period of time but any deviation can be blamed on weather. But some models predict high at the same time other models predict low based on the same science. While climate models can’t predict exact weather for every day they are supposed to predict a plausible average over longer periods. If the errors and weather variations are both random from means then the averages should cancel out the errors so they look more similar. With enough smoothing, any random sequence can be made plausible.
The climate models require a grid of cells, while there is mathematics between the cells, the physics within the cells are often simplified to complex equations without the smaller particle physics which real weather is based on. The models are not bad at predicting temperatures but there not good at predicting clouds, precipitation & wind. Yes they are based on some physics but they are still far from perfect. The grid cell size needs to be decreased but that requires more computing resources. There are still great uncertainties of many of the variables so everyone chooses different values & multiple runs trying to cover more possibilities. It looks more like picking winners based on expectations of what output looks plausible instead of being decided by science & reducing unknowns.
And the various models differ in their average global temperatures by 3 C; they aren’t modeling the same physics.
Neil Young drops a lot of stuff by the side of the road and walks away. His band mates, his wives, his properties, his country, his charities and now his music. Nothing new for Neil Young.
Neil Young was the first to charge scalper prices for his live performance tickets. When asked why they were so expensive, he replied “scalpers charge that, why shouldn’t I ?”
Yeah, Neil Young is a hippie don’t forget. Peace and love everyone.
Apparently Crosby, Stills and Nash hate him to this day.
can’t say I blame them
I think he’s still trying to get back to Sugar Mountain.
Neil won’t be missed by me. Perhaps we could quit polluting the ether with his image as well.
Mann may be somewhat correct in saying that Jordan Peterson doesn’t know how climate science works. But I bet Peterson has a pretty good idea of how climate scientist’s brains work; it is that understanding that makes him as popular as he is.
That said–how could anyone who has followed them not see that the models produced by climate scientists have not worked? Is Mann incapable of understanding that their failure is the basis for Peterson’s thesis? (please, it’s a rhetorical question)
285 million views, eh? One would think there just might be meaning in that; it’s about 10 times the number of records that Neil Young has sold.
“Hope Neil Young will remember, [we] don’t need him around, anyhow”
-Lynard Skynard “Sweet Home Alabama”, 1974
Neil was wrong in the Sixties and Seventies. Still is.
Using the same sort of scare tactics to spread Covid propaganda has exposed the climate propaganda, again, for the profit driven political dominance confidence game that it realy is. Perhaps a recovering public will learn and remember, no one ever needed Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann around, anyhow.
Hahaha. Climate models. JBP and JR got it right.
Hate to break it to you, but Rogan isn’t much of a skeptic of the Climanista narrative. It’s the one thing that disappoints me with him.
Agreed. Anyone who has listened to his past podcasts knows as much.
We can always hope that the criticism to his podcast with Peterson will make him delve more deeply into the subject.
I wish people would recast this argument. Everyone knows that ‘the science’ is for sale. Follow the money. What needs to be brought across is the vast amount of money to be made by getting the world to switch its power sources. It is literally the biggest possible spending project, and the financial world thrives on it, requires continual spending.
Politicians, bureaucrats (Deep State), NGOs, crony capitalists, Leftists & etc. all require continual spending of OPM.
What needs to be brought across is the vast amount of money to be made
That is “argued” often enough right here, so we can see in a microcosm how that’s likely to play out.
Peterson is correct about the infernal climate models being ludicrous.
According to CMIP 6 models, the global temp anomaly should be 1.35C by now, while the December UAH 6.0 anomaly was 0.2C and will likely be -0.2C by March of this year.
Long term, CMIP 6 climate models predict 4.0C of global warming by 2100, while all empirical evidence show it’ll be closer to 1C, if not lower..
To get to 4C from the current global temperature anomaly of 0.2C world require a warming trend of 0.48C/decade from now until 2010, which is absurd given the current warming trend for the past 40 years has been about 0.14C/decade.
Moreover, it’s highly likely when both the Pacific and Atlantic reenter their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles in a few years, global temperatures will fall for 30 years, proving most of the warming we enjoyed from 1979 to the present was from AMO/PDO warm ocean cycles and other natural phenomena and not from CO2.
I hope that Dr. Roy Spencer will soon prepare an updated graph comparing UAH 6 observed global temperature anomalies from 1979~2022 to CMIP 6 model mean projections over the same time period..
It would be hilarious.
@SAMURAI: I’m (a bit) sorry that your prediction:
<i>Moreover, it’s highly likely when both the Pacific and Atlantic reenter their respective 30-year ocean cool cycles in a few years, global temperatures will fall for 30 years<i> seemed to me, at first sight, similar to the climate fanatics’ projections of their models.
But I hasten to say that, contrary to all those doomsday threats, I find your statement <b>credible<b>.
What an enormous problem, to get this across to a sufficient number of people!
Regards.-
Well, while his wording seems a bit awkward to me and taken out of context probably might not withstand for scientific scrutiny, I think he is spot on!.
Z. Hausfather for example showed a graph in a twitter response, how good models would match temperature measurements and there are a few things to say to that
a) the disagreement between the models increases by about 0.1°C per decade (and thus the graph directly SUPPORTS! Peterson´s statement!)
b) No previous model generation models clouds as good as the current CMIP6 global climate models. As these newest models struggle with assumed high CO2-Feedbacks, it is very clear the parameters older models use are simply not a description of the Real world.
Just like Peterson said.
A model mimicking the global temperature without getting all important parameters (like clods) correct is very meaningless. Just like a 4year old scribbling lines that match the Real world data!
c) I believe Hausfather might have left a few models out not supporting his idea and some parameters in the models he shows are ridiculously unreal!
d) There is also the more fundamental criticism by McKitrick showing that the process of attribution -“transcribing a model into the real world” – has potentially been done incorrectly for more than 20 years.
>> Hausfather, I am sorry , but this is not honest, this is not science!
Not surprisingly Mann and Schmidt also commented, both of them have to clean their own house, before they can comment on science.
When will Mann find time to correct or withdraw his flawed paper from 1998?
Schmidt defended the use of the use of Cape Ghir series (see for exampel here https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/25/new-data-and-upside-down-moberg/ as marocco SST) as pure proxy to create figure 1a in the last IPCC SPM. Looking at the data it is obvious that there either was no Middle age or Roman warm period or the proxy cannot be used as pure temperature proxy.
Both some very simple and clear examples, that these two people do not act as they understood science.
Haha First good laugh of the day…
Quote:”A model mimicking the global temperature without getting all important parameters (like clods) correct is very meaningless
(My emphasis)
English is a gorgeous language innit – esp as we’re left dangling concerning which clods you’re talking, there are simply soooooo many to choose from..
e.g. Gavin, Michael, Al, James, NASA, Molly Taft, BoJoGoGoBrando etc etc etc
Exactly the sort of word Monckton would use.
And the definition of the word a farmer might use is ever so apt also:
Clod: a lump of earth or clay.
“frost is essential for breaking up clods into manageable sizes”
But as we all know, ‘clods’ are perfectly convinced that Colding = Warming and they use Confession by Projection to prove it.
Is that why Mann’s ‘case’ never properly made it to court -isn’t there something in most constitutions about ‘not incriminating yourself‘
There’s nothing else a clod could do.
Loved your ‘Monctonesque’ analysis of what would otherwise have been an innocuous and unnoticed typo. It was roughly where my own mind went when I read “clod” … while discussing the “Hockey Stick Gang” … truly a bunch of thick witted “clods”. This is a description which can hardly be applied to Jordan Peterson. He actually gets what’s going on, while they appear unable to.
Why not trust the models — they haven’t been wrong yet (rolls eyes)!!!
Mann shows “a total lack of knowledge of how science works.” First comes observations then comes an attempt to explain the physical basis of the observations and to model the physical processes. The models are compared to reality and are adjusted or dropped in light of faithfulness to reality. Neither Mann’s nor Schmidt’s models pass the reality test. Although the narcissist Mann probably never admit to his models’ failure (see McIntyre and McKendrick’s work), Gavin was eventually forced to admit the CliSciFi models don’t work.
McKitrick’s
But never actually in public (or beyond a very rarefied few listeners). Such information must remain distant from MSM. Mann will take his perfidy to his grave or until he’s paid to do do otherwise.
Couple of points:-
First the Guardian and their little Mann friend are reacting to Rogan/Jordan. Reacting. Like the advice goes, “maintain the initiative. If you don’t know who has the initiative, it isn’t you”.
Second?
“Every great discovery in science – including the physics that allowed Peterson and Rogan to record and broadcast their ridiculous conversation – has arisen through that process,” he said.
Ummm… no.
Models are not results. Models may be used to assist in predictions so that practical test procedure can be put in place, but they are NOT THE END PRODUCT.
On the same topic, I do not believe that Jordan ever actually said there is not a place for models in science, but that he said the overall system of ‘climate’ is so complex and poorly understood that the CLIMATE MODELS would never work.
So Mann would be wrong twice in this example.
Third?
Hail Red Lobster, and clean your room up!
Love the lobster reference!
Models are used to verify results and PREDICT what possible futures may result when verification is achieved. The models predictions/projections have never come true, so they can not be used to have even a clue of what the future holds. If they must be reinitialized each period, i.e., annual or decadal, then they are wrong.
The only refrain I ever see is; “Our new model will get it right!”.
”Peterson told Rogan that because the climate was so complex, it couldn’t be accurately modelled.”
Errr correct. If Mr Mann or Mr. Schmidt disagrees, please come here and tell us what is wrong about the above statement. Thanks!
Don’t let us stop you.
Of course Jordan Peterson is correct to say [Computer] Climate Models cannot be correct, because, in part, as he said, there are too many [and too many unknown] variables. Other “reasons why computer climate models cannot be correct”: machine epsilon, finite representation of computers, parameterization, rounding error – as Jordan pointed out. Computer Climate Models are shit worthless, and dangerous, for setting costly policy; but they are great for hypothesizing and goofing around with what-ifs.
Canadian Mathematician Christopher Essex explains the above “reasons why” in this one hour presentation (stick with it, it is well worth it): https://www.netzerowatch.com/chris-essex-believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/
The climate which can be conceived is not the real Climate.
Speaking of word salad, get a load of what the idiot prof Sherwood said:
Wha?
The term “bubble-head” comes to mind.
I am no scientist. I just look out the window and see things change up and down and sideways like they always have and kinda smooth out to normalcy more or less over time. Then I look at all the gloomy predictions that haven’t come true, not even close; some in fact just so wrong and the opposite has happened. Then I look at how the doomsayers say that anything that happens is the result of global warming, er I mean climate change, and wonder how a theory that allegedly is supported by absolutely anything that happens except real world observation can be correct. Then I look at Climategate and wonder how I can believe anyone who confesses to lying and bullying to hide contrary opinion from what seem to be pretty normal people. Then I read website articles and comments as here, and see there are very smart people who are seeking truth however it turns out and they also tend to be various levels of skeptics. Oh, then I see that the UN, which put Palestine or some similar country at the head of some human rights commission, is behind the IPCC and its doomsaying and that gives me pause. Then I hear a genuine thinker like Doc Peterson say the doom ought to be questioned for the reasons I wonder about, and I think, “Yeah, that’s seems about right.”
The UN put Saudi Arabia as the Human Rights Commission head, you know, the guys that did 9/11/
Anger after Saudi Arabia ‘chosen to head key UN human rights panel’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/anger-after-saudi-arabia-chosen-to-head-key-un-human-rights-panel-10509716.html
H.E. Mr. Faisal bin Hassan Trad, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(left), presents his credentials to Mr. Michael Møller(right), the Acting Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva. January 7th, 2014
Since then things have changed a bit…