Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

Scafetta takes down Schmidt.

Comment and Reply to GRL on evaluation of CMIP6 simulations
Posted on September 24, 2023 by curryja | 23 comments
by Nicola Scafetta

Outcome of an exchange of Comments at Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) on my paper regarding ECS of CMIP6 climate models

Continue reading →

". . . My Reply demonstrates that Schmidt et al. made gross statistical and physical errors and that, in any case, their critiques do not change the conclusions of my 2022 GRL paper.

The Plain Language Summary of my Reply reads:

Schmidt, Jones, and Kennedy’s (SJK) (2023, GRL, link) assessment of the error of the ERA-T2m 2011–2021 mean (σμ,95% = 0.10 °C) incorrectly assumes that, during such a period, the global surface temperature was constant (T(t) = M) and that its interannual variability (ΔT i = T i – T (ti) = T i – M) was random noise. This is a nonphysical interpretation of the climate system that inflates the real error of the temperature mean by 5–10 times. In fact, the analysis of the ensemble of the global surface temperature members yields a decadal-scale error of about 0.01–0.02 °C, as reported in published records and deduced from the Gaussian error propagation formula (GEPF) of a function of several variables (such as the mean of a temperature sequence of 11 different years). Instead, SJK assessed such error using the standard deviation of the mean (SDOM), which is an equation that can only be used when there exists a distribution of repeated measurements of the same variable, which is not the present case. Furthermore, SJK misinterpreted Scafetta (2022, GRL, link) and ignored published literature such as Scafetta (2023, Climate Dynamics, link) that already contradicted their main claim about the role of the internal variability of the models and confirmed the results of Scafetta (2022, GRL,[link].

Both publications are open access, so interested readers can judge the scientific merits of both points of view for themselves. See also Schmidt’s latest post at RealClimate [link]. . . ."

 

The climate scare is about politics, money, power and control. It actually ignores the science. It has to because the science shows that climate change is normal and not a crisis. The educational system should be teaching the differences between the scientific method and human ideology. They don't mix at all so one has to choose. I choose the scientific method. We are becoming a nation making decisions based on feelings and opinions rather than reality. Pretty bothersome in my view.

 

Twohundred years ago, most folks knew how their world worked. It was pretty simple. Today, almost everyone owns an iPhone or similar, yet few can describe how trhe magic pictures and sounds fly through the air and land in their device. They have no idea what the difference is between the generations of flat screens, the generations of blue tooth, or even the basics of electromagnetic field theory. Yet they sit at their laptops making judgements about these things and many others they simply don't understand. Back in the Dark Ages, Monks were the "keepers of science". We are repeating that again today with the few folks with engineering degrees, theoretical physics degrees, et all... know what's going on and the majority, with art, music, history or similar degrees are totally clueless.

 

There's a lot of people running around talking about the climate who aren't climatologists. I guess an engineer educated only to the bachelor level is okay?



BTW, this is the hyperbole that Clauser is talking about. I disagree with him. Climate change is real, and we're causing it. Yet I see the notion of us burning the Earth as incredibly stupid, but your average eco-idiot will take it at face value.

"Experts" make predictions about the disastrous implications of climate change all the time and those predictions never happen. When they're wrong, they say well that's just science, but when they were making their predictions they were recommending incredible changes to how we live in order to avoid said predicted disaster.

 

There haven't been any changes in how the world works, just our understanding of it. Advanced degrees aren't necessary to learn about science and scientific topics. All that is required is interest and perhaps a lack of interest is the source of what you are describing. I have a decent understanding of how cell phones work because in my amateur radio days I belonged to group that operated an amateur VHF repeater. The repeater is the technology, developed by Motorola, that allows cell phones to send and receive at the same time from the same antenna. I'm pretty good with computers because I worked for and even owned a few computer companies. People can learn a lot of science from the everyday lives they live. One just needs to be interested and pay attention.

 

And, as you've previously note what passes as "scientific reporting" are more and more declining even peer reviewed studies that even tangentially question the Gospel according AGW.

I get distressed when I hear people I think are smart and well educated arguing AGW bases on some suite of models. I recently had a discussion with one of my best friends - we've know each other since eighth grade. Our career paths diverged a bit he ended up a PhD in Computer science while I went into Electronic Engineering and then somehow ended up doing 22 years in the Navy and then getting a BS and MS in Software Engineering.
We started discussing AGW over a couple of beers - he was a hard core AGWer until I brought up the scientific methodology. It took a beer and a half to get him to see that the plethora of "climate models" about were NOT the result of Scientific Method but rather than hypothesis to which we should test to prove.
Score one for the good guys.

 

Most climatologists have strong background in climate. There's not brick wall between the two.

And the alarmists panic every time it rains, and when it doesn't

Are we on the small planet? Decision makers are seizing on alarmist nonsense like a hyena on a corpse. What do you thing Davos is all about? The World Economic Forum, John Kerry's numerous bellows?

Pseudo science screened and edited by IPCC, Natural and Science journals. - who only accept pro-AGW alarmist studies. Paid buffoons like Kerry.

. Why do you think every IPCC AR has a "Summary for Policy Makers" section.

More "solid"? In what way? More solid than political or personal aggrandizement or promotions or publications? I've even seen cases where the scientist tells "the good lie"; He Knows AGW is no big thing but supports it for equity or social reasons.[/quote]

 

Actions we take to reduce Earth's warming are ALL political. So, there absolutely WILL be nonscientists involved. That is what our system of government REQUIRES.

What we HOPE is that our representatives will accept information from scientists working in the field in question.

Can you cite your gif? That individual is well known, and YOU are claiming that gif as what he has said.

I don't like cases of putting words in the mouths of known individuals.

And, what you are doing here IS the kind of hyperbole that Clauser was (or should have been) talking about. Right?

 

You are trying to paint the entire world of climate science as a bunch of liars and extremists.

That is just seriously PATHETIC.

 

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the reality of a dangerous intermeshing of politics and science; one that should be viewed critically and with a touch of skepticism. Having a PhD after your name doesn't render you immune to human failings. In many cases it's quite the opposite.

 

Yes, you regularly point out how dangerous it is for politicians to consider being informed by science!!

But, our system depends on that.

The alternative is no more than seeing who pays more in order to own a congressman.

 

But, our system depends on that. [/quote]It depends on fair and honest, unquestionable data being prvided to them; including pro and con arguments - that's not happening. Scientists offering information and data contrary to "AGW is causing the whole thing" are stifled, their papers denied publishment.

That's what we have now. As has been mentioned several times in this forum authors who question some aspects of AGW or other "approved" climate issues are denied publishing, conference appearances, etc.

 

It depends on fair and honest, unquestionable data being prvided to them; including pro and con arguments - that's not happening. Scientists offering information and data contrary to "AGW is causing the whole thing" are stifled, their papers denied publishment.
That's what we have now. As has been mentioned several times in this forum authors who question some aspects of AGW or other "approved" climate issues are denied publishing, conference appearances, etc.[/QUOTE]
Journals decide what they publish.

Congress can invite anyone they want to their various conferences. Dr. J Curry has spoken before congress, and she is somewhat of a denier, in that she agrees Earth is warming, but has supported the notion that human activity plays more of a minor role.

 

Is the person in the gif someone who speaks about climate issues? Is that person a climatologist?

 

null

 

that's not happening. Scientists offering information and data contrary to "AGW is causing the whole thing" are stifled, their papers denied publishment.
That's what we have now. As has been mentioned several times in this forum authors who question some aspects of AGW or other "approved" climate issues are denied publishing, conference appearances, etc.[/QUOTE]
Journals decide what they publish.

. She is also an expert in preparing for sporadic weather damage and mitigating climate change

 

Judith Curry? The leading astroturfer?

 

Journals decide what they publish.
. She is also an expert in preparing for sporadic weather damage and mitigating climate change[/QUOTE]
Prove it please. I know this is a well established conspiracy, one I have had thrown at me for over 20 years and guess what? In all those years not one iota of actual proof.

 

That's a clear image of Bill Nye with his iconic lab coat and bow tie and noted for demonstrative expression, with the only other option being that whomever created the gif used a model chosen to look like him.

Bill Nye does not have a degree in climatology. He's been active in science advocacy and education. He got NASA to include a small piece on a rover. His program "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is pretty well known. He had a term as Executive Director of the "Planetary Society". For 5 years he was a professor at Cornell U. He is a fellow of the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry". He has several honorary doctoral degrees in science and one in education, all from major universities.

His image wasn't chosen by accident.

 

Of course they do, and more and more are rejecting any that question any aspect of AGW or it's predominance in causing global warming

. She is also an expert in preparing for sporadic weather damage and mitigating climate change[/QUOTE]

Where did you look?

 

You do know that many climate experts have advanced degrees in other branches of science, right? Physics doctorates for instance.

 

Where did you look?[/QUOTE]
It's not a legitimate complaint that minority opinions get less (or no) attention.

The idea that multiple sides should be generated in order to claim "fairness" is not even slightly valid.

This is a problem in the press, too, and not just with climate. There is a major desire to try to create two sides in the name of trying to claim fairness, while actually misinforming the public with a false equivalence.

 

Hey, I just pointed out an individual who has only honorary PhDs, yet has made major contributions! And, I'm still irate that he could be used as the butt of baseless assault on science - which he has spent his lifetime supporting.

I've never suggested ignoring physicists who have been working in fields of climatology. In fact, I've pointed out the breadth of climatology related fields regularly. Don't forget the oceanographers, the atmospheric chemists, etc., etc. NOAA is a significant source of climatology, as are other such science organizations around the world.

 

who was that?

And yet you seem to worship "Climatologist" above all.

 

So you're claiming a bachelors level educated engineer can learn and talk about climate but a PhD educated physicist cannot. Your initial claim was that one was not a climatologist so his statements should be dismissed.

Can I try to explain "contradiction" to you? I'm not an English teacher, but I have a masters in petroleum engineering from UT and an MBA from Rice. Am I qualified?