Reblogged from Climate Etc.
Posted on August 28, 2022 by curryja | Leave a comment

by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt. You ask me if the science is true and we say ‘No, no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong’ … When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe. I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.” Richard Feynman (1981)

5.1 Introduction

The 1990s discovery of multidecadal variability (see Part IV) showed that the science of climate change is very immature. The answer to what was causing the observed warming was provided before the proper questions were asked. Once the answer was announced, questions were no longer welcome. Michael Mann said of a skeptical Judith Curry: “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility” (Mann 2008). But as Peter Medawar (1979) stated, “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.” Scientists’ opinions do not constitute science, and a scientific consensus is nothing more than a collective opinion based on group-thinking. When doubting a scientific consensus (“just like you’re supposed to doubt,” as Feynman said) becomes unwelcome, the collective opinion becomes dogma, and dogma is clearly not science.

… [See the rest of the post on Climate Etc.]

The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (III). Meridional transport

Reblogged from Climate Etc.
Posted on August 15, 2022 by curryja | Leave a comment

by Javier Vinós & Andy May

“The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this fundamental feature of the Earth’s climate.” Leon Barry, George C. Craig & John Thuburn (2002)

3.1 Introduction

Nearly all the energy that powers the climate system and life on Earth comes from the sun. Incoming solar radiation is estimated at 173,000 TW. By contrast geothermal heat flow from radiogenic decay and primordial heat is estimated at 47 TW, human production of heat at 18 TW, and tidal energy from the Moon and the Sun at 4 TW. Other sources of energy, like solar wind, solar particles, stellar light, moonlight, interplanetary dust, meteorites, or cosmic rays, are negligible. Solar irradiance, thus, constitutes over 99.9 % of the energy input to the climate system… [See the rest of the post on Climate Etc.]

A new paper by renowned climate scientist Willie Soon, and 24 others points out huge flaws in the politically driven conclusions of the IPCC’s climate propaganda. “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate” is a 71-page paper by 25 renowned scientists that contains 536 references and concludes that

By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified 16 different estimates of how the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has varied since the 19th century (and earlier) – see Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. Although some of these estimates are very similar to each other, others imply quite different trends and hence can lead to different conclusions. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5) appears to have tried to overcome this problem by ignoring those datasets that give conflicting results. Worryingly, from reading Matthes et al. (2017), it appears that the CMIP6 modelling groups have been actively encouraged to consider only one estimate of TSI for the 1850-present period, i.e., the Matthes et al. (2017) dataset [110]. In terms of scientific objectivity, this seems to us to have been an approach that is not compatible with the results already published in the scientific literature and even unwise relative to the results highlighted by this paper and of other recently published works.

Connolly et al. (2022), pp. 55-56

The paper makes a number of specific recommendations to scientific researchers and closes with:

“Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.”

Connolly, p. 57

Hysterical and completely obvious climate nonsense continues throughout the fake media with the latest being evidence-free reports such as the hysterical opinion Another Step Toward Climate Apocalypse by non-reporter Paul Krugman and NYT headline writers on July 4, 2022 in the sad but once-venerated New York Times stating that a statistically perfectly normal heat wave signals that “Climate change is already doing immense damage, and it’s probably only a matter of time before we experience huge catastrophes that take thousands of lives.”

Contrary to Krugman’s non-report, the temperatures experienced in the north of Norway are perfectly normal according to publicly available data from the World Meteorological Organization.

See the excellent article Norway Heatwaves Are Perfectly Normal, Despite What Paul Krugman Says (by Paul Homewood, July 5, 2022, Watts Up With That?, reblogged from Not a Lot of People Know That).

Reblogged from judithcurry.com

Posted on August 18, 2021 by curryja | 29 Comments

by Ross McKitrick

One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.

View original post