Weather

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #477 – Watts Up With That?


The Week That Was: 2021-10-30 (October 30, 2021)
Delivered to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Coverage Challenge

Quote of the Week: “With a real view all the information harmonize, however with a false one the information quickly conflict.” Aristotle:  Ethics, Guide I, Part 8, 10 [H/t Paul MacRae]

Variety of the Week: Thirty-one Years

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Coverage Challenge (SEPP)

Scope: This week the UN is holding the 26th Convention of the Events (COP) to the United Nations Framework Conference on Local weather Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC entered into power on March 21, 1994. The doc has morphed into what is known as the Paris Settlement. Sadly, the US Senate agreed to the UNFCCC with situations. Although the situations haven’t been met, the doc is usually handled as a treaty. Underneath the US Structure a treaty, which have to be permitted by two-thirds of the Senators, is a part of the US Federal regulation and is absolutely enforceable.

The Paris Settlement was signed by the Obama Administration as an government settlement, not a treaty, and it has by no means been submitted to the Senate for ratification as required for a treaty to be enforceable. The Biden Administration treats the Paris Settlement as regulation, however it most likely acknowledges that it can not hope to acquire ratification. Along with the World Meteorological Group (WMO), the UNFCCC created the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Local weather Change to:

“…present policymakers with common scientific assessments on local weather change, its implications and potential future dangers, in addition to to place ahead adaptation and mitigation choices.”

The IPCC has failed to use the scientific methodology together with correcting grievous errors and omitting vital information that contradicts its conclusions. Consequently, it has failed to supply policymakers with scientific assessments. As an alternative, it gives policymakers with political assessments.

Moderately than deal with the gathering of tens of 1000’s of political sorts, and others, gathering on the COP 26 being held in Glasgow, this TWTW will deal with among the errors and omissions that occurred within the IPCC course of, rendering its outcomes scientifically meaningless. With out bodily proof supporting them, the IPCC adaptation and mitigation choices don’t have any scientifically convincing basis.

With out bodily proof, IPCC depends on elaborate mathematical fashions which have by no means been validated, that’s proven to suit the bodily world they supposedly describe. Many of those deficiencies have been introduced out on the 14th Heartland Worldwide Convention on Local weather Change, from October 15 to 18. Two of the essential displays are mentioned under. Extra displays might be mentioned subsequent week. See hyperlinks underneath Difficult the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy, Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science, and https://www.ipcc.ch/#:~:text=The%20IPCC%20was%20created%20to,of%20knowledge%20on%20climate%20change.

********************

Converging Fashions: As mentioned later, the fashions utilized by the IPCC are diverging from the bodily world by rising quantities. The IPCC ignores any want for convergence, but their international local weather fashions are constructed on climate fashions made extra elaborate. This creates a big downside in reliability. Numerical climate fashions have to be up to date always, a number of instances a day. But climate fashions can’t be relied upon for prediction of climate occasions even two weeks out, often just a few days.

Climate is a non-linear system with many variations. Although others had famous issues with non-linear techniques earlier than, beginning within the Sixties mathematician Edward Lorenz developed what turned chaos principle, small adjustments to the start of a chaotic system, or mannequin of 1, could cause big variations in outcomes over time. Most climate forecasters at the moment are accustomed to the issue and are reluctant to make agency forecasts till they see the totally different fashions are converging on the identical end result. The “spaghetti charts” exhibiting nice variation in local weather fashions over time usually are not convergence.

Final week’s TWTW had a hyperlink to a podcast by meteorologist Cliff Mass on a coastal cyclone coming to the US Pacific Northwest that could be the strongest to hit that space. Stronger cyclones happen additional north, within the Gulf of Alaska. However when it comes to barometric stress at sea degree, this one could possibly be the strongest to hit southern British Columbia and Washington State. On October 22, Mass reported disagreements among the many climate fashions prevented him from forecasting precisely the place the storm would hit.

It was not till October 23, just a few days earlier than the storm hit, that the fashions converged to a constant answer, giving Mass the arrogance to make a forecast of the place it might hit, Vancouver Island. Additionally, he introduced out that the energy of the storm would dissipate rapidly (collapse). It began to hit on October 24. That is an instance of accountable climate forecasting, recognizing that every climate mannequin has its personal strengths and weaknesses, and the convergence of the fashions provides forecasts reliability.

Sadly, the IPCC doesn’t acknowledge the necessity for local weather fashions to converge to a constant answer, that may be examined towards bodily proof. As an alternative, it makes use of a mean of all of the fashions. A mean of serious errors continues to be a big error. See hyperlinks underneath Mannequin Concern, Altering Climate, and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202497/.

 ********************

IPCC Mannequin Deficiencies: On the Heartland Convention, in his Breakfast Keynote handle, Patrick Michaels of the Aggressive Enterprise Institute offered a masterly abstract of among the vital errors and omissions within the international local weather fashions utilized by the IPCC. Later that morning throughout the science panel 2A, The IPCC and the Scientific Methodology, David Legates, who had acquired the Fredrick Seitz Award, amplified the importance of those errors and omissions and added extra ones.

Michaels factors out that many out and in of presidency are insisting that we should “comply with the science” and alter vitality insurance policies to suit international local weather fashions. The fashions are getting used to vary our lifestyle. But, the fashions have unsuitable enter, the unrealistic excessive carbon dioxide emissions utilized by the UN IPCC; the fashions run far too scorching, significantly overestimating the warming of the planet; and we live on a modestly warming, greener planet, nothing to be feared.

There’s even disagreement within the institution about the usage of IPCC fashions, for instance Michaels cites Hausfather and Peters (Nature 2020) who wrote:

“Cease utilizing the worst-case situation for local weather warming because the most certainly end result – extra real looking baselines to make for higher coverage.”

Others have estimated that the huge bulk, over 10,000 papers, deal with this unrealistic worst-case. Michaels goes into some element on how fictitious this situation is. He discusses among the points glossed over by way of fashions, corresponding to stratospheric cooling and the rising disparity between international local weather fashions and observations. He notes that the devices on climate balloons are fastidiously calibrated each day earlier than the balloons are launched. [As Anthony Watts has shown, surface temperature data comes from instruments, many of which sorely lack calibration and are in areas where the settings have greatly changed, resulting in very unreliable data.

Michaels brings up that the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics was shared by Suki Manabe of the Princeton Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL):

“For the physical modeling of the earth’s climate, quantifying variability, and reliably predicting global warming”

Michaels then shows how deficient the GFDL modeling is, and the model results are among the most extreme in overestimating the warming rate at the so-called hotspot roughly 10 km above the tropics, when compared with atmospheric observations. He then covers other issues such as the models are becoming worse, claims of increasing hurricanes are contradicted by evidence, claims of increasing tornadoes are contradicted by evidence, but NOAA removed the web site explaining that. What NOAA cannot remove are death certificates which are way down from extreme storms. Contrary to years of false claims, crop production is increasing significantly while population growth is steady, or declining.

One should note that one of the worst performing global climate model, the one by the Princeton Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL), is sponsored by NOAA. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

(Broken) Climate Models: David Legates is professor of climatology in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware and an adjunct professor in the university’s Department of Applied Economics & Statistics. He went into further detail on the likely problems of climate models.

Climate models should give rough ideas of what may be. Climate models run hot. The question is why? It may be the climate model operator rather than the model itself. What is the response of the modeled temperature over time? To a large part, modeled equations are regression equations, and the coefficients are guessed at – optimized for a purpose (model tuning). The operators keep climate sensitivity within in a preconceived accepted range. The modelers choose what they want! The entire approach is subjective, not objective. Tuning climate models to a desired result is not a legitimate objective under the scientific method.

Legates then discusses how CO2 is estimated to increase over time. Representative Concentration Pathways – how much temperatures will increase over time. These are now called the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP), but they have the same watts per square meter of forcing by 2100. Which ones make sense? Certainly not those in the US National Climate Assessment (USNCA) which are based on extreme scenarios. It should be made clear that such extreme estimates are far from “business as usual” but it is not. Legates estimates that 80 to 90% of papers we see are based on extreme scenarios, Thus, what is called science is unrealistic! The papers overstate the rise in CO2. Legates concludes that climate models overstate both climate sensitivity and the rate at which carbon dioxide is changing over time. This is operator error and deliberate. See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

********************

Additions and Corrections: Last week’s TWTW discussed issues that Ross McKitrick raised on the use of attribution studies and that statistical theory on which they are based was misstated, and these studies do not meet the conditions of the Gauss Markov Theorem on Generalize Least Squares. In response, Richard Courtney of Cornwall, England, wrote:

“Decades ago, in year 2000, a group of scientists from around the world was assembled to give a briefing at the US Congress in Washington, DC.  We met for discussions throughout a few days before the briefing when we all shared our understandings, and I then learned from Ross McKitrick the importance of ‘the 95% confidence interval’.

“Subsequently, I applied that knowledge to consideration of global temperature trends and determined that all the estimates of average global temperature (mean global temperature, MGT) were worthless. I wrote a discussion paper on that finding, I obtained several co-signatories, and I submitted it for publication. A campaign to block publication of the paper was mounted by the self-titled ‘Team’. And an email complaining at that campaign was one of the emails from me that were leaked as part of the collection of emails released as ‘Climategate’.

“My submission to the UK Parliament’s Select Committee investigation (i.e., whitewash) of ‘Climategate’ is recorded in Parliament’s Hansard at

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm

“and includes this,

“4. I and others tried to publish a discussion paper (see Appendix B) that attempted to explain the problems with analyses of MGT. We compared the data and trends of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets. These teams each provide 95% confidence limits for their results. However, the results of the teams differ by more than double those limits in several years, and the data sets provided by the teams have different trends. Since all three data sets are compiled from the same available source data (i.e., the measurements mostly made at weather stations using thermometers), and purport to be the same metric (i.e., MGT anomaly), this is surprising. Clearly, the methods of compilation of MGT time series can generate spurious trends (where ‘spurious’ means different from reality), and such spurious trends must exist in all but at most one of the data sets.”

“And this

“7. Thus, we determined that—whichever way MGT is considered—MGT is not an appropriate metric for use in attribution studies.

“8. However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). This is despite the fact that there is no obvious and/or published reason for changing a datum of MGT for years that were decades ago: the temperature measurements were obtained in those years so the change can only be an effect of altering the method(s) of calculating MGT from the measurements. But the MGT data sets often change. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of the paper.

“9. Whatever you call this method of preventing publication of a paper, you cannot call it science.

But this method prevented publication of information that proved the estimates of MGT and AGW are wrong and the amount by which they are wrong cannot be known.

(a) I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.

(b) I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason:

“We publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data sets”

(c) I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either the paper was rejected because it assessed incorrect data, or we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.

“But I cannot prove who or what caused this.”

“I hope this is interesting and I am copying it to GWPF as a courtesy because it mentions them.”

********************

Number of the Week: Thirty-one Years: In his talk at the Heartland Conference, Howard Hayden points out that the widely accepted Stefan-Boltzmann law for blackbody radiation has not been mentioned in IPCC reports before AR6 (2021) a period of thirty-one years. A blackbody is an idealized concept for an object that absorbs all electromagnetic radiation that contacts it. The law states that the “total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.” As will be discussed in the next TWTW, Hayden shows the IPCC gets it wrong (or ignores its consequences). For a paper discussing this submitted to the American Journal of Physics and immediately rejected without peer review, see link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Commentary: Is the Sun Rising?

Of moonshine and sunshine

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Oct 27, 2021

Of moonshine and sunshine

Censorship

Fact checkers fail to refute polar bear number increases despite extensive ‘expert’ rhetoric

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Oct 27, 2021



Source link

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button