Norway paper wrecks global warming cult

[2aguy]

I tried to find a theead on this so merge this if it exists

The awkward part isn’t trying to grasp the subtleties of Norwegian since it’s also available in English. It’s that the Abstract bluntly declares that “standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures” while the conclusions state “the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations.”
But the really awkward part is that a paper from a government agency dares to address openly so many questions the alarmist establishment has spent decades declaring taboo, from the historical record on climate to the existence of massive uncertainty among scientists on it.

Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations

[URL unfurl="true"]A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience[/URL]

 

[The Duke]

Norway is big on pumping oil.

 

[luiza]

Norway is big on pumping oil.

Norway is the name of a race who live on oil rigs and drive Fiords

 

[The Duke]

Norway is the name of a race who live on oil rigs and drive Fiords

I think you're only half-right there.

 

[Crick]

I tried to find a theead on this so merge this if it exists




Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations

[URL unfurl="true"]A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience[/URL]

Legal Insurrection? Now that's where I'd go for the best science.

 

[2aguy]

Legal Insurrection? Now that's where I'd go for the best science.

Are all of you leftista doomed to be terminally stupid?

They link to the actual research so you lie and try to hide it

 

[elektra]

Norway is the name of a race who live on oil rigs and drive Fiords

Be careful with your stereotyping, Norway drives Electric cars

 

[citygator]

Billions of dead Alaskan snow crabs begs to differ.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/us/alaska-crabs-ocean-heat-climate/index.html

 

[The Duke]

Billions of dead Alaskan snow crabs begs to differ.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/us/alaska-crabs-ocean-heat-climate/index.html

Probably not. Probably one of those Chinese superfishing boats made its way around up there and Biden didn't stop it is what happened.

Sucked up all the fish and left.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I tried to find a theead on this so merge this if it exists




Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.

…[T]he results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations

[URL unfurl="true"]A New Report Throws Cold Water on Man-Made Global Warming Pseudoscience[/URL]

The CO2 reading at Mauna Loa continues their trend even thought the Global economy was shutdown for 2 years.

Therefore, the CO2 is natural and not manmade

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Billions of dead Alaskan snow crabs begs to differ.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/us/alaska-crabs-ocean-heat-climate/index.html

Was it because of Global warming or climate change? What did the IPCC say about it???

 

[citygator]

Was it because of Global warming or climate change? What did the IPCC say about it???

Yes. it was.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global economy shut down Starting March 2020 through 2021, no drop in CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes. it was.

Which was it Global warming or Climate change or was it - both together???

Global Climate Warming Change!

We're doomed!

 

[Crick]

Are all of you leftista doomed to be terminally stupid?

They link to the actual research so you lie and try to hide it

No, they do not. They link to a pre-print. This article has not been accepted for publication in any refereed journal. I have read it and its a piece of shit.

 

[elektra]

No, they do not. They link to a pre-print. This article has not been accepted for publication in any refereed journal. I have read it and its a piece of shit.

if you can (hahahah) explain to us where you find it to be a "piece of shit". And please, in the most technical terms you can muster

 

[Crick]

if you can (hahahah) explain to us where you find it to be a "piece of shit". And please, in the most technical terms you can muster

The authors of this paper are Dagsvik and Moen.

Abstract​

​

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.​

1. Introduction A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend, see Appendix D and Figures B1, B6 and B7 in Appendix B.​

"More or less"? If you want to get on someone's case about using technical terms, Dagsvik and Moen might need it.

A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.​

So, apparently the timespan of interest is the last two centuries. What is not identified here is what is to be included within "previous variations". More significantly, we are not told why or how synthetic warming would deviate from natural varations.

Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.​

​

It's a "difficult challenge" particularly if the only tools in your box are statistical. Read that again. Is he not saying that they will be unable to robustly answer the very question they've set themselves?

​

At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made).​

​

The opposite of systematic is chaotic or disorganized. Random. Now, neither you nor I have these author's expertise in statistics, but we've both seen multiple representations of the global temperature over the last 2 centuries (and many other spans). Do YOU think the data trend of the last two centuries is random? Chaotic? Disorganized? And of course those data have likely been examined by almost every statistician on the planet. None, that I'm aware of, have suggested that the parameters of the warming trend observed preclude anthropogenesis.

​

This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.​

​

Why is a scholarly paper performing a statistical analysis on temperature data concerning itself with the mass media?

​

For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023).​

​

Non-experts? Who would that be? People inexpert in... climatology? People inexpert in atmospheric physics? People inexpert in atmospheric chemistry? People inexpert in geophysics? People inexpert in radiative thermodynamics? People like... the authors? And for some reason, in this very same sentence, they choose to bring up the consensus supporting AGW. Koonin is Dr Steven Koonin is a well-known physicist who worked as lead scientist for BP and in the Obama administration in the Department of Energy. He has had many interests during his career only one of which was environmental science and the climate. Curry is, of course, Dr Judith Curry. Koonin published NO scholarly papers on any topic in 2021. What he did publish was his book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". It is quite unusual for a scholarly paper to cite a commercially published work. Similarly, Curry published no scholarly papers in 2023. The Curry reference appears to be to one or more of the articles she has put up on her own website, eg:

State of the climate – summer 2023

by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga e…

judithcurry.com

.

​

By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs).​

​

What issues? Are they hoping to provide a comprehensive picture of research on global warming? Are they looking to validate the consensus? The title of this paper says they hope to determine, statistically, how much of the observed warming has been caused by increased GHGs in the atmosphere. And note that here we find the first mention of GCMs. The title of this paper tells us they want to determine to what extent temperature levels are changing due to greenhouse gas emissions. Does mainstream media have an input into global temperature or climate sensitivity? What effect does consensus have on those temperatures? And GCMs? Do GCMs affect anything they claim they want to examine? No, no and no.

​

Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.​

​

Given the orders of magnitude difference in the rate at which CO2, atmospheric and ocean temperatures have risen, I am curious how this examination will fail to find a systematic difference. But they have told us they will not. So, let's see.

​

In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes. The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones.​

​

GCM's do not start out assuming that human activity has warmed the planet. They start out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and along with all the other GHGs, will enable the greenhouse effect to warm the planet over its black body temperature. There have been large temperature and CO2 variations in the planet's history but they have taken place in virtually every instance at rates far, far slower than CO2 and temperature are changing today. Oddly, the author's statement that temperature variations prior to 250 YA can only be due to natural causes clearly implies that the authors are assuming the warming after that point can and is manmade. And, as noted earlier, going back 400 years takes us to the nadir of the Little Ice Age when temperatures began rebounding. The longer trend in temperatures was downward. They have not mentioned that.

​

Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer. After the thermometer was invented in the 17th century, systematic temperature measurements were undertaken in many cities. This was the case, for example, in Uppsala with measurements from 1722, Berlin from 1756 and Paris from 1757, to name but a few. The longest available instrumental record of monthly temperatures in the world is from central England and begins in 1659.​

​

Interesting, but not relevant to the purpose of this paper. The earliest instrumental records are extremely limited in regional scope. It is obvious that the target audience here is not climate scientists but the lay public.

​

One way to distinguish the effect of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases on temperatures from the effect of natural causes, is to check if temperature variations can be explained using GCMs.​

​

That's one way. But since the authors have alreadys stated that they intend to test the validity of GCM results, this makes little sense. Additionally, numerous researchers have conducted what-if scenarios to see if their GCMs can reproduce the observed warming without AGW effects and the universal result has been that they cannot.

​

For this to be possible, a minimum requirement must be that GCMs are able to reproduce historically observed temperatures. Several researchers have applied advanced statistical methods to investigate the ability of GCMs to track global temperature series, and we review results from their analysis.​

​

Every GCM developer has undertaken such investigations. It is a fundamental SOP in GCM development. The authors make it sound as if they are doing something new and revealing.

​

Since the total impact on climate from various sources is not well understood​

​

For a scientific study written by people to whom numbers are paramount, the repeated use of subjective statements such as this is... odd. I think the current understanding is quite impressive. That's subjective too, of course, but I'm not a PhD statistician.

​

the fluctuations in observed and reconstructed time series temperature data may be hard to explain.​

​

When you lack the knowledge in any field involved in understanding the causes and consequences of those temperature fluctuations, that should be expected.


It is getting late. I will get to the rest of this tomorrow.

​

​

 

[The Duke]

The authors of this paper are Dagsvik and Moen.

Abstract​

​

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.​

1. Introduction A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend, see Appendix D and Figures B1, B6 and B7 in Appendix B.​

"More or less"? If you want to get on someone's case about using technical terms, Dagsvik and Moen might need it.

A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.​

So, apparently the timespan of interest is the last two centuries. What is not identified here is what is to be included within "previous variations". More significantly, we are not told why or how synthetic warming would deviate from natural varations.

Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.​

​

It's a "difficult challenge" particularly if the only tools in your box are statistical. Read that again. Is he not saying that they will be unable to robustly answer the very question they've set themselves?

​

At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made).​

​

The opposite of systematic is chaotic or disorganized. Random. Now, neither you nor I have these author's expertise in statistics, but we've both seen multiple representations of the global temperature over the last 2 centuries (and many other spans). Do YOU think the data trend of the last two centuries is random? Chaotic? Disorganized? And of course those data have likely been examined by almost every statistician on the planet. None, that I'm aware of, have suggested that the parameters of the warming trend observed preclude anthropogenesis.

​

This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.​

​

Why is a scholarly paper performing a statistical analysis on temperature data concerning itself with the mass media?

​

For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023).​

​

Non-experts? Who would that be? People inexpert in... climatology? People inexpert in atmospheric physics? People inexpert in atmospheric chemistry? People inexpert in geophysics? People inexpert in radiative thermodynamics? People like... the authors? And for some reason, in this very same sentence, they choose to bring up the consensus supporting AGW. Koonin is Dr Steven Koonin is a well-known physicist who worked as lead scientist for BP and in the Obama administration in the Department of Energy. He has had many interests during his career only one of which was environmental science and the climate. Curry is, of course, Dr Judith Curry. Koonin published NO scholarly papers on any topic in 2021. What he did publish was his book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". It is quite unusual for a scholarly paper to cite a commercially published work. Similarly, Curry published no scholarly papers in 2023. The Curry reference appears to be to one or more of the articles she has put up on her own website, eg:

State of the climate – summer 2023

by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga e…

judithcurry.com

.

​

By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs).​

​

What issues? Are they hoping to provide a comprehensive picture of research on global warming? Are they looking to validate the consensus? The title of this paper says they hope to determine, statistically, how much of the observed warming has been caused by increased GHGs in the atmosphere. And note that here we find the first mention of GCMs. The title of this paper tells us they want to determine to what extent temperature levels are changing due to greenhouse gas emissions. Does mainstream media have an input into global temperature or climate sensitivity? What effect does consensus have on those temperatures? And GCMs? Do GCMs affect anything they claim they want to examine? No, no and no.

​

Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.​

​

Given the orders of magnitude difference in the rate at which CO2, atmospheric and ocean temperatures have risen, I am curious how this examination will fail to find a systematic difference. But they have told us they will not. So, let's see.

​

In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes. The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones.​

​

GCM's do not start out assuming that human activity has warmed the planet. They start out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and along with all the other GHGs, will enable the greenhouse effect to warm the planet over its black body temperature. There have been large temperature and CO2 variations in the planet's history but they have taken place in virtually every instance at rates far, far slower than CO2 and temperature are changing today. Oddly, the author's statement that temperature variations prior to 250 YA can only be due to natural causes clearly implies that the authors are assuming the warming after that point can and is manmade. And, as noted earlier, going back 400 years takes us to the nadir of the Little Ice Age when temperatures began rebounding. The longer trend in temperatures was downward. They have not mentioned that.

​

Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer. After the thermometer was invented in the 17th century, systematic temperature measurements were undertaken in many cities. This was the case, for example, in Uppsala with measurements from 1722, Berlin from 1756 and Paris from 1757, to name but a few. The longest available instrumental record of monthly temperatures in the world is from central England and begins in 1659.​

​

Interesting, but not relevant to the purpose of this paper. The earliest instrumental records are extremely limited in regional scope. It is obvious that the target audience here is not climate scientists but the lay public.

​

One way to distinguish the effect of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases on temperatures from the effect of natural causes, is to check if temperature variations can be explained using GCMs.​

​

That's one way. But since the authors have alreadys stated that they intend to test the validity of GCM results, this makes little sense. Additionally, numerous researchers have conducted what-if scenarios to see if their GCMs can reproduce the observed warming without AGW effects and the universal result has been that they cannot.

​

For this to be possible, a minimum requirement must be that GCMs are able to reproduce historically observed temperatures. Several researchers have applied advanced statistical methods to investigate the ability of GCMs to track global temperature series, and we review results from their analysis.​

​

Every GCM developer has undertaken such investigations. It is a fundamental SOP in GCM development. The authors make it sound as if they are doing something new and revealing.

​

Since the total impact on climate from various sources is not well understood​

​

For a scientific study written by people to whom numbers are paramount, the repeated use of subjective statements such as this is... odd. I think the current understanding is quite impressive. That's subjective too, of course, but I'm not a PhD statistician.

​

the fluctuations in observed and reconstructed time series temperature data may be hard to explain.​

​

When you lack the knowledge in any field involved in understanding the causes and consequences of those temperature fluctuations, that should be expected.


It is getting late. I will get to the rest of this tomorrow.

​

​

TL / DR

 

[elektra]

The authors of this paper are Dagsvik and Moen.

Abstract​

​

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.​

1. Introduction A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend, see Appendix D and Figures B1, B6 and B7 in Appendix B.​

"More or less"? If you want to get on someone's case about using technical terms, Dagsvik and Moen might need it.

A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.​

So, apparently the timespan of interest is the last two centuries. What is not identified here is what is to be included within "previous variations". More significantly, we are not told why or how synthetic warming would deviate from natural varations.

Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.​

​

It's a "difficult challenge" particularly if the only tools in your box are statistical. Read that again. Is he not saying that they will be unable to robustly answer the very question they've set themselves?

​

At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made).​

​

The opposite of systematic is chaotic or disorganized. Random. Now, neither you nor I have these author's expertise in statistics, but we've both seen multiple representations of the global temperature over the last 2 centuries (and many other spans). Do YOU think the data trend of the last two centuries is random? Chaotic? Disorganized? And of course those data have likely been examined by almost every statistician on the planet. None, that I'm aware of, have suggested that the parameters of the warming trend observed preclude anthropogenesis.

​

This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.​

​

Why is a scholarly paper performing a statistical analysis on temperature data concerning itself with the mass media?

​

For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023).​

​

Non-experts? Who would that be? People inexpert in... climatology? People inexpert in atmospheric physics? People inexpert in atmospheric chemistry? People inexpert in geophysics? People inexpert in radiative thermodynamics? People like... the authors? And for some reason, in this very same sentence, they choose to bring up the consensus supporting AGW. Koonin is Dr Steven Koonin is a well-known physicist who worked as lead scientist for BP and in the Obama administration in the Department of Energy. He has had many interests during his career only one of which was environmental science and the climate. Curry is, of course, Dr Judith Curry. Koonin published NO scholarly papers on any topic in 2021. What he did publish was his book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". It is quite unusual for a scholarly paper to cite a commercially published work. Similarly, Curry published no scholarly papers in 2023. The Curry reference appears to be to one or more of the articles she has put up on her own website, eg:

State of the climate – summer 2023

by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga e…

judithcurry.com

.

​

By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs).​

​

What issues? Are they hoping to provide a comprehensive picture of research on global warming? Are they looking to validate the consensus? The title of this paper says they hope to determine, statistically, how much of the observed warming has been caused by increased GHGs in the atmosphere. And note that here we find the first mention of GCMs. The title of this paper tells us they want to determine to what extent temperature levels are changing due to greenhouse gas emissions. Does mainstream media have an input into global temperature or climate sensitivity? What effect does consensus have on those temperatures? And GCMs? Do GCMs affect anything they claim they want to examine? No, no and no.

​

Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.​

​

Given the orders of magnitude difference in the rate at which CO2, atmospheric and ocean temperatures have risen, I am curious how this examination will fail to find a systematic difference. But they have told us they will not. So, let's see.

​

In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes. The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones.​

​

GCM's do not start out assuming that human activity has warmed the planet. They start out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and along with all the other GHGs, will enable the greenhouse effect to warm the planet over its black body temperature. There have been large temperature and CO2 variations in the planet's history but they have taken place in virtually every instance at rates far, far slower than CO2 and temperature are changing today. Oddly, the author's statement that temperature variations prior to 250 YA can only be due to natural causes clearly implies that the authors are assuming the warming after that point can and is manmade. And, as noted earlier, going back 400 years takes us to the nadir of the Little Ice Age when temperatures began rebounding. The longer trend in temperatures was downward. They have not mentioned that.

​

Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer. After the thermometer was invented in the 17th century, systematic temperature measurements were undertaken in many cities. This was the case, for example, in Uppsala with measurements from 1722, Berlin from 1756 and Paris from 1757, to name but a few. The longest available instrumental record of monthly temperatures in the world is from central England and begins in 1659.​

​

Interesting, but not relevant to the purpose of this paper. The earliest instrumental records are extremely limited in regional scope. It is obvious that the target audience here is not climate scientists but the lay public.

​

One way to distinguish the effect of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases on temperatures from the effect of natural causes, is to check if temperature variations can be explained using GCMs.​

​

That's one way. But since the authors have alreadys stated that they intend to test the validity of GCM results, this makes little sense. Additionally, numerous researchers have conducted what-if scenarios to see if their GCMs can reproduce the observed warming without AGW effects and the universal result has been that they cannot.

​

For this to be possible, a minimum requirement must be that GCMs are able to reproduce historically observed temperatures. Several researchers have applied advanced statistical methods to investigate the ability of GCMs to track global temperature series, and we review results from their analysis.​

​

Every GCM developer has undertaken such investigations. It is a fundamental SOP in GCM development. The authors make it sound as if they are doing something new and revealing.

​

Since the total impact on climate from various sources is not well understood​

​

For a scientific study written by people to whom numbers are paramount, the repeated use of subjective statements such as this is... odd. I think the current understanding is quite impressive. That's subjective too, of course, but I'm not a PhD statistician.

​

the fluctuations in observed and reconstructed time series temperature data may be hard to explain.​

​

When you lack the knowledge in any field involved in understanding the causes and consequences of those temperature fluctuations, that should be expected.


It is getting late. I will get to the rest of this tomorrow.

​

​

I now, can say I work in the wind industry. We all agree, it is a scam for government money

 

[Crick]

The authors of this paper are Dagsvik and Moen.

Abstract​

​

Weather and temperatures vary in ways that are difficult to explain and predict precisely. In this article we review data on temperature variations in the past as well possible reasons for these variations. Subsequently, we review key properties of global climate models and statistical analyses conducted by others on the ability of the global climate models to track historical temperatures. These tests show that standard climate models are rejected by time series data on global temperatures. Finally, we update and extend previous statistical analysis of temperature data (Dagsvik et al., 2020). Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find, as in Dagsvik et al. (2020), that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.​

1. Introduction A typical feature of observed temperature series over the last two centuries is that they show, more or less, an increasing trend, see Appendix D and Figures B1, B6 and B7 in Appendix B.​

"More or less"? If you want to get on someone's case about using technical terms, Dagsvik and Moen might need it.

A key question is whether this tendency is part of a cycle, or whether the temperature pattern during this period deviates systematically from previous variations.​

So, apparently the timespan of interest is the last two centuries. What is not identified here is what is to be included within "previous variations". More significantly, we are not told why or how synthetic warming would deviate from natural varations.

Even if recent recorded temperature variations should turn out to deviate from previous variation patterns in a systematic way it is still a difficult challenge to establish how much of this change is due to increasing man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.​

​

It's a "difficult challenge" particularly if the only tools in your box are statistical. Read that again. Is he not saying that they will be unable to robustly answer the very question they've set themselves?

​

At present, there is apparently a high degree of consensus among many climate researchers that the temperature increase of the last decades is systematic (and partly man-made).​

​

The opposite of systematic is chaotic or disorganized. Random. Now, neither you nor I have these author's expertise in statistics, but we've both seen multiple representations of the global temperature over the last 2 centuries (and many other spans). Do YOU think the data trend of the last two centuries is random? Chaotic? Disorganized? And of course those data have likely been examined by almost every statistician on the planet. None, that I'm aware of, have suggested that the parameters of the warming trend observed preclude anthropogenesis.

​

This is certainly the impression conveyed by the mass media.​

​

Why is a scholarly paper performing a statistical analysis on temperature data concerning itself with the mass media?

​

For non-experts, it is very difficult to obtain a comprehensive picture of the research in this field, and it is almost impossible to obtain an overview and understanding of the scientific basis for such a consensus (Koonin, 2021, Curry, 2023).​

​

Non-experts? Who would that be? People inexpert in... climatology? People inexpert in atmospheric physics? People inexpert in atmospheric chemistry? People inexpert in geophysics? People inexpert in radiative thermodynamics? People like... the authors? And for some reason, in this very same sentence, they choose to bring up the consensus supporting AGW. Koonin is Dr Steven Koonin is a well-known physicist who worked as lead scientist for BP and in the Obama administration in the Department of Energy. He has had many interests during his career only one of which was environmental science and the climate. Curry is, of course, Dr Judith Curry. Koonin published NO scholarly papers on any topic in 2021. What he did publish was his book "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters". It is quite unusual for a scholarly paper to cite a commercially published work. Similarly, Curry published no scholarly papers in 2023. The Curry reference appears to be to one or more of the articles she has put up on her own website, eg:

State of the climate – summer 2023

by Judith Curry, Jim Johnstone, Mark Jelinek A deep dive into the causes of the unusual weather/climate during 2023. People are blaming fossil-fueled warming and El Nino, and now the Hunga-Tonga e…

judithcurry.com

.

​

By looking at these issues in more detail, this article reviews past observed and reconstructed temperature data as well as properties and tests of the global climate models (GCMs).​

​

What issues? Are they hoping to provide a comprehensive picture of research on global warming? Are they looking to validate the consensus? The title of this paper says they hope to determine, statistically, how much of the observed warming has been caused by increased GHGs in the atmosphere. And note that here we find the first mention of GCMs. The title of this paper tells us they want to determine to what extent temperature levels are changing due to greenhouse gas emissions. Does mainstream media have an input into global temperature or climate sensitivity? What effect does consensus have on those temperatures? And GCMs? Do GCMs affect anything they claim they want to examine? No, no and no.

​

Moreover, we conduct statistical analyses of observed and reconstructed temperature series and test whether the recent fluctuation in temperatures differs systematically from previous temperature cycles, due possibly to emission of greenhouse gases.​

​

Given the orders of magnitude difference in the rate at which CO2, atmospheric and ocean temperatures have risen, I am curious how this examination will fail to find a systematic difference. But they have told us they will not. So, let's see.

​

In the global climate models (GCMs) most of the warming that has taken place since 1950 is attributed to human activity. Historically, however, there have been large climatic variations. Temperature reconstructions indicate that there is a ‘warming’ trend that seems to have been going on for as long as approximately 400 years. Prior to the last 250 years or so, such a trend could only be due to natural causes. The length of the observed time series is consequently of crucial importance for analyzing empirically the pattern of temperature fluctuations and to have any hope of distinguishing natural variations in temperatures from man-made ones.​

​

GCM's do not start out assuming that human activity has warmed the planet. They start out with the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and along with all the other GHGs, will enable the greenhouse effect to warm the planet over its black body temperature. There have been large temperature and CO2 variations in the planet's history but they have taken place in virtually every instance at rates far, far slower than CO2 and temperature are changing today. Oddly, the author's statement that temperature variations prior to 250 YA can only be due to natural causes clearly implies that the authors are assuming the warming after that point can and is manmade. And, as noted earlier, going back 400 years takes us to the nadir of the Little Ice Age when temperatures began rebounding. The longer trend in temperatures was downward. They have not mentioned that.

​

Fortunately, many observed temperature series are significantly longer than 100 years and in addition, as mentioned above, there are reconstructed temperature series that are much longer. After the thermometer was invented in the 17th century, systematic temperature measurements were undertaken in many cities. This was the case, for example, in Uppsala with measurements from 1722, Berlin from 1756 and Paris from 1757, to name but a few. The longest available instrumental record of monthly temperatures in the world is from central England and begins in 1659.​

​

Interesting, but not relevant to the purpose of this paper. The earliest instrumental records are extremely limited in regional scope. It is obvious that the target audience here is not climate scientists but the lay public.

​

One way to distinguish the effect of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases on temperatures from the effect of natural causes, is to check if temperature variations can be explained using GCMs.​

​

That's one way. But since the authors have alreadys stated that they intend to test the validity of GCM results, this makes little sense. Additionally, numerous researchers have conducted what-if scenarios to see if their GCMs can reproduce the observed warming without AGW effects and the universal result has been that they cannot.

​

For this to be possible, a minimum requirement must be that GCMs are able to reproduce historically observed temperatures. Several researchers have applied advanced statistical methods to investigate the ability of GCMs to track global temperature series, and we review results from their analysis.​

​

Every GCM developer has undertaken such investigations. It is a fundamental SOP in GCM development. The authors make it sound as if they are doing something new and revealing.

​

Since the total impact on climate from various sources is not well understood​

​

For a scientific study written by people to whom numbers are paramount, the repeated use of subjective statements such as this is... odd. I think the current understanding is quite impressive. That's subjective too, of course, but I'm not a PhD statistician.

​

the fluctuations in observed and reconstructed time series temperature data may be hard to explain.​

​

When you lack the knowledge in any field involved in understanding the causes and consequences of those temperature fluctuations, that should be expected.


It is getting late. I will get to the rest of this tomorrow.

​

​

They may therefore to some extent appear unsystematic (stochastic).​

​

So, the level of the systematic nature of the temperature data examined here will be determined by its appearance. I thought the authors were expert statisticians. It appears there expertise is more in the sense of aesthetics.​

​

An alternative research approach is therefore to investigate whether the temperature series are consistent with a statistical model, and what the features of such a model might be.​

​

​

So, the authors will use their repeatedly declared ignorance to create a model to which the time series may be compared. Got it.​

​

This was the approach taken by Dagsvik [one of the two authors] et al. (2020) and several of the references therein. A rigorous statistical analysis of the temperature phenomenon is, however, more complicated than might be expected.​

​

I haven't seen this many provisos and preemptive excuses since the 7th grade.​

​

There are several reasons for this. First, it turns out that temperature, as a temporal process, appears to have cycles that can last for decades (long memory), if not hundreds of years.​

​

"It turns out"??? Is he telling us that that was a surprise to them? It has cycles that last for thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. It is hard to believe this text was reviewed by anyone.​

​

It is for precisely this reason that even such a prolonged increase in recent observed temperature series should not simply be interpreted as a trend leading to permanent climate change.​

​

"Permanent climate change"? What does that even mean? And who have the authors seen suggesting such an outcome? The entire purpose for the world's efforts to eliminate the use of fossil fuel and other GHG-emitters is to end THIS particular climate change.​

​

​

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe data and discuss some stylized facts about climate variations in prehistoric times.​

​

"Stylized facts"?​

​

Moreover, we describe various observed and reconstructed data sets that are available, and we give a summary of climate variations in the past. In Section 3 we discuss some sources of temperature variations.​

​

Sources? Where did that expertise come from?​

​

Section 4 contains a summary description of some key features of the GCMs based mainly on Curry (2017) and Voosen (2016)​

​

Curry we know. Voosen is Paul Voosen. He is a reporter for Science Magazine. I'm sure he has some sort of science education but I could find no record of him have ever conducted any research on any topic save as a reporter. Both these references are dated.​

​

and in Section 5 we review analyses in the literature on the ability of GCMs to track global temperature series. Section 6 discusses and motivates the specific statistical modelling approach we have applied in this paper and in Section 7 the resulting empirical results are discussed. This analysis extends and updates the study of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on the same methodology as in Dagsvik et al. (2020). Whereas the analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) did not use data for the most recent years the current study is based on data up to 2021, and the empirical results confirm the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). One key result is that the hypothesis of the temperature process being stationary is not rejected. Finally, in Section 8 we provide bounds on maximum temperature values under specific assumptions about the temperature process. Most of the results from the statistical analysis are reported in online appendices (Appendices C and D).3​

​

Since it's extremely unlikely that anyone here has read even a significant portion of this text, there is not a great deal of motivation to continue. I would like to go over some of the later sections where they actually claim to do the analysis the title promised. Any request? Was that enough big words for you Electron?​