The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their latest assessment report (AR6) in 2021. In 2023, the Clintel Foundation published a report which criticizes AR6.
Clintel is short for Climate Intelligence, and the Clintel Foundation doesn’t think there’s a climate emergency. Overall, Clintel’s main criticism is that the IPCC hasn’t reviewed the scientific literature in an objective way, as is their stated mission.1)
This article focuses on the topic of chapter 2 of the Clintel report: The Resurrection of the Hockey Stick.
What is a “hockey stick” temperature graph?
The image below shows a “hockey stick” temperature graph for the past 1000 years. This particular version is from the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s third assessment report from 2001, and it applies only to the Northern Hemisphere.
The graph is called a hockey stick graph because the shape somewhat resembles an ice hockey stick with a long, flat “shaft” and a big “blade” shooting up at the end. If there had been more variability in the temperature before the “blade” – meaning that the “shaft” wasn’t flat – then it wouldn’t be a hockey stick graph.
Short summary
A “hockey stick” temperature graph has made a comeback in the latest IPCC report from 2021 (AR6), after being absent in the fourth and fifth reports.
Unlike the previous two reports which included multiple temperature estimates, AR6 relies on just one temperature estimate for the past 1000-2000 years, sparking criticism.
Moreover, this single estimate has itself been criticized. The perhaps most important issue relates to a method that incorrectly generates hockey stick temperature graphs from non-hockey stick data.
In general, the quality and amount of data that can tell us something about past temperatures quickly decline when we go further back in time. Based on the currently available data, it might therefore be impossible to know whether the global temperature of the past 1000-2000 years has a hockey stick shape or not.
Why is the hockey stick important?
A hockey stick temperature graph is convincing evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases have a big impact on the climate, and according to IPCC, humans are responsible for roughly 100% of all warming over the past 150 years.
For Clintel, who doesn’t think there’s a climate emergency, it would make their argumentation easier if past temperature variability were higher, as more of the recent warming could then be attributed to natural causes. They write that if past temperature variability has been high, then “the temperature rise of the past 170 years would have to be shared [between] anthropogenic and natural causes.” 2)
However, this way of thinking is a fundamental mistake, according to climate scientist Ulf Büntgen. He argues that a high pre-industrial variability would mean that the atmosphere is more sensitive to changes in e.g. greenhouse gases, than if pre-industrial temperature variability has been low.3)
In any case, what’s most important is, of course, to get a correct estimate (or “reconstruction”) of past temperatures — whose shape may or may not resemble a hockey stick. Let’s explore!
From Chapter 2 of the Clintel report:
One of the big surprises of the IPCC’s AR6 report was the comeback of the so-called “hockey stick“. This term refers to the northern hemispheric and global temperature development of the past 1000-2000 years. More than two decades ago, Mann et al. (1999) published a reconstruction in which the temperatures of the pre-industrial period 1000-1850 AD appear rather flat and uneventful (the “shaft” of the ice hockey stick), followed by a fast and allegedly unprecedented warming since 1850 (the “blade”). The hockey stick became world famous because it was featured prominently in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) in the IPCC’s 3rd Assessment report [see image at the top of this article].
The hockey stick graph received a fair amount of criticism, and Clintel explains that the hockey stick graph was subsequently corrected — resulting in a temperature reconstruction with more pre-industrial variability, and thus without a hockey stick shape. IPCC’s fourth and fifth assessment reports did not include a hockey stick temperature graph, but in the most recent assessment report (AR6), the IPCC once again presents a temperature reconstruction with low pre-industrial variability – a new hockey stick:
The new hockey stick temperature reconstruction is based on the work of PAGES 2k, the flagship of the PAGES (Past Global Changes) project. Clintel writes:
The PAGES 2k group is specialised in climate reconstructions and back in 2013 was comprised of the majority of all active paleoclimatologists. In 2019, PAGES 2k published a new version of the temperature development of the past 2000 years (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2019 4) [hereafter “PAGES 2k 2019”]). 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[.]
And:
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.
It would be very interesting to read more about this. Unfortunately, Clintel doesn’t provide a reference.5) Anyway, Clintel continues:
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[.]. [Emphasis added]
Did they really prove it? Probably not.
PAGES 2k 2019 is a global multi-proxy temperature reconstruction. Büntgen et al. 2020, on the other hand, applies only to the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere, uses only one proxy-type – tree rings, and only looks at summer temperatures, not yearly temperatures. Still, it may actually make sense to compare Büntgen et al.’s reconstruction with PAGES 2k 2019, but that’s not immediately obvious, and a discussion of this by Clintel could have been beneficial.
What’s a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction?
In the previous paragraph, the term multi-proxy temperature reconstruction was used. A proxy — in this case a proxy for temperature — is an alternative to a direct temperature measurement with a thermometer. We’ve only had thermometers for a few hundred years, so we have no direct measurements of temperatures before that. To be able to estimate past global temperatures, scientists thus have to use less accurate alternatives instead of direct temperature measurements. These alternatives are called proxies. One proxy that can be used for temperature is tree ring width. Trees will typically grow more in a warm year than in a cold year, so for certain temperature sensitive trees, bigger tree rings could mean higher temperature.
A multi-proxy temperature reconstruction is an estimate of past temperatures that’s based on multiple proxy types. Tree ring width is typically one of several proxy types used in a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction.
The reason it may still make sense to compare Büntgen et al. 2020 and PAGES 2k 2019 is that PAGES 2k 2019 is also biased towards the Northern Hemisphere, towards summer temperatures, and towards the use of tree ring proxies:
PAGES 2k 2019 used 257 6) proxies out of a total of 692 proxies in the PAGES 2k database. 210 of these are high-resolution proxies with yearly resolution. In the below image, which is parts A, B and C from Figure 2 of Anchukaitis and Smerdon 2022, we can see
A) that most of the proxies with yearly resolution are based on trees (tree rings),
B) that the average latitude is not the equator, but 47 degrees north, and
C) that most of the proxies capture summer temperature (the growing season for trees in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere), not yearly temperature.
Criticism of PAGES 2k 2019 and IPCC
Anchukaitis and Smerdon 2022, where the above image is taken from, is an article that reviews “the strengths and limitations of existing global and hemispheric paleoclimate temperature reconstructions and highlight[s] likely sources of [existing] uncertainties, all in the context of [IPCC AR6].” They’re quite critical of the IPCC’s new hockey stick graph.
One thing they criticize IPCC for, is that the IPCC did not consider a variety of multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, which they had done in their previous two assessment reports (AR4 and AR5):
Despite the attempts in AR4 and AR5 to reflect uncertainties across multiple reconstruction efforts and to represent time-dependent uncertainties as they expanded back in time, these efforts were surprisingly abandoned in the most recent AR6 Working Group I (WG1) report in favor of a single ensemble-based reconstruction of global temperature with relatively static uncertainty bounds over the [past 2000 years.] […] The most recent assessment […] is thus a turn away from the attempts in previous reports to provide a full accounting of uncertainty in reconstruction efforts […], an incomplete representation of forward progress in both understanding and quantifying disagreement in temperature reconstructions of the [past 2000 years], and is an unnecessary return to a singular representation of large-scale temperature estimates that span all or part of the last several millennia.
Another point made by Anchukaitis and Smerdon, which they also touched upon in the above quote, is that the uncertainty range in the new hockey stick graph is far too narrow, especially when we get further back in time:
[T]he estimated uncertainties for this reconstruction used in AR6 only reflect the methodological differences as applied to the PAGES2k dataset at decadal and longer time scales. Much larger latent uncertainties are almost certainly present due to the change through time in proxy availability, sensitivity, and spatial distribution[.] Because the consequences of these uncertainties are poorly represented in AR6, which is intended to reflect an assessment of the current state of the science, the report fell short in its representation of what we know and what we have learned about Common Era [=past 2000 years] temperatures over the last two decades. [Emphasis added]
Clintel, of course, also criticizes PAGES 2k 2019:
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 (Büntgen et al. 2012; Seim et al., 2012).
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. [Medieval Warm Period] data from Pyrenees and Alboran Sea in [PAGES 2k 2013]) (Lüning et al., 2019b). Outliers can have several reasons, e.g. a different local development, invalid or unstable temperature proxies, or sample contamination.
However, starting from the third sentence, this text is virtually copy-pasted from a study by Lüning and Lengsfeld (2022). Clintel could have at least added a reference to that study. Also, it’s unclear whether the last paragraph applies to PAGES 2k 2019 or just to earlier PAGES 2k versions. If it does indeed apply to the 2019 version, then the Clintel report would have benefited from documenting it.
A new temperature reconstruction that includes short-term trends
As noted, PAGES 2k 2019 is a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction (although it may be biased towards tree-rings), while Büntgen et al. 2020 only uses tree rings. All things equal, multi-proxy reconstructions should be preferred over single-proxy reconstructions; according to Büntgen et al. 2022, there is “community-wide agreement that multi-proxy compilations are the most appropriate methodology to climate reconstructions“.
One reason that multi-proxy reconstructions are better is that some proxy types can reveal short-term temperature variability, but not long-term variability, while others can reveal long-term variability, but not short-term variability.
And while “tree rings are excellent at capturing short frequency variability, they are not very good at capturing long-term variability.” (Fundamentals of Tree-Ring Research, James H. Speer, 2009) This is also pointed out by Büntgen et al. 2020 itself, the study that used tree-rings only:
[Tree ring width] is particularly limited when reconstructing the amplitude and duration of climatic extremes[.]
And:
While we have no doubt about the timing of past summer cooling in our reconstructions, accuracy of the temperature amplitude remains somewhat challenging.
Since some proxy types are good for capturing short-term trends, while others are good for capturing longer-term trends, the best way to make a temperature reconstruction should be to use proxy-types that capture long-term variability for the long-term trends, and then use e.g. tree rings to show the short-term variations on top of the long-term trends.
Titled “A frequency-optimised temperature record for the Holocene“, Helen Essell et al. 2023 is a study that combines short-term and long-term proxies in this way. It’s the first study that attempts to “present […] temperature variability on interannual timescales over the past 12 000 years.” Previous studies have had a much lower (worse) time resolution, and hence the temperature graphs from those studies have been smoother and with less variability.
However, while “interannual signals ([less than] 10 years) are best captured by tree-ring chronologies (wood)“, only 3 tree-ring proxies were included in the study. Unfortunately, the study doesn’t discuss uncertainties related to the low number of short-term proxies.
The study performs a global temperature reconstruction, but like most other “global” reconstructions, there is a bias towards the Northern Hemisphere and summer temperatures.
Also note that the study looks at the time period 12,000 – 0 BP, where BP means “before present” and “present” is defined as the year 1950. This is a longer time period than we normally talk about for hockey stick temperature graphs, which is 1000-2000 years. Hockey stick temperature graphs also normally include the time period after 1950, which is often represented by thermometer data in addition to proxy data. Helen Essell et al. 2023 does not use thermometer data.
Although the time period is different, it’s interesting to compare IPCC’s hockey stick graphs with the new temperature reconstruction from Helen Essell et al. 2023, which looks like this (where light green shows the uncertainty range):
If the results of this study are broadly correct, then pre-industrial temperature variability has been high, which would mean that hockey stick temperature graphs are not correct.
Since Helen Essell et al. 2023 is a new and novel study, it may or may not contain important errors, but their criticism of the IPCC is very relevant regardless; the IPCC should not compare long-term average temperatures with recent yearly (high) temperatures:
[W]e remain critical of the interpretation of the smooth trajectories of existing Holocene temperature reconstructions, which have influenced policy debate. For instance, the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ and ‘Technical Summary’ compared recent annual extremes against past centennial averages. Such unequal comparison has the potential to mislead portrayal of the threat of global warming as low- and high-frequency records reflect different aspects and amplitudes of the Earth’s climate system. [References removed]
Stephen McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre is a central figure in the hockey stick controversies. McIntyre thinks (as does Clintel) that the IPCC wanted to get a hockey stick temperature graph: “the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks“, he wrote in a 2021 article on his blog, ClimateAudit, where he explains some of his major complaints about the new IPCC hockey stick.
Stephen McIntyre is well-known for his criticism of Michael Mann’s original hockey stick graph. He has been reporting errors in the PAGES 2k temperature reconstructions since at least 2013, when the IPCC was set to use data from the PAGES 2k project in its 5th assessment report (AR5). Much of the proxy data was already familiar to McIntyre at the time, since many of the proxies used by PAGES 2k had also been used by Michael Mann and in other earlier temperature reconstructions.
So it’s safe to say that McIntyre is very knowledgeable when it comes to the proxies underlying the temperature reconstructions that have been published in the last few decades. And in 2019, McIntyre commented on Twitter that: “[…] I probably know the data better than the article lead authors[.]“
Asian tree ring chronologies: – It’s worse than anyone can imagine
What’s a tree ring chronology?
A tree ring chronology represents the year-to-year variations in tree growth within a geographical region. In a chronology for temperature sensitive trees, the variations in tree growth will roughly correspond to temperature variations. Scientists take samples from lots of temperature sensitive trees in a region, and you can think of the resulting chronology as an average of all those trees.
The most common tree ring proxy is tree ring width. There may be better tree ring proxies, but tree ring width is the one that’s easiest (cheapest) to measure.
Since the cross-section of the stem of a tree grows roughly the same amount each year, tree rings are typically wider for younger trees. For this reason, you can’t directly compare tree ring widths and say that, just because the tree ring was wider in a given year, that the temperature was also higher in that year. You have to first adjust for the age of the tree and potentially other factors. This adjustment is called standardization (or detrending), and it’s usually performed on data for each tree before the data from individual trees are combined into a chronology.
There are many problems with the chronologies included in PAGES 2k 2019. Here, I’ll just focus on the most important issue. But see footnote 7) for a summary of some other issues.
According to McIntyre, some of the tree ring chronologies included in PAGES 2k are incorrectly calculated:
It’s hard for a statistical methodology to be so bad as to be “wrong”. Mann’s principal components methodology was one seemingly unique example. PAGES2K’s Asian tree ring chronologies are another. It’s worse than anyone can imagine. [Emphasis added]
In a 2021 article, McIntyre writes about the Asian tree ring chronologies used by PAGES 2k. He writes that many chronologies were introduced without having been reviewed. The ones that made it into the latest PAGES 2k version were the ones that were the most hockey stick-shaped:
About 20% of the PAGES 2019 proxies are 50 Asian tree ring chronologies, all of which were originally published as chronologies in PAGES (2013). At the time, none of these series […] had ever been published in technical literature, peer reviewed or otherwise. Nothing in the Supplementary Information to any of these articles says who calculated these chronologies or how they were calculated. […]
PAGES (2013) was originally rejected by Science in 2012, because peer reviewers (including Michael Mann) objected to the introduction of so many new proxies in what was ostensibly a review paper; they sensibly recommended that components first be peer reviewed in relevant specialist journals. However, PAGES2K results had already been incorporated into a pending IPCC assessment (AR5), so the authors, now under a very short deadline, submitted to Nature, which was confronted by the same review problems that led to the rejection by Science. Keith Briffa had a clever, too clever, solution: publish the PAGES2K submission as a “Progress Article” – a classification that did not require the peer review procedure required for a Research Article. This would qualify the article for IPCC and nobody would notice the sleight-of-hand. (Even I didn’t notice it at the time; someone told me.)
One of the consequences of the 2013 manoeuvring was that several hundred Asian tree ring chronologies were introduced to paleoclimate archives with no technical publication or technical peer review, no information on how they were calculated or even who among the PAGES2K (2013) authors had calculated them.
Having been introduced through the back door, so to speak, nearly all of the 200+ Asian tree ring chronologies were carried forward into the PAGES (2017) compilation, and then a subset of 50 chronologies (more or less the most hockey stick shaped) was screened to become a substantial component of PAGES (2019) – the source of the IPCC Summary for Policy-makers Hockey Stick.
One of the new Asian tree ring chronologies is shown below. In addition to “Asia_207”, it also goes by the name “paki033” and “Asia-MUSPIG”:
The x-axis shows the year, and the y-axis shows ring width index, which corresponds to temperature in the region. The higher the ring width index, the higher the temperature. In an ideal world, at least.
Below are two chronologies that McIntyre calculated from the underlying tree ring widths using two normal standardization procedures (middle and right) compared with the PAGES 2k 2019 chronology (left):
As we can see, there is no hockey stick in the chronologies calculated using the standard procedures. And actually, temperature (or tree growth) seems to be going down rather than up in the 20th century, “so how did PAGES2K manage to get such a hockey stick? I have no idea“, wrote McIntyre in 2021.8) In 2023, however, Hampus Söderqvist (@detgodehab on Twitter/X) had been able to reverse engineer the algorithm used by PAGES 2k.
It turned out that the algorithm had a tendency to add upticks at the end — making hockey sticks from non-hockey stick data. This was verified by McIntyre and Söderqvist by cutting off the last 50 or 25 years of data before applying the algorithm. From Twitter:
bingo. Excluding the last 50 years of data, paki033 had an even bigger blade //50 years earlier//. For good measure, @detgodehab did test excluding 25 years and got same big blade //25 years earlier//.
It didn’t happen for all tree ring datasets, though, but the fact that it happened for some, means that the algorithm can’t be trusted and shouldn’t be used. However, the algorithm was used not only for this one site in Asia, but for several others as well, contributing significantly to the hockey stick shape of PAGES 2k’s (and IPCC’s) temperature reconstruction:
@detgodehab has verified that same flawed algorithm was used for at least 8 other Pakistan sites. Note that these sites (together with Columbia U’s Mongolia chronologies) dominate PAGES19 list of heavy contributors to closing blade.
(See this sub-thread on Twitter for more details on what the algorithm did for certain tree ring data.)
The “signal-free” procedure
The problematic standardization procedure used by PAGES 2k is called signal-free detrending.9) As we’ve seen, tree rings aren’t very good at preserving long-term temperature trends, and the signal-free procedure was created with the intention to at least partly solve this problem — to preserve medium-term (up to one century) variability in tree ring temperature reconstructions.10)
Looking to the scientific literature, we actually find a criticism of this procedure that’s very similar to McIntyre and Söderqvist’s; Pearl et al. 2017 found that
the signal-free detrending procedure increased the amplitude of the early and late ring-widths beyond reasonable growth patterns for the species[.]
and that
the use of [signal-free standardization] instead of traditional [negative exponential] chronologies results in an overestimation of recent temperature trends and a lack of reconstruction skill. [Emphasis added]
An overestimation of recent temperatures was exactly what McIntyre and Söderqvist found could happen.
How much can we actually know about past temperatures?
In light of the big differences between global temperature reconstructions, one might wonder how much we can actually be certain of when it comes to past global temperatures. In a 2021 article, The future of paleoclimate, Jan Esper and Ulf Büntgen address this issue:
Our understanding of natural climate variability rapidly declines over the Common Era (CE) [Common Era=past 2000 years] as the pre-instrumental temperature amplitude differs substantially among large scale reconstructions. Highlighting such differences and emphasizing paleoclimatic findings is crucial for placing [human-caused] climate change in a long-term context. We argue that more proxy records are needed to accurately reconstruct first millennium CE temperature variability[.] [Emphasis added]
The number of proxies as well as the quality of these series declines back in time, so that only a few records are available during the early centuries of the [Common Era]. All of these issues, i.e. the limited resolution, reduced replication, and increased dating uncertainty, affect our ability to accurately assess past temperatures and cause a blurring of the climate record back in time. [References removed]
In their opinion, we can know very little about global temperature variability prior to the year 1400:
Yet the circumstance that the next IPCC report will no longer include a paleoclimate chapter should not mistakenly be interpreted as evidence that natural climate variability is understood. The opposite is actually the case. We are in the dark already before 1400 CE, have a rather limited idea of the magnitude […] of pre-industrial warm periods, and know much less about the Southern Hemisphere[.] [Emphasis added]
Conclusion
Whether the average global temperature of the past 2000 years forms a hockey stick pattern or not might not be possible to determine from existing proxy records. And there’s disagreement in the scientific literature about how much the pre-industrial global temperature has varied since year 0.
Although the IPCC knew about the disagreement, they still chose to rely on a single temperature reconstruction for the past 2000 years (PAGES 2k 2019) in their latest assessment report. That in itself is unfortunate, since they’re supposed to make an objective assessment of the scientific literature. It’s even more unfortunate considering all the criticism PAGES 2k 2019 has received.
Did the IPCC want to present a hockey stick temperature graph? The Clintel Foundation and McIntyre believe so, and I wouldn’t be surprised, either. But it’s hard to prove.
Footnotes:
1) An objective review is at least one of IPCC’s stated missions. On their About page, one of the things the IPCC writes is:
An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise.
2) Lüning and Lengsfeld 2022 has the same perspective as Clintel. They write:
As a rule of thumb, the larger[…] the pre-industrial temperature changes, the higher[…] the natural contribution to the current warm period (CWP) will likely be, thus, reducing[…] the CO2 climate sensitivity and the expected warming until 2100.
3) As part of Büntgen’s response to a question about whether his recent work would help the “climate deniers” or the “climate change proponents”, Büntgen argues that a high pre-industrial temperature variability would mean that the climate sensitivity is also high:
There is one thing that often gets taken wrong if we are reconstructing past climate and we show more natural variability. Some people, they don’t understand it fully, they would say “ah okay, you are able to show us that [the] climate system was always varying, so where is the problem?” This is the wrong assumption, the assumption is that this only indicates that the climate system is very sensitive, so it’s about the sensitivity. That means even without [varying amounts of] greenhouse gases, we had these fluctuations; we had cold and warm periods. So that means the sensitivity of the [Earth] system is very high, which makes the effect of greenhouse gases even bigger, right? So I think it is exactly the counter-argument. If we are able to show that pre-industrial temperature and precipitation changes were relatively big, it only means that the additional effect of greenhouse gases will be even further a problem.
I haven’t found a discussion in the scientific literature comparing the opposing perspectives of Clintel and Büntgen.
4) Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the main text of PAGES 2k 2019 at Nature. However, a free version of the main text is available here.
5) But an article by Swedish blogger Maths Nilsson may lend some support to Clintel’s claim. Nilsson had asked climate scientist and fellow Swede, Fredrik Ljungqvist, whether a new hockey stick had been commissioned by the IPCC, something that the Clintel report suggested might have happened. According to Nilsson, Ljungqvist’s answer was a categorical no:
So I contacted Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist (FCL), co-author of both the Page[s] 2k (2019) and Büntgen (2020)-papers. What did he say?
First of all, the IPCC did NOT in any way commission the Page[s] 2k-study as Clintel implies ([Ljungqvist] used the capital letters).
Nilsson’s next paragraph then hints at a possible justification for Clintel’s claim that some researchers seem to have left PAGES 2k in dispute — at the very least, there seems to have been disagreement:
[Ljungqvist] did however confirm that some leading [paleoclimatologists] do not think the Page[s]2k graph was properly used in the IPCC AR6-report. They don’t think there is sufficient data to even reconstruct a global mean temperature with precision 2000 years back (most data comes from northern [hemisphere]). [Ljungqvist] somewhat regrets putting his name on the Page[s]2k-study. [Emphasis added]
6) Stephen McIntyre has made available a folder with two files. One file, proxy_pages2019.csv, shows an overview of all 257 chronologies (although only the tree ring chronologies were visible to me by default — I had to unhide the others). The other file, info_pages2019.xlsx, includes all yearly values (temperature, ring width index or similar) for all 257 chronologies.
The PAGES 2k 2019 study also links to much of the same data, but in a harder-to-read data format.
7) Some of the other potential problems that McIntyre writes about:
The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick:
“The idea/definition of a temperature “proxy”“, McIntyre writes, “is that it has some sort of linear or near-linear relationship to temperature“. He argues that this is not the case for the proxies underlying e.g. PAGES 2k 2019. To illustrate his point, McIntyre visualizes random samples of 11 proxies from each of PAGES 2k 2017, PAGES 2k 2019, and tree ring chronologies from North America (used by PAGES 2k 2019), and compares them with PAGES 2k 2019’s resulting hockey stick graph. A few proxy chronologies have a hockey stick shape, but in those cases, according to McIntyre, the hockey stick shape was the result of errors in calculating the chronology. One chronology looks like an upside-down hockey stick. McIntyre suspects PAGES 2k 2019 flips it over (!), which means it would contribute positively to the final hockey stick shape.
PAGES2019: 30-60S:
PAGES 2k 2019 includes very few southern hemisphere proxies. In the 30-60 degrees south latitude band (southern extra-tropics), PAGES 2k has included only 8 proxies. Of the 8 proxies, 7 are tree rings, and none are ocean proxies despite 94% of the area being ocean. The 8 proxies had been reduced from 19 proxies in PAGES 2k 2017. Only one proxy goes back 2000 years, one goes back about 1200 years, and the rest are shorter than 600 years. The final PAGES 2k reconstruction has a much more pronounced hockey stick shape than any of the 8 proxies that it’s made up of.
PAGES19: 0-30S:
PAGES 2k 2019 includes 46 proxies in the 0-30 degrees south latitude band (southern tropics). However, only 2 of them go back 2000 or nearly 2000 years. Among the rest, none of the proxies go back further than the year 1500 AD, and about half have a start date after 1850. McIntyre comments: “None of these short series shed any light on whether the medieval period, for example, was warmer than modern period or not.” 43 of the 46 proxies are coral proxies, and strangely, there are only two proxies from land.
There are two different coral temperature proxies, δ18O and Sr/Ca. δ18O looks at the ratio of two different oxygen isotopes in the coral, the common 16O and the much less common 18O. The Sr/Ca proxy looks at the ratio of two different chemical elements in the coral, Strontium (Sr) and Calcium (Ca). According to McIntyre, “PAGES2K is primarily populated with d18O series – which, in specialist articles, are seldom, if ever, used as temperature proxies, as Sr/Ca is usually preferred. Changes in 20th century coral d18O are nearly always much more pronounced than corresponding changes in coral Sr/Ca. Perhaps that’s why they were selectively chosen into the PAGES2K network.” A little speculation at the end there, but from having read many of McIntyre’s articles, the speculation is certainly very understandable.
PAGES 2019: 0-30N Proxies:
PAGES 2k 2019 includes 41 proxies in the 0-30 degrees north latitude band (northern tropics), which is down from 125 proxies in PAGES 2k 2017. The removed proxies were mostly ocean sediments and tree rings, “all of which were much longer than the retained coral proxies“. Among the 41 remaining proxies in PAGES 2k 2019, only one extends back 2000 years, while two others go back around 1000 years. 8 of the proxies are from tree rings, two of which had upticks at the end. However, the upticks didn’t appear when standardizing the raw data using normal detrending-algorithms. “In response to a recent inquiry, the PAGES2019 authors were unable to identify how the chronology was calculated and refused to find out.” Presumably, they were calculated using the same flawed algorithm that was used for the Asian tree ring chronologies discussed in the main text (the signal-free procedure).
8) The reason McIntyre didn’t know was that PAGES 2k hadn’t documented which standardization (or detrending) method was used to create each tree ring chronology. I already quoted McIntyre saying this (“Nothing in the Supplementary Information to any of these articles says who calculated these chronologies or how they were calculated“), and Klippel et al. 2020 confirms it:
[T]he PAGES2k database contains no information regarding the detrending method used to produce the tree-ring chronologies in its collection[.]
Also, when McIntyre asked two of the PAGES 2k authors about the standardization method on Twitter, Nick McKay replied that he didn’t know which method had been used.
9) Here’s a technical explanation from McPartland et al. 2020 for why the algorithm is called signal-free:
The term “signal-free” refers to the creation of detrending curves that do not contain the common signals shared across the trees in a chronology, and are thus ‘free’ from common variance and should preserve this signal in the resulting chronology.
In its original formulation, [signal-free standardization] was primarily intended to improve the expression of medium-frequency (i.e., decades to one century) variance associated with climate forcing.
Joanne Nova posted a “Hockey Stick” graph of the increase in U.S. Postal Rates over time that correlates BETTER with the rise in the Global Mean Temperature.
US Postal rates drive global warming
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98a75e18ab89a8bf454233527c34bd25cad2952f7ec65ac380f0d4892cb1a322.jpg?w=600&h=343
HIDE THE DECLINE…Climate Change over the past 1000 years per the IPCC
https://fromtone.Com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Comparison-charts-768×332.jpg
An even more remarkable correlation is that between the discourse of the first 25 authors of the posts that follow, and the 25 criteria for evaluation by physics paper reviewers set forth at the time of Mann et al’s 1998 Nature publication by Professor John Baez of the University of California.
Readers are invited to keep a running score as the discussion progresses:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/03/field-hockey-sticks-brandished-after.html
If the temperature has gone up 1 or 1.5 c (can we really
measure the world temperature that accurately ? ) so what .
It’s been rising since the last ice age,geologicaly CO2 is at a
low point we need to at least maintain the level we have or
Increase it.
Nope and nope. Until the last 150 years, temperature had been slowly dropping since the Holocene maximum ~ 8000 years ago. As for CO2, it has been 16 million years since it is as high as it is now.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/
During the warm period humanity has flourished.
Humanity will do fine in a warmer climate. The CO2 mitigation actions will make at best a very slight change to the CO2 growth curve and no noticeable change to the weather. All that will change is the economy.
Rob, thanks for your proclamations.
Polly, the relative point of this essay is paleo data resolution.
I suppose you should begin by presenting the most recent unsmoothed granular 8k temperature record. I’d bet the Helen Essell et al record shown in this essay, a 12k year record, if smoothed enough, would unveil at least a couple hockey sticks that fit within your virtual reality construct. But otherwise thanks too for your own proclamations that we should be comfortably freezing today.
BA Bushaw,
“Until the last 150 years, temperature had been slowly dropping since the Holocene maximum ~ 8000 years ago. As for CO2, it has been 16 million years since it is as high as it is now.”
–
16 million years since…
What a SCIENCE!!!
Was it actually before or after the Big Bang?
–
“Until the last 150 years, temperature had been slowly dropping since the Holocene maximum ~ 8000 years ago.”
You saw it all upside-down, BA Bushaw, because temperature had been slowly rising since the Holocene minimum ~ 8000 years ago.
If CO2 is constantly rising while there are decades of temperature flattening, then that demonstrates no dominant physical relationship with CO2.
It is very much mistakenly asserted: “Thermometers on the surface measure the global and temporal 288K kinetic median temperature.”
–
Thermometers on the surface never did that, it was radiometers on satellites that measured the 288K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
is the gist of that study that temps have been very much in sync with CO2 ? or that CO2 has been very much in sync with temps ? ie a very high correlation between the two.
Joe, Demetris Koutsoyiannis suggests your latter question.
Jungletrunks,
Still juvenile.
There is annual resolution over the period of interest, ice cores, speleothems, and tree rings. While the conversion of proxy to temperature may have uncertainties, they are very good at detecting changes, particularly large ones on a centennial scale. But don’t need to rely on proxies; fortunately, the instrumental record has sufficient data to characterize the changes we have been seeing, and studying, for 50+ years.
Polly, unsmoothed comps in the expanded record is the reference.
BA Bushaw,
” the instrumental record has sufficient data to characterize the changes we have been seeing, and studying, for 50+ years.”
–
Good point. The changes are for warming.
The warming continues since the Holocene Minimum.
–
There were not any “Holocene maximum” ~ 8000 years ago.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The vapor pressure of any gas in the atmosphere that also dissolves in water, in the oceans, is a function of the how much of the substance is in the water and a function of the temperature of the water. Yes, CO2 in the atmosphere will correlate with changes in ocean temperatures with some lag. This is basic natural principals.
Open a warm and a cold carbonated drink, experience the differences.
Christos: references?
Trunks: Essell’s work pretty much confirms my expectations, noting that data stops at 1950.
Others: forcing and feedback are not mutually exclusive, nor do they necessarily have the same time characteristics.
Babs
How do you know what the temperature has been doing on Planet Earth over the past 10k yrs if you were not everywhere all at once for the whole damned period? You have no better idea than anyone else and it is time you admitted to your countless biases and blemishes. At least here in UK we have archeological evidence of the abundant lives of our very distant ancestors during the Holocene.
Like the rest of us you are just calling form from the various sources available to all the punters on the planet including the fraudulent material provided by the Mann family in an attempt to fix the odds in his favour.
The truth may one day out and I don’t believe you will like it one bit when it happens.
BA – Curious if you performed even a minutia bit of due diligence on that study? or even tad bit of critical thinking analysis or did you just accept the findings because it fit the narrative?
“Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have driven an increase in the global atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 parts per million (ppm) before industrialization to an annual average of 419 ppm in 2022, corresponding to an increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) of 1.1°C over the same period. If global CO2 emissions continue to rise, atmospheric CO2 could exceed 800 ppm by the year 2100. This begs the question of where our climate is headed. The geologic record is replete with both brief and extended intervals of CO2 concentration higher than today and thus provides opportunities to project the response of the future climate system to increasing CO2. For example, it has been estimated that global surface temperature 50 million years ago (Ma) was ~12°C higher than today, in tandem with atmospheric CO2 concentrations some 500 ppm higher (i.e., more than doubled) than present-day values. Consistent with these estimates, Antarctica and Greenland were free of ice at that time”
Ganon –
Temps in tandem with co2 ? really
The driver being co2?
little accounting for the Milankovitch cycles?
little accounting for changes in the sun’s output over the 50 million years?
“Mann’s hockey stick has been replicated a multitude of different proxies and statistical methods!”
As noted by the criticism of the HS’s, the statistical analysis, especially the methodology of the confidence intervals remains weak.
There seems to be a very high degree of confidence in the accuracy of the results of the paleo reconstructions that exceeds the quality of the resolution of the underlying proxies.
It’s not a HS, it’s a temperature vs time graph. From everything I’ve seen, it is well described by a very slowly varying baseline, with an exponential growth starting around 150 years ago. There are also smaller changes (annual variability, internal SOs). It is nice to be able to see all this in the instrumental record. The paleo reconstructions tend to support this interpretation, as do orbital (Milankovitch) cycles.: Since the Holocene optimum, temperature has dropped slowly ~0.2 C/1000 yr, until the last 100+ years, where the increase is now on the order of 1.5 C
https://mega.nz/file/EmE3GTjC#oyp0jXeQHZNC_fWu9jnxX8kMMRKlwqY_C0RQX03PH9E
Temperature – by proxies which you employ when they fit your story, and drop when they don’t.
No, I’d go with cross-correlated multi-proxies, if they address a time span of interest. My interest is more in what is happening now, and the couple of centuries leading up to now.
“I’d go with cross-correlated multi-proxies”
Please do.
ganon1950,
Why are there no uncertainty bars surrounding that graph? The era when LiG thermometers were the primary tools for observational meteorology had too much uncertainty. An observer had to be physically present to record the data. Do you believe that an observer in northwestern Montana will go out during the coldest part of winter mornings to take measurements? If an observer were to consistently delay the recording to later in the morning during winter, this would introduce a consistent positive (warm) bias.
At the very least, one cannot record with high precision consistently during winter. The same goes for the hot summer. The observer’s ability to stay fully cognizant during data collection will certainly be affected by these harsh conditions.
What graph? Explain the temperature (and other climate indicators) over the last 50+ years that have been recorded automatically and with full globe coverage. Saying, maybe it was human recording error because they didn’t like the weather is silly.
Here’s a graph since 1900, not showing a hockey stick
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2022/07/gmt-best-annual-and-seasonal.png
Data source?
Thank you, Ron.
It is the best graph I have seen for ages!
The graph shows exactly what happens – there is a millennials long continuous warming trend on Earth’s Global temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Source?
ganon, source is Richard Lindzen and John Christy, figure 4
The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
How it works and why it is misleading
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Global-Mean-Temp-Anomalies12.08.20.pdf
Thanks Ron,
Tells me what I need to know.
Figure 4, uses a graphical-statistical “trick” to make it look like nothing at the end of the “hockey stick” because of scale compression (see fig 5 for an honest representation) and limits data to only the range of the “blade”. So you are right, the blade of a HS that has been flattened and had its shaft removed, doesn’t look much like a HS. The attempted deception (yours or theirs?) is pretty obvious.
What it shows is an increase in average temperatures so small no one could notice it unless bombarded with hype.
Ron, no, it shows the same temperature differential as in figure 5. Sorry, you don’t understand the power of statistical averages, but choose to use them for intentional misrepresentation.
Ha Ha. ganon. you need to look in the mirror.
‘As noted in the text, the inhabitants of the Earth experience the anomalies as noted by the black circles, not the yellow squares.”
Still you have the last word.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/troll-detected.png
As noted in the text, the inhabitants of the Earth experience the anomalies as noted by the black circles, not the yellow squares.
No, Ron. The black circles represent what is measured at individual temperature measurement stations. The yellow squares represent the statistically weighted (area) average of these values. Do you really not understand the misrepresentation involved? Figure 4 is scaled appropriately to observe the distribution of individual station values. Figure 5 is scaled appropriately if you wish to discuss the trend of the average, which is what you did.
Ron,
Thanks for the meme – tells me all I need to know. Ciao.
Ron Clutz wrote:
ganon, source is Richard Lindzen and John Christy, figure 4
The Global Mean Temperature Anomaly Record
How it works and why it is misleading
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Global-Mean-Temp-Anomalies12.08.20.pdf
If Lindzen or Christy meant any of this, they would have published it in a peer reviewed journal, and both of them absolutely know that.
It’s disappointing to see them try to bypass a collegial system they were once a part of. And very telling.
It is well known that increased CO2 improves plant growth, this is tested in Greenhouses with controlled temperatures.
The increased tree rings are a real hockey stick but it is the CO2 that caused the increase, not temperature.
popesclimatetheory wrote:
It is well known that increased CO2 improves plant growth, this is tested in Greenhouses with controlled temperatures.
Data please?
Also, greenhouses can tightly control temperature and water supply. Does that happen in the real world? No.
—
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
—
“With a 1 °C global temperature increase, global wheat yield is projected to decline between 4.1% and 6.4%. Projected relative temperature impacts from different methods were similar for major wheat-producing countries China, India, USA and France, but less so for Russia. Point-based and grid-based simulations, and to some extent the statistical regressions, were consistent in projecting that warmer regions are likely to suffer more yield loss with increasing temperature than cooler regions.”
– B. Liu et al, “Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yields by three independent methods, Nature Climate Change (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3115
—
“Agriculture is one of the economic sectors most exposed to climate change impacts, but few studies have statistically connected long-term changes in temperature and rainfall with yields. Doing so in Europe is particularly important because yields of wheat and barley have plateaued since the early 1990s and climate change has been suggested as a cause of this stagnation. Here, we show that the impact of climate trends can be detected in the pattern of long-term yield trends in Europe. Although impacts have been large in some areas, the aggregate effect across the continent has been modest. Climate trends can explain 10% of the slowdown in wheat and barley yields, with changes in agriculture and environmental policies possibly responsible for the remainder.”
— “The fingerprint of climate trends on European crop yields,” Frances C. Moorea and David B. Lobell, PNAS vol. 112 no. 9, 2670–2675 (2015
—
“Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation….. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— “Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014
—
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
—
“Long-term decline in grassland productivity driven by increasing dryness,” E. N. J. Brookshire & T. Weaver, Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7148, May 4, 2015.
—
Abstract: “Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.”
— “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature 510, 139–142 (05 June 2014).
—
“Greater levels of CO2 made no difference one way or the other. At higher temperatures plants open their pores, called stomata, to capture the elevated CO2, which boosts photosynthesis, greening the leaves. But plants also tend to close their stomata in warmer temperatures to prevent water loss. Mora says that on balance the two effects cancel out.”
— “Plants Will Not Flourish as the World Warms: A new study contradicts the notion that higher temperatures will enhance plant growth,” Mark Fischetti, Scientific American, June 10, 2015
“Crop Pests Spreading North with Global Warming: Fungi and insects migrate toward the poles at up to 7 kilometers per year,”
— Eliot Barford and Nature magazine, September 2, 2013
—
“Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,”
— Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
“Elevated CO2 (or low O2) atmospheric concentrations decrease rates of photorespiration and initially enhance rates of photosynthesis and growth by as much as 35% in most plants (C3 plants). This enhancement, however, diminishes over time (days to years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation. Most studies suggest a strong link between CO2 acclimation and plant nitrogen status. Nitrogen is the mineral element that organisms require in greatest quantity.
“Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis,” Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903.
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press, 8/30/2015:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
“Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects,”
Jorge A. Zavala et al, PNAS, 5129–5133, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009).
“Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming,” Shaobing Peng et al, PNAS v101 n27 9971-9975.
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002166
“Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.”
“Climate trends and global crop production since 1980,” D.B. Lobell et al, Science (July 29, 2011)
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009),
“Grasses are fundamental to one of Earth’s most widespread biomes (grasslands), and provide roughly half of all calories consumed by humans (including wheat, rice, corn and sorghum). We estimate rates of climatic niche change in 236 species and compare these with rates of projected climate change by 2070. Our results show that projected climate change is consistently faster than rates of niche change in grasses, typically by more than 5000-fold for temperature-related variables. Although these results do not show directly what will happen under global warming, they have troubling implications for a major biome and for human food resources.”
“Climate change is projected to outpace rates of niche change in grasses,” F. Alice Cang et al, Biology Letters, 27 September 2016.DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0368.
“…The results consistently indicate that rising temperatures will lead to reductions in crop yields. An increase of 1°C would be more severe for global maize yield (7.4% decrease) than for rice (3.2% decrease), and decreases in maize yield in the United States would be twice those seen in India (10.3 and 5.2%, respectively). Although this work points to worrying consequences of a warming world, it remains very difficult to predict the cumulative impact of multiple factors related to climate change, such as elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and precipitation….”
“Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise,” Emily Morris, Science
08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
“Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?” Annie Sneed, Scientific American 1/23/18
From this article:
“Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she [Frances Moore, an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis] says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
“We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.”
“Temperature is a primary factor affecting the rate of plant development. Warmer temperatures expected with climate change and the potential for more extreme temperature events will impact plant productivity…. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80-90% from a normal temperature regime. Temperature effects are increased by water deficits and excess soil water demonstrating that understanding the interaction of temperature and water will be needed to develop more effective adaptation strategies to offset the impacts of greater temperature extreme events associated with a changing climate.”
— Jerry L. Hatfield and John H. Prueger, “Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development,” Weather and Climate Extremes 10 (2015) 4–10.
“Corn Yields Under Higher Temperatures,”
Figure 18.3, p 421
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014 National Climate Assessment
“Temperature response surfaces for mortality risk of tree species with future drought,” Henry D Adams et al,
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 11 (2017).
“Crop production losses associated with anthropogenic climate change for 1981-2010 compared with preindustrial levels,”
Toshichika Iizumi et al, International Journal of Climatology, 20 August 2018
Abstract:
“The accumulated evidence indicates that agricultural production is being affected by climate change. However, most of the available evidence at a global scale is based on statistical regressions. Corroboration using independent methods, specifically process‐based modelling, is important for improving our confidence in the evidence. Here, we estimate the impacts of climate change on the global average yields of maize, rice, wheat and soybeans for 1981-2010, relative to the preindustrial climate. We use the results of factual and non‐warming counterfactual climate simulations performed with an atmospheric general circulation model that do and do not include anthropogenic forcings to climate systems, respectively, as inputs into a global gridded crop model. The results of a 100‐member ensemble climate and crop simulation suggest that climate change has decreased the global mean yields of maize, wheat and soybeans by 4.1, 1.8 and 4.5%, respectively, relative to the counterfactual simulation (preindustrial climate), even when carbon dioxide (CO2) fertilization and agronomic adjustments are considered. For rice, no significant impacts (−1.8%) are detected. The uncertainties in estimated yield impacts represented by the 90% probability interval that are derived from the ensemble members are −8.5 to +0.5% for maize, −8.4 to −0.5% for soybeans, −9.6 to +12.4% for rice and − 7.5 to +4.3% for wheat. Based on the yield impacts, the estimates of average annual production losses throughout the world for the most recent years of the study (20052009) account for 22.3 billion USD (B)formaize,6.5B for soybeans, 0.8 Bforriceand13.6B for wheat. Our assessment confirms that climate change has modulated recent yields and led to production losses, and our adaptations to date have not been sufficient to offset the negative impacts of climate change, particularly at lower latitudes.”
“The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80-90% from a normal temperature regime.”
– Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development, Jerry L. Hatfield and John H. Prueger, Weather and Climate Extremes 10 (2015) 4–10.
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009)
“Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise,” Emily Morris, Science
08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
“We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.
“Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980,” David B. Lobell et al, Science 29 July 2011, v333.
**
“During a 20-year field experiment in Minnesota, a widespread group of plants that initially grew faster when fed more CO2 stopped doing so after 12 years, researchers reported in Science in 2018.”
McGee, certainly the world is greening, that’s well known. Is that a good thing? It’s a big change in ecosystems, and change threatens the species (plants and animals) that live there. Is it obvious more plants are a good thing?
They do decrease the Earth’s albedo and so are a positive feedback on global warming.
As for crop yields…. Yes, CO2 increases photosynthesis, but it also increases temperature and changes precipitation patterns. These affect crop yields too.
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
—
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein… And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises — because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein…. “It’s going to be fairly universal that we’ll be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and it’s not just protein… it’s also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
—
I could go on — the scientific literature if full of studies that cast doubt on the idea the more CO2 is good for agriculture.
It is well known that increased CO2 promotes greatly enhanced plant growth. A tree ring hockey stick is to be or should be expected, due just to increased CO2, and not any kind of indicator that the tree ring hockey stick was due to temperature rise. That could actually be tested in greenhouses.
Actually could be tested in greenhouses and has been tested in greenhouses.
In 2009, the iconic email from the Climategate leak included a comment by Phil Jones about the “trick” used by Michael Mann to “hide the decline,” in his Hockey Stick graph, referring to tree proxy temperatures cooling rather than warming in modern times. Now we have an important paper demonstrating that climate models insist on man-made global warming only by hiding the incline of natural warming in Pre-Industrial times. The paper is From Behavioral Climate Models and Millennial Data to AGW Reassessment by Philippe de Larminat.
https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/from-behavioral-climate-models-and-millennial-data-to-agw-reassessment.pdf
Larminat also addresses PAGES reconstruction:
After, 2003 controversies reference to this (hockey stick) reconstruction had disappeared from subsequent IPCC reports:it is not included among the fifteen paleoclimate reconstructions covering the millennium period listed in the fifth report (AR5, 2013) [6]. Nevertheless, AR6 (2021) revived a hockey stick graph reconstruction from a consortium initiated by a network “PAst climate chanGES” [7,8]. The IPCC assures (AR6, 2.3.1.1.2): “this synthesis is generally in agreement with the AR5 assessment”.
Figure 2 below puts this claim into perspective. It shows the fifteen reconstructions covering the preindustrial period accredited by the IPCC in AR5 (2013, Fig. 5.7 to 5.9, and table 5.A.6), compiled (Pangaea database) by [7]. Visibly, the claimed agreement of the PAGES2k reconstruction (blue) with the AR5 green lines does not hold.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/larminat-fig-2.png
My synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2024/01/04/climate-models-hide-the-paleo-incline/
Thanks, Ron.
Like the Blues Brothers the IPCC Has a Mission.
Ron – I had a look at the paper that you linked. It appears to be an impressive piece of research, more than 10 pages of dense analysis, 73 references, etc. I noticed that it was accepted within 20 days from submission – that’s pretty good. I also noticed that the author declared “…that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.” And I presume that he paid the $3699 required by the publisher. That’s dedication!
Now I make no judgement regarding the quality or validity of this work based on a careful reading, because I didn’t do it. But I did check out the journal, and sure enough, it is listed as predatory:
https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/list-of-all-opast-publishing-group-predatory-journals
So, unless you are truly qualified the review the paper in depth, beware.
Pat, thanks for introducing me to the term “predatory publishing.” As a skeptic I suspect a motive to censor scientists whose findings are contary to “consensus” or governmentally preferred narratives. It is well known that the climatist cabal worked hard to keep any contrary papers out of prestigious journals, and by doing so created a demand for open publishing groups. The same cabal wants to disparage any research in journals not under their control.
Here’s an investigtive study of this effort to brand publishers as “good” or “bad.”
A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
https://thepublicationplan.com/2020/11/10/predatory-journal-safelists-and-watchlists-who-decides/
Excerpt:
“Perhaps the most important conclusion that emerges from our comprehensive analysis of currently available watchlists and safelists is that any attempt to create a list of this nature will be incomplete and out-of-date from the moment it is published. This is because of the extent to which predatory publishing is changing and growing every day. We are also seeing endless new variations. For example, in “hijacked journals,” cybercriminals literally “hijack” a prestigious academic journal, taking its name, claiming to be editors, starting a false website, and then sending spam e-mails to authors encouraging them to submit and pay an author’s fee (Asadi et al., 2017; Shahri et al., 2018). Such hijacked journals would not be detected by any of the screening mechanisms identified in our analysis.”
“A related problem is that, in some cases, suspect publishing practices occur at a journal that does not appear to meet any of the criteria that would mark it as predatory. Thus, for instance, in 2017, a journal called Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles. The journal at that time was indexed in Social Science Citation Index, published by Springer, and was considered a reputable journal by every measure. The retractions were “due to fake reviews,” likely including author-nominated reviewers without adequate vetting (Hu et al., 2019; see also Shopovski et al., 2019).”
There is a crisis in science publishing, but sorting the wheat from the chaff is not as simple as scoring the publishers. And beware the climate alarmists “fact checkers”, who are actually narrative defenders.
Testing, previous reply not appearing.
Pat as you probably know, the climatist cabal prevented publication of papers contrary to their narrative, and created a demand for publishers who don’t censor research findings not approved by governmental or institutional authorities. Could well be that some are unscrupulous and should be called out. But others may only be guilty of heresy.
Published at sciencedirect: A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133320301270
Excerpt:
Perhaps the most important conclusion that emerges from our comprehensive analysis of currently available watchlists and safelists is that any attempt to create a list of this nature will be incomplete and out-of-date from the moment it is published. This is because of the extent to which predatory publishing is changing and growing every day. We are also seeing endless new variations. For example, in “hijacked journals,” cybercriminals literally “hijack” a prestigious academic journal, taking its name, claiming to be editors, starting a false website, and then sending spam e-mails to authors encouraging them to submit and pay an author’s fee (Asadi et al., 2017; Shahri et al., 2018). Such hijacked journals would not be detected by any of the screening mechanisms identified in our analysis.
A related problem is that, in some cases, suspect publishing practices occur at a journal that does not appear to meet any of the criteria that would mark it as predatory. Thus, for instance, in 2017, a journal called Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles. The journal at that time was indexed in Social Science Citation Index, published by Springer, and was considered a reputable journal by every measure. The retractions were “due to fake reviews,” likely including author-nominated reviewers without adequate vetting (Hu et al., 2019; see also Shopovski et al., 2019).
Second reply also prohibited, maybe link to published article is not acceptable.
I’ll second the “beware”.
Another term for “predatory publishing” is “free speech”.
Ron – You are no doubt aware that there are more than two dozen journals that publish climate science articles, administered by such organizations as the AMS, AGU, AAAS, NAS etc. So I am surprised to learn that the ‘climatist cabal’ wields such pervasive influence that would compel an author to publish in Earth & Environmental Science Research & Reviews, alongside articles like “Causes of Celestial Motion” (I kid you not – check it out) and the perhaps more interesting “Finite Element Method of the Influence Evaluation of the Percentage of Fine Particles of Marine Clay at the Different Depth Variations to the Total Volumetric Strain of the Soft Clay Ground”.
Ron Clutz wrote:
Pat as you probably know, the climatist cabal prevented publication of papers contrary to their narrative
Examples?
Ron Clutz wrote:
“As a skeptic I suspect a motive to censor scientists whose findings are contary to “consensus” or governmentally preferred narratives.”
What’s your evidence of this?
How about predatory media?
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/greta-and-judith.png
Media does not pretend to be scientific journals, and they generally pay their writers – the media writers don’t pay to be published.
Did the Climatist Cabal invent the vanity press before or after Gutenberg ?
Russell, No.
Ron Clutz wrote:
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/greta-and-judith.png
LOL!
Greta is not a member of the media. Judith doesn’t say global warming is a hoax.
Ron, the more I read of you the more I want to blog your emailed comments out of my Inbox. You just never have anything sensible to say.
From you, high praise indeed.
Pat Casson, Regarding “predatory journal” labelling as censorship:
“Perhaps the most important conclusion that emerges from our comprehensive analysis of currently available watchlists and safelists is that any attempt to create a list of this nature will be incomplete and out-of-date from the moment it is published. This is because of the extent to which predatory publishing is changing and growing every day. We are also seeing endless new variations. For example, in “hijacked journals,” cybercriminals literally “hijack” a prestigious academic journal, taking its name, claiming to be editors, starting a false website, and then sending spam e-mails to authors encouraging them to submit and pay an author’s fee (Asadi et al., 2017; Shahri et al., 2018). Such hijacked journals would not be detected by any of the screening mechanisms identified in our analysis.
A related problem is that, in some cases, suspect publishing practices occur at a journal that does not appear to meet any of the criteria that would mark it as predatory. Thus, for instance, in 2017, a journal called Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles. The journal at that time was indexed in Social Science Citation Index, published by Springer, and was considered a reputable journal by every measure. The retractions were “due to fake reviews,” likely including author-nominated reviewers without adequate vetting (Hu et al., 2019; see also Shopovski et al., 2019).”
So maybe Lancet and NEJM should be blacklisted for bogus Covid19 artticles?
Source: A qualitative content analysis of watchlists vs safelists: How do they address the issue of predatory publishing? The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Pat, don’t be surprised, open your eyes and acknowledge what has happened. From Roger Pielke Jr.
A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”
That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.
But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/?sh=3423cffd6368
Ron – Thanks for your response.
Yes, if you accept Roger Jrs view of how a few bloggers, abetted by some sympathetic professionals, are controlling the political and scientific narrative, I can see why you dismiss anything that supports that narrative. My own experience suggests that scientists – including researchers, editors, reviewers, etc. – are not so easily coerced.
Glad the hear that Pat. I am discouraged by the intentional canceling of Lennart Bengtsson, Alimonti et al., Hermann Harde, Willie Soon, Akusofu, to name just a few. It’s not a few bloggers, but a pack of attack dogs, led by Ken Rice.
Pat, my replies aren’t posted for some reason. Glad for your experience. My disgust comes from seeing the intentional cancelling of people like Lennart Bengtsson, Alimonte et al., Hermann Harde, Willie Soon, Akusofu, to name just a few. It’s not a few bloggers. It’s a pack of attack dogs led by Ken Rice et al.
Ron: “… a pack of attack dogs, led by Ken Rice.”
Wow. Rice is an astrophysicist. I’m somewhat familiar with his work – he does pretty good science. I wonder what’s in it for him. And how did he get to be so influential with the ‘climate cabal’. Baffling.
Do your homework
Pat: “My own experience suggests that scientists – including researchers, editors, reviewers, etc. – are not so easily coerced.”
Of course an ideological POV doesn’t need to be coerced. Acknowleding this leads to the next question; does politics drive climate science? If one says “no”, then they’re not living in reality (for starters, IPCC’s methodology is filtered 50/50 between politics and science). So a no answer to the before question is ideological in itself, it doesnt acknowledge a demonstrable fact. Those collectivists (consensus) who answer no 1) obviously can’t be coerced into changing ideology, 2) an ideological perspective thus does not base views strictly on the science.
An individualist climate skeptic can’t be coerced into changing their mind either; they recocognize that problems with the science remain, but they can be convinced; their rationale is ideological by nature of how an individualist reasons. An individualist can be of the right, or left. Truth is an important value for an individualist, trurh isnt a value for the collectivist, a leftist. The argument here isn’t about science.
JungleT –
Thanks for that….clarification.
NP, happy to shed light.
Ron Clutz wrote: I am discouraged by the intentional canceling of Lennart Bengtsson, Alimonti et al., Hermann Harde, Willie Soon, Akusofu, to name just a few.
Soon? Intentional? I looked deeply into a 2003 paper by Soon & Baliunas. It was kind of a joke — they made assumptions guaranteed to give them the result them wanted. You can read about it here in Scientific American:
“Hot Words: A claim of nonhuman-induced global warming sparks debate,” Scientific American, June 24, 2003 (Web) and August 2003 (print), pp. 20-22.
o reprinted in “Critical Perspectives on World Climate,” Katy Human, The Rosen Publishing Company, 2006 pp 169-173
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/
Emerging plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports: a tip of the iceberg?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378621926_Emerging_plagiarism_in_peer-review_evaluation_reports_a_tip_of_the_iceberg
This all looks like putting lipstick on a pig. Apart from trends there is no way you can derive a temperature from a tree ring to the accuracy all these graphs claim. You’d have to use the same tree and core it every year and by now it’d be 1000+ years old and more dead than alive so the annual rings would be wrinkles. And the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean with no trees, but, there’s one proxy on land! You’re all dreaming!
These words by Stephen McIntyre are death to PAGES2k.
“The final PAGES 2k reconstruction has a much more pronounced hockey stick shape than any of the 8 proxies that it’s made up of.”
I have studied the data and reached the same, rather unavoidable conclusion.
Now, let’s hear some justification for belief in PAGES2k.
Geoff S
“But but but, the HS has been replicated a multitude of times using different statistical techniques”
“Physics require the HS”
Those are the typical responses to the HS, However as Sherr001 points out – a critical analysis reveals the serious scientific and statistical problems in the multitude of HS’s.
It furthers reveals the lack of scientific integrity of the paleo scientists
haakonsk … thank you. Interesting piece.
The AGW Global warming catastrophe hypothesis is political science, not climate science. The long handle of the hockey stick means that the Earth’s climate was flat until the later half of the 20th century. How can that be? What happened to the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Little Ice Age (LIA) and where are PDOs (Pacific Decadal Oscillations) and cycles like El Niño and La Niña?
If not for ideological reasons – i.e., Left vs. right politics – why would government scientists purposefully reject observational evidence, like the obvious role of the Sun, and instead adopt climate change beliefs based solely upon unverifiable models?
“What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the ‘right’ results.” ~Matt Patterson, NY Post, 03-Sep-2010
Strikes me that tree rings are more a function of adequate rain, which is heavily related to global circulation perturbations like El Niño, La Niña, etc. Also, droughts tend to have higher temperatures because of less humidity in the air and that has nothing to do with CO2.
Unclear, to me anyway, how CO2’s impact on tree rings can be divined from the complexities tree growth. The tree ring proxy looks more-or-less like an uncertain combination of statistics and is essentially useless for the intended purpose.
Global warming academics need not even tell the truth to be quoted in the mainstream media. “Overall,” says Edward Wegman, “our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
The tree ring work of Keith Briffa was critical to the wider understanding of dendrothermometry responses.
It became obvious from the Climategate years that selected time periods were used by Briffa et al when constructing the elements of the hockey stick graph.
“We used simple linear regression, fitting the regression equations over the period 1881-1960, or over the total available period prior to 1960 when the instrumental record was shorter. The period after 1960 was not used to avoid bias in the regression coefficients that could be generated by an anomalous decline in tree density measurements over recent decades, that is not forced by temperature [Briffa et al 1998b: Nature 391, 678-682]”.
This became known as part of “Hide the Decline”. People do not claim that there was no decline. People do not claim that it was NOT hidden. The graphs used by IPCC show the hidden decline, in colour.
It is beyond comprehension why dendrothermometry was allowed to continue in use, when there was clearly a problem shown by Briffa for data after 1960. Scientific prudence would dictate that there be a search for a similar data problem before 1960. This has never been done. It reeks of deliberate academic fraud to create the hockey stick shape.
Here is the full Abstract.
“Tree-ring chronologies that represent annual changes in the density of wood formed during the late summer can provide a proxy for local summertime air temperature. Here we undertake an examination of large-regional-scale wood-density/air-temperature relationships using measurements from hundreds of sites at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere. During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated. Moreover, the recent reduction in the response of trees to air-temperature changes would mean that estimates of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations, based on carbon-cycle models that are uniformly sensitive to high-latitude warming, could be too low.”
Geoff S
Earth’s average surface temperature is 68°C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
Also Earth, because of a higher than Moon Albedo, Earth receives 28% less solar radiative energy than Moon.
–
And yet, Earth’s average surface temperature is 68°C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature.
–
Since Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the sun, but Earth’s average surface temperature is 68°C higher than Moon’s average surface temperature… there is only one explanation left:
It is the planet surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I am not responsible for chapter 2 of Clintel’s report, but I wrote chapter 1 which also deals with past temperature reconstructions.
The idea that a few hundreds of low resolution indirect seasonal measurements mostly from the Northern Hemisphere can give us a global temperature reconstruction is silly. Just imagine the claim that choosing the summer average temperature from a few dozen random stations mostly from the Northern Hemisphere reproduce the current global average temperature changes. Add to the proxy reconstruction the opportunities for bias (conscious or unconscious) in the proxy selection, plus the huge uncertainty in translating the proxies’ physical response into temperature. I am not even going to enter in the silliness of comparing proxy temperatures with instrumental temperatures. Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.
The only possibility that the uncertain process of a proxy climate reconstruction can yield something that approximates past climate evolution is to validate the result with independent evidence.
Disproving the new hockey stick is extremely easy. All that is needed is to show the evidence for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), also known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly, as the new hockey stick does not show it.
The evidence for the Medieval Warm Period in the Northern Hemisphere sometime between AD 900 and 1200 is very strong, as Büntgen et al. 2020 show in the article above (3rd figure). It is hard to find a proxy in the NH that doesn’t show a significantly warmer period within that timeframe. To remove the impact on the global climate of the MWP an anti-MWP is needed in the SH. This has a problem because the climate is more variable in the NH due to its larger land surface and other reasons. An anti-MWP in the SH capable of making it disappear from a global record would be an even bigger anomaly than the MWP.
And the task becomes impossible when we use independent proxies from the equatorial area. The tropics respond very little to climate change. If they show a MWP as the NH, it is impossible for it not to have taken place.
Graham, N.E., Ammann, C.M., Fleitmann, D., Cobb, K.M. and Luterbacher, J., 2011. Support for global climate reorganization during the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”. Climate dynamics, 37, pp.1217-1245.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-010-0914-z
“Though much remains unclear, our results indicate that the [MWP] was characterized by an enhanced zonal Indo-Pacific SST gradient with resulting changes in Northern Hemisphere tropical and extra-tropical circulation patterns and hydroclimate regimes, linkages that may explain the coherent regional climate shifts indicated by proxy records from across the planet.”
I defend in my books that the climate changes naturally through solar (and other causes) induced atmospheric reorganizations, because that is what the evidence supports. OK, let’s see the evidence from the tropical Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) at 3°S and 5°S.
Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsley, B.K., 2009. 2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature, 460(7259), pp.1113-1116.
https://www.atmos.albany.edu/geology/webpages/Oppo,Rosenthal%20&%20Linsley%202009.pdf
“Reconstructed SSTs were warmest from AD 1000 to AD 1250 and during short periods of first millennium (Fig. 2b). Given the evidence that G. ruber tends to record near mean annual SSTs during warm intervals of the last 150 years (Fig. 2a), reconstructed SSTs during these warm periods probably reflect mean annual SSTs. If this is the case, as we suspect, then SSTs within error of modern SSTs occurred in the IPWP during the Medieval Warm Period and during brief periods of the first millennium AD. If, on the other hand, G. ruber calcified preferentially during the JAS upwelling season throughout the study interval, then JAS SSTs as warm as modern also characterized the previous millennium. Regardless of G. ruber seasonality in this region, the reconstruction suggests that at least during the Medieval Warm Period, and possibly the preceding 1,000 years, Indonesian SSTs were similar to modern SSTs.”
Since the MWP is displayed not only in NH proxies, but also in equatorial proxies and SH proxies, the new hockey stick is falsified as it does not show it. Whether the MWP was warmer than now or not is irrelevant to the question. It did happen and any reconstruction not showing it is automatically falsified by the available evidence not included in the reconstruction. Bias or manipulation should be suspected in such reconstructions.
“I defend in my books that the climate changes naturally through solar (and other causes) induced atmospheric reorganizations, because that is what the evidence supports. “
Your books are wrong as the evidence shows ocean temperature lags solar activity changes and the atmosphere lags the ocean.
https://i.postimg.cc/769RYf0b/S-B-Equation-and-Sun-Climate.png
https://i.postimg.cc/L4QZQd3J/UAH-LT-v-Had-SST3.jpg
Energy in the ocean is controlled as much by the input as by the output, and the output is mainly regulated by the atmosphere through evaporation and conduction. You ignore the output.
seems to me the proxies are all completely unreliable and worthless except for the ones that show what you want to show: the MWP. Those, unlike the “bad” proxies that show the dreaded hockey stick, are actually highly reliable and supported by multiple different lines of evidence. Got it! Kind of hilarious how the skeptics accuse the AGW defenders of cherry-picking.
DanB | March 2, 2024 at 5:29 pm | Reply
seems to me the proxies are all completely unreliable and worthless except for the ones that show what you want to show: the MWP. Those, unlike the “bad” proxies that show the dreaded hockey stick, are actually highly reliable and supported by multiple different lines of evidence.
DanB – do you mean “Show what you want to show”
Or “not show what you do not want to show”
See the critique above of page2k2019
A short excerpt of the critique above
PAGES 2k 2019 includes very few southern hemisphere proxies. In the 30-60 degrees south latitude band (southern extra-tropics), PAGES 2k has included only 8 proxies. Of the 8 proxies, 7 are tree rings, and none are ocean proxies despite 94% of the area being ocean. The 8 proxies had been reduced from 19 proxies in PAGES 2k 2017. Only one proxy goes back 2000 years, one goes back about 1200 years, and the rest are shorter than 600 years. The final PAGES 2k reconstruction has a much more pronounced hockey stick shape than any of the 8 proxies that it’s made up of.
DanB
Adding to my prior response – S McIntyre provides a graph of every proxy he has criticized. Those graphs of the individual proxies provide ample information to ascertain if McIntyre’s criticism if right or wrong.
Most all of the paleo reconstructions have 200 – 250 proxies in their reconstructions.
When was the last time you found similar graphs of each individual proxy in the paleo reconstruction studies, either in the body of the study or the supplemental pages, appendixes, or a link to the source data.
What happened to the concept of showing your work
Proxies tell tales, but many times the tales are ambiguous. There is need to support and verify what is being interpreted.
Javier mentioned the MWP. There are others too. (Maybe it is worth revisiting fig 122 at https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/
There the Eddy cycle is very important. MWP was an Eddy peak. Before that was the Roman WP. In between the downturn or roots were the DACP and the LIA – as indicated in fig 122. An earlier downturn is at 4.3k BP (2346bce)
There are other proxies as correlated in below link. The RWP is there at 173ce; so is the 2346bce Eddy root. Both cases appear in lake sediment proxy from unconnected research. What they indicate is very different from the general ideas that one hears about. The driver is planetary; what happens on earth is collateral.
Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
A lot more material has been found relative to that link since 2022.
Misdirected effort and expense is a dangerous waste.
Javier Vinós wrote:
The idea that a few hundreds of low resolution indirect seasonal measurements mostly from the Northern Hemisphere can give us a global temperature reconstruction is silly
Why didn’t you submit your work to the peer reviewed literature, where true experts can ascertain your work and all can read it?
Have doubts about paleoclimate reconstruction? Fine -ignore or discount them, but explain the instrumental record, particularly the last 50 years, instead of deflecting to “it might have been a little warmer a thousand years ago … or maybe not (most evidence shows the MCA to be incoherent internal oscillations, not a global climate change and nothing that compares to current coherent warming).
Plenty of scientists base on the available evidence their disagreement with the statement that:
“most evidence shows the MCA to be incoherent internal oscillations, not a global climate change”
There’s evidence for the MWP from every part of the globe and the oceans. And whether it is internal or external is not known, as its cause is currently unknown.
“Plenty” – now there’s a nice scientific quantitation – not even as good as my “most,” which I believe is correct. You didn’t address the regional incoherence and magnitude of global averages.
Science is not a head count matter. One scientist, if correct, is sufficient.
Regional incoherence is a feature of climate change, as there is not a global climate, regardless of how much people talk about it. Some climate scientists do not appear to understand the nature of their subject. Very few non-scientists do.
About the magnitude of past temperature changes, the uncertainty is big and nobody really knows.
Compare and contrast
> Plenty of scientists.
And
> Science is not a head count matterScience is not a head count matter
That is all.
Are you seriously trying to compare the rate of warming of the last 50 or so years using the instrumental record against the low resolution proxy data.
As Vinos notes “Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.”
Nope, I’m not trying to compare them. I’m saying that the paleo reconstructions are interesting and informative, but they do not negate the instrumental record. I find the MCA and “hockey stick” to be a deflection with respect to current climate change: discuss the wiggles and pretend they might negate the obvious (the blade, which continues to get larger and larger).
Nonetheless, they are plenty of proxies with annual resolution over the period of interest and resolution is not an issue for observing major global changes on multi-decadal (climatic) time scales (like now).
ganon …
> Nope, I’m not trying to compare them. I’m saying that the paleo reconstructions are interesting and informative, but they do not negate the instrumental record. I find the MCA and “hockey stick” to be a deflection with respect to current climate change: discuss the wiggles and pretend they might negate the obvious (the blade, which continues to get larger and larger).
Aside from arguments that the increase in the instrumental record is accurate or not, the HS portrayed the last 1000 years as flat, in comparison. So if the MCA did exist, which it seems it did, then I would think you’d be interested, if only to put the recent trends in context?
Bill,
Is there something about, “I’m saying that the paleo reconstructions are interesting and informative, but they do not negate the instrumental record.” that you don’t understand?
I’ve studied many of the temperature time series studies. I have reached the conclusion that there is nothing in the last 2000 years, even the 12,000 years of Holocene, that is similar to what is happening now.
I didn’t say it negates the instrumental record. The fact that the MCA exists would put that record into context.
Bill,
I appreciate your treatment of the MCA: “If it exists” – that kinda covers it. Also, I just put it in context, did you not understand that?
Bill said: “I didn’t say it negates the instrumental record.”
That is correct, and I didn’t say that you did. I said that it DOESN’T negate the instrumental record. You can agree or disagree (or decline) with that; but telling me the things you haven’t done is irrelevant.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 2, 2024 at 10:01 am |” I find the MCA and “hockey stick” to be a deflection with respect to current climate change: discuss the wiggles and pretend they might negate the obvious (the blade, which continues to get larger and larger).”
Ganon – The deflection is with climate scientists. The paleo climate scientist community attempts to dampen the magnitude WMP and LIA using low resolution proxies, poor statistical methodology are simply dubious. A credible scientific understanding of the cause of the current warming cant be determine with any level of competency if a credible scientific understanding of prior warming and cooling is not understand. That scientific understanding is made much more difficult if you pretend those prior changes did not happen.
As Vinos notes “Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.”
As Vinos notes “Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.”
Why, because Vinos says so? I see no problem with examining, comparing, and extracting as much information as possible from any and all temperature records.
I am not the first to say it. Mixing apples and oranges is not the proper way of doing science.
In the future, proxies will tell us the correct way of comparing present warming with previous ones. But the “hiding the decline” issue gives little confidence on proxies supporting the instrumental record.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 2, 2024 at 11:21 am |
As Vinos notes “Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.”
Why, because Vinos says so? I see no problem with examining, comparing, and extracting as much information as possible from any and all temperature records.
Ganon – Your multitude of prior statements state that you are doing exactly what a reputable scientist would not do.
Vinos, comparing temperature records is not apples and oranges.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 2, 2024 at 11:21 am |
As Vinos notes “Any reputable scientist should abstain from doing it.”
Why, because Vinos says so? I see no problem with examining, comparing, and extracting as much information as possible from any and all temperature records.
Ganon – Not because Vinos says so –
Its because its what honest scientists say
Its because that is what reputable scientists say
gannon
These passages identify the various ways that SST measurements over last 200 years could have not reflected the true temperature of the ocean. The opportunities for getting it wrong are endless. Adjustments have been made to get it right but in the end it’s simply guessing.
“ Ships: bucket measurements
Water samples in buckets are likely to lose heat as the sea surface is typically warmer than the air above it. The exchange of heat between the water sample
and the atmosphere will depend on the bucket (e.g., the material it is constructed from, its volume, surface area, and whether it has a lid) and ambient conditions (e.g., the temperature difference between the sample and the surrounding air, relative wind speed over the bucket, atmospheric humidity, and incident solar radiation). The temperature of the final measurement will also depend on how the observation is made (whether the bucket is allowed to equilibrate with the sea temperature—possibly involving taking an initial sample that is discarded—the time taken to haul the bucket, the initial temperature of the bucket, whether the sample is stirred, the time allowed for the thermometer to reach the water temperature, and the type of thermometer used). The depth of the sample may also vary with the size and speed of the ship, sea state, and wind speed.
The earliest SST observations derive from wooden, canvas, and metal buckets11 (Figure 1). Of these types, wooden buckets are relatively well insulated and tend to have larger volumes leading to smaller temperature changes (typically a reduced temperature as heat loss rather than heat gain is more usual). Models of corrections for wooden and uninsulated canvas buckets show the adjustments to be five to six times greater for the canvas buckets.11 As the amount of heat loss from uninsulated buckets became recognized, national Meteorological Services began to issue insulated buckets to ships.22 These were made from insulating materials, such as rubber, or used a double skin construction to allow a layer of sea water to surround the sample being measured.
Comparisons have helped to identify the size of
likely biases in observations made using buckets. A
comprehensive study24 compared 16,000 bucket and
intake SSTs of various types. The overall intake-bucket
difference was 0.3±1.3C, but larger differences
thought to be related to the bucket measurement were found in winter, at high wind speeds, and for both uninsulated and insulated canvas buckets. Most national-type and specially designed buckets showed smaller differences. Buckets were also relatively cooler compared with intakes when there was precipitation and relatively warmer when there was fog. Buckets were more likely to be relatively cooler before midday and warmer after midday although there is no clear diurnal cycle in the differences. Measurements of water sample temperature in buckets in wind tunnels25,26 and on ships23,25,27 and comparisons of bucket and other SST observations24,28 have shown the impact of environmental conditions and observing practice on bucket observations of SST. Attempts have been made to partition the biases by error source.”
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/251457/1/55_ftp.pdf
kid,
How about the last 65 years? Measurements older than that have large uncertainties, and carry less statistical weight (in any proper statistical analysis).
gannon
Glad you agree with me that we can trash all readings before 1950s so only warming with any confidence is last few decades, which can be explained by the warm phase of the AMO and the top decile of solar activity for last 9,000 years.
Joe: “Are you seriously trying to compare the rate of warming of the last 50 or so years using the instrumental record against the low resolution proxy data.”
Framers of consensus dare not allow data ambiguity considerations question what’s “settled”.
Per the earlier IPCC chart in the essay…“hockey stick” temperature graph for the past 1000 years.
The instrument readings (red), where they’re printed over proxy data, are telling. The fidelity of proxy data is weak; are we supposed to believe the fidelity of data is similar going back in time, it’s not worse? Many of the bars extend beyond 50%, even 100% in a couple examples, over/under the proxy data. This data segregation incongruity doesn’t phase consensus zealots, much less provide the slightest pause to reconsider what science actually doesn’t know (though granted it’s not about science for many).
A conservative approach, adding 20-40% average over/under error range to the paleo temperature record, and factoring in lack of data density. How many hockey sticks might there be? While skeptics can’t know, CAGW zealots certainly don’t know.
Jungle – A conservative approach, adding 20-40% average over/under error range to the paleo temperature record, and factoring in lack of data density. How many hockey sticks might there be? While skeptics can’t know, CAGW zealots certainly don’t know.”
Jungle – my only dispute with your comment is that CAGW zealots probably do know how many studies would result in a HS if they properly used valid statistical analysis. ie proper confidence intervals, etc. S Mcintyre has shown the proxy selection to have serious shortcoming and limitations, Wyner has shown significant over confidence in their statistical analysis.
Nice one, Polly.
BTW, the “blade” is the horizontal part of the hockey stick. It’s not “growing”, or as you put it: “(the blade, which continues to get larger and larger).”
Depends on the orientation of the HS. In a hockey game the blade is horizontal resting on the ice. In the temperature time series graphs, it is upturning towards vertical near the end of the graph. And yes, it is getting larger and larger.
“Thanks, you have no help to offer.”
Defined as no help that you want to see. The hockey stick is polished, Polly, you don’t want to see the obvious in this. Help for you means to buttress ideological false narratives.
The instrumental record, so granular, it can’t be replicated in the paleo record; it’s your comfort seed stock.
“’Plenty’ – now there’s a nice scientific quantitation [sic] – not even as good as my ‘most,’ which I believe is correct.”
Then you follow that up with, “Nonetheless, they [sic] are plenty of proxies with annual resolution over the period of interest …”
Criticizing someone for doing the same thing you do is not good form.
No, I was criticizing content, not typos. Nothing wrong with the spelling of quantitation – if you don’t get it, that’s OK.
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
Funny, I don’t see a MCA in Helen Essell’s reconstruction of the last 12,000 years, nor do I see it in:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x
You don’t see “the” hockey stick either in the Helen Essel reconstruction. Though one sees a lot of shafts and noise.
Polly, if one were to polish the Essel reconstruction, simplify, strip out a lot of noise; is it possible it could reveal another hockey stick in that record? Like the current one that can’t be seen in the same reconstruction? Noise makes these things difficult, polish helps.
Even without polishing, you can see the start of the HS. It is not very pronounced because the data stops in 1950; however, it does fully cover the MCA. The desperation is entertaining.
Sure it’s possible. But if the Instrumental record for the 75 years missing from the end of Essell’s data is appended, it seems extremely unlikely (“polished” or not) that there is anything in the previous 12,000 years that resembles the last 50 years. Science works with evidence, not the lack of it. Where’s your evidence of prior events similar to the last 50 years. Put up or shut up.
You can’t see the HS in Essell because the data stops in 1950. If that data is appended with the instrumental record, it is extremely unlikely that there has been another event similar to current during the CE.
Polly, for one who couldn’t define what a hockey stick was prior to March 2nd, 2024, I duly note your squirming gaslighting skill.
You know that data granularity diminishes as one looks back in time, before each paleo “shaft” representation; but you ignore this; it speaks to your spattering attempt for relevency. You state: ‘Where’s your evidence of prior events similar to the last 50 years. Put up or shut up.” Can fill in the blanks yourself, for unknown paleo data? Do you think you have the winning argument based your own lack of science?
So yours is the propagandists battle cry. A true scientist would say that science can’t provide paleo granularity, there are too many unknowns. So, you have the data to prove that contemporary climate is extraordinary, using granular paleo data as comps? No, you can’t make such a claim, but you project the arrogant settled mantra nonetheless. Your argument is idelogical strongarming, nothing more.
“Where’s your evidence of prior events similar to the last 50 years?”
Thanks, that was lots of writing and insults to admit that you have no evidence.
You have no paleo comps, Polly, you only see the shiny, Turtle Waxed shaft in front of you, burnished by near term strong arming. It’s not by accident, you’re among many ideological propagandists.
Trunks, when you don’t have anything to say, resort to repeating the same word salad. You have already shown that you have no evidence of any paleo events that are similar to the last 50 years. “What if” speculation is not evidence.
And you believe you proved something?
There’s massive holes in the paleo record. Yet you feel the last 50 years in the climate record are unique. You’re all preen, Polly, unfortunately you’re also a clipped bird, it helps not to parrot.
JT,
Yes, I proved that you can/will not give evidence for your hypothetical. Further, there is considerable evidence that it is false, at least for the last million years.
Thermometers do not measure the air temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
When there is question of veracity or insufficiency of experimental data, there is a simple solution – more data, better data. Here’s an example from Greenland ice cores w.r.t. the Holocene and CE:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
You can add another 0.34 C (since 2018) to the end of the graphs. I looked for the MCA, but don’t see much, although it was supposed to have been pronounced in Greenland.
The thing is, isotopes ratios tell is about the temperature of water at the point of evaporation and the amount of precipitation between there and the sample site. They best represent the temperature of the hemisphere. Alley ad hoc calibrated GISP to local greenland temperatures. It should be done with other data sets.
Borehole analysis tells local temps. High latitude isotope analysis at both poles will best tell is global temps.
Given the large angle of the Earth’s axis to the plane of the ecliptic (which is slowly decreasing) and the distance of the Earth from the Sun in winter, it will still be thousands of years during which the oceans in the northern hemisphere will absorb and accumulate more solar radiation than in the southern hemisphere. But in time the snowfall, thanks to the warm oceans, will be so strong that another glaciation will begin. Also, low solar activity will cause cooling in winter at mid-latitudes in certain areas of the northern hemisphere due to changes in circulation, caused by changes in the ozone zone. Also, changes in the geomagnetic field in the north will bring climate changes in the northern hemisphere. It seems that the northern hemisphere has already reached a maximum in access to solar energy.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/maps/gfs_world-wt3_sstanom_d1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2024.png
It’s not so much about access to solar energy, as it is about how much is retained.
About 9800 years ago, the Sun strongly heated the Earth under the influence of orbital forcing. This was the period of the so-called Holocene optimum. At that time, a very warm Atlantic period prevailed. Nine thousand years ago, the maximum angle of inclination of the planetary axis was about 24.5 degrees. Since then it has been slowly decreasing over the millennia, until now.
Currently, it has not yet reached half of the decline. It stands at 23.4 degrees. Only in less than 12 thousand years will the tilt of the Earth’s axis be at its lowest. It will then be 22.1 degrees. And then it will continue to rise.
Thank you, Ireneuzs, for a very interesting and a very important theme:
“About 9800 years ago, the Sun strongly heated the Earth under the influence of orbital forcing. This was the period of the so-called Holocene optimum. At that time, a very warm Atlantic period prevailed. ”
–
Doesn’t sun heat the spherical Earth regardless the angle of the Earth’s axis to the plane of the ecliptic?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos the angle of the Earth’s axis is important because when it is minimal the Arctic circles enlarge and strong radiation is concentrated in the tropics.
“The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66° 33′48″ north of the equator. Its latitude depends on the Earth’s axial tilt, which oscillates by more than 2° over 41,000 years.”
Changes in Obliquity
There is another important cycle that has the potential to affect the Earth’s climate; it is a 41,000-year variation in obliquity, the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation with respect to the perpendicular to its orbital plane. This variation is different from precession — the two motions are at right angles to each other — and astronomically is a much smaller effect. The obliquity varies by only a few degrees back and forth, and the current value of 23.4° is near the middle of the range. However, climatologically, the obliquity variation has the potential to have a fairly direct effect on seasonal extremes. After all, it is the obliquity that causes our seasons in the first place — if the Earth’s axis were perpendicular to its orbital plane, there would be no seasons at all.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/seasons_orbit
We are actual currently at/near a minimum and northern insolation will be increasing for the next sev hundred years.
Do you know why the mid-Atlantic (near Africa) is so warm currently?
Unusual evolution of el nino this year. Similar thing happened in 1877/78. https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1765911204185166133?s=46
What significance the course of the jet stream has can be seen in the current weather. It can be seen that the jet stream current in the northern hemisphere has aligned itself meridionally and is descending in both the eastern Pacific and eastern Atlantic, which is why both the mountains of California and Spain are now experiencing heavy snowfall.
Pingback: IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph - Climate- Science.press
Global warming has become an industry — an industry that even attacked a 15 year old girl (Kristen Byrnes, Ponder the Maunder) for having the temerity to question the merits of Al Gore’s science. It was climate change frauds like Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Briffa and Jones who hid behind filing cabinets full of purposefully biased junk science and refused to admit the truth of any fact that conflicted with the ‘hockey stick’ picture of the world they sought to paint. Their world is one where evil American capitalism is a blight that is poisoning the planet with its human-produced CO2 that will cause runaway global warming if it is not stopped by a bigger secular, socialist EU-style Eurocommunist government and economy.
Wagathon wrote:
Global warming has become an industry — an industry that even attacked a 15 year old girl (Kristen Byrnes, Ponder the Maunder)
What was her evidence?
Just read this. It says nothing about her evidence. Only that she “is getting out of the climate-change business.”
https://www.npr.org/2008/04/15/89619306/teenage-skeptic-takes-on-climate-scientists
Waga wrote:
Their world is one where evil American capitalism is a blight that is poisoning the planet with its human-produced CO2 that will cause runaway global warming
The science doesn’t say that, dude. Retract.
There’s a new mood in the air among those attuned to the cultural influences that affect scientific inquiry. Fluttering against our inclinations to look the other way is a nagging realization that what we must now study is science itself, before it’s too late and before we’re completely blind to the new reality that modern science is failing us. The monomaniacal obsession with CO2 in the science of global warming is now seen to have taken on a compulsive dimension with all the earmarks of a dementia; and, we have to be concerned about the future wellbeing of the very institution of higher learning.
Hey Ren, can you put up a long period graph which illustrates the cycles from your comment;
“Given the large angle of the Earth’s axis to the plane of the ecliptic (which is slowly decreasing) and the distance of the Earth from the Sun in winter, it will still be thousands of years during which the oceans in the northern hemisphere will absorb and accumulate more solar radiation than in the southern hemisphere. But in time the snowfall, thanks to the warm oceans, will be so strong that another glaciation will begin. Also, low solar activity will cause cooling in winter at mid-latitudes in certain areas of the northern hemisphere due to changes in circulation, caused by changes in the ozone zone. Also, changes in the geomagnetic field in the north will bring climate changes in the northern hemisphere. It seems that the northern hemisphere has already reached a maximum in access to solar energy.”
Many studies have produced evidence that the two strongest orbital cycles (obliquity, 41 kyr and precession, 26 kyr) probably do drive changes in ice volume. The data in the figure have been fitted to these periods and also to the longer, much weaker 100 kyr eccentricity cycle.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Part quote “Many studies have produced evidence that the two strongest orbital cycles (obliquity, 41 kyr and precession, 26 kyr)”
During the Holocene abrupt obliquity changes with collateral precession changes have occurred – and repeatedly. The quote above may(?) hold for the glacial period of a cycle, but definitely not for the Holocene. The quote is a concept that ‘may have’ taken consideration of the secular change but certainly ignored the possibility of abrupt impulse/step changes.
Since it is the inter-glacial that concerns humans and other life forms most the old concepts should be carefully re-assessed.
Melita,
What physical causality do you propose for “abrupt impulse/step changes” in Earth’s orbit, and what evidence do you have that lends credence to your hypothesis?
In science, all concepts are open to assessment and reassessment. And any changes are subject to further assessment. Skepticism is a two-way street.
BA B
See my earlier post. Not earth orbit. Earth orientation.
In science, all concepts are open. Skepticism, like Belief, have no place in it. It is research based on evidence that contradicts the established and long accepted theory (that was based on early mathematical ‘modelling’ or curve fitting.)
Melita,
My mistake, rotational, then. I’ve seen your evidence (see your previous post) – it isn’t. My questions remain.
BA B
Orientation, as in axial orientation, not rotational.
You keep putting the cart before the horse. “what evidence do you have that lends credence to your hypothesis?”
What I gave is the evidence; correlated. Year 173ce is the data, extensively explained by historical data, and recently correlated by sediment research – that leads to even further correlations. Obliquity readings, taken within 24hours of each other, indicating an abrupt earth axial disturbance. Plenty of associated historical detail.
Ignored in favour for the fake data of a science charlatan ( https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-crime-of-Claudius-Ptolemy-Newton/22e67a0bdcab974c04efd52043d555d631dbb644 )
There are others, honest wrong and otherwise.
Sorry, of course, radiation increases in the northern hemisphere until January 4, not December (perihelion).
Melita, So what was physical causality of your proposed sudden obliquity perturbation? Still haven’t answered that.
BA B: OK, I think I know what you’re after. Please see below.
Some 10 years ago I needed to corroborate data obtained from archaeological material indicating obliquity changes. I got that from ice-cores (correlated chronologically) indicating abrupt change in trend in temp anomaly (see chart in first, bottom links). These corroborated what I had at the time from tree rings. These indicated polar contra equatorial trends. 2345bce was a particular date, now further corroborated by links as in earlier posts. Peak temp reached at about 2200bce.
Then here something new in a period that had not interested me. ‘Greenland’, Viking settlement about 985ce. Compare temperatures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grtemp.png to obliquity spikes in second link below.
Spikes greater in earlier times and holocene, and so are temp swings. Driver not intrinsic to earth.
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/searching-evidence-update/
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
Read the ‘tea leaves’ carefully.
Melita,
My question remains: What is the physical causality? That is what I am after.
Exaggerated illustration of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun, marking that the orbital extreme points (apoapsis and periapsis) are not the same as the four seasonal extreme points (equinox and solstice).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Seasons1.svg/1024px-Seasons1.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
We can measure the length of the year in several different ways. The length of the year from equinox to equinox (equivalently, solstice to solstice) is called the tropical year, and its length is the basis for our Gregorian (civil) calendar. Basically, the tropical year is the year of a complete cycle of seasons, so it is natural that we use it for ordinary purposes. But we can also measure the length of the year from perihelion to perihelion, which is called the anomalistic year. On average, the anomalistic year is about 25 minutes longer than the tropical year, so the date of perihelion slowly shifts over time, regressing by about 1 full day every 58 years. The date of perihelion thus moves completely through the tropical year in about 21,000 years.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/seasons_orbit
Thank you, Ireneusz, for the good material for thinking you provided.
“the angle of the Earth’s axis is important because when it is minimal the Arctic circles enlarge and strong radiation is concentrated in the tropics.
“The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66° 33′48″ north of the equator. Its latitude depends on the Earth’s axial tilt, which oscillates by more than 2° over 41,000 years.” ”
–
“About 9800 years ago, the Sun strongly heated the Earth under the influence of orbital forcing. This was the period of the so-called Holocene optimum. At that time, a very warm Atlantic period prevailed. Nine thousand years ago, the maximum angle of inclination of the planetary axis was about 24.5 degrees. Since then it has been slowly decreasing over the millennia, until now.
Currently, it has not yet reached half of the decline. It stands at 23.4 degrees. Only in less than 12 thousand years will the tilt of the Earth’s axis be at its lowest. It will then be 22.1 degrees. And then it will continue to rise.”
–
What I realise from the above is that currently Earth’s axial tilt lessens from its maximum 24,5 degrees to the present 23,4 degrees.
Also that the lessening will continue for some 12 thousand years, until it reaches its lowest 22,1 degrees.
–
And when the axis angle inclination is at its lowest 22,1 degrees, the Arctic cycle is the smallest. And therefore, “strong radiation is concentrated in the tropics.”
And when “strong radiation is concentrated in the tropics.”, then Planet Earth is in Ice Ages.
–
And, since currently earth’s axis is in the lessening the inclination from 23,4 degrees towards the 22,1 degrees slow millennials long pattern, Earth currently is in a slow orbitally forced natural cooling pattern.
–
And, what instead we observe, is Earth’s surface gradual warming.
–
Thank you again, Ireneusz.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is not that simple, and the process takes thousands of years. It is important to note the high thermal inertia of the oceans. You have to take into account all Milankovic cycles together, as well as solar activity. Perihelion in January in the northern hemisphere shifts winter to March. Solar radiation is calculated to be 7% higher in the Northern Hemisphere. It seems that the differences in ocean surface temperatures in the south and north are starting to become apparent in the middle latitudes, but I could be wrong. Of course, there is also the ENSO cycle, which is visible in satellite temperatures as a result of the greater diffusion of water vapor in the troposphere during El Niño.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
Christos I am distrustful of temperature comparisons due to changes in measuring instruments. Temperature used to be measured near the surface, now satellites measure the radiation of the troposphere. In my opinion, it is difficult to compare current measurements with those before the 1980s.
“The Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit, the eccentricity of which fluctuates slightly (in the range of 0.005-0.058 over a period of about 95,000 years). Currently, the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit is very small at 0.0167, while the Earth’s orbit is almost circular and is becoming increasingly circular due to the decreasing eccentricity.”
Christos, the most rapid climate change is related to solar activity, particularly solar wind power and UV radiation.
https://www.sidc.be/SILSO/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/wolfmms.png
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Thank you, Ireneusz.
I need to think a little, before I answer.
Maybe it will take me two or three hours.
–
Thank you again,
Christos
Ireneusz, I am studying now the very good graph you refered to:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Seasons1.svg/1024px-Seasons1.svg.png
Ireneusz,
“It is not that simple, and the process takes thousands of years. It is important to note the high thermal inertia of the oceans. You have to take into account all Milankovic cycles together, as well as solar activity. Perihelion in January in the northern hemisphere shifts winter to March. Solar radiation is calculated to be 7% higher in the Northern Hemisphere. It seems that the differences in ocean surface temperatures in the south and north are starting to become apparent in the middle latitudes,”
–
I agree with all your theses.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ireneusz,
“Perihelion in January in the northern hemisphere shifts winter to March. Solar radiation is calculated to be 7% higher in the Northern Hemisphere.”
–
Solar radiation is calculated to be 7% higher in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter and in the Southern Hemisphere’s summer, compared to Southern Hemisphere’s winter and compared to Northern Hemisphere’s summer.
–
Thus, in our era we are experiencing in Northern Hemisphere solar radiation to be 7% higher in winter than in Southern Hemisphere’s respective winter which occurs 6 months later.
–
And like-wise, we are experiencing in Northern Hemisphere solar radiation to be 7% lower in summer than in Southern Hemisphere’s respective summer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s right, so it’s logical that heat loss in the southern oceans in winter is greater because they accumulate less heat in summer. Of course, El Niño mitigates these changes.
Ireneusz,
“…heat loss in the southern oceans in winter is greater because they accumulate less heat in summer.”
–
Please explain:
Does heat loss in the southern oceans in their respective winter (June) is greater because they accumulate less heat in their respective summer (December)?
Radiation in the southern hemisphere increases from July, where it is the middle of winter in the southern hemisphere, to January. In the northern hemisphere, from July, where it is the middle of summer, to December. If you look at the ozone hole over Antarctica, you can see that it persists until December. This means that the stratospheric polar vortex in the southern hemisphere runs until December. The melting of sea ice in the south doesn’t begin until November.
https://i.ibb.co/ryPBZSr/ozone-hole-plot-N20.png
Thank you, Ireneusz.
“Radiation in the southern hemisphere increases from July, where it is the middle of winter in the southern hemisphere, to January. In the northern hemisphere, from July, where it is the middle of summer, to December.”
–
So radiation increases from July to December-January for the entire Earth.
It is the period when Earth moves on its orbit around sun from the Apoapsis to Periapsis.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Who funds “Clintel?”
Why don’t they publish in the scientific literature, like real scientists?
you can get a sense of their “objectivity” (ha ha) by going to their website where the lead article is headlined, “The climate crisis big lie serves to ressurect socialism.”
Just because UN Secretary General Guterres used to be President of the Socialist International, and its Vice President chaired the UN Sustainable Development Commission is no reason to go jumping to conclusions about the politicization of science, but come to think of it , Covering Climate Now is about as innocent of politics as Clintel, and far more sophisticated in its grasp of social engineering.
Pingback: IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Pingback: IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph – Watts Up With That? - Finencial
Pingback: Australian Climate Action – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
As Clintel’s founders started off as Netherlands oil industry engineers and journalists , and it features deliverables by Willie Soon and runs a clone of the Oregon Petition, it might be described as a Royal Dutch Shell company.
Pingback: IPCC’s New “Hockey Stick” Temperature Graph (LOL) | ajmarciniak
This post was a rather comprehensive review of using proxies – with emphasis on tree rings – to estimate temperature changes prior to the era of the thermometer. It becomes apparent from this review and others like it that there exist numerous temperature proxies that can be combined to produce a wide variety of estimated historical temperature trends – and particularly so when excluding the placement of the thermometer temperatures at the series ends.
What exasperates me about these discussions and reviews is the lack of attention to the obviously critical selection process in constructing temperate proxy series. We need to talk about an ideal method of selecting proxies for temperature reconstruction and letting the results and conclusions fall were it may.
It takes real “faith” to claim that current CO2 levels have a significant impact on global temperature. The amount of CO2 over large metropolitan areas in winter indicates an inverse relationship. The colder it gets, the more CO2.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2024/01/01/0730Z/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
More FF fueled furnaces are running.
That is obvious. However, the CO2 doesn’t have the ability to counteract the seasonal temperatures.
Yes it obvious – it takes understanding, not faith.
The Mauna Loa seasonal variation is also inverse. CO2 increases from Fall to Spring, reaching a peak in the Northern Hemisphere in May, and then declines during the Summer. Clearly, biogenic CO2 production and conversion is more important than the constant anthropogenic sources or the atmospheric extraction controlled by Henry’s Law. Monthly data show no declines in 2020, or even a decrease in the slope of the CO2 concentration, during the Winter ramp-up phase, despite declines as high as 14-18% in the anthropogenic CO2 in April, and an average annual decline of about 10%. The shape and peak of the seasonal CO2 concentration in 2020 is indistinguishable from the preceding and following years. The annual range in atmospheric CO2 is least at the South Pole, and greatest at high northern latitudes, dominated by Boreal respiration and bacterial decomposition of organic material in the Tundra. And then there is the strong suggestion provided by the Law Dome ice cores that CO2 lags temperature changes by about 800 years.
it takes *faith* to believe that the sun is warming the earth, since it’s freezing sometimes on perfectly clear days! frankly, i think that disproves this whole “sun affects our climate” theory.
Nowhere is the sun’s dominant role in catastrophic solar warming more evident that Canada in the winter, as can be seen in this experimental demonstration;
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/02/canada-advances-solar-powered-steyn.html
Russell Seitz wrote:
Nowhere is the sun’s dominant role in catastrophic solar warming more evident that Canada in the winter, as can be seen in this experimental demonstration
Care to explain how an area like Canada, 2% of the globe’s area, demonstrates warming of the entire globe?
What was the 1961-1990 average temperature the HS departures from?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is a low probability on La Niña. ENSO will remain neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202403.gif
PLEASE don’t tell me you are arguing that the rise in co2 has a cause other than burning of fossil fuels? fossil fuels are, in fact, the indisputable cause of the rise in co2 in the atmosphere. this is not debatable. it is been proven beyond even the tiniest microdoubt. if you disagree with it, then you are wrong.
Making an assertion without facts or logic to support it does not make it true. I disputed it, and stated why. You can’t make the same claim.
Sadly, DanB, despite regular and frequent requests for the scientific proof of the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature they have failed to enlighten. Mann’s debunked ice hockey stick trick proves that there is no scientifically provable relationship between temperature and fossil fuel burning. Any decent scientist would have proven it without the need for data falsification and trickery and to the satisfaction of us all.
In the meantime we are crippling our environment with wind and solar the manufacturing of which is a major source of fossil fuel emissions when we could have built nuclear generators and have a much cleaner environment by mid-century!
Please don’t tell me you haven’t been warned.
UK-Weather Lass, anonymous bot afraid to use his real name, wrote:
Mann’s debunked ice hockey stick trick proves that there is no scientifically provable relationship between temperature and fossil fuel burning.
You clearly don’t understand the very first thing about the hockey stick.
It doesn’t say a SINGLE THING about the relationship between temperature and CO2.
If you don’t understand that you are stupid.
It’s simply a reconstruction of past temperatures.
But it does meet the theory of CO2 warming, as I’ve written many times here.
Mann et al’s hockey stick has certainly not been debunked. Wise up and learn the scientific literature. Or don’t post on this subject again.
Lass
Just put Appell on your pay no never mind list since he is stinging from his increasing realization that his 8th grade equations just aren’t relevant anymore and the science has passed him by.
In the coming decades many in our society will be confronted by the fact that what they held as truths of climate science were just mirages. Such delusions used to be treated and supported by the mental health professionals with progressive therapeutic strategies like lobotomies and continual, 24 hour care. With the emergence of Deinstitutionalization as public policy, many of those afflicted have been dropped back into society and landed in leadership positions in the Democratic Party.
Lass,
Science does not provide proofs. You don’t understand what you are talking about.
Polly: “Science does not provide proofs”
Which is why Polly stated there’s evidence for a blade in “The” hockey stick presented within the Helen Essell et al chart–there’s not, it’s all noise. Though the “shafts” in that same chart do stand out for obvious reasons. But using Polly’s motivated reasoning, he sees a couple bars that looks like the beginnings of a blade (note he couldn’t even define a hockey stock a couple days ago). SImple deduction reviewing the myriad shafts within that same chart find better candidates that “could” be hockey sticks; but there’s not enough granularity to define them as such. I’m not arguing there’s another hockey stock in the Helen Essell chart, only that presenting climate scale, especially as one goes further back within the paleo record, makes the current contrived hockey stick, at minimum, an unimpressive presentation; simply because there’s no similarly granular paleo comps to measure it against.
The propagandist says the contemporary hockey stick is unique because of humans, but they can’t prove this; though it makes for a great political fearmongering headline.
Jungletrunks just commented:
The propagandist says the contemporary hockey stick is unique because of humans, but they can’t prove this; though it makes for a great political fearmongering headline.
The real shame is that deniers refuse to learn and stick their heads in the sand.
Again, a heuristic explanation of why the hockey stick MUST be true. The hockey stick is required by basic physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to log(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
=> hockey stick.
Clyde,
Try to understand the difference between a balanced oscillation (growth, decay) which averages to zero with time, while an increasing line (or curve, e.g., anthropogenic CO2 emissions) gets larger and larger. Then take a look at
https://i0.wp.com/timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Keeling-Curve.png?ssl=1
And see if you think the seasonal oscillation can’t be separated from the constantly integrating (increasing) background contributions.
You are assuming that there is a balanced oscillation without the facts in evidence. It actuality, the Winter ramp-up phase of the seasonal variation is slower and longer than the photosynthesis-driven Summer draw-down phase. Something that you don’t seem to appreciate is that, unlike the nearly constant anthropogenic emissions, increasing CO2 results in (NASA verified) increased greening, meaning that the biomass available for bacterial decomposition is increasing every year; however, because the two seasonal phases are not equivalent, the annual ramp-up is not balanced by the shorter duration draw-down. There is an annual, positive residual that is not compensated by terrestrial and marine photosynthesis. Additionally, a warming Earth accelerates biological decomposition of organic material sequestered in the Tundra and also results in increasing out-gassing in the oceans, as per Henry’s Law. Lastly, warming Winters result in increasing respiration from the roots of Boreal trees south of the Tundra. Further evidence for the role of warming can be seen in the shape and range of the CO2 ramp-up phase, which is higher during El Nino years.
“It takes understanding, not faith.”
Thanks for your thoughts. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.
“CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.”
–
It is a very small forcing and feedback.
It is a very-very small-small forcing and feedback.
–
Before get solving about a very small forcing and feedback – the CO2 trace gas content in Earth’s thin atmosphere, please consider about Earth’s surface the very strong specular reflection.
The smooth surface planets and moons specular reflection should be necessarily considered in the planets’ and moons’ “Energy in” estimation, because otherwise the Planet Energy Income will be very much overestimated.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Christos:
You have said these things over and over again – repeating falsehoods does not make them true.
Christos Vournas | March 4, 2024 at 9:38 am | wrote:
“CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.”
–
It is a very small forcing and feedback.
It is a very-very small-small forcing and feedback.
What are the actual numbers Christos?
Also, something else, I have to quote the Gandhi’s saying…
“A mistake does not become truth because it is widespread, nor does truth become wrong because no one sees it.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Well, let’s see what the coupled term Φ(1 – a)S produces:
Albedo =
=(satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m²) /S W/m²
Earth’s Albedo = 0,306
So = 1362 W/m²
(Earth’s satellite measured SW diffuselly reflected W/m²) =
= Albedo * So = 0,306 *1362 W/m² = 416,8 W/m²
The Earth’s surface the not reflected SW W/m² =
= Φ(1362 W/m² – 416,8 W/m²)=
= 0,47*(945,2 W/m²) = 444,2 W/m²
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.”
Sometimes yes, sometimes not so much.
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1765047937904603511?s=46
We actually see CO2 fall while temperatures are rising at the end of deglaciation. During the holocene climatic optimum, CO2 and CH4 both decline until neo-glaciation starts. CO2 & CH4 start increasing and temperatures start falling.
It seems that biosphere growth increases when northern latitudes warm, when it cools & permafrost surface refreezes, methane emissions go up. There is likely additional release from terrestrial biosphere die off. CO2 released from the oceans starts to outpace biosphere & arctic ocean uptake. When the arctic is ice free in the summer, it is able to remove a lot more CO2.
“Thanks for your thoughts. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.”
I give you two long paragraphs with facts questioning the prevailing paradigm and you give me two short sentences, one of which is an unsupported assertion, the other is a non sequitur.
Surely, you don’t expect me to believe you just because you say it is so!
Clyde,
That’s right – I don’t expect anything from you. I’m sorry if I could summarize your “two long paragraphs” in a short sentence. I didn’t see any questions.
clydehspencer wrote:
“Thanks for your thoughts. CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback.”
I give you two long paragraphs with facts questioning the prevailing paradigm and you give me two short sentences, one of which is an unsupported assertion, the other is a non sequitur.
It’s a shame you don’t understand the basics of climate science.
Until you do, no one need take you seriously.
You seem to have ceased descriptors like “exponential” and “hyperbolic” that go off to infinity, because that does not happen in Nature, hence the concept of reversion to the norm.
So, in terms of “an increasing line”, how can you infer that this is NOT part of an oscillation? CO2 in air concentrations are unlikely to head off to infinity or go below zero. There is probably a tipping point when they decrease, which happens with oscillations.
Do you have a view that CO2 in air will behave differently to reversion to the norm? Do you believe that the increase we are now seeing will proceed without reversal? Or do you concede that it could be part of an oscillation?
Geoff S
It may start an oscillation but it is not part of one. Yes, CO2 in air can behave differently than reversion to the norm, particularly as long as there is a continuous addition of CO2. I believe the increase in CO2 will reverse – I’m more interested in when and at what level it will reverse.
All readers interested in actual temperature patterns in the instrumental era might benefit from a close study of this 2023 paper by Pat Frank.
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
I shall resist copying extracts from it here because there are so many quotable passages. It is mainly about the drift of thermometers over time and some of the consequences. If you are an armchair reader it might be beyond you. It will help if you have performed actual measurements in your career. If you are an experienced metrologist, chances are that this is new information – I cannot recall earlier studies with this impact and consequences.
Geoff S
and if you’d like to see why his paper, in a journal nobody has ever heard of, is complete mumbo-jumbo, you can read this blistering take-down of his basic mathematical errors. https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html
DanB & Pat Cassen comments,
Many walks of modern science fail to deal properly with IID, numbers that are Independent and Identically Distributed. There are ways to calculate uncertainty when the numbers are free of each other, like those from a random number generator and so IID; and other ways to treat much earth science data, where this independence is uncommon.
It is not responsible of you to advise readers here to ignore Pat’s papers because they fail to appeal to a trendy current authority that seems to misuse uncertainty estimates to make them “good enough for government work.”
Readers with short science experience can learn from the greater rigidity of old-fashioned statistics, though the concepts that Pat uses might seem a little alien to them. That does not make them wrong.
The mathematics behind science should not be influenced by social trends. Geoff S
Maybe Pat Frank could explain why the Skeptical Science analysis is wrong?
DanB
Skeptical science dot com shares many of the same characteristics as Watts up with That with few major differences
1) they are on the opposite ends of junk science.
2 ) SkS is heavily invested in psychology , less so invested in actual science
3) Watts up with that claim to fame is poking fun of the pseudo science.
4) SkS is especially bad on subjects such as subsidies and renewables. Numerous commentators at SkS have a complete detachment of reality and detachment of basic sciences.
5) SkS regularly posts junk science, and when the junk science is pointed out, the commentators go DefCon5 defending the junk science.
Given SkS historically pathetically bad record – why would you link to any commentary from Sks
Here’s yet another take on Pat Frank’s paper:
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/08/15/at-the-molehills-of-madness/
The quotable passage:
“It would be unfair to say that Frank doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The difficulty is that no one else does.”
IMO, this is how science should work. A paper everyone can read, and rebuttals everyone can read. I love it!
did you read the critiques? we’re talking here about basic mathematical errors, such as performing algebraic operations in the wrong sequence! more broadly i think this is to the point:
“One thing Frank gets wrong every time in his critique of mainstream climate science is that he assumes that no one has given any thought to systematic errors before him. This is a difficult line to tread given how much of the literature he cites here that flatly contradicts his position[4]. To put it as clearly as possible: some errors average away, but the ones of greatest interest for climate science, being systematic, do not, and these are dealt with in a variety of ways. There are other mistakes he makes, but that’s the most important one: his critique of the mainstream position is a strawman.
The other general problem is that he just munges everything up together. He takes a number from one source, applies an inappropriate formula to it, and combines it, again illegitimately, with a number from another source, multiplies it with yet another number, passes the whole lot through another formula he has pulled out of a text book and comes up with absurd numbers. There’s no physically meaningful underpinning to his ramblings. He treats numbers in an abstract way and rapidly loses sight of their concrete meaning.”
Well described DanB. Funny thing is, real scientists with long and broad physical science experience easily recognize the writings, mistakes, and omissions of wanabe pseudo-scientists who do not have that experience or training, and are driven by a preconceived notion rather that a logical search for the truth based on all available evidence.
This is why discussing climate science in view of the general public is a good thing.
Jim, yes that is why real climate science is published in peer-reviewed journals for everybody to read, not in obscure, self-reinforcing blogs or appended to device specification sheets.
Climate science should be discussed far and wide, not only in peer-reviewed journals. CS is being used to re-make society as we know it, including spending of trillions of dollars. It is special and we all need to understand why this is happening, and why perhaps it shouldn’t!
If you haven’t noticed, CS is widely discussed.
“CS is being used to re-make society as we know it, including spending of trillions of dollars. ”
No CC is driving the remake of some of our society’s infrastructure. It is necessary for sustainability and is costing “trillions” of dollars and, with little doubt, will cost more trillions in the future. Seems to me, a good thing to spend money on.
Keep spinning BAB. It’s remaking our entire society.
“Jim, yes that is why real climate science is published in peer-reviewed journals for everybody to read, not in obscure, self-reinforcing blogs or appended to device specification sheets.”
That is fundamentally an ad hominem attack. You are not addressing the points of the argument, but implying that where something is published is more important than what is presented to defend the argument.
By that ‘logic,’ everyone should just ignore anything you write here because this is not a peer reviewed journal. Were you to follow your own guidelines, you would be shutting yourself down.
clydehspencer commented:
“Jim, yes that is why real climate science is published in peer-reviewed journals for everybody to read, not in obscure, self-reinforcing blogs or appended to device specification sheets.”
That is fundamentally an ad hominem attack.
It certainly is ad hominem. For good reason. If someone doesn’t have the cojones to publish in the open scientific literature, there’s no need to pay attention to them. Because they’re trying to sneak into science without opening themselves up to criticism. It’s cowardly and it’s weak. Scientists only pay attention to the peer reviewed literature, for good reason, completely justified.
clydehspencer wrote:
By that ‘logic,’ everyone should just ignore anything you write here because this is not a peer reviewed journal.
Exactly! That’s why real scientists completely ignore blogs.
Clyde makes a good point on what gets printed in peer reviewed journals. A few examples – Marc Jacobsons 100% renewables. Several of his studies have been published in peer reviewed journals, yet they are use extremely unrealistic assumptions that makes the conclusions a complete joke. The study showing 12% of asthma cases caused or associated with gas stoves. That study is junk science, if not academic fraud, yet its published in a peer reviewed journal.
As Ganon notes. BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 4, 2024 at 9:50 am | Reply
” Well described DanB. Funny thing is, real scientists with long and broad physical science experience easily recognize the writings, mistakes, and omissions… ”
That fundamental principle is often ignored in the pursuit of the activists.
Clyde,
That’s silly and illogical, personal opinions & observations are not the same as scientific submissions.
But please, feel free to ignore everything I write here – I’ll do the same for you.
B A Bushaw,
The allegation here that Pat Frank made a mathematical error is wrong. He explained misuse of a formula by showing its difference when both forms were used. This should be immediately evident to those who read and understood the paper by Pat Frank.
The problem is about which formula to use for sets of data with different origins. In simple form, in one corner we have “simple” number sets like lists of random numbers where one number is not swayed by others. The other corner has numbers that are related to each other, as by probability and predictability. Example, too simple, a warm day is more likely followed by a another warm day than a cold day, probably.
The referee GUM has the solution in writing. Examples are given for different cases. The boxing match is now claiming which GUM example applies to which group of data (here, mostly daily temperature observations).
It is NOT about math errors by the author. It is about Pat Frank nothing what many others have, that some past papers might have selected the wrong formula. Many, many blog commenters agree. Pat Frank has done a large amount of study and has produced a summary of the drift problem in old thermometers and it’s effect on uncertainty estimates, for which critics ought to give credit and debate by methods other than distasteful misrepresentations. Try the Scientific Method – it beats trolling. Geoff S
Geoff,
Thanks, I’ll believe the statisticians at NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, BerkeleyEarth, etc. I’ll believe the experimentalists that spend much of their time understanding and decreasing systematic errors. But, it was still interesting to read Frank’s account of the difficulties of precision temperature measurements with LiG thermometers through 1980, even though they are well known. Of course, I didn’t take him very seriously after the first sentence of the abstract.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 4, 2024 at 6:12 pm |
“Geoff, Thanks, I’ll believe the statisticians at NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, BerkeleyEarth, etc.”
….
Appeal to Authority. Nothing more.
Next?
Geoff S
Geoff,
Yep, very different from appeal to a false authority – that’s more your thing.
Electric cars emit more particulate pollution …
https://www.wsj.com/articles/electric-cars-emit-more-soot-california-ban-gas-powered-vehicles-521b29e3?st=qw2zhdrz5xjkwcd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
wow, this is getting to be a pretty desperate argument – that EVs, being ~20% heavier produce more tire wear, which produces particulate pollution. but the article itself says that all cars, in total, produce less than 1% of particulate pollution. So, if EVs produce 20% more particulates than ICEs, we’re talking about an increase in airborne particulates of perhaps. 0.2%. Of course, the other issue is that the statement that EVs are heavier is misleading. The average weight of EVs sold in the U.S. is roughly identical to the average weight of all ICEs sold in the U.S. – because many ICEs are SUVs pick-ups. So…bad assumptions, bad logic, that even if it were correct, in terms of actual pollution is a non-issue.
When I think of big diesel pickups and semis “rolling smoke”, and ICE emissions in general, both particulate and gaseous … the desperate misrepresentation of the article is laughable.
DanB – you are missing the point
California is making the claim that they need ban ICE because of particulate matter.
Even though particulate matter from both ICE and EV’s is trivial.
“The Biden administration is reviewing California’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035. To get federal approval, California claims it “needs” this ban to prevent harm to public health from particulate matter—airborne particles like dust, dirt and soot. “
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 4, 2024 at 11:18 am |
When I think of big diesel pickups and semis “rolling smoke”, and ICE emissions in general, both particulate and gaseous … the desperate misrepresentation of the article is laughable.
Ganon – What is laughable is California’s stated reason.
A quote without a source is also laughable.
Comparing cars to cars, and trucks to trucks, EVs are heavier.
“A quote without a source is also laughable.” [BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 4, 2024 at 11:49 am |
I look forward to seeing citations associated with all your future quotes and assertions.
Quotes and scientific data/conclusions – yes. Assertions – no. I would hope you would do the same.
Yes, the difference between ICE and BEV tire particulates is, as pointed out by Dan, insignificant compared to total particulate loading. However, the same cannot be said for GHGs.
Link, please :-)
See Dan’s comments
billfabrizio | March 4, 2024 at 10:00 am | wrote:
Electric cars emit more particulate pollution …
Bill, like you care about particulate pollution!!
Ha.
Such pollution already prematurely kills 1 in 5 people on the planet. Where has been your concern about that????
But now you see a little opening so you post this kind of junk as if it resides alone in the context. Who do you think you’re kidding???
Quote:
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.”
Richard Feynman
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, (everything else equals), for planets and moons, the less their surface temperatures are differentiated, the higher their average surface temperatures are.
–
But the theoretical T.effective does not pose any Mathematical CONSTRAINT to planets’ and moons’ the average surface temperatures (Tmean).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“You know, I really don’t think these people know what they’re talking about,”
Richard Feynman
Quoted in i>The Wall Street Journal, 5 November 1986
Joethenonclimatescientist,
You wrote, “DanB – you are missing the point
California is making the claim that they need ban ICE because of particulate matter.Even though particulate matter from both ICE and EV’s is trivial.” Well, that is what the WSJ claims. But that claim is basically a lie (let’s call it what it is). Attached is the actual executive order. it’s not long and there is not one word about particulates. nor can i find any other reference to particulates anywhere else as a reason for eliminating ICEs. What a shocker – WSJ oped writer fabricates a false claim from nothing. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf
Dan … here’s an article from the emissions analytic firm mentioned in the WSJ piece above.
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/gaining-traction-losing-tread
While the CA executive order may not mention particulates, it does use the term zero-emissions. And I would assume this isn’t the application to the Feds for approval.
The law was passed to curb GHGs, not particulates. Nothing here contradicts that in any way, shape or form. The WSJ claim that the law was passed to curb particulates is a flat-out lie. and the reason is obvious: only 1% of the particulates in the atmosphere come from cars in the first place, so the idea that California switched to EVs to curb particulates is total nonsense! i’m not even sure the relevance of this link, as it is just a comparison of tailpipe particulates to tire-based particulates. so what?
“There is one thing that often gets taken wrong if we are reconstructing past climate and we show more natural variability. Some people, they don’t understand it fully, they would say “ah okay, you are able to show us that [the] climate system was always varying, so where is the problem?” This is the wrong assumption, the assumption is that this only indicates that the climate system is very sensitive, so it’s about the sensitivity.”
Most people have not begun to understand it. The variability of indirect solar forcing causes NAO/AO anomalies and regimes, driving mid latitude heat and cold waves, and inversely driving ENSO and AMO variability. That the state of the climate determines the variability is the wrong assumption.
With the Greenland treeline, Ulf doesnt understand that Greenland is warmer when the AMO is warmer, which is at least during each centennial solar minimum. Also at the scale of weather, Greenland is warmer during negative NAO conditions, which are increased during low solar periods. Greenland would have been warmer during the early and the late Antique Little Ice Age, so there is no need to invoke a 100-200 year lag from the Roman warming. That huge lag seems to have disappeared in the most recent Greenland warming, which is a fairly direct response to weaker indirect solar forcing since 1995, causing negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2013.
https://youtu.be/gAcvHhaLtRU?t=2567
That’s just the way it is.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
We are friends to anecdotes everywhere, except where they are selected for use in displacing disinterested data.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 4, 2024 at 6:12 pm |
Re the uncertasinty paper by Pat Frank, Bushaw wrote n-
“Of course, I didn’t take him very seriously after the first sentence of the abstract.”
Thank you, Bushaw, for your (non-) acceptance of my advice that the Scientific Method beats trolling.
You then use the words “precision temperature measurements with LiG thermometers.” The topic was about accuracy, not precision, but perhaps like many climate researchers, you lack an education in the difference.
Geoff S
Geoff,
If I want scientific method, I read literature and well-reviewed textbooks. If I want trolling, I come here and read your, and a few other’s, comments.
Frank was about both accuracy and precision (the moment he started talking about “impossibly low” standard deviations). And yes, I have plenty of experience with both – it kinda goes with physical and analytical methods research.
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/bruce-a-bushaw
From what I’ve seen, you are the one that lacks an education, both in statistics and the scientific method. If you do have one, what is it?
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 6, 2024 at 9:59 pm |
“Geoff, Serial dilution of reference standards, microliter loadings, calibration curves – standard analytical chemistry.”
…..
Bushaw,
At a lab I owned, a govt dept asked us to quote on a sponsored project in analytical chemistry to determine how accuracy shown in calibration curves was affected by analytes collecting on the walls of their containers and potentially becoming an increasing error as solutions became more dilute. I declined to participate, because of the circular logic of using containers for calibration solutions as well as for test cases.
Would you have done the same?
I write this, not to deflect from the thread, but to illustrate that various people have different concepts of not only accuracy, but also how to include inaccuracy in uncertainty estimates.
It does nobody a favour to double down on ignoring accuracy/uncertainty components as for example Mann et al ignored with the hockey stick dendrothermometry, having responses known to be different pre- and post-1960.
Geoff S
Sherro,
Thanks for your story. It doesn’t change the fact that I know the difference between accuracy and precision.
sherro01 – this is normally handled by one or more blanks that are processed the same as the standards.
Polly: “It doesn’t change the fact that I know the difference between accuracy and precision.”
Squawk, says the babbler who couldnt define a hockey stick chart just few days ago; later stating he could see it in the essays Helen Essell et al. chart. Polly’s superpower enables him to see vacuous precision.
JT,
Thanks for your thoughts – they are always so enlightening.
“…always so enlightening.”
Nobody here needs to disentangle your thoughtful hockey stick chop precision, Polly. You might want to stop fluttering and instead revisit what you consider to be your enlightening precision.
I understand the difference, and relationship, between precision accuracy – it is an essential part of conducting scientific experiments, evaluating instrument performance, and understanding the data – I have both the education and experience to do that. As an exhibit, here’s the abstract from one of my patents :
“A system and process are disclosed that provide high accuracy and high precision destructive analysis measurements for isotope ratio determination of relative isotope abundance distributions in liquids, solids, and particulate samples. The invention utilizes a collinear probe beam to interrogate a laser ablated plume. This invention provides enhanced single-shot detection sensitivity approaching the femtogram range, and isotope ratios that can be determined at approximately 1% or better precision and accuracy (relative standard deviation).” (US: 8477304)
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/bruce-a-bushaw
Bushaw,
In the early days of the development of the Ranger Uranium mine, mid-1970s, by my choice, the gold standard for uranium analysis in ores was by reactor irradiation of a sample chosen to be above 1 gram when possible, followed by delayed neutron counting.
We tended to exclude methods such as the emerging ICP and conversion-to-gas methods because of their fluctuations and the tiny weight finally sampled in the instruments.
We were (and I remain) sceptical of femtogram detection limits for several reasons, one being the difficulty in preparing and validating calibration standards. (A femtogram being 10^-15 gram).
Geoff S
Geoff,
Serial dilution of reference standards, microliter loadings, calibration curves – standard analytical chemistry.
joethenonclimatescientist,
i don’t know the gas stove study you’re referring to, but this meta-analysis that looked at 27 different studies and concluded, “We found that 12.7% (95% CI = 6.3–19.3%) of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.” but i’m sure it’s all fraud. just like climate science. and every other branch of science the finds results that you don’t want to hear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9819315/
DanB
Its astonishing that those individuals claiming to have greater expertise in science would defend the 12.7% of Asthma cases are attributable to gas stoves study when the red flags are blatantly obvious.
1) the study used PAF when its widely known in the professional literature that PAF is inappropriate (meaningless results) when there are multiple factors.
2) A The study had gas stove usage by states and asthma rates by states in a supplemental schedule. A simple analysis by state showed positive correlation with asthma rates and gas stove usage in approx 20 states, negative correlation in approx 20 states, and no correlation with approx 10 states. The neg correlation should have set off alarm bells
3) the various national asthma advocacy groups dont even have gas stoves listed in the top ten of asthma causes and/or triggers. Tell us again how gas stoves would be associated with 12% of asthma cases when they arent even in the top ten
The question is not whether a non scientist such as myself would think the gas stove asthma study is junk science, but why someone who supposedly has strong science and strong math background would think the study is good science.
The red flags are too blatantly obvious.
DanB – Further comment on that study, they set the selection criteria in the meta study to exclude at least one (perhaps two) far more robust study[ies], that showed no attribution of asthma to gas stove.
yes it was “peer Reviewed” Tell us again why you think that study is valid
It is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON, because what we have found is that the satellite measured planets and moons the average surface temperatures (Tsat) RELATE, (everything else equals),
as the planets’ and moons’ their respective (N*cp) products’
the SIXTEENTH ROOT.
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
********
Also we have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Published: 30 June 2020
Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach
Darrell Kaufman, Nicholas McKay, …Basil Davis
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7
Global temperature modes shed light on the Holocene temperature conundrum
Published: 18 September 2020
Jürgen Bader, Johann Jungclaus, …Martin Claussen
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18478-6
Büntgen is incorrect that a high pre-industrial temperature variability would mean that the climate sensitivity is also high.
It suggests it temperature varies independent of forcing change. In fact, because it varies so much regardless of whether greenhouse forcing is increasing or decreasing, climate sensitivity must be low.
There has been an ongoing discussion of aerosols’ effect on global temperature. Here is a relevant article featuring albedo.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/05/the-continuing-albedo-change-warms-the-earth-more-than-twice-as-much-as-co2/
to be clear, this a non-peer-reviewed article by someone whose other publications are all in the field of cognitive psychology, who is part of ‘clintel’ which has a very overt political agenda. so…this deserves no more weight than a post by any of the commenters here.
of course, albedo has decreased and this has added to the warming. why has it decreased though? the decrease is a positive feedback of warming caused by co2. this author conveniently deceptively ignores that the decrease in albedo is due primarily to melting sea-ice, reduced snow-cover, etc.. AGW is due to co2 increase + positive feedbacks, especially declining albedo. now, obviously, this psychologist’s claim that the albedo decrease is more important than the co2 increase is absurd, but it certainly is true the increase in co2 triggered decrease in albedo and both cause warming.
He put down the decrease to changes in cloud cover primarily and gives references for that. Do you disagree with that (with references)? Also, breaking out the warming due to CO2 concentration vs albedo is legitimate, even if one causes the other.
Although I do agree the title to the post is a bit deceptive.
There may be some small feedback from the greenhouse effect (eg, narrowing of cloud columns), but the increase in SW radiation absorption is about five times bigger than the increase in the GHE over the past 20 years. It can’t be all feedback, or even most. It can be indirect responses to increasing greenhouses, eg trees produce less aerosols when they are less stressed, increased precipitation and soil moisture also reduces aerosols, reduced aerosol emissions from wildfires. There are also changes it the amount, location, and methods of biomass burning. Reduction in tilling in agriculture…
A lot of it is probably just weather.
aaron wrote:
There may be some small feedback from the greenhouse effect (eg, narrowing of cloud columns), but the increase in SW radiation absorption is about five times bigger than the increase in the GHE over the past 20 years.
The absolute first thing to consider is the decrease in the Earth’s albedo….
A consensus among a International Union of Geological Sciences committee has decided we are still in the Holocene, not the Anthropocene.
Ironically, eco-not sees set fire to the Tesla substation in Germany because they weren’t happy about the trees cut down to build the facility.
Electricity substation, that is, which fed the Tesla factory there.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) = [ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ] ^1/16
Where:
N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin.
cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jim2,
“He put down the decrease to changes in cloud cover primarily and gives references for that. Do you disagree with that (with references)? Also, breaking out the warming due to CO2 concentration vs albedo is legitimate, even if one causes the other.”
First, yes, it’s certainly legitimate to break out the impact of co2 versus other feedbacks such as albedo change. i don’t agree with his weighting of each of these, but then neither he nor i are climate scientists so, full disclosure, i am just going with the side i find more credible. as to whether change in cloud covver is the primary source of change in albedo, it is very hard to see anyone who has any actual evidence for this. many in the skeptic community have in fact supported richard lindzen’s “iris effect” theory. (he, like dr. curry, is a skeptic with genuine scientific credentials.) his theory was that as co2 increased, warming the atmosphere, changes in cloud cover would be a net ***increase*** in albedo, causing a cooling that would in effect balance the warming.
i’m not sure whether scientists have actually been able to quantify the different sources of albedo changes. i googled a bit for papers on this and found nothing.
If you look at the comments, Nick Stokes had some IPCC-sourced info. I think the IPCC was roughly half that posited by Oxenstierna.
don’t know. i browsed through the comments. my sense is the net effect of the cloud feedback is still the largest unknown, but the fact that the warming is within the range predicted by climate models suggests that there is no dramatic misunderstanding in the impact of cloud changes.
use ice core records, cloud feedback is well known. warmer polar oceans without sea ice, promote more evaporation, more clouds, more snowfall, more sequestering of ice with a resulting colder time period following.
That would be the radiative response/feedback.
There are non-radiative effects that change cloud cover. They may be due to greenhouse gasses, but not the greenhouse effect.
There may be some small feedback from the greenhouse effect (eg, narrowing of cloud columns), but the increase in SW radiation absorption is about five times bigger than the increase in the GHE over the past 20 years. It can’t be all feedback, or even most. It can be indirect responses to increasing greenhouses, eg trees produce less aerosols when they are less stressed, increased precipitation and soil moisture also reduces aerosols, reduced aerosol emissions from wildfires. There are also changes it the amount, location, and methods of biomass burning. Reduction in tilling in agriculture…
The CO2 alarmists are literately in Heaven. Everyone is obsessing about mostly man made CO2 and no one, or very few consider other natural causes. The alarmists always win these disagreements using the precautionary principles.
Many obsess about open polar oceans with less sea ice and ice shelves, ice core records show that these warmer times with less sea ice and ice shelves are the times that ice accumulations on the sequestered ice on land is the most and ice core records and history show that colder times always have followed these warmer times with more ice accumulations. Warm times with more snowfall and colder coming as more ice advances and increases albedo and increases ice being pushed into the oceans causes colder. The colder, caused by advancement of ice shelves and more ice pushed into oceans forms sea ice and turns the ice machines off until the ice is depleted and then the next warmer and colder time periods naturally follow.
JT,
Century and source?
we don’t consider natural causes because the increase in co2 is not due to natural causes. you can either accept this or you can be wrong, but it’s a fact.
DanB:
It really doesn’t matter where it comes from. It has ZERO climatic effect.
DanB,
If the policy is not to count ALL sources of CO2, it calls into question the motives of the policymakers.
One of the “natural” sources of CO2 is burning coal seams. In the ’90s, there was a report that the burning coal seams in Indonesia alone were putting out CO2 at a similar rate to the whole of western Europe (power generation and transport). The seams were allowed to burn on because there was no economic way to extinguish them.
If those “natural” emissions *were* counted, that would change the economics, and be a pretty big inducement around the world to come up with ways to abate those emissions. The policy as it stands gives no such incentive.
Seems that the war is not against CO2, but against cheap energy.
DanB: “we don’t consider natural causes because the increase in co2 is not due to natural causes”
Over the last 20k years the planet has warmed, this warming thawed permafrost. Today in the Northern Hemisphere roughly 15% of the land remains permafrost, holding an estimated 1,500 gigatons of CO2. 20k years ago there was a lot more permafrost, it extended deep into North America. New York, for example, was under 2 miles of ice, permafrost extended further beyond the glaciation. So CO2 has escaped from thawing permafrost for 1000s of years, methane too. The latter is merely one example of natural CO2 release.
DanB: “you can either accept this or you can be wrong, but it’s a fact.”
When was there a previous interglacial CO2 growth RATE as fast as the last 50 years?
Hannibal didn’t cross the icy Alps: his army crossed a forest. Meanwhile, we all learned that glaciers come and go on a lot faster Earthly timetable than we realized (i.e., they were gone both 2,000 and 4,000 years ago not just 10,000 years ago) and, the reason for their demise obviously had nothing to do with us moderns injecting our CO2 into the atmosphere.
Wagathon,
How FAST did those BCE glaciers disappear (and how extensively?) compared to the last 50 years?
Polly, looking at the last 20k years, there”s a lot of “sticks” that you call “blades” within this climate record.
Carve out the last few hundred years “peak” for each substantive “stick” within this record, capture “all” proxy data we don’t have. Once you have this, put a cherry on top by adding a 100% error bar on top of each stick in said proxy data (kinda like the difference between contemporary instument readings overlayed on top of the contemporary proxy data that we do have); get back with me for discussion.
As a table top experiment I’ve previously described, time how quickly the last 10% an ice cube melts at room temperature compared to the 1st 90%. Use this experiment juxtaposed to the rate of CO2 increase within the last 10% of every “stick” within the last 20k years, not just one, average all of them together. Get back to me after you’ve uncovered all the narrow ranged proxy data, for “all” sticks.
JT,
Century and source? For temperature signature that looks anything like the last 50 years during the last 8,000 (mid-interglacial).
Finding that the timberline had changed with the retreat of the Alps when Hannibal crossed them back in the time of the Romans, Christian Schlüchter, a Bernese geologist came into conflict with climate researchers (see, the Christian Schlüchter interview in Der Bund, June 7, 2014. (Translated by Bing).
Schlüchter was awakened to more than the fact that the Timberline, back then, was much higher than it is today. Schlüchter also became convinced that our society is fundamentally dishonest. For example, Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ showing a flat average global temperature until warming in the 20th century is nothing more a big double-cross and a stab in the back of ethical scientists who conduct climate research with honesty and integrity.
‘In the northern hemisphere we are now in a period of cooling trends. Nevertheless, the glaciers have receded. Many are convinced that man is responsible. For me personally, this is not the central issue. Our society is fundamentally dishonest. One speaks of the “hockey stick”, which indicates a long period of constant temperatures with an exponential warming in the last 100 years.’ (Ibid.)
Polly: “Century and source? For temperature signature that looks anything like the last 50 years during the last 8,000 (mid-interglacial).”
I wasn’t ambiguous in my prior post, Polly.
Now that the question is redirected back at you; please answer. After all, it’s you who believes AGW science is settled science; it’s on you to produce the citations that you clearly believe settles said science–you believe that nothing compares to the last 50 years.
Don’t fall off your perch; but I want to up the ante here, let’s zero in on all “sticks” over the last 100k years. It’s a narrow range of data that you apparently have at your disposal, right? Just provide a few hundred years of dense proxy data centered on either side of “peak” temperature in the paleo record, around those most apparent “sticks”–that for which you believe settles the science–specifically, that nothing compares to the last 50 years, as you say. Use the criteria asked of you.
Interjecting
“ For temperature signature that looks anything like the last 50 years during the last 8,000 (mid-interglacial).”
If the last 50 years were in the top 1% of the last 8,000, one would expect just a tiny bit more of a blade in the SLR.
SHOW ME THE BLADE.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/680-140_meantrend.png
SHOW ME THE BLADE
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/170-011_meantrend.png
SHOW ME THE BLADE
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/230-051_50yr.png
SHOW ME THE BLADE
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/1612340_50yr.png
JT: Nope you want to prove something, then prove it. I’ll wait for the century and source that you can’t provide.
Kid: Is there something about “temperature” that you don’t understand?
Burl: Sure.
KId, if you want a hockey stick for sea level rise, you have to look back a thousand years or so to see the shaft. The graphs you link are all blade, so you don’t see the shaft before the rise (blade), even though your graphs are all blade.
Polly: JT: Nope you want to prove something, then prove it. I’ll wait for the century and source that you can’t provide.
That’s not how it works, Polly. Something provable is, well, provable.
Settled science translates to proved science, do you think otherwise? If the latter, then why?
It’s on science to demonstrate its proof; that’s the point of peer review, isn’t it.
So the science is either provable as advertised, per citation, or it’s not.
You have nothing.
JT,
Take a class on the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Science does not provide proofs; however, its hypotheses and theories can be proven false. Go for it, I’m still waiting for century (in the last 6000 years) and source of evidence.
ganon
Are you certain that English is your first language?
No blade. No crackers.
Kid,
Yep, sure is. Not a surprise you are having difficulty with it.
” The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove,” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist. ”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
Polly: “When was there a previous interglacial CO2 growth RATE as fast as the last 50 years?”
There would have been massive releases of CO2 caused by glacial dam bursts, these floods rolled across the North American continent, cutting through permafrost, creating most of the canyons we recognize today. The amount of permafrost swept away would have released tremendous amounts of CO2, and CH4; virtually overnight. But not the point really.
This convo led where it had to go. As described before, the sparse data found in the paleo record can’t provide anything near the fidelity of contemporary instrument readings. Todays “stick” caused from CO2 has no meaning without context. The paleo record does demonstrate a rhythmic pattern of like temperature velocity, without the granularity, nor the same data fidelity; yet similar overarching velocity can be seen. Lack of data fidelity rounds off inflection points, that’s it. Todays “stick” doesn’t look extraordinary in context to paleo examples. CO2 causation for contemporary warming velocity isn’t proved, the rate of temperature rise itself isn’t unusual.
ganon
You highlighted the last 50 years. There is no blade for the last 50 years compared to the last 100 years. I will take that blade all day long.
Here is a graph for the last 550,000 years. Tremendous variance.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=3758961_pjab-89-281-g003.jpg
This is from the renowned Munk 2002 enigma study. Two key sentences.
“ At the end of the ice age, global sea level was 125 m beneath the present level and rose rapidly to about −2 m by 5000 BC, but by 2000 BC, the rise had seized.”
“Sea level is important as a metric for climate change as well as in its own right. We are in the uncomfortable position of extrapolating into the next century without understanding the last.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.092704599
This graph depicts 20th century SLR for Japan, which is consistent with the links to Jevrejeva 2008 and Cazeneva 2022, linked previously. Multi decadal variability.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=3758961_pjab-89-281-g006.jpg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758961/
11 days from today is the Spring Equinox. that is the day the flow of the ATMOSPHERIC RIVERS will reverse.
THAT IS THE DAY NATURE PROVES THE GREEN NEW SCAM IS JUST THAT, A SCAM.
!!!!!!!!!!DRILL baby drill!!!!!!!!!!
The planet specular reflection was neglected
In the billions of years of their existence, planets and moons surfaces were subjected to natural influences (which were different for every planet and moon). Those continuous influences had developed either the smooth surface pattern, or the heavy cratered (rough surface) pattern.
For planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The specular reflection is not included in albedo, because the incident ray, the reflected ray, and the normal to the surface all lie in a same plane perpendicular to reflecting plane.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We have corrected the Planet Blackbody Effective Temperature (Te), because we have found that planet surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION was NEGLECTED.
–
It clear now that the entire greenhouse gases global warming effect is based on that fundamental mistake.
When Earth’s surface the STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION is NEGLECTED – it results to a solar energy income the huge overestimation.
–
The solar energy income is twice as much overestimated in Earth’s “Energy in” equation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
burlhenry,
“It really doesn’t matter where it comes from. It has ZERO climatic effect.”
I suggest, if you believe this, you take this up with Dr. Curry and all the other skeptical scientists, who all know that what you’re saying is utterly ridiculous. please write to dr. curry, who runs this blog, and tell her you know way better than her about the climate and co2 has no climatic effect.
DanB:
Sulfur Dioxide is a dimming atmospheric aerosol pollutant from volcanic eruptions and industrial activity that decreases the intensity of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface.
It is also responsible for Acid Rain, which kills vegetation and fish in small bodies of water, and can cause respiratory health problems
As a result. global efforts to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere began in the early 1970’s, and circa 1980, temperatures began rising because of the less polluted air.
Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked at 136 million tons in 1979, and due to the “Clean Air” efforts, by 2019, they had fallen to 83 million tons.
The increased warming from the 53 million ton reduction in SO2 aerosol pollution easily accounts for ALL of our warming since 1980. Warming due to rising CO2 levels is a monumental HOAX.
I have posted similar comments at other times on this site, so Dr. Curry should be well ware of them. However, she kindly allows posts that she may not necessarily agree with, and she should be praised for that.
thanks for your expertise. i’m definitely going to reject the views all spectrums of the entire scientific community in favor of some guy on a blog.
DanB
Nice sarcasm!
But I would like YOUR explanation as to how millions of tons of a dimming aerosol pollutant can be removed from the atmosphere without increasing the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
NASA states that “SO2 aerosols are reflective, and “cool the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface by reflecting away some of the incoming solar radiation”. And, obviously, if they are removed, the intensity of the sunlight striking the Earth’s will increase.
What is utterly ridiculous is the inability of all spectrums of the scientific community to grasp such a simple fact!
Burl, I must have missed it; can you tell us the radiative forcing of anthropogenic SO2?
glad you enjoyed the sarcasm.
there seems to be a big logical flaw in your “theory”. if the warming is due to a decline in the emission of so2 particulates, then there should have been a comparable cooling in the prior 150 years as so2 particulates increased due to industrialization. in fact, you’d expect the climate around 1820 to be right where it is today, since so2 emissions were the same and increase in co2, according to you, is irrelevent. but that is very far from the actual history. temperatures are nothing like the 1820s and the period 1820s to 1970, when s02 was rapidly increasing, show slightly warming, not dramatic cooling.
DanB:
At this time, I am only looking at the modern era, 1980-present, where millions of tons of industrial SO2 aerosols were removed from the troposphere due to global “Clean Air “efforts. Removing pollution from the atmosphere will necessarily increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and cause significant warming (about a .01 Deg. C. temp. increase for each million tons removed. Between 1980 and 2022, the reduction has been more than 56 million tons!
With that much warming just from decreased SO2 aerosol pollution, how is it possible for CO2 to have caused ANY of the warming?
Looks to me like the sum total of all anthropogenic aerosol forcings are equal in magnitude to about 25% of that of the GHGs. And of that, only about 1/2 are due to SO2. In the unlikely event that SO2 emissions go to zero, it will add < 15% to the heating caused by GHGs.
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
BA:
I would refer you to the world-wide MWP, where there were very few volcanic eruptions, and SO2 aerosols were essentially zero.
CO2 levels were also very low, yet in their absence, temperatures rose to probably 1.5- 2 degrees higher than today, and it was a period of droughts, floods, starvation , heat waves, etc., much as is happening now around the world, due to decreasing SO2 aerosol levels, caused by Clean Air and Net-Zero activities, and NOT due to rising CO2 levels.
burlhenry wrote:
Removing pollution from the atmosphere will necessarily increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and cause significant warming (about a .01 Deg. C. temp. increase for each million tons removed)
Can you give me a source for this number? I’m genuinely interested…. Thanks in advance.
David Appell:
Since 1980, satellites have been used to monitor the amount of SO2 injected into the stratosphere by VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions. This SO2 initially temporarily cools the Earth for 14-16 months before finally settling out.
As it settles out, temperatures rise to the pre- eruption level (or usually, enough higher to cause an El Nino).
So, we know the amount of SO2 involved, and the amount of the resultant temperature change can be determined by examination of a graph of average anomalous global temperatures, such as the interactive graphs from WoodForTrees .org.
I have downloaded such a graph for 1980-2022, using the HadCRUT4 data set, and for most eruptions, it is impossible to determine what the climatic effect of their SO2 aerosols might have been, because of other interfering increases or decreases in SO2 aerosol levels.
However, the Oct 25, 2005 eruption of Sierra Negra was isolated enough to allow measurements to be made. It caused a temporary temperature increase of 0.55 Deg. C., and had 0.19 million tons of SO2, so that, in this instance, a decrease of 0.19 million tons of SO2 resulted in a temp increase of 0.55 deg. C. or 2.9 deg. C. per million tons, if my math is correct.
A lot more than I had expected. Can you fault the analytical approach?.
David Appell:
Disregard the conclusions of my last post. Will be back with revised numbers.
Burl,
No, refer me to a publication that shows that the MWP global temperature was 1.5 – 2 C higher than it is now. My understanding is that it was regionally incoherent and may have exhibited local extrema as high as you claim, but global MWP averages were less than now, and rate of change is currently > 20x what it was throughout the MWP.
In other regards, you didn’t respond to my falsification of your hypothesis (anthropogenic SO2 decrease is responsible for all warming since 1980). But that’s OK, it is apparent that you do not wish to discuss radiative forcing quantitatively. I only wonder why?
BA:
You might want to read the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the MWP.
There were only 31 volcanic eruptions over the entire 300 year period, so the air was largely free of SO2 aerosol pollution and worldwide temperatures were higher than anything experienced since then (although we are closing in on them, because of Clean Air and Net-Zero SO2 aerosol reductions)
For an idea as to what the weather was like back then, read the Wikipedia article “The 2014-2016 El Nino Event”, which was caused by a 29 million ton reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions, but there were still some 80 million tons remaining. These were not present during the MWP, so world-wide conditions would have been far worse.
You keep asking for the radiative forcings of SO2.
There are actually two. One for increasing levels in the atmosphere, and another for the warming that occurs when their aerosol pollution is reduced, or removed from the atmosphere
From the IPCC diagram of radiative forcings, their forcing for sulfates is – 0.4 W/m2. They do not show one for the REMOVAL of sulfates, but since CO2 causes no warming, the forcing attributed to it ~4 w/m2 actually represents that due to sulfates.
I will eventually respond to your “falsification” of my hypothesis
DanB:
“When SO2 levels were last this low, temperatures were much, much , cooler”
?? What time period are you speaking of?
There are other aerosols to consider than. just industrial emissions. Wildfire is down substantially, so less aerosols from that. CO2 uptake means much more photosynthetic efficiency and water efficiency; less stressed plants produce less cloud forming aerosols. Also, increased precipitation clears aerosols (dust, etc) and increased soil moisture means less aerosols from land. There’s also been changes in the amount, location, and methods of biomass burning. Plus, there’s been a reduction in tilling for agriculture.
Aaron:
You have a point, but the only temperature changes that show up on a graph of average anomalous global temperatures are those from changes in industrial activity, or volcanic eruptions.
This article doesn’t mention the fast-track retirement of coal fired plants or the grid management mess caused by wind and solar. It also doesn’t mention more demand due to EVs, heat pump replacement of natural gas furnaces, a Climate Doomer Democrat administration’s hostility toward natural gas appliance and homes and towards fossil fuels in general. Gotta wonder how all that slipped their rather small MSM minds.
Vast swaths of the United States are at risk of running short of power as electricity-hungry data centers and clean-technology factories proliferate around the country, leaving utilities and regulators grasping for credible plans to expand the nation’s creaking power grid.
…
The soaring demand is touching off a scramble to try to squeeze more juice out of an aging power grid while pushing commercial customers to go to extraordinary lengths to lock down energy sources, such as building their own power plants.
“When you look at the numbers, it is staggering,” said Jason Shaw, chairman of the Georgia Public Service Commission, which regulates electricity. “It makes you scratch your head and wonder how we ended up in this situation. How were the projections that far off? This has created a challenge like we have never seen before.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amid-explosive-demand-america-is-running-out-of-power/ar-BB1jtM69
Correction, it does mention some of the “green” energy transition problems.
Another EV disaster in the making. Money down the “green” black hole.
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has appointed himself the figurehead of Rivian Automotive Inc.’s massive $5 billion development outside of Atlanta. In 2023, the first day of March was dubbed “Rivian Day.”
Just a year later, the second-biggest economic development project in the state’s history is faltering after a surprise announcement that Rivian has halted plans to build the multi-billion-dollar factory. The news marks an abrupt reversal for the electric vehicle manufacturer and casts doubt on promises to bring thousands of high-paying jobs to the Southeast state.
It also represents a blow to Kemp’s ambitions to make Georgia a manufacturing hub for EV companies and encroach on rival states like Texas. To lure Rivian, the state and its localities offered the company $1.5 billion of subsidies including grants and land. Georgia officials maintain the deal is not dead.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-08/rivian-s-factory-pause-deals-fresh-blow-to-georgia-s-crown-jewel
Is a figurehead something between CEO and CFO?
We can be truly amazed at how much faster a hoax gets debunked these days compared to days of yore. Measured by the time of its dramatic rise and eventual plummet to earth, we’re looking at more like 10 years to defeat the global warming hoax. Compare that, however, to about 50 years for the Piltdown Man Hoax to be understood. Even then it took another 50 years to piece together who all where involved in the hoax. True though, that many still use the hoax, taking advantage of the ignorant and superstitious for political advantage. To be sure we see that still with among other issues, the misinformation anti-vaccine propagandists.
The hoax that AGW is going to cause catastrophic harms to humanity is not going away. There is too much financial and academic incentive to claim any and all bad weather is due to CO2.
The hoax will go on for decades.
Outside of western academia, a third of the world’s population living in India and China could care less about the AGW hypothesis. Add to that all who depend on oil production in the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, etc., and all the Eurocommunists lie about their obeisance to their treaty commitments and stab America in the back despite the fact only America has actually reduced its annual carbon dioxide emissions.
The hoax will last until the last hoax believer dies and that may be a very, very, very long time away but that, paradoxically, is excellent longer term news for humanity as stupid as we may all be as of now.
Do you just make crap up hoping others will believe it, or do actually believe, for example, that only america has reduced its carbon footprint?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/450017/co2-emissions-europe-eurasia/
Disingenuous considering the steep upward tilt of the graph an increase in the use of coal with ’22 being but a meager dip down due to the pandemic… no?
Wagathon,
If you read Edith Efron “The Apocalyptics” you might infer that the US government induced a scare in the 1960-70 era by claiming that man-made chemicals were producing an epidemic of fatal cancers.
It took less than a decade to dismantle that one.
The difference between then and now is that the medical scientists leading the scare quickly realised that the evidence was against them, so several senior figures outed themselves. The scare then ended quickly.
Today, I wonder how many climate researchers still have the moral integrity to declare that the evidence is against them.
Geoff S
What passes for science in the halls of academia these days has less to do with skill and ability than who are better at marketing fearsome scenarios of certain doom, who are big promoters of big government planning and who are the most enthusiastically eager to allow science to be used as a propaganda tool to usurp the fruits of others’ labor, energy, will and commitment to truth and honesty.
The evidence is neither for nor against “climate researchers”, it is simply evidence that tries to understand climate change. I wonder how many doubters will have the integrity to accept that evidence. Let’s see in 5 years.
sherro01: “Today, I wonder how many climate researchers still have the moral integrity to declare that the evidence is against them.”
Very good post, Geoff. Those who had the integrity to critically question contemporary climate analysis have probably already done so. Unfortunately tbe credibility list is short; our CE host is on it. There will likely be few stepping forward from here unless there’s a rapid shift in cooling (not out of the question, but climate timescales/inflections are stubbornly slow until they’re not).
Todays political landscape is monolithic. Humans are most comfortable by being agreeable. So what makes matters intractable with climate science? Money, social cred, global collectivist polItics, fear–these are all self buttressing barriers ro science, they ideologically and emotionally/emotively trump integrity. Science integrity is shackled, political pundits are not.
Your quote from the article is copied below.
“That means even without [varying amounts of] greenhouse gases, we had these fluctuations; we had cold and warm periods. So that means the sensitivity of the [Earth] system is very high, which makes the effect of greenhouse gases even bigger, right? So I think it is exactly the counter-argument. If we are able to show that pre-industrial temperature and precipitation changes were relatively big, it only means that the additional effect of greenhouse gases will be even further a problem.”
“I haven’t found a discussion in the scientific literature comparing the opposing perspectives of Clintel and Büntgen.”
One possible solution is that changes in solar forcing have a much higher efficacy compared to a similar change in GHG forcing.
As discussed by Andy May here.
Climate Model Bias 3: Solar Input – Watts Up With That?
Paper published, Irvine 2014.
http://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/HT14/HT14024FU1.pdf
Correct. SW favors increasing ocean heat content relative to IR which favors evaporation and transfer back to the atmosphere.
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 theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I was following the Principle Trial some number of years ago to see how ivermectin fared. While the results for other drugs were revealed, the ivermectin results never surfaced. I finally gave up and forgot about it until now. The results are out and look how the study was front-loaded for ivermectin to fail, and for the usual socialist Democrat cohort to tell us how studies show it doesn’t work. They are the ones who are patsies for big business and the government.
Here is how the study was loaded like crooked dice:
https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/ivermectin-molnupiravir.trial_..gif
Here is the addy without the prefix
joannenova.com.au/2024/03/people-who-used-ivermectin-get-better-faster-and-were-much-less-likely-to-die/
The results and explanation can be found at Jo No Va’s site.
not sure what “jo no va”s site is but the only recent study i found of ivermectin, which came out last week, has this conclusion: “The results from our trial…support the position that ivermectin should not be used to treat SARS-Cov-2 infection in the community in high-income countries with a largely vaccinated population. Furthermore, given our findings in an open label trial of no differences in hospital admission, a modest reduction in first-reported time to recovery, and no impact work or studies at three, six and 12 months, we consider that additional studies of ivermectin in this population should not be a priority for research.” https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00064-1/fulltext#secsect0150
Thanks for that paper, DanB. It confirms the statments on Jo Nova’s site.
“Symptoms must have started within the previous 14 days and be ongoing.”
As noted so many times before, treatment of a viral infection has to start early. U can be a bit thick headed at times, or maybe you just blew off the link I supplied. Either way, you learned nothing.
sorry, but this writer claims that taking a medicine without food “greatly reduces its concentration”? actually taking without food is recommended to speed absorption. it does not “greatly reduce concentration” and it does not “slightly reduce concentration.” this is flat-out nonsense. which is why no patient has ever been told to take a drug with food to maximize its concentration! how would dosages even be calibrated if this were true? and yet people believe this moron with no background whatever instead of the entire medical and scientific profession.
maybe you can explain why merck, the manufacturer of ivermectin, came out with their own statement AGREEING that ivermectin is not an effective covid treatment and should not be used for it. Surely, since they stand to make huge amounts of money if it worked, they cannot be part of the vast conspiracy / cover-up to hide its effectiveness? by the way, this study from used a high dose for 6 days, with <7 days of symptoms, and concluded, "the posterior probability that ivermectin reduced symptom duration by more than 1 day was less than 0.1%." https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2801827
and here is the merck statement from its own website:
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
it states: Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to-date, our analysis has identified:
No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies;
No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and;
A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.
We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information.
Wrong again, DanB.
The geometric mean of fed/fasted ratio of area under IVM concentration-time curve (AUC) in plasma was 1.25 (90% confidence interval, 1.09-1.43), suggesting the tendency to increased absorption after a HF meal. The fed/fasted ratio of the maximum IVM concentration in the stratum corneum was well correlated with that in plasma. In addition, no serious adverse events were observed during the trial, while a mild increase of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase activity in plasma was observed under the fed state in two patients.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26918286/
https://x.com/aaronshem/status/1765500925039304846?s=46
Taleb seems to assume Lomborg is making a point he is not. He is not saying lockdowns are always wrong, just that they were in this instance.
Whether the positive relation with less strict lockdown is significant or not is irrelevant, nor whether a negative relationship may be hidden. The point is there was clearly no significant benefit to lockdown after a couple months and lots of potential downside.
After the first couple months, the case for lockdowns simply didn’t exist. We knew enough that the potential benefit wasn’t there. All it did was destroy credibility and erode the capability of people to endure lockdowns should they be needed if the virus had evolved in a way that made them actually necessary. Now it’s going to be a lot harder to get people to go along with them in the future.
Similar for the abysmal vaccine rollout. They blew their credibility and now it’s going to be a lot harder next time. The botched role out created a lot of more general antivax sentiment, which will have long lasting consequences.
It may be true that the vaccine saved lives on net, but the bad rollout and misinformation to used to promote it lead to unnecessary administration to previously infected, young, healthy, and otherwise low risk people causing unnecessary injury and death.
More importantly, the misinformation on preventing transmission turned the vaccinated into a major vector & promoted risky behavior. The leaky vaccine likely also affected the evolution of the virus. It may have even increased deaths overall.
Similarly, there was the bizarre political backlash against HCQ & ivermectin. It destroyed optionality. We could have easily and at low cost ramped up production to see if there was benefit with very little risk. Instead they destroyed the ability to effectively test it. It doesn’t matter whether it works or not, it should have been made available. It was low-no risk, possible high reward, and taken off the table needlessly.
The thing here is Nassim knows who Loborg is and so seems to be deliberately misinterpreting him. He knows Lomborg is one of the best statisticians in the world. He should know Lomborg isn’t making the point Taleb is pretending he is.
On the other hand, Taleb is right that Loborg doesn’t seem to understand what ad hominem is. What Nassim was doing was just name calling. Ad hominem is dismissing an argument because it comes from someone associated with an unpopular group.
wagathon,
no, not disingenuous at all. the carbon footprint pattern in europe is very similar to u.s.. both have small upticks amid an extended decline. clearly, you made a statement that you felt was kind of truthy, that agreed with your bias so therefore was probably pretty true. only when you make up crap like that that is 100% false, you kind of lose credibility.
Europe’s decrease in CO2 emissions is due to gutting industries (the German auto industry is in major decline) and switching from coal to American natural gas. But, Europe’s use coal is now going up again and the use of coal worldwide has never been higher.
Offshoring CO2-emissions and relying on child labor to provide batteries for electric cars is nothing more than sacrificing the economy on the altar of Leftist-lib climate change hysteria and ceding power and independence to authoritarian nations like Russia, China and Iran.
… and, it is becoming to come clear that a clean burning German diesel is a cleaner vehicle than popular EVs when particulate pollution from increased tire wear is included.
And then, there’s the ’embedded’ carbon production-
‘An EV has roughly double the production footprint of a typical internal-combustion-engine (ICE) vehicle. Both have similar embedded production emissions from, for example, producing the body of the vehicle, which is between five and ten tons of CO2e emissions, depending on its size and production location. On top of that, however, producing a typical EV (with a 75-kWh battery pack) emits more than seven tons of CO2e emissions on the battery alone.
‘The materials and energy needed to produce EV batteries explain much of its heavy carbon footprint. EV batteries contain nickel, manganese, cobalt, lithium, and graphite, which emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in their mining and refining processes. In addition, the production of anode and cathode active materials requires high, energy-intensive temperatures for some processes. Battery chemistry, production technology, the selection of raw-material suppliers, and transportation routes are other determining factors for the amount of embedded production carbon.’
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-race-to-decarbonize-electric-vehicle-batteries
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle
Wags –
That’s a very interesting article that you linked [March 10, 2024 at 2:23 pm]. A thorough reading should discourage anyone from making glib pronouncements regarding the environmental impacts of EVs v. ICEs. I’ll merely mention that the authors don’t seem to share your negativity toward EVs. Of course they mention the “… ultralow carbon footprint once in operation [of EVs]”, but they also argue that “…steep reductions in the carbon emissions from EV battery production are possible in the next five to ten years.” Indeed, they conclude with the summation: “The technologies [to reduce emissions generated by EV battery production] are either in place or rapidly emerging and will enable [OEMs] to substantially reduce the carbon footprint of batteries.”
Interested readers should check out the complete article. Don’t settle for Wagathon’s excerpts (or mine either).
Pat: “Don’t settle for Wagathon’s excerpts (or mine either).”
Meanwhile the EV market cascades off a cliff.
A late news anchor would sign off with a particular flourish: “you decide.” I believe the “you decide” moment will come when either value beomes decernable, or when collectivist politics forces its will (I feel for the average nameless CA citizen).
You decide–it’s a bit sketchy at the moment.
Affordability might avail itself once eggs become affordable again. Rain check on that.
burlhenry,
i know you are only looking at the modern era. but if s02 decrease leads to our warming, then s02 increase had to have led to comparable cooling. and when s02 was last at the level it is today, we might expect temperatures to be where they were today. but we see none of this in the data. when so2 levels were last this low, temperatures were much, much, cooler.
Dan B, where can I find good data/research on this?
Thanks
Oh the pathos of suffering from normal situations– like… the weather? In the putative Western science of climate change, ‘climate’ is the statistics of weather over 30-year intervals. For those who suffer from climate because it is e.g., dryer, wetter, warmer or hotter, foggier, cloudier, cooler or colder, more stormy or arid than ‘normal’, there is a common sense solution– move! Fact is, compared to the last, e.g., 30-years, the last time it was actually this ‘cold’ was 300 million years ago.
https://scitechdaily.com/66-million-years-of-earths-climate-history-uncovered-puts-current-changes-in-context/
Ganon – you have posted several different links to advocacy groups linking the same study
BA – Curious if you performed even a minutia bit of due diligence on that study? or even tad bit of critical thinking analysis or did you just accept the findings because it fit your belief in the narrative?
“Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have driven an increase in the global atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 parts per million (ppm) before industrialization to an annual average of 419 ppm in 2022, corresponding to an increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) of 1.1°C over the same period. If global CO2 emissions continue to rise, atmospheric CO2 could exceed 800 ppm by the year 2100. This begs the question of where our climate is headed. The geologic record is replete with both brief and extended intervals of CO2 concentration higher than today and thus provides opportunities to project the response of the future climate system to increasing CO2. For example, it has been estimated that global surface temperature 50 million years ago (Ma) was ~12°C higher than today, in tandem with atmospheric CO2 concentrations some 500 ppm higher (i.e., more than doubled) than present-day values. Consistent with these estimates, Antarctica and Greenland were free of ice at that time”
Ganon –
Temps in tandem with co2 ? really
The driver being co2?
the study in implying that CO2 is the dominant driver,
More dominant that the Milankovitch cycles?
More dominant that than the changes in the sun’s output over the 66 million years?
Sure, Joe. Tell me the last time, before the last 100 years, CO2 was above 400 ppm. Tell me when the rate of increase was even close to what it is today during an interglacial period.
“This begs the question of where our climate is headed.” No it doesn’t beg the question. You are just willfully ignorant about the answer.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 10, 2024 at 7:56 pm |
Sure, Joe. Tell me the last time, before the last 100 years, CO2 was above 400 ppm. Tell me when the rate of increase was even close to what it is today during an interglacial period.
Ganon – As usual – you changed the subject to hide your deception.
You have posted links to that study 3-4 times, yet its obvious that you failed to perform even a basic level of due diligence on the reasonableness of the study.
Co2 is more dominant than the More dominant that the Milankovitch cycles as the study implies?
Co2 is more dominant that than the changes in the sun’s output over the 66 million years as the study implies?
co2 is a leading indicator warming ?
Does this help ? “Numerical climate models as well as carbon isotope measurements from preserved Ordovician soils suggest that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide during the period were 14–16 times higher than today.”
Ordovician Period, Geochronology -Steven M Holland ; Fact checked by the Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
And glaciation began during the latter part. Seems an interesting contradiction.
When someone says things are in “tandem”, how can we be certain which “forced” the other? Begs the age-old which came first question. Is it just oversimplification or is there really no way of knowing?
Extending the grid will make the US subject to more wildfires. It’s a bad idea. Better to have concentrated power with a small foot print closer to the load centers.
Massive wildfires sparked by power lines used to be a California problem, one many utility executives considered safely confined to the Golden State. No more.
Texas officials on Thursday blamed the state’s largest-ever fire on electrical lines sparking in dry brush, fed by blasting winds into a million-acre inferno. The same combination of high winds, power lines and dry grass last year may have been responsible for razing the seaside town of Lahaina on Maui, a place once considered too lush to burn. Fast-moving fires blamed on utility equipment leveled homes in Colorado in 2021 and Oregon in 2020.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-07/power-lines-are-igniting-massive-wildfires-across-texas-and-the-western-us
EV-releated companies going bankrupt.
Charge Enterprises Inc., a public company building charging stations for electric vehicles and broadband infrastructure, filed bankruptcy to implement a restructuring plan that will hand control of the business to senior lender Arena Investors.
…
Thursday’s Chapter 11 filing marks at least the fourth bankruptcy involving companies in the electric vehicle business over the past few years. Electric vehicle maker Lordstown Motors Corp. and EV parts maker Proterra Inc. filed Chapter 11 last year and startup Electric Last Miles Solutions Inc. went bankrupt in 2022.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-07/ev-charge-station-maker-charge-enterprises-files-bankruptcy
About Proterra:
In April 2021, Biden took a virtual tour of a Proterra facility to promote his infrastructure plan. The proposal included $6.5 billion in grants to help replace diesel-powered school and transit buses with electric ones. During the tour, Biden lauded Proterra for “getting us in the game.” He predicted that Proterra and other electric vehicle companies would “end up owning the future.”
Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act further enriched Proterra’s coffer. The law had little to do with reducing inflation, but it gave massive government handouts to the green energy sector. For instance, IRA includes a $40,000 per vehicle tax credit for purchasing electric commercial vehicles and an additional tax credit for EV batteries.
Proterra admitted in its quarterly report that “the availability of this new unprecedented level of government funding for our customers, suppliers, and competitors to help fund purchases of commercial electric vehicles and battery systems will remain an important factor in our company’s growth prospects.” Proterra’s political profile rose even more after Biden appointed Gareth Joyce, CEO of Proterra, to serve on the President’s Export Council in February last year.
Finally, Proterra filed for bankruptcy in August. Government subsidies could not offset the financial pressure of rising inflation, higher interest rates, and falling sales. Last week, a Swedish automobile manufacturer, Volvo, bought Proterra’s battery business for $210 million, a great deal considering Proterra was valued at $1.6 billion a year ago.
Another party who got an excellent deal was Granholm. She sold her Proterra shares for $1.6 million last year. They would have been worth nothing if she had held on to her Proterra shares until this
August. The biggest loser of the whole Proterra saga is American taxpayers.
“The law had little to do with reducing inflation”
Not true. The law provided a negative reduction of inflation.
The Inflation Production Act is more apropos.
bigterguy just commented:
Not true. The law provided a negative reduction of inflation.
The burst of inflation was worldwide, hence not Biden’s fault. That burst is now over:
“Stumbling into Goldilocks,” Paul Krugman, 4/9/24
free link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/opinion/us-economy-inflation-recession.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jU0.Marw.GFtSn62SPtSA&smid=url-share
Inflation numbers come out today. The price of oil is a tad below 90 and that number is down from the recent price over 90. Oil is a fuel and a raw material, it affects all prices. Inflation is sticky, still above 3%. No victory lap for Hiden Biden.
That core rate is fine as long as you don’t eat food or use energy.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/
And on top of the oil issue, the id eee otic push to electrify everything has the price of copper blowing through the roof. Some believe we are at the beginning of a commodities super cycle. Again, not good for inflation, even if we have a soft number for this single month of March.
The inflation numbers are out: higher than expected. Stock markets going down.
Why is any one quoting Krugman?
He is a well known partisan hack due to frequent dishonesty and distortions on economic matters.
He takes opposite positions on virtually every economic issue based solely on whether its a republican administration or a democrat administation.
Deficit spending in good during a democrat administration
Deficit spending is bad during a republican administration
Krugman’s dishonest if obvious to those not living in a bubble.
Stubborn inflation rains on Biden’s good-news parade
A hotter-than-expected inflation report likely means the president will have to deal with higher interest rates on the campaign trail.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/10/inflation-report-interest-biden-00151488
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). We have written the theoretically exact the planet mean surface temperature equation as a very much reliable theoretical formula:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) (3)
The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
2). We shall now compare the theoretically calculated Earth’s (without-atmosphere) the average surface temperature (Tmean) with the satellite measured one, the (Tsat), because we are very much interested to estimate the magnitude of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Planet………Te……Te.correct….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….440 K……364 K……..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K……210 K……..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 K….224 K……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……….210 K……174 K……..213,11 K…..210 K
The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JT,
Still waiting on century & source, which you don’t have. Nothing in paleo that compares to current RATE, and 4 million years since current level. Your welcome, glad to help.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 11, 2024 at 9:45 am | Reply
JT,
Still waiting on century & source, which you don’t have. Nothing in paleo that compares to current RATE, and 4 million years since current level. Your welcome, glad to help.
Ganon – Nothing in the resolution of the proxies have the ability to provide the ability to compare the current rate with prior years with any degree of reasonableness or confidence.
Joe, still waiting on century and source. Still waiting for evidence of what you claim – there is none – you lose.
Many proxy records have yearly resolution, many others decadal. Easily enough resolution to detect a change such as we have observed over the last 50 years – no can provide no evidence that such has ever been detected.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 11, 2024 at 10:03 am | Reply-Many proxy records have yearly resolution, many others decadal. Easily enough resolution to detect a change such as we have observed over the last 50 years – no can provide no evidence that such has ever been detected.
ganon – Not at the resolution which you profess to believe.
The onus is on you to demonstrate what you claim, not me to provide evidence to dispute the claim you made with weak or no evidence.
Joe,
Where I come from, 1 and 10 years are smaller (higher resolution) than 50 years – would not have been missed.
As a skeptic of the currently accepted science, it is on YOU to disprove, with evidence, the parts you are skeptical of – which you can’t.
Sorry, “nobody has seen it, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened” is not a convincing argument.
Still waiting on the century, source – add magnitude too that.
In science, when you have no evidence, you have nothing but an unsupported personal opinion.
KId, sea level rise follows temperature and available landed ice volume.
ganon
I’ll write that down. That acceleration of SLR in the last 50 years is de minimis just reinforces the view that T increases should come under greater scrutiny.
I went on Spring Break in March, 1964 down at Ft Lauderdale laying on the beach in front of the Elbo Room, playing beach blanket bingo, listening to Connie Francis, The Beach Boys and The Ronettes with visions of Annette Funicello dancing in my head. I visited the same beach a few years ago and it looked exactly the same. The only change was the unlistenable music.
If someone visits that beach in 2064 and the pictures show no change from 100 years previous, it should dawn on them that the models are wrong. I suppose there will still be some ready to go down with the ship, and in 2090 will be calling for a 12 feet rise by 2100 when it’s only been 10 inches since 1980, but there are always a few slow learners in the group.
The assumptions being used in these analyses calling for doomsday SLR are off. I don’t know which ones, but it’s obvious they are. Maybe it’s only warmed by .5 C since 1850. Or maybe the ocean basins are deforming and/or expanding. Or maybe somebody repealed the laws of physics.
All we’ve been getting for 50 years has been promises, promises. Where’s the beef? Nothing but nothing burgers.
Thanks for you thoughts.
https://www.therightinsight.org/media/uploads/images/climate257-2%20Global%20Sea%20Level%201000%20years.jpg
That’s right – 50 years of high-quality scientific measurements are nothing but nothing burgers. You win – I can’t possibly refute that!
Over 30 years of accurate data show sea level rise is if little concern to the development of humanity. Those that claim otherwise are alarmists.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
ganon
SHOW ME THE BLADE!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9410660_meantrend.png
As I’ve shown you on numerous occasions, I can play this game all day long because there are hundreds of tidal gauge graphs looking essentially like this one. No significant acceleration in the rate of SLR.
At some point in time in the next 50 years, the anecdotal evidence will be so voluminous and compelling that it will become scientific evidence and you can take all those models to the dump and retire them next to the EVs….for all eternity.
Sure, you’ve never shown a graph of global MSLR.
Joe TNCS
“Sure, Joe. Tell me the last time, before the last 100 years, CO2 was above 400 ppm. Tell me when the rate of increase was even close to what it is today during an interglacial period.”
You still didn’t answer that. Thanks for playing.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | March 11, 2024 at 9:54 am | Reply
Joe TNCS
“Sure, Joe. Tell me the last time, before the last 100 years, CO2 was above 400 ppm. Tell me when the rate of increase was even close to what it is today during an interglacial period.”
You still didn’t answer that. Thanks for playing.
Ganon – Playing your usual game of changing the subject.
Back to my original question that you refuse to answer
1) did you do any due diligence on that study you keep linking to?
2) Is it reasonable that CO2 is more dominant that the milankovitch cycles as the study implies?
3) is it reasonable that Co2 is more dominant that than the changes in the sun’s output over the 66 million years as the study implies?
You obviously dont like playing when you get caught being deceptive
It was my subject, so you should answer my questions first: century and source for you unobserved temp/CO2 that is similar to the last 50 years. But, since you can’t answer that, I’ll answer your silly questions.
1) Yes – I read the original literature (did you?)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba6853
2) Yes. Orbital cycles are triggers for nonlinear feedbacks which may easily exceed the trigger.
3) Yes.
Speaking of being deceptive, where are the century and source for your claim? It seems you are the one with no evidence or references – just deflecting to your own “what about” questions.
Perhaps this will help: In the past GHGs acted as non-linear feedback. Currently, it is a forcing in addition to being a feedback. Study the carbon cycles if you are able.
When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature as 287,74K, which is very much close to the satellite measured 288K.
3). Thus for the planet Earth the 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Reality will beat up Climate Doomer politicians. Can’t wait until the lesson sinks in.
The UK will allow new gas-fired power plants to be built into the 2030s, watering down a previous commitment to have a net zero grid by 2035.
The government was aiming for totally clean power supply by the middle of the next decade, meaning that any gas stations would need to be fitted with carbon removal technology. Now, ministers say that new gas plants will be allowed to pollute because they will be crucial to keeping the lights on when it’s not sunny or windy.
It’s the latest sign of climate backsliding from the Conservatives after the party delayed a ban on sales of internal combustion cars and a phaseout of gas boilers. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has been saying for months that he would slow or abandon environment policies if they led to direct costs on consumers. The strengthened support for new fossil fuel plants is in contrast to the opposition Labour party plan that aims for a clean grid by 2030.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-12/uk-to-allow-new-gas-plants-as-it-backtracks-on-clean-grid-plan
Future electricity and some other types of energy will be generated by nuclear power.
Across the US and allied countries, owners of left-for-dead uranium mines are restarting operations to capitalize on rising demand for the nuclear fuel.
At least five US producers are reviving mines in states including Wyoming, Texas, Arizona and Utah, where production flourished until governments soured on the radioactive element following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
Most of those American mines were idled in the aftermath of Fukushima, when uranium prices crashed and countries like Germany and Japan initiated plans to phase out nuclear reactors.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-03/uranium-firms-revive-forgotten-mines-as-price-of-nuclear-fuel-soars
Why climatic science and statistical analysis is so parsimonious ?
Occam’s Razor rule ( namely the principle of parsimony) is a trojan horse that may lead to Phantom Omission Bias . What I imply by omission bias is that a researcher consciously or unconsciously omits a significant and relevant predictor variable for an outcome by Not accounting for it into the statistical models used to explain/predict a given phenomenon or an outcome . By omitting a relevance from those statistical computing models these statistical models will automatically Hing the effects and impacts on a secondary ( less relevant predictors) included into the model . The typical example i would we find in basic statistical computing textbooks is the number of injured people in fires , if we set the number of firemen who attend the fire to rescue people into a Poisson regression model the model will assign more deaths and injuries to greater firemen or rescuer, but when we add the fire size and its location and type the same analysis model would assign more impact to the fire size and will reward the firemen with a negative impact on causalities because they attend to rescue people not to kill them . This example is a typical example for omission phantom biases we see in climatic science published science papers , too much or too little relevance denotes we either over-predict or underpredict or even commit misspecification . The phantom biases exist in most climatic analysis that sing CO2 emissions opera .
Climatic science lacks evidence-informed practice guidelines and is an untidy and unclean science .
When I go to Mohammand’s page, I get a security warning. Beware.
Thanks, Jim, no click by me.
MOHAMMAD AL-KHATEEB, great post describing tyranny by numbers. The hockey stick omission phantom bias is center stage here; an engine generating ever increasing numbers of sympathetic peer reviewed phantom biases—a malignant factory of phantom science insulated by self buttressing confirmations, propagating outward from their faulty premise.
Jungletrunks wrote:
MOHAMMAD AL-KHATEEB, great post describing tyranny by numbers. The hockey stick omission phantom bias is center stage here; an engine generating ever increasing numbers of sympathetic peer reviewed phantom biases—a malignant factory of phantom science insulated by self buttressing confirmations, propagating outward from their faulty premise.
His conclusion: the more confirmations the hockey stick gets, the less true it has to be.
LOL
Pingback: Yet another fake IPCC hockey stick - Climate Discussion Nexus
Germany, the Green Energy Crash Test Dummy of Europe, will not hit it’s EV target. What are they going to do, force people to buy EVs that are too expensive to afford?
Germany needs a sharp turnaround in electric-vehicle sales momentum to stand a chance of meeting its emissions goals, according to a study.
Sales of new EVs would have to quadruple in the next three years and rise sixfold by 2030 to reach Germany’s goal of having 15 million such cars on the road, according to a lobby group for the renewable-energy sector.
A more likely outcome is the country will have only 10 million electric cars and will fall short of its greenhouse-gas emissions goal by about a third, the group, known as BEE, said in a study. The transport sector has become a key laggard in Germany’s fight to reduce pollution.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-13/germany-needs-sixfold-jump-in-new-ev-sales-by-2030-to-meet-aim
Here’s something for Dr. Curry. CFAN may already operate in this arena, but here goes …
Investing in cat bonds was the most profitable hedge fund strategy of 2023. Fermat delivered a 20% return, beating the average 8% achieved by hedge funds as a whole. While other cat bond funds did well too, Fermat’s $10 billion portfolio — capturing a quarter of the market — made it by far the most prolific investor to take advantage of a bumper year.
Cat bonds investors are gambling on nature. If a disaster they’ve bet on occurs, their money is used to settle insurance claims. If it doesn’t, they get handsome returns. For decades, the instruments were a last resort reserved for super-rare events, such as a cataclysmic storm on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. But multibillion-dollar calamities have become alarmingly frequent on a warmer planet.
“The insurance market is on edge,” says Seo. “It’s freaked out about risk and wants as little as possible.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-catastrophe-bonds-fermat
The UK regrets closing natural gas storage facility. The article mentions cheap hydrogen for storage, but I note they didn’t quote a price for that hydrogen and no price for the storage facility either. Might be a phantom solution.
Centrica Plc shut its commercial Rough gas storage site — the UK’s largest facility — off the east coast of England in 2017 for economic reasons, only to reopen it in 2022. “The UK came to regret and partially reverse the closure” of the facility, the committee said, adding that the government should plan now for how this storage capacity will be replaced.
The study noted that the recent energy crisis showed country’s vulnerability to global supply shocks.
“Relying on gas as a strategic reserve would leave us again dependent on expensive, volatile imports,” it said. “Cheaper, renewable energy, stored in forms such as hydrogen, offers more energy independence and security.”
A consultation document published Tuesday by the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero highlighted the need to solve the problem long-term energy storage. New gas plants are “the only mature technology capable of providing sustained flexible capacity whilst low carbon long-duration alternatives” scale up, it said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-13/uk-urged-to-set-up-strategic-energy-reserve-for-power-network
“Here’s the problem with much of the big data currently being gathered and analyzed. The moment you start looking backwards to seek the longer view, you have far too much of the recent stuff and far too little of the old. Short-sightedness is built into the structure, in the form of an overwhelming tendency to over-estimate short-term trends at the expense of history.”
https://www.cmswire.com/digital-experience/rolling-stone-data-analysis-and-the-problem-of-recency-bias/
In silico studies of ivermectin.
The results obtained with these two different techniques demonstrate an interaction between S and ivermectin previously explored in silico, suggesting its clinical uses to stop the viral spread among susceptible human hosts.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/22/16392
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/24/21/15518
Here we show that the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) provides a strong constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the global-mean warming from increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations, after temperature patterns are accounted for. Feedbacks governing ECS depend on spatial patterns of surface temperature (“pattern effects”), hence using the LGM to constrain future warming requires quantifying how temperature patterns produce different feedbacks during LGM cooling compared to modern-day warming. Combining data-assimilation LGM reconstructions with atmospheric models, we show that the LGM climate is more sensitive because ice sheets amplify temperature changes in the extratropics where feedbacks are destabilizing. Accounting for LGM pattern effects, we find a modern-day ECS of 2.9°C and 66% likely range of 2.4–3.5°C (2.1–4.1°C, 5–95%), substantially narrowing uncertainty compared to recent assessments.
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5686/
Having a child is an expensive proposition. It’s interesting this article doesn’t mention high prices for a decline in birth rate in Germany. These high prices are due in part to Climate Doomer wind and solar electricity and the dismantling of coal plants. No mention of that either, of course.
Germany’s birth rate fell to the lowest level in more than a decade last year, adding to concerns about how a shrinking workforce may dent the country’s economic prospects.
Figures released Wednesday by the Federal Institute for Population Research (BIB) showed that German women were having 1.36 children on average in fall 2023, compared with 1.57 in 2021.
The sharp decline is part of a problematic cocktail of factors that are eroding Germany’s competitiveness and holding back growth. Companies in Europe’s largest economy are still coming to terms with the loss of cheap Russian gas following the invasion of Ukraine and tensions over the trading relationship with China.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-20/germany-s-birth-rate-plunges-as-war-climate-and-covid-deter-parents
Slower population growth is probably a good thing. Germany has plenty of immigrants.
An it’s so difficult to get immigrants these daze :)
Like so many other “legal” things going on, I’m betting this is just another version of Dimowit lawfare.
“The ban will drive billions of dollars in investment away from Texas, hinder our ability to maximize revenue for public schools, force Texas producers to flare excess natural gas instead of taking it to market, and annihilate critical jobs,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a statement.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-21/biden-s-lng-permit-halt-challenged-by-16-states-in-lawsuit
Here is an excellent summary of the scientific evidence about “Climate Change”
Carl wrote:
Here is an excellent summary of the scientific evidence about “Climate Change”
Why is it “excellent?”
Joey: perhaps you need to learn that the number of stations per unit area doesn’t matter. They are averaged together for their representative area, first, then all the equal sized representative areas are averaged.
Duh bro!!
“FDA is not a doctor,” writes the court. Later in the court decision, four appellate judges write, “FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”
The court decision is a major victory for Dr. Mary Tally Bowden and two others who sued the FDA; FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf; and its parent agency, HHS. The plaintiffs argued that the FDA overstepped its authority in warding people away from a drug that they say had proven to work for Covid.
Bowden says the FDA propaganda about ivermectin interfered with her ability to help patients, and destroyed her reputation. The FDA’s smear of ivermectin was heavily used against medical professionals who chose to prescribe ivermectin, was widely circulated uncritically on social media and on the news, and was cited by medical boards and court filings against prescribing physicians.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/09/read-court-smacks-down-fdas-ivermectin-warnings-fda-is-not-a-doctor/
Guyana will likely surpass the US in oil production. We in the US need to fire any politician who says we should stop producing and using fossil fuels. We need to maintain our standard of living as much as any other country. And we shouldn’t be made to suffer while China and India burn coal to beat the band.
The list of needs is long in this South American country of 791,000 people that is poised to become the world’s fourth-largest offshore oil producer, placing it ahead of Qatar, the United States, Mexico and Norway. The oil boom will generate billions of dollars for this largely impoverished nation. It’s also certain to spark bitter fights over how the wealth should be spent in a place where politics is sharply divided along ethnic lines: 29% of the population is of African descent and 40% of East Indian descent, from indentured servants brought to Guyana after slavery was abolished.
https://apnews.com/article/guyana-oil-discovery-money-14c23a72c6d7c13675493ede42ed1000
Javier,
Expressed roughly, I agree that many things are going on that affect our understanding of the weather and climate. Some of these need more understanding before a universal theory of everything climate can be contemplated, for example CO2 control knobs.
Here is an example of such a puzzling effect. Studying UHI, I chose Australian data because of low population density and long temperature records. I selected 45 weather stations that looked the most “pristine” for UHI then looked for properties not found in a 37 station urban comparison set. Found nothing useful. Thought that the time trend of temperatures might be a useful metric. Because fewer factors including human were causing pristine trends, they should all be similar if reflecting only natural variation, and lower than urban trends. They were not. Something I have not identified causes different trend calculations over study terms from a year to a century. I do not know the cause. Even special subsets with “pristine” stations within 100 km of each other show trend differences.
This cannot be a permanent condition. When two nearby pristine stations have different trends over the last 100 years, one must get rather warm if we project over the next 100 years, really hot over 500 years. So cyclicity has to be considered.
Of course, measurement uncertainty contributes, but I do not find that it explains all of the trend divergences. More work is in progress, but as you know, that takes much time and thought.
Geoff S
Geoff: Urban area is only about 3% of the planet. So how much influence can they really have?
https://www.livescience.com/6893-cities-cover-earth-realized.html
Appell – Thats not a hard question – perhaps you should be more familiar with the issue
perhaps you might inquire where are the temperature stations are Located?
Joey: the number of thermometers in a representative area doesn’t matter — all thermometers in that area are first averaged, and that’s the temperature for that area. It’s then included in the average of all other equal-sized areas.
That’s the only thing that makes sense. Scientists aren’t idiots!
Joey clearly does not know how global temperatures are calculated. (Hint: it’s not an average of all stations; they are weighted by area.)
Appel
You replied to Geoff with a non relevant fact to his comment
I replied to your non relevant response with a hint to your misunderstanding of the issue.
You respond with another non relevant comment demonstrating that you dont understand the subject matter.
My reply to Joey was blocked.
Typical from this site.
Blocked again. Judith does this when she gets mad at me.
“Stephen McIntyre is a central figure in the hockey stick controversies. McIntyre thinks (as does Clintel) that the IPCC wanted to get a hockey stick temperature graph: “the IPCC remains addicted to hockey sticks“, he wrote in a 2021 article on his blog, ClimateAudit, where he explains some of his major complaints about the new IPCC hockey stick…. Stephen McIntyre is well-known for his criticism of Michael Mann’s original hockey stick graph. He has been reporting errors in the PAGES 2k temperature reconstructions since at least 2013,”
But McIntyre doesn’t have confidence or courage to submit his work to the peer reviewed literature. Hence he can’t be taken seriously, by scientists or journalists. He’s just humming into a void.