Pat Frank
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.
The disappeared include those who dare to wonder out loud about the fashionably frenzied narratives on climate, Covid, and, incredibly, pronouns.
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.
I had previously posted on my PowerHour and FindingGenius podcast interviews. Perhaps the subsequent visuals did overmuch violence to safe-space cadets at LinkedIn.
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 |
| 1978 | 0.09 | — | ||||
| 1986 | 0.11 | 0.1 | 0.18 | |||
| 1999 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.20 | ||
| 2010 | — | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.16 | |
| 2022 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.19 |
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.
Links
M. K. Miles 1978
GISS 1987
GISS 1999
GISS 2010
GISS 2022
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.
Consigned to the Memory Hole?
My deepest thanks to Anthony and Charles for publishing my essay. Having a voice is so important in a dark age.
The antipodes of our age are represented right here. The bright light of free inquiry at Watts Up With That and the silenced midnight of its cancellation at LinkedIn.
Thank-you Anthony, thank-you Charles.
By the way, the wrong Figure was uploaded into the Addendum. The correct Figure is…
To replace what with it?
Thanks. The addendum Figure should be the one showing the PDO/AMO cycles in the comment immediately above yours.
Ok I replaced the second chart but what you gave me is too small and blurry you have a bigger one that is in focus?
Thanks so much. Yes. If you email me at (Snipped) I can send it to you.
I still don’t have a good handle on how I ended up on that list between the towering figures of Dr Sherwood Idso and blogger Paul Chesser, but if my guest posts at WUWT dissecting elements of the egregiously false ‘corrupt skeptic climate scientists’ accusation are what led to it, then being labeled a ‘contrarian’ that way is an honor, and I thank Anthony Watts and WUWT for giving me the voice that they also give to Dr Frank
This is what you get when the Left controls things.
The Left can’t stand the truth and their first impulse is to shut you up if you say something they don’t agree with. And they are doing it with impunity now.
But the times, they are changing.
Thank Goodness for the Shining Light of Free Speech at WUWT.
We need a free-speech movement for social media, and it looks like it is starting to happen with free-speech alternatives popping up.
Don’t do business with the censors. Let them go the way of MySpace.
Sounds like a violation of US Federal law to me. Given that LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft I suggest smearing Microsoft brutally and publicly, they quite literally are not legally allowed to retaliate and need to know that their baby company is in violation of its charter.
The use of “Bootheal” reminded me of some George Orwell Quotes:
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” George Orwell
I like this rewrite of a well known campaign slogan:
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Indeed. I too had Orwell in mind when I wrote that, Steve.
I saw a good slogan on a T-shirt, on the internet yesterday (modified slightly by me):
“Make Orwell’s 1984 Fiction Again”
I’ll have to get myself one of those.
I don’t remember where I saw that – probably Pookie’s Toons anyway “Make Orwell Fiction Again” is simple, easy to understand and a recognizable tie into that well known slogan.
Here’s a T-shirt I had made for myself. 🙂 Slightly different topic, but in the same ethical ballpark.
If you like it, please feel free. 🙂
Whilst I share your opinion, I don’t see that happening.
For example, Blokes in frocks are women.
Not even Orwell saw that one coming, but it is entirely in keeping with 1984isms like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength etc
Peace has broken out in Ukraine a peace that threatens the fight/peace against climate change and achieving Net Zero everything
Freedom of the proles puts the interests of the neo feudal elite at risk and so the state and their betters should decide on their behalf
Ignorance is the strength of climate science, they have ensured children are ignorant and anxious
The Two Ronnies – “The Worm That Turned”
“When Trust and Safety Encounter Fact and Science”
Or “When Dogma Encounters Heresy”
Because that is pretty much what it is; a code, a set of tenets etc put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. Which bumps rudely into any belief or theory that is at variance with ‘established’ authority/consensus etc
And removes or ‘excommunicates’ them, forthwith. The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo and found him “vehemently suspect of heresy “. The fact that he (and Copernicus) was right had no bearing on the matter; heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.
Sounds a lot like climate science, doesn’t it.
The climate protection racket has all the hallmarks of those medieval religions we thought were done with by the advent of The Enlightenment.
Look like we now need Enlightenment 2.0
The revolution will not be televised. Or on LinkedIn.
It’s privately owned and they can do whatever they like. Even censor instatisticate silliness.
You still have the dark $ funded Heartland and Koch outlets. And you also have a no show government funded sinecure, so you won’t starve in an attic.
Maybe you can post here. Lots of acolytes..
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/05/truth-social-emptiness-donald-trump-00014355
“It’s privately owned” – by Microsoft!
Got a point anywhere in there? I mean, beyond the usual all inclusive, all purpose, fact free, Dr. Evil conspiracy theory?
Yes, and Microsoft is privately owned.
Rather than refute the article you smear. These are tactics of the inferior.
“Rather than refute the article you smear.”
Already been done. Over and over. By folks with much more cred and expertise than this mere petroleum engineer. And in spite of Dr. Franks expected faux victory lap.
Rather than refute the article you smear, even when called out. And now the deeper problem with you comment needs to be exposed.
Growing up in a free society where, for the most part, law and order prevailed in my part of Canada, I often wondered how civilized societies from history could turn so rotten and commit the worst atrocities against their fellow man. It seemed that history was too awful compared to the generally good people that seemed to populate the world. But In his comments here, it’s so easy to see how it starts.
When people only insist on free speech for themselves and those they agree with, they have taken the first big step towards tyranny. They suddenly share the values of the worst regimes the world has ever known. Personally I find comments like the above that turn a blind eye to censorship, nay applaud censorship, to be the most thoroughly disgusting and shameful. I spent more words on this person than he deserves but those promoting the censorship of thought deserve our constant scorn.
Dr. Frank has not had any rights abridged. He is as free as a bird to emote. OTOH, private entities have no obligations to amplify him.
If you are in favor of forcing private entities to publish views that are not statistically/scientifically grounded, but agree with your prejudgments, then you are living on the wrong continent.
So, you’re claiming man made global warming, climate change, or whatever your nom de jour for it is, is scientifically grounded?
It’s dogma.
That’s what made the Rogan experience with Koonin and then Dessler so entertaining and enlightening. Dessler lost bigtime,
Cue the cris de couer for the censorship of Rogan….
No, he is saying something much worse than that. He’s saying that if you are fired from your job or blacklisted because you have published the wrong but perfectly legal material on climate, while working in some totally unrelated area like nursing or being a shop assistant, or farm worker, that is not censorship, because its not the government that has done it.
And its fine.
“forcing private entities to publish views”
Are you saying LinkedIn is a publisher?
I doubt bob knows enough about anything to know what the difference between a publisher and a bulletin board is.
He just repeats whatever the latest talking points memo says.
Shouldn’t it be left to the denizens of the forum to counter a speaker with points of argument, rather than relying on the landlord of the forum venue to exercise property power to remove a speaker the landlord finds challenging?
I mean, that landlord has just tacitly admitted that the assembled denizens are incapable of presenting a serious argument.
Clearly doesn’t think much of them, but happy to take their $$$ anyway.
Sad.
In return, these publishers should be barred from advertising that they are nondiscriminatory. If they censor anyone, ANYONE, they should refrain from claiming they publish the TRUTH. THEY DONT!
They are protected from being sued for other people’s comments. They are not publishing. If they chose to censor opinions, they surely must be held responsible for libel?
Either they provide a particular service as advertised, or get done for lying. Dr. Frank was conned.
It is that simple. They are being called out for unethical behaviour and your attitude is he should not be allowed to emote (dispute being reasonable and having a good logical argument) on any blog.
“he should not be allowed to emote (dispute being reasonable and having a good logical argument) on any blog.”
No, just that those in the non governmental sphere who put them out get to choose what’s a waste of time, off limits, lies, Dan Kahan system 2 self delusion, and so on. So yes, they get to decide what is a “good argument”. Not him, and not you.
If they get to choose, they must not allow anything that is libel to be “published” or they pay since they chose to allow it to appear on their website.
Dr Frank presented an argument like a scientist. It was censored by children.
“they get to decide what is a “good argument”. Not him, and not you.”
Their decision does not define the good of an argument.
They merely have the power, not the right, to silence a good argument. Because they don’t like it.
This is a common argument – it comes up particularly with Section 230 issues, and you find it on Ars Technica all the time.
The argument is that censorship means restriction by government agency. If private companies do it, that is not censorship. The argument is also then extended: its said that to prevent private companies from deciding what to publish, and particularly to restrict their ability to delete material posted by users, is to compel speech, and this will be a First Amendment breach.
The problem with the argument is that censorship is a matter of fact that happens in a society. It can happen in a variety of ways depending on the structure and legal situation.
In many societies it does indeed occur because of legislation and the restrictions on publication are enforced by government agencies. But what we are seeing now is collusion by private media companies which together have an oligopoly in publication. They act like a cartel to prevent people publishing material they disagree with. This is censorship all right, and its not done by government.
To which it is usually replied that they do not prevent publication. You are legally permitted to publish, its just that you can’t publish in the cartel’s media.
Again we have to look at the end result. In fact, in modern times, someone cannot simply publish in the non-cartel media, because if they do, other major players in business will act to ban them from employment. As for instance Maya Forstater found, when she was dismissed from her employment (actually, contract not renewed, which in British employment law is legally dismissal) because she publicly differed from the woke consensus on gender.
Censorship can occur, and does occur today, in a new form. You don’t incur legal penalties for publishing the wrong facts or opinions. But you may be called on by the police and told that your actions while lawful are upsetting people, and that you will be placed on a police register. As happened to Harry Miller. Or you may be fired from your job and denied employment or contracts. If you are an artist, for instance, galleries my decline to exhibit your work – even if it has nothing to do with the publicly expressed views which they object to.
The result will be a society which so structured that, if you publish the wrong kind of material,
This is censorship. Its happening with governments collusion, but not their direct action. And the result is that yes, you can print out a few pages and hand them out on the streets, but all mass communication outlets are denied to you. And that once you have handed out your leaflets, for the rest of your life they may be dug up and held against you and used as reasons for denying you employment or participation in social venues.
Despite the fact that in law, the material you are publishing is perfectly legal.
This is tiptoeing into authoritarianism and the end of democracy. Or as Stanley Payne would say, its one of the ways democracy dies. It dies of an internal revolutionary agenda by activists which mounts a legal offensive against its core tenets and values. In this case, free speech. While denying all the time that anything that could be called censorship is happening.
“This is tiptoeing into authoritarianism and the end of democracy.”
Yes. If we allow it to continue and don’t fight back.
We *are* in a fight for our personal freedoms, right here, right now. Our personal freedoms are being attacked from all sides.
Without free speech, we are lost.
michel,
Thank you for elucidating what I’ve been thinking about this issue but have not been able to put into words.
I think Stanley Payne’s insight on this is really profound. The problem is not any longer a revolutionary movement which seeks to overthrow the government by acting in extra legal ways.
The problem is a movement which keeps the appearance of conventional political and democratic behavior while using the institutions of democracy in furtherance of revolutionary programs.
Payne’s two books on the Spanish Civil War, in particular the one on the fall of the Republic, give a lot of insight into this via a particular case history.
In the two cases I cited, Forstater and Miller (in the UK) both were ruled unlawful by the courts. But this has not abated the desire of the revolutionary movement to achieve its goals by using different tools, but from within the institutions it seeks to undermine.
There really are people who want to outlaw the use of biological sex as a basis for public policies or public speech. To take this one example. This is a really revolutionary proposal, it would overturn how society works and life is lived. But its being attempted through the misuse of institutions whose objective was to accept the distinction, but prevent it from being used in discrimination and to the disadvantage of one group or another.
Because it does not have mobs in the street committing arson and violence, it does not look like a conventional revolution. But it is nonetheless truly revolutionary in spirit and as destructive as any revolution in history.
And it’s all voluntary, Michel. It’s an entire culture of intolerance. Everyone knows how to behave without instruction from authority.
The other aspect is that moral cowardice in the face of a controversy seems to be the default response of a very large fraction of the population.
The actions and events you describe would not happen in a society of people committed to Enlightenment ethics and with the moral strength to stand up for those ethics in the face of vociferous demagogic challenge.
I don’t pretend to be a person of science Pat, but I have a greater understanding of science and truth by reading articles such as yours on sites like WUWT. I hope that others too find alternative and additional platforms when faced with censorship.
In our fight against renewable energy we have been doxed and misrepresented by our only local newspaper and banned from writing for our local monthly magazine by the Chamber of Commerce. They shut down our articles because they believe the short term need for accommodation for transient green energy workers was more important than the destruction of our very community and environment.
Much respect and kudos Pat.
Thanks Megs. My respect for your courage and tenacity.
The saddest part of this whole mess is that so many Americans are not worthy to be Americans. They betray everything that makes America wonderful — especially freedom of speech and conscience.
I don’t understand how so many can self-righteously overturn the open society that so benefited them.
Good luck Megs. You’ll prevail. But not easily.
Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 302 F. Supp. 3d 541 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018)
Court found that Twitter – a private publisher – was a public forum, meaning that a user could not block other users from posting on the forum.
Packingham v. N.C., 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (Jun. 19, 2017)Because Facebook the equivalent of a public forum, state could not restrict access to the forum, including access by a convicted child molester.
“Already been done.” Big words. Where and by whom?
“Big words. Where and by whom?”
Is willful ignorance as blissful?
AGAIN
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/propagation-of-nonsense-part-ii/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmTuPumcYkI
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/11/critique-of-propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-predictions/
You’ve seen all of these. You’ve failed to repute any of the critiques in any non WUWT or above ground venue.
Do you wonder why your world gets smaller every week?
This is why the immutable Rule of Raylan can be once again invoked:
All refuted, bob.
Nick Stokes: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/19/emulation-4-w-m-long-wave-cloud-forcing-error-and-meaning/
Roy Spencer: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/15/why-roy-spencers-criticism-is-wrong/
Patrick Brown: https://patricktbrown.org/2017/01/25/do-propagation-of-error-calculations-invalidate-climate-model-projections-of-global-warming/#comment-1427
And your hero Ken Rice, the “simple computational physicist,” wrote this at your link: “I thought I would start by assuming that it applies to F₀. (1) However, F₀ is constant in each simulation, so I simply randomly varied F₀ by ±4 Wm¯² (2) assuming that this variation was normally distributed.(3)”
So let’s see: (1) wrong; (2) wrong; (3) wrong.
I provided three pages of explanation describing the uncertainty, with an explicit presentation of how uncertainty is treated in equations 5.1 and 5.2.
I also did not “assumes that there is an uncertainty, ±uᵢ” The uncertainty is right there in the literature.
And I also did not “assumes an uncertainty in each time step.” Calibration error enters into every step of an iterative calculation.
Ken Rice, the “simple computational physicist” got it all wrong. And if you knew what you were talking about bob, and had studied my paper a bit, would have known that Ken is wrong. Hopelessly wrong it seems because he hasn’t figured it out in the intervening 2¹/₂ years.
All your go-to authorities display no understanding whatever of physical error analysis. They’re technically unfit.
And you just accept it all at face value. If you were as deferential to a mindlessly preferred authority at work as you are here, bob, you’d have been ushered out of your career long ago.
More from Ken Rice: “The next thing I can do is assume that the ±4Wm¯² applies to ΔFᵢ.” That’s not an assumption. It’s a relationship given in eqn 5.1.
The ±4Wm¯² is the lower limit of uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. It necessarily conditions ΔFᵢ, which is the step-wise change in tropospheric thermal energy flux due to the added increment of forcing from CO₂ emissions. This isn’t difficult.
Ken goes on: “[I] added an uncertainty to ΔFᵢ at every step by randomly drawing from a normal distribution with a standard deviation of ±4Wm¯².
Here, Ken has taken the ±4Wm¯² and very wrongly treated it as a set of energetic perturbations ranging between +4Wm¯² and -4Wm¯². Ken’s is a mistake no working physical scientist or engineer would make.
He then chose individual positive and negative forcing values between +4 Wm¯² and -4 Wm¯² to generate a thick set of rising and declining temperature projections. See the graphic below.
But that’s not error propagation. Or even physical error analysis.
Ken’s mistake here is incredible to any trained physical scientist or engineer. He is confusing a ±calibration uncertainty statistic with positive and negative physical energy flux. He supposes that “±” means ‘ranging between positive and negative physical magnitudes.‘
A ±calibration statistic means nothing of the sort. It is an ignorance width. It means uncertainty; lack of knowledge. And uncertainty is not a physical magnitude.
Ken suggests his spread of projections “is much more like what Pat Frank presented.” But a spread of projections is nothing like an iterative propagation of error.
Compare Ken’s graphic below with the uncertainty bounds in Figure 7b of the paper. They have nothing in common.
Further, the ±4Wm¯² calibration uncertainty statistic is a constant. It has no distribution. The uncertainty of the iᵗʰ step is calculated as eqn. 5.2 and the uncertainty is propagated as in eqn 6, i.e., sqrt[sum over uᵢ²] (i=1-n).
And each step-wise uᵢ = [(0.42 × 33 K × 4 Wm¯²)/F₀].
It’s all there, but Ken seems clueless and just wanders off into wrong-land.
Ken goes on, writing that I am, “essentially assuming that the uncertainty in this term is much larger than the term itself.”
Wrong again. The uncertainty is in the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. Not in the ΔFᵢ. And the uncertainty is not an assumption. It’s an empirical fact.
Then, reiterating the worst mistake of all. Ken writes, “However, according to Pat Frank’s analysis, the uncertainty is large enough that even if the radiative forcing increases by 4Wm¯² in a century, the surface temperature could go down substantially.
“Pat Frank’s analysis essentially suggests that adding energy to the system could lead to cooling.”
These sentences provide explicit evidence that Ken thinks the ±calibration uncertainty statistic is a physically real energetic perturbation that can take negative values (as well as positive).
And also that he thinks the propagated ±T uncertainty is a physical temperature.
These mistakes are typical among the climate modelers I’ve encountered.
Uncertainty bars are linked above and below each projected temperature point.
If Ken holds that a ±T uncertainty is a physical temperature — and he clearly does so — then the implication is that uncertainty bars = coincidental and opposed temperature excursions about each point.
Ken’s mistaken view requires uncertainty bars to indicate that a simulated climate must occupy both hothouse and ice house states simultaneously at each point all across the temperature projection.
I’m sure Ken didn’t realize his analysis implied a physical impossibility. But he should have done.
It should be clear by now that Ken is totally lost. His critique is a pastiche of naïve freshman mistakes.
He displays not the slightest inkling of the logic of my study, nor knowledge of the most basic notions of calibration or physical error analysis.
Ken finished with, “Anyway, I think we all probably know that Pat Frank’s analysis is nonsense.”
Rather, the nonsense is Ken’s mangled critique.
I regret if my outspoken demolition of Ken’s critique causes discomfort here at WUWT. Perhaps it is hard. But Ken didn’t spare the horses in his indictment. Nor has bigoilbob. Direct candor in reply seemed appropriate.
Its an excellent and complete reply. Particularly this
Very clear and impossible to argue with. Thanks.
Thanks for the comment, Michel. I didn’t think anyone would actually read so long a reply. But I had to get it out there.
Nothing to say, bob?
Don’t ever throw those phony attacks at me again. They’d all now just be you trolling.
Translation, I can’t refute the article, but I’ll pretend I don’t have to, so that I can continue to parade and preen, since that’s all I know how to do.
“You still have the dark $ funded Heartland and Koch outlets. “
That might be arguable for the US, but that’s it.
Other continents have to suffer Faceache, Twatter, Apple, Microsoft etc etc etc. I’d say that’s far more serious, bigoilbob
You should worry more about who is funding the AGW crowd. Why does it seem it all comes from governments?
From governments hostile to freedom like China and Russia, at that.
Perhaps their funding of the Green Movement is an attempt to undermine the West.
“It’s privately owned and they can do whatever they like.”
Try that when you’re being sued / prosecuted on the basis of “ public accommodation”. Pat and the other commenters have rightly noted that we are currently living in an Orwellian world.
Btw, bob, I can’t help but notice that you consistently materialize whenever Dr. Frank posts here. Please find another hobby.
“Public accommodation” is an ADA term. Please show me how the can be sued, base on that. Unless Dr. Frank can claim that he was being discriminated against for a disability.
“Orwellian”? Karen personified…
https://giphy.com/explore/clutches-pearls
‘“Public accommodation” is an ADA term.’
Actually, PA has its basis in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Starting then, we as a people decided that putting feasible limits on property rights would be preferable to allowing the civil rights of some Americans to be infringed. If you don’t think free speech, a civil right, is as important as staying the night in a hotel room, I would suggest you examine your priorities.
It really is amazing the things bob knows, that were never true.
According to the Supreme Court, if you offer your services to one, you must offer it to all. As a business, you do not have the right to pick and choose which customers you are going to serve.
Censorship is only good when it’s being done by our side.
“You still have the dark $ funded Heartland and Koch outlets.” juxtaposed with your “all inclusive, all purpose, fact free, Dr. Evil conspiracy theory” A perfect self goal.
You’re very special, bob.
“Bless his heart.”
Aren’t the Koch outlets funded by… Koch? Do you understand what dark money means?
Spoiler alert – if you know where the money comes from, it’s not dark.
Excellent post, Dr. Frank. Thank you for sharing all that data.
About B.O.B.: with his ridiculously pompous personality and his snide remarks backed up by nothing but unsupported generalizations, B.O.B. is doing a MARVELOUS job of making the pro-AGW side look weak and ignorant.
Keep it up, B.O.B.!
😆
Thanks, Janice. It’s good to see you here. 🙂
I enjoy the actual science discussed here and not those that specialize in ad hominem attacks. The best policy is just to ignore them, as they gum up the thread.
Indeed, it is the science – or rather the pursuit of it. In my my mind there is no doubt about the contrivances that goes into corrupting the temperature record – adjustments of the earlier 20th century down in order to get their uptick. Oceanic variations have a lot of merit in explaining changes to the system. We hope to bury CO2 as a cause.
“The best policy is just to ignore them, as they gum up the thread.”
You are absolutely correct! And I believe that is the intention. It’s akin to ‘photo bombing’, people insert themselves to the extent that they monopolise everything.
They bait us, and of course we feel the need too set the record straight and to defend our integrity. It quite often brings to light additional clarification of the original discussion piece.
😊
He is a POS.
When in history have those who tried to silence others been the good guys?
More hyper Karening. Conscientious, private sector editing is not “silencing”. When the boring old editor of the Scientific American routinely fails to publish a denizen of assisted living who sends in his proof of Piltdown Man, once a month, it’s really not that “Orwellian”.
As expected, no actual answer.
“fails to publish” is vastly different than “removing”. I guess that’s difficult for you to understand.
Also apparently difficult: Platform vs. publisher. No liability vs. liability. If a company is going to claim platform exemptions, then they can’t exercise control over content other than blatanly illegal content. “Private sector editing” – meaning exercise of editorial control – makes then a publisher, thus liable for what is published.
But they (and you) want it both ways. Control of content AND freedom from liability.
Are you ok with gmail or hotmail, or AT&T and Verizon, exercising editorial control over what you email, text, or say on the phone? Because if you support a platform being allowed to control its content, you’re favoring that sort of policy. I’m certain you won’t see that, though. (or worse, you actually might support that sort of control by those companies)
It IS silencing, Bob. And by supporting it, you’re the bad guy. But you will never realize that because you’re too wrapped up in your own hypocritical self-righteousness.
Rant away, Bob. Bye.
In bob’s world, having the wrong opinions means you deserve to be censored.
‘Intellectually dishonest, private sector editing…’ is the accurate description.
As usual, bob has no trouble with censorship, so long as it’s the other side being censored.
You are correct
However, by censoring Pat, LinkedIn is acting like a publisher, not a platform
This means they can be held responsible for all content published by users on their site
“This means they can be held responsible for all content published by users on their site”
Which is certainly why they did what they did.
Nonsense. They enjoy the protection of common carrier status on the internet as granted by congress. They cannot be sued for content as publishers can.
Uh, ok. Where did I say they could? I made no legal claim. Take it up with Redge, who did. By “responsible” all I meant was w.r.t. their rep.
“Certainly” is a word first used in the 14th century. Synonyms are
None of which apply to your argument. Try a different salad bar.
Clearly, you have no understanding of the implications of LinkedIn and other “social media” sites if they act like a publisher
Word salad Bob and his windmills on the job.
So , totally unable to put up a single piece of relevant science.
You go to a cowardly smear campaign.
Not oily.. just stinking and slimy… like a grease trap.
Funny how they can screw over the customer but other people can’t have a voice or it’s “dark funded”.
The argument that was presented is provided. Is the data used false? Is the fitting of equations wrong? Is there something wrong with the math?
Or is it just wrong to bring it up?
Do you honestly believe that you defend science?
Paid propaganda or religious zealot…you can choose.
Funded …… do do what, exactly? I’ve heard that accusation hurled by leftist enviro-activists for over a decade now, and despite all my valiant digging, I have yet to find an iota of evidence anywhere from the Al Gore / Oreskes / Gelbspan / “Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Action” side of the issue of actual evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints — material that could stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between those skeptics and industry executives, in other words. If you have anything that the enviro-activist mob has missed there, by all means, show us.
It should be pretty clear that when people on one side of a debate resort to censoring and silencing people on the other side, the people doing the censuring must feel their argument is not strong enough to prevail. To my knowledge, people that believe in actual science and are correct in being skeptical about any scientific claim, are not engaging in censorship. This tells me a lot about the people who push climate change with religious vigor.
Real science requires no belief. It is the “Is” of the Universe. Furthermore, when you have a multi-vectored systems of inputs the best you can say about the science is data is currently trending in either a + or – direction.
Agreed. Science evolves. Each new theory raises questions, or it should. There is no such thing as ‘settled’ or ‘consensus’ science. People come up with an idea, and other people come up with ways to improve on that idea. Or to prove that it cannot work.
It’s always amusing watching the shills and Deniers pump bunk and then pretend to take umbrage at being “censored.” Professional liars do so very much hate the thought of accountability, it seems. It’s bad for business.
Given that, it’s hardly surprising to see Frank’s polemic above. He at least extends to us the kindness of running down a veritable rogues gallery of the debunked, discredited, and disgraced purveyors of the Denier narrative that have come and gone over the years.
But, ultimately, here’s the thing: There isn’t a single example of credible, independent, and peer-reviewed research that supports the Denier narrative. REAL science has brought forth these realities:
These are all realities of empirical data gathered daily, and accurately predicted by models going back over 50 years, including those of Exxon.
I just de-listed myself from LinkedIn.
I’m sure there are others. The disconnection of alt.worlders from superterranea continues.
One wonders if you work for Putin?
See how it works Bob?
You are the definition of pompous. Most amusing for the rest of us.
It really is funny how bob actually believes that he is the only one here connected with reality.
It would be curious to see what would happen if those of us still with LI accounts posted screenshots of the post above.
You’ll get an email that says this:
“Your comment goes against our policy on bullying and harassment. It has been removed and only you can access it.
If you’ve reviewed our policy and believe we made a mistake, you can ask us to take a second look.
Repeatedly creating content that doesn’t comply with our Professional Community Policies could lead to your LinkedIn account being restricted.
Thank you for being part of the LinkedIn community”
The censored post gets hidden from public view. Never mind appealing. LinkedIn’s Trust and Safety team is infallible.
Apart from posting facts and data falsifying climate alarm, showing Covid-19 is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu also goes against LinkedIn’s policy on bullying and harassment.
LinkedIn has apparently decided that factual contradiction is bullying or harassment. But contradiction is objectionable only if it endangers their protected narrative.
I suppose there is no sufficient number where they couldn’t censor all of the posts? Screenshots are much more difficult for them to censor than actual text input.
LinkedIn hide the whole post. No one can see it but you.
Dump CO2. Forget it, Its a bad dream involving dancing angels, emperors and phlogiston
Forget it
Now, we need to attach our collective cart to what is really going on, what explains the observed temp rises, the ‘floods’ and sea level risings
Here is a fantastic place to start. The event is ongoing right now, just starting Day 3 of 4 but the replays are all there.
https://www.soilregensummit.com/schedule/
Pay especial attention to Elaine, Minni and Colin
A bit unfortunate that Colin believes in CO2 induced Global Warming but doesn’t make too big a play on it – he is in fact a very practical guy and doesn’t let it bother him.
He’s doing all the right things to repair and halt it – he just doesn’t realise that it is the damage he’s repairing is what caused Climate Change in the first place.
groan
Minni in particular should be introduced to James Steele
I’m in a cube and the walls are closing in. I can’t speak, because I’m censored. I can’t breathe, because of the mask. I can’t socialize, because I’m locked down, I can’t travel, because I don’t have a vaccine passport. I can’t have a private conversation, because of mass surveillance. I can’t peacefully protest these things, because I’ll be arrested without due process. The walls are, indeed, closing in
Do you live in Russia? No? The USA?
Have you read “1984” by George Orwell? Every day we inch closer. Do you ever wonder why Trump was reviled by the press?
Marlene, you should move to Texas or Florida, or any number of other Red States. They don’t put you in that cube.
Pat, you refer to Tony Heller’s pre 1999 GISS T graph and mention the changes made to this and to world data. You may have seen the Capetown raw which is virtually identical to the US raw which is a validation of each other. I’ve put it up a few times in comments. Paul Homewood in UK has in the past looked at remarkably similar patterns in the long records of Paraguay, Ecuador etc. And of course, you see the same in Canada, Greenland, Iceland Northern Europe, etc.
Here’s Capetown’s “raw” to 2O11:
This is from
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/28/homogenization-of-temperature-data-makes-capetown-south-africa-have-a-warmer-climate-record/
With Homewood’s T records for Latin America, etc., a statistician like you could reconstruct global data closer to the truth, with the late 1930s still the record high (as it was also in Australia). Perhaps new insights in climate science will reveal themselves. Certainly, the highly manipulated current data has mired the science to a standstill.
I’m just a physical methods experimental chemist, Gary. Not a statistician. My avocational remit is data integrity.
Steve McIntyre is an expert statistician. He looked extensively at the USHCN data — see his comparison of raw and adjusted here.
He showed the manipulation of the record to make the 1930’s cooler and the late 20th century warmer.
He observed, “These are obviously not small adjustments – as the adjustment is approximately the same amount as the temperature increase being observed.
…
“The effect of the adjustments since 2000 has been to bring the USHCN history more in line with the CRU version. One wonders exactly what adjustments have been performed by CRU and others and the recent admission by Brohan et al 2006 that original versions of many series have been lost (or never even collated by CRU in the first place) leaving only the adjusted versions at CRU (with the nature of some or all of the adjustments undocumented and unknown) is extremely disquieting.”
That was back in 2007. Demonstrated data fudging.
Nothing changed. The climate bushwah goes on. So it always goes in consensus climatology. The AGW narrative gets preserved by hook or by crook. Mostly crook.
I don’t have the US data, Gary, but the Capetown raw looks very much like the independent US record compiled by Shen, et al., 2011 (Fig. 5a).
Yes, that temperature profile looks just like the U.S. regional chart, Hansen 1999, where it is just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
Hansen said that 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934 warmer than 2016, too. Hansen tried to take that back in later years for political reasons, but interestingly, one of Hansen’s colleagues sent Hansen an email where he agreed with Hansen’s figure for 1934, saying his data showed 1934 to be 0.49C warmer than 1998. This email is catalogued in the Climategate emails.
So my question is after Hansen tried to say 1934 was not the hottest year, did this colleague also change his tune, or does he still maintain that 1934 was 0.49C warmer than 1998? I would love to know the answer to that. I don’t remember the colleague’s name. I think I might have the email on a harddrive I don’t currently have access to.
All the climategate email greppers seem to have disappeared from the web.
But it looks like you can still downlad all the emails here:
https://www.enlightenedtechnology.org/download-the-leaked-climate-gate-email-archive/
Maybe you can track down the one you want and ask the question directly. 🙂
Thanks, Pat.
The problem isn’t that Fascist book, Google-you-censor and tricker censor sceptics, it’s that they censor and then people keep using them.
And just for info: duckduckgo stopped listing this site when you type in WUWT, which is proof that it really is being run by Google as many suspected. I’ve started using either startpage (loads of ads) or search dot brave dot com.
And, gettr seems to work as a replacement for twitter … although I don’t bother much.
When I use DDG to search WUWT, it returns Watts Up With That on top of the list.
WUWT on DDG for me brings up WWF first, climate hero calculator second and WUWT third. It has WUWT Wikipedia in the top right.
When I first started using DDG, it bought up some other WUWT blog but that no longer appears.
I am unclear what “Trust and Safety” have to do with the topic. Did somebody complain about the facts making he/she/it/them feel unsafe? Clearly, there is nothing threatening in the posts.
I keep my politics off LinkedIn and Facebook. I posted under my real name on both platforms and I can’t afford to lose work over offending some snowflake. I’m a software engineer and there are some real Stalinites in that field.
My handle is not associated with my name on Twitter. I don’t have to censor myself there. Actually, I didn’t have to censor myself but my account is locked because I wrote Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense and didn’t commit any crimes. Somehow, any honest assessment of the facts was deemed to be promoting violence.
As you may recall, a judge and jury found that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense and committed no crimes, yet my Twitter account is locked until I take down the offending tweet. Twitter refuses to process my appeal and I’m still locked out months later.
In many ways, being off Twitter is a godsend as I’ve found better uses for my time.
Yes, I looked into a Twitter account back in about 2012.
I quickly formed my conclusion that the bird droppings on my window sill offered more intelligent commentary than the (then) 120 character deposits that formed the Tweets.
And nothing has changed there in the past decade, as fear as I can determine.
I have actually used Twitter to get ahold of companies that otherwise ignored me. There is something about a tweet that makes their customer service take notice. Likely the reason is the Tweet is visible to all of Twitter but complaints on the company website or calls to customer service are hidden from the public.
Most enlightening.
Remember, on the very same day Alex Jones was banished from Linkedin, Youtube, Facebook and Twitter.
All the CEO’s of those companies woke up on the very same day with the very same idea. What Alex Jones is saying must be banned. Ditto with Spotify, Pinterest, ITunes and Instagram.
I never paid any attention to what Alex Jones was saying and I don’t really care. But that really doesn’t matter. I now know what tech giant CEO’s think about free speech on their platforms and what they will do when they don’t like it. They will conspire to ban it. It was not a coincidence.
The cure for wrong or unpopular speech is more speech. Banning speech is un – American. So is oligarch conspiracy and tyranny. Plain and simple.
Bail out of Linkedin. I quit them years ago. Just for my own piece of mind, or something. I don’t do social media. No twitter, fakebook, etc. Those are all avenues for the herd to be seen and heard, and corrupted by the opinions of others. That your data stands on its own two feet, or whatever, speaks volumes to those who would care to peruse it objectively. Data, if collected honestly and without bias, tells the truth regarding whatever the field is. Simple.
As my grandmother used to quote from Thomas Fuller: “Fools names, like fools faces are often seen in public places”.
He died in 1661, so none of this is new.
It all reminds of prohibition in America. Climate change hysteria has all the elements of the irrationality and dogma of that era
BINGO! And prohibition was triumphed by concerned citizens and funded by the tech giants of the day, most prominently, Henry Ford.
well youve joined a class above the sheeple;-)
not sure if the wayback machine does grabs off linkedin
what happened to you is yet another sad example of censorship at work
present days examples are cutting access to RT and other pages by the engines and m soft etc
god forbid anyone should be allowed free choice to read and consider a viewpoint not of bigbrothers liking
I take the LinkedIn censorship as an honor, ozspeakup. 🙂
Hi Pat,
I presented a virtual poster at the Geol Soc London Climate Conference online in May 2021.
Part of my work was looking at the longest glacial retreat records. Out of the global database there are just 18 glacier length records going back to at least 1800 (or earlier). I standardised these and then forward modelled the glacier responses using four different models of temperature:
HadCRUT4
RCP8.5 AR5 Forcings (any AR5 RCP is ok as they are the same pre-2011)
CMIP6 Model Forcings
Linear Trend + Sinewave (optimised trend model of 0.133 degC/decade post-1817 + sinewave +/-.6 with L = 69 years)
Because you can work in standardised units for glacial models, any input proxy which is linear with temperature can be used.
I computed the forward model response and compared the statistics of the residuals to the glacier length records for two periods – post-1900 and post-1800
The conclusions were:
• Forward modelling of glacier length response using either CMIP6/RCP8.5 or HadCRUT4 temperature observations is a poor fit. (HadCRUT4 warming is +0.17 degC/decade post-’79)
• The simple linear trend model is a superior fit to the glacier length data in the 20th Century and also fits the glacial retreat as far back as 1800 – 1850.
– Note the warming trend in the UAH satellite dataset over the entire observational period 1979–2021 is +0.14 degC/decade which is almost identical to the trivial model trend used.
• The fit of the trend+sinewave model is optimal with the same glacier climate sensitivity for both post-1900 and post-1800 but the CMIP6 model fit requires the glacier climate sensitivity to be changed by 25% when optimising to the two periods – this is a further inconsistency.
The residual misfit errors (1SD) for the trend + sinewave are way smaller than any of the temperature series (units metres because they are glacier length models):
post-1900 post-1800
HadCRUT4 134 N/A
RCP8.5 Forcings 152 N/A
CMIP6 Forcings 137 280
Linear Trend + Sinewave 64 207
Hi T.S. 🙂 Thanks for the report. I’m honored to receive it. And congratulations on both the very nice result and the poster. Really very interesting.
It appears you’ve found the same cyclic pattern in glacial dynamics as Lüdecke et al. found in their European stalagmite record. A long phase cycle underlying the shorter ~70 year oscillation.
Their Figure 3b stalagmite record shows nearly equally intense 65 & 73 year cycles, which seem to provide a physical explanation for your 69 year sine component. Do you think your glacier record would yield a 70 year Fourier peak? Your data set is certainly long enough.
I wonder if there’s an opportunity for a joint paper with them (not me), pointing out the mutually corroborating discoveries. Apparently all internal climate dynamics.
The HadCRUT4.6 record can also be fit with a cosine plus line. The cosine period is ~70 years, as you found. The 1850-2019 fitted trend line is 0.053 C/decade.
Over 1979-2020, the trend of the full fit is 0.13 C/decade, as you found.
The HadCRU residual has a bit more structure than does the GISS but the fit r^2 = 0.82 is virtually identical.
The conversation here seems finished.
So let me observe in closing that Team LinkedIn Trust and Safety displayed the behavior of an intellectual coward and of a dishonest broker, both.
“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.”
Hear hear.
With all algoreythms used published with a public debate at the presentation of results.
Treat anyone with dissenting views with respect and argue the data, processing and interpretation in public.
Another figurative nail in the CO₂ coffin. The graphic is a two-oscillation fit to the GISS 2019 anomalies. No linear trend remains to be interpreted as representing CO₂ forcing.
The short-period cycle is 61 years, which can be seen in the head-post, and that mirrors the PDO/AMO oscillation.
The long-period cycle (blue) is 313 years, which is very close to the 341 year peak that is dominant in the stalagmite Fourier spectrum in Figure 3b of Lüdecke, et al., 2013.
The 313 year cycle begins a rising phase in 1875 which continues across the entire 20th century and fully accounts for the increasing air temperature of the modern warm period.
If one supposes physical causality, the fit implies the modern warm period has just passed its maximum and the climate is now turning down into a 150-year cooling period. The sum shows lower intensity warmer bumps centered around 2065 and 2125, with the minimum around 2160.
We won’t see much of that absent some amazing longevity breakthrough, but someone will.
Nice. Anyone that thinks Mother Nature doesn’t have cycles is living in fairy land. Even the radiation diagrams that use linear algebra to come up with simple averages ignores the trig functions of the earth’s spin and that a sphere also uses trig functions to describe the radiation received at different points as you move to the poles.