Is “Climate Change” science or pseudoscience?

By Andy May

I have a new op-ed in the Washington Examiner today that questions whether “climate change,” as commonly defined today, is a scientific concept. The op-ed is a very brief summary of a longer post on the topic here. The longer post contains all the references and links to supporting material, including a link to Karl Popper‘s famous book on the definitions of science and pseudoscience, called Conjectures and Refutations.

From the op-ed:

“Tornados, nor’easters, hurricanes, mid-winter thaws, 100-degree days, cold snaps, droughts, and flooding creeks all are presented as evidence of human-caused climate change, “proof” that human emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to an overheated planet.


However, Karl Popper, the famous philosopher, would say that these meteorological events do not support human-caused climate change because none of them can falsify the idea. If every event supports an idea, and no event can falsify it, the idea is not a scientific hypothesis.


Popper’s examples of pseudoscience included Marx’s theory of history. He observed on page 35 of his famous book, that “A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page, confirming evidence” for the theory. Freud’s theories were the same; every clinical case confirmed his ideas. A hypothesis that is not refutable by any conceivable event is not scientific.”

Washington Examiner.
5 53 votes
Article Rating
411 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Buckingham
April 21, 2022 2:05 pm

I have asked all UK Government bodies and then up to the IPCC for the burden of proof, i.e. the scientific method, and none of them can answer. I take one step further for clarification of the precautionary principle via the closure problem, and they don’t even understand the question. Pure pseudoscience.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 4:52 pm

Andy,
the foundation should be laid in the home by the parents encouraging their children to think and reason carefully and logically, observe closely and of course promoting a love of reading from the earliest years. If they do a good job this compensates for the failure of teachers and is better guarantee of success later in life than a posh school, though good teachers will build on these home foundations.

Last edited 29 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Andy May
April 22, 2022 11:10 pm

Andy if you are a thinker then why this statement from your WE article:
Current epigenetic research shows that Darwin and Lamarck were both right and that evolution involves both processes.
Anybody that has read Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Darwin’s Doubt” knows that epigenetic research has demonstrated the exact opposite. Suggest you stick to petroleum and physics in which your knowledge base is solid.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 21, 2022 8:07 pm

Home schooling is the answer.

4 Eyes
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 22, 2022 2:00 am

Trouble is Michael those foundations have not been laid so what will the following generation learn from them. Scary. My generation (68 yrs) has not realized what the current generation is being subjected to and they are the ones who will teach the generation after them. The downside of the internet and social media is a really dark place. Not an unsalvageable situation but not easy to manage. In our retirements we have to make an effort to steer a sensible course and teach straight versus crooked thinking, for their sake, not ours. By the way there is a book called “Straight and Crooked Thinking” which even a leftie economist professor friend of mine thinks is terrific. I might push for a re-issue!

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  4 Eyes
April 22, 2022 2:12 am

There are historical accounts of even illiterate fathers and mothers being a real help to their children by encouraging them and taking an interest in what they are learning. These children have been able to overcome deficiencies in their schools and become responsible and productive adults. One of our biggest hurdles in the Western world is the nanny state that hates the idea of the parents being “the primary educators.” Schools should be there only to assist and build on the home foundation and not decide on their own foundation.

KCPoe55
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 7:31 pm

Andy, I am a full time lurker here and never posted. Both my wife and daughter went to Prairie Elementary, Indian Hills Middle School and Shawnee Mission East High School. Small world, I suppose.

Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 8:06 pm

The problem is not just science.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Andy May
April 22, 2022 7:57 am

As a child, back in the 60’s, my dad, an engineer by training, gave us a desk plaque which said, simply “THINK”. It puzzled me at the time, exactly what it meant, but I do believe it had an influence on me. Today’s desk plaque would instead say “FEEL”.

Gyan1
Reply to  Andy May
April 22, 2022 8:50 am

The PHD’s teaching students are hopelessly brainwashed. I’ve had many discussions with them over the years providing the peer reviewed science, empirical measurements , geologic history, logic and the limitations of climate models. No amount of real world evidence can shake their faith in modeled reality.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gyan1
April 22, 2022 9:56 am

There’s also that other factor, the understanding that grant funding and ‘career’ advancement come with doing the Climate Goose-Step, the old “it’s very hard for someone to understand something whose salary is dependent on him not understanding it” issue.

Bob Close
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 22, 2022 11:47 am

That’s why it’s us oldies trained in the scientific method who are leading the charge against CAGW because we are out of the system, can be free with our comments and we have the long term experience to recognize bullshit when we hear it and read it.
We were puzzled at first why our peer institutions all paid lip service to the climate scam, and came to realize the environmental movement had become a defacto religion whereby God had been replaced by Nature that was being threatened, and so the usurper mankind and his industrial works had to be punished. Attenborough and his BBC crowd are redolent of this creed.

These environmental attitudes can be worked on and gradually neutralised, however the politics is another creature altogether that rarely responds to reason and scientific fact, because they don’t understand the issues involved and seek advice from the meteorologists at the UK Hadley Centre. NASA/ IPCC the very groups that are fomenting the climate scam in the first place.
Nevertheless, the truth will out by the climate record as it emerges the planet is not warming anywhere near as fast as the dodgy and very expensive models are promoting, so the rising CO2 is not causing significant warming, and so the Net Zero emissions process is a total waste of time, money and effort! What a total global cockup this has been, with us innocent humans, general prosperity and science in general all suffering.
It’s time to wake up from this self induced nightmare, and live normally again.

Gerald the Mole
Reply to  Andy May
April 23, 2022 3:39 am

I graduated in chemistry in 1959. The most important things that I got from my university degree course were: (1) don’t subcontract your thinking, (2) don’t be overwhelmed by people who have letters in front or after their name.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
April 21, 2022 4:42 pm

I cannot understand how anyone who is familiar with the methodology and work of one of England’s greatest scientists, Michael Faraday, or the way the extraordinary 20th century Mathematician, George Polya, approached and solved problems can fail to see the claims of climate alarmists depend on pseudoscience. Perhaps the problem is that people are as ignorant of history as they are of science and mathematics?

Gerald the Mole
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 25, 2022 3:59 am

Michael, you are right, even many scientists are ignorant about the history of science. For example, my late neighbour who was professor of mathematics was unaware that logarithms had been invented as long a four centuries ago.

Reply to  Paul Buckingham
April 21, 2022 8:05 pm

Climate change is predictions of climate doom in 10 or 20 years.
Not reality.
How can anyone prove a prediction … that never changes?

A prediction that began in late 1950s scientific papers, without a specific date.
And with uncertainty.
Uncertainty has disappeared from climate science.

Meaning a global warming crisis has been “coming” for the past 65 years.

So where is it that global warming crisis?
I know: It got lost in New Jersey,
which I have done several times myself,
back when I lived in New York.
Sorry, I am unable to take predictions of doom seriously!

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 9:57 am

Wrong exit!

And always a long way to the next “U-Turn.”

Last edited 28 days ago by AGW is Not Science
Quelgeek
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
April 22, 2022 3:38 am

Sorry to be the thick one, but I don’t even understand the question either. There are a few things that are called a “closure problem”. The only one I know much about is from graph theory and I don’t see its applicability to the so-called “precautionary principle” (which is just the fallacy of Pascal’s Wager in a new guise).

Serious request: can you explain your question?

Tom Halla
April 21, 2022 2:06 pm

One cannot prove a negative. One can demonstrate that an extensive search for Ivory Billed Woodpeckers did not find any, but one cannot prove them to be extinct.

LdB
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 21, 2022 6:58 pm

Rubbish that is an often quoted fallacy in your case remove every tree and piece of wood on the planet and you can guarantee the woodpecker is extinct. Just for the record you can’t prove any absolutely positive trying looking at classical physics and gravity.

John in Oz
Reply to  LdB
April 21, 2022 8:00 pm

you can guarantee the woodpecker is extinct”

By the time all of the trees are removed the woodpeckers would have evolved to be somethingelsepeckers.

David Wolcott
Reply to  LdB
April 21, 2022 8:39 pm

Or, more simply, are my car keys in my pocket? Put hand in. No they’re not. Negative proven.

Reply to  David Wolcott
April 22, 2022 2:10 am

The point that Popper makes is that you can prove a negative, you cannot prove a positive.Inductive Knowledge may be refuted, but never proved.

Keys in pocket is not inductive – it is factual.
Until you sort out the difference between facts, deductive knowledge and inductive knowledge, the argument will make no sense.

The keys are in my pocket – factual.
The keys are in my pocket therefore my pocket is capable of holding keysdeductive.
The keys are in my pocket because that’s where I put them – inductive. This is not proof that you put them there. In fact the infamous and invisible Bugblatter beast of Traal, did, and implanted a false memory in your brain… Etc.

All causal relationships are inductive, and science is all about causal relationships, so all science is inductive propositions. there are no ‘scientific facts’ – only facts.

Anthropogenic Climate change is an inductive proposition – it is proposed that modern climate change is caused by human activity via rising CO2 levels. It is not a ‘scientific fact’

Two points: firstly is there actually any modern ‘climate change’ at all , and secondly if there is, is it in anyway different from ‘historic’ climate change?

Those facts have to be established before the phrase ‘modern climate change’ has any meaning.

The first is trivial – there is always climate change.

The second is key – is modern ‘climate change’ different from say any of the great extinction events that have happened in pre history? Yes, it’s not a huge extinction event. However it is no different from multidecadal changes that have occurred even in recorded history.

So even the fact of modern climate changes as distinctly different, cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 22, 2022 2:32 am

Two points: firstly is there actually any modern ‘climate change’ at all , and secondly if there is, is it in anyway different from ‘historic’ climate change?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2022 5:53 am

I think Gödel’s incompleteness theorems fit in somewhere in this argument. Mathematics is not a tidy package.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 22, 2022 10:02 am

The fallacy reveals itself nicely when you consider all the diametrically opposed outcomes that BOTH supposedly are the result of “climate change.”

“The children are not going to know what snow is” – during a period of relatively mild winters with little snowfall.

“Heavier snowfall is ‘consistent with’ global warming” – during a period of severe winters with record-setting snowfalls.

When their “hypothesis” can only seem to ‘predict’ current weather outside your window, you know it’s pure pseudoscience.

Last edited 28 days ago by AGW is Not Science
April 21, 2022 2:07 pm

That’s the question I’ve asked for 20 years knowing that the Alarmists have claimed every possible kind of climate as EVIDENCE, “what kind of climate is unexpected” and I already know that no rational answer will ever be given…

Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 2:11 pm

A very fundamental problem with the term “climate change” is that nobody, and I do mean nobody, has offered up a clear, objective, quantitative definition of exactly what that term means . . . at least, not a single definition that all scientists would agree upon.

“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”
— Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Loydo
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 6:28 pm

It’s like you think doubt-mongering and disinforming is going to turn this trend around? “meteorological events”, lol, is the flea on the tail of the dog. But, yeah, keep pointing at the flea.

comment image

“There is, in fact, no formal difference between willful blindness and stupidity.”

Reply to  Loydo
April 21, 2022 6:42 pm

And that chart in degrees Celsius is a number less than the error levels of the measuring equipment.

Making your alleged chart all bombastic silliness.

Loydo
Reply to  ATheoK
April 21, 2022 7:34 pm

Alleged? Lol. At the surface almost 1C of bombastic silliness.

comment image

I know, I know, it’s cooling, any time now. Or, but, but warm is better anyway right.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
April 21, 2022 11:11 pm

Ooops . . . I see a pause in the temperature anomaly from 1940 to 1975 . . . one that’s hiding behind the red linear trend line that is obviously established by cherry-picking the graph’s starting date of 1890.

Both NOAA and NASA define climate as weather over a specified geographical area averaged over a period of 30 years or more.

So, there was no temperature-metric-based climate change for 35 years as show in the graph you present.

BTW, is it fair to state that the 0.7 °C temperature change over 130 years, as indicated in the red trend line on graph that you presented, is “almost 1C” (your words)? There is a 42% increase in going from 0.7 to 1.

Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 12:57 am

Loydo- “At the surface almost 1C of bombastic silliness.”
Now tell us how we got that data for ALL OCEANS between 1890 and 2010? All I ever heard of were a few, very few measurements here & there and a lot of measurements along trade routes.
Fact is that WE DO NOT HAVE THE DATA to say what the Earth’s or Ocean’s temperature was before WWII. Go back to the 1920s and we ONLY have good data from US & Europe, a tiny fraction of the Earth!

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 2:40 am

Great graph of upwardly adjusted urban temperatures.

Nothing to do with “Global” though, is it !

M Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 6:54 am

Say you are right, for the sake of argument. How significant is this Global warming? Is it newsworthy???

Well your graph gives us 1°C warming in 100 years.
The temperature at any given place can vary on any given date by at least 10°C.

So society and nature have adapted to cope with 10 times the temperature change at 100 time the rate.

How significant is this Global warming? Not at all according to your graph.
Now let’s focus on real problems.

Last edited 28 days ago by M Courtney
Nigel in California
Reply to  Loydo
April 21, 2022 7:10 pm

No, it’s more like you telling us that the flea is a dog.

Also, convert that y-axis energy into degrees Celsius and you will get a sea water temperature rise over the last several decades of a few hundredths of a degree… Where’s the “crisis”? Just because something is increasing doesn’t mean it’s bad and we are the cause.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/16/the-ocean-warming-enigma/

Loydo
Reply to  Nigel in California
April 21, 2022 7:51 pm

“sea water temperature rise over the last several decades of a few hundredths of a degree”

Yeah, if you disingenuously take the average of the entire volume down to the botton of the oceanic abyss. Instead look at sea surface temperature – where the ocean affects “meteorology”, in some places it’s an abrupt multiple degrees of warming.

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 2:42 am

“in some places it’s an abrupt multiple degrees of warming.”

Total rubbish ! Just make up crap as you go !

Bob boder
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 3:10 am

Loydo

You prove yourself wrong, if it’s the warming of the oceans then it’s not CO2 in the atmosphere. For CO2 to have any effect on the ocean there would have to be a large warming trend in the atmosphere first then a slow warming trend in the ocean. Your chart shows the exact opposite, so you have proved Andy correct by your own idiocy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bob boder
April 22, 2022 10:10 am

Yeah but in his defense he’s too stupid to know that.

Nigel in California
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 12:53 pm

You have committed the same logical error:

“multiple degrees of warming” -> Is that good/bad? Has it happened before? Is it a cycle? Do you have enough data to show that it isn’t a long/short/natural cycle? Is this normal for those places? Explain and prove the mechanism by which this happens -> are humans the cause? Simply stating that something “unusual” has happened does not imply catastrophe, you need prove several things first.

“in some places” -> Is this unusual for these places? What is the mechanism of warming for these places? Has it been root-caused to human activity, or is it natural? We can’t oversimplify what we see and then claim a crisis is coming.

And you are using circular logic:

“Meteorology” cannot simultaneously cause ocean surface warming and be itself caused by ocean surface warming. And if you claim a positive feedback mechanism is at work here, you must also believe that 1+1=3. Either the energy is in the air or it’s in the ocean. You can only pick one. And further claiming that the ocean is ‘storing’ the energy so that it will come back to cause a crisis is just pseudoscience. Why didn’t the previous 1 degree of temperature rise cause a catastrophe?? Like CMoB has stated, the most recent temperature rise is not “special”.

Reply to  Nigel in California
April 22, 2022 12:59 am

“temperature rise over the last several decades of a few hundredths of a degree…”
Worse than the tiny amount of measured warming is the lack of wide coverage of sea measurements. One can pretty much say there is NO GOOD WORD WIDE data before the satellite era.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
April 21, 2022 10:53 pm

Of course, Loydo, you don’t dare to state:

1) How “energy change” in zeta-joules relates to equivalent degrees-C temperature change. Why is that?
[I note that to first order d(E) = d(m*Cp*T), yielding (dE/E) = dm/m + d(Cp)/Cp + d(T)/T, so while one can measure d(T)/T with a vast array of instruments, that is not the case with d(Cp)/Cp, given the phase change latent heats between ice-liquid water-water vapor, nor with d(m)/m for ocean and ice parameters since thermally-variable mass, m, for ocean waters and ice are not well-established, depending on subsurface ocean currents and ice depth, respectively.]

2) The error bars associated with each of the regions defined in the chart’s legend. Why is that?

3) The source/author(s) of the plotted data. Why is that?

4) The obvious fact that scientific capability to use models to compute (but not to actually measure) energy change has progressively and vastly improved from 1960 through 2019, including a massive increase in temperature measurement areal resolution of each of the ocean, land, ice, atmosphere and TOA parameters plotted in the graph via implementation of land-based temperature measuring station networks (e.g., USCRN), the ARGO float-based ocean temperature profiling system, and the use of orbiting satellites with high accuracy remote radiation (temperature)-sensing instruments. Why is that?
[Note that one can easily and logically conclude that your hockey-stick graph thus reflects only better computations of energy change happening over time, but nothing that is an actual physical effect.]

5) Given the facts of Item 4, how in the world it is possible for anyone to believe that, as plotted, the band of energy change “uncertainty” in 1965 was less than the energy change uncertainty plotted for the years 2005-2019? Why is that?

6) The graph starts at 1960, thereby excluding the period of 1940-1959 where “unadjusted’ temperature measurements at those times showed a pause/decline in global atmospheric temperatures, which actually extended through 1975. Why is that?

Now, you were paraphrasing something about blindness and stupidity . . .

Loydo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 11:23 pm

If in your opinion the change in thermal energy content of the oceans surfaces is negligle and that even if it wasn’t, any change would have a minimal impact on atmosphere energy content (without breaking the laws of Physics), then don’t mistake your opinion for facts and leave it at that. Post some evidence to support your opinion.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
April 21, 2022 11:45 pm

Your fundamental mistake is your strawman statement about my opinion . . . I never stated or implied “thermal energy content of the oceans surfaces is negligle (sic)“.

Want to try a second attempt at deflecting my questions to you?

Loydo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 22, 2022 12:52 am

Your fundamental mistake is that you think I am going to engage in a debate with you about your opinions and not the evidence.

Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 1:41 am

Your fundamental mistake is that you think I am going to engage in a debate with you about your opinions and not the evidence.

Loydo,
Your fundamental mistake is assuming that the scientists posting here are going to take you seriously.

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 2:43 am

loy d’oh… We know full well you will never present any evidence. !

mkelly
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 6:28 am

Loydo, you were presented with evidence regarding using the Cp of the ocean to try to calculate temperature changes. That is not opinion.

Show that you know something and discuss whether Gordon’s point #1 was valid.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 10:14 am

Well, if ‘evidence’ is what you’re all about, the provide some empirical evidence for the notion that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature. And explain all the historic climate data that says it didn’t and couldn’t.

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 2:42 am

“Post some evidence to support your opinion”

Like you never do !

mkelly
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 6:22 am

Which “laws of physics” do you claim would be broken?

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 3:22 am

Tiny fractions of a degree.

And since CO2 cannot warm the oceans, it has to be the sun

Also, please indicate how these teeny tiny values were measured in 1970, when there were basically no measurements for most of the worlds oceans.

no formal difference between willful blindness and stupidity.”

Yep, you exhibit both, in droves. !

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 3:24 am

We could of course look at that in more historic terms, using proxies.

See that little red squiggle at the end..

OHC in perspective 2.jpg
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 10:15 am

You need to correct that exhibit – should read “This bit SUPPOSEDLY caused by human CO2”

Peterg
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 2:20 pm

How about “If the various areas specified by the Koppen climate classification are changing by more than twice any previous natural rate in the recent geological past, then unnatural climate change is possible”. Of course this is not the case, so I for one am a denier.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Peterg
April 21, 2022 2:36 pm

Sorry, Peterg, I have heartburn (and resulting gas) upon seeing the somewhat ambiguous terms: “various areas”, “any previous”, “natural rate”, “recent geological past”, “unnatural” and “possible”.

In particular, “possible” includes a range of probabilities of, oh let’s say, .000000001 to 0.999999999.

Last edited 29 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Peterg
April 21, 2022 5:08 pm

Peterg
The Koppen climate classification speaks of 30 climate zones and sub-zones. Do we know enough to say how weather conditions in one zone influences that in the adjacent zones and even those further afield? I think not. If not how can we then know how the climate in one impacts on others? When do climate changes make an area more livable and when are changes likely to make it more inhabitable? Trying to engineer the ideal climate for each zone is a fool’s errand when we cannot describe the ideal for each zone. I never hear alarmists discussing these important aspects of climate.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Peterg
April 21, 2022 7:25 pm

When it was 2 to 3°C warmer than today only 5000yrs ago Koppen Climate zones were many hundreds of km shifted from the recent past.

Here is proof that this was so and is a classic observation that falsifies alarmist science. To build a hypothesis of disaster on 2°C+ above 1850 (we are half way there already!), knowing we have been ~4C above 1850 5000 years ago, and humans could not have been responsible, it a dishonest thing to have been done! Q.E.D.

comment image

Outside of Tuktyaktuk on Canada’s far NW Arctic coast ~100km N of the present treeline and another couple of 100km N of where trees of this this size (same species), White Spruce live today.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 22, 2022 7:40 am

I’ve shown this photo to a number of CAGW believers, and, without exception, they go silent.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 22, 2022 5:13 pm

I showed this picture to my 12yr old grandson and he arrived at the correct conclusion of its significance. I believe this kind of evidence is the key to bringing understanding to those who are not scientists that alarmists are wrong!

This kind of evidence abounds, but for some reason sceptics seem more inclined to let the consensus folk define the rules of engagement. Ancient trees like this can be found around the global tundra. There is even a living pine in N Sweden with a continuous tree ring record 9500yrs old!

https://www.boredpanda.com/worlds-oldest-tree-old-tjikko-sweden/?utm_source=duckduckgo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic

Dark Side dendroclimatologists hate these trees and even the science would rather do voodoo statistics on the thicknesses of tree rings (that don’t just depend on temperatures). Does Michael Mann even acknowledge the existence of these trees?

There is even a wave formed sand beach with 5k -8k yr old driftwood on the N coast of Greenland, which has been ice locked for several thousand years. It obviously formed during the Holocene Optimum when much of the Arctic was ice free.

And what about the dispute over the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Well, we can settle this here and now. A retreating glacier on Mt Garibaldi, British Columbia today reveals an ice buried forest dated at 1000yrs ago!

Then there is recorded history. Hannibal invaded Rome by crossing the Alps with elephants – a feat not possible today. Etc. etc. A nice book using such compelling stuff easily interpretable without scientific knowledge would do the trick.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 2:43 pm

One of my very favorite books.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 8:20 pm

Not true.
Climate change is a prediction of a coming global warming crisis.
The cause is claimed to be CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
The specifics are claimed to be +3.1 degrees C. ECS,,
with a range of +2.1 to +4.7 degrees C. per CO2 doubling
I would say that definition of “climate change” is clear.

But:
There is no evidence humans can predict the climate
There is no evidence CO2 emissions will cause a global warming crisis
And the ECS range does not match observations,
even if you cherry pick 1975 to 2020 for analysis,’
(CO2 emissions did not begin in 1975).

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 21, 2022 11:34 pm

You posted: “Climate change is a prediction of a coming global warming crisis.”

So many people here at WUWT—and indeed, around the world—will breathe a great sigh of relief to know that “climate change” IS NOT something happening right now, but instead is something to be forevermore relegated to future, day after day after day.

BTW, you also stated: “The specifics are claimed to be +3.1 degrees C. ECS,,
with a range of +2.1 to +4.7 degrees C. per CO2 doubling
I would say that definition of “climate change” is clear.”

So many people around the planet will be likewise be happy to know that “climate change” only involves temperature change as a function of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, no more worries about:
— flooding or droughts being due to climate change
— forest fires being due to climate change
— ocean pH shifts and coral bleaching due to climate change
— too many insects (pests) or too few insects (species extinction) due to climate change
— too much wind (claimed increase in storms of all types) or too little wind (for windmill power farms to be reliable) due to climate change
— the existential threat posed by climate change right now

/sarc off

Clear as mud.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 22, 2022 12:17 am

And did I fail to mention no more worries about:

— climate change related to AMO, PDO and other ocean/atmosphere interactions

— climate change related to variable volcanic activity (and associated greenhouse gas and particulate/aerosol emissions) on planet Earth

— climate change related to the Sun’s longer term (>30 year periods) sunspot/luminosity cycles known as “Gleissberg”, “deVries”, “Eddy”, “Bray” (formerly “Hallstatt”), and “Sanchez-Sema”

— climate change related to variability in Earth’s geomagnetic field and how such, in turn, affects cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere (theory, with supporting evidence, put forward and advanced predominately by Henrik Svensmark)

— climate change related to Dansgaard-Oeschger events (~ 1500 year interval)

— climate change related to the five major Milankovitch cycles of Earth’s ephemeris with respect to the Sun

How careless of me.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 21, 2022 10:40 pm

Another fundamental problem with climate change is that it is always founded on a mythical “average” of measured temperatures in a specific sliver of Earth’s atmosphere,excluding 99.99995% of Earth’s total atmosphere, and comparing it to another average that was poorly and sparsly measured in the past. On top of that, we are supposed to infer causes for any changes without understanding the causes of past changes. It’s like trying to establish the average compass direction that cars drive in, then claiming to know a cause, and then comparing it to a supposed average direction that horse drawn vehicles traveled 100 years ago, then claiming to know the average direction vehicles of the future will travel 100 years from now. Useless and silly beyond reason.
Until we decide to track actual daily highs and lows separately and locally, we aren’t tracking anything real. It’s no more meaningful than tracking the average length of a piece of rope.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
April 22, 2022 10:25 am

Or one’s average body temperature with feet in a block of ice and head in a hot oven…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 22, 2022 7:03 am

This is actually by design. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” For the Climate Believers, every day is Alice in Wonderland Day.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
April 22, 2022 7:06 am

Gordon,

I believe the problem lies in the deceitful misuse of language. Strictly speaking, a word without a context does not have a meaning. A dictionary does not give us the meaning but only a list of the most frequent ways a word is used. One of these may fit the context where we read or hear a word or perhaps none – we usually work out the meaning using the context.

Consider the use of climate and change in the following sentences:
The climate scientist has change in his pocket.
He is outspoken on the threat of climate change.

 •  The word pocket indicates that change refers to coins.
 •  In the second sentence climate qualifies change, which is believed to be a threat and agitates certain people. This is insufficient to tell us what the phrase, climate change, means.
 •  The first sentence – about the same person – does not help by describing the subject as a climate scientist. A biologist will study a particular science, biology, and then focus on one area. However, various sciences are needed with each examining a different aspect of climate. The best a climate scientist can hope is to be a jack of all trades but master of none. He does not have the expertise to address the scientific concerns coming from each. Describing him as a climate scientist is as misleading as the phrase climate change.

When we read article after article, where the context does not give us an unanimous indication of what is meant by climate change or refer to a clear definition, I wonder if this is not deliberate. Perhaps they cannot or will not because it may be used to undermine their arguments.

Climate alarmists are disingenuous in their use of language. They love adjectives and emotive language. If I were to use language the way they do in any other discipline, I would be roundly criticized.

Thank you and I hope this language discussion may be helpful. I believe it relevant and necessary as we strive to refute climate alarmism. We need to counter both their scientific flaws and misuse of language.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 22, 2022 10:29 am

Another gross misuse of language – every time I hear reference to “NORMAL” temperatures, when all that really refers to is some relatively arbitrary 30-year period AVERAGE.

Using the word “normal” invites the suggestion that any departure is, by definition, “abnormal.” Pure nonsense, since the AVERAGE temperature they are talking about is little more than a midpoint of extremes.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 22, 2022 10:41 am

Perhaps one of the worst is the description “extreme weather.” High or low temperatures, drought or floods, a hurricane or windless day all describe different weather conditions. Why does it suddenly become extreme only when I feel I cannot cope with this weather?

Rob_Dawg
April 21, 2022 2:25 pm

“Climate Science” is perhaps the only field of inquiry that fails all three of testable, refutable and duplicable.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 21, 2022 2:55 pm

But it passes Duplicitous

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 21, 2022 4:09 pm

Add in when the data does not fit, adjust the data, not the hypothesis.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mark A Luhman
April 22, 2022 10:30 am

Or simply exclude it. Or ignore it.

They are specialists at all three.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 21, 2022 7:11 pm

CliSciFi

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 22, 2022 10:29 am

And is therefore…NOT SCIENCE.

Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 2:30 pm

Unfortunately, the falsifiability criteria is no long accepted. Aside from its overtones of tautology, there are branches of science to which it does not apply, particularly in their farther reaches. Experimentation is not always possible, and data-crunching wedded to statistical analysis now rules the day. Moreover many will claim CAGW is happening scientific or not, with essentially a faith-based belief. Obviously, warmers don’t play with a full deck. One does not need to be a philosopher of science to see that there’s nothing much to a theory that takes its own anomalies as evidence.

Mark Shulgasser
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 2:59 pm

True — but that’s what passes for science now. There really is no gold standard for scientificity. The famous demarcation is elusive. As Habermas says, ‘The borders of truth are movable.’ No one has a sense of immediate political agency anymore, so people believe in CAGW out of primitive salvific longing.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 4:03 pm

EOF’s? “End Of File” marker?

TonyL
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 4:53 pm

Thank you. That was my question, as well.
Now I wish we had left it at End Of File.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 7:18 pm

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

roaddog
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 10:03 pm

That’s one hockey stick that should have remained a tree.

MarkW2
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 4:07 pm

I don’t think the problem is statistics per se, Andy, but how they’re used and understood. An extraordinary number of scientists don’t understand probability and, as you rightly say abuse p-values and R-squared, especially. This is a serious problem in today’s academic world across many disciplines, but particularly climate.

One point I always raise — and to date not a single person has been able to address it, including very senior climate scientists — is why predictions based on climate models NEVER show any form of confidence interval.

I then point out that any model of a non-deterministic system, such as climate, with so many variables — many of which are co-linear — inherently means the confidence intervals would be zero.

Despite this, we still see climate predictions looking years into the future quoted to absurd levels of accuracy, with no confidence interval ever provided. This isn’t science.

I would like someone — you perhaps — to challenge the academic statistical community as to why they never raise this fundamental issue when it comes to climate science. Maybe they’re too afraid of losing their jobs. Whatever the reason, this is a very sad reflection on today’s standards of academic research.

Rick C
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 5:53 pm

Figures don’t lie but liars figure. – Mark Twain

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 9:01 pm

Yes, I still like Shakespeare.

Wei Zhang (Minnesota)
Reply to  MarkW2
April 21, 2022 5:38 pm

“…why [climate] predictions based on climate models NEVER show any form of confidence interval.’

That’s because they have almost no verification on independent data and therefore their accuracy is completely unknown. Backtesting can not give a reliable confidence interval. Sophisticated climate models first emerged in the 1970s. That’s less than 50 years. A standard climate interval is 30 years so we effectively have less than 2 verification cases. Combine that with ever changing data quality, many complete unknowns, and rapidly changing computing power and you have a chaotic, unknown spaghetti mess. Weather forecasts, by contrast, have millions of verification cases and the error bars are almost perfectly understood.

Reply to  Wei Zhang (Minnesota)
April 21, 2022 8:38 pm

The best weather forecast models get the most attention.
The best climate model, meaning the Russian INM model that
over predicts global warming by less than all other models,
gets almost no attention — it’s averaged with dozens of other models
by CMIP. Lost in the mix. Does that sound like science to anyone?

The climate computer games are not intended for accurate predictions.
They are intended as a prop to back up scary climate predictions.
A tool to increase climate fear
That is exactly what they are used for, and they work for that purpose.

The scientists here who are critical of the computer games
are making the wrong assumption on what they are really intended for.
They are intended for politics, not science.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Wei Zhang (Minnesota)
April 22, 2022 11:57 am

…and the 30-year “standard climate interval” is totally meaningless, since it is far too short. Lots of climate forces operate on much longer, differing and unrelated time scales, which makes the 30-year period akin to attempting to analyze the content of a movie based on what can be observed from a single frame.

OweninGA
Reply to  MarkW2
April 21, 2022 7:42 pm

That is why you will never see a reputable statistician as author on any of these CliSciFi papers.The alarmists don’t want to be reined in from their flights of fancy.

Reply to  MarkW2
April 21, 2022 8:29 pm

“predictions based on climate models”
You’ve got this backwards.

Predictions of climate doom began about 20 years before GCM computer games.
The computer games were programmed to MATCH the predictions.
Confusers “predict” whatever they are programmed to predict.
Since all the computer game predictions / projections / simulations are wrong,
and have become less accurate over the past 40 years, they are not real science, and have no value at all, except to waste the taxpayers’ money.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 12:44 pm

As the saying goes, “Computers are very stupid machines – they do EXACTLY what you tell them to do.”

And what you tell them to do is stupid, invalid, wrong, baseless, etc., you have a microcosm for…climate “models.”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW2
April 22, 2022 7:16 am

I spent my whole first career (31 years) forecasting things in the telephone company. Calls, length of calls, equipment, people, budgets, sales, etc. I’ve tried all kinds of regressions, time series analysis, and statistics.

The one thing I learned was that when you take that first step into the future you are treading into an area where things you never thought of occur. Forcasts get less and less accurate the further you go into the future. Why do all the models turn into linear equations as you go into the future? Averages and the loss of cyclical behavior! Is it any wonder they have never been accurate?

Climate and weather is cyclical. From sunrise/sunset, seasons, tides, AMO, PDO, ENSO, glaciations. When was the last time you saw a trig function for any of these? These cycles slide around sometimes coinciding constructively and sometimes destructively. Peaks and valleys. If climate science ever wants to become “science” these cyclical behaviors will need to be modeled correctly using trig functions instead of simple averages of temperature, rainfall, clouds, etc. Ask yourself this, can any of the GCM models predict the what the parameters will be when the start of the next glaciation occurs? Or, do they just forecast a 4C rise per century ad infinitum?

It really bugs me when AGW adherents use the logical argument supported by “averages” that “if temps are rising and CO2 is rising, then they must be connected”. They can even show graphs where scaling is used show how they coincide. What a joke! Linear regressions on time series do not prove causation at all! EVER! Basic statistics rely on the data having pretty constant parameters. When another location or time has vastly different distributions, statistics, especially means, fail to capture what is occuring.

The only ‘linear regression’ that matters is when “x” predicts “y” and the result can be modeled with a line. Then you can say that “x” causes “y”. Because of all the cycles in global climate, I seriously doubt that there will be a simple “x” that predicts a simple “y”.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 12:47 pm

That should be a permanent fixture on the blackboard of every science class, until the “fantasy world” modeler becomes a quaint historical reference to how primitive “climate science” was before it finally advanced into something remotely scientific.

Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 8:24 pm

Climate change is predictions (of climate doom), not reality.
There are no data for the future.
How can one do a statistical analysis when there are no data?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 7:17 am

This couldn’t be more true. Using statistics to forecast what will occur in the future is a fool’s errand.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 12:49 pm

As I like to say it, “We have too little information of too poor a quality over too short a period of time to say anything reasonably ‘scientific’ about what is happening to the ‘climate’ and where things are headed in the future.”

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 9:52 am

“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; the problem is one of extrapolation. It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilize 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 latterly an IPCC Lead Author

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 8:58 pm

Agree.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 2:57 pm

But being a Stand Up Philosopher helps

Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 3:07 pm

Unfortunately, the falsifiability criteria is no [longer] accepted.”

Unaccepted does not make falsifiability wrong. Knowing in science requires a unique answer. Falsifiability is immediately entrained.

data-crunching wedded to statistical analysis now rules the day.

Just don’t call it science.

Mark Shulgasser
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 21, 2022 4:15 pm

Face facts. It simply won’t do to just stamp your
foot and say “This is science — that is not!” There’s true and there’s false and I know the difference and you don’t! Arguing about whether or not CAGW is scientifically true is simply no longer the point. Action cannot be coerced at the point of a truth gun, it must be negotiated. There is no supreme court of science.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 5:12 pm

Science isn’t the end result, truth or falsehood, it is the process of discovering the truth, or least as close to it as possible at the time.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 21, 2022 8:32 pm

What science IS is endlessly debatable — evolving — self-correcting (i.e. always wrong) whatever. More to the point, what science is taken to be is whatever the dominant political power at the time wants it to be.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2022 12:52 pm

what science is taken to be is whatever the dominant political power at the time wants it to be

Just like Ike warned the US in his farewell address, before I was born – this is the consequences of government being the source of funds for greater and greater portions of scientific inquiry.

Reply to  Mark
April 22, 2022 6:20 pm

What science IS is endlessly debatable…

No, it’s not. Science is falsifiable theory and mortally dangerous experimental test.

It’s been that way since Thales of Miletus.

The method never finds the true but it efficiently weeds out the false.

Derg
Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 5:44 pm

The sun is blue 😉

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Derg
April 21, 2022 9:05 pm

Within a rather large confidence interval.

Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 21, 2022 8:44 pm

There is no CAGW
There may be some AGW.
But CAGW does not exist.
That is reality.
Reality can not be negotiated.
I hereby stamp my foot.
And declare that you are a dingbat.
Which is also reality.

Mark Shulgasser
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 9:23 am

Your naive foot-stamping conception of ‘reality’ does no good. People don’t want reality — they want happiness and salvation, neither of which exist in reality, only in the mind.

Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 22, 2022 2:39 pm

Reality imposes itself no matter what people want.

MarkW2
Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 22, 2022 2:46 am

I don’t know a single person who denies that CAGW is scientifically true. The fundamental question is to what extent this is driving climate change and therefore the extent to which it should be addressed. This is where the pseudoscience comes in, with absurd claims made on the back of models predicting future scenarios that are no more reliable than if you tossed dice to get an answer. Yet results from these models are taken as gospel, which is about as far from proper science as it’s possible to get.

mkelly
Reply to  MarkW2
April 22, 2022 6:46 am

MarkW2 I introduce myself. My name is mkelly.

I hereby deny that CAWG is scientifically true.

There now you “know” one.

Bob Close
Reply to  mkelly
April 22, 2022 12:13 pm

Count me in too. You first sentence is rubbish MarkW2, the rest is reasonable, why fight yourself?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW2
April 22, 2022 12:54 pm

You’re being far too kind. The claims of so-called “climate science” are no more reliable than blindfolded, dart-throwing monkeys.

Reply to  Mark Shulgasser
April 22, 2022 2:34 pm

Congratulations on doing exactly what you decried. Stamping your feet and declaiming.

Science is a well-established methodology: theory and result.

The only way to know something, is if physical theory provides a unique answer.

The only way to know an explanation from theory is wrong is if it is contradicted by experiment or observation.

A physical theory can be proved wrong only if it predicts a unique result. Unique results are testable. Guess the one-word description of that condition. Hint: it starts with falsifi and ends with ability.

Neither computer numerology nor statistics achieve that state. They’re not science.

Feynman on science. And on the Social Sciences — your field?

Karl Popper got his falsifiability criterion from Einstein, who wrote that if the redshift due to the gavitational potential did not exist, then general relativity would be wrong.

Falsifiability is not philosophy. It’s how science has worked from the beginning.

Negotiated action is politics. Not science.

As to AGW — no one knows what they’re talking about. And that’s the clear verdict of science.

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 21, 2022 8:41 pm

Nothing a leftist claims can ever be falsified, except
for the purpose of moving further left.

Claims will not be debated.
Unless you consider character attacks to be debate.

Contrary information will be censored or “revised”.
Contrary people will be cancelled.
Welcome to fascism !

Rud Istvan
April 21, 2022 2:41 pm

Good work, Andy.

Two general observations in this vein:

  1. It used to be called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). This did not work since (a) none of the prophesied catastrophes emerged (like Arctic summer sea ice didn’t disappear, and sea level rise didn’t accelerate), and (b) the globe stopped warming (the pause). So the alarmists switched to climate change. The problem with that is climate (slowly) is always changing, like warming after the LIA. So the term switch became nebulous and useless—except for unscientific minds like John Kerry’s.
  2. It used to be that the alarming tipping point was 2C from preindustrial. A number admittedly invented out of thin air by Schellnhuber of PIK; but a ‘sure alarm’ since CMIP3 and CMIP5 both had ECS at 3 or more. But after the energy budget observational ECS came in about 1.65, there was no more ‘sure alarm’ so the tipping point was magically and suddenly dropped to 1.5C. Which is illogical, since if the tipping point really was 2C then there is LESS ‘tipping’ at 1.5C. Besides which, nobody has found anything that could plausibly ‘tip’ at any plausible future warming. The O’Leary Eemian Antarctic SLR ‘tipping point’ was blatant and proven academic misconduct. Essay ‘By Land or by Sea’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. The ocean acidification pH 7.8 ‘tipping point’ in AR4 ignored ocean buffering, a rather big mistake. The most a doubling of CO2 could cause is a pH reduction of about 0.15 thanks to buffering so pH about 8. Essay ‘Shell Games’ covers that and more. For reference on this last point, the pH of Florida Bay varies from about 5.8 in winter on the Everglades mangrove fringe to about 9.8 just 60 miles away near Key West in August. Yet Florida Bay is a thriving year round marine ecosystem.
Charles Rotter(@jeeztheadmin)
Admin
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 21, 2022 2:54 pm

The IPCC was created in 1988 and the two C’s stand for Climate Change.

I understand the shift in popular usage, but it wasn’t “invented” to cover the change.

Mr.
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 21, 2022 4:49 pm

And prior to that was the UNFCCC.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 21, 2022 5:59 pm

I might be misremembering… But I think IPCC’s original charter was to look exclusively for anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Middleton
April 21, 2022 6:09 pm

You did not ‘misremember’. It explicitly was exactly that biased charter. Read the UNFCC founding charter. It is there.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 21, 2022 8:39 pm

Mmm and looking for anthropogenic causes of topsoil loss, well that would be biased too right.

b.nice
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 3:19 am

Absolutely nothing to do with CO2 though… is it. !

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 9:00 am

Looking only for anthropogenic causes is certainly biased.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 9:17 am

Hey we haven’t heard from you in ages.

PaulID
Reply to  Loydo
April 22, 2022 10:57 am

Then why are they not doing anything about that? Oh! Right no money in that

Reply to  David Middleton
April 21, 2022 9:01 pm

That is true. But to appear more scientific, the IPCC waited until 1995
to arbitrarily dismiss all natural causes of climate change as unimportant noise.
After 8 years of intensive research, the IPCC decided that if they eliminated all
natural causes of climate change, almost all climate change could be blamed
on humans. Which made climate “science” simple.

Every IPCC report says the same thing:

— Assuming global warming is man made and dangerous,
we predict future global warming will be man made and dangerous.

Of course that is circular reasoning, but no one at the IPCC noticed.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 22, 2022 12:58 pm

The Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control.

A more accurate and honest meaning for the IPCC abbreviation.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 21, 2022 8:56 pm

Okay Istvan, let me learn you some real science.
A tipping point of 2.0 or 1.5 is baloney
Real science requires at least three decimal places,
and four decimal places is even better !
So I don’t believe +1.5 or +2.0.

But if they claimed the tipping point was +1.874 degrees C,
I would sit up and listen. Pack my belongings, sell my home,
and move from Michigan to Alaska, to get away from that
global warming boogeyman. But +2.0 with one decimal place
causes no fear — that number is just a pile of baloney.

I happen to know the proper definition of tipping point:
That is when Moderator Charles Rotten has has too much whiskey,
sitting in his office chair, a bar stool at a seedy bar down by the docks,
and falls off the chair. That is what tipping point really means.
I’m not sure how it applies to climate science.

By the way, “climate change” is so 1988, with the IPCC.
The current tern is climate emergency.
There is a contest for a scarier name to replace
climate emergency in 2023. The Climate Howlers
are really excited about the contest.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Rud Istvan
April 22, 2022 6:10 am

“It used to be called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).”

Now it’s Computer Aided Global Warming.

April 21, 2022 2:49 pm

Consensus climatology is not only non-science, it’s not even scholarship.

AGW climatology is a subjectivist narrartive that assumes what it ought to demonstrate. It’s culture studies decorated with mathematics.

Robert of Texas
April 21, 2022 2:51 pm

First of all, Climate Change is of course a real, natural, and constantly occurring process. One really needs to separate real Climate Change from the religion of “man-made CO2 driven climate change” or “Catastrophic Climate Change” if they want to be taken seriously.

Once you make certain that people know the difference, it is fairly obvious that the claims made by climate activists are mostly lies, exaggerations, or just plain wrong.

The trouble is that “Catastrophic Climate Change” is a religion, not a science. Good luck arguing logic against faith.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 10:48 pm

“Catastrophic” is a purely subjective term and therefore cannot be scientific. What units are used to measure catastrophe anyway?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
April 22, 2022 6:14 am

We can’t use Hiroshimas or Olympic Swimming Pools as units, can we? But I do suggest that however it is measured, it should be call the “Mann” in honor of the greatest Climate Alarmist ever.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 21, 2022 9:04 pm

Exactly right.
The coming climate change crisis belief
was not created with facts, data and logic,
so can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 22, 2022 3:48 am

Good point. Imagine the U.S. Supreme Court holding the executive branch imposition of climate doctrine, through its regulatory powers granted by Congress, as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

KTM
April 21, 2022 3:06 pm

Critical Race Theory is a “forced perspective” investigation into life and culture.

It’s windy today, HOW MIGHT RACE be responsible?
The waiter at lunch only refilled my water once even though I was thirsty, HOW MIGHT RACE be responsible?
I ate too much fast food and I gained weight, HOW MIGHT RACE be responsible?

A great example of this is the 1619 Project, a “forced perspective” retelling of American history.

The other place where “forced perspective” is often used is in photography and art. With the right forced perspective, we can pinch the sun or the moon or the Eiffel Tower between our fingers like superhumans. We can squash tiny Lilliputians under our foot like Gulliver. Something that is very unrealistic appears to be true (with photographic evidence!)

Climate Change is just a “forced perspective” view of the earth and weather that surrounds us, and is no more realistic than a camera trick that we are all amused by but know isn’t actually true.

Mr.
Reply to  KTM
April 21, 2022 4:53 pm

And then there’s the ubiquitous lament of the ‘entitlement voters’ –

“I’m dumb, fat, ugly and unemployed. What’s the gubmint gonna do about it?”

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Mr.
April 21, 2022 10:51 pm

I saved that comment! Now to find a picture to go with it.

J.R.
April 21, 2022 3:08 pm

When this all started in 1988, I believe it was approached scientifically to see if it might be true. At least that was my impression. Since then, real science has refuted the catastrophic claims and science was jettisoned, being replaced by pseudo-science and what appears to be religious dogma.

Derg
Reply to  J.R.
April 21, 2022 5:45 pm

Appears??????

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  J.R.
April 22, 2022 1:09 pm

I believe it was approached scientifically to see if it might be true

I think you are being more than a bit naive. The UN IPCC charter plainly stated it was established to examine the human influence on climate, not “climate change” from any cause. The “game” was rigged from Day 1.

And the US government “hearings” where the AGW propaganda was kicked off in that year were pure theater. They cynically chose the date that is historically the hottest day of the year in Washington DC, turned off A/C to the meeting room where the hearing was held and opened the windows to let the hot sticky summer air in, so that everyone sitting there listening to “trains of death Hanson” bleat about “gobal warming” would be mopping their brows of perspiration.

Approached scientifically?! NOT!

John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 3:21 pm

Climate is always changing, and always has been. The debate slipped from global warming caused by human emissions of CO2, to climate change when the warming stopped. Now we are called ‘climate change deniers’. Nothing could be further from the truth. I (we) debate whether CO2 can cause climate change of any kind. One CO2 molecule per 2400 non-CO2 molecules is merely a trace. That’s why it’s called a ‘TRACE’ gas.
This isn’t the tail wagging the dog, it is the louse on the end of a flea on the end of the tail wagging the dog and the tail and the flea.
It is frankly beyond belief that so many people have been hornswaggled into believing this preposterous proposition.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 4:15 pm

The funny part is that that trace gas is why life is on earth. All life on earth is carbon based, all that carbon comes from CO2. We don’t have excess CO2 in the atmosphere we have a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere.

John Shotsky
Reply to  Mark A Luhman
April 21, 2022 4:55 pm

Even funnier – plants emit over 10 times the CO2 of human activities:
Plants use photosynthesis to capture carbon dioxide and then release half of it into the atmosphere through respiration. Plants also release oxygen into the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
Professor Owen Atkin from ANU said the study revealed that the release of carbon dioxide by plant respiration around the world is up to 30 per cent higher than previously predicted.
He said the carbon dioxide released by plants every year was now estimated to be about 10 to 11 times the emissions from human activities, rather than the previous estimate of five to eight times.
Plants release more carbon dioxide into atmosphere than expected – ANU
If humans stopped emitting ALL Co2, even by breathing, the earth would not even notice.

MGC
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 7:45 pm

“If humans stopped emitting ALL Co2, even by breathing, the earth would not even notice.”

Sorry Shotsky, but your claim has long been known to be wildly incorrect.

The part your sources have left out is that, although nature emits lots of CO2 into the air, nature also takes all the CO2 that it puts into the air right back out again. In contrast, humans put CO2 into the air but take essentially none of it back out again.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are currently rising at a rate over 100 times faster than at any time in millions of years. Human emissions are the sole reason.

These are well established scientific facts. Sorry that you were not aware of them.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:18 am

Get on your meds dude. Sole reason indeed 😉

MGC
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 10:01 am

Sorry to see that you are unable to accept well established scientific fact, Derg.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:50 pm

We are waiting for you to provide evidence

Your so-called facts are scientifically unsupportable.

You obviously don’t understand the carbon cycle.

You obviously don’t understand any atmospheric physics or heat transfer physics.

It all just you regurgitating the same old FAILED mantra.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 3:58 pm

What part of “atmospheric CO2 levels are currently rising at a rate over 100 times faster than any naturally occurring increase in millions of years” are you unable to comprehend? There’s no natural event occurring now that could possibly make that rate of increase happen. It is completely due to human emissions.

And by the way, elsewhere in my comments here I provided a reference to the supporting research data published in the scientific literature. But did you bother to investigate it? No, of course not. You sadly prefer to continue living in a world of complete and utter anti-science delusion. That’s what WUWT does to people.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 2:10 pm

Lol

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:16 pm

Established by what?! You have those measurements of all CO2 sources and sinks? Didn’t think so.

It’s all crap-for-“data” proxies compared to current instrument measurements and declaring that everything was in “balance” before we discovered coal,oil and gas.

The only current apples-to-apples comparison there is is current Mauna Loa CO2 measurements starting in the 50s compared with measured temperatures since the same time.

During which time, while CO2 levels have been rising all along, temperatures have been falling, then rising, then about flat. And the temperature changes precede the CO2 level changes, so CO2 clearly doesn’t “drive” Jack Shit.

Well established propaganda maybe; certainly not “facts.”

MGC
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
April 22, 2022 4:04 pm

Yet another ignorant regurgitation of the tired old excuse that “historic temperature changes preceded CO2 level changes”.

Yes, historic temperature increases drove CO2 increases … which then drove more temperature increases.

Your “argument” is as silly as claiming that it is not gasoline that makes a car go, it is the act of closing the car door, because closing the car door occurs prior to the car starting to move.

Pure stupidity on tragically ignorant parade. But that’s what WUWT does to people.

Reply to  John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 9:21 pm

Even funnier – plants emit over 10 times the CO2 of human activities:
Nonsense.
While most plants release oxygen during the day as part of photosynthesis, small amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted both day and night as a by-product of cellular respiration, The majority of plants also absorb carbon dioxide during the day for photosynthesis, and do so in greater amounts than what is released for cellular respiration.

b.nice
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 22, 2022 4:36 am

“Human emissions are the sole reason.”

Again, just unmitigated anti-science.

What real science shows is that humans have been responsible for some 15% of the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric plant food.. that is greening the world. !

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 8:16 am

Sorry, b.nice, but it is not “just unmitigated anti-science”. It is indisputable scientific *fact*. There is no natural cause that has made CO2 levels in the air suddenly increase 100 times faster than at any time in millions of years.

Here’s what the published scientific research says on this matter:

An Accounting of the Observed Increase in Oceanic and Atmospheric CO2

Tans Oceanography 2009

“the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100% due to human activities, and is dominated by fossil fuel burning”

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:19 am

Rinse and repeat a lie

MGC
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 10:04 am

Sure, Derg, every major scientific organization in the entire world is “lying”. Merely because you say so.

Maybe try having an objective look at the evidence. It is beyond any rational doubt that the recent rapid increase of CO2 in the air, over 100 times faster than any natural increase in millions of years, is entirely due to human emissions.

Pretending otherwise is nothing but head in the sand foolishness.

Bob Close
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 12:32 pm

MCG you provide no evidence for your absurd statements about human related CO2. Recent decreases in industrialization-related CO2 during covid in 2020-21 have not shown up in the accepted records such as Mauna Loa. Therefore the natural variation in CO2 has swamped any human related emissions, which are according to many physical measurements much less than 10% of total emissions from warming oceans and land/ plant sources.
Thus CAGW is a myth, we are not responsible for or in control of atmospheric CO2!

MGC
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 4:18 pm

Bob, you sadly confuse short term variation with long term trend and thus arrive at completely false “conclusions”.

For starters, human emissions decrease during covid were not that much, only about 5%. But year to year variations in the CO2 rise rate are much, much larger than that. So that temporary emissions decrease could easily be lost in short term noise.

But over the long term, there is zero doubt that human emissions are 100% responsible for the CO2 increase. In fact, it is easily proven that nature has been taking more CO2 OUT of the air than it has been putting into the air, for many decades now.

Humans put over 30 gigatons CO2 into the air every year, but the amount of CO2 in the air increases by less than 20 gigatons per year. These are both easily verified facts. Where’s that missing CO2 going? Nature is taking it out of the air.

It would be obvious even to a grade school child that nature cannot possibly be causing an increase of CO2 in the air when nature takes more CO2 out of the air than it puts into the air. But then why is this so difficult for you to understand?

MGC
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 9:19 pm

Bob Close says:

“MCG you provide no evidence for your absurd statements about human related CO2”

Seriously: what is wrong with you intentionally ignorant WUWT cultists?

A direct reference to published research in the scientific literature was provided, which easily demonstrates that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is 100% due to human emissions.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:47 pm

Science really is an anathema to you isn’t it MGC.

You know nothing about science, that is becoming more and more obvious.

All you have a re baseless appeals to propaganda units

Actual real science shows that humans have contributed some 15% to the highly beneficial rise in atmospheric plant food.

That rise is what helps sustains all life on Earth, allowing for ever increasing crop yields, and helping cause large amounts of greening around the world,

Don’t be scared of it.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 4:48 pm

Yet another typical WUWT “Nuh uh because I say so”.

Sorry, but the real science, published in the scientific research literature, clearly demonstrates that human emissions are responsible for ALL of the CO2 increase since the Industrial Revolution. ALL of it.

In fact, nature is actually taking more CO2 out of the air than it is putting into the air. Another easily verified fact. Thus nature cannot possibly be the cause of the CO2 increase.

Doonman
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 5:06 pm

Since climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given location, in order to change the climate, CO2 must first change the weather in a given location.

No one has ever shown how an increase or decrease in a trace atmospheric radiative gas in a non linear coupled dynamic system can do this. It is impossible to predict the weather precisely and for any extended period of time.

Reply to  Doonman
April 21, 2022 9:37 pm

Nonsense.
It has been shown since the late 1800s that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will impede Earths ability
to cool itself by some unknown amount.

The weather in the Northern Hemisphere is milder than 50 years ago
as a result of global warming that most affected the Arctic and
least affected the tropics.

The smaller temperature differential
between the Equator and the North Pole
has resulted in milder weather
in the Northern Hemisphere.

We have enjoyed the milder winters, with much less snow,
here in Southeastern Michigan where I live.

Nelson
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 12:30 am

In a free convective atmosphere, adding a trace amoiunt of CO2 does not impede the Earth’s ability to cool.

Enjoy the mild winters while you can! The AMO is turning down. Brrrrr is on the way.

b.nice
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 2:50 am

Wrong.. CO2 is a radiative active gas.

Greenhouse gas is a total misnomer.

Adding radiatively active gas to an radiative active atmosphere, if anything, lowers the energy impedance.

Reply to  John Shotsky
April 21, 2022 9:16 pm

You make several errors.
There is no debate — the Climate Howlers don’t debate.

The name change from global warming to climate change
allows a wider range of scaremongering, nothing more
Whatever words are used, they all mean CAGW.

CO2 is a trace gas but the first 100ppm is a very strong greenhouse gas.
An increase of CO2 from 400 to 500ppm should cause a small reduction
in earth’s ability to cool itself.

If you debate whether CO2 can cause climate change at all,
then you will not help our effort to refute the Climate Howlers.

There is a greenhouse effect.
CO2 is part of it.
If you deny those facts, then you ARE a climate science denier.

The real argument is over the effects of CO2 enrichment.
I believe the effects have been good news, based on climate change
in the past 50 years. Predictions of climate doom ignore the
climate change in the past 50 years
— they are for global warming
2x or 3x faster than in the past.
That is not science.
That”s climate astrology.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 21, 2022 11:39 pm

The name change from global warming to climate change

allows a wider range of scaremongering, nothing more

When did this ‘name change’ occur? The IPCC was established in the late 1980s. Guess what the CC stands for. That’s some pretty far sighted name changing.

b.nice
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 22, 2022 2:46 am

CC stands for what ever the climate does… naturally.!

Derg
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 22, 2022 9:20 am

Where did global warming come from 😉

PaulID
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 22, 2022 10:59 am

Disingenuous much? you know darn well that they used global warming in all the press releases until it they found that it didn’t scare people enough to want to destroy their economies

mkelly
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 22, 2022 11:36 am

Richard if what you say is true then thermodynamics is wrong. Specific heat tables only show one value for energy requirements for dry air or CO2. If infrared interacting with CO2 caused warming the another column would be needed to account for IR.

The Shomate equation would have to account for IR if CO2 involve.

When last I checked the NIST data sheet for CO2 said nothing about its ability to warm.

170CBCD0-BEB0-4261-828D-95DC9D7516C5.jpeg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 22, 2022 5:25 am

“It is frankly beyond belief that so many people have been hornswaggled into believing this preposterous proposition.”

Including “scientists” who are supposed to be objective, and are supposed to question such claims.

Bob Close
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2022 12:37 pm

Yes Tom, but most of them are afraid of losing their jobs if they question CAGW, at CSIRO they have a to submit any queries to management before they can comment publicly, if at all. Very Sad, like Peter Ridd one of our hero’s.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob Close
April 23, 2022 3:46 am

Good point. Something to keep in mind.

Frank from NoVA
April 21, 2022 3:22 pm

Andy,

Thought provoking, as usual. Here’s where I’m struggling a bit with Popper; If ‘Climate Change’ is set up as the hypothesis, would Popper say it’s unscientific because none of the meteorological events given in support of the hypothesis can falsify it, or is it because of the inconsistency of the events themselves, e.g., wet / dry, hot / cold, etc.? Along this line of query, would ‘CAGW’ be more scientific because some events, e.g., colder / wetter could at least be considered to falsify the hypothesis? Finally, as someone who is skeptical of all the Alarmists’ nonsense, I think the real issue is that by somehow having managed to make ‘Climate Change’ the null hypothesis, the Alarmists have put the burden of disproving this hypothesis on the general population.

DrEd
Reply to  Andy May
April 21, 2022 5:44 pm

The hypothesis CAGW fails because it does not explain past observations and it has made no accurate forecasts. Therefore it is a failed hypothesis.

MGC
Reply to  DrEd
April 21, 2022 8:59 pm

Sorry to be so blunt, Ed, but what fairy tale dreamworld are you living in?

“made no accurate forecasts” ?? Oh please. Your claim is an embarrassment of ignorance. The facts are exactly the opposite.

Graemethecat
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 3:07 am

Pray tell us what these accurate forecasts are.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 3:18 am

RUBBISH yet again

Not one of many “predictions” has ever come true.

Climate models are manifestly way too warm, they even say so themselves

You are again totally devoid of anything resembling actual science or evidence. A massive fail.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 8:23 am

“Not one of many ‘predictions’ has ever come true. Climate models are manifestly way too warm, they even say so themselves.”

How tragic it is to see so many willfully ignorant rubes totally blinded by the lying propaganda spoon fed to them by WUWT.

Here’s just one piece of evidence from NASA that rips your lamentable screed of ignorance to shreds, b.nice:

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:22 am

Lol…50% of time 😉

You and your dogma.

n.n
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 1:03 pm

An ensemble mean to span a range. Nice. The models have demonstrated no skill to hindcast, let alone to forecast, climate change, or even warming, at local, regional, and certainly not the meaningless global statistic, which underlies the anthropogenic attribution claim/assertion.

MGC
Reply to  n.n
April 22, 2022 4:51 pm

n.n says

“The models have demonstrated no skill blah blah blah blah blah”

Yet another woefully inept WUWT “nuh uh because I say so”. NASA’s research study, referenced directly above, clearly demonstrates precisely otherwise.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:43 pm

“Getting future warming projections right..”

What a laugh.

They cannot possibly know that.

What they show there as “observations” is just a manufactured, highly adjusted urban based sparse dat fabrication, designed to match their models.

It bears absolutely zero resemblance to any sort of reality.

This is the most farcical of papers, from the foxes guarding the hen-house.

They have un-validated models that can’t even get basic temperature projections correct in the past or the present.. and pretend that they can “predict” the future.

You really do FAIL totally when it comes to basic comprehension, don’t you

model are crap.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:03 pm

More wildly crazed, entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory twaddle.

And how ridiculous that you ignorant brain washed rubes always trot out that one and only cherry picked graph, which shows just one particular slice of the atmosphere while disingenuously ignoring all the rest of the data.

One could also just as dishonestly cherry pick certain sections of the temperature data where temperatures are rising faster than projections. But real scientists don’t do that. Anti-science partisan hacks do that kind of thing.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:21 am

Now now you are entitled to your “facts.”

MGC
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 10:07 am

So sad to see Derg’s willfully blind ignorance on such pathetic parade, trying to pretend away well established scientific facts simply by muttering “Nuh Uh because I say so”.

TonyL
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
April 21, 2022 5:27 pm

I think the real issue is that by somehow having managed to make ‘Climate Change’ the null hypothesis, the Alarmists have put the burden of disproving this hypothesis on the general population.

In a sense, yes and no.
“Yes” side of the argument:
People often complain that this causes them to have to “disprove a negative”, an impossibility. In general, yes. But in some cases, the negative can be shown to be wrong. The pause in Global Temp rise, often referred to as the Great Pause” was never supposed to happen. When it did happen, model after model was falsified until none were left.

“No” side of the argument:
No, you are not allowed to fold, spindle, and mutilate the scientific method just to fit an ideological agenda. The very attempt to do so fails your hypothesis.
Better luck next time.

Anyway, that is my take on it.

KTM
April 21, 2022 3:40 pm

Actual science gets improved and refined over time. Climate Change gets less refined over time.

Case in point, in IPCC FAR in 1990 they projected sea level rise by 2100 to top out at 1.1 meter with a 0.8 meter uncertainty.

The 2012 AR4 projection says sea level rise tops out at 2.0 meter with a 1.8 meter uncertainty.

The 2017 projection says sea level rise tops out at 2.5 meter with a 2.2 meter uncertainty.

Clear evidence of pseudo-scientific meddling if not outright dishonesty from the so-called experts.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  KTM
April 21, 2022 4:01 pm

I am with you. Can you imagine an engineer building a bridge that will carry 6 tons ± 5 tons? Or an amplifier that outputs 10 watts ± 9 watts? This isn’t science, it is pure playing with numbers to help support a GUESS!

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 4:16 pm

Not even a good GUESS.

Kit P
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 5:57 pm

Or a monitoring system with a confidence interval of 15 tons.

I was an engineer at a nuke plant when it closed. Someone had an idea of testing the spent fuel pool for leakage. While this is much less complex than the temperature of the planet, it required a test of 30 days to get a reasonable confidence interval assuming test instruments that stay calibrated during the period.

During the first run an seismic event required re-calibration. Finally I got a result of 0.5 gph, + 1.0 gph. Spent a lot of money learning what I already knew.

The earth has a very stable climate and warming is better than cooling.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 7:51 pm

How about 0.6 W/m^2 +/- 17 W/m^2?

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 8:53 pm

Can you imagine an engineer being made aware of potentially large and costly future repercussions down the road, but not giving them due thought, instead just blindly laughing them away, pretending that they were mere “pseudo-science”, even though the projections thus far have been quite accurate?

Well, yeah, if it were a WUWT Gorman engineer, I could (unfortunately) imagine that happening quite easily.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 2:53 am

“even though the projections thus far have been quite accurate?”

Rubbish.. the “projections” have been manifestly WRONG.

So wrong that they have to resort to continual upward adjustment of data to even get near their fantasy computer game predictions.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 8:27 am

Yet another ridiculously ignorant claim from b.nice, based no doubt on years of being spoon fed anti-science lies by WUWT.

Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:51 pm

LOL, just believe that propaganda.

Ignore the actual data.. That’s the way to FAIL.

model are crap.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:10 pm

Yet again, b.nice sadly trots out the dishonest propaganda vomited into his empty skull by his WUWT puppet masters.

The graph you reference is a cherry picked snippet of the entire dataset. It looks at only one particular slice of the atmosphere. So completely dishonest.

You need to look at the *entirety* of the data, as that National Academies study did, not just dishonestly cherry picked portions of the data. When you do that, you’ll find that, yes, climate models do reliably project future conditions.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 8:17 am

Present your evidence that “projections thus far have been quite accurate”. How about the IPCC projections? Have any of the ensemble averages ever been met?

You may think your ad hominem is rather accurate, but it is still an ad hom isn’t it? Do you think that refutes anything I said?

Perhaps you need to have a higher goal for yourself than just being an online troll.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 10:12 am

Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model ProjectionsGeophysical Research Letters Oct 2019

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:34 pm

The fox trying to explain away the chicken feather .. So funny.

You really do fall for the most egregious propaganda, don’t you.

model are crap.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:18 pm

b.nice what a laughably ironic comment!

That graph you posted so tragically demonstrates that it is *you* who is the one who “falls for the most egregious propaganda”.

That graph is a dishonestly cherry picked portion of just some of the data. One particular slice of the atmosphere only. The entirety of the data tells a completely different story. A story that the dishonest liars here at WUWT will, of course, never tell you.

And by the way, why do the observations data in that graph stop at 2015? Oh that’s right: there was a MASSIVE increase in warming starting in 2016.

What a tragically epic FAIL.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:23 am

Michael Mann type fraud.

MGC
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 10:15 am

It’s been almost a quarter century now, and yet you are still trying to pretend away Mann’s hockey stick study as “fraud” ?? Even though his results have been verified over and over and over again by dozens of researchers from all over the world?

Sorry, Derg, but the “fraud” here is you and your fellow WUWT cultists.

PaulID
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 12:18 pm

you are the only person here approaching religious fanaticism here

MGC
Reply to  PaulID
April 22, 2022 5:29 pm

Paul, I’m merely pointing out provably incorrect propaganda, misinformation, and falsehoods, and replacing them with actual, verifiable facts.

If you want to claim that this constitutes “religious fanaticism”, then yes, I am guilty as charged.

Bob Close
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 12:59 pm

MGC, you really are a sad case mate!
Any respectable scientist knows that Mann is an incorrigible liar with respect to his publications record on climate science and specifically his lamentable tree ring data that fails to match well established historical temperature data from multiple peer reviewed sources. His misuse of statistical data was clarified by Ross Mckitrick, so he is an embittered man after being showed up as a fraud more than once!.

MGC
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 5:25 pm

Bob, I see you totally ignore the fact that Mann’s results have been corroborated over and over and over and over and over again, by many different research teams from all over the world, using a variety of different research techniques.

The accumulated research evidence over the past quarter century points to Mann’s original hockey stick results being correct, and your whining being little more than biased bloviation.

Ted
Reply to  MGC
April 25, 2022 8:48 am

Not only have Mann’s hockey stick results never been corroborated, Mann’s own lawyer denied the hockey stick in court and it has been revealed that Mann derived the original results from intentional deception.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 2:12 pm

Lol…back on your meds dude. I am still waiting for global warming.

MGC
Reply to  KTM
April 21, 2022 8:47 pm

KTM, it is your own comment that is the prime example of “outright dishonesty” here.

The larger sea level rise uncertainty levels are due to examining different paths that human emissions may follow.

For any single given emissions scenario, sea level rise uncertainty is no where near what you have disingenuously claimed.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 4:40 am

No, the uncertainty is because they don’t actually have a clue !!

It all just from un-validated un-scientific models.

Last edited 28 days ago by b.nice
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 8:28 am

Yet another blind “Nuh Uh because I say so” screed from b.nice.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:24 am

Lol..when will be underwater 😉

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:30 pm

Have yet to see any evidence from you to counter tha fact that CO2 warming exists only in models.

We can wait..

Stop failing !

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 8:17 am

Troll bait!

Chris Hanley
April 21, 2022 3:45 pm

Karl Marx’s theory of history. He observed that “a Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page, confirming evidence” for the theory …

Robert Conquest made a similar point (paraphrasing):
Marx saw himself as the “Darwin of society”, as the originator of a historical science to match Darwin but deriding Darwin’s “crude English empiricism”; Darwin accumulated facts before developing his theory against the supposedly superior German academic method of inventing the theory first and then finding facts to support it’ (Reflections on a Ravaged Century 2000).
In many respects a process followed by climate ‘catastrophists’.

Ulric Lyons
April 21, 2022 4:06 pm

It is pseudoscience. Because a) daily-weekly changes in the solar wind drive Northern Annular Mode (NAM) anomalies causing heat and cold waves, irrespective of the global mean surface temperature. And b) ENSO and the AMO change inversely to changes in the solar wind strength (via NAM anomalies), and are warmer when the solar wind is weaker. Internal variability is more to do with the state of the science than the nature of weather and regional climate change.

Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 4:16 pm

Nice article. My pet peeve are people who want to claim that the SEM as determined by a “sample” lets you extend the precision of the mean beyond resolution of the actual measurement. IOW, you can “average” temps measured and recorded to the nearest 1 degree and somehow get precision out to 4 decimal digits. I’ve asked many to justify that with references and they all try to say that dividing the Standard Deviation by the √N lets you do that even when they also tell you they are dealing with samples.

This doesn’t even begin to deal with the uncertainty propagation!

John Shotsky
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 21, 2022 5:07 pm

Counts can be averaged, measurements cannot BECAUSE measurements are ALWAYS estimates. You cannot get more precision when averaging measurements than the least precise measurement. You must understand significant figures, and if you do, you can dismiss most ‘scientific reports’ because they offer more precision than was present in the measurements. Stupid.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Shotsky
April 22, 2022 9:10 am

I agree. Counts encompass many things from stock/commodity prices, to finite integer outcomes, polls. They are unique and discreet counts.

Measurements are analog, even if displayed on digital readouts, and can ultimately have an infinite number of possibilities. Therein lies the uncertainty and error.

The resolution controls how precise a measurement may be and the number that is recorded conveys how much information IS KNOWN about the measurand at the time of measurement. Even if I make 1,000,000 measurements of the same thing with the same device, that device will only provide me with the same amount of information on each measurement, for example, the nearest 1/100th. Averaging those 1 million measurements will not give me any additional information. New information simply will not be created through mathematical calculations. The mean will still be limited to that 1/100th precision. If we could create precision in this manner, there would be no need for micrometers or digital thermometers. Just perform lots of measurements with a 12 inch ruler or any old Liquid In Glass thermometer to get the precision you need.

Far too many folks here and in climate science (and even other professions) confuse Standard Error of the sample Means (SEM), which is also the standard deviation of the sample means, with the precision available for the estimated means. They do not understand that it only tells you the interval within which the estimated means lays. In other words how narrow the distribution of sample means actually is. All that really means is that you know the estimated means very closely. For example, 10 ± 0.0001, doesn’t mean you know the mean is 10.4951± 0.0001 (assuming 10.4951 is the number your calculator gave you).

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 5:30 pm

Even if I make 1,000,000 measurements of the same thing with the same device, that device will only provide me with the same amount of information on each measurement, for example, the nearest 1/100th.

That maybe true if you are measuring the same thing with the same instrument and the only errors are from rounding to a specific decimal place. (Weren’t you claiming before that averaging only works to increase precision if you measure the same thing with the same instrument?)

But averaging multiple different things to get the best estimate of the population mean can increase the precision and resolution beyond what you’ve measured for any individual sample.

They do not understand that it only tells you the interval within which the estimated means lays.”

You keep confusing yourself when you talk about means. There is only one mean and there is usually only one estimate of that mean.

But you are are correct – the standard error of the mean tells you the interval within which the estimated mean may lie. That’s why the smaller it is the greater the precision.

Bellman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 6:51 am

Your claim is that no matter what the sample size it’s never possible to know the mean to a higher precision than any of the individual measurements. Correct? So given the subject of this article, how would you falsify your hypothesis?

I can see a number of ways of doing this, and they all succeed. (For example, run a simulation with a known mean). But for past experience I know you will reject any such falsification on the grounds that it doesn’t agree with your rules.

Derg
Reply to  Bellman
April 22, 2022 9:25 am

Or your rules 😉

Exactly when will we warm? Pause

Bellman
Reply to  Derg
April 22, 2022 9:42 am

Not relevant to my question but we’ve been warming for the last 50 years, and to a lesser extent the 50 years before then.

b.nice
Reply to  Bellman
April 22, 2022 1:29 pm

“we’ve been warming for the last 50 years”

Except that we haven’t.

No warming from 2000-2015, cooling since the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nino

That series of strong solar cycles through the latter half of last century, is subsiding, and with it will die the zombie nonsense that is AGW and CO2 warming.

Bellman
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:20 pm

Warming for the last 50 years.

20220422wuwt3.png
Derg
Reply to  Bellman
April 22, 2022 2:11 pm

Lol

Doonman
April 21, 2022 4:19 pm

When it’s not scientific, then ideas are in the realm of belief. In the realm of belief are the true believers. Their minds are already rigidly made up and any attempt to persuade with logic or evidence to the contrary is a waste of everyone’s time.

Silentbrick
Reply to  Doonman
April 21, 2022 5:15 pm

The science of climate change flies south for the winter going “Quack Quack Quack”

Independent
Reply to  Doonman
April 21, 2022 5:28 pm

Welcome to the world of leftism: belief/feeling/”your truth” > fact and don’t you dare tell them otherwise!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
April 21, 2022 7:59 pm

I assert that to change minds all one needs are natural gas and electric power shortages and inflation (pain at the pump). FJB did that!

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
April 21, 2022 5:54 pm

Andy,

Awesome job of boiling this down to an editorial, comprehensible to a widespread audience.

The QED here is that the climatic effects of GHG emissions could be treated as a scientific hypothesis… However, it isn’t, because the scientific hypothesis would be little more than a curiosity, that maybe, posed a slight problem 500 years from now.

The alleged scientists hawking the climate crisis make Lysenko look good.

Last edited 29 days ago by David Middleton
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy May
April 22, 2022 5:40 am

It has changed the world, for the worse.

Our delusional leaders, living in a CO2 false reality, are bad for our health and finances.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy May
April 22, 2022 6:31 am

I made some changes to my original post, but I waited too long to save it, so I’ll post it this way.

It has changed the world, for the worse.

Our delusional leaders, living in a CO2 false reality, are bad for our health and finances.

The climate change brainwashing is so bad that I haven’t heard one person on the Fox News Channel come out and say that Human-caused Climate Change is a Hoax. All the talking heads seem to give it credence of one form or another. None of them say there is no evidence CO2 is causing the climate to change.

And this pretty much goes for our Republican leaders, too, who all lend some sort of credence to the idea that humans are causing the climate to change and that humans can do something to stop this change.

Trump is about the only politician on the planet calling Human-caused Climate Change a hoax.

I think the only cure for all this massive Climate Change disinformation and propagada over the decades, is a decade or two of cooling while CO2 amounts continue to increase.

That should Break the Spell the alarmists have on the Public mind.

We may be in the beginning stages of such a cooling period now, going by the historical, written temperature record. Alarmists expect the temperatures to continue to rise. We’ll see who has it right.

Yes, CO2 is Up, but temperatures are Down. The alarmists are getting nervous. Just think if this went on for a few more years. The alarmists would be on the run!  🙂

Don’t worry. We may cool off to the levels of the late 1970’s, but I lived through the 1970’s and it wasn’t so bad. Not much different than today with the exception of a little colder, snowier winters.

It’s all good. CO2 is a benign gas essential for life. Noone has ever shown that CO2 is dangerous to humans.

comment image

Bob Close
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 22, 2022 1:11 pm

Fully agree Tom, we are just waiting for the penny to finally drop, as the post 1998 Millennium Pause levels have been reached again globally, whereas we in Australia have experienced cooling for the past 6 year since the 2016 El Nino, according to UAH data but not the corrupted BoM ACORN ground data.
It is past time further questions be asked in the Senate about the biased and inaccurate climate advice our government receives from the CSIRO, BoM and other self appointed climate ‘experts’ like Flannery.

RickWill
April 21, 2022 6:22 pm

Consensus science appears to be winning the day. If enough people believe in something then it must be true. That is why the “greenhouse effect” gets to be the key factor in Earth’s energy balance and deep convection is not even incorporated in climate models.

Deep convection is why water remains as liquid on Earth’s surface. There might still be ice but that requires poles to remain where they are.

Rick C
April 21, 2022 6:24 pm

Andy: Read the complete piece at WE. Very well presented. I hope that Real Clear Politics will link to it. Einstein’s genius was not just that he came up with his theories largely through “thought experiments” but he also made precise mathematical predictions and described experiments and observations that could disprove his theories. Physicists and astronomers have been diligently trying to falsify Einstein’s theories ever since.

The way climate science is practiced by adherents these days is like predicting that CO2 caused climate change will result in a solar eclipse some time in the future. Then claiming, when an eclipse occurs, it proves you were right.

Dr. Jimmy Vigo
April 21, 2022 6:40 pm

It doesn’t matter what philosophy says. There’s much scientific evidence that this claim is greatly falsifiable. Bottom line is that the structure and function of the molecule of CO2 chemically cannot do what they say is causing and will cause.

MGC
Reply to  Dr. Jimmy Vigo
April 21, 2022 8:31 pm

“Bottom line is that the structure and function of the molecule of CO2 chemically cannot do what they say is causing and will cause.”

Merely because I, the great and powerful Jimmy, have decreed it to be so. Never mind that *every* major scientific organization in the entire world says otherwise, and they have decades of abundant evidence backing what they say.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 2:58 am

Pathetic call to “consensus” ..

Try using actual science instead. !

There is actually no scientific evidence at all showing that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming. If there is.. then present it.

It has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

CO2 warming exists only in un-validated models, .. that is NOT science.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 8:36 am

“There is actually no scientific evidence at all showing that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming”

Thanks for so sadly demonstrating, b.nice, how pathetically brainwashed you’ve become from lying WUWT propaganda.

It has been known scientific fact since the 19th century that CO2 causes warming, dude. And there are literally boatloads of evidence. There is so much evidence, that there is not a single major scientific organization, anywhere on the planet, that disputes this fact.

Pretending otherwise as you are doing is every bit as ridiculous as pretending that oxygen does “not” support combustion. It’s that dumb.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:26 pm

You could present some of this “boatload of evidence.”

But you wont.

Mindless yapping on your behalf is a complete fail !

It has been know that CO2 was a radiative gas..

… other than that, any warming was pure conjecture, because they were unaware how the atmosphere actually works.

Pity you are unable to comprehend actual science, and have to rely on what you have been brain-washed with

Bring science.. not mantra regurgitation.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:33 pm

Apparently you are unaware of the Arrhenius research of 1896, which predicted reasonably accurately, even back then, the warming that would ensue from adding CO2 to the air.

Graemethecat
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 3:15 am

Ah, the old Argument from Authority again. The opinion of scientific organizations is NOT evidence.

MGC
Reply to  Graemethecat
April 22, 2022 8:40 am

Ah, the old “who cares what all the very best experts in the entire world have concluded from mountains of evidence” spew of willful ignorance.

I and my fellow WUWT cult members “know better” … because we say so!

So sad.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:26 am

Back on your meds dude.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:23 pm

Love the way you avoid producing anything that even remotely resembles actual science.

Bring science.. we can wait.

But we all know you are incapable of doing so.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
April 22, 2022 5:57 pm

I’ve posted at least 5 different direct references to “the actual science” in this comment stream. But the tragically inept WUWT puppets just keep blindly babbling “where’s your science” “where’s your science” “where’s your science” “where’s your science”.

So pathetically clueless. And dishonest. But that’s what WUWT does to people.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:15 am

Troll bait.

Show mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature and you’ll have a lot of adherents, even from here. Simple regressions of two time series won’t suffice. The x-axis needs to be CO2 ppm and the y-axis needs to be temperature with an equation showing the relationship.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 22, 2022 10:28 am

Another sorry example of intentional Gormanian ignorance.

The data linking CO2 and temperature has been around for decades. Why do you try to pretend that it does not exist?

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 1:54 pm

Wrong. There have been some short term correlations

…. and some anti-correlations. (cooling 1940-1970, zero trend 1980-1997, zero trend 2000-2015)

Only actual warming in the satellite era has come from EL Nino events. So, no CO2 signature there.

There is actually zero evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2,

… as you keep showing by your utter failure to produce any.

Bob Close
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 2:02 pm

MGC attached is some data that creates doubt about CO2 causing atmospheric temperature change.

Figure 5c. HadCRUT5 monthly global surface temperature estimate plotted against the monthly Moana Loa atmospheric CO2 content, after Humlum 2022 – Climate4you.com.
Figure 5c above shows the lack of a consistent relationship between surface temperatures and CO2 levels,  during recent warming events, this leads Humlum to suggest that “CO2 cannot have been the dominant control on global temperatures since 1958. Had CO2 been the dominant control, periods of decreasing temperature (longer than 2-5 years) with increasing CO2 values should not occur. It might be argued (IPCC 2007) that the COdominance first emerged around 1975, but if so, the recent breakdown of the association around 2000 should not occur, either.” Consequently, ” the complex nature of the relation between global temperature and atmospheric COsince at least 1958, therefore represents an example of empirical falsification of the hypothesis ascribing dominance on the global temperature by the amount of atmospheric CO2. “

CO2 A.gif
Bellman
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 3:03 pm

A degree 5 polynomial? How did they establish that that was the best fit? I attach a graph showing the difference between a linear fit, in blue, and a 5th degree polynomial in red. Only real difference is at the ends, which are usually unreliable for a high polynomial.

r^2 for a linear fit is is 0.843, for the polynomial it’s 0.853.

20220422wuwt1.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bellman
April 22, 2022 3:06 pm

Here’s the same but using annual values.

r^2 for a linear fit is is 0.919, for the polynomial it’s 0.922.

20220422wuwt2.png
Bellman
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 3:07 pm

Had CO2 been the dominant control, periods of decreasing temperature (longer than 2-5 years) with increasing CO2 values should not occur.

Unless of course, there are factors that have a bigger short term dominance, such as ENSO.

MGC
Reply to  Bob Close
April 22, 2022 5:49 pm

Had CO2 been the dominant control, periods of decreasing temperature (longer than 2-5 years) with increasing CO2 values should not occur.”

What an utterly ridiculous argument. It demonstrates a total lack of any proper understanding of positive and negative ocean cycles, volcanic influences, solar cycles, etc., which can clearly create temporary fluctuations against the longer term trend lasting quite a bit longer than a mere “two to five years”.

Just one example that totally destroys this ludicrous “argument” – the 1998 El Nino, which produced a temporary extreme warming peak, well beyond the longer term warming trend. It took the long term trend 16 years to finally eclipse that temporary extreme. But it was eclipsed. In fact, mean global temperatures (as measured by HADCRUT5 as mentioned in your reference) now consistently remain above that 1998 peak.

Sorry, but I’m actually truly embarrassed for you, Bob Close, that you actually referenced this kind of garbage as an “argument”.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
April 22, 2022 9:26 am

Lol every 😉