Distortions, Misdirections, and Lack of Accountability Continue to Plague Climate Science

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Many problems plagued climatology since climate science took over in the 1980s. Each specialist in a different area suddenly became an expert in climate and climate change. They brought their different perspectives, sometimes helpful, but usually unhelpful and even distorting. Most came for funding opportunities, but many for the political objectives. They all lack awareness that climatology is a generalist discipline. It involves putting together, in a systems approach manner, all the studies from specialists who, because they get involved in climate studies, call themselves climate scientists. This piecemeal approach reflects the problems of creating computer climate models. Modellers assemble as many facts as they think apply, or will achieve their result and then, with improper or inadequate connecting mechanisms, put together what they think represents global climate. It is as Henri Poincare said,

Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.

How we view and interpret those facts depends on our personal views regardless of the supposed objectivity claims of most scientists. One thing I learned from working with Chinese climatologists is that they see and therefore assess the world from a completely different perspective. They are aware, because of long historical records of climate and crop production, of the cyclical and widely fluctuating nature of climate.

The Greeks studied and talked about climate, in fact, the word comes from the Ancient Greek ‘klima’ meaning inclination. In other words, they knew the angle of the sun determined the climate and identified three average zones, warm, temperate, and cold. The concept of climate effectively disappears until the 20th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, weather became important, mostly through the need for accurate forecasting, but that meant it was restricted to the knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere, the definition of meteorology.

In the 20th century, people knew about meteorology and associated it with weather forecasting. This was because official forecasting began during WW I with the introduction of flying in warfare. The relationship between forecasting and meteorology continues today as all media outlets have meteorologists, not climatologists on staff. There are very few climatologists at most national weather departments. Until very recently few took any training in climate and climate change. This explains why most media and government weather people know little about climate and fall in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deception.

It wasn’t until Hubert Lamb opened the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 1971 and Reid Bryson established the UW-Madison Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies in 1970 that climate became a focus of academic interest. Interestingly, both worked as forecasters in WW II, and both knew the limitations of forecasting. Both understood the need for long-term weather records if you were to understand the patterns and mechanisms to improve forecasting. Despite this, climate was mostly ignored and only practiced obliquely by keeping weather records that were used to determine averages. The public talked about the climate of a region or a place, but few knew, as is still true today, what the difference is between climate and weather, or meteorology and climatology.

There were a few pioneers identifying climate change, but that was on a long-term scale, such as Louis Agassiz’s identification of Ice Ages in1840, and James Croll’s seminal 1864 work on Sun/Earth relationships and climate change. Then there is a significant gap of approximately 100 years in the study of climate until Milankovitch published in the 1930s but set aside by WW II. During that time meteorology became firmly entrenched, and climate only reappeared academically post-war with Lamb and Bryson.

Over the period from 1930 to 1970 a new applied mathematical technique called statistics developed and was applied to all the social sciences. This was when the conflict developed between, the ‘hard’ sciences and the application of the scientific method and techniques to other disciplines. It was and is still very clear that most mathematicians and physicists believe that no other discipline could understand climate or climate change. The fact is that climatology, as an integrative discipline, was taught as part of physical geography.

The application of statistics across the social sciences is part of logical positivism. Wikipedia defines it as,

“…a school of philosophy that combines empiricism, the idea that observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of the world, with a version of rationalism incorporating mathematical and logico-linguistic constructs and deductions in epistemology.”

 

Ludwig Wittgenstein conceived the idea at the turn of the 20th century. Wikipedia notes,

“Wittgenstein’s influence has been felt in nearly every field of the humanities and social sciences, yet there are widely diverging interpretations of his thought.

Some of the responses to this concept indicate the problem people had with its absolutism. Evan Esar said,

“Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.”

Or mathematician and philosopher A. N. Whitehead’s observation that

“There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.”

All this had a great influence on the study of climate change because climate is the average of weather in a place or its change over time. After WW II climate was only about averages. Then, starting in the 1960s, and in consort with other social sciences especially economics, trends became important as predictive tools. The climate at the time was in a cooling trend that began in 1940 so, using simple linear trends, they assumed this would continue. Consider this quote from Lowell Ponte’s book The Cooling.

“It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”

Notice it applies today by changing “cooling” to ‘warming.’ The cover of the 1977 book The Weather Conspiracy said,

“What does it mean? Many of the worlds leading climatologist’s concur. We are slipping towards a new Ice Age.”

 

This cooler period is the one the people at the CRU and RealClimate ignored, then said there was no consensus and finally, falsely claimed, it was caused by human addition of sulfates to the atmosphere. These are the same people who later said the warming trend that began in 1980 would continue forever unless politicians took dramatic remedial action. Now, along with social sciences in general, they are ignoring the third part of statistics, variation. Every change in statistics indicates change, but you need a good understanding based on adequate data, long records, and the relationship between mechanisms and change. The IPCC does not have any of these, as their failed projections attest.

A few years ago, when hijacking airplanes was the scare of the day, I pointed out the value of geography to my students. If you take over a plane, fly in the proper direction. Go one way, and you are designated a hijacker, go the other, and you are a political refugee. Of course, the political views of the commentator distort the assessment.

Now, we have a classic example of political bias about direction in the global warming debate brought about by increased variation. Recently NASA GISS reported

“From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.”

 

Both temperature drops need perspective to understand their significance in the global warming debate. Note that the alarmist claim of unprecedented warming in the blade of the hockey stick was that temperature rose 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. Compare that with the 0.56°C drop in two years. Add to that the fact that the range of error for the 0.6°C figure was ± 0.2°C or ± 33.3%. Here is how the IPCC report and illustrate the claim.

The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C (Figure 1a).

clip_image002

Figure 1 (Source IPCC Figure 1a)

This warming became the blade of the hockey stick, a device created to prove there was a dramatic temperature increase in the 20th century. It also claimed to prove that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest and a that a previously claimed warming known as the Medieval Warm Period didn’t exist. The IPCC claimed that human CO2 explained the overall increase in global temperatures since 1950. If that is true, then how do they explain the 0.56°C drop in just two years, while they claim CO2 levels continued to rise? You can be sure that if the temperature increased by that much, all AGW alarmists would be shouting it to the world. But we won’t hear a word because it is going in the wrong direction. We might hear a concocted response if we ask the question loud enough.

Phil Jones, Director of the CRU at the time 1000 of their emails were leaked, produced the 0.6°C figure. Jones is a hydrologist. Here is what his bio at CRU says,

· BA in Environmental Sciences, University of Lancaster (1973)

· MSc in Engineering Hydrology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne (1974)

· PhD in Hydrology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne (1977)

Despite this, he claims to be a climatologist in the same bio. Maybe that is the problem, because except under rare circumstances water goes in one direction, whereas temperature is always changing direction. This is the same Jones who rejected requests for his data by Warwick Hughes saying he wanted to find fault. Hughes’ objective was, as with people’s requests for Michael Mann’s material, the desire to carry out the standard scientific test of producing reproducible results. This is the same Jones who claimed extreme distress over the leaked emails. Here is what The Guardian reported.

“Jones, who told the Sunday Times he had considered suicide over the controversy caused by the release of the emails, said he could not comment on allegations that the university mishandled requests for his data under Freedom of Information Laws.”

 

Why did he consider suicide when he claimed he had done nothing wrong? This is the Jones who, when finally cornered, announced he had lost the data.

This is the same Jones who in the leaked emails wrote,

“PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I’d never said this about the land stations in an email.”

My chapter in “Climate Since AD 1500” was good because I am a climatologist. My “piece of garbage” was also good for the same reason, but now it didn’t fit the direction he was taking. He changed direction, not me; just as the temperature data is changing because of natural climate change. The increased variability is associated with natural changes that presage global cooling. Meridional flow increases, and variation increases as all variables change. Jones analysis was wrong because he is a specialist in hydrology, not climatology and the politics destroyed his objectivity.

Advertisements

159 thoughts on “Distortions, Misdirections, and Lack of Accountability Continue to Plague Climate Science

  1. One problem is that the IPCC figure 1 chart is substantially cooked (or Jonesed?), reducing the variability of the instrumental record, and making the correlation with GHGs stronger.

  2. I would argue it differently:
    The need for research funding for his group is what destroyed Phil Jones’ and his colleagues’ objectivity. That the politics of anthropengic CO2 as a convenient culprit, and contrived solutions were aligned with the Left’s and environmentalists objectives certainly helped.

    • For example: the global cooling alarmism of the 1970’s was considered a natural phenomenon whose only anthropogenic solutions including building more nuclear power, digging more coal, drilling for oil in offshore and Arctic reserves. Not exactly an environmentalist’s idea of a good situation.

      But in early 70’s scientists were stuck with global cooling, because well global temps were objectively getting colder.

      But scares like the coal-Acid Rain, CFC Antarctic ozone hole, and now CO2-AGW are anthropogenic and argue for control measures being imposed on human economic behavior. Which aligns with the rapid movement of the Left toward more Marxist style state control of the economies and peoples behavior.

      • That is a key distinction: if it’s natural, one can’t change it; and that is why blaming it on humans is the way to gain control.

      • Yeah, doesn’t it suck when people are held accountable for their actions and effects? So unfair, only Marxists would promote such an idea. We all know that the Market takes care of all social and environmental problems as long as it’s not regulated. The Market loves us and cares for us and will protect the planet and humanity so we don’t have to do anything but buy more stuff. Amen.

      • Kristi Silber May 29, 2018 at 9:37am:

        “Yeah, doesn’t it suck when people are held accountable for their actions and effects? So unfair, only Marxists would promote such an idea.”

        No-one is arguing that people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, Kristi. The point at issue in this case is that people are being accused of causing dangerous climate change without just cause because there is no real evidence that:

        a: Causing the climate to change is a criminal act;

        b: Anyone has caused, or is causing the climate to change anyway, even if causing it to change is a criminal act.

        You cannot rightly and justly hold people to account for committing a crime that no-one can prove they have committed and which does not even exist on the statute books as a crime anyway. So the accusation is utterly false and if it was brought before any honest, impartial court in the world for judgment it would be thrown out on its ear. For the court to uphold the accusers in this case would be a travesty of truth and justice. How ironic it is, then, that the placards and banners of the Leftist political agitators who are making this accusation frequently proclaim them to be seekers of “climate justice”. Clearly, although perhaps unbeknown to themselves, climate justice is the last thing that they are really seeking. In reality what they are actually seeking is “climate injustice”.

    • There was an anthropogenic aspect to global cooling, ie from pollution darkening the air.

      But alarmists couldn’t blame all global cooling on manmade pollution. You just can’t beat blaming CO2 for “dangerous”, actually natural warming, however, since you get to tax breathing.

      • False.

        Radiating gases were the culprit [ optically active].

        Basically the more radiating gases in the Atmosphere, the quicker thermal energy passed through the earth as an object in space, back to space, gradually lowering the long term equilibrium system temperature.

        CO2 the bogey man, more co2 more radiating lwir to space, global cooling focused on energy emitted out and not reflected/emitted back in and supposedly recycled, it is not NEW energy in the earth as an object in space, it is internal energy, not external.

        More co2 the more energy absorbed kinetically from the other 99% of the atmosphere, the faster the energy loss to space. .. that was global cooling we were taught it at school.

    • An English comment: The clause “He changed direction, not me” actually means “He changed direction, but he didn’t change me.” What the writer wants is “He, not I, changed direction.” Excellent article, but misuse of objective or nominative case always gets my attention.

  3. Climate Scientists like Jones make a fundamental error. The object in using statistics is to try to explain variation. Instead they try to explain means or trends. They cannot explain variation.

    • The object of statistics is an attempt to understand what is random and what is not.

      • Variation (and standard) has distinct mathematical operations depending on the nature of the underlying distribution. Such distinctions are lost of the public when one discusses variation.

        Science and maths communicates best when it is offerred to most adults as a child’s explanation to the ever present , “why.”

        In a similar vein, the “what is space?, “What is time?”questions are best answered child like unless you are ready to dive in Einstein’s GR.

        Time: so that everything that can happen, doesn’t happen all at once.
        Space: so that everything that can happen, doesn’t happen in the same place.

  4. @ Dr. Tim Ball,

    After your disparagement of nearly every living human being in your first paragraph, I skipped the rest of your post.

    • I don’t see anything nasty in the first sentence. It reflects accurately how the msm treated everyone with any expertise in anything who proclaimed on climate science, especially if they proclaimed doom. An example: an expert in ancient kangaroo droppings became an instant climate scientist in Australia.

    • u.k. It is sad that you chose to do that and shows rather a closed mind.
      I can’t really see how you found it to be so disparaging.

      • “u.k. It is sad that you chose to do that and shows rather a closed mind.
        I can’t really see how you found it to be so disparaging.”

        The scientific community was accused of political or profit motivation among other things. That first paragraph reeked of conspiracy irrationality.
        Of course you won’t see it as disparaging, if it reflects the way you see the world.

      • If you are going to be a troll on this site it would pay to show a little more intelligence. You are about the dumbest troll I have struck on this site.

      • u.k., that depends on why they visit WUWT. If they only goal is to whine and distract …

      • I had the same reaction as u.k. and Jack. Especially the bits about money and politics. But I read the whole thing, and it was a waste. (I wonder what vitriol this will unleash.)

        “Recently NASA GISS reported

        “’From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era.’”

        No, this wasn’t their quote, only based on their data. Presumably Dr. Ball posted the link, and knows this.

        “They all lack awareness that climatology is a generalist discipline.” Like jack of all trades, master of none? That explains why Soon and Baliunas wrote about tree rings, I guess.

        “It is as Henri Poincare said,
        ‘Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.'”

        Well, Dr. Ball, that’s one reason models are used so broadly and variously in science.

        …Then a crazy ramble into statistics, social science, logical positivism, Wittgenstein…”All this had a great influence on the study of climate change because climate is the average of weather in a place or its change over time.”

        Huh?

        I bet 97% of climate scientists have never read a book by Wittgenstein or could understand it thoroughly if they did. I sure couldn’t. Logical positivism may have contributed to a mistaken reverence for science, but the media are more to blame these days.

        “My chapter in ‘Climate Since AD 1500’ was good because I am a climatologist. My “piece of garbage” was also good for the same reason…”

        Ah, no wonder so much space is devoted to Jones! How humiliating it must be to have something like that revealed publicly.

        “Jones analysis was wrong because he is a specialist in hydrology, not climatology and the politics destroyed his objectivity.”

        That makes no sense. An analysis is wrong because of the researcher’s specialty? Hydrology seems to me quite relevant to the study of climate.

        There is nothing in what Dr. Ball does or says to suggest he is objective or above politics. He is happy to misinterpret what others say to suit his agenda, and does so widely and repeatedly (many of the climategate emails are good examples).

        Some contrarian scientists spend more time damaging science than doing anything constructive. They have no new ideas, no new evidence, nothing but insults and accusations.

    • u.k. (US)

      Great. I fully support getting clown & idiots out of client science (psychologists to the head of the line).

      I doubt this included “nearly every living human being” (except yourself, of course).

    • @ uk …feeling a bit ultra sensitive today? I had to go back and read the first paragraph to see what I had missed. Only to find that I did not miss anything.

      • u.k.(us),
        I too felt compelled to go back and read the first paragraph. While it might be accurate to say that Ball is disparaging those who call themselves climatologists, they are a very small fraction of the world’s population. Yes, I think that you “embellished,” but that really didn’t contribute anything to the discussion. Hyperbole is usually used to elevate the emotional content, while doing little for objectivity.

      • @
        Alan Tomalty,
        I’ll try my best to explain myself, but you need to ask a direct question.
        I think I know what you are getting at, but you need to come right out and say it.
        No worries, this is only the internet.
        Choose your words carefully.

      • “u.k.(us) May 28, 2018 at 9:02 pm
        @
        Alan Tomalty,
        I’ll try my best to explain myself, but you need to ask a direct question.
        I think I know what you are getting at, but you need to come right out and say it.
        No worries, this is only the internet.
        Choose your words carefully.”

        Flat out falsehoods mixed with vague threats; a techn called logical fallacies.
        ugk is here solely to distract, demean and obfuscate.

    • People who don’t explain themselves are a waist of time. See!

      [Butt, butt, butt …. People whose waist of time is decreasing gain much more interest than those who gain more waist each time they change waists. .mod]

  5. A lot of things that I would like to drum into a warmy when they harp on about someone not being a climate scientist eg Peter Ridd despite more knowledge of the biology and local sea temperatures than someone like Phil Jones.
    Another is proxies that you hint at. This comes from social science and is a substitute for a direct measure of a property of human personalities that can’t be measured. While temperatures are measured using another property eg length or voltage, its where you are certain that dependence on other variables is less than the precision required and you can do a proper calibration. The “calibration” used for proxies are well short of that and people need to be reminded how similar it is to social sciences.
    I would like to point out that even GTA from thermometers is a proxy reconstruction, especially land. The result is heavily dependent on a poor record, both temporal and spatial, and the mean of minimum and maximum temperatures of an instrument just above the ground is not even close to an intrinsic property while infilling for missing data is done using a method developed for a proper intrinsic property.

  6. “This piecemeal approach reflects the problems of creating computer climate models.”

    …that and a temperature history that has been rigged to shop more warming than there has been

    When you cool the past to get a greater slope….and then use those numbers in the models…of course you’re going to get more warming than what is real….
    Speaking of linear…..the models are exactly inline with the slope the past has been cooled to

    • The failure of CO2-GHGE theory is more fundamental than that graphic.

      Surface warming by itelf is not exclusive to CO2GHG Effect. The theory is modeled in radiative transfer equations of supercomputer GCMs. The emergent GHE prediction from the CMIP3 ensemble was for about a 1.3 ratio of tropical mid-troposphere warming to surface warming,. That prediction is exclusive to GHE theory. The observation though has been about 0.8.

      Other explanations of observed surface station temperature increases must be considered. UHI effect contamination of the data and modern era increasing removal/loss of rural station data should be at the top of the lost.

      Folks like Nick S. and Steve M point out that the past is actually warmed in the adjustments. All that argues the UHI contamination of the data set is far worse than the level of corrections suggest.

      As for stratospheric cooling predicted by GHE, that can also occur under decreaseing solar EUV/UV and declining ozone. So that observation (stratospheric cooling) is not a conclusive fingerprint of GHG effect.

      • “Folks like Nick S. and Steve M point out that the past is actually warmed in the adjustments”

        I heard them say the adjustments cool the record………

        Well of course it does…..when UHI adds 10 degrees…and you only adjust .5 degrees…..you can claim the adjustments cool the record

      • Warming the past allows for future adjustments.

        And warming the past reduces the that UHI Effect contamination introduces.
        The UHI contamination in the data sets is likely far worse than they let on.

      • Something that never gets discussed is that evaporation and sublimation are accelerated by the kinetic energy of wind. That is, apparent cooling varies with windiness. It doesn’t affect the total heat content of Earth, but it does affect local temperatures and, because only surface temperatures are used for computing global averages, we don’t get a complete picture of the movement of heat. Lest someone complain that wind is a negligible factor, I would remind you that the alarmists are pinning their hopes for the future on wind farms. Wind is just another factor that doesn’t get addressed in climate models except as the result of ‘climate change.’ It is treated as a dependent variable instead of an independent variable.

      • Clyde,

        One word: advection.

        It is the key component in tropical systems extracting energy from a warm ocean water surface. The very essence of ocean:atmosphere interface and energy transfer.

      • joelobryan,
        My understanding of the definition of “advection” is the lateral movement of heat. I was speaking to the processes of evaporation and sublimation, which encompasses the removal of water molecules from the surface, thereby increasing the relative humidity of the overlying air and simultaneously cooling the surface. Strictly speaking, the vertical exchange of energy at a boundary is convection.

  7. … Lack of Accountability …

    Not only are they not accountable, they are encouraged and rewarded.

    If they did the same crap in other industries, their careers would be over, they might even be in jail.

  8. Nearly all the cool scientific discoveries have already been made. What is left is mostly grunt work or things that are extremely difficult. Otherwise they would have been discovered already. We have several orders of magnitude more scientists than at any time in history, and many orders of magnitude more money thrown at science. The result is that the number of journals has multiplied many times and there is a huge number of articles being published daily that nearly nobody reads.

    Given the huge number of scientists one would expect several Darwins, Newtons, and Einsteins, and great discoveries being made very often. Quite the contrary there appears to be a dearth of great scientists and great discoveries. At least in relative terms compared to the huge size that the modern science machine has achieved.

    • Gresham’s Law of money applies to science funding. Bad science drives out good.

      There have been some advances in the Era of Big Science, but not commensurate with expenditures. Much of what has been accomplished has been in applied science or technology.

      IMO, in your field, molecular biology, understanding has improved greatly since the term was coined in 1938 (especially after the War, with the structure of DNA and the Central Dogma), but proportionately less so since 1978, ie the second half of its history, starting with Altman in ’78 and Cech in ’81 (catalytic RNAs).

      Confirmation of the Big Bang theory in 1964 (cosmic microwave background radiation) and apparent discovery of accelerating expansion of the universe in the 1990s were pretty big deals, as was the Higgs boson.

      Among today’s too numerous scientists, there are people as smart as Copernicus, Vesalius, Kepler, Galileo, Steno, Newton, Lavoisier, Hutton, Faraday, Pasteur, Darwin, Maxwell, Rutherford, Einstein, Planck, etc, but, as you note, most of the great, easy discoveries have been made. There are still great, fundamental discoveries out there, but they are harder.

      • Moore’s law points out that computers continue to get better, faster, more efficient, cheaper, etc. etc. in an exponential way.

        Eroom’s law points out that drug discovery is becoming slower and more expensive over time, despite improvements in technology.

      • Commie,

        The easy drugs have been found, often by hit and miss trial and error.

        Directed evolution and other synthetic biology techniques promise improved drug discovery. But we’ll see.

        Are there scientific question which will never be answered? Maybe. Some think the fate of the universe is known, given its apparent mass, but I’m not so sure. But even if that be “settled”, the issue of an infinity of universes might not be subject to confirmation or falsification, ie by the scientific method. At least one other universe however might be detectable.

        We might some day know what gravity is and of what spacetime is made, if anything. We’re getting close to the origin of life, at least showing which pathways are feasible, whether it actually occurred that way in the solar system or not.

      • Eroom’s law doesn’t apply to genetic manipulation (i.e. CRISPIN) of the immune system to combat illness/disease. These types of therapies aren’t classified as “drugs.”
        .
        Time for a new law don’t you think?

      • Javier,

        Yes. Discoveries are waiting to be made, but it will in most cases cost much more to make each one, especially with so much squandered on phony “science”.

        Thought experiments on the backs of envelopes have less scope now.

      • Felix May 28, 2018 at 5:44 pm

        … so much squandered on phony “science”.

        The enterprise is organized in such a manner that bad science is the rule.

        Research is currently organized in a way that amplifies, rather than alleviates, peer pressure: Measuring scientific success by the number of citations encourages scientists to work on what their colleagues approve of. Since the same colleagues are the ones who judge what is and isn’t sound science, there is safety in numbers. And everyone who does not play along risks losing funding.

        As a result, scientific communities have become echo-chambers of likeminded people who, maybe not deliberately but effectively, punish dissidents. And scientists don’t feel responsible for the evils of the system. Why would they? They just do what everyone else is also doing. link

        Publish or perish. If you don’t publish enough and in the right journals there’s no way you’re getting tenure. That means your career is over.

        The gatekeepers for getting published are the journal editors. They are looking for interesting results. There’s no punishment for being wrong though.

        So, we have an oversupply of PhDs who are desperate to publish. They have to produce interesting findings. There’s no punishment for being wrong. What do you think is going to happen?

    • “Nearly all the cool scientific discoveries have already been made.”

      I don’t buy this.

      The lack of exceptional scientists is more a direct result of 100 years of Mar&ist infiltration into western education. With that infiltration comes the removal of true critical thinking outside the box and the implant of social awareness and being inside the box.

      • (Hit post inadvertantly)

        “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
        – Lord Kelvin, circa 1900.

    • Javier,

      Every time I have started thinking like over the past 40 years…

      Nearly all the cool scientific discoveries have already been made. What is left is mostly grunt work or things that are extremely difficult. Otherwise they would have been discovered already.

      I turned out to be wrong,… Apart from the fact that the things that seemed extremely difficult turned out to be low-hanging fruit… with the benefit of hindsight… 😎

      • This is a quick and incomplete list of when inventions changed common people’s lives in advanced countries:

        1860-1900 Electrification, Petroleum, Gas, Engine ships, Trains, Telephone, Light bulbs, Photography, Movies.

        1900-1940 Automobiles, Antibiotics, Fertilizers, Radio, Batteries.

        1940-1980 Air travel, Home appliances, Electronics, Satellites, Computers, TV, Nuclear Power.

        1980-2020 Internet, Cell phones.

        Every generation had a completely different life to the previous one as a result. Except the last. People in the early 21st century have a very similar life to people in the late 20th century. More and better of most things yes, but not very different.

        We seem to be reaching some sort of limit. I would bet on the law of diminishing returns.

      • Javier,

        You’re looking at this the wrong way…

        Data from US EIA

        From 1980-2015 the GDP value derived from each unit of energy consumed increased by 138%.

        The way in which I do my job (explore for oil & gas) in the 21st century is not even remotely similar to how I did it in the 20th century.

        20th century…

        1.3.1 Work techniques
        As stated earlier, most of the data is available only on paper. Interpretation work therefore is done on big tables, using lots of colour pencils and rubber. A first step is the calibration of the lines by deep well data (Fig. 2).

        http://sgpk.ethz.ch/static/jahresbericht/2005/Marillieretal.htm

        21st century…

        This article was written in 2005 and clearly lays out how different 2005 was from 1980…

        https://library.seg.org/doi/pdf/10.1190/1.2112393

        Seismic processing and interpretation methods have advanced well-beyond what they were in 2005.

        A team of 3 or 4 21st century geoscientists can be more productive than a team of 20 20th century geoscientists.

      • David, I don’t think I am looking at this the wrong way. You are talking about increases in productivity that have allowed us to be richer and better fed on average, despite being a lot more people. I agree, but I am talking about something different. I am talking about discoveries that change the way we live.

        The movies of the 70’s and 80’s, the popular science magazines of the 80’s like Discover or Omni showed us the extrapolation of the amazing progress between the late 19th and mid-20th century. Where are the houses of the future, the flying cars, the cities in space, the cure for cancer, the asteroid mining, the lunar bases, the submarine cities, the bionic people, the organs grown on demand?

        We got internet and cell phones. And some progress in health care, but no breakthroughs. Better diagnostics and treatment from incremental advances.

        And then you have to consider that since 1970 the world population has doubled, but the scientist population has grown by one to two orders of magnitude. We’ve got the biggest share of the population dedicated to scientific discovery ever by a wide margin.

        This is starting to look like a red queen’s race. We need an ever growing number of scientists and resources to keep knowledge advancing at an ever decreasing speed. Of course a huge amount of needed scientific work is being done (like cores drilled), but all this work is not leading to great discoveries in the majority of cases, just to a better knowledge by filling the gaps.

        Looking back thinking about the accomplishments of the few scientists that the world had in the 18th and 19th centuries, one comes with the conclusion that either they were truly much greater scientists, or more likely that it was a lot easier to make a great discovery when very little had been discovered. I am convinced that if Albert Einstein hadn’t discovered relativity when he did, in a few decades at most somebody else would have discovered it.

        The conclusion is that we have entered an era of fewer and more spaced great discoveries. We should reduce our expectations about the future accordingly.

      • Take Star Trek for example…

        While WARP drive, phasors and transporter beams are still waaayyy over the technological horizon… Our information systems (computers) and communication technologies are well-beyond the 23rd century as it was envisioned in 1966-1968.

        I may not have a Jetsons’ flying car; but I do have more computing power in my smartphone than NASA had when Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon.

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a25655/nasa-computer-iphone-comparison/

        I wouldn’t be surprised if I can download a sliderule app… ;-)

        I don’t think we have ever known enough about the future to tailor our expectations accordingly.

    • I disagree Javier. Even though for example 50% of all medical studies are fraudulent or false; the other 50% vastly outnumber the medical studies in the past. Same thing for patents. Same for nearly all other disciplines. The number of good papers was skyrocketing until climate science started to infect all of science in the last 30 years. We must bring back DDT, get rid of the ridiculous ozone law and regulations(it was all bunk) and of course get rid of this stupid global warming fiasco. Doing these 3 things will save many lives and gobs of money and get science back on track. Sadly the greens have put the world at the edge of a precipice.

      • “The number of good papers was skyrocketing until climate science started to infect all of science in the last 30 years.”

        Gosh, so many gullible, easily led scientists! All of science is now out of step with the wise folk here eh?
        Shame, I say, shame!

    • Javier,
      Might it be because in the past only the brightest were encouraged to go on to college, while today everyone is encouraged. The number of scientists may be greater than ever, but they are people who in the past might have been tradesmen and craftsmen instead of scientists.

      • 53 years ago I entered undergraduate school at one of the top engineering and schools in the US with 500 others. 250 of us graduated. It was difficult and most fransferred or flunked out. Today my alma mater is not even ranked in the top 10. My quarterly from the school is enough to make one sick with liberal, politically correct crap. Lots of new scientists with poor educations. The educational system is geared to make everyone successful at graduating and getting their money, not at educating anyone. Even the factors used to evaluate schools are ridiculous. I don’t really care if the school ranks high in multiculturalism for instance.

      • Spelling was also not that important, as you can see and it was a science and engineering school.

      • Ah, I think you’re onto something – and the really bright people today spend their time talking nonsense to each other on WUWT.
        Now I see where the world is going wrong!

      • It looks like we have another troll. Why do they even visit this site. Shows how pathetic they are.

      • I’ve been here before. I just like to drop in on you boys occasionally to make sure you’re tucked up snug in your little ghetto talking nonsense to each other. You can’t do much harm here.

      • I see that the quality of trolls is falling all the time. They are finding it increasingly difficult to defend cagw so they continually try to derail threads.

      • It’s amusing that people who support sites that ban anyone who disagrees with the narrative, come to places like this to tell us how big an echo chamber we are.
        Self awareness is lost on trolls.

      • His mama told him life was like a box of chocolates, I’m sure. You need to have been around for a while to understand what liberalism has done to our educational system and science in general. Plus, then you must have the mental capacity to to absorb what you see.

      • Jack Davis,
        You have completed your obligatory patronizing. Now please go away unless you actually have something to contribute other than snarky insults that, in your mind, demonstrates your moral and intellectual superiority.

    • Javier,

      Likewise, where have the superb classical musicians gone, when they were supposed to continue the early excellence of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Chopin?
      Even more, where have the fine painters gone?
      Maybe it boils down to a lack of proper education of the quite young generation.
      It is hard to believe that the child prodigy has really gone extinct because of global warming. Geoff

      • I’ve always though that the great musicians of the second half of the 20th century have dedicated to popular music, where money is to be made. A Mozart born in 1962 might have ended up in a rock band taking a name like Jon Bon Jovi.

        Same with painters. They are painting what their patrons (the art investment market) demand. Unlike in music, the taste of the art market has evolved differently than popular taste. But that is because the art is still bought by rich people, while music is now bought by common people.

      • Geoff and Javier,
        I think that when the music historians of the future look back on this century they will see the background music of Hollywood movies as being the equivalent of the operatic music of old, and names like John Williams will be held in high esteem.

    • Javier sez:
      “Nearly all the cool scientific discoveries have already been made.”

      Comment:
      I wrote an article on productivity for my economics newsletter
      a few years ago — looking at productivity-enhancing inventions.

      There’s no doubt we’ve had a productivity slowdown in the past 20 years,
      but the next generation of great inventions could come this decade
      based on artificial intelligence. I’m optimistic.

      The internet was, at first, a productivity enhancement,
      but the effect was short-lived — perhaps people began wasting
      time at work on the internet / social media?

      Perhaps the ease of making revisions to work documents
      slowed the writing process?

      Example:
      I used to write my economics newsletter (since 1977)
      in one draft, using a typewriter. Rarely retyped a page
      because that was too much work!
      Now I use a computer, and have to resist writing more
      than two drafts — maybe the writing is a little better now,
      but using the computer takes me longer than using
      an old-fashioned typewriter!

      My climate blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • Javier,

      Ah, but there’s still the human brain! What about consciousness? They are just beginning to have feasible hypotheses about that.

      Then there’s reproducing the origin of life.

      Extra-terrestrial life?

      Proof of God and the soul? Could be a tough one to get funding for.

      Besides, we don’t actually know what is yet to be discovered, do we? Or changed, with the advent of new evidence?

  9. “Despite this, he claims to be a climatologist in the same bio. Maybe that is the problem, because except under rare circumstances water goes in one direction, whereas temperature is always changing direction.”

    LOL

    Understanding temperature would require two PhDs.

    • Understandstanding climate temperature set adjustments through the decades requires a degree from Hogwarts U..

  10. Dr. Tim Ball — You missed the main player in climate and climate change, the World Meteorological Organization. They brought several documents including “Climate Change” in 1966 by eminent meteorologists from world meteorological departments. IPCC formed to serve the political interests while WMO served the science.

    There are several scientists who worked on sun and moon impacts on weather.

    Weather is a part of traditional Indian Astrology — every new year they present what will in store in terms of rainfall and crop production.

    Andhra University in Visakhapatnam/Waltair has full pledged Meteorology & Oceanography department prior to 1960s.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • IPCC was formed in 1988… Does anybody know if James Hansen had a hand in it?. His speech to congress about global warming was in the summer of 1988. Richard Feynman had died in February 1988 and that gave Hansen the go ahead to try and convince Congress of this hoax. He wouldn’t have dared if Feynman was still alive. The world needs another Feynman.

      • Where does this myth that Feynman would have backed you guys arise? He was a stickler for intellectual honesty – you self deception wouldn’t have persuaded him for a second. You have no right to hijack him from the grave.

      • Feynman’s sister is a CACA skeptic.

        So would her brother have been, since the CACA hypothesis has been repeatedly shown false.

        He was a stickler for the scientific method, of which CACA flies in the face.

      • No it doesn’t! And yes he was – he had no time for drivel. And I’ve never voted the same way as my sister – though I still love her.

      • Studying and actually understanding science is just self deception. Interesting view of the world you got there.

      • Well Mark, if you were aware you are not understanding it correctly that would be wilful misunderstanding. Let’s just say you’ve been misled. As Zazove says, this site is an interesting anthropological study.

      • How do you know how your sister voted, Jack?

        I had to laugh at the controversy that sprung up about the claim about how Hillary lost the election because conservative husbands and sons made their wives and sisters and mothers vote for Trump. And I wondered how that worked since each person goes into the voting booth alone and so noone but that person really knows how they voted. So I was just wondering how you knew how your sister voted. Maybe there is something I’m missing.

      • TA, we talk in our family, and argue when it comes to politics. I know her politics very well. I have a neighbor who’s a political vacuum and he votes the way his wife tells him to, he says!
        Who really knows anything? You guys have no idea how wrong-headed you are, and that in the future your arguments will be universally revealed to be ludicrous.

      • “You guys have no idea how wrong-headed you are, and that in the future your arguments will be universally revealed to be ludicrous.”

        Skeptics think it is the Alarmists who have no idea how wrong-headed they are.

        The burden of proof is on the Alarmists, Jack, not the skeptics

      • That is not true. Voyagers and advisors to rulers used weather predictions ancient world. Based on such data the modern weather forecasting was built.

        The fact is he nowhere referred WMO which has excellent reports prepared by top meteorologists from national meteorological departments.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • I was being facetious, and I meant to say WW1. I’m sorry, but he did say something to that effect. Dr Ball’s history lesson was hilariously shallow and self serving. This site is a hangout for the self-deluded.

      • Getting supplies to Europe from North America during WW 1 and WW 2 also helped spur weather forecasting.

        The growth of aviation played a big role as well.

  11. Dr Ball – good article. I find it useful to consider some very simple – if complex – concepts:
    Weather is what is happening outside in an area of interest at the moment usually temperature, wind, precipitation and/or humidity of whatever else is important at the moment. Weather change is a change in any or all of those things;
    Climate is the sum of all weather (never mind that the units don’t match) in any area of interest. and climate change is the sum of all climate over any time period of concern.
    This doesn’t really simplify things much but it puts many of the issues into focus – for me.

    • Climate was originally thought of as the typical weather in a particular region of the world. That’s the origin of the term. But now it’s also thought of as the average weather of the whole world during some period of time, typically three decades at a minimum out to 4.5 billion years.

      In Earth’s history, its climate has been everything from a global ocean of molten rock to near worldwide seas of solid water ice. We’re presently in a less cold interval in one of the coldest periods of the past 580 million years.

  12. Re: “Distortions, Misdirections, and Lack of Accountability Continue to Plague Climate Science”

    I disagree. They are not a plague. Distortions, Misdirections, and Lack of Accountability Are The Core Of Climate Science.

  13. The Climatology bondoogle is no better that the witch doctor’s chicken bones !

  14. Dr. Ball,

    I disagree that the concept of climate disappeared until the 20th century. In his “Notes on Virginia” (1782), Thomas Jefferson wrote:

    “A change in our [Virginia] climate is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are becoming much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than, one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me, the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now.”

    TJ was writing in a balmy interlude between the Maunder and Dalton Minima.

    In the 19th century, the existence of ice ages (Agassiz and Buckland) was recognized and explanations for them advanced (French Adhemar & Scot Croll), which would influence Milankovitch in the 20th century. IMO, the 19th century was the most important in the history of climatology, thanks to the discovery of very warm and very cold intervals in the past, with the recognition of geologic time from the mid- to late 18th century (Buffon and Hutton).

    • I was chuckling all the way through Dr Ball’s article. His simplistic cherry picking of history undermined his arguments rather well. Good to know I’m not the only one to see that, though it appears we’re rather few here.

  15. Dr. Ball I agree with everything you wrote except for 1 thing.
    You wrote
    “because except under rare circumstances water goes in one direction,”

    Water goes in 3 directions. It goes from the oceans to the atmosphere by evaporation and then back to the land or ocean by condensation and then back to the oceans via all the great rivers of the world.

    Another point I would like to make is that the soft sciences like the social sciences (climate science included) and even medicine lost their way when they allowed their statistical tests to be 2 sigma instead of the 5 sigma that physics requires. The editor of Lancet said last year that 50% of all medical studies are fraudulent or false.

    i believe that there are 2 reasons for this The 1st is that peer review has become pal review and the cost of reproducing a study is too large and nobody wants to spend the money. The 2nd reason is that once one study gets accepted that was based on 2 sigma and another study uses that 1st study to validate its 2 sigma conclusions and the process goes on ……………adinfinitum; it isnt too long before you have junk.

    The 4th point I would like to make is that even though engineers use models; they have to validate their constructions based on smaller structures and other manufacturers and researchers conduct real world tests to validate the models. Climate science was the 2nd science in history that couldn’t validate its models by real world testing. Meteorology was the 1st one. In meteorology’s defense I will argue that they only try to predict 10 days ahead whereas climate science tries to predict 10 decades ahead. And meteorology isn’t insisting that we tax carbon as a result of their bad predictions. Yet climate science is insisting we tax breathing as a result of their bad predictions.

    • I would agree with Alan T. but add—

      “Over the period from 1930 to 1970 a new applied mathematical technique called statistics developed and was applied to all the social sciences.” While its application may have run into more trouble there, statistics had a much earlier origin of which I am woefully unfamiliar. It was in proper use even before 1930 in agricultural sciences where I was first taught it in 1955, fortunately well, I think.

      At least it was closer to physics— “Another point I would like to make is that the soft sciences like the social sciences (climate science included) and even medicine lost their way when they allowed their statistical tests to be 2 sigma instead of the 5 sigma that physics requires.” I learned that its proper (that way) use had a lot to do with our agricultural successes, some fields of which I just drove by with their variety markers.

    • Alan,

      Five sigma would result in far too many false negatives in some fields. Ridiculous to hold that as a standard for the sciences in general.

      “Yet climate science is insisting we tax breathing as a result of their bad predictions.”

      Science doesn’t insist. Science cannot make value judgments, suggestions, or prescriptions. Its purpose is to inform.

      One reason I have a hard time giving credence to skeptic arguments about science is that they are so often bound up with politics and policy.

      • “Five sigma would result in far too many false negatives in some fields. Ridiculous to hold that as a standard for the sciences in general.”
        The danger of a false positive vastly outweighs the danger of a false negative when trillions of dollars are at stake. All false results can always be minimized with better measuring techniques. False negatives on the other hand are no different than not doing the test at all. We have plenty of time to get the science right. There is NO tipping point with global warming. The earth’s atmosphere is not an enclosed box. If mankind stopped putting any CO2 in the air; after 5 years there would be no mankind produced CO2 left in the atmosphere. Temperature change in the atmosphere is the result of either change in pressure , volume or number of gaseous moles. Ideal gas law PV = nRT where R= 8.34144598 joules/moleKelvin
        The volume of the atmosphere doesn’t change. If mankind stopped all CO2 production, the number of gaseous molecules would not change/increase. There would be nothing to affect a change in pressure. Therefore an increased temperature change is impossible with complete stoppage of all CO2. Therefore a tipping point is IMPOSSIBLE.

        “One reason I have a hard time giving credence to skeptic arguments about science is that they are so often bound up with politics and policy.”

        This quote from Kristi is laughable. She has it exactly backwards. This truly explains why it is fruitless to argue with somebody that believes in a religion like global warming. Skeptics argue science whereas alarmists argue politics and policy.

  16. I grew up believing in Merlin Olsen, Evil Conival, and John Glenn.

    Now there is only a heads down blob of shit. The war was lost, our paradigm failed.

    Back to the drawing board.

    • The thought came thru, now to work on the spelling (Knievel), and the curse words just make you sound like a…….. poser.
      So, back to the drawing board, indeed.

  17. Small corrections:
    – Napoleon charged his staff with finding a way to forecast the weather for his military campaigns and they did so. I believe the little guy was credited with this develooment.His chef also invented canned food to make his military machine faster moving. I’ve looked for a link but the swoon in education seems to have buried this fact.

    -Paleoclimate was taught to geology students as part of paleontology and sedimentary petrology when I studied (at U of Manitoba) in the 1950s and long before that. Its precisely why real geologists (not today’s ‘environmental optionees’ in ‘earth science’ – itself an apellation that seems to have melded with with social sciences). I once hired a geology graduate student who informed me later that she hadnt taken the mineralogy option! It’s like a chemist skipping study of the periodic table of the elements.

    • Gary,
      Blame the college for making mineralogy an option instead of a requirement.

  18. If “Climate Scientists” could state the relationship between the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere and the Average Surface Temperature of the Earth, they would have done it a long time ago to the satisfaction of everyone. The physics of this problem are, as my 8th grade math teacher Mr, Hanson, said, “non-trivial.” In point of fact the relationship cannot be calculated present-day. Attempts at Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or Transient Climate Sensitivity all assume that all increase in temperature since 1880 or so are due to CO2.

    Foolish.

    Once again, more CO2 at TOA increases the altitude at which the atmosphere radiates to space, decreasing the temperature at which the atmosphere radiates to space, increasing the heat content of the atmosphere, but nobody knows how much. This is a concise and accurate assessment of the heat content of the atmosphere.

    Anyone care to contradict me? Stokes??? Mosher??? Kristi what’s her name???

    I said this a couple three years ago here, why all this debate?

    • If they would just admit there is no such thing as “average surface temperature ” and that is a made up construct then no one would really care what it is.

  19. I’m figuring your ‘piece of garbage’ was in fact a ‘piece of garbage’! I’ve got the evidence of this piece to inform my guess.
    “One thing I learned from working with Chinese climatologists is that they see and therefore assess the world from a completely different perspective. They are aware, because of long historical records of climate and crop production, of the cyclical and widely fluctuating nature of climate.”
    So Western climatologists are not fully studied in climate fluctuations going rather further back than the time mankind first started planting crops? Your example points up the incredibly shallow character of your analysis.
    The Chinese are fully onboard with the inarguable facts of climate change, and understand that we are its current main driver. China is as proactive as other nations in taking steps to avert disaster – a better world citizen than America under Trump and Pruitt.

    • China signed on to the Paris accord. That has been and continues to be the total extent of their proactivity. In the meantime they continue to build about 1 new coal plant per week in China, and are busy planning and building new coal plants in the energy-deprived countries in Africa. It is a stunning strategy to not only help out the poor in Africa by providing them with cheap, abundant energy, but also to gain new political friends in those African nations. And to H*ll with the AGW myth.

    • Jack seems tp ne a sort of parrot bot, repeating talking points that no one who understands language, facts or reason would say.

  20. The problem with AGW is that it is a conjecture based on only partial science. It seems plausible at first but upon closer inspection it falls apart. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction.

    • “…plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.”

      Uh huh. Got any?

      • Ah, it’s funny. You put the evidence before them and they turn and say ‘you haven’t shown any evidence!’.
        Then they come out with “Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.”
        Ah, that’s right – the oceans are a prime mover in climate change. I’d like to see the evidence for that!

      • Zazove:

        Thanks for the opportunity to explain
        climate change skepticism:

        The warming from 1975 to 2000, blamed on CO2,
        was very similar to the warming from 1910 to 1940,
        which was not blamed on CO2.

        There is nothing in the temperature record to even suggest
        anything abnormal happened to the average temperature
        from 1975 to 2000.

        Therefore, the cause of the warming from 1975 to 2000
        could have been natural, with little or no effect from CO2.

        The would mean the TCS of CO2 was zero, or near zero = harmless.

        But … If ALL the warming from 1979 through 2017 was blamed on
        CO2 — a worst case assumption —
        — then the TCS would be about +1.0 degrees C.,
        which is also harmless.

        If the warming from 1975 to 2000 was caused by CO2,
        there needs to be an explanation of how, and why,
        4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly
        stopped in 1975, and then man made CO2 “took over”
        as the primary ‘climate controller.’

        No such explanation has ever been released
        by NASA-GISS or NAAO.

        The claim that CO2 controls the average temperature
        is merely assumed, with no debate allowed,
        and virtually no real science.

        Real science does much more than “assume”
        — it can be falsified, unlike the demonization of CO2.

        Real science also encourages skepticism, debate
        and replication of experiments

        Modern climate “science” does not.

        Modern climate science, therefore,
        is junk science — further evidence
        is 30 years of wrong predictions
        from the so-called ‘climate models”
        based on the assumption that CO2
        controls the average temperature —
        if it did, we’d have 30 years of
        right average temperature predictions!

        For additional reading,
        try my climate change blog,
        with over 17,000 page views so far:
        http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • For those that believe in the radiametric greenhouse effect, he original radiametric calculations for CO2 made decades ago came up with at figure of 1.2 degrees C for the climate sensitivity of CO2 without regard to feedback effects. A researcher from Japan has pointed out that these calculations assumed that a doubling of CO2 would not change the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. But that assumption is false because a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. This decrease in the lapse rate is a cooling effect that would decrease the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 to less than .06 degrees C which is not really detectable.

        The AGW conjecture is that CO2 warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will in turn cause more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. And in fact, for those that believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, H2O is by far the primary greenhouse gas because not only is there a lot more of it than CO2 but, molecule per molecule, H2O is a much stronger absorber of IR radiation than is CO2. Proponents of the AGW conjecture, in order to make CO2 based warming seem more substantial, like to assume that H2O provides a positive feedback that amplifies CO2 warming by roughly a factor of three. However what is ignored here is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which for the most part involves some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some models, more heat energy is morve by H2O vis that heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The over all cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of enhancing CO2 warming by a factor of 3 a better assumption is that H2O retards CO2 based warming by a factor of 3 reducing the climate sensitivity of CO2 to less than .02 degrees C which is too small to measure.

        For decades the IPCC has been trying to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 in order to reduce their range of guestamates as to the what the climate sensitivity of CO2 really is. To date they have been unable decrease the range of their guestamates one iota which is consistent with the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is too small to measure.

        The fact that good absorbers are also good radiators and the fact that heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by absorption band radiation in the troposphere would lead one to the realization that there is no radiant greenhouse effect caused by traces gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. The fact that such a greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system, including the Earth, would support the idea that CO2.s radiant greenhouse warming is zero. However, the fact that an increase in CO2 will cause a decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere would lead one to believe that an increase in CO2 actually has a slight cooling effect so that the climate sensitivity of CO2 should of a slightly negative value. If CO2 were really such a good insulator there would be some practical applications where CO2 has been used as an insulator but there are not any. If CO2 actually affected climate than the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.

      • It is interesting that if you had a 4 sided building with no roof and you pointed an infrared heater at the sky, no matter how high the sides of the building would beand no matter how long you had the heater on for; the room of your roofless house would not heat. Nothing would heat. That is because infrared heaters do not heat the air. They heat objects that the rays hit but not gaseous molecules like air. Alarmist greenhouse gas theory says that infrared waves will hit CO2 and H2O molecules and cause temperature increase when the IR gets reradiated downward. Well since an infrared heater puts 1000’s more infrared waves than the soil or ocean water does; then according to alarmist greenhouse gas theory the temperature inside of your roofless house should go up after you turn on the infrared heater. IT DOESN’T.

    • “The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. ”
      —————–
      Even the most rabid warmists (the so-called climate scientists ones like Gavin Schmidt or Phil Jones, not the ignorant foot soldiers) know and write that the Greenhouse Effect has nothing to do with the real convective greenhouse effect. That tells something about how the “science” behind this globull warming hysteria is bad.

      • As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect, which is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the height of the troposphere, and gravity, accounts for all 33 degrees C warming of the surface caused by the insulating effects of the atmosphere. An additional warming effect caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter.

    • Money (and employment) is the primary problem Mjw.

      How much money would there be if the scientists were honest,
      saying:
      – The current climate is wonderful.
      – We don’t know any details about what causes climate change, and
      – We have no idea what the future climate will be.

  21. Jack Davis
    “… the oceans are a prime mover in climate change. I’d like to see the evidence for that!”

    The name ‘El Niño’ nowadays is widely used to describe the warming of sea surface temperature that occurs every few years, typically concentrated in the central-east equatorial Pacific. ‘La Niña’ is the term adopted for the opposite side of the fluctuation, which sees episodes of cooler-than-normal sea surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific.

    These events are due to strong and extensive interactions between the ocean and atmosphere. They are associated with widespread changes in the climate system that last several months, and can lead to significant human impacts affecting things such as infrastructure, agriculture, health and energy sectors.
    These episodes alternate in an irregular inter-annual cycle called the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Southern Oscillation is the term for atmospheric pressure changes between the east and west tropical Pacific that accompany both El Niño and La Niña episodes in the ocean. ENSO is the dominant feature of climate variability on inter-annual timescales.

    Our research helped show that El Niño and La Niña cycle has impacts all over the world. For example, El Niño years are one factor that can increase the risk of colder winters in the UK. We now better understand these impacts and reproduce many of them in our climate models.

    Is that enough evidence?

      • No real evidence the spliced together graph you use has much to do with anything happening in reality.
        And if it does, what the impact is.

      • zasove,
        I presume that you are suggesting that an apparent short-term correlation between CO2 concentration and global ocean heat content is evidence for cause and effect. But, Solomon was speaking about surface temperatures and you segued to heat content.

    • Solomon, let’s take a first principles look at this. Both major fluids on the surface of our planet, air and water, overturn vigorously in discernible semi-chaotic convection patterns. What drives that vigor is heat. The heat comes from two sources – the sun and the planet’s interior. The heat is the driver, not the fluids.

      • Jack Davis,

        I agree absolutely with your remarks as to the primary sources. There is, however a difference between a “primary source” and a “prime mover”.

        But you asked for evidence that “… the oceans are a prime mover in climate change.”

        The Met Office – not generally known for climate scepticism – believes that it has such evidence.

        https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/ocean/el-nino

      • Jack Davis,
        It is generally accepted that the heat from the interior of the Earth is negligible. That leaves us with the sun as the primary source of heat. But, what you overlook is the role of aerosols and clouds in modulating the amount of heat retained by the Earth system. Your world view seems to be like an automobile with no gas pedal.

      • Solomon and Clyde. I know that when it comes to influence on ocean and atmosphere, the internal heat energy of Earth is minor relative to the sun, over human time scale. But that interior heat is absolutely a major driver of the vitality of our planet. I included it for completeness.
        I used ‘prime mover’ and ‘driver’ equivalently because it is obvious the fluids would not be moving at all if heat was not applied. That makes heat the driver.
        I didn’t mention aerosols and clouds, nor did I mention CO2 or other greenhouse gases. It was an attempt at a first principles analysis.
        I don’t understand how you guys are so he’ll bent on denying even the possibility that the changes we are making in our environment are resulting in a nett gain of heat energy. All evidence says that you are wrong.

      • Jack Davis,
        You said, “I don’t understand how you guys are so he’ll bent on denying even the possibility that the changes we are making in our environment are resulting in a nett gain of heat energy.” You are making unwarranted assumptions about what I think. However, I do think that Willis Eschenbach’s recent article provides a strong suggestion that there are more buffering feedback loops than are commonly recognized.

    • Solomon, “changes in the climate system ” is not the same as climate change.

      You really should identify quotes and attribute them correctly, at least with a link. You’re plagiarizing otherwise.

  22. This is actually the tip of the iceberg or floating sea of garbage of data issues in many disciplines. It seams in the modern era we have accelerated news transmission and the volume of news coverage, both real and bot-generated. But we still report on the same old flawed data systems, statistics, and data noise because the alternatives are too expensive to correct or start over. Meanwhile the stench is rising.

  23. Our discussions are in the weeds.

    Physical problems are impossible to solve when there are fundamental physical errors at the level of assumptions, at the level of scientific imagination.

    There is some interesting cooling that is occurring in the North Atlantic.

  24. Note that the alarmist claim of unprecedented warming in the blade of the hockey stick was that temperature rose 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. Compare that with the 0.56°C drop in two years.

    Not exactly a like for like comparison. The 0.56°C drop was based on two individual months. Using the same logic between 1880 and 2016 temperatures rose 1.62°C.

    Even after “the biggest two year drop in 100 years”, temperatures are still almost half a degree warmer than they were at the end of the 120 year 0.6°C rise.

    • Also

      You can be sure that if the temperature increased by that much, all AGW alarmists would be shouting it to the world.

      Between Feb 2014 and Feb 2016 temperatures rose by 0.82°C. Did anyone shout this bizarre metric to the world then?

Comments are closed.