by Judith Curry
A month has passed since the DOE climate assessment report was published. It’s time to reflect on what we might learn from the responses to this Report. Of particular relevance is the report that was issued earlier today, led by Andrew Dessler.
Public comments
The public comment portal for the DOE Report was open for 30 days, and closes on Sept 2 (today). So far there are >2300 comments submitted, with several hundred currently visible on the Federal Register site. The comments are being scrubbed for obscenities, etc. I tried reading through the comments, the portal is awkward (each comment has to be clicked on separately, unlike this blog post). Most of the comments that I’ve looked at are non-substantive cheerleading, attacks or general posturing. It will take time to go through all of these to separate an expected small amount of wheat from the large amount of chaff.
Carbon Brief
One of the early criticisms was that the DOE Report “mis-cited” a paper by Zeke Hausfather by reproducing a diagram from one of his papers, while failing to mention some of the broader points made in his paper (sorry Zeke, that’s not how it works).
This led to Carbon Brief emailing all of the authors cited in the report (plus ~100 other scientists) asking whether the Report uses their work to make misleading or false statements. They received 100 comments from 56 scientists (one scientist contributed about 1/3 of the comments on less than 2 pages of text). The published comments [link] were formatted in a useful way, sorted by chapter/page number and in a single file that is searchable. Several of the comments were useful (including references we hadn’t considered), and worth considering in a revised report. There were many comments on global greening and solar variations. Nearly all the comments were labeled as “misleading”; the factual errors mostly related to misspelling of an author’s name or other mis-citation of a reference.
While I am not in favor of having the media mediate this, and Carbon Brief is arguably far from objective, I appreciate the effort that CB made on compiling this and the effort that individual scientists made to respond.
AMS statement
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has issued a statement Five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s 2025 climate report. This statement has been adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council, I assume this was also written by this Committee. Here is the membership of the Executive Committee [link]. If you cannot recognize any of these names as climate scientists, you would be correct. The statement starts with:
“Here we identify five foundational flaws in the Department of Energy’s (DoE’s) 2025 Climate Synthesis reports. Each of these flaws, alone, places the report at odds with scientific principles and practices. “
Here are the five “flaws”:
- Lack of breadth across scientific fields
- Lack of depth within scientific fields and specific topics
- The DoE Report is based on an unrepresentative group of subject matter experts
- TheDoE Report selectively emphasizes a small set of unrepresentative findings, particularly those that might appear beneficial on superficial examination.
- The DoE Report extrapolates from a limited subset of findings to reach conclusions that do not follow from comprehensive consideration of the scientific evidence.
These “flaws” and allegations of lack of representativeness are political considerations, not scientific principles or practices. Ironically, the following statements are made in alleged support of their points, when in fact these statements emphasize the need for something like the DOE Report:
“To be credible, scientific assessments must include authors who reflect the full range of defensible views among the subject matter experts within every specific area of science that is included in the assessment.”
“Unusual perspectives and disagreement are important within the scientific process because they can generate alternative plausible explanations; identify needs for additional inquiry; or challenge the thinking of the larger community of subject matter experts.”
The Statement concludes with the following:
“Five conclusions are robust when accounting comprehensively for the scientific evidence. They have been consistently reaffirmed by independent subject matter experts and independent scientific institutions worldwide. Decades of intensive research on climate change demonstrate that:
- Climate is changing, and the rate and magnitude of change are unusual in human experience.
- People are the primary cause of modern climate change, mostly through burning fossil fuels.
- Climate change is harmful to humanity, and the threats to people and all life are increasing.
- A wide range of response options is available that can reduce the dangers of climate change.
- Those who study the scientific evidence overwhelmingly agree.”
Oops, they better go back and read the DOE Report.
Besides being a pathetic statement and inappropriate for a professional society, the AMS Executive Committee has done a huge disservice to its membership with this Statement, apart from lack of representativeness of the membership. Back when I first joined the AMS circa 1990, ‘atmospheric science policy’ was about working to preserve NOAA’s budget and the larger research funding for atmospheric sciences – an issue of concern for AMS members as well as the broader public. These days, ‘atmospheric science policy’ is about climate activism and consensus enforcement. The AMS seems to be declaring war on the Trump administration – does the AMS really want to see NOAA’s budget and the atmospheric research budget get cut (more than is already on the table)? Maybe the AMS should try working with the Trump administration, not against it. And this is not to mention the fact that the AMS publishes some of the premier journals in atmospheric and climate science; hard not to expect editorial bias when the Society leadership is making such statements.
Dessler and Kopp et al. .
While we’ve seen a lot of whining and posturing from climate scientists and professional societies, there has been very little in the way of actual serious and constructive criticism of the DOE Report from the scientific community (with the exception of Carbon Brief; maybe there is something useful buried in the public comments).
Enter the Dessler and Kopp et al. report, with the et al. including contributions from 85 scientists
This is a comprehensive 439 page report that is directly targeted at rebutting the DOE Report, that was prepared in 30 days (sort of weakens the argument that the DOE report was written too quickly, ha ha). The Dessler et al. report also suffers from the same “flaws” identified by the AMS Statement (ha ha).
Before getting into specifics of the Dessler Report, a big bravo and kudos to Dessler et al., who are actually behaving like scientists with their rebuttal to the DOE report. This is exactly the kind of response and dialogue that we hoped the DOE Report would stimulate. (update: in his media interviews, Dessler is sounding pretty unhinged, at this point he risks undoing the “good” from this report).
I have skimmed the entire report (I’m a very fast reader), and paid closer attention to some of the sections related to text that I wrote. The report is organized in terms of the chapters and sections of the DOE Report, essentially providing a review of the DOE Report and suggested changes. The report is lightly edited and loosely coordinated, this is mainly a compilation (with some organization) of contributions from individual scientists. The quality of the report is very heterogeneous across the different sections. Some contributions are quite good. Others are oblique and don’t directly address what was written in the DOE Report. Other comments merely reiterate the “party line,” ignoring our criticisms of the same “party line.”
Bottom line: interesting report, laudable effort. We will be going through this report in much more detail. But in my initial assessment, the Dessler et al. report didn’t land any strong punches on the DOE Report, and I wouldn’t change any of the conclusions in the DOE Report in response. The combination of the DOE and Dessler report highlight areas of disagreement among climate scientists, and illustrates how weighting of different classes of evidence, addressing different topics, and different logical frameworks for linking evidence can lead to different conclusions. The existence of this kind of disagreement is essential information for policy makers, which hitherto has been hidden under the banner of “consensus” enforcement.
Status of the CWG
Owing to a lawsuit that has been filed against the DOE by the Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists, activities of the Climate Working Group are currently on hold. Personally, I’m collecting the substantive comments for future use.
JC reflections
In the climate science debate, there are two different mindsets:
- Insisting that you are right (consensus enforcement, and all that)
- Trying to get it right (the scientific process, and all that)
The Climate Working Group as a whole, and the individual scientists (if I can speak for them here), are staunchly in the ‘trying to get it right’ mindset, which is unfortunately the minority mindset.
By bringing forth a less alarming minority perspective that is trying to get it right in a politically favorable environment, the combined efforts of the CWG and the Dessler et al. response present the promise of a genuinely open debate on climate change issue, with more honest and useful assessments that can better guide both climate science and policy.
——-
Specific comments on the Dessler, Kopp et al. report
This section will continue to be expanded upon and edited over the next few days
Global greening (section 2.1). This section elicited a large number of comments from the DOE internal review and Carbon Brief as well as the Dessler et al. report. This is EXCELLENT, since the important topic of global greening has received very little attention in climate assessment reports. The Dessler Report text on section 2.1 is 27 pages long. It claims that some of the DOE statements are misleading or that they imply something that they don’t. While there is much interesting text in this section of the Dessler report and maybe the DOE Report should add some more references, it is clear that none of the statements made in the DOE Report are incorrect, and that the main conclusion “Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the planet and increasing agricultural productivity” is supported.
Sea level rise (chapter 7). The Dessler, Kopp et al. report objects to the statement “U.S. tide gauge measurements in aggregate show no obvious acceleration in sea level rise beyond the historical average rate.” The Dessler report spends 20 pages trying to convince that sea level rise is accelerating, and that this is evident in the tide gauge measurements. Fortuitously, there is a new paper hot off the press: Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes. Key conclusion: “Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise.” So yes, some additions to DOE chapter 7 on sea level rise acceleration are warranted, but not in the direction of the Dessler et al. report. The claim the data on VLM in Table 7.1 is unsupported; they neglected to read the metadata.
Model predictions of corn belt temperatures (section 5.8) A defense of climate models is presented by claiming that they do a good job of simulating global average temperatures. They explain why climate models have difficulty simulating regional temperatures, and point out the need for a large ensemble. They imply we “cherry picked” a region where the models do worst. Well yes, this is an economically important region where the models perform poorly.
Solar variability (section 8.3.1). There were substantial comments on solar variability submitted to the Carbon Brief, and essentially the same comments were submitted to Dessler et al. (20 pages of text). I carefully went through the Carbon Brief comments, and drafted an edited version of the solar section that deletes several sentences and adds some additional references. I also checked in with members of the ACRIM science team, they continue to support high solar variability. Hence, the high-level conclusion in the DOE Report “Moreover, solar activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated” is justified.
Hurricanes (section 6.2). Dessler et al. devote 12 pages to the issue of hurricanes. Shortly after the DOE Report was published, I engaged with tropical meteorology experts on the Tropical ListServ to discuss section 6.2 (some of these authored the response here). Some were concerned that theory and models were ignored, and possible future risks weren’t mentioned. In response, I drafted a new subsection entitled “Factors contributing to US economic losses”, which addresses the following issues: rates of intensification, track speed, horizontal size, storm surge, rainfall and tornadoes. The combination of high amplitude natural variability plus short and inhomogeneous data sets imply low confidence in the detection and attribution of any trends. Models and theory are interesting for speculating about future possibilities (something that is not addressed in the DOE Report), but as for interpreting the past, show me the data.
Tornadoes (section 6.5). This section is an example of a useful contribution. These same points, related to more tornadoes earlier in the season and moving further east, were made on the Tropical ListServ, and I had already drafted a new paragraph to account for this.
Urbanization (section 3.3). This section claims to refute our concerns about inadequate treatment of the urban heat island effect by using the Berkeley Earth data set to compare land/ocean temperatures and the ERA5 level 500 m above the surface, and population density map. Very weak tea.
Declining planetary albedo (section 8.4). This is an example where they completely miss the point, focusing on the record temperatures of 2023, 2024 and then arguing that equilibrium climate sensitivity should be 4.5C.
Climate sensitivity (chapter 4). 24 pages of stuff that isn’t useful. This was not written by the climate sensitivity A-team. They claim we have a misleading focus on ECS; we should have focused on TCRE and ZEC. They make much ado about the “pattern effect.” They manage to misrepresent the AR6 and Sherwood et al.
Surface temperature extremes (section 6.3) There is an astonishing result presented by Dessler et al: the Berkeley Earth dataset finds twice as many heat wave days in the Eastern US in the last 20 years as in the 1930s. I’m not sure that I have seen anything published on Berkeley Earth daily temperatures, this should be investigated, something looks very off. They also make the following statement underpinning this section that defies any kind of logic I can understand: “they make the statistically dubious leap that, because the 1930’s extreme temperatures are comparable to today’s temperatures, then climate change cannot be contributing to more extreme heat today.”
Emissions scenarios (section 2.1) Much word salad, but they seem to be defending the implausible extreme 8.5 emissions scenarios.
Billion dollar weather disasters (section 10.2) Much word salad, but they seem to be defending the now discredited NOAA Billion Dollar Disasters dataset
Tropospheric warming (Section 5.3) The best they can do is “it is premature to conclude that models are substantially deficient given the large uncertainties in observational estimates of atmospheric temperature trends”
Vertical temperature profile mismatch (Section 5.4). They essentially support the DOE Report that describes this mismatch, further emphasizing “The relative contributions of observational uncertainty, internal variability, errors in the prescribed model forcing, and model biases to the model-observation discrepancies are likewise unresolved.”
Pielke Jr’s analysis
Good substack article from Roger Pielke Jr. Excerpts:
Dessler, who calls the DOE report “bullshit,” pulls no punches in asserting that there is absolutely nothing that is scientifically accurate in the DOE CWG report:
To be clear, the DOE report raises no “interesting questions” overlooked by the scientific community, highlights no ignored research gaps, and brings no fresh perspective. Instead, it’s a rats’ nest of bad arguments.
To the extent that there are legitimate scientific arguments in there, those have already been rejected by the scientific community. But scientific arguments are rare in the DOE report; rather, it’s mainly selective misquoting of the scientific literature (cherry picking), omission of contrary results from the scientific literature, and simple errors due to a lack of understanding of the science.
This framing has been adopted by the media, as you can see in the headlines below characterizing the critique upon its release this morning.
I took a look at the DK25 report in my areas of expertise, as I did with the DOE CWG, and I found numerous statements that were simply false — among them that World Weather Attribution was not created with litigation in mind, that NOAA”s “billion dollar disasters” (RIP) tabulation was scientifically valid, that SRES had 6 not 40 scenarios, and that RCP8.5 has not been the most commonly used scenario in research and assessment. DK25 ignored all of our research that was accurately cited by DOE CWG.
DK25 also includes a bizarre claim regarding the detection of changes in extreme weather events:²
“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”³
Actually, that is exactly what the absence of detection means — don’t take it from me, take it from the IPCC, which defines a change in climate as follows:
A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.
This line of argument seems not to be against the DOE CWG report — which relies heavily on the IPCC — but against the IPCC’s framework for detection and attribution, which is already under siege for not producing strong indications of change in most measures of weather extremes.
Extreme event attribution, RCP8.5, and “billion dollar disasters” are not the hills I’d choose to die on, but apparently the authors of DK25 were so intent in asserting that every claim of DOE CWG is false, that they could not admit the many places where DOE CWG got things right.
My view is that there are stronger and weaker claims in both DOE CWG and DK25. In my areas of expertise — notably scenarios and extreme weather — the DOE CWG is pretty strong (but could be better) and DK25 is pretty weak. In other areas, the balance will surely be different. But the Manichean nature of climate debates is that no territory can be given to the enemy.
Dessler makes very clear that he believes that this exercise is all about politics:
If you don’t follow climate policy closely, you may not know that the Trump administration is launching an effort to overturn one of the most fundamental pillars of American climate policy: the scientific finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare (the so-called “Endangerment Finding”). If successful, this move could unravel virtually every U.S. climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules.
To support this effort, the Department of Energy hand-selected five climate contrarians who dispute mainstream science to write a report, which ended up saying exactly what you would expect it to say: climate science is too uncertain to justify policies to limit warming. . .
The history of cigarettes shows that such tactics can delay policy action for decades, but they cannot indefinitely postpone scientific reality from emerging. The only real question is how much damage the delay causes.
The assumption here is that if you find some degree of merit in the DOE CWG then climate policy is doomed and if you instead side with DK25, then carbon dioxide regulation is on its way. Viewed from this perspective, scientific assessments are ”tactics” to be mobilized to support political action or delay.
Such a perspective turns scientific assessment into partisan politics. Scientific integrity inevitably suffers.
Thanks. Great approach toward reaching agreement. Would be a great thing if that became more common and led to reciprocal actions.
Agreement?
The DOE report is just as biased as every other climate report.
DOE report excludes consensus scientists.
Prior reports excluded skeptic scientists.
A fair and balanced report wouldn’t include a wide variety of scientific opinions.
Such a report would tell readers that no scientist knows what the climate will be like in 100 to 200 years.
Continued CO2 emissions can have effects that range from harmful to beneficial. I believe the 1st 50 years of CO2 emissions have been beneficial. But it’s even hard to get people to agree on the climate change that has already happened.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report claimed plant growth increased by 30% since 1900 (+125ppm CO2). Having read at least 200 plant growth v. CO2 studies over the past 28 years, I am certain that the 30% estimate is nonsense. At least 2x any reasonable estimate. And worse if you include C4 crops like corn.
The climate is going to be warmer in 100 years unless it is colder. I made that prediction in 1997.
Hi Judy, re “cherry picked regions where models do worst”: https://i.imgur.com/ZoAKkRq.png
It seems to be the other way around?
Zeke “The fact that our rebuttal is more than 3x the length of the DOE report is a good example of Brandolini’s Law in action…”
Perfect summary
Thank you so much for this update! I’ve been eagerly waiting to hear about the comments you receive.
“ Fortuitously, there is a new paper hot off the press: Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes.”
I know of many such studies of tidal gauge data that find no significant acceleration. These studies involve individual stations and a global perspective.
I know of many studies using only satellite data that find significant acceleration, in some cases orders of magnitude greater than the tidal gauge studies.
I cannot reconcile these disparities.
Perhaps a study with the sole purpose of investigating these contradictory results is in order. First, does it exist. Second, what are the possible reasons.
Thank you for your continued contributions.
Ceres – yes there does seem to be some inconsistency in the measured tide gauge and the measured satellite. Circa, the late 1990’s /early 2000’s, the satellite measurements were showing 3.5mm ish rise per year where as the tide gauges were showing 2.1mm ish. Then circa 2006-2008, the satellite measurements were adjusted downward to match the tide gauges. Adjustments which seemed circumspect.
Unfortunately, the search engines are having hard time locating tide gauge studies for periods ending after 2009. The most recent tide gauge study I could locate was church white 2009
CORS, continuously operating reference stations, in Louisiana and other places works to control for elevation changes. The North Pacific near Alaska is not falling 18.65 mm/year. That tide gauge is on a pole in a rock which is climbing. The Gulf of Mexico/America is not climbing at 9.4 mm/year. That tide gauge (Eugene Island) is in a mass of mud which is sinking. So controlling for both subsidence or rebound is important. There’s a “C4G” center at LSU in Baton Rouge which watches this state very closely. BTW, some of the CORS stations are not just sinking, but also moving towards the west top of Cuba.
Hi Joe Here are a couple, one global and one local.
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcr/article-abstract/37/2/272/450977/Sea-Level-Acceleration-Analysis-of-the-World-s?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.664947/full
CERES, the problem with the satellite data is the improper splicing of two sets of satellite data. See my posts below.
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/21/munging-the-sea-level-data/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/05/sea-level-nasa-versus-noaa/
Willis
Thanks for the link. Correct me if I am wrong, my recollection was that the early satellite measurements Topex and maybe jason 1 were showing 3.0mm slr, and were recalibrated circa 2004 ish with revised SLR of 2.3ish. That way the early years of satellite measurements would match the tidal gauges and obscure the splicing of the two different data sets.
again correct me if wrong, though my recollection is that the subsequent revisions to the early topex measurements seemed suspect.
Thanks Judith for committing to do this.
For all the appeals to authority and need to listen to the experts climate scientists in general, and the AMS Executive Committee in particular, don’t feel that applies when they opine on energy system “solutions”. The statement “A wide range of response options is available that can reduce the dangers of climate change” is but one example.
Sure there are theoretical options but are they affordable, reliable and don’t have adverse environmental impacts greater than the alleged problem. I am convinced their solutions will do more harm than good.
Very frustrating.
” … theoretical options”
Hypothetical options, yes. Not yet tested in sufficient details over sufficient lengths of time to be labelled theoretical.
Thank you Dr. Curry for your contribution, your guidance to this engineer, not a scientist, for your clear summary of the issues facing our nation. (I have summarized my professional background in earlier blogs.) I value the debate among learned scholars but recognize, from my background, significant ad hominem logic, on the effects of fire, the combustion of carbon in air, on our climate at a macro scale. Synthesizing the two professional approaches, I have come to this:
Any technologically advanced society which eschews the widespread, economic use of fire, will cease to exist. There are many sources of energy but fire will remain the bedrock supporting our way of life, through the vague prophesies decades or centuries from now, beyond the life span of my young grandchildren. Our near term threats are summarized here:
Our grid is creaky, the average age of our power generating units, in prior generations would have rendered them as candidates for shut down. They are vulnerable to forced outages, the sudden collapse or major equipment which is no longer readily available within the US. We might have to petition China or others, for long lead time replacements.
We no longer have a robust cohort of veteran engineers, technologists who have lived through the design development, A – Z, fabrication, construction, error corrections, shake out, start up and lock – in of new generation units. It takes twenty years of practice, from graduation to senior engineer but these Americans do not exist in significant numbers. We quit building decades ago; once we put a major unit on line every few weeks.
We no longer see the best and brightest go into certain STEM careers. Why should they? Have you ever read a news article praising those who made Three Mile Island safe? (I knew them.) Do you know that off normal event happened years earlier and was handled by experts with no fan fare. But TMI killed a major industry in America, which is vital to our survival. I participated in the mass lay offs of very skilled people, an order of magnitude larger than what the federal work force is now facing.
Other nations which have abandoned fire for electrical supply are seeing the cost of juice skyrocketing. It is not survivable; governments will fall, hopefully peaceably.
Our politicians can no longer kick this can down the calendar.
God bless the USA.
Street smart engineers like R. L. Hails built our modern society. It pays to listen to them.
Two points from this post that stand out as a warning:
“Our grid is creaky”; it is no different than that of others.
“Other nations which have abandoned fire for electrical supply”; it is the easy way out, especially if the ones in control are lawyers.
However there is something engineers can read as well as scientists (or better). Anyone who had to ‘tinker’ into the brains of a turbo-gen, its governor system, understands something of ‘control dynamics’, and the effect of an input called ‘friction’ that leads to instability.
The jagged shape of the ‘temp’ curves of the past -and this – glacial cycles indicate instability, where the changes are abrupt (see link here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/ )
The creaky grid was not designed with such in mind (though in the distant past we had that in mind; several stand-alone-capable systems for better chance of survival.
[The grid is not God’s gift to humanity; seems more like a control mechanism]
This reminds me of the religious fight between Protestant and Catholics over the years. The more similar the religions are the more stridently the differences are defended. However, when the political power of religious institutions diminishes significantly, they seem to get along much better.
“Climate is changing, and the rate and magnitude of change are unusual in human experience.”
Maybe, but the bandwidth of climate proxies does not allow being sure. They don’t record enough high frequency signal for that.
“A defense of climate models is presented by claiming that they do a good job of simulating global average temperatures. ”
Sorry, this is a non-sequitur fallacy.
“Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law.
In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Well don’t laugh that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see, if this law that we guessed is right, what it would imply, and then we compare those computational results to nature (to experiment or experience). That is we compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
In that simple statement is the key to science.
It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make any difference how smart you are who made the guess, or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong, that’s all.” Richard Feynman
I guess I’ll be depending on Copernicus for data for a few years, now that the US Government climate science efforts are being severely reduced and compromised. One would have thought we had evolved past being ostriches, apparently some haven’t.
Copernicus would be good detox remediation for you, Polly. Get back to basics–before CO2 was recognized as a GHG, before it was even known; and certainly before AGW became a major religion.
Antiquity was a period of religious inquisition against science. Aside from preaching, the AGW industrial complex are the ones indicting these days.
Pathetically ignorant, Sh**typants.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/
Jungletrunks wrote:
Copernicus would be good detox remediation for you, Polly. Get back to basics–before CO2 was recognized as a GHG, before it was even known;
Why? The infrared absorption properties of CO2 are one of the most important things about it, and one of the most important things about Earth’s climate. You can’t just ignore those because it’s inconvenient.
lol, the site is your problem. The point was to ignore your desire to leverage ideology via a site and get back to the organic basics of science integrity—learn the real Copernicus all over again, call it cathartic detox. You feed on crazy seed too much, Polly.
After being a member since 8th grade, I resigned from the AMS in 2017. I wanted an American +Meteorological+ Society; not an American Promotion of Climate Alarmism Society.
Pingback: How The Climate Inquisition Silenced A Generation Of Scientists – altnews.org
Much appreciated feedback, thank you Dr. Curry!
As a 40-year member (yes, alas, still) of the American Meteorological [now Climate Advocacy] Society, your assessment of the once noble society is spot on:
“Besides being a pathetic statement and inappropriate for a professional society, the AMS Executive Committee has done a huge disservice to its membership with this Statement, apart from lack of representativeness of the membership.”
Thanks for your opinion. I find the AMS statement to be accurate climate realism. For those that would like to read for themselves:
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/the-practice-and-assessment-of-science-five-foundational-flaws-in-the-department-of-energys-2025-climate-report/
B.A Bushaw wrote : “Diagram ignores feedbacks and dynamics The energy budget is a snapshot of radiative fluxes—not a full climate model. Feedbacks like cloud and water vapor are addressed in dynamic models, not static diagrams.”
Models are hypothesis reformulations, not data. How could your mysterious feedbacks change what happens locally by the laws of physics ?
What happens in the real world when carbon dioxide concentrations rise :
Carbon dioxide emissions at an Italian mineral spring: measurements of average CO2 concentration and air temperature
DOI:10.1016/0168-1923(94)02176-K
Paul,
First try to find the right thread (my sympathy – word press doesn’t make it easy).
Second, try reading the text at the bottom of the diagram, “All values are fluxes in W/m2 and are values based on 10 years of DATA“.
Thanks for your thoughts, such as they are. I’m already familiar with the Italian mineral springs paper – it is irrelevant to global energy balance – it only shows that in the absence of surface layer mixing ,CO2 released in depressions will stay there until the sun comes up and creates thermal turbulance. Sad sack of a deflection.
B.A.Bushaw said : “I’m already familiar with the Italian mineral springs paper – it is irrelevant to global energy balance…”
But it is certainly relevant for the local energy balance. How can it be explained that despite the enormous injection of CO2 enlarging the 15 µm absorption ray during the night, local temperature evolved just like it did on the control site ?
As a member of the American Meteorological Society, I was also disappointed that I was not only not asked for my input on the AMS “statement,” I was not even notified that AMS would be issuing a statement until receiving an email after the statement had been issued. I expect better of a professional society.
Quite a number of professional organisations did this.
I resigned from the GSA (Geological Society of Australia) after over 35 continuous years of membership when the GSA Executive did exactly that.
Many members of the GSA tended to think likewise, so the Executive folded (a bit) and ran a poll of members on their view of the Statement that had been published without prior membership knowledge or input.
The actual poll numbers are not known to the general membership – the Executive refuses to release them in line with its’ general stubborness, but has issued a new Statement, quite watered down from the original stridency.
This tactic of deliberately releasing some Statement from the Executive of a professional organisation without any prior membership knowledge or input is meant to hijack the reputation of said organisation for propaganda purposes, and accurately enough surmises that John Q Public will assume a majority of highly credentialled members agree with the Statement.
I’m sure you will be sorely missed.
Another unprovoked and unwarranted insult-
I submitted a comment to the Federal Portal consisting of this PDF file:
https://friendsofscience.org/pdf-render.html?page=3042
A summary is;
The urban heat island effect (UHIE) is about 50% of the land temperature warming trend from 1980 from government datasets. This correction to the land temperature trend makes the land trend near equal to the sea surface temperature trend. Cities were not located where the founders thought that those location would naturally warm the fastest in the future, contrary to the IPCC statement on the UHIE. When the temperature change over the historical period used in Lewis 2022 is reduced by removing the warming caused by the UHIE and the millennium cycle, the median ECS is reduced from 2.16 °C to 1.61 °C. The failure of the climate sensitivity section (Part II, 4) of the DOE report to include the UHIE (Part I, 3.1) and the natural warming from the Little Ice Age (Part II, 8.3.1) in assessing the climate sensitivity make the report inconsistent.
The climate components of DICE and FUND economic models warm faster than climate models at a given ECS. The CO2 fertilization effect in FUND should be increased by 30% due to recent studies of the effect. DICE has no CO2 fertilization effect so it should not be used for determining public policy. FUND projects the economic impact of 3 °C of global warming from 2000 of USA energy consumption to be -0.80% of GDP, whereas a recent analysis of the EIA data indicates the impact would be +0.07% of GDP. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is calculated by FUND to be about -13 US$/tCO2 at a 3% discount rate and about -7 US$/tCO2 at a 5% discount rate using an ECS of 1.6 °C when applying the above corrections. The negative sign means the current emissions are net beneficial.
I would appreciate receiving feedback about this submission from the Climate Etc community. Read the PDF document, not just the summary before giving feedback.
Ken Gregory,
As an analyst of (mainly Australian) global warming since 1992, I ask what is required by law in the United States. Here are quotes from part of a Net search:
“. The Data Quality Act aims to improve transparency and the quality of agency science by establishing guidelines for federal agencies.
“. The Information Quality Act (IQA), enacted in 2000, focuses on ensuring that federally funded research is transparent and rigorous.
“. Standards include Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), peer review, and disclosure of funding sources, which are essential for maintaining scientific integrity. ”
https://www.fcsm.gov/assets/files/docs/FCSM.20.04_A_Framework_for_Data_Quality.pdf
Can readers here advise if there is recognition of, or rejection of, these matters?
Geoff S
P.S. Thank you Judith for your contributions to better science.
Is the AMS Ex-com even in touch with their climate research members?
Because the following surveys very much suggests they are not.
In 2012, the AMS released a survey of membership on man-made global warming (conducted by George Mason University).
It found over 50% agreeing in global warming orthodoxy. While over 40% disagreed (albeit, by broken down by different degrees), with global warming orthodoxy.
Ten years later, Fairleigh Dickinson University did another study, sampling a similar cohort from the AMS doing climate change research, although using different sampling tools (eg, digital instead of mailed forms).
This study, too, arrived at a similar breakdown, with over 50% agreeing with climate orthodoxy and over 40% disagreeing.
To put these findings into the vernacular, what’s up with that?
What’s up with that: is that numbers are representative of the general public. The numbers for practicing scientists is of more interested to me. Even though it is 15 years old, there is plenty of evidence that the “AGW is real” numbers among scientists have only increased.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi
/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002
This is the result of BAB(l)’s link:
”
Error 404
Bad request”
Well done, BAB(l)
Sorry you weren’t able to piece it together.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002
Sorry you can’t notice your own typos.
Dear old BAB(l)
you added an unprovoked and unwarranted insult – absolutely no reason for the unprovoked and unwarranted insult to Ian or to anyone else.
What compels you to repetitively insult others?
lack of maturity?
insecurity ?
Jojo, what compels me is your and ianl’s name-calling behavior.
B A Bushaw | September 3, 2025 at 10:20 am |
Jojo, what compels me is your and ianl’s name-calling behavior.
Yet you are the only one that has insulted every commentator here, all of which are unprovoked and unwarranted.
Jojo, no I haven’t insulted “every commenter” here – only those, including you, that have earned it. You falsify yourself through hyperbole and claims that you have not been able to substantiate.
Joe K wrote:
What compels you to repetitively insult others?
lack of maturity?
insecurity ?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL…
Appell – Your response does not address the issue.
you are fully aware that Bab initiates unprovoked and unwarranted insults. You are not only defending immature and unprofessional behavior , you are embracing such behavior.
Jojo, how the hell do you know what other people are aware of? And, no matter how many times you repeat a false accusation, it remains false. You have never be able to cite an instance (or person) where I have initiated such exchanges.
Perhaps a little introspection into your own behavior is in order.
B A Bushaw | September 3, 2025 at 12:47 pm |
” You have never be able to cite an instance (or person) where I have initiated such exchanges.”
Another example of BAB ethical issues.
Absolutely every time I have initially commented on unprovoked insult, it was immediately following an unprovoked insult. Claiming I havent or cant cite the insult when it immediately follows the original comment is rank dishonesty.
JOE K: “Appell – Your response does not address the issue.”
Maybe it doesn’t address Jojo’s perceived issue, but it certainly addresses the issue of Jojo being a joke deserving laughter.
Joe K: My reply to you has been blocked twice.
It said, you insult people all the time. So you’re no one to complain about it.
B A Bushaw | September 3, 2025 at 12:47 pm |
Bab’s comment – ” You have never be able to cite an instance (or person) where I have initiated such exchanges.”
Well – Apparently a posting immediately following the initial unprovoked insult does count as a citation. Maybe three such citations in the last couple of months.
My comment disappeared!
Since my comment disappeared, try this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711069
Clint, let’s start (and finish) with #1 : 240 x 4 =960, where 4 is the ratio of the surface area of a sphere (emission) to the area of a disc of the same radius (illumination).
Clint, I posted this earlier: a rebuttal to many of the misunderstandings about “the diagram”:
Back Radiation violates thermodynamics This reflects a misunderstanding of radiative transfer. The second law prohibits net heat flow from cold to hot—not individual photon exchanges. The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m². Net flow is still upward.
CO₂ is saturated While central absorption bands are near saturation, the wings continue absorbing. More CO₂ raises the altitude of emission, reducing outgoing IR and warming the surface.
Diagram ignores feedbacks and dynamics The energy budget is a snapshot of radiative fluxes—not a full climate model. Feedbacks like cloud and water vapor are addressed in dynamic models, not static diagrams.
No error bars = false precision The diagram is pedagogical, not a statistical report. NASA and Trenberth et al. provide uncertainty ranges in their technical papers.
Non-radiative processes are omitted Sensible heat (~24 W/m²) and latent heat (~78 W/m²) are included. The diagram balances radiative and non-radiative fluxes at the surface.
Surface emits more than it receives from Sun True—because the atmosphere returns energy via the greenhouse effect. The surface receives ~161 W/m² from the Sun and ~340 W/m² from atmospheric IR, totaling ~501 W/m².
Entropy violations Entropy increases overall. Radiative exchange between surface and atmosphere is consistent with statistical thermodynamics and Planck’s law.
BA, you’re just spamming. Pick out one thing you don’t understand, and I’ll see it I can explain it to you.
Clint,
Sure, explain why you didn’t understand your very first complaint. Sorry, I didn’t read past that one – disqualified on the first swing – so you don’t have to try to explain other things you don’t understand.
BA, if you can’t identify one specific thing you don’t agree with , then you’re just spamming.
Put up or shut up.
Clint, I disagreed with your very first point. I even went to the trouble of explaining why you didn’t understand it. You are the one that should shut up when you’re caught with your hands in your pants.
So you believe 240 = 960?
Thanks for verifying your incompetence, BA.
Hi, Clint!
No wonder, B A thinks 15C emits 390W/m2.
B A hasn’t read the Gary Novak’s site yet.
Link:
https://nov79.com/stf.html
An average human body has ~37C, which is 310K emits according to ASHRAE 100W.
–
Let’s see how much a human body emits according to the S-B constant: W/m² = 5.67 x 10-8 x K4
5,67x 10-8 * (310^4) = 5,67x 10-8 * (9.235.210.000) =
= 523,64 W/m²
523,64 is too much for a human body to emit!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No Clint, I believe 240×4 =960. Thanks for yet another demonstration of your comprehension skills.
Christos Vournas wrote:
No wonder, B A thinks 15C emits 390W/m2.
B A hasn’t read the Gary Novak’s site yet.
Link:
https://nov79.com/stf.html
How much energy does the icy floor absorb from what surrounds IT?
Thank you, David.
“How much energy does the icy floor absorb from what surrounds IT?”
Please visit,
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos V wrote:
Thank you, David.
“How much energy does the icy floor absorb from what surrounds IT?”
Please visit,
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
No, I’m not going to go searching somewhere to pluck out an answer. You can answer here.
It’s a simple question. How much energy does the icy floor absorb? And how does that affect the heat balance that Gary N claims massively heats the room from ice’s emissions?
Christos:
“No wonder, B A thinks 15C emits 390W/m2.
B A hasn’t read the Gary Novak’s site yet.”
As usual, you are wrong on both counts.
No, I don’t think “15C” emits anything at all. I, like, most PhD physicists think that an ideal black body at a temperature of 15C emits ~390W/m^2.
Yes, I have looked at Gary Novak’s site. It does not surprise me in the least that you believe and reference that garbage.
No wonder, A thinks 15C emits 390W/m2.
A hasn’t read the Gary Novak’s site yet.
Link:
https://nov79.com/stf.html
Christos, repeating your false presumptions does not make them correct.
Yes, B A, it is a relieve to know that you read the Gary Novak’s site.
Unlike other climate activists you, where they are to support your climate warming views?
We need more representative climate activism, because America should not be restricted, because of your desperate actions, America should not be restricte to burn as much fossil fuels as needed for America’s great economy to continue flourishing!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A Bushaw wrote: “While central absorption bands are near saturation, the wings continue absorbing.”
But the amount of additional IR absorption is derisory.
“More CO₂ raises the altitude of emission, reducing outgoing IR”
No; because the earth is a sphere, the effective overhead aperture widens with increasing emission altitude, so there is no significant reduction in outgoing IR.
” and warming the surface.”
No, the effect at the surface is minimal because there is so much water vapor and CO2 in the lower atmosphere absorbing and re-emitting any IR radiation from higher up. It’s like adding another cotton blanket to a bed that already has 20 wool blankets and a cotton blanket: the former top blanket is noticeably warmer, but the guy in the bed, under the bottom blanket, doesn’t notice any difference in temperature.
B.A. Bushaw says : “The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m². Net flow is still upward.”
The atmosphere blocks 340 W/m² (F = σT₂⁴-σT₁⁴). The energy flow is 58 W/m². Why ? Because all the energy levels of a black-body at T1 (< T2) are filled in the black-Body at T2. There can be no (real) transition at all.
Natural sciences study the physical world and its phenomena, while social sciences investigate human behavior and societies. Though both fields use systematic, empirical methods, their differing subject matter results in key distinctions in their methodologies, level of objectivity, and predictive power, e.g., AGW global warming is social science.
It’s important to note that the DOE climate report has appeared within the context of a larger public policy debate.
Biden’s 2024 anti-carbon EPA regulations are on hold while the Trump administration proposes 2025 replacement EPA regulations which are far less burdensome than Biden’s.
Rescinding the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding is one element of that replacement process; publication of the DOE climate report is another.
Two arguments Trump’s EPA uses in support of its environmental policy decisions are: (1) that America’s carbon emissions are currently the smaller fraction of the world’s total carbon emissions, and (2) it is highly unlikely the world as a whole will abandon fossil fuels.
As the Trump EPA’s basic argument goes, significantly reducing America’s own carbon emissions to the extent now being demanded by climate activists will have little effect on the earth’s climate system.
Mainstream climate scientists claim to have a good handle on the physics of anthropogenic climate change. Not perfect, certainly, but good enough for supporting an aggressive anti-carbon energy & environment policy.
If this is so, if mainstream climate scientists really do know as much about the earth’s climate system as they claim to know, then it is perfectly reasonable for America’s energy policy decision makers to be asking them these two questions:
(1): What will be the state of the earth’s climate system in the year 2100 if the United States achieves Net Zero carbon emissions by the year 2050, but the world as a whole remains committed to fossil fuels through the year 2100?
(2): What will be the state of the earth’s climate system in the year 2100 if the United States achieves Net Zero carbon emissions in the year 2050. and the world as a whole manages to reach Net Zero emissions by the year 2075?
If mainstream climate scientists are being professional about it, they will discuss the uncertainties associated with each of their two predictions, and will also describe what facets of today’s mainstream climate science produce those uncertainties, both their nature and their extent.
Beta B wrote:
Two arguments Trump’s EPA uses in support of its environmental policy decisions are: (1) that America’s carbon emissions are currently the smaller fraction of the world’s total carbon emissions
No they aren’t.
The US easily leads in carbon emissions. From 1850-2024, the US emitted about 400 Gt CO2. China has emitted about 250 Gt CO2, and the world 1700 Gt CO2.
The US has emitted the largest fraction, by far.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co2-emissions-region?stackMode=absolute&country=CHN~OWID_EU27~USA
The US also emits far more per capita than China does, about 15 t CO2/person/year to 8.5 t CO2/person/yr.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=OWID_WRL~USA~OWID_EU27~CHN
Past performance is not an indicator of future results. Appell, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Here’s how easy it would be to refute your comment.
Please estimate what proportion of American emissions were generated in support of foreign aid, military alliances in wartime, etc.
Emissions per capita are completely irrelevant. It is the total that concerns those who are concerned.
China is by far the largest emitter and its emissions will continue to grow. Before long, India will surpass the United States.
Yes, the US has been a significant source of CO2 emissions for more than a century. Yes,the US will continue to be a significant source of CO2 emissions. Had you left it at that you might have made a contribution to the discussion.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
Emissions per capita are completely irrelevant. It is the total that concerns those who are concerned.
So you think the atmosphere cares about national boundaries.
{eye roll}
BB wrote:
If mainstream climate scientists are being professional about it, they will discuss the uncertainties associated with each of their two predictions,
They always do. In fact, uncertainties are usually the longest chapter in the IPCC reports.
If that were true, then where is the adjustment of temperature data for obvious — and easily grasped confounding effect on temps by Everyman — UHIE? Instead, the naive and non-scientific assumption is that all errors cancel out. This claim is rejected even by HS physics students!
“Instead, the naive and non-scientific assumption is that all errors cancel out. ”
Got a reference for that?
Those high-school physics students are going to be dealing with this long after we are dead (and a probably already smart young adults. I expect rather, they would reject your claims.
Orson wrote:
If that were true, then where is the adjustment of temperature data for obvious — and easily grasped confounding effect on temps by Everyman — UHIE?
Suggest you study the IPCC 6AR Ch10.
In short, urban areas are only a tiny percentage of global land area.
Here’s what Google Gemini says about the IPCC adjusting for the UHIE:
“Yes, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges the urban heat island (UHI) effect but concludes it has a negligible impact on global mean temperature trends. Therefore, it’s not a primary factor that requires a major adjustment for global temperature calculations.
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) notes that while urban areas are indeed warmer than their rural surroundings, the UHI effect is very localized and affects a small percentage of the planet’s total land area. Global temperature datasets are carefully constructed to minimize or account for these local effects.”
https://g.co/gemini/share/bc72548bf5e7
David Appell | September 2, 2025 at 10:13 pm | Reply
BB wrote:
If mainstream climate scientists are being professional about it, they will discuss the uncertainties associated with each of their two predictions,
“They always do. In fact, uncertainties are usually the longest chapter in the IPCC reports.”
Appell – the issue is not whether uncertainties are included, its whether the range of uncertainties are properly accounted for. The criticism of uncertainties is that they are grossly understated especially in the paleo arena
Thomas Fuller wrote:
before long, India will surpass the United States.
The US has 7 times(!) the per capita emissions that India does. With 1/4th of the population India has.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=USA~IND
You’re looking for scapegoats. The US is one of the biggest CO2 hogs in the world.
India’s rate of CO2 rise is impressive though.
Pingback: How The Climate Inquisition Silenced A Generation Of Scientists - PhreeNews
Judith … Once more you’ve answered the call of duty. Great job! Thank you!
Judith wrote:
While I am not in favor of having the media mediate this, and Carbon Brief is arguably far from objective
And your group of five is?
David Appell | September 2, 2025 at 9:57 pm | Reply
Judith wrote:
While I am not in favor of having the media mediate this, and Carbon Brief is arguably far from objective
And your group of five is?”
Appell – Carbon brief ranks right up there with Skeptical science for accuracy, honesty, objectivity and scientific integrity. In other words, NOT!
Judith wrote:
These “flaws” and allegations of lack of representativeness are political considerations…
On please. You know exactly what AMS meant, and you know very well that it’s true. There was zero attempt to create a scientifically meaningful set of authors. None whatsoever. The committee is not representative of today’s climate science. The report’s sole intention is to mislead the public on the present state of climate science.
It is all about Trump paying back the fossil fuel industry for their $0.5 billion donation to his campaign. It is extremely deep corruption.
In addition to The AmMetSoc statement, I’m looking forward to reading the review of the DoE-CWG report, headed by Andy Dessler: “(85) Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report”
https://drive.google.com/file/
d/1PwAR8I9YYmPhbQ6CRekHkroJGMbjbX7l/view?pli=1
It may take a while (459 pages), but from what I’ve seen so far, it should be … informative.
I think that in fact the resistance to Judith’s new report is what is blatantly political. Dessler in particular has a long track record of activist postings, attempts to cancel other scientists, and calling people names.
I think its not unlikely that this response by Climate Science Inc. may be partly motivated by the removal of funding for climate science from NASA’s budget. Hansen’s and now Schmidt’s institute has been a hotbed of alarmist science and efforts to spread the idea that strong action is needed.
I think you confuse “activist” or “alarmist” with “realist”, even if willful ignorance won’t allow you to admit it.
There is nothing realistic about the CO2 climate narrative.
B A Bushaw wrote: “So, Roy thinks glacial – Interglacial transitions are the same as, and explain, what is happening now.”
No, that is just another outright fabrication on your part. I said no such thing. It is clear that what is happening now is nothing like a glacial-interglacial transition, and that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 far exceeds the typical increases caused by end-glacial warming, which far exceeded modern warming. The very fact that such a large increase in CO2 has been accompanied by such a modest increase in temperature compared to the increases during glacial-interglacial transitions shows that the mechanisms can’t be similar.
“We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850.”
IOW, they contrived a clever rationalization for a post hoc fallacy.
“Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”
Because their “technique” eliminated all natural factors as causal drivers.
“On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
[Stips, et al., Nature/scientific reports, 2016]
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
Roy, that’s what a reference looks like. You might try it sometime, instead of blessing us with your unsupported personal opinions.”
YOUR OWN SOURCE says:
“On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect
direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.”
Sorry Roy, You said, “There is nothing realistic about the CO2 climate narrative.” And your first personal opinion in support of that was:
“Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years, so the CO2 climate narrative gets the causal direction of the correlation between temperature and CO2 wrong.”
I gave you a reference (with over 1400 citations) that shows you are wrong. Who am I supposed to believe, Roy nobody with no supporting references; Or highly regarded peer-reviewed publications that show that it is often CO2 first even in the paleo proxies, and for certain that it is CO2 first over the last 60 years or so, and very likely for at least 150.
You are wrong, and your unsupported claims and deflections are pathetic.
Roy Langston wrote:
Most of the relevant facts I identify to support my statements are well known and not controversial.
Really??
Show me where/how computer models are constructed to have high ECS.
David Appell wrote: “Show me where/how computer models are constructed to have high ECS.”
There is no other plausible explanation for the absurdly exaggerated positive water vapor feedbacks that have been inserted into every climate model that predicts high ECS. We know those feedbacks are absurdly exaggerated because if they were real, the earth’s climate would be wildly unstable, and it isn’t.
Roy Langston wrote:
David Appell wrote: “Show me where/how computer models are constructed to have high ECS.”
There is no other plausible explanation for the absurdly exaggerated positive water vapor feedbacks that have been inserted into every climate model that predicts high ECS. We know those feedbacks are absurdly exaggerated because if they were real, the earth’s climate would be wildly unstable, and it isn’t.
Where in the CODE is a high ECS “inserted?” Find the code, and show where the assumption of high ECS is hard-coded.
You can find a complete description of a climate model and its code here:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
Roy Langston wrote:
“Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”
Because their “technique” eliminated all natural factors as causal drivers.
That’s just a bald-faced, rat-tailed, dirty shameless lie.
The very abstract of the paper says:
“In contrast the causality
contribution from natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic forcing) to the long term trend is not
significant.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
They discuss natural forcings throughout.
Appell provides the following to refute Roy’s comment
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
They discuss natural forcings throughout.
A few points –
The analysis appears to use a methodology which is very similar to population attribution faction. It is well known in the professional medical literature that PAF is inappropriate when there are several variables. If using a variation of the PAF methodology, then it is also inappropriate for climate science. Table 1 lists 6-8 variables (depending on how the variables are combined). Thus the multitude of variables hampers the robustness of the study.
Joe K wrote:
Appell – Repeating the question is becoming exceedingly stupid.
OK, you don’t understand the significance of the question. That’s enough, that’s all I need to know about your level of understanding.
You are the one relying on the study claiming the cause of the petm was the release of Co2. Its up to you making the claim that the resolution is sufficient to support the claim. Not Roy or I.
Roy made an issue of the temperature proxies not having enough resolution. You backed him.
Clearly neither of you knows what the resolution is.
Again, you’ve answered the question and that’s all I need to know about you.
Joe K wrote:
The analysis appears to use a methodology which is very similar to population attribution faction.
How so?
David Appell | September 6, 2025 at 9:45 pm |
Joe K wrote:
The analysis appears to use a methodology which is very similar to population attribution faction.
How so?
Appell – you response indicates that you are not familiar with PAF. Quite a few articles available that discuss the methodology. do some background research to get up to speed. that being said, the study has many similarities with PAF which has its obvious problems with multiple variables.
Joe K the study has many similarities with PAF which has its obvious problems with multiple variables.
I went and read about it. Still my question remains: how so?
Appell writes – David Appell | September 14, 2025 at 6:05 pm |
Joe K the study has many similarities with PAF which has its obvious problems with multiple variables.
“I went and read about it. Still my question remains: how so?”
Appell – problem, limitations and issues with attribution studies are well known. Is there a reason you think I should educate you on what is commonly known in the scientific community?
You should already be familiar with the issues.
Read the Bell McDermott study of 96 US cites and premature mortality associated with ground level ozone
Read the study on the 12% of asthma cases caused by gas stoves.
Perhaps they will enlighten you on the subject.
Joe K wrote:
“I went and read about it. Still my question remains: how so?”
Appell – problem, limitations and issues with attribution studies are well known. Is there a reason you think I should educate you on what is commonly known in the scientific community?
Yes.
I went and learned about PAFs, don’t see the applicability, and since I’m clearly not an idiot am asking you to provide more context about how they matter here.
Or maybe you just like throwing technical terms around and hoping nobody will notice.
Roy Langston wrote:
There is nothing realistic about the CO2 climate narrative.
Why not?
David Appell wrote: “Roy Langston wrote:
There is nothing realistic about the CO2 climate narrative.
Why not?”
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years, so the CO2 climate narrative gets the causal direction of the correlation between temperature and CO2 wrong.
Because the CO2 climate narrative requires an ECS so high that it implies removing almost all the CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere would make the earth not only colder than the moon, but colder than Mars, which is absurd.
Because adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its infrared absorption properties, so there is no plausible physical mechanism to explain the CO2 climate narrative.
Because the CO2 climate narrative is based on computer models constructed around the requirement of high ECS, they require absurdly exaggerated positive water vapor feedback, not physically realistic assumptions.
Because science is based on the Law of Causality — like causes produce like effects — and one corollary of that law is that like effects most likely have like causes.
Because previous century-scale warming episodes have indisputably not been caused by human CO2 emissions, and there is no realistic reason to think that whatever factors caused those episodes have somehow become inoperative.
Roy Langston wrote:
Why not?”
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years
Where does it say that?
Roy: where is the evidence for ANYTHING you claimed?
I don’t see it.
David Appell | September 3, 2025 at 6:44 pm |
Roy Langston wrote:
Why not?”
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years
Appells response to Roy L – “Where does it say that?”
Appell – its well documented with almost every Ice Core.
Have not heard of Volstock?
So, Roy thinks glacial – Interglacial transitions are the same as, and explain, what is happening now.
“We use a newly developed technique that is based on the information flow concept to investigate the causal structure between the global radiative forcing and the annual global mean surface temperature anomalies (GMTA) since 1850. Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”
On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature
[Stips, et al., Nature/scientific reports, 2016]
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
Roy, that’s what a reference looks like. You might try it sometime, instead of blessing us with your unsupported personal opinions.
Joe K,
I’ve never heard of Volstock, perhaps you mean Vostok?
Roy, here is another one you should be aware of – it’s rather famous:
Global Warming Preceded by Increasing Carbon Dioxide Concentrations during the Last Deglaciation
April 2012Nature 484(7392):49-54
DOI:10.1038/nature10915
David Appell:
Have you read “The Scientific Case Against Net-Zero: Falsifing the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis”? (2024)
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137
It completely destroys your support of greenhouse gas warming!
Good reading for B A Bushaw, also.
David Appell wrote: “Where does it say that?
Roy: where is the evidence for ANYTHING you claimed?
I don’t see it.”
Most of the relevant facts I identify to support my statements are well known and not controversial. On the matter of CO2 lagging temperature by several hundred years in the Pleistocene glacial cycle, you could consult Fischer et al. (1999), Siegenthaler et al. (2005), or Indermühle et al. (2000). One of B A Burshaw’s references had this to say:
“On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect
direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.”
[Stips, et al., Nature/scientific reports, 2016]
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691.pdf
Joe K wrote:
David Appell | September 3, 2025 at 6:44 pm |
Roy Langston wrote:
Why not?”
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years
Then explain the PETM.
Joe K wrote:
David Appell | September 3, 2025 at 6:44 pm |
Roy Langston wrote:
Why not?”
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years
From The Ice Chronicles by Paul Mayewski and Frank White, 2002:
“For example, the French-Soviet ice core record from Vostok, Antarctica, correlated temperature and carbon dioxide very closely, and increased levels of CO2 are clearly linked with warmer temperatures and vice versa….
“However, the same record includes sustained levels of CO2 at the end of the last interglacial period (118,000 to 122,000 years ago) as temperature decline. This suggests that not every change in temperature is always related to a change in CO2 during periods of natural availability in CO2. However, under natural conditions of the last 450,000 years or so, CO2 levels have not risen as fast or as high as they have in the past century….”
I read that book shortly after it came out. Glad I kept it on my bookshelf.
appell – From The Ice Chronicles by Paul Mayewski and Frank White, 2002:
“For example, the French-Soviet ice core record from Vostok, Antarctica, correlated temperature and carbon dioxide very closely, and increased levels of CO2 are clearly linked with warmer temperatures and vice versa….
“I read that book shortly after it came out. Glad I kept it on my bookshelf.”
Appell – I am glad there is google
https://www.google.com/search?q=vostok+ice+core+data+co2+lags+temperature&oq=volsok+ice+core+co&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgEEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCQgBEAAYDRiABDIICAIQABgWGB4yCAgDEAAYFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTIKCAYQABiABBiiBDIHCAcQABjvBdIBCDgyNTVqMGo0qAIBsAIB8QV6nelVh4dBjPEFep3pVYeHQYw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=4LffK9CdmpF0kM&vssid=l
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/timing-of-carbon-dioxide-and-temperature-in-vostok-ice-core/
Joe K,
I, too, am glad there is google; however, if you quote an AI answer, you also need to give the wording of your question. Nonetheless, the closing words from google are highly relevant to Roy’s inference that glacial CO2-temperature timing relations disprove current CO2 AGW theory and evidence. Here is the closing from your google AI statement:
“… the recent, rapid, human-caused CO2 increase over the last 150 years is not subject to the same large lags and is a primary driver of current warming.”
With respect to current warming, behavior in glacial-interglacial transitions is a straw man deflection.
Baby – Its not surprising you misrepresent the scientific data.
I was responding to the data and statement in the book he quoted that was being misrepresented by Appell.
No reason to point out you or Appel;’s misreprestation since you no exactly what you misrepresented.
Jojo. I didn’t misrepresent anything – I gave references. What you mean is that you don’t agree with the references I gave. That isn’t worth squat, particularly from you.
Bab
Yes you are misrepresenting the data – though as usual you wont admit it.
Appell was addressing the the time period pre 1800’s – you presenting data post 1850. – Two separate and distinct issues. You then implied that correcting Appells misreprestation was a strawman.
Roy Langston wrote:
Because previous century-scale warming episodes have indisputably not been caused by human CO2 emissions, and there is no realistic reason to think that whatever factors caused those episodes have somehow become inoperative.
Roy, do you know about the PETM?
Or the hyperthermals around then?
David, Be serious – Roy doesn’t know anything about climatology except his memorized ‘contrarian’ talking points lists; certainly doesn’t know, or understand, the underlying science for the issues he addresses. The same goes for his “defender,” Jojo.
David Appell wrote: “Then explain the PETM.”
AFAIK, no one can say definitively what caused the PETM. Obviously, those who push the CO2 climate narrative seize on any opportunity to attribute anything and everything to CO2. But other possibilities certainly exist: a large injection of water vapor into the stratosphere by sustained submarine vulcanism; astronomical events of unknown character; reduced cloud cover caused by an increase in nucleation particles; even a darkening of the earth’s surface by a newly emerged life form. ISTM a lot of the speculation rests on extremely tenuous chronologies based on dating techniques that are not capable of the required resolution (less than one part in 100K) that far in the past.
Joe K:
Explain how the Vostok ice core conclusion pertains to today.
Today we are pumping CO2 straight into the atmosphere. We don’t wait for the temperature to increase before we do it, we just do it.
That anthropogenic CO2 has signatures of fossil fuels.
The swimming pool is filling up with water. You insist it’s rain, caused by evaporation from the pool’s water by the sun, while you ignore the hose in the pool running from the valve on the side of the house.
Burl Henry wrote:
Have you read “The Scientific Case Against Net-Zero: Falsifing the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis”? (2024)
https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v17n6p137
No I haven’t read it. Reading just a few sentences in the abstract is enough to know it’s garbage. I know garbage when I see it and I don’t spend any extra time on garbage. It’s a laughably corrupt paper which is why it’s “published” in a nowhere nothing funny cheese journal.
Burt, there’s no need to share garbage. Please clean it up when you see it instead of adding garbage to the garbage.
Roy Langston wrote:
David Appell wrote: “Then explain the PETM.”
AFAIK, no one can say definitively what caused the PETM.
You’re wrong.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_2d1b9583-e5de-4fa5-a49d-d090982e8ab3
Roy: Same question for the P-T mass extinction event.
Roy: does a change in CO2 lead temperature change or lag temperature change when you pump CO2 into the atmosphere every day via your car, heating & cooling, travels needed for your groceries, etc?
Or do you only start your car when the temperature is increasing?
David Appell | September 5, 2025 at 6:39 pm |
Roy Langston wrote:
David Appell wrote: “Then explain the PETM.”
AFAIK, no one can say definitively what caused the PETM.
Appell’s response – “You’re wrong.”
Appell – The first sentence of your link confirms Roy’s comment “The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred about 55.5 million years ago, was a rapid global warming event likely triggered by a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. The exact cause remains debated, but leading hypotheses include:”
Joe K: yes, in the PETM, CO2 change led temperature change.
Same as for the P-T mass extinction event.
Same as today. Only much faster.
David Appell wrote: “Roy Langston wrote:
“AFAIK, no one can say definitively what caused the PETM.”
You’re wrong.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_2d1b9583-e5de-4fa5-a49d-d090982e8ab3”
David, YOUR OWN SOURCE says: “The exact cause remains debated, but leading hypotheses include:”
Sorry, but that sort of dishonest crap just makes me feel tired all over.
David Appell wrote: “Joe K: yes, in the PETM, CO2 change led temperature change.”
Garbage. The proxies do not have anywhere near the resolution needed to make that kind of discrimination that far in the past.
David Appell wrote: “Roy: does a change in CO2 lead temperature change or lag temperature change when you pump CO2 into the atmosphere every day via your car, heating & cooling, travels needed for your groceries, etc?
Or do you only start your car when the temperature is increasing?”
What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?
Roy Langston
What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?
Thought this was obvious but I’ll rephrase:
You and others claim temperature change always leads CO2 change.
Starting your car emits CO2, i.e. is a CO2 change.
What temperature change proceeded your starting your car, to create this CO2 change?
Roy Langston wrote:
Garbage. The proxies do not have anywhere near the resolution needed to make that kind of discrimination that far in the past.
No?
What are their resolutions?
Roy Langston wrote:
Because the paleoclimate record clearly shows temperature leading CO2 by several hundred years, so the CO2 climate narrative gets the causal direction of the correlation between temperature and CO2 wrong.
Where does the science of the PETM and P-T event show that temperature change leads CO2 change?
Joe K wrote:
Appell – The first sentence of your link confirms Roy’s comment “The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred about 55.5 million years ago, was a rapid global warming event likely triggered by a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. The exact cause remains debated, but leading hypotheses include:”
was a rapid global warming event likely triggered by a massive release of carbon in the atmosphere and ocean.
In other words, a CO2 change led the temperature change.
So why can’t that be happening today?
Especially when we are emitting CO2 straight into the atmosphere without regard to any temperature change?
Joe K wrote:
Baby – Its not surprising you misrepresent the scientific data.
So you’re insulting someone (“Baby”) after complaining about insults??
You can’t control yourself.
David Appell | September 6, 2025 at 8:02 pm |
Joe K wrote:
Baby – Its not surprising you misrepresent the scientific data.
So you’re insulting someone (“Baby”) after complaining about insults??”
Appell – My full statement pointed the specific statement BAB made where he misrepresented the data. How is that an insult vs his attack on the person. You should be able to distinquish the difference between pointing to a specific error and an insult.
David Appell | September 6, 2025 at 8:00 pm |
Joe K wrote:
Appell – The first sentence of your link confirms Roy’s comment “The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which occurred about 55.5 million years ago, was a rapid global warming event likely triggered by a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. The exact cause remains debated, but leading hypotheses include:”
was a rapid global warming event likely triggered by a massive release of carbon in the atmosphere and ocean.
In other words, a CO2 change led the temperature change.
So why can’t that be happening today?
Appell – Just like BAB – You are intentionally misrepresenting the study on the cause of the PETM.
That is not what the article/study states. Is there a reason you intentionally misrepresent the the study’s conclusions?
David Appell | September 6, 2025 at 7:54 pm |
Roy Langston wrote:
Garbage. The proxies do not have anywhere near the resolution needed to make that kind of discrimination that far in the past.
Appell’s response to Roy
“No?
What are their resolutions?”
Appell – Why are you asking that question ? You know that Roy is correct on the issues associated with the resolution of the proxies.
Joe K wrote:
Appell – Why are you asking that question ? You know that Roy is correct on the issues associated with the resolution of the proxies.
Again: what is the resolution of the proxies?
David Appell | September 6, 2025 at 8:29 pm |
Joe K wrote:
Appell – Why are you asking that question ? You know that Roy is correct on the issues associated with the resolution of the proxies.
Again: what is the resolution of the proxies?
Appell – Repeating the question is becoming exceedingly stupid. You are the one relying on the study claiming the cause of the petm was the release of Co2. Its up to you making the claim that the resolution is sufficient to support the claim. Not Roy or I.
The burden of proof is one you.
Hint – proxy resolution issues are well known. (maybe not by zealots, but by everyone else.)
Joe K wrote:
Joe K wrote:
Baby – Its not surprising you misrepresent the scientific data.
So you’re insulting someone (“Baby”) after complaining about insults??”
Appell – My full statement pointed the specific statement BAB made where he misrepresented the data. How is that an insult vs his attack on the person.
It’s an insult because you call him a juvenile name: “Baby.”
Do you really not understand how unserious that makes you look? Especially as you do it repeatedly, over and over again? You like to claim you’re some legit accountant, or something, then you call people names just as a juvenile does.
Dude, it seriously detracts from your credibility. From any interest there is to even read your replies. Why read insults? Grow the F up.
David wrote: “You and others claim temperature change always leads CO2 change.”
No, I do not, and I have never heard of anyone else who does, either. It is just a strawman fabrication on your and B A Bushaw’s part. Temperature is only one factor that can cause CO2 to change, just as CO2 is only one factor that can cause temperature to change. I thought THAT was obvious. The difference is that the paleo record shows CO2 is much more sensitive to temperature than temperature is to CO2 — and CO2 is not very sensitive to temperature.
David Appell wrote: “What are their resolutions?”
That depends on the proxy, but none of them come close to the <1/100K resolution needed to show that increased CO2 preceded the PETM, let alone the P/T extinction.
David Appell wrote: “Where does the science of the PETM and P-T event show that temperature change leads CO2 change?”
None of the proxies have the ~100y resolution required to show which came first 50Mya, let alone 250Mya. The paleo record that shows CO2 trailing temperature is the Pleistocene record of alternating glacial and interglacial periods. THAT record DOES have the required ~100y resolution.
David Appell wrote: “With respect to current warming, behavior in glacial-interglacial transitions is a straw man deflection.”
No, because the leading and trailing correlations between CO2 and temperature for the Pleistocene glacial-interglacial transitions show that temperature is less sensitive to CO2 than CO2 is to temperature, and CO2 is not very sensitive to temperature. The clear implication is that while the recent rapid increase in CO2 is due to human fossil fuel emissions, the return to more normal Holocene temperatures since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10K years has little to do with the rapid increase in CO2.
Roy Langston wrote:
David Appell wrote: “With respect to current warming, behavior in glacial-interglacial transitions is a straw man deflection.
I did not write this.
Get it together man.
Roy Langston wrote:
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNA%3D%3D_2d1b9583-e5de-4fa5-a49d-d090982e8ab3
David, YOUR OWN SOURCE says: “The exact cause remains debated, but leading hypotheses include:”
Every one of those hypotheses involve putting GHGs in the atmosphere. Every one.
Joe K wrote:
Appell – its well documented with almost every Ice Core.
Have not heard of Volstock?
What about the case where we have an open pipe letting 1 kiloton/sec of CO2 into the atmosphere?? (Before waiting for the temperature to change.)
What leads then, temperature change or CO2 change?
Pingback: Analyzing Critiques of the DOE Climate Assessment Report
Judith –
Your selective determination of what is or isn’t “political” is truly a work of art.
The AMS seems to be declaring war on the Trump administration – does the AMS really want to see NOAA’s budget and the atmospheric research budget get cut (more than is already on the table)? Maybe the AMS should try working with the Trump administration, not against it.
Proactively laying responsibility for Trump cutting NOAA’s budget at the feet of the AMS is perhaps your best masterpiece yet. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
“The problem for J-gas is…etc.”
Isn’t there a minimum age requirement for this website?
The truth is always compelling. However, more often than not, the truth compels global warming alarmists to simply abdicate reason and engage instead in smear campaigns and the politics of personal destruction.
“This statement has been adopted by the Executive Committee of the AMS Council, I assume this was also written by this Committee. Here is the membership of the Executive Committee [link]. If you cannot recognize any of these names as climate scientists, you would be correct.”
Please supply a better definition of “political”.
You can’t seriously be supporting Judith’s credentialism and appeal to authority, can you?
“You can’t seriously be supporting Judith’s credentialism and appeal to authority, can you?”
The problem for J-gas is readily seen in his own self-authorship appeal; which means squat except for his own gaseous relief [pun]. J’s ability for turning his own gas into solid waste is quite impressive, though one wishes he would place it in a stall off premises.
“The problem for J-gas is…etc.”
Isn’t there a minimum age requirement for this website?
(put in proper order)
“Isn’t there a minimum age requirement for this website?”
Yes, on both counts, said credentials suggest you too should leave.
I’m confused – who is making all the J-gas; Judith, Joshua, or jungletrunks? I guess I’d have to go with the latter – I can smell those trunks from here.
And then the bird lites, proceeds to opine shrill titillating squawks, as he always does.
JT: “Yes, on both counts, said credentials suggest you too should leave.”
Yes, you should leave and come back when you grow up – most likely never.
Based on your stated confusion, sure Polly. As an ideologically driven pecker you’re an easy target, you might as well not move.
Al Gore wasn’t a hypocritical politician with delusions of grandeur? Images of starving polar bears wasn’t wasn’t science- it was science fiction! The IPCC wasn’t science- it was the anti-Americanism of Eurocommunism. MM’s hockey stick graph wasn’t science- it was a sellout of Western academia to Leftist politics.
Do people forget that before, ‘Trump derangement syndrome’, there was, ‘Bush derangement syndrome’? When will the Left apologize to the American people for blaming George Bush and not Katrina for flooding New Orleans? It’s ALL politics. Only the dishonest refuse to admit global warmning alarmism is a Left vs. right issue that is social science, not natural science?
W: You deny science but make zero attempts to understand it. No attempts to test your understanding and see (and understand) why the scientific community disagrees with you. You repeat your denial like a robot. You ignore evidence so there’s no reason to engage with you. You have a closed mind, which is antithetical to science and to learning. It’s impossible for me to understand that, and honestly I feel sorry for people like you.
America is great, not when it subjugates and controls the thoughts of others with misleading, false, and politically correct points of view. America is great when it does what it does best: when it celebrates personal independence, self-discovery, self-actualization and respect for honesty and integrity in the search for truth. Leftist-approved Western academia’s climate science would make the Piltdown man blush.
In the beginning,the Warmanism Movement was founded upon the quasi-science of climatology’s global warming hypothesis and environmentalists. Since then anti-American contra-cultural elitists of the Left, in politics, in academia, the government bureaucracy and the media took over the movement and have become a secular-socialist socio-political lobby dedicated to bringing about economic totalitarianism. “It was similar in the Soviet Union,” Freeman Dyson observed. “Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future?”
Hey Wags, about time you trotted out that Dyson quote again. Last time was 10+ years ago, maybe. Still at it, huh? That secular-socialist socio-political lobby just won’t give up…
If anyone is looking for human-caused disaster, they need look no further than communism, the socialism of dead and dying Old Europe, the liberal Utopianism of California, radical Islam’s inhumanity to man and the Democrat party’s spending of trillions of dollars without leaving a trace. It’s all politics- ask any Greek!
“…- ask any Greek!”
I just asked the Oracle at Delphi (ancient AI). She said “Beware global warming!”
The Oracle said, “If the Left goes to war, it will destroy a great empire,” but the prophecy was misunderstood– the Left assumed the destroyed “great empire” to be the ideals of freedom, individualism, and capitalism of Americanism but, it turned out to be the empire destroyed was, Western Academia.
There’s much truth in what you say, Wagathon.
While the Left plots the dismantling of Western classical liberal principles (American conservatism specifically); a massive new axis forms. The Western hard Left myopically see good in one member of this axis while their ideological foundation crumbles. The Left are so intensely focused on ideological revolutionary ideas for new Americanism that they can’t see the totalitarian trojan horse wheeling in on all things Western, including them. We’ll all lose everything, including Western democracy in its entirety, if they don’t wake-up and row the boat together as Americans.
The new axis has plans, they speak out of both sides of their mouth but ultimately give little credence to the Wests AGW concerns, other than seeing it as a useful divisive issue to dismantle the obstacles of their desire.
The Left has a recurring history that demonstrably shows they’re incapable of seeing atrocity as they gorge on selfish idealism until it’s too late. “In 1932 Beatrice Webb remarked at a tea-party what “very bad stage management” it had been to allow a party of British visitors to the Ukraine to see cattle-trucks full of starving “enemies of the state” at a local station. “Ridiculous to let you see them”, said Webb, already an eminent admirer of the Soviet system. “The English are always so sentimental” adding, with assurance: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.”
“Xi said the world faced a choice between peace and war as China unveiled a huge arsenal of weapons – including nuclear missiles with a global reach – to mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two. Wednesday’s parade marked the first time that the Chinese, Russian and North Korean leaders had appeared together publicly.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/putin-xi-hot-mic-moment-on-organ-transplants-underscores-concerns-over-organ-harvesting-in-china-5909770?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=section-1
re ability to detect acceleration from tide gauge data see interesting analysis of Haigh et al.
Haigh, I. D., Wahl, T., Rohling, E. J., Price, R. M., Pattiaratchi, C. B., Calafat, F. M. & Dangendorf, S.. 2014. Timescales for detecting a significant acceleration in sea level rise. Nat Commun 5: 3635. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4635. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24728012
Way back when B A Bushaw started commenting here, I warned readers of possible strange intents, essentially advising not to feed the troll. Time has shown my assessment to be reasonable. I shall not be responding to more of his bias and rude conduct. Anyone differ?
Geoff S
USENET news readers back in the day used to have the option of a killfile to not download comments from certain people. The WSJ comment section has a mute function to do the same thing. That would be very helpful here.
The case for “harmful” or “dangerous” man-made carbon-dioxide-emissions global warming rests entirely on the doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effect of increased atmospheric water vapour”. The “positive feedback amplifier” is fake. When it is driven by increase of atmospheric CO2, it relies on the “Planck response” for dynamical stability in the face of the “positive feedback” responses. In a genuine amplifier, the sign of the feedback gain is the same at all times. The climate “amplifier” needs the “Planck response” to stabilise it when the CO2 is doubled. But when the CO2 is at the reference level, there is no “Planck response”, while the “positive feedback factor” is still there unchanged: then the climate “amplifier” has nothing to stabilise it. It will be dynamically unstable. But we know from the satellite temperature record that, when the CO2 is not doubled, the climate system is dynamically stable. The “Planck response” is a deus ex machina, a blatant fudge factor. The overall feedback in the climate system is negative at all times. The “positive feedback amplifier” is a blatant fake. There is no actual amplification. The ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is less than or equal to the no-feedback virtual warming of 1.2°C.
Christopher: no no no no and no.
The amplifying feedbacks are not about the Planck response.
They’re about the fact that warmer planet melts ice, decreasing the planet’s albedo leading to more warming; they’re about the atmosphere being able to hold more water vapor, a powerful GHG; and feedbacks from changes in clouds in a warmer world.
B A,
> “No, I don’t think “15C” emits anything at all. I, like, most PhD physicists think that an ideal black body at a temperature of 15C emits ~390W/m^2.”
There is nowhere said the ideal black-body is warmed by any kind of radiative EM energy.
No PhD physicist ever said the ideal black-body temperature can be calculated from the incident radiative EM energy measurements.
In general, the ideal black-body EM emission intensity does not depend on the absorbed EM energy.
The ideal black-body EM emission intensity is the black-body’s surface absolute temperature in fourth (4) power function:
J = σ Τ⁴
See, it doesn’t say anything about the by the radiative EM energy warming the black-body’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
There is nowhere said the ideal black-body is warmed by any kind of radiative EM energy.
The DEFINITION of a black body is one that absorbs all radiation incident upon it.
It’s the first sentence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Christos wrote:
See, it doesn’t say anything about the by the radiative EM energy warming the black-body’s surface.
By definition, a blackbody absorbs all radiation incident upon it.
It’s about thermodynamic equilibrium. For the ideal black body, located in a surrounding vacuum, to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, it must absorb as much radiation as it emits. It requires uniform incident radiation, otherwise there would be local net flow of energy within the black body: such is not permitted by the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Christopher,
“It’s about thermodynamic equilibrium. For the ideal black body, located in a surrounding vacuum, to be in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, it must absorb as much radiation as it emits.”
–
That is when the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon occurs:
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The ‘key words’ here are ‘thermo equilibrium’ and ‘absorb as much radiation as it emits’.
In effect it is a complex rotary heat exchanger. The main variables there are the rotational speed and the orientation of the rotational axis to heat flow direction. The equilibrium position depends on those factors.
For maximum heat transfer (incoming to outgoing) rotational axis must be perpendicular to flow (obliquity angle zero). Rotation speed must not be low; above stall speed. (Venus is stalled; the worst of both conditions). The mechanics of the matter are very important. [eg. the Carnot cycle produces mechanical energy, but which is zero at zero cycle speed; there is an optimal cycle speed].
Earth’s albedo is the most significant factor preventing it from being a perfect black body and from being hotter than it is.
Nothing has happened in the last almost 10 years that changes the fact that from the beginning of the current AGW global warming alarmism that began in the early ’70s, it’s been a huge new no-show, e.g., “Scientists measuring oxygen isotopes from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica… [report] temperatures were significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years.” ~James Taylor, Forbes (2016)
Lost on Dessler, Kopp, AMS, etal is the reality that all of the science on which EPA chooses to rely in its effort to rescind the EF will only need to pass a certain LEGAL test (did it follow APA protocol? are EPA’s conclusions reasonable or arbitrary and capricious? etc.). The Supreme Court won’t play science arbiter.
Dessler, etal do not seem to get this. Or, maybe they do and are unhinged specifically b/c of it. We’re going with the former (or they wouldn’t have bothered spending 495 pages refuting a 150 page report and behaving in the manner Dessler has publicly).
Stay the course as you have since early 2010, Judy. Keep playing the long game and letting the nonsense roll off your back like water off a duck’s.
– environMENTAL
When I heard this report was being rushed to counter, I immediately thought of the rush job to counter a paper by Roy Spencer, going after the editor and having Dessler issue a paper.
Now I see the author here is Dessler!
Dessler is not “the author,” rather one of 85 authors. Practicing up on your ad hominems?
His name is in Curry’s first paragraph.
Mike,
That’s nice of her to acknowledge the importance of the review edited by Dessler and Kopp. Of course, she only mentioned Dessler – Kopp probably wouldn’t have triggered your knee-jerk reaction. However, Dessler being the author appears to be your fabrication – care to withdraw it?
joe k:
“Bab
Yes you are misrepresenting the data – though as usual you wont admit it.
Appell was addressing the the time period pre 1800’s – you presenting data post 1850. – Two separate and distinct issues. You then implied that correcting Appells misreprestation was a strawman.”
Horse crap, joey jerk – guess you didn’t read my other reference:
J Shakun, et al., Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature 484, 49–54 (2012).
It used 80 different proxy references as compared to shaky evidence from one site (not sufficient time resolution at Vostok (yes that’s how you spell it)).
The straw man is pretending the paleo timing sequence was/is the main subject of discussion, to ignore Roy Nobody’s false claims that (a) paleo data shows that temperature rise always precedes CO2 growth and (b) that this proved that modern AWG-GHG theory was nonsense. He was wrong on both counts, and in your ignorance, you were foolish enough to try to support him. You are out of your league, baby joey – perhaps you should go help somebody balance their checkbook.
Also, try a grammar checker – you sure make a lot of mistakes for a supposed professional paper pusher.
B A Bushaw wrote: “The straw man is pretending the paleo timing sequence was/is the main subject of discussion, to ignore Roy Nobody’s false claims that (a) paleo data shows that temperature rise always precedes CO2 growth”
I made no such claim. It is just another strawman fallacy on your part, another bald fabrication. There are far too many independent factors to say, “always.” Vulcanism, for example, has more or less random timing, so sometimes it injects CO2 into the atmosphere before a cyclical warming episode, sometimes during, and sometimes after. Moreover, some volcanoes are submarine, and cause transient warming if they are large enough to inject megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere, while most are terrestrial and cause transient cooling by emitting SO2.
“and (b) that this proved that modern AWG-GHG theory was nonsense.”
That is another fabrication. What it proves is that the claimed support for the CO2 climate narrative through the correlation of CO2 with temperature in the paleo record gets the causal direction of THAT relationship wrong. Modern AGW-GHG theory is nonscience for other reasons, as already explained.
“He was wrong on both counts,”
More accurately, you are just makin’ $#!+ up about what I plainly said on both counts.
Roy Langston wrote:
What it proves is that the claimed support for the CO2 climate narrative through the correlation of CO2 with temperature in the paleo record gets the causal direction of THAT relationship wrong
The PETM and P-T event show you’re wrong about this.
And you’re clearly wrong about today, when we have a huge hose pumping CO2 straight up into the atmosphere regardless of any temperature change.
Why can’t you admit this obvious fact?
David Appell wrote: “Roy wrote: “What it proves is that the claimed support for the CO2 climate narrative through the correlation of CO2 with temperature in the paleo record gets the causal direction of THAT relationship wrong”
The PETM and P-T event show you’re wrong about this.”
No they do not. There is no proxy record that has the required ~100y resolution 50My in the past, let alone 250My.
BAB – comment that I didnt read his other reference – J Shakun, et al., Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature 484, 49–54 (2012).”
Bab
– you should have read your last citation in more detail before commenting. There is a lot you missed.
A – The study admits its not nearly as robust as the headline,
B – they admit the study has time scale resolution issues,
C – The study was limited to only the last deglaciation,
D – The study admits radio carbon dating is not sufficient robust for the purposes of the study,
E – Did you notice the limited the study to the last deglaciation even though numerous of those 80 proxies go back much further. Did you think to ask why?
F – What is missing from the study is often very informative, in this case very informative.
G – Quite a few other issues which give hints to the study’s limitations. A good scientist would recognize those issues along with those mentioned above.
Lastly – this study doesnt refute my correction of Appell’s misrepresentation
Jojo, Yes the Vostok cores also have large time resolution problems. The last 150 years does not, and you are deflecting from that. I guess because it is perfectly obvious that in the modern era, GHGs cause temperature rise, not the reverse. And you don’t know how to handle it, so search for irrelevant straw men as false evidence. Pathetic.
B A Bushaw wrote: “I guess because it is perfectly obvious that in the modern era, GHGs cause temperature rise, not the reverse.”
I see. So, because the most recent century-scale warming trend is similar to other such Holocene warming trends that were indisputably not caused by GHGs, it’s “perfectly obvious” that the most recent one must have been caused by GHGs…?
So, because the lowest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years was accompanied by the coldest 500y period in the last 10K years, and the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the 20th century was accompanied by the highest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years, it is “perfectly obvious” that the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the 20th century must have been caused by GHGs…?
I don’t know where you got your graduate education in science, and I don’t care. But I know my undergraduate education in science was better than that, at least in inculcating the principles of valid scientific reasoning.
Nice – BAB Got caught again unable to address the first issue where you are wrong, therefore you shift to a different topic and time frame to hide your first error.
Everyone picks up on your attempts to deflect.
Jojo and Roy,
I aways appreciate it it when you nobodies take the opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance – willful and otherwise.
B A Bushaw | September 8, 2025 at 9:17 am |
Jojo and Roy,
I aways appreciate it it when you nobodies take the opportunity to demonstrate your ignorance – willful and otherwise.
BAb – As usual – you attack the person because you cant address your error. Hiding your actual ignorance or simply lashing out in anger when caught with errors.
BaB – you could have explained why you changed the topic three times in the course of just of your 4 responses. Instead you chose to throw an unprovoked insult.
You repetitively changed the topic to hide your error / misrepresentation of the science. You then chose to throw the insult after getting caught with the multiple misrepresentations.
BaB “…when..nobodies take the opportunity to demonstrate…ignorance – willful and otherwise”
🦜 the parroting bird would be among the “ignorance–willful and otherwise” list. His primary skill these days is vanity networking from his perch while picking out his gray mange between squawks.
Polly is a nobody by climate science standards. He simply stump parrots AI to backfill ideological consensus. He frequently directs ignorant cheap shots at Dr. Curry, and other accomplished climate scientists who’ve published hundreds of peer reviewed papers among them (Dr.Curry alone has published hundreds of peer reviewed papers).
Polly perches behind politically packaged consensus. He believes his chemistry kit chops trumps all in the grand scheme of things. He has no respect for arguments that challenge peer reviewed climate, the birds hen pecked AI climate chops are enough.
Parrots always find their strength, and security in flocks. They like being fed–and mirrors.
Polly wanna?
Roy Langston wrote:
So, because the most recent century-scale warming trend is similar to other such Holocene warming trends that were indisputably not caused by GHGs, it’s “perfectly obvious” that the most recent one must have been caused by GHGs…?
Of course it’s perfectly obvious. Humans effectively have a large pipe pumping CO2 directly into the atmosphere, over 1,000 tons per second.
I have never understood how anyone cannot understand that a CO2 increase is leading the temperature increase. All these analogies to other warming everts, temperature change creating CO2 change, are irrelevant to today’s situation. But events like the PETM and P-T event are good analogies.
Do people forget that before, ‘Trump derangement syndrome’, there was, ‘Bush derangement syndrome’? When will the Left apologize to the American people for blaming George Bush and not Katrina for flooding New Orleans? It’s ALL politics. Only the dishonest refuse to admit global warmning alarmism is a Left vs. right issue that is social science, not natural science?
Pingback: DOE Climate Assessment Report | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
The Planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon suggests rotation and heat capacity matter more than the greenhouse effect.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Really? How are the rotational rate and heat capacity changing. Climate forcings come from changing parameters, not ones that are constant.
The term ‘greenhouse effect’ is not an analogy, it’s propaganda-
‘Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn’t know is that Mother Nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas — water vapor — into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not ‘prove’ that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds.’ (Roy Spencer)
There is precisely no reproducible experimental support for the bizarre notion that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
Some ignorant and gullible people apparently believe otherwise.
They often refer to themselves as “climate scientists”.
Michael Flynn wrote:
There is precisely no reproducible experimental support for the bizarre notion that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
What is the reproducible experimental support for the claim that smoking causes lung cancer?
Two unrelated topics that have zero bearing on the other !
Why the question?
Good thing CO2 doesn’t cause cancer, otherwise don’t breathe out—I highly recommend this for the local DA; for him asphyxia is the better choice for saving humanity.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Good thing CO2 doesn’t cause cancer, otherwise don’t breathe out—I highly recommend this for the local DA; for him asphyxia is the better choice for saving humanity.
You avoided the question.
Joe K wrote:
Two unrelated topics that have zero bearing on the other !
Why the question?
It’s directly applicable to the methodology behind the conclusions of climate science. If you don’t understand that you for sure don’t understand climate science.
Rationality says you did.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Rationality says you did.
Did what?
Explain why.
Climate has always changed and always will. The mistake is blaming Global Warming on burning fossil fuels. Human activity has CONTRIBUTED to Global Warming by the human CONTRIBUTION to increasing water vapor. According to NASA/RSS measurements, water vapor has been on an increasing trend of about 1.5 % per decade since before 1988.
The upper limit to water-vapor-increase from warming is bounded by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Measured water vapor increase is about 40 % more than possible from just planet warming. This FALSIFIES the assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase. Verification is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan Pangburn wrote:
Human activity has CONTRIBUTED to Global Warming by the human CONTRIBUTION to increasing water vapor. According to NASA/RSS measurements, water vapor has been on an increasing trend of about 1.5 % per decade since before 1988.
Why is atmospheric water vapor content increasing?
3.1 billion more people now than in 1988 and they are irrigating more and generating more electricity, etc.
Dan Pangburn wrote:
>>Why is atmospheric water vapor content increasing?<<
3.1 billion more people now than in 1988 and they are irrigating more and generating more electricity, etc.
Dan, physics says that at a given temperature the atmosphere can only hold a certain amount of water vapor, as it’s a condensable gas. (See the Clausius-Claperyon equation.)
If you try to put more water vapor in the atmosphere, it will rain out (or snow out).
The only way to get more water vapor into the atmosphere is by increasing the atmosphere’s temperature.
This is why climate scientists say, “water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.”
David, your statement “physics says…” is, of course, for all practical purposes true (ignoring unusual conditions that can lead to local supersaturation). However, from a global standpoint, this truth is irrelevant. The global atmosphere is never all fully saturated. Visible evidence that an area is at saturation is the presence of clouds. Clear skies and areas above and below clouds are below saturation, sometimes well below. The RH here right now is about 33 % (high for this desert area, but then it is monsoon season).
The assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase (or anything else) has been FALSIFIED. Verification is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
David, your statement “physics says…” is, of course, for all practical purposes true (ignoring unusual conditions that can lead to local supersaturation). However, from a global standpoint, this truth is irrelevant. The global atmosphere is never all fully saturated. Visible evidence that an area is at saturation is the presence of clouds. Clear skies and areas above and below clouds are below saturation, sometimes well below. The RH here right now is about 33 % (high for this desert area, but then it is monsoon season).
The assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase (or anything else) has been FALSIFIED. Verification is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan:
“Can humans deliberately add water vapor to the atmosphere?”
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68c4a2fd8cb08191829efda41d8aeb58
David, Perhaps Chatgpt is not aware that average global WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS and has been increasing about 1.5 % per decade since before 1988. Chatgpt is not aware that the WV increase is about 40 % more than possible from just planet warming because AFAIK no one except me has figured it out. Here’s your big chance to become famous. Use the temperatures reported by UAH.
Dan Pangburn wrote:
David, Perhaps Chatgpt is not aware that average global WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS and has been increasing about 1.5 % per decade since before 1988.
ChatGPT: “How much has water vapor been increasing in recent decades?”
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c5dd8b-5064-8003-8698-16a49de9cd3d
DanPanburn wrote:
Chatgpt is not aware that the WV increase is about 40 % more than possible from just planet warming because AFAIK no one except me has figured it out.
ChatGPT:
Q: Is atmospheric water vapor increasing faster than be accounted for by global warming?
A: So far, atmospheric water vapor is not increasing faster than can be explained by global warming. The observed rise closely follows what’s expected from warming alone. This is actually a key confirmation that climate theory is working: warming → more water vapor → positive feedback on greenhouse effect.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c5dd8b-5064-8003-8698-16a49de9cd3d
Chatgpt is wrong here. Do the calc yourself or see it at the link, Sect 7.
Dan Pangburn wrote:
Chatgpt is wrong here. Do the calc yourself or see it at the link, Sect 7.
If you think you have found a major error in science, you should *immediately* write up your research and submit it to a major journal. Scientists will be THRILLED to find such a discrepancy and will begin working to confirm it (seriously) or deny it, immediately.
Yet, I bet you don’t have the cojones to do that.
PS: Blog comments are not science and no one who matters will ever read them.
And Dan, you should do this very very soon. If the problem/discrepancy is so obvious to you, you can be sure others are looking at it. You shouldn’t be scooped.
David, your response reveals that you did not even try to do the science yourself even when encouraged to. The error is not in the science itself; the failure of many ‘scientists’ is not having enough curiosity or perhaps self-confidence to challenge the mantra.
A millenials long, slowly rising, orbitally caused, positive climate forcing parameter – the Precession of Eqinoxes.
In our times the Precession of Eqinoxes moves via its culmination phase – that is why it is getting warmer so rapidly.
The phase of culmination will continue, but in lessening pattern, for about a millenia, then gradually the climate of Earth started to become cooler.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David Appell:
You surmise that the Palocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was caused a a rapid release of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans
This conjecture is easily disproven since there has never been any example of CO2 actually causing any global warming.
Rather, it was easily caused by a cessation in volcanic activity which would have cleansed the atmosphere of dimming SO2 aerosols within 30 years, or less.
Burl Henry wrote:
David Appell:
You surmise that the Palocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was caused a a rapid release of CO2 into the atmosphere and oceans
This conjecture is easily disproven since there has never been any example of CO2 actually causing any global warming
I’m not gonna waste time on comedic posts. Or dumb posts. Or a mixture of the two.
David Appell:
If you cannot give an example where CO2 has CLEARLY caused global temperatures to rise, then it is NOT a dumb post.
“I’m not gonna waste time on comedic posts. Or dumb posts. Or a mixture of the two.’
I’m sorry to hear that you’re going to quit posting. Where shall we turn to for comic relief?
Burl Henry wrote:
If you cannot give an example where CO2 has CLEARLY caused global temperatures to rise, then it is NOT a dumb post.
If you don’t know these incidences already, then yes, it’s a dumb post.
Dr. David Appell:
I know of none at this time. Am depending upon you to educate me.
Burl: educate yourself.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ conjectured to be due to changes in atmospheric ‘greenhouse gases’ is either overstated or countervailing forces obviously are at work that hey GW global warming alarmists’ GCMs simply ignore. For example, GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo – much of which is comprised of low cloud cover– has on the amount of solar energy that is reflected away and not absorbed by the Earth.
Wagathon:
Your observation is correct, but the effect causes cooling.
Due to the greening of the Earth by rising levels of CO2, Earth’s albedo is decreasing and causing some additional warming, which is ignored.
What is also ignored is the inevitable warming caused by deceasing levels of atmospheric industrial SO2 aerosol pollution. However, this warming is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Warming due decreased atmospheric aerosol pollution is indisputable, and you can’t have two causes for the same amount of warming’ falsifying the CO2 warming hypothesis.
I have an important question about the recent Voortman paper on tide gauge records.
A Global Perspective on Local Sea Level Changes
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/13/9/1641
Figure 8 compares “median long-term rates of sea level rise in 2020. Median rates derived from PSMSL data compared to median projection for 2020 based on the SSP2-4.5” using “NASA’s Sea Level Projection Tool used in AR6 WG1 Box TS.4 and Section 9.6. This tool uses projections for total SLR from changes due to melting of glaciers and ice caps, thermal expansion sea water due to ocean warming, land water storage and vertical land motion for EVERY DECADE from the 2020s to the 2150s and the rise is likely the average projected for each decade.
Qualifying tide gauge records needed to be at least 60 years long and extend until at least 2015. We can’t sensibly observe SLR in a single tide gauge record for a single year, 2000, they are far too noisy. The observed rates must be 60-year (or longer?) AVERAGE rates of SLR, centered around 1990; not rates for 2020.
Figure 8 shows that the rate of SLR assumed in 2020 in IPCC projections are several mm/yr more than observed in the 60-year average of SLR at the same location. If there were undetected acceleration in the average tide gauge record, then the discrepancy could be due to a contribution from acceleration to the last 30(+?) years of the record. Assuming a record of 60 years in length, an acceleration of 1/30 (0.033) mm/yr/yr would produce a difference a discrepancy in rates of 1 mm/yr in 2020. The average discrepancy is 2-3 mm/yr and the about largest 5 mm/yr.
In Section 9.6.1.2 of AR6, the IPCC claims an average acceleration of global sea level rise of 0.075 mm/yr/yr in the 1971-2018 composite global tide gauge record and 0.094 mm/yr/yr in the 1993-2018 satellite altimetry record, so the magnitude of Voortman’s discrepancy could be easily explained by the IPCC’s estimates of acceleration.
However, the discrepancies in Figure 8 are geographically correlated, suggesting that vertical land motion is also part of the problem.
Is it safe to assume that the discrepancies noted by Voortman are likely due acceleration of SLR in tide gauge records that isn’t statistically significant in most tide gauge records? The absence of statistically significant acceleration doesn’t mean prove the acceleration is completely absent.
“Qualifying tide gauge records needed to be at least 60 years long and extend until at least 2015. ”
Yep, and each one needed high-precision GPS to make sure tide gauges weren’t just measuring land rise/fall – oops so much for that experiment. I would agree with the 60 year requirement for tide gauges; but the higher precision and greater coverage of satellites obtains results in 30 years that are at least as good as the 60+yr TGs .
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01761-5
The key reference to that article:
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/19/431/2023/
And from the key reference:
” … However, we do not intend to detect, separate or attribute the sea level signal to these different sources of variability.”
LIsted sources of variability:
“forced response to anthropogenic emissions, the forced response to natural forcing (such as the solar activity) and the internal variability in the climate system.”
In plain words, no demonstration of major human cause.
Just occasionally,, dear old BAB(l), your constant overeach becomes an itch.
Ian(loser). Why does sea level make you itch, and why do you get to decide what is the “key” reference?
More on Voortrman & De Vos:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/09/06/bad-science-on-sea-level/#more-12721
I’m glad that Tamino referenced Cedar Key tidal gauge since it establishes that if significant acceleration exists (it does) then it’s easily seen by the naked eye. But then there are other tidal gauge data that don’t show obvious signals of acceleration.
This from NOAA on acceleration on the US SE Coast sea level rise. Cedar Key is in the Gulf but it could be influenced by the same internal variability dynamics.
“ Sea level rise along the U.S. Southeast Coast has seen a dramatic increase since 2010, causing concern for coastal communities. Using observations and climate models to analyze this rapid trend, scientists discovered that multidecadal variations in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and changes in wind-driven ocean currents significantly contributed to this rise. These factors, combined with long-term global warming, created a perfect storm that accelerated sea level rise in this region.”
https://cpo.noaa.gov/drivers-and-improved-predictability-of-sea-level-rise-along-the-u-s-southeast-coast/
cerescokid
And some of those many tidal gauges showing no acceleration are high profile ones:
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/nyc-past-projected-2023.png
https://rclutz.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/sf-past-projected-2023-1.png
Yet more commentary on Voortman and De Vos:
https://woodromances.blogspot.com/2025/09/evaluating-voortman-et-al-2025-on-sea.html
Ron Clutz wrote:
And some of those many tidal gauges showing no acceleration are high profile ones:
Instead of cherrypicking, look at the tide gauge global average data:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Instead of looking at inaccurate tidal gauges attached is the actual satellite record. It shows no problems associated with sea level rise.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2025rel1
Appell
There are major issues with satellite data and with tidal gauge data. Neither is totally satisfactory to say with confidence that they demonstrate truth. There should be a commission of experts from both sides to identify those weaknesses and strengths of each system.
crescokid wrote:
There are major issues with satellite data and with tidal gauge data. Neither is totally satisfactory to say with confidence that they demonstrate truth. There should be a commission of experts from both sides to identify those weaknesses and strengths of each system.
Of course there are issues with EVERY measurment ever taken and in the future.
On what basis do you call them “major?”
Scientists are very careful about uncertainties. They can take more time to include that results themselves. (One of my undergraduate professors, a medium-energy physicist, said on an experiment 80% of their computer time was spent calculating uncertainties.)
Scientists constantly evaluate the limits of their data and what it means for their results. (“Truth,” ha ha.) It’s part of the scientific process.
You haven’t given or pointed to any analysis showing these scientific measurements have “major” flaws. Maybe you just want to ignore the data.
Appell
Over the years I have provided you with the evidence of errors and uncertainties. You need to wake up and start reading the studies. They have been providing to you. I’m not going to be your wet nurse.
cerescokid wrote:
Appell
Over the years I have provided you with the evidence of errors and uncertainties. You need to wake up and start reading the studies. They have been providing to you
Yeah, yeah, what an easy way to get out of the actual question. You have no evidence at all for your claim of “major.” You can’t even give a 2-sentence summary for “major,” just assert some papers in the distant past. It’s a cop-out.
And believe it or not, I don’t read every comment you put up, and I’m not on here day in & day out.
Appell
During one of our exchanges years ago you asked me if I was an expert on Antarctica because I had given you information from several studies that you had obviously never heard of.
I empathize with your preference to be brainwashed. It’s much easier to allow others to think for you rather than doing your own research. All you have to do is look up the studies that identify the various reasons for concern about the satellite data. Come on Dave, you can do it.
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/21/133/2025/
however, between the two solutions, we observe a difference of 0.1 cm in SD beyond 20 km from the coast, which then increases up to ∼ 0.75 cm in the last 5 km.
The standard deviation of the differences obtained between the SLA solutions (Fig. 3c) also clearly increases when approaching the coast. The corresponding spread values remain below 0.2 cm in the open ocean up to 40 km from the coast, then range between 0.2 and 0.7 cm between 10 and 40 km, and finally increase up to 2.8 cm in the last 10 km. These numbers can be considered an estimate of the SLA uncertainty due to the ionospheric correction.
cerescokid
Appell
I empathize with your preference to be brainwashed. It’s much easier to allow others to think for you rather than doing your own research.
Ahem, haven’t people been complaining about personal insults here?
Yet again you didn’t provide any science, just alluded to it as if that settles the matter.
Appell
I’ve called for a commission to look at the science and evaluate the efficacy of both systems. Why are you afraid of the truth.
cerescokid wrote:
Appell
I’ve called for a commission to look at the science and evaluate the efficacy of both systems.
I’m sure the National Academy of Sciences will get right on that.
Appell
The truth will set you free
cerescokid wrote:
Appell
The truth will set you free
I am seeking the truth as best I can and as best I can understand it.
Do you really not understand that??
Judith: was there any peer review done on your DOE report?
If not, will there be any?
Someone needs to pass this video on to the DOE. It also has a nice clip of Dr. Mann vs Dr. Curry. https://app.screencast.com/xgTItkw2KwSuk
As time goes on, more people now realize the AGW global warming catastrophism meme is nothing but a hoax fomented by Leftist Western academia. But, in general, does a hoax EVER die?
ACCORDING TO AI- No, a hoax never truly dies. Even after being thoroughly debunked, a hoax can persist indefinitely, especially when it taps into strong emotions, aligns with existing beliefs, or is continuously spread through new media. The reasons for this persistence are both psychological and structural.
… psychology having a lot to do with social, political an individual identity, belief and behavior.
MM’s hockey stick graph is essentially a celebration and triumph of social belonging over scientific discipline.
Dr. Curry, please look at DOE sect. 8.4 where you report reduced albedo and relate this to global temperature and you will be surprised how good the correlation is.
Warm phase of the ENSO cycle plus Hunga Tonga effecting lower lower level cloud formation globally, decreasing Earth’s albedo?
Facts are facts but does politically corrupted Western Academia really care? The IPCC’s claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 is responsible for over 90 percent of global warming has failed.
We now know that about 40 percent of global warming is due to the impact of cosmic rays, not CO2. In other words, climate change due to changes the Earth’s albedo due to the resultant change in low cloud cover is far more significant than IPCC models have ever allowed for–i.e., what the IPCC once considered to be the impact of human activity on climate change must now be significantly reduced.
The Planet surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon suggests rotation and heat capacity are what matter – not the greenhouse effect.
Thus, the Rotational Warming Phenomenon excludes any earth’s-atmosphere-warming-blanket narrative.
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
CFACT comments on the NAS fast-track study and the DOE Report:
https://www.cfact.org/2025/09/08/cfact-hits-national-academies-with-co2-debate/
Our point is that there is a lot of debate. Including this:
“3. Sources for finding major disagreements
As to sources, it is important to note that disagreements seldom appear in the peer reviewed literature. Journals present findings, not debates. Traditionally, debates occurred in Q&A sessions after papers were presented and in private correspondence, including group email exchanges. Happily, they can now be found in public blogs, and these should be considered as a source for disagreements in this study.
A good starting point is Dr. Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., found at https://judithcurry.com/.
This blog includes a number of lengthy and reasonably respectful scientific debates over major issues relevant to the fast-track study. For example, a recent case starts with an article by an observational CO2 sensitivity researcher — “Addressing misconceptions about Climate Sensitivity research: a Response to recent Criticisms” — which is clearly about disagreements.”
Wagathon:
You say that we now know that about 40% of global warming is due to the impact of cosmic rays.
The relevant paper is not that certain. They say that “Empirical evidence increasingly supports the role of cosmic ray flux in modulating cloud nucleation. Variations in cosmic ray intensity–linked to solar activity and also due to deflection by the magnetic field of planets….”
And off into the wild blue yonder!
They do well by not being wholly certain since there is another mechanism that results in increasing or decreasing the moisture nucleation sites needed for cloud formation.
Off topic, but here is a useful site that monitors sea-surface temperatures, etc.: https://tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
Apparently a La Nina has developed, which will lower temperatures.
Important reference, thank you.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
To the extent that low cloud cover increases Earth’s albedo which reflects incoming solar energy which has a cooling effect on the Earth’s surface is not due to cosmic rays, what does the AGW ‘consensus’ find is responsible for increases in low cloud cover? It is true that the ‘consensus’ throws shade on the premise that increases in low cloud cover are due to cosmic rays, preferring the supposed rolls of other factors that are responsible for increases in low cloud cover, including changes in aerosols, temperature and humidity, and ocean surface temperatures. They do however concede that interaction of these variables can be complex, and they can lead to both increases and decreases in low cloud cover depending on regional and atmospheric conditions. CAN be complex. CAN lead…
The AGW ‘consensus’ is certain of one thing and one thing only– that it is absolutely certain about the truth of a conjecture that it cannot prove. That behavior is what is known as religion not science.
I read Dr. Curry’s summary response to public comment, and then the comments here … well, I got maybe halfway through. I was distracted by Bushkin, Joe K and Appell, who account for maybe a third of these comments. I was reminded of Cool Hand Luke, who kept getting knocked down, who kept getting back up, till Dragline said “Stay down, Luke.” Later he embraced him for coming back “with nothing.”
Maybe that is the point of those three, as they have certainly tried to derail this thread. But I suggest we all go back and reread a comment by Rails at 2:45 on 9/2. What he is saying is profound, that our power grid is slowly being dismantled by inattention, and this would be the object of the Climate Change crowd, at the very top anyway. Since the public is not attune and does not care much about climate change anyway, the real work is being done by attrition, absence of new plants, and fewer entrants into the engineering field. The Climate Change movement is powerful, but not scientific. That’s a side issue. It is political. We can yak all we want about how off base it is, as was done by the DOE report, but none of that will derail the political thrust, to de-energize our society.
It is to be done slowly, over time, with great patience and total purpose. It is essentially a misanthropic movement. To argue about the bad science involved scores points along the way, but lands no punches.
Mark – thanks for the reminder. I will heed the advice from both you and Sherrod.
Mark P Tokarski wrote:
I read Dr. Curry’s summary response to public comment, and then the comments here … well, I got maybe halfway through. I was distracted by Bushkin, Joe K and Appell, who account for maybe a third of these comments
Oh dear.
I write a lot here because, like BAB, I am attacked from all sides. Almost nobody here can stand someone who defends the known and consensus science. It’s really a weird place here when many are sure all of the IPCC science is totally wrong. This is a safe place for deniers, so they gather here to correct the world’s scientists with…blog comments. It’s ridiculous, of course. Younz will whinge and complain no matter what. We’re the enemy and we must be eliminated. Denialism must prevail at least somewhere in the universe.
Thanks to Judith [truly] for allowing alternative POVs here.
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims Newsom touts “clean energy” as California’s growth engine, but fact-checks reveal costly mandates, false claims, and heavy reliance on gas, oil, and nuclear to keep the lights on. By Edward Ring | R
joe k: My apologies for your inclusion in my less-tan-temperate remarks about participants in this comment thread.
Pingback: Trump administration dissolves group that authored controversial report sowing doubt in the severity of climate change – West Idaho News
Dr David Appell:
A few days ago I had asked you to provide an example where CO2 clearly caused average anomalous global temperatures to increase.
Although this should be something that you could easily answer, , so far you have not replied.
Are you just pretending to be a “Dr” ?
Pingback: Dessler "Unhinged" at CO2/Climate Optimism Report ("doomism" under siege) - Master Resource
Pingback: Bonferroni of the vanities – Diagram Monkey
The atmosphere is transparent to EM radiation. Look in the skies at night – we see distant stars and galaxies – and we see them through the atmosphere, because atmosphere is very thin and very transparent.
In the day we do not see stars, the skies are of various colors. That creates an illusion, that there is something up there covering Earth as a protective blanket – which is an illusion.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
The atmosphere is transparent to EM radiation. Look in the skies at night – we see distant stars and galaxies – and we see them through the atmosphere, because atmosphere is very thin and very transparent.
Think! Is the atmosphere transparent to UV radiation? No, because of ozone. Without that absorption life would likely never have developed on Earth’s surface.
Some IR is absorbed on the down just as it is absorbed on the way up.
And so on:
https://pace.oceansciences.org/images/Solar_spectrum_en_v5.jpg
There is not much UV radiation emitted by sun. Ozone doesn’t absorb what is not emitted.
Those are the mistaken assertions about UV by ozone absorption – the very much biased narrative.
Solar spectrum at the top of the atmosphere – it has never been measured.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Solar spectrum at the top of the atmosphere – it has never been measured.
Grok: List scientific papers that have measured the solar spectrum at the top of Earth’s atmosphere.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e055fa37-42c0-4a99-b84e-5b7b7049cc1b
David,
Grok: List scientific papers that have measured the solar spectrum at the top of Earth’s atmosphere.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_e055fa37-42c0-4a99-b84e-5b7b7049cc1b
” Key Scientific Papers on Measurements of the Solar Spectrum at the Top of Earth’s Atmosphere
Measurements of the solar spectrum at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (TOA), also known as the extraterrestrial solar spectrum or solar spectral irradiance (SSI), have been conducted using satellite missions, space-based instruments, high-altitude aircraft, balloons, and ground-based observations extrapolated via techniques like the Langley plot method. These efforts span ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infrared (IR) wavelengths. Below is a compiled list of notable scientific papers that directly report or analyze such measurements, drawn from reviews and primary sources. I’ve prioritized papers describing original measurements or composite datasets from space-based platforms for direct TOA access, but included key ground-based or high-altitude extrapolations where relevant. Papers are grouped by primary instrument/mission for clarity, with details including authors, year, title, journal, and key notes.”
(Emphasis added)
Langley extrapolation – Wikipedia
“Langley extrapolation is a method for determining the Sun’s irradiance at the top of the atmosphere with ground-based instrumentation, and is often used to remove the effect of the atmosphere from measurements of, for example, aerosol optical thickness or ozone.[1][2] It is based on repeated measurements with a Sun photometer operated at a given location for a cloudless morning or afternoon as the Sun moves across the sky. It is named for American astronomer and physicist Samuel Pierpont Langley.”
(Emphasis added)
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David, also read about ozone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
“The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[3]”
(Emphasis added)
–
Those are the mistaken assertions about UV by ozone absorption – the very much biased narrative.
Solar spectrum at the top of the atmosphere – it has never been measured.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Grok: “What satellites measure the solar irradiance and solar spectrum from Earth’s orbit?”
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_05b57c22-936a-41a5-9bf6-b27f9f520341
CV wrote:
Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.
Yes, that’s what I wrote. We agree!
Christos wrote: “The atmosphere is transparent to EM radiation.”
No it isn’t. It is transparent to visible wavelengths (also a lot of radio wavelengths), and the sun happens to radiate the most in those wavelengths; but it is opaque to a lot of infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Visible wavelengths are visible because we evolved to sense the part of the EM spectrum that the atmosphere is transparent to and that is very abundant because the sun emits so much of it.
Roy,
“but it is opaque to a lot of infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths.”
–
There is not much to absorb. Also atmosphere is very thin.
–
The atmosphere doesn’t warm – what they say – the atmosphere doesn’t warm Earth’s surface on average by ~80°C.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims – iftttwall
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims – Scott Adams Show
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom's 'Clean Energy' Claims - Investing Book Deals
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims – NextPost
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims – altnews.org
Pingback: Fact-Checking Newsom’s ‘Clean Energy’ Claims – Bugaluu :: News
Anecdotal observations. The Texas summer is cooler than it has been for years. I also noticed hurricane activity is down. I suspected the Atlantic must also be experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, so I asked AI. AI says:
Current Temperature Trends in the Atlantic Ocean
Overview of Temperature Changes
Recently, parts of the Atlantic Ocean have experienced a significant drop in surface temperatures. This cooling trend is unusual, especially following a period of record-high temperatures earlier in the year.
Specific Temperature Data
• Temperature Decrease: Areas in the eastern Atlantic have recorded temperatures 1-2°F (0.5-1°C) below average for this time of year.
• Timeframe: The cooling has been particularly noted during June and July 2024.
Causes of Cooling
• Weather Patterns: The cooling is linked to a shift from the warm phase of El Niño to the potential development of a cold phase known as Atlantic Niña.
•Equatorial Upwelling: Strong southeasterly winds have caused cold water from deeper ocean layers to rise to the surface, contributing to the cooler temperatures.
Implications
This unexpected temperature drop may have broader effects on weather patterns and climate in the surrounding regions. Scientists are continuing to monitor these changes to understand their long-term impacts.
Went to NOAA, did they get it wrong?
April 2025 ENSO update: La Niña has ended
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/april-2025-enso-update-la-nina-has-ended
Jungletrunks:
The cause of our current cooling temperatures is the eruption of 2 VEI4 volcanoes on May 1 and another on May 2, Such eruptions typically cause about 2 years of cooling. There could be others, whose VEI has not yet been determined.
See https://www.tropicaltidbits,com/analysis/ocean/ for plots of current temperatures in the CDAS Nino 3.4 Index region.
Looking at Roy Spencer’s global temperature data, we’re coming off a large positive excursion that peaked in April, 2024. A similar large excursion peaked in 1998. But this one was bigger and lasted longer. Maybe it’s a super El Niño. My guess would be that the string of record average temperatures will be broken in 2025.
DeWitt Payne:
Bad guess!
Temperatures are already falling.
@Jungletrunks
Anecdotal observations say very little. These only reflect short term weather in specific regions. What matters more than Atlantic sea surface temperatures are global average sea surface temperatures, which remain very warm with no signs of cooling.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
Ezrulon: “Anecdotal observations say very little.”
Yea, I imagine that’s why I used the word anecdotal.
Let’s pan back with another AI anecdote:
“The Pacific Ocean has been affected by recent La Niña conditions, which typically involve cooler water temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific. Currently, there is a 71% chance that La Niña will develop between October and December 2025, potentially influencing global weather patterns.
• Sea Surface Temperatures: Recent data shows that sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific have cooled, with anomalies dropping to around -0.4°C. This cooling is significant enough to prompt a “La Niña Watch.”
And a NOAA anecdote, as stated April this year:
“…we can say with confidence that La Niña conditions have ended.”
Speaking of anecdotal, some say 100 years of climate data in itself is anecdotal. 30 years of data is a climate data point, so there’s 3 within said window.
@Jungletrunks
“Speaking of anecdotal, some say 100 years of climate data in itself is anecdotal. 30 years of data is a climate data point, so there’s 3 within said window.”
So what’s the relevance of the anecdotes you’re bringing up here?
My relevance remains lukewarm, unsettled.
What’s your relevance?
My focus, like that of our host and most participants here, is on long term climate change. I had assumed the same was true for lukewarmism.
Important:
Only for the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon the CRITERIA are less than UNITY (< 1).
For every other planets and moons ( without atmosphere, or with a thin atmosphere,
Earth included ),
the average surface temperature Tsat is higher than the theoretical effective temperature Te.
See the CRITERIA Comparison table.
*********************
The PLANETARY (Tsat /Te) and
(Tsat /Te.correct) CRITERIA Comparison:
Table of data
…………….HORIZONTAL……………1 GRAPH……..2 GRAPH
Planet..Warming factor… Φ……(Tsat /Te)….(Tsat /Te.correct)
……………(β*N*cp)^1/16 criteria criteria
Mercury……..0,895……….0,47……..0,773…………..0,934
Moon…………0,998……….0,47……..0,815…………..0,982
Earth…………1,368……….0,47……..1,134…………..1,365
Mars………….1,227……….0,47……. 1…………………1,207
Ceres…………1,4535………..1………… – ………………. – ……
Io………………1,169………..1…………1,156…………..1,156
Europa…….1,264………0,47……1,072…………1,294
Ganymede….1,209……….0,47……..1,028…………..1,242
Callisto……….1,147………..1…………1,169…………..1,169
Enceladus….1,341………..1………….1,340…………..1,340
Tethys……….1,315………..1…………1,292…………..1,292
Titan…………..1,1015………1…………1,1086…………1,1086
Triton………..1,158……….? ………….1,297. ?………..1,297 ?
Pluto…………1,116………..1…………1,189…………..1,189
Charon………1,218………..1…………1,265…………..1,265
Only for the very slow rotating Mercury and Moon the CRITERIA are less
than UNITY (< 1).
Also,
Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons (Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa, Ganymede)
Φ = 1 for rough surface planets and moons, and for the gasses planets and moons.
*******************
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A big part of climatists’ beliefs is that man or his CO2 must be abated. Climatists have an abiding conviction that long-term climate forecasting is even possible. That climate prediction is possible using mathematical models is sort of funny because most of those who share these convictions are really bad at math.
The Financial Stability Oversight Council is ending the Biden-era advisory groups, signaling a pivot from climate oversight to growth and systemic risk.
The U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), chaired by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, voted this week to disband two panels devoted to assessing climate-related risks to the financial system, marking a sharp departure from the Biden-era push to integrate climate policy into financial regulation.
At its Sept. 10 meeting, the FSOC rescinded the charters of the Climate-related Financial Risk Committee and its external advisory body, the Climate-related Financial Risk Advisory Committee (CFRAC). The decision, approved in open session, effectively ends a two-year experiment in embedding climate-related risks into the council’s systemic risk framework.
The panels had been created in 2023 under former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who sought to bring climate-related risks into the FSCO’s work. Yellen said that worsening storms, wildfires, and floods were inflicting economic damage and could set off cascading losses in banking and insurance.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/treasury-led-watchdog-scraps-climate-advisory-panels-5913775?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=section-1
The DOE has disbanded the Climate Working Group before the comments review allegedly due to a lawsuit by the UCS/EDF as mentioned in the blog post.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/climate/trump-dissolves-contrarian-group
In a sense, the comment review process literally is the “broader discussion” that Dr Curry sees as the objective, so it seems as if we’ve gotten to the point where one side has made its case, the other side has made its counter and there hasn’t actually been any “broader discussion”.
So the whole effort is a scientific nothing burger, but has produced a document that provides political cover for whatever the DOE does next in regard to the Endangerment Finding.
my understanding is one of the members of the group either failed to file a specific form or had an error on the administrative paperwork required to filed to be authorized to work on a government funded project. I dont have the details, other than being a non substantive administrative type error.
The UCS/EDF allegation is much more than that. They allege multiple gross violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and that the withdraw of the report does not negate those violations.
The original filing is here:
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/0kdlw6oq5v8hsvj152eqx01b0qn74uuq.pdf
The filing in response to the DOE’s motion to dismiss is here:
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/0kdlw6oq5v8hsvj152eqx01b0qn74uuq.pdf
David Appell;
You say “Educate Yourself”
Obviously, you could not find a single empirical example of warming that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels.
No surprise.
But I HAVE educated myself and can prove that CO2 has no climatic effect!
Burl, your three (was it?) pages proved precisely nothing. You made no attempt whatsoever to examine CO2’s effect on temperature while merely asserting that declining volcanic aerosols cause warming without answering the simple question of how they cause warming that’s more (in absolute value) than the cooling they caused. That violates the most fundamental principle of physics, conservation of energy. I don’t even see that you understand that criticism.
I really don’t understand people who think they know more than the world’s scientific community based on a 3-page blog post they created while clearly knowing next-to-nothing. I guess it’s ego, but for sure they aren’t actually interested in science. It’s really kind of sad to see.
Well now, that’s interesting. Lol.
White House dismisses authors of major climate report.
White house didnt dismiss findings
Correct, Rob.
Josh the Red posted an older headline, published in April, about the dismissal of scientists working on the National Climate Assessment report. The approximate 400 that were dismissed included scientists, economists, tribal leaders and climate experts from non-profit groups and corporations. To better grasp the necessity for said firings please review the recent Ridgway essay describing the Matthew Effect; also a sidebar emphasizing the repercussive consequence of having too many expert fast food chefs in the kitchen: https://medium.com/@christian.hartvig/cooking-the-perfect-disaster-why-design-by-committee-tastes-so-bland-64720d8a749b
Relative to the subject of this essay, the DOE report: “US energy secretary Chris Wright asserted that the group had accomplished its goal in publishing the first draft, which the Department of Energy (DoE) has declined to withdraw”. However, the work will continue.
Jungletrunks wrote:
To better grasp the necessity for said firings please review the recent Ridgway essay describing the Matthew Effect; also a sidebar emphasizing the repercussive consequence of having too many expert fast food chefs in the kitchen:
Do you feel the same about cancer research?
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Sept. 12 a proposal to end a greenhouse gas reporting program, citing ineffectiveness and high costs for American businesses.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) has “no material impact on improving human health and the environment,” the agency said in a statement, adding that ending the program will result in regulatory savings of up to $2.4 billion for businesses in the country.
“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in the statement.
“Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nation’s prosperity and hurting American communities. With this proposal, we show once again that fulfilling EPA’s statutory obligations and Powering the Great American Comeback is not a binary choice.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/epa-moves-to-repeal-rules-that-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-us-power-plants/
“The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in the statement.,/i>
Notice they keep pretending (lying) it’s about air quality. Trump is probably too stupid to know the difference, but nobody else it.
AI currently uses about 3% of US energy. By 2030 AI will consume an estimated 43% of US energy. The implications are huge, not only in terms of infrastructure buildout, but the advances that AI will bring.
“ By 2030 AI will consume an estimated 43% of US energy.”
Mind boggling.
I agree, cerescokid.
I like to consider technological advances abstractly, it helps when attempting to read between the lines.
Currently the US is in another race to the moon, only this time with China. A core reason expressed for this race is to mine nuclear fusion fuel. Why is this a stated rationale? Personally, I think China is merely parroting US rationale. Again, why? One reason “may” be because Skunk Works nuclear fusion went dark a few years ago; also for a reason. One can only speculate. Regardless, tech is advancing exponentially.
Well then, I guess there isn’t really an electricity supply problem, if they can ramp up that fast.
Who knows what will happen by then?
Maybe AI will shrink in size to a small portable device, and maybe AI will do with an A-size battery.
iPhones
Jungletrunks wrote:
Currently the US is in another race to the moon, only this time with China. A core reason expressed for this race is to mine nuclear fusion fuel. Why is this a stated rationale?
Because neither government wants the other to get there first and do…something or establish…something. Fusion fuel is a good excuse, and the public won’t know the difference.
The anti-America misinformation industry faces the great danger that taxpayers understand they’ve been lied to and now demand a stop to the funding of the fear-mongering doom machine used by the prognosticators of AGW climate change to maintain the Left’s political power over the productive. We can forget about the last polar bears, stranded on the last chunks of ice in the Arctic, aimlessly adrift miles from land and perilously close to tipping into an infinite sea of black death.
@Wagathon
“We can forget about the last polar bears, stranded on the last chunks of ice in the Arctic, aimlessly adrift miles from land and perilously close to tipping into an infinite sea of black death.”
You should be concerned for the polar bears. The current rate of polar warming is exceptional compared to anything seen during the Holocene.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
Exceptional? No- logically, maximum sea ice extent would have been larger during the intervals of 8,000 and 125,000 years ago when sea ice extent was lower than it is currently.
UK Hadley Center reconstructions show for example that there likely was an ice-free Arctic during the summer, 130,000 to 116,000 years ago, despite atmospheric CO2 levels in ppm being lower than current levels.
A proclaimed ‘consensus’ is not science. For the most part, AGW global warming alarmists are enjoying lifetime employment in the failed public-funded education system, engaged all the while in corrupting the minds and spirits of our young and destroying civilization from within like a cancer.
The fabricated consensus of the global warming complex has been what is now seen as the partnership model —i.e., mutual-interest-community-action instead of science. “‘Does the moon revolve around the earth?’ We would say “yes.” And, no one would ever preface that by saying, ‘well, the consensus of scientists says this.’” ~Michael Crichton
@Wagathon
The study I published covers the Holocene, spanning the last 12,000 years. It doesn’t extend back 130,000 to 160,000 years.
It also shows that, while current temperatures remain below the peak of the Holocene, the present rate of Arctic warming is unprecedented and goes well beyond the bounds of natural variability. We are clearly no longer following the gradual orbital forcing signal.
So… yes, today’s sea ice extent may be higher than it was 8,000 years ago, but how much longer will that remain the case?
Ezrulon – one issue that is over looked or misrepresented is the “unprecedented rate of warming”
It not comparing apples to apples. Its comparing instrumental measurements against proxy measurements. While the proxy data based on oxygen in ice cores is a relatively high resolution proxy in relation to other type proxies, it remains low resolution compared to instrumental measurements.
fwiw – I take no position on whether the current rate of warming is high relative to other periods. I am only noting that the resolution of the proxy data is insufficient to reach any conclusion. As Judith curry has noted, the climate science community expresses much higher confidence than is justified by the data.
@Joe K
“It not comparing apples to apples. It’s comparing instrumental measurements against proxy measurements. While the proxy data based on oxygen in ice cores is a relatively high resolution proxy in relation to other type proxies, it remains low resolution compared to instrumental measurements.”
The study extended the Agassiz ice core record through 2009, directly appending new ice core measurements onto the existing series, so the comparison is apples to apples.
This is the very same ice core dataset that contrarians often cite to argue today’s warming isn’t unprecedented. But once you include the updated data, that claim no longer holds.
Ezrulon – you are ignoring an important limitation –
“While the proxy data based on oxygen in ice cores is a relatively high resolution proxy in relation to other type proxies, it remains low resolution compared to instrumental measurements.”
Joe, the reconstruction is simply an updated extension of the ice core record. The comparison remains apples to apples from start to finish.
That point isn’t relevant to the discussion here.
But then… that’s not the issue- get out the crystal ball but, at least we do know what science tells us– that the AGW global warming conjecture is an unprovable hypothesis and that it is not a function of ppm of atmospheric CO2, irrespective of the source, and that examples to the contrary, like MM’s hockey stick graph, have been shown to be nothing more than the political corruption of Western Academia by the Left and Eurocommie/IPCC anti-Americanism.
“that the AGW global warming conjecture is an unprovable hypothesis and that it is not a function of ppm of atmospheric CO2, irrespective of the source, and that examples to the contrary, like MM’s hockey stick graph, have been shown to be nothing more than the political corruption of Western Academia by the Left and Eurocommie/IPCC anti-Americanism.”
On the contrary, this study demonstrates that the hockey stick result is robust. It relies on solid proxies (without tree rings, without resolution mismatches) and still shows the same outcome: the Arctic is melting at an extraordinary rate that cannot be explained by natural variability.
The real political corruption is on the right, where decades of fossil fuel driven disinformation have been enabled and perpetuated to obscure the science of climate change.
‘The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. Vague terms such as “moderate certainty” (Mann et al. 1999) give no guidance to the reader as to how such conclusions should be weighed.’ ~ Edward j wegman, et al..
Ezrulon: “The study I published covers the Holocene”
Yet the last 100 years defines your idea of the science. With added emphasis, yes todays sea ice extent is higher than 8k years ago, but, but, but…
Pathetic.
When did I ever say the last 100 years defines my view of climate science?
The past century is certainly relevant, but what matters even more are the long term trends placed in the context of paleoclimate.
By contrast, your idea of climate science seems to rest on the experience of a single summer in Texas.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-assessment-report-feedback/#comment-1020151
Your idea of climate science, in term of blame, rests on the shoulders of the hockey stick. Why is anything before mid 19th century warming relevant to AGW?
Because it provides important context for deterring whether today’s global warming is unusual.
Ezrulon, then explain how the strongest El Ninõ in the last 150 years fits into Mann’s hockey stick equation?
The 1877 El Niño was caused by natural variation, its heatwaves killed an estimated 50 million people, spreading famine across 3 continents. Explain how the latent stored oceanic heat from this particular El Niño couldn’t have had any effect over the ensuing 150 years of warming in any meaningful way?
Jungletrunks wrote:
Why is anything before mid 19th century warming relevant to AGW?
I can’t believe you wrote that.
But I guess I’m not really surprised.
@Jungletrunks
It isn’t my job, or mainstream science’s, to chase down every unserious, speculative ‘what if.’
The scientific community has already done the hard work over the past century to establish greenhouse gases as the driver of modern climate change.
The burden is on you to show why your idea of latent heat from the 1878 El Nino explains the evidence better than greenhouse gases, with data and models that hold up to scrutiny.
Current understanding is that ENSO is short term redistribution noise, not a source of a long term radiative imbalance.
If you believe otherwise, your first step would be to demonstrate why that interpretation is wrong.
Another step would be to explain why this would produce such exceptional warming relative to Holocene natural variability.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Explain how the latent stored oceanic heat from this particular El Niño couldn’t have had any effect over the ensuing 150 years of warming in any meaningful way?
Because, like any thermodynamic system, the Earth seeks to return to equilibrium in the absence of external forcings. Even if it has to emit energy to space to do it.
The question posed wasn’t an unserious, speculative ‘what if’ question, it’s a documented historical reality. Though ideologues, you, must ignore it what’s very inconvenient.
The strongest El Nino in 150 years, the 1877 El Nino, happened as described. Nobody serious would ignore it.
Consensus does the easy work, not the hard work; though subterfuge brews a unique form of exhaustion for the ideologue. Speaking of which, the unserious local DA has his jock strap wound up in his butt crack again, as usual.
Scientists aren’t ignoring the 1878 El Nino, so I’m not sure how you concluded it’s ‘inconvenient.’
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
I think it would be exciting to witness a major scientific reform.
I’d genuinely find it exciting if a major scientific reform came along.
And since you think the true cause of warming is an El Nino from the 19th century, shouldn’t you be the one to enlighten the world with this thesis that really moves science forward?
After all, if climate science is really that corrupt, isn’t it only prudent to set the record straight?
Ezrulon: “And since you think the true cause of warming is an El Nino from the 19th century”
I didn’t say that. I suggest that El Niño’s are one of many mechanisms that influence climate. This sidebar topic just happens to be about EL Niño’s.
I suggested that the record 1877 El Niño generally ignored, even though it’s at the nexus of the hockey stick genesis, described as strictly anthropomorphic in origin. I don’t buy it; many don’t buy it for other reasons that I also happen to agree with—call it a double whammy.
Ignored, but not entirely; relative to the 1877 El Niño, and El Niño’s in general, here’s a newer paper:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9873625/
Ezrulon wrote:
It isn’t my job, or mainstream science’s, to chase down every unserious, speculative ‘what if.’
A man (/woman?) after my own heart.
Appreciate the truth & directness.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Yet the last 100 years defines your idea of the science. With added emphasis, yes todays sea ice extent is higher than 8k years ago, but, but, but…
This is a large amount of paleoclimate data which is relevant. See, for example, Luke Skinner, Science, 2012:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2025/04/climate-sensitivity-from-paleoclimate.html
Jungletrunks wrote:
The strongest El Nino in 150 years, the 1877 El Nino, happened as described. Nobody serious would ignore it.
Return to equilibrium in the absence of external forcings.
On the other hand JT, explain why El Nino years keep getting warmer. Same for La Nina years, & same for neutral years:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2025/01/temperatures-vs-enso-category.html?m=0
El Niño’s have been getting ever more extreme for hundreds of years now:
https://www.sciencealert.com/coral-records-show-that-brutal-el-ninos-haven-t-always-been-this-way
The heat from El Niño’s is stored in oceans, you know that, right? Meaning they’re their own form of feedback mechanism until a paradigm changes the nature of this heat storage.
Hundreds of years is a stretch:
“By the end of the 20th century, though, our research shows a sudden change: a sharp increase of Central Pacific El Niño events becomes evident.”
Ezrulon: “…our research shows a sudden change: a sharp increase of Central Pacific El Niño events becomes evident.”
It’s not the sudden change as stated.
See the paper in my prior post. The entire 20th century, including earlier—the 1877 record EL Niño, represents an ever increasing trend in the strength of El Niño’s.
“…they’re their own form of feedback mechanism until a paradigm changes the nature of this heat storage.”
Huh?
El Niño’s are a cog in a much larger mechanism that transfers heat. The Sun heats the equator, it and the Earths rotation effect the trade winds. These complex interactions, including the Coriolis effect, influences the intensity of an El Niño, which in turn effects atmospheric temperature. Warm water builds up, upwelling is reduced. Warmer surface temperatures leads to more atmospheric WV, more heat. It primarily effects the atmosphere, but indirectly some of the heat recirculates back into the ocean. It’s a feedback mechanism. The 1877 El Niño was the largest in recent history, killing approximately 50 million. The heat waves generated by this El Niño effected 3 continents, causing catastrophic famine. The 1877 El Niño was a black swan event, it actually lasted between 1876-1878. Where do you think all that heat disappeared to?
“Where do you think all that heat disappeared to?”
Roswell New Mexico?
(‘effect’ is a noun)
Probably not your bedroom.
Here’s the problem I have with the idea that most of the 1877 El Niño’s heat went into space.
It was a longer duration El Niño than average, lasting roughly 1.5 years. Duration is a compounding issue, I think, especially when combined with the extreme intensity this El Niño had. Heat waves that sit over surfaces for 1.5 years aren’t just going to dissipate heat one way, into space, it seems logical that static heat energy would just as likely end up back into the ocean. Length of stay means that heat is more easily sequestered back into the ocean, it has more time to mix, and a greater opportunity to reach depth. Heat Intensity/ Global/Duration.
So JT, when do you expect this trove of heat from 100 years ago to run out? Any day now?
I imagine this depends on how often you skinny dip in the ocean.
Well then, should’ve been cold by now :-)
For the last 100,000 years Earth has mostly been locked in an ice age punctuated only briefly by periods of warming such as the interglacial that gave birth to our species. Earth has been locked in ice age conditions for more than 80% of the time over the last one million years. Those are all of the facts. The hiatus won’t last forever –e.g. “when Nigel Calder and I updated our book, The Chilling Stars,” says Henrik Svensmark, “we wrote a little provocatively that, we are advising our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Jungeltrunks.
El Ninos are temporary events, and their heat is NOT stored in the oceans.
Easily confirmed by looking at a graph of anomalous global temperatures. There is a peak which lasts as long as the El Nino, then temperatures drop to roughly pre-existing levels.
Ezrulo:n:
A L L El Ninos are caused by decreased levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, primarily volcanic induced, but since circa 1850, also from human activities.
https://www.cfact.org/2025/09/15/attack-on-doe-climate-report-is-a-comedy-of-criticism/
The Dessler criticism is loaded with fallacies.
The orbitally forced global warming is in its culmination phase.
Culmination phase means that the radiative energy accumulation, the positive imbalance, reaches its millenniums peak.
As a result, Earth retains more heat than in previous millennia.
–
It is the orbital circumstances which are allowing the Earth’s surface to retain more heat.
because, when the planet is tilted towards sun during the Winter Solstices with its vast Southern oceans areas – it coincides with the planet’s Perihelion (the closest distance from the sun).
When those two coincide, the Southern oceans tilted towards sun, and the Perihelion coincide – this coincidence-phenomenon strenghthens the ability of Earth’s surface retaining some of the solar energy as heat.
The phenomenon results to a significant solar radiative energy absorption – the yearly strong positive energy absorption disbalance.
That disbalance is what leads to the currently accelerating global warming.
–
So, whereas there is always a yearly balance of the incoming solar radiative energy, nevertheless the heat retaining ability is not balanced.
In our times there is a yearly positive gain of heat, because of the orbital circumstances.
–
Because Earth’s surface has most of land on the Northern Hemisphere, and most of the water areas on the Southern Hemisphere.
–
Water accumulates solar energy as heat much more effectively, than land.
–
So. when Perihelion coincides with Summer Solstices – the global climate is the coldest, and when Perihelion coincides with Winter Solstices (as it occurs in our times) the climate becomes the warmest.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, whereas there is always a yearly balance of the incoming solar radiative energy, nevertheless the heat retaining ability is never balanced.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If one wants to see how egregious secondary analysis using the IPCC reports can be, look no further than the just published Australian climate risk assessment .
https://climateservice.maps.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/content/items/a088c56f21384881bb187d54e66b50b7/data
It is a total abuse of science driven by woke academic activists with no integrity. They had an agenda to follow. There, using RCP8.5 (which I hope Roger Pielke notes) and the low confidence IPCC findings as certainties, plus the top of all the ranges, they have come up with a Private Frazer’s “we’re doomed” future.
From that alarmist report, the Minister is justifying making Australian electricity less reliable and more expensive. It is used to “prove” the necessity of the expenditure of billions of dollars with a total overturning of society. Yet there is no independent analysis – even a rudimentary fact or logic check. No doubt it will be referenced by other organisations or AR7 as proof that of the damage climate change is already causing.
The cartoon in today’s The Australian says it all.
It is stuff like this which is why the red team DOE report is essential.
The UN-IPCC is a political not scientific body. The now disgraced head of the IPCC, railroad engineer Rajendra Pachauri had no scientific credentials.
I note Roger Pielke has just arrived in Australia for a lecture tour. He had a quick look at their government’s Climate risk assessment and it looks like he wasn’t impressed. He is going to be a post on it later this week . He wrote a paper on their 2009 proposed emission targets which he will comment on. Back then he wrote “In proposing to do that which has never been done, Australia is joining the United Kingdom and Japan (and others, including the European Union and United States) with aggressive emissions reductions targets and timetables that appear to be fanciful at best. . .
The political challenges thus far facing passage of emissions reduction legislation in Australia, and its almost certain destiny to fail to achieve emissions reduction targets of the magnitude described here, should serve as an important lesson to climate policy makers around the world.”
With the benefit of hindsight, I think he understated the challenges. According to Jo Nova, almost all of their reduction is because trees are growing (land use changes), probably from enhanced carbon dioxide in the environment.
Has Chris Morris noted that the UK’s ‘severe’ 2025 summer was less sunny than 1976? I didn’t subjectively feel that the heat was as impressive (or oppressive) as in several earlier summers going back as far as 1975 and 76.
Met. Office ‘historic station data’ helps get regular ‘cherry-picked’ claims into perspective. But even some of this may be doubtful. A retired engineer has been examining the siting/design of many Met. Office weather stations and finds them far from helpful
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/09/17/dundreggan-rewilding-centre-dcnn0559-is-this-the-met-office-up-to-the-same-old-if-so-action-should-be-taken/
If we used only the highest-quality weather records for the analysis, would the UK 2025 summer be any warmer than 1976? If not, the higher sunshine hours of 1976 could mean that it remains the ‘best’ summer in my lifetime, invalidating the MSM narrative.
Meteorological ‘summer’ is defined as 1st June-31st August. I’m happy with that convention.
Norman – you may be referring the Geo Sherrod, ( bad spelling ), who has written considerably on the issues associated with the Australian historical temp data base.
More people than ever feel they’ve been lied to. Unfortunately, the myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated by AI. Nevertheless, ‘this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse.’ ~Lindzen
Wagathon | September 17, 2025 at 5:46 pm |
More people than ever feel they’ve been lied to.
Wag – that is a good point that is lost on the advocates. Layman lose trust in the experts/science with the experts are caught lying.
There is a tremendous amount of the science that is outside my knowledge. However there is ancillary areas of the science such as renewables, subsidies, analysis of some of the paleo reconstruction etc whereby the data, science and engineering is grossly distorted and easy to recognize is distorted.
Water vapor has been increasing about 40 % faster than possible from just average global temperature increase.
Slope of the regression of the UAH6.1 temperature data from 1988 to Jan 2025 is 0.01648 C°/yr,
In the 37 years this amounts to 0.01648 * 37 = 0.61 C°.
For a WV increase of 0.067 1/1 per C° this results in a per unit WV increase from temperature increase of 0.61 * 0.067 = 0.04086 1/1
The average WV during the 37 years is 28.8 kg/m^2 so the WV increase from temperature increase is 0.04086 * 28.8 = 1.177 kg/m^2
The regression slope of the measured WV increase is 0.0447 kg/m^2 per year
In the 37 years this amounts to 0.0447 * 37 = 1.654 kg/m^2
The measured increase is then 1.654/1.177 = 1.405 or about 40 % more than from just temperature increase.
This FALSIFIES the assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase. Verification is at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
‘The analogy that I use is that my car is not running that well, so I’m going to ignore the engine (which is the sun) and I’m going to ignore the transmission (which is the water vapor) and I’m going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel (which is the human-produced CO2) … the science is that bad!’ ~ Dr. Tim Ball
Dan Pangburn wrote:
This FALSIFIES the assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase.
A major result if true. Why haven’t you published it in a quality peer reviewed journal? All climate scientists would be very interested in such a result. What are you waiting for, Dan?
More facts, and anecdotes. I researched the highest frequency for 19th century hurricanes, essentially looking for the number of opportunities there were to vertically mix and distribute oceanic heat to deeper layers in the water column during the 1876-1878 El Niño event.
The highest number of hurricanes recorded in a single season during the 19th century was 12, which occurred in the 1878 Atlantic hurricane season. 15 total hurricanes between 1876-1878.
The 1978 season is tied with 1886 and 1893 for the second-most active hurricane seasons in the 19th century.
So there were many opportunities to mix, and then remix warm ocean water to greater depth.
AI says this: The 1876-1878 El Niño likely affected the Atlantic Ocean, as records indicate it coincided with unusually warm temperatures in the North Atlantic, which may have influenced atmospheric conditions and contributed to droughts in various regions.
During this period, the North Atlantic experienced its warmest temperatures on record, which may have altered atmospheric conditions. This interplay between ocean temperatures and weather patterns is part of how El Niño can have widespread global impacts.
The combination of warm Atlantic waters and the effects of El Niño contributed to severe droughts in various regions, exacerbating the global famine that occurred during this time.
Conclusion
The 1876-1878 El Niño not only affected the Pacific region but also had significant repercussions for the Atlantic, influencing weather patterns and contributing to widespread droughts and famine.
These links provide better detail, and consistency. The sidebar on the right in the first link provides detail statistics for each of 5 years surrounding the 1877 El Niño period :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1878_Atlantic_hurricane_season
“…due to the absence of remote-sensing satellite and other technology, only storms that affected populated land areas or encountered ships at sea were recorded; therefore, the actual total could be higher. An undercount bias of zero to six tropical cyclones per year between 1851 and 1885 and zero to four per year between 1886 and 1910 has been estimated.[2]”
1887 Pacific typhoon season (21 tracts); 1886 (15 tracks)
https://www.cyclonehistory.com/about/the-western-pacific-database/western-pacific-in-the-1880s/1887-pacific-typhoon-season/
A warmer Pacific brought sardines back to the West Coast and ended the anchovy dominance that existed when I was growing up there… all a part of a natural, recurring oceanic cycle, e.g., Monterey’s historic Cannery Row began in 1902, peaked in 1940s and out of business in the ’50s. Officially, the ‘cool anchovy regime’ ended in the ’70s and the ‘warm sardine regime’ peaked around 2000 and has since been in decline.
Pingback: What’s New in the Climate Wars? | Energy & the Law
Late to this party, but scanning the comments I don’t see much discussion about these two paragraphs:
The fact that the rebuttal team were only given 30 days to submit comment to the Federal Register sort of ruins that joke. Plus, 85 people are generally able to accomplish more per unit time than 5, especially when what they’re reviewing is (loosely) based on their own prior efforts. Next, if the CWG team were so eager to stimulate a dialogue, they might have consulted with the researchers whose work they were citing as they were writing. Finally, Dessler, Kopp, et al. *have* been behaving like scientists for *decades*, except for in alternate realities where Real Science is running a blog that amplifies uncertainties instead of heading to the lab to help reduce them, while tone-policing the people doing actual work for rightfully taking umbrage at the vapid criticism being leveled at them.
It’s nearly 2026 and as far as I’m concerned, the alarmists lost their credibility years ago. Why are virtually all the alarmists on the political left and so few on the right? One thing we know about the left is their rigid conformity to group orthodoxy and their willingness (glee?) to punish those who step out of line.
We know a few other things about political alignment:
“Numerous studies have confirmed that intelligence is associated with a specific set of religious and political beliefs, including liberalism, anti-racism, free speech, tolerance of others and being fiscally conservative. There is a positive correlation between intelligence test scores, as represented by IQ, and educational duration. Essentially, education reduces the probability of being poor and having right-wing ideology. ”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-on-food/202505/does-education-level-determine-political-and-religious-beliefs?
Second bulleted point in the link “Recent studies confirmed that the higher one’s educational level, the less likely one is to believe in God.” So what ” specific set of religious — beliefs”?
You can read the article, it is short.
I must agree that hard Left religion holistically dumbs down society, particularly as it relates to science–in that collectivist ideals are antithetical to the essential arguments that describe science. Good science ignores group think.
Liberalism, for example, by definition, demonstrably empowers the individual. Liberalism is an outgrowth from the Scottish Enlightenment era. It empowers the liberty of the individual. Unfortunately the contemporary Left embraces collectivism, which is antithetical to liberalism, collectivists rail against the empowerment of imdividualism.
The last vestige of liberalism in the US is classical liberalism, defined in contemporary society as, yes, conservatism–the empowerment of the individual. The basis for these ideals were encapsulated within the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
The quoted statement is in contradiction to the rest of the article. The part from the quoted, viz “intelligence is associated with a specific set of religious and political beliefs” should read “intelligence is associated with a ‘lack’ of religious and political beliefs”.
Also there is much that he got -somewhat- wrong. The ‘Divine Triad’ (mother, virgin plus young son) were an allegory; a metaphorical personification of the cultivation of the cereals. And that fact has been known since Roman times. It is in the modern day that they have become seen and treated as gods and goddesses. Ashtart, a compound semitic word, means ‘life of land’ and refers mainly to the cereal plant, the ‘noble grasses’.
It is also well known at ‘street level where the underdogs inhabit’ that Gold can beat God anytime.
Good science benefits from collaboration, JT, which freedom fighters may indeed confuse with collectivism–a concept going back to at least our hunter-gatherer days, and which may or may not have helped us become the dominant species of this planet. Your relentlessly tribal rhetoric here suggests you may not be as averse to that tendency as you proclaim. As for groupthink, primary literature doesn’t bear you out. Consensus takes time to form, and is hard fought. Unfortunately that can mean that better ideas take time to penetrate, hence Planck’s observation that scientific progress is often generational; not even St. Arrhenius Himself gained real traction until 50 years past his first paper. Thus, if contrarians truly want their own Galilean climate theories to catch on in fewer than two centuries, they should probably do something other than welching about it on blogs.
“Good science benefits from collaboration”
And other platitudes.
No problem with many of them, except we’re not talking about good science.
Collectivism is a political philosophy. The IPCC is a political machine that has co-opted climate science–it’s a political cabal.
JT, at their core, people are more alike than they are different, some have just become very good at being manipulated into thinking otherwise. This transcends the left-right or any other arbitrary political axis. Anthropology explains why this happens; ideology tells us what we should do about it. The latter is mostly branding, and savvy consumers should know to not believe everything written on the tin. Thus, true skeptics might wonder why the Climate Cabal has such a poor track record of delivering models that agree with observations–or indeed why raw observations need adjustments instead of being perfect out of the box–and conclude that contrarian tribalists chanting campaign slogans to refute observed physical phenomena may be practicing the wrong science.
“The latter is mostly branding…Anthropology explains why this happens”
Collectivists certainly understand how to use branding for political aims, which is what we’re discussing, if you don’t know. The branding you describe is a euphemism for propaganda, it’s a cultural tool used for exploitation. Marx certainly knew how to exploit it. Propaganda doesn’t just organically happen—it’s strategic, tactical. Behind it all is a convoluted network of lies and deceits to attain top down command and control. Let me direct you to anthropology, the discipline analyzes its cultural and social contexts. History is rife with collectivist appropriated spoils derived from “branding” examples.
Next you’ll argue that China’s Belt and Road initiative is benevolent outreach, an altruistic spending program spreading communist goodwill to the West; and you’ll argue that those who see it otherwise are hopelessly cynical.
The problem with the mealy mouth arguments you tout is that they’re richly coated in hypocrisy, they lack honesty–which too, btw, is core collectivist methodology.
Let’s look at net-zero.
More coal is burned today than ever before. If the IPCC was concerned about achieving net-zero, said governmental panel would have devised a methodology long ago to reel in China and India’s use of coal. They put no shoulder into net-zero, the science politburo for Western destruction is all Western for Western by design. Bankrupt the West using misappropriation methodology.
Sure, it’s all branding.
JT, alright fine, let’s talk politics. Interestingly, propaganda didn’t always carry the negative connotations it does today, and is at least as old as Athenian democracy. Neither have the collectivist boogeymen you find lurking under every bed ever enjoyed a monopoly on the the practice; witness WWII-era Uncle Sam wanting YOU for the US Army to battle infestations of the ratlike Japs and swarthy hordes of Mongolian Huns–imagery from which modern sensibilities recoil, even while being no less prejudiced in their stereotyping of out-groups. As for China, the IPCC has had no role in its economic ascent. Rather, Western economies freely trading with it have helped built its empire–with the US a willing major participant through offshoring labor, importing goods, making capital investments, and selling substantial amounts of foreign debt. Again, support of these activities transcends partisan identities, though as a matter of course the other guy’s stance is always the wrong one even as their respective positions flip-flop. The current administration calling Reagan’s video chastisement of Democratic protectionism a fake being a recent example (though in the ’80s, Japan was Democrats’ bugbear, while today Trump’s is Canada). On China specifically, Dems and Repubs have both historically alternated between pro- and anti-Beijing sentiment, while capitalists have worked whichever side was friendliest to their tactical and strategic financial goals at the time. This has of course also changed over time, with big money in bed with the communists, motivated by China’s untapped market potential of the ’70s; then bullish through the realization of orthodox globalization; then emerging caution and regrets as Chinese labor costs rose and began eating into profit margins; and now the industry-specific mixed bag of today. The ultimate point here being that sustained corporate coziness with China is part of why it increasingly does whatever it wants, not some absurd collectivist conspiracy being peddled in the propaganda tracts of nationalistic populists.
Wm Happer with Richard Lindzen got together on Joe Rogan Experience 3 days ago. One of the things mentioned is one of the early on global warming alarmist who had previously been a lobal cooling alarmist.
AI-
‘When this cooling trend ended in the 1970s and temperatures began to rise, Happer and Lindzen suggest that the focus of environmental activism and parts of the scientific community shifted to warning about a new danger: global warming caused by CO2.
‘During the episode, Rogan also recalls being a child during the 1970s and watching a television show where Leonard Nimoy warned of an impending ice age. This recollection served as an anecdote to support their broader point about the change in the climate narrative.’
The Joe Rogan Experience show is said to have an audience of over 42 million listeners, about 80% male with between the ages ages 18 to 34 listeners, doubtless a generation that has other reasons to know about the corruption of Western Academia.
Isn’t it great, the way science advances as it attains more knowledge.
‘The IPCC as a political cabal. ‘ -Yes, Samuel Kuhn made a distinction btw normal science and revolutionary science.
Karl Popper found normal science a kind of keep-your -job
science and revolutionary science as actual curiosity-driven
– investigative science requiring stringent testing.
Which is worthy of the name?
Both
There was a time when we would brand as intellectual dishonesty the spreading of unfounded fears about runaway global warming in the nation’s classrooms and yet teachers and bureaucrats in the government-education complex have been doing that for years. When after a while it was obvious to the teachers of global warming that they were wrong they simply changed their stories.
‘Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.’ ~Karl Popper
We’re all getting healthy heads-up about the corruption of Western Academia in America since before the ’70s. Let’s remember back on the birth of Western knowledge in the context of the most recent hot and cold climates on Earth—e.g., there was an 800-year warm period that peaked about 2100 years ago. The peak was a couple of centuries after a number of Jewish families led by Moses fled Egypt (the Exodus), maybe… 1,313 years before the birth of Christ (BC).
After warming peaked there was about 500 years of cooling until the average global temperature would have been about what it is today. After that, cooling continued for another 250 years; and, then temperatures rose over the next 250 years, to about what they are today.
This period of 500 years ending around 0 BC of a relatively cold global climate on Earth (compared to today’s temperatures) comprises the Grecian period. After that, Western civilization was carried forward by the Romans during a warming period of more than 500 years.
After the Roman warming period there was another period of global cooling (the Dark Ages), and then warming again (the Medieval Warm Period), and then cooling again (the Little Ice Age), followed by the latest warming (after the 18th century).
The alarmist ranks of Western global warming academics must hang their hat on a notion that recent warming has been faster than any time in Earth’s history. Nothing else is left to them because it’s obvious that there’s been many previous periods of global warming and cooling. And, it’s silly to argue it’s faster since of all we know of these previous periods, they were never analyzed from a perspective of trying to glean information about how fast or suddenly on a decadal scale, temperatures may have changed and moreover there isn’t any information available that would enable anyone to draw conclusions about it.
Wagathon ‘s comment – “After the Roman warming period there was another period of global cooling (the Dark Ages), and then warming again (the Medieval Warm Period), and then cooling again (the Little Ice Age), followed by the latest warming (after the 18th century).”
Wag – Those trends / shorter term cycles have typically run for 150-400 years for the last 10k-12k years since the emergence of the last ice age. Those trends show up in most of the paleo reconstructions, at least the ones that arent damped down and/or using 100+ years smoothing. Considerable self praise is given to how accurate the warming models to actual temps. Ignored in their self praise is the ease in which it is to predict the continuation of a trend that has a typical life span of 150-400 years.
I would agree with that lifespan for the current warming – resource limited at the tail end, about 1/2 way done +/- . Physical causality (this one not related to priors?), magnitude, lifetime and rate are also important. What adaptations, natural and tech, will be needed?
All of these ups and downs comprise a period that is called The Holocene. It is probably best compared to The Eemian beginning about 130,000 years ago and lasting a little longer than the current duration so far of the Holocene interglacial. There are no studies about the Eemian that attempted to draw conclusions as to how fast the various ups and downs occurred during that interglacial. The only fact that seems to be known with any certainty is that it was more hot during the Eemian than today’s climate.
Interestingly– according to AI…
‘Based on paleoclimate evidence, the Arctic Ocean was very likely seasonally ice-free during the summer of the Eemian… This means that while some sea ice remained in the winter, the summer melt was extensive, unlike the Arctic’s perennial ice cover in recent history.’
Reminds me of the ’70 CSNY song, Deja Vu– ‘…We have all been here before’
“I want to address the issue of crisis in a somewhat different way. Does it really matter if we have a crisis at all? I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]” ~Michael Crichton