by Judith Curry
“Is the road to scientific hell paved with good intentions?” – political psychologist Philip Tetlock (1994)
Part I in this series addressed logical fallacies. Part II addressed biases associated with a consensus building process. Part II addresses the role of social conflicts and biases.
Additional biases are triggered by social conflict between an individual’s responsibility for responsible conduct of research, and the larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment. Further, social biases are triggered by careerist goals, loyalty to one’s colleagues and institutional loyalties.
Scientists have the responsibility of adhering to the principles of ethical research and professional standards. But what happens when other responsibilities get in the way of these professional standards? These might include responsibilities to their conscience, their colleagues, institutions, the public and/or the environment. One can imagine many different conflicts across this range of responsibilities that that can bias the scientific process. As an example, scientists that have been heavily involved with the IPCC may be concerned with preserving the importance of the IPCC and its consensus, which has become central to their professional success, funding and influence.
Arguably the most important of these are conflicts between the responsible conduct of research and larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment. Fuller and Mosher’s book Climategate: The CruTape Letters argued that ‘noble cause corruption’ was a primary motivation behind the Climategate deceits. Noble cause corruption is when the ends of protecting the climate (noble) justify the means of sabotaging your scientific opponents (ignoble).
Psychologist Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia claims that the most common and problematic bias in science is ‘motivated reasoning’. People that have a ‘dog in the fight’ (reputational, financial, ideological, political) interpret observations to fit a particular idea that supports their particular ‘dog.’ The term ‘motivated reasoning’ is usually reserved for political motivations, but preserving their reputation or funding is also a strong motivator among scientists.
The embedding of political values into science occurs when value statements or ideological claims are wrongly treated as objective truth. Scientists have a range of attitudes about the environment; the problem occurs because there is the presumption that one set of attitudes is right and those who disagree are in denial. This results in conversion of a widely shared political ideology about climate change into ‘reality.’
Confirmation bias can become even stronger when people confront questions that trigger moral emotions and concerns about group identity. People’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth – creating what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls a ‘tribal-moral community’ with its own sacred values about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo. Such biases can lead to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions.
Psychologists Cusiman and Lombrozo found that people facing a dilemma between believing an impartial assessment of the evidence and believing what would better fulfill a moral obligation, people often believe in line with the latter. Cuisman and Lombrozo found that morally good beliefs demand less evidence than morally bad beliefs. They also found that people sometimes treat the moral value of a belief as an independent justification for belief.
Motivated biases become particularly problematic once these biases are institutionalized, with advocacy statements made by professional societies, editorials written by journal editors, and public statements by the IPCC leadership.
Thank you
Another thank you for posting this information. I have spent my 49 year career as a geophysicist studying how climate changes and the rise and fall of Co2, humans not required. Cross plot Co2 and temperature and you will find you have a goodness of fit of less than one percent.
If you examine the plots you find that the temperature controls the CO2 with a delay of about 800 years. CO2 does not determine temperature.
CO2 is controlled by greening of the planet’s vegetation, those annual bumps in the Keeling curve, and long term outgassing and absorption of CO2 by the ocean, of about 12 ppm per degree, not to mention volcanic outgassing over geologic time, and the formation of limestone by coccolithophores. The additional anthropogenic input is something recent, but not necessarily as detrimental as the precautionary principle folks espouse. It is likely that a balance will be achieved in the natural carbon cycle about the same time as our fossil fuels run out.
Agreed
Gekeyser comment – “Cross plot Co2 and temperature and you will find you have a goodness of fit of less than one percent.”
A typical skeptics comment is that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years. Gekeyser – can you provide your insight as a geophysicist to that comment. (my personal observation is that 800 year lag is as a practical matter, meaningless, with the caveat, that I am not a scientists)
thanks for any insight
It’s not a “typical skeptic’s comment” it is published research. IIRC the lag of CO2 behind temperature from ice core records was found to be 800y +/- 600y. ie even within the uncertainty range it was decidedly temp leading CO2.
It is difficult to argue that CO2 is causing temperature change retrospectively. It is possible that it is reinforcing the change ( acting as a positive feedback ) but it can not be the cause.
I can’t recall the paper but it should not be hard to find.
“and you will find you have a goodness of fit of less than one percent.”
The appallingly unscientific term “goodness of fit” is not usually measured in percent , what exactly are you referring to?
Also in looking for such a relationship you will need to do a lagged cross-correlation and find the delay which shows the strongest correlation. That will tell you the degree of correlation and give you come indication of the direction of causality.
Since you seem familiar with this kind of analysis, maybe you’d like to try and let us know what you find.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
GEKeyser:
Link?
The methodology of real science shows how to put AGW theory to the test –i.e., if you can reject the null hypothesis of AGW, you may have a valid theory; and, if you can’t reject the null hypothesis – that all global warming is natural – you don’t have a valid theory.
Why would you choose that particular null hypothesis and how would you falsify it?
Why is there an implicit assumption that “scientists” are better than the rest of the population? Seems to me the issue is primarily integrity, or lack there of. Strikes me universities tend to foster an image of moral superiority when reality points in a different direction, with hypocrisy being more or less rampant. The simple concepts of honor and integrity are viewed as outdated.
True, true Does anyone not believe academia is an ally of a Leftist government bureaucracy against business and capitalism, Judeo/Christian traditions, morals, ethics… to forward a secular, socialist agenda of Eurocommunism in America?
https://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/passing-through-the-fire-how-the-left-politicized-weather/
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” [Feynman]
A good scientist is not afraid of a label “contrarian”.
“A good scientist is not afraid of a label “contrarian”.
However, when one’s career, ability to support one’s family, numerous friendships and professional relationships, and reputation are attacked, this becomes harder to do. It leads to self-censorship.
“the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”
You mean, why didn’t I choose, ‘aliens cause global warming’? Because, Michael Crichton already did that…
Yes, totally agree.
I was driven out of the Queensland (so-called) Public Service because, I was told by a high-level supporter, the higher echelons felt threatened by my “honesty, integrity, intellectual capacity and analytical rigour.” My analyses made it more difficult for them to provide what politically-motivated Ministers wanted when they knew that it was severely flawed or total nonsense. Too many “public servants” are primarily self-serving. This is clearly true of many academics and scientists, at least in some disciplines.
“The Emperor has no clothes” is not a safe thing to say in today’s world.
Wholeheartedly agree with you Mike Keller. When academics ceased doing their jobs properly and decided going with the flow gave them greater security they sold their souls to the devil.
A return to personal integrity and honesty would decimate most of the false prophets the MSM worship in a relatively short time but not without much personal pain for those who make the wise choice. It is better to have a clear conscience than a lot of money, IMHO.
Hi Mike,
All depends on the scientist. The great Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson famously said “Above all I must remember that I might be wrong”. I take an even simpler approach on this topic, though and I think Robert Ellison agrees in principle. There are many ideas essential if mainstream climate theory is correct (e.g. less waste, restoring fish stocks, combining conservation with careful usage, reducing the impact per head and/or numbers of conventional livestock) that make perfect sense if the whole business were a damp squib, temperatures fell (e.g. after a major volcanic eruption), weather became less predictable or if a major food crop failed. What the is wrong with adopting such win-win policies instead of spending decades bickering about who is right?
Thank you for this, and all you do. Scientific objectivity is a hard thing for human beings to do, for precisely the reason that to be a proper scientist you have to cultivate the unhuman. You have to bracket out all fellow feeling, sympathy, empathy, and leave the cerebral in charge of your thoughts.
And this is why we have so much pseudo-science dictating us these days, whether it be the environment (the world) or health (the body). It is all infested with the human, with the drive and desire for something other than a pure scientific voyage. Typically, the sterile term for this is ‘confirmation bias,’ but that is just a term referring to the fact that it is, indeed, a human being which is coming to a conclusion about quite complicated matters.
But we need the objectivity of the scientist; you are all providing critical information about the world. Thus, we need a renewed emphasis on the ethics of research that highlights a strong sense of personal responsibility and honesty of the researcher as being central to the enterprise – over, above, and prior to any questions of methodology and the like.
> Part I in this series addressed logical fallacies
I love the syntax. “Now that I’ve addressed how logical fallicies explain why my opinions aren’t biased but theirs are… let’s move on…”
> Additional biases are triggered by social conflict between an individual’s responsibility for responsible conduct of research, and the larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment. Further, social biases are triggered by careerist goals, loyalty to one’s colleagues and institutional loyalties.
… and so now moving on…. let’s look at how I can lay out a taxonomy of biases (each incredibly complex in their own right) so as to demonstrate how they are affected by biases but we are not.
See – how they are careerists! It’s incredible how we can draw a line to show how incentives on that side of the divide are so different from incentives on this side of the divide. Objectively speaking, of course.
I don’t think that Judy is saying that she isn’t susceptible to the same influences that affect others. But she worries about them and helps us see them. Thanks, Judith.
> I don’t think that Judy is saying that she isn’t susceptible to the same influences that affect others.
Maybe you can point me to where Judith has discussed how her own ilvol emenr in these discussions my might reflect her own biases? I must have missed it.
If the easiest person for you to fool is yourself, perhaps one way to contribute to good faith exchange is to at least sometimes engage in discussions about how these biases play out on both sides of the issues. Constantly reinforcing the “them” versus “us” application of theoretical cognitive biases is more than likely just going to perpetuate same old same old.
Er… “… how her own involvement might reflect her own….”
“I must have missed it.”
You obviously didn’t spend much time looking. You could try watching some of the senate hearings where she is always very careful to state the level of uncertainty surrounding any evidence she gives, in an honest and objective way. This looks kind of weak and uncertain when pitted against an insulting lying propagandist like Micky Mann, but she has an ethical bias to be scientifically objective and not to exaggerate certainty to attempt to win an argument or improperly convince those seeking scientific evidence.
“First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye”
You posting about biases of others is the height of irony.
Actually, Mosher and me pretty much borrowed Noble Cause Corruption wholesale from a certain Canadian mining engineer, who is deservedly more famous than either of us.
The Auditor ain’t an engineer tho. He’s more of a penny stock prospectus writer with an old PPE diploma who decided to lawyerly dig for gold in the mining Mecca instead of getting a sinecure.
Tom Fuller –
I have often referred to your article on the great California flood of 1861-62, which followed 20 years of drought.
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/climate-change-1861-style/
Are you blogging again?
Pingback: How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases – Climate- Science.press
Judith—TYPO: You meant to use “III” in:
“Part II addresses the role of social conflicts and biases.”
Full disclosure; I am not a scientist but I completed grad school and feel that having been reared in the farmlands of the southern US provides me an advantageous position look beyond myself and listen to the the conversation with pause and reflection on my perceived truths. In a nutshell, I haven’t surrendered my right or ability to think. My beliefs are that climate change like Covid 19 is a tool to overwhelm the populations ability to cope for an elitist clan to achieve political advantage over the little guys. Politicians and media propagandists have turned both Covid (which has a survival rate of over 97% for the most vulnerable when treated with therapeutics) and climate change into demons lurking in the shadows awaiting an opportunity to devour all of mankind.
Sea level rise is interesting because in my common sense understanding is water runs and pools in the lowest point in a container of any type or shape. Water is self leveling. In this large container we call Earth the seas rise and fall with the tides resulting from lunar gravitational effect. It defies logic to think that climate change can have a cataclysmic local effect on one particular place without other factors being involved. Our politicians and media sources will not tell the people the “truth” They make a living out of often telling us things that are true but not necessarily the “TRUTH”.
Those SCIENTISTS, who have integrity and pride themselves upon presenting and packaging the TRUTH, really have no chance in overcoming the political narrative. I say this because liberal academia are no longer purveyors of scientific and philosophical knowledge but pawns on the political chess board in search of paydays in the form of grants. An old farm euphemism I learned as a child is, ” the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. These less than honorable academicians are conditioned to side with a political viewpoint that aligns with their personal bias and in turn clone themselves in the seasonal graduation commencement exercises. To understand how Mr. and Mrs. Jones understand and react to the news that Prof Curry and others might have a viewpoint that is not contrary to the narrative but inclusive of other variables to fuller explain and deliver TRUTH are ridiculed as deniers. Prof. Curry and her contemporaries are relegated to the status of that voice crying out from the wilderness. To fully understand why, we need to revisit Platos Allegory of the Cave.
https://youtu.be/1RWOpQXTltA
Scientists don’t do TRUTH, they do evidence.
If you want TRUTH, go to a politician, a priest or an oil company lobbyist.
Well said and somewhat true. Truth stands alone in the perceived reality of each. History will bear out who is right in the climate discussion. Until then we are all correct? See Schrodinger’s Cat.
https://youtu.be/UjaAxUO6-Uw
Science is often a nightmare if done properly because it attempts to tear ideas we believe or we’d like to be true (often religious or morally based, or simply any belief that life is or should be somehow “fair”) to shreds – and “we” may include scientists themselves. My reply to Mike Keller may interest you though.
Thomas Sowell — ‘It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.’
w.
> It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
Thomas could not have been more critical of his whole career.
I wonder who else Willis thinks that aphorism might apply to (other than Thomas, that is)?
Sounds like John Holdren … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSSOnJgPpY
There is still hope, John.
All you need to do is put your mind to it:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_titley_how_the_military_fights_climate_change
Rival navies in places like Russia and China are probably laughing their asses off that our navy would give any responsibility to a self important virtue signaling blather spewer like David Titley. He ought to be court marshalled for vapidness.
Good luck with that, Mike!
Thank you, Willis.
So the civil war in Syria was nothing to do US funding, training and equipping SFA and any other jihadists they could find to seed and uprising, or is that just one factor he forgot to mention while pretending it was “climate”.
“You spread doubts about vaccines – without a sliver of supporting evidence.”
“Did you read the letter to the EMA signed by 13 scientists and endorsed by about 100 more, or not? You call that “no shred of evidence”? We have no real evidence if their theory is correct or not, and that’s the point.
[https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comment-948095]”
That’s our problem. For me a supporting evidence is a report of blood clotting associated with a vaccine. For the other guy, it is a signed letter counseling caution.
J&J blood clots: 1 per million. Normal incidence in the population: 5 or so per million. Yeah, let’s stop giving J&J because it’s preventing blood clots. Bureaucracy Uber alles!
J&J blood clots take place with thrombocytopenia, which is very rare. In your 5 or so per million normal incidence, is it that kind of event, or the far more common ordinary clotting?
That’s what I was referring to.
From what I’ve seen online (taken with a grain of salt), risk of CVT from COVID much higher than from vaccine, and the risk from other common treatments like birth control is higher also.
If the evidence is this low rate of thrombocytopenia clotting, seen mostly in one particular group, then it is evidence of very low risk. Not zero, but very low.
So what is your point?
Authors should first consider their own personal motivational and confirmation biases before accusing others.
In Judith’s case, it has been interesting to observe the change in her perspective over the years.
Indeed. This is evidence of an open mind, honest pursuit of the truth, and the courage to resist blind conformism when even her career was in the balance. Judith Curry is a hero of science. A rare gem.
I’m quite sure you’d be equally likely to attribute someone going from being a “skeptic” to being concerned about risk from climate change to them being “open-minded.”
Judith’s perspective seems to have evolved as more evidence came to light regarding the poor performance of GCM’S in marching observed conditions.
She saw many in the climate science community continue to use these flawed models to make dire predictions about future conditions.
The democrats and our president have stupidly adopted policy positions based on unscientific conclusions of biased researchers using deeply flawed models, unfit for government policy development.
There are plenty of people who have moved in the other direction as more evidence became available.
I love it when people display cognitive biases as they talk about climate biases.
Show use the plenty of people who can defend the relative inaccuracy of gcm’s matching observed conditions while at the same time claiming the same model is useful for making long term forecasts.
Those people are being unscientific.
Rob –
> Those people are being unscientific.
Thanks for doubling down on showing cognitive bias in a discussion of cognitive bias.
This is so silly. Judith is absolutely correct about GCM’s and their heavy usage in climate science. I’ve explained this many times. Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors. All the patterns of change in the models are not skillful. Further everyone knows it.
dpy
“…I’ve explained this many times. Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental…”
And yet you remain entirely unable to cite a reputable source for this tediously repeated assertion of yours.
VTG –
I think with David Young’s track record, he’s established the credibility to argue by assertion.
Oh, wait…
dpy6629 | April 4, 2021 at 12:46 pm |
You are cherrypicking Josh as is often the case. If you look at the Wiki page on the Swedish epidemic cases and admissions are indeed both rising but deaths were declining throughout March.
VTG, You are not acting in good faith as always. I and Robert E. have cited Palmer and Stevens many times. Can you not read and understand real science? Perhaps your role is that of anonymous internet nonscientist merchant of doubt?
VTG, your memory is bad I fear. Both Robert E. and I have repeated cited Stevens and Palmer. Robert had some extensive quotations to rebut Joshie’s usual cherry picking of a few stray sentences. The alternative is that so many memory lapses may indicate that someone is not acting in good faith.
dpy,
Palmer and Stevens does not remotely support your assertion.
“…Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental…”
No science does.
But as we discovered at length over your herd immunity and other Covid embarrassments, you’re not a person who lets mere facts obstruct your bombast.
Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
They have not succeeded in the development of the statistics of perturbed physics ensembles. Tim Palmer recommends the development of decadal scale probabilistic forecasts using a new generation of Earth system models.
“Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.
Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
I am bored with both soldiers and scouts.
Here’s the previously linked comment in full.
“The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change.” Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens
Tim Palmer has long been an advocate of initialised decadal scale modelling with stochastic parametrization. This yields a family of solutions and the possibility of developing probability distributions of possible future – perhaps a decade at most – states. Beyond that ‘projections’ continue to diverge from reality and become quite pointless.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
Hurrell et al (2009) put it into a real world context.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/12/2009bams2752_1.xml
“As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.” op. cit.
Something for every political crusader with a superficial understanding and a cultural bias to dislike.
dpy, none of that remotely supports your assertion.
You really need to learn some science and drop the political rhetoric.
I deliberately included McWilliams as he made tuning and imprecision counterpoints. I suggest you attain a modicum of familiarity with at least the half dozen references provided. Or it that too much to ask?
I’m glad we all agree that Palmer’s contributions are useful.
That’s a starting point:
-snip-
These systematic errors do not invalidate the use of such climate models in providing scientific input into mitigation policy. These models, our best attempts to solve the laws of physics applied to climate, are quite unequivocal in showing that there is a substantial risk of dangerous, even calamitous, climatic impacts arising from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. It is a statement of scientific fact that to reduce this risk will require a reduction of our carbon emissions.
-snip-
“Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer, 2011 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161#RSTA20110161F1
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/94141948-e1c2-4dc4-ac3e-82ca271c2911/rsta20110161f08.jpg
“Schematic of ensemble prediction system on seasonal to decadal time scales based on figure 1, showing (a) the impact of model biases and (b) a changing climate. The uncertainty in the model forecasts arises from both initial condition uncertainty and model uncertainty.”
Comparing, contrasting and synthesizing studies and authoritative perspectives – as opposed to tendentious semantics – is a bridge too far for Josh. Putting the repeated quote from Palmer and Stevens 2019 into an informed context – or even understanding it in a way consistent with the paper itself – is not something he is capable of.
Yes Robert, it is true that Joshie can’t maintain the slightest level of intellectual discipline needed to fairly represent the paper. Probably he hasn’t read it. He reverts to cherry picking out of context motivated by his narrative while reading other people’s minds and saying they are biased. It’s all quite childish.
And thee I thought that agreeing that Palmer has useful contributions to make would be a good starting point.
Bur funny how excepting a paragraph from Palmer excites my friends so much and triggers them so.
Here, watch, let’s see if it happens again:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892275/
Here – maybe they won’t snowflake out so much if I quote this other piece from Palmer and Stevens?: I certainly hope so, poor fellas might blow a fuse or have a stroke oe something after reading that last quote:
Now breathe, fellas. It will all be OK. I promise.
I don’t doubt Tim Palmed at all. He is one of my very favourites. And Josh’s incomprehension and incessant ‘congealed’ politically motivated cant is as usual more tedious than triggering.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948330
Chief –
> And Josh’s incomprehension and incessant ‘congealed’ politically motivated cant is as usual more tedious than triggering.
That’s really great. I can’t comprehend what he’s saying. And you know that how? Because I …
….
…wait for it…
…because I freakin’ QUOTE him.
Please, don’t ever change. You’re just perfect how you are.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948338
Chief –
Here’s what’s funny. I can’t comprehend what’s in the following quotes, but I know that each time I post them you snowflake out an get all nasty.
Take a step back. Breathe. Count your breaths and try to empty your mind.
Ask yourself what it is about the following quotes that triggers you so much…
Are you breathing? Keep breathing. Breathe. Now ask yourself, what is it about the following quote that triggers you?
I provide a context that you ignore or don’t understand. The latter seems more likely given your scientific and mathematical naivety. You are not capable of a dialogue and insist on your pissant progressive cultural bias. And you are habitually rude and nasty about it.
I do not misrepresent doubt. But perhaps you exhibit ‘a reluctance to be too openly critical of our models’.
I am not claiming that ‘model inadequacies’ cast doubt on fundamental physics in Tim Palmer’s very short list of settled science.
Nor do I ‘cast doubt’ on tipping points in the Earth system. That models fail to capture at even the observed decadal scale. The models are ‘quite unequivocal’ in showing the potential for chaos in the climate system – but are not able to reproduce or predict tipping points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VbgzCahx8o
Enough is enough. I have provided multiple references that you fail to acknowledge let alone consider. I do not reproduce incessantly the same passages in a demonstration of cognitive dissonance.
Robert, It is frustrating dealing with Joshie who quotes what he does not understand. And the endless repetition and childish cherry picking and personal obsessions.
Joshie quotes this: “These systematic errors do not invalidate the use of such climate models in providing scientific input into mitigation policy. These models, our best attempts to solve the laws of physics applied to climate, are quite unequivocal in showing that there is a substantial risk of dangerous, even calamitous, climatic impacts arising from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. It is a statement of scientific fact that to reduce this risk will require a reduction of our carbon emissions.”
This in no way contradicts anything either Robert or I have said. Basically energy is conserved so GCM’s get global average temperature increases roughly right over the historical period. But CMIP6 models seem to fail even this test. Energy balance methods also can get global averages roughly correct. This is all Palmer is saying. All the patterns are wrong and those are critical to determining things like ECS, how things will evolve in the future, etc.
I agree with Robert that Joshie has no science or mathematical reasoning abilities and lacks sufficient intellectual focus to actually respond in a way that contributes something. It’s a shame he has nothing else in his life that has higher value.
Snowflake? Moi? FFS. 🤣
> This in no way contradicts anything either Robert or I have said.
Nothing I’ve quoted from Palmer which contradicts anything of Palmer that cmChief has quoted.
And yet for some reason you snowflake out when I quote Palmer.
> This in no way contradicts anything either Robert or I have said.
Nothing Chief has quoted from Palmer contradicts anything of Palmer that I have
quoted.
And yet for some reason you get all squirrely and nasty when I quote Palmer.
I don’t understand your behavior but it’s kind of fun to watch.
I’m dealing with a child. What you quote from Palmer is cherry picked and doesn’t really say much. To find that you need to read the paper in full which I know you have not done. The whole thrust of the paper is that climate models are not really fit to tell us much.
““As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.” op. cit. Palmer and Stevens 2019 – The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change
I’ll repeat this. I’d suggest that Josh pick up his game but he only has one and it’s not worth playing. I go into some detail on what the main game is. ‘Unpaywall’ gets you to a post publication copy of the Earth system model pdf from the Max Planck Institute.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948330
I whole heartedly agree with Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens. As I have said. I have conversed with Tim Palmer. He is such a nice man. This agreement is based on much more than a single paragraph served up repeatedly without acknowledging or considering any other paragraph in a sensible perspective on models from leading edge modellers. There are as well a bakers dozen of other references I provided. I enthusiastically endorse the modelling communities move to a new generation of Earth system models.
I am an environment scientist with a hydrology and biogeochemical cycling speciality. I use tools and knowledge from diverse fields in a multidisciplinary setting. Environmental science is a practical, team based, field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, biology, geomorphology, geophysics, chemistry, economics, environment… It synergistically – the whole is and greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management. The alternative is the politics of despair.
A myopic vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?
“For much of human history, most individuals have lacked economic freedom and opportunity, condemning them to poverty and deprivation.
Today, we live in the most prosperous time in human history. Poverty, sicknesses, and ignorance are receding throughout the world, due in large part to the advance of economic freedom. In 2021, the principles of economic freedom that have fueled this monumental progress are once again measured in the Index of Economic Freedom, an annual guide published by The Heritage Foundation, Washington’s No. 1 think tank.” https://www.heritage.org/index/
Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. A multi-gas and aerosol strategy is a good start – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Technical innovation is the key driver of productivity.
Some of the answer is under our feet. Rattan Lal – himself a scientific treasure – estimates that some 500 Gigatonne of carbon (GtC) has been lost from terrestrial systems. “Soil is like a bank account – we must replace what we have removed.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mbSzIojsRQ
This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, no till farming, replanting, reclaiming deserts. changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. Rattan Lal estimates that 157 ppm of carbon dioxide can be sequestered as carbon in soils and terrestrial ecosystems by 2100 AD.
My ‘world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” SSP 5
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
The future is cyberpunk. The singularity occurs on January 26th 2065 when an automated IKEA factory becomes self-aware and commences converting all global resources to flat pack furniture. Until then – endless innovation on information technology and cybernetics will accelerate and continue to push the limits of what it is to be human and to challenge the adaptability of social structures. New movements, fads, music, designer drugs, cat videos and dance moves will sweep the planet like Mexican waves in the zeitgeist. Materials will be stronger and lighter. Life will be cluttered with holographic TV’s, waterless washing machines, ultrasonic blenders, quantum computers, hover cars and artificially intelligent phones. Annoying phones that cry when you don’t charge them – taking on that role from cars that beep when you don’t put a seat belt on. Space capable flying cars will have seat belts that lock and tension without any intervention of your part. All this will use vastly more energy and materials this century as populations grow and wealth increases. Given the radical increase in energy demand – I suggest that sources of energy be diversified. I am convinced enough that wind and solar have some utility. There are many other technologies on the horizon. I have great hopes for advanced nuclear fission reactors in the near future.
Restoring soils and ecosystems is geoengineering – although not as grandiose as some proposals. Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.
Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration – the 4 per 1000 initiative – coupled with the decade of ecological restoration that started in January – are the foundations for balancing the human ecology.
I think we need need to teach our children ambition and hope – and not despair and apathy. Would Tim agree with me? This is my field and I would happily discuss it with him. I have been rehearsing this rant for decades. Would Josh agree? Likely not but who gives a damn.
Chief –
> I whole heartedly agree with Tim Palmer and Bjorn Stevens.
I never said you didn’t. What’s funny, though, is how you freak out and get all nasty when I post those excerpts.
Even though you’re in agreement with what Palmer (and Stevens) say in them
It’s almost like the most important thing for you about all of this is chest-pounding, and acting all pompous, and name-calling, and making a big deal out of yourself, and taking yourself too seriously, and persuing some obsessive political agenda, and tilting at some imagined enemies, and think of yourself as some sort of keyboard warrior-hero, such that your agreement with what I actually posted never even registers for you, and instead you launch into these odd insult-inspired rants.
As I said way above, our mutual agreement with what’s contained in those excerpts should be a good starting point, but instead it’s just somehow more fuel for you to comsume as you vent anger and pettiness.
Next time just take some time to breathe, and ask yourself why you get do triggered when I post something that you entirely agree with.
Such odd behavior.
Strange behavior indeed.
,
The odd thing is his inability for whatever reason to acknowledge the ‘challenge of understanding and estimating climate change’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o808OnudGRk
‘The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science.’
Does that not scan? It seems the problem is an assumption of moral and intellectual superiority to ‘skeptics’. He is very far from being either. He is perpetually clueless – with views that have congealed into a fixed ideology.
‘The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change.’
The mitigation component – the entire comment in fact – is dismissed as chest beating. And although it’s a bit cyberpunk – I am concerned with the future of our planet, its peoples and its wild places. Does he have a better idea? Or is he just a serial pest?
bitgerguy: “Indeed. This is evidence of an open mind, honest pursuit of the truth, and the courage to resist blind conformism when even her career was in the balance. Judith Curry is a hero of science. A rare gem.” – Absolutely. 100%.
I’ll fix that (I hope) :
7-day moving average of deaths in Sweden.
March 1, twenty deaths per day.
March 31, twenty deaths per day.
Since you didn’t read either paper you can’t determine what the main points were or what is fallacious out of context quote mining, which is something you do often.
Joshua, You are at it again with the fallacious quoting. My comment was dated April 4. It was a true statement when it was made. Citing figures from almost 3 weeks later is a sophist tactic.
None of the insults, odd behaviour, wordy distractions etc deflect from the simple fact that no evidence has been produced to support
“Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors.”
Indeed, all of the papers cited specifically cite the skill of the models.
I suggest raher than make bombastic assertions, try using the practice and language of science.
Start by making a post without an insult in it.
I think you might be in the wrong thread. A model may be tuned to empirical to several empirical measures – the family of plausible solution continue to diverge. But you don’t understand the math or physics and it goes right over your head. You continue to insist on theoretical nonsense based on your inadequate understanding of the literature. Diversion from this is for the best.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/94141948-e1c2-4dc4-ac3e-82ca271c2911/rsta20110161f08.jpg
Figure 8. Schematic of ensemble prediction system on seasonal to decadal time scales based on figure 1, showing (a) the impact of model biases and (b) a changing climate. The uncertainty in the model forecasts arises from both initial condition uncertainty and model uncertainty.
As for complaints of insults and odd behaviour – I have seen your discussions with DPY – and it strikes me as hypocrisy.
> Science existed before models – and observations remain their acid test.
If only scientists could let go of modulz altogether and access reality the way you do, Chief.
Here, I can cite stuff too:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-019-0071-y
Let me see your arms wave!
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948454
There are other ways not to look like a bot than to parrot the same things over and over again, Chief.
However, let me raise you on ML:
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0093
Check the part on spatio-temporal forecasting. There’s a bit that you and David won’t like.
It still amazes me that you’re accusing me of being a tool for AI overlords when you’re the one who’s whining about design choices.
Recognising spatio-temporal chaotic patterns was the point – and the Nature article has a pretty picture.
> Because the old class is crap (Palmer and Stevens, 2019).
-snip-
These systematic errors do not invalidate the use of such climate models in providing scientific input into mitigation policy. These models, our best attempts to solve the laws of physics applied to climate, are quite unequivocal in showing that there is a substantial risk of dangerous, even calamitous, climatic impacts arising from increased levels of atmospheric CO2. It is a statement of scientific fact that to reduce this risk will require a reduction of our carbon emissions.
-snip-
There is of course model uncertainty in addition to systematic error. So I have not a clue why Snowflake has to copy and paste it 20 times in the same thread. They are words consistent with zealotry of the true believer. From the conclusion of Palmer and Stevens, 2019 that captures the authors intent.
“As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science.” Palmer and Stevens
But it is not enough to quote some words more joining the dots.
Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science‐as‐knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world‐directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis‐ (theory‐) directed paradigm.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
Buffoon –
I quote that passage repeatedly, and that other one from Palmer (and Stevens), because it triggers you when I do it.
Now the question is why is it trigger you?
Breathe.
Contemplate.
So here he is back again whining insults and pop phycology. It is a complete nonsense. Inevitably is from Snowflake. It is a sign of a groupthink zealotry that illustrates the point of the post.
“Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group’s ideas. This causes members of the group to ignore important ideas or information.”
Blunderbuss –
> “Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize out-group members who may oppose or challenge the group’s ideas. This causes members of the group to ignore important ideas or information.”
I haven’t suggest you’re a member of any particular group, and insulted you by virtue of such an association. I think you are rather uniquely bombastic. You, on the other hand, frequently demonize individuals by an (fantasized) association with a group.
More (unintentional) irony. You’re. true artiste.
Tim Palmer is truly authoritative on the subject. But what I point out about the paper that DPY introduced was that it is concerned with ‘structural instability’ in models. Yet he responds with risible threats oddly counterpointed with accusation of being tough guys.
VTG, You have cited nothing and repeatedly denied the evidence others present, which you probably have not read. Nothing here is political rhetoric except your consensus enforcement attempts, which are actually I fear completely ineffective.
dpy.
I’ve cited only one thing – your ridiculous assertion that for GCMs “Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors.”
It is up to *you* to back up this assertion -which would overturn an entire field – with *evidence*.
You have not done so, and you cannot do so.
It’s trivially easy to cite work which contradicts you:
AR5 Ch 9 “These models allow for policy-relevant calculations such as the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compatible with a specified climate stabilization target.”
Thus far on this thread you have actually cited two papers.
1) Slingo and Palmer 2011 “Uncertainty in weather and climate prediction”
Nowhere does this support your claims and indeed numerical errors are not even discussed.
2. Hurrell et al 2009
Directly contradicts your claims:
“we are moving into a new and exciting era of climate system prediction that will, by nature of the converging interests, modeling tools, and methodologies, produce greater interactions among previously separate communities, and thereby provide better predictions of the climate system at all time and space scales”
You simply tediously repeat the same evidence free claim over and over again, and on the rare occasions you cite research it’s either irrelevant or directly contradictory to your bombastic assertions.
As for “enforcement” – get a grip and stop reading right wing websites.
I introduced Palmer and Stevens, Slingo and Palmer, Hurrell et al, James McWilliams, Kravtsov et al, the TAR … and a few videos. Did I miss anything?
What you miss is the notion of sensitive dependence. This is a perturbed physics ensemble – the output of a single model with 1000’s of solutions originating from small changes in input parameters. It shows the evolution of model uncertainty over time.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1-e1612040479369.png
Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large
climate model ensemble
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of (perturbed physics) ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ TAR 14.2.2.2
“Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
“Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
Ellison,
Interesting that may be, but none of it is relevant to dpy’s claim.
What I said about Hurrell et al is that they add a useful real world perspective. Underlying this in models is the behaviour of a set of nonlinear partial differential equations at their core.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/104/21/8709/F1.medium.gif
“Generic behaviors for chaotic dynamical systems with dependent variables ξ(t) and η(t). (Left) Sensitive dependence. Small changes in initial or boundary conditions imply limited predictability with (Lyapunov) exponential growth in phase differences. (Right) Structural instability. Small changes in model formulation alter the long-time probability distribution function (PDF) (i.e., the attractor).” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709/tab-figures-data
Dullard diversions notwithstanding DPY is technically correct.
Josh, Please read more carefully. You quote out of context and ignore the main points of a paper. I quoted the main point of the paper. The first is quote mining. What I did is accurate.
> DPY is technically correct
I might call your bluff on this, Chief.
David has been citing this paper for years now, and it simply does not imply what he makes it imply. I have a draft of a post at AT’s on it. It’s called How to Do Things with Introductions.
For now I’ll simply remind you of the key sentence:
Please beware your wishes. I’m not J or VTG.
The Palmer and Stevens (2019) perspective was called ‘The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change’.
Without a doubt there is a need for a new generation of models… because the current generation is not up to scratch.
“The development of this new generation of models should be sustained, multinational, and coordinated as a flagship application of high-performance computing and information technology. Only as a coordinated technology project will it be possible to meet the computational challenges of running the highest possible resolution models and accessing their full information content. How to structure such an initiative can be debated; indisputable is the necessity to endow it with the same sense of purpose that has made past grand scientific challenges—from weather forecasting to moon landings—so successful.
The importance of developing predictions of climate with reliable regional precision is so important that we simply have to give this our best shot. Failing to do so keeps society in the dark about the possible ways that our climate system might develop in the coming years and decades.”
The conclusion reads:
“As our nonlinear world moves into uncharted territory, we should expect surprises. Some of these may take the form of natural hazards, the scale and nature of which are beyond our present comprehension. The sooner we depart from the present strategy, which overstates an ability to both extract useful information from and incrementally improve a class of models that are structurally ill suited to the challenge, the sooner we will be on the way to anticipating surprises, quantifying risks, and addressing the very real challenge that climate change poses for science. Unless we step up our game, something that begins with critical self-reflection, climate science risks failing to communicate and hence realize its relevance for societies grappling to respond to global warming.”
The meaning seems quite uncontroversial – but it runs counter to the ‘congealed’ myths that have grown up around it. It is complete nonsense – models do not work that way – ‘beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
The multiple solutions diverge exponentially and evolve as increasing uncertainty over time –
it is not quite random error.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
But one has to have some math and physics to understand why. That excludes Sir David, Dullard and Snowflake. Nor do models capture natural variability at any scale. “The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
“The accurate representation of this continuum of variability in numerical models is, consequently, a challenging but essential goal. Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as longstanding systematic errors in weather and climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding of and capability for simulating the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions.” Hurrell et al 2009
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/hurrel.png
The arrows display the fractal nature of interactions – two way traffic between large and small scales.
“The global coupled atmosphere-ocean-land-cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial.
The large-scale climate, for instance, determines the environment for microscale (1 km or less) and mesoscale (from several kilometers to several hundred kilometers) processes that govern weather and local
climate, and these small-scale processes likely have significant impacts on the evolution of the large-scale circulation (Fig. 1;
derived from Meehl et al. 2001).’ op. cit.
Fascinating – but the science is lost on Dullard and Snowflake. They prefer to play pettifogging political pissant progressive games. LOL – I have been playing with alliteration for a couple of months – e.g. crude contrarian curmudgeon – but this is my best one yet.
Snowflake is not shocked? I can’t imagine why he thinks anyone gives a damn. But it is illustrative of the heights his intellect rises to.
Chief Hydrologist was a lighthearted reference to a Simpsons character made in my blogospheric innocence. Dickheads made it less fun and too distracting.
A pleasure poor wee willie. Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom is the foundation of practices of common pool resource management that mean that we don’t need no freakin’ AI economic overlord.
“It was long unanimously held among economists that natural resources that were collectively used by their users would be over-exploited and destroyed in the long-term. Elinor Ostrom disproved this idea by conducting field studies on how people in small, local communities manage shared natural resources, such as pastures, fishing waters, and forests. She showed that when natural resources are jointly used by their users, in time, rules are established for how these are to be cared for and used in a way that is both economically and ecologically sustainable.” https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/facts/
It is of course the hiatus. A climate shift that I and a few anticipated. No – climate had not shifted permanently to a state that emerged in 1976/77. I linked that to decadal surface temperature – to chaos and tipping points in 2009 thanks to Anastasios Tsonis – I’m a bit slow – to cloud observations with Amy Clement…
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948397
And frankly I’m surprised if anyone bothers with the disingenuous Snowflake. I’m glad in fact that these pissant progressives have made an appearance – I am an equal opportunity critic. Much as I look forward to again ignoring him. We need another COVID post – where is Nic Leis when you need him.
Pissant progressives have an agenda of transforming economies and societies. By stealth and using the infallibility of models and groupthink certainty in their climate narrative as stalking horses. Neither the models or the narrative stand up to scrutiny in the light of self correcting science and it drives them to distraction as you can see.
Economics is the essential cultural battleground. Fighting the culture war on the climate science front is technically nonsense and politically a losing strategy. I quite merrily admit to my classic liberal agenda. poor wee willie will call me a freedom fighter – Snowflake will accuse me of being a chest beating keyboard warrior. Chest beating I admit is very appealing. I have identified as a non-binary human being. But I’m thinking of self identifying as an orangatang.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
High economic growth powers solutions – it means that even politically directed frivolous expenditure is affordable – low economic growth will inevitably fail even in limited objectives of environmental conservation and emission reduction. The reason for the latter is very simple. I was playing hungry hungry hippos with my then 4 year old grandson. He explained to me that hungry hippos have no rules.
If poor wee willie managed to say anything that wasn’t denigration and calumny it would be notable. He uses the same inane attempts at ridicule again and again. Inevitably with Judith. He did it yet again in the hiatus thread in this post. Repetitions of silliness that have no purpose other than to ridicule. He is a climate activist. His purpose is ‘politics politics politics’.
“Purpose. The main intention is to study how climate bloggers and commenters talk past each others. An hoi polloi always looks silly, but some aspect of it matters. Framing minds is an important business, so important in fact that this is what these discussions are really about. Politics, politics, politics.
For the sake of illustration, let’s repeat what I said. The main intention is to study how climate bloggers and commenters talk past each others. An hoi polloi always looks silly, but some aspect of it matters. Framing minds is an important business, so important in fact that this is what these discussions are really about. Politics, politics, politics.
One can immediatly see that well-chosen repetition has an impact.”
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/186805478524
He really is waiting for the coming of the AI economic overlord to control all production and consumption. It is a complete madness.
What we see here from VTG is classic simple minded denial. More than one thing can be true.
1. Models do a reasonable with matching the record for global average temperature anomoly. That’s because they conserve energy and are tuned to match top of atmosphere radiative flux. If ocean heat uptake is roughly right, they will be appear skillful for this single output.
2. All the patterns of change are wrong however. There have been scores of papers about the pattern of SST warming and that models failure here gives rise to the disagreement of ECS from historical record vs. models. Cloudiness patterns are also wrong.
3. This is not surprising as the grid sizes are huge in climate models and the truncation errors are also quite large. Thus skill is expected only on those outputs used in tuning or those closely related to these outputs.
4. Insisting on diefication of the single word “skill” without realizing there are a large number of outputs that are important is a child’s error or perhaps as the case may be here an activist’s deliberate error designed to confuse and deflect.
Chief and I cite the science. VTG and Willard deflect and deny.
dpy,
your points 1-4 amount to an argument that models are useful but imperfect. Which I agree with, as does all the work you have cited agrees on also. So you’re becoming better at reflecting the science – we have progress!
However, it is the antithesis of your original, false claim, which remains false. Let’s remind ourselves:
“Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors.”
Ih, and you are the one who used a single word “skill” to define model usefullness, not I. I’m glad you now acknowledge your error. Again progress. Onwards!
No VTG, you revert to very simple minded formulations that hide the truth. My statement about cancellation of errors is very true and everyone knows it. The errors are order h^2 where h is the grid spacing. In climate models that is huge and results in all the patterns being wrong. That does mean among other things that ECS from models is not reliable.
“A model’s ability to represent changes in the relationship between global mean net TOA flux and surface temperature depends upon how well it represents shortwave flux changes in low‐cloud regions, with most showing too little sensitivity to EP SST changes, suggesting a “pattern effect” that may be too weak compared to observations.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
SST and cloud are a key part of the puzzle that the ‘new generation’ of models are simulating. I’ve seen some interesting work from Robert Bergman using SST reconstruction to model megadrought in the US in the late middle ages. It could be very useful to a Chief Hydrologist from Springfield. It suggests that the new class of Earth system models – necessary because the old class is crap – need to be initialised and driven by observations. With more computing power allowing higher resolution and reduced Lyapunov exponential growth in phase differences of solution trajectories. Nonetheless valid in probabilistic forecasts for a decade at most as these occasional shifts in SST – ‘if they exist’ – kick in. Perhaps with machine learning we may be able to anticipate changes in patterns. I suggest we divert poor wee willies AI economic overlord to this more interesting function.
Yes Robert, that’s what weather models do. They assimilate data as they go as Browning points out. However, what this means is that forecast skill on the patterns more than a short time in the future is nonexistent.
I actually got hints from Gavin Schmidt that Hansen got the same pushback as I’m giving from mathematical types when he proposed repurposing weather models for climate simulations.
Oops. Sorry. This belongs here:
How many times did we hear of a “decade or three” of cooling?
No uncertainty needed. No “mays” or “maybes.”
In fact, the “mays” and “maybes” were disallowed.
Total certainty. On the site where the Uncertainty Monster is supposedly king.
How many times?
And now?
Now we get “hiatus” and “shift.”
The signal is unmistakable even if you try to hide by throwing away your screen name. I’m guessing even the mostly shameless sometimes can’t avoid all shame.
Don’t change anything else, Chief, ’cause you’re perfect just as you are.
Chief –
From 10 years ago (before you decided to hide from “Chief):
This is actually a bit better. Inconsistency regarding uncertainty but at least
there’s a nod. Judith might even be proud of it. I it too. Too bad you didn’t stick with it:
Let me close the italics…
That was said a decade ago – at the same time as this was posted on CE.
Sea surface temperature is negatively correlated to marine stratiform cloud. Multiple satellite data sources show that over most of the period of warming there was planetary cooling in the infrared band where greenhouse gases were expected to result in warming – and strong planetary warming as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space. As a testable hypothesis, the current cool La Niña mode of the Pacific decadal pattern will lead to increased cloud cover and global cooling over another decade or three. After that, in a chaotic climate, it is anyone’s guess.” https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/
I have continued to investigate this since – as I did for 30 years before that.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948397
Biosketch. Robert styles himself in the blogosphere as a Chief Hydrologist. ‘Cecil Terwilliger (brother to Sideshow Bob) was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydrodynamical Engineer. He opined that this was a sacred vocation in some cultures. The more I thought about this the more it resonated with me. I am an hydrologist by training, profession and (much more) through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. Given the importance of water to us practically and symbolically, there is more than an element of the sacred.’
I dropped it because of misrepresentations by d!ckheads.
The great virtue of satellite observations of tropospheric temperature is that they avoid the moist enthalpy problem of surface temperatures. There was a brief spike in 2016 that marginally exceeded 1998. Otherwise the hiatus continues.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg
I doubt that he is arguing the science of decadal climate shifts. He doesn’t have the chops. Surely by now this science should be accepted as true in accordance with Newton’s 4th rule of natural philosophy. It’s just silly games of semantics in the service of politically inspired calumny.
Glad you’re citing Roy’s graph, Chief. I’m at Roy’s these days and noticed this comment by Nick:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-670959
You should go spam there. Roy’s not watching. You can meet all the Sky Dragons you like!
There is in fact a large discrepancy because observations and models; Because models miss decadal variability.
“The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW (global stadium wave)*gl are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Other than CE I don’t do climate blogs. And even if I did – Nick Stokes wouldn’t be my go to guy. You infinitely less. I read science. Try these. They provide an observational perspective on sst, cloud and temperature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globev4.png
“Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations.(All time series have been smoothed to remove variabilty on time scales shorter than 6 months.)
> There is in fact a large discrepancy because observations and models; Because models miss decadal variability.
Then on what model do you base your claim that we’re still in Da Paws, Chief: gut feeling, kangaroo entrails, rhapsodomancy?
Here’s your chance to plug in the Stadium Wave!
You don’t pause long enough to think let alone read. Is that a bridge too far?
You seem to presume that nobody click on your links, Chief. It’s been a while I’ve seen you citing Kravtsov, but the I stopped paying attention to your weird attractiveness, if you catch my drift.
Still, our current pickle requires more thinking than reading. You say that we’re still in Da Paws. You cite a paper saying that modulz have problems with multi-decadal variability. Unless you can pull a model out of your hat, your prognosis rests on little else than your personal intuition.
In other words, your head fakes won’t work. I know where your hips are moving. You are in my trajectory. Brace yourself.
Apparently I am the sights of a pompous little zealot who has clicked on Kravtsov et al and I should brace myself. Science existed before models – and observations remain their acid test.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
A Tripole Index for the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
Apparently I misplaced my comment:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/25/how-we-fool-ourselves-part-iii-social-biases/#comment-948487
Let me add another citation to sound half as sciency as Chief:
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0138.1
The emphasized bit might please David.
“The models were provided observed sea‐surface temperature and sea‐ice boundary conditions as well as natural and anthropogenic forcings. We find remarkable agreement between observed and simulated differences in reflected solar and emitted thermal infrared radiation between the post‐hiatus and hiatus periods. Furthermore, a model’s ability to correctly relate Earth’s radiation budget and surface temperature is found to depend upon how well it represents reflected solar radiation changes in regions dominated by low clouds, particularly those over the eastern Pacific ocean.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
So they have added some SST and ice boundary forcing to models to capture decadal variability. It is the only way it works – i.e. tuning to emergent properties. That’s a start poor wee willie.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/earth-model.png
“Machine learning approaches are increasingly used to extract patterns and insights from the ever-increasing stream of geospatial data, but current approaches may not be optimal when system behaviour is dominated by spatial or temporal context. Here, rather than amending classical machine learning, we argue that these contextual cues should be used as part of deep learning (an approach that is able to extract spatio-temporal features automatically) to gain further process understanding of Earth system science problems, improving the predictive ability of seasonal forecasting and modelling of long-range spatial connections across multiple timescales, for example. The next step will be a hybrid modelling approach, coupling physical process models with the versatility of data-driven machine learning.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0912-1
Did you click on that one as well? We should turn your AI economic overlord to the task.
> Did you click on that one as well?
Pay me for a yearly subscription to Nature and I will, Chief.
Not that it supports your prediction or David’s claim, but at least that’s better.
Chief –
> Science existed before models – and observations remain their acid test.
Models take many forms. Does acid testing post 2010 show a decade (or three) of cooling?
There is a postprint version available from the Max Planck institute – that I linked to earlier and that ‘unpaywall’ will lead you to.
Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science
It is not my claim or David’s but a mathematical reality that demands development of this new class of models. Because the old class is crap (Palmer and Stevens, 2019).
You do recognise that these systems are in their infancy?
“We investigate complex pattern formation in a system for which we have excellent experimental control and where the underlying equations are well known: Rayleigh-Bénard convection. This is a system where a horizontal fluid layer is heated from below and cooled from above, so that above some critical temperature difference convection rolls form. This system has been experimentally investigated since for more than a hundred years, but modern experiments in compressed gases allow the fine control needed to get good quantitative results.” https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
Rayleigh-Bénard convection is the core physical process in positive ocean temperature/MBL stratocumulus feedback. It has to do with the stability of bistable open and closed cloud cells.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87456/pacificoceandetail_tmo_2016032.jpg
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
It is not sufficient to quote some words – one has to connect the dots.
> There is a postprint version available from the Max Planck institute
There’s a misunderstanding, Chief.
I don’t waste time on paywalled papers. If I’m paid to read, or if there’s some other incentive for me, I can find them on a Sci Hub somewhere on the Internet. If not, then so much the worse for the paywalled paper.
Hope that clears where I stand on this.
I’ll just add a note here on how easy the cancellation of large errors issue is to understand.
It’s really very simple math to see how if the patterns are wrong, the global average can be right only by cancellation of errors.
Consider a series of numbers that represents reality. The sum is 9
0,1,-2,-1,3,1,4,-3,2,3,0,-1,-2
No suppose the pattern is not matched by a model and generates the following series. The sum is still 9. The “amplitude” of the series is also the same roughly.
1,2,3,4,2,0,-2,0,4,1,-2,-2,-2
Thus, the skill is due to cancellation of large local errors.
GCM’s get the pattern of SST changes pretty wrong. There are at least a score of papers out there saying that this mismatch explains why their ECS is inconsistent with the historical period. Bear in mind that its the patterns that we really need to know to ascertain even how to adapt.
Just to note that there is a pdf on the Max Planck Institute web site as I said. Linked obviously with the title as link text. Not sure why this is a point but I’m certain that the internet will be the poorer. 🥱
dpy
“Consider a series of numbers that represents reality. The sum is 9
0,1,-2,-1,3,1,4,-3,2,3,0,-1,-2
No suppose the pattern is not matched by a model and generates the following series. The sum is still 9. The “amplitude” of the series is also the same roughly.
1,2,3,4,2,0,-2,0,4,1,-2,-2,-2
Thus, the skill is due to cancellation of large local errors”
Ah, but this is an entirely different point to your original claim.
And it’s trivially true; *any* model of *any* system which conserves *any* quantity (mass, heat, momentum) will have errors and they must cancel.
It’s hardly profound.
I think we are back to the reading comprehension issue.
What I said at the beginning: “Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors.”
In my simple example, the pointwise errors are quite large, on the order of the output sum. Those errors cancel.
What I just said: “Thus, the skill is due to cancellation of large local errors. GCM’s get the pattern of SST changes pretty wrong. There are at least a score of papers out there saying that this mismatch explains why their ECS is inconsistent with the historical period. Bear in mind that its the patterns that we really need to know to ascertain even how to adapt.”
The question for you is why you and Willard have wasted so much of your life energy disputing a statement that you now acknowledge is quite obviously true and that every specialist knows to be true.
I think what we’re back to dpy, is your use of bombast and assertion rather than technical language. You are then unable to justify your position when challenged.
You asserted that models have no skill; we now agree that was false, and indeed that a single definition of skill is not meaningful.
You asserted that any skill was due to tuning and numerical errors; it turns out you were actually only claiming that models are imperfect.
Reading comprehension or something worse VTG?
Again what I actually said: “Any skill in outputs not used in tuning is accidental and caused by cancellation of numerical errors.” I usually phrase it as “outputs not directly related to those used in tuning.”
Your invention is “You asserted that models have no skill” and that’s quite different.
The global average temperature is related to top of atmosphere radiation balance and so is more skillful than the patterns. But any quantity not so related will have skill only by accident. That’s because the local numerical truncation errors are quite large.
I could instead say that models have ‘irreducible imprecision’.
> I could instead say that models have ‘irreducible imprecision’.
I think we can all agree on that, and would duly submit that it’s the only relevant claim in this exchange that we can deem technically correct.
Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ – not a term that poor wee willie understands – of some 50% around the model mean.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
> not a term that poor wee willie understands
Just as I was out of this CB episode, Chief pulls me back in:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017MS001067
You’re very clever, Chief, very clever, but it’s cancellation of errors all the way down.
So this towering intellect repeats a passage that says that changing the order in which process calculations are made makes a dramatic difference in output. Tell me something not known about ‘structural instability’.
> Tell me something
Look, Chief.
If you’re to take pokes at me after I signaled a few times already my desire to let sleeping dogs lie, I will come back on my own terms. You know them already. Hence the quote.
But I will oblige furthermore:
Here’s the paper:
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
That’s a “Perspective.” A call to action. Tim & Bjorn want more resources invested in models. That’s the TLDR of that commentary.
That’s not “science.” That’s editorial content. At best it’s testimony.
So if you and David want to play the formal tough guys, you got to do better.
Again – put these in the right place in the unmanageable threads.
Tim Palmer is truly authoritative on the subject. But what I pointed out about the paper that DPY introduced was that it is concerned with ‘structural instability’ in models. Yet he responds with risible threats oddly counterpointed with accusations of being tough guys.
I must respond to this long quote because it shows something quite telling about climate modeling as a field. It also shows that Willard is a consensus enforcement 10 minute internet expert.
One of the first principles of model construction and tuning is that you need to control numerical error for it to be meaningful. If your model all of a sudden gives poorer answers on a much finer grid, that is a fatal flaw.
The same is true of more or less arbitrary methodological choices about ordering such as whether to relax first in X, Y, or Z in an ADI method. The standard practice would be to iterate the 3 methods until convergence is achieved. That costs a lot more.
CFD is perhaps 50 years ahead of climate modeling in terms of methods and reproducibility. RANS codes are finely tuned machines that do a good job for thin boundary layers and shear layers in the absence of separation. Unfortunately separated flows seem to be ill-conditioned and a different story.
1. It is settled science that for second order methods, 30-50 grid points in the boundary layer are needed to reasonably control numerical errors. Climate models use perhaps 1 or 2.
2. RANS codes solve 2 systems of nonlinear equations. The NS equations and the turbulence modeling PDE’s. These sets of equations must be iterated to convergence. If you do just a single iteration of solving first the NS equations and then the turbulence model, your answer will be really badly wrong.
3. All of these best practices have been found to be needed to achieve what limited success CFD has had.
In climate models, numerical errors are quite large because the grids are coarse. Not only that but things like tropical convection (a classical ill-posed problem) are represented by crude models that fail for example to account for aggregation. Much of climate model tuning is just compensating for these large errors and violates best practices.
> Tim Palmer is truly authoritative on the subject.
An editorial remains an editorial, not “science.”
If David is to flex his “science” muscles while punching hippies, he ought to learn the difference.
I bet he does not even realize which paper I’m citing, and why.
The paper is the one dealing with structural instability introduced by DPY – the one that VTG decided wasn’t about structural instability. Scientific synthesis is science that is given gravitas by the authority – a real and profound authority in the case of Tim Palmer – by authors. It was why I introduced the article on hydrology and uberty. It is about connecting the dots.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
What is this adamant ignorance? Is it poor wee willies heart of darkness. I hope he get’s some comfort from his AI economic overlord.
> The paper is the one dealing with structural instability introduced by DPY
The paper is about the impact of physics parameterization ordering in a global atmosphere models, Chief, a topic that matters because of the noncommutativity of the process calls.
Usually, titles provide good hints. Otherwise, abstracts ain’t bad either.
The paper is quite obviously about dramatic changes in output as a result of changing the order of process calculations – structural instability.
There are interesting bits about instability, Chief, but that ain’t it.
However it’s late, so here’s how David could prove that maths is broken:
That is not nonlinear math, This is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvlfG3e_0Es
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).’ James Mcwilliams
> That is not nonlinear math
It’s noncommutative maths, Chief.
Thanks for the video.
He has gone down yet another rabbit hole.
\
“Biden Administration want to fix climate change but the clowns ‘can’t even run a zoom meeting'”:
https://youtu.be/H7g3tj-dNoY
The government gets the “science” it paid for, just like cigarette companies used to get the “science” they paid for.
Scientists have families, mortgages and car payments to support.
And scientists, like most people, are reluctant to answer any questions with “I don’t know”, even when that is the best possible answer at the time (such as an answer to the question: “What will the climate be like in 100 years?”
I think it’s interesting this post says:
When any unbiased examination of The CRUTape Letters would show the book is extremely misleading. It is filled with errors and misrepresentations, to the point one author (Steven Mosher) has boasted about how he enjoys “abusing skeptics” who argue “the global temperature index… is the principle focus of Climategate,” which is exactly what the book says. People literally get insulted by an author of the book for believing what the book says. That is how flawed this book is.
Yet since it was published, not a single Skeptic has criticized this book in any meaningful way. Instead, it has been widely promoted and celebrated. We have a post about social biases which it cites a book that gets promoted only because people’s biases cause them to be unable to discuss said book in anything resembling an honest manner.
I guess you just get a free pass as long as your support noble cause of questioning alarmist rhetoric.
What did you think of Montfort’s book on this?
Montford’s book was the only book written by anyone on the Skeptic side I’ve seen which I was not bothered by. It was actually good and informative. The difference between it and a book like The CRUTape Letters or Mark Steyn’s book is like the difference between night and day.
Brandon
Good to see you, where have you been hiding?
Here is the book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climategate-Crutape-Letters-Steven-Mosher/dp/1450512437
I must confess I do not know of anyone who has ever read the book let alone written an objective criticism of it .i suspect most of the comments and analysis was made at the time online in blogs. certainly the amazon reviews seem enthusiastic so they seem to have accepted the narrative
I don’t know how many copies it sold .If Thomas is still lurking perhaps he can tell us
Tonyb
I largely gave up involvement in the climate discussion since I realized it didn’t matter what anyone had to say because nobody would listen. Skeptics had become so tribalistic they would defend anything, not matter how absurd or dishonest, as long as it was on their “side,” and warmists had been that way for ages. This book, as well as Mark Steyn’s book, are perfect demonstrations. They are far, far worse than Michael Mann’s book, which Skeptics praised me for savaging, in terms of erros, misrepresentations, misquotations and outright fabrications. But nobody cares. Warmists don’t care enough about what Skeptics say to read it and find the problems, and Skeptics don’t care because it’s from their own tribe.
I figured if nobody was going to listen, why bother talking to them? That said, I am trying to work on small YouTube video series about the hockey stick in light of Mann’s defamation lawsuit possibly coming to a head. I figure with Steyn saying tons of untrue and Mann being the liar he always is, it might be nice to have something to correct the record. I’m still getting used to video editing, but I’m hoping to have a first draft of the first video in a few weeks. No clue if people will care to watch, but I could use the practice in public speaking and video editing anyway.
(I did post a couple unedited videos where I was practicing the speaking aspect, trying to cover issues in a single take, but doing things in one take just doesn’t work well.)
I titled my five star Amazon review of The CRUtape Letters, The Narrative Behind Climategate
:https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RS6SLGWAUULMR?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp
Afternoon Tony,
Isn’t Steven Mosher lurking somewhere round & about still?
Jim
Noble cause corruption is when the ends of gaining money and power justify the means of sabotaging everyone and everything.
Nothing to do with noble.
The word noble is tied to the Gaslighting methods used.
I think it’s interesting this post says:
When any unbiased examination of The CRUTape Letters would show the book is extremely misleading. It is filled with errors and misrepresentations, to the point one author (Steven Mosher) has boasted about how he enjoys “abusing skeptics” who argue “the global temperature index… is the principle focus of Climategate,” which is exactly what the book says. People literally get insulted by an author of the book for believing what the book says. That is how flawed this book is.
Yet since it was published, not a single Skeptic has criticized this book in any meaningful way. Instead, it has been widely promoted and celebrated. We have a post about social biases which it cites a book that gets promoted only because people’s biases cause them to be unable to discuss said book in anything resembling an honest manner.
I guess you just get a free pass as long as your support noble cause of questioning alarmist rhetoric.
https://youtu.be/OPgfyeQLzkk
Good post Judith. I’ll add some observations.
The internal dynamics of most fields in our age of soft money favor those who successfully sell the field and its conclusions as this gets the public interested and generates more soft money.
I’ve seen a really striking almost obseqiousness to field leaders who while having made some very good contributions have also been very good at overselling their work. And sometimes that means marginalizing people who are too vocal about inferior work from these same leaders. This can lead to a situation where there are 40 erroneous and biased methodological papers out there that have no responses or replications. When asked people say “Well people will figure it out and only outsiders will be fooled.” Not good reasoning. That’s why the scientific literature is mostly unreliable and strongly affected by positive results and selection bias.
This is really easy to do and has become an art form. You run you method varying parameters or grids until you get a good looking result which you publish. All those other less good cases were just due to “not knowing how to use the method properly.” Only problem is when solving an ill-conditioned problem, what you are doing is masking uncertainty.
How about “There are too many (other) people”? Paul Ehrlich noted some years after he published the Population Bomb (1968) that a typical Californians 2 adults + 2 kids household has the impact of a small Bangladeshi village while I came up with an even bleaker point. I would never deny control of their fertility to women but, even then, deaths still have to exceed births for numbers to fall. Yet who would refuse medical advances allowing us to live healthily to 100 plus?
“Moreover, the concern of the debate is presumably with scientific hypotheses, defined as “proposed explanations for a phenomenon that can be tested.” This definition views a hypothesis to be a kind of proposition, that is, a potentially truth‐bearing statement that needs to be evaluated as true or false. These concerns, in turn, lead to further, seemingly obvious implications as to what it is to be scientific and what constitutes a scientific explanation.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1920px-ghgs-epcia-holocene-co2-en.svg_.png
Science doesn’t exist without hypothesis testing – but that is exactly what is seen in the overwhelming majority of comments here. Testable hypotheses in climate science have very narrow limits.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/harries-2001.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
A result that has been replicated. The next step – as in the source of the quote above – is a synthesis of carefully tested and replicated facts that is far less certain in a rich vein of creativity.
Beyond that is an interminable story telling to yourselves and others superficially in the dispassionate idiom of science. Complete nonsense driven on both sides by a cultural imperative. Some of you are much more madly inventive than others.
There is a stark cultural divide. It has nothing to do with climate as such.
https://www.heritage.org/index/
Unfortunately complex hypotheses, in a realm of theory laden observations, are not easily testable. I see AGW as falsified by simple observation:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
Others do not agree. Hence the debate.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas – demonstrated with a wealth of observations – including the Harries et al 2001 results – with concentrations in the atmosphere increasing with a notable alacrity in the modern era – causing global waring in the recent past. The changes we are embarking on with so little understanding of consequences – are superimposed on natural variability in a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system. The later discovered by Harold Hurst – in what are now known as Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – that you got so wrong.
And you imagine that you can predict the evolution of Pacific decadal variations? It is a story you tell yourself and other contrarians.
Aren’t most scientists “contrarian”? Isn’t that the essence of science?
I’d say that good scientists are generally skeptical. Which is different from being a contrarian – a distinction often missed in these here parts.
I hope that Robert I. Ellison is listening.
That CO2 is a GHG in no way implies that increasing CO2 must cause warming. The system is not that simple and, further more, satellite observation says is has not caused warming. That much is painfully simple.
> That CO2 is a GHG in no way implies that increasing CO2 must cause warming.
That the Sun has risen today does not imply it will rise tomorrow either, David.
Chief listen?
That’s funny.
Scientific skepticism is the art of suspending judgement rather than leaping to conclusions. Contrarians are reactive and not skeptical.
Greenhouse gases bias the system to warmer states. It might get a lot cooler with if thermohaline circulation tips to a different state in a warming Arctic. Meanwhile concentrations have been increasing and temperatures have been rising.
I am very choosy about who I think is worth listening to.
“The changes we are embarking on with so little understanding of consequences – are superimposed on natural variability in a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system.”
The chaos leading to unpredictability is inherent independent of forseable carbon dioxide levels. Motion is unpredictable whether CO2 is somehow dramatically reduced, remains relatively constant or increases. So I’m not sure how relevant motion non-predictability is.
Paleo records indicate century duration droughts in the SW US two millenia ago. Reducing CO2 back to the levels under which such events occurred will not change the chaotic fluctuations which led to such events.
Mornin’ David (UTC),
A “new pause”? As defined by Big Joe and the GoodLord@WUWT?? UAH satellite based temperature???
You need to read the collective works of Bill the Frog!!!!
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/03/how-to-make-a-complete-rss-of-yourself/
Upon viewing Mr Monckton’s article, any attentive reader could be forgiven for having an overwhelming feeling of déjà vu.
I’ll respond to this one. My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. The 2014-2018 was a subdecadal blip in the PDO. I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade
Hi Judith,
If you don’t much care for Bill the Frog’s argument, and as an Arctic researcher yourself, how do you explain the PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume trend post 1998 or thereabouts?
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1-202103.png
Curryja
“My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. The 2014-2018 was a subdecadal blip in the PDO. I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade”
Data: increase of 2.4C/ century over that timespan (BEST, WFT)
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2000/trend/plot/best/from:2000
In a thread entitled “How we fool ourselves.”
You really couldn’t make this up.
You forget that Da Paws relies on Da Escalator, Very Tall:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006) Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
The influential Greek hydrologist Dimitris Koutsoyiannis in A random walk on water redefined random and deterministic as unpredictable and predictable. I expect that there are unpredictable internal chaotic and unpredictable solar components.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2525-1
I look for what I call dragon-kings (after Didier Sornette) – outsized Pacific Ocean events that occur ‘associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point.” I suspect that we ae now in the midst of a phase transition. Where to is anyone’s guess.
Moy et al (2002) analysed red intensity in a sediment core from Laguna Pallcacocha in South America. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 11,000 years. It shows periods of high and low El Niño frequency and intensity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance some 5,500 years ago – identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – that is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño frequency and intensity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity was commonly in excess of 200. For comparison – red intensity in 1998/99 was 99.
Pacific Ocean states modulate the planetary energy content as a positive marine boundary layer stratocumulus feedback.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm
Tessa Vance and colleagues created a high resolution ENSO proxy based on salt content in Law Dome Antarctica ice core. More zonal or meridional winds in the polar vortex drive more or less flow in the Peruvian current facilitating more or less upwelling in the region of the Humboldt Current. Bjerknes feedback kicks in leading to cooler or warmer states. It left traces in salt content in the ice core.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
Pacific Ocean states influence rainfall in Australia – more salt occurs in cool states – but they also of course result in dramatic transitions in global hydrology. Hydrologist Edward Hurst revealed the nature of hydrological variability – regimes and transitions diagnostic of deterministic chaos – from almost 1000 years of Nile River level records. The record in itself is a triumph for the technological monkey.
‘These anomalies modulate high-latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequent reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 yr, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below-average (El Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and southeastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’
Should we expect a change in the ENSO beat frequency and a more La Niña–like state over the coming centuries. I don’t know. Bu I’m pretty sure that tales from frogs and princes don’t help much.
References that I haven’t linked can be found here.
Blimey. I pop out for a day or two and return to several pages of “debate” about the (alleged) not so brief hiatus.
No response to my Arctic enquiry from Judith herself however?
Re: “I’ll respond to this one. My take is that we are still in the multi-decadal hiatus that began around 2000. The 2014-2018 was a subdecadal blip in the PDO. I expect this hiatus to continue at least another decade”
And when 2031 comes with no post-2000 hiatus, the goalposts will just be moved again, with no reference made to previous goalposts + failed predictions.
2016:
“And what of the years following 2016? Will we see cooling and then a continuation of flat temperatures? Or continued warming? I suspect that there will be some cooling and continued flatness. I’ve stated before that it will be another 5 years before we have the appropriate prospective on the current temperature fluctuations and whether or not the early 21st century pause is over.”
https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end-of-the-satellite-data-pause/
2012:
“If you are using data to evaluate the IPCC’s projection of 0.2C/decade warming in the first two decades of the 21st century, with plateaus or pauses at most of 15-17 yrs duration, well then you can pick whatever start date you want.”
https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/
Mornin’ Sanakan (UTC),
I have a feeling in my waters that you’re not Judith’s alter ego? Nevertheless you do reference a number of our host’s previous predictions.
In her continuing absence, do you have any thoughts on the Arctic sea ice volume question I posed earlier?
Re: “In her continuing absence, do you have any thoughts on the Arctic sea ice volume question I posed earlier?”
Consistent with other signs of post-1998 warming, such as increasing near-surface warming, bulk tropospheric warming, increasing ocean heat content / energy imbalance, land ice melt, sea level rise acceleration, etc.
It’s simply end-point bias to claim we’re in a 21st century warming hiatus. There’s no statistically significant change-point / deceleration in warming pointing to a hiatus, and that’s been known for years.
“Unusually cold winters, a slowing in upward global temperatures, or an increase in Arctic sea ice extent are often falsely cast as here-and-now disconfirmation of the scientific consensus on climate change. Such conclusions are examples of “end point bias,” the well documented psychological tendency to interpret a recent short-term fluctuation as a reversal of a long-term trend.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2016.1241814?journalCode=renc20
“Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends”
“A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data”
“Popular consensus: Climate change is set to continue”
“Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environment”
Thanks for those suggestions.
Still no comment to make Judith? You are the resident Arctic sea ice expert here after all!
Present company excepted of course.
Oh for God’s sake – they are self and mutually admiring dogs yapping at Judith’s heels. TOA net radiative flux is warming up by convention. Warming and cooling in the CERES dera largely the result of stratocumulus cloud changes over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The CERES record is short – but the system is variable at many scales.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
It’s that danged stadium wave again. ‘The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it’s not in control of climate at this time, at these levels. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it’s not in control of climate at this time. Methane is a greenhouse gas, but it’s not in control of climate at this time. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas, but it’s not in control of climate at this time. Ozone is a greenhouse gas, but it’s not in control of climate at this time. Hydrofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases, but are not in control of climate at this time.
The chart of CO2 wandering about the 280ppm level for the last 10,000 years is excellent demonstration of all that. As is the recent rise since 1830 to 418ppm with no visible correlation to temperature changes – up to 1880, down to 1910, up to 1941, down to 1970, up since then.
A reasonable assumption would be that all the greenhouse gases (but basically water vapor and CO2) combine with the other 7 forcings to affect climate as a vector sum.
No true Scotsman – and no true scientist – would grant any credence to control by CO2.
Hi JIMWW,
Sulphur dioxide can reduce solar input as shown by the effects of major volcanic eruptions like Tambora in 1815 where temperatures fell the following year. Between 1940 and 1970 many industrial processes generated large amounts of the gas e.g. by burning lignite. In the 70s there was then a move to reduce such emissions due to acid rain so that might partly explain matters. I would point you to my comments elsewhere though I.e. many ideas essential if mainstream views are correct make sense even if climate change were a damp squib, temperatures fell, weather became more erratic or a major food crop failed. Sensible actions include reducing waste, restoring fish stocks and combining conservation with careful use as suggested by Harvard’s Professor E O Wilson in The Diversity of Life on rainforest potential.
Now there’s science for you. All hail Jimmy.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
😣
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
Iain, yes, volcanic eruptions are one of the forcings. They can be correlated with temp going up or down. If up, it’s the CO2. If down, it’s the SO2 and the particulates. Underwater eruptions cause melting in Antarctica.
As Klaus-Ekhart Puls said, “Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.”
The resources consumed by CO2 mitigation would be much better spent on plastic removal (and prevention) from the rivers and seas, sanitation, clean water and clean air, and maintenance of a sustainable environment, if we can manage it. Avoiding war, plagues, famines, floods, and jihads would be nice too.
Sound like you, Bjorn Lomborg and I have common ground although probably differences too. Methane-reducing feed additives for livestock have existed for decades and are a pet interest of mine, especially as some boost growth. I got put in my place by Gabe Brown though; he is a regenerative farmer in N Dakota who has had massive success with so carbon capture. He didn’t totally discount the idea but queried whether they were necessary given the methanotrophic activity his methods build up.
Black carbon has a climate forcing of some 1.1 Watt per square meter (Bond et al 2013) – more than carbon dioxide from electricity production. Sulfate is nominally cooling – although this is confounded with the lensing effect in mixed black carbon, sulfate and primary organic aerosols present in all anthropogenic emissions (Gustafsson and Ramanathan 2016). This amplifies black carbon warming 2.4 times.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/bc-lens.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843464/
The planet responds to all these control variables with climate as an emergent property of cryosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere and lithosphere interactions.
Chief
> I am very choosy about who I think is worth listening to.
Pretty funny given how many times you’ve claimed you don’t read my comments only to later comment and make it obvious that you’ve read my comment – as you just did.
But I’ll take it as a component that you consider my comments worth reading.
Coming from the Chief of Unintentional Irony, that’s worth something.
I have on occasion replied to Joshua without reading his comments. It is simply interminable fluff. Too funny. It rankled then and evidently still does. Most of the time I simply pass over his comments without reading or replying.
His comment in this thread was simply another pointless – the unintended irony is that he thinks he has any point that is not – one line snark.
Chief –
And you double down on the (unintentional) irony.
Same as it ever was.
Just like you’ve REPEATEDLY responded to my comments so many times in the past to describe how you don’t read my comments.
I love it. Please don’t ever change.
Perfect timing, also – as the best textbook example anyone could come up with of someone fooling himself.
More foolishly empty prattle.
Blimy! Elly has actually written an excellent article –
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
All he has to do now is acknowledge the definition of “tipping point” as the initiation of an irreversible process – think landslide, avalanche or nuclear explosion – and acknowledge that there has never been a tipping point for earth’s temperature in the last 550 million years. Most surprisingly perhaps at Snowball Earth. And then subtract the final agenda-driven speculative paragraphs on predictability toward the end.
But, praise the Lord, he’s not barking mad!
In the way of true science – it suggests at least decadal predictability. The current cool Pacific Ocean state seems more likely than not to persist for 20 to 30 years from 2002. The flip side is that – beyond a decade or so – the evolution of the global mean surface temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum (Swanson et al, 2009).
More technically correct is that climate is an ergodic, complex dynamical system – over a long enough period states are reprised. At decadal scales as shifts in spatiotemporal patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation at what are equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. Fractal chaos emerges from Earth’s turbulent flow field at scales of micro-eddies to planetary waves.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/koutsdoyianis-fig-7-.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/koutsoyiannis-fig-9-.png
At the multidecadal scales driven by these shifts in spatiotemporal chaotic patterns in ocean and atmospheric circulation?
e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288
How jiminy fools himself is with an arrogant Dunning-Kruger like gross overestimation of his own negligible competence.
A bit off topic but here is my good news take on the Biden climate Summit:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/04/24/the-biden-climate-summit-speeding-up-to-hit-the-wall-harder/
Watch the crash!
As I have said, the very concept of fooling oneself is incoherent. You fool someone by getting to believe what you know is false. That is the defining concept. To fool yourself you would have to get yourself to believe what you know is false, which is irrational at best, more likely impossible.
But then the climate debate is full of impossible concepts. Words without meaning are always possible, sometimes prevalent, especially in political movements. No reason to support them.
> As I have said, the very concept of fooling oneself is incoherent. You fool someone by getting to believe what you know is false. That is the defining concept. To fool yourself you would have to get yourself to believe what you know is false, which is irrational at best, more likely impossible.
It doesn’t have to be considered as “irrational.”. That’s your labeling.
It can be as simple as allowing yourself to settle for a line of thinking or an action that if you really pushed yourself into a more uncomfortable realm, you’d admit wouldn’t stand scrutiny.
Say someone who yells online at libz that the election was certainly stolen, but doesn’t investigate the evidence because of a sense that they wouldn’t find any real evidence of significant fraud.
I might know that spending money I need on a lottery ticket is effectively throwing it away, but that doesn’t mean I’m an “irrational” person if I buy one.
People do hypocritical or counterproductive things all the time, act in ways momentarily that aren’t consistent with their underlying values for example or in ways consistent with what they really believe is in their best interests. That doesn’t mean that they should be labeled as “irrational” – as some kind of defining characteristic. Just that they’re capable, at least sometimes, of acting in hypocritical or counterproductive ways.
Having a false belief because of a lack of investigation is not fooling yourself. It is just having a false belief, which is quite common, including in science. Fooling yourself means you have fooled yourself and that is probably impossible. How could you possibly do that? The tricks you use to fool others do not work on yourself, because you know they are tricks.
The concept is incoherent. A form of name calling.
It’s only name-calling because YOU assigned the lable “irrational” to it. You oiaonnrje well and then complain because the water tastes bad.
It’s just saying that sometimes peopoe allow themselves to go with beliefs that they know wouldn’t stand up. That can happen for any number of reasons.
You poison the well and then complain that the water tastes bad.
Saying someone is fooling themselves isn’t calling them a name. It’s merely saying that they are acting out of a lack of focus to the potential of bias – a perfectly normal and common behavior.
And notice, this is NOT what I said:
> Having a false belief because of a lack of investigation is not fooling yourself.
Acting out of certainty thar a belief is true (saying that the election was certainly stolen) even though you (know that you) haven’t sufficiently investigated the veracity is thst belief.
I think you just fooled yourself into believing that’s what I said even though you didn’t really take the time to read what I said carefully.
What funny is that I seem to recall, (I could be wrong) in the past, where you argued that people acting against their best interest for the reason of political or other perceived biases weren’t being “irrational” – but just allowing themselves to go with perceptions that if they focused more on evaluating objectively, they’d agree were counterproductive or ill-advised or not based on an analysis that was robust enough to support their actions (or stated/operatonal belief)
Sure, but they are not fooling themselves. Most beliefs are held without investigation. I read thousands of sentences a day and believe most of them.
They’re fooling themselves because they act like their opinion would stand up to scrutiny when they actually haven’t subjected their believe to scrutiny – because they want to avoid realizing that they are, or even might, be wrong.
But maybe your can’t perceive this because you’re above being hypocritical at times.*
* or more likely, sometimes fool yourself into thinking that you’re above ever being hypocritical.
not working for the best interest of the population is not the same as the best personal interest of people who are dependent on this junk for their actual livelihood and extreme riches in many cases.
“What funny is that I seem to recall, (I could be wrong) in the past, where you argued that people acting against their best interest for the reason of political or other perceived biases weren’t being “irrational” –”
That’s another fuzzy concept- the notion that people don’t “act against their best interest…” Humans are social and problem solvers, therefore they “act against their best interest” every day. When I went to the grocery store yesterday there was a nice little old lady with a new convertible Mercedes. One swift haymaker and the car would have been mine, but I refrained from “acting in my best interest” because I’m a social animal.
That second part – being problem solvers – also informs our willingness to act against our best interest and is the so-called climate concerned’s biggest obstacle. My best interest requires me to be entirely uninterested in the murder rate in Chicago, I live far away from there and it’s not my problem. However, activists on the evening news blather on and on about how, as a member of society- a social animal- I’m supposed to care, which means I am now interested in solving the problem of high murder rates in Chicago. And it is at that point when I realize progressives have no plan, no real interest in solving the problem of high murder rates in Chicago. In fact they desire to “defund” or even “abolish” the police, which every sentient being knows would increase the murder rate in Chicago. The social animal and problem solver in me is now very unhappy and there are two ways to proceed: take the authority away from those in Chicago who seek to make it worse, or conclude that if Chicago doesn’t care about violence I shouldn’t either.
This is the stalemate in climate. The people whose “action plans” are laughable cling to a modicum of power, but not enough to be too annoying. Those man-made islands for the windmills in the north sea will always be nice press releases, and that 100% renewables “plan” for powering Boston with solar panels in the winter will always sit on a shelf.
But since they don’t care about CO2, nobody else does and, periodically, the problem solving social animal pops her head up to see if that’s changed. It hasn’t.
TE linked in this thread to a video which contained a useful concept when discussing
whether peope act “irrationally” – epistemologically irrational but functionally rational.
Jeffnsails comment – “That’s another fuzzy concept- the notion that people don’t “act against their best interest…” Humans are social and problem solvers, therefore they “act against their best interest” every day.”
fwiw – Better way of saying that some is not acting in the best interest of a socialist.
“To fool yourself you would have to get yourself to believe what you know is false, which is irrational at best, more likely impossible.”
This is a true and important point. I think, to the extent that they fool themselves instead of attempt to fool others, the warmists fall into the same two basic myths that progressives always believe.
The first is that they do not believe in unintended consequences and therefore may never acknowledge them. Lockdowns were perfection and had no side effects. The windmills lost 97% of their output in Texas during the cold spell and natural gas could only produce several hundred percent of its normal output to compensate- therefore, the gas was at fault because it just couldn’t be the renewables. Murder rates have been shooting through the roof in places that ended cash bail and cut police funding, therefore it must be more supremacists or something.
Secondly, they bow to the unquestionable ability of government (properly constituted of liberals) to solve literally any problem by declaration and passage of law. Any so-called failure in this regard is merely inadequate funding or the result of some last-minute diversion by the evil. Boston could be heated in February at night in five-day snowstorms using only rooftop solar panels whose price has come down so rapidly that by next year manufacturers will be paying you to take them. This has been patiently explained in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, and more. And do you know why it hasn’t happened? Republicans in congress won’t cough up the $10 trillion and because Roger Pilke Jr. is still a free man.
Pingback: How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: How We Fool Ourselves? Part III: Social Biases – Ciung Wanara
Pingback: Social biases – Watts Up With That? - Fry Electronics
test
strong
Pingback: How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases - Open Mind News
Pingback: How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases
“Is the road to scientific hell paved with good intentions?”
No, Mostly paved with bad intentions!
The money is made from frightening people, there are no good intentions in that.
Scientists have the responsibility of adhering to the principles of ethical research and professional standards. But what happens when all the funding and their actual jobs depend on promoting lies that are used to scare and control the general population of the whole world. We do see what did happen.
Hi Judith, I read this on WUWT, there’s a typo in your opening para – “ Part II addresses” should be “ Part III addresses”
Part IV is destined to be how we fooled ourselves on Milankovitch theory now a new theory of gravity has been established:
But scientists know that Einstein’s theory of relativity will one day have to be replaced. Though the theory is extraordinarily successful at describing gravity and massive cosmic entities, it says nothing about the behavior of subatomic particles. For that, physicists turn to quantum mechanics.
The hope is to eventually have a theory of quantum gravity that supersedes both relativity and quantum mechanics. Exotic compact objects, which would be like a black hole but lack an event horizon, could help provide the necessary information to start constructing this future theory.
….
https://www.livescience.com/amp/exotic-compact-objects-break-physics.html
Quantum theory if gravity is merely a spinning corkscrew graviton (!)
“Right now, it looks like science fiction,” Vitor Cardoso, a physicist at the Instituto Superior Técnico in Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the work, told Live Science. “But it quickly goes from science fiction to established science.”
It becomes established science when evidence is assembled and replicated. Right now Al goes way beyond any speculation by physicists into a mad spinning corkscrew fantasy. There is of course not a jot of evidence for any of it – including gravitons.
A more obvious place to start is with a fundamental – rather than a probabilistic – theory of quantum mechanics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglT09Korr0
As for dark matter – Einstein may yet reveal another truth with entropy being the fundamental force of nature in the universe. Time comes before gravity.
“Everything likes to live where it will age the most slowly, and gravity pulls it there.”
― Kip S. Thorne, The Science of Interstellar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qGucb958rI
In the interim – Occam suggests that there are far more parsimonious explanations for climate change. I’m not sure how Al so blatantly fools himself – but he seems to have it down pat.
Robert I. Ellison, you need to listen to this Iowa farmer who speaks for 2/3 of farmers who are sceptical of manmade climate change & our ability to control it:
https://youtu.be/1slfb8__MKA
He is a good steward, uses rotational grazing and stands to gain a share of US$30 B. I can’t see what the problem is.
Judith, congratulations!
That is the best summary of the current confusion that I have seen. With some few exceptions, out page does not recognize that. Science is designed, often successfully, to be impervious to bias, which demands honesty from the rational, and silence from the rest. The Scottish Enlightenment was the high noon following the sunrise of the Greeks and Galileo. We are now in the twilight. God grant us it shall not progress to night. Place your bets.
Shall we not reprise Feynman now?
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman
“There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset.”
Surely Mr. Feynman was joking.
Yes, excellent post. Ian Plimer talks about Steve Koonin’s new book “Unsettled” about how science has become a body to persuade society rather than to inform:
https://youtu.be/yigV1hhhdRM
They conclude with, “let another country do it first”. Another country did do it and now the climatastraphists want them to undo it and do something else.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Aurd_Rb8gsg/X586cRMwtLI/AAAAAAAACyw/LvflAlUg2mQ5Bqvb2RnpYXWusCVeKOFwgCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/600px-Electricity_in_France.svg.png
This is worth a read,
If you control the media, and the narrative, and you repeat it often, you control what the mind believes. Mind control.
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/79760/the-covidian-cult-exposed-six-conditions-of-mind.html
We frequently see graphs showing that model runs are unable to match observation for either SST or tropospheric temperatures. If I had models that showed double the rate of observation I would bin them immediately, re-think my assumptions and hope that my colleagues would regard my results as part of an exploratory learning curve.
As an observer of climate modelling, I see no such reaction. After decades, the models are still deviating from reality. There seems to be an underlying implication that the modellers believe that their models are correct and reality is wrong. I am unable to identify the mental condition at work here. Is it delusion, misplaced optimism, dogged determination, arrogant unconcern or simple madness? Whatever its is, it seems to be affecting others working in the field, most of whom fail to point out that the models fail the most obvious test of their usefulness.
Perhaps someone could explain.
No Peter, its a perfectly rational self-interested response. Climate modeling has become an industry. Since the problem is unsolvable, there is an infinite string of papers and “improvements.” But its a great source of job security and funding is easy to secure because funders believe in the climate emergency narrative.
The smarter and more honest modelers know the issues and that skill is absent for most of the patterns of change. Palmer and Stevens even have a game plan for vastly higher resolution to resolve much smaller scale eddies. I doubt it will produce much improvement, but they believe in it.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” John von Neumann
I ran hydrodynamic models for decades. I tried to be precise – I was looking for practical real world solutions – but I was always amused that I could make them dance to my tune. I am well behind the curve these days – I started with punch cards – but still an enthusiast.
Cloud resolving scale computing has been done. It allows numerical computation using equations of state rather than parametrizations. To do it globally would require quantum computers.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/nested-models.png
Nonetheless – Tapio Schneider of the the Caltech Climate Dynamics Group produced a very interesting result in 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnGQkT0rQs
The other approach is Earth system modelling in which big data from all the billions of dollars of observing systems now in place is integrated with more human scaled analysis of patterns and process. The usefulness of the potential applications now tantalisingly within reach are immense. It is truly a great notion.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-019-0912-1/MediaObjects/41586_2019_912_Fig1_HTML.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0912-1
“Part I in this series addressed logical fallacies. Part II addressed biases associated with a consensus building process. Part II addresses the role of social conflicts and biases.”
Looks like second Part II, is supposed to be III.
Pingback: How we fool ourselves. Part III: Social biases – Climate- Science.press
“Such biases can lead to widely-accepted claims that reflect the scientific community’s blind spots more than they reflect justified scientific conclusions.”
Where the collective narcissism of saving the planet from our CO2 sins thrives off toady backslapping and aggressively attacks legitimate scientific challenge, I’d naturally search for justifiable scientific conclusions within the blind spot.
Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
Planet Energy Budget:
Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius “r” after reflection and dispersion:
Jabs = Φ*πr²S (1-a) (W)
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Φ = (1 – 0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Where
(0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
= 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1
The solar irradiation reflection, when integrated over a planet sunlit hemisphere is:
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) *S *π r²
For a planet with albedo a = 0
we shall have
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*0) *S *π r² =
= Jsw.reflected = 0,53 *S *π r²
The fraction left for hemisphere to absorb is:
Φ = 1 – 0,53 = 0,47
and
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r²
The factor Φ = 0,47 “translates” the absorption of a disk into the absorption of a hemisphere with the same radius. When covering a disk with a hemisphere of the same radius the hemisphere’s surface area is 2π r². The incident Solar energy on the hemisphere’s area is the same as on disk:
Jdirect = π r² S
The absorbed Solar energy by the hemisphere’s area of 2π r² is:
Jabs = 0,47*( 1 – a) π r² S
It happens because a hemisphere of the same radius “r” absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk of the same radius Solar irradiation.
In spite of hemisphere having twice the area of the disk, it absorbs only the 0,47 part of the directly incident on the disk Solar irradiation.
Jabs = Φ (1 – a ) S π r² , where Φ = 0,47 for smooth without atmosphere planets.
and
Φ = 1 for gaseous planets, as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Titan. Gaseous planets do not have a surface to reflect radiation. The solar irradiation is captured in the thousands of kilometers gaseous abyss. The gaseous planets have only the albedo “a”.
And Φ = 1 for heavy cratered planets, as Calisto and Rhea ( not smooth surface planets, without atmosphere ). The heavy cratered planets have the ability to capture the incoming light in their multiple craters and canyons. The heavy cratered planets have only the albedo “a”.
Another thing that I should explain is that planet’s albedo actually doesn’t represent a primer reflection. It is a kind of a secondary reflection ( a homogenous dispersion of light also out into space ).
That light is visible and measurable and is called albedo.
The primer reflection from a spherical hemisphere cannot be seen from some distance from the planet. It can only be seen by an observer being on the planet’s surface.
It is the blinding surface reflection right in the observer’s eye.
That is why the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” we consider as different values.
Both of them, the albedo “a” and the factor “Φ” cooperate in the Planet Rotating Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Jsw.absorbed = Φ * (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Total energy emitted to space from entire planet:
Jemit = A*σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Α – is the planet’s surface (m²)
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
A = 4πr² (m²), where r – is the planet’s radius
Jemit = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
global Jabs = global Jemit
Φ*πr²S (1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
Or after eliminating πr²
Φ*S*(1-a) = 4σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
The planet average Jabs = Jemit per m² planet surface:
Jabs = Jemit
Φ*S*(1-a) /4 = σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin
cp – is the planet surface specific heat
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Here (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.361 W/m².
With an albedo of a = 0,306 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K or 15°C.
This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured
Tmean.earth = 288 K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
One more comment for the morning as it is now 8.52 am and I should get out of bed. I doubt that Christos understand the old physics let alone is credibly capable of creating his new physics of the ‘Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law’.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/spinning-earth.gif
Occam tells me that the change in planetary heat and work is equal to energy in less energy out.
d(W&H)/dt = Ein – Eout
The first differential global energy budget can be closed a couple of ways. By considering ocean warming rates over time. I did it by considering that d(W&H)/dt = 0 at annual max and mins in ocean heat.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/argo-to-march-20182.png
But here’s climate change that is caused by Earth system processes on a spinning planet – and not by the almost constant rate of planetary rotation.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/mei-v-hadcrut1.png
Perhaps he will now consider not plaguing the site with incessant repetitions of new physics nonsense, Perhaps not.
Climate change involves a change in the energy content of the planet.
d(W&H)/dt = Ein – Eout
Why do you believe that a rotating planet attracts more solar radiation? Why would a nonrotating planet (Venus, for example) freeze to death?
George,
“Why do you believe that a rotating planet attracts more solar radiation? ”
Energy in = Energy out
Energy in = Reflected SW (diffusely and specularly) + emitted IR
When planet rotates faster (everything else equals) the same amount of emitted IR energy is distributed more evenly.
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens.
When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet. (it happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down).
The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
It happens so because when rotating faster, the planet’s surface has emission temperatures the new distribution to achieve.
So that is what happens:
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It happens in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Let’s explain:
Assuming a planet rotates faster and Tmax2 -Tmax1 = -1°C.
Then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: Tmin2 -Tmin1 > 1°C
Consequently Tmean2 > Tmean1.
Assuming a planet rotates faster (n2>n1).
If on the solar irradiated hemisphere we observe the difference in average temperature
Tsolar2-Tsolar1 = -1°C
Then the dark hemisphere average temperature
Tdark2 -Tdark1 >1°C
Consequently the total average
Tmean2 > Tmean1
So we shall have:
Tdark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
A numerical example
Here it is the improved numerical example which proves, the Tmean > Te when the planet rotates fast enough:
As you will see in the numerical example, which I have shown below, when planet rotates faster, on the planet’s solar irradiated side the Te.solar temperature subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand on the planet’s dark side, when planet rotates faster, the Te.dark temperature rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when the solar irradiated side gets on Te.solar cooler by -1 degree °C, the dark side gets on Te.dark warmer by +7,126 degrees °C.
And as a result the planet’s total Te temperature gets higher. It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
It happens so, because we have assumed planet emitting as a blackbody with two separate hemispheres.
The solar hemisphere emitting some of the absorbed incident solar flux’s energy, and the dark hemisphere emitting the rest of the absorbed solar flux’s energy.
Also, when the two hemispheres blackbody planet rotating faster
the energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
The faster rotation does not change the real planet’s energy balance.
Also, the real planet never achieves uniform temperature on both sides, because it receives the solar flux only on the sunlit side.
Because we consider the faster rotating real planet at the same distance from the sun, with the same albedo and Φ factor –
energy in = energy out
balance should be met.
The numerical example:
Assuming a planet with two hemispheres’ Te temperatures
Te.solar1 = 200 K, and Te.dark1 = 100 K
Assuming this planet rotates somehow faster (n2 > n1), so assuming the new Te.solar2 average temperature resulting
Te.solar2 = 199 K.
What would be the planet’s Te.dark2 then?
Jemit.solar1 = σ*(Te.solar1)⁴ ,
(200 K)⁴ = 1.600.000.000*σ for (n1) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 = σ*(Te.solar2)⁴ ,
(199 K)⁴ = 1.568.000.000*σ for (n2) rot/day
Jemit.solar2 – Jemit.solar1 =
= 1.568.000.000*σ – 1.600.000.000*σ =
= – 31.700.000*σ is the difference in the Te solar side emitting intensity when (n2>n1) and 199 K – 200 K = – 1°C
So we have ( – 31.700.000*σ ) less emitting intensity on the solar side (2) when n2>n1.
It should be compensated by the increased emission on the dark side ( + 31.700.000*σ ) for the energy balance equation to get met:
Jemit.dark1 = σ*(Te.dark1)⁴ ,
(100 K)⁴ = 100.000.000
Jemit.dark2 = σ*(Te.dark2)⁴ ,
(Te.dark2)⁴ = (100.000.000 + 31.700.000) = 131.700.000
The dark side higher temperature (2) to compensate the solar side cooler emission (2) by ( – 31.700.000 ) would be
Te.dark2 = (131.700.000)¹∕ ⁴ = 107,126 K
As we see in this numerical example, when the planet rotating faster (n2>n1) the Te temperature on the solar irradiated side subsides from 200 K to 199 K.
On the other hand the Te temperature, when planet rotating faster (n2>n1) on the dark side rises from 100 K to 107,126 K.
So when rotating faster (n2>n1) the solar irradiated planet’s side gets on Te cooler by -1 degree °C, the planet’s dark side gets on Te warmer by +7,126 degrees °C.
And as a result the planet’s mean Te temperature gets higher.
It happens so because when rotating faster (n2>n1) the planet’s surface has emission temperatures Te the new distribution to achieve.
Consequently, when rotating faster, the planet’s mean temperature rises.
Because Te.solar2-Te.solar1 = -1°C Then the dark hemisphere’s Te temperature Te.dark2 -Te.dark1 = +7,126°C
And Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean = [ Te⁴ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.solar2 = [ (Te.solar1 -1°C)⁴ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.dark2 = [ (Te.dark1 +7,126°C)⁴ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
(Tmean.solar1 + Tmean.dark1) / 2 Tplanet.mean1
So we shall have: when n2>n1
Tmean.dark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓mean.solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
Because Te.dark2↑↑ grows higher (+7,126°C) than the T↓e.solar2 lessens (-1°C).
Thus when a planet rotates faster its mean temperature is higher.
Conclusion:
Earth’s faster rotation rate, 1 rotation per day, makes Earth a warmer planet than Moon.
Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 1 rotation in 29,5 days.
Notice:
In the above numerical example we assumed a rotating planet blackbody with two hemispheres’ Te.solar and Te.dark.
It was an assumption, because the blackbody by definition has a uniform temperature on its entire surface.
Also we assumed, that the blackbody somehow had accumulated some of the daytime solar energy.
In this numerical example we have a combination of the blackbody and the real planet emitting behavior. And it is also an assumption.
Real planet does not emit according to the exact Stefan-Boltzmann emission law. Real planet emits exactly according to the new Universal law:
Jemit.planet = 4σ Tmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
George,
“Why do you believe that a rotating planet attracts more solar radiation? ”
A faster rotating planet does not attract more solar radiation. A faster rotating planet has a higher mean surface temperature.
Moon receives 30% more solar energy than Earth because Moon’s Albedo is a = 0,11 vs Earth’s Albedo a = 0,306
Moon is not considered a freeze to death planet… The Moon’s day-time temperatures are much higher than those on Earth’s day-time.
Moon is much colder than Earth in the night-time.
And that is why on average Earth is a warmer planet than Moon.
https:/www.cristos-vournas.com
You really believe that Venus is frozen, because your equation says so.
I really believe that your equation is wrong.
Climate change involves a change in the energy content of the planet.
d(W&H)/dt = Ein – Eout
Julia Galef has a pertinent talk and book on related ideas.
She discusses ‘soldier’ versus ‘scout’ mindset.
(soldiers ‘defend ideas’ while scouts seek observations of truth).
I like the analog, though it’s perhaps imperfect.
(Soldiers and scouts both belong to the same ‘army’ and scouts do observe a current truth, but no one can observe the future).
In a talk, she also describes the ‘graph of despair’:
https://youtu.be/yfRC8ZgBXZw?t=722
Directionally motivated reasoning appears to increase with knowledge.
Graph of despair occurs around time: 11:50
Podcast/extended interview with Julia Galef:
https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/61230
Can be listened to as a podcast also via pretty much any podcast app.
Actually, this podcast was the one focused on the Scout vs. soldier mindset:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vdGhld2VlZHM/episode/NTJlMDdjMjgtMGQ1Yi0xMWViLWJjYjktNjNmMGY0NThlMjE4?ep=14
(warning – you have to get past Matt’s voice)
Absolutely splendid, Eddie! Thanks! Given the always (well, almost always) uncertain nature of “truth”, it may not be considered unreasonable to pursue, promote, and facilitate beliefs that have no sound connection to reality. We see this disjunction every day, including when we consume the news and then discuss it with friends and family. This is why science is based upon skepticism.
On reflection, it’s just trivially true. Many religions contain some statements of fact that require suspension of disbelief. But they are intended to serve a valuable purpose. Many political statements require some selective editing of the truth. And then we get, inevitably, to climate science..
One of the biggest collective self-delusions is reductionism.
And with it the denial of emergent phenomena and chaos-related pattern formation and self-organisation.
This includes the refusal to acknowledge the nonlinear thermodynamics of Ilya Prigogine, and dissipative structures which export entropy from complex systems.
Climate science and CO2 catastrophism in particular will prove to be the Stalingrad of reductionism.
Reductionism is “one of the most used and abused terms in the philosophical lexicon”.
To me, an explanation of a complex phenomenon in terms of its individual, constituent parts and their interactions has been a Holy Grail of natural sciences.
“Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.” Marcia Wyatt
Phil Salmon: One of the biggest collective self-delusions is reductionism.
Bertrand Russell: Unless you can know something without knowing everything, then it is obvious that you can not know anything.
Given our finite capacity for knowledge, finite duration of life and finite ability to communicate, it is obvious that without reductionism, nothing in the universe can be known, studied, or described.
Matthew
You could interpret that Bertrand Russel quote in the opposite way also.
Reductionism demands knowledge of every cog and wheel and minute detail, which is often not practicable. The issue is why ideal reductionism is not possible. Reductionists argue that it just “takes too long” and is too complex to do but, in principle, reduced knowledge is attainable. Holism or whatever the opposite of reductionism is, argues differently: that such reduced to all parts knowledge is fundamentally impossible and even meaningless. That entities are emergent at certain levels of complexity and cannot in any way be explained from individual atomised parts.
There are actually reductionist arguments for emergent pattern, paradoxically; however such is the ideological zeal of the reductionists (evident for instance in Sabine Hossenfelder’s YouTube videos) that even such emergent phenomena are rejected or ignored. An example is the murmuration of starlings which is explainable by time dynamics of responses between birds to changes in flight direction.
https://youtu.be/uV54oa0SyMc
Phil Salmon: An example is the murmuration of starlings which is explainable by time dynamics of responses between birds to changes in flight direction.
The non-equilibrium thermodynamics of Prigogine (and others), the nonlinear dynamics of Poincare and Lorenz (and others) and modern computational facilities have enlarged the scope of the world in which reductionism can be usefully and meaningfully employed.
And yet all that knowledge has gone completely to waste. No-one acknowledges glacial – interglacial alternation as (periodically forced) flicker between attractors. Nor acknowledge endless fractal change as climax’s null hypothesis. Instead like Neanderthals they look for individual volcanoes for every single individual wiggle in the climate record. Poincare and Lorenz and Prigogine and Mandelbrot and Feigenbaum might as well have never lived.
Phil Salmon: Poincare and Lorenz and Prigogine and Mandelbrot and Feigenbaum might as well have never lived.
That is too harsh. Computational non-linear and non-stationary dynamics has been used to understand the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and to understand the heart beat. The developments that you cited were not the “end” of reductionism, but its enlargement.
“Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
James McWilliams reveals the irreducible imprecision of models. Steve Koonin said that there is not a problem with science referenced in IPCC – just the motivated interpretations of especially the summary of policy makers. As someone who has not consulted IPCC reports since 2007 – and who prefers to pursue eclectic interests in the primary literature – I can see where he is coming from. But there is a core of profound science and I am always appalled when it is thrown out with the bathwater in deeply anti-scientific rhetoric.
The sociology of knowledge in this post is not science of course. As far as I am concerned there is no difference of type between beliefs of pissant progressives and the ‘new physics’ – of which there have been many over the years – of contrarian curmudgeons. Each side as poorly informed and as adamantly arrogant as the other. The only thing I take from this is that some 75% of Americans believe that the world will warm this century and that people are at least partly the cause. This has implications for politics.
Nor do I find any value in climate blogs. This one prompts a wider consideration of science and policy than I can easily manage on my own – and has a base of classic liberalism. Founded in the Scottish Enlightenment of which I am a card carrying member. It is as close to the perfect belief system as people have ever formulated.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The dominant scientific paradigm of climate change is that anthropogenic warming is superimposed on Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamical variability at all scales. It is wondrously fractal. Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics show that there are tipping points in the system. As in Judith Curry’s and Marcia Wyatt’s stadium wave paper. One of several thematically related papers from a small group of researchers.
The 2021 Heritage Foundation economic freedom index was released last month. Australia is the third freest economy in the world – but how we came in behind the soulless New Zealanders is a bit of a glitch. On the other hand – the land of the free is less free than you should be. This is the essential cultural battleground. Fighting it on the climate science front is a losing strategy.
High economic growth powers solutions – it means that even politically directed frivolous expenditure is affordable – low economic growth will inevitably fail even in limited objectives of environmental conservation and emission reduction. The reason for the latter is very simple. I was playing hungry hungry hippos with my then 4 year old grandson. He explained to me that hungry hippos have no rules.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/04/17/week-in-review-science-edition-125/#comments
RIE,
Yet there remnains this fundamental problem with the climate department.
Theories about events and mechanisms abound, some of them old, some new, some pedestrian, some fascinatingly novel.
With science, to make these useful, one has to mount an hypothesis, then evaluate it. To do so typ[ically requires measurements to be made with bounds on their uncertainties.
That is where East and West depart. One cannot do valid hypothesis testing with invalid data. By invalid, I mean adjusted, homogenised beyond relity, rounded, cherry picked, expresses to too many decimal places, stated starkly with no confidence limits, wrong confidence limits or correct ones, data assumed to be univariate (that is, not needing consideration of other variables, if I used that correctly), data made up for the purposes of advocacy and so on. These are housekeeping matters but they have had too large an effect of proper progress of climate research.
So, researchers have started to assert truth is truth, without even bothering about the hypothesis stage.
There are lovely implications from the works of Lorenz, Hurst, Mandlelbrot and such like, but its conversion from theory to useful application has sometimes, partially or greatly, been delayed, hampered or even dismissed by the above inadequacies of measurement and observation.
That is why so many of us are sceptical. We do not enjoy the present business of traditional science being prostituted by nincompoops. Geoff S
Did I lose a comment for reason. I suggested that there was lots of good science and that he should focus on crude contrarian unscience for a bit, Lots of that around.
“Earth’s climate is a nonlinear system par excellence. Nowhere is this more manifest than in the dynamics and thermodynamics of the hydrological cycle. Comprehensive climate models represent our best attempt to simulate our changing climate. They do this by attempting to solve ab initio the relevant nonlinear laws of physics.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4892275/
Do they want a trophy for trying? 😁
“It is important, however, to distinguish between model uncertainty that arises from imperfect knowledge of the real system, such as the representation of the carbon cycle, and uncertainty that comes from sub-gridscale phenomena that are understood quite well, but are inadequately represented because of the resolution of the model. In weather forecasting, there has been a continuous drive to higher-and-higher resolution with substantial benefits in terms of model performance and forecast skill. Furthermore, recent studies with ultra-high-resolution (approx. 3 km) global models, the so-called cloud system-resolving models, have shown a remarkable ability to capture the multi-scale nature of tropical convection of the type seen in figure 4 [28]. However, the resolution of climate models, still typically 100 km or more, has been constrained fundamentally by a lack of computing resources [29], even though there is compelling evidence to suggest significant improvements in climate model performance with higher horizontal and vertical resolution in both the atmosphere and ocean [27].
Finally, Lorenz’s theory of the atmosphere (and ocean) as a chaotic system raises fundamental, but unanswered questions about how much the uncertainties in climate-change projections can be reduced. In 1969, Lorenz [30] wrote: ‘Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’. Thirty years later, this problem remains unsolved, and may possibly be unsolvable.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
It has gotten much worse. The clueless Josh again seeks to school me on his cognitive bias. I’d guess that is a problem of agnotology.
“What don’t we know, and why don’t we know it? What keeps ignorance alive, or allows it to be used as a political instrument? Agnotology—the study of ignorance—provides a new theoretical perspective to broaden traditional questions about “how we know” to ask: Why don’t we know what we don’t know?” https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=11232
Pingback: Tunnel vision by another name | Wrongful Convictions Report
You could write an absolutely identical article about politics, Prof Curry.
Before the widespread censorship of the internet, it was very easy to identify the ‘red lines’ of both ‘left wing/liberal’ and ‘right-wing/Conservative’ communities by expressing independent-minded opinions at national media websites where such folks tended to congregate, comment and be hectored to by ‘famous journalists’.
In the UK, the following are taboo:
1. Questioning the integrity of foreign policy of the USA.
2. Questioning the right of Europe to trade freely with Russia despite what the USA might think of it.
3. Questioning the concept that reaching senior Establishment positions correlates with moral probity.
4. Questioning climate science (on the left/liberal wing) or the glorious history of Christianity (on the right wing).
5. Asking whether historical Empires were about conquest and looting, rather than ‘spreading the creed of Christianity and conservative values’.
6. Questioning the right of the UK and USA to organise coup d’etats around the world, despite claiming to ‘promote democracy’.
7. Questioning the Establishment script on 9/11 (across all political wings).
8. Discussing Brexit (the left called you racist, those on the right were adamant that Europeans were all dictators).
9. Discussing the scientific, medical and sociological realities of ‘Covid19’ and ‘The Great Reset’ without subscribing to the views of the WEF, Bill Gates and global multibillionaires.
10. Asking whether Joe Biden was any better than Donald Trump (on the left), whether Russia is in fact a low-tax, multi-faith conservative country that might in fact be a benchmark for US Republicans (anywhere where the US Establishment views hold sway).
Actually having adult discussions through official channels is now breaking down. So ground-up democracy is starting to emerge in the UK not through political parties (which no longer represent the people), but through the initiative of ordinary citizens.
Whether you will ever see some independent climate scientists ‘crowd funding’ their research to allow intellectual freedom,, I don’t know. But that’s what I would advise ethical climate scientists to consider doing right now….
You‘ve got it.
That more or less leaves only celebrity gossip.
RIE,
Replacing soil.
You want to mine the deltas of the Ganges, Mississippi, Amazon etc and contrary to the course of Nature spread it back on farms?
You are going rather overboard lately with your cut and paste selections combined with original science fiction from your productive hands.
Why? Why on Judith’s blog, when you say earlier that you do not see value in blogs?
These is a logical solution, just go away from here and reflect on your fallibility. Best wishes. Geoff S
Oh for God’s sake. Carbon dioxide feeds plants – they covert it into organic matter and carbohydrates – sugars are exuded and consumed by fungi that create soil conditions that favor paedogenesis and the release of nutrients that the plants then utilise. The wondrous circle of life.
It is then a matter of conserving soil carbon with modern farming practices.
– fallow management
– tillage practices
– grazing practices in rangelands (e.g. between cell grazing, rotational and continuous grazing)
– crop rotations in irrigation areas (with vegetables and pastures)
– fertiliser application and timings.
You manage to get the wrong end of the stick every time you venture to make a comment in your habitually arrogant and conceited style. Why are you here? You add no substance to any discussion. Just a litany of complaints about me.
It’s the behavior of a zealot driven by culturally inspired ignorance – agnotology – every bit as wrongheaded as that of ideological zealots on the other side. You nicely illustrate the point of the post.
Well, rtj, sounds like you have the proper absence of skepticism.
We shall reward you.
Another anti-nuclear urban legend busted: research found no evidence that Chernobyl radiation genetic damage is passed from parents to children.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210422150435.htm
Meanwhile academic opinion is quietly moving to a small number of radiation victims from Chernobyl, but this is disconnected with the general public who still believe that it was up there with the Black Death in number of lives lost.
Yes. And as far as I know zero for Fukushima. The tsunami got most of them. With a little better design – generators on top instead of on the bottom – there would have been no explosions, no meltdown.
Jim
But you don’t get it.
Fukushima CAUSED the tsunami.
/sarc
Downside of living in an idiocracy
Motivated reasoning and tuning out.
People are problem solvers. Warmists captured the attention of the world back in the 1990s, then adamantly refuse to accept any coherent solutions to the problem they allege even though those exist. And they insisted on selectively placing blame for the alleged problem.*
Therefore, people tune them out or assume the loudest activists must not really believe the problem exists. That assumption may or may not be correct, but it’s entirely reasonable.
*there is no rational explanation for turning off nuclear power plants, much less refusing to build new ones, in world where CO2 really is an existential threat.
There is no rational explanation for giving China a pass on exponentially growing CO2 emissions now, today. China built more coal-fired power plants in 2020 than the rest of the world combined. This is especially bizarre given that the current warmist narrative is that such plants are entirely unnecessary and even more expensive than renewables.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
I chose the (β*N*cp)^(1/4), so I chose the fourth root here. When the (β*N*cp)^(1/4) is inserted in the New equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the planet surface (N*cp) product “formats” the final Tmean result at (N*cp) sixteenth root (1/16). In the New equation the (N*cp) is being twice the fourth root operated, thus it is the (N*cp) product’s sixteenth root which affects the final result.
The METHOD I use is the PLANET SURFACE TEMPERATURES COMPARISON.
When comparing the different planets’ satellite measured mean surface temperatures, what I found is planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as the planet surface (N*cp) product’s sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated this phenomenon in my site, where I have for the different planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison.
1). Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445868922
2). Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445498727
3). Mars and Moon satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison: 210 K and 220 K:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383818
4). Mercury / Moon / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 340 K, 220 K and 210 K comparison:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445450354
5). Mercury / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 340 K and 210 K comparison:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444328471
6). Io /Enceladus satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparison 110 K / 75 K:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446161363
7). Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune T1bar mean temperatures 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/445559910
What is more wonderful, is that the equation
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
the equation is not derived for the planet Earth!
The equation is for planets or moons without atmosphere.
The smooth surface planets and moons without atmosphere are
Mercury
Moon
Mars
Europa (of Jupiter)
Ganymede (of Jupiter)
For them Φ = 0,47
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589400487356._szw1280h1280_.jpg
The heavy cratered are
Io (of Jupiter)
Calisto (of Jupiter)
Enceladus (of Saturn)
Tethys (of Saturn)
Pluto
Charon (of Pluto)
For them Φ = 1
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589400487780._szw1280h1280_.jpg
No need to say, the results are very much close to those satellite measured…
When I applied the equation
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
for the case of Earth (without atmosphere) the mean surface temperature I obtained was
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K
So I applied the equation to the Titan (of Saturn) which also have atmosphere (so the for Titan Φ = 1), and the result was
Tmean.titan = 96,03 K
To compare with the Tsat.titan = 93,07 K
Well, all these wonderful things happened in early spring 2019.
It is already two years ago…
no GHE required
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No – I don’t need a citation for a blog discussion that covered a computerized solution to Hayek’s problem of knowledge in markets. And you obviously have not noticed how critical I am of crap contrarian unscience – including Christos again under this post. That doesn’t give your disingenuous agnotology a free pass.
Where is a skeptic when you need one?
Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellite measurements. All the data below are observations.
Planet…….Earth….Europa
Tsat.mean 288 K….102 K
R…………..1 AU…5,2044 AU
1/R²………1…….0,0369
N………….1……0,28159 rot./day
a…………..0,306……0,63
(1-a)………0,694……0,37
coeff……….0,9127…0,3158
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,694 * 1 * 1 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,9127
Europa:
Tsat.mean = 102 K
[ (1-a)*(1/R²)*(N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,37*0,0369*(1/3,5512)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 0,3158
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. /Europa coeff. =
= 0.9127 /0,3158 = 2,8902
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.europa =
= 288 K /102 K = 2,8235
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations.
Notice:
We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean surface temperatures because both Earth and Europa have two identical major features.
Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europa’s surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*°C.
And
It is a confirmation that the planet axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the sixteenth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I found a source for these calculations that seems to be correct, and have confirmed this on skeptic site as well.
the link is http://sgoodwin.staff.shef.ac.uk/temperatures.pdf
So looking at this website, there is a caveat in the equation that the planet has to be rotating at sufficient velocity. This particular website does not quantify what that is, but it does lead credence to the rotation of the planet being a factor in the equation, which the commonly used one does not include (actually researching it further if one uses the actual formula and not a simplification it would include the speed of rotation). Further, the endpoints can be found for a rotation of zero, or a theoretical infinite rotation, Dr. Roy Spencer does this on his website.
So I then looked at the above equation and the temperature is supposed to vary with respect to rotation (assuming that every thing else is constant) by the formula T=K(N^0.25)^0.25
Simplifying T=KN^0.0625
Here is what I would expect from looking at various sources;
1. For a non-rotating planet that I get a temperature that is not always 0 and not infinite, actually the temperature is the max on the sun side and is zero on the shade side and that the average is half of the max.
N from the website above is the number of rotations per day, which for a non-rotating planet would be 0.
So for a stationary planet the above formula will always yield 0, no matter what the albedo, distance from the sun, etc. are. So the formula does not work for planets that do not rotate.
2. For planets that rotate really fast that the further contribution of rotating faster to temperature decreases. In other words as the rate of rotation increases, rate of temperature increase gets smaller.
This is easy to check by calculus, graphing the equation, etc. and the formula behaves as expected.
Due to the formula not working for a non-rotating planet, and finding no explanation of why that would be so, nor any bounds on how fast the rotation has to be, I am highly skeptical that the formula is correct.
atandb
> 1. For a non-rotating planet that I get a temperature that is not always 0 and not infinite, actually the temperature is the max on the sun side and is zero on the shade side and that the average is half of the max.
N from the website above is the number of rotations per day, which for a non-rotating planet would be 0.
So for a stationary planet the above formula will always yield 0, no matter what the albedo, distance from the sun, etc. are. So the formula does not work for planets that do not rotate.
Yes, you are right, it gives T=0 for N=0!
But when N is very much close to the N=0, but still it is not N=0…
Example
Say N = 10⁻⁸ (it is a very close to N=0 number…)
But when the sixteenth root is operated the result is
(N)^1/16 = (10⁻⁸)^1/16 = 0,316
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
atandb
> 2. For planets that rotate really fast that the further contribution of rotating faster to temperature decreases. In other words as the rate of rotation increases, rate of temperature increase gets smaller.
This is easy to check by calculus, graphing the equation, etc. and the formula behaves as expected.
Yes, as the rate of rotation increases, rate of temperature increase gets smaller.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
For the final Tmean result N (rotations/day) value is operated twice in fourth root .
Example: Let’s say N = 100.000.000
[ ( 100.000.000 )¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 100 )¹∕ ⁴ = 3,1623
And for N = 1000.000.000 it is 3,6525
But for N = 10 it is 1,1548
If Earth were rotating 10 times as fast, Earth’s mean surface temperature would be:
288 K * 1,1548 = 332,58 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
But when N is very much close to the N=0, but still it is not N=0…
Example
Say N = 10⁻⁸ (it is a very close to N=0 number…)
But when the sixteenth root is operated the result is
(N)^1/16 = (10⁻⁸)^1/16 = 0,316
We have established that at N=0, your equation yields faulty results. You are saying that since the values close to zero yield less faulty results we should use your equation? The values would trend toward zero. A formula that trends to faulty is faulty. I have no doubt that a either a calculus solution or a parameterized solution can be found that incorporates N in the formula, but this is not it. What you need to do is to figure out what the value would be of a non-rotating planet, then figure out what the value would be for a theoretical planet that has infinite spin. Your equation should work at both endpoints if you want to be taken seriously. The black body equation is based on experimental values. These experiments have been reproduced, and the procedures are available for you to test. It appears from your site that you are basing your values on the few planets that are available, but the black body experiments are based on much larger datasets, and carefully controlled experiments.
I agree – the formula doesn’t. It has moreover these
‘new physics’ universal constants fitted to wikipedia.
atandb,
I am willing to accept your help. What exactly would you like to improve in the New equation?
Tm = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your formula should approach
T^4 = (1-A)L/(16B*pi*d^2)
as N goes to infinity.
Your formula should reduce to
T^4 = (1-A)L/(8B*pi*d^2)
when N = 0
where T is temperature in K
N is rotations per day
L is the luminosity of the sun
A is the albedo of the planet
d is the distance from planet to sun
B is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
This I derived or copied from the http://sgoodwin.staff.shef.ac.uk/temperatures.pdf
website, any mistakes are my own.
Yes, I agree with mathematics…
What I think is that there is not a nonrotating planet. When a planet slows very much close to zero, it is for some limited time, because planet will start rotating the opposite direction…
Most planets in the Solar System rotate counter clock wise, but there is the Venus, which rotates clock wise.
So the limited time planet does not rotated is determined by the rate of change of the rotational spin.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
You say that you agree with mathematics.
Then;
“What I think is that there is not a nonrotating planet.”
I agree that a planet that has one side facing the sun at all times would be a rare or non-existent planet. However, if one did exist then the above formula should work. There is not a planet with infinite spin velocity, but the other above formula would give the temperature of such a planet.
Here is my point;
If we can agree what the formula is for a non-rotating object and what the formula should approach for an infinitely spinning object, then we can come up with a formula that applies at both end points and for values in-between. Further, we could use experiments to determine how the rotation of an object influences the heat transfer from a heat source and a heat sink.
So an experiment could be set up with a light bulb or other heat source, an object that can be spun at various constant rates as well as stationary, and hundreds of values could be measured from this experiment. From this experiment we could determine the correct formula to incorporate N into the formulas above. We would not have to guess.
So if we start by holding L, A, d, B constant then;
Let K = (1-A)L/(8B*pi*d^2)
Then assume some functions exists f(N), g(N) where
f(N) = T^4
f(0) = K
and
f(N) = 2K as N approaches infinity.
Then a hypothesis could be;
f(N) = K + g(N)K
where g(0) = 0
and g(N) = 1 as N approaches infinity.
further
g(N) could be N/(N+a)
where a is a positive constant greater than zero.
That could be confirmed by the experiment or discarded by the experiment.
Atandb,
> I agree that a planet that has one side facing the sun at all times would be a rare or non-existent planet. However, if one did exist then the above formula should work. There is not a planet with infinite spin velocity, but the other above formula would give the temperature of such a planet.
I agree with the mathematics.
What I think is that “a planet that has one side facing the sun at all times” will not have the surface ROTATIONAL WARMING phenomenon.
Therefore every point on the sunlit side of the nonrotating planet will have a constant temperature depending only on the local Albedo and on the solar irradiation angular of incidence.
Unfortunately we cannot set up an experiment. Planets are spherical solar irradiated rotating celestial bodies. The sun is at very big distance from planets, so the solar beams are considered as the parallel flow…
Also, the planets are in a “controlled” environment we cannot have in any laboratory. The not solar (cosmic) radiation intensity on the planets surface is negligible.
In laboratory there always will be present the Earth’s surface environmental radiation…
Thank you for your participation. The equation has this problem. The equation is not perfect in the pure mathematical point of view.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
At a first approach, when without the Rotational Warming phenomenon implementation, I use instead of Te, the Planet Corrected Effective Temperatures Te.correct
The formula is:
[ Φ(1-a) /4σ ]^1/4
Φ = 0,47 (the 0,47 is for smooth surface planets without atmosphere, the factor Φ accounts for the smooth planet surface specular reflection)
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected
Planet…….. Te……….Te.correct
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K
Moon………270 K……224 K
Earth………255 K…….210 K
Mars,,,,,,,,,,210 K……174 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
As with all scientific endeavors, we do the best we can to set up the experiments, and control variables, and rely on the fact that what we have found to be true on the planet is also true off of the planet. An object or planet will absorb heat from a heat source according to universal formulas. There is not one formula for planets and then another for interactions on the surface. Further, you could submit your experiment for being performed in space, and it could be tested with the sun as the source. However, I am confident that the universal laws of science apply, and that such an experiment is unnecessary. Even without the problem your formula has with N, it also has problems with your use of the other non-standard parts of your formula. I see no consistent use of Φ for instance. You have no standard for when a planet is “smooth” or “rough” that could be applied by anyone except yourself. You do not have enough data points to convince me that your formula is anything but arbitrary. Show me that your formula works in experiments here on the earth. Show me an experiment that could be done to invalidate your formula. Show me how you derived your formula and the standard deviation of the data points used to show that you have a proper fit without using terms that are not well defined enough for someone to repeat your derivation. I went through the process step by step complete with each parameter explained, and gave an example of an experiment that could invalidate or validate my hypothesis. I did not do the experiment, as I assume that it has been done, and whether I come up with the correct formula or not determined if I work to look hard enough. I gave a contrast between how it is done, and how it is not. If I made mistakes along the way (likely) it is there for others to criticize, and I would gladly fix them. I do not see vigorous use of the scientific method in your development of your formula. If I am wrong, please point it out.
atandb,
I am very glad of your interest in my work.
> atandb Even without the problem your formula has with N, it also has problems with your use of the other non-standard parts of your formula. I see no consistent use of Φ for instance. You have no standard for when a planet is “smooth” or “rough” that could be applied by anyone except yourself.
You made a very interesting suggestion. And a very important one for the Theory the further successful development…
The division into “smooth” vs “heavily cratered”
The division into “smooth” vs “heavily cratered” seems arbitrary. Just looking at images of the moons and planets, of the “smooth” ones seem rougher than some of the “heavily cratered” ones. At first it seems there should be some objective standard. Also, it seems there should be a continuous scale from 0.47 to 1.00 based on just how cratered it is.
Planet surface roughness is a criteria which comes from the surface roughness state to the planet’s diameter very huge dimensions comparison.
So, the smooth surface planet (Φ = 0,47) is not necessarily a microscopically smooth surface. There is a big interval in planet surface roughness, from the perfect microscopical smooth surface to the boundary of the planet being still considered a smooth surface planet (Φ = 0,47).
The rough enough state, for the solar irradiation 100 % capturing ( Φ = 1 ) example is a dense urban area. When solar rays hit the walls of the buildings the rays are multiply specularly reflected with a general direction towards the bottom, and till the energy is completely diffusely reflected or “absorbed” and IR emitted.
Also, it seems there should be a continuous scale from 0.47 to 1.00 based on just how cratered it is.
Yes, I thought about it a lot. What I came with is that when surface is at a Φ = 0,47 state, it cannot become even more smooth.
For a planet surface to reflect specularly more than 0,53*S is not possible, because of the planet’s spherical shape.
And like-wise, when the surface is at the rough Φ = 1 state, it cannot capture even more solar light (even more higher buildings urban areas cannot capture even more solar energy).
The states in between could not been conserved, because of the multibillion years planet-surface-shaping HISTORY, which was shaping surface towards one Φ = 0,47 (the smooth version), or towards the another, the Φ = 1 (the heavy cratered, the rough version).
We have only the Triton, Neptune’s moon, which does not fall in either Φ = 0,47 or Φ = 1 categories. Triton is the exception which confirms the above rule.
Triton is one of the few moons in the Solar System known to be geologically active (the others being Jupiter’s Io and Europa, and Saturn’s Enceladus and Titan). As a consequence, its surface is relatively young, with few obvious impact craters. Intricate cryovolcanic and tectonic terrains suggest a complex geological history. Part of its surface has geysers erupting sublimated nitrogen gas, contributing to a tenuous nitrogen atmosphere less than 1⁄70,000 the pressure of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level.[7] Voyager 2 was able to study only about 40% of its surface, and future missions have been proposed to revisit the Neptune system with a focus on Triton.
Triton (moon) – Wikipedia
A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel…
A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel would have mostly diffuse reflection…
A planet shaped like a cube, but covered with smooth glass, would have mostly spectral reflection…
But the 0,47 in equation comes a chart of various shapes, and nothing to do with surface material. It seems like making no sense…
Yes, a planet shaped like a cube, but covered with smooth glass, would have mostly specular reflection…
Now, let’s imagine a spherical planet covered with smooth glass… For smooth sphere Φ = 0,47
So the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux S would be:
not reflected = IR emitted = Φ(1 – a)S πr²
a glass covered planet resemblances the case of the Earth (Φ = 0,47)
Let’s now imagine a planet covered with glass cubes…
The sizes of the cubes compared to the spherical planet size is what determines the Φ (the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient).
A spherical planet covered with sand and gravel would have mostly diffuse reflection.
So, sand and gravel covered planet is like being covered with small-size cubes.
A planet covered with sand and gravel resemblances the general case of smooth surface planets without-atmosphere Φ = 0,47.
But if the sizes of cubes are 10-20 stores high buildings, the planet surface shape and roughness coefficient Φ will approach very much close to the Φ = 1.
We have Φ for different planets’ surfaces varying
0,47 ≤ Φ ≤ 1
And we have surface average Albedo “a” for different planets’ varying
0 ≤ a ≤ 1
Notice:
Φ is never less than 0,47 for planets (spherical shape). Also, the coefficient Φ is “bounded” in a product with (1 – a) term, forming the
Φ(1 – a) product cooperating term.
…………………………………….
I have prepared a page in my site which I call
SOLAR ENERGY BUDGET.
It is the last page in the site’s bottom. I have made several orthogonal illustrations/schemes to demonstrate the whole Albedo and Φ factor “involvements” in Planet’s Radiative Energy Balance:
I describe in the page the different Albedo – Φ factor cases.
There are planets with zero Albedo, also planets with 100% Albedo.
Also there are planets with Φ = 1; And with Φ = 0,47;
The Budget considers the planet’s energy balance in Total, and not in average as the Greenhouse warming theory very mistakenly does. The Planet Radiative Energy Budget can be applied to all planets.
LINK TO THE PAGE:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448704125
atandb,
You do not have enough data points to convince me that your formula is anything but arbitrary. Show me that your formula works in experiments here on the earth. Show me an experiment that could be done to invalidate your formula.
atandb,
The method I use is the Planet Surface Temperatures Comparison Method.
Please, visit my comment in the next thread,
Christos Vournas | May 5, 2021 at 4:28 am | Reply
Show me how you derived your formula and the standard deviation of the data points used to show that you have a proper fit without using terms that are not well defined enough for someone to repeat your derivation.
Please visit my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Everything I do is there…
I do not see vigorous use of the scientific method in your development of your formula.
Please help me every possible way you can.
Best regards,
Christos
atandb,
Show me how you derived your formula and the standard deviation of the data points used to show that you have a proper fit without using terms that are not well defined enough for someone to repeat your derivation.
I think I know what it is you are asking for. I did this graph
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589399740131._szw1280h1280_.jpg
Also there are few more graphs at the page:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448752897
So you are using 13 points to fit two new variables N and Φ. Further Triton seems to be an outlier. With two new variables I could find a much better fit than you have, doesn’t mean that I would be correct. You want the world to accept that your derivation is correct from 13 points, and resist any data that would show that you are wrong that consists of thousands of points that have been done in previous studies? You have also not given any criteria for when one should select 1 for Φ vs. 0.47 that could be used for these 13 points, nor do you share how you selected the ones you did for each value. If a new moon or planet is discovered tomorrow, which value should one use, or do we graph it first to see which value yields the better fit?
atadb,
If a new moon or planet is discovered tomorrow, which value should one use, or do we graph it first to see which value yields the better fit?
When discovered, and when we have available the New planet’s rotational spin, the New planet’s Albedo, the New planet’s average surface specific heat… the rest would be very easy then…
atandb
Please visit my comment in the next thread:
“The planet blackbody effective temperature formula
Te = [ (1 – a)S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is not capable to provide any realistic planet average temperature approach…”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The fact of the matter is that models predict a range of values for future global warming. Certainly the upper range can legitimately be called catastrophic. However, if cloud feedbacks (the most uncertain of all the potential amplifiers) turn out to be largely negative, then climate change will not be a catastrophe. Such predictions are within the ensemble of model-generated outcomes. Cloud feedback is a big uncertainty in our understanding of climate change.
“Policy is based on risk – taking action to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change. That is of course a rational course of action. But supporting such policy does not imply you believe that climate change will be catastrophic.
“The position of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (the leading climate sceptic think tank in the UK) is that climate change will be “lukewarm”. This is definitely not the same as denial. To call someone a denier because he or she does not believe that climate change will be catastrophic would be an awful misrepresentation and it seems to me that the paper could open itself up to legal challenges.”
“My view – see the lecture video – is that one should be just as critical of those that say climate change “will” be catastrophic, as those who say it will be “lukewarm”, or indeed say it is all a big hoax. None of these positions is scientifically sound
“Climate prediction science is fundamentally based on probabilistic forecasts – these underpin the quantification of risk. This may not seem very sexy for a newspaper. However, it is vital that science is seen as an honest dispassionate disinterested broker in this debate.” Tim Palmer
Probabilistic climate forecasts remain a glint in Tim Palmer eye. Nonetheless – the fundamentals of climate change are simple and obvious. Greenhouse gas emissions – far from limited limited to carbon dioxide and power stations – warm the planet. That is superimposed on a globally coupled, chaotic system with an inevitable risk of minor major tipping point surprises.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_gas_2015.png
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png
In a world of limited resources and dire need the response must be responsible and economically rational. Fear has driven responsibility out the window – and poor wee willie’s AI economic overlord is far from rational let alone economically rational. This from Bjorn Lomborg was in my inbox this morning.
https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623844?e=b51ec965d8
Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. A multi-gas and aerosol strategy is a start – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
Some of the answer is under our feet. Rattan Lal – himself a scientific treasure – estimates that some 500 Gigatonne (GtC) carbon has been lost from terrestrial systems since the advent of agriculture – much in the modern era. ‘Soil is like a bank account – we must replace what we have removed.”
Given that increases in population and wealth this century in a high economic growth scenario will vastly increase energy and materials demand – I suggest a diversification of energy sources. I am convinced enough that wind and solar have some utility. There are many other technologies on the horizon. I have great hopes for economically competitive advanced nuclear fission reactors in the near future..
Robert I Ellison: However, if cloud feedbacks (the most uncertain of all the potential amplifiers) turn out to be largely negative, then climate change will not be a catastrophe.
Yes.
You are of course reading far too much into Tim Palmer trying to take a balanced approach in advice on editorial policy.
“A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm
From observations – and far from this latest – it’s looking more likely to be positive. From eddy resolving scale calculations using equations of state it may be dramatically positive at high CO2 levels.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/schenider_fig-1280×848.jpg
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
Of course it ain’t so?
Robert I Ellison: You are of course reading far too much into Tim Palmer trying to take a balanced approach in advice on editorial policy.
It was a direct quote from you. Are you now arguing against yourself that cloud feedback is not the “most uncertain of all the potential amplifiers”? it’s looking more likely to be positive How much “more likely”?
The first paragraph was a quote from Tim Palmer – as I said – around which I neglected to put quotations marks. My bad – but did you not believe me when I said it was a quote?
Burgman et al (2008) use a variety of data sources to examine decadal variability of surface winds, water vapour (WV), outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and clouds. They conclude that the ‘most recent climate shift, which occurred in the 1990s during a period of continuous satellite coverage, is characterized by a ‘La Niña’ SST pattern with significant signals in the central equatorial Pacific and also in the north-eastern subtropics. There is a clear westward shift in convection on the equator, and an apparent strengthening of the Walker circulation. In the north-eastern subtropics, SST cooling coinciding with atmospheric drying appears to be induced by changes in atmospheric circulation. There is no indication in the wind speed that the changes in SST or WV are a result of changes in the surface heat flux. There is also an increase in OLR which is consistent with the drying. Finally, there is evidence for an increase in cloud fraction in the stratus regions for the 1990s transition as seen in earlier studies.’
In a study that was widely interpreted as a demonstration of a positive global warming cloud feedback, Amy Clement and colleagues (2009) presented observational evidence of decadal change in cloud cover in surface observation of clouds from the Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set (COADS). ‘Both COADS and adjusted ISCCP data sets show a shift toward more total cloud cover in the late 1990s, and the shift is dominated by low- level cloud cover in the adjusted ISCCP data. The longer COADS total cloud time series indicates that a similar magnitude shift toward reduced cloud cover occurred in the mid-1970s, and this earlier shift was also dominated by marine stratiform clouds. . . Our observational analysis indicates that increased SST and weaker subtropical highs will act to reduce NE Pacific cloud cover.’ As was clearly stated in the paper, the evidence was for a decadal cloud feedback. The feedbacks correspond exactly to changes in the Pacific multi-decadal pattern.
A number of studies have demonstrated the connection of ENSO to radiative flux and therefore to cloud. In an analysis of global warming cloud feedbacks, Dessler (2010) used short term variations in surface temperature and CERES data to determine that cloud cover was negatively correlated with temperature. Dessler also plotted ENSO against surface temperature leaving no doubt that ENSO was the primary cause of the short term temperature variations. Leaving aside anthropogenic global warming – the finding of a positive feedback here is in the first instance an ENSO feedback. As was reported, ‘the climate variations being analysed here are primarily driven by ENSO, and there has been no suggestion that ENSO is caused by cloud variations.’ The study takes a statistical approach that may gloss over the difference in processes in play in ENSO and from global warming.
Zhu et al (2007) found that cloud formation for ENSO and for global warming have different characteristics and are the result of different physical mechanisms. The change in low cloud cover in the 1997-1998 El Niño came mainly as a decrease in optically thick stratocumulus and stratus cloud. The decrease is negatively correlated to local SST anomalies, especially in the eastern tropical Pacific, and is associated with a change in convective activity. ‘During the 1997–1998 El Niño, observations indicate that the SST increase in the eastern tropical Pacific enhances the atmospheric convection, which shifts the upward motion to further south and breaks down low stratiform clouds, leading to a decrease in low cloud amount in this region. Taking into account the obscuring effects of high cloud, it was found that thick low clouds decreased by more than 20% in the eastern tropical Pacific… In contrast, most increase in low cloud amount due to doubled CO2 simulated by the NCAR and GFDL models occurs in the subtropical subsidence regimes associated with a strong atmospheric stability.’
The surface observed decadal atmospheric changes have quantified support in satellite measurements of top of atmosphere radiative flux. This is what NASA/GISS says about the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project data. The ‘slow increase of global upwelling LW (infrared or heat) flux at TOA from the 1980’s to the 1990’s, which is found mostly in lower latitudes, is confirmed by the ERBS records.’ ‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW (visible light) flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appears to be caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements.’
‘Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC AR4
They are positive feedback to SST – dominate TOA energy dynamics – and they are real.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
Contrarians prefer Willis’ atmospheric refrigerator thesis and waving hands about.
Some social biases start in middle school
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-6Xt
If someone acknowledges that a gcm greatly overestimated the long term rate of warming in addition to being inaccurate/highly unreliable in delineating regional climate changes, how exactly is the model useful in evaluating climate mitigation policies???
Seems to be an example motivated reasoning bias leading to one fooling themselves.
How we fool ourselves that the driver of the ice ages is well understood:
….
Now geologists at MIT, Boston College, and elsewhere have reconstructed permafrost’s history over the last 1.5 million years. The researchers analyzed cave deposits in locations across western Canada and found evidence that, between 1.5 million and 400,000 years ago, permafrost was prone to thawing, even in high Arctic latitudes. Since then, however, permafrost thaw has been limited to sub-Arctic regions.
….
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-cave-deposits-shift-permafrost-years.amp
Climate has changed over the past 1.5 million years means climate scientists are fools and buffoons??? It is perplexing that self correcting science is used to say that science is crap. The essential problem is that a bit of science is claimed to be absolute proof by one side or the other and the rest cavalierly dismissed as drivel. The fun bit of science is reserving judgement and connecting the dots. Although as someone who has cavalierly rejected general relativity Alan is not to be trusted with dots. It’s hungry hungry hippos again with the youngest grandson needing to be prevented from eating the marbles.
Glacial periods changed 400kyrs ago; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
But there have been many other changes also.
5:00 – the solar 22-year magnetic polarity cycle is wonderfully illustrated and immediately lends itself to the imagery of Jupiter’s orbital inclination, going above the solar plane and then below, with strong gravitational interaction between their cores.
Despite the Sun’s much greater size than Jupiter, it suggests that their (hypothesised) exotic matter cores are more comparable.
An as yet unresolved mystery is the Sun’s outer rotational axis, which is currently around 7° to the solar plane.
https://youtu.be/hKugZ844tas
I among a few other I know of have theorized about a connection between the Hale Cycle and multidecadal climate variability. I made some notes in 2018.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/11/13/tremendous-energy-cascading-through-powerful-earth-sub-systems/
Exotic matter cores is wildly speculative nonsense.
“Exotic matter cores is wildly speculative nonsense.” – RIE
It’s only a matter of time before the penny drops that exotic compact matter is annihilating itself at the core of Jupiter, no just gas giant exoplanets:
….
Large gaseous exoplanets could be filled with self-destructing dark matter. And now, a team of researchers has proposed using the soon-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope to scan distant behemoths in the galaxy for potential heating effects that could arise from the mysterious substance..”
….
https://www.livescience.com/amp/dark-matter-destroying-itself-inside-exoplanets.html
These unknown particles – now not neutron star matter whizzing about the solar system at superluminal velocities apparently – theorized to exist because of the rate of expansion of the universe cause the ~22 year Hale Cycle and climate change on Earth? The penny has dropped on Lowry’s nonsense.
Skip to 10:00 where Sabina is coming round to the notion of a combination of Modified gravity and Dark matter:
https://youtu.be/4_qJptwikRc
Exotic compact cores which interact via a *strong* gravitational force is a viable solution which she is destined to talk about in the not-too-distant future.
They have been chasing this elusive particle for a very long time. To link it to climate is questionable – lol. I am more inclined to new thinking rather than new physics. Kip Thornes entropy and time dilation creating gravity in Tim Palmer most primitive expression of the laws of physics in state space geometry?
But the physical mechanisms of the motions of atmosphere and oceans at the center of multidecadal climate variability were described by the great men of the Norwegian school of oceanography in the first half of the last century.
“They have been chasing this elusive particle for a very long time.” – RIE
Did you not watch the video?? Sabine was a trained particle physicist and didn’t think dark matter was much of an issue because the particle responsible would soon be found. That’s why she’s updated her view to combine it with Modified gravity, therefore keeping an open mind and expecting non-particle physicists to find the solution.
Equations of general relativity include a constant to account for the observed expansion of the universe. To imagine that discovering this elusive particle will modify Earth geophysics is not open minded it is fanciful. Get back to me when finds it and it modifies Earth’s precisely measured gravity.
Yet another way to fool ourselves is the precautionary principle of climate science and their wisdom that the less they know the scarier it gets.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-6Zs
We fool ourselves that Sweden’s more socialist, downward redistribution of wealth is *not* a better way forward:
https://youtu.be/WlAR1I1sVCg
Their pandemic response strategy is similarly at odds with that of the Anglophiles. Maybe were not as great as we like to think we are?
What excruciatingly simplistic nonsense.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US&view=chart
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=SE&view=chart
There are broader considerations that together create higher and more stable economic growth on which both Sweden and the US have a ways to go.
https://www.heritage.org/index/
1) Invent a metric that confirms your ideological biases.
2) Apply that metric.
3) walk away contented that your biases have been confirmed.
4) insult anyone who disagrees.
Please note, this is an all purpose methodology and you can use it prove to yourself that you’re right about everything and that anyone who disagrees on any topic is worthy of insults.
Please note: the above methodology is particularly useful for blowhards, blunderbusses, blunderers, and buffoons who are full of bombast (not that I’m thinking of anyone specific, of course).
Joshua triggers my spidey sense for hypocrisy and cant. What metric would that be?
https://watertechbyrie.com/2021/05/01/capability-browns-oblique-approach-to-climate-policy/
Jarvis Cocker’s lyrics are more relevant than ever:
https://youtu.be/monyiOsoKxg
“To build a better world, we must have the courage to make a new start. We must clear away the obstacles with which human folly has recently encumbered our path and release the creative energy of individuals. We must create conditions favourable to progress rather than “planning progress.”… The guiding principle in any attempt to create a world of free men must be this: a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.”
—Friedrich A. Hayek
My ideological bias that I openly confess. I am one of poor wee willie’s ‘freedom fighters’. Of course one needs to win the hearts and minds of the populace – and how to go about that is the only question worth asking.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.’
It must be a religion. Not to be surrendered to poor wee willie’s AI economic overlord or whatever passes for a coherent thought with Joshua, Alan and Jarvis. It it just me or is that very horrible music?
Chief’s corpus may have solved this problem:
poor wee willie’s devotion to talking past freedom fighters is on show again.
Now if only any of it made any sense or had a serious intent.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/05/16/are-we-to-let-people-starve-while-the-powerful-grow-bioenergy-and-restore-forests-for-their-tranquility-2/
What good is global warming if you can’t use it to reset society?
New physics affecting an exotic compact core is currently just beyond Rowan Dean’s comprehension, who still links solar irradiation cycles to climate change. But it won’t be long before he can rant about how *both* the shifting axis of the globe and a chilly Northern hemisphere summer can be explained by the same phenomenon:
https://youtu.be/oBpl70Wn_Og
Polar annular modes are immense cyclones spun up over the poles by planetary rotation. Imagine seesawing masses of frigid air spinning off high latitudes. Where it meets warmer moist air it rains. Coriolis force spins up wind driven currents into gyres in all the world’s oceans. The physical mechanisms were described by great men of the Norwegian school of oceanography in the first half of the 20th century.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/18/thresholds-and-epochs-in-the-grand-climate-system/
How we fool ourselves is by appealing to the authority of talking heads.
Alan,
You very rightfully wrote:
> New physics affecting an exotic compact core is currently just beyond Rowan Dean’s comprehension, who still links solar irradiation cycles to climate change. But it won’t be long before he can rant about how *both* the shifting axis of the globe and a chilly Northern hemisphere summer can be explained by the same phenomenon
Alan, have you visited my site?
What I see from your comments we are both on the same page…
Please visit my site…
In my site, I have also developed the REVERSED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE a New approach to the Glacial-Interglacial periods…
According to the REVERSED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE New approach Earth currently is in the culmination phase of a multimillennial warming trend.
hhttps://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
correction:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
“What I see from your comments we are both on the same page…
Please visit my site…
In my site, I have also developed the REVERSED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE a New approach to the Glacial-Interglacial periods…” – Christos
No, we’re not quite on the same page Christos. I’m proposing something very alternative to Milankovitch insolation, whether reversed or not.
Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING Phenomenon
Comparison of results the planet’s Te calculated by the Incomplete Equation:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the planet’s mean surface temperature Tmean calculated by the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
and the planet’s Tsat.mean measured by satellites:
Planet….Te.incompl……Tmean……Tsat.mean
……………equation…..equation…..measured
Mercury…..439,6 K……325,83 K……340 K
Earth……..255 K…….287,74 K……288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……223,35 Κ……220 Κ
Mars…….209,91 K……213,21 K……210 K
To be honest with you, at the beginning, I got by surprise myself with these results.
You see, I was searching for a mathematical approach
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have all seen and continue to see what is wrong with the way we do many things. Education was once the practice of bringing the adult within a child out through, at first, ‘supervised’ trial and error, example setting, and modest but appreciable reward for progress.
Now it is as if all chidren are on a conveyor belt of learning that has AI for some situations but not for others. Instead of the AI learning and adapting it finds ways to make the child conform to the AI algorithm rather than become an individual. We seem to have lost the ability to understand and accept individuality and difference as being a postive rather than a negative. It seems to me that we are a society that follows the lazy pattern of silicon valley’s AI that censors and ostracises anyone who doesn’t conform to its fixed ideas of what is ‘right’ as if any single human being is capable of knowing that whether they can program a computer or not..
AI is the “New Church of Tomorrow”. Elsewhere this quote brought the matter home. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” George Orwell 1984. Heard it in early religion, the old history, the new history, in politics, (in the blog arena), from the snake-oil merchant.
It has been around for some time, on a mini scale. In auto CPU it was left to figure out best performance, and was at times quite lethal. The grand things said about it there turned out to be sometimes expensively fake.
Jim
Dont worry, mine often go into moderation with no rhyme nor reason.
Now. go out and enjoy the sun before we are deluged with rain and tourists.
tonyb
The emmets are already here Tony! My eldest daughter was planning to visit us for our trip to the beach last weekend, but gave up on that idea when she saw the long red line purporting to be the A30 on Google Maps.
The ocean’s fairly flat at present, so the current plan for today is to take a stroll up Bronn Wenneli devant le déluge.
Always assuming there’s space in the nearest car park that is!
Jim
Yes, I do not think emmets/grockles/tourists have done Cornwall or Devon any favours. We have a poor economy, reliant on the crumbs from the table of those visiting for a week, who generally want the cheapest holiday they can find.
Hopefully the pandemic/home working will show the authorities there are additional ways of creating prosperity.
tonyb
Evenin’ Tony,
Mission accomplished! Emmets a plenty in evidence.
What’s more it seems as though there are some “climate activists” in the vicinity, attempting to get their message across here in the middle of nowhere:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1388939245881016320
Jim
The save the planet people will no doubt be driven away by the wind and the cold today. With a bit of luck the grockles will too.
Having said that my daughter and family are in Cornwall this weekend. Why the tourists insist on going away over the bank holiday weekend when so many are on furlough anyway, defeats me.
I think deliberately getting in traffic jams is ingrained into our pysche
tonyb
Mornin’ Tony (UTC),
I’m afraid it’s unclear to me how texting ‘YES’ to an unknown destination will help to “Save the Planet”, but queuing for hours on the A30 certainly seems unlikely to achieve that end. What’s more Davidstow Airfield seems an unlikely location to pick in order to try and get a “message” of some sort across to the holidaying hordes.
Given the weather forecast perhaps there’ll be a long red line on Google Maps along the eastbound carriageway of the A30 today?
Jim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlSyt7EjmrE
15:30.
“…when people dissent from the scientific mainstream… That has nothing to do with science.”
“The Scientific Mainstream” is picking up one’s cross and showing it to a vampire.
Saying, The Scientifc Mainstream, is saying, what is is. It’s circular. As Rand said, A is A. It is self referential. The Scientific Mainstream is the Scientific Mainstream and you are a Trump voter. Science is to be skeptical. But you should not be skeptical because of The Scientific Mainstream. Bowing down to the Scientific Mainstream is bowing down to one’s God.
Using the Yin Yang model, what is the Scientific Mainstream? Order. Go into the Chaos Grasshopper. That’s what heroes do. They leave the tyranny of Order to discover.
‘Save the planet from climate activists’ – fixed that for you Jim.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/05/09/economics-environment-and-energy/
“Estimated” by whom Robert, and Oz or US specific?
I think your first paragraph is suffering from a major Type O malfunction?
“The increase in the retail price of electricity as a result of 80% renewables penetration (in the US) by 2050 is estimated at some $30/MWh. The current average retail price is some $13/MWh.’
The US was specified and the scenario modelling was done by the NREL. As you would find if you read on. Cognitive dissonance kicking in Jim?
No Robert.
Perhaps try putting information beyond a bare link in your comments here?
And clicking on your own link? You don’t seem to have fixed your typo yet!
Jim
What no tweets and happy snaps?
Here you go Robert:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1389207885188673536
Please rest assured that there are plenty more where those came from!
Jim
Let’s test wordpress consistency.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/05/09/economics-environment-and-energy/
‘Increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply and demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations.’ NREL Energy Futures
High cost and a lack of grid storage technology.
Robert,
Your site still proclaims “The Australian Labor Party’s plan Labor’s ‘plan’ is for 100% renewables by 2050.” which still doesn’t look right to me.
The NREL report you rely on still seems to be dated 2012, and it still states in Chapter 12:
“Uncertainty in the ultimate acceptance among original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), utilities, and consumers of V2G led to the conservative assumption to not include the potentially very large role of V2G.”
How we fool ourselves about our media friendly high profile scientists. The man who was embedded in a purely mathematical model of reality, was not the man we think he was:
….
Stephen Hawking was widely recognized as the world’s best physicist and even the most brilliant man alive–but what if his true talent was self-promotion?
When Stephen Hawking died, he was widely recognized as the world’s best physicist, and even its smartest person.
He was neither.
In Hawking Hawking, science journalist Charles Seife explores how Stephen Hawking came to be thought of as humanity’s greatest genius. Hawking spent his career grappling with deep questions in physics, but his renown didn’t rest on his science. He was a master of self-promotion, hosting parties for time travelers, declaring victory over problems he had not solved, and wooing billionaires. In a wheelchair and physically dependent on a cadre of devotees, Hawking still managed to captivate the people around him—and use them for his own purposes.
A brilliant exposé and powerful biography, Hawking Hawking uncovers the authentic Hawking buried underneath the fake. It is the story of a man whose brilliance in physics was matched by his genius for building his own myth.
….
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Hawking_Hawking.html?id=M_70DwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
Will climate scientists like Michael Mann be remembered in the same way?
“If you are looking for trouble you’ve found it.’ Stephen Hawking
There’s not many of your posts that I find interesting anymore Ellie, but that was fascinating. The Simpsons was a magical time for everyone and brought me back a feeling of nostalgia.
I think you’re a wild eyed hippy with deranged thought bubbles and socialist inclinations. That about right?
No. Hawking is the last in the line of larger-than-life characters who couldn’t see the follies of their mathematical obsessions. There’s a logical error at the root of gravitational theory, which is about to be resolved after 350 years of devotion to an incorrect mathematical equation.
It has ultimately led to incorrect ice age theory, incorrect climate science and a world population which has become an island of lost souls:
https://youtu.be/YdehlG7bAPU
Did he not just demonstrate my point?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #453 – Watts Up With That?
This proves the point that harsh lockdown strategy isn’t the best policy:
…
States with strictest lockdowns ruined livelihoods — without saving lives
….
https://nypost.com/2021/05/01/strict-states-ruined-livelihoods-without-saving-lives/
This is astonishingly insightful and gives the history of Britain & slavery:
https://youtu.be/bDycm1cr9NY