I have maintained for some time that the ~65 year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was the "gold standard" (ugh!) for prediction of the Earth's temperature and that around 2010 it was going to change phase, go negative and initiate a cooling period that was going to confound the AGW hoax brigade, some of my understanding coming from hours playing with data on the excellent WoodForTrees site (https://www.woodfortrees.org/).
Remember back about 1980 when it flipped positive and all the "climate scientists" seamlessly segued from Ice Age alarmism to Global Warming alarmism?
Take this for example:
"We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
I repeat:
"It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K."
I also note that S&K seem unaware of the convention that Kelvin doesn't take a "degree" prefix.
Seems no less a real expert than Rog Tallbloke agrees with me!
So we can look forward to a huge amount of backtracking and excuse mongering as Schmidt and his mob have to explain precisely they have been getting it wrong for the past thirty-odd years with their billion dollar Xbox game machines!
I've argued for a long time that TPTB were gearing up to blame man-made aerosols for global cooling in the 1970s. Then the Great Pacific Climate Shift happened in 1976, which reversed a cooling trend into a rapid warming trend. So instead of aerosols from industry and transport causing catastrophic cooling, they switched to blaming greenhouse gases from industry and transport for catastrophic warming. Different scam, adapted to changing natural conditions, but the same target - fossil fuel emissions. How very convenient.
May 10, 2023·edited May 10, 2023Liked by Jaime Jessop
Cliff Mass does believe the planet is warming, but states we are NOT in the middle of a climate emergency and we are NOT at a climate tipping point. He believes we have 100 years to figure out solutions, and that's IF we continue to warm. Due to governments response to covid, I have gone from being a believer in climate change to completely doubting the whole thing. My rule has become if governments around the world are pushing a narrative that will 1) give them more control over the people, and/or 2) give them an excuse to raise taxes or steal land from the people, they are probably lying. Some climate researchers are saying that global climate was warming until early 2000's, but there's been no warming since then. Australia was recently caught LYING about their temperatures! Here's what Cliff has to say about the "climate emergency": https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/11/climate-tipping-points-real-threats-or.html
Yes, I was aware that he accepts the 'science' of GHG warming, but doesn't accept the 'catastrophe' label, although he does say it is a 'problem'. I am inclined to think that he says this in order to keep his job because he's otherwise a very good scientist, very honest, rational and clear thinking. Dangerous or even 'problematic' anthropogenic climate change has no sound basis in science and evidence. Cliff must know this.
Schmidt is not an honest scientist; he is a dishonest propagandist and the same applies to all his co-conspirator climate alarmists. Follow the money, if nothing more than a secure well-paid job in Schmidt’s case.
Their false fabrications don't even stand up to layman-level scrutiny, as in this example. Their imagined temperature threshold which suddenly makes severe weather events worse is on a par with their imagined "tipping points" which would lead to "runaway global warming". We haven't heard these phrases since they realised over a decade ago that their precious alleged man-made global warming had stalled and they changed their fearmongering narrative to “climate change”.
They cheat by ignoring the fact that global temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 levels, have been much higher in the past without any runaway global warming ever happening.
It's quite clear Gavin was put there for political reasons as he sucks at objectivity and is quite happy to torture the data to meet those ends. So in summation he's a scumbag but not as overt as Mann.
Glad Cliff was proved right in the end. The study he did at the time was clearly from someone who understands weather not models.
Schmidt appears not to understand the science. First he describes the 'fraction of attributable risk' which increases linearly with increasing temperatures, such that the probability of any particular extreme event also increases. Then he appears to argue that some 'threshold' has been passed with recent warming whereby the probability has jumped upwards in a non-linear fashion and the climatology has altered the dynamics to make an extreme event a lot more probable than one might expect (No, there is no hard scientific evidence to justify this claim). I'll be exploring this in later parts but the fact is, all attempts at attributing the Pacific NW heatwave using statistical extreme value theory have found that the event, even in today's warmer climate, was so extreme that it was statistically impossible and the fraction of attributable risk is therefore 0.
Jaime.... I have written a paper on the heatwave that document's it origins. Happy to send it to you...cliff mass
Hi Cliff. That's very kind of you. I would be most interested in reading it. My email is jaimejessop@proton.me
More in sorrow than in anger, in my opinion, NASA has fully discredited and embarrassed themselves by their position on this issue.
I have maintained for some time that the ~65 year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was the "gold standard" (ugh!) for prediction of the Earth's temperature and that around 2010 it was going to change phase, go negative and initiate a cooling period that was going to confound the AGW hoax brigade, some of my understanding coming from hours playing with data on the excellent WoodForTrees site (https://www.woodfortrees.org/).
Remember back about 1980 when it flipped positive and all the "climate scientists" seamlessly segued from Ice Age alarmism to Global Warming alarmism?
Take this for example:
"We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
I repeat:
"It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K."
I also note that S&K seem unaware of the convention that Kelvin doesn't take a "degree" prefix.
Seems no less a real expert than Rog Tallbloke agrees with me!
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2023/05/07/its-worse-than-we-thought-there-are-only-five-years-left/
So we can look forward to a huge amount of backtracking and excuse mongering as Schmidt and his mob have to explain precisely they have been getting it wrong for the past thirty-odd years with their billion dollar Xbox game machines!
I've argued for a long time that TPTB were gearing up to blame man-made aerosols for global cooling in the 1970s. Then the Great Pacific Climate Shift happened in 1976, which reversed a cooling trend into a rapid warming trend. So instead of aerosols from industry and transport causing catastrophic cooling, they switched to blaming greenhouse gases from industry and transport for catastrophic warming. Different scam, adapted to changing natural conditions, but the same target - fossil fuel emissions. How very convenient.
Cliff Mass does believe the planet is warming, but states we are NOT in the middle of a climate emergency and we are NOT at a climate tipping point. He believes we have 100 years to figure out solutions, and that's IF we continue to warm. Due to governments response to covid, I have gone from being a believer in climate change to completely doubting the whole thing. My rule has become if governments around the world are pushing a narrative that will 1) give them more control over the people, and/or 2) give them an excuse to raise taxes or steal land from the people, they are probably lying. Some climate researchers are saying that global climate was warming until early 2000's, but there's been no warming since then. Australia was recently caught LYING about their temperatures! Here's what Cliff has to say about the "climate emergency": https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/11/climate-tipping-points-real-threats-or.html
Yes, I was aware that he accepts the 'science' of GHG warming, but doesn't accept the 'catastrophe' label, although he does say it is a 'problem'. I am inclined to think that he says this in order to keep his job because he's otherwise a very good scientist, very honest, rational and clear thinking. Dangerous or even 'problematic' anthropogenic climate change has no sound basis in science and evidence. Cliff must know this.
Schmidt is not an honest scientist; he is a dishonest propagandist and the same applies to all his co-conspirator climate alarmists. Follow the money, if nothing more than a secure well-paid job in Schmidt’s case.
Their false fabrications don't even stand up to layman-level scrutiny, as in this example. Their imagined temperature threshold which suddenly makes severe weather events worse is on a par with their imagined "tipping points" which would lead to "runaway global warming". We haven't heard these phrases since they realised over a decade ago that their precious alleged man-made global warming had stalled and they changed their fearmongering narrative to “climate change”.
They cheat by ignoring the fact that global temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 levels, have been much higher in the past without any runaway global warming ever happening.
I remember him from Twitter - highly intelligent but slippery as an eel.
It's quite clear Gavin was put there for political reasons as he sucks at objectivity and is quite happy to torture the data to meet those ends. So in summation he's a scumbag but not as overt as Mann.
Glad Cliff was proved right in the end. The study he did at the time was clearly from someone who understands weather not models.
Is there any objective evidence that climate change is altering thresholds for extreme events or are these claims just based on modelling?
Schmidt appears not to understand the science. First he describes the 'fraction of attributable risk' which increases linearly with increasing temperatures, such that the probability of any particular extreme event also increases. Then he appears to argue that some 'threshold' has been passed with recent warming whereby the probability has jumped upwards in a non-linear fashion and the climatology has altered the dynamics to make an extreme event a lot more probable than one might expect (No, there is no hard scientific evidence to justify this claim). I'll be exploring this in later parts but the fact is, all attempts at attributing the Pacific NW heatwave using statistical extreme value theory have found that the event, even in today's warmer climate, was so extreme that it was statistically impossible and the fraction of attributable risk is therefore 0.