Climate Change Science 2021

A very interesting update on what is going on in the science side of Climate Change.

1999 – Mann could not back up his idea to the public by showing the science of how he arrived at his numbers.

2001 – IPCC’s 3rd assessment report followed Mann’s ideas along with Allen and Tett (A&T) paper about modeling.

The paper’s main idea was empowered by following “Optimal Fingerprinting”.

Point being - For every action there is a reaction. So, how do we measure the Climate Change? Well, we created a bunch of models. Create the base data sets that could be used by the model’s runs. Then set the parameters on using the models. If three model’s results come close to each other then that is said to be correct.

Reality, we cannot prove Climate Change by measuring the Climate Change yet today. We know it is there and it exists, but it cannot be differentiated by measurement from Global Warming.

Instead, we use “Optimal Fingerprinting”. A little history, K. Hasselmann’s paper on “Optimal Fingerprints for the Detection of Time-dependent Climate Change” 1993 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/6/10/1520-0442_1993_006_1957_offtdo_2_0_co_2.xml set the foundation for detection of Climate Change.

2006 - Al Gore used Mann’s Hockey Stick with questionable peer reviews and Climate Change became a political issue.

2021 – Fast forward to 2021. The IPCC just published a report showing their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology. IPCC was using A&T’s 1999 report as stated above in 2001. “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” A&T.

McKitrick published a report***,” The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed”.*** Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment - Climate Dynamics

Point being. Garage in, garage out. A&T’s method has not been checked for errors and deficiencies in the processes when used by scientists. Hundreds of studies over the past two decades have used it for analyzing climate data. McKitrick is asking the science community to show him wrong in his claim that methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless.

McKitrick is putting his data and reputation on the line. It most likely will not change the political Climate Change but the scientific Climate Change could be drastically altered.

This is how one can tell if certain scientific works are well understood and analyzed.

**Climate Dynamics **

Observational, Theoretical and Computational Research on the Climate System

The international journal Climate Dynamics provides for the publication of high-quality research on all aspects of the dynamics of the global climate system.

Coverage includes original paleoclimatic, diagnostic, analytical and numerical modeling research on the structure and behavior of the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, biomass and land surface as interacting components of the dynamics of global climate. Contributions are focused on selected aspects of climate dynamics on particular scales of space or time.
— show all

https://www.springer.com/journal/382

1999 – Mann could not back up his idea to the public by showing the science of how he arrived at his numbers.

This is absolutely unmitigated malicious fraudulent bullshit!!!

It’s a malicious narrative intended to keep the attention as far away from what we know as possible. It’s quibbled and magnifies trivial pursuits above and beyond looking at what is known with certainty.

It’s not important that we can’t offer absolutely exact parameters of actual future weather events.

It’s enough to understand the physic system and to appreciate how we are altering that physical system.

It starts with the GOD BLESSED FACTS about atmospheric insulation and how we are altering our atmospheres composition and how that is impacting the absolute bottomline, 24/7/365.

Namely, how much extra heat is being retained within Earth’s climate engine.
Then do a little honest comparison with past historic events.

Mike loves and lives within his cozy Mindscape and feels it’s his right to lie and lie and lie like a his trump monster hero.

# Time History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by CIRES & NOAA
[Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases]

I must agree with CC, there is no other issue that lends itself to intentional obfuscation more then climate change. Facts can be granular and malleable but the unmistakable planet-wide indicators all point in the same direction. It’s getting hotter.

Michaelmckinney1951, yes the earth is getting hotter. That is a fact. It’s been 33 yrs, yes – 33 years, that’s right 33 years since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established to find out what affects the anthropogenic changes are making to the warming cycle. I thought it was a wonderful idea. Backed the IPCC 100%. As time passed I stopped arguing for the IPCC and to give the models more time. Just too damn political. The real movement forward today is coming from people like Ross McKitrick.

CC, not surprised of your thoughts that political climate science does not need peer review. That was my point in separating the two pathways of climate science. The misleading or inadequate methods use by many climate scientists are misleading the public on the way of assessing climate change’s contribution to earth’s temperatures.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seems to be based upon consensus of the majority opinion. Not open to major debates. The IPCC calling something “extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment. The goal seems to be to plant the idea that we are in a climatic catastrophe and there is no time for debates.

We just got IPCC’s AR6 report that confirms that climate models overstate atmospheric warming by two new peer-review teams. And the known problem of overstating warming is getting worse, not better. Mitchell 2020 - Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability. And McKitrick and Christy 2020 - Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers.

CC, if McKitrick is correct. Then all reports that used the Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression methodology for decomposing patterns of climate change for attribution purposes and proposed the “Residual Consistency Test” (RCT) to check the GLS specification need to be reworked.

As far as your Co2 chart. It is my understanding that because of the increase of Co2 we are now a greener earth. The earth now has new vegetation equal to the size of the United States or two Australia continents. With the deforestation of the rainforests, that seems to me to be a good thing.

CC, I am not going to plaster this post with junk so please google “Mann withholding data” or Climategate.

It is a good thing for plants, but it is not a good thing for mammals. We die from too much CO2!

I just googled Ross McKitrick and read a piece of his writing. Here’s a sample of the mush he seems to churn out. In this comment he’s talking about a book he wrote or co-authored.
“The book demonstrates how fear about global warming has become irrational and suggests that instead of pouring billions of dollars each year into global warming related projects, governments could put the money to better use by helping people in developing countries live better lives.”
These words are very general, and totally non-specific.
I looked and looked and couldn’t find any cogently expressed or logically presented line of reasoning he offers in his denial of man-made global warming. If those who believe the world is not getting warmer because of fossil fuel burning really believe in their case they must provide fact based evidence that convincingly refutes the well researched and compelling evidence that supports the generally accepted consensus that it is. In my opinion, Ross McKitrick is a quack.

Michaelmckinney1951, McKitrick denial of man-made global warming. Let’s stay on the same page. Global Warming is very confusing. It is best to use Global Warming as Mother Nature’s cycles. And Climate Change as anthropogenic changes. That said, I fully understand what you are saying.

I would be surprised to find anyone in denial of anthropogenic Climate Change. The question is how much of the warming is Global Warming and how much is Climate Change. So far, the Climate Change is so little that it can not be measured.

Ross McKitrick is saying the system used to measure the Climate Change is mathematically incorrect. He has made a report showing the data and has ask anyone to please peer review his data.

You say the world is getting warmer because of the burning of fossil fuel. No one would bet against you.

Thirty-three years ago, the IPCC put together scientists working for answers to the question of how much warmer the earth is getting because of the burning of fossil fuel. McKitrick went back and rechecked the math on the programs use to compile data on the computer climate models and disagreed with the math.

What were the chances of that math being wrong. Who would go though that type of trouble to check the math of the programs that have been used for twenty years. And it is more than just checking the math. The math was wrong because the procedure was incorrect. So why were the scientists using procedures that they fully did not understand? It turns out that optimal fingerprinting data is very specialized, and the scientists should have been working with a specialist in the field to make sure they were using the correct procedure. This did not happen. Even the peer review trusted the computer output data.

Maybe McKitrick is wrong. But he is at least doing something. If he is correct it will help get the computer models working.

Writ4u, submarines Co2 levels run from 7,000 to 13,000 ppm for months at a time.

We are at 400.

Plants do better at 800 to 1,300 ppm.

The earth’s Co2 levels were so low a few decades ago that it came close to killing the plants.

I am betting that Mother Nature had evolution build the plants to live better above 800 ppm being the correct number and a correction of the past Co2 levels will be changed.

Remember we pasted that point of no return and scientists just changed the point of no return number. They never told us they could do that! How many times can they do that? Maybe until we reach 800 ppm.

This website offers point by point rebuttal to most if not all arguments denying man made rapid global warming.

http://ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

Yea, well apparently those levels are not all that healthy to the crew.

Abstract

Background:

Submarines routinely operate with higher levels of ambient carbon dioxide (CO2) (i.e., 2000 - 5000 ppm) than what is typically considered normal (i.e., 400 - 600 ppm). Although significant cognitive impairments are rarely reported at these elevated CO2 levels, recent studies using the Strategic Management Simulation (SMS) test have found impairments in decision-making performance during acute CO2 exposure at levels as low as 1000 ppm. This is a potential concern for submarine operations, as personnel regularly make mission-critical decisions that affect the safety and efficiency of the vessel and its crew while exposed to similar levels of CO2. The objective of this study was to determine if submariner decision-making performance is impacted by acute exposure to levels of CO2 routinely present in the submarine atmosphere during sea patrols.

But for a more alarming perspective, you may want to look at this video.

Michaelmckinney1951,
Checked out your website lead. Got a couple good laughs out of reading the headlines of the past. Thanks.

For example, “Co2 LAG”.

It says, “CO2 normally lags in the natural cycle unless some abnormal perturbation occurs.” Put in normal speech. The earth warms. Then the Co2 rises a couple hundred years later. And that is proof that the Co2 caused the earth to warm.

Remember Al Gore’s documentary “Inconvenient Truth”. He changed the Ice Core charts and put the Co2 in front of the warming. Got caught and had to change it back.

My first question about Climate Change (called Global Warming back then) on this website was that the Co2 could not cause the warming because the warming came before the Co2.

There has not been an acceptable answer to that question yet today.

My answer is that, in the warming cycle the earth’s thermostat (clouds) kicks in. More clouds, more rain. More rain, more vegetation. More vegetation, more fires. More fires, more Co2 in the air.

The earth has warmed a little and we now have vegetation equal to two Australian continents. Triple that and burn the extra vegetation for a couple hundred years and up goes the Co2 levels. The cycle cools and less clouds and a drop in Co2 levels.

Earth is a very cloudy planet – at any given time two thirds of the planet is covered by clouds. When we look at a NASA picture from space. We are really looking at an image of a combination of many pictures with cloud-free sections created by instruments that can see through clouds. The warmer the earth, the more clouds.

The hotter the surface of the earth and that is bad, not because of heat but because of the imbalance in climate this will cause.

A couple degrees warmer water in the Gulf of Mexico and the southern part of the US will be wiped clean by hurricanes and flooding.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

  • Sea level rise – which human activity has very likely been the main driver of since at least 1971 according to IPCC AR6 – should be causing higher coastal inundation levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
  • Tropical cyclone rainfall rates are projected to increase in the future ( medium to high confidence ) due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
  • Tropical cyclone intensities globally are projected to increase ( medium to high confidence ) on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

You are a malicious liar!

July 18, 2013

Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding

While compiling my previous post I came across this interesting list. I know that a lot of folks have been talked into believing that climatologists are hiding data - I think a review of the following list makes clear that such talk is political dirty tricks - and not a reflection of reality or the situation within the climate science community.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Data Sources

Filed under: — group @ 27 November 2009

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.

  • Climate data (raw)
  • Climate data (processed)
  • Paleo-data
  • Auxiliary data
  • Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
  • Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
  • Large-scale model (GCM) output
  • Model codes (GCMs)
  • Model codes (other)
  • Data Visualisation and Analysis
  • Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data

Climate data (raw)

Climate data (processed)

Paleo-data

Auxiliary data

Paleo Reconstructions (including code)

Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output

These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).

Large-scale model (GCM) output

These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.

Model codes (GCMs)

Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.

Model codes (other)

This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.

Data Visualisation and Analysis

These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.

Master Repositories of Climate Data

Much bigger indexes of data sources:

reprinted under Creative Commons guidelines

December 1, 2015

EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org’s Hockey Stick Graph Files

But the thing is that “science” by it’s very nature is skeptical, self-examining and open to self-correction since acquiring solid facts and continuing genuine learning is its goal.

Competing and cross-checking each other’s work and looking for the break-through to new perspectives and understanding is its imperative. And finding oneself making mistakes is an accepted part of the learning process - as opposed to the political arena where admitting a mistake is next to suicide.

The Contender then goes on: …

THE LEGEND OF PINE RIDGE

NOVEMBER 19, 2011

Dr. Michael Mann’s Data is Available on the Internet

Can you be specific and explain what did Al get wrong -

He placed a comma in a spot that did not need a comma. That faux pas ruined the entire presentation and falsified everything!

Bad Gore, bad, bad Gore… :grimacing:

That example alone proves there is no AGW or climate change. It’s all made up by people who don’t know where to place commas!

Yeah, I hear it’s pretty cloudy on Venus Too