A look at the cutting edge of the climate sciences, & the lessons we can learn

Reposted from Fabius Maximus under CC license

Summary: The climate science debate not only holds answers vital to our future, but allows us to learn from this demonstration of science in motion. Unfortunately activists on both Left and Right have gained control of the public debate, neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals. Here we look at the exciting developments on the cutting edge of the climate sciences.

The essence of science is trial and error, as described by biologist Lewis Thomas in his wonderful essay “To Err is Human”. Scientists form theories and make conjectures. True or false, science either way.  That’s what provides much of its excitement. We see this today in the climate sciences, although journalists too often conceal it from us, preferring the myth of “the science is settled” (now shown to be absurd).

The pause in surface temperature warming has sparked a new phase of research in the climate sciences. Among other effects, it invalidated several high profile forecasts. Some were informal predictions, such as this by Dr David Viner of the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, quoted in The Independent, 20 March 2000:

{W}ithin a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

Or this, more formal, from the NASA press release “Arctic Meltdown“, 27 February 2001:

… in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer. These predictions come in a recently declassified report of a meeting of American, British and Canadian Arctic and naval experts in April last year, organised by Dennis Conlon of the US Office of Naval Research in Arlington, Virginia. Entitled “Naval Operations in an Ice-Free Arctic” …

Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.

Some projections are both formal and important. The flattish trend of global surface temperatures during the pause has fallen below the lower bound of the projections used by the IPCC (strictly speaking, not predictions).  See the below updated version of Figure 10.1 from the IPCCC’s AR5 WGI from “Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus“, Masahiro Watanabe et al, Nature Climate Change, in press. The grey shaded area shows projections from CMIP5 (a set of model outputs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5, used in the IPCC’s AR5). The black line is actual global surface temperature (from the UK’s HadCRUT data).

.

Watanabe, Nature Climate Change, 2014

It’s a small gap, but might grow to become serious if the pause lasts for years — or even decades (as some forecast). The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,

Other effects of the pause

Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong. Sometimes the right ones were in the minority. For example the eminent climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr (see Wikipedia) has long said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate. For example:

“The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.” (source)

For this he was smeared and called a denier by activists. Such as those at Skeptical Science (more accurately called “skeptical of science”). See this page calling him a “climate misinformer” (note that all of Pielke’s quotes shown there now appear correct). See this note for more detail and references to his work.

Now the oceans’ role have become a central focus of current research and is one of the leading explanations for the pause (see section 7 here). This rise and fall of reputations is part of the drama of science, concealed by activists who choose their heroes and villains by their political utility.

What’s next for the climate sciences?

The first round of debate was about the existence of the pause. Has there been a statistically significant change to the short-term warming trend? See the statements of scientists and some of their research here. That round has ended.

The second round was debate about the causes of the pause. It’s still running strong, with 11 broad causes identified. As yet there is no consensus on their interrelationships and relative importance. See some of the research here.

The third round has barely begun, giving estimates of the pause’s duration. This might prove to be the key question. See some of the research here.

Behind all of these is a larger debate about the reliability of the current generation of climate models (e.g. see this and this). That’s a question only time can answer.

These are high stakes debates, often petty or even vituperative (neither unusual in academia). Massive research funding, career success, public policy decisions, and perhaps the fate of the world depend on the results. As laypeople, we can just watch and learn. Let’s not treat it as a baseball game, cheering for “our” team.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cnxtim

The pursuit of climate science is no where near as important as those from either persuasion would have us believe.
The outrageous expenditure in funds for this hypothetical witch hunt is an absolute travesty. Shame on the lot of you who waste your time and the public purse on this balderdash.

From the FM blog:
“Public action to prevent or mitigate climate change is almost zero in the emerging nations, and insufficient in the developing nations to drive policy action. That’s unfortunate, as climate science research remains grossly underfunded.”
HAH!
And…
“More funding for climate sciences. Many key aspects (eg, global temperature data collection and analysis) are grossly underfunded.”
HAH!
Also from FM blog:
“The work of the IPCC and the major science institutes are the best guides for information about [global warming]”
Also HAH!

hunter

The best thing that could happen to the climate hype industry is a thorough audit with real teeth.

Gary Pearse

Really, when one Holy Grail theory and its arithmetic has essentially been preserved unchanged and repeated in a hundred ways since 1990 or so, and the conflict with it by nature has been dealt with by correcting the observational data, one could say paying one scientist would be more than enough. Doc. Michael Mann says there have been dozens of ‘hockey sticks’ – wouldn’t one or two do? Are we getting any utility out of more than a hundred thousand papers on the subject in 25 yrs? Do we need the gospels according to 50,000 scientists when they are all the same? Do we need 50,000 scientists even covering all of the purview of science?
The gentle lesson of this essay is too tolerant of what has gone on. He’s talking about what was the case for real science historically. It’s not the same thing now. Science it self is having its foundations ripped out by mediocre, hybrid, politicized practitioners. Our history books only have noted maybe, a hundred or so scientists and it was really much fewer than this that built the whole edifice of what we know. This is a disgrace on the scale of other major disgraces that mark our history. This is the lesson we shouldn’t ever forget.

Well said!

50,000 scientists means a lot of them are far from the cream of the crop. A lot of room for errors. A lot of errors propagated as truth simply as a result of force of numbers.
Consider that of those 50,000 scientists, history tells us that only a hand full will turn out in the end to be right. Which means that by and large, probably 97+ percent of them are spouting garbage.

Eugene WR Gallun

Exactly right.
Except that the pursuit of climate science advances the cause of authoritarian socialism — a goal so noble that the eternal impoverishment of the world is a small price to pay for its implementation and maintenance.
Poverty for all equals social justice for all!
But bureaucrats will always need their “perks”.

Cnxtim,
You might be right. At the FM website we only report on technical matters outside our personal expertise (not judge). However, I note that most of the experts in this field disagree with about the potential impacts. They differ mostly, so far as I can tell, about the probability curve — potential impacts vs probability of happening.
I have written about the public policy implications of this research — a separate subject, too complex to discuss here (I can give links if useful to you). In brief, climate research is IMO poorly organized, and could benefit from many of the quality-assurance methods developed for new medical treatments (e.g., third party reviews). And this is just another of the strong reasons to greatly increase energy R&D — in addition to reducing pollution, and preparing for the next wave of price increases (as we ride the inverse relationship between reserve quality and reserve size).
We are funding promising ventures with the equivalent if pocket lint: such as EMC2, building the Polywell fusion generator.

latecommer2014

“And maybe the fate of the world”. I am disgusted with this kind of crap. Would someone prove that this time is different from every other time when CO2 FOLLOWED temperature? It would be the first time. I think I will add some CO2 from a favorite brew…..I hope it doesn’t effect the fate of the world!

The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. “. What ludicrous nonsense. Don’t these people even understand their own writing? The whole thrust of the article was on the “demonstration of science in motion ” as in “Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong “. Yet the assumption has been made that some scientists – those that predicted warming – were right even though events have already proved them wrong (or at the very least appear to be right now in the process of proving them wrong).

PS. I rather object to the reference to the two sides in the debate as: “neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals“. The debate is much more serious than that, and goes to the heart of science itself and the scientific process. My interest is very much in the science, and my major concern is that the reputation of science itself will be massively damaged by the ferocious promotion of extraordinarily obvious uncertainty as scientific certainty.

Mike Jonas
Thankyou for saying that.
I, too, have been saying from the start of the global warming scare (i.e. since 1980)

My interest is very much in the science, and my major concern is that the reputation of science itself will be massively damaged by the ferocious promotion of extraordinarily obvious uncertainty as scientific certainty.

And the false assertion – especially in the USA – that the two ‘sides’ are

neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals

is a lie that needs to be opposed whenever and wherever it is presented.
Richard

GeneDoc

Exactly.

Eugene WR Gallun

It is a variation of bait and switch. Make reasonable statements about one thing and then seamlessly switch to propaganda hoping no one will notice.
What is coming next?
Offering skeptics a piece of the funding pie! Make global warming everybody’s “golden goose” and no one will ever dare kill it. It’s called “buying off the opposition”.

And since worldwide funding for the man-caused global warming pie is reputed to be in the range of $350 BILLION per year (contrasted with about $1 billion per year for the “denier” viewpoint), it is easy to see why those who have been bought off fight so fiercely to protect the flow of funds.

Mike,
I believe the relevant point for public policy is future impacts – the magnitude and timing. While I believe the evidence does not yet justify a large regulatory response (that’s, IMO, the significance of the pause), the risk does justify more (and better conducted) research.
Anchors to windward.

This is a good demo of your new website template. This post looks better here than it does on the FM website.
I’ll be interested to see the comments here. Posts about climate change at the FM website tend to get comments mostly from lay “alarmists” — uniformly hostile comments. Odd but illuminating, since the posts are somewhat dogmatic in their supportive reporting of the IPCC and mainstream climate science (which imo includes Roger Pielke Sr and Judith Curry).

There’s a fair amount to like in your article, though I take serious issue with elements of it above. I would also challenge the “only time can answer” in “Behind all of these is a larger debate about the reliability of the current generation of climate models[]. That’s a question only time can answer.“. Any mathematician can tell you that a world-wide model operating on the interactions between very small slices of space and time will lose accuracy very quickly – a few days at best.

Greg Goodman

Time has already answered this one. The exponential growth they produce has not happend. Time to tweak a few parameters. 😉

@ Mike Jonas
Any mathematician can tell you that a world-wide model operating on the interactions between very small slices of space and time will lose accuracy very quickly – a few days at best.
—————-
Exactly right, …. because it is utterly impossible to “model” a randomly functioning/operating process.
Especially one that is guided by hundreds of different “input” parameters that are constantly being included and/or excluded in a per se ….. “daily random fashion”.
Each “model run” output will be specific to the input parameters included at “runtime”.
If it was possible to “model” a Power Ball Lottery “number selection” ….. it would have been done already.

Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
You write

I’ll be interested to see the comments here.

Well, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide some clarifications of the FM article while you study the comments on it.
Your article provides a graph and says

The grey shaded area shows projections from CMIP5 (a set of model outputs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5, used in the IPCC’s AR5). The black line is actual global surface temperature (from the UK’s HadCRUT data).

Taking that as being true,
how long does the “actual global surface temperature” have to remain outside of the “grey shaded” range of “climate model projections” before you admit that the “projections” are falsified?
The “actual global surface temperature” is – in fact – a version of global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA). There has always been doubt about this undefined and constantly varying metric that many of us have challenged as being inappropriate. Indeed, as your article says

Events prove some scientists right, and some wrong. Sometimes the right ones were in the minority. For example the eminent climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr (see Wikipedia) has long said that the focus on the surface air temperature was inappropriate.

Why does “the pause” require global warming to be redefined, and why did FM not challenge GASTA as being the sole indicator of global warming until ‘the pause” in rising GASTA indicated that global warming has stopped?
Thanking you in anticipation of these clarifications
Richard

Larry Kummer

Richard,
Those are all good questions. Neither me nor my co-authors are climate scientists, and so provide only reporting (rules of our website). I look to people like Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Sr, and their peers for answers (I mention these two because we have posted their work before, and closely follow them).

Larry Kummer
Sorry, but my “questions” are requests for clarification of your statements which I quoted from your essay .
If you are not willing to provide the clarifications then perhaps you would be willing to say why. I see no reason to suppose that “people like Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Sr, and their peers” would want to – or be able to – clarify your statements.
Richard

Richard,
All good questions! I’ll take a shot at answering, as a man-on-the-street (I.e., no expert). I doubt you’ll finding these illuminating, since you probably know much more about this subject than anyone writing on the FM website (& why most posts stick to excerpts, or reposting Prof Curry’s article).
(1). “how long does the “actual global surface temperature” have to remain outside of the “grey shaded” range of “climate model projections” before you admit that the “projections” are falsified?”
It’s not a matter of time passing. Everybody has their own criteria. I have two. First, when some climate scientists I trust say so. Or, second, when one or more major climate agencies say so. Such as the IPCC or the UK Met Office (as in their major report in 2013 validated the pause).
(2). “Why does “the pause” require global warming to be redefined”?
Does it? The surface atmosphere temperature (SAT) seems to be the key thing of interest, and has been the metric of “global warming”.
To the degree I understand this, from an analytical perspective Pielke Sr has long recommended a broader focus. Taking his advice (instead of, as the boys at Skeptical Science did) branding him a “denier” might have prevent the embarrassing backtracking about the pause in the SAT.
(3). “why did FM not challenge GASTA as being the sole indicator of global warming until ‘the pause” in rising GASTA”?
We just report about climate, with no standing to challenge climate scientists on their findings (although the public policy implications AND government funding IMO complell substantial process changes, much like those used in medical research).
The climate debate was initially of interest to illustrate America’s broken Obervation-Orientation-Decision-Action (OODA) loop (still the main subject relevant to the FM website’s purpose). But also the subject of shockwaves has become of interest (aka low probability – high impact scenarios), and climate change probably gets top billing on that list.
For challenges, see the posts from 2003 about our invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 4GW theory allowed correct predictions of their outcomes. For equally aggressive advice, see the posts regarding appropriate action after the 2008 crash (albeit mainstream economic theory is of much less utility about the dismount from stimulative policies).
I hope this answers your questions.

Editor of the Gabius Maximus website
Before replying, I thank you for your provision of the clarifications I requested.
I here quote each of your clarifying points in turn and give my response.
You write

(1). “how long does the “actual global surface temperature” have to remain outside of the “grey shaded” range of “climate model projections” before you admit that the “projections” are falsified?”

It’s not a matter of time passing. Everybody has their own criteria. I have two. First, when some climate scientists I trust say so. Or, second, when one or more major climate agencies say so. Such as the IPCC or the UK Met Office (as in their major report in 2013 validated the pause).

I see. You are saying you accept opinion of “some climate scientists” instead of looking at the evidence. Perhaps you would care to review that because observation of reality trumps every opinion of reality.
Your error in accepting opinion as displacement for fact is demonstrated by your second point. You confuse “the pause” with comparison of the climate model projections and observed reality.
The models “project” a range of climate behaviours. Reality shows climate outside that range. In any real science that would be an indication (in this case at 2-sigma confidence) that the models are wrong: they “projected” climate behaviour which did not happen. The models are falsified and, therefore, no additional time and/or any expert opinion is required to obtain falsification.
The graph you published shows the models are falsified with no need for any interpretation and/or opinion, and/or additional time.
Please note that this is a clear scientific conclusion; indeed, it is the ONLY POSSIBLE scientific conclusion to be drawn from your graph unless and until the data displayed by your graph is shown to be in error.
Your next clarification says

(2). “Why does “the pause” require global warming to be redefined”?

Does it? The surface atmosphere temperature (SAT) seems to be the key thing of interest, and has been the metric of “global warming”.
To the degree I understand this, from an analytical perspective Pielke Sr has long recommended a broader focus. Taking his advice (instead of, as the boys at Skeptical Science did) branding him a “denier” might have prevent the embarrassing backtracking about the pause in the SAT.

Yes! It does!
Rise in the global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) was considered to be the sole metric for assessment of global warming. Those – including me – who challenged that were rejected, ridiculed and reviled. I provided you with this link which quotes a ‘climategate’ email and discusses nefarious method used to prevent publication of my paper on the issue of GASTA being an inappropriate metric.
But global warming stopped. And it became acceptable to say GASTA was not an appropriate metric to assess global warming when it became impossible to continue pretending global warming had not stopped. This change of acceptability is pure politics and is not science.
The “embarrassing backtracking” is a result and a part of this political behaviour. But your only comment on politics in your article says

Unfortunately activists on both Left and Right have gained control of the public debate, neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals.

That is very misleading.
The issue is now portrayed as being right-wing against the scare and left wing- for the scare. But right-wing Margaret Thatcher generated the scare while many socialists – including me – oppose it. (If you want to know how and why Thatcher created the global warming scare then see this.)
You conclude

(3). “why did FM not challenge GASTA as being the sole indicator of global warming until ‘the pause” in rising GASTA”?

We just report about climate, with no standing to challenge climate scientists on their findings (although the public policy implications AND government funding IMO complell substantial process changes, much like those used in medical research).
The climate debate was initially of interest to illustrate America’s broken Obervation-Orientation-Decision-Action (OODA) loop (still the main subject relevant to the FM website’s purpose). But also the subject of shockwaves has become of interest (aka low probability – high impact scenarios), and climate change probably gets top billing on that list.
For challenges, see the posts from 2003 about our invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 4GW theory allowed correct predictions of their outcomes. For equally aggressive advice, see the posts regarding appropriate action after the 2008 crash (albeit mainstream economic theory is of much less utility about the dismount from stimulative policies).
I hope this answers your questions.

That is an interesting ‘puff’ for your blog but it provides no light on my requested clarification.
You do not “just report about climate”: you choose what to report about climate.
My request was for you to clarify why you chose to not challenge GASTA as being the sole indicator of global warming until ‘the pause” in rising GASTA indicated that global warming has stopped. I have quoted your entire response which does not address that matter in any way.

I again thank you for your time and trouble in replying to me.
Richard

Richard,
I believe I understand your view, and I don’t disagree. It’s rather that we operate under resource constraints that limit what we do. Here are two examples.
(1) non-experts doing reporting
It’s almost impossible to get writers for daily long-form, highly documented articles on a wide range of subjects. Each takes hours to prepare, even for simple reporting. The subjects outside our expertise often require prohibitive amounts of research. Yesterday EMP weapons, today ISIS, tomorrow ENSO. Getting people to do the amount of work you recommend — to replace reliance on experts with independent research and analysis — is a nice goal but beyond what we can ask volunteers.
It’s beyond the capability of individuals, IMO. How many scientific, medical, and engineering questions affect your life — and that of your community, State, nation, and world? How many of those can a person independently research so as to arrive at reliable conclusions?
(2) credibility
Credibility is a capital sum slowly accumulated, easily burned. We post our mistakes on the Smackdowns page. Doing so makes us quite conservative in what we say. It’s already too long. So we try to stick with statements that we have documented, or which reflect our values.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/about/smackdowns/
I recommend that every website have one of these. It’s enlightening, if often embarrassing.

Editor of the FM site:
You say you get your opinion when some climate scientists I trust say so. Or, second, when one or more major climate agencies say so. Such as the IPCC or the UK Met Office
No wonder you arrive at the wrong conclusions. Climate science is really not that complicated, and you should use your own judgement rather than relying on groups like the UN/IPCC or the UK government.
Those groups have a remit: investigate and report on anthropogenic global warming, make recommendations, and provide projections [which are in reality predictions].
Do you see the problem with that? If not, it is this: a conclusion has been reached. AGW is occurring. Therefore, something must be done. Is that accurate so far?
That is certainly not science. It is the reason all those groups have egg on their faces: global warming stopped, many years ago. Their belief that human activity causes global warming [AGW] has taken a fatal hit. With ever-rising CO2, they are unable to explain why global temperatures are not rising.
Instead, put your trust in something simple, which avoids the self-serving, biased opinions of the climate alarm industry: use testable, measurable facts, and verifiable observations.
If you do that, you will be adhering to the Scientific Method and you will not go wrong, as the IPCC and most other ‘official’ groups have. There are a few simple, verifiable facts that deconstruct the AGW premise:
First, as stated, global warming stopped many years ago. That is an observable fact, which is directly contrary to the endless predictions of runaway global warming made by those same groups [until global warming stopped]. They were wrong, but they have never admitted it. Why do you still believe their narrative?
Next, it has been established beyond debate that changes in atmospheric CO2 are caused by changes in global temperature. Every major govenrmental group got that causation wrong. They still believe that CO2 controls temperature. That has been shown empirically to be exactly backward:
∆temperature causes ∆CO2.
There are similar charts covering time scales from years, to hundreds of thousands of years. ALL of them show the same cause-and-effect. But there are NO similar charts, which show that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature; any such correlation is always temporary and coincidental, and it quickly breaks down. Only the correlation showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2 has been shown to hold on all time scales.
Based on that empirical [real world] evidence, what is your conclusion? You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand that the claimed causation is wrong.
Next, alarmist scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others used to engage in scientific debates. They no longer do, but not for lack of invitations. Why do you suppose they avoid debating their claims? Aside from the fact that they have lost every debate, they will no longer debate, because their ‘science’ has been repeatedly falsified. So they hide out, rather than defending their views. Does that not raise red flags in your mind? If they truly believed what they are trying to sell to the public, then they should be willing to debate it at every opportunity.
Finally, you are cherry-picking your ‘authorities’. By saying you rely on scientists you trust, you are refusing to accept the views of internationally esteemed climatologists like Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. Why would you do that? Instead, you gravitate toward scientists who are riding the climate gravy train. Michael Mann has receive many $millions in grants, yet he still refuses to disclose his methods, data, methodologies or metadata to other scientists who want to follow the Scientific Method, and attempt to falsify his work. That is how honest science is done, but Mann has avoided that since his widely debunked MBH98 and MBH99 papers [the journal Nature was forced to issue a rare Corregendum — a major correction — on Mann’s work]. Yet you believe a charlatan over honest science? Why?
It is time to re-examine your position. Either you are on the side of honest science, or you are on the side of the climate alarmist crowd. They have never been right in any of their predictions, so why would you still listen to them?
Your credibility is on the line. It would be best for you to re-think your position.

Editor of the Fabius Maximus website : “I’ll be interested to see the comments here.“.
Well, you’ve had some pretty hard-hitting comments. I’ll be interested to see your reactions.

Larry Kummer

Mike,
These are polite and well-informed comments. The comments by climate activists to our posts about climate change make these look like softballs pitched by Ms Manners.
And those in turn are mild compared to those on the core subjects of the FM website. Our failed foreign wars, torture, economics, and geopolitical foes, etc. I got hundreds of incendiary comments for suggesting in Spring 2008 that we were entering a recession (I didn’t see that it started in December). I have lost 2 authors due to death threats (understandably; I have never gotten used to them).

tetris

May I suggest that you replace the term “pause” with “flat lining”. “Pause” is a misnomer because it implicitly assumes that what came before will resume, something for which there is at present not a shred of evidence. “Hiatus” is likewise a misnomer, as it implies an absent element from a continuum, something for which there is no evidence either.
Your contention that more time is needed to falsify the IPCC’s CGM’s and their projections is wrong. Several “alarmist” climate scientists have stated publicly that if the flat lining lasted more than 15 years, the models would be invalidated. We are now well into the 18th year, and it is only in climate “science” that we see the persistent denial of empirical evidence falsifying models and hypotheses.
For perspective, if an engineer produced technical projections that were as far off the mark as the IPCC CGM’s he would be demoted or fired. If the IPCC CGM numbers were the equivalent of my projections in a business plan and the black line was my actual performance I would be fired. And rightfully so.

Tetris,
The name for this phenomenon is set by experts in the field.
Climate scientists call it a “pause” (or “hiatus”), probably because almost all believe warming will resume. Their debate concerns when — from what mixture of causes — and about the rate and magnitude of the warming.

Duster

The many unknowns regarding weather are so profound that in a few decades the present “debate” will quite likely appear will appear analogous to an argument between helio- and geocentrists on the nature of the universe. Among the potential climate “changes” we might be preparing for is the consequences of C02 dropping too low to support current biological systems. The last time that CO2 appears to have been this low on a planetary scale was immediately prior to the Permian-Triassic transition, which was accompanied by the single greatest extinction event in the known geological record. One possible causal agent for that event is that atmospheric CO2 simply dropped too low. That could trigger a cascade of biosystem collapses which proceeded until carbon-fixing processes dropped low enough to allow recovery of atmospheric CO2 to levels that could support more complex ecological systems. It may well be more than an ice age that your SUV is staving off.

Hamish McCallum

“The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it.”
We can only “prepare for future climate change” if we are confident that we can predict what that change will be. Currently, we cannot in good faith have such confidence.
As for “measures to to reduce” future climate change(assuming that the change is warming): what might those measures be? The measures being deployed now are useless (in terms of reduction) and eye-wateringly expensive (thereby making many other problems worse). Perhaps the author is nodding towards the need for genocide – on a colossal scale, of course – that underlies so many green assumptions about climate and resource consumption.

Larry Kummer

Hammish,
One obvious way to prepare for the future is to prepare for the past. Are we ready for the extreme weather of the past century to reoccur?
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher, comment posted to “UK floods in context” at Climate Etc
For more about this see:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/02/11/climate-change-danger-63803/

NikFromNYC

This damn iPhone browser, iCab, it *erases* my post every time I scroll up to re-read the post, since dragging down from the top refreshes the page instead of just gives me the top. The same kids who code these apps are nearly *all* Gorebots too. As long as Bible thumping goons infest the Republican Party, never Will city folk ever again warm up to them. Instead, they will passive-aggressively tear our hearts out, to simply topple the system of religion in favor of arbitrary destruction for however long it takes to realize the protest contained in that influential Pink Floyd The Wall album. I’m not kidding. Sorry, I can’t read the topic of this post. It won’t work.

MarkW

Anthony, I don’t know why you put up with such blatant bigotry.

mkelly

NikFromNYC says: “As long as Bible thumping goons infest the Republican Party, never Will city folk ever again warm up to them.”
=======
NIk you say you have a PH.D. I expect better than drivel like this. If you’re angry that your app does not function the way you like then be angry at the app writer not throw venom at others.
It was Bible thumpers that found some of science’s biggest findings. So lighten up. Do I have to name some for you to get the idea.

joelobryan

The third round, the debate over the duration of “the Pause” could be over quicker than thought. If temps decline by a non trivial 0.5 C to 1.0 C in the next 15-20 years, the only debate for climate science is how it regains its lost public reputation.

0.0 C over the last 15+ years was enough – in an honest world.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008”
The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

tetris

Even if temperatures merely continue their flat lining, it will take mainstream climate “science” more than 15-20 years to regain its pre-IPCC reputation.

NASA press release was deleted,
maybe it was too embarassing?

Your links to fabiusmaximus.com don’t work either.
Delete “s” from https://

First comes “truth weather forecasting”:comment image?oh=74336805c320461b3650f3f3212d86cf&oe=54A231F1

“Behind all of these is a larger debate about the reliability of the current generation of climate models (e.g. see this and this). That’s a question only time can answer.”
Sorry, but that question is already answered when realizing these models can’t even “predict the past”.

Dear FM –
think that you have provided a pretty fair summary, and I particularly like your flagging up of the importance of ocean heat as trumping the more volatile and short-term surface and lower troposphere data. As a layman without the right background to judge the likely balance of ocean vs atmosphere in this debate, I have posted a couple of times here without drawing out any real response. Perhaps I was too vague, or should have been more hysterical! Roger Pielke and Bob Tisdale are addressing these issues, but I have the idea that we know so little about ocean heat exchanges that much of the debate – and much of the science – is extreme speculation wrapped up in a little loin-cloth of data.
Today the sceptics/skeptics seem to be winning but it wouldn’t take more than a few months of pauses to the pause to put the boot back on the other foot (Nic Lewis should be given a hearing on this).
I like WUWT because, although the slant is often partisan, you do get a range of comments and contributions which lead on to better understandings (some of the peripheral comments from experts in their field going off at a tangent are real gems!) and there’s no doubt about Anthony’s immense contribution to science as a whole in providing this forum. I think we can excuse the usual football crowd comments cheering every bit of anti-AGW news and being vacuously rude about any pro- stuff (even the best of it) because this happens on every such site and, in general, duff comments are reined-in by more sensible contributions, which doesn’t happen on the pro-AGW sites.
What does worry me most is that political leaders around the world seem to be dissing the skeptical message. Most policymakers haven’t a clue about science and I suppose they too are seduced by soft-logic ideas such as the precautionary principle, and by the very strong desire deep within most human beings to believe that the natural world is a wonderful place and only man can wreck it (this is the core message I get whenever I discuss environmental issues with the general public). Policy makers may also feel that skepticism is not a vote-winner, as even leaders who show signs of doubt still feel the need to build windmills. I think they are wrong, but the fascination continues….

George Lawson

“Today the sceptics/skeptics seem to be winning but it wouldn’t take more than a few months of pauses to the pause to put the boot back on the other foot (Nic Lewis should be given a hearing on this).”
Why should we anticipate something that might or might not happen? The temperature has been more or less static for a few thousand years otherwise we would not be here to record the fact. And if we have to anticipate serious warming then would it not be sensible to anticipate serious cooling also?

Larry Kummer

Mothcatcher,
“Today the sceptics/skeptics seem to be winning but it wouldn’t take more than a few months of pauses to the pause to put the boot back on the other foot”
I agree. Guessing, that might be what activists hope for — a big but normal weather event to ignite hysteria about weather. Their excitement about the coming super monster el Nino was more evidence for your theory.

Stephen Richards

The black line is actual global surface temperature (from the UK’s HadCRUT data).
NO IT DOES NOT. IT shows the adjusted raw data data gathered from badly maitained and positioned weather stations.
They might at least try to be honest and use satelite data.

Richard M

Even worse than that it appears the data stops sometime in 2011. The pause has extended another 3 years. An honest chart looks much worse for the alarmists.

Stephen Richards,
Exactly right. Satellite data is the most accurate data we have. It shows this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend

No mention that the root claim:
“anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to warm and will continue to do this, resulting in catastrophic climate events”
is also not holding up to scrutiny.
“The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it.”
This is typical Alarmist rhetoric, including sing “climate change” where the claimed “global warming” should be used. Except, claiming “global warming” when we aren’t, simply doesn’t fit the party line.
Worse, if we aren’t causing anything that matters, why would we attempt to “reduce it”?

There is far more going on than is outlined in this essay. The author writes: “Scientists form theories and make conjectures. True or false, science either way” and that is fine until they start fudging the data and cooking the books.
We have reached a time in “big science” and government funded science where scientists change the data to meet the theory rather than the other way around and it is not just in climate “science” either. Modern “science” has lost its ethics, lost its method, and lost its original purpose. Science is no longer the hunt for the best approximation of truth we can find, but instead, it has become a propaganda arm of the rich, powerful, and well connected.
As an example outside of climate “science”, consider that we refuse to run double-blind, placebo controlled studies on the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations given to children whose immune system is still immature. These studies should follow a specific set of procedures to ensure that the results obtained are dependable and free from subjective bias. These types of studies are considered to be the ‘gold standard’ of clinical research studies. Of course, if funded by people who stand to make a great deal of money (think in terms of billions) then we expect corruption; but we should at least try some of these studies. And all data from these studies should be available for outsiders to review and check. Transparency.
Apparently there is some controversy at the present time over the CDC of the US hiding inconvenient results from certain testing showing that children under a certain age are impacted by being given vaccinations too early. Does anyone here think that subject will be treated with total honesty while climate “science” is not?
Science has replaced the Church as the group promoting the State and calling for more and more control of the citizens. Never trust economic advice from the Pope, and never trust a press release from a science team. (or “trust but verify” as a former president said)

Greg Goodman

“Science is no longer the hunt for the best approximation of truth we can find, but instead, it has become a propaganda arm of the rich, powerful, and well connected. ”
Spot on, science is now a “product” with results made to order.
The quaint image of financially self-sufficient, 19th century gentlemen diligently investigating nature for the simple pleasure of advancing human knowlege is about as relevent in today’s world as the notion of the British empire.

Greg

“Science has replaced the Church as the group promoting the State and calling for more and more control of the citizens. ”
Those who govern, govern by fear. Before they worked with a church which had the confidence of the people and scared them into line with the threat of eternal damnation.
Now scientists serve a similar purpose.

Greg Goodman

there is no “cutting edge” in climate sciences, climate science can’t cut warm butter.

richard verney

There is a lot to commend in this essay, but whilst it clearly demonstartes that the science is not settled, and that the jury should still be out on AGW, it falls into the trap of assuming that once the ‘pause’ comes to an end, temperatures will begin to rise.
Whist the ‘pause’ will obviously come to an end, at some stage (since the only certain thing in all of this is that climate is never in stasis and climate, on long enough scales, always changes, albeit within bounds), we do not know whether, in the future, temperatures will rise or fall.
But even should temperatures begin to rise, it does not automatically follow that AGW has any underlying merit. Whilst this might be dependent upon the length of the ‘pause’ (and will certainly be dependent upon the reason for the ‘pause’ should we ever get to know that reason), there may in fact be no room at all for AGW. It may be the case that all that is happening when a resumption in warming occurs is nothing more than part of a natural process involving a rebound from the Little Ice Age.
The ‘pause’ especially at 380 to 400ppm of CO2 is a major thorn in the AGW conjecture, and the longer that it conntinues the more problematic it will become.

Richard

Interesting. At least some aspects of the failures of “climate science” with regards to global warming forecasts and predictions are admitted. However, instead of taking the realistic attitude that “we don’t know enough to make valid climate prediction based on current understanding”, the author clearly has their own agenda, as they refer to the past two decades as “the pause in warming”. Maybe it is. Maybe it’s the top of the curve and now we plunge into another glacial advance. Likely it is something in between; that is, we are witnessing yet another instance of natural variability based on factors we don’t fully understand combined with factors we don’t yet know about. But, no. It’s a “pause”.

rogerknights

That’s why the neutral term “plateau” is better. (Although it’s more awkward to say “plateau-ing” and “plateau’d”.

tetris

I have suggested “flat lining” on several blogs because that is essentially what we are seeing since the mid/late 1990s.

Greg Goodman

The late 20th c. warming that got all the alarmbells ringing was largely due to the two major stratospheric eruptions depleting ozone: cooling the sratosphere and allowing more SW solar to reach the lower atmosphere.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/uah_tls_365d.png?w=842
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/erbe_sw_tls.png

Greg Goodman

Warming of SH oceans compared to volcano induced changes in stratosphere:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/tls_icoads_70s-20s.png

H.R.

If we’re talking climate change, the climate has always changed and the science is now on the exciting edge of ‘wild @$$ guessing’ from the previous position of ‘totally wild @$$ guessing.’ However, I think I can predict with 50% certainty that we are going to get colder or warmer.
If we’re talking Catastrophic CO2-based Anthropogenic Global Warming, then the science was settled quite a few millions of years ago.
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
(While you’re having a look, make your own WAG – based on CO2 levels – where we’re headed next.)

Greg Goodman

I can predict with 99.999% certainty that is it will warmer or colder. Once thing is virtually certain is, that on any time-scale, climate will change.

Greg Goodman

Oops, looks like google made a poor job of translating my native Vogon text into English. Let’s try again.
I can predict with 99.999% certainty that it will be warmer or colder. One thing that is virtually certain: on any time-scale, climate will change.

Yirgach

At least you’re not doing any Vogon poetry.
Oh, wait a minute…

MikeB

Can anyone tell me what ASYM-H and ASYM-C are supposed to be on the graph in this article?

ASYM-H is an index describing the magnetospheric ring currents’ assymetry observed during magnetic storms.

MikeB

Thanks

Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
If one uses a more realistic CO2 forcing value in line with current papers and combines that with known cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) a macro level model can be constructed that follows current a nd past temperature trends quit well. That model indicates the “pause’ will last until about 2035 +/- and then the warming will start again; however there will be another cooling thirty some years after that.

brockway32

It’s not a pause. Warming is over FOREVER. It will never, ever warm again, not even a little, not even due to natural variability. The best we can hope for is for every day to be exactly like the day before. But overall, the trend will be colder colder colder. I say that with 100.0000000% certainty. Anybody who disagrees probably believes in a flat earth. I think those who disagree should be incarcerated for crimes against humanity, for the safety of the public. Do you now, or have you ever believed the hiatus was temporary? Up against the wall. The rest of us will be busy covering the arctic with oil to change albedo…you know, for the sake of the environment.

Don’t be silly. The endless predictions were for runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Those predictions were nearly universal in the late ’90’s. Now it turns out that they were wrong. All of them.
No one knows the future. The planet may continue warming, or not. Or it may begin to cool. A new stadial may occur. But that is not the point. The point is that the climate alarmists were wrong. There should be consequences to being wrong, especially since $billions in tax monies have been spent on their non-existent global warming scare. Now that the planet has decreed that you were wrong, what is your response? To make light of it, and walk away chuckling?

wsbriggs

I believe you forgot a /sarc tag, unless you are one of those who doesn’t believe that the climate continually changes, if so, there is much to learn pilgrim.

FM:
The climate alarmists have been proven wrong by the only authority that matters: the real world.
Global warming has stopped, and not just a few years ago. All the predictions of runaway global warming and the associated calamities were wrong. So, a question:
What will it take to convince you that your premise was wrong? How many more years of no warming, or global cooling, will it take before you throw in the towel? Or does human nature trump scientific veracity? Will you never admit that your CO2=CAGW conjecture was flat wrong? Will all the current believers in that deconstructed meme have to die out, before sanity returns to climate science?
This is a really good test. If a level-headed site like yours cannot admit it when they are shown to be wrong, then we will just have to wait for the hardheaded True Believer contingent to die out.
J.M. Keynes is alleged to have said:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
The facts have changed. Global warming has stopped. What do you do now?

lonetown

To say there is a pause, I believe, is scientifically incorrect as well. A pause assumes warming will commence once again. Assumptions are not science but rather prognostications based upon experience and although scientific they should reflect less certainty. Something like, we presume warming will continue along the lines of the last millennium but have no working model to explain these trends.

i@ lonetown
If “A pause assumes warming will commence once again” …. then what do you call it when a ‘cooling’ does the same thing?
Does a ‘warming’ always “pause” ……. and a ‘cooling’ always “stalls” …… or what?
People should be paying more attention to and learning from the hourly/daily temperature measurements of their household thermometers.

Larry Kummer

Lonetown,
Can’t argue with that! But I just quote from the literature, and they call it a pause (or hiatus). Predicting what happens next is over my pay grade.

Eustace Cranch

…both Left and Right have gained control of the public debate, neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals.
I’m curious- what “political goals”, exactly, do the Right want to advance by gaining control of the climate debate?

Gary Pearse

I have some suggestions for them if they are ambivalent about it. I’m nervous the right is shifting leftward. The silence is almost deafening from the politicians on the right. Maybe they have been seduced by the potential for big tax grabs.

D.J. Hawkins

Sadly, it appears that in the U.S. at least, those on the titular right differ from those on the left only in the speed at which the handcart will descend to the nether regions.

LogosWrench

Most of our so called places of higher learning assert that there is no such thing as truth, only politics. And we wonder why absolutely everything has become politicized.
Talk about cognitive disconnect.
Let’s dispense with the myth that scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads.
There is no scientific method only unscientific manipulation. Especially in climate “science”.

Richard M

First of all you should replace the massively adjusted surface data chart with one based on much better satellite data. I believe Dr. Roy Spencer has a very nice one at his site.
Next, you need to extrapolate what will happen if the oceans really do control our climate. The PDO has already gone negative. The AMO has peaked and will cool for another 25-20 years. This will likely lead to increases in Arctic sea ice. In addition, solar cycles 25 and 26 could very likely be weaker than average. The combination of these events is likely to cool the planet for at least another two decades. The pause/hiatus/plateau/cooling is likely last for 20 or more years.

Notwithstanding all the studies, all the research and all the mistakes.
The waste of time, money, (tax money), and useless brain power (fraud and graft), has left man kind with a “cold” . A cold climate which will be a dry climate. The evil of it was the spending on the fraud when in fact easy to see lakes and research and spending on water conservation were what was demanded by the facts and truth.
Now the money, time and energy has been misspent.
Just say no to the fraud and get started on real solutions to the comming water shortages.
The climate and weather will be what it is no matter what we do.
Fact is the truth was there but so many with greed and over sized egos the truth was covered up with lies and preening peacocks.

patrioticduo

It’s not a “pause”. The climate has simply entered a new phase.
Actually, “phase” it not an appropriate word either as the word phase implies a known repeatable cycle. And we know that climate is a choatic system. I think the best word to descrbe the current state of the climate would be “stage”.
The current climate stage is one of flat temperatures. There is no increase, nor is there any decrease. How long this stage lasts is unknown. And what the stage will look like afterward is also unknown.
If we look at multi decadal or century long cycles then we might conclude that it was more likely that global temperates might be more likely to decline. Perhaps we could assign a 75%/25% ratio of probablility that temperatures will enter a declining stage. Should we be making massive policy decisions that would reduce the level of human prosperity, health and circumstances on the basis of such uncertainty?
Only if the effects of warming or cooling were known to cause hardship that would make such policy decisions worthwhile. Since no one is capable of knowing what the real effects of climate change actually are then making any policy decisions are foolish, stupid and wrong. Altering our human conditions on such policies is one of the greatest poitical, social and humanitartion follies of our time.
The fact that the world is faced by dozens of far more significant and dire needs that remain ignored by the political elite, the powerful and the connected is an utter disgrace for which all contributors and supports ought to hang their heads in shame. I would suggest that the most disgraceful corruption of the political process that has occurred in almost all western democracies for the last 50 years is the over reaching influence of faux “green” organizations.
Their influence, which is primarily based upon fear mongering and unfair guilt / shaming of western culture, has stopped the progress of liberty and happiness throughout larger sectors of the world. How many hundreds of millions of people would be alive, happier and more prosperous today had not the western democracies been overwhelmed by misguided “greens”?

The essence of science is trial and error, …
Epistemological nonsense. The essence of science is building models with predictive power.
The lessons of climate science are the failures of peer-review, of publication in professional journals, of authority by consensus, and of GCMs with way too many knobs tuned to doctored data. All that plus the vulnerability of government, of media, and of science writers with abysmal science literacy. Applause for the pause. Nature’s falsification.
Not everyone swinging a hammer is a carpenter.

Exactly right. If a model cannot predict reliably and accurately, it is a conjecture. An opinion [and you know what they say about opinions].
The AGW model has never been able to accurately predict global temperatures [AKA: ‘the climate’]. Despite the $millions spent on GCM’s [computer climate models], not one of them was able to predict the most significant climate event of the past twenty years: the fact that global warming stopped. They were all wrong.
Every AGW-based computer climate model has failed. They did not predict that global warming would stop, and they cannot predict if, or when, it might resume. Or if global cooling will commence. GCMs simply cannot predict with any accuracy at all. Their predictions have all failed.
AGW may exist. But if it does, its effect is minuscule; it is so tiny that it has never been empirically measured. The AGW model is unable to make accurate predictions. Thus, AGW remains only a conjecture. But the climate alarmist crowd [and many others besides] treat AGW as if it were a proven fact. It isn’t.
Question: at what point will Fabius Maximus accept the fact that the AGW conjecture has failed? It cannot make accurate predictions. And if something cannot be measured, it is simply not science. It is speculation. Really, it is not much more than witch doctor juju. Because if something is not measurable, it cannot be called science.

dp

Unfortunately activists on both Left and Right have gained control of the public debate, neither interested in the science except to advance their political goals.

Too much of a generalization too early in the post. I stopped reading there so won’t know if the rest of the article was worth the time. We need to avoid using broad brushes.

It’s a small gap, but might grow to become serious if the pause lasts for years — or even decades (as some forecast). The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,
My reply
They are still assuming this is just a pause. They have yet to come to grips that not only is this not a pause but the temperature trend going forward is going to be down.
The pause as they try to convey will give us more time to prepare for global warming the problem is it will NOT be global warming but global cooling.

remarkable concessions from a believer – but the article encouraging a focus on the science unaffected by bias – contains the author’s bias just below the surface – eg –
The pause gives us some time to prepare for future climate change — and take measures to reduce it. But we might squander this gift of time. Much depends on the possible political effects of the pause in global warming,
1) why reduce a natural variation – unless you think it isn’t natural – is raising temps so bad – or even rising CO2 levels
2) the article linked in the “political effects…” portion of that statement – http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/08/26/global-warming-pause-54183/) – comes from the perspective of a person stubbornly biased in “warmist” favor – eg “The work of the IPCC and the major science institutes are the best guides for information about these issues”
it may not seem like it but i’m trying not to be harsh – i think biases are as inevitable as changing temps – and it’s difficult to overcome them – especially on the issue of man-made CO2 effects – it’s not surprising to me that you had no recipe for putting them aside

dp September 8, 2014 at 9:38 am
Too much of a generalization too early in the post. I stopped reading there so won’t know if the rest of the article was worth the time. We need to avoid using broad brushes.

i agree with you about that early statement – however i plunged on – and found it largely and surprisingly agreeable – the author is clearly a warmist who has been looking closely at the issue of “the pause” – the article is highly rational statement despite it’s few flaws – the kind you might wish more on the “other side” would make

Manfred

‘Climate Science’, where the venal side of science meets the aspirant side of politics. Not a lot different to mutually beneficial activity under ‘The Arches’. The lesson? Babylon.

gregjxn

“As laypeople, we can just watch and learn. Let’s not treat it as a baseball game, cheering for “our” team.”
It would be nice if the whole thing were like an interesting game that we could just watch and enjoy. Unfortunately, the “other” team wants to come up in the stands and beat the c**p out of the spectators while the game unfolds (ruin economies, tax like mad, limit freedoms, etc.). When our team has them behind 13 to 4 I’ll relax and enjoy the game.

DonS

Stop feeding the troll. Jeez!

To the Editor of the Fabius Maximus blog:
This will get lost in the nested replies up above, so it is being re-posted here. I would appreciate a reply from the Editor.
Editor of the FM site:
You say you get your opinion “…when some climate scientists I trust say so. Or, second, when one or more major climate agencies say so. Such as the IPCC or the UK Met Office…”
No wonder you arrive at the wrong conclusions. Climate science is really not that complicated, and you should use your own judgement, rather than relying on self-serving assertions from groups like the UN/IPCC or the UK government.
Those groups have a remit: investigate and report on anthropogenic global warming, make recommendations, and provide projections [which are in reality predictions].
Do you see the problem with that? If not, it is this: a conclusion has been reached. AGW is occurring. Therefore, something must be done. Is that accurate so far?
That is certainly not science, and the conclusions are contrary to established facts and observations. It is the reason all those groups have egg on their faces: global warming has stopped, many years ago. Their belief that human activity causes global warming [AGW] has taken a fatal hit. With ever-rising CO2, they are unable to explain why global temperatures are not rising.
Instead, put your trust in something simple, which avoids the self-serving, biased opinions of the climate alarm industry: use testable, measurable facts, and verifiable observations. In other words, use scientific evidence; don’t rely on opinions.
If you do that, you will be adhering to the Scientific Method and you will not go wrong, as the IPCC and most other ‘official’ groups have. There are a few simple, verifiable facts that deconstruct the AGW premise:
First, global warming stopped many years ago. That is an observable fact, which is directly contrary to the endless predictions of runaway global warming made by those same groups [at least, until global warming stopped]. They were wrong, but they have never admitted it. Why do you still believe their narrative?
Next, it has been established beyond any doubt that changes in atmospheric CO2 are caused by changes in global temperature. Every major govenrmental group got that causation wrong. They still believe that CO2 controls temperature. That has been shown empirically to be exactly backward:
∆temperature causes ∆CO2.
There are similar charts covering all time scales from years, to hundreds of thousands of years. ALL of them show the same cause-and-effect: changes in temperature are the cause of changes in CO2. But there are NO similar charts, which show that changes in CO2 are the cause of changes in global temperature; any such correlation is always temporary and coincidental, and it quickly breaks down. Only the correlation showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2 has been shown to hold on all time scales.
Based on that empirical [real world] evidence, what is your conclusion? You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand that the claimed causation is wrong.
Next, alarmist scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others used to engage in scientific debates. They no longer do, but not for lack of invitations. Why do you suppose they avoid debating their claims? Aside from the fact that they have lost every debate, they will no longer debate because their ‘science’ has been repeatedly falsified. So they hide out, rather than defending their views. Does that not raise red flags in your mind? If they truly believed what they are trying to sell to the public, then they should be willing to debate it at every opportunity.
Finally, you are cherry-picking your ‘authorities’. By saying you rely on scientists you trust, you are refusing to accept the views of internationally esteemed climatologists like Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. Why would you do that? Instead, you gravitate toward scientists who are riding the climate gravy train. Michael Mann has receive many $millions in grants, yet he still refuses to disclose his methods, data, methodologies or metadata to other scientists who want to follow the Scientific Method, and attempt to falsify his work. That is how honest science is done, but Mann has avoided that since his widely debunked MBH98 and MBH99 papers [the journal Nature was forced to issue a rare Corregendum — a major correction — on Mann’s work]. Yet you believe a charlatan over honest scientists? Why?
It is time to re-examine your beliefs. Either you are on the side of honest science, or you are on the side of the climate alarmist crowd. They have never been right in any of their predictions, so why would you still listen to them?
Your credibility is on the line. It would be best for you to re-think your position.