“A lot of people don’t seem to realise that there were several proposed fingerprints to look for:
a. significant heat gained by the top layers of the sea outside of natural variation
b. stratospheric cooling.
c. troposheric warming.
d. dominant manmade CO2 precludes any significant pause in near surface temperature rise beyond the enso fluctuation.
e. The poles should both warm.
f. outgoing radiation reduces.
The Argo floats went in search of a and found only a heating plateau (after adjusting the initial cooling upwards), b stopped in 1995, c never happened at all, d also went the opposite to predictions, with e only one of the poles warmed and the other cooled and f, according to Lindzen, is demonstrably untrue.
The above was written by the above author. I respond with more points along a similar line:
There were several more “proofs” which are:
g. increasing humidity as a result of warming
h. evidence of downwelling radiation from CO2
All the models assume that increasing temperatures will increase humidity which will lead to more warming since water vapor is a hugely more significant greenhouse gas. Study after study has been unable to identify increasing humidity. In fact humidity has been declining in some parts of the atmosphere according to satellite measurements and balloon measurements.
A recent study from Australia and some other places was unable to identify the increasing downwelling radiation from CO2 that was expected. I understand a satellite is going to be launched soon which will be able to directly measure the radiation from CO2. This will be awesome to have this proof as trivial as it should be, for this to become a real science in my opinion they need to establish ground that is solid below this otherwise this will remain a political discussion more than a scientific discussion.
These fingerprints above are in some cases “required” fingerprints, i.e. the lack of them disproves the theory. Astonishingly, in spite of the fact the data frequently contradict the “settled science” of Climate Science the proponents continue to argue that all is right in the climate science world. I honestly believe I am an objective observer of this and I did believe them in the beginning. I have only become more and more concerned about the “science” as I’ve learned more and more facts.
I can only say that if the CAGW scientists have some secrets why their theories are valid even though these statistics all contradict their theory then I would like to know it.
I’ve seen the data has frequently been to “disprove” the models but the theorists frequently have come up with some way to get out of jail, usually a re-analysis of the data that confirms the theory. This reminds me of a physicist,Joseph Weber back 50 years ago who claimed he had found “gravitational waves”. He had all this data to back up his claims and when people found flaws with his data he always found a way around it, a re-analysis. He said he saw the expected result with his re-analysis and when somebody pointed out the waves should come in 6 hour spikes not 24hr he found 6 hour spikes. When it should come from this direction rather than that he showed he got the spikes in that direction too. In the end he was totally discredited. I believe that the climate science community is on a similar precipice. The data frequently seems to just look completely wrong and they come up with re-analysis after re-analysis, fidget after fidget and in the end I think we all are losing faith that this theory has really got legs.
My problem with this whole “science” has been from the beginning there has been NO doubt that CO2 absorbs radiation. This is raw unassailable physics. However, to prove that the first thing they need to do to confirm the “science” in climate science is to prove the fundamentals so if you teach a course just like you teach a chemistry or physics class that you show a theory and then demonstrate the effect with real measurements. This gets back to the “markers” that the writer JamesG pointed out and I added to above.
In my opinion the science should “reset” and start back at the basics. Prove those first principals. The lack of ability to do this for any aspect of the theories that I have been able to see is worrisome. All the proxies are fine if they are solid but many, like tree rings and some of the others are suspect. Tree rings for instance can be large or small for a large number of reasons besides temperature. Experiments in a closed environment may be compelling. Set up a large dome and simulate the environment in small ways to show how these things are true. Show that if you have a climate system in this dome with an existing biotic situation that if you raise the radiation you get the effects expected. Basic science is the most compelling way to build legitimacy to these theories and understanding.
Instead where we are is that we are still largely depending on models that are too complex that have all kinds of interdependencies of different parameters that you cannot isolate the different assumptions to prove. So they are left with trying to prove the whole model which is extremely difficult and with so many assumptions unlikely to be correct. Statistical analysis of the models has shown time and time again severe problems with their efficaciousness. One statistical analysis showed no model is better than another in more than one time period to another. If the models had some part of them right you would expect that model would get certain scenarios right better than other models. In general you would expect one model to outperform another whose underlying science was better. Instead one model good for one time period is just as likely as any other model to be good in a different time period. This argues the models do not have fundamentally accurate physical processes modeled correctly and that they are acting more like fits to data. A fit would be fine but if they do not have physical basis in fact then numerous issues arise from that.
Another big point I have tried to make repeatedly is that given the models lack of proof of basic assumptions it is necessary to back the models veracity up with “new” data that is unsoiled by being prior known data. As in any science there is too much risk that scientists will be modifying their theories to correspond with existing data sets (creating “fits”) as I describe above. This means that the data cannot be used to verify the models correctness. It becomes circular logic. The only thing that can be used is “new” data. New means data since you built the model that you didn’t know about in advance. Unfortunately as we all know the NEW data shows no warming for 16-20 years depending on the series you use. In my scientific understanding this means the models are disproven. Some will say that the data has NOT fallen outside the error bars, so they aren’t disproven. However, the lack of correspondence puts the models in a precarious position at least. It must be acknowledged that the models are more and more unlikely if not disproven. From what I understand the models are at 5% or less probability. Given that prior data cannot be used to bolster the models proof points this means to me that the models are only 5% correct. I would like somebody to explain to me how the data can be interpreted any other way.
Normally in science when the data doesn’t confirm there is an explosion of alternative theories as theorists rush to come up with the “reason.” Maybe that is happening. I don’t see it. It seems to be mostly, wait it will come back to the norm. There do seem to be some new ideas but surprisingly few and the new theories seem to be striving almost to the point of ridiculousness to retain the basic elements of the original theory rather than presenting truly compelling alternatives. Anybody proposing anything significantly different is called a “denier” and lambasted and otherwise cajoled. This is contrary to the way science works to me. As I have said before the way climate scientists handle debate and the way they crush debate seems more like a religion than a scientific process. At least that’s my perception coming from it as an outsider.
When I have questions in a physics class I expect the professor to explain with theory and known facts what happens and why. I realize climate science isn’t at that point in many cases but instead when questioned most of the time the response is “you are a denier.” When I ask, how could the MWP be a local phenomenon? Have there been other periods or places where regions of the earth have been warmer or colder than others for hundreds of years? Has the variation been as large? If they cannot go back to real known facts like the CO2 absorbing radiation from physics for each assumption and data and experiments then the theory is not science. I believe they will never be able to end debate on the basic truth of what they are doing and will forever be calling out denier and heretic until they can point to real scientific basis for their theories based on experiment, data on each part of their theories. They need to abandon for now the goal of “models” until they have more basis for the assumptions in the models.