by Judith Curry
Clintel has published a new report entitled “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: Analysis of the AR6.”
“The new Report provides an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.”
Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.
The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.
The Chapter topics are:
- No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
- The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
- Measuring global surface temperature
- Controversial Snow Trends
- Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
- Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
- Misty climate sensitivity
- AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
- Extreme scenarios
- A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
- Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
- Extreme views on disasters
- Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven
The key issue is this: the IPCC focuses on “dangerous anthropogenic climate change,” which leads to ignoring natural climate change, focusing on extreme emissions scenarios, and cherry picking the time periods and the literature to make climate change appear “dangerous.”
“The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change.”
With regards to IPCC AR6’s error ridden assessment of extreme weather events, see also this analysis by Roger Pielke Jr that demonstrated egregious errors in incorrectly reporting the conclusions from papers that were actually cited by the IPCC.
With regards to ignoring natural climate variability, Chapters 1 (mid-Holocene), 2 (Hockey Stick) and 6 (the sun) are excellent.
I’ve looked at the AR6 WGI Report fairly thoroughly, focusing mainly on specific material that was relevant for my new book Climate Uncertainty and Risk. I am familiar with nearly all of the issues raised in the CLINTEL Report, but the material in Chapters 2 (Hockey Stick) and 4 (snow trends) was new to me. The next section focuses on the Hockey Stick.
Zombie Hockey Stick
Shortly after publication of AR6 WGI, I spotted some comments in twitter regarding the resurrection of the Hockey Stick. After wondering “what fresh new Hockey Stick hell is this?”, I didn’t investigate further.
Well the Clintel Report did the work for me. Subtitle for Chapter 2:
“A big surprise in the new IPCC report is the publication of a brand new hockey stick. The IPCC once again has to cherry pick and massage proxy data in order to fabricate it. Studies that show larger natural climate variations are ignored.”
Excerpts from the Chapter:
<begin quotes>
The PAGES 2k group is specialised in climate reconstructions and back in 2013 was comprised of the majority of all active paleoclimatologists. The PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) published a reconstruction in which parts of the first millennium were occasionally as warm as present-day
In 2019, PAGES 2k published a new version of the temperature development of the past 2000 years (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019)11. Surprisingly, it differed greatly from the predecessor version. Even though the database had only mildly changed, the pre-industrial part was now suddenly nearly flat again. The hockey stick was reborn.
The new hockey stick was immediately incorporated into the AR6 report (IPCC, 2021). Among the lead authors of AR6 chapter 2 is Darrell S. Kaufman who is a co-author of the new hockey stick in the PAGES 2k Consortium (2019). This is probably not a coincidence.
Evidence suggests that a significant part of the original PAGES 2k researchers could not technically support the new hockey stick and seem to have left the group in dispute. Meanwhile, the dropouts published a competing temperature curve with significant pre-industrial temperature variability (Büntgen et al., 2020). On the basis of thoroughly verified tree rings, the specialists were able to prove that summer temperatures had already reached today’s levels several times in the pre-industrial past. However, the work of Ulf Büntgen and colleagues was not included in the IPCC report, although it was published well before the editorial deadline.
Like its predecessor, the new hockey stick by PAGES 2k 2019 is based on a large variety of proxy types and includes a large number of poorly documented tree ring data. In many cases, the tree rings‘ temperature sensitivity is uncertain. For example, both PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) and PAGES 2k Consortium (2019) used tree ring series from the French Maritime Alps, even though tree ring specialists had previously cautioned that they are too complex to be used as overall temperature proxies.
In contrast, Büntgen et al. (2020) were more selective, relied on one type of proxy (in this case tree rings) and validated every tree ring data set individually. Their temperature composite for the extra-tropical northern hemisphere differs greatly from the studies that use bulk tree ring input.
In some cases, PAGES 2k composites have erroneously included proxies that later turned out to reflect hydroclimate and not temperature. In other cases, outlier studies have been selected in which the proxies exhibit an anomalous evolution that cannot be reproduced in neighbouring sites (e.g. MWP data from Pyrenees and Alboran Sea in PA13). Outliers can have several reasons, e.g. a different local development, invalid or unstable temperature proxies, or sample contamination.
Steve McIntyre has studied the PAGES 2k proxy data base in great detail and summarized his criticism in a series of blog posts on his website Climate Audit. For example, the PAGES 2k Consortium (2019) integrated a tree ring chronology from northern Pakistan near Gilgit (“Asia_207”) which shows an extreme closing uptick. Incorporation of data series like this strongly promote the hockey stick geometry of the resulting temperature composite. McIntyre analysed the original tree ring data and found that the steep uptick in the Asia_207 chronology is the result of questionable data processing. When calculating the site chronology using the rcs function from Andy Bunn’s dplR package, the uptick surprisingly disappears. In fact, the series declines over the 20th century.
Conclusion: The resurrected hockey stick of AR6 shows how vulnerable the IPCC process is to scientific bias. Cherry picking, misuse of the peer review process, lack of transparency, and likely political interference have led to a gross misrepresentation of the pre-industrial temperature evolution.
<end quotes>
JC reflections
The CLINTEL Report provides a much needed critical evaluation and intellectual counterpoint to the IPCC AR6.
There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report, but there is also a lot of cherry picking and flat out errors in the Report (the AR6 WG2 Report is just flat out bad). With any kind of serious review, or if the author teams have been sufficiently diverse, we would not see so many of these kinds of errors. Unfortunately, the IPCC defines “diversity” in terms of gender, race and developed versus underdeveloped countries; actual diversity of thought and perspective is dismissed in favor of promoting the politically mandated narrative from the UN.
The consensus disease that that was caught by the IPCC following publication of the First Assessment Report in 1990, combined with pressures from policy makers, is resulting in documents that don’t reflect the broad disagreement and uncertainties on these complex topics. The IPCC’s mandated narrative has become very stale. Worse yet, it is becoming increasingly irrelevant to policy making by continuing to focus on extreme emissions scenarios and the embarrassing cherry picking that is required to support the “climate crisis” narrative that is so beloved by UN officials.
In any event, UN-driven climate policy has moved well past any moorings in climate science, even the relatively alarming version reported by the IPCC. The insane policies and deadlines tied to greenhouse gas emissions are simply at odds with the reality of our understanding of climate change and the uncertainties, and with broader considerations of human well being.
Pingback: CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6 - Climate- Science.press
People keep telling me that there’s no point in challenging Net Zero policies based on the science; we have to challenge the policies themselves, based on cost and practicality. The other side have won the argument on the science apparently, or at least shut the argument down so effectively that it’s not worth pursuing anymore. But this proves that the IPCC is cherry-picking the science and distorting the science very badly, in order to promote a political narrative. I think they are still very vulnerable on these issues; in fact, the whole edifice of ‘dangerous’ man-made climate change is extremely vulnerable. Sen. Kennedy, when challenging David Turk on the cost of Net Zero, says he is ‘all for carbon neutrality’. David Turk cites the ‘science’ as justification for carbon neutrality. They are both ignoring the glaring deficiencies in the science as presented by the IPCC. How long can this go on?
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1654851941564833794
It is well worth challenging net zero on the science, as there is none. CERES data is unequivocal. CO2 is absolutely not driving warming. Soil science shows most of the atmospheric increase is from soil respiration driven by increased SW absorption. Warming is driving CO2
Warming is driving CO2 ???
ALT SCIENCE
Warming oceans by +1 degree C. might cause them to absorb 10ppm less CO2 than they would have absorbed with no warming.
Soils SOAK up carbon from dead plant matter. Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and this is passed to the ground when dead roots and leaves decompose.
Richard Greene wrote “Warming oceans by +1 degree C. might cause them to absorb 10ppm less CO2 than they would have absorbed with no warming”
…..
This is a “static” snapshot of a dynamic situation. For a start, water able to donate CO2 to the air is in an ever-changing movement. The “warm” surface giving off CO2 today is not the same donor as a year ago. You cannot, by any way known, relate atmospheric CO2 levels to whole-of-ocean temperatures. It has net yet been done with any selected samples of the ocean. Laboratory work, as with Henr’s Law, is not easily applicable to the oceans.
……
Richard next wrote “Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and this is passed to the ground when dead roots and leaves decompose.”
Yes, there is a dynamic cycle of absorption or release of CO2 in many places, at many times, with many different mechanisms and many different rates. One cannot get more than a glimmer of understanding from a “static” snapshot.
As a genralism, one expects a warmer ocean to have put more CO2 into the air. This raises the chicken-and-egg question of which came first, the increase of CO2 in the air or the Warming of the earth surface including oceans. This is important.
People have tried to dismiss a reacet deep dive into this topic by D. Koutsoyiannis et al, 2022, but it is well worth the study.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83
Geoff S
If all other things were equal, and they were not, the warming oceans would outgas a small amount of CO2. But in real life humans increased atmospheric CO2 by about +50% since 1850, causing nature to absorb a lot of CO2. Nature includes oceans. Oceans absorb a lot of CO2, although slightly less because they are warmer. Nature has been a net CO2 absorber since the 1800s. Virtually every scientist on this planet would agree with that statement. One seems to disagree.
A Mr. Sherrington wrote in a comment below that:
“As a generalism, one expects a warmer ocean to have put more CO2 into the air. This raises the chicken-and-egg question of which came first, the increase of CO2 in the air or the Warming of the earth surface including oceans.”
This statement is irrelevant. The change in ocean CO2 from a +1 degree C. change in the average temperature of the ocean is tiny compared with the CO2 absorption of the HUGE manmade CO2 emissions since the 1800s.
Richard Greene wrote with no supporting data that “The change in ocean CO2 from a +1 degree C. change in the average temperature of the ocean is tiny compared with the CO2 absorption of the HUGE manmade CO2 emissions since the 1800s.”
I challenge that “tiny” amount of ocean CO2 change from average ocean warming of 1 deg C.I have already given above my reasoning why this relation is impossible to measure at this time.
Richard, what IS your estimate of the atmospheric CO2 change per degree C change in overage ocean T (for which, by the way, a number of 1 deg C seems not to have yet been observed)? Is it like the 15ppm CO2 that Ferdinand Engelbeen erroneously repeats from static studies when dynamics rule the waves?
Geoff S
Good afternoon Jaime – as one of those who have disagreed with you about how best to challenge Net Zero policies (in the UK), it seems I may have to remind you of my position. It’s this: the overriding priority has to be to persuade our ‘leaders’ to abandon this absurd and dangerous policy. You agree I think that the practical arguments for so doing (it’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless) are overwhelming. Therefore I believe there’s simply no point in raising anything else – and especially not anything that would cause unnecessary argument and delay. And that’s precisely what challenging the science does, getting you sucked into the ghastly and mind-numbing world of climate change orthodoxy where debate is not allowed and where you’d be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’, giving your opponents the perfect excuse for ignoring your views on the practicalities of the policy.
If you think the CLINTEL report would make a difference, have a look at this: https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/. All the usual shibboleths are there: ‘little or no climate research’, ‘close ties’ with a right-wing nationalist party, ‘connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute … the Koch-funded Atlas Network’, ‘CLINTEL argued against the mainstream consensus on climate science’, ‘oil money built up from the 1990s has filtered its way into the foundations of CLINTEL’ … and much more. Why get bogged down in stuff like that when it’s completely unnecessary?
Robin … I think the answer of how to fight the climate lobby is that you are both right. By that I mean any and all methods on all fronts are welcome. I see a lot of individual scientists who publish good research challenging the IPCC. The great thing about Clintel is that groups of scientists are now getting together. Another front, another method.
Bill Fabrizio commented
I see a lot of individual scientists who publish good research challenging the IPCC.
Such as?
DA … I guess your time here has been for naught. What a shame. Except, for me, you’re an excellent barometer when something interesting that seriously challenges the climate lobby is posted here. The more serious the challenge, the more infantile your comments. Personally, I’d rather you had a decent counter argument I could learn from.
I did answer it. This site has had many posts from individual scientists/researchers. I would think you know that since you’ve been here commenting on them.
My comment was to point out that publishing in a group format is a good strategy for countering the IPCC, which is a group. The Clintel effort utilizes different authors from different disciplines. Same as the IPCC. I wanted to point out to Robin and Jaime that they have the same goal.
You can take the ‘infantile’ comment as an insult, or you can take it as an observation. I would rather you take it as the latter.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
The more serious the challenge, the more infantile your comments.
Insults are easy. Examples?
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
You can take the ‘infantile’ comment as an insult, or you can take it as an observation. I would rather you take it as the latter.
You can take “racist” as an insult, or you can take it as an observation. I would rather you take it as the latter.
—
Bill, I thought insults were beneath you, based on your other comments. I guess not. It’s fair to criticize specific claims…. Making generic, insulting labels is ad hominem garbage.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
My comment was to point out that publishing in a group format is a good strategy for countering the IPCC, which is a group. The Clintel effort utilizes different authors from different disciplines.
It’s paid for by fossil fuel companies! Who have a huge interest in denying or minimizing global warming & climate change.
Think they’d have published it if it found agreement with the consensus views? LOL.
Why wasn’t this report submitted to a good peer reviewed journal? I guess the authors don’t think it would pass…. Nobody in the scientific community will take a “report” like this seriously unless it meets the standards of high-level journals. (Especially one paid for by oil, coal and gas interests.) As with all such “reports” in the past, it takes too much time to critique what is (like all such reports in the past) junk.
The report wants to be taken seriously as science without following the protocols of how science become serious.
Dave …
They say imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. If you like my lines, you’re more than welcome to use them.
Interesting that you think the oil companies aren’t entitled to fund research that supports their industry. Should pharmaceutical companies stay out of funding research, as well? What about ESG funding and advocating for certain investments, etc? Why is that?
Check out the video and article I posted below about ‘clean energy’ mining for cobalt and nickel. Not so clean, ehh? Where is the progressive outcry?
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Interesting that you think the oil companies aren’t entitled to fund research that supports their industry.
What a telling choice of phrase!
What is “research,” Bill?
Is the point of research to uncover the truth, as best as can be determined?
Or do you think there are alternative truths, “alternative facts” as Kelly Ann Conway said?
Or is there just science?
Is there not a long history of fossil fuel companies funding specious and just plain bad reports that had nothing to do with actual science?
Nut Zero is a panic reaction to imagined future global warming “Climate Change”
Climate Change is data-free, always wrong, wild guess predictions of the global average temperature in hundreds of years.
The consensus prediction is for rapid, dangerous, manmade global warming, or CAGW.
CAGW has never happened in the past, so there are no historical CAGW data,
There are no data for the future climate.
Therefore, the CAGW predictions is data-free.
Predictions made without data are not real science unless there is a long track record of accurate predictions.
But there have been almost no accurate long term climate predictions, beyond a few lucky guesses.
Therefore, CAGW is data free and science free.
There is no science behind CAGW or Nut Zero.
But there ARE over a century of wrong long term climate predictions.
The Climate Howler Global Whiners own the mainstream media climate change narrative (not here. They also own a century of wrong predictions of environmental doom.
The Global Whiners do not own the climate itself. They can’t control the climate. That makes their lying about the climate very difficult.
We do have many decades of harmless global warming from 1975 to 2014. But we also have no global warming since 2014 (UAH data). We ought to publicize that post-2014 trend a lot — it could end this year — no one knows when it will end.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Dr. Curry, thank you for a brilliant analysis. It is symptomatic that the UN General Assembly is chaired by Russia. The climate agenda is equally nonsensical. Why should we support this deeply corrupt body?
I will note here that Ken Rice has entered the fray to attack this CLINTEL report. But his criticism is just an objection to one figure. And of course he is pushing the pseudo-science activist site Skeptical Science as a source of good information while just making vague claims about contrarians and already debunked claims.
My post here showed conclusively that the criticisms of climate models by skeptics are in fact correct and actually acknowledged by the best climate scientists.
dpy: New info on old topic. Cochrane has revised Conclusion about masks:
“Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.
The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: ‘The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.’ Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.
The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that ‘We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.’ This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.”.
NYT article yesterday has more info. Apparently the author of the review does believe ANY infections are transmitted by aerosols.😊. Main issue with mask studies is undocumented compliance, as I explained more than once.
This still does not detract from the fact that an intervention normally requires rather strong evidence. Masking children was cruel and unnecessary. Also it doesn’t address the garbage studies the CDC put out to justify mask mandates. The salient fact here is that we were not told the truth about any of this. The New York times is a terrible source for anything. They have their narratives and will not deviate.
I just found last month a study of ill-effects of masking such as lower O2 and heightened CO2 levels. Particularly in people who are on the edge of deficit in O2, masks could push them over the edge. Hypoxia causes a lot of falls and other serious injuries. You will note that the NYT won’t talk about this either. Outdoors masks are a joke and everyone knows it. Indoors the evidence is inconclusive. I now actually notice some mask side effects when I visit a medical facility such as shortness of breath and skin irritation.
https://illusionconsensus.substack.com/p/the-dangerous-illusion-of-scientific
Is a good analysis vastly more balanced than the NYT, a former newspaper.
The major concept flaw in the masking logic.
It has been well known medical history that the only – The Absolutely Only – long term solution to any respiratory virus is the development of general immunity through the general population.
Thus – even if masking worked (which is doubtful based on all the studies), it was never going to achieve the long term solution.
The passage quoted above came from Cocrane itself (not from the NYT), which you once called the definitive source. It says what I repeatedly asserted: without evidence of compliance, negative studies aren’t meaningful. Nor are studies that are underpowered in numbers. The NYT provides more context. I’m happy to agree with you that ad hoc studies during the pandemic by the CDC may not be useful.
https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical-interventions-interrupt-or-reduce-spread-respiratory-viruses-review
Your suggestion that masks reduce O2 and increase CO2 can be easily tested experimental with a finger tip blood oxygen monitor that costs $20. Or analyzed in terms of the increase in dead volume that makes shallow breathing less effective than deep breathing. In general you body adjusts to meet demand.
Frank, The Durham report is out and its not good news for the FBI, the Mueller team, or Trump haters everywhere. Basically, the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane without proper predication and did NO checking with its own Russia experts first or in fact with any other source other than the Australian diplomat who contacted them. It is obvious that this was all part of a massive disinformation and election interference campaign to smear Trump and then to disable his Presidency.
I don’t think I ever called the New York Times a definitive source except possibly as a sarcastic flourish. They are generally a garbage source and there is plenty of proof out there. They won a Pulitzer prize for a totally false story about Russian collusion and pushed this big lie in hundreds of stories for years. They lied about the Hunter Biden laptop for years.
In any case, the body does not “adjust” to masks. If anything the symptoms get worse with longer term use. Skin rashes will get worse over time for example. In any case, your attempts here to promote masks show a lack of logical thinking. Their effectiveness is not supported by the evidence and there is plenty of documentation of their harms especially to children.
I had a paper two years ago reporting on mask side effects in health care workers. They found a not insignificant number of deaths each year due to accidents following hypoxia. If I thought it would make a difference I would look for it again but in your case, I think the mask is an almost religious icon. It is over Frank and the maskers have lost the argument.
I found the article. It’s vastly more balanced than the NYT or the CDC for that matter, both of which have been deceiving us and censoring true data and statements.
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/4344/htm
Look, Frank, covid is over for 95% of the thinking public. I sometimes see people (even young people) wearing masks and laugh. It’s a sign of undue respect for authority and lack of critical thinking ability. These are the kinds of people the Disinformation Industrial Complex wants all of us to be.
Can I put in a word on behalf of mask wearing people? I don’t because I just don’t like wearing them but my wife does when she goes to the supermarket. She just doesn’t want to catch covid and perhaps she overestimates the risk but since the advice has been mixed she has decided that she’ll make up her own mind as she does with everything else. Rightly or wrongly it is intuitive that wearing a mask would help so she wears a mask and if it helps then good but if it doesn’t then so what? no harm done. It is quite funny how some people get so worked up when they see someone wearing a mask. She doesn’t expect other people to wear masks, it’s up to them. And believe me she has no undue respect for authority, quite the opposite.
I don’t care if she wears a mask. However, it does show a lack of critical thinking or maybe not having access to high quality scientific evidence. If she is elderly she may already be close to hypoxia and the mask can push her over. Fainting can be dangerous.
dpy6629 wrote:
I don’t care if she wears a mask. However, it does show a lack of critical thinking or maybe not having access to high quality scientific evidence.
“Largest study of masks yet details their importance in fighting Covid-19: Scientists conducted a randomized trial across 600 villages and more than 340,000 people in Bangladesh and found that even some adoption of surgical masks made a difference,” NBC News, 9/1/21
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/largest-mask-study-yet-details-importance-fighting-covid-19-rcna1858
“Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say,” Washington Post, 9/1/21.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/01/masks-study-covid-bangladesh/
“Masks Are a Proved Way to Defend Yourself from Respiratory Infections,” Scientific American, 12/23/22.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-are-a-proven-way-to-defend-yourself-from-respiratory-infections/
“Evidence shows that, yes, masks prevent COVID-19 – and surgical masks are the way to go,” The Conversation, 9/22/21.
https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-that-yes-masks-prevent-covid-19-and-surgical-masks-are-the-way-to-go-167963
“Masks Reduce the Risk of Spreading of COVID, Despite a Cochrane Review Saying They Don’t,” C Raina MacIntyre et al, The Conversation 2/6/23.
https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992
dpy6629 wrote:
I don’t care if she wears a mask. However, it does show a lack of critical thinking or maybe not having access to high quality scientific evidence.
“Largest study of masks yet details their importance in fighting Covid-19: Scientists conducted a randomized trial across 600 villages and more than 340,000 people in Bangladesh and found that even some adoption of surgical masks made a difference,” NBC News, 9/1/21
“Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say,” Washington Post, 9/1/21.
“Masks Are a Proved Way to Defend Yourself from Respiratory Infections,” Scientific American, 12/23/22.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-are-a-proven-way-to-defend-yourself-from-respiratory-infections/
“Evidence shows that, yes, masks prevent COVID-19 – and surgical masks are the way to go,” The Conversation, 9/22/21.
https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-that-yes-masks-prevent-covid-19-and-surgical-masks-are-the-way-to-go-167963
“Masks Reduce the Risk of Spreading of COVID, Despite a Cochrane Review Saying They Don’t,” C Raina MacIntyre et al, The Conversation 2/6/23.
https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spreading-covid-despite-a-review-saying-they-dont-198992
David Appell | May 20, 2023 at 12:17 am |
dpy6629 wrote:
I don’t care if she wears a mask. However, it does show a lack of critical thinking or maybe not having access to high quality scientific evidence.
Appell responds – “Largest study of masks yet details their importance in fighting Covid-19: Scientists conducted a randomized trial across 600 villages and more than 340,000 people in Bangladesh and found that even some adoption of surgical masks made a difference,” NBC News, 9/1/21
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/largest-mask-study-yet-details-importance-fighting-covid-19-rcna1858
Appell responds with links to 5 studies showing masks work to reduce the spread of covid.
Appell – are you really that bad at ascertaining the validity and/or reasonableness of conclusions in a study.
https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-022-06704-z
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360320982_The_Bangladesh_Mask_study_a_Bayesian_perspective
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01296
Thanks Joe. The science on masks is weak and not conclusive. Appell does this in climate science. He’s not an expert so he finds a paper whose conclusions he likes without any good faith effort to find out what the whole body of evidence says. And this is the modus operandi of people like Ken Rice and the Skeptical Science kids too. That’s because they hold a very superficial view of science and how its done.
The early climate models in the 1970s, when using a modest CO2 growth rate scenario, appeared to be accurate for their 70 year predictions through 2014 — probably a lucky guess. In 2014, the global average temperature stopped rising (UAH data)
The 400 year prediction capturing the alleged CO2 ECS, with a high CO2 growth rate scenario, predicts roughly double the warming rate of the 70 year warming rate prediction, It appears to be 2x too high, so far, but we have not had enough years of actual global average temperatures to refute a 400 year prediction.
More important is that the so-called climate models are really just climate confuser games that predict whatever the owners want predicted. The ECS effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is unknown, over hundreds of years. We have no idea how much of the warming from 1975 to 2014 was caused by CO2. The lack of detailed knowledge about CO2, and every other climate change variable, means there ARE NO REAL CLIMATE MODELS. Just computer games.
Humans have never been able to make accurate long term climate predictions, so models that humans program can not do any better.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Ken Rice has been forced to admit my figure is correct.
“Edit: As Paul points out in this comment, this is correct, but very poorly illustrated. There is actually a 0.4C difference between the warming from 1880 – ~2000 in the 2001 data, when compared to the 2015 data, which is related to updates in their methods”
And it is not poorly illustrated. It is exactly as designed. It uses GISS own graphs (unaltered except for a change in the color of one curve and an annotation) to demonstrate that changes to the dataset resulted in a lot of additional warming. The graphs are overlaid so the temperature of the first year coincides. It is not my fault if 1880’s temperature keeps changing.
The figure can be seen here, so judge for yourself:
https://i.imgur.com/TUWM1jd.png
The problem for Ken Rice and others like him is that they don’t like what the figure proves, so he talks about “climate “myths” that have been debunked time and time again”
Well, debunk this, smart-a*s.
Let’s see if he approves my comment in his blog entry. I wouldn’t bet on that. Affirmationists are so into censorship.
I guess when you rely on Skeptical Science, you make a lot of errors. It’s not the only one in the post too.
DPY and Javiar
I have to agree with your comments on Skeptical science. SK regularly posts articles that are junk science, then when an outside commentator points out the implausibility of such junk science, the regular commentators will attack the individual with responses that demonstrate a complete lack of basic science and basic knowledge normally learned in high school.
Egregious lack of knowledge in basic economics, world history, renewables, etc
Javier, When you have a dying blog, you need to fill it with irrelevant smears and promotion of an activist web site that is scientifically superficial at best and pseudo-science at worst.
Skeptical Science’s articles on climate models betray a completely superficial understanding.
Thanks for the chart but it’s not obvious to me which is which – is red 2001 data?
I have now downloaded the Clintel report! and see blue is 2001
The Clintel analysis is a very welcome summary of everything that is wrong with the IPCC reports. I had already figured out the main findings based on other studies, not least articles published on this site, but Clintel brings them all together and gives the findings a systematic structure which will help newcomers and others to grasp the big picture.
It is clear to me that the IPCC “errors” are deliberate tactics. Persisting in using an implausible emission scenario time and time again is not an error. Together with overheating models and over-high estimates of Climate Sensitivity these are deliberate ways of producing alarmist climate projections. Why would a UN agency seek to frighten others with alarmist claims?
Watch any COP meeting. “We are on the highway to Climate Hell”, claims Guterres with a straight face. The UN’s wealth redistribution mission as outlined by Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010 and the more recent claims by Christiana Figueres concerning the UN’s socialist objectives are very clear. Alarmism drives these UN projects.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, about 190 countries, are signed up to the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). I assume that this means that if our government has signed up to it, then it follows that our Institutions, learned societies and academia are expected to accept IPCC dogma, at least publicly. I’m aware of the funding/ career ending issues concerning those who question the dogma.
I am determined to challenge UK ministers on why their policies are linked to alarmist projections based on implausible scenarios. They will tell me that all the scientists and institutions support the science. I do not have enough knowledge of the linkage between the IPCC and climate scientists in the institutions and universities to know best how to challenge this effectively. It is also noticeable that the UK scientific community seems to be silent despite a growing concern such as that summarised by Clintel. Is this the case or am I simply unaware?
I guess that there are many people here who know much more about this than me and I would welcome any thoughts or advice that will help me to make my case. I suspect that many others will be interested in this, too. Thank you in advance for any advice.
I think that it has been obvious for many years that the IPCC is about influence, power and position, a vehicle for a select few to have status and wealth. It ceased years ago to be about dealing with a genuine climate problem, if there ever was one.
I share your search for some process to separate facts and opinions. All good science has a haze around it but that doesn’t mean there is a central balanced narrative. Where the science fails feel free to make decisions but don’t call it science.
Titled!😊
Google it.
Pingback: Clintels rapport om IPCC AR6 - Klimatupplysningen
Thanks for going the hard work for me.
I really appreciate a well balanced analysis.
I wanted a temperature chart and this gets me closer.
I remain convinced of an environmental crisis but hate bad science that gives climate hell.
The tCO2e emissions is hard – should we try to stay where we are with climate or is it natural to go on an adventure. I think it’s an experiment not worth doing as the down side is so bad.
We need to tackle poverty and plastic and politics – moving away from gas as quickly as practical – without falling over.
(The is a duplicate that in last paragraph)
It would seem most alarmists and meteorologists do not like a fair fight now that Twitter is returning to something resembling proper debate. The weaklings are already complaining of the mental stresses of having to deal with challenges to their claims …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/14/climate-crisis-deniers-target-scientists-abuse-musk-twitter
Interesting comments on Pages2K.
If you want to see the Southern Hemisphere Pages 2K reconstruction using the detrended method that initially passed peer review for the withdrawn Gergis et al 2012 paper: you need to put in a FOI request to the University of Melbourne and pay $20, they will show you the graph in a room under supervision to ensure you don’t copy the graph. Needless to say, there is nothing remarkable about the 20th century on the graph.
Here are some images, some from Gergis et al 2012.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Gergis+et+al+2012&t=lm&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
This is a good summary of a long report
Maybe not emphasized is the IPCC was formed to blame climate change on humans, and claim future warming would be dangerous. That’s what they do.
The ICC starting with a conclusion is not science.
The only mystery is why the IPCC waited until 1995 to declare that natural causes of climate change were unimportant “noise”. They probably wanted to say that in 1990, but didn’t, to give the false impression they were actually studying natural causes of climate change.
The IPCC now has a contest for a scary phrase to describe climate change in their next report. The ‘code red climate emergency’ needs a replacement. I submitted “carbon pollution apocalypse” and “carbon, the staff of death”.
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
As if I needed more ammunition for being a skeptic, yet another data point for reasons to believe we don’t have a crisis. In addition to commissions of a dodgy nature in the IPCC6, there is an omission that deserves attention. Namely the dozens of papers discussing geothermal activity in the WAIS. It’s part of the ecosystem. It’s pertinent to the glacial dynamics. Whether it’s significant is another matter. A scientific report would clearly have included the literature about the possible effects from basal heat. And, as this map shows, the highest readings are under the Thwaites Glacier complex, the so called Doomsday Glacier.
Someday I hope there is a case study involving interviews with those dozens of climate scientists and their thoughts about having their substantial work being completely ignored by the IPCC reports.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/4456b766-f316-405b-b550-343c91aea98b/ggge22402-fig-0001-m.jpg
Pingback: CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6 – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Exposed: Corrupted Climate Stations and Solutions You Need to Know – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
The formation of the long-dormant Tulare Lake was the product of an extraordinarily wet winter, culminating with a series of big storms in March.
The basin’s many dams, canals, levees and ditches normally contain the water that runs out of the Sierra and into the valley, but this year it was too much. The lakebed, which is mostly farmland with the exception of a few communities like Corcoran, has subsequently flooded. Earlier this month, more than 100,000 acres was under water.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/newsom-tulare-lake-levee-18094733.php
It will continue to rain in California.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/19/0400Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-117.93,44.10,490
“Moreover, solar forcing is claimed to have been slightly “negative” since the 1980s, which would exclude any solar contribution to the warming observed over the last 40 years.”
That’s not how the climate system works, every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum, when the solar wind is weaker. The strongest solar wind states in the space age were in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, forcing the colder AMO anomalies. The early 1900’s follows the same pattern of colder AMO anomalies nearer sunspot minimum, around 1903, 1913, and 1923, suggesting a similar pattern of stronger solar wind states as in the 1970’s to early 1990’s. Lower sunspot numbers in solar cycles 14 and 20 are essentially meaningless and misleading.
There is no need to invoke 9 and 11 year cycles to account for phase changes between solar cycles and the AMO or CET etc. During the cold AMO phase, the solar wind tends to be the weakest around sunspot maximum, as in 1969 and 1980, while during the warm AMO phase the major low in the solar wind shifts to just after sunspot minimum. During the cold AMO phase, the AMO is coldest around sunspot minimum, while during the warm AMO phase it is never the coldest around sunspot minimum.
Centennial solar minima occur on average about every 110 years (107.9 very long term mean), not 115 years (Scafetta), and because their intervals vary between roughly 80 to 130 years, they cannot be a product of Jupiter and Saturn periods (Scafetta). The last two AMO cycles total 130 years, precisely because the previous centennial minimum began 130 years before the current centennial minimum.
“The Little Ice Age (LIA) offers an exciting research laboratory for solar-climate effects. On several occasions, solar activity fell sharply for several decades and then recovered rapidly. These are the Wolf Minimum (1280-1350), Spörer Minimum (1460-1550), Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), and the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). Empirical paleoclimatology can be used to investigate how these phases of solar weakness led to climate change.”
Not very well with those dates. Wolf started about 1315. Sporer started around 1425 and was very long but it didn’t continue into the 1500’s. Around 1540 was among the hottest weather of the last 1000 years in Europe, with 1540 also being the worst recorded drought year in Ethiopia. There was another unnamed centennial solar minimum from 1550 to the late 1500’s, it’s in the temperature proxies and in the European weather chronologies. Maunder sees colder conditions in CET from the late 1660’s to around 1705, the 1650’s to mid 1660’s were generally very warm to hot. Dalton is done by 1820.
Again, the LIA wasn’t global (as it would be if caused by the Sun), and the Sun wasn’t responsible for the LIA.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Appell
You should stop relying on literature over a decade old. Time marches on. Hundreds of authors have since found cooling was all over the globe. Give it up. You are on the wrong side of history. I realize it’s painful but it must be done.
Again? only the Sun could be responsible!
Large tropical volcanic eruptions cause 1-2 milder boreal winters following the eruption, through a positive influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation. So no LIA extreme winters were caused by volcanism, but many large eruptions occurred very soon after such winters.
Ulric Lyons wrote:
Large tropical volcanic eruptions cause 1-2 milder boreal winters following the eruption, through a positive influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation.
No, they cause cooling because they spew out a lot of aerosols.
So no LIA extreme winters were caused by volcanism, but many large eruptions occurred very soon after such winters.
Did you actually read the paper?
CKid wrote:
You should stop relying on literature over a decade old. Time marches on. Hundreds of authors have since found cooling was all over the globe.
Data points of cooling somewhere sometime for some interval is not how global climate is determined.
It’s determined by doing a temperature reconstruction — like MBH, like PAGES 2k, like many papers have done.
You’ve been corrected before on this but refuse to give up your myths.
Davis, I don’t need to read the paper, it’s garbage!
“It is well established that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) tends to shift towards its positive phase during the winter season in the first 1-2 years after large tropical volcanic eruptions, causing warming over Europe.”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2217415F/abstract
But the positive NAO would tend to cause cooling of the AMO.
Appell
Unsurprisingly you didn’t pick up on the fact that PAGES2k has been discredited. There are unlimited papers showing global LIA. The foundation of your beliefs are crumbling like sand.
CKid wrote:
Unsurprisingly you didn’t pick up on the fact that PAGES2k has been discredited.
Where?
Ulric Lyons wrote:
Davis, I don’t need to read the paper, it’s garbage!
Why is it garbage?
If you didn’t read it, how do you know it’s garbage? Or are you reacting emotionally?
Ulric Lyons wrote:
But the positive NAO would tend to cause cooling of the AMO.
Big volcanoes near the equator bring global cooling via the aerosols they spew into the upper atmosphere.
It’s fairly quick and doesn’t rely on the influence some cycle is supposed to have on another cycle.
What evidence do you have for your claim?
“It’s determined by doing a temperature reconstruction — like MBH, like PAGES 2k”
If you think those papers represent good science, then I am sorry for you. Poor data, worse methodology…
“Again, the LIA wasn’t global (as it would be if caused by the Sun), and the Sun wasn’t responsible for the LIA.”
The LIA – WAS – global. It turns up in every part of the world we have decent paleo data for. Name me a place in the world where it wasn’t present and I’ll find you paleo evidence that it was.
Why is it garbage? because cooler summers were not maintained for centuries, and it cannot address the colder winters that the LIA is so well know for.
Appell
Give it up. Science has moved past the old view of the LIA being only in the NH. There is a massive amount of literature finding LIA conditions all over the globe. Case closed. If you want to take up rear guard action in another area, have at it, but this issue has been decided.
This report of major inadequacies in the IPCC report is only the beginning. As the failed predictions pile up in the next few decades, more pressure will come to prepare more analysis about what went wrong. Save yourself some embarrassment. Cut your ties with this fiasco.
CKid | May 16, 2023 at 1:32 pm |
CKid’s comment “Appell Give it up. Science has moved past the old view of the LIA being only in the NH. ”
Ckid – The science that viewed the MWP and LIA were confined to the NH was always too – too cute. A dodge since the activists could not hide the MWP and the LIA from the NH paleo reconstructions.
A person has to be willfully ignorant to be unaware of the corruption of the paleo reconstructions. As DPY noted and S McI noted, the pages2k reconstruction showed an extremely flat shaft and pronounced blade in the 0s-30s lat band, even though not a single proxie such a historical temp.
similar with the 60s-90s lat band.
Joe
“…too- too cute.”
That is the way I feel about a lot of the science and the narrative of the establishment. I get why they are holding on to this line about the LIA and the MWP. It gives them the ability to say things are unprecedented and have never been worse.
“ We have to get rid of the MWP.” What a beautiful statement. In just a few words it says everything. It illustrates the mentality that is so pervasive in climate science. It’s spilled over into their control of the language that’s ubiquitous in every conversation of the converted. It’s become symbolic for closing down debate and making it acceptable. It’s why twitter has become a cesspool of misinformation by alarmists. The rationale is not much different from that used by the Brownshirts. For the greater good. How can anyone not be for saving the planet.
Having the timing of sea level rise acceleration line up perfectly with implementation of the satellite system is too-too cute, as well. What a wonderfully convenient coincidence of having the acceleration occur simultaneously with reliance on this new technology. Just looking at the tidal gauges makes one think “Should I believe them or my lying eyes”
Wouldn’t it be refreshing for the IPCC just to say the truth “They don’t know what the hell is going to happen in the next 100 years.” I would have a lot more respect for and confidence in them if they would just declare the obvious.
The holes in CAGW are becoming too large to ignore, in spite of all the fabricated excuses.
CKid wrote:
We have to get rid of the MWP
That was claimed by a climate denier, David Demings, in 2006, about a 1995 email he said he received. But it’s open to interpretation and I’d like to see the entire email to place this sentence in context. Do you know what it can be found?
It’s not science in any case, just a (likely) glib or casual remark someone wrote in an email to a friend. He may just as well have meant, ‘the work finding a global MWP is faulty and we need to make that clear.’
There is a huge amount of evidence that there was no global MWP. Because you can’t refute that science, you’re left with nothing to point to but an out-of-context email single sentence. Typical.
A reminder of your claim that LIA wasn’t global. I have looked at paleo records all over the world and both MWP and LIA turn up with variations in exact timing and extent – to be expected.
You tell me where you think the LIA or MWP didn’t occur.
CKid wrote:
Unsurprisingly you didn’t pick up on the fact that PAGES2k has been discredited.
Discredited where? When?
Citations?
Steve McIntyre has a very long post on Pages2K and pretty demolishes it both for its careful cherry picking of proxies and the usual errors that have become common in paleoclimatology. Paleoclimatology is a field that is primitive in both its statistics and the accuracy of its data.
dpy6629 wrote:
Steve McIntyre has a very long post on Pages2K and pretty demolishes it both for its careful cherry picking of proxies and the usual errors that have become common in paleoclimatology.
dpy6629: you’re not close to being qualified to judge McIntyre’s paleoclimatology work.
Neither is he.
You believe what you want to believe, what meets your ideology.
Again: McIntyre is afraid to submit his findings to good peer reviewed journals.
Or maybe he has, and it’s always been rejected, and he doesn’t inform his blog readers like you.
McIntyre is not relevant to the professional paleoclimatology field, and none of those scientists take him seriously because he chooses to hide from scientific standards.
Ulric Lyons wrote:
Again? only the Sun could be responsible!
You keep saying this, and never provide any proof.
Here’s why it’s not the Sun:
The effective temperature Te of the Earth, also called the brightness temperature, is defined by
S=sigma*Te^4
where S is the incoming solar irradiance. For Earth, S appx =1365 W/m2, so the Earth’s brightness temperature is Te=255 K, as is well known.
Using this equation we find
dS = 4*sigma*Te^3*dTe
or, dividing one equation by the other
dTe/Te = dS/4S
if dS=1 W/m2, a quite significant change in solar irradiance, then
dTe/Te = 0.0002
so
dTe = 0.05 C for dS=1 W/m2
that is
dTe = 0.05 C/(W/m2)
This is a tiny change!!
To Te we can add the basic greenhouse effect of about 33 K, giving a surface temperature of 288 K, which depends little on the incoming solar irradiation except through Te.
So we end up with
dTe appx = 0.05 C/(W/m2)
which is what the IPCC assessed from the research it cites.
Changes in solar irradiance don’t create much of any climate change.
This isn’t rocket science!
David, the negative NAO/AO conditions are the result of weaker solar wind states, changes in irradiance are a red herring. With the NAO anomalies and the associated extreme winters being discretely driven, without which they would not even occur.
Yep- same old, same old- it’s the sun, stupid!
I’d add to this what struck me only after I last year described the state of the climate war in this B-level political-science paper: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9081963
(I know it’s not perfect in many ways, due to course circumstances; there might instead be a future level-C paper.)
But as i compared with IPCC AR6, I found that among my paper’s 20 or so citations around medium-term solar-climatic linkage, only 2 had at all made it into the AR6, with otherwise 42 _pages_ of references. IPCC had simply given up on following this most core and critical climate-war area.
Several years ago after reading about how some solar scientists were on the take, blah blah, blah, I did some research on papers that found a relationship between the sun and climate. As I recall there were hundreds of papers, just as mentioned in this report. I concluded they couldn’t all be hacks or frauds or hustlers.
That’s when I stopped caring what the alarmists said.
CKid wrote:
Several years ago after reading about how some solar scientists were on the take….
Huh?
Thank you, Andy and Marcel, and all the contributing authors, for producing this book. The information is fantastic, but the most important accomplishment is the ‘… independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6, an assessment that, unfortunately, was not done within the IPCC.’
We need multiple efforts like this, speaking as a group. I hope you continue and provide an example for others.
I notice you do not take exception to the conclusions just their connections.
These “connections” are irrelevant to their science. Most academic climate scientists are left wing and strong supporters of the Democratic party.
What this is a classic smear. You say someone is associated with someone who is unpopular. Like pointing that Bill Gates was associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It’s not important unless you can show Gates did something illegal or unethical.
The Little ice Age was not a local event. One has to recognize that temperature changes are always more pronounced as one moves toward the polar regions. Even the major ice ages show this same pattern, with relatively little change in tropical regions and increasingly greater change as one moves north and south. Another factor that has to be taken into account is that the globe’s land mass is not evenly distributed.
It is simplistic to conclude that because the effect is very small in tropical regions that it is necessarily local.
Jay wrote:
The Little ice Age was not a local event.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Here’s their analysis:
https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/images/Neukon-Fig_1.png
PAGES 2k Consortium is a very long way from being an unbiased contributor, as should be evident from what was posted earlier.
Jay wrote:
PAGES 2k Consortium is a very long way from being an unbiased contributor, as should be evident from what was posted earlier.
Show me any bias in a publication of PAGES 2k.
Quote it exactly.
That Clintel paper is quite a read. Reminds me of Minority Report (the movie).. The CO2 obsessives at IPCC have themselves a precognition unit all set up and running. They can tell that CO2 will do the crime, even though you can’t see the evidence yet.
A serious question for those with historical perspective:
Did previous IPCC reports and Summaries for Policymakers elicit
similar comprehensive dissents – at least somewhat readable by laymen – from within the profession? Or is the Clintel response a new thing?
Thanks, PW
David,
I suggest, without any real hope that you will do so, that you read with an open mind the article on which we all are commenting. It, to my mind, raises serious questions about PAGES2k. If you find nothing concerning in the article, then I guess that you will endorse the already shown to be unscientific hockey stick. Good luck.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #552 – Watts Up With That?
When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.
The change to the planetary waves kicked the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)—the balance between a permanent low-pressure system near Greenland and a permanent high-pressure system to its south—into a negative phase. When the NAO is negative, both pressure systems are relatively weak. Under these conditions, winter storms crossing the Atlantic generally head eastward toward Europe, which experiences a more severe winter. (When the NAO is positive, winter storms track farther north, making winters in Europe milder.) The model results, shown above, illustrate that the NAO was more negative on average during the Maunder Minimum, and Europe remained unusually cold. These results matched the paleoclimate record.
By creating a model that could reproduce temperatures recorded in paleoclimate records, Shindell and colleagues reached a better understanding of how changes in the stratosphere influence weather patterns.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2023.png
The impact of the solar minimum is clear in this image, which shows the temperature difference between 1680, a year at the center of the Maunder Minimum, and 1780, a year of normal solar activity, as calculated by a general circulation model. Deep blue across eastern and central North America and northern Eurasia illustrates where the drop in temperature was the greatest. Nearly all other land areas were also cooler in 1680, as indicated by the varying shades of blue. The few regions that appear to have been warmer in 1680 are Alaska and the eastern Pacific Ocean (left), the North Atlantic Ocean south of Greenland (left of center), and https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7122/maunder_minimum_temperature.gifnorth of Iceland (top center).
If you had a friend with an above ground pool, you’d remember when everyone would walk in a circle, adding energy, it’d create a smooth, controlled whirlpool. It was when everyone got out or stopped that the water became choppy & chaotic with rogue waves.
Sorry.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2023.png
Unlike our geographic north pole, which is in a fixed location, the Earth’s magnetic north wanders. Until the early 1990s, it was known that the magnetic north pole lies about 1,600 km south of the true north, in Canada. However, scientists realized that the location of magnetic north is not constant and drifts at a rate of 15 km per year. Since the 1990s, however, the drift of Earth’s magnetic pole has turned into a sprint.
Its current speed is about 50-60 km per year, and it is heading toward Siberia at a rate never seen before. Why? Scientists studying the drift of Earth’s magnetic north pole, using data from ESA’s Swarm mission, have pointed to a change in the circulation pattern of magnetic spots deep below the Earth’s surface.
They learned that the change in flow under Canada has stretched the magnetic field patch at the edge of the Earth’s core, deep inside the Earth. This weakened the Canadian patch and caused a poleward shift toward Siberia.
At the same time, the magnetic field over central Siberia is strengthening. Ozone in the winter is pushed toward the Arctic Circle. Since it is a diamagnetic it is repelled by the strong magnetic field during the winter first to eastern Siberia, where an excess is created, and then it is pushed over Canada. This causes the polar vortex to shift during the winter in the northern hemisphere toward Siberia.
The magnetic field of the solar wind also repels ozone, so when the solar wind is strong, the polar vortex is also stronger.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
Ren … In your estimation, how will this affect the weather in the near term, and where?
Changes in solar activity will cause more frequent stratospheric incursions into the southern United States from autumn to spring. The blocking of the polar vortex to the north will affect the formation of frigid highs over Europe with a jet stream in the Atlantic toward Svalbard.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
I was reading climate blogs and would up in a swirling vortex of vaccines and masks and FBI investigations. Stay on target.
IMO, it is valuable to question the science of the IPCC is all possible valid ways. CLINTEL are to be congratulated.
Some commenters show difficulty in accepting criticism of IPCC. Here is a graphic example of the type of poor science that has to be questioned, as Stephen McIntyre did here and in other Climate Audit articles.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
Here is a pictorial summary of bad science by PSAGES2K group, which with I note with national shame has some Australian authors.
https://www.geoffstuff.com/pages2khockey.jpg
Please explain how this is NOT bad science.
Geoff S
Now that is a great question and the reason I’m here.
The answer is simple, averages and random systems do great things, the question is “is it good science” and more complex is it good mathematics.
I think we need more data to understand how the measurements relate to temperature – tree growth isn’t temperature. The statistics isn’t a random walk – but would be sensitive to outliers and microclimates – I need to think further and have access to the raw data.
I would like to pick up on the comments of you and Geoff and expand it a little bit. There should be a blue ribbon, non biased Commission that looks at all aspects of climate science as to the methodology and fitness of all aspects of scientific inquiry being used. Why should we still be having a debate about what is found in Climate Audit articles. The alarmists just keep bashing and denigrating his work and their acolytes keep buying it. Neither side is making any progress as to the quality of the science. Take the heat off him and if his conclusions are correct then give those conclusions legitimacy.
The use of statistics and misuse, is only one area that should be investigated. The entire quality of the paleo reconstruction should have a retrospective. There are papers out there but everyone has their own opinions. Both sides are just engaging in an endless Food fight, reminiscent of Animal House.
I would also like to have a neutral panel evaluate the fit for purpose satellite data systems for SLR, as well. I’m sure others have ideas about what ought to be audited. The list could go on and on.
I’m not going as much focusing on the findings….that will come, but rather the quality of the scientific inquiry being used to get those findings.
PWinstone,
You mention raw data.
The link I gave to Climate Audit has links to the raw data. That is why I gave the link, not to take one side or the other because that gets one nowhere very fast.
When can we expect to read the results of your study of this PAGES2K data?
Geoff S
You have called my bluff – technically I could do the analysis but it’s not trivial and requires more time than I have. I was hoping that others would do the work for me.
I will look the data out and Russel up some python.
Climate is a very big problem and science needs to be done in an adversarial process as everyone is wrong – we just don’t know where and by how much. The debate need me to continue with raw data and analysis.
My stance is that as scientists we don’t understand how many simple fluid systems work exactly so still do experiments eg internal combustion engines / jet engines. Models are getting much better but rely on measurements in the end. Climate is orders of magnitude more complex in systems and physical constants.
After the models you need to make a judgement of what to do and that’s a preference about tolerance to change, risk preferences and values. So it’s climate science plus what I think we should do – the later shouldn’t be called climate science – its community politics.
Paul Winstone,
You later write about doing your own analysis of the raw PAGES2K data I mentioned.
This intrigues me.
Why would any competent science want to further analyse data that even in the “cartoon” pictures from Stephen McIntyre that I showed, the eyeball indicates that there is no hope of fitting the pieces together to make a hockey stick?
My apologies if your intention was to make more ammunition to blast away that fabricated hockey stick from another angle. That, I would like to see. Geoff S
Statistics don’t lie people just use the wrong statistics. I was fascinated to understand how you could make a hockey stick from that data. I wanted to understand what to analyse – why is 0-30N useful.
As I read more I found https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/ which is trying to do what I was trying to do but they understand more fully. The conclusion says it all.
All data used by all IPPC should be traceable and open source, then we can play with the data. We then need the science laid out. Then we can see where the science and data ends and the judgement on analysis and prediction starts.
Looks like the scientific community needs open science like the software industry benefits from open software. Of course there is a massive scientific industry with 000’s of livelihoods at stack so it’s not easy. Who would pay to gather data to give it away? Being open is very vulnerable position.
My python will have to wait.
PW – It is likely tax payers paid to have that data collected. If tax payer money is used in the least, there should be a law that it is in the public domain.
Paul Winstone wrote:
As I read more I found https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/ which is trying to do what I was trying to do but they understand more fully. The conclusion says it all.
Blog posts aren’t science, they aren’t peer reviewed, no scientists pay attention to them because they don’t want to waste their time and they highly value peer review from quality journals.
McIntyre can submit his work to journals if he wants his work to be taken seriously. I’m sure someone will pay the page charges.
All data used by all IPPC should be traceable and open source, then we can play with the data.
Is there data you’re looking for that isn’t public?
“A submission to a Springer Nature journal implies that all relevant raw data will be made freely available to any researcher wishing to use them, without breaching participant confidentiality. For a number of data types, submission to a community-endorsed, public repository is mandatory. See our list of mandated data types”
https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy
David Appell wrote here on May 17, 2023 at 1:10 pm “McIntyre can submit his work to journals if he wants his work to be taken seriously.”
….
David, here at May 15 10.09pm I linked to some graphs by Stephen McIntyre from his Climate Audit blog.
I noted the problem that a competent person could see that one cannot make a valid hockeystick from the pieces of data that PAGES2K used.
Why do you push for a peer-reviewed paper to raise this issue, which is almost as simple as 2+2=4?
Are you pushing for peer-revired papers as the ONLY way to question elementary errors of authors doing science? Why go to the days of bother when a 10-minute cartoon carries the message on a blog just as correctly?
Our BOM here in Australia has refused to even look at some short work I did that showed errors needing correction, errors almost as simple as the 2+2=4 case. They wanted a peer-reviewed paper to open the doors (a paper that would stand a high chance of rejection because the BOM people being criticised could probably influence who the reviewers were, even promoting the authors of the work to review the work under question).
In my simple view, a proper researcher writes a paper for publication ONLY when the material has the capacity to make a significant advancement to science. For example, the Kary Mullis seminal paper in Chemistry about the Polymerase Chain Reaction. As a rule of thumb, don’t bother to submit a formal paper for peer review unless you have a chance for a Nobel or similar high recognition.
Geoff S
So is all IPPC data available to the public?
For each claim made by IPPC the raw data should be available for transparency.
Not saying there is anything to hide. My problem is that climate is an impenetrable wall of data used to fuel complex models. The first rule of modelling complex systems is “don’t believe the model”. Models and measurements are very useful and very instructive and wrong – the question is how wrong – understanding the propagation of variance through systems gives and understanding of the validity of the model. Extrapolation of certain models is unwise – I’m not enough of a mathematician to classify those models with confidence but I believe emergent property models are the worst and climate is the ultimate.
I will chase the data behind the proxy data and see if it’s public.
David think Pal Review is necessary for a work to qualify as science. What a joke.
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
Why do you push for a peer-reviewed paper to raise this issue, which is almost as simple as 2+2=4?
Because people, especially amateurs, make mistakes all the time! Usually not trivial mistakes (but sometimes), or arithmetical mistakes (but sometimes), but mistakes in assumptions, inferences, misinterpretations, lack of awareness, etc.
If peer review doesn’t matter, why did McIntyre and McKitrick submit their first papers to peer reviewed journals? One paper was even published in an AGU paper.
Didn’t McIntyre make some point and PAGES 2k acknowledged his correction?
Our BOM here in Australia has refused to even look at some short work I did that showed errors needing correction, errors almost as simple as the 2+2=4 case.
Do you know how many “corrections” they receive all the time? Corrections that are almost always wrong. Usually very wrong. No one has time to look at them all, hence the peer review standard.
(By the way, peer review (usually blind or double blind) doesn’t mean a paper is right. It means it’s not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards, especially including citing earlier relevant work.)
When I was in graduate school, way back in the days of paper mail, professors would get letters from people “proving” that this or that was wrong. Usually it was special relativity, or maybe the second law of thermodynamics. They’d open the mail and leave it on the mailroom table for graduate students to peruse. They were a hoot, written by quacks. I’ve gotten emails from quacks saying that this or that is obviously wrong, in climate change or physics or even evolution. Some of them are mass emailed to dozens of people.
In my simple view, a proper researcher writes a paper for publication ONLY when the material has the capacity to make a significant advancement to science.
That’s a good way for science not to advance. Other’s ideas are crucial to making progress. Unless you’re Newton or Einstein, or Kary Mullis with PCR, few are capable of making significant advancements on their own.
As a rule of thumb, don’t bother to submit a formal paper for peer review unless you have a chance for a Nobel or similar high recognition.
That’s utterly absurd. Papers exist for a reason.
David Appell’s reply to Geoff S has a couple of notable points.
Q “–but mistakes in assumptions, inferences, misinterpretations,–“. Mistakes of assumptions figure greatly; and of extrapolating back in time on the basis of an inference based on a couple of centuries. Secondly ‘assumptions’ bypass the need to check the very basics on which they are built. Dogma, or the need to keep to the standard ‘hymn book’, is faith or ‘belief’ not fact.
Q “– professors would get letters from people “proving” that this or that was wrong–“. There certainly are ‘quacks’. But the history of science over the millennia also shows that the biggest quacks were the professors of their time. Haruspicy was peer review by the gods. Or the heliocentric versus the geocentric thinking.
Q “– Other’s ideas are crucial to making progress.” Agreed, but not only. The empirical research by others may provide information to other researchers, enabling at times fundamental correlation/corroboration in totally separate fields, completely free of ‘peer influence’. In my experience such papers are a very fertile field. A paper’s deductions may be wrong, but the empirical data from the research may be invaluable.
melitamegalithic wrote:
…and of extrapolating back in time on the basis of an inference based on a couple of centuries.
Such as?
Secondly ‘assumptions’ bypass the need to check the very basics on which they are built. Dogma, or the need to keep to the standard ‘hymn book’, is faith or ‘belief’ not fact.
That’s a very simplistic view of assumptions and not what I meant at all. Nor are they “dogma.”
But the history of science over the millennia also shows that the biggest quacks were the professors of their time.
Such as?
Q “– Other’s ideas are crucial to making progress.” Agreed, but not only. The empirical research by others may provide information to other researchers, enabling at times fundamental correlation/corroboration in totally separate fields, completely free of ‘peer influence’. In my experience such papers are a very fertile field. A paper’s deductions may be wrong, but the empirical data from the research may be invaluable.
Maybe. Empirical data can also be wrong. In any case empirical data falls under what I was already discussing about publishing.
Generally, other experts in the field will read and perhaps (God forbid) try to replicate the findings. This can occur whether the paper was peer reviewed or not. Mann’s hockey stick was peer reviewed then shredded by others after publication. So peer review (smear review?) isn’t really necessary.
David Appell
First query, example: JN Stockwell (1872) obliquity statement. Study was for secular change. Science completely ignored other parallel changes. That turned into dogma without any query.
Adopted by Milankovitch
Challenged by R Newton (in his works), including the great quack Claudius Ptolemy ( see ‘The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy’ by R Newton) Newton also noted the abrupt possible tilt changes. See http://dioi.org/jw08.pdf
You did not say what your assumptions are, or what you had in mind.
jim2 wrote:
Generally, other experts in the field will read and perhaps (God forbid) try to replicate the findings. This can occur whether the paper was peer reviewed or not. Mann’s hockey stick was peer reviewed then shredded by others after publication.
There has been an enormous amount of work on replicating the hockey stick. All have found a hockey stick. As is heuristically obvious, as I’ve noted above.
“Hockey Sticks in the scientific literature”
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
I stopped counting a couple of years ago. The hockey stick is established science.
melitamegalithic
Changes in obliquity are considered.
Changes in Obliquity (Tilt)
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/250/changes-in-obliquity-tilt/
Mann’s methods were faulty, other hockey sticks don’t change that.
My experience is that peer review is dramatically overrated. It can serve as a basic sanity check but often is a gate keeping mechanism for senior scientists to insist that you reference their work and contrast your work to theirs. No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers. But we had a large team so we did a careful job of internal review and our papers are generally quite accurate.
The fact that Appell considers the hockey stick to be settled science is quite telling. Steve McIntyre spent the better part of a decade carefully documenting the very weak methodologies used in paleoclimatology. Just to name one issue: proxy selection. They use a training period to check that the proxy correlates with temperature. But there is no reason to think this really chooses skillful proxies over ones that are say precipitation controled.
jim2 wrote:
Mann’s methods were faulty
Faulty how?
other hockey sticks don’t change that.
Why not? They’re calculated with many other methodologies.
One paper uses seven different methodologies. Look forward to you telling us how they’re all wrong.
dpy6629 wrote:
My experience is that peer review is dramatically overrated. It can serve as a basic sanity check but often is a gate keeping mechanism for senior scientists to insist that you reference their work and contrast your work to theirs.
You mean the experts who are reviewing your work insist you cite prior work in the field and compare your own work to that?
Yes, that’s a reason why peer review exists. Papers are much more useful for it.
No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers.
That’s not their job!
But we had a large team so we did a careful job of internal review and our papers are generally quite accurate.
That’s your job! Not their job.
As I wrote above, the purpose of peer review is to (1) ensure a paper is not obviously wrong, and (2) see that the paper adheres to scholarly standards.
The accuracy and correctness of your paper is your job, not theirs. You’re confused.
dpy6629 wrote:
The fact that Appell considers the hockey stick to be settled science is quite telling. Steve McIntyre spent the better part of a decade carefully documenting the very weak methodologies used in paleoclimatology.
You’re not an expert who can judge whether the methodologies are “weak.” All you do is read a blog you agree with on ideological grounds.
McIntyre is afraid to submit his claims to peer review — when only nonexperts read his work, no one is going to critically judge it so he has no fear of being wrong. By only writing a blog he can look like a hero to the nonexperts who are ideologically disposed to agree with his conclusions, without being able to judge them. It’s the perfect gig — no challenges, he can always think he’s right, you get the denial you need.
Appell is here just repeating the dogmas of the idolitry of science. He didn’t comment on my recent post here on how science is no longer an “institution” we should have confidence in. Nor has he addressed the massive body of evidence that there are severe structural problems.
This is because Appell suffers from terminal confirmation bias. Science is a great institution that tells us that Appell’s progressive views are correct. This is not someone who has any credibility because he doesn’t address the critics proof that he is wrong.
As to peer review, see the evidence in my recent post. There have been a flood of obviously flawed papers during the pandemic that passed peer review. Some were obviously fraudulent but supported the alarmist narrative.
David Appell | May 24, 2023 at 6:18 pm |
JPY’s comment “No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers.”
Apples’ response – “That’s not their job!”
Appell – That response is stupid even by your standards. Though that explains how so many math errors in peer reviewed junk science gets treated as gold standard science
David Appell
Your link is only relevant for the secular change (Stockwell’s calculations over a short period of time, assumed to be polynomial, and extrapolated – a double/triple blind assumption)
The first to realise earth tilt change can be abrupt was JF Dodwell 1936 – his study a step change superimposed on the secular. But Stockwell’s work had become dogma by that time, and Dodwell was sidelined.
Papers from 20 years ago put/state obliquity is the main factor dictating climate change, and the big changes evident in proxies. Dodwell is still ignored by the establishment. The ‘fast gun syndrome’ in science is a millstone shackle.
The exchange below sums up why the scientific peer review is not fit for purpose.
JPY’s comment “No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers.”
Apples’ response – “That’s not their job!”
As previously noted, I am an engineer. For critical stuff, I need to get my work peer reviewed. That means they check my documentation, design AND calculations. I also have to spell out all my assumptions and where they came from, which are checked. Then the reviewer does a secondary check on the calculations by a different approach. If it passes that, then I can proceed. Satisfying the verifier is the critical step. They are the gatekeepers. That is what engineering peer review means. It is why the verifiers don’t do their own work, to avoid even perceptions of conflict of interest.
The stuff scientists do is just playacting, suitable for cartoonish characters many of them are, saying it is suitable for publications without any real checks other than seeing if there are enough mention of them in the references.
Well said, which as an engineer I understand.
I find checking is always harder than the original calculation because you have to understand someone else’s methodology and have an independent check.
That’s why I want to see the base data, the data that’s been used and the data that’s been rejected. My datasets always have the outliers that I don’t use included – I find it hard to remove outliers because cherry picking is so attractive.
So my suggest is that the IPPC should have all the data behind all their publications in an open source – read only except for the provider. In a format suitable for analysis, CSV at minimum, probably JSON conforming to a published schema.
Climate change is a long term game and the data sets will only get bigger. It’s worth the investment.
Chris Morris | May 25, 2023 at 3:08 pm |
The exchange below sums up why the scientific peer review is not fit for purpose.
JPY’s comment “No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers.”
Apples’ response – “That’s not their job!”
Chris Morris wrote:
The stuff scientists do is just playacting, suitable for cartoonish characters many of them are, saying it is suitable for publications without any real checks other than seeing if there are enough mention of them in the references.
Bull.
You and only you are responsible for your work. If you are so uncertain you need someone to replicate it, hire a contractor.
Of course peer reviewers catch trivial errors. But they don’t redo your analysis from scratch or write computer codes to run with your data.
They’re not babysitters.
And let’s note that everything engineers do comes from physics and chemistry, so clearly those peer review methodologies have served you very well.
dpy6629 wrote:
Appell is here just repeating the dogmas of the idolitry of science. He didn’t comment on my recent post here on how science is no longer an “institution” we should have confidence in. Nor has he addressed the massive body of evidence that there are severe structural problems.
You didn’t write anything worth responding to. Just hackneyed complaining.
Like many here you can’t disprove climate science, so the only way you can deny it is to whine about the underlying processes that create it. Processes you don’t know much about.
Meanwhile the world keeps warming.
dpy6629 wrote:
As to peer review, see the evidence in my recent post. There have been a flood of obviously flawed papers during the pandemic that passed peer review. Some were obviously fraudulent but supported the alarmist narrative.
I keep telling your, peer review doesn’t mean a paper is correct!
In a pandemic, when science needs to move fast, sure, some mistakes will occur. The scientific process corrects them.
Would like to see these “obviously fraudulent” papers.
melitamegalithic:
I’m not interested in your obliquity comments at all.
Nor can I figure out what your complaint is. That the science wasn’t perfectly correct the first time? The second time? (That’s how science often goes.) What?
Paul Winstone wrote:
So my suggest is that the IPPC should have all the data behind all their publications in an open source – read only except for the provider. In a format suitable for analysis, CSV at minimum, probably JSON conforming to a published schema.
Maybe they should supply you with pencils and papers too? Milk and cookies?
IPCC documents cite hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed, published papers. You’re welcome to find any of those papers and read them. Download the data and calculate to your heart’s content.
I suspect you wouldn’t do any of that. Like others here, you just want a reason, any reason at all, to reject the IPCC assessment reports, because you don’t like the science but can’t disprove it.
I have my python library at the ready to look at any data.
I’m trying to get the data.
I always want the raw data to see if it makes sense.
Having a proper ontology for the data model will clearly be essential to ensure words are used consistently and data and units are correct.
I would love to spend time digging into the papers but the data is really hard to find.
I’m faced with a major issue as I love science, technology and people.
The climate science is complex.
The data is amazing.
The modelling is so so difficult.
Raising tCO2e is an experiment not worth doing.
But how critical is the next 30 years.
I spend money on an EV (which I have) as it makes me feel good but I kill people because they didn’t get the money for clean water or education or …
My EV isn’t going to save the world but what’s the risk reward of pollution control and care for the environment.
I think plastic pollution is probably the biggest threat.
So let’s see the raw data.
I’m enjoying looking and have a much better idea of what the issues are – proxy’s, climate regions, sun, ice – all begins to make sense.
Yet again David, you display you have absolutely NO understanding of genuine peer review. They carefully check your maths and assumptions. Did you use the right formula? Are all your assumptions justified? If something fails, the peer reviewer or design verifier gets in just as much trouble before the courts and/ or their professional bodies as the original designer.
Engineers work with the real-life applications of physics, chemistry and maths. However, it is all repeatable and replicable. The real stuff, not the make-believe world of climate modelling.
David Appell
OK,,, so.
Q “I’m not interested in your obliquity comments at all.”
That is revealing. The dumb faithful never question the dogma. Lest they might find they’ve been fooled. Alas.
Q “Nor can I figure out what your complaint is.”
No complaints, on the contrary. Just comment on points you/others raised.
The beauty of science is finding the truth and the facts, not invent the answers (for others to glorify).
Jacob Bronowski “It is important that students (I add: and scientists) bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it.”
David Appell | May 25, 2023 at 6:03 pm |
Chris Morris wrote:
The stuff scientists do is just playacting, suitable for cartoonish characters many of them are, saying it is suitable for publications without any real checks other than seeing if there are enough mention of them in the references.
Apples ‘s response –
“Bull.
You and only you are responsible for your work. If you are so uncertain you need someone to replicate it, hire a contractor.
Of course peer reviewers catch trivial errors. But they don’t redo your analysis from scratch or write computer codes to run with your data.
They’re not babysitters.
And let’s note that everything engineers do comes from physics and chemistry, so clearly those peer review methodologies have served you very well.”
Another Apple comment and response – ”
No peer reviewer has ever checked any math or computational results in any of our papers.
“That’s not their job!”
Again Apple’s responses explains why “peer review ” is the gold standard for the advancement of science – yet absolves the “peer review ” process of any responsibility to for the credibility of the studies under their peer review.
Apple – do you realize the extent which you are contradicting yourself
sherro01 | May 16, 2023 at 7:19 am |
“PWinstone,
You mention raw data.
The link I gave to Climate Audit has links to the raw data. That is why I gave the link, not to take one side or the other because that gets one nowhere very fast.
When can we expect to read the results of your study of this PAGES2K data?
Geoff S”
Paul and Geoff – your discussion highlights the transparency issue surrounding the paleo reconstruction. Geoff linked to the climate audit 0-30s lat band analysis by Steve McIntyre. S . mcIntyre has done the same for other latitude bands.
McIntyre presented the historical temp data for each disputed proxies in graph form. Same graph format as the infamous HS.
None of the multitude of HS reconstructions present any of the individual proxies in a similar format so that the laymen can ascertain the validity of the aggregate paleo reconstruction. Obviously it would be much easier for the layperson to see all the individual proxies with HS’s and thus reach the well supported conclusion that HS reconstructions are valid. That would sink Steve mcIntyre’s critique’s.
Is Steve McIntyre cherrypicking the proxies to dispute or is Pages2k cherrypicking the proxies to include. S McIntyre has pointed out numerous instances of high resolution proxies being ex-post fact exclusions
However, the presentation of individual proxies isnt done – Why?
I will try to look at the raw data. I’m aware of bias by only looking at some data but it’s will be interesting.
I’m surprised at how different the weather is in different parts of the globe at different times – the dislocation between equatorial and pole weather surprises me but make very good sense.
I’m surprised how people build in silly places. There are villages on the river tees that are prone to flooding but we are still building there. So next time it floods it’s not a disaster it’s just proof of human folly confirm 100 years later. The next time it happens it should be worse with much more hard surface run off and a river barrage – I couldn’t make it up.
So much of the distaste’s in the next 100 years are just folly not “natural”.
That makes data analysis of disaster very difficult.
But worth a go.
Chris Morris wrote:
Now that is a great question and the reason I’m here. The answer is simple, averages and random systems do great things, the question is “is it good science” and more complex is it good mathematics.
That’s not my experience. One letter I received from the reviewer came in only a few weeks later and said, “This is an important paper and should be published quickly.” No evidence he had repeated my lengthy numerical calculations.
Google Scholar says that paper has been cited 217 times.
I had already graduated by the time our second paper went through, so I don’t know what the peer reviewer said. But I *DO* know that my graduate advisor asked a good friend of his to repeat my calculations, and he obtained the same results I had.
Not a peer reviewer. A colleague.
I presume cited means that a reference was made but no assessment of the paper quality. I would expect most calculations to be correct at some level. I see information saying it’s too alarmist, it’s not alarmist enough. Taking the average seems very bad for my personality. I want to know the range, what’s driving the range, and then selecting action. I suspect the chance of disaster increased by GHG is low, I believe our action is too little, too late as if it does go wrong it’s a complete and utter disaster for many, mainly not me but the poor. Government action is inadequate and not justifiable as the alternatives to business as usual are compelling if slightly inconvenient.
So I expect the science to say it could be no problem at all or it could be a disaster. The politicians have to make the call.if the IPPC is the call then it’s not science but politics and should be identified as such.
Thanks for helping us think this through.
melitamegalithic wrote:
Q “I’m not interested in your obliquity comments at all.”
That is revealing. The dumb faithful never question the dogma. Lest they might find they’ve been fooled. Alas.
I’m not obsessed with this bit of minutiae of history. I don’t have time to check your calculations, and to me they don’t seem important anyway. I’ve never seen a scientist refer to these papers.
If you think something is wrong, write a paper and get it published.
Paul Winstone wrote:
I always want the raw data to see if it makes sense.
Having a proper ontology for the data model will clearly be essential to ensure words are used consistently and data and units are correct.
I would love to spend time digging into the papers but the data is really hard to find.
Have you written to the authors of the papers and asked about the data?
BTW, scientists don’t get units wrong.
I will try finding the data. On reflection I’m surprised it’s just not available these days.
DA
“Chris Morris wrote:
Now that is a great question and the reason I’m here. The answer is simple, averages and random systems do great things, the question is “is it good science” and more complex is it good mathematics.”
Are you certain I wrote this, or is it just a failure of peer review to pick up the obvious fault?
Scientists can do all the pal reviews they like to get brownie points in their slither up the greasy pole of academia. I don’t care. However, if those papers are used to set major policy decisions, involving massive amounts of money and a total remaking of society, then they need to be very open in all their data and it goes through a full evaluation, preferably by a red team. The IPCC doesn’t do that, being just an old boys’ club.
To build a bridge, a chemical plant or a nuke, there is exhaustive design and calculations review by a fully independent verifier. Even then, there is further checks. Why isn’t this done for the climate science used as the basis of government policy, especially as all their disaster predictions have been wrong?
Chris, yes, I attributed someone else’s quote to you. Sorry about that. There are a lot of nested quotes in here.
Chris Morris wrote:
Scientists can do all the pal reviews they like to get brownie points in their slither up the greasy pole of academia.
What’s the evidence of any “pal review,” Chris.
EVIDENCE.
“Pal review” is just another term deniers use to try to dismiss climate science because they can’t disprove it.
Chris Morris wrote:
The IPCC doesn’t do that, being just an old boys’ club.
You are so incredibly ignorant.
Scientists who choose to serve on an IPCC AR are heavily involved in evaluating the science. They travel all over the world to meetings with one another. They spend enormous amounts of time in email. It’s a major devotion they make that lasts 2-3 years.
And you try to dismiss them like they’re a bothersome fly.
Don’t speak of what you don’t know, Chris. Better to remain silent that to speak and reveal yourself as a fool.
You still haven’t answered how the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 or the outlier Grindsted got prominence in the IPCC reports.
Chris Morris wrote:
You still haven’t answered how the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035….
This has been discussed in the press in detail:
https://t.ly/jXHW
or the outlier Grindsted got prominence in the IPCC reports.
I don’t know who “Grindsted” is.
==
There was on error (Himalayas) in a huge report. Perhaps more. The thought that that brings down the entire AGW edifice is absurd. You’re grasping at straws.
Paul Winstone wrote:
I presume cited means that a reference was made but no assessment of the paper quality.
Why do you presume that?
I was trying to understand the meaning of cited. If a paper says in its introduction ‘I read this paper and completely agree with its conclusions’ or ‘I read this paper and completely agree with an idea in para 2.1.2.1 and its conclusions’ both count as citations.
I’m trying to understand the validity of the scientific method as used currently.
I’m just starting this journey and wondering how much resource I should spend. There is obviously lots of great stuff eg http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/CommittedWarming.25May2023.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/PipelineDraft.19May2023.pdf
I’m struggling because politics and science aren’t working well together. Sugar v Fat, Statins, m-RNA vaccine or length of time to stop smoking tobacco, starting smoking vaps, wearing seatbelts.
Paul Winstone wrote:
I was trying to understand the meaning of cited.
It’s a paper that’s relevant to the discussion in the paper doing the citing.
It’s not necessarily vouching for the paper, although people don’t willingly cite papers that are wrong or misleading or what have you. It’s not a statement that the author(s) has/have necessarily duplicated the cited paper or replicated the relevant experimental measure.
Bad papers get weeded out. Fraudulent papers get found out and are withdrawn from the journal. Scientists read the relevant journals in their field and understand the papers as best they can. Almost every issue of a journal contains papers that take issue with an earlier published paper, and the authors go back and forth in dueling replies until the science gets worked out to the satisfaction of most. Or errors are discovered and it’s discussed privately and a correction is published. Or in lectures and seminars and colloquia people listen and discuss and sometimes have issues and they work it out.
An example was UAH’s sign error in the 1990s when measuring the temperature of the lower troposphere. The UAH result was an outlier — it showed cooling when all other data showed warming. Scientists puzzled over it, worked through UAH’s model, found a sign error, and spent several years convincing the UAH team of their error until finally it was corrected. That’s how science works. It’s a community.
Is every published paper “correct?” For sure, not. But it’s a pretty good system that usually weeds out bad work. The science moves along and new things are learned. It’s worked for a long time.
Will there be a paper published that overthrows AGW so that it’s OK if we emit copious amounts of CO2 like we’re doing now? No. It’s a fundamental result, from fundamental physics. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law won’t be overthrown. I’ve heard scientists say AGW from aGHGs is as good a hypothesis as is evolution by natural selection.
Pingback: CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6 | ajmarciniak
Pingback: Climate Act Capers: New York's Net Zero Nonsense
Heather MacDonald speaks about disparate impact analysis and its effect on our institutions, culture and public policy. It is an apt parallel to what’s happening in climate and energy. DEI, which focuses on race, is a close cousin to ESG, which focuses on CO2. Watch the video.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-05-14/end-civilization
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Heather MacDonald speaks about disparate impact analysis and its effect on our institutions, culture and public policy. It is an apt parallel to what’s happening in climate and energy. DEI, which focuses on race, is a close cousin to ESG, which focuses on CO2.
Simplistic.
DEI focuses on *diversity* — of nationalities, of gender, of races, of sexual orientation — because these make an institution stronger. Equality is about equality across all these parameters, as is inclusion.
ESG is about all environmental impacts, not just CO2, as well as other impacts on society and how corporations should be governed so as not to negatively impact society in all ways, not just environmental.
Dave … for me, the link between DEI & ESG isn’t the ‘what’ it’s the ‘how’. And what the impact is when a social policy imposes constraints in science, commerce, art, medicine/public health, energy, etc.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Dave … for me, the link between DEI & ESG isn’t the ‘what’ it’s the ‘how’. And what the impact is when a social policy imposes constraints in science, commerce, art, medicine/public health, energy, etc.
Social policies, even if unspoken, even if unrecognized, *always* impose contraints. They can also allow for benefits.
Larry Fink of Blackrock, managing $9 T in assets, believes climate change is a big risk for companies and fully supports ESG. Republicans, who no longer believe in free markets, oppose him because of their ideology.
Fink is seen pulling back on ESG, according to Reuters in this piece:
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/larry-fink-finds-way-dodge-esg-crosshairs-2023-03-15/
>BlackRock still backs these objectives, but Fink’s 2023 letter doesn’t even mention ESG. Instead, he notes that government policy, technological innovation and consumer preferences will determine the pace of decarbonisation. He also stresses it’s not minority shareholders’ place to tell companies what to do.
That last sentence is a big statement coming from him.
> Social policies, even if unspoken, even if unrecognized, *always* impose contraints. They can also allow for benefits.
True. But I think the issue is … again I repeat … ‘the how’. How is the social policy crafted? How is the policy secured? Is it top down, or bottom up? Who benefits? Who pays? Is there open debate forming the policy? Is there open debate on the policy affects once it has been initiated?
Social policies have a tendency to become reified. I believe this mostly occurs due to the policy either: out-living its intended use, the social parameters have changed or it was based on a fallacy to begin with. Think about it, how many times has the government ended a social policy? We can ask: Was it by open review? Or did the government come under social criticism? Or was it due to a different party? But all that is just the normal course of government. Meaning, the policies take on a life of their own and are resistant to change, as they were resistant to input. We all have a stake in an open process of policy formation and review. Particularly as policies can go horribly wrong, as MacDonald shows with DEI.
David Appell,
Surely by now you must have multiple examples of bureaucratic and political intervention making matters worse.
It is very naive of you to argue that “DEI focuses on *diversity* — of nationalities, of gender, of races, of sexual orientation — because these make an institution stronger.”
At the same time, even if it does make those social factors stronger for those who play with them it makes wider society weaker.
Did you enjoy the sight of gangs of black youth “races” breaking and burning city centres and stealing goods, showing society the benefits of its new found institutional strength?
Geoff S
Dave … earlier in this thread you said that I was simplistic for comparing the affects of DEI and ESG. You just accused Geoff of being a racist because he noted that any video you see on the internet of looting stores has mostly black, or people of color. I think you’ve rendered that judgement of Geoff on quite simplistic, if not inaccurate, grounds. Can you produce a video of mostly white or Asian people looting stores? I doubt it.
If you watched the video I posted, you will hear crime statistics that may surprise you. They are all facts. Are you calling Heather MacDonald a racist? Are you saying the statistics are false? Speaking about race is not being a racist. To make that equivalency is not only simplistic but actually makes MacDonald’s point that to not discuss race openly condemns all races to mistreatment, particularly blacks. The black community is not helped by denying black violence and calling others racist for pointing it out. If we look at the statistics, blacks are mostly the victims of black violence, although they are the largest offenders of inter-race violence. Those are facts, Dave.
Certainly, Geoff isn’t a racist for what he said. You went way overboard.
Bill Fabrizio just commented:
Can you produce a video of mostly white or Asian people looting stores?
Why is that necessary? Inner cities are often dominated by blacks residents…..
In any case, here are your equal opportunity rioters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5C38kayWI&feature=youtu.be
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Speaking about race is not being a racist.
It is when you assume (as you and Geoff have done) that the sole reason a person riots is their race. You assume there can be no other reason behind rioters — not poverty, not their age, not the racial makeup of the city, not systematic racism, not anger from the routine racism of one of this country’s two political parties.
MLK Jr said, ““In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?”
David Appell,
You have no knowledge of my private, personal thoughts about racism, or even if I have any.
You are therefore unqualified to describe what you imagine my thoughts to be, as you have attempted to do.
If I see public video footage of people burining the property of others, not once, but many times in many places and if I observe, as anyone can, that the dominant colour of the skins of the participants is black and that they are young, I have every permission in the world to speak of the damage caused by black youths.
Unllike you, with your mention of other properties like “not poverty, not their age, not the racial makeup of the city, not systematic racism, not anger from the routine racism of one of this country’s two political parties” I have no licence at all to comment on properties which I have not observed, but I have every possible licence to comment on those I have observed in plausible records. It is simply observationally correct to use the words “gangs of black youth “races” breaking and burning city centres and stealing goods” because that is what happened.
You should not try to censor or denigrate correct observations. It can get you into trouble.
Geoff S
Dave … I’m curious where you live? Where you grew up? Why, because for you to identify the people in that video looting the liquor store in Austin as white and Asian is rather curious. I’d say the overwhelming majority are Hispanic and some blacks. Where are the Asians? Maybe a few whites? Have you associated with Hispanics? Hmmmm. Well, for a guy who flings the racist tag around you don’t seem to know your fellow man all that well. Close circle of associates, eh? Let me guess, all white? All academics? You poor boy. It seems you never really enjoyed the diversity on a one-to-one level, human to human. If you had, you wouldn’t be wielding a racial club of which you have no idea. You are actually quite ignorant of different folk, their lives, their ways, their sorrows, their joys. If you reply, Dave, be honest. Stop lying.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
I’d say the overwhelming majority are Hispanic and some blacks. Where are the Asians? Maybe a few whites? Have you associated with Hispanics?
You’re very keen to blame entire races, aren’t you?
Blame them for the actions of a few.
And to exonerate your race.
There were plenty of white people in those clips I gave.
Not that it matters. They are all looters, regardless of their race.
I don’t need to categorize looters by race.
Why do you?
What good do you think that does?
Especially for you?
Bill: It’s not relevant where I grew up, and none of your business.
Dave … when you wield the racist club, it’s all of our business.
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
Dave … when you wield the racist club, it’s all of our business.
Then don’t be racist.
PS: My name is “David.”
Dave … We’re not, and so you’re being abusive. And every time you do it, I’m not going to let you get away with it.
“The LIA was probably the coolest and most globally extensive cool period since the Younger Dryas.” This is an excerpt from the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report, published in 1990 and edited by Sir John Houghton. I don’t pay much attention to the more recent politicised IPCC reports but this one is quite respectable because much of it is a review of the pre-IPCC state of the climate.
Just one small comment. Looking at ‘Temp Anomaly’ from ice records for personal research, at both polar and equatorial, it indicates that the earlier DACP was colder. Colder still at an earlier instance around ~300bce, and ~1250bce. LIA and those three instances are spaced near millennial, and coincide to roots of Eddy cycle.
Peter wrote:
“The LIA was probably the coolest and most globally extensive cool period since the Younger Dryas.” This is an excerpt from the IPCC First Scientific Assessment Report, published in 1990 and edited by Sir John Houghton. I don’t pay much attention to the more recent politicised IPCC reports but this one is quite respectable because much of it is a review of the pre-IPCC state of the climate.
How convenient! Ignore the science you don’t like because you choose to label it “political,” while citing a study that’s now 33 years old in a rapidly expanding field.
Sorry but works since the AR1 shows the LIA or MWP weren’t global.
“Sorry but works since the AR1 shows the LIA or MWP weren’t global.”
No they don’t. Tell me one place on earth that didn’t experience the LIA or MWP and I’ll show you (in some cases) numerous studies that show that it did.
You keep making this claim without substantiating it. Where did the LIA and MWP NOT occur?
agnostic2015 wrote:
Tell me one place on earth that didn’t experience the LIA or MWP and I’ll show you (in some cases) numerous studies that show that it did.
Again, it’s NOT ENOUGH to find studies that show cooling somewhere sometime between 1200-1800. If you don’t understand why they don’t prove a global LIA you’re aren’t relevant to this discussion.
Your “places on Earth”:
https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/images/Neukon-Fig_1.png
David Appell wrote – “Global lower temperature don’t prove a LIA” which seems reasonable but I don’t understand why 4 DegC warming is bad – A complete disaster is one possible outcome, but absolutely no change (in addition to what would have happened if no tcO2e) is also a possibility. Can science give us the probability curve – I don’t think it can, so it’s a matter of pragmatic risk taking. Like driving a car, I may kill one or more person / child and possibly those in the car with me, I’m 10x more likely to permanently disable those people. Question: do I drive the car? Pragmatic people say yes but want the risk to be lowered, but don’t like driving slowly to reduce the risk. So the decision on climate and lifestyle is complex. The poor will always choose life today rather than guaranteed life for the next generations.
Paul Winstone wrote:
David Appell wrote – “Global lower temperature don’t prove a LIA”
I never wrote that.
Nor would I get the grammar so wrong.
Give me a link to where I wrote that.
Otherwise, withdraw your claim and apologize.
“If you don’t understand why they don’t prove a global LIA you’re aren’t relevant to this discussion.”
How is asking for some evidence for your claim that it was ONLY regional not relevant?
If it was only regional then there should be some regions of the globe where it did not manifest. I haven’t been able to find anywhere. There are some differences in magnitude and timing, but that’s to be expected.
If you are unable to indicate WHERE the LIA or MWP didn’t occur then your claim it wasn’t global is clearly bogus. If it turns up everywhere we look clearly it WAS global.
The graphic you posted also show a clear LIA and MWP signal in all regions.
David – I apologise – im trying to understand the science, the people and the arguments.
You did write that LIA is supported by “local & regional proxies only” and that a reconstruction was needed. That sounded like temperature was not enough – we only have proxy data for much of the last 000’s years.
If I had the raw data in an excel sheet it would be easier to understand what’s being debated.
For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
–
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As well as causing cooling related events from Alaska to Eastern Europe, the LIA caused mountain glaciers to advance in the Southern Hemisphere in places such as the Southern Andes and New Zealand. It also affected weather patterns and trade routes.
The LIA was clearly a global event, though it is probably true that the impact was less in the Southern Hemisphere and the level of communication and reporting was less sophisticated at that time.
CO2 supporters have always tried to erase inconvenient climate events such as the LIA and MWP. If they cannot make them disappear entirely, they dismiss them as minor local events.
Disciples of CO2 believe that it is the climate control knob and only greenhouse gases can influence climate. Contrary evidence must be erased, trashed or minimised. I have no idea how they cope with solar effects, cloud effects, ocean heat uptake and release and all the other natural events that can influence our climate. Perhaps some of our friends here can enlighten me.
Peter wrote:
The LIA was clearly a global event….
Where is that science?
It’s not enough to show there were places across the globe that cooled for some interval at some point from about 1200 – 1850 AD.
One has to do a RECONSTRUCTION to see if the intervals and time points line up. That’s precisely what showing a map of cool places across the globe DOES NOT DO, and it’s exactly what papers like MBH, PAGES 2k, etc DO DO. See the figure I linked to above. It’s Figure 2 in one of their first papers:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797
So I’d like to see the reconstructions you’re referring to.
CO2 supporters have always tried to erase inconvenient climate events such as the LIA and MWP.
There is no such thing as a “CO2 supporter,” there are scientists looking to find the truth. Perhaps you’re motivated by ideology, but the science community is not.
Disciples of CO2 believe that it is the climate control knob and only greenhouse gases can influence climate.
That’s what the science shows, both models and observations of the geological past.
“Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
Contrary evidence must be erased, trashed or minimised.
What contrary evidence? Instead of snide remarks, let’s see you discuss science.
I have no idea how they cope with solar effects, cloud effects, ocean heat uptake and release and all the other natural events that can influence our climate.
Wow, you really need to learn some climate science. Why don’t you do that before telling us what science is and isn’t true?
Appell
What a joke. Appell provides a paper a decade old which is incapable of reflecting and being aware of the dozens of papers published since then showing LIA conditions across the globe. Another whiff. Close only works in horseshoes.
CKid wrote:
being aware of the dozens of papers published since then showing LIA conditions across the globe.
Which papers do an analytic reconstruction (as is necessary) that shows a global LIA?
“ Little Ice Age were global events.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
“ Increasing paleoclimatic evidence suggests that the Little Ice Age (LIA) was a global climate change event.”
https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/8/1223/2012/cp-8-1223-2012.pdf
“…globally coherent cooling…to LIA”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8413
“…synchronicity of these conditions throughout the world supports recent assertions of a volcanic or solar driver for the LIA”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379121004029
“ Over a period of many decades, several thousand papers were published establishing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1300 A.D. to 1915 A.D. as global climate changes. Thus, it came as quite a surprise when Mann et al. (1998) (Fig. 28) concluded that neither the MWP nor the Little Ice Age actually happened on the basis of a tree-ring study and that became the official position of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC 3rd report (Climate Change 2001) then totally ignored the several thousand publications detailing the global climate changes during the MWP and the LIA …”
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf
Chile
“ The LIA is clearly identified at this locality as a period of cool, dry conditions between c. AD 1600 and 1850.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683620950444
“ terrestrial paleoclimate data suggest the LIA was a global phenomenon”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005PA001218
“ onset of Little Ice Age conditions across the South Pacific.”
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/handle/10063/4796
“The global Little Ice Age glacial expansion may have been driven,…”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1067693
“Where is that science?”
There’s tons of it. You need to be more specific. WHERE did the LIA or MWP not occur. I haven’t been able to find a location where it has not turned up.
“ I haven’t been able to find a location where it has not turned up.”
Lol. How true. It’s clear, and a lot of papers from years ago say it was more that research in specific locations was missing, rather than proving it didn’t exist. No evidence of absence. Just absence of evidence…..until recent years.
It’s just been another talking point, like the hockey schtick, to clutter the minds of the vulnerable.
“Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20020049982/downloads/20020049982.pdf
Ulric wrote:
“Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum”
Click to access 20020049982.pdf
REGIONAL changes.
Not global changes.
If the cause was the Sun, would the change be over the entire planet?
CKid just commented:
What a joke. Appell provides a paper a decade old
Did the science change in a decade? The data? Was there a flaw found in their methodology?
You know, equations of thermodynamics are still true even though they were discovered about 150 years ago.
And this is funny coming from a guy who puts forth a quote from a 1995 email as if it’s relevant today.
CKid wrote:
“ The LIA is clearly identified at this locality as a period of cool, dry conditions between c. AD 1600 and 1850.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683620950444
Not global.
“ terrestrial paleoclimate data suggest the LIA was a global phenomenon”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005PA001218
Data is for “Florida Current surface temperature”
“ onset of Little Ice Age conditions across the South Pacific.”
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/handle/10063/4796
Not global.
Not peer reviewed.
“The global Little Ice Age glacial expansion may have been driven,…”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1067693
data is from the “Tropical Pacific Sea”
Ckid wrote:
“ Over a period of many decades, several thousand papers were published establishing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from about 900 A.D. to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1300 A.D. to 1915 A.D. as global climate changes. Thus, it came as quite a surprise when Mann et al. (1998) (Fig. 28) concluded that neither the MWP nor the Little Ice Age actually happened on the basis of a tree-ring study….
That is, none of us had before done a global or hemispheric temperature reconstruction, so we were surprised about what the science actually said.
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf0
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf0
I get The requested page “/en/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf0” could not be found
There is a 0 on the end of pdf
This is ann interesting article I was looking to read – thanks.
Ckid wrote:
“ Little Ice Age were global events.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240837
Suddenly it’s OK to cite a paper that’s a decade old??
LOL.
Yes, LOL.
Aren’t you aware that all the proxies in this paper were from “bathymetric transects in the Makassar Strait and Flores Sea in Indonesia?”
If you haven’t actually read the paper, you should.
Mann pointed this out in HuffPo:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pacific-ocean-warming-at_b_4179583
Ckid wrote:
ever more papers that contained local or regional proxies only and are not reconstructions
This is getting tedious and tiring.
Get back to me when you have a study that does a global reconstruction.
Those papers I cited stated the LIA was global. Here is the global reconstruction that I have provided dozens of times before. This is, in fact, getting tedious.
https://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
David, of course there are global changes, with stronger regional changes.
CKid wrote:
Those papers I cited stated the LIA was global.
They certainly don’t, as I showed above — they’re all based on local & regoinal proxies only.
Here is the global reconstruction that I have provided dozens of times before. This is, in fact, getting tedious.
Click to access c023p089.pdf
Soon & Baliunas 2003!!
I ripped that paper to shreds in Scientific American two decades ago:
“Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate,” David Appell, Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web), August 2003 (paper).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/
It even got published in a special edition of Sci Am articles:
reprinted in “Critical Perspectives on World Climate,” Katy Human, The Rosen Publishing Company, 2006 pp 169-173.
When I came across Sally Baliunas at the coffee table at a little conference in DC some time later, at (I believe) the Heritage Foundation (or one of those), she wouldn’t even look me in the eye.
Ulric Lyons wrote:
David, of course there are global changes….
Ulric, this is a useless answer.
Here you have to PROVE your assertions. Not just make them.
I’m done responding to useless replies like your’s.
David, you keep demanding everyone prove anything they write, but you haven’t proved man-made CO2 will cause a catastrophe. Where’s YOUR proof, David?
jim2 wrote:
David, you keep demanding everyone prove anything they write, but you haven’t proved man-made CO2 will cause a catastrophe.
Define “catastrophe.”
@ David Appell, you still haven’t provided a location that you believe did not experience the LIA or MWP. I have been able to find a location anywhere in the world that did not experience it. Perhaps you can help.
You keep repeating the claim, but can only point to (an old) paper that merely claims it was regional and not global. If it was not global and the science is so settled it should be trivial to find a location where it didn’t happen.
Dave
You are incapable of ripping to shreds any paper, much less one that was prepared by 2 real climate scientists.
David. It is actually ridiculous to assert that the solar forcing of atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections is not global. The AMO envelope and ENSO events are well apparent in the southern hemisphere.
agnostic2015 wrote:
@ David Appell, you still haven’t provided a location that you believe did not experience the LIA or MWP.
I provided it above:
https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/images/Neukon-Fig_1.png
Plenty of blue intervals.
You keep repeating the claim, but can only point to (an old) paper that merely claims it was regional and not global.
2013 is an “old paper?”
Is their data false?
Is their methodology wrong?
If neither, then aren’t their results still good today?
David Appell | May 24, 2023 at 11:06 am |
agnostic2015 wrote:
@ David Appell, you still haven’t provided a location that you believe did not experience the LIA or MWP.
I provided it above:
https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/images/Neukon-Fig_1.png
Appell – the MWP temp reconstruction in your chart for the artic is a little dubious considering the volume of proxies in the artic that show much warmer MWP. far too may proxies in the artic and sub artic region show otherwise
The MWP temp reconstruction for South america is likewise a little dubious considering the contradictory proxies in the region
Dave
Re Sally Baliunus “ she wouldn’t even look me in the eye.”
She probably thought you were the pizza delivery guy.
“I provided it above:
https://pastglobalchanges.org/sites/default/files/download/docs/magazine/2017-1/images/Neukon-Fig_1.png
Plenty of blue intervals.”
??? Did you mean maybe to post a different graph? Because this graph does show clear predominance of MWP and LIA GLOBALLY. You can even drill down at the spots say the South America which on your map doesn’t have great coverage.
It shows up there too. Here is graph showing glacier variability from Van Der Belt 2017:
http://www.climatemapping.org/mca/van-der-bilt-etal-2017.jpg
Tropical climate in South America shifted substantially from 1400 BP and 800 BP (the MWP) according to Iriondo:
http://www.climatemapping.org/mca/iriondo-1999.jpg
MWP shows up very clearly in O18 proxies:
http://www.climatemapping.org/mca/chiessi-etal-2014.jpg
Asia is weak in this graph but it’s strong in the proxies I have seen for example:
https://archiv.klimanachrichten.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/solomina-and-alverson-2004.jpg
Have you got anything else?
agnostic2015 wrote:
“I provided it above:
Plenty of blue intervals.”
??? Did you mean maybe to post a different graph? Because this graph does show clear predominance of MWP and LIA GLOBALLY.
No it doesn’t. PAGES 2k also writes in their paper:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
Maybe there are a couple nonconsecutive 50-year interval with all colors some shade of red. 50 years isn’t a “Period” or an “Age.”
If you see a “Period” or an “Age,” gives the years in the intervals.
I think you’re wrong. So does the PAGES 2k team of about 70 paleoclimatologists (IIRC). But I’m not willing to go around and around on this anymore. It’s getting too tedious and pedantic and there are better uses of my time.
You can have the last word.
Climate change mitigation is an unmitigated travesty.
As a global society, we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 20301 to fund an energy transition sufficient to keep the planet below a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 report by environmental think tank Climate Policy Initiative. That’s a lot. Especially compared to current spending. The annual global climate investment averaged $632 billion per year over 2019 and 2020—15 percent of the $4.13 trillion target.
https://meansandmatters.bankofthewest.com/article/sustainable-living/taking-action/who-funds-the-fight-against-climate-change/
jim2 quoted:
As a global society, we must increase spending to at least $4.13 trillion every year by 20301 to fund an energy transition sufficient to keep the planet below a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a 2021 report by environmental think tank Climate Policy Initiative.
“I assumed like everybody else, way back when everyone was talking about global warming and all that, I assumed that that was probably right, until I found out what it was going to cost.”
James Inhofe
The warming part is probably right, some of the current warming is probably caused by man-made CO2. But the catastrophic part is too uncertain to spend trillions on mitigation. The spend on adaptation will be laser targeted, if any spending is needed at all.
jim2 wrote:
But the catastrophic part is too uncertain to spend trillions on mitigation.
Do you buy insurance?
The spend on adaptation will be laser targeted, if any spending is needed at all.
What will adaptation cost?
I don’t pay 10 times the value of my house for insurance, David.
Mr Appell should consult UK Met Office hand written Monthly reports for the (astronomical) winters/springs in the 40s/50s/60s and note how 2023 has so far fitted the same pattern in wind directions and speeds, temperature ranges and max /min values, sun hours, rainfall amounts, and prevailing weather system types as if nothing had changed in sixty plus years (two whole climate cycles of thirty years each).
There is absolutely nothing present in the patterns of 2023 that suggest something big is happening – absolutely nothing. Of course some Met Offices around the globe insist on massaging temperatures but they forget the other tell tale signs there are to equate the past with the present. One day a book will appear on the bookshop shelves telling the contemporaries of that time just what lengths alarmists went to sell the hypes and lies they had been told to scare us with or else. These people must be stopped if only to get energy policy in the west back on a sensible track, to allow economies to recover and potential grid damage minimised.
I still want to see nuclear used massively in the west because it is the best fuel to satisfy us all that human’s do care about the planet but they care little for the lies they are told about how destructive we as a species are. We are an inventive species but we before the alarmists came along we knew the difference between fact and fiction. Certain hockey sticks (version one, two or whatever) are fiction. Dr Curry has a book out next month which most definately is fact just so we can differentiate between truth and lies.
Alarmists are destructive; should be ashamed of themselves; and will be found out as Lincoln’s famous words suggested all those many years ago. There will be a time which sorts the adults from the children and it cannot come soon enough.
UK-Weather Lass wrote:
Mr Appell should consult UK Met Office hand written Monthly reports for the (astronomical) winters/springs in the 40s/50s/60s and note how 2023 has so far fitted the same pattern in wind directions and speeds, temperature ranges and max /min values, sun hours, rainfall amounts, and prevailing weather system types as if nothing had changed in sixty plus years (two whole climate cycles of thirty years each).
Unfortunately, you didn’t provide a link to this data.
In any case what does “fitted the same pattern” mean? It’s a vague phrase that needs quantifying if you want to compare one time to another.
There is absolutely nothing present in the patterns of 2023 that suggest something big is happening – absolutely nothing.
Nope. SSTs are surprisingly large after three consecutive La Ninas. There is a lot of anticipation that an El Nino is coming, possibly a large one. Here’s a recent forecast:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/seasonal-climate-forecasts/
The Nino3.4 index has soured by 1.4 C in just 3 months
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
and is now above the 0.5 C threshold that could lead to the declaration of an El Nino is a few months.
So, yes, unusual things are happening.
Intense cooling of the Humboldt Current in the Southeast Pacific will soon follow.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/21/1200Z/wind/surface/currents/overlay=temp/orthographic=-91.90,-36.55,489
Sorry.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_sst-trend-7d_v3.1_west_current.png
Global ocean otherwise has taken a hike similar to that 2009 before the El Nino then.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxmriweuqqtropm/Billede1.png?dl=0
At that time (2009-2010) solar activity was increasing, now it is at its maximum and will decrease. If there is an El Niño, it will be weak.
David, here are a couple of papers to keep you amused.
Turney, C. S., et al. (2009). “The Little Ice Age in the Southern Hemisphere: paleoclimate records and implications for general circulation models.” Earth-Science Reviews, 97(1-4), 89-115.
Moreno, P. I., et al. (2009). “Southern Hemisphere forcing of South American summer precipitation during the late Little Ice Age.” Science, 325(5937), 940-943.
Wow. Your reply greatly exceeded my wildest expectations. Thank you for that. You have clarified matters enormously.
Peter: I couldn’t find either one of the 2009 papers you cited. Can you please provide links? Thanks.
By some freak of nature, rationality creeps into EU “green” energy talks.
Member-state officials had been due to endorse the Renewable Energy Directive at a meeting Wednesday, paving the way for a formal vote as soon as next week. Yet French concerns over how nuclear can help industries meet climate goals, plus opposition from some central and east European countries worried about green-transition costs, saw the law struck from the agenda.
More from
Bloomberg green
In A Warming World, 10 Air Conditioners Are Sold Every Second
Goldman Sachs Slashes Adani Group Stakes From Its ESG Funds
Zimbabwe to Take over Carbon Credit Trade, Void Past Deals
Scathing Report Targets Investment Bankers’ Emissions Math
The wrangling is a further blow for the EU’s Green Deal, with various elements thrown into doubt by countries’ domestic political concerns. France, which relies on nuclear for the bulk of its electricity supply, has been pushing to allow a greater role for the technology in the energy transition.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-17/eu-vote-on-renewables-rules-is-delayed-amid-nuclear-energy-spat
Europe is building LNG terminals to beat the band. This writer (link below) believes natural gas use will peak around 2030 due to unreliable wind and solar. I’m thinking that by 2030, the only way that happens is if nuclear power has moved to the fore. That won’t be possible due to build time required and p*** poor planning. By 2030, the folly of unreliable wind and solar will be even more evident than it already is. Hopefully, it will cut off at the knees the current crop of Climate Doomer politicians. Therefore, natural gas will dominate for some decades.
Yet, estimates for LNG demand vary. S&P Global Commodity Insights expects purchases of the liquefied fuel to peak in 2028-29 before easing in the following decade, albeit to levels that could still be higher than in 2022. Some other industry watchers estimate a deeper drop in consumption in the 2030s.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-15/europe-risks-lng-import-terminal-glut-as-renewable-energy-edges-out-gas
This comment is not about drying conditions in Australia even though reading a paper about it triggered these thoughts. The paper said “not unusual “ and “not unprecedented” when describing current conditions. I came upon the paper quite unintentionally. It was a citation from a citation from another citation. Just by chance.
And yet it reminded me of hundreds of other occasions where studies have said much the same thing, regardless of the research topic. Whether it’s temperatures, or rain, or floods, or SLR, or extreme weather, or glacier thinning or any number of other indicators, the recurring finding is that it’s not unusual or not unprecedented.
How else are we to react other than with a little skepticism when the research suggests that whatever we are experiencing in the early 21st century is the same as what has been experienced throughout the Holocene.
Going by ice core proxies the Holocene was worse. And it was not much different during the same stretch of time in the earlier glacial cycles. The link below shows that clearly.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
See top graphic box.
But there is a catch-22 situation. As a boomer in a country that had the birth of its grid same month as the USA, I do not remember the grid to be of any importance in my teens. I helped build it after that. Now everything depends on it. Worse, the later generations take it for granted.
Don’t quite compare to the Holocene. They had no grid to undo them.
EVs won’t take over anytime soon, Puddin-head Biden notwithstanding.
Americans are keeping their vehicles longer than ever — good news for repair shops, but bad news for anyone expecting a rapid phase-out of gas-powered cars.
Why it matters: The longer people hold onto their internal-combustion cars, the longer it will take to replace those vehicles with newer, more environmentally sustainable technology.
Driving the news: The average age of light vehicles on the road in the U.S. is now at an all-time high of 12.5 years, up three months from 2022, according to S&P Global Mobility.
Two decades ago, their average age was 9.7 years.
The big picture: Sticker prices for new cars are rising, and existing vehicles are lasting longer, giving owners reason to hold onto their current ride.
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/15/ev-electric-vehicles-gas-trucks-suvs-cars-aging
You attack the person, David. What about the content of CLINTEL? Just because a person is connected with fossil fuels in some way doesn’t mean the content isn’t true. Shame on you, David.
David, sorry but I used AI to find the references provided. I also asked for a summary which concerned advance of the Southern Andes glaciers and the same in New Zealand. Admittedly the glacier advance appeared a number of times in simple internet searches.
I did not keep the details so I’m afraid that if you wish to pursue it further then you are on your own.
Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the LIA was a global event. In matters related to our climate, nothing is ever truly global. Antarctica usually ignores the global trend and quite often the two hemispheres show opposite trends. Please don’t ask for the evidence, these are casual observations not formal ones.
It matters not whether the LIA was global or not. It certainly was not local. It was variable, but overall it lasted a very long time and it was very real.
Arguing endlessly about whether it was global or not simply obscures its importance, which is usually the point of such controversy. Regardless of how you define it, the LIA was a major period of cooling and I don’t think it can be fobbed off by speculation about volcanic activity or similar events.
Our climate history is littered with such events, showing periods of warming followed by periods of cooling. As we discussed earlier, it is clear that those who believe that CO2 is the only true factor, will always seek to remove, minimise or flat out deny the existence of such events.
For those of us who believe that they happened, it is obviously important to understand the mechanism of the warming and cooling. We have recently emerged from the LIA and are now in a warming phase. We need to understand why similar transitions seem to have happened several times in our past.
I respect your right to believe that CO2 dominates our climate but I do not share such a belief. As scientists we must explore all possibilities until we have a much better understanding than we have now.
Some find it difficult to understand that solar changes occur mainly in the stratosphere. However, in winter, the stratosphere through the polar vortex is directly connected to the troposphere. Therefore, changes in the circulation of the polar vortex, combined with changes in the geomagnetic field in the north, are already affecting the meridional jet stream and blocking the zonal circulation. Stationary highs will strongly warm the continents in summer and cool them in winter. The gradual cooling of the oceans will cause a global drop in water vapor, which could affect heat waves in high latitudes. There will be an increase in the temperature difference between the oceans in the northern and southern hemispheres. Warmer oceans in the north will cause an increase in snowfall with cold fronts descending from the north on the continents.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/
Right now, a stationary high from the south is causing strong overnight temperature drops in Australia.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/18/0300Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-230.46,-30.39,853/loc=122.974,-37.889
The action of the polar vortex in winter in the south extends to the tropics.
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Heavy snowfall will begin in the mountains of New Zealand.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/18/0400Z/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-230.18,-42.70,853
The point of removing the MWP and LIA or at least claiming it wasn’t global, is to highlight the unusualness of modern warming. If the climate is able to change to warm or cool states on its own, then it argues that modern warming could be partly or entirely natural.
The LIA – WAS global, and at least some of modern warming must be a correction from the coolest period in the entire holocene, thereby lessening the case for alarm over emissions. I don’t like these agenda driven attempts at distorting our understanding of the climate, and it’s very bad for science.
It’s important we do understand the climate – properly understand it – IN CASE we ARE affecting it. Chances are we are, but it might be at least partially serendipitous, since warming is largely beneficial. It certainly is in past warm periods. But most of all the alarm is extremely harmful to (especially young) peoples mental health not to mention the extremely poor policy that is a result of a too great a sense of urgency.
agnostic2015 wrote:
The LIA – WAS global, and at least some of modern warming must be a correction from the coolest period in the entire holocene, thereby lessening the case for alarm over emissions.
Another assertion about the LIA without any evidence.
And sorry, the climate doesn’t just “correct.” It isn’t an elastic ball. The climate changes if and only if it is forced to change.
That excludes bouncing balls.
There is TONS of evidence about the LIA. What evidence would you like? Each place in the world we have looked for evidence of the LIA or MWP it turns up.
“And sorry, the climate doesn’t just “correct.” It isn’t an elastic ball. The climate changes if and only if it is forced to change.”
And the climate DOES correct – on short timescales and also longer. If it didn’t, it would either go off to becoming a hothouse or to a ball of ice.
The inputs that affect the climate are many and complex, and they exist over short, medium, and long time periods. Sometimes they mutually reinforce and other times they cancel out.
And you can see it in the paleo record. since the beginning of the holocene there has been over all cooling trend with some periods of relative warmth and other periods of relative cool. The LIA was global and the coolest period in the whole of the holocene. Pretending it wasn’t for because it is awkward for an agenda is hardly scientific.
agnostic2015 wrote:
The LIA – WAS global, and at least some of modern warming must be a correction from the coolest period in the entire holocene, thereby lessening the case for alarm over emissions.
Let’s assume the LIA was global. How does that lessen the alarm over emissions? We know that today it’s anthropogenic GHGs that are causing warming, not the Sun, and the rate (about 0.2 C/decade) is huge.
In fact, if the LIA was global it heightens the alarm about emissions, because if it was global the lesson would be that relatively small changes in solar forcing (how big? ~ 0.5 W/m2?) led to a significant temperature change (how big?). That is, that the climate is more sensitive to forcings than we think. aCO2 alone has a forcing of about 2 W/m2.
“And sorry, the climate doesn’t just “correct.” It isn’t an elastic ball. The climate changes if and only if it is forced to change.”
And the climate DOES correct – on short timescales and also longer. If it didn’t, it would either go off to becoming a hothouse or to a ball of ice.
These changes are because of forcings, new ones or the removal of them. Without changes in forcings, the climate doesn’t change much (excepting nonlinearities, but even then there are compensating factors), viz. it’s not “elastic.”
“We know that today it’s anthropogenic GHGs that are causing warming, not the Sun, and the rate (about 0.2 C/decade) is huge.”
There are 2 assertions there that are not just debatable, but fly in the face of contrary evidence; 1) that the Sun has nothing to do with recent warming, and 2) the magnitude of the change is “huge”. There is a 3rd, that it is 0.2C per decade. It is not, it is 0.13C per decade.
The overconfidence the it can only be AGW is the argument from ignorance – we looked at everything else so it must be that. Nevermind known unknowns such as solar indirect effects or long term changes to ocean circulation.
Secondly, we HAVE seen temperature excursions similar to today in the past, because of the MWP (and the RWP and the Minoan) as well as cooler periods. They have been of a similar magnitude as the current Modern Warm Period.
“Without changes in forcings, the climate doesn’t change much (excepting nonlinearities, but even then there are compensating factors), viz. it’s not “elastic.””
This isn’t correct either…or at least it is only partially correct. I recognise, however, it is a popular view in climate science. I strongly recommend a book suggest of Judiths – “Primacy of Doubt” for a detailed explanation as to why this is too simplistic a characterisation.
There are LONG TERM oscillations and shifts that can be self reinforcing pushing the climate one way, or NEGATING, cancelling out. You can see this on short time scales and LONG. So some changes to the climate are not necessarily forced but due to internal variability. Then there are other changes that affect how much energy the Earth receives and how quickly it loses it that can be considered “forcing”.
Many of those phenomena are not fully understood and certainly not accounted for. Why just don’t know as much as we think.
agnostic2015 wrote:
There is a 3rd, that it is 0.2C per decade. It is not, it is 0.13C per decade.
Global surface 20-yr temperature trends:
NASA 0.22 C/dec
GISS 0.22
JMA 0.19
HadCRUT5 0.21
The 30-year trends are the same.
agnostic2015 wrote:
The overconfidence the it can only be AGW is the argument from ignorance – we looked at everything else so it must be that. Nevermind known unknowns such as solar indirect effects or long term changes to ocean circulation.
Which known unknows? Where is that physics?
Climate models predict the right future and find that anthropogenic GHGs are the reason for the temperature increase.
Are there models that predict otherwise? If so, which ones?
agnostic2015 wrote:
Secondly, we HAVE seen temperature excursions similar to today in the past, because of the MWP (and the RWP and the Minoan) as well as cooler periods. They have been of a similar magnitude as the current Modern Warm Period.
Really?
Show that science.
(You’re wrong.)
agnostic2015 wrote:
There are LONG TERM oscillations and shifts that can be self reinforcing pushing the climate one way, or NEGATING, cancelling out. You can see this on short time scales and LONG. So some changes to the climate are not necessarily forced but due to internal variability.
Where is that science?
Internal variability doesn’t cause a planetary energy imbalance, as has been measured today.
“Where is that science?”
I would literally have to take you through standard climate science. Are you denying there are NOT decadal, multi-decadal and centennial scale climate drivers?
But just in case you do, this paper discussion Mann et al 2020 does a very good job of going through the science that illustrates those natural drivers:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.559337/pdf
“Michael E. Mann and colleagues (Mann et al., 2020, hereafter M20) fail to find a PDO signal in global measured and modeled temperatures that is statistically different from noise. They further propose that the significant AMO-like signal is mainly due to anthropogenic aerosols in the 20th century, and to statistical artifacts before. Therefore they doubt the intrinsic nature of the two oscillations. The present paper shows that M20’s results are largely artifacts themselves with issues ranging from using inadequate data and referencing improper literature on anthropogenic aerosols with regards to the AMO to inappropriately interpreting the results with regards to the PDO.”
Discussions of these long term climate drivers turn up in another paper discussing multi proxy analysis of the Tibetan plateau:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00360/full
“All the integrated temperature series reveal the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the Little Ice Age, but the start and end timings of these multi-centennial-scale periods and their temperature amplitudes differ.”
and…
The “Standardization” composite, which is based on all 10 quantitative temperature series on the TP, suggests that the recent warming century was not unprecedented and was slightly colder than the MCA. This implies that natural multi-centennial climate variability may be larger than commonly thought, and the recent warming century may be connected to natural changes in increased solar irradiation as well as late 19th-century monsoon strengthening (Zhang et al., 2008)
THERE is your science. There’s lots more too.
“Internal variability doesn’t cause a planetary energy imbalance, as has been measured today.”
Yes it CAN.
The planet can either gain more heat, or lose it faster depending on climactic phenomenon. For example, if there was a reduction in cloudiness, the Earth’s albedo could decrease and it would be able to absorb more SW radiation, and it would then get warmer. Or, ocean currents that change slowly over centuries could change the way oceans sequester heat, causing more ice or less ice, ALSO changing the earths temperature.
I hope you next ask me for evidence that, for example, cloudiness has decreased explaining at least in part why temperatures have increased.
agnostic2015 wrote:
I hope you next ask me for evidence that, for example, cloudiness has decreased explaining at least in part why temperatures have increased.
How much has cloudiness changed?
Why has cloudiness changed?
Does climate change have a hand in changing cloudiness?
What’s been the resulting temperature change due to these cloud changes?
Is there agreement on this issue?
agnostic2015 wrote:
THERE is your science. There’s lots more too.
“Internal variability doesn’t cause a planetary energy imbalance, as has been measured today.”
Yes it CAN.
How? A planet-wide energy imbalance over decades? The Sun irradiated the Earth with some energy S. If there’s a global, decadal energy imbalance, where did the extra energy go? Or where did it come from? Is something on Earth generating energy to cause a global, decadal temperature change? A change in the Tibetian Plateau isn’t a global change. It might get warmer/colder there and get correspondingly colder/warmer somewhere else. Or cause any number of other changes. But how does your Tibetian Plateau result mean more or less energy is leaving the Earth out the top of the atmosphere?
ENSOs cause short-term surface globally averaged temperature changes. But that energy went somewhere else. The decline in the SST of the Nino3.4 region didn’t happen spontaneously. Heat left that region and sent somewhere else to do something else. Over 3 or 4 or 5 decades the “net ENSO” is very close to zero. (Try it for the ONI.) Same for the AMO and PDO and whatever. They don’t generate energy out of nothing, they just move it around without affecting the long-term energy imbalance.
How ‘clean’ are cleaner sources of energy?
“However, as the globe transitions to these cleaner sources of energy, attention must be paid to the endemic human rights issues relating to the components needed for renewable energy products. The extraction of nickel, one of the essential components of electric vehicle batteries, is for example riddled with abuses. These must be interrogated and mitigated if a just transition to renewable energy is to be achieved.”
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/powering-electric-vehicles-human-rights-and-environmental-abuses-in-southeast-asias-nickel-supply-chains/
The Disturbing Reality of Cobalt Mining for Rechargeable Batteries
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
How ‘clean’ are cleaner sources of energy?
For one thing, they don’t change the climate for the next 4,000 generations.
They also don’t swamp every coastal city on the planet.
For yet another, they don’t prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet.
Isn’t that enough?
But slavery and terrible working conditions are okay … got it.
I just read on twitter an exchange between 2 well known climate scientists on how to lower climate deniers visibility and algorithm rankings on twitter. It reminded me of a conspiracy trick between my 2 giggling high school granddaughters. Every…..single…..day something reveals to me that the activists in the climate science establishment are adolescent minded whack jobs. God help us if other sciences are populated with such immature cliques.
A new study has found that subsidence rates of 1-2 mm/yr in New York City is from buildings. Two studies from 2022 found various human induced subsidence in communities around the globe.
These 3 studies are significant because heretofore most attention has been given to geological and other natural causes which were assumed to have not been at such high rates as to affect acceleration of RSLR. These studies raise the issue of how much of the tidal gauge data over the last 100 years reflected human induced activity on the land versus the actual sea level rise. It makes the case that to the extent there is any acceleration locally, some might be from this recent human induced subsidence.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF003465
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL098477
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012602
CKid wrote:
A new study has found that subsidence rates of 1-2 mm/yr in New York City is from buildings.
Because we all know that global sea level rise is determined by a couple of stations in NYC.
You must believe that melting ice and thermal expansion don’t contribute to SLR.
Reminder: Global sea level is measured by orbiting satellites and not just a few stations at a few cities.
Reminder 2:
“Sea level rise is an indirect driver for LS [Land subsidence], but is a crucial influencing factor enhancing the damage of LS in the coastal zones.”
“Land subsidence: A global challenge,” Mehdi Bagheri-Gavkosh et al, Science of the Total Environment 778 (2021) 146193.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721012602
though in NYC the cause of LS seems to be mostly the weight of all their buildings (i.e. also an anthropogenic cause)
However:
“Onset of Modern Sea Level Rise Began in 1863 – In Line With the Industrial Revolution,” SciTechDaily 2/27/22.
https://scitechdaily.com/onset-of-modern-sea-level-rise-began-in-1863-in-line-with-the-industrial-revolution/
David Appell wrote “You must believe that melting ice and thermal expansion don’t contribute to SLR”
What is the value of Q in this equation:
Y = Q*X
where Y = change of average global ocean temperature; and
X = global change in ocean level.
Gain bonus points for quoting uncertainty numbers.
Personally, I do not think that the direction of dependence of one term on the other is known.
Geoff S
Appell
Read harder. The thrust of my comment was very narrow. Generally the assumption has been the rate of subsidence has been fairly constant and at geological speeds. These studies add a new element for assessing acceleration in RSLR of tidal gauge data. Given that there is greater weight today than 150 years ago in some coastal communities, it could be that that factor has added to the current rate of subsidence versus 150 years ago.
Think nuance.
Appell
Your vaunted GMSLR acceleration charade is evaporating into the ether. Kleinherenbrink 2019 and Dangendorf 2017 both found significantly reduced acceleration of 0.18mm/yr2, from the IPCC schtick. That is not even 1 foot over a century. Which is 11 feet less than this whiff of a prediction by EPA in 1983.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
CKid above said “Generally the assumption has been the rate of subsidence has been fairly constant and at geological speeds.”
There is considerable evidence that tectonic changes occur at Eddy cycle inflection points. And the occurrence is near abrupt, a far reality from ‘geological speeds’.
Examples that come to mind are:
the sinking of Doggerland; eddy root ~6150bce
Helike ~ root; 300bce
This one is revealing. Dated from another site to very likely ~5200bce; root. See link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/beyond-the-heretic-reality/
Of course there are some anomalies to the “uniformitarian” thinking that history prefers to ignore that they exist.
CKid commented:
Your vaunted GMSLR acceleration charade is evaporating into the ether. Kleinherenbrink 2019 and Dangendorf 2017 both found significantly reduced acceleration of 0.18mm/yr2
Those are *HUGE* accelerations. LOL.
I don’t think I’ve yet seen a SLR acceleration > 0.1 mm/yr2.
For example, the NASA SL data I cited above
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
gives, for a quadratic fit, and acceleration of
0.079 +/- 0.009 mm/yr2 (2-sigma)
So you’re quoting an acceleration over twice this value.
OK!!
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
What is the value of Q in this equation:
Y = Q*X
where Y = change of average global ocean temperature; and
X = global change in ocean level.
Pretty sure you have your equation wrong.
Y is actually the independent variable.
X is the dependent variable.
Right?
Also not sure X is easily dependent on Y. Maybe more on the heating of the top 100 m of the ocean (?).
Anyway the data exists to easily do this calculation (but with X and Y reversed). Let us know what you get.
As we’ve gone over dozens of times, the satellite data is a joke. Scientists hav identified endless sources of errors and uncertainties in the studies using satellites as a source. As these and other papers say the acceleration numbers are vastly overstated.
CKid just commented:
As we’ve gone over dozens of times
We have??
the satellite data is a joke. Scientists hav identified endless sources of errors and uncertainties in the studies using satellites as a source. As these and other papers say the acceleration numbers are vastly overstated.
Cite three papers that I can read that say the “acceleration numbers are vastly overstated.”
Prandi found uncertainties of .062mm/yr2 in acceleration, a massive difference from that found in Kleinherenbrink.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00786-7
Ablain found errors of 4mm/yr which is a massive 100% more than some papers.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-016-9389-8
Lickley found biases exceeding 15%.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/13/jcli-d-18-0024.1.xml
Ardhuin found wave spatial variability to be 4 times larger than the models
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2016JC012413?src=getftr
From thread-bombing Scientific American star David Appell | May 21, 2023 at 10:07 pm | . He wrote about an equation I posed –
“What is the value of Q in this equation:
Y = Q*X
where Y = change of average global ocean temperature; and
X = global change in ocean level.
Gain bonus points for quoting uncertainty numbers.
Personally, I do not think that the direction of dependence of one term on the other is known.”
……………….
Here are some bonus points.
The measurement of ocean levels depends in part on the assumption that the walls and floors of the ocean basins are of constant geometry or that they enclose a volume sufficiently constant that their observed and inferred movements can be ignored.
Let us now contrast this with your argument that the LIA aand/or MWP was not global, that various observations had to be put into a synthesis, or as you wrote above,
“That is, none of us had before done a global or hemispheric temperature reconstruction, so we were surprised about what the science actually said.”
David, by comparison, where are your links to the studies of ocean basin volumes that have been put into a synthesis? Will you argue that basin volume studies are not needed because you can show a few places where no relevant movement has been measured in some time span?
…………….
As to the dependence direction in my simple equation, I will claim that no hard, proper scientist would assume constant ocean basin volume in the absence of adequate measurement. We can observe movements in our times that will lead to container volume change, just as others have observed many places of evidence of the LIA or the MWP.
I have no idea of the dependence of one term on another in my equation because there are known observations of extraneous factors that can affect it. Some claim that ocean temperature changes cause level changes, but there are no related studies I have seen to quantify the change in volume from a hotter or cooler crust, if it is known. Water good, rock bad?. Advice – in hard science, do your measurements before you claim your hypothesis is true.
Besides, you have once more added to your list of dodged questions by failing to provide a key number, Q here, that is central to the discussion. Without it, we cannot relate ocean levels to the temperature of much at all. Some tide qauge sites show no change over many decades, even when corrected. How can this be?
BTW, I did not read your Scientific American article. I gave up Scientific American mid-1980s when I saw that (a) it had gone off hard science in favour of belief and also when (b) it became owned by German financiers who chose not to rename it or even be proud enough to boast about their ownership.
Geoff S
CKid wrote:
Prandi found uncertainties of .062mm/yr2 in acceleration, a massive difference from that found in Kleinherenbrink.
Assuming they’re Gaussian, uncertainties go both ways. There’s an equal probability the true value will be above the measured value as there it is below it.
And, uncertainties depend on methodologies — there is no reason to think the uncertainties should be the same just because two methodologies are measuring the same parameter.
Geoff Sherrington wrote:
The measurement of ocean levels depends in part on the assumption that the walls and floors of the ocean basins are of constant geometry or that they enclose a volume sufficiently constant that their observed and inferred movements can be ignored.
Because no one’s ever thought of that before, right?
Do some simple math.
Let’s assume the volume of an ocean is
V=HWd
where d=depth, W=width and H=height. Let’s let one of these change — maybe W, maybe due to, say, tectonic seafloor spreading (or whatever you have in mind).
Then if W changes by dW/dt (t=time) = Wdot
Vdot/V = Wdot/W
For Earth oceans W ~ 5000 km and dW/dt is what, 10 cm/yr? That gives
Vdot/V = 20 ppm/yr
The fact that sea level was essentially constant during the Holocene suggests Vdot wasn’t large, it seems to me.
—
This NASA kid’s page
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/
says satellite altimetry can measure sea level to about 3 cm from a height of 1300 km. That’s an error of about 1e-8 = 0.01 ppm.
Appell
Satellite altimetry arena is emblematic of climate science in general. Too many people think they know more than they know and more than is possible to know. These quotes are from a few more papers.
“ Gravitational attraction and loading (GAL) effects associated with ongoing long-term changes in land ice are expected to cause spatially varying trends in absolute sea level…”
“ Validation and calibration of TOPEX has often been done by means of tide gauges …” In turn tidal gauges have their own sources of uncertainties.
“ We also perform a sensitivity study to investigate a range of plausible error budgets. Local error levels, error variance-covariance matrices, SL trends and accelerations, along with corresponding uncertainties are provided.”
“ Electronic path delays, oscillator drifts, time tagging errors, antenna phase centre uncertainties, orbit errors, errors in geophysical correction models, improperly calibrated auxiliary sensors and even software conventions may cause systematic errors of the altimeter range…”
“ The bias is also more sensitive to the detailed geometry of mass flux from the Antarctic Ice Sheet than the Greenland Ice Sheet due to rotational effects on sea level. Finally, in a regional sense, altimetry estimates should not be compared to relative sea level changes because radial crustal motions driven by polar ice mass flux are nonnegligible globally.”
“ The traditional altimetry satellite, which is based on pulse-limited radar altimeter, only measures ocean surface heights along tracks; hence, leads to poorer accuracy in the east component of the vertical deflections compared to the north component, which in turn limits the final accuracy of the marine gravity field inversion”
“ However, multi-source errors of wide-swath altimetry, including random noise (RN), baseline roll and length errors, dry and wet troposphere delay, and sea state bias (Ren et al., 2020), will directly limit the precision of the retrieved SSH data.”
“ So far, satellite altimetry has provided global gridded sea level time series up to 10–15 km to the coast only, preventing estimation of sea level changes very close to the coast”
And on and on. Yet some believe that confidence in measuring GMSLR to the thickness of a dime is warranted.
CKid wrote:
Satellite altimetry arena is emblematic of climate science in general. Too many people think they know more than they know and more than is possible to know.
The fact that you think you know more than the experts who do this constantly is utterly laughable.
Your replies are always about clipping out a few sentences, with no understanding of context or impact, and trying to imply that only you are smart enough to understand anything and not the real, educated, professional scientists who are elbow-deep in the science and data collection and writing the papers — all while being afraid to write with your real name (unlike them).
An example:
“ Gravitational attraction and loading (GAL) effects associated with ongoing long-term changes in land ice are expected to cause spatially varying trends in absolute sea level…”
Varying how?
What long-term changes in land ice?
Expected in what way?
How large of trends?
In what way do they spatially vary?
and most importantly
What is the quantitative impact on the measurements of global average sea level rise?
Dave
This is all very simple, that is, for someone with common sense. The factors that create uncertainties are endless. What is laughable is that there are actually people who are so gullible that they aren’t capable of seeing a snow job when it’s staring them right in their face.
CKid just commented
This is all very simple, that is, for someone with common sense. The factors that create uncertainties are endless.
You can say that about all observations and experiments. But usually only a few of them are quantitively relevant — it’s the job of scientists to understand what is and isn’t relevant, and to establish their contribution to the overall uncertainty. And they work extremely hard of that. (I remember a physicist who did particle experiments at Los Alamos once telling me that 90% of their computer code was devoted to calculating the uncertainty of their result.) That’s precisely what’s done by those who measure sea level via satellite. The idea that you know more than they do, that you have the knowledge and expertise to label something a “snow job,” is laughable and narcissistic.
Appell
I didn’t say I knew more than what they know. I am simply repeating what they themselves have said about the inherent uncertainties. One common theme I’ve found from all the research I’ve done is that the on the ground, non activist climate scientists do their job, which is to seek the truth and speak the truth.
The satellite data is an area where intuition and science line up remarkably well. What seems like an incalculably complex job is in fact that, which all these papers I’m citing verify.
The variability of endless processes on an annual, decadal, centennial and millennial scale is a huge challenge. All these papers are simply reflecting that fact.
It starts with the geological evolution of the ocean floor and the great unknowns of the heat beneath, the changing topography, the thermocline and thermohaline, and all the circulation processes, to the currents , to the barometric pressure and to the wind patterns, and a few dozen other factors I’ve forgotten. Those interrelationships are not the same as they were a decade ago or a millennium ago. All of those factors are different from when the insolation was different and thus our climate doesn’t respond the same way it did during the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
I know it’s a bummer to not be able to wrap up the subject with a tidy little bow , ala, the Control Knob Theory, but it is what it is. The cumulative knowledge of all these papers on the inherent uncertainties of the satellite data just won’t go away.
CKid wrote:
It starts with the geological evolution of the ocean floor and the great unknowns of the heat beneath, the changing topography, the thermocline and thermohaline, and all the circulation processes, to the currents , to the barometric pressure and to the wind patterns, and a few dozen other factors I’ve forgotten. Those interrelationships are not the same as they were a decade ago or a millennium ago. All of those factors are different from when the insolation was different and thus our climate doesn’t respond the same way it did during the Holocene Thermal Maximum.
Where is the science saying these are significant factors in today’s observed global warming?
I know it’s a bummer to not be able to wrap up the subject with a tidy little bow , ala, the Control Knob Theory, but it is what it is. The cumulative knowledge of all these papers on the inherent uncertainties of the satellite data just won’t go away.
Climate models predict the future using known and well-understood physics, and show that aGHGs are responsible for all of the warming (and a bit more). Evidence your other unknown factors aren’t contributing.
We don’t have time to waste cutting GHGs, which are causing 0.2 C/decade warming, a huge rate. If there are other factors, then show them. Until then (i.e. never) we have to follow the science and cut aGHG emissions if we want to stop climate change.
Dave
If you don’t understand the significance of uncertainty, then you don’t understand science.
CKid | May 27, 2023 at 8:04 pm |
Dave
If you don’t understand the significance of uncertainty, then you don’t understand science.
Ckid – Apple is absolutely certain there are no uncertainities – absolutely certain that physics requires AGW\
CKid wrote:
If you don’t understand the significance of uncertainty, then you don’t understand science.
I understand it very well.
You use it to deny. I understand that uncertainty goes both ways.
Appell
Pay attention, I cited that number with a citation. I’m not going to nursemaid you. That was one of the first references up thread. You could help yourself if you did your own research.
I’ve cited the same numbers over the years.
“ Where is the science saying these are significant factors in today’s observed global warming?”
Appell, is this too complicated for you? The subject was factors affecting the sea level rise.
You’re starting to embarrass yourself.
CKid wrote:
Appell, is this too complicated for you? The subject was factors affecting the sea level rise.
It’s not enough to list “factors.”
They have to be quantified.
And first you have to get the orders of magnitude right. Despite all your claimed familiarity with the scientific literature, you had no idea that “0.16-0.18mm/yr2” was a huge, entirely unrealistic acceleration.
And then you said it means “1 ft/century” without understanding the basics that show it also depends on the initial SLR.
You seem out of your league.
CKid wrote:
Pay attention, I cited that number with a citation. I’m not going to nursemaid you. That was one of the first references up thread. You could help yourself if you did your own research.
Except you still haven’t explained why it reduces the concern about global sea level rise.
Or sea level rise in NYC.
Appell
It was a t….y….p…o. I make typos all the time. When I realized I typed 0.18 instead of .018, I corrected it.
If you were familiar with the literature you wouldn’t have to have your hand held. Maybe you should have a chaperone when you come in, so they can help you out.
You don’t seem to have your A game anymore. When old golf pros lose their A game, they get the yips and start missing those 4 foot putts. Then they retire. I have noticed some signs of the yips in your game. Next stop….retirement….or maybe just a hiatus will help.
I have formulated the Appell Index. It measures how flustered you are at losing the narrative by how many consecutive comments you make. The Appell Index is especially high this morning. To lower the Appell Index, the solution is usually reading the literature.
Appell
If you had read the CLINTEL report you would have known that the base trend of 2mm/yr is increased by only 4” from 8” to 12” with an acceleration of .02mm/yr2. The acceleration rate creates the parabolic curve, not the linear trend. Over 100-200 years the effect of a linear trend of 2 or 3 or 4mm/yr is chump change compared to a significant increase in the acceleration rate.
The study for NYC found VLM of 1-2mm/yr . The long term rate per NOAA is 2.9mm/yr. That doesn’t leave much for GMSLR. There are 4 factors involved in RSLR. GIA, groundwater abstraction and compression from buildings lead the way, with GMSLR a puny 4th.
I’ve already provided studies multiple times that show no or insignificant acceleration, including several in this thread. If you spent any time on research you would have already known what they are.
Whenever I read your comments, the priceless quote by Stephen Hawking comes to mind.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”
CKid wrote:
If you had read the CLINTEL report you would have known that the base trend of 2mm/yr is increased by only 4” from 8” to 12” with an acceleration of .02mm/yr2.
That’s why you shouldn’t trust the CLINTEL report — they obviously lowball the numbers and/or cherry-pick results.
It’s easy to download the data and do a second-order polynomial fit for yourself. For NASA’s data
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
The linear trend is 3.2 mm/yr since 1993.
The quadratic fit gives and acceleration of 0.079 mm/yr2, with a current SLR of 4.4 mm/yr.
Yes, the quadratic fit is a little better Pearson fit than the linear fit.
—
NYC is one place on the planet, not at all representative of global sea level rise, as no one place can possibly be.
For example, Charleston SC has seen a SLR of 21 cm in the last 20 years (average of 3.4 ft/century). Sea level there is increasing by an inch every 29 months over that time, on average. And accelerating.
(No, Charleston isn’t representative of the globe either. But they now realize they have a serious SLR problem. They’re in the middle of the Atlantic coast SLR hotspot.)
CKid wrote:
You don’t seem to have your A game anymore. When old golf pros lose their A game, they get the yips and start missing those 4 foot putts. Then they retire. I have noticed some signs of the yips in your game. Next stop….retirement….or maybe just a hiatus will help.
I have formulated the Appell Index. It measures how flustered you are at losing the narrative by how many consecutive comments you make. The Appell Index is especially high this morning. To lower the Appell Index, the solution is usually reading the literature.
Personal attacks are weakness.
Appell
You have brought up Charleston several times over the years as evidence of supposedly runaway acceleration of SLR. Each time I said variability of oceanic circulation was the primary cause.
Charleston has several factors influencing SLR. In addition to AGW, there is also coming out of the LIA and being in the warm phase of the AMO, there are long term and short term tectonic VLM factors, long term and short term subsidence from groundwater extraction and as explained in this recent paper, variability of oceanic circulation dynamics.
“ Here we report a MSL acceleration in tide gauge records along the U.S. Southeast and Gulf coasts that has led to rates (>10 mm yr−1 since 2010) that are unprecedented in at least 120 years. We show that this acceleration is primarily induced by an ocean dynamic signal exceeding the externally forced response from historical climate model simulations. However, when the simulated forced response is removed from observations, the residuals are neither historically unprecedented nor inconsistent with internal variability in simulations. A large fraction of the residuals is consistent with wind driven Rossby waves in the tropical North Atlantic. This indicates that this ongoing acceleration represents the compounding effects of external forcing and internal climate variability.”
Given all the processes affecting Charleston it would be as logical to suggest the last decade of dropping SLR at LA, is evidence of a drop of GMSLR.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37649-9
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9410660_meantrend.png
CKid wrote:
You have brought up Charleston several times over the years as evidence of supposedly runaway acceleration of SLR. Each time I said variability of oceanic circulation was the primary cause.
Yes, that is a big factor. So what? That circulation is slowing down because of anthropogenic influences, pushing water westward.
Most of the east Northern America coast is a sea level rise hot spot:
Published: 24 June 2012
Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America
Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd
Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages884–888 (2012).
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1597
CKid quoted:
“However, when the simulated forced response is removed from observations, the residuals are neither historically unprecedented nor inconsistent with internal variability in simulations.”
So when you remove all the anthropogenic causes, the sea level rise on the east coast
“This indicates that this ongoing acceleration represents the compounding effects of external forcing and internal climate variability.”
EXTERNAL FORCING (& internal climate variability).
Charleston South Carolina is probably being affected by coastal subsidence just as southern Louisiana is subsiding due to pumping oil and water out of the rocks and control of flooding on the Mississippi by massive levees. In Scandinavia, relative sea level is falling because the land is rising due to rebound from the ice age.
Sea level has been rising since the last ice age and will continue to rise. I doubt if the data is accurate enough to determine if its accelerating or not.
Appell
Nice try but your link was for the northeast coast not the southeast coast. Charleston is in South Carolina. South Carolina is on the southeast coast. Read your link again.
As I said, Charleston SLR for the last several years is mostly being influenced by multi decadal variability which means in a few years the rate will be less than GMSLR. Plus the most recent 50 year trend is below that of that 50 year trend centered on 1950.
Come up with another irrelevant piece of non evidence.
dpy6629 wrote:
“Charleston South Carolina is probably being affected by coastal subsidence”
“Probably?”
You can’t be bothered to do 15 seconds of research?
“Data from a NOAA gauge in Charleston shows that about 5 of the 12 inches of sea-level rise at the site over the past 100 years can be attributed to subsidence. It’s not clear why the land is sinking. One theory: it has to do with soil compression caused by large buildings, highways and other increased development.”
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-09-23-charleston-flooding-sinking-sea-level-rise-climate-change
That “one theory”: it’s still due to anthropogenic causes.
And so what? Charleston has to deal with the sea level rise they have, not the sea level rise that it might have been.
By the way, Sewell’s Point, Virginia, which has no large city and large buildings near it, still has a 20-year SLR of 6.3 mm/yr, over 50% higher than the global average.
dpy6629 wrote:
“Sea level has been rising since the last ice age and will continue to rise.”
There’s your claim again for which you have no data.
Why do you keep making it?
CKid wrote:
Nice try but your link was for the northeast coast not the southeast coast. Charleston is in South Carolina. South Carolina is on the southeast coast.
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
But consider these SLRs:
Key West, FL: 20-yr linear trend is 7.9 mm/yr, twice the global average. acceleration over the entire dataset = 0.024 mm/yr2
Mayport, FL: 20-yr linear trend is 8.5 mm/yr, over twice the global average. acceleration = 0.035 mm/yr2.
BTW, the accelerations for both are increasing, not constant.
CKid wrote:
“Plus the most recent 50 year trend is below that of that 50 year trend centered on 1950.”
It doesn’t make sense to talk about 50 years when SLR is accelerating, and even the acceleration is increasing. SL is increasing too fast for the 50 year trend to be meaningful or useful.
CKid wrote:
As I said, Charleston SLR for the last several years is mostly being influenced by multi decadal variability which means in a few years the rate will be less than GMSLR.
But from the Sallenger Jr et al, Nature CC, 2012 paper you cited earlier:
“The atmospheric NAO rate differences may indicate changes in strength of the gyre system. However, NAO rate differences explain only 30% of the NEH SLRDs (Supplementary Fig. S9D), and hence NAO may not contribute to forcing the NEH. The authors of ref. 2 found that NAO variations were consistent with variations in gyre transport before about 1940, but not after that time and through their simulations to 2100.”
NEH = northeastern hot spot
SLRD = sea-level rate differences
It’s Friday night and either Appell has been drinking or he is reliving his teenage years. If you did a little research you would find that most sea level gauges show a pretty constant rate of rise over their record. They are probably the most accurate data we have.
This is a problem because of stupid Federal policy in providing coastal flood insurance enabling people to build in areas frequently flooded by hurricanes and storms. Without that, people wouldn’t build in these areas. It’s a perfect of failures of policy.
Apppell
“ By the way, Sewell’s Point, Virginia, which has no large city and large buildings near it, still has a 20-year SLR of 6.3 mm/yr, over 50% higher than the global average.”
Just an overall comment about Charleston and the East Coast elevated SLR for the last several years and the evidence of subsidence.
Nothing is controversial about the entire East Coast being affected by GIA and locally by groundwater withdrawal and/or building compression. Likewise, nothing is controversial about atmospheric, winds and oceanic variability affecting short term local SLR. Hundreds if not thousands of papers have been published about these processes, not just along the Eastern US coast, but worldwide, in various continents and oceans. There is a vast amount of literature discussing this variability and the causes involved.
The dynamics are local and are not exactly replicated in other locations. That is not in dispute.
Re Sewell’s Point, there are several papers and a USGS report discussing the specifics. Groundwater withdrawal has been a big factor in that subsidence. But, then, big deal, it’s involved in the subsidence all across the world.
Yin, 6/23, which was just published, concluded the obvious. The elevated SLR for the SE US coast is expected to return to more normal rates in the next few years. Looking at the tidal gauge data over the last 100 years across the world, should lead anyone to that same conclusion.
dpy6629 wrote:
If you did a little research you would find that most sea level gauges show a pretty constant rate of rise over their record.
Really?
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
They are probably the most accurate data we have.
Why?
This is a problem because of stupid Federal policy in providing coastal flood insurance enabling people to build in areas frequently flooded by hurricanes and storms. Without that, people wouldn’t build in these areas.
I agree the federal government shouldn’t provide such coastal flood insurance.
But, of course, coastal dwellers, who are usually affluent, like it that way.
I don’t see Americans being willing to abandon coastlines anytime soon.
CKid wrote:
Yin, 6/23, which was just published, concluded the obvious. The elevated SLR for the SE US coast is expected to return to more normal rates in the next few years.
Link to yin23?
This is just another of your comments that assumes a particular future, then blames people for it when it hasn’t happened before.
Charleston is in trouble and they know it. A reduction to 4 mm/yr, if it were to happen, wouldn’t help much. Your comment is full of speculation and useless .
Appell
Go play with your tinker toys. You’re not qualified to debate me. Study the science and read the literature. Everything I’ve said is commonly known and understood by the real scientists. If you spent a minimal amount of time In reading the studies and government reports you wouldn’t have such a difficult time grasping all this.
CKid wrote:
Go play with your tinker toys. You’re not qualified to debate me. Study the science and read the literature. Everything I’ve said is commonly known and understood by the real scientists.
Your standard bluff. A way to try to end the debate without actually responding to it. You’ve done this many times.
CKid wrote:
Generally the assumption has been the rate of subsidence has been fairly constant and at geological speeds. These studies add a new element for assessing acceleration in RSLR of tidal gauge data
Orbiting satellites measure sea level all around the globe, across the vast and deep ocean, not just at the very few little points on a coastline where there may be subsidence (usually anthropogenic in origin).
Besides, tide gauges give the same rate of sea level rise as do satellites:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
DA – you only linked to an image. What processing & corrections did they do to all the tide gauge data? And why don’t the long-term tide gauges, like say Sydney or New York, not show the acceleration that the satellites do? For example, this image shows high sea level rise off Sydney not matched by the tide data.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=FVs5aqnH&id=24F9D2730C468834A0E316F8A40C89088C2542AB&thid=OIP.FVs5aqnH8iP9zaCs9ztQnQHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.155b396aa9c7f223fdcda0acf73b509d%3frik%3dq0IljAiJDKT4Fg%26riu%3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.esa.int%252fvar%252fesa%252fstorage%252fimages%252fesa_multimedia%252fimages%252f2018%252f09%252fregional_sea-level_trends%252f17703820-1-eng-GB%252fRegional_sea-level_trends_pillars.png%26ehk%3duo8h6r9O4cwL2qQeZyecTTQ6nxUzoj0dxrIGD51Bg5Y%253d%26risl%3d%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1080&expw=1920&q=se+level+rise+satellite&simid=608047140592553564&FORM=IRPRST&ck=7A7A2F99B993B27156C0D103771F9893&selectedIndex=5&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Even Palau in the centre of one of the red spots only shows quarter of the increase the satellites do.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=711-021
One of the data sets is wrong. Now which is it?
Chris Morris wrote:
DA – you only linked to an image. What processing & corrections did they do to all the tide gauge data?
What processing & corrections do they do to the satellite data?
Curious you didn’t ask that as well.
You’re more than welcome to dive into the tidal gauge data. I’m sure there are a thousand papers that discuss the tidal gauge data.
The fact that it agrees with the satellite data is important.
Chris, learn how to shorten URLs.
Chris, your bing image shows plenty of sea level rise.
The graph I gave you was a global average.
You are more than welcome to investigate individual gauges. Not sure why it matters to the global average.
The satellite data does not match the tide gauge data at specific points where they can be compared. Global averaging is rubbish if the data sets have such obvious errors.
Chris Morris wrote:
The satellite data does not match the tide gauge data at specific points where they can be compared. Global averaging is rubbish if the data sets have such obvious errors.
No? Show that data.
Give the tidal gauge data for specific points. Give the corresponding satellite data.
Show us real data, Chris.
Like maybe you are writing a paper to be peer reviewed. By me.
Those statements by you David show why scientists would never be allowed to practice as engineers. Present a model to a regulator and they spot data contradiction straight away, then it’s brushed away as disappears in global averaging. Yeah, right.
Dave
Validation between the satellite data and tidal gauge data is one of the dozens of points that have been identified in the papers as sources of errors and uncertainties. Catch up. Schooling you on science is becoming tedious. Your cultish religious beliefs are getting in the way of objective analysis.
Chris Morris wrote:
Present a model to a regulator and they spot data contradiction straight away, then it’s brushed away as disappears in global averaging.
What I see, Chris, is that you can’t provide any data when asked.
You make bold statements and, when asked for evidence, provide absolutely nothing.
All you are is words. Usually words based on ignorance.
CKid commented:
Validation between the satellite data and tidal gauge data is one of the dozens of points that have been identified in the papers as sources of errors and uncertainties.
Which papers?
The verification looks pretty good:
https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/global_average_sea_level_change.png
What’s tedious is correcting you on elementary issues (like 0.16 mm/yr2 is a HUGE acceleration) showing you have no feel for the numbers, you just toss out any Google result you think, after a short glance, might support your position.
You can’t possibly be that thick. It’s a source of uncertainty. That correlation doesn’t mean that is the true number. That is an estimate. Is all this really that much over your head. Just familiarize yourself with the literature instead of being ensconced in those paint by the numbers and rent by the hour 8th grade equations.
CKid wrote:
It’s a source of uncertainty.
OF COURSE there are uncertainties. I’ve never denied that.
But they certainly don’t obviate the results or make them irrelevant and useless, as you seem to think.
There are always going to be uncertainties in climate science. It’s an observational science — in those, you don’t get the data you want, so you have to make the best use of the data you can get. Uncertainties and all.
The nature of climate science is that we’ll have to make major decisions in the face of uncertainty. There will be no 5-sigma results. Not making decisions because, say, you think the data is too uncertain to know if true sea level is rising, is also a decision. A very bad one, IMO.
And again, uncertainties cut both ways. Not knowing a number because of large uncertainties doesn’t at all mean that number can’t create a lot of problems and do a lot of damage.
Now that we “know” SLR acceleration is 0.16-0.18 mm/yr2, when “before” it was at most about half of that, means sea level rise is an even more important issue/problem.
Your mother wears Army boots.
Appell
“ Now that we “know” SLR acceleration is 0.16-0.18 mm/yr2, ”
No, no one knows that. Those are guesses along with hundreds of other guesses that show lesser amounts and no acceleration. Studies are all over the board.
Calafat .022 not statistically significant. Haigh not expected to see statistically significant for several decades. Meyseggeniac anthropogenic forcing hardly detectable. Wenzel.0042+-.0092
Hogarth.01, Chen .041, Palanismy in the Pacific too small to be detected, Houston in the Pacific .0128 PRANDI uncertainty mean .062. On and on with various conclusions.
The Prandi uncertainty of .062 mm/yr2 and Wenzel.0042+-0092mm/yr2 says it all about the level of uncertainty. There are different approaches and methodologies coming out with different conclusions. Wisser reviewed 30 models and found varying trends based on the same data. Many papers engage in multiple scenarios with different statistical analyses.
Predictions of runaway SLR are going to fail just like the 1983 EPA one. The rise has been 3% of the predicted value after 33% of the time elapsed.
Appell
“ These altimeter sensors can precisely monitor sub centimeter global mean sea level change and thus obtain its rising rate. The Sea State Bias (SSB) is one of the largest error sources for constructing the global mean sea level (GMSL) time series. The error is on the order of a few tens of centimeters and it must be properly corrected in satellite altimetry data.” Cheng, 2019
For those who are metric challenged or recovering from a Memorial Day hangover, a few tens of centimeters is also known as a few hundreds of millimeters, or another way of looking at it, a few decades of GMSLR, depending on which decades you choose.
Appell, I want you to buy yourself some swimming trunks and rent a paddle board and hire a tugboat captain to tow you out into Drakes Passage or the North Atlantic or the South Pacific and paddle around for a few days in those multi meter waves and swells and picture a thin US dime of 1.35mm in thickness and then picture a fraction of that number and see if you think it’s good science to have confidence in a SLR calculation of negative acceleration of 0.00007mm/yr2, which was the conclusion of one paper. A little caution is in order, especially when papers routinely identify uncertainty calculations.
Those who want to believe some of these narratives use a suspension in their critical thinking skills in the same way that a 21 year old does when they still believe in Santa Claus.
CKid | May 29, 2023 at 11:34 pm |
Appell’s comment – “ Now that we “know” SLR acceleration is 0.16-0.18 mm/yr2, ”
Ckid’s comment – No, no one knows that. Those are guesses along with hundreds of other guesses that show lesser amounts and no acceleration. Studies are all over the board.
Ckid goes on to cite numerous studies.
At .16-.18mm per year2 acceleration, the SLR will double the current rate of 3.5mm per year in just 20 years. David – Ask yourself if that is even plausible.
As CKid notes with his multitude of citations, Apples claim of .16-.18mm per year2 isnt reality based.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009976
CKid wrote:
“ Now that we “know” SLR acceleration is 0.16-0.18 mm/yr2, ”
No, no one knows that.
I’m just quoting the number you provided.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/#comment-990471
You wrote:
“Your vaunted GMSLR acceleration charade is evaporating into the ether. Kleinherenbrink 2019 and Dangendorf 2017 both found significantly reduced acceleration of 0.18mm/yr2, from the IPCC schtick. That is not even 1 foot over a century.
That number came from you. You thought you it was small (“reduced”), but it is in fact anything but.
You clearly have no intuitive sense for the numbers and the science.
And then, OMG, you wrote:
“That is not even 1 foot over a century.”
You’re comparing a velocity (SLR) to an acceleration!!
LOL
You can’t even get your units right.
Back to high school physics, week 2 for you………
CKid wrote:
“ These altimeter sensors can precisely monitor sub centimeter global mean sea level change and thus obtain its rising rate. The Sea State Bias (SSB) is one of the largest error sources for constructing the global mean sea level (GMSL) time series. The error is on the order of a few tens of centimeters and it must be properly corrected in satellite altimetry data.” Cheng, 2019
Is it “properly” corrected for?
BTW this appeared in an MDPI journal. MDPI journals are very suspicious:
“Fast-growing open-access journals stripped of coveted impact factors: Web of Science delists some 50 journals, including one of the world’s largest,” Science 28 MAR 2023BYJEFFREY BRAINARD
https://www.science.org/content/article/fast-growing-open-access-journals-stripped-coveted-impact-factors
More proof you didn’t read the CLINTEL document which said 0.02mm/yr2 results in 1 foot. That came from their calculations.
You didn’t refute the correction numbers because you can’t. I always know when someone is losing the debate because they are so desperate they resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discredit the science. I have recited science. You use personal attacks.
There is still the 0.018mm/yr2 acceleration by Kleinherenbrink and Dangendorf that you haven’t be able to discredit.
CKid wrote:
There is still the 0.018mm/yr2 acceleration by Kleinherenbrink and Dangendorf that you haven’t be able to discredit.
Oh, so now the acceleration is 10 times less than what you quoted before??
https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/#comment-990471
How does that happen?
CKid wrote:
I always know when someone is losing the debate because they are so desperate they resort to ad hominem attacks rather than discredit the science.
LOL, you’re the one who has nothing better than personal insults:
“Just familiarize yourself with the literature instead of being ensconced in those paint by the numbers and rent by the hour 8th grade equations.”
https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/#comment-990790
You are very unaware. Not a sign of intelligence.
It’s called a typo. I made a simple correction of the typo. If you had done the most rudimentary search of the literature you would noticed the typo.
It’s not as if I’m not empathetic to your plight. The belief system of humans sometimes overwhelms their normal cognitive functions. Instead of easily researching whether there are many studies finding insignificant or no acceleration, you double down trying to make the facts go away. Instead of doing some work and looking up the innumerable citations finding reasons for uncertainties because of errors, corrections, adjustments, cross validation, biases, etc. etc., you prefer to go down with the ship. You could have easily done a google search and found all these studies.
It should be obvious how incredibly complex the problem is. Each square mile of ocean is like every other square square mile of ocean, both spatially and temporally. They are alike in that they are each unique. So, you have 139 million of those square miles with their own cross section signature, from the mantle under the seafloor, to the dynamic topography, to the tectonics, to the currents and thermocline and thermohaline, to the evolving stratification, to the temperature, to the rate of diffusivity, to the atmospheric pressure and dozens of other forces that change the sea level height every day and make the cross section of that square mile unlike every other cross sectioned square mile. But, just as important, that square mile is unlike that same square over the course of history. Maybe the differences are insignificant and even microscopic, but they are still different. The reason that each study has different conclusions about GMSLR and acceleration is because the variables going into their work are almost infinite. I’m not criticizing any of the studies or authors, even those finding significant acceleration. I’m simply recognizing what should be obvious. It is nearly an impossible job.
CKid just wrote” I’m simply recognizing what should be obvious. It is nearly an impossible job.”
That’s the scientific summary I think I believe. I would appreciate that as the introduction lecture and probably repeated each year of study. The highest calling of a professional is to state I can’t do what I’m beings paid to do. It takes a special kind of finder to fund that type of answer. The finder needs to believe in the law of unintended consequences which is likely to deliver an amazing reward.
So who is man enough to say science doesn’t know but it’s really worried about these things – like vast quantities of CO2 and other pollutants.
Recycling solar cells and wind turbine blades is a very high priority. They shouldn’t be build without the money set aside to recycle / make good – like a mineral mine.
So we need vast public engagement on the route to take as governments are making a ham fisted job of it, scare mongering science isn’t the right way.
Is that reasonable?
CKid wrote:
It’s called a typo. I made a simple correction of the typo.
A correction?
Writing “0.18 mm/yrs” was a correction to “0.018 mm/yrs?”
Why did you make that correction?
Based on what analysis?
CKid wrote:
More proof you didn’t read the CLINTEL document which said 0.02mm/yr2 results in 1 foot. That came from their calculations.
It could not have.
Didn’t you ever take high school physics?
To determine a displacement, you need to know more than an acceleration. You need to specify the initial velocity, i.e. initial sea-level rise.
Only then can you calculate a SL change given an acceleration.
—
Why should I read CLINTEL?
They choose to skip the peer review, publication process.
We all know why.
Paul Winstone wrote:
So who is man enough to say science doesn’t know but it’s really worried about these things – like vast quantities of CO2 and other pollutants.
I certainly haven’t seen one iota of evidence that you, Paul, are at all qualified to make such a judgement.
I mean, you’ve made it clear that you often don’t even understand the basics aspects of the science.
So why do you think you get an opinion on the subject?
David wrote
“ I certainly haven’t seen one iota of evidence that you, Paul, are at all qualified to make such a judgement.
I mean, you’ve made it clear that you often don’t even understand the basics aspects of the science.
So why do you think you get an opinion on the subject?‘
I am not familiar with the SI unit the IOTA or may be its lower case as that important.
I think everyone on earth gets the option to an opinion.
I’m here trying to find out who thinks what.
I have not given enough evidence for you to make an assertion if my science is quite good or not.
My basic physics is okay.
My climate science is very raw.
I get total power in, power out, energy storage, energy release, fluid dynamic modelling, measurement proxy. I know all measurements are wrong it’s just how wrong – the discussion here has starting to open up my understanding of how big the error bars are they significant.
Im very cautious about accepting correlation and prediction without understand the assumptions.
CKid wrote:
Instead of easily researching whether there are many studies finding insignificant or no acceleration, you double down trying to make the facts go away.
Which studies are those?
Don’t give me studies of one local place. Give me studies that look at the entire globe.
Which show no acceleration?
CKid wrote:
Instead of doing some work and looking up the innumerable citations finding reasons for uncertainties because of errors, corrections, adjustments, cross validation, biases, etc. etc., you prefer to go down with the ship.
What errors?
What corrections?
What adjustments, in particular? All data, in every experiment
& observation everywhere, adjust raw data. How can you not know that?
“Cross validation and biases.”
What do you mean, specifically?
I’m sure you don’t know either.
How do uncertainties reduce the concern about sea level rise? I have yet to see any study & uncertainty that alleviates concern — unless you only interpret uncertainties one way and only look at x – deltax and not consider the equally likely x +deltax.
THAT INTERPRETATION is a bias.
CKid wrote:
The reason that each study has different conclusions about GMSLR and acceleration is because the variables going into their work are almost infinite.
Are they?
How different are the studies w.r.t. SLR and acceleration?
Are there any studies that show no acceleration? If so, list them.
All the data I’ve seen show a current SLR of about 4 mm/yr and a positive acceleration.
So do my own calculations. (Which, BTW, are trivial.)
Which show no acceleration?
No MDPI journal articles.
CKid wrote:
It is nearly an impossible job.
Why is that?
Plenty of expert scientist, who run rings around whatever expertise you pretend you have, find a SLR acceleration.
They live with the data and the science every day.
Now tell me why you, anonymous you who is afraid to put his name behind his claims, who publishes nowhere, knows better than they do?
CKid wrote:
There is still the 0.018mm/yr2 acceleration by Kleinherenbrink and Dangendorf that you haven’t be able to discredit.
Is this the one you got wrote BY AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE????
Plenty of studies — and data, if you know enough to do your own calculation — show otherwise.
Not to mention: an additional FOOT A CETURY is huge!!
An additional foot by 2100 in Miami is also huge!
What’s the difference in the second century?
David Appell–as you know.
Sea level has been rising at very near the current rate for centuries. There has been very little acceleration in the rate of sea level rise since the start of the satellite era. There has been no tie to increased atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous rate of sea level rise.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Rob Starkey wrote:
There has been no tie to increased atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous rate of sea level rise.
“Onset of Modern Sea Level Rise Began in 1863 – In Line With the Industrial Revolution,” SciTechDaily 2/27/22.
https://scitechdaily.com/onset-of-modern-sea-level-rise-began-in-1863-in-line-with-the-industrial-revolution/
“Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863,” Jennifer S. Walker et al, 18 February 2022, Nature Communications.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-28564-6
Rob Starkey wrote:
There has been no tie to increased atmospheric CO2 and a dangerous rate of sea level rise.
“Our analysis shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing are required to explain the magnitude of the observed changes, while natural forcing drives most of the externally forced variability. The experiments that include anthropogenic and natural forcings capture the observed increased trend toward the end of the twentieth century best.”
“Detection and attribution of global mean thermosteric sea level change,” Aimée B. A. Slangen et al, Geo Res Lett, 11 August 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061356
David Appell
You point out studies that attribute sea level rise to CO2 but completely ignore the key word I wrote- “Dangerous”.
Sea level has been rising for hundreds of years. Since the start of the satellite era there has been very little change in the rate of raise. The rate of rise is NOT alarming in any way.
The climate has always been changing and always will. Some locations get better weather and other will get worse weather. Humanity will adapt and there is NO crisis.
Public EV chargers are failing at a high rate.
ChargePoint’s process is geared at fixing one of the EV transition’s most pressing problems: public charging stations that often don’t work. Parts break, information screens freeze, payment systems malfunction. Copper thieves steal the cords. Vandals damage charging plugs or, in one infamous instance, stuff them with ground meat. In the US, nascent networks mean that if the machines at one station aren’t working, there may not be another nearby.
…
A decade ago, early EV adopters were willing to put up with unreliable public chargers. Now, however, the problem threatens President Joe Biden’s EV ambitions. Biden has made electric cars a cornerstone of his climate and economic policies, devoting $5 billion to the buildout of a charging network along major roads and $2.5 billion to charging within communities. The goal is convincing every American driver to go electric. But it’s a leap of faith for many — one they may not be willing to make if they don’t trust that public chargers will work.
…
J.D. Power regularly surveys EV drivers in the US about their charging experiences, working in collaboration with the PlugShare app that many drivers use to locate stations. Two years ago, 14.5% of respondents said they’d been unable to charge at a public station. Now it’s 21.4%. “It’s definitely heading in the wrong direction,” Gruber said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-18/why-so-many-ev-chargers-in-america-don-t-work-lht2q7w4
Not a problem in the #1 EV market in the world.
“To support its transition from gas guzzlers to electric vehicles, China has rolled out more public charging facilities than the rest of the world combined. The problem is many are barely being used.
New research from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies found that public charging posts in China are used on average about once a day. Some connectors along highway routes are particularly unloved, with an average utilization rate of 1 percent, according to the study.”
https://www.autonews.com/china/chinas-public-ev-chargers-go-unloved
>”The problem is many are barely being used.”
Now why would that be ?
In Aus, I drive Sydney-Melbourne and return for both family and business. With my ICE, that is about a 9 hour each way trip. with each taking about 1.5 tanks of petrol. Refilling at the 2/3rd mark takes about 10 minutes (including a comfort stop) and perhaps a 20 minute stop someplace for eating etc
And ,,, this is true in winter (ie. car heater, air con), at night (ie. lights), using the CD/MP3 player (ie. to help stay awake), in the rain (ie. wipers), with four adults plus luggage in the car (ie. weight), on a 110km/hr freeway (ie. consistent higher speeds), with traffic either end (ie. idling at traffic lights etc with lights, heater, air con, wipers, MP3 on).
There’s the answer to my question above.
Doubtless your answer will be to change my driving needs to suit these ridiculous EV toys.
EVs are expensive (maybe a bit) and inconvenient (maybe a bit).
Sydney Melbourne by EV is 10.5 hrs with 1.5 hrs charging, 5 x 20 mins stops. Not ideal but not bad.
I see you have exceptional needs to travel long distance. BEV are not for everyone but there are some pretty good hybrids that should suit you better. Average US car drivers in the US rarely drive more than 50 miles a day and most hybrids will do 30-50 miles just on their battery. We will both be long dead before the world stops using petroleum fuels.
Did you read the story at my link?
“All those chargers in China delivered about 21.3 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2022, about 0.25 percent of the country’s total electricity consumption, according to Hove, who analyzed data from the China Electric Vehicle Charging Promotion Alliance. While utilization of individual public chargers is low, they combined to deliver enough power in December alone to move each EV in China’s fleet about 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), suggesting that many drivers are using public facilities regularly, Hove said.
In many ways, the state of China’s charging infrastructure is the envy of the rest of the world. Two of the largest installers are massive state-owned utilities to whom public good can be as important as profit margins. The nation also has ubiquitous and easy-to-use mobile payment systems that make transactions hassle-free.”
Famous movie quote: “If you build it they will come.”
This is but one example of how well thought out the Chinese EV rollout has been and how poorly the US is handling the energy transition. All the EV charging companies in the US are deep in debt and have all the problems that jim2 pointed out. Most will go bankrupt and be absorbed by one of the auto manufacturers or other conglomerate. If the US was smart, they would have assigned the Dept. of Energy the job of standardizing the charging infrastructure and allocating the grid resources to support it.
So what you are saying, Jack, that that Chinese EVs are burning an incredible amount of coal.
Paul Winstone’s reply ignored the parameters I laid out … no surprise there. Typical of the crabwalk reply though. EV’s are useless outside the inner city.
jacksmith4tx replied in exactly the manner I predicted … that is, change your driving needs. Well, restricting mobility is one of the attractions of EV’s for the activists, who don’t like leaving the inner cities.
Nonetheless, the fact that there were two replies, both crabwalking the point, rather underlines my comment.
I don’t think I’m crab walking when I say it’s expensive and inconvenient. It’s takes longer and needs more stops but it’s practical. I don’t believe the catastrophic climate emergency narrative either but I do think that too much man made pollution is a bad thing. No problem with one car driving but we do have a care for each other which is cumulative, the more wealthy and flexible have the most responsibility. So for me EV is great, I apologise for the amount of smug I’m emitting – but EV does make me feel good, I’m easily fooled. Autopilot is what sold me into Tesla, in practice the super chargers make it a delight. I agree my EV is not the best but I only have 10 years left to live, the better EVs are coming but I won’t be around to enjoy them. Sorry to be so positive.
ianl,
You are the one dodging the issue. The topic was how bad the American EV charging network is.
I’m a futurist and I enjoy watching people like you struggle with adapting to the new technology that is coming.
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” ― Omar Khayyám
“Science is a thought process, technology will change reality and politics is how you rationalize the change.”
Jack – refusing to adopt new but crappy technology isn’t “struggling to adapt.” That implies an effort to adopt, which isn’t the case.
ianl wrote:
Doubtless your answer will be to change my driving needs to suit these ridiculous EV toys.
In other words, you simply don’t give a sh!t about how your choices impact others, not now, not forever.
All you care about is what works for you and you alone.
Even as your ICE pollutes your lungs as well as everyone else’s.
Weird.
Now the projection and mind reading. People choose what works for them. It’s called freedom and it’s a great thing.
dpy6629 wrote:
Now the projection and mind reading. People choose what works for them. It’s called freedom and it’s a great thing.
Does that include the freedom to pollute the Commons as much as you want?
The Clintel report is a great step forward and the authors deserve our gratitude. I feel that during the last couple of years, non-IPCC science has made impressive advances. We now understand a great deal more about our climate and more about the politicized objectives of the UN and its agencies.
This is a huge boost for those of us who always doubted the dominance of CO2. Sadly, it makes almost no difference to the rest, those who do not follow the science but are guided by the sheer weight of alarmist rhetoric. For them, the propaganda is relentless. The BBC uses its considerable resources and media experience to conduct a never ending campaign of alarmism. Its ally, the Guardian newspaper, even created the language now used globally by journalists. You may recognise climate crisis, climate emergency, global heating (rather than warming), climate breakdown (whatever that means.) The Guardian editor instructed her staff to use more alarmist words and before long they were adopted globally. I suspect that most countries have their BBC and Guardian equivalents.
In short, we have already lost the public argument, even though the absurd Net Zero policies are deeply resented and will lead to significant hardship.
I was pondering this as I wrote about my gratitude to the Clintel authors. I regret that most people, especially those who matter, will never know the findings of the Clintel report.
Then I had an idea. What if one or more of the authors created a Summary for Policymakers? I don’t mean a fake, politicised version that overrides the science, as we expect from the IPCC, but a version that is simple and relevant to policymakers.
It could use layman’s language to explain what tricks the IPCC has been up to in order to reach its alarmist findings, the consequences for convinced policymakers and the alternative outcome for a more realistic climate scenario.
The summary could be sent to Governments, the press and other interested parties. That would be a very powerful message, in my view.
Great idea, Peter.
A “Summary for Policymakers”? Brilliant.
Where’s Judith?
People can make all kinds of projections concerning “climate change.” These are nothing more than guesses. What people can’t do is make valid PREDICTIONS. Government policy should not be bases on the specious projections based on AR6, especially given the catastrophic changes in life style (declining) , freedoms (declining), enjoyment of life (declining), and comfort (also declining)
Peter wrote:
The Clintel report is a great step forward….
Peter, why do you think Clintel avoided the peer reviewed literature?
You having faith in pal review shows why the system is a fail. Garbage and irreproducable results get through it if the right names are on the paper. There never seems to be publicised retractions either.
Remember the Climategate gatekeepers? How about Roger Pielke showing AR6 changed the narrative by only using one paper and ignoring all the others. Or the Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035? That is why your appeal to authority fails.
Chris Morris wrote:
You having faith in pal review shows why the system is a fail. Garbage and irreproducable results get through it if the right names are on the paper. There never seems to be publicised retractions either.
What “garbage and irreproducible results?”
Be specific. Cite papers.
Cite the papers that were published by “pal review,” and explain how you know that?
Remember the Climategate gatekeepers? How about Roger Pielke showing AR6 changed the narrative by only using one paper and ignoring all the others.
No — remind me of what RP (Jr or Sr?) said.
Or the Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035? That is why your appeal to authority fails.
It’s too soon to call that projection a failure.
In any case, you’re under that great apprehension that every peer reviewed paper published has to make an accurate prediction (if it does).
Lots and lots of incorrect papers have been published.
That is a good thing.
If the submissions of deniers meet the standards of peer review, they will be published too. (You haven’t provided an example where they haven’t been.)
Curious how you know the behind-the-scenes processes of paper peer review.
Do you have an inside source?
David Appell | May 21, 2023 at 9:59 pm |
“What “garbage and irreproducible results?”
Be specific. Cite papers.
Cite the papers that were published by “pal review,” and explain how you know that?”
Appell – a good example of “pal review ” is the recent gas stove link to asthma study. Basically junk science/academic fraud that passed “peer/pal review”
Pretty easy to spot the academic fraud – yet it passed “peer review”
Same with the 1 in 5 premature death from fossil fuel studies you frequently mention.
The fact that you had to ask what papers David shows you don’t actually read the literature. The stuff that was published in the IPCC reports.
David Appell asks- “why do you think Clintel avoided the peer reviewed literature?”
They didn’t. They addressed it in an analysis.
David Appell asks- “why do you think Clintel avoided the peer reviewed literature?”
RobS response – “They didn’t. They addressed it in an analysis.”
Appell could have read the actual report – including the comment on peer review: page 172
“All the chapters in this volume have been independently peer-reviewed. All reviewer comments have been carefully considered and dealt with appropriately. This is not to say that all the authors and peer-reviewers agree on every point, disagreements among us remain in some cases, but we
all had an opportunity to freely and openly debate our views. Consider this volume an independent assessment of the most important parts of AR6, an assessment that, unfortunately, was not done within the IPCC.”
Chris Morris wrote:
You having faith in pal review shows why the system is a fail.
It’s “pal review” here unless, a bad thing, unless like with the CLINTEL report, it says it’s been peer reviewed, then that’s a good thing.
Every planet and moon has for its surface the unique properties and the unique features.
–
Inevitably, for every planet and moon, there is a different, for each planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean).
–
The planet or moon average surface temperature (Tmean) is dependent on the distance from the sun and on the celestial body’s average surface Albedo.
–
What is new in present research is the DISCOVERY of the very POWERFUL, the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
The role of this discovery in planets’ and moons’ average surface temperature (Tmean) is very important.
For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is SIGNIFICANTLY amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
On top of trillions already spent or committed to unreliable wind and solar and concomitant projects, the “carbon trade” is projected to become a one trillion PER YEAR market.
Adaptation is the only rational path forward.
Countries from Gabon to Honduras and Papua New Guinea are seeking a greater share of income from the offset programs for state coffers or communities that host projects, such as reforestation, that generate the credits. The global trade is projected to grow to as much as $1 trillion per annum in 15 years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-19/kenya-to-regulate-carbon-trade-as-nations-want-more-benefits
After the specious AR6, now the WHO gets in on the FUD act with a follow-on specious prediction of death due to “climate change.” Currently, about 60 million people globally die each year. But according to the WHO’s Magic 8 Ball, 9 million deaths per year by 2100 will be due to “climate change.”
So currently we have about 60 million deaths per year out of 8 billion people. If the death rate stays the same and the 2100 population is 10 billion, there would be 75 million deaths. So that’s 15 million additional deaths, no “climate change” needed.
This is just a set-up to rob developed countries.
Under the sustainable development goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 it was agreed to work to ending poverty and inequality and to ensure healthy lives that promote well-being for all.
“All aspects of health are affected by climate change – from clean air, water and soil to food systems and livelihoods,” the WHO said. “Further delay in tackling climate change will increase health risks, undermine decades of improvements in global health, and contravene our collective commitments.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warming-world-risks-adding-9-080000187.html
I have been looking at alternative methods to use emergent constraints in determining the observed Transient Climate Response (TCR). I came up with an empirical method that uses, for CMIP5, the three scenarios R45, R60 and R85 and, for CMIP6, the three scenarios R45, ssp370 and R85 to find a constant k. This constant is determined by dividing the smoothed temperature change over the scenario period (up to 2100) by the smoothed forcing change over the same period. The k value remains very close to constant for a given model for all three scenarios and is thus used in the model Historical periods to determine a temperature change consistent with the climate sensitivity that the model displayed in the three scenario periods.
The temperature (DelT2) is determined by multiplying the Historical period forcing change by k. Model temperature changes in the historical period (DelT1) for regression with their TCR values are selected based on how well the DelT1 and DelT2 values match. If there were an insufficient range of reasonable matches for regressions, it remains an option to drill down to the best matches (smallest DelT2-DelT1 differences with closest fit to the observed DelT1) and average their TCR values.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) and Total Least squares (TLS) regressions were used with the fitted line going through the origin as prescribed by Nic Lewis in a thread written for Climate Etc. The observed TCR derived from OLS and TLS were very much the same and ranged from 1.27 to 1.37 using CMIP5 models and from 1.40 to 1.42 for CMIP6 models depending on the selected difference for DelT2-DelT1.
Of some interest from this analysis was the range of DelT2-DelT1 differences found in CMIP5 and 6 models and further that there were large differences both negative and positive and that models with smaller differences could have smaller or larger sensitivities and corresponding TCR values. I have not found a direct reference to or discussion of these differences in my literature searches. Modeling around higher sensitivities in attempting to emulate the observed temperature changes over the historical period is apparently not an easy task.
The write-up of my analysis with tables are in the link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3r89dgqouguhh2/New_Method_Emergent_Constraint_Obs_TCR.pdf?dl=0
One thing I’ve been wondering about is O isotope proxies. The ratios are primarily determined by ocean temperature where evaporation happens and precipitation between there and the sample site. Why are they often calibrated to local temperature data? They are much more akin to global ocean proxies.
Pingback: Rankkaa IPCC AR6 -kritiikkiä | Roskasaitti
According to Climate Doomers, there is no choice but for all to suffer. Adaptation is far better for us, our comfort, and survival.
But expanding AC coverage too quickly also threatens to worsen the crisis it’s responding to. Most units use a refrigerant that’s far more damaging than carbon dioxide. The nations where demand is growing fastest remain deeply reliant on coal-fired power, and most people can only afford the cheapest, most energy-inefficient units.
If efficiency standards don’t improve, “then the planet will literally be cooked,” said Abhas Jha, a World Bank expert on climate change based in Singapore.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-05-17/air-conditioners-save-lives-in-india-heat-waves-but-worsen-global-warming
@ jim2 | May 22, 2023 at 10:15 am in suspense
Bishop of The Church of Climate Doomers must step down for selling fake indulgences.
David Antonioli to step down from Verra, which was accused of approving millions of worthless offsets used by major companies
The head of the world’s leading carbon credit certifier has announced he will step down as CEO next month.
It comes amid concerns that Verra, a Washington-based nonprofit, approved tens of millions of worthless offsets that are used by major companies for climate and biodiversity commitments, according to a joint Guardian investigation earlier this year.
In a statement on LinkedIn on Monday, Verra’s CEO, David Antonioli, said he would leave his role after 15 years leading the organisation that dominates the $2bn voluntary carbon market, which has certified more than 1bn credits through its verified carbon standard (VCS).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/23/ceo-of-worlds-biggest-carbon-credit-provider-says-he-is-resigning
People are stoop id (NOT!)
A majority of voters don’t trust the news they’re getting about politics, and still agree with former President Donald Trump’s denunciation of the news media as “the enemy of the people.”
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 30% of Likely U.S. voters say they trust the political news they’re getting – down from 37% in July 2021 – while 52% say they don’t trust political news, and 19% are not sure.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/media_still_enemy_of_the_people_most_voters_say
Yet they still vote based on what is ground into them.
The ideological split is almost 50-50. And that isn’t the case for only the US, it is the case for some other countries. I find it creepy. There has to be some rational explanation for it, but it eludes me. What mechanism would be in play?
I saw a talking head (TH) on Bloomberg dissing Texas’ proposal that would enact permitting restrictions and fines on solar and wind projects. The TH opined this was ideological and would hurt “sustainability.” Of course, the fact that “sustainability” is an ideological concept is beyond his ken.
I detect a little desperation on your part. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like after a couple of decades of flattish temperatures? The public is already losing confidence in the establishment narrative. Things are going to go south big time very soon. Tick tock, tick tock.
CKid wrote:
Can you imagine what it’s going to be like after a couple of decades of flattish temperatures?
There’s your favorite silly tactic. Pretend you can predict the future, then blame people now using that prediction. So transparently ridiculous.
We won’t have a couple of decades of flattish temperatures. Physics says so. Do you know of some physics that says no warming??
I didn’t say flat. Think precise words. Flattish is not flat. You need to brush up on the literature. Make AMO your friend. At least you should hedge your bets, because a different rate of warming is not an outlier. It’s coming. Be prepared.
Flattish is not flat.
Sums you up perfectly.
@ David Appell | May 24, 2023 at 6:14 pm | David Appell plays dumb about Mann’s hockey stick.
There have been so many great demos that Mann’s hockey stick used invalid methodology. Dave pretends they don’t exist. It’s intentional on Dave’s part. Nothing he says is by accident. He is very aware of the misrepresentations.
Hockey Stick Posts
Below is a collection of links from most recent to oldest of the math work I have done to demonstrate not only the creation of hockey sticks (and other patterns) but the distortions they cause in the temperature scale of the graphs.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-posts/
jim2 wrote:
There have been so many great demos that Mann’s hockey stick used invalid methodology.
Which?
Not blogs, not Dropbox files, not Reddit or email messages.
Peer reviewed published papers.
Wrong David. All it takes is information. It doesn’t matter in what form the information comes. You refuse to tell us what’s wrong with the information presented, instead you blather on, like the shill you are, about pal reviewed litchurchure.
@ jim2 | May 28, 2023 at 10:23 am | in suspense
jim2 wrote:
All it takes is information. It doesn’t matter in what form the information comes. You refuse to tell us what’s wrong with the information presented….
What does this even mean?
You don’t have a coherent critique, just want to dismiss the hockey stick any way you can. It’s not convincing in the least.
I think Appell’s problem is a naive outsider’s view of science. I’ve done this for 45 years and the literature is quite unreliable and peer review useless. As my blog post shows it’s gotten dramatically worse since 2020. You will note Appell didn’t comment on that post. Did you read it and the citations David?
It’s hard to take you seriously until you crawl out of the New York Times bubble and confront the mountain of evidence that something is seriously wrong with science.
David
Recent research shows trees grow mainly at night. The Bristle cone pine has a short growing season. So we are constructing a temperature and other climate characteristics from a short season covering largely the night time in a certain latitude
. Add in the shading and diseases and attacks by animals and other factors affecting long lived species and what useful information do you believe this novel snapshot tells us of the global climate?
Watch this space for another “green” flop. They don’t mention the cost. Since it relies on electricity rather than “free” sunshine, I’m thinking it’s going to be expensive. And even more expensive as the Climate Doomers continue to build out unreliable energy sources.
‘Food out of thin air’ is how the Finnish company Solar Foods describes its revolutionary invention Solein, a new, sustainable, animal-free protein grown from a single cell using hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
“We are here to replace animal-based nutrition, that’s the big mission I would say, for all plant-based and similar companies,” says Dr Pasi Vainikka, Co-Founder and CEO at the company. “The problem in the food system is, broadly speaking, [using] animals and industrialised animal keeping. Like it or not, it’s a fact. Growing and harvesting that kind of nourishment with significantly less resources [and without animals] is what we’re doing.”
https://foodmatterslive.com/article/solar-foods-solein-protein-hydrogen-and-carbon-dioxide/
Saudi Arabia is buying diesel from Russia and selling its diesel to Europe. And Europe doesn’t seem to mind. Just more hypocrisy from the global “elites.”
Saudi Arabia is importing millions of barrels of diesel from Russia, despite having more than enough of its own.
The kingdom is the world’s top crude exporter and a significant seller of petroleum products. Yet it imported almost 2.5 million barrels of diesel-type fuel from Russia in the first 10 days of March, far more than at any other time in the last six years, according to Kpler data compiled by Bloomberg.
At the same time, vast amounts of the fuel continue to be sent from Saudi Arabia to Europe, which on paper looks like a potentially lucrative move. The flows also show how the global energy trade is being rerouted in the wake of sanctions on Russian supplies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-17/top-oil-exporter-saudi-arabia-loads-up-on-russian-diesel
Nuclear power will save Europe from the Climate Doomer’s unreliable energy folly based on a global warming catastrophe prediction that has no hard data to support it.
France’s available nuclear capacity to rise ahead of next winter – report
EDF’s Deputy Director of Nuclear Production Regis Clement told the paper the company had last week decided to accelerate the return of the Nogent 1 and 2, Cattenom 1 and 2, and Belleville 1 and 2 reactors to the grid. “Except for major contingencies, fleet availability will be 5 to 10 GW above that of 2022 at the beginning of winter,” Clement said.
https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/headlines/2464369-frances-available-nuclear-capacity-to-rise-ahead-of-next-winter—report
Pingback: VALUTAZIONE CRITICA DI CLINTEL DELL'IPCC AR6
… In an interview for the BBC Radio 4 podcast Fever: The Hunt for Covid’s Origin, Prof Gao says: “You can always suspect anything. That’s science. Don’t rule out anything.” …
If course there is also a need to divert the public’s gaze away from previous policy neglect and irresponsible decision making resulting in excess harm to citizens over a protracted.period.
The BBC’s penny has obviously yet to drop when it comes to climate change and what should be done to mitigate all the harm that has been done by not choosing to do what the science is telling us to do just as it failed with COVID-19 mitigation.
Perhaps one day a penny dropping will provide the human race with relief from having cowards and idiots in charge of science and stuff.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-65708746
“Perhaps one day a penny dropping will provide the human race with relief from having cowards and idiots in charge of science and stuff.”
How would you determine which category to put them in? It would have to be you who determine it, right? Or how would you determine who gets to determine? Maybe concensus. If we can just invent a peer-reviewed journaling system then everything will get settled.
I don’t believe consensus has any part to play in science in any way, shape or form, and to make the point a little clearer we now have the BBC prattling on about the solar panel ‘boom’ which has now turned into ‘what do we do with all the billions of failed units as they reach their use by dates?
For those who stuck a panel on their roof it may be a reasonable question (a reasonable assumption at the time being they could be easily recycled perhaps). However, for the large scale solar farm market an unforgivable lack of consideration, judgement and foresight and use of grey matter now confronts us with a huge problem. It is just typical of the general lack of thoughtfulness certain of the new generation have for anyone other than themselves and their bank accounts when it comes to joined up thinking.
And all the while our electricity generation need was nuclear and gas both of which are considerably greener than either solar or wind, are affordable, and offer energy price security and baseload for many, many decades without risk of failure.
And science has said nuclear and gas are what we need for at least five decades but the ‘clueless consensus science idiots’ say ‘No’ to them because solar and wind are ‘free’. And who do our idiot polittcians listen to – it must be true I heard it on the BBC?
The UK is a mess.
UK-Weather Lass wrote:
I don’t believe consensus has any part to play in science in any way, shape or form….
There is consensus in science about nearly any science that impacts technology and policy. Scientists work at the edges of consensus, attempting to put it outward.
NASA used consensus science to go to the Moon and back, right?
Anyway, “consensus” is used in climate science because the climate is changing fast and there isn’t enough time to perfect climate science to 5-sigma results. By that time GHG-based climate change will be largely over. There is a very wide and strong consensus on the most important things, such as the cause of today’s warming. Yes, there are uncertainties, but the nature of rapid climate change and its potential impact on society and on ecosystems is that we will have to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. But of course we do that all the time already.
UK-Weather Lass wrote:
And science has said nuclear and gas are what we need for at least five decades….
Science doesn’t say that at all. The science has nothing to say about how to solve climate change, or even if it should be solved. Those would be policy decisions and choices.
So a Goldman analyst thinks we should maintain spending on fossil fuels, not reduce investment for them. It sounds very laudable that this analyst seems to have our best interests at heart, so we don’t starve or freeze to death due to a lack of energy. But then, this same analyst wants to spend an id eee ot ic 6.7 TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!!! on unreliable energy sources. It makes so much more sense to adapt rather than mitigate. One estimate to build a sea wall where needed (if needed) around selected location in the US was a mere 0.5 trillion, mere chicken feed compared to the social list Church of Climate mitigation tab.
The capital allocation patterns of investors targeting environmental, social and governance goals have contributed to a global lack of expenditure on energy, which has been particularly damaging to economically vulnerable corners of society, according to the Goldman analyst. He estimates that energy spending is now about 25% lower than it was between 2010 and 2014, when it was roughly $2 trillion.
BloombergNEF estimates that reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century represents an investment opportunity equivalent to almost $200 trillion, or roughly $6.7 trillion each year. By comparison, $2.1 trillion was spent in 2021, according to BloombergNEF.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-05/goldman-analyst-calls-out-esg-bets-gone-wrong-in-energy-markets
From jim2 above: ” It makes so much more sense to adapt rather than mitigate.”
This comment appeared before; I let it pass. This time I would like to ask the question “adapt to what?”
For the past 8kyears climate and living conditions changed near every millennium. They were regulated by the Eddy cycle. Peaks were times of change, from good to worse; roots from very bleak to better. We now near a peak.
The matter is like the proverbial elephant and the blind man. What the various opinions say is only on a minuscule part of a much larger whole. The major obsession seems to be ‘computer climate models’, and now the coming of the ‘Saviour AI’ (and both will come undone by a grid failure; or worse, the collapse of the food chain).
For the past two millennia the Eddy inflection points were very mild in comparison to the earlier. No guarantee the next will be so too. (But then why should I care in my late seventies? Just academic interest?).
Melitamegalithic – I think I’m on solid ground when I say Mankind has always adapted to changing conditions. It makes much more sense to adapt to what’s in front of you than what you imagine may happen in the future, because the future is always uncertain. What’s in front of your face is not uncertain.
jim2 – you are on solid ground, up to that point. There is no alternative but to adapt, if one wants to survive.
The point of my question ‘adapt to what?’ is based on historical evidence from the past two millennia post peak warming (= Eddy peak) around the Mediterranean. In both instances the change was fast and drastic to cooler – perhaps more arid, but that is latitude dependent- . It is not the ‘climate change’ that ‘news’ talk/harp about.
It is not as uncertain as one may think if one takes a good long view into the past. There is information that leads one to perceive the probable.
This is one link to something from 2017. https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/113/
The background is from one of the editors of Clintel rep (if it is the same Andy May). The particular dates have been linked to the Eddy cycle by Javier a year after this (Nature Unbound IX).
(there is another important name N Scafetta whose work related to Kepler Trigons is key to events)
This time we have advanced technology. But will it save us from hardship of will it be our undoing? I’ve seen the techno drive increase ever faster for these past 70 years. There seem to be a tough brick wall of ignorance in the way. Hope I’m wrong.
Mega: I’m still curious about the difference in solar irradiance (at the Earth’s TOA) between the peak of Eddy Cycle and the bottom of its trough a half-cycle earlier.
Is a change in solar irradiance the causative factor for climate changes due to Eddy Cycles?
jim2 wrote:
I think I’m on solid ground when I say Mankind has always adapted to changing conditions.
When was that?
When did humans last adapt to 3 C of global warming in 250 years?
Can all species adapt, or only humans? Do you think it matters?
David Appell: You ask questions for which -if I recall correctly- I have already indicated an answer.
From my delving into this wide subject it appears Eddy cycle has little or no correlation to TOA.
I gave you this link already: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2093466177494843&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000. I suggest you do look at it (but do as you please; its packed with info you won’t find elsewhere, and I suspect you are only after new info :) )
173CE is Eddy peak, change abrupt, absolutely not change in TOA. Effect on Northern glacier substantial.
~2345bce is Eddy root, the 4K2 event start; plenty of evidence; disastrous.
In quite similar vein, you may be interested to follow this thread at another site https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/04/22/jupiter-earth-and-venus-tropical-alignments-point-to-the-mean-solar-cycle-length/comment-page-1/#comment-183568
Follow the correspondence.
David Appell: Pls ignore FB link; see this instead:
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
melitamegalithic wrote:
I gave you this link already: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2093466177494843&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000.
Those graphs, whose lettering is essentially impossible to read, don’t give solar irradiance. The top one is about obliquity and the bottom about…I don’t know what.
Besides, I’m looking for real science, not Facebook posts(!!)
Again: what is the difference in solar irradiance at the Earth’s TOA, or at the surface, between the peak of an Eddy cycle and the bottom of its trought??
It’s a very simple, but crucial, question.
Megalithic: A link to Tallbloke??!!
You can’t be serious. He’s a clown. He usually publishes laughable crap, and has no scientific credibility whatsoever.
David A: I think everyone here is after real science. One adds or debunks, with solid evidence preferably. You have your answers; do your homework.
Tallbloke site is a host. Like at this site, there also I found critical unexpected info and leads to what I was after. Much appreciated.
Some advice, unrelated to the above; : even the biggest liar with obfuscating dogma told the truth when it came to down-to-earth info. It was welcome solid evidence, not available from elsewhere. You have to glean the grains from the drivel.
melitamegalithic wrote:
Tallbloke site is a host. Like at this site, there also I found critical unexpected info and leads to what I was after. Much appreciated.
From what I’ve seen, Tallbloke often presents the junkiest of junk science.
As someone who knows some science, I find it impossible to take him seriously.
David A: Tallbloke site material is not ‘Him’. It is all who contribute and post. Some material that I posted myself there before, I assure you, was way beyond the fringe. I spoke my mind on the hypothesis of what I was interpreting. Today it is fact, proven time and again. It is contrary to some present dogma. What is definite is that all are after the facts and the real science.
Others have posted there, material that turned out to be invaluable to figure out the ‘science’. And to debunk some of the hogwash in the old dogma.
Ferret the valuable from the trash.
melitamegalithic wrote:
Others have posted there, material that turned out to be invaluable to figure out the ‘science’.
Really? Like what?
I once read that blog for awhile, and commented. I didn’t see anything that wasn’t pseudoscience.
So please tell me what scientific advances it has made.
melitamegalithic wrote:
For the past 8kyears climate and living conditions changed near every millennium. They were regulated by the Eddy cycle. Peaks were times of change, from good to worse; roots from very bleak to better. We now near a peak.
Changed nearly every millennium?? Where are those data?
Again, what is the amplitude of solar irradiance at the Earth’s TOA over an Eddy cycle?
Anyway, as has been pointed out many times:
“After 1980, however, the Earth’s temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun’s irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being the likely dominant alternative.”
Sami K Solanki, “Solar variability and climate change: is there a link?”
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 43, Issue 5, October 2002, Pages 5.9–5.13, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-4004.2002.43509.x
jim2 wrote:
It makes so much more sense to adapt rather than mitigate.
What is the cost of adaptation?
How do species adapt to ocean acidification?
One estimate to build a sea wall where needed (if needed) around selected location in the US was a mere 0.5 trillion
Will seawalls work? Doesn’t the sea go around them?
The soil under Miami is oolite, rock consisting of small round grains usually of calcium carbonate cemented together. It’s porous, so the sea will come in underneath any seawall.
Get back to me when you have some facts to discuss.
jim2 wrote:
Get back to me when you have some facts to discuss.
I asked you very legitimate questions, which you can’t answer. So you deflect.
David, I don’t have time for the Church of Climate Doomers’ Canons.
jim2 wrote:
David, I don’t have time for the Church of Climate Doomers’ Canons.
Clearly you have no idea whatsoever what adaptation will cost.
None.
You have nothing scientific to say about it at all.
I’m done looking at your comments = filter.
Eh? “The capital allocation patterns of investors targeting environmental, social and governance goals have contributed to a global lack of expenditure on energy…”
Investors don’t set energy expenditure goals.
@ firstcreateyoursitedotcomaccount
Perhaps you haven’t heard of “ESG” investing.
The Biden administration’s push to require all publically-traded firms to report their greenhouse gas emissions as a component of new public disclosure requirements is a step toward making ESG investing mandatory. In this new twist, the government will decide which firms deserve access to investment capital. Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to government regulations that will curtail new capital investments in companies that produce or consume fossil fuels.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/597837-socially-responsible-investing-is-turning-into-a-covert-war-on-fossil-fuels/
On the CLINTEL report:
“In some sense, it’s quite remarkable. It repeats many of the climate “myths” that have been debunked time and time again, and relies on the same small group of contrarians whose work has also been regularly debunked. It talks about the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the Little Ice Age. It criticises the Hockey Stick. It suggests that estimates of the global surface temperature aren’t reliable. It argues that the IPCC ignores the role of the Sun, and that models are unreliable. It suggests that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC reports suggests and, in a somewhat more modern twist, it also criticises the use of scenarios in climate models.”
“Clintel report Bingo,”…and Then There’s Physics, 5/8/23
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/05/08/clintel-report-bingo/
Read ATTP’s link where he notes an egregious error in the CLINTEL report where they compared two different graphs without adjusting for different baselines.
That’s exactly the kind of thing that would have been caught in a proper peer review process.
“whose work has also been regularly debunked”
The words “debunk” then “fact check” have been destroyed by people with enough confidence to confuse their own opinions for provable facts. I translate the phrases “regularly debunked” and “thoughtlessly slandered” into the same meaning regardless of their source.
firstcreateyoursitedotcomaccount wrote:
The words “debunk” then “fact check” have been destroyed by people with enough confidence to confuse their own opinions for provable facts. I translate the phrases “regularly debunked” and “thoughtlessly slandered” into the same meaning regardless of their source.
ATTP is a working, publishing climate scientist, so his words carry at least as much weight as any CLINTEL author.
It is obvious ATTP hasn’t looked at the graphs in the Climate4you’s website showing all the adjustments to both the NCDC & GISS data showing all the adjustments to historic data between 2008 and 2023. There is also the footnote:
Unless there is an error in the GISS temperature anomaly values downloaded on 15 September 2012 (or 15 August 2012), a major change appears to have taken place since 15 August 2012. The GISS maturity diagram below show the status per 15 August 2012, and should be compared with the diagram above from 15 September 2012. Apparently the change may reflect the September 2012 NCDC change from GHCN-M version 3.1.0 to GHCN-M version 3.2.0. Click here and here for more information on this.
Ole Humlum is tied up with Clintel isn’t he?
Looks like your Gotcha is an own goal.
And Then There’s Physics is all about advocacy. Clintel has some information errors, but some of the things that Mr. Appel is whining about are actually both correct and germane. (And Clintel is hardly the first to forget about adjusting baselines.) Sure it criticizes the Hockey Stick. So do many consensus climate scientists–because it was built on serious errors, far worse than unadjusted baselines.
Clintel Bingo, like the Climatball game that gave birth to it, is an attempt to trivialize non-consensus views by a) making it a game and b) giving the illusion that all non-consensus points have been addressed.
They have not.
ATTP looks like a site carefully curated to make catastrophic climate change appear to be a given. Might be one of the churches of the Church of Climate Doomers.
ATTP is a big fan of Skeptical Science and regularly refers people to them. The problem is that they are just a bunch of non-scientist mostly young activists and regularly put out pseudo-science. I agree with Thomas Fuller on this. It’s not a good source for science and mostly is rather vague posts that don’t say much that is definitive.
DPY – correct assessment of Skeptical science though a better characterization is beyond pseudo science.
Two months ago – they were defending the academic fraud in the gas stove asthma study- completely unable to recognize the obvious academic fraud.
Regularly promoting the 100% renewable energy studies from the Jacobsons of the world, while completely delusional with basic science and engineering facts.
In sum, anyone promoting skeptical science as a science based web site, lacks a rudimentary knowledge of science, that or a delusional understanding of science.
“Regularly promoting the 100% renewable energy studies from the Jacobsons of the world, while completely delusional with basic science and engineering facts.”
The basic science support 100% renewables – the technology and logistics are a problem, at least in the sort term but very much solvable. Even the cost is solvable from an adaptive incentive society.
David Appell also mischaracterizes ATTP’s work. He’s an astronomer and not a climate scientist.
dpy6629 wrote:
David Appell also mischaracterizes ATTP’s work. He’s an astronomer and not a climate scientist.
You’re right, thanks for correcting me. Now I know better.
Here’s his blog’s bio page:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/about-2/
Note the very first sentence: “I am not a climate scientist.”
But he has proved himself to be a very smart dude.
thomaswfuller2 wrote:
And Then There’s Physics is all about advocacy.
No it’s not, he discusses the science a great deal. You’re only saying this because you can’t disprove his science but are desperate for some way to eliminate him. So obvious.
Clintel has some information errors
Errors THAT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN MADE if they had the balls to submit their work to a good peer reviewed journal.
They didn’t.
(And Clintel is hardly the first to forget about adjusting baselines.)
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Really Thomas.
A mistake is a mistake.
If many others made the same error CLINTEL should have been even MORE aware of the necessity to adjust the data to a common baseline.
Their failure to do so is a bone-headed, telling mistake that shows they have a very low level of competence. This is an example of why no real climate scientists will take their “report” seriously.
It’s sad that Judith chose to highlight this report on her blog.
Appell is completely wrong on this. ATTP is an advocate even though he has moderated his tone in recent years. He has collaborated extensively with Skeptical Science, a group of non-scientist activists. You discredit yourself with these obvious errors.
Appell
I’ve noticed over the years a pattern with your comments, an almost total lack of knowledge of climate science. I have the perfect solution for you. Read Judith’s brand new book. It’s fantastic. I’m confident it won’t be over your head…well, I’m pretty confident anyway.
When you finish you can run with the big boys.
It might set you back a bit, but it’s well worth it, and you shouldn’t be embarrassing yourself so often. Cough up and rise up.
DPY – I strongly concur with your comment regarding Skeptical science. That site regularly publishes junk science (renewables, hurricanes, climate related disaster losses, gas stove asthma, fossil fuel “subsidies” etc). They seriously attack any commentator that points out the errors, and intensely defend the “peer reviewed” junk science without the slightest grasp of why the studies they defend are junk
CKid wrote:
I’ve noticed over the years a pattern with your comments, an almost total lack of knowledge of climate science.
Do you really think this kind of juvenile stuff insults me? Deters me?
Facts and science are needed when all you have are petty insults.
dpy6629 wrote:
ATTP is an advocate even though he has moderated his tone in recent years.
Do you agree or disagree with ATTP’s assessment that Clintel failed to adjust for different baselines when comparing GISS temperatures?
They made a mistake tangential to the main points of the report. I’ve actually read it and there are some excellent points made there. Their “error” is vastly less consequential than Mann’s splicing of the temperature record onto a reconstruction to “hide the decline” a deliberate effort at disinformation. In fact this is classical smearing to point to a small “error” and then ignore everything else.
Unlike ATTP who in the past has lied about his work and credentials, by claiming that CFD was his field and that my arguments about climate models were wrong. APPT has a long and sordid history of falsehoods and smears of perfectly honest scientists who had the temerity to stray off the South African reservation.
He has became a casper milquetoast who rarely says anything scientifically substantive. He still has a few bette noirs like Roger Pielke and Matt Ridley but his posts on them are largely vacuous and snide posturing. Or to give the benefit of the doubt maybe people actually in some cases grow up and outgrow their childish ways and learn to be more respectful of subtlety, diversity of thought, and uncertainty. If you like that better, its fine with me as its totally irrelevant to science and its current crisis. In fact ATTP seems to me to be a dying blog with vastly fewer posts and comments than Climate Etc.
dpy6629 wrote:
Their “error” is vastly less consequential than Mann’s splicing of the temperature record onto a reconstruction to “hide the decline” a deliberate effort at disinformation.
Are you even sure you know what “hide the decline” meant? Decline of what?
Why is this an error or misinformation?? MBH98 is clear about what data they’re presenting. (See caption of Figure 5.) Some of the proxy data are no good after about 1980. Do you know why?
ATTP made a claim about a baseline error in the CLINTEL report.
Do you agree with his claim, or not? If not, why not?
Are you sober today Appell? I answered the question. ATTP is probably right about this insignificant “error.” ATTP has made many errors in the past including lying about his work and expertise. Does that mean everything he writes is untrustworthy? You are just repeating an unimportant point to smear the report. It is generally well worth reading.
I will note that we can add Covid19 origins to ATTP’s long list of poor judgements.
dpy6629 wrote:
“ATTP is probably right about this insignificant “error.””
Ah, so you agree.
Doesn’t reflect well on the CLINTEL report, does it?
Other than that, you’re trying to deflect away from the error.
Come on Appell, you are doing demogaguary here. Everyone makes mistakes especially inconsequential ones. The rest of the report is very well written. I know you haven’t read it instead relying on a dying blog hosted by an activist who has misrepresented his expertise in the past.
dpy6629 wrote:
Everyone makes mistakes especially inconsequential ones.
This is a very basic mistake, not inconsequential. A college freshman should know better.
As I wrote, it’s indicative of the lack of meaningful peer review of the report.
I don’t see any reason to waste time reading it. If it had been published somewhere decent, yeah. But not self-published with at least one bone-headed mistake.
Yes, peer review is the gold standard, David. Sure it is. Well, actually, reproducing the results is the gold standard. My bad.
Because of how overwhelming the review process can be, the results are not always consistent between different articles and journals. Particularly, the decisions of reviewers can be inconsistent. One study showed that recently published articles, when resubmitted a few months later, are often rejected by the same journal – most of the reviewers did not detect that it was a resubmission, and the articles were frequently rejected due to “methodological flaws,” showing the volatility of reviewer decisions.
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2022/peer-review-in-science-the-pains-and-problems/
Chris Morris wrote:
It is obvious ATTP hasn’t looked at the graphs in the Climate4you’s website showing all the adjustments to both the NCDC & GISS data showing all the adjustments to historic data between 2008 and 2023.
What is scientifically wrong with the adjustment?
Chris Morris wrote:
It is obvious ATTP hasn’t looked at the graphs in the Climate4you’s website showing all the adjustments to both the NCDC & GISS data showing all the adjustments to historic data between 2008 and 2023.
Why should he?? That’s just blog junk, not real science. ATTP is a professional science, so he’s going to look at the quality science and not the self-published scribblings of an amateur.
Chris Morris wrote:
Unless there is an error in the GISS temperature anomaly values downloaded on 15 September 2012 (or 15 August 2012), a major change appears to have taken place since 15 August 2012. The GISS maturity diagram below show the status per 15 August 2012, and should be compared with the diagram above from 15 September 2012. Apparently the change may reflect the September 2012 NCDC change from GHCN-M version 3.1.0 to GHCN-M version 3.2.0.
LOL.
So write to GISS and ask them about this.
You can do it. Once, as soon as they sent out a link to their new monthly data, I found an anomaly of “123” in the southern hemisphere for some month–it didn’t look right. So I wrote to Gavin, who passed my concern along to his data people, who confirmed they had made a mistake, fixed it, and thanked me for pointing it out.
Do it.
And the cause of AGW is not in the least affected by this kind of thing.
After seeing your latest tedious threadbombing Dave, I think you are the living embodiment of the old WC Field’s line about if you can’t dazzle them with science, baffle them with BS.
Chris Morris wrote:
After seeing your latest tedious threadbombing Dave, I think you are the living embodiment of the old WC Field’s line about if you can’t dazzle them with science, baffle them with BS.
Another deflection to avoid answering legitimate questions and discussion.
You and Jim2 should form a club.
Finally, some grown-ups are joining the energy conversation.
Chevron Corp. said natural gas will play a long-term role in curbing climate-damaging emissions, bucking some environmental groups that see the fuel’s role as a temporary bridge to a low-carbon economy.
To that end, European buyers are signing more gas-delivery contracts of a decade or more in duration as they seek replacement sources of the heating and power-plant fuel formerly supplied by Russia, said Colin Parfitt, Chevron’s vice president of midstream.
“We see a long demand for natural gas,” Parfitt said during an interview with Bloomberg TV on Tuesday. “But we don’t think it’s just an intermediate step. We see that as a long term step.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-06/chevron-says-natural-gas-is-more-than-just-a-transitional-fuel
People are burning coal to beat the band. But, what of 1.5 C?
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-2020-2023
Frightening
jim2,
The next COP 28 meeting hosted by the UAE will be one of the most impressive green washing events the world has ever seen.
“While the UAE has pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury and to help raise $20 billion for renewable energy projects by 2035, it’s also investing more than $100 billion to increase its oil production by nearly 1 million barrels per day over the next four years.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/07/uae-oil-public-relations-cop-28-00100620
“UAE has pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury”
Midcentury goal… emigrated to fair weather away from empty wells, living off the interest by then? Or expecting not to be around to worry about it?
Oliver Stone is out hawking his documentary, “Nuclear Now.”
With unprecedented access to the nuclear industry in France, Russia, and the United States, Nuclear Now explores the possibility for the global community to overcome the challenges of climate change and energy poverty to reach a brighter future through the power of nuclear energy.
Beneath our feet, Uranium atoms in the Earth’s crust hold incredibly concentrated energy. Science unlocked this energy in the mid-20th century, first for bombs and then to power submarines. The United States led the effort to generate electricity from this new source. Yet in the mid-20th century as societies began the transition to nuclear power and away from fossil fuels, a long-term PR campaign to scare the public began, funded in part by coal and oil interests. This campaign would sow fear about harmless low-level radiation and create confusion between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Looking squarely at the problem, Oliver Stone shows us that knowledge is the antidote to fear, and our human ingenuity will allow us to solve the climate change crisis if we use it.
https://www.nuclearnowfilm.com/
Buzz-word festival:
” …unprecedented access … global community … climate change … poverty
… atoms in the Earth… Science unlocked. The United States led … 20th century … transition … scare the public … by coal and oil … sow fear … create confusion … climate change crisis…”
It was weird to see written words “Uranium atoms in the Earth’s crust”. A writer fluent in buzz words implied that Science and Nature contain the entire periodic table.
@ jim2 | June 7, 2023 at 7:30 pm in suspense.
Hydrogen sinks.
Toyota Motor Corp. and Hyundai Motor Co. have put their weight behind hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the push to reach net zero emissions, but dismal sales suggest customers remain extremely wary.
FCVs accounted for only 0.02% of global passenger vehicle sales last year, according to a report published Thursday by Bloomberg NEF, and making any long-term projections is difficult until they reach 0.1%, or about 80,000 vehicles.
On paper, hydrogen offers faster refueling and longer range, but the absence of refueling infrastructure and mass-market applications makes wider adoption a slim prospect in the near term. Most research suggests battery electric vehicles are the quickest, cheapest way to slash emissions in passenger cars.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-08/dismal-sales-undercut-carmakers-pushing-hydrogen-fuel-cells
“offers faster refueling and longer range”
than what?
You can probably answer your own question, I guess. You can search the internet, can’t you?
If Cargill can’t do it, no one can. “Lack of skilled workers” excuse it a laugh. Seems the petroleum industry can find workers, no problem. A profitable business makes it possible to pay good wages. “Green” diesel isn’t one of those businesses.
The US renewable diesel rush is losing steam as soaring costs eat into profits, prompting the world’s top crop trader and North America’s largest energy company to pull back on planned investments.
Agricultural behemoth Cargill Inc. said it has suspended plans to build a giant soybean-processing plant that would have provided feedstock to the renewable diesel industry due to “shifting market dynamics.” Exxon Mobil Corp. has meanwhile canceled a deal to buy the green fuel from Global Clean Energy Holdings Inc., a company that said it’s facing project delays in part from lack of skilled workers.
The retrenchment is a setback for an industry that expected a boost from President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in energy and climate in the US. Renewable diesel — made from crops and animal fat — is chemically equivalent to the petroleum-based fuel, and has been heralded as the best solution to reduce carbon emissions in hard-to-electrify heavy road transport.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-08/green-fuel-bubble-starts-to-burst-as-high-costs-spark-pullback
@ jim2 | June 8, 2023 at 2:29 pm in suspense.
More good news! More adults raise their hand to the Church of Climate Doomers and other non-fiduciary themes at public companies. A company should be run to make money for shareholders, not who gets to P where.
Investor support for environmental and social shareholder proposals slumped to the lowest in six years amid the Republican backlash against sustainable investing.
Average backing for resolutions focused on climate change, workers’ rights, diversity and corporate governance declined this year to about 22% at annual shareholder meetings, down from a peak of 33% in 2021, according to a tally of votes compiled by the Sustainable Investments Institute through Thursday. Support hasn’t been this low since 2017.
“That’s just striking,” said Heidi Welsh, who runs Sustainable Investments and has been monitoring shareholder votes for more than three decades. Republican opposition to ESG initiatives has become a “wrecking ball,” she said. “It’s across the board that support has dropped.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-09/support-for-esg-shareholder-proposals-plummets-amid-gop-backlash
In the past I have been somewhat puzzled by climate models with high climate sensitivities to temperature change perform reasonably well in matching the observed temperature change in the historical (observed) period. I have further questioned the lack of published papers directly analyzing this seeming dichotomy. It could always be put forth, without necessary analyses, that a model with high sensitivity, as determined by Transient Climate Response (TCR), Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and temperature changes in future periods, could be properly handling an off-setting and negative forcing, like that from aerosol that changes from the historical to the future period differently than models with lower sensitivities. An alternative view of this matter that may be seen as cynical by some is that of noting that a model to be considered a serious candidate for predicting future climate must reasonably well emulate the temperature change in the historical period and that, therefore, a high sensitivity model must be “tuned” in this period to stay in the game.
There have been papers published in recent times, linked below, that have used a truncated historical period from 1980 to 2014 for CMIP6 models and 1980 to 2004 for CMIP5 models in doing analysis termed Emergent Constraints whereby, most commonly, an observed TCR is determined with an uncertainty range that constrains model predictions for temperature changes. The reasoning for using the end of the historical period is that it minimizes the effects of aerosol forcing and combined with higher greenhouse gas forcing during this time results in a higher signal to noise ratio. What these papers are effectively doing, however, is using the model results in a period where the models are mostly showing individual intrinsic sensitivities to temperature change (as is the case in the future scenarios) without the effects of a changing and offsetting negative forcing. That notion of showing intrinsic sensitivity is reinforced by the high correlations the papers find between temperature changes of the models in the truncated period versus in the future periods. The papers do not delve much further into this analysis based on those results.
I used the CMIP5 and 6 climate data to compare the individual model temperature changes for the CMIP5 R45, R60 and R85 scenarios and the R45, ssp370 and R85 scenarios for CMIP6 models. The results are listed in the Dropbox link below. For all combinations of the CMIP5 scenarios the correlations of the model temperature changes (after smoothing the temperature series) ranged from 0.92 to 0.98 and for CMIP6 from 0.95 to 0.97. From these results, it can be seen that the model sensitivity remains a very strong influencer on the temperature change as one proceeds from one scenario to another.
It would seem an unexpected development if in the historical period the models would suddenly lose this very strong association even where the greenhouse gas forcing was less and thus the signal to noise ratio is less. However, the correlations, when using the historical temperature changes over the entire period versus the temperature changes in the future scenarios, do become barely significant and much lower. The question then becomes one of whether this is related to the aerosol affects over the entire period as opposed to the truncated period. An interesting result was found when a temperature difference, Tdiff, was calculated for a predicted temperature change based on the model climate sensitivity, DelT2, and the actual temperature change, DelT1. Those models that had the smallest Tdiff and were closest to the observed temperature change had the smallest TCR values. In other words, there were models that maintained the temperature change expected from their sensitivity over the entire historical period. In fact this relationship was further maintained by some models that had high sensitivities and small Tdiff values.
Not part of my original analysis was inspecting the entire historical period DelT1 versus that for future scenarios for the CMIP6 models for outliers. It was found that, when 4 or 5 outliers with the greatest Tdiff value out of 29 or 32 model results, depending on the scenario, were removed from regressions of the historical model DelT1 versus the future model DelT1, the correlations were significantly improved and ranged from 0.70 to 0.84. One would have to question the validity of the outliers’ historical DelT1 values based on how much the removal of those models puts the entire historical period in line with the future scenarios. One could drill down further in model selections to get an even better fit for model historical DelT1 to that of the future scenarios.
The analysis gives strong support for the intuitive proposition that the DelT1 values for climate models should follow the model intrinsic sensitivities in all the scenarios used, including that for the historical period. I await published analysis to finally obtain the detail required to resolve the apparent dichotomy of the model sensitivity and historical period temperature change. If those analyses are carried out the way I think would be proper, it will show in the emergent constraints that the observed TCR values will be in the 1.35 to 1.45 range, or lower based on how far the model selection is drilled down when it is dependent on the Tdiff values. Such analyses would further provide a criterion for selecting best models for predicting future temperature changes and alternatively point to models that need more work to become fully validated. I hope that these outcomes would not impede the undertaking of these analyses and publication of results.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1376875/FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3r89dgqouguhh2/New_Method_Emergent_Constraint_Obs_TCR.pdf?dl=0
Interesting read
Rob Starkey, where is your data showing sea level rise has been happening at the same rate for..centuries(?). Millennia(?)
I don’t think you have it.
I think you lied when you made your claims.
Dave, where is your data showing man-made CO2 will cause a catastrophe? You’ve got nada.
David Appell
Google search any study written prior to 2008 on sea level rise 1200 – present. A recent nature study shows the current rate consistent to the long term rate within the margin of error.
In spite of your many comments there is nothing alarming about the rate of sea level rise.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28564-6#:~:text=Over%20the%20pre-industrial%20Common%20Era%2C%20the%20global%20component,1.4%E2%80%89%C2%B1%E2%80%890.2%E2%80%89mm%2Fyr%20from%201940%20to%202000%20CE%20%28Fig.%201%29.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
jim2 wrote:
Dave, where is your data showing man-made CO2 will cause a catastrophe?
Define the word “catastrophe.”
Dave. I assume you can use the internet. Look it up.
That’s interesting. I will try an understand the details!
This is interesting Ken even though I can’t draw any strong conclusions from it.
My best guess is that climate models are unable to replicate the climate in the tropics because its dominated by convection. The tip off is that the vertical temperature gradient is not well reproduced and the so called moist adiabat is not correct. Also the failure to produce good patterns of SST warming has proven to be a source of overestimated warming.
Pingback: CLINTEL-Analyse des 6. Sachstandsbericht (AR6, IPCC) jetzt auch als E-Book und Taschenbuch | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: CLINTEL-Analyse des 6. Sachstandsbericht (AR6, IPCC) jetzt auch als E-Book und Taschenbuch – Aktuelle Nachrichten
You know, the “third world” countries had just as much time as everyone else to develop. The fact they chose not to, or couldn’t, isn’t really anyone else’s problem. Of course, members of the Church of Climate Doomers, like Dave, have no problem spending trillions on a problem that can’t be shown to exist. Where’s the data, Dave?
Academics say rich nations owe poor ones $192 Trillion for “atmospheric appropriation”
By Jo Nova
Some overpaid academics think the rich nations owe $192,000,000,000,000 to poorer nations because of the “carbon pollution” they emitted.
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/06/rich-nations-owe-poor-ones-192-trillion-gadzillion-for-atmospheric-appropriation/
@ jim2 | June 10, 2023 at 12:17 pm in suspense.
@David Appell,
Please show us some observations on anything, not modeling, that indicate a problem, crisis, emergency, please. TIA
How’s that Energiewende going for you, Germany? One would believe due to all the hype that Germany has the next greatest, greenest thing in energy. But boots on the ground are telling the real story.
Germany may be forced to wind down or even switch off industrial capacity if Ukraine’s gas transit agreement with Russia isn’t extended after it expires at the end of next year, according to Economy Minister Robert Habeck.
Habeck, who is also the vice chancellor, issued the stark warning Monday at an economic conference in eastern Germany, saying that policymakers should avoid “making the same mistake again” of assuming that the economy will be unaffected without precautions to secure energy supplies.e
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-12/germany-warns-of-industry-shutdown-if-russian-gas-stops-flowing
The Blue s-hole cities are actually an adaptation tactic in response to “climate change.” Instead of moving cities, they are making them so unlivable that eventually, no one will be there.
But in San Francisco, hotels are still struggling badly in both occupancy and room rates compared with before the pandemic. Revenue per available room was nearly 23% lower in April compared with the same month in 2019.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
What needs to happen for the hotel market in San Francisco to recover? Join the conversation below.
The city’s lodging business has been squeezed by crime and other quality-of-life issues that have kept many convention bookers away. Tech companies’ embrace of remote work also undercuts business travel to the city and hotel activity.
Now, a growing number of San Francisco hoteliers are signaling they may be ready to give up. In recent months, the owner of the city’s Huntington Hotel sold the property after facing foreclosure and the Yotel San Francisco hotel sold in a foreclosure auction. Club Quarters San Francisco, which has been in default on its loan since 2020, may also be headed to foreclosure, according to data company Trepp.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hotel-owners-start-to-write-off-san-francisco-as-business-nosedives-e84c64ef
And then there is this
“ Nineteen retailers have left San Francisco’s Union Square area since 2020.
The latest departures include Nordstrom, Office Depot, and Old Navy, reports say.
Retailers cite concerns over employee and customer safety related to shoplifting and other crimes.”
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-franciscos-union-square-store-closures-since-2020-2023-5
We would hope that the leaders in these urban areas would wake up to reality. We have not quite yet reached Utopia. Until we do, humans will be humans, just like they have been for thousands of years.
Gavin Newsom for President!
Katharine Hay Ho, off to La-La Land we go is out proselytizing for the Church of Climate Doomers again. So now, to amplify the fear factory, the acolytes are conflating the effects of El Nino which has been around, like, forever, with Global Warming. FUD to the max, never mind the facts.
Even the price of a cup of coffee could go up if Brazil, Vietnam and other top suppliers get hit.
“When you have an El Niño occurring on top of the long-term warming trend, it’s like a double whammy,” said Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy.
The effects last for years. Economists at the Dallas Federal Reserve warned in 2019 that damage from El Niño cycles was “likely to have a persistent negative impact on output growth” and can even “possibly permanently alter income trajectories.”
Climate researchers also found compounding economic effects. Dartmouth scientists estimated that the 1997-1998 El Niño led to $5.7 trillion in lost gross domestic product the following five years. Their modeling estimates that by the end of this century, El Niños will have blocked some $84 trillion in GDP.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-el-nino-climate-change-extreme-weather/
Seems like a good thing the UK isn’t in the EU! The EU eco-not-sees don’t want nuclear power, they only want the wind and solar that will not work.
France-Germany Spat Over Nuclear Delays EU Renewables Deal
France has been pushing for more leeway for its nuclear sector
Germany opposes changes to framework deal on renewables reform
European Union member states further delayed a decision on scaling-up renewable energy after a proposal to allay French concerns over its nuclear industry was criticized by nations led by Germany.
At a meeting of EU government officials on Wednesday, Sweden floated amending part of a framework deal reached earlier this year with the European Parliament. That would address French demands that nuclear power has greater prominence in the green shift, but it triggered skepticism from a majority of countries, according to EU diplomats with knowledge of the talks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-14/france-germany-spat-over-nuclear-delays-eu-renewables-deal-again
Of course, Germany may give France a hard time, but it is getting slack about fossil fuels also. Hypocrites! Germany will be lucky if it has any industry left after Energiewende.
(Bloomberg) — Germany is set to water down sector-based emissions targets and ease pressure on its most polluting industries — such as transport — to comply with climate goals.
Starting next year, the country’s coalition government wants to track its progress on cutting emissions by focusing on economy-wide forecasts, a more holistic approach that allows less-polluting sectors to compensate for dirtier industries.
That would replace the current focus on annual emission-reduction goals by sector — as well as obligatory measures if the targets are missed.
The move has been criticized by climate experts, who have warned that the reform will make it even harder for Germany, one of Europe’s biggest polluters, to meet its emissions goals. While the Economy Ministry defended the reform as helping overall efforts, it added that the country is still on track to fall short by a fifth of its goal to cut 1990 emission levels by 65% until 2030.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/germany-to-weaken-climate-safeguards-in-boon-for-polluters-1.1933123
I’ll have another serving of fossil fuels, thank you very much!
In the European oil industry, green is out of fashion and black is making a comeback.
The trend has been months in the making, but it reached a high point on Wednesday when Shell Plc announced what amounts to a pivot back into hydrocarbons and a promise to deliver higher returns to shareholders.
Gone are the days when Shell aimed to reduce its oil production every year, and lavishly invest in loss-making electricity businesses. Now, Wael Sawan, the company’s new-ish chief executive officer, has promised that it “will invest in the models that work – those with the highest returns that play to our strengths.” Translation: more spending on fossil fuels, less solar and wind.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-14/shell-pivots-back-to-oil-away-from-esg
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
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
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar 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
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 =
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.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: The Green Cult And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - DAVID RAUDALES
Pingback: La teoría del “dolor efectivo” – Margincfd
Pingback: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - The Thoughtful Thinker
Pingback: The Green Cult And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” – SlikkyHelp
Pingback: La teoría del “dolor efectivo” – The financials new
Pingback: La teoría del “dolor efectivo” – Journalscrypto
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Rapid Telecast
Pingback: La teoría del “dolor efectivo” – Journalscrypto
Pingback: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Paving the Way to Financial Empowerment!
Pingback: La teoría del “dolor efectivo” – The financials new
Pingback: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Today Stock Markets News
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” – SlikkyHelp
Pingback: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - The Thoughtful Thinker
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Invito Energy Partners
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - DB Energy Advisors
Pingback: Sandstone
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - The International Energy Transition
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of "Effective Pain” - Invito Energy Partners
Pingback: The Green Movement and Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The Green Movement And Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Life insights daily
Pingback: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: Theory of “Effective Pain” • Getting it? - News7g
Pingback: The Green Movement and Energy Prices: The Theory Of “Effective Pain” - Climate- Science.press
Pingback: A Twitter Debate on Clintel’s IPCC AR6 Critique – Andy May Petrophysicist
Pingback: A Twitter Debate on Clintel’s IPCC AR6 Critique • Watts Up With That?
Pingback: A Twitter Debate on Clintel’s IPCC AR6 Critique • Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: A Twitter Debate on Clintel’s IPCC AR6 Critique - Climate- Science.press