Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Judith Curry discuss climate change, the major error in current models and future predictions, academic fraud, and the need for dissenting opinions.
Dr. Judith Curry is an American climatologist with a Bachelor’s degree in geography from Northern Illinois University, and a geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Curry is the professor Emerita and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has had an accomplished career, working with NASA, the US Government, and numerous academic institutions in the field of climate change. Curry advocates for a non-alarmist approach, acknowledging Earth’s rising temperature with a grain of salt—in-field research, and a refusal to shut the doors of science to those with opposing views and findings. In 2017 Dr. Curry retired from her position at the Georgia Institute of Technology, citing “the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around man-made climate change” as a key factor. Curry co-founded and acts as president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), which seeks to translate cutting-edge weather and climate research into tenable forecast products.
Why do the models not agree with each other?
Answer Number 1 to your question, AdenW: Models do not agree with each other because they’re simulating the climate on different planets.
Regards,
Bob
They do not model the climate of this planet, which I have been saying since 1997. But you said it better.
wrong
Comedy relief.
Mr. Masher is as funny as a screen door in a submarine.
I consider a “wrong” from Mr. Masher to be a complement.
the “models” they use aren’t even modele, they’re claptrap linear progressions based on unrelated or non-inter-related idiocy that attempt to signify some kind of magical connection between rocks and hard-places but are so bad that they’d get a student a failing grade in an introductory statistics class. Linear projections are not a model in any form, they are extremist propaganda.
additionally due to the law of thermodynamics, which I am aware isn’t a “law” specifically but a conglomeration of physics laws that always works, the amount of heat energy in a mechanically measured volume of air at ground or sea level doesn’t change with temperature because the regulating factor is gravity so the density drops from the pressure being equalized… which in shorter terminology means that the temperature at ground level MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless you’re a bug, bird or pilot. Tiny average temperature changes that are well within the limits of the biology that should be in that environment are so insignificant as to be spurious input in any system.
These “models” they still use do not model convection, atmospheric density changes, wind, moisture or anything else that actually have anything to do with climate because the whole thing is Luddism. If it wasn’t Luddism they’d have a rigorous scientific proof instead of a “consensus” of 97% of the 12% of people who either don’t exist or don’t know what science means out of the total amount of people they polled.
So the trouble here is it is acting like a version of scientology… 97% of scientologists don’t believe that their ‘religion’ was created on a $5 bet by a sociopath trying to prove that people are stupid.
That’s a very convincing argument you make there.
One of my favorite graphs (of the hundreds I created while blogging) shows the disparity between the simulations of global mean surface temperature for the early warming period of the 20th century when the climate model outputs are presented in real terms (not anomalies):
figure6.png (640×623) (wordpress.com)
It’s from the post here:
Global Mean Surface Temperature: Early 20th Century Warming Period – Models versus Models & Models versus Data | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations (wordpress.com)
Also cross posted at WUWT here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/01/global-mean-surface-temperature-early-20th-century-warming-period-models-versus-models-models-versus-data/
Regards,
Bob
surprise, the models you dont trust dont match the surface temperatures everyone doubts.
Question. Why do you still defend climate models?
really need to stop calling them “models”.. they’re fantasy; they contain less science than version 1 Dungeons and Dragons.
Do the words “running too hot” mean anything to you?
Follow up.
Reported change = Natural Change + Man Made Change + Errors in Measurement.
They claim that current measurement errors are zero.
We have the Reported Change. Why don’t we have graphs of Natural Change, Man Made Change?
Simple. They claim all natural change is man made. Do the subtraction and they are claiming natural change has stopped.
AdenW, they can’t claim all of the warming over the 20th century is manmade when the climate models fall very short simulating the warming that took place during the first half:
figure1.png (769×677) (wordpress.com)
The graph is from the post linked in my comment above.
Regards,
Bob
While the warmunists like to claim that warming began with “the beginning of industrialization in 1850”, that is a false claim. 1850 is relevant only because that marked the end of the Little Ice Age which had been ongoing for the previous half millennium. Cherry picking the start date, even though it had little to do with CO2 emissions.
The truth is that large scale carbon emissions on a world wide basis did not really ramp up until the end of World War Two. Until 1945, most of the world was not electrified, and relatively few people, outside of the US, owned motor vehicles. The Germans in World War Two were usually depicted as riding around in tanks and staff cars and airplanes, but up until the war began only about 1 in 12 Germans owned motor vehicles. And Germany was a highly advanced western nation. Most Europeans just rode public transit or drove horse carts. Indeed, the German Wehrmact transported most of their supplies and war materiel via horse cart, not motorized trucks, throughout the entire war.
Just imagine what the motor vehicle ownership was in most of Latin America, Africa, and Asia prior to World War Two.
Yet the warmest years of the 20th century were during the 1920s and 1930s, long before significant carbon emissions were experienced.
Yes about the German Army. Operation Sealion (the invasion of England) would have required thousands of horses to walk down narrow plank ramps from the landing barges to the beach, in pounding surf, which horses don’t like to do. If one panicked, you’d have a whole bargeful of unmanageable horses while the defenders were shooting at them. I have a photo in my collection of a German cavalry unit trying to get a horse do do it in a test at a calm lakeshore.
I say the magic climate day is June 6, 1750 at 3:06pm. On that day, in that minute, the climate was perfect.
The people living then thought it was too cold but what do they know — they are not Ph.D. climate scientists.
Any climate change from that minute, in either direction, is a climate emergency, that can only be stopped with windmills and solar panels, and don’t you forget it.
Are you sure they didn’t have D-Day weather?
Early June is notorious for producing storms and unusual weather.
Warmunists are loathe to admit that the most perfect weather is what we’re experiencing now.
While the warmunists like to claim that warming began with “the beginning of industrialization in 1850”, that is a false claim.
false we claim the industrial age and warming started before that
Cherry picking the start date, even though it had little to do with CO2 emissions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SR15_FAQ_Low_Res.pdf
While the overall intention of strengthening the global response to climate change is clear, the Paris Agreement does not specify precisely what is meant by ‘global average temperature’, or what period in history should be considered ‘pre-industrial’. To answer the question of how close are we to 1.5°C of warming, we need to first be clear about how both terms are defined in this Special Report. The choice of pre-industrial reference period, along with the method used to calculate global average temperature, can alter scientists’ estimates of historical warming by a couple of tenths of a degree Celsius. Such differences become important in the context of a global temperature limit just half a degree above where we are now. But provided consistent definitions are used, they do not affect our understanding of how human activity is influencing the climate. In principle, ‘pre-industrial levels’ could refer to any period of time before the start of the industrial revolution. But the number of direct temperature measurements decreases as we go back in time. Defining a ‘pre-industrial’ reference period is, therefore, a compromise between the reliability of the temperature information and how representative it is of truly pre-industrial conditions. Some pre-industrial periods are cooler than others for purely natural reasons. This could be because of spontaneous climate variability or the response of the climate to natural perturbations, such as volcanic eruptions and variations in the sun’s activity. This IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature.
CO2 emissions are likely to be one of many climate change variables that caused warming in the 1975 to 2015 period
No warming from 1940 to 1975, emade after 1975.
No warming for the past 8 years, using UAH data
Climate change is the net sum of all climate change causes, not the result of an imaginary CO2 control knob.
My interpretation of the “1.5 degrees” is that it was becoming clear that there was no hope in Hades that 2.0 was going to be reached by the end of the present century. There was never any coherent explanation given as to why 2.0 was dropped and 1.5 replaced it. Further, they also claimed that 1.0 had already been reached. That left 0.5 degrees (which might be believable) instead of another 1.0 by 2100 AD.
Given that we are heading into a longish period of low solar activity (based on past reconstructions and cycles) that measly 0.5 looks as if it is going to be a stretch.
Solution: Reduce the target to 1.0 degrees then claim it has already risen 1.0 and the battle is lost, so we all have to become fans/subjects of the WEF.
It is really quite simple – they should have thought of this in the 80’s. Global manipulation is hard when you don’t consider the original theory to be defective.
Biomass growth acceleration is now at 7.5% per decade. Biomass absorbs about 62 W/m^2 avg so in just one decade the +3.4 W/m^2 from CO2 doubling will be offset by biomass accumulation. Hmmm… Is a new peat-creation era in the offing?
Bob Tisdale:
This paper should be of interest to you:
“The Definitive Cause of La Nina and El Nino Events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
wrong, your graph doesnt show that, youre misreprsenting the meaning of warming
The error in measurements are large.
It will keep on being large as long the ignore some of the parameters.
As the Atmospheric Refraktion and the axial tilt.
They claim that current measurement errors are zero.
nope. never.
The global average margin of error claim is about +/- 0.1 degrees C. which is near zero, and false
The actual averages are almost entirely adjusted raw data and infilled numbers.
They are not data that could have a calculated margin of error.
Adjusted raw data and infilling are numbers created by humans to estimate what the raw data would have been if measured properly in the first place.
The historical global averages are data free statistics
And there are no data for the future climate
Wrong predictions of the future climate are not science
And “climate change” really means nothing more than wrong predictions of climate doom — wrong since the 1979 Charney Report, so far.
Your so called “consensus climate science” is built on a house of cards. Mr. Masher. And you have one foot on an oil slick, and the other on a banana peel.
They broadly do, within specific parameters. No one model is expected to replicate observations exactly since, in the case of CMIP5 anyway (IPCC-AR5), the radiative forcings they use post 2005 are from the RCPs rather than observations.
That is why there is a multi-model range. Observations are expected to fall within the 5-95% range of model projections. In the case of the CMIP5 models, they easily do so. That chart is updated to end 2022; 2023 will see an uptick to it.
That plot shows the 5-95% range of model variability of projections. It does *not* show the 5-95% range of model projection physical uncertainty.
Models are tuned to reproduce the 20th century air temperature trend. So long as the warming trend continues, the model outputs will stay close to it.
The correspondence is the result of tendentious model tuning. Your plot is physically meaningless.
If temperatures had dipped below the lower 5% range I suspect you would be finding lots of physical meaning to it, lol!
The fact is that we are now 10-years of full data on from when the chart was originally published by the IPCC in AR5 (2022 update will show an up-tick).
2012/13 was back at the height of the last so-called ‘pause‘, when global warming was still being dismissed by many, with cooling still forecast by some; so to suggest that the models couldn’t lose, so to speak, is a bit disengenuous.
Warming continued and the CMIP5 projections encapsulated the warming range. They were not wrong.
As I pointed out, and as you didn’t understand, TFN, the models are tuned to reproduce the 20th century trend. So long as that trend continues, the models will get close to it.
The underlying physics in the models is wrong. Model-tuning is just a curve-fitting exercise that puts offsetting errors in the model, allowing it to reproduce the known trend.
Tuning hides the uncertainties from view. But they’re there anyway. And the uncertainty bounds are huge.
Hiding the uncertainties is dishonest. The IPCC is dishonest.
As a consequence of all that, your plot is physically meaningless.
Models do not hindcast 1910 to 1940 warming properly
Models do not hindcast 1940 to 1975 cooling as originally reported in 1975 before dishonest “adjustments” post-1975
Models have no value in predicting the climate on this planet. The climate science knowledge to build such models does not exist. Even if such knowledge did exist, there is no reason to assume climate changes could be predicted.
A model is merely a –
SCENARIO
a sequence of events especially when imagined
(Miriam Webster)
There is only one climate model taken seriously at my Honest Climate Science and Energy blog:
Forget the Russian INM model
Honest Climate Science and Energy: Another benefit of global warming — officisl blog climate model
“dishonest “adjustments” post-1975”
Like this?
Chart updated to end 2021, 2022 will show an uptick, excuse me.
We have cooled 0.7C the last 7 years as of last month.
Averaging apples and meteorites makes pie dust.
The IPCC scaremongers publicize ECS and RCP 8.5, which is a meaningless wild guess prediction for 200 to 400 years, with excessive growth of CO2 emissions.
The model predicted TCS with RCP 4.5 is similar to the 1975 to 2015 rate of global warming. That “more of the same” prediction could have been done on the back of an envelope.
If you check the period since 1900, you will find that extrapolating 30 to 50 year periods of actual climate, as a prediction for the NEXT 30 to 50 years of the future climate, has FAILED miserably. So a prediction of “more of the same” is likely to be worthless. And that is what climate models predict for TCS and RCP 4.5
None of these numbers are meaningful.
Humans do not have the ability to predict the future climate. Not one person on this planet can predict whether the climate will be warmer or colder in 100 years, except with a lucky guess. Anyone who thinks models can predict climate on this planet is smoking weed, or a leftist.
50% of the ensemble has been out of range vs observations for 24 years but are still being used as a trajectory for future warming. In any other discipline they would have been rejected as being falsified. The strongest El Nino on record only got us to the midpoint. Clinging to the confidence interval only shows that the entire ensemble hasn’t been invalidated yet.
Any graph using wrong data is meaning less! Do you agree that HadCRUT5.0 uses MSU14 data after 2005 when this satellite data was spurious? (And “it does not matter” is not a correct answer)
Huh! Hadcrut and the other observational datasets are closer to the 5% boundary than the 95% boundary. That doesn’t tell you something is wrong?
Models don’t agree because for political correctness (diversity/more hands in the money pot), every little research org is entitled to enter their contribution to the AGW corporate machine, and they each use their own favorite model and inputs.
Models do agree
They informally agreed to be in the +1.5 to +4.5 degrees C. range from the Charney report wild guess for about 40 years. Now that the wild guessed range was changed to +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C. a few years ago, the Russian INM model is out of the CAGW “narrative” range. Let’s see if it gets “sanctioned” and dropped from CMIP.
because the modlers dont conspire, because some sub processes are chaotic and the same initial conditions produce different outputs.
different grid scales, different processors, different software, different tuning proceedures,
different parameterizations
You may think that they don’t conspire, but they all publish their latest results and discuss if it’s enough warming to scare the sheep, or perhaps too much to be plausible and so (perhaps unconsciously) negotiate a mutually agreeable result. Then they go back to the computer and revise a few parameters until they get that result.
99 out of 100 climate models are garbage and the other one is wrong.
The least wrong Russian INM model should get 99% of the attention, but gets maybe 1%, because accurate predictions are not a goal. Scary predictions are the goal.
And your climate modeler stated: We tune the various parameters until we get an ECS that “looks about right.”
why do hurricane forecasts have different landfalling predictions
https://www.cyclocane.com/11u-spaghetti-models/
“Why do the models not agree with each other?”
So that you can always pick a model that matches the point that you want to make.
https://clintel.org/the-problem-with-climate-models-2/
The models are complete garbage for 3 main reasons.
They violate the 2nd Law – heat energy can and does radiate from the atmosphere but because it;s always coming from a cold place, those radiations can not be absorbed by the surface = a warm placeNo account what so ever is taken of Carnot. Because of the small (on the Kelvin Scale) temp differences between surface and atmosphere, the absorption by the atmosphere occurs at very low efficiency – 90% of what is imagined to be absorbed isn’t and goes right on outThe temperature of the atmosphere is a reflection of the Carnot Heat Engine – it is in fact the exhaust of the Carnot Engine. What we see as Weather and Climate is the Carnot Engine thus: Energy causes Climate and Climate causes Temperature.e. The Models have it completely back to front: temperature does not cause Climate, climate causes temperature
Even before The Actual Greenhouse on this Planet is under our feet in the top few metres of soil – not in the sky above us. That is where all Life on Earth exists
Think about it: How many critters. plants, organisms or life of any description live. eat, feed or breed in the atmosphere?
The atmosphere is a cold dead inhospitable place – the very antithesis of A Greenhouse
edit to clarify:
Oh you say, us humans live in the atmosphere.
No we don’t live there, we visit it now and again – we are akin to bugs crawling on the inside of the glass of a conventional greenhouse.
After our excursions and atmospheric adventures, we retire to ‘houses’ or ‘shelter’ and what is a house if not an extension of being underground?
or even ‘clothes’ for that matter or as other atmospheric critters have, hair, fur and feathers
Nobody and nothing exists in ‘The Greenhouse’ as it’s imagined.
If anyone is interested:
Carnot’s theorem, also known as Carnot’s rule, or the Carnot principle, can be stated as follows: No heat engine operating between two heat reservoirs can be more efficient than a reversible heat engine operating between the same two reservoirs.
“The atmosphere is a cold dead inhospitable place”
The birds and bats like it.
Insects too.
You are right. A perfect “greenhouse’ climate has never existed, does not exist now, and will never exist. There are only moments of perfect, for me or you, instances or places.
Nor is climate predictable, as opposed to weather, by models, or any other imaginable crystal ball. The systems are far too chaotic.
Attempts to maintain the status quo is only adding to the chaos with unpredictable consequences. A less disruptive, less costly, and more comforting reaction would be to find or build better caves, or evolve better fur or feathers. The methods used since life began on this planet.
The most dangerous and damaging part of global warming/climate change has been the reaction from western governments. Ignoring it, as a non problem, would have been far more beneficial.
“The most dangerous and damaging part of global warming/climate change has been the reaction from western governments. Ignoring it, as a non-problem, would have been far more beneficial.”
Best line in these comments!
I THINK CLIMATE CHANGE SINCE THE 1970’s HAS BEEN GOOD NEWS. We love the warmer winters with less snow here in Michigan.
Models do not violate the second law
I took a thermodynamic course in college.
Can’t say I remember very much, except I didn’t like it.
Models violate The Greene Law, which I just made up:
You can’t model anything you do not understand in great detail.
The so called climate models are just computer games used to scare people.
And they do that. Of course, confusers predict whatever they are programmed to predict. Accurate predictions are not a goal. Scary predictions are a goal.
You have a complete misunderstanding of thermodynamics. The 2LOT does NOT say that the placement of a colder thermal barrier cannot be the cause a warmer body warming further. What the 2LOT says is that heat (net energy transfer) moves from a warmer body to cooler body when the two bodies are left to evolve by their own means.
For example, if you open the door and turn on your oven and let it achieve a steady-state you will observe some temperature Tx. But when you place the door into service by closing it it will act as a thermal barrier reducing Eout thus causing ΔE > 0 and ΔT > 0 leading to a new steady-state where Ty > Tx. This is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT and is tested countless times every day via those using their ovens. The 2LOT flow is burner (hot) => inside (warm) => outside (cold).
Similarly, if you have a cuvette in a vacuum and turn on an IR lamp at one end and let the thermopile at the other end achieve a steady-state you will observe some temperature Ty. But when you flood the cuvette with CO2 gas it will act as a thermal barrier reducing the Eout from the cuvette on the other end thus causing ΔE > 0 and ΔT > 0 at the thermopile leading to a new steady-state where Ty > Tx. This is consistent with both the 1LOT and 2LOT and is tested countless times every single day via NDIR instruments. The 2LOT flow is lamp (hot) => cuvette (warm) => outside (cold).
And the 2LOT flow for the climate system is Sun (hot) => surface (warm) => lower atmosphere (less warm) => upper atmosphere (cool) => space (cold). Placing a thermal barrier like CO2 in the atmosphere causes the surface to heat up some and the upper atmosphere to cool some, but notice that the surface is still cooler than the Sun and the upper atmosphere is still warmer than space. This is a perfectly 2LOT compliant configuration.
You took a thermodynamics course too, but unlike me, you remember what you learned. I forgot everything after passing the final test.
The “violates the 2nd law myth”
and the
“manmade CO2 is 3% of all CO2 myth”
and the
“CO2 has no effect on the climate myth”,
and the
“there is no greenhouse effect myth”,
are far too common among conservatives.
All conservatives being the same having reached equilibrium.
the models are ok, the predictions are wrong? i really cant read any further..not that there is anything to read.
If the predictions are wrong, then the models are wrong
The title was picked by the editor here.
Maybe as an inside joke
Or perhaps, more likely, Charles is drunk on MD 20-20 again?
That’s not the title of the post at Climate Inc:
My interview with Jordan Peterson | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)
My interpretation of that title was that models are useful for *something*, but for predicting temperature increase worldwide over decades, not so much. Personally, I think the models are not useful for anything at all, as they cause harm by wasting taxpayer money that could have been spent on things that make life better for people, and encourage further misuse of government funds and erosion of civil rights.
I once claimed the models were for the climate on another planet –Uranus, but that was yet another of my lame jokes that was met with the usual silence.
You should probably listen to what Curry has to say about that.. she makes a lot of sense to me..
The future does not exist beyond a probability. It is why there is x% chance of rain tomorrow and why a famous cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.
I’m commenting on the headline, not having heard the interview. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The models are not ‘ok’. Climate models operate on nonphysical assumptions, wrong physics.
Whomever thinks climate models are ‘ok’ is spectacularly denying objective reality.
In today’s climate consensus reality, man-made CO2 emissions is the climate model(s) ‘driver’.
In objective reality CO2 follows temperature changes, due to the physics of outgassing/sinking according to Henry’s Law of Solubility of Gases, which controls the overall amount of all airborne gases, not just CO2, by ocean temperature changes at fairly constant 1 atm pressure.
This lagging relationship of Mauna Loa CO2 after sea surface temperature is statistically significant at the 99.99% confidence level, whereas the same computation comparing man-made emissions (MME) isn’t, with r=.28 for man-made vs r=.84 for the temperature influence.
This means CO2 can’t be the climate driver and so the climate models are unphysical, not ‘ok’.
So it is not helpful for us to appease the other side by agreeing to something so clearly untrue.
The wrong idea that man-made emissions control climate change must be refuted and rejected.
Agreed. You can have causation without correlation. No one bothered to nail down how much of climate change is natural.
“You can have causation without correlation.”
Of course you can
Significant warming of the oceans from natural causes leads to an increase in atmospheric CO2, with a long and variable time lag. in the ice core reconstruction records.
IF you have identified the cause, then there will surely by a correlation with ‘causation’ or results to apply a different name to it.
Lagged correlation.
Does it apply to the ice core estimates?
There appears to be a huge range of time delays between peaks and troughs of estimated temperatures and peaks and troughs of atmospheric CO2
And all climate reconstructions are local rough estimates.
Lagged correlation seems logical, but the highly variable time lags, and the roughly estimated local climate reconstructions, make me wonder.
Henry’s law is unimportant for small changes in ocean temperature in 50 to 100 years, relative to the much larger amount of manmade CO2 emissions. Slightly warmer oceans absorb less CO2, than they otherwise would, but nature (oceans, land and plants) are still net CO2 absorbers.
The effects of manmade Co2 emissions come after CO2 is added to the atmosphere with a lag because of ocean heat inertia. Your chart has to be baloney or else you are the smartest guy in the world, including the e best skeptic scientists, such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer. My vote is on the baloney angle.
Richard you should understand that much of CO2 climate science is unreliable.
Once again I must observe that these simple facts scare you Richard because it shakes you up, gives you cognitive dissonance because you think you know better.
What are you wrongly assuming here? I think you are assuming I meant all of the CO2 that remains in the atmosphere came only from outgassing. If this is not a correct assessment of your thinking than say so please.
You would not be the first person to make this knee-jerk reaction. Two others here have had the exact same knee-jerk reaction, every time in fact as they don’t learn.
Henry’s Law controls all the gases in the atmosphere. The ocean did not supply all of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere now. The ocean temperature regulates the total amount including MME, but is not the sole source of the total amount of CO2.
The ocean temperature has increased with the size of the warm pool above 25.6C over time, reducing sinking and increasing outgassing, behaving like a variable check valve that stops more CO2 from sinking over time, or like a zener diode that limits voltage, that then allows for the accumulation of atmospheric CO2 from all sources including MME when the SST is above the 25.6C outgassing threshold.
If I didn’t make that clear enough for anyone, ask a question instead of assuming. Too many of you are arguing against what you think I mean not what I actually say or mean.
Otherwise don’t misunderstand & use strawman arguments. Argue the exact points.
So this all means Mauna Loa CO2 will continue to rise for decades because so much of the ocean compared to the late 1800s is warmer now, even if we cut our emissions to zero. I can show with a CO2 anomaly plot that the 2020 CV19 economic downturn did not even register, while the CO2 reducing effect of the La Nina shows up.
If the ocean hadn’t of warmed out of the Solar Dalton Minimum by the sun, the cooler ocean temperature would have allowed more CO2 sinking. If our same CO2 emissions had happened back then when the ocean was colder, the ocean would have sunk more CO2 and the total increase in Mauna Loa CO2 from MME of CO2 would have been less, and the Keeling curve would look a lot different by now than it currently looks.
I have modeled CO2 outgassing, with results within the 99.99% confidence limit:
I think Henry’s Law, as a predictor of ocean absorption and emission, cannot be independent of ocean chemistry, which may indeed by a much larger factor(s).
The baloney is all of the assumptions built into the notion that our 3-4% of “emissions” account for 100% of the “change,” which itself is not even known accurately since it is based on the scientific incompetence of comparing “proxy” data (with some serious issues) with today’s instrument measurements like they are directly comparable, and when all non-human fossil fuel “emissions” and all sinks are just “estimates.”
The baloney is also falsely claiming 3% to 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere had manmade emissions as the source when the correct number is about 33%
About 280ppm CO2 in 1850 (estimated) increased to 420ppm now (measured), is a +50% increase, or a +140ppm increase. +140ppm / 420ppm = +33%
The entire increase is from manmade CO2 emissions that totaled in the +200ppm to +300ppm range, with a large portion of the manmade CO2 emissions absorbed by nature (oceans, land and plants).
There has been no net ocean CO2 outgassing with such large manmade CO2 emissions. Oceans are still absorbing CO2 and becoming slightly less alkaline as a result.
Your writing is not clear, and needs a magic decoder ring.
“There has been no net ocean CO2 outgassing with such large manmade CO2 emissions. Oceans are still absorbing CO2…”
Richard I happen to agree with AGW is Not Science‘s statement that all sinks are just estimates, and will add to that the estimates are fraught with big holes.
The current science view as far as I can ascertain is this 2.2Gt ocean sink rate was not static over time.
The carbon fluxes shown above depict the common view of the ocean as a growing CO2 sink that grew in size after the 1950s, during the time of ocean warming.
The next plot indicates estimated CO2 fluxes for the ocean are net negative 2.2Gt (22.2-20). However the individual fluxes are not labelled with a margin of error, so we are left to think this system is perfectly known down to the tenths of Gt.
Being skeptical, I am doubting this perfection exists, and if I’m right, the chances are very good the errors in the other flux calculations add up greater than the 2.2 Gt ocean sink flux estimate, which leads to the real possibility that the ocean fluxes are miscalculated and are really net positive, or at least became net positive some time in the past century as the ocean warmed.
Their view violates Henry’s Law by ignoring the effect on CO2 solubility by the growth of the ocean warm area above 25.5C, which I estimated to be about +50% since 1854 using ERRSTv5. Next is the ocean latitudinal temperature and the CO2 solubility curve, indicated by the inverted blue/green line, with the solubility curve conforming well to the SST by latitude.
Why estimate? Why not use actual surface temperature data to determine the increase in area?
That
is a model projection, not observed data.
The ocean pH measurements are far from perfect, but they do not indicate CO2 outgassing.
The estimated +200ppm to +300ppm of CO2 emissions after 1850 (I know that is a wide range) had to go somewhere. They went into the atmosphere, and most stayed there.
The manmade CO2 emissions did not all disappear into the ocean, land and plants.
Manmade CO2 emissions explain why the atmospheric CO2 level increased +50% since 1850
There is no other logical cause of a +50% increase in atmospheric CO2 (which I think is good news).
This is not a model projection
it is logical common sense.
We keep hearing this, but it just ain’t so, Bob. The IPCC reports and model projection ranges are there for all to see. In AR5 (2013), which used CMIP5 models, observations are well within the 5-95% range and at the upper end of AR5’s “assessed likely range for 2016-2035”.
That’s all they have to do to make the IPCC AR5 forecast correct.
The only way you or others can maintain that the models are ‘wrong’ is by exaggerating or otherwise mis-stating what it is they are intended to represent. I’m sure that won’t stop you though.
Well, I understand that the models assume that for solar input, the Earth is a flat disk. How can that possibly properly model effects around the globe? Hell of a difference at higher latitudes.
Then your understanding is wrong, my friend.
You are saying that the models do in fact model the earth as a globe? I’ve read numerous analysis that say not.
Yes. Even the most trivial 3 layer box models you often see in energy budget diagrams model the Earth as a globe. But the “models” most people refer to like the CMIP suite are global circulation models (GCMs) which use spherical meshes not unlike the GCMs used for operational weather forecasting. If you’re reading a blog that says otherwise then stop reading the blog.
“…observations are well within the 5-95% range and at the upper end of AR5’s “assessed likely range for 2016-2035”
“The only way you or others can maintain that the models are ‘wrong’ is by exaggerating or otherwise mis-stating what it is they are intended to represent.”
They represent the common (and wrong) idea that MM emissions now drive the climate directly. If I am wrong please correct me. As far as I know I did not misstate what they are intended to represent.
They say the CO2 is warming the atmosphere and the ocean. No, the ocean warms the atmosphere. Radiative forcing ignores the ocean forcing the atmosphere. CO2 is actually a very good proxy for ocean temperature thanks to Henry’s Law.
Knowing atm CO2 is going to keep growing, they use expected CO2 growth in their models, that’s all, adding in emissions as though all CO2 increases are controlled by emissions. Did I misstate that?
They cheat by omitting vital information contradicting CO2 theory.
They make fake models, because any CO2 increase associated with warming happens after the warming event not before, and as my outgassing model shows, the ocean temperature change above 25.6C and it’s affect on solubility explains the Keeling curve better.
They take advantage of the up to roughly one year lag of CO2 from tropical temperature changes. CO2 goes up after a temperature spike yet they claim the causation runs the other way.
So within a year during any year of their projections, as long as CO2 increases, we know from the real facts and physics that the sea surface temperature has already increased within the prior year.
Their fake climate theory hides that fact within their stated margins of error, hidden by the up to one year lag of CO2 from SST change.
This is like saying your expenses drive your income, it’s senseless.
CO2 lags changes in the equatorial OHC by up to 13 months, and can be used for predicting future CO2 anomaly changes based on recent temperature increases.
The excellent and significant r=.65 correlation stands out below of the equatorial OHC driving a CO2 impulse response over 15 months
The northern hemisphere CO2 drawdown is a parallel process to the seasonal outgassing regime, both connected to summer warming.
Climate models are not science. Here’s a question. A model has to “started” or initialized to validate it. Needs to be tested. So how do you start a model at time zero accurately, when that model relates to a chaotic system such as the global climate. no doubt the modelers have an answer.
Parametrization, smoothing, averaging….and bias. = Junk.
I think the message was, models are useful, just not suitable for long term prediction. Of course, that is painfully obvious to anyone who has ever used a model for any purpose.
I think you found seasons in both signals.. and seasonal differences.. so those wiggles creating a good correlation come from a common underlying phenomenon (Earth rotating around the Sun) and not by one causing the other..
A weather forecast says there is a 10% chance of rain tomorrow. A climate model must take that to mean it will rain for 2.4 hours tomorrow.
That is the problem. The 10% forecast of rain does not mean that there will be rain for 10% of the day. It means that on 10% of past days .with similar conditions there was rain. The other 90% there was not.
But the climate models must turn this future probability into an actual event. So they average the future and say it will rain for 10% of the day. A completely different animal.
Ferd, I was listening to a talk show while driving to work in Houston decades ago and the guest was local TV meteorologist Dr. Neil Frank (former director of the National Hurrican Center). A caller asked him (to the effect of), “Does a 20% chance of rain mean it’s going to rain 20% of the time, or over 20% of the area, or that the chance of rain is low?”
Neil Frank answered, “Yes.” Then laughed along with the host.
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
Often, here in the Tampa area, the local guys/gals will refer to “pop up” or “hit or miss” showers. There is no way to tell where these short lived showers will occur but the atmosphere is ripe for them. So they correctly say that you will have an X% chance of one occurring in your local area. And the soupier the atmosphere, the larger X becomes
I believe that the probability of rain as reported by meteorologists here in the USA is based upon the probability that any particular location within the forecast area will receive precipitation. It is not a time based probability, as in “20% of the time it will rain” – it is location specific. Therefore the probability that any location within the forecast area will receive precipitation is likely to be much larger than 20% for a 20% probability of precip. Not 100%, but somewhere between 20 and 100.
Where it rains the probability of rain was 100%, where it did not rain, the probability was zero.
In New England, if we want to know about the weather, we go outside, and smell the air, as did the Abenaki natives
In Arizona and Colorado, you have sudden wind gusts/dust storms and flash floods coming out of nowhere. Just stay away from the areas, where they are known to occur, is the sage advice of the native Arapaho
No – probability is not about past occurrences, it is about attempting to reasonably predict future events. It is meaningless to talk about the probability of an event that is over, declaring that if it happened the probability was 100% and if the event did not happen the probability was 0%. The probability of precipitation for any location was established by modeling of the weather systems preceding the time of prediction. In other words, a high pressure system is building over the predicted location and no other factors are involved, such as adiabatic lifting of air masses over high terrain which can at least partially override a regional high pressure system. The probability of precipitation at a given location is a result of the various factors involved at that time at that location.
Then there is the “partly sunny” or “partly cloudy” debate.
You will always know if a weather forecast was accurate in a day or two. But you will be dead and gone before the 100 year climate prediction is found to be true or false.
I watched the entire 90+ minutes. It is worth watching BUT, IMO, JP talked too much and interrupted JC too much. He had some good lead in questions and did push Judith to talk about her take on key aspects of both the science and politics of climate change. JC was very good, but my guess is she found JP’s soliloquies awkward and difficult to respond to.
“JP talked too much and interrupted JC too much”
I only recently started watching his videos and noticed he does that all the time but I now just tolerate it. I think much of his talking is his own way of trying to understand what his guest is saying, in his own words.
My impression, from just a few videos, is that he often tries to get his guest to acknowledge his own views as correct but he doesn’t argue (much) when contradicted.
I listened to 15 minutes and could not tolerate any more. So I can’t comment on the whole 1.5 hours, but I got the impression they are both luke-warmers. I anticipate they will not agree with any of my conclusions, below, after 25 years of climate science and energy reading:
I try to keep my writing simple so that even a 12-year-old child could understand. Then I go out to find a 12-year-old child to explain what I just wrote to me. The lame jokes will continue until someone laughs, which may take years. … Climate change scaremongering itself is a bad joke to me. But Nut Zero is not funny. That plan, to deliberately reduce electric grid reliability at great expense, is a nightmare in progress.
My conclusions, below, are after 25 years of climate science and energy reading:
There is no climate crisis, in spite of the fact that one has been predicted since the 1979 Charney Report
The current climate is about as good as it gets on this planet for humans and animals — C3 plants (90%) would prefer a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has been beneficial for plants, and has only a small effect on the climate, because CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above 400ppm (now at 420ppm)
The warming timing and pattern from 1975 to 2015 was beneficial, with better weather in colder nations and no melting of Antarctica
There is no human ability to predict the future climate
Every prediction of environmental doom has been wrong for over a century
There is no such thing as a climate model — just computer games that make wrong predictions, programmed to scare people. The detailed knowledge to construct a real model does not exist.
The future climate probably can’t be predicted, unless regular short-term cycles are identified that could be useful in a 10 year to 50-year period
CAGW is nothing more than a wrong prediction of climate doom caused by human CO2 emissions
Nut Zero is a panic reaction to CAGW
The electric grids are not broken, so they did not need to be “fixed” (ruined)
Climate scaremongering is done for leftist political power and control, and is not based on science
The correct answer to most climate science questions is “we don’t know”.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
I’m just guessing but I can’t imagine the two climate “authorities” in the video agreeing with even one statement I’ve made. Please tell me if I am wrong about my conclusion if you can listen to the whole thing. I already read and recommended 48 short articles in the past four hours, and have no more energy left to listen to this video.
Up to 24 climate science and energy articles I’ve read are recommended each day, including many from this website, but not this one, at:
Honest Climate Science and Energy
“I got the impression they are both luke-warmers”
Well, luke-warmers are infinitely better than the total whack-jobs who think the Earth will die in a decade or so. They are unlikely to agree to the extreme policies put forth now like nut-zero.
Joseph, Judith like Lomborg is a lukewarmer but Jordan isn’t. He has never agreed with the IPCC AGW proposition once he understood it. He may be annoying in his interruptions as explained by someone above, he is getting his head around the issues and phrasing them to suit his story. Judith has over the years become more sceptical of the IPCC approach as observations continue to show slower warming as CO2 trends accelerate, making the AGW story less credible. she still wants to be accepted as functional climatologist for professional reasons-understandable except by alarmists like Mann, so she hedges her bets on climate,
It is important for Peterson to do this review stuff, because he airs the topics better than most and has the prestige of a knowledgeable outsider to carry off a negative declamation on the IPCC science. He brings a wider audience to appreciate what the problems are with climate science and asks the relevant questions, of why are we doing this to ourselves?
“It is important for Peterson to do this review stuff, because he airs the topics better than most and has the prestige of a knowledgeable outsider to carry off a negative declamation on the IPCC science. He brings a wider audience to appreciate what the problems are with climate science and asks the relevant questions, of why are we doing this to ourselves?”
Is Jordan Peterson the first “knowledgeable outsider” to take the time and make the enormous effort to do this work?
Considering the list of people he’s interviewed to date, would it not be important that he exposes the topics of disagreement between them so that a much larger audience can hear these conversations and realize that the “science is not settled”. Would Bill McKibben be willing to talk with him?
The lukewarmers seem to agree that manmade CO2 emissions are a problem. They lose me right there. The debate then becomes how fast should we react to the alleged problem. If there is believed to be a climate problem, the react as soon as possible opinion of the Climate Howler Global Whiners will tend to beat the “there’s no rush” opinion of the lukewarmers.
I disagree with your definition of lukewarmers, of which I am most definitely one. The climate is warming—slowly. Fact. CO2 is a GHG—shown experimentally by Tyndall in 1859. Fact. CO2 is rising, and via the 12C/13C ratio change in favor of 12C we know that rise is mostly from burning of fossil fuels. Fact. So rising CO2 MUST have some warming impact.
But we don’t know how much for two basic reasons. First, we know most models run hot INmCMx are the sole exception (example, VM5 does not produce a tropical troposphere hotspot and produces an RCS of 1.8C, within the uncertainty of the EBM result about 1.65). At least one reason is they must be parameterized, the parameters tuned to best hindcast. That drags in the attribution problem of natural variation. Second, we know there is natural variation (IPCC recognized this in AR5 SPM WG1 fig. 4 (a previous guest post here provided the details). BUT we don’t know how much.
All the evidence says that whatever warming CO2 is causing is not harmful, but rather beneficial. Planet is greening. SLR is not accelerating. Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear. And the alarmist mitigation schemes are harmful—renewables are ruinables.
We agree on everything but my definition of lukewarmer
I don’t think you are one. I think you are a Climate Realist who believes in real science, but doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. I also think your comments are excellent, and read every one of them.
My definitions may be what you disagree with, but lukewarmers are not that easy to define. I think I know one when I hear or read them.
Climate Howler Global Whiners (scientific name, ha ha)
(CO2 emissions are a big problem now)
Lukewarmers
(CO2 emissions are a long-term problem)
Climate Realists
(CO2 emissions are not a problem)
Me
(I want more CO2. and more Global Warming too … CO2 emissions are good news for our planet if they are from burning hydrocarbon fuels when using modern pollution controls)
Natural variation is max. 1.2 C and from the lowest level we are 0.8 C up. To that 0.6 C is added from ‘our’ CO2. (Based on a CO2 sensitivity of 1 C and the results from Loehle, 2008). 0.4 C up from CO2 is what we can expect from the next 140 ppms of CO2, but if ‘natural’ variation will go 0.4 C up or 0.8 C down or something in between, is not to say.
So prior temperature changes of up to 18 C were all CO2 driven, whether atmospheric CO2 was low or high relative to today, and whether or not atmospheric CO2 changed during the warming or cooling?
Loehle deals with the last 2000 years – I should have written that. https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/
I believe Tyndal found that CO2 absorbs heat. I don’t think he expounded on its overall effect at .04% of the atmosphere, a miniscule amount.
Yes. He showed experimentally that CO2 ‘absorbs’ IR. Ditto he showed water vapor does also. Definition of a GHG. He made no projections to the resulting GHE. Arrhenius was the first to do so about 30 years later, erroneously. The topic lay fallow until Hansen in Congress July 1988. Hansen got it wronger than Arrhenius. The UNFCC picked up the ball and ran with it. We later learned from Figueroes and Edelhofer that the real FCC motive was wealth redistribution, not CAGW. Meanwhile. Alarmist ‘scientists’ and renewables producers have used CAGW for wealth creation at the expense of the general public and its economy.
What Rud said. Get his ebook “Blowing Smoke.”
“We” may not know how much, but “they” think they do. There have been a couple of papers (I’m feeling too lazy to go and find the refs) in which the geniuses of climate science claimed to have modelled natural climate change which (surprise!!!) showed cooling in the post-1980 years. By subtracting the modelled natural cooling from the modelled overall warming, they were able to conclude that the models were reliably simulating the current warming, and therefore could reliably predict future endless warming. The studies were heralded by headlines like “We have finally identified the human fingerprint …”. Isn’t science wonderful (to steal a phrase).
There is a whole spectrum of lukewarmers, from those who think that AGW exists and is a problem but not a severe problem (can be addressed by adaptation) to those who think AGW exists and probably isn’t a problem, to those of us (like thee and me) who accept that AGW is predicted by theory, but just can’t quantify it.
After all, the analytical labs that we in the geology sector use to determine the chemical composition of rocks, measure the amount of organic carbon in a rock by igniting the sample in oxygen and measuring the IR absorption of the CO2 produced (for carbonate minerals, the sample is digested in acid to release CO2 for measurement by IR). So AGW can be theoretically predicted on the basis of everyday experience.
Then again, experiments by Knut Ångstrom in the early 20th century challenged the 1896 conclusions of Svante Arrhenius about the role of CO2 (“carbonic acid” as it was then called) in regulating climate. Tony Heller has unearthed contemporary references to Ångstrom’s work and you can see them on his website. Ångstrom’s obituary, published in Nature in 1910 here contains a concise summary and I reproduce two key paragraphs below:
“We owe to him, further, a valuable investigation on the infra- red absorption of aqueous vapour, carbonic acid and ozone. All these gases are constituents of our atmosphere, and the effect of the two latter on the temperature of the earth may be considerable, not so much because they absorb a certain portion of the solar radiation, but chiefly on account of their much greater comparative influence in preventing the heat radiated from the earth from being dissipated into space. An interesting and instructing controversy took place in connection with the effect of carbonic acid.
“Arrhenius in 1896 had given a very ingenious explanation of the Glacial period by assuming that the quantity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere had increased since that time. If it be assumed that the absorption is proportional to the total quantity present, it can indeed be shown that a small variation in quantity would exercise a very considerable effect on the temperature; but, as pointed out by Knut Angstrom, the proportionality between absorption and quantity only holds when the quantities are sufficiently small, and he showed that the quantity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere must be reduced to about 20 per cent. of its present value before an appreciable effect in the total absorption can take place.
There you are – the theory of AGW proposed and then refuted over 100 years ago, by Swedish physicists. We haven’t progressed very much, have we? Except that we HAVE progressed from “an interesting and instructive controversy” to vicious ad-hominem insults, demolishing careers, shadow-banning, defunding, unpersoning, shouting down interviewees, refusing to publish research, “fact-checking” and nuisance lawsuits.
Oops, sorry, climate science has made astonishing progress in the last three decades, as indeed one would expect from the numberless billions that have been spent on supercomputers and modelling (/sarc): water vapour is no longer relevant to the AGW model (except as a “positive feedback”), and methane and NOx have been added as culprits so as to justify elimination of agriculture as well as fossil fuels.
“We haven’t progressed very much, have we? Except that we HAVE progressed from “an interesting and instructive controversy” to vicious ad-hominem insults, demolishing careers, shadow-banning, defunding, unpersoning, shouting down interviewees, refusing to publish research, “fact-checking” and nuisance lawsuits”
That is brilliant writing.
Given your prior axioms, this depends markedly on other planetary mechanism and feedbacks. It could have a warming tendency but be completely overwhelmed by other factors.
The warming effect of manmade CO2 WAS “overwhelmed” in 1940 to 1975 and in 2015 to 2023. The effect in 1975 to 2015 is unknown, but is very likely to have been one of the causes of global warming in that period. So what?
What Rud said: +42X42^42
People should get his ebook “Blowing Smoke.”
Awhile back Dr. Curry gave a presentation to a gathering of lawyers. At my suggestion she inserted wording to the effect that global climate models are not sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems. Unless she has changed her position, I believe Dr. Curry would disagree with Nut Zero.
“I’m just guessing but I can’t imagine the two climate “authorities” in the video agreeing with even one statement I’ve made.”
Well, I don’t know about them, but I agree with just about everything you said in that comment.
Thank you. I will put that complement on my resume along with the quote by Monckton calling me a “climate communist”.
I wonder if you agree with my 1997 climate prediction:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.”
That’s Nobel Prize material, summing up 4.5 billion years of climate history in just nine words.
climate communist? I’d like to think I’m a climate libertarian- meaning, the climate can do whatever and I don’t worry about it- a bit warmer, a bit colder, a bit wetter, a bit drier- floods, droughts– it’s the way of the world and there ain’t nothing we can do about it other than go with the flow and adjust to it – let it be
yes, I’m a climate libertarian- hey, I’ve recently become a big fan of John Stossel, a well know libertarian YouTuber- I really like his videos- I never thought of myself as a libertarian until watching his videos
I’ve been a libertarian since 1973 but had to vote for Trump in 2020 because Biden was so bad.
I guess I’m a climate libertarian too. I have followed John Stossel for years and read all three of his books. He was one of the few libertarians on TV in the past.
Get the free Imprimis libertarian newsletter in the mail from Hillsdale College in Michigan or read it online. I’ve read every issue since 1973.
Imprimis | A Publication of Hillsdale College
In my profession of forestry- for exactly 50 years, here in Wokachusetts, I know for a fact that forestry here would have been orders of magnitude better if government had stayed out of it. They sucked the blood right of the potential forestry had to develop a large, thriving industry. By now, forestry barely survives throughout New England. The government agencies (several) and the enviro groups slowly strangled it.
I like many of the articles on Imprimus but the one on Ukraine is wrong. It says, “Putin invaded Ukraine after the U.S. rejected his demand for a guarantee that Ukraine not join NATO.” Sure, the Russians didn’t want Ukraine in NATO because they want it in a new Soviet Union. Some years ago Putin said the worse thing that happened in the 20th century was the collapse of the CCCP. He also said that Ukraine isn’t a real country. No wonder they don’t want Ukraine in NATO because that would prevent the revival of the Soviet Empire. If Russia wasn’t threatening, Ukraine wouldn’t bother with NATO. Ukraine wants to be part of the EU, not the Russian economic union. So on the one hand that article says how complicated he subject is yet it simplifies Russia’s justification for the invasion.
Climate science is based on radiation models. Both alarmists and luke warmers tend to accept the results of these models as gospel. The difference is in how they view feedbacks.
The real problem is the results they are extracting from the models are simply measures of emissivity changes in the atmosphere. That is how the log function of CO2 is derived. They look at the changes seen at the Tropopause or surface and believe it tells them how much of a direct forcing is occurring.
This is wrong. It will always be wrong
The concept of “forcing” seems to be made up to serve a warmist agenda. It is not a physics concept.
Almost every prediction of doom has been wrong over at least the Holocene. Cries of impending doom are possibly the oldest weapons of religious and political control, just a step below burtal violence.
Maybe you should listen to them first.. it actually is my impression that Curry says very similar things, just smarter and firmly routed in examples
The book by Mototaka Nakamura has a good summary of what climate models are for. He says the following.
中村 元隆. 気候科学者の告白 地球温暖化説は未検証の仮説: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Kindle Location 2041). Kindle Edition. ”
Sooner or later, the output of the models will have to be questioned by policy makers and politicians if the models continue to run hotter and hotter than actual measurements.
I think we are seeing just the hint of scientists beginning to back away from the CAGW crowd. Right now it is just a trickle but it will grow unless the modelers begin to reign in their confirmation bias in programming for CO2 being the boogy man. The spread between actual and forecast will be their undoing.
“The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis”
It has more holes in it than a colander. But the zombie remains propped up.
Only people who have some degree of financial security will buck the trend.
I think we are seeing just the hint of scientists beginning to back away from the CAGW crowd
Yes, seems likely. But do not take too much comfort from that. The usual pattern is for the elite and the senior levels of the cult to start backing off, because they are getting nervous that the failure of apocalyptic predictions may damage the movement.
But at the same time, the grass roots enthusiasm (which is what alarmed the elite) increases in zealotry. And survives failure of predictions.
Read ‘When Prophecy Fails’. Its not enouraging about what is in store during the later phases of the mania. It will be increased, not decreased, conviction. And increased rage and vituperation and more insane policy demands.
Good comment.
Last year a libertarian poll found 59% of scientists believe in CAGW, which is 59 percentage points too many. I emphasized libertarian because they are less likely to present a biased poll that starts with a conclusion of 97%.
I’ve been a libertarian since 1973.
Never! if not questioning them serves their political interests.
The models are not ok
They are fraudulent. My tea leaves make more accurate predictions.
The Greek wife says Greeks use coffee grounds
Tea leaves are no good.
The Greeks also say this when they see a person with a lot of hair:
“Big hair, no brains”.
It’s not a Greek tradition – if we had those we’d be constantly buying crockery
Einstein didn’t need big brains.
The Greek parents were mainly referring to their sons who grew long hair in the 1970s.
Some Greeks are short in height, and when they get reminded of that. another Greek saying is:
“Where i live, we measure people from the shoulders up.”
And ““Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” – Plato
How do you get them out of the Bag? My tea leaves will never leave it 🙂
Few tea bags have tea leaves. They contain the excessively fragmented remains of tea leaves.
Calling Jennifer Marohasy……calling Jennifer Marohasy……?
Volunteer divers make ‘surprising’ coral find that science had missed (msn.com)
This is no great revelation.
Coral cover in areas might not have been extensive in past observations, but come back in say 10, 15 or 20 years and it has grown astonishingly.
Coral reef fish such as sweetlip, coral trout, etc have been caught on the reefs out from Mooloolaba for ages.
Yep. The US tried to nuke Bikini Atoll to death between 1946 – 1958, carrying out 67 nuclear tests including 23 nuclear weapons and one H bomb.
In 2008 a survey found that 70% of the atoll’s previous coral reef species had resettled the lagoon and there was evidence some had started growing again as soon as 10 years after the tests ended. Human resettlement is still not possible.
Most likely based on the linear no-threshold model.
Dave- sssshhhh!
The Bikini lagoon coral resurrection story is just too damaging for “history deniers” to even acknowledge.
Such is their absolute devotion to the AGW cult.
The earth needs a blanket of trees and other vegetation everywhere.
That is the only difference between our planet and all others.
Without that blanket, the earth would fry to a crisp, even though it is completely surrounded by vey cold outer space.
Clearcutting forests for urban areas and human infrastructures is like committing suicide
The earth needs a blanket of trees and other vegetation everywhere.
That has never ever been a reality
This is where you prove me wrong…
We have to plant trees in the oceans
But how to keep them floating?
Wood floats, witches also…
kelp, sea grass, phytoplankton
The models are ok ?
That paper questions that thesis:
Strong cloud–circulation coupling explains weak trade cumulus feedback
Shallow cumulus clouds in the trade-wind regions cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation. The response of trade cumulus clouds to climate change is a key uncertainty in climate projections1,2,3,4. Trade cumulus feedbacks in climate models are governed by changes in cloud fraction near cloud base5,6, with high-climate-sensitivity models suggesting a strong decrease in cloud-base cloudiness owing to increased lower-tropospheric mixing5,6,7. Here we show that new observations from the EUREC4A (Elucidating the role of cloud-circulation coupling in climate) field campaign8,9 refute this mixing-desiccation hypothesis. We find the dynamical increase of cloudiness through mixing to overwhelm the thermodynamic control through humidity. Because mesoscale motions and the entrainment rate contribute equally to variability in mixing but have opposing effects on humidity, mixing does not desiccate clouds. The magnitude, variability and coupling of mixing and cloudiness differ markedly among climate models and with the EUREC4A observations. Models with large trade cumulus feedbacks tend to exaggerate the dependence of cloudiness on relative humidity as opposed to mixing and also exaggerate variability in cloudiness. Our observational analyses render models with large positive feedbacks implausible and both support and explain at the process scale a weak trade cumulus feedback. Our findings thus refute an important line of evidence for a high climate sensitivity10,11.
I believe that Dr. Peterson would be a far better informer on climate issues if he would allow those he is “interviewing” to make their points instead of constantly interrupting them. Dr Peterson is not a climate scientist, he is a psychologist. His so-called interviews are nothing more than platforms where he tells us of his views and the experts on the podcasts are nothing more than wall paper to embellish his views. Unsatisfactory all around.
It is an audacious delusion to think the GCMs/ESMs can be used to infer the effect of a single internal variable. It is also a delusion to think a single internal variable will produce an observable impact on the dynamical system.
There is no virtue in building more complicated computer models when the fundamental constraints are not yet acknowledged.
These constraints can only be understood with simpler models; straightforward foundational relationships.
The overarching assumption taught to graduate students is that with introduction of more greenhouse gas, the Earth has to “work harder” to emit outgoing LW. This “work harder” is implied to mean “the atmosphere must warm”.
But this is simply wrong in the dynamical fluid system. It is an assumption.
Maybe that’s why the models don’t do this.
Yet ENSO variations do so on a regular basis; volcanic eruptions more sporadically Lot’s of variables have observable inmpacts on global temperatures.
Nonsense!!
ENSO index is a holistic representation of numerous anomalous oceanic and atmospheric observables. It cannot be extracted from the dynamical system.
If volcanoes are a significant external forcing on climatological scales of 30+ years we must then incorporate probabilistic scenarios of future volcanic activity into the ESMs. An audacious endeavor!
Good comment. “But this is simply wrong in the dynamical fluid system.”
Yes, and that is why I keep posting a link to the NOAA GOES East CO2 Longwave Band 16 visualizations. Your points are confirmed as we “watch” from space.
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
It is helpful to note that the radiance at 30C on the brightness temperature color scale (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white).
The biggest problem with computer models is getting them to agree with reality.
Computer models can be a great learning tool. They can show us how much we know, and how much we don’t know, but their disagreeing with reality (i.e. observations) means they should never be used for government policy making.
I took the time to watch the whole thing, mostly out of respect for Judith Curry and because Jordan Peterson can be interesting. There was not much actually said about the models. There was a lot about the history of the climate movement, and the social pressures among scientists, the IPCC, politicians, and the media. I hold out hope that one day Dr. Curry will come around to see more clearly that the large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated, parameter-tuned GCMs never had ANY diagnostic or predictive authority to compute even a single scenario of a climate response to emissions of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2.
I’m ignorant of her business but perhaps she is (suscessfully) using one or more climate models to provide near term information to her clients. On a short time scale, thus few iterative steps, the uncertainty will not grow to anything approaching its magnitude for a 100 year projection (see Pat Frank’s posts on model uncertainty).
Just to say I spent most of my afternoon watching this video, and I loved it.
¡¡¡ Bravo por Dr. Peterson, por Dr Curry, por Dr.Lindzen, por Dr. Lomborg !!!
The [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change theory is backed by a consensus of models or hypotheses that demonstrate no skill to either hindcast or predict weather, climate, and related statistics.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.
Richard Feynman
I have all the time in the world for Judith and think she is courageous for being sceptical of alarmist nonsense.
She disappointingly got the “hide the decline” story wrong.
The purpose of climate modeling is to develop a value for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). ECS is defined as the increase in temperature on the earth’s surface and in the Troposphere when the CO2 content is doubled.
The original 3 models by Plass, Manabe, and Rowntree & Walker, in the 1950s, 60s and 70s gave ECS values from 2ºC to more than 4ºC; a 2X+ spread. The latest set of models are the CMIP6 group that are being used for the IPCC AR6 report. CMIP6 consists of around 100 models in 49 different modeling groups. The data published indicates ECS values of 1.8ºC to 5.6ºC; a 3X+ difference.
After some five decades of climate model development there is still not a standard climate model with an unambiguous ECS value. Rather there are some 100 models with a wider ECS variance.
Normally, science looks for convergence to verify a hypothesis. In the “settled science” of Climate Change, divergence is considered verification of the hypothesis.
“CMIP6 consists of around 100 models in 49 different modeling groups.”
Isn’t that ridiculous!
The objective seems to be to employ as many model builders as possible. It doesn’t matter that the models they build don’t reflect reality.
The major dissenting opinion that needs to be heard is calling out the absurd narrative that CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s climate. There is zero empirical evidence of this being true so all conclusions based on it are invalid.
Exactly right! The whole narrative is invalid. All the scare stories you read in the press are invalid because they are based solely on speculation, assumptions and assertions.
There is no evidence CO2 is doing what the alarmists claim it is doing to the Earth’s atmosphere. They count on the ignorance of the general public to keep the unsubstantiated CO2 narrative going.
If you listen to the interview Judith points out she is doing work for wind farms. So even if her view is one of mostly natural climate change then she still has motive to support demonising fossil fuel because that is the motivation for wind farms.
I wish that Jordan Peterson would have asked her about why she would even work for wind industry planners.
Analyzing wind regimes is not like baking a cake.
Analyzing wind regimes is a far cry from demonizing fossil fuels. Why be an ass?
A Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube video aimed at explaining the physics of the greenhouse effect, in fact hilariously refutes CO2 warming by contradicting itself! Sabine starts – correctly – by pointing out the simplistic model most people believe is plain wrong. CO2 does not trap some IR that otherwise would have made it out to space. Because none of it makes it more than about 20 meters. That’s CO2 warming argument #1 refuted by the simple fact of atmospheric saturation of CO2 IR-absorption.
https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8
So then we retreat to a second defensive line of CO2 warming argument #2: the emission height story. Maybe you’ve heard it. I had – but I was amazed I hadn’t realised its fatal flaw that Sabine pointed out at exactly 10 minutes into the video. The emission height CO2 warming mechanism depends on the atmosphere getting colder with height. But that only happens up to the stratosphere at about 12 km. Above that, the temperature trend reverses and the atmosphere gets warmer with increasing height! So now, more CO2 would do the opposite and cool the planet. (I’m amazed I hadn’t seen this huge hole in the emission height argument.) “Preindustrial” CO2 levels already had the emission height at the base of the stratosphere – so further elevating it pushes it to levels with higher, not lower, temperature resulting conversely in cooling, not warming. So the whole emission height argument #2 is just as stillborn as the absurdly simply saturation-ignoring trapped-IR argument #1.
Thus finally as in the German army’s defences at the Somme in France in 1916 during WW1 there is retreat to defensive line #3. Now it gets very hairy and tortuously complex and we start talking about the spectral trough of CO2 IR absorption and subtle effects that widen this trough. The whole narrative now hides behind trenches of arcane complexity. However the hilarious thing is that at this point, at 13 minutes and 13 seconds, Sabine explains that the CO2 spectral trough widening argument – defensive line #3 – also depends on the atmosphere getting colder with height! This is extraordinary self-contradiction because in argument #2 we were already shown – at 10 minutes – that the atmosphere only cools with height up to the stratosphere, after which it warms with further ascent.
So argument #3 depends on air cooling with height which argument #2 already shows is false in the stratosphere. So Sabine’s whole video is a spectacular own-goal for the CO2 warming argument.
In the closing minutes Sabine silently recognises these problems and tries to rescue a CO2 warming scenario by bringing in layer after layer of new complexity: it’s not just CO2 but also water and methane plus every wavelength has its own emission height, etc. But one thing is clear. The simplistic CO2 “heat trapping” argument that most warmists swear by is, as Linus Pauli would have said, “not even wrong”, but impossible. And the huge complexity of the real IR dynamics mean that unexpected answers again become possible. Such as that CO2 causes no warming whatsoever.
Thanks Sabine – a very helpful video on the CO2 story!
Uh, CO2 theory has CO2 additions cooling the stratosphere.
Yes, well done.
But increasing the height of the emission level is meant to raise it to a colder place – that’s central to the narrative. And it doesn’t.
Stratospheric cooling is not about the emission height issue, it’s simple radiative cooling of the stratosphere by CO2.
I just forwarded this great interview to family; …just doing my part👍🏻
Such forwards from Helpful Family Members channels the “Our house has aunts” commercial.
“Did you get my Facebook friend request?”.