Climate Change Scientist: “Facts” about hiatus and climate models are wrong
California’s bikini-clad skiers can now embrace global warming & President Trump’s “alternative facts”.
Many eco-activists have mocked statements that President Donald Trump, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, and many others have made in the efforts to fight climate alarmist policies.
As I noted in a previous post, President Donald Trump understands enough about climate science to be highly skeptical of diverting millions of American dollars into the global bureaucracy. In fact, I asserted that he comprehended more real science that the climate change proponents.
Proof that I am correct (again) comes in the form of a paper in Nature Geoscience: Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates. Since this is a weighty article, I will cut to the chase and hit the highlights.
To start with, we need to cover 2 arguments against global warming that, when used, are derided by climate alarmists a not being “facts”. Legal Insurrection readers will recall my posts on:
1) The computer generated climate models are flawed.
2) Alarmist arguments that there has never been any hiatus in the increasing global temperatures.
Breitbart’s James Delingpole summarizes the critical statements in that paper and who made them:
The ‘Pause’ in global warming is real and the computer models predicting dramatically increased temperatures have failed.
This is the shocking admission of a paper published this week in Nature Geoscience. It’s shocking because the paper’s lead author is none other than Ben Santer – one of the more vociferous and energetic alarmists exposed in the Climategate emails.
According to the paper’s abstract: In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
And: We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
Translation: the real-world temperature increases were much smaller than our spiffy, expensive computer models predicted.
The fact that Ben Santer authored this piece is a fascinating development. He is a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and former researcher at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. His former place of employment was the center of the first “Climategate” scandal, in which hacked emails showed that the scientists were allegedly manipulating data that would have undermined their global warming assertions.
The Nature Geoscience article put statements made by climate change proponents in a whole, new light:
Santer recently co-authored a separate paper that purported to debunk statements EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt made that global warming had “leveled off.” But Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”
Moreover, climate scientists mocked Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for talking about the global warming “hiatus” during a 2015 congressional hearing. Instead, activist scientists worked hard to airbrush the global warming slowdown from data records and advance media claim that it was a “myth.”
Santer and Carl Mears, who operate the Remote Sensing System satellite temperature dataset, authored a lengthy blog post in 2016 critical of Cruz’s contention there was an 18-year “hiatus” in warming that climate models didn’t predict.
They argued “examining one individual 18-year period is poor statistical practice, and of limited usefulness” when evaluating global warming.
Since we no longer have to worry about global warming, perhaps Southern Californians can enjoy the heatwave we are experiencing! Many were skiing these past few days in swimsuits and bikinis.
Skiers in bikini tops are showing up on California mountain slopes that could remain open into August. Hikers on the Pacific Crest Trail must cross miles of deep snowfields that should have melted a month ago, some of them scrambling for their lives in the icy water of raging mountain streams.
…Some years that means hunting narrow strips of snow in shaded fissures. This year, whole peaks in the Sierra Nevada remain covered.
It appears that President Trump and his “alternative facts” are on the money, again!
[Featured Image: LA Times Video]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The main cause of Global Warming is Global Warming grants.
As the money runs dry, these “scientists” will move away from “The World will burn down” alarmism to whatever other position they can find funding for.
minor correction. “…to whatever other alarmist position…”
Touche.
Forgive me, but I see nothing unique with bikini wearing in JUNE – even if they are trying to snow ski.
Duh!
One of the big weakness of computer modeling is that they all assume that the earth will react to warming with positive reinforcement. They all accept the concept that if the earth warms a couple of degrees then that would automatically cause the earth to warm a couple of more degrees in reaction.
There are very few, if any, occurrences in nature that exhibit positive reinforcement. The most common mode is that the earth reacts with negative reinforcement to damp down changes.
The hysterical claims about nonexistent positive feedback are vital to the entire warmunist agenda. It’s the only way to fight the very reasonable (and very scientific) desire to “wait and see”; no need for dicey predictions and models, look at the data.
This they cannot allow.
Waiting would reveal that it’s all a load of rubbish. So they postulate an unlikely scenario—that even a brief wait would be disastrous. Why? Because a positive feedback loop—one which has never been shown to exist in all of geological history—will cause irreversible, and doubtless dire, effects. In short, more rubbish.
tom swift: Because a positive feedback loop—one which has never been shown to exist in all of geological history
Quite the contrary. Earth’s climate history is replete with positive feedbacks. One such mechanism concerns ice caps and albedo. If the Earth begins to cool, such as due to orbital variations, ice will begin to accumulate. Ice has a high albedo, and reflects solar energy. This causes the Earth to cool even more, a feedback that can lead to an ice age. Conversely, If the Earth begins to warm, such as due to orbital variations, ice will begin to melt. The surface under the ice has a lower albedo, and absorbs solar energy. This causes the Earth to warm even more, a feedback that can lead to an ice-free age.
Let me correct Tom Swifts statement – Because a positive feedback loop—one which has never been shown to exist in all of geological history To the scale predicted by the alarmist.
Yes – positive feedbacks have existed in the past, yet they have been tempered by corresponding negative feedbacks.
Zach – as previously discussed other factors have caused the large temp swings known throughout the earth’s history, of which the positive feed backs have played only a small part.
For someone as well versed in climate science – you are obviously aware – yet you continue to peddle activist.
Joe-dallas: positive feedbacks have existed in the past, yet they have been tempered by corresponding negative feedbacks.
There are certainly positive and negative feedbacks. Which is predominate depends depends on the circumstance.
Joe-dallas: as previously discussed other factors have caused the large temp swings known throughout the earth’s history, of which the positive feed backs have played only a small part.
As just discussed, the albedo due to ice is a significant positive feedback, the result of which is a classic oscillation.
Zach – For someone as knowledgeble about climate science, you remain incapable responding to the actual statement.
positive feedback loop—one which has never been shown to exist in all of geological history To the scale predicted by the alarmist.
Yes – positive feedbacks have existed in the past, yet they have been tempered by corresponding negative feedbacks.
Zach – as previously discussed other factors have caused the large temp swings known throughout the earth’s history, of which the positive feed backs have played only a small part.
You frequently make comments suggesting that the positive feedbacks are the predominant cause of the earth’s temp swings. clearly not the case.
Joe-dallas: positive feedbacks have existed in the past, yet they have been tempered by corresponding negative feedbacks.
That is incorrect, or the Earth’s climate wouldn’t seesaw so radically. The pattern of ice ages can’t be explained without including the positive feedbacks from ice albedo, among other things.
In a simplified model, orbital variations would result in a slightly cooler world followed by a slightly warmer world. With positive albedo feedback, the result is ice ages followed by ice-free ages.
Cooling results in less oceanic evaporation, therefore less cloud cover, therefore lowered albedo, therefore more solar heating, therefore more evaporation, therefore more cloud cover, etc. Negative feedback. If it was positive, the system would have saturated and the Earth would have turned into an iceball or something like Venus—either one, but nothing in between—at least half a billion years ago. Ergo, the net feedback must be negative.
tom swift: Cooling results in less oceanic evaporation, therefore less cloud cover, therefore lowered albedo, therefore more solar heating, therefore more evaporation, therefore more cloud cover, etc.
Clouds both trap heat from the surface (positive feedback) and reflect light from the sun (negative feedback). Generally, low-level clouds have a stronger negative feedback, while high-level clouds have a stronger positive feedback. Unfortunately, new observational evidence indicates that cloud cover is rising in altitude and latitude in a warming world, resulting in a positive feedback. See Norris et al., Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record, Nature 2016.
tom swift: If it was positive, the system would have saturated and the Earth would have turned into an iceball or something like Venus
Actually, the Earth has probably experienced at least one period when the vast majority of its surface was covered in ice, Snowball Earth.
In any case, no one suggests that positive feedbacks are unlimited in scope. Consider positive feedback from ice albedo. Cooling results in more ice which results in more cooling, a positive feedback. However, at some point, the Earth is largely covered by ice and the albedo can no longer increase significantly. Similarly, in a warming world, once most of the ice is gone, the albedo can no longer decrease significantly. This type of positive feedback results in a classic seesaw pattern.
tom swift: Ergo, the net feedback must be negative.
There are both positive and negative feedbacks that vary in scope depending on the state of the system.
Freddie Sykes: One of the big weakness of computer modeling is that they all assume that the earth will react to warming with positive reinforcement.
It’s not an assumption, but a process that is based on fundamental physics. As the air warms, the same relative humidity represents an increase in water vapor content, a relationship known for more than a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Freddie Sykes: There are very few, if any, occurrences in nature that exhibit positive reinforcement.
There are many positive feedbacks in nature. Many complex systems, such as the Earth’s climate, have both positive and negative feedbacks.
Freddie Sykes: The most common mode is that the earth reacts with negative reinforcement to damp down changes.
Actually, the Earth’s climate seems to seesaw between ice ages and ice-free ages.
Actually, the Earth’s climate seems to seesaw between ice ages and ice-free ages.
As one would expect in any negative-feedback system. If it was positive feedback, it would head toward one state, then stay there in perpetuity.
tom swift: If it was positive feedback, it would head toward one state, then stay there in perpetuity.
That’s characteristic of a dampened, or negative feedback system, if there is a perturbation, forces work against the motion, keeping it in a stable state. In a positive feedback system, if there is a perturbation, forces work to accentuate the motion. That’s what happens with the ice albedo mechanism.
The climate system has both positive and negative feedbacks that vary in intensity. For instance, if the Earth warms, the ice begins to melt warming the Earth melting more ice. However, the positive feedback diminishes when most of the ice is melted.
In a simplified model, orbital variations would result in a slightly cooler world followed by a slightly warmer world. With positive albedo feedback, the result is ice ages followed by ice-free ages.
Zach – You appear to be getting for too much of your climate science knowledge from non-scientifice activist websites such as skeptical science.
Positive feedbacks have played a role in the swings in the earths temps – but not nearly to the extent you believe nor to the extent promoted by the activists.
The two biggest factors are the sun and the distance from the sun, positive feedbacks are a distant third in the causes of the temp flucluations – but you already know that – which begs the question – as to why you would persist with the claim that the positive feedbacks are the predominate cause.
– See more at: https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/climate-change-scientist-facts-about-hiatus-and-climate-models-are-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-760993
Please see answer below.
It’s an oscillation – positive and negative feedbacks exist on both sides of the oscillation. Changes in insolation probably keep the oscillations in motion (preventing them from getting stuck at one extreme).
“…highly skeptical of diverting millions of American dollars into the global bureaucracy.”
It’s hundreds of Billions, perhaps Trillions over the coming decades. Orders of magnitude difference.
You don’t even have to get into the “facts” that these eco-Nazis base their religion on. Even the logic of their presentation is non-scientific.
First of all, there is no such thing as “settled science”. There is always a better question that could be asked that would challenge the established science. Scientific “facts” only last until there is a need for a better solution to the testable hypothesis. when scientific hypotheses are tested, there are only two possible outcomes: “false” or “not-false”. “Not false” does not mean “true”. It means that science is on the right path to a better solution but there is always the possibility of a better solution if someone can ask a better question. Real scientists would know that.
Second, scientists don’t cite “the majority of scientists agree” as their proof. They cite the science itself. They subject it to independent peer review by other qualified scientists which is not to be confused with the personal opinions of a majority ALL scientists.
Third, peer review presumes that the research data is available to everyone, not just members of “the club”.
I may not be a scientist but I know what science is. This is NOT science. It’s scientism pushing a new pagan religion as a means of certain “special” people establishing a global government.
Pasadena Phil: First of all, there is no such thing as “settled science”.
In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ — Stephen Jay Gould
Pasadena Phil: Second, scientists don’t cite “the majority of scientists agree” as their proof.
No, but it is reasonable for policy-makers to rely upon a consensus of expert opinion.
Pasadena Phil: Third, peer review presumes that the research data is available to everyone, not just members of “the club”.
Um, do you understand the word “peer” in context? In any case, climate data is generally available to the public (though not always in an easily digestible form). Are you looking for something in particular?
Once again, you argue by throwing a fog bank at what I clearly stated.
One, Gould was talking philosophy, not science.
Two, “consensus of expert opinion”. All scientists are NOT experts at global science. Consensus is NOT how science works. If a consensus of scientists agree that there is not god, a question that science has nothing to say since the question of God’s existence cannot be reduced to a TESTABLE hypothesis and therefore, is not science. There is a big difference between scientists with personal opinions and scientific opinion.
Third, do YOU understand the meaning of “peer review”? You clearly haven’t a clue about science. And judging by your practice of fogging up these threads with fuzzy reasoning, I don’t think you have a clue about much of anything else either.
Pasadena Phil: Gould was talking philosophy, not science.
Um, his sentence starts “In science …”
Pasadena Phil: All scientists are NOT experts at global science.
That’s right. While all valid fields of study overlap, those who are climate scientists will know more about climate science than most physicists, for instance.
Pasadena Phil: Consensus is NOT how science works.
That’s right. Science works by challenging the consensus. However, just saying “Is not!” is not very convincing.
Pasadena Phil: Third, do YOU understand the meaning of “peer review”?
Sure we do. It’s the first step in the process of subjecting your work to the scrutiny of experts in the same field.
Just a couple nit-picks:
In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ — Stephen Jay Gould
Note the bolded term, “provisional”. Even Gould himself accepts the possibility that a “fact” may be challenged and disproven.
No, but it is reasonable for policy-makers to rely upon a consensus of expert opinion.
True, but right now we’re not talking about policy-makers. We’re talking about scientists trying to silence other scientists’ opposing viewpoint. If we’re practicing real science, we should be welcoming all hypotheses and subjecting them all to the “data test”. Which predictive model most closely matches the data?
In any case, climate data is generally available to the public (though not always in an easily digestible form).
No, not on this subject it’s not. If you ARE able to find the data charts (many “climate change” papers don’t publish the data), it’s almost always “adjusted” data, not the actual measurements. There are a plethora of legitimate reasons individual data points might be adjusted — local unseasonable weather, seismic shifts in location, failing/replaced/recalibrated equipment, changes in land use or demographics, etc. — but those reasons need to be published along with the raw data. This almost never happens with “climate change” papers.
Ergo, “climate change” papers are almost invariably produced using suspect data points, demonstrating “predictive” models that cannot be reproduced by peer reviewers.
And if it cannot be reproduced, how reliable can it be?
Archer: Note the bolded term, “provisional”. Even Gould himself accepts the possibility that a “fact” may be challenged and disproven.
Of course he does.
Archer: If we’re practicing real science, we should be welcoming all hypotheses and subjecting them all to the “data test”.
Not all hypotheses have the same scientific value, hence, it is entirely appropriate to discriminate against those without little scientific value.
Archer: No, not on this subject it’s not.
Of course they are. (This is reminiscent of the hilarious brouhaha about Richard Lenski’s data concerning bacterial evolution. Non-experts kept demanding his evidence!)
Archer: but those reasons need to be published along with the raw data.
Gee whiz, there’s entire papers written on how adjustments are made, subject to peer review. And other papers which use independent means to test those adjustments against observations, subject to peer review.
[S]cientists don’t cite “the majority of scientists agree” as their proof.
Not with any credibility, no. I also see a lot of arguments from authority — “Trust me; I’m a scientist” — which don’t work as well when you’re presenting to a room full of scientists.
As to the “majority of scientists” argument, I like to point out:
– 700 years ago, the majority of scientists agreed that the Earth was flat (the ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew otherwise, but must have been shouted down as “deniers”).
– 600 years ago, the majority of scientists agreed that the Earth was the center of the known universe (Nicolaus Copernicus was obviously a “denier”, along with other thinkers who had toyed with the idea of a heliocentric [sun-centered] system for nearly two millenia).
– 500 years ago, the majority of scientists agreed that illness and infection were caused by “bad air” and not living organisms too small to see.
There are countless examples throughout history of the “majority of scientists” being completely wrong on a subject. That’s why we have science and the scientific method!
The greatest sin you can commit in science, is to assume your theory is perfect and above question. “Man-made climate change” proponents should be welcoming opponents; let the ideas out, subject them to the “data test”, and see which wins. THAT increases human understanding.
That they don’t welcome the debate, that they try to silence and ridicule their opposition, indicates they don’t have as much confidence in their models — their “science” — as they profess.
What was being practiced 700 years ago wasn’t science and there was no defined scientific community to poll for their majority opinion. Getting past “opinion” is the very point of science. I wouldn’t want to drive my car over a bridge built on opinion.
In science, majority opinion means nothing. Science is not about voting. If you do the research properly and have a valid testable hypothesis, you are right regardless of EVERYONE ELSE disagreeing. YOU have the science to prove your case. Everyone else is just blowing hot air.
RE: 700 years ago: Some cultures were practicing science (see the “Greeks and Egyptians” part). Others weren’t (see Northern and Central Europe).
The Greeks had surprisingly precise methods for observing the heavens. By traveling a known distance north or south and comparing the inclination angle of a pre-determined star at a pre-determined time, they (a) knew the Earth was round, and (b) had calculated the circumference to within (IIRC) a few hundred miles of what we know now is the actual number.
That’s science. It works.
“Majority opinion” alone is not science. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “majority of scientists” or the “majority of lobotomized pygmy rabbits”, the majority doesn’t make it true.
Testable and reproducible hypotheses backed up by real data — THAT is science. Accurately predicting future data points doesn’t necessarily make it true either, but “climate change” proponents don’t even have that. You have to have a correlation before you can claim a causation.
Indeed they did. So where did you get the idea that this knowledge was lost, or that there has ever been a time since then when even a minority of educated people, let alone a majority of scientists, believed otherwise?
No, they didn’t. The ancient Greeks proved the earth is round, and no educated person since then has doubted it.
The Greeks of antiquity didn’t prove the earth was round.
Some of them postulated that it was spherical, and then, granting arguendo that it was indeed spherical, made some measurements from which they calculated an incorrect but, all things considered, not too terribly awful estimate of its dimensions.
tom swift: The Greeks of antiquity didn’t prove the earth was round. Some of them postulated that it was spherical, and then, granting arguendo that it was indeed spherical, made some measurements
That’s called hypothetico-deduction, the heart of the scientific method. They also noted the shadow of the Earth on the Moon. Yes, they provided convincing scientific evidence that the Earth is round.
They didn’t just postulate it, they proved it beyond all reasonable doubt, and they proved it so well that no educated person since them has in fact doubted it. The idea that 700 years ago people thought the earth was flat is a very silly 19th-century delusion, motivated partly by anti-religious and anti-Catholic bigotry and partly by people mistaking Washington Irving for an historian.
WTF does being on the right of the political spectrum have to do with denying science? So a Nazi would mock climate science by a good Marxist would embrace it? Oh please. Science isn’t on the political spectrum. The politics comes afterwards. Please explain how your right political views deal with the science. What do you want to propose as public policy based on the science and your political position. Do explain.
The politics should come afterwards, but currently it’s completely intertwined in the science due to the nature of grant money and peer review.
As to what policy should we propose, the onus is on the side purporting the catastrophic consequences of inaction. So far those policies would require economic collapse of the developed world and restrictions that would prevent the developing world from exiting poverty. And to enforce these policies would require war. Think about it, how could the western world stop China and India from emitting? What would happen when our economy collapses under ridiculously expensive electricity costs? War and civil war. And war would emit a whole bunch of carbon. Whomever would emerge triumphant would definitely not be too concerned with CAGW.
Accidental down twinkle
sorry
As their cure for Global Warming necessitates the destruction of the private sector and massive increases in government Progressive Fascists are for it.
That’s NATURE Geoscience, not NATURAL Geoscience. It’s a subsidiary journal to Nature.
Thanks. Fixed.
The claim that there has been a pause in global warming is false. From the same lead author, see Santer et al., Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades, Nature Scientific Reports 2017.
The research paper is being misrepresented. What the researchers found is that models match observations when accounting for differences between projected post-2000 forcings and actual post-2000 forcings.
So the models are perfect, except for the fact that we can’t actually predict forcings.
So, I’ve got the king and queen of hearts, and a model that predicts a royal straight flush if the flop shows the ten, jack and ace of hearts, but the model breaks if the flop isn’t exactly what I thought.
I think I’ve got a model like that too – I predict 10 degrees C of cooling, but only if the forcings of the sun dramatically reduce, and all the cold water from the abyssal depths of the ocean rise to the surface, and cosmic rays create more high albedo clouds. 🙂
jhkrischel: So the models are perfect, except for the fact that we can’t actually predict forcings.
The models are far from perfect, but climate scientists have to make some reasonable assumptions about, for instance volcanic emissions, in order to make projections. If the assumptions are wrong, it doesn’t mean the model was wrong. To test that, you plug the correct forcings into the model and see if it matches observations.
Running simulations on computer models proves nothing. They can only show how a hypothesis (human activity is causing climate change) might work in the real world (a theory). Proving the theory comes with experimentation. If theory was enough, we would have dropped reams of calculations on Hiroshima. But that’s not what we did, we dropped an untested bomb that theory said would almost certainly work (and it did). That “experiment” validated the theory behind the bomb’s design. The theory of AGW lacks that kind of test – so far it’s all just theory.
DaveGinOly: Proving the theory comes with experimentation.
If only those climate scientists would get out of their armchairs and make scientific observations…
Ice
Sea
Space
Air
Land
Actually the term “hiatus” just means a slowdown/lessening of the projected warming. That is the pause or hiatus. It does not mean that there was absolutely no warming during that time, just that it wasn’t as much as was projected. A paper that comes out debunking that there was some warming, just not as much as projected is a confirmation of the hiatus, not refutation of it.
Read that again, but this time more slowly. If you change your wrong answers to the correct ones, you can’t actually count that as getting the question right.
That’s not how this science stuff works.
The model projected the forcings that it did. Those were wrong. That means the model was wrong.
Gunstar1: Actually the term “hiatus” just means a slowdown/lessening of the projected warming.
Hiatus, a period when something (such as a program or activity) is suspended or interrupted. From Latin for gap.
Gunstar1: The model projected the forcings that it did.
No. The forcings are external to the model itself. If there is a volcanic eruption which cooled the climate that doesn’t mean the model was wrong.
That’s like saying Newton’s model of motion is wrong because the wind velocity acting on the missile was higher than expected. To test the model, you input the corrected wind velocity and see if the model matches what happened.
During the period of the “hiatus” the rate of warming was statistically insignificant. Slope was close to zero. The models predicted an increase of the rate of warming, not simply an increase in temps. Lots of CO2 was still being emitted during this time. What busted the pause was another El Niño event.
I know, I know, all that heat was trapped in the Oceans, riiiight.
I won’t waste another bit of time arguing the science with a true believer as yourself. What I would love to hear from you is what policies you would promote to stop the soon to start happening catastrophic runaway warming. How do we stop it, Zachriel?
Zachary: During the period of the “hiatus” the rate of warming was statistically insignificant.
From 1998 to date, HadCRUT4 is showing surface warming of 0.145 ±0.108°C/decade. For the lower troposphere, UAHv5.6 is showing 0.146 ±0.173 °C/decade, which is outside the margin of error, but the probability of there being at least some warming is about 96%. There is also a 50% chance of warming above the mean of 0.146.
Zachary: I know, all that heat was trapped in the Oceans
Let’s take a look, shall we? However, that does not explain all of the difference. Santer 2017 found that some of the discrepancy was due to differences in the expected post-2000 forcings.
In any case, the story bouncing around the right wing echo chamber, as repeated in the original post, misrepresents the findings of Santer 2017.
Scientific method 101: If the hypothesis is not supported by real world observations or experiment, then the hypothesis is wrong. It doesn’t matter how beautiful or politically useful the hypothesis is, its wrong. Back to the drawing board.
Good luck selling THAT obvious true statement. If we could at least establish what science is and what it is not, there might be a lot fewer confused and uninformed people posting dumb comments on these threads.
Science is a very specific discipline that only addresses questions involving empirical data. If it can’t be measured, it cannot be tested and so it is not science. It is at best philosophy.
Nothing will change until climate “science” is depoliticized. It is Science 101 to, as best as possible, remove all human biases from the process.
A pictue ia worth a thousand words, as in today’s comic strip mockery of climate conference attendees as so succinctly expressed by Mallard Fillmore.
Zach – You appear to be getting for too much of your climate science knowledge from non-scientifice activist websites such as skeptical science.
Positive feedbacks have played a role in the swings in the earths temps – but not nearly to the extent you believe nor to the extent promoted by the activists.
The two biggest factors are the sun and the distance from the sun, positive feedbacks are a distant third in the causes of the temp flucluations – but you already know that – which begs the question – as to why you would persist with the claim that the positive feedbacks are the predominate cause.
Joe-dallas: You appear to be getting for too much of your climate science knowledge from …
From reading the scientific literature or authoritative resources.
Joe-dallas: Positive feedbacks have played a role in the swings in the earths temps – but not nearly to the extent you believe …
As for ice-albedo feeddback, sea water has very low albedo, as low as 0.06, while sea ice has a very high albedo (0.5 or higher). Hence, converting ice to water will decrease the planet’s albedo, while converting water to ice will increase the planet’s albedo. Albedo has a direct relevance heating of the Earth’s surface.
See, for instance, Kellogg, Climatic feedback mechanisms involving the polar regions, Climate of the Arctic, 1975. For a more detailed look, Curry et al., Sea Ice-Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanisms, Journal of Climate 1995. For a historical vantage see, for instance, Petit et al., Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature 1999.
Joe-dallas: The two biggest factors are the sun and the distance from the sun, positive feedbacks are a distant third in the causes of the temp flucluations
Solar irradiance varies due to orbital patterns, but this alone does not explain Earth’s climate history. Nor is it consistent with fundamental physics.
The primary driver of climate is the sun….with massive contributions on rare occasions by asteroids and super-volcanoes.
For a wonderful, and real science discussion, on this matter, look here:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/
Hey gang,
The IPCC models assume a CO2 feedback of 3, whereas the latest and best experimental data give a value of only 0.5. This difference greatly affects the amplification of CO2’s effect on the evaporation of water to form vapor/cloud reflectors of heat back to the earth and gives rise to the gross overestimates of the models’ predictions of CO2’s effect on global temperatures and to associated errors in water levels, etc. The “cult” of global warming alarmists base their arguments on such unfounded model predictions.
Martin Fricke, Ph.D., nuclear physics
Martin: The IPCC models assume a CO2 feedback of 3, whereas the latest and best experimental data give a value of only 0.5.
That would be lower than the direct warming effect of CO2 alone.
This would be a good place for you to provide a scientific citation to the evidence you mention.
If the “hiatus” is not true, I have two questions:
1. Why are there 63 separate papers (last time I saw a count) explaining the hiatus within the general AGW theory? In other words, if the hiatus isn’t real, why did real climate scientists bother to explain it? Where they fooled by bogus data?
2. Doesn’t the fact that all these explanations for the hiatus came out of the woodwork demonstrate that the science isn’t “settled”?
I think it’s pretty obvious that if the data was bogus, that would have been the first claim. But because the data was initially accepted as accurate, an effort had to be made to accommodate the hiatus within the “climate change” framework. When they failed to present a convincing revised theory, they just changed gears and made the hiatus disappear (by coincidence, exactly what has happened to all other inconvenient data sets – they are adjusted into oblivion). (Had they initially created a convincing theory to accommodate the hiatus, they would have run with it – it would have kept them from having to adjust the data away. That trick is wearing thin.)
DAveGinOly: 1. Why are there 63 separate papers (last time I saw a count) explaining the hiatus within the general AGW theory?
Some put hiatus in square-quotes. Some note that the term hiatus is being used to mean slow-down, or a discrepancy between expected and observed warming. Some studies have shown that warming continues, but that some of the increased heat energy is being absorbed by the oceans. Some studies have shown that there are observational problems that explain part of the discrepancy. Others show, such as Santer, that some of the discrepancy is explained by differences in forcings.
DAveGinOly: 2. Doesn’t the fact that all these explanations for the hiatus came out of the woodwork demonstrate that the science isn’t “settled”?
There’s little remaining scientific doubt that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are warming the Earth’s surface. The open questions are climate sensitivity (with a probable range of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2), and how that heat will be distributed through the climate system.
In any case, the last few record setting years have ended the ‘hiatus’. HadCRUT4 is showing a significant warming trend off 0.145°C/decade from 1998 to present.
“We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods. ”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068159/full
Gotta love Mann’s explanation for missing the pause in the models – As if the ocean oscillations never showed up in the temp reconstructions (like 3 times since circa 1850)
Joe-dallas: “We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods. ”
That’s right. While the overall heat of the Earth’s climate system is increasing, the problem of predicting how the additional heat will be distributed is still a difficult problem.
Joe-dallas: “We conclude that the internal variability of the North Pacific, which played a critical role in the slowdown, does not appear to have been predictable using statistical forecast methods. ”
That’s right. While the overall heat of the Earth’s climate system is increasing, the problem of predicting how the additional heat will be distributed is still a difficult problem.
The ocean oscillations which showed up prominently in the temp records since circa 1850 were so obvious to most layman that many layman predicted the hiatus/pause, yet somehow were too complex for the brilliant climate scientists to grasp – which camp do you belong.
Joe-dallas: The ocean oscillations which showed up prominently in the temp records since circa 1850 were so obvious to most layman that many layman predicted the hiatus/pause, yet somehow were too complex for the brilliant climate scientists to grasp
You didn’t bother to read the paper, did you? Can you predict the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation? Or is it climatic red noise?
Joe-dallas: The ocean oscillations which showed up prominently in the temp records since circa 1850 were so obvious to most layman that many layman predicted the hiatus/pause
PMO+AMO=NMO
So, if the PMO is in a cool phase, yet the last few years have set record global surface anomalies, then what happens when the PMO returns to its warm phase?
Can you predict the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation? Or is it climatic red noise?
Zach – it is simply too difficult to figure out what you cant grasp – The pmo cycle was very prominent in the temp records and was ignored in the models – now Mann and the other climate gods/scientists are coming back with the excuse that the obvious was too complex.
Joe-dallas: it is simply too difficult to figure out what you cant grasp
You claimed that the hiatus was predictable based on the PMO. That implies the PMO is predictable. If you can do that, you should publish your results, because it is directly contrary to Mann 2016, which found the PMO is largely climatic red noise.
Joe-dallas: The pmo cycle was very prominent in the temp records and was ignored in the models
It’s not ignored. That’s why it is being studied. It just can’t be predicted, so no one knows what the contribution of the PMO to surface temperatures will be. In any case, internal variability doesn’t impact the finding of anthropogenic global warming, but imposes a cycle on top of the background trend.
Indeed, you made the argument! You are essentially saying that the cool state of the PMO is attenuating what would otherwise be a warming trend.