A few weeks ago, an article by Professor Ulf Büntgen titled The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism created a significant stir when it was published in Nature’snpj Climate Action. Büntgen’s commentary was lauded in climate-skeptic circles for calling out the growing trend of scientists blurring the lines between objective research and ideological activism. His argument was clear: scholars should not have a priori interests in their study outcomes, and activists should not masquerade as scientists.
Büntgen’s call for a clear separation between climate science and activism was welcomed as a refreshing deviation from the usual climate alarmism. As Judith Curry tweeted,
Kudos to Nature for publishing this
“I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars shouldn’t have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists”
Büntgen’s stance was a significant departure from the ideologically motivated narratives that often dominate climate science discourse.
This was lauded in the climate skeptosphere, climate realist circles, or whatever we are calling ourselves these days, as a welcome change from the constant barrage of ideologically motivated journal publishing on climate topics.
As with Patrick Brown, people appreciated that sane and ethical people were willing to put their heads up in opposition to the long march of climate alarmism.
However, barely ten days after Büntgen’s commentary, Nature rushed out an article titled 2023 Summer Warmth Unparalleled Over the Past 2,000 Years, co-authored by Jan Esper, Max Torbenson, and ironically, I happened to notice, Ulf Büntgen himself. This paper claimed that the summer of 2023 was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in over two millennia, exceeding the 95% confidence range of natural climate variability by more than half a degree Celsius. The article emphasized the urgency of implementing international agreements to reduce carbon emissions, framing recent temperature extremes as clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change exacerbated by an El Niño event.
This Nature piece is part of a long tradition in paleoclimatology that uses tree rings as pre-instrumental temperature proxies and then grafts instrumental records onto these proxies to establish a narrative of unprecedented modern warming. This approach, popularized by Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, has been criticized for its methodological flaws and for downplaying natural climate variability, such as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
The Hypocrisy Unveiled
Büntgen’s involvement in the Nature article raises glaring questions about his commitment to the principles he espoused in his earlier commentary. How can one reconcile his call for separating science and activism with his participation in a study that clearly advocates for immediate policy action based on its findings?
In his Nature commentary, Büntgen warned against the dangers of scientists becoming activists, stating, “I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization”. Yet, the abstract of the Nature article he co-authored concludes with a call to action for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, aligning more with advocacy than with the dispassionate pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Although 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gases-induced warming trend7 that is amplified by an unfolding El Niño event8, this extreme emphasizes the urgency to implement international agreements for carbon emission reduction.
Tree Rings and Temperature Proxies: A Dubious Foundation
The reliance on tree rings as temperature proxies is fraught with uncertainty. Tree ring data, which may at times be useful for understanding certain climatic trends, are influenced by multiple factors, including precipitation, CO2 levels, and soil conditions. As Anthony Watts pointed out in his detailed critique in Human Events, these proxies are often used selectively to support predetermined conclusions about climate trends. The Roman Warm Period (1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950–1250 AD) are well-documented in historical and archaeological records, yet they are conspicuously absent in the reconstructions presented in such studies.
The study, Esper, J. et al. Nature, 2023, is using an old statistical trick pioneered by Michael Mann, PhD. in his hockey stick graph controversy, where estimated temperatures from tree rings and other proxies (used because no thermometer readings exist prior to about 1850) far into the past are grafted onto more reliable temperatures measured in the present and presented as one unified dataset, when in fact they are different. … For example, an article about the study in the BBC showed this graph, which is highly reminiscent of Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph.
…
…
That graph is highly misleading, if not flat-out fabrication. It suffers from the same sort of issues in Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph such as suppressed climate variability over the past 2000 years. We know from other studies that the Roman Warm Period (from 1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to c. 1250) existed, but they have been erased from the graph presented to the public.
The value of tree rings in paleoclimatology is highly debatable. While they can provide some insights into past climate conditions, their interpretation is complex and often contentious. The methodological issues associated with tree rings, including their susceptibility to various environmental factors, make them less reliable as standalone indicators of historical climate variability.
Anthony also notes:
The lead author, Jan Esper, confirms by quotes given to the BBC, that he is in fact using this study as a vehicle to elicit change.
The authors say the key conclusion from their work is the need for rapid reductions in emissions of planet-warming gases. “The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more difficult it will be to mitigate or even stop that process and reverse it,” said lead author, Prof Jan Esper from Johannes Gutenberg University, in Germany.
“That is just so obvious,” he said. “We should do as much as possible, as soon as possible.”
This admission makes the study more about climate advocacy than science, and the media fell for it
Büntgen’s dual role as a critic of activism in science and a co-author of an advocacy-driven study highlights a troubling trend in climate research. This blending of science and advocacy undermines public trust in scientific institutions. When scientists take on activist roles, they risk compromising the perceived objectivity of their work. This is particularly problematic in climate science, where policy decisions with far-reaching economic and social consequences are often based on ideologically captured academic scientific recommendations.
Questioning Büntgen’s Motives
Büntgen’s contradictory actions suggest a deeper issue. Is his sudden pivot to advocacy a genuine shift in understanding, or is it driven by other motivations? The timing of his involvement in the Nature article, so soon after his call for separating science from activism, is suspicious. It raises the possibility that Büntgen might be playing both sides of the fence—garnering credibility among skeptics with his initial commentary, while aligning with the mainstream climate narrative to maintain academic standing and funding.
Such duplicity is not uncommon in academia, where the pressure to secure grants and publish in high-impact journals can lead researchers to align their findings with prevailing narratives. Büntgen’s case is a stark reminder of the complexities and potential conflicts of interest in climate science.
The Ideological Capture of Academia
The current state of climate science reflects a broader societal issue where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the ideological capture of academia. Research is often driven by political and ideological motivations rather than an unbiased pursuit of knowledge. This ideological capture can lead to the selective use of data and the promotion of specific narratives that support policy goals, rather than providing a balanced view of the available evidence.
This ideological capture of academia has fueled the narrative of an urgent need to address climate change. This urgency is more about political agendas than scientific necessity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for instance, has been criticized for overstating the certainty of anthropogenic warming relative to natural climate variability. The IPCC’s summaries for policymakers often present a simplified and sometimes alarmist view of climate science, which can distort public perception and policy debates. This tendency to “sell” climate science as a crisis requiring immediate and drastic action can lead to the implementation of policies that are not justified by the underlying science.
A Call for Intellectual Independence
To address these issues, it is crucial to foster a culture of critical scrutiny and intellectual independence within the scientific community. Scientists should be encouraged to question dominant paradigms and explore alternative hypotheses without fear of professional ostracization. The peer review process must be transparent and robust enough to withstand political and ideological pressures.
Additionally, the media, policymakers, and the public need to be educated about the complexities of climate science. Understanding that scientific knowledge evolves and that uncertainty is a natural part of scientific inquiry can help temper the often sensationalist portrayal of climate issues in the media.
Conclusion
Büntgen’s initial call for distinguishing between climate science and activism was both timely and necessary. However, his involvement in the Nature article underscores the difficulty of maintaining such a distinction in practice. The challenge lies not only in separating science from activism but also in ensuring that “climate science” as it’s come to be known, remains a rigorous, objective discipline that can inform effective and rational policymaking. Only through a recommitment to the principles of scientific inquiry and a vigilant defense against ideological influences can climate science ever hope to provide the guidance needed for any type of policy decisions.
In summary, the current state of climate science is a reflection of broader societal trends where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the conflation of science and activism. While activism plays a crucial role in raising awareness and driving action, it is essential that scientific research remains an unbiased and objective pursuit. Only then can we hope to develop policies that are both effective and based on a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our climate system.
The Final Irony
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that Büntgen himself exemplifies the very issue he critiques. By participating in an advocacy-driven study, he undermines his own argument for the separation of science and activism. This hypocrisy not only tarnishes his credibility but also highlights the broader problem of ideological influence in climate science. If we are to trust science, we must first ensure that it remains free from the taint of activism. Only then can we have confidence in the policies derived from it.
Climate change, as presented by mainstream narratives, is fraught with uncertainties and driven by ideological motivations rather than urgent, unbiased scientific inquiry. Policies derived from such skewed science are more likely to cause harm than benefit. By exposing the hypocrisy of figures like Büntgen, we can begin to reclaim a more balanced and objective approach to understanding and addressing actual environmental issues.
“The IPCC’s summaries for policymakers often present a simplified and sometimes alarmist view of climate science, which can distort public perception and policy debates.”
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that Büntgen himself exemplifies the very issue he critiques. By participating in an advocacy-driven study, he undermines his own argument for the separation of science and activism. This hypocrisy not only tarnishes his credibility but also highlights the broader problem of ideological influence in climate science. how stupid he is..
UK-Weather Lass
May 29, 2024 11:50 pm
Since meteorology and climate science has globally emphasised the importance of temperature in the so called climate change catastrophe you would think their science would be very much more disciplined and be precisely double or triple checked at all times. You may also wish to require these professionals to stake everything upon absence of errors (or even potential errors) such is the need for care on the apparently simple practice of reading measuring instruments and carefully recording results. Perhaps mistakes should lead to brutal recriminations and dismissals in order to enlarge the seriousness of their task and focus minds on truths and not fictions. It may also ensure the public have restored faith in academics.
Of course a purge of existing known charlatans (they too know who they are) will need execution before public confidence in meteorology and climate science can be truly guaranteed, and this may just help in restoring quality to all other scientific endeavours until another purge is adjudicated as being necessary in the future.
As an important consideration so called consensus should be condemned since it is a ready made hiding-place for rogues especially those who get to be richer on the back of their facile dishonesty and greed.
At least many a sceptic can claim to have acted professionally in spite of the numerous threats made to them.
No alarmists can claim any such thing about acting professionally as numerous and potentially countless examples demonstrate and so it is their interests to be seen to be professional too.
Predictions of the climate in 100 years are not science. The can not be based on data. Science requires data. They also take a long time to be proven wrong, unlike a three day weather forecast.
I also saw that graph from the BBC and have some questions.
The header ends with “… and 1850-1900 average”.
To me that usually means that both the blue and red lines should have an average of zero for the middle fifth of the interval between the “1750” and “2000” ticks on the right-hand extremity of the X-axis.
The blue line looks like it might average zero in that range (it is partially overwritten by the red line), but the red line looks more like it’s at the 0.3-0.4°C level for its first 50 (or even its first 100 ?) years instead.
NB ; The red line has three very brief spikes below zero over its entire (1850-2023 ?) range. It is impossible for it to have a 50-year average of zero anywhere on that “anomalies” curve.
Main question : Has the “instrumental record” been arbitrarily “pushed up” by around a third of a degree Celsius on that graph ?
Follow-up questions : If “Yes”, by whom ? Was that graph copied from the (paywalled, I don’t have access) Nature preprint or was it “fabricated from whole cloth”, as the saying goes, by the BBC ?
MarkBLR,
Well spotted.
It seems possible that the red curve has been related to the blue curve simply by moving it up and down to maximise overlap.
This can be checked from original sources, providing that data in measured form, not anomaly form, can be found – and will have adequate caveats. Geoff S
The Roman Warm Period (1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950–1250 AD) are well-documented in historical and archaeological records
How? This is a serious question. Can you show us your climate (or temperature) reconstruction? With quantified data?
You always come up with this, and you always vaguely reference historical records like ice fares. How can you tell that these were globally warmer in a certain period than what we have today? Historical and archeological records may only provide a very rudimentary reconstruction of temperatures (or climatic conditions in general), mostly qualitative stuff. We can only draw extremely elementary quantitative information (like actual temperature ranges etc.).
Try reading ‘The Great Warming’ by Brian Fagan . Historical and archeological records can reveal a lot of information and you can draw significant physical information from them.
Reconstruction. Where is the reconstruction? Where’s the graph that will eventually destroy (I always cross myself before these dreaded words) The Hockey Stick?
And this is a serious question. A modern, high quality reconstruction is needed, and historical/archeological sources, as far as we know, are inadequate for this purpose. But prove me wrong. Furthermore, at the moment any angle of attack against current science has turned out to be a failure. All the talk about Yamal, bristlecone, M and M are demonstrably wrong. Science looks very tough (should I say very sciency?), amateurish attacks are not enough. A good, alternative reconstruction may punch a hole in that.
“Where’s the graph that will eventually destroy (I always cross myself before these dreaded words) The Hockey Stick?”
Here are 600 graphs that destroy the bogus Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile.
All these regional charts from around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. None of them have a Hockey Stick temperature profile. Yet you think the Hockey Stick temperature profile is real. Where did they get the Hockey Stick profile? Certainly not from the regional surface temperature charts because they have nothing in common with the Hockey Stick chart.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is an invention of Climate Alarmists meant to sell their CO2 doom and gloom. The Hockey Stick chart is science fiction.
Tom, these graphs cannot, in the format you’re providing, show anything of the kind. The information is too disparate, it is impossible to assess a smattering of individual records spanning numerous time periods. If, for instance, one record shows 2 degree warmer temperatures than today somewhere in Canada in the year 1857, while another record shows 2 degree colder temperatures somewhere in Chili for the same year, the two have canceled out. But you can’t possibly determine when and where this might be the case from simply eyeballing the individual records.
Do you recognize that this is the case? It’s precisely why climate reconstructions have to combine the records in some way (even a series of global maps for different time slices – you don’t have to do any averaging, because I know you lot are deathly afraid of it).
The NoTricksZone article is attempting a form of fallacious argument known as “Gish galloping” wherein one presents an opponent with a deluge of arguments too large for them to possibly assess or respond to, without any thought to the coherence of veracity of any of the individual arguments. You might find it personally compelling, but you fail to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: You and your fellow AGW acolytes refuse to see that the arctic tree stump depicted above is quantified data (one tree stump)(I know there are others, but one is “quantitative” enough) that, all by itself, debunks your notion that it’s warmer now than it was then. No ice “fares” [sic], just a tree stump. Any rational person would see that picture and realize that it’s hard data, solid wood, that is cause to reconsider your theory. No sign of that with a single one of you activists.
Mr. dumbass, I don’t think you understand the meaning of “quantitative”, not to mention the difference between this and “qualitative”. Anyway, one single arctic tree stump (provided it’s a real example at all, please don’t be mad if I don’t take you deniers at face value) so one single tree stump is not enough and I have already explained this to you at least a dozen times. Certain parts of the Earth were warmer than today in the recent past even when globally Earth was colder. These local warm periods were not synchronous. Modern reconstructions have better and better temporal and spatial resolution so we can even see these periods that, of course, do not contradict science however you peddle this. Quite to the contrary.
No ice “fares” [sic]
Oops, thx for the correction, it’s “fairs”, yep, I remember, it looked strange when I wrote it. Well, I’m not a native speaker…
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: Is the number “1” not quantitative? A “dozen” is also quantitative, but saying a lie a dozen times doesn’t make it true.
Not a native thinker, either?
I wouldn’t be so quick to call out Büntgen for co-authoring an article that hypes a hot 2023 — it was an especially warm year if measured by the current idiocy of today’s climate science. Not would I hold him responsible for comments made by the lead author to the press.
The journal’s decision to rush out a climate alarm “instant attribution” type study is hardly shocking.
This calendar year was also warmer than any other 12-month period which before 2023 was Dec 2015 to Nov 2016 at +0.41 °C (+0.73 °F). Because early 2023 was much cooler than now, we can expect further 12-month records over the next few months.
Banton ==> Temperatures cannot be averaged — temperature is a “qualitative intensive property” — and that means that a temperature in degrees cannot be added to another temperature in degrees (even if they are the same scale). If they cannot legitimately be added then they cannot be legitimately AVERAGED.
ANY and ALL so-called Global, Regional, Continental “average temperature over time” (such as Global Average Sea and Land Surface Temperature), including UAH’s “Bar chart of global monthly lower tropospheric temperature anomalies” is based on illegitimate averaging (in order to calculate anomalies, one needs previous averages).
A good illustration why you deniers cannot be taken seriously. I don’t understand why you peddle this level of stupidity. If you muck around statistical method like M and M that’s something that is hard to understand even to those people who have some education in Natural Science. But this above is ridiculous.
Temperature is basically the average internal energy per molecule and per degrees of freedom. If you have two air masses, they have the same degrees of freedom, the only difference is the number of molecules.
Tavg=(E1+E2)/(n1+n2)f=(T1n1f+T2n2f)/(n1+n2)*f=(T1n1+T2n2)/(n1+n2)
In other words, all you have to do is just weight them with mass, the latter which, in practice, can be very well approximated with area. This is it. We are obviously talking about approximations but these are pretty good.
nyolci ==> I see you did not bother to read the link. Temperature is a measurement of a qualitative intensive property of matter. If one converts the intensive property to an extensive property (which would be a measurement of heat content of a mass), then that extensive property of two different masses could be averaged.
Throwing in “area” (a two dimensional concept) certainly adds confusion…
then that extensive property of two different masses could be averaged.
You mean “added”, right? And then you can convert that to an intensive property, ie. temperature of the two combined masses, that is, voila, mathematically exactly the same as the (mass) weighted average of the two original temperatures.
Throwing in “area” (a two dimensional concept) certainly adds confusion…
You’re surely confused, I can see. Please read the following slowly: the weights for averaging are the relative masses of the two corresponding air volumes. The relative masses can be extremely well approximated by the relative areas of the corresponding geographical units that lie below these air volumes. Anyway, why do I have to explain this?
“The IPCC’s summaries for policymakers often present a simplified and sometimes alarmist view of climate science, which can distort public perception and policy debates.”
”sometimes”??
Since meteorology and climate science has globally emphasised the importance of temperature in the so called climate change catastrophe you would think their science would be very much more disciplined and be precisely double or triple checked at all times. You may also wish to require these professionals to stake everything upon absence of errors (or even potential errors) such is the need for care on the apparently simple practice of reading measuring instruments and carefully recording results. Perhaps mistakes should lead to brutal recriminations and dismissals in order to enlarge the seriousness of their task and focus minds on truths and not fictions. It may also ensure the public have restored faith in academics.
Of course a purge of existing known charlatans (they too know who they are) will need execution before public confidence in meteorology and climate science can be truly guaranteed, and this may just help in restoring quality to all other scientific endeavours until another purge is adjudicated as being necessary in the future.
As an important consideration so called consensus should be condemned since it is a ready made hiding-place for rogues especially those who get to be richer on the back of their facile dishonesty and greed.
At least many a sceptic can claim to have acted professionally in spite of the numerous threats made to them.
No alarmists can claim any such thing about acting professionally as numerous and potentially countless examples demonstrate and so it is their interests to be seen to be professional too.
Predictions of the climate in 100 years are not science. The can not be based on data. Science requires data. They also take a long time to be proven wrong, unlike a three day weather forecast.
I also saw that graph from the BBC and have some questions.
The header ends with “… and 1850-1900 average”.
To me that usually means that both the blue and red lines should have an average of zero for the middle fifth of the interval between the “1750” and “2000” ticks on the right-hand extremity of the X-axis.
The blue line looks like it might average zero in that range (it is partially overwritten by the red line), but the red line looks more like it’s at the 0.3-0.4°C level for its first 50 (or even its first 100 ?) years instead.
NB ; The red line has three very brief spikes below zero over its entire (1850-2023 ?) range. It is impossible for it to have a 50-year average of zero anywhere on that “anomalies” curve.
Main question : Has the “instrumental record” been arbitrarily “pushed up” by around a third of a degree Celsius on that graph ?
Follow-up questions : If “Yes”, by whom ? Was that graph copied from the (paywalled, I don’t have access) Nature preprint or was it “fabricated from whole cloth”, as the saying goes, by the BBC ?
MarkBLR,
Well spotted.
It seems possible that the red curve has been related to the blue curve simply by moving it up and down to maximise overlap.
This can be checked from original sources, providing that data in measured form, not anomaly form, can be found – and will have adequate caveats. Geoff S
How? This is a serious question. Can you show us your climate (or temperature) reconstruction? With quantified data?
You always come up with this, and you always vaguely reference historical records like ice fares. How can you tell that these were globally warmer in a certain period than what we have today? Historical and archeological records may only provide a very rudimentary reconstruction of temperatures (or climatic conditions in general), mostly qualitative stuff. We can only draw extremely elementary quantitative information (like actual temperature ranges etc.).
Try reading ‘The Great Warming’ by Brian Fagan . Historical and archeological records can reveal a lot of information and you can draw significant physical information from them.
Reconstruction. Where is the reconstruction? Where’s the graph that will eventually destroy (I always cross myself before these dreaded words) The Hockey Stick?
And this is a serious question. A modern, high quality reconstruction is needed, and historical/archeological sources, as far as we know, are inadequate for this purpose. But prove me wrong. Furthermore, at the moment any angle of attack against current science has turned out to be a failure. All the talk about Yamal, bristlecone, M and M are demonstrably wrong. Science looks very tough (should I say very sciency?), amateurish attacks are not enough. A good, alternative reconstruction may punch a hole in that.
“Where’s the graph that will eventually destroy (I always cross myself before these dreaded words) The Hockey Stick?”
Here are 600 graphs that destroy the bogus Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile.
All these regional charts from around the world show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. None of them have a Hockey Stick temperature profile. Yet you think the Hockey Stick temperature profile is real. Where did they get the Hockey Stick profile? Certainly not from the regional surface temperature charts because they have nothing in common with the Hockey Stick chart.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart is an invention of Climate Alarmists meant to sell their CO2 doom and gloom. The Hockey Stick chart is science fiction.
https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/
Tom, these graphs cannot, in the format you’re providing, show anything of the kind. The information is too disparate, it is impossible to assess a smattering of individual records spanning numerous time periods. If, for instance, one record shows 2 degree warmer temperatures than today somewhere in Canada in the year 1857, while another record shows 2 degree colder temperatures somewhere in Chili for the same year, the two have canceled out. But you can’t possibly determine when and where this might be the case from simply eyeballing the individual records.
Do you recognize that this is the case? It’s precisely why climate reconstructions have to combine the records in some way (even a series of global maps for different time slices – you don’t have to do any averaging, because I know you lot are deathly afraid of it).
The NoTricksZone article is attempting a form of fallacious argument known as “Gish galloping” wherein one presents an opponent with a deluge of arguments too large for them to possibly assess or respond to, without any thought to the coherence of veracity of any of the individual arguments. You might find it personally compelling, but you fail to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: You and your fellow AGW acolytes refuse to see that the arctic tree stump depicted above is quantified data (one tree stump)(I know there are others, but one is “quantitative” enough) that, all by itself, debunks your notion that it’s warmer now than it was then. No ice “fares” [sic], just a tree stump. Any rational person would see that picture and realize that it’s hard data, solid wood, that is cause to reconsider your theory. No sign of that with a single one of you activists.
Mr. dumbass, I don’t think you understand the meaning of “quantitative”, not to mention the difference between this and “qualitative”. Anyway, one single arctic tree stump (provided it’s a real example at all, please don’t be mad if I don’t take you deniers at face value) so one single tree stump is not enough and I have already explained this to you at least a dozen times. Certain parts of the Earth were warmer than today in the recent past even when globally Earth was colder. These local warm periods were not synchronous. Modern reconstructions have better and better temporal and spatial resolution so we can even see these periods that, of course, do not contradict science however you peddle this. Quite to the contrary.
Oops, thx for the correction, it’s “fairs”, yep, I remember, it looked strange when I wrote it. Well, I’m not a native speaker…
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: Is the number “1” not quantitative? A “dozen” is also quantitative, but saying a lie a dozen times doesn’t make it true.
Not a native thinker, either?
Mr. dumbass, this is exactly I was talking about. This is not what “quantitative” means in science.
Mr. letter-salad-for-name: Have fun doing math, which evidently is very new for you, without quantifying the number “1”.
Mr. dumbass, you do not quantify a number. You quantify a quantity with a number.
I wouldn’t be so quick to call out Büntgen for co-authoring an article that hypes a hot 2023 — it was an especially warm year if measured by the current idiocy of today’s climate science. Not would I hold him responsible for comments made by the lead author to the press.
The journal’s decision to rush out a climate alarm “instant attribution” type study is hardly shocking.
“it was an especially warm year if measured by the current idiocy of today’s climate science.”
Right, would that include UAH’s TLT product?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/december2024/GTR_202312DEC_v1.pdf
This calendar year was also warmer than any other 12-month period which before 2023 was Dec 2015 to Nov 2016 at +0.41 °C (+0.73 °F). Because early 2023 was much cooler than now, we can expect further 12-month records over the next few months.
Banton ==> Temperatures cannot be averaged — temperature is a “qualitative intensive property” — and that means that a temperature in degrees cannot be added to another temperature in degrees (even if they are the same scale). If they cannot legitimately be added then they cannot be legitimately AVERAGED.
ANY and ALL so-called Global, Regional, Continental “average temperature over time” (such as Global Average Sea and Land Surface Temperature), including UAH’s “Bar chart of global monthly lower tropospheric temperature anomalies” is based on illegitimate averaging (in order to calculate anomalies, one needs previous averages).
I hope that answers your question.
A good illustration why you deniers cannot be taken seriously. I don’t understand why you peddle this level of stupidity. If you muck around statistical method like M and M that’s something that is hard to understand even to those people who have some education in Natural Science. But this above is ridiculous.
Temperature is basically the average internal energy per molecule and per degrees of freedom. If you have two air masses, they have the same degrees of freedom, the only difference is the number of molecules.
Tavg=(E1+E2)/(n1+n2)f=(T1n1f+T2n2f)/(n1+n2)*f=(T1n1+T2n2)/(n1+n2)
In other words, all you have to do is just weight them with mass, the latter which, in practice, can be very well approximated with area. This is it. We are obviously talking about approximations but these are pretty good.
nyolci ==> I see you did not bother to read the link. Temperature is a measurement of a qualitative intensive property of matter. If one converts the intensive property to an extensive property (which would be a measurement of heat content of a mass), then that extensive property of two different masses could be averaged.
Throwing in “area” (a two dimensional concept) certainly adds confusion…
In addition, I am not a “denier” — see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/03/reprise-why-i-dont-deny-confessions-of-a-climate-skeptic-part-1/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/02/12/reprise-why-i-dont-deny-confessions-of-a-climate-skeptic-part-2/
You mean “added”, right? And then you can convert that to an intensive property, ie. temperature of the two combined masses, that is, voila, mathematically exactly the same as the (mass) weighted average of the two original temperatures.
You’re surely confused, I can see. Please read the following slowly: the weights for averaging are the relative masses of the two corresponding air volumes. The relative masses can be extremely well approximated by the relative areas of the corresponding geographical units that lie below these air volumes. Anyway, why do I have to explain this?
Yes, you are.