Thirty years later and the main two arguments of the IPCC are the Hockeystick and Ignorance Graph.
Essentially, the Chosen Expert Modelers look at the recent warming and say “‘we’re certain it’s CO2 because we can’t think of anything else”. Or more specifically, “we know it’s CO2, because our broken models don’t work without it”. Their models don’t work with it either but no one really cares.
These are the same models that don’t include any solar magnetic effect, solar wind factors or solar spectral changes. If the Sun was driving the climate, their models will never figure that out.
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Figure 1b of thousands in IP6.
This is the classic fallacy known for a few hundred years as Argument from Ignorance. The more ignorant the climate researchers are, the worse CO2 looks.
Ten long years ago, I described how to create a crisis graph in 6 easy steps, and two IPCC reports later, nothing’s different. A decade after I put Argument from Ignorance into The Skeptics Handbook II, Skepticalscience (remember them?) still has it on their To Do list.
Jo, these people have mortgages and bills to pay, a lifestyle to up keep, why would they give up that gravy train and go and find an honest job?
340
The UN’s ‘code red’ on climate change
From American Thinker
By Vijay Jayaraj
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/18/the-uns-code-red-on-climate-change/
310
AR6 and The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
By Andy May
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/18/ar6-and-the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum/
190
We are at the point where they can just add ‘×2’ to the coding and move on to the press release without fear of any significant blow back.
270
Wonder what else could have caused it?
There are many, many differences between the world of 55 million years ago and today.
When a continent breaks apart, as Greenland and Northwest Europe did 55 million years ago, it is sometimes accompanied by a massive outburst of volcanic activity due to a ‘hot spot’ in the mantle that lies beneath the 55 mile thick outer skin of the earth. When the North Atlantic broke open, it produced 1-2 million cubic miles (5-10 million cubic kilometres) of molten rock which extended across 300,000 square miles (one million square kilometres). – See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/under-the-sea#sthash.LLR1IIV5.dpuf
Molten rock can vary between 700 and 1,200 degrees C (1,300 to 2,200 F). So 8,000,000 Km^3 of 1,000 C rock in one of the most important ocean circulation areas or back-radiation of CO2? Which might have the most affect?
00
The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed
by Ross McKitrick
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/#more-27816
260
I’ve linked to the McKitrick article too at #19 (in moderation) with a couple of excerpts and the following observation below. Most important (I think) reproduced here:
So by this, Jo’s assertions are supported, specifically, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
10
That’s a very long To-Do List, at ScepticalScience. I’ve never looked at it before. I just keep telling people who rely on it that:
a. It’s an activist web site, now funded to produce pro-climate change propaganda, and
b. It’s not a science site, as is acknowledged by its lack of inclusion in reviews of top science blogs.
You’ve given me an entirely new set of topics that John Cook and his climate-flam crew cannot explain.
240
Same here Pauly,
I have not seen that To Do list before. I am not sure how one navigates to it from the Skeptical Science home page.
20
That graph is wonderful example of the problem; but talking about that is just once again falling victim to the misinformation-misdirection campaign that currently rules our world.
Perhaps if we start small we can look at the real driving force behind our current woes.
To do this we need to look back twenty or thirty years to an incident that happened out the back of our town in the Lake Macquarie area.
A conflict between two men was reported which involved shots being fired and threats made. The conflict was over which one of them was going to take over and run a local union.
Nominally unions are there to look after the interests of the workers but since time immemorial the main function has been the provision of a good lifestyle for a few running the show and possibly a stepping point off to a career in the state parliament or at least local government.
This theme of cushy jobs at the top is now endemic from local government, state and federal governments to the United Bloody Nations, the EEU and associated bodies like the IPCCCCC.
The basic services provided by these organisations are now very much secondary to the main focus on scooping up as much “cream” as possible before the dream collapses.
Basic services like road maintenance, provision of water, sewerage and electricity have been rorted to an unbelievable extent in the last two decades and some of the cream has been distributed back down to the troops.
Global Warming has been a great money source for the Elites and currently we have the gutting of society through the latest opportunity in the Kovid Krisis.
Focus on graphs is great but we need to see the real problem of self appointed supranational elites working together to shaft the rest of us.
Let’s turn our focus to the real issue and try to free ourselves with appropriate action.
The world is in frightening turmoil.
KK
320
What you say below is true!
“but talking about that is just once again falling victim to the misinformation-misdirection campaign that currently rules our world.”
I see the greatest problems are as you say- misdirection/misinformation, but to be successful it has to have a receptive audience!
40 years ago the public wouldn’t have fallen for this nonsense. Sure there’d have been a few gullible souls, but generally speaking, the public today are increasingly showing themselves to be easily led. As the Yanks put it: There’s a sucker born every minute! Or, In Ozzie speak: Come in spinner!
180
Keith, I agree completely with your comments here. I have been going on about it for quite some time and had a few articles published in The Spectator Magazine. I call it “The Diminution of Responsibility”. My principal piece can be read at this link. You may find it interesting.
90
Thanks Pete.
And the link.
50
Try this
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/03/whatever-happened-to-responsibility/#
30
Thanks Pete, that was interesting. I would also suggest that personal responsibility is a Christian concept and the admonition to “treat others as you would like to be treated’ was once the backbone of a Christian society. Now that the concept of a higher moral authority has been relegated to the dustbin there is a perceived “freedom’ to do as we choose without any ramifications.
This thinking developed around the writings of Malthus and Darwin. Evolutionary ideas allowed people to break away from the tyranny of the church, they no longer had to help the poor, desperate and needy. Herbert Spencer, a young contemporary of Darwin’s , called this ‘the survival of the fittest’. At the time this idea was applied to humans and later lead into eugenics.
61
Darwin is not responsible for others misrepresenting him.
50
Keith, If you have read ‘The Descent of Man’ you will know that Darwin acknowledges Malthus and came to the conclusion that to help the human race evolve then eugenics was the answer – ‘the survival of the fittest’. German philosophers were enamoured with this thinking and it was embraced by the intelligencia in England, America and Europe.
Darwin’s most devoted servant, Richard Dawkins never mentions ‘The Descent of Man’.
Darwin himself was determined to be the leading light in evolutionary thinking. He took other people’s ideas, research and observations and published them as his own. He never acknowledged others. Not even his grandfather who believed in evolution nor his mother who was a botanist.
41
Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that background.
Only ever looked at the biological/evolutionary side of things.
I have often wondered why the Church was so anti Darwin but all I heard there was “the bible says the world was created in seven days” and so Darwin’s hundreds of thousands of years concept was wrong.
20
Keith, if you are interested in history there is a great book “Charles Darwin Victorian Mythmaker” by A.N.Wilson. Wilson is a historian whose forte is the Victorian era .
31
Are we sure it’s a great book? Here are some critics talking about it:
Wilson’s biography Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker (2017), was criticised by John van Wyhe in New Scientist for confusing Darwin’s theory of natural selection with Lamarckism at one point, as well as other scientific, historical and editorial errors.[16] Kathryn Hughes in The Guardian described it as a “cheap attempt to ruffle feathers”, with a dubious grasp of science and attempted character assassination.[17] In The Evening Standard, Adrian Woolfson says that “while for the greater part a lucid, elegantly written and thought-provoking social and intellectual history”, Wilson’s “speculations on evolutionary theory” produce a book that is “fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading”.[18] Steve Jones, an emeritus of University College London, commented in The Sunday Times: “In the classic mould of the contrarian, he despises anything said by mainstream biology in favour of marginal and sometimes preposterous theories.”[19] The geneticist and former editor of Nature, Adam Rutherford, called the book “deranged” and said Wilson “would fail GCSE biology catastrophically.”[20][21]
Darwin is rightly in the pantheon of the greats (along with Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and a couple of others). Evolution is the best idea anyone ever had, and when coupled with gene theory, explains everything.
00
That graph is wonderful example of the problem; but talking about that is just once again falling victim to the misinformation-misdirection campaign that currently rules our world.
Perhaps if we start small we can look at the real driving force behind our current woes.
To do this we need to look back twenty or thirty years to an incident that happened out the back of our town in the Lake Macquarie area.
A conflict between two men was reported which involved shots being fired and threats made. The conflict was over which one of them was going to take over and run a local union.
Nominally unions are there to look after the interests of the workers but since time immemorial the main function has been the provision of a good lifestyle for a few running the show and possibly a stepping point off to a career in the state parliament or at least local government.
This theme of cushy jobs at the top is now endemic from local government, state and federal governments to the United Bloody Nations, the EEU and associated bodies like the IPCCCCC.
The basic services provided by these organisations are now very much secondary to the main focus on scooping up as much “cream” as possible before the dream collapses.
Basic services like road maintenance, provision of water, sewerage and electricity have been rorted to an unbelievable extent in the last two decades and some of the cream has been distributed back down to the troops.
Global Warming has been a great money source for the Elites and currently we have the gutting of society through the latest opportunity in the Kovid Krisis.
Focus on graphs is great but we need to see the real problem of self appointed supranational elites working together to shaft the rest of us.
Let’s turn our focus to the real issue and try to free ourselves with appropriate action.
The world is in frightening turmoil.
KK
100
Not only that, once ensconced they’re much more interested in media-grandstanding at every opportunity, than in following the job description and responsibilities of their position, and when they ignore that job description and tasks they’re charged with there’s no accountability and no replacement.
100
That’s what Aussie Pete has been onto in his writing.
50
I hadn’t noticed, cheers.
50
My recent piece on this fallacy:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/08/17/the-un-ipcc-science-panel-opts-for-extreme-nuttiness/
The UN IPCC science panel opts for extreme nuttiness
By David Wojick
A central excerpt:
Figure 1b is my personal favorite and has been for a long time because it makes the fallacy of alarmism crystal clear. It shows the supposedly observed global temperatures since 1850 plus two climate model computer runs. One run includes both human and natural “factors” while the other only includes natural stuff. Not surprisingly the natural one shows no warming while the human driven one matches the so-called observations.
What makes this so silly is shown in Figure 2, which lists all of the “drivers” of temperature change used in the model. All are human! Obviously if all of the drivers are human then all the warming must be human, right? But this is an assumption, not an outcome. So Figure 1b, the supposed proof that the warming is caused by humans, is merely restating the assumptions built into the model. The reasoning is perfectly circular.
In short the IPCC’s nutty argument goes like this: “Assuming all warming is caused by humans we find that all the warming has been caused by humans.”
There is a lot more in my article. These are the fundamental fallacies in alarmism.
Technically the modelers do not typically say they cannot think of anything, because they know about these other possible causes. What they say is that none is understood well enough to model. Still an argument from ignorance, where the ignorance is admitted!
Add the ocean to the sun because all the warming in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño.
See https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
281
“all the warming in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño.”
UAH shows this very clearly.
Unfortunately the surface data is so averaged smeared, urban affected, and “adjusted” to suit the biases of the AGW meme, as to have had all real information totally erased from it.
221
Interestingly, the effect of the 2015-2017 Super El Nino/Big Blob, seems to have all but dissipated
110
If your referring to the very warm pool that was in the Pacific NE, then yes. Note the current very cold area adjacent the Japanese islands.
50
Not only that, but Arctic temperatures have dropped back down from a sharp spike.
https://i.postimg.cc/85Gt0HqZ/UAH-Nopol-2021.png
And Antarctic sea ice, which drop very low, is now back above the 15 year average.
That event had wide ranging effects for a period of about 3-4 years
70
David,
An interesting and related discussion is presented in the following paper:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
The paper is discussed here:
https://medium.com/@ceres-science/how-much-has-the-sun-influenced-northern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-an-ongoing-debate-121c5b1f2825
In other words, the IPCC has a history of cherry-picking datasets that support the conclusion that they want to promote. Reading the IPCC reports won’t tell you which datasets they have purposefully chosen to ignore.
The following comment had me laughing:
“The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.”
More scientific validity indeed!
70
‘ … adopt this non-consensus driven approach.’
Agree, science has essentially been corrupted by the ‘precautionary principle’, which is politically motivated. There is hope that the new hiatus in world temperature will have a sobering impact on decision makers.
90
1930s and 1890s … and not just the heat either, the 1890s also had a very large number of major cyclones which hit and completely destroyed sparse northern settlements. If anything like that happened now the UN circus would declare the end of the world, as we know it.
“See, we said there was only a decade left! Now do you believe?”
They’re patiently waiting for natural decadal variability to do its’ natural thing and ‘prove’ their case, that humans are to blame for all of it.
100
Does CFACT still receive its funding from the fossil-fuel industry (Chevron, Exxon)?
I don’t agree that the logic of “the model” is flawed. It’s acknowledged by everyone that natural forces (including solar activity) are responsible for long-term climate, and for the last 15,000 years or so, have wobbled around a steady trend-line.
The changes (“the hockey stick”) of the last 150 years are simply not explained by the background forces – solar activity, oceans, El Nino oscillations, etc.
It is caused overwhelmingly by the release of greenhouse gases – specifically CO2 – and it is the rapidity of this process that quite rightly has a lot of people very concerned.
Arctic sea-ice loss and permafrost thaw are not events that occur every few centuries, such as during the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. They are unprecedented in the post Ice Age period.
That is the point of AGW, and the models.
05
You are wrong yet again.
Funding doesn’t matter for a start. its the science that is produced
Doesn’t matter if a scientifically illiterate fool “disagrees” with the mosdels being wrong
Real data proves they are wrong
“They are unprecedented in the post Ice Age period.”
Utter and complete BS..
It is obvious that you are totally ignorant about Holocene Arctic sea ice.
The peak was in the LIA then a similar peak in the late 1970s.
For the rest of the last 10,000 years there has been far less sea ice than there is now.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg
“It is caused overwhelmingly by the release of greenhouse gases – specifically CO2”
Complete anti-science BS… Again, based on absolutely zero scientific evidence.
Evidence you have failed time and again to produce.
Please stop making comments on your total ignorance.
20
“The changes (“the hockey stick”) of the last 150 years are simply not explained by the background forces – solar activity, oceans, El Nino oscillations, etc.”
Wrong as always..
Real temperatures can easily be explained by solar cycles and the many facets of solar energy.
Watch and at least try to learn, if you are capable.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOcaqCzxo
There is no scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, so you will be totally unable to produce any. You will faff around avoiding the issue in your incompetence.
I doubt you even know what “science” actually is.
CO2 does not “trap” energy in the atmosphere.
Proof is given at https://joannenova.com.au/2021/08/hockeysticks-dont-die-they-just-get-more-corrupt/#comment-2455376
Please stop posting dumb ignorant propaganda posts.. They make you look like a monumental idiot
20
Jo, what is the link on the word “Hockeystick” in the sentence “Thirty years later and the main two arguments of the IPCC are the Hockeystick and Ignorance Graph.” supposed to take me to? When I click it it goes to this link:
https://joannenova.com.au/wp-login.php?redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fjoannenova.com.au%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost.php%3Fpost%3D78986%26action%3Dedit%26classic-editor&reauth=1
50
CMIP6 Modellers were given data sets that included much more information on the influence of the sun. e.g. solar magnetic field effects, influence on cosmic rays, solar radiation beyond the visible/IR etc.
When they ran their models with this new data they found that the models were able to explain all warming without the inclusion of CO2. i.e. there was no role for CO2 in warming. Their solution was to reject the solar data and revert to the way they were operating before – but with updated CMIP6 data. Now there was a role for CO2.
https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo
200
Hits the nail on the head.
130
Unfortunately, people like PF, Simon etc either will not watch this, or will not have the intellectual capability to take in the actual science.
Also, defensive brain-blocks with go straight up. No facts allowed.
100
Thx Gerard,
Worth repeating your comment. And that link is a terrific comment on Solar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYoOcaqCzxo&ab_channel=Suspicious0bservers
10
10 years ago I thought that this site might offer a plausible counter argument for the science presented by the IPCC, but sadly, it tuned out that it is just a mouthpiece for the former tobacco lobbyist, The Heartland Institute.
In that 10 years nothing has changed
340
I’ve basically “tuned out” to your comments but just occasionally I look: and still there’s nothing there.
Go on P, the Koalas need you.
320
True, You seem to have zero plausible science to offer, PF.
Have you always been like that.. and empty vassal. ?
160
“an empty vassal”
I like that, I’ll have to remember it for future use.
80
clarence.t asks Fitzroy, the blog’s greatest intellectual vacuum:
Yes.
If he hasn’t, it must have been on another blog, not this one. On this one, he has always been like that.
Some one once asked if he was paid by the CCP to be a nuisance here.
He does have a Science-proof skin. A lot has been pushed his way and none of it has taken.
150
Peter Fitzroy,
Read and get enlightened — there is NO catastrophic warming —
https://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
200
Peter,
Perhaps it is because you arrived here very late in the history of this blog.
Some time ago, Jo spent considerable time focusing on some of the specific science errors causing problems in climate science. Here are four specific to problems with climate models:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-4-error-1-partial-derivatives/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-5-error-2-model-architecture-means-all-feedbacks-work-through-the-surface-temperature/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imbalances-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitivity-calculated-at-just-one-tenth-of-official-estimates/
They are all still perfectly valid today.
120
Which was all by David Evans as reported by Jo. The end result of that was a theory that was meant to be published and wasn’t, and which incorrectly predicted the years we are now in using a predicted and still unresolved external force(s) linked to solar activity.
28
Many errors in IPCC, mostly the idea that CO2 causes warming, where is your criticism?
There is no scientific evidence of that failed conjecture.
The whole “climate change” meme is based on ignorance… suits you to a “t”.
How about you look at the video in post #10, engage your brain for once, and wake up to the reality that it is the Sun that drives the global climate.
Are you capable of that, Gaa ?
120
Leaf you have been here longer than me but I distinctly remember Jo saying 2022 is the final cut off date. The solar pundits got it wrong because the oceanic oscillations were out of sync, its an inexact science.
The external force is there and its influencing the fluid dynamics of earth.
Remember, a quiet sun makes the jet stream meander, creating extreme weather on the ground, nothing to be concerned about. Our ancestors have survived climate change on this planet and I’m confident of a bright future for humanity.
10
All the signs are there for more cooling by the end of 2022.
00
Like you were ever interested in that. Go read a book on palaeoclimatology.
130
‘In that 10 years nothing has changed’
We have a new hiatus in world temperature.
70
10 years… and not one piece of useful content..
How did you manage that ! ?
62
Why visit this site? Really, all you come up with is nothing in 10 whole years. You must be a strange mob around the lake.
80
It’s a swamp lots of methane.
70
“but sadly, it tuned out that it is just a mouthpiece for the former tobacco lobbyist, The Heartland Institute.”
Never heard of them, and I speak for myself.
60
Eureka eh Pete? Apparently it’s taken our Archimedes ten years to read the Links list in the right panel and the scales have fallen from his eyes. Did he run naked in the street before posting or is he out there now?
20
PF, in my article linked above I identify five specific fundamental fallacies in the SPM. They are the core fallacies behind the AGW scare. These are very specific counter arguments to the IPCC.
What more do you want? You say you want counter arguments and there they are. Moreover, over time I have provided a great deal of other critical material, as have others. Have you just missed it all? Or do you simply not understand our arguments?
What you say simply makes no sense.
101
Perhaps those here are still waiting for the IPCC to present some science.
50
He he, does this mean you will leave us and whine at another blog?
Lets face it, you have no counterpoint to make here which is why you are attacking an imaginary source instead, which a cave child can do any time.
Do YOU have any specific objection to the post?
40
If you can’t predict the past how can you predict the future. Since the climategate revelations it’s been obvious that the systems of temperature data collection have been corrupted with the help of a corrupted media. The takeover of institutions by scientists and bureaucrats to blatantly mislead and lie to support their cause is complete. The voices of resistance have been shouted down and the argument is never to question the data or direction or even the cause but what target for CO2 are we going to set and how do we try to get there. During Tony Abbots tenure there was a brief time when it looked like there would be an audit of the BOM but nothing happened. The tools to expose the climate change scandal have been brushed away and no matter what your senses tell you about what’s really happening each year it is always hotter than the previous one and things are spiralling out of control unless we do something urgently. The failure of even the Trump administration to put the Climate change data collection on trial has been the single greatest opportunity for sceptics to win the minds of politicians and the general population. The lack of noise around these issues mean only that hardened sceptics like ourselves are aware of the depth of corruption that is prevalent
. The indoctrination of a population has meant that as the older generation of baby boomers who’s lived experience knows that not much has changed weatherwise in the last 60 or so years die out the resistance to the climate cult becomes weaker. The difficulty is that in most major advanced jurisdictions around the world sceptics struggle to find electable alternatives who resist the green policies which are all built on the global warming / climate change agenda. Politicians fail to realise that there are very few people who are actual zealots for whom climate change is the top priority in life and that if the truth was conveyed to the masses about the alarmist agenda there is a huge proportion of the population that can be persuaded to believe that climate change is not so serious. I’ve actually been encouraged that in the lead up to this round of climate change discussion in Australia as the activists try to goad Morrison into more drastic action he points out the harsh reality of Chinas position. The messaging that drastic action on climate change is futile because of Chinas emissions dominance means that people are more accepting of non renewable compromises such as nuclear. We aren’t at the stage where we can say the government is even trying to reverse the intdoctrination but at least they are winning support for a least harm approach which at least gives hope for technology advances and nuclear as solutions rather than more useless windmills and solar panels. The main problem in Australia is that on matters such as climate change the moderate factions in the federal government on this issued are rendered ineffective by the State and bureaucratic zealots who are rapidly sending the grid reliability and price controls down the drain. No matter what the federal government does on this front the states do what they like. I thought when Weatherall was turfed in South Australia the year after the disastrous grid failure and giant battery purchase that things were getting better but the Liberal premier Marshmallow is just as bad. The failure of state oppositions to provide an alternative to the alarmist narrative have given voters no where to go.
Three years ago we had Trump in power, Boris had won the Brexit election and Scomo had one the climate election. But since then with the support of media, academia, justice system, big business the left has taken over completely with their people now ever present even in most conservative organisations. The climate change narrative is the most overarching policy infiltrating every aspect of life in western democracies, but in most other parts of the world it’s not even a blip. Climate change is being weaponised to bring about some of the most monumental shifts in terms of global domination not seen since the major wars. Whether climate change is a Chinese hoax or not China is the major beneficiary of Europe the USA and Australia’s response to it.
Hopefully as the radical left’s agenda is too extreme for even there own supporters the balance will swing back to conservative values and common sense before it’s too late.
380
Wow; that’s worth reading twice.
120
Howdy Zig:
That was an interesting read. In the future, would you be able to construct some paragraphs, that have spacing, and some format to your discussion? It really facilitates reading if things have some separation, and separate ideas are segregated.
For example, over at Anthony’s a recent discussion brought up the fact that global climate cannot, and is not, controlled by a single variable (as in the IPCC reports that attribute ‘climate change’ to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).
I’ve tried on various occasions (not within the past few years) to get others to consider that ‘climate change’, while on-going and incessant, is not something that is subject to the whim of a single factor. Does carbon dioxide play a role? Probably, but not measurable by us. Are Milankovitch cycles a factor? Yes, but the geological record is that Pleistocene transitions are sudden, abrupt, and much shorter than can be accounted for by M. cycles. Are ocean currents a factor? Of course! But who has quantified them? Is solar irradiance a factor? How could it NOT be? What is the magnitude of that factor? I doubt we’ll ever know. There’s way too many variables to be accounted for, and as someone who has made thousands of models of systems, you can trust my conclusion: the more complex the system, the less likely your model will have much, if any, relation to reality.
Many have quoted here (and at Anthony’s) the IPCC crucial statement: The climate system is a non-linear, coupled, dynamic system. That statement right there invalidates any and all claims the IPCC might have to its ‘projections’ or ‘estimates’, or whatever the current buzzword of the day is.
Why they persist in their un-scientific pursuits does not come down to a desire to serve humanity.
My Regards to all; may peace and good health be upon everyone and your homes,
V. t. I.
120
It’s become increasingly clear to me that atmospheric warming and cooling, and weather variability are closely linked to relative humidity variability (a GHG!) and this seems to be modulated via sinking ultra-dry stratospheric air input to the troposphere. A concept to far ahead of all the usual thinking as not even get considered, let alone be incorporated into understandings, here, or in IPCC spiels.
80
Stratospheric air doesn’t enter the troposphere in any quantity.
One does see a fall in the height of the tropopause though, above descending columns of ultra dry tropospheric air. That tropospheric air becomes ultra dry because of uplift and expansion from the surface in other locations.
40
In regard to your third-last paragraph, most people would know that weather forecasts, generated by large computer models, are only accurate for about 3 to 4 days. For aviation purposes, forecasts are republished every 6 hours, because aviation depends on their accuracy.
What most people don’t know is that various mathematicians and scientists have published papers claiming that the maximum possible forecast can only extent 14 days into the future.
These weather predicting computer models are the ones that take all weather data as inputs, including radiosonde data, aviation and maritime weather reports, and other inputs as starting conditions for every run. And still, their maximum predictive ability is limited to 2 weeks.
The IPCC use no starting conditions. None of the climate models in use have ever been independently verified or validated. And absolutely no industry in the world relies on them for commercial decisions. For activist academics, they are just the modern equivalent of casting rune stones.
50
Thanks Ziggy, this piece needs pinning on a wall in the town square.
Needs mailing to Morrison to give him the encouragement he needs to maintain the path of harm minimisation and China highlighting.
60
.” The indoctrination of a population has meant that as the older generation of baby boomers who’s lived experience knows that not much has changed weatherwise in the last 60 or so years die out the resistance to the climate cult becomes weaker.”
A lot of things will die out with us, lived experience, common sense, mental arithmetic and volunteering.
140
Ronin,
A lot of things will die out with us, lived experience, common sense, mental arithmetic and volunteering.
Love that list, especially volunteering – as it is closely linked to responsibility.
20
The fact that their “observed temperature” bears little resemblance to any real temperatures on the planet, hasn’t occurred to them ?
One hand not paying attention to what the other is doing.
120
I shudder to think what’s going to happen when the UNIPCCC and BOM discover that you can get “useful” temperature readings by driving around and reading the car’s dashboard.
That should open up a whole new exciting set of data and do away with those expensive Stephenson screens.
110
Who needs sensors? The UNIPCCC and BOM can manufacture temperature readings which are “useful” to them just by running a computer program.
60
The alarmist cult called the UN-IPCC plays down the Little Ice Age and all the people that suffered and died prematurely through it. The IPCC plays down the fabulous benefit that industrialization has brought mankind. Benefits that have allowed humans and animals and plants they depend on to survive cooler or warmer weather.
The UN-IPCC cultists only screech unfounded alarmism about the correlation of the slight rise in both temperature and atmospheric CO2 as if it is a big catastrophe. There is little evidence that this correlation is truly meaningful. It is not catastrophic for the planet to warm; to warm-up as the planet leaves the cold of the LIA. As many historical proxy climate records teased out from geological data, ice data, stalagmites’ data, etc., show — during warm periods (especially if atmospheric CO2 is higher than during the LIA) all vegetable and animal life flourish, during cooler or cold periods life in all it’s forms dies back.
Too many national government pay too much heed (and taxpayer’s money)to this cultist organization. Too many governments are led by fools who have surrounded themselves with UN-IPCC cult members.
140
Interesting comment from Steve McIntyre about some of the data for their PAGES 2019 or 2017 etc studies.
It seems nobody knows how or by who the record was created or detrended.
Unbelievable but true. See Steve’s comment below.
I hope Jo and David are closely following Steve’s response to IPCC AR6 and also the latest post from Ross McKitrick at Dr Curry’s site.This could be a goldmine if they have a chance to expose this evidence on FOX News.
And hopefully Sky News here in Australia, because Bolt has interviewed Steve McIntyre at least twice over the last few years.
Thanks again for your hard work Jo ,but please follow this closely and help unravel some of the maths, stats etc for we lay people. Thanks again.
Stephen McIntyre
“Posted Aug 17, 2021 at 9:05 PM | Permalink | Reply
“Nick MxKay of PAGES2019 provided cordial response on Twitter to inquiry on provenance of Mushkin chronology. He didn’t know. He wrote
“The metadata for that site point to https://ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/15330, which has the raw data for that site, I believe. I don’t know the details of how the record was created or detrended, nor who did that work, although I assume it was one of the authors listed on that site.,,,
·
Improving the traceability and reproducibility of datasets like this is one of our goals, but as you can see, this hasn’t always been done well, especially in years past. ”
It is obviously disquieting that supposedly extensive quality control of PAGES2K did not include determination of who calculated chronologies and how they were calculated for 20^ of data in PAGES2019 and more like 33% of PAGES2017″
110
There has always been a problem with those who want to tell people what is right or wrong taking the place of those who want to figure it out. The former being too numerous in academia, the media and government to ever reel it back is the real tipping point.
80
Here’s a reminder of co2 emissions (1970 to 2018) since 1970, or 1990.
Note China and other DEVELOPING countries’ emissions have soared for over 20 years and USA+ EU co2 emissions COMBINED are now LOWER than 1990 and no higher than 1970.
That’s 51 years ago. Again I haven’t met anyone who understands this data and the religious believers can get very hostile if you press the point. THINK about it.
BTW this is the TOTAL of all Human emissions of co2 since 1970 and ends in 2018.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png
90
Our illustrious leader is aware of the problem and hopefully they will take the graph to the climate summit.
30
Jo
Its past time for this whole madness to be put to bed.
First we need the covid debacle sorted, but I suspect that once we have the bureaucrats and politicians wilfully destroying our nation over covid locked up, that will take care of this issue as well!
61
‘The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed’
Posted on August 18, 2021 by curryja | 34 Comments
by Ross McKitrick
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
“My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years. Wherever you begin in the Optimal Fingerprinting literature (example), all paths lead back to AT99, often via Allen and Stott (2003). So its errors and deficiencies matter acutely.”
40
McKitrick:
Other Problems
In my paper I list five assumptions which are necessary for the AT99 model to yield BLUE coefficients, not all of which AT99 stated. All 5 fail by construction. I also list 6 conditions that need to be proven for the AT99 method to be valid. In the absence of such proofs there is no basis for claiming the results of the AT99 method are unbiased or consistent, and the results of the AT99 method (including use of the RC test) should not be considered reliable as regards the effect of GHG’s on the climate.
One point I make is that the assumption that an estimator of C provides a valid estimate of the error covariances means the AT99 method cannot be used to test a null hypothesis that greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate. Why not? Because an elementary principle of hypothesis testing is that the distribution of a test statistic under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true cannot be conditional on the null hypothesis being false. The use of a climate model to generate the homoscedasticity weights requires the researcher to assume the weights are a true representation of climate processes and dynamics. The climate model embeds the assumption that greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact. Or, equivalently, that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate, whereas greenhouse gases can. It is therefore not possible to use the climate model-generated weights to construct a test of the assumption that natural processes alone could generate the class of observed events in the climate.
# # #
So by this, Jo’s assertions are supported, specifically, in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
00
Don’t forget the WEF (non-government organisation) and their COVID-19 based Great Reset, Build Back Better and New Green Deal agenda crafted to fool the people who have ignored or lost interest in climate hoax deception.
At least The Australian Federal Government will not cooperate, as the PM made clear while recently overseas, link posted here a week ago. He said there is nothing basically wrong with capitalism and free markets to require resetting.
50
Expert Modelers really think: “we know it’s CO2, because we’d have no political influence if we said otherwise”
20
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, stated by Sherlock Holmes.
10
I repeat. The IPCC’s aim is to spread socialism; this organisation has nothing to do with climate change. The sooner the corrupt UN is broken up and dissolved, the better it is for the future.
50
AusUNExit
30
‘The IPCC’s aim is to spread socialism …’
That is a mistaken assumption, in fact the great climate shift of 1976 gave scientists a chance to save face after their global cooling scare mongering. At first it was just enlightened self interest but the MSM picked up on the idea and ran with it.
AGW was born and it grew fast, many mouths feeding on grants and then politicians became involved. The ‘precautionary principle’ was introduced, which gave a step up for the Renewable industry and kicked coal down the street.
‘ … the better it is for the future.’
Best to keep the UN intact until global warming finishes, the IPCC will have to explain itself, but of course most of those primarily responsible for this hoax have retired.
00
any peer reviewed papers on this? TV documentaries don’t count.
12
Lets get to the chase.
‘A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.
‘It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.’ (Angus McFarlane 2018)
00
ok… I’m interested but where did your quote come from?
10
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
10
Bill Burrows was here the other day and explained that Australia is a permanent CO2 sink and this should be taken into consideration. Morrison needs to stand up and say we are already net zero.
‘Ban Ki-moon put it bluntly: “Australia’s current goal of a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030, and the absence of a national zero emissions target, is out of step with its states, its trading partners, and other comparable nations. It is insufficient to meet Australia’s Paris Agreement commitments.” (ABC)
10
‘Ban Ki-moon should acknowledge our (Australian) tremendous commitment to reducing CO2!
10
Bring on Glasgow, and the corresponding snout-dipping gravy train. When it is realised that the UN is worse than the old League of Nations that existed before WW2, the better the world will be (unfortunately, it will probably take WW3 to ;prove this).
10
[…] All these years later and IPCC still depends on Argument from Ignorance […]
00