NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso
Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso
The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.”
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
drumphil, no one needs to be much of an expert in CO2 “climate change” Climate Science to know that it has as 100% rate of prediction failures stemming from its hypotheses = Falsification of CO2 “climate change”! But plenty of experts in the area of Climate do disagree with the tenets of CO2 “climate change”, as well as Countries such as China, which is currently building about as many coal-fired electricity plants as possible. It’s clear by now that the alleged “cure” to the still only alleged net “disease” of CO2CAGW, is easily much worse than the alleged disease – which itself was simply assumed to exist by the ipcc, then wildly disasterized with no attention at all paid in like manner to the real, potential, and wildly exaggerated benefits of Global Warming . Spain and Germany are discontinuing their subsidies to “green energy” wind mills and solar because it doesn’t work and is bankrupting them.
If you don’t listen to Robin they’ll all end up like this.
==============
“drumphil says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm
The OP didn’t say “likely not have” or “probably will not have”, he said “nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate”
So if the OP had used the usual cowardly weasel words such as “likely”, “probably”, “could” and “might” etc, you’d be happy I’d guess? I think the fact that the OP has gone “balls out” to say what he said is bold IMO. And that supports the fact there is no evidence that ~3% of ~395ppm/v CO2 is doing anything now NOR will do anything *dangerous* in the future to climate.
“””””…..davidmhoffer says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:43 am
george e smith;
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Turn the [fan] in the heat gun off, as the air flow promotes more cooling via evaporation that the heating element provides in the first place. And it blows the evaporated air away from the bucket instead of leaving it in contact with the water surface as would happen in a real ocean surface. Well, a real ocean surface unperturbed by wind I suppose. So make sure your experiment includes a surface perturbed by combinations of wind (including white caps, foam, and flotsam), rainfall, and debris ranging from algae to dust to dead leaves and insects, and is big enough that the air from the heat gun doesn’t blow the primary effects outside the radius of your [experiment]. You’ll also want to refer to Leonard Weinstein’s comment upthread…….””””””
Now David; you’re a fairly critical thinker.
So look at where RMB’s original post (re surface tension) is, and where Leonard Weinstein’s response is.
Compare the length, and complexity of Leonard’s response; succinct, but not informative, with the somewhat longer, but information containing response I penned (laboriously) to RMB, but also for the benefit of any and all readers.
So if we both started reading this thread, at the same moment, whose response do you think would be done, and post first ??
I always start reading from the top, to see what readers are saying about the story, and don’t stop reading until, I find something, I feel needs correction, or amplification, or support.
So I never saw Leonard’s response. But he sure nailed the problem..
And I don’t think I said anywhere that I would turn the heat gun blower on; why would I, if the air never got hotter than maybe 200 deg. C, and in addition (they claim) ordinary gases of air don’t radiate in the infra-red anyway.
So I won’t need to turn it off; I never turned it on.
george e. smith says:
April 21, 2014 at 1:12 am
————————————
George,
you are correct in saying that surface tension is not the issue. However incident LWIR does not have the effect claimed over water that is free to evaporatively cool. I showed a cleaner version of the experiment earlier on the thread here –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/20/dueling-climate-reports-this-one-is-worth-sharing-on-your-own-blog/#comment-1617674
However if you want to try with a hair dryer you can also see a similar effect.
(Note – do not try this if you do not have an RCD safety device installed on your power supply. No stupid accidents please. Water, electrical appliances. Stop and think)*.
Take a thin plastic tub of water and install a probe thermometer 5mm below the surface. Now try to heat the water surface with the hair dryer, holding it about 300mm away so as not to cause turbulence or splashing. You should only notice a very slight temperature rise in 5 min. Now point the hair dryer at the side of the plastic tub, again about 300mm away. Initially you will see no heating, but then the Raleigh number is exceeded and convection brings the heated water to the probe. Heating through the plastic works far better than trying to heat through the skin evaporation layer.
Oh and “switching of the fan”? Forget that, average wind speed over the oceans is Beaufort scale 4 😉
*Not aimed at you George, but others are reading…
Isn’t it time we all simply ignored dumphill? He brings no discussion, no evidence and is currently doing a good job of disrupting the thread because of his egregious refusal to accept the null hypothesis or any argument about his assertions. I call that a troll tactic. Shouldn’t we treat him accordingly?
drumphil:
“““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
Followed by:
“Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises?”
I think you are switching your argument. A “dangerous influence” isn’t necessarily the same as a “negative impact.” In addition, by leaving the argument open with “no matter how much C02 rises?” kind of gives you a convenient escape from any retort.
The word “dangerous” in the original statement is the one that makes all the difference in the world. To say “rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, an influence on the climate and biosphere” would simply be stupid. When the word “dangerous” is added though, it kind of depends on what is meant by “dangerous.” Does it mean a potentially “negative effect” or does it mean the apocalypse?
drumphill,
And we can quote Michael Chrichton who had a similar resume.
You are just an obtuse true believer.
@ur momisugly rogerknights says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:25 pm
CO2 is not chemically inert.
RichieP says:
April 21, 2014 at 3:03 am
———————————
Awww come on….
We’ve got an faux lukewarmer AGW believer throwing an innocent AGW believer under the bus just for defensive colouration.
It’s comedy gold!
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
“The fact is that you cannot heat water through its surface. If you doubt me try heating water through the surface using a heat gun.”
———————–
The next time you want to heat up a cup of water with a “heat gun” to put a teabag into …… ask your mother how to do it.
I’m sure she will tell you that the heat “goes up, not down” …… and that’s why she places her skillets and pots on top of the gas flame on her cook stove and not underneath of it. Ya boil water, ….. ya don’t broil it.
But iffen you got all day to do it …. you can heat that water from the “top down” with your heat gun.
drumphil:
“““The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere.””
That was the claim. It’s a big claim.”
:drumphil:
“Right, so, therefore you know that there wont be any negative effects in the future no matter how much C02 rises.
==================================================\
Mr. Drumphil, there is a world of difference between “any negative”, and “dangerous influence”
The word dangerous, used in the report, refers to the predicted global disasters. Also, the report does not say. ” no matter how much C02 rises”, as again, you distort the report just as you also put words in my mouth. There is a limit on how much CO2 will rise due to human actions, and, further supporting the NIPC assertion, it is well known that the warming affect decreases exponentially.
For this, and hundreds of other reasons, the report backs up its claims. The scientific literature now contains strong verifiable evidence that the alarmist make dozens of failed predictions about increased CO2, both in the scientific literature, and in the media, they ALL FAIL BADLY. The climate models based on increased CO2 ALL run to warm. They ALL fail the observations.
The predicted disasters ALL fail to materialize. There are good documented peer reviewed studies that show NO INCREASE IN ALL THE PREDICED DISASTERS.
The benefits of increased CO2 are hard to overstate. They are demonstrated in hundreds of experiments, both in the lab, and in the FIELD. All of the observations support the NIPC studies. The anthropogenic increase of 120 PPM, right now grows about 15% more food globally then it would in a 280 PPM world. In addition it takes no additional water to achieve this, palatable water being a real problem in the world, due to politics, not a lack of resource.
So does this PROVE future CO2 increases will not lead to DANGEROUS GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES. Well no, science does not EVER PROVE anything, being always open to other possibilities. But the conclusion Mosher rejects is highly logical and scientific.
NOTHING in the pro CAGW so called “science” ever stated that CO2 would have no affect for the first 120 PPM increase, and then suddenly have disaster everywhere, did it?
So again Mr Drumphil, where is the C in CAGW? You refused to answer this last time; saying you were not asserting anything. However you are asking the world to change to a massively destructive economic policy based on a failed science. So you have a duty to answer the question. Where is the “C” in CAGW? Mosher also has failed to answer this question every time he is asked.
I recommend that the regular posters all ask Mr. Mosher; “Where is the “C” in CAGW?” every time he shows up, as he has consistently failed to answer this question.
The truth is that for 17 years the A, the G and W are also missing, and the C never even hinted at coming, while the G,W also, never came beyond numerous known historic trends.
CAGW is a failed hypothesis. CAGW is the correct name for the theory, and the move to calling it “Climate Change”, should be disputed every time they use the incorrect term.
cesium62 says:
April 21, 2014 at 12:17 am
“I’m confused. If “The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere” then how come “In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife.””
—————–
Your confusion is due to the mixing up of “apples n’ oranges”.
If the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases by another 200 ppm to a total of 600 ppm there will NOT be any detectable or measurable increase in near-surface air temperatures.
If the atmospheric CO2 ppm increases by another 200 ppm to a total of 600 ppm there WILL BE a pronounced detectable or measurable increase in the “greening” of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere.
And technically, the more “greening” of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere means more “cooling” of the near-surface air temperatures.
“HA”, ….. CO2 is Mother Nature’s prescription pro-biotic. It decreases her temperature and “greens” her up.
Cheers
You crashed their Kumbaya-ya party. What did you expect?
Mods: previous comment intended for another thread. Please remove or disregard. Thx.
Warmarxists hate & fear any positive effects of CO2, even tho they are well-documented. Expect squealing and blindly lashing out.
The CAGW propaganda machine is alive and well, esp when university presidents deny certain kinds of scientific research over other kinds that are more akin to their ideology. For them the only CO2 is a dangerous CO2. Nothin else matters.
http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/earth_day_climate_change_challenge_of_the_century_commentary.html
***
RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
***
Wrong about surface tension. But the fact remains that CO2 back-radiation (IR) cannot penetrate significantly into water (a couple microns). All the warming (better described as reduced cooling) from GHGs is manifested immediately as a surface warming, and increased water vapor. There is no significant time-lag and no heat-in-the-pipeline directly from GHG effects (unless one wants to postulate that GHGs increase solar input somehow — good luck). Ocean “diffusivity” is essentially insignificant regarding GHG infrared.
OK. Fine. No problem.
So, SW IR radiation cannot “heat up” the surface of water past a few microns, and what IR energy IS absorbed into that immediate surface layer of water goes into evaporation (latent heat) which removes the energy from the water.
SO, go two steps further into the system involved. Between the tropics of cancer and capricorn (near the equator oceans) 1030 watts/m^2 ARE hitting a flat water surface each hour at noon.
At sunrise (6 hours earlier) there was no SW IR downward.
At sunset, 6 hours later, there will be no SW IR downward.
At midnight, 12 hours later, there will be no SW ITR downward.
Now, over a 1,000,000 km area, explain the energy IMbalance on an hour-by-hour basis. (Hint: Over four million km^2 areas (2 at the equator, two at the poles) you CAN explain the actual complete heat balance.)
Do NOT allow yourself the lazy and completely wrong Trenberth “flat earth, average sun, average albedo” excuse. Use the actual radiation in, actual evaporation, actual convection, and actual conduction losses.
We have heard thousands of excuses and claims, but I have NEVER seen published an actual climate model result of global winds, temperatures, and regional climates. Actually, I have never even seen a climate model that re-creates ocean currents, jet streams, cold fronts, and seasons even.
— As a carbon-based life-form, I resent the assertion that my basic structure is composed of a pollutant. The self-loathers like Kerry and Boxer, though they have every reason to find themselves utterly disgusting, must not be allowed to project their psychopathy on the rest of us. We remember our second-grade science. We remember that CO2 is the source of our carbon.–
Brilliant. I am quite sure we could invent a pill that would rid your body of harmful carbon pollution by stopping its ingress and preventing you from exhaling this dangerous pollutant into the environment. Once “carbon neutralized,” your corpse could be buried – oops, carbon sequestered – to permanently remove your carbon footprint and protect future generations. In more ways than one.
I’m preparing the ad campaign as we speak…
/sarc
Just to clarify my unclear post, the “your” I was referring to was Kerry and Boxer et al, not the author, who is right on.
David,
Why ask Steven that? He’s a lukewarmer as far as I can tell.
Mark, on this thread he just called a study by PHD scientists, with reference to hundreds of peer reviewed reports showing the benefits of CO2, and showing how the postulated harms were in fact wrong, a report by “clowns”. CAGW is not an academic theory sans global political agenda.
Mosher consistently take a pro precautionary principle approach. Politically he has hinted at his leftist leanings. They go hand in hand
To RMB and Konrad,
You assert, variously, that water cannot be heated from the surface down due to “surface tension”, or you pose more sophisticated arguments that downwelling radiation cannot heat water from the surface down. The former argument is simply absurd and reveals a truly profound ignorance of physics and thermodynamics. The second is more sophisticated — it doesn’t really argue that surface heating does not occur, it attempts to argue that without exception (independent of, say, the relative humidity or dew point near the surface) the heat is instantly lost as latent heat via surface evaporation.
The empirical refutation of both assertions is trivial. Consider the variation of sea surface temperature with a) Latitude; b) Season. There is an absolutely inescapable correlation between the average amount of downwelling radiation in all bands and sea surface temperatures. To put it bluntly, sea surface temperatures in the tropics tend to be warmer than 20 C and are often as warm as 30 C or even higher. Sea surface temperatures inside the Arctic circle rarely reach 10 C, and that only at the warmest part of summer, when downwelling radiation is maximum.
Furthermore, one can do direct spectrography on ocean surface waters (looking down from overhead), and observe that the ocean radiates in the LWIR. Kirchoff’s Law suggests that they must absorb in the LWIR as they radiate in the LWIR.
Finally, anyone who has taken elementary chemistry or thermodynamics classes knows that the rate of evaporation in any system depends on both the temperature at the surface and on the partial pressure of the vapor above it — that is, the relative humidity. If the gas above the liquid is saturated (for the temperature) with vapor, there is no net evaporation and no latent heat cooling. If the gas is supersaturated (at the temperature) there is the opposite — active condensation at the surface — which warm the surfaces by giving up latent heat to the surface as molecules from the vapor hit and stick.
It is a thus simple matter of fact that the assertion that water cannot be heated from the surface with downwelling radiation is false. Of course it can, and on average in lakes, oceans, ponds, rivers (all of which warm with the seasons — that is, with the variation of radiative flux delivered to the water surface due to orbital tipping angle — from the top down) it is. That doesn’t make it the most efficient way to heat water, of course — only an idiot would try to boil water with a burner on top because water is a comparatively poor conductor and because it has a substantial thermal expansion coefficient and hence quickly stratifies due to internal buoyancy into a profile that has the coldest temperatures on the bottom if heated at the top. Heating the bottom causes comparatively rapid convective mixing. And if we want to boil water rapidly, what do we do? We put a lid on the pot to trap the vapor and maintain the gas above the liquid at close to saturation, minimizing evaporative loss.
I’m quite certain that the factors that precisely describe the way that the ocean surface absorbs and loses heat all the way down to its skin depth(s) in all incident frequencies from the complex mix of radiation, latent heat transfer, convection, direct conduction from the surface atmosphere (which also changes temperature at the surface due to radiation, conduction, latent heat transfer, and convection), complicated by variations in its transparency, its lifeform content, its local chemistry, and enormously nonlinear and complex variations of the above that occur when e.g. winds blow over the surface and whitecaps occur, or during the ocean’s globe spanning thermohaline transport process that we haven’t properly begun to fully understand or explain are not simple. The sentence I need to use to include most of them by name itself is not simple. A computational realization of all of these processes is very, very much not simple. So why do people persist on making stupid linearized statements that are nothing more than personal opinion dressed up in scientific language?
Water “cannot” be heated from the surface? Bullshit! A closed volume of water, like any other form of matter, can be heated from any surface because it does not get a bye from the first law of thermodynamics! Precisely how it responds will depend on all of the processes that occur both within the volume to distribute energy and at the surface where energy can enter or leave the surrounding environment.
It is reasonable to doubt reports of oceanic warming to depths of 700m when those reports involve temperature deltas at the absolute limits of the resolution both of the apparatus used to make the measurements and the statistical process that transforms a pitifully sparse and non-uniform sampling at depth into statements about the bulk behavior of a heterogeneous fluid volume covering 70% of the Earth’s surface. It is also very reasonable to demand a plausible description of transport processes responsible for the heating, given the aforementioned difficulty of rapidly transporting heat down through a highly stratified fluid (almost all of the ocean is within 1-2 degrees of 4 C, and only substantially departs from this temperature in the top 500 or so meters, depending on latitude). It isn’t that there couldn’t be such processes — see the aforementioned thermohaline circulation, that very definitely pulls heat down into the deeper ocean and transports it very long distances — it is that they run against our simplest models of a stratified ocean with poor conductivity and comparatively weak vertical heat transport from the top down against the prevailing convective stability. It is also quite reasonable to think long and hard about the mix of heat transfer mechanisms at the surface because they are so horrendously nonlinear and local microstate dependent that they are very likely not to be tractible via any sort of naive linearization.
Once again I have to state — in agreement with several others above — assertions of this sort do not do the science, or the scientific reputation of this blog or the skeptical argument — any favors. They are so obviously wrong that they smack of desperation or obfuscation. They make it so easy for people to at least try to dismiss the entire rational skeptical argument by pointing out that some of those arguments are purely crank stuff, nonscience. This dismissal is a logical fallacy, to be sure, but although it is a logical fallacy it is a statistical truth, and most of us readily understand that.
As for the NIPCC, I have little to say. The political polarization of science sucks. Presenting climate arguments by tallying “peer reviewed publications” that agree with one perspective or the other sucks. Truth isn’t determined by a “vote” in the form of peer reviewed publication tallies, and the fundamental arguments for or against future catastrophe are not improved by such a count on either side. It drives me crazy when arguing with warmists when they invoke the peer reviewed publication tally as proof of their belief instead of directly addressing the data and the lack of skill in the models that are really the sole scientific basis for belief in catastrophic warming. If the models are wrong, the tally of papers making predictions of what will happen in 100 years contingent upon the models being correct will be utterly irrelevant, will it not? If they are right, then no amount of skeptical argument, no tally of papers extolling the virtues of more CO_2 will matter when the model-predicted catastrophes come to pass.
The entire argument, at this point, hinges on the reliability of the predictive models, the GCMs. Worse, since those models do not themselves even come close to agreeing, it currently hinges on the reliability of the “ensemble” of models on average in an abominable perversion of statistical legerdemain. It may well be that some subset of the GCMs are reasonably predictive, but the IPCC (in AR5) does not rank the models on the basis of predictive skill or give them additional weight on the basis of a good correspondence with observed reality. It does not reject models that have done a particularly terrible job of predicting reality. It does not adjust their statistics on the basis of the relative computational weight of the results of any given model in the CMIP5 ensemble. By so doing, they have made it literally impossible to falsify any statement made in AR5, even as they have made it literally impossible to assign any meaningful number as “statistical confidence” in any of the predictions based on the ensemble mean.
To be completely blunt — nothing else really matters at this point. We can argue about whether this or that bit of physics is correct — whether or not the oceans “can” warm as rapidly as they may be warming (which is incredibly slowly, but that is a good thing if true), whether or not there is a factor of 2-3 positive feedback on CO_2 only forcing because of water vapor — but in the end, these statements only matter in the context of the actual solution of the actual equations that accurately describe the evolution of the Earth’s climate at an adequate resolution to have predictive skill. It is — in my opinion, based on looking at the results of the best attempts to solve these equations so far — unlikely that we have yet succeeded in building a good predictive model of the climate, and nearly certain that we have built a large number of poor (that is non-predictive) models of the climate, models that are not in good agreement with observational reality for reasons that we do not even begin to understand but that are very likely related to both omitted physics, incorrectly linearized physics, and a serious, serious problem with model resolution and emergent phenomena.
rgb