By Andy May
The featured image is by Josh, used with permission.
There are 20 clearly false statements and three additional problematic statements in Tinus Pulles’ “Climate Denialism.” Most of them stem from disagreements on how to interpret existing data. However, some are due to his lack of understanding of what we wrote or, intentional distortion of what we wrote. What is puzzling is I was asked to peer review this paper months ago and I sent in the review in October. Nearly all the errors you will see in the list below were pointed out then, yet they remain in the paper. To nearly everyone familiar with climate science literature and our paper, these errors are obvious. I find it more than a bit alarming that even the grammatical errors I pointed out in the paper last October are still in it. Why such a flawed paper was published is a mystery. Peer review is not working as intended.
Pulles appears to believe that dangerous human-caused climate change is an undisputed fact. He also repeatedly conflates “climate change” with “dangerous man-made climate change.” Human-caused global climate change has never been observed, either directly or statistically, only modeled. The paper is critical of our paper from earlier in the year (May & Crok, 2024), but that paper makes it clear that human-caused climate change is not an existential threat and the incidence and magnitude of recent extreme weather events have not exceeded expected natural variability as shown in the recent IPCC AR6 WGI report on page 1856 and elsewhere.
Two citations in Pulles, (Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle, 2007) and (Diethelm & McKee, 2009), are editorials and not academic articles. Further both are slanderous attacks on climate skeptics and compare them directly to people who deny the Holocaust occurred and other similarly abhorrent groups. In fact, Hoofnagle mentions the World War II Holocaust five times. The Holocaust is a historical fact, I have visited Auschwitz/Birkenau personally and know its horrors, I defy anyone to take a tour of Auschwitz/Birkenau and leave without tears in their eyes, I don’t think it is possible. On the other hand, the hypothesis that climate change is mostly man-made and potentially dangerous is based entirely on theoretical considerations and model projections, these are research topics that Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle admit they do not “understand … worth a damn.” It is disingenuous in the extreme to conflate denying the Holocaust to climate skeptics who are simply challenging a popular scientific hypothesis in a time-honored traditional way.
I normally have no problem with the phrase “climate denier,” if it is clearly defined as one who is skeptical of the idea of dangerous man-made climate change but citing editorials that directly compare May & Crok to denying the Holocaust is beyond the pale of normal civil discourse and has no place in a respectable academic journal.
If alternative views on climate change are simply dismissed thoughtlessly as “denialism,” then normal scientific discourse is no longer possible. May & Crok make a good case that climate change is not a grave threat for mankind. It would have been more interesting if Pulles had made a similar argument for the opposite viewpoint. Readers of both could then make up their own minds. Instead, Pulles only attacks May & Crok with vacuous ad hominem arguments and says little of substance.
Climate skeptics acknowledge that dangerous human-caused climate change is possible but see no observational or statistical evidence supporting such an assertion. The currently available evidence tends to dispute the idea as explained in May & Crok. To skeptics, or “deniers,” if you prefer, the idea is clearly open to scientific debate.
The authors claim our article belittles scientific evidence by saying “AR6 claims,” “they believe,” or that “we need evidence.” These phrases are hardly belittling and fairly normal and respectful language when challenging a new scientific idea. In a debate one must establish that they understand the opposing view and restate it in a clear way. They claim May & Crok ignore thousands of pages of evidence. That many pages wouldn’t be needed if real evidence of dangerous man-made climate change existed.
It seems to me the author bears the burden of proof and has not delivered. His clearly false statements do not help his case.
This is just a quick summary of the most egregious problems in “Climate Denialism.” The detailed description and documentation of each error and problem, plus a bibliography is in a separate document. I peer reviewed “Climate Denialism” and wrote a detailed critique of the paper very similar to this one. The errors I point out below were nearly all in my October 2024 review. After the paper was published, I downloaded the final version and updated my review document to match the published version, very few changes to the October original were needed.
Key problems in “Climate Denialism.”
- Climate change “deniers” are directly compared to deniers of the Holocaust and other abhorrent groups in the two main sources used in the paper to define “Climate Denialism.” The Holocaust is a historical fact and dangerous man-made climate change is a hypothesis, they are not comparable.
- Pulles claims “deniers,” and May & Crok, specifically, deny science or climate science. I know of no man-made climate skeptics who deny science and certainly May & Crok do not deny science or climate science. Pulles conflates “science” and “climate science” with a popular climate change hypothesis that he never really defines. This confirms my opinion that the “consensus on climate change” means whatever it is needed to mean at the time.
- Pulles claims that denialists try to disprove “a scientific consensus.” Science is the methodology civilization invented to challenge a consensus opinion, quite the opposite of the author’s meaning. What is the purpose of science, other than as a methodology for challenging a consensus opinion?
- Pulles claims “denialism” is a “weapon of war against climate policies.” Scientific debate is not a war or a weapon. Scientific debate is a healthy thing.
- Pulles claims the peer review of May & Crok was weak, but all proper procedures were followed and the paper passed peer review three votes to one.
- Pulles erroneously claims denialists perform no work in the field of climate science. Judy Curry, Dick Lindzen, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, and many others would be very surprised to hear this. This is an egregious error and insulting to the hundreds, perhaps thousands of climate skeptic peer-reviewed papers.
- Pulles erroneously claims the imbalance of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is known to be 0.7 W/m2. He further claims that the global average imbalance does not change. That is the “distributional effects [changes in Earth’s surface due to weather] will not disturb the global averages” due to the law of conservation of energy. This unsupported assertion has several problems, first the satellite data shows an imbalance of 4.3 W/m2, which is clearly impossible. The various TOA imbalances in the literature (0.6, 0.7, 0.9, etc.) are all assumed because the data are not accurate enough to determine a value, although since the world is warming, recent values (since 1980) are likely positive. Second since Earth’s surface has considerable heat storage capacity, just changing the energy residence time in the climate system a small amount can have a huge impact (see here and here for more details). In reality the energy imbalance must change continuously, how much is anyone’s guess. The ocean oscillations, like the PDO, the AMO, El Niño, and La Niña (ENSO), testify to this constantly changing quantity of stored energy. The “global averages” are indeed affected by changing heat storage, look at 1945 to 1976 in figure 1 of May & Crok for an example and compare to figure 2 of May & Crok (download the complete final submitted version here). While the incoming solar radiation has varied very little recently, the outgoing longwave radiation from Earth’s surface varies with temperature refuting Pulles’ assertion about an unchanging imbalance.
- Pulles erroneously claims that current warming is clearly due to anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, but this has not been established except in climate models. The basis for the statement is a correlation between CO2 and warming (his figure 3), yet earlier Pulles admits that correlation is not causation.
- Pulles claims that a disputed paper, Chen, et al., shows that McKitrick’s criticisms of the atmospheric fingerprint are incorrect. In fact, Chen, et al. mostly confirm McKitrick’s conclusions, but try and say they don’t matter and can be assumed away. For Ross McKitrick’s detailed criticisms of Chen, et al. see here.
- Pulles claims that if McKitrick is correct, it does not disprove that human activity is the main cause of global climate change. There is nothing to disprove, no one has proven that humans are the main cause of climate change. The human impact on climate has not even been detected.
- Pulles admits that climate models are inaccurate, relative to observations, in the tropical middle troposphere (see here) but erroneously claims that the “extra” heat must be somewhere else. Why? There may be no extra heat, the radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is clearly unknown and constantly changing, we don’t even know if it is positive or negative. Further, as noted above, outgoing longwave radiation is increasing in a manner consistent with warming, and there is little change in incoming solar radiation, there is no “extra” heat that we can detect.
- Pulles erroneously claims that May & Crok state that the AMO is purely due to natural causes. In fact, we say that human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day might have been boosted by a natural AMO cycle. If true, this invalidates the IPCC idea that humans have caused all the warming since 1976.
- Pulles erroneously claims that Mann (2020 & 2021) provide evidence that the AMO is not a natural phenomenon. Mann conducted a climate model study that showed the AMO might be a result of volcanic activity and anthropogenic emissions, but he provides no evidence other than model runs. Mann et al., 2020 admits that internal variability contributes to the AMO.
- Pulles erroneously claims that the residuals after detrending the AMO and HadCRUT4 have no structure and may be due to random noise. Both sets of residuals not only show structure in figure 2 of May & Crok, the residual structures match each other. This statement is clearly false.
- Pulles writes “they conclude that the “detrended” data show no trends.” This is false, there is no such conclusion or statement in May & Crok.
- Pulles erroneously claims that ocean oscillations go up and down and can never contribute to warming trends. That depends entirely on the period of the oscillation and the beginning and ending dates chosen. This is false.
- Pulles erroneously claims that Pielke Jr. and Lomborg have been debunked but provide no evidence. I do not know of any articles written by them that have been debunked, they both receive a lot of criticism because they are skeptical of the dangers of man-made climate change, but they’ve not been debunked.
- Pulles erroneously claims that modern warming is unusual in Earth’s history. There are many examples of much more rapid and severe warming in the past, especially the very well documented rapid warming ~11,700 years ago.
- Pulles claims that the Little Ice Age was regional, as if that means it doesn’t matter. All climate changes are regional, including the current “global” warming. The Little Ice Age caused glaciers to advance nearly everywhere in the world except in Antarctica, but the advances were not synchronous. While this claim is true in the strictest case, it does not matter in the intended way.
- Pulles erroneously claims that plants evolved in an environment of around 250 PPM CO2. Modern vascular plants evolved during the Devonian Period, ~400 million years ago when CO2 was 1,000 to ~4,000 PPM, many times higher than today. It appears this error stems from a misunderstanding of his primary source Ort, 2015.
- Pulles erroneously claims that more CO2 will not result in improvements in plant growth, numerous controlled experiments have shown this is false. Especially C3 plants, such as rice, soybeans, wheat, most trees, and grasses, thrive in more CO2 than we have today.
- Pulles erroneously claims that May & Crok were “given permission” to publish their article in AJES, but in fact, they were invited to write a paper explaining the scientific basis for denialism.
- Pulles erroneously claims that the peer reviewers of May & Crok were “clearly not familiar with the existing science.” This is not true and not documented in the paper.
- Finally, this assertion, “The many flaws and misrepresentations in the paper should have resulted in rejection” has no foundation. No flaws or misrepresentations in May & Crok are identified in “Climate Denialism.”
It is a shame that the institution of peer-review has been corrupted to the extent that papers filled with obvious falsehoods can pass simply because of ideological bias. I was a peer reviewer for this paper and pointed out all the above problems to the editor in October, but the paper was published anyway, with the falsehoods left in. My full review of the paper, slightly updated, can be downloaded here.
It is amazing that papers like this get published (see other examples here and here) when all-to-often serious and carefully researched papers are rejected. Pulles and May & Crok interpret the same facts differently in many cases, but in many of the points listed above, Pulles is clearly in error. It is shocking that these obvious errors were pointed out in detail months ago, but the editors of AJES still published the paper as is.
Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle, who admit they do not understand climate models “worth a damn,” write “Global Warming denialists like Richard Lindzen [try] and explain why mainstream scientists won’t publish their BS.” Science is clearly taking a backseat to bias and misinformation. This is to the detriment of scientists everywhere.
These problems with Climate Denialism are discussed in more detail, along with additional problems not listed here, in a downloadable detailed critique here that contains a full bibliography. The detailed critique is extremely similar to what I sent in to the editors of AJES in October. For a list of other critiques of May & Crok and our responses, see here.
Alarmists belong to an axis of EVil.
Axle of EVil.
The article states
It is not true, as the combination of multiple studies ( see the CO2 website) demonstrate it was very global.
Here is a link.
http://www.co2science.org//subject/g/globaliceage.php
However the overall post was very good.
It probably occurred over all the globe except Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, but not at the same time everywhere. The coldest period of the LIA is about 1690 +- in the North Atlantic and around 1810 in the North Pacific for example. So, if you want to be very pedantic, it was regional.
See here and the preceding posts in the series for the details:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/06/09/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-4-the-global-reconstruction/
Andy, there is a very good older paper based on differential ocean sedimentation that shows the LIA also manifested on the Antarctic Penninsula. I have it archived somewhere on my old computer hard drive.
Andy – I love your work but to believe a region of the planet can be affected by such as a little ice age while the rest remains unaffected is unwise. It’s the same argument used by the climate zombies to say the MWP was regional – lasted centuries btw – while the rest of the globe remained the same or was cooler than average. It’s nonsense.
The main problem seems to be the scant data coming from the Southern Hemisphere – due to historically low population/land compared to the north.
Andy,
I appreciate your conservative view of the LIA having only regional effects as it occurred at different times in different locations.
However, one must also then take proxies into account fromt very sparse locations and with little time resolution. If that is the case most proxies are sadly lacking in the ability to gauge “global” temperature whatsoever.
I have obtained several “monthly average” temperature graphs from NOAA at rural locations in the U.S. Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Alabama, Arkansas for just a few. They show no warming in the high temperature months. If “global” means anything, then it means everywhere on the globe. The data NOAA shows proves that is not true as the rural states in the U.S. contraindicates that assumption. What it means is that climate science must begin to show those regional locations that raise the average over the last 125 years. I think this is what your position is and I concur.
There is evidence for Antarctica as well
http://www.co2science.org//articles/V15/N46/EDIT.php
The ‘LIA was regional’ argument has been disproven many times in many ways. Yet warmunists persist in repeating the falsehood. No different than Mann’s hockey stick handle also erased the MWP. Inconveniently disproven by historical records.
I take the points from all of you. However, usually the evidence presented for both the MWP and LIA being regional is that they occurred at different times in different places, neither was a synchronized effect all over the world at the same time. Plus, the evidence for an LIA in Antarctica is quite weak. I chose to concede the point, since there are no synchronized climate anomalies, they always occur in different places at different times. Climate is complicated and should be examined regionally. The one thing I really dislike is trying to figure out “global average climate,” it doesn’t exist.
The concept of global climate is rather like that of human nature. Humans are best described as individuals or smaller communities since their natures vary widely. To average them gives a very imprecise picture. The climate is every bit as chaotic and conflating it as some sort of average seems of little value.
The uncertainty in the global average is in at least the units digit and more likely in the tens digit. Meaning NO ONE KNOWS what the actual global temperature average is for any time period, be it for a day, a week, a month, a year, or a decade down to the hundredths digit which is what the “anomalies” used to determine the change in the global average are given in.
Yes, global average is over general and not meaningfull. However from my link above…
“Consequently, we weekly peruse the most recent scientific literature for newly-discovered real-world paleoclimatic evidence related to the question of whether or not the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were truly global phenomena. And we here discuss the findings of one such paper (Simms et al., 2012) that provides evidence for the Little Ice Age occurring on a portion of Antarctica – the South Shetland Islands (SSI) – at essentially the same time as it occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.
Very briefly, the five researchers used a new approach to dating remnants of raised beaches in the SSI of the northern Antarctic Peninsula, in order “to bracket the age of a Neoglacial advance that occurred between 1500 and 1700 AD.” This approach, as they describe it, was based on measurements of the “optically stimulated luminescence of the underside of buried cobbles to obtain the age of beaches previously shown to have been deposited immediately inside and outside the moraines of the most recent Neoglacial advance.” In addition, they demonstrated that their results “mark the timing of an apparent change in the rate of isostatic rebound thought to be in response to the same glacial advance within the SSI,” using “a Maxwell viscoelastic model of glacial-isostatic adjustment to determine whether the rates of uplift calculated from the raised beaches are realistic.” And they did find them to be realistic, as they fell “within the range of uplift rates from similar settings such as Alaska.”
“…. they report that other ice core records from East Antarctica and elsewhere in West Antarctica support an in-phase relationship between climate events in the two hemispheres, citing the work of Li et al. (2009) and Bertler et al. (2011). And they add that the marine record provides ample evidence “for cooler conditions around ~250-550 calBP (1400-1700 AD),” citing the studies of Domack and Mayewski (1999), Brachfeld et al. (2003), Yoo et al. (2009), Hass et al. (2010) and Shevenell et al. (2011).
Clearly, the greater weight of real-world evidence in this controversy resides with Simms et al. and the many other researchers who have identified and dated a Little Ice Age in various parts of Antarctica that coincides in time with the Little Ice Age of the Northern Hemisphere. And that dating of the Little Ice Age, plus the comparing of its temperature with the temperatures that both preceded and followed it, also pretty much confirms the existence of the Medieval and Current Warm Periods in Antarctica, which are thus found to have occurred contemporaneously with the Medieval and Current Warm Periods in the Northern Hemisphere. And when viewed in this global and oscillatory context (and when extended even further back in time through the Dark Ages Cold Period and the Roman Warm Period), it becomes ever more clear that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the global warming of the 20th century…”
And thus no correlation with AGW CO2.
Even the distinguished ice core specialist Lonnie Thompson has identified the “Little Ice Age” from ice cores collected from the Quelccaya ice cap that lies within the tropics in Peru.
I do not wholly agree with his interpretation of the cause of modern warming, but his ice core work is pure data, and should not be ignored.
David,
I’m a bit torn here because I can see both sides of the argument. A cooler than normal period occurred everywhere during the generally accepted Little Ice Age period from 1300 to 1850. However, the magnitude and timing of the cooling events were not synchronous around the world, probably because of the resulting changes in global atmospheric circulation and Earth’s orbital characteristics. See here, figure 4:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/12/28/glaciers-and-sea-level-rise/
Also compare Dome C (Antarctica), Makassar Strait (Indonesia), and Greenland in the attached image. We see a dramatic drop in temperature in Indonesia and Greenland, but not much in Antarctica.
I’m not saying you are wrong, there was a global cooling event around the world at the time, but it was not the same everywhere. Thus, big climate changes, and the Little Ice Age was very big, are more complex than we often admit.
Thanks Andy, and see my new comment above. Yes, nothing in that sense is global. yet it is pretty difinitive the LIA was generally so, as well as the warm periods. including the MWP and the Roman WP, etc.
I conceed I am not in the mood to give these yahoos an inch.
One of the potential causes of the LIA is ocean circulation (MOC). As a result we shouldn’t expect the cooling to be everywhere at once. This also explains why Antarctica would see less of an effect as it is mostly cut-off from the MOC.
I read that pdf where Pulles made comments next to your paper.
So many of his comments were just provable WRONG, and based purely on AGW-mantra.
And his going on about “Expectations” is based purely on unvalidated models and has no place in any scientific paper or response.
Even his “conclusion” is based on these computer games.
Then cites “Wiki” and “CarbonBrief” as a references.. seriously !!
And says stupid things like … “properties of CO2 … that result in disturbing the earth-space energy balance.”.
Total anti-science BS !!
This person cannot be taken seriously as a scientist..
Very nice Andy.
‘Ignoring thousands of pages of evidence’
It is safe to ignore thousands of pages of model based speculation and clear scientific bias/misconduct, neither of which comprises evidence. Some examples.
Keep it up, Andy. Old WW2 bomber pilot saying, “If you are getting heavy flak you are over the target.”
Briffa’s data since 1900
1930s/40s peak…. check
coldest 1979…. check
1990, lower than 1900 check..
There’s the 1930’s high point again. Sticking out like a sore thumb.
Climate Alarmists can’t/won’t see it.
Understandable since it would blow up their “hottest year evah! narrative. Nobody likes their worldview bubble to be burst. The real deniers are not skeptics.
I read the first sentence of the abstract:
“Climate change imposes severe impacts on society and the economy”.
And then I stopped reading.
I always appreciate an author who reveals he is a climate science fool in the first sentence of the abstract.
I have no problem with authors saying manmade CO2 emissions cause some amount of global warming, and presenting some evidence of that from the past 128 years, But when I am told climate change warming is dangerous, I want evidence the past 49 years of global warming harmed anyone. No such evidence exists. A strong argument could be made to show that global warming and more CO2 have been beneficial.
CO2 Does Nothing Nutters please stay away from my comment.
There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming…. you have shown that MANY times by totally avoiding producing any evidence.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
If only you hadn’t made that last stupid sentence / invitation. !! D’oh !!
Please go away BeNasty
You ignore 129 years of evidence there is a greenhouse effect an CO2 emissions increase it, and you ignore over 100,000 studies supporting AGW. But you just can’t ignore me?
Every intelligent post of mine is followed by your childish Prove It ranting and raving. You need to be sedated. Because you are a one man WUWT comment thread wrecking ball. No leftist could discredit conservatives on the subject of climate science better than you do.
There is not one ”study” supporting AGW any more than mere guesswork and posturing. They all feed off each other and should be ignored until such a time as past, similar warm periods can be empirically explained.
There are not ”100,000” studies. There is only one hypothesis. Grow up Greene.
You silly little child.. constantly pleading for attention.
And failing utterly and completely to produce any actual evidence.
Care to try … just once. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
You really are making yourself look like a petulant little schoolchild.
You make very few “scientifically intelligent” posts, if any…
… and produce absolutely nothing to support your anti-science AGW-cultism.
“over 100,000 studies supporting AGW”
But NOT ONE actually giving measured scientific evidence it even exists.
Otherwise you could produce it….
…. and you have proven time and time again, that you can’t.
Did you know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet !
“over 100,000 studies supporting AGW”
Where would I go to find 100 studies of the over 100k studies?
Go to the same place you go to read all scientific papers. A place you obviously ignore
This idea makes one critical assumption which is false. If true we shouldn’t be able to measure any LWIR outside the atmospheric window at the surface. There are lots of paper which do exactly that. See Gero/Turner 2011 and Feldman 2015 as examples.
Are these instruments broadband or spectrally selective?
How would you distinguish water vapor LWIR from CO2 LWIR at the surface?
You have NOT posted ANY papers..
I doubt you have ever actually read any…
Its all just rabid yapping, isn’t it.
I hesitate to get involved in your long-going argument about “proof of AGW,” but the easiest way to look at is to admit that AGW is possible but has never been detected. The way I look at it is that theory says GHGs have some effect, the effect has been modeled (albeit poorly), but if the effect has caused all the warming since 1750, it should be detectable, yet it hasn’t been detected. The absence of evidence is not definitive, but when thousands of scientists have been trying to detect it for over 50 years and have come up with nothing, it tells you something.
I know it is purely anecdotal but I have spent decades talking to old farmers about their experiences. There is no doubt in my mind that here in the very center of the continental US that the climate is cyclical. 30’s dry, 40’s cool, 50’s warmer and rainy, 60’s and 70’s cooler, 80’s warmer and dry, etc……. I.e. lots of natural variation.
Trying to tease out a human-caused change over the natural variation, especially in the hundredths or thousandths digit is, frankly, just idiotic in the extreme as far as I’m concerned. The same applies to any region on the globe. And if these cycles are not synchronous it gets even more idiotic for a “global average”. It’s people (not true physical scientists) living in “statistical world” who have no idea of significant digit rules and/or resolution limits as applied to real world measurements that think they can identify human-caused warming.
Lots of cyclical natural variation is what it looks like to me, going by the written, historic temperature records. The climate warms for a number of decades, and then it cools for a number of decades, and this pattern repeats and has done so since the end of the Little Ice Age.
We are currently in a cyclical warming trend that is getting “long in the tooth”.
Climate Crisis Alarmist say the temperatures will continue to climb because we are putting more CO2 into the air. We shall see. Currently, temperatures are cooler than both the 1998 and 2016 high points. Which way will it go?
“The absence of evidence is not definitive, but when thousands of scientists have been trying to detect it for over 50 years and have come up with nothing, it tells you something.”
That’s the way I look at it, too.
That’s the way Richard Greene should look at it.
CO2’s warming effect hasn’t been detected in the Earth’s atmosphere, Richard. Not in all these years of trying.
Of course, physics provides a different perspective. All 3 mechanisms which have been claimed to be responsible for warming can be refuted using solid physics.
I’m not quite sure what you are on about. I don’t think that it is in any way possible to claim that changes in climate cannot have severe impacts on society and the economy.
Where I have lived, many changes to the local climates have occurred. Some of them definitely had severe impacts.
Perhaps you live somewhere where the climate never changes, and so don’t understand this? Or perhaps you made significant assumptions about the meaning of that sentence that aren’t immediately obvious to others?
Please tell us how changes in your local climate over the past 30 to 50 years have been bad news for you. Do not tell us about one or two unusually cold winters or one or two unusually warm summers. Tell us about the climate trend over 30 or more years. One sentence could answer my question.
Climate is pretty much the same as it was 50+ years ago.
I see no evidence except urban warming for any human causation in the very small, maybe, global temperature rise.
UAH shows that it in the last 45 years that warming has come totally from natural events.. NO CO2 warming at all.
If you think you can see the CO2 warming in the UAH data.. please show it to us.
“Climate is pretty much the same as it was 50+ years ago.”
That’s what I say, too.
Climate is constantly changing but it changes in patterns, and those patterns repeat, and are repeating today, and are the same ones I remember in my youth.
We have a fairly mild winter in my neck of the woods this year. I have experienced many winters like this. Nothing unusual is going on.
And just on time, our normal cold weather is just around the corner. We normally get at least one and sometimes two arctic air excursion over a winter. It’s been that pattern for as long as I can remember, which includes both warming and cooling cycles.
We are in a warming cycle now. We’ve been in them before when CO2 was not an issue.
Weather is not climate, you silly person.
He knows that.
That is why he ended by saying ….
“Tell us about the climate trend over 30 or more years. One sentence could answer my question.”
He knows that nothing discernible other than a bit of beneficial natural warming is happening…. except in fake models
You have NOTHING
No scientific evidence of CO2 doing anything except enhance plant growth.
😂 Streisand effect.
If not for that, I would have given a thumbs up and not commented, ..
It was so obviously an invitation, or plea for some attention. 🙂 !!
Also the Harry and Meghan effect – a ”we want our privacy” world tour..
Clearly, but RG is on a certain level of ignorance displayed in (almost) every comment he makes. And in a bizarre way seems proud of it. Someone who does not even bother to hide the inconsistencies but flaunts them in people’s faces. It could/should perhaps be seen as a comedy act.
By calling people NUTTERS and then saying ‘stay away’ is both insulting AND inviting the same group. Ie, something a true bigot would do. I hope this is insulting enough. Idiot.
Yes … but the likes of bnice2000 and karlomonte are exempt?
Oh, of course, that only counts if coming from the “other” side.
Oh look I’m on the blanton lits.
Oh look the rabid AGW mutt has a mindless little yap.
Are you proud of what the Net-Zero crap that stems from CO2-hatred is doing to your country !!
Disgusting that you still support it.
That seems like a fair comment and i do take issue w both person’s comments. However, RG’s use of the word ‘nutters’ for people who do not consider AGW or GHE playing a role in Earth’s climate even if they can substantiate it with data and logic irks me. Andy May has made some excellent remarks here. RG is fixated on this particular subject. I am not particularly interested in which side people are on but am in an intelligent exchange of opinions in which distinctions are made with respect to what you call ‘the other side’.
RG is never respectful towards anybody who questions the GHE or AGW and simply calls them nutters so i dont need to respect him for doing so.
If peer review was completely broken, Andy May would not be asked to do a peer review. What is completely broken is mainstream science journalism … like all other mainstream journalism. … Peer review has always been pal review.
Journal peer-review is mainly to decide if the journal wants to publish the paper.
Obviously most journals are too cowardly to publish realist papers or are run by rabid AGW cultists anyway.
So long as it “sends the right message”, there often seems to be very little check on anything in the actual paper.
Journals are a business. They sell their product to academic institutions.
Academic institutions are also businesses. They sell their product to their funders; mainly governments, but also charities.
If governments and environmental charities do not want research that contradicts their aims, they will not pay for it.
If academic institutions are not paid for the output that a journal enables, they will not buy that journal.
If journals are not being bought, they need to change their product.
NOTE: None of this has anything to do with knowledge production. It’s all to do with the cultural practice known as “Science”.
My point was, I was asked to peer review the paper and when I did, and I pointed out clear factual errors in the paper that are easily checked, they accepted the paper without any corrections being made. Most of the egregious errors were obvious misstatements about our paper that are easily verified, for the others I supplied a full bibliography.
The peer review system doesn’t work if the invited peer reviewers are simply ignored. Ask Ross McKitrick in the example provided in the post. Clearly this is a common problem. The fact that I was invited to peer review the paper is irrelevant if I’m ignored out of hand. It is more an insult than an invitation.
In this context the term “consensus” should always be capitalized as Consensus since it names a political movement not a fact. The definition of consensus is that which everyone on a committee agrees to. There is nothing close to that with AGW so there simply is no consensus, but there is the self named Consensus movement. There is also no committee and treating all scientists as a committee is ridiculous.
In fact there is almost nothing in the climate debate that everyone agrees on, certainly nothing major. There is a Consensus but no consensus.
More like a CON-sensus. !
It is amazing to me that you can write good articles about wind energy and whales that I recommend on my blog … while being such a nitwit on the subject of climate science, Wojick.
I have seen comments of yours claiming El Ninos are the sole cause of global warming, something we hear from El Nino Nutter Be Nasty here.
Now you are claiming there is no AGW consensus That is an ignorant claim. There has been an AGW consensus of at least 99.9% of scientists since 1896.
There has been VERY STRONG consensus of scientists since 1896 that there is a greenhouse effect and more CO2 in the atmosphere makes that effect stronger.
In plain English manmade CO2 emissions make a warmer planet.
In my 28 years of climate science reading, almost entirely of CAGW skeptics, I have only found one scientist, geographer Tim Ball of Cannada, who claimed there was no greenhouse effect. So he was denying AGW.
It sounds like you want to replace Tim Ball as the worst conservative climate science writer and join weatherman Joe Bastardi as the Abbot and Costello of climate science. Two El Ninno Nutters who deny AGW. Joe denies AGW but at least he admits there is an AGW consensus. You will not even admit that.
Still pleading for attention.. lonely little child.
Consensus IS NOT SCIENCE…
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
“If there are no measurements to support a conjecture, it is just speculation.” {RG}
Time to put up some measured evidence dickie-boi. !
Joe Bastardi has several magnitudes more understanding of the atmosphere than you will ever be capable of. Try not to be jealous.
And still waiting for you to show us some warming in the UAH data that is NOT associated with El Nino events.
Arm-waving and mindless squawking doesn’t count.
Watch and try to learn..
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232
Gee Richard there is no universal agreement on anything you are claiming. A bunch of scientists arguing against the GH effect put out a book awhile back and there are a number published papers making that argument. That increasing CO2 has to cause warming is certainly contested including by me. That humans are causing the CO2 increase is widely contested. That the warming is dangerous likely does not even have a majority and it is central to AGW.
That all the UAH warming is in steps coincident with super El Niños is a simple observation. We seem to be in the midst of yet another step. If you see something different there please point it out.
A bit more deeply you are confusing consensus with majority view. These are very different concepts. As that term is normally used consensus means all agree. Thus “strong consensus” is an oxymoron.
in short there is a lot of conceptual confusion in your writing. (Concept analysis is part of my Ph.D.)
Thank you for proving you are a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter, an El Nino Nutter and a There is No Climate Consensus Nutter. A rare Triple Nutter
I wanted to be certain
You claim to have a Ph.D. in some subject but only pile it high and deep about climate science.
Perhaps I am expecting too much from a Ph.D.? The fake coming climate crisis predictions are supported by lots of Ph.D.’s too.
Dumb Leftists: AGW is dangerous and if you disagree you are a science denier
Dumb conservatives: AGW is fake an if you disagree you are government brainwashed.
Again, just mindless yapping from a mentally deranged mutt.
Not one single bit of science to be found anywhere in anything you say.
You have absolutely ZERO CREDIBILITY, and are strive incessantly to stay that way.
Marcus Ott, Tom Shula and others have published papers about the effect of Co2 on Earth’s atmosphere which they regard as zero or near zero. They accept the influence of H2O in all forms in which one might consider water vapour not as a gas. They take different angles on it. It is very interesting. Maybe you should momentarily get off of your ‘nutter’ routine and examine their work. I was very skeptical about them but found their views pretty solidly backed up. You might not agree but my experience is that the longer and deeper you delve into the climate system the more diffuse it becomes and the underlying assertions more uncertain and the error margins wider
This is good. It is comforting. I am not in a pro or anti camp per se but to me it seems the Co2 ‘forcing’ idea is problematic at the outset given the system as a whole but im ok with those who believe in it. Im all for diversity. Science will never ‘settle’ in regards to Earth’s climate system. I embrace that thought. I dont need to win..
Stop misrepresenting the late Prof Tim Ball PhD. Prof Ball never “claimed there was no greenhouse effect”. To be clear Prof Ball’s PhD was in geography with a concentration on historical climate. It’s not a good look to be making thing up about the deceased. There’s a name for people that attract others knowing that they can not defend themselves. We call them bullies.
Good article, but this is incorrect: … “8. Pulles erroneously claims that current warming is clearly due to anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, but this has not been established except in climate models.”. The climate models did not establish that, they assumed it – or rather, they were based on assumptions which necessarily resulted in global warming being attributed to manmade GHGs.
Excellent point.
The climate models are guesses that overemphasize effects of CO2. The characteristics of warming since 1975 strongly support greenhouse warming rather than solar warming. That does not mean CO2 caused all the warming but is evidence CO2 was an important warming variable in that period.
Global warming has been linked to CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the 1800s. The first climate models were in the late 1960s.
Arrhenius made a baseless conjecture using erroneous dimensionally unbalanced equations and a very simplistic and totally unrealistic model.
All models still use variations of that simplistic model ignoring all the major drivers of climate.
As you constantly show us, there is no empirical scientific evidence to support the CO2 warming conjecture.
And one should add Wannabe who’s assertions can also easily be questioned by pointing out the anomalies.
Science never stops or settles.
Wannabe built his FAKE model on top of Arrhenius’s nonsense model.
I am not sure if his model was nonsense but is was based on wrong assumptions about the atmosphere. He did controlled experiments which clearly shows nothing about how Earth’s atmosphere actually works. I dont blame Arrhenius for this but i do blame those who always bring him up as a defense for the Co2 forcing idea which i consider both a red flag and and indicator. They often go on how the ‘overwhelming evidence’ since then has shown that.. Arrhenius was right all along. That to me is funny..
Let’s hypothesise that there is a ~1kyr solar cycle giving us things like the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods and the Little Ice Age on a cumulative basis. Under the mathematical equations for sine curves and their integral, our temperatures would follow the solar pattern but ~250yrs behind. The IPCC and their modellers claim that today’s warming cannot be caused by the sun because the sun’s activity is not increasing today. Should they be looking at the sun not today but ~250yrs ago?
“The characteristics of warming since 1975 strongly support greenhouse warming rather than solar warming. That does not mean CO2 caused all the warming but is evidence CO2 was an important warming variable in that period.”
Nope. That’s not evidence. Just because there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperatures does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. It’s pure speculation.
Temperatures increased at the same magnitude and reached similar high temperatures from the 1910’s to the 1930’s and nobody is claiming this spell of warming was caused by CO2.
There is just as good a chance (I would say a better chance) that Mother Nature is the cause of the current warming, just like it was the cause of the warming in the 1930’s.
Something caused both warmings. It definitely wasn’t CO2 in the first case, so why should we assume it is CO2 in the current case?
Correlation is not causation. Climate Alarmists don’t seem to understand this concept.
The *only* source of heat energy into the Earth’s system is the sun. *EVERYTHING* else is merely heat transport. Heat transport is basically weather. Weather changes over time. If climate were actually changing we would see significant changes in the hardiness zones in the continental US and in Canada. We haven’t seen such! The Great Plains are still a semi-arid desert. the northeast US is still a humid continental with a mild summer, California is still a hot summer Mediterranean climate. Been this way for a LONG time. You can still get two good tomato harvests in south TX and *maybe* one in Wisconsin! Been that way for a LONG time. “Climate change” hasn’t seemed to change the climate at all in the US or for most of the globe. In fact, all CO2 seems to have caused is greening of the earth! Hurray!
This may be nit picky but the scientific method was developed to provide clear chains of observations and measurements about the real world so that deductions could be drawn from evidence rather than from human biases and opinions. It may at times have been explicitly used to challenge a consensus opinion but in the overall development of the current understanding of the world/universe it has been used to provide new understandings. Enough of those tend to retire previous beliefs, where beliefs based on superstition are widely held.
I like the way you put it, well said. However, in my experience the motivation to do all the work required to develop and establish a solid new hypothesis comes from a disagreement with a consensus opinion. Examples, the Sun goes around the Earth, all energy travels as waves, the continents don’t move, etc.
The paper you’ve cited is describing efforts to estimate TOA balance using CERES, the figure cited by Pulles is from in situ observations, which have less uncertainty. But this objection seems like making a mountain out of a molehill, since you agree with Pulles that the imbalance is positive, which is the point he is making in the paper. He’s also simply citing the IPCC, it is not a figure he has derived independently, so you need to specifically go and dig into the various sources the IPCC used and demonstrate some issue in each of them if you want your objection to hold water here.
Dismissing the study for using models is a completely invalid rebuttal. Mann’s study actually does simulate the alleged AMO, but only in forced simulations, that is why he concludes that the AMO is not a distinct mode of internal variability – there is simply zero evidence that it is. Climate model studies were the only evidence we had that it was such a mode of variability to begin with. You need to take this a lot more seriously, because it is completely devastating to your argument.
To someone who has read your paper and Pulle’s critique in full, this response is not compelling, and further drives me to believe that your paper is deeply flawed.
Accepting a Mannian study that uses models is tantamount to gormless idiocy !
Accepting anything from a Mannian model having any meaning whatsoever.. is two steps further than gormless idiocy.
What is TOTALLY FLAWED is Pulles responses. !
They are based on AGW-cultism, not science.
But of course, you wouldn’t know the difference.
“Climate model studies were the only evidence”
Climate models are NEVER evidence of anything !
There is evidence of the AMO in Iceland sea ice data going back through the LIA.
The evidence that the AMO is a natural oscillation is in Gray, 2004. He traced it back to 1567AD using proxies. Regular GCMs do not generate an AMO or PDO that is statistically significant according to Mann, but proxies do generate a statistically significant AMO and PDO.
Sure Mann can “force” an AMO and PDO with a rigged model, but what does that tell you? Anyone can force any response with a rigged model. Bottom line the AMO and PDO exist, the fact that models do not emulate them (or the NAO for that matter) at a statistically significant level doesn’t mean the AMO, NAO, and PDO are not natural, it means the models are wrong.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL019932
Gray sees a pattern that might be an oscillation. Several paleo studies did, that is why the existence of the AMO as a mode of internal variability was supposed. Seeing a potential pattern and demonstrating that it represents unforced variability are different things. Mann is not using a “rigged” model, but one provided historic volcanic forcing determined from the paleoclimate record.
Again, if your entire counter-argument is nothing more than “b-b-but… models!” You’re going to find it impossible to gain traction among any but the most credulous audience. It’s an inadequate rebuttal of the point made by Pulles.
Pulles doesn’t say ANYTHING that requires rebuttal.
MODELS ARE NEVER EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING !!
Mann is capable enough to produce models that give him whatever answer he wants. It is NOT SCIENCE.
“Mann is not using a “rigged” model, but one provided historic volcanic forcing determined from the paleoclimate record.”
Mann’s history with paleo data leaves a lot to be desired. The lack of resolution, and efficacy, of the vast majority of paleo data would not produce very good input for models. Unless your goal is vagueness.
That’s a bit of a catch-22 for the contrarian crowd: the existence of the AMO pattern is known only through the same paleo data.
Poor AlanJ.. shows his ignorance yet again
Alan,
Read Mann’s 2020 paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w
Pay particular attention to the sections entitled “Historical Observations,” “Historical simulations,” and the “Discussion.” If you read them carefully, he admits that the AMO appears at a statistically significant level in observations, which is obvious if you look at the raw data. However, it does not appear at a statistically significant level in most AR5 and AR6 CMIP models. This is also true of the important NAO, see Eade, 2022.
To quote Mann:
“7 out of 43 models breaching the p=0.1 significance level (we would expect at least 4 based on chance alone)” with regard to simulating the AMO.
Then he writes: “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.”
He cherry picks two models with a strong AMO to make his points.
I have no problem with his conclusion that the historical AMO is a combination of a natural oscillation and anthropogenic factors. But the failure of most of the modern models to detect the very strong AMO is a problem in the models, not a problem with the natural component of the AMO. And his idea that some of the AMO is anthropogenic is conjecture that is not supported with real evidence.
Mann then goes into some impenetrable verbal gymnastics to try and show the AMO doesn’t really exist based on his failure to simulate it. All he is really showing is that the models are incorrect.
I think there is some confusion about the findings of Mann’s 2020 paper. He is stating that the AMO does not appear in control simulations (models run without external forcing). He finds that a handful of models do yield a statistically significant AMO-like signal in control simulations, but that this number (fewer than 7 out of 43) is within the expectation of chance given the variability. That is to say, if you run a bunch of models without forcing, you’d expect some to exhibit patterns at various different periodicities whether those represent recurring modes of variability or not.
Models with forced response do exhibit the AMO-like pattern, and not only do they exhibit an AMO-like pattern, this AMO-like pattern exhibits spatiotemporal characteristics consistent with aerosol forcing and anthropogenic GHG forcing. In fact, and this is important, he finds that the AMO-like period is synchronized across the models and observations. If the pattern represented a model of internal variability, there should be no expectation of synchronicity in timing across the different modalities of reproduction (the models don’t know when the peaks and valleys of ENSO are supposed to occur, for instance, but they reproduce ENSO at the correct frequency).
The AMO-like pattern appears to be a real feature of paleoclimate records, Mann is not disputing this (though other researchers have). Mann is exploring whether this AMO-like pattern is a mode of internal variability (like ENSO) or whether it is a response to external forcing, and he finds evidence supporting the latter, and no evidence in support of the former. In short, it seems likely that the oscillatory behavior of the putative AMO is actually coincidental.
I appreciate your deeper engagement with the literature, here.
“Models with forced response do exhibit the AMO-like pattern, and not only do they exhibit an AMO-like pattern, this AMO-like pattern exhibits spatiotemporal characteristics consistent with aerosol forcing and anthropogenic GHG forcing.”
“but they reproduce ENSO at the correct frequency).”
Natural patterns are not fixed-frequency unless they are orbital based, not even the AMO or ENSO. For instance, the AMO ranges from a 25year to a 50 year period. Natural patterns are cyclical but not at a fixed frequency, their periods depend on chaotic, non-linear variations in the biosphere.
If you add fixed linear forcing and they reproduce a fixed-frequency variation then they are merely responding to an artificial input, not to natural variations. In other words they are data-matching algorithms that are being extrapolated.
Tim,
They can also result from solar cycles. The 22-year Hale cycle for example is very well documented and modeled.
I was considering Earth natural variation. The impact of sunspots on the Earth natural climate variation is still pretty much unknown, ranging from almost none to actually “some cooling”. But your example is appreciated. Doesn’t change my opinion on natural variation on Earth not being a fixed frequency however.
I agree. A fixed frequency, even if only approximate, over several hundred years means it is forced by something natural, not random internal variations. Solar variability or variable cloud cover are good candidates.
This is not at odds with my point above. Models reproduce ENSO variability, but the timing of ENSO events shouldn’t be expected to align with observed events. 2023-2024 in model-land might not be an El Nino year even though it was for us. The fact that the models and observations are synchronized strongly indicates a forced response.
The models are responding to the model physics perturbed by input forcings. In control runs there are no input forcings, only the model physics at play, so only unforced variability is present. If the control runs do not show an AMO-like pattern, while the forced runs do, it suggests that the AMO-like pattern is a forced response.
More horse crap. Ocean current interactions are not based on physics equations coded into models. Clouds are not based on physics equations coded into the models. On and on with the parameterized components of the atmosphere.
Give up on the CAGW claptrap and do some research of your own.
It’s hard to know how to respond to sweeping statements like these, except to tell you to read a climate modeling textbook. Ocean current interactions in models are absolutely based on physics, using principles of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. If you’re specifically referring to the parameterization of ocean eddies as a sub-grid scale process, that’s true, but parameterization doesn’t invalidate the physics behind the models. If that’s your argument, it’s unclear to me what your point exactly is.
Climate modelling is based on underlying assumptions about the interaction of parameters within a dynamic system with an underlying base layer of physics. Trouble is: the calculations of each parameter in relation to others. To say that the models are based on physics is saying..well..nothing.
Las Ninas are in a frequency that can be predicted by solar cycles, so are neutral times. Los Ninos are pretty random. See this illustration from Javier Vinos’ book.
Dividing things into forced and unforced is BS, every model is forced by something, and all the words “forced” and “unforced” do is confuse the reader. He doesn’t know which forces go into unforced and which go into forced.
I guess they kinda maybe sorta line up, if you squint, except when they don’t, and we’re going into La Niña now in the middle of a solar cycle, so they’re about to not line up again:
This theory does not seem compelling.
Control runs are not forced, by definition and by design. We know precisely, exactly which forcings go into model runs, because we program those in.
If no forcings are applied why don’t the models stay at zero and just wobble about? They have to have some input, even if only a TSI record.
Great question – that’s what they do! From Mann, 2021:
Mann puts in synthetic forcinga.
FAKE from the ground up.
So, the question is still the same. Without a forcing, why would any reasonable person expect a regular periodic ocean oscillation. Aren’t you simply feeding nothing into the model getting nothing and saying it proves the AMO is not there? Not buying it.
You would expect a periodic oscillation in a control run if the AMO is an oscillatory mode of internal variability. You’re simply running the model without forcing the climate into a new state, therefore any observed variability is not the product of a forced response. You get ENSO when you do this, and other forms of internal variability. But you don’t get AMO.
You do get AMO when you run the model with natural+anthro forcing. That suggests the AMO is a forced response. There is no evidence suggesting it is anything else. In science, we go where the evidence leads, until contra evidence is found. Early evidence hinted at the AMO being an oceanic oscillation, Mann’s latest studies compellingly challenge that notion.
So AMO is the result of ONLY CO2 emitted by humans?
Well lordy me, who would have expected that result from current climate models?
How about this possible conclusion? That the model is insufficiently programmed to arrive at an AMO that is an oscillation from natural varying conditions in a non-linear coupled climate?
You need to read the papers we are discussing before trying to dive into the conversation.
WOW! This is some very impressive spaghetti!
I doubt it. Even Mann’s earlier work (Mann, et al. 1995) showed a distinct natural oscillation back to the 1400s. Proxy studies repeatedly have shown the oscillation, it isn’t coincidental.
Again, the argument is not whether an apparent oscillatory pattern is present in paleoclimate archives – it does seem to be a real feature. The question is whether it represents a mode of internal variability or whether it is a forced response. By “coincidental” I mean that the apparent cyclic behavior is not a real cycle, it just coincidentally occurred at quasi-regular intervals, so that in the paleoclimate record it looks like a repeated pattern instead of randomly timed volcanism.
Everything in the earth/atmosphere system is “forced” in some form or fashion. The non-linear relationships of various components are what causes internal variations. They would occur even if humans had not evolved.
What you are attempting to do is to say that human changes to the environment cause external “forcings” that cause unnatural variability.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence of which no experimental evidence exists. Otherwise you would show us.
In simple terms, climate forcings increase or reduce the energy content of the earth system, while internal variability simply moves energy around within the system. Forcings can be bother natural and anthropogenic.
The only source of heat (practically speaking) for the earth is the sun. Man can’t increase or reduce the energy content of the system. This is just more pseudo-science claptrap from you. Except for the sun’s input it is ALL just moving energy around. It’s why Freeman Dyson criticized the climate models as being non-holistic – they just don’t properly cover the entire system.
Of course, how much of the sun’s energy gets in depends on albedo, how much gets out on GHG concentration, etc. Those things all raise and lower the energy content. So your point is not cogent.
Again you ignore the elephant in room, energy residence time and the constantly changing energy imbalance. How long the solar energy is in the system matters.
Yes, and where it gets stored and released to the AMO subsystem in this particular case.
More claptrap! It is albedo that is not cogent to the fact that the only source of energy is the sun.
CO2 is NOT a climate forcing.
It simply moves energy around.
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232
Clearly the speed of moving energy from the tropics to the higher latitudes affects climate because the greenhouse effect is maximal in the tropics and very small at the poles. You forget the residence time of energy matters, this is where ocean oscillations come from in the first place.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2024/03/03/climate-model-bias-3-solar-input/
The system is more complex than your simple terms. We are dealing here with a subsytem that defines what is called the AMO (and to further complicate things this is a moving feast), and the energy content of these systems come in many forms, simplified in climate modelling, also varying over time.
So in AMO world boundary conditions change to the tune of many things, including past states.
As I said above the idea that the non random behaviour of the AMO subsystem can be reproduced by global climate models forced and/or unforced rather stretches credulity particular when we know downscaling using these models leaves much to be desired.
Thus, again repeating what I said above, look first at the models, data and methods.
It might strain your credulity, but a compelling counterargument needs to engage explicitly with the results presented in Mann’s papers. Where do you see deficiencies?
The point I’ve made several times is that trying to handwave away the results because they are based on models is not an adequate response.
Treemometers? Are you serious?
It’s not that they are based on models, the question is do the models, data extraction, assumptions etc stand up to scrutiny.
Our point of difference is that I don’t leap to accepting that the model results constitute effidence apart from of what happened in model world.
A compelling counterargument can simply be that the methods don’t match the problem, and in this case a good starting point would be the assumption that GCMs and their boundary conditions are adequate to replicate the boundary conditions on the AMO subsystem however defined.
It’s not a matter of assuming that the models and their boundary conditions are adequate; it’s a conclusion borne out by evidence. Climate models are built on well-established physical principles like thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, and are extensively validated against observed data. For example, models skillfully simulate other modes of internal variability, such as ENSO, and emergently reproduce numerous other aspects of the climate system as well.
In the case of the AMO, the models reproduce its observed characteristics, they just indicate it as a forced response instead of a mode of internal variability.
If you believe the methods don’t match the problem, you need to specify which assumptions or aspects of the data and modeling from the study you find inadequate. Critiquing methods is essential to science, but general skepticism without addressing the evidence or methodology in detail doesn’t advance the discussion. Especially in Andy’s case, where he is responding to a peer-reviewed critique of his own literature review by attempting an offhand dismissal of critical research that he doesn’t personally like.
As like a personal principle it’s fine to just say, “I don’t like climate models and won’t believe anything they say.” But as a professional scientist, that isn’t an acceptable stance in refereed publications.
I think you’ll find that the test applied to climate models is that historic observations lie within the range of the population of multiple runs of the model. Prediction out of sample is a much rarer beast.
“ Climate models are built on well-established physical principles like thermodynamics and fluid dynamics”
So a functional relationship between clouds and the biosphere exists in the climate models and successfully models their effects?
So a functional relationship between green on the earth and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere exists in the climate models and successfully models the effects of the greening?
So a functional relationship between evapotranspiration and humidity in the atmosphere exists in the climate models and successfully models the effects of evapotranspiration?
I could go on but it would just be flogging a dead horse. The models are basically curve matching algorithms and are not physics based. The algorithm gets “adjusted” using parameterization of various known unknowns to match the modelers pre-conceptions. And the models have exactly zero allowance for unknown unknowns – things like measurement uncertainty!
“There are no tanks anywhere near Baghdad!” — alan j
“human changes to the environment … cause unnatural variability.”
Defining humans as unnatural is essential to writing about nature.
Which forces are unforced and which are forced? These model-speak terms are meaningless.
Another plate of word salad spaghetti.
Meaningless gibberish seems to be an AlanJ meme.
The AlanJ AGW chatbot.
The AMO detrended chart shows high points at the 1880’s, the 1930’s and the current day, and it shows the same cyclical profile as the written, historic temperature records which also show highs in the 1880’s and 1930’s, and today.
I dislike the terms “forced” and “unforced.” Every model has forces applied to it, this is model-speak with no meaning.
Natural forces include solar variability and volcanos. Mann and you are very vague about what you are talking about. Leave out the unforced and forced, they have no meaning and thus can be confusing and distort what you are saying. Using “internal variability” is also confusing model-speak. Ocean oscillations are periodic changes in ocean heat storage and expulsion. They arise from longer-term changes in solar radiation that reaches the oceans, whether these stem from changes in cloud cover or changes in the Sun itself. I suspect you mean that as “unforced” but be clear.
Mann provides no evidence of periodicity in volcanism, he just uses standard volcanic input to his models. We know that anthropogenic “forcing” is not periodic. Like I said his papers are climate model masturbation.
These are common terms used widely within the field and their meanings are quite well established.
“Internal variability” refers to fluctuations in the climate system arising from interactions between the various components, such as land, oceans, atmosphere, and ice. Put simply, internal variability arises from the movement of energy from one place inside the system to another.
This is in contrast to “forced variability,” which refers to fluctuations arising from external forces driving a shift in the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. Such forces include changes in solar output, orbitally driven changes in insolation, volcanism, or greenhouse gas concentration.
If no changes in these external forcing agents ever occurred, we would still see oceanic oscillations like ENSO. That is why I refer to them as “unforced variability.” When the AMO was first identified, it was hypothesized to represent such a mode of internal variability. But this conclusion was controversial first due to a paucity of observational evidence and second because there was disagreement among models about its occurrence. Mann’s 2020 and 2021 papers indicate that the AMO is not a mode of internal variability, but is instead a forced climate response that just happens to exhibit a quasi-cyclic pattern in the paleoarchives.
He is not claiming that volcanism is periodic. He is claiming that volcanism coupled with recent anthropogenic forcing has produced such a pattern coincidentally.
Mannian models are not evidence of anything except the programmed agenda behind them.
There is no provable “anthropogenic forcing”, certainly not from CO2
So you have Mann yet again pushing idiotic circular reasoning using self-programmed models based on imaginary “forcings”
NOT SCIENCE. !
Anything that follows from that is baseless CONjecture.
And you always fall for the con. !
“quasi-cyclic pattern in the paleoarchives.”
quasi? Meaning “not real”?
This is just more crap saying the AMO isn’t caused by “natural” heat transfer.
More indicators climatology is really a liberal art.
Transparent BS. Any regular pattern is forced by something. Las Ninas correlate with the solar cycle, are you saying anything related to solar variability is “unforced?”
One of the weaknesses of Mann’s work is he ignores the Sun.
Non-random periodicity doesn’t happen on its own, coincidence is not an option here.
Mann’s study explicitly includes solar forcing. One of the weaknesses in your work is a lack of familiarity with the literature you are attempting to review. I think that this was called out by the publisher and by Pulles. It’s the danger of scientists trying to reach across domains into areas outside of their expertise and posit novel findings.
An apt description of your hero, Mickey Mann the Fake Data Mannipulator.
‘Any regular pattern is forced by something.’
What I think you are saying is that in any closed system any change in the system state requires a change on the boundary. I’m not sure how intetesting this is, since it’s pretty much a product of the definition of the terms.
The issue here is whether the boundary conditions on the AMO subsystem can change in a way that produces non random behaviour in the AMO even if the AMO subsystem is embedded in a stable climate system.
I’d say at a very high level of simplification it is highly likely. For a little thought experiment this AMO is embedded in a system where everyone seems happy enough to say the ENSO is happlily generating non-random behaviour.
I’d say I should see something happening in the Atlantic (remembering this is only an example).
So wellworth exploring why Mann’s modelling doesn’t show something.
Yes the term ‘forcing’ comes from Newtonian mechanics (to the best of my knowledge) where an external force would change the state of a mechanical system. It is something that happens at the boundary of the system under consideration, and so in systems’ theory the boundary conditions are a more general way of handling it.
Nothing wrong with that, although in Climate Science it has got significantly limited by usually just being applied to the global climate system with the TOA being an arbitary boundary.
Much better for analytic work is to be clear about the systems being considered, particularly where the considerations are multiscale, dynamic and different states of energy are in play.
“dislike the terms “forced” and “unforced.” Every model has forces applied to it, this is model-speak with no meaning.”
What this actually means is “we don’t know or even understand all inputs to the system”. So just apply one more adjustment so the model output matches the data.
Or anything that my model does not calculate is “coincidence” no matter how regular it is.
Which you accept without a shred of evidence.
Unverified models are not evidence of anything.
Still don’t get it? Because the climate cannot be modelled, no evidence can come from so-called climate models. There is no such thing as a climate model. There are many attempts to model the climate. Not the same thing dude.
Jeezuz! What’s so hard to understand?
Plates of spaghetti is all they got.
Technical nit here.
Those climate models are models.
There are no climate simulators. Bit difference between simulators and models.
The difference? Assumptions. Given the manipulation of assumptions in the models one could get a 5 legged catfish.
Valid point.
And make it fly..
Sorry, but a model that does not know what to do with clouds or does not not include unknown cycles for example is not a model of the climate in my book. Assumptions don’t even enter the picture in some cases because it is not know what should be assumed. But I take your point.
Ask yourself why weather forecasters don’t forecast tomorrow’s high temperature down to the hundredths digit but climate science believes its models can do so for the next 100 years.
So you are, in fact, agreeing.
I agree that technically your definition of a model is correct but I disagree with the definition.
Mann doesn‘t provide evidence that ‘the AMO is not a natural phenomena’. As you say all he shows is that in model world he doesn’t find it in unforced simulations, whereas he does in forced simulations. Interesting, but turns on your view about how well model world replicates our recent climate history and his signal extraction tool in fact represents anything useful.
We know the regional modeling of the impact of forcings is not a strong point. Given the approximations here it’s quite possible some of the source of the oscillation gets wrongly attributed in the various estimations used in model building, particularly when you see evidence of regime changes in them with the end of the LIA in the Atlantic (cited by Mann in 2021).
Predicting regional regime changes, now there’s a topic.
For the entire professional scientific community with whom Andy is hoping to land his defense, this is evidence. If Andy wants to dismiss Mann’s results on the basis of it being a model-based study, he needs to take on the entire body of modeling literature. And if he thinks there is something specifically in error with Mann’s treatment, he needs to address that explicitly in his response. Trying to hand-wave it away only works on a credulous audience who are desperate to believe you.
Trying to hand-wave it away
Irony alert!
Well that was a load of kamal-speak.
Trying to justify more model maleficence from Mickey Mann.
Mann is renowned for inventing circular non-science …
In this case making fake models with fake “anthropogenic” forcings, then using them to making mindless conjectures about anthropogenic forcing.
Just DUMB non-science
This circular reasoning is an indicator we are dealing w an evangelist.
He is little more than a chatbot.
I think the problem with Mann’s work was that it was about model world, but used to claim the AMO could only arise from forcings (aka boundary conditions) on the climate system.
Instead I very much doubt that the entire professional scientific world would regard Mann’s result as anything more than telling us something about the models and his signal extraction tool.
Hopefully this would lead them to immediately ask “why would that be?”, since it is pretty unlikely from what we know of complex systems theory that the boundary conditions on a complex system like the global climate effectively determines the non-random behaviour of a small subsystem within it.
The 2020 and 2021 papers have nearly 400 citations between them, so it is safe to say that the professional scientific community views the results as being significant. The fact that you interpret the results as evidence against the usefulness of climate models is merely an example of confirmation bias.
And, again, if Andy wants to argue that climate models are not useful in his rebuttal to the Pulles criticism, he needs to engage with literally the entire body of literature around modeling. Hand-waving the entire field away because of his personal opinion is not sufficient.
I see you are slipping away from arguing the content of what I said into discussing my personality.
Are you saying that the professional scientific community shouldn’t first pause to reflect on model adequacy if a colleague generates an interesting result? Particularly in a domain where modelling is not particularly robust?
However returning to my personality I admit that doing this is in my nature, and I don’t think I’m unusual in this regard amongst my peers.
Andy,
O/T but seeking help.
I cannot find the IPCC table showing low to high confidence in the harm from about 10 harm factors.
It seems to be AR6 WG1 page 1856, but my new PC will not download all of WG1. All I have is a preliminary copy and it has different numbering.
If you know at once what table I seek and can put your hand straight on it, a copy of it or a more detailed reference leading to it (key words) would be greatly appreciated. Email with # for o
sherr#01 at #utl##k d#t c#m
Geoff S
Download just Ch. 12, that should work. It is Table 12.12.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
Page 90 in the pdf.
Andy, David,
Thank you. You guys are tops in many ways.
2025 started with one old friend leaving us on 1st and two more friends killed in a car smash on 2nd. I am a little distracted and your help is of much assistance. Geoff S
Condolences 🙁
It can be tough… but as we get older, is bound to happen 🙁
Very sorry to hear this sad news Geoff.
Sorry to hear about the sad news Geoff. Try and have a good 2025.
I’m very sorry for your loss, glad I could help.
Try this url for AR6 WG1 chapter 12. No page numbers. But scroll most of the way down to Table 12.12. That is the table I think you are describing.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-12/
Roger Pielke Jr. reorganised the contents of Table 12.12 in an article that I no longer have a direct link to, but I copied the attached image file to my local hard disk about 6 months ago.
For me, at least, it counts as an “interesting” alternative view of the same “IPCC conclusions about emerging signals” data summary.
The full article by Roger Pielke, Jr. is here, including a full image of Table 12.12 with the notes at the bottom.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
The link was “hiding in plain sight” on my computer, I was actually remembering the following article :
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/we-dont-need-no-stinking-science
That one also has the IPCC’s original Table 12.12, as an image file, in “Note 3”, but it’s a bit blurry even if you do the usual “right mouse-button click, select ‘Open Link in New Tab’ option” trick.
A (hopefully !) “clearer / sharper” option is attached below.
Sounds like Pulles is an extreme idiot.
Yep, that’s my take-away from reading his responses.
“Unthinking brain-washed mantra” is the only way they could be described.
There is no shortage.
Great credit to Andy May for a thorough, methodical, and dispassionate response. Well done.
“In a debate one must establish that they understand the opposing view and restate it in a clear way.”
This is why I restate the central claim of the “climate” movement like this:
The incremental static radiative effect of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O and/or other non-condensing GHGs drives an accumulation of absorbed solar energy as sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans as a result.
Some may object, “That’s not a clear restatement at all!” But in my view, in strict terms of what is claimed to be happening to energy, that is precisely what it means when the “greenhouse effect enhanced by human emissions of GHGs” is proposed as the main cause of the reported warming.
One more point. Andy May correctly points out that “Human-caused global climate change has never been observed, either directly or statistically, only modeled.” This is very important to understand. Skeptics would do well to learn one main reason WHY the radiative “warming” effect of incremental GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable detection and attribution – the dynamic operation of the atmosphere involves energy conversion. Lorenz described it. The ERA5 reanalysis model explicitly computes it as an hourly parameter. More here at this very short time-lapse video. Please read the text description of the video for the full explanation with references. ERA5 makes no projections involving GHG trends – it just produces a computed representation of atmospheric motion and conditions from continuously updated inputs, e.g. from radiosondes.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
The “modeled” “human-caused global climate change” consists of outputs from global climate models that treat the radiative effect of incremental GHGs as a climate “forcing” – which is a form of circular reasoning as to the disposition of the energy involved in the “effect.”
Excellent post. To the point..
Thank you for saying so.
Thanks, great video.
Peer review is and has always been a fraud. Peer reviewers are selected by journals but there is no check or guarantee of review.
Reviewers can help improve an article if the author and editor are interested in producing a useful manuscript. Every published book I have contains a list of two or three people that have read the text or parts thereof and suggested improvements.
I can’t tell what went wrong with this episode but it seems, perhaps there is no real editor! Horrors! The author, Tinus Pulles, appears to not be a native English-writer, and is also opinionated as many retired folks are.
Finally, reviewers are not supposed to have the last word on to publish or not.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Andy and Everyone
RE: Two Sources of Useful Climate Info
Use Google or Bing to obtain the essay: “Climate Change Reexamined” by
Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free. Shown in
Fig. 7 (See below) is the IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia air from 400 to 4,400 wavenumbers. Integration of the spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the
IR light and CO2 only 8%. Since the air sample was inner city, it is very likely the concentration of CO2 was much higher than that of remote location such as the country side. H2O is the major greenhouse gas, 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with H2O, the wind is the major force that transport H2O out if the oceans onto the land.
Now go to the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com. From the homepage scroll down to the end and click on the bar:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA”, and then click on
“Pacific”. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley”. Shown in the graphic are
plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 303 ppmv (0.595 g of CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.729 g of CO2/ cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the air at this arid desert site. The reason for no increase in temperature is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air. Presently, a cubic meter of air contains 0.829 g of CO2.
John Daly found many weather station around the world that showed no increases in annual average temperatures up to ca. 2002. Go to Oz and check out graphics for
Alice Springs, Brisbane, and Adelaide.
Based the above empirical data and simple calculations, the claim by the IPCC and the collaborating unscrupulous scientists (aka welfare queens in white coats) that CO2
(i.e., the control knob) causes global warming is a fabrication and a deliberate lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, of donner funds from the rich counties to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. At the recent COP29 conference in Baku, the poor countries came clamoring not for billions of funds, but trillions of funds. Fortunately, they left the conference empty handed with no pledges of funds from the rich countries. President-elect Donald Trump will certainly end funding to these UN organizations.
Fig. 7 was prepared by the Australian sherro01
Here is the graphic for Death Valley. I found that only one image can be posted in a comment.
Here is second try for posting graphic of Death Valley temperature graphic
Harold, as I’ve pointed out to you before, you omit 24 years of data with those graphs …..
Clown, uses monthly data then points to a single date. !
Will the ignorance ever stop !!
You just emphasized why it is important for measurement uncertainty to be shown when dealing with temperature and probably don’t even know why. An average of 111 and a temperature of 124 hints at a very large variance and a large measurement uncertainty of the stated values of the monthly mean.
Do you know what variance is? How about the uncertainty of a monthly average?
Go download NIST TN 1900 Example 2. It shows how to find the monthly average of Tmax and the expanded measurement uncertainty associated with it. Tell us what the values are for July, 1913.
“An average of 111 and a temperature of 124 hints at a very large variance and a large measurement uncertainty of the stated values of the monthly mean.Do you know what variance is?”
So typical of WUWT. Harold posts a graph of the revered John Daly, without uncertainty. Tony B posts a graph adding 24 years of data, so it is Tony who gets bashed for not showing uncertainties.
But it is Jim G who does not know what variance is. Variance is the second central moment of a stationary population – ie one that you model as taken from a stationary distribution, with fixed mean and moments. The graph of temperature is shown to present the time progression, not stationary. Showing the variance of the points would be quite inappropriate; they are not expected to be from a stationary random distribution . The variability of the data is clear from the points themselves.
But it is Jim G who does not know what variance is.
Stokes is desperate in his gaslighting now.
You, along with all your fellow AGW kooks have no idea what measurement uncertainty is, yet you try to lecture as if you do.
You’ve never bothered to look at TN1900, Ex 2, have you? Monthly Tmax values, used to generate climate science’s daily mid-range temperatures, can be considered to be stationary, i.e. not dependent on time. The distribution they form *do* have a variance. Same for Tmin values for the month. Formulating a mid-range value from those will inherit the variances of the components. But, as usual, climate science doesn’t even recognize that variance exists as a statistical descriptor so they just ignore it.
Nice spiel but far from addressing the issue.
The monthly average is 111. 124 is the supposedly the highest value in that month. It doesn’t take a genius to know that 124 is a data point in the random variable called a monthly average.
If it is assumed to be a Gaussian distribution with random values, as climate science is wont to do, then there should be a matching value of 98. That, my friend, is a pretty large value of standard deviation for a single month of 31 data points. This doesn’t even address the variance introduced by showing a single reading of Tmax while the 111 is probably a monthly average of Tavg which would include Tmin values also.
It is why the measurement uncertainty should be quoted every time an average is shown. From the VIM Introduction. Without the uncertainty, one has no clue what the range of measured values actually is.
As to the variance of a random variable containing n observations, the GUM says;
If you want to argue about what a standard uncertainty is for a Type A or Type B uncertainty, I suggest you read further in the GUM. There is a plethora of information. Section C has definitions of how variance is defined when used in measurement uncertainty. You might want to use it for reference purposes when making an ad hominem that someone “does not know what variance is”.
Nick doesn’t care, this is the realm of “uncertainty cranks” (his words).
He won’t.
That plot is for just one month. I note that from 1921 to 2001 that it is similar to that of John Daly’s summer plot except after 2001. I recall reading at Roy Spencer’s blog that the Furnace Creek weather was moved from its original site.
I stand by what I stated: CO2 does not cause warming of air.
Check out this graphic for Adelaide which shows a slight cooling to
1999.
OK Harold then please post an annual graph covering the extra 24 years (I cant find one at a cursorary look).
“I stand by what I stated: CO2 does not cause warming of air.”
Harold that is not what the world’s scientists have found to be the case since from before the last century. Sorry.
CO2 is a GHG, why is it different from WV in it’s LWIR absorbing/emitting physics?
And that adding more to the atmosphere does not cause further attenuation of LWIR to space.
Paying particular attention the fact that it does not precipitate out.
Heh, the ruler monkeys really, really, really HATE this video.
“Heh, the ruler monkeys really, really, really HATE this video”.
Err, no – it’s just another off-the-wall lab “experiment” that fundamentally fails to replicate the process of radiative transfer.
Mr Shula performed an experiment via an instument (Pirani gauge) assuming it is a model for Earth.
On the contrary it is in no way representative of Earth.
The Pirani gauge is not a relevant model for the Earth as the earth’s surface has a near black-body emissivity. If you wanted a Pirani gauge to simulate the Earth’s surface you’d need to have an element that is close to a true blackbody (averages about 0.95). The comparison with a Pirani gauge is invalid because the wire in the gauge is deliberately chosen to have an emissivity close to zero (0.05) so that conduction and convection dominate. The atmosphere does effect the energy transport dynamics to space, it’s known as the Greenhouse effect due to IR absorbing gases such as CO2, O3, CH4 and WV.
Also in the Pirani gauge the wire is surrounded with a solid surface which is back-radiating to the wire, and affecting it’s energy drain. Not a good model to the Earth’s surface radiation sink (space). It should be kept at the temp of space (3K) to properly simulate that, and not ambient.
And another also, the effectiveness of Earth’s radiative energy transfer to space depends on path-length – 10’s of Km’s of it.
Look up Beer-Lambert.
You didn’t watch the video, instead you just regurgitated some lame “denier debunking” site.
“The Pirani gauge is not a relevant model for the Earth as the earth’s surface has a near black-body emissivity.”
If the Earth is a black body then its radiation emission goes up by T^4. This means that the radiation goes up much faster than the temperature does. This is a negative feedback fundamental relationship which will limit the rise in temperature.
“And another also, the effectiveness of Earth’s radiative energy transfer to space depends on path-length – 10’s of Km’s of it.”
So what? If the Earth didn’t effectively radiate away the heat it receives from the sun very little life of any kind would exist on Earth today. In fact, the equilibrium temperature of the earth, if as you say it is nearly a black body, would be set solely by where the T^4 radiation matches the TSI.
The black body temp of the earth is typically given as around -20C while the “global average temp” is given as about 15C. This is supposedly the “greenhouse effect”. There is a big problem here. The temperature of the earth can’t be *both* -20C and 15C. The issue is that the temperature of the *atmosphere* at abut 6ft high is 15C, not the temperature of the earth. They are two different entities but get conflated by climate science all the time. If CO2 actually *warmed* the earth its black body temp would go UP, but it doesn’t. So where is the greenhouse effect? It’s in the atmosphere – where the heat transport is primarily conduction from the earth’s surface and convection within the atmosphere, and not from “back radiation” because CO2 can’t be a heat source to itself. Now, what effect does the “global average temperature” of the earth (i.e. it’s atmosphere) going up because of CO2 have? Climate science would have you believe it is going to eliminate the human race. Yet all the holistic evidence is that it is beneficial and not damaging – more food supply, fewer deaths, less desertification, a general greening of the earth.
This is why Freeman Dyson’s largest criticism of climate science and its models is that the models are not holistic and climate science doesn’t consider all evidence of beneficial vs detrimental impacts.
It is very simple: it is not aimed at scientists or science, it is aimed at politicians, mainstream institutions, education, the media and the general public to achieve an objective namely a binary choice between good and evil. Behind one door lie monsters aiming to mislead you, behind the other are ‘trusted sources’ and verifiable institutions who will keep you safe.
No need for detailed data or inquiry.
Thank you WUWT for another great example of what the site does so well. Every day I visit and read, often going to the linked studies mentioned in the various articles covered.
Long may the site continue and prosper. The world needs those prepared to challenge the established and often preferred (errant) storyline.
Happy New Year to all, let us hope sensible, rational and open scientifically debated times are the future rather than something we only remember from our past.
As long as it suits the purposes of climate alarmists, deniers will be forever useful for without them what purpose do alarmists really have?
Meanwhile nature still has secrets we are not especially close to unraveling and there seem to be no end to the quantities of red herrings available for the doom and gloom gangs..
Spring Summer Fall Winter. It gets hot. It gets cold. Period. End of story. America First! ULTRAMAGA!
I saw on the TV weather reports that Arctic Pipeline is going to send really cold Canadian air into US for the next week.
‘Human-caused global climate change has never been observed, either directly or statistically, only modeled. “
The author might want to brush up on basic science before making such obviously false statements. The evidence for human caused climate change is DATA and evidence taken from the physical world. Models are never evidence nor do scientists ever use them as evidence.
Outstanding presentation Karlomonte. I watched the whole thing, but I haven’t fully digested it yet. It appears to explain a lot about the observations of the GHE that I have wondered about for years. I will spend time on their paper and slides and maybe comment more in the future.
Andy, yes it is a lot to take in with one viewing, I plan to watch it again.
Andy, You should watch it a couple of times.
There is a lot of very solid science in this presentation, probably too much to absorb in one sitting.
I also unfortunately watched most of the video. It’s one of those silly ones where some people with basic physics knowledge but zero knowledge of the field of climate or planetary science decide to put on airs and act like they’re smarter than the scientists who’ve devoted their entire lives to studying the subject. They say some basic things right about physics, but don’t realize they’ve neglected several decades of scientific research in atmospheric science. They seem unaware of radiative-convective models, for instance.
Agreed. But it’s even worse than that. Ott begins with this astounding claim:” Human-caused global climate change has never been observed, either directly or statistically, only modeled. “
Which means Ott is unaware of the gobs of data taken over decades of study which forms the basis for the entire scientific theory. Models are never the basis for establishing a scientific theory, nor do scientists claim they are. Rather, Hard data, taken from the physical world, are the evidence for human caused climate change.
Yes, the fallacy is a form of strawman argument that misrepresents how scientific causation and inference work. We observe that an enhanced greenhouse effect is driving a long term warming trend, and we observe that human emissions of greenhouse gases are driving the enhanced greenhouse effect. We can perform statistical attribution studies that extract anthropogenic signals from background variability. We can perform model experiments that reproduce observed features of the changing climate. These multiple, converging lines of evidence scientifically support causality.
I don’t think the contrarians could substantively articulate what exactly they mean by “observe human-caused climate change” or how it would differ from what I’ve described above.
Not science. And dead wrong. His first mistake is claiming that the ghe is only shown by models. The ghe is demonstrated regularly in high school laboratories. If Ott doesn’t know that much, he’s unqualified in atmospheric physics, and even basic earth science.
BS Alarm.
Did you even watch it?
All two hours?
He spews nonsense.
No muppet.. It is you at spews nonsense.
Your world is one of complete ignorance of anything to do with science.
Beetroot admits he has not watched it..
…and that his scientific comprehension ability is so near ZERO, and he is so brain-washed with AGW ignorance, that he is incapable of understanding any part of it anyway.
There is a reason why the daytime temp is a sine wave. There is a reason why the nighttime temp curve is an exponential decay. Both of these are made clear in the presentation. If the ghe effect really existed you wouldn’t see the sine wave or the exponential decay in their current form. Both are explained by the thermalization effect. Remember, the earth is not an efficient absorber of IR radiation.
Why don’t you call up your sixth grade science teacher and explain to him/her why there is no such thing as the GHE. After he gets off the floor laughing at you, he might set you straight — if anyone could, that is.
I’m betting you never got to 6th grade. !
You have absolutely zero clue about actual science.
6th grade science teacher are notoriously brain-washed, and have very little actual science background, otherwise they wouldn’t be teaching 6th grade.
Everything said about CO2 in the video is scientifically CORRECT..
Backed by actual real scientific measurements, and understanding of atmospheric energy transfer that is at least a dozen magnitudes more than you would ever be capable of.
Oooh.. We are up against a real mental giant here. Look out. He seems to know stuff.
And various people have shown that you can explain the Earth’s energy balance by using standard physics that places radiation and especially IR much lower on the scale. I am not saying THEY are right. For that i dont have enough insight. What IS right is to assume the whole Co2= forcing idea is based on an unproven hypothesis. One can try to make that into a theory by ‘forcing’ the issue, the accumulation of papers on the subject (consensus)but it remains an attribution idea. It cannot be shown, not even by standard physics. They do claim that and THAT is the actual lie/ fraud.
Because behind them are politicians who want to implement policies and they need alarm. It is not neutral observation.
You say “what is right is to assume the whole CO2=forcing idea is based on an unproven hypothesis”
1) Why is it right to assume the idea is unproven instead of showing the idea is unproven? do you not have evidence it’s unproven?
2) How does one prove a hypothesis?
1:A proven hypothesis turns into a theory, 2: nobody has to show a hypothesis or theory is untrue. Those who propose it IS true have to prove it. Until then the bird doesnt fly. Using conjecture and attribution is not science. Neither is using Occam’s razor. Nor is consensus. People dont seem to understand the basic scienctific method. Or they do and pretend that circular reasoning makes it so. We have now entered the religious realm of belief..
A Scientific hypothesis becomes accepted theory when consistent affirming evidence is accumulated, no contradictory evidence is found, and the hypothesis is accepted as a valid scientific theory by the scientific community. There is no such thing as a ‘proof’.. that’s for math, not science.
Wrong. A concept becomes an accepted hypothesis when consistent and affirming evidence is accumulated and no contradictory evidence is found. A hypothesis become a theory when it passes repeatable tests including multiple null hypothesis tests.
A consensus is merely an agreement of opinions.
What is the optimum concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?
What do you mean by ‘optimum’?
What is too high and what is too low?
I could answer, but I won’t. It’s time for you to become an adult and start answering these simple question yourself. Are you ready?
Heh. Not a single one of you AGW kooks will touch this question with a 10-meter pole.
Good job, shillboi!
Are you ready for adulthood, Karlos? Or are you just pretending to be dumb?
You really didn’t expect an answer, did you?
Humans live – and thrive – in environments ranging from middle-east deserts to frozen tundra above the Arctic Circle.
So what *is* the high and low amount of CO2 that is livable? The low is pretty much set by plant death. What is the high?
Not a single one of them has ever tried to give an answer, because they can’t. beeton thought he weasel out by attacking me.
A brilliant, absolutely brilliant brush-off!
Do you know who else uses this excuse for not answering a legitimate question?
A 🤡!
Translation: “No I didn’t watch it.”
OMG .. another ignorant twit that thinks a glass jar is like the atmosphere.
Beetroot shows he has ZERO CLUE about what that actually shows.
Hint. it is that CO2 is a radiative active gas.
It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how it acts in the atmosphere.
You are proven yet again that you are totally ignorant of even the most basic science.
Rather, it says nothing about how the atmosphere — or the climate — responds.
If you have access to DATA that proves an empirical functional relationship between human caused CO2 and temperature rise, THEN SHOW IT HERE.
It is funny that no one has posted a functional relationship where CO2 concentration as a predictor variable can reliably determine a response variable of temperature.
If you can’t show this DATA, then don’t claim that it exists.
Right here. https://climate.nasa.gov.
footnote: You’ll have to read.
There is not one bit of scientific evidence of CO2 warming on that link..
If you think there is , then point directly to the correct page.. prove that you have read it yourself
Your link just highlights your complete ignorance of what science actually is.
You are so incredibly dumb you keep falling for the same scientifically devoid propaganda pap.
It all you have.
I’ll give you one example from NASA. Satellites do not measure surface temperature at 1.5 – 2 meters above ground. They read the “lower tropospheric” temperature whatever that is. The satellites only go back about 1980. NASA saying that temps have risen by 1.4°C according to satellite measurements is mixing two very different things.
Can you explain why the page you posted shows the 1.4°C rise and justifies it with:
They do not tell the whole story. You should be more skeptical.
“They do not tell the whole story. You should be more skeptical”
If you want more details, you should read more detailed scientific papers. There’s plentynin the website to show the obvious correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2. And that correlation is EVERYWHERE in the body of scientific literature. By your reaction, this is the first time you’ve seen it. As I said, you should read A LOT more. Your understanding is, to put it mildly, deficient.
Correlation is not causation. Postal rates are also correlated to CO2. So what?
You read 50% of the explanation, then assume the rest doesn’t exist! Causation is explained by the ghe, long established in the body of science. It’s called Atmospheric physics.
You’re not very skeptical , Gorman. A true scientist would be looking for causation before proclaiming it doesn’t exist!
Oh look out! We finally have an answer to our 40 year quest!
It’s the GHE what did it.
It’s never been detected but it just f****n is so shut the f***k up god damn it!!! Lol.
The GHE is demonstrated routinely in high school science classes. Unbelievable that you missed it.
No, it isn’t demonstrated in high school science classes. I don’t know of any high school science department that can measure IR radiation and/or temperature down to the hundredths digit.
Yes, the ghe is demonstrated regularly in high school classes across the US, and other countries. Precision measurements as you describe are not needed to prove it.
ghe is *not* the causal force. 1. If ghe was the causal force we wouldn’t see a sine wave rise in temperature during the day and an exponential decay in temperature at night. Radiation intensity goes up based on the exponent of temperature, e.g. for a black body it would be T^4. The earth isn’t a perfect black body so the exponent is something less than 4. This is a negative feedback on temperature, it is a limiting factor for Tmax. 2. If CO2 is a blocking factor for outgoing radiation then it is also a blocking factor for “back radiation” limiting how much I”backward” IR reaches the earth. Somehow this symmetry always gets missed by climate science. It’s why thermalization/convection is the main heat transport mechanism involved with CO2. Any “back radiation” would merely increase thermalization and, therefore, convection. Convection is a *cooling* factor, not a warming factor. 3. The global average temperature, typically used to support the ghe theory, is decidedly non-physical science. Temperature is an intensive property and simply cannot be averaged. Temperature is not a proper measure of heat content, enthalpy is. It’s why 100F in Las Vegas and Miami represent different levels of heat content. Yet climate science adamantly refuses to use enthalpy even though the data to do so has been available since at least 1980.
Being skeptical of an existing theory does *NOT* mean one must have a different theory. It is sufficient to just show how the existing theory simply doesn’t work. Having said that my theory is that the sun is the primary source of heat energy for the earth and it is the earth’s response to the heat input from the sun that we recognize as climate. That response is cyclical within limiting boundaries, e.g. ice-ball vs flaming-ball. In the US at least, we have not seen hardiness zones change significantly for over 300 years. We have seen *weather* change but not climate. Weather represents a change in heat transport, not a change in heat energy inside the system.
Focusing on a metric, temperature, as a global indicator of heat content is, frankly, stupid. Especially when it requires looking at temperaqture values in the hundredths digit when measurements are in the units digit. I don’t know *any* practicing engineer or craftsman that believes you can increase resolution of measurement by averaging measurements of different things using different instruments. Yet climate science does it every single day. Ask yourself why practicing weather forecasters don’t forecast tomorrow’s temperature down to the hundredths digit!
Gorman, with your mishmash of gobbledygook, you’ve proven once again you understand neither the ghe nor basic science.
In other words the only thing you have to offer is the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. You’ve not shown where a single one of my assertions is wrong. NOT ONE. You just dismiss them with no actual rebuttal.
Tell me again who doesn’t understand the ghe and/or basic science?
I learned a long time ago to never engage in a battle wits with the unarmed.
They never know when they have lost.
When they’ve lost their arms, yes.
He gave you individualk points that are debatable. Debate them or admit you don’t know how. Worse, you have no evidence that disproves them.
All he has is his cultish religious dogma. “My bible says ….”
Good summary
I read it. It’s drivel.
It seems like only the dumbest of the dumb don’t understand basic science.
We know.
What a load of total ignorant BS !
You have never been able to produce one bit of evidence or data for CO2 warming
CO2 atmospheric warming is a figment of erroneous models.. it does not exist in reality.
If you think it does then present the data you say exists.. or prove you are LYING.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Physical causality is established by falsifiable physical theory; one that permits of unique predictive solutions. Period.
Data alone has ambiguous meaning.
A valid physical model is invariably the source for the meaning of data. Always and throughout all of science. QM is the physical model that brings physical meaning to atomic electronics.
Relativistic Mechanics is the model that brings physical meaning to time and space near light-speed.
Evolutionary Theory is the model that brings physical meaning to the transformation of organisms.
There is no physical meaning absent a physical theory — a physical model of the physical universe.
Climate models express the physical theory of climate. There is no other way to resolve the effect, if any, of CO2 emissions on the climate. That effect cannot be established by fiat, which is the Warren Beeton method. And, candidly, the method of the entire population of consensus climatologists.
They jump from radiation physics to climatological conclusions without any physical theory that can provide a unique solution to the climate energy-state; particularly at the resolution required to derive the outcome of such a tiny perturbation.
As a result, the whole field is an artful pseudoscience — lovely graphics and sophisticated statistics expressing physical nonsense,
You say a theory is a model. That’s not true for the meaning of the word ‘model’ as used on this thread. Rather, ‘model’ refers to a mathematical tool built on physical laws and data that can be used to project the behavior of a physical system
A scientific hypothesis becomes an accepted scientific theory when sufficient data and evidence has been collected that confirms the validity of the hypothesis. Ie, the validity of a scientific theory depends on DATA taken from the physical world, not on models, which are merely tools used to predict the behavior of the physical system after the theory has been established by evidence.
You missed the part where PF said: “Physical causality is established by falsifiable physical theory; one that permits of unique predictive solutions. Period.”
A data matching algorithm, no matter how complex, is *NOT* a physical theory. The climate models are basically data matching algorithms extrapolated into the future.
Correlation is not a physical theory, if it was we could use postal rate growth to forecast temperature.
There has been *NO* evidence I am aware of that confirms the validity that CO2 drives temperature. The only confirmation is based on model outputs and correlation, not on physical measurements. The fact that we have seen extended periods of pauses in temp rise while CO2 has grown shows that the models are *not* based on physical theory but on data matching and extrapolation.
Please tell us why weather forecasters can’t predict tomorrow’s temperature down to the hundredths digit but the climate models can do so 100 years in the future.
Please tell us why “climate change” has resulted in *NO* change in the hardiness zones in the continental US and Canada.
PF is dead wrong. A valid scientific theory is established by evidence, not ‘predictive theory’. And the evidence for man caused climate change is overwhelming. Models have nothing to do with it.
Re: Your other statements:
1) Correlation and causation are both well established, not just correlation.
2) For evidence that CO2 drives temperature, just attend a high school science class where they regularly demonstrate the GHE.
3) Weather and climate forecasting are entirely different.
Nope. Pat is right. The theory predicts the evidence, the evidence doesn’t predict the theory.
Seems like you need more details so you will understand:
A scientific theory is developed through the scientific method, starting with an observation of a phenomenon, then forming a hypothesis as a possible explanation, which is then rigorously tested through experimentation and data collection; if the hypothesis withstands repeated testing and is supported by evidence, it can be considered a scientific theory;essentially, a theory is a well-established explanation for a natural phenomenon that has been extensively tested and accepted by the scientific community.
Key steps in the process:
Important points to remember:
“a hypothesis as a possible explanation,”
I.e., a model. Expressed as equations.
There are two items I was looking for in your list that I’m hoping you can expand upon:
For observation shouldn’t there be a requirement to show how the null hypothesis cannot account for the purported differences?
For hypothesis shouldn’t there be explicit (and verifiable) falsification criteria which should be the first items to be tested?
You describe science the way a sociologist would do; i,e., as would someone who’s never done any science.
Science is falsifiable theory and observational test. All the rest is superfluous.
You need evidence, Frank. And you have no evidence that contradicts the ghe. It doesn’t exist, in spite of your foot stomping.
instead, your insistence that the ghe doesn’t exist means you simply don’t understand the ghe, or refuse to understand the ghe and the evidence for it developed over the last 125 years.
The GHE has NO basis that can be proved or falsified. That is, it does not have a functional relationship that can make predictions. Without predictions there is no theory to either prove or disprove.
You can’t just wave your hands and wish this away. It is part of physical science. What you are postulating is that Santa Claus exists and you can’t prove otherwise! That isn’t science!
Straw man. No one’s denying the GHE.
Radiation physics (your 125 years) is not a theory of climate.
it’s not up to Frank to provide evidence to contradict the ghe.
Since the GHE is widely accepted among climate scientists as a valid scientific theory because of the large body of confirming evidence and the lack of any contradictory evidence, Pat Frank needs to show contradictory evidence if wants the GHE to be considered an invalid theory.
Radiation physics is not a theory of climate.
It’s not that the GHE is denied, Warren. It’s that the effect of CO2 emissions, if any, is far too small to be detected.
Climate models cannot resolve such a minor effect, by a factor of several hundred, They cannot inform us of what to look for as evidence.
The effect, if any, of CO2 emissions is invisible. And the climate itself is well within natural variability.
There’s nothing unusual going on.
The first to show that there indeed was something unusual going on was Michael Mann, in his 1998 paper. His work was replicated multiple times since 1998: https://www.nature.com/articles/33859
Quoting Treemometer Fake Data Mannipulator Mann, good job shillboi!
Principal components have no distinct physical meaning. Also, there’s no physical theory that converts a tree ring metric into Celsius.
Those considerations are enough to obviate any physical significance in Mann’s construction or any of the replicates.
Further, Mann’s 1998/1999 papers have been proven to rely on a fake short-centering method that mines for hockey-stick shapes. The entire set of papers is based on crock statistics.
‘Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.’
https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick-intermediate.htm
“It’s that the effect of CO2 emissions, if any, is far too small to be detected.”
100%!
It’s only in climate science can a meter stick marked in centimeters be read to a resolution of a micrometer.
You haven’t shown this to be true with data (nor has any scientist, for that matter).
You forgot that a theory must present a method to make predictions that can be testable. That is, it must have a mathematical functional relationship that uses predictor variables to calculate a response variable.
A theory must also be falsifiable through testing the viability of the functional relationship proposed as a solution to the observations.
The GHE has neither of these. Therefore it falls short of being a theory, i.e., it is still an hypothesis.
Your assertion basically says that a theory can be proven through the volume of correlations that can be found. That means it can never be falsified and is therefore not a theory.
If you wiill notice hypothesis comes BEFORE data. You asserted that data creates the theory.
Some data is needed to form the basis for a hypothesis. More confirming data must be accumulated before it becomes widely accepted as a valid scientific theory.
So the apple hitting Newton on the head was “data”? Or was it just observation of a phenomena? Was the first human to be burned by fire collecting data or was it just observation of a phenomena?
Correct. Theory is always first.
Data comes as a puzzle that cannot be explained and must be solved.
If the extant theory doesn’t do it, a new one must be invented.
That’s not how scientists use the word theory. You and Gorman are talking about an hypothesis, which becomes a scientific theory after confirming data is accumulated.
If data verifies the hypothesis then the hypothesis and the theory are the same thing! If the hypothesis and theory are different then the data didn’t prove anything nor did it create either a new hypothesis or theory.
Face it. Your assertion was wrong. Data doesn’t create a theory.
A hypothesis is made based on observations and often some data. But it doesn’t become an accepted scientific theory until enough confirming evidence and data has been accumulated, without finding contradictory evidence, that the hypothesis s accepted by scientists as an established scientific theory. Examples of accepted theories include evolution by natural selection, smoking can cause cancer, earth orbits the sun, and atmospheric CO2 concentration is a major driver of planetary climate.
“A hypothesis is made based on observations and often some data.”
No. A hypothesis is a guess about the meaning of observations.
In science, the guess is expressed in mathematics, and allows prediction of explicit future observables.
The hypothesis stands or falls depending on whether the predicted observables occur, or not.
Mr Frank you want to pick fights where there should be none. Here is the main point I made:
“But it (an hypothesis) doesn’t become an accepted scientific theory until enough confirming evidence and data has been accumulated, without finding contradictory evidence, that the hypothesis is accepted by scientists as an established scientific theory.”
Do you contest this?
That is not how science works. From Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, Page 2:
Climate science has failed for 50+ years to produce a theory that is capable of predicting future observations and is consistent with all observed facts. Most models today predict a troposphere hot spot that is not there. Therefore, the models can not be accepted as a verified theory either.
Give up the posing as an expert scientist who can teach people what science and theories are.
Theory and hypothesis are functionally identical.
Of course they are functionally identical. The difference is that the former is proposed, and not yet accepted as valid until enough confirming data and evidence is accumulated to show that it is a likely representation of a behavior of the physical world
And typically observation of a phenomena comes before a theory explaining the phenomena. Burning your fingers on a hot oven is a phenomena that is observed before development of a theory as to the cause of the burn!
1.This argument has a flawed logical structure that ignores the principle of multicausality. If CO2 is a warming agent (A → B) and other factors like volcanic activity or ocean cycles (C) can cause cooling (-B), the observation of -B does not invalidate A → B. To disprove A → B, one would need to either demonstrate the absence of C or prove that C cannot produce -B.
2.Sounds like you’re moving the goalposts. While I’m not sure you could demonstrate the GHG in a classroom setting, you can certainly demonstrate the physics behind it and the behavior of various gases in a controlled setting. If all the individual components work operate in the expected way, then the whole should operate in the expected way.
3.Warren is absolutely right. Weather forecasts solve initial value problems, climate forecasts solve boundary value problems. These are very different, though related, endeavors.
*edit to fix formatting that wordpress jacked up
“If CO2 is a warming agent (A → B)…”
If climate is otherwise static. Which it is not. Your A → B is climatologically unverified.
Your A → B is a positive assertion. You’re requiring proof of the negative, which is a logical falsehood. You need to uniquely prove the positive.
And that proof is not some hand-waving about ‘it’s getting warmer.’
I am not asserting A → B (CO2 drives warming) in this specific comment. Rather, I am highlighting the logical error in claiming that the existence of other factors (e.g., cooling mechanisms) somehow disproves A → B. That’s a fundamental misstep in reasoning.
The fundamental misstep in reasoning is the assumption of ceteris paribus. Your A → B with respect to climate is asserted, not demonstrated.
All you’ve done here is demonstrate you are a chatbot.
Gorman, you are the classic example of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be serious.
Irony alert.
1.The CAGW argument is that CO2 is driving a long term warming trend, not that no other factors can influence the climate. Thus the existence of other factors, whether positive or negative, does not disprove the CAGW argument.
2.Warren did not say that warming from the radiative forcing by GHE’s in the atmosphere can be measured to hundredths of a degree in a classroom setting, they said that the GHE can be demonstrated to exist in the a classroom setting. Thus your wild diversion is indeed a moving of the goalposts.
3.Well, no, “going together” doesn’t make them the same thing. While climate projections are influenced by initial conditions, the eventual climate state depends primarily on boundary conditions, such as solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations, over extended periods. This distinction arises because of the long timescales involved.
This take is so uncontroversial that the only reason I can conceive of for your vehement disagreement is that your interest lies more in contradicting everything I say than it does in actually reaching a resolution.
“The CAGW argument is that CO2 is driving a long term warming trend…”
An assertion with no evidence.
“… GHE can be demonstrated to exist in the a classroom setting….”
The classroom experiment, at best, is a demonstration of radiation physics. It’s not a demonstration of a climatological GHE.
“...the eventual climate state depends primarily on boundary conditions…”
Every step of an iterative simulation initiates with the erroneous conditions transmitted by the prior step. The initial conditions problem does not disappear. it propagates forward.
“…he only reason I can conceive of for your vehement disagreement is that your interest lies more in contradicting everything I say than it does in actually reaching a resolution.”
it means Tim’s argument left you confused and, instead of trying to figure out why he thinks that way, you just summarily reject his argument by disparaging him personally.
After all, if someone is a bad person, one can reject that person’s case without having to think about it.
You are tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible. Your argument about CO2/temp is like trying to say that the speed of a car at any point in time is “driven” by the acceleration of the car — while ignoring that the acceleration is actually based on the horsepower at the tires (i.e. engine and drivetrain). The acceleration is causally related to that confounding variable just like the speed of the car is as well. Lower the horsepower and both the acceleration and velocity change. It *appears* that the acceleration and velocity are correlated but they aren’t, they are both correlated to a confounding variable which is actually the causal effect.
He doesn’t understand what a “coupled, non-linear system” really means. “Coupled” has no meaning to a CO2 CAGW adherent.
Agreed.
I’ll mention that the correlation is close whenever CO2 is the dominant factor, as you point out, or when the analysis is controlled for the other factors.
What is the optimum CO2 concentration, shillboi?
Will you weasel out with another personal attack?
This makes no sense.
In other words CO2 is the primary of driver of temperature change except when it is not the main driver of temperature change.
Have you ever heard the terms
If you can’t determine what state CO2 is in at any point in time, then you have no theory, only a hypothesis. A correlation will never provide a definitive state and can’t be used as a predictive device.
Your answer does not provide a falsifiable functional relationship. It is NOT a theory! It is NOT even a definitive answer.
You seem to be using the argumentative fallacy of Equivocation – changing the definition of a word to fit what you need in the moment. “the boundary conditions are the long term forcing” Boundary conditions can be the state at a moment in time, e.g. the temperature of a pipe in a steam radiator, or can be a limiting factor, e.g. restricting the value of a variable so that a “model” doesn’t blow up and give a value of infinity as an answer, e.g. an artificial forcing.
You seem to bounce around between the two as needed. “state of the atmosphere” is an initial condition. “long term forcing” is a causal effect.
“It doesn’t matter substantially if it was raining in Sydney at October 12, 1977 at the start of the climate model run,”
It should if the model is physics based on calculating the progression of the biosphere over time since the humidity, pressure, and enthalpy in Sydney at 10/12/1977 is a part of what determines the calculation of the next step in time. You can have the climate models being physics-based, time step calculations based on incremental steps or you can have the models be a data matching algorithm. Pick one and stick with it!
The argument I’ve forwarded here is not an argument in favor of the CO2 driven warming hypothesis, it is pointing out fallacious reasoning. CO2 can drive warming even if other things can also drive warming, or drive cooling. One does not preclude the other. This is not said as proof that CO2 does drive warming.You can demonstrate the physics behind the GHE, and if the physics all work, the GHE works. A simple proof can be constructed simply.Put simply again, so there can be no confusion in terminology, it doesn’t matter very much for a model projection if it is raining in Sydney on a particular day in the initial model state, but that matters quite a lot for a weather forecast. It matters that the model simulates the average weather conditions typical for Sydney in the models initial climate state, but not that any specific weather event is occurring. This is the difference between model projections and weather forecasting. Try to get this concept straight.
“The argument I’ve forwarded here is not an argument in favor of the CO2 driven warming hypothesis, it is pointing out fallacious reasoning. CO2 can drive warming even if other things can also drive warming, or drive cooling.”
The hype is that CO2 drives temperature and that is proved by the close correlation between CO2 growth and the “global average temperature”. Yet the long periods of “pause” in warming legislates against this actually being true. If the temperature is actually better correlated to other confounding factors then it is those other confounding factors that should be driving the climate models, not CO2 growth. There *is* a reason why the models run hot and appear to be running hotter than reality with every new ensemble. It’s because the models don’t handle the confounding factors well – if they handle them at all!
“.You can demonstrate the physics behind the GHE”
You can *NOT* demonstrate the difference between natural variation and human-caused variation because of measurement uncertainty. Nor do I accept that the physics behind the GHE have been demonstrated. Most of the demonstrations I have seen, even blackboard ones, assume that outgoing surface LWIR has a significant amount of capture by CO2 while incoming “back radiation” is free to reach the surface of the earth and warm it. In other words the assumption is that CO2 is a “one-way” blanket for LWIR. I can’t even come up with the words to describe such idiocy. If CO2 actually has a high level of interception of LWIR of a certain frequency then it will work in both directions and the “back radiation” will be significantly attenuated before it reaches the surface of the earth. So any warming caused by “back radiation” will be of the atmosphere thus raising the level of convection in the atmosphere and, therefore, the amount of heat loss at altitude – a *negative* feedback restricting the amount of temperature increase.
The physics JUST DON’T WORK for back radiation.
“A simple proof can be constructed simply”
It actually can *NOT* be simply constructed. The atmosphere is a complex multivariate entity made up of coupled non-linear variables. I have yet to see an experiment that is even partially complete. Most of them do nothing but confirm the fact that CO2 absorbs and emits LWIR radiation. But no attempt to duplicate the conduction heat transfer between the earth and the adjacent atmosphere layer or the convective heat transfer in the atmosphere. The “greenhouse” experiments that are usually referred to as proof of ghe do nothing but confirm CO2 absorbs and emits radiation.
“It matters that the model simulates the average weather conditions typical for Sydney in the models initial climate state”
Averages again! Climate is *NOT* determined by averages, not of temperature, not of precipitation, etc. Climate is determined by natural variation in all of these factors combined. The average summer time high in Las Vegas is 93F and in Miami is 90F – very similar temps but vastly different climates.
We’ve been over this many times, and it’s disappointing to see that we aren’t getting anywhere. CO2 can cause warming while other things can cause cooling, and the interplay of these two things can produce pauses in a long term CO2-driven warming trend. Such observations are not at odds with the GHE hypothesis. The observed temperature change is the long term forced response over which is superimposed natural variability. If the hypothesis were that CO2 affects the earth’s temperature and not one single other thing does, you would have a point, but that isn’t the hypothesis.
This is your own flawed understanding. No one says this. CO2 does not block outgoing IR, it absorbs and reemits it almost instantly (unless it is transferred via collision). There is a radiation field extending in all directions, including downward.
The GHE requires that certain gases are opaque to IR and transparent to SW radiation, and that the atmospheric lapse rate exists. Both of these things can be demonstrating quite convincingly in a classroom (or field) setting, and the rest follows.
All that would be unnecessary complexity for a classroom demonstration.
You say this, yet then go on to describe how climate is the average weather.
Thank you for the very clear description of the operation of the GHE– and I can assure you that your explanation would be very clear to anyone who has a modicum of interest in learning. Unfortunately, Mr Gorman’s only interest is in arguing.
“ CO2 can cause warming while other things can cause cooling, and the interplay of these two things can produce pauses in a long term CO2-driven warming trend.”
ROFL! So those “other things” don’t cause warming? Only cooling?
The point is that it is the *other things* that more closely correlate with the temperature than does CO2.
Tell us what those “other things” are that are included in the climate models!
” the GHE hypothesis”
The GHE hypothesis is that CO2 *TRAPS* heat. It doesn’t Any increase in temp will result in increased radiation until heat in = heat out, i.e. equilibrium. In other words a negative feedback.
Where is this included in the climate models?
Ok Gorman, if you run your home’s a/c and gas furnace simultaneously, I presume you can imagine scenarios where the cooling capacity is larger than the furnace capacity and the home gradually cools down. Do you claim that the furnace doesn’t actually produce heat?
Other things can cause warming as well, but CO2 warming combined with some other warming influence will not produce a pause. Do you follow the logic there?
Models include internal variability, solar forcing, volcanism and aerosol forcing, land use changes, ice sheet feedback, etc. All of these things combine to produce the observed signal.
That isn’t the hypothesis and that isn’t what you’ve described. CO2 does not trap heat, it determines where in the system the heat is able to transmit to space.
You want to get concepts straight? Deal with this from TG. Find a paper that develops gradients in both directions. I want to see an integral representing the diffusion gradient of “back radiation” and how much reaches the surface of the earth (the dirt, ocean, etc.). No simple averages which are a joke, just the real physics equations you declare that models have.
You really should read up more. You’re dismissing the basic science of greenhouse gases,
This is a statement only a mathematician or statisticians would make concerning a continuous physical phenomena.
A “forcing” does not cause a statistical anything. It causes a new physical state defined by a functional relationship. A predicted state may have a probability distribution showing the likelihood of a state. That distribution may be described using statistical parameters such as mean and a standard deviation.
In case you miss the implication, that standard deviation, or a multiple of it, describes the interval where the actual physical value is predicted to occur. In other words, there is an uncertainty as to what the actual value is.
That uncertainty SHOULD be PROPAGATED into the next and following iterations of a model run. Yet, climate science just throws the uncertainty away and assumes the mean is 100% accurate.
This is what Dr. Frank did in his analysis of uncertainty in climate models. It is what you have just confirmed occurs. A probability of what true values may be.
Congratulations!
An hypothesis is a conjecture made from examining correlated data and facts.
A theory is an explanation of HOW the hypothesis works.
The GHE will remain nothing more than a hypothesis until a testable and predictable physical explanation with a functional relationship is developed.
CO2 being the main driver of increasing temperature has already been falsified because of pauses in recent history and ice core data from the distant past. That doesn’t mean that CO2 doesn’t have a bit part in the overall climate, but other variables are vastly more important. Things like the sun, oceans, clouds, and albedo.
Accurate climate models are like nuclear fusion, always 50 years into the future.
The GHE has passed through the steps in the scientific method I outlined, and has been widely accepted as a valid scientific theory by scientists since developed by Arrhenius in 1896.
As expected, wackos and wing nuts are still hyperventilating about it.
I often wait until somebody mentions and uses Arrhenius as an argument. Then i KNOW they are ignorant. Case closed..
+1000
Erroneous.
So, do was Tyndall, Foote, Fourier, Pouillet “ignorant” as well as Arrhenius ?
My what a clever boy to know better !
https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/who-discovered-greenhouse-effect
Radiation physics is not a theory of climate.
Radiation physics is not a scientific theory. It’s a scientific discipline.
Wrong again. Radiation physics stands on Quantum Mechanics.
So you say a scientific discipline can’t ’stand on’ a field of fundamental physics?
No, I don’t say that, and didn’t.
Excuse me. Here’s what you said”
“Wrong again.” (I had said ‘Radiation Physics’ is not a scientific theory {which you had claimed}).
And you said “Radiation physics stands on Quantum Mechanics.”
ROTFLMAO.
An assertion with no proof! Do you ever get tired of making stuff up out of unicorn dung?
It has not passed the testing. It has not been tested.
Putting a gas in a tube does not prove a greenhouse effect. It does measure the specific heat capacity of the gas in a FIXED volume.
The atmosphere is not contained in a fixed volume.
The same can be said of:
geocentrism,
flat earth,
solid crust of the earth,
aether,
and on and on.
The fact is that GHE has NOT been proven, even though it may be accepted by many. Science is not advanced by consensus, it requires experimental evidence. Accepted or not, it is still a simple hypothesis!
You’ve made the same fundamental error again, Mr Frank. No scientific theory is ever ‘proven’. Rather, a theory is substantiated by evidence.
Where did I note anything about proving a theory?
my mistake. I meant Mr Gorman
Where is cloud response in Arrhenius’ physics?
Where is Hadley Cell response?
Convective response?
Hydrological response?
The responsive change in frequency, duration or intensity of tropical thunderstorms?
Your reasoning is hopelessly inadequate, Warren.
The GHE theory does not involve any of those factors. They are meteorological and take place within the framework of the global response to it.
There is no feedback into the GHE mechanism from meteorology.
Simply there is an effective emission level – this must be taken not as a simplistic single level but a convoluted one. Just as the trop has variation in height over the globe, then the EML does likewise. It is simply the level at which Earth is seen to be at its BB temp from space ie 255k.
To expect that to be at the same height around the globe is stupid – so don’t come back with that straw man mr Frank.
None of your responses materially changes that, as the 255k height will still allow more LWIR to escape to space whether in a Cb cloud, or in clear sky.
WV is an active GHG whether in a Cb or in clear skies apart from concentration and CO2 is active in a wavelengths just shorter than WV. There is an overlap on the longer wavelength side of the absorpsion band, yes but it does not block all of the LWIR that Co2 can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIBsjBvRTew
Project up the CO2 absorpsion band centred on 15 micron to the WV absorpsion band and you can see that it fills in part of what would be an atmospheric window otherwise.
“The GHE theory does not involve any of those factors.”
And that is its failing. The atmosphere is nothing more than a heat engine and is dependent on both heat transfer inside the system as well as heat transfer outside the system.
That means that convection is a major contributor to the operation of the heat engine.
The only strawman here is your assertion of tropospheric height as a major factor.
If you are against using an “average” height then you should also be against using an average for TSI, for LWIR to space, etc. Climate science is riddled with the use of averages which aren’t even actual averages. The daily mid-range temperature is *NOT* an “average” daily temperature, not even close. Yet it is used all over in climate science.
Where is your criticism of this idiotic equivalence?
That Gorman believes in the heat engine fallacy is no surprise; he thinks that net work is done in the atmosphere — ie, there’s a magic piston in the sky.
Heh, you’re not as bright as you think you are, shillboi.
There *is* a magic piston in the sky. It’s usually called the “Sun”.
My guess is that you don’t even know enough to distinguish between an isolated system, a closed system, and an open system.
You really need to revisit the aspect you highlighted at the end. I mean, go study this in detail.
WV of course plays an important role in Earth’s temperature as do the other H2O states. Co2 is clearly the main mover outside the sun but its connection in regards to the GHE is problematic for several reasons as is the GHE itself and the role it supposedly plays in the atmosphere. Many atmospheric scientists and physicists use the GHE in a rather loose way. They know that, when pressed by other physicists they cannot solidify it enough. Which is, again, ok. It was never an issue. It is only an issue for those who want to force the issue.
‘CO2 is the main mover outside the sun, but its connection to the GHE is problematic for several reasons’
and ‘many Scientists know that when pressed , they cannot solidify it enough’
Since those statements are absurd, why don’t you cite a few examples before going off the rails yourself?
GHE has *not* been proven. The measurements climate science makes have such a large measurement uncertainty that climate science can’t even tell if the global average is going up or down! That’s why they have to use the meme of “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”. They can’t afford to say “we don’t actually know what is going on” because their funding would dry up!
What has that got to do with anything?
You don’t know what you’re talking about, Warren.
Science is the combination of predictive theory and observational result. Either alone is not science.
The mathematical expression of physical theory is a model.
Of course a model is the expression of a scientific theory — and exactly as I said, a model is not evidence. Only evidence can establish the validity of a hypothesis so that it becomes an accepted scientific theory. Then a model can be constructed based on the theory, but the theory is not validated by a model. (That would be circular reasoning, which you seemed to do in your earlier posts. )
“the theory is not validated by a model.”
The theory is the model.
Since the ghe is widely accepted as valid scientific theory by climate scientists, and no peer reviewed papers have been published that disagree, we ask when will your peer reviewed paper appear, debunking the ghe? Why you could earn a Nobel Prize and world acclaim for being the first!
I will send my paper the day you post a predictive functional relationship that can be falsified.
I don’t need to do anything because an enormous body of climate science is already published and is unanimous in its conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, that its atmospheric concentration has increased 50% since 1750, and that this increase is the primary cause of current rapid warming of the climate.
If on the other hand, you think the GHE is fake, you’ll need to publish your work in a peer reviewed scientific journal to have any chance of overturning 125 years of atmospheric physics. I’m not holding my breath.
ROFL! Your buddy AlanJ just posted that CO2 can’t be the major contributor of atmospheric warming because other factors exist that can cause pauses in warming and can even cause cooling.
I’m with JG in waiting for your posting of a functional relationship between CO2 and temperature that explains decade long pauses in warming while CO2 continued to grow.
No, AlanJ Did not post that CO2 can’t be the major contributor. In fact it is, and other factors can indeed cause pauses or even temporary cooling. Having trouble wrapping your mind around basic science again, Gorman?
You and AlanJ are trying to have it both ways.
Claim 1: CO2 is highly correlated with temperature rise.
Claim 2: There are confounding factors that are correlated with temperature, sometimes causing it to rise and sometimes to cool.
It can’t be both.
With Claim 1, rising CO2 should cause rising temperature with no cooling or stagnation. That’s the only way it can be highly correlated with temperature.
With Claim 2, it is the confounding factors that determine the sign of the slope of the temperature. Therefore it is the confounding factors that are highly correlated with the temperature, not CO2.
Pick one and stick with it.
It is striking that they say: Co2 is forcing because other factors or less important yet if Co2 doesnt it is because of those other factors
This is the essence of the AGW Half-Step Shuffle.
In fact I posted, quite literally, the opposite. The fact that other factors that drive cooling and warming exist does not mean that CO2 is not a major driver of atmospheric warming. The fact that my car has brakes does not mean that the engine doesn’t make it go.
More claptrap.
As I posted to Warren you are trying to have it both ways.
Claim 1: CO2 is highly correlated with temperature. As CO2 rises so does temperature.
Claim 2: Confounding factors determine if temperature rises, cools, and remains stagnant. It is, therefore, the confounding factors that are highly correlated to temperature, not CO2.
Pick one and stick with it.
The claim is that CO2 causes warming, and other things cause warming, too, and yet other things cause cooling. The temperature change is the additive effect of all these things. Over the last century, the dominant thing has been CO2, but there have been other things. El Niños, La Nina’s, volcanoes, human particulate pollution, etc. I don’t think it’s hard to grasp.
And now, Teh Inappropriate Analogy.
Appeal to authority is foolhardy.
The body of research is voluminous and says exactly what I posted. Which is in contrast to the meaningless horse puckey you post in a vain attempt to obfuscate the facts.
Is it?
So when you got your degree, you didn’t question the “authority” of your lecturers ???
By that fallacy then we would never pass on knowledge from one person too the next. We would have to start from scratch in each successive generation.
You know the Newton quote?
“That I have seen so far, is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”.
So you haven’t “stood on the shoulders of giants” Mr Frank?
That may then explain your extreme outlier position.
I’m going to frame this brilliant reply.
Dork.
I like this, paraphrased from an AlanJ response:
“So when you got your degree, you didn’t question the “authority” of your lecturers ???
By that fallacy then we would never pass on knowledge from one person too the next. We would have to start from scratch in each successive generation.
You know the Newton quote?
“That I have seen so far, is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”.
So you haven’t “stood on the shoulders of giants”, Mike?
That may then explain your extreme outlier position.
Neither of you have had training in a physical science degree program.
Where does “authority” arise when being taught the mathematical basis of theories that predict accurate facts. Do you think being taught to use a Fourier analysis of a signal required an authority figure for a professor?
The mathematics from theories is the “authority” that one learns in physical science. That math is the fundamental basis for learning more, not what some professor that tells you what to think!
Your authoritarian professors are in the social sciences and liberal arts fields where professors tell you what to think, not how to think.
And what about the ‘authority’ that wrote your textbook? Or Did you learn the subject out of thin air?
You have a very strange view of scientific “authority”. These professors have knowledge to impart. It is backed up by math and by processes that work and that I have used. Unlike you, they back up their knowledge with examples and math rather than just pronouncing that something is true or false.
If you are questioning the knowledge of Dr. Coleman and Dr. Steele just come out and say so.
If you doubt the knowledge of Dr. George Shortly, B.E.E, PH.D., Professor of Physics, Ohio State Univ. or of Dr. Dudley Williams, A.B., PH.D., Professor of Physics, Ohio State Univ. Then get up the guts to say so.
I believe these men have information that is pertinent to what is being discussed. If you think otherwise then have the professional courtesy to say in no uncertain terms they don’t know what they are talking about.
Wait. So you are now applying the fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ to claim what you learned at OS? Tsk Tsk.
From: https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20authority%20fallacy%20refers%20to%20the%20use,make%20reliable%20claims%20about%20the%20topic%20at%20hand.
To be a fallacy, you must prove that what I quoted and cited is false by showing your own quoted references that contradicts what I quoted. Good luck in your search.
Be careful what you are saying here. Your claim is that properly cited information is not allowed. THAT KINDA BLOWS UP YOUR USE OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE AS A REFERENCE! It also makes most cites of scientific papers a fallacy!
Lol! This phrase blows up your entire shtick of accusing me and others of the fallacy when we cite peer reviewed science, such as NASA. As your highlight says, the fallacy occurs when “a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand.”
NOT QUALIFIED. So that means anything you say should be ignored!
Are you stupid? Show one quote with a proper citation that you have made. What you do is not a citation. It is simply referring to anonymous “experts”.
You’ve never written a scientific paper have you? Have you ever done a case study for starting a new project? You just don’t get to say that so and so says this or that.
I suggest you read up on formatting of citations.
Here is an example that I used.
Or a better one.
Again, in this thread, show one citation you have used.
The “BODY OF SCIENCE” is an anonymous source where no one can verify that you are portraying the correct interpretation.
From: https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20anonymous%20authority%20occurs%20when%20an%20arguer,something%2C%20attest%20to%20this%20type%20of%20reasoning%20error.
Please note my use of a citation of the web page where I took the quote.
Show us your citation.
You mean like your hero Mickey Mann?
HahahahahahahaahahahaH
The GHE of CO2, as promoted by consensus climatologists, is not a theory. It’s an ad hoc assertion coded by hand into climate models.
Absolutely, utterly absurdly wrong. The GHE is as well established a scientific theory as can be found anywhere. You are way out of your field; you should stick to accelerator physics
“GHE is as well established a scientific theory”
Not of CO2 emissions.
So now you say that CO2, the greenhouse gas with the 2nd largest effect of all greenhouse gases, is not a greenhouse gas?
You really don’t understand how the ghe is directly connected to atmospheric co2 concentration? And how atm co2 concentration is connected to the historical profile of co2 emissions? Really?
If the ghe contribution of CO2 doesn’t exist in a measurable manner then what difference does it make what the atm concetrations of CO2 are? You *still* won’t know what the actual impact of CO2 on ghe is – unless you are in climate science and have a cloudy crystal ball borrowed from a carnival fortune teller that can give you the answer.
Where is your Nobel Prize, Mr Frank?
“The World Meteorological Community and the international science community have welcomed the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physicsto pioneering climate scientists who laid the foundations for our understanding of the role of human activities and greenhouse gases in climate change. The award is especially timely as it comes on the eve of decisive UN Climate Change negotiations, COP26.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences cited American-Japanese Prof. Syukuro Manabe (Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA) and the German Prof. Klaus Hasselmann (Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany), “for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.”
They share the prize with the Italian theorist Prof. Giorgio Parisi (Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy) “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales.”
Argument from authority.
Argument by demonstration
As you know, not an argument for AGW. It’s a comment on the absurdity of your feeble, and failed, attempt to become a climate scientist. Could you also be failing at your accelerator workplace?
Wrong again, Warren. The paper is about physical error analysis. It’s not about climate physics.
If you’re talking about Michael Manns 1998 paper, it’s about teasing out the signal of a warming climate from the noise of internal temperature variability — which of course involves error analysis. It’s all part of climate science.
Treemometers!
Splicing (hacking) different time scales together!
You go shillboi!
error analysis in climate science consists of the meme: “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels”. This leaves sampling error as the only metric and that can be reduced by increasing sample size. Which then also requires that assuming that all temperature data is taken from the same thing using the same instrument under the same conditions”.
So much Bull crap. You know of either noise nor error analysis and I don’t think Mann does either. Otherwise his “noise analysis” technique wouldn’t have given a hockey stick from red noise.
Error analysis is used to “tease” a signal out of noise, ha, what a joke..
Mann was trying to tease a ΔT out of a signal. To do so you must have an idea of the Δ (the rate of change) in the signal to begin with. Otherwise you end up with a multitude of false positives. Guess what he ended up with?
You’ve just set another record for unintelligible word salads, Gorman
That’s because you have no idea what you are talking about about to begin with. When you do nothing more than cherry pick or use a simple AI to get something to say, you run out of information.
it appears you’ve progressed from word salads to a complete loss of coherent thought. Now you’re in your natural state, Gorman
Nope, you’re just unable to understand scientific language.
What is your formal training in metrology and instrumentation, shillboi?
Are those your skills, Karlos? Is that why you know nothing about the physics of the GHE?
This is lame even for you, shillboi.
Those scientists are like Obama getting a Nobel prize – it’s political posturing, not scientific achievement.
It’s all based on averaging an intensive property which can’t be averaged. They can’t even explain how 10C at one location in the northern hemisphere plus 10C in the other hemisphere can equal 20C!
The explanation of causality comes from the physical theory encoded in the physical model.
Absent a physical theory, “evidence” can have any explanation, right down to ‘god did it.’
Mr Frank, you say that CO2, the greenhouse gas with the 2nd largest effect of all greenhouse gases, is not a greenhouse gas.”
With that statement, You are no longer qualified as a climate scientist.
Warren Beeton (paraphrasing) : ‘A valid scientific theory is not a ‘predictive theory’.’
Too funny.
You plain don’t know what you’re talking about, Warren,
Now you’re resorting to flat-out lies. I never said anything remotely like that, Mr Frank.
With all your posts you have clearly shown you know very little about actual atmospheric science by just pretending to have knowledge. You have convinced yourself you can simply dismiss critics by em..stating obvious falsehoods and contradictory flawed statements. I take it you are stuck in highschool where they teach the standard flawed model using ignorant graphs pretending it accurately reflects the atmosphere.
You really need to go back and understand proper atmospheric science..
Start with frequency bands, vibrational modes, the relation between radiative and convective forces etc. It is not that hard..
I understand the ghe, and the evidence for it. Which puts me in good company, ie, every atmospheric physicist on planet earth. And even skeptics such as Anthony Watts, who supports the validity of the ghe.
Therefore, since it’s an established scientific theory, for it to be invalidated, contradictory evidence must be found. So ‘ballynally’, when will we see your peer reviewed scientific paper presenting such evidence?
You do not know what a greenhouse is.
You understand nothing and there is no evidence. If evidence of the hypothesis existed, someone would have won the Nobel Prize for having deciphered the atmosphere and created a verified and predictive relationship.
DREAM ON!
Guess what:
In 2021, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to scientists Syukuro Manabe of the United States and Klaus Hasselmann of Germany for work that laid the foundation for current climate models.
Current climate models that do not predict the climate.
But did not have a theory that provided predictions that could be falsified.
You don’t do science related work do you?
A one-dimensional toy, with lots of simplifying assumptions.
That Manabe?
Note: the shills were unable to form a cogent reply to having their absurd claim exposed.
People put forward Arrhenius. When others point out the anomalies they go to Wannabe. The same happens. Then they always go to the consensus.
The GHE is a hypothesis. It is at least problematic in regards to the atmosphere. You can steer your data towards a theory but you lack evidence/ data. You can say: A leads to B but it is built on an assumption of underlying mechanisms. That assumption can and is questioned. You cannot calculate yr way out of the error bars. It’s basic physics that cannot be properly applied in a dynamic system. That’s fine by me but clearly not enough for some..
Have you told Roy Spencer?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/08/yes-the-greenhouse-effect-is-like-a-real-greenhouse-and-other-odds-and-ends/
“The GHE is like a real greenhouse with a perfect roof. The original paper on this is Manabe & Strickler (1964), where they calculated the average surface temperature in pure radiative equilibrium (the surface and each atmospheric layer achieving a temperature where rates of absorbed and emitted radiation are equal– no convection) was about 70 deg. C warmer than what is actually observed. The weaker “33 deg. C” effect you often see attributed to the GHE is actually the sum of [GHE warming + convective cooling]. It is NOT the extra warming from the GHE alone. So, yes, Earth’s greenhouse effect is like a real greenhouse (even more so, because its “roof” is perfect, whereas a real greenhouse roof does lose some heat through conduction of heat through the roof and then convective air currents cooling the roof)”.
Looks like hand waving to me.
Another assertion that is always made by 🤡s. EVERY – I will be waiting with bated breath to see your proof of that!
“Rather, ‘model’ refers to a mathematical tool built on physical laws and data that can be used to project the behavior of a physical system”
Theory: mathematical expression of physical causality that uniquely predicts explicit physical observables.
Physical models encode physical theory.
”Evidence”. There’s your problem. You don’t understand the difference between evidence and fact.
Bingo.
Ergo it is a liberal art, not a physical science.
If Pulles is defaming you and Marcel in print, maybe you can threaten a civil suit and include Wiley as a defendant.
I probably have a case considering how awful Pulles’ paper is and how dependent the whole AJES/Wiley scenario is on it. Further, I did point out the errors in the paper months before they published it and they left them in, that was a huge mistake.
But I don’t really care that much. Anyone who spends a little time looking into all this can easily see the BS, and I got several good posts out of the whole mess. But I’m not the only one falsely and maliciously defamed here, there may be a lawsuit coming, but I’ll be no more than a witness in it. I’m just happy the paper is very successful, impactful, and bulletproof so far.
It will almost certainly be the last peer-reviewed paper I write. Peer-review is dead, at least to me.
I fully understand your position, Andy.