Climate Scientist Peter Stott. Source Twitter, Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject.

“It was an Ambush”: The Long Fight against Climate Deniers

Essay by Eric Worrall

MET Climate scientist Peter Stott lamenting Climategate, and that time he was ambushed by the Russian Academy of Sciences, tricked into entering a room which contained people who don’t agree with him.

The long fight against climate change deniers

A string of climate change deniers have sought to downplay the significance of global warming and humanity’s role in driving it.

20 Oct 2022

When climate scientist Peter Stott checked into his flight from London to Moscow in July 2004, his excitement gave way to shock when a colleague explained their agreed schedule had been ripped up.

They had expected to compare findings and strengthen ties with counterparts in Russia – but discovered key promoters of the unscientific view that humans have no key role in driving climate change had been invited, too.

“It was an ambush,” Stott said.

The meeting at the Russian Academy of Sciences had been changed by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s then-adviser Andrei Illarionov, an ardent critic of the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 United Nations deal to cut emissions, which was awaiting ratification by Russia.

“He was using scientists as tools in his propaganda war,” said Stott, who specialised in identifying man-made and natural causes of climate change at the United Kingdom’s Met Office and the University of Exeter.

Stott and his colleagues were tasked with debating sceptics including Richard Lindzen, a climate contrarian who was at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the time, and controversial British weather forecaster Piers Corbyn. Stott described the experience of having to defend climate science in Russia as “very threatening”.

One of the biggest setbacks in the battle against climate denial came in 2009 with the scandal known as “Climategate”, Stott said.

“We lost at least six years [of progress] in that time,” Stott said – a critical delay with scientists saying still-rising emissions must now plunge by nearly half from current levels by 2030.

Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/10/20/the-long-fight-against-climate-change-deniers

I’m not sure why Stott seems to think the Paris Agreement is such a success. The world is currently burning record amounts of coal, so I think we can safely add the Paris Agreement to the scrapheap of failed climate initiatives, regardless of political rhetoric.

As for Russia, Russians have likely been skeptical of Western climate science ever since Western scientists ignored Russian advice there was no evidence of unusual warming in the 20th century.

In 1998 scientist Rashit Hantemirov, of the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, tried to explain to Keith Briffa, who helped Michael Mann construct his iconic hockey stick, that the position of the polar timber line, the northern most point at which trees can grow, was the tree metric Russia uses for measuring historic changes in Arctic temperature. Hantemirov’s advice to Briffa was “… there are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the North during last century…“. That same polar timberline metric showed evidence of substantial movement during the medieval warm period, and other well documented historic warming and cooling events (Climategate email 0907975032.txt).

Western scientists seem to prefer tree rings – but even Mann’s colleagues admitted amongst themselves that tree rings are a questionable gauge of historic temperature. Climate scientist Tom Wigley wrote an email to Professor Michael Mann in 2003, in which he explained how his own son performed a high school science experiment which demonstrated Mann’s tree ring metric was likely measuring changes in precipitation rather than changes in temperature (Climategate 2 email 0682.txt).

We can only guess what Russian scientists thought of all this absurdity – but the evidence suggests they decided it was too funny watching Western climate scientists act like fools, to make a serious effort to interrupt the joke.

Of course, the Russian Academy of Sciences joke couldn’t go on forever – someone in Russia’s government probably decided the Western climate alarmist movement was starting to do real harm. So Russia staged the “ambush” in 2004, in which they tried to put Western climate alarmists together in the same room with other Western scientists who didn’t agree with them.

Those dastardly Russians, they just didn’t understand that is not how Western climate science works. What a ridiculous, underhanded dirty trick, putting well qualified people who have different interpretations of the data together in the same room, to see if they can resolve their differences.

In my opinion we have plenty of evidence Western climate science doesn’t do disagreement or criticism. Just look at the wild divergence between climate model predictions. There seems a consensus that Climate science is a special field of science, a field of science governed by politeness, unlike barbaric fields of science in which people challenge and attempt to refute the ideas of others. A field of science in which no theory or model ever seems to be discarded, regardless of how wildly it diverges from observations – providing the model prediction stays safely above the IPCC recommended minimum climate sensitivity.

modelsvsdata.png
modelsvsdata.png

In any other field of science, the most ridiculously divergent models would be quietly discarded. But this just doesn’t seem to happen in Western climate science.

People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical. – Fellow MET scientist John Mitchell, reported by The Register in 2011.


Update (EW): Katphiche wanted a more recent model divergence diagram, the following was prepared by John Christy in January 2021.

Source: Climate Model Democracy
4.9 37 votes
Article Rating
151 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 22, 2022 2:12 am

That last sentence must surely be the most blatant admission of climastrologic fraud. Say it again?
People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical. – Fellow MET scientist John Mitchell,
(long row of expletives deleted)

Richard Page
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 2:41 am

‘Science’ for morons, as taught by morons. It’s not models but morons all the way down!

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Richard Page
October 22, 2022 4:38 am

Not empirical = not science.

bonbon
Reply to  Richard Page
October 22, 2022 9:03 am

Morons got too many Lessons – just sayin’.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Richard Page
October 22, 2022 10:08 am

On behalf of the morons of the world, I must protest that insulting remark.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 22, 2022 7:56 pm

I resemble that remark!

Richard Page
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 23, 2022 12:11 pm

Err, all of it or just a part of it? Do you object to morons teaching ‘science’, or morons going down, for example?

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 23, 2022 9:50 pm

Be careful. There is a city in Mongolia called Moron. Recently they have had to change the spelling to Murun (but not the airport) we can presume because of the over-use of the word with reference to climate scientists.

49.642884, 100.169048

I suppose they could call themselves Maroons but Bugs Bunny has a monopoly on that word.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 3:16 am

For me, the very first sentence sums it up.
Life’s too short to read any more buck passing and lies.

That he used the word ‘ambush‘ to describe what should have been a golden opportunity to explain his science.

That he, they, bottled out speaks volumes and screams from the rooftops that they themselves don’t understand it.
(The Hunan Animal cannot lie – it can try and certainly does, but will always be found out)

As if that weren’t a bad enough trainwreck, he then pours petrol onto the wreckage by using the word ‘fight’

How can people be soooo self-centred, brainwashed and dumb?

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 22, 2022 3:36 am

He didn’t bottle out. As I understand it there were a couple of ‘minders’ tasked with preventing him from leaving the venue. The Russians had some vested interest in hearing what the climate change crowd were saying.

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  Richard Page
October 22, 2022 11:32 am

Seems fair.
If you’ve paid for some reality- deniers to put on a clown show, you don’t want them claiming to have a headache and go off to sulk in their hotel room.

MARTIN BRUMBY
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 22, 2022 11:28 am

Wave a nice brown envelope under Stott’s venal nose and he’ll do cartwheels as well.

mal
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 22, 2022 8:10 pm

Short answer, YES they can and ARE that “self-centered, brainwashed and dumb” !

Coach Springer
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 7:53 am

The power of climate models is in psychology, not understanding reality.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 7:55 am

Let me add some more:
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” – Chris Folland UK Meteorological Office: 
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” – David Frame Climate modeler, Oxford University: 
And how about this mental contortion:
“It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.’ Monika Kopacz Atmospheric scientist:  It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.” – Monika Kopacz – Atmospheric scientist: 

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 22, 2022 7:45 pm

With all due respect….Shouldn’t “atmospheric scientists” like Monica Kopacz and Peter Stott be called airheads?

All the GCM climate models agree with one another; there’s supposedly a 97% consensus among climate scientists that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of GW and that the earth is heading toward a climate catastrophe by 2030. So where’s the uncertainty? Why is hyperbole required if the scientific evidence is so undeniable?

For God’s sake do something useful with your professional lives than devoting your time to frightening the young, the ignorant and the impressionable.

Just asking.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Gerard O'Dowd
October 23, 2022 1:27 am

And…”If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking” – George S. Patton

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 22, 2022 7:49 pm

So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

In other words, the end justifies any means.

Hivemind
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2022 4:43 am

Also, “send more money”.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 22, 2022 7:55 pm

Activists pushing an agenda, not scientists. And pushing for more money: “…more federal financing …”

Last edited 3 months ago by Charlie Skeptic
TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 9:14 am

At least with a coin flip there is a 50% chance of being correct.

Mike McHenry
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 10:03 am

He should watch Richard Feyman explain the scientific method.

Bill Powers
Reply to  cilo
October 22, 2022 11:50 am

Climastrologic fraud is a good one. And this Bit:

They had expected to compare findings and strengthen ties with counterparts in Russia – but discovered key promoters of the unscientific view that humans have no key role in driving climate change had been invited, too.”

Now let us modify that Bit just a bit:

The Roman Catholics had expected to compare findings and strengthen ties with counterparts in the Greek Orthodoxy of Eastern Europe – but discovered agnostics had been invited, too.”

To illustrate what discerning minds understand to be a faith based state sponsored religion that is being forced upon the great unwashed masses by the Ruling Class elite who need to control population and resources and have concocted this hobgoblin to instill fear and guilt into the world population to justify their action.

Strativarius
October 22, 2022 2:17 am

Outrageous. Forcing a man of the climate cloth into an unsafe space.

Friar Stott does dogma not science

Reply to  Strativarius
October 22, 2022 2:40 am

The dogma of AGW may be as dangerous as the dogma of Eugenics.
Anthropogenic Global Warming versus Eugenics | Bread on the water

Strativarius
Reply to  HenryP
October 22, 2022 2:46 am

I’d say it’s more dangerous

n.n
Reply to  Strativarius
October 22, 2022 8:31 am

The former (wicked forcings) is a superset of the latter (wicked solutions).

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Strativarius
October 22, 2022 8:43 am

Yes, eugenics wants a selective cull.
Climate change policy aims to cull us all.

Redge
Reply to  HenryP
October 22, 2022 9:08 am

I’ve been saying this ever since I discovered the Optimum Trust (AKA Population Matters AKA David Attenborough) spreadsheet still available here on the Wayback machine

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Strativarius
October 22, 2022 7:51 pm

And there was no ban on Trigger Words! Free speech was allowed. How low can they go?

Joe Born
October 22, 2022 2:21 am

As director the Department of Energy’s Office of Science in the early ’90s, former Princeton physics professor William Happer discovered that environmental science differs greatly from high-energy physics, nuclear physics, materials science, the human genome, and the many other fields over which the Office had responsibility. In most fields funded by the Office its grants’ principal investigators were delighted to give the seminars requested of them, and they enjoyed being questioned during their talks. “But, with honorable exceptions, principal investigators working on environmental issues were reluctant to come to our Washington offices, and evasive about answering the questions that were so welcome to briefers from other fields.”

cerescokid
Reply to  Joe Born
October 22, 2022 5:58 am

But, with honorable exceptions, principal investigators working on environmental issues were reluctant to come to our Washington offices, and evasive about answering the questions that were so welcome to briefers from other fields.”

That one sentence alone says so much about what was, and still seems to be is, wrong with this field. This defensiveness, more than anything else, stuck out as a red flag when I started reviewing the issue a decade ago.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  cerescokid
October 22, 2022 10:57 am

“This defensiveness”

The alarmists are defensive because they don’t have any evidence to back up their human-caused climate change claims. So they don’t like others asking them questions, which would expose their ignorance.

James A. Schrumpf
Reply to  cerescokid
October 22, 2022 11:40 am

“Why should I show you my data when you’ll just try to something wrong with it?”

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Joe Born
October 22, 2022 6:03 am

It’s models (simulations, hypotheticals) all the way down. Just examined a bivalve paper where model A was “validated” with model B. Hard to understand as they did rely on some experimental work, but the kicker was that they further validated it with “experienced professionals.” These could be correct, but we really need more statisticians checking.

AZeeman
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
October 22, 2022 9:20 am

A model has to be built from the ground up on well established physical rules. Trying to ‘prove’ the correctness of a model by how well it fits to a data series is useless because there are an infinite number of ways to perfectly fit the data. It’s only by applying known physical laws using proven mathematical techniques that modelling is useful.
Bridges are build using engineering models based on the known characteristics of steel and concrete, and the laws of mechanics. The forces in each bridge member can be precisely calculated and the load bearing member sized accordingly.
Imagine building a bridge based on the probability that a particular part may fail without understanding why it would fail. It would require an extreme act of faith to cross any bridge.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  AZeeman
October 22, 2022 8:00 pm

And, in this case, while the models have “physical laws” used in them, they rely on parameterization of the energy exchanges in clouds as subjectively assessed by those ever-present “experienced professionals.” That is like saying E = mc^2 +/-u

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
October 22, 2022 7:55 pm

… further validated it with ‘experienced professionals.’

This is in contrast to ‘inexperienced professionals?’

bigoilbob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2022 3:41 pm

Every person on their first paid day in their chosen field is an ‘inexperienced professional’.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joe Born
October 22, 2022 8:54 am

The extension of this is the retraction rate of climate science papers. We already know that much of published science is wrong, but it doesn’t seem to apply to those papers toeing the company line. Odd.

Sean
October 22, 2022 2:27 am

Climate science has been supported by traditional, well established western religions. They both rely on faith and are reluctant to engage outside of their congregations. “The debate is over” is the most anti science statement ever made. Reluctance to engage the heretics will be the undoing of both.

Strativarius
Reply to  Sean
October 22, 2022 2:36 am

Cardinal Kerry was on the BBC imploring Charles to attend the CoP

Sad stuff

czechlist
Reply to  Sean
October 22, 2022 6:32 am

Western religions generally require martyrs, victims who have suffered for the cause. Stott is presenting his bona fides for beatification.

H.R.
Reply to  czechlist
October 22, 2022 7:09 am

Martyrdom just ain’t what it used to be.

In the good ol’ days, you had to die. Nowadays, you just have to get your ‘feewings’ hurt.

“It was ‘orrible, Alf!”

n.n
Reply to  Sean
October 22, 2022 8:35 am

Pro-Choice (notably the twilight faith or conflation of logical domains) ethical (i.e. relativistic) religion (i.e. behavioral protocol), certainly. Also, progressive (i.e. unqualified monotonic) cults (e.g. “reformed”) that identify as conventional.

Richard Page
Reply to  n.n
October 23, 2022 12:15 pm

It’s all a form of behavioural modification to conform to a pattern set by a select few.

Ron Long
October 22, 2022 2:39 am

Good posting of another Reality Check. Us geologists like to use historic sea levels as showing natural cycles, but I like the northern tree-line metric also, and will add it to my discussions, becoming very infrequent, with persons curious about Climate Change, CAGW, that is. Press On.

n.n
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2022 8:38 am

The radiative-thermal dynamic missing link.

bonbon
Reply to  n.n
October 22, 2022 8:58 am

Missing?
Einstein’s 1917 “The Quantum Theory of Radiation” looks closely at this.
https://inspirehep.net/files/9e9ac9d1e25878322fe8876fdc8aa08d

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2022 8:50 am

It’s more common than you think. Pal review happens in engineering too, people protecting their own little castles against any and all challengers, but at least we allow dissent.
The climate Scientologists effort to enact criminal penalties on skeptics should relegate them to a gulag far from civil society.
It’s one thing to refuse debate but the attempt to criminalize should be crushed.
Can’t something like RICO be used in the USA to challenge this?

The USA DOJ specializes in weaponizing everything

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 22, 2022 9:39 am

Several research articles co-authored by Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Gregg Semenza are being investigated by publishers after internet sleuths raised concerns about the integrity of images in the papers. Journals have already retracted, corrected or expressed concerns about 17 papers over the past decade, and others are investigating image- and data-integrity issues in further studies.

Nature 21 October 2022

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2022 8:06 pm

mean deniers

You mean those who were able to give up their day jobs because of the generous contributions from the fossil fuel industry? Those payments seem to be about as provable as the existence of UFOs. Everybody talks about them, but nobody can produce even a microgram of unobtanium scraped off on a rock when one landed.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Ron Long
October 22, 2022 10:06 am

 Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline
Harvey Nichols
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40508715

Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 3:21 am

Isn’t Russia now helping to fund Extinction Rebellion types now? They really must be laughing at the stupidity of the West every night.

Richard Page
Reply to  Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 3:45 am

The Soviet Union started out by funding nuclear disarmament groups, then generally anti-nuclear groups, including extensive disinformation and propaganda campaigns across europe, the west and even satellite states such as Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia and Lithuania. The Russians then built on this by funding green activists and anti-capitalist activists across much of the west. As I understand it one reason to invite Stott and others was to see what effect the funding was having and how extensively the disinformation had been spread.

strativarius
Reply to  Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 5:03 am

Russia, Soros, even Aileen Getty is in on it.

Different motives, same aim.

n.n
Reply to  Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 8:39 am

Thank Biden et al, America, too.

Dave Fair
Reply to  n.n
October 22, 2022 8:18 pm

Let’s Go Brandon!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 8:53 am

The Russians, along with the Saudis and various USA foundations fund the campaigns to landlock Canada’s oil and gas. As we see it’s not just Europe infested with the climate insane trying to strangle western civilization.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Matt Kiro
October 22, 2022 9:29 am

I have read it’s The Hewlett Foundation, The Packard Foundation, The Goldsmiths, Soros and all the usual suspects.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
October 22, 2022 11:04 am

But…but…none of them are “Big Oil” so they must be honest with no agenda!!

Richard Page
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 23, 2022 6:41 am

The Getty and Rockefeller money supporting these activist groups is the original ‘Big Oil’. If that isn’t an indicator that these climate activists are just being used to further a slightly different agenda then remember it was Rockefeller money that set up the UN in New York.

Katphiche
October 22, 2022 3:54 am

Using a chart that is 9 years old is not a forceful addition to the article.
Surely there must be a more current version that shows the same pattern.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2022 8:18 pm

It looks to me that there has been a strong divergence between predictions and observations since about 1995 (back casting?), with the observations now being outside the spaghetti envelope. That means it is half cooked and won’t stick to the wall.

b.nice
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 23, 2022 4:28 am

Since the 2016 peak, there has been a drop in temperature..

The graph now looks something like this, with UAH added

ChristyJR_2022121_v2_CMIP6_models+UAH.jpg
Tom in Florida
Reply to  Katphiche
October 22, 2022 5:23 am

I would also add that the base period of that anomaly chart is only 4 years, 1979-1983.
I smell the cherries.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 22, 2022 7:10 am

Que?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 22, 2022 8:55 am

The graph starts from the coldest point in the last 150 years.
If you start that graph at 1929 instead of 1979 it looks even less scary, not that it looks scary to me as is.

I love cherry pie.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 22, 2022 11:49 am

For starters we didn’t have radio sonde or satellite observations in 1929 or even before 1979 with respect to the latter. But the real power of the graphic is that it compares real observations to GCM predictions in order to show that the GCM predictions are absolute junk. If you think that’s cherry picking, please explain your basis for thinking so.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
October 22, 2022 12:47 pm

Yes it shows the GCM predictions to be junk. But, any anomaly chart with a base period of only 4 years makes no sense. So why use it especially when that period is 40 years old.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 22, 2022 2:04 pm

I think you’re missing the point. The choice of base period makes no difference to the relative positions of the graphs.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 22, 2022 8:49 am

Tom, the base period is of no interest, it is the slope of the models vs. the slope of the satellite observations which is relevant…

Gavin Schmidt of notorious RealClimate censoring in fact did show that Spencer and Christy were right:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

If you look at the histograms: 75% of all models are outside the reach of all satellite datasets and 80% in the tropics.
Even if some of the satellite datasets are based on “models” for their calibration, while UAH uses balloon data from the real world…

Gavin Schmidt also admitted that many models run too hot in Science:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

christy_trend[1].png
Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 22, 2022 12:49 pm

It is a base period of only 4 years from 40 years ago. Why use it? It doesn’t create any confidence in the point being made.

Philip Mulholland
October 22, 2022 4:35 am

“He was using scientists as tools in his propaganda war,” 

How astonishingly unethical /sarc

Geoff Sherrington
October 22, 2022 4:54 am

“Ambush” is also used in the fiction movie “The Trick”, another clumsy cover-up attempt to make Climategate antiseptic.
Have any readers here seen the movie? Geoff S

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 22, 2022 6:01 am

From a Rotten Tomatoes review
“If the people in your show are less interesting than tree rings and thermometer readings, something’s gone awry.”

October 19, 2021 | Rating: 2/5
This film hasn’t been released in theaters in US that I know of.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
October 22, 2022 5:37 pm

Thankyou, Mumbles. Geoff S

Richard Page
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 23, 2022 6:48 am

I started watching the film but could’t stomach more than about 10 mins before I had to switch off. Sanctimonious drivel portraying the perpetrators of the climate scam as heroic and selfless scientists being victimised by organised cabal’s of selfish, greedy vested interests.

Laws of Nature
October 22, 2022 5:02 am

You or any alarmist should not use CMIP 5 models, as they have been shown not to match reality when it comes to clouds by CMIP 6 models.

There can be no doubt that CMIP 5 model or any prediction based on them is incorrect.
Please spread the word!

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Laws of Nature
October 22, 2022 8:56 am

But 6 is worse?
Or so I’ve read

Smart Rock
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 22, 2022 11:00 am

If you look at the two charts posted by Eric, the CMIP5 mean hits about +0.75°C at 2020, while the CMIP6 mean has 2020 at +1.5°C. The real world (sonde) trend line projects to about +0.5°C in 2020 (all relative to 1979). And even the HADCRUT trend in the first chart (from the very den of the beast in Exeter!) more or less matches the sonde trend.

So yes, you heard it right. The whole AR6/CMIP6 fantasy show is what a gambler might call “doubling down and going for broke”. When you consider that the CMIP6 models were actually published in 2020, the utter contempt of the climate modelling community for observational data is glaringly obvious.

It’s not bad science; it’s anti-science. It’s dressing up activism to make it look like science to non-scientist politicians, in order to drive a specific agenda.

The dark green line in the later chart is an average of “reanalysis” and it tracks the real-world trend line too well to be a coincidence. As far as I can tell, reanalysis means re-running the models when you know what the answer is, which is absolutely contrary to every principle of science. But it at least shows that a few modellers might have had some vestigial conscience, and been troubled by the absurdity of the model results – even if they had to cheat to get it right.

Mickey Reno
October 22, 2022 5:42 am

The mantra of the modern major generals of CAGW:

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee that positive feedback. Water would never be in liquid or vaporous form on this planet without CO2. Deprecate, deprecate, deprecate that water vapor and evaporation energy transfer, clouds, albedo, convection, orbital effects, solar variation, and just “parameter-ize those things into oblivion with our vaunted but silly CMIP climate models because they’re all too complicated to model in any case. Never submit our models to actual testing and scientific rigor..

And don’t let ourselves be trapped again, forced to actually defend ourselves, or debating John Christie or Richard Lindzen or Will Happer. That path is fraught with peril. Run away like a petulant little child if John Stossel tricks you into appearing on TV with a D-Nye-er. Dissemble, dissemble, dissemble if a Congressional committee invites you to testify as an expert with Judy Curry or Alex Epstein or even Mark Steyn or (the late, great) Michael Crichton,

Pretend that we know more than “f**k-all” about climate change!

Last edited 3 months ago by mickeyreno
ScienceABC123
October 22, 2022 6:18 am

Synopsis: “Computer models are science, observational data is not!”

Now tell me again, who is denying reality? “Climate activists” or “climate deniers.”

Last edited 3 months ago by ScienceABC123
strativarius
Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 22, 2022 6:55 am

Have you got your Orwell hat on….?

Gunga Din
Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 22, 2022 11:38 am

Computer science is amazing.
I’ve looked “the cloud” from three sides now.
In one, the US is now speaking Japanese.
In another, the US is now speaking German.
In the last, the US still gets to continue to mangle The Queen’s English. (Along with the Russians.)
Pixels on a screen that don’t match History or observed reality.
Computer science has produced an amazing tool.
But it doesn’t trump reality.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 22, 2022 3:16 pm

PS I was referring to the old PC game “Pacific General”.
Even though allies, Russia was never treated as a “friend”.
The game got that right!

Bruce Cobb
October 22, 2022 6:47 am

Stott “explaining” how science works is like a bank robber “explaining” economics.

strativarius
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 22, 2022 6:54 am

Or Roberto the stabbing robot in Futurama – who robbed the same bank three times.

Felix
October 22, 2022 7:01 am

“We lost at least six years [of progress] in that time”

An amazingly precise interval. I wonder what model they used to calculate it, if it was peer-reviewed by other models.

“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.”

Oh I see.

alastair gray
October 22, 2022 7:06 am

Peter A. Stott is a climate scientist who leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Met Office in Exeter, UK. He is an expert on anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change.

Quite a nasty character this Stott. I heard him last pour vitriole on deniers on the horrible BBC with not a shred of evidence to back up his claptrap. Shonky attribution studies and alarmism are his forte. Rumour has it that he and others visited Boris Johnson when he assumed the job of PM and converted him from sensible scepticism to rabid green folly. He and the fragrant Carrie have a lot to answer for.
Incidentally I am interested in what process these wonks do to attribute events to climate
I got fed up of trolling sites to find out “that the science says it is so” and all I can really figure out is that it’s all done on comparison of what you model versus what nature throws at us and any difference is our fault. A recipe for bullshit. Anyone got a more detailed explanation of what they do

Reply to  alastair gray
October 22, 2022 11:40 am

Years ago I have followed a short course about climate models at the University of Oxford. Have been wondering how they could produce anything real from a combination of 20 or so “fixable” parameters. Nevertheless, they had a simple spreadsheet that you could use to change the fortifying factor for the four most important inputs (CO2, solar, volcanic and human aerosols). By playing with these factors you could “predict” any future warming between half and double the observed rate, while maintaining the past performance over 1900-2000:
file:///C:/Users/32479/Documents/Thuis/telenet/klimaat/oxford.html

The link to the paper from Kaufmann that the simple spreadsheet was as “performant” as the multi-million dollar “real” climate models doesn’t work anymore. Just a pity.

oxford_2150.jpg
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 22, 2022 12:39 pm

Sorry, wrong link to the webpage with the performance of a simple EBM model:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html

alastair gray
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 23, 2022 2:56 am

Thanks for that Ferdinand. Ask I thought you can pick any combination of factors to tune the result without necessarily having any predictive skill

I have some experience of oilfield production models. Basic parameters are detailed description of reservoir shape, porosity distribution, permeability distribution, pressure, number, position and past flow and pressure performance of wells.
Parameters can be determined at each and every well from logs. Armed with this a resrvoir model will solve the Navier Stokes equatrions and predict future well performance. This is pretty simple relative to climate modelling and we generally have quite good control over our parameters. Factors that may influence the simple picture are fault boundaries and fracture patterns that may not be so well determined.
It is generally quite easy to tune a model that history matches field production. That however does not necessarily indicate predictive skill. The undetermined parameters are likely to sneak up from behind and mug your careful plans.
Getting back to Stott, while you demonstrate how muddled models or modelled muddles can be constructed. However Stott and his like claim that extreme weather events can be attributed to specific underlying causes as e.g. anthropogenic. Any idea of how they do that attribution

Mike Lowe
Reply to  alastair gray
October 22, 2022 11:57 am

Especially Carrie. Surely the Poms won’t be so stupid as to allow her back into the number 10 bedroom?

Richard Page
Reply to  Mike Lowe
October 23, 2022 12:32 pm

So far (Sunday evening) the three contenders are Sunak (127 votes), Johnson (46 votes) and Mordaunt (23 votes) with successful candidates having to get over 100 votes before Monday evening. So far, as predicted, BoJo has suffered a good half-dozen metaphorical stab-wounds to the back and dishy Rishi looks like being the only candidate who might get the required backing. Mordaunt has refused BoJo’s kind request to resign the race and back him but looks unable to cross the line herself – I think she’d rather back Sunak right now rather than BoJo. We’ll have to take another look tomorrow afternoon when the last-minute deals and powerplays are concluded but it’s looking like a one horse race at the moment.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 23, 2022 2:45 pm

An update – Monday 2pm is the deadline, not the evening, sorry about that. Also BoJo has now pulled out of the race after trying to get both Penny Mordaunt and Rishi Sunak to pull out and support him in ‘the national interest’ ie – BoJo’s interest. It is looking very much like Rishi Sunak will be the next PM unless Penny Mordaunt get’s a last-minute surge in popularity (doubtful).

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
October 24, 2022 10:42 am

Rishi Sunak will be the next PM, Penny Mordant has withdrawn. Business as usual and, presumably, Net Zero as well? Oh dear.

Dave Fair
Reply to  alastair gray
October 22, 2022 8:43 pm

I forget who exposed the scam, but some guy came up with an algorithm that purported to show it could take the statistics of a given weather extreme and, running it through a climate model, come up with a percentage likelihood that CC contributed to the event. The statistics expert that exposed the algorithm showed it did not meet the pre-conditions necessary to be applicable to weather events. There’s alot more to it, and you can look it up under attribution studies.

b.nice
Reply to  alastair gray
October 23, 2022 4:31 am

Isn’t Stott the guy that invented the BS “homogenisation” routines that are used specifically to cool the past and warm the present ?

Curious George
October 22, 2022 7:39 am

Peter Stott actually believes in his settled science. Settled science evolves by running approved models and by communiques from above. At MET he is in the right place. Faster computers for MET!

Dave Andrews
October 22, 2022 8:18 am

Wigley had also crticised Mann in one of the climategate emails

“I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work – an opinion I have held for some time”

Briffa too also said in one email “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about a 1000 years ago”

(Climategate The Crutape Letters, Mosher & Fuller p9)

b.nice
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 23, 2022 4:32 am

“MBH is a very sloppy piece of work”

Yes, Mann is a really sloppy piece of work !

Andy Pattullo
October 22, 2022 8:33 am

If you are so certain there is a wolf hunting your sheep, but no one sane, objective and rational can see it, it’s time to question your own thinking processes, rather than assume everyone else is willfully blind.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
October 22, 2022 10:11 am

It’s worse than that. The sheep are dying of natural causes, at the same rate they have died for the all the past millenia of sheepherding. 🤨

But, when you want to sell Wolf-Be-Gone, you gotta shout hysterically long and loud, ” Wolf! Wolf!! WwwwwOOOOOOLLLLLLLF!!!!”

Oh, and pay some wolf experts to put out some “science” that backs you up.

And keep on screaming.

Heh.

Last edited 3 months ago by Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 8:40 am

I almost admire their skill at using weasel words to convey falsehoods without quite lying. Here’s exhibit A:

“the unscientific view that humans have no key role in driving climate change”

What do you suppose “no key role” is supposed to mean?

The problem which climate industry propagandists have is that they want readers to believe that climate realists like Prof. Lindzen take positions which are absurd, like “humans have no role” in affecting climate. But, of course, that’s a strawman: Prof. Lindzen and other leading climate realists don’t say that.

By inserting the incongruous word “key,” they fuzz-up the meaning, so that they can convey the desired false impression without exactly lying about the realists’ position, and by inserting the editorial “unscientific” they dishonestly reinforce that false impression.

Note: I don’t know whether the disingenuous phrase was coined by Stott or by the article’s author, Jack Graham (whose name was omitted from some copies of the article). But both of them are prejudiced by their own pecuniary interests, making their livings in the Climate Biz.

Lindzen and other leading climate realists simply follow the compelling evidence showing that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. But if the article said that, it wouldn’t sound unreasonable, and to promote the climate emergency scam it is necessary to convince people that the most reasonable people are unreasonable.

That requires obfuscating the facts: both the facts about climate realists’ opinions, and the facts about climate change:

The amount of warming mankind’s GHG emissions cause is modest. Even using the (probably exaggerated) temperature indexes which show the most warming, averaged global temperatures have probably increased no more than about 1.2°C since the 1700s. That is tiny compared to the 5-10°C average temperature changes over multiple natural glaciation / deglaciation cycles over the last few hundred thousand years, and very slow compared to the rapid warming during the more recent Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.The warming is benign. Cold weather is far more deadly than hot weather, and “global” warming actually makes the coldest weather warmer to a much greater degree than it makes hot weather hotter (see “Arctic amplification”).Additional CO2 is extremely beneficial for agriculture (a fact which has been settled science for over 100 years), and it is also highly beneficial for natural ecosystems.

Last edited 3 months ago by Dave Burton
Janice Moore
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 10:23 am

1. Yes, CO2 is plant food and warming (from whatever cause) has been benign, thus, even IF human CO2 “caused” (this has never been proven with data) warming it is nothing to do anything about.

2. Richard Lindzen does not say that he knows that human CO2 causes warming. Even if he does allow that this is possible, he nowhere asserts this with the high confidence you do, Mr. Burton.

Moreover, Richard Lindzen and many reputable, data-based, scientists state that atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, i.e., CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle at all time scales

Richard S. Lindzen – A.B., Physics; Ph.D., Applied Mathematics; Scientist, NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research); … Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT, 1983-2013); Lead Author, IPCC (2001).  See also: https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/rlindzen
 
“… Vostok core … higher resolution studies (Caillon, et al, 2003) show that here too increasing temperature preceded increasing CO2 by hundreds of years.” “Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously,” R. Lindzen at 2,
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Mid-tropospheric-warming/more/old/Lindzen-2007-Taking-Greenhouse-warming-seriously.pdf , April 3, 2007.

3. CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle — this conclusion has broad and deep support in the data-based science community:

comment image

The climate alarmist crowd never tires of insisting that anthropogenic additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide … —are driving … global warming … .
Long-term geological data show a pretty consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature, giving the claim its initial attractiveness.
But there’s a problem. Detailed analysis of the data shows that the time sequence is opposite what the claim requires.
(Source: https://cornwallalliance.org/2017/06/global-temperature-and-co2-which-drives-which/&nbsp😉

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 11:49 am

Janice,

As always, happy to meet you again…

But as always, we differ in opinion:

  • CO2 follows temperature over glacial and interglacial periods with a lag
  • CO2 follows temperature over short periods: seasonal and 1-3 years with a lag
  • But… CO2 levels lead temperature in the past 170 years.

The effect of the cooling MWP to LIA was less than 10 ppmv.
The effect of the warming LIA to current is not more than 13 ppmv.
The real increase is over 120 ppmv while humans have emitted over 200 ppmv.

Temperature is not the cause of the increase, or you violate Henry’s law…

law_dome_1000yr.jpg
Janice Moore
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 22, 2022 2:10 pm

Dear Mr. Engelbeen,

A pleasure to see you, too.

Glad to see that you are feeling up to commenting. I have been keeping you and all of your wife’s bereaved family in my prayers… . As C. S. Lewis said (in his book A Grief Observed) upon losing his wife, time does help, the pain lessens in the amputated area, but, one remains a one-legged man.

Very hard for you.😔

For today, I am just going to say, yes, indeed, we differ.

(anyone who wants to see the arguments between Mr. Engelbeen and others on this topic, search for “Engelbeen and Bart or Bartemis or F. H. Haynie” in “WUWT, The Battle for Science — the First 10 Years.”)

Take care,

Janice

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 23, 2022 12:55 am

Thanks Janice,

It still hurts – after near 52 years of marriage – and will hurt especially on days like birthdays, mother’s day, Christmas,… but we have a lot of comfort from our two daughters on those days…

Indeed these discussions are going on for over 10 years and still aren’t resolved…
I am working on a detailed exposé why so many skeptics use the wrong metric (the residence time) to calculate the human contribution to the CO2 increase…
Maybe in a few weeks on WUWT…

Janice Moore
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 23, 2022 2:12 pm

So sorry… . I think that it is very often harder for someone to lose a spouse than for an adult child to lose a parent.

I think I understand about special days, though, especially “firsts.” My mom went to be with the Lord last July. Last night, I was listening to the Canadian Geese flying over and wondering when the first Trumpeter Swans will return to Skagit Valley (any day, now….). And it suddenly struck me, “This will be the first time the swans have come back and she wasn’t here.”

It will be the first “first” for me. *swallowing hard*

She is in heaven, where there are, I believe, magnificent swans, the “Real” of which earthly swans are only a shadow. She is well. But, we miss her….

Take care,

Janice

Last edited 3 months ago by Janice Moore
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 23, 2022 5:41 am

Especially for the negative votes on the above comment, here the total amount of CO2 released by humans, compared to the total increase in the atmosphere and the influence of the average ocean surface temperature on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere per Henry’s law, including all natural variability caused by temperature variability.

The formula used:
∂ln(pCO2)/∂T=0.0423/K
is from Takahashi:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967064502000036
and is based on hundred thousands of sea surface samples all over the oceans…

If one can show that human emissions are not to blame for the recent CO2 increase, please show your mass balance (and no, CO2 doesn’t escape to space…).

temp_co2_acc_1900_cur.jpg
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 12:21 pm

Janice wrote, “Richard Lindzen does not say that he knows that human CO2 causes warming… https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/Mid-tropospheric-warming/more/old/Lindzen-2007-Taking-Greenhouse-warming-seriously.pdf

It is remarkable that you made that assertion and then linked to a document written by Prof. Lindzen in which he refutes that assertion, in great detail. His 5th paragraph begins:

“3. The way in which CO2 contributes to warming is by means of…”
 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ 

Janice wrote, “Moreover, Richard Lindzen and many reputable, data-based, scientists state that atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, i.e., CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle at all time scales”

That’s wrong.

On the timescales of glaciation/deglaciation cycles (about 100K years per cycle), CO2 trend reversals (determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores) have generally lagged temperature trend reversals (inferred by isotope analysis of those same ice cords), by 200-1000 years. But:

● the claim that that is also the case “at all time scales” is simply false

● the actual lag time is nowhere near a quarter cycle (which would be 25K years)

comment image
 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ 

The claim that “CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle” is wrong, too.

Over the annual seasonal cycle (especially in the northern hemisphere), in spring and early summer fast-growing plants draw down the atmospheric CO2 level. Then, in fall and winter those same plants and leaves die and rot, releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 level measured at places like Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) has a seasonal cycle:

comment image

In the northern hemisphere (e.g., MLO), temperatures peak around around the first of August, and at Mauna Loa CO2 levels peak in late May. So you could say that temperatures lag CO2 levels by about 2 months, or that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 10 months, which are equivalent statements.

That relationship exists only at the annual timescale, and it has nothing to do with the fact that mankind’s CO2 emissions increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor with the fact that CO2 has a modest warming effect.
 ‍‍‍‍‍‍ 

Janice wrote, “Detailed analysis of the data shows that the time sequence is opposite what the claim requires.”

That’s wrong.

Some people think that the fact that warmer temperatures can cause higher CO2 levels, e.g., via the temperature dependence of Henry’s Law, and as demonstrated by the way CO2 trend reversals have lagged temperature trend reversals over (de)glaciation cycles, means that CO2 does not cause warming. But, in fact, both relations are true.

We know from ice cores that warming and glacial retreat cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise (though by only about 90 ppmv from LGM to HCO).

We also know from physics that higher CO2 levels cause warming (though probably only about 1.5°C per doubling of CO2).

The fact that both are true — warming increases CO2 and CO2 increases warming — makes the combination of the two effects a positive feedback loop (albeit a weak one):

Warmer temperature → higher CO2 level → warmer temperature

Graemethecat
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 1:18 pm

Sorry, I must disagree. If CO2 causes warming, why do temperatures increase when CO2 is at its lowest, and decrease when it at its highest?

Furthermore, other trace gases such as xenon and methane follow the same timecourse as CO2, as Henry,s Law would predict.

Reply to  Graemethecat
October 22, 2022 7:38 pm

Graemethecat asked, If CO2 causes warming, why do temperatures increase when CO2 is at its lowest, and decrease when it at its highest? … other trace gases such as xenon and methane… “

You’re talking about the fact that on the timescales of glaciation/deglaciation cycles (about 100K years per cycle), CO2 trend reversals (determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores) have generally lagged temperature trend reversals (inferred by isotope analysis of those same ice cords), by 200-1000 years. (It is not true over the last century: CO2 is rising ahead of warming.)

The answer to your question is Milankovitch cycles.

There are two reasons that Milankovitch cycles have a large effect on glaciation, and neither of them implies that climate sensitivity to GHG forcings must be high.

The 1st reason Milankovitch cycles have a large effect on glaciation is:

1. Milankovitch cycles change the breadth of seasonal temperature swings at the latitudes where it matters for glaciation: mainly northern North America and northern Eurasia.

When those seasonal swings increase it increases summer ice melt and decreases winter snowfall in winters. (When temperatures are very low snowfall is reduced, because the cold air cannot carry much moisture; it’s said to be “too cold to snow.”) That shrinks ice sheets.

When the seasonal swings are reduced it decreases ice melt in the summers and increases snowfall in the winters. That causes ice sheets to grow.

The 2nd reason Milankovitch cycles have a large effect is:

2. Milankovitch cycles last tens of thousands of years, which enables them to overcome the extreme damping of the feedback mechanism. (Integral feedback effectively amplifies a factor proportionally to duration.)

When Milankovitch cycles reduce Earth’s seasonal swings to the point that the great northern ice sheets grow a little bit each year, by adding more snow in winter than they lose in the summer, after thousands of years of growth you get a big increase in planetary albedo.

Conversely, when the Earth’s seasonal swings are increased to the point that the great northern ice sheets shrink a little bit each year, as the ice sheets dwindle it eventually adds up to a large reduction in planetary albedo.

That is an important positive integral feedback mechanism, but only on timescales of thousands of years, and it is highly non-linear, because it only works when the extent of the great northern ice sheets can significantly increase or decrease.

Those ice sheets are gone, now. The main remnant is Greenland, so ice sheet albedo feedback could only become important in a warming climate if enough of the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt to significantly increase the exposed land area, which is not in prospect.

So Milankovitch cycle-driven glaciation cycles are evidence of very large natural long-period climate variability, but they are not evidence of high climate sensitivity to anthropogenic GHG forcings.

That sort of hysteresis is typically the result of positive feedback, in a nonlinear system. In electronics, they do that intentionally, sometimes, to make things like Schmitt Triggers.

The hysteresis is also consistent with a role for CO2: cooling climate & advancing ice sheets lower atmospheric CO2 (probably though several mechanisms, though it’s not well understood). Lower atmospheric CO2 level causes more cooling; i.e., positive feedback.

Likewise, warming climate and retreating ice sheets raises the atmospheric CO2 level, which causes more warming.

However, you don’t really need the CO2 effect to get hysteresis. The positive integral feedback from ice sheets can do it alone.

However, it’s unknown why deglaciation progresses faster than reglaciation. I suspect that CO2 has a role there. But exactly how glaciation cycles manage to affect CO2 levels as much as they do is not well understood.

https://youtu.be/8eDYVtPwWiM?t=43
The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, ‘I do not know.’” – Lt Cdr https://archive.is/MlOiz#selection-3467.9-3469.1

comment image

On the scale of tens to hundreds of millennia, the Earth’s climate dances to the Milankovitch cycles’ tune, and CO2 is just a weak accompanying voice in the background.

comment image

CO2 levels were generally lowest shortly AFTER glacial maximums, and generally highest shortly AFTER interglacial temperature peaks.

Each time the glaciers began receding, they did so while CO2 levels were very low (and, in most cases, still falling).

Conversely, each reglaciation began while CO2 levels were relatively high (and, in most cases, still rising).

If CO2 was the biggest “control knob” for climate, then how do you suppose the Milankovitch cycles overrode it, again and again?

The “CO2 knob” was set to “maximum cold,” yet when the Milankovitch cycles caused increased seasonal temperature swings the ice sheets obediently receded and the Earth warmed.

The “coldest” setting of the “CO2 knob” was powerless to stop the Earth from warming.

During interglacials, the “CO2 knob” was set to “warm,” yet when the Milankovitch cycles caused reduced seasonality the ice sheets obediently advanced and the Earth cooled. The “warm” setting of the “CO2 knob” was powerless to stop the Earth from cooling.

If that had happened only once or twice then you might suppose that it could be coincidence: perhaps the “solar constant” varied, or some other forcing changed. But it didn’t happen just once or twice, it happened over and over.

It happened so many times that all serious scientists agree that Milankovitch cycles drove the Earth’s glaciation/deglaciation cycles over the last million years. Anyone who says CO2 was the biggest control knob w/r/t glaciation cycles doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

That’s probably because they lack the relevant education. They’ve never studied systems science, so they don’t understand integral feedback, and how a small integral feedback over a long period of time can dominate an instantaneously larger forcing.

That’s one of many common climate alarmist confusions. The “climate crisis” is nonsense. Benefits of elevated CO2 are real, measured & huge. The major harms are all merely hypothetical & mostly implausible.

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
October 23, 2022 7:34 am

Nobody said that CO2 was the only thing that causes changes.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 1:56 pm

Re: “It is remarkable that you… .”

A more careful reading of what I wrote and the Lindzen quote you copied would correct your misimpression of my actions being “remarkable.”

1. You used Lindzen to back up your assertions about human CO2.

2. Thus, “Janice wrote, “Richard Lindzen does not say that he knows that human CO2 causes warming…”

(emphasis for clarity)

You have many highly confident assertions, Mr. Burton, yet you have yet to provide any data proving them.

3. Re: “Some people think… .”

“Some people” include:

David Legates
Richard Lindzen
Allan MacRae
Euan Mearns
Murry Salby

Given their credentials (they are easily found on the internet — I am not printing them to save space, here), I find it remarkable that you so breezily dismiss their conclusions.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 5:29 pm

1 & 2. CO2 is CO2. If natural CO2 causes warming, then so does human CO2. Prof. LIndzen described how CO2 causes warming, and how human additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere cause (quite modest) additional warming.

3. It is astonishing to me, Janice, that in reply to a comment in which I quoted Prof. Lindzen saying that CO2 causes warming, you again wrongly assert that he is among those “some people” who think that:

Some people think that the fact that warmer temperatures can cause higher CO2 levels… means that CO2 does not cause warming.”

I quoted him saying that CO2 causes warming… in the very document to which you linked!!

Additionally, I’m confident that Prof. Legates agrees with Prof. Lindzen (and with me).

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by roughly 50%, causing about a 6% increase in CO2’s radiative forcing. It’s modest and benign, but it’s not zero.

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 8:48 pm

… how human additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere cause (quite modest) additional warming.

I should like to point out that the anthropogenic CO2 contributions are less than the uncertainties in the annual net ocean flux, let alone the relatively poorly characterized respiration from boreal forests in the Winter.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2022 12:17 am

Clyde,

The current annual net flux of the oceans is about -2.5 PgC/year.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

“This map yields an annual oceanic uptake flux for CO2 of 2.2 ± 0.4 PgC/yr” (1995).

The current annual net flux of the whole biosphere is about -2.5 PgC/year.
https://tildesites.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

“We find the average CO2 uptake by the ocean and the land biosphere was 1.7 ± 0.5 and 1.0 ± 0.6 GtC/yr respectively”
for the period 1993-2002.

Together currently about -5 PgC/year with a year to year variability of +/- 2.5 PgC/year (Pinatubo, El Niño,…)

Human emissions currently are +9 PgC/year, thus near twice the natural variability and twice the observed increase in the atmosphere.
Thus the only cause of the increase in the atmosphere, as all other main fluxes are more sink than source…

Even without the above investigations, the difference between the increase in the atmosphere (~4 ± 0.4 PgC/year) and human emissions (9 ± 0.5 PgC/year) is exactly known to ± 0.9 PgC/year, by far sufficient in accuracy to show that human emissions were the main contributor to the increase in the atmosphere.
The following graph shows the net contributions per year, where it is clear that temperature variability is the cause of the variability in CO2 net uptake, but not the cause of the CO2 trend…

dco2_em8c.jpg
Last edited 3 months ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2022 2:37 am

The fact that many of the individual components of nature’s CO2 flux are poorly constrained is irrelevant, Clyde, to the fact that the net sum of all natural CO2 fluxes is known with reasonable precision.

That’s because the net sum of all natural CO2 fluxes is not determined by summing the individual components. It is determined, instead, by subtracting anthropogenic emissions (determined with pretty good precision from economic data) from the measured change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (determined from CO2 concentration measurements at Mauna Loa, Cape Grim, and elsewhere).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 23, 2022 9:16 pm

… the fact that the net sum of all natural CO2 fluxes is known with reasonable precision.

What is the flux for Winter respiration of boreal forests and soil microbes in the Tundra? If you can’t give me a ‘precise’ number for those two sources, then you don’t know what the net sum actually is. If one can’t precisely partition all the sources and sinks, then you are making assumptions that can’t be empirically verified.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 24, 2022 9:19 am

Clyde, was this unclear?

…the net sum of all natural CO2 fluxes is not determined by summing the individual components…

Reply to  Dave Burton
October 24, 2022 4:03 pm

UPDATE:
I emailed Prof. Legates, and he replied, confirming what I told you. He said that he agrees with me that anthropogenic warming is “modest and benign, but it’s not zero.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 2:01 pm

Re: “know from physics that higher CO2 levels cause warming”

You omit what would keep that sentence from being misleading: the physics of CO2 causing warmer temperatures in a laboratory (versus the open system called “Earth and its atmosphere.”)

Derg
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 3:05 pm

Bingo…..the Earth is NOT a greenhouse.

Reply to  Derg
October 23, 2022 2:44 am

The fact that greenhouses work differently from so-called “greenhouse gases” just means that “greenhouse warming” is poorly named. Real greenhouses reduce heat loss by preventing convection, but GHGs reduce heat loss by absorbing & re-radiating LW IR radiation.

I presume that, by now, someone has explained that to the dean of Canadian environmentalists, Prof. David T. Suzuki, PhD, CC, OBC, FRSC:
comment image

Graemethecat
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 23, 2022 3:44 am

Suzuki is jaw-droppingly ignorant.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 23, 2022 12:33 am

Janice, the full spectrum of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was measured at two stations (Oklahoma and Barrow) and shows the extra downwelling radiation (= energy) from the extra CO2: 0.2 W/m2 for 22 ppmv CO2 extra in the period 2000-2010.

Even the effect of the seasonal CO2 variations was visible.
See: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6.pdf
Fig. 1a shows the direct measurements and 1b the difference between measured and calculated (based on laboratory results) spectra.

Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 24, 2022 6:02 pm

Ferdinand, I object to three points of your wording: <blockquote><I>❝…the <b>full spectrum</b> of the increase of CO in the atmosphere was measured… shows the extra downwelling radiation (= energy) from the extra CO: 0.2W/㎡ for 22 ppmv CO extra in the period 2000-2010.❞ </i></blockquote> (1) It was NOT anywhere near “full spectrum” but was a very NAROW spectral slice. (2) There was no ❝= energy❞ in the ❝extra 22 ppmv CO❞ and (3) Feldman 2015 did not ❝MEASURE❞ it, either.

Let’s review those three points. (1) Feldman 2015 only looked in the narrow P- and R- branches of the 𝜈₂ band; In fact, Feldman 2015 states that, in examination of the somewhat wider perspective, beyond the narrow P- and R- branches of the 𝜈₂ CO₂ band, (to what extent, is not clear) what they found had no statistical significance. Feldman 2015 clearly states, there is no statistical significance in the broader spectrum.  

Feldman 2015: <i>”The trends in forcing are significantly (P , 0.003) different from zero <b><u>only</u> in the P- and R- branches of the 𝜈₂ CO₂ band.”</i>

Furthermore, your attempt at suggesting there was additional energy (= energy) (2) brought by the P- and R- branches, is negated by CERES data, which shows that the net downward infrared (full CERES spectrum) irradiance <b>declined</b>, over the Feldman 2015 time period, 2000 to 2010. This is confirmed by the overlapping time frame of the research of Dong, Xiquan, Baike Xi, and Patrick Minnis 2006, and Gero & Turner 2011, and Cho 2008. The net DLR declined, contributing NEGATIVE energy.

(3) While there were measurements made, Feldman arrived at his ❝0.2W/㎡❞ via a dodgy CALCULATIONS. Now, consider, if measurement one, and later, measurement two, are subtracted, the difference between the two, also qualifies as a measurement. Feldman 2015 did not do that. They used 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒂, which involves a radiation model, and measurements of local and radiosonde humidity and temperature. Feldman 2015 admits, the “signal” they were looking for, is lost in the noise from variations in the local temperature and humidity above the site. … and while they used the AERI instrument to make copious repeated measurements of downward, long-wave radiation (which could be averaged together to improve the precision) … they did <b>not</b> make copious additional measurements of radiosonde temperature and humidity, to go with the additional readings of the AERI instrument.

Feldman 2015: <i>”Over the length of the observation period (2000 to 2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere, rather than the smaller signal from CO₂. The seasonal and annual trends in calculated clear-sky spectra at SGP (Fig. 2a) and NSA (Fig. 2d) are dominated by changes in the atmospheric thermodynamic state and are of opposite sign depending on the season. These signals arise from seasonally dependent clear-sky trends in temperature profiles and water vapour concentrations, as determined by radiosondes (see Methods) and must be taken into account to determine the forcing from CO₂. We therefore construct counterfactual spectra (such spectra are produced from models that keep the CO₂ concentration fixed) to simulate spectra with time-invariant CO₂, whereby we use temperature and water-vapour estimates from concurrent radiosondes to remove the thermodynamically derived radiometric signals from AERI spectra and isolate the signature of CO₂.”</i>  

The supposed “effect of seasonal CO₂ variation” is unsupported by anything in the Feldman 2015 paper; I suggest that it is an artifact of the counterfactual spectra, which is a figment of the imagination.

Then, there are the accuracy issues, and the cloud-clearing issues, and the equipment failures that weren’t noted. At best, Feldman 2015 was an attempt to find CLEAR-SKY “forcing”, but Earf does not exist under “clear sky” … it is around 62% cloudy.

Last edited 3 months ago by Damn Nitpicker
Reply to  Damn Nitpicker
October 24, 2022 7:13 pm

Hi Nitpicker!

With the comment system that WUWT uses these days, if you want to enter explicit HTML tags you need to click the {} (“Source Code”) symbol, and then edit the generated HTML.

The HTML it generates is idiosyncratic, and not very human-friendly, so in most cases it’s easier to just use the WYSIWYG editor: highlight text and use ctrl-I for italics, ctrl-B for bold, and ctrl-U for underline, or use the B, I and U buttons.

W/r/t Feldman’s focus on the P- and R-branches, I think that’s because the warming effect from additional CO2 is mainly from the fringes of the P- and R-branch lines.

There’s so much CO2 already in the atmosphere that at the wavelengths where it absorbs most strongly the effective emission height is at or near the tropopause, so additional CO2 has little or no effect on radiative forcing. But at the line fringes, where CO2 absorbs & emits only weakly, additional CO2 does have an effect. At those “fringe” wavelengths, the effective emission height is well below the tropopause, so raising the effective emission height (by adding additional CO2), causes emissions to space at those wavelengths to be from colder air. That reduces emission intensity at those wavelengths, as seen from space, and thus results in a modest warming effect.

So to “measure” the change in CO2’s warming effect, one must focus on intensities of wavelengths in the line fringes, and compare them with the line peaks. I suppose that’s what Feldman did. Unfortunately, my understanding of this topic is too shallow to be able to judge how well they did it.

One interesting aspect of their results is that they detected less forcing than predicted by Myhre (1998) and the IPCC (3.7 ±0.4 W/m² per doubling of CO2), though their confidence intervals were so broad that they could not rule out Myhre’s estimate:
https://sealevel.info/Radiative_Forcing_synopsis.html

Last edited 3 months ago by Dave Burton
Janice Moore
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 2:21 pm

I keep getting moderated, so, here is another comment to add some clarification —

While you assert with high confidence that human CO2 is causing measurable warming, Richard Lindzen is much more cautious in his assessment.

Caution is the scientific attitude, here, for it is (given that natural CO2 sources and sinks at ~ 150 gt outweigh human CO2 sources by 2 orders of magnitude), very possible that human CO2 is outweighed by natural CO2, thus, human CO2 is doing nothing or nothing measurable to warm the earth.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 22, 2022 5:29 pm

Janice wrote, “you assert with high confidence that human CO2 is causing measurable warming…”

You added the word “measurable.” Please do not do that. If you’re going to quote or paraphrase me, please do so accurately.

Human CO2 has caused less than 1°C of average outdoor temperature change. That’s so tiny that, for most practical purposes, it is negligible, and it is difficult to measure with confidence.

1°C is less than the imperceptible programmed temperature fluctuations in indoor temperatures, i.e., the hysteresis (“dead zone”) typical for home thermostats, which regulate “constant” temperatures in climate-controlled buildings. It’s so tiny you don’t even notice the temperature fluctuations.
 

Janice wrote, “it is (given that natural CO2 sources and sinks at ~ 150 gt outweigh human CO2 sources by 2 orders of magnitude),” very possible that human CO2 is outweighed by natural CO2,”

“Outweigh” — I do not think that word means what you think it means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

outweigh. v. “Be heavier, greater or more significant than.”

Mankind has only increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 50%. So obviously natural CO2 outweighs anthropogenic CO2.

What’s more, because of the logarithmically diminishing warming effect of CO2, mankind has only increased CO2’s radiative forcing by about 6%.
 

Janice wrote, “it is… very possible that… thus, human CO2 is doing nothing or nothing measurable to warm the earth.”

Human CO2 unequivocally has a modest warming effect. I would say that it is measurable, roughly, and with considerable difficulty, though I would not say that its measurability is unequivocal, considering evidence like this:
https://sealevel.info/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.html

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Dave Burton
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Burton
October 22, 2022 8:39 pm

So you could say that temperatures lag CO2 levels by about 2 months, or that CO2 levels lag temperatures by about 10 months, which are equivalent statements.

However, it is important to distinguish which is correct as it bears on cause and effect. The evidence of anomalous seasonal CO2 behavior, such as El Nino warm periods, suggest the shorter lag is the correct interpretation. Additionally, the seasonal draw-down phase starts when trees start to leaf out, not when the warmest temperatures are recorded. In fact, the warmest temperatures correlate with a net decline in atmospheric CO2. Similarly, the seasonal ramp-up phase starts in the Fall, when the trees have suspended photosynthesis and the leaves are on the ground.

Something that rarely gets mentioned is the respiration from tree roots and needles of boreal trees.

Last edited 3 months ago by Clyde Spencer
bonbon
October 22, 2022 8:50 am

Climate stuff is a mere sideshow to the Big Bang!
IMHO the Big Bang is the model for all other pantomimes.
With the JWST Telescope now delivering, the debate starts!
https://www.lppfusion.com/article-begins-big-bang-debate/

This the Universe and everything, not mere clouds. They dance together and fall together.

AZeeman
October 22, 2022 9:05 am

The past is 100% predictable, yet the models even get the past temperatures wrong. If the past is unpredictable, how can the future be predicted?

TEWS_Pilot
October 22, 2022 9:18 am

From the “Now I’ve Seen It All” category, this article posted at CFACT inspired me to look at the logic of the Left and see if there is a common thread. This was the result.

No, Politico Europe, Putin is not making Europe “Green”
By CFACT Ed |October 22nd, 2022|Energy
https://www.cfact.org/2022/10/22/no-politico-europe-putin-is-not-making-europe-green/
BY ROBERT BRYCE:

[SNIP]
Danielle Butcher
@DaniSButcher
·
Follow
If you want people to take environmentalism seriously, you can start by not doing this.
POLITICOEurope
@POLITICOEurope
It took a war criminal to speed up Europe’s green revolution.

Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has forced Europe to finally break its fossil fuel addiction.

For this reason, he has topped our inaugural #POLITICOGreen28 list.

Read more here: https://politi.co/3TiTL9p

Applying the logic of the CAGW “PRO-WAR” Fascists who claim that “WAR GREENS THE EARTH” with the logic used by the PRO-POISON-JAB Clapping Seals who, after MILLIONS of deaths due to the POISON JAB, bark, “just think how much worse it would have been if they hadn’t been VACCINATED,” …..just think how much GREENER a WORLD WIDE NUCLEAR WAR with its inherent NUCLEAR WINTER for DECADES or CENTURIES would make the Earth !!!!!

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 24, 2022 4:47 pm

I’d have up-voted your comment, TEWS_Pilot, had you not repeated the RFK Jr / Alex Jones / Mercola “poison jab” lie.

In this study (one of many measuring the benefits of Covid-19 vaccination), age-adjusted all-cause mortality risk for an unvaccinated person was a whopping 3.2× all-cause mortality risk for someone (like me) vaccinated with Moderna:†

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm (see Table 3)
 

(However, my bivalent booster was Pfizer.)

John Hultquist
October 22, 2022 10:02 am

At the upcoming COP27 UN climate summit in Egypt …”

This article appears to be propaganda to drum-up support for the parties being sponsored by the U. N.
From the web:
Sharm El Sheikh – With sunshine and warm waters all year round, Sharm El Sheikh is the closest destination to Europe
where you can soak up sun, dive amazing corals reefs, and
enjoy the sea any time you need a break from routine.
The climate is lovely and dry all year long  …”

I’d like and all expenses paid ticket to the party. Where do I apply?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 22, 2022 8:54 pm

First, you have to ‘pay your dues’ by writing, and have accepted, a ‘peer reviewed’ paper supporting the officially recognized paradigm. You will then be allowed to get on board the bandwagon, although you may have to suck up to a sponsor.

Richard Page
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2022 12:36 pm

Up to or off – a lot of those people look seriously creepy.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Page
MARTIN BRUMBY
October 22, 2022 11:25 am

If Hantemirov had used thousands of bulldozers to move the tree line further north (to hide the decline?), he would be Reality-Denier Stott’s hero.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 22, 2022 2:44 pm

“… who specialised in identifying man-made and natural causes of climate change at the United Kingdom’s Met Office and the University of Exeter.” [My emphasis added.] Someone at the Met Office and UE was looking into natural causes?

Bob
October 22, 2022 3:05 pm

How on earth can expecting someone to explain and defend your claims and position to other qualified persons in your field be considered an ambush. These people are nothing but pampered and spoiled punks.

michael hart
October 22, 2022 3:51 pm

“One of the biggest setbacks in the battle against climate denial came in 2009 with the scandal known as “Climategate”, Stott said.”

Several years ago now, he was the subject of a climategate-related FOIA request by one of the regulars at Bishop Hill blog. I’m ashamed I cannot recall his name.

It became somewhat legal and there was scheduled a public hearing in,of all places, a council building in nowhere-ville Central England a couple of miles away.

Stotty turned up with a well turned-out legal team from London. A hot-shot lawyer sporting a fine suit and at least one very attractive female underling.
I was the sole public observer for the morning session I was able to observe.

Stott didn’t actually say very much. It appeared to be as little as possible. Unusual for a man with such a high opinion of his opinions. My description of his tone and attitude can only be described as “oily”.

Eric Stevens
October 22, 2022 5:02 pm

The attitude of Russians to IPCC Global Warming has always been somewhat cynical. Most people don’t realise quite how cynical. Here is a link to an article “The Kyoto Protocol – The Great Climate Change Rort” I wrote (for New Zealand consumption) in 2019. https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ao0elnDt9zAUj0QZAR8Yb9IqX8df?e=aagwDn

observa
October 22, 2022 5:37 pm

Yes poor Peter. Even the Oz BoM isn’t doomy enough as shock horror under a Coalition Gummint they’ve been tasked with sticking largely to the weather data-
Bureau of Meteorology was ‘cowering in the corner’ on climate crisis, former staff claim (msn.com)
Time to get out and about with the dooming and the new brooms.

Hivemind
October 23, 2022 4:40 am

“putting well qualified people who have different interpretations of the data together in the same room, to see if they can resolve their differences”

Interestingly, this is very close to what Russian jurisprudence does with conflicting witnesses in a trial, so it should be no surprise to see them trying the same thing in a scientific setting.

spren
October 24, 2022 4:02 pm

Climate Science cultism is the standard operating procedure for any woke science. Anyone who is not in accord with what the cultists claim is to be censored and silenced. Look at covid and how dissenters are treated. Tens of millions of documented adverse effects on people taking that mRNA poison, but the data is not allowed to be made public. Leftists are the poison and we need to silence them and stuff socks down their throats and then see how they like it.

John Endicott
October 25, 2022 9:09 am

“He was using scientists as tools in his propaganda war,” said Stott

In other words, how dare he use us for his propaganda purposes when we were planning on using the meeting to push our own propaganda.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights