Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 9 July 2024
The newspapers and newscasts are full of this phrase: “caused by climate change”. The web searching apps reveal this with endless links to web pages and stories containing that phrase (and more here). This phrase is so ubiquitous that in certain quarters it is used as a joke punchline. It seems almost anything you can think of has been claimed to be “caused by climate change”. Of course, it used to be “caused by global warming” and that was a joke too: “10 feet of snow? Yep, must be global warming!”; “Wife pregnant again?” “Yeah, you know, climate change.”
For amusement, readers can supply links to online lists of all the crazy things that have been blamed on global warming/climate change.
The very effective climate communicator, who veers closer and closer to the Climate Realist viewpoint with every passing month, Roger Pielke Jr. recently posted a substack post : Climate Fueled Extreme Weather (at The Honest Broker, to which you should subscribe). Here is an illustration from that post (h/t Pielke Sr, and the National Research Council):
Here’s the home-run quote:
“Let’s correct one pervasive and pathological misunderstanding endemic across the media and in policy, and sometimes spotted seeping into peer-reviewed scientific research:
Neither climate nor climate change cause, fuel, or influence weather.
Yes, you read that right.
Climate change is a change in the statistics of weather — It is an outcome, not a cause.”
And one more:
“Weather can be characterized statistically, but weather does not occur as a result of simple statistical processes. Weather is the integrated result of at least: dynamical, thermodynamical, chaotic, societal, biospheric, cryospheric, lithospheric, oceanic, vulcanological, solar, and, yes, stochastic processes.”
[ source for the above quotes, read it before commenting, its not that long, 1400 words — 5-7 minutes. ]
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Yes, that’s it. I leave it to you, readers, to make what you will of this.
For the record, I agree entirely with Pielke Jr. Climate Change, if there is such a thing, is an EFFECT, an OUTCOME, a RESULT, and is NEVER A CAUSE.
Whatever is causing some aspect of the climate, some measurable weather/climatic phenomenon, to be statistically different today than yesterday, last month, last year, last decade, last century is a cause but the change (in the statistic) itself is not. For instance, if a cleaner atmosphere is allowing more solar energy to reach the surface of the planet, that could be a cause of some statistical change in “energy reaching the planet’s surface”. Might be fair to say: “Cleaning up the atmosphere allowed more energy to hit to surface of the ocean which caused an increase is sea surface temperature.” (Don’t know if this is true, just an example). While sea surface temperature might be considered a “climate change indicator”, rising sea surface temperature is not caused by climate change.
It is my opinion, mostly unchanged over the last decade (here and here), that we do not understand the over-riding causes and effects in our planet’s climate system. Much of the climate system is too complex, too complicated, too intertwined while other parts are simply chaotic (Chaos Theory definition) and unable to be teased apart at our current level of understanding.
A changing climate statistic — for instance the so-called Annual Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Over Land & Sea — is an effect of something (more probably, a whole lot of somethings). Slightly warmer or colder temperatures, but not the statistic, will cause some other phenomena to also change, but, I believe, only on a local level — statistically higher “global” temperatures don’t affect my spring gardening, only actually experienced local temperatures do that.
Let’s see civil but vigorous discussion in comment.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let’s just cut to the chase, are changes in storms, droughts, sea level, polar bears, coral reefs etc. a result of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? If you say yes, then show your source, your work or both.
Steve ==> “…are changes in storms, droughts, sea level, polar bears, coral reefs etc. a result of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?”
In my opinion, it is unlikely. Increasing atmospheric CO2 began rising 100-200 years before temperatures starting rising at the end of the Little Ice Age.
I’ve seen many analysis that CO2 changes always lag temperature changes. Upon what is your contrary statement here based?
Kip said: “it is unlikely … CO2 began rising … before temperatures started rising…”
That means that CO2 increase lagged temperature rise.
Andy ==> See the graphs and references in Reprise — Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1
Further the increase in CO2 is mostly natural with only about 1/30th being correctly attributed to human activity. For extra credit show how reducing human emissions of CO2 can be expected to correct the problem you are attributing to increased CO2. “then show your source, your work or both.”
While I won’t put a number on it, back in 2013 Levine et al were still claiming that the decline in Δ14C was consistent with the alarmist models. However that was right around the time that the Δ14C from the atmospheric nuclear bomb spike was declining back to pre-bomb spike levels.
If human contributions from (cold) fossil fuels are continuing at ~3% annually, then Δ14C should be declining at a commensurate rate below pre-industrial, pre-bomb spike levels. But it is not. It is levelling off at the same level.
As far as I can see, this is a huge gaping hole in the current carbon-cycle models but nobody is talking about it.
An express train is travelling South on a straight section of track at 90mph. Travelling North along the track on a collision course is a fly travelling at 2mph.
‘The train and fly collide. By how much is the speed of the train reduced by the collision?
Anyone who ‘believes’ that CO2 (only that from fossil fuel emissions) controls the climate, will tell you the train is stopped and derailed.
And when that fly hits that train, what’s the last thing through his mind?
I know the answer!
I see and read that climate change is the cause of everything that happens to the natural world. That phrase is unavoidable in all forms of the modern press. It is an illness or sickness that permeates media excessively. You can read a story that describes declines in forest health, shrinking glaciers, warmer temperatures, less rainfall, or more rainfall and it will include primary reasons or causes attributable at levels of 90% to 99% and then the last part of the sentence reads…and climate change. Ugh!! I want to puke or scream or both.
John ==> Keep a trash can near your favorite reading chairs — in the eventuality that it might be needed. One can’t always make it to the comode….
Every problem used to be blamed on the devil. So now we have a new devil that must be eradicated.
What caused our existence? Your parents. What caused your parents’ existence? Their parents. And so on. There is such a thing as an immediate cause and an ultimate cause. If you lose your wallet, the immediate cause is that a thief stole it. But Christians believe that the ultimate cause is the disobedience of Adam and Eve in response to the temptation of the Devil. That disobedience caused evil to enter the world with the result that we have a tendency to do evil in some way. That evil might be telling lies or gossiping unfavourably about other people or writing unpleasant comments about other people on WUWT. Or it might be killing a large number of people. Whatever it is, it is our fault. But the ultimate cause is the rebellion of Adam and Eve. So I don’t mind you saying that at one time every problem was blamed on the devil. But please get your theology correct.
Surely the ultimate cause then is the Devil without whom Adam and Eve could not be tempted – and where did evil come from if not the devil.
And… not everyone is a Christian and Adam and Eve were Jews. And… the concept of the Devil is not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity.
CampsieFellow ==> Let’s leave theology aside here for the time being…usually a “not here” topic a WUWT.
I think Joseph’s devil was “generic” – not the theological one. He might as well have said “boogeyman”.
Yes, the boogeyman, kinda like “the CO2 made me do it”. 🙂
Everybody knows it’s witches.
How do you know? Were they made of wood?
Wood floats. What else floats?
Very small rocks!
Or larger pieces of pumice.
It was blamed on the devil in the sense that if the devil didn’t exist, so they believed, Adam and Eve wouldn’t have done the dirty deed. 🙂
And they then put the blame on us for being deceived by the devil.
Of course I don’t believe any of that.
“What caused our existence? Your parents.” Only if you’re brothers.
This stuff gets silly. Suppose you have a shop. Business is so-so. You spend money renovating. The shop does better. More sales.
Now you can’t say that any one sale was caused by the renovation. So, in these terms, the renovation doesn’t cause sales. But it improves the statistic – average sales.
Where does all that get you?
What a totally petty and irrelevant attempt at yapping mindlessly.
Stoke’s assertion is that Correlation establishes Causation. Hmm, others have weighed in on this…
Stoke’s assertion is arrant nonsense.
Nice analogy.
No kidding, I am still trying to define climate change. Whatever happened to the good ole global warming?
It ‘paused’ in the late 1990s and took an indeterminate sabbatical requiring a rebrand of the narrative to avoid the by now troublesome word ‘warming’.
Derg ==> The definition in use in this instance is given clearly in the Pielke jr. piece — required reading.
I think you missed the point. It is impossible, with the current understanding of the nonlinear, chaotic weather and climate systems to say that, for example, a warming ocean causes more frequent and powerful hurricanes. There are so many factors involved in tropical storm development that simply changing one variable, ocean surface temperature, doesn’t necessarily result in more hurricanes or more powerful ones. The same is true for every kind of weather event. Predicting a long-term change in a nonlinear, chaotic system like weather, from a change in one or two variables is not just difficult, it’s impossible, even with the sophisticated statistical tools we have now. But that doesn’t stop the climate doomsayers from predicting with absolute certainty every kind of disaster, many of which have been soundly and deservedly mocked here at WUWT when they don’t happen.
And what happens if you spend all that money renovating, and sales drop ?
You have to close down the store, you lose your house and end up living on the LA streets with the illegal immigrants.
Where does all that get you?
A nice tent with TV and wifi.
And “protection” by the lowest feeder level gangs?
For a “price” !!
“illegal immigrants”
now, now- you mustn’t ever say those words if you travel to Wokeachusetts- you must say “migrants”- sounds much nicer, less illegal
They are described as “illegal aliens” in federal law.
When did ‘colonists’ (bad), become ‘migrants’ (good)?
Newcomers
OK, I can handle “illegal migrants.”
This stuff gets silly.
Suppose you have a
shopclimate.Business Change isso-socontinuous.You spend money
renovatingtrying to stop it changing at all.The
shopclimatedoes betterkeeps changing.More
salesdisappointments.Now you can’t say that any one
saledisappointment was caused by the renovationtrying to stop it changing.So, in these terms, the
renovationstop-change doesn’t causesalesdisappointments.But it
improvesridicules the statistic – averagesalesdisappointments.Where does all that get you, Nick?
Let me fix the analogy to be more climate-realistic.
Suppose you have a shop. Business is so-so. You spend money renovating. The shop does the same. Moribund sales statistics. Because the retail product quality is unchanged.
That’s the climate. CO₂ has gone up. The weather statistics are moribund.
Huh? Countless articles on this site and others illustrate that the only thing changing (temperature) has not caused other changes. Storms – unchanged, Fires – declined, floods – unchanged and so forth. Where does your comment get you, or anybody?
Let’s say the shop renovation may cost $10K and you calculate you will get your money back in increased sales within 12 months. After the 12 months, you’ll be making more money. It’s a great idea with little risk.
Now let’s say the world politicians “battle against the climate” costs $300 trillion to get to net zero.
You calculate the reduction in temperature will be 0.0001 C over 100 years, bankrupting whole countries and destroying countless lives by using other people’s money.
After 100 years, you won’t notice the difference in temperatures. However, your homeland will be wasted and your people living in poverty will still be trying to pay off the $300 trillion debt, whilst the elite are living the life of Reilly because of the profits they’ve reaped from other people’s money.
It’s a great idea – if you’re part of the elite
For the rest of us, a life of servitude to our elite masters is the only option.
The renovation is a specific action intended to entice more paying customers.
The “xyz weather event is caused by (climate change|global warming)” thing is akin to the claim that rising prices are caused by inflation.
I’m not sure that Kip or Roger, Jr are strictly correct, either, in the statement that “Climate change is a change in the statistics of weather — It is an outcome, not a cause.” It’s more a description of the phenomenon than it is either a cause or an effect.
The “xyz weather event is caused by (climate change|global warming)” thing is akin to the claim that rising prices are caused by inflation…
“climate change” is indeed
more a description of the phenomenon than it is either a cause or an effect.
Yes, absolutely right.
The shopkeeper renovated to get higher average sales. I’m sure that is all he cared about.
If someone wants to argue that the higher average sales did not cause higher sales, I don’t think he’ll be listening.
The shopkeeper wanted a positive NPV from the renovation. There isn’t any point if revenue doesn’t increase enough to cover the cost of the investment.
His interest is in having a positive NPV from the renovation, not the semantics of average sales vs sales in a period..
Higher average sales and higher sales (in a given period) are just different ways of describing the same thing.
Kip and Roger Jr’s point is that the higher average sales are a result of increased sales in the period, which is equally as wrong as claiming that the higher average sales caused increased sales in the period. Higher average sales is just describing the increased sales in the period.
Really is a very stupid and irrelevant analogy, isn’t it Nick.!
Expecting extra sales when you are still selling the same JUNK product !
Not only that, but because spent so much on the renovations, you decided you needed to put the prices up.
Now nobody is buying it. !
But, there is a third nested anology where a thug on the sidewalk won’t let anyone into any other shops; the cost of everything in Johns shop has been increased by 50% to pay for the new, gaudy, remodel; and you find that the thug loaned John the cash for his remodel (with money that the thug has stole and extorted from you over that last year).
John feels like he accomplished something, the thug enjoys more power & money, a significant number of people are distracted by Johns gaudy store, and you are left arguing with Nick the counterperson (who is dependent on John for his livelyhood).
Not even the shop owner can tie the correlation to proof of cause/effect. His renovation may *not* be the cause of increased sales. A true scientist would investigate what is happening, e.g. survey the customers to see why they are coming into the ship, to see why they are buying, etc. It might turn out that the real reason was just a small change like better signage on the store front and the rest of the cost was actually wasted.
Kip is correct. Statistics are descriptions of data, they can’t discern cause and effect. Prime example: CO2 growth and temperature rise are correlated. Did rising CO2 *cause* rising temps or did rising temps *cause* rising CO2? The correlation simply can’t tell discern cause/effect.
You can only discern cause/effect by testing – meaning making measurements. None of the measurements associated with climate change are accurate enough to make any judgements.
What climate science *should” be saying about climate change is “WE DON’T KNOW CAUSE/EFFECT”.
While timing can be useful in determining cause and effect, there is no guarantee that an event isn’t a spurious correlation.
You know nothing about business, if you want improved sales improve service and product, nobody cares what the shop looks like unless you’re in ladies wear.
So why do shopkeepers renovate? But in the analogy, it’s just something that people might do to increase sales. Read “put on more staff” if you want.
It’s no part of the analogy as to whether the renovation increases overall profit, as some want to fuss about; just sales.
Typical renovations in small businesses are to improve SERVICE capabilities. Better displays of product and pricing. Very few people care if you use plastic shelves vs wood, or round pricing stickers vs rectangular ones. They don’t care if the aisles are floored with vinyl or ceramic tile, they *do* care if the aisles are made wider.
Do you even notice the color of the flooring in your local discount store?
LOL, how many variables does your analogy have versus hundreds in weather over time…….. since it is unpredictable while your analogy is simple and at best potentially 50% correct.
Its not quite like that. A better analogy would be some social event which we measure by its instances.
For instance, there is a crime wave. The crime wave is known to have happened because muggings, burglaries, theft, fraud have risen. That is what we mean by the crime wave.
We note a particular case of this, a sudden cluster of muggings in a particular city. So some now say that this cluster is caused by the ongoing crime wave.
Its logical nonsense. The muggings are part of the crime wave and cannot be caused by it. They are not a result of it either, they are evidence that there is one.
Similarly, we know (or may know) that the climate is changing, because we observe weather events increasing in frequency or severity. We observe, for instance, higher temps, more storms, more rain. Or less of them. Whatever. Its not climate change that is causing these things, its that these are what we mean by climate change.
You define a phenomenon as consisting of changes in A, B, C… You cannot then claim that the phenomenon is either causing or is caused by A, B, C…. Its what philosophers used to call a category mistake. Its like, in the famous example, wandering around Oxford and having seen all the colleges and lecture halls being puzzled that you have not yet come across the university. Or looking at a football team and being puzzled that there are 11 players, but their team spirit doesn’t seem to have entered the pitch with them. Did he stay in the dressing room and will come in later? Was it some movement of team spirit that led to that poor passing in the first half? Nonsense.
Mostly when people claim that ‘climate change’ is causing weather events, they don’t actually mean this. They are mostly using climate change to mean global warming. Their real argument is usually that the recent rise in average global temperatures has caused (for example) a heat wave in Arizona, or a drought in Pakistan. That kind of argument may be right or wrong, but its at least logically coherent.
Talk of ‘climate change’ causing such things is not.
michel ==> Yes, that is much better — a statistical change, a change in some measurement — can not be a cause of something real, something physical.
I have a lot more time for you, Nick, than most commenters here seem to have, but this squib reveals a fundamental error of thinking. The point being made is that crowds don’t cause people. There is no rational way to argue the contrary.
Yes!
But they didn’t say that climate causes weather. They said climate change causes some weather events.That is like saying that gathering a crowd causes people. They are, of course, referring to the underlying process of change. GHGs and all that.
In the analogy, renovation is the process, and improved average sales (a statistic, but also a livelihood) is the outcome.
In the analogy, since you are selling the same FAKE product that no-one is buying…
.. the renovations are a complete waste of money.
You LOSE every way. !
No, you have to take the analogy as it is, not change it. What Nick has to do is to establish that climate change is a cause, not an effect. His shop analogy does not do that.
You could argue that increased CO2 is a cause of climate change. But the climate change is an effect.
You could argue that higher temperatures lead to warmer seas, which in turn cause higher levels of precipitation. In which case the higher temperatures would be an indirect cause.
It’s the use of the omnibus term ‘climate change’ that is the problem. If they had just stuck to ‘global warming’ there would not be this problem.
But to go back to Nick’s so-called analogy (it isn’t) the increased sales might be due to the closure of a competitor, nothing to do with the renovation. But let us take it as it is. Suppose that the shop owner, as a result of the increased sales, decided to go on a cruise. In that case the increased sales might be considered a cause. So something could be both a cause and an effect.
I exist. What is the cause of my existence? My parents. What caused them to exist? Their parents. And so on ad infinitum. (If that’s possible.) But maybe there is an uncaused cause that started it all off. Some entity that does not depend on anything outside itself.
The argument is that climate change increases the statistical likelihood of a weather event occurring, not that climate change causes weather events. In simple terms, if a region becomes more arid due to global warming, the likelihood of a drought occurring in any year increases. We cannot say that a drought in any given year was caused by climate change, but we can say that the increase in number of droughts year over year is driven by climate change.
….climate change increases the statistical likelihood of a weather event occurring….
No. the increasing statistical likelihood of a weather event occurring is a sign that we should call this change ‘climate change’.
As you correctly go on to say:
….if a region becomes more arid due to global warming, the likelihood of a drought occurring in any year increases…..
This may not be correct but its a logically coherent argument, it tries to connect two things which can be cause and effect, global warming and droughts.
You spoil this by going on to say:
….the increase in number of droughts year over year is driven by climate change….
No, its not driven by climate change, its a sign of climate change along with floods and heat waves. It may be driven by global warming, which is not the same thing as climate change.
Just as a rise in the price of melons is not ‘driven by inflation’, its a sign of inflation.
The price rises are not caused by inflation, which is a nonsense, inflation cannot cause anything, the expression is a categorization of a group of phenomena, not the name of an entity. The price rises are caused by something else like an increase in the money supply.
The problem is you are switching meanings of climate change. Sometimes you use it to mean global warming. Other times you use it to mean a summary of changes in the weather. This just leads to confusion.
This just underscores that the whole thing is quibbling over petty semantics, as Nick notes above. If you define climate change as the statistical distribution of weather events, then a change in the statistical distribution of weather events can’t be said to be caused by climate change, because you have defined them as being the same thing. If you expand your definition of climate change to encompass the energetic processes in the earth system that produce weather events (atmospheric and ocean circulation, evaporation, etc.), then it is quite obvious that climate change can be said to cause changes in the frequency of weather events.
If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? (h/t Mark Twain)
Overloaded terms are ambiguous, which can lead to all sorts of failure to communicate. Defining climate change as “the things which cause changes in the distribution of weather events” isn’t quite the same thing as “a change in the statistical distribution of weather events”.
You are confused about what statistical descriptors tell you.
The chance of something happening is measured by the variance of the data, not by the average of the data or by the Δ in the average.
A high variance means that a lot of different values surrounding the average have similar chances of happening. A low variance means the average is a higher chance of happening than other values. I.e. a tall, narrow hump surrounding the average. A high variance means a low, broad hump surrounding the average.
The variance is a direct measure of the uncertainty of the average. Meaning that a Δ in the average is pretty much meaningless since you don’t actually have a high confidence in the accuracy of the average.
Somehow you and climate science always seem to ignore variance and standard deviation. It’s never calculated or given. Just the average and a Δaverage.
Please don’t come back and say that the standard deviation of the sample means is the uncertainty of the average. It isn’t. It’s just a measure of the sampling error associated with the sampling. It’s not a measure of the uncertainty of the population data. The standard deviation (i.e. sqrt(variance)) is the standard deviation of the sample means MULTIPIED by the size of the samples. Therefore it is *MUCH* larger than the standard deviation of the sample means.
“The argument is that climate change increases the statistical likelihood of a weather event occurring”
Which provably just nonsense, supported only by FAKE climate simulations.
Just another fantasy made up to support the whole scam. !
Climate change is not the kind of thing that can cause weather events. Its not a causal entity at all, its a categorization of what is happening to the weather.
Global warming may cause weather events. If you are using climate change as shorthand for global warming, fine, but its confused and misleading. Far better to say clearly that global warming is causing weather events, and that these weather events taken together qualify as a changing climate.
As someone above says, inflation cannot cause prices to rise. Inflation IS rising prices. The price of melons did not rise this week because inflation caused it to. It rose, and that was one indicator that present price trends deserve to be called inflation.
Folks ==> Mr. Stokes has not read Pielke Jr. so he does not know that is being discussed here.
Of course, the propaganda use of the phrase “caused by climate change” is based on a twisting of the language creating a false proposition — turning an EFFECT into a CAUSE.
So, Mr. Stokes is using a propaganda version of “climate change” in place of the IPCC definition….
Since we do not know what the “underlying process of [climate] change” is — we only have a weakly supported hypothesis (anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 increase) — the repeated assertion of “caused by climate change” is nonsensical.
Kip,
If you can’t write a post that stands on its own, then why bother?
“based on a twisting of the language creating a false proposition — turning an EFFECT into a CAUSE.”
But this is silly pedantry. People are not saying that average weather causes weather. They are referring to climate change as a process with causes. Pielke quotes the IPCC definition which makes that clear:
“A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”
They say first how you measure it, and then what it is. It is a process which can have effects.
Nick if you can’t write a rational, coherent comment… then why bother. !!
Nick ==> I am writing about Pielke Jr.’s essay. You ought to read it then you’d know what was being discussed here. As the definition states clearly, there is NOT A PROCESS or a force or any thing that can be called Climate Change as an entity of any sort.
You were doing alright back when you said that they mean something along the lines of “Increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations cause….”
But, increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations are not “climate change”. They are what they are. The IPCC hypothesis is that “Increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations” cause various changes in the Earth climate system etc etc.
ooops, I see that at least you have finally read the Pielke Jr. piece, if only to still fail to understand his point.
Kip — “they mean something along the lines of “Increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations cause….””
Exactly right, Kip. And in so-saying the proponents assume their conclusion.
This logical failure is prevalent throughout the climate alarm gallery. AGW is a scientifically empty suit.
And by the way, regional climate models are predictively useless. They can say nothing about regional changes in a globally warming climate.
All that business about increasing droughts or extreme events is no more than opportunistic polemics. Pure assertion.
It may very well be that sales increased because the economy improved- or tastes changed- or many other reasons. Linking increased sales to renovation is tenuous at best. Of course renovation is nice- and must contribute SOMETHING to increased sales, but it might be only 5%. The science as to why sales increased is unsettled.
Nick managed to derail this conversation quite well.
I don’t see a connection between CO2/increased heat and renovating a shop.
In your analogy climate change is equivalent to the increased sales, not the renovation.
Yes you can – always look to the margins.
In business the consideration is, does increased input (renovation) increase the output (sales) and is the marginal increase in value of output greater than the marginal increase in cost of input? If not don’t do it.
In other words what is the minimum we would have to do to get just one more sale and is it worth it? It is no matter for statistics.
Years ago a toothpaste manufacturer pondered how it could increase sales. All ideas offered would be very costly.
Finally some bright person came up with the idea of increasing the diameter of the tube outlet by 10%. Most people squeeze a length of toothpaste on their brush. Wider outlet means 10% more squeezed out per length, tube empties quicker, sales increase. The marginal cost – the cost of retooling amortised over each new sale – was much lower than marginal increase in revenue from increased sales.
Not a statistic in sight.
Nick ==> I am guessing you didn’t read Pielke Jr. If you want to participate in any meaningful way, you must do your reading assignment before class.
The graphic omitted incoming asteroids which
have probably been responsible for the most extreme and sudden impacts on the climate equilibrium.
“Climate Change, if there is such a thing, is an EFFECT, an OUTCOME, a RESULT, and is NEVER A CAUSE. ”
So all you need to do now is figure out what is causing Climate Change.
What is climate change?
Derg ==> In this instance, we are talking about the official definition of Climate Change used by the IPCC — given in direct quotes in the Pielke Jr. piece, which is why that is required reading
By the IPCC’s definition climate change is a
I’m not sure why you think this means it’s caused by a change in the statistical descriptor, rather than a change that is indicated by the statistical tests.
Bellman ==> It is a change in the statistic– either the mean or variability. Thus,it is an outcome, an effect, a measurement — and not a force or a cause. read Pielke Jr. for a fuller exposition of this point.
You keep ignoring important parts of the … definition.
Climate:
Climate System:
Climate Change:
Climate is the state of the climate system. Climate change is a change in that state of the climate. If the climate system changes then that will mean weather patterns will change.
A statistical descriptor is *NOT* a measurement. Therefore it can’t tell you the physical state of anything. And ΔT of an average is not a measurement either. It is not even a complete statistical description of anything. If you don’t include the standard deviation along with the average then you simply don’t have a full description.
When has climate science ever included the statistical descriptor known as “standard deviation” along with their “averages” or Δaverage?
“A statistical descriptor is *NOT* a measurement. Therefore it can’t tell you the physical state of anything.”
It doesn’t matter if you call it a measurement or not, statistics can tell you a lot about the physical stater of things. You won’t accept that as you just don’t understand statistics. But ask yourself if the average temperature in Britain is colder than in Spain, do you really think that tells you nothing about the difference in climates? Do think it’s just chance, or could it be that there are differences in their physical state?
“And ΔT of an average is not a measurement either.”
Of course it’s a measurement, the difference between two temperatures. I’ve no idea why you are so obsessed with these deltas though. The difference in temperatures between one year and the next won’t tell you anything about climate, but a significant difference between the average temperature over a long period of time and another will indicate there is a change int he climate.
“When has climate science ever included the statistical descriptor known as “standard deviation” along with their “averages” or Δaverage?”
It’s literally in the IPCC definition quoted in the article (my bolding):
“statistics can tell you a lot about the physical stater of things. “
No, it can’t. If it could you could get rich in Las Vegas rolling dice. Statistics can tell you what might happen but it can’t tell you what has happened or what will happen. If it could then standard deviation would always be 0 (zero).
“The difference in temperatures between one year and the next won’t tell you anything about climate, but a significant difference between the average temperature over a long period of time and another will indicate there is a change int he climate.”
If that were true then hardiness zones and climate descriptors would change constantly over time. But he high plains of the central US have been a semi-arid desert for “a long period of time” while temperatures and precipitation have varied widely over periods of 100 years, e.g. 1850 to 1950. The prairie grasses of Kansas are the same today as they were 1000 years ago.
“It’s literally in the IPCC definition quoted in the article (my bolding):”
Again, when has climate science EVER given a value for the variability of the “relevant quantities”? The climate models certainly don’t.
google this: “what is the statistical variance of global temperature data over the past 100 years”
Tell us what you get.
Not getting into another futile argument with you, when you are just incapable of accepting you are wrong about anything.
But – as I keep having to explain, the purpose of statistics and probability is not to predict what the next die roll will be. What it can do is tell you if a bet is good (hint, it won’t be), or if the die is fair.
The climate state is a physical state — an energy state — not an a-causal statistical account of variability.
As I was saying.
Easy – the climate is changing due to climate change.
/sarc
My friends are changing due to climate change, some are waking up to all the scams and some are submerged by the scams and the fears that they come wrapped up in.
Easy. The oceans. Next question ….
Apart from a slight, and highly beneficial, warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years.
How has the global climate changed ?
With evidence, and evidence of human causation, of course.
ps.. we all know that there is zero evidence of human causation of warming in the satellite data.
… and we all know there is a lot of UHI and data adjustment in the globally unrepresentative urban surface data.
So.. we await your answer and evidence.
Chaos.
Haha, yes, and that chaos is definitely caused by humans, but it’s not anything to do with CO2.
There’s no such thing as a global climate, so nothing is causing global climate change
As phrased, this assumes there is only one “cause” of whatever definition of “climate change” you are using this week.
The IPCC actually acknowledged that the subject is slightly more complicated than you wish people to infer it is almost a quarter of a century ago.
TAR (2001), WG-I assessment report, page 91 :
Bellman ==> Yes, quite right. That is what Climate Science, as an endeavor, is supposed to be doing. Instead, much of the CliSci we see, is wasted on trying to convince the world of a weakly supported hypothesis put forward by the IPCC.
“…trying to convince the world of a weakly supported hypothesis put forward by the IPCC”
Then you should argue that case rather than using these spurious distinctions between cause an effect.
Just because you can define climate “in a narrow sense” as a statistical description of weather, does not mean that the weather causes climate. Any more than the selection of cards from a deck, cause the distribution of the deck of cards.
Bellman ==> I have argued that case many times, but this essay is not about that. Weather does not cause climate — climate is a descriptor of averaged weather over an extended period.
Differentiating between causes and effects is a primary skill necessary for critical thinking and understanding the world around us. Nothing spurious about it. Getting cause and effect wrong-way round is one of the biggest mistakes that can be made.
The spurious nature of this argument is nitpicking definitions of climate.
You can either say climate is simply a statistic about weather, in which case it only changes becasue the weather changed. Or you accept that climate has a wider meaning, in which case anything that changes climate also changes the weather.
By claiming that climate, in the narrow sense, cannot cause the weather, you are just kicking the question down the road. The cause of a change in the climate or in the weather is still what people mean, when they talk about climate change.
Weather is real and measurable. Climate is an artificial construct that summarizes long-term behavior, usually with statistical measures such as averages and variances, albeit that climatologists seem to have an aversion to using the variance descriptor. Because climate is characterized by the average behavior over a period of time, the start and stop points are important and the apparent climate varies with the subjective selection of those end-points.
Definitions are important in communicating facts and ideas.
“Climate is an artificial construct…”
I see we’ve gone from “nobody denies that the climate changes” to saying the climate doesn’t really exist.
“Because climate is characterized by the average behavior over a period of time, the start and stop points are important and the apparent climate varies with the subjective selection of those end-points.”
Which is why you need statistics to say if any apparent change is significant, or just random fluctuation. But random fluctuations caused by normal weather will not have much of an effect on a 30 year average, and any such changes will be stationary, unless there is an actual change in the climate.
You use the word “statistics” when, in fact, in climate science there is only ONE STATISTICAL DESCRIPTOR that is used, not multiple ones. The one value that gets used is not even an average value but a mid-range value.
You simply can’t say if a change in an average or mid-range value is significant or not without also knowing the variance of the underlying data.
The range of the daily temperature is large enough, say 40F, that trying to calculate a mid-range value down to the hundredth of a degree is a joke. And the range of the data is a direct metric for the variance of the data, the larger the range the larger the variance.
Was the actual mid-range temperature today 80.01F or 80.02F when it varied from 60F to 100F? Is a .0125% change significant at all?
I did NOT say that climate does not exist. It is defined as the typical long-term aggregate behavior of a number of measurable parameters such as high and low temperatures, the dates of the typical first and last killing frost, the amount and types of precipitation, relative humidity, and perhaps most importantly for humans, the heat index. When and where hurricanes, tornadoes, and foehn winds occur are part of the climate, at least at a microclimate level. Also, whether an area has two distinct seasons (Mediterranean Climate) or a more common four seasons is a part of climate. The Köppen–Geiger climate classification also considers the types of vegetation that are adapted to a particular climate and are a proxy for the aggregate effects of all the atmospheric variables. As climate changes, the boundaries between different classes will change, as in desertification or NASA ‘greening.’
People, particularly alarmists, often carelessly talk about ‘climate change’ when what they mean is an apparent trend in mid-range temperature, which is just one of the many parameters, which are often only poorly correlated. The name was changed from “global warming” to “climate change” based on the poorly supported hypothesis that warming will change the frequency and/or severity of extreme events such as hurricanes or droughts.
You claimed, “But random fluctuations caused by normal weather will not have much of an effect on a 30 year average, …” In your case, the unstated assumption is that what you are calling “normal weather” is unlikely to have extreme events in time periods as short as 30 years. That is, a 500-year or 1,000 year flood may not occur during any of several 30-year ‘climates.’ However, they can be quite impactful, such as relocating a river course, and are a part of the ‘normal’ climate.
“It is defined as the typical long-term aggregate behavior of a number of measurable parameters such as high and low temperatures, the dates of the typical first and last killing frost, the amount and types of precipitation, relative humidity, and perhaps most importantly for humans, the heat index.”
Very well said!
“I did NOT say that climate does not exist. “
You said it was an “artificial construct”. That implies you think it doesn’t exist as a real world concept.
“ In your case, the unstated assumption is that what you are calling “normal weather” is unlikely to have extreme events in time periods as short as 30 years. “
Absolutly not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that random extreme events will have little effect on a 30 year average.
Climate, defined by either temperature alone or by weather events, *IS* an artificial construct.
As Clyde pointed out to you, climate is far more complex than that. Climate is holistic and includes lots of factors. “Climate change” is *not* defined by a change in the global mid-range value of temperature. Such a metric *is* an artificial construct.
Mid-range values, or even the mean of many mid-range values, will not by itself tell you whether something is random or if there is some real trend. One needs to establish cause and effect and a good place to start is the variance of a time series, which is not universally provided. It is typically possible to find many trends in a temperature time-series, but that does not provide a guarantee that it will continue indefinitely. That has been one of the common criticisms of Monckton’s hiatus graphs.
“Mid-range values, or even the mean of many mid-range values, will not by itself tell you whether something is random or if there is some real trend. “
Which is why I said “significant”.
“It is typically possible to find many trends in a temperature time-series, but that does not provide a guarantee that it will continue indefinitely.”
I said nothing about trends. I’m talking about the difference between one period of time and another.
But if you want to argue why Monckton’s pauses are meaningless, be my guest.
Weather events do not define climate. No averaging of weather events can describe climate. Weather events only impact the variation within climate.
The high plains of the central US are defined as a semi-arid desert. THAT is a description of the climate. It’s been that way for a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time! Native prairie grasses evolved in that climate and they continue to do as well in native prairie preserves today as they did hundreds of years ago. They evolved in ways conducive to surviving during periods of natural variation, from dry to wet and from cold to hot.
Average temperature over 30 years or even 100 years simply doesn’t define the climate anywhere, least of all for the globe.
“Weather events do not define climate.”
Yet that’s the entire premise of this article.
Apart from a slight, and highly beneficial, natural warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years.
How has the global climate changed ?
With evidence, and evidence of human causation, of course.
ps.. we all know that there is zero evidence of human causation of warming in the satellite data.
… and we all know there is a lot of UHI and data adjustment in the globally unrepresentative urban surface data.
So.. we await your answer and evidence.
Duck and weave 😉
This is a result of the Information Age. UHI lets the Klimate Katastrophe Krewe create panic. As an engineer I learned all the rules about Data. We do not know if the World is warming, cooling, or staying the same.
Just for an example, today 128 F in Death Valley. Not one media source reporting this mentioned that the actual record there, 134 F, was measured by a liquid-in-glass thermometer and the one today was measured by a Platinum thermocouple, reacts much faster to changes in temperature, Apples and Oranges.
Climate Change is an attempt by liberals to damage all drilling and mining, so they, the Media, the NGO’s, and the worst of them all University Presidents, can brag that they Defend the Earth.
Drilling and mining have created modern prosperity. Shall we revert to mule-drawn plows and firewood? Without Fossil Fuels, and for me this is the clincher, 4 Billion people would starve without modern fertilizers, impossible to make from a Wind Turbine or a PV Solar panel.
Starvation? Is this the plan behind Net Zero? Oh sure, when people find out about this they will vote for it.
This Too Shall Pass, probably in New York State, CA, Great Britain, and Germany first.
Goodness.
MR Moon
“to damage all drilling and mining”
Yet a massive increase in drilling and mining will be needed to meet their silly little net-zero and similar agenda.
They really are DUMB !!
One of the major newspapers reported the 128F death valley temperature as a record. Who knew?
More than one outlet is erroneously reporting that Death Valley had a record high temperature.
Not many people outside WUWT know this is a lie.
It is apparently a record for that particular day in that month. Although, the way it was typically stated strongly suggested that it was an all-time record. When dealing with the main stream press, it is difficult to know when something was done on purpose or was simply a result of ignorance and poor writing. Personally, I’d be inclined to along with Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
I’m not sure that I remember the interval but I think it is once per second. The World Meteorological standard is the average of 2.5 minutes of individual measurements with individual (one second) extremes greater than a certain variation (two standard deviations?) thrown out. NOAA’s standard is the same except over 5 minutes.
Some countries (Australia, UK) don’t conform to the standards but Death Valley is in NOAA territory so your concern is probably not applicable.
Andy ==> I have written about the use of instantaneous temperature before — but it is not as bad as it seems — there is some averaging but on the seconds scale with MMTs.
“Just for an example, today 128 F in Death Valley. Not one media source reporting this mentioned that the actual record there, 134 F, was measured by a liquid-in-glass thermometer and the one today was measured by a Platinum thermocouple, reacts much faster to changes in temperature, Apples and Oranges.”
I keep hearing this was a new high record from the tv meteorologists. The latest image from Death Valley this morning showed a picture with 129F on it.
Don’t meteorologists check the record books and weather history anymore? Apparently not on Fox News.
I’m watching Fox News right now and the banner across the bottom of the screen reads “Death Valley Hits Daily Record at 129 Degrees.”
Of course, the actual record is 134 Degrees.
Fox News Weather is misleading the Public about the state of the weather.
Well, I guess I owe an apology to Fox News Weather. I misread “Daily” as meaning “Hottest Evah!”. So they reported accurately as far as the daily high is concerned.
Never mind!
It’s not just the media. I can give you a long list of marine science journals that contain papers with ad hoc statements about climate change. Sometimes they cite the IPCC in general but rarely is there much explanation indicating that they actually read it. Never has it been the non-governmental NIPCC. One paper from an otherwise respected author I know concluded that the Gulf of Mexico would probably be all tropical by the end of the century. I’ve got better things to do than statistics about this and it requires categories of statements. Such statements are often with other justifications of their research and motivations may be different from the media. Maybe lack of proper review is involved, boilerplate cut and paste. Other ad hocs are ocean acidification and of course global warming.
If they want funding or publication, they need to relate it to climate change.
I don’t agree. I think the changes that line up with Mikankovitch cycles show that there are major factors which change conditions here on Earth over long periods. These major changes do affect the weather, and when you add up all the weather then you do get a changed value which we call climate. But I would argue that something changed the climate, which then affected the weather, and we add up the weather to get a measure of how the climate changed.
Seems like circular reasoning to me. 😉
I would just add that the solar system’s orbit through the Milky Way, like the Mikankovitch cycles, also has long cycle impacts.
The science isn’t settled. 🙂
Again – chaos.
But I would argue that something changed the climate, which then affected the weather, and we add up the weather to get a measure of how the climate changed.
Almost. Something changed. This produced lots of changes in various parameters. We consider all those changes are related, so we summarize them by saying that the climate has changed.
Its not climate change that has changed the weather which we then regard as evidence of climate change. Its that some independent event has changed what we observe in the weather, and we regard these changes in the weather as evidence of something which we summarize as ‘climate change’.
Mike ==> Not sure what you re not agreeing with….(bad grammar that, don’t tell my wife).
Neither Pielke Jr. or I have said (or would ever say) that there are no causes for long-term changes in climatic conditions on Earth.
What changes the ‘climate’ is another day of weather.
Makes sense Kip.
Bob ==> It makes sense, and is a narrow but profound argument.
There’s often a significant difference between the precise definition of words required for scientific enquiry and rational discussion, and the sloppy and ambiguous definitions of words often used in common language.
I mentioned over a year ago, on this site, that climate change is an effect (or outcome) and cannot rationally be described as a cause.
A similar example of sloppy expression, is the use of the term ‘climate change denier’ to describe someone who is skeptical about the claimed degree of human contribution to a changing, global climate, and who is skeptical that the main driver of the current changes in climate is human CO2 emissions.
A ‘climate change denier’, by definition, would be someone who believes that the natural state of the climate is steady and unchanging. However, anyone who is aware of the most basic historical facts about climate, understands that climate has always been changing, at a varying rate and to a varying extent, in different parts of the planet, and sometime with catstrophic results for civilizations in certain areas.
As I write this, it occurs to me that the last part of the above sentence appears to present a contradiction. Climate Change is not a cause, but an effect from changes in weather patterns. However, it does seem reasonable to claim that Climate Change was the cause (or at least the main contributor) to the collapse of certain civilizations in the past.
Aside from prolonged drought, which? when?
or volcanic eruptions
It seems like a contradiction because you say “Climate Change is not a cause, but an effect from changes in weather patterns.”
Its not an effect. Its an expression which summarizes a change in weather patterns. Climate change, that is droughts, storms, floods etc can indeed cause collapse of civilizations.
Is inflation an effect of price rises? No, its what we mean by general
price rises, and the rise in the price of wheat last month cannot be
caused by inflation. It is a component of inflation. Inflation too can cause the collapse of governments.
Its the events which it summarizes which it cannot cause.
michel ==> Don’t wander into the weeds here. Stick quite strictly to the IPCC definition of “climate change” – a change in some long-term weather statistic(s). It is a change is a statistic that cannot be a cause.
Another undefined term that has been introduced into this debate is
“climate event”. I even see it used now by serious realists in response to some of the activist rants. Every prosecution witness, expert and lay, in the Held v Montana trial used it yet never defined it. They used it in reference to smokey days or a low water month. Poor language leads to misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to poor language.
Vincent ==> “that climate change is an effect (or outcome) and cannot rationally be described as a cause.” That is Pielke Jr.’s point.
To say that the desiccation of the Sahara region caused some local civilizations to collapse would be quite correct — but that is a specific instance of “a” change in regional climate — as there is no force or entity or “thing” which can be identified as “climate change”.
The climate changes between winter and summer in most places on the planet.
Who denies this?
Since 1800, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased by approximately 140 parts per million (ppm), from 280 to 420 ppm. This has produced a decrease near 2 W m-2 in the longwave IR (LWIR) flux emitted to space within the spectral region of the CO2 emission bands. There has also been a similar increase in the downward LWIR flux from the lower troposphere to the surface. At present, the annual average increase in CO2 concentration is about 2.4 ppm per year. This produces an annual increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface of approximately 0.034 W m-2 per year or 34 mW m-2 per year (mW = milliWatt =1/1000 Watt).
Using quantitative, time dependent energy transfer analysis, explain how these changes in flux have changed the earth’s climate. Specifically:
1) How has the absorption of 2 W m-2 by the CO2 bands changed the temperature of the troposphere?
2) How has the 2 W m-2 increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface changed ocean surface temperatures?
3) How has the 2 W m-2 increase in the downward LWIR flux to the surface changed land surface temperatures?
4) How does an increase of 34 mW m-2 per year in downward LWIR flux to the surface increase the frequency and intensity of ‘extreme weather events’?
The short answer is that any temperature increases produced by these changes in LWIR flux are ‘too small to measure’, nor can there be any changes in ‘extreme weather events’.
The whole global warming/climate change argument is based on the results produced by fraudulent climate models.
This fraud is discussed in detail in the recent paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’ published in the open access on-line journal Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73 (2024) https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
You should use Google and search for “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”.
This is the website of the late John Daly.
From the top the home page, scroll down to end and click on “Station Temperature Data”.
On the “World Map”, click on “North America”, and then click on “Pacific”. Scroll down
and finally click on “Death Valley”.
The figure shows plots of the annual average seasonal temperatures and a plot of the
annual average temperature. The plots show no increase temperature of the desert
air to 2001. Thus, I have concluded that CO2 does not heat air. In 2001 at the MLO
in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 was 370 ppm by volume. This is only 0.727 grams
of CO2 per cubic meter.
At 21 deg. C and 70% RH, the concentration of water vapor is 17,780 ppm by volume.
This is 14.3 grams of water per cubic meter of air. In March 2024 at the MLO, the concentration of CO2 is 427 ppm by volume. This is only 0.839 grams of cubic meter
of air. At 21 deg C the density of air is 1.2 kilograms. The concentration of CO2 in this
air is 397 ppm by volume. For these weather conditions, water is 98% of the greenhouse
effect.
I agree with you that there is climate model fraud. The small amount of CO2 in air can
heat up such a large amount by only very small amount.
This is my climate model, based on probably vacuous logic, but is still mine:
Consider a football stadium with a capacity of 100,000 seats. If the fans were molecules of air the proportions would be approximately thus:
78,084 Nitrogen fans
20,947 Oxygen fans
934 Argon fans
42 CO2 fans
Just thinking about it, how on earth can 42 evenly distributed CO2 fans control the remaining 99,938 fans. Logical answer is they can’t.
If the CO2 fans were reduced to half about their number, i.e. 20, plants start to die. Drop below 18 fans and all life ceases on the planet. Plants would love to see the number of CO2 fans rise to 90. That’s the optimum for photosynthesis. Even if the CO2 fan numbers rose to 90 they still, logically, couldn’t control the other 99,910 fans in the stadium.
Now, 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. 3% is man-made. So, about 1.26 CO2 fans are man-made. But those 1.26 CO2 fans, obvs /sarc, are clearly the global thermostat and control the other 99,998.75 fans.
“Now, 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. 3% is man-made.”
Only stupid people make that false claim.
Well, it comes from climatastrophists so you’re right
Only very ignorant people don’t accept that only 3-4% of the CO2 flux is from human emissions.
W/m^2 is not energy.
W is power, not energy.
J is energy 1 J = 1 W-sec
“The Climate System” doesn’t include ocean heat transport to the poles.
It doesn’t include the equator-pole thermal gradient, the steepness of which provides energy to cyclonic storms. For that matter, it doesn’t include the jet streams.
It doesn’t include the convection of moist air, its condensation at height, and radiation of energy into space (the physical thermostat of the climate).
And it doesn’t include submarine magmatism, which I suspect drives most of ocean heating, which, I suspect in turn, provides most of the thermal energy that keeps the climate temperate.
In short, I think “The Climate System,” provided by the National Research Council, 2005, is grotesquely inadequate.
“submarine magmatism, which I suspect drives most of ocean heating,”
You have zero evidence for that claim
It is wild speculation
It is a rare underseas event that causes enough heat released to be measured at the ocean’s surface directly above the heat release. Hunga Tonga was a rare exception.
“You have zero evidence for that claim”
There’s plenty of evidence for magmatic heating. With any luck, I’ll be publishing some.
It does not have to be measured at the surface to be a contribution.
Energy is energy however it enters or is distributed.
“You have zero evidence for that claim
It is wild speculation”
Like your claim of CO2 warming, hey !!
As usual, you are out of your lane.
Pat ==> The NRC graphic is a “cartoon”– a little sketch and not meant to be a scientifically exhaustive description. Pielke Jr. uses it as an illustration of what it excludes from the system.
Kip — thanks. I still dislike it.
Pat ==> I too would have done something quite different.
Pat, I agree with you about submarine magmatism. The details of submarine magmatism are poorly known. However, the available evidence suggests that submarine volcanoes are much more common than terrestrial volcanoes. Also, the Earth’s crust is thinner in the oceans. Something that caught my eye was a published cross-section of the west Pacific Ocean that showed multiple blobs of warm water with tails stretching down towards the bottom, not unlike the blobs in a ‘Lava Lamp.’ It is difficult to explain how warm water, typically buoyant, could have thin wedges driving towards the bottom. It is more reasonable that they are tails left behind by a rising mass of water heated at the bottom. The multiple blobs are explained by episodic eruptions near the ocean floor. It could even be the reason for El Nino events. I look forward to reading your submission.
Global low level cloud cover has declined by about 4% since the mid 90’s. Is that enough to cause observed temperature increases?
Prof HumLum at Climate4You makes this statement:
Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered (Climate + Clouds).
Clou cover percentage has a margin or error of at least +/- 10%.
A 4% change is statistically insignificant.
Also, cloud cover percentage is a proxy for how much sunlight clouds block, and may not be a particularly accurate proxy.
A 4% change is statistically insignificant but a earth energy imbalance of 0.6% is?
Get real.
RG has lost any sense of “reality” long ago.
He is locked into his own very limited version of the AGW mantra, which denies any facts that threaten his child-like view of what is real.
The way you are interpreting the numbers implies that there could be negative cloud coverage (4% +/-10%, or a range of -6% to +14%) a physical impossibility.
A 4% nominal value with a margin of error of +/-10% means 4.0 +/-0.4%.
Again, you are swerving out of your lane. Just avoid anything with numbers and stick to waving your arms.
Yes, misunderstanding the cause-and-effect error is rampant also regarding the correlation between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2. The best way to clear your head is to think of the difference between geological time and human time. Only the former will expose from thousands of years of weather statistics a fundamental change in climate.
Matkin ==> Yes, and much of the problem is we have lots of immediate, recent data, temperatures in seconds and days and week and months and years for specific locations — but we do not have dependable science-grade data on major climate factors even over half-century scales.
Finally, some common sense about cause and effect.
Yep definitely climate change-
AEMO directs load shedding in NSW on Monday evening 8th July 2024 – WattClarity
Not that you’d know anything about it following the mainstream sleepy Joe media.
Couldn’t keep up at dinner time-
Northern Rivers blacked out as Essential Energy ‘sheds load’ – The Echo
They should be hitting the teal and greenie inner-city with load-shedding…
…. not the country regions.
Let those who push this renewables crap, deal first with the consequences.
Those uni types in Canberra have a cunning plan-
Electric vehicles can feed power into the electricity grid, something experts say could be done more in the future – ABC News
First they make EVs compulsory and then they can suck them flat to avoid fickle greenouts.
AKA “theft”.
Currently , wind is taking yet another holiday.
Mighty renewables [lol] SA is using 86% GAS and 9% diesel, importing nearly 20 times what wind is producing.
NSW.. 82% FF, 11% hydro
Qld… 94% FF, 4% hydro
Vic.. 64% FF 15% Hydro, and fortunately has some wind.
In the same way, increasing CO2 levels are a result of increasing temperatures and not the cause of increasing temperatures.
There is a small, slow process where changes in ocean temperatures cause changes in the atmospheric CO2 content. About 15 to 20 ppm change in atmospheric CO2 per 1 degree change in ocean temperature.
There is a larger faster process when manmade CO2 emissions cause global warming
They are two different process that happen at the same time. That’s why you are confused.
But you are not as confused as the CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters.
They get confused by the annual seasonal carbon cycle which is much larger than CO2 as a climate forcing process or CO2 as a climate feedback process. They look at natural CO2 emissions in the fall and winter, while ignoring slightly larger CO2 absorption in the spring and summer. That’s why they are Nutters.
Only person who is a “confused nutter” here, is you RG. !
Human CO2 emissions are some 3-4% of the total CO2 flux… get over it.!
This article was caused by climate change.
If a lot of CO2 is added to the atmosphere over a 30 year period, and winters become warmer, even in rural areas, that is evidence CO2 emissions caused climate change.
The CO2 Does Nothing Nutters here will deny that CO2 has any effect — “you can’t prove it — you can’t prove it”.
The Nutter don’t realize science does not prove anything. Science collects evidence.
But they automatically ignore all evidence that humans can affect the climate. Because they are biased Nutters..
The Nutters are a good match for the IPCC that tries to ignore, or minimizes, all natural causes of climate change. Nutters versus the IPCC is like a Dumb and Dumber movie.
“If a lot of CO2 is added to the atmosphere over a 30 year period, and winters become warmer, “
Unproven, unmeasured sci-fi garbage. !
Zero evidence nutter.. pure speculation.
“Science” might collect evidence.
But you still have NONE. !
You reached DUMBEST stage ages ago.. yet still keep going.
Richard ==> Take care not to rant….
“If a lot of CO2 is added to the atmosphere over a 30 year period, and winters become warmer, even in rural areas, that is evidence CO2 emissions caused climate change.”
Warmer winters are not necessarily the result of “a lot of CO2 added to the atmosphere”.
It appears that CO2 Concentrations at Mauna Loa have gone up since measurement there started, with lots of supporting measurements elsewhere. So, stipulated “CO2 ppm have gone up since 1974”.
In some regions, averaged winter temperatures have been less cold compared to longer term averages. That is a changed climate statistic about winter temperature in those regions.
That is not “evidence [that] CO2 emissions caused climate change.”
There are scientific reasons to believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations could increase average temperatures of the Earth climate, by some small amount.
But, golly, one has to be VERY careful with statement of cause, much more careful than that.
In March 2018 the climate experts were saying Cape Town was rapidly heading for Zero Water in their main water supply and this would be the future pattern: hotter weather and worse drought. Well, when the winter rainfall season began that year the dams filled up and the Western Cape has had good rainfall every year since. This is the seventh year in a row and the dams are 74% full with 12 more weeks of winter rain due. The cold fronts this week will push that number well over 80%.
The water shortage in Cape Town is a people problem and not a climate problem because the population has grown enormously. The biggest dam was completed in 1979 and since then the population has increased from 1.6 million to 5 million but during these years only one much smaller dam has been completed (2009) increasing the water supply by 17%. Given the numbers even a schoolboy can do the Math and see the folly but the experts not. These same experts are pushing the world to spend billions upon billions in futile climate engineering when we could spend a small fraction of this to successfully adapt to the weather conditions and problems they pose.
Michael ==> And in this you point out another false but repeated propaganda technique: Climate Change is blamed for problems ever-so-obviously caused by human/civil actions: Too Many People, Too Few Reservoirs. The U.S. West is an example — add millions upon millions of people and new homes with green-grass lawns and golf courses, but no new sources of water.
“The cold fronts this week will push that number well over 80%.”
Today, 11 July, the dam levels are at 85.6% with plenty of water still flowing into the dams. Anyone who has lived though a few winters in the Western Cape knows that the climate experts spout hogwash. Weather conditions do not comply with the climate models. That is why I stated below, “For an honest scientist observations and meticulous records must always trump models.”
Today, 15 July, the dam levels are up to 93.9% from 74.1% a week ago.
This is from the winter rains – a normal feature of a Mediterranean climate which means 7 good years in a row. The authorities have given the green light to building a pipeline from a dam that regularly overflows to the second largest dam that is slowest to fill. This is good step but the plans were put on the table 20 years ago and the central government (which is control) has dragged their feet. Clearly we have a people not climate problem.
I would argue that the Earth’s climate is quite stable.
The weather in my neighborhood is about the same as it has been all my life and I’ve been around for a while. The only small difference I can tell is it is a little bit cooler now than it was when I was a kid. But, I didn’t have air conditioning then, so maybe that has something to do with it. 🙂
But, seriously, the weather is never quite the exact same, but in general it is the same, at least in this human’s lifetime, and going by weather history, it has been basically the same since the end of the Little Ice Age.
When Climate Alarmists say “climate change” all they are doing is describing variations in the normal course of events. Variations happen every day, all across the planet, and are part of the basic weather patterns of the Earth. They happen regardless of the level of CO2 in the air.
Tom, I think some of these people confuse weather and climate. If one were to keep a daily journal of the weather conditions where you have been living for many years you will find a huge variety of weather conditions. The term climate for this area is artificial, somewhat misleading, and this applies to all climate zones.
Colder, warmer, wetter, drier, windier, no wind are simply different weather conditions and do not in themselves indicate climate change. Much of Italy has a Mediterranean climate with winter rainfall and hot dry summers. My son, who is currenly working in Italy, told me they recently had a heavy downpour just like in a humid subtropical area where he used to live. This illustrates the flaws in the climate alarmist narrative: they follow the models and ignore the real time observations. For an honest scientist observations and meticulous records must always trump models.
Tom ==> Even the IPCC acknowledges that the climate system is chaotic — and, oddly, stability is one of the FEATURES of Chaos.
Good points here Kip. Thank you.
The core issue with the modern “climate change” claims is the validity of attribution of reported trends, the warming trend in particular.
In 1938, Guy Callendar computed a warming trend and attributed it to incremental concentrations of CO2. Brunt and Simpson pointed out the problems with that attribution. More here from a year ago on an open thread.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/02/open-thread-52/#comment-3703255
In 1960, Edward Lorenz described the concept of energy transformations as fundamental to the general circulation of the atmosphere. The modern ERA5 reanalysis model computes the “vertical integral of energy conversion” as an hourly parameter. When you realize what happens to the incremental radiative effect of rising GHGs, it becomes clear that attribution of ANY of the reported warming to non-condensing GHGs has been unsound all along. Here is a time lapse video to make this point. Please read the full description for references to the ERA5 parameter definitions and to the Lorenz paper from 1960. I will also post that text in a reply here.
This, in concept, is what Brunt was referring to back in 1938.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Thanks again for your articles.
Here is the full text at the video.
******
Are CO2 emissions a risk to the climate? No. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 (~4 W/m^2 for 2XCO2) disappears as kinetic energy (wind) is converted to/from internal energy (including temperature) + potential energy (altitude).
This time lapse video shows the daily minimum, median, and maximum values of the computed “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis for 2022. Values for each 1/4 degree longitude gridpoint at 45N latitude are given. The vertical scale is from -10,000 to +10,000 W/m^2. The minor incremental radiative absorbing power of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O vanishes on the vertical scale as the rapidly changing energy conversion in both directions is tens to thousands of times greater.
So what? The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming. And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs. The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.” The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.
References:
The ERA5 reanalysis model is a product of ECMWF, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The computed parameters “vertical integral of potential + internal energy” and “vertical integral of energy conversion” are described at these links.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162061
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/?id=162064
Further comment:
This is for just one latitude band at 45N. Similar results were observed for 45S, 10N/S, 23.5N/S, and 66N/S.
More Background:
From Edward N. Lorenz (1960) “Energy and Numerical Weather Prediction”
https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v12i4.9420
“2. Energy, available potential energy, and
gross static stability
Of the various forms of energy present in
the atmosphere, kinetic energy has often
received the most attention. Often the total
kinetic energy of a weather system is regarded
as a measure of its intensity. The only other
forms of atmospheric energy which appear
to play a major role in the kinetic energy
budget of the troposphere and lower stratosphere
are potential energy, internal energy, and the
latent energy of water vapor. Potential and
internal energy may be transformed directly
into kinetic energy, while latent energy may
be transformed directly into internal energy,
which is then transformed into kinetic energy.
It is easily shown by means of the hydrostatic
approximation that the changes of the
potential energy P and the internal energy l of
the whole atmosphere are approximately proportional,
so that it is convenient to regard
potential and internal energy as constituting
a single form of energy. This form has been
called total potential energy by Margules (1903).
…
In the long run, there must be a net depletion
of kinetic energy by dissipative processes. It
follows that there must be an equal net
generation of kinetic energy by reversible
adiabatic processes; this generation must occur
at the expense of total potential energy. It
follows in turn that there must be an equal net
generation of total potential energy by heating
of all kinds. These three steps comprise the
basic energy cycle of the atmosphere. The
rate at which these steps proceed is a fundamental
characteristic of the general circulation.”******
David, that’s really stunning. I didn’t grasp that video when you first directed me to it. But reading the text you posted, it suddenly makes sense. Thank-you for posting the explanation.
The revelation of the energy flux magnitude and dynamics really corrects one’s perspective on the scale of things. There’s just no way the tiny change in energy flux from increased CO2 can have any impact on the climate energy state. Earth won’t even notice it.
Thanks for this reply, Pat. Your work has been a motivator for me to find ways to show and explain, from credible sources, exactly what you say here – “Earth won’t even notice it.”
It then follows: how do you even measure it? It’s so tiny that our measurement capability can’t accurately discern it!
David ==> Very interesting — I am a big fan of Lorenz and have pushed back against the idea that all incoming energy is experienced in the climate system as “thermometer measurable heat”.
Thanks for your reply. It is even more of a mystery to me now, 45 years later, that there was not a stronger push-back at the time of the Charney Report in 1979. Anyone who knew the math and physics of compressible fluids that were being applied in numerical weather prediction could have pointed this out like Brunt did in 1938, that the radiative effect of additional CO2 is not just “heating.” Now with ERA5, the rapid large reversals in the hourly values of energy conversion show us that is the weather itself (i.e. what we experience from the atmosphere’s circulations) that prevents incremental GHGs from becoming a “climate” risk.
Looking at temperature as a proxy for “heat” is typical non-science for climate science.
Enthalpy is the measure of heat, not temperature. What happens at night? Typically the temperature goes down and according to climate science this represents a “loss” of heat. But humidity typically also goes up at night meaning an increase in enthalpy (i.e. heat).
Since enthalpy also has pressure as a factor what happens to pressure at night. For six of the past seven days here the pressure has dropped at night, sometimes just a little, sometimes a lot. I haven’t looked over a longer period of time so I don’t know if this is due to weather patterns or is typical natural daily variation.
Do these factors all cancel out in some manner? Climate science can’t tell you because they ignore the actual measure of heat – enthalpy. Radiative analysis can’t tell you because it doesn’t look at all factors (total enthalpy = enthalpy_sensible + enthalpy_latent). (note: this includes UAH and RSS)
By now climate science should have a 40 year long baseline of enthalpy data from measurements taken multiple times per day. Why doesn’t it exist?
“By now climate science should have a 40 year long baseline of enthalpy data from measurements taken multiple times per day. Why doesn’t it exist?”
This hourly parameter “vertical integral of thermal energy” is available in the ERA5 reanalysis. Of course, this is a computed estimate, not a direct measurement. Equivalent to enthalpy as explained here. I have not done much with it, but maybe I should.
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/162060
Just how much uncertainty do the “estimates” made from that data have?
from your reference document:
—————————————–
Thermal energy is calculated from the product of temperature and the specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure.
The thermal energy is equal to enthalpy, which is the sum of the internal energy and the energy associated with the pressure of the air on its surroundings.
—————————————
Thermal energy may be equal to enthalpy but how do you know the heat capacity of the air if you don’t know the humidity?
h_t = total enthalpy
h_a = specific enthalpy of dry air
h_w = specific enthalpy of water vapor
r = humidity ratio
h_t = h_a + (r *h_w)
The enthalpy of water vapor is typically called “latent heat”.
I can’t find where ERA5 does anything with humidity. Did I miss it somewhere?
Good point about their description of enthalpy. It should be the same as on a psychrometric chart. Seems inconsistent. But the model does, of course, have a value of water vapor for each grid cell, and a vertical integral is computed. They spell it “vapour.”
https://codes.ecmwf.int/grib/param-db/137
There would be considerable uncertainty in the model, of course, but the main point is that it is reasonable to take it as a fair representation of the range of values and rate of change.
” But the model does, of course, have a value of water vapor for each grid cell, and a vertical integral is computed.”
“the main point is that it is reasonable to take it as a fair representation of the range of values and rate of change.”
I don’t agree. Air pressure, air density, relative humidity, water vapor pressure, etc all change as you go up in a vertical column. Even things like wind differences at different altitudes will impact the enthalpy by varying all the factors, especially the latent heat content.
Assuming that everything is constant or is a linear relationship to altitude causes the same uncertainty as it does with so much in climate science. If your model doesn’t provide for accurate representation of the component factors then you can’t assume it gives a fair representation of anything.
It’s why things like the aerodynamics of a car body always has to be confirmed in a wind tunnel using actual measurements. Models simply don’t provide sufficient detail. Would you fly in an airplane that was built solely from models with no physical testing?
“Air pressure, air density, relative humidity, water vapor pressure, etc all change as you go up in a vertical column.”
Yes, the ERA5 reanalysis model has 137 levels in the atmosphere in which these values are used in computation. I refer to the vertical integrals, e.g. energy conversion in my comment to this KH post, as useful for assessing the implications of the bulk processes involved. Another useful metric is total column water (or water vapour) – otherwise referred to as “total precipitable water.”
The big question is if you don’t have measurements of both temperature and relative humidity (or have absolute humidity) along the vertical column then any value you have for total precipitable water” is nothing more than a wild a$$ guess. That means a large uncertainty.
An uncertainty which climate science ALWAYS ignores. It’s not even a measurement uncertainty. It’s an uncertainty generated from guessing. Kind of like guessing that the temperature on the north side of the Kansas River valley is always the same as on the south side so you can infill temps from one side to the other as part of a “homogenization” routine.
The daily assimilation of various inputs into ERA5 includes radiosondes (from weather balloons), aircraft, etc. So “measurements of both temperature and relative humidity (or have absolute humidity) along the vertical column” are implemented. Essentially, it’s a global forecast model with near-continuous initialization from measurements. Sure, there would be considerable uncertainty at any particular grid point or altitude at a particular time, just like a forecast. More here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.3803
Relative humidity typically rises, but does absolute humidity? Certainly, if temperature falls below the dew point, some of the water vapour precipitates out as dew or frost.
Relative humidity is how much water vapor the air *could* hold if saturated. If the relative humidity goes up then the air is closer to being saturated. It is temp dependent. If you know both the relative humidity (or dew point) and the temperature then you can calculate the absolute humidity. Something climate science *could* do if it were really interested in doing science the correct way!
Yep, RH tends to rise as T decreases, but AH probably remains constant unless water vapour precipitates out. The bottom line is that enthalpy will fall in line with temperature between dusk and dawn, give or take a bit due to weather systems et cetera.
I’m not sure what actually happens. I need to someday do some calculations on this. Air density changes as temperature changes. Density goes up as temp goes down. Water vapor pressure goes up as relative humidity goes up. This *could* result in enthalpy contribution from latent heat staying the same or going down less than expected.
It’s another question that climate science *should* have the answer to but which I cannot find anywhere on the internet. It seems like it just gets ignored like so much else is ignored.
Wet pavements cause rain.
Everyone knows this – climate denier!
Language matters. Words matter. Conciseness and precision matters.
“Wife pregnant again?” “Yeah, you know, climate change.”
Soon to be:
“Wife pregnant again?” “Yeah, you know, another blackout.”
These heatwaves are definitely a driver of climate variability.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub