The latest contrarian crowd pleaser from Soon et al (2023) is just the latest repetition of the old “it was the sun wot done it” trope[1] that Willie Soon and his colleagues have been pushing for decades. There is literally nothing new under the sun.
Before diving into the specific artifices in the latest paper, a little trip down history lane might be fun to set the context…
“It’s the Sun”
Solar variability as a potential cause for climate change has a long (and somewhat dubious) history in climate science – going back at least to the poor statistics and over-confident claims of William Herschel (Love,2013). However, the searching for (and finding!) of solar correlations in all manner of climate records (and non-climate records) has been a staple of the ABC (‘Anything-but-CO2‘) crowd since the 1980s.
A particular low-light was the publication in Science [!] by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) of a seemingly impressive correlation between solar cycle length (SCL, the time between successive solar minima or maxima) and global temperatures. This predated the modern social media ecosystem and increasingly open science methodologies and so was perhaps not as scrutinized as a similar paper would be today, but the (still uncorrected!) correlation was marred by an unreported shift in the smoothing method towards the end of the series (Laut and Gundermann, 2000). Purported updates to these series were themselves plagued by arithmetic errors which negated their conclusions (Laut, 2003). More recent reassessments of this hypothesis – using updated sunspot cycle data, updated temperature data and analysis through to the present find no relationship between SCL and the modern rise in temperatures (Chatzistergos, 2023).
Why is this relevant? Well, back in 1993 (before the more comprehensive critiques had been published), Hoyt and Schatten put together a long-term estimate of solar activity that relied on the SCL, based on the idea from FCL91 and scaled to a finding about cycling and non-cycling stars that turned out to be wrong too (Wright, 2004). But logically, if the SCL is not relevant for temperature or solar activity, reconstructions based on SCL are not going to predictive of temperature either. Worse still, extensions of HS93 to the present using the same flawed predictors, are also not going to be useful.
Perhaps you can see where this is going, but first a quick dive into Arctic temperatures…
The Arctic Lifeboat
By the mid-1990s, it was clear that solar activity (normally defined) was not going to be able to explain the rapid rise in global temperatures since the 1970s (Thompson, 1997. And by the 2007 IPCC AR4 report, or in Lean and Rind (2008)), at best, scientists had concluded that solar activity wasn’t likely to be responsible for more than 10% or so of the long term rise in global temperature.
However, there was a lot more multi-decadal variability in the Arctic and North Atlantic than was present in the global temperature record. Indeed, it was still possible to claim in 2000 that Arctic temperatures had not yet exceeded levels in the late 1930s/early 1940s. Furthermore, if you squinted, you could perhaps convince yourself that there was a correlation to solar activity – well, at least Soon could (Soon, 2005)). And which solar reconstruction did he use? Hoyt and Schatten (1993, updated to 2000) of course! Minor inconveniences (like the Arctic temperatures leading solar activity in the 1930s, or the lack of correlation with other solar reconstructions that were available at that time, such as Lean (1995)) were not discussed.
But still, contrarians could point to Soon’s 2005 figure and claim that it was ‘the sun wot done it’ and elide over the fact that this covered just 5% of global area.
Eppure Si Riscalda
But time marches on, and what might have looked ok in 2005 (using data that only went to 2000) wasn’t looking so great in 2015:
So now there are at least two problems with Soon’s hypothesis: Updated solar reconstructions don’t show as much multi-decadal variability, and none of them match the ongoing increases in temperature, even in the Arctic. Both things would need to be fixed if they want to keep using this trope!
Scafetta to the rescue!
Fortunately, the HS93 reconstruction was extended by our old friend Nicola Scafetta who (partially) used the discredited connection of SCL to global temperature to justify it (Scafetta et al, 2022, even citing the paper with the erroneous arithmetic highlighted by Laut back in 2003. His contribution was to add on the ACRIM composite TSI instead of the PMOD composite TSI post 1980, but this is irrelevant to the longer term variability which Soon found so useful for matching the Arctic temperatures at least to 2000. There’s a bit of a digression in astrology in that paper too, but that’s an issue for another day.
But pay attention here, the solar reconstruction is being justified on the basis of a non-existent correlation to global temperature and also being used to justify a mysterious solar connection to the very different looking Arctic temperatures. How can this circle be squared?
Erin go Bragh!
The Connolly’s do their own research. Based in Ireland one might imagine that they have an particular interest in Irish climate history which is fair enough, but the supposed ‘rural’ NH land temperature record they put together with Soon is something beyond my imagining. Indeed, I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would put together an index consisting of Irish and US rural weather stations, together with Arctic weather stations and a smattering of Chinese stations (Soon et al., 2015;Connolly et al, 2021). It’s not a good areal sample of the northern hemisphere, it’s not a good sample of rural stations – many of which exist in the rest of Europe, Australia, Southern Africa, South America etc., it’s not a good sample of long stations (again many of which exist elsewhere). Rather it seems to simply be an index of opportunity – something that keeps the multidecadal aspects of the Arctic, greatly over emphasizes the rural Irish data (which would otherwise be too areally small to matter much), includes the US rural data because it happens to have an independent database just for CONUS (?), and includes a few (non-rural) stations from China, for no obvious reason at all (AFAICT).
The details of the time series construction are also quite amazing. An areal weighting of the four regional time series might be justifiable, but that isn’t what’s done. An equal weighting of all four regions (yes, seriously) does go into the mix. But so does a series where the regions are weighted by the cosine of the average latitude of the stations (this is mathematically equivalent to assuming each region represents an equal width latitude band centered on the middle of the region, but why?). To be crystal clear, none of this makes any physical sense. However, it does seem to produce less of a warming than the pure Arctic series (which no longer works on it’s own), and retains enough multi-decadal noise to help with the correlation. Mission accomplished!
And also, let’s be clear, this mysteriously justified temperature series has been created explicitly to demonstrate a connection to the HS93 solar reconstruction – that was the case in the Soon et al (2015) paper, the Connolloy et al (2021) paper and now in this new Soon et al paper.
The labeling of this temperature series as a ‘NH rural’ time series is pure marketing – on a par with Erik the Red choosing Greenland as the name of his new colony[2]. If they had really wanted to demonstrate this they could have validated their time series against a suitable target derived from the ERA5 reanalysis, or against totally independent satellite data for the periods of overlap – but of course, they did not.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Soon and his various colleagues have been writing and recycling this same paper for almost two decades (how ecologically friendly!). Each time there is a cherry pick of a region, a series, a blend, that somehow always manages to look similar (and increasingly divorced from any sensibly constructed time series) and mysteriously it always correlates with the same solar activity estimate. And equally predictably the paper is touted as proof that not only are all other temperature series suspect but that the one true series is driven by the sun. How reassuring.
But we have mega-oodles (the SI unit) of additional data that tell us this conclusion cannot be correct. If the sun was driving the warming, we’d see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity). If the land data was contaminated by urban heating effects, we wouldn’t see similar warming in the ocean. If the surface temperature data sets were corrupted, why do they line up with the satellite data from the independent AIRS and MSU instruments? Etc.
What we have here is what happens when people are too desperate to hold on to their narrative. A correlation that was bogus when it was proposed three decades ago keeps being reanimated by ever more desperate arithmetical gymnastics and sold as something else entirely. Not only is the actual construction of the Soon et al narrative literally incredible, it contradicts dozens of independent lines of evidence.
It is bunk, and that, it appears, is as Soon as it is possible to be.
Update (9/9): In a very long-winded and not terribly informative rebuttal to this post (that doesn’t mention the problems with the solar cycle length at all), Soon et al claim that the Soon (2005) correlation was skillful and is still valid. That is also bunk:
[1] This references an infamous UK tabloid headline from 1992.
[2] In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, “Because,” said he, “men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.” The Saga of Erik the Red
References
- W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera, and W. Zhang, "The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data", Climate, vol. 11, pp. 179, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179
- J.J. Love, "On the insignificance of Herschel's sunspot correlation", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 40, pp. 4171-4176, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50846
- P. Laut, and J. Gundermann, "Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited", Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 105, pp. 27489-27492, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JA900068
- P. Laut, "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 65, pp. 801-812, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00041-5
- T. Chatzistergos, "Is there a link between the length of the solar cycle and Earth’s temperature?", Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze Fisiche e Naturali, vol. 34, pp. 11-21, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12210-022-01127-z
- D.V. Hoyt, and K.H. Schatten, "A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700-1992", Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 98, pp. 18895-18906, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93JA01944
- J.T. Wright, "Do We Know of Any Maunder Minimum Stars?", The Astronomical Journal, vol. 128, pp. 1273-1278, 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/423221
- D.J. Thomson, "Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO 2 and solar irradiance", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 94, pp. 8370-8377, 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8370
- J.L. Lean, and D.H. Rind, "How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 35, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034864
- W.W. Soon, "Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 32, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023429
- N. Scafetta, R. Willson, J. Lee, and D. Wu, "Modeling Quiet Solar Luminosity Variability from TSI Satellite Measurements and Proxy Models during 1980–2018", Remote Sensing, vol. 11, pp. 2569, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs11212569
- W. Soon, R. Connolly, and M. Connolly, "Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century", Earth-Science Reviews, vol. 150, pp. 409-452, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.08.010
- R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, S. Lüning, N. Scafetta, J. Solheim, L. Szarka, H.V. Loon, V.M. Velasco Herrera, R.C. Willson, H. Yan, and W. Zhang, "How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate", Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 21, pp. 131, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
Thanks for the detailed explanation about the story behind it.
P.S. It should be “eppure”, not “epurre”
[Response: Fixed. Thanks!
Nice pithy summary of the state of current hypocrisy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s-BgfcFXw
Excellent on Soon and his contributions. A key correlation used earlier was between sunspot record and the apparent peak (now sub peak) in warming during World War II, leading to claim that it was solar changes that brought world out of Little Ice Age. The apparent bias in the ocean temperature record during WWII (very apparent in the ocean only data compiled by NOAA) remains uncorrected in a number of official records (it being hard to carefully quantify the bias). It seems to me it was this apparent correlation that really prompted a lot of the solar hypothesis crowd starting in the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps too much to mention here, but I think a cause of their development.
I’d also note that my understanding is that the report of Arctic warmth in the 1930s mentioned in this article might in part be due to the bias in the record, but was also due to the Arctic observations in the 1930s being mainly from the North Atlantic basin and that later analyses suggest that the rest of the Arctic was not nearly so warm. So, another example of the apparent correlation using information from limited areal observations.
PS–3 lines above “Erin go Braghl” need to change begin to being.
All of RealClimates erronious assertions have been quickly rebutted by the authors here ! https://www.ceres-science.com/post/reply-to-erroneous-claims-by-realclimate-org-on-our-research-into-the-sun-s-role-in-climate-change
[Response: I take it you read neither. – gavin]
This begs an interesting question, sorry if it’s incredibly naive and beating a very dead horse: how does this kind a paper get published ? It seems like the latest incarnation got published in a Q2 paper – does that mean anything beyond Q1 has to be distrusted as garbage ?
It’s a pay to publish “Journal”. The “Academic Editor” for the issue was none other than nutty Ned Nikolov
In keeping with its cordial reception of climate communicators like Tucker Carlson Hungary has provided Willie with a mailing address
The Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science H 9400 Sopron , Hungary
A key reason why it got published is because it was submitted to a “special issue” of the journal. Special issues are fine in themselves, encouraging a set of papers on a particular theme to be published together in one go.
But special issues nearly always have a guest editor, rather than one of the usual editors of the journal, and in this case the guest editor is Ned Nikolov who is well know for denying the existence of a greenhouse effect.
So the question is less about how the paper got published and more about how the guest editor got accepted. Journals/publishers like this send out many requests to propose special issues and it helps them attract more papers and they charge 1600 Swiss Francs for each paper they accept.
on “”
Integrating the solar/sunspot series is the key to generating multidecadal trends while smoothing out the 11-year cycle, which is too regular to match the climate variability. The mileage they get out of this technique is endless but climate science will forever have to battle this because of an inability to predictively model natural variability a la El Nino / La Nina cycles and the multidecadal AMO signal. A gap in understanding will always be filled by something.
Yet, I think this will SOON change because of advances in machine learning. Note this tweet from yesterday reporting on a ML workshop for Earth/climate prediction:
https://twitter.com/GabrielZ_Storm/status/1699131801816420699
That’s laying down a gauntlet.
Mr Gavin,
for the detailed explanation, but i am really skeptical about TSIs, because once you read about the Frohlich’s and Judith Lean’s PMOD TSI composite history, you can not trust at all the state of climate science.
[Response: Even if true (doubtful), that’s a bit of a leap, no? I mean how powerful is this cabal? – gavin]
IPCC lead scientists create an alternative composite named PMOD. And they built it arguing glitches and issues that Richard C. Willson Principal Investigator of the NASA ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 Mission, or none of his team like J R Hickey or H.L.Kyle, never detected on their observations (1). Its obvious that If IPCC had taken ACRIM TSI (2) (3) as another valid TSI as datasource, IPCC reports couldn’t have been absolutely sure in their conclusions as they have been until now.
[Response: This is nonsense. Despite your claims the difference the ACRIM issue makes to the solar irradiance curve is really quite small. Unless you are advocating for a 17-term polynomial function to fill the gap? In which case anything is possible! ]
Yes, other datasources exist, and is really suspicious and give and absolute lack of transparency that are totally neglected into IPCC bibliography and simulations. And what really doesn’t help is that, wherever is written about possible new scenarios, uncertainties or new components that can explain current warming other than 100% anthropogenic, is rapidly answered back as cherry picking of a region, a series, a blend. Wherever is said.
Cheers.
(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329815053_Statement_of_Richard_Willson_on_the_TSI_ACRIM1_and_ACRIM2_data_modifications_implemented_in_Frohlich%27s_PMOD_TSI?channel=doi&linkId=5c1c13b492851c22a33ae2f1&showFulltext=true
(2) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-014-1961-4
(3) https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/21/2569
Carl,
“explain current warming other than 100% anthropogenic”
All you have to do is provide a complete analysis that shows the “correct” percentages, and perhaps people will take you more seriously.
That means calculating the “correct” contribution from increases in greenhouse gases, along with the “correct” contributions from whatever other source you imagine.
Has someone done that? Or is the claim that CO2 and other GHG have zero effect on the energy content of the climate system? Which is it?
Hi Mr. Gavin,
___________________________________________________________________________________________
[Response: Even if true (doubtful), that’s a bit of a leap, no? I mean how powerful is this cabal? – gavin]
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Judith Lean, after creating PMOD in 1998, told a NASA reporter, Rebecca Lindsey, one of the reasons she decided to help create an alternative TSI composite:
“The fact that some people could use [the ACRIM group’s] results as an excuse to do nothing about greenhouse gas emissions is one reason, we felt we needed to look at the data ourselves. Since so much is riding on whether current climate change is natural or human-driven, it’s important that people hear that many in the scientific community don’t believe there is any significant long-term increase in solar output during the last 20 years.” (Lindsey 2003)
So yes, they not only created a different composite based on glitches that non of NASA team scientists, the ones collecting observations, didn’t see on real time, but It seemed that Judith Lean had some political motivation to challenge the ACRIM composite. Not very scientist at all.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
[Response: This is nonsense. Despite your claims the difference the ACRIM issue makes to the solar irradiance curve is really quite small. Unless you are advocating for a 17-term polynomial function to fill the gap? In which case anything is possible! ]
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Gavin, if you read the bibliography, according to ACRIM, total TSI had a increasing trend from begging 80s to end 90s, almost 20 years (1). Yes, maybe you can not blame for 100% warming, its obvious, but could explain an important chunk on that period. We all know that the beggining of modern warming started at the end 70 beggining 80s.
Thanks a lot for your blog.
Biblipgraphy:
(1) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5334.1963
JL: “The fact that some people could use [the ACRIM group’s] results as an excuse to do nothing about greenhouse gas emissions is one reason, we felt we needed to look at the data ourselves. Since so much is riding on whether current climate change is natural or human-driven, it’s important that people hear that many in the scientific community don’t believe there is any significant long-term increase in solar output during the last 20 years.” (Lindsey 2003)
CS: So yes, they not only created a different composite based on glitches that non of NASA team scientists, the ones collecting observations, didn’t see on real time, but It seemed that Judith Lean had some political motivation to challenge the ACRIM composite. Not very scientist at all.
BPL: You appear to have quoted her without reading the quote. She said that she needed to look at the data. Her motivations are absolutely irrelevant. If she hadn’t found anything that needed revision, she couldn’t have published.
Scientists have all kinds of biases, and the good ones admit it. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is always and everywhere the evidence, the whole evidence, and nothing but the evidence. Studies are peer-reviewed. They need to be replicated. Pointing to scientists’ biases is an ad hominem argument.
By the way, I find it offensive that you appropriate the name of Carl Sagan, considering that you are here to spread pseudoscience. Sagan was an implacable enemy of just the kind of obfuscation and trolling you are doing here. He was also fully in support of the climate science community on the issue of global warming, since he was a planetary astronomer who was intimately familiar with the greenhouse effect and had done a lot of work on the Martian and Cytherean climates.
Serious question: What do these people say about the physics of greenhouse gases?
Due respect, Gavin, but pointing out how nonsensical their data sets are implies that their initial premise… “we need to find a cause for our observations of increased system energy”… has some validity.
Isn’t actual climate science about determining, with increasing precision and accuracy, what effects are caused by the greenhouse effect?
As with the upside-down vapor-head arguments we see here, why do people not require that the “theory” proposed include an explanation of what happens to the energy absorbed by GHG that would otherwise escape to space? Why are they allowed to pretend it doesn’t exist??
“Isn’t actual climate science about determining, with increasing precision and accuracy, what effects are caused by the greenhouse effect?”
So how much more precise have the estimates of ECS become in the last 30 years?
And how much more accurate?
Keith, I know you are trying to change the subject, but OK, an example of improvement would be measurement of ocean thermal characteristics.
So, what’s your point? A few posts back, Gavin observed that we only recently detected gravitational waves, but that did not mean that Relativity was in doubt all those years, or that the scientists studying it were incompetent.
KW: So how much more precise have the estimates of ECS become in the last 30 years?
And how much more accurate?
BPL: Estimates range from 0 (pseudoscientists) and 0.1 (Idso 1988) to 9.6 (Möller 1961). It is now known to be almost certainly between 2.0 and 4.5, with figures clustering closely around 3.0.
Zebra – “I know you are trying to change the subject”. You changed the subject. You are the one that pushed the fact that the aim of climate science is to determine the greenhouse effect
To answer my own question (at least from the precision point of view) here is the width of the likely range
AR1 3K
AR2 3K
AR3 3K
AR4 3K
AR5 7K
AR6 3K
And if we go back to Charney, then that is 42 years of basically no increase in precision
My point BPL is that Zebra has said that climate science should be about the greenhouse effect and quantifying it. Believe it or not some people think there are some other influences on climate and wish to understand those. In the 42 years since the Charney Report, there has been no improvement in the precision of the single most important number in greenhouse understanding.
Perhaps those studying the greenhouse effect should stick to that and try and quantify it better rather than trying to badmouth other disciplines
KW: In the 42 years since the Charney Report, there has been no improvement in the precision of the single most important number in greenhouse understanding.
BPL: Yes there has. The standard deviation on the clustered estimates has decreased. Also, I think you’re confusing precision (number of significant figures) with accuracy (size of variance).
Why is it “the single most important number”? I can think of others, like the probability of the AMOC stopping, as in the recent post here. Much more important.
And BPL is correct about the difference between precision and accuracy. If one wants to be really picky, you could argue that we can’t know the accuracy of a prediction until we get a measurement… kind of silly in this case.
And your statement about “people thinking there are some other influences on climate” is also silly. What I said was that those people need to incorporate the greenhouse effect into their theoretical structure, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. Or, if they claim that it doesn’t exist, then they have to explain why not.
BPL : Accuracy is size of variance??????? And Zebra agrees with you???? You need to go back to high school. That’s like saying science is a democracy. We’ll just average everyone’s opinion to get the answer. You could not be more wrong. It will be up to future generations to determine the accurate number.
Here is a simple lesson See these two histograms.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/VZoQUtw9ZMDzYZ4AA
The first is ECS from current models.
The second is from the initial iteration of an analogue computer model of the Earth built by mice
The resolution of the first is atrocious – we cannot give the value to even one significant figure.
The mice have done a far better job haven’t they!! Far more precise.
However the Vogons destroyed the analogue computer before the modeling finished. Had they left it to run to completion the mice would have determined ECS was 3.50425. So which graph is more accurate? !
Re. “Believe it or not some people think there are some other influences on climate and wish to understand those. ”
When a patient presents with, say, very high alcohol intake which is clearly and measurably affecting their health and daily functioning, I know of very very few docs who would immediately research “influences of all contributors to good nutrition” because they are interested in the subject.
There are always scoping tradeoffs to be made in all research. But you seem to be focussing on why Grampa Smith lived to 102 and smoked two packs a day for 90 years as opposed to why millions died and are still dying early. Yes, discovering why Pappy Smith didn’t may well be important data, However it has no real bearing at all on the demonstrable effects of tobacco on the general population.
Keith
Not what I said. Actually, you seem to be agreeing with my observation that one could argue that “accuracy” would require waiting until CO2 doubles.
Which would bring into question your original complaint that accuracy has not increased.
You seem to be confused and wanting to have it both ways. Pick one.
Barton is correct. Statistical moments are relevant only when all the elements of the set are of like origin, construction, etc. That is NOT the case with global climate models. These may have different goals, different approximations, etc. The distribution matters, but the moments can mislead if the distribution is multimodal.
We don’t know ECS with precision, but we do know a lot more pertaining to it than we did in Charney’s days.
We know, for example, that we are now far from equilibrium, and getting farther as we dump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is demonstrated, for example, by the rising heat content of the oceans. ( If we were near equilibrium, it would be near steady-state.)
We also know that it will be a VERY long time, in human terms, before that equilibrium is reached. In part, that is because of the coming partial meltdown of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets, which has barely started. Then, there are long-term adjustments in ocean currents, land vegetation, albedo, etc.
We are making changes now whose consequences won’t be fully realized for thousands of years. In that context, focusing on our lack of knowledge of exactly how big those consequences will be is a misleading distraction. We’re going to be living with a seriously out-of-equilibrium climate into the distant future. Our current decisions relate to how bad a situation we want future inhabitants of this planet to be dealing with.
I’d rather be working on figuring out ways to quit digging rather than modeling exactly how big a hole we can get away with making before cave-in occurs.
Zebra – “Not what I said” hmmm, let me see what you said “And BPL is correct about the difference between precision and accuracy” Which part about BPL’s description of precision and accuracy did you agree with then?
Yes, I do agree that we do not know if the numbers are accurate, I don’t know when we will know. But if the estimates of ECS have not essentially changed, then they cannot be more accurate. My table of AR va;lues was only really meant to address the precision aspect of your original statement, but the absolute values show no real change
And Ray, my cartoon graph was just to make a point about precision and accuracy. I used Gavin’s ECS histogram because it was easier to reproduce rather than the IPCC “normal’ish distribution” plots.
A thinner histogram means higher precision
You need to stop this tribal attitude. “Keith said something was wrong, he must be mistaken as he is an evil climate denier”. Just please admit that accuracy IS NOT anything to do with the size of the variance.
Keith,
I agreed with BPL saying “I think you’re confusing precision (number of significant figures) with accuracy”, which is a really common misunderstanding, and then I gave (the thing you agree with) what might be a more rigorous definition of “accuracy”. Try reading carefully.
Since I answered your question, why don’t you answer mine: Why is ECS “the single most important number in greenhouse understanding” ??
John P’s comment gives more substance, of course, but my simplified observation which people still seem not to get is:
GMST is an effect, not a cause.
It’s a proxy for the energy increase that is disrupting the climate system in multiple ways; precision to my mind is not all that significant. And given the chaotic nature of the climate system, even accuracy may not be definitive as to how bad things are going to get.
Again, the probability of the AMOC stopping is an example of a really scary number, and who knows if the temp being 2.0C rather than 2.5C is going to reduce that… it could even be worse that way.
I wasn’t confusing accuracy and precision, what part of anything I have said makes you think I have?
I will answer your question, odd though it is. You started by saying
“Isn’t actual climate science about determining, with increasing precision and accuracy, what effects are caused by the greenhouse effect?”
Surely ECS is the single measure of that. Any other knock on effect will be completely determined by that wouldn’t it? If ECS is very high, then all other issues are much worse. Conversely if ECS is very low then CO2 increases aren’t a problem (regardless of temp increases.)
If ECS is 10K, then the likelyhood of AMOC shutdown is much higher. I am not saying it is the case, but if ECS is <1K and the AMOC shuts down, then it isn't CO2's fault
And just because someone write a paper on the influence of the sun on temperature doesn't mean they claim the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.
Still waiting for anyone (Zebra, Ray or BPL specially) to agree that BPL is incorrect and accuracy has nothing to do with size of variance. Really sorry to harp on this but it is a fundamental problem. People display a graph with some smeared width based on standard deviation and think that the answer must be contained within that smear.. They are not error bars!!!!!!!!!
Keith, you said:
“So how much more precise have the estimates of ECS become in the last 30 years?
And how much more accurate?”
Which indicates to me that you thought “accuracy” was something you could determine without measuring.
And it sounds like you and BPL are using similar thinking… you also said:
“To answer my own question (at least from the precision point of view) here is the width of the likely range”
You sound really confused about precision and accuracy. And you are the one bringing up the variance in that sentence, correct? BPL is just responding to you.
And I also think you are confused about complex non-linear systems that may be described as chaotic… if you didn’t understand what I said, I don’t know how I can further explain it to you.
Yes, as the energy in the system increases, things will certainly get worse, but the more you increase the energy, the less able we are to predict which things. That’s the best I can do.
I am struggling to understand what you are saying..Zebra. You said the aim of climate science was to increase the accuracy and precision. I just asked how much this had happened. You didn’t answer.
When I answered I specifically said precision. – there is no way I am using the same thinking as BPL. He incorrectly called it accuracy.
“You sound really confused about precision and accuracy” – ABSOLUTELY NOT. Re-read my comment about the mice and look at the histograms.
I don’t understand how you can’t see this is clear.
Keith,
I did answer; I gave the example of ocean heat content. No more throwing buckets from whaling ships.
Most of us are aware that technology has greatly improved our ability to measure things, as well as more resources devoted to acquiring data; I don’t feel the need to make a long list.
About BPL, I refer you to what Ray L says; comparing the results of the models is like comparing the results of different instrumentation types/techniques. Our confidence increases, as the values become closer to each other, that we are in the vicinity of the “true value”.
If you don’t know the “true value”, which you agree we can’t yet, what is the alternative?? We’re not talking about calibrating thermometers in a lab, or shooting at a target.
Keith Woollard, Sept. 7 “And how much more accurate?”
For Zebra’s argument – doesn’t matter as long as they are more accurate than Carls. Not a particularly demanding standard, since Carl provided NONE.
So Zebra’s point was the double standard of deniers like Carl or you – you see a straw in the eye climatologists, and can’t notice a beam in the eyes of deniers..
For people unfamiliar with the exacting scientific standards of Keith Woolard – here is
an example , which I summarized with:
“Our Keith disproved global, or at least continental, climate change, by pointing to the absence of a clear global/continental trend in the … local rain in the town of Corrigin,
And he did not stop there – next he lectured BPL that “ THERE IS NO CORRELATION ” between … local temperature in Perth (or Sydney) and local rain in the same place. The ONLY
way to even EXPECT such a correlation is to assume that ALL weather is LOCALLY GENERATED: all rain forms from LOCAL evaporation, and LOCAL temp. follows ONLY the LOCAL balance between LOCAL energy in and LOCAL energy out.
This demands … NO WINDS, no movement of air masses whatsoever – since these would transport moisture and heat from one place to another. On Keith’s Earth: “ What happens in Perth, stays in Perth” and more importantly – “What happens outside of Perth, never makes it into Perth”.
Piotr, this has gone beyond a joke.. I have avoided responding to your constant narking as I haven’t wanted to pollute proper scientific discussions.. You have completely misrepresented what I said in 2021, as well as what the farmer I replied to said, and what the scientist the farmer was quoting had said. At no point did I suggest that the rainfall at Corrigin had anything to do with climate change nor global warming.
The farmer was quoting a scientist who was suggesting that the rainfall in the WA wheat belt WAS affected by “climate change” All I did is point out that the scientist was wrong and there was no trend in the long term record.
Please stop bringing this up unless it is to apologise for your misunderstanding
Here is the comment
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/01/climate-adaptation-summit-2021/#comment-785756
Keith Woollard 9 Sep: “Piotr, this has gone beyond a joke.. I have avoided responding to your constant narking as I haven’t wanted to pollute proper scientific discussions… ”
So it … wasn’t because you were … caught on your arrogant claims about the opponents, which you based on your ignorance of climatology and statistics, and didn’t have the balls to own up to it?
Keith Woollard, 9 Sep You have completely misrepresented what I said in 2021
Hmm, I may have heard this before. Aaa, right:
Keith Woollard 2021:”Piotr, you continue to complete misunderstand the issues:”
see my answer in 2021:
1. KW: ““global” I didn’t say that”
– me, quoting: “ The mistake is to assume the tie between global warming and local rainfall trends ” Keith Woollard
2. KW: “ continental [Australia] no, I didn’t say that either ”
me: Crimp’s work you claimed was “incorrect” – were on … Australia‘ s wheat farming, i.e. both East and West Australia . Hence: “continental scale”
3. KW: “ If Dr Crimp were correct and the technological improvements are masking the drying conditions, then the east coast yields should have improved by more than 27%, and that is simply not the case.”
me: ” I injured my leg. As a result, my walking speed dropped by 27%. My doctor gave me excellent braces, which stabilized my leg and returned my walking speed to pre-injury level. Keith Woolward, who wasn’t injuried, tries the braces on, and …. disproves my injury by saying: “braces should have increased my walking speed by 27%. and that is simply not the case.”
4. KW: “ I have the utmost respect for farmers and would never suggest they are lazy or morons.”
Me: WHAT ELSE have you SUGEESTED, when you implied they were morons, who got fooled by a climatic change alarmist, Dr. Crimp, and couldn’t be bothered to put any effort to check if he wasn’t lying to them:
KW “ it doesn’t take many searches to find papers that completely disagree with his findings.
And then you were lecturing an Australian farmer, Dale Park, implying that you know BETTER than him what the soil moisture level and precipitation amounts on his land because in … some town of Corrigin in Australia … there was no obvious trend in precipitation …:
K. Woolard Feb 1, 2021: I don’t know whereabouts in the wheatbelt you are [sic! – Piotr], but Corrigin has 110 years of records and there is no clear trend
And here is a response to your “ utmost respect” from the farmer you have shown your “utmost respect”
“ I don’t know where to begin. [the framer then lists problems with your claim and concludes:] I’m not sure which planet you are living on but it does not sound much like mine.”
Or your lecturing that it is a “mistake is to assume the tie between global warming and local rainfall trends ” and “proving” that by saying that … in Perth and Sydney there was no obvious correlation between LOCAL temperature and LOCAL precipitation. ;-)
For this to have ANY meaning – local precipitation in Perth would have to be determined by local temperature in Perth. I.e. NO WIND in Australia. That plus again extrapolating from the local (Perth, Sydney) – to continental (rain in West and East Australia ) and to global (using temperatures in Perth as representative of global warming).
The tragic part is actually the lack of imagination and overview. If they would make the case for aviation induced cirrus as being the main driver of not quite global warming, instead of CO2, they would have a much easier going ;)
Hr Schmdt
I see Jan Erik Solheim, Ole Humlum, Fritz Warenholt and Nicola Scafetta on his litterature list.
Willy Soon is periphaere to me, an author that I did not have the capacity to follow, finding him not interesting enough.
But I know Solheim and Humlum personally from the surrealist tavern meetings in Oslo.
Solheim is professor emeritus of astrophysics for which I have very high respect, But Solheim showed rather to be an academic disappointment, making severe and repeated blunders in elementary things, as in a world of his own, highly trained,
For astrophysics to be autentic, it must be valid here where we live , else one cannot desing instruments for them by earthly materials and knowledge!. I repeat,….!
As like Highscool and Diploma rather on the privileged, Party Quote all the way. Privileged and Party both with P, the grand old one with the special mandate on behalf of the People, again with P.
. Through secret and closed studies or something, where rather primary & elementary things are being banned, ridiculed, and hidden for them. They seem somehow systematically trained and shielded off from practical life and practical crafts and arts, probably in order to enter that leadeing and teaching and judging role in our societys keye positions.
Humlum is quite another type, washproof Danish, and I could discuss the sea serpent and Midgarsrmen The Jørmungandr for serious with him. And glaciers where he is specialist. The sea serpent being appliciable to the Gulfstream, and Jørmungandr to the jet- stream.
Humlum has shown able to think again and to correct himself. Solheim has not.
Scafetta,..was commented on and disqualified in Nature, by Prof Terje Rypdal from Tromsø for comitting zodiacal astrology from New Age…….. in quasi scientific fashion by statistical cheating..
I find him rather shurely aquainted to and inspired from a certain Theodor Schwenk, the chief antroposopher Hydrologist, Whoose main opus is “Das sensible chaos”….. not bad,…. even useful for water engineering and fine arts.
& for proper magics performance .
Scafetta has hardly got the due New Age and Antroposophical levels either. But seems rather higly polished and snobbish.
PS
I must correct myself
Kristoffer Rypdal and Martin Rypdal, UiT.no, “The arctic university of Norway”..
They are specialists on mathematics and statistics and engaged in the climate dispute, having performed on self- organizing natural forms , sandhills and snowheaps and other peculiar forms in Nature, so called “unlinear”, allmost Antropomorph things and behaviours. Traditionally understood as trolls or the works of the same,
See also Magics and wonders of high popularity in nature, , UFOs and all that.
Terje Rypdal is a more popular fameous musician.
But the Rypdals seem reliable and clever when we need them.
K. and M. Rypdal could squeeze Scafetta by statistics in Nature when needed.. They could disqualifry
Nicola Scafettas barycenters and Saturnus, that rather pleaces peoples aquaintance to “Psi” and “Gestaltungskräfte” and new age zodiacal astrology. DS.
PPS
Tycho de Brahe, former Royal and Imperial astrologist and minister of environmental threats, Uranology and Geometry & Geophysics has published on it.
“Young man, quit Mysterium cosmographicum, and better look after where the stars really are standing and how they moove at any time. Because, the mathematics that can tell us where the stars really are standing and how they moove at any time,… will in any case be the best astrology and horoscope to the Emperor!”
It seems that the NASA and NASA GISS has aspired and scored to the levels of Tycho de Brahe in recent years. , and that Scafetta has rather not followed up the autentic levels of the University of Pisa. DDS
“Arial” is best spelled “aerial,” I think.
The word used in the OP is “areal”, an adjective properly used which means ‘of area’. The adverb “areally” is also properly used in the OP. The word “aerial” meaning ‘of air’ is here but a homophone.
I had to check but it seems “arial”,/i> is the name of a font but otherwise found only in dictionaries of slang.. You are alone here using the word.
“Arial” was a typo. For rest, I take your point. Thanks!
And then there’s Ariel–which, depending on your level of sophistication and age is:
a) the name of the spirit in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”
b) the name of the Little Mermaid
c) the name of that stripper you still remember fondly from College.
Seems to be the new wave of agw-denialism, to make the sun responsible (again)?
I recently came across a video “Nir Shaviv – Die Sonne macht den Klimawandel” on youtube (no url here, to not boost the video via web-search-engine). Producer is EIKE, a german AGW-deniers club.
I only skimmed through the video, but nearly all timelines in the video ended in the year 2000, even though the talk is from Nov. 2022.
My time is too precious to view the whole video, just to get sprinkled with BS, but maybe Gavin can have fun with it – as fuel for a new article?
Interestingly these “the sun makes the heat” claims were also made by Fritz Vahrenholt. The latter said: the sun makes the heat, but the sun’s activity is reducing, hence we run into the next ice age soon.
I wonder, how those sun-worshippers come together with 1) the sun is the reason, why global temperatures are rising, 2) the sun is the reason, why the temperatures will fall (Varenholt predicted the global temperatures to drop shortly after about the year 2010, maybe 2012).
Wouldn’t it be fun to have both departments of the AGW-deniers sit together and talk about the sun and the warming, and the sun and the cooling? Would they maybe call each other deniers of some kind?
Nir Shaviv is among the worst. Consider this chart of global sea-level height rate of change he has published (mods: recommend making it visible), whereby he shows it neatly tracks the 11-year sunspot cycle.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5Rs-6hXgAEiWkv.png
First, note that the timeline ends in 2000, just as “O” pointed out . Second, note that it is a derivative of sea-level change so slow trends (such as AGW) are suppressed. Third, note that the derivative of SLH is very sensitive to El Nino/La Nina conditions, sensitive enough that in a pinch this SLH measure works as an ENSO proxy, see https://geoenergymath.com/2022/01/14/sea-level-height-as-a-proxy-for-enso/
This means that, if his fit is accurate that he has actually shown that ENSO has an 11-year period! This should surprise many people.
More than anything, think about the suspended belief that it must take to push the idea that such a small perturbation in the sun’s radiation output would be so controlling of a massive thermal/mechanical inertial characteristic such as global sea level.
I am tempted to check what has happened since 2000. Nir Shaviv claims he uses ” The tide based sea-level change data set we construct uses 24 stations previously chosen by Douglas [1997]”. Shaviv published this in Journal of Geophysical Research in 2008, link here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2007JA012989
There is this paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818122001953 which does a more comprehensive job at looking at correlations of sunspots with climate indices.
“Denail” is a religious term to for heretics. Another definition is “the act of not allowing someone to have something”. In this case, those who make the accusation wish to deny others the forum to have a scientific debate. The word “denial” should never enter a scientific discussion. Those who use it want to deny others something, and are therefore “deniers” themselves. The arrogance to actually wish a scientific paper is not even published. Take a quick check of yourselves.
Science works not by proving theories, but by disproving them. To be accepted a new scientific idea has to make it through the gauntlet of peer review and reproduction by others. There is no way, no way in the universe, to know ahead of time which 1 of 20 new ideas is a promising new lead and which 19 are useless dead ends. Despite the gauntlet, bad papers sometimes do make it through, and it is entirely appropriate to wish such papers had never been published. All good scientists are opposed to bad science.
Genosse Levenson
This “paper” of yours that was peer rewiewed here before it came out, only betrays your tribal bodily esoteric situation and blinkers.
My good advice to you:
We could manage very well in science upstairs above yopur head and above you in the grades, also in the cellars and caves , in the chemicalo glasses and in the bunsen burners, on the moon and on Jupiter and Pluto and on Titan, even on Enceladus and Venus,…..
……. without having Carl Popper on Pensum. There were better Shamans and Gurus on PENSM on meta- physics and critical systematic emiricism.
Karl Popper is hardly more than another popular jewish oppotunist along with Karl Marx by their vulgar German Hegel- ian system. “Die phaenomenologie des Geistes”.
There has been better jews on the free market. Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Hans Krebs, Sigmund Freud, Ernst H.Riesenfeld, Victor. M Goldschmidt, and Yehudi Menhuin.
That of systematic denialism stating the proof, being scientifically in charge with the upper hand on it, creating and administering and aniyhilating the matter………… is supersicious and no fruitful, healthy scientific theory and regime.
Poppers denialism is only what suits traditional and inherited, popular tribal racial political revanchism.
We have better and more qualified methods for critical control than Poppers blunt categorical and popular political denialisms.
PS I must hurry up and add hadly Karl Popper himself who appears to be a rather common post war austrian social democrat as we know them from earlier, but all the vulgar blunt followers, blind believers, flat earthers, and desert walkers in his footsteps. DS.
C: This “paper” of yours that was peer rewiewed here before it came out, only betrays your tribal bodily esoteric situation and blinkers.
BPL: Nothing is peer reviewed in a blog. Peer review is done by journals contacting professionals.
DN,
“Denile” is a river in Egypt.
“Denail” is the removal of nails, usually with a claw hammer.
Some definitions of the ‘denial’ (American Heritage Dictionary):
1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
3. The formal challenge by a defendant of the truth of an allegation made by the plaintiff.
Denial is NOT a religious term.
DenialISM
Denialism in psychology (wikipedia):
“In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.”
Take Denialism 101
https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2015/05/03/take-denialism-101
Science is about reality. Denialism simply doesn’t meet objective standards. Sorry not sorry.
Note: You probably shouldn’t try to make up definitions for English words in a crowd of native English speakers. You also probably shouldn’t try to get away with twisted logic while attempting to lecture scientists.
There’s no denying I wasted my time reading that, and you wasted yours writing it. Can anyone find some sort of argument made amongst your random jumble of words?
“Heresy is defined by the Catholic Church as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith””
No scientist should ever accuse another of “denial”. That’s scientific method 101.
DN: No scientist should ever accuse another of “denial”. That’s scientific method 101.
BPL: Nonsense. If you persistently deny the reality of something, you are a denier. We could call them “irresponsible, destructive, antisocial bastards and mislead incompetents,” but “denier” gets the point across much better, and is shorter to type.
De Niles,
Well, I can see that you’re having some difficulties. so I’ll try to break it down for you.
1. Here are some other words that appear in your quote: the, obstinate, doubt, truth, which…etc. Are they all religious words that somehow the Catholic church has denied scientists permission to use?
And by the way, the Catholic Church does not deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
2. Words can have lots of uses and meanings. That’s one of the reasons we have dictionaries. When we talk about ‘denialism‘ we’re borrowing a term from psychology not the Catholic Church, or indeed any other religion.
And, by the way, I don’t see the the word ‘denialism’ anywhere in your quote.
Also by the way, psychology is a science, so in that sense ‘denialism’ can be used as a scientific term.
3. There are a lot of religions, people, organizations out there using all sorts of words, last time I checked the Catholic Church hasn’t claimed to be the final arbiter on how the world should use the word ‘denial’ at all.
4. And this one is important: No one here is denying anyone access to scientific debate. That’s pure fantasy on your part. However, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out when people are denying reality, especially when they organize and become systematically obstructive to concerns of health and safety.
5. You’re the last person who should be lecturing scientists on science 101. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. I would suggest that you start by working on basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills.
And De Niles, I’ll spell it out. Just because the language used by science and religion may appear similar, that doesn’t make it the same. It should be obvious, but pareidolia is one of those pesky things that people are prone to, including you apparently.
It is a fact that the earth is round not flat, that evolution is real not creationism, and that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that pointing that out isn’t some weird conspiracy. Basically it’s a difference between faith and empiricism.
Some arguments have scientific validity some don’t, some people know the difference and some don’t. The devil is in the details, De Niles. It’s a question of skill not sophistry.
Your posts ARE sophistry, as well as meandering time-wasting off-topic musing.
As to the on-topic:
“4. And this one is important: No one here is denying anyone access to scientific debate. That’s pure fantasy on your part. However, it’s perfectly reasonable to point out when people are denying reality, especially when they organize and become systematically obstructive to concerns of health and safety.”
“It is a fact that the earth is round not flat, that evolution is real not creationism, and that anthropogenic global warming is happening”
First statement is a flat-out lie. The first few comments are people saying this paper shouldn’t have been published. You accused someone of denial again, well done. It shows you don’t have an argument.
Let’s do a thought experiment, suppose I had done work on the incredibly complex climate system and had discovered mechanisms by which it could warm or cool by slight amounts, and these discoveries were in fact correct, how could I publish them WITHOUT being called a denier? You’ve set yourself up in an absolutist religious position to not even PERMIT disagreement. It’s disgusting and profoundly unscientific, as well as being unethical. The example of flat Earth vs. round Earth is interesting. It’s far more simple and verifiable than climate science, but yet still the term “denier” is never used in that context. Those who use the term “denier” are clearly desperate, even if they aren’t self-aware enough to realise it.
[Response: Science happens in the context of the science that has been done already. If you ignore what people have already found you are just wasting everyone’s time. New ideas are published all the time without causing any problem at all, but when instead people just keeping trying to publish old ideas that have been examined a hundred times and found wanting, then they are going to find a name for that kind of behaviour. – gavin]
DeNiles,
To expand a bit on Gavin’s response, the problem is that in order to have a sincere scientific discussion or “debate”, you first have to establish what you agree on… “the work that went before”. Only then can you clearly establish what it is you disagree about.
So in your thought experiment, you would have to either…
1. Address the role of CO2 in absorbing radiant energy that would otherwise escape to space, which is a well established fact,
or,
2. Deny that fact.
So when you say “it’s X that causes any detected increase in the energy in the climate system”, without explaining what happens to the energy absorbed by CO2, you are doing #2.
Science has certain rules, and it’s perfectly fine if you want to attempt #2, but you have to do that explicitly, and falsify both the empirical results and theoretical basis (QM) that have established, for physicists, the greenhouse effect as a fact.
Just proposing some ‘alternative’ mechanism but ignoring the effect of CO2 is the equivalent of God-did-it as in Creationism. Not appropriate for publication as science.
Radge Havers
Do you really doubt in creationism?
What about unintelligent creation or at leeast efforts of it..
such as:
“Everyone can be in error,, , the Hedgehog saiid. He climbed down again from the clothbrush!”
Moral:
Too many people dffiscuss creation without even knowing what it is about.
Carbo,
What are you talking about? Creationism, the doctrine denying evolution based on a literal interpretation of the Bible? That’s what I’m talking about.
Maybe it’s not a problem in Norway, or maybe you believe that less than 6,000 years ago a guy named Noah literally crammed two of every creature on earth into a boat he built in his backyard along with the necessary provisions, then paddled around in it while the whole planet was covered in water etc. etc.?
And maybe you think that Darwin was wrong about everything, and that all the critters on earth didn’t evolve but are just the same today as when the earth was created?
And now, following in the footsteps of that line of preaching, maybe you think that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, because people couldn’t possibly affect God’s creation like that, and to suggest otherwise would be the work of an ungodly heathen religion called [gasp] “Climate Science? [o noes teh horrorz!]
Please clarify.
Are you one of them?
re; author ZEBRA. Yes I’m aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thanks. Are you aware that its warming effect decreases logarithmically with an increase in concentration? I wasn’t aware of this until perhaps a year ago, despite climate change being a daily news item for the past 30 years. Explanation and visualisation here: https://clintel.org/carbon-dioxide-has-reached-a-point-of-diminishing-returns/ – this is admitted by the IPCC, it’s just buried as a footnote hundreds of pages into their reports, and rarely mentioned in papers. Their projected warming is based on other speculative positive feedbacks in the climate system, not directly on CO2 itself.
In light of the fact that 90% of the possible warming of CO2 occurs in the first 50ppm, the fact that its concentration has increased 50% is not cause for concern in terms of warming. At the current level a doubling of CO2 increases its warming effect by 1%. Prior to finding this out, I had assumed a doubling would increase its warming effect by 100%. Quite a difference – that fact should be publicised more! Quite apart from temperature, a high concentration would be beneficial for the biosphere in terms of primary productivity since that level is ideal for plants.
De Niles
“Are you aware that its (CO2) warming effect decreases logarithmically with an increase in concentration?”
This is true, but it is only referring to the way CO2 acts at a molecular level, and it is only half the story. There is also the following separate process: Please refer:
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
Small excerpt: “By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further. ”
This restriction of heat loss to space causes the warming in the underlying atmosphere to keep on increasing at a robust pace as CO2 increases.
De Niles,
To say that warming by CO2 “decreases” logarithmically is just flat wrong, and it betrays a fundamental ignorance about conventions in science. The INCREASE is logarithmic–that is well known, and not in dispute. You say that the overwhelming majority of the warming due to CO2 occurs for low concentrations–well, given that the pre-industrial CO2 concentration was good for over 30 degrees C…indeed that without CO2, our planet would be a ball of ice…that leaves plenty of warming potential at current concentrations. Tell me, do you get better fish oils from red herrings their from their silver counterparts?
And the whole “CO2 is plant food” canard. Jeebus, dude, talk about a zombie argument. You do know that poison ivy is a plant, right? And that it absolutely thrives in high-CO2 environments. The same is true of many noxious weeds. Don’t conflate fertile with fetid.
You are clearly naive, Genosse D. Niles
D you really waste your time? then do not blame it 0n others.
You are not in charge of regulating what a scientist can accuse anyone next of.
DN: Yes I’m aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thanks. Are you aware that its warming effect decreases logarithmically with an increase in concentration?
BPL: Yes it does. Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 is increasing exponentially. What result do you get if you convolve the two curves? The numerical answer is left as an exercise for the student.
De Niles (at 28 SEP 2023 AT 6:29 PM): – “Are you aware that its warming effect decreases logarithmically with an increase in concentration? I wasn’t aware of this until perhaps a year ago, despite climate change being a daily news item for the past 30 years.”
Do you really think climate scientists aren’t aware of this and not factored this into their climate modelling outlooks, De Niles? I’d suggest you look at Skeptical Science’s post titled How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is ‘logarithmic’?, published 28 Mar 2018 (yes, that’s more than 5½ years ago!!! Where have you been, De Niles???), particularly for Figures 2 & 3. The summary at the end begins with:
https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
De Niles (at 28 SEP 2023 AT 6:29 PM): – “…this is admitted by the IPCC, it’s just buried as a footnote hundreds of pages into their reports, and rarely mentioned in papers. Their projected warming is based on other speculative positive feedbacks in the climate system, not directly on CO2 itself.”
I’d suggest you (and others) listen to the discussion between Professor Johan Rockström, co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Professor Kevin Anderson, with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at University of Manchester, UK, recorded in Norway in March 2023, in the YouTube video titled Johan Rockström interview | Planetary boundaries, ‘negative emissions’, mitigation models & fairness, published 11 Sep 2023, duration 1:11:02.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLq8e73-FAw
De Niles (at 28 SEP 2023 AT 6:29 PM): – “Quite apart from temperature, a high concentration would be beneficial for the biosphere in terms of primary productivity since that level is ideal for plants.”
Rising global mean surface air temperatures will annihilate plants and animals long before atmospheric CO₂ concentration levels become toxic.
See the graph labelled “A phase diagram of habitability for residents of the Earth” in the YouTube video titled Mirrors for Earth’s Energy Rebalancing (MEER:refEction) | Dr. Ye Tao | 2019NSSUS, shown from about time interval 0:15:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwvPJnPP9KI
Rising global mean surface air and ocean temperatures will accelerate ice sheet melting and thus accelerate sea level rise (SLR). How is the inundation of low-lying agricultural lands due to SLR beneficial for “primary productivity”, De Niles? Can you please explain that one to us?
How is increasing ocean acidification (due to CO₂ uptake) beneficial to marine life?
No, in this context, denial is a psychological term referring to a person’s inability to accept a fact or situation despite its truth. Usually, this is because accepting such a fact/situation threatens the worldview, comfort, safety or wellbeing of the person in denial.
You say that pointing out that an individual or group is in denial is unscientific. That couldn’t be further from the truth. When denialists keep repeating the same refuted zombie arguments, what is not science is continuing to listen to them. Instead, they need to be told forcefully that they are…well, nuts, so they can get back into correspondence with reality again. Try it.
A science paper is not written to defend a worldview or for comfort, safety or wellbeing. So that’s not the context in which the term “denial” is being used here. You’re clearly just trying to pathologise opposition rather than deal with the actual issue. I think a good term for people like you would be a “pathologiser”. See also calling your opponent “nuts”.
These arguments haven’t been refuted. There’s a new post from the authors of the paper refuting all the arguments made in this very article. So, the refutation goes on. It doesn’t stop because you say it does. Again, this is absolutist, anti-scientific thinking. It has no place in science. Cheers.
De Niles,
You have no arguments, just evidence free assertions and accusations.
No? Either make valid scientific argument (which I’m pretty sure you’re unable to do); or document the massive cabal where tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world got together and hatched a plot to, I don’t know, do mysterious and nefarious stuff that will upset you and make you sad.
Which arguments are you looking for? I’m not in the business of publishing scientific papers. I’m posting to call out those who want to silence others who do.
You are operating under an incorrect assumption that tens of thousands of scientists all believe in catastrophic man-made warming due to rising CO2 concentration – they don’t. The “97% of scientists agree” study was complete falsehood. And congratulations on being another who’s made an implicit argument that no possible alternative explanation for climate change can possibly be forwarded, because lots of people agree – hey, guess what, even if that were true – that’s not science! Science is the opposite – it is independent of consensus, not reliant on it. Science progresses by overturning consensus, and a consensus is never overturned by a consensus, obviously. This is logical fallacy 101. Back to school son!
De Niles,
It’s simple, evidence free assertions and accusations are not reasoned arguments. Pretty straightforward, what’s not to understand?
Says who? How do they back that up?
No not about reliance, emergence. You’re confusing scientific consensus with the disinformation manufactured group-think that wound you up and inspired you to come here on your trolling expedition.
All you’ve got is useless sophistry, because it’s not grounded in a basic understanding of how science actually works and what makes it effective– something you should have learned in K-12.
Climate science exists in the same system of checks and balances as the rest of physical science, not surprising since it’s math, physics and chemistry focused on climate. In other words, it’s a system with standards; unlike the free-for-all, dumpster diving, race to the bottom you find in the Fox News, Q Anon “marketplace of ideas.”
If your “logic” were applied to NFL standards, Peewee Herman would have qualified as a linebacker.
DN: You are operating under an incorrect assumption that tens of thousands of scientists all believe in catastrophic man-made warming due to rising CO2 concentration – they don’t. The “97% of scientists agree” study was complete falsehood.
BPL: So how come every other study that’s been made finds figures from 91 to 99? Sorry, you’re just wrong about this. Scientists are in agreement. You can find isolated examples who aren’t, but they don’t add up to the tens of thousands who know better.
De Niles: ” I’m not in the business of publishing scientific papers.”
Nooo Shiit! Well knock me over with a feather.
De Niles,
You say of Soon et al (2023), “These arguments haven’t been refuted.”
That is untrue. What you are perhaps trying to say is these arguments set out in Soon et al (2023) have been refuted (as per the OP above) but that these refutations of argument have not been accepted by Soon & the Connollys who have responded with a comment defending their arguments.
Perhaps, given the addendum to the OP above further responding to this comment by Soon & the Connollys, an addendum pointing to the vacuous nature of their defending comment, can we be clear: when you talk of “a new post from the authors of the paper refuting all the arguments made in this very article,” do you refer to something more recent and hopefully less vacuous than the Soon, Connolly & Connolly comment posted by Judy Curry Sept 10th..
And if you do refer to something more recent, perhaps you could reference it properly. If not, perhaps you need some help understanding just how vacuous the defending comment for mad Willie Soon and Mrs Connolly’s boys actually is.
This is the reply from the authors of the Soon paper I was referring to – https://www.ceres-science.com/post/the-orchestrated-disinformation-campaign-by-realclimate-org-to-falsely-discredit-and-censor-our-work
You should drop the sneering tone, not very nice.
De Niles,
Thank you for the link, although failing to provide it initially is a pretty poor show.
This blog page at CERES-Science (The Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, so confusingly nothing to do with the usual CERES of climatology) is entitled ‘The orchestrated disinformation campaign by RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work’. It has no named authorship other than talk of “several of us at CERES-Science.” It refers to three published papers who collectively list dozens of authors so there would be plenty of choice except the “several” authors of ‘The orchestrated disinformation…’ blog refer to themselves as also the authors of a previous blog post which was posted at Judy Curry’s with the authorship of Soon, Connolly & Connolly. So “several” is a bit strong. There are but three of them.
This new blog post from mad Willie Soon and Mrs Connolly’s boys is a gargantuan effort with now thirteen claims identified in this RC OP as requiring their refutation (up from three in the previous serving). As their new blog post runs to over 10,000 words, it will take some effort to examine fully, although the usual comedic value of the work provided by these muppets Soon, Connolly & Connolly will presumably make the task quite enjoyable.
Note the continual tendency of denialists to contend that climate science is “religion”–attempting to discredit the entire field and all the practitioners thereof with a single label, indicating that the conclusions are predicated on faith, rather than evidence, and that somehow this is a recent aberration rather than sound science.
The reality, of course, is quite different. The evidence that we are altering climate–and that this poses significant risks for a global, technological society–is overwhelming. Melting glaciers, rising temperatures, increases in drought and floods, the rising atmospheric temperature and the even more inexorable rise in ocean heat content.
The theory and the evidence date back nearly 2 centuries–the greenhouse effect was established when Charles Darwin wrote his “Origin of Species,” and the theory of anthropogenic warming was nearly a decade old during Albert Einstein’s Annus Mirabilis, when he laid the groundwork for quantum mechanics and relativity.
And then there is the acceptance of mainstream climate science by the broader scientific community. Every organization of scientists that has taken a position on the subject has endorsed the summaries of the IPCC. Not one organization of reputable scientists has dissented…NOT ONE.
Rather than read the writing on the wall, the denialists do what hidebound reactionaries have done for millennia: they make shit up. They pull lies out of their posteriors–the more preposterous the better. Because they know the value of the Big Lie. Goebbels taught them well.
No. You’ve misread. I didn’t say climate science was a religion. I said the term “denier” was the kind of thing a heretic in an absolutist religion might be accused of. Climate science only takes on the qualities of a religion if people such as yourself use the term “denier” within it, which you just did again.
Well, here we have a paper under discussion that shows other causes for the observed warming, so it looks like the evidence is slightly less overwhelming than it was before. But of course, in your fallacious logic, the fact that evidence is stacked one way is prima facia reason to reject it, thereby unjustly strengthening one side, which means that side is stronger still in the future when challenged by other arguments. Can you see your faulty logic and unethical behaviour yet?
See post above in replay to commenter ZEBRA for the massively unpublicised negligible warming effect that extra CO2 creates. When you silence “denialists”, of course you’re going to get a consensus. Then, following that, the logical fallacy of appeal to consensus is deployed. This is how the train gets moving and stays moving, and becomes a climate change juggernaut. I would wager 99% of people who work in climate science or its practical applications will have never hear of this paper. So that’s why there’s a consensus.
But who cares about consensus? It’s what’s true that matters.
Ray, and the usual suspects here.
I will once again point out that it is very easy to tell… in a few comments… whether there is any hope of educating someone. Pretending that there is an actual dialogue going on when the other person is mindlessly repeating what they have heard from their religious leaders is, to me, pointless, and in some ways harmful.
I referred to the Creationist thing a couple of times; I’m sure you recall “teach the controversy”. The point of that was to create the illusion that there is in fact a controversy… that the Bible was just an alternate scientific Theory. This is pretty much the same thing.
Anyway, I leave it to you to explain what a logarithm is to De, who obviously doesn’t know. I will check in from time to time just to see how much bandwidth has been used up… maybe there should be an award for which Victor, TK, et al can compete?
Except that the original paper was bullshit of the purest ray serene!
What do you call someone who denies the overwhelming evidence that we are warming the planet? Why do we need a neologism when denialist works perfectly well?
Why is Willie trying to revive solar variability & coronal mass ejection when climate grifting has so much more to gain from the sun’s capacity to raise indoor temperatures by shining less?
Bloomberg reports that the annular eclipse on October 14 will costs Texas’ long-suffering grid enough photovoltaic gigawatt-hours to threaten access to high noon air conditioning all the way from Houston to Tulsa?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-total-eclipse-of-grid.html
According to NHC, Hurricane Lee will reach 290 km/h winds today and gusts of 350 very close to the Bahamas. Almost in the same place and date was Columbus 531 years ago. If they had coincided in time I would not speak Spanish, who knows if Araucanian, Portuguese, English, french,or the difficult, for me, Viking language of Carbomontanus..
My take on this grand work by Soon et al (2023), so grand it took thirty-eight denialist numpties to create it, is that it is really no more than a highly elaborate and tediously long-long-winded exercise in obfuscated curve-fitting.
This curve-fitting process is elaborate enough that in the case of temperture estimates, they even create their own curves. Their favoured version is their “rural-only” NH temperture estimate. Bizarrely, this version actually shows a 1975-2018 temperature trend 4% higher than their estimate using “urban-&-rural” And at +0.33ºC/decade, that’s a whole 25% higher than the likes of NOAA’s NH Land data. Such a ‘finding’ would be something any sane observer would be concerned to see, or they would-be if the analysis of Soon et al (2023) were any more than comedy. Soon et al’s primary message is their call to set sail once again, cap’n, and continue the heroic quest to properly locate that mythical archipeligo The Urban Heat Islands. Such questing is usually see necessary because of the view that urban-based temperature data are distorting the global temperature record and exaggerating the warming caused by AGW. In the case of numpties Soon et al, it appears to be the other-way-round with their urban data diminishing the warming trend.
The second ‘finding’ of Soon et al is the claim that their curve-fitting shows there is still a need for debate as to which TSI record to use. [Perhaps there is a choice of methodology. Should it be “Eeny meeny miny moe”? Or should it be “One potato, two potato”?] Yet all the numpties have actually managed to show is that inflating the size of bugger-all still yields bugger-all. Note that using their grand ‘best-fit’ scenario**, the resulting warming today above the 20th-century-average they attribute to TSI amounts to a whopping +0.05ºC. Or perhaps more tellingly, their ‘best-fit’ scenario attributes a whole +0.10ºC warming 1975-2018 to TSI but leaves +0.45ºC of the total +1.35ºC warming 1975-2018 unattributed. (With zero Volcanic, that the remaining +0.80ºC of warming is attributed Anthropogenic.)
[** This using their self-created “rural-only” temperature series with their Solar#2 TSI record which is Scafetta’s update of an ancient-&-wobbly TSI record.]
The third and final ‘finding’ of Soon et al is to insist we are unable to know “whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination.” Yet their grand ‘best-fit’ scenario shows their 1850-2018 warming curve with +1.4ºC of warming of which +0.25ºC is attributed to Solar, -0.05ºC to Volcanic and +0.85ºC to Anthropogenic, this leaving +0.35ºC Unattributed. So the big big question raised by Soon et al is (because ‘anthropogenic’ actually does mean “human-caused”) whether or not a quantity sized +1.40 would be “mostly” comprised of a constituent part which is at least +0.83 big. Is 0.83 most of 1.40? Golly!! That’s a tough one!!!
Gavin, here’s a detailed response from Soon etc:
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/reply-to-erroneous-claims-by-realclimate-org-on-our-research-into-the-sun-s-role-in-climate-change
Your thoughts?
Soon et al: “The orchestrated disinformation campaign by http://RealClimate.org to falsely discredit and censor our work”:
“What is RealClimate.org’s goal in this orchestrated disinformation campaign?
Apparently, it is to stop people from reading our papers.
Why?
Maybe the answer lies in the papers themselves”
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/the-orchestrated-disinformation-campaign-by-realclimate-org-to-falsely-discredit-and-censor-our-work
[Response: I love that they list all the reasons why this work is pointless. Very handy! – gavin]
Indeed, it’s nice of them to emphasize their irrelevance to the sort of readers unlikely to dip a toe into mainstream climate literature. The Streisand Effect evidently applies to scientific arguments.
Have to also ask why you don’t go after researchers at NCAR and NASA for pushing the sunspot/climate connection. There’s a scientist named Robert Leamon associated with those organizations that has written periodically about his climate model fit to sunspot cycles. I spoke to him at an AGU poster he was manning a few years ago and questioned why his fit only went back to like 1960, IIRC (sunspot data is well before that).
“”In conclusion, we have presented clear evidence in Figure 5 of a recurring empirical relationship between ENSO and the end of solar cycles.” from Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2020EA001223
This is not to imply that Leamon’s group on understanding sunspot behavior is invalid, as their terminator model for cycles appears to match quite well and may have predictive power.
“Armando says
8 SEP 2023 AT 9:36 AM
According to NHC, Hurricane Lee will reach 290 km/h winds today and gusts of 350 very close to the Bahamas. ”
So the BBC & Guardian keep telling us, but where , when and at what altitude ?
Lee is roaring along in the 100- 150 KPH range but even going up from the deck to 850mb, velocities >175 have not as yet appeared in the product most relied upon my mariners:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-60.11,18.82,4239/loc=-57.822,20.834
Good questions. Maybe this clarifies something about at what height the measurements were made.:
“Hurricane Lee Discussion Number 17
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL132023
1100 AM AST Sat Sep 09 2023
Satellite imagery shows that deep convection continues to pulse
near the center of Lee. Recent reports from reconnaissance
aircraft and an earlier SSMIS microwave image indicates that Lee
has a small (5 to 10 n-mi-wide) eye that is obscured by the
higher convective cloud tops. The NOAA P-3 Hurricane Hunter
aircraft penetrated the eye around 1013 UTC this morning and found
that the pressure was down a few millibars. The NOAA aircraft
measured peak SFMR surface winds of 100 kt, and 700-mb flight-level
winds of 103 kt…..”
The winds as written in the National Hurricane Center advisories are peak 1-minute sustained winds at 10 meters above the surface. These winds are not measured directly but are inferred from reconnaissance aircraft dropsondes and flight level winds which are extrapolated down to sea level using the ratio of 10,000ft winds to near surface winds derived from historical data.
It’s a cautionary illustration of how far apart satellite imaged, doppler and chase plane products can get— 350kph would nigh well blow the wax out of a Beaufort jacket.
With numpties like Willie Soon, it is the simplest thing in the world to throw their nonsense back in their faces.
Soon et al (2023) is remarkable in its lack of scholarship and the CERES Team** rebuttal of the above critical RC OP relies heavily on parts of this unscholarly work to make its case. (** Here CERES = ‘Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences’, not to be confused with the usual CERES = ‘Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System’. The membership of this CERES Team is given as comprising three team leaders, Soon, Connolly & Connolly.) Likely this CERES Team rebuttal is just Willie Soon mouthing off again with passages cut-&-pasted from their grand-works-various (eg the Iron Manning gobshite is to be found in their latest yet-to-be-published Connolly et al 2023) plus some fresh expressions of indignant splurge. Just like Soon et al (2023), the rebuttal attempting to defend it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
Thus, for example, we read in this rebuttal:-
So strong stuff. Except this is Willie Soon and he is remarkably incompetent. So it pays to ask – Of what do these ‘suggesting’ references made by Connolly et al. (2021), Soon et al. (2023) and Connolly et al. (2023) actually comprise?
Between them, the three referring papers do manage to reference nine studies in this regard, namely Soon, Connolly & Connolly (2015), Soon, Connolly, Connolly et al (2018), Soon, Connolly, Connolly et al (2019), Scafetta & Ouyang (2019), Connolly, Soon, Connolly et al (2021), Zhang et al (2021), Scafetta (2021), Katata, Connolly & O’Neil (2023), Scafetta (2023).
So beyond the echo chamber of the numpties simply repeating themselves, the “several scientific studies” cited in the three papers of madman Soon and Mrs Connolly’s boys boil-down to just one paper – Zhang et al (2021) ‘Urbanization effects on estimates of global trends in mean and extreme air temperature’.
That’s a whole lot different to “several scientific studies.” And what of that one paper?
Zhang et al (2021) use machine learning to identify urban effects in the temperature records on Tmax, Tmin, DTR & Tmean etc for the period 1951-2018, this globally (although the analysis appears to be predominantly NH) and also for Australia, E Asia, Europe & N America. The results are provided (Fig 11 for Tmean) as linear fit for the period 1951-2018. (Note that 1951-71 shows no rising Land Tmean.) The European & N American results of Zhang et al show the tiniest Urban effect. The E Asian result shows a meaty Urban effect, +0.26ºC for the perod 1951-2018. Combining all their data Zhang et al find a Global Urban effect of +0.18ºC for the period. The NH Land Tmean (from NOAA) gives a Tmean rise for the period of +1.8ºC. So the +0.18ºC global urban effect is 10% (and indeed 6.8% over the period of rising global Tmean 1971-2018).
The muppets do manage to correctly quote IPCC AR6 2.3.1.1.3 which says:-
And this is supported by the findings of Zhang et al (2021). So it remains entirely incorrect to suggest urbanisation effects are “more than 10% of the land warming – and possibly much more.” But then, what should we expect from a bullshitter like madman Soon when he is operating in his “Iron Man” mode.
It has been awhile since I last posted here following the polite suggestion that I depart, but I cannot let this pass. From a science position a scientist criticizing and disagreeing with another’s analysis is perfectly proper and supports the advancement of science. But trashing and belittling the opposition, which unfortunately has become the modus operandi of the debate, does not advance science or help settle the debate. The fact that the solar cycle analysis had flaws is appropriate to point out. But to hyperbolize that there is “NO relationship” or that there is a “non-existent correlation” is not only disingenuous but wrong. That correlations and relationships might be low or flawed, even heavily so, is not at all equivalent to non-existent.
The other related annoying piece is the criticism of the same things that some scientists do themselves but completely ignore. The correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature increases is far from perfect too (though probably better than the solar cycles). The correlation between CO2, global warming, and worldwide catastrophes is about as low as it gets but is blindly taken as gospel. It gets doubly dubious when the critique turns into trashing, vilifying, and belittling.
RealClimate is still the best climate blog there is.
Hey, Rod, actually, it is not at all uncommon for one group of scientists to disparage another group. Hell, it’s not uncommon for a scientist to be disparaged by members of his own group. Science is not a field for the thin-skinned. This, however is different. Willie and his cohorts keep publishing the same crap over and over and over again, despite having their posteriors handed to them each time they try. It is embarrassing to be the same species as these guys.
And on a technical note, there is a mathematical definition of correlation–and yes, it may have a nonzero value, but that doesn’t make it real. Playing around with the variables until you get a positive correlation is a recipe for misleading yourself and others. It is difficult to believe that after having this pointed out repeatedly that Willie et al. don’t understand this It is difficult to believe that they don’t realize they are lying with statistics.
Ray says:
That’s not the way that science works, both now and throughout history. Consider that empirical correlations between tides and lunar cycles were noted a couple thousand years prior to Isaac Newton. That’s essentially thanks to Greek philosophers playing around with the numbers and matching to other behaviors they observed until they found a positive correlation. Currently, all of the artificial neural networks used in numerical machine learning depend on playing around with correlations — albeit they apply rigorous cross-validation techniques to suppress spurious correlations.
This is a topic worth talking about because it’s a vital part of research
That is one of the reasons why I would argue that applying ML to science is a fraught proposition. Humans are already quite good at spotting correlations whether they are there or not–they don’t need help from a machine intelligence to be stupid. My background in particle physics makes me wary of over-analysis. It’s one of the reasons why particle physicists require 5 sigma rather than 2 or 3. And that is when you keep your analyses motivated by physics. Soon and Nikola “I never saw a correlation I wouldn’t swallow” show what happens when you abandom rigor.
Ray says:
Hr Pukite
There are several recepies for misleading yourself and others. So many, that some of us make it their craft , profession, and even lifestyle. That can be more or less luxurious.
I tend to guess that LENIN for instance learnt it from western european Mafia during his studies there, and I have seen it demonstrated and had it explained in detail by his worshipful pupils upstairs at the University.. Who later managed to take over even the the chairman position of the conservative Party that way and lead it into misery. ( dia- lectic materialism)
I also communicate with a colleague who was professional magician for a while, later quite successful in business and in the fine arts, now rather performing as teacher and GURU of the same.
But I am proud of having had to teach and enlight him a bit quite in general on what is possible and what is not possible under the sun before he was able to make and purchase his fameous PERPETUUM MOBILE, a very fine piece of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and magics. that does not violate any natural laws allthough it looks like. by very clever positive co- relations all the way.
What we should rather look for is possible performance of black magics, that is illegal and sinful.
But white magics is legal and may be allowed to cash at the entrance doors.
But not at the exit doors. That is may be what differs.. Such as free entry for everyone along with high promises, and then you are being robbed and will have to struggle and pay to get out of it.
Well put.
There is disparaging which as you say has occurred throughout science as scientists can strongly disagree. Then there is trashing which is all too common in climate science because, in my opinion, it has turned into a religion from science. When the lambasting gets personal and there are serious attempts to silence another, that’s trashing, not disparaging.
I understand your comments on correlation, but to be picky if a correlation is non-zero it is real. It just might not be very good nor indicative of causation. Most of science and near all of climate science involves playing around with parameters, mostly because of a lack of full understanding.
RodB: – “There is disparaging which as you say has occurred throughout science as scientists can strongly disagree. Then there is trashing which is all too common in climate science because, in my opinion, it has turned into a religion from science.”
So those many people around the world already losing against the ‘Climate Casino’ (i.e. extreme heat/humidity, intensifying storms, floods, droughts, famine, sea level rise, unaffordable/unavailable insurance, etc.) are just having a religious experience?
RodB: – “Most of science and near all of climate science involves playing around with parameters, mostly because of a lack of full understanding.”
I’d suggest gravity is not well understood, yet there’s enough to know that if one fell from a sufficient height without restraint, then that usually results in an extremely unhealthy outcome at the conclusion of the fall.
That last is a very important point. When people use the term “understanding” as Rod has, I always ask them what the test is for that. (They never answer.)
When we talk about the science of climate change, we are applying a basic fact… that CO2 absorbs radiant energy that would otherwise escape to space… and attempting to characterize the various ways in which that energy manifests itself.
It is a complex and difficult exercise, but there is no supernatural element or fallacious reasoning involved, nor some metaphysical question to debate.
Rather, the people who are in denial about the problem are usually the ones invoking a kind of magical God-did-it.
Rod B
That standard denialist formula of “common climate science” being “perhaps rather a religion” smile smile,……
…….. that you launce as your opinion,…….
…….. is telling me rather in which eastern european peoples republic behind barbed wires and also with a fameously declared, quite pioneering special state religion,….. that you have your deeply aesoteric special archetyps and special philosophical and collective, orthodox, learning- roots.
You may not even be aware of it yourself.
But look back into your own and long forgotten schoolbag from your own history between about 11.5 and 14.7 years under your class teacher with your “comrades”.
Look more closely if you can. and ask: What progressive Porno for the People was that?
Did you also play online gymnastics and wolleyball in the pause, in uniforms on a site where the earth was artificially flattened within error- bars?
And told in class that anything different from that pure, systematic brainwashing is “religion…” smile smile?
That state religion also had its secret missions in class over there in the states,….
…..and the province is conservative. There it remains as relicts for the longest, Pops up,.. and starts anew as if nothing had happened since 1989.
RodB,
You said:
“Then there is trashing which is all too common in climate science because, in my opinion, it has turned into a religion from science. ”
There are all kinds of people out there saying all kinds of things, some of them are pretty angry. That is not an index of religion.
Your opinion, in this particular case, has little substance and is an all too common attempt to delegitimize the science by endlessly chanting baseless rhetoric. If you peel back a layer it’s essentially just projecting.
You can make a case for civility in general, but if all you bring to the table is harping and finger pointing, then you’re just another tone troll with too much time on their hands.
(Rod Brick?)
> The correlation between CO2, global warming, and worldwide catastrophes is about as low as it gets but
Have you watched Games of Thrones, Rob?
Thank you for your concerns about tone.
Welcome back to The Thunderdome, Rod. Actually the tone here has been rather mild in my opinion, but whatever. I’ll just point out that “tone policing” is itself a well known rhetorical distraction, so maybe don’t keep throwing it out there, it’s not helping your case.
RB:
Correlation is not the same as causation. Personally, I find the rest of that statement, directed at the work of climate science, a tad hyperbolic, unnecessary, and frankly insulting— especially coming from someone so concerned about tone. But that said, I’m going to assume that you are well meaning.
That said, it is purely political, not scientific, if you’re suggesting that you can split the difference between Soon and the bulk of the scientific community and arrive at some sort of scientifically valid compromise— a fallacy of the golden mean. If one claim is that 2+2=4 and another claim is that 2+2=6, then is the answer that 2+2=5? If you don’t understand math, that may sound reasonable, but it’s bogus.
In one of your previous comments you suggested that the science has been appropriated by the left. That is categorically false. The left by and large accepts the science (whether or not they fully understand it), and much of the right rejects it for cultural and monetary reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the science at all.
Much of what you call “the debate” is just politics about policy, with gratuitous attacks on the science thrown in. For instance one of the contributors to RealClimate Dr. Mann, has long been subjected to outrageous attacks and smears. It’s not all that uncommon.
Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers
Universities “seriously concerned” by death threats against climate scientists
https://theconversation.com/universities-seriously-concerned-by-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-1686
And so on
Gee, come to think of it, I wonder why climate scientists might be fed up with bullshit.
Anyway, if you don’t understand exactly what the science says, you should at least try to learn enough about how it works to understand why it works so well, and to understand why consensus is a strong indicator of the best science at the state of the art (this is chemistry and physics, after all, not politics).
Rod: “The correlation between CO2, global warming, and worldwide catastrophes is about as low as it gets but is blindly taken as gospel. ”
And actually, this is horse pucky. If you do a regression between ln[CO2] and global temperature, you actually get quire a good correlation. And as to catastrophic weather events, 1) they are expected from the physics of the climate; 2) If you do the analysis properly, the correlations there are well above what you expect from chance. It is just that it’s not all catastrophes and not all regions–just as the theory predicts!
Ray Ladbury says at 11 SEP 2023 AT 2:35 PM
“If you do the analysis properly, the correlations there are well above what you expect from chance”, and that is pure nonsense because the levels of the climate alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, has increased while the number of deaths from climate related natural disasters has decline.
To the climate alarmist, it is doom and gloom that drives them and not the facts, that they generally shy away from if they do not fit their narrative.
“What we see is that in the early-to-mid 20th century, the annual death toll from disasters was high, often reaching over one million per year. In recent decades we have seen a substantial decline in deaths. In most years fewer than 20,000 die (and in the most recent decade, this has often been less than 10,000). Even in peak years with high-impact events, the death toll has not exceeded 500,000 since the mid-1960s.
This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – we see an even greater decline over the past century. This chart can be viewed here.
The annual number of deaths from natural disasters is also available by country since 1990. This can be explored in the interactive map”.
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters#what-share-of-deaths-are-from-natural-disasters
JDS: Ray Ladbury says at 11 SEP 2023 AT 2:35 PM
“If you do the analysis properly, the correlations there are well above what you expect from chance”, and that is pure nonsense because the levels of the climate alarmist devil in the sky, CO₂, has increased while the number of deaths from climate related natural disasters has decline.
To the climate alarmist, it is doom and gloom that drives them and not the facts, that they generally shy away from if they do not fit their narrative.
“What we see is that in the early-to-mid 20th century, the annual death toll from disasters was high, often reaching over one million per year. In recent decades we have seen a substantial decline in deaths. In most years fewer than 20,000 die (and in the most recent decade, this has often been less than 10,000). Even in peak years with high-impact events, the death toll has not exceeded 500,000 since the mid-1960s.
BPL: Who can tell me what mistake Swallow is making here? Leave out the personalities, tempting though it be, and just describe his freshman error.
BPL,
Hmm, you mean aside from projecting and caricature?
And there’s the usual cherry picking:
From the site he cites:
also:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/climate-change?facet=none&country=OWID_WRL~ATA~Gulkana+Glacier~Lemon+Creek+Glacier~OWID_NAM~South+Cascade+Glacier~Wolverine+Glacier~Hawaii&Metric=Temperature+anomaly&Long-run+series=false
To the extent I can recall, his original argument was that certain death tolls numbers proved that AGW wasn’t real. I’m not finding the comment, so I’m unsure of the original error, but I think he was misusing converse reasoning– something along those lines?
Should probably mention that costs associated with climate related disasters have risen.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2021-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-historical
Same one our old ‘friend’ Victor was constantly making–neglecting the effects of confounding variables, in this case and inter alia modern telecommunications and high-speed mechanized transportation.
Oh, and let’s not forget numerical weather modeling, which has drastically increased forecast accuracy and reliability.
Kevin,
Bingo. He’s assuming we’re saying rising carbon dioxide is the only factor in deaths due to abnormal weather, whereas the biggest factors in the change over the last century have been the rise of satellite surveillance and better construction techniques.
RodB: “to hyperbolize that there is “NO relationship” or that there is a “non-existent correlation” is not only disingenuous but wrong. That correlations and relationships might be low or flawed, even heavily so, is not at all equivalent to non-existent.”
That is also true of unicorn-rhinoceros correlation, and people who make up stuff, like Soon’s photoshopped AGU meeting slide of Einstein at the blackboard rewriting E=MC2 as : ” IPCC = Gangster Science “
Í have an anecdote about taking wrong paths. My father lived in the countryside and had to attend a peasant assembly together with his neighbor in a nearby town.
When they began to ride, my father took one path and the neighbor another.
“This way it’s shorter, we always went this way” my father said. “No, no, the neighbor said, it’s this way.”
They were arguing until the neighbor confessed “it’s true that it’s shorter over there, but yesterday on this other road I lost my wallet and I want to look for it.”
Boy. Making fun of Soon’s name, misquoting him with a southern accent to appear ignorant like a 1960’s TV Goober or Gomer or Jethro, “It’s the sun what dood it”. This is not how you do scientific debate, or “conversation” as the kids are called it these days.
But “ridicule is a powerful weapon,” as Saul Alinsky said in “Rules for Pinko Goofball Whackados”.
So, carry on.
You haven’t attended many scientific conferences, have you? If you have thin skin, I’d recommend another profession. And Willie ain’t a scientist. He’s a corporate shill.
“This is not how you do scientific debate”
Is this an improvement–
M. Wright
http://www.hyzercreek.com/climate.htm
9 years ago ”
“Humans don’t make methane, we burn it. Beaver swamps make methane. Buffalo farts and elephants make methane. Methane is natural gas. When I say natural, I mean natural…it’s in the ground.
These global warming scumbags pretend humans make methane, when we actually burn it.
There are no words to describe the stupidity of the global warming climafia.”
Re: Morgan Wright (Sept 12 SEP) comments on Gavin’s article.
Let’s see, Morgan:
1. You had no ethical qualms with the intellectual dishonesty of W. Soon and other deniers, who knowingly spread misinformation, which by helping to paralyze/delay the action on climate change, may contribute to the death of untold numbers of people, today and in the future.
2 You had nothing to contribute about the CONTENT of Gavin’s post – no disputing, or acknowledgement, of the many pages of Gavin’s scientific, hence, falsifiable, criticisms of the methods and interpretation of data by Soon and his allies.
3. Instead, you ..projected – accused Gavin of … WHAT YOU DO yourself – i.e. of having no argument on the merit (see p.2), resorting to personal attacks instead:
MW: “Boy. Making fun of Soon’s name”
Yeah, “As Soon as Possible“, instead of …”As soon as possible” ! Oh, the legendary Gavin’s viciousness!
Then comes the big gun – you accuse Gavin of:
MW: “[Gavin misquoted Soon] with a southern accent to appear ignorant like a 1960’s TV Goober or Gomer or Jethro.
You might want to hold your horses, partner:
– First, Gavin didn’t need to make Soon “appear ignorant” – he proved him to be so, with several pages of scientific, falsifiable, criticisms. “Ignorant is, as ignorant does“, eh?
– Second, not only Gavin didn’t need to misquote Soon, in fact he DIDN’T quote or misquote AT ALL.
And if should be obvious from the only sentence of his article you comment: it says:
“ the latest repetition of the old “it was the sun wot done it” trope[1]”
with the footnote marker [1] directing to footnote {1}:
“ [1] This references an infamous UK tabloid headline from 1992.”
See? “UK Tabloid in 1992”, NOT “southern accent”, or “1960’s TV Goober or Gomer or Jethro”, whoever or whatever they are. Methinks, you should read articles _before_ attacking their authors.
Morgan Wright: “But “ridicule is a powerful weapon,” as Saul Alinsky said in “Rules for Pinko Goofball Whackados”. So, carry on.
let me get it right – you attack Gavin for the [imagined by you] attempt to discredit Soon by association with “southern accent”, and two sentences later you …. try to discredit Gavin by association with “ Pinko Goofball Whackados“?
“Seeing the splinter in your brother’s eye, and not noticing the beam in your own“, as the kids call it these days”?
My dear Mr. Wright,
I conferred with Saul Alinsky last night. George Soros funneled the money to me through Al Gore. Tomorrow you will be visited by the Men In Black. Beware. Beware. Beware! Beware.
–The Conspiracy
Willie Soon has shown him to be the equivalent of those “scientists” who turned themselves into laughing stocks by forming the Tobacco “Institute”–a propaganda-producing think take who was paid by industry to promulgate FUD into the scientific literature. His act is well known and never really changes.
An article from nigh on to a decade ago describes his act which was old then and is just plain ridiculous now. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
Freudian slip there…should have been think TANK, but think take actually applies pretty accurately as well.
This is a blog, not a scientific paper; but by very, very far the majority of Gavin’s words were devoted to analysis of the issues. So, why do you concentrate only on a couple of (IMO) relatively mild gibes? Do you carry a Tone Police badge?
If so, you seem a little tone deaf when it comes to dialect; Gavin’s mocking phrase was “it was the sun wot done it”–and that, dear Morgan, is working class British, not American hillbilly.
For those who don’t fully appreciate Gavin’s “It was the sun wot done it”, this despite the Wikkithing reference given in the OP, he alludes to the famous 1992 newspaper headline IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT, this the Rupert Murdock-owned tabloid The Sun which insisted it was responsible for the 1992 defeat of the Labour Party and the continuation of the Conservative government under PM John Major. Some do agree that the misinformation spun by Murdock’s paper (and other right-wing papers) was the decisive factor in preventing a Labour win (or more likely a hung parliament). And those with longer memories would remember that Murdock’s ownership of The Sun was achieved 23 years earlier in quite controversial circumstances in which he assured all that the paper would continue to support the Labour Party under his ownership.
Ah! A fascinating little layer of meaning…
For examples of how you “do scientific debate, or “conversation” as the kids are called it these days”, click on Mr. Wright’s name and be transported to his, umm, *illuminating* website where you’ll find only respectful references to climate scientists, such as:
…Michael “Piltdown” Mann…
…Mike the Pilt … He’s a moron…
…more disgusting propaganda by a science dunce and bullshit artist liar…
…NASA’s GISS division, headed by Jim Hansen for many years, and now by Gavin Schmidt, both of whom have altered the data so often it’s hard to discern…
…the most glaring examples of government-mandated science fraud since Nazi Germany…
…People who disagree with them get defunded, fired, and blacklisted…
…fudge, falsify, hide, and lie about their data…
…they hire scientists who agree with them, pay those scientists to write papers with the results they want, and defund and fire those who don’t…
…Most climatologists have no science aptitude and have never taken hard-core science courses … PhD’s in climatology, which is to science what homeopathy is to medicine. It’s pure quackery…
…There are no real scientists in the global warming movement, but many who pretend to be…
…They aren’t even scientists at all. Real scientists have titles like chemists, physicists, biologists, geologists…
…global warming experts use the word “scientist” because it’s an effective term in propaganda … because of the assumption that people are stupid and in awe of “scientists.”…
…The climatologists of today are among the stupidest people who ever walked the face of the Earth….
…They publish this crap all the time and call it science…
…The reason they adjust them is they have to, to fabricate a warming…
…What makes them happy is something like Supertorm Sandy, because it causes so much destruction…
If you have the stomach for it, scroll through the comments to view the respectful replies given to people who point out discrepancies in the material.
spilgard Sept. 14.
click on Mr. Wright’s name and be transported to his, umm, *illuminating* website where you’ll find only respectful references to climate scientists, such as:
…Michael “Piltdown” Mann…
…Mike the Pilt … He’s a moron…”
etc
What was the saying – old deniers can’t learn new tricks? Or something.
But I wonder what the guy was thinking taking his act to RealClimate …
“I will shown them what the name Morgan Wright means! I shall win that, how the young folks nowadays call: debate, I’ll show those Nazi-like scientists what a good Trumper can do, I shall be celebrated, admired for my wit (“Mike the Pilt … He’s a moron…”) and the ladyfolk would faint at my very sight.
I don’t have the stomach for it. But thanks for reporting back on this blatant hypocrisy on Mr. Wright’s part.
Update: I took a quick peek for verification purposes. If anything, it’s worse than spilgard says. Wright is a total hypocrite–much, MUCH nastier than anything Gavin ever said or, probably, ever thought–like, several orders of magnitude.
The funny part, though, is that there’s a whole section with a litany of “why it’s stupid” rejoinders to ‘alarmist’ statements–and the rejoinders are, at least as far as my quick sampling went, examples of stupidity so intense that, as Ray has said, “It burns!” I’m guessing, though, that the stupidity is more a reflection of Wright’s opinion of his intended audience than his own intellectual inferiority. (But maybe I’m too generous in my assessment of his mind.)
Dear colleagues
I’ve been a physicist specializing in plasma turbulence for 40 years. These discussions about the sun’s influence are obviously sterile because one essential element is totally ignored: solar activity is globally constant, that’s clear, but its activity over short periods (a few hours) is extremely variable. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are extremely violent. They constitute a first-order magnetic and plasma disturbance that influences the ionosphere intermittently on timescales of days, months and years. These disturbances to the turbulent system of the upper atmosphere (10,000 m altitude) formed by geostrophic turbulence undoubtedly modify eddies at lower altitudes. The result is climate variability. The irrefutable proof of this is that 10-day weather forecasts are always very accurate EXCEPT when a solar storm impacts the Earth. Everyone can see that.
For meteorologists and climatologists alike, the Earth is an isolated physical system, whilst our planet is immersed in the Sun’s magnetic turbulence and in the intermittent solar wind that evolves over the course of solar cycles.
I’d be delighted if many of you would give careful thought to my conclusions. Yours sincerely, Thiery PIERRE, DSc, PhD, CNRS-France.
PIERRE Thiery DSc, PhD Plasma Physics: – “These discussions about the sun’s influence are obviously sterile because one essential element is totally ignored: solar activity is globally constant, that’s clear, but its activity over short periods (a few hours) is extremely variable. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are extremely violent. They constitute a first-order magnetic and plasma disturbance that influences the ionosphere intermittently on timescales of days, months and years. … The result is climate variability.”
I’d suggest overwhelming scientific evidence/data indicates our Sun is but one factor influencing the Earth System.
Per NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Glory/solar_irradiance/total_solar_irradiance.html
See Leon Simons’ twitter summary of the current state of play of the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) posted on 3 Aug 2023.
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1686752199852879873
An ESSD article by Piers M. Forster et. al. titled Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence, was published 8 Jun 2023. The Abstract included:
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023
I think Prof Jason Box is one scientist that provides a plain language description in his YouTube video published 4 Aug 2023 titled 5 factors behind the Global Heatwave 2023, and it’s not just El Niño, duration 0:11:54. He suggests the factors for the current extreme temperatures include:
1. Enhanced GHG effect;
2. Ocean heat content;
3. El Niño;
4. Shipping emissions;
5. TSI increase; and Prof Box also mentions
6. Reduced volcanic aerosol events.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdvn2pGyOw
Geoff Miell : This argument is well known. However, it is misleading because the authors are not familiar with modern work on the dynamical control of turbulence: it is not the amount of energy that determines the change in turbulence, but the exact moment of application of the perturbation that determines the change in the physical system. This is the consequence of the theory and numerous applications of the work on chaos control initiated by Edward Ott over twenty years ago (Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1196 (1990) – Controlling chaos). The Earth’s climate is randomly determined by the intermittency of the solar wind, not at all by the amount of energy carried by the solar wind. This is a perfect example of the lack of knowledge in a particular field on the part of a section of the scientific community.
[Response: Why then do we see clear variations in climate that are forced by energy changes? The seasonal cycle of course, the response to Mt. Pinatubo, the pacing of the glacial-interglacial cycles by orbital variations etc. Surely you are not claiming that the manifolds of a chaotic system can’t be moved by external drivers? – gavin]
Gavin: Of course external factors move the dynamic system from one fixed point to another. There’s no question about that. This happens on relatively long time scales. The intermittency of the solar wind (the probability of distribution of fluctuations PDF) itself is variable within a solar cycle and variable from one solar cycle to the next. However, it is essential to understand that it is very small external disturbances (solar wind puffs) that modify the characteristics of geostrophic turbulence. On a global scale, this leads to erratic changes in climate. Numerous laboratory experiments in fluid turbulence have demonstrated this: see for example DOI 10.1088/0741-3335/59/1/014036 , doi = 10.1103/PhysRevE.78.046207 , DOI: 10.1017/S0022377817000423 and many other papers…
(We can continue the discussion on my private e-mail address)
Dr Pierre, it would be really helpful if you could clarify your terminology, in particular with some examples and “numbers”.
First, what do you mean by “climate”; what is a “relatively long time scale” in the context here?
What is an “erratic” change in “climate”.
So, usually, “climate” is characterized over decades. If we have a summer of global heat waves, (which I assume you are suggesting is the result of your solar activity), that would be understood as “weather”.
To clarify further, using your analogy in your response to BPLevenson below:
-In my experience, increasing the energy input to a pot of water does indeed change the surface vortex characteristics; but it may take a minute or two. That, to me would represent a change in “climate”, since the new form would persist.
-Your puff of air, on the other hand, may or may not result in a new equilibrium state; most likely it will not, and so it is just “weather”.
I often make the point here that to have a sincere scientific discussion, rather than an exercise in rhetoric, it is necessary that all “speak the same language”… which requires that there is agreement on terms, and specific examples with specific quantities.
This is an interesting topic, but if you wish to convince people of something, you have to be willing to communicate clearly (and answer questions) so that they can understand your position.
@ Thiery PIERRE & al
This is what we call hysteresis, and it interests me a lot.
Easiest example is a violin bow on a string or belly pressure into an organ pipe, or variable voltage over an electronic resonant oscillator. All is kept constant exept for variable current.
The oscillator will “ignite” and go into swing first at a minimum current above zero. and make “a sustained tone”.
Then by reducintg the current again, it will first go out of swing at a lower current, lower voltage lower belly pressure than what made it “ignite” ande go into swing. The oscillator is self organizing and self- sustaining. Module of elasticity and friction coefficient is dependent of amplitude and phase- speed
That difference between of start swinging or turbulence, or stop swinging and turbulence is called ” system Hysteresis”.
And is of molecular force nature, van der waals fo0rces in the system, not “classical” mechanical” forces. With a drop of oil on the violin string, with oil on stormy water, with some H2O or Butane gas in the blowing air, you change those hysterese limits dramatically.
also at material friction, slippery roads, oil in the clutch and brakes, you change those conditions of biting and slipping static and dynamic friction dramatically by tiniest material change interference, even by mono- molecular layers. Alltogether called “critical phaenomena” also.
Lord Rayleigh was a magic showmaster on it with his musical flames and magic musical
switching between turbulent and laminar flow by tiniest interactions.
An easiest educative example is a piece of india rubber on a dry wooden board that is carefully tilted up to the critical angle Alpha where the rubber begins to slide down at constant speed. Then tilt it back a bit below alpha to make it stop again. Giving the friction coefficient as Tan Alpha.
That tiny but real difference between Tan alpha dynamic to Tan alpyha static gives the van der waals molecular force co- hesion between the rubber and the dry wood.
Those forces are of electrostatic nature. Maybe giving hope for the relevance of solar flares and winds to the atmospheres macro- conjugated molecular material properties.
Try and beat Lord Rayleigh expereimentally on this in Royal Socdiety and at the royal festivals.
Dry asbestos against steel gives quite smooth clutch and brakes without “Hysteresis” . Common dry cork against steel is even better.
But try violin harz or crosscountry ski- wax on it, and you will be able to0 walk uphill without back- slip, and glide elegantly downhill again on the same skis, that is sticky waxed wood against dry snow.
All this is remembered as fameous very obscure science behind closed national team doors in the world championships..
The annual/seasonal cycle certainly exists and overrides much of the chaotic tendencies of an randomly forced fluid dynamical system. I’m finding that the erratic cycling of peaks and valleys in climate indices correspond to sideband frequencies of the annual cycle. This is not something that traditional approaches will find, but that machine learning probably will.
The other point is that much of the massive dynamics emerges from tropical/equatorial regions, where the ocean plays a much greater role than the atmosphere, so that sunspot cycles become secondary.
Dr. Thiery PIERRE: – “This argument is well known. However, it is misleading because the authors are not familiar with modern work on the dynamical control of turbulence: it is not the amount of energy that determines the change in turbulence, but the exact moment of application of the perturbation that determines the change in the physical system. This is the consequence of the theory and numerous applications of the work on chaos control initiated by Edward Ott over twenty years ago (Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1196 (1990) – Controlling chaos).”
How do you know “the authors” are not familiar with the “modern work on the dynamical control of turbulence”?
Published on 8 Jul 2023, Gavin began his post at this blog headlined Back to basics with:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/back-to-basics/
Dr. Thiery PIERRE, I think your comments here in this thread are attempting to trash many fields of science.
Meanwhile, Dr Robert Rohde outlines within Berkeley Earth’s August 2023 Temperature Update, published on 13 Sep 2023, a section sub-headed “Causes of Recent Warmth”, beginning with:
A graphic titled “Factors Contributing to Global Temperature Change – Last 10 Years” outlines the main factors, with estimated global temperature impacts, including:
* Man-made Global Warming;
* El Niño / La Niña;
* Solar Cycle;
* Hunga Tonga Eruption;
* Marine Fuel Pollution Reduction.
https://berkeleyearth.org/august-2023-temperature-update/
And published on 14 Sep 2023, James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, and Leon Simons explore: Global Warming is Accelerating. Why? Will We Fly Blind?
https://mailchi.mp/caa/global-warming-is-accelerating-why-will-we-fly-blind
M. le Docteur,
Vous réalisez sûrement que l’énergie d’un CME, aussi grande soit-elle, est largement dispersée au moment où elle atteint la Terre et n’est pas comparable, de plusieurs ordres de grandeur, à l’énergie transmise au système climatique par la lumière du soleil. Je vous implore de faire le calcul et de considérer les implications.
Barton Paul Levenson:
Dear Mr.Levenson: It’s important that discoveries in the field of chaos and turbulence control and the many applications are now disseminated to the general public, and I’ll try to do so below.
– In 1990, Professors Ott, Gerbogi and Yorke demonstrated that very small external disturbances can radically change dynamical systems (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos or Application of Chaos Control Techniques to Fluid Turbulence : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-21922-1_4 )
Our atmosphere, stratosphere ans ionosphre in particular, is a turbulent dynamical system due to the Earth’s rotation (Coriolis effect). On the other hand, the Sun sends intermittent perturbations via the solar wind (protons arrive at 3000 km/s inducing aurora borealis, for instance recently on sept. 9).
By way of analogy, think of a pot of boiling water with a turbulent surface: you can raise the temperature by a few degrees with more heating, but you won’t change the surface vortex statistics. On the other hand, if you inject locally a small jet of air onto the surface, you’ll change the surface vortex statistics. However, if you measure the energy contributed by this jet, it will be very low compared to the energy contributed by the heating.
I hope I’ve made myself a little clearer… Prof. Th. PIERRE Physicist (specialized in turbulence) DSc, PhD Univ. Marseille, France;
Interesting, this really takes me back to the early 80s when we all hoped that turbulent fluid flow would be well-modeled by a low dimensional strange attractor in a system of non-linear model equations. Unfortunately, as it turns out, this approach is of limited usefulness. Aside from the fact that turbulence is stochastic, and nonlinear attractors are deterministic, turbulent flow is not low dimensional in any real application that I know of. However, it would be interesting to get Dr Rahmstorf input on the dimensionality of the phenomena he is looking at with what we call the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition.
I have to admit I don’t see the relevance of the paper of Dr Ott to this system. One would have to assume the existence of an attracting subset resulting from a bifurcation sequence resulting in an infinite number of unstable periodic orbits. Does such an attractor exist? How is it described?
More importantly though, the research interests of climate science and the posters of the blog is long term (multi-decadal) trends in global mean surface temperature of the planet and factors that influence it. Short time scale phenomena are really not relevant to this. This really needs to be demonstrated to show the relevance to climate phenomena of interest to the posters here.
Dr. Pierre, I am not sure you have made yourself clearer with your analogy.
In your recent comment, you make the “surface vortex statistics” the variable of interest (so to speak.) And, for you, that would seem à propos. However, the discussion here is not primarily about atmospheric turbulence, but about atmospheric temperature.
Analogically speaking, your ‘small jet of air’ may well act as you say. But I’d be most surprised if you were contending that it would have any detectable influence on the temperature of the water. For that, you need the stove to add, as you say, “more heating.”
So your analogy suggests you aren’t concerned about global temperature, but about circulation changes in the atmosphere. If that’s correct, then you have indeed made yourself more clear. If not, then not.
Therefore… there isn’t any credible scientific ‘climate’ discussions without consideration of the effects of ionospheric heater technologies… from Harry Wexler in Antarctica to HAARP and beyond!
Hr Thiery
This might be interesting as I am also wuite aquainted to tyhe critical and dramatic transition from laminar to turbulent flow, In the engines, in the air, at sea and in the radio and in the flames.
The solar wind with solar flares and its interference to the upper atmosphere is obviously important, That I can really sustain from my point of wiew..
So let us have it, I look forward to it,…. but pleace without that strongly religious politically spiced sauce added in order to deny, diminish, and to rule out steady radiation and its intererence with the oligo atomic natural gases first especially the CO2 and CH4, for carrying out its mission.
See also UV x- ray ozone and SO2, CH4 reactions into stong nitration acid micro- cristalline- smoke in the stratosphere and mesosphere here where i live.
Further, there are “Gremlins” in the Quebec- area who like water and who eat high voltage electric materials in town and all around due to Birkelandcurrents and Alfven- waves above their heads in the States.
Birkeland and Alfven were pioneers on laminar and turbulent plasma behaviours.
Hi Carbo
The point that Dr Pierre is suggesting here can, I believe, be described in the following way. Chaotic dynamical systems often transition from periodic (or quasiperiodic) dynamics through a cascading process of period doubling bifurcations. This dates back to the work of Feigenbaum in the 70s. All the unstable orbits created during the cascade are still there however. The paper of Ott, et.al. showed that by perturbing a governing parameter the dynamics of the flow could be directed local to a desired unstable orbit. This permits control of the dynamical system behavior.
In the atmosphere, perturbations of the solar wind could potentially cause atmospheric phenomena to revert to different unstable dynamic states. Of course we can’t control solar output so the concept is somewhat moot. If we could, it might constitute some form of geoengineering.
Being that as it may, the use of such an approach would be to identify attracting unstable manifolds in, say, convective flow in the atmosphere and understand the local bifurcation structure near the current state. But how to do this? I don’t see any publications in Dr Pierre’s list in modeling atmospheric dynamics so these questions, I’m sure, still need to be answered.
J. David: I’m sure, still need to be answered.
In short-term (hours to days) weather forum, perhaps, on the climate change forum – not so much.
Pierre has NOT shown any argument that these short-term fluctuations do not cancel each other when averaged of the climatic (decades!) time scale, that their non-cancelled residuals are NOT already incorporated in the parametrization of the climate models. and that these residuals are large enough to affect the multi-decadal long (i.e. (climatic) average.
His presumptuous lecturing climatologists (working on scale of decades) not to ignore his short-term fluctuations, is akin to somebody saying that one cannot discuss decadal trends in Dow Jones without being able to model hourly to 10-day fluctuations.
Agreed. My point was that is was up to Dr Pierre to demonstrate the relevance of his comments ,not the posters here. Relevant time scales are crucial to properly define a physical problem and short term variability of the solar wind seems unlikely to be relevant to climate trends. In any case, what he is suggesting is certainly beyond the scope of a blog (climate or weather) to resolve from ground zero. At least he should provide an appropriate citation. It’s possible he is simply unaware of the goals of the climate science field.
One of the goals of the climate science field is to establish root causes and models for all the climate indices that are still not well understood, which includes (but not limited to) ENSO, AMO, PDO, QBO, MJO, IOD, NAO, AO, SAM, PNA.
That some gatekeepers here and elsewhere think that this is an unimportant aspect of climate science needs to be pointed out as an incorrect assumption by at least one of the RC moderators.
Dr. Thiery, I am afraid we have rather different standards for “proof”. I certainly have noticed no strong correlation between solar weather and weather predictability, and certainly, things appear to be no more predictable during solar minimum than they are during solar max. Moreover, I did not notice that weather was any more or less predictable during the prior, rather wimpy solar cycle. I pay attention to the solar cycle and weather as it is part of my day job.
Moreover, large solar particle events are pretty rare and short-lived–we have only had a few over the past century that caused effects at ground level. Also, the amount of energy involved in even the largest CME is miniscule compared to the energy in TSI. And if the geomagnetic system can withstand the effects of a Project Starfish–the ionospheric effects of which lasted for years–without going wonky, I’m rather skeptical that occasional CME striking a glancing blow to the ionosphere are going to have much effect.
Finally, the mechanism you propose is vague. To simply blame “a chaotic system:” is to attempt to explain variability we don’t understand in terms of a mechanism we don’t understand. I don’t find this explanation particularly credble.
Pierre Thiery: Set. 13: “solar activity is globally constant, that’s clear, but its activity over short periods (a few hours) is extremely variable […] The result is climate variability.”
No, this results in “weather variability”, not in “climate variability”, and, certainly not in the climate CHANGE trends, which are of the main interest to climate change scientists and this blog.
For instance, global warming is the walking average of (global) temperature, averaged over the timescale of not “a few hours or even 10-days” but “a few decades.”
So what is obviously for you a professional passion, for a climatologist is just a short-term NOISE, noise a climatologists expects to be cancelled (=averaged out) by averaging over the scale of decades
– and even if due some asymmetry not everything exactly cancels out – they residual effect would be implicitly included in the parametrization of the climate models, since these parameters were derived from the data already affected by the uncalled parts of these fluctuations.
Thus the only way short-time fluctuations could affect climate – would be if the frequency of these even have been massively increasing in time.
And I don’t think there is any indication of that, including your own statement that AVERAGE solar activity being “constant”, or even if we allow are any trends in solar output over long-enough time scale – they are too small to be of consequence to the observed the multidecadal global warming trend. So I guess your perspective would be much more relevant on some weather forum, not on
one dedicated to global climate change.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/window-reach-climate-goals-%E2%80%98rapidly-closing%E2%80%99
Simon Stiell, UNFCCC Executive Secretary called for “greater ambition and accelerating action”.
“I urge governments to carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them and the ambitious action they must take next. It is the same for businesses, communities and other key stakeholders,” he said.
The synthesis report was published ahead of the “global stocktake” at the upcoming UN climate change conference COP28, which will be held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in November-December.
At the stocktake delegates will assess if they are collectively making progress towards meeting the climate goals – and where they are not.
Sultan Al Jaber, president-designate of COP28, emphasized the need to disrupt “business as usual” if the Paris Agreement is to be honoured.
For that emissions must be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030.
“That is why the COP28 Presidency has put forward an ambitious action agenda centred around fast tracking a just and well managed energy transition that leaves no one behind, fixing climate finance, focusing on people lives and livelihoods, and underpinning everything with full inclusivity,” he said.
——
As a statement of faith it is not bad. You can also believe that we can walk on water, turn water into wine, multiply the loaves and fish and the resurrection. Much depends on the holy baron who will perform the miracles.
¿They would be Sultan Al Jaber, president-designate of COP28, the CEOs of SHELL, Aramco, Total, Chevron, Exxon, Sinopec and BP of those holy barons?
Or would it be Biden, Xi, Putin, Macron, Meloni, Sunak, Scholz, without conceived sins ?
Query — the CEOs of SHELL, Aramco, Total, Chevron, Exxon, Sinopec and BP of those holy barons?
What do you seriously expect those CEOs to do?
Call a board meeting and then announce to the press and their customers they will be cutting sales of their products by 50% tomorrow or something like that?
Therefore their Oil drilling and pumping and shipping and pipelines activity will be simultaneously cut by 50% as well.
And they will they will then all be laying off 75% of their work force over the next 3 months as they rapidly reduce their business activities.
How soon would it take the WH to announce the immediate state of emergency take over (or even nationalization) of all Oil companies in the US with them being a clear and present danger and security threat to the United States Government and nation …..
—————–
Simon Stiell, UNFCCC Executive Secretary called for “greater ambition and accelerating action”. ???
COP 28 will be doing what all other COPS have done since #1 … Nothing of any consequence.
It’s long been a stock denialist tactic to equate climate science with religious dogma; here you put a spin on that tired practice by so equating climate policy.
Sadly, the freshening effect is very, very small.
@ KevinMcKinney
That “stock denialist tactic” has struck me also, and it rather gives me a closer hint onto who they are and from where they have it, due to what, by what kind of heritage, upcoming up- bringing and training. By their bottoms and pure blood and from early on.
To my conscepts, it seems to root ideologically mentaslly socially and religiously back into clusters of organized contrarian denialism surrealism and post. revolutionary leninism and early stalinism of the 20ieth century.. And to be dealt with and tackled as such.
They are Incureable and entithed further to free Vodka Kaviar and Salami for lifetime as promised by Stalin. Shortly, that Party with P the tgrand 0ld one. P fror Pork Privileged Progressive Puttler
Populism,….Party etc etc etc, the grand old one.
Hr Schmidt…
I saw it mentioned. The borehole and even the crankshaft, but I cannor find it here. I am not so clever on theese desktop PC computers.
But, I hope you are aware that that the junkyard is an important institution and resource, and that due scientific perormance and enligthtment & reponsible praxis also involves Garbagology and even Scatology.
Without Garbatgology and Scatology, also minutely studied and under control the NASA would not have come to the moon and safely back in those days, and the ISS would not have been sustainable for so long.
So where have you got your junkyard and your sewage and your hospitals?
For holistic reasons, we must also be able to see and check up our bottoms now and then.
Gavin, in so completely dismissing the cycle-length models, you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. My reason for saying that is that I don’t think the SCL approach is wrong, so much as it is incomplete.
Earlier this year I discovered a simple way to predict global temperature from 1900 to a few years into the future using only sunspot data. I didn’t cherry pick the temperature data, though from my results I do believe that there is a small UHI bias. The prediction is not based on extracting features from the sunspot data, basically it’s a simple moving average of the sunspot data. The primary limitation on my pre-1900 predictions is a lack of good sunspot data prior to 1800. There were very few observers and observations back then, and there is reason to believe that the sunspot data is overstated. (Hoyt et al. 1998)
I’ve spent many months proving to myself that this is not a spurious correlation, and along the way have figured out how to split the sunspot signal into two signals which I call x1 and x2. The splitting process is lossless so the two signals sum to the sunspot signal, In the following plot I show the prediction from the model, and the prediction contributions from the separated components. What I’d like to point out is that m(x2), which is the model applied to x2, looks very much like the SCL results of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991, 2000) with the math errors corrected. You’ll also notice that m(x1) looks very much like GHG forcing.
https://localartist.org/media/SeperateComponents.png
What’s really interesting is that the x1 component looks very much like reconstructions of the interplanetary magnetic field (or solar modulation potential) while the x2 component looks very much like some reconstructions of TSI, of which there are dozens to choose from. Here’s x1 compared to Greg Kopp’s reconstruction which uses a combination of SATIRE-T and the Community-Consensus TSI Composite for space based sensors. I also have plotted the PMOD composite. Note, I wasn’t attempting to estimate TSI, this is just the result that fell out of the separation method.
https://localartist.org/media/x2vTSIGreg.png
When I discovered the model I knew the results looked too good to be believable so I’ve made the model available to all on github. Keep in mind that the model is very simple, The stunningly accurate prediction is simply due to the complexity in the sunspot data.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
If you don’t like python, I’ve also created a simple spreadsheet version.
https://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
Go to Robert Cutler’s GitHub site and provide some criticism. I tried before and he closed the issue because he can’t handle a rigorous discussion.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/issues/1#event-10132286082
Ned and Kevin, I can’t understand if your responses are criticism or praise of my words, due to the inaccuracy of my translation. Anyway, I appreciate them. It is worse to go unnoticed.
I am just a civil engineer, lover of nature, who reads and learns. And as a father I would like my daughter to live in the best possible world, with a nature perhaps similar to the one that existed when my father was born 106 years ago. He lives, accompanies me and talks about zunzunes and wild deer near his house back in 1917.
What I was trying to express is that it is difficult to believe that these “Holy Barons” would have the courage to fall into a total conflict of interest with their occupations and positions, and promote the transit of the energy matrix without pulling, with or without discretion. , “sardines for your frying pan.”
Those who risk fighting for the survival of our civilization and nature, I wouldn’t care if they are a religious leader, politician or CEO.
My greetings and my respects from the tropics.
Hurricane Lee 800 km east of Manhattan. Tomorrow it will touch Canadian territory, cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland and Labrador. then back to the Atlantic.
The surface of the sea on which it is advancing now is 26 degrees, but on Monday, already over the cold Labrador current, it will be 9. That same day it will cross southern Greenland and who knows if it will have the strength to reach the water bubble cold of the North Atlantic, already with subtropical characteristics.
Stubborn old Hurricane Lee, energized by a warm ocean.
ENSO Alert System Status: El Niño Advisory
Synopsis: El Niño is anticipated to continue through the Northern Hemisphere winter (with greater than 95% chance through January – March 2024).
In August, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were above average across the equatorial Pacific Ocean [Fig. 1], with strengthening in the central and east-central Pacific…”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc_Sp.shtml
………
Since mid-August there have been more tropical cyclones in the Atlantic. A different “Niño”?
How about now discussing the response to this response?
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/10/controversy-surrounding-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
Aha, , Judith Curry.
No, Dr. Ptor. I once thought I could “stalke” Judith Curry and have her as my secret climate surrealist
favourite baby, but gave in after a few rounds.
She is quite beautiful indeed , but much too irrational.
I would have to re- educate, be “Born again” as a christian, as Barton Paul Levenson calls it and eat Alices cake to get properly small again to be able to slalk Judith Curry. and keep up even with Willy Soon.
Is Soon one of The Mad Hatters perhaps?
NO, Dr. Ptor I really have got enough to do with beautiful women both small and large really worthy also of stalking so I am fully engaged allready,, with Mad hatters also.
More of that now will be over my capacity.
But thank you for the hint and the announcement.
Ladies and Gentlemen
We have a discussion of turbulence & turbulent flows here.
It will hardly be solved by virual modelling and machine learnings as long as you stay immune to the science and experimental learnings of what can dramatically moove the tipping points and ” Reynolds numbers” in involved molecular material fields , at critical states. .
Try and conscider the classical bunsen burner first.
The bunsen- burner is a thin jet of gas into a wide tube, with 2 adjustable air inlet windows near the gas inlet jet. Remember Bernoulli, There will be a low pressure succking in air from the windows by that thin jet..
When being lit and burning at the top end of the tube, then turn down the gas carefully until it suddenly smashes down and over into a turbulent flame inside of the tube, the tube gets red hot and you hear a hizzzzzzzing turbulent noise.
And if you turn up the gas continuously again that turbulent flame phaenomenon inside of the tube shows irreversible with a high hysteresis. To make it laminar burning again, you must quenche the very turbulent phaenomenon by closing the air inlet windows for a while and so let it burn laminar again up from the top of the tube.
Study and discuss that first and explain us how and why that can be so. It is a most fameous phaenomenon to be known and remembered first, from orderly science..
No machine learning statistics or virtual intelligens can tell you why as long as your machine and virtual reality is lacking primary material parameters of scientific understanding that are deciding in that fameous flame.
We had a lot of old bunsen burners that were all obsolete, because the University had changed from delivered coal gas that is H2 + CO into the modern Propane gas CH3-CH2-CH3. That also came at a higher pressure giving gas leaks everywhere in the old system..
The new propane burners had the same air inlet windows but much thinner air inlet- jets. To give about the same laminar- turbulent bunsen burner characteristics. Propane was obviously quite more viscous than the old mixture of H2 + CO. and quite less tending to go into turbulent flow to mix faster with the air.
Explain why, That is to be understood about laminar / turbulent gas flow first.
All this is to be guessed and to be known and to be remembered first. Machine learning and statistics will not tell you abot such primary material properties and behaviours.
Explain the secret exotic difference between coal gas and propane gas, pleace, and it is not about labels, names, trademarks, costs, and calories.
it is about molar weight and different air elasticity module , molar heat, Cp/Cv that is a quantum mechanical molar property working out macroscopically in open air. 5/3 for argon and Helium, 7/5 for coalgas. and practically the same 7/5 exactly for common dry air also, But again quite more less than that for higher and oligo- atomic alcanes.
If you believe air to be constant uniform and to be let out of conscideration, then you are misconsceived. What is air really? and what is in the air?…..
…. What will H2O gas for instance entail for the hysteresis and Reynold – numbers of common air, and what will air temperature entail for the physical limits and tippinpoints of turbulences?
Find out and try and explain that first, you will never frind it by statistics o0r machine learnings on your dr virtual intelligence on your desktop computer.
Back to Lord Rayleigh who showed that tiniest interactions from a distance such as special sounds and noises, even special words with lisperings spoken,….. as the laminar hydrogen flame also changes into saying “…ssssssss….”when it goes turbulent …..
…… and static electricity from distance, glass and shellac rods and cat- furs from distance could trig the catastrophic laminar turbulence tipping poins allmost in a magical way at the Royal Society . with public audience for open doors.
A solar storm may wake up all the “Gremlins” in the Quebec and new England area, , so what more? and they are electrostatic electyromagnetic, not classical mechanic or virtually intelligent of nature bur rather quite orderly narural even with furs. . As the cat with long whiskers is not so mysterious, but has got electrostatic senses in addition for the case of total darkness, wherefore he likes it rather warm and dry. and to be groomed by the hairs.
Think also in terms of catalyzers in the air such as CO2 H2O CH4 SO2 and Ozone in open and empty air that may interact on ppm level even as magic as Lord Rayleigh for open doors. and moove catastrophic tippingpoints in tense. laminar situations..
Paragraphs from the acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in literature. García Márquez 1982.
“Antonio Pigafetta, a Florentine who accompanied Magellan around the world, wrote as he passed through our America a chronicle that seems like an adventure of the imagination. He said that he had seen pigs with their navels on their backs, and a monstrosity with the head and ears of a mule, the body of a camel, the legs of a deer and the neigh of a horse…..
In the good consciences of Europe, and sometimes also in the bad ones, the ghostly news from Latin America has since burst in with more impetus than ever,…..
…the biggest challenge for us has been the insufficiency of conventional resources to make our lives credible. This, my friends, the crux of our solitude….
Well, if these difficulties hinder us, it is not difficult to understand that the rational talents of the old world, ecstatic in the contemplation of their own cultures, have been left without a valid method to interpret us… that they insist on measuring us with the same yardstick with which they measure themselves, without remembering that the ravages of life are not the same for everyone, and that the search for identity is as arduous and bloody for us as it was for them,…… Perhaps venerable Europe would be more understanding if it tried to see us in its own past. If you remembered that it took London 300 years to build its first wall and another 300 to have a bishop, that Rome struggled in the darkness of uncertainty for 20 centuries before an Etruscan king established it in history, and that even in the century XVI the peaceful Swiss of today, who delight us with their tame cheeses and their undaunted watches, bloodied Europe with soldiers of fortune. Even at the height of the Renaissance, 12,000 landskenets in the pay of the imperial armies plundered and devastated Rome, putting eight thousand of its inhabitants to the sword.
Why think that the social justice that Europeans try to impose in their countries cannot also be a Latin American objective with different methods in different conditions?…the disproportionate violence and pain of our history are the result of centuries-old injustices and untold bitterness, and not a conspiracy hatched 3 thousand leagues from our house. But many European leaders and thinkers have believed it, with the childishness of grandparents who forgot the fruitful follies of their youth, as if no other destiny were possible than to live at the mercy of the two great owners of the world…”
………..
In order not to interrupt you further with my digressions, I am going to read this news:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-16/california-sues-five-major-oil-companies-for-lying-about-climate-change
read this book:
https://wwnorton .com/books/survival-of-the-richest
…..and to make an offering to Harpocrates.
” Even in the century XVI the peaceful Swiss of today, who delight us with their tame cheeses and their undaunted watches, bloodied Europe with soldiers of fortune.
Even at the height of the Renaissance, 12,000 landskenets in the pay of the imperial armies plundered and devastated Rome, ”
Can Davos really be that much harder to find than Rome?
Well, given that all roads lead to Rome and only a small subset lead to Davos, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say “yes”.
It was easy to get to Rome because “all roads, not just the Appian Way, led to Rome.” To Davos only private yets.
Gavin, in you 9/9 update you claim that the Soon correlation is now “bunk”
Perhaps compare it with the realclimate.org preferred correlation shown here :-
http://herdsoft.com/climate/widget/image.php?start_year=1880
From a pure pattern matching exercise, there is no doubt which potential input correlates better with temperature
Woolard, what the hell are you talking about? Soon’s prediction had the opposite sign of subsequent data, whereas the CO2 correlation still holds pretty well–and if it is failing, it’s doing so on the high side. That’s not exactly the sort of thing I would point out if I were trying to promote sanguinity about the climate as it suggests feedbacks may be increasing climate sensitivity. So, nice own goal all around.
So a 15 year period that shows a different result is enough t make the correlation bunk? The same can be seen from 1900 – but that doesn’t change the overall agreement.
Now look at the co2/temp graph, How does 1940 to 1970 look? Or 1900 to 1920? Or 1960 to 1980?
As is always the case, choosing a small time range can mislead
Time and time again I see that the 20 degree isotherms in the Gulf of Mexico are much shallower than those in the Caribbean Sea. I read theories about currents in loops, eddies and countercurrents in the Yucatan Channel, but they are not clear to me, my knowledge is not enough to understand them.
If the closed Gulf Stream acts as a gear mechanism for the flow of water that enters through the Yucatan Channel and leaves through the Strait of Florida, why don’t their waters mix and their temperatures equalize in the deep layers? ?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gulf-of-mexico
So, if you fudge the input time series (the Sun via some concoction of data that no one else did or does or will do (except these authors previous trash talking)) AND you fudge the output time series (some concoction of data of the surface temperature record that no one else … ditto (ditto)), one would normally call that … GIGO. The only thing sitting between the two is a correlation with no unknowns!
I’m waiting for their 4th paper, the one that explains OHC!
It takes the finest kind of grifter to soldier on in the face of a mole of joules, which is about what Willie’s merry band of Heartlanders face every time they lay eyes on the sea.
Urban heat island effect – The heat records in the European cities in the summer of 2019 have their natural explanation according to NASA. They show how the central core of each city is much warmer than the surrounding natural landscape due to the urban heat island effect – a result of urban surfaces storing and radiating heat throughout the day.
The fact that surface temperatures were so high in the early morning indicates that much of the heat from previous days was stored by surfaces with high heat capacity (such as asphalt, concrete and water) and is unable to dissipate until the following day. The trapped heat resulted in even higher midday temperatures …
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7445&fbclid=IwAR06X9kqUS6NWWaGRqvCQcMisTjI54eXun1BhyL3TdAmrOkMYWEHacZIrZs
Except the article you cite does not attribute the record temperatures to UHI.
Insert Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” meme.