Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
A commentary by Richard S. Lindzen in the WSJ
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.
The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.
That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”
The full article may be found here.
”
Icarus
Remember that because heat accumulates quite slowly, the current 0.6ºC is only slightly more than half of the warming we would expect to see even from today’s forcings – the additional warming commitment would take that to 1.2ºC. Add another 175ppm to that (to double pre-industrial CO2) and it’s clearly going to take you to a lot more than 1.3ºC (my maths isn’t up to working out how much more). 3ºC doesn’t seem unreasonable.
”
So now it’s a commitment to warming LOL!
Prove it!
For that matter, show us where the missing heat is.
At least you’re being honest about your lack of math capability – not that it wasn’t already noticeable. But I guess that means you cannot show the theory behind your claims. BTW, if you think that three mile deep ocean is a huge heat sink, look down a little further, you’ll find that the ocean is insignificant in heat capacity compared to the core and that core is pushing about 6000K, about the temperature of the Sun’s photosphere – that big yellow ball that passes overhead every day. How many degrees C rise do you think is due to that massive energy contained in the core?
Icarus (15:23:33)…
…really needs to read this site for a while before commenting, in order to get up to speed on the subject. His Cliff’s Notes approach is embarassing.
First, referring to the fact that Prof Lindzen finds the sensitivity to be 0.5°C, Icarus misunderstands the context of what is being said, and states: “I think we can rule that out as we already have around 0.6ºC of warming just from 100ppm increase in CO2, as Richard himself acknowledges.” Reading comprehension Icarus, me boy. You need it.
Next, regarding the unfounded Icarus claim that “heat accumulates quite slowly”, my question would be: where exactly is that mysterious heat accumulating? Is it in a pipeline somewhere? If so, where, exactly? It’s not in the ocean, as the 3,300 ARGO buoys have shown. The deep ocean is cooling. It’s not in the troposphere, where all the GCMs say the AGW ‘fingerprint’ should show up first. It’s not heat from the Sun, as Leif has stated numerous times here. For this mysterious and hidden heat to “accumulate”, it must be somewhere. Where, exactly, is the AGW heat hiding?
Next question: where did Icarus get a figure of 175 ppmv for pre-industrial CO2? That number sounds like a WAG. I hope it didn’t come from a citation like the January 2006 Draft that Icarus linked to.
And that linked draft doesn’t say what Icarus thinks it says. For example:
In other words, those making the estimate are the same ones who refer to their own previous estimate as their authority. This circular reasoning aspect of climate peer review was pointed out by Prof Wegman in his report to Congress.
Finally, as stated above, if the climate sensitivity number was 3 or more, we would have already seen signs of significant global warming from the added CO2. Instead, we see global cooling over the past several years — and the global temperature today is almost identical to the temperature thirty years ago. Therefore, the climate sensitivity number must be much lower than 3. That means carbon dioxide is no problem at current and projected levels. Despite a rise in that beneficial trace gas, the climate remains entirely benign. Nothing unusual is going on.
When it comes to climate experts, no one is more knowledgeable than Prof Lindzen. Like most folks, I prefer to listen to the acknowledged expert, rather than someone who is just beginning to get up to speed on the subject.
Richard (12:15:17) :
“The emperor has no clothes and more and more people are beginning to notice it.”
And they’re thinking, “Man, that is one ugly dude!”
cba (17:36:34) :
Icarus
“Remember that because heat accumulates quite slowly, the current 0.6ºC is only slightly more than half of the warming we would expect to see even from today’s forcings – the additional warming commitment would take that to 1.2ºC. Add another 175ppm to that (to double pre-industrial CO2) and it’s clearly going to take you to a lot more than 1.3ºC (my maths isn’t up to working out how much more). 3ºC doesn’t seem unreasonable.”
So now it’s a commitment to warming LOL!
Prove it!
If you change the radiative balance of the Earth by reducing longwave radiation to space at certain wavelengths, as greenhouse gases do, then it will start to warm up – but only slowly, because there is a lot of thermal inertia in the climate system. Agreed? The energy imbalance means that the planet *has* to warm up (it can’t do otherwise) and it will keep warming, all other things being equal, until longwave radiation increases enough to balance incoming solar radiation (at equilibrium).
None of this is in any way controversial – it’s just standard physics.
Now, have a look at this figure:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
You can see that even if the increase in greenhouse gases stops dead at a certain point, warming will continue for many years because of the *existing* atmospheric concentration. This is the ‘additional warming commitment’. It has to happen, to restore the energy balance (because more energy is being received from the sun than is being radiated away to space).
For that matter, show us where the missing heat is.
It isn’t ‘missing’, it’s heat that the Earth will receive in *future* years, until the new equilibrium is reached with the *current* radiative forcing.
At least you’re being honest about your lack of math capability – not that it wasn’t already noticeable. But I guess that means you cannot show the theory behind your claims. BTW, if you think that three mile deep ocean is a huge heat sink, look down a little further, you’ll find that the ocean is insignificant in heat capacity compared to the core and that core is pushing about 6000K, about the temperature of the Sun’s photosphere – that big yellow ball that passes overhead every day. How many degrees C rise do you think is due to that massive energy contained in the core?
Dry rock is actually a very good thermal insulator, and in point of fact the heat in the interior of the Earth is very slowly *declining*, not increasing (how could it?). Besides, this heat flux is far too slow to have any bearing on surface temperature on the order of years and decades.
Icarus:
It’s only that simple if you don’t account for feedbacks which may or may not increase Earth’s albedo, negating the effect of the CO2 increase. Then it is no longer simple physics. It’s really really complicated physics which existing computer models do not remotely represent or predict with any usable precision.
Bart (11:09:00) :
yonason (02:57:41) :
“Lindzen has claimed that the risks of smoking, including passive smoking, are overstated.”
Yes, but one has to consider the context. He wasn’t going on the lecture circuit stumping for cigarettes, but making casual remarks with interviewers. At least that’s all the evidence I could find. There are many wild accusations on Lefty web sites, but nothing that I saw documented.
“My mother died of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking”
I’m sorry to hear that. My deepest sympathies.
And, yes, I agree. As an ex-smoker, I can attest that it is powerfully addictive, and very damaging to one’s health.
But, again, his comments appear to have been a sort of off-the cuff denial to excuse his own habit.
“I also can definitely believe in a link between ill health effects and being trapped in closed areas for extended intervals with someone who smokes, for the same reason. However, I do have significant doubts that irregular contact with trace amounts of tobacco smoke can have any significant long term effect, and I think the zealots have exaggerated the risks beyond rationality.”
I agree.
“Regardless, Lindzen’s stance on tobacco have no bearing on his climate science. It is either right, or it is wrong, on its own merits.”
Again, I agree.
The problem is that if the Left can’t win an argument fair and square, they have no problem fighting dirty, including character assassination based on rumor, inuendo, lies, etc. It’s that dishonesty in mickey’s argument that I was trying to address.
Regards
charles the moderator (02:38:46) :
According to the G&T paper cited on a different thread, it’s theoretically impossible to even write equations for the details of the way the heat flows. To my understanding, one can only use various numerical methods to approximate known equations that are otherwise too difficult to solve.
So, if we haven’t even got real equations, there is nothing to model. I.e., you can’t solve an equation you don’t have. Therefore their “solutions” have no real physical meaning. Even if they give “results” that are in the range of the real empirical numbers, it’s just noise, not an even potentially real signal.
…if I understand what they said.
jeez (02:38:46):
Icarus:
“If you change the radiative balance of the Earth by reducing longwave radiation to space at certain wavelengths, as greenhouse gases do, then it will start to warm up – but only slowly, because there is a lot of thermal inertia in the climate system. Agreed? The energy imbalance means that the planet *has* to warm up (it can’t do otherwise) and it will keep warming, all other things being equal, until longwave radiation increases enough to balance incoming solar radiation (at equilibrium).”
It’s only that simple if you don’t account for feedbacks which may or may not increase Earth’s albedo negating the effect of the CO2 increase. Then it is no longer simple physics
You’re right of course, but that’s why I said “all other things being equal”. It’s certainly true that if (for example) increased cloud cover reduces incoming solar radiation by enough to offset the enhanced greenhouse effect then there will be no warming. If that’s the case though, why would we see the ‘sawtooth’ pattern in palaeoclimate, of relatively rapid swings from colder to warmer conditions and back again? It seems a bit optimistic to assume negative feedbacks will conveniently balance our increase in greenhouse gases. Over geological time the climate just doesn’t look that stable.
It’s really really complicated physics which existing computer models do not remotely represent or accurately predict its effects.
How about if they accurately reflect *past* climate changes (so-called ‘hindcasting’)?
Reply: Point of information. You quoted me before I was able to change to my jeez posting persona. As a rule I don’t offer opinions under the moderator label. I try very hard to maintain two separate roles. One as the not taking sides moderator, Charles, and the opinionated poster, jeez. ~ ctm
Point of information. You quoted me before I was able to change to my jeez posting persona. As a rule I don’t offer opinions under the moderator label. I try very hard to maintain two separate roles. One as the not taking sides moderator, Charles, and the opinionated poster, jeez. ~ ctm
OK – you’re welcome to change the citation to ‘jeez’ in my post, if you want to and are able to.
Icarus,
“1ºC doesn’t seem like much to us but it still puts the climate outside of the natural range of the 12,000 years since the last glaciation, doesn’t it?”
I don’t think so. The MWP was at least as warm as that, and the Roman and Minoan periods even warmer while the Eemian interglacial was warmer still.
“Figures from the Last Glacial Maximum indicate around 5ºC of temperature change from around 7W/m² of forcing – i.e. around 0.75ºC/W/m². ”
Yes, but you are assuming that all that forcing was due to CO2 and ignoring other factors such as orbital cycles. You have then grafted that 0.75C/W/m2 onto the CO2 sensitivity. If that is trully how these models were programmed, then I’m even more convinced that they are competely useless.
“I think we can rule that out as we already have around 0.6ºC of warming just from 100ppm increase in CO2, as Richard himself acknowledges.”
I think you are misunderstanding Richard’s thesis. He postulates a negative feedback that reduces the sensitivity due to the basic CO2 forcing on its own. The fact that temperatures have already risen 0.6C is not at variance with Richards value since the greater part of this warming is due to natural cycles such as PDO and AMO and possibly solar activity as well.
“Remember that because heat accumulates quite slowly, the current 0.6ºC is only slightly more than half of the warming we would expect to see even from today’s forcings – the additional warming commitment would take that to 1.2ºC”
Heat accumulating slowly is not the same as no heat accumulation at all, as is the actual reality. There has been no increase in ocean heat accumulation since 2003, and as ocean heat is known to be a robust metric of global warming then the global warming is essentially zero. This is contrary to IPCC predictions of a radiative imbalance of around 0.8 watts/m2. There are 10**23 Joules of ocean heat that should exist but cannot be found. This is a real blow for the greenhouse gas theory.
“Icarus,
If you change the radiative balance of the Earth by reducing longwave radiation to space at certain wavelengths, as greenhouse gases do, then it will start to warm up – but only slowly, because there is a lot of thermal inertia in the climate system. Agreed? The energy imbalance means that the planet *has* to warm up (it can’t do otherwise) and it will keep warming, all other things being equal, until longwave radiation increases enough to balance incoming solar radiation (at equilibrium).
None of this is in any way controversial – it’s just standard physics.
”
Amazing how someone without the math or physics background can think they understand it. Also, while there is no such animal as standard physics, that could be readily taken as classical physics, rather than relativistic physics or quantum mechanical physics. However, radiative transfer is fully rooted in quantum mechanics more so than in classical thermodynamics.
Again though, you miss on the consequences of Climategate and fail to realize that a complex system is always full of approximations and assumptions and some of those are controversial.
First off, how do you know that we are in fact reducing the outgoing by adding some ghgs? It’s total other matters as to how much increase is due to man or how many months that increase will actually stay there – some of which is highly controversial.
The simple fact is that most of the atmosphere is in what is called LTE, or local thermodynamic equilibrium. That means in any small volume, there will be one temperature shared by the various molecular types present. Where LTE is missing, there is no valid single temperature. In LTE, a pretty good assumption/approximation for most of the atmosphere, one has the situation where the liklihood of emission equals the liklihood of absorption for a spectra emitted initially at a temperature T going through a gas of the same T.
Translation, adding a small amount of ghg to the mix results in slightly increased absorption and also in slightly increased emission. Compared to an assumption of absorption only, this shows an increased amount of power radiating from the top where it can escape at a given T so more power is being radiated from the upper layers into space for a given temperature and that temperature will have to decline a fraction. In addition, line absorption/emission will become narrower at higher altitudes due to cooler temperatures and lower pressures.
When one claims that a co2 doubling is responsible for an increased forcing of about 3.6w/m^2, the assumptions are based upon using a typical atmospheric composition and surface temperature and taking the estimate at a particular height, such as 22km or at the tropopause. The result will vary with altitude and by the time one gets much closer to space, that forcing will have decreased by a w/m^2 or more, using the typical. A final and very bad assumption is that it is for clear skies only. If a cloud is in the way, the IR is totally blocked anyway. Cloud fraction runs at around 60% so you could say – it’s not even half right.
It’s sorta like the real greenhouse effect which is due to a blocking of convection rather than due to an absorption of IR. For our atmosphere to maintain it’s temperature (lapse rate) requires convection which is substantially related to the water vapor cycle. While the emission of a near black body solid at an average temperature of 288.2K is around 390w/m^2, K&T estimate an average convection heat transfer of around 100 W/m^2 at the surface. This required effect drops throughout the troposphere til it roughly reaches 0 around the tropopause.
Any increase in T results both in an increase in convection and the water vapor cycle as well as an increase in radiation (proportional to T^4). Consequently, the required increase in T is less than the increase which would be required if one assumed no change in convection would occur. One of the really controversial assumptions being made by the CAGW advocates is that this slight increase in T will result in a decrease in cloud formation rather than in an increase in cloud formation. That’s because it is necessary for the cloud formation rate to decrease rather than increase as that throws in a new problem of strong negative feedback and one cannot have a postive feed back if it is a strong negative feedback.
You have to bear in mind one simple fact. That is that climatologists are not physicists and neither are mathematicians. As physicists use math as a tool, climatologists use physics as a tool. The way physicists use math is essentially enough to cause mathematicians to pull their hair out by the roots. At present, climatologists are far closer to astrologers and phrenologists than they are to physicists and those “Team” members seem to be very close to the old carnival sideshow astrologers – some of which even had old antique hollerith card sorters for “computerized” horoscopes back in the 1960s.
As for your thermal inertia, LOL! Every year we get summer and winter. Northern (or Southern) lattitudes get permanent snows in a matter of weeks. If you want to talk about the mythical heat reservoir of the ocean, then you’ve got to come up with the explanation of heat flow mechanics to warm it up. The increased IR cannot penetrate – only solar visible light can. There’s no change in that. This extra power is going into increased evaporation, which by basic physics causes increased convection which carries a great amount of heat to the upper atmosphere where the physics requires the water vapor be reduced due to lower temperatures, and that water vapor forms water or ice which then gives off that transfered heat at altitudes above most of the h2o ghg effect which far outstrips that of co2 and it radiates at wavelengths of h2o (while still a gas) which doesn’t necessarily overlap that of co2 and as water and ice form, it starts to radiate a continuum like a black body rather than by lines like a gas. The real killer though is some of that increased h2o convection vapor forms clouds which not only emit in continuum, but also they block incoming solar, reducing what arrives at the surface. To make matters even more fun, at lower lattitudes, this tends to be a daily cycle where clouds are formed in the mornings, often producing midday to late afternoon showers and thundershowers which disspate in the evening – limiting their effects of IR blocking only to the day time hours when their effects of blocking incoming solar far exceed that of outgoing longwave radiation.
In a nutshell, if you want to see what a base of quicksand modern climate is based upon that is preached by these Climategate types and their close associates, just look for their handling of albedo variation. Khiel & Trenberth (who are in this group) even published that the albedo was about 0.3 and consisted of atmospheric albedo at 0.22 and surface albedo at 0.08 back in their 1997 paper. Of that 0.08 contribution, ocean amounts to around 70% of that. Those comments you’ll find talk about man’s land use having a substantial effect. Considering that oceans account for about 0.04 albedo, the only bit left for all land including jungles, deserts, mountains and permanent ice cover is around 0.04 out of the total 0.3 while clouds and atmosphere amount to over 60% of the contribution and clouds are variable and 0.04 – the entire land surface contribution amounts to within the cloud cover variation. You then should see whenever one ofthem talking about man’s land use when it comes to albedo variation, that they don’t know what they are talking about or they are intentionally making false statements. Another telltale give away is that practically none of these sensitivity studies done even acknowledge albedo variation as being a factor and albedo is assumed a constant – a falsified assumption. Note that there are no albedo measurements before satellites and the dataset is not solid and has serious gaps. THere’s very little proxy datasets either. Either of those should be enough to bring up questions as to astrology and phrenology when it comes to climate science – even without the blatant fraud of Climategate.
outa time again. For brevity, I’d suggest rather than trying to argue physics with me you should simply stick to asking questions about the physics and stay away from the fraudulent fruits found in the ipcc.
cba (06:52:54):
Amazing how someone without the math or physics background can think they understand it.
Ad hom.
First off, how do you know that we are in fact reducing the outgoing by adding some ghgs?
Tropospheric temperature is increasing.
Stratospheric temperature is decreasing.
Spectra of Earth’s emissions observed from orbit show reductions at the wavelengths predicted from the increase in greenhouse gases.
Any increase in T results both in an increase in convection and the water vapor cycle as well as an increase in radiation (proportional to T^4). Consequently, the required increase in T is less than the increase which would be required if one assumed no change in convection would occur. One of the really controversial assumptions being made by the CAGW advocates is that this slight increase in T will result in a decrease in cloud formation rather than in an increase in cloud formation. That’s because it is necessary for the cloud formation rate to decrease rather than increase as that throws in a new problem of strong negative feedback and one cannot have a postive feed back if it is a strong negative feedback.
If there were strong negative feedbacks then it would be hard to explain the relatively rapid transitions from warm world to ice age to interglacial.
At present, climatologists are far closer to astrologers and phrenologists than they are to physicists…
More ad hom.
As for your thermal inertia, LOL! Every year we get summer and winter. Northern (or Southern) lattitudes get permanent snows in a matter of weeks. If you want to talk about the mythical heat reservoir of the ocean, then you’ve got to come up with the explanation of heat flow mechanics to warm it up. The increased IR cannot penetrate – only solar visible light can.
Then what is causing the rising trend in SST in the last 50 years or so?
Considering that oceans account for about 0.04 albedo, the only bit left for all land including jungles, deserts, mountains and permanent ice cover is around 0.04 out of the total 0.3 while clouds and atmosphere amount to over 60% of the contribution and clouds are variable and 0.04 – the entire land surface contribution amounts to within the cloud cover variation. You then should see whenever one ofthem talking about man’s land use when it comes to albedo variation, that they don’t know what they are talking about or they are intentionally making false statements.
It has always been acknowledged that cloud cover variation represents one of the major uncertainties – I haven’t seen anyone say otherwise. Have you?
Either of those should be enough to bring up questions as to astrology and phrenology when it comes to climate science – even without the blatant fraud of Climategate.
Again, just ad hom attacks.
”
Icarus
‘Amazing how someone without the math or physics background can think they understand it.’
Ad hom.
”
no, just an observation of something I consider astounding.
”
Tropospheric temperature is increasing.
Stratospheric temperature is decreasing.
Spectra of Earth’s emissions observed from orbit show reductions at the wavelengths predicted from the increase in greenhouse gase
”
Really? Show me. Satellite observations are particularly tricky. While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain why most satellites have shown incoming solar at 1 AU to be 1367w/m^2 while the most recent and most sophisticated satellite (SORCE) shows it to be 1361W/m^2. Also, while you’re at it, you might include how many finagle factors were required to ‘adjust’ the data.
BTW, it seems like most of the satellite sensors use measurement bands and differences or ratios of those bands to determine temperatures, which are subject to many problems. You might should find out what those corrections are – just in case there’s another Team member involved.
”
If there were strong negative feedbacks then it would be hard to explain the relatively rapid transitions from warm world to ice age to interglacial.
”
Oh, you mean like a strong negative feedback caused by cloud albedo that provides something like 0.5 to 0.6 albedo rather than 0.04 over oceans or 0.15 over land getting ‘shorted out’ by a glacial covering that raises the 0.04 or 0.15 albedo way up 0.4 or 0.6 and reducing the effect cloud cover, reducing the absolute humidity and the primary effect of h2o vapor as well? Gee, that’s a really hard concept to grasp. Actually, it sorta reminds me of the changing of the seasons .. happens a coupla times every year even… So much for glaciation and warm interglacial periods.
Ever wonder what effects are going on in the longer term? There are the orbital variations described as Milankovitch cycles. There are shifts in plate tectonics and changes like the Isthmus of Panama which block and alter ocean currents that alter the heat flow characteristics. In other words, there’s plenty of other factors at work which are far stronger in effect than co2 variations.
HOwever, I was not aware that nature operates according to our ability to offer simplistic explanations.
”
Then what is causing the rising trend in SST in the last 50 years or so?
”
seems like your SST trend flatlined a while back. The biggest “trends” tend to be the El Nino / La Nina internal oscilations and are not “trends” but are variations which are not due to co2.
”
It has always been acknowledged that cloud cover variation represents one of the major uncertainties – I haven’t seen anyone say otherwise. Have you?
”
WHen you consider the forcings / uncertainty chart from the ipcc, consider this. The measured (via proxy) albedo due to atmospheric variability (primarily cloud) is about 10 times what the chart scale provides over the last 30 some odd years yet they show some value that is well within the highly limited range shown. The rest of the time, such as virtually all co2 sensitivity measurement attempts, the albedo variation is presumed to be constant and it is not.
It doesn’t matter what lip service is given when it’s ignored.
”
Again, just ad hom attacks.
”
So now Climategate’s exhibit of fraud and deceit is just an ad hom attack and it means nothing as to the reputations and conclusions of those caught in the act.
The fact is that the balance of science exposes AGW for the fraud that it is.
first in a series of 5 videos
The fact is data doesn’t have to balance. A preponderence of evidence is what a court trial of a civil action requires to rule and beyond reasonable doubt is what a criminal trial requires. Data is the ultimate arbitrator. Only one piece of real data (that actually excludes the noise) is all that is necessary to falsify a scientific theory.
Plain language version of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper.
http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
I get the impression that CO2 warming is like perpetual motion in action.
I am repeatedly disappointed by climate “scientists” failing to comprehend fundamental science.
The house of cards of global warming is built on the critical “climate sensitivity parameter” in the formula (ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF. It is corruptly referred by IPCC as CO2 doubling climate sensitivity, a rather different beast which assumes all radiative forcing is caused by CO2. The appearance of lambda implies it is like the physical constants founding physics and chemistry which are near exact to dozens of significant digits. Sadly, lamdba is a magic number derived from falsified data. There are numerous estimates for lambda that go all the way from 0.06 to 2.0. If lambda is wrong, climate prediction is worse than a coin toss – no mean feat. The most sensible prediction for a complex system with negative feedbacks is a return to the mean.
B Louis (14:28:49) :
First. Thanks for that summary. I hadn’t found it in my search for other material on their papers.
Second. Cutting to the chase, the following is the ‘take home message’ (as expressed in your link) that I got from their paper, with my emphasis on a couple of crucial points I find most people ignore when dealing with this.