Global warming and causality.

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]. . . ."

 

From Post 188 LINK Mamooth made this always unsupported claim to which I have addressed which he ignored,

Yet just 8 posts earlier at POST 180 LINK, Mamooth post this LINK to an article,

Even Weak Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger as the Climate Warms

The very first paragaph he chose to ignore remember it is from HIS link;

red bolding mine

That means MORE hurricanes from tropical storms.

But when I posted long running actual evidence at POST 186 LINK he badmouths it,

But notice he never countered any of it even when it shows the DIRECT opposite to the MODELLED claims of his own link which he clearly never read as it doesn't support his claims at all:

LINK to the actual paper

Meanwhile my Post 186 LINK makes clear there is ZERO increase in intensity or more Tropical storm ACE at all even reached a 42 year low the same year 2022 his modeling scenario paper he posted was published..... Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw.....

Then when I made POST 192 about Crank warmist/alarmist who published a paper in 1987 that has utterly failed as per the data since 1987....,

The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate

Kerry A. Emanuel

"Abstract
Tropical cyclones rank with earthquakes as the major geophysical causes of loss of life and property1. It is therefore of practical as well as scientific interest to estimate the changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity that might result from short-term man-induced alterations of the climate2. In this spirit we use a simple Carnot cycle model to estimate the maximum intensity of tropical cyclones under the somewhat warmer conditions expected to result from increased atmospheric CO2 content. Estimates based on August mean conditions over the tropical oceans predicted by a general circulation model with twice the present CO2 content yield a 40–50% increase in the destructive potential of hurricanes."

bolding and large size mine

Once again for Mamooth who clearly needs glasses:

"...estimate the changes in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity...."

Frequency and Intensity....

Frequency
Frequency
Frequency

Did you see it yet they are indeed talking about more storms....

His response was bald falsehoods at post 200

Kerry and YOUR link both said more tropical CYCLONES are predicted by models.


==========

The data since 1987 doesn't support any of it and that they were indeed predicting more storms as they repeatedly talked about Tropical storms intensifying which means they more often becomes hurricanes but No increase of the number of storms or the intensity has occurred since 1987 this another failure of the AGW conjecture.

Another example of models failures.

 

I recall seeing someplace from a person living in the Soviet Union — ‘we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us’.