Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BeAChooser

A Scathing, Devastating Critique Of AGWalarmism

Recommended Posts

The following MUST READ ARTICLE may be the single most important article you will ever read about AGWalarmism.

 

It utterly destroys the process that AGWalarmists have mistakenly call *science*.

 

That's why I've decided it deserves it's own thread.

 

The forum's AGWalarmists will undoubtedly dismiss it without even reading it, but everyone else should.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/

 

Quote

 

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

 

by Pat Frank


Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/23/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections/ ) that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.


Before going further, my deep thanks to Anthony Watts for giving a voice to independent thought. So many have sought to suppress it (freedom denialists?). His gift to us (and to America) is beyond calculation. And to Charles the moderator, my eternal gratitude for making it happen.


Onward: the paper is open access. It can be found here (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full ) , where it can be downloaded; the Supporting Information (SI) is here (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full#supplementary-material ) (7.4 MB pdf).


I would like to publicly honor my manuscript editor Dr. Jing-Jia Luo, who displayed the courage of a scientist; a level of professional integrity found lacking among so many during my 6-year journey.


Dr. Luo chose four reviewers, three of whom were apparently not conflicted by investment in the AGW status-quo. They produced critically constructive reviews that helped improve the manuscript. To these reviewers I am very grateful. They provided the dispassionate professionalism and integrity that had been in very rare evidence within my prior submissions.


So, all honor to the editors and reviewers of Frontiers in Earth Science. They rose above the partisan and hewed the principled standards of science when so many did not, and do not.


A digression into the state of practice: Anyone wishing a deep dive can download the entire corpus of reviews and responses for all 13 prior submissions, here (https://uploadfiles.io/vyu9e78n ) (60 MB zip file, Webroot scanned virus-free). Choose “free download” to avoid advertising blandishment.


Climate modelers produced about 25 of the prior 30 reviews. You’ll find repeated editorial rejections of the manuscript on the grounds of objectively incompetent negative reviews. I have written about that extraordinary reality at WUWT here and here. In 30 years of publishing in Chemistry, I never once experienced such a travesty of process. For example, this paper overturned a prediction from Molecular Dynamics and so had a very negative review, but the editor published anyway after our response.


In my prior experience, climate modelers:


· did not know to distinguish between accuracy and precision.


· did not understand that, for example, a ±15 C temperature uncertainty is not a physical temperature.


· did not realize that deriving a ±15 C uncertainty to condition a projected temperature does *not* mean the model itself is oscillating rapidly between icehouse and greenhouse climate predictions (an actual reviewer objection).


· confronted standard error propagation as a foreign concept.


· did not understand the significance or impact of a calibration experiment.


· did not understand the concept of instrumental or model resolution or that it has empirical limits


· did not understand physical error analysis at all.


· did not realize that ‘±n’ is not ‘+n.’


Some of these traits consistently show up in their papers. I’ve not seen one that deals properly with physical error, with model calibration, or with the impact of model physical error on the reliability of a projected climate.


More thorough-going analyses have been posted up at WUWT, here (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/20/do-climate-projections-have-any-physical-meaning/ ), here (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/ar5-climate-forecasts-what-to-believe/ ), and here (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/12/consensus-climatology-in-a-nutshell-betrayal-of-integrity/ ), for example.


In climate model papers the typical uncertainty analyses are about precision, not about accuracy. They are appropriate to engineering models that reproduce observables within their calibration (tuning) bounds. They are not appropriate to physical models that predict future or unknown observables.


Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/ ).  They are apparently not trained to evaluate the physical or predictive reliability of their own models. They do not manifest the attention to physical reasoning demanded by good scientific practice. In my prior experience they are actively hostile to any demonstration of that diagnosis.


In their hands, climate modeling has become a kind of subjectivist narrative, in the manner of the critical theory pseudo-scholarship that has so disfigured the academic Humanities and Sociology Departments, and that has actively promoted so much social strife. Call it Critical Global Warming Theory. Subjectivist narratives assume what should be proved (CO₂ emissions equate directly to sensible heat), their assumptions have the weight of evidence (CO₂ and temperature, see?), and every study is confirmatory (it’s worse than we thought).


Subjectivist narratives and academic critical theories are prejudicial constructs. They are in opposition to science and reason (https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ ). Over the last 31 years, climate modeling has attained that state, with its descent into unquestioned assumptions and circular self-confirmations.


A summary of results: The paper shows that advanced climate models project air temperature merely as a linear extrapolation of greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. That fact is multiply demonstrated, with the bulk of the demonstrations in the SI. A simple equation, linear in forcing, successfully emulates the air temperature projections of virtually any climate model. Willis Eschenbach also discovered that independently (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/zero-point-three-times-the-forcing/ ), awhile back.


After showing its efficacy in emulating GCM air temperature projections, the linear equation is used to propagate the root-mean-square annual average long-wave cloud forcing systematic error of climate models, through their air temperature projections.


The uncertainty in projected temperature is ±1.8 C after 1 year for a 0.6 C projection anomaly and ±18 C after 100 years for a 3.7 C projection anomaly. The predictive content in the projections is zero.


In short, climate models cannot predict future global air temperatures; not for one year and not for 100 years. Climate model air temperature projections are physically meaningless. They say nothing at all about the impact of CO₂ emissions, if any, on global air temperatures.


Here’s an example of how that plays out.


clip_image002.png?ssl=1


Panel a: blue points, GISS model E2-H-p1 RCP8.5 global air temperature projection anomalies. Red line, the linear emulation. Panel b: the same except with a green envelope showing the physical uncertainty bounds in the GISS projection due to the ±4 Wm⁻² annual average model long wave cloud forcing error. The uncertainty bounds were calculated starting at 2006.


Were the uncertainty to be calculated from the first projection year, 1850, (not shown in the Figure), the uncertainty bounds would be very much wider, even though the known 20th century temperatures are well reproduced. The reason is that the underlying physics within the model is not correct. Therefore, there’s no physical information about the climate in the projected 20th century temperatures, even though they are statistically close to observations (due to model tuning).


Physical uncertainty bounds represent the state of physical knowledge, not of statistical conformance. The projection is physically meaningless.


The uncertainty due to annual average model long wave cloud forcing error alone (±4 Wm⁻²) is about ±114 times larger than the annual average increase in CO₂ forcing (about 0.035 Wm⁻²). A complete inventory of model error would produce enormously greater uncertainty. Climate models are completely unable to resolve the effects of the small forcing perturbation from GHG emissions.


The unavoidable conclusion is that whatever impact CO₂ emissions may have on the climate cannot have been detected in the past and cannot be detected now.


It seems Exxon didn’t know, after all. Exxon couldn’t have known. Nor could anyone else.


Every single model air temperature projection since 1988 (and before) is physically meaningless. Every single detection-and-attribution study since then is physically meaningless. When it comes to CO₂ emissions and climate, no one knows what they’ve been talking about: not the IPCC, not Al Gore (we knew that), not even the most prominent of climate modelers, and certainly no political poser.


There is no valid physical theory of climate able to predict what CO₂ emissions will do to the climate, if anything. That theory does not yet exist.


The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is not a valid theory of climate, although people who should know better evidently think otherwise ( https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm) including the NAS and every US scientific society. Their behavior in this is the most amazing abandonment of critical thinking in the history of science.

 

Absent any physically valid causal deduction, and noting that the climate has multiple rapid response channels to changes in energy flux, and noting further that the climate is exhibiting nothing untoward, one is left with no bearing at all on how much warming, if any, additional CO₂ has produced or will produce.


From the perspective of physical science, it is very reasonable to conclude that any effect of CO₂ emissions is beyond present resolution, and even reasonable to suppose that any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation. Nothing among the present climate observables is in any way unusual.


The analysis upsets the entire IPCC applecart. It eviscerates the EPA’s endangerment finding, and removes climate alarm from the US 2020 election. There is no evidence whatever that CO₂ emissions have increased, are increasing, will increase, or even can increase, global average surface air temperature.


The analysis is straight-forward. It could have been done, and should have been done, 30 years ago. But was not.


All the dark significance attached to whatever is the Greenland ice-melt, or to glaciers retreating from their LIA high-stand, or to changes in Arctic winter ice, or to Bangladeshi deltaic floods, or to Kiribati, or to polar bears, is removed. None of it can be rationally or physically blamed on humans or on CO₂ emissions.


Although I am quite sure this study is definitive, those invested in the reigning consensus of alarm will almost certainly not stand down. The debate is unlikely to stop here.


Raising the eyes, finally, to regard the extended damage: I’d like to finish by turning to the ethical consequence of the global warming frenzy. After some study, one discovers that climate models cannot model the climate. This fact was made clear all the way back in 2001, with the publication of W. Soon, S. Baliunas, S. B. Idso, K. Y. Kondratyev, and E. S. Posmentier Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Climate Res. 18(3), 259-275, available here (https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v18/n3/p259-275/ ). The paper remains relevant.


In a well-functioning scientific environment, that paper would have put an end to the alarm about CO₂ emissions. But it didn’t.


Instead the paper was disparaged and then nearly universally ignored (Reading it in 2003 is what set me off. It was immediately obvious that climate modelers could not possibly know what they claimed to know). There will likely be attempts to do the same to my paper: derision followed by burial.


But we now know this for a certainty: all the frenzy about CO₂ and climate was for nothing.


All the anguished adults; all the despairing young people; all the grammar school children frightened to tears and recriminations by lessons about coming doom, and death, and destruction; all the social strife and dislocation. All the blaming, all the character assassinations, all the damaged careers, all the excess winter fuel-poverty deaths, all the men, women, and children continuing to live with indoor smoke, all the enormous sums diverted, all the blighted landscapes, all the chopped and burned birds and the disrupted bats, all the huge monies transferred from the middle class to rich subsidy-farmers.


All for nothing.


There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the betrayal of science garners the most. Those offenses would not have happened had not every single scientific society neglected its duty to diligence.


From the American Physical Society right through to the American Meteorological Association, they all abandoned their professional integrity, and with it their responsibility to defend and practice hard-minded science. Willful neglect? Who knows. Betrayal of science? Absolutely for sure.


Had the American Physical Society been as critical of claims about CO₂ and climate as they were of claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion ) about palladium, deuterium, and cold fusion, none of this would have happened. But they were not.


The institutional betrayal could not be worse; worse than Lysenkoism because there was no Stalin to hold a gun to their heads. They all volunteered.


These outrages: the deaths, the injuries, the anguish, the strife, the malused resources, the ecological offenses, were in their hands to prevent and so are on their heads for account.


In my opinion, the management of every single US scientific society should resign in disgrace. Every single one of them. Starting with Marcia McNutt at the National Academy.


The IPCC should be defunded and shuttered forever.


And the EPA? Who exactly is it that should have rigorously engaged, but did not? In light of apparently studied incompetence at the center, shouldn’t all authority be returned to the states, where it belongs?


And, in a smaller but nevertheless real tragedy, who’s going to tell the so cynically abused Greta? My imagination shies away from that picture.


An Addendum to complete the diagnosis: It’s not just climate models.


Those who compile the global air temperature record do not even know to account for the resolution limits of the historical instruments, see here (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789813148994_0026 ) or here (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/).


They have utterly ignored the systematic measurement error that riddles the air temperature record and renders it unfit for concluding anything about the historical climate, here (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969 ), here (https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789813148994_0026 ) and here.


These problems are in addition to bad siting and UHI effects.


The proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions, the third leg of alarmism, have no distinct relationship at all to physical temperature, here (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/proxy-science-and-proxy-pseudo-science/ ) and here.


The whole AGW claim is built upon climate models that do not model the climate, upon climatologically useless air temperature measurements, and upon proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions that are not known to reconstruct temperature.


It all lives on false precision; a state of affairs fully described here (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.391 ), peer-reviewed and all.


Climate alarmism is artful pseudo-science all the way down; made to look like science, but which is not.


Pseudo-science not called out by any of the science organizations whose sole reason for existence is the integrity of science.

 

 

Just saying ...  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, slideman said:

Those scientists are so silly

 

Did you read the article ... and the links in it?    What's silly, GED, is commenting on something you haven't read or obviously don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about;

We are running out of fossil fuel alarmism?

And,

we need to develop alternative energy sources

BECAUSE we are running out of fossil fuel,

and the alternative energy sources that we must develop,

are the same ones that will work for global warming,

even if you don't believe in global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

The following BULLSHYT ARTICLE may be the single most IDIOTIC article you will ever read from an  AGW Denier Cultist.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/

 

Just saying what a tool of the Koch brithers I am ...  🤑

 

Quote

 

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections, Mark II.

 

by Pat Frank


Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/23/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections/ ) that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. 

 

 

 

LOLOLOLOL. The crackpot troll, BeACretin, is at it again. Posting long silly bullshyt articles from his only source, WhattsUpMyButt,  which happens to be a totally fraudulent, anti-science blog sponsored by the Koch brothers (minus one now). 

 

This time with a bogus article by a denier kook named Pat Frank, who is not a climate scientist. He wrote a bogus "paper" that no respectable science journal would touch with a ten foot pole....so after six years he finally got it "published" in a fraudulent "predatory" set of pseudo-journals under the name "Frontiers in (whatever) Science" that publishes just about anything if you give them enough money.

 

Here's the facts on the Cretin's fossil fuel industry sponsored or otherwise bogus sources....

 

BeACretin's apparent ONLY source of denier cult lies and pseudo-science is as corrupt and deceitful as he is.

 

Watts Up with That

Watts Up with That - Right BiasWatts Up with that - Pseudoscience - Conspiracy - Fake - Junk Science - Bias

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

 
  • Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent climate denialism propaganda.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

 

History

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. According to their about page “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

 

Funded by / Ownership

The blog is owned by Anthony Watts and is funded through advertising and donations. The website does not disclose donors.

 

Analysis / Bias 

In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles written about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search.

 

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent climate denialism propaganda.      (Updated 8/02/2019)

*****

 

 

Why Garbage Science Gets Published: Predatory journals keep the pseudoscience flowing. 

 

BY ADAM MARCUS & IVAN ORANSKY

DECEMBER 7, 2017

 

In December 2014, the publisher Scientific Research issued a retraction notice for a paper that had appeared in its journal Health with the anodyne title “Basic Principles Underlying Human Physiology.” According to the notice, the action resulted from “the fact that the contents of this paper need further research and study.”1

 

Except that they don’t. A quick look at the now-retracted article reveals that it is an effort to promote the false and wholly discredited notion that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause AIDS, claiming: “HIV is not etiologically involved in AIDS. It is just a common retrovirus found in AIDS conjuncturally. There is only AIDS that may not be strictly associated neither to a primary immune deficiency nor to an acquired immune deficiency. Actually, heart failure represents the causal factor of AIDS and many other ‘primary’ immune deficiencies ...”2

Opinion pieces that “represent the viewpoint of an individual” and offer hypotheses without testing them are the opposite of science.

The retraction notice ends with a laughable, and head-scratching, assurance: “Health strives to promote the circulation of scientific research, offering an ideal research publication platform to the world with specific regard to the ethical, moral and legal concerns involved. We would like to extend our sincere apologies for any inconvenience it may cause.”1

 

What all that means is anyone’s guess—which is nicely ironic, given that the article being retracted was a classic example of pseudoscience.

 

Pseudoscience by definition is not supposed to find its way into scientific publications. From peer review to layers of ostensibly expert editorial scrutiny, the barriers to entry for nonsense are high—at least in theory. The reality, however, can differ substantially from the theoretical. Peer review can be porous, in that it allows errors, significant methodological problems, and misconduct into the literature. It also is vulnerable to gaming by researchers who exploit sloppy editorial processes to slip pseudoscience into the literature.

 

Scientific Research and other “predatory publishers”—a term coined by Jeffrey Beall to describe outfits that claim to be legitimate scientific publishers, but in reality exist only to collect researchers’ money—can be an efficient pipeline for peddlers of pseudoscience.3 For a fee, these journals will print virtually anything they receive after arranging for the most cursory of peer reviews. So much is clear from the nature of the articles they are subsequently forced to retract. The publisher Frontiers, for example, is an open-access, all-digital imprint that produces many journals, and which as of 2016 was on Beall’s list of predatory publishers,4. The publisher reportedly accepts for publication nearly 90 percent of the manuscripts it receives but found itself backpedaling after one of its journals published a 2014 article questioning the link between HIV and AIDS. The article, by a researcher at Texas A&M University named Patricia Goodson, was not some Trojan horse with a bland title. Its thrust was perfectly clear from the headline alone: “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent.”8

 

Frontiers in Public Health does not appear to have learned much from the experience. In late June 2016, the journal published an article in support of the bizarre and demonstrably false claim that the trails shed by jets consist not of ice crystals, as is the case, but coal fly ash, a harmful pollutant.11 The theory is a favorite of conspiracy theorists. Outraged readers immediately objected, and within three weeks, the editors issued an expression of concern about the article, soon followed by a retraction—acknowledging that the concerns about the paper were valid and that “the article does not meet the standards of editorial and scientific soundness” for the journal.12

 

That would have been a good place to stop, but Frontiers allowed the author, J. Marvin Herndon—who had a previous paper on coal fly ash “chemtrails” retracted—to get the last word: “The author considers the retraction to be unwarranted and therefore does not agree to the statement.”12

 

Excerpted from Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science edited by Allison B. Kaufman and James C. Kaufman, forthcoming in January from the MIT Press. © 2018 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved.

*****

 

Frontiers media

Wikipedia

 

Frontiers Media was, controversially, included in Jeffrey Beall's list of potential predatory open access publishers[5] and has been accused of using email spam.[6] The publisher has "a history of badly handled and controversial retractions and publishing decisions".[7]

Controversies

In April 2013, Frontiers in Psychology retracted a controversial article linking climate change denialism and "conspiracist ideation"; the retraction was itself also controversial and led to the resignations of at least three editors.[31][32]

 

In November 2013 an article in SciELO reported a rejection rate of 20% of manuscripts, compared to Nature which rejected 90% of them, but also noted that Frontiers in Pharmacology of Anti-Cancer Drugs did not fall for the 2013 Science sting.[33]

 

In late September, Frontiers in Public Health published a controversial article that supported HIV denialism; three days later the publisher issued a statement of concern and announced an investigation into the review process of the article.[34] It was eventually decided that the article would not be retracted but instead was reclassified as an opinion piece.[35] 

 

Around November 2014 the collaboration between NPG and Frontiers quietly ended when the two groups "made the decision ... to make a clean separation and never to mention again that [Nature Publishing Group] has some kind of involvement in Frontiers."[36]

 

In May 2015, Frontiers Media removed the entire editorial boards of Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine after editors complained that Frontiers Media staff were "interfering with editorial decisions and violating core principles of medical publishing".[36]

 

In October 2015, Frontiers was added to Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probablepredatory open-access publishers.[5][37][10] The inclusion was met with backlash amongst some researchers.[5] In July 2016 Beall recommended that academics not publish their work in Frontiers journals, stating "the fringe science published in Frontiers journals stigmatizes the honest research submitted and published there",[38] and in October of that year Beall reported that reviewers have called the review process "merely for show".[39]

 

In October 2015 the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) said that "there have been vigorous discussions about, and some editors are uncomfortable with, the editorial processes at Frontiers".

 

In November 2016 a paper linking vaccines to autism was retracted from a Frontiers journal.[42] Also in November 2016, a study published analyzing predatory publishing by gathering datasets with and without Frontiers journals.[43][clarification needed]

In 2017, further editors were removed, allegedly for their rejection rate being high.[44] A study published in eLife in November 2017 showed that "women are underrepresented in the peer-review process", and that "editors of both genders operate with substantial same-gender preference".[22] In December 2017 Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky wrote in the magazine Nautilusthat the acceptance rate of manuscripts in Frontiers journals was near 90%.[45]

 

According to Allison and James Kaufman in the 2018 book Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science, "Frontiers has used an in-house journals management software that does not give reviewers the option to recommend the rejection of manuscripts" and that the "system is setup to make it almost impossible to reject papers".[46]

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

... blah blah blah ....

 

See what I mean, folks?   No attempt AT ALL to rebut the contents of the article itself.  

 

pogorocks only engages in smear tactics these days.  

 

It's a Truther tactic.   The sort of tactic he probably learned as a 911 Truther.    

 

That's what you were, right, pogorocks?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

 

See what I mean, folks?   No attempt AT ALL to rebut the contents of the article itself.  

 

pogorocks only engages in smear tactics these days.  

 

It's a Truther tactic.   The sort of tactic he probably learned as a 911 Truther.    

 

That's what you were, right, pogorocks?  🤑☠️💩

 

Uhh-oh.....the flaming troll, BeACretin, is all butt-hurt again because his latest bogus 'paper' from fraudulent sources just got busted.

 

"The contents of the article itself" amounts to fraudulent pseudo-science that draws unwarrented conclusions from mistaken assumptions.

 

Actual climate scientists have thoroughly debunked that bogus paper by Pat Frank, who IS NOT a climate scientist!

 

Here's what some of them have to say.....

 

Propagation of nonsense

Posted on September 8, 2019 by ...and Then There's Physics

 

A couple of years ago, I had a guest post about Pat Frank’s suggestion that the propagation of errors invalidate climate model projections.. The guest post was mainy highlighting a very nice video that Patrick Brown had produced so as to explain the problems with Pat Frank’s suggestion. You can watch the video in my post, or on Patrick Brown’s post.

 

Pat Frank has, after many rejections, managed to get his paper published. If you want to understand the problems with this paper, I suggest you watch Patrick Brown’s video, and read the comments on my post and on Patrick’s post. Nick Stokes also has a new post about this that is also worth reading.

 

However, I’ll briefly summarise what I think is the key problem with the paper. Pat Frank argues that there is an uncertainty in the cloud forcing that should be propagated through the calculation and which then leads to a very large, and continually growing, uncertainty in future temperature projections. The problem, though, is that this is essentially a base state error, not a response error. This error essentially means that we can’t accurately determine the base state; there is a range of base states that would be consistent with our knowledge of the conditions that lead to this state. However, this range doesn’t grow with time because of these base state errors. 

 

As Gavin Schmidt pointed out when this idea first surfaced in 2008, it’s like "assuming that if a clock is off by about a minute today, that tomorrow it will be off by two minutes, and in a year off by 365 minutes. In reality, the errors over a long time are completely unconnected with the offset today."

*****

 

Dr. Patrick Brown - climate scientist......

Do ‘propagation of error’ calculations invalidate climate model projections of global warming?

Posted on January 25, 2017by ptbrown31

My thoughts on claims made by Dr. Patrick Frank (SLAC) on the validity of climate model projections of global warming:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Family on beach

Confronting the Realities 
of Climate Change

The consequences of global warming are already here.

Stay informed via email from UCS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's at Stake

 

Global warming is already having significant and harmful effects on our communities, our health, and our climate. Sea level rise is accelerating. The number of large wildfires is growing. Dangerous heat waves are becoming more common. Extreme storm events are increasing in many areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others. 

 

We must take immediate action to address global warming or these consequences will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly, and increasingly affect the entire planet—including you, your community, and your family.

 

The good news is that we have the practical solutions at hand to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, slow the pace of global warming, and pass on a healthier, safer world to future generations.

With your help, we can accomplish it. Even in these difficult times for climate action, we can make a difference. 

 

Together, we can tackle global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science

 
 
gw-science-scientists-on-water-above-sub
 

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable.

 

Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. 

 

Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.

 

We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics.

 

The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

Learn more about global warming science  >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impacts

 
 
gw-impacts-heat-jogger-sweating.jpg?itok
 

Global warming is already having significant and costly effects – and these consequences will only intensify as the planet’s temperature continues to rise.

 

Accelerating Sea Level Rise  Global warming is accelerating the rate of sea level rise and dramatically increasing coastal flooding risks, especially on the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico.

 

Longer and More Damaging Wildfire Seasons  Wildfires are increasing and wildfire season is getting longer in the Western U.S. as temperatures rise. 

 

More Frequent and Intense Heat WavesDangerously hot weather is already occurring more frequently than it did 60 years ago. 

 

Costly and Growing Health ImpactsClimate change has significant implications for our health, including increased air pollution and a longer and more intense allergy season.

 

Heavier Precipitation and Flooding  As temperatures increase, more rain falls during the heaviest downpours, increasing the risk of flooding events.

 

Learn more about global warming impacts >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ConConfounder said:

 

LOL!  

 

I wonder if pogorocks read the comments portion of that link?

 

I suspect not because it contains Pat Frank's response to all of Patrick Brown's criticisms.   

 

And I think Pat Frank more than acquits himself.

 

It is Brown who in the end resorts to personal attacks as argument (just like pogorocks did when we first engaged in debate).

 

So I leave it to reader to read the comments portion of the link pogorocks has supplied and decide who is right.  

 

But of course keep in mind that only one of the two men's arguments has gone through a peer review process.

 

By the way, I think Brown (and others) and others are indeed confusing error and uncertainty ...

 

... just as fatal a mistake as thinking trend more important than level (and AGWalarmists like pogorocks do that all the time).

 

Just saying ...

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, merrill said:

... blah blah blah ...

 

The last 3 posts by merrill are unmitigated BS and lies.  

 

Now I'd be happy to debate him on that  but he's in hiding and has been for a long time.

 

He doesn't respond to rebuttals at all.

 

He just regurgitates the meme.


And what's that say about the strength of his arguments?

 

Hmmmmmm?  

 

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...