As Soon as Possible

271 Responses to "As Soon as Possible"

1. Salvatore says

   6 Sep 2023 at 8:25 AM

   Thanks for the detailed explanation about the story behind it.

   P.S. It should be “eppure”, not “epurre”

   [Response: Fixed. Thanks!

2. Susan Anderson says

   6 Sep 2023 at 10:22 AM

   Nice pithy summary of the state of current hypocrisy:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7s-BgfcFXw

3. Mike MacCracken says

   6 Sep 2023 at 1:12 PM

   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.

   • Gerry Quinn says

     15 Sep 2023 at 4:20 PM

     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]

4. PHT says

   6 Sep 2023 at 3:42 PM

   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 ?

   • Ceist says

     7 Sep 2023 at 3:21 AM

     It’s a pay to publish “Journal”. The “Academic Editor” for the issue was none other than nutty Ned Nikolov

     • Russell Seitz says

       8 Sep 2023 at 3:59 PM

       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

   • Tim Osborn says

     7 Sep 2023 at 9:39 AM

     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 “”

5. Paul Pukite (@whut) says

   6 Sep 2023 at 4:16 PM

   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

   “I – maybe the entire academia & industry – greatly underestimated the stride that ML models could achieve .
   …
   One attendee joked that a newly surfaced study killed 100 PhD dissertations. It’s not an overstatement for #climate modeling & applications.”

   That’s laying down a gauntlet.

6. CarlSagan says

   7 Sep 2023 at 5:35 AM

   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

   • zebra says

     7 Sep 2023 at 10:11 AM

     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?

   • CarlSagan says

     10 Sep 2023 at 1:40 PM

     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

     • Barton Paul Levenson says

       11 Sep 2023 at 7:37 AM

       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.

7. zebra says

   7 Sep 2023 at 7:39 AM

   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??

   • Keith Woollard says

     7 Sep 2023 at 9:32 PM

     “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?

     • zebra says

       8 Sep 2023 at 5:40 AM

       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.

     • Barton Paul Levenson says

       8 Sep 2023 at 6:42 AM

       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.

       • Keith Woollard says

         10 Sep 2023 at 11:20 PM

         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

         • Barton Paul Levenson says

           11 Sep 2023 at 7:40 AM

           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).

         • zebra says

           11 Sep 2023 at 10:33 AM

           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.

         • Keith Woollard says

           11 Sep 2023 at 9:27 PM

           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? !

         • jgnfld says

           12 Sep 2023 at 6:39 AM

           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.

         • zebra says

           12 Sep 2023 at 10:49 AM

           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.

         • Ray Ladbury says

           12 Sep 2023 at 12:34 PM

           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.

         • John Pollack says

           12 Sep 2023 at 1:26 PM

           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.

         • Keith Woollard says

           13 Sep 2023 at 9:56 PM

           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.

         • zebra says

           14 Sep 2023 at 12:56 PM

           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.

         • Keith Woollard says

           15 Sep 2023 at 2:09 AM

           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!!!!!!!!!

         • zebra says

           17 Sep 2023 at 8:52 AM

           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.

         • Keith Woollard says

           18 Sep 2023 at 2:26 AM

           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.

         • zebra says

           18 Sep 2023 at 9:25 AM

           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.

     • Piotr says

       8 Sep 2023 at 7:30 PM

       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”.

       • Keith Woollard says

         9 Sep 2023 at 11:00 PM

         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

         • Piotr says

           11 Sep 2023 at 7:05 PM

           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).

8. E. Schaffer says

   7 Sep 2023 at 9:31 AM

   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 ;)

9. Carbomontanus says

   7 Sep 2023 at 2:58 PM

   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.

   • Carbomontanus says

     9 Sep 2023 at 3:26 AM

     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

10. Paul Coppock says

    7 Sep 2023 at 5:04 PM

    “Arial” is best spelled “aerial,” I think.

    • MA Rodger says

      8 Sep 2023 at 3:24 AM

      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.

      • Paul Coppock says

        20 Sep 2023 at 7:56 PM

        “Arial” was a typo. For rest, I take your point. Thanks!

        • Ray Ladbury says

          21 Sep 2023 at 8:15 AM

          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.

11. Guest (O.) says

    7 Sep 2023 at 9:19 PM

    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?

    • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

      8 Sep 2023 at 8:25 AM

      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.

12. De Niles says

    8 Sep 2023 at 1:39 AM

    “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.

    • Barton Paul Levenson says

      9 Sep 2023 at 11:46 AM

      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.

      • Carbomontanus says

        28 Sep 2023 at 3:16 AM

        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.

        • Carbomontanus says

          28 Sep 2023 at 9:08 AM

          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.

      • Barton Paul Levenson says

        29 Sep 2023 at 6:22 AM

        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.

    • Radge Havers says

      9 Sep 2023 at 1:44 PM

      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.

      • De Niles says

        21 Sep 2023 at 7:28 AM

        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.

        • Barton Paul Levenson says

          22 Sep 2023 at 5:58 AM

          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.

        • Radge Havers says

          22 Sep 2023 at 9:36 AM

          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.

        • Radge Havers says

          22 Sep 2023 at 11:04 AM

          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.

          • De Niles says

            27 Sep 2023 at 7:23 PM

            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]

          • zebra says

            28 Sep 2023 at 7:41 AM

            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.

          • Carbomontanus says

            28 Sep 2023 at 12:38 PM

            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.

          • Radge Havers says

            28 Sep 2023 at 2:30 PM

            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.

            Moral:
            Too many people dffiscuss creation without even knowing what it is about.

            Are you one of them?

          • De Niles says

            28 Sep 2023 at 6:29 PM

            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.

          • nigelj says

            29 Sep 2023 at 1:23 AM

            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.

          • Ray Ladbury says

            29 Sep 2023 at 11:08 AM

            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.

          • De Niles says

            30 Sep 2023 at 3:39 PM

            NIGELJ,

            There’s a video critque of William Happer’s work in the further viewing section of that Skeptical Science page. I’ve watched that before, and also read some of Happer’s work. The video (and the article) states that different layers in the upper atmosphere are not taken into consideration when evaluating CO2 saturation. However in Happer’s work he does take that into account. It gets very technical, but the main point is that the public should be made aware that CO2 has already achieved close to 100% of its possible warming effect. Aren’t we all supposed to become “climate literate”?

          • De Niles says

            30 Sep 2023 at 4:13 PM

            Ray Ladbury,

            1. Could you justify your first statement?

            2. “The INCREASE is logarithmic–that is well known, and not in dispute. ” – Look at the graph in the link I provided. At higher CO2 concentrations the amount of warming if causes decreases for every extra unit of concentration. – that is well known scientifically (but not by the public) and is not in dispute.

            3. “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. ”

            – 30C is the amount of warming provided by all greenhouse gases. CO2 accounts for about 6.5C and is close to 100% saturation. The alarming statements of “highest CO2 levels for 1 million years” and “50% increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times” are simply not alarming when this saturation effect is taken into account.

            4. Yes there will be an increase of weeds in the future. We will have to deal with that catastrophic earth change somehow. I think you have some sort of incredibly negative pathology where every single thing that happens is bad. Time to look on the bright side? Crop production is continually going up for decades partly due to increasing CO2 concentration. The earth is greening over the last 40 years to a due to higher CO2 levels as measured by NASA’s Landsat. It is really remarkable, and actually unprecedented for a million years. It should be noted and publicised more. Reminder – ideal CO2 level for plants is 800-2000ppm CO2.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            5 Oct 2023 at 11:45 AM

            De Niles, no, your graph does not show a curve that is “almost flat.”

            It tries real hard, by choosing an inappropriate vertical scale that has a flattening visual effect, but it’s nevertheless discernible that the change in forcing from present to 2x preindustrial is comparable to the change from preindustrial to present; and that the change resulting from a further doubling would be again comparable. (Well, that is rather what exponential growth means, after all. You do know that log and exponential functions are mutually inverse, right?)

            Making something look small on a graph does not mean that it is insignificant in reality.

          • Ray Ladbury says

            1 Nov 2023 at 9:50 AM

            De Niles continues to be so obtuse that we must conclude that he exists on the surface of a sphere (a Non-Euclidean geometry joke): “It was to show that economic development should be the priority, not temperature control of the entire Earth.”

            The entire point of the research cited has been to show that rising temperatures pose a serious threat to economic development! It has been known for nearly a century that GDP growth shrinks by ~1% for every degree C the temperature rises! And this was before anyone factored in the theats RISING temperatures pose for agriculture, industry, construction…let alone the increases in severe weather.

            All you have done here is demonstrate that you are utterly ignorant of the factors upon which successful growth is predicated as well as the climate and science itself!

        • Carbomontanus says

          28 Sep 2023 at 3:14 PM

          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.

        • Barton Paul Levenson says

          29 Sep 2023 at 7:00 AM

          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 says

            30 Sep 2023 at 4:43 PM

            If all known fossil fuels were burned then CO2 levels would rise to about 1600ppm. A doubling of CO2 introduces a 1% increase in warming effect. So that’s a 2% increase in warming effect if all fuels and burned. The IPCC has no real answer – they say a temp. increase of between 1.8C-5.7C for a doubling of CO2. After 30 years of global research and billions of dollars, and a transformation of the world’s energy infrastructure underway, you might think they should be a bit more certain than that. Happer and Van Wijngaarden estimate a 0.8C increase in temperature for doubling CO2, which may be negated by the response of clouds.

            We really are in the infancy of understanding the Earth’s climate. A bit more research needed… such as the paper from the “deniers” that is the original subject of this post. Again, calling someone a “denier” in a field that is in its infancy is absolutely preposterous.

          • zebra says

            2 Oct 2023 at 6:55 AM

            Geoff Miell

            Geoff, you obviously know your stuff, but you keep making this error in language that allows one of the Denialist’s phony framing ploys.

            Rising global mean surface temperature is not going to annihilate plants, because GMST is an effect, not a cause. We derive it from local measurements, which reflect the increase in the system energy, and which depart from pre-CO2-increase norms.

            The plants are annihilated because they (and agricultural practices) were designed around (pre-CO2-increase) local conditions of temperature and moisture patterns.

            Same is obviously the case for the other stuff; the fish movement patterns looking for food reflect previous conditions; they intersect with the local changes in temperature and oxygen content, and get killed.

            And so on, for all the elements of our complex, non-linear, chaotic, weather/climate system.

            I know GMST has been the proxy for energy increase for a long time now, and it is easy to fall into using it as a substitute in discourse, since we all know what you mean.

            But the public is easily led astray by the usual Denialist claims of “what’s the big deal about a slightly warmer temperature; that sounds like an improvement”. Now that we have other good solid metrics, maybe it’s time to consistently make the distinction between cause and effect clear.

          • De Niles says

            4 Oct 2023 at 1:20 PM

            Ray,

            No, the accumulation of CO2 does not overpower the ever-decreasing warming effect at higher concentrations. Here is a graph of the increase in radiative forcing of greenhouse gases as a whole, as more CO2 is added up to 1100 ppm. It’s nearly flat.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png

            How much CO2 are you planning on pumping out? Maybe if we get to 100,000ppm there will be some dangerous warming. But we will have all suffocated by then.

          • MA Rodger says

            5 Oct 2023 at 8:26 AM

            De Niles,
            I appreciate this is difficult for you but do pay attention.
            The out-of-date graphic you link-to (380ppm CO2?) is simply plotting a log function which by its nature never becomes “flat.”, The log function is an accurate empirical CO2-Forcing relationship but beyond 1,100ppm the forcing begins to increase ahead of the log function as absorption bands either side of 10 microns develop.
            The potential for CO2 forcing resulting from increasing today’s CO2 levels is perhaps 40x that of the forcing resulting from a CO2 increase from pre-industrial to today’s c420ppm – although it would evidently require vastly more CO2 than the 700Gt(C) we’ve emitted so far to to realise the full 40x. (At 100,000ppm you mention, the forcing is perhaps 27x. But as DeNileist you may even be comfortable with 27x. I do recall that champion denialist Dickie Lindzen dismissing anything less than 20x being unworthy of his climatological attentions, but he is [or more correctly ‘once was’] a climatologist.)

          • nigelj says

            5 Oct 2023 at 2:34 PM

            de Niles:

            “Here is a graph of the increase in radiative forcing of greenhouse gases as a whole, as more CO2 is added up to 1100 ppm. It’s nearly flat.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img2.png

            My understanding is that the shallow slope in the graph still generates a significant level of warming for a doubling of CO2 levels (from 200ppm to 400ppm for example). So although the logarithmic function applies you still get significant warming.

            Then you have to add positive feed backs from such things as water vapour and arctic amplification. This leads to the IPCC projections of warming. The models based on all this have proven to be reasonably accurate in predicting warming so far. (about 1.5 degrees) Refer model data comparisons on this website. This is good evidence the methodology is correct.

        • Geoff Miell says

          29 Sep 2023 at 8:34 PM

          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:

          Although CO₂ has less effect at higher CO₂ concentrations, this “logarithmic effect” will be overpowered by these 4 factors if we don’t switch to clean energy quickly:

          1. Exponential growth of energy use
          2. Past CO₂ emissions that nature has not yet absorbed
          3. Carbon sink saturation
          4. Committed warming

          What if we manage to stop increasing our emissions? This related article indicates that if emissions hold steady, global warming will still continue upward linearly.

          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?

          • De Niles says

            30 Sep 2023 at 5:07 PM

            1. “Do you really think climate scientists aren’t aware of this and not factored this into their climate modelling outlooks, ”

            No. I think the public aren’t aware of it. I was not. That’s why I mentioned 30 years of climate change reporting, which is where the public get their information from.

            2. “Rising global mean surface air temperatures will annihilate plants and animals long before atmospheric CO₂ concentration levels become toxic.”

            Annihilate is quite a strong word. I think you are infected with a philosophy of catastrophism and negativity and are letting that cloud your thinking. Compare the species density of the Arctic to the Amazon. That’s a rather striking but blunt mechanism for how temperature affects the success and abundance of life. We could also look at hot arid areas and how they respond to higher CO2 concentration, and we find its positive. Satellite studies by NASA, NOAA and Austrialian agencies have found the greening of the earth due to higher CO2 levels is most pronounced in arid regions. This is due to the fact that plants grow more in a high CO2 environment WITHOUT any extra water. They are limited by low CO2 levels.

            So, on balance, a slight warming of the Earth and more importantly, high CO2 levels for plants, will be positive for the biosphere.

          • Geoff Miell says

            1 Oct 2023 at 8:36 PM

            De Niles (at 30 SEP 2023 AT 5:07 PM): – “No. I think the public aren’t aware of it. I was not. That’s why I mentioned 30 years of climate change reporting, which is where the public get their information from.”

            Just because you have apparently been ignorant about the issue, until recently, doesn’t necessarily mean other members of the public aren’t aware. It seems to me the information sources you have apparently been relying upon, until recently, have been found wanting, aye De Niles? Seeking relevant information generally requires effort – it usually doesn’t just come to one.

            Even if you (until recently) and perhaps many other members of the general public may still not be aware of the CO₂ “logarithmic effect”, I’d suggest climate scientists certainly have been aware and factored this into their climate modelling outlooks. The CO₂ “Greenhouse Effect” has been known about since the 19th century.
            https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

            De Niles (at 30 SEP 2023 AT 5:07 PM): – “Annihilate is quite a strong word.”

            I think the word “annihilate” is entirely appropriate for events like the mass fish casualty observed along the shore at Quintana Beach County Park, near Freeport, Texas, on June 9, 2023, which it seems was caused by low dissolved oxygen levels in the water, likely because of a recent rise in temperature.
            https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/local/2023/06/12/454207/dead-fish-texas-gulf-coast-temperature-rise/

            As global temperatures rise further there will be many more catastrophic events like this, both for marine life in the oceans, and for plants and animals on land due to increasing extreme heatwave events.

            De Niles (at 30 SEP 2023 AT 5:07 PM): – “I think you are infected with a philosophy of catastrophism and negativity and are letting that cloud your thinking.”

            I think you (and many other members of the general public) are ignorant of how dire the climate situation really is:

            * Global (60N-60S) Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies are at record highs;
            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1708475006458401245

            * Global Surface Air Temperature of the past 4 months is at record high;
            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1708499212722200882

            * Antarctic sea ice extent is at record seasonal lows.
            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1706288801209790782

            And the reason for these simultaneous record events is due to the record high Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).
            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1708549133634519394

            Posted at WRAL TechWire on 29 Sep 2023 was a follow-up piece by Marshall Brain headlined Just how bad is climate change? It’s worse than you think, says Doomsday author. It began with:

            RALEIGH – Last week I wrote an article on the coming collapse of our ecosystem and our civilization:

            We have destroyed our ecosystem – now we await the collapse of civilization

            The article received a lot of traffic, and reactions were all over the map. Today’s article is for those people who think things aren’t that bad. They say things like:

            “Everything is going to be OK”
            “Civilization is not going to collapse”
            “We are on the road to solving climate change”

            To those on this “positive” or “hopium” end of the spectrum, here is something to consider: Things are way, way worse than you think. The reason people can believe that everything is going to be OK is because they have not taken the time to comprehend all the different things that are going wrong simultaneously, nor how seriously these things are going wrong.

            Therefore, let’s take a dive into the unfolding catastrophe that climate change is creating for humanity and the planet’s ecosystems.

            https://wraltechwire.com/2023/09/29/just-how-bad-is-climate-change-its-worse-than-you-think-says-doomsday-author/

            De Niles (at 30 SEP 2023 AT 5:07 PM): – “So, on balance, a slight warming of the Earth and more importantly, high CO2 levels for plants, will be positive for the biosphere.”

            Evidence/data/links? I’d suggest your opinion is not supported by the accumulating and overwhelming scientific evidence/data.

          • Ray Ladbury says

            2 Oct 2023 at 8:01 AM

            As with most denialists, De Niles focuses on a portion of the truth so he can ignore the full truth. Yes, CO2 forcing increases logarithmically with concentration, but concentration is increasing exponentially or even more rapidly, leading to a near linear to quadratic rise in temperature.

          • De Niles says

            4 Oct 2023 at 11:29 AM

            Geoff,

            Reporting on CO2 by media / government / U.N. / and “media scientists” is typically accompanied by claims that CO2 levels are the highest in 1 million years, have increased 50% since industrial revolution, etc. This is true but misleading due to the ever decreasing warming effect per unit CO2 at higher concentrations. If it is important that the public understand CO2 and climate change then they should not be misled in this way, since those statements present an alarming rise in greenhouse gases, when that in reality that rise is not as alarming as those statements intuitively suggest, due to the saturation of the greenhouse effect.

            Quote from your report about mass fish deaths:

            “Hagen said most fish kills seen along the Texas coast are localized events and do not correlate with overall temperatures and oxygen levels in the Gulf. Events like the one in the Freeport area are common in the summer when temperatures increase, she said, adding that it is a natural occurrence.”

            Re; “How dire the situation is”. Yes, three measurements that show the Earth is getting slightly warmer. It is, yes. We don’t know if that’s due to CO2. None of those are obviously dire. Earth has warmed and cooled by 1-2C many times in recent history. The last major extinction of megafauna was at the beginning of the Younger Dryas period about 13,000 years ago, when the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 5-10C in about 50 years. The temperature rose by that amount in a similar time frame at the end of the period and did not produce mass extinctions. Warmth far preferable to cold. Not much lives in the Antarctic.

            “Evidence/data/links? I’d suggest your opinion is not supported by the accumulating and overwhelming scientific evidence/data.”

            Greening of the Earth due to elevated CO2 levels – https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

            Increasing species density (biodiversity) correlates with increasing temperature – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_distribution#/media/File:North_America_mammals.jpg

          • Geoff Miell says

            5 Oct 2023 at 9:06 AM

            De Niles (at 4 OCT 2023 AT 11:29 AM): – “Reporting on CO2 by media / government / U.N. / and “media scientists” is typically accompanied by claims that CO2 levels are the highest in 1 million years, have increased 50% since industrial revolution, etc. This is true but misleading due to the ever decreasing warming effect per unit CO2 at higher concentrations.”

            Global mean atmospheric CO₂ levels in 2022 were at 417 ppm, but that’s only part of the story. From NOAA, re Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI):

            In a nutshell:

            * The AGGI in 2022 was 1.49, which means that we’ve turned up the warming influence from greenhouse gases by 49% since 1990.
            * It took ~240 years for the AGGI to go from 0 to 1, i.e., to reach 100%, and 32 years for it to increase by another 49%.
            * In terms of CO₂ equivalents, the atmosphere in 2022 contained 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone. The rest comes from other gases.
            * CO₂ is by far the largest contributor to the AGGI in terms of both amount and rate of increase.
            * Note: The IPCC suggests that a constant concentration of CO₂ alone at 550 ppm would lead to an average increase in Earth’s temperature of ~3°C (5.4°F).

            https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/

            We’ve well and truly crossed the 400 ppm line in modern atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, and the 500 ppm line for CO₂-equivalent. Per paleo-historical data, the Earth System is now entering climate territory not encountered for many MILLIONS of years, heading towards mid-Miocene-like climate conditions.
            https://skepticalscience.com//pics/Eocene-PleistoceneCO2andtemps.png

            From genetic data, the ape-human split was circa 7 million years ago. So humans (and hominids) have never experienced mid-Miocene-like climate conditions.

            De Niles (at 4 OCT 2023 AT 11:29 AM): – “Earth has warmed and cooled by 1-2C many times in recent history.”

            It depends on what you mean by “recent”. Here are some climate states:

            Mid-Holocene (7,000 to 6,000 years ago): _ _ _ 260 ppm CO₂ _ _ +0.6-0.9 °C
            Eemian (127,000 to 106,000 years ago): _ _ 280-300 ppm CO₂ _ _ +1.0-1.5 °C _ _ +6-9 m SL
            Mid-Pliocene (4-3 million years ago): _ _ _ _400-450 ppm CO₂ _ _ +2.0-3.0 °C _ _+10-22 m SL
            Mid-Miocene (17-15 million years ago): _ _ _300-500 ppm CO₂ _ _ +4.0-5.0 °C _ _+10-60 m SL
            See the YouTube video titled Keynote Debate Can the Climate Emergency Action Plan lead to Collective Action? (50 Years CoR), from time interval 0:24:12, where the slide titled “Where on Earth are We Headed? Pliocene or Miocene?” is displayed.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2XLeGmHtE

            De Niles (at 4 OCT 2023 AT 11:29 AM): – “Greening of the Earth due to elevated CO2 levels –”

            The link you provided included:

            While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

            The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

            The greening effect is temporary. Rising temperatures will slow & then reverse these ‘greening’ benefits for plants adapted to Holocene climate conditions.

            Copernicus Climate Change Service has published a graph showing the 30 warmest months on record globally.
            https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/era5_global_sfc_temp_30_warmest_months.png

            Leon SImons tweeted on Oct 5 (including a graph of global mean September temperatures relative to 1850-1900):

            For those still in doubt/denial, this is not what gradual warming looks like:

            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1709846572199018973

          • De Niles says

            13 Oct 2023 at 2:53 PM

            Re; Geoff,

            First of all, there is a lot of disagreement about temperature records from all periods of history. For example, I have a source which says the last interglacial about 120,000 years before present was on average 3C warmer than today. Figure B2 in Appendix B – https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf

            The most accurate historical record for recent centuries is the Central England thermometer records which show a 2C average rise from 1690-1730 (10-year average). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature#/media/File:20190731_Central_England_Temperature_(CET)_(annual_mean,_beginning_in_1659).png
            This is dismissed as local temps, but the temps for Central England match global temperatures for the last 100 years. There are Greenland ice-core records for the Holocene which show century-long periods with a temperature 1C warmer than today multiple times in the last 4000 years. Figure B4 from first link.

            Here’s a look at the raw data from temperature proxies that make up the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph – the raw data shows many 1-2C rise and falls over the last 2000 years. Their final IPCC graph doesn’t, and there’s no explanation for the incogruity. https://co2coalition.org/news/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/

            Second of all, a small temperature increase would be positive for the biosphere and crop production. Here’s a map of biomes around the world during the last ice age. Most of the world was not conducive to life or agriculture due to the low temperatures and arid environment that comes with it (and low CO2 levels for plants!) – the rainforests were hardly in existence. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#/media/File:Last_Glacial_Maximum_Vegetation_Map.svg

            We’re going back to that at some point in the next few thousand years. Tough times ahead. We will be praying for global warming.

            Third, regardless of its cause, the idea that humans or any other flora and fauna cannot prosper in a 3C warming is ridiculous. Most of the people in the world live in areas that are more than 10C warmer on average than where I live, most of the animals too. Most life experiences huge variance in daily, monthly and seasonal temperatures. Warmth is better than cold.

            Fourth, you’re implicitly linking CO2 to temperatures. Yes, there is a link, as the Earth cools or warms due to other factors, and consequently CO2 is released or sequestered by the oceans, for example in the glacial cycles of the past 2.5 million years. You’ve given historical CO2 levels similar to today’s levels and higher temperatures than today indicating the temperatures were driven by other factors.

            Yes I have read my own link regarding the CO2 fertilisation effect not lasting, for some unstated reason. I tried to verify this but couldn’t find any explanation of why this would occur. I have to assume its just a pre-requisite assumption added in to the article to fulfill the CO2 is bad narrative. There’s no reason I can think of that plants would not keep growing more due to elevated CO2 levels. They have been for the 40 years of satellite measurements so far, and greenhouse growers continually pump CO2 into their greenhouses for extra yield. CO2 is to life what sunlight and water is. The plants evolved millions of years ago. Their preferred CO2 level is 800-2000ppm depending on species. They are not adapted to Holocene conditions.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            14 Oct 2023 at 8:21 AM

            Shorter version of DeNiles’s point 1: “I reject your proxies and substitute my own!” But, needless to say, perhaps, that doesn’t wash.

            Point #2 founders on the inconvenient fact that many crops are now quite close, in wide swathes of the world, to their thermal limits, and secondarily on the fact that an intensified hydraulic cycle is quite inconvenient for agriculture–to understate it ironically.

            Point #3 is a red herring. The question isn’t how much of the world lives where relative to DeNiles, but how much of it is close to human thermal limits. The prognosis isn’t particularly good in that regard. E.g.:

            https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-10-09/deadly-humid-heat-could-hit-billions-spread-as-far-as-us-midwest-study-says

            Link to paper:

            https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305427120

            Point #4 is pure denial of the known effect of CO2, and as such is mere repetition. It’s still wrong.

          • Geoff Miell says

            15 Oct 2023 at 12:33 AM

            De Niles (at 13 OCT 2023 AT 2:53 PM): – “First of all, there is a lot of disagreement about temperature records from all periods of history. For example, I have a source which says the last interglacial about 120,000 years before present was on average 3C warmer than today.”

            You mean you have some opinion within a non-peer-reviewed Discussion Paper by Dagsvik and Moen expressing their standard talking-points of climate denial. Who are these people? Apparently it seems a retired Economist and retired Civil Engineer.

            Edgar Hertwich shows how the Discussion Paper points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.
            https://blog.indecol.no/climate-sceptic-talking-point-published-by-statistics-norway/

            De Niles (at 13 OCT 2023 AT 2:53 PM): – “Here’s a look at the raw data from temperature proxies that make up the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph – the raw data shows many 1-2C rise and falls over the last 2000 years.”

            Looking at the list of CO₂ Coalition Founders, Directors & Members, it appears to me there are quite a few well-known climate science deniers shown. So I wouldn’t trust any so-called “raw data” sourced from them. But that’s just me…
            https://co2coalition.org/about/

            De Niles (at 13 OCT 2023 AT 2:53 PM): – “Second of all, a small temperature increase would be positive for the biosphere and crop production. Here’s a map of biomes around the world during the last ice age.”

            Agriculture was developed during the Holocene period (∼11,650 years ago to current era), after the last ice age. Crops have been adapted to these (non-ice age) climate conditions. As Kevin McKinney points out:

            …many crops are now quite close, in wide swathes of the world, to their thermal limits…

            Per the Oct 2019 Agricultural Systems paper by Franziska Gaupp et. al. titled Increasing risks of multiple breadbasket failure under 1.5 and 2 °C global warming, suggests:

            * Global food security risks rise rapidly from +1.5 to +2 °C warming;
            * The increasingly inter connected global food system is becoming more vulnerable to production shocks owing to increasing global mean temperatures and more frequent climate extremes;
            * Risks of simultaneous crop failure do increase disproportionately between +1 5 and +2 °C, so surpassing the +1 5 °C threshold will represent a threat to global food security;
            * For maize, risks of multiple breadbasket failures increase the most, from 6% to 40% at +1 5 °C, to 54 at +2 °C warming;
            * In relative terms, the highest simultaneous climate risk increase between the two warming scenarios was found for wheat (40%), followed by maize (35%) and soybean (23%).
            https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.010

            De Niles (at 13 OCT 2023 AT 2:53 PM): – “We’re going back to that at some point in the next few thousand years. Tough times ahead. We will be praying for global warming.”

            Careful what you wish for, De Niles. The overwhelming science says the Earth System is on a trajectory of global warming (NOT cooling), even if humanity ceased all human-induced GHG emissions ASAP. Prof Schellnhuber says: “…there will be no ice age anymore…”
            https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-814044

            De Niles (at 13 OCT 2023 AT 2:53 PM): – “Third, regardless of its cause, the idea that humans or any other flora and fauna cannot prosper in a 3C warming is ridiculous. Most of the people in the world live in areas that are more than 10C warmer on average than where I live, most of the animals too. Most life experiences huge variance in daily, monthly and seasonal temperatures. Warmth is better than cold.”

            I’d suggest there are only so many clothes one can remove when it gets hotter.

            A wet-bulb temperature (Tw) of 35 °C has been proposed as a theoretical upper limit on human abilities to biologically thermoregulate. But, recent—empirical—research using human subjects found a significantly lower maximum Tw at which thermoregulation is possible even with minimal metabolic activity.
            https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2305427120/asset/bb7054e5-92cd-44c1-86e0-d6ec91927533/assets/images/large/pnas.2305427120fig04.jpg

            In the not too distant future, if we are not too careful, moist heat extremes will lie outside the bounds of past human experience and beyond current heat mitigation strategies for billions of people.

            Figure 1 shows annual hot-hours under (A) 1.5, (B) 2, (C) 3, and (D) 4 °C of warming relative to preindustrial level, (E) population projection in 2050 following the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2, and (F) population subject to accumulated duration of 1 wk to 3 mo of uncompensable heat stress annually under 1–4 °C of global warming (the shaded area corresponds to the 10th to 90th percentiles of CMIP6 model spread).
            https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2305427120/asset/0d860b17-46dd-42cd-9769-b74100008b12/assets/images/large/pnas.2305427120fig01.jpg

            De Niles, and you still haven’t answered: How is increasing ocean acidification (due to CO₂ uptake) beneficial to marine life?

          • De Niles says

            19 Oct 2023 at 12:51 PM

            [quote]You mean you have some opinion within a non-peer-reviewed Discussion Paper by Dagsvik and Moen expressing their standard talking-points of climate denial. Who are these people? Apparently it seems a retired Economist and retired Civil Engineer.

            Edgar Hertwich shows how the Discussion Paper points are flawed and point to sources of facts and scientific findings.
            https://blog.indecol.no/climate-sceptic-talking-point-published-by-statistics-norway/%5B/quote%5D

            You know as well as I do that there are many sources for historical temperatures. Haha, a refutation by someone using the term “DENIER” in the heading, the sub-heading, and the first paragraph is an appeal that it “SHOULDN’T EVEN BE PUBLISHED”, wow, like clockwork, the suppression by name-calling and appeals to censorship begins again. He calls it “a piece of propaganda” after doing that… people like that are not self-aware. No mention or refutation of the historical temperatures under consideration, which is the whole reason I posted it.

            [quote]Looking at the list of CO₂ Coalition Founders, Directors & Members, it appears to me there are quite a few well-known climate science deniers shown. So I wouldn’t trust any so-called “raw data” sourced from them. But that’s just me…
            https://co2coalition.org/about/%5B/quote%5D

            Ok, well if we’re in the game of dismissing things based on authorship (a formal logical fallacy), then I’ll dismiss everything the IPCC puts out, because of the apparent misrepresentation of this hugely important graph. You can’t argue with that! Of course, I don’t dismiss everything the IPCC put out, because I’m honest, unlike you. The raw data is taken from the IPCC sources themselves, not CO2 coalition (who are actually reporting someone else’s work anyway)., so you’re either blind or lying.

            I’ve also personally noticed how IPCC changed their language between reports. For example in the 2001 report, it mentions that average temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere changed as much as 10C in 50 years at the end of the last glacial period (The Younger Dryas). Now their language is “the transition from glacial to interglacial was about 1.5C every 1000 years, althought the transition WAS NOT SMOOTH”. Hahaha. Don’t want to get people questioning the real rate of potential natural change! Things like that drastically undermine trust.

            [quote]Agriculture was developed during the Holocene period (∼11,650 years ago to current era), after the last ice age. Crops have been adapted to these (non-ice age) climate conditions. As Kevin McKinney points out:[/quote]

            All plants grow much better in high CO2 conditions. The Holocene crops are obviously based on wild varieties which have existed for millions of years. As I said, greenhouse growers pump in CO2 to increase yield. Here’s a graph showing drastic increase in land photosynthesis over the last 100 years, which has been verified since 1980 by Landsat. https://images.theconversation.com/files/314179/original/file-20200207-27533-1akrxgk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1

            Along with CO2 fertilisation, rising temperatures (whatever their cause) mean longer growing seasons and more production. World crop productivity is continually increasing, despite this catastrophic 1.2C temperature rise. This is all complete nonsense.

            [quote]Various sources predicting crop catastrophe[/quote]

            No evidence that rising temperatures have been harmful so far. Call my back when there is. Again, operating under the assumption that CO2 is causing the warming, which is the whole debate here anyway….

            [quote]Careful what you wish for, De Niles. The overwhelming science says the Earth System is on a trajectory of global warming (NOT cooling), even if humanity ceased all human-induced GHG emissions ASAP. Prof Schellnhuber says: “…there will be no ice age anymore…”[/quote]

            Is this trajectory 5000 years out? When, judging by past fluctuations (caused by orbital cycles) we’re due for major cooling (10-16C for Northern Hemisphere in the last glaciation). CO2 has been continually declining for millions of years. In the last glaciation it went down to 180ppm, the lowest in Earth’s history, where 150ppm is the death of plants. We really, really need MORE CO2 for civilisation, all life, and in fact, the only known life in the universe to continue. In geological time we are on the precipice of extinction because of our CO2 famine.

            [quote]
            A wet-bulb temperature (Tw) of 35 °C has been proposed as a theoretical upper limit on human abilities to biologically thermoregulate. But, recent—empirical—research using human subjects found a significantly lower maximum Tw at which thermoregulation is possible even with minimal metabolic activity.
            https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2305427120/asset/bb7054e5-92cd-44c1-86e0-d6ec91927533/assets/images/large/pnas.2305427120fig04.jpg

            In the not too distant future, if we are not too careful, moist heat extremes will lie outside the bounds of past human experience and beyond current heat mitigation strategies for billions of people.
            [/quote

            You know as well as I that the ancestors of all life on Earth have lived in much hotter average global temperatures than they do now. Most warming from greenhouse gases occurs at night when it’s cooler. Again this is beneficial to plants as it prevents frost. And again, there is little we can do to increase the greenhouse effect because it is at nearly 100% saturation, and there is no proof increasing CO2 will increase temps.

            Very hot temperatures can be mitigated by the use of air conditioning, bathing. Cheap energy will increase the standard of living drastically and save more lives than a futile crusade to control the average temperature of the entire Earth. 20x as many people die from the cold as from the heat…. and there’s no proof CO2 will increase temps. The whole point of this debate, again!

            [quote]De Niles, and you still haven’t answered: How is increasing ocean acidification (due to CO₂ uptake) beneficial to marine life?
            [/quote]

            I don’t know much about that, do you? Could you explain the pros and cons of acidification? Without CO2 the oceans would have the same alkalinity as household bleach. No life could live there. All the ancestors of everything alive today lived through CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM.

          • Geoff Miell says

            19 Oct 2023 at 11:01 PM

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “Along with CO2 fertilisation, rising temperatures (whatever their cause) mean longer growing seasons and more production. World crop productivity is continually increasing, despite this catastrophic 1.2C temperature rise. This is all complete nonsense.”

            PNAS published a research article on 15 Aug 2017 by Chuang Zhao, Bing Liu, Shilong Piao and Senthold Asseng titled Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. It included (bold text my emphasis):

            Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

            https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701762114

            Relationship between temperature and crop production yields for:
            * Wheat
            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-between-Wheat-Crop-Production-and-Temperature_fig3_355740318

            * Sugarcane
            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relation-between-Sugarcane-Crop-Production-and-Temperature_fig4_355740318

            As can be seen in the graphs referred to, for a given crop type, there’s an optimum temperature for maximum production yields, and either side of that the yields diminish.

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “You know as well as I that the ancestors of all life on Earth have lived in much hotter average global temperatures than they do now.”

            But not us/Homo sapiens. Modern humans have only been around for about the last 300,000 years. Twenty-first century atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (now well above the 400 ppm line) are now similar to the Mid-Miocene era (circa 15 million years ago), long before our Hominin ancestors split from Apes (circa 7 million years ago).
            https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2845

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “And again, there is little we can do to increase the greenhouse effect because it is at nearly 100% saturation, and there is no proof increasing CO2 will increase temps.”

            And yet the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) and global mean surface temperatures continue to rise.
            https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1711664194829873513
            See also Figures 25 & 26 at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474.pdf

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “Very hot temperatures can be mitigated by the use of air conditioning, bathing. Cheap energy will increase the standard of living drastically and save more lives than a futile crusade to control the average temperature of the entire Earth. 20x as many people die from the cold as from the heat…. and there’s no proof CO2 will increase temps. The whole point of this debate, again!”

            De Niles, does that include crops and livestock in air-conditioned spaces too? Or did you not think about how extreme temperatures also disrupt crop and livestock yields. Where will this “cheap” energy come from? Looks to me like a whole lot of ‘hand waving’ by you and little thought about where your food comes from and what conditions/requirements are needed to produce them.

            Um, where does the figure “20x as many people die from the cold as from the heat” come from, De Niles? You just made that up, didn’t you De Niles?

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “I don’t know much about that, do you? Could you explain the pros and cons of acidification?”

            https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ocean-acidification

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “Without CO2 the oceans would have the same alkalinity as household bleach. No life could live there.”

            I confess I did laugh out loud at seeing those statements – De Niles, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about!
            The pH (which is a log scale ranging from 0 to 14) of household bleach ranges from around 11 to 13.
            https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/ph-scale

            For 650,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric levels of CO₂ fluctuated between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm). Per the IPCC, pre-industrial age pH of seawater was 8.2 , to the current pH of 8.1. Under present day emission conditions, average ocean pH could drop to 7.7–7.9 by the end of the century.
            https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FA206

            And yet it seems the oceans have been abundant with life for periods of relatively low (i.e. 180-280 ppm) atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.

            De Niles (at 19 OCT 2023 AT 12:51 PM): – “All the ancestors of everything alive today lived through CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM.”

            But we/modern humans as a species haven’t. We are about to find out whether we can.

          • MA Rodger says

            20 Oct 2023 at 1:36 AM

            The fool calling himself De Niles admits he doesn’t know much about acidification of the oceans so instead prattles on about the impact of the pH of our oceans below a sky without an CO2. Perhaps it is a bit of a leap for such a one to grasp the realities of such a situation where the oceans would simply cease to be, freezing down to the sea bed and becoming part of the geology, So his projected pH levels are entirely irrelevance.
            The fool then adds that all the ancestors of the species on today’s Earth have lived through periods of time with “CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM.” Presumably being a prime dinosaur himself, the fool denies evolution as well as man-made climate change.

          • De Niles says

            21 Oct 2023 at 2:08 PM

            Geoff,

            The study you posted has huge variances for the predicted effect on agriculture, and says itself in some of the cases that “the estimates are not statistically significant due to large uncertainties in each method “. Much like a lot of “climate science” i.e. “guessing”.

            Crop responses to slightly different temperatures can be ameliorated by changing what you plant, i.e. moving crops further north or south. Even if it were possible, you don’t need to change the climate – you can adapt to it. Far more practical than the hubristic campaign to try and control the average temperature of the entire Earth. We are all now King Canute, commanding the tide to go out.

            https://www.cato.org/blog/projecting-impacts-rising-co2-future-crop-yields-germany – major crop yield increase predicted for the coming century from increase in CO2 levels, on top of the already major gains from 280-400ppm. Even if CO2 is driving warming, from the paper –

            “not only was the “negative climatic effect balanced out, it [was] reversed by a rise in CO2” (emphasis added), leading to yield increases on the order of 25 to 60 percent. ”

            “But not us/Homo sapiens. Modern humans have only been around for about the last 300,000 years. Twenty-first century atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (now well above the 400 ppm line) are now similar to the Mid-Miocene era (circa 15 million years ago), long before our Hominin ancestors split from Apes (circa 7 million years ago).
            https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2845”

            I was talking about temperature, not CO2. The two are different. Please decouple them in your head. CO2 levels are up to 2000ppm in indoor spaces. Homo Sapiens survive that. Above that could be harmful to health, but there aren’t enough fossil fuels to return to those levels anyway. Animals are simply not biologically responsive to the kinds of CO2 level variation we are talking about.

            As for temperature, you know, billions of people live in warm conditions, humanity evolved in warm conditions. We couldn’t survive without clothes outside of the tropics. Biodiversity increases from the Arctic to the Amazon drastically. Mammals predate Homo Sapiens by tens of millions of years and have similar physiology. Polar bears can live in warm conditions in zoos, lions can live in cold conditions in safari parks. Because animals and plants evolved to certain average temperatures and environmental conditions over tens of millions of years does not mean that they cannot survive change. The temperatures where I live vary over the year from -10C to 30C, occasionally there’s a 20C change in one day. All the animals and plants survive that. They are not as fragile as you pretend.

            “Where will this “cheap” energy come from? ”

            Fossil fuels, which are being made more expensive globally by political projects to phase them out and replace them with more expensive so-called “renewables” and batteries which require vast amounts of natural resources to produce.

            “Looks to me like a whole lot of ‘hand waving’ by you and little thought about where your food comes from and what conditions/requirements are needed to produce them.”

            Ah yeah, you’re lying again. No certain effect on crops or livestock from 1C temperature increase. So ‘hand-waving’ non-existent things can’t really be a thing can it? What’s really harming agriculture? Taking space away from crops for biofuels. Recent BBC report had the ridiculous fact that to decarbonise the UK’s aviation industry would require half of the country’s cropland to produce biofuels for it. Using cropland for bioethanol in an aim to reduce CO2 emission from gasoline cars by 3% or something irrelevant, which studies have shown may be cancelled out by emissions from farming and processing it… and it makes fuel more expensive. Again, cheap energy and high CO2 levels will help agriculture, obviously.

            … and you sidestep the entire point of helping people in hot countries anyway, which is more important.

            “Um, where does the figure “20x as many people die from the cold as from the heat” come from, De Niles? You just made that up, didn’t you De Niles?”

            British Medical Journal – https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2740

            “For 650,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric levels of CO₂ fluctuated between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm). Per the IPCC, pre-industrial age pH of seawater was 8.2 , to the current pH of 8.1. Under present day emission conditions, average ocean pH could drop to 7.7–7.9 by the end of the century.
            https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FA206”

            7 is neutral, so the oceans are still more alkaline than acid, not a significant change. Alkalinification would be a problem wouldn’t it? CO2 is the basis for like in the oceans too, like on land. I’m honest unlike you, so I say I’m not well researched on this, are you? I think you just heard the word “acid” and thought “bad”. That seems to be the extent of your knowledge. Some further reading from deniers and contrarians (formerly known as scientists) – https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2015-Cohen-Happer-Fundamentals-of-Ocean-pH.pdf

            “But we/modern humans as a species haven’t. We are about to find out whether we can.”

            Yes, you can. You can test this by going indoors and breathing air with CO2 levels of 100 or 200 years from now.

            Angry, rude man MA Rodger,

            “The fool then adds that all the ancestors of the species on today’s Earth have lived through periods of time with “CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM.” Presumably being a prime dinosaur himself, the fool denies evolution as well as man-made climate change.”

            Yes, it’s interesting to note how biologically productive that time in Earth’s history was, a lot of the carbon we’re burning now was deposited then. It’s a gift and we’re returning it to the air to create a more productive biosphere. That warm, high CO2 paradise that allowed gigantic animals to roam and fly the Earth.

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            22 Oct 2023 at 5:50 AM

            DN: Even if it were possible, you don’t need to change the climate – you can adapt to it.

            BPL: Not fast enough, we can’t. Losing the seacoast and losing our agriculture will topple the civilization we live in. We cannot possibly adapt fast enough. We need to mitigate the change.

          • Geoff Miell says

            22 Oct 2023 at 6:57 PM

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “Crop responses to slightly different temperatures can be ameliorated by changing what you plant, i.e. moving crops further north or south.”

            What do smaller countries do when ambient temperatures become incompatible for growing the crops in the regions they have been used to growing in the past? What does humanity do when there isn’t enough suitable agricultural land to feed humanity, as the equatorial and mid-latitude regions of the world become progressively unlivable due to extreme heat/humidity? That’s what I’ve been alluding to. Your solution offered is to move – inevitably, sooner or later, there’s nowhere remaining on planet Earth for many of us to move to. That’s my point. Think how geopolitically destabilizing that would be.

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “Even if it were possible, you don’t need to change the climate – you can adapt to it.”

            Humans cannot adapt to 35 °C wet bulb temperatures – people die (including the supremely fit) if exposed for between 15 minutes to 6 hours. What does one do if the electricity supply or the air-con fails in those conditions? You simply die. What do people do if they don’t have access to adequate air-con? They simply die!
            See Figure 4 at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305427120

            The Cato Institute blog post is dated 29 Apr 2016, referring to a paper by Jan F. Degener (2015). The Cato Institute fails to mention that the Degener paper included in section 4. Discussion, beginning with:

            All of these results point into one direction. The basic climatic factors like precipitation and temperature will change in a way detrimental to the growth of crops. While increasing temperatures are beneficial at first to winter grains and spring wheat, they will increasingly inhibit an optimal development throughout the seasons. Maize is already today grown at near optimal temperatures, thus even small temperature change upwards, show negative effects on maize yields (Schlenker and Roberts, 2009). Even worse is the development of precipitation, especially during the summer months, the main growing season of most crops. Declines of about 25%, on average, are more than substantial and can potentially disrupt the known agricultural structure of NI. Only crops with a substantial part of their growth phase outside of the dry summer months, like barley before or late maize before and after, could defy the negative effects of climatic change without further external changes, at least to some degree.

            https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00048

            Oops! But I guess the Cato Institute is hoping people are too lazy to actually read the papers they have referred to in their apparently misleading blog post, aye De Niles?

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “I was talking about temperature, not CO2.”

            So was I. It seems you have a comprehension problem. It’s not the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations that will directly kill us – CO₂ concentrations need to get to 40,000+ ppm to become a lethal danger to us, but 2,000-5,000.ppm can induce headaches, fatigue, poor concentration, increased heart rate, nausea, etc.
            https://www.co2meter.com/en-au/blogs/news/carbon-dioxide-indoor-levels-chart

            But rising temperatures will kill us much sooner. See Figures 1 & 2 at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305427120

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “All the animals and plants survive that. They are not as fragile as you pretend.”

            And yet “current species extinction rates are higher than the pre-human background rate.”
            https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1400253

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “Fossil fuels, which are being made more expensive globally by political projects to phase them out and replace them with more expensive so-called “renewables” and batteries which require vast amounts of natural resources to produce.”

            IMO, spoken like a true fossil fuel shill!

            Coal is no longer cheap! It’s been as high as US$433.70/T in Sep 2022
            See the chart for coal price US$/T (set for “All” history): https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

            Oil is no longer cheap! It’s only going to get more expensive because we have already consumed most of the easy/low-cost-to-extract oil.
            See the chart for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil US$/barrel (set for “All” history): https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil
            Or for Brent: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil

            Gas prices are now highly volatile!
            https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

            Meanwhile, renewables get cheaper.
            https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

            The British Medical Journal reference only covers 13 countries – Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Hardly representative of the world’s population, is it De Niles? No equatorial African countries or Middle East countries are represented, where high temperatures are more prevalent and more heat related deaths occur.

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “7 is neutral, so the oceans are still more alkaline than acid, not a significant change. Alkalinification would be a problem wouldn’t it?”

            Clearly, you haven’t read the link I provided earlier – here’s the clue under the heading “Why is ocean acidification a problem?” (bold text my emphasis):

            The consequences of disrupting what has been a relatively stable ocean environment for tens of millions of years are beginning to show. Ocean acidification is literally causing a sea change that is threatening the fundamental chemical balance of ocean and coastal waters from pole to pole. For good reason, ocean acidification is sometimes called “osteoporosis of the sea.” Ocean acidification can create conditions that eat away at the minerals used by oysters, clams, lobsters, shrimp, coral reefs, and other marine life to build their shells and skeletons.

            Human health is also a concern. In the laboratory, many harmful algal species produce more toxins and bloom faster in acidified waters. A similar response in the wild could harm people eating contaminated shellfish and sicken fish and marine mammals. And while ocean acidification won’t make seawater dangerous for swimming, it will upset the balance among the multitudes of microscopic life found in every drop of seawater. Such changes can affect seafood supplies and the ocean’s ability to store pollutants, including future carbon emissions.

            https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ocean-acidification

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “CO2 is the basis for like in the oceans too, like on land. I’m honest unlike you, so I say I’m not well researched on this, are you?”

            IMO, it’s clearly evident you have no idea. I think it’s becoming clear you are wilfully ignorant, regurgitating climate science denial talking points, and it seems to me you are hiding behind a pseudonym because you are too gutless to make your comments under your own name.

            De Niles (at 21 OCT 2023 AT 2:08 PM): – “Yes, you can. You can test this by going indoors and breathing air with CO2 levels of 100 or 200 years from now.”

            And you can test for survivability (under medical supervision) under 30+ °C wet bulb temperatures too, in an environmental test chamber. Billions of people are at risk from lethal wet-bulb temperatures if global temperatures increase by +1 °C or more above current levels.
            https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305427120

            We/humanity don’t need to wait 100 or 200 years, De Niles. Many people in India (Fig 2 A), China (Fig 2 E), Central Africa (Fig 2 I), and Middle East (Fig 2 M) are likely to find out what lethal heat/humidity conditions are in the 2030s. Not long to wait!
            https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305427120

          • De Niles says

            26 Oct 2023 at 12:30 PM

            Geoff,

            What do small countries do? Grow different crops. Again, all of this is predicated upon the idea that CO2 is causing the warming, which is the whole debate here in the first place. This crop debate is ridiculous. I really think at this point you’re a Denier, because: Massive increase in productivity per unit area due to CO2 fertilisation over the last few decades is well documented, with a 25-60% further increase for the next century depending on crop type, regardless of temperature increase. A possible 3% drop in productivity because of a 1C increase (which may be of solar origin anyway, as per OP) is irrelevant to that, and you must know that. So you’re a denier.

            Think about the increase in wealth per person over the last 250 years, largely driven by cheap energy. It is absolutely astonishing, and unprecedented in 10,000 years of known civilisation. Without fossil fuels that would not have happened, and we would still be living in the conditions that our ancestors were in 1700. Even if CO2 is causing the warming (doesn’t look likely), this happened with this frightful 1.2C increase in average temperature, so there’s little to suggest that won’t continue. All socio-economic indicators are getting more positive. This apocalyptical thinking is as irrational as it is disturbing.

            Re; temps in humid countries. Let’s look at Nigeria, most populous equatorial country with high humidity

            https://tradingeconomics.com/nigeria/temperature

            Click “MAX” above the graph. Today’s temperature is the same or cooler than it was in throughout the 1930s. Economic development should be the overriding priority in equatorial countries. After all, its because these countries are hot that so many poor people can live there. If they lived in a colder country they couldn’t survive as they would need constant power for heating.

            Current species extinction rates. Ok, at this point I’ll have to assume you’re either not that bright or are wasting my time. That article does not mention climate change in the abstract. Most species extinction is due to deforestation and development.

            —-“IMO, spoken like a true fossil fuel shill!”—

            Has your life (or anybody’s life) benefitted in any way from the use of fossil fuels? Oh.

            Coal prices have rocketed since the start of the Ukraine war and the energy crisis. Europe in particular with its highly irrational energy policies of being against fossil fuels, against nuclear, and reliant on wind, means the shortfall in energy had to made up by Russian gas, which is now gone. Very smart. Britain has just spent 30 years dismantling all but 1 coal-fired power station, despite having hundreds of years of coal reserves. It’s an act of insane self-sacrifice for the gods of weather.

            Oil exploration licenses are denied for “climate reasons”, Britain offshored oil refining to Russia to make its carbon budget look better. Again, just highly costly irrational policies of self-harm.

            So called “Renewables” are getting cheaper only after decades of subsidies (and they may be completely redundant anyway, as you keep ignoring, that CO2 may not be causing global warming). They have unstated or hidden costs. For example, wind power requires close to 100% backup from other sources, always available at short notice for when the wind isn’t blowing. It also require huge distribution networks which often aren’t factored into the cost.

            They are also environmentally damaging and require enormous amounts of rare metals and minerals. IEA – “A typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant.” https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary

            Re; cold deaths. All studies by whatever method show more people die from the cold than from the heat.

            No, it’s not ‘wilfull ignorance’ regarding so-called “ocean acidification”. Yes, I know the basic things which you outlined. I thought you had some more in-depth knowledge. Obviously not. Given that everything apocalyptic we’ve heard over 30 years about the terrestrial biosphere has turned out to be absolute nonsense, and the opposite often true, I don’t really TRUST that I’m being given the truth about the hydrosphere. I’m sure you can understand.

            Oysters, clams etc are really ancient animals. A quick google. “Clams evolution age” – answer: 510 million years ago. “Coral evolution age” – answer: 535 million years ago. Another google “CO2 levels 500 million years ago” – answer: 3000-9000ppm in the atmosphere. So….. it looks like nonsense once again. It took me 30 seconds to find that.

          • nigelj says

            27 Oct 2023 at 6:21 PM

            De Niles

            “Re; temps in humid countries. Let’s look at Nigeria, most populous equatorial country with high humidity….Click “MAX” above the graph. Today’s temperature is the same or cooler than it was in throughout the 1930s. ”

            You have only quoted one country. The twelve most humid countries in the world are Singapore, Malaysia, Colombia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Myanmar, Liberia, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, India according to this source. they are certainly very humid countries.

            https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-most-humid-countries-in-the-world/

            I used your OWN quoted tradingeconomics website to check those countries and they are mostly all warmer over the last couple of years than the 1930s particularly the large population countries like Indonesia and India. They all show a clear global warming trend since 1900.

            https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/malaysia/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/papua-new-guinea/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/myanmar/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/liberia/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/india/temperature
            https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/temperature

            Your comment is cherrypicking, or otherwise known as lies by omission. You do not give a useful, balanced, broad picture. Many of your other comments are like this which is why they cannot be trusted and are useless commentary.

          • Radge Havers says

            28 Oct 2023 at 10:19 AM

            DN:

            I don’t really TRUST that I’m being given the truth about the hydrosphere. [RH: Sounds like a conspiracy! Call the tabloids! Alert the X Files!] I’m sure you can understand.

            Yeah, other than barking at the moon and desperately trying to rationalize inaction, you don’t know what you’re doing. 30 seconds on Google and now you’re an expert on earth history, evolutionary biology, and mass extinctions. Do you even have a point? My advice to you is to step away from the timeline before you hurt yourself, Sparky.

            And just as an aside, we’re witnessing coral bleaching as we speak.

            …Still no word from you on what you’re trying to accomplish here.

          • Geoff Miell says

            28 Oct 2023 at 10:05 PM

            De Niles (at 26 OCT 2023 AT 12:30 PM): – “Think about the increase in wealth per person over the last 250 years, largely driven by cheap energy. It is absolutely astonishing, and unprecedented in 10,000 years of known civilisation. Without fossil fuels that would not have happened, and we would still be living in the conditions that our ancestors were in 1700.”

            …and in doing so, we/humanity have overshot the carrying capacity of planet Earth on a number of metrics. The debt is now falling due!
            See the YouTube video titled William E. Rees on The Fundamental Issue: Overshoot
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1vX03h7w9c

            De Niles (at 26 OCT 2023 AT 12:30 PM): – “Even if CO2 is causing the warming (doesn’t look likely), this happened with this frightful 1.2C increase in average temperature, so there’s little to suggest that won’t continue. All socio-economic indicators are getting more positive. This apocalyptical thinking is as irrational as it is disturbing.”

            BioScience published on 24 Oct 2023 a journal article by William J Ripple et. al. (including Johan Rockström, Timothy M Lenton, Leon Simons & Sir David Anthony King) titled The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory. It begins with:

            Life on planet Earth is under siege. We are now in an uncharted territory. For several decades, scientists have consistently warned of a future marked by extreme climatic conditions because of escalating global temperatures caused by ongoing human activities that release harmful greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, time is up. We are seeing the manifestation of those predictions as an alarming and unprecedented succession of climate records are broken, causing profoundly distressing scenes of suffering to unfold. We are entering an unfamiliar domain regarding our climate crisis, a situation no one has ever witnessed firsthand in the history of humanity.

            In the present report, we display a diverse set of vital signs of the planet and the potential drivers of climate change and climate-related responses first presented by Ripple and Wolf and colleagues (2020), who declared a climate emergency, now with more than 15,000 scientist signatories. The trends reveal new all-time climate-related records and deeply concerning patterns of climate-related disasters. At the same time, we report minimal progress by humanity in combating climate change. Given these distressing developments, our goal is to communicate climate facts and policy recommendations to scientists, policymakers, and the public. It is the moral duty of us scientists and our institutions to clearly alert humanity of any potential existential threat and to show leadership in taking action. This report is part of our series of concise and easily accessible yearly updates on the state of the climate crisis.

            https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad080

            On 18 Oct 2023 in Edinburgh, Johan Rockström presented the 44th TB Macaulay Lecture. The YouTube video titled 44th TB Macaulay Lecture – In conversation with Professor Johan Rockström, published 20 Oct 2023, duration 1:37:47, includes:

            0:00:05 Welcome from Prof Colin Campbell, CEO, The James Hutton Institute
            0:04:14 Message from Prof Mathew Williams, Chief Scientific Advisor for Environment, Natural Resources & Environment, Scottish Government
            0:10:00 Introduction by Fran van Dijk, Chair, The Macaulay Development Trust
            0:13:03 44th TB Macaulay Lecture by Prof Johan Rockström, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
            1:09:55 Panel Discussion with Prof Sir Ian Boyd, Laura Young, and Prof Johan Rockström

            Johan’s talk covers the latest scientific results of the health of the earth system, including the recent work of the Earth Commission and also update on the “Earth for All” scenario, analysing pathways towards attaining the Sustainable Development Goals within planetary boundaries.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2VjdyqG-nY

            De Niles (at 26 OCT 2023 AT 12:30 PM): – “Coal prices have rocketed since the start of the Ukraine war and the energy crisis.”

            Coal prices were already high BEFORE the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Prices are back to pre-war levels (but still at relatively high levels) as the energy economy finds alternative sources.

            Gas prices have been volatile since the early 2000s, long BEFORE the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

            US shale oil accounted for over 80% of net global oil supply growth last decade (2022 vs 2012). Only a handful of countries (USA, Canada, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, & Russia) contributed to net global oil supply growth during this period, while all other producers were in decline.
            https://arjunmurti.substack.com/p/five-big-calls-to-get-right-over

            US shale oil is not suitable for refining into diesel.
            https://www.artberman.com/2022/10/13/energy-aware-3-u-s-energy-independence-and-other-dumb-memes/

            The Middle East oil supply situation is heading into unknown territory.
            https://crudeoilpeak.info/me-oil-supply-situation-as-gaza-war-brings-world-into-unknown-territory

            Global diesel fuel production was in decline long BEFORE the Russian invasion of Ukraine. From 2018 to mid 2021, global gasoil & diesel production had declined from around 26 Mb/d to below 23 Mb/d, representing a decline of 12%.
            https://crashoil.blogspot.com/2021/11/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2021.html

            With little evidence of oil demand peaking anytime soon, expect crude oil and petroleum fuel prices trending to keep rising.

            De Niles (at 26 OCT 2023 AT 12:30 PM): – “Given that everything apocalyptic we’ve heard over 30 years about the terrestrial biosphere has turned out to be absolute nonsense, and the opposite often true, I don’t really TRUST that I’m being given the truth about the hydrosphere. I’m sure you can understand.”

            It seems your sphere of experiences and personal beneficial circumstances has cocooned you from the realities of what’s been progressively happening in the wider world. Sooner or later, as the Earth System becomes more hostile to human civilisation, your protective cocoon will likely be stripped away to reveal a shocking reality for you. Brace for impact! Your denial of reality won’t protect you!

          • De Niles says

            31 Oct 2023 at 11:20 AM

            NigelJ,

            Yes I was looking for an example so that one came to mind, that’s why I picked it. It’s not cherry-picking since I haven’t once contested the notion that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. It was to show that economic development should be the priority, not temperature control of the entire Earth.

            It’s interesting to note that the observed temperature in Papua New Guinea has stayed the same over the last century, and is perhaps the least urbanised out of the lot you picked. Perhaps some evidence that urban warming bias is contaminating the results, as per the OP Soon paper.

            Radge,

            Still at it with the slander. Do I have a point? Yes, it is within the paragraph following the one you quoted. All the species in the ocean apparently at risk of acidification from high CO2 levels evolved within an atmosphere of 3000-9000ppm. Care to explain how? Yes I highlighted TRUST, since you appeal to it in regards to the IPCC, so it’s obviously important to you. I wonder why most institutions have their lowest trust level in history? I suspect being misled on major issues over a period of decades has something to do with it.

            Geoff,

            “———…and in doing so, we/humanity have overshot the carrying capacity of planet Earth on a number of metrics. The debt is now falling due!——-”

            All socio-economic and environmental indicators are getting more positive. The most damaging environmental phenomena right now are deforestation and development due to population growth and mass migration, and so-called “renewable” energy programs using mass amounts of resources, based on unsound science, pushed by the governmedia, U.N., corporations, etc.

            You’ve not answered any of my fundamental points. You’ve ignored them and just post dire warnings, after being shown how every previous one was wrong, and the actual real-world positive outcomes of what was said to be dire. At this point I have to assume complete intellectual dishonesty on your part.

          • Radge Havers says

            1 Nov 2023 at 10:49 AM

            De Niles,

            “All the species in the ocean apparently at risk of acidification from high CO2 levels evolved within an atmosphere of 3000-9000ppm. Care to explain how?”

            Well since you snorted with indignation so nicely, let me put the short answer this way, the ancestors of modern corals didn’t evolve until after end-Permian mass extinctions some 250mya when upwards of 90% of all species on earth were wiped out. Corals were knocked back hard enough that they didn’t reappear in the fossil record until the mid-Triassic several million years later, when CO2 levels had dropped from between 1,000 and 2,000ppm down to the low to mid 300s.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            1 Nov 2023 at 1:17 PM

            DeNiles said here that:

            All the species in the ocean apparently at risk of acidification from high CO2 levels evolved within an atmosphere of 3000-9000ppm.

            Yeah? This is what I found regarding evolutionary ages of some major marine groups:

            Molluscs: ~500 million years BP
            Fish: ~419 million years BP
            Corals: ~ 252 million years BP

            Verifying your numbers on CO2, I found this source. It does indeed say that:

            The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm!

            However, the accompanying graph of CO2 concentrations, which goes back 400 million years, shows no levels greater than 3000 ppm, and only relatively brief excursions above 1000 ppm. It also shows no previous level above 400 pm since roughly 18-20 million years ago.

            So, molluscs may have begun their evolutionary journey at the levels you suggest, but they still spent most of their history at much less extreme levels. For corals, they seem not to have experienced anything above 2000 ppm.

            But the real issue is rate of change. There is every reason to think that pH has been rising over time–well, until recently–as this study discusses:

            https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aal4151

            Apparently, these various lineages have had tens of millions of years to adapt to much less acidic oceans. Does it seem likely that means that reversing the process in decades is therefore safe? Particularly when we have experimental evidence that indicates precisely the reverse?

          • nigelj says

            1 Nov 2023 at 2:02 PM

            De Niles

            “Yes I was looking for an example so that one came to mind, that’s why I picked it. It’s not cherry-picking since I haven’t once contested the notion that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. It was to show that economic development should be the priority, not temperature control of the entire Earth.”

            It is cherry picking, because your basic contention was that dangerous high heat and high humidity heatwaves wont matter in the future because Nigeria which has high humidity, and has not had global warming since the 1930s. I showed you 1o hot high humidity countries which have had global warming since the 1930s. So it is cherry picking.

            The overall global warming trend is immaterial to your contention. And your contention was not to show economic development was the priority because your argument was that high heat / high humidity events are not a concern.

            “It’s interesting to note that the observed temperature in Papua New Guinea has stayed the same over the last century, and is perhaps the least urbanised out of the lot you picked. Perhaps some evidence that urban warming bias is contaminating the results, as per the OP Soon paper.”

            Irrelevant. It’s one relatively small country. Most countries including the large population countries like India and Indonesia have warmed since the 1930s. They are clearly facing a future full of dangerous high heat / high humidity heatwaves if we don’t reduce emissions.

            You provide no evidence Papua New Guinea is the least urbanised country in the group, and of the urban heat island effect contaminating warming records. The urban heat is land effect is not significant because 1) the rural areas and oceans show roughly the same warming trend as the cities and the oceans and rural areas don’t have any urban heat islands and 2) when compiling the urban warming record the urban heat island effect is taken into account and base temperatures are adjusted down.

            “All the species in the ocean apparently at risk of acidification from high CO2 levels evolved within an atmosphere of 3000-9000ppm. Care to explain how? ”

            Such animals evolved in a period where temperatures were about 5 degrees above today but such temperatures and ocean ph level were reasonably stable over many millions of years and so they were able to evolve and survive. Species extinction happen when temperatures change relatively ABRUPTLY, either towards warming or towards a cool period and so it’s too short for life to adapt. And humans are changing temperatures very abruptly.

            “All socio-economic and environmental indicators are getting more positive.”

            This is a flat out lie as below:

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/worsening-environment-is-deadly-but-not-hopeless-un-report-says

            Go away and stop polluting the internet with lies, ignorance, cherrypicking, and long debunked talking points.

          • Geoff Miell says

            1 Nov 2023 at 8:22 PM

            De Niles (at 31 OCT 2023 AT 11:20 AM): – “All socio-economic and environmental indicators are getting more positive.”

            Evidence/data? I’d suggest your apparent ignorant opinions are not evidence.

            It seems to me you didn’t look at Professor Johan Rockström’s talk (referred in my earlier comment above) on the latest scientific results of the health of the earth system. I’d suggest you are living in fantasyland, De Niles.

            De Niles (at 31 OCT 2023 AT 11:20 AM): – “The most damaging environmental phenomena right now are deforestation and development due to population growth and mass migration…”

            I’d suggest your statement “The most damaging environmental phenomena right now are deforestation and development” contradicts your earlier statement “All … environmental indicators are getting more positive.”

            I’d suggest “damaging environmental phenomena” are signs of planetary overshoot, referred in my earlier comment above.

            Another worrying phenomena of a warming world is the increasing range of mosquitos. I’d suggest Aedes aegypti is arguably one of the deadliest creatures in human history, a known vector of several viruses including yellow fever virus, dengue virus chikungunya virus and Zika virus.
            https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/disease-vectors/facts/mosquito-factsheets/aedes-aegypti
            https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue
            https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria

            Some would say half the people who have ever lived have been killed by mosquito-borne pathogens. See the book titled Heat: Life and death on a scorched planet by Jeff Goodall, published 11 July 2023. Last night I finished reading Chapter 10 – The Mosquito is My Vector.

            De Niles (at 31 OCT 2023 AT 11:20 AM): – “You’ve not answered any of my fundamental points.”

            I think nigelj (at 1 NOV 2023 AT 2:02 PM) sums up your shtick:

            Go away and stop polluting the internet with lies, ignorance, cherrypicking, and long debunked talking points.

            De Niles (at 31 OCT 2023 AT 11:20 AM): – “At this point I have to assume complete intellectual dishonesty on your part.”

            I think that is a characterization of you, De Niles.

    • Ray Ladbury says

      22 Sep 2023 at 4:14 PM

      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.

      • De Niles says

        27 Sep 2023 at 7:39 PM

        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.

        • Radge Havers says

          27 Sep 2023 at 9:46 PM

          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.

          • De Niles says

            28 Sep 2023 at 6:46 PM

            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!

          • Radge Havers says

            28 Sep 2023 at 10:24 PM

            De Niles,

            It’s simple, evidence free assertions and accusations are not reasoned arguments. Pretty straightforward, what’s not to understand?

            The “97% of scientists agree” study was complete falsehood.

            Says who? How do they back that up?

            …it is independent of consensus, not reliant on it.

            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.

            This is logical fallacy 101.

            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.

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            29 Sep 2023 at 7:01 AM

            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.

          • Ray Ladbury says

            29 Sep 2023 at 11:11 AM

            De Niles: ” I’m not in the business of publishing scientific papers.”

            Nooo Shiit! Well knock me over with a feather.

          • De Niles says

            30 Sep 2023 at 5:29 PM

            Radge,

            1. Says who? How do they back that up?

            Paper analysing the basis for that claim – https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Climate-Consensus-and-%E2%80%98Misinformation%E2%80%99%3A-A-Rejoinder-Legates-Soon/0a39be2c03dc733d5b2bc3b1f4a1a7409aecfc7d

            Summary of findings in one table: https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Fact-30.jpg

            Finds that the “97% of scientists agree” claim was extremely misleading. When the question is narrowed down to papers which stated that MOST warming since 1950 is anthropogenic, the figure is 0.3% of 11,994 abstracts.

            2. “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.””

            Does it exist in the same system? Why then does it need to employ terms like “denier”, never used in maths, physics or chemistry. It’s a science in its infancy, and people are saying that “the science is settled”. It has a huge amount of international political weight behind it, meaning it should be more scrutinized than any other science. Why are you so resistant to that? Scoffing at “marketplace of ideas”. Yeah, much less free speech needed, right? But not for you, just for others. You’re a nice guy.

          • Radge Havers says

            4 Oct 2023 at 11:35 AM

            De Niles,

            Semantic Scholar can summarize just about any position no matter how silly. Let’s see where this is coming from:
            Legates, Soon, and… Christopher Moncton of Brenchly??. Yikes, weird rabbit hole!
            No. Just. No.

            CO2 coalition ( https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/CO2_Coalition ).

            Talk about your waste of time. Point me somewhere reputable.

            Does it exist in the same system? Why then does it need to employ terms like “denier”, never used in maths, physics or chemistry.

            “It” (climate science) doesn’t. As pointed out to you, if you were paying attention, “denialism” comes from psychology and people examining why some people deny established things great or small. Among the great things are: the holocaust, but also evolution, and in this case AGW.

            You’re really hung-up on that one word. Now why would that be?

            It’s a science in its infancy, and people are saying that “the science is settled”.

            Not particularly relevant or even true.
            https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

            And about “settled,” bring that up, and all you’ll likely get here is a lot of discussion about what “settled” means.

            It has a huge amount of international political weight behind it, meaning it should be more scrutinized than any other science. Why are you so resistant to that?

            I’m not. Scrutinize away. Scientists love to scrutinize, it’s what they do. Just do it in good faith. You too will be scrutinized.

            Scoffing at “marketplace of ideas”. Yeah, much less free speech needed, right? But not for you, just for others. You’re a nice guy.

            And there it is, the “free speech” meme. Your free speech is fine, De Niles. My objection is to the growing power of nihilism, and how that is playing out in certain areas of society. Is it OK with you if I have an opinion on that?

            The notion is being promulgated that free speech can only be maintained by progressively pushing boundaries to normalize lying, trashing, threatening, yelling, trolling, being obnoxious, being irresponsible, bashing standards, being intentionally stupid, provoking violence, promoting racism etc., etc. as loudly and as much as possible for political ends.

            That notion is simply not true. Basically it is part of a broader disinformation campaign aimed, in this case, at “flooding the zone” by:
            – winding up the far right and their fellow travelers to act like a mob of jerks
            – to provoke strenuous objections from sensible adults
            – that can be mischaracterized as an existential threat to free speech
            – in order to provide right wing extremists an excuse to justify an autocratic crackdown and grab power.

            So I ask you, why do you object to merit based standards in science so much? Why are you trying to cancel and drown out what the science says? Why are participating in stochastic censorship?

            What am I forgetting? Oh yeah, am I a nice guy? Some days more than others, not that it’s relevant here.

          • De Niles says

            5 Oct 2023 at 5:46 PM

            Radge,

            OK, sounds like you’re a denier. You won’t consider sources based on who they are rather than the content of them. Logical fallacy. The ultimate source of the “0.3% of scientists agree” claim is the same source data that the falsehood of “97% of scientists agree” comes from. You deliberately ignore that. Ok denier.

            I guess any source alternative to the IPCC won’t be accepted. Can you perhaps see now how the climate change train got out of control with attitudes like yours? DENY that any source other than the IPCC can be valid, then APPEAL TO THE CONSENSUS that catastrophic climate change via CO2 is definitely true, so any alternative explanation can not be true, which means you deny it a hearing, which means there is a consensus, which means any alternative explanation can not be accepted, which means there is a consensus… and on.

            If you are interested in some of the misleading summaries IPCC publishes, please ask.

            “It” (climate science) doesn’t.”
            Semantic evasion. It’s used a lot on this very page. So here you’re saying “Climate science isn’t in and of itself a conscious being with the power of assigning descriptors”! Great argument!

            “https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html

            And about “settled,” bring that up, and all you’ll likely get here is a lot of discussion about what “settled” means. ”

            More semantic evasion, like all your posts. A sign of a dishonest person. The first “climate change degree” began in 2018. It’s hardly even a science. It was a footnote in an environmental science degree when I was at university 15 years ago. Just because people noticed the climate changed 200 years ago doesn’t mean anything. People noticed the climate changed 10,000 years ago.

            As I mentioned, the IPCC still has a possible “climate sensitivity” of 1.5-5.7C for a doubling of CO2, and they qualify every statement or prediction with vaguely worded probabilities – sometimes just “more likely than not”!!! In other words, they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s about as far from hard science as dowsing for water. No other science with that kind of vague predictions would be taken seriously. After all, the cornerstone of the scientific method is prediction, experiment, verification.

            “You’re really hung-up on that one word. Now why would that be?”

            It has no place in science. Anyone using it is an anti-scientist. It’s how cults grow. I don’t know why you keep bringing up psychology. Maybe you need to analyse your own motivations.

            “I’m not. Scrutinize away. Scientists love to scrutinize, it’s what they do. Just do it in good faith. You too will be scrutinized.”

            You have a psychological problem where you think an argument against your position is prima facia bad faith, because you are 100% convinced of one side and won’t permit debate. A.k.a. you’re a denier.

            And there it is, the “free speech” meme. Your free speech is fine, De Niles. My objection is to the growing power of nihilism, and how that is playing out in certain areas of society. Is it OK with you if I have an opinion on that?

            “The “free speech” meme”? What’s that, is it like the “drinking water” meme? Free speech is vital like drinking water is. Look at these nihilists drinking water just to provoke a reaction in people. Better stop people drinking so much water.

            “The notion is being promulgated that DRINKING WATER can only be maintained by progressively pushing boundaries to normalize lying, trashing, threatening, yelling, trolling, being obnoxious, being irresponsible, bashing standards, being intentionally stupid, provoking violence, promoting racism etc., etc. as loudly and as much as possible for political ends.”

            Well, maybe CO2 causing global warming is a lie. If I thought it was, should people saying that be silenced or have less time on air? No of course not. “Threatening” – yes a lot of threatening talk coming from the media re; climate change. “Trolling”, yes see above where you automatically assume trolling because you’ve been conditioned to accept no debate. Blah blah blah, I’m not sure what any of this has to do with anything. You’re just throwing a tantrum. I have higher standards than you. Your standards are not scientific, they are political.

            “That notion is simply not true. Basically it is part of a broader disinformation campaign aimed, in this case, at “flooding the zone” by:
            – winding up the far right and their fellow travelers to act like a mob of jerks
            – to provoke strenuous objections from sensible adults
            – that can be mischaracterized as an existential threat to free speech
            – in order to provide right wing extremists an excuse to justify an autocratic crackdown and grab power.”

            Huh? It’s you that’s scoffing at free speech, have no arguments, dismiss people and ideas out of hand, slander them, guilt them by association. You are obviously interested in power, not debate.

            “So I ask you, why do you object to merit based standards in science so much? Why are you trying to cancel and drown out what the science says? Why are participating in stochastic censorship?

            You’re making stuff up now. Having looked deeply into the science of climate change and CO2 in the past two years I have come to see that there’s no good basis to assume that it is driving global warming. Cancel and drown out? Can one paper do that? I think not. Again you’re showing your absolutist attitude by assuming that a scientific debate serves the purpose of “cancelling and drowning out”. It doesn’t. “What the science says” is another cliche religious statement. Science doesn’t “say things”, it’s a process and methodology which doesn’t “cancel and drown out”. That’s a political statement and shows that you’re interested in power dynamics and not the truth. You are clearly strongly emotionally attached and not operating in a truly scientific way but rather a religious or political way. Please change or leave the room.

            “What am I forgetting? Oh yeah, am I a nice guy? Some days more than others, not that it’s relevant here.”

            No, you’re not a nice guy. YOU are here to “silence and drown out”. You’re interested in power dynamics and employ logical fallacies and appeals to achieve that.

          • Radge Havers says

            6 Oct 2023 at 1:35 AM

            De Niles,

            Um, speaking of tantrums… wow.

            Look, all of your talking points and objections may be new to you, but they’ve been old hat for many years, already been sifted through, and written about extensively. You only have to look for yourself, look through the archives here and any number of other sources.

            I think trying to argue with you piecemeal on a deep and complex topic that, despite what you think, you know next to nothing about is an exercise in futility. I say that based on seeing literally hundreds who have pretty much expounded the same circular stuff as you to no effect other than annoyance. ‘

            So here we are in the same old house of mirrors. You see it? I think you’re projecting.

            But if you’re serious, open minded and honest, you can break the impasse for yourself. Instead of just assuming that it’s all wrong, try honestly arguing both sides for yourself and see what comes out of it. Who knows, you might come up with something new.

            Instead of relying only on “contrarian” sources, start by looking at how science in general actually works it’s interesting. Go back and study the general history of it, how it’s done, the depth and complexity of it, the philosophy of it, how it’s organized, how it has evolved, the role of peer review, etc. and then maybe dig into what the climate science actually says, as well as the investigative reporting on the roll of the FF industry in promoting FUD.

            Science has come a long way since it emerged from alchemy and astrology. It’s evolved even since I was a kid, before lingering doubts about plate tectonics were finally stitched up by convergent evidence from multiple teams working in multiple fields.

            That’s how it is. When it comes to the big questions, there may be some, but probably not much, low hanging fruit left for lone “contrarian” scientists to scoop up. For that matter there’s plenty out there that the human mind won’t be able to grasp without massive computer power and a whole lot of teamwork.

          • Radge Havers says

            6 Oct 2023 at 1:40 AM

            De Niles,

            Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. (Institute of Physics,UK)
            https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html

            Several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming. (Union of Concerned Scientists)
            https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-skeptic-organizations

            The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
            https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
            Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
            Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
            Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Académie des Sciences, France
            Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
            Academy of Athens
            Academy of Science of Mozambique
            Academy of Science of South Africa
            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy of Sciences of Moldova
            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
            Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
            African Academy of Sciences
            Albanian Academy of Sciences
            Amazon Environmental Research Institute
            American Academy of Pediatrics
            American Anthropological Association
            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
            American Astronomical Society
            American Chemical Society
            American College of Preventive Medicine
            American Fisheries Society
            American Geophysical Union
            American Institute of Biological Sciences
            American Institute of Physics
            American Meteorological Society
            American Physical Society
            American Public Health Association
            American Quaternary Association
            American Society for Microbiology
            American Society of Agronomy
            American Society of Civil Engineers
            American Society of Plant Biologists
            American Statistical Association
            Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
            Australian Academy of Science
            Australian Bureau of Meteorology
            Australian Coral Reef Society
            Australian Institute of Marine Science
            Australian Institute of Physics
            Australian Marine Sciences Association
            Australian Medical Association
            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
            Botanical Society of America
            Brazilian Academy of Sciences
            British Antarctic Survey
            Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
            California Academy of Sciences
            Cameroon Academy of Sciences
            Canadian Association of Physicists
            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            Canadian Geophysical Union
            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Canadian Society of Soil Science
            Canadian Society of Zoologists
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
            Center for International Forestry Research
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
            Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
            Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
            Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Crop Science Society of America
            Cuban Academy of Sciences
            Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
            Ecological Society of America
            Ecological Society of Australia
            Environmental Protection Agency
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Federation of Geologists
            European Geosciences Union
            European Physical Society
            European Science Foundation
            Federation of American Scientists
            French Academy of Sciences
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of Australia
            Geological Society of London
            Georgian Academy of Sciences
            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
            Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Indian National Science Academy
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
            Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
            Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
            InterAcademy Council
            International Alliance of Research Universities
            International Arctic Science Committee
            International Association for Great Lakes Research
            International Council for Science
            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
            International Research Institute for Climate and Society
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
            Islamic World Academy of Sciences
            Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
            Kenya National Academy of Sciences
            Korean Academy of Science and Technology
            Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
            l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Latin American Academy of Sciences
            Latvian Academy of Sciences
            Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
            Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
            Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
            Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
            National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
            National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
            National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
            National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
            National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
            National Aeronautics and Space Administration
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers
            National Association of State Foresters
            National Center for Atmospheric Research
            National Council of Engineers Australia
            National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            National Research Council
            National Science Foundation
            Natural England
            Natural Environment Research Council, UK
            Natural Science Collections Alliance
            Network of African Science Academies
            New York Academy of Sciences
            Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
            Nigerian Academy of Sciences
            Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Oklahoma Climatological Survey
            Organization of Biological Field Stations
            Pakistan Academy of Sciences
            Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
            Pew Center on Global Climate Change
            Polish Academy of Sciences
            Romanian Academy
            Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
            Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
            Royal Astronomical Society, UK
            Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Royal Irish Academy
            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
            Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
            Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
            Royal Society of Canada
            Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
            Royal Society of the United Kingdom
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
            Russian Academy of Sciences
            Science and Technology, Australia
            Science Council of Japan
            Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
            Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
            Scripps Institution of Oceanography
            Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Slovak Academy of Sciences
            Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Society for Ecological Restoration International
            Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
            Society of American Foresters
            Society of Biology (UK)
            Society of Systematic Biologists
            Soil Science Society of America
            Sudan Academy of Sciences
            Sudanese National Academy of Science
            Tanzania Academy of Sciences
            The Wildlife Society (international)
            Turkish Academy of Sciences
            Uganda National Academy of Sciences
            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
            University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
            Woods Hole Research Center
            World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
            World Federation of Public Health Associations
            World Forestry Congress
            World Health Organization
            World Meteorological Organization
            Zambia Academy of Sciences
            Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            6 Oct 2023 at 5:58 AM

            DN: maybe CO2 causing global warming is a lie.

            BPL: Maybe you’re a troll.

          • De Niles says

            10 Oct 2023 at 4:54 PM

            Radge,

            You’re making assumptions again. No, I’ve been interested in climate change for 20 years now. I read every page of “Skeptical Science” back then. I have a Masters in environmental science.

            You think trying to argue with me is an exercise in futility? Yes, maybe for me. You haven’t been making scientific arguments, you’ve been making political ones, and employing logical fallacies based around consensus. Your latest post is an attempt at some poetic prose, as if that is a substitute for argument.

            Ah, “contrarian”, the softer version of “denier”. I know how science works, you evidently don’t. I’ve been listening to non-contrarian sources for my entire life. Arguments about climate change have been pushed in pretty much every field for about 30 years now. And I shouldn’t be listening to alternative views? No, no, they shouldn’t have been suppressed for so long, that’s the problem.

            Ask yourself when the “settled science” of CO2 causing climate change became entrenched. Maybe around the year 2000? So basically it took about 10 years from a new theory that increasing CO2 causes global warming, to it being unchallengeable. Pretty amazing for a new science of understanding the most complex natural system.

            Not many big questions left? YOU’LL BE SHOCKED.

            A list of organisations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action.

            Have all these organisations independently verified it? Have any of them? I suspect not. I suspect they are going along with the consensus… which you just appealed to again. Fallacy.

            Just off the press: Norwegian government agency “Statistics Norway” just published a report titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”

            https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/10/04/no-way-norway/

            Some quotes:

            ““Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.””

            “Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes.”

            “with a new method that utilizes argon and nitrogen isotopic ratios from occluded air bubbles… indicate that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4,000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the decade (2001-2010).”

            “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”

          • Kevin McKinney says

            10 Oct 2023 at 9:28 PM

            DeNiles said:

            So basically it took about 10 years from a new theory that increasing CO2 causes global warming, to it being unchallengeable. Pretty amazing for a new science of understanding the most complex natural system.

            Since you’re so well-read in the science of climate change and all, I find it rather surprising that you apparently don’t know that:

            –John Tyndall inferred the climatic effect of CO2, based on lab experiments, in 1859 (anticipated somewhat by Eunice Foote)
            –Svante Arrhenius calculated the first numerical model of CO2-induced global warming in 1896
            –Guy Callendar updated the relevant spectroscopic data in 1938, proposing (albeit prematurely) that he had already detected anthropogenic warming
            –Scientific reports to the US government raising concerns about climate change due to CO2 go back to the ’60s and ’70s.

            So, no, the CO2-climate connection was NOT new in 1990.

          • Radge Havers says

            11 Oct 2023 at 10:54 PM

            DN, you wrote:

            You’re making assumptions again. No, I’ve been interested in climate change for 20 years now. I read every page of “Skeptical Science” back then. I have a Masters in environmental science.

            This is the Internet, anybody can post anonymously and make any claims they want. So I go by the by the content of your posts.

            Earlier you said, “Having looked deeply into the science of climate change and CO2 in the past two years I have come to see that there’s no good basis to assume that it is driving global warming.” [emphasis mine]

            Good for you, I guess. Too bad your efforts haven’t been very productive.

            By the way, your CV sounds familiar. Was it Macius Surly who also claimed to be an environmental scientist? So what’s got your hobby horse a-rockin, the sun or the hydrologic cycle?

            You think trying to argue with me is an exercise in futility? Yes, maybe for me. You haven’t been making scientific arguments, you’ve been making political ones, and employing logical fallacies based around consensus. Your latest post is an attempt at some poetic prose, as if that is a substitute for argument.

            You miss my point, you must know your arguments aren’t persuading anyone, so what do you get out of it, other than being an irritant? Pretty much the definition of trolling. Victor currently holds the crown for King of Trolls, so you’ve got your work cut out for you if that’s what you’re going for.

            And no, I’ve been making arguments about meta-literacy. The simple reason is that that’s the first place where people tend to go off the rails. And also I’ve learned all to well from dealing with evolution deniers that bogus research is one of the techniques useful for bogging down and tangling up any chance of useful conversation.

            Now you say that I’ve been making political points, and I say no, it’s you who is politically motivated. You talk about AGW as if it’s a massive conspiracy of the deep state trying to take away your freedom of speech. You can’t hide that by talking around it. The truth is that special interests have long been spreading FUD about all kinds of science to influence any legislation that might hurt their bottom line. AGW just happens to be the big one. So, you’re saying how dare they defend themselves from a political onslaught?

            As I have pointed out, and as you should know in principle, if any scientific issue can be considered settled in any sense, it’s because some sort of consensus has been reached. They’re not two separate things. If a lay person, who is out of their depth when it comes to complicated science, were to place a bet on whether CO2 causes AGW, the better bet is the with professional consensus. That’s not an absolute, but if it’s good enough for every other scientific field, it’s good enough climate science. But maybe you’re one of those who prefers their medical care quacky.

            [I attempted poetic prose? So I’m a poet and don’t know it? I think it’s more likely that you don’t know from poetry. Thanks anyway.]

            Ah, “contrarian”, the softer version of “denier”. I know how science works, you evidently don’t. I’ve been listening to non-contrarian sources for my entire life. Arguments about climate change have been pushed in pretty much every field for about 30 years now. And I shouldn’t be listening to alternative views? No, no, they shouldn’t have been suppressed for so long, that’s the problem.

            Yes, I modified my language to calm you down, though you still seem a little puffy.

            You said, “…[insert pointless blithering here]…” and then you went on about suppression—also nonsense. Any scientist can be rejected by peer review, and no doubt most have been at one time or another in their career. That’s not suppression. You’re perfectly free to port your work elsewhere for public viewing and have it discussed ad nauseam.

            You have provided no evidence, NONE, that there is any suppression other than it sort of seems to you like it fits your world view.

            Ask yourself when the “settled science” of CO2 causing climate change became entrenched. Maybe around the year 2000? So basically it took about 10 years from a new theory that increasing CO2 causes global warming, to it being unchallengeable. Pretty amazing for a new science of understanding the most complex natural system.

            Hoo, boy. Accepting that language would be accepting the implied premise. I’m not playing that game with you.

            Correlation is not causation. And as Kevin McKinney above has pointed out, you borked the timeline. I linked you to it at Skeptical Science. If you doubted it, you could easily have verified it for yourself elsewhere. Quell surprise, instead you just circled back around to your erroneous talking point.

            Not many big questions left? YOU’LL BE SHOCKED.

            Hey! Not what I said at all! I may not have been clear, although if you’re as savvy as you keep saying, you probably would have caught my drift. I’ll keep is simple for you, the big questions like climate require big cooperation and increasingly big computation. Unlike in the past, lone contrarians are loosing their place and with good reason.

            A list of organisations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action. Have all these organisations independently verified it? Have any of them? I suspect not. I suspect they are going along with the consensus… which you just appealed to again. Fallacy.

            You are a very suspicious person. The whole world is in on the conspiracy! My God! All those stupid scientists! Even NASA oh the depths of perfidy!

            For the sake of argument, at this point just consider it something unverified to you. But holy crap on a stick, you’re the last person who should be constantly yammering about fallacies.

            Just off the press: Norwegian government agency “Statistics Norway” just published a report titled “To what extent are temperature levels changing due to greenhouse gas emissions?”

            Taking a look :
            Climate Discussion Nexus, news round up (an AGW bashing site)
            SSB looks legit! Good!
            Hmm. A discussion paper, by:
            Moen, civil engineer
            Dagsvik, economist
            (shades of Bjorn Lomborg? No?)

            I see the paper relies on Judith Curry https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry and Paul Voosen (a science reporter) to summarize some key features of GCMs.

            OK my take away. I’m not a statistician, I would however like to hear a response from Tamino or someone else who actually works with climate statistics and probability. How about you? Let me guess, they’d be up to their ears in fallacies and evil conspiracies? So back to your repetitive, preprogrammed cut and paste talking points.

          • De Niles says

            19 Oct 2023 at 2:02 PM

            Radge,

            “Earlier you said, “Having looked deeply into the science of climate change and CO2 in the past two years I have come to see that there’s no good basis to assume that it is driving global warming.” [emphasis mine]”

            Yes, well, I would emphasise DEEPLY. That’s the important part. I had looked into it the mid 2000s, been convinced of it, then assumed it was true (although not a crisis or a catastrophe) since then. In fact, thinking back, the two things that initially convinced me it was true was the fact that the rate of temperature increase was unprecedented and therefore probably has an anthropogenic cause – a fact I now know to be false. Secondly the fact that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and had increased almost 50% since the industrial revolution. A fact I now know to be flawed due to the fact its warming effect is nearly saturated. If I knew that then, I would not have spent almost 20 years believing something. So, I’m quite annoyed.

            Actually my Masters thesis was in remote sensing using Landsat data to identify change in glacier termini in Greenland. Quite interesting, there was one glacier called Kangerlussuaq.

            “You miss my point, you must know your arguments aren’t persuading anyone, so what do you get out of it, other than being an irritant? Pretty much the definition of trolling. Victor currently holds the crown for King of Trolls, so you’ve got your work cut out for you if that’s what you’re going for. ”

            Well, yes, you admit you’re not amenable to reason, a.k.a. you’re a denier. Thanks for confirming. Great strategy, put your fingers in your ears then accuse the other person of trolling. Why are you replying to me if you’re not interested in a debate? Sounds like something a troll would do.

            “And no, I’ve been making arguments about meta-literacy. The simple reason is that that’s the first place where people tend to go off the rails. And also I’ve learned all to well from dealing with evolution deniers that bogus research is one of the techniques useful for bogging down and tangling up any chance of useful conversation.”

            Refute any argument I’ve made or data I’ve posted, then! You haven’t. You’re a denier. You just appeal to consensus, which is formal logical fallacy. You’re not even scientifically literate, never mind meta. A lot of typing just to put your fingers in your ears and point to the person with the megaphone.

            “Now you say that I’ve been making political points, and I say no, it’s you who is politically motivated. You talk about AGW as if it’s a massive conspiracy of the deep state trying to take away your freedom of speech. You can’t hide that by talking around it. The truth is that special interests have long been spreading FUD about all kinds of science to influence any legislation that might hurt their bottom line. AGW just happens to be the big one. So, you’re saying how dare they defend themselves from a political onslaught?

            All your arguments are about power, who has what motivation and why, what the consensus is. All political. No, I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, I’ve never said or implied that. You scoff at free speech and then accuse me of saying others want to take it away. Well you don’t value it, in fact you vocally oppose it. No, it’s not a conspiracy, you’re OPENLY wishing for others to be silenced. As for IPCC, governments, media (some of the least trusted institutions in the world… 6% trust rating for US Congress, 13% for television news – Pew Research 2021) – I do not believe they actively know what they push to be false, but they have embarked on a course based on faulty scientific foundations and can not change course due to institutional inertia and the consequential suppression of opposing views that comes with it.

            “If a lay person, who is out of their depth when it comes to complicated science, were to place a bet on whether CO2 causes AGW, the better bet is the with professional consensus. That’s not an absolute, but if it’s good enough for every other scientific field, it’s good enough climate science. But maybe you’re one of those who prefers their medical care quacky.”

            Every other scientific field is not proposing a radical overhaul of the entire energy infrastructure of civilisation, and every other scientific field has far more certain, tested and verified data and outcomes, and is not in its infancy. Every other scientific field is not subject to the intense political and emotional slander, accusation and logical fallacies that come bundled with climate science. “Trust the consensus” is your only argument. Trust has no place in science. Things are either true or not. I didn’t come here to “place a bet” for god’s sake. We’re not gambling! This is science.

            “Any scientist can be rejected by peer review, and no doubt most have been at one time or another in their career. That’s not suppression”

            My entire argument here over thousands of words now is not that the suppression comes from scientific journals themselves, but from every other source, and you know that. See this entire thread.

            “Correlation is not causation. And as Kevin McKinney above has pointed out, you borked the timeline.”

            No, I’m aware that John Tyndall discovered the CO2 warming effect in the 19th century, but OBVIOUSLY, that is not pertinent to the modern theory that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing the warming of the planet since the mid-20th century. As is common knowledge amongst climate change aficionados, the modern theory came to public and governmental attention in 1988.

            https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

            “I’ll keep is simple for you, the big questions like climate require big cooperation and increasingly big computation. Unlike in the past, lone contrarians are loosing their place and with good reason.”

            Wow, you got anything else? Is everything you believe based on the number of people who believe it?

            “You are a very suspicious person. The whole world is in on the conspiracy! My God! All those stupid scientists! Even NASA oh the depths of perfidy!”

            See above, no conspiracy. You’re a conspiracist to imagine I believe in conspiracies. Large number of ex-NASA engineers have recently formed a group to educate the public and professionals that there is no good basis to the anthropogenic climate change theory. NASA put out data showing greening of the Earth due to elevated CO2 levels. They seem somewhat Ok, I suppose, don’t follow them closely.

            “OK my take away. I’m not a statistician, I would however like to hear a response from Tamino or someone else who actually works with climate statistics and probability. How about you? Let me guess, they’d be up to their ears in fallacies and evil conspiracies? ”

            No, I want a genuine debate. You don’t.

            … and you said “special interests have long been spreading FUD about all kinds of science to influence any legislation ?” Sounds like a conspiracy theory!! A billion dollars a day is being spent around the world on so-called climate tech. I’d say there’s a lot of potential for corruption, don’t you? Of course, I wouldn’t want you to think I’m a conspiracy theorist.

          • Radge Havers says

            20 Oct 2023 at 5:59 PM

            DN:

            I’ll bottom line it at the top.

            If suppression doesn’t come from the scientific journals, and you apparently hold the key to setting everyone straight, what have you published? Nothing right?

            You know, you’re very good at sidestepping issues by being deliberately obtuse. Your whole rebuttal pretty much boils down to, “I know you are but what am I.”

            I’d be willing to bet that you’re perfectly well aware of the Exxon papers, the Republican War on Science, etc. and can Google what the FF industry spends on lobbying, while still not providing one shred of evidence (NONE!!!) of widespread suppression. That’s really the raison d’être at the center of all your verbiage no matter how sciencey (as others here have adequately pointed out) you make it sound. If anything, your kind of fringe science has, until very recently, gotten a free pass due to years of sloppy, he-said-she-said, sell-the-controversy, reportage in the media.

            And a word on “debate” (rhetorical tactics actually). One thing we’ve first learned from Creationists that applies to all denialists, is that they love it!

            Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. ~ Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

            Fits you to a T as well: Debate is not science.

            Now if for some reason you’re still trying to convince me of your dedication to being a denialist troll, I’m already there. It’s impressive, thousands of words indeed! You really just can’t help yourself.

          • De Niles says

            21 Oct 2023 at 12:32 PM

            “If suppression doesn’t come from the scientific journals, and you apparently hold the key to setting everyone straight, what have you published? Nothing right?”

            “lobbying, while still not providing one shred of evidence (NONE!!!) of widespread suppression. That’s really the raison d’être at the center of all your verbiage no matter ”

            The media stopped reporting disagreement about the causes of climate change decades ago. I’d call that suppression. If they hadn’t people like you might not be so emotional and intolerant, and may be more open-minded or amenable to debate. Talk about verbiage… lots of sophistry and fluffy thinking from you.

            Recap:

            There’s no scientific PROOF that increasing CO2 is causing the negligible warming since the mid-20th century
            The raw science at the heart of the IPCC does not say that, and the political summaries are misleading.
            This negligible warming is mostly positive for the biosphere and civilisation. The little ice age, late 17th century was 3C cooler on average than today and resulted in crop failure and famine for people living on the breadline.
            The increase in CO2 is drastically positive for crop production and biosphere productivity, with some crops increasing 40% in yield from a doubling of CO2 levels.

            All of this means the debate on the subject is still valid, and ever more urgent, as huge amounts of money is being spent, enormous amounts of natural resources and being mined and used for “renewables” and batteries, and associated environmental damage is occurring in the energy transformation. Also energy is being made more expensive which is especially harmful to the poor, much more so than a 1C temperature rise (which is positive).

            It’s time to recognise you’re in a destructive anti-scientific cult that claims to help the world but actually harms it. The only way to do that is to tell you. But you protest. Who’s at fault?

          • nigelj says

            21 Oct 2023 at 2:28 PM

            De Niles @ 19 October.

            “A fact I now know to be flawed due to the fact its warming effect is nearly saturated. ”
            Nearly saturated is a meaningless statement because its not quantified precisely. How far away are we from saturation in ppm of CO2? Of course you haven’t told us and I suspect you don’t know. You have simply found a slogan you like without thinking about what it really means.

            And given some effect still remains according to you, what potential does it have to warm the planet? Again you don’t specify and you probably don’t know the answer.

            The fact is the warming effect is not “nearly saturated” and the potential for considerable warming remains ( worst case 10 degrees by 2300). That’s what the IPCC has found. They review the published science and they are a team of VOLUNTEERS, and it includes a few eccentric sceptics as well (ge Dr Vincent Grey, although I think he’s retired now). Bet you didn’t know that. I trust their judgement far more than yours or some junk science paper funded by the fossil fuels industry.

            “My entire argument here over thousands of words now is not that the suppression comes from scientific journals themselves, but from every other source, and you know that. See this entire thread.”

            That’s interesting because most of what I’ve read from you is about alleged suppression related to scientific journals. So you are shifting the goal posts.

            You also seem to think that CRITICISM of peoples views is suppression. It isn’t. And the irony is you criticise peoples views yourself all over this website. You apply double standards.
            I will tell you about real suppression. The insults, intimidation and death threats received by climate scientists, for example M Mann.

            “No, I’m aware that John Tyndall discovered the CO2 warming effect in the 19th century, but OBVIOUSLY, that is not pertinent to the modern theory that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing the warming of the planet since the mid-20th century.”

            You provide no references that anthropogenic emissions aren’t the cause of the modern warming period, let alone credible ones. The IPCC find that anthropogenic emissions caused all of the warming after the 1980s. Other potential causes like solar activity cant account for the warming, on the basis of the evidence. You can find good accounts of all this on the skepticalscience.com website.

            “Large number of ex-NASA engineers have recently formed a group to educate the public and professionals that there is no good basis to the anthropogenic climate change theory. ”
            You provide no link to back up your claim. In any event engineers with an axe to grind are not climate scientists.

            You make wild statements mostly without sources or links to back up your claims. I have given you sources and specifics. Your comments are incorrect and have no credibility.

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            22 Oct 2023 at 5:52 AM

            DN: There’s no scientific PROOF that increasing CO2 is causing the negligible warming since the mid-20th century

            BPL: No, because science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals in evidence. It is inductive, not deductive. Proof is for formal logic or mathematics, not science.

            The evidence is summed up here:

            https://bartonlevenson.com/CO2%20Evidence.html

          • Radge Havers says

            22 Oct 2023 at 5:45 PM

            De Niles:

            Still projecting I see. Moving on…

            I’d call that suppression.

            Of course you would. ‘Suppression’ is a loaded word, especially since you have earlier associated it with suppressing free speech, implying nefarious intent on a massive scale.

            What’s missing from your accusation is any explanation of how that would work and why. All you have is some hand waving about two things seemingly happening around the same time; reporting and a change of attitudes.

            You have no timeline (we know how you are with timelines!) to even show an accurate correlation (let alone a cause implicating a cult and incompetence), no paper trail, no understanding of how journalism works or doesn’t work, the role that journalism actually plays in society, any statistical measure of the impact that various outlets have on society– singly or in aggregate, no elucidation of the presence of the numerous psychological factors that go into cult behavior, any consideration of other trends that may be happening in society, etc.. I could go on, but what gets me is your complete lack of curiosity and your absolute faith in this sloppy and unnuanced talking point, such as it is. Not a very scientific way of looking at the world.

            So no, all of this does not mean the debate on the subject is still valid. As I said, the “debating” has been a rhetorical playground, not scientific practice. You won’t settle this by moot court, or by idiots on a point/counterpoint TV show.

            Again, publish your first hand research and add your awe inspiring, brilliant voice to the chorus of true scientists who just can’t manage to break through without you. If things are as you say, you have an outright obligation to do it. Think of it as another opportunity to write thousands more words. Surely all that deep thinking you’ve done is wasted in a comment thread— unless, of course, your actual intent is to troll.

            …There’s no scientific PROOF that increasing CO2…

            Some scientist you are, the object is to refute or disprove a hypothesis and replace it with a hypothesis that better fits the data NOT PROVE IT. Surprised you didn’t know that…

            …urgent…

            Seems your sense of urgency is selective. That said, and ignoring your usual tired talking points, some of your concerns are valid and certainly need to be addressed by policy, not by attacking the messenger.

            Who’s at fault?

            I don’t honestly don’t know who or what made you the way that you are.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            24 Oct 2023 at 6:26 PM

            More nonsense from DN.

            No, I’m aware that John Tyndall discovered the CO2 warming effect in the 19th century, but OBVIOUSLY, that is not pertinent to the modern theory that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing the warming of the planet since the mid-20th century.

            Quite obviously, it is, since it was foundational to the science that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

            As is common knowledge amongst climate change aficionados, the modern theory came to public and governmental attention in 1988.

            It also came to public attention in 1896, when Arrhenius published his pioneering calculation of climate sensitivity, with the very first numerical model of CO2-induced warming.

            Callendar’s 1938 work didn’t much attract public, let alone governmental attention–not with the stormclouds gathering from which WW II would shortly emerge. But it did in fact come to public attention in the 50s, particularly following the Geophysical Year in 1958, when a number of scientists worked in the area, including the elder Keeling and Roger Revelle, who famously called humanity’s CO2 pollution a “vast experiment.” (At this point, the results seem pretty hard to refute.)

            As to the matter of “governmental attention”, let me quote myself:

            Congress had heard in 1957 that warming could bring an ice-free Arctic and create “real deserts” in America. But during the 70s concern deepened; a 1970 MIT study warned of “widespread droughts” and “changes of the ocean level,” a 1974 CIA report foresaw the world’s food supply at risk, and in 1977 the National Academy of Sciences envisioned a whole suite of consequences as “adverse, perhaps even catastrophic.” Concern spread globally, and international conferences assessed human health impacts (1979) and called on all governments to develop climate change policies (1985).

            So, no. Once again, DN is strangely ignorant of something claimed to have been studied “more deeply.” Which, of course, does not obviate continued confident but erroneous assertions.

            There’s no scientific PROOF that increasing CO2 is causing the negligible warming since the mid-20th century

            As BPL correctly pointed out, there’s no “scientific PROOF” of anything, at least under the prevailing paradigm of science as inductive. I’d add that there’s also no “PROOF” that the observed warming is “negligible.” In fact, DN apparently just made that up.

            The raw science at the heart of the IPCC does not say that, and the political summaries are misleading.

            No, as I just explained, it does not. But it does make it clear that there is a great deal of evidence pointing to that conclusion, and that many of the salient points are assessed to merit high or very high confidence. And that’s in the main reports, not the SPMs.

            This negligible warming is mostly positive for the biosphere and civilisation.

            Repetition does not enhance credibility. The new bit–“mostly positive”–is not only a completely unsupported assertion, it flies in the face of the evidence of IPCC ARs and SRs, which document numerous negative impacts, and point of the risk associated with further impacts due to increased warming.

            The little ice age, late 17th century was 3C cooler on average than today and resulted in crop failure and famine for people living on the breadline.

            Irrelevant and immaterial. Too little water will kill you; so will too much, and ditto with heat.

            The increase in CO2 is drastically positive for crop production and biosphere productivity, with some crops increasing 40% in yield from a doubling of CO2 levels.

            Yes, in controlled environments where other inputs were adequate to plant needs. Got any real-world data suggesting that’s how it works for real ag? You know, like this:

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01492-5

            Or this empirical study from 2007:

            https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002/meta

            Oh, and yet more nonsense:

            The “97% of scientists agree” study was complete falsehood.

            In fact, the criticisms of the Cook study–which denialati generally seem to take to be “the 97% study”– I’ve seen are pretty specious. But it’s far from the only study to find similar levels of agreement:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

        • MA Rodger says

          28 Sep 2023 at 7:44 AM

          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.

          • De Niles says

            28 Sep 2023 at 6:58 PM

            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.

          • MA Rodger says

            29 Sep 2023 at 2:17 AM

            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.

          • MA Rodger says

            1 Oct 2023 at 1:19 PM

            Willie Soon doesn’t get very far into his grand essay on “Infamy! Infamy!! They’ve all got it in for me!!!” before diverging into the realms of fantasy.
            Twenty words in and he writes – “So far, most of the feedback from the scientific community and the public on these papers has been very positive.” Ignoring “the public” who are not properly qualified to judge whether the steaming piles of nonsense in the three new denialist papers has the slightest shred of merit, who is it in “the scientific community” that “have been very positive” with their feedback?
            Perhaps all this pantomime act from Soon and Mrs Connolly’s lads defending their steaming piles would be easier if these alleged scientists came forward to defend their honour, if such scientists exist that is.

            But as an alternative, mad Willie decides to fact-check thirteen “false and misleading claims” (which sounds like a bit of a prejudiced approach to “fact-checking”) but not after setting out the “background” that led mad Willie to create the streaming piles, their scientific significance and the “past behaviour” of his unwelcome claimants.
            Strangely, mad Willie fails initially to set out the “background” that led to their analyses of either the level of global warming since the mid-1800s or the attribution of that warming but rather jumps straight to asserting that the findings shown by the steaming piles contradict the IPCC AR6 who were thus “premature” with their conclusions.

            Perhaps a good reason for mad Willie failing to set out clearly the “background” that led to their analyses is because it would require coverage of Soon, Connolly & Connolly (2015) ‘Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century’ which came to identical conclusions using a pretty-much identical approach as these three new denialist papers although, being eight years ago, this was a steaming pile that contradicted IPCC AR5.
            And did that 2015 version of the steaming pile gain any credible acceptance? Eight years on, and the level of citation shown by Google Scholar seems to show there is extremely little acceptance beyond the small band of nut-jobs who are listed as the co-authors of these three new denialist papers.

            So really we are not so far forward from mad Willie Soon & Mrs Connolly’s lads back before 2015 reading AR5 and, for some reason beknownst to themselves, being “alarmed to discover that the detection and attribution analysis the IPCC was using was failing to properly address at least two critical scientific problems.” There two “critical scientific problems” were (and continue to be) in the eyes of the nut-jobs, firstly that mythical archipelago the Urban Heat Islands and secondly TSI reconstructions back to the 1800s. Perhaps they should roll back the clock and learn how to scientifically set about examining these alleged “two critical scientific problems” and stop wasting everybody’s time with their steaming piles of nonsense.

            And that leads to examining their “fact-checking”!!

          • MA Rodger says

            3 Oct 2023 at 1:27 PM

            Continuing with the fun-filled commentary of Willie Soon’s grand essay on “Infamy! Infamy!! They’ve all got it in for me!!!”:-

            In it there is quite a lot of attention given to Richardson & Benestad (2022) ‘Erroneous use of Statistics behind Claims of a Major Solar Role in Recent Warming’. Richardson & Benestad (2022) is described as an “attempt to discredit C2021 [Connolly et al (2021) ‘How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate’] using a series of “straw man arguments,” (and “exclusively” so according to C2023), use of such straw man argument of course being a logical fallacy.
            In this assessment, Richardson & Benestad (2022) is being badly misrepresented. Yet misrepresentation from muppets like mad Willie Soon & Mrs Connolly’s lads is the expectation.

            In this regard, Willie’s essay points to C2023 (Connolly et al (2023) ‘Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850’) which they describe as “a direct response to Richardson and Benestad (2022)”, C2023 additionally telling us it employs Steel Man arguments to counter the Straw Man arguments of Richardson & Benestad (2022). But C2023 is iteslf anonther of their steaming heaps of error and misrepresentation, more Iron Man than Steel Man.

            I suppose the big bone of contention here is the value given for the solar contribution to global warming over the last 200 years. Richardson & Benestad demonstrate in their Fig 2 that the methods used by C2021 to calculate this solar contribution using non-simultaneous regressions is flat wrong (which is pretty obvious to any sane observer), that an exemplar of the general methods used in C2021(methods that are themselves dubious) should yield values for the solar contribution of perhaps 10% and certainly not the 60% as per C2021.
            The point here is to highlight a crazy method which leads to crazy findings, like a 60% solar contribution.

            But C2023 insists that C2021 isn’t wrong in not using simultaneous regressions. Remarkably, this is because within C2021 they do pointed out as a “caviat” that “it might be argued that the various contributions should be estimated simultaneously” and that they intend to use simultaneous regressions in future (indeed, they say others have already done so) but then C2021 adds an apparent actual justification:-

            “However, we caution that there is a distinction between the TSI estimates that are calibrated against empirical measurements (i.e., satellite measurements) and anthropogenic forcings that are usually calculated from theoretical modeling. That is, they are not necessarily directly comparable forcings.”

            This C2021 blather on the comparability of forcings does suggest the muppets do not grasp either the workings of OLS or the true relevance of their own curve-fitting exercise. They appear entirely happy with the 60% (or similar) as it allows them to argue that the IPCC’s reporting of a tiny solar contribution is not properly established and thus could be wrong. For the muppets, the actual contribution value is an irrelevance.

            They do however pay greater attention (to the point of tediousness) to how well their various regressions fit the data.
            And there is the argument set in C2023 (explicitly w.r.t. TSI) that a high level of explanation for global warming found in their regressions indicates a good physical explanation and the accuracy of the data in the SAT & TSI records used, I suppose if you are a committed curve-fitter, you might delude yourself into believing that is true.

            So not yet halfway through Willie’s grand essay and at last we reach their fact-checking, which should be fun.

          • MA Rodger says

            9 Oct 2023 at 1:32 PM

            And so to the fact-checking.
            Willie Soon tells us that “several of us at CERES**-Science” have managed to compile a little list of 13 claimed examples of ” false and misleading” disinformation which they say they “fact-check.”.
            Of these, the first Claim listed does not concern their crazy climate science, this primacy suggesting their prime concern is not to defend their actual work. Indeed, it is the same with their second claim, and likewise Claims Nos 10 and 12 while Claims Nos 11 and 13 are doing no more than saying poor Willie isn’t up to the job of doing climatology.
            So how does Willie (and the several chums***) do with their fact-checking on these six of thirteen Claims?
            (**Not to be confused with the grown-up CERES. Here CERES an entity set up by Willie & his chums back in 2018 which, amongst other things, is asking for cash, and they don’t seem to care from where as long as the brown manilla envelopes are given with the “strict requirement for all our patrons and funders that they do not attempt to influence either the conclusions or research directions of our group. Instead, we strive to ensure our research is driven by objective evidence-based analysis.” The meaing of “evidence-based” is presumably something Willie & chums are still ‘striving’ to understand.)
            (*** The “several of us” appears to mean Willie & the Connolly boys; so the three eejits.)

            Claim 1 The MDPI scientific publishing group is unscientific. This claim in Willie-Soon-speak is but an out-of-date and poorly-researched smear because loads use MDPI today and anyway other Soon/Connolly nonsense is published by many other publishers. But then, I note that if MDPI’s reputation has been restored and the Claim out-of-date, this has occurred within the last couple of years (because the MDPI reputation was not good back in 2021), and I see no sign of such restoration in the period since then.
            Claim 2: The 37 co-authors of S2023 are “climate deniers”. Willie thinks that a “climate denier” would not not carry out “out an extensive “detection and attribution of climate change” study” which is what S2023 presents. This suggests Willie didn’t manage to read the full tweet as the unspecified(?) “group of climate deniers” were accused of publishing “an article claiming global warming is due to the urban heat island effect” which is a different Claim entirely.
            Claim 10: Dr. Soon is in the pay of Big Oil and all his work is corrupted by fossil fuel money. This is real fun. Willie rebuts the accusation by pointing to a 9 min video of a section of a Willie Soon talk of April 2022. In it he admits taking money from the Kochs and the Southern Company which he didn’t disclose. But that’s all right. They aren’t exclusively dirty FF companies, the quoted $1.200,000 figure wasn’t all from them and 40% went to his employer not him (so he didn’t even know the money was dirty). And anyway he isn’t the only one not disclosing funding. And at the end of the day, this is a matter of principle because if Willie wants the highly lucrative tax-payer funding he has to “support the politically-correct narrative on climate change.” He was reluctant to do this so instead “looked for funding sources” that allowed him to spout his unsupportive climate change denial.
            Now, I have the distinct feeling that that pile of nonsense hangs together just about as badly as Willie’s climate nonsense. It must be an acquired skill to spout such nonsense with a straight face.
            Claim 11: Dr. Soon’s science is based on faulty assumptions and bad science. This is refuted by reference to the rebutted sciency claims, and additionally by the many many co-authors that Willie pastes onto his work, co-authors from all over the world apparently.
            And Willie himself is cited over 7,000x in his many publications. Now, with this last point, I do recall looking at the citations listed by Google Scholar for the pile of crap Willie & the Connollys published on the subject of AGW attribution back in 2015 That’s 8 years ago and long enough to show how “credible, relevant and worth citing” that 2015 work was. Of the 89 citations listed (so not a great number), 21 were by works co-authored by either Soon or a Connolly or both, and the vast majority of the rest were by numpty deniers, many being chums who appear with Soon/Connolly co-authors on other works of nonsense.
            But that said, there is a problem with a self-confessed bullshitter who goes on record admitting that a paper he had published in 2003 was a hoax. Apparently this is a problem poor Willie provided for himself 8/12/16.
            Claim 12: The 37 co-authors of S2023’s scientific reputations are very poor. The rebuttal provided tells us we are all entitled to our opinions and suggests the “curious” should research for themselves the 37 “highly accomplished” co-authors. To assist in this research, Willie bravely provides some accomplishments of a few of his co-authors, (not all members of the 37 co-authors), these including such exemplars as Scarfetta & Akasofu. Indeed all Willie’s exemplar 37s have been elevated to have their very own d DeSmog blog page.
            Claim 13: Dr. Soon assumes that the Sun must be the dominant climate driver and is blinded by confirmation bias. This thirteenth Claim is branded “bizarre” and this because S2023 does consider all manner of TSI series regardless of their veracity. But perhaps a marker of his “confirmation bias” is the way S2023 using any old TSI and any old NH SAT happily finds solar contributions ranging from 21% up to 89%, yet fails to mention that this is entirely at odds with IPCC AR6 Ch7 which shows such a solar contribution as being just 0.7% (+3% to -4%). Of course, this nuanced criticism is probably a little too subtle for bind-man Willie and his bluff “confirmation bias.”

            So that’s the reputational (or lack-of-reputational) stuff done. That leaves asking whether Soon, Connolly & Connolly have any better luck with the sciency stuff?

          • MA Rodger says

            13 Oct 2023 at 4:35 AM

            Rattling through a few more of Willie Soon’s 13 fact-checks, there are three of the ‘claims’ he disputes that concern temperature series.

            Claim 9: Soon (2005) made a “failed prediction” about Arctic temperatures Strangely I can’t see anybody talking of a “failed prediction.” That makes Willie’s use of this explicit quote a bit of a straw man in him telling us “neither Soon (2005); Soon (2009); nor S2015 (Paper 1) made any predictions about future Arctic temperatures.” Yet Willie still doubles-down on the usefulness of his curve-fitting: the apparent correlation between the smoothed Arctic temperatures and the crazy Hoyt & Schatten TSI reconstruction. In these statements he is still failing to get to grips with the total collapse of his curve-fitting post-2000. This denial of reality is presumably why in the 2021 paper the muppets again fails to spot this bullshit in their grand back-patting exercise which proclaimed:- “This suggested that most of the Arctic temperature trends since at least the 19th century (including the Arctic warming since the 1970s) was due to solar variability rather than anthropogenic factors.” They appear incapable of grasping that such a ‘suggestion’ now only belongs in the bin.

            Claim 3: Our rural-only record is cherry-picked and poorly sampled The curious ‘rural-only’ temperature record Willie-&-chums attempts to create for NH land appears a pretty good pick if you were after cherrys. The periods of temperature record the muppets are trying to line up with the crazy H&S TSI are 1885-1938 with a sharp rise, 1938-72 a sharp fall and then 1972-2018 which is a tad problematic post-2000. So to cherry-pick a solid basis with the first two of these periods, have a look at the map of land trends on the GISTEMP mapping engine for each period. The Arctic is by far the best for the rise & fall 1885-1972 and after the Arctic it would be USA, China & Portugal, although Ireland isn’t looking a bad Portugal-substitute. I note Willie’s fact-check does call their ‘rural’ NH data a “first attempt” in a “very challenging” task which is perhaps him trying to excuse it being so rubbish.
            The muppets do attempt to justify their cherry-pick by repeating a quote from their 2021 nonsense. this insisting their chosen regions (Ireland, China, USA & Arctic) “accounted for more than 80% of the rural data for the early 20th century from either hemisphere.” While this may sound a little reassuring, it’s more a statement of how rare is the precious rural data in the early 20th century, and perhaps also highlighting how important is the 5% of NH GHCNv3 stations beyond their 4 regions which they deem ‘rural’ but which they ignore entirely. Indeed, the “over 80%” is a bit interesting as they are apparently only using 42% of early 20th century GHCNv3 ‘rural’ stations which may suggest more cherry-picking is at work.

            Claim 4: Our rural-only record is inconsistent with other non-urban temperature records The fact-check which is said to demonstrate this Claim 4 as being “False” references some lengthy passages within the published SoonConnollyConnolly nonsense of past years. The trio delight in presenting postage-stamp graphics of noisy data and comparisons of linear trends within said data. As a method of comparison, this is as clear as mud.
            But here’s a thing….
            If you plot out the SoonConnollyConnolly rural-only NH land data, it isn’t as different as they make out from the usual NH rural-&-urban data while the SoonConnollyConnolly NH rural-&-land looks far more like the standard Global land that it does NH land. Indeed BEST Global Land is remarkably similar. (The BEST NH land series presently eludes me.) The graph here (Posted 12th Oct 2023) shows this comparison (plotted out as 11-year rolling averages) for both the NOAA NH land & the NOAA Global land as well as the SCC Rural-Only & SCC Rural+Urban and also BEST Global Land. Further, a trace plotting NOAA NH Land minus SCC Rural-Only suggests that mythical archipelago, the Urban Heat Islands, first grew to a significant mass only through the period 1950-80 and from then only grew again post-2000. And armed with such intelligence, I’m sure Cap’n Willie and his scurvy crew will be able to plot a course to said archipelago and claim them for the Republic of La La Land (as they appear to be a fully signed up citizen of said land).

            One strange omission here from mad Willie’s fact-checking is any mention of the unsupported assertion he made within his rebuttal of 8th Sept that their piles of published nonsense have “described … several scientific studies [which] have suggested that urban biases accounted for more than 10% of the land warming – and possibly much more.” When the SoonConnollyConnolly echo-chamber is put to one side, the “several scientific studies” they cite reduce to just one Zhang et al (2021) ‘Urbanization effects on estimates of global trends in mean and extreme air temperature’which finds the UHI effect on the global land warming is perhaps 1.5%, this is very different from “more than 10% … and possibly much more”.

            So coverage of Willie Soon’s fact checking is now down to Nos 5. 6, 7 & 8 which all deal with TSI, all likely in the same crazy-comedic fashion as the nine so far addressed. But I will see.

        • Ray Ladbury says

          28 Sep 2023 at 10:51 AM

          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.

          • De Niles says

            28 Sep 2023 at 7:14 PM

            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.

          • zebra says

            29 Sep 2023 at 6:15 AM

            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?

          • Ray Ladbury says

            29 Sep 2023 at 11:14 AM

            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?

          • Carbomontanus says

            1 Oct 2023 at 2:29 AM

            Hr. Ladbury

            I am launching and selling a neo- logism all the time, calling it climate- surrealism.

            That is because they have founded a new secteric religion in Oslo town on the ruins of the royal Frederiks University, and labeled themselves https://Klimarealistene.no , in translation, the climate realists. as an alternative to the Paris conventions

            I recommend that conscept. namely Climate- surrealists. That is often quite appliciable.

        • Carbomontanus says

          30 Sep 2023 at 12:01 PM

          Hr D. Niles

          Opposition and denial may be two rather quite different things, Hr. D.. Niles

          You should abstain from teaching or instruct people on scientific motives and methods, as many participants here may be experienced on that.
          As fror my own case, I am also quite experienced with fanatic & snobbish, unqualified teachers “professors” and instructors also, , both on how to avoid them and how to get rid of them.

          Most oftenly, it shows that they have the fameous Party with P, the grand old one, in personal aesoteric bloody heritage,

          I do not even have to betray wich grand old Party with P because that is also a most protected secret. Today we mostly find them again popping up as Populist, still with P.

          They educate and qualify through closed studies with exam & diploma cheating on that Partys quote. Securing enough Industrialized fanatic dilettantism in order to enter societys leading roles and keye positions, you see.

          It is symptomatic. .

        • Kevin McKinney says

          6 Oct 2023 at 9:14 AM

          DeNiles:

          I guess any source alternative to the IPCC won’t be accepted.

          The IPCC isn’t a “source.” It’s essentially an aggregating and synthesizing body that offers up the most comprehensive, carefully considered mega “review articles” ever seen in the entire history of science. So what you are really saying is “I guess any source alternative to the scientific literature won’t be accepted.”

          And you are correct.

          • De Niles says

            10 Oct 2023 at 5:04 PM

            IPCC summaries have been shown to be misleading and are political documents. They are called “Summary for Policymakers”, after all. They are not scientific literature themselves. The real science does not show that there is certainty that increasing CO2 is causing global warming, as per my other post detailing a quantitative summary of the literature.

            Some new literature published in the last month from government body Statistics Norway finds:

            “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”

            https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2023/10/04/no-way-norway/

          • MA Rodger says

            11 Oct 2023 at 2:48 AM

            The DeNilesist links to a pile of nonsense (as he has so-far managed with unerring regularity here) which for some reason Statistiks Serialbyra have posted as an analysis/article/publication on the subject of ‘Pollution & Climate’. It is a thesis published by a trio of statisticians who have endeavoured to show (the 2020 version here) there is “stationarity” in all the temperature data they analyse so allowing them to conclude that the recent warming is just noise. I would imagine this is more a demonstration of how statistics can be used to deceive people (perhaps here including the statisticians carrying out the analysis) rather than anything in an way relevant to climatology.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            11 Oct 2023 at 10:35 AM

            Yes and no. The SPMs cannot contradict the actual conclusions of the larger AR; however, the specific language used is subject to the approval of FCCC member states met in plenary session, and has quite often been highly contentious. Unfortunately for your argument, that pressure has overwhelming been in the net direction of playing down the seriousness and urgency of the conclusions. In other words, the “spin” has been in the direction of making the SPMs less, not more, “alarmist.” (Saudi Arabia has historically been a prominent player in such efforts–unsurprisingly.)

            And in any case, I wasn’t referring to the SPMs primarily, but to the ARs and SRs. You are pushing a pars pro toto fallacy by using a (very small) part to attempt to smear the whole.

            As for your cited paper, I am very much afraid that you are misrepresenting it–or perhaps merely perpetuating a misrepresentation. It is not the work of Statistics Norway, as claimed, but of the individual authors, Dagsvik & Moen. Stats Norway merely publishes preprints of projects of staff members. I quote from the original:

            The Discussion Papers series presents results from ongoing research projects and other research and analysis by SSB staff. The views and conclusions in this document are those of the authors.

            As to the paper, it seems to me to be a cross between Curry (“Uncertainty!”) and Scaffeta (“Cycles!”) I’ll leave detailed criticism to those more qualified than I, but it suffers the conceptual flaw that in addressing climate science from a purely statistical perspective, it fails to recognize the physical understanding of climate drivers. If one can quantify the climate forcing of GHGs–and this is routine–the failure to reject the hypothesis of stationarity in some time series is pretty weak tea, logically speaking.

          • nigelj says

            11 Oct 2023 at 2:55 PM

            De Niles,

            “Some new literature published in the last month from government body Statistics Norway finds:“the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.”

            The paper you refer to is nonsense. Its written by a statistician and a retired civil engineer. These two people have no formal qualifications related directly to the climate system, atmospheric physics, or meteorology. Norways economy is very reliant on oil exports, so they have a big incentive to downplay anthropogenic climate change.

            The paper you quote from Norway is based on simplistic and illogical deductions, essentially claiming that because there have been sharp increases in temperatures in the distant past, we cannot know that warming now is caused by CO2. But there are many lines of evidence that the present warming period is being caused by increasing levels of CO2 as below:

            https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

            But of course the authors of the paper you cite have no expertise related to this and are likely not even conversant with the material. Big fail on their part.

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            11 Oct 2023 at 5:37 PM

            DN: The real science does not show that there is certainty that increasing CO2 is causing global warming

            BPL: Yes it does. You would have to be grossly unfamiliar with the professional climatology literature to believe that.

            Do yourself a favor. Open a textbook on atmosphere physics, read through it, and work the problems. Then come back.

          • Adam says

            14 Oct 2023 at 9:10 AM

            De Niles makes more sense than you seem able to credit him with. There is most definitely a difference between the politics of climate science and the science of climate science.

            Let’s make it simpler. The scientific “consensus” is that we are close to 100% certain that AGW is caused by CO2. As a result many of you (above) are name-calling as a “denier” someone who has merely pointed out, quite eloquently, that there are in fact other important causes involved that aren’t being carefully considered and therefore your 100% certainty that it’s all about CO2 seems rather unscientific.

            Here’s some advice: the scientific “consensus” is obviously crumbling after a multi-decade free run. So it’s time to go back and do some real science again instead of just screaming at those who point out the flaws in your thinking.

          • Kevin McKinney says

            15 Oct 2023 at 7:15 AM

            Adam:

            Here’s some advice: the scientific “consensus” is obviously crumbling after a multi-decade free run.

            Wishing won’t make it so.

          • Carbomontanus says

            15 Oct 2023 at 3:08 PM

            Dr. Adam
            You may be superfiscious and mis- consceived wityh an “agenda” here.

            Try another example in order to control and to calibrate your own understanding.

            ‘Try and discuss water, for instance, necessary for life, and try and immagine whether it is brackish or not.

            Then you are down at Reality of life and death on the GAZA- strip, where there aint no more freshwater flowing in, and the groundwater is brackish.

            Examine and explore your own political and moral scientific teachings about whether
            salty tea & necessary drinkwater is good and healthy or not, political scientific smile- smile- Hum Hum!…..

            What more may there be in the waters of the GAZA- strip and further in the Holy Land, and what matters? And what the Hell are they fighting for further in Southern Libanon and in the Jordan river walley?

13. Russell Seitz says

    8 Sep 2023 at 9:28 AM

    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

14. 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. 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..

15. MA Rodger says

    8 Sep 2023 at 10:20 AM

    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!!!

16. Tom Nelson says

    9 Sep 2023 at 8:26 AM

    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?

    • Tom Nelson says

      18 Sep 2023 at 7:10 AM

      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]

      • Ray Ladbury says

        18 Sep 2023 at 8:06 AM

        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.

17. Paul Pukite (@whut) says

    9 Sep 2023 at 10:41 AM

    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.

18. Russell Seitz says

    9 Sep 2023 at 12:18 PM

    “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

    • Armando says

      9 Sep 2023 at 2:19 PM

      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…..”

    • Adam Lea says

      12 Sep 2023 at 4:46 PM

      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.

19. Russell Seitz says

    9 Sep 2023 at 6:39 PM

    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.

20. MA Rodger says

    10 Sep 2023 at 12:37 PM

    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:-

    “As described in Connolly et al. (2021), Soon et al. (2023) and Connolly et al. (2023), several scientific studies have suggested that urban biases accounted for more than 10% of the land warming – and possibly much more.”

    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:-

    ““No recent literature has emerged to alter the AR5 finding that it is unlikely that any uncorrected effects from urbanization […], or from changes in land use or land cover […], have raised global Land Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) trends by more than 10%, although larger signals have been identified in some specific regions, especially rapidly urbanizing areas such as eastern China [Y. Li et al (2013), Liao et al (2017), Shi et al (2019)]”

    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.

21. RodB says

    10 Sep 2023 at 12:44 PM

    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.

    • Ray Ladbury says

      10 Sep 2023 at 10:40 PM

      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.

      • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

        11 Sep 2023 at 11:21 AM

        Ray says:

        “Playing around with the variables until you get a positive correlation is a recipe for misleading yourself and others.”

        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

        • Ray Ladbury says

          11 Sep 2023 at 2:31 PM

          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.

          • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

            12 Sep 2023 at 9:36 AM

            Ray says:

            “That is one of the reasons why I would argue that applying ML to science is a fraught proposition.”

            That’s why the machine learning community spends so much time on cross-validation of results. I would go as far to say predictive numerical machine learning would be useless without cross-validation, as it is often ridiculously easy to fit a set of data with a neural net model.

            “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. “

            That’s a great example of how correlation an go wrong — say looking for a single value of some (fine structure) constant and depending on so many other degrees of freedom to line up. Count me out.

            The beauty of climate science is that there are an abundance of rich time-series to draw from, composed of these seemingly erratic cycles that are counter to human intuition but that likely machine learning will be able to decode. Consider that all of fluid dynamics is characterized as a non-linear response, yet humans have spent careers doing linear analysis (trying to find their lost keys under the streetlight). Further, consider that if linear solutions compose some fraction of known problems then non-linear problems will comprise infinitely mode. Machine learning, like the neurons in the human mind (check latest paper in PRL), are non-linear generators par excellence. So, if a solution is found, it will likely come from this approach, with a heap of cross-validation applied.

            BTW, I would also like to quote Armando, who supplied an appropriate parable below.

            “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.””

            Consider the rationale for why scientists follow the research paths that they do — because that’s where the money is. So what if they aren’t making progress, at least there’s a potential for income. OTOH, machine learning is cheap so financial incentives don’t play.

        • Carbomontanus says

          12 Sep 2023 at 2:21 AM

          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.

        • RodB says

          27 Sep 2023 at 1:43 PM

          Well put.

      • RodB says

        27 Sep 2023 at 1:42 PM

        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.

        • Geoff Miell says

          27 Sep 2023 at 9:25 PM

          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.

          • zebra says

            28 Sep 2023 at 5:23 AM

            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.

        • Carbomontanus says

          28 Sep 2023 at 6:12 AM

          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.

        • Radge Havers says

          28 Sep 2023 at 9:51 AM

          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?)

    • Willard says

      11 Sep 2023 at 1:22 AM

      > 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.

    • Radge Havers says

      11 Sep 2023 at 12:43 PM

      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:

      The correlation between CO2, global warming, and worldwide catastrophes is about as low as it gets but is blindly taken as gospel.

      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).

    • Ray Ladbury says

      11 Sep 2023 at 2:35 PM

      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!

      • J Doug Swallow says

        13 Sep 2023 at 7:39 AM

        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

        • Barton Paul Levenson says

          14 Sep 2023 at 6:38 AM

          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.

          • Radge Havers says

            14 Sep 2023 at 10:13 AM

            BPL,

            Hmm, you mean aside from projecting and caricature?

            And there’s the usual cherry picking:
            From the site he cites:

            This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change.

            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?

          • Radge Havers says

            14 Sep 2023 at 11:13 AM

            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

          • Kevin McKinney says

            14 Sep 2023 at 12:56 PM

            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.

          • Barton Paul Levenson says

            15 Sep 2023 at 9:57 AM

            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.

22. Russell Seitz says

    10 Sep 2023 at 4:58 PM

    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 “

23. Armando says

    11 Sep 2023 at 4:27 PM

    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.”

24. Morgan Wright says

    12 Sep 2023 at 5:55 AM

    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.

    • Ray Ladbury says

      12 Sep 2023 at 12:38 PM

      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.

    • Russell Seitz says

      12 Sep 2023 at 5:28 PM

      “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.”

    • Piotr says

      13 Sep 2023 at 12:29 AM

      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”?

    • Barton Paul Levenson says

      13 Sep 2023 at 6:42 AM

      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

    • jgnfld says

      13 Sep 2023 at 9:48 AM

      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

    • jgnfld says

      13 Sep 2023 at 9:50 AM

      Freudian slip there…should have been think TANK, but think take actually applies pretty accurately as well.

    • Kevin McKinney says

      13 Sep 2023 at 12:43 PM

      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.

      • MA Rodger says

        14 Sep 2023 at 6:16 AM

        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.

        • Kevin McKinney says

          14 Sep 2023 at 12:38 PM

          Ah! A fascinating little layer of meaning…

    • spilgard says

      14 Sep 2023 at 12:04 PM

      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.

      • Piotr says

        15 Sep 2023 at 1:59 PM

        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.

      • Kevin McKinney says

        15 Sep 2023 at 3:25 PM

        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.)

      • Morgan Wright says

        9 Oct 2023 at 3:26 PM

        Spilgard,

        Add this to a list of my quotable quotes. I’ll put the whole thing in quotes even though I’m quoting myself.

        “If you go to Wikipedia, look up earth’s energy budget. They have a big diagram by NASA that says earth radiates to the atmosphere 398 watts per square meter and receives from the atmosphere 340 of radiation which is a net of 58 Watts IR radiated to and retained by the atmosphere. In addition, on the diagram there is 18 Watts by convection and 86 Watts by latent heat. So out of a total of 162 watts, only 58 are radiation absorbed and retained by greenhouse gases. That’s 38%. Convection and latent heat amount to 62% of the heat emitted by earth’s surface, but they have nothing to do with greenhouse gases and CO2 has no effect on them.

        Not mentioned on the diagram is conduction, which I calculate is 330 Watts. This would throw the whole diagram out the window and a new one would show something like 10% of the heat emitted into the atmosphere by earth’s surface is IR radiation which is absorbed and retained by greenhouse gases. The other 90%, namely conduction, convection and latent heat, has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Of the 10% that is absorbed by greenhouse gases, 90% is absorbed by water vapor and 10% by CO2. So 10% of 10% which is 1%

        Once again, that’s 1%. This is why nobody should give a s^%& about CO2.”

        unquote,
        Morgan Wright

        • Kevin McKinney says

          10 Oct 2023 at 9:20 PM

          That’s–really, really dumb. And in multiple ways, but the biggest is that the GHE is not determined primarily at the surface, but at the so-called “top of atmosphere” (which is not literally at the top of the atmosphere, but that’s another story.) So this sentence, for instance:

          So out of a total of 162 watts, only 58 are radiation absorbed and retained by greenhouse gases…

          …is a total and complete non sequitur.

          Basically, you created a conceptual mixed salad. Rarely have I seen such a drastic fail. But hey, you’re making Victor look better by contrast.

        • patrick o twentyseven says

          10 Oct 2023 at 9:49 PM

          Conduction and molecular diffusion transfer heat between the surface material and the air immediately next to it. Convection takes it from there. Setting aside thermosphere and cloud / aerosol microphysics, conduction just isn’t significant other than that initial step that feeds convection. This initial step is intended to be included in the term ‘convection’ (latent and sensible – both are convection) in this context.

          Meanwhile, sustained convection needs net radiant cooling in the atmosphere, and this requires LW emitters, such as H2O vapor, CO2, and clouds.

          Take away the GHE, and emission to Space from the surface would balance total solar heating (geothermal and especially tidal/anthropogenic(fossil fuel and nuclear) are very very tiny by comparison but those would also need to be balanced). Which wouldn’t allow any role for convection (setting aside horizontal gradients in solar heating +??, which I imagine could drive some weak shallow circulations that would in this case require downward conduction of heat into the surface in some places???)

          You should look into “radiative-convective equilibrium”; “convective adjustment”

          • Ray Ladbury says

            1 Nov 2023 at 10:17 AM

            Morgan Wright,
            I’m sorry, but I am afraid you have mistaken my utter apathy about the very fact of your existence and concluded it means I think you have anything interesting to add to the conversation.

            Let me try to make it clear: Your confusion about climate science does not equate to any lack of understanding on the part of the experts. Your laughable understanding of the scientific method does not make you interesting to scientists. And your “Debate me, Bro” attitude is not advancing scientific understanding. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

        • Morgan Wright says

          11 Oct 2023 at 9:58 AM

          Ha ha only kidding. I was waiting to see if you guys could calculate conduction of heat by air into the atmosphere, to see if you’re real scientists. But in the 4 days since I posted this, nobody came up with an argument. Ha ha you aren’t scientsist at all, if you were, you’d do the calculation yourself and see, my “calculation” of 330 watts should be more like 2 watts. Ha ha ha never mind. Nobody cares about 2 watts. Carry on. This is how I tell real science from junk science. Junk scientists can’t do math.

          • MA Rodger says

            12 Oct 2023 at 6:55 AM

            Morgan Wright,
            Your comedic input here is only further evidence of stupidity.
            Your ridiculous “calculation” of 330W (presumably per sq metre) is now followed by a second ridiculous “calculation” of 2Wm^-2. Of course, nobody who has every wielded their skills in arithmetic can ever say they have never made a mistake in such endeavours. But the magic of arithmetic is that the workings can be presented to allow such errors to be corrected. Perhaps you would like to reprieve a little credibility by offering your workings.

            Now the actual conduction of energy up through the Earth’s atmosphere (which is what the Energy Balance diagrams are showing) is quite easy to estimate. I would suggest a value of about 0.000165Wm^-2 near the surface dropping to perhaps 0.000125Wm^-2 up at the tropopause, although I could be wrong, but probably not. So your “more like 2 watts, Ha ha ha” is looking as eye-wateringly stupid as you 330 watts.

          • Steven Emmerson says

            12 Oct 2023 at 1:55 PM

            Morgan, that is one possibility. Another is that no one takes you seriously enough to make the effort to correct you.

          • Morgan Wright says

            22 Oct 2023 at 12:40 AM

            MA Rodger wrote

            “But the magic of arithmetic is that the workings can be presented to allow such errors to be corrected. Perhaps you would like to reprieve a little credibility by offering your workings.”

            I just multiplied the thermal conduction coefficient of air, which is 0.025 Watts m^-2 K-1, by 80 K temperature difference, which gives 2 Watts straight-up still-air conduction. If NASA parlayed that into 18 Watts of “conduction plus convection”, I have no dog in that fight.

          • MA Rodger says

            24 Oct 2023 at 7:34 AM

            Morgan Wright
            Of course, the conductivity of dry air at one atmosphere and +14ºC is indeed 0.025 in SI units. (As we are considering ballpark values here, the effects of humidity, pressure and temperature on that coefficient are not relevant.)
            Sadly Morgan Wright, you rather fail to employ that coefficient correctly, a coefficient with units of Wm^-1K^-1.
            The conduction through matter is dependent on the thermal gradient and not the “temperature difference”. So in your calculation, you have to also divide by the thickness (something you may be more familiar with than me), the thickness of the troposphere being 13km. So you divide by 13,000, this giving a more realistic value of 0.00015Wm^-2. This is tiny enough to be ignorable. (I perhaps should add that the temperature gradients very close to the surface can be large due to difference in the surface and air temperature.)

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            26 Oct 2023 at 6:08 PM

            (re MA Rodger) Yes!

          • Morgan Wright says

            26 Oct 2023 at 11:06 PM

            @ M A Rodger

            You just divided by 13,000 meters. That gives us the conductance per meter. Now you have to multiply back the 13,000 meters to give us the total conductance. I don’t know why you chose only the troposphere, though it doesn’t matter. The TOA is 4 degrees K which is the temperature of outer space. The atmosphere is 100 km thick, surface to TOA. That’s 61 miles, so when Space-Ex takes people 62 miles up, they clear the TOA by one mile. That Elon Musk is always willing to go the extra mile.

            The number 0.025 is conductivity in one meter length. In area that’s the heat transfer coefficient, in one square meter area. I miss-spoke when I called it the thermal conduction coefficient. Conductivity is a property of the material, thermal conduction coefficient is the actual conductance. It’s Watts m^-1 K^-1 vs. Watts m^-2K^-1

            Anyway, the answer is 2 Watts per square meter. At the poles or equator or desert or ocean, your mileage may vary. It’s just a number for Tremberth’s cartoon.

          • Morgan Wright says

            26 Oct 2023 at 11:19 PM

            So the temperature difference between surface and TOA is more like 300 K which is 7 Watts without taking account convection or advection so it’s all crazy talk.

            Your kilometerage may vary.

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            27 Oct 2023 at 6:31 PM

            No Morgan Wright, MA Rodger is correct.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities
            0.025 W per m per K is a value for air (it varies, of course).

            You divide by distance (m) in the direction of the thermal gradient (generally up or down in this context) and multiply by the temperature difference (K) over that distance

            – or alternatively, at any height, multiply by the gradient (K per m)

            Either way, you get units of W/(m^2); the value you have is a flux per unit area; that unit area facing the direction of the thermal gradient (ie, a horizontal area, through which the flux flows upward or downward).

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            27 Oct 2023 at 6:50 PM

            Also, the temperature of the air at TOA is

            … tricky as, above some height (I’m not sure where but I know it’s above the vast majority of atmospheric mass), temperature itself may be hard to define, or at least no longer characterizes the energy distribution of molecules/etc. at such heights (and also each gaseous substance starts to act like it’s own separate atmosphere going above the turbopause (~100 km), …

            but for many purposes we can ignore the thermosphere (very very small fraction of atmospheric mass, heated by very small fraction of solar energy, emitting tiny amount of LW radiation) and even upper mesosphere as a truncation error.

            So you could use stratopause or mid-mesosphere or?… so ~ less than 200 K (?) to ~ 270 K … (I’m not sure exactly where LTE approx. breaks down), depending on latitude and season…

            … point is, it’s Space, above the atmosphere, which looks like, and therefore can be treated as (for atmospheric radiative flux purposes), a near 0 K blackbody surface when looking up at it in LW. Graphed over optical depth, there is a discontinuity in the Planck function at TOA.

            If you include the upper thermosphere, well, now thermal conduction is important again because the mean free paths of molecules/etc. get quite long.

          • John Pollack says

            27 Oct 2023 at 10:34 PM

            MW: “This is how I tell real science from junk science. Junk scientists can’t do math.”
            “You just divided by 13,000 meters. That gives us the conductance per meter. Now you have to multiply back the 13,000 meters to give us the total conductance.”

            JP: Only a small amount of thought should tell you that your math is wrong. Consider:
            1. Rock conducts heat better than air
            2. The temperature in the Earth’s core is something like 5000k hotter than the surface
            3. The core lies more than 5,000,000 meters below the surface

            So, if you think that the total conductance should be determined by multiplying the average conductance of rock X the total temperature difference X 5,000,000+ m, then your feet ought to be burning, to say the least.

            What really happens with conduction is that it is MUCH slower for thicker material than a thin layer of the same material. That’s why if you go down into a cave, which is insulated from the surface by a thick layer of rock, the temperature is nearly constant all year.

            You make many other errors (e.g. Trenberth, not “Tremberth”) but I chose to focus on a big one.

          • MA Rodger says

            28 Oct 2023 at 8:09 AM

            Morgan Wright,
            Evidently you are stuck in bullshit mode, and seemingly incapable of changing that mode. All very amusing for the rest of us.

            There are some definitions of thermal conduction that attempt to save punters the oh-so-arduous job of accounting for the thickness of an insulating layer. (I’m sure there is an analogy here as a measure for the relative thickness of people.) The R-value is quite well-known, it being used for building materials. More obscure is its inverse, the U-value which Wikkithing tells me is called the “Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient.” But Morgan Wright, despite the units (Wm^-2K^-1), “this is not the drone you are looking for” because it really isn’t a “drone.”

            The idea that you would measure the conductivity of Earth’s atmosphere out to “Outer Space” is quite amusing as Outer Space is actually quite toasty close to Earth, warmer than the climate outside my window and not much cooler than the Earth’s average surface temperature.
            But Morgan Wright, you are taking the TOA at 100km, an altitude adopted by some as the von Kármán line, the altitude where a theoretical minimum level speed to maintain an aircraft’s level flight would also put it into orbit. Some take this line as the altitude where national sovereignty ends (like the 6-mile limit at sea) and set it at 100km.
            But the atmosphere doesn’t end at 100km, an altitude which is usually considered as being within the lower part of a thing called (for some obscure reason) the thermosphere where temperatures range “from about +500°C to +2,000°C or higher,” according to the UCAR Center for Science Education, although UCAR do point out that in the lower parts of the thermosphere (so at 100km) the temperature is not so high. Indeed, more accurate analysis of the upper atmosphere (eg Xu et al (2007)) suggest there are two mesopauses, the one upper being at roughly 100km. And the mesopause is considered (rightly so) as being the coldest part of Earth’s atmosphere, at something like -90°C.

            Of course Morgan Wright, -90°C is miles hotter than the “4 degrees K” you suggest using in your deranged calculation of the conductive thermal flux upward through the atmosphere. And given that a very low air pressure zeros conductivity, up at the mesopause at 100km (~0.1 Pa) there will be zero upward conduction (or downward conduction which is just as likely given the temperature inversion at the mesopause), or indeed zero upward conduction through the mesosphere below it.

            Perhaps I should say ‘effectively’ zero as there is a millionth the heat capacity up there in such a thin atmosphere at 100km. So it is not impossible that conduction through the mesosphere is more significant to mesosphere temperatures than conduction through the troposphere is to surface temperatures. But ‘more’ naff all is still naff all.

          • Morgan Wright says

            28 Oct 2023 at 4:08 PM

            Conductivity of air in Watts/meter K @ atmospheres

            0.025 @ 1 atmosphere

            0.0235 @ 0.1 atmosphere

            0.023 @ 0.01 atmospheres

            0.023 @ 0.001 atmospheres

            0.0225 @ 0.0001 atmospheres

            0.0212 @10−5 atmospheres

            0.008 @ 10−6 atmospheres

            0.00113 @ 10−7 atmospheres

            So it drops off sharply at 10-5 atmospheres which is around the Mesosphere.

          • Morgan Wright says

            30 Oct 2023 at 10:17 AM

            Thermal conductivity coefficient is conductivity in length. Watts m^-1 K^-1

            Heat transfer coefficient is conduction in area. Watts m^-2K^-1

            Everybody is wrong, including me. The degrees in K does not refer to an 80 K difference in temperature between the surface and the mesosphere. It refers to the actual temperature of the surface. Should have used the 298 K.

            I wasn’t trolling with the 80 K I was just senile. But so were you! Ha ha, gradient they say.

            Silly us.

          • Morgan Wright says

            30 Oct 2023 at 4:20 PM

            https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/topics/atmosphere/altitude/mesopause#:~:text=The%20top%20of%20the%20mesosphere,at%20the%20mesopause%20by%20rockets.

            The above link gives 85 kilometers as the height of the mesopause, with a temperature of 100K (-173 C)

            So, for future calculations, can we agree on these data:

            coefficient = 0.025 W/m^2K^1 for the entire atmosphere up to the mesopause. It’s close.
            thickness = 85 kilometers
            T warm = 17 C
            T cool = -173 C
            cross sectional area warm = area of earth’s surface = 127,700,000 sq km (6378 km radius)
            cross sectional area cool = area of mesopause = 131,200,000 sq km (6463 km radius)

            OK now, calculate.

          • MA Rodger says

            30 Oct 2023 at 5:22 PM

            Morgan Wright,
            Your input down this thread hasn’t proved to be a reliable source of information so I would suggest any who are interested in the conductivity of air at altitude refer to a proper referenced source eg the US Std Atm 1976 p36 or its Table 3.
            Myself, I’m no expert in the matter but assume vacuum flasks use vacuums for a reason. And up at the 100km (referred-to by Morgan Wright) so 1e-6 atms (this an altitude which sits above the altitudes considered by the US Std Atm), the air will have a tiny conductivity given the impressive temperature gradients reported existing at that altitude up to the oh-so-thin air above.

          • Morgan Wright says

            31 Oct 2023 at 8:31 PM

            Straw man, buddy. Nobody is arguing that there is conduction at the TOA. Let’s all write down 0.00015 Watts as something to remember.

            You know you won an argument when you start to smell hay and hear Ray Bolger singing about the wizard. Aunty Em!!

          • John Pollack says

            31 Oct 2023 at 10:52 PM

            Morgan Wright: The others on here are not responsible for correcting all of your numerous mistakes, nor does any failure to do so indicate assent to your misunderstandings. Yet you persist in your snarled reasoning and bogus calculations, and in your attempts to implicate others in your mess. To me, your reasoning now goes into the category of “not even wrong”
            Ha ha, indeed..

          • Ray Ladbury says

            1 Nov 2023 at 10:13 AM

            De Niles continues to be so obtuse that we must conclude that he exists on the surface of a sphere (a Non-Euclidean geometry joke): “It was to show that economic development should be the priority, not temperature control of the entire Earth.”

            The entire point of the research cited has been to show that rising temperatures pose a serious threat to economic development! It has been known for nearly a century that GDP growth shrinks by ~1% for every degree C the temperature rises! And this was before anyone factored in the theats RISING temperatures pose for agriculture, industry, construction…let alone the increases in severe weather.

            All you have done here is demonstrate that you are utterly ignorant of the factors upon which successful growth is predicated as well as the climate and science itself!

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            1 Nov 2023 at 12:43 PM

            It is helpful to think of the (SI) unit of thermal conductivity as (W/m²) per (K/m), ie unit of flux density per unit temperature gradient.  This simplifies to W/(m K), but this seems to obscure the meaning.

            My favorite example of extreme obscuration occurs with units of spectral radiance, L_{spectral variable}: W per m², per sr (steradian, unit of solid angle), per spectral unit, eg.:

            THz or GHz (frequency),
            eV or meV (photon energy),
            per cm (ie., cm¯¹) ((spectroscopic) wavenumber), or
            nm or μm (wavelength). 

            Converting to the SI units Hz, J, per m, and m, respectively, setting aside numerical conversion factors,

            and noting 1 sr =1 m² per m² = 1, the units of spectral radiance can be simplified to (respectively):

            J/m²
            per (s m²), or Hz/m²
            W/m
            W/m³

            Which don’t seem like spectral radiance.  Fortunately, such simplification is not generally done, AFAIK. 

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            1 Nov 2023 at 12:55 PM

            Evidence suggests Morgan Wright is auditioning for a role in “April Fool’s”, in which a person must repeatedly relive the same April 1.

            But anyway, why would you take two end temperatures and ignore the fluctuations in the middle?; the conduction of heat, tiny though it is, should generally be upward in the troposphere, downward in the upper stratosphere, … etc. Use the thermal gradient to compute at each height.

            Clarification: I believe the importance of conduction in the (upper?) thermosphere is relative to the radiant solar heating and/or enthalpy at/in that level/layer, as I understand it. From graphs I’ve seen, the upper thermosphere may tend to be isothermal.

          • patrick o twentyseven says

            1 Nov 2023 at 12:58 PM

            …”or Hz/m²”
            of course, that, I believe, would be an improper conversion as the per s is not a frequency in that case.

        • Steven Emmerson says

          11 Oct 2023 at 2:05 PM

          Morgan Write wrote:

          Not mentioned on the diagram is conduction, which I calculate is 330 Watts.

          This assertion is false. Conduction is contained in the “thermals” component and is listed at 18.4 W/m^2.

25. PIERRE Thiery DSc, PhD Plasma Physics says

    13 Sep 2023 at 4:14 AM

    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.

    • Geoff Miell says

      13 Sep 2023 at 9:01 PM

      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:

      Since 1978, satellite instruments have allowed solar scientists to make extraordinarily precise TSI measurements to check just how “constant” the solar constant actually is. The instruments have measured with such accuracy that scientists have been able to detect tiny variations in TSI that occur with the solar cycle.

      During periods of intense solar activity—characterized by peaks in sunspots, flares, and hotspots called faculae—TSI increases by approximately a tenth of a percent. Overall, TSI varies by approximately 0.1 percent—or about 2 watts per square meter between the most and least active part of an 11-year solar cycle.

      Today, scientists who study the links between solar activity and climate are confident that the small variations in TSI associated with the eleven-year solar cycle cannot explain the intensity and speed of warming trends seen on Earth during the last century. The 0.1 percent shift in TSI simply isn’t enough to have a strong influence, and there’s no convincing evidence that suggests TSI has trended upward enough over the last century to affect climate.

      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:

      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement that will conclude at COP28 in December 2023. Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles.

      We follow methods as close as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report. We compile monitoring datasets to produce estimates for key climate indicators related to forcing of the climate system: emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, surface temperature changes, the Earth’s energy imbalance, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget, and estimates of global temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open data, open science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8000192, Smith et al., 2023a). As they are traceable to IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel.

      The indicators show that human-induced warming reached 1.14 [0.9 to 1.4] °C averaged over the 2013–2022 decade and 1.26 [1.0 to 1.6] °C in 2022. Over the 2013–2022 period, human-induced warming has been increasing at an unprecedented rate of over 0.2 °C per decade. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of greenhouse gas emissions being at an all-time high of 54 ± 5.3 GtCO₂e over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have slowed, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for human influence on climate.

      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

      • Dr. Thiery PIERRE says

        14 Sep 2023 at 1:56 AM

        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]

        • Dr. Thiery PIERRE says

          14 Sep 2023 at 10:06 AM

          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)

          • zebra says

            15 Sep 2023 at 6:43 AM

            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.

          • Carbomontanus says

            15 Sep 2023 at 9:55 AM

            @ 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..

        • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

          14 Sep 2023 at 3:14 PM

          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.

        • Geoff Miell says

          14 Sep 2023 at 9:28 PM

          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:

          You can tell how worried the climate deniers are by how many fields of science they have to trash to try and have people not see what’s happening.

          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:

          This month’s record, and the longer recent period of warmth, are driven by a combination of several man-made and natural factors acting together.

          Firstly, man-made global warming has been raising the Earth’s temperature by about 0.19 °C/decade (0.34 °F/decade). This is a direct consequence of the accumulation of additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. This is the primary factor responsible for long-term warming.

          However, global warming is a gradual process. It does not explain short-term spikes and fluctuations in Earth’s average temperature. The main reason for such spikes is internal variability in the distribution of heat and circulation of the oceans and atmosphere. The largest and most well-known form of short-term internal variability is the El Niño / La Niña cycle originating in the Pacific. During the El Niño phase, global average temperatures tend to be slightly higher. As a result, record highs for global average temperature tend to be set during El Niño years. This year, a new El Niño officially began in June after a multiple year period of La Niña.

          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

    • Barton Paul Levenson says

      14 Sep 2023 at 6:42 AM

      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.

      • Dr. THIERY PIERRE says

        14 Sep 2023 at 10:32 AM

        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;

        • Jonathan David says

          15 Sep 2023 at 11:09 AM

          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.

        • Kevin McKinney says

          15 Sep 2023 at 3:13 PM

          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.

        • Ptor says

          16 Sep 2023 at 10:40 AM

          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!

    • Carbomontanus says

      15 Sep 2023 at 6:20 AM

      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.

      • Jonathan David says

        17 Sep 2023 at 10:38 AM

        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.

        • Piotr says

          17 Sep 2023 at 9:41 PM

          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.

          • Jonathan David says

            18 Sep 2023 at 8:12 AM

            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.

          • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

            20 Sep 2023 at 4:00 PM

            ” 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.

    • Ray Ladbury says

      15 Sep 2023 at 11:24 AM

      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.

    • Piotr says

      15 Sep 2023 at 1:35 PM

      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.

26. Armando says

    13 Sep 2023 at 2:21 PM

    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 ?

    • Ned Kelly says

      14 Sep 2023 at 8:41 AM

      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.

    • Kevin McKinney says

      14 Sep 2023 at 12:46 PM

      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.

      • Carbomontanus says

        15 Sep 2023 at 4:34 AM

        @ 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.

27. Carbomontanus says

    14 Sep 2023 at 6:32 AM

    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.

28. Robert Cutler says

    15 Sep 2023 at 1:00 PM

    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

    • Paul Pukite (@whut) says

      20 Sep 2023 at 4:12 PM

      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

29. Armando says

    15 Sep 2023 at 2:19 PM

    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.

30. Armando says

    15 Sep 2023 at 8:10 PM

    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.

31. Armando says

    15 Sep 2023 at 10:24 PM

    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”?

32. Ptor says

    16 Sep 2023 at 9:51 AM

    How about now discussing the response to this response?
    https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/10/controversy-surrounding-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

    • Carbomontanus says

      18 Sep 2023 at 9:34 AM

      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.

33. Carbomontanus says

    17 Sep 2023 at 6:47 AM

    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..

34. Armando says

    17 Sep 2023 at 9:31 PM

    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.

    • Russell says

      18 Sep 2023 at 10:29 AM

      ” 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?

      • Ray Ladbury says

        18 Sep 2023 at 1:11 PM

        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”.

35. Armando says

    18 Sep 2023 at 1:43 PM

    It was easy to get to Rome because “all roads, not just the Appian Way, led to Rome.” To Davos only private yets.

36. Keith Woollard says

    19 Sep 2023 at 12:09 AM

    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

    • Ray Ladbury says

      20 Sep 2023 at 10:59 AM

      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.

      • Keith Woollard says

        21 Sep 2023 at 12:45 AM

        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

37. Armando says

    19 Sep 2023 at 9:08 AM

    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

38. Everett F Sargent says

    19 Sep 2023 at 4:02 PM

    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!

    • Russell Seitz says

      25 Sep 2023 at 12:05 AM

      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.

      • Susan Anderson says

        20 Oct 2023 at 9:56 AM

        your way with words often leads to chortles, thanks …

39. John Alman says

    27 Sep 2023 at 9:30 AM

    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

    • Ray Ladbury says

      27 Sep 2023 at 11:24 AM

      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.

      • Piotr says

        6 Oct 2023 at 9:16 AM

        Ray in response to John Alman: “Except the article you cite does not attribute the record temperatures to UHI“”

        And for a good reason – cities didn’t get suddenly more heat absorbing in 2019 – hence the effect UHI hasn’t changed much in the last few decades, And one can’t explain a temperature change (“record temperatures”) with forcing that … hasn’t changed much (over the time-scale of interest).

40. Daniel Menard says

    13 Oct 2023 at 8:13 AM

    Wow this makes me question everything, I always knew the this was a cult, and though it just a way to control people. I’m old enough to remember global cooling in the 70’s, then global warming in the 90’s and now climate change to cover everything. Now you are being challenged by other scientist and you are calling them names. I am not a scientist but I am a critical thinker. Seems to me that this is what science is all about, you come up with a theory and other scientist try to disprove it. I think it is called the scientific method. I’m a little concerned that you would dismiss there theory so easily, since most of us could do the same with your theory. The thermometer was only invented about 300 years ago, according to science the planet has been in existence for 4.5 billion years. I don’t even think that’s a blip on the map. Maybe you and your cronies should keep an open mind. I understand why none of you will, grants won’t come to you unless you say what the people supplying the money want you to say. Science has become a joke!

    • jgnfld says

      14 Oct 2023 at 12:06 AM

      Good God…Don’t you know that even no serious denial type uses these tropes any more and hasn’t for over a decade as they are so thoroughly trashed by reality and to use them merely shows ignorance?

      I am old enough as well and in the process of getting my own advanced science degrees. Cooling was NEVER the preferred hypothesis in science.

      If you are actually a “critical thinker” you would look at the actual scientific literature of the time not a single Newsweek article about one research group’s ideas concerning sulphate aerosols.

      That said, the American Meteorological Society already did your critical thinking for you: “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml where every scientific paper in the literature of the era is classified. To repeat: Cooling was NEVER the preferred hypothesis.

      • Carbomontanus says

        15 Oct 2023 at 4:59 AM

        jgnfld

        The “Myth” of a beginning and coming ice age is some of my fresh and early scientific experience and learning in school.

        We were going to school all the winter on skies and there was snow enough. We could get up 5 minutes later because it went 5 minutes faster on skies. Only that the winter lasted too long and the early mayflowers did not come quite in time as written in the schoolbooks.

        There was also heavy and high snow now and then and the community could not quite shuffle against it, as could not also the burgeoise in their villas and manshions , so they had to go on skies instead of by Plymuth and Chevrolet cars. The horses however took it with ease. And so did the children.

        But the adults did discuss a new ice age.

        There were several ski- jumps built up, that have later rotted down due to lack of winter and snow.

        Fimbulvinter https://fimbulvetr was discussed.

        I`m dreaming of a white chistmas, youtube.

        Good king Venceslas went out
        at the feast of Stephen
        When the snow lay all about
        bright and crisp and even
        Brightly shone the moon that night
        and the frost was cruel…

        Also on Youtube. That was to be popular belief in England 1850

    • jgnfld says

      14 Oct 2023 at 12:12 AM

      “and was in the process of getting my own advanced science degrees at the time”, that is

    • Kevin McKinney says

      14 Oct 2023 at 7:38 AM

      Did you have an actual point? If so, please try to make it. If not, you can keep ranting random denialist talking points as long as you wish, but it’s not going to impress nor convince.

    • Carbomontanus says

      15 Oct 2023 at 5:04 AM

      Dr. D. Menard

      Having an open mind does not mean going around with a large hole in your head.

41. nigelj says

    21 Oct 2023 at 2:30 PM

    De Niles @ 19 October.

    “A fact I now know to be flawed due to the fact its warming effect is nearly saturated. ”

    Nearly saturated is a meaningless statement because its not quantified precisely. How far away are we from saturation in ppm of CO2? Of course you haven’t told us and I suspect you don’t know. You have simply found a slogan you like without thinking about what it really means.

    And given some effect still remains according to you, what potential does it have to warm the planet? Again you don’t specify and you probably don’t know the answer.

    The fact is the warming effect is not “nearly saturated” and the potential for considerable warming remains ( worst case 10 degrees by 2300). That’s what the IPCC has found. They review the published science and they are a team of VOLUNTEERS, and it includes a few eccentric sceptics as well (eg Dr Vincent Grey, although I think he’s retired now). Bet you didn’t know that. I trust their judgement far more than yours or some junk science paper funded by the fossil fuels industry.

    “My entire argument here over thousands of words now is not that the suppression comes from scientific journals themselves, but from every other source, and you know that. See this entire thread.”

    That’s interesting because most of what I’ve read from you is about alleged suppression related to scientific journals. So you are shifting the goal posts.

    You also seem to think that CRITICISM of peoples views is suppression. It isn’t. And the irony is you criticise peoples views yourself all over this website. You apply double standards.

    I will tell you about real suppression. The insults, intimidation and death threats received by climate scientists, for example M Mann.

    “No, I’m aware that John Tyndall discovered the CO2 warming effect in the 19th century, but OBVIOUSLY, that is not pertinent to the modern theory that anthropogenic CO2 emission are causing the warming of the planet since the mid-20th century.”

    You provide no references that anthropogenic emissions aren’t the cause of the modern warming period, let alone credible ones. The IPCC find that anthropogenic emissions caused all of the warming after the 1980s. Other potential causes like solar activity cant account for the warming, on the basis of the evidence. You can find good accounts of all this on the skepticalscience.com website.

    “Large number of ex-NASA engineers have recently formed a group to educate the public and professionals that there is no good basis to the anthropogenic climate change theory. ”

    You provide no link to back up your claim. In any event engineers with an axe to grind are not climate scientists.

    You make wild statements mostly without sources or links to back up your claims. I have given you sources and specifics. Your comments are incorrect and have no credibility.

42. nigelj says

    27 Oct 2023 at 6:24 PM

    De Niles

    “Re; temps in humid countries. Let’s look at Nigeria, most populous equatorial country with high humidity….Click “MAX” above the graph. Today’s temperature is the same or cooler than it was in throughout the 1930s. ”

    You have only quoted one country. The twelve most humid countries in the world are Singapore, Malaysia, Colombia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Myanmar, Liberia, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, India according to this source. they are certainly very humid countries.

    https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-most-humid-countries-in-the-world/

    I used your OWN quoted tradingeconomics website to check those countries and they are mostly all warmer over the last couple of years than the 1930s particularly the large population countries like Indonesia and India. They all show a clear global warming trend since 1900.

    https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/malaysia/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/papua-new-guinea/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/myanmar/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/liberia/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/vietnam/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/india/temperature
    https://tradingeconomics.com/colombia/temperature

    Your comment is cherry picking, or otherwise known as lies by omission. You do not give a useful, balanced, broad picture. Many of your other comments are like this which is why they cannot be trusted and are useless commentary.

43. patrick o twentyseven says

    27 Oct 2023 at 6:56 PM

    PS yesterday I posted a reply to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814455 noting that it was problematic. My reply didn’t get published. Yet it is this comment which perhaps ought to have been censored.