by Nicola Scafetta
Two publications examining the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have recently been published in Climate Dynamics:
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence.
These two papers are significant because they take different but complimentary approaches and achieve the same result – ECS <3°C. Scafetta (2022a) extends and confirm Scafetta (2022b) previously published in GRL.
Lewis study was discussed in a previous post, let us here briefly present the main findings of Scafetta (2022).
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation (GCM) models project equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging from 1.8 to 5.7°C. To reduce this range, the 38 GCM were divided into low (1.5<ECS<3.0 °C), medium (3.0<ECS<4.5°C), and high (4.5<ECs<6.0°C) ECS subgroups and their accuracy and precision were evaluated in hindcasting the average global surface warming observed from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021. The study used global surface temperature records are ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and the satellite-based lower troposphere global temperature UAH-MSU lt v6 record was added as well.
The satellite-based record was added since surface-based records are susceptible to many biases, including urban heat, among others (Connolly et al., 2021; Scafetta, 2021a). The validation tests were conducted using 688 GCM member simulations, 143 average GCM ensemble simulations, and Monte Carlo modeling of internal GCM variability in compliance with three alternative model accuracy requirements.
The period from 1980 to 2021 was chosen because it is when the global temperature records are believed to be affected by the least uncertainty. Moreover, the same time period is also covered by satellite measurements that offer an independent estimate.
The paper’s key finding was that the vast majority of the simulations by the medium and high-ECS GCMs run too hot. From 1980–1990 to 2011–2021, only the simulation of the low ECS GCM group seems to have accurately predicted the warming shown by the surface-based records. For instance, while all temperature data show a warming below 0.6 °C, all GCM averages from the medium and high ECS group forecast a warming over 0.6 °C up to 1.3 °C. These are plainly visible in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1: GCM global surface temperature ensembles (yellow area, ±1σ) versus HadCRUT5 (infilled data), GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records (black, 12-month moving average).
Figure 2: Average temperature changes (2011–2021 minus 1980–1990) hindcasted by 38 CMIP6 GCMs mean simulations. The blue vertical lines represent the temperature change measured by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records.
If internal model variability is also considered, the conclusion remains unchanged because, as the research clearly shows, 95% and 97%, respectively, of the medium and high ECS ensemble member simulations run hotter than all temperature records. These findings are summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Boxplots of the CMIP6 ensemble members for each CMIP6 GCM; # represents the number of the available simulations for each GCM. The horizontal blue lines represent the global surface warming from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021 reported by HadCRUT5 (infilled data), ERA5-T2m, GISTEMP v4, NOAAGlobTemp v5, and UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature records, respectively.
Figures 1-3 make it abundantly evident that the warming hindcast by the GCM grows as the ECS increases and that only the low-ECS GCM group can be regarded as being consistent with the data. The research also demonstrates that the outcome holds true regardless of how statistically the internal variability of the models is modeled. Moreover, it is statistically insignificant that a small number of simulations of the medium and high ECS GCMs would seem to coincide with the evidence. Therefore, it follows that the actual ECS should be lower than 3 °C, as Lewis (2022) also found.
However, Figures 1-3 also show that if the actual warming from 1980-1990 to 2011-2021 is better represented by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, also the low-ECS GCM would be running too hot. In fact, while the various available surface-based temperature records show a warming roughly ranging between 0.5 and 0.6 °C, the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record show a warming of about 0.4 °C while the low-ECS GCMs show a warming of 0.6±0.1°C. It is worth mentioning that according to the GCMs, the troposphere should experience a greater warming trend than the surface (Mitchell et al., 2020) so that the UAH-MSU-lt v6 might even be overestimating the surface warming. The low-ECM GCMs would therefore need to be scaled down by roughly 33%, assuming that the warming of UAH-MSU-lt v6 is accurate and representative of the warming at the surface. This should imply that the actual ECS might likewise be between 1 and 2 °C.
Future warming would be moderate and not particularly concerning if the actual ECS was between 1.5 and 3.0°C. The IPCC’s predictions of future climate catastrophes if CO2 emissions are not severely cut to essentially zero would be unfounded if the actual ECS is considerably lower, which is 1-2°C. As a result, it’s critical to assess if a warming bias, as multiple studies have already revealed, may be affecting surface-based temperature data.
To check the last point, the work adds an extended section where the observed and GCM modelled warming over the land and over the ocean are compared. As a result, the land has warmed 2.0–2.3 times faster than the ocean according to surface-based temperature records, 1.5 times faster according to satellite-based temperature records, and somewhere in the middle according to the GCMs: 1.75±0.20. In addition, the surface-based temperature records over land show a warming that is around 0.4°C more than the satellite readings, whereas the surface-based temperature records over the ocean show a warming that is just slightly larger (up to 0.1°C) than the satellite observations. These results suggest that the warming reported by the surface-based temperature records, especially over land, is too large and incompatible both with the satellite measurements and the land/ocean ratio prediction of the models. These findings imply that the warming indicated by surface-based temperature records, particularly over land, is excessive and inconsistent with both satellite observations and theoretical model predictions of the land/ocean ratio.
Based on the aforementioned findings, it was determined that the surface-based temperature records may be at least 10% off when it comes to actual warming. By reducing the ECS of the low-ECS GCMs by 10%, the ECS range changes from 1.8-3.0°C to 1.6-2.7°C, which is in good agreement with Lewis’s conclusion (1.7-2.7 °C).
However, if the real warming is closer to that indicated by the UAH-MSU-lt v6 temperature record, or if the climate system is controlled by multidecadal and millennial natural oscillations that the GCMs are unable to replicate, it is possible that the ECS may be much lower (for example, 1-2°C). For example, Scafetta (2013, 2021b) deduced an ECS between 1.0 and 2.3 °C by assuming (solar-astronomically induced) natural climatic oscillations of quasi 20, 60, 115 and 1000 years, which are observed in many climatic data throughout the Holocene but not reproduced by the GCMs. The same result is obtain using solar records showing a large secular variability, while the GCMs use solar forcings taken from the solar proxy reconstructions that show the least secular variability (Connolly et al., 2021).
Because they imply that anthropogenic global warming for the upcoming decades will inevitably be moderate, the results by Scafetta (2022a) and Lewis (2022) cast serious doubts on climatic alarmism.
Bibliography
Connolly R, Soon W, Connolly M et al. (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Res Astron Astrophys 21:131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Lewis, N. (2022). Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence. Climate Dynamics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06468-x
Mitchell DM, Lo YTE, Seviour WJM, Haimberger L, Polvani LM (2020). The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: persistent model biases in the context of internal variability. Environ Res Lett 15:1040b4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7
Scafetta N (2013). Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semiempirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth Sci Rev 126:321–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.008
Scafetta N (2021a). Detection of non-climatic biases in land surface temperature records by comparing climatic data and their model simulations. Clim Dyn 56:2959–2982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05626-x
Scafetta N (2021b). Reconstruction of the interannual to millennial scale patterns of the global surface temperature. Atmosphere 12:147. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020147
Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures. Climate Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w
Scafetta N (2022b). Advanced testing of low, medium, and high ECS CMIP6 GCM simulations versus ERA5-T2m. Geophys Res Lett 49:e2022GL097716. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716
Brilliant, simple, and clear. Thank you, Nicola, for your work and insights!
this is a follow link
Stronger solar solar wind sates in the mid 1970’s and mid 1980’s drove a colder AMO via positive NAO, and weaker solar wind states since 1995 have driven a warmer AMO via negative NAO, causing a decline in low cloud cover since 1995. I don’t see much evidence for the positive influence of rising CO2 forcing on the NAO inhibiting the AMO warming since 1995.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
In the paper by Scafetta is the following statement “In the absence of climate feedback mechanisms, the Stefan–Boltzmann law for blackbodies predicts that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration could cause an increase in global surface temperature of about 1 ∘C. Therefore, only strong positive climate feedbacks could significantly increase the ECS above such a value, but their existence is still debated.”
It appears therefore that the raison d’etre for these two papers is to determine from historical data how much additional warming has occurred and then attributing that warming to positive feedback effects, with the explicit assumption that the root cause of the warming is increasing levels of CO2. This appears to be a prime example of putting the cart before the horse.
Scafetta N (2013).
“quasi 10–11, 20 and 60 year oscillations are typically found among major solar and heliospheric oscillations driven mostly by Jupiter and Saturn movements.”
The ordering of sunspot cycles and centennial solar minima does not involve Saturn. Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum so its mean frequency is 54 years. The last two AMO envelopes are longer than average because the previous centennial minimum was 130 years earlier, while the Dalton Minimum was only 80 years before the Gleissberg Minimum. A fixed length oscillation for the AMO is meaningless, and 60 years is too long for the mean.
“…. or if the climate system is controlled by multidecadal and millennial natural oscillations that the GCMs are unable to replicate, it is possible that the ECS may be much lower.”
I’m looking forward to when all such discussions make these possible factors an essential part of the calculations. I’m not sure what is needed to admit something that is so obvious.
I read on the links and copied a little from each, then commented, relating to both.
From the Links:
CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures
The ECS is the most important climatic parameter as it measures the long-term increase in air temperature near the surface that should result from an increase in radiative forcing of approximately 3.8 W/m2, which corresponds to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm (which is defined as the preindustrial level) to 560 ppm
Objectively combining climate sensitivity evidence
Combining different lines of evidence should, to the extent that they are independent, enable climate sensitivity to be estimated more precisely than from any single line of evidence
My comments:
Both these studies are ridiculous, they study correlations between changes in temperature and changes in a trace gas, and ignore any other factor that could influence climate change.
More than anything, studies that only consider the influence of 300 to 400 parts per million, ie. Adding One Molecule of CO2 to Ten Thousand Molecules of Atmosphere, when larger changes have occurred in the past when CO2 lagged behind the temperature change by hundreds of years, as it properly should just based on the partial pressure of any gas dissolved in oceans.
More than anything, these studies strongly support the alarmism, keeping everyone focused only on CO2 and showing that everyone who disagrees with CO2 as a harmful gas actually agrees that nothing else could have ever been a cause of climate change. That is not true that every other scientist or engineer or scholar believes all past, present and future changes were caused by CO2 but it keeps all the money focused only on studying CO2 as any possible cause.
Climate Changes due to Internal Factors that do Resonate with External forcing, but the Climate Cycles have never always correlated with any External Forcing, sometimes Resonating with some external force changes and more often not Resonating with the same external force changes.
No significant funding supports study of anything other than CO2, how dumb is that. Funding and Study of data and history to learn more, understand more, and Funding and Study of other factors, with proper understanding and teaching is badly needed.
These two papers are significant because they prove again that people are not thinking outside the alarmist box, people are staying inside the Alarmist Home Field with the Alarmist hired Home Umpires.
The Alarmists Win Again and Again on the Precautionary Principles because the people who disagree promote the same forcing and discuss nothing else.
These articles are only significant in that they promote the idea that only CO2 matters for dangerous warming.
The fact is that CO2 only matters for how it makes green stuff grow.
All of which is why the AGW hypothesis fails- an inability to falsify the null hypothesis means all global warming can be explained by natural causes…
Properly understood, yes, the natural causes have always caused climate change and fully explain everything that has happened.
Humans do change local climate with dams and land use changes, heat islands, etc, but the total climate deals with everything we do and continues to provide alternating warmer and colder time periods, that evolved to the major ice ages and now to the smaller cycles of the most recent ten thousand years.
We are in a new normal climate, unlike anything in the history before ten thousand years ago, but billions of alarmist dollars and other currencies keep the focus on ending the use of the fossil fuels that have brought us out of the stone ages, actually only in western countries and countries influenced and under our control.
China, India, Russia, some others are building more and more Coal Power Plants to provide the Energy to supply the Western Countries with everything we can no longer do for ourselves. When we can no longer afford to pay them for everything we need, and when we can no longer defend ourselves without buying everything we need for defense from China and others, they will take over and then they will use us as slaves to mine our fossil fuels and rare earth minerals for them as they develop more and more affordable, abundant, reliable energy sources, from nuclear and fossil fuels.
On the current path, just a matter of time.
This is all so obsolete..
1. Current “global” warming has a distinct north-south divide and started in the 1970s. It is caused by CONTRAILS(!) and the indirect increase in cirrus cloud cover due to air traffic. Investigating ECS based on the (wrong) assumption it was due to CO2, is pointless.
2. ECS estimates on CO2 are seriously flawed. The mistake is in ignoring overlaps (between GHGs and with clouds), thereby vastly overstating it. In reality it is only in the 0.5K range. This can easily be shown even in modtran.
3. The idea of large positive feedbacks especially baseless. Considering celestial bodies within our solar system, it is obvious how Venus served as a role model, while all others were ignored. For any substantial deviation of the TSI-“forced” surface temperature it will require a massive atmosphere. Air pressure on Earth is however not increasing.
https://greenhousedefect.com/contrails-a-forcing-to-be-reckoned-with
Human emitted greenhouse gases bias a chaotic system to a warmer state. There is implicit in chaos the risk of dramatic and rapid change in the Earth system – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere. That much should be accepted as truth in line with Isaac Newton’s 4th rule of natural philosophy.
The range of models in the latest IPCC opportunistic ensemble is shown in blue and yellow. Above and below the mean of means. Some models are run in centres with large computing facilities. Models can be run many times with slightly different initial conditions and a wildly divergent solution space. Some have more modest origins.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. Below is an example of a single model run 1000’s of times. It is constrained to observation in the early days and the solution space evolves chaotically from initial differences.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1-e1612040479369.png
Forget ECS – given the vagaries. But if AGW over the past 40 years was 0.1 K/decade – we are well on the way to a 1.5 K tipping point.
… so you can predict the future behavior of chaotic systems? Amazing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable/
This article is simple-minded drivel. Complex nonlinear systems are an area of ignorance. The most important unsolved problem in mathematics is the nature of the attractor for the Navier-Stokes equations. Yet its critical to saying anything beyond simpleton’s fare, which this article tries to pass off as well known.
And in the absence of such a theoretical breakthrough we have no idea even if grid refinement is a good idea or not, what the best grid spacing is, etc. If you don’t have any idea about this, you really are just throwing the dice and hoping for the best.
At best, one might argue from a few cases that the statistics of the attractor can be predicted in some broad sense, but without real error bounds or a real PDF for the outcomes. When it comes to the patterns of the weather, there is really nothing except the vague assertion that “every time I run the model, I get a realistic “looking” climate.” This is an entirely subjective judgment.
What are seasons, DavidY?
That there will be chaos in chaotic systems is predictable. How predictable is the Earth system is yet to be seen. Days to seasons to decades may be possible.
Mike Keller wrote:
… so you can predict the future behavior of chaotic systems? Amazing.
There are no such things as chaotic systems, even most random number generators spit out the same random numbers list if the same initial seed is used.
Chaos is a term that is used to describe a system that is not understood. With proper knowledge, everything happens for a reason. Then the systems are understood and accurate future forcasts are done. When there is history and data that documents past changes, the future forecast just repeat what has happened before.
Contrails – The effects of 911 in respect of contrails was subject to little discussion at the time. Similar to the limited discussion on the relationship of flooding rains on the east coasts of Australia, South Africa and Brazil to the Tonga eruption in Jan 2022. The airline industry should provide further data re the contrail effect if the conversion to hydrogen as the fuel takes place.
This is excellent. It illustrates the progressive dialling down of climate alarmism, first by demonstrating that the CMIP6 medium and high ECS models fail to simulate actual surface temperature observations (they run far too hot), then by demonstrating that even the low ECS models fail to accurately reflect the more moderate warming observed in the lower troposphere satellite data (which should theoretically exceed surface warming), then by demonstrating that the land based station observations are too warm (UHI, land use effects?), finally delivering the coup de grâce for anthropogenic GHG-based warming by pointing out the accumulating scientific evidence for the significant influence of natural multidecadal warming (assumed by the IPCC to sum to zero over the modern period), meaning that ECS (CO2 + other GHGs) becomes trivial. Everything points to all the GHG-based models running too hot, the same models which very poorly reproduce complex solar-mediated, mass heat transport based natural multidecadal warming.
Yes, but to any elite former “journalists” who happen to notice this work (most won’t be able to read it and actually understand it), it is obvious that these results are disinformation and need to be blocked by our malefactors of great wealth at Twitter, Fakebook, and Gooooogle. Real “science” agrees with the cultural Marxist narrative that human beings are a plague that is destroying the planet and we should follow the example of a pampered Swedish teenager who is very angry and knows more than the combined intelligence of the rest of mankind (sorry, personkind). Also, its all part of a dangerous white supremacist conspiracy to undermine democracy by voting and exercising the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. We need to get rid of that too. Then we will be able to enjoy a return to the good old days of the noble savage with all that pain, hunger, disease, and walking instead of using a car.
It’s strange how the UN claims to actually ‘own’ the science of climate change – and have partnered with Google to make sure that all possible competitors are squeezed out under the guise of ‘misinformation’ – yet they still have to get the media to lie about the science which they say they own!
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/if-they-own-the-science-why-do-they
Pingback: CMIP6 GCMs versus global surface temperatures: ECS discussion - Climate- Science.press
Leaving aside some unknowns that will be understood in due course, is it not the case that catastrophic AGW is no longer a matter of scientific controversy, the warming has been largely natural, however, it does remain fiercely contested as a matter of faith to some and a vested financial interest to others?
I talk to several climate scientists. Most of them do not accept that the warming has been largely natural. To them the sun has been ruled out, volcanoes do not warm, and the multidecadal oscillation just oscillates without a net change. They don’t see how it could be natural, and when I try to explain I get a (figurative) blank stare.
After explaining, this is what a Swiss climate scientist told me:
“From my point of view it is always important to show that the natural forcing inducing climate change (sun, volcanoes) on the decadal to centennial scale are much smaller in the present days than the man-made greenhouse gases. That is actually the crucial point!
we measure the radiation components at the World Radiation Center in Davos. I cannot imagine that the clearly larger anthropogenic component is not decisive!”
As you can see, most climate scientists do believe it is due to the man-made greenhouse gases. I have to say that some (perhaps 10%) are crypto-skeptics. They congratulate me for my work and describe it as balanced or neutral. These are adjectives an affirmer would never use.
Javier wrote:
“To them the sun has been ruled out”
Anyone who has “ruled out” the sun as a source of climate change is clearly neither a “climate scientist” (whatever that is) nor a scientist of any kind, nor has a basic understanding of physics, as there is copious evidence that the sun is a critical driver of the entire system.
You might point them to a recent talk by one of the leading scientists in the world on this subject, Willie Soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyggw-x4K9I
As well as his recent paper with 25 other leading scientists “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” (May 26, 2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126
Javier
I’m curious, of those scientists who you have talked to, have they shared their views about whether the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were global? Even if they were not, half the globe being warmer (colder) still has an effect on the overall global temperature. And did they have opinions on the factors involved with those two periods causing the changes in temperatures.
Most climate scientists do not research paleoclimatology, so they don’t have a professional opinion on the LIA and its causes. The most common opinion about the LIA in recently published research is that it was mostly due to volcanic activity.
javier’s comment – The most common opinion about the LIA in recently published research is that it was mostly due to volcanic activity.”
If that is true, then isnt a significant portion of the post 1850 warming just a reversion back to the mean – just a natural rebound?
Javier: “Most climate scientists do not research paleoclimatology, so they don’t have a professional opinion on the LIA and its causes.”
I find this extraordinary. If you do not understand past natural climate change, what chance do you have of putting recent climate change, possibly affected by man, into context?
And there’s enough evidence that they don’t understand natural processes well enough to be so confident in their pronouncements. It’s well established that climate models run too hot…don’t they wonder if they might have missed something?
Remember most climate scientists have been trained to believe the basic facts with no fundamental physics background in thermodynamics or radiation. I’m sure entropy is not in their repertoire either.
They are regurgitating what they have learned.
Jim Gorman wrote:
“Remember most climate scientists have been trained to believe the basic facts with no fundamental physics background in thermodynamics or radiation. I’m sure entropy is not in their repertoire either.
They are regurgitating what they have learned.”
Yes Jim, I think you are absolutely right. The “climate scientist” moniker seems to have evolved as a shield and deflector used by this poorly educated group e.g. “[fill in the blank] is not a climate scientist” he’s just a “climate denier” (a quintessentially derogatory, and obviously anti semitic, term purposely meant to evoke images of the holocaust).
Every time you witness someone using that term, or any other version of “______ denier”, you can be sure they should be written off forever in any productive discussion of anything, because their sole purpose in using such disgusting terminology is to spread hate and lies and prevent free and intelligent discourse among people.
I might add that many “climate scientists” seem to be totally deficient in both mathematics and many basic areas of physics. Climate is, after all, a highly complex thermodynamic, fluid system. A prerequisite to even begin to be able to discuss it is a true understanding of all basic physics, and all basic mathematics, including statistics, probability, error, stochastic processes, and the like.
Another important prerequisite to intelligent discussion may be the simple understanding that computer programs (no matter how big and how complex) are NOT science. They are nothing more than the belief system of the programmer(s). They may be useful tools in pointing you in a certain direction, telling you where to look, for example. But the science is in the experiment supporting or disproving the hypothesis.
Perhaps that’s why virtually none of the truly great “climate scientists” — who really know what they are talking about and document it with hundreds and hundreds of seminal studies and papers over decades — call themselves “climate scientists”! There are however, many physicists in their ranks, I am happy to say!
“Anyone who has “ruled out” the sun as a source of climate change is clearly neither a “climate scientist” (whatever that is) nor a scientist of any kind, nor has a basic understanding of physics, as there is copious evidence that the sun is a critical driver of the entire system.”
The change in solar energy with the solar cycle is minute (luckily) and unable to drive significant climate change by its effect on the surface. It is only by a extraordinary set of circumstances that cannot be derived from theory, that the UV change at the stratosphere can drive significant climate change. It is the reason why it has been so controversial for 200 years, and it continues being so. Most scientists are unaware of this so it is the logical thing from their point of view to rule out the sun. Even when told they don’t believe it due to the controversial nature of climate change.
Javier, did you read the paper “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” (May 26, 2021) https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126
What specific findings in that paper do you take issue with?
“then isnt a significant portion of the post 1850 warming just a reversion back to the mean – just a natural rebound?”
Some scientists are prepared to believe that the ceasing of LIA high volcanic activity level brought some warming. Others believe what the IPCC says. From 1700 is all anthropogenic. The Ruddiman hypothesis is that is all anthropogenic since the invention of agriculture about 7000 years ago.
Javier thanks – the last two explanations seem political, not scientific
“I find this extraordinary. If you do not understand past natural climate change, what chance do you have of putting recent climate change, possibly affected by man, into context?”
Most scientists do not put things in context. They research a very narrow aspect of a small part of a climate subfield. They don’t have a way of knowing about other climate subfields than reading about them, and they usually don’t have the time for that. Science is done by piecemeal analysis, and very few people have a wide understanding.
There’s probably not many people in the world that have a deep knowledge of most aspects of natural climate change, as I do. And I consider that my knowledge is awfully inadequate.
I read long ago that there was evidence of terrace farming in Papua New Guinea highlands as early as 25,000 BCE. Grazing and domestication of major food grains was independently established in diverse locations from some 10,000 BCE.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture
Since then Rattan Lal estimates that 500 GtC has been lost from cropping and grazing land. At the margins the situation is now dire. Desertification, abandoned land, exhausted land maintained by large and costly inputs.
No till, precision farming and mob grazing are tools to return carbon to soils, vegetation and livestock on the hoof – and balance to farmers bank accounts. Mob grazing can make even cows both content and environmentally friendly.
Javier, how about Biktash (2017) “Long-term global temperature variations under total solar irradiance, cosmic rays, and volcanic activity” which concludes:
It was shown that a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the mechanism of action of TSI and cosmic rays (CRs) on the state of the lower atmosphere and other meteorological parameters.
Javier, or what about Egorova et al (2018) “Contributions of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcing Agents to the Early 20th Century Warming” which concludes:
“the increase of the weakly absorbed solar irradiance is responsible for approximately one third of the total warming”
Shall I go on? There are many recent, peer reviewed, detailed scientific studies that support the hypothesis that solar TSI has a MAJOR impact on global climate. Anyone who summarily ignores this body of research is NOT a scientist, but rather a dogmatist.
“Javier, how about Biktash (2017)”
I wonder if you read what you post. That paper is awful, a simple correlation between susnpots and detrended global average temperature. And the only thing that they find is the 0.1ºC change that is the accepted effect of the solar cycle.
You have to learn to read papers. It is not what the authors claim. It is the evidence they show. Their claims are not supported by the evidence they present.
That there are studies supporting something does not mean it is correct. There were hundreds of studies linking gastritis to emotional stress before the discovery of Helicobacter pylori. For example this one:
American Journal of Gastroenterology (Springer Nature) . Jan1976, Vol. 65 Issue 1, p41-45.
Goldberg, Stephen Jay; Smith, Colin L.; Connell, Alastair M.
“Fifty-three per cent of patients with gastritis not related to any generally accepted predisposing or precipitating cause had significant emotional problems documented on their clinical records, while only 10% of the comparable group of duodenal ulcer patients and 25% of a similar group of medical in-patients had significant emotional problems documented. Since this difference was statistically significant (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively), the data suggest that emotional stress may play a contributing role in the production of gastric mucosal abnormalities."
Most published science is wrong or trivial or unimportant. That something is published does not mean it is correct. This includes the science that you like.
“Javier, or what about Egorova et al (2018)”
A model study. Models do not constitute evidence, and different models show different results.
Javier, I am glad we can agree that models do not constitute evidence. So I hope everyone will stop citing the models and the non-scientific IPCC, which depends entirely on the models for all of their major summary statements.
Javier wrote:
“That paper is awful, a simple correlation between susnpots and detrended global average temperature. And the only thing that they find is the 0.1ºC change that is the accepted effect of the solar cycle.”
“awful” is not a scientific term.
The amplitude of 0.1ºC variation in Global temperature to which you refer is occuring over a time period of 4 or 5 years. That would be a decadal rate of 0.2ºC which is roughly equal to the decadal rate the measured warming over the past 40 or 50 years. That’s a HUGE number, hardly insignificant.
What the paper shows is, as it states in the conclusion, “a large proportion of climate variations can be explained by the action of TSI and CR action on the state of the lower atmosphere and meteorological parameters.”
Now TSI over short time spans oscillates up and down and doesn’t go all in one direction over short periods of time, but it clearly has a direc, immediate, and significant impact on the GT.
Indeed, the study states, “It is clearly evident that GT varies accordingly to TSI and opposite to CRs. It is apparent that the rising of GT during solar maxima is a result of these processes.”
Javier, you may want to also read Judith Curry just posted…
https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/
Javier, thank you for that insight, though it is a bit frightening.
Greenhouse gases may have had a greater effect 4 billion years ago when the atmosphere first acquired them and the initial concentrations were at the other end of the logarithmic curve and the bands weren’t saturated.
I guess that the climate scientists to which you refer belong to the faith category. Climate science in the UK began with Hubert Lamb, who created the CRU at UEA. His intention was to understand the natural influences on climate to provide a solid basis of understanding before worrying about the effect of mankind. That was the first time the climate became a departmental subject at a UK university. They are still pretty rare.
Sadly, he died soon after and the group he created immediately became obsessed with radiative physics and learned nothing about the climate. (Me being cynical, but it may be close to the truth.) I believe that some of the existing US agencies like NOAA existed at that time but no academic facilities taught climate studies.
Once the AGW scare took off, all the eco enthusiasts studied to become climate scientists in order to save the planet.
Who taught them? The obvious candidates were the hockey team, aka those who figured in the ClimateGate affair. These are the grand old men of AGW today.
Perhaps that explains things. There are now several generations of scholars with the same pedigree. They are the true believers. They have to be. Ii is far too late for them to have doubts.
Climatology was a pretty small subfield of science in the early 1980s. It grew enormously from the late 1980s and is still growing strongly. This was caused by a windfall of money, obviously. Scientists are pretty smart people and they soon know the type of research that will get funded and lead to successful careers. It was not that they sold their souls. The new ones were trained on the importance of anthropogenic forcing, and they trained new ones. Just add a great ignorance on natural climate change and you have the logical result. They believe they are correct the same way Leif Svalgaard believes the sun has no effect on climate. And you are heavily invested in anthropogenic climate in terms of papers and career, you rather die than be proven wrong. The Max Planck principle enters in effect and science advances a funeral at a time. That’s why after strong evidence has been discovered it might take decades to change the paradigm. It happened with the discovery of glaciations, Milankovitch theory, or continental drift. The orthodoxy can easily resist four decades after been shown wrong.
CKid – AGW supporters have tried several times to “disappear” or discredit the LIA and MVP. They claimed they were local events of no importance, they tried to smooth them out of the data. See the hockey stick shaft, for example.
Peter
Looking at all the NOAA tidal gauge graphs showing no significant acceleration (plus studies) and reading countless papers that found evidence of LIA and MWP conditions in the SH finally pushed me over the cliff. I was a certified skeptic after that.
During the previous years of research I had read a tremendous amount of material that confirmed what I had instinctively thought, that our current warming was not unique. By that time I had dismissed automatically the garden variety MSM articles which tried to convince the reader that the subject drought, or flood, or heat wave, or forest fire, or hurricane, etc, etc., demonstrated the existence of CAGW. But, I still wondered how unusual the current warming was and whether we were facing disaster by 2100.
We are not. I’ve accepted some AGW. But the evidence is too overwhelming that some of the increase in temperatures is also natural. Who knows exactly how much. I think that will remain an unknown just because of the nature of the question.
I sleep well at night knowing I didn’t leave a mess for my grandkids and great grandkids. Becoming familiar with the voluminous literature and data that point to no catastrophic conditions in the next century or two has allowed me to do that.
The evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of the warming is natural. This study alone should convince you…
https://climatethetruth.com/2016/01/04/20th-century-global-temps-likely-due-to-natural-variation/
“The best estimate of the centennial standard deviation of temperature during the Holocene is 0.98 ± 0.27 o C.
During the 20th century, thermometers recorded an increase of about 0.7º C. It seems reasonably certain that there was some warming due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but it seems difficult to estimate the magnitude of this warming in the face of a likely natural variation of the order of 1º C. The signal of anthropogenic global warming may not yet have emerged from the natural background.”
“confirmed what I had instinctively thought, that our current warming was not unique.”
There are some unique aspects to the current climate change period. The most clear ones are the extraordinary increase in CO2 and the very unusual glacier melting and cryosphere retreat.
I am also of the opinion that natural causes do not completely explain the amount of warming observed this late in the Holocene. Anthropogenic forcings must have contributed significantly.
I am also conviced we have seen already most of the warming during the past 170 years, and we are going to see a lot less warming than anticipated for the rest of the century.
Johnathan reported: The evidence is overwhelming that the vast majority of the warming is natural. This study alone should convince you… “The best estimate of the centennial standard deviation of temperature during the Holocene is 0.98 ± 0.27 o C.
https://climatethetruth.com/2016/01/04/20th-century-global-temps-likely-due-to-natural-variation/
It cites a paper from Energy and the Environment, which doesn’t have much peer review:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Centennial_Variability_of_Global_Temperatures
“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”
Unfortunately, the variability at a single location is vastly bigger than the variability observed in the average of hundreds to thousand of stations around the world. The author’s looked at two Greenland and two Antarctic ice cores, but didn’t even try to average the four records into a “global record” nor even two records into a Greenland and an Antarctic record. The biggest short term variability in Greenland is the 8200 CE cooling event while in the Vostok ice core it is a warming event occurring at the same time. During the last ice age there was a well established “see-saw” when warming at one pole was accompanied by cooling at the other.
Furthermore, it is is well established that “arctic amplification” makes temperature swings in the Arctic 2-3-fold higher than in temperate and tropical areas. (This phenomena is associated with local surface albedo feedback.) Some Greenland ice cores (not the ones in this paper as presented) show a clear MWP, RWP and Minoan WP about 2 degC warmer than the intervening cool periods, but these are assumed to be 1 degC or less deviations elsewhere in the NH. It isn’t clear if any occurred in the SH or topics. There is a lot of debate about the global extent of the MWP, but the consensus is that warming peaked in different locations.
Temperature reconstructions of the NH over the last 1000 to 2000 years certainly don’t show anywhere near this much variability. (However, it is known that if you add noise to temperature psuedoproxies, that too much noise suppresses some of the variation present in original data after reconstruction.)
Finally, if you plot forcing change (x-axis) vs temperature change (y-axis) there as a fairly linear relationship. (Which gives TCR.) All of the major short term deviations are associated with major El Nino events and volcanic eruptions. The biggest lower frequency deviations is associated with the 1930-45 warm period (a few tenths of a degree) and the 1950-1970 Pause (that formerly was attributed to aerosol cooling, 0.1 degC).
Finally, attribution studies and shown that most of the variability before 1950 can not be attributed to anthropogenic forcing, So the correct question is whether their is precedent for the roughly 1 degC of warming in the past 5 decades in the natural variability from the past, not 1.2 degC of warming over one century.
CKid: There is far too much noise in individual tide gauge records to hope to detect acceleration. It takes about 50 years of a tide gauge record to be sure that sea level is rising at all with 95% confidence. When a large number of tide gauge records are combined to create a global record of sea level rise, we see a large variation in the rate of rise from almost zero in some periods to double the long-term average in others. So, discussing acceleration over the century doesn’t make much sense.
In the satellite altimetry era, we have vastly more data and suppress noise in data by averaging, making it possible to barely detect acceleration in this period. Most of the measurements are made far from the coast where changes in wind and currents cause variability.
As best I can tell, all the the publicity about the rise in GHGs causing changes in extreme weather is mostly nonsense and certainly doesn’t justify spending trillions. You are right to focus on your grandchildren and great grandchildren, which means estimates of climate sensitivity and the economic cost of warming. Lewis and Koonin provide reassurance on this subject.
Franktoo wrote regarding Lloyd (2015): “Unfortunately, the variability at a single location is vastly bigger than the variability observed in the average of hundreds to thousand of stations around the world. The author’s looked at two Greenland and two Antarctic ice cores, but didn’t even try to average the four records into a “global record” nor even two records into a Greenland and an Antarctic record.”
I guess you didn’t read the paper and the complete discussion. First, there is more than one location used, second it uses four well-known data sets (GISP, GISP-2, Vostok, and DOME C), and furthermore Lloyd is discussing centennial differences in global temperature not global temperature. Here’s part of the explanation, but I suggest you read the whole paper, which is well argued, well documented, and as far as I know uncontested or contradicted by any other study. Pray tell if you know of a study that comes up with a significantly different result for centennial variability?!
A single site on earth cannot describe the global climate, but it can clearly track changes in global temperatures to a reasonable degree. Certainly all relatively deep ice cores record a steep rise in temperatures at around 11 000 YBP marking the start of the Holocene, and the anomaly at 8200 YBP is equally clear in most records. Similarly, the temperature derived from the isotopic signatures is not an exact temperature, but there is general agreement that the lowest temperatures experienced during the previous glacial era were of the order of -10±1oC below present temperatures, so the relative temperatures derived from isotopic signatures for the Holocene are probably accurate to about 0.5oC. Isotope measurements have a precision of the order of 1 per thousand, which would suggest a temperature precision of the order of 0.3oC at temperatures of ~300K. However, all the samples analysed in this study had well over 200 values, so the precision of measurement should have had secolittle influence on the results.
Franktoo wrote:
It cites a paper from Energy and the Environment, which doesn’t have much peer review:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276276180_An_Estimate_of_The_Centennial_Variability_of_Global_Temperatures
Of course, it doesn’t have much peer review! That’s the entire problem with the MASSIVE corruption of climate science peer review. They rarely peer review anything that disagrees with the approved dogma.
This corruption has been documented over and over again so I won’t cite it here unless you would like me to.
There is also NOBODY, as far as I know, who has contradicted any of its obvious and totally mathematically correct conclusions.
‘Decks of closed-cell clouds tend to be more stable than their open-celled counterparts. Studies of satellite observations show that pockets of open cells tend to oscillate, forming and disappearing over a period of about three hours. In contrast, closed-cell clouds keep the same structure for more than ten hours.’ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific#:~:text=The%20main%20difference%20between%20the,and%20rising%20along%20the%20edges.
Low level stratocumulus over the eastern Pacific has caused about half of recent (past 40 years) warming. Right through a pussy pause. But it is nonlinearity that is of more interest. Even in a cool moment with more persistent closed cells? That suggests a nonlinear cloud nucleation effect.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
‘Marine stratocumulus cloud decks are regarded as the reflectors of the climate system, returning back to space a significant part of the income solar radiation, thus cooling the atmosphere. Such clouds can exist in two stable modes, open and closed cells, for a wide range of environmental conditions.’ https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4973593
The south Pacific gyre connects salt content in a Law Dome Antarctica ice core with ENSO and eastern Australian rainfall. It’s the source of a lot of global variability in temperature, hydrology and biology.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.png
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml
I’d like to think it reverts to a statistical mean over centuries. With lower solar activity and more meridional polar annular modes.
Thank you, Nicola.
Climate Change is the rubric of the grant dependent “scientists” who are simply following the money. If we want to understand climate we must first understand money. Who has it? What motivates them? Why do they so often act against the interests of the civilization that supports them?
Please clarify something for me. Many responses us the term AGW (advanced global warming). What is catastrophic global warming? Then what is global warming? And what does this sentence really mean “Future warming would be moderate and not particularly concerning”.
Just an observation. There are many sources of evidence that many places on earth are experiencing warming. GCMs also predict warming. In my opinion, the concept of catastrophic or AGW is more about more the possible occurrence of tipping points.
I like this sentence: “As a result, the land has warmed 2.0–2.3 times faster than the ocean according to surface-based temperature records, 1.5 times faster according to satellite-based temperature records, and somewhere in the middle according to the GCM”. Not because it is correct but because it illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of all sources.
AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming. In the context of most of these comments it is a broad catch all term that can mean little warming or significant warming. Generally, but not always, some commenters might make a distinction with CAGW or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
AGW on this blog, most of the time, is not referring to Advanced Global Warming but just Anthropogenic Global Warming, regardless of how quickly. But, AGW is in the eye of the beholder, so the severity can be anything.
Future warming as used here by most commenters is really a function of how much of the past and future warming is natural vs anthropogenic. If you believe all the past warming in the last 150 years is AGW and has been only a result of CO2 then you will believe we are going to be in deep do do, regardless of the time frame in the future. The higher the ECS, the more trouble we are in.
I hope this helps.
Nicola,
“Scafetta, N. (2022a). CMIP6 GCM ensemble members versus global surface temperatures.”
I believe the problem of over warming has been showing up in other studies apart from yours.
Anecdotally this has been the opinion since they were first produced.
Have others done similar modelling or related modelling that you are aware of and care to share here?
Could you also advise how such a large gap in the range of ECS is remotely possible if the science is settled?
All the models include their own individual assumptions but surely the parameters are better known and interchangeable.
If not then no prediction of such models should be allowed to be credited without a heavy warning to the fact that it is just speculation.
Models are in common use in all branches of science and engineering, such as aircraft design and construction. There are rigorous guidelines concerning model validation. If a flawed model caused an aircraft structure to fail the engineers could face prosecution and imprisonment.
Climate models are notoriously flawed and have been discussed in detail by John Christy and Ross McKitrick. Pat Frank wrote a paper explaining why the models are unfit for purpose due to propagation of error. The modelers and scientists know that their models overheat and have other problems, yet CMIP6 models run even hotter than CMIP5.
Model projections are at the heart of climate science, the alleged climate crisis and the ridiculous net zero policies being adopted by governments at huge cost to their citizens. Why the scientists tolerate models that are neither validated or plausible is beyond me. The modelers have had ample opportunity to correct their models. The fact that they choose not to speaks volumes.
“Modelers” are not scientists. They are computer programmers.
Computer models are NOT science. Yes, fakers, liars, governmental organizations, posers, and other charlatans have tried to present models (aka computer programs) as science. But they are NOT science. Never have been, never will be.
Computer models are sometimes used by scientists, like an abstract drawing on a paper napkin is sometimes used by scientists. Abstract drawings on paper napkins are not science. They are abstract drawings on paper napkins.
Computer models can be useful if they help you to guess at something, or show you what something might look like, before you have actually found it. The actually finding it is the science.
Computer models are NOT science.
Like a replay of Barry Sanders’ greatest runs, some things are timeless regardless of hurricane or year.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fdn-ZBnWIBAXBsw?format=jpg&name=small
Dear Dr. Nicola Scafetta, thank you very much for your research. We highly respect you work and we would like to invite you for the interview to share your research with our audience.
Creative Society is a global non-profit movement that functions across 180 countries and over 100 languages. We are creating a series of online events with the help of thousands of translators, academics, videographers and journalists. We are reaching out to scientists across all disciplines to provide in depth information in their field to further the public understanding of exactly what is happening on our planet.
climate@creativesociety.com
rmd0bservations – I see that your request for explanations remains unanswered.
AGW usually refers to Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming, not Advanced.
“Catastrophic” in this context is just an adjective. It suggests a level of warming that has serious consequences. It might require tipping points as you suggest. Many scientists think that a catastrophic outcome is very unlikely because our climate is extremely stable and is probably dominated by negative feedbacks.
Global warming is what climate change used to be called before a lengthy temperature hiatus undermined its credibility. Now everything can be attributed to climate change, and frequently is.
I have been reading about perpetual change in Earth system sciences for decades. The system behaves like a complex dynamical system – chaotic within natural limits of a physical system abruptly sensitive to small forcing change. Wind and currents, ice, cloud, biology – interacting cyclically to produce climate change at many scales.
e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
Last I looked we were adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and planetary temps are up in that weird Arctic and Antarctic antiphase way.
https://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html?type=trend&channel=2
OT. Not endorsing it and haven’t tried it. New search engine.
https://freespoke.com/
While the current concentration of this vital gas is about 40% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution, unreported is that Earth has been suffering from steadily decreasing and perilously low concentrations of CO2. Until the consumption of fossil fuels began liberating this important gas from ancient rocks, the Earth had been flirting with dangerously low levels not seen for more than 600 million years.
During nearly all of Earth’s history, carbon dioxide concentration was at many multiples of our current level, averaging 2,600 ppm, or 6.5 times our current measurement.
Forerunners of most of the plants we rely on for sustenance first appeared around 150 million years ago when CO2 levels were more than 2,000 ppm. Since that time CO2 has fallen steadily and precipitously.
In fact, at the end of the last ice age, carbon dioxide reached the dangerously low level of 182 ppm, thought to be the lowest since the Pre-Cambrian time period more than 600 million years ago. Why is it dangerous? Because 150 ppm is the lowest level at which plant life can survive. We came within a whisker of breaching that “line of death.” Until we began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, there was no guarantee that this horrific threshold would not be crossed in the future.
Rather than spreading fear of increasing carbon dioxide, we should be thankful that both the Earth and humanity are thriving, in part due to more CO2.
https://forestrypedia.com/the-benefits-of-carbon-di-oxide-co2/
“As a result, the land has warmed 2.0–2.3 times faster than the ocean according to surface-based temperature records”
Is this why every country is said to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the world?
See: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5cacbc84907b70fd91a663866ee4033a
Nicola Scafetta, thank you for your essay.
The recent incapacitation of the Nord Stream pipelines should server as an object lesson for those who want to criss-cross the oceans with DC connectors, as proposed by some for a global “super grid.” We need to nourish a local supply of reliable and cheap energy.
I won’t say cheap energy will hurt the poor and upset some people ;). However, I can say without hesitation cheap energy helps me. When I can get cheap natural gas and cheap gasoline and cheap electricity, that leaves more money to save for retirement, spend on things I want or need, or take a nice vacation. These things make my quality of life way better. So, yes, I want cheap energy.
I expect Jim will be screaming for cheap power of any kind if we don’t get a wriggle on. There are hundreds of years of energy in nuclear waste. It can be converted to useful energy with the right technology. Want to save the world for the regular Joe?
1. Grow more livestock ffs,
2. build secure infrastructure for prosperous and resilient communities,
3. diversify away from fossil fuels before we have to.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12#
Commercialisation of passively safe plug and play fast modular reactors is still more than a decade away. But then they can be churned out at whatever scale. The beauty is there’s no shortage of fuel. It can be recycled with a little more fertile material added. Leaving 3% of the original waste as short lived fission products that decay to background in hundreds of years. Progress there as well.
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1862041
I’m all for nuclear power. Done right, it’s cheap energy. The current batch of nuclear waste is a blessing. Hot lemons make great lemonade.
CO2 in the atmosphere is a resource to grow more livestock on organic rich soil. It wont be in the atmosphere forever – it will be sunk into oceans and geologically cycled. Maybe hundreds of years in oceans – millions geologically – if just a small but steady blip in the carbon cycle. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not forever.
General Atomics and Framatome – private companies with roots in the earliest nuclear industry. With a breathtaking technology capacity still. A 21st century prototype gas-cooled FMR by 2030? These are serious people who mean what they say. Let’s see it working.
Can’t melt their way to China – 21st century silicon carbide containment materials don’t melt at even runaway nuclear temps. Built quality assured in a factory – delivered on a truck – refuel at 8.7 years. Maybe just switch out the containment vessel for a new one.
When we run out of fossil fuels, we will have to roast limestone in order to keep CO2 levels high enough to support life.
It is clear that life doesn’t depend on anthropogenic CO2.
We can reduce nuclear waste today by using a new, more efficient, fuel composition.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-for-testing-of-innovative-fuel
Leaving aside energy from exploiting local topography, there are only two reliable sources of energy, fossil fuels and nuclear. If we leave aside the CO2 controversy, then gas must be the ideal fuel. Oil is a close second. Coal suffers from a pollution problem. However, due to its abundance and low cost, it could withstand sophisticated processing to clean it up. After all, governments are keen to spend billions on carbon capture, when the CO2 molecule is 10,000 times smaller than the unwanted particulates in coal smoke.
Eventually, viable accessability of fossil fuels will run out, so we need to find another source soon. Nature has had the advantage of using enormous pressures and temperatures over thousands of years to produce compact, high energy sources like coal. I suspect that other forms of chemical energy will involve using more energy than we could recover.(As with hydrogen.)
Nuclear fusion shows some potential but is still a long way off. But with not many alternatives on the table, it must be worth considerable investment.
Don’t forget geothermal. If they ever develop ultra deep drilling you could have an abundant energy source almost any place on earth. There are several funded projects working on this, one by the drilling company Nabors was announced recently.
How cheap would that free power be?
I’m aware that it should take a lot of energy to drill with a directed energy beam so it won’t be free.
If the law that gives me my mineral rights for the natural gas they are extracting thousands of feet under my property I guess I should be compensated for my geothermal resources too. Maybe a few cents per million BTU?
Not just the initial costs. How long will pipes carrying very hot mineralized water last? (I don’t believe that there is plenty of distilled water down there).
Curious George,
If you can go deep enough where it is over 300C there are other molecules they can use besides H2O to transfer the heat to the surface. Ultra deep geothermal seems to be in the same category as fusion energy where the physics get extreme but so does the lure of an endless energy supply.
If we leave aside the pollution problem, coal is the ideal fuel.
We might also need to leave aside the fact that if our next 4000 quads come from coal we might be ruined, as some advertise.
Willard.
Thanks for a positive comment.
Good to see.
angech –
Why no response? Someone who doesn’t know you might think you’re hiding.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/the-role-of-mathematical-modelling/#comment-211704
Joshua | September 29, 2022 at 8:52 pm |
angech – Why no response? Someone who doesn’t know you might think you’re hiding.
–
Joshua 10 facts
I gave you a response at the right site.
Did you bother to read it or did you try to reply there and get scrubbed [moderated]?
Your presence here and comments here are a disgrace to yourself and the blog. Not that you can help yourself.
Not that anyone else here has been rude enough to tell you.
You are deliberately trying to wreck this blog post rather than try to help make discussion on the topic at hand.by being a troll.
To that end end I will not debate you on this here as that is precisely the side tracking that you wish to accomplish here.
I will debate you on this until the cows come home at ATTP’s but not wishing to do your trick of being a troll and taking up his valuable blog space and ideas I gave you a simple and adequate response to your comment.
You did not respond or perhaps you did and were moderated so as ATTP could have some peace.
Either way I will put your comment up there now since it is the appropriate spot and extend on the answer I gave you. Which was that you were wrong.
Remember?
I invite anyone here who is interested in Joshua’s antics and my responses[s] to have a look at the dialogue at the other site.
I would ask other commentators here to ignore Joshua’s poor behaviour with his comments here elsewhere in this blog only in the sense of not responding to them and also not to mine here.
Feel free to have a comment on any comments he makes on the other site.
As a commentator Joshua investigates and can raise interesting points and is a lot less puerile than a few years ago. He is certainly worth engaging with when not deliberating being rude to guest posts and I encourage him to continue here and elsewhere when being sensible but combative, rather than the poor form he insists on at times.
angech –
I entered this thread because my comments regarding Nic’s pandemic modeling were mentioned, and because I was besmirched, and because of Judith’s shameful dismissal of NIc’s obviously flawed treatment of uncertainties when building toy mathematical models of complex phenomena.
I happen to think those are interesting and relevant topics.
You’re certainly entitled to disagree, but I have no intention to “wreck” anything. You can continue to discuss whatever you want and so can anyone else.
Joshua
“ I have no intention to “wreck” anything.”
“I was besmirched”.
Both not true.
You want to wreck things.
You besmirch people constantly and then try to be the victim.
Poor little diddums.
Read your comments with VTG again.
Lol.
> I would ask other commentators here to ignore Joshua’s poor behaviour with his comments here elsewhere in this blog only in the sense of not responding to them and also not to mine here.
Prolly a reason you make commitments you don’t keep, angech.
Think about it.
Joshua | October 3, 2022 at 9:33 pm |
“Lol. I would ask other commentators here to ignore Joshua’s poor behaviour with his comments here elsewhere in this blog only in the sense of not responding to them and also not to mine here.
Prolly a reason you make commitments you don’t keep, angech. Think about it.”
I have thought about it Joshua.
The moderator at your site asked you to drop the subject, remember?
For the reasons I outlined.
You block up and wreck the blogs there and here when you troll and then whine about getting blocked for trolling.
I gave a detailed answer there which was moderated on the premise that we would drop the subject.
I could reproduce it here but will not out of deference to the people at the other site.
The date was September 30th 1.49 am
You could always ask if my response could be made public there but everyone except you is quite happy with the current situation.
Note I should not use the words troll and whine, they are rude but your refusal to take strong hints from others and to claim I do no follow through with commitments has worn a little thin and needed to be corrected.
Ta.
test
This article contains a brief summary of the mathematical foundations of Bayesian statistical methods (Section 2), an overview of the paradigm (Section 3), a detailed discussion of objective Bayesian methods (Section 4), and a description of useful objective inference summaries, including estimation and hypothesis testing (Section 5). Good introductions to objective Bayesian statistics include Lindley [1965], Zellner [1971], and Box and Tiao [1973]. For more advanced monographs, see [Berger, 1985; Bernardo and Smith, 1994]
http://www.hep.fsu.edu/~harry/statistics/2009PhilScience.pdf
It’s the official handbook entry on the thing, Jim. Check who wrote it. Check who Nic cites.
You might also like:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/22/the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-vii-a-summary-plus-qa/#comment-980775
I would prefer to call something that does not make any sense uninformative rather than objective.
The carbon dating episode can be reduced to this:
https://xkcd.com/1132/
Replace the frequentist in that cartoon with an uninformed Bayesian.
Wrong cite:
https://climateaudit.org/2014/04/17/radiocarbon-calibration-and-bayesian-inference/#comment-547444
We can’t prove that X makes any sense .. does it prove that X makes no sense?
Depends how you established that you cannot prove X, George. But proof is for logic and drinking, preferably both. We are talking about bets.
Would you go all in on a hand because your new Poker engine tells you so even if it goes against everything you know about the game? I would not. And if you search back the number of threads in this blog where Taleb is cited approvingly, neither would Judy. At least before she realized that he was taking tail risk more srsly than just about everyone else. That is how he made a name for himself in the financial world.
At the end of the day, little else matters than to be able to stay in the game. Humanity will not have a second chance for a long while. It cannot afford a bankruptcy, in contrast to what allow UK laws for insolvent endeavours.
I see your point on the nomenclature, but Nic didn’t coin it.
It is here, J:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2022/09/18/the-role-of-mathematical-modelling/#comment-211716
***
My pleasure, Doc. Reading the reviews and Javier’s reply to the only serious one might change your opinion.
Thanks. If I could decipher what he wrote I might be able to figure out if accountability is in there somewhere.
Thank you for leaving my original reply to Joshua up.
–
Joshua
“Either way I will put your comment up there now since it is the appropriate spot and extend on the answer I gave you. Which was that you were wrong.
Remember?
I invite anyone here who is interested in Joshua’s antics and my responses[s] to have a look at the dialogue at the other site.”
My new reply to you is no longer visible there.
–
I note this happens to others at other sites as well for good reasons.
verytallguy says: September 30, 2022 at 6:46 pm
Anyway a now deleted challenge to Javier’s description seems to have got me a site ban, tragically.
Joshua says: September 30, 2022 at 8:41 pm VTG –
You have to go pretty far to get a site ban.
Looks like we were both moderated elsewhere so as ATTP could have some peace.
–
Reminds me of a funny situation recently in Melbourne.
An artist was complaining to a person about the quality of the Melbourne Art Museum.
Ugly building, no style, no view, what were the architect’s thinking?
Then he said “I’m a well known artist and I’ve brought down some of my works to put in here.”
The person said “Wow.’Can I see them”
On being shown the works the person said ” Oh. They are ugly. No style or personality and no perspective. I doubt they will put them on show here.”
As I recall the person was the Director of the Museum.
You are neither an artist nor a museum director, Doc, but you might still find joy in hiding and fear in being found out. Genuine interactions are uneasy to carry that way, however.
If you only are forthright on attack, good CB players can recognize that your smokescreens indicate defensiveness.
Willard
Would that my words could do the speaking for me.
Genuine interaction is a desire, a poisoned chalice, the mere sip of which turns those passions one seeks into instant regret and sorrow.
Apropos our man of feigned impugned dignity fluttering across all threads on his “injured” wing demanding satisfaction.
His refusal to take accountability for his actions and words as seen both here and the other site is his to deal with.
Very good cb players may recognise a smokescreen as a possible ploy instead.
You would be the best judge of that having written the playbook on defence *
I am a simple naive scientific contrarian whose only issues with others is calling them out when they post opinions that are wrong, misleading or dare I say cherry picked.
On both sides.
And on the appropriate site.
Further, like you, (I have learned from you) I will not engage on restrictive grounds that other people set that seek to immunise and defend themselves from facing up to to their behaviour.
No fighting with hands tied behind one’s back.
To state that one has never cherry picked in one’s life is beyond the pale. Attempting to restrict that claim to the interactions with only one person shows shall we say some hint of defensiveness?
Let us have a show of hands.
“ I have never cherry picked an argument in my life.”
Should be hundreds here prepared to claim that.
You go first?
I cannot do it.
Surely there will be some takers.
For Willard
Angech’s immodest game
A French Defense against a modest AI.
open source Garbochess-JS
Angech as black.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 exc5 Nc6
5 Nc3 Qh4 6 Nf3 Qb4 7 a3 Qxc5 8 Bb5 a6
9 Be3 Qe7 10 Bd3 QC7 11 Bf4 f5! 12 0-0 Nf6!
13 Qe1 Ne4 14 h3 h6 15 g4 g6 16 gx5f gxf5
17 Qe2 Rg8 18 Kh8 Bc5 19 Na4 Ba7 20 Nc3 Ng5
21Nxg5 Bd7 22 Qe1 0-0-0 22 Ka1 Bc5 23Na4 Ba7
24 Nc3 Ng5! 26 Nxg5 h6xg5 27 Bg5 Rxh3 28Kb2 Nxe5
29BXd8 Qxd8 30 Kxh3 … leading to a forced checkmate starting with Qh8
then a unique Q march down the board 1 square at a time
Qg7, Qh6, Qg5, Qh5, Qg4, Qh4, Qg4, and finish off with Qh3 if Kh1 then Nf3
or Nf3 if Kh2 then Qh3
The opening is blah
The mid game enterprising.
The ending is fantastic. Hope people appreciate it.
Nice game, Doc.
I already played my move. While it is not illegal not to play any CB move or to repeat the same move over and over again, it only works if you are already winning. Which is very seldom the situation contrarians are in.
Also, if you do nothing I can take more space a wipe you off the board. A possible move would be to remind you about commitments. I have no real commitment about Covidball. You do.
Honour your commitments, Doc. You will live a happier life.
Missed your reply, sorry.
Thank you for liking the chess game.
Was a real shock ending.
–
I am not a CB player.
Even though I appear to be playing Climate Ball.
–
Or is that more I would not like to be seen as (only) a CB player.
–
My forte is innocent annoyance of other people.
I’m very good at it.
Or very bad on picking up signals from other people.
So when you you see what you think is an error cut me a little bit of slack.
–
Honour my commitments.
Good advice.
Do you really think that people go around living their lives not honouring their commitments.
Serious question.
You do your best and I certainly do my best.
We both fail at times.
It is an ethics situational time and priority problem.
–
Some other people have a more lax set of ethics.
You can tell by the way that they call behaviour into question constantly on other people.
The great thing about that is that it usually highlights where their own ethics are failing.*
–
That is different, by the way, to responding to such criticisms in the gentle banter at Roy’s
–
Joshua was wrong.
He would do well to contemplate on my comment above.*
(So would I).
My statements on the matter at the time are freely available for anyone to look up.
I feel perfectly safe and comfortable about all of them at the time and now.
–
I prefer to comment rather than give advice to people.
Free advice is never welcome, graciously accepted or followed.*
Paid advice is different.
I’m a little surprised I haven’t seen this linked here. Or maybe I missed it?
https://news.osu.edu/climate-change-is-turning-the-trees-into-gluttons/
Yes Idso has been saying this for perhaps 20 years. Additionally, plants become more drought tolerant because they need fewer stomata. And indeed satellite data has been analyzed and it shows a quite significant increase in greenery in arid areas.
Generally, the biosphere will become much more productive as we add Co2 to the atmosphere. Almost certainly food production will increase. In fact at 180 ppm at the last GM, plants were getting close to Co2 starvation. In fact ice ages are vastly less hospitable to human beings than a world that is a little warmer will be. Another fact that doesn’t fit the narrative.
It is easy to not know about this because there is strong narrative selection bias in the media. And there has been some pseudo-scientific pushback from some climate scientists who don’t know anything about biology.
dpy comment – “And there has been some pseudo-scientific pushback from some climate scientists who don’t know anything about biology.”
quit insulting mann –
sarc
It’s particularly interesting that they found a greater positive effect in forested areas (where seeds for newly planted trees are selected for quality, and growth is actively managed). I’m skeptical that they effectively controlled for the myriad potential confounds, but a study where they attempt to do that is informative. It’s interesting that they found such a large net positive effect despite the evidence that faster-growing trees live less long, but maybe the positive effect on growth is just that much greater.
Perhaps one area of potential recognition of common interest – planting more trees?
Heh. Who am I kidding? Nothing will materially slow down the ideology-based antipathy. Not if/until there is an unambiguous signal in day to day suffering in wealthy countries. Of course, that may turn out to be much more expensive, if not too late.
All we need to do is read the comments from my dear friends David and Joe to see what I mean. Of course, they’re on line fanatics and shouldn’t be viewed as representative – but I think they do reflect the larger dynamics in play.
It’s particularly interesting that they found a greater positive effect in forested areas (where seeds for newly planted trees are selected for quality, and growth is actively managed).
Perhaps one area of potential recognition of common interest – planting more trees?
Heh. Who am I kidding? Nothing will materially slow down the ideology-based antipathy. Not if/until there is an unambiguous signal in day to day suffering in wealthy countries. Of course, that may turn out to be much more expensive, if not too late.
All we need to do is read the comments from my dear friends David and Joe to see what I mean. Of course, they’re on line fanatics and shouldn’t be viewed as representative – but I think they do reflect the larger dynamics in play.
but a study where they attempt to do that is informative.
*’m sk*ptic*l th*t th*y eff*ctiv*ly contr*lled for the myri*d pot*ntial c*nf*unds, but a study where they attempt to do that is informative. It’s interesting that they found such a large net positive effect despite the evidence that faster-growing trees live less long, but maybe the positive effect on growth is just that much greater.
J0shu@, 1f u have found the @nswer to the filter let us know. I have found it to be r@ndom.
Ron –
It does seem to be effectively random (along with obvious no nos like N@zi). But since it’s not actually random but logically indecipherable the best I can do is something like a bubble sort to find the section with the trigger and then insert asterisks in the vowels in that section. But it’s a total pain in the @ss.
I’m skeptical that they effectively controlled for the myriad potential confounds, but a study where they attempt to do that is informative. It’s interesting that they found such a large net positive effect despite the evidence that faster-growing trees live less long, but maybe the positive effect on growth is just that much greater.
Perhaps one area of potential recognition of common interest – planting more trees?
Heh. Who am I kidding? Nothing will materially slow down the ideology-based antipathy. Not if/until there is an unambiguous signal in day to day suffering in wealthy countries. Of course, that may turn out to be much more expensive, if not too late.
All we need to do is read the comments from my dear friends David and Joe to see what I mean. Of course, they’re on line fanatics and shouldn’t be viewed as representative – but I think they do reflect the larger dynamics in play.
Eh… trees in the US going backwards according to the cited study? Do they not read past the abstract to results that don’t support a nonsense narrative. Numbers count – that what they are for.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33196-x/tables/1
Thank you for this article, Dr Scaffeta.
In terms of the philosophy of science, it describes a number of failures of the traditional Scientific method. For example, one wonders how many papers would not have been printed if the authors had shown proper estimations of uncertainty about their data. One use of confidence limits is for rejection of hypotheses before they become too formalized.
Trying to express uncertainty has become too large a problem for me personally. I write articles about uncertainty of the very basic temperature data that leads to claims that Earth has warmed 1.4 C or whatever since year 1900. My studies show about half of that amount might be plausible. Of course, this has a rather direct and dramatic effect on calculation of ECS.
One recent article to demonstrate confusion about the basics of temperature measurements is here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/06/uncertainty-estimates-for-routine-temperature-data-sets-part-two/
The 800 comments distilled into two groups, one of which claimed to be able to reduce uncertainty mathematically and the other that claimed that practical measurement outcomes disallowed lower, theoretical pro-math claims. No consensus arose.
One must wonder how those billions of dollars spent on climate change “research” based on such uncertain temperature numbers were ever allowed to go ahead. In future years with the inevitable post-mortems, one must point an accusatory finger at funding bodies that have uncritically handed out grants like lollies.
If I had done to my branch of science what researchers have done to global warming ‘science’ I would have been in jail long ago.
> The 800 comments distilled into two groups
There were those by commenters who grasp the Central Limit Theorem. Then there is the author and his cohort.
Willard,
I grasp the Central Limit Theory. That is not the argument. The argument is about when it can be used and when it cannot. If you start from a requirement that all inputs are IID, then there are a limited number of cases where it can be used. If you allow more fluidity than IID, there comes a point where your inputs no longer sample a population in the defined statistical sense and the CLT cannot be applied validly.
What is hard about that?
Geoff S
p.s. Part Three of this essay series on WUWT is almost ready to go. It has some eye-openers exposed by forensic analysis of what is “raw” temperature data and “unraw”. People with open minds will see that the starting point for global warming, namely these temperature records from curated stations around the world, is in poor shape, so poor I would call unfit for purpose. (Wise researchers should not try to analyse distributions containing made-up numbers.)
As children, we were taught to sing “Build on the rock and not upon the sand.” Seems not all understood. Geoff S
The central limit theorem says that the larger the sample size the more the distribution approached normal. How is this relevant to the accuracy – as opposed to the precision – of thermometer readings?
This is the habitually superficial nonsense from Geoff. It’s such BS. Thermometers are relatively precise – the accuracy is affected by the proportion of latent and sensitive heat at the surface – that changes with soil moisture.
But the world is warming according to more precise and accurate instruments. Time you moved into the 21st century Geoff?
Geoff,
If the Central Limit Theorem assumed normality, there would be no need for the CLT. The Law of Large Numbers is what you are trying to challenge. Good luck with that.
JamesS finally succeeded in contacting the NIST Fellow and Chief Statistician. You told JamesS that you wanted to join the conversation. Any development on that front?
I think you are right in evoking philosophy of science, but perhaps not for the epistemological reasons you mention.
PS: You can find generalized versions of the CLT all over the Internet for non iid stuff,
Willard noted “If the Central Limit Theorem assumed normality, there would be no need for the CLT.”
The NIST author failed to continue the discussion.
The discussion remains without a fat lady. Commenters (apart from a couple like James Gorman) seemed too timid to offer a definitive answer about how to calculate uncertainty in different scenarios.
The discussion about when to use the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Large Numbers (which is not a Law) petered out. People stuck to their preconceptions, be they correct or wrong.
This outcome is a cameo of the whole study of climate change over the last 30 years. Researchers seem to take a bet on what they think is right, then stick with it and double down when the evidence becomess too embarrassing. Like the Swiss people that Javier wrote of above. They flirt with this non-scientific abuse because they are not accountable for their errors, so impunity can reign.
In summary, confidence estimates are treated far from correctly in very many climate research papers. The most common misuse seems to me to result in invalid applications of both CLT and LOLN by invoking them when they are not appropriate. Tiny uncertainty numbers can result, so authors think they have shown a clear, valid result. Also quite often, other factors that increase uncertainty are simply ignored, from ignorance or willfullness. The result is that hypotheses that should have been sunk by the shifting sands of uncertainty continue on as gospel, to be built upon by the next wave of researchers.
You saw the outcome when Pat Frank looked at cloud factors and propagation of errors through GCMs. The GCM people have bigger problems than revealed by CMIP exercises, because the computed outcomes that they show are illusory, just one convenient pick out of many swirling around in a large noise envelope, the final choice is said to be based on “This one seems to be the most correct to us.”
Imagine if we were free to apply this undisciplined thinking to my field of work (finding new mineral deposits) where your work can be shown to be right or wrong and where uncertainty is taken most seriously and formally. Those who tried the guessing games of climate research would be in different jobs by nightfall.
I continue to concentrate on the temperature foundations of all of this material on global warming, because all of it that I have studied in detail – is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We are changing the global energy scheme on the foundations of data unfit for purpose. That is serious.
No, RIE, it is not so 19th Century
I think we can engineer a bright technological future. But I can’t explain error estimation to Geoff. Random errors are not hugely relevant and – as they are random – they tend to sum to zero. The random errors are defined in terms of the standard deviation. Easily done – but doesn’t add much information to temperature graphs.
> The NIST author
That author is Antonio Possolo, Geoff:
https://www.nist.gov/people/antonio-possolo
The guy has a PhD in statistics. You could even phone him. The number is on the page. No, you had to make your flying monkey do the work for you.
I might have missed the follow-up in the comment thread. Should I read it again? There is a small price for making me pay.
Otherwise your pontifications are duly noted.
There are two types of error – random and systemic. For thermometers in enclosures let’s ignore systemic error. Random is random and random errors add to zero over a long enough time by the workings of probability. Much ado about absolutely nothing. Got that Geoff?
How’s that ‘go to’ 1000 page Club of Rome inspired report going for you?
Robert,
It is pleasing to see you gradually picking up my old lessons, one after another, and repeating them to me as if you recently discovered them yourself. How about some attribution, even thanks?
Geoff S
RIE,
Thank you for this short summary of error types. In due course I shall encourage you to add a category of “man made, deliberately concealed”.
BTW, you referred above to the cancellation of random errors, presumably because the positive strays cancel the negative, like in counting accountancy errors. It is actually quite hard to discover, quantity and show cancellation of most of the errors I have studied re this daily temperature work. How about some examples with proofs.
In discussing precision and accuracy, we have calculations of pi to a million places, which indicates superb precision, but how do you prove this to be accurate? Can you assume an exponent of exactly 2 to a million places in its derivation, or is it really fractal and not quite 2? Geoff S
For Nicola Scafetta,
Re spelling of your name, I corrected the first mis-correction the anticipatory system made, but it re-mis-corrected and sneaked though. My apologies for continuing to use a dumb system, one that has wrongly substituted “it’s” for “its” over several years now.
Geoff S
Robert I. Ellison | September 30, 2022
There are many types of error – deliberate, random and systemic for example
. For thermometers in enclosures let’s ignore systemic error.
“Random is random and random errors add to zero over a long enough time by the workings of probability. Much ado about absolutely nothing.”
–
Sorry, RIE,
Random errors will probably not add to zero over a very long time.
A simple extended coin toss will show you that the error at the end of a very long time will be significantly different to zero in almost all cases.
Whether this is random or a finger on the scale [deliberate] as with fudged climate graphs or thermometers is up to the beholder.
Then there’s hysterical error.
I was talking measurement or transcription errors in thermometer (or thermocouple) readings. These measurement errors are randomly negative and positive and of different magnitudes. There is no limit – they simply tend to cancel out over time.
You talk utter cr@p as usual and a lot of it.
“Random errors will probably not add to zero over a very long time.”
What may be seen as ‘random errors’ may be some bias in the workings. Meaning that somehow the whole investigative process is faulty.
That leads to the apparent random errors in the measurements of obliquity of the past 3K years, when compared to the very trusted (but erroneous) calculations of obliquity based on an assumption. A whole lot is built on that foundations.
What Geoff is on about is not error at all but deliberate or unintentional bias in the homogenizartion process accounting for site moves, equipment changes or environmental conditions.
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat509/book/export/html/648
Random error is is the accidental difference between observed and actual values. They cancel out over large series because they are freakin’ random. Big or small negative or positive. If there’s a bias it’s systemic. That such simple statistics trips them up says it all.
Except that the systemic error is listed, or assumed, as random. Statistics is the third leg of the old proverbial pot, the other two being ‘lies’ and ‘damned lies’.
Glib rejoinders add nothing.
Robert I. Ellison | October 1, 2022
“Random error is is the accidental difference between observed and actual values. They cancel out over large series because they are freakin’ random. Big or small negative or positive. If there’s a bias it’s systemic.”
–
Rubbish.
You are misusing the Law of large numbers in arguing your statement.
How to get it through to you?
–
Things cancel out over large series if there is a rule or law saying that for every random walk step one way there must be a equal and opposite step the other way.
Fixed into the system.
Not random.
This appears true for large ans small scale forces and masses.
It is not true for a random step or steps.
If it was true the steps would not be random.
You would have no free will.
etc.
–
One argument is that the chance of anything happening is statistically zero because it is 1/infinity.
This is a problem that probability and statistics rely on to do their differentiation because it is virtually true.
The dartboard argument that every spot has an equal chance of the dart hitting it and as their are infinite spots to target the chance of it hitting any one spot in particular is zero.
The answer to the problem is however to sum all the chances when a zero chance suddenly becomes a certainty but only after the dartboard is hit.
Sounds familiar?
–
Consequently the chance of a large sum of random steps ending at infinity being zero is zero.
The graphs showing an approach to zero at infinity miss the point that at infinity even a minute difference from zero is infinitely large.
Wrong thread.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/25/cmip6-gcms-versus-global-surface-temperatures-ecs-discussion/#comment-980833
Robert I. Ellison | October 1, 2022
Random error is is the accidental difference between observed and actual values.
How so?
One would have to have instruments capable of reading both the observed and actual values accurately.
If one had such instruments there should be no difference.
A random error is an observed or actual value that differ from the expected actual or observed value.
There is no error about a random error other than the actual value does not agree with the previous and post observations.
In fact if the machine or algorithm is not working properly the random error might be the only true value ever recorded!
It is not accidental. An accident is something that should not have happened, ever.
A random event [accident misnomer] is an event that did happen and will continue to happen but cannot be predicted.
Since it cannot be predicted in frequency, size, and positive or negative direction any addition of such sums will deviate from the expected and stay deviated.
This last point may seem controversial but consider a set of 10 head coin tosses in a row.
After an infinite number of coin tosses the series will always still be 10 positive from the starting position to the finishing position when compared, never negative.
Randomness does matter.
It is not accidental.
“They cancel out over large series because they are freakin’ random.”
Just proved they do not cancel out.
When they always cancel out that is proof that they are not random.
The actual value is on the line of best fit. It’s a regression thing. The standard deviation of the difference gives the confidence limits.
Random error is an accident – a false reading. It matters little in the context of temperature series.
There was a link I provided that compared accuracy and precision on a dartboard.
https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat509/book/export/html/648
Sometimes it pays to actually study something and not rabbit on with weird blogoscience. Before speaking up and confirming my impressions that is.
What Geoff seems more on about is homogenisation. But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either. I’m on the side of sophisticated analysis of these two different things by the BOM. For technical reasons satellites are better – but BOM did well enough with what they had – the world is warming.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/
angech says “Things cancel out over large series if there is a rule or law saying—”
The rule itself is a bias. Any decision on how to treat a series of data is itself a bias.
REI > “The actual value is on the line of best fit.”
That is also a declared bias. And it can be costly in that it discards the whole exercise, and worse, it leads one astray.
I entered into this particular ‘fray’ with something I had in mind. The good way to prove the matter is by an example. The ancient measurements of obliquity are an excellent one.
A study by A Wittmann in 1978 showed that there was something wrong in the disagreement between measurements and calculated values. A second paper two years later put that to ‘Error’ in the measurements. Wrongly it was considered that divergence from an assumed polynomial was all error on the part of the investigators.
In year 173CE two particular measurements were made (that necessarily within 24hrs of each other). Both differed substantially between themselves and even more from the trend. Both were rejected in the following years by everyone. They were treated as gross outliers
Recently evidence showed that there really was a disturbance in obliquity; that the values found during the testing were correct. What happened was that the ‘best fit’ or ‘trend’ line had discarded an important test result that was full of information. A ‘best fit’ reduced centuries of testing to bs.
This link has the basics: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/2093466177494843/
It is primarily centered on year 173ce but shows also a well known major disturbance at about 2345bce that led to the 4k2 event.
That changes a lot of how to view proxies.
If you take a random walk using the numbers in pi (after the decimal point) and use the digits 0-7 to determine the compass point direction of travel (ignoring 8s and 9s) you get a truly chaotic path. This is described in John Venn’s book, Logic of Chance.
Humans (all inclusive) are noted for not being clever enough to understand the true natures of either randomness or infinity and have a patent inability to fake them. Do all things regress to the mean? Not according to randomness since infinity cannot be reached … and so where is the mean value to come from?
Robert I. Ellison | October 1, 2022 at 7:57 pm |
I was talking measurement or transcription errors in thermometer (or thermocouple) readings. These measurement errors are randomly negative and positive and of different magnitudes. There is no limit – they simply tend to cancel out over time.
–
Some supposed errors are so bad, so skewed, so large or so repeated that they make a mockery of our ideas of probability.
Just being alive proves that.
–
It is wrong to say that errors must balance out.
Life does not work like that.
Errors can cascade.
Recommended reading for all … over 6,000 Abstract views so far:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2884148
What year are these models made? Or all different years? I’d like to see forecast/hindcast dates for the models in these graphs.
Planet Earth’s surface temperatures are of a planet with a thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Remember, then, that scientific thought is the guide to action; that the truth at which it arrives is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we can act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.’ William Kingdon Clifford, The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885)
Human emitted greenhouse gases bias a chaotic system to a warmer state. There is implicit in chaos the risk of dramatic and rapid change in the Earth system – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere and hydrosphere. A small forcing can cause a large change according to the NAS. That’s about as mainstream as it gets. That much should be accepted as truth in line with Isaac Newton’s 4th rule of natural philosophy. There are of course those who don’t or won’t.
The range of models in the latest IPCC opportunistic ensemble is shown in blue and yellow. Above and below the mean of means. Some models are run in centres with large computing facilities. Models can be run many times with slightly different initial conditions and wildly divergent solution trajectories. Some have more modest origins.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png?w=768
Each of these models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. Below is an example of a single model run 1000’s of times. The rest is a work in progress (e.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116 ) Yet they somehow continue to insist on the verisimilitude of models.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1-e1612040479369.png
Given Earth history – the dominant climate science paradigm is abrupt change. The last climate shift was in 1998/2001 for God’s sake. I am assuming on that basis that ECS is a dynamic emergent property of oceans, atmosphere, cryosphere and biosphere.
GCM have a tremendous near future in regional, initialised projections but can be neither precise or accurate in a traditional sense.
Pretending they are by either side is just stupid.
ԤSensitive 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 (Go¨ del’s
theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the
calculation (see ref. 26).’ https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0702971104
RIE,
One can agree with your words “GCM have a tremendous near future in regional, initialised projections but can be neither precise or accurate in a traditional sense.”
However, one can disagree with your deflection to tipping points. Tipping points need some form of detection by physical measurements and when the measurements are wrong the inference is unsafe.
Yes, I am told that one can observe tipping points by the obvious changes that people can see and feel in their climate, but my sensors must be defective because each new day is much the same as each old day.
Geoff S
We have been through this before Geoff. You have to do a lot better than stare vacantly out your window.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/
Geoff Sherrington,
Go further up to an answer I posted some hours ago. The example I have given is of a tipping point. It has been detected but that detection, then and since, served for nothing.
If you go to the link, down the ant-trail of measurements you may notice small kinks spaced about 1470 ( which equals 980×3/2, 980 being the Eddy cycle, that peaked at 173ce). Someone repeatedly pointed that to me but I have not figured out why.
A previous tipping point evident in the glacier ablation curves, an Eddy root, was also indicated. Its the driver of the 4K2 event.
REI is very right about tipping points (but may not agree with me anyway :) )..
What is the 4K2 event that was referenced by Melitamegalithic
We ended up to the following remarkable results:
–
Comparison of results the planet’s Te calculated by the Incomplete Equation (the Planet Effective Temperature Te):
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
with the planet’s mean surface temperature Tmean calculated by the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature New Equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (1)
–
and the planet’s Tsat.mean measured by satellites:
–
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…
–
We have collected the results now:
–
Planet…..Te.incompl….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..439,6 K…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……255 K……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon…….270,4 K…….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K…..213,21 K…..210 K
–
the calculated with Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation and the measured by satellites are almost the same, very much alike.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nicola,
A lot of indicators are suggesting that global warming has slowed down in the last 3 years consistent with producing La Nina weather patterns [a prerequisite].
CO2 levels on average continue to rise suggesting that the temperature has not stopped rising yet [another prerequisite unfortunately].
Arctic Sea ice has recovered to 10th lowest.
UAH currently 6th and aiming at 10th lowest.
If solar activity and cloud cover are the two main drivers can you give us figures showing a decrease in the former and an increase in the latter these last 3 years world wide which might indicate a pause is due, happening or has happened?
Further I looked up the CO2 level plots again.
Why is there no indication of the effects of the global slowdown at the appropriate times?
The graph is machine like in its composition and failure to reflect known CO2 variations both man made and natural.
Why does everyone accept it as gospel when it displays no natural irregularity?
angech,
Not everyone is unquestioning. I wrote about this on WUWT a year ago. More questions than answers in the article, my apologies. Geoff S
Geoff, good to know.
More questions than answers sums it all up.
Thanks.
“We own the science”.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1576522107051446273
If not for the AGW hoax, the Ozone Hole hoax would perhaps have gone unquestioned longer than it did and it wouldn’t be as well understood as it now is that Western academia is corrupt.
“As scientists race to better understand humankind’s role in ozone loss, they must first be able to tease out the natural causes.” ~Krishna Ramanujan
More grounded sun oriented sun based breeze satiates during the 1970’s and mid 1980’s drove a colder AMO by means of positive NAO, and more vulnerable sun powered breeze states starting around 1995 have driven a hotter AMO through bad NAO, causing a decrease in low overcast cover starting around 1995. I don’t see a lot of proof for the positive impact of rising CO2 compelling on the NAO hindering the AMO warming beginning around 1995.https://wisereview.com.au/best-gaming-chairs.html
A planet surface doesn’t absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.
–
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
–
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
–
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
–
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
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.
–
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
–
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
–
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
–
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
–
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
–
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
President Puddin’ Head is off the reservation!
Native American tribes that rely on fossil fuel production across the nation reiterated their demand that the Biden administration allow them to develop the resources on their lands.
Tribal leaders and energy experts contacted by Fox News Digital criticized efforts to restrict oil, gas and coal production even as those resources sustain thousands of Native Americans’s way of life. The Department of the Interior has repeatedly expressed support for boosting tribal sovereignty for Indigenous tribes, but has also pursued a climate agenda limiting fossil fuel production on federal lands and waters.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/25/cmip6-gcms-versus-global-surface-temperatures-ecs-discussion/#comment-980862
Europe capitulates …
Living With Energy Scarcity
October 3, 2022, 10:00 AM GMT
Gazprom PJSC suspends natural gas deliveries to Italy and the Nord Stream pipelines are ruptured in suspected sabotage just as the heating season in Europe officially begins.
This worrying sequence of events could give the impression that the continent is rushing headlong to its worst case scenario – a winter without Russian gas.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-europe-energy-crunch-winter-blog
Trees have long been known to buffer humans from the worst effects of climate change by pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Now new research shows just how much forests have been bulking up on that excess carbon. The study, recently published in the Journal Nature Communications, finds that elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased wood volume — or the biomass — of forests in the United States. Although other factors like climate and pests can somewhat affect a tree’s volume, the study found that elevated carbon levels consistently led to an increase of wood volume in 10 different temperate forest groups across the country. This suggests that trees are helping to shield Earth’s ecosystem from the impacts of global warming through their rapid growth.
https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/02/170203/climate-change-is-turning-trees-into-gluttons
US coal just went past $200/ton today.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-03/us-coal-prices-climb-past-200-as-global-energy-crunch-expands?leadSource=uverify%20wall
And it’s not just the USA, as coal prices all over the world have jumped due to … demand. I’m sure we all can remember when the narrative first appeared that oil/NG/coal/gasoline/diesel prices would have to increase for alternative energy to take off. Well, looks like they got what they wished for … except the demand part, which is showing itself to be stubbornly inelastic as the substitutes/alternatives don’t seem to be measuring up.
Can we say inflation. Thanks Joe Biden
What do you believe Europe will rely upon in the event of Russian gas cut off?
Hey Rob …
COAL! They have tons of it! Might be dirty, but it’s quick and easy!
Seriously though, I think I saw that German NG storage tanks were above 90%. They do have coal burning plants that were shut down, not sure how many, but they can be brought up fairly quick. I’m not sure how fast shut down nuclear plants can be restarted. There are other NG pipelines from the south and some LNG terminals. They can also buy floating LNG terminals.
The UK was talking about removing the ban on fracking, but that industry doesn’t exist.
They’ll make it. But the narrative will take a hit.
And you’re right, inflation will only make it a more expensive winter.
Manual ping back:
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1574147792049610752
Pingback: ExxonKnew Is PR and Politics in Search of A Shakedown
Pingback: Researcher Questions Extent of Carbon Dioxide’s Climate Effect - True USA
Pingback: Researchers ask about the extent of carbon dioxide’s climate impact – Trend News – Securykid
Pingback: Researcher Questions Extent of Carbon Dioxide’s Climate Effect – Million Voices USA
Pingback: Researcher Questions Extent Of Climate Effect Of Carbon Dioxide - News001
Pingback: Glibertarians | Saturday Morning Fall Guy Links
Pingback: Researcher Questions Extent of Carbon Dioxide’s Climate Effect – NO BLUE/RED DAWN
It now takes only three minutes to read the new
http://climate-change-theory.com website with the correct physics for all planets. The Home page text reads …
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) originally told the world in the 1980’s that carbon dioxide and methane act like a blanket in the atmosphere supposedly “trapping heat” and somehow thus warming the Earth’s surface. Several years later they found there was no evidence supporting this explanation and, instead, they started to talk about “back radiation” which was radiation from these gases (and water vapor) in the relatively cold atmosphere that was raising the temperature of the warmer surface. As Professor Claes Johnson proved early this century such radiation cannot do that: instead it undergoes resonant (or “pseudo”) scattering without raising the temperature at all. I wrote about Professor Johnson’s research in my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which was acclaimed and published on several websites.
However, there was an unanswered question: Why is the global mean temperature of Earth’s surface warmer than direct solar radiation could make it? Clearly it has something to do with the atmosphere, but it is primarily to do with the height of the atmosphere rather than any radiation from carbon dioxide, methane or water vapor. The surface of Venus is far hotter mainly because its atmosphere is far thicker (meaning higher) than ours. The lowest region in the planet’s atmosphere is called the troposphere and there is a fairly uniform rate of cooling with increasing altitude. Back in the 1870’s a physicist Josef Loschmidt explained that this temperature gradient is actually formed by gravity acting on individual molecules: the temperature depends on the speed of these molecules (between collisions) and gravity can affect that speed. We can now confirm that Loschmidt was right and we see this effect in every planetary troposphere, though there are reasons why it does not occur in higher regions because the density is insufficient in the stratosphere and above. This phenomenon enables us to now understand why the surface temperature is what it is, and I wrote about this in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” in 2013. The heat process involved now enables us to understand temperatures even down to the core of planets and moons.
The inevitable conclusion is that the world has been seriously misled by what is incorrect physics used by climatologists. For those with a knowledge of physics, they use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law incorrectly when they add to the solar flux an additional flux nearly twice as great coming from the atmosphere and they then use this total (after deducting that for non-radiative surface cooling) in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to “explain” the global mean surface temperature. But this law is only applicable for a single source of radiation and that source must be effectively hotter (after any attenuation due to distance) than the target. It is not correct to add another source, especially from a colder source. In reality they end up having to assume molecules somehow “know” they must send more radiation downwards than upwards. Furthermore, their energy diagrams (such as that at the right from the NASA website) show more energy supposedly coming out of the base of the atmosphere than the Sun delivers at the top. An atmosphere cannot create energy like this!
There is more information on the images page, including a quote from a physicist and the latest temperature data showing that there has been net global cooling since 1998. Consider viewing my 15 minute video.
“ The surface of Venus is far hotter mainly because its atmosphere is far thicker (meaning higher) than ours.”
–
Conversely the atmosphere is far thicker because the temperature is far higher?
The atmosphere of any planet is a combination of its composition,
It’s size and mass and how much energy is innate in it and how much outside energy ( insolation) it gets.
The moon and the earth differ in their innate energy, earth having a larger and hotter core and energy bulk.
The atmosphere is determined in part by gravity which is large enough to hold onto the lighter more volatile elements and molecules that the heat present allows to be formed.
It appears to get twice the energy from the sun that the earth does per square meter
Solar irradiance (W/m2) 2601.3 earth 1361.0
It’s atmosphere is similar to pre life earth atmosphere with 95% CO2
Trying to put these facts together simply one could speculate that at the energy the moon gets from the sun that the volatiles like CO2 and O2 are simply lost to space.
Earth can hold onto CO2 ,O2 and N
As can Venus but Venus produces a larger layer due to the extra insolation and can hold on to it
Earth has a lower atmosphere as not enough gases are produced to go higher out.
O2 is present instead of CO 2 due to life.
When planets and moons formed in our Solar System it was the Sun that did most of the warming and, surprisingly, the “heat creep” process (which I was first in the world to discover back in 2013) conveyed thermal energy even down to the core, just as is still happening, for example, with the Moon where the core temperature is more than 1,000 degrees hotter than the hottest location on the surface of the Moon. It’s had plenty of time to cool off, if indeed it was ever hotter anyway.
All planets have had time to cool if they were ever significantly hotter, which I doubt. There is no convincing evidence, for example, that Uranus is cooling.
You all need to come to grips with understanding the “heat creep” process which is the ONLY process which correctly explains observations throughout the Solar System, whilst also being seen in experiments with centrifugal force because it can occur in any force field. It is in complete accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as proved in my paper “Planetary Core & Surface Temperatures” which is linked in the left column at
http://climate-change-theory.com that you also should read.
I only reply to those who seek to learn from my research at http://climate-change-theory.com
I spent more than 3 minutes at your website. You claim it has “correct physics”. If so, it is very well hidden.
Curious George
“I spent more than 3 minutes at your website (DC’s)
You claim it has “correct physics”.
–
Well done in having a look, saves me from having to do so.
The explanation of a phenomenon called heat creep above where the embryo sun caused the cores of supposedly cold planets to heat up over time is, on the surface of it, totally un physical.
It will take you about three hours to study dozens of pages in my seven papers wherein, as you could have guessed, you will find the relevant physics, and there is a AU $10,000 reward for the first to prove me wrong about the heat creep process and the fact that water vapor cools rather than warms the surface.
It looks to me that using high ECS error bars, the NULL hypothesis is inside the 95% CI for the satellite, and perhaps other records. I don’t know how much natural variability there is, though. It’s simply funny in the rhetorical sense.
Why do the two CNRM models with high sensitivity yield a low temperature (figure 3)?
Pingback: Even when they know the answer the models warm too much - Climate Discussion Nexus
Pingback: Climate Summits Are Doomed to Fail Because Goals Are Utterly Unrealistic
Pingback: Why International Climate Summits Are Doomed to Fail, Part 1: Aspirations Untethered From Reality - Swamp Signal Trivia
Pingback: Why International Climate Summits Are Doomed To Fail, Part 1: Aspirations Untethered From Reality | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Why International Climate Summits Are Doomed to Fail, Part 1: Aspirations Untethered From Reality - True USA
Pingback: Why International Climate Summits Are Doomed to Fail, Part 1: Aspirations Untethered From Reality - Conservative Wired
Pingback: Why International Climate Summits Are Doomed to Fail, Part 1: Aspirations Untethered From Reality -