By David Stockwell writing in Quadrant Online
As CO2 climate models falter and even the IPCC backs off its estimates, it just may be that a radical shift in thinking is looming. Wouldn’t it be funny if it was the sun all along?
Remember Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shift? According to his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, theories change only when anomalous observations stress the ”dominant paradigm” to the point that it becomes untenable. Until then, failure of a result to conform to the prevailing paradigm is not seen as refuting the dominant theory, but explained away as a mistake of the researchers, errors in the data, within the range of uncertainty, and so on. Only at the point of crisis does science become open to a new paradigm. So, does Kuhn inform the current climate debate, help identify important information or an alternative paradigm?
Climate models can be seen as encapsulating the dominant theory, even though they are composed of many different theories regarding land, the ocean and atmosphere. Despite their differences they are also similar in many ways, sharing terminology such as the ‘radiative kernel’. Lets agree, for the purpose of argument, that the dominant AGW paradigm is of global temperature’s high sensitivity to CO2 doubling, resulting in an increase of around 3°C, which appears to be about the central estimate of the climate models.
Does the 15-year ‘pause’ in global temperatures stress this theory? Certainly to some, the stress has already reached a ‘crisis’; while to others the divergence can be explained away by natural variation, uncertainty, and errors in the data.
Do failed models and their predictions of increasing extreme events, like hurricanes, droughts and floods, stress the climate models? Possibly not. From a physical perspective, these phenomena lie at the boundaries of the theory. Hurricanes, droughts and floods are ‘higher order’ statistics — extremes not climate averages. Surface temperature is only a part of the greater global climate system. Because anomalous behavior at the margins can be discarded without sacrificing the main theory, their power to confirm or reject the dominant paradigm is somewhat limited.
Ocean heat content, however, is in a unique position. The world’s oceans store over 90% of the heat in the climate system. Arguably, therefore, increases in ocean heat determine overall global warming. Ocean heat represents the physical bulk of the global heat store, and so should carry the most weight in our assessment of the status of AGW. Observations of ocean heat uptake represent the crucial experiment — observations capable of decisively dismantling a theory despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific community. The ARGO project to monitor ocean heat with thousands of drifting buoys is the crucial experiment of the AGW stable.
A number of climate bloggers have remarked on the very low rate of ocean heat uptake (here, and here, and here), much lower than predicted by the models (here, here, and here). The last link is about Nic Lewis, a coauthor on Otto et al. 2013, who feels that recent findings of low climate sensitivity, many based on ocean heat content, have led a number of prominent IPCC authors to abandon the higher estimates of climate sensitivity. That may not be a ‘catastrophe’ for the dominant AGW paradigm, but it is certainly a lurch by insiders towards the lower ends of risk and urgency.
The IPCC panel preparing the AR5 report may not have been devastated when they changed the likely range of climate sensitivity, which had stood at 4.5–2°C since 1990. The lower extimate has now been dropped from 2°C to 1.5°C. What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty.
The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’.
Until the scientific revolution, explaining away anomalous results will be the normal behavior of the status quo. For example, Nic details a series of erroneous statements and misrepresentation by the UK Met Office of peer-reviewed studies observing relatively modest aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity (here and here).
What new theory could possibly replace the dominant paradigm? Clearly there is a great deal yet to know about natural climate variation and the influence of the Sun on global temperature and climate. While many studies have found a strong correlation between the sun and climate, other studies have discounted a strong solar influence. I personally think that miss-specified models have contributed dismissal of solar influence, and have developed an alternative ‘accumulative’ theory of solar influence (here, here and here).
UC Berkely professor Richard Muller has said, “Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.” As shown in the figure above, a simple regression model of accumulated total solar insolation (CumTSI) with global temperature gives a higher correlation than greenhouse gas and total solar insolation. In large part this is because accumulation shifts the phase of solar effects by 90 degrees bringing it into phase with global temperature, even though the pattern is obscured by the timing of major volcanic eruptions last century. In the accumulation theory, global temperature rises while solar activity is above the long-term solar constant. It is an immature theory, admittedly, but it works over annual- to million-year time scales and explains some very specific features such as ‘chaotic’ dynamics, 20th century warming and the current ‘pause’.
Climate skeptics don’t want to say we told you so but, well, we told you so. Even though we do not yet have an accepted theory of solar influence, there are 25 unique models in the AR5-sponsored CIMP5 archive, most with a climate sensitivity untenable on observations from the last decade.
Take out Occam’s razor and cull them – deep and hard.
Dr David Stockwell, Adjunct Researcher, Central Queensland University
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FROM WIKI: In honor of his legacy, the “Thomas Kuhn Paradigm Shift Award” is awarded by the American Chemical Society to speakers who present original views that are at odds with mainstream scientific understanding. The winner is selected based in the novelty of the viewpoint and its potential impact if it were to be widely accepted.
I cannot wait till someone is awarded this for throwing out the IPCC and their unscientific fantasy on the source of global climate variations.
I think science will drop, not shift the CO2 generated AGW theory much as the phlogiston theory of fire and the biological theory of spontaneous generation were dropped once science moved on and a wealth of new discoveries made them unnecessary. I don’t think anyone ever proved the non-existence of phlogiston although that became obvious once chemistry became established. I doubt anyone will ever prove CO2 doesn’t or can’t control climate on earth but it will become unnecessary once the real drivers of climate are discovered (which I think they mostly already are it’s just that nobody has put them together into a periodic table of climate yet). That won’t matter one whit to the politicians and radical environmentalists who need the CO2 theory of AGW to justify their control over populations and to further the green revolution. It will die or be dropped in science but will live on until we again have frost fairs on the Thames and years without summers in the US.
” What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty.
The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’.
Wrong.
The increase in range in uncertainty had nothing to do with the science. The prior range ( 2-4.5) was the result of a ‘expert’ assesment. Not data. not theory. not anything normal at all.
Second, the article systematically misunderstands the difference between revolutionary science and normal science. A shift toward lower sensitivities does not upend radiative theory.
Even if one found unknown effects for the sun that would not upset radiative theory. Those changes are all on the edges.
What would be a revolution? data that showed RTE is wrong.
I went to talks by Myles Allen and others last week about IPCC and climate models. Some speakers denied the ‘pause’, others admitted it but blamed it on ‘natural variation + solar cycle’.
My overall impression was that the extent of the validation of the models was that ‘temperatures have gone up over 100 years and modelled temperatures have done likewise’.
Which I think leaves the door wide open for ‘other things have made the temperature go up and CO2 sensitivity is smaller than we think’. Hard to prove either way without more data. The next 30 years will settle it I suppose!
in addition, at the talks, the 2 questions which caused most difficulty for the presenters were
1 – if the solar cycle is partially to blame for the pause, can we see its effect in the rest of the temperature record?
2 – if so much heat has gone into the deep ocean, we should be able to track it using radioisotopes from the bomb tests?
Richard Muller :“Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.”
Is he talking about the correlation over the last 150 years? ie that both go up?
– – – – – – – –
David Stockwell,
You have presented a stimulating essay. I think you have offered a needed perspective.
Popper and Kuhn and Occam aside, a radical shift in climate theory occurred in the late 20th with an ‘a priori’ postulated CAGW. The current observed return to a balanced climate perspective, which includes expected advances in research that wasn’t supportive of the radical CAGW theory, is not in itself a radical shift; it looks like ponderous and slowly acting scientific self correction; science grinding on to eliminate biases such as CAGW.
The self-correction change back to a balanced perspective is being accelerated by the irrational AR5 absurdness.
John
“My overall impression was that the extent of the validation of the models was that ‘temperatures have gone up over 100 years and modelled temperatures have done likewise’.”
That is an awfully low standard for validation of models that are used to support the call for global sacrifice. I think the ancient Greeks and Romans had more ‘validation’ that the gods controlled the climate than we have that the GCM’s model it.
“As Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, put it:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Perhaps the paradigm shift will get underway as soon as some of the leading lights of the CAGW theory reach retiring age.”
The sad thing about this is that they are teaching this theory in schools. My 7 year old grand daughter, in her science book, learned that carbon dioxide is pollution and that humans are causing the planed to heat up and change the climate and effect the ecosystems.
How do you fight that?
Was I going to confront the teacher or tell my grand daughter not to believe her science book?
I’m chess coach at several schools and at the junior high, have had discussions with the 2 science teachers on this topic. They have blind faith in this theory. The reason I “HAD” discussions, as in the past tense is that I provided all the evidence to show they were wrong and they just couldn’t stand to hear it because it showed something they were teaching was a crock.
I talk with them still about many things but they will absolutely not bring up this topic.
This goes all the way up thru our institutions of higher learning. Our youth are being indoctrinated into this religion by countless thousands of teachers/professors that brainwash it into them, after which, it’s stored in their brains as a fact………….which then causes them to process all new information differently.
This is just like the author of this excellent article states.
If one did a study on the average age of the skeptics and the average age of the believers(including children) that is based only on what they think they know, my guess is that the skeptics will die first.
When these school aged children are taught this, then given a test later on to see if they learned it, you have classrooms of students across many countries that will get credit for the right answers by showing they agree with the theory of CAGW.
In the end, climate science was always primarily about radical environmentalism, elitism, opportunism, and a vehicle for an emergent governing class. In short, it was always about politics. Unlike normal political promises which are seldom kept this case is different since the benefactors and the benefactees are tied together at the hip. So I strongly suspect, for even beyond what would normally be possible, this political promise WILL be kept:
“If you like your climate model, you can keep your climate model.”
Steven Mosher says:
November 1, 2013 at 7:51 am
” What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty.
The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’.
Wrong.
The increase in range in uncertainty had nothing to do with the science. The prior range ( 2-4.5) was the result of a ‘expert’ assesment. Not data. not theory. not anything normal at all.
I thought this (2-4.5) was determined from the model outputs (to give us a prior) rather than a pre-determined prior distribution plucked out of the air.
Second, the article systematically misunderstands the difference between revolutionary science and normal science. A shift toward lower sensitivities does not upend radiative theory.
I don’t think this is what is being suggested here.
Even if one found unknown effects for the sun that would not upset radiative theory. Those changes are all on the edges.
Is he not proposing, that assuming causality from casual relationships, then solar output would do a better jobs by those standards. It does look impressive though all the same.
Might the crust of the earth be responsible for integrating TSI? There seems to be some belief that borehole temperature measurements can tell us something about what the surface climate was like in the past. That doesn’t work if energy can’t accumulate in the crust.
Mike Maguire
Most of the stuff I’ve read about paradigm shifts would suggest that these generally occur as one generation replaces another.
As H. L. Menchen put it “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it”.
Describes the ultimate goal of AGW and it’s socialist followers many of which reside in academia and government who politicians continue to foolishly believe. They fail to realized that eventually you run out of other peoples money. In the meantime public confidence in these institutions continues to decline which eventually leads to a rupture in the bond bubble and free market induced interest rate increases causing fiscal deficts and taxes to ballon. Adam Smith’s invisible hand takes over as world captial begins to move to private entities and governments can’t sell their bonds. History repeats because the passions of mankind has never changed. It’s a cycle just like our beloved climate.
” “My overall impression was that the extent of the validation of the models was that ‘temperatures have gone up over 100 years and modelled temperatures have done likewise’.”
That is an awfully low standard for validation of models that are used to support the call for global sacrifice. I think the ancient Greeks and Romans had more ‘validation’ that the gods controlled the climate than we have that the GCM’s model it.”
Yes, I agree, but that is what we have got to work with as friends of mine in climatology would say.
Another interesting quote from a presenter was – “we can’t predict the random fluctuations of the climate, only the underlying trend”. But climate models are bottom up physics models, which means “we can’t model or don’t model or don’t know how to model the things that are causing these deterministic non-random fluctuations and we can’t say for sure that the temperature rise since 1850 isn’t one of them”.
When he mentioned random fluctuations I was tempted to ask a question, but why break a lifetime’s habit?
amazing stuff, this layman understood with ease the SUN is the “driver” as soon as the discussion began, and NEVER understood how any “scientist” would ever consider the silly notion that human co2 was “driving” the climate…….it was and remains simply SILLY on its face.
• issue isn’t bad physics — issue is weak aggregation criteria foundations in mainstream
• ~1940s peak not explained by sunspot integral — overlooks sensitive dependence of mass distribution & large scale circulation on northern hemisphere latitudinal insolation gradients (no need for violation of radiative theory blah blah blah = total BS distortion from folks that should be banned from discussion for deliberately ignoring mass distribution & large scale circulation for purely political reasons)
• total column ozone record shows detail and supports this interpretation (no elaboration until I have longterm secure support from the local university)
Good article. Accumulated solar energy is a more appropriate way of evaluating the contributions from varying solar activity. Most studies that dismiss the sun do so based on overly simplistic linear correlations, ie solar activity was higher in the 50s than in the 90s and therefore can not explain the warming. Such erroneous simplifications never accounted for solar heat accumulation in the ocean. Furthermore the CO2 advocates use a formula the averages solar input between the poles and the equator. However it is the heating of the tropical oceans that is most critical, so averaging will underestimate the sun’s contribution to accumulated heat. The tropics absorb more heat than temperatures would suggest because much of the tropical heat is exported. Several studies by Meehl show that small changes in solar input during sunspot cycles causes detectable alterations to how much heat is exported out from the tropics.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation entered its heat absorbing mode in the 40s and much of the warming in the 80s and 90s can be attributed to the PDOs heat ventilating cycle with more frequent El Ninos that ventilated that stored heat. Was the sun or CO2 responsible for that stored heat? Jim Hansen predicted a super El Nino in 2006 assuming the oceans were storing heat derived from CO2. His prediction failed. I believe Trenberth is making the same mistake, and in 20 years the natural cycles will provide the final test of the CO2 paradigm. As solar activity continues to wane during the PDO’s current heat absorbing phase, predictions guided by natural cycles suggest temperatures will never exceed the 90s during the next ventilation phase. If so the CO2 paradigm will be stressed beyond repair.
In recent months Salvatore Del Prete has been perhaps the most strategic contributor at WUWT.
William Astley says:
November 1, 2013 at 2:49 am
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985.
Well, he is wrong about that as I have shown you many times. There has been no Grand Maximum.
lsvalgaard says:
November 1, 2013 at 9:16 am
“There has been no Grand Maximum”.
Leif has there ever been a Grand Minimum?
At most, Leif accepts a mini minimum and a mini maximum.
His preference would be to ‘prove’ absolute flatness !!!
Muller comments that any alternative theory must show a higher correlation to temps than CO2? There is NO correlation between temps and CO2, as four prior warm periods with low CO2 and the overall decline of temps since the 1930s despite a 40 percent increase in CO2 since then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
CO2 may increase AFTER temps do, because of the release of CO2 from soils and water, but this is no evidence that CO2 caused the increase in temps – in fact it proves the reverse.
Roy says:
November 1, 2013 at 1:31 am
It is my impression that those scientists who are interested in the philosophy of science tend to prefer the ideas of Karl Popper to those of Thomas Kuhn. Popper was the high priest of falsification. However, as has often been pointed out, climatologists have been reluctant to say what could disprove their theory that man-made CO2 is the main driver of climate change. Consequently Kuhn’s idea of a paradigm shift seem more relevant to climatology.
As Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, put it:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
…
Planck’s dictum is entirely consistent with Kuhn’s argument. For an historical example that is now mostly in the past read up on the debate over plate tectonics. It was not even in text books in the 1960s and at the time I was taking geology in the early ’70s, most of the material we received was mimeographed or xeroxed. As late as the 1990s there were holdouts that insisted the crust was too rigid to behave as the theory suggested. Sending them an good photo of a fold in a rock stratum and asking for an alternate explanation typically was met with a redirected argument. The only way some of these holdouts would abandon the idea that the continents didn’t move was by dying. There are still holdouts and individuals arguing that there are alternate theories that are not being “properly” respected.
The strangest part of the debate was always the self evident fact that parts of the crust were always known to move. The real short fall was in imagination that simply could not encompass the scale involved, or would not carry out the visualization of what a “local” movement implied globally, if the earth’s crust was “too rigid” to fold and subduction could not happen.
jim Steele says:
November 1, 2013 at 9:07 am
Agreed, a good summary.
I’ve been making similar points for years.
Climate change is a result of the constant interplay between top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences on the global energy budget at top of atmosphere.
The primary driver is global albedo (cloudiness) variations from the top down solar effect on atmospheric chemistry involving ozone quantities above the tropopause and the delayed system response due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
However Leif strives to flatten the solar variability, whatever solar variability remains is enough to provide the necessary forcing element.
Leif would be well advised to apply his undoubted skills in another direction.
Our emissions account for virtually nought compared to natural forcing elements.
I don’t expect anyone to accept my contentions uncritically but I am putting them on record for future reference.