From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Interesting stuff from Peter Ridd:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Interesting stuff from Peter Ridd:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think Sabina has started on the pilgrim’ path and agree with Peter that she is not there yet.
She is also aware of many other changes/problems in climate science and covered them in previous videos. See “I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.” and “Why I took down my climate science video“.
She is a true denier. She has the background to understand the real physics.
As a physicist, she should understand that the model spaghetti plot does not show “scientific uncertainty”, as she termed it, and that the average of model outputs is meaningless.
I can’t understand why you promote this mean, whining idiot. He clearly doesn’t understand how climate modelling is done, how average temperature is calculated, which is strange from a scientist. Well, very likely he is a bad scientist. Sabine is kinda similar when she is adventuring outside her actual competence.
Shove off, stinking troll.
Egads ! Another 95% consensus !
“He clearly doesn’t understand how climate modelling is done”.
Climate models evolve: survival of the fittest.
Those that fit the narrative survive.
David, I like it!
A few quotes from those who understand. (My bolds)
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
What should the average temperature of the earth be from the climate models then and what is it now? Help them see the light and the way here.
Kindness, tolerance and respectIn your case it’s malice, bigotry and contempt
Climate modelling is the modern equivalent of rolling the bones. Utter garbage.
A couple of points –
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter; and –
If 131 “climate models” give different results, then at least 130 are wrong. Averaging 130 wrong answers will not provide a right answer.
More likely 131 are wrong…
And yet it, as the IPCC expected, the multi-model mean is running very close to observations
Did you ever read The Wisdom of Crowds [Surowiecki, 2004]?
The big picture
I’d be quite impressed by a model that could match that, both temperature and CO2
What have proxy estimates of past temperatures got to do with judging the forecasting skill of a modern climate model ensemble?
Ask Mikey Mann.
Climate models have ZERO ability to forecast future climate. !
Proxies at least have a basis of measurement.
I’ve always wondered how one can forecast a 30 year average.
Can it be? Another stinking troll?
Every time we respond to this smegma-based life form, it metastasizes.
Ignore it!
It tells us that in a broad sense CO2 levels dont correlate to temperature so the argument CO2 is the control knob to surface temperature isn’t supported by the proxy estimate vs CO2 level estimate graph shown.
Or to make it clearer, GCMs aren’t capable of reproducing that graph without some wild, unrealistic, very long term assumptions about aerosols.
Everything.
Only to be expected if models are “tuned”. Chaos, as in the motions of the atmosphere, is unpredictable. The IPCC acknowledges that it is not possible to predict future climate states.
That wavy red line doesn’t show a very good job of the hindcasting fits used to develop the models….if you think about it a bit…
You think the forecast period does a better job of matching observations?
I think the modellers would call that a ‘win’.
They realise that complete agreement would give the game away. They have to maintain the pretence that they can do the impossible – even when the IPCC agrees it can’t be done.
Hindcasting is also known as curve fitting.
Those particular models (CMIP3) were ‘tuned’ and published in 2004. Everything from 2005 onward was ‘forecast’.
since then, observations have remained within the multi-model range and, until recently when temperatures soared above it, fairly close to the multi-model mean.
It is rather churlish to suggest that this isn’t an impressive outcome; but not unexpected that some here still do.
So, years of absolutely horrendous “forecasts”, you claim “see, we were right for once”.
That is not confidence building!
Give your projections, huge error margins.
Then as long as reality stays within the error margins of your projection, you get to proclaim that your projections were correct.
It’s not an impressive outcome. The outcome is entirely expected from a tuned-parameter curve fit.
The “ranges” are so wide that they there is nothing “impressive” about remaining within them.
The “ensemble means” have been updated by the IPCC as time progresses (see attached graph). This is “completely to be expected”, not “impressive”.
It isn’t “rather churlish”, it’s more “So what ?”.
And they are using adjusted urban surface temperatures, which are unrepresentative of reality
Reality is that the models are total CRAP.
The only way they could get anywhere near a match was by radically adjusting the urban surface data
legend? Color code ?
Sorry..
Blue is RSS with error range.. Yellow is models with error range.
Must add that to the bottom of the image.
Only time RSS (the old un-agenda-adjusted version) gets anywhere near the models is during strong El Nino events.. then it drops back down again to be well below the model mean.
It is rather churlish to suggest that this isn’t an impressive outcome . . ,
If you say so. However, adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. There is not even a consistent and unambiguous description of the GHE.
Am I churlish for accepting reality? You be the judge.
The ‘multi model mean’ is invisibly filtered. Failed models are buried, not averaged. Do you believe the IPCC would include a model that doesn’t conform to expectations? These have been “refined, replaced or rejected”.
Net Zero is a moon shot.
Who would get on a moon mission if the modelled trajectory looked like this?
The blue line is a polynomial fit over the 1970-1990 GISSTemp v4 anomaly interval. Extrapolation of that fit follows the subsequent air temperature anomaly trend through 2024 as well as do the various climate models.
The lesson is that extrapolating a curve-fit into a continuing trend will track it pretty well. That’s all the climate models are – curve fitting using tuned parameter sets. They track the trend they’re tuned to fit.
The blue line shows there’s nothing predictive about climate model statistical “skill.”
The IPCC climate modelling community has moved on from the CMIP3 SRES scenarios, which were limited to “Historical Data” only going up to the year 2000.
Start from the Real Climate “Model-Observation Comparisons” webpage (instead of your “2024 update” link).
For CMIP5, with the RCP emission pathways and “Historical Data” updated to 2005, RC decided to “adjust” the original forcings data from 1991/2 (the Pinatubo eruption) … something they chose not do for the “older / obsolete” CMIP3 numbers … as shown below (if I copy the URL correctly) :
For CMIP6, with the “latest and greatest” SSP emission pathways and “Historical Data” updated all the way to 2014, they had to “screen out” the model runs that were … checks notes, oh yes … “running hot” :
Welcome to the 21st century.
Yes, because we know these better now. We simply know much more, and we have collected all the data etc.
The Gormans are also whining about this. Please read the sources for understanding at last what happened here. Nothing nefarious or fraudulent. Also, it’s pretty easy to understand. (They discovered that certain models were simply wrong and then they didn’t use those models. And they openly described this process. This is actually the polar opposite what most WUWT cretins think climate scientists are doing. BTW they fixed the problem. And they could use the output from even these wrong models in certain areas when they realized what the problem was and how they could “compensate” for that. What a horror…)
I’ll bet “they” already had the correct values so the wrong ones could be picked out!
That’s not how science works.
This is a good illustration for “WUWT cretins”. BTW the paper you were roadshowing around (and you thought that would support your bs) clearly described how this worked.
Not sure what paper you are talking about about. Why don’t you show whole quotes when you respond?
The Gavin Schmidt paper. And you scream: “All models always run hot”
Your suppositions about my “thought processes” are incorrect.
More generally, your inferences about my, and other peoples, “motivations” are completely irrelevant.
.
Trying to determine why people think and/or act they way they do is anything but “easy to understand”.
It could be as simple as “stupidity”.
It could be some combination of “ideological blindness” and/or “group think” and/or “confirmation bias”.
It could even be the case that they are right and you are (/ I am) wrong …
.
Poster : 2 + 2 = 4
[ Me : No response required … ]
Poster : 2 + 2 = 5
Me : No it isn’t.
Poster : 2 + 2 = 3
Me : What is the angle between your two “2” vectors ?
Poster : Errrrrrrm … Maybe the issue isn’t as “easy” as I assumed it was …
My supposition was that your thought process resulted in a bad conclusion. My supposition was correct. The CIMP6 “hot models” thing is well know, and it is not an evidence for anything done incorrectly in climate science. I just pointed it out to you.
Models are total crap with sea temperatures too.
The real observations look absolutely nothing like that.
You have presented the FAKE temperatures created from massive urbanisation and agenda driven “adjustment” to fit the models.
Yes, I read it. 131 is a small crowd and each one is under pressure to exaggerate warming.
Well yes, the models have been “tuned” to match past observations. They still cannot predict the future.
Wisdom of the crowds doesn’t compensate for systemic bias.
Climate scientists have systemic bias which is reflected in the outcomes of the models using common estimated, simplified and flawed implementations of physical processes.
And it only works when the diverse opinions are included which climate science actively resists and rejects.
If the diverse opinions were included, then the sensitivity would be much lower.
Obviously, that had absolutely nothing to do with knowing exactly what the model needs to show to be selected by the IPCC.
In any case the real models, using the actual historical emissions, are running so wildly hot that it’s almost comedic.
When the are universally wrong in one direction, to warm, and then the industry take the mean and pretends that is reality, and then makes up future projections that are over the top, then the fraud is in play.
When the are universally wrong in one direction, to warm…
But they’re not “universally wrong in one direction….” In fact, observed temperatures over the previous two years were significantly warmer than the multi-model mean forecast.
The models are currently running cool compared to observations.
Yes, they are .. Only one model, from Russia, comes even close to the real atmospheric temperature
Use a graph from 2023 at least….
Why? the 2016 and 2023 El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2.
The fact that the models are so incredibly wrong up to 2015 is enough.
Well, they are wrong in both directions, aren’t they?
The models are not doing anything of value.
Be kind and tell us how the uncertainty of the individual measurements is propagated throughout the entire process of determining an average temperature.
Be a good person and tell us what the actual variance of the GAT actually is. Not the uncertainty of the mean, that only tells one how accurately the mean has been estimated. We want the actual standard deviation of all the ΔT’s that go into the average. An average must have a probability distribution associated with it, so give us the statistical descriptors that describe it.
Lastly, tell us exactly what region(s) is experiencing the GAT. I would certainly be interested in knowing where one should live to experience the average. Remember, the mean is the point where the most occurrences are in a normal distribution that should be easy to spot.
Jim, you know that climate science has given itself an exemption leave pass from the trivia of fundamental statistical standards.
(and it shows 😵💫 )
Literally every single global surface temperature supplier explains their processing methods and uncertainty evaluations in peer-reviewed scientific papers that you or anyone else is at liberty to challenge by peer-reviewed comment or rebuttal.
Yet no one ever does. Maybe you can be the first?
To be kind, here’s the open access paper published alongside the latest HadCRUT iteration.
Here’s a relevant quote:
Looks like they considered all these issues thoroughly and HadCRUT publishes uncertainty levels with each monthly global update.
If you can spot a flaw in their paper – go get ’em!
Not up to me. You use the GAT consistently, you should be knowledgeable on its method of calculation and how measurement uncertainty is dealt with.
How hard can it be for you to show measurement uncertainty in daily avg -> monthly avg -> baseline avg -> ∆T anomaly -> GAT avg. That’s four averages and one subtraction. Show how the measurement uncertainty is calculated at each stage and used in the next average.
How is the uncertainty for a daily average calculated? What values are used? What method is used? How is it used in the next calculation.
The flaw in this paper is that it gives no indication of how measurement uncertainty has been dealt with. It’s primary purpose is to deal with how to deal with homogenization errors and ensemble (average) differences. When it mentions measurement uncertainty it is in reference to differences in averages and homogenization.
It is a good indication that measurement uncertainty is simply not considered and is basically tossed in the trash at every iteration.
Your attempt to provide a reference has utterly failed. Quit googling or using an AI to cherry pick things you know nothing about.
Jim, we all know you suck in this 😉 I have explained this to you so many times. And I’m just one among many. You’re simply hopeless.
Lol.
Regurgitated mantra non-science..is what nyci really meant to say.
HA HA HA, apparently you fail to realize you do a splendid job of showing how little you understand what Jim is talking about.
Running off at the mouth doesn’t work.
See below. Our Jim has no idea what he’s talking about.
Apparently the only one who doesn’t understand climate modeling is you.
I’d recommend Gary Taube’s book; ‘Bad Science,’ to you; but I’m not sure if you read much beyond your approved religious texts! Reading about how world class physicists at CERN could “discover” nonexistent particles might just break through that force field preventing your mental expansion, but I doubt it!
Maybe you’d care to explain how C-15, or pentadecanoic acid; found primarily in FULL fat dairy products, could suddenly turn out to be an essential fatty acid; required by our bodies for optimum health, and the prevention of fatty liver disease!?
Also the book, “How to Lie with Statistics” published way back in 1954, i think. So they’ve been doing it for a long time.
What is an ‘average temperature’? Can you define that scientifically?
Yes. The global average temperature is the average kinetic energy per degrees of freedom per molecule for the lower atmosphere.
Actually it is not what you are attempting to define it as.
Generally it is given as a ∆T. It is a mean of a probability distribution consisting of ∆T values. Thus it is not a temperature and can not be used to calculate the total kinetic energy.
A true temperature would have an absolute value with a ±value. All an anomaly defines is an average rate of change. But, without the associated statistical parameters you can’t determine the actual range of change in kinetic energy.
It is no different than giving you an average ∆g mass value and asking you what the total mass is or what the range of changes is.
Above a baseline. Baseline plus delta T is T.
I think you should try this again, this is parody level bs.
See above 😉 And remember, I’ve told you numberless times, if you don’t understand an extremely simple transformation like temp anomaly, you’re truly lost in the sauce in a serious debate.
You just affirmed what I said. Tell us the calculated baseline value with your choice of GAT for February. It should have the same resolution as the GAT
Your insults are asinine.
Each station has its own monthly baseline and ∆T. The ∆T’s are averaged to obtain a GAT.
Global AVERAGE Temperature. I wonder what an average actually is. It appears you have a definition different from the standard one. It would behoove you to go on the record and show your definition of average!
I don’t have any choice. This is climate science, go read them.
No. And this is the basics. You fail even at the start.
From:
https://scied.ucar.edu/image/measure-global-average-temperature-five-easy-steps
(Bold by me)
It would seem the Center for Science Education (UCAR) is full of crap according to you. Maybe you should offer to educate them in proper technique.
BTW, this process hides the ability to determine the actual absolute temperatures by examine the GAT anomalies.
Why do you keep dancing around my questions rather than a straight forward response? No answers I’ll bet!
Geez Jim, and all these numerical gymnastics can produce constructs that are accurate to 0.001 of one degree C.
Well oil beef hooked!
And does a leap year muck the whole construct up?
(asking for
a friendnyolic)No, you genius. You were talking about “its own monthly baseline”. There’s no “monthly baseline”, neither “own” or others’. There’s a baseline, but this is usually an average for a 30 year period, and the period is fixed for each series. Now this calculation is a science onto itself ‘cos you have to compensate for station moves, new stations whatever. As far as I know they use local averages, not actual station averages for this reason but I don’t really know, and this is just a glimpse why climate science is a science, these are some of the messy details. This is why I said “go read the papers”.
Hey genius, you can’t even make logical sense.
You said “no “monthly baseline”, then turn right around and say, “There’s a baseline”.
Congratulations, you have climate pseudoscience down pat.
Exactly. There’s no monthly baseline. There’s a baseline for a predetermined, at least 30 year period (like 1981-2010), and its calculation is not straightforward, and very likely it’s for a bigger area, not station specific. But the details are in the papers.
I know you have a problem of averaging the delta Ts, you somehow can’t comprehend that the resulting avg_delta_T plus the global_baseline would give the same as averaging the global absolutes. But the two are the same, you just have to use the same weighting.
SUM(Wi(Ti+Di))/SUM(Wi) = SUM(Wi*Ti)/SUM(Wi) + SUM(Wi*Di)/SUM(Wi).
The left hand side is simply the global absolute average. Ti is the ith baseline, Di is the ith delta, Wi is the ith weight. The right hand side is global_baseline + global_average_anomaly. Weighting etc. is not straightforward here, this is why science is science. I know you have problems with the simple part, the maths here. Now you should know.
Jim,
Never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. They never know when they have lost.
Are you incapable of counting, exaggerating or just lying?
Tell me just once that you believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, while I laugh at you!
You can count to one, can you?
Tell me just once that you believe that some complicated processes exist.
What are you babbling about?
I thought you wouldn’t understand it… In short, science is complicated, you shouldn’t expect to understand things right away. Complicated processes are the norm. And the effect of CO2 on climate is complicated.
Well, that piece of pointless word salad demonstrates your gargantuan mental ability, doesn’t it?
Maybe your vast intellect can elucidate why you are stupid enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter?
Or is the “process” too “complicated” for anyone to comprehend?
No 😉 it’s too complicated for you to comprehend, obviously.
If you say so.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. Not complicated at all. No GHE – not complicated either.
The GISS fabrication has nothing to do with global temperatures.
It is fabricated from unfit for purpose data, and maladjusted to fit model expectations.
Please explain “how average temperature is calculated”. I am curious how intensive properties are to averaged.
And you’ve given away yourself as an idiot right away 😉 Yes, you can average intensive properties with proper weighting. Area weighting is a very good approximation here.
How about daily temperature averages or monthly temperature averages at the same station?
Show us the weighing you use between 3 differing areas when averaging daily averages. How about averaging three monthly averages.
The rough rule of thumb is that each average carries with itself the time period, the uncertainty and the area. This is all you need to get the further averages, and their uncertainties. The time and area (or volume, whatever that is proportional to the mol number) are needed for weighting.
That isn’t scientific!
Uncertainty is an explicit value associated with the stated value. It is NOT carried within the average (mean).
You are just using the same old trite adage that all uncertainty is Gaussian and cancels.
There is a reason the term microclimate exists in studies of station measurements. A microclimate is not a large area measurement. All stations are different and shouldn’t have the assumption of similarity.
Good god, Jim, you never fail to fail. It means it was meant to be a short, informal introduction.
Yes it is. There are very well known propagation laws.
These are not assumptions. You don’t even need similar instruments. The only requirement is independence, and that is certainly given. And it has been explained to you literally 1000 times already.
ROTFLMAO!
You are quoting standard statistical assumptions. You are a statistician with limited knowledge of measurement theory. All this does is cement the impression that you know nothing about measurement uncertainty and how to propagate it.
How do I know? Independence is a necessary assumption for the Central Limit Theorem to be applied with samples.
Independence is NOT necessary for determining measurement uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty makes allowance for correlated readings of a measurand.
Read this section of the GUM.
Show me in a metrology reference where independence is a required assumption when dealing with measurement uncertainty.
Don’t bother with a statistics reference, we aren’t dealing with sampling and sample means distributions when analyzing measurements.
Wrong and wrong.
Parody level. For averaging, if the measurements are independent, the uncertainty of the average can be calculated extremely easily.
Parody level stupidity again. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Do you even know what correlated means? If it is warm today, is it likely to be warm tomorrow? That is correlated.
The fact that it is ignored in climate science is indicative of the level of science you know how to do.
And which type of uncertainty do you use, standard deviation or standard deviation of the mean. Be careful in your answer, it will determine what you know.
“If it is warm today, is it likely to be warm tomorrow? That is correlated.”
Actually, that is what is called, “serial correlation”
Parody level again. The “uncertainty” is the result of the measurement process. Each measurement process is independent from the others. The measured quantity may be highly correlated but the uncertainty is the property of the measurement process, not the quantity. And you mess up these things…
“Parody level stupidity again.”
Should be the title on all nyci’s posts !!
Also, there is no basis to assume continuity between stations.
Well this idiot says:”Averaging intensive properties is generally not meaningful because they are intrinsic to the substance itself and don’t change with the amount of material.”
What if you mix two substances where this intrinsic property is different? The result will be different for each. For that matter, the result will be a certain average where the weighting is accidentally the factor that gives you an extensive quantity out of an intensive. I know you don’t understand this, so I help. 15C temperature for a bucket of gas means the average kinetic energy per degrees of freedom per mol of material is X1. 20C means it’s X2. This is actually the definition of temperature. So if you multiply X with the degrees of freedom (a fixed quantity) and the mol number, you get the total internal energy (an extensive quantity) for the bucket. E1 = T1*d*n1, E2=T2*d*n2. The temperature of the mix is (E1+E2)/(d*(n1+n2)). I think you slowly start to get it. You can cancel d. The net result would be T1*w1+T2*w2, a weighted average where w1=n1/(n1+n2). Actually, you can approximate this weight with the mass ratio or even volume ratio. In climate science the area ratio is a very good approximation.
Now you know it, so next time you shouldn’t bs about it. I’m watching you.
Are you aware of the gas laws?
If you mix two quantities of a gas what changes? Pressure, volume, temperature? If you keep the same volume and double the mols, each at 10°C does the pressure change? How about the temperature?
If I have a kg of copper and cut it into two pieces each piece will have half the mass. That is extensive. If I split the same block when it is at 70F, does each block have half the temperature?
Yes. This is surely simplification (but not that much). Are you aware of the existence of simplification?
This is extremely tiring. Please… Two rooms, and you open a door in between. This is the ONLY relevant mode of mixing in this case, you raging genius. The whole story was about two fokkin rooms and averaging their temperature (with proper weighting). The result would be the same if you open the door, and let them mix, you goober.
Are you really this idiotic? Okay, we have half the block, its internal energy is 0.5E (Do I have to mention that Energy is extensive?). We have half the mols. Let’s check it. 0.5E/(0.5n*d) = E/(n*d). Are you able to read simple formulas? Now REALLY?
Terrible example and shows how little you know about physical sciences.
You start with an open door and equilibrium, then close the door, creating two volumes.
Take a mass and cut it in half.
I’m kinda at loss now. I usually don’t assume someone is trolling but here I hesitantly ask whether you’re just kidding me. Because this is your second comment where you are apparently not able to comprehend an extremely simple example. We’ve been debating each other for years now, and you not seem to be in the trolling business. But if so, please now tell me, and I will be relieved knowing that Old Jim has fooled me this time.
But if you’re serious, I repeat the example trying to use the simplest terms. So it’s a frequent assertion from various dumbfokks that you can’t average an intensive quantity (like temperature) because that’s physically meaningless (and therefore stuff like global average temp doesn’t mean anything etc.). This is just bs, and as a side note, a self defeating assertion ‘cos how do you know then that there’s no warming? How can you assert anything without being able to quantify? But deniers being self contradictory is not my concern here.
So, I tried to illustrate the physical meaning of average temperature by assuming that there are two reservoirs (like two volumes of air like the air above your home state and the air above British Columbia in Canada) that have their own (possibly different) temperature. The train of thought is the following: you convert an intensive quantity to extensive by multiplying it with a thing that is proportional to some other quantity of the given substance. Then you can add them together. Then you can divide again to get the intensive quantity. And this latter is exactly what you get if you mix those two reservoirs.
Temperature is the average kinetic energy per degrees of freedom per molecule of the material. It means that you get the total internal energy of a reservoir if you multiply it with the corresponding numbers. For ideal gasses, this is E = cvNT, where N is the mole number, and cv is a gas specific constant but it is something like 0.5fR where f is the number of degrees of freedom, which is some constant for air (actually it’s around 5). So N is basically the number of molecules (per 6*10^23), cv is just a constant, and T is the temperature. Energy is extensive. So we now know the internal energy of a reservoir. E1 = cv T1 N1, E2 = cv T2 N2.
In a mix, the internal energy is obviously E1+E2. (The enthalpy of mixing is zero in the ideal case and this is well approximated.) So (E1+E2)/(cv (N1+N2)) = Tmix. But this is
E1/(cv(N1+N2)) + E2/(cv(N1+N2)) = cv T1 N1/(cv(N1+N2)) + cv T2 N1/(cv(N1+N2)) = T1 N1/(N1 + N2) + T2 N2/(N1 + N2)
Oops, this looks like a weighted average where the weight is simply the mole fraction. Tmix = T1 W1 + T2 W2. The mole fraction is roughly the mass fraction. This latter is roughly the volume fraction. This latter is calculable (but non trivial) due to terrain and other factors. But even simple area weighting coupled with some kinda average height compensation is a good approximation.
So when you properly average intensive quantities, you get the quantity for a what it would be if the two were mixed.
As usual, you have no idea about what you are talking about about.
First, reaching a decision on whether a phenomena is intensive or not has requirements. One is that the quality being examined must be homogeneous throughout. Why? Separating the non-homogeneous quality can easily lead one to assume an intensive phenomena is not actually intensive.
Second, temperature is a poor proxy for the actual total energy contained in a measurement. Total energy in a volume is KE + Latent Heat. Temperature only measures the kinetic energy so it misses part of the energy in a volume. Thermodynamically, you can not just average temperatures to find the “average” heat at a location. If you could, Las Vegas and Miami would have exactly the same heat content in their atmosphere. Have you ever heard the old saying, “it’s a dry heat”? It isn’t wrong.
If you want to prove something, show how averaging temperatures gives an accurate portrayal of the total heat in the atmosphere.
🙂 Oh, a bit of butthurt bsing.
I want to see your paper you submit to any serious scientific journal where you try to evaluate whether temperature is intensive following your “requirements” 😉 I bet you know where they put these papers. (Hint: the bin for really funny crackpots.)
How come then temp is such an important state variable in ThermoD? Along with pressure and volume. Wanna see your answer. Please entertain me 😉 In the good old days I could read so much unhinged bs in WUWT, nowadays you only have boring AI and Green whining.
and
So, after all, you apparently have no problem with averaging temperatures, right? ‘Cos I don’t claim I find average “heat” (whatever bs you babble about it). I claim I find average temperature. You know, that quantity in thermodynamics that don’t give a shait for your ranting and just follows the laws of physics.
Entire books could be written on why climate ‘models’ are complete horsesh1t
You could fill a whole library
Not only are they fundamentally flawed in the way they mishandle and/or guess many physico-chemical processes, they don’t even solve properly the better understood parts like the turbulent flow problem (fluid momentum) coupling to the heat and mass balances
You can’t solve it properly, you’d need a computer the size of the earth just to mesh it, even with crude approximations like Reynolds averaging
Hence the bs coarse gaining used, control volumes patched together with various fluxes matched at the boundaries, presumably
They make all sorts of assumptions about phase changes, whether it’s adsoption and absorption processes or evaporation – we don’t understand cloud formation properly so how exactly is it being ‘modelled’ in a turbulent environment?
OK, let’s put all that and the horrendously complicated geometry aside
What you have is an devilishly complicated but still extremely crude stochastic dynamical system
The randomness I imagine comes from all sorts of sources, and it is highly unlikely that we understand any of them enough to include them in any model
So more crude guesses and approximations
Then this is an evolution problem. Even if we assume that the model is the “ground truth”, ie totally correct, simulating 100 years will accumulate so much error at each time step no matter how small it is chosen that the result will be garbage
Now that is for a system that doesn’t really do much. In this case it is unimaginably complex, with all sorts of dynamic equilibria and multi scale processes occurring at vastly different spatial and temporal scales
So to add to your woes you have undoubtedly a stiff system. Good luck trying to solve it accurately
The uncertainty you have in one process alone is enough to render the results unreliable
Here you have probably thousands of such processes if not more
They have the audacity to call all these model outputs an ensemble
This shows their utter ignorance of random processes and time series or sequence prediction problem and methods
What they have are time series from different models, not from the sane process in other words
These are individually partial sample paths from different processes
These are thoughts just off the top of my head. If I were to look closely, I could write you a library’s worth of the sheer stupidity of these people and their models
Excellent! And it’s not just the models. At base level there are problems w elemental physics, especially in relation to the atmosphere. The whole Planck/ Boltzman blackbody and radiation structure is dubious or at least problematic, mainly because of its assumed endstate and equilibrium, ie NOT the atmosphere. That alone should give any scientist cause for pauze io putting forward highly uncertain equations and claim reliability. That uncertainty principle cannot be overcome by more data and more powerful computers. And that is fine!
The only troublesome thing is the climate alarmism and the insistence of The Science.
Planck especially and SB are able to set a base of what occurs under ideal conditions. Of course, equilibrium and perhaps steady state along with homogeneous and isotropic bodies are some of the assumptions they both require if one reads and studies their works.
If one doesn’t understand heat transfer under the very succinct assumptions as shown by these two iconic scientists, then one will never be able to properly write proper gradients to handle more complicated phenomena.
Planck’s treatment of entropy should be required reading.
How appropriate that the NCAA basketball tournaments are underway. Did Coach Alarmo send you in from the end of the bench to commit the ‘intentional’?
Was this supposed to be a witty riposte?
I’m surprised you dare show up on this site after being exposed several times as a liar.
??? I have never been exposed as a liar. BTW the reason I’m not showing up is related to work. The secondary reason is that the WUWT-bsing has deteriorated in quality. Nowadays WUWT can’t even come up with some entertaining pseudo-science. Very likely climate change is too obvious. So this is why AI and whining about Green what they do, and this is just fokkin boring.
“this is just fokkin boring.”
Yes you are.!
And you bring absolutely zero scientific truth with you.
You claimed that the Greenland Vikings were unable to grow barley. I then posted a paper which reported the discovery of barley there:
https://www.sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vikings-grew-barley-in-greenland/1447746
You can’t have a rational discussion with irrational people.
Evidence will never shake one’s religious beliefs.
I didn’t claim that. I claimed this wasn’t their main method of subsistence. There might’ve been marginal methods. By and large, it was fishing and domesticated animals. And I remember, you were unable understand this that time. Furthermore, I remember, the article was at most indirect evidence (locally threshed barley). And anyway, we have a kinda good picture of their diet from the analysis of bones, and that showed the expected high animal/fish/sea mammal percentage.
Keep lying..
Climate is the statistics of weather observations. Numbers that change. Obvious.
Are you ignorant or just stupid?
Go on, tell me that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter. I don’t mind having a laugh at your expense.
If you have a tube with clear ends containing air with 400 ppm and shine a heat lamp through the tube to an IR camera having about the power of afternoon sunlight, say 1000 W/M^2. Then repeat the readings with double the CO2 concentration, the IR camera will show less IR getting through, so presumably the additional CO2 has caused the air in the tube to warm slightly, if one believes in conservation of energy. However the effect of a heat lamp as strong as the sun through a tube long enough to be equivalent to 10000kg of air (about 10 Km), is only about 3 watts of “forcing”…..so is too small to measure compared to convection changes on the surface temperature of your tube due to random air currents alone.
So MF is wrong….the CO2 heats the air….actually it’s the IR…
So MF is right…..you’re going to measure zero with your inaccurate test gear.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. Waffling about the contents of your imagination is not an experiment.
I’ll point out that no matter how much CO2 is in the air, the sun cannot make the atmosphere hotter than the ground.
You might not accept that the surface has cooled in spite of four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, but it has.
No GHE – not that you can even produce a consistent and unambiguous description of such an impossible thing.
Bad luck – you lose again. Better luck next time.
Only a very silly person thinks that an enclosed short glass tube represents the atmosphere in any way, shape or form. !
Incremental CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever, certainly not one that can be measured.
It does, in part, represent a greenhouse.
Less IR at the sensor?
Ever consider the possibility of scattering and the glass tube gets the scattered IR?
Analysis of alternatives.
FUI, I’ve worked with electro optic IR sensor technology.
Apparently…both.
Wow. The delusion is strong in you isn’t it?
There is no possibility of detecting climate ”change” within the period of several centuries. So far we can only claim to have observed weather fluctuations within the climate system – which is ill understood. You are a confirmed idiot demonstrating severe Dunning Kruger tendencies.
Well, this is not what science says, and if science says something you’d better listen. Furthermore, my own eyes tell me the same. Winter was a thing in the late 70s, early 80s when I was a kid. Nowadays it’s a joke. In 40 years. Not several centuries. And it’s accelerating.
“is adventuring outside her actual competence.”
Look in the mirror .. Everything to do with climate is outside your competence.
Peter Ridd is actually a real scientist with the ability to understand actual science and how it is supposed to work.
You are very obviously… NOT. !
And what’s your actual competence?
I have never seen nyci show any level of competence… at anything.
MSc EE.
You should sue to get your money back.
Oh, so you paid for your degree? Or you downright bought it? Do you have a degree at all?
Anyway, the part of the world where I live believes in free education (up to tertiary level), and ironically it means not just that I didn’t have to pay, I actually got money ‘cos I got a scholarship ‘cos I was so fokkin good. And before you start any bsing, education was excellent that time. Nowadays it’s perceptibly deteriorating.
Re: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT I think everyone does already know “that” … it persists only because the liars continue to push the narrative over and over and over. And why do they do that. Ans. because that is the only story they can tell. It is B.S. Climate does not have a steady state, it is continuous flux, so pushing a story line that depends on steady state cause – effect models is their only answer and it doesn’t work doesn’t fit the real world.
Wow, Peter Ridd is really nailing it here. He mentioned “…the depth of corruption across the fields…” (of research) – now there is a bold statement. Maybe he’s not wrong.
Sabine Hossenfelder gets a tiny bit of credit for pointing out the anomaly vs. absolute temperature issue with the models. But this is not new. This has been pointed out often here at WUWT – I think by Rud Istvan if I recall correctly, and perhaps by others. She needs to finally realize that the decades of well-paying climate modeling have been an utterly circular exercise, and that this was apparent all along. She needs to complete her thought process. Has there ever been a good physical reason to suppose incremental CO2 is capable of driving any trend of any metric of climate interest to a bad outcome? No.
“the depth of corruption across the fields”
From medicine to archaeology, you name it, the rot is there if you care to look.
ancient human remains should no longer be classified as either male or female. Apparently, this is because we do not know how these people would have identified themselves.
…
Some academics have even started to explicitly label ancient human skeletons as ‘nonbinary’ or ‘gender neutral’.
This attempt to stop the sex identification of skeletal remains, dating hundreds or even thousands of years old, probably sounds like a slightly absurd academic squabble – of concern only to archaeologists and anthropologists. But it has far-reaching implications.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/10/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-nonbinary-skeleton/#google_vignette
Leftwing craziness goes deep.
They are rewriting history….
They’re ERASING history; they are writing fiction!
How Orwellian. Just like most of what they do.
I wonder if there were any trans Neanderthals?
Was King Kong really Queen Kong?
Queing Kong?
I’m sure LibsOfTikTok shows clips of them frequently Joseph.
If they were all trans, maybe that’s why the Neanderthals died out?
Pretty sure that even the Neanderthals realised there are only two genders !!
“This attempt to stop the sex identification of skeletal remains, dating hundreds or even thousands of years old, probably sounds like a slightly absurd academic squabble – of concern only to archaeologists and anthropologists. But it has far-reaching implications.”
The skeletal remains of a murder victim are found.
Police can’t identify the victim because they are not allowed to say whether it was a male or female.
David, increased GHGs should result in lower maxima, and higher minima. This seems to be supported by both extremes of maxima and minima occurring where GHGs are least.
Prof John Tyndall came to the same conclusion over 150 years ago, and carried out a series of meticulous experiments to see if his speculation appeared correct. Scientific knowledge has advanced since Tyndall’s day, but supports Tyndall’s original speculations.
Interestingly, Tyndall’s measurements, with equipment that might be considered primitive by some, about the percentage of insolation actually reaching the surface, are in remarkably close agreement with current (eg. NASA) estimates, using very expensive state-of-the-art instrumentation.
Here’s a snippet from the US Bureau of Standards, circa 1908 –
“. . . thus detect a rise in temperature of, say, one ten-millionth degree,. . . “.
In Tyndall’s time, the accuracy was less – maybe one fifty thousandth of a degree. LIG thermometer, the basis of most “climate” observations – about 50,000 times less accurate!
As Tyndall demonstrated by experiment, adding CO2 or H2O gas to air does not make it hotter. No GHE.
Not quite true. The GHE effect does exist, it just isn’t increasing. IOW, the GHE has reached its maximum strength.
I tend to agree with Richard M. If one considers a column of air in radiation equilibrium with dry ground emitting infrared radiation as a blackbody, with CO2 and water vapor absorbing according to their IR spectra, then:
1) Increasing the CO2 concentration at constant water vapor concentration only increases air temperature in a very low layer, usually within 5 meters from the ground.
2) Increasing the CO2 concentration at constant water vapor concentration actually decreases air temperature very slightly at higher altitudes more than 5 meters above the ground. This is due to the “saturation effect” where most of the available radiation is absorbed close to the ground.
3) The warming effect of increasing CO2 concentrations is greatest in cold and/or dry climates, and least in warm, humid climates, due to increased interference from water vapor in the latter.
4) These trends would lead to minimal warming in the tropics, and greater warming near the poles over land. In temperate climates, this would lead to milder winters, but very little change in summer climates (no increase in heat waves). The warming effect over oceans would be very low, due to the high specific heat and heat of vaporization of water.
5) This equilibrium radiation model leads to low values of the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (surface temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentration), ranging from about 0.4 C/doubling in the tropics to about 0.9 C/doubling at high latitudes, which is much lower than the ECS values claimed by the IPCC.
This is a simplified model, since a column of air is rarely in radiation equilibrium, and an increase in temperature near the ground would induce vertical convection which would tend to smooth out the vertical temperature profile.
But this model shows that, from the point of view of IR absorption alone, the increase in CO2 concentrations since 1900 would only account for about 0.2 C in temperature rise, as compared to the 1.1 C observed.
Most of the observed temperature rise must be attributed to natural forces over which humans have no control, and to the “urban heat island” effect of heat leaks from buildings to the outside air in heavily populated areas, where many temperature monitoring stations are located.
Planck doesnt count so Boltzmann doesnt matter. Maybe Bose..
No it doesn’t. Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air does not make it hotter.
Impossible. The “column of air” would have to be at the same temperature as the “dry ground”. Unfortunately, the laws of physics decree that the air further away from the “dry ground” is both more rarefied and receiving less radiation from the ground.
You may disregard the inverse square law, but it still exists. The atmosphere must be cooler than the ground, if its only source of heat is the ground.
Sorry, but adding CO2 to air adds no heat. No change at all to temperature.
An assumption based on attribution..
Yes it is, unless you can provide reproducible experiments to support your statement.
No. In fact, the reverse – that CO2 has *NO* “climate driving power” is what empirical observations support.
The Earth could not have had a full-blown glaciation with roughly TEN TIMES today’s atmospheric CO2 levels if CO2 was a meaningful “driver” of temperature, nor would atmospheric CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature changes, over and over and over, with NEGATIVE CORRELATION at every inflection point, if a “CO2 drives temperature” relationship existed.
All they had to kick off this mass hysteria was hypothetical bullshit. And all they have today remains hypothetical bullshit. “Climate models” are GIGO, because they all assume the hypothetical bullshit to be fact, and assume the hypothetical effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 operates WITHOUT its necessary, foundational assumption, “all other things held equal,” being applicable.
I have no time for this woman.
She’s brave enough to state the obvious when it comes to string theory, which was obviously bullsh1t from the beginning
But that’s because nobody really cares about general relativity, there are no powerful interests at play, just a few egos
Climate science is different. She can’t continue to make money on YouTube and elsewhere as a science truth sayer if she ‘denies climate science’
At least this is the calculation she has made in her mind
So what does she do? The worst of all worlds she convinces herself that it must be true
This is despite realising how big lies can spread in science very easily and take on a life of their own with an establishment resistant to changing the status quo because it will lead to humiliation and loss of funding
She’s a coward. And she’s dumb
Give her a break….from unhappy academic to very successful YouTuber with a staff of a couple of dozen who try to come up with clickbait science junk for their star to sound knowledgeable and either enthusiastic or skeptical about….a couple of times a week .….
And I would say her climate clickbaiter bits don’t really show she’s applied her physics background very deeply with some Stephan Boltzmann calcs that should be right up a physicist’s alley….instead relies on her buddy Tim Palmer for climate furnace stoking-of-the-month…..
Honestly, when I first saw her I thought she was OK
Then I watched one of her videos on climate science. It was all over the place, tying herself up in knots
Since then, I’ve lost all respect for her, she’s a grifter
That was my impression too, I got the feeling her grasp of the subject matter was superficial at best. And her always present dismissive snark worn thin fast.
ditto !
ALL science is being corrupted by the current “publish or perish” system! Even geology is being infected with the woke mind virus of DEI, and geology studies are normally rock solid!
DEI – Diversity, Equality and Inclusion – is not correct. It is
Diversity, Inclusion and Equality… DIE.
Minor correction, strat, E stands for “equity”, not “equality” – and equity is nothing like equality.
You’re entirely correct in your reorganization of the acronym, strat; any culture that adheres to diversity, inclusion, and equity as their lodestar will certainly DIE!
It’s less publish or perish than it is chasing money
In most of the developed world, the focus is 90% on funding, at least in science
In places like Singapore and China (including Hong Kong) the focus has also shifted to funding, partly because the universities don’t trust their own academics not to use all sorts of underhanded tactics to slime their way into even top journals
There’s still some kudos in publishing in journals like Nature, but it’s limited (mostly a one off financial reward in China, but the government is clamping down on this)
You can get promoted with lots of funding but a mediocre publication record
It’s very difficult to get promoted with a stellar publication record and mediocre funding record, at least in the ‘big lab’ areas
Some places may want both, but they will almost always compromise if you have tons of funding
The extreme case is the UK. They couldn’t care less about publications except when the REF comes along every 6 years or so, when they pay some attention to it in their inimitable UK way, ie unsystematic, hand waving, use metrics but don’t use them, extra points for females because, self judging of 4 representative outputs (yes, 4 in 5/6 years)
Basically, as far as the universities are concerned, you can wipe your ar5e with publications, money talks and bullsh1t walks
Publications are most important to PhD students and postdocs, who need them to get permanent positions
Even then, universities will look at all sorts of things, many of which have nothing to do with publications, including potential to get funding, some critical gap in teaching, Alma mater fit into the department, and of course personal ties to people involved in the hiring process as well as blind luck
Sometimes (especially in the UK) too many publications are a bad thing. People are often rightly suspicious of postdocs and even fresh PhD grads with big numbers of publications, especially those from China
At more senior levels of hiring, they are often reluctant to hire people with strong records because they may end up embarrassing all the dead wood (approx 90% of the department, frequently including the head of Department) if they publish too much
There is a further aspect that perhaps even Peter Ridd hasn’t realised. The lovely looking mean curve is in fact just the input “forcings” being converted to temperature and “passed through” each model to the output. They are the prior. Before being compared to the observed anomaly curve each model has two further free parameters to adjust it: it is scaled and shifted to create an anomaly for each model that has a mean and variance matching the observations.
Once you do that and then average the result what you get back is simply the input prior. The climate models are basically:
Mean output = input model + noise
The noise from each model cancels out.
This is why Pat Frank (and I thin WE) have noted you can recreate the mean model output very closely by a calibrated linear regression from the input forcings. I have done the same in the past.
The climate models are not adding anything of value as far as I can see.
You’re right, they’re not adding value because they don’t properly account for solar activity, or the Earth’s long-term response to that activity resulting from both heat-capacity of the oceans and heat-transport delay. Climate is largely driven by the Jovian planets. This can be seen in ice-core temperature reconstructions, and in sunspot data.
Here, the GISP2 ice-core spectrum is compared to the spectrum of the Sun’s acceleration around the barycenter; velocity works too. The 900-year cycle dominates, with Neptune and Uranus (or Neptune 2nd harmonic) playing a significant role, and of course 60-70 years is a common climate cycle (e.g. AMO/PDO). Best estimation so far is that the 900-year cycle peaks around 2150.
Note that while the 99-year moving average shown here is a very simple operation, the operation of this filter is significantly more complicated than it appears.
Interesting…shows possible present day deviation….We’ll check how it compares in 2035
O/T On the subject of things [more than] dodgy….
“MoD and GCHQ Declare Diversity & Inclusion “Strategic Priority” for National Cyber Attack Force
National Cyber Force is filling up its ranks ahead of a big launch later in the year at Samlesbury, near Preston. A joint MoD and GCHQ operation, the Cyber Force is a unified command intended to develop offensive cyber response capabilities, e.g. “keeping UK military aircraft safe from targeting by hostile weapons systems.” But can it do so inclusively?
The NCF is also responsible for “countering threats from terrorists, criminals and states using the internet to operate across borders in order to do harm to the UK and other democratic societies.”
It is now bolstering its ranks with a “Transformation Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Lead” to help deliver the Force’s “EDI and Culture Strategy,” which is apparently a “strategic priority.” The £36,530 hire will be responsible for “planning and execution of annual internal and external Inclusion events” and “representing the partnership at EDI boards, focus groups and communities of practice.“ Bad news for terrorists across the globe…
The spooks warn: “Emotional Intelligence will be critical to understanding and showing empathy for the challenges our people face” and the individual will have to be “passionate about building an inclusive culture for all.” Foreign states’ cyber operations will be quaking in their boots…
https://order-order.com/2025/03/26/mod-and-gchq-declare-diversity-inclusion-strategic-priority-for-national-cyber-attack-force/
Why don’t they call it DIE? Too obvious?
She said it could be hotter.
She omitted that it could also be colder.
Uncertainty.
Yes, that was kinda funny:” it could be much worse”( meaning higher temperatures). Because of the flaws w modeling.
And indeed, much less warming seems not to be an option. A glaring omission ANY scientist or logical person would spot.
But not Sabine, the Scientist.
Now, what does THAT say about her?
Retorical question..🙂
Averaging temperatures, as is done in those bogus flat earth energy imbalance graphics, does not cut it.
Simple test. Use a black body calculator:
Calculate the W/m^2 for 25C
Calculate the W/m^2 for 15C
Calculate the W/m^2 for 5C
Average the 25C and 5C answers and compare to 15C.
They do not match.
Why? T^4
Precisely… That is why flat Earth, 1/4 Sun’s radiance calculation are meaningless.
The Earth is rotating and the radiance of the Sun hits the outer edges of the disc facing the Sun at near tangent, having near zero warming effect.
The radiance may average to 1/4, but the EFFECT of the radiance most certainly doesn’t.
Scientists wouldn’t catastrophise everything in order to rattle the tax bucket would they?
‘Shocking’ mass bleaching drains life from Australian reef
She just needs to learn how to use the Climate Realist Force. She’ll get there eventually.
I watched one of her videos a while ago, and wondered how long it would take to start questioning CAGW “Science”. She seemed reasonable, and open to reality, and apparently may be on path towards enlightenment. One can only hope.
Sabine is just discovering what many have discussed here at WUWT for years. I’ve commented about climate models on several of her videos, and provided links. They never seemed to make an impression.
And she doesn’t state how it is that climate modelers can neglect the problem of widely varying, model-dependent, absolute temperatures.
They call the differences “base-state errors,” and claim that taking differences subtracts the errors away.
They insist all the errors are constant across a simulation of future climate states. Subtract the base-state simulation from the others, and the errors all just disappear. The anomalies are then perfectly indicative of future trends.
It’s a mind-numbingly stupid idea. But one that is absolutely universal among climate modelers.
There’s lots of huffery about climate modeling being a boundary-value problem not an initial value problem, too. But every single iterative step in a projected simulation begins with an erroneous climate energy-state. The initial value problem perfuses a projection and is a built-in feature of climate modeling.
They all seem to suffer from hubris, don’t they? Some might even be afflicted with delusional psychosis, claiming unawarded Nobel,Prizes, refusing to comply with court orders, and so on.
It’s a good start, I’m happy with it.
Thanks to Peter’s scientifically illiterate stemwinders, a lot of people now know that he’s a far gone climate crank even by WUWT’s generous standards.
Yet you cannot counter a single thing he said.
Everything Peter Ridd said is based on what is REAL, backed by facts and data.
You, on the other hand, have no facts, no data, and are utterly clueless, and have below zero scientific credibility.
Thanks to Peter’s scientifically illiterate stemwinders,
You are one of those incredibly witless fools who believes that adding CO2 to air makes i5 hotter, are you?
Who would value the opinion of a scientifically illiterate stemwinder?
Not me, that’s for sure.
Although not a scientist per se, rather a self employed, consultant engineer, I was teaching second and final tear engineering students in my field part time at a university some time back.
One day I was asked by my boss (professor) what work was I doing as he knew I had used some of the university’s top shelf software commercially (which was the trigger for his question). I gave him a brief run down on the more technically interesting stuff I had been doing and he said “Oh, there is at least two LPU’s in that”. “What is an LPU?” I ssked (in my ignorance) – “Least Publishable Unit” he replied. i.e. paper gets published, the writer gets travel and accomodation expenses to present it at some conference and the institution gets a certain sum of money, a few thousand I gather although this was 25 + years ago so who knows how much now. He got brownie points per such paper his department produced.
LPU = academic barrel of oil / tonne of ore.
All was revealed. It did not help my instinctive cynicism.
All corruption in politics, scientific, social worlds should be called out.