by John Ridgway
In an earlier essay [1] I explained how positive feedbacks can lead to potentially problematic scientific mono-cultures. I also acknowledged that poor research design and data analysis had become commonplace within the behavioural sciences, largely as a result of a ‘natural selection’, driven by the career enhancement that comes with publication. However, I did not question whether there were any reward structures within climate science that may also have led to a natural selection for bad statistical practice.
Because modelling is not measurement
Well, in fact the evidence is that there is such a system of reward, and an early indication of the problem can be found in a quote reported by Professor Jeroen Pieter van der Sluijs, of the University of Bergen. It is alleged to come from a modeller working on the IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR):
“What they were very keen for us to do at IPCC [1990], and modellers refused and we didn’t do it, was to say we’ve got this range 1.5 – 4.5°C, what are the probability limits of that? You can’t do it. It’s not the same as experimental error. The range is nothing to do with probability – it is not a normal distribution or a skewed distribution. Who knows what it is?” [2]
I’ve no idea whether this individual finally gave in to the demands or, preferring not to be swallowed up by a mono-culture, decided to get out of the business. Either way, the problem didn’t go away and we now live in a world where it is common practice for climate scientists to confuse epistemic and aleatory uncertainty [3] by trying to treat the spread of model outputs as if dealing with a measurement problem that can be characterised using probability distributions. It’s possible that some climate scientists are simply unaware of the issue, but many others deliberately ignore it because they recognise the expedience of pretending that the epistemic uncertainties involved can be analysed as if they were aleatory. And to a large extent they do it because it appeases the policy makers. As Gavin Schmidt puts it:
“Model agreements (or spreads) are therefore not equivalent to probability statements. Since we cannot hope to span the full range of possible models (including all possible parameterizations) or to assess the uncertainty of physics about which we so far have no knowledge, hope that any ensemble range can ever be used as a surrogate for a full probability density function of future climate is futile…Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking probability distributions for regional climate changes are mounting, and while there are a number of ways to provide them, all, in my opinion, are equally unverifiable.” [4]
There is a good reason why they would all be equally unverifiable, and it has to do with the assumptions that would have to be made. As professor Eric Winsberg of the University of South Florida explains:
“Ensemble methods assume that, in some relevant respect, the set of available models represent something like a sample of independent draws from the space of possible model structures. This is surely the greatest problem with ensemble statistical methods. The average and standard deviation of a set of trials is only meaningful if those trials represent a random sample of independent draws from the relevant space—in this case the space of possible model structures. Many commentators have noted that this assumption is not met by the set of climate models on the market…Perhaps we are meant to assume, instead, that the existing models are randomly distributed around the ideal model, in some kind of normal distribution, on analogy to measurement theory. But modeling isn’t measurement, and so there is very little reason to think this assumption holds.” [5]
Climate scientist Theodore G. Shepherd was even more blunt when he wrote:
“The uncertainty in the climate response to forcing is conceptually very different. It is not a property of the physical climate system; rather, it is a property of a state of knowledge, or degree of belief, and it can be reduced as knowledge improves. In contrast with aleatoric uncertainty, which is objective, such epistemic uncertainty is subjective. Therefore, treating epistemic uncertainty as if it were aleatoric, with a focus on the multi-model mean as a best estimate, has no epistemological justification. This has been recognized for some time, but the practice continues to be normative (e.g. as in figure 1). It is interesting to consider why this is so, since, in most areas of science, the essential distinction between systematic and random sources of uncertainty is well recognized.” [6]
Persistent, normative practice that is well known to be wrong is a strong indicator that we are dealing here with a natural selection for bad science. Gavin Schmidt can blame this on the policy makers but I’m afraid the scientists must take the responsibility. They could refuse to cooperate (as was suggested by the FAR modeller back in 1990), but nowadays most won’t refuse because they have careers and prestige to think about. Climate scientists have learnt that if they want to sit at the big table with the policy makers they have to ignore any misgivings they might have and instead give the policy makers what they want, which is a pseudo-aleatory analysis that satisfies because it looks like the techniques learnt in school-day statistics lessons.
By way of mitigation, I should point out that many of the uncertainty analyses that are tackled by climate scientists involve an admixture of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and the extent to which the former may dominate could lend a certain degree of legitimacy to the application of techniques developed to deal with the stochastic. However, this hardly condones the normative practices within climate science. Climate scientists should understand as much as anyone the need to isolate aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, prior to their propagation using respectively appropriate statistical techniques [7]. There really is no excuse for this not being done. Whichever way one looks at it, failure to respect this important distinction has been allowed to continue, largely because showing such respect is unnecessary when it comes to gaining influence within climate science.
The importance of the issue: An AI analysis
I am not making a pedantic point here. Inappropriately treating epistemic uncertainty as if it were aleatory is known to lead to incorrect conclusions. In structural engineering this problem is quite notorious:
“It is shown that for proper formulation of reliability, careful attention should be paid to the categorization (epistemic, aleatory, ergodic or non-ergodic) of uncertainties. Failure to do so may result in underestimation or overestimation of failure probability, which can be quite significant (orders of magnitude) in certain cases.” [8]
Out of curiosity, I recently quizzed Meta AI on this very issue [9]. It wasn’t long before I asked:
“So why is the ensemble uncertainty modelled as if it were a measurement problem, using methods developed to handle aleatory uncertainty?”
The answer I received was as follows:
“You’re hitting on a nuanced point. Climate scientists often treat model ensemble uncertainty as if it were aleatory uncertainty, using statistical methods designed for random variability. This might seem counterintuitive, given that model ensemble uncertainty is largely epistemic.”
It proceeded to give three excuses for this. Firstly, it was a ‘pragmatic’ approach, ‘even if it’s not a perfect fit’. Secondly, there is deemed to be a ‘lack of clear alternatives’. Finally, it was deemed to facilitate ‘interpretation and communication…even if it’s not a perfect interpretation’. All of this mealy-mouthed talk of nuance, pragmatism and imperfection left me feeling rather uncomfortable, so I chose to be more direct:
“You talk of nuance, but it is known that using aleatory methods to analyse epistemic uncertainty can give the wrong results. Given the importance of the use of climate model ensembles, getting accurate results is surely more important than pursuing a ‘pragmatic’ approach for lack of an appropriate one.”
The AI response was as follows:
“You’re right. Using methods designed for aleatory uncertainty to analyse epistemic uncertainty can lead to inaccurate or misleading results. In high-stakes fields like climate science, accuracy is crucial. The pragmatic approach might be convenient, but it’s not a substitute for rigor. Climate model ensembles are indeed crucial for informing decision-making and political development, and using inappropriate methods can have significant implications.”
I wanted something even more explicit, so later on in the exchange I wrote:
“I’m not talking about reviewing in the light of new information or improved methods. What about recognising that climate change risk may not be as high as has been assumed? Is this not a possible consequence of the application of inappropriate methods for uncertainty analysis?”
Perhaps not wishing to disappoint me, the AI responded with:
“You’re asking if the use of inappropriate methods for uncertainty analysis could have led to an overestimation of climate change risks. That’s a valid concern. If methods designed for aleatory uncertainty were used to analyse epistemic uncertainty, it’s possible that:
- Uncertainty might have been mischaracterised: This could have led to an exaggerated sense of risk or probability.
- Risk assessments might have been biased: Overestimating the likelihood or magnitude of certain outcomes.
Recognizing this possibility is essential. It doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change risks are low, but rather that a more nuanced understanding of uncertainty could lead to more accurate risk assessments. This could, in turn, inform more effective and targeted strategies for mitigation and adaption.”
Admittedly, the AI was not so undiplomatic as to suggest that the furtherance of careers was a principal motivation for taking the wrong approach, but I don’t expect there would have been anything in its training data that could lead to it being so tactless. Instead, the problem is dressed up with talk of the need to be ‘pragmatic’ and for using approaches that are ‘less than perfect’. This, no doubt, reflects the extent to which the climate science community now condones and normalises the aleatory treatment of epistemic uncertainty. But the reality is that the approach taken is just plain wrong, and Meta AI was incapable of defending it when challenged. Furthermore, if there is any pragmatism, it is clear that it is a pragmatism that protects the scientist from falling short in the eyes of policy makers. The problem is that no one is incentivised to be right.
Undermining confidence
As with the statistical malpractice within the behavioural sciences, there is nothing here to suggest that there is any conscious strategizing or cheating. Those climate scientists who confuse the epistemic with the aleatory either do so because they know no better, or they don’t really think it can possibly matter. After all, nearly everyone around them is making the same mistake and it doesn’t appear to be doing them any harm. Instead, one has to wonder what happened to those who refused to play the probability distribution game.
Inappropriate use of aleatory analysis doesn’t necessarily benefit the ‘alarmist’ cause, and so there is no hoax to be found here. That said, if you look at the political use to which Extreme Event Attribution (EEA) is put, and then reflect upon the extent to which EEA practitioners play down their inappropriately aleatoric approach to multi-model ensemble uncertainty analysis, it becomes difficult to shake off the suspicion that there is some wilful ignorance involved. Even after offering the benefit of the doubt, there is a lingering disquiet that, at the very least, undermines confidence in the science being promulgated. As a lay observer, one cannot say too much, but it remains the case that a firm grasp of the mathematical and philosophical framework for uncertainty analysis will cease to be sufficient once other factors come into play that encourage — what Meta AI euphemistically refers to as — ‘less than perfect’ practice. The assumption that the scientific method will always ensure a natural selection for the good science would seem to be somewhat optimistic; that much is clear when looking at how the climate science community handles its uncertainties.
Footnotes:
[1] Ridgway J. 2025 “The Matthew Effect, Mono-cultures, and the Natural Selection of Bad Science”, Climate Etc. https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/08/the-matthew-effect-mono-cultures-and-the-natural-selection-of-bad-science/.
[2] van der Sluijs J.P., van Eijndhoven J.C.M., Wynne B. and Shackley S. 1998, “Anchoring Devices in Science For Policy: The Case of Consensus Around Climate Sensitivity”, Social Studies of Science, 28, 291-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631298028002004.
[3] Fox, Craig R. and Gülden Ülkümen 2011, “Distinguishing Two Dimensions of Uncertainty,” in Essays in Judgment and Decision Making, Brun, W., Kirkebøen, G. and Montgomery, H., eds. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3695311.
[4] Schmidt G. 2007 “Climate models produce projections, not probabilities”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/roundtable_entry/climate-models-produce-projections-not-probabilities/.
[5] Winsberg E. 2012 “Values and uncertainties in the predictions of global climate models”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Vol. 22, Number 2, pp. 111-137. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2012.0008.
[6] Shepherd T.G. 2019 “Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information”, Proc. R. Soc. A, 475:20190013. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2019.0013.
[7] Ferson S. 2016 “Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(96)00071-3.
[8] Der Kiureghian A., Ditlevsen O. 2009 “Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?”, Structural Safety, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.020.
[9] Ridgway J. 2025 “What Does Artificial Denial Look Like? – Going from AI to AD”, Climate Scepticism https://cliscep.com/2025/05/17/what-does-artificial-denial-look-like/
The validity of the AGW climate change conjecture (I e., that is driving global warming) should not be a value-driven choice. The ‘non-believers) simply wish to apply those principles of reason, science, quaint notions of morality and simple common sense that have served humanity well in the past, i e., the scientific method.
The ‘deniers’ should not be forced to adopt a manufactured consensus and adopt fears about global warming and the business of living we call capitalism when the urgency of a problem really isn’t there.
Again, good piece. Thanks, John.
On a separate note – AI has been generally good at getting general facts correct. Though worth noting that the phrasing of a question, AI can you give you the desired , though misleading result / result that will confirm the preferred answer. The series of revised questions to AI in the article above seemed to give the answer that the author was seeking. That is not criticism of the phrasing of the questions by John R, just noting that is one of the current deficiencies of AI at this time.
You wrote:
AI has been generally good at getting general facts correct.
AI has been trained with the same lies that we have been told, it is not a surprise that it spits out the same information.
“The series of revised questions to AI in the article above seemed to give the answer that the author was seeking.”
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘revised questions’. They were simply questions designed to ascertain whether AI had the same understanding that I do regarding the importance of using the correct methodology to study uncertainty. The only tendentious question was regarding the potential overestimation of risk. I could, of course, have equally asked about underestimation of risk, and I would, no doubt, have been told that that is also a possibility. I did not do so because the possibility of underestimation is already broadly accepted and heavily promoted by the climate science community. I would like to see this balanced.
As for the agreeability problem within AI, this is something of which I am well aware. That’s why I said “Perhaps not wishing to disappoint me…” But I do agree with your general point. I like to compare such discourses with a witness being interrogated by a lawyer. The witness (the AI) will faithfully answer the questions in accordance with its understanding of the truth, but the narrative that emerges is to a large extent under the control of the lawyer. That doesn’t mean the lawyer can force the witness to tell a lie.
Q “That doesn’t mean the lawyer can force the witness to tell a lie.” Only to manipulate the witness to get the desired interpretation of whatever could be the matter.
Then there is the character of the witness. There are enough witnesses out there who when given a new detail – true or false – will change their statement by inventing a different story. Some are very capable of doing so consciously, but to many it is an unconscious character trait. This is quite frequent even in engineering where the foundations of the subject matter are lacking.
John – my apologies for the poor phrasing on my comment and any implication that you kept revising your question to get the preferred response. Most of the time that I use AI (vs a google search) is that I am seeking an answer to a very narrow fact specific question. I therefore have to keep revising my question to keep AI focused on the specific facts. Unfortunately, due to the nature of AI, that can lead to the politically correct / preferred biased answer instead of the factually correct answer.
That is meant as a criticism / limitation of AI. Again, my apologies for the poor phrasing of my comment.
“Only to manipulate the witness to get the desired interpretation of whatever could be the matter.”
I do not feel that is a fair description of what is happening during the cross-examination of an expert witness. The lawyer is trying to make a case, and hence seeks to elicit information that is valid and supportive of that case. I do not think there is anything wrong with that, and I do not think it can be characterised as ‘manipulation’. Similarly, the antagonist lawyer will be doing the same thing, particularly if they feel the need to redress a possible misinterpretation of the testimony. The witness may also seek to ensure that their testimony is not being exploited unfairly.
To get back to my dialogue with AI, you will note that after validating my concern regarding the possibility of a risk assessment that overstates the risk, the AI was keen to place its response in context in order to avoid any misinterpretation ‘of whatever could be the matter’. It’s exact response was:
“Risk assessments might have been biased: Overestimating the likelihood or magnitude of certain outcomes. Recognizing this possibility is essential. It doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change risks are low, but rather that a more nuanced understanding of uncertainty could lead to more accurate risk assessments. This could, in turn, inform more effective and targeted strategies for mitigation and adaption.”
I was more than happy with that response, and more than happy to repeat it in full within my article, complete with caveat. Had I not included the caveat, I would then be guilty of manipulating the witness testimony.
Joe K,
No need to apologise. I get where you are coming from. AI provides answers based upon its training data — data that one can expect to be biased towards the orthodox view. If you want to explore specific issues that may cut across such orthodoxy, one has to persevere with an increasingly focused line of questioning. This may seem like manipulation, but I see it more as a desire to focus upon specific issues that need to be teased out from an otherwise generic or boilerplate response.
I accomplished something with AI that I could never see happening on a witness stand. I instructed AI to never again use the word cisgender when answering a question from me and, after giving me a lecture on the use of the word, It concluded by telling me that since it was possible to answer a question without it and without compromising the veracity of the answer, that it would comply.
Something from personal experience. A witness, under questioning by an entity (lawyer or investigative person) can be both manipulated, or the witness himself manipulates the outcome.
Lawyers near always have a target in mind (and the witness needs to know his rights under examination). Whereas in an investigation the witness himself may lead the line of questioning to obtain a desired outcome (when the witness is informed and the listeners usually have little clue to the facts).
My short test to AI was a case of the latter. (A case where technology is little more than another religion).
It has been my experience with LLMs that the first response is a good summary of the consensus position. If the user is sufficiently acquainted with the subject to challenge the response with a question or statement that points out an obvious error, the AIs are quick to back down and take a deeper look at the question. However, I have observed them apologizing profusely, and then re-stating the claim that they acknowledged was wrong. At that point they seem to be stuck in an epistemological loop that would cause Captain Kirk to smirk.
AI provides A consensus view on every subject. You have to decide if the consensus is right or wrong. Can’t assume that AI is always right or always wrong.
Climate models are just guesses about the future climate by people who have no idea what the future climate will be. There is a reliable consensus that CO2 emissions will impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. To guess how much, everyone pulls a number out of a hat. Which they then call settled science.
Nevertheless, AI does concede as follows– The perception that Western academia has lost its reputation for impartiality and become corrupt is a complex and highly debated issue, with both critics and defenders presenting various arguments. Concerns generally center on political bias, financial influence, and a perceived decline in academic freedom and integrity.
I can only guess, but nevertheless feel it’s entirely possible that many are more surprised at the demonstrated anti-Semitism in some of the premier academic institutions of this country than they would be about disclosures of corruption in the climate alarmist community.
Good analysis.
In several discussions with AIs, I have acquired a suspicion that the media that AI learns from has been deliberately flooded with articles that support the authoritarian side of things. On reflection, I feel that I am likely to be right: the authoritarians weaponise everything they can, they know how AI trains and learns, therefore they woukd obviously weaponise that to. So now I’m at the point where thinking they might not do this is just naive.
It is the old adage; if you repeat a lie long enough it will take root and be believed eventually. Even AI is prone to such a failure.
In the last paragraph John R comments –
“That said, if you look at the political use to which Extreme Event Attribution (EEA) is put, and then reflect upon the extent to which EEA practitioners play down their inappropriately aleatoric approach to multi-model ensemble uncertainty analysis, it becomes difficult to shake off the suspicion that there is some wilful ignorance involved.”
John R is correct with the aforementioned issue. Without addressing the analysis of aleatoric vs epistemic issues, it should be noted that attribution studies are notoriously problematic in most every field of science, even more problematic as the number of variables, known or unknown increase.
Many years ago Robert Brown of Duke University made a similar argument on his blog rgb@duke (sp?). He pointed out that to average the output of climate models was statistical nonsense. Shortly thereafter he stopped commenting on climate issues.
Denis, Robert Brown made an extended comment at WUWT June 11, 2015 that ended with this:
One cannot do anything with the super-average of 36 odd non-independent grand average per-model results. To even try to apply statistics to this shotgun blast of assumptions one has to use something called the Bonferroni correction, which basically makes the p-value for failure of individual models in the shotgun blast much, much larger (because they have 36 chances to get it right, which means that even if all 36 are wrong pure chance can — no, probably will — make a bad model come out within a p = 0.05 cutoff as long as the models aren’t too wrong yet.
By this standard, “the set of models in CMIP5″ has long since failed. There isn’t the slightest doubt that their collective prediction is statistical nonsense. It remains to be seen if individual models in the collection deserve to be kept in the running as not failed yet, because even applying the Bonferroni correction to the “ensemble” of CMIP5 is not good statistical practice. Each model should really be evaluated on its own merits as one doesn’t expect the “mean” or “distribution” of individual model results to have any meaning in statistics (note that this is NOT like perturbing the initial conditions of ONE model, which is a form of Monte Carlo statistical sampling and is something that has some actual meaning).
Synopsis of full comment is here:
https://rclutz.com/2015/06/11/climate-models-explained/
An analogy that springs to my mind is a hypothetical debate on where an arrow will land when fired by standard archer with a normal bow at a 30 degree elevation.
You could have one archer fire ten arrows, and average the distance, and calculate deviations and all the other statistical tools. You could have ten archers each fire one arrow, and average the distance. That’s all in the normal realm of statistical sampling.
Or you could have four Aristotelians each construct a model of an arrow motion, using what could be described as “oomph” theory, and then three Galileans with their gravitational acceleration and parabolic models, and three historians basing their estimates on accounts of Biblical and medieval battles.
Averaging the ten expert answers in the second example is not remotely like averaging the ten experimental samples.
…or, you could establish the target distance in advance, well beyond normal reach then, incentivize the poorest archers with money and fame– dancing girls for the most gifted archers– put all the targets downwind, conduct the test in a gale and take a couple of inches off the yardstick.
“What they were very keen for us to do at IPCC [1990], and modellers refused and we didn’t do it, was to say we’ve got this range 1.5 – 4.5°C, what are the probability limits of that?”
One must question if the IPCC, perhaps frustrated in their efforts to push boundaries of probability, turned to accessor recruitment to define their desired narrative. It’s difficult to quantify, but not entirely, one example of an IPCC assessor who naturally leaned hot:
Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor for the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports said the following in his book ‘The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy’:
“…we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity’. They propose the formation of an ‘elite warrior leadership’ to ‘battle for the future of the earth” [p.xvi]…Chapter 9 …“we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life.
We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times.” [p. 134]
He argues that overpopulation and industrialization are causing an ecological disaster and that democracy isn’t up to the challenge, an authoritarian government must be imposed to save us from ourselves. He asks “…are you prepared to change your lifestyle now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a necessary solution?” [preface. p. xiv] “It is not impossible that from the green movement and
aspects of the new age movement a religious alternative to Christianity and Islam will emerge.”
The colophon page states: “promotion of this book
has been assisted by the South Australian Government through Arts South Australia”
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X
The National Academies should have their federal charter revoked
National Academies go preposterous on CO2
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2025/09/23/national-academies-go-preposterous-on-co2/
Key excerpts:
“You would think the National Academy of Sciences understands science, but you would be wrong. Their President just approved a report the conclusion of which is scientifically impossible!
The report is jointly from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine or NASEM. Titled “Effects of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions on U.S. Climate, Health, and Welfare” this squirrelly tome is a formal comment on EPA’s proposed repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. It is also a reply to the Energy Department’s recent report supporting this repeal. In both reports the focus is the adverse effects, if any, of our CO2 emissions.
The NASEM report’s preposterous conclusion is most clearly stated in the last paragraph of its lengthy Summary, to wit: “In summary, the committee concludes that the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused GHGs is BEYOND SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE.” (Emphasis added)
Beyond scientific dispute? This fundamental claim is wildly false on two levels to the point of absurdity.”
“Clearly NASEM is no longer fit for purpose. Ideally Congress should revoke its charter. At the least the President should issue an executive order instructing the federal agencies not to use NASEM. It has long been standard practice for agencies launching new programs to run them by NASEM for approval. This practice should stop.
Mind you this would not kill NASEM as I think they already get more funding from left wing foundations than from the Federal Government. What it would do is make clear that NASEM has become a left wing NGO that cannot be trusted to objectively analyze policy issues.”
Lots more in the article. Please share it.
The National Academies have lost their way. Time to cut them loose.
This was written:
BEYOND SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE
Anything that is beyond scientific dispute is not any kind of science, honest science always questions.
I have noted, perhaps less clear than this article, that this difference between aleatory and epistemic uncertainties is a key distinguishing characteristic of practicing engineers and research scientists. In an unknowably complex world, engineers must make simplifying assumptions, e.g. structural steel is solid. Materials scientists and engineers quickly note there are grain boundary defects which govern the load carrying capability of a member at macro scale. Mankind has limited understanding of why this occurs or can be controlled in practice but limits on carbon content is a known big effect. There is a vast difference between carbon content in cast iron ,vs rebar ,vs common A -36 structural steel ,vs a shaving razor. In bitter cold weather, I have known a dropped rebar to shatter like glass. I have known T 1, high strength steel to split a few inches behind the weld puddle in a poorly controlled procedure, thus presenting a threat to the Containment in a nuclear power plant.
But we still drive over bridges with hundreds of feet between our family and the rocks below. Man is forced to make decisions in order to progress.
So we turn to nanotechnology to make materials, atom by atom with no grain boundaries and their inherent defects. When this is universal and commonplace, this technology will lift the masses into a world free of some limitations historically commonplace. Or not. AI will contribute. Robots excel at tasks which are dull, dirty or dangerous.
I posit knowledge and humility are the essential characteristics needed for technical progress. This is what I know. This is what I do not know. I am certain that those who state,”I do not know” to a non technical client, about technical issues rarely get the job, are awarded the big money.
I do know when the President of the United States, at the UN podium, states to the world that climate change is the “greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, we have a fundamental schism between and among the technical community and society.
I, once again, applaud Dr. Curry and her colleagues in their attempt to bridge this divide. The future of mankind rests on their success.
A simple, undeniable and incontrovertible fact still exists, irrespective of a manufactured AGW consensus, that nothing is happening today and in the last decades that has not happened before. Then as now, ‘Climate Change’ is a real world fact of life that has nothing to do with the hand of man.
Human released CO2 may have some, minor impact on the climate. The positive benefits of low cost energy far outweigh the negatve impacts.
I enjoyed reading the paper by Fox and Ulkumen distinguishing epistemic and aleatory uncertainty.
Subjectivity is an integral component of Bayesian statistics.
There is no was, is or will be in climate science despite the favored narrative. Guessing is too harsh. But not by much.
John Ridgeway,
You could write a book about uncertainty in climate science, but Koonin (“Unsettled”) and Curry (“Climate Uncertainty and Risk”) beat you to it. I am glad you noted that “Inappropriate use of [statistics] doesn’t necessarily benefit the ‘alarmist’ cause.” That is, the problem could be more severe than anticipated rather than less.
One could walk away from reading your paper thinking we don’t know anything solid about climate change, but that would be a mistake. We have a range of predictions from ca. 2000 about the climate of 2025. Yes, there was uncertainty in the uncertainties of those earlier models, but as things turned out they did a decent job of describing where we are today. If there was one major systematic omission, one “unknown unknown”, it was probably not appreciating the effect of sulfur aerosols on temporarily masking the warming.
I must further note that the so-called “skeptic culture” exhibited on this blog was happy to accept a statistical inference that included no uncertainty estimate whatsoever! (See Climate and Causality, Sept 26, 2023.) That was because the post told them what they wanted to hear. Perhaps you should consider a study of skepticism monocultures.
What exactly was this “decent job”? That it would warm means nothing as it had been for over 100 years. What else?
Here is one study. There are many more.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
“We have a range of predictions from ca. 2000 about the climate of 2025.”
Known knowns share a destiny with unknown unknowns. Trends are trends only because they represent continuation, they’re known knowns within a relative dimension. A trend stays a trend until a trend breaks down, representing its unknown unknown destiny. Climate trends are measured in centennial, or millennium scales, this represents a sure bet relative to placing a bet within the scale of a human lifetime.
It takes 3 data points to establish a trend, 30 years is a climate data point. There’s nothing compelling at all about having a range of predictions within a centennial climate scale.
David,
Thank you for your comment; polite but to the point.
As for writing a book, you may be pleased to note that I have no intention of doing so.
You say: “One could walk away from reading your paper thinking we don’t know anything solid about climate change, but that would be a mistake.”
Frankly, I don’t see how one could possibly walk away with that impression. I’d like to think that the essay was clear enough in what it was saying. It is simply that the possibility of overestimation of risk should not be discounted. Furthermore, we are faced with decisions made under uncertainty, and so it should not be too much to ask of those who are providing scientific advice on the matter that they use the correct methodologies for analysing uncertainty. That using the wrong methodologies has now become ‘normative’, and that in many cases the methodologies are misused knowingly, is even more of a concern. Some might say that is unscientific.
You suggest that my efforts might be better employed looking into studying ‘skeptical monocultures’. I disagree. When it comes to climate change scepticism, the world is already groaning under the weight of such studies. I would much prefer to attempt a rebalance, if only in a very small way.
And finally, although I acknowledge it is an easy enough mistake to make, can we agree that in future exchanges you take greater care in spelling my name correctly? That would be much appreciated.
As I have pointed out elsewhere ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/ ), James Hansen would have done a better job of predicting the next 30 years if he had relied upon a simple extrapolation of empirical temperature measurements rather than offering the results of his complex model.
However, the problem with extrapolation of trends is that they do a reasonable job of predicting — until they don’t. That is the old Black Swan issue. Often times it is just shear luck that an extrapolation provides reasonable results. Without a sophisticated model that can deal with Black Swans, there is a possibility of getting blindsided. If you take the time to read the paper at the link I provided, you will discover that Hansen made more mistakes than just not appreciating aerosols. Some of them apparently purposeful misdirection.
It all comes down to whether you view reality, and by extension the universe, as deterministic or probabilistic. Our current understanding of reality leans towards deterministic at the macro (arrow of time) and probabilistic at the quantum level. All current LLM are probabilistic and as you noted above easily confused when challenged. Deterministic AI will be the launch point for AGI.
And speaking of Koonin’s book, although I haven’t read it I note that one of his former students has, and he wasn’t impressed. He wrote a disparaging review in Yale Climate Connections. The relevant passage from his review, as far as this thread is concerned, reads as follows:
“Koonin implies throughout the book that climate scientists have conspired to downplay uncertainty and exaggerate the risk, apparently unaware of the fact that increased uncertainty means increased risks. Nowhere does he mention that climate sensitivity is described in the scientific literature by a probability density function that is highly skewed, with a long high-sensitivity tail that we cannot discount with certainty.”
“Conspiring to downplay uncertainty” is perhaps putting it a little strong, but the evidence suggests that climate scientists have conspired to use aleatory methods to analyse the epistemic, and this will have the effect of downplaying the uncertainty.
Furthermore, I don’t think Koonin should be too worried when a critic purports to have a superior understanding of the subject and yet commits the basic gaffe of saying “the fact that increased uncertainty means increased risks”. I always take that statement of ‘fact’ as a sign that I am dealing with a novice on matters of risk and uncertainty. As for Koonin not mentioning “that climate sensitivity is described in the scientific literature by a probability density function that is highly skewed” — well I am mentioning it now, and I am pointing out what a basic mistake it is that they are all making. Remember what the FAR modeller said:
“The range is nothing to do with probability – it is not a normal distribution or a skewed distribution. Who knows what it is?”
I trust that this review of Koonin’s book is not an indicator of the general standard of writing to be found in Yale Climate Connections.
And when I say ‘conspired’, I really mean ‘contrived’, in the sense that there was a natural selection favouring the malpractice.
“Conspiring to downplay uncertainty” is perhaps putting it a little strong, …”
I agree that there is little evidence for an overt conspiracy. However, I have remarked before about how frequently climatologists and oceanographers leave off information about the uncertainty of the nominal value(s) they present. In the minority of situations where an uncertainty IS provided, it is often left up to the reader to decide what the uncertainty represents (that is, how it was obtained) and even if it is stated as a Standard Deviation, whether it represents 1 or 2-sigma.
The alternative hypotheses to consider are that the absence of an uncertainty are the result of 1) incompetence, 2) willful deception, or 3) lying by omission. Conspiracy is perhaps less damning than the alternatives.
Most of the most recent ten thousand years was warmer than now, and we just came out of the coldest time in the most recent ten thousand years, Length of Day has decreased compared to when the atomic clocks were put in service measuring time in 1972, this means sea levels are lower than 50 years ago. Rising sea levels would increase inertia and slow spin rates, requiring more and more leap seconds to be added. To frighten people enough to Tax and Control them, the Sky Must Always Be Falling!
Greatest change of climate in all time, from Al Gore to now– from rivers running red/we’ll never know snow again to ‘a con job.’
“Length of Day” has been increasing and decreasing abruptly in small amounts linked to the moon position, full or new. Meaning it is not a question of inertia change but precession change linked to planetary.
As Western Countries decrease use of fossil fuels and decrease CO2 emissions, the Eastern Countries are increasing use of fossil fuels at a much higher rate and they are more and more mining and manufacturing everything we need if there is ever another war. Future wars will need periodic truces so we can purchase more weapons from our enemies, as wars have gone, they will sell us enough to keep the war going but not enough to win. We will not even know which of our leaders are even on our side.
Pingback: Understanding Epistemic vs Aleatory Uncertainty in Climate Models
Quanta Magazine has short summaries of the SOTA for several aspects of Climate Change Science
ToC How We Came To Know Earth: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-we-came-to-know-earth-20250915/
Climate Change Paradox
The Climate Change Paradox: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-climate-change-paradox-20250915/
Earth’s climate is chaotic and volatile. Climate change is simple and predictable. How can both be true?
Modeling Earth
How Climate Scientists Saw the Future Before It Arrived: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-climate-scientists-saw-the-future-before-it-arrived-20250915/
Over the past 60 years, scientists have largely succeeded in building a computer model of Earth to see what the future holds. One of the most ambitious projects humankind has ever undertaken has now reached a critical moment.
Tipping Point Math
The Math of Catastrophe: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-of-climate-change-tipping-points-20250915/
Tipping points in our climate predictions are both wildly dramatic and wildly uncertain. Can mathematicians make them useful?
Others
Greenhouse Physics
The Quantum Mechanics of Greenhouse Gases :https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-mechanics-of-greenhouse-gases-20250915/
Earth’s radiation can send some molecules spinning or vibrating, which is what makes them greenhouse gases. This infographic explains how relatively few heat-trapping molecules can have a planetary effect.
Field Work
The Ends of the Earth: https://www.quantamagazine.org/photos-capture-the-extreme-beautiful-work-of-climate-science-20250915/
Building an accurate model of Earth’s climate requires a lot of data. Photography reveals the extreme efforts scientists have undertaken to measure gases, glaciers, clouds and more.
Phanerozoic Whiplash: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-humanity-amplified-lifes-quest-for-energy-20250820/
Microbial Planet: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-microbial-masters-of-earths-climate-20250915/
Earth Vs.Venus: https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-venus-hell-and-earth-an-eden-20250915/
Biosphere Evolution: https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-microbial-masters-of-earths-climate-20250915/
I find John Ridgway’s recent thread as a timely thought piece for some recent climate model research I have undertaken as an interested layperson in these matters.
In my view the climate model credibility in predicting future temperature changes has to go through how well the models reproduce the historical period for which observation data are available. It has concerned me that model result means are used for further research and policy as if the ensemble model results are surrounding some golden mean. Some models must come closer than others to the truth even if none hit it very precisely and there is no evidence that it somehow lies in the middle of the results. Recent published papers on this matter have shown a slow drift towards getting over the ensemble mean by attempting to rate individual model performance in capabilities to match the observed temperature changes. More recent analyses attempt to avoid aerosol forcing uncertainty by using the 1980 and forward period for comparing individual models and observed changes, a period where there is agreement that the aerosol forcing changes are small compared to that of the atmospheric greenhouse gases. Some researchers attempt to find and use a measure of model independence to satisfy the statistical assumptions. In the end what results is a weighted model ensemble mean and not an attempt at a more stringent model selection process. I even asked a corresponding author of one of these papers to show the individual model ratings and did not receive an answer. Other papers also show hesitance to provide a definitive list of model performances, even when it is rather obvious to the reader that the models with lower climate sensitivities mainly perform better.
In my recent analysis on comparing individual model performance in matching the observed temperature changes over time I have expanded the comparisons to several parameters followed by combining these scale results into a final single result and finally ranking the models with the final results to show the magnitude of the differences between model performance. I plan to show a separate list of the model sensitivities by way of TCR, ECS and results of temperature changes of future scenarios for the models. I plan to make no claims of uncertainty and show, not unexpectedly, that even best performing models do not match the observed. A certain amount of mismatch is expected in model simulations even when means of multiple model simulations are used. The other limitation arises from forever having a single observed realization. The large differences between some model performances can be expected to exceed this statistical uncertainty.
I am currently working to assure myself that I have not violated any methodological assumptions or mishandled the data used in my analyses. I have no plans to publish my findings but rather use them to maintain my hopes that climate science will eventually become more serious about differentiating model performance. I plan to post a link to my analysis here at Climate Etc.
The climate models cannot even ‘predict’ the past. And, because they are continually updated to make predictions conform with ultimate reality (fitted to the data), the models’ degrees of freedom are reduced to nil such that any ability to make significantly accurate and generalizable predictions are a joke. It’s so bad, Western Academia’s AGW global climate alarmist industry spends most of its time now trying figuring out ways to massage the data.
Wagathon wrote:
The climate models cannot even ‘predict’ the past. And, because they are continually updated to make predictions conform with ultimate reality (fitted to the data),
What else do you think they should do?
How do you propose modelers determine the future pathways of GHG emissions, land use changes, volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance?
in response to David andrews & Kenneth P and Zeke’s study on model predictability.
The earth has been going through a warming phase since the mid 1800’s. The historical trend of warming phases and cooling phases over the last 10k years has been warming and cooling phases that last 150-300 years. Predicting the continuation of what has been the norm for the last 10k years isnt all that impressive.
Joe K wrote:
The earth has been going through a warming phase since the mid 1800’s. The historical trend of warming phases and cooling phases over the last 10k years has been warming and cooling phases that last 150-300 years.
Where are the data showing this?
Apple – its in the paleo records . I thought you said you knew something about climate science.
Joe K wrote:
Apple – its in the paleo records . I thought you said you knew something about climate science.
You get just a little bit rattled and right away you reach for the insults. Same as you do with BAB.
Filtered out yet again.
Appel – if you dont want to be the recipient of an insult being thrown back at you, then dont initiate an insult.
Compare and contrast your original arrogant comment to me and others and my response.
Very simply
A – you initiated the insult with your attitude and
B – you either know the answer or should know the answer as you claim to be very knowledgable in climate science.
Joe K:
And while getting rattled, you didn’t even answer the question. Saying the data are in the “paleo records” is about as vague an answer as is possible. Perhaps purposedly so?
WHERE in those records are the data? What peer reviewed papers? Where can I see a graph of the data to see the alleged 150-300 year phases. And how can “phases” differ in length by a factor 2?
Bullies always like to blame their victim for making them be a bully.
A – you initiated the insult with your attitude and
Where and what?
Appel – almost every paleo reconstruction excluding those with 200y+ smoothing such as marcott
Roman warm period, medieval warm period, LIA, etc . You may have heard or read about those somewhere.
Though you may need to adjust for the epistemic uncertainties and aleatory uncertainties which are seriously lacking in paleo reconstructions.
Next climate science question
“Filtered out yet again.” David, please, how can I filter you out?
AI has been beneficial to me in doing the grunt searching I require. I have had to question its replies in a few instances. It was somewhat amusing when AI gave an authoritatively presented wrong answer, got a little ridgid when I implied it was wrong and finally, after I presented more evidence for my answer, gave authoritatively the correct answer without acknowledging that it was previously wrong. Reminded me of a few individuals I encountered in my work life.
Maybe bad statistical practice is finally losing its influential mojo, its potency to project the climate narrative.
The perception is that media and pundits correctly project science, which of course it doesn’t. Perception is reality though in culture; it’s only the Lefts self-aggrandized perception that it follows the science—obviously they confuse science with their political movement.
Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira published some interesting analysis about public views on AGW:
• “Two-thirds of likely voters said they supported a policy of increasing domestic production of fossil fuels such as oil and gas.”
This was surprising:
• “63 percent of voters under age 30 said they wanted more oil and gas production, as did 58 percent of white college graduate voters and college voters overall…Indeed, across all demographics reported by the Times/Siena survey—all racial groups, all education groups, all regions (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West), and all neighborhood types (city, suburb, and rural/small town)—net support (total support minus total opposition) was at least 15 points and usually much higher.”
• “Vaclav Smil, who is universally acknowledged to be one of the world’s premier energy experts, has observed, ‘We are a fossil-fueled civilization whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years. Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat.'”
• In terms of the energy voters consume, cost and reliability are much more important to them than possible effects on the climate.
• Given four choices, 37 percent of voters said the cost of the energy they use was most important to them, and 36 percent said the availability of power when they need it was most important. Just 19 percent thought the effect on climate of their energy consumption was most important, and 6 percent selected the effect on US energy security.
Also surprising:
• “Less than a third of liberals and Democrats prioritize their energy use’s effect on climate, with roughly twice as many in each group selecting the cost or reliability of energy as their main priority.”
Perhaps there’s hope, maybe we’ve reached peak “narrative”. US public attitudes between cost/reliability/security trumps climate. Follow the money—net zero is another one of those 80/20 issues. See figure 8. I suspect the EU will eventually land on the same sensibilities.
https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-science-vs-the-narrative-vs-the-voters-clarifying-the-public-debate-around-energy-and-climate/
A survey from a few years ago had 87% of republicans in “favor of banning the pollution that causes global warming “.
Note how the phrasing the question has a significant impact of the survey results.
Jungletrunks wrote:
• “Vaclav Smil, who is universally acknowledged to be one of the world’s premier energy experts, has observed, ‘…Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat.’”
Numerous advanced countries, including the United States, have decreased their carbon emissions while seeing their GDP continue to grow.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling
Appell response to jungle “Numerous advanced countries, including the United States, have decreased their carbon emissions while seeing their GDP continue to grow.”
With the following citation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-gdp-decoupling
Appell your response and citation does not even remote refute to statement by Jungle or vaclac smil . Its barely on topic and actually supports jungles comment
By definition, there can be only one “best” forecast of temperature or precipitation in a climate multi-model ensemble. It seems that the unexamined assumption by modelers is that the mean of the ensemble is the best estimate. However, if one is attempting to model reality, then the ‘test for best’ should use empirical measurements as the reference for reality. That is, after a period of some years, the ensemble forecasts should be compared to the meteorological measurements. My understanding is that when that has been done, almost all forecasts are too warm. It appears that the Russian model has the best record of accomplishment, meaning that when compared to reality, the best forecast is NOT the mean of the ensemble, but rather it is at the bottom, at least for temperatures. Therefore, the assumption that the mean is characterized by a Normal distribution about the mean is clearly wrong.
It isn’t a case of the distribution having a bias, it instead is a case of all but the Russian model having a serious bias, appearing that the left-hand side of the distribution is missing. If one makes the assumption that the ensemble represents half of a probability distribution, one can appeal to the statistics Empirical Rule that states that most (95-98%) of the variance in samples is within ≈±2-standard deviations. That means about 1/4th of the range for typical sampling, or about ½ of the range of the ensemble. Or, another way of looking at the issue is that the ensembles rarely if ever result in an underestimate, and the uncertainty of the ensemble will be the best estimate compared to empirical measurements (Russian forecast), plus or minus the mean of the entire ensemble. Thus, the uncertainty bounds become so large as to be uncertain of the correct sign for the trend.
Dr. Pat Frank wrote a paper sometime ago that attempted to quantify the uncertainty of models from a traditional measurement uncertainty standpoint. He was pooh poohed at the time because his uncertainty interval was so large as to be unreasonable. In an iterive process, one must recognize that uncertainty increases with each iteration. Averaging runs that have uncertainty increases uncertainty if properly done.
I suspect that most models have no process for evaluating the uncertainty when uncertain measurements are used as input in “physics” equations, nor how that uncertainty is propagated to the next iteration.
After six rounds of evaluation, one must ask what system reviews and goals have been set to move toward more believable projections. If I designed an amplifier whose THD never improves toward spec regardless of multiple changes, I wouldn’t be a good engineer if I didn’t start over with different assumptions. Modelers (other than Russian) appear to have no no desire to modify their assumptions to provide better results.
Climate models seem to employ the bombing strategy from WWII. If enough bombers with enough bombs drop over target, the target will be destroyed, even though many bombs miss the target. A large uncertainty as it were. The problem is that you can’t tell which bomber dropped the accurate bombs. With climate models, they all miss the target.
jgorman2424gmailcom wrote:
With climate models, they all miss the target.
How so?
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
Web: t.ly/68LaZ
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
David Appell :
“How so?”
Models compared to observations is a phantom. It depends on the assumption that the observations are “true values” themselves.
“Global” temperature averages have a large uncertainty. The “global” average ignores the fact that temperatures included in the average have a wide difference of variance which should require a comprehesive weighting approach. Yet climate science just jams all the temperatures (anomalies don’t help since the anomalies inherit the variances of the parent values) together to determine an average. Spatial weighting only corrects sampling error, not the variance in the temperatures themselves. This is just one of many criticisms of the “global” average temperature (including anomalies).
The models, if trained against past observations will inherit the measurement uncertainty of the observations. The fact that the model predictions match the “observations” is a product of data matching, not an in-built understanding of the physical causal effects.
The major difference I see between generic ‘Republicans’ vs ‘Democrats’ on the issue of AGW climate change is that, only the Left accepts that humanity’s CO2 is pollution.
The myth of a scientific consensus belies the actual fact of an ideologically-driven consensus supported by fraud and corruption.
Wagathon wrote:
The major difference I see between generic ‘Republicans’ vs ‘Democrats’ on the issue of AGW climate change is that, only the Left accepts that humanity’s CO2 is pollution.
What definition of “pollution” are you using?
David Appell | September 27, 2025 at 8:57 pm | Reply
“What definition of “pollution” are you using?”
Appel – if you dont want to be the brunt of deserving insults, then dont thread bomb with a ton of inane questions that are well known by climate activists.
Your questions and arrogance are not conducive to a productive debate.
And yes characterizing CO2 as a pollutant is a dogma in the climate activist community.
JoeK – asking for the definition of a word being used is hardly out of bounds.
Still waiting for an answer. Which are usually pretty scant here.
David Appell | September 27, 2025 at 10:21 pm |
JoeK – asking for the definition of a word being used is hardly out of bounds.
Still waiting for an answer. Which are usually pretty scant here.
Appell – both Wagathon and I have given you a sufficient explanation of how climate activists have misused the term pollution. Asking for a definition when already provided is both out of bounds and not conducive to a constructive debate.
Back to the topic of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties
Carbon dioxide officially became a greenhouse gas pollutant in 2009 because the EPA simply declared it to be. The EPA’s ‘finding’ was never anything more than a political statement with no science behind it whatsoever. Essentially, Eurocommie/Leftist anti-Americanism polluted the EPA.
FWIW, Wagathon, I am a liberal Democrat and I don’t believe CO2 is a pollutant.
I do believe there is a valid counterpoint–too much of a good thing…
FWAIIW on the question, i e., good, better, best– ‘Plants grow best with CO2 levels in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million (ppm), though the optimal concentration can vary by plant type and growth stage. Current outdoor atmospheric CO2 levels are around 400 ppm, which supports normal growth, but doubling or tripling this amount (to 800-1,200 ppm) can significantly increase growth rates and yield. Levels above 2,000 ppm can be toxic to plants, while levels in the 1,500 to 2,000 ppm range are often considered the maximum for optimal results.’
Admitting that in public might result in you being excommunicated! :-)
Thomas Fuller wrote:
FWIW, Wagathon, I am a liberal Democrat and I don’t believe CO2 is a pollutant.
Define the word “pollutant.”
Let me take a stab at defining “pollutant”:
The introduction or release of a constituent of the atmosphere that has demonstrable negative impacts such as reduced visibility, an offensive smell, or is responsible for a decrease in the functional success of the components of the global ecosystem, or results in an undesirable increase in temperature.
CO2 is characterized as a colorless, odorless gas. Mammals and insects tolerate much higher concentrations than are predicted for hundreds of years in the future, and plants prosper from increased concentrations. The net impact of CO2 on temperature is problematic because the interaction between the various feedback loops demonstrates that increased cloudiness has more impact than typical CO2 emissions. The seasonal changes in CO2 (+/-2PPMv) are much larger than the constant anthropogenic ‘pollution’ releases, indicating that humans play a minor role in contributing to the change in CO2 concentrations. In any event, the loss of human lives from heat-related weather is far smaller than from cold weather, suggesting that a warmer climate would save lives.
Thus, CO2 does not meet the definition of a pollutant.
The language has been corrupted if releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is not considered, ‘going green.’
John R mentions the issues with both epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. That appears to be significant problem in the paleo reconstructions. Epistemic uncertainty being the lack of proxies / lack of knowledge especially across the SH. Aleatoric uncertainty being the inability of measuring temps with the accuracy of instrumental records due to the much lower resolution of the proxies and the related issues with calibration.
John Ridgway – Any thoughts on the epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty in the paleo reconstructions which I mentioned above. Under or over weighted uncertainty?
Joe K,
This is not a subject area I have looked into in any great detail, and so I have to be careful not to bullsh*t you with platitudes and generalities. Nevertheless, I will say the following:
Whenever I want to look into the possibility of aleatory methods being inappropriately used, I home in on applications of Monte Carlo simulation. This is the classic technique for dealing with stochasticity and complexity. So it is fine for handling things such as measurement errors in proxy records or uncertainties in the dating of geological samples. However, there are number of distinctly epistemic uncertainties in paleoclimatology, such as the uncertain relationship between a proxy and the variable it is purported to represent. Worryingly, Monte Carlo is often co-opted into addressing uncertainties associated with expert judgments (essentially epistemic uncertainties) and if I ever came across its use to tackle expert judgements relating to a proxy relationship, I would immediately small a rat.
So my advice to you would be to acquaint yourself with the limitations of Monte Carlo simulation, and take it from there.
The only other generality I feel it is safe to offer is this: Whatever the subject matter, any attempt to characterise uncertainties that are a mixture of aleatory and epistemic as if they were all aleatory is bound to underestimate the scale of uncertainty. You will end up not appreciating how uncertain you are regarding your uncertainties.
Further to the above, I received the following advice from AI when asking directly about problems with Monte Carlo when applied to paleoclimatology:
“Overlooking systematic biases: A simple Monte Carlo approach may not fully explore the range of potential biases in paleoclimate records, such as those related to the proxy formation process. More sophisticated methods, such as the MoCo algorithm, have been developed to differentiate between systematic and random errors.”
John R –
thanks
While I could be off base, where the sparseness of proxies in the SH as to whether that would be epistemic or aleatory uncertainty? any insight?
fwiw – I think that while the paleo reconstructions get the general trend reasonably correct, there is a significant limitation in the measurement.
Gaps in data is an epistemic issue, and one reduces the epistemic uncertainties by filling in the gaps. How one does this can also be an issue. If the gaps are filled using model-generated data, using statistical assumptions, then one has to be careful regarding the validity of such assumptions. Sources of variability and sources of incertitude should be handled differently.
As I have said, I have no particularly strong paleoclimatology insights that I can use to illustrate the general points I am making.
Perhaps the most egregious confusion of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty is promoted by the “97% of scientists” claim by the media. All of the “mental models” of these “scientists” in aggregate have little more (or no more) inherent knowledge base than that of the truly knowledgeable group amongst them do individually. Any amount of aleatory certainty that is attempted to be implied to essentially the same knowledge based is fallacious.
Ian,
There is this thing called the wisdom of the crowds, in which the average of assessments made by a large group of imperfectly but above averagely informed people will be closer to the truth than any individual could manage. Its mathematical basis is Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, and it is one of the rare occasions where the mathematics of the aleatory can be used to deal with epistemic uncertainty. The problem, however, lies in the fact that it only works when the assessors do not communicate with each other and make entirely independent assessments. In practice, this condition never fully applies, and as soon as there is any degree of coordination involved, the mathematics behind the wisdom of the crowds breaks down. The fact is that there can be no wisdom of the crowds without independence of thought.
I see nothing in the way the climate science community operates to suggest that the necessary conditions for the application of Condorcet’s Theorem are met. So we are back to ignoring the aleatory treatment and looking for a better way to deal with the epistemic uncertainties involved. For example, a bit of evidence theory wouldn’t go amiss. See my article:
https://cliscep.com/2024/07/16/the-wisdom-of-crowds/
“…the average of assessments made by a large group of imperfectly but above averagely informed people will be closer to the truth than any individual could manage.”
That isn’t stated quite correctly. Assuming that the assessments are both higher and lower than the true value, a necessary condition for the mean to be close to the true value, there could be one or more estimates that are exactly correct, or at least closer to the true value than the mean. It also seems to me that in appealing to the “Wisdom of Crowds,” one is trading off certainty or precision for increased accuracy in the estimate provided by the mean because the variance can be expected to increase as the number of estimates increases.
Clyde,
I stand corrected. What I had meant to say is that the average is more likely to be better than an individual could manage.
“… the average is more likely to be better than an individual could manage.”
John, you are still missing the nuance. The average of many estimates will be better than what MOST can do, but there may be an individual who will be as, or more, accurate than the mean. While the mean is fairly resistant to bias from outliers, it is not immune.
Clyde,
I honestly don’t think I am missing the nuance now. I believe we are now saying the same thing. At least, I am trying to say what you are saying.
‘In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the `truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your `truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of the where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called `Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new `truth’ but supporting the `story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate.’ (Doug Edmeades)
Thanks, John. Both very interesting articles…
Speaking of the wisdom of the crowd, in his book, ‘The Primacy of Doubt’, the eminent climate scientist Professor Tim Palmer strongly advocates using aleatory techniques to study epistemic uncertainties; or as he puts it, “the use of stochasticity to represent inherent structural uncertainty”. In so doing he invokes the analogy of the wisdom of the crowd:
“On a very pragmatic level, the rather difficult issue of the ontological uncertainty of structural model error was addressed by constructing ensembles using multiple models developed in different institutes. I some ways this is no different to the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ concept, where here the ‘crowd’ is not the views of members of the public, but views of differently constructed climate models developed in different institutes.”
Quite apart from everything I have already said about modelling not being measurement, this idea falls down simply because such models are not entirely independently developed. Just as Condorcet’s Jury Theorem fails when voters collaborate, the collaboration within the modelling community undermines the idea of there being an ensemble ‘wisdom’. So when I read this from Tim Palmer, I had to wonder whether he properly understands the situation. Well, lo and behold, only two pages later, he writes this:
“In practice, individual modelling groups are influenced by other groups’ assumptions, and so the models are typically not independent of one another. They are at best quasi-independent.”
So he does know after all that the idea is epistemologically unsound! And yet he remains a strong advocate. This is not the primacy of doubt, but the primacy of doublespeak.
The phenomenon where the climate scientists must know their approach is invalid, but they take it anyway, is what this essay is all about. I just don’t get it, and I can’t imagine such cavalier practice exists within other fields where modelling forms a central role.
The GCM model-makers would like to indulge the notion that the more components we have the more we will understand the system. Actually the reverse is true: the more components we have, the more we will have to combine, the more interactions there will be that we do not really understand, the more complex the system becomes to undertand and model as it seemingly acts independently of all the rules we developed that it is supposed to follow and refuses to obey.
Wagathon wrote:
“The GCM model-makers would like to indulge the notion that the more components we have the more we will understand the system. Actually the reverse is true: the more components we have, the more we will have to combine, the more interactions there will be that we do not really understand, the more complex the system becomes to undertand and model as it seemingly acts independently of all the rules we developed that it is supposed to follow and refuses to obey.”
I doubt you’re qualified to make such a claim, since you’ve probably never looked inside a climate model at all, nor analyzed how they do (which is pretty good; see Hausfather’s paper).
But speaking of simple models. You know Exxon’s original model, right How many variables? How has it performed?
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
John,
I read your article “Wisdom of the Crowds”. I understand the fallacies you point out in the arguments against the use of Condorcet’s Jury Theorem with respect to voting and democracy. I would argue that, in the case of voting and democracy, the social sciences involved in human individual and collective nature result in an almost unlimited number of variables in determining the limits of the relevant epistemic knowledge base – many more variables (and even values associated in with these variables in the models) than those associated with the major drivers of the climate. I would also argue that the limits to the current understanding at any point in time of the key physical factors relating to climate change are much more limited, consistent, broadly understood and accepted by the relevant scientists than any relating to the social sciences which govern voting. (Note that when I refer to “relevant scientists”, this is a much smaller sample than “the 97%.) Is this not another argument that Condorcet’s Jury Theorem cannot be applicable as a logical reason for the apparent confusion relative to aleatory vs epistemic uncertainty amongst these scientists and the broader “97%”?
Put another way, If I imagine the distribution of probabilities in a curve that represents aleatory certainty or uncertainty, there is no truncation to the data. In the case of the knowledge base related to climate change there is a (relatively) clear limit/truncation that is generally accepted by the (relevant) experts. In addition to the fallacies you point out, for this reason the theorem cannot apply in the case of climate modelling. What am I missing?
I apologize for the rambling, but it helps organize my thoughts as I learn.
With GPM model-making it is the pretense to objectivity that is the most galling and why, scientifically, the approach is a non-starter from the beginning. It is not possible to imagine anyone capable of taking the time and investing the dispassionate interest required to develop an appreciation for the whole picture. That is needed to have any confidence in trusting that your powers of reason can be brought to measure your powers of observation without merely serving the purposes of your your opinions. That is what Dyson means when he talks about, fudge factors. If the beliefs of a charlatan cannot be trusted, the average of all such beliefs cannot be expected to bring value to society.
Ian,
I must admit that I am struggling to fully understand the point you are making. All I was saying is that if a model ensemble is to be compared to a crowd, then the mathematics behind the concept of the wisdom of the crowd must apply to both. In both cases, the extent to which the concept breaks down depends upon the extent to which there is coordination, leading to groupthink (in the case of the crowd) or lack of independence in model structure (in the case of the ensemble). Gavin Schmidt put it this way:
“Collections of the data from the different groups, called multi-model ensembles, have some interesting properties. Most notably the average of all the models is frequently closer to the observations than any individual model. But does this mean that the average of all the model projections into the future is in fact the best projection? And does the variability in the model projections truly measure the uncertainty?”
The answer to the first question is ‘possibly not’. The answer to the second question is ‘no’.
If you want to see me talking at greater length on this subject you can find it here:
https://cliscep.com/2022/11/19/that-alluring-curve/
Multi node confirmation biased consensus climate science, it amazingly delivers a distilled confirmation biased mean. A singularity of opinion, called science, that defines causation through averaging, largely dependent on consensus biased models.
Preordained is a religious concept.
Jungletrunks wrote:
A singularity of opinion, called science, that defines causation through averaging, largely dependent on consensus biased models.
In what ways are the models ‘consensus biased?’
Preordained is a religious concept.
Which model results are “preordained” and how is that accomplished in the GCMs?
David,
“In what ways are the models ‘consensus biased?’”
Perhaps he had meant consensus biased in the sense that modellers ‘share literature, ideas for representations of processes, parameterisations, evaluation data sets and even sections of model code’. Therefore, ensembles are not a random selection from the space of all possible models, but are biased towards a consensus thinking. The idea of averaging the outputs of an ensemble is only valid if one assumes that individual models within the ensemble are independently generated, though this is rarely the case. Selection and weighting techniques such as ClimWIP are meant to tackle the problem but the issue remains, in my opinion, since selection and weighting are themselves problematic ideas. Much better not to try treating modelling as if it were measurement.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/91/2019/
You described it eloquently, John, much better than I could.
I often use allegory to emphasize complex concepts. Such as, one really can put a square peg into a round hole, just cut off the corners; anyone who cares to look will see the gaps.
I think certain scientists go beyond the fudge factor to deliberately influence probability; either deliberate, i.e., climategate, or a host of other reasons that motivates people to do what they do, this is especially true when significant money is involved.
It’s important to note that the IPCC standards body is 50% political, bureaucratic, I’m sure they have adequate skill for cutting corners. There’s inside pressure to produce a brand of report that’s impossible to measure.
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf
https://icehockeycentral.com/unmasking-the-inaccuracies-of-dr-michael-manns-hockey-stick-graph/#google_vignette
For the last couple of decades, a relatively few number of Western scientists have created a fictional world based on global climate models (GCMs) that defy reality. They call it the greenhouse effect that they claim is the physical basis for their claim that CO2 emissions are causing the climate to change. I call it Leftist vaporware.
‘Climatologists are no Einsteins’– “The models are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much….’
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009 http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Making light of one of the brightest minds of the last century tells us a lot more about you, Mr. Appell, than it does about Freeman Dyson. He worked in climate science for 15 years and is smart enough to admit ignorance about things that climate scientists are ignorant of–but won’t acknowledge.
Tom
“… is smart enough to admit ignorance about things that climate scientists are ignorant of–but won’t acknowledge.”
That, more than anything else, separates those in this field from all the other sciences. Admitting what is obvious is a positive, not a negative.
360 yale is an extremely activist organization.
Several articles on renewables are outright misrepresentations / distortions of facts.
Its views should be treated accordingly.
Joe K wrote:
360 yale is an extremely activist organization.
Because they accurately reported something Dyson said? Sure.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
Making light of one of the brightest minds of the last century tells us a lot more about you, Mr. Appell, than it does about Freeman Dyson.
Accurately quoting him is making light of him?
Comical.
He worked in climate science for 15 years and is smart enough to admit ignorance about things that climate scientists are ignorant of–but won’t acknowledge.
Such as?
Thomas Fuller wrote:
He worked in climate science for 15 years and is smart enough to admit ignorance about things that climate scientists are ignorant of–but won’t acknowledge.
List three papers about climate science that Dyson published in peer reviewed journals.
Ah, the publication demand. Dyson published two papers on climate change, not three. OTOH, we know that Michael Mann is a better scientist than Einstein, Newton and Grigor Mendel–he has published more papers than those three combined! Where’s his Nobel?
Should we dismiss out of hand anything that you claim if you can’t cite three climatology papers that you have had published?
Climate alarmism flows from the nihilism of Leftist thinking and a belief that the rest of humanity is evil and engaged in activities that are destroying the Earth. The “new approach to environmentalism,” according to Dr. Patrick Moore, “requires embracing humans as a positive element in evolution rather than viewing us as some kind of mistake.” One of Einstein’s peers Freeman Dyson has a far more inspiring view about the existence of humanity: “As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”
Dyson wasn’t a peer of Einstein. They were born 44 years apart and Einstein had almost no knowledge of what Dyson worked on in his youth, QED.
His quote at the end is irrelevant.
Patrick Moore is a well known liar who switches sides depending on who’s paying him:
https://tinyurl.com/4w8hzc9b
Climate alarmism flows from the nihilism of Leftist thinking and a belief that the rest of humanity is evil and engaged in activities that are destroying the Earth.
Is this what you tell yourself when you lay in bed trying to fall asleep? It’s so insane it’s not even worth denying. You rot your brain with stuff like that. All because you can’t discuss the science so you write desperately ridiculous things that you think are profound but are below comical.
This is why nobody takes you seriously.
‘We’ve had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events. On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.’ S. Fred Singer
“…it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.”
Should’ve done something about it.
Freeman Dyson wrote a strong foreword to a report published recently by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide: “To any unprejudiced person reading this account,” he wrote, “the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
‘Carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably since the 1700s. Yet despite this, climate sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing that carbon dioxide affects directly, such as crop yields, food production, prevalence of hunger, access to cleaner water and biological productivity, and those that it affects indirectly, such as living standards and life expectancies, have improved virtually everywhere. In most areas they have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.’ ~Freeman Dyson
Wags, you’re recycling Dyson again (at least 3rd time around for this one). Audience is clamoring for new material, beginning to walk out.
Really? I searched the site for, “prevalence of hunger” but, closest I could come was something like, ‘prevalence of science and technology at the expense of morality and ethics,’ which, I thought was silly in that what we see now from the global warming alarmists is mainly an animus toward American society.
Wagathon wrote:
…in that what we see now from the global warming alarmists is mainly an animus toward American society.
Wanting to conserve the climate demonstrated an “animus” towards American society??
Only if your idea of a health American society is destroying the environment, as with manmade climate change. Looking at America’s historical carbon emissions, highest of any country in the world and still very high per capita, it wouldn’t be hard to come to that conclusion. With Trump it now seems to be official policy.
Wagathon wrote:
Freeman Dyson wrote a strong foreword to a report published recently by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide: “To any unprejudiced person reading this account,” he wrote, “the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial,
Did Dyson cite any evidence for his claim?
Because the claim isn’t true.
“Our baseline model indicates that ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] has reduced global agricultural TFP [Total Factor Productivity] by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth.”
— “Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth,” Ariel Ortiz-Bobea et al, Nature Climate Change, v11 Apr 2021 306-312.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10342388
==
“Climate trends in the last half century have exerted a measurable, negative drain on global grain production of about 5%.
— “A half-century of climate change in major agricultural regions: Trends, impacts, and surprises,” David B. Lobell and Stefania Di Tommaso,
May 5, 2025, PNAS 122 (20) e2502789122
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2502789122
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2512213122
So they modeled X% of growth and it came in below that. So of course they blame all of that on CO2. Nothing to do with a savage war in the two biggest bread baskets of the world–Russia and Ukraine. Meanwhile, grain production is growing robustly, vegetation worldwide is increasing, CO2 is estimated to have ’caused’ (enabled is more accurate) between 14% and 21% of this increase.
Two studies which conflict with the empirical evidence.
Both peer reviewed and published in prestigious science journals.
All the hallmarks of agenda driven junk science.
What is it that animates AGW global warming alarmists If not an animus toward American society? The Left believes personal ambition, industriousness, initiative, having a dream and working to make it come true — i.e., the creation of wealth in a free enterprise system that benefits free men and women and in turn all of society — should be discouraged and repressed for the public good.
AGW catastrophists on the left hate Dyson because, he wants the best for American society and has a deep respect for truth and honesty in science. “When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.” ~Freeman Dyson
W wrote:
The Left believes personal ambition, industriousness, initiative, having a dream and working to make it come true — i.e., the creation of wealth in a free enterprise system that benefits free men and women and in turn all of society — should be discouraged and repressed for the public good.
What’s your evidence for this claim?
Western academia’s AGW global warming alarmists say they believe that human activity has profoundly and dangerously altered the natural systems that control Earth’s climate. But… they don’t act like it.
And yet, they claim there’s a scientific consensus that recognizes climate change is driven by a combination of natural and human factors, but that human activity is the dominant cause of the current rapid warming trend. But…. they don’t act like it.
It is what Western Academia does and not what it claims that proves the AGW climate change conjecture is nothing more than a Left vs right issue– politics, not science.
AI observes…
A frequent critique of individual climate proponents, particularly celebrities, is the contrast between their public advocacy and their personal lifestyles, which often involve a large carbon footprint.
High-emission travel: High-profile individuals, such as former Vice President Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, have been criticized for using private jets or large motorcades to travel to climate-related conferences and events.
Lavish consumption: Critics point to the outsized energy consumption of large, multiple homes owned by some environmental advocates, arguing that their lifestyles are incongruent with their warnings about excessive resource use.
“Do as I say, not as I do”: Some activists have been accused of this attitude by taking actions that are not as environmentally friendly as they present them to be. For example, Greta Thunberg’s high-emission transatlantic travel arrangements were criticized for potentially generating more carbon than if she had simply flown.
IMO, nothing has yet beat the Lefts hypocrisy in Brazil; creating a four-lane highway cut through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest to build the COP30 climate summit complex. They advertised, as part of their prerequisite self-righteous duty, that the new highway was lined with solar powered street lights–it was beyond precious. No Greta sailboat up the Amazon river for that one.
Hard to top the 2016 IPCC meeting in Monaco. Foreign nationals who seek citizenship there must prove they’re so wealthy, gainful employment is unnecessary, and deposit the required amount (€500,000) in a bank in Monaco.
JT wrote:
IMO, nothing has yet beat the Lefts hypocrisy in Brazil; creating a four-lane highway cut through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest to build the COP30 climate summit complex.
Grok: “Although Brazil’s federal government, under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, is funding other COP30-related works (such as $81 million for airport expansion), it has explicitly stated that the highway is not part of its 33 federally planned projects and receives no federal funds.”
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_f85a60d0-1c56-454e-b4a7-b6883153dfef
So it was OK for advanced western countries to slash their forests to build up their economies, but it’s not OK for Brazil to do the same. Got it.
Are we currently living in a Hollywood-creation of Leftist melodrama… AGW Climate Change Noir? A fictional climate fiction emphasizing a bleak dystopian world caused by too much Americanism?
This Leftist Hollywood special uses the conventions of noir to forecast the social and environmental consequences of a climate destroyed by individual liberty and free market capitalism.
…The dystopian, decaying setting features rainy, smog-choked cityscapes followed by cloying and stifling hot asphalt cities. Theme AGW noir must amplifies environmental decay. The backdrop is a world ravaged by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and ecological collapse. Think of a detective searching for a missing person through flooded streets or a smuggler running precious, drought-resistant seeds.
…A “moral climate” as bleak as the weather and climate that they predict. Human morality has eroded along with the environment. Survival often comes at the cost of ethics, and characters are motivated by self-interest and desperation in a world where larger systems have failed.
…The flawed skeptic navigating a corrupted system where academic and political elites are responsible for preaching environmental catastrophe, often complicit in hiding the truth or profiting from fears of catastrophe, all while living high on the hog.
…The classic femme fatale should be perhaps an environmental activist but with a hidden agenda, e.g , perhaps, someone just trying to get by in the midst of all the Leftist political corruption, the result of intentional deception and greed by powerful interests pushing anti-Americanism.
Central to the drama should be, exposing a conspiracy to overthrow individualism and capitalism, playing on themes of guilt and an out-of-reach better future that communism would supposedly provide for the greater good, haunted by what has been lost—a world with clean air, stable weather with fewer cyclones, hurricanes, droughts, floods, earthquakes, sickness and poverty and neither a cold nor hot climate where all God’s creatures live happily naked, sustained only by clover and dewdrops.
Science is a process that relies on experimentation and statistical analysis of the data collected in those experiments. Most importantly however is Reproducibility of those Expermental Results and the resulting Statistical Analysis. Climate Science relies on only anti-science Peer Review, Concensus and Computer Models. If Climate Science was a real science they would define the Dependent Variable, in this case Temperature, and the Independent Variables, in this case CO2, and run experiments that isolate the impact of CO2 on Temperature. Basic Science 101. That would be extremely easy for any University Lab to Perform, either using Long-Pass IR Filters that isolate 15 Micron LWIR, or my simply concentrating the 15 LWIR emitted from Dry Ice onto a Bucket of Water or Sample of Gas. Those experiments aren’t done for a reason, because what will be found is that 15 Micron LWIR, the only wavelelgths related to CO2 that matter, simply won’t warm air or water. The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule don’t support CO2 being the cause of the warming. These Videos do a good job looking at the real science behind CO2, Temperature, and Climate Change. The causes are obvious.
https://app.screencast.com/JocbqECAHo84c
https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
Funny, I thought it was the natural selection and rigor of good science that takes care of (disproves) bad science.
It’s not a case of good science over bad science. The Piltdown Man, for example, was a hoax, not a case of bad science. The fossil was exposed, just as MM’s hockey stick was exposed, to be a deliberate, fraudulent concoction.
The rigor of good science is that bad science fails to reject the null hypothesis.
A hoax is not even ‘bad science’…
Just as MM’s ‘hockey stick’ does not even rise to the level of bad science…
“Funny, I thought it was the natural selection and rigor of good science that takes care of (disproves) bad science.”
Yes, that is what is expected of it. Which is why an explanation is required as to why a practice that the rest of the scientific and engineering community has known to avoid for many years now has somehow become normative practice within climate science, despite the early resistance exemplified by the FAR modeller quoted in my article. Clearly, when it comes to the handling of uncertainties, the good science isn’t having it all its own way within climatology.
Thanks, I think it is self-explanatory.
?
“ Internal climate variability will play a major role in determining change on regional scales under global warming. In the extratropics, large-scale atmospheric circulation is responsible for much of observed regional climate variability, from seasonal to multidecadal timescales. However, the extratropical circulation variability on multidecadal timescales is systematically weaker in coupled climate models. Here we show that projections of future extratropical climate from coupled model simulations significantly underestimate the projected uncertainty range originating from large-scale atmospheric circulation variability.”
This conclusion should be self evident and yet for some hard core alarmists it seems to be a bridge too far.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00268-7?fromPaywallRec=false
If someone wants to find literature identifying the uncertainties about past climates it is out there. But I understand why some would not want their belief system shaken too much.
“Global and hemispheric temperature reconstructions provide context for recent trends and extremes, but substantial uncertainties persist after more than two decades of research
The IPCC AR6 WG1 did not adequately convey uncertainties in reconstructions of hemispheric and global temperatures in the Common Era.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379122001688
I appreciate both of the links, cerescokid.
“Despite progress over the last several decades, temperatures during the first millennium of the Common Era remain highly uncertain due to a lack of high resolution proxy data, a feature of large-scale reconstructions that should be adequately reflected in uncertainty bounds and incorporated into analyses of this earlier period.
Evolve beyond the use of large-scale means – We advocate not only for quantification of the full range of uncertainties across multiple reconstructions of Common Era mean temperature, but also for continued focus on spatial reconstructions of past temperature … Evaluation of reconstructions in both space and time consistently show that the best skill is in the vicinity of highly sensitive (high signal-to-noise) proxies (Smerdon et al., 2011, 2016; Wang et al., 2015; Anchukaitis et al., 2017; King et al., 2021; Yun et al., 2021). In order to continue to develop spatial reconstructions, we call for the ongoing development of new temperature-sensitive proxy records spanning the Common Era, the continued refinement and use of proxy systems models (Evans et al., 2013; Dee et al., 2015), and formal methodological comparison experiments to better identify the cause of differences in reconstructions. Specifically, the continued challenge imposed by sparse temperature-sensitive high-resolution proxy networks in both tropical and Southern Hemisphere regions spanning the complete Common Era (Fig. 3) strongly limit what conclusions can be drawn about the climate of those latitudes and, as a consequence, call into question whether existing large-scale reconstructions can truly be considered global.”
Two very good studies on the paleo uncertainties.
“Despite progress over the last several decades, temperatures during the first millennium of the Common Era remain highly uncertain due to a lack of high resolution proxy data, ”
That is a variation of a comment I have made multiple times, While some of the proxies are high resolution, those high resolution proxies remain low resolution in comparison to instrument records.
John – Thanks for a well-written article. I just re-read it looking for explicit justification of your statement “…we now live in a world where it is common practice for climate scientists to confuse epistemic and aleatory uncertainty…” I didn’t find it. I would not be surprised if examples exist, but that statement, along with the charge that “many [climate scientists] deliberately ignore it because they recognise the expedience of pretending…etc.” requires more than the innuendo you provide.
Gavin Schmidt’s article, from 18 years ago, is a good one. Your readers here would do well to understand it. At the time, he was warning not to do what you are asserting is now “common practice”. My impression is that his warning was, in fact, for one reason or another, heeded. Convince me otherwise.
(Note: I’d rather not get into an argument about what constitutes “common practice”. I mean, does confusion about epistemic and aleatory uncertainty undermine basic conclusions of climate science or not?)
Hi Pat, is this the journal article you refer to? https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/publications/climate-simulations-1880-2003-giss it has 47 co-authors, I assume Hansen was the lead.
It doesn’t quite matter if it’s your referenced article, I wish to reference it here for my own reasons.
“Abstract. We carry out climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE driven by ten measured or estimated climate forcings. An ensemble of climate model runs is carried out for each forcing acting individually and for all forcing mechanisms acting together. We compare side-by-side simulated climate change for each forcing, all forcings, observations, unforced variability among model ensemble members, and, if available, observed variability. Discrepancies between observations and simulations with all forcings are due to model deficiencies, inaccurate or incomplete forcings, and imperfect observations. Although there are notable discrepancies between model and observations, the fidelity is sufficient to encourage use of the model for simulations of future climate change. By using a fixed well-documented model and accurately defining the 1880-2003 forcings, we aim to provide a benchmark against which the effect of improvements in the model, climate forcings, and observations can be tested. Principal model deficiencies include unrealistically weak tropical El Nino-like variability and a poor distribution of sea ice, with too much sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere and too little in the Southern Hemisphere. Greatest uncertainties in the forcings are the temporal and spatial variations of anthropogenic aerosols and their indirect effects on clouds.”
My questions are: why did this huge team choose 1880 as their start point? They described it as a benchmark period to use for improvements to their respective model. Considering that the worst El Niño in 148 years occurred in 1877, a black swan event no less, just three years prior to their stated model parameters; it didn’t occur to this team that the residual effects from the 1877 El Niño might have carry forward effects? They described principal model deficiencies to include unrealistically weak tropical El Nino-like variability; was the energy already spent?
JungleT – “…is this the journal article you refer to?”
No. I meant the Schmidt article referenced by John R (ref 4)
“…why did this huge team choose 1880 as their start point?”
I don’t know. Perhaps the answer is in the article, which I haven’t read. If the answer isn’t there, write a polite email to one of the authors and ask.
Pat c – While we have discussed the issue in prior threads,
The paucity of proxies in the SH reflects a variation of the epistemic uncertainty while the ability to ensure the proxy is a reasonable reflection of temp is a type of aleatory uncertainty.
As I have previously noted, quite a few proxies do a poor job of reflecting local events. This study for example seems to conflict with the written record. Granted its approximately 900m miles west, though significant differences in temps during a single season would be normal, but not for a 100-150 year period.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500806
The point is the uncertainties are significantly underappreciated in many areas of climate science.
Pat,
Thank you for your feedback. It is very much appreciated, particularly since it gives me an opportunity to clarify my arguments.
As I see it, there are two claims that I need to substantiate:
a) That a normative malpractice has emerged, despite the good advice given by the likes of Gavin Schmidt.
b) That the emergence is largely down to selection pressures that are acting against the advice.
I’d like to focus on the first claim for now and return to the second later, if I may.
The first point I think I need to make is that it isn’t just me making the claim for there being a normative practice; in my article it was actually the climate scientist Theodore G. Shepherd who said “but the practice continues to be normative (e.g. as in figure 1)”. I am disinclined to dismiss the testimony of someone who works at the heart of climate science as ‘innuendo’. Furthermore, when I asked Meta AI about the practice, it did not hesitate to confirm that it is commonplace, by saying “Climate scientists often treat model ensemble uncertainty as if it were aleatory uncertainty, using statistical methods designed for random variability.” Admittedly, it did not refer to the practice as ‘normative’, but it did offer a number of excuses for it that were tantamount to saying “what else can you expect the scientists to do?” Again, I think it would be unfair to dismiss the testimony of AI as being little more than innuendo. It instead suggests there is much in its training data that points to the reality of the problem.
And when you think about it, it isn’t surprising that both AI and expert alike should be making the claim, because every time you see a graph portraying the possible range of ECS values suggested by model ensembles, in which a probability distribution curve is used to suggest a skewed probabilistic uncertainty, someone has committed the cardinal sin that Gavin was trying to eradicate. Every time you see a graph showing a range of model projections for future warming, as predicted by a range of different models, with the spread used to suggest uncertainty, together with a mean trajectory highlighted, the same malpractice is on show. These graphic portrayals are not unusual – they are everywhere. There is a classic example to be found in the IPCC’s AR5, WG1, ‘The Physical Science Basis’, in which a single figure is used to portray the uncertainty ranges for natural variability, climate response uncertainty, emission uncertainty and historical GCM uncertainty, all of which are purported to be ‘90% uncertainty ranges’. This may be only one example, but this is the IPCC no less, not just making the mistake of portraying all uncertainties as though they can be treated as a measurement problem, but showcasing it! That alone, in my books, suggests that the practice has become normative.
As a further example, in his book, The Primacy of Doubt’, Professor Tim Palmer offers on page 121, a histogram illustrating the numbers of climate models that are predicting the various possible values for climate sensitivity (ECS), and for good measure he superimposes a probability density function to make clear the uncertainty indicated by the histogram. This seemed to him to be the most natural thing to do, and yet it is an obvious failure to heed the advice given by the FAR modeller quoted in my article — and, I might add, the advice given by Gavin Schmidt. Even if someone as pre-eminent as Tim Palmer has caught the bug, you’d better believe it is widespread.
So, in conclusion, I am quite confident that the evidence for a normative practice that is more pragmatic than valid is actually very strong – certainly more than innuendo. Whether this is due to ignorance or selection pressures is quite another matter. I intend returning to that question when I get more time.
Pat,
I now turn to your challenge to provide better evidence that the treatment of epistemic uncertainty as if it were aleatory is the result of selection pressure, i.e. scientists felt they had to comply in order to succeed.
The fact is that I don’t have much to offer, beyond that which is already provided in my essay, namely:
a) The FAR modeller alluded to such pressure when he said “What they were very keen for us to do at IPCC…”
b) Gavin Schmidt said “Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking probability distributions for regional climate changes are mounting…”
c) By way of its justification, the Meta AI said that the practice was deemed to facilitate ‘interpretation and communication…even if it’s not a perfect interpretation’, suggesting that external parties are looking for a particular portrayal of uncertainties; one that they feel they can understand. Simplification for the benefit of policy makers also seems to be what Professor Jeroen Pieter van der Sluijs had in mind when he said:
“Being the product of deterministic models, the 1.5°C to 4.5°C range is not a probability distribution. There have, nevertheless, been attempts to provide a ’best guess’ from the range. This has been regarded as a further useful simplification for policy-makers. However, non-specialists – such as policy-makers, journalists and other scientists – may have interpreted the range of climate sensitivity values as a virtual simulacrum of a probability distribution, the ’best guess’ becoming the ’most likely’ value.”
This might seem like weak beer to you, but for me, three pundits all pointing towards external pressures being placed upon scientists to treat uncertainties in a particular way is convincing enough. That may be because I have personal experiences of such pressures. To explain, I need to bore you with an anecdote:
You see, my concerns regarding the aleatory handling of epistemic uncertainties goes back a long way – much earlier than my lay interest in climate science. I was attending an in-house training course held by my employer’s ‘Best Practices Centre’. The course was being held by the company’s Director of Risk and he advised the attendees that it was required company practice to use Monte Carlo simulation to analyse the planning risks associated with our software development projects, i.e. use three-point estimations for each of the task duration estimates and then run Monte Carlo to generate a project out-turn curve portraying the range of probabilities for overall project durations. My experience of Monte Carlo up to that point had been limited to my student days when I learnt how it could help with modelling of the nucleus as part of my PhD in theoretical nuclear physics (which, incidentally, I did not complete). I knew, therefore, that it was meant to be used only for modelling aleatory systems. Since software project development risk was almost entirely predicated upon epistemic uncertainty, it was clearly the wrong tool for the job. The Director of Risk dismissed my concerns, as did the rest of the class, who did not appreciate me rocking the boat. After all, this was required practice we were talking about here. In the end, suitability did not come into it. My management was determined to receive “scientific-looking probability distributions”.
I’ve no doubt that this scenario — repeated in many risk management classes — explains why there is now a veritable industry based around selling Monte Carlo analysis tools designed specifically to aid in project planning. Check it out. It is all very professional and convincing – and all very wrongheaded. It had been a salutary lesson for me. When it comes to propagating and communicating uncertainties, one has to provide what is asked for, even when it is garbage. It doesn’t take much pressure for these malpractices to establish themselves as ‘best practice’ to be pushed by Directors of Risk and ignored at your peril.
I know this is all very anecdotal for you, and I wouldn’t blame you if you remain unimpressed. But we must all form judgements according to our experiences, and it is my judgement that talk of policy makers making demands that scientists obey despite their better judgment has a compelling plausibility. I have been that soldier.
The following is an interesting essay on the topic being discussed:
IPCC: the dirty tricks climate scientists faced in three decades since first report
https://theconversation.com/ipcc-the-dirty-tricks-climate-scientists-faced-in-three-decades-since-first-report-145126
Jungletrunks,
Except it is the typically partisan article you’d expect from the Conversation, in which all the dirty tricks are being perpetrated by ‘right-wing thinktanks’ and merchants of doubt. Nothing new there for this old codger.
John Ridgway | September 29, 2025 at 10:33 am |
“Except it is the typically partisan article ”
Thanks – good to see someone condemning both sides of bad science.
Hi John,
Oh yes, it’s definitely the partisan take, i.e., the “denier” language. What is interesting about it to me, in parts, is how it unwittingly discloses an aleatory of what select consensus decides is unscientific, their respective “scientific instincts”. Per Hansen: [we] “argue that the agonising efforts of scientists to avoid provoking accusations of alarmism have led to an innate optimism bias. The official science reported by the IPCC may in some cases be a cautious underestimate. It’s likely worse – much worse – than we think.” So if it’s actually likely worse than he thinks, then he hasn’t done the science to prove this assertion. Other climate scientists have done work that counters Hansen’s claims (the deniers).
Implicitly Hansen (among select consensus) just haven’t done enough science to prove just how wrong the deniers are. They just don’t get it, it’s much worse than even “us important believer scientists” think.
John – Thanks very much for your thoughtful responses, and, in particular, for highlighting the Shepard (ref 6) article.
I urge readers here to giver that article full attention. On the one hand, it offers some support for your assertion that, at least in some contexts, “it is common practice for climate scientists to confuse epistemic and aleatory uncertainty [3] by trying to treat the spread of model outputs as if dealing with a measurement problem that can be characterised using probability distributions.”
On the other hand, in my view, it contradicts your assertion that this practice is in any way a result of a ‘Natural Selection of Bad Science’. In fact, Shepherd explains in great detail why it has come about, not because climate scientists “…have to ignore any misgivings they might have and instead give the policy makers what they want…”, but due to the inherent problems associated with specifying the “appropriate level of uncertainty [while retaining] the relevant information about climate risk.”
Shepard’s article is particularly valuable for distinguishing where the rigorous expression of uncertainty for evaluating risk is a real problem (regional analysis and projections) and where it is less problematic (global aspects). Such difficulties in regional projections are well known, if not commonly explained as well as in Shepard’s article.
Shepard goes further and has recommendations on how to deal with the problems, which he succinctly characterizes as a trade-off between reliability and informativeness. His paper has already been cited almost 300 times (according to Google Scholar) and so is certainly not being ignored. It is worth perusing the articles that cite it to get a sense of how it is being applied.
And, of course, none of this undermines basic conclusions of climate science.
Thanks very much for bringing that paper to our attention. I learned quite a bit.
“… Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking..”
Love it.
Each time I read a few hundred words from the thousands of pages in IPCC6, which are repetitive of hundreds of words elsewhere in the document, in hundreds of iterations of saying the same thing for the hundredth time, I get the feeling their strategy is to impress by making it all look sciencey, if not sciencey in fact.
They could have said the same thing with 10% of the pages they used. But then who would that have impressed?
Pat,
Shepherd does not offer my explanation because he has no need of it for his purposes. He is specifically referring to circumstances in which variability is a dominant cause of uncertainty (i.e. when dealing with regional climatology) and so he recognises that aleatory methods would naturally be employed. He is rightly critical, nevertheless, that there is not enough recognition of the fact that the approach is compromised by the presence of epistemic uncertainties – uncertainties that shouldn’t be handled the same way. He is offering a different approach (storylines) that avoids such a compromise.
In my article, I also recognise this situation when I say:
“By way of mitigation, I should point out that many of the uncertainty analyses that are tackled by climate scientists involve an admixture of both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and the extent to which the former may dominate could lend a certain degree of legitimacy to the application of techniques developed to deal with the stochastic. However, this hardly condones the normative practices within climate science.”
None of this, however, has anything to do with the situation where multi-model ensemble uncertainty, dominated by the epistemic, is nevertheless treated as aleatory. Shepherd’s suggested explanation for why climate scientists turn to aleatory methodologies can’t possibly apply here. We can’t put it all down to pragmatic ignorance in the face of hybrid uncertainties. I firmly believe something else is going on. You will note that even Shepherd suggest this when he says “One of the reasons may be…” What the other possible reasons are, he doesn’t say.
Incidentally, I agree with your assessment of the importance of Shepherd’s paper. The advocacy of a storylines approach seems to have been successful if AR6 is anything to go by. However, I am not entirely happy with the manner in which it is being pushed by the IPCC, as I make clear in this article:
https://cliscep.com/2021/09/15/ar6-telling-stories-and-selling-ideas/
Cerescokid,
It is certainly true that a long-winded presentation fully of sciency graphs will always impress more.
John – “Shepherd does not offer my explanation because he has no need of it for his purposes.”
In fact, Shepherd offers two possible reasons why multi-model means are still used to estimate (or really, in most cases, to merely illustrate) uncertainty despite the lack of epistemological justification. Neither explanation invokes anything like a ’natural selection of bad science’. Nor does he impugn the integrity of his colleagues, as you are inclined to do.
So I find nothing in Shepherd’s article to support your opinion that “we are dealing here with a natural selection for bad science” or that climate scientists ignore statistical rigor because “they have careers and prestige to think about” or that they “ignore any misgivings they might have [to] give the policy makers what they want”.
In any case, it seems unlikely to me that confusion about aleatory and epistemic uncertainties reflects corruption of climate science by undue political influence. That would be a rather nuanced and ineffectual way to exert influence, I imagine. So I remain unconvinced of your premise.
Thanks for the informative and civil discussion.
Now I leave the thread for Physics Scientist, promoter of the “only correct physics published in world literature”. (Maybe there’s something there that we would agree on…. smiley face)
Pat,
I too appreciate that we have been able to politely exchange (what are on the face of it) significantly different viewpoints. It may seem churlish, therefore, that I should seek to take advantage by claiming the last word after you have declared your intention to withdraw from the debate. However, I feel there a few of points of clarification I still need to make:
“In fact, Shepherd offers two possible reasons why multi-model means are still used to estimate (or really, in most cases, to merely illustrate) uncertainty despite the lack of epistemological justification. Neither explanation invokes anything like a ’natural selection of bad science’.”
Yes, but I maintain that there is nothing in Shepherd’s speculations that could possibly justify why so many people choose to characterise the uncertainties associated with the ECS range by using a probability distribution curve. I’ve offered clear evidence that pressure was applied upon climate scientists to do it against their better judgement. And then they did it. Presupposing a causal link (at least in a significant number of cases) seems perfectly reasonable to me.
“Nor does he impugn the integrity of his colleagues, as you are inclined to do.”
I impugn no one’s integrity, other than accusing perfectly decent people of making perfectly understandable concessions in their scientific lives. Science in the real world requires pragmatism and compromise that sometimes has consequences that should be recognised. In this case, the compromise may have resulted in incorrect risk assessments being made (as my AI was ‘kind’ enough to confirm for me). Whatever you may think of my charitable disposition, or lack of it, the fact remains that multi-model ensemble uncertainty analyses are being routinely subjected to sub-optimal technique. Even Shepherd is agreeing with that. That’s why he much prefers the storyline approach.
“So I find nothing in Shepherd’s article to support your opinion…”
I don’t disagree with that. But you have also said that his article contradicts mine, which I don’t think it does.
“In any case, it seems unlikely to me that confusion about aleatory and epistemic uncertainties reflects corruption of climate science by undue political influence.”
We can certainly agree on that. I do hope that my article has not left the impression that I think the confusion is in any way politically fomented. As I say, there is no hoax here.
“So I remain unconvinced of your premise.”
And I am sure you are not alone. That’s all good. Thank you once more for having provided the opportunity to discuss the article further. If you change your mind and decide to respond, I would be more than happy to oblige.
And yes, we do agree on your final point. It is difficult to maintain a sensible, on-topic debate in a thread that is being carpet bombed by an off-topic debate founded upon a singular view of physics.
“In any case, it seems unlikely to me that confusion about aleatory and epistemic uncertainties reflects corruption of climate science by undue political influence.” I’m not sold…
Maybe not ‘undue’ just, due to… if not, outright charlatanism? Reminds me of all the TV nostrums advertising their efficacy for every imagined medical ailment and yet manage to skirt FDA regulations designed to protect the public from deceptive claims.
Wagathon,
I emphasise the lack of need for subterfuge, or indeed any large scale failing in integrity, so as to avoid unfair and unnecessary accusations of being anti-science. As soon as someone makes that accusation, you are subjected to a great deal of kickback and your real message is lost. But this is not a morality tale. What I need to impress is that normal scientists doing their job may still find themselves in compromised situations. The natural selection for bad science doesn’t require there to be bad people, only that a sub-optimal path assures success. In this instance, we are dealing with an organisation (the IPCC) that deals in probabilities – it is deemed the scientific thing to do and is necessary if one is to make statements regarding the scale of risk (Joachim Schellnhuber refers to the IPCC’s “Probability Obsession”). So any scientist who says “I have these multi-model ensemble outputs for you but let us not pretend that they indicate probabilities or uncertainty ranges” will be of little use to them. It is sub-optimal to engage in such a pretence but, as far as the IPCC is concerned, if you want to stay involved, that is what you are going to have to do. That’s all there is to it.
That said, at no point does my article suggest that a natural selection for bad science fully explains all the confusion that exists between the aleatory and the epistemic, only that such selection is a thing and that it has consequences worth considering.
Mathematically speaking, Western academia’s support of Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been like witchdoctors huddled around a green bubbling brew of magic potion; and, the IPCC’s use of Mann’s work for ideological purposes has made a mockery of science and the UN.
…’vastly deeper,’ i,e., more dense– the atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90-100 times greater than on Earth.
‘In the speculative discussion around the existence of an atmospheric natural greenhouse effect or the existence of an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect it is sometimes stated that the greenhouse effect could modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere. This conjecture is related to another popular but incorrect idea communicated by some proponents of the global warming hypothesis, namely the hypothesis that the temperatures of the Venus are due to a greenhouse effect. For instance, in their book “Der Klimawandel. Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie” (Climate Change. Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy) “two leading international experts”, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf, present a “compact and understandable review” of “climate change” to the general public. On page 32 they explicitly refer to the “power” of the “greenhouse effect” on the Venus. The claim of Rahmstorf and Schellhuber is that the high venusian surface temperatures somewhere between 400 and 500 Celsius degrees are due to an atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect. Of course, they are not. On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.
‘On the other hand, if one compares the temperature and pressure profiles of Venus and Earth, one immediately will see that they are both very similar. An important difference is the atmospheric pressure on the ground, which is approximately two orders higher than on the Earth. At 50 km altitude the venusian atmospheric pressure corresponds to the normal pressure on the Earth with temperatures at approximately 37 Celsius degrees. However, things are extremely complex (volcanic activities, clouds of sulfuric acid), such that we do not go in details here.’ (Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas…)
Pressure dwindles to near zero at the very center? Earth’s core is solid because the pressure is so great. It’s actually hotter than the molten outer core. It is presumed that the same applies to the Moon. It is a matter of conjecture. Whether the core of Venus is molten, or solid, or a combination of both…
You are creating a straw man to shoot down. The Earth’s core is hot due to residual heat from the planet’s formation, ongoing radioactive decay of elements like uranium and thorium, and frictional heat from the early iron catastrophe. While pressure is not a source of heat, it keeps the inner core solid at extremely high temperatures. (see e.g., AI)
Physics Scientist,
> ” The notion that back radiation accounts for twice the flux of incoming solar energy at the surface is not just questionable—it’s absurd. “
–
Of course it is an absurd !
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Regarding AI, I’ve had similar encounters where when challenged it quickly backs down … and it makes me wonder, is this really AI, or just Google with a new face.
There is definitely an element of circular logic. ‘Considering that the climate models are the only support for the AGW premise, and the AGW premise is the only support for the climate models, exposing this simple fabrication is all that needs to be done to put an end to this circular argument that forms the basis for the entire climate change lunacy.’ (Norm Kalmanovitch)
The Enlightenment, America, and the integrity of science has been stabbed in the back by Western academia. Secular, socialist, progressive envirowackos, dogmatic Eurocommies and liberal Utopians all are busy only in building altars to global warming catastrophism. They are the solvers of phony problems at the public expense.
Get some sleep Wags. Everything will be better in the morning.
We see is the certainty of the AGW believer is much like a child believes in Santa Claus. Schoolteachers are trying to tell children what to think not how to think. Of course, some of the believers feel compelled to deal with the absence of proof. and some even become skeptics and even embarassed at the hypocrisy of labeling modernity the fruit of the poisonous tree all while enjoyng the comfort and security of a government job and lifetime tenure.
The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that the moment they changed the argument from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ any chance for a reasoned scientific-based argument was forever lost. It is no surprise that climate changes–all scientists understand that climate will always change no matter what government scientists want you to think or do about it. “It would be newsworthy if climate stopped changing.” (Philip, Stott)
‘That is the truth,’ sure, sure if you forget about, e.g. ‘the residual energy left over from a planet’s formation and accretion, a significant source of heat in its core that originated from the kinetic energy of colliding rocks and dust, adiabatic compression, and heat from the differentiation process, such as the settling of the dense core. This heat has been slowly dissipating since the planet’s formation, but it remains a key factor in internal heat budgets and geological processes.’ (see, AI re: ‘Primordial Heat.’
Ask AI, true or false- as the core of the earth such as nickel and iron solidify due to the intense pressure the solidification liberates heat and an answer you will likely get is as follows:
‘The statement is true. As the core of the Earth solidifies, the process of solidification liberates heat.’
I especially enjoy the process of adiabatic compression– I drive a diesel.
‘When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing [excusing the corruption of MBH 98/ 99/ 06 (aka, the hockey stick], and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise… I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.’ ~Hal Lewis (Oct. 2010)
And yes, Wagathon, the AI I use rightly observes:
“This solidification process releases latent heat—energy that was previously stored in the liquid phase is liberated as the atoms lock into a solid lattice.”
But take careful note of the phrase “energy that was previously stored.” As I’ve explained, that energy didn’t arise spontaneously—it was originally imparted by the Sun, conveyed through the process of heat creep, which, by definition, operates only within a force field.
After all, how else could matter that began at a temperature near 2K suddenly exhibit energy? Are we to believe it conjured heat from nothing? That would defy both physics and common sense.
I note that you do not deign to read my proof that “heat creep” exists and supplies the missing energy that ignorant climatologists guessed must come from back radiation.
Others will read “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” as thousands have before them, but not yourself it would appear.
Try AI- Primordial Heat define…
‘Primordial heat is the internal heat energy accumulated by dissipation in a planet during its first few million years of evolution. The main contributions to the primordial heat are accretional energy – the energy deposited by infalling planetesimals – and differentiation energy. The latter is mainly released by core formation and is basically potential energy that is dissipated upon formation of a gravitationally stable layering of the planet. In addition to the primordial heat, the planet’s internal heat source is mainly provided by the radioactive decay of long-lived unstable isotopes such as 238U, 235U, 232Th, and 40K and by latent heat.’ ~ Doris Breuer
Your example of a piston rising no more than halfway up. The cylinder shaft would be less than the compression ratio of 10:1 More like the typical gasoline engine) but… the compression ratio for the air in a diesel engine typically ranges from 14:1 to 23:1, with many modern engines falling between 16:1 and 20:1.
Moreover, with the addition of a turbocharger (not unusual for a diesel), although the mechanical compression is not increased, the turbo does increase the compression of the air entering the cylinder.
Interestingly… diesel-electric locomotives are the dominant type of locomotive in the US, and they use a diesel engine to generate electricity that powers the electric traction motors that drive the wheels…
Does anyone believe you? Depending on the compression ratio and initial temperature of the air, the compressed air in a diesel engine reaches a temperature of about 932–1292 °F which is, ‘sufficient to cause the fuel to spontaneously ignite without the need for a spark plug, which is why a diesel is called a “compression ignition” engine.’
‘Within our Solar System, the only significant and sustained source of energy is the Sun’s radiation…’, but, the energy released from splitting an atom (nuclear fission) is due to the conversion of a small amount of mass into energy when an unstable atomic nucleus breaks into smaller, more stable parts. Solar radiation, on the other hand, is a form of electromagnetic energy that originates from the Sun’s nuclear fusion process, not from splitting atoms on Earth.
Take Venus, for example. Its maximum surface temperature hovers around 737 K, with estimates suggesting a slight dip—perhaps 5 degrees—on the equator during the four-month-long night. Even if that figure isn’t precise, some degree of cooling must occur on the dark side.
And so, during the four-month day, that same location must regain the lost thermal energy and return to 737 K.
But where does that energy come from?
The Sun is the obvious source. Yet nearly all incoming solar radiation is absorbed by Venus’s dense atmosphere before it ever reaches the surface. So how, precisely, does the required thermal energy penetrate and reheat the ground?
Contrast this with the Moon. Far more solar radiation reaches its surface directly, yet its maximum temperature rarely exceeds 400 K—consistent with both measurement and the Stefan–Boltzmann Law. Venus, somehow, achieves nearly double that, despite receiving less direct solar input.
The only correct explanation found anywhere in world literature involves the non-radiative “heat creep” process—a mechanism proven to exist and fully consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This process, and its implications for planetary energy transfer, are detailed in my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures, which remains the sole published work to account for Venus’s surface heating.
‘But where does that energy come from?’ Radioactive decay is a type of nuclear fission. Fission and fusion are opposite processes.
Now go back and answer the question about how a planet’s surface “knows” what temperature it should be.
I make no apology for tying you in knots, and that is because you refuse to learn from my very extensive post-graduate research and experience in physics since the early 1960s.
The rotational speed of Venus is relatively slow compared to the wind speed of the atmosphere, which is probably why the temperature on the dark side of Venus is not appreciably cooler than the sun side due to the relatively thick, dense atmosphere that effectively transfers– the surface temperatures remain nearly constant everywhere.
Wind speed up to 220 mph vs one venusian day lasting 243 Earth days.
Without an atmosphere, the side of Earth facing the Sun would be extremely hot with daytime temperatures of 200°F or more and night time temperatures dropping to -200°F. The big difference on Earth compared to e.g., Venus is due to the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere– water vapor.
Comparing atmospheric concentrations, the percent of water vapor as a greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, on average, is approximately 100 times greater than the percent of CO2. As mentioned, a hypothetical Earth with no atmosphere would be about 200° during the day… cooler than the moon’s sun-facing surface of about 250°– hotter there than on Earth because the Moon rotates more slowly.
Phys Scientist wrote:
Yet nowhere in the reports of the IPCC, nor on the websites of NASA, CSIRO, or the IPCC itself, is there any clear explanation of how their models actually calculate surface temperatures.
Wrong. This has also been covered in many papers through the years.
Average temperature is the average of area-weighted temperatures. Interpolated when no data in an area is available, like in Africa and the poles.
Pretty simple. Read the literature.
Physics Scientist wrote:
My paper doesn’t just acknowledge this—it explains why.
What journal published your paper? Can you please give its citation? Thanks.
Earth’s atmosphere gets warmed from the warmer surface upwards by convection.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now go back and answer the question about how a planet’s surface “knows” what temperature it should be.
I make no apology for tying you in knots, and that is because you refuse to learn from my very extensive post-graduate research and experience in physics since the early 1960s.
Physics Scientist wrote:
Now go back and answer the question about how a planet’s surface “knows” what temperature it should be.
Heat in minus heat out ??
Physics Scientitst,
>“Sorry, Christos, but correct physics can be used to show that the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface could not result in a global mean surface temperature above 233K.
–
Sorry, Physics Scientist, but I do not agree with you.
So, you are invited to visit my site, where I am sharing my views.
Please visit,
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
True, true… just as, for example, the hottest ever recorded temperature in Death Valley was 134°… cooler than the temperature of the ground which would have been much hotter- more like, 200°.
Thanks Physics Scientist, I’ve learned something, I think.
Gravity as a consequential perturbing force makes sense, if I understand it correctly. Using star formation as an example; essentially the force of gravity compresses volumes of hydrogen in space, kinetic energy and friction is generated from the compounding force of gravity on hydrogen, this generates increasing amounts of heat. If enough critical mass and heat on compressed hydrogen is reached, it initiates fusion. The gravity doesn’t create the heat, the kinetic energy and friction generated by the force of gravity, from compounding compression does. So gravity/compression is the perturbance to this end?
Finally, if you claim to possess an algorithm—grounded in the established laws of physics—that can quantify changes in Earth’s global mean surface temperature, then that same algorithm must also be capable of quantifying the current mean temperature in accordance with observed data. That is the minimum standard of scientific credibility.
Yet nowhere in the reports of the IPCC, nor on the websites of NASA, CSIRO, or the IPCC itself, is there any clear explanation of how their models actually derive surface temperatures. I have submitted multiple Freedom of Information requests, and not one agency has been able to point to such an explanation.
From their published energy diagrams, one can infer that they’ve attempted to apply the Stefan–Boltzmann Law—but they’ve done so incorrectly. Their models fail to account for variations in solar flux due to latitude, time of day, and seasonal changes. Worse still, their diagrams suggest a fundamental misunderstanding: they appear to believe that the Stefan–Boltzmann Law can be used to calculate surface temperatures from the net sum of solar and atmospheric radiation, minus non-radiative cooling. That is a profound error.
No wonder leading physicists—myself included—have called it pseudoscience. It’s not just flawed; it’s a scam, and an outright fraud.
More revelations about what climate scientists thought they knew turning out to not be correct in this recent study.
“ The contribution of Greenland Ice Sheet meltwater runoff to global sea-level rise is accelerating due to increased melting of its bare-ice ablation zone. There is growing evidence, however, that climate models overestimate runoff from this critical area of the ice sheet. Climate models traditionally assume that all bare-ice runoff enters the ocean, unlike porous firn, in which some meltwater is retained and/or refrozen. We used field measurements and numerical modeling to reveal that extensive retention and refreezing also occurs in bare glacier ice. We found that, from 2009 to 2018, meltwater refreezing in bare, porous glacier ice reduced runoff by an estimated 11–17 Gt a−1 in southwest Greenland alone, equivalent to 9–15% of this sector’s annual meltwater runoff simulated by climate models. This mass retention explains evidence from prior studies of runoff overestimation on bare ice by current generation climate models and may represent an overlooked buffer on projected runoff increases. Inclusion of bare-ice retention and refreezing processes in climate models therefore has immediate potential to improve forecasts of ice sheet runoff and its contribution to sea-level rise.”
I became aware of this potential inconsistency between models and observations from the Smith, 2015, study and it appears subsequent research has found the same thing.
It would be interesting to do a study on the various assumptions, estimates and understandings of our climate in 1990, FAR, and then compile all the studies that refined or provided better insights into what is actually going on rather than what was thought was going on.
Maybe if they would have waited for greater knowledge we wouldn’t have had so many failed predictions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62281-0
To better avoid the pitfall of cognitive bias? Seems to me more of a pattern, more like MM’s hockey stick– an outright hoax, i.e., a purposeful and knowing intention to mislead the public.
AI–> ‘The average surface temperature on Earth is around 15°C (59°F), and even the coldest recorded temperatures on Earth are far warmer than Uranus’s tropospheric extremes.’
Physics Scientist wrote:
Yet nowhere in the reports of the IPCC, nor on the websites of NASA, CSIRO, or the IPCC itself, is there any clear explanation of how their models actually derive surface temperatures.
They are not going to reply to your FOIAs because your question indicates you don’t understand climate models and haven’t taken the time to understand them. They see you as a crackpot who doesn’t know the science and hasn’t tried to understand it.
You gents need to stay on this planet.
CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperatures.
Going to other planets just feeds into the nonsense produced by the CO2 cult.
Happy to go with that…
Clint R wrote:
CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s surface temperatures.
Why not?
David Appell said:
“Why not?”
Because the atmosphere would have to be warmer than the surface in order to warm the surface. It might slow down the cooling rate of the surface but it can’t reverse the cooling of the surface and cause the temperature of the surface to go up.
Climate models struggle to capture reality. This is true for global overturning circulation of the oceans. The interrelationships that existed between the various mechanisms have been evolving during the geologic epochs and will continue to do so.
“ Climate models are essential tools for exploring the GOC, but they face persistent challenges. Models continue to exhibit large disagreements in how they simulate the GOC, especially in response to changing wind, tidal, and buoyancy forcing. Convection, overflows, and internal mixing processes remain poorly represented in climate models. Even increasing the model resolution does not guarantee improved realism—despite prohibitive computational costs. As a result, predictions for overturning strength in both modern and paleo-climate contexts vary widely across models leading to large uncertainties in projections of future heat and carbon transport. Of particular interest is the fate of the AMOC under future climate. The AMOC is predicted to weaken, but not collapse, according to most climate models. While the range of weakening by the end of the 21st century is very large, models predicting larger AMOC weakening are the ones associated with larger biases in ocean stratification. These discrepancies raise serious concerns about whether our current models can be trusted to predict the evolution of the GOC in the next century and beyond.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01185-8
Like the anchovy-cold/sardine-warm regime shifts that describe the alternating dominance of anchovy and sardine populations in the Pacific. This regime change occurs on decadal and sometimes centennial time scales (each cycle lasting approximately 50 years but also can last a century) are thought to be driven by changes in the climate that are affected by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which affects large-scale ocean currents and conditions and, throughout it all, humanity is just a long for the ride.
Another good link, cerescokid.
I go back to the 1877 El Niño, a black swan event, unrivaled since. There was a large temperature spike during this period (from global heat waves). A chart (showing the relevant period, including the hockey stick) was represented in IPCC’s 5th assessment report, the chart was smoothed out in the 6th report. Modelers use 1880 as the start point for climate models.
It defies logic that all the heat caused by natural variation, during this record El Niño, would dissipate into space. I imagine the heat would have dissipated in all directions, including the ocean via the convective process that Physics Scientist describes. The paper in your link says: “Climate models are essential tools for exploring the GOC, but they face persistent challenges.”
Physics Scientist will correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t his “heat creep”, induced temperature gradient argument continue in the ocean—gradually conveyed down through convective transfer? As long as atmospheric temperature remains relatively stable, I presume so.
Jungletrunks:
Regarding the 1877 “Black Swan” event, it occurred during the long American Business recession of Oct 1873-Mar 1879 (65 months)
Temperatures ALWAYS rise during American business recessions, because of idled smelters, factories, foundries, etc. that reduce the amount of dimming SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, increasing the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
Temperatures spiked at (-).01 deg C in 1878, due to the fallout of the volcanic SO2 aerosols from the VEI5 Askja eruption of Mar 29, 1875, which did further cleansing of the atmosphere.
The 1877 El Nino was entirely due to deceased levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution of the atmosphere. It ended because of the end of the recession, and subsequent volcanic eruptions.
Burl Henry wrote:
Temperatures ALWAYS rise during American business recessions
Hmm. You got data?
Burl Henry wrote:
Temperatures ALWAYS rise during American business recessions
The huge flaw is that Burl can’t explain how warming happens. An SO2 burst followed by clearing could only raise temperatures back to their original level.
Everyone understands this except Burl. Even children understand this. Ignore this charlatan.
“The huge flaw is that Burl can’t explain how warming happens. An SO2 burst followed by clearing could only raise temperatures back to their ORIGINAL level.”
That is not true if the SO2 burst only delays warming that is created annually by the state of some other variable. That is, if the temperature reacts to some other causative agent, then the long-term warming can resume once the inhibiting agent is removed.
“The issue is not a lack of evidence, but a widespread refusal to engage with it.”
You’ve made an impressive argument, Physics Scientist. As a layman I carry no weight in judgment of the science, however I do recognize eloquence when I see it. Like E = mc², while most can’t understand the work that what went into Einstein’s science, the concept in the end is so eloquent that most understand its basic principle. Your description of the Earth’s temperature mechanism is eloquent.
You have a mighty fight on your hands with the global cabal, scientist and nonscientist alike. The EU allocated 35% of their 2025 budget for climate action, this is just for starters. Follow the money. The West is dying at the hands of misappropriation.
I implore you to continue taking your fight to the climate-industrial complex. Hopefully benefactors will help you amplify your argument. Engage them. I want to hear all the arguments. Perhaps you can write a dedicated blog post here on CE. CE essays are often distributed around the world.
No probability forecast is complete without an estimate of its own irrelevance. ~Leonard Smith
Overstating the certainty of these forecasts of a Hot World growing, ever HOTTER if Western academia’s predictions of AGW climate change are ignored leads only to maladaption, like… building windmills in the ocean.
Indeed:
“Instead of presenting an ensemble of climate model runs as a true probability distribution, Smith argues it is more appropriate to acknowledge that all current models share fundamental weaknesses and are limited in their usefulness over long time horizons. This approach shifts the focus from an unrealistic “best guess” to a more honest assessment of risk and the boundaries of our predictive capabilities.”
The only problem is that Smith argues that the model limitations are such that we are probably underestimating the risk. This does not follow at all. We are just underestimating the uncertainties. As a consequence, he is advocating the precautionary principle in preference to classical risk analysis.
Underestimating uncertainty due to a potential black swan event is not advocating the precautionary principle.
‘What neither the IPCC, nor Mr. Ban, nor most media commentators seem to grasp is that the precautionary principle works both ways. Which is riskier, trying to follow the climate-change rhetoric of the IPCC and Green groups by warping world economics and politics to deal (impossibly) with climate change, or facing up to the economics and politics of the real world. Completely changing the world’s economic and political basis for something that actually may not happen – and will most certainly not occur exactly as predicted – is for me a much, much riskier proposition, especially when one takes into account the fact that there will be benefits, as well as problems, from climate changes. Just remember that, if one takes all the models that exist for climate change, not just those of the IPCC, the error bar is for a change of between -2 degrees Celsius to nearly 7 degrees Celsius (a nine degree Celsius error bar in all). Even I think that climate is likely to vary (all the time) within such a range. It tells us nothing. It is a tautology.’ (Philip Stott)
To be clear, I am not saying that underestimating uncertainty is advocating the precautionary principle. Instead, those who think the uncertainty has been underestimated will seek to invoke the precautionary principle because they equate heightened uncertainty with heightened risk. But this is uncertainty aversion, not risk aversion. Also I couldn’t agree more with Philip Stott. The precautionary principle does indeed work both ways.
True, borrowing from Rumsfeld’s decision matrix, the only ‘known unknowns’ is– as Western academics are busy spreading fears of human-caused climate change– will be the next time they will ignore a lazy sun that leads to the next easily observable 20-year long cooling trend…
Wagathon wrote:
Overstating the certainty of these forecasts of a Hot World growing, ever HOTTER if Western academia’s predictions of AGW climate change are ignored leads only to maladaption,
A while ago I spent a few minutes looking into your past comments.
As far as I can tell, with the help of Grok, you’re spent at least 15 years denying global warming. (How long has it really been?)
In that time, the globe has warmed by 0.6 C +/- 0.1 C. (NOAA global monthly data.)
How do you still justify your denialism?
AI, is the earth any warmer now than it was 1,000 years?
AI- “No.”
AI– ‘…While current temperatures are similar to the average temperature of the last millennium, they are not as warm as the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, which was approximately 1°C to 2°C warmer than the average temperature of that millennium.’
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/10/why_climate_models_fail.html
2025 continues the trend to be cooler than 2024. Ain’t gonna be the hottest year evah!
2024 Jan +0.80
2024 Feb +0.88
2024 Mar +0.88
2024 Apr +0.94
2024 May +0.78
2024 June +0.69
2024 July +0.74
2024 Aug +0.76
2024 Sep +0.81
AVG 0.81
2025 Jan +0.45
2025 Feb +0.50
2025 Mar +0.57
2025 Apr +0.61
2025 May +0.50
2025 June +0.48
2025 July +0.36
2025 Aug +0.39
2025 Sep +0.53
AVG: 0.49
Sorry for this trip down memory lane.
I’m watching unending discussions about uncertainties surrounding the emerging AI technology and its impact on labor markets and the unconscionable debates at the federal and state levels about unfinished budgets and the inevitable uncertainties about government policy including the future of society itself.
All that brought me back to my time in legislative hearings in the 1970s-1990s and how little time we spent on uncertainties. In retrospect life was simpler.
Specifically I was trying to remember if any of those hearings focused on models. Except for a reference to the latest swimsuit issue of SI I can’t remember a single mention of the word model during those hearings. There was never a philosophical discussion of uncertainties. Everything was tangible and urgent.
The reason for bringing this up is that I doubt these current legislative debates about AGW ever take a deep dive into how certain is certain and all the nuances of probabilities of catastrophic global warming. Just as each legislator had dozens of other interests and issues on the day of our hearings to address, AGW is a small part of a legislator’s responsibilities.
It seems there is a huge chasm between what is being discussed in the scientific community and what is being discussed in the ultimate public policymakers, legislative bodies. These kinds of essential questions are missing from the very places that they are most needed.
The AGW Climate Change regime was invented, nurtured and celebrated by politically-corrupted Western Academia to help the Left control the productive and Earth’s resources that to some might seem like fascism or a superstition but in all events, it’s anti-American.
Meanwhile China demonstrates communist flags around Philadelphia city hall to embarrass the U.S., and promote themselves within mainland China.
https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/30/philadelphia-raises-ccp-flag/
The Left has no concept of what fascism even means.
Wags working on his feeding AI project.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1020588
Physics Scientist wrote:
Why Climatology Models Fail: A Gravitational Perspective
What says they fail?
You know about this?
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
David Appell:
Are you really THAT stupid?
All of your questions/comments are answered in my post.
Burl Henry
David Appell:
Are you really THAT stupid?
No, I’m not stupid Burl.
Explain to me how a cooling from SO2, then a warming as the SO2 disperses, creates a temperature greater than the original temperature.
David Appell:
Also see my Research Gate article “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
And with respect to your comment that an SO2 burst following clearing could only raise temperatures back to their original level, higher temperatures are almost ALWAYS observed.
“SO2 bursts” occur when there is a volcanic eruption, and when their volcanic SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) eventually settle out, enough of them coalesce with, and flush out others in the troposphere, generally causing temperatures to rise enough higher than pre-existing temperatures to form an El Nino.
YOU are the charlatan on this site!
American Thinker??!!??
That’s your standard of science?
You can’t cite any peer reviewed papers?
Appell –
A – The article links directly to two peer reviewed papers
B – Its a little rich for you to condemn someone for the lack of peer reviewed citations when you have frequently cited peer reviewed studies on 1/5 deaths caused by fossil fuels and decline in agricultural yields due to co2 increases. The three studies you repetitively cite are some of the most insanely pieces of junk science ever produced, yet they carry the banner of “peer reviewed”
Physics Scientist: Typical response of a non-scientist suffering delusions of grandeur. You don’t fool real PhD physicists.
Wagathon – it’s better to point out that the Roman Warm Period (RWP) was warmer still than the MWP. This goes back further than that hockey stick. See the graphic lower right on this page of my website: https://climate-change-theory.com/images
The RWP could have been warmer than the MWP (though my link below is not so clear) however at the onset of the 4K2 event, which started in 2346bce it was warmer still near the ‘new’ tropics, as the below link shows. The earth had just changed tilt from 14.5 to ~25 deg.
Link; https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/
In the link (now more than 10yrs old data) at 2345bce it shows that temp increased at higher latitudes, exemplified by the steep rise at the poles at Gisp2 and Vostok, but decreased at low latitudes at Kilimanjaro. The latter was further exemplified by the research of Lonnie Thompson at Quelccaya ice cap, where he found abruptly frozen green vegetation, preserved for the past 4+ kyrs.
Quelccaya indicated that for such abrupt change the ice-cap had to be during and near summer solstice in the S/hemisphere. That is now confirmed. The date was 10 days before the winter solstice in N/hsphere.
There is a lot of data to be looked at. Earth changes take place abruptly. The stage during the interglacial has to be considered; it had been hotter some 2kyrs earlier in the interglacial. Ice loss over the past 6kyrs makes a difference to thermal absorption. There had also been obliquity -now known- shifts, thus making the old obliquity formulae erroneous.
I point this out because the Quelccaya curious evidence can now be explained thoroughly (but only in the past few days).
Something to think about.
I find it interesting that the Mayan civilization collapsed just before the MWP started, around 900CE. A primary reason for its collapse was climate change, long lasting drought. There’s no connection?
AI provides this empty response:
While both the MWP and the climate changes experienced by the Maya involved significant shifts in temperature and precipitation, their impacts were context-specific. The MWP allowed for agricultural expansion in some areas, while the Maya faced severe droughts that led to societal collapse. Understanding these differences highlights the complex relationship between climate and civilization.
Speculation, it seems like one could start building a case with the fact that oceans transport heat.
Jungletrunks: Go to link, bottom pic. The red curve (a sine wave in picture, but that is misleading since events occur abruptly. That curve needs to change eventually).
The origin of that is in this link:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/ it is fig 122 in that thread. I found that the roots of the curve correlated to the dates I had already from previous research – from many sources-.
The Mayan civilisation is not the only one. The Mediterranean had the same experience. The Mayan experience is alien to peoples from the old world, but the Mediterranean is not; a historical dark age. It is not known as the DACP for nothing. Nature and ignorance make a lethal pair. However for the past 2000 years it was relatively mild in comparison with 2000 years earlier.
This may be out-of-subject, but getting it wrong due to defective science may be very to extremely costly. Going back to the red curve, note that it is near a turning point. The down-slide has always been cruel and brutal. (And AI will tell you none of this, I’m sure).
I appreciate it, melitamegalithicm. Nice pic.
“The Mayan experience is alien to peoples from the old world”, It makes sense.
There’s a lot of cultural literature detailing conditions in Europe during the MWP, there’s very little detail about Mayan culture. Not withstanding, archaeology and anthropology run on tight budgets, climate science has an open purse.
I agree, “Nature and ignorance make a lethal pair… getting it wrong due to defective science may be very to extremely costly”. Unfortunately getting it wrong has already been costly, but it can certainly get much worse. It’s not just about the lack of climate knowledge, there’s the cascade effect from geopolitical destabilization that finds its way into geopolitical strategy—those taking advantage of the Wests decline. AGW is nothing compared to what a hot war would be.
There’s no excuse for out-of-sight, out-of-mind when it comes to science, especially on matters of the ignored obvious, simple common sense. unknown unknown ignorance in the trappings of science is the worst kind of known known.
The sine wave peaks, while sharp, cover a couple hundred years. “Peak heat” covers a narrow portion of the range; end stage peak would start with gradual cooling followed by a sharp year-over-year dropping temperature. I recall Valentina Zharkova’s prediction that cooling is eminent, though pinning it on a particular year would be impossible, I imagine.
that would be “imminent”
A small point “I recall Valentina Zharkova’s prediction that cooling is eminent/imminent”
That’s not how it works. Another link here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
Red curve (Eddy cycle) peaks are turning points. The link at year 173ce was one, but it misfired; ended relatively mild. The fluctuation of earth obliquity has been recorded. It left its mark in the sediment in the lower curve. This was a chance find, because it also indicates the 2346bce event. We do not have a long record of obliquity measurements, but from sediment the record can be made out much further back in time.
Yr 173ce was an Eddy peak. Near 2kyrs later (cycle is near 980 yrs but variable), the next one may not so far in the future. (the charts were made for my own research and are not helpful with the timeline)
melitamegalithicm, I appreciate the clarification, also your overall studies/knowledge on obliquity.
Is anyone aware of a paper that links Mayan climate change with the MWP?
I asked AI my earlier question more directly.
Hypothesis: Mayan Climate Change as a Catalyst for the Medieval Warm Period
The hypothesis proposes that significant climate changes experienced by the Maya civilization may have contributed to broader climatic shifts that facilitated the onset of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in Europe.
Key Components of the Hypothesis
1. Maya Climate Instability:
—The Maya civilization, which flourished from approximately 250 to 900 CE, endured a series of severe droughts and fluctuating rainfall patterns. Evidence from paleoclimate data, including sediment cores and tree rings, suggests that these droughts were exacerbated by natural climate variability.
—The resultant agricultural stress may have led to societal instability, migrations, and shifts in settlement patterns among the Mayan population.
2. Regional Climate Feedbacks:
—Human-induced land use practices, such as deforestation for agriculture, may have altered local climates, influencing regional weather patterns. This anthropogenic impact could have contributed to changes in temperature and precipitation that extended beyond the immediate Maya region.
—As the Maya altered their environment, such changes could have influenced the North Atlantic Oscillation and other climatic systems, triggering broader climatic shifts.
3. Transference of Climate Effects:
—The collapse of the Maya civilization, resulting from prolonged drought and social upheaval, could have coincided with shifts in oceanic and atmospheric circulation patterns. The weakening of the tropical systems might have paved the way for warmer conditions in the Northern Hemisphere.
—Evidence suggests that during the same period, Europe experienced changes leading to the MWP (approximately 950 to 1250 CE), which could have been influenced by these shifting wind and ocean currents.
4. Impacts of Volcanic Activity and Solar Cycles:
—Volcanic eruptions during the 9th century might have interacted with existing climatic conditions, impacting global temperatures and precipitation patterns. The cooling effects of such eruptions could have been followed by a warming phase, particularly influencing regions like Europe while intersecting with the longer-term effects of Maya environmental changes.
—Cycles of solar activity may have contributed to the warming experienced during the MWP. Variability in solar irradiance, coupled with the changes instigated by the Maya, could create synergies that amplify warming periods.
Conclusion
This hypothesis connects the climate instability experienced by the Maya civilization with potential broader climate shifts, suggesting that local changes can have cascading effects on global climatic patterns. Further research could involve climate modeling to simulate these interconnected systems and analyze the timing of events to provide concrete links between the Maya collapse and the onset of the Medieval Warm Period.
A follow-up question posed to AI relating to El Niño:
There is no direct evidence linking extraordinary strong El Niño events to the collapse of the Maya civilization. However, the Maya faced significant environmental challenges, including droughts and natural disasters, which may have been exacerbated by climate fluctuations, potentially including El Niño effects.
El Niño and the Maya Civilization Collapse
Overview of El Niño Events
El Niño is a climate pattern characterized by the warming of ocean surface temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean. It can lead to significant weather changes globally, including increased rainfall and droughts in various regions.
Impact of Environmental Factors
While specific records of extraordinary strong El Niño events during the time of the Maya civilization (around 900 CE) are not detailed, the civilization faced several environmental challenges that could have been exacerbated by such climate phenomena:
—Natural Disasters: The Maya experienced hurricanes, droughts, and floods, which disrupted their agricultural systems. These disasters would have been intensified by climate variability, including potential El Niño effects.
—Agricultural Dependence: The Maya relied heavily on agriculture, particularly maize. Extreme weather events could have led to crop failures and food shortages, contributing to societal stress.
Conclusion
Although there is no direct evidence linking specific El Niño events to the Maya collapse, the combination of natural disasters and environmental degradation likely played a significant role in their decline. Understanding these factors helps illustrate the vulnerability of civilizations to climate variability.
Jungletrunks:
AI has been fed incomplete information.
The onset of the MWP preceded the collapse of the Mayan (and other) civilizations.
It was caused by periods of 4 to 30 years between 950 and 1000 without any VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions (which reach the stratosphere), so much of the time there was nothing in the stratosphere to dim the incoming solar radiation, and temperatures soared.
This was the pattern over the entire 300-year MWP, for which there were only 31 such eruptions (13, 7,11 per century)
Burl, the MWP so far is a period with fuzzy edges based on my reading, though it wouldn’t have preceded the Maya period of climate change based on the literature I’ve reviewed (literature, not AI). It perhaps ran concurrently to South American warming by some amount, don’t know. It has yet to be unraveled by science.
The concept of a Medieval Warm Epoch (MWE) was first articulated by Lamb in 1965. Lamb based his argument almost exclusively on historical anecdotes and paleoclimatic data from western Europe. [largely why the MWP is defined as regional]
Since Lamb’s analysis, many new paleotemperature series have been produced. However, well-calibrated data sets with decadal or higher resolution are still only available for a few dozen locations… Only a few of these records are from the tropics, and only a handful from the Southern Hemisphere. Furthermore, some records provide estimates for a particular season, making comparisons with other (seasonally different) records problematic.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1090372
Said perspective makes no mention of Mayan climate change, which decidedly was a big event, the only question is how big is big. The evidence for Mayan climate change largely comes from anthropology/archaeology—there’s apparently little cross pollination of the sciences (we’ve certainly heard this from pure physics science as well). https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/changing-climate-and-maya/ I think there’s enough evidence to strongly suggest that the MWP was NOT a regional event.
Burl, I’ve respectfully acknowledged that you hold some of the truths for causation for climate variability, but only some IMO. We’re not going to agree beyond this.
JT
Not sure if this helps but some of the studies are interesting
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/23/5/2009jcli3080.1.xml
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/690046
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1057759
More
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1080444
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-earth-060115-012512
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ancient-mesoamerica/article/drought-and-the-maya-collapse/B6B6AE2657A4635D65D520142D402DC1
Other views
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00717-5?fromPaywallRec=false
Thanks much, cerescokid. The 3rd link in the 1st batch is interesting. It describes solar forcing specifically as causation for the collapse of the Maya; or at least a significant reason for it. I’ll get to the other links as I have time. I appreciate your interest on the subject. melitamegalithic studies solar cycles, I’d also be interested in his take on this paper.
A few abbreviated excerpts:
We conclude that a significant component of century-scale variability in Yucatan droughts is explained by solar forcing.
The record demonstrated that the period 800 to 1000 A.D. was the driest of the middle to late Holocene and that it coincided with the collapse of Classic Maya civilization in the 9th century A.D. The cause of this drought remained elusive…Here we present analyses from new Lake Chichancanab sediment cores and demonstrate that the terminal Classic drought was only one episode in a recurrent pattern of dry events that occurred during the past 2.6 millennia.
Yucatan droughts were stronger and more frequent before 1100 A.D., similar to observations in the United States northern Great Plains.
The most recent episode of gypsum deposition (750 to 1025 A.D.) supports our previous finding of prolonged drought between ∼800 and 1000 A.D. (2, 16), which coincided with the Classic Maya collapse (15, 17). The density record, which reflects the presence of gypsum, suggests two distinct events centered on 800 A.D. (terminal Classic) and 1020 A.D.
The mechanism by which changes in solar activity cause E/P shifts in Yucatan is not certain. An amplifying mechanism is required to obtain a significant climate response from rather small variations in solar output (27). Hypothesized mechanisms include changes in the ultraviolet part of the solar spectrum, which affects ozone production and stratospheric temperature structure (28), and the effect of cosmic ray intensity on cloud formation and precipitation (29). Sensitivity experiments conducted with atmospheric general circulation models imply that changes in solar output may affect global mean temperature, humidity, convection, and intensity of Hadley circulation in the tropics (30–32).
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1057759
Good discussion all of it relevant but in addition to it, from what I understand (and, MWP may certainly have been a part of it), the Maya didn’t really go anywhere. It’s just that their city-state, economic/social order (much like the ancient Greeks) was disrupted by years of drought, sometimes 3 years in a whack and sometimes even decadal disruptions that some link to the PDO. The Maya still existed at the time the Spanish showed up but were dispersed.
Another very interesting paper, also puts the spotlight on solar.
The ice-core evidence from Greenland indicates that around the time of the Maya Collapse, a minimum in solar insolation and a low in solar activity occurred, accompanied by severe cold and dryness over Greenland, indicating hemispheric climatic conditions propitious for drought in the Maya Lowlands. In the northeastern Caribbean, sea-surface salinity (SSS) was lowered. The most severe drought of the past 7,000 years devastated the Yucatan Peninsula. Large Maya cities collapsed in four phases of abandonment spaced about fifty years apart around A.D. 760, 810, 860, and 910. A new core taken from Lake Chichancanab in Quintana Roo shows three peak episodes of brutal drought within a 150- to 200-year drought. A marine core from the Cariaco Basin off Venezuela precisely dates four severe drought episodes to 760, 810, 860, and 910, coincident with the four phases of abandonment of cities. The long-term drought appears to have lasted from 760 to 930 in the Cariaco Basin. The climatic changes were the most drastic the Maya had faced in the preceding 1,500 years and the most severe of the preceding 7,000 years.
GLOBAL EVIDENCE OF DROUGHT
–Mesoamerican Droughts: A lake sediment core from La Piscina de Yuriría, Guanajuato, in central Mexico, shows farming activity in the region from approximately A.D. 300 to about 950. The pollen drops sharply after about 950 (±60), indicating a decrease in agricultural activity.
–Central and South American Droughts: There was an interval of peak microparticle concentration between A.D. 855 and 985, indicative of drought conditions in the Southern Hemisphere, at least around Quelcayya.
–African Drought: Manga Grasslands of northeastern Nigeria have determined that the most severe drought of the past 5,500 years occurred between A.D. 770 and 960.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ancient-mesoamerica/article/drought-and-the-maya-collapse/B6B6AE2657A4635D65D520142D402DC1
The paper goes on to describe a historical chronology of powerful droughts that’s quite interesting, up to 20th century North America. There’s a lot of interesting content that I’ll have to circle back around on.
Wagathon, take a look at the last post, a link cerescokid provided.
It does get into some Maya population movement: By about A.D. 1200, population levels in the north had recovered to the point that political integration and centralization could occur. The political hegemony of Mayapan lasted until about 1450–1454, when disaster again befell the Maya. Their major northern cities were abandoned during a severe drought. When the Spaniards arrived in A.D. 1528, they found petty, warring states with little political cohesion.
The interesting thing is that none of these papers try to connect South American, nor African drought with the MWP; though they discuss oceanic circulation and a number of other global mechanisms that could have contributed to “…climatic changes were the most drastic the Maya had faced in the preceding 1,500 years and the most severe of the preceding 7,000 years”.
That about covers it…. along with the disparate tribes that disappeared into the jungle to start a new life and the occasional virgin, sacrificed and left to die in a frozen cave high in the Andes to appease the gods.
The most that the relatively modern AGW climate change conjecture could ever legitimately entertain, given the early 20th-century Arctic warming period is that anthropogenic factors may have contributed, as opposed to has overridden, natural and internal climate variability. That current global warming can be primarily attributed human activity has never been anything more than a politically manufactured consensus of opinion of Western academia.
The Hot World catastrophists of Western Academia, comprised of the tens of thousands of government ciphers in the public-funded Education Complex, have dedicated themselves to the use of fear to bring about social upheaval.
I agree Wagathon. Though the Lefts goals for upheaval are exceedingly narrow minded, dreamy eyed in fact; to the point that the terms they think they control are instead strings pulled by more ambitious hands–the Western Left are sad pawns on an autopilot program.
This issue, like so many others that I have taken a deep dive into, doesn’t warrant the level of confidence that the establishment narrative conveys upon it. It’s similar to throwing open the curtain on the Wizard of Oz and finding out there is no there there.
And, that is because Western Academia’s Climate Change fearmongering is not science. It’s politics!
The Western academic witchdoctors of climate wizardry may mimic the more obvious elements of science but the legitimacy of science requires that we honor the facts. Global warming alarmism– abdicating respect for truth and justifying use of fear to motivate the masses– has been used by the Left as a means to achieve political desires; and, this is not something new in the history of humanity.
Jungletrunks:
There is nothing “iffy” about the MWP.
Simply noting that there were many periods when there were more than 4 years or, sometimes, decades, between VEI4 or larger eruptions, temperatures necessarily rose because there were no Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere to dim the solar radiation during those periods.
And being volcanic-related, as always, it is a given that temperatures around the world would have been similarly affected.
Decreasing atmospheric SO2 aerosols due to Clean Air and Net-Zero activities, and the low-sulfur fuels mandate for maritime shipping are the real cause of our warming climate, not the CO2 warming hoax!
Sorry, you don’t reference any of your claims. I’ll go with history and real scientists (e.g. Fourier and Arrhenius) and nearly 200 years of scientific advances since, over the musings of a wanna-be hobbyist.
https://www.co2.earth/25-stories/163-1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius
AGW climate change skepticism can only be said to be encouraged by the early work of Arrhenius’s early work indicating that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would cause significant warming, e.g., ‘In his famous 1896 paper, Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6°C. However, he later revised this estimate significantly downward to about 2.1°C after a colleague raised concerns. AGW skeptics point to this initial overestimation to imply the fundamental science is flawed and prone to exaggeration. Modern climate science has since shown that both Arrhenius’s early and later figures were based on incomplete understandings of the climate system.’
BA,
Here are some other names that would have been in this category in their time, initially laughed at or worse for their “musings”:
Galileo
Alfred Wegener
Ludwig Boltzman
Amedeo Avogadro
Gregor Mendel
Ignaz Semmelweis
John Polanyi/Theodore Maiman
Barry Marshall/Robin Warren
A small sampling of dismissed science/theory by those who you would characterize as THE real “scientists”. Many of these, began, as you say, with musings…
In addition to the post of J Anderton, a quote from the Rev A H Sayce “it is disagreeable to unlearn our knowledge, and to resign or modify the beliefs for which we have fought and laboured, because of the new evidence which has come to light. The evidence must be blinked and discredited; we refuse to accept it because certain unimportant details in regard to it have not yet been settled, or because we do not know whether it may not be supplemented by future discovery. We adopt the anti-scientific attitude of those who condemned Galileo, because our old beliefs have become convictions, and we do not wish them to be disturbed”.
JA,
Yes, Science has mechanisms for correcting the errors of its practitioners. It also has mechanisms for rejecting garbage.
JA, the musings of those you mention are all accepted science. Despite your and Douglas’ expectations, it doesn’t happen instantaneously.
Melita,
If some “knowledge” needs to be unlearned, it wasn’t knowledge in the first place.
True, true, but then, Western academia’s ‘consensus’ concerning the AGW conjecture wasn’t actually ‘knowledge’ to begin with. It was nothing more than politics, much like IPCC showcasing MM’s hockey stick.
Advert to a supposed consensus is a corruption of the language to hide a lack of science. Michael Crichton would remind us to notice, “where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
“If some “knowledge” needs to be unlearned, it wasn’t knowledge in the first place.”
This flight of logic maybe suggests the Earth is flat after all.
Otherwise, if consensus science is knowledge–how else can one challenge it if not from a position of the minority who’s challenging knowledge? In the example, when the minority is persecuted by evangelists for spreading lies, it suggests the flat Earth fact doesn’t need to be unlearned, it remains knowledge.
But maybe consensus climate science IS “the first place”.
Wearing robes doesn’t annoint knowledge. Religion/cults are very good with circular logic, now that’s a fact.
Anoint instead!
B.A. I invite you to read about G F Dodwell and his work on earth’s obliquity.
He was very right; he was very precise in his guesstimate. He could not go further in his day and his time. Instead science went along with a different ‘unproven’ opinion, which was very wrong – because it missed other more important driver inputs. The amount of peer reviewed papers based on a wrong mathematical ‘model’ for the change of obliquity is quite high. All that was derived from that is wrong.
One of the more famous ones is the Milankovitch theory. Large changes in obliquity also invoke large changes of precession, which debunks the theory. Of course, like Dodwell, he could not have known that in his day; he had been misled. If peer review becomes peer pressure,, — remember Galileo.
Melita, I have looked at Dodwell’s book:
https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Dodwell/Dodwell_Manuscript_1.html
particularly the data tables:
https://www.barrysetterfield.org/Dodwell/Dodwell_data.html
Therein, I see nothing other than normal slow precession of obliquity.
You are free to believe what you want, but you haven’t come close to convincing me. Good luck with your quest.
JT, thanks for your thoughts. Vacuous nonsense, as usual.
Sure Polly, what’s vacuous is the thin air you flap through.
JT, how typical – confronted on your nonsense, you start name-calling. Ciao, til next time.
Not name calling, Polly, what I say is not a pejorative, it’s just calling it as it is.
B.A. This started as an anomaly. Why all the megalithic calendars, at latitude 35.8N, the equinox to solstice angle was mainly about 18 degrees. Except the one in the link which started at 18 but was extended to ~29deg.
Link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/mnajdra-south-calendar-design/
(in later work, and with a model, I predicted the the solstice day some weeks in advance, to within 3 hrs, which current dogma says it cannot be done; see wiki>solstice determination)
Proof of precession came 10+ yrs later, in several unconnected sources but telling same story. Best here: https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah.11b.7?lang=bi
part quote “–the Holy One, Blessed be He, changed for them the acts of Creation, and instead of Kima setting, He caused the constellation of Kima to rise during the day and He removed two stars from Kima, and in this way He brought a flood to the world.” That is a ~150 degree precession. The same value is to be found in a different story in Sanskrit. Kima is the Pleiades; in the Sanskrit it is Krittika. Talmud give the change in time of rising; in Sanskrit it gives what appeared instead,
Previous to that I found out the same precession value using my old engineering maths.
B A, you may still not be convinced, but there are other who wish to know, and that is important. Sticking to the old dogma may one day spell disaster.
Melita, that’s right, I’m still not convinced. I’m still waiting for physical causality, Like I said, good luck.
“I’m still waiting for physical causality”. Squawk.
Why not a model, per your current faith?
JT, because any useful model is based on a presumed physical causality. Why do you have to behave like a stupid ass at every opportunity? Oh yeah, it is your faith – a substitute for lack of intellect. I appreciate every demonstration thereof. Squawk.
And there it is, for the bird “presumed” is causality. He spins on his perch and doesn’t understand his circular logic.
As regards the first ‘implausible assumption,’ water vapor alone Is said to comprise on average about 0.4% of the Earth’s atmosphere by volume although its concentration also is said to be highly variable, ‘ranging from near 0% in cold, dry areas to as much as 4% in humid, tropical regions.’ All considered, greenhouse gases are thought to comprise on average about 1% of Earth’s atmosphere.
Interestingly, as regards, thermodynamic prestidigitation, when putting the query to AI as to what percent of the Earth’s atmosphere would have to be comprised of water vapor to cause enough low clouds to reflect solar radiation and how much solar radiation would be reflected, the response was that the amount would be impossible to specify as it is the result of a dynamic feedback loop but did note that low clouds are capable of reflecting up to 90% of solar radiation.
“…then what should we expect when water vapor…is increased by a factor of 10 to 16?”
Rain?
Mr. Cotton,
Comparing water with well-mixed GHG’s; in particular spectroscopic properties, non-linear spatial response due to widely (and rapidly) varying concentration, phase transitions within earth’s temperature range, available reservoirs, and short atmospheric lifetime ,are just another demonstration of your ignorance (willful or otherwise). Thanks for that.
Mr Cotton (AKA physics scientist):
“If doubling carbon dioxide from 0.04% to 0.08% is said to cause measurable warming, then what should we expect when water vapor—already the dominant greenhouse gas—is increased by a factor of 10 to 16?”
You should expect to be dead: that much water vapor would require an average temperature of around 60 C.
Physics Scientist,
No, “Professor” would be incorrect. You could use Dr. (PhD Physics) if you like.
Where’s Judith?
Probably hiding in the embarrassed room after being used and discarded by Chris Wright.
It is evident that the physics curriculum of your alma mater did nothing to teach about civility and respect for one’s peers. Not unlike teaching a gorilla to count on its fingers and toes.
Ever seen a parrot in drag? Polly is Moly in drag. It’s hard to hide defrocked mange.
So, Clyde, are you trying to say that Dr. Curry and the other “truth warriors” were not used and then discarded by the Secretary of Energy. Or that it is simply impolite of me to mention it and the truth upsets you.
The bird squawks a talking point. Alas, that’s how parrots learn.
The bird believes Chris Wright is an antagonist to the DOE report. Sure, the bird will hen peck content out of context like peckers do.
“Among the key findings, the report concludes that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected.”
https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-issues-report-evaluating-impact-greenhouse-gasses-us-climate-invites
Wright:
“The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told—relentlessly—that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy.”
“We stand at the threshold of a new era of energy leadership,” Secretary Wright concluded. “If we empower innovation rather than restrain it, America can lead the world in providing more abundant energy—lifting billions out of poverty, strengthening our economy, and improving our environment along the way.”
The mantra of the birds roost? Hardly.
Civilizations come and go. The American experience, Western Europe… they’re just recent examples. We have more to fear from ourselves than the environment has to fear from us. The longest and most enduring memorial to humanity on a modest scale are some stone implements and on a grand scale the Egyptian pyramids and Great Wall of China. A thousand years from now a few restored gas pumps will be the only historical reminder of humanity’s flirtation with the idea of humanity’s God-given right to liberty.
Physics Scientist,
“The law applies to idealized blackbody radiation under steady-state conditions —”
–
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn’t apply to determine the surface temperature of the by EM energy irradiated black-body.
It is a mistaken assumption.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is about the heat transformation to EM energy emission law.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not about the EM energy transformation into heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Additionally, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is more directly, simply and tangibly applied to the asphalt surfaces of the urban jungle (the UHI effect) on the issue of the veracity of the data given the improper sighting and corrupting adjustments and adjustments to adjustments of official thermometers.
Physics Scientist,
“Yes, Christos, the equilibrium temperature of a radiating body can indeed be calculated from the electromagnetic flux using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law—”
–
It is a mistaken assumption. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn’t calculate the body’s temperature from the incident electromagnetic flux.
–
“otherwise, no equilibrium state could exist between incoming and outgoing radiation, such as for an object in space warmed by the Sun.”
–
The equilibrium state between incoming and outgoing radiation, such as for an object in space warmed by the Sun exists.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law is not applyable for calculating the equilibrium temperature.
The electromagnetic energy is not heat. The electromagnetic energy interacts with matter it is fallen on.
The not reflected fraction is not entirely absorbed as heat.
The great part of the not reflected fraction is consumed on the immediate IR emission.
Only a small portion of the not reflected fraction ends up being absorbed as heat.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law doesn’t describe the EM energy /surface matter interaction mechanism.
Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law cannot calculate the body’s equilibrium temperature by simply measuring the incident on the body EM energy flux.
Assuming it can is a mistake.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Scientist,
“if you know the incoming radiative flux and the emissivity, you can solve for the equilibrium temperature T by rearranging the formula. “
–
We are not justified rearranging the formula, because the S-B law doesn’t work backwards.
–
“It’s just so obvious because at equilibrium outward flux = inward flux. And which flux do you suppose determines the achieved temperature?”
No, it is not like this. The temperature developed in radiative equilibrium is not described by the S-B law rearranged formula.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Sdientist,
“Christos—if you genuinely believe climate models do not rely on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to quantify surface temperature increases attributed to the fictitious concept of “radiative forcing” ‘
–
The climate models do rely on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to quantify surface temperature increases attributed to the fictitious concept of “radiative forcing”.
–
And because of that, the climate models are utterly wrong, because climate models mistakenly assume the S-B law formula can be rearranged backwards.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Scientist,
“a striking match to the blackbody prediction based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law being used successfully to determine resulting temperatures from radiative flux.”
–
Yes, a striking match, but also it is a coincidence – because the S-B law formula cannot be rearranged backwards.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This “reverse” effect is not a contradiction but a natural consequence according to AI…
i.e., ‘The net flow of thermal energy is always from the hotter object to the colder one, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.’
Real world– ‘any object with a temperature above absolute zero both radiates and absorbs thermal energy simultaneously. The Stefan-Boltzmann law helps us calculate the balance between these two processes.’
Wagathon.
“Real world– ‘any object with a temperature above absolute zero both radiates and absorbs thermal energy simultaneously. The Stefan-Boltzmann law helps us calculate the balance between these two processes.’”
–
There is not thermal energy radiation. The by bodies emission of the IR EM energy is electromagnetic energy radiation.
And, the objects do not not transform incident EM energy into heat simultaneously.
–
Correction,
Instead “And, the objects do not not transform incident EM energy into heat simultaneously.”
Please read: “And, the objects do not not transform incident EM energy into heat spontaneously.”
Claims of a supposed ‘consensus’ among Western academics is nothing more than an excuse for outright lying about actual objectives as opposed to real science. ‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices.’ ~Philip Stott
Clyde Spenser.
NO, temperatures increase exactly as I explained.
If the land is warmer than the air, the land warms the air. If the air is warmer than the land, the air warms the land. That is the principle of heat transfer– energy moves from a warmer object to a cooler one through radiation, conduction, and convection.
… even when 3/4 of the Earth’s surface is covered by water or the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times denser than the atmosphere of Earth?
So the ‘planet rotational warming’ guy is arguing with the ‘ground-breaking paper, never refuted’ guy and the “Hot World catastrophists of Western Academia” guy about the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What about the ‘1877 El Niño’ guy and the ‘SO2 aerosol pollution’ guy and the ‘cataclysmic event at 2345bce’ guy; where do they stand on this? Where’s Judith? I guess John Ridgway went home.
…aka, the Stott guy– “The inconvenient truth remains,” according to Philip Stott, that “climate is the most complex, coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system known.” Like flipping a coin it will not matter if we devise a mathematical model to combine the data of the last 100 flips with a dataset reflecting the 100 flips before that — or even if you want to consider how many tails you got on the previous 1,000 flips — the odds for the next flip still will be 50-50.
Molly, you make a hotch potch mix of all that is on this thread. Meaning you understood none of my bit over here. Pity.
MM. I understand your “bit” here – I just don’t believe it.
What can I say? The data is clear; it is not an opinion; it is evidence, scientifically recognisable. No one is meant to believe it. You are expected to check it out. In line with the subject of this thread “Natural selection of bad science”.
Jacob Bronowski “It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it”; for ‘student’ read researcher/scientist .
Theodore Dalrymple “When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.”
“What can I say?” You can say what the physical causality is and then support it with physics based calculations.
You mean model. There is no physical causality.
Sorry, Marie (JT), you don’t get to define what I mean. You are just a fool. There is physical causality, whether there is a model or not.
Yes, Polly, there is a physical causation, it’s just that you haven’t described what it is.
Really that dense? No, I don’t know the physical causality for MM’s hypothesis. Apparently he doesn’t either, since I asked and he won’t answer. I guess jerking is more important than making sense for Marie.
Links were out of sync, but simply apply all my comments to your purpose on CE, causation–CO2 isn’t demonstrable physical causation except when exploited within models.
Let’s not put the cart before the horse.
Definition: “Physical causality means that all physical events have physical causes, following the laws of physics, with effects occurring after their causes.”
But first one needs to identify the ‘physical event’, in my case an large obliquity change. The science says it does not exist, based on a mathematical model\assumption, which is not evidence.
I point to the evidence which indicates otherwise (the horse in this case). The physical causality needs to be found afterwards (and that is another long story).
Compare to Global Warming. First was the evidence in the temperatures. That it is CO2, the physical causality, is still challenged. And rightly so. Because there are several other possibilities; and contrary indications to CO2 being the culprit.
” If a theory disagreed with the fact, you had to throw out the theory.”
You don’t sacrifice your virgins because it did not rain – especially if the clouds were heavily seeded elsewhere.
Marie, thanks, I already knew that you don’t understand.
MM: Horses, virgins, long stories that you are not able to tell … LMAO. Let us know when you publish something reviewed by astrophysicists.
Yes, Polly, there is a physical causation, it’s just that you haven’t described what it is.
Hey Marie, you finally get it. If something happens, there is a physical causation. I’m asking MM to provide one for his hypothesis – he can’t, I can’t, and neither can you. Have you broken your knee yet from excessive jerking there and other places?
It’s a tweaked model, not physical causation.
Marie, are you really that dense? Physical causality happens regardless if there is a human constructed model to describe it, or not. Models do not create causality, they only attempt to test and gain better understanding of it. Amazing how many idiots, including you, get that backwards.
Molly,
“I guess John Ridgway went home”
When I took the effort to write and post my article what do you think I had hoped to achieve? Was it a forum within which the points I had raised could be discussed? Or was it the opportunity for a particularly self-obsessed individual to deluge the thread with so many off-topic comments that any on-topic discussion would become hopelessly submerged? It wouldn’t be so bad but the vast majority of his comments are simply stating the same thing endlessly. The rest is just an unseemly bun fight.
So yes, I have gone home, leaving Mr Physics, or whatever he wishes to be known as, plenty of time to reflect upon just how ill-mannered, inconsiderate, and selfish one has to be to behave in such a manner. Not that I believe for a second he will.
If anyone wishes to see the calibre of comment I had hoped for, check out the contribution made by Pat Cassens.
Physics Scientist,
“at the point where solar radiation strikes the Moon perpendicularly—the subsolar point—we can estimate the surface temperature using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law. With a solar constant of approximately 1361 W/m² and a lunar albedo of 0.12, the absorbed flux yields a theoretical temperature of about 394 K. Empirical data from lunar missions such as Apollo and the Diviner Lunar Radiometer confirm this estimate: maximum daytime temperatures at the subsolar point typically range from 393 K to 400 K, a striking match to the blackbody prediction based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law being used successfully to determine resulting temperatures from radiative flux.”
(Emphasis added)
–
The example “at the point where solar radiation strikes the Moon perpendicularly—the subsolar point—we can estimate the surface temperature using the Stefan–Boltzmann Law.
That example is a coincidence, and only a coincidence. The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be applied backwards.
The Stefan_Boltzmann rearranged formula gives 394K. The formula ignores though, that at the “at the point where solar radiation strikes the Moon perpendicularly—the subsolar point” Moon’s surface absorbs heat most intensively.
When the rearranged S-B formula calculates 394K, matching the measured (393K to 400K), then the formula asserts there is not at that point any EM to heat transformation, so there is not at that point (where solar radiation strikes the Moon perpendicularly—the subsolar point) there is not any heat absorption.
But at the subsolar point the Moon’s surface absorbs heat most intensively.
That example is a coincidence, and only a coincidence. The matching result only confirms that the the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula cannot be applied backwards.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Scientist,
“where flux is proportional to T^4”
The outgoing flux is proportional to T^4.
When you measured the outgoing flux, you calculate the emitting temperature.
But it it not vise-vers rearrangement of the Syefan-Boltzmanemission lawformula – it is just reading the Law backwards.
Rearrangement is when you measure the incoming flux and trying to by the mistaken rearraangement to calculate the surface’s equilibrium temperature.
The S-B formula cannot be used backwards.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A small present for you:
T⁴ , J¹∕ ⁴ :)
And also,
ε -epsilon
and
σ – sigma
When Doug first appeared here awhile back, I asked the question of both of them, whether their views differed. My question got buried in the flurry of comments that day.
I got my answer.
and the incoming solar radiation is far too weak to account for the observed temperatures.
Again, Physics Scientists, the mistaken S-B rearranged formula doesn’t work, because it doesn’t apply backwards, it doesn’t apply to the incoming EM flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
the incident solar radiationis nowhere near sufficient to account for the observed global mean surface temperatures. If you can’t explain where the surface got the required energy, how can you claim it warms the atmosphere?
(Emphasis added)
–
Thank you, Physiscs Scientist!
The Rotationak Warming Phenomenon explains where the surface gets the required energy.
When EM energy hits a surface, part of it gets reflected, part of it gets instantly IR emitted (the immediate IR emission),
And part of it gets transformed into heat and absorbed in inner layers.
The immediate IR emission varies, depending on the surface’s the (N*cp) product, but there is always some level of the immediate IR emission present.
For a planet or moon with a higher the (N*cp) product the immediate IR emission is lower. So the energy absorbed as heat is higher.
It is the reason Earth’s average surface temperature is higher than Moon’s.
Atmosphere doesn’t warm Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The true cost of green energy it too much to bear.
NEOS has today confirmed the intention to shut two production units in Rheinberg, Germany. The closures are the direct result of crippling energy and carbon costs, and a lack of tariff protection.
Chemicals giant Ineos Group is cutting 60 jobs — about 20% of the workforce — at a plant in Hull, England due to high energy costs and cheap imports from China.
…
The UK and Europe are “sleepwalking into de-industrialization,” Ineos said in a statement…”
Links to follow.
Links for the above quotes:
LINK(1):ineos.com/news/shared-news/ineos-to-close-two-rheinberg-plants-as-europes-chemical-industry-hits-breaking-point/
LINK(2):bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-07/chemicals-giant-ineos-cuts-jobs-at-uk-plant-on-hit-from-imports
Thanks, Jim, I’m more interested it the effects of loosing a million government jobs and contracts that keep this country running. Yes, JT, it is a sad state of affairs, and becoming worse every day.
Quite literally trillions of dollars are starting to flow into the US today. Companies are moving to the US. The pathetic whine that gov is losing jobs—the Illiterate, brainwashed notion that this is what keeps the economy going is cult hogwash.
Without the US the EU would have gone under decades ago, the socialistic model never has worked, never will. In fact, China would also be a shell if capitalism hadn’t, sadly, subsidized its growth.
A country needs markets to generate wealth, the US is the largest consumer market in the world, if you think China has levitated its economy on its own consumerism, you’re beyond hope.
Physics Scientist said: “In case you missed it Mr Bradshaw …
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1020785.
I didn’t miss it. My name is (Dr.) Bruce Andrew Bushaw. I use B A Bushaw here because that is what I published under. If you are able, you can find me on ResearchGate.
Go ahead, give real references to any peer-reviewed publications you have. I am so impressed: 20k views of uploaded but unpublished manuscripts, with 10 whole citations, most of which are self-citations. Must be very frustrating for a self-aggrandizing narcissist, to be ignored by the scientific community, Mr. Cotton.
It’s a sad state of affairs, Jim.
Per post upthread: The EU allocated 35% of their 2025 budget for climate action.
An example of following the money down a rabbit hole. The Ukraine/Russian war happened because Putin feels no threat. The U.S. can’t fund most of the Wests defense, it’s a large part of why we’re $37 trillion in debt. Defense, and lenient trade terms going on since the Marshall Plan was adopted.
The West is dying at the hands of misappropriation.
Eurocommunism has been more than academic. It’s been an ungodly anti-humanism! We all must ask, was America ambushed by academia? They killed the scientific method and with its death we must question everything as we all stray through an infinite nothing.
Uploading ‘preprints’ or drafts to Researchgate or SSRN does not qualify as publication, much less peer-reviewed publication.
I’m sorry, Mr. Cotton, I didn’t realize your first name was “Physics”. I’d be glad to call you “Physics Cotton”. You can call me Bruce if initials upset you.
And you need to go back and understand the difference between an unreviewed uploaded manuscript and a publication.
Publication is god for Leftist gatekeepers, the approved scientific password to cross the River Styx.
Australian time may reveal a more robust route, a paddle with better chops.
Marie, not god, just an essential part of science, where you have not made any contribution.
Pollt, your goal remains elusive, it’s not physical in nature.
No elusive goal – understanding how little the majority of anti-science rejectionists actually understand science. Goal already reached – damn little.
Co2 causation is a tweaked to death model. Everything you parrot is tweet tweaked.
Marie, We’re not talking about CO2 models, we’re talking about astrophysics. No surprise that you feel the need to deflect, since it highly likely that you don’t understand either.
Nietzsche wrote in in the 19th century about what we face today —see, The Gay Science, e.g.: “But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers… God is dead.”
In brief, from the age of enlightenment we have emerged into the philosophy of post-modernism which sets aside evidence as the authority and asserts that the `truth’ is what you believe – if you believe it, then it is your `truth’. Importantly all opinions are to be given equal authority irrespective of the where the evidence may lie. These ideas have progressed to what is now called `Post Normal Science’. This holds that science is subservient to the story that must be told. The role of science is no longer about discovering new `truth’ but supporting the `story’ which is perceived to be the truth. This gives rise to the notion of “noble-cause science”, which allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is noble. We have seen evidence of this in the climate change debate. (Doug Edmeades)
That we’re dealing with the AGW Climate Change corruption of Western Academia is a political scandal, sure but… it also is a betrayal of science.
Bob Carter pointed to what has been missing– independent verification: “the essence of scientific methodology is the free sharing of data, and the unfettered and unprejudiced discussion of those data. Issuing statements of ‘consensus’ or ‘authority’ is antithetical to good science, and especially so in circumstances where the originating organizations have been established with political intent, have acted to restrict public debate or have a financial conflict of interest. Those familiar with the global warming issue will know that (IPCC) authority rules, despite it being well known that some IPCC practitioners of warming alarmism have flouted correct scientific procedures since the 1990s. And, anyway, a science truth is so not because the IPCC, the Royal Society or the Minister for Science asserts it to be so, but because it is based upon a hypothesis that has survived repeated testing by many independent scientists.”
50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50 | American Enterprise Institute – AEI
https://share.google/DXNG0rlUzj9pmUDFH
What in the disinformation age will be added next to the politically correct government list of environmental toxic and noxious substances: dihydrogen monoxide?
Happens daily– the direction of the heat flow between land and air changes constantly throughout the day and night, e.g., during the day the sun warms the land faster than the air and the warmer land then transfers heat to the cooler air (a process known as, conduction), which rises, carrying heat upward (in a process known as convection).
So far as I am aware, this process has never failed, just as during the night, land cools down faster than air and the transfer of heat reverses, i.e., the warmer air near the surface gives off heat to the cooler ground (again… conduction).
You do not believe the Sun is the main source of heat that warms the Earth’s surface each morning. Got it.
Penn and Teller petitition on banning dihydrogen monoxide…
dang! … they’re even filling our toilets with it?
Thank you, Physics Scientist, for your mail.
Only 320K? The ‘why’ is described by, adiabatic process.
Mr. Cotton, thanks for your thoughts – they confirm my initial impression.
What paper? I’m not really interested in Uranus.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1020791
Some of the discussions here are a great example of the shortcomings to be expected when using AI. An instance of this, for example, is encountered when analyzing the explanation for the anomalously high temperature of the troposphere of Uranus.
AI agreeably understands that some of his answers are based on an outdated view that in this instance is, the prevailing view view prior to 2025.
‘For decades, scientists believed that Uranus had a relatively inactive, cold interior. This view was largely based on the data collected during the Voyager 2 flyby in 1986, which showed that the planet radiated roughly the same amount of energy as it received from the sun. This was a major puzzle, as the other giant planets—Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune—all emit significantly more heat than they absorb, indicating they still retain heat from their formation.’
GIGO- but, as AI now freely distributes, ‘New findings: The new analysis revealed that Uranus radiates approximately 12.5% to 15% more heat than it receives from the sun. This proves that the planet is still slowly losing internal heat left over from its formation.’
So, it’s not surprising that some may be unable to accept the idea that the anomalously high temperature of the troposphere of Uranus is due adiabatic process.
Nevertheless, for example, the air compressed in a cylinder by a piston heats. The how and why is the adiabatic process.
e.g., a diesel engine with a compression ratio of 16:1 can heat the air to a temperature high enough to ignite fuel without a spark plug.
‘One real-world calculation showed that compressing air from 15 psi to 3,500 psi could theoretically heat it from room temperature to over 2,000°F (1,093°C).’
So, \(1,093\degree C\) is equal to \(1,366.15\) Kelvin.
That given, AI also has an updated view of things (depending on how you ask a question) as follows:
‘Why Uranus’s outer atmosphere is so warm
‘Recent findings from 2024–2025 have shed new light on the heating mechanism of Uranus’s upper atmosphere, specifically its thermosphere.
‘Solar wind influence: For distant planets like Uranus, the solar wind appears to be the dominant factor in controlling the temperature of the upper atmosphere. In contrast, for closer planets like Earth, stellar radiation (starlight) is the main heat source.
‘Magnetosphere changes: The temperature of Uranus’s thermosphere has been observed to decline over several decades, mirroring a long-term decrease in the pressure of the solar wind. This correlation suggests that as the solar wind’s pressure decreases, Uranus’s protective magnetic bubble, or magnetosphere, expands. A larger magnetosphere makes it more difficult for the solar wind to reach the planet, resulting in less heating.
‘Energy transfer: The energy from the solar wind flows through the space around the planet and is ultimately deposited into the upper atmosphere, or thermosphere, controlling its temperature.’
Moreover, based on the latest 2024-2025 new info, the explanation for the anomalously high heat is due neither to the inner core of the planet nor adiabatic process but instead, solar wind.
Even so, apparently much is still in question. While the role of solar wind was seemingly a breakthrough in 2024, by 2025 it appears that that the solar wind Idea fails to explain the cooling trend of the extremely high temperatures to begin with. Looking for other mechanisms to explain this new reality, It is now believed the interaction of auroral activity with charged particles may be the answer to the mystery about why temperature of Uranus’s thermosphere it’s so hot but, is also undergoing cooling.
… and, the beat goes on.
Andrew dressler wrote a critique of the attribution and emergence errors in the DOE report. There was a critique of Dressler’s critique which pointed out that Dressler critique was using the wrong criteria / metrics in his critique which basically invalided his condemnation of that portion of the DOE report.
Does anyone have a link to the rebuttal of Dresslers critique
Joe, His last name is Dessler. That might help your search. Also, Dr. Curry gives an extended response to the Dessler & Kopp (editors) review in her Sept 2 blog here on CE:
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/02/doe-climate-assessment-report-feedback/
Note, at that time, Dr. Curry said the CWG was “on hold” for legal reasons. The next day, Sept 3, The CWP was disbanded – an implicit admission that the group was improperly formed, as acknowledged by Dr. Curry.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/disbanded-doe-climate-group-vows-to-continue-work/
AI isn’t buying it but, as we know from the discussion above, AI should never be considered the definitive authority on any issue, right?
‘The idea that the atmosphere is warmed by “heat creep” from the sun heating the upper atmosphere downwards is incorrect and scientifically unsupported. This concept is a fallacy that fundamentally misunderstands the principles of atmospheric heating and heat transfer. In reality, the lower atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up, not the top down.’
Part of the misunderstanding may be that Uranus is not actually a gas giant but an ice giant with a solid rocky core, just like Earth, which is solid and puts out heat, just like the Earth.
In proportion to the size of the planet, Uranus’s rocky core is relatively small compared to that of Earth. However, Uranus is so large that it’s smaller rocky core is still, roughly the size of the planet Earth in its entirety!
A day on Venus is 243 Earth days…
The atmospheric pressure on Venus is about 90 to 92 times greater than on Earth…
Water vapor makes up only about 0.002% of Venus’s atmosphere…
Venus’s atmosphere is over 96.5% carbon dioxide…
…and, The rest is nitrogen.
When it rains on Venus, it rains sulfuric acid…
AI says that Venus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system…
Physics Scientists,
“is somehow responsible for heating it to temperatures several hundred degrees above what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law would predict?”
–
Adain that mistaken fundamental assertion – again considering the Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law backwards!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Scientist,
“Hit “Calculate” and get the temperature of 140.70227 K.
But the Venus surface temperature is over 700K and so there’s not even been another “coincidence.”
So glad to help.
I’ll say good-bye to you – so don’t worry about thanking me.”
“You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Physics Scientist:
In spite of your claims, Heat Creep is a non-existent process, at least here on Earth, which is all that really matters.
Earth’s climate is, and back through the Ice Ages, has been totally controlled by the presence or absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere.
If there are few, or none, our climate heats up, as during the MWP. If there are many, as during the LIA, our climate cools down.
More recently, industrial SO2 aerosol pollution ha also been driving temperature changes, causing cooling when they increase, and warming when they decrease.
So, the Control Knob for our climate is simply the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere. This is irrefutable!
Now that Physics Scientist has declared his innings, I’d like to take the opportunity to say how utterly frustrating it has been that one person decided to deluge the thread with copious off-topic comments that submerged any attempt by others to discuss the matters that actually have relevance to the article. I consider it to have been an ill-mannered and selfish indulgence. Yes, anyone is welcome to comment as they see fit, but that hospitality is abused when the off-topic rant extends to hundreds of comments.
John, for my part I’m sorry to have veered the discussion off course. And for the bun fight, as Tony B used to call them (miss his presence, btw). But I agree with Joe K, your essay is one of the more informative, and interesting recently.
No, this thread is about the emergence of sub-optimal methods within climate science for the handling of uncertainty. Every single one of your comments (a number that now amounts to well over 100) has been off-topic and unhelpful. If you want to endlessly re-itterate your pet theory then fine, but I would much prefer that you to do it elsewhere. Do not kid yourself that your behaviour has been anything other than utterly selfish and tediously self-obsessed.
Physics Scientist wrote:
I’ve devoted thousands of unpaid hours to this work, driven by principle and altruistic motives, not profit.
In what journals have you published these findings? For, you know, the scientific communities to scrutinize?
Physics Scientist wrote:
This thread is about “Bad Science”—and few claims fit that label more precisely than the notion that greenhouse gases warm planetary surfaces. That idea is pseudoscience, plain and simple.
OK, now I see what this PS guy is: a clown. So, so many of them. So sure they’re right. It’s not so much sad as comical.
Physics Scientist:
In spite of your comments, Heat Creep does NOT exist, at least here on Earth, which is all that really matters
All of Earth’s temperatures, back through the Ice Ages, have been totally controlled by the amount of dimming volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution in the stratosphere.
If there are few, or none, as during the MWP, temperatures increase.
If there are many, as during the LIA, temperatures decrease.
More recently, temperatures have also been affected by the amount of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, decreasing when it increases, and increasing when it decreases.
This is irrefutable, making the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere the Control Knob for our climate!
Physics Scientist wrote:
The notion that greenhouse gases warm planetary surfaces is pseudoscience, plain and simple.
But why haven’t you published this? This finding would absolutely win a Nobel Prize. You’d be famous forever, recognized as a pure genius.
You are right about AI indicating that the “heat creep” theory is a ‘faulty and erroneous concept’ that, ‘violates the second law of thermodynamics.’
Oddly (One of the more hilarious aspects of AI) is the following–
‘Because the term (i.e., ” heat creep”) is used by a climate denier in an unscientific context, an AI model that synthesizes information may connect the phrase “heat creep” with global warming denial.’ But, it obviously is not ‘connected’ in any way, as, if believed, actually supports global warming catastrophists’ notions that increased atmospheric CO2 on the extreme will create a surface on Earth that’s hot enough to melt lead… as we see on the planet Venus.
Interestingly, AI does acknowledge that because “heat creep” is a term that is, ‘used by a climate denier in an unscientific context, an AI model that synthesizes information may connect the phrase “heat creep” with global warming denial,’ which of course is ridiculous because it would actually support fears of a Hot World getting hotter and hotter because of increased atmospheric CO2, no?
AI does acknowledge that because “heat creep” is a term that is, ‘used by a climate denier in an unscientific context, an AI model that synthesizes information may connect the phrase “heat creep” with global warming denial,’ which of course is ridiculous because it would actually support fears of a Hot World getting hotter and hotter because of increased atmospheric CO2, no?
fwiw – John R – your article has been one of the better and more informative articles/discussions in quite a while. Dealing with uncertainties and the over confidence exhibited throughout climate science by climate scientists and many other areas of science (medical studies for example).
Global warming has never been about the science. AGW theory is code for an international war on Americanism with its deepest roots in America itself. Global warming is an environmental whacko movement that has been taken over by the Leftist-liberal wing of the Democrat Party in America with its collectivist creed that demands the sacrifice of personal responsibility on an altar of amoral dogma aimed at bringing about an imaginary Utopian world in their image.
One example of ‘bad science’ is uploading unreviewed manuscripts to public PDF repositories, and then representing them as peer-reviewed science publications.
That’s precisely why I ensured my 2012 paper, Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, underwent formal peer review—and I named all three reviewers at its conclusion. That paper alone demonstrates, unequivocally, that “radiative forcing” is a myth. Across my body of work, thousands have reviewed my papers online without producing a single valid refutation—far more scrutiny than the handful of climatologists who, like yourself, have been indoctrinated with pseudoscience that disregards long-established physical laws. And unlike the AGW conjecture, those laws have been rigorously peer-reviewed.
Yes, you make it apparent that you don’t even know, and have never experienced, blind peer-review. It is not asking old acquaintances for commentary. To what journal did you submitted your manuscript? Who did they assign as peer reviewers? Did they publish it?
I would suggest seeking psychiatric help.
Physical Scientists wrote:
…my 2012 paper, Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, underwent formal peer review
Where was this published?
David, it is always possible that the work was formally peer-reviewed, and rejected.
True BA. That’s why I want this turkey to reveal his identity.
Appell
“That’s why I want this turkey to reveal his identity.”
Have you been living in a cave? I knew his identity the instant he commented here. He provided his identity then, but I knew him from years ago on Dr Roy’s blog.
Physics Scientist wrote:
You’re being remarkably naive if you fail to recognize that AGW rests on fictitious, manipulated physics. Just look at the energy diagrams promoted in mainstream climatology
Excuse me, but what are your credentials?
Says a ton about you that you brag about your credentials but are afraid to post under your real name.
A ton.
Physics Scientist wrote:
they claim that a mere 0.3% of the atmosphere can deliver twice the radiative flux to Earth’s surface as the Sun itself, and from a cooler source to a warmer one, no less. That defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
LOL.
He doesn’t even understand the 2LOT.
LOL. What a fool.
Physics Scientist wrote:
I’m still waiting for a scientifically valid refutation of “heat creep” as defined in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
Link?
David Appell:
in your comment of 9:08, you asked why I haven’t published my work, since it should merit a Nobel prize.
I recognize the sarcasm, but the answer is that its premises have already been published.
lttps://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
This primarily addresses global warming due to decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution, in the atmosphere, but global cooling obviously occurs when their levels are increased.
Physics Scientist wrote:
ResearchGate is a professional platform reserved for qualified scientists such as myself who are actively engaged in research and scholarly discourse.
Uploading a PDF to a Web site is not “publishing.” They’ll take any sh!t they can get. Even yours.
Physics Scientist wrote:
Yep: even that uploaded by climatologists getting away with calling themselves scientists, but, like yourself, without any qualifications in the relevant physics. Real physics gets rejected by politically motivated journals supporting the AGW scam.
You’re nothing but a wannabe. Without the discipline and hard work to become someone. Too late now.
Ah, Mr. Appell, once again you prove the weakness of the climate consensus. You don’t even try to address his/her arguments. You go straight for attacking the man, not the ball.
People like you are the reason that the rest of us hold your position in such weak regard. If you want to improve the climate conversation, just shut the hell up. Goes for BA Bushaw as well.
Tom
The reason I started researching the issue was because of the ad homs as rejoinders instead of good science. They are lousy advocates. Know it alls but not knowing enough to know they don’t know. I’ve been following scientists, working with and for scientists for 70 years, and this is the only field where the clown show dominates. Megalomania reigns supreme.
Weak individuals pile on.
weak response.
JT, yes, you always do. Some of us are interested in scientific integrity. Not you.
We know what Researchgate is, it does not publish, it does not provide peer review; it does provide a platform for uploading unreviewed manuscript, similar to SSRN. As for your article in question: 1526 ‘views’, and 1 (one) citation after 13 years – in an engineering education journal article about the Clausius statement of the second law. My conclusion: for people with enough chops to be making citations, your work is of zero interest.
So what? Where are they published? Who reviewed them?
Intellectual complacency (or incompetency) is not publishing your work, if you actually think it is important. That applies to all of your papers.
AGW is a story of conspiring and collusion, politics, hate and fear. If climate research money had been spent to find the actual causes of global warming – and not for the single purpose of proving humanity’s CO2 was responsible for it – it would by now be perfectly clear to everyone that, “temperature variations over the last 2,000 years suggests global warming (and cooling), are the rule, not the exception.” Unfortunately, as Dr. Roy Spencer reminds us when talking about a 2005 article by John P. A. Ioannidis and irrespective of whether we’re talking about medicine or global warming, Most Published Research Findings are False.
You are right, Physics Scientist, when claiming there is not AGW.
The “Heat Creep” phenomenon is what I do not accept.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“When you speak of “uncertainties in models,” you tacitly endorse the underlying fallacy: that radiation from a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a warmer surface.”
I do no such thing, and if you had understood any of what my article says, you would know that. But let me make what I need to say very explicit for you. It isn’t a case of whether I agree or not with your pet theory; it’s that I object in the strongest possible terms to you unloading it here as an off-topic subject, and doing so in a manner that renders it virtually impossible for me to engage with anyone who had the courtesy to stay on topic. The fact that you can’t see this as a problem speaks volumes as to your character.
I won’t say anything further on this matter since I appreciate the futility of trying to reason with you. If I had the power, I would have banned you from this site days ago. There are plenty of appropriate ways for you to peddle your opinions; this has not been one of them.
Gone are the days when a feckless academic can sift and sieve secret numbers — boiled over with undisclosed computer programs using unverified models — to produce a ‘hockey stick’ graph depicting a scary Gorean future of runaway global warming, supposedly in sync with an increase in human-caused atmospheric CO2. Mathematically speaking, Western academia’s support of Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been like witchdoctors huddled around a green bubbling brew of magic potion; and, the IPCC’s use of Mann’s work for ideological purposes has made a mockery of science. With the manufacturing of a supposed scientific consensus, it has made a mockery of AI as well.
Most climatologists have been misled by Raymond Pierrehumbert’s promotion of the concept known as “radiative forcing”—a notion that has been rigorously challenged by leading scientists such as Professor Claes Johnson. It is a fundamental error to claim that radiation from colder regions of the troposphere can raise the temperature of a warmer surface. This violates basic thermodynamic principles. The surface is warmer not because of back-radiation, but primarily due to the gravitationally induced temperature gradient—a well-established physical reality recognized since the 1870s. Moreover, such downward radiation does not slow the rate of radiative cooling at the surface, and it certainly has no effect on dominant non-radiative cooling mechanisms like convection and evaporation.
There are examples of cooling due to negative forcing such as volcanic eruptions that send ash and gases into the air that can block some incoming solar radiation.
“How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming?” –Freeman Dyson
I am glad you support social justice. Of course it is “chained” to global warming because the poor have no air conditioning and may live in areas exposed to drought or flooding. I was not successful in dating your Dyson quote, but I am confident that the models he called “bad science” correctly predicted where we are in 2025. I have enormous respect for Freeman Dyson and was privileged to hear him talk once about adaptive optics, an invention of his that improved ground based astronomy. He got a lot of things right, but not everything.
“I was not successful in dating your Dyson quote…”
Yeah, unlikely that Dyson said it. But Wagathon, again, is recycling his material from 10+ years ago. Ho hum.
AI is pretty good at checking quotations:
That quote — “How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming?” — is widely attributed to Freeman Dyson, but there’s no definitive record of him saying or publishing it verbatim in any of his books, interviews, or essays.
AI- ‘Freeman Dyson’s question, “How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming?” was an expression of his frustration with what he saw as a misdirection of priorities. He believed that the climate change movement, in its focus on what he considered “exaggerated” threats, was distracting from the more immediate and severe global problem of poverty.’
AI-
Dyson’s original quote, “How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming?”, expresses his concern that the push for climate action detracts from more pressing social issues, like poverty and disease.
Dyson argued that:
The science behind climate change was not as definitive as widely accepted.
The costs of aggressive climate policies could harm economic development in poorer countries.
The use of fossil fuels, while contributing to atmospheric carbon, was a necessary “interim kindling” for industrial development and poverty alleviation.
His views led him to advocate for a humanist ethic, where the immediate suffering of the world’s poor should take priority over what he considered exaggerated long-term climate predictions.
Most of Dyson’s quotes about climate came around 2006. Too bad he is dead and is not able to revise his opinion. Instead, we have to suffer the decades old misquotes from the likes of Wagathon.
On the use of climate models–
“…they don’t pretend to be the real world. They are purely fluid dynamics. You can learn a lot from them, but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.” ~ Freeman Dyson (2009)
Of course, you can’t learn what is going to happen in the future. An understanding of non-linear dynamics and quantum mechanics is helpful in that regard. But you can make better scientific projections and probabilities, instead of pulling personal opinions out of your behind. The models have been shown to be quite accurate, at least on a 30-year climatic timescale.
My understanding of Professor Emeritus Dyson based on his association with UCSD from 2016 to 2020 was that moral issues he had concerning global warming alarmism had not changed.
“Your understanding” – LMAO. The moral questions are pseudoscience at best. Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate. Dyson’s personal opinions on the subject remain personal opinions, and you are making appeals to a dead false authority on the subject.
Wm Gray was right–“this topic has now taken on a life of its own.”
It’s all political now and academia is part of the deceptions concerning the phony alarm about AGW. A healthy free enterprise economy means zero to them. It’s not global warming that’s the problem. It’s government!
Only scientists suffering from delusions believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate.
The causes of poverty in the 19th 20th and 21st centuries are well known. “stabilization” or “lack of stabilization” of climate is not even remotely a factor.
Joe K, thanks for your unsupported opinions.
https://www.concern.net/news/climate-change-and-poverty?_gl=1*5c5lbp*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTk3OTE2MDQ2Mi4xNzYwMjA0NDYx*_ga_RLZ9XCKFP1*czE3NjAyMDQ0NjAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjAyMDQ0NjAkajYwJGwwJGgxNjYzNDAyMjY0
As Stated, only scientists and others suffering from delusions believe that stabilizing the climate will have solve poverty. Its pure pseudo-science based on delusions.
Nothing more needs to be said on the subject since those delusions have no bearing on any discipline of science. Commenting further on delusional aspects of pseudo science shows complete disrespect for the host and for the author/ John Ridgway and the applicable subject of uncertainties.
Joe, Like I said , you can’t/don’t support your claims. I never said climate stabilization will solve poverty, that’s your straw man. I said it addresses it.
Attendees of a climate change conference having margaritas on a veranda in Cancun probably doesn’t do much to address the consequences of poverty but I’m sure Greta would disagree.
Joe, I have some, perhaps limited, respect for John and Judith. It is you and your inability to support your opinions, claims, and buttinsky attack mode, that I don’t respect, not at all.
why did you post the following quote “Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate. At no time did you state that was contrary to your belief. Then you defended the statement with a pseudo science article. Its a little late to walk back what you wrote.
If you cared about scientific integrity as you stated earlier, then you would not post and defend pseudo science.
Nothing further needs to be said on the subject. You have fully exhibited your belief in pseudo science and the delusions in supporting such.
It would be interesting to see a cost-benefit trade-off analysis to manufacture, deliver, maintain, replace and handle the waste of degraded solar panels to those living in the dark on the floor of the Amazon, especially when you consider also that the cost of the fuel needed to bring about solar electrification (and then, only available during the day) would have to be invested anyway.
Joe said:
“why did you post the following quote “Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate. At no time did you state that was contrary to your belief. Then you defended the statement with a pseudo science article. Its a little late to walk back what you wrote.
… I posted that because it is obviuos and you can’t refute it.
… and it isn’t contrary to my beliefs – it is contrary to your beliefs that you can’t support.
BTW, too embarrassed to say “thank you” for correcting the spelling of Andrew Dessler’s name to enable your search? No surprise there. You’re welcome anyway.
ganon
In the last few days you have misspelled obvious and lose. Have you had a check up lately? It seems the neurons aren’t firing on all cylinders. That’s ok though, it should be comforting that billions before you have been on the same declining trajectory. Aging manifests itself in strange ways. My backswing has shortened by about 75% from 60 years ago. A John Daly I wasn’t but it was nice to have my hands over my head. I would say it’s going to get better, except it’s not. Don’t despair.
Knucklehead, thanks – is that all you’ve got. You’ve always been a great example of zero content and zero intellect. F.O.
ganon
What goes around comes around.
There is no economic theory or empirical evidence over the last 300-400 years that supports the pet garbage theory that “stabilizing ” the climate will reduce poverty. Students of world history and economics consider such theories to be a joke. Only activists with a detachment from reality and historical record push such garbage
M Starkely,
Of course there are theories supported by evidence: e.g.:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/09/climate-change-and-inequality-guivarch-mejean-taconet
Just because you are unaware doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But .. the BRICS countries call BS on that, no?
Wagathon, I don’t know. Does’t matter – the theories and evidence exist, therefore Starkely’s hyperbolic absolute is disproven.
‘The World Bank’s climate obsession is diverting billions from fighting poverty.
‘It’s time to demand a refocus on tackling poverty through nutrition, health and education, not chasing green fantasies.’ ~ Bjorn Lomborg (X, today)
“Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate. ”
Said assertion can’t be quantified with evidence. It’s common fact that cold kills more people than a warmer climate does. This is a statistically backed fact.
The bird obviously runs around with sadists, or simpatico bird brain scientists anoited by the cause.
Ah, weak Marie piling on with falsehoods like he always does.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22315-9
has 6 authors. That is quantitatively more than a dead Dyson.
You’re demonstrating that you’re merely a naive publication junkie jumping on any ideological fix.
Beginning at the second sentence: “climate policies could impose a financial burden on the global poor through increased energy and food prices. Here, we project poverty rates until 2050 and assess how they are influenced by mitigation policies consistent with the 1.5 °C target. A continuation of historical trends will leave 350 million people globally in extreme poverty by 2030. Without progressive redistribution”
Try planting a seed in the snow.
What the posted paper is essentially saying is:
Climate policies will prove to be increasingly expensive, these policies will bankrupt small nations, and the poor. We propose that without a massive redistribution of global wealth, that the poor will die. The solution is to redistribute global wealth.
Further: The Left intends to inflict great damage on the poorest, their ability to keep their heads above water from inflation, etc., etc., etc. Therefore we must redirect rhe conversation. The solution is to play Robinhood.
The papers argument has nothing to do with climate, it’s obfuscation, slight of hand: the climate did it, not Marx.
The relative fact is that the inverse; progressively colder temperatures will kill off the poorest faster than a warmer climate will. This is why the paper isn’t about climate.
Wow, weak marie knows how to copy and paste. Try the title and the first paragraph of the introduction. Nonetheless, 6 is quantitatively more than 1, and marie’s deflection from his lie is typically weak.
‘Higher density sources of fuel such as coal and natural gas utilized in centrally-produced power stations actually improve the environmental footprint of the poorest nations while at the same time lifting people from the scourge of poverty… Developing countries in Asia already burn more than twice the coal that North America does, and that discrepancy will continue to expand… So, downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere.’ ~Dr. John Christy (August 2012)
The parrot 🦜squawks the progressively anoited anality that he hears.
Wagathon: “Higher density sources of fuel such as coal and natural gas utilized in centrally-produced power stations actually improve the environmental footprint of the poorest nations while at the same time lifting people from the scourge of poverty…”
Very true, Wagathon. The fact is that more coal has been used for energy in 2025 than at any other time in history. So based on said propaganda paper in question, the one the bird posted as proof; poor nations burning coal have nothing to really worry about. Marxist policy will in fact provide these nations, many of which are communist a bonus, a get out of free jail card: synonymous with free cash at the expense of the West–which is more about power.
An important subtext to my article is the idea that the climate change problem is a classic case of decision-making under uncertainty, and since many climate scientists seem to have accepted the idea of using the wrong methodology to propagate epistemic uncertainties, perhaps we shouldn’t be accepting that they are the best people to advise on how that decision-making should proceed. In particular, the idea that climate sceptics don’t understand uncertainty because they look upon it differently to the majority of the climate science community is worth revisiting. Take, for example, Peter Gleick’s admonishment of Michael Shellenberger, when he said:
“Shellenberger misunderstands the concept of ‘uncertainty’ in science, making the classic mistake of thinking about uncertainty in the colloquial sense of ‘We don’t know’ rather than the way scientists use it to present ‘a range of possibilities’.”
Gleick appears to be advocating a concept of ‘scientific uncertainty’, presumably basing it upon measurement theory’s objective approach. By the same token, the subjectivity of epistemic uncertainty (‘We don’t know’) is dismissed as a layman’s misapprehension of what uncertainty is. This notion of scientific uncertainty aligning with aleatory uncertainty is backed up if one asks Google to explain the concept of ‘uncertainty in science’:
“But uncertainty in science does not imply doubt as it does in everyday use. Scientific uncertainty is a quantitative measurement of variability in the data. In other words, uncertainty in science refers to the idea that all data have a range of expected values as opposed to a precise point value.”
All I can say is that if Gleick’s is a good example of the expertise that is guiding the ‘follow the science’ narrative then we are not in a good place. If climate scientists truly believe that variability rather than incertitude provides the ‘scientific’ basis for thinking about uncertainty, then it is no wonder that they fail to see the importance of using the correct methodologies.
The AGW is full of mistaken physics. One of the mistaken assertions is about the atmosphere warming the surface.
Only that assertion is completelly wrong.
Because it is the warmer surface that warms the colder atmosphere – and not the other way around!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AI does not agree with you–
‘The claim that an atmosphere cannot warm a surface is mistaken because it misunderstands the fundamental physics of heat transfer, particularly the greenhouse effect. The comparison to a hot exhaust pipe warming up due to hot gases is an accurate analogy for how a warmer gas can heat a cooler surface through the process of convection and conduction.’
“AI does not agree with you–”
Are you, Wagathon, with me, or against me?
Or, maybe, you would like to discuss the AI opinion?
It’s possible to both agree and disagree, I suppose. Asking AI for example, how and by what process does warmer air above ground capable of warming the cooler ground when the sun sets and the ground cools… It begins, as follows…
‘The warmer air above the ground can warm the cooler ground at night primarily through conduction and downwelling longwave radiation, especially when conditions create a temperature inversion.’
e.g., ‘Yes, the floor of a sauna and steam room becomes warmer, but it is significantly cooler than the air near the ceiling due to the natural principle that hot air rises. In both environments, the floor is the coolest part because cooler air settles at the bottom.’
Thank you, Wagathon.
Please ask AI, what is his opinion about the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m not rebutting your theory. The version of AI used may be something experimental- seems to be rather opinionated about of many things about which I do not agree, particularly those things that have been corrupted by the manufactured AGW consensus of Western Academia. In any event, the AI results are as follows:
‘The Christos “Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is a fringe climate hypothesis that has no scientific validity and is rejected by the mainstream scientific community. It is not recognized as a legitimate theory and is not supported by evidence or peer-reviewed research. Instead, this concept is part of a body of climate change misinformation that contradicts the established science of the greenhouse effect.’
To my mind, aim a hair dryer at a marble countertop and it’ll warm it… which does correspond with conventional theories having nothing to do with the validity of Western Academia’s AGW climate change conjecture… in the real world, when the sun sets, the land cools faster than the air such that the land may be cooler than the air and there are established laws of thermodynamics that dictate what happens next…
One of many instances is said to be, e.g., ‘Coastal land and sea breezes’
‘In coastal areas, the different heating and cooling rates of land and water can create localized temperature inversions at night.
‘Mechanism: After sunset, the land cools much faster than the ocean. Cooler, denser air from the land flows out over the warmer ocean (a “land breeze”). Meanwhile, the warmer air mass over the ocean moves toward the coast at higher altitudes.
‘Warming the ground: As this warmer air mass from the ocean moves over the cooler land, it can create an inversion, where the ground is cooler than the air immediately above it, causing some heat transfer downward.’
Thank you, Wagathon, for everything.
Old fashioned AI? (Or, it ain’t easy bein’ green :) )
Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
47 comment bubble on white
High gas prices and surging AI demand send operators back to the dirtiest fuel in the stack
US datacenters are experiencing a significant shift toward coal-powered energy due to elevated natural gas prices and rapidly growing electricity demand.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
B. A. Bushaw,
Whether or not either of us has respect for the other is hardly the point. All I want from commenters on this thread is an opinion as to whether they respect the line of reasoning taken in my article, and if not, why not? So far you seem to have been more interested in engaging with old adversaries and expressing your contempt in a variety of ways. I can’t force you to engage meaningfully with the article, but it would be nice if you could.
John – I for one agree completely with the issues of uncertainties you highlight. Your insight on uncertainties due to whats unknown and uncertainties due to measurement issues is spot on and greatly under appreciated as is shown across the climate science spectrum.
Quite frankly there is complete disrespect for uncertainties thoughout the climate advocacy world. The discussion of poverty and climate stabilization is a prime example of such disrespect. The only theoretical support for such garbage is in the delusional echo chamber of ill informed advocates. Its astonishing that any educated person would fail to recognize such garbage.
Again thanks for the post highlighting on of the major deficiencies through out the world of advocacy science.
John –
Thanks for your response.
Perhaps this is a quibble, but I would say that there is nothing wrong with displaying the distribution of outcomes in some appropriate graphic, as long as one is careful to specify exactly what it represents and not to over-interpret. That caution is mainly what I see in the primary literature. So my impression is that the limitations of model ensemble derived probabilities have been so long recognized that inappropriate probabilities inferred from the spread of multi-model ensemble output are, in fact, uncommon. In most cases, limitations, possible biases, epistemic uncertainties, etc. are acknowledged. That’s why I was looking for examples.
Now I admit that examples abound in the IPCC reports (who doesn’t have something to complain about in the IPCC reports?) and other documents for policy makers and/or popular consumption. And if Tim Palmer is guilty as charged, I take your point.
The problem remains, how best to convey the information at hand? I don’t regard the efforts to do so as representing as a natural selection for bad science. There is likely a natural selection for over-simplified communication, which, admittedly, can be misleading. But I see little evidence that the people working on these problems ignore the limitations of analysis to “give the policy makers what they want.”
Shepherd put it succinctly with his statement “Ways must therefore be found to construct useful scientific information…that reflect an appropriate level of uncertainty yet retain the relevant information about climate risk” That’s the problem.
And thanks once again for calling attention to an illuminating article, that of Eric Winsberg. Near the conclusion of his paper, he states:
“…we began this whole discussion with a desire to separate the epistemic from the normative. But we have now learned that, with respect to science that relies on models that are sufficiently complex…it becomes increasingly difficult to tell a story that maintains that kind of distinction. And without being able to provide a history that respects that distinction, there is no way to isolate the values that have been involved in the history of climate science.”
So, I expect, we are left with personal, hopefully informed, experience.
John, I did comment on your line of reasoning. Good science will correct bad science, but it takes time.
Yes, I saw that comment, but it hardly advances the debate, does it? It merely states the position that my article was written to oppose. I respectfully request that you explain the flaws in the reasoning laid out in my article. Simply restating your position isn’t achieving a great deal. And as for taking time, 35 years have now passed since the FAR modeller stated how good scientists handle model ensemble uncertainty, and in that time that good practice has all but been eradicated. Do you honestly believe that 35 more years of the same selective pressure will somehow reverse the degradation? If so, where is this confidence coming from?
The confidence comes from publishing scientific papers and observing the process.
John –
“…good practice has all but been eradicated.”
Really? Either you’re speaking way too narrowly (model ensemble uncertainty) or you’re ignoring a large number of productive efforts* to address the basic problem of rigorously quantifying model uncertainty without obscuring well-grounded information about risk. You might say that such attempts are flawed because they lack epistemological justification, but that hardly relegates them to “bad practice”. Their usefulness (or lack thereof) is context dependent, and it’s a big mistake to downplay the progress being made, or to generalize from limited examples (you haven’t given any – did I miss them?).
So I still think you vastly overstate your case for the natural selection of bad science.
.
*Here’s a couple examples of what I have in mind:
https://cs3.mit.edu/publication/14724
https://clima.caltech.edu/2021/05/13/quantifying-parameter-and-structural-uncertainty-in-climate-modeling/#:~:text=In%20climate%20models%2C%20there%20are%20two%20main,modular%20strategy%20that%20is%20computationally%20very%20efficient**
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/97/5/bams-d-15-00297.1.xml
There’s lots more. As mentioned previously, check out the references to Shepherd’s article.
Pat – compare and contrast the two articles, especially the first 4-5 paragraphs.
Uncertainty Quantification in Climate Modeling and Projection
Yun Qian 2015/2016
& Quantifying Parameter and Structural Uncertainty in Climate Modeling.
first impression is both studies lead off with remarkably similar language. Plagiarism perhaps?
Joe, AI doesn’t agree with the attack that you attempt to excuse with a “?”
“Thanks for the clarification, Bruce. Based on a close reading of the 2021 CliMA blog and the 2016 AMS paper, I don’t see evidence of plagiarism—at least not in the academic or ethical sense.
Here’s why:
✅ Attribution and Originality
The blog presents the Calibrate–Emulate–Sample (CES) methodology as a novel framework developed by CliMA researchers. It’s written in an explanatory style, aimed at a general scientific audience, and includes original diagrams and examples (e.g. convective parameter learning, surrogate modeling).
The AMS paper is a synthesis of workshop discussions and existing literature. It outlines general Bayesian UQ principles, Gaussian process emulators, and ensemble methods—but doesn’t describe CES or the specific surrogate modeling pipeline used by CliMA.
There’s no direct copying of text, figures, or structure. The blog builds on ideas that are broadly discussed in the AMS paper (e.g. Bayesian calibration, structural uncertainty), but it applies them in a distinct, forward-looking way.
🧠 Intellectual Continuity vs. Plagiarism
CliMA’s blog clearly stands on the shoulders of prior work—including ideas from the AMS paper—but it doesn’t misrepresent them as its own. In fact, it cites a related publication (“Calibration and Uncertainty Quantification of Convective Parameters in an Idealized GCM”) and frames the blog as a summary of that work.
This is a textbook case of intellectual continuity, not plagiarism. The blog translates academic methods into a digestible narrative, which is exactly what outreach pieces are meant to do.
B. A. Bushaw,
I can well believe that in your line of work you are unlikely to have experienced the sort of problem I discuss in my last two articles. But, with all due respect, your experience does not refute my line of reasoning. As I acknowledged in my previous article:
“Work is routinely evaluated by peers for its quality and value, and such scrutiny should be to the benefit of the good science. Except the evidence would seem to suggest that bad science can still thrive despite such scrutiny.”
To support that claim, I cite the well-documented issues that have existed within the behavioural sciences and, in my more recent article, I ventured to suggest that similar selective pressures for sub-optimal practice have led to the widespread mis-application of aleatory methods to analyse the essentially epistemic uncertainties of multi-model ensembles in climate science. Is there something wrong with that reasoning?
Pat,
Yes, when I said ‘that good practice’ I was specifically referring to the good practice of refraining from treating the spread of multi-model ensembles as if it were a measurement problem. However, to suggest that in doing so I speak ‘way too narrowly’ is somewhat off-beam. Just to remind you, Eric Winsberg, a specialist in computer simulation and the study of complexity in models, referred to this issue as “surely the greatest problem with ensemble statistical methods”.
As for ‘generalising from limited examples’ I hardly think that is a fair criticism. The examples I generalise from are any instances in which probabilities, or distributions thereof, are inferred from the spread of multi-model ensemble output. As such, I would suggest that my exemplification is very wide indeed.
Finally, it was certainly not my intention to downplay the extensive good work there has been in dealing with model uncertainties. A very good account of these is given in Tim Palmer’s book, ‘The Primacy of Doubt’. However, Palmer made his reputation pioneering techniques in dealing with ensembles that were physical perturbations of a single model, and where aleatory methods were highly applicable. But when he starts talking about ensembles of differently-structured models, he commits the error of describing the epistemic uncertainties in aleatory terms (e.g. he presents a histogram of ECS values predicted by differently-structured models and then superimposes a probability distribution curve). That’s the bad practice that I object to.
Thanks, John. I don’t think what you may have learned from behavioral (pseudo) sciences applies to physical/natural sciences.
The question is, will pooling flawed data or models produce a valid or useful outcome?
None of the models have any predictive ability when it comes to forecasting rapid shifts or changes, even though in hindsight, they’re often commonplace throughout history and in many instances lasting many decades. It’s the ‘urgency’ that’s all political and with that, all is corrupted.
quite a few sentences in the first 5-6 paragraphs are remarkably similar, with quite a few of those similar sentences with the order said sentences simply switched positional order. Your reference to AI doesnt help your case.
you have done a very excellent job attempting to present garbage science today with the poverty / climate stabilization as good science.
As you stated – “Good science will correct bad science, but it takes time.”
Of course it takes longer when advocates intentionally present bad science or simply fail to recognize garbage science.
It helps my case more that it helps yours. I tend to believe intelligence, artifical or real, over the lack thereof.
As for climate stabilization: It was sufficient to disprove Starkely’s claim of its non-existence – that’s what I did.
“Plagiarism perhaps?”
Probably not.
Why CO₂ and methane don’t drive surface temperatures—on Venus or Earth
Carbon dioxide cannot “trap” convective heat any more than other gases on Venus and, similarly, nitrogen, oxygen or argon on Earth. It’s a physical impossibility.
So let us now consider Earth. CO₂, CH₄, and H₂O cannot retain thermal energy which they have absorbed solely from radiation, and yet then send more energy back to the surface than was originally released by the surface, that original surface cooling being not only through radiation, but also by conduction, convection, and evaporation.
There is no significant difference between Earth and Venus in this regard. Both planets receive far too little direct solar radiation at the surface to explain their observed temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. For instance, Earth’s surface receives approximately 161 W/m² of solar radiation—insufficient to account for a global mean temperature above about 230 K (−43°C). There is no valid mechanism whereby a system can send back to the surface more energy than the surface had lost while cooling. This discrepancy exposes the fundamental error in radiative forcing theory.
Anon Physicist,
“Both planets receive far too little direct solar radiation at the surface “
–
Earth receives 1361 W/m² direct solar radiation at the surface, not 161 W/m².
Christos, and others,
Please do not engage with Anon Physicist (aka Mr Cotton), no matter how good-intentioned. He is a well-known troll on this site who carpet bombs the thread with his obsessive attempts to promote his theory. You will never be able to persuade him, and he will never go away whilst you reward him with attention. Thank you.
Believing that the solar flux is divided by 4, and then by 2, is just ONE of the many fallacies in the GHE nonsense. The resulting ~163 W/m^2 would not even be able to melt ice.
Radiative flux can NOT be divided. Radiative physics is an unknown study in “climate science”.
Anon Physicist, it is 1361 W/m² when you get sunburnt on the beach.
And, when you get sunburnt, it is always on the insolated side of your skin.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The flawed logic behind Net Zero and the billion-dollar climate agenda
Radiative forcing assumes that, if there is a small imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere, then that difference drives surface temperature changes. But this interchanges cause and effect. In reality, it is natural variations in surface temperature—driven by factors such as cloud cover, cloud altitude, and latitude—that cause fluctuations in radiative balance. Cloud cover, for example, has less effect in polar regions than in tropical ones, and shifts in global cloud distribution can easily account for observed temperature changes. The magnitude of the temperature gradient in the troposphere (which is formed by gravity at the molecular level) also has a significant effect. This so-called “lapse rate” varies with the concentration and distribution of water vapor, as is well known. So, Venus, far from validating greenhouse theory, actually helps dismantle it.
John, can you give your definitions of “good” and “bad” science? I apologize if I missed it.
Walter Starck was clear about what he thought was bad science– e.g., that the Left’s “greenhouse with no roof is something only an academic would design. Anyone with practical experience would know immediately it could not work.”
I’d say IPCC methodology quintessentially represents bad science. The deciding factor for the IPCC is–how can it not be a representation of bad science–it filters 50% of its product using political assessment.
Where does that 50% number come from?
Enjoy:
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/08/the-matthew-effect-mono-cultures-and-the-natural-selection-of-bad-science/#comment-1020100
Raising the price of gas across the nation by limiting production and then buying it from Venezuela makes sense only to Leftists who make nothing but anti-America doomsday scenarios. “I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.” (John Coleman, Jan. 2009)
Thanks, JT. So you just made up your 50% and can’t support it. I once offered to explain the IPCC process to you. You didn’t accept, presumably because it would make it more difficult for you to continue to tell your tired old lies.
“1988 WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body but a unique hybrid. The political representatives, by virtue of the consensus rule, would hold veto power over every word of the summaries that were the essential product for policy-makers. But the scientists, represented by the lead authors of their reports, would also hold an effective veto by virtue of their prestige and unimpeachable expertise. Once a consensus was forged among all parties, it would not be questioned by any well-constituted and representative political or scientific body.”
The excerpt obviously is a good fit for your sensibility. While the quote doesn’t explicitly say 50%, any reasoning individual concerned with veracity of science will raise an eyebrow, because the takeaway is implicit.
There’s no need for your sycophantic flight of fancy explanations; the book is fully cited, it’s more than adequate to illustrate your ideological protectionist center.
Further, let’s not stop with the referenced quote, the whole book is rife with references that are antithetical to principles behind scientific rigor.
What is good for my sensibility, is knowing what procedures IPCC uses for vetting their materials. People that make up numbers are not.
Well, Polly, the book certainly spells it all out. It appears you and Shearman see the utility in consensus:
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1020296
Well dirtypants, making up numbers is lying and unethical; it is not good for my sensibility, it offends my sensibility. But then, most everything about you is offensive. Instead of digging a deeper hole, maybe you should just STFU, preferably permanently.
Actually the IPCC governing body itself consists of government representatives: “The Panel meets in Plenary Sessions at the level of government representatives for all member countries. Currently, the IPCC has 195 members. The Panel meets approximately once a year at the plenary level. These Sessions are attended by hundreds of officials and experts from relevant ministries, agencies and research institutions from member countries and from observer organizations. Currently the IPCC has 161 observer organizations. Major decisions are taken by the Panel during the Plenary Session.”
It takes a lot of batter to make cake.
Yes, and you lie about what they do.
The latter was IPCC specific language.
So what. It has nothing to do with your 50% lie – just a deflection from a little boy that can’t admit his false fabrications.
It’s implicit.
At least the IPCC has government rigor, and gender balance:
“Hundreds of experts are involved on a voluntary basis in the preparation of IPCC reports. Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors for IPCC reports are selected by the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau, under general guidance provided by the Session of the Working Group (or by the Panel in case of reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories) from among experts listed by governments and participating organizations, and other experts known through their publications and works. None of them is paid by the IPCC.
The composition of the group of Coordinating Lead Authors (CLAs) and Lead Authors (LAs) for a chapter, a report or its summary aims to reflect a range of scientific, technical and socio-economic views and expertise; geographical representation; a mixture of experts with and without previous experience in IPCC; and gender balance.”
The orchestration is impressive, how can science go wrong having so many cooks in the kitchen?
No it is not implicit, it is a number made up by somebody who doesn’t know what he is talking about, and is now failing at the CYA dance. Pull your dirty pants up and go away.
“Expert reviewers review an IPCC draft report either by invitation or at their own request. Their role is to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific, technical or socio-economic contents and the overall scientific, technical or social economic balance of draft reports.”
Just volunteer, BAB, I imagine that’s how Shearman got involved. You bake as good as anyone.
Pathological liar, resorting to insults when called out. F.O.
B. A. Bushaw,
No, you didn’t miss it. I never provided a definition. I borrowed the expression from the title of a paper cited in my previous article, namely ‘The natural selection of bad science’. When reading that paper it is clear that they are referring to any science that employs research design and data analysis practices that are known to be invalid, e.g. p-hacking. I use the term in a similar sense when I refer to science based upon uncertainty analysis practices that are known to give incorrect results, i.e. using aleatory methods to propagate epistemic uncertainties.
Thanks, John. I guess that speaks in favor of stringent, high- quality peer review.
Indeed. A main theme of my articles is that processes such as peer review are not the only selection pressure operating. The more that other, potentially problematic, selections are in play, the more we need to call upon higher quality review. The Importance of this issue varies from field to field.
Pat,
I appreciate that your judgement aligns with that taken by the majority, as reflected by the AI summary (i.e. it is a pragmatic and necessary approach that aids communication, even though it is ‘less than perfect’). I’ve already declared my discomfort in what I see as complacency. Rather than being less than perfect, it is an approach that can give the wrong answers, and I will not be persuaded that this is acceptable. But I think we probably need to leave it there, since we are now reduced to exchanging judgements, which I believe each of us is entitled to hold.
However, before I drop the subject, I think there is one more observation that is important to make. You quote Shepherd and Winsberg but you should be aware that their statements were not condoning the current normative practice. Instead, they both see the promulgation of probabilistic analyses that are not truly probabilistic as a big problem, and so they advocate an entirely different approach, namely the storyline approach to risk assessment. Strangely enough, hitherto having a ‘Probability Obsession’, the IPCC declared in its AR6 that it was embracing this storyline approach wholeheartedly, declaring that it is an approach that gives “…a cohesive overall picture of potential climate change pathways that moves beyond the presentation of data and figures.” They add that it “…can also help in assessing risks associated with [Low Likelihood High Impact] LLHI events (Weitzman, 2011; Sutton, 2018), because they consider the ‘physically self-consistent unfolding of past events, or of plausible future events or pathways’ (Shepherd et al., 2018b), which would be masked in a probabilistic approach.”
I could say a great deal more about the pros and cons of the storyline approach, but that would probably require me to write another article to do it justice.
A problem with the storyline approach is that people living on the coast or on Pacific Islands are encouraged to accept self-interest narratives provoked by AGW global warming consensus science if they think it’s a way to rebuild their 60-80 year old storm walls at the expense of others who are responsible for increased atmospheric CO2.
Thanks John. I see some convergence here, with, as you say, a difference in judgement remaining. I’ll take a shot at summarizing and you can have the last word.
The problem is the fundamentally vexing issue of quantifying uncertainty. You see the prevalence of “an approach that can give the wrong answers”, coerced by social/political pressures, whereas I see mainly a communication process that is imperfect but nevertheless represents a good faith attempt to convey useful scientific information.
Might such a flawed process possibly lead to ill-advised policy decisions? Sure, but even a rigorously objective, ‘value-free’ quantitative evaluation (which seems to be impossible anyway) is similarly vulnerable. Doesn’t this flawed process give “wrong answers”? Not necessarily; you don’t really know how good/bad the answers are until you have a have a justifiable standard. But yes, better methods are welcome.
I suspect that we agree that policy would benefit by better regional projections; most current probabilistic evaluations are inadequate; a number approaches that might help are being pursued; all such approaches involve trade-offs. I hope that we agree that the problems with probabilities derived from multi-model ensembles have been recognized for many years now, at least by those doing the actual research.
And, of course, uncertainties remain, even when rigorously quantified. Just as some things become obvious, even when not rigorously quantified.
I largely agree with your comments about what Shepherd and Winsberg say, modulo the adjective “big” and accounting for context.
Thanks again for a stimulating and civil discussion.
Pat,
I think we can end it here having gained quite a good understanding of where the other person is coming from. I think the civility of the debate stems from our willingness to take the other at face value; sadly, this is so often not the case in such debates. My interest in the subtleties of uncertainty and risk analysis long predate any interest I gained in climate change science. Having become concerned by the manner in which various practices entrench themselves, it is perhaps inevitable that I should then look upon practices within climate science with a jaundiced eyed. However, I cannot criticise anyone for not doing the same. This is a complicated situation, in which many factors are at play, and personal judgement will inevitably guide one’s interpretation of what is going on. As a parting shot, I would just like to say that my suspicion that normative practices owe a lot to pressure placed upon the scientific community is supported by the testimony of individuals who work within the relevant fields. For that reason, I remain comfortable with my position whilst respecting your disagreement. I too am thankful for having had the opportunity to engage in a stimulating discussion.
Wagathon:
You state that” without the greenhouse effect, there would pretty much be no life as we know it on Earth”
On the other hand, it can be proven that global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouses in the atmosphere does not exist.
But, AI agrees with me (whatever that’s worth)– i.e., ‘Yes, without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth would be a frozen, uninhabitable planet. The natural greenhouse effect is crucial for keeping our planet at a temperature suitable for life by trapping some of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. The issue lies not with the greenhouse effect itself, but with the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by human activities.’
Can’t help but notice that it (AI) does however feel compelled to throw in and end with an indictment of all modernity for too much of a good thing so, you are on good ground to questioni everything!
Naturally, Wm Happer has a different opinion as to what is natural and it is that the atmosphere is currently CO2-deprived.
You missed my point, I am not questioning anything.
I am stating that it can be proven that global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere does not exist.
However, CO2 IS needed for plant growth, just not via the “Greenhouse” effect.
You don’t question AI? It says your statement is wrong, i.e.,
‘While natural cycles like solar activity and volcanic eruptions do affect climate, scientists have ruled them out as the dominant cause of the current warming trend. Climate models show that only by including human-caused greenhouse gas emissions can the observed warming be accurately explained.’
“‘While natural cycles like solar activity and volcanic eruptions do affect climate, scientists have ruled them out as the dominant cause of the current warming trend”
Which is why it’s so called intelligence is referred to as artificial. Maybe a better name would be Anthropomorphic Consensus Intelligence, in consideration that all it’s so intelligence is from human causation. But the what should the word intelligence be replaced with?
Pseudo-Intelligence?
…”its so-called intelligence”
So much for artificial spell check.
“Anthropomorphic Consensus Pseudo-Intelligence”
ACPI works for me!
Burl: “I am stating that it can be proven that global warming due to the accumulation of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere does not exist.”
You may state that, but you are wrong. Try asking AI “can scientific hypotheses be proved?” OTOH, hypotheses can be definitively disproved, if they are false. That is what I have done for your hypothesis “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”.
Wagathon:
Yes, I question AI.
Its statement that scientists have ruled out volcanic eruptions as the dominant cause of the current warming trend shows that it has been improperly trained.
The presence or absence of volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, as well as Industrial SO2 emissions, can explain all of our warming (or cooling) trends.
It doesn’t provide any explanation as to how adding greenhouse gasses to to climate models will cause the many observed cooling trends.
I recommend reading this new article just published, as well as the replies by the author in the comment thread:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/10/venus_and_the_climate_fallacy_why_radiative_forcing_fails.html
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” ~Richard Feynman
Using global warming theory to limit the availability of energy is the equivalent of mass murder. AI would put the total at about 3.2 a year.
…3.2 million.
Wagathon:
A favor, if I may.
I have not learned how to ask AI a question.
Could you ask it to explain what causes El Ninos?
Naturaleza del fenómeno: El Niño es causado por el debilitamiento de los vientos alisios en el Pacífico, lo que permite que las aguas cálidas se desplacen hacia el este. La ODP se considera una respuesta a una variedad de procesos oceánicos y atmosféricos, más que un agente de cambio en sí mismo.
In English, Mamas and the Papas…
El Niño is caused by the weakening of the trade winds in the Pacific, which allows warm waters to move eastward.
Climate alarmists and Climate skeptics argue about the role of the greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s temperature.
Alarmists claim it is the GHG that cause a temperature rise.
Skeptics do not agree – they claim the temperature rise is due to other reasons.
But both, alarmists and skeptics follow the same mistaken concept, they mutually claim that it is the atmosphere – in the first place – it is the atmosphere which warms Earth’s surface, they mutually claim that atmosphere acts as a kind of a protective blanket.
And, it is a mistaken concept.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You don’t like the metaphor but still undoubtedly (I presume) would agree the atmosphere shields Earth from space debris so how about instead of protective blanket, a protective spacesuit?
Guess I can see how a person whose house is being blown down by a hurricane would not call the atmosphere protective.
Wagathon:
Completely wrong!
As I thought, it didn’t have a clue!
What does it say about La Ninas?
AI says, ‘La Niña is caused by a strengthening of the normal east-to-west trade winds in the equatorial Pacific, which pushes warm surface water toward Asia and allows cold, deep ocean water to rise to the surface near the Americas. It is part of a recurring climate pattern called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).’
John Ridgway,
It may not be credible to argue that political and financial self-interests are causing the persistence of a normative practice in the field when one of its leading researchers is calling for its deprecation:
Climate modelers aren’t the only ones finding themselves between the rock of methodological purity and the hard place of reality. According to ChatGPT5, even structural engineers should appreciate that linear elastic approximations, beam and plate theories, or modal truncations in vibrational analysis are useful approximations. This brings me to Der Kiureghian & Ditlevsen (2009), a structural engineering paper:
You do nothing to demonstrate how a multiple orders of magnitude error due to misclassifying uncertainty types would manifest in applications of climate model ensembles, apart from mentioning a possible connection with extreme event attribution. While you do give lip service to the fact that uncertainty can go both ways, you play the “but politics” card and parlay that into a plausibly-deniable accusation of malpractice.
This is not a serious scientific critique; it is a polemic based on little more than a dubious parallel between structural- and planetary-scale modeling, and evidence-free innuendo which ironically undermines itself by quoting leaders in the field doing anything but willfully ignoring the issue.
Gates – you mentioned stucturaul engineers. Was your reference/question dealing with uncertainties or tolerances such as machine tolerances or ranges inside the performance envelope or some other form of uncertainty?
Joe K, the question I asked it was: give us some examples in engineering where useful approximations are used because the proper computations are for some reason intractable. they can be mathematically difficult, or too computationally intensive, etc.
You can read its full answer here: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68eff6db3b888191963b6a3824c29bee
Gavins “model democracy”.
Such a concept is damning unto itself.
Brandon,
I thank you for your comment, though I have to concede to finding the whole thing rather bemusing.
Firstly, there is the obvious logical non sequitur with which you open. Yes, obviously I quote Schmidt to establish that there is credentialed opposition to what he refers to as a ‘default behaviour’. I also quote Winsberg and Shepherd for the same reasons. To that, I could have added the names of Sherwood, Oreskes and Mann. But no matter how many prominent opponents I could list, it doesn’t alter the fact that they are opposing what they acknowledge to be a normative behaviour within the field. Indeed, I could have quoted the likes of Otto, Allen, Stott, Karoly and Zwiers, all of whom are happy to defend that normative approach (as exemplified by the D&A community) together with the extent to which it is predicated upon aleatory methodologies.
As for an individual’s motives for aligning with normative practice, well you tell me why anyone might do that. All I have said is that the normative practice (i.e. the probabilistic approach) had become established within the IPCC, and so anyone wishing to involve themselves would have to bow to the pressure to conform and provide the expected probabilistic statements, i.e. bow to the pressure to which Schmidt alludes. I never said this is done by individuals for financial gain or to pursue personal politics. That is your invention.
Then there is your assertion that modellers from all fields have to accept ‘useful approximations’. Of course that is true, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about an approach that has ‘no epistemological justification’. That is somewhat more fundamental. Furthermore, the reason I do not provide any evidence to back up the claim that climate models may be subject to errors amounting to orders of magnitude is because I never make that claim. Once again, that is your invention.
As for giving ‘lip service’, playing ‘cards’ and making ‘plausibly-deniable accusations’, that is precisely the sort of tendentious language that I had thanked Pat Cassen for avoiding. I am not interested in engaging with anyone who chooses to conduct the discussion with such prejudice.
Finally, I think it is best that I ignore your closing paragraph altogether. It’s just a baseless rant that demonstrates how little care its author has taken to actually follow the line of reasoning offered in the article.
Suffice to say, I will not be responding to anything further you might wish to add.
As foreshadowed, Mr. Ridgway attempts to twist away from his essay’s more provocative points by claiming I didn’t correctly read what it plainly implies. The destination of his retreat is an argument which is not in dispute: namely, that using aleatory methods on model ensembles to characterize epistemic uncertainty is a normative practice. As part of the smokescreen attempting to cover his concession, he writes, “I could have quoted the likes of Otto, Allen, Stott, Karoly and Zwiers, all of whom are happy to defend that normative approach.” Not only could he have, the normative practice in science dictates that he *should* have. Instead of giving readers a chance to judge these scientists’ reasoning on the basis of their own words, his essay insinuates their motivations for us:
It is difficult to separate financial remuneration from maintaining a career, promoting political agendas from ingratiating oneself to politicians, and prestige from a means of increasing both. If Ridgway did not mean to make those connections, his response might have clarified whatever distinction he was reaching for rather than denying outright the reasonably obvious.
But as we have seen, Ridgway has little appetite for subtlety. Returning to Der Kiureghian and Ditlevsen (2009), it makes clear throughout that how to classify uncertainty is conditional upon multiple factors, not least are practical design considerations of the model itself–something his essay categorically dismisses as “mealy-mouthed talk of nuance, pragmatism and imperfection”. If that truly unsettles his stomach, the next time Ridgway enters a skyscraper, he should find little solace in what DK&D have to say at the end of section 3:
Thus the temple of methodological purity Ridgway erected collapses under the weight of his own citation. I’ll wrap up with this gem: “Furthermore, the reason I do not provide any evidence to back up the claim that climate models may be subject to errors amounting to orders of magnitude is because I never make that claim.”
But isn’t it *interesting* the only soundbite Mr. Ridgway chose from DK&D heads the section wherein he browbeats a poor AI into conceding that, yes, miscategorizing uncertainty could lead to overestimating climate risks. In the land of one-sided Uncertainty Monsters, casually mentioning such large errors isn’t a mere dogwhistle; it’s a bullhorn.
Brandon,
What do you want me to say? I’m a bad, bad man and you see right through me. I feel so humiliated. Is that good enough for you?
Obviously, there is lots that I might want to address in your previous response but I think I have already recognised the futility of prolonging the discussion. As I said to Pat Cassen, the secret of a civil debate is for each party to assume the other is speaking in good faith. Then you come along to perfectly illustrate my point. It is significant that you no longer address me directly but have instead turned to your imagined audience so that you can talk about me, referring to me by my surname in order to emphasise your lack of respect. What am I supposed to do? Do I start with “What Gates fails to understand is…”? Well, I’m sorry, but I have no appetite for that. We must end it here before we resort to handbags at dawn. Or, as you might wish to put it, I’m going to slither away now.
John,
What would I like you to do? How about write another essay wherein you actually cite Otto, Allen, Stott, Karoly, Zwiers and any others on your list, and give their arguments a fair hearing on their merits. Malpractice or its synonyms should not appear, nor even be hinted at. Neither any suppositions that any scientists working within their field of expertise are doing anything out of ignorance. No soapboxing about how climate scientists clinging to an unjustifiable method is illustrative of the rampant malaise you perceive in climate science generally. No ludicrous theses that the natural end of an evidently robust debate within the field is the wrong method carrying the day. Show some recognition that uncertainty makes all equally ignorant and is not to be befriended. Further recognize that planets are many orders of magnitude more demanding to model than buildings–from design to computational expense to analysis of the results–and that while the concepts of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty are common between the two, give allowance for the possibility that radically different handling of them may indeed be justifiable. In sum, you first need to show a good faith effort to debate, then you can demand satisfaction from others who don’t extend you the same courtesy.
And with a flourish of Brandon’s righteous sword of justice the orc is slain. Can we go home now?
I cannot speak for the audience you address, John–imaginary or no–but you did ask me a question about what I wanted you to say, and you have your answer to it. It would of course be supreme arrogance on my part to expect you to do it solely on my account, just as it would be naive of me to believe your question was not rhetorical. The point is that you have have the right to argue in good faith or not, but not the right to demand good faith of others when you have not given it. Similarly, I have the right to treat gentlepersons as rogues, but that goes against my strong sense of honor–which does not preclude me from calling out scoundrels and cheats for what they evidently are. Now if you have anything of substance to add, I’ll respond, otherwise, yes, we seem to be done here. Adieu.
Brandon,
Well you see, this is precisely the sort of sanctimonious diatribe that I had hoped to avoid by suggesting calling a halt to the debate some time ago. Unfortunately, it was always going to end with you suggesting I am a scoundrel and a cheat, or something equally outrageous. I don’t have anything substantive to add, because I don’t think that a debate in which one party casts such aspersions on the other can ever be said to be substantive.
The thing I most regret is the time I have already wasted on your trolling, although I am pleased to have kept it to the minimum.
John, it’s not readily apparent how anyone could read your essay and not see that your aim is to disparage climate modelers for perpetuating what is–in your opinion–never a justifiable practice despite your own supporting citation calling such determinations a subjective art, echoed in Ferson & Ginzburg (1996):
But perhaps I *have* judged wrongly and you simply overlooked that DK&D and F&G didn’t draw the bright-line distinction you wished to convey. Maybe one day you’ll even quote “the likes of Otto, Allen, Stott, Karoly and Zwiers, all of whom are happy to defend that normative approach” so that they can speak for themselves instead of you doing it for them–you did say you *could* have, after all. Why then you didn’t remains a mystery, but perhaps you’re right and I should withhold judgement on that count as well.
Returning to the supposition that I may not be alone in having misread the intent of your essay, here’s an early comment in the thread:
*Interestingly* you did nothing to disabuse JT that you weren’t really suggesting anything quite so nefarious by pointing out that, to be fair, you *did* write in the essay, “As with the statistical malpractice within the behavioural sciences, there is nothing here to suggest that there is any conscious strategizing or cheating.” And maybe it would be uncharitable to describe this comment of yours further down as merely fanning the flames instead of dousing them with petrol:
Oops, missed an end blockquote after the first paragraph of the final block.
Brandon,
I sense a slight moderation of your rhetoric, and so I will try to avoid saying anything that will raise the temperature again.
You say “it’s not readily apparent how anyone could read your essay and not see that your aim is to disparage climate modelers for perpetuating what is–in your opinion–never a justifiable practice…”
Firstly, that there is a lack of justification is not just my opinion. Shepherd says that the practice has no ‘epistemological justification’. And yet he also acknowledges that it has become normative and says that it is interesting to consider why this should be so. I agree. But he then offers an explanation that only excuses the practice when the aleatory tends to dominate the epistemic. His explanation doesn’t have a universal applicability. It doesn’t, for example, explain how the practice has become normative even when the uncertainty is almost exclusively epistemic. So, I choose to focus upon a different explanation that picks up on the testimony of those such as Schmidt who allude to external pressures placed upon modellers to adopt the practice. You may think I disparage the climate science community for giving way to such pressures, but in fact I don’t. Keep in mind that my latest article is the second part of a two-part essay that goes out of its way to explain that these sorts of sub-optimal practice can establish themselves without there being any conspiracy or collaboration. As I quoted in part 1:
“More often than not, organizations and also inter-organizational networks, markets or fields are characterized by dynamics that seem to run by and large beyond the control of agents…Among these mostly hidden and emergent dynamics, self-reinforcing processes seem of particular importance; they unfold their own dynamic, turning a possibly virtuous circle into a vicious one.”
So, I don’t disparage climate scientists (at least no more than Shepherd and his professional allies do), I merely point out that I see no reason to exempt them from the above dynamics. As I said to Pat Cassen, these sort of phenomena, in which bad practice becomes normative, do not need there to be any bad people, only a reward structure that naturally selects for the sub-optimal. I put it to you that such reward structures exist within climate science in the form of the external pressures alluded to by Schmidt. That said, you should note that I have also been careful to acknowledge that there will be other factors at play.
As for your repeated demand that I give a fair hearing to the likes of Otto et al, that would take us into territory that expands the scope of the essay far too much. There has indeed been a heated dispute between the storylines advocates and the D&A community, but the reasons for that dispute extend far beyond considerations of the aleatory versus epistemic. This is something I have written about before, but not here. I could write another essay tackling it, but I don’t currently feel the motivation to do so, and when I do, it won’t be to correct a perceived shortcoming of the above article.
These discussions do not have to be combative, but unfortunately that has been the tone you have adopted from the outset. I foresaw that there would be nothing to be gained by attempting to meaningfully engage with someone whose misreading of the thesis is such that they have concluded that they are dealing with your typical anti-science merchant of uncertainty. That assumption seems to have set the tone for your opening blast and everything that has followed. I chose not to engage with that and ask that you accept the sincerity of my position. If you continue with a line of argument premised upon a supposed lack of good faith on my part, I can hardly be blamed for turning away after letting my displeasure be known.
I would also like to point out that for the last two weeks most of my comments have been automatically going into the spam folder, requiring me to trouble Dr Curry with an email every time requesting that they be released. Not only has this represented a considerable inconvenience for Dr Curry, it has also resulted in there often being a considerable delay in my response emerging. It’s another reason why I would be reluctant to engage in a discussion that doesn’t really go anywhere.
Perhaps interesting- AI contributes as follows-
‘Philosopher Mary Shepherd did not write about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW), but her ideas about causation and epistemology offer a framework for an AGW-skeptic or “realist” critique of “global warming alarmism”. A Shepherd-inspired critique would focus on the limits of human knowledge, the certainty of causal claims, and the distinction between reliable scientific laws and fallible predictions based on complex data.’
John, I have responded to this comment below: https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1021233
Waggy, ask your AI what she would say about making radical changes to a mission-critical system you know nothing about.
AI observes as follows-
‘To define a mission-critical statement regarding “climate change, AGW, global warming alarmism,” one must acknowledge the deep and persistent divisions surrounding the topic, including disagreements over terminology, scientific consensus, and appropriate policy responses. Therefore, a single, universally accepted mission statement is not possible.’
Instructively, AI also provides as follows..
‘A “mission critical” statement is not inherently associated with authoritarianism, but the concept can be manipulated to serve authoritarian goals. While the term is neutral and simply denotes something essential to a system’s survival, authoritarian regimes use it to legitimize the expansion of power by creating a constant sense of crisis.’
Claude Opus 4.1 is somewhat of a climate contrarian: https://claude.ai/share/2d344509-9a69-4bc9-b2a7-380ef21ad8d2
Claude Sonnet 4.5 starts out as a precautionarian: https://claude.ai/share/baa7f2c3-abf1-49b5-902d-80b8af2a1e15
Then it waxes a little lukewarmer:
Then it turns to playing the honest broker by inverting the “do nothing” argument and setting up a false dichotomy:
I asked each model a follow-on question, which you can read about in the links provided: how might she respond to me noting that modern technological society arose during the relatively stable climate of the holocene? At the end of its answer to that question, 4.5 said, “She might ask: “Are you arguing we should be more cautious about altering the conditions that enabled everything we’ve built, or less? How would you answer that?”
Answer: I’m a non-alarmist precationarist who advocates no-regrets emission mitigation on the strength of our greatest certainty, which is hindsight: the relatively stable pre-industrial climate was compatible with the rise of technological society. Those who argue that “models are stupid, so let’s keep doing uncontrolled experiments on our life-support system because CO2 is plant food” are reckless. Freedom of expression demands that such arguments be heard, but it doesn’t protect them from being discarded with prejudice by responsible clear thinkers who don’t make friends of ignorance.
Wagathon:
Thanks!
Again, AI got it completely wrong.
ALL La Ninas are caused by increased levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, primarily from VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions, but also from industrial activity. which cools the Earth’s lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
Dogmatism
refers to a person who believes strongly that their personal opinions or beliefs are correct, often to the point of being unwilling to change their minds despite evidence to the contrary. This behavior can be described as “dogmatist” or “adamant”. Additionally, the phenomenon of “illusion of information adequacy” describes how individuals may assume they have all the necessary information to make a decision, leading them to insist that their beliefs are valid even when presented with contradictory evidence.
B A Bushaw:
Why are you describing yourself to me?
I have not been voicing opinions, just citing .provable facts.
Are you saying Hillary, Kamala abd AGW global warming catastrophists are dogmatic?
An example of dogmatism: BA Bushaw insisting for four days that I had written something that I had in fact not written. And accusing me of lying about it.
Burl, No. I was describing you and your incorrect fixation on SO2.
Thomas, No. I was the one that searched out my mistake and appologized for it. Sorry it took me 4days
Same old Circle of BAB(l).
I’ve studied the published papers on the issue of natural vs forced change for well over 20 years because it is a critical issue. All of them contain the guesswork element of hypothesis – the issue is unlikely to be advanced any further within our lifetimes. Consensus is for politicians.
Judith’s combined paper addressing this issue a few threads ago was never honestly answered by yourself or Appellations. Just your usual low level, ad hominen sarcasm together with some childish glee on some irrelevant bureaucratic tangle.
You’re not worth bothering with any further.
Ianl said, “You’re not worth bothering with any further.”
Projection. Can I hold you to that? You are a no-name nobody that has nothing to offer except insults and made-up name-calling. Claim to have read climate papers for 20 years, but apparently don’t understand them and think that unnamed, unreviewed contrarian blogs are valid references on the subject.
AI says– “…,the Hawaiian Islands would not exist without volcanic activity, as they were formed by it over millions of years from a “hot spot” beneath the Pacific Plate. This geological process created the volcanic mountains that, over time, grew above sea level and formed the islands.”
Thomas [cont], My finding my error and appologizing for it is not dogmatic. Your continued insults and false representation after being given that information is dogmatic.
B A Bushaw:
Temperatures are constantly increasing or decreasing (as now).
Please explain how this happens, scientifically, no hand waving.
Burl:
https://iere.org/what-is-internal-variability-in-climate-change/
This is a reply to the link below on “natural variability” and “climate change” that BAB(l) supplied.
https://iere.org/what-is-internal-variability-in-climate-change/
Reading through the kindergarten paragraphs looking for how these “patterns” are separated, we find:
“Scientists use a variety of techniques to separate these two influences, including statistical analysis and climate modeling.”
This is known as the Circle of BAB(l).
ianl, You have nothing of value to say – how typical.
If you’d like something at level higher than Burl (or you?) can understand, try:
“Origin, importance, and predictive limits of internal climate variability” [Lehner. 2023}
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/accf30
See my article on American Thinker:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/10/venus_and_the_climate_fallacy_why_radiative_forcing_fails.html
Good evening everyone!
I would like to develop the Rotational Warming Phenomenon in short again.
Again, because it gets explained time-after -time better and better.
0). The EM energy is not heat. When hitting a surface (matter) the EM energy is not heat.
There an interaction process occurs.
When interacting, the matter doesn’t permit the EM energy in. What matter spontaneously does is to emit EM energy, not to absorb EM energy.
Matter is able to absorb energy only when the energy is in form of heat (by conduction and convection).
When EM energy interacting with matter:
1). Some is immediately gets reflected from the skin layer at the same frequencies it hits matter (SW reflection)
2). The rest, the not reflected part, because the skin layer couldn’t reflect it as it is (SW), couldn’t reflect that portion at its initial frequencies…
The rest, while interacting with matter, which matter is already incapable to get rid of it at the initial (SW) frequencies – that process induces the skin layer’s higher temperature.
The immediate IR emission takes place.
The higher the skin layer’s temperature, the higher the immediate IR emission’s the EM energy’s frequencies.
As a result – the higher the skin layer’s temperature, the higher the immediate IR emission’s the EM energy’s INTENSITY.
3). There is a temperature gradient (the skin layer / the inner layers) – the gradient conducts energy in form of heat into inner layers and that heat gets absorbed.
Let’s see now,
The higher the skin layer’s induced temperature – the more energy is IR emitted and the less energy is conducted into inner layers.
The lower the skin layer’s induced temperature – the less energy is IR emitted and the more energy is conducted into inner layers.
A question begs for an answer:
Why the higher temperature gradient (the skin layer / the inner layers) leads to the lesser energy being conducted as heat into inner layers.
It is because the skin layer emits IR EM energy at fourth power (4) of its absolute temperature T.
And. on the other hand, the skin layer conducts heat at ΔT gradient
(the skin layer / the inner layers), which is much-much smaller.
Conclusion:
For the same portion of the not reflected EM energy, which portion interacts with skin layer, while the matter mobilizes its strengths to get it back out as the EM energy it is…
the tension induces a higher skin layer’s temperature…
But, the higher is the surface’s (N*cp) product, the less is the induced the skin layer’s temperature…
And, the higher is the surface’s (N*cp) product, the less is the immediate IR energy, and the more is the energy in form of heat absorbed in inner layers.
So, for the same portion of the not reflected EM energy, some planets or moons absorb more in form of heat, and some absorb less.
Also, it should be noticed, that the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux never gets entirely absorbed as heat in inner layers.
It never gets entirely absorbed as heat in inner layers, because, when EM energy hits matter, there is always the interaction process occurs, thus there is always present a smaller or a larger amount of the immediate IR emitted EM energy.
//////////////////
For the more remote planets and moons the incident solar flux is weaker.
So, the weaker is the on the planet the solar flux , but for surface’s with the same (N*cp) product, the higher is by the planet’s surface
the (absorbed heat / immediate IR emission) ratio.
Because, for those planets, the skin layer’s induced temperature T is much lower, so, as a concequence, it is much lower the immediate iR emission EM energy (the T in fourth power),
And, the ΔT gradient (the skin layer / the inner layers) the temperature difference is comparably to the (the T in fourth power) allows to conduct heat at higher ratio.
So, for two planets with the same (N*cp) product, the more remote planet has a higher
the (absorbed heat / immediate IR emission) ratio.
/////////////////////////
Good night.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How about a planet covered mostly in water, where much of the incoming SWR penetrates meters deep before it is absorbed and turned into heat.
B A Bushaw:
Your referenced article is pure garbage, just handwaving and suppositions!.
They attribute most of our temperature changes to the effects of El Ninos and La Ninas, and call it a chaotic system.
However, all El Ninos and La Ninas are caused by changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, nothing to do with CO2
See “The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
My “fixation on SO2” is based upon a realm of facts.
No, Burl. It is your disproved suppositions that are pure garbage.
Interesting to see that, related to the Earth’s core, ‘NASA scientists,’ according to AI, described another possible physical process, hypothesizing as follows: ‘that changes in the Earth’s core could disturb its magnetic field, which in turn could affect the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches Earth and influences cloud formation. This, they suggest, could alter the amount of solar energy that the planet absorbs.’
Apparently, according to AI, when looking at the peer-reviewed science on the matter, ‘research into the link between Earth’s rotation and climate suggests the opposite relationship—that climate change is affecting the Earth’s rotation, not the other way around.’
Also interesting, regarding what it refers to as ‘mainstream’ science, AI observes as follows–
‘Orbital cycles: Long-term climate variations over thousands of years are driven by Milankovitch cycles, which involve changes in the Earth’s tilt, wobble, and orbit. This is different from the much shorter-term fluctuations proposed by Vournas.’
One thing is certainly undeniable regarding the effects of what could be called a ‘rotational warming phenomenon’ is the change from daylight to night time which occurs on a daily basis!
Wagathon, this is an interesting article:
https://wonderfulengineering.com/new-study-says-the-earths-core-wobbles-every-8-5-years/
Awhile back there was a discussion about the asymmetry of the Sun’s barycenter (this is influenced by planetary alignment). Somewhere within that discussion the Earth’s core wobble was mentioned, that the Sun has a partial influence on the wobble of Earth’s core.
I didn’t have access to AI at the time, so referenced it on this question:
Earth’s Core Wobble
“Earth’s core wobble, or axial precession, is primarily influenced by gravitational forces from the Moon and the Sun, as well as the distribution of mass within the Earth itself. The core’s movement is a complex interaction of these forces, and while the barycenter’s position can affect the gravitational pull on Earth, it is not the sole factor.
Asymmetry and Its Effects
The asymmetry of the Sun’s barycenter, which can be slightly outside the Sun due to the mass of Jupiter and other planets, may contribute to minor variations in gravitational forces acting on Earth. However, these effects are generally small compared to the dominant influences of the Moon and the Sun’s direct gravitational pull.
Conclusion
The primary drivers of this wobble remain the gravitational interactions with the Moon and the Sun, along with Earth’s internal dynamics.”
Relative to climate:
Indirect Climate Effects
“Rotation and Day Length: Changes in the core’s rotation can affect the length of a day. As the Earth’s rotation slows, it can lead to longer days, which may influence weather patterns over time.
Gravitational Effects: The wobble can alter the distribution of mass within the Earth, which may affect ocean currents and atmospheric circulation patterns. These changes can have long-term implications for climate.”
The distribution of mass on Earth’s surface can also affect Earth’s rotation.
“The Three Gorges Dam in China slightly affects Earth’s rotation by redistributing mass, which can lengthen each day by about 0.06 microseconds. This phenomenon illustrates how large human-made structures can influence planetary dynamics.”
It would seem that the compounded effects from mass redistribution on Earth’s surface would also play a role in perturbing the wobble of Earth’s core over time.
“The effects of the Three Gorges Dam, while small, are comparable to those caused by significant natural events, such as earthquakes. For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake shortened the length of a day by about 2.68 microseconds due to changes in mass distribution.”
B A Bushaw:
Another garbage paper!!
The Control Knob for Earth’s temperatures is simply the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, and they don’t even mention them once.
Have you had the courage to read my article on La Ninas and El Ninos?
Burl, yes, I’ve looked at your ENSO paper. Like all your others, it is garbage on top of garbage and shows that you are incapable of doing scientific “research”. As previously, I would encourage everyone interested to read some of Burl’s papers and form their own opinion.
Good night.
B A Bushaw:
Says someone who has never done any climate research himself, but instead relies upon garbage others have written.
And you are incapable of specifically refuting any of my claims!
I did climate research (actual numerical analysis on real climate data) in disproving your claim “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”. You didn’t understand it, after all you’re the one that can’t even figure out how to ask AI a question and have to ask for help on that triviality. No reason to expect you to understand climatology. You just found a vanity press that would post you idiot PDFs and sell you a DOI for $30. Again, I encourage anyone interested to read Burl’s papers (see Researchgate) and form their own opinion of Burl’s ability to do science, in any field.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3uqt08obf0lyklv0lydk4/CO2SO2.jpg?rlkey=vbhm7s9timfq81y2pynifzgvd&st=it4zfme0&dl=0
Pathetic ad hominem.
I’ve done trivial climate research that disproves your claim. At least, I know how to calculate the relative importance of SO2 and CO2(e) for warming since 1900. Whereas you cherry-pick data after 1980 and then flap your wings and claim, quite ridiculously, that it is all due to SO2 decline.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3uqt08obf0lyklv0lydk4/CO2SO2.jpg?rlkey=vbhm7s9timfq81y2pynifzgvd&st=it4zfme0&dl=0
I asked AI, is one of the causes of ‘weather’ caused by Earth’s rotation as we observe on a daily basis of the world changing from daytime to night time?
The reply- ‘Yes, the Earth’s rotation from day to night is a major cause of weather and weather patterns. However, it is not a direct cause, but works alongside solar heating to drive the complex systems that we experience as weather.’
It was interesting to note as follows:
‘The Coriolis effect. Because the Earth is a rotating sphere, winds and ocean currents do not move in a straight line. The Coriolis effect deflects their path—to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. This deflection is key to the formation of large-scale, rotating weather systems.’
Doesn’t it seem a bit contrived to focus on an increase in the atmospheric content of CO2, measured in parts per million, as the cause of climate change?
No, it doesn’t seem contrived. Coriolis effect is essentially constant (for a given latitude). CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over 50% in the last 200 years.
If you had a 50% increase in the rate of growth of your thumbnail, would you chop your hand off? I think the Coriolis effect is interesting, as I said and why I mentioned it but as I’m sure you know, there are many other effects on the weather and directly related to climate if occurring over 30 years, by definition, that are directly related to Earth’s rotation.
Also interesting, I think, is the effect on weather and climate of Earth’s equatorial bulge.
No, I wouldn’t chop off my hand, nor would I equate velocity and acceleration.
AI says– ‘While dermatology provides robust evidence of long-term climate trends, the resolution and uncertainty of proxy data decrease when trying to pinpoint rapid, decadal-scale changes in the distant past.’ But, anything is possible if you are a believer. Problem is, science is not believing it’s proving, e.g., no one can look at MM’s hockey stick graph and see reality unless they are a believer.
AI– ‘the resolution and certainty of paleoclimate proxy data generally decrease when attempting to pinpoint rapid, decadal-scale changes in the distant past. While proxies are invaluable for understanding long-term trends, their ability to resolve short-term climate events is limited by factors related to their formation, dating accuracy, and the natural “noise” present in the records’
AI–
‘Environmental signals recorded in proxies are often weak and can be overwhelmed by other factors, especially at shorter time scales.
‘Biological and physical noise: The chemical composition of a foraminifera shell or the growth of a tree ring is influenced by local, non-climatic factors in addition to the global climate signal. This “noise” can obscure the subtle signal of a decadal-scale climate shift.
‘Statistical uncertainty: All proxy reconstructions have an inherent statistical uncertainty. For shorter time scales, this uncertainty is often a larger percentage of the signal, making it more difficult to confidently identify short-lived events.’
AGW climate change alarmism isn’t science. It’s voodoo!
AGW climate change science is a search for knowledge. If you are not alarmed by the findings, you are a fool.
“AI says– ‘While dermatology provides robust evidence of long-term climate trends…”
Ha ha.
I suppose AI means pachy_dermatology:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003101820400656X
But that’s short term trends. Just can’t trust that AI.
‘Humans have always feared climate change and developed myths that our sinfulness is its cause. Accordingly, we always want to be able “to do something” about climate, to sacrifice to the Earth to bring about a golden age of climate stability. Unfortunately, both geology and history show us that the idea of a stable climate is untenable; there has never been, and never will be, a stable climate under human control. All we can do is adapt to constant change.
‘Our current obsession with the single factor of carbon dioxide emissions is little different. In a system as complex and chaotic as climate, actions with just one factor out of the thousands involved may even trigger unexpected consequences. It is vital to remember that, for such a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, not doing something (i.e., not emitting gases) is as unpredictable as doing something (i.e., emitting gases). Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.
‘Basing policies on worries about `global warming’ is a serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6 billion people in the less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the true scandals. By contrast, the political imposition on the rest of the world of our Northern, self-indulgent ecochondria about `global warming’ could prove to be a neo-colonialism too far.’ (Philip Stott)
BAB: “AGW climate change science is a search for knowledge. If you are not alarmed by the findings, you are a fool.”
Brilliant. The bird should consider that all science is the quest for knowledge. Climate consensus however is a quest for power, if it’s not open minded for discussion—then it’s politics.
Being subservient, or sycophantical to consensus findings (a religious equation, not a scientific one) equates to the central theme of the de facto fool, scientifically speaking.
The bird should be able to practice his religion, this discipline works well in a church, or a regional politburo. Evangelism is as an evangelist does.
Jungletrunks wrote:
The bird should consider that all science is the quest for knowledge. Climate consensus however is a quest for power, if it’s not open minded for discussion—then it’s politics.
Yes, climate scientists stand to make a gob of money by getting society to switch away from fossil fuels. Look at the staggering wealth of Arrhenius, Callendar, Plass, Revelle and Hansen.
Billionaires all.
UCSD’s Dr. Roger Revelle was no global warming alarmist. A pioneer in climate research, yes! But, his understudy, Al Gore, stabbed him in the back, much to the chagrin of his family.
Dirtypants, That’s a lot of words to say,”Yes, I’m a fool.
At least the bird is not ashamed of his religion, I admire Polly for admitting that he’s a fool for it.
That’s right – I not ashamed of being a scientist. Are you ashamed of being an anti-science jerk suffering from willful ignorance?
🦜:)
So easily trolled. Guess what this is a sign of?
Bruce—You are just another climate zealot who has latched onto the issue of human emissions and fails to see the bigger issues. You lie and post insults to people who seem to know the actual science better than you.
Look back at your lies about sea level rise and citing a bogus paper looking at 1 year of data. Based on that 1 year analysis, sea level is currently falling.
The Human race has expanded the most during the period of the supposed highest warming. We will adapt just fine. Humans only emit about 5% of total annual emissions. You are fighting a war that can’t be won.
“Bruce—You are just another climate zealot who has latched onto the issue of human emissions and fails to see the bigger issues.”
“Latched onto ” is too polite of a description. Actively embracing and promoting garbage science, not junk science but worse – pure garbage. The latest of which is the “stabilization of the climate solving poverty. Pure delusional garbage promoted by activists.
Rob, I’m still waiting for an apology for your “untruthful” insults. A demonstration of your understanding of the mathematics of acceleration would be helpful – but, you apparently still don’t have that understanding. Sea level rise acceleration has doubled over the last 30 years, according to both your and my references. Too bad you are not bright enough to understand the simple data analysis. As for my insults – you earned them by insulting me over things that are clearly beyond your comprehension.
Jojo, you can misquote me all you want (I never said “solve”), I don’t really care, because you never have anything of substance to add to the conversations you butt into.
Bushaw – Tell everyone where I misrepresented your belief’s on stabilizing the climate to solve poverty. At least 6 times you made a statement embracing that belief.
“Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate.”
https://www.concern.net/news/climate-change-and-poverty?_gl=1*5c5lbp*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTk3OTE2MDQ2Mi4xNzYwMjA0NDYx*_ga_RLZ9XCKFP1*czE3NjAyMDQ0NjAkbzEkZzAkdDE3NjAyMDQ0NjAkajYwJGwwJGgxNjYzNDAyMjY0
• B A Bushaw | October 11, 2025 at 3:37 pm |
… I posted that because it is obviuos and you can’t refute it.
• B A Bushaw | October 11, 2025 at 3:44 pm |
… and it isn’t contrary to my beliefs – it is contrary to your beliefs that you can’t support.
B A Bushaw | October 12, 2025 at 11:55 am |
Ah, weak Marie piling on with falsehoods like he always does.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22315-9
has 6 authors. That is quantitatively more than a dead Dyson.
Jojo, In your comment:
“The latest of which is the stabilization of the climate solving poverty.” I never said that, I said it “address[es]”
… and gave a reference, You did quote it correctly later:
“Many more scientists than dead Dyson believe the best way to address poverty is to stabilize the climate.”
Where does it say “solve” – you just make up crap.
Yeah, I believe it, although perhaps I should have said … one of the best.
Where is your reference that refutes mine. I don’t care about your person opinions, since you just make up things
It ain’t easy, bein’ green!
LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) – Oil, gas and coal will continue to dominate the world’s energy mix well beyond 2050, as soaring electricity demand outpaces the shift to renewables, according to a new McKinsey report, opens new tab.
Link to follow …
LINK:www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/fossil-fuels-dominate-global-energy-use-past-2050-mckinsey-says-2025-10-16/
Jim, your link didn’t work. Probably contaminated with extraneous information.
Sounds like they’re saying, we British have substituted cleaner forms of energy generation to replace that dirty coal and we’re now faced with increasing energy demands so, we’ve decided to meet them by burning dirty coal…
It’s called the “Stiff upper lip” AGW global warming policy, saying– you’ve stopped doing what you never should have started doing and continuing to do what you always did.
It’s the British way of saying, the “chickens have come home to roost.”
John Ridgway
Straying slight off topic. Your article addresses the aleatory and epistemic uncertainties primarily in the climate models. What are your thoughts in how uncertainties are addressed in other facets of climate science such as trends in weather extremes, hurricanes, heat waves, including observational deficiencies in earlier periods or the use of truncated study periods?
You may have previously responded to a similar question on how uncertainties are addressed in the paleo arena such as uncertainties in how accurate/close are the proxies to measuring temps.
Any other areas of climate science where uncertainties are under appreciated (perhaps advancing the agenda instead of advancing the science)
Thanks for your insights.
John – I found your commentary on the paleo issues which is good, so skip that part of my question
Joe K,
I’m sorry, but I have no thoughts on how climate scientists deal with trend histories in extreme weather. It isn’t an area I have considered in any detail. I do not generally rummage around in climatology looking for potential flaws in statistical analysis. However, every now and again, something shouts out at me because I recognise an issue from my dealings in a former life as a functional safety analyst. So, when I was looking into D&A and I read about the controversy between those who base their analyses upon the aleatory treatment of epistemic uncertainty (the normative) and those who oppose such practice, my ears pricked up. This is exactly the sort of issue I had cause to raise every now and again with my professional colleagues within safety engineering and, when I did so, my commentary was always welcomed. My concerns would be treated with respect, even when not agreed with. However, try as a climate sceptic to draw attention to this problem within the climate science debate and you are bound to be set upon sooner or later by an orc slayer.
So, I am afraid the best advice I can give to you, if you want to gain further insight, is to look into the storylines approach, as advocated in IPCC AR6, but read the works of Shepherd, Winsberg, Stott and Allen to get a real feel for the bun fight that has ensued behind the scenes, and why the controversy still stands. I note with interest that Otto is destined to be a lead author for AR7, so it could be that the IPCC’s concession towards those who don’t like its traditional, pseudo-probabilistic approach towards the characterisation of multi-model ensemble uncertainty may prove to have been short-lived.
As concerns, the original question posed, the IPCC has gone from an ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) probability range of a 66% or greater chance of a 1.5–4.5°C as a ‘likely’ expected long-term global temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, to a now ‘very likely’ range 2.0°C and 5.0°C, according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in 2021. The only science I see that can explain this greater level of certainty and a narrower range is, political science.
Fighting global warming is the Left’s WWIII and and America is the enemy. Why? Because the Left fears capitalism and respect for individual liberty.
Does “individual liberty” give you the right to alter the global commons in whatever way you see fit, especially if it’s pollution?
Does capitalism pay for its negative externalities?
The conference has a moral duty to the poor, namely to help them find ways to not be poor. There is no debate that depriving them of the technological means that are required to lift their societies is immoral. ~Pat Michaels
(See, e.g., ‘Pope Francis, climate change, and morality,’ Climate Etc., April 29, 2015)
No, I don’t want to know what the pope says, I want to know about your replies to my questions.
The conference has a moral duty to the poor, namely to help them find ways to not be poor. There is no debate that depriving them of the technological means that are required to lift their societies is immoral. ~Pat Michaels
It’s well understood that the poor will suffer the most from climate change, because they can’t adapt to it as can the rich. It’s the rich who are creating the problem, not the poor.
So what Pat Michaels spouted is nothing but propaganda. As usual.
Dr.Steven Koonin shares beliefs most all of us already have who aren’t AGW climate change charlatans. “The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing,” says Koonin. “That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades.” The IPCC’s adoption of Michael Mann’s hockey stick science was an unscientific denial of this most basic fact.
‘We’d call that a scandal. We’d even call it a shocking scandal, except that we’ve seen it too often to be shocked anymore. And clearly many in the field who know better are not sufficiently shocked to speak up.’ ~Roger Pielke, Jr.
Wagathon wrote:
As concerns, the original question posed, the IPCC has gone from an ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) probability range of a 66% or greater chance of a 1.5–4.5°C as a ‘likely’ expected long-term global temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, to a now ‘very likely’ range 2.0°C and 5.0°C, according to the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in 2021. The only science I see that can explain this greater level of certainty and a narrower range is, political science.
I highly doubt you are scientifically astute enough to understand why they did this. Your lack of a scientific response and defaulting to your favorite reasoning–“political science”–reflects that, I think.
Cloaking Leftist Western Academic corruption in the trappings of science butters no parsnips.
Wags, no buttered parsnips. But it seems your crazy commentaries butter your butt. Does it feel good?
Wagathon wrote:
Cloaking Leftist Western Academic corruption in the trappings of science butters no parsnips.
Translation: you don’t understand the science, so can’t understand its findings, so always resort to claptrap as a response.
Your responses don’t fool anyone. No wonder you’re afraid to comment under your real name.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2025/10/15/the-award-winning-science-behind-climate-damage-trends/
It is obvious that a mean of results produced by an ensemble of climate models could be significantly different than truth. Some models can be closer to the truth than others and thus differentiating individual models performance is the correct approach. That performance, however, cannot be taken at face value but rather it must be determined if the result was obtained in an incorrect manner. I give as an example, a high sensitivity model that closely approaches the observed global mean surface temperature by using more negative aerosol forcing than is observed.
I am finishing up my investigations of evaluating and ranking climate models by performance metrics that are related to matching the observed global mean surface temperature changes. I have found that low sensitivity models out rank higher sensitivity ones in both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 series.
Below are listed titles and links to papers where the authors are edging away from using ensemble means of individual climate models, but not rapidly enough in my view. There appears, again in my view, that there is a hesitancy in this field to single out individual models with critical comments.
What Aspect of Model Performance is the Most Relevant to Skillful Future Projection on a Regional Scale?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/5/JCLI-D-23-0312.1.xml
Prospects and Caveats of Weighting Climate Models for Summer Maximum Temperature Projections Over North America
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2017JD027992
A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL072012
Climate Model Projections of 21st Century Global Warming Constrained Using the Observed Warming Trend
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL086757
A Representative Democracy to Reduce Interdependency in a Multimodel Ensemble
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/13/jcli-d-14-00362.1.xml
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
Web: t.ly/68LaZ
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
B A Bushaw:
As I have explained before, I have never attempted to cherry-picked the data, I selected 1980 and later to attempt to explain the warming since then.
I found that between 1980 and 2023, Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels fell from a reported 141 million tons to 69 million tons, a decrease of 72 million tons.
If the amount of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution is decreased, it increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and warming inevitably occurs.
This also applies to volcanic SO2 aerosols, so temperatures of all eras, such as the MWP and the LIA necessarily exhibited their effects
If you cannot comprehend the above, your I.Q. must be well south of 100!
Of course, you cherry-picked, If you had used the full available data sets, and quantified the resulting temperature behaviors, you would know that your hypothesis about CO2 not causing any warming is pure horsecrap.
B A Bushaw:
The Data Set that I chose spanned a period of 43 years, 1980-2023, longer than since 1988, when Hansen first claimed that our warming was being caused by the greenhouse effect.
CO2 levels were too low in any of the earlier data sets to have caused any “greenhouse” warming.
You are even more stupid than I had given you credit for being
Burl Henry wrote:
CO2 levels were too low in any of the earlier data sets to have caused any “greenhouse” warming.
You keep claiming this but have never once proved it. Or even tried.
Burl, you have never explained how the clearing of SO2 can cause more warming than the cooling it first caused. You have avoided this question every time I’ve asked.
Your hypothesis violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. This isn’t hard to understand.
David Appell:
I explained that to you in my answer to you back on Oct. 3, 9:06 P.M.
You either missed it, or are you becoming senile?
Temperatures preceding a volcanic eruption are almost always exceeded after their SO2 aerosols have settled out, usually reaching the temperatures of an El Nino.
The reason is that SO2 aerosols are a fine mist of Sulfuric Acid droplets, which coalesce with and flush out enough of others in the troposphere, during their descent from the stratosphere, to cause temperatures to rise because of the less polluted air.
Yes Burl, I’m senile, and you still haven’t addressed my issue.
Consider a climate with no other forcing than SO2. Before the volcano its average global temperature is T0. After the volcano the temperature drops to T1 due to the volcano’s SO2. Over months or a year or two the SO2 falls out of the atmosphere so the atmosphere is again clear. How does the temperature ever rise higher then its initial temperature, T0?
Burl, what’s your response to my question/argument? I’m honestly interested to know….
PS: I didn’t see any earlier comment on this–I don’t read comments sometimes for days at a time. Have a link?
Now I see. Burl Henry wrote:
“SO2 bursts” occur when there is a volcanic eruption, and when their volcanic SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of Sulfuric Acid) eventually settle out, enough of them coalesce with, and flush out others in the troposphere, generally causing temperatures to rise enough higher than pre-existing temperatures to form an El Nino.
This doesn’t address my criticism at all–it’s just a claim by decree. HOW do temperatures rise higher than they were originally? Where does the extra energy come from?
Burl, the HOW very important. I can answer it, but I thought I’d give you a crack at it first. Go for it!
In fact, due to negative feedbacks the baseline temperature wouldn’t even come back to what it was before the SO2 cooling.
David Appell:
I responded to this question of yours on Oct 17, I suggest that you go back and read it.
Higher temperatures after the SO2 aerosols from a VEI4 or higher volcanic eruption settle out are NORMALLY observed
Burl, I’m not going to search through a bunch of comments to try to guess what you wrote and meant. Please repeat it here or just give the link. Thanks.
David Appell:
See my post on Oct 17, near the end of the thread.
The extra energy comes from the increased solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface due to the less polluted air.
Burl:
Link please?
The extra energy comes from the increased solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface due to the less polluted air.
How much solar radiation is blocked by the SO2 injection and how much cooling does it cause?
By conservation of energy, how can the subsequent warming be more (in absolute value) than the initial cooling? (You always avoid this question. I think because you know what it implies about your hypothesis.)
I comprehend what you are saying. It is cherry-picking resulting in unsupportable horsecrap that you can’t quantify.
B A Bushaw:
You accuse me of cherry picking data after 1980:
No, I chose the period after 1980 in an effort to understand the cause of the warming that occurred after then, since it did not seem possible that a trace gas of .04 % by volume in our atmosphere could have such a profound effect.
The period 1980 -2023 represents a significant span of 43 years, which is a longer span than greenhouse gas warming of our planet was first proposed by Dr. James Hansen in 1988.
What I found was that Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels peaked at 141 million tons in 1980, and due to “Clean Air” legislation, etc., by 2023 they had fallen to 69 million tons, a decrease of 72 million tons.
Decreased levels of atmospheric aerosol pollution increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and warming naturally occurs. This inescapable.
Regarding the earlier periods before 1980, which you accuse me of ignoring, their CO2 levels were too low to cause any observable “Greenhouse” warming”, of our planet, even if such a fantasy did exist.
Q.E.D.
Burl (your statements in italics):
,You accuse me of cherry picking data after 1980:
That’s right, I accuse you of cherry-picking, and I still do. I will allow that it may come from ignorance and delusion, but more likely intentional cheating, since you are unable to acknowledge you errors and false assumptions.
No, I chose the period after 1980 in an effort to understand the cause of the warming that occurred after then, since it did not seem possible that a trace gas of .04 % by volume in our atmosphere could have such a profound effect.
Irrelevant. Analogy 1: put 0.4 g of potassium cyanide in a liter of water (0.04%) drink it – you will notice a profound difference. Analogy 2: mix 0.4 ml of food coloring or india ink into 1 liter of water – there will be a profound difference in optical properties. It is not the concentration of the substance alone that is important; it is the concentration multiplied by an interaction coefficient (optical extinction coefficient), which can vary by many orders of magnitude (CH4 > CO2 > H2O >>O2, N2 >> Ar).
The period 1980 -2023 represents a significant span of 43 years, which is a longer span than greenhouse gas warming of our planet was first proposed by Dr. James Hansen in 1988.
FALSE. Global Warming was first proposed by Fourier in 1824, and first quantified by Arrhenius in 1896 (with quite accurate results, for the time).
https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicted-global-warming/
What I found was that Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels peaked at 141 million tons in 1980, and due to “Clean Air” legislation, etc., by 2023 they had fallen to 69 million tons, a decrease of 72 million tons.
I will credit you with being able to subtract and wave your hands, but not much else. What you are not able to do is quantify the corresponding temperature change. Except for the totally hilarious; SO2 is responsible for all of it. This is not science; it is, at best, unquantified pseudoscience speculation.
Decreased levels of atmospheric aerosol pollution increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and warming naturally occurs. This inescapable.
Yes, that is true, but, as above, you are not able to quantify it, so that it is irrelevant to further scientific analysis.
Regarding the earlier periods before 1980, which you accuse me of ignoring, their CO2 levels were too low to cause any observable “Greenhouse” warming”, of our planet, even if such a fantasy did exist.
FALSE. First observations in the 1930s. In retrospect, observable back to the 1890s. The fantasy is yours, arising out of ignorance – some of it detailed above – and a senile ego that apparently doesn’t allow you to acknowledge your errors.
https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm
If CO2 was not causing warming before 1980 (implicit admission that it does cause warming, even though you deny it), then what caused the warming 1900 -1980 (~+0.5 C)? Certainly not SO2 decline – it was increasing over the whole period. In fact, by your false suppositions, we should have seen cooling approximately equal to twice the warming observed since 1980 (twice the SO2 growth for 1900-1980 as compared to the decline for 1980-2023). That is to say, your false assumptions and analysis would predict a cooling of ~-2.4 C for 1900-1980. I don’t accuse you of ignoring pre-1980 data; I accuse you of paying particular attention to it and removing it by cherry-picking, because including it would falsify your hypothesis as espoused in your paper entitled “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming .
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Your hypothesis has already been disproved mathematically, actually analyzing the available CO2-SO2-Tdata . Now it is disproved logically, because it does not agree with known reality, your false assumptions are exposed, and it does not even conform with common sense. So yes, you cherry-picked and it lead you to false conclusions. The only remaining question is whether it arises out of ignorant stupidity or intentional cheating. Let us know when you publish a retraction of your paper (bold above).
PS ~ it does not behoove you to insult someone’s competence and expertise, when you have none.
Burl H wrote:
since it did not seem possible that a trace gas of .04 % by volume in our atmosphere could have such a profound effect.
That’s not science. A lot of things “don’t seem possible” but are in fact true. Ozone never rises higher than 10 ppm in the ozone layer of the atmosphere but yet without it humans would have never existed.
300 ppm of cyanide in the air will kill you in minutes.
What calculations or experiments have you done to back up your claim about CO2?
B A Bushaw.
I have already explained the mechanism to David.
Decrease the amount of air pollution in the atmosphere, and it naturally warms up.
Burl, you have CERTAINLY NOT explained any mechanism.
How much cooling does the emitted SO2 cause?
Then how much warming does it cause when it drops out of the atmosphere?
You have been avoiding this question since the beginning. I take it don’t have an answer.
B A Bushaw:
Yesterday, you had written “Burl, the HOW very important, I can answer it, but I thought I’d give you a crack at it first”.
You have seen my response, but I am curious as to what your response would have been.
Am I overlooking something?
Burl,
Increasing temperature baseline (on climatic time scale) – it is not flat. Generally increases over time from before volcanic to after, whether event happens or not. That long-term increase is caused by GHGs.
Depriving humanity of the possibility of being more able than our ancestors to face real not make believe challenges (like preventing a climate change catastrophe caused by productive people who liberate CO2 into the atmosphere as they attempt to provide the goods and services that all people demand) is the result of a Hollywood liberal utopianism and the legacy of the secular, socialist government-education machine. The Eurocommies were first to go down the AGW global warming catastrophist rabbit hole and now, they’re the last to come out of it.
All the while, the Left produces nothing of value and in America only years of roasting George Bush, then demonizing Donald Trump and indulging in fantastic memes like blaming the productive and Americanism for throwing off the yolk of Western academic corruption of science, controlling borders and attempting to restore the integrity of a justice system that will demand personal responsibility for one’s actions.
10 countries now produce 100% of their electricity from renewable sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#Renewable_production_(percent)
Iceland?
‘Iceland generates almost all of its energy from geothermal and hydropower, making it one of the few countries with a nearly 100% renewable electricity supply. Geothermal energy comes from the island’s volcanic activity and is used for both electricity generation and direct heating, while hydropower comes from its numerous rivers and glacial meltwater.’
A – Those top 20 ish get the majority of electricity from hydro, NOT Wind or Solar
B – From Appell’s list of top 10 – per capita electric usage age in kilowatts
Albania 2540
DR congo 131
costa rica 2,206
nepal 321
Paragury 2389
Ethopia 92
Other countries –
The US 12,791
Germany 5640
France 8381
The US per capita electric generation from wind and solar is about 1700 -1800 KWh. None of the top 20 from Appells list come even remotely close for wind and solar. Hydro is heavily limited by geography.
Appell – There is a lot more to understanding the full scope of renewables that simply repeating talking points.
Smart. And these countries never bought the “clean coal” or coal is cheapter b.s.
100% of my own electricity is from renewable sources. 7.54 cents/kWh.
These 10 countries all have 38% or more of their electricity generated by wind+solar+nuclear. 5 > 50%. France & Denmark= 72%.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_d5988ca0-2bc5-4779-a757-26c5ed903941
Clearly it can be done.
appell- your are repeating talking points without understanding the science, the engineering or the economics..
Use basic critical thinking skills
None of your comments reflect a basic understanding of the basics
Derivatives are important – knowing where you are going, absolute or relative, is at least as important as knowing where you are at. With a moderate view to the future, I’d look at growth curves for the various technologies.
Appell’s link and comment
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_d5988ca0-2bc5-4779-a757-26c5ed903941
“Clearly it can be done.”
Appell – You should get your information on renewables from reliable sources instead of advocacy sources in order to have a better comprehension of the total picture.
Contrary to the advocates talking points and contrary to the LCOE reporting, renewables are more expensive. Electric prices in those high renewable countries range in the 30cents -38cents per kwh vs 12-16c in the US .
Dont cherry pick your information. It will only increase your level of misunderstanding of the topic.
Joe,
Without citing your sources, you are not a reliable source. And generally, you are very low on information content, tending more to insults and telling people what you think they should do.
US Oct 2025 residential electric prices/kwh:
average: $0.1747
range: $0.1169 – 0.4227
https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/
Costing twice as much (if true) does not mean it can’t be done. But, for narrow-minded accountants, apparently money is the only thing that matters. As I have already said, look at, and compare, the cost evolution and projections thereof, for the various technologies, renewable and not.
David Appell:
What an IDIOTIC question!
The ACTUAL amounts of SO2 aerosols does not matter, just that that is the mechanism that results in higher temperatures after stratospheric volcanic SO2 aerosols settle out of the atmosphere.
Probably different for every eruption.
JoKe wrote:
Contrary to the advocates talking points and contrary to the LCOE reporting, renewables are more expensive.
“The Global Trend of Turning Power Plants Into Clean Energy Hubs,” Carnegie Endowement for International Peace, 5/1/25.
https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/04/coal-gas-power-plant-green-energy-map-data-carbon-clean-tracker?lang=en
JoKe wrote:
Contrary to the advocates talking points and contrary to the LCOE reporting, renewables are more expensive. Electric prices in those high renewable countries range in the 30cents -38cents per kwh vs 12-16c in the US .
As I already wrote, 100% of my electricity comes from renewable sources. The cost is 7.54 cents/kWh.
Five years ago it was 7.55 cents/kWh.
Over the last 12 months I’v3 used an average of 718 kWh/month. Total average cost per month, with all other fees = $86.
Appell – – continuing to show that you are less informed by Bushaw.
None of your links address the core issue of utility scale costs, nor do any of your links correct your misconceptions .
All you did was demonstrate that you can repeat talking points without any level of comprehension.
Russel S / aka the planning engineer has provided considerable background information on the topic. Spend some time learning the basics so that you are so easily fooled by talking points.
Try again.
JoKe wrote:
Russel S / aka the planning engineer has provided considerable background information on the topic.
I don’t take my information from blogs, especially from denial blogs.
Figured out kWh vs kW yet?
JoKe wrote:
The US per capita electric generation from wind and solar is about 1700 -1800 KWh.
Wrong. This number should have units of watts, not kilowatt-hours.
But maybe accountants don’t understand that.
Appel – Are you trying to prove how little you know?
Maybe pretend “scientists dont understand the basics.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
JoKe, no, I’m pointing out that you don’t understand units of measurement. “1700-1800 kWh” is a unit of energy, not of power. Units of energy consumption don’t mean anything unless you specify the interval over which they’re consumed.
But maybe too much info for mere number cruncher.
Appell – five + comments showing you do not have even a basic understanding of the subject.
The topic is per capita generation, per capita usage. Kwh is the correct metric. Learn the basics. You even continued you asinine comments after a link was posted explaining the basics.
David Appell | October 21, 2025 at 6:38 pm |
David Appell | October 21, 2025 at 6:21 pm |
David Appell | October 21, 2025 at 6:49 pm |
Figured out kWh vs kW yet?
David Appell | October 21, 2025 at 6:23 pm | Reply
Wrong. This number should have units of watts, not kilowatt-hours.
But maybe accountants don’t understand that.
David Appell | October 21, 2025 at 6:38 pm |
JoKe, no, I’m pointing out that you don’t understand units of measurement. “1700-1800 kWh” is a unit of energy, not of power. Units of energy consumption don’t mean anything unless you specify the interval over which they’re consumed.
But maybe too much info for mere number cruncher.
Typical JoKe. Make up stuff and then tries to turn it into a false and asinine insult:
“Units for electrical generating capacity
The units for electrical generating capacity are primarily measured in megawatts (MW) or kilowatts (kW). These units represent the maximum amount of power a generator can produce when it is running at full capacity. It is important to note that capacity is not the same as actual electricity generation. Capacity refers to the potential output of a power plant, while generation refers to the actual power output over a specific period.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
The JoKe is wrong and apparently still doesn’t understand the difference between power and energy.
Is this a contest for who is the most wrong? Apple? or Bushbaby?
The topic is per capita electric generation / per capita electic usage. Not Capacity – The topic never was capacity.
Kwh is the correct metric.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php
JoKe, Too bad you don’t understand the difference between generation and consumption sales. Something instantaneous, something integrated.
My question – “Is this a contest for who is the most wrong? Apple? or Bushbaby?”
Bushbaby response – B A Bushaw | October 22, 2025 at 10:34 am |
JoKe, Too bad you don’t understand the difference between generation and consumption sales. Something instantaneous, something integrated.”
Looks like bushbaby won the contest.
Capacity is not the topic!
both you and Apple changed the topic to hide your repeated errors
JoKe,
Yes, my EIA references specifically excludes “capacity” from the discussion of generation. You are the only one talking about it.
Answer to your question – you are the most wrong.
Ganon – you have serious ethical issues
Its been pointed out to both you and Apple that the topic that Apple was wrong is “PER CAPITA Electric Generation and PER CAPITA electric USAGE.
Switching topics does not absolve you of your repetitive ERROR.
Is show you to be a delusional prick with ethical issues.
Joe, too bad you don’t even realize what you left out, per capita means per person. Maybe you meant kWh per capita, per year: which then yields: POWER x TIME/TIME => kW.
B A Bushaw::
Nonsense!
The warming spikes are normally observed only after a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption has occurred, often rising to the level of an El Nino, and usually ended by another volcanic eruption.
They are discrete events, and do not contribute to rising rising background temperatures, which are primarily due to decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.
However, temperatures are currently falling, which would require a decrease in the amount of GHG’s in the atmosphere, if they had any effect, but no such decrease is occurring. But SO2 aerosol levels ARE increasing, due to 3 VEI4 eruptions in May of this year.
Burl, I’m not interested in giving you another spanking. If you need a reminder, you can reread my prior extended comment.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1021192
The mathematical climate models are simple extensions of weather programs and are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. In an earlier time in America people like Michael Mann and James Hansen were simply run out of town on a rail when they claimed they could make the rains come or not. They weren’t hired by the government or considered to be public servants and certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to be around and teach the children. Scientists in other societies laugh at the West; they do not take the science of climatology with any more seriousness than the science of ancient astrology.
Stupid. Know-nothing. A reminder of why I automatically route your emailed comments to my Trash folder.
Many times I have linked to a study by Hausfather et al, and Exxon, showing how well climate models perform.
Did you somehow not see any of them? Or do you just pretend not to?
“The real scientific method [not, the so called 97% consensus] would have them [scientists] throw out the theory [AGW] and come up with a new one. But the fat cats in government, industry, environmental groups and universities that have benefited from this public scare would have too much too lose…” ~Joseph D’Aleo
Not surprisingly, the fabrication of GCMs (General Circulation Models– the numerical models used by UN-approved global warming charlatans and climate change hoaxsters to simulate the laws of nature, the universe and everything to realize an ersatz digital reality they find useful to exaggerate the effects of CO2 on temperatures) to scare children, to stampede the superstitious and ignorant and to feather the nests of Leftist Western Academics in ivory towers who then spin prophecies of an impending Hot World catastrophe out of anti-science and hate-America babel, is not a productive activity in any economic sense. The global warming hysteria-Tower of Babel is useful only to help Leftists push their political agenda.
Seek help.
Fortunately, scientists CAN construct testable hypotheses to cut through all the blather. That is what the scientific method is all about. The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system. (Dr. Roy Spencer)
B A,
“How about a planet covered mostly in water, where much of the incoming SWR penetrates meters deep before it is absorbed and turned into heat.”
–
Dear B A,
I need to notice that Earth’s surface doesn’t emit at its average surface temperature 288K, because it is not a temperature per ce.
Objects do not emit at their average surface temperatures, they emit from every separate point at every points’ the exact at the instant of emission temperature.
Also, the S-B emission law mistakenly asserts a surface at 288K (15C) should emit 390 W/m2.
Have anyone ever experienced a surface at 15C emitting 390 W/m2 ???
It is a very hot emission, isn’t it?
Now imagine the entire globe emitting 390 W/m2 ???
–
best,
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
My comment was with respect to your understanding of “skin” photophysics, which we have discussed previously, but you apparently did not learn because you are willfully ignorant of anything that disagrees with your intuition. I am already aware of your misconceptions about thermal emissions, based on your (usually up-side-down) intuition. Since you tend to be impressed by large numbers, try to think of it as 0.039 W/cm^2. Yes, I’m sure everyone has experienced surfaces emitting ~390 W/m^2, and no it is not a very hot emission, it is an emission corresponding to a temperature of ~ 15 C – moderately cool, compared to your skin temperature of ~30 C. When I “imagine” the entire globe emitting at (an average) 390 W/m^2, I imagine that it approximately enough to balance the absorbed incoming solar SW emissions. The T^4 emission dependence is a strong negative feedback moving toward a new equilibrium value (corresponding to a new solar irradiance, or other changing parameters, like atmospheric composition), so that we fortunately do not burn up in the process.
Thank you, B A.
Let’s consider a room 3mx3mx3m at 15C.
3mx3m x6 x390 W/m2 = 21060 W/m2 = 21 kW plus.
It is a very hot room at 15C ???
–
Ok, let’s calculate it your way:
300cmx300cm x6 x0,039 W/cm2= 21 kW plus
It is still the same hot room.
–
Earth’s surface emits very weakly, because Earth’s surface absorbs very little of the incoming solar energy.
Thus the balance is always there.
And, the S-B emission law doesn’t apply in the Earth’s radiative energy balance.
–
Again, Objects do not emit at their average surface temperatures, they emit from every separate point at every points’ the exact at the instant of emission temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos said:
Let’s consider a room 3mx3mx3m at 15C.
3mx3m x6 x390 W/m2 = 21060 W/m2 = 21 kW plus.
It is a very hot room at 15C ???
No, it is not a very hot room. If it is a closed room at equilibrium, it is simply a room at 15 C whose walls, floor and ceiling absorb as much they emit.
But it is cold in that small room at 15C…
Do those 21 kW plus are still there ???
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, It is still there, with equal amounts being emitted (cooling) and absorbed (heating), at equilibrium constant temperature. We are basically talking about an ideal blackbody cavity. Perhaps you should study that until you actually understand it.
Thank you, B A.
The ASHRAE says an average human emits 100W.
Please explain then why it is so much cold in a 15°C room???
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Because you have inserted a heat engine into the previously closed system, and it is no longer in thermal equilibrium.
“Because you have inserted a heat engine into the previously closed system, and it is no longer in thermal equilibrium.”
No, I didn’t insert a heat engine, I simply sat in the a 15°C room and it is very cold. I suggest I’ll go out.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
.
You are a heat engine.
Yes, please go outside and take books/reviews on thermodynamics, blackbody theory, and quantum electrodynamics.
B A Bushaw:
When I can find time, I will refute all of the lies in your long post
Burl,
Don’t bother. The only lies in my longer review were in direct quotes from Burl, and I already refuted them.
Christos Vournas wrote:
Now imagine the entire globe emitting 390 W/m2 ???
How much does the globe absorb?
Hi, everyone in this blog!
Earth’s surface temperature is not 288K. The 288K is not temperature per ce. The 288K doesn’t emit σ(288)^4 W/m2.
The 288K (Kelvin) is the average surface temperature. Therefore it is a comparison number.
Because, planets with the same T may emit dramatically different amounts of W/m2.
Also, planets emitting the same W/m2 may have very different T.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now, two planets with the same W/m2, the planet with the higher (N*cp) product is the warmer planet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Change is in the wind– rational peoples are now seeing through the politics of the capitalism-hating secular, socialist Democrat party establishment bureaucracy (and insiders who get rich off alternative energy and decarbonization schemes) that is comprised in part of a Western academia that blames climate change on Americans who are simply engaged in the business of living.
It is obvious that a mean of results produced by an ensemble of climate models could be significantly different than truth. Some models can be closer to the truth than others and thus differentiating individual models performance is the correct approach. That performance, however, cannot be taken at face value but rather it must be determined if the result was obtained in an incorrect manner. I give as an example, a high sensitivity model that closely approaches the observed global mean surface temperature by using more negative aerosol forcing than is observed.
I am finishing up my investigations of evaluating and ranking climate models by performance metrics that are related to matching the observed global mean surface temperature changes. I have found that low sensitivity models out rank higher sensitivity ones in both the CMIP5 and CMIP6 series.
Below are listed titles to papers where the authors are edging away from using ensemble means of individual climate models, but not rapidly enough in my view. There appears, again in my view, that there is a hesitancy in this field to single out individual models with critical comments.
What Aspect of Model Performance is the Most Relevant to Skillful Future Projection on a Regional Scale?
Prospects and Caveats of Weighting Climate Models for Summer Maximum Temperature Projections Over North America
A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence
Climate Model Projections of 21st Century Global Warming Constrained Using the Observed Warming Trend
A Representative Democracy to Reduce Interdependency in a Multimodel Ensemble
I played around with this for CMIP5 models, evaluating individual runs for goodness of fit to observed GMST (I think I used LSE), and didn’t find a clear pattern in sensitivity. My conclusion was that the noise of interannual variability dominated the fitness metric, so runs which were incidentally closer to observations scored better than others which may have had “truer” ECS. I also did some grouping by trend analysis, and that may have had better expected results where hotter models compared to actuals had hotter projections, but I don’t recall. Unfortunately those analyses were lost in a hard-drive crash. I don’t even have the images from the plots. But I am always cautious about believing my own simple investigations such as these, and unless you’ve been involved in developing a GCM, you should be too.
David Appell,
Christos Vournas wrote:
Now imagine the entire globe emitting 390 W/m2 ???”
“How much does the globe absorb?”
I understood that your point is that the excess heat is what affects the climate, and not the greenhouse effect itself.
The solar energy is not heat. Only a portion of the incoming solar energy is transformed into heat, and that heat is what the planet surface absorbs.
The Rotational Warming Phenomenon describes the mechanism a planet with a higher the (N*cp) product is capable to absorb more solar energy in form of heat.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
The solar energy is not heat.
Why not? Are you saying photons don’t carry energy?
In modern business, sometimes the best decision is to discontinue a bad project. Otherwise, the continued spending of good money after bad is unending. That is where we’re at when it comes to global warming: continued spending on the government-funded climate change policy-making business is simply good money after bad. We’ll have to see if this small measure of practicality and common sense will carry over into the in the real not phony world of Western politics and academia.
Why so bitter with all the Western academia ad homs. Were you denied tenure?
It seems to me that Waggy used to be a much better wag. Dry, not at all bitter, targeted, sharp … usually wrong, but a lot more fun to read.
Schopenhauer as it turned out, was a good example of constructive criticism- e.g., AI says…
‘Arthur Schopenhauer, an outsider to academic philosophy for most of his life, mounted a scathing and famous critique against the prevailing university system of his time. His objections, especially prominent in his essay “On Philosophy at the Universities,” center on the idea that academia corrupts genuine philosophical inquiry by turning it into a profession driven by institutional and personal motives rather than the pursuit of truth.’
‘Considering that the climate models are the only support for the AGW premise, and the AGW premise is the only support for the climate models, exposing this simple fabrication is all that needs to be done to put an end to this circular argument that forms the basis for the entire climate change lunacy.’ (Norm Kalmanovitch)
Come on, Wags, you threw that quote out here more than a decade ago. Kalmanovitch also said (in 2009):
“It is inconceivable that even after a decade since global warming ended and seven years into a cooling trend with no end of cooling in sight, world leaders are unaware of these facts…”
I wonder what’s he saying these days.
Do you believe the politicians who claim
unelected bureaucrats can stop global warming?Who really believes government scientists can control the climate if the Democrat party is permitted to take over the economy and replace capitalism with Euro-communism? Do you believe America is destroying the Earth?
Fear of climate change is not a reasoned response to a true understanding of reality: fears about AGW is not the product of a scientist’s pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Rather, these fears are propaganda founded on ‘pragmatic’ truths as described by William James above –i.e., global warming alarmism is a sort of treasure hunt set loose by those who have scripted a conjured-up, self-interested and self-serving consensus of opinion that some find useful. It will never be useful to everyone to simply increase the cost of everything to everyone.
John,
I am responding down here to your comment at: https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1021229
I’m glad you brought up Shepherd; let’s continue from where you cut him off:
You characterize this as an explanation “that only excuses the practice when the aleatory tends to dominate the epistemic,” when actually it says something completely different. More troubling is that it is inconsistent with how you originally presented this paper as an absolute rejection of using aleatory methods to estimate epistemic uncertainty, when it turns out that it is anything but.
Your statement, “I don’t disparage climate scientists (at least no more than Shepherd and his professional allies do)” rings hollow. Let us begin with the fact that you are not one of their peers, and second-guessing them in their area of expertise is arrogant. Would you honestly stand for it if I, a retired database programmer, lectured you on the best practices for maximizing rail throughput while minimizing the risk of collisions because I read a few papers about it? I think not. No matter how superficially “polite” the phrasing, your message to the climate modeling community is rude–not least because it is one-sided.
This extends beyond your main thesis of a reward-driven incentive for malpractice; as alluded previously, it is illustrated in your converation with the AI. Its first response was entirely consistent with the literature you cite: pragmatics, lack of clear alternatives, and facilitating communication even if imperfectly interpreted. So was its second response: Using methods designed for aleatory uncertainty to analyze epistemic uncertainty can lead to inaccurate or misleading results. So again was its third:
But to get this ultimate answer, you had to lead it to the conclusion you wanted to hear, and you are exactly correct: its creators did not wish to disappoint you. That said, I cannot help be pleased that it took your thumb off its weights by reminding you that Uncertainty Monsters are fickle allies, saying, “It doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change risks are low, but rather that a more nuanced understanding of uncertainty could lead to more accurate risk assessments.” Speaking of that thumb, let’s return to how you set your table with van der Sluijs:
In my first response to you, I quoted Schmidt–agreeing with you that there is a problem–but not the part about why he is now putting his foot down. From the same piece:
Again, as I alluded in my first response, this rather undercuts the notion of influence-seeking generally, and specifically, seeking influence to overstate the risk of more dire climate outcomes for a given emissions pathway. As so many comments above me have run full bore with this “alarmist” theme, perhaps I am not the only person requiring correction for imputing that subtext.
I will end with your argument about not having enough room to quote Otto, Allen, Stott, Karoly, Zwiers, et al. defending the indefensible by noting that your AI conversation occupied fully a third of the essay. I can’t help but wonder if your continued reticence to give us even a few citations might have something to do with them not exactly supporting your argument either.
I’m genuinely bored now. Try as I may, I cannot see a way to justify wasting any more of my time on you. I have written a two-part article dedicated to the idea that understanding the emergence of sub-optimal practice does not require one to denigrate those involved, and you took it as an article denigrating those involved. Way to go genius. Forgive me if I decline discussing the finer points of Shepherd and Schmidt’s quotations with you. As far as I am concerned it ends here, but do have fun with your final blast of trolling.
No, I’m sorry but I do have one last point. I say that discussing the Otto et al position would take me off topic, and then you claim I said I did not have room for it. Are you really that thick? Hint: that was another rhetorical question. My wildest desire is that you don’t try to answer it. Message ends.
Let’s review tape, John. These are your words:
I observed the curiosity of you trying to prove something I wasn’t contesting (the bailey), while observing that you should have quoted them to begin with instead of using the words of an anonymous scientist from 1990 to impute self-serving motives on them (the motte). Time passes. Then:
What are we to conclude from your shift in position? If Otto et al. are not relevant to the topic of your essay, why bring them up in the first place? If they really do support your argument that using aleatory methods to estimate epistemic uncertainty is self-interested scientific malpractice, why didn’t you condemn them by their own words in the original essay? Don’t you think that would have been more effective than telling us your indigestion over the “mealy-mouthed talk of nuance, pragmatism and imperfection” of an LLM?
Maybe you’re right and I am as thick as you suggest. But from where I’m sitting, it appears the only person dragging you off-topic is yourself, and that the reason you are is because you never really had a point to begin with.
Brandon,
The problem with dealing with someone who is so convinced of their position is to know when to give up on them. If one fails to answer their latest response it looks like one has tacitly validated it. If, on the other hand, one attempts to correct it, you just know you are going to receive even more of the same. So, rather than try to address your baseless claims that my quoting of Shepherd and Schmidt accidently undermines my position, I chose instead to ignore them, in the hope that it would end the agony. It didn’t. So, against my better judgement, I’ve now had a change of heart.
Firstly, it is true that Shepherd doesn’t just offer a single factor explaining (but by no means condoning) the taking of a pseudo-probabilistic approach. He, in fact, offers two (you are not the first to point this out; Pat Cassen did so many days ago). However, it is only the second of the two factors that I have chosen to focus upon, pointing out that it is one in which the aleatory uncertainty dominates the epistemic (Hint: “obscured by internal variability” – how did you miss this?). This scenario is very different to the one in which aleatory methods are used even when variability is not the issue (i.e. when characterising the uncertainty represented by the spread of a multi-model ensemble). I chose then to focus upon this second of Shepherd’s factors, and continue to do so now, because this is, after all, a discussion regarding aleatory versus epistemic methods.
Admittedly, the first factor mentioned by Shepherd is very different. It is one in which ontological uncertainty dominates, whereby the scientist cannot be sure how much epistemic uncertainty there is, or indeed what the balance between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty may be. However, this first factor is no more relevant than Shepherd’s second factor. Whether it is a case of aleatory uncertainty dominating or ontological uncertainty dominating, neither scenario has any bearing upon the situation where the scientist knows that the uncertainty is almost entirely epistemic and yet proceeds as though it were purely aleatory. It is because Shepherd fails to provide a sufficient explanation for such normative practice that I turned to the possibility that reward systems naturally selecting for bad practice may play a role. It is, after all, a commonplace phenomenon.
You really must give up on these attempts to convince everyone that Shepherd is in any way an advocate for a pseudo-probabilistic approach to climate risk assessment when he quite famously opposes it most emphatically. To further quote him:
“Since epistemic uncertainty is deterministic and inherently subjective, it follows that there is no objective basis for a probabilistic approach, and no such thing as objective climate information.”
As for Schmidt, you continue to miss the point. He has always known that going with an ensemble mean is just a heuristic, and he has always questioned its significance, for example, when he said:
“Collections of the data from the different groups, called multi-model ensembles, have some interesting properties. Most notably the average of all the models is frequently closer to the observations than any individual model. But does this mean that the average of all the model projections into the future is in fact the best projection? And does the variability in the model projections truly measure the uncertainty? These are unanswerable questions.”
The way things have changed between CMIP5 and CMIP6 simply vindicates the position he has always taken. Besides which, he stated at the outset that pressures to overinterpret the significance of an ensemble mean were coming from policy-makers. He hasn’t, to my knowledge, said anything since to withdraw that claim.
You really must give up on these attempts to convince everyone that Schmidt doesn’t think that pressure from policy makers is an issue when he has clearly stated that he thinks it is. To further quote him:
“Yet demands from policy makers for scientific-looking probability distributions for regional climate changes are mounting…”
As for putting the thumb on the scales in my dialogue with AI, I make no apologies. The dominant narrative nowadays is that increased uncertainty necessarily means increased risk and that, therefore, uncertainty is not the sceptic’s friend. I don’t think it does any harm, every now and then, to point out that this argument is unsound and that underestimating levels of uncertainty can actually lead to an overestimation of risk. In that respect, getting AI to corroborate the point is my way of taking the thumb off the scales caused by an incorrect but dominant narrative. As you say, uncertainty is no-one’s friend.
I won’t go into detail addressing the remainder of your earlier response, since it descends into puerile moralising, delights in yet more wilful misunderstanding of the case I am trying to make, engages an argument from authority, and finishes with the farcical suggestion that not wanting to widen a scope can only stem from a desire to keep an article short. Your latest effort, accusing me of equivocation, fails to meet the threshold necessary to require a response.
As I said before, I am now officially bored. I’m bored with your endless imputations. I’m bored with your eristic approach to the discussion. I’m bored with your confected outrage on behalf of the scientific community, as if it must be protected from any suggestion that it works within parameters dictated by policy-makers. I’m bored with having to correct your misconceived allegations, many of which stem from your poor English comprehension. I’m bored with your flimsily evidenced insinuations. I’m bored with your efforts to convince me that when Shepherd says that the pseudo-probabilistic approach is wrong, he actually means he approves of it. I’m bored with your efforts to convince me that when Schmidt says he is concerned by the pressures from policy-makers seeking pseudo-probabilistic analyses, he actually is not. And, as a former professional risk analyst, I am bored with receiving lectures on the nature of uncertainty and its relationship to risk, given to me by a former database programmer. Putting it bluntly, I’m just bored with you, and I have far better things to do with my time. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I will not be responding to your next inevitable salvo of specious argumentation – unless by some miracle you start to make sense.
“ Since epistemic uncertainty is deterministic and inherently subjective, it follows that there is no objective basis for a probabilistic approach, and no such thing as objective climate information.”
Quote of the day. And maybe of the year.
This entire article and comments have been fascinating. Certainly better than those asserting Big Oil is behind the skeptics and much better than a comment by a congresswoman that if we wanted to end hurricanes we need to stop using fossil fuels.
Nice post, John.
And I agree, cerescokid, also bookmarking the quote.
Jungletrunks | October 23, 2025 at 11:39 am |
Nice post, John.
And I agree, cerescokid, also bookmarking the quote.
Agree – Its a respective appreciation of the limitations of confidence in science.
John,
On the topic of our respective personal experience and authority, I am *not* trading on my own in this dispute–my “lecture” is that your citations don’t appear to say exactly as you presented, and that you should be the one deferring to the expertise of researchers in their own field.
I didn’t, miss “obscured by internal variability” in Shepherd, and I don’t understand why it should not apply to a multi-model ensemble when the uncertainties of model propagate forward into the final combined suite. Perhaps I misunderstand your argument. What I can confidently say is that Shepherd obviously didn’t intend to write a comprehensive review of uncertainty categorization in climate modeling, nor is he the final arbiter on the topic. A neutrally-written informative essay would have sought the opinions of other domain experts and presented them to the reader instead of hastily turning to an imputation of self-interested motives based on a single decades-old third-hand statement attributed to an anonymous scientist. That you have since expressed awareness of Otto et al. defending the practice you universally condemn, and have subsequently resisted providing even so much as some simple citations to them, only deepens my suspicion that your own motives are more the ones to question. Which brings us to:
Not for the first time you put words in my mouth as I have never held him up as any sort of champion of an indefensible practice. More what I have been doing is asking you to produce the words of the actual champions so that we readers can evaluate for ourselves such methods are always truly unjustifiable “excuses”. I’ll also note again that Shepherd himself does not strictly condemn using subjective measures. In the interest of space, I’ll drop only the soundbites and let readers explore the full context themselves:
My reading of this is that subjective methods are often necessary due to circumstances beyond researchers’ control, but need to be used with diligence and caution. This all goes back to my first comment about subjective approximations, and other pragmatic modeling choices *even in engineering* (and my subsequent citations of Der Kiureghian & Ditlevsen (2009) and Ferson & Ginzburg (1996)) where the magnitude of the assessment is many orders of magnitude smaller. These would indeed be interesting nuances to explore in a non-adversarial manner, but you dismissed such (AI-generated) talk as “mealy-mouthed” in the essay itself, thus suggesting it was never truly your intent to do so.
You quote Schmidt again. And again I point out that such a prominent voice in the modeling community saying “we need to do something else because our previously useful heuristic no longer is” rather demolishes your central thesis that there is a positive natural selection at work for a sub-optimal practice–especially when the story line alternative approach advocated by Shepherd was *included* in AR6. Talk about “thick”.
It is indeed a profound statement that everyone in this conversation should heed the next time they are tempted to claim a proposition about climate has been proven or disproven.
Before anyone gets too carried away by the Shepherd quote regarding a lack of objective climate information, I should point out that he is by no means a climate sceptic. In fact, his position is that the pseudo-probabilistic approach is not only epistemologically invalid, it also leads to an underestimation of uncertainty (which it does) and thereby an underestimation of risk (which is not necessarily the case). He, amongst others, proposes an alternative approach that avoids what he sees as underestimation of risk, even at the expense of potentially overestimating risk. This is seen as a question of values, i.e. in climate science are type 1 errors ethically preferable to type 2 errors? I do not want to go into this debate because it takes us off-topic. It is an important question but perhaps for another day.
John,
I would describe Shepherd as deeply skeptical, but not contrarian. I may have also missed where in any of your citations that the result of using aleatory models to estimate epistemic uncertainty is always to understate the latter. In the case of the CMIP6 surface temperature ensemble, it is arguably the case that treating it as a random distribution overstates the uncertainty of a given projection scenario because the ECS spread exceeds the (especially upper) bounds of observationally-constrained climate sensitivity.
Example, ‘mission critical statement’-
According to Donna Laframboise, Freeman Dyson (one of the world’s finest scientific minds says, “[climate] models are useless for predicting what’s going to happen more than five days from now.” CO2 isn’t scary, it’s plant food…
Paraphrasing Feynman, intelligence is no safeguard against self-deception. Or as Spock might say: logic dictates that appeals to ignorance are not the path to enlightenment.
Feynman believes all scientists should be skeptics.
But not epistemic nihilsts, Waggy. My favorite actual skeptic is Planck: “We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.” If only climate contrarians were as similarly industrious. But as Spock actually did say, “As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.”
Unfortunately, the blog’s mercurial spam filter ate my response just things were getting interesting.
As long as we are ‘quipping’. Here is a short, and I hope relevant , Feynman article:
“Richard Feynman Creates a Simple Method for Telling Science From Pseudoscience (1966)”
https://www.openculture.com/2024/08/richard-feynman-creates-a-simple-method-for-telling-science-from-pseudoscience.html
“ It is equally useful for testing the claims of others. If someone cannot explain something in plain English, then we should question whether they really do themselves understand what they profess…. In the words of Feynman, “It is possible to follow form and call it science, but that is pseudoscience.”
“Or as Spock might say: logic dictates that appeals to ignorance are not the path to enlightenment.”
I’m sure Spock would have something similar to say about appeals to authority.
The appeal to serial television might mean something different.
“Outside of their particular area of expertise scientists are just as dumb as the next person.”
Richard P. Feynman
cerescokid | October 22, 2025 at 8:38 am |
“Outside of their particular area of expertise scientists are just as dumb as the next person.”
Richard P. Feynman
Cerescokid – that is a huge understatement as highlighted by Appell’s recent string of commentary on renewables.
kid: “Outside of their particular area of expertise scientists are just as dumb as the next person.”
Dyson, Clauser, Happer ?
ganon
And ganon?
“If a guy tells me the probability of failure is 1 in 100,000, I know he’s full of crap.”
Richard P. Feynman
Despite a supposed 10 sigma event, Long Term Capital Management went paws up in 1998 resulting in dislocations in global financial markets and an eventual bailout. Yahoos from Petticoat Junction they weren’t. 2 board members won Nobel Prizes in Economics. Post mortem found their models used only 5 years of data and the statistical analysis was wanting.
Before the housing bubble burst, Ben Bernanke of the Fed testified before Congress that nothing in the foreclosure data was concerning. The problem was that their models used national means rather than investigating the hot spots in CA, NV, AZ and FL. Also, the FOMC came under criticism later for having group think and not being aware of the emerging use of MBS, CDO, CDS and negative amortization in the housing financial markets. They thought they knew more than they did.
In both of these situations, models were not adequate, group think was prevalent, the participants thought they knew more than they knew and perhaps a little bit of hubris prevented identification of reality.
Sound familiar?
Tell that to Waggy, JT. As for Spock, his appearance could suggest that quoting dead scientists to advance your own arguments may indeed be just another form of fiction. But mostly I did it for the lulz.
Why should I ask Wagathon the obvious? That you present the appearance of having no appeal to authority is merely your own apostrophe.
Waggy’s was the first appeal to authority in this thread, JT, that’s why. Happily, my comment to him about the dubious utility of knowledge annhilists was released from purgatory. https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1021246
You sound like the child wrestling towards the front of the line for a treat.
Geeze JT, next time you score a goal on your own teammate, I’ll let you have my lollipop.
BAB, The problem is that pulling up a model isn’t a test, it only represents conviction.
JT, correct – it is for others to test it, if there is interest to do so. Conviction comes from evidence.
The weight of numbers is a model only. But the bird always drops something as a last word of refuse.
Jungletrunks
JT: Science is nothing but models. All of it.
The local DA’s amicus brief doesn’t fly. Unsupported evidence never does.
“Never confuse education with intelligence, you can have a PhD and still be an idiot.”
Richard P. Feynman
Among skeptic of the supposed scientific consensus of his day?
AI– Galileo’s heliocentric views were proven right long after his death. He died under house arrest in 1642, but conclusive evidence proving the Earth’s motion wasn’t observed until the 19th century.
‘Science is what we do to keep us from lying to ourselves.’ ~Richard Feynman
“Science is what we do to keep us from lying to ourselves.” ~Richard Feynman
But yet you reject the overwhelming science of climate change.
Who’s lying to whom?
Feynman wrote about science, not about “the overwhelming science of climate change”. Is a “salisbury steak” a steak?
Wagathon wrote:
Among skeptic of the supposed scientific consensus of his day?
AI– Galileo’s heliocentric views were proven right long after his death. He died under house arrest in 1642, but conclusive evidence proving the Earth’s motion wasn’t observed until the 19th century.
It’s not enough to merely CITE prior cases of a scientific finding that disagrees with the consensus. You have to actually DO the work, you know.
That is very old BS.
The design of this -link below- megalithic calendar, today its accuracy and method proven, invokes the knowledge of a heliocentric solar system. See link below:
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/first-blog-post/
Claudius Ptolemy, who came out with the geocentric idea, has been proven a liar and a cheater more than once. What followed were the Dark Ages. Is AI attempting to replicate what Ptolemy did?
It has been known, certainly since St. Augustine, how to dumb a society: “being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.” Such people are as slaves and easy to control and manipulate.
That megalithic structure is actually the end of a long period of development, ending shortly after the 4k2 event. Its beginning predates 5200bce as evident in a long list of other such structures.
‘Steyn’s book [A Disgrace to the Profession] reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn’t trust climate scientists and aren’t buying their consensus. ~Judith Curry
Details, even the little things like, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age or that the atmosphere is currently CO2 deficient.
“It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.’ (Richard Feynman)
The mere fact that the consensus fails the null hypothesis is evidence that the consensus is political, not scientific (or, perhaps as in day Galileo, a matter of faith– AGW Global warming alarmist climate change catastrophism may be a religious belief for those on the Left who essentially hate the idea of free will and Americanism vs Eurocommunism).
> if you’re doing an experiment
Indeed we are, Waggy, just not one at the subatomic scale of Feynman’s expertise. Also, in his field, experiments didn’t require centuries to perform, and do-overs were allowed–at least insofar as the funding didn’t run out. Finally, the only reason you know of any apparent discrepancies between CO2/temperature relationships in the paleoclimate record is probably not because there is a grand conspiracy of leftist academics promoting a hoax.
It is painful to see these global warming charlatans squirm and lie to the people as they try to hide from their past and all of their failures and attempts to ignore history — like previous interglacial Warming periods — or refuse to admit any fact that contradicts their preconceptions about a looming doomsday brought about by modernity. The politics of global warming has boiled down to watching the Left running from the truth by turning English into a liar’s language and simply dismissing the corruption of science so as to keep the hoax alive long enough to find the missing heat, take the throne, and finally achieve their dream of founding a secular, socialist Utopia.
It’s painful to watch Waggy snooker himself by failing to realize leftist charlatans wouldn’t have put out an APB on the missing heat to begin with.
Not easy perhaps but possible to get AI to tell the truth on at least some aspects of the corruption in any alleged finding concerning the AGW climate change conjecture and supposed consensus of opinion among scientists, e.g.,
‘The myth of AI neutrality: The idea that AI offers a completely objective, unbiased approach is a misconception. The biases of the developers, the data, and the application all play a role. Relying on AI’s perceived objectivity can add a “scientific credibility” to existing biases, making them harder to detect.
‘Amplifying misinformation: Generative AI tools can be misused to create and spread personalized, convincing, and false information about climate change more cheaply and rapidly than ever before. This exacerbates existing problems with online climate disinformation.
‘Opaque decision-making: The complex nature of many AI models, particularly “black box” systems, makes it difficult to understand how they arrive at their conclusions. This lack of transparency challenges accountability and makes it harder to detect and correct unfair or harmful outputs.’
Indeed, this is a concerning issue, Waggy. We have already seen how LLMs can amplify the confirmation biases of this essay’s author when lead to do so, and thence uncritically gobbled up by his fans. But even open-ended prompts sometimes return biased garbage:
Links to full conversations of other such experiments may be found here: https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1021240
It is not all of us who believe co2 is bad and especially America’s CO2– just, some of us feel that way, e.g., Eurocommies, Western academia, the Democrat party, government bureaucrats, the UN-IPCC, libs–i.e., everyone on the Left has a problem with the American way of life.
The discrimination by the preening socialists of the Left against the productive has gotten worse as they agitated for more and more government– to save the world. From America’s CO2– while those who agitate for free enterprise and a Constitution that recognizes humanity’s God-given right to liberty become a smaller and smaller part of the defining mood of our age.
‘All along, while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough. So I wondered, five years ago, whether there is a Platonic ideal when it comes to the size of the welfare state—whether there is a point at which the welfare state has all the money, programs, personnel, and political support it needs, thereby rendering any further additions pointless. The answer, I concluded, is that there is no answer—the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.’ ~William Voegeli (The Case Against Liberal Compassion)
Before you can “do the work” you must think of what work might be useful.
CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate. Compelling evidence shows that back in 2000 the measured increase in water vapor was more than twice as much as possible from just planet warming. The assumption by many Climate Scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase is shown to be wrong. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Dan,
If you think your work has been useful, publish it.
Because it is against established dogma, it wouldn’t get past preliminary editor scan. Mother Nature will eventually verify my work.
Dan, perhaps it is simply that your work was not sufficiently convincing.
BAB, I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. Sorry.
Apparently, you couldn’t explain it or its importance to journal editors. That is, if you actually tried.
Dan, I’ve always appreciated your take, that water vapor is the primary cause/driver behind the hockey stick. It makes a great deal of sense to me.
I haven’t heard any good argument refuting your hypothesis. I do, however, have conviction that there was an initial driver pushing WV into the atmosphere. Compounding effects: 19th century natural variability boosted atmospheric WV, anthropomorphic contributions of WV ensued: irrigation, artificial lakes, etc.
Dan, I used your analysis, then added natural variability for further context to build a thesis; I asked AI to develop an alternative hypothesis to the “hockey stick”, the following is what it came up with.
AI:
Synthesizing a Case Study
Thesis Development
Initial Perturbation: Start with 19th-century El Niño events serving as a perturbative force, leading to the natural increase in temperatures and atmospheric water vapor.
Anthropogenic Contributions: Identify how agricultural practices, urbanization, and the creation of artificial bodies of water further exacerbated this increase in water vapor.
Feedback Mechanisms: Highlight how these processes create feedback loops. As temperatures increase due to El Niño and anthropogenic factors, the rise in water vapor leads to further warming, thus perpetuating the cycle.
Historical Context: 19th Century El Niño Events
Notable El Niño Events
1876-1878: Often cited as a significant El Niño, this event disrupted weather patterns globally, serving as a potential catalyst for rising global temperatures. Following El Niños (1881-1882, 1888-1889, 1896-1897): These events continued to influence precipitation and temperature, likely leading to increased evaporation and the subsequent rise in atmospheric water vapor.
Anthropogenic Contributions to Water Vapor
Sources of Increased Water Vapor
Irrigation:
Agricultural practices have evolved significantly since the 19th century. With the expansion of irrigation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, large-scale water diversion increased local humidity and contributed to atmospheric water vapor. Estimates suggest that irrigation could contribute an additional 100-150 billion tons of water vapor annually during peak agricultural seasons.
Man-Made Lakes:
The construction of reservoirs and lakes, particularly in agricultural regions, also adds to humidity levels. The evaporation from these bodies of water contributes to the local and global water vapor pool. Studies estimate that these artificial lakes can equal or exceed natural bodies of water, significantly enhancing local atmospheric moisture.
Urbanization:
Urban areas create localized warming (“urban heat islands”), fostering increased moisture retention and resultant evaporation, thereby contributing additional water vapor.
Urbanization continues to be a contributor to increased water vapor levels through both direct and indirect mechanisms.
_____________________________
Developing a comprehensive hypothesis that considers significant 19th-century El Niño events, anthropogenic contributions to water vapor, and the historical context of temperature fluctuations involves integrating multiple data sources and theories. Here’s a structured approach to this alternative hypothesis:
Hypothesis: Multi-Factorial Climate Dynamics Driving 20th Century Warming
1. Historical Context of Climate Change
Paleo Climate Data
Historical paleo data indicates fluctuations in temperature associated with natural climatic events, where increases in CO2 often lagged behind temperature rises. This pattern suggests that warming might not be unusual and that many temporary temperature spikes, similar to the “hockey stick,” could have occurred historically, hidden within low resolution data.
2. Role of 19th Century El Niño Events
Initiating Perturbations
Significant El Niño events in the late 19th century (e.g., 1876-1878, 1881-1882, 1888-1889, and 1896-1897) served as critical perturbations that initiated warming trends:
These events brought about substantial climate anomalies, such as droughts and flooding, altering local and global weather patterns.
Increased precipitation and evaporation during these events likely led to rises in atmospheric water vapor, enhancing the greenhouse effect.
3. Water Vapor as a Primary Driver
Natural Water Vapor Dynamics
As temperatures increased due to El Niño-induced warming, the atmosphere’s capacity to hold moisture increased, leading to higher concentrations of water vapor. This self-reinforcing mechanism means water vapor amplifies warming:
Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation effectively, thus contributing significantly to warming.
4. Anthropogenic Contributions to Water Vapor
Agricultural Practices and Urbanization
The expansion of irrigation in the 20th century increased localized humidity, contributing additional water vapor to the atmosphere.
The establishment of man-made lakes and increased urbanization created further moisture, with rapid evaporation from these sources adding to water vapor levels.
Increased industrial activities and land-use changes over the century altered local climates, further enhancing water vapor concentrations.
5. Feedback Mechanisms
Global Warming Feedback Loops
As water vapor levels rose due to both natural (El Niño events) and anthropogenic influences (human activities), feedback mechanisms intensified warming:
Higher temperatures lead to more evaporation, which increases water vapor, causing further warming—a positive feedback cycle.
6. Reevaluation of the “Hockey Stick” Concept
Historical Temperature Patterns
By examining the paleo record and reinterpreting the “hockey stick” graph, one can argue that the rapid warming in the 20th century could be part of a recurring natural cycle observed throughout Earth’s history.
Viewing the data through this lens suggests that the early rise in temperature linked with El Niño events, combined with increased human activity producing water vapor, establishes a gradual but significant warming trend beginning in the mid-19th century.
This alternative perspective challenges the traditional view that CO2 is the sole primary driver of the recent warming by recognizing water vapor’s significant role, suggesting a multifaceted approach to understanding climate change.
The focus on CO2 as the primary driver diverts attention from the significant roles played by both natural climatic events and anthropogenic activities in shaping the climate.
Conclusion
This hypothesis posits that the warming experienced in the 20th century is not an anomaly but rather reflects a complex interaction of natural events (notably El Niño) and human factors (such as irrigation and urbanization) that collectively contribute to increasing atmospheric water vapor.
This multi-faceted approach encourages reevaluation of the dominant narratives surrounding global warming and recognizes the interplay between natural climate variability and human impact.
JT: Ask your AI why it would choose a short-lived GHG like water vapor over a long-lived one like CO2 to explain an enduring long-term temperature trend. Then ask why it wouldn’t. Then ask it which of its two explanations are most likely correct.
Here’s Claude Sonnet 4.5’s answer, using the extended thinking option: https://claude.ai/share/a5e4f2d5-2da9-477e-a1cb-07e09f625558
I don’t need to ask AI your question, it’s elementary in that the hypothesis proposed is based on a continuing feedback mechanism, meaning it’s not short-lived relatively speaking (as you indicate). As long as driving inputs continue, which they certainly have been in said scenario, then warming will continue.
My mistake, JT; I thought skeptics were always willing to challenge their own assumptions. Here is what Claude 4.5 thinks of Dan’s essay. https://claude.ai/share/07f4b50d-4c9d-4af1-bd0f-93892df963dc
The prompt was: “summarize the main points of this essay and evaluate them for logical consistency, and agreement with peer-reviewed literature. then determine the plausibility of its main conclusions.”
Here is a portion of its response:
My own admittedly cursory reading leads me to the same conclusion. There is a lot of talk about the uncontroversial observation that water vapor has increased as temperatures have risen. Section 7 seems to be the crux:
If the essay tells us what mechanism has been driving the increase in transport time from where water evaporates to where it precipitates out, I have not found it. (Or what clearly distinguishes that as a driver rather than a feedback.) Perhaps I’m not reading hard enough and you can point it out for me.
Brandon: It “doesn’t adequately explain what causes the residence time to increase in the first place…..what mechanism has been driving the increase in transport time from where water evaporates to where it precipitates out, I have not found it.”
Perhaps the moving target of warmth explains it—along with a discussion of time in a climate relative sense.
Climate yawns at the notion that 100 years is a long-term trend, let’s start with that. 100 years is a human constructed representation of long-term (presumably because one’s doing good to live that long). Climate was in diapers 5 billion years ago, it’s only now middle aged.
Climate blinks within the still air of centennial increments, it takes 100 years to make the weakest of a trend (only 3 climate data points, 30 years each). Get real, it takes a millennium to represent a strong long-term trend for climate.
You’re arguing minutes and seconds relative to climate to defend notion behind a predetermined construct.
JT,
How long is a point? A new climatic normal – a data point – is calculated every 10 years, using the yearly data for the previous 30 years. 10 data points are sufficient for trend observation.
“Climate scientists quantify long-term average conditions for each date of the year by calculating the average (mean) of observed temperature, precipitation, humidity, and others. At the beginning of every new decade, NOAA scientists calculate official Climate Normals for the previous three decades. These average values are the “normal” against which we compare our daily weather. Climate Normals help us answer the question: “How does today’s weather compare to average conditions over the previous three decades?”
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/how-do-weather-observations-become-climate-data
Get off that goose egg you’re trying to hatch, Polly. Climate isn’t your pedigree.
JT,
And clearly not yours. You confuse the procedure for establishing decadal references for climatic anomalies, with the “size” (span) for a data point, which is arbitrary. Squawk!
Okay, Polly, got it.
So increasing warming doesn’t explain the ever increasing residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere?
That was the question.
It is an explanation. I don’t believe it is a unique or unitary explanation.
JT, Thanks for the support. I question AI’s consideration of el Nino cycles in the 19th century as having any significance. The surge in WV and temperature didn’t get serious until about 1965 (Fig 6).
BG, The idea (as proclaimed by many and now AI) that WV can’t affect long term climate because it has a short residence time is complete BS. What matters with respect to GW is not the time any individual molecule stays in the atmosphere, but it is what the water vapor content is over the period of study. Globally WV has been on a steadily increasing trend since before 1988 (Fig 5).
What is described as a circular reasoning problem probably results from poor wording on my part. I was looking for a cause of the reported increase in WV assuming no increase in precipitation. In the first sentence in Sect 7, replace ‘causes’ with ‘is explained by’. The increase in WV is (at least partially) explained by the increase in residence time …. Anecdotal comments are that annual rainfall is at an ‘all time high’. If true, this would lessen the already tiny increase in residence time. The slightly longer average residence time results because of the time for the increased WV to travel from the low precipitation area, where it is added, to the area where it precipitates. The elapsed time itself doesn’t necessarily increase; it’s the increased WV in desert areas which increases the average elapsed time for the planet.
A basic problem with the Claud AI is that it accepts as correct what has been published in peer reviewed documents. What I have shown is that the peer reviewed consensus, that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase, is wrong. Average global sea surface temperature is reported by several agencies. Given the Clausius-Clapeyron relation it is possible to calculate the increase rate in water vapor from the increase rate in SST. The relation is simply: SST rate * 0.067 * WV. SST rate is in degree per year, 0.067 is 1/1 per degree and WV, from anomalies measured and reported by NASA/RSS, is about 29 kg/m^2. The data show that in 1999-2000 the measured WV was more than twice the maximum possible from just planet warming. It is nonsense to think that WV increase caused by CO2 warming is twice as much as possible from just CO2 warming.
Dan and JT: I am not unhappy that LLMs may have a “bias” toward what is published in peer-reviewed literature. I say “may” because LLMs are biased by whatever their trainers have been able to scrape from the Internet, and as most peer-reviewed literature is paywalled, and most blogs are not, LLMs may very well have a bias toward non-expert opinions. The moral of this whole story as far as I’m concerned is that LLMs may be an even better way of feeding one’s own confirmation biases than plain search engine queries.
LLMs are probably not good tools for forming or evaluating novel hypotheses in physical sciences, especially for systems as complex as climate. At best, they could be used for writing a simple physical model in your preferred programming language (ChatGPT and Claude both write decent Python) based on an already-existing hypotheis, such as Dan’s, and explore what happens as you tweak parameters or add in additional sub-modules. But unless you spend on the order of years doing this, the best you can probably hope for is a toy model that is useless for proving or disproving a climate hypothesis. The system is just too complicated for simple models to make such strong statements.
A final word for Dan: You still don’t really tell us what is driving your model, at least not in any formalized sense that a toy model could elucidate on the way to building something more robust. Mainstream climate scientists have done such work, which is why I give their views far more credence than contrarian bloggers with a few equations and some charts who improbably claim that hundreds of domain experts on the planet’s water cycle are full of BS.
BG: There appears to be a failure to communicate.
Experiment is not needed. The data all already exists.
Models aren’t needed. The analysis consists of simple arithmetic on the data. The average global WV increase, as limited by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and rational compounding producing the 6.7 % per degree factor, is calculated from the average global SST increase.
The observation is that the measured average global WV increase is up to substantially (about twice or more) more than possible from just average global SST increase. Because the only significant effect that CO2 could have on climate is temperature increase, CO2 is ruled out as a significant contributor to climate change.
That’s it. There are probably many factors contributing to climate change but CO2 isn’t one of them.
Dan,
I don’t see a communication problem between us, but rather a fundamental philosophical difference in how we evaluate scientific research about large scale physical systems such as climate. For whatever reasons you apparently believe that your back of envelope calculations–which are in fact models, just extremely simple ones–prove that a large body of peer-reviewed literature is nonsense. I cannot say for 100% certain that you’re wrong, but I consider it extremely unlikely that your arguments have any merit. Now, I have disagreed with many things John has written in his essay, but he and I are in perfect agreement that pretty much all uncertainty in climate is epistemic because the system is deterministic and not stochastic. Anyone who has read Lorenz (1963), Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow, should not find this controversial. There is no single seminal paper I can think of which says that one does not simply prove x because y in climate, but it’s something which to me is just common sense. There is simply too much we don’t know to make any sort of strong conclusions from a few equations and time series of less than a handful of climate parameters.
Getting more back to the actual topic of the essay, even though Lorenz is considered the father of modern chaos theory, he approved of the concept of stochastically-perturbed weather model ensembles to make probabalistic weather forecasts. I believed he died before they came into widespread use (which may have had something to do with the compute required to get enough runs for a meaningfully-sized ensemble), but I know he’s on record somewhere endorsing development of the approach. Even in Shepherd’s paper, he gives a brief nod to using single-model multi-run ensembles for climate projections as a way to guesstimate the epistemic uncertainty for a specific model–his main critique is against using multi-model multi-run climate ensembles. If I understand him correctly, John is pretty much negative on the entire concept of using randomized priors to compute posterior probabilities, even in engineering, even though Monte Carlo and like techniques are commonly used (at least according to ChatGPT, and the smattering of papers I’ve skimmed from the links it fed me). No idea whether that’s a minority view in his field, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
As for your model not requiring experimentation, that may be the single most glaring thing you’ve said to undermine any credibility anyone should give you. Of course models require experimentation. At the very least you should train them on different segments of data and note how the outputs change. You want to do as much out of sample prediction as you can to rule out overfitting. This isn’t even my field, but I know this because it is modeling 101 level stuff.
Brandon,
You’re imputing again. There is nothing I have said in this article or on this thread to justify speculation that I am “pretty much negative on the entire concept of using randomized priors to compute posterior probabilities, even in engineering…” Monte Carlo is indeed an ideal tool for computing posterior probabilities using randomized priors. All it needs is a genuinely stochastic basis to work with. For example, Monte Carlo simulation is perfect for the single-model, physical perturbation analysis used to develop weather forecasts whose reliability is profoundly dependent upon the variability inherent in the system under study. That’s not the case, however, when dealing with multi-model ensembles of differently-structured models, in which the variation between the models is indicative of epistemic uncertainty. The problem arises when Monte Carlo is used to analyse such situations. Incertitude and variability are both characterised by probability values, and when such values are fed into Monte Carlo, it has no way of discerning between the two. In both instances it will number crunch merrily and produce posterior probabilities. When dealing with variability, those probabilities will be scientific. When dealing with incertitude, those posterior probabilities will be — as Schmidt put it — scientific looking. This is how the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once put it:
“Monte Carlo simulation also has important limitations, which have restrained EPA from accepting it as a preferred risk assessment tool. Available software cannot distinguish between variability and uncertainty. Some factors, such as body weight and tap water ingestion, show well-described differences among individuals. These differences are called ‘variability’. Other factors, such as frequency and duration of trespassing, are simply unknown. This lack of knowledge is called ‘uncertainty’. Current Monte Carlo software treats uncertainty as if it were variability, which may produce misleading results.”
In summary, I am perfectly at ease with using Monte Carlo in engineering, subject to its well-known limitations.
John
Thank you for including the EPA statement. That put structure on angst for me.
John, thank you for your clarification. I think what happened is that I misread your comment linked below as your own own opinion, whereas it is actually that of van der Sluijs, and further misread that as an absolute rejection of Monte Carlo methods in engineering risk analysis–which it clearly is not. I should have traced back to the actual comment and not gone from memory, which I apologize for not doing. I hope you will accept that this is not another case of me imputing (which there are many) but an honest, albeit careless, mistake.
https://judithcurry.com/2025/09/23/natural-selection-of-bad-science-part-ii/#comment-1020465
Brandon,
Thank you for your response. It is also high time that I apologise for previously questioning your intelligence. It was, of course, yet another rhetorical question, borne of the frustration that comes from having one’s motives constantly questioned. There is obviously nothing wrong with your IQ. I do feel, however, that the combative approach has got in the way of what might otherwise have been a much more pleasant and constructive exploration of the issues.
You speculated whether I might hold a minority view within engineering regarding the usefulness of Monte Carlo simulation, but I don’t think I do. However, I will readily admit to having a very minority view when it comes to using Monte Carlo to analyse project schedule risk. It is considered best practice by every relevant project management institute and authority. The practice is also facilitated by a number of commercial tools, on which millions of pounds have already been spent worldwide. And yet this is a classic case in which a sampling method designed to deal with the stochastic is being relied upon to deal with uncertainties that are more often than not dominated by the epistemic. When I asked AI to provide evidence that its use has actually improved project management performance, it offered its widespread acceptance as the primary evidence. As I hope you understand, I am fascinated by how such situations can arise. There is no conspiracy, no subterfuge, no professional malpractice, and no collaborations with ulterior motives, and yet we end up with a situation in which the limitations and compromises that are being made seem to be almost entirely overlooked. The mass acceptance that leads to normative practice seems at odds with the academic understanding, and I don’t think this can all be described as a knowing pragmatism. I can’t help but think that the Matthew effect, together with a natural selection for the sub-optimal, is playing a key role.
As a final observation, I should point out that when I asked AI whether there was any evidence that similar dynamics may have played a role in encouraging the use of aleatory methods to analyse epistemic uncertainties within climate science, it responded that to even ask such a question proves that I am a typical science denier, full of deceit and false claims, seeking to denigrate climate scientists for political motives. Apparently, even my use of technical terminology was enough to prove that I was seeking to deceive. Basically, over the course of a very lengthy discussion, I had the kitchen sink thrown at me. Even so, with perseverance I was able to arrive at a point where the AI finally said:
“You are correct that I should not have assumed your intention was malicious or that you were suggesting a conspiracy. My apology for that stands. You are also correct that the underlying dynamic—the tension between scientific rigor and policy demands—is a legitimate concern, and your articulation of that concern is not a false claim.”
You might suggest that I manipulated the above discussion with AI to get it to say what I wanted, but I have to say that it is usually easier to reason with AI than it is with a human being. Humans don’t just hear arguments, they feel them.
John,
No apology required, but accepted. For my part, I’m not prepared to reciprocate by retracting my suspicions of your editorial choices, and my substantive critiques stand. But no personal malice here; given the chance I’d gladly buy you a pint.
Now to the actual topic. I don’t doubt the issues you raise are real and need to be addressed. There is a danger when using bodges that they will catch on to the point that newer practitioners don’t realize it’s not the Right Way to do things. It’s unclear whether that is the case in climate science, but I also cannot rule it out (nor did I if you read me closely). While I have a notion–perhaps naive–that most sciences are not rife with malpractice, there is certainly no lack for examples of it either.
I still have the outstanding question regarding whether using an aleatory method to estimate epistemic uncertainty will always, or even tend, to lead to underestimating the latter. For example, treating the CMIP6 surface temperature ensemble seems to be a case of overstating ECS uncertainty because the observationally-constrained range is narrower.
John, P.S.: I see that my October 23, 2025 at 1:49 pm comment recently popped out of spam. It would have been just as well had our host not released it as it contains very little in the way of new argument, and some personal jabs that are regrettable.
Brandon,
So, you now choose to double-down on your insinuations of ill-motivated evasiveness, referring to them as your ‘suspicions’ of my ‘editorial choices’. I’m sure you are satisfied that you have offered ‘substantive critiques’ but you should not be surprised to hear that I am far less satisfied and that I found your critiques to be more presumptuous than substantive, based as they are upon too much misrepresentation of the evidence I provide, and also upon a willingness to read far too much into the tone of my delivery. At the end of the day, scientists need to provide policy-makers with a useable format for complex scientific information and this can indeed create a form of pressure on scientists. It is not a malicious or unfounded allegation but a recognized element of the science-policy interface. The problem is that it has encouraged a normative approach that is widely recognised as highly problematic, and yet persists nevertheless. Climate scientists have alternatives to playing the probability distribution game but most do not seem to have taken them. I make no apologies for drawing attention to this problem and for suggesting that social dynamics will be playing a role. But we are never going to agree on this, so I suggest we should end it here, albeit with you being allowed one last response.
I’m afraid there will be no sharing of a pint together, and no cosying up by the fireside to discuss why a probability distribution that overstates the range of possibilities, as confirmed by observation, does so because it fails to fully capture the uncertainties.
I know I keep breaking my promise not to respond any further, but it is actually quite difficult to disengage from an individual who is so committed to the philippic approach and is anchored to a jaundiced interpretation. Let us hope that this time I will be able to keep my promise.
John,
I can think of four reasons the practice hasn’t halted: institutional momentum, practical considerations, practitioner ignorance, and motivated malpractice. My issue with your essay has never been its “tone”, but the fact that the latter is the only one you chose to explore in depth. My suspicions could very well be misplaced–and I alone bear the responsibility for that if so–but it would be dishonest of me to pretend they don’t still exist.
Back to the actual topic. It remains difficult to understand how a range of model outputs which exceeds observational constraints fails to fully capture the epistemic uncertainties–or more to my actual point, how this scenario understates epistemic uncertainty contra to your earlier statements. Perhaps I have misread you again. Even so, let me draw our attention back to a quote by Schmidt you provided earlier:
Or as a wise old woman used to say to my father, “We end up not knowing.” However, so often in this forum uncertainty is only a problem for alarmists, and I am a bit of a hawk on pointing out the fallacies of that position. Perhaps I am again too hasty to read that bias into your own words, in which case I am prepared to offer you another pint.
“Green” energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, this is now painfully apparent. Green energy is too expensive, in fact …
Europe is at a crossroads on climate. The road to net zero still stretches ahead, but the journey is getting tougher as countries warn their economies can’t absorb the rising costs of meeting emissions targets.
EU leaders arrive in Brussels on Thursday divided over how fast and how far to push the green transition. A key flashpoint is the European Commission’s plan to cut emissions 90% by 2040 from 1990 levels. Leaders are unlikely to agree to a specific target at the summit, instead focusing on “enabling conditions” aimed at shielding businesses and consumers from higher bills that could spark voter backlash.
At the heart of EU climate policy is its carbon market.Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg
“It all boils down to the impact of climate measures on the economy,” said Huan Chang, an analyst at BloombergNEF. “There’s a concern that the cost of emissions-reduction regulations could fuel inflation alongside high energy costs that have already been hurting the EU’s industrial competitiveness.”
LINK:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-23/europe-faces-an-economic-reality-check-on-its-climate-agenda
Western Academia’s AGW global warming conjecture is nothing more than a disguised fear of the Malthusian population bomb. If the the world’s current population still burned wood instead of transitioning to, e.g., coal or natural gas for energy, the result would be a release release into the atmosphere of 30% to 2 and 1/2 times more CO2.
“In years to come,” Booker says, “this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of ‘science’ can be used to promote a particular belief system… All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group.”
In the late 1950s and 1960s, a longstanding inclination among some members of the upper class was about to become a national issue. This inclination was to redefine achievements in science and technology as either evil actions threatening to nature or as futile attempts to reduce human suffering that was said to be the result of overpopulation. This tendency, partly articulated as a worldview in the writings of Thomas Malthus, takes what might be reasonable concerns over issues such as air and water quality and embeds them in an ideology deeply hostile to economic progress and the majority of human beings… The overall thrust was still clear: the U.S. and the world should move in the direction of ending population growth, and protection of the environment should be given an importance equal to or greater than that of improving the standard of living… Economic growth and technology were portrayed as problems…” ~Dr. Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency (1994)
The Left would rather make war, not CO2…?
“All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group.”
The IPCC is similar to Geocentric Theory practiced by the church during the Middle Ages; the original woke body that prosecuted flat Earth deniers.
Deniers are as deniers were.
“Physics requires energy conservation over the entire object, not only the lit part. “Skeptics” see sunlight illuminating a disk of area πR² and assume that the rest of the sphere somehow “does not count.” But the laws of physics require that what is absorbed by the illuminated portion must, in steady state, be balanced by emission from the entire planet’s surface area, 4πR².”
(Emphasis added)
–
Please, define, what is absorbed by the illuminated portion???
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What ‘portion’ of the ‘sunlight’ reaches the surface of the Earth?
Thank you, Wagathon, for your response.
“What ‘portion’ of the ‘sunlight’ reaches the surface of the Earth?”
What reaches the surface of Earth is 70%, because the clouds’ Albedo is ~0,3.
What interacts with surface is 70% *0,47 = 32,9% , because there is a strong specular reflection from Earth’s surface.
There is also a significant the immediate IR EM energy emission from the surface.
So, the absorbed as heat by the surface portion is smaller than the 32,9%. It is something around 20% of the total incident on the top of the atmosphere (TOA), may be even less.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, willful ignorance of Bond albedo (you have been taught), and inserting your own nonsensical fudge factor (the 47%), is a great example of the subject here: Bad Science
AI holds that of the average 70% of sunlight absorbed by Earth, the atmosphere absorbs roughly 33% (so, 23% of incoming sunlight) while land and oceans absorb the remaining 67% (so, 47% of incoming sunlight), most of which, is going to the oceans because they cover a larger percent of the Earth and have less reflectivity.
Thank you, B A, for your response,
“Christos, willful ignorance of Bond albedo (you have been taught), and inserting your own nonsensical fudge factor (the 47%), is a great example of the subject here: Bad Science“
–
AI says:
“The post critiques mainstream radiative energy balance models by incorporating a Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor (Φ), which adjusts for surface smoothness (Φ = 0.47 for smooth planets like Earth, 1 for rough ones), suggesting that specular reflection has been overlooked in prior estimations.”
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, it encapsulates what you have done, which is still bad science. We’ve discussed it before .
And, the very slowly rotating Moon absorbs as heat the very small ~5,5% of the total incident on the Moon’s surface solar flux.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AI agreed with my statement as follows–
‘Yes, the Eemian interglacial period (approx. 130,000 to 115,000 years ago) was warmer on average than the Holocene period we are currently in. The Eemian was the previous warm phase of the current ice age and occurred before the last major glacial period.’
Essentially, the AGW climate change consensus is that the rate of current warming is faster than the rate during the previous interglacial warm period although it was warmer in the last interglacial, having nothing to do with humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere. In other words, Western Academia is claiming the last interglacial was natural and warmer but the current interglacial is man-made.
John: Quoting what scientist said about confidence limits back in the dark ages of the IPCC’s first report is insane: “What they were very keen for us to do at IPCC [1990], and modellers refused and we didn’t do it, was to say we’ve got this range 1.5 – 4.5°C, what are the probability limits of that? You can’t do it.”
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry have published excellent papers about estimating ECS from observed changes in temperature and forcing (energy balance models) with valid confidence intervals.
‘The one field where the science must be “settled,” of course, is global warming. Or is it “climate change,” when clearly no skeptic doubts climate changes? Why the alteration in terminology? Perhaps because, in 2007, the world’s leading experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] reported its “central forecast” for long-term warming to be 3 degrees C. Yet, since then its reports have not listed a single central estimate but did reduce its minimal expected warming down from a 1.5-degrees rise to only a 1.0-degree temperature increase… As climatologist Judith Curry testified to Congress, IPCC models have forecast surface temperatures to increase 0.2 degrees C each 21st century decade. But during the first fifteen years, actual temperatures only increased 0.05, four times lower than predicted. And the models cannot explain why more than 40 percent of the temperature increases since 1900 took place between 1910 and 1945, which produced a mere 10 percent of the carbon emissions.’ ~American Spectator, ‘Treating science with the respect it requires’, 2017
Hey Waggy, 2017 was almost 10 years ago. In the first quarter of the the 21st Century, surface temp trends are right around 0.25 C/decade +/- a few nose hairs depending on your favorite reconstruction:
308-month trends as of August 2025:
RSS 0.28
UAH 0.22
GISTEMP 0.26
HADCRUT5 0.25
Even UAH makes it over the line! Please update your priors accordingly.
Dan Pangburn –
As far as I can tell, your hypothesis (that the observed warming is due to increasing water vapor – TPW – at a greater rate than that implied by Clausius-Clapeyron) hinges on a single data set. But, as I am sure you are aware, the observed TPW trends vary considerably over the globe, and determining a global representative value is non-trivial.
For instance Ho et al. (https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/259/2018/acp-18-259-2018.pdf) provide an extensive discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of various data sets. Incidentally, they conclude:
“…the close agreement of [two trends from independent observations] which represent an increase in TPW in
our data set of about 6.9 %, are a strong indication of the positive water vapor–temperature feedback on a warming planet in regions where precipitation from extratropical storms is already large.”
And Wan et al. (https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/28/2123/2024/hess-28-2123-2024.html) state:
“The relationship between TPW and T2 m showed a variation of around 6 % K−1 – 8 % K−1 in the 15–55° N latitude band, aligning with theoretical estimates from the Clausius–Clapeyron equation”, with stronger variations at deep southern latitudes.
I wonder how you take these variations into account. I hope you haven’t just settled on particular data set that favors your hypothesis.
How ‘natural’ is the selection of bad science? Is it true that Coke Zero, is the Deadliest Beverage? What say the consensus? What say the government scientists? Here’s why we should believe in scientists and why red wine is good for us and now it’s not and why diet causes ulcers and now it doesn’t and why breakfast is the most important meal of the day but only if you sell Kellogg’s cereal or Florida orange juice and why you should avoid eggs because they’ll cause high cholesterol and why that is no longer true and how the food pyramid is real science and all of the old food pyramids were bad science and carrots are good for your eyes and since cows live exclusively on a vegetarian diet, so can you. We should all eat more hay!
Real Science is supposed to change positions in light of new information, Waggy. Though I have anecdotal insider information that nutritional sciences have been unduly influenced by Big Ag industry sponsorship, and government health agencies further subject to some regulatory capture. A more charitable view is that epidemiology is inherently uncertain due to the difficulty of controlling for demographic, lifestyle and genetic factors (to name just a few), and the difficulty of obtaining funding for larger numbers of participants and/or multi-decadal longitudinal studies, both of which generally lead to more robust conclusions. Applying some common sense is probably an order here: all things in moderation, get plenty of exercise, and drink lots of water. On moderation; from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, we crave the things we do (sugar, salt, fats) because of their biological necessity in combination with their scarcity prior to industrialized cropping, animal husbandry and processed food-making. In the span of scant centuries we’ve radically changed our diets from that which we had become accustomed to over millions of years of adaptation, far too quickly for our genomes to adjust. A nomadic or pastoral diet is still obtainable in modern times, and is probably not a bad model; however, purchasing such foods from the farmers market obviates the physical exertions required under the historic lifestyles associated with those diets, so occupying substantial portions of our greatly increased leisure time with physical exercise is necessary. That said, gardening is within reach of most suburbanites, and provides cost-effective, healthy foods, and productive physical exercise, with a lower carbon footprint than even “organically”- and locally-grown products. Some jurisdictions even allow backyard chickens, which are decidedly not cost-effective, but provide plenty of exercise to both shepherd and flock, reduce food waste, are more rewarding to interact with than plants, and gives one hands-on appreciation for what it means to take another animal’s life for sustenance. Whether or not the eggs are healthy, or healthier, is uncertain, but they taste better, and even yarded chickens are happier creatures than battery hens. The result is animals which suffer less, humans with a flavorful table, and a tendency toward more appreciative and ethical consumption.
A planet is solar irradiated from one direction.
So there is always only one point on the Globe where the sun is at the Zenit.
And, at vast majority of the Globe’s dayside area the sun appears to be very low above the Horizont.
Because most of the planetary dayside area is either mornings and afternoons, or higher latitudes and Polar regions.
That is why for a smooth surface planets and moons there is a strong specular reflection constituent, which is not seen, and which is not measured by satellites sensors.
That is why the satellite measured average surface Albedo cannot be considered as the Bond Albedo.
Satellites are not capable measuring the planetary Bond Albedo.
As a result, Earth’s solar radiative energy income is very much overestimated.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong. At least five observations have shown, each for at least two years, that measured water vapor increased more than twice as fast as possible from just planet warming. Because the only effect on climate that CO2 could have is to increase temperature, and during 1999-2000 measured WV increase was more than twice possible from just temperature increase, CO2 (burning fossil fuels) is ruled out as a significant cause of GW/climate change.
I suspect that knee-jerk resistance to this finding occurs from people who never thought to consider measured average global WV. Average global WV has been increasing about 1.5 % per decade since before it began to be accurately measured worldwide in 1988 by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation. Links to data sources, graphs and discussion are at Sect 7 of the analysis available at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Correction – paraphrasing Richard Feynman: ‘Regardless of how many experts believe a theory or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wro-o-ong. ‘
Dan,
Feynman’s statement is predicated on having high confidence in the input and output data, properly interpreting all of it, and assuming there are no hidden or confounding variables affecting results. Having reviewed you note more carefully and done some of my own computations, I believe you have run afoul of the second criterion. One must also take care to not falsify the wrong hypothesis. In this case, if we assume for a moment that the discrepancy is real, we cannot say that result alone falsifies CO2 being the primary driver with WV serving as an amplifying feedback–it could mean that GCMs understate the magnitude of WV feedback by a factor of two. But as I will show, I don’t believe that is the case here either.
First I assume that the RSS TPW observations you used are reasonably accurate, and suitable for our purposes–with the caveat that coverage is not truly global; it only covers ice-free oceans between 60S-60N latitude, with no coverage over land anywhere. Next, I accept your use of UAH for determining against temperature trends. However, my computations differ. First I regress water vapor against temperature over the entire TPW dataset (1988-2023) and obtain a regression coefficient of 1.9895 mm K−1. Then as you did, I add the same reference value you use of 28.73 mm to the TPW anomaly series, and obtain a mean value of ~29 mm. Finally I divide the former by the latter, multiply by 100 and obtain 6.86 % K-1, very close to the canonical 7% value.
Your computations were more complex, and I don’t care to review them in detail, but something appears to be amiss, especially as analyses done in peer-reviewed literature by domain experts–e.g. Ho et al. (2018) cited by Pat Cassen earlier–obtain similar results. (Ho’s finding was 6.9%.)
By the way, using RSS for temperature–which has a higher warming trend than UAH as well as GISTemp and HADCRUT5 over the period of interest–the result comes back as 5.85%, suggesting that the lower UAH trend may be more accurate. In fact, I think Spencer made such a point at one time, but I could be wrong.
Dan,
I was in error about Ho’s conclusion; the 6.9% increase in TPW I quoted was for high latitude bands over an approximately 0.2 K temperature change, not a 1 K change. This shows the sensitivity of results to latitude. But the body of their paper asserts ~7%/K feedback, citing prior literature.
Looking more closely at your computations, I see that you compute your 6.7 % / K by setting up an empirical model of the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship using the Bolton equation. From that, you take the derivative to obtain the fractional increase in saturation vapor pressure per degree Celsius. Then you mention some accommodation for the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere (lapse rate) and say, “Based on ocean temperatures from [29], the area-weighted change in saturation vapor pressure per C degree at sea level is about 0.0633 / C°”, which I take to mean you applied SSTs to your model and obtained an area-weighted average of the results. Finally you set up an infinite series on that result which you “conservatively” halt at 0.0676/C°. (You round that down to 6.7%/K instead of up to 6.8 for some reason, but skip it.) The key thing is that you implausibly express this computation with zero uncertainty even though it makes a number of simple assumptions applied on a global scale.
Compounding matters, you consider only one temperature construction, UAH, a choice I would call arbitrary were it not for the fact that it is the one that best makes your case since it has the lowest warming trend of any published temperature time series. I already pointed out that RSS gives 5.85%/K because of its higher warming trend over the interval of interest. For further comparison, HADCRUT5 gives us 6.50%/K, and GISTemp 6.24%/K.
Clearly this computation is extremely sensitive to inputs and other assumptions, making it highly uncertain and thus not amenable to highly confident assertions that anything has been proven or disproven … except for maybe Feynman’s observation that the easiest person to fool is oneself.
With the future of the UN’s COP process in serious question, we may be approaching the time AI will have to be retrained to remain relevant, e.g., using descriptions like, ‘climate realist’ instead of, ‘climate denier.’ Humanity needs more energy not more hot air.
Earth’s surface has a huge thermal inertia.
And, the S-B formula is not applicable backwards either. It is about the emission (the heat into EM energy spontaneous transformation) and not about the EM energy absorption.
The solar EM energy incident on the planet only a small portion is transformed into heat and absorbed as heat in inner layers.
Also, at low (terrestrial) temperatures the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is not applicable (doesn’t work).
The planetary surface emits IR EM energy at much lower intensities than the S-B law assertions.
The planet, in its orbiting path around the sun, is never in a perfect radiative eqilibrium state.
For long-long millennias there may be a negative the heat absorption process (more energy emitted than absorbed), or, for long-long millennias, there may be a positive heat absorption process (less energy emitted than absorbed).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Your millennial-thinking does not accord with Western academia’s decadal will-o’-the-wisp fixation on the imminent danger all humanity now faces because of the ppm increase of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere by American businesses.
Thank you, Wagathon, for your response.
Of coourse it is not a decadal issue…
The planet, in its orbiting path around the sun, is never in a perfect radiative equilibrium state.
For long-long millennias there may be a negative the heat absorption process ( some more energy emitted than absorbed),
And, for long-long millennias, there may be a positive heat absorption process ( some less energy emitted than absorbed).
We wittness in our times the ( some less energy emitted than absorbed) a year after year the continuous an excess heat accumulation by the surface of the Earth.
Let’s consider the millennias long process of the year after year the continuous an excess heat accumulation by the surface of the Earth as an analogue to the yearly seasonal changes.
The orbital circumstances our Earth is currently in, they can be compared with the mid summer – about the 7th of July.
July is already a hot month, but the temperature day-after-day slowly continiue rising. The temperature rises slowly until the first decade of August…
By analogue to the millennias long warming pattern the Earth is in, the orbitally caused slow warming will continue for about a millennia and a half, and then, and only then, there will start a very slow at the beginning and then a gradually accelarating cooling pattern.
So, after about a millennia and a half, again by the orbital causes – the orbital circumstances our Earth would be in – they will change to the opposite direction:
which is the negative the heat absorption process ( some more energy emitted than absorbed).
–
–
In conclusion, we shall have some millennias of a warmer, and of a warmer climate on our Earth.
The good thing is that Earth’s surface has a huge thermal inertia!!!
So, the temperature rise will be limited.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Moreover, GCMs have a difficult time predicting climate, even on a decadal basis because Western academia’s model making alarmists, ‘have difficulty simulating clouds, let alone predicting how they will change in a warmer world, with different cloud types having diverse influences on the climate.’ ~Nic Lewis
Lewis understands that It is impossible to mathematically quantify the actual effect of clouds. Western Academia’s GCMs can only consider ghosts of clouds as they edge in and peep over artificial thresholds before hitting imaginary ceilings and dissolve on the outskirts of invented mathematical grids.
The CCP’s new 5-year plan marks a pivot; it highlights quantum technology, biomanufacturing, hydrogen energy, and nuclear fusion as new growth engines. EVs are no longer among the communist regime’s favored priorities.
Not a surprise, nobody wants to buy it.
Phillips 66 CEO states that peak fossil fuel prognostications are essentially a trope, there’s no evidence for peak oil. Regardless, it’s time to consider going much bigger.
Fusion should be the new JFK moon shot.
The next race must be the goal to attain fusion. Everthing else is superficial: net-zero, the IPCC (please close their damn doors), including all other associated sycophantical political sects–it’s time to write-off the visions of doom crowd.
Even Bill Gates is finally backsliding. This should say something to AGW religion–though Greta acolytes will always, undoubtably, be willing go down with the sailboat. We should let them.
It will be interesting to see how Elon Musk’s Grokipedia handles the phenomenon of Western academia’s anti-fossil fuels climate change hysteria heralding the beginning of government subsidies for Teslas…
John R
interesting article on (Solar ?) radiation imbalance and global warming, etc.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/huijser-global-warming-and-the-impossible-radiation-imbalance/
Granted it is in one of those pay to publish journals. Thoughts?
Or, if you want to be lazy about finding out why he thinks AGW is exaggerated by a factor of 3X, AI says-
‘Huijser’s study treats Earth’s climate as a subsystem within a larger thermal system and uses satellite and ocean heat data to analyze the causes of warming. He proposes that increased incoming shortwave solar radiation, likely from natural changes in cloud cover and surface albedo, is responsible for two-thirds of observed global warming, with only one-third due to GHGs. This conclusion suggests a lower climate sensitivity compared to IPCC models.’
It’s all bogus in any event if you consider it has been impossible to, for example, measure the air temperature around the Earth at 5,000 ft at any time in history prior to at the earliest, at most, some number of years after the Wright brothers, i.e., the 20th century…
Any finding to the contrary is nothing more than a meaningless statistical extrapolation of corrupted surface data.
For example, if glaciers in the tropical Andes have shrunk to what they were 11,700 years ago (as reported) you can conclude that they have been higher since then and in fact, scientific findings indicate the glaciers have expanded and contracted multiple times since 11,700 years ago.
Interestingly enough, Greta Thunberg abandoned the AGW global warming alarmism meme before Bill Gates did.
Greta reminds me of the Warren Zevon song, “Werewolves of London”- e.g., ‘ I’d love to see her barber.’
PurplewaveIndia was established in 2018 AV equipment AV Solution Services Provider Company providing sound system design, audio/video presentation system design and acoustical design services throughout India from its various branch offices across India. We are focused on designing and AV Solution Services Provider the most effective technical solutions for the users’ needs and then successfully integrating those solutions into the architectural environment.
https://www.purplewaveindia.com/
King Donald the First has killed the global warming body politic. Hapless vassals in Europe and elsewhere are conga-ing submissively along behind him, abandoning their former green zeal just like it never existed. Electric vehicles and battery technology are now seen as Chinese and thus racially impure. Can a whole technology be “adversarial”? A “bad actor”? For the racist USA even this can be achieved. Is this a good thing? There was a time when I would have celebrated King Donald I’s bull-in-a-china-shop antics. Now though I’m not so sure.
How many tropes can be squeezed into a paragraph? Obviously many.
At best Trump, and the common sense crowd, have been pointing to the obvious; that global Western cultures are in max pain from draconian elite policies that have been foisted on their shoulders. Trump didn’t kill the GW body politic, it’s killing itself. I’m sensing that many elites are gobsmacked why Western society is refusing to line-up behind the GW altar to self-flagellate, atonement for their wicked ways, trying to survive.
Did Western culture need to be told by Trump that they’re hurting financially? Businesses and citizens in Western nations are sucking wind trying to remain solvent. Chinese EVs have nothing to do with race and everything to do with geopolitical exploitation. People get it; sure, everyone likes cheap product, citizens in the EU understand that China’s motive for EVs isn’t to help them butter their bread. Jobs provide paychecks, declining manufacturing means fewer jobs. Energy costs are oppressive. And racism: while yes, the obligatory needs to be said I suppose, especially from any poster in the US—there’s still racism. But the US is probably one the least racist countries on the planet, oh no, oh no, oh no! Calm down. How many mixed cultures does one see in Asian countries? In any Asian country? How many American’s know about the great tension in Europe caused by mass Muslim migration there? How many American’s are aware that they’re categorically despised in many Muslim cultures based strictly on religion, or lack of it? Or that China has massive concentration camps holding millions of Uyghurs; or that these, Tibetan’s, and Falun Gong, are meat for China’s transplant tourism industry? Or that most of the Western Left, certainly those attending universities, are anti-semitic? Why does race have to be brought-up anyway, except to present moral outrage for why ones elite status is better than lesser beings—not true of course—and ironically, another form of judgmental bigotry.
For those who are unable to distinguish the difference between politics, religion and science, in the field of climate change AGW global warming hysteria, Al Gore if not, King Gore should at least be seen as, Pied Piper Gore or Jim Jones whose followers took Kool-Aid or Heaven’s Gate cultist Marshall Applewhite whose followers pulled plastic bags over their faces in preparation for blast off to meet up on the dark side of comet Hale-Bopp. Acceptance of MM’s hockey stick depiction of humanity’s future is either willful ignorance or purposeful deception.
Purposeful deception is my vote.
Bill Gates, and other select elite holders of the golden societal cattle prod haven’t cometh to their senses based on rational conviction, no, it was never about GW conviction to begin with. The “narrative” has always been about the use of cudgels, climate being one, race another; to drive global cultures towards a central statist theme. But the Orchestra refuses to play their tune. Now they’re scrambling, backpeddling for a fallback “narrative”–while also attempting to diffuse their culpability for spreading the mass propaganda, on a global scale, exploited by bought media, academia coercion, and their respective megaphones.
The government science authoritarians of global warming have been left exposed and stinking like a trout in the milk.
Oh my. What has become of Climate etc.? So sad to witness its descent into viperous irrelevance.
‘A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent… The warming hiatus, combined with assessments that the climate-model sensitivities are too high, raises serious questions as to whether the climate-model projections of 21st century temperatures are fit for making public policy decisions.’ ~Judith Curry
“What has become of Climate etc.? So sad to witness its descent into viperous irrelevance.”
Coming from the climatic red light district relevant, “lady”.
Black Gold!
US oil production climbed to a fresh record near 13.8 million barrels a day in August, according to a monthly government report. The number was higher than official figures previously indicated.
Output in August was about 300,000 barrels a day higher than the Energy Information Administration’s weekly estimates, indicating that production had remained steady even as prices declined. It marks the third straight monthly record.
Production may be set to accelerate even further in the near future amid a welcome reprieve for shale drillers after prices recovered this month on mounting restrictions to Russian flows. The US blacklisted oil giants Rosneft PJSC and Lukoil PJSC in an effort to stave off revenue that Russia needs for its war in Ukraine, raising expectations of near-term supply disruption at a time when global supply had looked plentiful.
LINK:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-31/record-us-oil-output-in-august-beat-earlier-estimates-eia-says
What Global Warming emergency?
The averade temperature of Earth’s oceanic waters entire volume is ~3,5 C !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Aren’t we lucky. What will it be like when reaching 5-6 C in a few decades at current warming rates
Thank you, B A. But what do you mean?
Reaching the averade temperature of Earth’s oceanic waters entire volume to become 5-6 C ? In a few decades ?
Yes. Starting at current 3.9 C heated to 5.5 C = 1.6 K. Current heating rate is ~0.3 K/decade. 5 decades for a simple estimate, but likely faster with continuing acceleration. Yes, I generally mean what I say.
B A Bushaw:
Our climate is currently cooling, which means that CO2 levels must be dropping,
Burl, you don’t know what climate is, and you don’t quantify.
In the alleged current IPCC Global Warming scenario it will take a million years, at least…
But the warming is happening, allright. We should take adaptive meassures, what we do about warming is a nonsense.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AI says– It would take approximately \(8.76\times 10^{10}\) atomic bombs to create 5.5 yottajoules of energy, assuming each bomb is equivalent to 15 kilotons of TN, to raise the temperature of all the oceans, 1°C
They would pretty quickly be none of us around to cause Anthropogenic Global Warming.
A man’s got to know his limitations. ~Callahan
that’s a yotta yotta, if I ever heard one.
Burl Henry wrote:
Our climate is currently cooling, which means that CO2 levels must be dropping,
If only there was an independent source of CO2 data that could show its change independent of temperature….
.
……..do you happen to know of any, Burl?
Does anyone?
.
.
maybe
.
.
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
.
?
B A Bushaw:
I wasn’t addressing the climate, just pointing out that currently temperatures are decreasing. Do you have an explanation as to why?
Yes you were: “Our climate is currently cooling…”
B A Bushaw:
I had asked you why global temperatures are currently decreasing.
Do you have an explanation?
It cools every night or are y’all talking about some meaningless worldwide average?
Worldwide, more people still die from cold than heat…
Nope, no explanation for Burl. You didn’t define the problem adequately.
Interestingly, enough– of the 10 warmest states in the Union, all are red states with the exception of Hawaii were many go on vacation because it’s warm there nearly all the time. Of the coldest 10 states in the Union over half lean red. Generally, the bluest states are those with huge asphalt jungle major cities.
It’s only logical to deduce that what raises the average temperature of ,the ‘official’ thermometers in the US has been to locate them in areas most corrupted by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
And still, the ignorant and gullible believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
It doesn’t.
What does make thermometers hotter?
Parking them next to a source of heat.
A hotter environment makes thermometes hotter.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thomas, like parking it 92 million miles from the sun? Answer: advection, conduction, convection, or radiation.
Heat. No heat, absolute zero.
Don’t you agree?
These are recent tweets from Michael Mann.
“ Disappointingly little media attention being paid to this alarming new study. Instead, we’re hearing about Bill Gates “tough truths” [read b.s.] downplaying the climate crisis.”
The study to which Mann is referring
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaf149/8303627
For once Mann is absolutely on target. Yada, yada, yada.
But his next tweet is so delicious that it will be in the back of my mind all day while I am watching the MSU and UM games, savoring every syllable because it captures the essence of why Mann’s first quote is so on target.
“ A lot of people are asking me “What do they have on Gates?”
If ever a quote captures the essence of a movement this is it.
Thank you Michael for such a glorious day.
Less expensive, more rational, more win/win:
Energy Department Announces $100 Million in Funding to Refurbish US Coal Plants
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the initiative aims to keep U.S. coal plants running and ensure access to affordable energy.
More win/win:
A former coal-fired power plant approximately 50 miles east of Pittsburgh, is being redeveloped as a natural gas-powered data center campus by the city’s redevelopment agency in Homer City, Pa.
Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. national intelligence director, said on Oct. 31 that America’s former strategy of “regime change or nation building” had ended under President Donald Trump, with Gabbard describing the previous practice as counterproductive and wasteful of taxpayer resources.
A win, though unfortunately select totalitarian/authoritarian nation states are steadfast determined to spread their respective national bounderies in a much less considerate way. People better wake-up! There’s a new climate in town, it laughs at the Western Lefts vision of global statist unity; they’re instead looking to take, not convince; a much more painful proposition.
It’s time to abandon silly notions that soldiers are willing die for NATO. We should know by now that the UN is anti-American and move their headquarters to the impoverished-shores of energy-deprived Africa where their beneficence can be more surely realized where relieving the hardships of poverty most needed..
Even California has a vote this time around– Trump or tripe in the classrooms? That’s the big Left vs. right issue that no one in the media is talking about. Nevertheless, the politically-motivated inculcation of global warming alarmism shines a spotlight on the dangers of ‘Common Core’ and a centralized, entrenched and too-big-to-fail government-education complex that determines what is written on the blackboard.
A recent MM quote on Twitter.
“A lot of people are asking me “What do they have on Gates?”
That perfectly encapsulates the essence of the AGW movement.
“2. Obliquity (Axial Tilt)
Obliquity is the angle of Earth’s axis tilt, which determines seasonal intensity. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1° and 24.5°, with the current value at 23.4° (decreasing from a maximum ~10,000 years ago and heading toward a minimum in another ~10,000 years). The cycle repeats every ~41,000 years.
Higher obliquity amplifies seasons: summers receive more insolation at high latitudes, leading to hotter summers and colder winters, which can melt ice sheets and end glacial periods. Conversely, lower tilt results in milder seasons—cooler summers allow snow to persist year-round at high latitudes, while warmer winters reduce ice melt. This promotes ice accumulation, increasing Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) and amplifying cooling via positive feedback. Obliquity has the strongest influence on insolation at higher latitudes, making it critical for ice age dynamics.”
–
The warmer winters are less-snow winters.
How the warmer winters reduce ice melt? It is a mistaken assertion.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Warmer winters => higher humidity => greater snowfall while still well below freezing = accumulation = negative melt. Happening now in parts of Antarctica.
“The warmer winters are less-snow winters.” is the mistaken assertion.
Thank you, B A.
The winters are warmer not because of the ~1° less obliquity, with the current value at 23.4°. The winters are warmer because they coinside very close with Earth’s Perihelion.
Also the cooler summers are because summers at Northern Hemisphere coinside very close with Earth’s Aphelion.
And at Northern Hemisphere the snow melts at summer at high latitudes. There is not snow in Siberian and Canadian tajgas, not in tundras.
Not even in Alaska…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s why they call it an Interglacial Period.
Christor V: You got it wrong again; we have been here before.
Earth orbit eccentricity is very low. The orbital effect is minimal when compared to a change in axial tilt.
Reduce tilt; then inter-tropical regions heat up, evaporation increases, but at higher latitudes it is cooler, humidity condenses and snow persists longer. Other factors provide positive feedback. It is the road to glaciation.
Earth axial tilt changes periodically, – and abruptly-. That factor is not considered in most research on paleo-temps.
As BA says, it is happening in Antarctica now; it is the end of winter there right now.
The question is not what happens at a particular obliquity, but when will it triggers a bigger change. Evidence so far indicates that it seems to follow the Eddy cycle inflection points.
Melitamegalithic:
Reduce tilt; then inter-tropical regions heat up, evaporation increases, but at higher latitudes it is cooler, humidity condenses and snow persists longer. Other factors provide positive feedback. It is the road to glaciation.
–
Well, you are completelly right!
The question is not what happens at a particular obliquity, but when will it triggers a bigger change. Evidence so far indicates that it seems to follow the Eddy cycle inflection points.”
Of course, because the particular obliquity doesn’t affect the current global warming.
The global warming happens because of the orbital circumstances.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos V: Some simple maths:
From this paper, fig 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270293211_Arctic_Holocene_glacier_fluctuations_reconstructed_from_lake_sediments_at_Mitrahalvoya_Spitsbergen
The two abrupt shifts occur at 4296BP and 1827BP. The first is an obliquity increase; the second a minor obliquity disturbance, but which still left an imprint in the sediment. Both are near Eddy inflection points; the first a root, the second a peak. At about 980yrs cycle length, it is 2.52 cycles. We are nearing another shift from cycle peak. It is a warming period but what may be in the ‘tea leaves’ may be a very different matter than anticipated.
See at 5.5.4, end of last para “-and it remains possible that the advance of Karlbreen around 1900 cal. yr. BP occurred as a response to a regional climatic shift along the western coast of Svalbard.-” That was precisely 1827BP (173CE)
Melitamegalithic, I am not specialist in astronomy. What I think is that planets gravitational pul is not strong enough to influence axial tilt.
But, as I said – I am not astronomer.
Best
Christos: The evidence says axial tilt changed (the effect of a cause). The rest is dogged research, and a character that is overly attracted to such a problem; to find why.
Knowledge is not someone’s prerogative, whether it’s astronomy, ancient texts, plus whatever it takes, as long as one persists. And the occasional good luck find.
As to astronomy, Plato did say so on axial tilt (Timaeus). So did several others. That is also science and astronomy, once it is understood.
Yes, it is also science.
The Three Main Components
Milankovitch cycles comprise three primary orbital parameters: eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Each has a distinct periodicity and affects insolation differently. Their combined influence modulates climate, with obliquity often considered the most significant for ice sheet dynamics, though the interplay among all three is crucial.
–
Role in Ice Ages and Climate Change
Milankovitch cycles explain the periodicity of Pleistocene ice ages. Between 1–3 million years ago, glacial cycles matched obliquity’s 41,000-year rhythm. Around 800,000 years ago, they shifted to ~100,000-year intervals, aligning with eccentricity—though the exact cause of this “Mid-Pleistocene Transition” remains debated. Small insolation changes from these cycles trigger feedbacks like ice-albedo effects, greenhouse gas variations (e.g., CO2 from ocean outgassing), and ocean circulation shifts, amplifying global temperature swings. Evidence from sediment and ice cores shows these cycles correlating with temperature and sea-level changes over the past 800,000 years. While they dominate natural long-term variability, human-induced greenhouse gases are overriding them in the current era, leading to rapid warming not explained by orbital forcing alone.
Application to 2025 Context
Given Christos Vournas’s post (suggesting a 1,500-year warming trend), we can estimate future insolation using current parameters (e ≈ 0.0167, ε ≈ 23.44°, perihelion in January). Running Berger’s code forward with La2010 data shows 65°N summer insolation rising slightly (0.5 W/m² over 1.5 kyr) due to obliquity decrease and precession shift, supporting a mild orbital warming. However, this is dwarfed by anthropogenic forcing (3.5 W/m² from GHGs), per IPCC AR6 (2021, updated 2024), indicating human impact dominates.
Let me know if you’d like to dive deeper into specific equations or run a sample calculation!
**************
Please calculate for 65°S (South) how much rises the insolation on the Southern summer (December – January – February) due to Winter Solstices and coincidense with Earth’sPerihelion?
**************
Data for 2025-2026: Solar declination and distance were obtained for each day in DJF (90 days) using astronomical ephemerides.
Averaging: The daily values were averaged over the season, once with actual distances (including eccentricity effects) and once with fixed df=1df = 1df = 1
(circular orbit).
Difference: The rise is the seasonal average with eccentricity minus the average without, yielding ~13 W/m².
This effect stems from precession in Milankovitch cycles, which currently aligns perihelion (closest approach to the Sun) with early January, boosting solar flux during Southern summer by ~3.4% on average relative to the annual mean, with the latitude-specific projection resulting in the 13 W/m² increase. Over millennia, precession will shift this alignment, reversing the hemispheric imbalance.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos’ new friend wrote: “Running Berger’s code forward with La2010 data shows 65°N summer insolation rising slightly (0.5 W/m² over 1.5 kyr) due to obliquity decrease and precession shift, supporting a mild orbital warming. However, this is dwarfed by anthropogenic forcing (3.5 W/m² [in 0.2 kyr] from GHGs), per IPCC AR6 (2021, updated 2024), indicating human impact dominates. ”
Yep, orbital forcing changes are quite small on centential time scales.
Thank you, B A.
From what my new friend wrote:
“shows 65°N summer insolation rising slightly (0.5 W/m² over 1.5 kyr) due to obliquity decrease and precession shift, supporting a mild orbital warming.
So, it says “supporting a mild orbital warming.”
My new friend only very recently started learning – of course by reading everything available.
And already my new friend rightly testifies that there is not an orbitally caused cooling influence, but instead, as he says, there is ” a mild orbital warming.”
Just wait and see, what my new friend would say when he learnt about the Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
Thank you, B A.
Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming
Of course they can’t. Milankovitch Cycles are very much correctly calculated graphema.
Their combined influence modulates climate, with obliquity often considered the most significant for ice sheet dynamics, though the interplay among all three is crucial.
But the obliquity isn’t significant. What is significant is the precession.
And it should be seen along with the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The phenomenon is based on the at the SW EM energy the incidence on surface instant – that there is the immediate IR EM emission process.
You shouldn’t overlook it what is actually happen when the EM energy interacts with surface’s matter!
And, the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is not EM energy absoption law. Doesn’t work backwards.
Also. the matter at terrestrial temperatures do not emit according to the S-B law [ σ (sigma) = 5,67*10^-8 ], because the matter cannot muster that much energy to be able IR emitting the amounts the S-B law dictates!
You know, the matter consists from atoms – atoms behave as they should, not as some emission law expects them to emit, not as the blackbodies the abstract-without-matter-surfaces.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, thanks for your thoughts. We’ve covered them before.
NASA: Scientists know of no natural changes to the equilibrium between the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy radiated back to space that can account for such a rapid period of global warming. The amount of incoming solar radiation has increased only slightly over the past century and is therefore not a driver of Earth’s current climate warming.
–
The amount of incident solar radiation is almost steady for the past century.
–
NASA: “Finally, Earth is currently in an interglacial period (a period of milder climate between Ice Ages). If there were no human influences on climate, scientists say Earth’s current orbital positions within the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago.”
–
The opposite is the right assertion: continuing a long-term warming trend that began 6,000 years ago.
And it is an accelerating for 6,000 years now.
And there is not only the solar intensity accelerating – it is the planet’s ability to accumulate some of the incident solar energy as heat, that ability becomes more and more intense.
And that warming trend is now in its culmination phase. The portion of solar energy which is yearly absorbed as heat is at its maximum.
–
So, it is the time of maximum heat absorption – but it is the last couple of millennias long time. So, why there is the sudden so much rapid rise of temperature ?
Why the warming is so obviously intensive ?
–
Sensible Heat /Latent Heat ratio
Yes, in last 100 years we observe a rapid pace of modern warming.
Let’s explain:
Earth’s surface is covered about ~ 70% with oceanic waters. Also vast areas on land have water in soils and in plants…
Water is mostly present in liquid phase, but also water exists on Earth’s surface in solid phase (snow and ice).
We have the seasonal changes in temperatures, because of Earth’s axial tilt (23,4°).
And Earth is in a slow orbitally forced warming trend.
Every year there are colder periods (winters), and there are warmer periods (summers).
In winters the area of the sea-ice cover extends, and in summers the area of the sea-ice cover shrinks.
Also in winters the sea-ice gets thicker, and on summers the sea-ice gets thinner.
Earth is in a slow orbitally forced warming trend. Which means Earth’s surface, year after year, continuously accumulates some excessive quantities of solar energy as heat.
Because Earth in its annual cycle around sun is currently subjected to a positive radiative energy balance.
Every year in summers the sea-ice covered areas shrink a little more.
And every year in winters the sea-ice covered areas extend a little less.
The phenomenon is due to the heat accumulation process.
From Wikipedia:
Link: Water – Wikipedia
“Water is the only common substance to exist as a solid, liquid, and gas in normal terrestrial conditions.”
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions: freezing (water to ice), melting (ice to water), vaporization (water to vapor), condensation (vapor to water), sublimation (ice to vapor) and deposition (vapor to ice).[56] ”
Sensible heat
To distinguish between the energy associated with the phase change (the latent heat) and the energy required for a temperature change, the concept of sensible heat was introduced.
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions.
Here it is the key point:
Because of the cyclical seasonal changes, every year there are the Huge Phase Transitions Processes in Earth’s system.
Enormous quantities of sea-ice get involved in melting in summers, and enormous quantities of sea-water get involved in freezing in winters.
Every year there is less and less sea-ice left.
Why is then the accelerated pace of warming?
Because what sea-ice has left is localized at much higher latitudes on the globe. Because there is not sea-ice at lower latitudes, as it was there a 100 years ago.
Thus, for the yearly portion of the excessive accumulated heat to effectively reach the remained sea-ice fields and to be consumed in ice melting as latent heat, without a significant along-side temperature rise becomes more and more difficult task.
We have the yearly accumulated excessive heat necessarily subjected to rise the Global temperature – more sensible heat in action – on the latent-heat-to-be expence.
The (Sensible Heat) /(Latent Heat) ratio (for a given radiative energy positive imbalance) is what determines the pace of the present-time planetary warming.
When the ratio is higher, planet experiences more rapid warming, than when it is lower.
At MWP (Medieval Warm Period) the ratio was higher, and at LIA (Little Ice Age) the ratio was lower.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is why the internet will be extinct in 3 years.
In my investigations reported in the link below, several performance metrics were used with CMIP5 and CMIP6 models and observed temperature change data. The metrics covered the two time periods for each CMIP. For CMIP5 the periods were 1861-2005 and 1980-2005 and for CMIP6 the periods were 1850-2014 and 1980-2014. The observed temperature changes were derived from Cowtan-Way’s infilled series.
This investigation intends to find several performance metrics involving, primarily, how well the model temperature changes and series structure match that of the observed. The metric scores of the individual models are scaled and combined into a single metric that is used to rank the models overall performance in matching the observed. A general assessment is made comparing the performance rankings and rankings of climate sensitivities. Additionally individual model results are reviewed and flagged in light of improbable metric results indicating modeling failures, e.g., should the performance have eliminated the further use of the model in the ranking process.
I concluded from this investigation that the lower sensitivity models were the best performers overall and the high sensitivity models the worst performers. Some low sensitivity models performed poorly based on all the metrics and gave credence that metrics were not biased towards low sensitivity models. I make no claims of a model matching the observed, but rather that some models more closely match the observed.
The linked material has numerous tables of results and essentially unedited text which can make for less than easy reading. My intent was to have this write up available for future reference when climate scientists become more selective in their evaluations of climate models and particularly in matching the observed temperature changes.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w79cwbfe9jfpg47jphxlp/Ranking-Climate-Model-Performance-in-Matching-the-Historically-Observed-Global-Mean-Temperature-Changes.pdf?rlkey=j2wt9nepqp6b0m4eokqdxax29&st=5pvpcg76&dl=0
For me, personally… I don’t feel 1.5°C warmer, “on average” than I have ever felt over the last 76 years, but then… I practically grew up on the beach, baking in the Sun, and took my vacations boating at Lake Havasu every summer for 20 years.
“In a world that has already warmed by 1.5°C without apocalyptic consequences, extreme scare tactics have lost their potency.” ~Roger Pielke, Jr.
Five foreign charities have contributed nearly $2 billion to left-wing climate and social justice agendas in the United States, according to an Oct. 31 report by nonpartisan group Americans for Public Trust.
The report stated that at least one of the listed foreign organizations is connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
https://americansforpublictrust.org/reports/foreign-charities-fueling-extreme-policies-in-the-u-s/
How British Billionaire Christopher Hohn Uses Foreign
Dark Money to Bankroll Radical Climate Policy and Liberal
Advocacy Campaigns in America
https://americansforpublictrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/APT_Hohn_Report-1.pdf
Also see:
Quadrature Climate Foundation
The Quadrature Climate Foundation, created in 2019 by British billionaires Greg Skinner and Suneil Setiya, is dedicated to addressing what it calls the climate emergency. The foundation has given almost $530 million to U.S.-based groups to influence energy policy, according to the report.
KR Foundation
The KR Foundation—also a climate and environmental activist organization—was created in 2014 and has spent more than $36 million to shape U.S. policy and phase out fossil fuels, according to the report.
The group funded “everything from climate litigation to U.S. climate protests to pushing back against pro-energy legislation at the state level,” Americans for Public Trust stated.
Oak Foundation
The Oak Foundation, created in 1983 by British billionaire Alan Parker, has backed environmentalist positions, including supporting opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. The group also advocates for zero-carbon targets and the Paris Climate Accord’s goals.
Laudes Foundation
The Laudes Foundation, founded by the Brenninkmeijer family, has given almost $20 million to 17 U.S.-based groups, according to the report.
The politics of global warming is easy to understand. The science, however, is just the reverse- all of the factors involved are far too complex to model. Moreover, all of the official thermometer data is purposefully corrupted so, it’s worse than useless. Evaporation, for example, cools the Earth because as water evaporates it leaves a cooler Earth behind and the water vapor forms clouds that reflects sunlight. While water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas that traps outgoing heat, and high-altitude clouds can also have a warming effect by trapping heat radiating from the Earth, the overall, net effect of the full evaporation cycle (especially low-level cloud formation) is considered to be a cooling influence on the global climate.
“While water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas that traps outgoing heat . . .”
Well, no, it doesn’t .
Adding water vapour to air does not make thermometers hotter. That’s a fantasy, peddled by the ignorant and gullible.
True .. increasing water vapor does not raise the temperature of a thermometer, but like putting a blanket over a person, the person will be warmer even though the blanket doesn’t warm the air around the person.
There is not any AGW on our planet Earth!
–
And, our planet is not warmed by the atmosphere. There is not +33°C atmospheric greenhouse effect either. The +33°C is a tragic mistake.
See about the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon first.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I had H.S.V2 for years so I took a medication that C.U.R.E.D me totally from it. It’s amazing, if you want to win your ex or fix your relationship problem, I recommend this services.
I recommend,,
From the time of the annual gathering of UN countries beginning with the initial convention on climate change–
COP 1 (Berlin, Germany, from March 28 to April 7, 1995) to COP 30 (Belém, Brazil, November 10–21, 2025)– the rise and fall of Leftist Western academia’s AGW nay ACCCCC’s (American Capitalism-Caused Climate Change Calamity) sting on Western democracies, the cost of action has been trillions of wasted dollars vs the cost of inaction which would have been zero wasted dollars.
Gates lays out his argument that climate change is not going to lead to the end of civilization, that measuring temperatures isn’t the best measure of progress on the issue, and that thirdly, the money being spent on climate related issues would be better allocated towards improving human health and prosperity:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate
Gate’s is coming around, but IMO the stark reality of geopolitical politics is the only reason for his position shift. There’s a much greater risk for a dystopic world ending calamity from the new imperialistic axis, including sympathetic influences from he hard core statist policy advocates in the West, ironically, the very same are the fomenters of climate doom.
Some elites are seeing past their blinders. Hope the pace of epiphany quickens.
It’s all so hypocritical and ridiculous, like as if… there actually is anyone in a modern society that would prefer returning to the use of outhouses instead of modern indoor plumbing.
Time for a new post. It has been days since any meaningful comments have been posted
Democrats have fertile imaginations– in addition to more than two sexes, they’ll come up with future cataclysmic climate prognostications when back in power… unless people get smarter and Western Academia gets honest.
What I would like to add is that satellite from above doesn’t measure (doesn’t indicate) the same temperature the thermometer in the Standartized Stevenson’s screen measures (displays) on the exact same point, and at the exact same instant on the Earth’s surface.
So, those two are different temperatures, because they measure different items.
Satellite measures the IR emission intensity the ground at the point emits, and translates it to temperature according to its calibration.
Thermometer displays the temperature of itself (the body of thermometer) . The thermometers temperature is depemdent on the surrounding environment’s temperature and it is not the instant temperature, but with a time-lag.
Also the thermometer’s temperature is dependent on the air temperature, which enters into the Stevenson’s screen by natural convection – and, therefore the temperature measured is also dependent on the velocity of winds.
Those are different measurements on the same point, and they measure different things.
The yearly average surface temperature measured by satellites is not the same as the temperature measured in the Standartized Stevenson’s screens.
And here is one major difference which cannot be overlooked:
In day-time satellites measure the surface temperature which exhibits a strong immediate IR emission, which is the result of surface matter interaction with incident solar flux.
The induced on the surface skin layer temperature the satellite measures as what it is, and it is the actual at the point surface temperature – which the thermometer in the Standartized Stevenson’s screens do not.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As concerns the accuracy of satellite data of the different generations of satellites, of which there have been four (each using different instruments and methods), would likely provide different raw results if operating simultaneously due to differences in instrumentation, calibration, orbit characteristics, and different atmospheric layers that they measure.
Yes, it would be highly suspect if different methods at different time yielded exactly the same results.
Thank you, B A. Very good point!
“Yes, it would be highly suspect if different methods at different time yielded exactly the same results.”
We approach now the concept of the method.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
We approach now the concept of the perfectly measured planetary average surface temperature method.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The most accurate GCM over the last 30 years would have been one that predicted no more than a 0.2°C increase /decade, irrespective of any conjectured factors involved in the increase and irrespective of the known politically motivated causes of corruption of the data on the high side as for example, the UHI effect.
2025 continues to be cooler than 2024. It will be interesting to see what 2026 brings what with the La Nina forming.
024 Jan +0.80
2024 Feb +0.88
2024 Mar +0.88
2024 Apr +0.94
2024 May +0.78
2024 June +0.69
2024 July +0.74
2024 Aug +0.76
2024 Sep +0.81
2024 Oct +0.75
2024 AVG: 0.80
2025 Jan +0.45
2025 Feb +0.50
2025 Mar +0.57
2025 Apr +0.61
2025 May +0.50
2025 June +0.48
2025 July +0.36
2025 Aug +0.39
2025 Sep +0.53
2025 Oct +0.53
2025 AVG: 0.49
Interestingly- AI says for 2023 Jan 2023, for example, the global average surface air temperature was approximately 1.2°C above the pre-industrial (1850-1900) average, i.e., < 0.1°C /decade.
Not so however compared to, e.g., 1950. AI says–
In January 1950, the global average surface air temperature was below the 1850-1900 average, representing a temporary cooling period rather than warming. While a precise single-month anomaly value for January 1950 is not directly provided in the snippets, the global temperature trend in the mid-20th century was generally cooler than the late 19th century.
So, what had most impact on the 2000s? Politically-inspired corruption of the data?
You’d be right to believe Michael Mann was a ‘professional’ Western academic, spending nearly 9 years at Yale University and authoring the apocryphal ‘hockey stick’ at the Leftist-leaning University of Massachusetts. You could say, the hockey stick is Michael Mann’s philosophy, masked in the trappings of science.
MM’s Western career began at Wesleyan University that, according to AI, ‘is known for being a progressive and left-leaning campus with an active political and social environment. While its name comes from a Methodist background, it officially became a secular university that now emphasizes academic freedom, critical thinking, and social justice.’
As a part of his academic ‘career’ MM also, ‘spent five years at the University of California, Berkeley…
Wow, January is cooler than the yearly average. Seek help.
Newsflash- January is not the coldest month globally. Make a note of it…
According to AI- ‘Historically, globally, January is hotter than the global average temperature.’
Actually, January is the coldest month globally. Take a note and try to figure out why, instead of blathering.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/monthly-average-surface-temperatures-by-year
It seems we may have a definition issues here — global temperature versus global surface temperatures. Both claims can be correct.
Orson,
You, Wagathon, and his AI source have a definition problem – that is, the lack of one. I, and my reference, do not:
“The temperature of the air measured 2 meters above the ground, encompassing land, sea, and
in-land water surfaces.”
No tot confuse things using ‘January’ but, using the yearly average of 1.45°C for 2003 (instead of 1.2°C, for January), when divided by 12… that amounts to a difference of an additional 0.02°C /decade. Irrespective of the cause of the increase (man-made or otherwise), it’s nothing humanity has had difficulty adapting to over the decades and, current reality is the proof in the pudding.
The satellites do not “see” the planetary Specular Reflection
Here it is a schema explaining the why satellites orbiting a planet cannot “see”, and therefore cannot measure the specular reflection exhibited from smooth surface spheres (smooth surface planets and moons),
A schema demonstrating why satellites cannot measure specular reflection.
The smooth surface planets and moons (Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, Europa and Ganymede), the smooth surface planets and moons exhibit strong specular reflection constituents, which are not “seen”, and therefore they are not measured by satellites’ sensors.
****************
The specular reflection escapes the satellites’ sensors
Link: https://impro.usercontent.one/appid/oneComWsb/domain/cristos-vournas.com/media/cristos-vournas.com/onewebmedia/Satellite's%20sensor%20doesn't%20see%20Specular%20Reflection%201%20-%20Nov%2010%20-%202025%20-%20Monday.png?etag=W%2F%22486e-69122794%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fpng&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=819%2B460
–
Christos – that “schema” does not demonstrate anything. Specular reflection does not originate at a single point, and the satellite position keeps changing.
The modern State of Fear could never exist without universities feeding it. There is a peculiar neo-Stalinist mode of thought that is required to support all this, and it can thrive only in a restrictive setting, behind closed doors, without due process. In our society, only universities have created that — so far. The notion that these institutions are liberal is a cruel joke. They are fascist to the core … ~ Michael Crichton, State of Fear
With COP30 in Brazil upon us, I think all here would appreciate knowing that two (or three?) interviews with Judith Curry have appeared recently on YouTube.com, if not elsewhere!
Not here
Australia may dump net-zero policy soon.
“Liberals shifting towards dumping net zero, despite moderate faction fears.
On Sunday, Nationals leader David Littleproud formally confirmed the country party would abandon its net zero commitment.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/liberals-shifting-towards-dumping-net-zero-2050/105966032
I don’t see the EU holding onto net-zero either.
Correction – Nut Zero.
The decades long fossil fuel narrative is collapsing–seemingly overnight–now driven by an “all the above” policy:
IEA Predicts World Oil and Gas Demand Will Grow Till 2050
Under the Current Policies Scenario, which takes into account existing energy-related policies and regulations, demand for oil is expected to jump to 113 million barrels per day by mid-century, the report said.
The jump in oil demand by 2050 is “mainly due to its increased use in emerging market and developing economies for road transport, petrochemical feedstocks, and aviation,” the report said.
Global demand for natural gas is predicted to rise to 5,600 billion cubic meters by 2050. This will be up 33 percent compared to the roughly 4,200 billion cubic meters of gas demand estimated for last year by the IEA.
From 2009 when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for stopping the seas from rising to America’s most insignificant politician attending COP3O in 2025!
“I’ve heard that crap my entire life.”
When I read that response on X (formerly Twitter) yesterday to the millionth article about impending doom in the last few days, a rush of empathy for alarmists overcame me. No one could have said that when FAR was published. But now, decades later it seems a very popular sentiment. Indeed, the light bulb is lighting up in functioning brains that failed catastrophic predictions are accumulating at a compounding rate and yet we keep ending up with zilch.
To the average person, with an adult lifespan of 60 to 70 years, nothing much has or will change given the regional and multi decadal variability of global climate. It doesn’t mean that things don’t change. It’s just that for a single person the change is imperceptible. You could say they change at glacial speed.
And therein lies the basis for my infinite empathy for my alarmist friends. It’s going to be a steep hill to overcome because of those who will be saying the rest of this century.
“I’ve heard that crap my entire life.”
Well… took four centuries for Galileo’s work to be fully accepted, so… maybe ‘human causation’ will be deemed to be a factor in global warming 400 years from now?
cerescokid: one little point re “You could say they change at glacial speed.” Not always. The rare real big ones take just ‘a day and a night’.
We’ve all heard the hype about the certainty of imminent and inevitable doom as a result of humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere, reached the peak of inflated expectations and now, we’re skeptical? Why? Being right or wrong is without consequence because, comparing current atmospheric CO2 levels over the geophysical record, as Dr. William Happer testified under oath before congress, currently the Earth is CO2-starved.
Does misrepresentation make you feel better?
Atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 16 million years. Your ignorance and false representations are pathetic.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/
COP30
“At a time when false narratives about climate change are spreading faster than ever online, the UN education and culture agency, UNESCO, is calling for stronger global cooperation to safeguard information integrity.
Speaking to UN News’s Felipe de Carvalho in Brazil’s coastal city of Belém which is hosting COP30, Guilherme Canela, UNESCO’s Head of Digital Policies who takes a lead on promoting accurate information regarding climate change, says misinformation has become one of the most significant global risks – alongside climate change itself.
He stressed that protecting reliable, science-based information is essential for effective climate action.”
Christos,
Do you understand that your post is referring to you as well as a number of other rejectionists here on this site? All the more reason to ignore stuff that can’t make it past peer review.
B A, it is what UN says:
“misinformation has become one of the most significant global risks – alongside climate change itself.
He stressed that protecting reliable, science-based information is essential for effective climate action.”
“
Christos, and you are not only a victim of that misinformation, you are also a propagator and creator of misinformation. Fortunately, you’re not very good at it.
Thank you, B A. Yes, I know that.
“Temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide over the past 66 million years. Bottom numbers indicate millions of years in the past; right-hand numbers, carbon dioxide in parts per million. Hotter colors indicate distinct periods of higher temperatures; deeper blues, lower ones. The solid zigzagging line charts contemporaneous carbon dioxide levels; shaded area around it reflects uncertainty in the curve. (Adapted from CenCO2PIP, Science 2023)”
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-million-year-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/
Many of this all of this unfolding, 10 to 15 years ago- e.g., We can all appreciate the nuances of the various mathematical approaches to problem-solving. We should not, however, deceive ourselves or others when it comes to applying these approaches or being fooled into believing that public schoolteachers can use them to save the world by modeling the Earth’s climate. About one thing there can be no debate: the Left owns the coming global warming energy crunch that has been caused by standing on the neck of the nation’s free enterprise economy since the 70s.
Christos, great – you know how to copy and paste from a reference I gave you. No original content of your own. And the fact remains that current CO2 levels of ~ 425 ppm (not shown on the graph) is the highest it has been in the last 16 million years. I’m glad that you now know that, now that you have been told and given data. Try to remember it.
16m, 14m… AI verifies that during the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum, around 16 million years ago, CO2 levels were consistently higher than today’s concentrations. By 14 million years ago, the CO2 levels had declined to the approximate level of today’s 420 ppm, the term “optimum” referring to a warmer lending to and environmental conditions that were favorable for the widespread flourishing of flora and fauna.
Thank you, B A. How to remember the:
“Temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide over the past 66 million years. ” ?
–
But I invite you to visit my site. I have added some new ‘things’ resently.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
If you are having memory problems, you may print out the reference I gave you and tape it to the wall.
Thanks for the invite, I respectfully decline – once was enough.
Why, B A ?
I do not discuss trace gas CO2’s role in Global Warming anymore…
“At a time when false narratives about climate change are spreading faster than ever online, the UN education and culture agency, UNESCO, is calling for stronger global cooperation to safeguard information integrity.”
If your arguments about climate change ( or anything else, ) are strong, (i.e.facts based, ) why should you require a Department of Information-Integrity to restrict what may, contrary-wise, be considered? Does Nullius in Verba no longer apply to scientific
enquiry?
The same reason we seem to need police, armies, peer review, and hard-copy journals.
Yes, “don’t take somebody’s word for it” still applies to scientific inquiry, and most anything else. I find ‘Examinare iudicia’ to be a more important next step.
B A Bushaw:
You state that CO2 levels are now higher than they have been at any time in the last 66 million years.
So What?
There has never been any warming due to the accumulation of CO2 in our atmosphere., it is just an unproven hypothesis.
No Burl, I gave a reference to published scientific research providing evidence that CO2 is the highest it has been in 16 million years (not 66 million). OTOH, you never give evidence for anything, just make a fool of yourself via incompetence.
The real argument of the global warming alarmists isn’t anything close to what they claim. It’s not what they say. It’s what they believe and that is simply, the world would be better off without people in it.
“ We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty. People are terrified — how can you live and not know? It is not odd at all. You only think you know, as a matter of fact. And most of your actions are based on incomplete knowledge and you really don’t know what it is all about, or what the purpose of the world is, or know a great deal of other things. It is possible to live and not know.”
― Richard P. Feynman
“ No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
― Richard P. Feynman
Is US ‘weather data’ as unreliable as numbers from the Met. Office now seem to be? Only about 20 UK sites as used by the M.O. for reporting temperatures seem to be of the highest quality. Yet the total number of sites it uses is many 100s. To put it mildly the Met. Office doesn’t confine its reporting to the most reliable figures: https://dailysceptic.org/2025/11/16/exclusive-new-freedom-of-information-request-and-the-uk-met-office-has-to-rewrite-its-temperature-explanations-again/
In relation to Christos Vournas’s comment, such terms as “protecting reliable, science-based information” sometimes now deliberately or accidentally – I don’t always know which – refer to what I’d call ‘bad science’. Tragic.
‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive’ …
The Left’s game plan from the beginning was to do whatever it took to quickly win the argument about humanity being the cause of global warming because time was never the friend of the global warming movement. Over time weather changes and weather is just a subset of climate and why climate changes. Everyone knows climate changes.
‘Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. It’s not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public’s trust.’ ~Hans von Storch
Can the government, e.g., can the EPA ever gain back the public’s trust? Sure, so long as it’s willing to admit that it assisted government to perpetuate a hoax on the public for political purposes.
The Glacial-Interglacial Ages succession is all about the (Immediate IR emission/ Heat absorption) ratio.
In 11.000 years the Earth’s axis will be already shifted, and then the Perihelion (147m.km) will occuring at Summer Solstices.
Northern Hemisphere’s continents vast land areas will emit immediate IR much more intensively, there will be much less heat absorption in the surface, so the average surface temperature will become lower.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
While reading several 2025 papers on Antarctica I reread one of the cites from 2023 that identified acceleration of mass loss for AIS and GIS. Otosaka, 2023, found a contribution to GMSLR from 1992 to 2020 of 7.4mm for the 29 year period from AIS.
IPCC5 concluded the AIS contributed .27mmyr in its most recent period. IPCC6 found a contribution of .37mmyr from its most recent period.
While 25.5mmyr from Otosaka is not much less than the IPCC5 number, being able to say less than 1/5 of the thickness of a dime per year rather than saying 1/5 of the thickness of a dime per year certainly is better than a kick in the pants.
I don’t know about you but I will be able to sleep at night better now.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1597/2023/
Yeah, the AIS is almost stable, even maybe gaining slightly. Perhaps you can shift your bad dreams to the GIS and WAIS, instead of cherry-picking the one that makes you feel better. NASA says 5.9 mm GMSLR in 2024. The AIS contribution that makes you feel better is only about 5% of the total. Sleep Well!
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/282/nasa-analysis-shows-unexpected-amount-of-sea-level-rise-in-2024/
2024 was a blip of sea level rise that is now over. In 2025 sea level is actually falling.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
citing 1 year of data on sea level is stupidly bad science. It takes almost 10 years to establish a trend.
Rob, The ‘blip’ that was 2024 was 1.6 mm above the expected value of 4.3 mm (NASA values). You can’t tell what 2025 will be until it is over – there is a strong seasonal effect that has to be removed; see this figure from your reference:
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2025rel1-0
PS ~ Have you yet, figured out how acceleration works (rate doubling in last 30 years – it’s right there in your reference plot – both visual and numerically)?
Bruce—the rate has not doubled over the last 30 years, that is a lie by you.
The link I posted shows the 30 year trend. Do you see the trend without a doubling? The data shows a current rate of 3.5mm per year. That has risen from 3.2mm per year 15 years ago.
ganon
But quite a cherry pick with dozens of the most top notch scientists studying Antarctica.
I can’t help it if studies contradict your fantasies.
Rob said “citing 1 year of data on sea level is stupidly bad science. It takes almost 10 years to establish a trend.”
Firstly, it is the most recent available yearly data, and hence
relevant on its own, and the stupidity is yours. Secondly, I quoted the value for that single last year, and I also cited the reference from which it was taken. Does stupid attack mode make you feel good?
Open your eyes to the graphs in both our references. What is the 10, or 30 year trend you see?
BTW, if you’ve figured out the acceleration yet, you still owe me an apology.
Rob, I do not lie (although sometimes I make mistakes). You are just terribly stupid and haven’t been able to figure out how acceleration works, even given a couple of months. Thanks for reaffirming your Dunning-Kruger status.
FO
Knucklehead, I have no problem with the data and reference you provided. It is just other relevant factors that you left out, and I filled in for you. The authors felt it was important enough to put those things in the abstract, but you ignored them (cherry-picked them out). That cherry-picking and nobody else’s.
Bruce
Either you are a terrible scientist, or you are being an untruthful climate zealot. The data is available monthly and is shown on my link. I seem to understand acceleration better than you when it comes to sea level rise.
NASA has been a climate alarmist site. and is being overhauled currently.
Rob said, “Either you are a terrible scientist, or you are being an untruthful climate zealot. The data is available monthly and is shown on my link. I seem to understand acceleration better than you when it comes to sea level rise.”
Actually, I am (was) a very good scientist, and you are just plain stupid – cannot produce or solve the acceleration equation with the experimental constants derived in your reference. As implied above, you are too ignorant to know how ignorant you are.
Goodbye.
Bruce writes- “NASA says 5.9 mm GMSLR in 2024.”
Why would you post such a misleading comment unless it was to intentionally mislead people into thinking sea level rise is a problem when it is not?
Rob, It is not misleading, it is a simple fact. Sorry if it upsets you.
ganon
That is why I provided the link. There is deep uncertainty about the future of AIS. There is a wealth of conclusions that are contradictory.
You take yourself too seriously. I read Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe in 7th grade. He shared advice that he received from one of his first commanding officers, General Fox Conner
“Always take your job seriously but don’t take yourself seriously.”
Made sense then, Makes more sense now.
“ shows the time series of reconstructed SMB averaged over the AP, WAIS, EAIS, and AIS including ice shelves. Over the AP, SMB shows an upward trend over 1701–1800, and then decreases for about 100 years (Fig. 4a). However, a rapid and potentially accelerated increase is observed over the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (3.2 ± 0.9 Gt yr−1 decade−1 for 1901–2010, p < 0.01). There is no significant trend over the WAIS during the past 300 years (Fig. 4b), likely as a result of the counteracting seesaw pattern of SMB changes on the western and eastern WAIS. The EAIS SMB exhibits an obvious increase since the mid-1800s but shifts to decrease over the late twentieth century (Fig. 4c). When integrated over the whole ice sheet and ice shelves, a significant upward trend in SMB (3.6 ± 0.8 Gt yr−1 decade−1) is found for the 1701–2010 period, and the trend is larger during 1801–2010 (4.8 ± 1.5 Gt yr−1 decade−1)”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/23/JCLI-D-22-0747.1.xml
“ As the largest source of uncertainty of SLR beyond 2100, ice loss from the AIS has evaded robust projections. Much of this uncertainty can be attributed to the diversity of numerical ice sheet models (ISMs), which differ not only in spatial resolution, equations of stress balance, numerical schemes, and initialization methods but also in their treatment of key physical processes including grounding line migration, calving, surface mass balance (SMB), and basal processes.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add7082
Rob – correct – truncated data sets is bad science. Surprising that any scientist would consider presenting such as if it represented long term trends without the appropriate caveats.
WAIS has considerable geothermal activity. Surprising that so many scientists would comment on its effect on SLR related to AGW without mentioning the geothermal activity.
It does represent the long-term trend – it is the highest point at the end of a long-term steady rise with moderate acceleration. It is also a data point, not a truncated data set; references were given to the full datasets by both myself and Rob. Try to keep up.
And of course, truncated data sets are not bad science. They only need to be discussed and justified. You must be confusing them with cherry-picking.
Before we can arrive at a unifying theory we first must realize that current GCMs are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. Andi Cockroft described the first digital weather model ever. It was a computer model by Edward Lorenz back when vacuum-tube computers were first introduced to science just fifty years ago. Lorenz used, “a set of a dozen or so differential equations involving such things as temperature, pressure, wind velocity etc.” As Concroft tells the story, Lorenz re-ran his program, “by entering a variable to 3 decimal places,” and to Lorenz’ surprise, “the results were completely at odds with what was achieved earlier.” As it turns out, “re-entering the variable to its full 6 decimal places produced a repeat of the initial results – from this Lorenzo drew the inevitable conclusion that with his dozen or so equations, even a miniscule variation on input is capable of creating massive change in output.”
A – 5.9mm per does represent the long term trend
B – use of truncated data sets is bad science, especially in the case of 1) knowing the truncated data set doesnt represent the long term trend and 2) when it used to provide misleading conclusions.
There is absolutely no scientific justification for using truncated sets without the appropriate disclosures to provide proper analysis. The effect of the dishonest use is similar to cherrypicking. neither is justified.
Kid, Yes, longer-term, AIS is by far the most important – largest ice mass, but not now.
Based on this NOAA tidal gauge graph for LA and hundreds of other tidal gauges it doesn’t look like anything is important. Acceleration is almost non existent.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/9410660_meantrend.png
Thanks kid,
Based on this NOAA document for GMSLR, using both tidal and satellite data, the acceleration is observable.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
It is also easily observable in the satellite only data, with a statistically significant measurement of the acceleration coefficient (thanks Rob).
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Sea level rise acceleration is measureable but not concerning to humans.
‘Finally, to that we have to add the general failure of what few predictions have come from the teraflops of model churning in support of the AGW hypothesis. We haven’s seen any acceleration in sea level rise. We haven’t seen any climate refugees. The climate model Pinatubo prediction was way off the mark. The number and power of hurricanes hasn’t increased as predicted. And you remember the coral atolls and Bangladesh that you and the IPCC [and Dr. Trenberth] warned us about… the ones that were going to get washed away by the oncoming Thermageddon? Bangladesh and the atoll islands are both getting bigger, not smaller. We were promised a warming of two, maybe even three tenths of a degree per decade this century if we didn’t mend our evil carbon-loving ways, and so far we haven’t mended one thing, and we have seen … well … zero tenths of a degree for the first decade…’ (Willis Eschenbach)
You must mean: not concerning to “willfully and technical ignorant” humans, such as yourself.
The current rate of sea level rise is only concerning to climate zealots who cherry pick data
Rob, you may claim what isn’t concerning to you. You don’t get to do that for other humans (Do you know what an ad hominem is? – your logic is false). It probably isn’t concerning to you, because, as you have amply demonstrated, you don’t understand the mathematics or physics involved.
Bruce the climate Zealot
Sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at very close to the current rate of rise. During that period, humanity has had its greatest period of expansion. There is nothing in the current rate of rise that humans cannot easily adapt to as it unfolds.
My conclusion is based on the facts, whiles yours is based on fear mongering and cherry picking.
“ The average relative sea-level rise is +2.22 mm/yr. subjected to a small, positive average acceleration of +0.0027 mm/yr2.”
West Coast or East Coast, the results of tidal gauges coming up with a big zilch.
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/nleng-2021-0001/html
Cherry-picker. What about the global numbers. The avoidance is strong with this one.
I can do this with hundreds of tidal gauges. You’re going ostrich on us. I’m not interested in crayon graphs. No one has been able to explain why those tidal gauges, individually or in the aggregate, have data so much different than the model based data from satellites with the inherent uncertainties.
Houston, J.R., 2021. Sea-level acceleration: Analysis of the world’s high-quality tide gauges. Journal of Coastal Research, 37(2), 272–279. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
abstract:
Coastal sea-level acceleration is analyzed using all of the world’s high-quality tide gauge recordings with lengths of at least 75 years that extend through 2017–19. Earlier studies have demonstrated that tide gauge recordings of at least 75 years in length are required to reduce the effects of multidecadal variations on acceleration. There are 149 tide gauge records that meet the criteria. Mean and median sea-level accelerations based on these gauges were 0.0128 ± 0.0064 mm/y2 and 0.0126 ± 0.0080 mm/y2, respectively, both at the statistically significant 95% confidence level. The mean acceleration is larger than that of earlier studies that analyzed fewer gauges or considered record lengths shorter than 75 years.
Consult the “acceleration displacement formula”; it applies to sea-level vertical displacement over time.
“…using all of the world’s high-quality tide gauge recordings with lengths of at least 75 years that extend through 2017–19.”
75 years, 2017–19, indicates a sea level averave acceleration of 0.0128 mm–or 0.00504 inches.
The old bird does a slam dunk on stilts.
ganon
I’ve used that study many times to confirm that acceleration is not significant. Thanks a lot for saving me the time.
This is what NOAA said from AI.
“ Satellite data: Satellite altimetry data since 1993 shows an acceleration of approximately \(0.084\pm 0.025\{\ mm/y}^{2}\).
Houston found an acceleration about 20% of NOAA which is also known as insignificant. NOAA rate is significant. Houston rate is insignificant.
That is known in hockey parlance as scoring an own goal.
Thanks again for confirming my point.
cerescokid | November 18, 2025 at 4:37 pm |
“I’ve used that study many times to confirm that acceleration is not significant. Thanks a lot for saving me the time.”
Cere – do you have a link to the study that is not a ‘pay to read” link. Thanks
Joe
The satellite record since inception and acceleration rates can be found at the site below. It also has the monthly data if you care.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2025rel1-0
Rob – the satellite data is easy to find, It is there is a lot of google “interference” with obtaining slr data using tide gauges, The most recent I have been able to access is the 2011(?) church white.
JT, so you can’t calculate accelerated displacement either. What a surprise. Thanks anyway.
Kid, so go ahead and calculate what the sea level rise is projected to be in 75 years, or is that beyond your competence.
If the paywall is a problem, copies can be requested from the author via Researchgate.
Joe K, free access to the Houston(2021) paper here:
https://www.sealevel.info/Houston2021_SeaLevelAcceleration2021JCR_Pre-print_20-00101.pdf
ganon
I was in top management and would have delegated that to one of my subordinates, 4 or 5 levels below in the chain of command. Or in your case 6 or 7 levels below me. Well, given you were only a low level federal bureaucrat, maybe 8 or 9 levels below me.
Joe K
I just tried to call up my bookmarks for this 2021 study and his 2011 study.
Neither came up as they had originally been published un JCR.
However, I went to his list of publications and found a PDF here. Not sure why the JCR publications disappeared.
https://www.sealevel.info/Houston2021_SeaLevelAcceleration2021JCR_Pre-print_20-00101.pdf
Kid,
Is that kinda like: “the HR manager doesn’t have the math or physics skills to do the calculations”, and thinks playing inferiority-superiority games will cover for his stupidity and ignorance.
ganon
No, it means you don’t understand the division of labor concept. I was involved in broad public policy issues and left the down in the weeds, technical stuff to technicians like you.
Regardless of the base rate which is 8-9” inches since 1880 the key determinant is the acceleration rate. Over 100 years the Houston number gets 4” more verses 26” with the higher NOAA number.
Either way over 100 years adaptation is the key.
I worked with/for the Department of the Interior in 1973 in an exchange program. The federal employees were very nice, competent people. However, there were a couple of ding dongs who were obsessed with their own superior intellect and self importance to such an extent it interfered with their productivity and competence. You don’t know as much as you think you know and a competent, top notch scientist would know this. But I understand with you being blinded by your emotional investment in AGW cognitive dissonance has disabled your reasoning capabilities.
Do some research. Read the literature. Just like the Antarctica, SLR is complex and inherent uncertainties of both systems, tidal gauge or satellite altimetry should give anyone with a scientific mind plenty of reasons to be dubious of any projections.
Knucklehead,
I never worked for the Federal Government. But thanks for admitting that your background is administration and not science. Guess it explains why you are so stupid and willfully ignorant about the latter.
Green energy is not sustainable …
UK energy bills are set to fall slightly in January, but the relief may be short-lived as rising spending on power grids could push costs higher just a few months later.
The energy price cap is currently expected to drop by 1% to £1,733, but that trend is forecast to reverse in April, when the average annual bill could increase by £75.
The transition away from fossil fuels comes with significant costs, including major upgrades to the electricity grid, which are emerging as a new driver of household energy prices.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-18/uk-energy-bills-set-to-fall-briefly-before-grid-costs-bite-again
Rob Starkey said “ Bruce the climate Zealot
Sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at very close to the current rate of rise. ”
I’d rather be a zealot (although I’m not) than a willfully ignorant liar. Current sea level rise rate is approximately 3 times as fast as the 20th century average.
What do you mean by currently? I am highly skeptical.
I mean, the average over the 20th century was 1.7 mm/yr. It is now around 5 mm/yr (current ~ most recent, 2024 =5.9 mm/yr).
~5/1.7 ~3.
The data shows it is currently 3.5mm per year, up from 3.2 mm per year.
What data?
Thank you,
3.5 +/- 0.4 mm/yr
That is the average over the period 1993 – 2025, and corresponds to midpoint – year 2009 – not current. To get the current rate, you need to determine the slope of the smooth blue line at the current time (the far right end).
Do you know how to determine slope, either graphically or numerically, or both??? If not, figure it out.
You may similarly determine the slope of the smooth blue line at the beginning and find that the end slope is approximately twice as large, as previously cited and discussed.
Who needs a 30-year average? 30 months are good enough :-)
30-year is a standard for referencing anomalies and is updated every decade. Beyond that, you can use whatever you like, as long as you define and justify it.
The site I have provided.
There are 399 time series for the atmospheric CO2 concentration from all across the Globe on the web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. They show that the concentration follows a regular 12 month cycle. This means that the Seasonal changes of temperature and weather through Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring caused by the annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun are the cause of the CO2 change not the reverse – CO2 obviously does not cause the Earth to orbit the Sun.
Net Zero is the latest progression of the World’s greatest Hoax that started with an honest attempt by the then scientists to explain the continued warming after the 19th Century Little Ice Age based on a lack of understanding of the physics involved. We are now in the 21st Century and have a far better understanding of the physics involved. It shows the Hoax for what it is, a failure of honesty and integrity by scientists, academics, bureaucrats, journalists and politicians that could result in the collapse of democracy.
Thank you, Bevan.
“If there was a Greenhouse Effect it would be radiated down from the sky above and melted the snow in the hollows. This has not happened yet there has been enough sunshine to cause the springtime blossoming of the wildflowers.”
(Emphasis added)
That is correct, CO2 does not cause the earth to orbit the Sun. Do you understand the difference between seasonal oscillations and longer-term climatic trends? Either you don’t understand, or are being willfully ignorant.
Yes B A Bushaw I am well aware that not only is the seasonal variation in CO2 concentration driven by the seasonal temperature/weather change but that the longer term climate trends are due to the longer term changes in the intensity of the incoming Sun’s radiation.
However I suspect your rude remark stems from your ignorance of the following:
The Mauna Loa weekly CO2 concentration series shows a regular seasonal variation superimposed on an upward trend. The linear trend for the whole period of 67 years was 1.65 ppm per annum. For the 5 year period 29 March, 1958 to 23 March 1963, the rate was 0.705 ppm pa. For the 5 year period 01 August 2020 to 02 August 2025, the rate had steadily increased to 2.97 ppm pa, that is 4.21 times greater than 63 years earlier. The acceleration in the rate of generation of CO2 over the time of the measurements is attributed to an increase in the source of CO2 relative to the sinks in response to the gradual increase in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age. Justification for this claim is that the increase in the Sun’s temperature is greatest in the Equatorial zone and minor at the Poles. As the solubility of CO2 increases with decreasing temperature more CO2 effervesces from the large area of Equatorial ocean with little change in the precipitation of CO2 over the small area of the Poles.
Thanks Bevan,
That you don’t mention/ignore the effects of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, is all the information needed. I’ll go with willful ignorance. Thanks.
This is the acceleration found in the linked study for GMSLR.
.0042mmyr+-.0092mmyr
The number is a perfect metaphor for the state of knowledge in sea level rise since. Almost nothing in acceleration, nada, zilch, and massive uncertainties.
You can’t make this stuff up.
A comment this morning on X said, apparently with a straight face, that GMSLR could be 7M in 20 years. Regardless of the assumption of the current acceleration rate (especially the above) to reach 7M, things need to pick up pronto, like tomorrow.
Maybe the alarmists have been on a drinking binge for the last 40 years. Or maybe every one of them has a cannabis store on their block. Whatever is affecting their cognitive function doesn’t make for a very good look.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JC009900
Knucklehead,
Cherry-picking again. 20th century data only, no 21st century data. Tidal station data only, which is known to be inaccurate for global measurements with about 4 times the uncertainty of satellite measurements (acceleration 0.085 +/- 0.025 mm/y^2, NASA). The tidal gage determinations area statistically insignificant, as your reference shows, while the satellite measurements are statistically significant. You are just desperate for confirmation of your personal bias, and failing miserably.
And of course, you still can’t demonstrate that you are able to calculate the projected sea level rise for 2100, regardless of which value you use for acceleration. Basically, you do not have, and have not learned basic scientific competence well enough to even discuss the subject sensibly.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/21/which-are-more-accurate-in-measuring-sea-level-rise-tide-gauges-or-satellites/
ganon
So who doesn’t know how to calculate sea level rise for 2100? You were duped, once again, by thinking that .0128mm/yr2 was significant. lol. Anyone with half a brain would know instantly that is insignificant.
Just off the top of my head in the next 100 years at .05mmyr2 acceleration would add another 14 inches to the current rate.
Bruce:
Your references regarding future sea level rising are much ado about nothing. It is COMPLETELY unknowable, since it caused by the warming resulting from decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere from Clean Air, Net Zero, low sulfur fuel mandates for maritime shipping, as well as reduced industrial activity.
All that it takes to halt the warming is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption that inserts more dimming SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere
.
There were 3 such eruptions earlier this year, and temperatures have now decreased enough to halt all warming, so that we are now in a La Nina situation, and will be for 2-3 years.
Burl,
No, your hypothesis is wrong. The limited effects of SO2 are generally well known and treated in the literature. Also I have disproven it with multivariate numerical analysis of available of T-CO2-SO2 data. I’m not interested in re-litigating your silliness.
Knucklehead,
“So who doesn’t know how to calculate sea level rise for 2100?
…
Just off the top of my head in the next 100 years at .05mmyr2 acceleration would add another 14 inches to the current rate.”
Apparently not you.
And no, it would add .05 mm/yr^2 x 100 yr = 5 mm/yr @+ 100 yr approximately doubling the current rate to ~ 1.0 cm year. And if you used the NASA acceleration value, the rise rate in 100 years would be ~1.3 cm/yr.
Yes, I misread your 0.0128 – initially saw it off a decimal point, because it is so far off from the global value. The consistently lower tidal values are understood: apples v. oranges – local relative measurements v. global absolute measurements.
ganon The Technician
Why waste time with multiplying the rate times the years plus 1/2 x years squared x the acceleration rate when you can do it off the top of your head by using 8 or 12 inches (2 or 3mm) and always using a century and add 2 inches for every .01mm of acceleration. Less time needed.
Assuming 3mmyr gives 12 inches over 100 years and assuming .02mmyr2 gives you 16 inches. Adapt. That is 2x the last 125 years and everything has been taken care of except where there is subsidence which is the real problem with a more immediate time horizon. Along the Florida coast 8-10 foot stilts are used to handle the overnight rise in SLR from hurricanes of thousands of mm. Society can adapt over a century to another foot or so.
When studies showing negligible acceleration stop being published, then I will know we have a problem. But even the latest studies indicate the acceleration of tidal gauges are not reconciling with the satellite data and their inherent problems and uncertainties.
Bruce:
For sea levels to rise, it is necessary for ice to melt.
Ice will melt only if global temperatures are warm enough to allow that to happen.
Decreasing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution will cause temperatures to rise. Increasing levels will cause temperatures to fall.
It is common knowledge that VEI4 and higher Volcanic eruptions will cause cooling (a La Pinatubo), halting warming (as now).
Since eruptions other factors are unpredictable, it is impossible to make long range temperature predictions
There is much literature discussing the cooling effect of SO2 aerosol emissions, which negates your inept multivariate numerical analysis
You LIE when you say that SO2 aerosols have only a limited effect.
Pathetic that you are so ignorant and stupid, and presumably senile.
You said ice has to melt for sea level rise – that is false . So you deflect. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know what ‘thermal expansion’ means. I’ll go with senile and stupid.
Bruce:
So, you can’t refute anything that I have stated, and are now reduced to insults!!
Stupidity and ignorance are perfect descriptions of yourself.
I have never encountered anyone with your level of willful ignorance. Quite an achievement.
Yes I can. You stated that you have proved that CO2 can’t cause global warming. I have refuted it (many others, too). In your case, those are not insults, rather, they are descriptors of observed mental capacity and scientific ability.
“For sea levels to rise, it is necessary for ice to melt.”.
Burl strikes again. Approximately 1/2 of SRL is due to thermal expansion and has nothing to do with ice melt.
Bruce:
And thermal expansion requires higher temperatures.
Even you in your ignorance should know that.
Bruce:
The current meme is that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels will cause global temperatures to rise.
However, in addition to their release of CO2, their burning also produces SO2 aerosols, which, according to NASA, reflects the incoming solar radiation and cools the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
Post-war, industrial activity, fueled by the burning of fossil fuels, began increasing and SO2 aerosol levels, as tracked by the Community Emissions Data System of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, rose from 68 million tons in 1955 to 141 million tons in 1979, and temperatures decreased by 0.3 deg. C., causing fears of a return to a new Ice Age.
For the same period, CO2 levels rose from 307 ppm to 335 ppm, an increase of 28 ppm, or about 1 ppm/year, an incredibly small amount, totally incapable of causing any warming.
And after 1980, due to decreasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution due to Clean Air legislation enacted in the 1970’s, because of Acid Rain, and Health concerns, temperatures began rising because the less polluted air increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
It is obvious that SO2 aerosols, which you claim have only a small effect, are the actual control knob for Earth’s climate, both cooling it and warming it!
Burl said “ … [SO2 emissions] rose from 68 million tons in 1955 to 141 million tons in 1979, and temperatures decreased by 0.3 deg. C., causing fears of a return to a new Ice Age.
Burl just makes up $hit without references. The global annual average surface for 1955 was -0.199 K, in 1979 it was + 0.088 K (HadCRUT 5.1.0.0). That is an increase of 0.287 K, NOT A decrease of 0.3 K. As usual, you are full of $hit, and you just disproved your hypothesis again.
As for all your deflective hand waving – I don’t give a $hit – you clearly do not understand what you are talking about and try to cover it with stupid make-believe.
The lukewarmism of Matt Ridley was recently rebutted by the science communicator Dave Farina and by the climate scientist Andrew Dessler. That rebuttal would similarly apply to the lukewarmism of Patrick Michaels, Thomas Fuller, Judith Curry, Nicholas Lewis, etc.
Dessler and Farina gave their rebuttal in this video:
“Matt Ridley is Lying to You About Climate Change”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gdabZooKo
The video covers several topics, including:
– the accuracy of the IPCC’s model-based global warming projections
– the inaccuracy of lukewarmist temperature trend projections
– water vapor positive feedback and climate sensitivity
– sea level rise acceleration
– dangerous warming occurring by 2045-2050
– global greening
Let’s discuss the La Ninja phenomenon. Why La Ninja comes after El Ninio?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos:
You have it backwards: A La Nina always precedes an El Nino.
Burl just makes up stuff.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150691/la-nina-times-three?fs=e&s=cl
Thank you, Bruce.
The graph shows the Le Nino phenomenon intensified and the La Nina phenomenon weakening. So, there is more and more heat accumulated in oceanic waters.
El Nino always precedes La Nina. Why?
What is the mechanism of the El Nino and La Nina cyclical phenomenon?
Ok, El Nino is the continuous warming – but La Nina? Why La Nina?
The graph shows that La Niña does not always precede El Niño. There are many instances where 2 or 3 of one or the other occur in a row.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso-nutshell
Bruce:
Everything that I posted can be verified, sorry if it doesn’t agree with your stupid misconceptions
And regarding your comment about temperatures, all temperature data sets record temporary temperature changes due to La Ninas, El Ninos, etc.., which can lead to erroneous conclusions.
To get a more accurate reading of actual temperatures, it is necessary to delete all such temporary events from the data set, insofar as possible, and the 0.3 deg C. decrease that I reported matches what was actually happening at that time.
Burl, you are full of it, and stupid too.
Christos:
You ask “What is the mechanism of the El Nino and La Nina cyclical phenomenon?”
First, it is NOT a cyclical phenomenon.
Essentially all La Ninas are caused by a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption that inserts volcanic SO2 aerosols (micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid) into the stratosphere, which reflects the incoming solar radiation away, and cools the Earth’s surface underneath, resulting in a La Nina.
(However, if an eruption occurs during an El Nino, it normally does not cause enough cooling to overcome the El Nino warming, and does not result in a La Nina)
This cooling typically lasts for 14-18 months while the volcanic SO2 aerosols spread around the globe. They eventually settle out,
18-36 months after the eruption, and temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels because of the less polluted air, and, usually, higher, resulting in an El Nino.
The higher temperature is caused by the coalescence of the descending liquid volcanic SO2 aerosol droplets with others in the troposphere, flushing enough out to cause temperatures to rise to the level of an El Nino.
This is observed after every eruption, unless quenched by another eruption.
So. La Ninas always precede El Ninos, and they are not a cyclical phenomenon, being caused by random volcanic eruptions.
Also see https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
What I think, it is if La Nina was the oceanic regular temperatures demonstrations, why then there are also peaks of La Nina on the graph?
Also I notice that EL Nino maxima are on the continuous rising pattern.
Christos, read the NASA (climate.gov) article on ENSO to see if your speculations agree with the accepted science.
Thank you, Bruce. I followed as you adviced, and I just finished reading (climate.org).
Interesting observations and facts, a long time monitoring also is convincing there is an oscillation.
But why it is happening (the oscillation)?
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/enso/technical-discussion
Thank you, B A, for good references.
Why do 3 of the largest El ninos in your paper – 1972, 1998, 2016 – occur without preceding VE4+ eruptions? Answer, volcanic activity can influence ENSO activity, but it does not initiate it.
B A Bushaw:
El Ninos can also occur apart from volcanic eruptions, whenever atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels decrease.
For 1972, there were no volcanic eruptions between 1969 and 1973, giving time for all of the volcanic SO2 aerosols from previous eruptions to settle out of the air (the red bar), causing temperatures to rise.
For 1998, industrial SO2 aerosol emissions fell from 121 million tons in 1996 to 114 million tons in 1999, about a 7 million ton decrease, and temperatures rose because of the less polluted air.
For 2016, China had issued an edict in 2014 to reduce the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol emissions, and by 2016, they had fallen by ~28 million tons, confirmed by satellite measurements, resulting in a substantial temperature increase.
Christos, don’t pay attention to Burl. He just makes up stuff about things he doesn’t understand. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is indeed an oscillation, albeit somewhat stochastic. And the driving force is Pacific trade winds, not volcanoes.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/what-el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso-nutshell
What is an ‘ocean gyre’? Climate change alarmist Western academics would have to say it’s human-caused: too much CO2 in the atmosphere!
No, that is what you say. Climate scientists and oceanographers would say it is caused by the Coriolis effect, Eckman spirals, wind, fresh water input, oceanic temperature gradients, and bottom topography.
All indications are that increasing temperature (CO2) will decrease gyre intensity, not cause gyres. Thus worry about slowing of the Gulf Stream.
https://iere.org/how-do-ocean-gyres-redistribute-heat-around-earth/
AI says, ‘No, an increase in parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2 does not decrease the Coriolis effect. The magnitude of the Coriolis effect is influenced by Earth’s rotation rate, the latitude, and the speed of the moving object (such as air or water masses). Atmospheric composition, including CO2 concentration, does not have a direct physical impact on these factors.’
Yes, you made a false attribution to “alarmists”. That makes you the lying alarmist. Good to see that you can admit it.
fyi… coprolalia symptoms may be neurological,
“ Decelerated Arctic Sea ice loss triggered by accelerated North Pacific warming over the past decade”
Just released 11/18/25
Predictably AGW is the culprit.
Cue music from Jaws.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02882-1
Interesting that it apparently involves ‘global climate change’ as opposed to, I suppose… just a local climate change?
‘The out-of-phase relationship between Arctic and North Pacific climate dynamics represents a critical mechanism regulating anthropogenically driven Arctic amplification, both in recent decades and likely into the near future.’
Is this an example of nature being given credit for trying to make up for the mistake of anthropos?
There is hope.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G6MMSj8W0AAkvoR?format=jpg&name=medium