Guest post by Juraj Vanovcan
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” – Abraham Lincoln
As of today, climate models are the last realm where rise of trace concentration of carbon dioxide, vital gas for biosphere, causes catastrophic warming with all accompanying results. It cannot be forgotten, though, that these very models are a basis for regulations, taxes and restrictions imposed by policy-makers, developed countries destroy their own energy basis in environmental madness and media churn out apocalyptic prophecies on nearing end of the world in medieval style. There is some general consciousness that models are not perfect yet, but it is only a question of time or hardware power to get the temperature rise in year 2100 right; the question is how much, not if at all. However, considering our experience with fundamental claims of orthodox climatology, it might be of great interest to look closely at these crystal balls with powerful silicon hearts and to assess credibility of their projections for year 2100 by the simplest way – by comparing their outputs with present observations.
Virtual reality of climate models is to be met in the first chapter of IPCC AR4 from 2007. Under crazily rising curves of various colors for various “emission scenarios” (from usual “lights and heating on” to “now all of you, hold your breath for the next 100 years”) there is a black line of climate model output for 20th century, crawling along the x-axis.
Climate models strive to simulate the natural variability, from the upper atmosphere to the deep streams in ocean abyss, estimated intensity of Sun cycles and try to estimate changes in cloud cover, vegetation or amplification effects caused by changes of snow and ice cover. On this presumably natural background, “anthropogenic” forcing is piled on: from Chinese coal ash to carbon dioxide, from anticipated changes in ozone layer through the traces of methane to condensation trails crossing the sky.
According to their authors, it is not possible to explain the recent (post-1970) warming without the “anthropogenic forcing”, as presents a figure from the last IPCC report.
Let’s have a close look now. Model ensemble mean (red) at the top chart resembles an exponentially rising curve, similar to that of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its rise is especially pronounced after 1970 and exhibits few temporary dips caused by volcanic eruptions in 80-ties and 90-ties. The instrumental record (black) looks similar at the first look, but there are some discrepancies.
It is obvious, that model cannot replicate warming between 1910-1945, when global mean temperature rose in mere 35 years by hefty 0.7 deg C (model suggests 0.1 deg C only). This was followed by 30-year period, when temperature stagnated or decreased, while models stubbornly exhibit a continuous rise. The only period where model and observation agree is period 1975-2002; since then, again a divergence occurs.
Using global data is, however, questionable due to several reasons. First, the instrumental record (here represented by HadCRUT3 global surface dataset) is skewed after 1945 by introducing an artificial adjustment related to uncertainties of sea surface temperature sampling methods (see bucket versus engine inlets), so instead of continuous decrease in 1945-1975 it shows a step decrease and stagnation. Another problem is that some part of the modern warming has been caused by urban heat effect and improper siting of meteorological stations, which inflates the temperature trend upwards. Third, a global average is a virtual number which can hide anything: increase of salary income of management in a company may overweigh stagnation or even decrease of income of other groups of employees, and though the average salary in the company has risen, it was definitely not “global”. Let’s now compare the model projections with observations for individual selected areas.
A 12,000 km long strip of tropical Pacific from the Peruvian coast to Salomon islands is a realm of ENSO phenomenon, where regular changes in trade winds trigger El Nino and La Nina events. These affect precipitation, global temperature and alter the weather patterns worldwide. Short-term climate models are poor in predicting the ENSO phases in a few month scales and even climatologists are not unified, whether and how future warming would shape their frequency, intensity or type. What is however predicted is a constant rise of surface temperature of tropical Pacific by 0.2-0.3 deg C/decade.
We will not compare the interannual variability, which is considerable in that region and none of the models are able to predict it. In direct disagreement with climate models is, however, an overall surface temperature trend, which is in reality slightly negative during the last 30 years. Let’s admit that tropical Pacific is just a small part of the planet surface and repeat this test on a third of world oceans, on Eastern Pacific with surface area of 85 million km2.
The jagged trend again shows ENSO pattern, but overall temperature trend of the most part of Pacific is in the contrary to climate model basically flat. But, if a third of oceans show no warming in three decades, it has no sense to claim the warming has been “global”, exactly as an employee with frozen wage will not agree he enjoys global salary rise. But it will be worse.
Based on “greenhouse effect” theory, its intensification should manifest itself by most in polar areas, where cold air contains only a little of water vapor. Here, a rise in carbon dioxide, the second “greenhouse gas after a water vapor, should block the outgoing long-wave radiation from the surface, resulting in a shift of radiation balance and increase of the surface temperature. Despite rise in carbon dioxide for given period by 50 millionths and warming by 0.6 deg C calculated by models, observations are exactly opposite: in 1979-2012 the lower troposphere above Antarctic and surrounding ocean cooled by half degree.
This surprising finding is, of course, in disagreement with common knowledge formed by media and seriously looking scientists, which keep on telling us about imminent danger to penguins, breaking icebergs and collapsing ice sheets. Who objects comparing the modeled surface temperature with measured lower troposphere, the following chart shows sea surface temperature of surrounding polar ocean and sea ice extent in Antarctic for the same period.
Without any regard to modeled increase of the “greenhouse effect”, during the last 30 years of “human caused global warming”, Antarctic is getting colder, so as the surrounding ocean. Sea ice extent in accordance increases and now even reaches its maximum during the satellite period! This fact somehow slipped out of the radar of environmental newspapermen, since they now enjoy their regular September hysteria about the sea ice minimum on the opposite pole. Antarctic is the poor employee, whose income decreased and cannot be persuaded to enjoy the “global” salary increase within the company.
Of course, there are other areas where warming during last few decades really occurred. Sea ice extent in Arctic is measured by satellites since 1979 and in 2007 and now in 2012, summer minims were recorded. It is to be pitied, that similar measurements were not possible in 30ties; according to meteorological records, Arctic was just as “warm” as today. As becomes a rule, climate conditions north of 60N latitude are totally different compared to the model outputs for the same area.
In the contrary of „state-of-the-art“ global circulation climate models powered by more and more computer power, Arctic has warmed by itself in the first half of 20th century by considerable 1.5 deg C. Exactly this period (sometimes also the mid of 19th century) is recognized as an end of Little Ice Age. After temperature plateau until 1960 Arctic cooled (a situation non-existent in the climate models) and warmed back to previous levels of late thirties, back then a natural state but today a sure sign of incoming catastrophe, forcing us to act now.
Arctic, in the contrary of Antarctic with its huge mass of ice cover as thick as several kilometers, is mostly an ocean with just a few meters of sea ice, which extent, if being less in September, does – nothing… melted sea ice even does not rise the sea level and after few weeks it will again refroze by rate of two to three millions km2 per month until the March maximum. Environmental correspondents will, however, be then fully occupied by that breaking chunk of ice in summer Antarctic, on which those amiable black-and-white penguins walk around and jump into the cold water.
There are masses of warmer water entering the Arctic from North Atlantic and Pacific, which give more sense than to rely on fiery sword of back-radiation from Kiehl-Trenberth diagrams, if we want to get some real understanding. Comparing the climate model outputs with observations is again so desperately different, that one wonders whether the climatologists feel embarrassed by themselves.
North Atlantic shows distinctive multidecadal climate variability, with alternating periods of linear warming and cooling. Obsessive urge of climatologist to put a linear trend through the record and victoriously claim “but it is warming” is, however, as naïve as to claim that function y = sin(x) is rising, because in range [–/2 : 21/2] its linear trend is positive.
CMIP3 model ensemble mean, based on which the fourth IPCC report predicts warming in 2100 by 3 – 7 deg C and because of which we have to keep at home a cartoon box full of classic light bulbs, is not able to simulate surface temperatures of North Pacific as well.
According to the climate model, with whom agrees 97% of climatologists (but disagrees with real observations), North Pacific should be warmer today by 1 deg C, compared to 1940. In reality, sea surface temperature of North Pacific is exactly the same, and the cooling trend just began 7 years ago. It is not a rocket science to expect the Arctic to cool soon, being fed by ocean currents from both cooling oceans.
The same model-reality discrepancies can be found for the surface stations. As an example, here is a temperature record from Hungarian Debrecen meteorological station since 1860, compared to model ensemble mean for given area. These records bear no resemblance, save the climatologists insisting that the post-1970 warming must be anthropogenic, because their models say so.
Comparing the climate model outputs against real observations for 20th century, following conclusions can be made:
a) so-called “global warming” in period 1975-2002 was not global at all, but was an average of local areas of which some warmed, some cooled and some remained stable
b) models, driven by virtual fiction of “increased greenhouse effect” expect an uniform and increasing warming on the whole surface, being strongest in polar areas, which is in direct disagreement with observations
c) climate models cannot replicate natural climate fluctuations (massive warming in the first part of 20th century, followed by cooling)
d) the only parameter, which matters in the models, is carbon dioxide
e) northern hemisphere (both oceans and surface) presents a distinctive multi-decadal variability as a cycle with 60 years period, which bears no relation to the carbon dioxide levels
f) areas of world oceans of considerable size show no warming at all, despite claims about “global warming”
g) south polar areas are cooling during the last three decades, despite of carbon dioxide steady increasing; this is confirmed by measurements of lower troposphere, sea surface temperature and increase of sea ice extent
h) “Global temperature” since 2002 steadily decreases in direct contrast with climate models; according to observations from the past, at least 30-year cooling period is to be expected.
It is obvious, that climatologists are plain wrong. Models are calculated on faster supercomputers, but the only difference is that the same wrong curves are calculated more quickly. Models cannot model natural fluctuations and just copy the CO2 curve. Individual surface areas show poor correlation with carbon dioxide levels, until we do not selectively find a limited correlation and claim it for causation, which is standard practice of climatology today.
It is difficult to say what is the reason; whether the models are just oversensitive to “greenhouse gases”, or there is a flaw in their very physical basis. Let’s dig deeper here.
There is one basic assumption; never proved or measured, but generally accepted that “presence of greenhouse gases warms the surface by 33K”. Number 33 is a difference between a hypothetical Earth without the “greenhouse gases” (but calculated with the same albedo made by clouds, paradox which nobody minds) and our planet as we know it. But start with the Moon, which gets the same Sun insulation and ask two simple questions: why is the Moon surface so warm (+110 deg C) during the day, against 20 deg C on Earth? Why is the Moon side in shadow so cold (-150 deg C) compared to our night time temperature of 10 deg C?
There is an easy answer to the first part: daily temperature on Earth is reduced by clouds (= condensed water vapor, by far the strongest “greenhouse gas”), by reflection of Sun rays by ice and snow (= “greenhouse gas” in solid form), by evaporation cooling of the surface (phase change of water to “greenhouse gas”) and by convective cooling by air, where warmed air continually rises and is being replaced by a cool one. The atmosphere – consisting of 99% nitrogen, oxygen and argon – and the main “greenhouse gas” are the sole reason, why we do not need to wear space suits in a daytime like Apollo 11 crew on the Moon.
On the other side, our night is by far warmer than that on the Moon. If anyone believes, that our night is warmed by a steady flow of radiation in hundreds Watts from “greenhouse gases”, warming us by incredible 160 deg C (exactly this show the radiation diagrams), then covering oneself against it means he freezes instantly… or not?
The basic problem with the virtual concept of “greenhouse effect” is that it reduces energy transfers between the surface and atmosphere to hypothetical radiation arrows. It is based on one single and nonsensical assumption, that the surface is warmed above its theoretical temperature ONLY by radiation, which has been captured and re-radiated by molecules of “greenhouse gases”. However, atmosphere is 99.9% nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which, obeying the Boltzmann law, MUST also emit an infrared radiation, since their temperature is above the absolute zero. It does not matter, whether they gained their energy by absorbing the outgoing long-wave radiation as the water vapor or carbon dioxide, or they obtained it by contact with the surface, warmed by sun light. Good luck then, trying to recognize the radiation from that anthropogenic CO2 molecule, mixed with other twenty thousand atmospheric molecules. And if, despite physics, nitrogen, oxygen and argon do not radiate at night and still have temperature of 10 deg C, then they simply retain the daily heat and our night is warmer, because of mere presence of atmosphere. Infrared radiation becomes then a secondary sign of temperature, because atmosphere radiates because it is warm and it is not warm because it radiates, similarly as the river flows not because it is powered by water mills. The whole Babylon tower of modern climatology seems to be based on flawed assumptions and total inconsistency between models and reality confirms it.
Then, other questions appear: if the models fail so blatantly to simulate the 20th century, how reliable are their projections for the year 2100? Is it possible at all, that these very models are a basis for economical central planning and distribution? How many years to watch the growing difference between the models and reality since 2002, until somebody admits the models are wrong? How long will be that circus paid by taxes of ordinary citizens? When apologize scientists, media and politicians for that three lost decades of pseudoscientific hype called “anthropogenic global warming“? Who will be held responsible for wasted billions, corruption with carbon credits, devastated environment and whole generations dumbed down by environmentalist propaganda? These are legitimate questions, and citizens in developed countries have the right to ask them and expect answers.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Richard Lindzen, MIT