Climate science from climate scientists...
Guest post by Mark Richardson who is a Research Scientist in the Aerosol and Clouds Group at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. All opinions expressed are his own and do not in any way represent those of NASA, JPL or Caltech.
Should scientists choose to believe provably false things? Even though that would mean more inclusive debates with a wider range of opinions, our recent paper Richardson & Benestad (2022) argues no: “instead of repeating errors, they should be acknowledged and corrected so that the debate can focus on areas of legitimate scientific uncertainty”. We were responding to Connolly et al., who suggested that maybe the Sun caused “most” of the warming in “recent decades” based on a simple maths mistake.
Connolly et al. point out that there are many solar activity datasets, then attempted a statistical calculation and said that some datasets support that “most” of the warming in “recent decades” could be due to the Sun. The problem is obvious when you look at the statistical results below, with temperature data (T) in black (NH = northern hemisphere), estimated solar effect in blue and human effect in orange*.
Obviously, no blue line explains “most” of the warming. Connolly et al.’s most important mistake was that instead of calculating solar and human effects at the same time, they decided to first assume that all possible correlation is explained by the Sun, and then any leftovers are from human activity. This is a baseless assumption, and you could just as easily do human activity then the Sun. Both are wrong, and there’s no physical reason to pick either.
Doing humans first gives a solar effect near 0 %. If your conclusions depend on the order in which you enter numbers into a computer, maybe you should check your methods. Some Connolly et al. authors noticed this in 2015 (Soon et al., 2015) but rather than fix it they now chose to report just the (wrong) calculations that supported their conclusions.
There’s a simple test for statistical methods, where you create a toy world in which you know the real answer. If your calculations give that known answer then they pass, while failure means the method should be thrown out. Let’s try that and assume that a Watt of solar heating and a Watt of human-caused heating cause equal warming. One toy world is shown below: blue is its solar effect, orange the human effect and black the combined changes. The thin black line is what’s measured and includes weather.
The thick dashed lines below show the statistical results. Standard regression on the left passes the test, while Connolly et al.’s method on the right fails. As part of its failure, it invents a massive and non-existent solar effect, and this mistake is the only reason they could make a claim about “most” warming “in recent decades” potentially being from the Sun.
Below are real temperature data and a modern solar dataset. The mistaken Connolly et al. calculation (dashed lines) gives a huge solar effect, while the actual result (solid lines) is nearer 0 %.
Some older datasets show huge solar variability before satellite measurements, such as this one:
In this case even Connolly et al.’s wrong dashed-blue line is flat since about 1940 but they reported that this solar dataset supports 58 % of warming being due to the Sun. How does it explain “most” warming in “recent decades”? Also, even the incorrectly calculated solar activity’s 0.3 °C above 1850 is clearly not 58 % of the 1.6 °C total warming.
The way to get those big fractions is to fit a straight line, even though the datasets are obviously not straight lines. This makes the recent solar contribution look bigger, e.g. if we zoom in to “recent decades” since 1950 and zero everything then:
The wrong Connolly et al. solar fit (thin wavy blue line) shows a cooling Sun recently, but the straight-line fit is tilted upwards by the effect of the historical wiggles. This calculation literally turns a recent cooling effect into a warming one. Another result is that human activity and real-world warming accelerated after the 1950s, but the historical changes lower the linear temperature fit (dashed black line) to falsely make the solar fraction look bigger.
Should scientists rely on calculations we know are inaccurate? We strongly believe no: errors should be corrected. In our opinion, this is crucial not just for success in science, but for the credibility of science. Our position is that clearly the Connolly et al. approach is nonsense, there is no evidence for the paper’s main claim and it should be corrected or retracted.
*Technical note: each solar activity dataset gives one blue and one orange line. For “recent decades” I removed solar datasets that end before 2005. I also plotted Northern Hemisphere land temperatures, since that’s what Connolly et al. use
Filed Under: Climate Science, Featured Story, Instrumental Record, Scientific practice, skeptics, statistics, Sun-earth connections
D. Phil in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics, Oxford University, U.K. Funding: governmental (Norwegian Science Foundation)
Please provide the citation for Connolly et al. I like to know which journals allow such papers to slip through the review process.
“Please provide the citation for Connolly”
This is it https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131 Ronan Connolly et al 2021 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21 131
An Institute of Physics journal, which is a reputable organization in physics research.
Stepwise regression has its uses, But the fact that when the data are renormalized by extracting all the variance associated with the first variable PLUS ANY PORTION of the error variance also correlated with the first variable before repeating the analysis on the remaining variance, one routinely ends up with all sorts of confusions from moderator effects, suppressor effects, mediating variable effects and the like (all subsets of multicollinearity).
There is an easy way to assess whether the sun could possibly be affecting the temperature record significantly. See if there is power at an 11-year period, that is, at a 0.0909 year frequency. There are various ways to get a fairly clean Fourier analysis out of the rising HADCRUT record (I used the global temperature HADCRUT5 record). The several I tried all gave a similar result:
Not only is there virtually no power at that period, nor at a 22-year period, but there is actually a null. And the entire spectrum in the general vicinity has low power.
So the solar cycle’s effect on the temperature record is basically invisible.
Apparently more to it than 11 or 22 year cycle. They show data from a 1993 paper (Hoyt & Schatten) which seems to go well past 1993 when they plot it out, which means they have a time machine.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fi6Uh5ZXEBMppXI.png
I am a bit alian to this. I have it very hard to fo0llow that statistics decides and commands- rules on A being the cause of B or vice versa or they being “co- related”.
Is the moon co- related to the earth and vice versa? Yes, tradeitionally but that is by gravitation and traditional orbits however wiggeling, and not by statistics.
I had my car towed off by a roap, That is a physical connection and cause different from gravitation and different from statisticsw also. And there should allways be a “fender” in that rope or chain, that will damp the sudden bumps and shocks. If you have notyhing else, then allways tie a used car tire up in between. A and B. Then there must also be cunning and experiensed , conscious controllers and drivers in both cars., to stear and to carefrully operate the motor, the clutch, the gears, and the brakes. Then you have good co- relation all the way between the masses A and B.at the variable velocity V on the road S.
What rather rules there is f = m. a , and its derivative f t = m V, simply by a for acceleration is dV/dt, giving the sledegehammer law. If m and V are real enough and theta gets short enough near to zero, the f for force may become enormeous and break both metals, chains, and ropes. however strong. So stretch out theta a bit by a proper damper or fender.
This is not statistics. It is sheere newtonian physics, that must be taken serious first.
Statistics does not cause and secure and keep that in approximate order. Statistics is a matematical methgod, and no physical force or chemical potencial / acidity pr9oton activity or similars, no combustible or gasoline,. and no overwhelming mushrom or virus in the system. It does not even cause or reduce friction in the system.
What heats up and what cools down?
Why does the moon cycle around the earth when there is no rope and no chain and no rod in between and why Charon anround Pluto and vice versa, but not the Earth around the Moon?
Statistics can never tell. From anxient on they believed Gode in his thoughts that were pure cyclic, until they found that itb is rather elliptic and oval. Hardly square or linear.
Newton had to tell and Einstein had further to tell and to explain that.
I have Keppler Harmonices mundi book 5 on it. He wrot that Gode is in the sun in the center of the universe and rules it all, and that unluckily he had failed to explain all this. But on that point Keppler really got extatic.
What keeps the rods and chains and rubbers and roaps together is not newtronian gravitation but van der Waals forces of electromagnetic nature in the square of space., But however strong, they are still limited and may suddenly break if you ignore Newtons hammer- law d/o and forget a fender in between when you thow B by means of A. in space or on the roads.
This is very deep, about REALIA, ande about GOD in space, in the air, in the universe, in matter and everywhere, not least present in the climate.
I just found ande recalled Goethe, Ernst Haeckel, and B. de Spinoza. They were all pan- theists, by the idea that religion and the church were misconsceived and that they knew better.
GOD is equal to those laws of Nature, the very REALIA and reality of things, also apparently dead and mineral things.
Neither of theese great GURUs and philosophers and grand demagogs committed statistics.
They believed in REALIA and in the things as they are and look and smell and taste and feel and sound to the enlighted mind, and seem to co- relate and co- exist
( Edward & Nina Grieg were also such unitatians and pan- theists. Even Fridtjof Nansen. And Thambs Lyche, the terrible man in our old math books Who was better on mountain flora)
I’d say that physics and statistics are two different fields and all systems that produce a state that can be quantified will also produce data. Statistics is our tool for understanding that data – it’s a kind of Latin of modern science. I also like to think of statistics as the ‘law of randomness’ as it deals with probabilities and hypothesis testing, which this piece is about. There is no dichotomy between physics and statistics, as they often are two sides to the story. Mind you, quantum physics is very much statistical and there is of course statistical physics. I think we can leave God out of the equation. -rasmus
“… all systems that produce a state that can be quanified will also produce data. Statistics is our tool for understanding that data..”
The systems hardly produce data.
The human operator, the “scientist” , the observator,, the engineer, the human laborant, is who makes and produces those data, and who is to be kept responsible and blamed. For all the errors and the bluntness, for what is chosen to be seen (“documented”) and not seen (ignored)..
I have made and invented so many “transducers” online connectors with datalogging and display in my life…. oscilloscope and servography…. photography….,
….That is quite an art,…
and the very statistics to it is inferiour.
Todays “statistics” is mostly just for backstage dilettants and paracites to earn their hourly wage, , not for the frontline and online pioneers to be able to deliver ,
Hr Benestad, I am proud of having personally re- invented a basic tool for science in the lab, That was not known to them, but well known to humanity in nature and daily life all through the iron age, bronse age and stone age and later forgotten.due to boldv and proud mental bluntness. and clumsiness ..
Namely the sublimely chosen, hammered out n welded and grinded welded and grinded, tiny iron spear on an electrically isolating shaft
When going into the electric cirquits and networks and especially the electronic printchards though all isolations corrosions and dirts….
Then better use a tiny fashionable autentic spear on a shaft. Knife scissers axe saw and tong is there, but the spear has been ignored and forgotten.
A tiny adequate spear connected via the turning coil galvanometer or the oscillosope through Ørsteds electric cirquit and to the “ground”.
Then you find quite better what goes on between A and B, the potensials and currents through and between the things and the “earth” ground reference.
Thus , I have often been the one who make the intelligent and relevant DATA.
How you connect, what you connect, and why you connect, , that decides.
Do not be so unprecise and blunt, Early humanity invented the toothpicker and the spear .for distinctly precise empirical approach.
I feel personally quite sharp and human by that higher spiritual to it by such basic methods.
A next fundeamental rule is that of 3 systematically independent empirical methods for being sure , for stating proof, , and dare to deliver … and hope that it will stand.
One hardly needs 100 doctors or 1000 repeated measurements by the same device., when all doctors are dressed in white , (the vatican in black,…) and all are members of The Norwegian Medical Association, that is talking with one voice. You need only one doctor then.
So, allways ask a veterinarian also… because we are also fur animals you see… … and perhaps the patient also.. and even make up your own mind. Then you have 4 independent controls allready.
“G0od statistics” does not betray systematic errors. such as its being falsely approached and connected, and device errors.
Falsely connected and lack of connection is probably what you are discussing here. I had that many times. It is often the error.
A colleague from Tromsø remarked after several years ” Det er ikkje problæma, det er toillate koblinga!”.
Which seems to be what you are discussing here. There must be a next and systematically independent empirical control and check of it at least before it should be delivered, not just anonymeous “peers” all from the same doctors or experts association.
“systems” is an illusion wherever there is stupid lack of systematics.
On God in the equations, that is along with troll or souls or ” skrømt, ….gremlins” in the engines and the network systems. People see themselves , their sins, and their errors in the things if they see nothing better.
The Engineer is to have soul, insight and understanding, else he is a troll in the engine room and in nature.
@rasmus says: – ” Serious mistakes found … Should scientists choose to believe provably false things?
ms: — We all believe in things that are proven wrong – including you and me. As proof, please allow me an example that demonstrates very well how mathematics, physics and reality can differ.
We all think we know that the surface of the earth is ~ 510 million km², since the circumference, radius and mathematical definition of the earth as a spherical planet assigns this area of 510 km².
However, if you consider the surface of the earth as the boundary layer between the air of the atmosphere and the surface of water or soil, we may well all be wrong by a factor of 10 – 100, and the actual verifiable surface area may be as much as 5-50 billion km² with seasonal and yearly variation. The more precisely science measures the earth’s surface (e.g. 3D scan in the nanometer range), the larger it becomes. The leaf area index of tropical vegetation in a rainforest far exceeds the base area on which it stands. And also behind the stomata and below the surface of the earth or water, the gaseous air of the atmosphere is in surface contact with solids.
You can rightly point out that this has no effect on the amount of incoming energy – but it does affect other parameters in the global energy balance (GEB).
The TSI has been measured quite reliably by e.g. CERES for 2 decades and is by far one of the GEB values with the smallest uncertainty (0.1W/m²).
The weakly declining annual mean value of the incoming solar irradiation for the globe is (−0.07 ± 0.06 W/m2). The Southern hemisphere obtains ~ 0.7 W/m2 more than the North due to the eccentric orbit and the inclined axis of the Earth. This knowledge should be enough to expose Connolly as a troll. (don`t feed the trolls !)
There is actually no need to read both papers or to debate them. I am only interested in articles that show that they deal with acceptable solutions to the climate crisis. I think my interests coincide with those of most climate activists, who expect concrete measures instead of boring and time-consuming blah blah.
Another verified statistic shows that most homeowners would probably call the fire department immediately if they found their house on fire. They expect red vehicles, sirens, pumps and hoses.
What they don’t expect is a troop of debaters standing in front of the burning house and discussing whether the fire is natural or man-made.
Speaking of “Gode”, is this the time to bring up the fact that Pascal used the primitive statistics of his day to prove that believing in Gode is statistically the best option?
As for “Why does the moon cycle around the earth when there is no rope and no chain and no rod in between and why Charon anround Pluto and vice versa, but not the Earth around the Moon”…
Weellll…Besides the absurdity of this statement in physics terms–since all orbiting objects orbit around the orbital systems’ barycenter and not one around the other, statistics would be a completely amenable to discovering the relations between body size, separation distance and barycenter location (though that would be silly now that we are post-Newton.
Finally, as has been mentioned, statistics has been integral to physics since Boltzmann in the 19th century and every bit of quantum mechanics. It is the statistical nature of QM that led Einstein to use his oft-MISrepresented quote that Gode does not play dice. Einstein’s point was he believed there must be some direct causal relationship underlying the statistical one not that the statistical connections weren’t easily and clearly visible.. If he was correct, no one has ever yet been able to show it and QM is now in its second century.
I should add that if you think gravity has been described at the level of any causal mechanism (which apparently you do), think again. No scientist has any real clue of how gravity is mediated. Newton/Einstein made assumptions that some force or innate property of matter does, in fact, generate the observed “attraction”. Essentially gravity is modeled, not described. Kinda’ like climate science at times.
going around a thing does not mean goinjg around its barycenter,
What you seem maybe not to have understood the physical reason for, is that the moon can be periodically seen from any side of the earth . But the earth cannot be seen from the backside of the moon. But for Pluto and Charon , both are in phase couppled co- herent rotation to each other. and will allways face the same sides to each other. Thus it came up that even Charon is a planet that travels around the sun and not a moon travelling around Pluto. Maybe for that reason also, Pluto was disqualified as a planet.
The question here is phase- couppled coherence, that has been suggested by many in the earth climate systems ( Scafetta Humlum Solheim & cetera,) Thus you better widen your horizons and learn what that is about and its premises.
Because it seems obscure to so called classical physics that is only served by dry sandstorm random particular material statistics.
It takes electromagnetical material interaction in the square of space. (sticky viscous slime and glue- forces between material things)
It takes strong enough, coherent microchosmic molecular forces in addition to newtonian forces. It hardly takes gravitational “barycenters” however popular.
Tidal forces take large enough mass volumes travelling close enough to each other, and possible coherence of that takes high enough tidal viscous friction and damping.that can transform fast wiggeling energy into heat…. that is radiated by the speed of light. Else vapour cannot condense into water that settles down either.. It takes chemical, different from “cloassical” forces.
Else no stars in the universe either.
It has to stick and glue and run hot in large enough masses first before nuclear fusion can start..
As for “gode” I have published that I never use correcture programs and for several reasons.. One of those well conscidered reasons is that , it also will work as a sticky tempting flie- paper, that catches mental myopsia in the swarms of social websites, , for possible display..
Carbo writes: “As for “gode” I have published that I never use correcture programs and for several reasons..”
Consider your readers. Proofreading is a dying art.
Tidal locking and orbiting are two rather different things though of course both are caused by gravity..
NO object orbits around any other object.. In all orbital systems bodies orbit around barycenters.
NO one has described gravity at the level of a causal mechanism. Not even general relativity. Gravity is modeled by making assumptions and then measuring how well the models work.
I wish that the major search engines, when they match the Connolly et al paper and list it as a result of a search, would then, before posting the search results, automatically search a database of error analyses, which would find this one, and post it with the link to Connolly et al, with the message, “This paper contains errors. The errors are explained here: ”
And maybe even clicking on a link to Connolly et al could trigger the same error database search, because these old papers are shamelessly reused all the time in the whack-a-mole world.
The “Connolly et al.” cited by the OP above (and also by the abstract of Richardson & Benestad (2022) which is paywalled) is presumably Connolly et al (2021) ‘How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate’, which runs to 71 pages of nonsense although it doesn’t say much more than that presented within the 49 pages of Soon et al (2015) which is properly referenced by the OP above.
” 71 pages of nonsense …. 49 pages of Soon “
Don’t you think responding to this low-quality research is the equivalent of hippie-punching? When will they pick on a strawman of their own size? Many more interesting ideas to choose from than tired old sunspots.
“There’s a simple test for statistical methods, where you create a toy world in which you know the real answer. If your calculations give that known answer then they pass, while failure means the method should be thrown out. “
Premise: The AMO is not a real oscillation with a strict period. It’s been pointed out that if it was then the global temperature record would soon show a cooling since the AMO historically tracks HADCRUT4. This is explained well by Euan Mearns here: http://euanmearns.com/the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-the-temperature-record/
So is that AMO cycle of ~66 years real? It certainly isn’t caused by sunspots as the cycle doesn’t match — throw that out since 11 years /= 66. Several NASA JPL scientists, C. Perigaud, J. Shirley, S. Marcus, have independently suggested gravitational/tidal effects from the moon and sun influencing the climate on a periodic basis. It’s not known at all that the two strongest long-period tidal factors Mf (fortnightly nodal) and Mm (monthly perigean) will create a long-term 134 year cycle when interacting with an annual impulse. In other words, the Mf and Mm create the nonlinear Mt tide so that an almost integral number of Mt cycles occur in a single year, and the period at which this will go through interference cycles is 134 years (assuming the length of the year = 365.25 days). This is readily apparent and plausible based on length of day (LOD) measurements of the Earth’s rotation. The point is that tidal fluid mechanics is capable of creating harmonics. Can’t throw this out since the first harmonic of 134 years is 67 years.
So why doesn’t NASA JPL fund this line of research, as it would be directly in their wheelhouse?
Thanks for the article. I’m left with the impression that the ‘error’ is that Connolly haven’t considered that the variations in solar irradiance over the last 100 years have had a much weaker warming effect in W/M2 than anthropogenic warming. Is that correct?
Or is their error something more arcane in the statistical analysis of the correlations? If so can you or someone please explain it briefly in simple lay persons terms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJIw7ulYaGk&t=14s
MS, thanks for the video which certainly seems relevant and interesting. However its just not that convincing to me.
Firstly there was nothing about how much warming the solar fluctuations would have caused, just vague statements about feedbacks.
And lets assume purely for the sake of argument that solar irradiance was indeed strong during the 1980 – 2000 period. Since that period it has fallen and as far as I know that’s uncontroversial. At the same time warming has (essentially) continued its upwards trajectory to 2022 so this casts doubt on solar irradiance being a factor since at least 2000.
Then Robson started suggesting nefarious intent / conspiracy by governments who apparently manufactured an anthropogenic warming theory and crisis, even although it creates a huge problem for them. This seems odd to me because politicians seem to dislike problems. My observation is the first instinct of most politicians is to downplay problems and crises. And if governments manufactured the crisis its not clear why, because they have been weak with their responses. The conclusion I reach is politicians have not manufactured the global warming problem, and neither has the IPCC, and that Robson is a deluded conspiracy theorist.
Thanks for what seems–video unviewed by me!–a sensible response.
Macias, it’s bullshit. Look at TSI–it’s been flat to decreasing (on average) since the 50s.
I confess that I’m not quite following what the issue is – either the error is over my head or the explanation is too simplistic. I believe it is the latter situation that you describe – Connolly et al. seem to have made egregious misuse of statistical techniques.
Thanks for commenting nigelj and AlanJ. I’d love it if I could explain clearly to as many people as possible, so any feedback you have would be great.
The issues are *entirely* statistical. Here’s the Connolly method:
1) take datasets of solar forcing and human activity. 2) statistically fit to get “how much does temperature (T) change in response to the Sun/humans in general” (in symbols: dT/dsolar and dT/dhuman) 3) calculate how human or solar activity actually changed and combine with step 2 to calculate causes of historical warming (in symbols the solar part is (Δsolar) multiplied by (dT/dsolar) )
The main issue in Connolly et al. is that they did step 2) wrong. A second issue is that their step 3) results are also very biased.
Their step 2) calculation mistake is pretty basic but it’s the *entire* foundation behind their main conclusion. They present no other quantitative evidence so it’s pretty clear to me their paper should be corrected or retracted.
The phrase “assuming your conclusion” comes to mind.
Also, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”
Less than a year ago, I informally reviewed a paper by Ziskin and Shaviv (2012) that also claimed to find a very strong solar effect. Not as simple a model as the one from Connolly et al discussed here, but a similar short of error. Start with a model that can’t help but force a strong solar effect into the results, then shout it from the rooftops.
Full review of that paper is located over at Skeptical Science;
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-ziskin-shaviv.html
Could it actually be for logical folks that the Sun does have an effect on what happens on the Earth?
“A Scary 13th: 20 Years Ago, Earth Was Blasted with a Massive Plume of Solar Plasma [Slide Show] On March 10, 1989, a CME about the size of 36 Earths erupted from the sun’s roiling surface and ripped through space at a million miles (1.6 million kilometers) per hour. Two days later, the torrid gas cloud crashed against Earth’s magnetosphere—the magnetic field generated by the planet’s spinning molten iron core that helps deflect the solar wind and more potent solar jetsam. This blast from the sun severely disrupted the magnetosphere and set off a geomagnetic superstorm. Most significantly, at about 2:45 A.M. local time on Monday, March 13, Canada’s Hydro-Québec power utility’s grid crashed when safety systems sensed a power overload caused by the currents pulsing through the ground. The failure knocked out electricity to six million people in northeastern Canada for as long as nine hours—the biggest outage ever caused by a geomagnetic storm.” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geomagnetic-storm-march-13-1989-extreme-space-weather/
Irrelevant to the paper under discussion, and not news to anyone.
In 2015, discovering a large spread in the stable isotope stats of tropical giant clam shells, Soon, who hails from Sarawak persuaded some South China Sea marine biologists to assemble the outliers into a data set.
Giant Clams are of some interest in discussions of biosequestration of CO2, https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/01/captain-watts-carbon-neutral-chowder.html but Willie had other ideas.
After a refreshing statistical massage, the clam data were collated into grand revision of global palaeoclimate published as another Et al & Soon paper in Earth-Science Reviews , which concluded :
“This composite multi-proxy marine record, together with the reconstructions from mainland China and tropical Western Pacific, indicates that the late Holocene warm periods, the Roman Warm Period (RWP) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP), were prominently imprinted and documented in the climatic and environmental history of the East Asia–Western Pacific region. ”
There was no mention of the fact that clam data away from the equator pointed in the opposite direction:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/01/willie-soon-clams-up.html
Since all 12 of Rowan Connolly’s climate publications:
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/dr-ronan-connolly/#5-climate-science-and-environmental-science
Have been coauthored by one famously prolific coal PR Deliverables provider, literatures searches should in all fairness be headed:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/10/soon-moves-op-ads-to-coal-subsidized.html
I wish scientists would believe their indications instead of indicating their beliefs. I don’t believe anyone anymore.
I’m over the climate gaslighting. Most of the science shit being reported is nothing but political bullshit.
Todd, read a climate science book. Science is your friend.
Translation Todd: “Oh, it’s all too hard to figure out. I’ll just play video games and do bonghits!”
Todd, quit being a baby, put on your big-boy pants and do some actual work to figure out who is credible and who isn’t. Hint: Look who is publishing in reputable journals and getting cited by other scientists.
Thanks for showing everyone you really have no idea how science is conducted. The scientific method. Which you ought to have learned in grade school. The cornerstone of science for centuries. And the way peer-reviewed climate science is done. Your comment about “most of the science shit (you just outed yourself as being clueless right there, sport) being reporting is nothing but political bullshit” just proves that, because you do not understand the science (basic thermodynamics and conservation of energy really), it must not be true since you won’t admit to lack of knowledge. Or bother to learn, Busted! lol!
I.e., your ideology is a poor substitute for reason, logic, data and analysis.
Put another way. “some scientists (are paid to) lie, therefor all scientists lie” is a logical fallacy.
Sorry you feel that way, but if you wish to make such claims persuasive, you really need to supply actual evidence that what you say is true.
Based on the evidence you’ve presented, I too see no reason to conclude solar radiation played a significant role in the temperature upswing so evident during the last 20 years of the previous century. What bothers me, however, is the troubling discrepancy between the graphic representations presented in your post and this graph, based on the latest UAH satellite data: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_September_2022_v6.jpg
The picture offered in the graphs you present suggests a simple straightforward increase in global temperatures from the mid-70s to (roughly) 2020, while the UAH graph indicates no significant increase over the first 16 years of the present century. Nor does it reveal a trend, as the two temperature peaks in 2016 and 2020 can be seen as outliers, produced by unusually powerful El Ninos.
Which leads me to the following question: are the two pictures the result of a discrepancy in methods of data collection – or do they reflect different modes of presentation?
The sad thing here is a lack of imagination, or knowledge respectively. If you want to argue against anthopogenic GHG related warming, there is a much more comfortable way forward. You could quote the IPCC..
“The potential effects of contrails on global climate were simulated with a GCM that introduced additional cirrus cover with the same optical properties as natural cirrus in air traffic regions with large fuel consumption (Ponater et al., 1996). The induced temperature change was more than 1 K at the Earth’s surface in Northern mid-latitudes for 5% additional cirrus cloud cover in the main traffic regions.”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=40
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975.:”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
And if they did their own research, they might find plenty of evidence to support such a narrative. But instead of finding alternative forcings, they can not help but to enforce it on the sun. What can you do..
Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Copyright © 2022 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.