By Andy May & Marcel Crok
An anonymous reviewer has written a critique of our recent paper “Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,” published online May 29, 2024, in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology.
In the introduction to his critique, Phoma destructiva writes: “the authors and their cited sources likely underestimated anthropogenic global warming.” We provide no estimate of the anthropogenic component of global warming. All we do is point out that if some of the observed warming is natural, the IPCC AR6 estimate of anthropogenic global warming will be too high. This is trivially true.
The first part of the main critique, is actually a lengthy critique of Javier Vinós’ book Climate of Past, Present and Future, that has nothing to do with our paper. His critique compares Vinós’ projections into the future to those made by the IPCC, our paper makes no projections. We simply discuss the climate of today and the recent past (back to 1750), so this section of the critique is irrelevant to our paper and should be directed to Dr. Vinós.
While we cite some published projections in our conclusions, we deliberately avoided making any projections ourselves, our paper only considers past and present observations. The critique disputes Vinós’ predictions of the future by claiming that the IPCC predictions, based on the impact of CO2 emissions, are more accurate. We currently have no idea whether Vinós’ or the IPCC predictions are correct or not, as the time period discussed is not over yet. Our paper discusses the state of the climate today and in the past, predictions of the future are not observations and should not be confused with them.
The next section attempts to dispute the existence of all multidecadal ocean oscillations based on two papers by Michael Mann and co-authors, Mann, et al. (2020) and Mann et al. (2021). Mann’s 2020 paper attempts to show that the most cited ocean climate oscillations, the AMO and the PDO, are not statistically significant because their signal is not sufficiently above red noise. However, he acknowledges that the historical observations of the AMO are statistically significant, and it is only climate model results that are not statistically significant. Since all models are wrong (Box, 1976), this argument is quite weak.
The PDO is usually interpreted as a long-term variation in the La Niña/El Niño ratio, and (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020) do acknowledge that the ratio varies in a statistically significant fashion on a 40–50-year timescale. He just disputes the predictability of the traditional PDO.
We acknowledge that the longer-term ocean oscillations are poorly understood and poorly described. However, Mann et al. (2020) provides no valid evidence that they do not exist or that they have no natural component. In fact, he admits:
“Based on the available observational and modelling evidence, the most plausible explanation for the multidecadal peak seen in modern climate observations is that it reflects the response to a combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.” (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020)
We agree with this sentence, and it is consistent with our paper.
Mann, et al. (2021) attempts to explain multidecadal ocean oscillations (specifically the AMO and the PDO) as an artefact of volcanic activity and anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols. Again, as also noted in Mann (2020), Mann (2021) notes the absence of a multidecadal signal in climate model simulations but acknowledge that the signal can be seen in observations (Mann M. , Steinman, Brouillette, & Miller, 2021). We would argue that if the signal is seen in observations and in paleoclimate proxy data, but not in climate models, that is a reason not to trust the climate models, not a reason to reject the proposed natural oscillation.
We do believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols, and volcanic activity have some influence on climate, but we believe that current warming has been “juiced” by natural ocean oscillations. These oscillations are observed in nature and have been traced back as far as 1567AD, well before anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols could have been a factor in climate change (Gray, Graumlich, Betancourt, & Pederson, 2004).
The evidence presented by Mann (2021) that volcanic activity has caused the “apparent” ocean oscillations is model based, and not based on observations. This is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is that the IPCC AR6 models cannot reproduce the critical tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) very well, even though sea surface temperatures are a key component of most of the ocean oscillations. From AR6:
“We assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979–2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period.” AR6, p 444
“… despite decades of model development, increases in model resolution, and advances in parametrization schemes, there has been no systematic convergence in model estimates of ECS. In fact, the overall inter-model spread in ECS for CMIP6 is larger than for CMIP5; …”AR6, WGI, page 1008.
In other words, both the AR5 and AR6 climate models overestimate sea surface temperatures in the tropics, which is nearly half of the planet’s surface. In addition, the model estimates of ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2) are worse in AR6 than in AR5, suggesting that the models are getting worse with time, not better, relative to observations (also see here). Other studies have also shown that the climate models are invalidated when compared to observations (McKitrick & Christy, 2020) and (McKitrick & Christy, 2018). Model evidence cannot be used to show observational evidence is incorrect.
Then the anonymous critique of our paper again resorts to comparing predictions by Vinós, (Wyatt & Curry, 2014), and others to the IPCC predictions. We made no predictions, we only cited observations. The end of the time period for the various predictions they criticize has not been reached, thus which, if any, of the predictions turn out to be correct is unknown and will not be known for decades to come. Arguing which prediction is correct at this point is a fruitless exercise. Predictions are a critical part of science, but one should wait until the prediction period is over before criticizing them.
Discussion
This critique is a poster child for all that is wrong with modern climate science. Phoma destructiva sets up obvious strawmen from articles we cite, that are unrelated to our argument that observations show no dangers or net harm from climate change today, and then attacks his own strawmen, rather than our paper. This sort of irrelevant strawman fallacy is unfortunately very common in climate science and is never credible.
Far too often even trained climate scientists mix climate model results with observations as if they were of equal importance or significance, they are not. Statements like the following from Mann et al., 2021 are clearly incorrect:
“Our analysis reveals a robust multidecadal, narrowband (50- to 70-year) oscillatory “AMO-like” signal in simulations of the past millennium; the oscillation is driven by episodes of high amplitude explosive volcanism that happen, in past centuries, to display a multidecadal pacing. We find no evidence for an internally generated 50- to 70-year multidecadal oscillatory signal despite continued claims that proxy data reveal such a signal.” (Mann M. , Steinman, Brouillette, & Miller, 2021)
Translation, our simulations show that volcanism caused the oscillation and proxy evidence that the oscillation is natural is wrong, because our models say so. This is clearly flawed logic; however we do agree that the current ocean oscillations probably have both forced (CO2 and volcanism) and unforced (natural) components. But as stated in Mann (2020), objectively separating these two components is problematic.
Climate models, like all models, are always wrong (Box, 1976). Properly done, observations are always right, within measurement accuracy. Ocean oscillations, such as the AMO, PDO, and many others, are observed climate features, they are real, and cannot be disproven with climate model results.
Note: Neither Marcel nor Andy have a PhD, thus Phoma destructiva used the title “Dr.” incorrectly.
Works Cited
Box, G. E. (1976). Science and Statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791-799. Retrieved from http://www-sop.inria.fr/members/Ian.Jermyn/philosophy/writings/Boxonmaths.pdf
Gray, S. T., Graumlich, L. J., Betancourt, J. L., & Pederson, G. T. (2004). A tree-ring based reconstruction of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation since 1567 A.D. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31. doi:10.1029/2004GL019932
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, . . . B. Zhou (Ed.)., WG1. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Mann, M., Steinman, B., & Miller, S. (2020). Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations. Nature Communications, 11. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13823-w
Mann, M., Steinman, B., Brouillette, D., & Miller, S. (2021). Multidecadal climate oscillations during the past millennium driven by volcanic forcing. Science, 317, 1014-1019. doi:10.1126/science.abc5810
McKitrick, R., & Christy, J. (2018, July 6). A Test of the Tropical 200- to 300-hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models, Earth and Space Science. Earth and Space Science, 5(9), 529-536. doi:10.1029/2018EA000401
McKitrick, R., & Christy, J. (2020). Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers. Earth and Space Science, 7. doi:10.1029/2020EA001281
Wyatt, M., & Curry, J. (2014, May). Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Climate Dynamics, 42(9-10), 2763-2782. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann is rather a parody of climate science for putting more credence in models than observed reality.
Msy and Crok have found a couple of odd sentences by Mann that may have some truth in them.
But I’d much rather trust Bernie Madoff on investments than Michael Mann on even the date of next Christmas.
“we do agree that the current ocean oscillations probably have both forced (CO2 and volcanism) and unforced (natural) components.”
Why are CO2 levels and volcanism not natural components?
Because the IPCC says so?
LOL now that’s funny.
It is a question of definitions. To the IPCC, components that alter the energy flux at the top of the atmosphere are forcers, wether natural (solar & volcanic) or anthropogenic (GHGs, industrial aerosols). Internal variability is considered unforced and is always natural.
Let’s take for example the events of 2023. They altered the energy flux at the top of the atmosphere, so they constitute the result of a forcer. But they cannot be anthropogenic, although maritime fuels are wrongly blamed. Despite being the result of a natural forcer, the excess warming of 2023 is being blamed on humans, contradicting the IPCC criteria.
“the events of 2023” I do not know which events.
Rapid warming, if ~0.6 deg of warming in a year can be called rapid. I get that much warming at home between 5AM and 8AM.
Your argument by incredulity here is fallacious because you are conflating the behavior of a small subset of a domain with the average of the domain. It can be shown generally that when Y = ΔΣ[Xi/N, i = 1 to N] that it is not necessary that Y = ΔXi for all i or that stddev({Y1, Y2, …, Yj}) = stddev({Xi1, Xi2, …, Xij}). Therefore you implication that the warming rate at your house is sufficient to draw conclusions about the warming rate globally and whether that warming rate is high or low is invalid. These warming rates can and do differ by significant amounts so comparing them is just wrong.
And now the averages uber alles pseudoscience ruler monkeys show up.
Trying to sound “intelligent” using copy/paste… and failing stupidly !
At least it is funny to watch.
Hey, he managed to put sigma and delta in that mess, must be an authority.
I can see temperature variations of 0.6 C in a few hours at my home, as well. Now, if everyone on this thread, living in various parts of the world, also see 0,6 C variations in a few hours at their homes, too, does that make it much more than “just wrong”?
Depends on forcing at my house – sunny morning at it quickly warms up.
Do you think the fact you and others see 0.6 C in a few hours at your own homes necessarily means that the global average changes by 0.6 C in a few hours?
Why do you ask these stupid questions?
He is peddling as fast as he can!
Do you think the 4.7 C.hr-1 (41172 C.yr-1) rate of change at Georgetown, TX on July 17, 2022 should be compared to that of the globe?
Why are you obsessed with “the globe”?
It is common for all places on the globe to warm rapidly in the morning. The point being that life has evolved to handle rapid changes much larger than the claimed annual warming of the globe. Acknowledging that speaks to the question of whether a fraction of a degree average slow change offers any practical existential threat when more people die of cold than heat.
Let’s discuss. To calculate a GAΔT to a milli-kelvin value, the uncertainty is (generously) ±0.0009. To obtain that small of a standard uncertainty of the mean requires an extremely narrow distribution around the mean. Why would you expect an anomaly at any global location for the same local time period to vary more than the GAΔT?
Actually, you are incorrect. The warming rate between 5 am and 8 am at one location is very likely to be close to the global average for the same local time period.
Remember that is an anomaly, not an absolute temperature. And, in the past, you have trumpeted that anomalies are close for up to 1500 km. Since a point near the edge of a 1500 km circle is also the center of another 1500 km circle, basically, you can cover the globe with a similar anomaly.
Funny how that works.
It seems to me that what Andy is doing is questioning the definitional use of the word “rapid.” It is probably best to avoid using qualitative adjectives and stick with the quantitative measurements.
I don’t disagree. That’s why I suggest comparing the rate of change based on past rates of change. For example, here in St. Louis the monthly changes in local temperature anomalies has an average of 0.03 C with an sd of 2.7 C. But according to UAH monthly changes in global temperature anomalies has an average of 0.002 C with an sd of 0.13 C. The point…while someone might consider 0.1 C to be “rapid” globally (I’m not suggesting it is) it’s hardly worth talking about locally. That’s why Andy’s comparison with his own home is an argument from incredulity.
My thermostat gives me 5 times that warming + and – in a single day.
Must be my thermostat has a CO2 “control knob.”
My car’s thermostat registers a 70 C change in about 10 minutes. That’s 7 C/min * 525600 min/yr = 3679200 C/yr . If that isn’t rapid for my car then there is no way it could be rapid for Earth. /s
Once again, the assumption is that humans and what they do is not natural.
That leaves intelligent design and divine intervention as the only alternatives. Which means all the following arguments are religious as to their basis.
Well, “Climate Science” (TM) is essentially a secular religion, so you’re on the right track there…
What Man did was natural … until he rubbed those first two sticks together. 😎
This recent study shows that human CO2 emissions are no larger than 4 percent of the CO2 in the air, 96 percent or more of the CO2 in the air has natural origins.
‘Net Isotopic Signature of Atmospheric CO2 Sources and Sinks: No Change since the Little Ice Age’
Abstract
Recent studies have provided evidence, based on analyses of instrumental measurements of the last seven decades, for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between temperature as the cause and carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) as the effect. In the most recent study, this finding was supported by analysing the carbon cycle and showing that the natural [CO2] changes due to temperature rise are far larger (by a factor > 3) than human emissions, while the latter are no larger than 4% of the total. Here, we provide additional support for these findings by examining the signatures of the stable carbon isotopes, 12 and 13. Examining isotopic data in four important observation sites, we show that the standard metric δ13C is consistent with an input isotopic signature that is stable over the entire period of observations (>40 years), i.e., not affected by increases in human CO2 emissions. In addition, proxy data covering the period after 1500 AD also show stable behaviour. These findings confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle and a non-discernible signature of humans.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17
story tip
I think you’ve offered this before.Looks good to me but it’s over my head. I wonder what others here think of it. Perhaps in a new posting- if one of the editors wants to initiate that.
The problem is, the study you cite is apparently incorrect. I went after your last post and checked the 12C/13C ratios from 1950 on at several locations posted by NOAA at Mauna Loa, Amundsen Scott, and elsewhere The usual graph is simply total CO2 rising versus 13C declining over time. Most pronounced since about 1970. NOAA even has a nice NH chart showing the seasonality correspondence. The annual 13C minimum corresponds to the annual CO2 seasonal winter maximum for over the past two decades.
Go to GRL.noaa.gov for a good introductory overview with several nice plots over the past 30-40 years.
My browser can’t find that link.
gml.noaa.gov
T6. My bad. Had it written down right, typed wrong.
Thanks, I went to the NOAA link and it said that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years when I just saw a study that says the average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 4 years. It also said “Human emissions only contribute 15 % to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787
Another good 13C mole fraction multidecadal decline source with multiple stations in both hemispheres is ScrippsCO2.uscd.edu. Note that plot inverted axis so that a ‘rise’ over time is actually a decline.
My browser can’t find that link.
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/isotopic_data/
TY again, My browser is case usually case insensitive except for passwords.
The referenced paper uses data published by Scripps, as do I for most of my relevant plots. A key point is that their data provides monthly values including the seasonal cycle and also monthly data where the average seasonal cycle has been removed. It is the latter dataset that is pertinent to the longer term trend (which is why Keeling et al 2017 use it, for example).
The isotope argument has a hole the size of a semi in it, because those isotopes also come from “natural” sources (i.e., other than human fossil fuel use).
And the “natural” sources (and sinks for that matter) are not being measured.
Lots of estimates and assumptions.
Charles Keeling himself described the declining 13C mole fraction at Mauna Loa in Nature (at Nature.com) in a paper published 01/01/1979.
Do you have a link?
Try Nature.com. The rest is in their search box
What does “apparently incorrect” mean? The underlying hypothesis of the study is with regard to the longer term trend, which has a δ13C of incremental atmospheric CO2 at -13‰, not with the seasonal cycle, which primarily reflects photosynthesis/respiration at around -26‰.
I don’t know if their are wright or wrong, but as far as I understood their paper, they do not claim that δ13C is decreasing, but that δ13CI (see below) has been a constant over the last 60 years while humans CO2 emissions doubled :
The paper tries to estimate the input isotopic signature δ13CI (I for input) of the CO2 added into the atmosphere be it anthropogenic or natural to see if its trend reflects humans emissions (if yes, it should have decreased during the last 60 years since the isotopic signature of fossil fuels δ13CIf is between -19‰ and -44‰).
For this :
Their claim is that δ13CI is a constant over all the measurement period in each of the 4 measurement locations (e.g. δ13CI = -13.3‰ at Mauna Loa).
Moreover, they estimate δ13CI during the last 500 years and find that it did not vary from -13.3‰.
Their conclusion is that the observed decreasing trend of δ13C can’t be explained by humans emissions.
My sought is that their theoretical framework in which they derive the equation involving (δ13C, δ13CI and 1/[CO2]) from the mass conservation principle may deserve a careful reading.
Similar conclusion here..
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters (rclutz.com)
Clutz writes some good articles that I recommend on my blog and others, like this one, that are total BS. No wonder BeNasty loves it.
And RG has the scientific comprehension of a fungal infection and a luser..
I would not recommend his blog even to a dead slug.
Bnice, I wish you were more explicit in your recommendations. /s
The El Nino Nutter There Is No AGW Nutter speaks up
Over 861,000 lifetime page views
Please stay away.
No comments allowed so there is no room for dingbats like you to post your usual bursts of verbal flatulence
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Do you have any evidence of warming in the UAH data apart from at El Ninos??
Or will you just throw another tantrum. !!
“This recent study shows that human CO2 emissions are no larger than 4 percent of the CO2 in the air, 96 percent or more of the CO2 in the air has natural origins.”
Only a climate science dingbat would make this false claim. Does a leftist organization pay you for making conservatives seems to be science denying fools?
??? Did you not read what I wrote? That study contradicts the “Climate Change” narrative and supports the conservatives. .
You began by saying CO2 is 96% natural, In fact atmospheric CO2 is 33% from manmade CO2 emissions.
I immediately realized you are stupid and stopped reading. There are plenty of smart articles and smart comments to read here.
WRONG again.
Human CO2 is only about 4% of the total flux, and that gets absorbed into the expanding carbon cycle that feeds the world, every quickly.
You haven’t produced anything “smart” basically… evah !!
Poor RG still can’t let his AGW-apologist brain-washing down enough to accept the fact that human CO2 emissions are only 4% of the total CO2 flux.
Sad that it wants to remain so ignorant.. by choice.
RG is a rabid AGW-apologist and a leftist pretending to have a brain… and failing.
Have you not read what I posted as well?
I posted the study which said that human CO2 is only 4% of the CO2.
I support the conservatives in that human CO2 has little if any effect.
The question is NOT the percent. Itbis the percent of the Mauna Loa observed increase. Please state the issue correctly. You want to say anthrogenic is not involved. You, like Murray Salby, are simply wrong and do the rest of us skeptics a disservice.
‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787
“The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
I think that the other 96% is caused by the increased solar output over the last 100 years that is warming the oceans that then can’t hold as much dissolved CO2 when warmed and have been releasing CO2, like a warmed soda pop.
When human cut their CO2 output by 5.4 percent in 2020 because of COVID-19 shutdowns the CO2 kept rising at the same rate as far as I can tell. https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2
You are a climate science dingbat
The measured actual rise of CO2 in 2020 with a 6% decline of manmade CO2 emissions. was only slightly higher than the expected rise.
Your 4% claim is what stupid people say. They count natural carbon cycle CO emissions in a year but ignore natura carbon cycle CO2 absorption, which averages slightly more tha emissions in the same year.
Cheery picking data is a strategy of stupid people with an agenda.
there was no increase of top of the atmosphere solar TSI in the past 100 years.
A +1 degree warming of oceans since 1850 could have released 15 to 20 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere — in fact, atmospheric CO2 increased by +140 ppm in that period
Every statement in your comment is false.
You get an A for consistency.
Also, here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Mauna Loa data shows that the rate of CO2 increase closely follows ocean atmospheric temperatures.
If there is a human signature to CO2 rate of increase.. it is very well hidden.
And the slope and peak of the seasonal ramp-up phase is anomalously high during warm El Nino years.
Berry, Salby and Harde are The Three Stooges of Climate Science.
BeNasty is Shemp.
Greenie the non-science twit, is more like Billy Madison. !
Everyone who takes any notice of its comments, becomes a WHOLE LOT DUMBER.
Sorry, must disagree. So far, increased CO2 levels have been markedly beneficial to all life on Earth.
Virtue signalling liars, (obviously not including 95% of WUWT commenters) on the other hand, produce only evil.
I apologize, my initials are RG as well.
I was wondering what you were talking about. 🙂
Laugh
I mentioned stupid comments and BeNasty shows up to provide yet another example.
You have added a significant quantity yourself.
And you have provided absolutely zero counter to the facts given
You remain an empty sac.
Apparently, the 4% term is difficult for alarmists to believe. To them, the isotope ratio indicates that the increase of CO2 has a human signature. But then they say the out gassing from the ocean (and other natural sources) has the same signature. It’s all silliness.
Basically, the delta 13 contribution looks biogenic. How does one tell coal from boreal tree respiration?
The underlying hypothesis for this paper is actually quite simple to understand and to demonstrate with published data. However, if you wish to critique the paper, I would add three caveats to that point.
First you need to understand the nomenclature of δ13C and its application. Why? Because that is what is measured and published.
Second, you need to be aware that 13C and 12C are stable isotopes (unlike 14C) and are therefore subject to mass balance principles.
Third, application of mass balance principles leads to the Keeling plot, δ13C versus 1/CO2, which appears to be little known here at WUWT.
I mention these three points not to criticise anyone, but to try to encourage more commenters to do a little of their own analysis before attempting to dismiss the study. I could follow up with more info, plots and references in relation to these points, but they are pretty well covered in the paper.
Has any attempt been made to sample coal from various places around the world to see how consistent the ration of 12C to 13C see across the globe?
Yes. Many analyses have been undertaken on coal, oil and gas. The range is quite wide, but the general view is that, currently, it is on balance circa -28‰. Two key points: as the balance between fuels changes, the ratio will change, shifting to lower values as the balance changes from coal to gas. Second, be aware that the 13C/12C ratio is much lower in methane than it is in CO2.
Is there any evidence that the change from coal to natural gas has resulted in a change in the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere?
The theory says that such a change has occurred, but as highlighted by the paper referenced above by scvblwxq the net content of the incremental atmospheric CO2 (averaged over periods of a few years or more) has remained constant at -13‰.
A minor point, but theory says it should have taken place. Apparently, there is no empirical evidence to support the theoretical change. What might one conclude from that?
This paper shows coal, oil and gas variations across China, for example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721053171
Typically, the assumptions are coal: -24‰ decreasing through to natural gas: -44‰, with oil at intermediate levels. Estimates put the fossil fuel average at -24‰ up to around 1860, gradually decreasing thereafter to -28‰ as the oil and then the natural gas content increased globally.
The oceans hold some 50 times the C02 that the air does, so we could remove it from the air like crazy and it would have almost NO effect.
Because the oceans and the air are at equilibrium the oceans will just replace the CO2 removed from the air.
Nothing in the earth energy system is in equilibrium. That includes CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the ocean.
Weather is the atmosphere trying to reach equilibrium, but so many factors are changing all the time, that it can’t be achieved. Simple example: The earth rotates.
Phoma Destructiva, ‘Blight’.
Phoma destructiva is a fungal plant pathogen that infects tomatoes and potatoes. It can be seedborne in paprika and other crops in the family Solanaceae. Plant injury, including by insects, enhances infection. Moderate temperature (68°F) and high humidity promote the release of water-splashed conidia from pycnidia that lead to disease build-up, including in storage if fruit are wet when harvested.
Rather like removing CO2 from the air!
fungal infections can be very tedious. !
Especially the one on occasional display in these columns.
I lost my entire cultivated black raspberry patch (5 staked rows, about 8 plants per row) to anthracnosa in just three years. Fought it carefully for two with fungicides, pruning/burning infected canes, complete fall cane cutback with everything then burned (which reduced yields a lot. Gave up in year three.
Fungus won in the garden but not in the woodlots. Two of my three have several natural clearings. The birds would eat ripe raspberries, then fly to the woodlot clearings for the clearings deliberately planted pasture grass seeds (neither mowed nor grazed), and their seed laden droppings produced several ‘wild’ domestic black raspberry plots (since canes grow much taller and leafier that pasture grasses). They were just a pain to harvest because dense with entangled thorny canes unlike my orderly garden rows.
“An anonymous reviewer”
As asshole reviewer too cowardly and stupid to give his/her/its name.
I might add- just having read a biography of Alexander Hamilton, that most of the founding fathers, at one time or another, wrote extremely scathing attacks on others using pseudonyms. This is something I don’t find acceptable behavior for anyone who purports to be a great leader. One of the few who didn’t do this was George Washington.
Hamilton and some Founding Fathers may have written scathing attacks on others using pseudonyms, but some of the most important documents integrally related to our Founding were written by our Founding Fathers using pseudonyms (The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers). Further, in science, it is the data and logic that make the argument, not the name of the writer.
Yuh, I suppose- I just think it’s more professional to stand tall in the saddle and give your name- at the top level of political debates and in science.
One reason the ff hid their names is that they hated each other. Washington knew better. He just didn’t say much- being a man of action.
My understanding is they had to contend with the ruling authorities which were the British colonial government. Writing anything contrary to the King’s voice was considered treason with the penalty being the British noose. So they were forced to write anonymously, or not write at all.
Not to mention, that the usual punishment for treason at the time was hanging, drawing, and quartering. If you saw the movie: “Braveheart,” Wallace was given that treatment.
They also did it after the revolution for many years.
When people knew how to connect the pseudonyms to the real persons; the pamphleteers had a big influence, which culminated in the US Constitution.
“. . . scathing attacks on others using pseudonyms.”
I was told, when I first joined WUWT, that I would receive better treatment if I used my real name. I’ve not noticed any special treatment other than not having some of my stupid comments deleted. I’m not sure that is better treatment–in the long run.
When one enters a flame war, one need to have fire retardant garmets.
I always advocate for mature, adult discussions. I do slip up on occasion, I admit.
I prefer exact language, clear definitions, and debating the topic rather than the personalities of posters.
I congratulate you on your courage.
Potentially being tried for treason is a strong incentive to conceal one’s true identity.
According to the biography of Hamilton- Jefferson, writing under a pseudonym, often worked against Washington- despite being in his cabinet. In that biography, it mentions a lot about anonymous commentaries back then- Hamilton and Jefferson did a great deal of it, and their supporters. I don’t think they ever had an open debate, face to face. I don’t recall that book mentioning any treasonous commentaries.
The ineffectual critique is par for the course. Irrelevance, strawmen, confounding observations with models…
Nice rejoinder.
This is not an accurate characterization of the paper, what Mann is showing is that unforced climate model simulations do not reproduce oscillations at the frequency of the PDO, while forced simulations reproduce a PDO-like pseudo-oscillation very well, indicating that the apparent cyclicity of the pattern in climate records is more or less a coincidence – it is not a mode of internal variability in the climate system, but a forced response. This is why the paper shows that you cannot explain even part of the observed modern warming trend as merely “juicing” from the PDO.
In other words, his entire argument relies upon climate models and their accuracy. My point exactly!
It is a modeling study, so naturally it relies on climate models. But you flagrantly mischaracterized the study in your post, which ought to be corrected to reflect this, and you failed to address what the study implies about your conclusions. The paper is not saying these apparent oscillations do not exist in the system, it is saying they do exist, but they are forced responses and not modes of internal variability.
My point is simply that model simulations cannot refute observations. I stand by that, obviously Mann thinks otherwise, but he is wrong. In Mann, 2020, we see this:
Are you saying he does not mean this? Is it a typo?
Mann is not saying that model simulations refute observations. The sentence following your quotation is key:
That is, control simulations (unforced) do not reproduce observations, while forced simulations do, indicating that the observed pattern is the result of a forced perturbance, it does not simply reflect a mode of internal variability.
If you want to defend your paper, it’s critical to firmly grasp the implications of this research. By mischaracterizing the paper and its implications you undermine your rebuttal.
Alan, I don’t think you get it:
That statement is utter nonsense unless the models are accurate and based on solid assumptions. Neither is true. The models are wrong and the underlying assumption that CO2 controls the climate is also wrong. Mann will convince no one with this logic.
If this anonymous comment on pub peer had been a peer reviewed comment on your paper in the journal, you would not satisfy the editorial board by presenting this reply as your rebuttal. Maybe dismissing an entire field of science offhand with a glib wave passes on this forum, but it doesn’t pass for science in the real world.
You need to specifically address the paper and its implications on your study. Nothing less will suffice as an adequate response to any scientifically literate person.
If Mann is wrong, and these oscillations truly do represent modes of internal variability in the climate system, present your evidence. Show your work. Even better, publish your results. It’s entirely possible that he is wrong, but he currently has a vastly more compelling case than you.
“You need to specifically address the paper and its implications on your study. Nothing less will suffice as an adequate response to any scientifically literate person.”
So, the anonymous reviewer who brought in completely irrelevent (strawman) arguments should just be dismissed out of hand. Right?
Oh the irony.
Lies are the backbone of modern climate pseudoscience, thank you for verifying this fact yet again.
“but it doesn’t pass for science in the real world.”
Unvalidated, conjectured driven models ARE NOT SCIENCE in any world.
We can be pretty sure that Mickey Mann know the models well enough to get whatever result he wants out of them..
… given enough trial and error for parameter adjustments..
OMG, you’re so dense! Mann’s methodology is being criticized because it relies on ‘unforced’ simulations, which doesn’t reflect reality. The climate is always changing and never unforced. That is pseudoscience!
“to any scientifically literate person.”
So.. not you. !
Pot, meet Kettle.
Mann summarily dismisses geology with a hand-wave and thinks nothing of it.
Modeling is not science, it is putting a lot of input assumptions into a computer and getting a result dictated by those input assumptions. Many of which assumptions are decidedly wrong.
Say what? Modeling is one of the fundamental tenants of science; arguably the most important one. That’s what science does…literally. It develops models to explain and predict reality.
Models don’t always require computers. But yeah, for example when I input assumptions for masses (m1 and m2), distance between the two (r), and the gravitational constant (G) I get a result for the force (F) dictated by those input assumptions when using the model F = G*m1*m2/r^2. That’s the whole point.
BTW…it is important to point out that the model F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is known to be wrong and has a free parameter that must be determined experimentally or said in another way tuned to match observations. Yet physicists still use it anyway (a lot actually) because despite it being wrong and having a free parameter it is still useful.
You almost had it but lost it when you included functional relationships as a model. In physics especially, a model is a description of a system and the assumptions used in the model. In other words, you first describe the model that you are going to investigate. You then begin to set up functional relationships between the parts of the model where you can use existing laws, theories, etc. Some you may have to guess at or even do experiments to learn about what might be constants or some other form of functional relationship.
An example is I want to make a different type of TV antenna. Instead of the typical flat element one, I am going to make the elements circular. I am going to make each element 1/8th smaller than the full wave first element. So I draw it up, and begin to analyze it using the functional relationships I have learned. I come up with a gain factor and a beam width. I then test the antenna to see if the physical measurements validate my calculations.
You are confusing a measurement model which might be a measurement equation or an observation equation. These are not the same thing as a scientific physics model where a full description of the physical parameters and assumptions are created before beginning to analyze it.
Bad analogy to the GCM computer fitting games.
Yes, and it is important to make the distinction between a simple conceptual model that is succinct, and an overly complex computer model that can be reduced to a linear function as shown by Pat Frank.
“The models are wrong and the underlying assumption that CO2 controls the climate is also wrong.” Andy May
The global warming predictions of the average climate model in the 1970s was close to the actual warming rate since 1975. They overestimated warming by 25% ti 35% which was in the ballpark of reality.
Every model guessed CO2 controlled the average temperature. The evidence collected since then shows manmade CO2 emissions were a major cause of warming, possibly the cause of a majority of the warming.
The widespread belief that the models were completely wrong and CO2 is not important is why conservatives are not taken seriously on the subject of climate science. Some conservatives have become “It’s Anything But CO2 Nutters.
When models have had decent 50 year predictions, it is a losing cause to claim the models are no good.
When CO2 was added to the atmosphere and there was a lot of warming after 1975, few people can be convinced those two events are unrelated.
The There Is No AGW Nutters don’t understand that almost 100% of scientists since 1896 predicted that manmade CO2 emissions would cause global warming. And they were right. That fact that they disagree on how much warming, and whether warming was bad or good news, is irrelevant.
Almost all the skeptic conservative scientists ON OUR SIDE agree that AGW exists. But the AGW deniers claim they are wrong too.
AGW deniers are people who enjoy making conservatives appear to be climate science fools. They claim the model predictions are not perfectly accurate, therefore 100% of consensus climate science is wrong. They are unintentionally serving as useful idiots for leftists by making conservatives look dumb.
Yes, the Greenhouse Effect Is Like a Real Greenhouse (and other odds and ends) « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
1… Measured surface warming since around 1970 is all to do with URBAN EXPANSION.
2… You are incapable of presenting any empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You know there is no evidence, so you rant and rave, thinking that somehow constitutes scientific evidence. You make up nonsense and constantly chant AGW mantra non-science.
3… You have been totally incapable of showing any AGW signal in the UAH data.. Seems you know there isn’t any.
4… The models are absolutely wrong. They have conjecture-driven non-physics, corrupted data, and agenda-driven mal-science embedded in them from start to finish.
Their predictions are a load of garbage that can only be matched with deliberate data tampering of already massively tainted surface data.
5… Consensus is never part of science.. only cultism and religion
6… You are nothing but a child-like marxist and AGW-apologist, with ZERO scientific credibility, on par with a fungal infection and a luser.
“The evidence collected since then shows manmade CO2 emissions were a major cause of warming,”
That little piece of garbage deserves a special BS response. !!
What scientific evidence??? Produce it. !!
“The GHE is like a real greenhouse with a perfect roof. “
Now that is just funny, no matter what planet you are on. !
Worthy of the grate John Kerry !
“the greenhouse effect (GHE) is defined with no convective heat transport.”
So it doesn’t apply to Earth’s atmosphere…. period.
Now he’s down to gaslighting and propaganda, towing the oxcart for the climate pseudoscientists.
They are wrong — they become more and more wrong after each iteration step, and not a single prediction based on the outputs has come to pass.
Modelling molecular interactions on a 25 km grid… interesting resolution.
And Mr. Greene chimes in, music to the ears of the scientifically illiterate Mr. J.
I agree with this, although I seriously doubt CO2 caused a majority of the warming, but I can’t prove it doesn’t. I can prove that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases did not cause all the warming as claimed by AR6. That is easy, and the evidence it didn’t is in both AR5 and AR6.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/03/13/comparing-ar5-to-ar6/
Every model guessed CO2 controlled the average temperature.
No. Every model ASSUMED CO2 was the “control knob.”
When models have had decent 50 year predictions, it is a losing cause to claim the models are no good.
Hindcasting is not predicting nor is it projecting. It is curve fitting.
Until you can explain the ice age of 450 mya with 10x today’s CO2 level, YOU and all of the AGW foamers are the “nutters.”
Andy can show that
so here you are if Mann`s state-of-the-art forced model simulations demonstrate the absence of consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals
they do not match reality and Andy is spot on to point it out and even Mann acknowledges it, what exactly is your point here?
Mann’s paper shows that analysis of historical data indicates the presence of two modes of oscillation: ENSO variability, and a peak centered within the AMO-band of about 50 years. No other statistically significant apparent oscillations are present in the observational data. Mann’s study finds that control simulations show robust peaks in the ENSO band of 3 and 7 years, but no peaks in any other band, including the putative AMO range of 50 years (this is the signal observed in the historical data). Mann does find that this 50 year signal is present in forced simulations, indicating that the apparent oscillation is in fact a forced response.
My point is thus that Andy has mischaracterized Mann’s study, and the implications of the study do indeed contradict his own, and he needs to address this contradiction by doing more than hand waving. I would suggest that a response comment on pub peer might be an appropriate avenue for this discussion, to give the comment’s author an opportunity to read and respond.
BFD — he can make his model say anything, don’t you get it?
The study is analyzing the CMIP5 control simulations, they are not Mann’s models. Your comment underscores how unfamiliar with the work they are criticizing the detractors in this thread are.
Not going to waste my time reading a Mickey Mann pub.
“Not going to waste my time reading a Mickey Mann pub”
But you will criticise it. Note to KM. Ignorance is not a virtue.
“CMIP5 control simulations”
So just as FAKE as anything from Mickey Mann.
Your point is.. as always.. totally pointless and irrelevant.
The point is that anything from the Mickey Mann stables is totally FAKE agenda driven crap, and has basically ZERO scientific worth.
Mann finds what he wants to find, to continue to push the anti-human, anti-life marxist agenda.
Which is why fool like you slurp it up.. !
From Gray, et al., cited in the post:
Thus, based on proxies, the AMO has persisted for 500 years. They conclude that this natural oscillation could be considered in all assessments of climate.
I find Mann’s argument that this is wrong, based on model studies, very weak. I do not find a 50-year cycle anywhere but in Mann’s paper. You are inappropriately shifting the burden of proof to me, I’m sticking with the 30-year AMO “consensus” here, it is Mann that is challenging it. He has the burden of proof, and I am unconvinced.
Your characterization of the situation as being a robust scientific consensus with Mann as the lone voice in opposition is flatly wrong. The question of whether the AMO represents a true oscillatory mode of internal variability has never been settled, and Mann has been an active voice contributing to both sides of the debate (Mann himself coined the term “AMO” in the first place). Some studies found evidence of long term persistence of the pattern in paleoclimate archives, other studies found that the appearance of long term persistence might be an artifact of improper removal of the forced signal component, and still others identified the pattern as being a response to atmospheric forcing itself. Mann cites each of these studies in the 2020 Nature paper:
Mann’s 2020 and 2021 studies represent just the latest foray, and while time will tell if other contradictory evidence comes to light, the results are compelling, and can’t simply be dismissed with your handwaving. You are the person with a published research paper, and your published research paper needs to address explicitly relevant literature that might impact your findings, and you have abjectly failed to do that.
Mickey Mann is the king of the ruler monkeys.
You are his acolyte (as well as a known liar).
Alan,
All ref 36 & 37 say is the AMOC does not control the AMO, which is well known. It concludes that forcing from mid-latitude atmospheric circulation controls the AMO, which I believe also.
38 is a more interesting paper, but draws the same conclusion, the ocean does not drive the AMO, atmospheric circulation does. I think both you and Mann misunderstand the implications and conclusions of these papers. They do not say the AMO does not exist, they simply say it is driven by atmospheric circulation patterns, which is a widely held opinion.
No one completely understands the ocean oscillations, but they exist, and as I say in our paper, they can be traced to before 1600, thus they are likely natural. That is really all we know. That is not handwaving, that is just recognizing the obvious.
Where you and Mann go off the rails is when you confuse the debate over what causes the AMO, with a debate over its existence. It clearly exists and has been around for a very long time.
These papers, and Mann, are not claiming that no “AMO-like” pattern exists in the historic data. They are claiming that the apparent pattern is not the result of internal variability in the system. You can observe periodic signals that do not represent actual periodic behavior. What Mann has shown is first, that the PDO-like apparent oscillations do not rise to the level of statistical significance against background “climate noise” in the historic data, and second that the AMO-like signal, which does rise to a level of statistical significance, is completely explained as a forced response, but is not explained by internal variability using control simulations (this is in stark contrast to ENSO, which is perfectly explained by internal variability in control simulations).
This is the subject of the 2021 paper from Mann, also cited in the pub peer comment. In that paper, Mann and colleagues demonstrate that the periodic signal apparent in the paleo archives corresponds to solar and volcanic forcing and, again, does not appear in unforced control simulations.
On the contrary, I think this is explicitly the part where you are getting it wrong – Mann is not saying that these patterns do not exist, he’s saying we should be cautious in interpreting them as unforced internal variability.
I guess where you and I disagree then is, you believe the conclusions of Mann, 2021, and I don’t. I remain unconvinced. Fortunately, it seems we both agree that the AMO and PDO exist. Mann agrees in part of his paper, then says the opposite later, he writes:
He contradicts this statement in the following paragraphs for a very confusing read, but at least here he acknowledges the AMO and only proposes a new cause in this part of the paper. I find his evidence for his volcanic cause very weak.
Later he says:
Which is total BS in my opinion. 100% volcanic? Absurd, and he offers no proof.
Mann’s studies present nothing except self-opinionated modelled garbage.
Models are NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.. !
Were those the same dozen tree rings used in the hockey stick?
Tree rings work OK back to about 1600. The problems that Mann, et al. 1998 had were with tree ring sequences prior to 1600, plus he used a flawed principal components methodology. The reason that these proxy studies end in 1600 is that is when the useful tree ring information ends.
All inputs to climate models are “forced”.
In that, they are “worked over” before values are constructed to be used as inputs.
The probity and provenance of “data” render them merely constructs unfit for serious scientific purposes.
And here you are wanting to challenge interpretations of vague terminology.
Why don’t you use your obsession with climate “science” to produce an expose of all the inadequacies of the probity and provenance of the inputs to climate “science”.
Start with that oft-relied upon construct called “Global Average Temperature”.
That is not what “forced” means, and the term is not vague or esoteric. A forced response is a change in the climate state resulting from a shift in the energy state of the system. Internal variability, or unforced variability, is a mode of change resulting from energy internal to the system simply being moved from one place to another.
“Internal variability, or unforced variability, is a mode of change resulting from energy internal to the system simply being moved from one place to another.”
A really good description of the action of atmospheric CO2.
You have just destroyed the whole AGW cult in one sentences.
Well done.
What he describes is mysticism, not scientific.
He described weather, not climate.
Why do you assume that moving energy from one place to another has no effect on the climate state?
Mann’s real problem with ocean and weather oscillations and Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave, is that they suggest that “moving energy from one place to another” does change the climate over long periods of time. He wants to erase these oscillations and consider them “variability” as in the IPCC name AMV, so that the CO2 hypothesis can be valid. The oscillations correctly show that the CO2 hypothesis is invalid.
“The oscillations correctly show that the CO2 hypothesis is invalid.”
Which is why Mickey Mann had to fabricate some models to show they don’t exist.
N.B.: in this context, “the system” refers to the GAT, which tells nothing about real climate.
And a quiz for the thermodynamically illiterate climate pseudoscience crowd: what causes energy to move from one place to another?
When the models are validated to be accurate, come back. Until then the models prove nothing! Look to ECS, when the models begin isolate a smaller and smaller range you can tell us.
Climate models are the primary tools we have to investigate earth-scale patterns of change. Rebutting Mann’s paper would require the use of climate models itself.
BS chasing BS! I’m beginning to understand why thousands of scientists excel at beating their heads against the brick wall of reality. 30 years of going in circles.
My thought exactly, he’s gaslighting and bullshitting.
To be precise, almost 40 now rather than 30.
More like 50 years.
It was in 1976 when an official (i lost the name) from the UN Environmental group commented, with regards to global cooling, that we don’t know if CO2 is the cause, “but it is something that can be quantified and taxed.”
WRONG.
All you have to do is show the climate models are WRONG.
Which they manifestly are.
10,000 studies can not prove me right.
1 experiment can prove me wrong.
Maybe you have evidence that can refute all the flaws he points out oceans and clouds among other things.
Confessions of a climate scientist
The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis
(Some English contents added in Sep & Oct 2019. Errors corrected in Oct 2019.)
中村元隆 Mototaka Nakamura
There is no need to refute someone’s personal, unsubstantiated opinion. Models are not perfect, and no climate scientist says they are. But they are not useless, and Nakamura stands in opposition to every expert in the field in this view. So far as I can tell, Nakamura is a disgruntled former academic who, in his words, “lost interest in climate science” and hasn’t published any research in almost 15 years.
Argument by Anonymous Authority fails.
You can’t refute what he says so just do an Ad Hominem. Again fail!
No wonder people here believe nothing you say.
You live by making unsupported assertions. No evidence wins you nothing.
I’m not aware of any climate modelers except this Nakamura guy who think climate models are useless, can you point to any?
This is like claiming you aren’t aware of any Masons who think Masonic doctrines are bunk.
Another Appeal to Anonymous Authority! You fail again!
Worse, another Ad Hominem, another fail.
Lastly, you just created evidence that you do not know anything of which you speak!
Did I or the author ever say climate models are useless? If you had researched the book, you would have known the answer and never posed this question. Another fail for you.
The author addresses your question.
You need to stop making assertions without adequate sources supporting what you claim. It only makes you less and less believable.
I’m responding to part of the quote you gave from Nakamura above:
This is not a position held by other climate modelers. It seems to be the sole opinion of Nakamura, but he has never published any research to this effect, so his opinion is purely unsubstantiated. He’s entitled to it, but there is no need for me to refute it, or take it seriously.
You are accusing me of making an “argument from anonymous authority” while blatantly attempting an argument from authority yourself.
From: https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
You haven’t even used an irrelevant authority. You are using ANONYMOUS sources.
You can’t use correct logic to determine when an argumentative fallacy is used. How do you analyze a problem, develop a logical solution, and then write a program. Maybe you just program what someone else tells you.
AND, you used another Ad Hominem by dismissing the author as an expert without any evidence. You haven’t read his book, plus you not only denigate the author but all the schools and Professors he names that he worked with. Shame!
I’ll make note that you have provided NO EVIDENCE that the GCM’s are credible in their forecasts. That by itself is a FAIL.
I’ve dismissed Nakamura as an expert because he hasn’t been a practicing scientist for almost 15 years, and because he is saying things that actively publishing climate modelers disagree with. So that is why your appeal to authority is getting you nowhere.
Perhaps if Nakamura had ever published his objections in the research literature, you would have more to go on than his credentials. But he lost interest in climate science and left the profession before that could ever happen.
ROTFLMAO. Can you answer with anything other than an Appeal to Anonymous Authority? You just keep failing to complete an effective argument.
I’m going to make an assertion here and you tell me what is wrong with it!
There are climate modelers that have published papers admitting that the results obtained in model experiments using global climate models may not be realistic due to the treatment of clouds and ocean currents.
If you KNOW there are papers from climate modelers showing how accurate newer models are in the treatment of clouds and oceans, why don’t you list those papers for all to see?
Otherwise you are blowing smoke up your butt.
(Sorry Rud)
I don’t object to Nakamura saying that climate models are imperfect, I object to him claiming that they are useless; that isn’t a position shared by anyone else in the profession (and Nakamura isn’t in the profession). He doesn’t offer any substantiation of this position, just shares it as a personal opinion, so there is no point of contention for me to argue against. If you quoted Nakamura claiming to not like chocolate and demanded that I offer a rebuttal, we would be in the same predicament.
That is an out and out lie. You haven’t read the book. You are just making stuff up. Did you think I wouldn’t call you on it.
If you were interested in doing research, you would have found NUMEROUS publications authored by Mototaka Nakamura. Listings of his publications are at the end of this post.
You have finally reached the point where your unsupported assertions have failed you. At this point you are a simple troll with no character, honesty, or honor.
From:
Confessions of a climate scientist. The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis
(Some English contents added in Sep & Oct 2019. Errors corrected in Oct 2019.)
中村元隆 Mototaka Nakamura
Publications
https://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/people/nakamura.php
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Mototaka-Nakamura-2013331662
The models get worse after each iteration step.
“to every expert in the field in this view”
There are NO experts in the “climate science™” field.
They are nearly all charlatans, wannabe non-scientists who bow and scrape to the FAKE science of the AGW agenda, for the sake of money and pseudo-prestige.
Climate models are actually FAR WORSE THAN USELESS, because they give a totally FAKE view of reality.
And moronic scientifically illiterate idiots like you actually believe in them.
The primary tools to investigate are going outside and opening your eyes and observing. Sitting in front of a computer screen does not accomplish that.
You and Mann assume his “unforced models” are accurate in the causative mechanisms they model. But, there is no way to know that for two reasons: (1) there is no “unforced data” against which to compare his model as to whether it produces empirically accurate unforced oceanic flows, and (2) even if such data existed (i.e., measurements of unforced flows) and his model results mimicked the data, there is no way to know whether the model mechanisms that give that result correspond in their specifics to the actual mechanisms that exist. In other words, there’s no way to know if all variables impacting oceanic flows have been accounted for accurately (e.g., tidal forces, seafloor profiles, ice melt, mantle and sub-mantle mass and gravity changes, and more) without using the model to predict enough of the future oceanic flows over sufficient time to be confident any external variable with long-wave cyclicality has been encompassed.
It’s so sad that climate scientists and their funders have somehow convinced themselves that their models have real meaningfulness for the purpose to which they are put; i.e., to inform “policy makers.”
Mann isn’t merely assuming the models are accurate, he is correctly stating that the unforced models produce results indistinguishable from red noise, and thus there is no evidence supporting the existence of multidecadal internal cycles, while there is evidence supporting the existence of a forced response with exactly the observed frequency. It strains my credulity to suppose that this may be purely coincidental.
But this is science, present your counter argument, show your superior study, present your results and methodology, get that paper published.
“Mann isn’t merely assuming the models are accurate, he is correctly stating that the unforced models produce results indistinguishable from red noise, and thus there is no evidence supporting the existence of multidecadal internal cycles,”
In the models, not in reality. Yours is an empty statement.
The evidence that the oscillation might represent internal variability in the first place came from climate models. But I’m guessing you’ve never found reason to object to that until today.
Not true. The evidence for the oscillations came from careful observations. The PDO came from a comprehensive database of biological and geological records, see Mantua and Hare, 2002. The AMO came from North Atlantic water temperature records, see Gray, et al. Both have been traced back to the 1600s using proxies.
The other oscillations use modern data but are just as convincing. Models are not needed to see the oscillations.
You are conflating observation of the apparent oscillatory pattern with evidence of the underlying driver of the apparent pattern. The evidence that originally led climate scientists to think that the apparent oscillatory behavior might represent a mode of internal oscillations comes primarily from climate models (much of the work on this subject done by Mann himself).
Read what I posted to bdgwx about what an actual climate modeler said about ocean models and then tell us again how these oscillations were discovered first by modelers.
Alan,
I think I’ve covered the data that shows the AMO well, here is the description of some of the data that goes into the PDO from Mantua and Hare. They do not mention climate models or Michael Mann:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015820616384
Again, the existence of the apparent pattern in the observational data is not at issue, what is at issue is whether the apparent periodicity of the observed pattern can be established above the baseline noise in the system, and whether this periodicity, once confirmed, can be attributed to internal variability. For the PDO, Mann shows in the 2020 paper using observational data that this first case is not met – the PDO signal in historic data is not statistically significant against the expectation of colored noise.
For the second case, for the AMO, Mann’s 2020 and 2021 studies show that the pattern can be explained as a forced response, but cannot be explained as a mode of internal variability. Early studies indicating the opposite relied on control simulations from a small number of models, which Mann shows to be outliers against the full CMIP5 simulations.
You keep repeating the same fallacy – that Mann or anyone else denies the appearance of periodic signals in the climate.
Why don’t you explain what you think “baseline noise” actually is.
Most signals that are MEASURED do not measure something that is extraneous to the signal. There has to be another signal that is similar to what you are measuring that masks the signal you are measuring.
A baseline is usually an average of the signal you are measuring. It is determined from the signal itself. It appears that you are confusing variance with baseline “noise”.
Why don’t you explain in scientific terms what you consider the “baseline noise” to actually consist of.
Climate data are noisy, and can exhibit persistence over time that might appear to represent an underlying cyclic pattern, but this apparent pattern might be indistinguishable from the expectation of red noise. So Mann did exactly this, and evaluated whether the apparent oscillations were distinguishable from the background climate noise, and found that they weren’t in most cases. The signal is statistically significant for ENSO variability, and there is an “AMO-like” spectral peak at around 50 years that is also statistically significant. But, unlike the ENSO pattern, the AMO-like peak is not explainable as a mode internal variability.
What climate data is noisy? Describe what the measurand is and how it is measured. What is causing the noise when making measurements.
Describe exactly what measurand is persisting over time that only appears to be an oscillation but is not.
You are just waving your hands and spouting mathematical crap.
“Climate data” to a trendologist translates into “air temperature anomalies”.
The quintessential troll.
I’m referring to the inherent variability in climate measurements over time. Climate data, such as global temperature records, sea surface temperatures, and atmospheric pressure, are influenced by numerous factors—both natural and anthropogenic. The “noise” in this context comes from short-term variations like weather events, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability.
Red noise, which specifically exhibits autocorrelation, can create the appearance of oscillatory behavior over time, even when no actual cyclic pattern exists. Most climate data contains red noise because weather events are typically related to each other (e.g. if it is hot today it is likely to be hot tomorrow). Mann’s analysis tests these apparent oscillations against the expectation of red noise. If the results are statistically significant, it suggests that the observed oscillation is unlikely to arise in a series that doesn’t exhibit true cyclic behavior.
Assuming that because you don’t understand something it must be “mathematical crap” is a good way to keep yourself living in self-imposed ignorance. Be inquisitive curious, and humble enough to recognize that you can still learn things from other people through reasoned discourse if you allow it to happen.
I think both Mann and you are playing semantic games with the words “variability” and “oscillation.” The AMO is an oscillation that is natural, what causes it is unknown, but it has been around too long to be man-made. It is also statistically significant and too organized to be “Noise.”
Those are the facts. Now if man wants to claim that volcanism causes this oscillation and provides proof of that, fine. But, he has not. He also has not proven that I can see that the oscillation has an amplitude that is below the noise level.
His 2021 paper is a jumbled mess and self-contradictory.
I might be using the term less consistently than professional scientists like Mann, but an oscillation in the climate system is a periodic fluctuation in the state of the system that is statistically distinguishable from background noise.
The AMO is an oscillation that has been believed to be driven by internal variability primarily because of its prolonged appearance in paleoclimate archives and its presence in early control simulations. Mann’s 2020 and 2021 papers show that its appearance in paleoclimate records is explained as a response to long term quasi-regular volcanic forcing, and in the historic data as a response to anthropogenic and natural (solar) forcing.
Science doesn’t provide proof. Mann presents a compelling argument in favor of his hypothesis, which to date you have attempted to rebut by saying you don’t like climate models.
He is not claiming that there is no statistically significant oscillatory “AMO-like pattern” in historic or paleoclimate records. On the contrary, he is merely claiming that the pattern is the result of a forced response.
He does claim that some other apparent oscillations, such as PDO-scale variability, is indistinguishable from red noise in the historic record.
If you can be more specific, we can have a conversation about that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH
A Mickey worshiper.
Funny how you never respond with what “climate system” is and how it is measured. If measurements exhibit an oscillation, then that oscillation is real. You may not be able to discern the exact combination of phenomena that cause it, but believe me, it is real.
A mathematical construct in a model may combine inputs to exhibit an oscillation where there is none. A mathematical construct may also damp an oscillation where there should be one.
Model behavior that doesn’t mimic real physical measurements are not a reliable indicator of the real world.
If there is an ongoing and measurable oscillation then it isn’t caused by a single forcing such as a volcano. That is a time limited perturbation that would result in a damped oscillation that disappears in time unless a periodic volcano occurs to cause a new oscillation and you have no evidence of that.
Apparent? It either exists as verified by physical measurements or it doesn’t. Do you have physical evidence from studies that the PDO does not exist? Or is it all modeling as usual.
The climate system a system consisting of the interplay between atmosphere, land, oceans, ice, and biosphere. These subsystems interact in numerous ways including the exchange of energy, carbon, and water. The state of the system can be measured in a multitude of ways, from observations of temperature, ice cover, sea level, atmospheric motion, to vegetative ground cover. Changes in the system over time can be observed in paleoclimate archives such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, and speleothems.
Measurements of these various characteristics can exhibit variability across all timescales. This variability can represent semi-random changes from day to day or year to year, to modes of internal (unforced) variability such as ENSO, to long term forced change from changes in the earth’s energy balance. Because so much of the variability exhibits autocorrelation (red noise), it is easy to mistake the natural range of variability as the presence of some underlying recurring (oscillatory) pattern. Without performing statistical tests against robust observational data, it is easy to mistakenly think you have discovered modes of cyclic internal variability in the system (the human brain is notoriously good at seeing patterns where none exist).
This is what Mann is testing in his papers – do these apparent oscillations represent a definitive pattern in the climate data time series? Or are they indistinguishable from quasi-random red noise? He finds that some of the patterns are distinguishable (ENSO, a spectral peak centered at about 50 years in the modern era), while others are not (PDO).
For the oscillations determined to be significant above the red noise expectation, Mann tests whether they arise in unforced climate model simulations, or if they are instead a product of forced response, and he finds the latter (except, notably, for ENSO – which means that the models are reproducing internal variability as an emergent feature).
Except when it is. The AMO-like signal present in paleoclimate archives is not a perfectly regular periodic pattern, but a “quasi-cyclic” oscillation with a period between 50 and 70 years (with some uncertainty around that range). Mann finds that this quasi-cyclic behavior perfectly corresponds to volcanic forcing at these timescales, and significantly finds that no such signal is present in control simulations. This is an extremely compelling argument in favor of this quasi-cycle being a forced response. The appearance of it being a recurring mode of internal variability is most likely coincidental.
Because they weren’t programmed into them, duh. Typical circular climatology reasoning.
Oh yeah, sure it is.
I’ll bet neither Mann nor alanj have ever sat down with four or five signal generators to see what kind of composite waveforms can be generated nor how it varies in period and amplitude.
I doubt they have ever tuned a musical instrument using the best note of a tuning fork and string. I doubt they have ever tuned a radio signal using a calibrated audio oscillator and listening to the best note.
Of course not; why does this guy need to defend Mann so vehemently?
I see I didn’t catch an autocorrect error. The “best note” should be beat note.
ENSO isn’t programmed into models, either, but ENSO variability appears in control simulations, thus models do capture major modes of internal variability and you cannot simply dismiss these results offhand, particularly because the forced simulations do capture the oscillations under question.
Just more gaslighting, trying to prop up the house of cards that is climatology.
You’ve obviously never dealt with composite waveforms made up of multiple different frequencies with shifting phases. As you pointed out:
Each one of those also are made up other fundamental cycles. All these cycles vary in periods and phases which end up as a composite signal that will vary in periods and amplitude. Heck, the composite waveform can even disappear with the correct combinations.
I am trying to point out to you that if a signal doesn’t doesn’t exist in a control simulation, that is not proof that it doesn’t exist.
Knowing that GCM’s are inexact to begin with, knowing there are unknown processes the models don’t cover, and that the processes that are known probably aren’t correctly programmed to interact as they really do in the real world simply leads one to the conclusion that a model simulation can not provide a counterexample of the PDO existing.
No one is disputing that it can be difficult to identify cyclic variability in climate data – on the contrary that is exactly my point. If you cannot clear the hurdle of rejecting the null hypothesis then you cannot say you have identified an oscillation.
That’s not what is being claimed. The signal has already been established to exist. That it is not present in control simulations while it is present in forced simulations is evidence that it is not a mode of internal variability, but is a forced response. Science doesn’t offer absolute proof, so saying that Mann’s experiments are not “proof” is trivially true but irrelevant.
You are conflating different results. The PDO oscillation can’t be established in observational data against the red noise expectation.
As I’ve noted previously, it does not seem that the most vocal critics of this paper in the thread have actually read it, so the discussion is suffering as a result and I am beginning to feel like a broken record.
“Statistics is no substitute for physics” — Pat Frank
This AJ guy has zero experience with software models.
Conceptually, I think that the “quasi-cyclic oscillation” can be dealt with by imagining two poorly designed signal generators that have considerable drift in the frequency. The composite waveform may be additive for part of the time of observation, and then become flat during a subtractive phase. Thus, knowing nothing about what is contributing to the composite wave form, it gives the appearance of an oscillation ‘winking’ out and then coming back. Guess what? Sunspots are known to vary over a window of about 5 to 15 years.
You have hit the nail squarely!
Noise is everything but the signal of interest. If the noise is periodic, then it is indistinguishable from an oscillation in the climate system with the same phase. It may even be difficult to prove that the time-series is noise with a different phase. It may just be another forcing that is different from the dominant ones.
Oscillations are not causes. They are observations of a cause that produces a discernable pattern.
El Nino and La Nina is not a cause. It is an observation of an oscillatory pattern we call ENSO.
Solar output fluctuation is not a cause. It is an observation of an oscillatory pattern that we call the solar cycle.
Daily high and low is not a cause. It is an observation of an oscillatory pattern that we call the diurnal cycle.
We develop models to explain/predict these oscillatory patterns just like we develop models to explain/predict any observation. Those models embed within them the cause of the observation.
Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying models perfectly explain all observations whether oscillatory or not. I’m not saying that we know the cause of all observations whether oscillatory or not. I’m not saying a lot of things here that many people probably want me to have said to better justify their strawman which are probably coming. What I’m saying is that your conflation of oscillations with causes is invalid..
Can you post your oven door thermodynamics nonsense again please? Its a hoot.
Sure. If you turn on your kitchen oven with the door open and allow it to achieve a steady-state, record the temperature, then close the door, wait for the new steady-state, record the temperature again, and finally compare the results you will observe that the temperature increased after closing the door even though the door was cooler than the inside. It is a simple and intuitive demonstration that cold bodies can indeed be the cause of hot bodies getting warmer. I get that you and many others believe this result is nonsense. However, I think most lurkers out there who are open to experimentation will be easily convinced that this result is true assuming they aren’t already incredulous that an experiment even needed to be performed in the first place.
So how does this relate to the discussion here? If you then open and close the door on a regular interval recording the temperature along the way you will observe a pattern or oscillation in the temperature behavior. The oscillation is not the cause of the temperature observations. It is itself an observation. The cause is the repeated closing and opening of the door which can then be used to model the temperature.
Heheheheheheheheh — “The lurkers support me in email!!!”
“It is a simple and intuitive demonstration that cold bodies can indeed be the cause of hot bodies getting warmer.”
That is where your thermodynamic ignorance and your BS starts… and just keep flowing like you have the runs.
This is nothing to do with the door being cold.
It is because you are changing the heated system from an open system to a tightly closed one.
What it really shows is that you have zero understanding of what the “cold plate” argument is all about.
Try not to keep displaying your abject ignorance as to what is actually happening.
Your analogy is totally ignorant and juvenile, as always.
Well, that was your normal anti-science, anti-reality gibberish.
You are not saying anything. !
Models only “explain” what they have built into them
They are not science of any sort.
True as far as it goes.
The problem is that the models have no predictive power especially with respect to the oceans. Heck they can’t even “predict” when El Nino/La Nina WILL OCCUR two years in the future with any accuracy.
These quotes are from a climate scientist who worked with the models. Maybe you can refute his assessment of ocean modeling.
Confessions of a climate scientist
The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis
(Some English contents added in Sep & Oct 2019. Errors corrected in Oct 2019.)
中村元隆 Mototaka Nakamura
And the more one tunes his/her predictive model with respect to a sample, the less it is predictive for another random sample and if the probability density deviate enough between the 2 samples, the perfectly tuned model / first sample may be even worse in its predictions than tossing a coin.
Petit-Barde
Very well said!
AnalJ is a Mickey Mann acolyte, what a surprise:
“A Disgrace to the Profession”
WRONG.
MODELS ARE NOT SCIENCE… they are a tool, which can be written to provide whatever result the programmer wants.
… and any conclusion coming from them is NOT SCIENCE, and is scientifically meaningless.
It strains any rational credibility that anyone with a functional mind could put so much trust in what is basically a pre-programmed computer game, written by scientifically illiterate monkeys…
I would not be quite so harsh on climate models. Even tho my summa degree was in econometrics, what I really did in college was study natural system math modeling of all sorts. Differential equations, statistical regression, finite time step simulation states, probabilistic Markov chains, econometric I/O… across any discipline where it was important. I once submitted a biology paper proving the equivalence of calculus and Markov chains in resolving the oscillations in the classic predator-prey equations (the rabbit/fox thing). Summa level stuff obviously.
Given that background, IMO the basic problems with the discrete finite time step climate models are three:
The CMIP problem is that trying harder won’t fix 1 or 2, so 3 remains inherent.
Rud,
Let me add two more items. Uncertainty propagation into averaged components. Lack of accurate, and in a lot of cases none whatsoever, measurements of all the various measurand’s needed to develop a complete functional relationship of the atmosphere.
Add in grid resolution plus energy transport latencies. Energy in sunlight is speed of light, c. How fast does energy move in the ocean? In dirt?
Is a 25 km grid sufficient resolution to address molecular interactions?
I also have worked in an engineering modelling environment.
Been there done that. 🙂
Mainly decision optimisation using genetic algorithms in network linear programs.
I am well aware that any “assumptions” and “conjectures” made by the modeller will end up in the final product.
Have you tried to curve-fit an exponential? It is a waste of time–the program never converges.
In some cases can be useful for estimations within the range of data when other relationships don’t fit well..
But as you say.. often rather “sus”
Correct.
All models need to be challenged on stated and other assumptions.
Sometimes, merely the choice of form for a line of code embeds an assumption.
Sometimes personal bias UNINTENTIONALLY is embedded in the logic.
Well Rud I don’t like to gloss things over and I like to be concise.
The climate models are crap.
And not only is each one of them crap, but they think averaging all of their wrong answers together somehow manages to make the crap that they are into something that isn’t crap. Which is of course ridiculous.
Bingo, averaging GCM outputs is the equivalent of reading goat entrails.
Whenever somebody is spewing anything about so-called “climate experts” the indelible image in my head is that transmission shop commercial with the chimpanzees in the background beating on transmissions with sticks while the guy at the counter tells the customer “Our mechanics are EXPERTS.” 😆😅🤣😂
“Top men. Top Men!”
/smokes pipe/
Models are not science. Tools, yes, to help understand the science, but not science themselves.
Models can be built to do anything. The challenge models are supposed to face in a true independent validation and verification is are the assumptions valid.
That none of the models produce identical results as a group means they are reflective of reality.
“showing is that unforced climate model simulations do not reproduce… blah blah.. “
So Mann’s models are INCOMPETENT, oh dear.. what a surprise. !
These non-scientists (regardless of their academic success) are rife in climate science. Predictions from models are validated by observations. It doesn’t work the other way around. If it did, we would be flying on planes hoping the observations (our flight) match the design model predictions.
Straw men have become rife as has proof by assertion or Argument by Authority. It is true because I said so!
Good response.
Or there would be no aircraft because the models used the proofs that indicated human flight is impossible.
Somebody must think you are over the target, if they went to this much trouble to try to refute your claims.
You would not believe the flack Marcel and I have received. Some of it I cannot share at this time, but hopefully I will be able to publish the whole sad story soon. On the bright side the article is having an impact. We are in the 99.7%ile of all 26 million research papers (90,877/26,450,612) tracked by Wiley in receiving attention.
https://wiley.altmetric.com/details/163950423#score
I would certainly believe it.
We live in bizarre times.
The concepts of radiative forcing, feedbacks and a climate sensitivity to CO2 used by the IPCC are pseudoscientific nonsense. This started with the simplistic one dimensional radiative convective (1-D RC) model introduced by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 and ‘improved’ by Hansen et al in 1981. The large scale GCM climate models were built by adding to the fraudulent 1-D RC core. Manabe and Wetherald started this with the development of their 1975 GCM.
The IPCC has blindly copied the radiative forcing approach since it was established in 1988 [Ramasamy et al, 2019].
Further details are in the paper ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’.
True, the underlying assumption that CO2 controls the climate hasn’t changed since the 1960s, even though it is clearly incorrect. They just keep redoing the same thing over and over again, but the answer is crap every time. I’m amazed they can keep beating their heads against a brick wall, even after 30 years of being wrong.
When I saw that the AR6 results were worse than the AR5 results, and they admitted it, I thought it was over. But I suppose we will see an AR7, and it will probably be worse than AR6.
Do you really think radiative forcing is pseudoscientific nonsense?
Do you really think feedbacks are pseudoscientific nonsense?
Do you really think climate sensitivity is pseudoscientific nonsense?
I really think you have no comprehension of thermodynamics nor of Bode feedback amplifiers, and that you’ve deluded yourself into believing that you do understand these subjects.
And CO2 is still not a heat source.
bdgwx weaves another web, hoping Andy will get tangled in it.
Andy will have really arrived when bgw starts keeping a database of his (Andy’s) “errors” and posting it.
For the record my questions are genuine.
I ask because radiative forcing is the term given to the left hand side of the 1LOT equation ΔU = Q – W or in more modern and application form ΔE = Ein – Eout when applied to the top of the atmosphere and dividing both sides by area (A) and time (t).
I ask because feedbacks are common in nearly all disciplines of science.
I ask because sensitivity in C per W.m-2 is a consequence of the 1LOT and heat capacity yielding ΔT = ΔE/(m*c) where ΔE is the integration of the flux imbalance caused by a radiative force as it decays to zero.
I think there is a good chance that Andy will answer no to the questions, but I don’t know that for sure thus why I’m asking.
More copy/paste gibberish with zero understanding behind what it is is yabbering about.
All of these “sensitivity” calculations are based on the foundational assumption “all other things held equal.”
Which they have never been, are not now, and will never be.
Which is why atmospheric CO2 has never been, is not, and will never be the driver of the Earth’s temperature.
Of course. It’s the same with any model. Take the model F=ma for example. If we double the force we double the acceleration, but that assumes mass is held equal.
In the same way you cannot declare the relationship between force and acceleration wrong because that relationship holds only when mass is held equal you cannot declare the relationship between CO2 and temperature wrong because that relationship holds only when the other factors are held equal.
Yet another stupid analogy.
Keep grasping at those straws, and always remember, the lurkers support you in email!
CO2 is not an energy source. (My way of saying the same thing)
CO2 trapping heat is pure nonsense.
CO2 thermalizing IR is pure nonsense.
Thank you, sometimes I wonder if it is only me who can’t get past the bizarre climate science terminology
“radiative forcing” THE SUN
“feedbacks”…. not at all related to audio and electronic feedbacks..
Always pulling the atmosphere back to the gas laws.
“climate sensitivity”… A made-up concept to try to push the anti-CO2 agenda.
Essentially unmeasurable, and indistinguishable from zero.
Feedbacks are more likely the energy system striving to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium.
Positive feedback in the atmosphere is pure nonsense.
Employing clouds as part of a control loop is not the same as claiming they are positive feedback.
An example of a positive feedback is the decrease in albedo caused by melting ice which itself is caused by warming. What part of that do you think is pure nonsense? That ice melts when it warms? Or that albedo decreases when ice melts?
Familiarize yourself with electrical engineering. The decrease in albedo is not a positive feedback. If you study sources, you would find that sources have an internal impedance that consumes some of the power produced by an ideal source.
Reducing albedo is just like reducing that internal impedance and more power can be delivered to the device it is powering.
That is not a feedback and using feedback concepts results in an incorrect analysis. Internal resistance is part of a static bias circuit. Reducing the internal resistance establishes a new operating point of the system.
beeswax shows he has no idea what a “feedback” is.
The ignorance is profound and irreparable
How do you know it is positive?
Climate science endlessly argues about “feedbacks”, but 99% of the time it only the sign. Until you can express this stuff numerically in a real amplifier, it is nothing but hand-waving.
Yes. Every simplistic diagram uses simple sums and differences of averaged flux on a flat surface equivalent to the surface area of a sphere. Not one equation containing a sine or cosine. Not one equation using T⁴.
Yes. In simple terms, positive feedback requires additional power be supplied to the system in order to have increased power output. Where this power originates, who knows. Climate science says the sun doesn’t change so it comes from another source.
Yes. Show us the functional relationship that is used to calculate climate sensitivity. Don’t tell us it an “emergent” property. That is a copout. Not even GCM’s can agree to a smaller range after 50 odd years of models. It is pseudoscience.
Thank you. So many legitimate terms are hijacked and redefined or repurposed and that is, in my opinion, intentional to create confusion and silence people with questions.
bdgwx, Stick with the discussion, don’t set up irrelevant strawmen.
I’m responding to this discussion.
And I’ll remind you I’m not the one that said radiative forcing, feedbacks, and climate sensitivity to CO2 are pseudoscientific nonsense. So if you feel these are strawmen then 1) telling Roy Clark is going to be more effective than tell me and 2) explaining why you said “True” might help clarify your position..
Roy is totally correct.
You are totally brain-washed into a deep state of ignorant.
First paragraph:
How many pages did you actually read?
Easily done, “as used by the IPCC.” The way they use the concepts is pseudoscientific gibberish.
Remember, ECS is defined as an instantaneous double of CO2, how exactly does that happen? That isn’t science, that is a game.
To answer your three questions in one line: Yes, the way they are abused by the modelers is pseudoscientific nonsense.
How are they being abused?
It appears to be scientific nonsense since the Hot Spot still hasn’t showed up neither has the Positive Feedback Loop.
“… I’m amazed they can keep beating their heads against a brick wall, even after 30 years of being wrong…”
It’s very profitable, so I am not amazed at all.
They have kids to put through school, mortgages to pay, etc.
Being blacklisted or ousted is something many will choose silence over.
The term “forcing” has never made a lick of sense to me, quantified in W/m2, I was baffled the first time I saw it used. Carbon dioxide is not a source of heat.
It doesn’t have to be.
It just needs to redirect it.
like standing against a south facing wall and feeling the heat that it has absorbed being re-radiated back to you, when the sun goes behind a cloud.
The wall didn’t create the heat.
The sun did.
It’s a common physical response we all experience.
Just because you don’t like its application in climate science does not make your appeal to incredulity valid.
Except it DOESN’T HAPPEN with CO2.
Your brick wall heat analogy is pure BS..
… and I’m guessing you are well aware of that fact.
The wall did not absorb heat from the sunlight. Energy, yes, and that energy was transformed from EM to thermal based on skin depth effects. The thermal energy radiated back you is heat, but contains less energy that was incident on the brick by the sunlight.
Technically, the wall created the heat from the EM energy incident on its surface. Technically, the sun did not create the heat you feel.
Good science pays attention to the details.
Electro magnetic energy and thermal energy are not the same.
Just ask Eunice Foote.
Force
Newton = kg m / s^2
Energy
Joule = kg m^2 / s^2
Power
Watt = kg m^2 / s^3
1 J = 1 W sec
W/m^2 is not energy, nor force.
It is used to apply the 1/r^2 spherical surface effect that reduces the magnitude an electro magnetic field due to distance from the source.
Be careful. There are folks here that believe “r” is the distance from the center of the earth to the source!
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 427 ppm. This is 0.839 grams of CO2 per cubic meter of dry air. One cubic meter of air at STP has mass of 1.29 kg.
For a nice sunny day with temperature of 21 deg. C and a RH of 70%, the concentration of H2O vapor is 17,780 ppm by volume. This is 14.7 grams of H2O vapor per cubic meter of
air. In this warm air, there is 0.78 grams of CO2. To the first approximation, the proportion of the greenhouse effect (GHE) due to H2O vapor is given by:
H2O GHE = moles H2O /moles H2O + moles CO2 = 0.817/ 0.817 + 0.018 = 0.98 or 98%
This calculation assumes a H2O molecule and a CO2 molecule absorbed about the same amount of IR light. Actually a H2O molecule absorbs much more IR light than a CO2 molecule. The trace amount of CO2 in air can only heat up such a large amount of air by a very small amount.
The claim by the IPCC since 1988 that trace greenhouse gas CO2 is the main cause global warming is a fabrication and a lie, the objective of which is to further the goal of
the UN and the UNFCCC of transferring funds from the donor countries (i.e., the rich countries) to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. At the recent COP28 conference the rich counties have promised more funds to the poor counties. The amount of these funds is many billions of dollars.
As i understand it, the IPCC models don’t include the 3 most important sources of heat in the climate.
They don’t include the variability of the Sun that produces 99+ percent of the heat on Earth.
They don’t include the clouds that can reflect 30 percent of the Sun’s heat back into space.
And, they don’t included the ocean circulation that can store heat for 100+ years and then release it into the atmosphere.
It seems to me that countries that are planning on spending $US trillions on “Climate Change” should create their own models instead of using the incomplete IPCC models.
And if they did include them, they would have been preferentially “adjusted” or “homogenized” or “averaged” so that the juiciest cherries could be selected.
Then have the models open source so that researchers and other people can see what they are doing or not doing.
Well now you’re expecting them to behave like scientists instead of activists.
They have adopted a CAUSE and are therefore no longer capable of conducting scientific inquiry.
They do not include the thermal energy released into the environment during electricity production nor the heat released as the electricity was used (aka work).
They trivialize volcanoes.
They ignore orbital mechanics, lunar gravity, cosmic rays, varying earth rotation, solar system effects (the earth orbits the solar system center of gravity, not the sun and that changes based on planetary alignments).
They chose CO2 and have spent 50 years trying to prove it, and failed.
_______________________________________________________________
All that’s wrong with climate science is way more than a discussion of world-temperature..
In no particular order, what about?
Sea Level
Polar Bears
Ice Caps
Glaciers
Extinctions
Coral Reefs
Ocean “Acidification”
Wild fires
Drought
Tornados
Tropical Cyclones.
World Food Production
Methane & Nitrous Oxide
Not that one WUWT post should cover all that, but claiming
it covers all of climate science is an over statement.
Andy May,
Good post. Thanks.
Re: AMO & PDO.
You say: ‘The PDO is usually interpreted as a long-term variation in the La Niña/El Niño ratio.’
The AMO is also statistically correlated to long term fluctuations in ENSO (for example a 10 year moving average of ENSO).
Regarding the difference in the periodicity between the AMO (65 – 70 yrs) versus the PDO (40 – 50 yrs), I would like to suggest that this difference is due to a difference in path length between the two currents.
What I am suggesting is that both the PDO and the AMO reflect ocean currents that pass through the central Pacific and circulate through, respectively, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and that the period of the oscillations represents the time that it takes to complete one cycle. Thus, assuming a roughly equal speed of the currents, the difference in periodicity between the AMO and the PDO would reflect a longer path length for water circulating through the northern Atlantic, as part of the Global Conveyor Belt, as compared to the path length of the circular Pacific current.
Implicit in this suggestion, that the periodicity of these oscillations is reflective of path length, is the assumption that the amplitude of the oscillations is not fully attenuated with each cycle. Rather the attenuation factor is significantly smaller than 1. Thus, the amplitude of each cycle is composed principally of the amplitude of the previous cycle plus, to a lesser extent, the effects of any current forcings.
Looking at the AMO and PDO as I am suggesting, as cyclical ocean currents with a periodicity reflective of path length and with an amplitude attenuation factor that is significantly less than 1, would explain why there is no evident cause for these oscillations. It would also explain why ENSO has a long term oscillation that is similar to, and correlated with, the PDO and AMO.
A strong warming volcanic eruption was unpredictable and unheard of. If the Hunga Tonga eruption had been a strong cooling eruption, like Pinatubo, my projections would look a lot better than the IPCC’s.
However, my projections are for 2050, so there will be plenty of time to see who has the last laugh.
“Phoma destructiva is a fungal plant pathogen infecting tomatoes and potatoes. “
Kind of like climate alarmists are a pathogen affecting human welfare!
Makes me wonder: What is the most ridiculous proposition one could get through pier review? Squirrel farts cause gout in beavers, and here’s 8 pages of statistics about how Borax makes your sweat socks white to prove it? I’m not currently in position to submit a paper, but I’m sure WUWT could crowd source something silly enough in the comment section to gather great notoriety – right here in a public forum.
I believe someone did this (although not specifically in climate science). Submitted a machine generated gibberish and got it published.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14763
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/more-computer-generated-nonsense-papers-pulled-science-journals/358735/
FORTRAN uber alles.
A once great language.
Fortran 98 isn’t that bad for some uses.
PL/1 was much better. I currently like Java–OOP.
“We do believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols, and volcanic activity have some influence on climate”
Yet no one can isolate said signal.
True! As admitted in Mann, 2020.
Influence and signal are two different words with different meanings.
It was only last week that you told me there is no meaning in a global average whether sea level, temperature, or otherwise. Yet you’ve published a paper in which the global average temperature had enough meaning that was an important element of it. I’m going to ignore that and not even ask you to make that make sense. Just know that the irony didn’t go unnoticed.
Anyway, there is a lot that could be addressed, but I’ll limit my time to the statement “One of the problems with speaking about “global average surface temperature” changes is it can lead one to think that when it rises, it rises everywhere in the world the same amount, which is not true and has never been true.”
Who thinks that? I ask because even the most naive scientist intuitively understands that the components that go into an average do not all have to behave like the average. In that regard I think you’re building a strawman. And I’ll remind you that this fact is a double edge sword that pierces through contrarian arguments deeper. One of those arguments is that the global average temperature necessarily follows that of a small subset of the components that went into it. For example, picking only Greenland and Makassar Straight with the insinuation that it necessarily describes the global average is invalid. You could have cited [Marcott et al. 2013] [Kaufmann et al. 2020] [Osman et al. 2021] [Erb et al. 2022] [Essell et al. 2023] or others which are true global reconstructions and which cast the red square labeled “Present day” in figure 4 into serous doubt.
The point I made in the paper was that:
This was not meant to be a complement. Equating “climate change” with a global average is silly, and so is the global average.
And then you said “That the globe is warming cannot be disputed”. I don’t disagree that statement. I’m just pointing out that you gave the GAT enough meaning to draw a conclusion. Whatever. That wasn’t the even point of my post. The point of my post was really addressing whether scientists conflate the behavior of temperature at specific spot with the global average and whether your presentation of the “Present day” temperature is correct.
Yet the fact remains that the GAT is a meaningless number that cannot convey anything about climate, and you choose to worship it as if it were deity.
The temperature at a specific spot and time is a real intrinsic measurement. It means something. The average global temperature has very little meaning. Note the regional trends, with respect to “global” warming, only the Northern Hemisphere matters.
What kind of logic justifies a position where the average of 50% of the whole matters, but not 100% of the whole?
What reconstruction is used in the graph you posted?
So you have one ball, and one female breast.
Typical far-leftist !
That’s only true if your sample contains equal number of females and males.
The world population is near enough 45/45/?? for it not to matter.
It is not as though you could have 0.8876345 of a ball, for example.
Its a rounding-off issue 😉
These reconstructions are from my analysis of the Marcott proxies:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/06/09/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-4-the-global-reconstruction/
Marcott has a similar plot in his supplementary materials.
This is an important consideration because climate changes by latitude due to variations in Earth’s orbit and inclination to the orbital plane. It has always been true in the past, and it is true of modern warming as well, see attached. CO2 plays a very, very small role in current warming.
And according to [Marcott et al. 2013] the peak HCO global average anomaly was +0.47 C. According to HadCRUT the 2014-2023 average anomaly was +0.85 with 2023 anomaly being +1.10 C. So if [Marcott et al. 2013] and HadCRUT is our standard then the present day is warmer than the HCO globally.
I’d still think an explanation for why 50% of the whole matters, but not 100% of the whole.
You’re comparing proxy values with actual temperature readings, which makes no sense.
I’m going to let you pick that fight with Andy May alone.
You have NOTHING!
He has lots of hand waving, which is still nothing.
I know. That’s my point. I don’t have a legitimate complaint against comparing proxy value with actual temperature readings so I’m not going to challenge Andy May in that regard. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge him though.
This is because you have no experience with real-world metrology. But you bloviate as if you do.
Averaging removes too much data to make anything worth bothering with.
Hundreds of studies exist showing temperatures must have been several degrees higher than now during the Holocene Optimum.
What ever Marcott produced.. it is meaningless when put against reality.
I agree the global average temp is up, no problem with that.
But, the warming is by latitude, it is not even all over the globe as one would expect if it is all due to CO2. See attached.
Andy,
Several of us on X have been randomly looking at stations all over the globe. You would be astounded to see how many have little to no warming.
Why are global temps rising? UHI. Ask yourself why in the U.S. the east coast and west coast experience more warming that the Midwest and Great Plains. UHI. I fully expect that as people continue moving to Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida that those states will begin to show dramatic warming also.
There is a professor on X that has done some work to analyze the growth rates in areas surrounding stations all over the globe. Guess what he found? UHI. It doesn’t have to be big cities either. A 300% growth from 1960 to present in small town can screw with a weather station.
I saw UHI in Las Vegas NV last month while driving through the city on I-15; outside the city it was about 109°F, by the time we got to downtown Vegas next to The Strip it was 114°F. Going out of the city it dropped back down to 109°.
First…no one expects that. It was hypothesized no later than the late 1800’s that the warming would be non-homogenous. [Arrhenius 1896]
Second…that doesn’t make a domain average meaningless. For example, the mean value theorem for integrals tells us unequivocally and indisputably that an average temperature can be used to calculate ΔU over the full domain rather than integrating the domain piecewise.
The dominant temperature data comes from the NH. SH has much more ocean and much less sensor coverage, they the average NH is then averaged with the SH average. What kind of logic justifies that?
Let me make sure I’m understanding your position. The average for 100% of the domain is meaningless when 1) one of the 50% subdomains has more of something tangible than the other or 2) one of the 50% subdomains has more data available than the other? Is that correct?
Math. Σ[Ti, i = 1 to n] / n = (Σ[Ti, i = 1 to (1/2)n] / (1/2)n + Σ[Ti, i = (1/2)n to n] / (1/2)n) / 2
More hand waving.
Do you understand the NH and the SH have different seasons, opposite actually. Your math shows how averages have clouded (sic) your understanding of what you are attempting to prove.
If the two hemispheres have different means, variances, and probability distribution functions, then combining them with averaging is dubious at best. More than likely the time series in each hemisphere are not stationary either. That can really mess up trends.
He doesn’t care as long as whatever he looks at is “global”.
Exactly right!
Without these global, annual averages, the climate navel gazers would have no numbers at all.
Based on that faulty Andy May “logic”, a +5 degree C. increase of the global average temperature over a century would not be climate change. and would be silly?
Your logic is silly.
…is a completely meaningless number. GATs are not representative of climate.
Equating GAT with climate is silly, it is much more than the global average temperature.
And your logic is non-existent.
As is your scientific understanding.
No strawman arguments from me. There are articles and peer reviewed papers all over the world about every locality warming faster than everywhere else. Papers and articles about this frog, that insect, another bird, and a reef being killed because global warming is occuring everywhere. No data about temperature rise at the location being studied. No mention about actual temperature effects on mating habits or local food sources.
Why are climate scientists not screaming to high heaven, if as you say:
These articles and papers don’t just appear out of the blue. Many are instigated by climate scientists. Show us some Letters to the Editors that you have written correcting articles. How about some communications with scientists that overblow the concerns.
Here are just a sampling!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-every-part-of-the-world-has-warmed-and-could-continue-to-warm/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3
https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/news/floridas-estuaries-are-warming-faster-than-the-gulf-of-mexico-389553
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/12/30/science/new-england-is-warming-faster-than-rest-planet-new-study-finds/
https://fortune.com/2023/11/14/national-climate-assessment-america-warming-60-percent-faster/
https://www.space.com/ocean-tipping-point-atlantic-current-collapse
“One of the problems with speaking about “global average surface temperature” changes is it can lead one to think that when it rises, it rises everywhere in the world the same amount, which is not true and has never been true.”
Who thinks that? Just read any media headline. Politicians, journalists, and young kids in schools are not scientists. The buy it hook, line, and sinker.
That’s odd since I often see contrarians complaining that politicians and journalists blame cold spells on climate change. Regardless it sounds like your grievance is with politicians and journalists which I don’t disagree with. I advise people to take politicians and journalists with a grain salt since they are often wrong.
And I’ll remind you of the opposite problem with speaking about local surface temperature changes is it can lead one to think that when it decreases, it decreases globally by the same amount, which is not true and has never been true.
WTF is a “contrarian”?
Evidence-free assertion. Global-on-the-brain syndrome.
As in his ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction Mann apparently believes that there are only two climate factors: anthropogenic and volcanic.
Paleo reconstructions show relatively large temperature fluctuations at all time scales, without an anthropogenic component they can’t all be due to volcanic activity.
That caveat does not matter at all to those who can reliably predict the future.
Of course, one must surely wonder why those amazing skills are not used at a horse racetrack or casino where the rewards are much larger.
I would take Javier’s projections with a pinch of salt, the Eddy cycle has no theoretical origin, and it is too long, the mean astronomical periodicity of grand solar minima series is 863 years. Representing the Bray cycle (which I don’t believe exists anyway) as a sinusoidal function is pure fiction, long cycles of solar variability are event series not sine waves.
As for the AMO, every other warm phase is during each centennial solar minimum. On that basis one can calculate the millennial scale mean AMO frequency to be 55 years, which exactly what the proxy studies show.
The AMO functions as a negative feedback to indirect solar forcing, and with considerable overshoot. When the solar wind is stronger, as in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, positive NAO regimes drove colder AMO anomalies. Weaker solar wind states from 1995 drove a warmer AMO via negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2012.
Note that all the global circulation models predict increasingly positive NAO states with rising CO2 forcing, which in theory would only drive a colder AMO.