bdgwx

He was the editor-in-chief for the now defunct predatory journal Environment Pollution & Climate Change owned by OMICS. OMICS, subsidiaries, and personnel were investigated for academic fraud in 2016 and were found to have run as many 700 predatory journals and deceived numerous article authors. A judge ordered the India based company to pay $50 million in damages. Viterito defended his involvement with the predatory journal he ran. And his "scientific" positions defy credulity. He allowed an article that stated that the greenhouse effect cannot be real because the atmosphere does not have a roof like a real greenhouse. Even the most predatory of predatory journals would usually reject that kind nonsense. So this must have been a whole new level of ineptitude. If Viterito isn't a climate troll then he is doing everything he possibly can to convince everyone that he is. Why? I have no idea.

I should also mention that our understanding of CO2's radiative force, though not perfect, is actually pretty good. Remember that the Rapid Radiative Transfer Model (RRTM) and others like it are an essential component of most global and regional circulation models (like GFS, ECMWF, etc.) that we all rely on for weather forecasts and is used to design space based observational radiometers like those onboard the GOES-R satellites. Radiative transfer through the atmosphere plays a huge role not only in forecasting weather but also in the real time observation of it. Even the minor active bands of CO2 like that around 13.3 um (and which is several orders of magnitude less than its bending vibrational mode around 15 um) have to be modeled precisely otherwise the GOES-R channel 16 data would be useless. Note that the RRTM says the radiative force of 2xCO2 is about 4 W.m-2 or about 0.3 W.m-2 higher than the often cited [Myhre et al. 1998] estimate of 3.7 W.m-2 using the older and less precise LBL, NBM, and BBM radiative transfer models. 2xCO2 is the equivalent of about 200 million years of solar brightening [Gough 1981] or ~10x (and likely higher) the magnitude of change from a grand solar minimum (like the Maunder Minimum) to maximum (like the Modern Maximum around 1950). Basically what I'm saying is that we know with very high confidence that the change in CO2 is significantly more influential in the radiative balance of Earth than that of the Sun.

It is important to understand that CO2 is both a forcing agent and a feedback agent. That means it can both cause a change in a temperature and it can respond to a change in temperature. That means it can both lead and lag the temperature temperature depending on circumstances. For example, if it is released independent of a temperature and itself catalyzes a temperature change then it will lead. If, however, something else catalyzes the temperature change then it will respond and lag. The PETM and modern warming eras are examples of scenarios in which it leads because flood basalt events and human injection occurred independent of temperature. The glacial cycles in the Quaternary Period are examples where it lags because orbital perturbations in conjunction with the more randomly timed volcanic and dust events cause the temperature change first.

Here is what the "doomers" actually say. Of the 366 simulations only 9 (or 2%) showed an ice-free state before 2030. Of the 366 simulations only 34 (or 10%) showed an ice-free state within 10 years. The median/median timing of the first ice-free state is 24/29 years. This puts the 2σ right tail at about 61 years or the year 2084. We have a LONG way to go (61 years) before we can declare this "doomer" prediction to "fall by the board" at the standard 2σ confidence interval. [Heuze & Jahn 2024]

Exactly. The corrections applied to nClimDiv (USHCN) still aren't fully offsetting the biases and errors.

Several years ago Shewchuck told me that he has testified in court as meteorological expert using only raw data because his worldview is that you should never apply corrections to fix biases, errors, and/or mistakes. When I asked if he discloses to the court that the data may contain biases, errors, and/or mistakes the conversation ended immediately and he ghosted me. I think at some level contrarians have to know that what they are arguing for is at best unethical and potentially fraudulent with criminal consequences at worst. It makes it even that more baffling that they continue down this line of argument while simultaneously gaslighting the rest of us as if we're in the wrong.

Over their mutual overlap period from 2005/01 to 2025/05... +0.65 F.decade-1 is the warming trend using nClimDiv (formerly USHCN). +0.77 F-decade-1 is the warming trend using USCRN. Considering that nClimDiv should have a more significant UHI component than that of USCRN it would not be unreasonable to hypothesize that it is underestimating the warming in the United States more than the trivial difference would already imply. I'll also remind readers here of the net effect of all adjustments at the global level. [Hausfather 2017]

It hit 121 F in Lytton, British Columbia on June 29th, 2021. Prior to the 2021 heat wave the previous high temperature in Canada was 112 F. It is interesting to note that the extreme heat and drought that day caused Lytton to burn to the ground...literally. A wildfire developed and consumed the entire town including the weather station before it could record the daily high on the following day.

[Mauritsen et al. 2025] - Earth's Energy Imbalance More Than Doubled in Recent Decades "Worryingly, the observed energy imbalance is rising much faster than expected, reaching 1.8 Wm−2 in 2023—or twice that predicted by climate models—after having more than doubled within just two decades."

And at the global level the net effect of all adjustments actually reduces the overall warming trend. [Haufather 2017]

It turns out Lindzen's Iris Theory is yet another failed contrarian theory. The Earth does not have some magical iris that prevents warming by reducing absorbed solar radiation. In fact, the consilience of evidence points to a positive shortwave feedback which was hypothesized as early as the 1960s.

That is a really good and interesting question. This touches on the topic of ENSO as well. As we've discussed before the ENSO region hasn't warmed in the last few decades despite the global average warming. As a result the general circulation patterns that had once typified the ENSO cycle are no longer playing out; at least not in the same way as they once did. This is because El Nino's appear attenuated and La Nina's amplified against the global backdrop. This is the primary motivation of new indices like the RONI.

Here is the academic publication related to Google's new cyclone model. [Alet et al. 2025]

Discussing the justification for corrections is irrelevant if your position is still that corrections should never be applied to fix biases, errors, and/or mistakes. I'm asking if you still maintain this position because it sounds like you are having second thoughts about it...which is good. But I'm not going to waste my time explaining how we can know what the biases and errors are if you don't think correcting them is ever justified.

Stop deflecting and diverting. Is it okay to study data for the existence of biases, errors, or mistakes and make the appropriate corrections or not?