A couple of interesting points about climate science and the social media bootheel.
A pandemic burning in the background for some years has produced an increasing population of the media-disappeared — people the thought-police have banished — disappeared — from social media for having expressed unwelcome views.
Anthony Watts is prominent among the climate-condemned. The climate Syllabus Errorum also names Willis Eschenbach, Steve McIntyre, Russell Cook, and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever. I am honored to join them, in a small way.
Monday 14 March, sometime between 5-9 pm Pacific and without notice or explanation, LinkedIn restricted my account. I can no longer log in and am told all my posts and comments have been disappeared.
The LinkedIn bootheel descended after I posted air-temperature essays I&II below on my LinkedIn page. The first got about 19,500 views and the second more than 5000. They accrued more than 1000 comments and sparked considerable debate.
The discussion was vigorous but generally civil and data-oriented. No one here at WUWT will be surprised to learn that AGW skeptics carried the day.
Evidently factual accuracy was too much for LinkedIn’s “Trust and Safety Team.” They liquidated the posts along with my account.
Unconscious irony had its way again. In my experience, there’s no trusting team whimsy and no LinkedIn free-thinker is safe from them.
Next are the offending posts, slightly edited, offered freely and notwithstanding possible cognitive dissonance.
I. An Alternative View of Recent Climate Warming.
In 2010, I blogged about finding that the entire air temperature record since 1880 could be reproduced with a cosine and a linear trend. The full 2010 analysis is at Jeff ID’s the Air Vent [complete with an ECS estimate of 0.34 C/doubling].
The updated graphic below extends the analysis to 2019 and is again an excellent reproduction of the entire (GISS) air temperature record since 1880.
The inset (upper left) is a histogram of the unfit residual, which is very Gaussian and looks like stochastic climate variation.
The cosine period is 60 years, which closely approximates the AMO/PDO oscillation.
Subsequent to the blog post, Carl Weiss (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig, Germany) wrote to let me know that the positive linear trend matched the rising phase of a 234 year oscillation he and his colleagues found in European temperature records and a stalagmite record.
See Figures 3&4 in Lüdecke, et al., (2013) “Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records” (open access)
So, the entire climate warming since 1880 can be plausibly ascribed to the AMO/PDO oscillations imposed on the rising phase of a natural 234 year cycle.
I’m not claiming this explanation is physically correct. However, the derivable inference that the recent warming is the result of natural variation is more compelling than a CO2 assumption forced by tendentiously constructed models and self-circular interpretations of ice-core records.
Addendum: The ~60-year PDO and AMO cycles in D’Aleo and Easterbrook (2016).
The ordinate is a numerical index derived from Principal Component Analysis (Mantua & Hare, 2002).
II. Ever-changing Climate Change
Tony Heller has posted much work on the strangely fungible air temperature record, taking much ad hominem heat for it. Early air temperatures cool, making post-1950 warming seem more extreme.
I decided to check. Figure ‘a’ compares a 1978 – 2022 set of published Northern Hemisphere (NH) decadal air temperatures.
The 1978 record is from M. K. Miles, while 1987-2022 are from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The 1978 record was re-scaled at 1960-1970 to match GISS normalization. Figure ‘b’ compares the GISS annual temperature anomalies over their full range.
The 1978 Miles NH data allow independent comparison with the GISS record. From 1986 to 2022, the pre-1940 GISS temperatures serially cooled, along with the entire NH 1910-1940 warm period.
In the NH, the 1880-1940 warming trend diminished by 40% after 1999 (Table). These changes are also in the global record (Figure ‘b’).
In 1987, the steep 0.15 °C/decade 1910-1940 warming rate was comparable to the post 1970 rate (Table).
The effect of CO₂ emissions is purportedly negligible before 1950. Skeptics noted the embarrassingly equivalent post 1910 and post 1970 rates. If the first didn’t need CO₂, why should the second require it?
But the 1910-1940 0.15 °C/decade rate in 1987 became 0.10 in 1999, 0.12 in 2010, and 0.11 in 2022. The equivalence disappeared as the future cooled the past.
In 1986 and beyond, the 1920-1960 period hugely increased in coolth (‘b’). Past temperatures again dropped in future-perfect time. In 2022, however, the climate prior to 1900 re-warmed (see also ‘a’), indicating more retro-temporal climatic connections.
Between 1986 and 2022, the rate of warming in the 1880-1940 period dropped by a factor of 5 (Table).
The combined impact of decreasing temperatures in the post-1920 records and the sudden 2022 increase in pre-1900 air temperatures serially flattened the slope of the trend.
Mean Trends in Warming — °C per decade
|Northern Hemisphere||Global||Global (From 1970 to)|
|Year||Decadal 1880-1940||Annual 1880-1940||1985||1999||2010||2022|
Tony Heller is right, it seems. The global air temperature record is evidently not the global air temperature record.
Explore Tony’s work at https://realclimatescience.com/
The trillions of dollars spent on climate alarm, on subsidies for renewables, and on the war to make fossil fuel energy expensive and rare, are all based upon data such as these.
A dispassionate and thorough third-party validation and verification of the air temperature record is imperative; to be carried out by metrological engineers chosen for merit and integrity, both.
M. K. Miles 1978
So that’s it. Views fit only for media suppression. So say the morality savants at LinkedIn. Condemned, I’m honored to join Anthony and the select company.