Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach
OK, quick question: What do these weather phenomena have in common?
- Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
- Aridity
- Avalanche (snow)
- Average rain
- Average Wind Speed
- Coastal Flood
- Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
- Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
- Erosion of Coastlines
- Fire Weather (hot and windy)
- Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
- Frost
- Hail
- Heavy Rain
- Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
- Landslides
- Marine Heatwaves
- Ocean Alkalinity
- Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
- River/Lake Floods
- Sand and Dust Storms
- Sea Level
- Severe Wind Storms
- Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
- Tropical Cyclones
Give up? So would I.
What these phenomena have in common is that the IPCC says that there is no significant evidence that these phenomena have changed (either increased or decreased) in the “historical period”. In other words, there’s no evidence that “global warming” has changed the strength or frequency of those weather phenomena.
So when folks claim things like “We’re already seeing the effects of global warming in storms/cyclones/floods/fire weather/sea level/etc./etc.”, feel free to tell them that the IPCC and reality itself beg to disagree.
And when Yale360 reflects on the 2017 Hurricane Harvey by saying ” If not for climate change, 2017’s Hurricane Harvey might have flooded half as many homes in the Houston area, a new study finds.” and “Climate change is happening right now with real and substantial costs”, you can feel free to point and laugh.
Don’t believe me? Here, with a large hat tip to a Substack post by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., is Table 12.12 regarding “Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)” from Chapter 12 of Working Group 1 of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, the most recent report:
Figure 1. IPCC AR6 WGI Chapter 12 Table 12.12
So … what weather phenomena does the IPCC say have actually changed? Well, they say global average air and ocean temperatures have increased by a few tenths of one percent. No news there.
Then they say “extreme heat” has increased. But they’re not talking about actual temperature. Instead, they’re using something called “Health Heat Index (HHI)”.
And while Table 12.12 in Chapter 12 says days with “extreme heat” increased in the historical period, the IPCC is disagreeing with itself. The problem is the previous chapter—Box 11.2 of Table 1 in IPCC AR6 WGI Chapter 11 says the increase in extreme heat is “Not assessed”, because the “baseline is 1981–2000”.
Sounds like dissension in the ranks …
Bemused by this “extreme heat” idea which the IPCC has both claimed and denied, I went to see how they calculate the HHI. Strap in and keep your arms and hands inside the vehicle, it’s a rough ride. Here are the calculations. The basic equation is:
HHI = c1 + c2 * T + c3 * T ^ 2 + RH * (c4 + c5 * T + c6 * T ^ 2) + RH ^ 2 * (c7 + c8 * T + c9 * T ^ 2))
“T” is the temperature in °F, and “RH” is the relative humidity in percent. As for the others:
- c1 = −42.379
- c2 = 2.04901523
- c3 = −6.83783 × 10−3
- c4 = 10.14333127
- c5 = −0.22475541
- c6 = 1.22874 × 10−3
- c7 = −0.05481717
- c8 = 8.5282 × 10−4
- c9 = −1.99 × 10−6
Zowie! Gotta love tunable parameters specified to 8 significant decimals. But wait, because as they say on TV, “There’s more!” Here are the further details.
If RH > 13% and T is between 80 °F and 112 °F, then HHI is adjusted by subtracting the following value:
Adjustment = ((13 – RH) / 4) * sqrt((17 – abs(T – 95)) / 17)
If RH > 85% and T is between 80 °F and 87 °F, the following value is added to HHI:
Adjustment = ((RH – 85) / 10) * ((87 – T) / 5)
If HHI < 80 °F, then HHI is recalculated as follows:
HHI = 0.5 * (T + 61.0 + ((T-68.0)*1.2) + (RH*0.094)))
In order to confuse the unwary, the result is given units of degrees Fahrenheit (°F). However, this is not physically possible, because the calculation includes T, T^2, and sqrt(T).
In any case, “Extreme Heat” in the IPCC lexicon is when the Health Heat Index goes over 105°F, referred to as “AT105F” … whatever that means.
To find out how unusual the AT105F threshold is, I gathered the NOAA daily temperature and humidity data for 1582 US cities, and calculated the HHI for a number of them. Turns out that in some cities in the US, like say Yuma, Arizona, annually on average there are 30 days or more with an HHI of 105°F or more. Sometimes far more. This is supposed to scare us?
What else does the IPCC say has changed in the “historical period”? Well, they say “cold spells” have decreased. And I might be missing it, but I can’t find anywhere that the IPCC defines exactly what they are calling a “cold spell”. The IPCC Working Group I Glossary doesn’t define the term at all … so we have no clue what they’re referring to. Science at its finest. In any case, whatever they might think “cold spells” are, they say they’ve decreased in Australia, Africa, and Northern South America. Since cold spells kill far, far more people than heat spells, seems to me this is a good thing.
Other than that? Well, they say that river, lake, and Arctic sea ice have decreased.
And they have “Medium Confidence” that permafrost has decreased, that there’s been a slight decrease in dissolved oxygen and a slight increase in salinity in some parts of the ocean.
Oh, and surface CO2 levels have increased.
And that’s it.
Call me crazy, but I’m not seeing any “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” visible in any of that.
Of course, they go on to use the most alarmist, most useless future scenario, the scenario called either “RCP8.5” or “SSP5-8.5”, to make all kinds of claims based on Tinkertoy™ climate models about how bad things will be in 2050 and 2100 … but we’ve seen how totally wrong all such climate projections have proven to be over the last 40 years. So there’s no reason to believe these projections.
To illustrate some of these issues, I took a look at the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) extreme temperature and other extreme weather records for the US states. To start with, here are the decades when states hit their maximum temperatures.
Figure 2. State maximum temperature records by decade.
Now, bear in mind that the temperature has been rising, in fits and starts, over the entire period shown in these state extreme graphs. And more than half the states set maximum temperature records in the 1930s. Sorry, but given that data, I’m not believing that extreme temperatures are a problem in the US.
How about extreme minimum temperatures?
Figure 3. State minimum temperature records by decade.
No clear pattern in that one, which I suppose is why they specifically do not say there’s been a change in “cold spells” in the US.
Next, here’re the heavy 24-hour rain records:
Figure 4. State 24-hour rainfall records by decade.
Again, no clear pattern. Heavy rain peaked in the ’90s but has been decreasing since then.
Finally, here’s snowfall.
Figure 5. State 24-hour snowfall records by decade.
The period 1960-2000 was a time of heavy snow, but since then it’s dropped off.
This US data is just another part of the mountain of evidence as to why, despite all of the posturing, the IPCC doesn’t think there’s any significant evidence of any “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”.
However, don’t expect things to change soon. We now have what might be called the “Climate/Industrial Complex”, complete with lots of people making lots of money off the imaginary “climate crisis”, and as Upton Sinclair remarked,
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
I’ve covered this lack of any evidence for a climate “crisis” or “emergency” in my post “Where Is The Climate Emergency?“.
And the alarmists’ answer to that question?
“We doan gotta show you no steenkin’ emergency … we’re climate scientists!”
Yeah, right …
w.
PS—I’m done with trying to defend people’s misinterpretation of my words. So … when you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing.
I see the difficulty. You are quoting from AR6 WG1 12.12. You need instead to quote from the SPM; there you will surely find summarized policy maker ALARM!
Pesky facts, always getting in the way of a good panic …
Best to you and that good lady,
w.
Actually those weather phenomenon do have a couple of things in common.
1) They are ALL part of Normal Weather
2) They happened in…
…2022
…2021
…2020
…2019
…
…1974
…1973
…1972
…1971
…
…1960s
…1950s
…1940s
…1930s
…1920s
…1910s
…1900s
…
…1800s
…1700s (in fact the worst hurricane on record was in 1780 killing 24,000 then another in 1782 killing 3,500)
Probably similar weather issues in 3 digit years as well as years BCE
Weather is as weather does
So if I understand correctly Rud, the alarm is not justified from the data in the report but nonetheless extrapolated into the Executive Summary.
Yes. The SPM often bears little resemblance to the AR. I have read the SPMs for AR4,5, and 6. They always urge urgent immediate action when, as Willis shows, there is no underlying support at the working group ‘science’ level.
so why is this allowed and/or tolerated?
I have found that the case for just about any science publications supporting climate change. The IPCC are even worse because the actual scientists involved have no input on summaries.
After reading the final summary, you think where did they get that from because it wasn’t in the paper.
As I unerstand the IPCC process, the Summary for Policy Makers is written first (as the I stands for Intergovernmental) and the role of the scientists is to then find some suppporting evidence to go in the reports.
Of course, there is no guarantee that supporting evidence can be found in the real world.
But, as the table shows using RCP8.5, that’s what models are for.
so why don’t the scientists speak up about this?
cowardice?
desire to retain lucrative careers?
they don’t read the summaries?
“And they have “Medium Confidence” that permafrost has decreased, that there’s been a slight decrease in dissolved oxygen and a slight increase in salinity in some parts of the ocean.”
Just a reminder folks, whenever IPCC says “Medium Confidence”, it means:
Maybe, maybe not
It’s a 50/50 chance
As likely as not
Your guess is as good as mine
We haven’t got a clue
And it is all derived from unvalidated computer games anyway !
Likely the “data” is actually just Modeled Output anyway.
Data is what We say it is
Heads it’s a climate emergency, tails it’s not.
G’Day HotScot,
“Heads it’s a climate emergency, tails it’s not.”
And if it lands on edge, Yellowstone is going to explode.
Story tip – In the Name of Climate Change: Travel Restrictions and the Great Reset – American Thinker
If NASA had used the same, wide angle, data inept, mathematically incoherent, guesstimating modelling for the Voyager missions, they wouldn’t have even left the launch pad
NASA are so scientifically, engineeringly, mathematically accurate when planning space missions, but it seems their Climate Dept didn’t get the memo
“Science” requires a falsifiable hypothesis.
If your rocket blows up on the launch pad, EVERY time, then even the peasants are going to opine that you are doing something wrong and perhaps don’t quite understand rocket science.
When you make vague climate predictions that are mostly wrong, but lack the video equivalent of an exploding rocket, then apparently you can have job security for life at NASA regardless of whether you actually know anything about climate science.
Or computer programming.
(See also Neil “Professor Pantsdown” Ferguson and his Imperial College doomsayers).
Both their supercomputer highly tuned prognostications and their bat-brained recommendations of how to fix their “problem” and provide energy in future, have less integrity than a frozen “O” ring.
Large hat or large tip?
That’s how you make the elephant’s ears wiggle.
I’m entertained by recent spate of claims, in C or F, that humidity/temp index over 105°/40° causes human body systems to shut down and slow death. In many temperate zone cutures around the world people enjoy sauna at artificially maintained levels much higher, and mostly claim health and well being benefits for the experience. An aquaintance pays to participate in hot yoga sessions at near those conditions multiple times a week (yet none the less becomes quite dramatically plus le verklempt on command at every such announcement).
.
Most often, outdoor temps + humidity at near those levels cause rain, and as you’ve noted elsewhere (and experrienced hear near Yuma in the “monsoon” season), can reduce the temperature by 30 or more F degrees.
Stay cool!
Our physiology is designed to do exactly that.
Our intellect has allowed us to make machines designed to do exactly that.
The Earth’s water regulation system is designed to do exactly that.
Any questions?
Exactly the point. Yours is exactly the sequence of statements that should occur to any even slightly critical or half-educated interviewer, yet it hasn’t been engaged. The panickers go unchallenged. Doesn’t matter if it is sandbagging or ignorance, the effect is the same.
“Gotta love tunable parameters specified to 8 significant decimals”
Are there any units or error ranges to go with these miraculously derived fantasy numbers?
I also wonder at their scientific derivation 😉
As Willis pointed out, the result of the equation is a mix of units of different powers. One could use the principles of error propagation to come up with a number representing the uncertainty in HHI units. However, it gets a little trickier with the IF…THEN steps specified. But then the IPCC has never paid much attention to rigorous analysis of error, so this is nothing new. It makes it convenient to pretend that the HHI numbers are exact.
I think the whole thing is one big error, from start to finish. 🙂
Not trying to one-up Fermi or Von Neumann, but if you’re gonna cook the books, why not shoot for overdone? IPCC is overcomplicating a relatively simple job, already accomplished much better elsewhere, to come to a ludicris result and a ridiculous claim. Forget my expansion to the elephant’s ears — that’s a row of pink pachyderms, dancing.
I understand therefore that the IPCC report proper and the Executive Summary poles apart; one is more based on “evidence”, the other is wholly narrative driven unreality prepared for gaslighting politicians and their WAG/CC Oughtist apparatchiks (sorry lying bastards) to push their Woke blx.
Yes, I remember reading the IPCC’s processes a while ago (AR6?), and the docs on the IPCC website described how the agreed draft statements in the SPM were sent back to the lead authors of the scientific reports sections with directives to amend the scientific positions to agree with the draft SPM statements.
Arse backwards, or wot?
Yes, you’re quite right…it’s not science, just alarmist politics.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.
In 2009, Daniele Fanelli conducted a survey demonstrating that at least 72 percent of researchers were willing to somehow distort their research results. And that doesn’t even count the unintentional calculation mistakes and other errors.
Lets look at the timeline after James Hansen in 1988, (A)GW was as a soft word presented in the First Global Revolution, published by The Club of Rome in 1991, in 1995 it became AGW, then Climate Changes and Climate Crisis … and now ´Global Boiling´. Using soft language, 32(35) years has gone and it´s “hard” not to conclude that the traveling “pathogens” in the evolvement in the alarmistic rhetoric causes “global boiling” blindness.
Weather-stations excist in the categories from 1 to 5. In the best case scenario, you can say, that the IPCC-reports is a class 3 weather station. The Resume to the politicians and the medias, belongs in class 5, not trustworthy at all.
But unfortunatly the “hockey-stick” phenomenon going from a soft word GW to global boiling, your out of order, trust the science, creates mass-formation. In psychology and neurology you would say that the gaslighting is the result of the allegory of the frase “The Sky is Falling” – and so is the tendency to turn the “blind” eye to what your presenting isn´t even close to being class 1 science …!!
It’s so good of the alarmists to have modified their scariness to include Global Boiling. Most peole unaware of this matter will know instantly that there is NO BOILING, and hence will side with the skeptics! Spreading our message without any input from us – thanks, alarmists!
From the head of the UN, no less.
the-ipcc-says-no-climate-crisis: Brandon
begsmumbles to differ..https://youtu.be/AMlJxdB-L3w?t=16
(Dear Gods: Help us please. The old fart can barely string sentences together)
Does that indicate there may be some kind of hope?
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad“
We may find out where Joe Biden’s off-shore bank account is tomorrow, after Hunter Biden’s former business partner testifies before Congress
Devon Archer is his name. He has been in hiding recently after receivig death threats, and threats from the Biden “Justice” Department.
I think the Biden family may hold the record for the most “Suspicious Activity Reports” filed on one family. There are about 170 SAR’s on the Bidens, and another 70 or so on people connected to the Bidens.
Banks file SAR’s with the U.S. Treasury Department whenever they think they are seeing illegal banking activity. Apparently the banks had a lot of suspicions about a lot of Biden financial activites.
I think ole Joe isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.
Tom,
I am so curious about this and like you will be keen to see if this goes anywhere. But do you have any credible references for “Devon Archer is his name. He has been in hiding recently after receivig death threats, and threats from the Biden “Justice” Department.”
So let’s for a second imagine J Biden is guilty of a crime. Do you think he should be held accountable, or do you think he should be able to use his power as president to veto any conviction? I only ask because this could play out with a future president with the initials DT and in the interest of being fair and consistent I’m assuming you will want both men treated the same? For the record I am very keen for Biden to be convicted and face the consequences if guilty, as I am if Donald gets done for any of his current charges.
The only reference I have is I heard this said by a reporter on the Fox News Channel, and I’m just repeating it. I don’t know where the reporter got their information.
I do think Joe Biden should be held accountable if he is guilty of a crime. The method to be determined considering his age and health. Although, I might be a lot harsher, if we find out Biden was doing the Chicoms favors for money. That would make Biden a traitor to his country, and that cannot be treated lightly.
I don’t think Biden can veto any personal conviction. An impeachment and removal from office is not subject to a presidential veto, nor are any criminal matters he is involved in. He won’t be convicted of anything before he leaves office, so he won’t be able to pardon himself.
Donald Trump if elected president, could pardon himself, if he were found guilty of a crime during the election but went ahead and won the presidency anyway. He could pardon Biden, too, if he decided to do so.
But I don’t think in Trump’s cases that they will ever see a jury. The cases are such bad law they will be thrown out of court before ever going to trial.
Of course, there are a lot of Obama and Biden appointed judges out there so nothing is certain at this point, but my money is on Trump, Truth, Justice, and the American Way!
“The cases are such bad law they will be thrown out of court before ever going to trial.” Did you forget the bad law used on Flynn? The only place that bad law has a chance of being overturned is by the Supreme courts and there is no odds on that happening either.
Firstly thank for your reply. You are right re impeachment if that is where this goes with Biden. He wont get out of that, but to be impeached he will have to be guilty and we are a long way from that. I will watch the result of the mans testimony although I hear it is behind closed doors.
Re Trump. I am not so sure the cases are as flimsy as you say given there are recordings and emails that are pretty damning. And the judge in the documents case is a Trump appointee. She has set a date and it lands right in the middle of the Republican primaries. I appreciate he may well win that so it is going to be very interesting to watch.
“but to be impeached he will have to be guilty “
Oh, Trump never was guilty, so your comment is as idiotic as usual.
“Oh, Trump never was guilty, so your comment is as idiotic as usual.”
Now that is funny you calling me idiotic. That’s coming from the man who thinks El Ninos have caused the recent warming……
“El Ninos have caused the recent warming……
You know that is what UAH shows don’t you.
And no warming since the 2015/16 EL Nino
Alarmists now praying for an El Nino.
So they obviously know.
And yet you have absolutely zero evidence that it is from CO2.
You really are a sad-sac loser, Simon. !
Sorry loser, but Trump was NOT guilty, he was indicted on “trumped-up” charges FAKED by the Democrats.
Everyone knows that !
And I’m sure that you know that… but desperately need to keep your TDS going.
Why double-down on making IDIOTIC comments, Simon…
It only makes you look even more of an idiot.
“but to be impeached he will have to be guilty”
No, that’s not true, Simon. Trump was impeached twice and he wasn’t guilty of anything either time.
Mark Levine laid out a few problems for the prosecution with regard to Trump and the classified documents case. First of all, federal cases are supposed to be charged in the district where the crime supposedly was committed. That would be in Florida, not in Washington DC.
They are trying to charge Trump under the Espionage Act of 1917, which does not apply to this case.
The Presidential Records Act covers all Trump’s activities, and he has complied fully with the Presidential Records Act, which is not a criminal matter, even if he were guilty of something. That’s why they put the Espionage Act charge in there.
The case ought to be thrown out of court over the jurisdiction issue alone.
Those future court dates are flexible, and either probably won’t go to court at all, or will be extended until after the elections of 2024.
It will be interesting to watch. 🙂
“First of all, federal cases are supposed to be charged in the district where the crime supposedly was committed. That would be in Florida, not in Washington DC.”
He is being charged in Florida, by his judge????
“They are trying to charge Trump under the Espionage Act of 1917”
I think you will find this clause in the act is the one that is going to be trouble for him
“it is a crime to have “unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over [information] … the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” and to “wilfully” retain it while failing “to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”
Under the law, prosecutors will not be required to prove that Mr Trump knew that the information he possessed could harm national security interests, but rather that any reasonable person would understand the harm it could do. It also is not necessary under the law to prove that the documents were classified – only that they relate to US national security – or that they caused any actual damage to US interests.
And you didn’t answer my question. If Trump is found guilty by a jury, overseen by a judge he chose and in the state of Florida, should he be able to exonerate himself?
Trump, under the Presidential Records Act, was authorized to have every document he had.
The prosecutor claims Trump showed a classified document to someone who wasn’t authorized to see it. Trump emphatically denies there even was a document to show during this particular conversation he had with others. This should be easy to prove. I’ll put my faith in Trump. You don’t have to.
“And you didn’t answer my question. If Trump is found guilty by a jury, overseen by a judge he chose and in the state of Florida, should he be able to exonerate himself?”
I don’t think he should exxonerate himself if he is guilty of something, but I don’t see he is guilty of anything. All the charges against him, ALL of them, are trumped up and imo, will not hold up in court.
The radical Democrats have a coordinated effort, federal and local, to dirty up Trump before the election, and their method is to charge him with everything in the book.It doesn’t matter if the charges are legitimate, all that matters is the appearance of criminality.
The radical Democrats are creating a false narrative in hopes of keeping Trump out of the White House. Because they are scared to death Trump is going to destroy their socialist dreams, and they are correct, Trump will destroy their socialist dreams if he gets back in office.
So the gloves are off for the radical Democrats. They are going to do everything they can, legal and illegal, to get Trump. They’ve been trying to do this for five years now, and haven’t gotten him yet. I don’t expect they will get him this time, either.
Simon, the source for the information on death threats to Devon Archer is Maranda Devine, the New York Post reporter that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The story that was suppressed by the Deep State right before the 2020 election. Polls taken after the election showed that from10 to 20 percent of people who voted for Biden would not have voted for him had they known about the laptop scandal, so the suppression cost Trump the election. That, among other things.
I really don’t see why Hunter Bidens laptop has anything to do with Joe…. and You could argue Trump would never have won first time round, had Comey not opened the investigation into Clinton weeks before the election.
Wow, you really don’t want all that corruption of the WHOLE Biden family to come out , do you.
Better hope that there is not a Republican president next… because that corruption and degenerative immoral behaviour will no longer be swept under the rug.
So Tom it seems this guy Devon Archer said Biden often joined conversations but it was always chit chat and never specific business. There is no doubt Hunter wanted to create an illusion that he had connections, but that is about it. Nothing about bank accounts or business dealings….. and if chatting with your parents or using them to promote yourself is a crime, then I’m guessing nearly all of Washington will need to resign… certainly the Trumps.
“So Tom it seems this guy Devon Archer said Biden often joined conversations but it was always chit chat and never specific business. ”
No, Simon. We don’t actually know what Devon Archer said since the hearing was done behind closed doors.
What you are repeating is the Democrat talking point they used after the hearing. “Nothing to see here” say the Democrats. Well, wouldn’t you expect they would say that? I would. What else can they say?
Ole Joe has been caught dead to rights, using his influence with foreign entities.
What’s really going to be interesting is tracing the amounts of money Hunter and Joe got from the Chicoms, and then looking at what policy changes occurred with regard to China after the money was sent.
Back in 2014, Joe signed off on allowing Chinese companies to trade on the U.S. stock exchanges, while allowing the Chinese companies to ignore the rules set for other companies that trade on the U.S. Stock Exchange. This is still in effect to this very day. I wonder how much money the Chicoms paid Biden for that little favor?
Exactly, yesterday there was some congressional clown (D) going around and claiming they were “only talking about the weather.” Yeah right, how would he know? Was he part of the conference calls? Of course not, he was saying what the White House told him to say. And of course, Simon jumps on and claims it was only “chit-chat”. How would Simon know what was discussed?
After the Archer transcripts are released in a couple days, there won’t be any more ridiculous democrats following suit.
This is an act of desperation, it was all they could come up with.
“After the Archer transcripts are released in a couple days, there won’t be any more ridiculous democrats following suit.”
Let’s have a conversation if and when the transcripts are released.
I will look forward to the transcript because until then we are just guessing, but I think it telling that it is the Dem who was there who has immediately asked for the release of them.
Devon Archer Tells Tucker Carlson that Joe Biden KNEW Hunter’s Business Partners Were in the Room During Their Phone Calls
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/boom-devon-archer-tells-tucker-carlson-that-joe/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/biden-investigation-full-devon-archer-testimony-released
Good afternoon Willis
Nice post but I know you hate typos
Should be National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Thanks, Rich, fixed.
w.
“global average air and ocean temperatures have increased by a few tenths of one percent”
I’ve never seen temperature anomalies expressed in percent. Typo? Or else I don’t understand.
Good question. Temperature changes in percent are not uncommon in thermodynamical calculations. All you need to do is express temperatures in kelvins, as is required for all thermodynamic math.
And when you do that, you can see the extraordinary stability of the climate system and the global average surface air temperature.
Regards,
w.
I always use Kelvin as the basis for calculations. We did sometimes use Rankin when in college, but Kelvin is the preferred. It does make a difference in the final numbers, albeit sometimes small when calculating anomalies. The real benefit is that using a system based on absolute zero eliminates negative numbers.
Along the same line of thought (stability, percent temperature), would not the fourth power relationship in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation suggest natural self-regulation vs “tipping point” scenario?
A 1.5% increase in temperature (4.5/288K) produces 5% increase in emission. Like the logarithmic function of Beer-lambert absorption, but for emission. Both non-linear, both indicate diminishing returns.
__________________________________________________________
And that’s on the list of why “Climate Scientists” should be regarded as dim bulbs.
Actually, one of the ‘rules’ of maths is that you don’t round intermediate numbers. eg. “Do not round your results until the very end or you will introduce errors that may grow in coming steps.” – Sage-Advices. Normally, intermediate numbers don’t get reported. In this case, they probably did have to be reported, as they are the numbers provided for use in later steps.
Fun true story as an exception. In college I took Galbraith’s course on artificial demand creation (think advertising) based on one of his books. He loved telling non-course stuff on the side that made you think.
During WW2 he headed the Office of Price Administration. He told us that he learned to sum long columns of numbers in his head quickly to within 10%. The trick was only going to maybe first two digits and ignoring the rest, since it was likely those mostly cancel.
Then he got to the point of the lesson. “In economics, if an answer to within 10% isn’t good enough, then you are asking the wrong question.”
“Maths” is not a word in English. “Math” is the abbreviated form of “mathematics”, so “maths” is redundant plural – “mathematicss”.
Rounding is not appropriate in conducting mathematical calculations, only for qualifying the final answer.
The proper means of calculation is to use the rule of significant figures. No mathematical equation’s output is more precise than the fewest number of significant figures in the operands, with the smallest non-zero number as directly measured + 1 (for estimating the value between 2 measured quantities).
A measured value of 10 is 3 significant figures (2 + an estimate, not measured, of the 3rd figure). An answer involving a number with 2 significant figures and a number with 3 significant figures is precise to only 2 significant figures.
You tell’em Duane. What do the Brits know about English anyway? Maths! What gibberish! Like MATHematicS or something? It’s un-American!
I can see how the Yanks get confused. You see, Duane, in Overseas (not US) little kiddies go to school, and they have set timetables, usually carried as a small card or page, with every subject in its timeslot, usually abbreviated.
Thus, in the common tongue we grow up with, things get renamed because they are easier to pronounce, like Biology becomes Boil. You would not know this, because in America, Maths is racist, and Boil is all about cutting off your boy bits.
P.S. Pronounce any English phrase not ending in ‘math’ where ‘Math’ sounds better and more melodic than ‘Maths’. Go on, try…
Does a measured value 10.0 have four significant figures?
Writing 10.0mm as a measured value, implies that you could measure to the 1st decimal place. Hence 3 significant figures.
Just like if you measured it as say 10.2mm
If you can measure to the nearest 1/100th of a mm, then you could write 10.00mm… which is 4 significant figures.
ie the trailing zeros are what is referred to as “implied accuracy.”
“Maths” tells me I’m probably reading something by a Brit or Aussie.
Such linguistic gymnastic from the Americans.
Duane
July 30, 2023 4:57 pm
Um … er … Brits say “maths”, Americans say “math”. Go figure. Two nations separated by a common language.
Regards,
w.
However, if you start with only one or two significant figures, one is probably only required to carry an extra guard digit in the intermediate calculations. Then, at the end, round down to the number of significant figures in the least precise multiplier.
“Radiation at the Earth’s Surface”
So no changes in low cloud cover? that’s very convenient!
‘What else does the IPCC say has changed in the “historical period”? Well, they say “cold spells” have increased. ‘
Table 12.12 shows medium confidence in a decrease…..
Senior moment, fixed.
Thanks, Jan.
w.
I am happy that Willis is reporting on Roger Pielke, Jr. His blog is a rich source of interesting material that analyzes and refutes much nonsense coming out of the climate change establishment. I think everyone who reads WWUT could subscribe to it and read it with profit. Although, be warned, Roger accepts the idea that the atmosphere is getting warmer.
Here is an excerpt from an important recent post by Roger about the radical political agenda of the IPCC:
“The Political Agenda of the IPCC Scientific Assessment or Environmental Advocacy Group? Pick One” Roger Pielke Jr. on May 15, 2023
Well, for what it’s worth, former President Trump said yesterday at a speech in Pennsylvania, attended by tens of thousands of supporters, that the “Green New Deal is a Hoax!”.
I’m not sure exactly what Trump means by “Green New Deal” (not sure if he is referencing CO2 specifically) but it seems to be a step in the right direction.
The Green New Deal (“brain” child of AOC)
Remember people unable or unwilling to work receiving a basic income?
It morphed into Brandon’s Orwellianly-named Inflation Reduction Act. To prevent too many dollars chasing after too few goods, obviously you need to borrow trillions and spend the money on destroying production of goods by undermining fossil fuels by every conceivable unconstitutional action.
He is probably right because there is evidence that the growing seasons are getting longer, if nothing else because the average time of the last killing frost is getting earlier and the time of the first killing frost is getting later. All other things being equal, averaging temps with fewer killing frosts will result in a higher average temperature.
Depends were you are at in Minnesota I don’t think that close to being true. What is true is hybrids have shorter growing seasons. Now how do sort the wheat from the chaff on that one?
Check this agriculture study. It shows that even in Minnesota that growing Growing Degree Days have increased.
U.S. Agro-Climate in 20th Century: Growing Degree Days, First and Last Frost, Growing Season Length, and Impacts on Crop Yields | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
If you check ag seed catalogs, you’ll find hybrids of all kinds based on soil conditions, rainfall, temperatures, etc. Planting crops that mature in 110 days versus 90 days can have a large difference in yields.
I had specifically mentioned killing frosts.
For many years now, the IPCC has touted “confidence intervals” in their assessment reports:
“A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and typeset in italics, for example, medium confidence. The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result: virtually certain 99–100%
probability; very likely 90–100%; likely 66–100%; about as likely as not 33–66%; unlikely 0–33%; very unlikely 0–10%; and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms
(extremely likely 95–100%; more likely than not >50–100%; and extremely unlikely 0–5%) are also used when appropriate.”
— https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
(see footnote 4 at bottom of page 4)
Such non-deterministic “evaluations” lend credibility where none is actually warranted, and thus have caused many a keen observer to conclude IPCC assessment reports have been nothing but a confidence game from the get-go.
“Such non-deterministic “evaluations” lend credibility where none is actually warranted”
That’s exactly right.
“Confidence levels” are a con.
Extreme anything only makes sense when qualified by date and location and elevation or altitude. It is never an absolute value. Extreme heat at the North Pole in January might be 0 deg C. But that would be considered extreme cold in Los Angeles in July. What passes for extreme heat in Phoenix in July (115 + deg F or more) simply does not occur ever in Aspen. It’s all relative, and literally everybody knows that.
For those who say extreme anything is really about the biological effects, such as a person suffering heat stroke, it’s still prejudicial to label anything as extreme. Heat stroke is brought on by the body’s cooling system no longer functioning, not because of the absolute air temperature. The failure to cool the body is usually triggered by dehydration – and a body can be dehydrated at any air temperature. Being in direct sunlight vs shade also makes a humongous difference (there we skeptics go again, blaming it on the pesky old sun instead of the obvious villain, CO2). Clothing makes a difference too.
A body can suffer hypothermia at an air temp of 70 deg F – if their body is wetted and a strong wind is blowing and they are wearing few clothes.
Labeling any weather condition as “extreme” is simply hyperbole and hysterical. Weather just is. The media could talk about data relative to mean values, or as probabilities (a 100 year storm). But they seem to prefer scaring people because it draws mouse clicks and ratings points. Today’s version of the old newsman’s saying, “If it bleeds, it leads”.
Previously a former head of the UNIPCC stated that the environmental movement is more about the destruction of capitalism than saving the planet – nothing but a bunch of watermelons – green on the outside & red on the inside
The longer the equation, the more scientific it is. I thought everybody knew that.
All those “c” valuers are cute… what are they, and where do they come from?
… or are they numbers just for the sake of numbers.
And the corollary to that is the more authors contributing to a paper, the more likely the conclusion will be a creative breakthrough.
All aid should be cut off from developed countries to those that are demanding ‘climate reparations’ and ‘loss and damage’.
If you’re trying to strong-arm/blackmail me, the first thing I’ll do is stop being nice to you.
Willis… in this…
Don’t you mean …. cold spells have “decreased”?
Haven’t you heard? Global warming causes more heat and more cold. And more rain and less rain. More droughts and more floods. etc. etc.
In other word, global warming increases the variance for all measured parameters, with the limit being infinity.
Thanks, fixed.
w.
Let’s just wait a day or two and see what this site’s beloved UAH lower tropsphere data set has to say about global temperatures in July 2023.
I will be surprised if they aren’t close to the record, if not setting a new one for the month.
If not, I will come back to this post and admit I was wrong.
By calling it “this site’s beloved”, you are suggesting it is somehow wrong or unfairly biased.
Instead of making snide remarks about the UAH satellite lower troposphere data, please post your reasoned criticism of it.
Just pointing out that it’s the only data set whose monthly update is reported here at WUWT. It’s also the only data set that has its temperature data on the sideboard of the main site. It just so happens to be the global temperature data set with the lowest warming trend (though still statistically significant). So ‘beloved’ seems reasonable.
Yep, when things are measured properly, there is only El Nino warming.
Just like now.
Along with everything else right under your nose that escapes your attention , USCRN is posted directly under UAH.
It’s not global.
Neither is UAH.
“I will be surprised if they aren’t close to the record, if not setting a new one for the month.”
You say that like a little warming is a bad thing. In fact it’s so ingrained in your belief system that it couldn’t possibly be otherwise.
I can’t be responsible for your inferences.
Ah… so now you are admitting that the slight warming since the LIA has been absolutely and completely BENEFICIAL.
Just as the increase in atmospheric CO2 has.
Well, July wasn’t the hottest July in 120,000 years around here.
It’s been much hotter than this. If you want to see extreme temperatures, look at the decade of the 1930’s. We are not even close to being that hot, and thank the Good Lord for that.
You’ve been around a long time!
1930s are nowhere near the warmest globally.
How do you know?
Certainly not from mal-“adjusted” surface station data.
Certainly was for most of the NH, Raw data confirms that.
There was little to no data for most of the SH.
What there is from Africa was similar to NH.
Australia still has lots of local warm “records” from around the mid 1930s.
Actual science shows that the planet is currently at a COOL period of the Holocene.
It has been warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years.
Meanwhile, in the SH
Record Cold Argentina; Mammoth Snowpack Still 500% Of Average; + Series Of CMEs Inbound – Electroverse
Siberia
Record Cold Siberia; Antarctica Plunges To -80.5C (-112.9F); + Swings Between Extremes In South America – Electroverse
And Europe..
Canberra rather cold too
Canberra thaws after longest July frosty spell in decades (weatherzone.com.au)
“
And New Zealand… + Snow in Europe. !
Heavy Snow Pounds Mt Hutt, New Zealand; Argentina Shivers; + It’s Snowing Across Europe’s Higher Elevations – Electroverse
Argentina
On Monday (July 17), historical monthly low temperature records are being slain: the readings of -22.5C (-8.5F) at Perito Moreno Aero and the -11.2C (11.8F) at San Antonio Oeste are new record lows for the month of July — in books dating back to 1961.
Extreme lows were posted elsewhere on Monday, too, including; Maquinchao’s -13C (8.6F); Gregores’ -10C (14F); Esquel’s -9.4C (15.1F); Madryn’s -7.4C (18.7F); Trelew’s -6.8C (19.8F); Bahía Blanca’s -5.8C (21.6F); El Bolsón’s -5.1C (22.8F), Bolívar’s -4.8C (23.4F), and S Rafael’s -4.4C (24.1F).
However, with these being cold records they’re going unreported by the establishment’s propaganda machine.
Positively boiling!
As predicted above, July 2023 was the warmest July on record and also set a new warmest southern hemisphere July land temperature record, according to UAH.
Why wait?
Because July’s not over and they haven’t reported yet….
Locally, for about 10 places in the US that were supposed to be suffering from extreme heat over the past few days, exactly none are anywhere near the warmest July on record–for those places. There are still 2 days worth of data to add in, but my guess is those records won’t get broken.
And they may not. I am referring to global data, as I said.
But you haven’t been paying any attention to “global” data, just to the hyped microwarming (tiny fractions of a degree extra, at very dubious surface sites), as it moved across Europe.
That has gone from Europe now, and Europe is looking like having an early autumn as a cold wave moves in.
There is every July from UAH6 below, but last month was already close to the July record at 0.377.
They won’t set the warmest month overall.
North Atlantic SST’s are high and El Nino is underway so a July record could be possible.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980.5/every:12
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Each month has its own anomaly, which is the main thing. “Warmest month overall” doesn’t mean very much in that context.
All I’m saying is that, despite all Willis’s supposed refutations, we are living in a period of extremely high global temperatures, relative to what we are used to. That is bound to have an impact on us and we are already seeing it.
Lots of posts and comments here over recent days have been dismissing the surface data record warmth. Let’s see what UAH have say; because UAH is the favoured data set on this site.
I think they will report a warmest or near-warmest July. TLT data differ a bit from surface data in the early art of El Nino; as I recall, they take longer to respond but respond more strongly when they do. So there are a lot of very high UAH temperatures to come over the next few months.
Yep, there’s that El Nino that the alarmists have been preying on.
They know it is nothing to do with CO2.
“we are living in a period of extremely high global temperatures,”
Complete and utter BS !!
Current global temperatures are only a small bump from the coldest period in 10,000 years.
The planet is still very much in a cooler period of the Holocene.
“relative to what we are used to”
Maybe a fraction of a degree warmer in one month
Something NOBODY anywhere could ever tell the difference.
You really are making some truly moronic statements today…
… even worse than usual.
“Near” only counts in throwing horseshoes and handgrenades.
Nonsense. You want to cherry pick where you get your data from. Focusing just on our country, where I live, I’ve lived through 72 Julys and many have been this warm or warmer. We haven’t even experienced a 95 degree day yet and only a couple over 90 degrees here in Connecticut, where we’re supposed to be burning up. We haven’t had a 100 plus degree day in almost 10 years when they were plentiful decades ago when I was growing up. You cultists are freaking hilarious with your tunnel vision and confirmation biases.
Problem for gullible AGW cultists is that they only reads the MSM propaganda on heat, whereas the flip-side, cold, never gets published.
I’ve listed a few up above, especially Argentina where many cold records have been slashed since the middle of July.
It is even snowing in parts of the EU alps !
None of these ”extreme” temperatures – hot or cold – can be attributed to global warming. Why do we know this?
Because we know that 1977 was <> 1 degree cooler than July 2023 and yet…….
0.2C at a rather dubious and badly maintained site. !
Class 4 site so +/-2ºC error must be considered.
Two adjacent, better sited weather stations nearby din’t report any ‘record breaking’ temperatures.
That ought to tell someone all they need to know.
They are not Willis’s refutations, they are the ‘fact’s’ as reported by the IPCC.
“That is bound to have an impact on us and we are already seeing it.”
Well, yes. Population increases. Increased crop yields. Decreased climate related deaths.
You have just hit a pet peeve of mine. Anomalies are NOT temperatures and can not be compared in the fashion you are doing. An anomaly is ΔT, and not an absolute value. A temperature station in the Antarctic can have an anomaly of +2, and be similar to an anomaly in Houston, Texas, yet the absolute temps are totally different.
Your use of anomalies as a measure of how hot it is leads to the media and many scientific studies doing the same. That is why we see every location on the globe warming at an unprecedented rate according to the media. At best, the anomaly you are quoting is an average. Guess what an average actually is? It is the value in the middle. That means half the anomalies are above the average, and half are below. That immediately says that the entire globe is not warming at an unprecedented rate.
Here is the proof of the filling in the pie. Willis has tried to show you that state temperature records are not falling left and right. What do you make of that? Is the U.S. hotter now than it has ever been? If so, why aren’t there 48 state records being set every year?
We are only in a period of high global temperature during the Holocene and have not reached the Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) yet.
There are good reasons for dismissing the surface record because it is generally poor and highly affected by UHI’s. It has been changed often to support the warming narrative and has huge areas of missing observations especially before the satellite era and argo.
The UAH is the best global temperature monitoring instrument on the planet.
The satellite is warming more than the surface during the El Nino so far.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2023/plot/gistemp/from:2023
The reason why they likely will be a July record and not an overall record is because the El Nino is predicted to become medium strength. Only a strong El Nino has the chance of beating a previous high in satellite data despite high North Atlantic SST’s.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Maybe that will mean less people will have died from cold weather this July.
Maybe. Don’t know. Not arguing that. Just pointing out that global temperatures are very high recently. Seems like several people have died from that. It’s not a competition.
Just the FACT that some 10 to 20 times more people die from cold than heat.
As you say… no contest !!
How many days of “very warm” did Italy have… 1, maybe 2?
How many days of “very warm” did Sardinia get… Just 1.?
How many warm days did UK get.. just a couple…
UK and most of western Europe is now BELOW the 1979-2000 mean.
You really don’t comprehend WEATHER patterns , do you. !
“In Germany and Europe, the summer heat and drought have since disappeared as unusually cool, wet weather has moved in. The chances this summer will average out to be a scorcher are rapidly dwindling.”
Germans Will Need To Turn On Heat As Cold, Wet Weather Sets To Grip Country In Early August (notrickszone.com)
Like most alarmists you are so mealy mouthed.
So what should the Earth’s temperature be then? Hotter, colder, the same, what?
We know that the ‘change’ in temperature is measured basically from the end of the Little Ice Age. So would Mankind be better off if temperatures were the same as the LIA? Or would it be better off if it was colder or hotter than those temperatures, what? Be specific and give reasons.
We do think that Man has altered the Earth’s temperature somewhat. Why do people assume that this is harmful? What are the odds between this being beneficial or harmful? If Man could prevent the next glacial period, should we?
So speak up, say what YOU think.
“Just pointing out that global temperatures are very high recently.”
You are making a conclusion that is not in evidence. Do you know what connotation is attached to an “average” value? Maybe 50% above and 50% BELOW!
You aren’t going to offer an estimate?
A month outlier during an El Nino.
This what is called Weather, not Climate.
Now please read the IPCC’s climate indicators in the main post. Warmer weather is expected.
But it’s hardly newsworthy.
But it does mean he gets to have a new nappy !
You demonstrated on another comment thread that you can’t tell the difference between modelled temps and actual measured temps. You also demonstrated that you were unable to understand what “Aug 2023” meant.
You really should stop commenting.
Not sure I understand the point of your comment. Presumably you are trying to support Willis’s view?
Willis said that throughout the historical period the temperature has been rising slightly but there is no climate emergency and that the IPCC’s own data support that view. You predict that in a few days UAH data may show a slight rise in temperature, which is in agreement with Willis’s statement. It will not under any circumstances show that we are in a climate emergency or that the IPCC is wrong in its assessment that the indices cited are not increasing. So if your prediction comes true it will support Willis’s article.
That is what you intended, right?
“What else does the IPCC say has changed in the “historical period”? Well, they say “cold spells” have increased.”
Decreased according to the chart’s colour orange.
Thanks, fixed.
w.
For the layman all you need to do is look at historical photos of coastal monuments like the side by side of the Statue of Liberty from 100 year ago and recently to see that sea levels haven’t risen enough to be concerned about if at all.
Willis,
Your figure 2 – State maximum temperature records by decade. – appears to show [by eye] about 90 states.
Your Figure 3 State minimum temperature records by decade – appears to show [again, by eye] about 50 states.; so does your Figure 4. State 24-hour rainfall records by decade.
I guessed – but no more – that the first, Figure 2, includes cumulative records, so if [say] Nebraska had a record of 103F in 1935, and then reached 107F in 1993, both are counted.
But looking to the source data for tmax, at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records/all/tmax it looks as if there are just 50 states.
Possibly you may wish to help me on this.
Thanks.
Auto
Unless it is simply records, and ties for records …
Auto
You’re right, Auto. It’s records and ties.
w.
But wait! If only the HHI equation was that simple!
A description of the equation shown above may be found in the NOAA techincal attachment SR 90-23. This reveals that in reality, it is only a curve fit to a much more complicated model, described in two papers, “The Assesment of Sultriness” Parts, I and II (all linked below).
What we find is that this is all based on the average human, wearing averge clothes, and is incredibly complex. How many average humans do you know?
So what’s all this worth? I’ll leave that to the dear reader to answer for themselves.
https://www.weather.gov/media/ffc/ta_htindx.PDF
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/18/7/1520-0450_1979_018_0861_taospi_2_0_co_2.xml
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/18/7/1520-0450_1979_018_0874_taospi_2_0_co_2.xml
R. G. Steadman…. Textiles and Clothing Department, Colorado State University,
Curve fitting to curve fitting to curve fitting …. and this is now “science” ????
Thanks, wxo, fascinating.
w.
You beat me to this. This is a curve fitting process and NOT a functional relationship describing the mathematical relationship between variables.
Let’s do a little dimensional analysis for the “c” values.
First let’s rewrite the equation using PEMDAS rules.
HHI = c1 + (c2 • T) + (c3 • T²)) + RH[c4 + (c5 • T) + (c6 • T²)] + RH²[c7 + (c8 • T) + (c9 • T²)]
c1 => ° F
c2 -> unitless constant
c3 => ° F⁻¹
c4 => ° F
c5 => unitless constant
c6 => ° F⁻¹
c7 => ° F
c8 => unitless constant
c9 => ° F⁻¹
I would sure like to see the science behind these values. I rather suspect they were developed by a software curve fitting package or by trial and error to get the value they wanted.
This HHI result is almost certainly the output of a general linear regression utility inside a standard package; GLR regresses data to an equation given by the user and spits out the constants for the best fit, with 6-8 digits typical (GLR is usually the insides of the polynomial fit routines). There is nothing at all analytical about the process, just guessing about what an appropriate equation to describe the data might be. That they ended up with “adjustments” for different input ranges tell me their guesses were poor.
The problem is that there is no “data”! This is not a measured quantity at all. It is simply a made up number in someone’s imagination! 🤡🤡🤡
Of course, you can regress literally anything!
By the way water vapour, not CO2, is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It accounts for 90-95% of the so called “greenhouse effect”. And guess what just increased by 13% and will take 3-5 years to settle out? Stratospheric water vapour. Why? Hunga Tonga underwater volcano in early August 2022.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/overheated-friday-july-28-2023-c
Going to be warm and wet is my SWAG.
Apparently old scientists measured infrared spectra of air without CO2, air with CO2, air with water. Is there a measurement of air with both CO2 and water? Can’t they react, CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3, a new infrared beast – better or worse than the sum of its components?
I’m struggling to remember high school chemistry, but if I remember rightly a single molecule of H2O and one of CO2 will not easily bond, but liquid water bonds with CO2 on contact, hence every drop of rain that has ever fallen on this planet is a mild solution of carbonic acid. I don’t think single molecules of H2CO3 will be found floating in the atmosphere though.
H2CO3 is almost impossible to be found in water as well, it’s an extremely short-lived intermediate en route to HCO3^- and CO3^–.
“When carbon dioxide dissolves in water about one-percent of it forms carbonic acid, which almost immediately dissociates to bicarbonate anions and protons. Despite its fleeting existence – about 300 nanoseconds – carbonic acid is a crucial intermediate species in the equilibrium between carbon dioxide, water.”
The Third Assessment Report had they could not predict any future weather as it was mathematicaly a chaotic system p741.
It needs to be pointed out that when they claim that [XXXX – insert your latest scary weather event here] is “Consistent” with whatever they have tortured the data to predict, it is even more consistent with the doings of those naughty witches.
That was always the advice given through the ages by contemporary well paid ‘experts’, when ‘bad weather’ showed up. And they didn’t need multi-million $$$$ Supercomputers to work out that “consistency” to eight decimal places.
Many an old lady met their end thanks to those early “experts”.
Didn’t make a darned bit of difference to the weather of course. But everyone apart from the old ladies had fun and the “experts” were well rewarded.
I have previously written why I think that using the term ‘acidification’ with respect to a claimed lowering of pH in the oceans is a bad idea. The IPCC Table 12.12, Figure 1, illustrates an additional reason.
The claim has been made that the open oceans have declined from a pH of 8.2 (derived from a model, not measurements), to the present day value of 8.1. However, Table 12.12 shows no entry for “Ocean Acidity” in the Historical Period column. There are entries for the other two columns of “High Confidence” of an increase in acidity.
One might be forgiven for concluding that because it is commonly accepted that the pH has lowered in recent time, but there is no entry for Historical Period, that what is meant is that we can expect that the open ocean surface waters will actually become acidic and then become more acidic. No less than Stanford geochemist Konrad Krauskopf has stated that he thought it improbable that buffering will allow any but some deep, stagnant, bottom pools enriched with hydrogen sulfide would actually reach a pH below 7.
Therefore, the conflicting implications leads to ambiguity in the meaning of the table with respect to the future pH of the oceans. Scientific statements should be as precise as the author is capable of writing. By giving ‘spin’ with words with pejorative meaning, the authors have managed to make their writing less clear than it should be. It speaks to their priority.
Given that SSP5-8.5 is considered highly unlikely, and SSP2-4.5 is likely by the IPCC and Hausfather, Zeke; Peters, Glen P. (2020-01-29). “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading”. Nature. 577 (618–620). doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3, why do they use it?
They are both worse than the plausible worst case scenario.
As such they are unquestionably the outer limits of what could happen.
Redge
Simple answer. To frighten and alarm the public.
w.
Answers to this sort of question are provided in the WG-II (adaptation) and WG-III (mitigation) contributions to the AR6 document cycle.
“Why use them at all ?” is answered in WG-III’s “FAQ 3.3 : How plausible are high emissions scenarios, and how do they inform policy?”, on page 386 :
The IPCC has to be able to model the “undesirable” cases of too much wealth creation (for non-elites, obviously …) or too many ignorant peasants still being around in 2100, hence the extensive use of RCP8.5 (/ SSP5-8.5), however “counterfactual” the WG-I scientists declare them to be.
They are politically “useful” scenarios.
. . .
The answers to questions like “But what’s the underlying point ?” are more concentrated in the WG-II report.
In “FAQ1.5 : What is new in this 6th IPCC report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability?”, on page 180 :
Forget your (/ our) “historic” focus on scientists publishing papers in “serious” journals, all we need to do now is listen to those “associated scholars” who tell the IPCC what they want to hear.
For AR6 both WG-II and WG-III shifted towards more “societal / political” objectives — as opposed to WG-I’s continued focus on “The Scientific Basis”, after you get past the SPM ! — as explicitly admitted in the third (of three) points made in section 1.1.4, “What is New in the History of Interdisciplinary Climate Change Assessment”, on page 131 of the WG-II assessment report :
The reasons the IPCC uses RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) are clearly stated in the WG-II and WG-III reports, you just have to dip into them to read exactly “where they are coming from” … though be warned that you will probably want to take several showers afterwards …
Editorial note : For some reason I missed the following extracts when compiling my previous post, even though they were definitely in my sub-conscious at the time.
Note also that after re-reading it I definitely entered “school-marm mode” somewhere along the line …
. . .
The IPCC also provide some “historical perspective” on the development of the RCP and SSP “emissions pathways” for use in AR5 (2013) and AR6 (2021) respectively.
In the WG-III (mitigation) report Box 3.3, “The likelihood of high-end emission scenarios” on page 317, actually provides a decent summary of how RCP8.5 was originally developed :
NB : This is where my memory of RCP8.5 being “useful” to the IPCC in allowing the promotion of “high-end, high-risk” — AKA “dangerous” or “catastrophic” — scenarios came from.
. . .
In the WG-II (adaptation) report, sub-section “AR6 WGI Reference Periods, Climate Projections and Global Warming Levels” in “Cross-Chapter Box CLIMATE : Climate Reference Periods, Global Warming Levels, and Common Climate Dimensions”, on page 136, also has some “historical” background :
. . .
The IPCC actually used the term “counterfactual” rather than “highly unlikely”, and unfortunately you (/ we) have to infer RCP8.5 from what they wrote.
From the WG-I (The Scientific Basis) report, in section 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, on page 239 :
In the “Higher GHG (/ CO2) emissions = Higher atmospheric CO2 levels = More Radiative Forcing (RF) = Higher GMST anomalies” chain of reasoning you will find that RCP8.5 is neatly bracketed by SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5.
If SSP3-7.0 is above the IPCC’s “counterfactual” threshold then so is RCP8.5.
Attached is a graph I updated at the beginning of the year illustrating this, using “FF&I CO2 emissions” in this particular case.
Up to ~2014 emissions were following RCP8.5 — and remember that AR5 was published in 2013, using data up to 2011/2012 — but since then “we” have essentially been following RCP4.5 / SSP2-4.5 instead.
NB : Roger Pielke Jr. may have a point about SSP4-3.4 being the “most likely” emissions pathway in the medium term (up to 2050 / 2070).
SSP4 may well be politically more viable, with less “socioeconomic uncertainty”, than SSP1[-2.6].
I see that the IPCC has some proper mathematicians available. That equation for HHI is amazing, and all the undefined constants without any source! I wonder what the original curve they are presumably trying to fit looked like, because the output of that equation is going to be chaotic! But I do know that is the description of weather, why don’t they just say that, in place of ridiculous meaningless random numbers? And then those modifiers because they don’t like the answers from their magic equation? They also believe in dicontinuous functions, oh no that is a definition of “tipping point”!
/sarc
“Sounds like dissension in the ranks …”
Curious, but do the ranks openly discuss difference of opinions?
Hi Willis,
A while back I requested data to confirm your results. Here is the Chat GPT confirmation of the statement I made reference to:
============================
Default (GPT-3.5)
In November 2009, thousands of emails and documents from the CRU were illegally hacked and leaked online. These emails included conversations between climate scientists, including Phil Jones, and the leak was highly publicized. Climate change skeptics seized on the contents of these emails to cast doubt on the integrity of the climate science community and their research.
In one of the leaked emails, Phil Jones responded to a data request from Stephen McIntyre with the following statement:
“Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
=============================
Hang on wasn’t that reply about releasing the data made by Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes in Australia?
Chat GPT has got it wrong
Thanks. It is not important whether Jones wrote to McIntyre or Hughes. The issue is whether data used in an analysis is archived and made available for other researchers. WUWT should be the gold standard if it expects to convince the climate community.
A link to primary data is not sufficient for anyone who is not a paid climate researcher. Reanalysis of derived data is typically orders of magnitude faster at getting value for time spent, especially when methods are in dispute.
For example, the Holder Inequality restricts the use of the S-B Law to derive average temperature from average radiation. Holder says the solution is not unique, so a reanalysis of the derived data is a likely place to check the math.
Requesting derived data I was reminded of the quote I thought Jones had written in the distant past. I likely associated it with McIntyre because of ClimateGate. Chat GPT has apparently made the same mistake.
ferdberple says:
No clue what data you requested. Let me remind you of my request, which you are ignoring:
You then say:
ChatGPT is just as clueless as you are. The statement was made to Warwick Hughes, so you’re just blindly repeating a machine-generated lie.
Seems totally on-brand for you …
Finally, you say:
I do my best to put the source of my data on every one of my graphs. I also generally link to it in the text. That way, any competent analyst can replicate or falsify my analysis.
I’m not a “paid climate researcher”, I’m a self-taught amateur scientist who isn’t paid a dime to do what I do.
But I’m not bitching and whining about how the data is too hard like you are. I do what I need and learn what is required to analyze it.
If you’re too incompetent to analyze the underlying data, three choices:
Don’t like it?
Don’t care.
w.
If you try to present ChatGPT as a “gold standard” for producing “fact-checked truthiness” you will either :
a) be laughed at … a lot … and I really do mean a lot …, and/or
b) have people legitimately questioning your sanity
ChatGPT is one of the latest “most likely next word” software programs.
One example of just how “gold standard” ChatGPT is came from El Reg (AKA “Vulture Central”) around 5 months ago (direct link), which included :
NB : My guess is that you would consider the Graun to be a “reputable” media outlet. Other people here (and elsewhere) may disagree …
Programs like ChatGPT, which merely output the character string that will “probably” come next in its output, have a proven tendency to … if you’ll excuse the technical jargon … “just make shit up”.
. . .
Neither WUWT nor Willis (nor I, nor anybody else) is responsible for your erroneous assumptions.
Having admonished you for “unwarranted assumptions”, I will now immediately make the assumption that the members of “the climate community” that you hold in the highest regard are precisely those for whom Upton Sinclair’s astute observation about human nature that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it” applies.
My opinion is that WUWT is aimed more at “convincing” members of the general public, including (but not primarily) “interested amateurs” like myself, rather than “the climate community”.
NB : It is always possible that ***I*** might be wrong on this specific point.
Instead of loftily pontificating on what other people “should be” aiming for, why not limit yourself to expressing your opinions instead, while keeping sufficient self-awareness to be able to admit to yourself (at least) that you may be wrong (/ misinformed).
https://electroverse.info/climate-scientist-breaks-ranks/
“In order to confuse the unwary, the result is given units of degrees Fahrenheit (°F). However, this is not physically possible, because the calculation includes T, T^2, and sqrt(T).”
I don’t see a sqrt(T) in the equation, also implies that the constants have units.
Phil. July 31, 2023 5:58 am
From the head post:
As to the units of the constants, good luck with that one.
Best regards,
w.
Sorry I missed the adjustment part, yes the units of the constants will be a bit messy. 🙂
A bit like the Redlich-Kwong equation: P= RT/(Vm-b) – a/(sqrt(T)*Vm(Vm+b))
Willis, you should do an article about how cold CO2 in the atmosphere cannot increase ocean temperature, which is what is claimed why the oceans are “near boiling.”.
Sorry to disappoint you, Richard, but a warm atmosphere can indeed leave the surface warmer than if there is no atmosphere.
See my post “Can A Cold Object Warm A Hot Object” for a full discussion.
w.
Yes, a good article Willis, however some of discussion was crazy!