In this blog a notable Climate Warming Advocate Scientist has finally admitted a massive problem with the climate theology. In a paper now through peer review according to several CAGW advocates a major error has been uncovered.
The effects of Aerosols on clouds that had been estimated and re-estimated is still terribly wrong.
The IPCC admitted early on that the most problematic part of their theory revolved around clouds. That is not true. The biggest problematic part was oceans not clouds. However, they admitted that clouds could easily magnify or dampen global warming tremendously and they really had no good experimental or other evidence to decide.
The reason aerosols are so important to the climate models and climate community is a bizzare phenomenon. After 1945 temperatures went DOWN. CO2 output after the war ended tripled overnight and accelerated. We started really pumping the atmosphere with CO2. How did temperatures fall for 30 years in a row while we were pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere? This needs to be explained. So, the theory was that aerosols produce a massive cooling by seeding clouds and that bounces solar radiation off the Earth and into space and cool the planet. Voila. Explanation for why for 30 years we were pouring CO2 into the atmosphere temps went down.
This article above combined with other research says that effect is way lower than they thought. This means they can’t explain why temps went down from 1945-1975.
The computer models all assume the high effect of aerosols on clouds in order to account for the drop in temperature between 1945-1975. If this forcing is reduced then the models would look nothing like the actual record from 1945-1975. This is a huge problem because they have no other explanation.
(The real reason temps went down is AMO/PDO)
The aerosols from pollution cannot be preventing CO2 from heating the planet. The effect is too small.
So what? Why is this a death knell for Climate Science again?
Not only were aerosols used to keep temps down from 1945-1975 but it explains partly why there is paltry warming for the last 20 years. They’ve been trying to blame aerosols from China to explain why temps are 1/10th the rise they predict for the last 20 years.
How will they modify the temperature record enough to keep this sensible? What errors did we make measuring the temps from 1945-1975 that allowed us to think that tenperatures were falling and as some scientists postulated we were heading into the next ice age.
So why did temps go sideways and down in 1945 and in 2000?
For the last 20 or so years it has been noticed that temperatures over the last 250 years or more have moved up and down in a 60 year cycle approximately. This has been given the name PDO (for the pacific) and AMO (for the Atlantic). This up and down motion explains a lot of the variation in temperature over this 250 year period WITHOUT CO2 needed.
Climate scientists are loathe to admit the existence of anything other than CO2 affecting anything over long time periods because it puts doubt in the theory that CO2 dominates. More important they have no explanation for the PDO/AMO variations. It would require some phenomenon they simply have no idea about. It could be a long term deep ocean fluctuation, a sun induced effect possibly related to some chemistry or biological mechanism. They don’t know. So they deny it’s existence.
What we know is that every 30 years approx the earth goes up about 0.23C and every 30 years down. This is a huge amount of energy overall but it happens with a semi-chaotic manner releasing or sucking energy out of or into the ocean in the Pacific and Atlantic.
During the latest down cycle which started roughly 2000 the first time we have had probes which could measure ocean depths consistently below 10 feet we discovered that the deeper ocean is accumulating a huge amount of heat. How shocking. Climate Scientists jump to the conclusion this heat is being stored from the Co2 energy missing in the atmosphere that has been screwing up their models.
However, how the energy from co2 5000 feet above sea level could get to 5000 feet below sea level without going between is hard to explain. If you believe AMO/PDO exists then the heat in the middle of the ocean is probably not related to CO2 and is periodic. In other words we should see in 2060 another period where the deeper ocean is accumulating heat. It also means that every 60 years the same thing happens in reverse presumably. The ocean must release that heat for some reason some way for 30 years.
How could this happen? Climate Scientists seem uninterested in that question. This is one reason we need to fire the current round of climate Scientists. They are using climate science as a moral cudgel not as a true science.
If climate Scientists were true scientists they would have dozens of theories of all these things. They would be happy at the discovery of an anomaly in their science as it would be fodder for more research and excitement.
However what we see is denialism from scientists who keep trying to confirm their theory that co2 dominates. Most scientists look for exceptions. These scientists keep fudging everything and denying everything that doesn’t conform instead of embracing the complexity and unknowns they constantly seek to deny they were ever wrong or that anything is wrong because it doesn’t comport with their political agenda.
1975 happened to correspond to the time the UP Phase of PDO/AMO would be driving heat from the ocean into the atmosphere. So, how much of the rise in temperature from 1975 was because of CO2 and how much was from AMO/PDO? The climate science community (Hansen and Mann being the ringleaders) said 110% from CO2.
Except that when 2000 hit and temperatures went sideways for 15 years they were left again with a huge anomaly. Like 1945, here we were pumping vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and the temperatures weren’t moving. They couldn’t explain it.
CO2 has to crush this natural variability they said
They said that the power of the mighty CO2 was so intense that all “natural variability” would be crushed by the sheer magnitude of CO2 warming. Hansen drew a graph like this:
They thought we could get EIGHT degrees from the CO2 we were pouring into the atmosphere. They scaled back the numbers to make it look less daunting and produced graphs with temperatures climbing 3, 4, 5, 6 degrees but they thought they were being conservative.
I can’t imagine how bewildering it must be to their small brains that temperatures were stagnant for 15 years. This powerful heater CO2 which 100PPM drove the ice ages was not affecting tenperatures nearly the amount they thought even though the human race had pumped 135PPM into the atmosphere and since 2000 40 PPM.
They started looking at the temperature data. It had to be wrong. Temperatures had to be going up. The thermostats and the satellites must be wrong. So, they started playing with the numbers. They turned this:
So that the temperature graphs of the past were modified so the 30s and 40s which were HOT came down 2 degrees and they corrected the flat line after 2000 to make it look more smoothly up. They did this to 1930s even though there are records clearly showing that the Arctic was warmer in 1940 than 2000. Even though temperature records of the US still are dominated by peaks reached in the 30s and 40s.
They played with a number of creative ideas. One was called homogenization.
Homogenization added 0.35C to the temperature record by “smoothing” out the temperatures around the world to emphasize the hot spots. Using homogenization they were able to show that places which had thermostats recording temperatures uninterrupted and in perfect working order for nearly a century had really lied to us and that those areas actually saw 1 or 2 degrees warmer temperatures the thermostats were missing somehow.
They claim the homogenization helps in places where there are few thermostats. It just so happens we seem to always have fewer thermostats where the temperatures are rising a lot and they found a way to find that heat and get it into the numbers. Good work Hansen, Mann.
However, even with all that creativity notice the scale on the left side of the graphs above. That is not whole degrees, that is tenths of a degree. Even with their adjustments the temperature was only going up by a few tenths of a degree. Their computer models showed that temperatures must climb much faster than this. Here is what their computer models showed:
The theory is in collapse. The models LOOK NOTHING LIKE THE ACTUAL WEATHER. When you add the lower effect of aerosols from the latest study which only confirms what we’ve known must be the case a decade ago the computer models are completely crazy off from the history and even farther away from current temperatures EVEN AFTER their fancy adjustments.
Climate sensitivity is too high, who knew?
The only explanation that anyone can think of is that the “climate sensitivity” numbers that are in the models which assume that temperatures will climb 3 degrees C for every doubling of CO2 are way off. It is apparent that a doubling of CO2 does not produce 3C of temperature change. In fact it is probably less than half that. My estimate is 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. Most scientists seem to be coming around to this. It’s inescapable.
Now that Aerosols cannot keep the temperature down as they had assumed they have no choice to admit that CO2 cannot be as big a forcing as they had told us.
This means that by 2100 instead of another 1.5C they expected and warned us about the temperature change by 2100 will be closer to 0.3C more.
As i’ve shown in these blogs this was entirely predictable. The shock is that the science community has allowed this paper to come out and that some other climate scientists are even talking about it. This is clearly a slipup of the Hansen Mann editorial board control process because this is going to be difficult to explain away.
It’s obvious the climate community has been flailing for the last 20 years. Since the temperatures starting going sideways in 2000 they have struggled to explain. When the sea data came in from Argo floats they were even more in panic. The sea surface wasn’t changing temperature. It actually declined from 2000 to 2015.
When the ARGO data showed that sea temperatures below 1000 ft were climbing this is something they had not predicted. No model showed any possibility sea temperatures could rise below 1000 ft. No computer model or physics they had ever written suggested this would happen when it would stop happening, why it happebed, how it could happen or if it would happen again. This alone is killing for the theory. This alone disproves all the models and theory.
They have been incredibly busy coming up with reanalysis of temperature records, discounting satellites, discarding balloons, coming up with new adjustment processes, playing with the record to get it to look more like the models. Of course they will deny this and say they are just discovering “bias” but every scientist and doctor knows that if you look for excuses you can find them. If they had been looking for excuses to lower the temps they would have found them. This is well known phenomenon of science called experimenter bias. A dedicated smart scientist can always find a way to play with the numbers to get them to match their theory.
This is why half of all research papers are irreproducible. In a recent controversey scientist went and tried to reproduce results from randomly selected papers experiments in all kinds of science papers. Half the studies could not be reproduced or found results opposite what was reported. This is a massive scandal that is rocking science because it shows the peer review system in collapse. When you have a highly politicized science like this it is inevitable that a large number of the papers are going to be found bogus.
Maybe the above paper will be found bogus but the fact is that however you look at it the problems remain. The temperature record is not moving as they predict. Obviously CO2 sensitivity is vastly overestimated. This means key aspects of climate science theology are completely wrong. If the ice ages weren’t mostly a result of CO2 then what? The answer is in my blogs if you look.