By Andy May and Marcel Crok
Phoma Destructiva’s full comment is shown indented, as a block quote. To see the original go here. To see the abstract of our paper, go here. The official paper is still paywalled, to download the full final submission of our paper, fully peer-reviewed, for free click here or go to my ResearchGate page here. Our paper, published May 29, 2024, is in the 99.7%ile of all 26.5 million research papers followed by Wiley.
To download a bibliography with most of the articles cited in the discussion below, go here.
Below is our discussion of Phoma Destructiva’s second comment. His comment is indented and the portion of his comment quoting our first response begins with “Re:”. Phoma’s response follows his quote of us and our response follows the block quote in normal text.
Re: “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.“
Incorrect. As shown in #1, citations 18, 19, and 20 in the authors’ paper are to Vinós’ book. The authors use that book to suggest some of the anthropogenic warming could instead be due to “natural forces“:
“Since general circulation climate models and the modern CO2 and greenhouse gas warming hypothesis were developed in the 1960s and 70s(17) many natural climate oscillations have been discovered. These long-term climatic oscillations and the resulting “climate regime shifts”(18) strongly suggest that natural forces, possibly driven by cyclic changes in the Sun,(19) are causing some of the recent global warming observed since 1920, or even earlier.(20)“
We stand by our original statement and see no merit in Phoma destructiva’s argument. We made no predictions, and Vinós’ predictions are not relevant.
Re: “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.“
The authors repeatedly try to attribute at least some of the anthropogenic global warming to non-anthropogenic factors, as in the above citation of Vinós. That is underestimation of anthropogenic global warming, regardless of whether the authors provide a precise quantitative estimate anthropogenic warming. Attributing to X what was actually caused by Y is underestimation of Y’s impact, regardless of whether one provides a precise quantitative estimate of Y’s impact.
We believe and provide evidence that “at least some of the anthropogenic global warming” is due to non-anthropogenic factors. “Some” is not an estimate. The dictionary definition if “estimate” is clear and unambiguous “roughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of.”
Re: “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).“
Other papers were cited, including: Mann 2014, Clement 2015, Stolpe 2017, and Haustein 2019. And the argument was against an unforced “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)” discussed in the authors’ paper. Such an unforced ocean cycle likely does not exist, as illustrated by the fact that contrarians who employed it generated failed temperature trend predictions (#1).
“Unforced” and “forced” events are poorly defined climate model classifications with very flexible definitions and little meaning in the real world. Our paper does not use the terms “forced” and “unforced” for that reason. Bringing these terms up is both a red herring and a strawman fallacy. Our paper works with the real-world terms “Anthropogenic” and “Natural.” Forced and unforced introduces an unnecessary level of complexity and is simply a juvenile attempt at deflection from the real issues discussed in our paper. Bottom line, the AMO is a real oscillation that has been successfully traced back to 1600AD, thus it persists from well into the pre-industrial to modern times and must have a natural component.
Re: “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.“
No, it’s not consistent with the authors’ paper, as explained in #1 with citations to Dr. Karsten Haustein and Dr. Peter Jacobs in 2019, alongside Haustein 2019 and CarbonBrief. Again, if the observed peaks are forced instead of being unforced, then they’re already accounted for and are not some independent contributor to warming beyond the forcings already accounted for:
That contradicts this from the authors’ paper:
“What if the so-called human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day was boosted by a natural cycle? It would mean that the IPCC calculation of the impact of human greenhouse gases was too high […]“
Again with the “unforced” and “forced.” These are meaningless climate model terms. Mann writes: “combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.” Our paper contains, “What if the so-called human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day was boosted by a natural cycle.” What is the difference? We both believe that both anthropogenic and natural forces have contributed to the ocean oscillations like the AMO and “climate observations.” Hiding behind poorly defined terms like forced and unforced doesn’t change that fact.
Re: “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.“
Predictions are tests of causal hypotheses. The authors cited Dr. Vinós’ hypothesis on what was causing some of the observed warming. So, it’s fine to evaluate the predictions of his hypothesis to see that those predictions fail. Similarly so for Dr. Curry’s failed predictions based on the AMO contributing to warming, and the IPCC’s successful predictions based on anthropogenic GHGs driving the warming.
We agree that predictions are an important part of the scientific process, but we didn’t make any in the paper, and this was deliberate. As for whether Vinós’ and Curry’s predictions are correct or not, you don’t know, I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. The end of the prediction period is over a decade away. Don’t say “failed” when you don’t know.
Re: “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.“
It’s not a straw man when I quote the authors’ paper and then directly address what was quoted. The quotations show the authors’ paper suggests that warming that is actually anthropogenic was instead due to other factors, such as natural oscillations. Those suggestions are still in the paper, even if the authors highlight other arguments they made in their paper.
Your discussion of supposedly failed predictions by Vinós and Curry was a strawman. Your discussion of “forced” and “unforced” was a bait-and-switch strawman. Our suggestion that the AMO is a natural oscillation and has contributed to modern warming is well supported in the literature and in our paper. You are free to disagree with our conclusion, but our conclusion derives from the evidence and citations in our paper. You have not shown any evidence that our conclusion is incorrect, and neither have any of your sources.
Mann writes: “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). [Bold added]
So, it would seem he agrees with us.
If you truly believe all modern warming is anthropogenic, as the IPCC does, fine, but it is not consistent with the data we present in our paper, nor is it consistent with your sources.
Andy & Marcel
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes! This jargon that is used is nothing more than hand-waving.
Foama at the mouth didn’t get its rabies shot ??
😉
It’s more than hand-waving. The climate models are all built around forcings, which have the very convenient feature that they act immediately. The models therefore ignore the causes of all longer-term climate cycles and oscillations, thus clearing the way for every decadal+ climate variation to be attributed to CO2.
So not hand-waving, but deliberate deception. Yes, anything for The Cause.
And, as Sparta Nova points out, CO2 is not a force measured in Newtons, nor is it a source of energy, even if they try to give it units of Watts/m2. “Forcing” is so ill-defined that it might as well be hand-waving.
I am please someone grokked my post.
Thank you.
We don’t even know what the limits of natural variability are. We DO know they are more than what little we’ve seen.
All of this is just nonsense.
I like your use of the fungal disease as a description of the climat alarmist “scientist” reviewer. Very fitting.
Oddly, he or she chose the name. It wasn’t me. I can’t imagine who would name themselves after an annoying fungus!
Come on, AM, people are allowed to “identify” as whatever the FEEL they are.
It is rather introspective of it, though.
I “identify” as a Kangaroo
… because I enjoy a good jump !!
Is there a ‘bad’ jump… it missed me!
So we now have a trans gender for fungus?
Way too cool. /s
People who tout being part of the imaginary “overwhelming consensus” about “climate change” ARE pretty much like an annoying fungus.
PubPeer choses it for you. It’s not something you can control. At least it hasn’t been something I could control when I’ve used PubPeer.
I just noticed it myself, you are correct. That is an awful website, and very difficult to use. I was unaware of it until they notified me of the comment. I hope I don’t have to use it again.
bdgwyx may well be one of your critics, Andy. He’d likely not own up to it here.
Phoma Destructiva is not me. I have no issue owning my comments.
So who are you on PubPeer, bdgwx. And who are you here?
You claim to own your own comments, while hiding behind anonymity.
You don’t own up to anything.
Again…my name is Brian Gideon.
A name you haven’t posted under and didn’t reveal until 15 August 2024.
And you’ve still not revealed the name you post under at PubPeer, Mr. no-issue-owning-my-comments.
The earliest post I could find where I mentioned my name was from June 2021 which I think is the year I started post here.
The username PubPeer gave me was Pinguicula primuliflora. I’ve never posted on comment there though.
If you need me to remind you of my name in the future please ask. I’m more than happy to do so.
Post under it, Brian. No puzzlement, and you’ll always own your comments.
PubPeer and WUWT are public fora, where comments are freely viewed. Anonymous criticism is cowardly.
PubPeer violates reviewer ethics in permitting critics to hide their identity while posting attacks of authors whose identity is open.
I’d rather post using my real name or bdgwx on PubPeer so people know who I am, but I’m not allowed to. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t actually posted there. Signing my posts as Brian Gideon (bdgwx) might be a reasonable workaround.
I defended my work on PubPeer under my name. Others criticized it there under theirs.
So, double anonymity, is it bdgwx? Anonymous here and double anonymity for PubPeer?
Public criticism by the self-secretive. Critical cowardice. Moral dishonesty.
And, in terms of my work, inevitably wrong.
It’s the same answer I told you last time. I’m not anonymous. My name is Brian Gideon. bdgwx is my initials plus wx which is the ITU-R M.1172 shorthand for weather.
The first time you’ve ever posted your name in my seeing.
I suspect PubPeer assigns the name to a commenter who chooses anonymity.
I am soooooo over climate dooming and into more dire problems for our understanding of Gaia-
ABC article ‘laments’ lack of dark night skies for Indigenous population (msn.com)
I have to ask myself if climate dooming and the worship of solar panels is really pseudo colonialism and racism when black skies matter.
Street lights don’t work outside my place.
If I go out on the front veranda on a moonless night, with no lights on in the house, its pitch black and the stars are clearly visible
(except not for the last few months with the seemingly incessant rain and cloud).. 🙁
I’m sure that if this person wanted to see “black skies”…
… they could move out of “white man’s land”, (ie the city), back to the centre of Australia.
A good 97% of Australia is un-lit at night. (percentage derived from AGW mantra)
I’m grappling with this great question of our times as to whether I should eschew my inherent racism with wokeness and go over to the dark side?
May the farce be with you
A good 97% of Australia is un-lit at night. (percentage derived from AGW mantra)
One of the most talented environmentalists of our time (whom I much admired when I was younger) wrote from the depths of the Utah / Colorado slickrock country – canyonlands – with narry a campfire to dim the deep black night sky. He wrote with subdued passion about being a National Parks fire ranger, working in the solitary desert (Desert Solitaire), and telling the rest of us to stay home so he wouldn’t have to rescue any more heat stroke victims when they wander into the canyons with no water or sense of direction. Then there was his paeon to radical activism (Monkey Wrench Gang) in which he imagines bringing down all development into his beloved desert wilderness by sabotaging expensive road machinery. Edward Abbey.
Well, he had a point.
But we’re still heading out there next month –
“And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.”
A. B. Paterson, “Clancy Of The Overflow”.
Black skies matter.
Spewed my coffee when I read that.
If all “forcing” became anthropogenic at some point in history, then what was the CO2 level that caused this? If 280 PPM is the magic number, then why are the CO2 sinks increasing now as shown by the current observations of the greening of the earth? That has to be a natural forcing as people cannot cause plants to change their photosynthesis processes.
How does one tell if a change is unforced or forced? How big does a change have to be before it is forced? Definition please!
It seems to me that something is forced if it is programmed to be forced. It is unforced if it was not programmed to be forced and happened in a particular model run anyway.
These are the least defined terms in all of climate science, they are whatever the modeler decides they are.
I still can’t find any evidence of human “forcing” in the UAH TLT record.
Perhaps someone can show me where it is ?!
Only those higher beings who feel the forcing have the right to force you deplorable so consider yourself contextualised.
“they are whatever the modeler decides they are”
Now imagine you know that nobody else will ever be allowed to look inside your model.
Now imagine you know that your model output can be treated as fact in publications.
Oh, Man again?
Forcing is just an energetic flux external to the terrestrial climate system.
Solar irradiance is a forcing because it comes from ‘outside.’
Cloud response is not a forcing because it’s internal to the climate (a feedback).
CO2 emissions produce a forcing because they are external to the natural climate.
And, more relevant to this discussion, what about ENSO, AMO, PDO? Forcing? They are not random because they are organized oscillations. They all affect global and/or hemispheric climate with periods of >30 years and have persisted for more than 400 years, what are they?
They’d be feedbacks in modeler parlance. Internal dynamics of climate subsystems are feedbacks.
The whole gemisch is forcings and feedbacks.
Hilarious! Only in the imaginary climate model world would a massive ocean oscillation be called a feedback. Of course, they have no idea what it is a feedback of, but that doesn’t matter as long as it does not “force” a change in the climate.
Taking it a bit further: What is the optimum concentration of CO2 and what makes that the optimum? Like you, I expect the optimum CO2 level is higher than 280ppm.
I did a rough calc a while ago, mapping advantages and disadvantages vs atmospheric CO2 concentration. The optimum came out at around 800ppm. NB. it was only a rough calc.
Erik,
Be careful of that 280 ppm CO2 represented as preindustrial.
First study the papers of Ernst Beck, who did the hard yards of compiling thousands of early measurements of CO2 and tried some explanations for interesting problems like why so many exceeded 300 ppm but were ignored by the IPCC and similar experts.
In the 1970s I part owned an analytical chemistry lab and so have experience in the wet chemistry methods used for the earliest CO2 analyses that Beck shows. These early analysts were intelligent, dedicated folk as shown by later replication of their methods and results. You ignore their work at your peril.
But then, since about year 2000, it has become trendy to master the art of ignoring data that does not support your beliefs. It is only a matter of time before we see PhD theses detailing the optimum ways to ignore inconvenient research. Geoff S
“If all “forcing” became anthropogenic at some point in history,”
That’s not possible.
Mother Nature didn’t just stop working in 1976. Anything CO2 would add would have to be on top of what Mother Nature contributes. Since it is no warmer today than in the recent past, even though CO2 levels have increased in the atmosphere since that time, CO2 does not seem to have added anything.
They borrowed the concept, obviously, from Star Wars.
May the Force be with you!
A mass balance over the atmosphere shows that the average CO2 concentration would increase by 1 ppm (by volume or moles) if a net 8.006 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.
If C(t) represents the CO2 concentration at the start of year t (in ppm), and C(t+1) is the CO2 concentration at the start of year (t+1), the CO2 mass balance for year t can be written
8.006 [C(t+1) – C(t)] = E(t) + G(t) – R(t)
where E(t) = anthropogenic CO2 emission rate in year t, Gt/yr
G(t) = natural generation rate of CO2 in year t, Gt/yr (from oceans, animal respiration, etc.)
R(t) = natural removal rate of CO2 in year t, Gt/yr (photosynthesis, etc.)
Values of C(t) were taken from Mauna Loa for January of every year from 1959 through 2023, and global anthropogenic CO2 emission rates E(t) for all years from 1959 through 2022, to obtain values of the net natural emission rate G(t) – R(t) for each year. These were then time-smoothed using 5-year running averages for years (t-2) through (t+2).
These values of G(t) – R(t) were then regressed as a linear function of the CO2 concentration C(t), resulting in
G(t) – R(t) = 39.9 – 0.140 C(t) Correlation coefficient r^2 = 0.8711
This empirical relationship implies that the natural removal rate R(t) is proportional to CO2 concentration, which would imply that photosynthesis is a first-order reaction as a function of the reactant CO2. The rate constant for this reaction would be 0.140 Gt/(ppm-yr) / 8.006 Gt/ppm = 0.0175 yr^-1.
This equation also shows that (per “doonman” above”), CO2 sinks have been increasing for the past 63 years, and at a CO2 concentration of 420 ppm, they would be removing 420 * 0.140 = 58.8 Gt/yr of CO2 from the atmosphere.
The above equation also implies that the net natural CO2 generation rate is about 39.9 Gt/yr.
If, in a “pre-industrial” past, anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were negligible, setting E(t) = 0 would result in an equilibrium CO2 concentration of 39.9 / 0.140 = 285 ppm, which is remarkably close to the IPCC’s pre-industrial estimate of 280 ppm.
Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were about 37.2 Gt/yr in 2022. If man-made CO2 emissions continued at this rate into the future (a “business-as-usual” scenario with no drastic reductions), adding this to the 39.9 Gt/yr natural generation rate results in a total generation rate of 77.1 Gt/yr. Since this is greater than the current removal rate of 58.8 Gt/yr, CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa will continue to increase in the short term.
Over the long term, as CO2 concentrations increase, the CO2 removal rate will catch up to the total generation rate, and CO2 concentrations will level out and reach equilibrium at a concentration of 77.1 / 0.140 = 551 ppm, which is roughly double the “pre-industrial” concentration. If current trends continue, this equilibrium would be reached about the year AD 2200.
If the plant growth rate is proportional to CO2 concentration, the earth will be about 31% “greener” in the 23rd century than now.
We don’t need “Net Zero CO2 emissions”, which would impoverish the world for little benefit. A “Net Zero increase in emissions” which would maintain human prosperity and result in a greener world for the 23rd century is a MUCH better plan.
If seems to me that the purpose of Phoma destructiva’s comment is so that AGW believers can dismiss your work by saying it has been debunked. Facts and evidence are not important to them.
And that is so that the general public will see this and believe the ‘debunking’ as most people only have a rudimentary understanding. It happened recently to ‘climate, the movie’.
The ‘debunkers’ have more resources and exposure possibilities.
Clintel have very few views on Youtube by the looks of it. Nowadays you cant be sure if that is even a fact..
and if debunking doesn’t work, “fact checking”
maybe by “an independent commission”
Exactly right, John.
The apparent pattern has been traced back for several hundred years. That does not mean that this apparent pattern represents an oscillatory mode of climate variability. As the reviewer discusses, and as you and I went over at length in the previous thread, research in the last few years has shown that the appearance of an “AMO-like” oscillation is coincidental – intermittent volcanism explains the pattern in the early part of the record, and sulfate aerosol forcing explains the negative peak centered at 1980, and thus the appearance of an oscillatory pattern, during the 20th century.
You wish to explain at least part of the 20th century warming as merely being the positive arm of some oscillatory pattern, but the pattern is seen to simply the result of anthropogenic warming offset by anthropogenic aerosols (with a bit of natural forcing thrown in for good measure, e.g. negative solar forcing). Your paper and your replies to the pub peer reviewer fail to address this finding in any comprehensive way, you just try to handwave it away with some vague insinuations about the robustness of climate models in general.
From whence comes this “intermittent volcanism (that) explains the pattern”. Isn’t there still “intermittent volcanism”?
See Mann, 2021:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abc5810
As noted, this was discussed at length in the previous thread, so recommend you read that for context.
Mann?
I would not trust Mann to put onions on my hotdog.
I read it and the SM, no comparison to the real AMO, it is just climate model masturbation.
Garbage rhetoric.
Keep the irony down, please.
“That does not mean that this apparent pattern represents an oscillatory mode of climate variability. “
Except that it DOES !!
Your comment fails to address anything of any reality or relevance.
It is just a load of hand-waving gibberish..
“but the pattern is seen to simply the result of anthropogenic warming offset by anthropogenic aerosols “
Only by those who are paid, or their career depends on them seeing it that way.
Which one are you. ?
“but the pattern is seen to simply the result of anthropogenic warming offset by anthropogenic aerosols”
maybe, but maybe not- your opinion, not science- not so simple
This is not opinion, it is the result of research. See Mann, 2020:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
Again also discussed at length in the previous thread.
There’s nothing simple about climate science. You should refrain from the use of that word in the context of climate discussions, or look simple minded. 🙂
Indeed. And the interesting thing is that he questions a stated assumption in the article while at the same time takes AGW as a given and i assume(!) proven fact
Citing Mann as an irreffutable source proves that AJ is a simpleton.
Why do you defend Mann so vehemently?
You mean why have I cited the papers that are the subject of discussion? Because they are relevant.
You have no problem with Mann as a scientist?
Nope, he don’t. “AlanJ” could also be Mickey Mann in costume.
Recycle time!
Stopping by Yamal One Snowing Evening
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desperate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweak my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
What climate “scientist” has fought so hard to hide his data and methods from being examined? He’s even gone to court to silence his critics.
If he had developed a device or cure for something in the commercial market that he had patented, OK. But he hasn’t done any of that.
He’s promoting “patent medicine” to cure “the planet” from a Mann-made disease. All for “The Cause”.
The apparent pattern of correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature has only been traced back intermittently in the Earth’s climate history. That does not mean that this apparent and occasional pattern represents a cause and effect relationship, in particular when the supposed “effect” precedes the supposed “cause” repeatedly in the Earth’s climate history.
Fixed it for you.
The possible conglomeration you describe don’t really cause oscillatory responses. Volcanoes are an impulse with an exponential decay.
Sulfate aerosol’s are not an impulse as they have grown with shipping. The decay should be rather steep as low sulfur fuel was implemented.
Both of these should have studies that have curves that can be overlayed on the oscillation to determine a good fit not just for the hills and valleys of an oscillation.
You are basically attempting at this point to find events that might correlate with the oscillation. How climate science of you.
The observed pattern isn’t really an oscillation, the appearance of such is coincidental. That’s what the research is demonstrating.
I think a negative peak in 1980 corresponds quite well with peak sulfate emissions around 1975-1980 following the clean air act. But for the details you need to refer to the cited research, if you have an objection to the specifics we can discuss that.
The point of the research is to determine whether apparent oscillations represent modes of internal (unforced) variability or are forced responses. The paper shows that the oscillations do not arise in unforced simulations, but do arise as a result of sulfate and volcanic forcing in historic simulations. So it’s not a correlation, but the direct result of historic forcing.
You write:
OK, so why does Mann not compare his simulated “AMO-like” pattern to the real AMO?
‘Bottom line, the AMO is a real oscillation that has been successfully traced back to 1600AD.’
So what could possibly cause a regular cycle, that goes back hundreds of years? Could it possibly be circular ocean currents? Such as the Global Conveyor Belt. And if so, then the AMO would have been around for tens, hundreds of thousands of years.
And during all of this time, subject to all sorts of periodic and random forcings such as the 4 year ENSO cycle, the 11 year solar cycle, the 110 year solar cycle, volcanoes, etc. etc., it would be virtually impossible for this circulation not to have built up temperature variations along its path length.
Thus, I suggest that the periodicity of the AMO temperature cycle is related to the path length of the Global Conveyor Belt, and the amplitude is related to un-attenuated past forcings plus current forcings of many different origins.
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 (such simulations do show ENSO, meaning they capture modes of internal variability).
There has been a lot of speculation about the driver of AMO-like oscillations in the historic and paleo records, Mann’s paper is just the latest foray, but it does seem to be very conclusive.
There is nothing to address. Mann (2021) does not compare his simulated 50-70-year AMO-like signal to the actual AMO from proxies and modern data. Is his signal in phase with the real AMO? We don’t know. The paper is meaningless without that comparison. What volcanic eruption record did he use? What is its periodicity, does it match the AMO?
I looked all the way through the paper and his supplementary materials, I found nothing but simulation output, no comparisons to the real AMO anywhere.
Mann is using the CMIP5 simulations in the study, which I believe primarily use the reconstruction by Gao, et al 2008 for volcanic forcing. The periodicity is found to closely correspond to the “AMO-like” signal in the paleo data:
Again, the obvious question, why not show a plot of the volcanism and the AMO together? Why not show his “AMO-like” simulation with the actual AMO? If I were doing the study those plots would be the first thing I looked at. If there were not an acceptable match, I wouldn’t even write the paper. If I had peer-reviewed the paper, I would reject it until he made the illustrations.
He explicitly does make this comparison:
I don’t think it would be desirable to have a reviewer who did not understand the paper they were reviewing.
Nonsense Alan,
Figure 2 (a,b,c) is all simulation output, no data. LFV is the local fractional variance of the frequencies detected in simulation output. It has nothing to do with the actual AMO. As I said, the whole paper is climate model masturbation. I do understand the paper.
As for volcanism, the only volcanism included in this study is the volcanism in the programmed model input. What about real volcanic records? We don’t know what they fed into the model.
The study is a modeling study, performing the same kinds of statistical analysis against forced and control simulations that Mann performed in the 1990s against paleo data (see Mann et al., 1995), which was believed to correspond to a similar pattern identified in the historical surface temperature data (Mann and Park, 1994). The entire point of this study is to make the comparison you are asking for. Mann does not repeat the exact same analysis performed in the earlier works.
The forcing estimates used in CMIP5 are based on paleo records of volcanic eruptions. The description of CMIP5 configurations and inputs is found in the relevant literature – that it is unknown to you does not mean that is unknown generally.
The PUBPEER paper has a temperature graph derived from IPCC AR6 comparing the claimed ‘observed’ global surface temperature change with all claimed natural factors only viz. solar and volcanic.
The so-called ‘observed’ data is not observed, the global average temperature cannot be observed, but is the result of much processing and adjusting to a vast number of disparate measurements.
The ’natural’ component is fudged around 1940 but still doesn’t fit the narrative.
According to Hansen 1981 the NH temperature difference 1880 — 1940 was ~+0.8C followed by a -0.5C drop to 1980 but according to HADCRUT4 NH the difference is now ~+0.3C with no drop.
If the former temperature differences were applied to the IPCC graph the so-called ‘observed’ would be further at odds with the narrative.
Much of the temperature fiddling over the past twenty years has been to do exactly what is claimed in the paper and by the IPCC viz. CO2 drives temperature and therefore to justify its existence.
Because hindsight ‘observations’ have to be..mm..adjusted because the new technology is supposed to be so much more advanced and improved. However, almost all the old observations of temperatures prior to 1980 were done by simple thermometer readings. Just like tide readings from those times.
Caveat: unless the conditions of thermometer readings were significantly changed between 1940-1980 like the amount, location or wear and tear to warrant a readjustment.
i.e. Fake Data.
So long as the original, unadjusted data is preserved so someone who studies it can ask the obvious questions, sure go ahead and adjust. Data adjusted to fit the story will suffer the same fate as the story.
“So long as the original, unadjusted data is preserved”
There is no original unadjusted sea surface temperature data. It was all made up out of thin air, as a means to promote the human-caused climate change narrative by bastardizing the global temperature record to make it appear that today is the hottest time in human history.
The truth is it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, but you would never know it looking at a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart.
There is a lot of unadjusted surface temperature data. It all shows it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, all around the world, which demonstrates that CO2 has had no discernable effect on the Earth’s temperatures because there is more CO2 in the air now than in the past yet it is not any warmer today than in the past. CO2 is just along for the ride.
This is what the bogus Hockey Stick chart was created for, to hide the truth from the public and to demonize the benign gas, CO2, for political purposes.
‘Pubpeer’
Isn’t that the actions of an incontinent drunk in a local tavern ??
Just asking for a friend. (:-))
No, it’s the idiot down the pub who has an opinion about everything and the facts about none. When I saw the initial article that was the first thought that crossed my mind.
The use of a word like “forced” makes it seem as if there is an evil spirit forcing something bad to happen- with a motive. It fits in with the quasi religious quality of the climate cult.
They can’t even sort out if their “forcings” are positive or negative “feedbacks” — they don’t even know the sign, much less the magnitude.
forcing sounds like rape- just the imagery they want us to have
I hate how these arrogant climate foamers act like they’re standing on the high ground about warming being “anthropogenic.”
There is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 has ever been the driver of the Earth’s temperature. To the contrary, there is a good deal of empirical evidence that it is not.
The “burden of proof” for the 100% BENEFICIAL warming of the climate since the Little Ice Age is on the Eco-Fascists, not on those who dispute it.
All they have is a hypothetical effect that applies under a set of circumstances that has never occurred, is not occurring, and will never occur – that being “all other things held equal.”
Natural 99%
Anthropogenic 1%
We can debate the precision of those percentages, but not the relative ratio.
UHI is anthropogenic, of course. How it is addressed is hidden in a cloud of mysticism.
CO2 has a minor effect on the specific heat (Cp) of air, but not the energy content of that same volume.
CO2 has a minor effect on a specific narrow band of LWIR. Specifically, scattering. The EM energy does not go in a straight line. Oh, and there is no such particle called a photon, but everyone treats EM interactions with molecules as if it exists.
The historical record is clear. Starting in the 1960s, CO2 was demonized to change human civilizations, to the detriment of all humanity except the god-king elites. We are, after all, “deplorables.” The apparent goal is to reduce the population to 1B or less.
End of rant.
So they try to attribute part of the AMO to humans activity :
this assumption is blatantly wrong for so many basic reasons, among which : AMO observation time (many centuries), energy which is at stake, specific heat of the oceans compared to the atmosphere, thus, ridiculously insignificant effect of the atmosphere on the oceans temperatures evolution – not to say the effect of humans emissions of CO2 or aerosols : insignificant of insignificance …I wouldn’t be surprised if they introduce an anthropogenic forcing hypothesis even in the Sun (pseudo) cyclic activity or claim that all these cycles are coincidental (cows farts or our aerosols emissions are cyclical, or who knows what other absurdity …) or that all the observed climate change in all the Solar system planets since decades is purely coincidental (Martians progressively covered the poles with red ash with their pick-ups you know, …) …
They are not even pseudo-scientists.
I’ve had extensive experience on PubPeer, defending my published work against the incessant attacks of AGW partisans.
In many cases, it was clear that the attackers had never read the work they attacked. They merely objected violently to the message.
In all cases, the attackers were irrefragably ignorant of the methodological focus of the papers — namely all notions of physical uncertainty. calibration, and propagation of error.
By irrefragable, I mean no matter how many times the methodology was explained, including citations to foundational literature, they’d come back with variations of the same incorrect arguments.
The whole experience was effortful and pointless. And in the attacks on LiG Met, the PubPeer moderator himself eventually took a partisan stance; in doing so evincing the same ignorance of error analysis displayed by the critics. It’s hopeless.
In 2015, Michael Blatt, the then Editor-in-Chief of Plant Physiology, published an editorial about PubPeer, titled “Vigilante Science.” Everyone should read it, take heed, and ignore PubPeer and all its doings.
Extracts from Micheal Blatt: “The problems arising [from PubPeer] are twofold, and their roots are self-evident on a quick trawl through the PubPeer site.
“First, most individuals posting on PubPeer—let’s use the euphemism commenters for now—take advantage of the anonymity afforded by the site in full knowledge that their posts will be available to the public at large.
“Second, the vast majority of comments that are posted focus on image data (gels, blots, and micrographs) that contribute to the development of scientific ideas but are not ideas in themselves.
“With few exceptions, commenters on PubPeer do no more than flag perceived faults and query the associated content. Of course, such detail generally informs discussion, but no journal club I ever organized or contributed to was so obsessed with the minutiae of data presentation.”
To expand that point, PubPeer partisan attackers find some perceived error and leverage that to disparage the author and a cause to dismiss the entire work.
it became quite clear that the attacks were not in the interest of good science, but to provide polemical grist for partisan talking points on more public fora (such as WUWT).
Blatt’s recommendation, “Until [PubPeer rises to the standard of scientific ethics], I urge scientists publishing in Plant Physiology and other reputable scientific journals not to respond to comments or allegations on PubPeer, and I encourage would-be commenters to communicate with the authors
directly, via the acknowledged routes provided by these publications,…”
That’s my recommendation as well, after considerable exposure. PubPeer is a waste of time and effort. In my experience, nothing constructive comes from it.
Thanks Pat. The article you linked to is excellent. I had never heard of Pubpeer before this, so your comment, and the editorial, are very helpful.
After publishing our paper and seeing the response, I vowed to answer every criticism. These anonymous critiques/reviews are used on social media as tools to proclaim an article has been “debunked.” I want everyone to have our side available for rebuttal as quickly as possible.
So far none of the criticisms have anything valid to say. They are strawman or red herring type arguments, usually very lengthy, with lots of splashy graphics. They invariably avoid the core message of our paper because it can’t be refuted. Even AR6 admits that there are no signs of any danger from CO2 and warming right now, or in the foreseeable future.
Thanks again for the link, I downloaded the pdf of the editorial for future use.
Thanks Andy, and good luck to you. I’ve blocked PubPeer, and will no longer respond to any comments there; including not even to any new paper.
Critics won’t care about your responses. In other fora, they’ll quote the attacks as though they are definitive and you’ll find yourself responding all over again. And they won’t care about your responses that time, either.
You’re labeled a heretic. Therefore, everything you say is wrong, even when it’s right.
If you like, compile the links to your responses. Then just post the link whenever you’re again challenged.
My comment has been deleted!
I don’t know why. It was in the comments database and linked to this post, anyway here is your comment from the database:
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.
Thank you Andy.