Scientific deductions based on the actual data
We have already seen a rise of co2 from 270(the holocene average) to 400ppm a year ago. This is a ~50% rise. In 1945 when CO2 production really took off CO2 levels were at 310. It is estimated that by the end of the century CO2 concentration will be maybe 600 maybe less depending on assumptions.
This is why we talk of a “doubling of CO2 causing such and such a temperature rise.” This effect of a doubling of CO2 is called the TCS transient climate sensitivity. The IPCC has estimated it at between 1.5C and 6C in different reports with a mean of 3.0C TCS.
IPCC says TCS = 1.5C to 6.0C for a doubling of CO2
We know that CO2 acts log-wise (each molecule of CO2 produces less and less warming as they compete with each other to capture the suns energy) so that 50% of the co2 should produce 70% of the gain we expect overall.
We cannot count rises in temperature before we started raising CO2. Frequently CAGW enthusiasts like to use temp gains since 1880 however that is obviously wrong because CO2 did not start rising substantially until after WWII.
There are 2 temperature records we can look at that have significant differences. From 1945-1975 land surface records show a decline in temperature everywhere on the Earth. So, since 1945 temps went down then up and since about 2000 flat. Temperatures rose from about 0.1 in 1945 to about 0.70 in 2015 in the chart below for the “adjusted land record” in this time period. You can check that at this handy site.
Interestingly you can do the same for RSS the satellite data and see about 0.3C in that time period. Here is the RSS chart:
This shows from about -0.08 to 0.2 or really less than 0.3C rise. The satellite data goes only from 1979 but as was pointed out above the period from 1945-1975 is down so it does not increase the 0.3 you see above.
So immediately we are struck with a huge difference. Adjusted land records show twice the gain the satellite record does. 0.3C vs 0.6C for the period since man has been putting significant co2. Many people may be surprised that either number is so small. You would be right to be surprised since the computer models predict more like a 1.2 to 1.5C or more during this period.
This glaring difference between the results and the models has led some people to be called lukewarmists which means we believe that the temperature is affected by CO2 but not nearly as much as the IPCC and most alarmist believe.
I prefer the satellite data for many reasons but just to make this worst case let’s see what both produce.
We have gotten 90/290 of the expected change in CO2 = 31% or almost a third of the total gain in CO2. Because of the logarithmic effect this translates to about 50% of the temperature change we should expect from the entire 100% of 290ppm CO2.
The conclusion of this is simple and unavoidable
So, we should be able to pretty accurately guess the final result. This is not hard anymore. We have the data to compute this. We have enough years, enough of a percentage and enough temp data of sufficient accuracy to compute very accurately what the total POSSIBLE gain from CO2 at 600 would be. This is not a “question” for theory anymore. We don’t need computer models. We have the data.
The numbers are very convenient as well. If we look at the satellite data we will get another 0.3 from the remaining CO2 to 600 and from the adjusted land record we will see 0.6. Take your pick.
2100 0.3-0.6C Higher than Today
TCS = 0.6C-1.2C (
3.0C IPCC )
Therefore logically and scientifically speaking it is hard to understand how we could get much more than a half a degree C more in temperature rise for the rest of the century from CO2 no matter how you look at it.
This is irrefutable – unless you start considering lots of unproven and controversial theories.
The IPCC predicts 3 times as much temperature rise.
In fact between 1996-2014 their models predicted we would already have gotten another 0.5C temperature rise which is all that is possible between now and 2100 in the worst case scenario. We got 0.0C between 1996-2014 not 0.5C. This explains why the “pause” is such a catastrophic problem for the IPCC. This is like estimating the position of a bullet and having miscalculated early on the position the estimate at the end becomes worse and worse. The bullet is not going to veer over to 2.5 or 3.0C. I’m sorry it’s impossible.
The fact is to get the 3.0C temperature change now would require a discontinuous acceleration of temperatures, i.e. a miracle. This is not scientific prediction it is religious prediction they are making. The data says clearly the TCS = 0.6-1.2C, not 3.0 (their best guess.)
In order to understand that what I am saying is the reality go to this Nature article that was published in April 2015. It compares the results of global models and actual temperatures (GISTEMP the land surface record which is the adjusted data that shows more warming than satellites.)
RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 correspond to atmospheric CO2 scenarios, 4.5 assumes we produce the least CO2, 8.5 the most. The yellow line in the right graphs shows that the models are near the very bottom of possible results. This is using the heat enhanced adjusted temps. The results would be much worse if they used satellite records which are much more reliable.
The report says:
“a non-trivial portion of the GMT warming between the mid-1970s and mid-2000s may have been due to unforced noise9, 41, 45, 47.”
In other words, the temperature rise between 1975-1998 is because of something other than CO2 admitting that something else is going on.
Where they went wrong?
The Ocean is a problem for models
Climate scientists assumed the oceans are static. With 1000 times the heat content of the atmosphere this appears to be a bold assumption. Even minuscule variations in ocean heat could produce massive effects on the atmosphere. How they could assume the oceans were static is beyond me because we have so little ocean data we had no right to claim anything. We still don’t. This troubled me from the beginning even when I believed the high sensitivity theory. I didn’t understand how they assumed this and it is clear they are in trouble for assuming this. The oceans are NOT static.
We only discovered the El Ninos and such 20 years ago or so. The models are not reflecting this new information largely I believe because they have no idea how or why El Ninos happen. They know how the ocean temps vary during an El Nino and how the heat is released and absorbed but they don’t understand how to model them. The fact that they haven’t figured out how to model them is just more evidence that we lack even a basic understanding of the climate system.
One could argue they couldn’t know about what nobody knew which is that the oceans seem to have some periodic behavior tied to El Ninos that causes a predictable and consistent temperature wobble every 30 years up about 0.23C and then down 0.23C for 30 years. This has been seen both in observation of the temperature record for 250 years and maybe much longer and in variations in PDO and AMO which are heating we see in the pacific and Atlantic oceans.
The fact is this wobble is in the record was obvious which should have made them wonder but it didn’t. They ascribed the wobble to other reasons. We pay them to tell us what is certain and what is uncertain. It clearly was uncertain that the oceans were static even with the data they had when they made their first report. They basically were stupid or purposely ignored a huge uncertainty that they couldn’t logically explain away.
These devices called ARGO buoys below are amazing.
We now have 15 years of good data on the first couple thousand feet of the ocean with the 3000 ARGO floats now in operation since 1998. Prior to this the data is extremely specious. It consists of surface temperatures of the oceans for the first couple feet taken by ships traversing the ocean. This data is confounded by the different ways the temperature was taken and technologies as well as the limited routes they took and sparsity of data coverage. So, there is little data and what we have looks pretty unreliable and far from comprehensive. It shows how humanity has really just turned the corner in the last century or less on real understanding of science and until the last 15 years completely bereft of any real factual information on 70+% of the planet. Yet the IPCC blithely and confidently went ahead and said they were 95% certain of something they couldn’t possibly be. That’s lying to me.
Even the 15 years of ARGO data is still quite insufficient to understand the oceans dynamics because the oceans are tens of thousands of feet deep in many places and are in contact with the mantle which is in a constant state of eruption and leakage. We don’t know what cycles could exist or flows in this deep portion of the earth. Essentially until the last decade we assumed the oceans had no “weather or climate” even though they comprised the majority of the land surface, more than 50% of all the biologic life on the planet, 99.9% of the heat capacity of the earth and went to depths exceeding our highest mountains. Does this sound like a bizarre assumption to you? It did to me 15 years ago or more and I didn’t know anything about weather.
Even with the ARGO floats its important to understand we are covering a minority of the entire ocean. We don’t know how fissures in the mantle and plates could be releasing heat into the oceans or what the currents are. A new fleet of ARGO floats that can go deeper is planned. We are putting in fixed locations where we measure things. We are getting better but it will take decades more to have any real data on the ocean let alone any interpretation of that data and understanding of the ocean. To say anything else is simply a lie. Therefore there remains enormous uncertainty.
Recently, climate scientists concluded that a rising temperature in the lower 300M to 1000M depth must be related to storage of the missing energy from CO2 (the 0.5C that they can’t explain that is missing above.) First, they really have no explanation how the energy from CO2 which is mainly in the atmosphere above 1000M could get to 1000M below the surface of the ocean without apparently going between the two points. I say this because the ocean top layers are COOLER than they were 20 years ago. This would make me think that the warming may have come from below or be related to some biologic or chemical interaction with the sun. Frankly it could be many things. Jumping to the conlcusion it is the missing energy from CO2 is just that, a guess. Until they show how it is just a possible explanation. Clearly the oscillating PDO/AMO we have talked about earlier requires heat or cooling to come from the ocean. The most logical explanation of the warm middle ocean is that it is a natural and recurring phenomenon likely related to the PDO/AMO cycle and may explain that cycle better than as a lost energy from CO2. We don’t know if this layer of the ocean has heated in previous cycles of PDO or AMO or if it was always cold before CO2 rose. We don’t have the data to support either argument. Yet the IPCC goes on as if nothing has happened, nothing is different. No problems exist and it’s all obvious that this is the missing CO2 energy. This is not science they are doing. It is more properly called advocacy.
The sun is beating down on the ocean and it is poorly understood how the suns energy is absorbed through the layers of the ocean because there has been virtually no data on oceans or sun radiance data until extremely recently. We have virtually zero understanding of the temperatures of the ocean at lower depths let alone currents and cycles that may exist over longer periods since we have been observing for literally 15 years only the top 10% of the ocean. There could be longer wave temperature variations coming from the deep ocean. We have no idea.
But the IPCC concluded we’ll just ignore the oceans
Over the last 20 years we have learned about El Nino and La Nina and the tremendous effect these have and that these operate in a 30 year up cycle and 30 year down cycle. Why does this cycle exist? We don’t know. However, not knowing doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. When I asked a climate scientist about this he said they would disappear. Of course for 18 years now this “disappeared” effect just killed the entire effect of CO2 warming. So, obviously it hasn’t disappeared. He was wrong. They were all wrong but they won’t admit it publicly.
The up cycle for AMO/PDO El Nino started in ~1970 which just happens to correspond with when we first noticed “Global Warming” and happens to coincide with large scale emissions of CO2.
The 30 year down cycle for AMO/PDO started in ~1998 which happens to align with when temperatures have gone flat.
Therefore it is obvious to anyone that at least SOME of the rise from 1970-1998 (0.4C) is attributable to the up cycle of El Nino which happen to overlap with CO2 rise. Many estimate that half the rise of 0.4C is attributable to this up cycle in ocean heat movement.
Why half? Well if you look at the cycle of El Nino over the last 200 years it has operated with about a 0.4C variation over the cycles.
As an example from 1880-1910 temperatures declined, from 1910-1940 temperatures went up substantially. From 1940-1970 temperatures declined, from 1970-2000 temperatures went up in exact correspondence with the AMO/PDO El Nino long wave.
We now appear to be in a 30 year down cycle which has effectively cancelled any effect of CO2. We can expect this down cycle to continue till 2030 approximately or another 15 years.
Of course after 2030 we can expect a “boost” from the AMO/PDO to bolster CO2 and to get another 0.4C till 2060, then a haitus till 2090 with no warming or very little.
So, this simplistic way of looking at it shows that we should expect maybe 0.5C more by 2100. However, what I said at the beginning of this blog would start to take hold.
The fact is that all the CO2 molecules we pore in from 2060-2090 are going to have precious little effect on temperature because we would have already gotten by then 90% or more of the total effect from a doubling.
So, it is unlikely to even get the 0.5C by 2100. We may only get 0.2 or 0.3C. This corresponds to the calculation I did in the first part of this blog.
CONFIRMATION 0.5C more by 2100 Likely TCS=0.9C
There is another graph that I find damning for the CO2 model being so important.
In this graph again produced at WFT we are using the adjusted records again.
I have excluded the middle period to show the correspondence of the record from 1910-1945 with the similar period 1975-2010. The traces look identical. The magnitude of change is almost exactly the same and the time is exactly the same.
IPCC and Climate science says that since CO2 rose 10% in the first graph and 31% in the second graph that the second graph should be much steeper and much more change in temperature. If I were to plot the satellite record on the right the CO2 period with 31% increase would be far LESS than the 10% CO2 period.
Either the effect of CO2 is diminishing far faster than the logarithmic calculation would conclude or something increased temps in 1910-1945 much more than CO2 did.
I want to caveat all this by saying there is still vastly unknown about the climate system, the oceans, clouds, the suns effect as evidenced by this chart and other charts I will show below. We cannot explain vast parts of the temperature history of the world. We have theories but these are largely not proven and depending on which swath of time, which proxies you use you can get different theories.
Recently an article came out claiming the 18 year 8 month pause in temperature rises according to satellite measurements is simply a result of ENSO variations as I describe above. Here is the article in phys.org. This is brilliant piece of propaganda because it sidesteps 2 really thorny problems with the analysis it makes:
1) If you remove the ENSO from the data (i.e. if you assume they and I are correct that the major problem with the models is that they were built without understanding ENSO) you can simply subtract out the cyclic ENSO PDO/AMO from the existing temperature record to show the underlying trend. When you do that the models suddenly look horrific. The models were built and tuned without understanding ENSO so when you remove it they gyrate all over because they assumed those ENSO variations were for other reasons that turn out now to be false. So, you get around the problem that the current 18 year hiatus no longer looks problematic but it still leaves the models with vastly greater sensitivity to CO2 and other factors than they should and a wild divergence from historical temperatures. Ouch.
2) It still ignores the fact that CO2’s effect is diminishing in impact due to the logarithmic effect. All the heat that has been generated by the CO2 in the last 19 years has gone either into space lost forever or possibly into the deep ocean never to be recovered either. The new CO2 molecules will help boost temperature when the PDO reverses in 2030 possibly but by then the change in CO2 will be much less. We will undoubtedly get increased temperatures but that heat will be only marginally more than we get today. So, there is no possibility of temperatures recovering the lost time.
3) This article takes the astonishing position that ENSO is actually something that is irrelevant that is simply clouding our perception of the true underlying CO2 signal. Yes, it is but they didn’t tell us about this which means I have more reason to believe there are other things they didn’t know about. It points out that they ignored significant factors in natural variability that turn out they claimed was impossible a few years ago. They claimed CO2 was the dominant factor in climate. Obviously it doesn’t dominate ENSO.
I should like to point out another fallacy the climate community has hidden in their analysis that they don’t speak about. It is well known that volcanoes lower temperatures for a short time. They assumed that there were NO MORE volcanoes for the next century. If volcanoes reduce temperatures as IPCC models describe then removing them puts a bias to the high side since historically we have always had volcanoes and we will always get them. It would have been far more honest to include an “average” set of volcanoes and adjusted temperatures down a little.
In fact nobody really knows how volcanoes affect things short or longer term. They clearly have had major impact on climate over time. Yet, like the oceans they ignore them to the point of predicting we won’t get any for the next 100 years. Good luck with that.
CO2 CANNOT be the dominant factor in climate
Some of the big confusions is why ice ages even happen. They happen apparently every 100,000 years or so but in the past they happened every 40,000 years. Before that they didn’t happen at all.
Here is a chart of ice core data for 5 million years:
We believe the earth orbit has an effect but that doesn’t explain the size of the temperature movement nor its periodicity over time. The amount of sunlight change accounts for less than 10% of the needed energy change to produce an ice age. So 90% of the effect is missing or the sun has a much bigger effect than we understand for some reason. Also, the orbit periodicity doesn’t correspond to these time periods very accurately. So, something else is going on.
About 3 million years ago when the ice ages went into half-time the isthmus of Panama closed. Some think that decoupling the 2 large oceans caused the shortening between ice ages. We have no idea how exactly decoupling the oceans by the slight modification of 0.01% of the surface geography of the earth the oceans would double the time between ice ages. It’s a guess.
One theory uses CO2 to magnify the movement of temperature caused by the sun. However, looking at different periods we get vastly different results for this effect of CO2 meaning something else is at work or our data is wrong. There is no computer model that simulates the charts above using what we know today.
The IPCC could argue that things that affect the climate over 10s of thousands of years should not be relevant to considering much shorter periods of time like the last hundred but the sheer fact we have no clue tells us our knowledge of what affects temperature is seriously flawed. It is not clear why things that affect on such a long scale wouldn’t affect on a short scale as well. It is simply a fact that there are things that greatly affect temperature we don’t understand.
So, let’s look at a much shorter graph, say a few thousand years. Can they do better?
No Climate model can demonstrate the graph above for the last couple thousand years. This should be a much easier problem to solve. All we know is we have generally been recovering from the LIA. Please click here for the article just published in nature April 2015 confirming that climate models do not handle the variability in the record for even the last 1000 years.
There has been an overall upswing in temperatures since 1650.
The IPCC is extremely confident that whatever caused the movement of temperatures over the last 400 years has stopped and didn’t contribute to the rising temps from 1970-2000. Since they don’t know why the LIA happened or the MWP 1000 years ago it is hard to understand how they could be confident this 400 year heat wave has stopped. I have not seen any explanation for why they have such confidence it has stopped because if it hasn’t stopped it could have contributed again to the rise in the 20th some of which the IPCC cannot explain by CO2 alone. If they think it stopped at 1940 that’s pretty awesome science considering they don’t even know why this wave over 500 years happened in the first place.
Let’s look at this graph for the temperature record of the Holocene (our most recent ice age)
You will notice in this graph that there is a periodic wobble. It’s not a pure sinusoid but it is variation that is unexplainable. This graph shows that overall temperatures for the last 8,000 years or so have been declining. So, what’s the big deal with that? 2 things.
The IPCC says temps are probably higher than in the last 1300 years. What that means is that they can’t explain temperatures in the graph above and that prior to 1300 years ago it may have been warmer and they can’t explain it. Obviously whatever made it hotter then could be making it hotter now. Have they discounted that? No. They don’t even try to understand temperatures other than the last 100 or so. That’s stupid. Obviously temperatures vary tremendously over periods of 100 years for all kinds of reasons that can’t be related to CO2 since CO2 has been almost a constant until recently for thousands of years.
This period 8000-5000 years ago is called the Holocene optimum. That time is when life seemed to be at its peak, humanity was able to settle down to agriculture and civilization to start. It is hard to get worked up about the temperature change going up a couple degrees when you realize this is something that we saw recently and that resulted in what was clearly one of the best times in world history.
Second, the facts clearly CONTRADICTS the entire theory they have for CO2. During this period above CO2 did not change yet temperatures were 2 degrees warmer than today. The climate models are tuned so that CO2 is the only long term factor that can affect temperatures so the graph above like the other 2 graphs above it put a stake into the heart of the climate models that assume CO2 is the only primary long term driver of climate. That cannot possibly be right.
The climate models are based on the idea that CO2 is the only long term climate driver of significance
The actual temperature record clearly shows significant long term temperature change with no change in CO2
Computer Models show 3.0C TCS, 5 times the effect of CO2 alone.
The only way you can get more than a couple tenths of degree before the end of the century is by completely ignoring the actual results of CO2 in the atmosphere and using computer models that amplify the effect of CO2. This may seem odd because computer models are theories and data is fact. Science only cares about data right? Sometimes in listening to Climate scientists I get the impression
Climate Scientists think the models are facts and data is theory
It is clear that 3C TCS cannot possibly be even close to the correct value if you just look at the data. IPCC V5 recently lowered it to likely 2.5C. This is of course still ridiculous. Recent study showed that the IPCC V5 “political summary” was inconsistent with the reports technical analysis and that even though they claimed 2.5C as the most likely TCS their own science in the report proved that TCS was likely under 2C.
This is presumably why there is such a clamor now to reduce the “danger point” of CAGW to 1.5C because they obviously now believe they won’t get 2C let alone 3C so there is nothing to warn everyone about unless they lower the “danger level substantially.” Now we are reading that dangerous effects can happen from just 1C or less. I will talk more about the “Predictions” of future effects in a section below.
Climate models cannot possibly be used to estimate temperatures 50 years from now.
The models do calculations on a scale that any mathematician or scientist would agree carries an enormous amount of propagation error. Propagation error is the error when you make a computation. It compounds the more computations you do. The result of many trillions of calculations is so much error that the end result is meaningless. I have said this from the beginning. Even if the models were scientifically accurate in terms of their physics of the atmosphere it is not possible for them to compute reasonable estimates for temps 60 or 100 years from now.
Making the models “look like weather”
The original models would produce things like temperatures of -200 degrees or +200 degrees during simulations. Whole parts of the planet would be destroyed in a decade. Obviously that hasn’t happened. So, the models were tuned to “look” like they were “plausible.” They put in computer code that fixed these impossible results. This computer code doesn’t correspond to any real world process. You make the call on what you think of that. I call it cheating.
I learned about these problems from the head of Lawrence Livermore Labs Climate Modeling Group at my Stanford Univ Global Warming class. He was quite forthright in person about the problems with the models. He told me of a study which showed that no model was better than any other model. In spite of the fact there are 23 different computer models (GCMs General Circulation Models) none of them performs better or worse than the other. In fact, if you pick one period that one model does well there is no way to know if some other period you pick which model will perform better. This is damning because if the physics in the models were truly “valid” then one would expect that one model would consistently work better. Nope. This leads me to conclude that the models don’t have the physics right in spite of the fact they insist they are “proven”, that it’s all certain and any variation from their models is pure random luck. It really seems the other way around. The models correspondence is pure luck.
The models produce data that “looks” like it could be real weather because they have been forced to do that. For anybody in computer science or mathematics it must be clear that such modification is indisputable evidence that the models are just toys. They can’t possibly be producing a real “prediction.” The authors call them possible outcomes. We actually have no idea if they are possible outcomes.
In order to overcome the fact that the models produce extremely weird results they run the models hundreds of times varying things slightly. You produce a graph that you hope shows clusters of possibilities so that you can say this or that seems likely to happen.
This idea of “possible paths” used in chaos theory and in doing things like airplane design depends on the models actually producing real possible outcomes, actually representing the physics and not projecting too far into the future. We don’t know if they are real possible outcomes, we don’t know if the physics in the models is at all correct and we are trying to project to a point that propagation error and the tuning of the models almost certainly dominates any possible valuable result.
Are the models based on real physics?
The models are said to be based on “physics” and they have formulas that represent what some think are the way the atmosphere works. Much is made of this physics and the example that is always pointed out is the effect on CO2 itself from the sun.
This is a fact: CO2 molecules do absorb infrared radiation is a relatively low energy spectrum and then heat the air around them. The total rise in temperature from CO2 alone is estimated at TCS of 0.6C (Pretty much what I’m saying we are actually seeing).
However, the computer models have dozens of other formulas for how humidity is affected by the temperature and clouds and chemical reactions. These are UNPROVEN. For instance, the graph above shows that humidity which doubles the impact of CO2 has ACTUALLY been moving down not up. That’s a problem because the models show humidity going the other direction. Lower water vapor in the upper atmosphere would allow heat to escape to space like opening the windows on your car. The very heat they say is accumulating dangerously in the earth may actually have just escaped and gone forever into space. Similarly clouds are a huge variable the IPCC admits is very hard to understand. They may be positive effect or negative effect on temperature. We don’t know. We have just begun to measure clouds, different types of clouds can produce different effect. Water vapor and clouds are tied together. The point is these are all still unproven theories.
The magnitude of these other “physics” effects are fudge factors they play with to tune the models. The total effect of these other unproven formulas is many TIMES the CO2 effect. That’s how they get from what CO2 itself would do to the atmosphere of 0.6C to 3C or 6C. They have put in unproven formulas which they play games with to see if they can get the 3C they all expect to see.
Using the historical record to validate your model
The modelers say their models are correct because they can match historical records. They said this was “proof” that from 1975-1998 the rise in temperatures was 100% caused by CO2 and they were 95% sure of this fact. They said that the proper tuning of their models had almost completely eliminated all the natural variability. They called the models “skillful” because the models knew WHY temperature went up and down. So this means they were very certain therefore of the effects of all these things. They concluded that Co2 COMPLETELY dominates all natural variability especially now. That was premature.
If you look carefully at this record below you now see that temperature can easily be seen to be a cycle. From 1880-1910 temperatures declined. From 1910-1940 temperatures went up. From 1940-1970 temperatures went down again slightly. From 1970-2000 temperatures went up and from 2000-2015 temperatures are flat.
Here is another reconstruction demonstration this wave-like behavior:
They had no real explanation for why temperatures from 1880-1910 showed a decline. Their models don’t show it.
From 1910-1940 they claimed that increased solar radiation may have had some effect but the models don’t show as big a gain in temperature as the historical records show.
From 1940-1970 they said that the pollution from industrialization reduced the effect of CO2 and reduced the amount of sunlight that made it into the atmosphere reducing temperatures.
CO2 they say caused 100% of the rise from 1970-2000.
Because they could exlplain so precisely why and by how much all these things affected temperatures they were confident.
As soon as they said that things started to go awry.
They have no explanation for why temperatures haven’t increased as robustly as 1970-2000 since then and their models show no pause in temperatures. For 18+ years now natural variability has cancelled CO2. Something they said they had accounted for. They don’t understand how temperatures have simply not followed their predictions with small variation. They did NOT expect to be off by 0.5C in a few short years.
It is now apparent at least part of the reason why. AMO/PDO El Nino. The problem with this is that it CRUSHES the explanations of all the previous periods they gave above.
Their explanations for the historical temperature record of the last 100 years is now proven WRONG
I find little discussion in their blogs or reports to admit this.
During 1880-1910 temperatures went down with little CO2 in the atmosphere. They don’t explain it.
From 1910-1940 they said it was the sun but now we know it was the oceans largely and maybe some from the sun. They were wrong.
From 1940-1970 we were pumping major CO2 into the atmosphere they said the temp went down because of pollution. We know this is wrong. It was the ocean that caused most of this temperature decline.
From 1970-2000 they said finally CO2 did it all but we know that the ocean did some of it.
The changing reasons for these effects means they were wrong about the tuning they did for albedo (the reflectivity of the earth related to particulate pollution), the effect of the suns radiation that they said cause the 1910 – 1940 rise. These changes means their predictions about the future are completely up in the air.
Temperatures rose in 2 periods by about the same amount (0.4C), one when CO2 was rising a lot and one when CO2 wasn’t.
Temperatures declined or flattened in 3 periods, 2 of the 3 periods were when CO2 was rising fast. One period was when CO2 was flat.
If you knew this would you say that CO2 is the DOMINANT factor in temperature?
It is very clear that CO2 has probably some effect on temperature but not more than numerous other factors.
Data Reanalysis and Experimenter Bias
They are constantly looking at data to see what’s wrong with it. They call this re-analysis. This is why I say that climate scientists act as if the models were facts and data was theory.
They reanalyze data constantly to “improve” it. Somehow no matter what the reanalysis the conclusion is the data was wrong and the modification always happens to move the data to be closer to what they expected. How convenient. I have pointed out that it doesn’t have to be a conspiracy for scientists to work to prove their theories correct.
It is a subconscious bias of every person to see errors in data that move the data closer to what they expect. It is called experimenter bias. If they see temperatures seem low they will spend an infinite amount of creative energy to explain why the temperature was lower than they expected. However, if the temperature comes in at or higher than they expected then they will not spend one second questioning the result.
This resulted in one instance I know of where the entire temperature record of Russia was copied for 2 months from one month to another making winter months in Russia the hottest ever recorded and moving world temperatures up to a world record. Nobody questioned the massive temperature increases in Russia until one layman happened to notice it. They quickly corrected it and retracted the highest temperatures statements.
The point is scientists did not question the results. Scientists were not the ones who caught the error. They expected the results so there was no need to analyze them. This kind of bias results in a level of disbelief. Every adjustment made to the data always moves temperatures higher today and lower in the past emphasizing the magnitude of the climate change.
Even with all these adjustments and reanalysis there is no way to get around the fact that now they run out of wiggle room. There is nothing left to adjust and the data is flat for nearly 20 years.
Adjusting the station data
If you take out adjustments the temperature record is dramatically different.
The adjustments to raw station data are particularly interesting. As you saw in the very early part of the blog there is a disconnect now between satellites and adjusted land stations. Satellites show temperatures have not changed for almost 19 years now. Land records keep being played with and now with new adjustments to sea records they have moved the curve up even farther to bust the pause. Even with these new adjustments they are way below what they need to keep the theory on track.
It is surprising that even the trusty thermostat that we have used for 150 years is a flaky thing to use. For instance, when you measure temperature what time of day do you take the temperature? Do you look for high or low?
Let’s say the temperature is 10F today at 7am low. If you reset the thermostats at 7am and the next day the low temperature is 20F the thermostat may show the low was 10F because it is still showing the temperature at 7:01AM yesterday as the low.
What if you change the time you read the temperature from 7AM to 3PM? Obviously the temperature at 7AM is much lower than the temperature at 3PM. This is called time of day observation bias.
What if you need to replace the thermostat because it gets broken and change to a new technology? New thermostats have fancy features that eliminate some problems with old thermostats and new thermostats also report lower hi’s than mercury thermostats did. Sometimes a new thermostat might not go in for a long time. Nobody kept records on when all these things were done.
What if you change the site of the thermometer because someone is building a building where the thermometer was? All these things have to be “adjusted for” and questions arise. Also, the thermostats are not placed in a regular grid around the world. Vast stretches of the earth including the oceans don’t have any. So, this is why I say the satellite record is more trustworthy. NASA said this until they were able to play with their station data enough to show a higher global warming. They no longer use their satellites. They seem to be annoyances. I think they would just as soon let them fall out of the sky so there wouldn’t be this pesky alternate view because they don’t seem to want to look at them anymore.
Why change TOD for thermostats to morning?
The adjustments may all make sense but there are questions. For instance, they have decided to change the temperature taking time to morning which means all temperatures taken in the past which were taken during the day have to be adjusted down. How much down? They claim they have a good estimate but any estimate is an estimate. They modify the number by a guess. That guess has some error in it. The error of the dataset is increased.
Adjustments cannot increase the accuracy of the data
You do not improve the accuracy of the data by adjusting it this way. The better thing to do would be to figure out the time of day to pick that would result in the MINIMAL adjustment to the data so that the error introduced by the estimate was the least. That might mean everyone should take temperatures at 4:14PM. I don’t know but that would be the most numerically best thing to do, not likely to move the temperature to the morning because it results in a vast number of stations (>50% of the entire historical record has to be modified) most of it by significant amounts that look suspicious but also add lots of error.
So, if you can’t improve the accuracy by fiddling with the data why do it?
Adjustments only make the graphs look more consistent with the models to the lay observer. In fact, the error bars on the data have increased and the data has actually declined in accuracy because you have introduced another source of error.
Because we don’t have satellite records for the whole period being adjusted we can’t verify these adjustments with an independent record as scientists would like. We can do that for more recent adjustments. GISS which is the station record maintained and adjusted by NASA has begun to diverge from the 2 satellites which also record temperature. I would say that is evidence something has gone wrong with the adjustments. There must be fundamental problems with the adjustment process unless you can re-analyze the satellite data and adjust it to look like the station data. I wouldn’t be surprised if some creative scientist can find a way to do this.
Run out of wiggle room
The adjustments make little difference. Even if they have overstated the temperature rise by a few tenths of a degree it is irrelevant. The problem is MUCH bigger than this now. The temperature was supposed to be at least another 0.5C higher now than it is.
Recent report by NASA claims 2014 was the highest temperature ever by 0.02C however, the 2 satellites don’t show this. In any case, the problem is that the temperature is not 0.5C higher not 0.02C higher. This glaring factoid is missing from the report from NASA. We could get a temperature 0.02C higher every few years for the next century and the result would be 0.4C which is way way way below their stated TCS of 2.5C. The real report from NASA should have been that there is a missing 0.5C that they can’t explain and puts their theory to the dustbin of history.
Dozens of these “theories” of how the atmosphere works are embedded in these models and none of them are proven like the CO2 effect on photons from the sun is known. So, they obscure that and tell you this is all proven science. Only one part is proven and that is the effect of photons on CO2. The remaining parts of the models which represents 90% of the effect the models predict are completely unproven. This is where the 0.5C has gone. It is imaginary. It’s in their models and their heads but not in the real world!
Average the models
So, given that it seems unlikely that the models could produce good numbers statistically speaking and given that they are based on unproven scientific models it would seem that people would ignore them entirely but the climate community pulls a trick. They average a bunch of the models together, call these scenarios and say the average is a cluster of the most likely outcome. It’s just chance but it is possible.
The only thing that could say if the models are worth looking at is if they predict actual results. They claim just this. At least they did claim it. They said the models showed the history and therefore they explained the history and must be real.
As in any scientific theory you are only as good as the next data point. You can run 10000000000 experiments in the LHC supercollider that confirms your theory but if you get some new real data that is an anomalous result then your theory is dead. Some part of your theory might be right but overall we call the theory dead.
RSS satellite temperature data now shows temperature has not moved in 18 years 5 months. Can we just say essentially 20 years. After all this doesn’t move that fast. If there has been a rise in 20 years it is minimal and it is likely that the pause will go far beyond 20 years. I will explain why.
Climate scientists said that if the temperature went outside the envelope of their model runs it was a 5% chance their theories were correct. It has gone beyond their envelopes. Temperatures now are BELOW what the models said was the outside temperature we would see if we did not output ANY CO2 since 2000. Notice in the graph below temperatures fall outside the low bound of what Hansen called the zero emissions model. So, this is bizarre. The climate is acting like CO2 doesn’t matter or matters very little. Throw gazillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere or throw nothing and the result is the same. That says CO2 isn’t a big effect.
They said a streak of 10 years with no temperature change was fairly common but that a streak of 15 years or more of no warming was less than 5% chance of happening. It would disprove the models. It is now 18 1/2 years. This is virtually as long as the climb in temperatures from 1975-1998 or so.
They predicted temperatures would be 1 degree warmer and we’ve gotten half that. They are off by 50%. No matter how you look at it there is a problem with the models. Any reasonable scientist would say the models are disproven.
The models HAVE TO BE ASSUMED TO BE DISPROVEN. Any scientist must come to this conclusion.
If you are a climate scientist you should admit the models seem disproven and be working hard on the theory. Even if you won’t admit they are disproven the minimum a real scientist would say is that they are skeptical of the models.
What is the reason for the models failures? 1) The numerical accuracy of the models prove that if the models worked it was pure luck. 2) The science in the models is unproven. 3) The fudging used to “fit” the models is not working anymore. 4) AMO/PDO are much larger effect than they assumed 5) it’s hard to make any prediction farther away than a decade because of enormous variability in possible outcomes.
It’s hard to believe people continue to spout this theory when we’ve had almost 20 years of practically no temp change. How is it possible that with such a divergence that the IPCC and so many continue to believe and spout that we will get 2-3C change in temp by 2100?
Well, for the IPCC the answer is obvious. Their charter is to show the effect of humankind on the environment. If they came out and said: No worries that would have been a waste of time, huh?
Don’t 97% of scientists agree in believing catastrophic results from CO2 will occur?
Others have said that 97% of the community is in agreement that climate change is going to cause massive damage and will be 2C or more. The fact is this statistic is pure nonsense. A survey was done of 5000 “scientists” but the results of 4912 of the scientists was disregarded because they were deemed “not climate scientists.” Of the 88 remaining climate scientists it was unsurprising that their careers depending on the existence of an existential threat to humanity from climate agreed that humans were affecting climate. Interestingly they did not ask the group to say what temperature will happen. They were simply asked if humanity was having a substantial effect. The definition of substantial being unclear.
Why should we care what these 88 believe? Are they really that much more educated than the other 5000 scientists questioned? What were the results from the remaining scientists? Obviously less than 97% but it’s never been reported.
This survey was done years ago when there was hardly any evidence of AMO/PDO cycles, there was no 18 year haitus in temperatures. If you polled even the 88 would you get 97% today? What would the other 4912 say today? No further “studies” have been done.
What about the smoking gun?
Some reasonable scientists will say. Okay, the models look bad but there is still the problem of the smoking gun. This is the idea that to be skeptical of the models you must explain not only why CO2 isn’t having an effect but why the theory of CO2 works elsewhere and also why the temperature has gone up for the last 100+ years. These are legitimate questions.
First, nobody is claiming that CO2 has no effect. Nobody is denying the physics of CO2. What is disagreed is if they have proved their models and what else could be going on. They claim nothing else could go on because their models were so good. We now see their models are not so good so the idea that disproves other effects is false.
The rise shown by the adjusted station historical data is almost 1C since 1900. This is convenient for them in that 1900 was the bottom of an El Nino trough in temperatures. Also, they are claiming the 0.4C rise during the early part of the 20th century which could not be CO2 related. The real change purported to be caused by CO2 is mainly the 0.4C between 1975-1998.
This 0.4C even if it was entirely caused by CO2 as I explained means that the total CO2 rise expected by 2100 would be 0.6C or 1/4 of their lowest estimate. Let’s assume CO2 is the full reason for all the rise then we are left with an insignificant problem less than a full degree rise.
However, we know that El Nino contributed some of the heat rise between 1975-1998 now. So, at most 0.2C was produced by the CO2 we put in during that time period. This is consistent with the fact that since 1997 we have put 57% of all the CO2 ever put in by man into the atmosphere. The majority of manmade CO2 put into the atmosphere has been put in since 1997. That’s a problem. There has been 0.00C rise in temperature since 1997. CO2 is having very little effect on the temperature clearly.
We know that temperatures have been going up and down for millions of years but we don’t know why. Even in the last thousand years temps were up then down and now recovering. We don’t know why. The smoking gun question can be turned on its head. Clearly, we have been in a recovery since 1650 and the LIA. Whatever has caused this recovery could easily explain the 0.2C rise in the period from 1975-1998 as well as CO2.
Does this mean CO2 has NO effect? Not necessarily. What it means is that the climate is a combination of a large number of factors, presumably CO2 being one but CO2 is NOT the dominant factor and it does not produce nearly the magnitude the climate models show. Presumably we will see some increase in temperature especially when the El Nino long wave of 30 years which started around 1997 ends. That is somewhere around 2027 we should expect significant increases again in temperatures but it won’t be as much as the 1975-1998 period because the effect of CO2 is decreased by the logarithmic affect everyone agrees about.
We hardly know the factors that affect climate. We do not understand almost any of the interrelationships of the factors.
The IPCC in its first report admitted there were enormous number of things that could affect the climate. They discounted a large number of these unknown things by saying that their impact would be small.
However, historically temperatures have varied enormously and we don’t really understand why. Therefore there are several conclusions.
1) The IPCC is wrong and missing factors
2) The IPCC is wrong about the magnitude of the factors
I don’t know entirely the answer but I do know they underestimated drastically the possible effect of the ocean and periodic effects in the ocean. Since we don’t know what causes those effects they could amplify other effects which the IPCC has discounted. For instance, volcanoes on the ocean floor could cause changes that could be significant. Volcanoes above the water cause 5-10 year plunges in temperature of several degrees sometimes. What could a big volcano below the ocean do and would it create a cycle?
Is it possible the sun interacting with biology in the ocean produce much bigger changes in climate than we know about?
Some have speculated that the change in the isthmus of panama drastically changed the cycles of the ice ages. If small changes in geography can cause massive change to the climate do we know what changes in the geography of the land and oceans could have done to the climate?
There is a lot we don’t understand. There is no way really to know what the temperatures will be. We are at the end of the Holocene. There is something that will happen sometime that will cause the earth to move towards another ice age. Hansen from Nasa has said the CO2 will cancel the next ice age. I hope so. An ice age would be a massive debacle. I doubt that CO2 has cancelled the ice age coming. The magnitude of temperature change during an ice age is as much as 8 degrees. CO2 is having 0.6C difference. It won’t cancel the ice age. It may delay it but it would be nice to know why the ice ages happen. I think we should continue studying climate but less emphasis should be put on models that are unproven and work instead on understanding the fundamental things we obviously don’t understand.
It will be hard to figure these things out mainly because the data proxies we have on the past are inaccurate and sparse. If we are finding the data today is not sufficient to figure out what is happening today then it is very hard. This is a physics challenge. We need to think hard about how all this works and come up with new ideas, new theories. It’s not going to be CO2. That much is clear. Co2 is clearly not providing an explanation for the recent 100 years let alone all the variations in the past. The oceans are clearly a huge variable.
The argo floats are covering less than 30% of the ocean. They don’t get deep ocean, they don’t get areas with minimal depth. They go in certain areas only. They can’t make it too far south. We need to study the ocean a lot more and especially at depth. More important we need data on currents and fluctuations in regions which the floats don’t give us. We need a lot more data. I suggest we build 10 times as many floats and much more sophisticated and capable of going to depths much lower than currently. Staying in an area for years making measurements.
A similar problem is happening with sea level calculations. This is even more bizarre because the IPCC itself admits and estimates that sea levels will rise no more than 18″ by 2100 but we are told by many scientists on radio programs and in articles in science journals that 36 to 60″ or more will happen possibly even in 20 or 30 years. Yet the fact is that sea level has risen very consistently between 2-3mm/year with only small variation for 200+ years since the last “Little Ice Age” in 1650. Even during the latter part of the 20th century when CO2 is ballooning sea level change has not exceeded this 2-3mm/year.
2-3mm/year = 200-300mm/century (multiple by 100.) This is 0.3M or about 10 inches. So, the IPCC is agreeing that there is really no reason to believe that sea levels will rise more than a foot by the end of the century. I would say the data truly shows closer to 6-7″ like last century almost exactly when we produced almost no CO2.
Even if we cancel all CO2, reverse temps to 1900 we will still get 7″ sea level rise.
It is likely that sea levels are rising for hundreds of years because the “average” temperature of the earth exceeds some “stasis” level where ice creation and ice depletion is in balance. Whatever that temperature is we are above it and have been above it for centuries. Therefore even if we return to the temperature of 1880 and reduce temperatures of the earth by all of the warming in the 20th century from CO2 or not WE WILL STILL GET MELTING and SEA LEVEL RISE.
Unless we reduce temperatures below this stasis temperature whatever it is we will not stop the glaciers from ultimately melting and sinking our cities. We have to plan for rising sea levels regardless of what we do with CO2 or not. Rising levels of CO2 seem to be having almost zero impact on this sea level rise. It has been between 2-3mm/year for at least 200 years.
Yet we are inundated with scare stories about sea levels and cities going under. Consider this. We had 7″ gain in the 19th century and the 20th century and no obvious dire species ending events occur that I am aware of. No cities were underwater. If we get 7″ or 14″ in 200 years that is an infinite amount of time from the point of view of cities. Most buildings last for a few decades before major repair and retrofit. It is normal regardless of what we do that we will rebuild our cities several times over in this time frame.
Even if we could stop all temperature rise it is not clear that sea levels wouldn’t continue rising. We have to assume sea levels will rise regardless of CO2 or anything else in our planning and costs. CO2 is an irrelevant factor.
Could sea levels suddenly surge? Maybe. There are a lot of scare theories but none of them is proven even to the extent the IPCC would take a chance to suggest them. They are willing to say the models are good when they aren’t so it is surprising they don’t make this leap. They are willing to keep pushing the 2.5C TCS theory when it is apparent that is impossible. Yet they won’t push more sea level rise.
The fact is that all you hear about all this melting of ice is never balanced. The media won’t tell you that mitigating factors like the growing of the antarctic ice mass or less loss from inland glaciers than they presumed means that sea level isn’t rising as much. They won’t point out that sea temperatures aren’t changing much which means we don’t get thermal expansion as much. All these things mean that overall sea level is not rising dramatically.
Weather or Climate
The CAGW crowd has resorted to what they accused the skeptics would do. They said they were ONLY concerned with climate which was long term effects. However, they now cling to every storm, every tidbit of weather data they can to expound how global warming is alive and well. They are doing exactly what they said skeptics would do and was wrong.
A recent article from NASA claimed that 2014 was the hottest year ever. This was based on their own GISS data which is the “adjusted data.” Satellite records from RSS or UAH do not show 2014 as the hottest year ever. Now even the GISS data show a <50% chance 2014 was the hottest year ever. Also, 2014 according to NASA in the article said was 0.02 degrees warmer than previous high. What they didn’t say is that for the last 18 years the temperature has not moved appreciably which is the real result. They emphasized something which was likely false and more important failed to mention the real import of what even their own data shows which is that temperatures have remained relatively stable for decades even as their models predicted that temperatures should be at least 0.5C higher than they were for 2014.
The devastating Impact of Climate Change : NOT!
The calculation of impact from climate change is hard. Obama recently claimed his daughters asthma would be negatively affected by Climate Change. This assumes that pollen would increase from increased CO2. This is based on assumptions in global warming models and random ideas. We really have no idea what happens to pollen in any scenario. There is no useful data and such predictions are completely bizarre.
Predicting the impact of climate change is confounded by this inability to predict the future of our science. Even if the computer models were correct it assumes that we produce X CO2 and we have Y science to mitigate effect Z. Such things are unknowable even a couple decades away. The rate of technological advancement is accelerating enormously. It is impossible to say how we will produce food in 65 years yet the IPCC predicts food supply will drop in 65 years.
We are advancing our understanding of plants every year. We are richer every year which allows us to farm more acreage in more severe conditions. We can engineer plants.
On top of this is a simple fact. CO2 is a food source for plants. More CO2 means more and bigger plants. The IPCC spends a lot of time trying to dismiss this fact. However, satellites show that carbon based life forms have increased by >20% since the satellite era started. This is measured by looking at the wavelengths prevalent on the surface and the characteristic spectrums produced. We can conclude that the last 40 years has seen a massive explosion of plants in spite of all the cutting and human interventions. Why? Almost certainly a factor has been that they have greater food supply in the form of CO2.
The IPCC says in 2080 food will decline partly because we can’t move growing regions fast enough. This is unbelievable. We will know decades in advance. We will have enormous technology and wealth at our disposal. How is it possible we won’t utilize the vastly expanding arable land from their expected temperature rises? What kind of technology will we have for plants by 2080? This is unknowable but again the IPCC throws the dice like with temperature models and ventures a prediction. It’s incredibly unbelievable. All the predictions of impact suffer this incredible uncertainty and therefore I think that they are a waste of money.
Many studies show there will be increasing casualties from higher temperatures however this flies in the face of common sense. For hundreds of years temperatures have been going up and we have no discernable increase in death from higher temperatures.
University studies have shown that the death rate in the winter is 15% higher than in summer months. Cold kills. Increased stress on the heart, increased pneumonia, fatal accidents with cars, more colds and more people dying from all kinds of diseases. People trapped in freezing apartments or cars. Cold is dangerous and unpleasant. We all know this. This is why cities in Florida and New Mexico, Arizona and other states where temperatures routinely make it well above 100 are booming and the fastest growing cities.
There are numerous articles that try to dispel this idea that has been proven time and again that 1 degree of colder weather kills 7-15 times as many people as 1 degree warmer which means that every rise in temperature will save lives not kill people. Recent article again proved this computing 9 times as many deaths from cold as warm weather. They talk about crops having to move and animals but they fail to mention that increasing temps would also mean more arable land, more land for plants and animals to live. They fail to mention that increased rain means overall there would be MORE fresh water a critically important resource.
It’s important to understand that doing nothing will still produce bad consequences for some. It’s important to understand that things happen regardless of what we do. Sea level will rise even if we reverse everything. We have to deal with these issues wether we are the cause or nature we have to handle storms better, rising sea levels, people dying from heat storms or in the cold. We will because we have to keep working on these things anyway so the “cost” of these things is unclear or non-existant since we will still have to deal with all these things no matter what.
The IPCC wants us to believe that suddenly at this precise temperature we are at now the death rate will CLIMB from higher temperatures even though it seems from common sense it would fall. Even though historically it has fallen over the last centuries as temperatures rose. This makes the current temperature of the Earth the “PERFECT” temperature apparently from the IPCC. Any deviation up or down will kill more people. I don’t believe it. I would need to see proof of this and something more substantial than the stupid research I’ve seen so far like the food declining argument.
Every piece of “impact” science I have seen is wasted money. They have very little science behind it. The logic is specious, the cost of mitigation is trivial in most cases. They are simply unbelievable.
If there is no impact then why are we worrying about this?
I think it is categorically unscientific at this point for any “scientist” to claim that temperatures will rise more than 0.6C over the next 85 years if we get to 600ppm of CO2 based on CO2 and the consequences of CO2 expansion.
A TCS of <1.5C based on the IPCCs own “science” is net positive for the world.
Sea levels will not likely rise more than 10″ this century.
The computer models are clearly falsified by numerous of the IPCC’s own scientists criteria and by common sense.
In my view these are indisputable scientific facts born out by the hard data we have seen and the IPCC’s own data. We have seen 70% of the TCS effect of CO2 doubling and it is 0.4C at MOST. Therefore there is no possible way the last 30% is 2C or more! How can you believe that? On what scientific basis?
It seems clear that the CAGW crowd is basically using this as a political weapon rather than as a scientific thing. The improbability of any significant increase is irrelevant. They are simply using the possibility as a political weapon to cudgel opponents and cheer the crowd. People can use global warming as an excuse for anything they want politically. Denying it can be met with a raft of catcalls and diminutive exclamations as a way to silence the opposition. It has become a completely political entity that people are no longer interested in the actual science of anymore.
Where do we go from here?
Understanding our climate is a highly worthwhile goal. I fully support studying it and understanding everything about it. Far more has been spent on computer models and CO2 study than is warranted.
We should defund most of the efforts toward computer models of climate. We are not ready to build climate models. We need to retract statements about predictions of the future and reduce to a simplified statement along the lines I have proven. There is about 0.3C of additional temperature from a CO2 doubling. This is unlikely to be bad. Crisis averted.
Now we can get back to luring real scientists into this field and get away from advocacy science or what I have dubbed “sciology” and go to real science.
We need more money spent on basic science of climate. The biggest emphasis has to be the oceans. The next biggest impact is clouds, the sun and the mantle. These areas represent vast areas of lack of knowledge and data. We cannot expect climate models to even remotely represent reality until we have a better understanding of these major contributors. We need to run experiments to prove and disprove assumptions in the models.
After we have studied these things and have sufficient data which may take decades to gather we can think about building computer models. In the meantime we are guessing like going to Vegas. We have spent billions on this Vegas like climate model craps game. I love computers and think there is a lot we can do with them but predicting the temperature in 100 years isn’t one of them at least based on what we know today.
Any prediction is a hard thing to do. Here is a blog about this topic. Something science fiction enthusiasts like myself love to think about is the future. However, it is proving to be harder and harder to predict the shape of the future. That is interesting in itself.
Why I call Climate Researchers “Climate Sciologists”
My last point is about science. I grew up with science. Going to MIT I have revered science and I still consider it to be our best hope for humanity. I see in the climate community an abuse of science. The first abuse is:
1) Stating things as true they don’t know. There is nothing wrong in saying I don’t know.
We have seen this repeatedly and I see it constantly in journal articles blogs and by people who should know better. Scientists have to be clear about what they “know” and what they have a theory for, what is backed by real data and what they think based on common sense for instance.
The Climate science community has not done this. They are arrogant. They say they know things they don’t. They say things are certain that aren’t. They try to diminish people who question and call them denialist. Scientists don’t do that. Scientists are denialist’s by definition. A scientists job is to question the status quo theory and seek answers to unknown questions. To perform experiments to test a theory.
There is nothing wrong with saying we don’t know. Physicists and other scientists say this all the time. This gives them the room to investigate what they don’t know, for others to explain it or come up with theories. This seems to be precisely what Climate Researchers don’t want. They don’t want anybody questioning the expensive multi-billion dollar models and assumptions they have put in. So they criticize anyone who tries to suggest they don’t know. They are a Denialist.
REAL SCIENTISTS ADMIT WHAT THEY DON”T KNOW BEFORE THEY SAY ANYTHING THAT IS NOT PROVEN
2) Not admitting errors
Climate Research today is a confused bunch of theories, numerical associations, some ideas of relationships of things to other things. As an example when I took my global warming class literally only a few years ago they explained how they had models of how the ocean reacted to the sun and to global warming. Most of the heat would not make it to lower levels in the ocean for many centuries likely. This was how the long-term-equilibrium of the system would be reached.
However, now we are being told that they believe the excess heat from the CO2 that seems to have disappeared went into the ocean below 100m. If they thought this was possible then they would not have been certain about temperatures rising over the 100 years. They explicitly told me this wasn’t possible. This is a major miscalculation.
This is only the most recent of dozens maybe hundreds of errors they’ve made. Like I recounted above they made errors in attribution of why temperatures varied. They made mistakes in not understanding the role of the ocean and the PDO/AMO cycles.
Everytime I have read or heard anything from a Climate sciologist I get this rant of perfection. This is why this happened and this is the facts. We are certain bla bla bla. The energy went here, then there. Subtract this from that, then double that. Everything is known. Except that it isn’t. I told you they failed in all those things I mentioned. They don’t admit that. That is something scientists would never do.
REAL SCIENTISTS ADMIT WHEN THEIR MODELS ARE WRONG AND WHY OPENLY AND CLEARLY
3) Accepting of alternate theories
Their models are at the edge of being 1% chance of correct. They need new ideas, explanations. Scientists in other disciplines are open to new ideas. When a doctor discovered the Pylori bug that causes ulcers in the stomach a lot of other doctors denounced. This doctor almost got thrown out of his profession however, science did prevail and his theory is accepted fact now. Physicists in the early days would denounce theories that seemed to upset their belief system. Einstein himself is known for being skeptical of a physicist who proved black holes could form. He thought his own theory had to be wrong because black holes were nonsense. Scientists have since learned that they have to be open.
Now if Physics which has hundreds of years of study are open to new ideas it is obviously a problem that Climate researchers routinely denounce other theories as DENIALIST when they know so little for certain to begin with.
REAL SCIENTISTS LISTEN TO ALTERNATE THEORIES AND LEAVE OPEN POSSIBILITIES
This is why I call it sciology. Scientists would start by saying what they did and didn’t know. As they told us something they would tell us what they don’t know and how what they are saying still isn’t perfect.
REAL SCIENTISTS ARE EXCITED BY MISTAKES, BY ERRORS, BY INCONSISTENCIES
They would be excited to hear new theories not scream “DENIALIST.”
These are not scientists. When data goes bad like the Russian thing they aren’t the ones to find it. Lay commoners have to find the errors because they don’t see error unless it fails their models. They aren’t looking for failures. They are looking for confirmation. This is not science.
We need to seriously consider some reset in the way climate work is done. The entire tone and approach is wrong. We need to consider if the people running the science are more advocates and political sociologists or scientists. This is bad for science. I don’t know how to fix this but it is a serious perversion of science and we should all be on alert for these characteristics and call them out:
1) When a climate researchers explains X do they say this is based on assumption or theory X or Y?
2) When a climate researcher says something is going to happen do they say what the assumptions are behind that?
3) Does the climate researcher explain what they used to think, what errors were made before and what this corrects and why?
4) Does the climate researcher explain what is unknown?
5) Does the climate researcher explain the weaknesses in their argument, the possible alternate explanations or theories?
6) Does the climate researcher frankly admit failures and errors they have made