Nov 15, 2023 Dr. John Clauser reveals significant errors in UN climate research. Support the Deposit of Faith Coalition’s national press conference highlighting the bishops’ politicking for the Democratic/communist climate agenda!
[Note, this is the publicly available version released of the video that went private/pay for play, yesterday -cr]
HT/Marc Morano
Some global warming:
While Media Obsess About Some Warmth, Globe Seeing Plenty Of Unusual Cold Events
Surface temperatures measured where people live show there’s as much cold as there ‘s warmth, see temperature.global.com.
Christian Freuer’s Cold Report (EIKE)
Yep, outside of the urban areas in the northern temperate area it’s getting cooler – thankfully nearly all of the thermometers there are in UHI bubbles so idjits like bdgwx can scream ‘it’s warming by 0.01° still, look at my trend!’
Dr. John Clauser gets it: NEVER BACK DOWN, DOUBLE DOWN!
“”Support the Deposit of Faith Coalition””
Did I read that right?
what’s it mean?
Really, just do a basic google search and this is their website. They appear to be conservative Christians who don’t like the way wokery and climate cultery are taking over their churches.
“Deposit of Faith” is a weird and clumsy use of language, but what do I know about the religious mind?
“Deposit of Faith” is a weird and clumsy use of language, but what do I know about the religious mind?
Obviously not a lot.
The term ‘Deposit of Faith’ is used in the Catholic Church to refer to the teachings that Christ psassed on to the Apostles, who handed it on to their successors. St Paul told Timothy, “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you” and to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
The point about a deposit of faith is that there is a body of teachings which cannot be changed. Our understanding of these teachings may grow but that growth must be like an acorn growing into an oak tree, not into an elm tree.
The Church Militant conference uses the term Deposit of Faith because the Papal Nuncio (Vatican Ambassador) to the USA is reported to have said that there is no deposit of faith, so it is, in a way, a response to that denial..
Church Militant want to abide by that deposit of faith, unike some n the Catholic Church who want to deny it. They are orthodox. “Conservative” is not a very useful term as it has political overtones.
The climate emergency religion seems to have much in common with the Catholic Church. 🙂
Except that the deposit of faith is truth and the climate emergency is a lie.
Truth can’t be changed because it exists independently of us; we are not its author. But lies reside in those who proclaim them and so can be eventually disavowed, discovered, or routed out.
As a long time reader of both sites, I was excited to see Church Militant posted on WUWT. The best of journalism coming together like chocolate and peanut butter (the best of foods).
For those interested in exploring CM, it might be easy to start with a somewhat new historical show, Forward Boldly, presented by Christine Niles. Ms. Niles, a refugee from Vietnam, has an interesting conversion story of her own.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/archive/forward-boldly
I’m with this guy.
We really don’t know clouds
At all
many points for that!
I always like it when someone here makes a reference to music.
Joni Mitchell – Both Sides, Now [Original Studio Version, 1969]
And Judy Collins. I heard her sing this in concert when I was in college. Maybe 1976 or 77.
I think Judy might’ve known some climate scientists back then:
“But where are the clowns
Send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here”
In my view this line of argument needs a lot more development / refinement to be effective. Yes, representation of clouds in climate models is very uncertain, and a small change in cloud cover or relative proportion of high and low clouds could account for all the change observed so far, but Dr. Clauser makes a giant leap from clouds are important to CO2 has not effect. A naive listener might conclude from these remarks that climate models complete ignore clouds and their variability, which despite all their flaws, and reliance on parameters over representing process, I don’t think this is an accurate depiction of modern earth system models.
I fully agree the climate crisis narrative is not credible, and I expect there is more to Dr. Clauser’s argument than comes across here, but this video does little to make that case, far from “blows up climate alarmism”. Are we missing part of the presentation perhaps?
Pity the talk was rather incoherent and not at all well presented.
Yes, we know that cloud cover varies a lot, and that the climate computer games are pretty much clueless in that regard, …
.. but all he has presented is his opinion, (which is probably quite correct), without a lot of actual scientific data or science brought into it.
I think he was targeting a different audience from what his scientific background makes him used to talking to, and he tried to water it down to just get the basic message across.
Not overly impressed these days with “Nobel Prize Winner” qualifier…. obamer, arafatt, etc.
The Nobel “Peace-of-crap” prize is very different from one in Physics. !
“.. but all he has presented is his opinion, (which is probably quite correct),
without a lot of actual scientific data or science brought into it.”
____________________________________________________________
There’s a lot to be said about common sense. The climate alarmists are telling us that a warmer world will be a disaster. Where do people go for vacation? Where to most of the world’s populations live? Where do you find the most biological diversity? CO2 is up about 50% since the 19th century and exactly what has happened besides not too much?
This old guy is telling us that the emperor is naked, and the news media will ignore him until the whole climate house of cards collapses from it’s own weight.
“CO2 is up about 50% since the 19th century and exactly what has happened besides not too much?”
Good way to put it.
Nothing much has happened over this time period. Statistics show the weather today is no more extreme than the weather in the past. Nothing has changed but the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Apparently, changing CO2 levels have little or no effect on the weather.
You perfectly nailed it.
While just above here in comments is reference to Joni Mitchell’s song about ‘clouds’
It’s quite obvious that nobody understood the song, what it was about or made any effort to find out so how the fug are they going to understand climate?
The Clouds Song is The Perfect Trap – because it is an ode to ageing, senility and dementia, sung from the ‘inside out’ by someone who knows that something is going wrong but don’t have the capability of recognising it
Clauser has got the lot, just like Happer also..
But as in the song, a coterie of fawning accollites of the song’s heroine never tell the actress that she has ‘lost it’
They keep assuring her that everything is OK –
They say: “Everything’s fine, now just get out on stage, play your part and say your lines.
The song is about the actress’s ‘moment of realisation‘ that maybe ‘everything is not fine’ BUT, in her demented state, cannot quite figure it out.
It is an extremely poignant and sad song and so very few people understand it
People like:
Clauser, Brandon, Bojo and Happer – also, Dessler
Clauser and Happer still very much have their wits about them. (far more than you appear to)
It’s just that either is a particularly good speaker at the layman level.
They would run rings around any self-styled “climate scientist” on this subject.
Bojo, Brandon, Dessler… NEVER did have any wits..
yes. they are scientists, not politicians, actors nor perhaps even highly effective teachers. I have often been frustrated at lectures by persons who know the subject matter intrinsically but lack the public speaking and presentation skills to relate the material in a fashion which maintains audience interest and confidence.
The public is too easily swayed by those who have little knowledge or experience but possess public speaking talent and charisma.
It would be nice to read an essay explaining how climate models do represent clouds. Must be a few of those out there. As one of the least climate knowledgeable people here I’d like to know. And I wish I could see flow diagrams of climate models. I know enough about computer programming to be able to more quickly grasp the model from a flow diagram than some verbose “peer reviewed paper” or a textbook which lacks such visual aids. I read a lot about bits and pieces of “climate science” but I can’t put it together. A wall sized flow diagram would be fantastic. It would show just how complicated the climate is. I would think that climate models must be presented with such visual aids. I have seen one simply showing incoming sunlight, exchanges of gases, some layers of the atmosphere, water, blah, blah. Nice to get an over view- but a flow diagram would contain formulas and data. Parts not well understood by “the science” would show question marks. If well done it could show “the consensus views” but also the skeptical views in some way. I’m no graphic artist so I’m really stretching here.
YUP! One can not use an average factor of any kind for clouds, as there are different kind of clouds at different places and different times and they can have opposite effects, warming or cooling. This is one of many factors that make computer games invalid.
The Norwegian Government agency that reviewed the results of climate modelling provided this neat description of climate models:
The low spatial resolution and parametrisation of highly non-linear processes is where they fail.
Pat Frank shows that all climate models can be reduced to a single linear equation with a single parameter with CO2 as the input and temperature as the output.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/23/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections/
So despite all the complexity, a single equation will emulate the models because they have a single control knob – CO2. The models are window dressing for a fairy tale.
Thanks, Rick. What is confusing for me is why those who modeled a warming projection that turned out to be grossly in error, can’t go back and review their inputs, rank a probability for each of those contributing to the error, make adjustments and rerun the model repeatedly until a closer to observed actual results is obtained. Based on the nature of my confusion it’s probably obvious that modeling was before my time. I’m Clueless.
Because keeping the climate bandwagon rolling is profitable.
As I understand it, they tweak their parameters by hindcasting (forecasting the past) and by something called “reanalysis”. In this way they get to predict the past with an approximation to accuracy. It appears they use a trial-and-error approach to get the right answers. But (also, as I understand it) when they use the same tweaked parameters to “project” the future climate, it still comes out too hot.
I mean, really. Even a semi-numerate geologist like me could score 100 percent in an advanced physics exam if I knew the answers in advance. Or an exam in advanced theology, or anything.
There are quite a few words you could use to describe the tweaking process, but “scientific” really doesn’t come to mind.
I should have said “an appearance of accuracy” instead of “an approximation of accuracy”.
I do hope we get the edit function back again.
“As I understand it, they tweak their parameters by hindcasting (forecasting the past)”
Is the past they are hindcasting the actual past? That’s the question.
Maybe that’s their problem: They are hindcasting using a bogus, bastardized temperature record. They are duplicating a past temperature record that doesn’t exist in reality.
They should try hindcasting the U.S. regional temperature record, and tweak their parameters to it. They would get better results, which would show no warming today because it was warmer in the past than it is today. Then we could all forget about CO2 being a danger as it would be apparent that CO2 has little effect on atmospheric temperatures.
They can, but they don’t want to. To the computer gamers the model IS the data – real world observations aren’t neat mathematical constructs that you can play with so are ignored. Expensive computer games for computer gamers, the real tragedy is that we’re still paying them to do this.
“So despite all the complexity, a single equation will emulate the models because they have a single control knob – CO2.”
Got it- that makes sense. Rather than “a number of modules”. Now I’ll read that link.
Wow, that essay by Pat Frank and the 629 comments must be a classic for this site. I like his:
About models and clouds, here you go
https://rclutz.com/2023/07/23/how-climate-models-get-clouds-wrong/
The models don’t model clouds at all. That’s it really – the computer gamers use a few assumed ‘fudge factors’ that they fondly assume will do and leave it at that. Clouds, like UHI, are not understood by the computer gamers so they handwave them all away. Just some reasons why computer models are worthless – the only thing they are fit for is to act as a warning of how not to use a model.
Clauser makes the point about thermo-regulation involving clouds but does not go into the process. Very few people have any understanding how this works and the climate cabal have worked hard to suppress any efforts to actually understand it. If you recognise that there is ocean surface temperature regulation, then you can never have runaway global warming.
Clouds are a function of surface temperature. Over oceans, you can reasonably gauge the surface temperature by the cloud formation. For example, you do not need to read the bottom bar on the attached image to know the ocean temperature is only a few degrees above freezing.
The simple fact that clouds are a function of surface temperature means they cannot be parameterised. Their formation have to be linked to the surface temperature. And it is highly non-linear. The models would produce a more meaningful result if they had a hard clamp on ocean temperature of 30C. But then the whole fantasy is dead.
The temperature regulation process over oceans requires the formation of a level of free convection to produce convective instability but models would need at least an order of magnitude increase in vertical resolution to resolve the altitude of the LFC. Models are unphysical claptrap. The models are incapable of producing a cooling trend so the existence of the long cooling trend in the Southern Ocean invalidates all climate models.
Even the data from the longest serving tropical moored buoy invalidates all climate models:
stack0n110w_19790120_20231114_hf__tt_eps281t_2023111513.png
This would appear to be a teaser. Otherwise, why make it private/pay for play
The problem climate models have with clouds has already been thoroughly explored. The question is not whether CO2 affects the climate. The question is whether the IPCC know what they’re talking about. They don’t know. It’s all hand-waving decorated with mathematics.
If CO2 does affect the climate, apart from increasing photosynthesis and drought resistance, there’s no evidence of any large impact in the current behavior of the climate.
The reason the story has descended to that is because climate modelers are not scientists. They have no idea how to evaluate the reliability of their own models.
+100. I’ve said it before, Climate Science is (very) basic politicised ecology for computer programmers.
Climate models don’t do clouds well is true—even IPCC says so. But NOT a strong ‘climate models are poor’ argument. Simpler and more direct:
A bit off-topic, but the arctic sea ice is nearly back in the interdecile range for 1981-2010, and the antarctic sea ice has met up with the 2016 lows and is no longer any more ‘catastrophic’ than 7 years ago.
We can all breathe easy about the penguins and polar bears again until the next imaginary tipping point.
Is that tipping point anywhere near Guam?
LOL!
T2b there is a quasi 60-70 cycle in Arctic sea ice from peak to peak. I provided illustrated anecdotal evidence in essay ‘Northwest Passage’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. And in essay ‘Unsettling Science’ I referenced Akasofu’s 2010 scholarly article on same. And more recently, Wyatt and Curry came out with their Stadium Wave paper on same.
The Arctic summer sea ice scare came about because Satellite Arctic ice coverage began by accident coinciding with a natural peak about 1980. Sure enough the natural trough was in 2012. We are about 1/3 thru the natural recovery.
“Satellite Arctic ice coverage began by accident coinciding with a natural peak about 1980”
Rud,
I doubt that starting in 1980 was an accident considering that satellite ice observations began in about 1973 and was thus shown in FAR 1990. That chart showed the earlier 1970’s Arctic ice extent less than in 1980. Looks like including satellite data back to 1973 would dilute the message of inexorable Arctic ice decline.
I am not sure that anybody is going to take seriously a press release by a bunch of heretics on the subject of climate. These are people who would probably have burnt Galileo at the stake. Nor does Dr. Clauser even start to address the issue of climate change. There is a large difference between stating the obvious role that clouds play in the climate and talking about how the climate is changing. The whole thing would appear to say more about Dr. Clauser’s religious beliefs than his scientific views.
You dare to talk about religious beliefs ?? You ??
Amazing & laughable ! 😀 😀
Followed swiftly by:
Duh! 🤣🤣
As usual, Isaac is not consistent or rational in his arguments, which are full of self-projection and rabid bile. If he wants to vilify a person for their wrong-headed climate views, looking in a mirror should suffice.
We all agree that AGW religious fanatics… like you… have zero credibility.
What has changed with the climate that can be directly tied to human causation… except Urban heat?
Try not to miss out yet again, izzy-a-dolt !
“heretics on the subject of climate.”
Well done, izzy-dopey..
You have finally figured out that AGW/climate is just a religion. 🙂
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
The GOVERNMENT report is self-serving as they have made it clear that they want to regulate us over it even declared CO2 a pollutant to regulate industry and fuels and try forcing EV’s on us while abolishing ICE cars in a few years that is why they publish this obvious bullcrap that doesn’t remotely match meteorological reality it to build their lying case to you.
It is clear you are completely blind to obvious governmental propaganda paradigm it permeates in everything they do to achieve their goal of total control over you while you sit there with swirling eyes ready to obey their next manufactured bilge.
Pure projection on the part of Izaak Walton. It is his ilk that wants to figuratively burn “deniers” at the stake. While Michael Mann of “Climategate” fame, “Nobel Prize Winner” and a “Disgrace to the Profession” is feted and has become wealthy, scientists questioning the “cause” and the gravy train have been anathematized. The very fact that Izaak calls questioning scientists heretics shows his true
religious devotion to the church of catastrophic climate change.
I must have missed the firings, character assassination, denial of tenure etc meted out by Climate “Deniers” to True Believers in Climate “Science”.
On the other hand, there are dozens of examples of such Lysenkoist behaviour by the Establishment towards those who dare to question the Warmist narrative (Happer, Lindzen, Plimer, Ridd inter alia).
Often, I’m prompted to ask a peripheral question when a very prominent scientist stands up and makes a powerful statement harpooning the Dark Side meme of Communist Anthropo Global Warming. Why is it that many thousands of high stature scientists are totally quiet on this subject? Why are they comfortable standing by watching Crimes Against Humanity on the largest scale ever contemplated, deliberately planned on a phony pretext of saving the planet by a cabal of of globalist billionaires (WEF), the UN, academia, etc
for enactment by Western Leaders.
Do these silent scientists not think this evil juggernaut will not be coming for them? Do they think their science will not be harmed? Or their own wellbeing?
I expect that most academics feel that the only reason they get to use their special talent is thanks to public funding; many, as with their fellow citizens, might also put their highest faith in social institutions. Regardless, why would we expect an academic to be more noble or less venal than the average person?
Good scientists/engineers know their limitations and understand it takes years of study to achieve an informed understanding in any field outside their primary expertise.
I accepted the fantasy until I took a few hours to look at the temperature record in a rural location with over a hundred years of history. It was warmer in the 1890s than 1990s at that location. That started my scepticism that grew as the post 1998 pause extended.
Judith Curry tells a story of her original acceptance but growing scepticism then realising that there was a powerful climate cabul. She left her academic appointment due to the angst once she was painted as a climate denier.
Not many scientists stand alone. Look at the way Sweden handled Covid. They stood alone, leaving people to manage their own isolation and were condemned for it.
Peter Ridd was fired from the JCU for not toeing the party line on the topic of coral reefs and climate. The University of Wollongong sacked their atmospheric physicist for not toeing the climate alarm line – there is money in alarmism and associated problem solving even if it is a non-problem.
None of the academics promoting “renewables” have actually tried to run their home off-grid. The locations that are using solar and wind to run off grid have very expensive power. But the universities now offer degrees in “renewable energy” engineering despite the fact that the whole technology is dependent on consumer theft.
The Norwegian Government statistics group have made a bold move in pointing out climate models offer no predictive certainty:
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
I’m not a scientist or an engineer. But I do pay attention to the weather and politics. You probably won’t be able to make the layman believers question their belief in human caused climate change no matter if a substantial number of prominent scientists speak out against it because they have no idea who they are and who they should trust.
And as for failed predictions, it sounds good but for whatever reason pointing them all out is not as effective as I would think it should be.
But just about everyone looks on their phones to see what the weather forecast is for the day and for the week. They also know the forecasts more than a couple days out frequently change significantly. Sometimes even the forecast for the next day changes significantly overnight.
Pointing out that those forecasts are nothing but the output of computer models and then asking; If you can’t trust a computer model for weather more than three days out, why do you trust what the “Climate Scientists” project years or decades into the future based on computer models? Seems an effective way to get some of them to thinking.
The problem is that 90%+ of earths population have no higher scientific eduction.
Talking science to them is conversing in an alien language. Most people can’t interpret a simple bar graph.
The climate alarmist’s cottoned on to this very early and used propaganda to spread their message, which everyone understands.
Climate sceptics are still talking a foreign language.
There is a problem with academia in general and academic science in particular.
(a) Too many universities. They can’t all be top-notch. And that means too many students, and they can’t all be top-tier material.
(b) Too many administrators. Some universities have more administrators than teaching and research posts. Universities have to be run like businesses, just to support all this top-heavy structure, and the seven-figure salaries of university CEOs.
(c) Too many academics. They can’t all be outstandingly brilliant.
(d) Too many journals. They encourage publishing of unnecessary, premature and duplicative papers.
(e) Too much grantsmanship. A lot of the papers we see don’t contain new experimental or observational data, but are re-working of existing data. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but they almost invariably cite a grant that funded the research – see item (b). In the “good old days” that sort of work was part of an academic’s job.
(f) – and this is specific to climate studies – most university administrations and most journal editors are on board with the climate alarmism narrative. Researchers who don’t follow the narrative are harassed, defunded and can’t get their work published at all, or only after years of struggle, in peripheral journal. Ask Pat Frank.
(g) then there’s the multiple-author scam. Publish a paper with 20 authors, and you add one more publication to 20 separate résumés. Thus are careers built on smoke and mirrors.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
I do agree with the general idea. Warmer temperatures ==> more evaporation ==> more clouds ==> more reflection == cooling temperatures. But as others have said, we need a more convincing paper with real data to stand a chance of changing any minds.
Try starting with Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, say figs 10 and 15 or thereabouts, chapter 3 of “Global Physical Climatology” by Hartmann, a standard student textbook. There are dozens, nay hundreds of papers on clouds effects on LW, convection, SW, and methods by which people try to predict cloud formation. Oddly many of them don’t refer to the large and detailed analysis that went into development of Tephigrams and Skew-T diagrams circa mid 1900’s, used by pilots and airport weather reports worldwide. Presumably cuz its about entropy ‘n buoyancy ‘n heat transfer rates, always a conversation stopper for those seeking simple answers…..
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/manabe.1967.rad_conv_eq.pdf
A search (maybe GScholar) on say “cloud formation versus nucleation…”. or “statistical prediction of cloud formation” will give you lots of papers, some of which contain measured data. Unfortunately “climate” is one of those things that you can do experiments on the computer models fairly easily, but “real research” requires taking measurements and observations through all seasons for a long, long, time, to see if some pattern exists. If you can’t confirm your hypothesis, then it’s just conjecture.
It is all about the measurable increase in CO2 and nothing else. Trying to absorb the intricacies is too much work and requires a dedication to scientific math. It is much simpler to draw trend lines and say “see, I told you so”, than do the actual work required for understanding.
Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s know that it went from Global Cooling to Global Warming in less than three or so years. You can Google these two You Tube titles:
In Search Of The Coming Ice Age … With Leonard Nimoy (1978).
Climate Change – Warming Warning Thames TV – (1981)
Both featured Dr. Stephen Schneider. You can Google him too.
Yes, as soon as the temperatures started warming up in the 1980’s, the climate change alarmists switched from handwringing over Human-caused Global Cooling to handwringing over Human-caused Global Warming/Climate Change.
Climate Alarmists think trends go on forever.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/15/nobel-prize-winner-blows-up-climate-alarmism-the-vortex/#comment-3816439
I’m not going to get very excited about another scientist pushing the “clouds” issue. This has been pointed out over and over again for the past 30 years and look where we are now.
The problem is, it is easily refuted when dealing with a non-scientist. They simply say, why does it still get hot every afternoon. Clouds don’t stop the daily warming, why would they stop AGW warming. They have a point.
That’s why this is not the solution mother nature uses. The reason AGW does not cause warming is not due to a feedback from warming. She directly prevents the warming by have well mixed GHGs directly promote evaporative cooling. That also leads to more/thicker clouds but has other cooling effects as well.
The evaporative cooling transfers energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is more easily radiated to space. It also blocks a little more solar energy and lowers the water vapor greenhouse effect. The net effect, when added to increased absorption of surface energy, is simply a slight increase in precipitation.
“They simply say, why does it still get hot in the afternoon ?”
Thunderclouds spring up in the afternoon as the heat evaporates moisture would be one counter.
Yes, I wish it were that simple, but it’s still warms up and rains don’t occur every day.
Of course the knives are out in the
mainstreamLeftist media.“He won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/