{"id":339757,"date":"2024-08-16T14:51:26","date_gmt":"2024-08-16T12:51:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339757"},"modified":"2024-08-16T14:51:28","modified_gmt":"2024-08-16T12:51:28","slug":"phoma-destructivas-2nd-comment-on-pubpeer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339757","title":{"rendered":"Phoma destructiva\u2019s 2nd Comment on Pubpeer"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Andy May and Marcel Crok<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phoma Destructiva\u2019s full comment is shown indented, as a block quote. To see the original go here<\/a>. To see the abstract of our paper, go here<\/a>. The official paper is still paywalled, to download the full final submission of our paper, fully peer-reviewed, for free click here<\/a> or go to my ResearchGate page here<\/a>. Our paper, published May 29, 2024, is in the 99.7%ile<\/a> of all 26.5 million research papers followed by Wiley.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To download a bibliography with most of the articles cited in the discussion below, go <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is our discussion of Phoma Destructiva\u2019s second comment. His comment is indented and the portion of his comment quoting our first response begins with \u201cRe<\/strong><\/a>:\u201d. Phoma\u2019s response follows his quote of us and our response follows the block quote in normal text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cThe first part of the main critique, is actually a lengthy critique of Javier Vin\u00f3s\u2019 book Climate of Past, Present and Future, that has nothing to do with our paper.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incorrect. As shown in #1, citations 18, 19, and 20 in the authors\u2019 paper are to Vin\u00f3s\u2019 book. The authors use that book to suggest<\/a> some of the anthropogenic warming could instead be due to \u201cnatural forces<\/em>\u201c:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince general circulation climate models and the modern CO2 and greenhouse gas warming hypothesis were developed in the 1960s and 70s(17) many natural climate oscillations have been discovered. These long-term climatic oscillations and the resulting \u201cclimate regime shifts\u201d(18) strongly suggest that natural forces, possibly driven by cyclic changes in the Sun,(19) are causing some of the recent global warming observed since 1920, or even earlier.(20)<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We stand by our original statement and see no merit in Phoma destructiva\u2019s argument. We made no predictions, and Vin\u00f3s\u2019 predictions are not relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cIn the introduction to his critique, Phoma destructiva writes: \u201cthe authors and their cited sources likely underestimated anthropogenic global warming.\u201d We provide no estimate of the anthropogenic component of global warming.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors repeatedly try to attribute at least some of the anthropogenic global warming to non-anthropogenic factors, as in the above citation of Vin\u00f3s. That is underestimation of anthropogenic global warming, regardless of whether the authors provide a precise quantitative estimate anthropogenic warming. Attributing to X what was actually caused by Y is underestimation of Y\u2019s impact, regardless of whether one provides a precise quantitative estimate of Y\u2019s impact.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We believe and provide evidence that \u201cat least some of the anthropogenic global warming\u201d is due to non-anthropogenic factors. \u201cSome\u201d is not an estimate. The dictionary definition if \u201cestimate\u201d is clear and unambiguous \u201croughly calculate or judge the value, number, quantity, or extent of.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cThe next section attempts to dispute the existence of all multidecadal ocean oscillations based on two papers by Michael Mann and co-authors, Mann, et al. (2020) and Mann et al. (2021).<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other papers were cited, including: Mann 2014<\/a>, Clement 2015<\/a>, Stolpe 2017<\/a>, and Haustein 2019<\/a>. And the argument was against an unforced \u201cAtlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)<\/em>\u201d discussed in the authors\u2019 paper<\/a>. Such an unforced ocean cycle likely does not exist, as illustrated by the fact that contrarians who employed it generated failed temperature trend predictions (#1).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnforced\u201d and \u201cforced\u201d events are poorly defined climate model classifications with very flexible definitions and little meaning in the real world. Our paper does not use the terms \u201cforced\u201d and \u201cunforced\u201d for that reason. Bringing these terms up is both a red herring and a strawman fallacy. Our paper works with the real-world terms \u201cAnthropogenic\u201d and \u201cNatural.\u201d Forced and unforced introduces an unnecessary level of complexity and is simply a juvenile attempt at deflection from the real issues discussed in our paper. Bottom line, the AMO is a real oscillation that has been successfully traced back to 1600AD, thus it persists from well into the pre-industrial to modern times and must have a natural component.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cIn fact, he admits: \u201cBased on the available observational and modelling evidence, the most plausible explanation for the multidecadal peak seen in modern climate observations is that it reflects the response to a combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.\u201d (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020) We agree with this sentence, and it is consistent with our paper.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No, it\u2019s not consistent with the authors\u2019 paper, as explained in #1 with citations to Dr. Karsten Haustein and Dr. Peter Jacobs in 2019<\/a>, alongside Haustein 2019<\/a> and CarbonBrief<\/a>. Again, if the observed peaks are forced instead of being unforced, then they\u2019re already accounted for and are not some independent contributor to warming beyond the forcings already accounted for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That contradicts this from the authors\u2019 paper<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat if the so-called human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day was boosted by a natural cycle? It would mean that the IPCC calculation of the impact of human greenhouse gases was too high [\u2026]<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Again with the \u201cunforced\u201d and \u201cforced.\u201d These are meaningless climate model terms. Mann writes: \u201ccombination of natural and anthropogenic forcing during the historical era.\u201d <\/em>Our paper contains, \u201cWhat if the so-called human-caused warming from 1976 to the present day was boosted by a natural cycle.\u201d <\/em>What is the difference? We both believe that both anthropogenic and natural forces have contributed to the ocean oscillations like the AMO and \u201cclimate observations<\/em>.\u201d Hiding behind poorly defined terms like forced and unforced doesn\u2019t change that fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cThen the anonymous critique of our paper again resorts to comparing predictions by Vin\u00f3s, (Wyatt & Curry, 2014), and others to the IPCC predictions. We made no predictions, we only cited observations.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Predictions are tests of causal hypotheses. The authors cited Dr. Vin\u00f3s\u2019 hypothesis on what was causing some of the observed warming. So, it\u2019s fine to evaluate the predictions of his hypothesis to see that those predictions fail. Similarly so for Dr. Curry\u2019s failed predictions based on the AMO contributing to warming, and the IPCC\u2019s successful predictions based on anthropogenic GHGs driving the warming.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

We agree that predictions are an important part of the scientific process, but we didn\u2019t make any in the paper, and this was deliberate. As for whether Vin\u00f3s\u2019 and Curry\u2019s predictions are correct or not, you don\u2019t know, I don\u2019t know, and neither does anyone else. The end of the prediction period is over a decade away. Don\u2019t say \u201cfailed\u201d when you don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Re<\/strong><\/a>: \u201cThis critique is a poster child for all that is wrong with modern climate science. Phoma destructiva sets up obvious strawmen from articles we cite, that are unrelated to our argument that observations show no dangers or net harm from climate change today, and then attacks his own strawmen, rather than our paper. This sort of irrelevant strawman fallacy is unfortunately very common in climate science and is never credible.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not a straw man when I quote the authors\u2019 paper and then directly address what was quoted. The quotations show the authors\u2019 paper suggests that warming that is actually anthropogenic was instead due to other factors, such as natural oscillations. Those suggestions are still in the paper, even if the authors highlight other arguments they made in their paper.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Your discussion of supposedly failed predictions by Vin\u00f3s and Curry was a strawman. Your discussion of \u201cforced\u201d and \u201cunforced\u201d was a bait-and-switch strawman. Our suggestion that the AMO is a natural oscillation and has contributed to modern warming is well supported in the literature and in our paper. You are free to disagree with our conclusion, but our conclusion derives from the evidence and citations in our paper. You have not shown any evidence that our conclusion is incorrect, and neither have any of your sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann writes: \u201cBased on the available observational and modelling evidence, the most plausible explanation for the multidecadal peak seen in modern<\/em> climate observations<\/em><\/strong> is that it reflects the response to a <\/em>combination of natural and anthropogenic forcing<\/em><\/strong> during the historical era.\u201d (Mann, Steinman, & Miller, 2020). [<\/em>Bold<\/em><\/strong> added]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, it would seem he agrees with us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you truly believe all modern warming is anthropogenic, as the IPCC does, fine, but it is not consistent with the data we present in our paper, nor is it consistent with your sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andy & Marcel<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you truly believe all modern warming is anthropogenic, as the IPCC does, fine, but it is not consistent with the data we present in our paper, nor is it consistent with your sources.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":339761,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691827130,691818087,691830175,691830174],"class_list":{"0":"post-339757","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-carbon-dioxide-co2","9":"tag-global-warming","10":"tag-greenhouse-gases-ghgs","11":"tag-phoma-destructiva","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/0global-warming-illustration-1.jpg?fit=1920%2C700&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1qnX","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":339440,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=339440","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":0},"title":"Pubpeer Comment on our recent paper by the anonymous \u201cPhoma destructiva\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"An anonymous reviewer has written a critique of our recent paper \u201cCarbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems,\u201d published online May 29, 2024, in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. In the introduction to his critique, Phoma destructiva writes: \u201cthe authors and their cited sources likely underestimated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO2)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO2)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/01394756389000-global-warming.webp?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":359775,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=359775","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":1},"title":"The AJES Response to May & Crok","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This post is mostly a list of errors and misinformation in the\u00a0AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology) board\u2019s\u00a0response\u00a0by Ted Gwartney and Alexandra Lough to\u00a0May & Crok. But first I applaud the board\u2019s decision to formally publish the paper they invited May & Crok to write for their special climate\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology)\"","block_context":{"text":"AJES\u00a0(The American Journal of Economics and Sociology)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ajes-the-american-journal-of-economics-and-sociology"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0Screenshot-2024-12-30-164404.png?fit=1200%2C652&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354115,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=354115","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":2},"title":"Comment on Cobb, 2024","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/12\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This post is a comment on\u00a0Cobb, 2024, the paper is entitled \u201cThe politics of climate denialism and the secondary denialism of economics.\u201d The paper defines climate denialism, discusses the reasons it exists, and the effect of widespread \u201cdenialism\u201d on society.","rel":"","context":"In \"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)\"","block_context":{"text":"carbon dioxide (CO\u2082)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=carbon-dioxide-co%e2%82%82"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0trees-add-logo-we-love-co2-1-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0trees-add-logo-we-love-co2-1-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0trees-add-logo-we-love-co2-1-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0trees-add-logo-we-love-co2-1-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/0trees-add-logo-we-love-co2-1-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C676&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":349000,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=349000","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":3},"title":"Clueless \u2018Fact Check\u2019 of Daily Sceptic Climate Article Descends into Pure Gibberish","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If there was an award for worst fact check of the year, the recent attempt by the French state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) to smear the Daily Sceptic would be the clear favourite to win. Taking issue with our report of a recent paper published by Nature that found no \u201csurge\u201d\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Agence France-Presse\"","block_context":{"text":"Agence France-Presse","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=agence-france-presse-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Screenshot-2024-10-25-000507.jpeg?fit=1200%2C561&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Screenshot-2024-10-25-000507.jpeg?fit=1200%2C561&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Screenshot-2024-10-25-000507.jpeg?fit=1200%2C561&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Screenshot-2024-10-25-000507.jpeg?fit=1200%2C561&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Screenshot-2024-10-25-000507.jpeg?fit=1200%2C561&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219870,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219870","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":4},"title":"Important New Paper Challenges IPCC\u2019s Claims about Climate Sensitivity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The results therefore suggest that future global warming will be much less than expected.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1008.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1008.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1008.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1008.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219812,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=219812","url_meta":{"origin":339757,"position":5},"title":"Press Release: Important new paper challenges IPCC\u2019s claims about climate sensitivity","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The results therefore suggest that future global warming will be much less than expected.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-996.png?fit=663%2C491&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-996.png?fit=663%2C491&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-996.png?fit=663%2C491&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339757","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=339757"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339757\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":339763,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/339757\/revisions\/339763"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/339761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=339757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=339757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=339757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}