Well, I wrote before about my time in real-world jail. The court said I was guilty of “Disturbing the Peace”, but we called it “Disturbing the War“. Like most things in my life, it’s a curious story … but I digress.
In any case, I’m now in Twitter jail. Here’s what will likely be my last post on Twitter for a while …
You’d think that after forty years or so of intense study of climate, there would be agreement on the major facts of the field … but noooo …
Here are global temperatures from Berkeley Earth, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.
So … are we on the verge of reaching 1.5°C?
And here’s the history of estimates of “climate sensitivity”. This is the central number in the debate, the change in temperature expected from a doubling of CO2. Not only is there no agreement … the spread has gotten larger over time. I discuss this in a post here.
Despite the models having estimates of climate sensitivity that are all over the map, they all can do a tolerable job of hindcasting the past … which conclusively proves they cannot be “physics based”. I discuss this in a post called “Dr. Kiehl’s Paradox“.
And on that ludicrously shaky “scientific” basis, they want to totally redo the global economic, electrical, & energy systems at immense cost, while doing huge damage to the poor.
The truth is, this whole movement has nothing to do with climate. They don’t even try to hide it.
This is one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history. Don’t buy into it. They don’t have your best interests at heart.
Stay well, enjoy this marvelous world, laugh at the lunatics running the asylum …
In friendship,
w.
So I went to bed last night, and woke up to find that I’d been suspended from Twitter, ostensibly for a Tweet I made back in May.
I responded to their “support team” as follows:
Dear friends at Twitter, I fear I’ve been greatly misunderstood. I have NOT violated the Twitter rules against advocating violence. I’ve been suspended for the following tweet:
===
“I see that James Comer is going to “take steps” against the FBI for concealing evidence of Biden corruption. Steps? Here’s my simple 3-step plan.
1) Fire every single person working for the FBI.
2) Burn the FBI building to the ground.
3) Salt the earth.”
===
Guys, this was said in humor. It is SATIRE. My apologies if you, or perhaps your algorithms, took it seriously.
Of course I am not suggesting that we that literally we burn down the FBI building and “salt the earth”. I was merely frustrated by the FBI getting away with crimes for which you and I would be jailed for a long period.
And note, even in satire, I didn’t advocate violence against any person. I thought that the last line would make my satirical intent clear.
I mean really, when is the last time that anyone actually “salted the earth”? 2,000 years ago? Surely you cannot believe that that was meant to be serious?
Well, I guess you can believe that, but you would be 110% wrong. I am a peaceful man, I don’t wish harm on anyone.
I ask you to lift this totally improper and unjustified suspension.
I signed up for Twitter Blue to support Elon in his attempts to have a place where people are free to speak their minds, and I politely request you to allow innocent satire such as my tweet to flourish.
My best to you all, and thanks for your work to keep Twitter afloat.
w.
Was I actually suspended for a satirical tweet, or for my very popular posts on the climate scam? We’ll never know.
In any case, I ask everyone who has a Twitter account, please Tweet to @elonmusk to protest this most unwarranted suspension. My Twitter handle is @weschenbach, and their actions are simply wrong. Please link to this post when you tweet a request for my reinstatement, so that folks can understand the issues.
Grrrr …
Regards to everyone,
w.
[UPDATE] This morning, after writing the above, I got the following reply from the Twitter folks, sent at 8.59 AM:
Hello,
We received your request to have your account reinstated. We are reviewing a high volume of requests and appreciate your patience as it may take longer than normal for us to get back to you with an outcome.
If this request is for an account reinstatement under our new criteria, please allow 5-7 days for us to review and respond.
Thanks,
Twitter
OK, fair enough.
Then, I got the following, sent 19 minutes later …
Hello,
Your account was suspended due to violations of our Terms of Service. After reviewing for reinstatement your account will not be restored.
Thanks,
Twitter
19 minutes, after telling me how jammed up they are?
I’m getting the feeling that someone in the Twitter lowerarchy doesn’t like me, and/or that they’re using AI rather than humans … please Tweet to protest this nonsense.
That is what I was afraid of when I read the email.
It’s not a suspension, it’s a permanent lock if they don’t give an expiration date or a means for you to get it opened up again.
It drove the warmist/alarmists mad with anger I suspect they complained about the article thus twitter did a silent banning since I didn’t get any notice and my account was frozen thus, I was shut down.
Nick Stokes
June 15, 2023 6:44 pm
“You’d think that after forty years or so of intense study of climate, there would be agreement on the major facts of the field “
I was surprised by the discrepancy there, so I checked with WFT. Unfortunately they don’t have NOAA or JMA, but I plotted GISS and BEST:
Yeah, all those bastardized Hockey Stick charts agree with each other. They all use the same bastardized data.
The reality is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century, as it is today, according to the written temperature record.
Would you get that impression from looking at these bastardized charts? Of course, you wouldn’t. You would think that we are living in the hottest time in human history looking at the bastardized charts. That was the point of the Climate Change Charlatans bastardizing the temperature record.
And now even skeptics use them to try to prove their points. It’s a little bit ridiculous from my point of view.
The written temperature record tells the real story of the Earth’s climate, and it is not any warmer today than in the recent past, even though much more CO2 is in the air now than then.
So the Temperature Data Mannipulators got creative and created a visual CO2 crisis with the bastardized Hockey Stick charts, which are the ONLY “evidence” these Charlatans can produce that shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the only way they do that is to bastardize the temperature record. The No-Good Bastards! And now look at the position they have us in.
Here is the Moyhu plot of Best LO, GISS LO, NOAA LO. They agree quite well. I have added Best land only. Is it possible that the top plot is showing BEST land?
These people should know better than to take the bastardized Hockey Stick temperature record seriously. They have all seen historic written temperature charts that refute the “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile, yet they continue to preted the Hockey Stick chart represents reality.
Best has all the raw data required to produce Tmax charts of all the nations on Earth. They would all show that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, refuting the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile.
They should use the raw data to create their Tmax charts, as this data is subject to manipulation also, as Bob Tisdale has shown, so just the raw data please. Show us a Hockey Stick profile from the raw Tmax charts from around the world. That is your task. 🙂
And to take a more down to Earth, Janet and John example, they will all tell you that BigWind is cheap and reliable. And getting cheaper and more reliable.
No! Forget those Company Accounts showing the opposite and of course we can’t dial back BigWind’s subsidies and priority access to the grid! What are you thinking?
Going back to Willis’s justified twittermoan, I’d just like to make the case for blowing up and salting the earth for the UN, Davos, WHO, CIA, Imperial College, Penn State, BBC and a big big bunch of others. As soon as possible. Throw Twitter in there too.
OK, here is a plot setting them to a base 1961-90, but displaced by 0.4C to set to zero near the start. I’ve included GISS as well. They agree pretty well:
I’ve used annual data starting in 1891, because that is what JMA offers.
This is not the same as aligning at the start. Set the baseline at 1850-1880 as Willis did. This will tell you how much warming since pre-industrial for each data set.
I can’t do 1850-1880 and still have JMA. But a prime consideration in an anomaly base period is to find a period of minimal uncertainty, else the uncertainty flows through to modern times, when the agreement is otherwise very good (with proper baseline). That is why I did it that way.
So what you’re saying is that there’s no way to know how far we are from 1.5°C above “pre-industrial”, or whether the different datasets agree on the question or not, because the early data is so uncertain?
And all of the the data sets you’ve provided use surface-based, sporadically-sited temperature records. Why didn’t you also include satellite-based, near-global-coverage temperature records, such as UAH, for at least the period from 1980 on . . . more than 40 years of trending?
Could it be that you know how the urban heat island (UHI) effect has been progressively poisoning (i.e., “heating up”) surface-measured temperature data sets for the last 50 or so years? This certainly has been the subject of many articles here at WUWT, largely thanks to the work of Anthony Watts.
The UAH satellite data for LAT since 1980 doesn’t show any “hockey stick”-like exponential increase (reference top graph on sidebar on right of this webpage).
It was YOU that that provided graphs distinctly different from those of Wills in your previous posts of:
June 15, 2023 6:44 pm
June 15, 2023 7:00 pm June 15, 2023 11:43 pm
Unlike you, Willis did not reference GISS, unless you assert that is identical to his reference to NOAA. But then you yourself distinguish between these two datasets in your second and third graphs referenced here.
You comment does not even merit a “Nice try” in terms of deflection from my main question to you regarding UHI poisoning of surface-measure dataset and your lack of inclusion of satellite-derived global lower atmospheric temperature data which, by its very nature, is generally unaffected by UHI statistically.
In other words those who are claiming that the planet has risen 1.5C since 1850 are lying, since there is no way to know with that kind of accuracy, what the world’s temperature was in 1850.
Thank you for finally admitting what the rest of us have known for decades.
Nick,
You criticise others for using words not numbers, then make the word comment above.
Who are the people who acknowledge?
Are they credentialed?
What numbers express this uncertainty?
What arguable methods were used to calculate the uncertainty?
What are the highest and lowest of these uncertainty estimates?
Should we calculate an uncertainty estimate of the various uncertainty estimates?
Geoff S
Nick,
“…. choose a reasonably modern anomaly base.”
Here is a polite request for you to make a definitive statement. Please answer this core question:
Does the anomaly method increase, decrease or have no effect on the uncertainty of the temperatures?
Geoff S
Geoff,
It increases the uncertainty outside the anomaly base range, but only by a small amount, since it is typically an average over 360 months. Within the range, it decreases the uncertainty. There is a discussion here.
Why do you insist on starting your graph from the lowest point of the Little Ice Age. Start from some useful historical point, like the Minoan warm period, or the Roman warm period. Even the Middle Ages warm period would do.
Oh, no. I remember, it’s because it would show how fraudulent the 1.5 degrees claim is.
Thanks, Nick. You’re 100% correct, I’d used ocean data.
However, it doesn’t really help. I’ve put up a new graph with the correct NOAA data you pointed to. We still are far from knowing how near we are to 1.5°C warming.
And we still have the problems discussed above with the expanding range of climate sensitivity, the Kiehl paradox, and Endenhofer’s admission that it’s not really about the climate.
There’s the issue that the change in absorbed global sunlight at the surface is more than adequate to explain recent warming …
And here’s downwelling solar radiation vs CO2, for a longer period, but just for Germany.
The climate models are a mass of tunable parameters, kludges, and guardrails to keep them from going off the rails. See my post, “Meandering Through A Climate Muddle“.
Sadly, that’s just the short list of the problems. The IPCC is corrupt. People are still pushing the long-discredited “hockey stick”. Etcetera ad infinitum.
Look, Nick, if you want to eat bugs to make the weather gooder, go for it. Your body, your choice.
But restructuring the entire global economy, electricity, and energy based on alarmists’ inchoate fears, at a huge cost to the poor and everyone else, is both amazingly stupid and infinitely cruel.
The reality is, despite folks like you endlessly pushing rabid alarmism, there is no climate “emergency”. Cold kills more than heat. There’s no increase in storms, droughts, wildfires, floods, or extreme weather. Weather-related deaths are at an all-time low. Alarmist fears are a joke.
And finally, regardless of all of that, your checking of my work is much appreciated. It’s what I like best about writing for the web—my errors don’t last long …
David Motes calculates that the relative humidity decreases because plants need to transpire less water if they have more carbon dioxide.
The lesser water vapour in the air allows more sunlight to reach the surface.
He ascribes 11 times more effect on temperature than due to CO2 alone.
Interesting thoughts about transpiration,jdj. A quick look finds the following:
The scientists also integrated evapotranspiration and interception loss estimations from three land surface and remote sensing models to derive global ratios. This model showed that transpiration accounts for 57.2% of evapotranspiration, with a range of 42.9% to 74.9%.
Willis, I’m sorry I missed your posting last year, Meandering through a Climate Muddle.
I have the GISS ModelE up and running on my desktop, not because I accept the principle of climate prediction. I think the modeling community has been getting a free pass, and there needs to be more people looking over their shoulders. It would seem there are very few people with the fortitude to crawl through a mass of amateurish Fortran code. I can only stomach it for a while, then I come back to it. Your posting was a great find, thanks.
Your summary of the fundamental issues with iterative programming was well said. I am perplexed that people can invest so much effort into a project (climate modeling) without first investigating the fundamental limits of numerical integration, or hope nobody else knows enough about it to call them on it. I suspect it’s because that would marginalize the life’s work of quite a few people. And, unfortunately, it seems like the new generation thinks computer modeling can take the place of observation.
But these details seem to go too deep into the weeds for most scientists, so we have to try and get the point across with one liners like, all models are wrong but some are useful. I have a couple of my own,
The world is too big to fit into a computer model.
After adjusting parameters all day you stare, bleary-eyed, out your office window wondering to yourself how much was modeling and how much was guessing.
“There’s the issue that the change in absorbed global sunlight at the surface is more than adequate to explain recent warming …”
To which I would add that this a very complex issue, greatly lacking in objective scientific data for the period of 1760—the generally-recognized start of the Industrial Age and jump in mankind’s annual FF emissions—through 1980, the generally-recognized start of using orbiting satellites for measuring weather and climate-related parameters, such as cloud coverage and Earth’s total albedo on a global basis.
Determining the “cause” of 1.5 C of global warming since about 1850, even if such actually exists, is akin to deciding how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
For sure, global temperature variations much larger than +/- 1.5 C have occurred in Earth’s past climates without any contribution of human-originated CO2 emissions.
And, of course, in support of Willis’ point:
“Correlation does not equal causation.”
How typical of Nick to try and change the subject when he knows he can’t win the actual debate.
The point was that the ECS estimates are all over the chart, not that various models can be tuned to create a similar outcome.
BTW, love how Nick weeds through the dozens of models and their hundreds of “runs”, and picks three that are fairly close together, and then proclaims that the models must be good because they agree with each other.
Remember, the 1.5 degrees was originally 2.0 degrees. It wasn’t that the world would end, just that the world had never been more than 2 degrees above the current (1980’s) temperature in human experience. This was false, of course. Greenland couldn’t have been colonized if it had been that cold. Also, the baseline was fraudulently reverted to the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, which as you can see from Nick’s graph, creates another degree of warming.
Willis
Personally, I think you better serve the struggle to bring down the climate scam by refraining from political messages (correct though they may be) and sticking to your much more valuable attacks of on the ”science”. Politics is always used as a shield to hide facts. Your contributions are valuable and I thank you for them.
To all real scientists…It is your responsibility to back up what Willis posts if you cannot find fault with it. If you do not, you are complicit in the scam and are a pack of bastards who deserve everything that will be coming to you.
BTW…Were is Musk?
Well hopefully – cometh the hour cometh the man.
I’m still waiting for the man to cometh….From what I see from Australia, Trump won’t help. He’s like a cow with a cup of tea. None of the others seem too inspiring either.
But as for using politics to make a point about climate, as soon as it becomes apparent which side you’re on 50% will stop listening.
I just read DeSantis’s book. Sorry to say – no mention of the climate. Otherwise, I liked the book. He says in the book, “… the Democratic party has transformed into what can only be described as a woke dumpster fire”.
Unfortunately, I think the same 50% also stop listening if they see any science they don’t like- that doesn’t fit with their new religion. So it’s gotta be science and politics in this battle.
Trump is probably going to be the nominee. He is currently at 53 percent approval rating among Republicans with DeSantis at 32 percent and all the others in single digits.
Trump has also raised over seven million dollars in the few days since he was indicted by Biden.
If Trump is elected, he *will* make a difference. A big difference. A big, good difference.
Saying Trump is unelectable is a talking point of the never-Trumpers, Democrat and Republican. It’s wishful thinking on their part.
I agree with Tom, Trump will win the nomination. I’m hoping he does. I really am. The Dems best chance is against Trump.
The plain fact is you will never convince the base Trump supporters that he is a crook. As he said “I Could … Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn’t Lose Any Voters.” They will carry him over the line and I say great. It is the swing voters (and rest of the planet) who are disturbed by him. The more outrageous he gets the more of those voters he loses.
I wonder how many twits are still up calling Trump, or all Republicans, Nazis, Fascists, and worse?
E. Schaffer
June 15, 2023 7:00 pm
Satire is not AI approved. It is not about what you say (no time to spend on investigating context), but what you formulate. We will have to adapt our language to the algorithms.
You think it is unacceptable? Honestly, people largely only react to key words as well.
Elon is enjoying the latest sales of his model T or what ever. I would not count on him bailing you out.
sherro01
June 15, 2023 7:48 pm
Willis,
Try my solution.
Do not ever use social media again.
Cease being taunted and disrespected as of now. This minute.
Many of the people reading your tweets do not have the intelligence or the will to understand them.
OTOH, your articles on WUWT and the like reach an audience able to comprehend and appreciate you.
Geoff S
This has been my policy for over 20 years. It was very clear to me back in the BBS and IRC days that moderators were going to be the downfall of all opinion on all ” internet platforms”. So when corporations took over from the geeks, I simply never joined any of them. Never missed it or their “community guidelines”, whatever that means.
If you truly want to express your opinions unmolested, switch to amateur radio. Just don’t swear and you will be fine.
I’ve never seen that before – it’s a cracking sentence from Freeman
crosspatch
June 15, 2023 7:52 pm
February of last year my Twitter account was suspended for “avoiding a ban” but my account had never been banned. I wrote to them, they said they were not going to reinstate it. I offered to drive up to San Francisco, show them my passport, drivers license, etc. and prove my identity. Nothing.
Zagzigger
June 15, 2023 7:55 pm
As E Schaffer suggested, AI is always going to have problems with satire.
For the same reason, many very opinionated people, and those without a sense of humour don’t understand satire either.
Beware of AI and such people; they have little or no imagination.
Having some insight into how AIs are trained, including what data they trained on, and what the model is tuned to fit– I second what you say. AIs are a thousand miles wide and 1 inch deep. Intent is nearly impossible to quantify. An AI will only take what you say or write on face value. Your intent is impossible to gauge, for an AI.
John Oliver
June 15, 2023 8:04 pm
I feared this was going to happen, I hoped it would’nt but in the real world cynicism is your best protection against disappointment. They have gotten away with setting to many precedents in the realm of censorship. We used to as a society deliver a hard smack down to censorship because we all understood what a slippery slope it is. Then no- gone just like that! I fear there is going to be a terrible price paid for this departure.
Brock
June 15, 2023 8:09 pm
Willis, thanks for all the great articles. Whenever I see that you are the author of a new entry, I always read it first.
Sorry for being off topic, but have you noticed the sun’s decade long luminosity variation doesn’t seem to show up in the earth’s energy imbalance? There should be a sinusoidal curve with a period of about a decade and an amplitude of about 0.3 W/m2 to account for the luminosity change, or about 1 W/m2 if you believe the IPCC’s best guess on feedbacks and climate sensitivity. Funny how the EEI doesn’t seem to show anything with the right period or amplitude. I know this sounds odd, but I’m thinking if extra energy from the sun doesn’t affect the EEI, it’s not clear extra long wave energy would do any better. Honestly, it looks like the earth somehow controls and stabilizes the EEI in some mysterious way. Not via CO2, though.
“There should be a sinusoidal curve with a period of about a decade and an amplitude of about 0.3 W/m2 to account for the luminosity change, or about 1 W/m2 if you believe . . .”
Even at 1 W/m^2, this has to be viewed against the calculated TOA input of 1,361 W^2 averaged over Earth’s surface over a year (a full orbit of Earth around the Sun). That ratio is 1/1361 = less than one part in one thousand.
Anyone thinking there are ANY means to physically detect such a tiny change in Earth’s energy balance over 10 or so years considering other variables is, well, . . . dreaming, to be polite.
True that it’s small number, but an FFT can easily drive the noise down so you can see it. In any case, if the ECS is around three like the IPCC seems to think, the signal becomes a little larger than the current EEI. If it were there, it would be easily seen. It’s not there.
“Honestly, it looks like the earth somehow controls and stabilizes the EEI in some mysterious way. Not via CO2, though.”
I’ve come to the same conclusion, Brock, although the control-mechanism involved seems obvious to me: it’s the simple Iris effect of the water-cycle, which increases the planet’s albedo by producing more cloud-cover when the incoming solar energy is greater than outgoing Earth-radiance and reduces the albedo by producing less cloud-cover when incoming solar is less than outgoing radiance, thereby always acting to oppose the radiative In-Out imbalance and restore the balance, whichever direction the initial imbalance lies in.
Yes, I would have to agree with you. It appears that the clouds are controlling the energy imbalance. Not sure how the EEI level is determined. Still and all, the data suggests the earth’s system is pretty stable and I’m guessing we will eventually figure out CO2 doesn’t do much.
I understand the “EEI” (Earth’s energy imbalance) can be determined directly by taking satellite-based measurements of the planet’s incoming and outgoing radiation at the notional ‘top of the atmosphere’ (TOA). However, the reliability and accuracy of the published results of such measurements is always open to question because no-one without their own independent satellite-based radiation-monitoring system is in a position to verify them. (In my view all computations of the EEI from surface-based measurements would be totally unreliable and the products of voodoo mathematics.)
“…the data suggests the earth’s system is pretty stable…”
To me the key-bit of data that absolutely proves the stability of Earth’s climate-system – and hence, the fact that it must be self-regulating – is the simple fact that we are here to talk about it, because an unstable system would have undergone a catastrophic excursion from equilibrium long ago, resulting in a planet that was uninhabitable either because it was too hot or else because it was too cold. Instead we find ourselves living on a planet that does contain both extreme climates in local areas (e.g. Death Valley, California and the South Pole, say) but which is mostly populated by local climates that are at least tolerable for us most of the time if not positively equable for us all of the time. These conditions would not be possible if the overall global climate system was not naturally self-regulating.
“…and I’m guessing we will eventually figure out CO2 doesn’t do much.”
I think the idea of the planetary water-cycle acting as an overall regulator of the global In/Out energy-balance, as I have tried to describe it above, implies that atmospheric CO2 is bound to have a negligible effect on that energy-balance – at least while atmospheric CO2 remains at trace levels of abundance as at present.
John Hultquist
June 15, 2023 8:22 pm
Burn this: The FBI building’s exterior is buff-colored precast and cast-in-place concrete.
[Nick, again, changed the question, this time regarding Twitter to a question about how temperature is measured. Let’s go back to 2009 and talk about YAD06, the cute and influential Larch in Siberia.]
Willis pointed out that the ECS estimates from the models are all over the map, and the distribution has been expanding over time instead of narrowing as one would expect.
Nick countered that Willis is wrong because the temperature predictions from 3 selected model runs are similar.
As soon as the measured data is “adjusted”, “normalized”, “Karlized”, “re-sampled”, etc., it becomes the equivalent of the output of a model.
How is one to fairly compare data obtained in, say, 1900 with data obtained in 2022 without resorting to any/all of the above machinations? It simply cannot be done while still asserting dataset “measurement” uncertainty to +/- 2 C, let alone to tenths of one degree C.
The point being, the temperature curves are not the result of a General Circulation Model, or an Earth System Model, but because the raw data has suffered adjustments of various kinds, the transformed data are the result of modeling.
Elon has made gazillions pumping the government for subsidies based on the climageddon religion. He is definitely going to suspend anyone known for heresy.
It’s too bad he was the one willing to waste so much money to purchase Twitter (he has already lost most of it). He was also careful to find semi-independent journalists to look over the Twitter files. They revealed a lot, very useful if you read the reports, but they were careful not to take on the cheerleaders for climate doom.
Keep fighting… it’s unfortunate that censorship is becoming so pervasive, but hopefully more and more people are learning about it, skeptical of a government that works so closely with tech to shut down dissent.
Unfortunately, only certain privileged people are allowed to “joke” about stuff online.
It has been my observation that TSA agents are similarly humor impaired. It is a very bad idea to make any joke including the B-word, no matter how funny it may be.
Those datasets are trash. No good surface record exists. According to UAH, we haven’t. Carl Mears is a coward who caved making the absurd statement that the surface data is better than the satellite data.
It’s simple, the climate-catastrophe cheerleaders at Twitter don’t appreciate your pointing out facts which undermine the impending-disaster narrative. Therefore, they trawled through your old tweets to find something they could hang a violation on, and found that FBI-related one. Job done.
I’d recommend looking into NOSTR. It’s still early days, but I doubt you’d ever have this sort of problem with software using that protocol. Take a look at nostr.com.
“It’s simple, the climate-catastrophe cheerleaders at Twitter don’t appreciate your pointing out facts which undermine the impending-disaster narrative. Therefore, they trawled through your old tweets to find something they could hang a violation on, and found that FBI-related one. Job done.”
That does look like what they did.
In the beginning, Twitter limited a comment to 140 characters. That’s why I never joined. And I don’t miss it.
… Twitter don’t appreciate your pointing out facts which undermine the impending-disaster narrative.
That is understandable since part of the selling point of Tesla EVs is that they appeal to those who have bought into the idea that we are destroying the Earth with conventional cars. Another outlet that would seem to be more open to hearing both sides would seem to be preferred to Twits.
Rod Evans
June 16, 2023 1:20 am
Willis,
Consider yourself lucky. I am banned from commenting on the Daily Telegraph!! My crime was using the well worn and prescient saying
” You can take a man out of the Jungle, but you can not take the jungle out of a man”
Note my use of the phrase, ‘a man’ to avoid being guilty of personal reference to a specific individual had i used ‘The man’.
My point was about the base instincts of all men, including me.
No matter, the DT continue (now two years) to shadow ban me..
I avoid Twitter for obvious reasons, though I hope the new ownership brings forth some sanity. Your experience suggests it won’t.
At Twitter Musk gave his job to Yaccarino recently, who’s task is to increase ad revenue.
Look up Yaccarino, a WEF protagonist.
Firms pull ads based on moderation. That means an AI credit rating score.
Looks like Eschenbach put a dent in the bottom line, triggered an AI sub-process, flagged the accounting dept., then up to Yaccarino.
It is not personal, just business!
ferdberple
June 16, 2023 4:15 am
Our own CBC here in Canada doesn’t recognize satire either and banned me years ago for poking fun at those in high places.
The Media have conditioned a hysteria in the population by constant sensationalization that subconsciously introduces a bias in the population, preventing objective analysis.
If your name was Tru.p, you would likely now be facing federal criminal charges for point 2 of your tweet. My comments are intended as irony, not for or against any political point of view.
ferdberple
June 16, 2023 4:28 am
The human population has grown almost 100% in lock step with temperature over the past 170 years. Much better correlation than CO2.
Yet this is consistently ignored with the Net Zero Agenda. Or is it? Switching the population to a single form of energy that cannot be economically stored would certainly simplify a return to 1850 population levels.
Willis wrote: “This is one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history. Don’t buy into it. They don’t have your best interests at heart.”
That’s true. And after writing that, are you still going to stand by your earlier logical fallacy Argument from Authority that “climate scientists can’t possibly all be lying to us about SURFRAD measurements, that’s just common sense“???
What are you smoking, Willis? One half of your brain says the government is a bunch of corrupt liars, and the other half still thinks that the government climate scientists must be telling the truth because they’re government climate scientists. Can you get the two halves of your brain to talk to each other? Hint: the first half is the correct one, in case you’re still confused.
I did quote the words I was discussing, namely your description of climate scientists as a cabal of self-serving lying toads, to (now) paraphrase you slightly. Quoting your exact words about the SURFRAD dataset has never helped in the past, but I can go and do it again if you need me to. The paraphrase of what you said, though, is “the SURFRAD dataset is accurate”, and feel free to disagree if I mis-paraphrased you. Your “defense” of this false claim was “the SURFRAD scientists must be telling the truth, because that’s just common sense“. (Also slightly paraphrased, and feel free to correct me if you no longer believe that to be the case.)
My point here is, you cannot simultaneously paint climate scientists as a gang of self-serving lying toads, which they are, while relying on (your own) “common sense” about their truth-telling habits to defend their statements about SURFRAD, which are false (that is a physics statement).
Naturally you don’t know anything about the physics, so you can’t defend it on its own terms, but you keep saying nonsense about “positive downwelling LWIR power”, and attempting to back that up with logical fallacies. In today’s post, you disproved your own logical fallacy, but it sounds like you are still standing on it nevertheless. That’s the inconsistency.
(Yes, there may be honest climate scientists out there – but the SURFRAD scientists aren’t among them. And if you admit to the existence of both honest and dishonest climate scientists, then it suddenly stops being “common sense” that any particular group is telling the truth, doesn’t it?)
And after writing that, are you still going to stand by your earlier logical fallacy Argument from Authority that “climate scientists can’t possibly all be lying to us about SURFRAD measurements, that’s just common sense“???
I searched the web for that quotation and couldn’t find it anywhere. That’s why I said:
I’m glad to discuss whatever I might have said about SURFRAD scientists, once you link to it and quote it.
Instead of doing that, you’ve continued with your ugly personal attacks, including a false claim that I “paint climate scientists as a gang of self-serving lying toads”.
Since I’ve never said that in my life, it seems that the self-serving lying toad is … well … you.
Come back when you can link to whatever it was I said about SURFRAD scientists, and when you are willing to curb your nasty tongue. I’m not your whipping boy.
If you want to talk science, fine. But if you want to have a battle of wits, I fear you are sorely lacking in both armaments and ammunition.
It sure is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Here is how the previous battle went, in case you forgot:
Me (and others who also know more about physics than you do): The DWLWIR numbers coming from SURFRAD are fake, because they are claiming that a colder object (atmosphere) is exerting a positive amount of thermodynamic work (hence developing a positive amount of power) towards a warmer one (ground), violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Willis: “It’s simply that your claims fly in the face of common sense. For example, you claim there is no “back radiation”, when it’s been measured all over the planet by scientists of every country.” from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/25/being-disagreeable-at-christmas/#comment-3656649 . Then later in the same thread: “I said that the idea that either there is a worldwide pyrgeometer conspiracy, or that thousands of scientists all around the planet are being fooled about the capabilities of the pyrgeometers they’re using, doesn’t pass the laugh test. […] Finally, no, that’s not an appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to common sense, which sadly is the least common of the senses these days.” – italics mine
(That’s what you want to call “talk[ing] science”??? One of us is certainly lacking armament and ammunition, but it’s not me. Did you forget you wrote that? You write a lot of physics nonsense, so I’m sure it’s hard to keep track of all of it. But you wanted the direct quote, so here it is. Sadly I’m fairly sure it won’t help to make you any smarter.)
Remember, these are the same climate scientists that you described in the head post as engaging in “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. Who would perpetrate such a thing? A gang of honest and benevolent scientists? Or a gang of self-serving lying toads?
But never mind about the paraphrases. The bottom line is that you cannot reasonably claim that it is “common sense” to assume that folks involved in “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history” would be, for some inexplicable reason, and contrary to their stated goals, telling the truth about anything. How is that “common sense”? Please explain.
You also said, in the head post, “Don’t buy into it.” Except that you obviously did, as you said in my linked quote above – and wholeheartedly too. Maybe you should take your own advice.
And then you said “They don’t have your best interests at heart.” No, they don’t. But you trust them anyway. Why? Who is the greater fool, the liar, or the fool who believes him? They also say that it is much easier to fool someone than to convince him that he has been fooled. Have you been fooled, Willis? How would you know?
(While we are here, “laugh test”? Really? That’s how you decide whether a physics claim is true or false? I guess as a fisherman it’s about all your “monkey mind” has got)
(And the reason I’m picking on your “common sense” claim is that I have learned that it’s a complete waste of time to try to teach you from fundamental principles why the physics claim is wrong (see “Bovine excrement! Pond scum! Pig wrestling! Pass! Pass! Pass!”), but if you prefer to go that way instead, we can – again)
Ungrounded assumptions? Sure, Willis. Can you point out just one? I don’t want to make any logical or philosophical errors. Remember, I quoted exactly all the words I was trying to draw your attention to, as you asked. No assumptions, just direct quotes of your contradictory ideas. As I suspected, that did not help you to resolve the glaring contradictions.
(Also remember, starting with false premises always leads to contradictions sooner or later. You are the one who made a false physics statement, then tried to back it up with logical fallacies, and are now claiming that it is “common sense” that pyrgeometer scientists would tell the truth, while also admonishing us that the whole climate science enterprise is “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. Maybe you didn’t notice, or couldn’t bring yourself to, but pyrgeometer scientists are part of the “least scientifically supported” foundation of this “naked power grab”.)
You know, I had a tough time figuring out what would make a man who looks intelligent on the surface, and can string several grammatical sentences together, and operate a computer, publish so many false statements – and then when his errors are pointed out, respond with logical fallacies, psychological projection, name-calling, and when all of that fails, of course, your old standby, “Pass.” (You forgot to say “Pass” this time! You’re slacking.)
So at first I just chalked all that up to you being basically an arrogant ignoramus, a fisherman pretending to be a scientist. Others are less polite in their descriptions.
But recently I came across a term from a psychologist that I think describes you much better than that. It is “Vulnerable Narcissist”. I’m going to try that one on for size. Here is how it works, as best I can tell:
The Narcissist part is what drives you to publish what feels like hundreds of thousands of words over many years about a topic you don’t understand in the slightest, namely physics. You publish these words, and then people who know even less than you do give you positive reinforcement (because you are doing a good job of looking like a scientist, particularly a physicist, to anyone who isn’t one), which then strokes your ego. Who doesn’t like their ego stroked?
But the Vulnerable part is what comes into play when people point out that you have made false statements. You can’t cope with that, so you lash out with whatever comes to hand – the aforementioned logical fallacies, name-calling, psychological projection, and then, of course, when none of that scares off your interlocutors, “Pass!” That way you don’t have to face the awful reality that you have been completely wrong this whole time, and vociferously and arrogantly so, to boot. Indeed, you have explicitly, for years, supported some of the people involved in one of the “most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. No ordinary man can face that possibility with his ego intact. And the alternative is too self-destructive to contemplate. Shields up! We’re under attack!
Now, I am the first to admit that I know even less about psychology than you know about physics, and that’s a very low bar. But this all seems to fit pretty well from what I’ve seen. Fascinating…
Steve, you claim that there’s no such thing as downwelling radiation.
“Me (and others who also know more about physics than you do): The DWLWIR numbers coming from SURFRAD are fake, because they are claiming that a colder object (atmosphere) is exerting a positive amount of thermodynamic work (hence developing a positive amount of power) towards a warmer one (ground), violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
You are free to believe that the SURFRAD scientists, and the scientists who run the USCRN network, and these scientists at UAH …
They could have done a search on your name, and disapprove of anyone doubting The Holy Cause.
It serves you right for using the vernacular.
It should have been “FBI delenda est”
Delete the comment – let me know if you can’t…
You can do more with a live account than a suspended one.
This does look like scratching for a reason rather than a real problem though.
Philip, I’d be happy to delete the comment, but my account has been suspended.
Anything you (or anyone) can do to help would be appreciated.
w.
That is what I was afraid of when I read the email.
It’s not a suspension, it’s a permanent lock if they don’t give an expiration date or a means for you to get it opened up again.
I was shut down by Twitter for the terrible crime of posting YOUR article you made two years ago,
Where is the Climate Emergency?
It drove the warmist/alarmists mad with anger I suspect they complained about the article thus twitter did a silent banning since I didn’t get any notice and my account was frozen thus, I was shut down.
“You’d think that after forty years or so of intense study of climate, there would be agreement on the major facts of the field “
I was surprised by the discrepancy there, so I checked with WFT. Unfortunately they don’t have NOAA or JMA, but I plotted GISS and BEST:
And your point is?
It is said in big print that three major groups disagree greatly. I don’t believe they do.
They disagree greatly with REALITY. !
Yeah, all those bastardized Hockey Stick charts agree with each other. They all use the same bastardized data.
The reality is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century, as it is today, according to the written temperature record.
Would you get that impression from looking at these bastardized charts? Of course, you wouldn’t. You would think that we are living in the hottest time in human history looking at the bastardized charts. That was the point of the Climate Change Charlatans bastardizing the temperature record.
And now even skeptics use them to try to prove their points. It’s a little bit ridiculous from my point of view.
The written temperature record tells the real story of the Earth’s climate, and it is not any warmer today than in the recent past, even though much more CO2 is in the air now than then.
So the Temperature Data Mannipulators got creative and created a visual CO2 crisis with the bastardized Hockey Stick charts, which are the ONLY “evidence” these Charlatans can produce that shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and the only way they do that is to bastardize the temperature record. The No-Good Bastards! And now look at the position they have us in.
The big print says that the ECS estimates from them disagree. That has nothing to do with your chart.
“Fools seldom differ”.
And malicious fools, even less.
Here is the Moyhu plot of Best LO, GISS LO, NOAA LO. They agree quite well. I have added Best land only. Is it possible that the top plot is showing BEST land?
No, it’s BEST land + ocean. And since we want to know how much they’ve risen since pre-industrial, align them at the start, not the end, duh.
w.
… using all the WORST surface sites available…
… and measuring some tiny percentage of the oceans.
It is a meaningless fabrication.
“It is a meaningless fabrication.”
Yes, it is.
These people should know better than to take the bastardized Hockey Stick temperature record seriously. They have all seen historic written temperature charts that refute the “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile, yet they continue to preted the Hockey Stick chart represents reality.
Best has all the raw data required to produce Tmax charts of all the nations on Earth. They would all show that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, refuting the “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile.
They should use the raw data to create their Tmax charts, as this data is subject to manipulation also, as Bob Tisdale has shown, so just the raw data please. Show us a Hockey Stick profile from the raw Tmax charts from around the world. That is your task. 🙂
Examples:
No Hockey Stick profile here.
It’s meaningless because a single line is being presented as “global temperature”. That is a complete fantasy. No such thing exists.
Yup.
And to take a more down to Earth, Janet and John example, they will all tell you that BigWind is cheap and reliable. And getting cheaper and more reliable.
No! Forget those Company Accounts showing the opposite and of course we can’t dial back BigWind’s subsidies and priority access to the grid! What are you thinking?
Going back to Willis’s justified twittermoan, I’d just like to make the case for blowing up and salting the earth for the UN, Davos, WHO, CIA, Imperial College, Penn State, BBC and a big big bunch of others. As soon as possible. Throw Twitter in there too.
“align them at the start, not the end”
OK, here is a plot setting them to a base 1961-90, but displaced by 0.4C to set to zero near the start. I’ve included GISS as well. They agree pretty well:
I’ve used annual data starting in 1891, because that is what JMA offers.
This is not the same as aligning at the start. Set the baseline at 1850-1880 as Willis did. This will tell you how much warming since pre-industrial for each data set.
I can’t do 1850-1880 and still have JMA. But a prime consideration in an anomaly base period is to find a period of minimal uncertainty, else the uncertainty flows through to modern times, when the agreement is otherwise very good (with proper baseline). That is why I did it that way.
So what you’re saying is that there’s no way to know how far we are from 1.5°C above “pre-industrial”, or whether the different datasets agree on the question or not, because the early data is so uncertain?
Hey … that’s what I said!
w.
There is acknowledged uncertainty about 19th century data. The datasets agree well in the 20th century and since.
And all of the the data sets you’ve provided use surface-based, sporadically-sited temperature records. Why didn’t you also include satellite-based, near-global-coverage temperature records, such as UAH, for at least the period from 1980 on . . . more than 40 years of trending?
Could it be that you know how the urban heat island (UHI) effect has been progressively poisoning (i.e., “heating up”) surface-measured temperature data sets for the last 50 or so years? This certainly has been the subject of many articles here at WUWT, largely thanks to the work of Anthony Watts.
The UAH satellite data for LAT since 1980 doesn’t show any “hockey stick”-like exponential increase (reference top graph on sidebar on right of this webpage).
“And all of the the data sets you’ve provided use surface-based, sporadically-sited temperature records”
It was Willis who chose them, not me.
Oh, really?
It was YOU that that provided graphs distinctly different from those of Wills in your previous posts of:
June 15, 2023 6:44 pm
June 15, 2023 7:00 pm
June 15, 2023 11:43 pm
Unlike you, Willis did not reference GISS, unless you assert that is identical to his reference to NOAA. But then you yourself distinguish between these two datasets in your second and third graphs referenced here.
You comment does not even merit a “Nice try” in terms of deflection from my main question to you regarding UHI poisoning of surface-measure dataset and your lack of inclusion of satellite-derived global lower atmospheric temperature data which, by its very nature, is generally unaffected by UHI statistically.
In other words those who are claiming that the planet has risen 1.5C since 1850 are lying, since there is no way to know with that kind of accuracy, what the world’s temperature was in 1850.
Thank you for finally admitting what the rest of us have known for decades.
Nick,
You criticise others for using words not numbers, then make the word comment above.
Who are the people who acknowledge?
Are they credentialed?
What numbers express this uncertainty?
What arguable methods were used to calculate the uncertainty?
What are the highest and lowest of these uncertainty estimates?
Should we calculate an uncertainty estimate of the various uncertainty estimates?
Geoff S
Here is the standard HADCRUT plot with uncertainties marked
Here is BEST
LOL. You unintentionally gave away the game.
Yes, all the honest people understand very well there is a great deal of uncertainty flows through.
Not if you choose a reasonably modern anomaly base.
Choosing a modern anomaly base makes ancient records more accurate??????
No
Nick,
“…. choose a reasonably modern anomaly base.”
Here is a polite request for you to make a definitive statement. Please answer this core question:
Does the anomaly method increase, decrease or have no effect on the uncertainty of the temperatures?
Geoff S
Geoff,
It increases the uncertainty outside the anomaly base range, but only by a small amount, since it is typically an average over 360 months. Within the range, it decreases the uncertainty. There is a discussion here.
More accurate Nick Stokes: Let me get my whip out and make that monkey dance to my tune, not the tune of the original post.
I think you accidentally used a plot of ‘homogenization’ interventions. Please plot raw data only.
Mo-who? you have to be joking !
All based on surface sites that are by a vast majority, totally unfit for climate purposes.
Why do you insist on starting your graph from the lowest point of the Little Ice Age. Start from some useful historical point, like the Minoan warm period, or the Roman warm period. Even the Middle Ages warm period would do.
Oh, no. I remember, it’s because it would show how fraudulent the 1.5 degrees claim is.
I used exactly the same period as Willis. Take it up with him.
NOAA
JMA
Also, if we’re talking about the change since “pre-industrial”, you should align them on the “pre-industrial” period 1880-1910
w.
Willis,
The NOAA data you directed me to was
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/noaa-global-surface-temperature/v5.1/access/timeseries/aravg.mon.ocean.90S.90N.v5.1.0.202305.asc
That is ocean data. The data you should be using is
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/noaa-global-surface-temperature/v5.1/access/timeseries/aravg.mon.land_ocean.90S.90N.v5.1.0.202305.asc
roflmao.. Even you should know the ocean data is meaningless before about 2005 !
Show us where oceans were “measured” in 1850 !
And you are also well aware that the surface data comes from sites that are totally unfit for climate purposes.
It’s the data Willis linked, and I think it is the data he plotted. Take it up with him.
Thanks, Nick. You’re 100% correct, I’d used ocean data.
However, it doesn’t really help. I’ve put up a new graph with the correct NOAA data you pointed to. We still are far from knowing how near we are to 1.5°C warming.
And we still have the problems discussed above with the expanding range of climate sensitivity, the Kiehl paradox, and Endenhofer’s admission that it’s not really about the climate.
There’s the issue that the change in absorbed global sunlight at the surface is more than adequate to explain recent warming …
And here’s downwelling solar radiation vs CO2, for a longer period, but just for Germany.
The climate models are a mass of tunable parameters, kludges, and guardrails to keep them from going off the rails. See my post, “Meandering Through A Climate Muddle“.
Sadly, that’s just the short list of the problems. The IPCC is corrupt. People are still pushing the long-discredited “hockey stick”. Etcetera ad infinitum.
Look, Nick, if you want to eat bugs to make the weather gooder, go for it. Your body, your choice.
But restructuring the entire global economy, electricity, and energy based on alarmists’ inchoate fears, at a huge cost to the poor and everyone else, is both amazingly stupid and infinitely cruel.
The reality is, despite folks like you endlessly pushing rabid alarmism, there is no climate “emergency”. Cold kills more than heat. There’s no increase in storms, droughts, wildfires, floods, or extreme weather. Weather-related deaths are at an all-time low. Alarmist fears are a joke.
And finally, regardless of all of that, your checking of my work is much appreciated. It’s what I like best about writing for the web—my errors don’t last long …
Best to you,
w.
Hi Willis,
In regard to the two graphs about increased solar absorption at ground level may I refer you to the following CO2 & Global Temperature 30apr2021.pdf | DocDroid
This came from Tom Nelson’s website Tom Nelson: Guest post by David Motes- “GW driven by Plant Evapotranspiration Reduction, not CO2 GHG. Solution- More Plants”.
David Motes calculates that the relative humidity decreases because plants need to transpire less water if they have more carbon dioxide.
The lesser water vapour in the air allows more sunlight to reach the surface.
He ascribes 11 times more effect on temperature than due to CO2 alone.
I would be interested in your comments.
John.
Story tip?
Interesting thoughts about transpiration,jdj. A quick look finds the following:
However, it’s far more complex than that.
w.
Willis, I’m sorry I missed your posting last year, Meandering through a Climate Muddle.
I have the GISS ModelE up and running on my desktop, not because I accept the principle of climate prediction. I think the modeling community has been getting a free pass, and there needs to be more people looking over their shoulders. It would seem there are very few people with the fortitude to crawl through a mass of amateurish Fortran code. I can only stomach it for a while, then I come back to it. Your posting was a great find, thanks.
Your summary of the fundamental issues with iterative programming was well said. I am perplexed that people can invest so much effort into a project (climate modeling) without first investigating the fundamental limits of numerical integration, or hope nobody else knows enough about it to call them on it. I suspect it’s because that would marginalize the life’s work of quite a few people. And, unfortunately, it seems like the new generation thinks computer modeling can take the place of observation.
But these details seem to go too deep into the weeds for most scientists, so we have to try and get the point across with one liners like, all models are wrong but some are useful. I have a couple of my own,
Thanks, Apsteffe. The climate is far and away the most complex system we’ve ever tried to model, and to date, we’re failing miserably.
I mean, it’s a glorious failure that provides lovely pictures … but a failure nonetheless.
w.
To which I would add that this a very complex issue, greatly lacking in objective scientific data for the period of 1760—the generally-recognized start of the Industrial Age and jump in mankind’s annual FF emissions—through 1980, the generally-recognized start of using orbiting satellites for measuring weather and climate-related parameters, such as cloud coverage and Earth’s total albedo on a global basis.
Determining the “cause” of 1.5 C of global warming since about 1850, even if such actually exists, is akin to deciding how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
For sure, global temperature variations much larger than +/- 1.5 C have occurred in Earth’s past climates without any contribution of human-originated CO2 emissions.
And, of course, in support of Willis’ point:
“Correlation does not equal causation.”
The real problem Nick is it’s all garbage data to begin with.
They have turned the data into garbage.
How typical of Nick to try and change the subject when he knows he can’t win the actual debate.
The point was that the ECS estimates are all over the chart, not that various models can be tuned to create a similar outcome.
BTW, love how Nick weeds through the dozens of models and their hundreds of “runs”, and picks three that are fairly close together, and then proclaims that the models must be good because they agree with each other.
“BTW, love how Nick weeds through the dozens of models and their hundreds of “runs””
You are totally confused. I said nothing about models.
Remember, the 1.5 degrees was originally 2.0 degrees. It wasn’t that the world would end, just that the world had never been more than 2 degrees above the current (1980’s) temperature in human experience. This was false, of course. Greenland couldn’t have been colonized if it had been that cold. Also, the baseline was fraudulently reverted to the lowest point of the Little Ice Age, which as you can see from Nick’s graph, creates another degree of warming.
With respect, Nick, this post is about Twitter suspending Willis.
If you have a Twitter account, would you be so kind as to tweet Elon to ask for the unwarranted suspension to be lifted?
TIA
Willis
Personally, I think you better serve the struggle to bring down the climate scam by refraining from political messages (correct though they may be) and sticking to your much more valuable attacks of on the ”science”. Politics is always used as a shield to hide facts. Your contributions are valuable and I thank you for them.
To all real scientists…It is your responsibility to back up what Willis posts if you cannot find fault with it. If you do not, you are complicit in the scam and are a pack of bastards who deserve everything that will be coming to you.
BTW…Were is Musk?
Where is Musk? Good question. Seems he’s turned Twitter back over to the censors.
w.
If we lose the political battle, then the scientific one won’t matter.
Well hopefully – cometh the hour cometh the man.
I’m still waiting for the man to cometh….From what I see from Australia, Trump won’t help. He’s like a cow with a cup of tea. None of the others seem too inspiring either.
But as for using politics to make a point about climate, as soon as it becomes apparent which side you’re on 50% will stop listening.
I just read DeSantis’s book. Sorry to say – no mention of the climate. Otherwise, I liked the book. He says in the book, “… the Democratic party has transformed into what can only be described as a woke dumpster fire”.
Unfortunately, I think the same 50% also stop listening if they see any science they don’t like- that doesn’t fit with their new religion. So it’s gotta be science and politics in this battle.
Trump is probably going to be the nominee. He is currently at 53 percent approval rating among Republicans with DeSantis at 32 percent and all the others in single digits.
Trump has also raised over seven million dollars in the few days since he was indicted by Biden.
If Trump is elected, he *will* make a difference. A big difference. A big, good difference.
Saying Trump is unelectable is a talking point of the never-Trumpers, Democrat and Republican. It’s wishful thinking on their part.
I agree with Tom, Trump will win the nomination. I’m hoping he does. I really am. The Dems best chance is against Trump.
The plain fact is you will never convince the base Trump supporters that he is a crook. As he said “I Could … Shoot Somebody, And I Wouldn’t Lose Any Voters.” They will carry him over the line and I say great. It is the swing voters (and rest of the planet) who are disturbed by him. The more outrageous he gets the more of those voters he loses.
Here’s your boy in action, russia-russia-russia-simon:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/alright-god-save-queen-man-joe-biden-before/
The marxist clown show.
Haha gateway pundit.
I’ll raise you…. and challenge you not to laugh as you watch this….
That may be true, but the left stopped listening as soon as they found out that you don’t agree with them on everything.
I wonder how many twits are still up calling Trump, or all Republicans, Nazis, Fascists, and worse?
Satire is not AI approved. It is not about what you say (no time to spend on investigating context), but what you formulate. We will have to adapt our language to the algorithms.
You think it is unacceptable? Honestly, people largely only react to key words as well.
E. Schaffer – I think you will get banned too. You can’t say “largely” about people.
(Like you said, they just react to key words).
The socially approved term now is “plus sized”.
Except that being “double plus sized” is double plus ungood!
“Well padded”?
Elon is enjoying the latest sales of his model T or what ever. I would not count on him bailing you out.
Willis,
Try my solution.
Do not ever use social media again.
Cease being taunted and disrespected as of now. This minute.
Many of the people reading your tweets do not have the intelligence or the will to understand them.
OTOH, your articles on WUWT and the like reach an audience able to comprehend and appreciate you.
Geoff S
I quit twitting a few years ago. Much less stressed now….
This has been my policy for over 20 years. It was very clear to me back in the BBS and IRC days that moderators were going to be the downfall of all opinion on all ” internet platforms”. So when corporations took over from the geeks, I simply never joined any of them. Never missed it or their “community guidelines”, whatever that means.
If you truly want to express your opinions unmolested, switch to amateur radio. Just don’t swear and you will be fine.
You can’t try to make a difference if you only broadcast your studies and opinions to folk who mostly agree with you.
Social media, with all its failings, is one way to (maybe) get your message to a wider audience.
Try the Morgan Freeman approach on ending Racism:
I’ve never seen that before – it’s a cracking sentence from Freeman
February of last year my Twitter account was suspended for “avoiding a ban” but my account had never been banned. I wrote to them, they said they were not going to reinstate it. I offered to drive up to San Francisco, show them my passport, drivers license, etc. and prove my identity. Nothing.
As E Schaffer suggested, AI is always going to have problems with satire.
For the same reason, many very opinionated people, and those without a sense of humour don’t understand satire either.
Beware of AI and such people; they have little or no imagination.
Yes Mark Twain would have been kicked off Twitter in week one.
Mark Twain would have been misquoted as saying “News of my Twitter demise has been greatly exaggerated. I’m dead”.
Having some insight into how AIs are trained, including what data they trained on, and what the model is tuned to fit– I second what you say. AIs are a thousand miles wide and 1 inch deep. Intent is nearly impossible to quantify. An AI will only take what you say or write on face value. Your intent is impossible to gauge, for an AI.
I feared this was going to happen, I hoped it would’nt but in the real world cynicism is your best protection against disappointment. They have gotten away with setting to many precedents in the realm of censorship. We used to as a society deliver a hard smack down to censorship because we all understood what a slippery slope it is. Then no- gone just like that! I fear there is going to be a terrible price paid for this departure.
Willis, thanks for all the great articles. Whenever I see that you are the author of a new entry, I always read it first.
Sorry for being off topic, but have you noticed the sun’s decade long luminosity variation doesn’t seem to show up in the earth’s energy imbalance? There should be a sinusoidal curve with a period of about a decade and an amplitude of about 0.3 W/m2 to account for the luminosity change, or about 1 W/m2 if you believe the IPCC’s best guess on feedbacks and climate sensitivity. Funny how the EEI doesn’t seem to show anything with the right period or amplitude. I know this sounds odd, but I’m thinking if extra energy from the sun doesn’t affect the EEI, it’s not clear extra long wave energy would do any better. Honestly, it looks like the earth somehow controls and stabilizes the EEI in some mysterious way. Not via CO2, though.
Even at 1 W/m^2, this has to be viewed against the calculated TOA input of 1,361 W^2 averaged over Earth’s surface over a year (a full orbit of Earth around the Sun). That ratio is 1/1361 = less than one part in one thousand.
Anyone thinking there are ANY means to physically detect such a tiny change in Earth’s energy balance over 10 or so years considering other variables is, well, . . . dreaming, to be polite.
True that it’s small number, but an FFT can easily drive the noise down so you can see it. In any case, if the ECS is around three like the IPCC seems to think, the signal becomes a little larger than the current EEI. If it were there, it would be easily seen. It’s not there.
“Honestly, it looks like the earth somehow controls and stabilizes the EEI in some mysterious way. Not via CO2, though.”
I’ve come to the same conclusion, Brock, although the control-mechanism involved seems obvious to me: it’s the simple Iris effect of the water-cycle, which increases the planet’s albedo by producing more cloud-cover when the incoming solar energy is greater than outgoing Earth-radiance and reduces the albedo by producing less cloud-cover when incoming solar is less than outgoing radiance, thereby always acting to oppose the radiative In-Out imbalance and restore the balance, whichever direction the initial imbalance lies in.
Yes, I would have to agree with you. It appears that the clouds are controlling the energy imbalance. Not sure how the EEI level is determined. Still and all, the data suggests the earth’s system is pretty stable and I’m guessing we will eventually figure out CO2 doesn’t do much.
“Not sure how the EEI level is determined.”
I understand the “EEI” (Earth’s energy imbalance) can be determined directly by taking satellite-based measurements of the planet’s incoming and outgoing radiation at the notional ‘top of the atmosphere’ (TOA). However, the reliability and accuracy of the published results of such measurements is always open to question because no-one without their own independent satellite-based radiation-monitoring system is in a position to verify them. (In my view all computations of the EEI from surface-based measurements would be totally unreliable and the products of voodoo mathematics.)
“…the data suggests the earth’s system is pretty stable…”
To me the key-bit of data that absolutely proves the stability of Earth’s climate-system – and hence, the fact that it must be self-regulating – is the simple fact that we are here to talk about it, because an unstable system would have undergone a catastrophic excursion from equilibrium long ago, resulting in a planet that was uninhabitable either because it was too hot or else because it was too cold. Instead we find ourselves living on a planet that does contain both extreme climates in local areas (e.g. Death Valley, California and the South Pole, say) but which is mostly populated by local climates that are at least tolerable for us most of the time if not positively equable for us all of the time. These conditions would not be possible if the overall global climate system was not naturally self-regulating.
“…and I’m guessing we will eventually figure out CO2 doesn’t do much.”
I think the idea of the planetary water-cycle acting as an overall regulator of the global In/Out energy-balance, as I have tried to describe it above, implies that atmospheric CO2 is bound to have a negligible effect on that energy-balance – at least while atmospheric CO2 remains at trace levels of abundance as at present.
Burn this: The FBI building’s exterior is buff-colored precast and cast-in-place concrete.
[Nick, again, changed the question, this time regarding Twitter to a question about how temperature is measured. Let’s go back to 2009 and talk about YAD06, the cute and influential Larch in Siberia.]
It’s about Willis’ tweet. No one seems interested in the content. I think Fig 1 is wrong. It seems to be the major point.
No, Willis is correct..
You are proving your lack of comprehension, yet again.
Could someone please explain to me why Willis or Nick is correct? It is not obvious to me.
Willis pointed out that the ECS estimates from the models are all over the map, and the distribution has been expanding over time instead of narrowing as one would expect.
Nick countered that Willis is wrong because the temperature predictions from 3 selected model runs are similar.
These are not model runs and have nothing to do with ECS.
As soon as the measured data is “adjusted”, “normalized”, “Karlized”, “re-sampled”, etc., it becomes the equivalent of the output of a model.
How is one to fairly compare data obtained in, say, 1900 with data obtained in 2022 without resorting to any/all of the above machinations? It simply cannot be done while still asserting dataset “measurement” uncertainty to +/- 2 C, let alone to tenths of one degree C.
The point being, the temperature curves are not the result of a General Circulation Model, or an Earth System Model, but because the raw data has suffered adjustments of various kinds, the transformed data are the result of modeling.
Exactly.
No, it’s not, Nick, it’s about Willis being suspended.
Elon has made gazillions pumping the government for subsidies based on the climageddon religion. He is definitely going to suspend anyone known for heresy.
It’s too bad he was the one willing to waste so much money to purchase Twitter (he has already lost most of it). He was also careful to find semi-independent journalists to look over the Twitter files. They revealed a lot, very useful if you read the reports, but they were careful not to take on the cheerleaders for climate doom.
Keep fighting… it’s unfortunate that censorship is becoming so pervasive, but hopefully more and more people are learning about it, skeptical of a government that works so closely with tech to shut down dissent.
Unfortunately, only certain privileged people are allowed to “joke” about stuff online.
It has been my observation that TSA agents are similarly humor impaired. It is a very bad idea to make any joke including the B-word, no matter how funny it may be.
TSA agents don’t need reasonable articulable suspicion to do their jobs. The fact that you are in an airport is suspicion enough.
Those datasets are trash. No good surface record exists. According to UAH, we haven’t. Carl Mears is a coward who caved making the absurd statement that the surface data is better than the satellite data.
Well said. 🙂
My advice to you is to tone down the sarcasm. Your scientific curiosity and basic investigation is awesome. Twitter needs you.
Your climate post could hurt Tesla sales. Even Elon has to draw a line somewhere!
It’s simple, the climate-catastrophe cheerleaders at Twitter don’t appreciate your pointing out facts which undermine the impending-disaster narrative. Therefore, they trawled through your old tweets to find something they could hang a violation on, and found that FBI-related one. Job done.
I’d recommend looking into NOSTR. It’s still early days, but I doubt you’d ever have this sort of problem with software using that protocol. Take a look at nostr.com.
“It’s simple, the climate-catastrophe cheerleaders at Twitter don’t appreciate your pointing out facts which undermine the impending-disaster narrative. Therefore, they trawled through your old tweets to find something they could hang a violation on, and found that FBI-related one. Job done.”
That does look like what they did.
In the beginning, Twitter limited a comment to 140 characters. That’s why I never joined. And I don’t miss it.
That is understandable since part of the selling point of Tesla EVs is that they appeal to those who have bought into the idea that we are destroying the Earth with conventional cars. Another outlet that would seem to be more open to hearing both sides would seem to be preferred to Twits.
Willis,
Consider yourself lucky. I am banned from commenting on the Daily Telegraph!! My crime was using the well worn and prescient saying
” You can take a man out of the Jungle, but you can not take the jungle out of a man”
Note my use of the phrase, ‘a man’ to avoid being guilty of personal reference to a specific individual had i used ‘The man’.
My point was about the base instincts of all men, including me.
No matter, the DT continue (now two years) to shadow ban me..
I avoid Twitter for obvious reasons, though I hope the new ownership brings forth some sanity. Your experience suggests it won’t.
Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said: “I have been banned from Twitter for billions of years and never suffered a moment’s inconvenience”?
Paraphrasing obviously.
At Twitter Musk gave his job to Yaccarino recently, who’s task is to increase ad revenue.
Look up Yaccarino, a WEF protagonist.
Firms pull ads based on moderation. That means an AI credit rating score.
Looks like Eschenbach put a dent in the bottom line, triggered an AI sub-process, flagged the accounting dept., then up to Yaccarino.
It is not personal, just business!
Our own CBC here in Canada doesn’t recognize satire either and banned me years ago for poking fun at those in high places.
The Media have conditioned a hysteria in the population by constant sensationalization that subconsciously introduces a bias in the population, preventing objective analysis.
If your name was Tru.p, you would likely now be facing federal criminal charges for point 2 of your tweet. My comments are intended as irony, not for or against any political point of view.
The human population has grown almost 100% in lock step with temperature over the past 170 years. Much better correlation than CO2.
Yet this is consistently ignored with the Net Zero Agenda. Or is it? Switching the population to a single form of energy that cannot be economically stored would certainly simplify a return to 1850 population levels.
Temperature has not tripled in the last 170 years.
Willis wrote: “This is one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history. Don’t buy into it. They don’t have your best interests at heart.”
That’s true. And after writing that, are you still going to stand by your earlier logical fallacy Argument from Authority that “climate scientists can’t possibly all be lying to us about SURFRAD measurements, that’s just common sense“???
What are you smoking, Willis? One half of your brain says the government is a bunch of corrupt liars, and the other half still thinks that the government climate scientists must be telling the truth because they’re government climate scientists. Can you get the two halves of your brain to talk to each other? Hint: the first half is the correct one, in case you’re still confused.
Steve, is there some part of my endless admonition to “quote the exact words you are discussing” that has escaped you?
I’m glad to discuss whatever I might have said about SURFRAD scientists, once you link to it and quote it.
Next, surely you must know that there are both climate alarmists and honest climate scientists out there …
Finally, if you claim that the SURFRAD datasets are somehow wrong, you need to PROVE it, not just assert it.
Regards,
w.
PS—Free advice you’re free to ignore:
Dial back on the personal attacks, they’re ugly, counterproductive, and not doing your reputation any good.
I did quote the words I was discussing, namely your description of climate scientists as a cabal of self-serving lying toads, to (now) paraphrase you slightly. Quoting your exact words about the SURFRAD dataset has never helped in the past, but I can go and do it again if you need me to. The paraphrase of what you said, though, is “the SURFRAD dataset is accurate”, and feel free to disagree if I mis-paraphrased you. Your “defense” of this false claim was “the SURFRAD scientists must be telling the truth, because that’s just common sense“. (Also slightly paraphrased, and feel free to correct me if you no longer believe that to be the case.)
My point here is, you cannot simultaneously paint climate scientists as a gang of self-serving lying toads, which they are, while relying on (your own) “common sense” about their truth-telling habits to defend their statements about SURFRAD, which are false (that is a physics statement).
Naturally you don’t know anything about the physics, so you can’t defend it on its own terms, but you keep saying nonsense about “positive downwelling LWIR power”, and attempting to back that up with logical fallacies. In today’s post, you disproved your own logical fallacy, but it sounds like you are still standing on it nevertheless. That’s the inconsistency.
(Yes, there may be honest climate scientists out there – but the SURFRAD scientists aren’t among them. And if you admit to the existence of both honest and dishonest climate scientists, then it suddenly stops being “common sense” that any particular group is telling the truth, doesn’t it?)
stevekj said:
I searched the web for that quotation and couldn’t find it anywhere. That’s why I said:
Instead of doing that, you’ve continued with your ugly personal attacks, including a false claim that I “paint climate scientists as a gang of self-serving lying toads”.
Since I’ve never said that in my life, it seems that the self-serving lying toad is … well … you.
Come back when you can link to whatever it was I said about SURFRAD scientists, and when you are willing to curb your nasty tongue. I’m not your whipping boy.
If you want to talk science, fine. But if you want to have a battle of wits, I fear you are sorely lacking in both armaments and ammunition.
w.
It sure is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Here is how the previous battle went, in case you forgot:
Me (and others who also know more about physics than you do): The DWLWIR numbers coming from SURFRAD are fake, because they are claiming that a colder object (atmosphere) is exerting a positive amount of thermodynamic work (hence developing a positive amount of power) towards a warmer one (ground), violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Willis: “It’s simply that your claims fly in the face of common sense. For example, you claim there is no “back radiation”, when it’s been measured all over the planet by scientists of every country.” from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/12/25/being-disagreeable-at-christmas/#comment-3656649 . Then later in the same thread: “I said that the idea that either there is a worldwide pyrgeometer conspiracy, or that thousands of scientists all around the planet are being fooled about the capabilities of the pyrgeometers they’re using, doesn’t pass the laugh test. […] Finally, no, that’s not an appeal to authority. It’s an appeal to common sense, which sadly is the least common of the senses these days.” – italics mine
(That’s what you want to call “talk[ing] science”??? One of us is certainly lacking armament and ammunition, but it’s not me. Did you forget you wrote that? You write a lot of physics nonsense, so I’m sure it’s hard to keep track of all of it. But you wanted the direct quote, so here it is. Sadly I’m fairly sure it won’t help to make you any smarter.)
Remember, these are the same climate scientists that you described in the head post as engaging in “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. Who would perpetrate such a thing? A gang of honest and benevolent scientists? Or a gang of self-serving lying toads?
But never mind about the paraphrases. The bottom line is that you cannot reasonably claim that it is “common sense” to assume that folks involved in “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history” would be, for some inexplicable reason, and contrary to their stated goals, telling the truth about anything. How is that “common sense”? Please explain.
You also said, in the head post, “Don’t buy into it.” Except that you obviously did, as you said in my linked quote above – and wholeheartedly too. Maybe you should take your own advice.
And then you said “They don’t have your best interests at heart.” No, they don’t. But you trust them anyway. Why? Who is the greater fool, the liar, or the fool who believes him? They also say that it is much easier to fool someone than to convince him that he has been fooled. Have you been fooled, Willis? How would you know?
(While we are here, “laugh test”? Really? That’s how you decide whether a physics claim is true or false? I guess as a fisherman it’s about all your “monkey mind” has got)
(And the reason I’m picking on your “common sense” claim is that I have learned that it’s a complete waste of time to try to teach you from fundamental principles why the physics claim is wrong (see “Bovine excrement! Pond scum! Pig wrestling! Pass! Pass! Pass!”), but if you prefer to go that way instead, we can – again)
Sorry. As the Doctor in Macbeth says, “This disease is beyond my practice.” Too many ungrounded assumptions in your comment to even begin to answer.
w.
Ungrounded assumptions? Sure, Willis. Can you point out just one? I don’t want to make any logical or philosophical errors. Remember, I quoted exactly all the words I was trying to draw your attention to, as you asked. No assumptions, just direct quotes of your contradictory ideas. As I suspected, that did not help you to resolve the glaring contradictions.
(Also remember, starting with false premises always leads to contradictions sooner or later. You are the one who made a false physics statement, then tried to back it up with logical fallacies, and are now claiming that it is “common sense” that pyrgeometer scientists would tell the truth, while also admonishing us that the whole climate science enterprise is “one of the most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. Maybe you didn’t notice, or couldn’t bring yourself to, but pyrgeometer scientists are part of the “least scientifically supported” foundation of this “naked power grab”.)
You know, I had a tough time figuring out what would make a man who looks intelligent on the surface, and can string several grammatical sentences together, and operate a computer, publish so many false statements – and then when his errors are pointed out, respond with logical fallacies, psychological projection, name-calling, and when all of that fails, of course, your old standby, “Pass.” (You forgot to say “Pass” this time! You’re slacking.)
So at first I just chalked all that up to you being basically an arrogant ignoramus, a fisherman pretending to be a scientist. Others are less polite in their descriptions.
But recently I came across a term from a psychologist that I think describes you much better than that. It is “Vulnerable Narcissist”. I’m going to try that one on for size. Here is how it works, as best I can tell:
The Narcissist part is what drives you to publish what feels like hundreds of thousands of words over many years about a topic you don’t understand in the slightest, namely physics. You publish these words, and then people who know even less than you do give you positive reinforcement (because you are doing a good job of looking like a scientist, particularly a physicist, to anyone who isn’t one), which then strokes your ego. Who doesn’t like their ego stroked?
But the Vulnerable part is what comes into play when people point out that you have made false statements. You can’t cope with that, so you lash out with whatever comes to hand – the aforementioned logical fallacies, name-calling, psychological projection, and then, of course, when none of that scares off your interlocutors, “Pass!” That way you don’t have to face the awful reality that you have been completely wrong this whole time, and vociferously and arrogantly so, to boot. Indeed, you have explicitly, for years, supported some of the people involved in one of the “most arrogant, least scientifically supported naked power grabs in history”. No ordinary man can face that possibility with his ego intact. And the alternative is too self-destructive to contemplate. Shields up! We’re under attack!
Now, I am the first to admit that I know even less about psychology than you know about physics, and that’s a very low bar. But this all seems to fit pretty well from what I’ve seen. Fascinating…
Steve, you claim that there’s no such thing as downwelling radiation.
“Me (and others who also know more about physics than you do): The DWLWIR numbers coming from SURFRAD are fake, because they are claiming that a colder object (atmosphere) is exerting a positive amount of thermodynamic work (hence developing a positive amount of power) towards a warmer one (ground), violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
You are free to believe that the SURFRAD scientists, and the scientists who run the USCRN network, and these scientists at UAH …
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmchem/docs/DEPSCOR_progreport_9_13_07.pdf
…and the scientists who built the TAO buoys, and the people in the link below …
https://www.chilbolton.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/Solar-and-infrared-upwelling-and-downwelling-radiation.aspx
…and thousands of other scientists everywhere, are all putting out “fake data” about downwelling radiation.
And I’m free to believe that your claim of some kind of global longwave conspiracy among scientists all over the planet is bull goose looney.
w.