![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-20131.png?quality=75)
Alex Sen Gupta, a biological scientist, has written an article (reviewed by John Cook) which attempts to defend the validity of climate models which can’t predict the climate.
According to Gupta;
To understand what’s happening, it is critical to realise that the climate changes for a number of reasons in addition to CO₂. These include solar variations, volcanic eruptions and human aerosol emissions.
The influence of all these “climate drivers” are included in modern climate models. On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations – like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, ENSO and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, [IPO] – that can redistribute heat to the deep ocean (thereby masking surface warming).
Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.
The problem with this claim is that, as Gupta says, the climate models are supposed to take these random fluctuations into account. Climate models are supposed to accommodate randomness, by providing a range of predicted values – the range is produced by plugging in different values for the random elements which cannot be predicted. However, observations are right on the lower border of that range. The divergence between climate models and predictions is now so great, that climate models are on the brink of being incontrovertibly falsified.
As Judith Curry recently said, If the pause continues for 20 years (a period for which none of the climate models showed a pause in the presence of greenhouse warming), the climate models will have failed a fundamental test of empirical adequacy.
This is important, because it strikes at the heart of the claim that climate models can detect human influence on climate change. If climate models cannot model climate, if the models cannot be reconciled with observations, how can the models possibly be useful for attributing the causes climate change? If scientists defending the models claim the discrepancy is because of random fluctuations in the climate, which have pushed the models to the brink of falsification, doesn’t this demonstrate that, at the very least, the models very likely underestimate the amount of randomness in the climate? Is it possible that the entire 20th century warming might be one large random fluctuation?
Nature is certainly capable of producing large, rapid climate fluctuations, such as the Younger Dryas, an abrupt return to ice age conditions which occurred 12,500 years ago. You can’t use climate models which demonstrably underestimate the randomness of climate change, to calculate how much of the observed 20th century warming is not random.
If current mainstream climate models cannot predict the climate, then scientists have to consider the possibility that other models, with different assumptions, can do a better job. It is no accident that Monckton, Soon, Legates and Brigg’s paper on an irreducibly simple climate model, which does a better job of hind casting climate than mainstream models, has received over 10,000 downloads. As every scientific revolution in history has demonstrated, being right is ultimately more important than being mainstream, even if it sometimes takes a few years to win acceptance.
For now, mainstream climate scientists are mostly hiding in the fringes of their estimates. When they acknowledge it at all, they claim that the anomaly, the pause, is a low probability event which is still consistent with climate models. Hans Von Storch, one of the giants of German climate research, a few years ago claimed that 98% of climate models cannot be reconciled with reality – which still, for now, leaves 2% possibility that climate scientists are right.
Is the world really preparing to spend billions, trillions of dollars, on a 2% bet?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It might, just might, be my ESL. But all I read is that nature overwhelms anything we have done, in the larger scale of course. (macroclimate)
De acuerdo.
Looking at the Graph the Green and Blue circles represent Measurements? But are they actual measurements or adjusted measurements?
In this graphic from the previous post, the Green and Blue represent measurements from Satellite and Balloons. Are these the same datasets? The represented measurements are different
The bottom graph also appears to have 3 more years of DATA
@Bryan: In the first graph the data are five-year running means; in the second, they are annual anomalies.
Overlooked that humongous note at the top of the graph…Thanks
Interestingly though, the top graph indicates the model average crossing the 0.6 threshold at 2010 (90 model average) while the bottom one has it crossing in 2006 (102 model average) so this indicator is highly dependent on which model runs are chosen (although most all do run hot and many run extremely hot)
Bryan A, you also missed the fact that the top two plots are HADCRUT 4 Surface temperature and UAH Lower Troposphere and the lower two plots are the Average of 4 Balloon Data Sets and the Average of 2 Satellite Data Sets.
No that I didn’t miss…I do find it interesting that those particular datasets are included in the same color scheme though
The second diagram is for the mid-troposphere. It appears to be based on John Christie’s testimony to the US Congress.
Well in the case of validity (wrongness or correctness) , it is first of all mandatory that the experimental data (all data is experimental) MUST be data that is collected from the system “that is being modeled by the models.”
There’s the rub.
The “data” is generally gathered from planet earth.
None of the models actually model planet earth.
Well this could save a lot of money. Stop collecting data altogether and just run the models. Add software that generates automated press releases and voila a much more efficient climate change propaganda machine.
You must try to find the old Peter Cooke movie, “The rise and rise of Michael Rimmer” definitely on the same logic path…
Ear’ tis – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QArRsTTQFcs
You forgot “Increase taxes and wealth redistribution…”
That’s exactly what their “solution” is. Take from the rich and give to the poor. And they tell each other that they’re on a moral high horse like Robin Hood.
But they’re wrong. Robin Hood took from the government, which had overtaxed everyone, and he gave the money back to the people who’d earned it, the people who’d been impoverished by the high taxes of a big government.
In fact, the main reason why people are impoverished around the world is that their governments are oppressive and corrupt. Giving such countries money doesn’t help the people any more than giving money to the Clintons helps suffering Haitians. Most of the aid money there is that gets past the bureaucracies that processes it goes straight into the pockets of corrupt regimes it’s gifted to, enabling them to extend their oppression.
Communism never solves problems. It just makes them worse.
… plus a [Need more funds] button.
jimmaine, yes, that’s what this is all about. The Left will follow it even if it is proven to be a false hypothesis. It’s a means to an end. It’s why they love the Precautionary Principle. Hey boys and girls, let’s run with this warming thing, because it is a way to get socialism in through the back door.
Indeed Jimmaine, slash taxes for the rich and target the poor. Look at how well it worked in Kansas! http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article4668108.html
“Indeed Jimmaine, slash taxes for the rich and target the poor.”
You’re obviously not had to write checks for 45% of your income to the city, state, and fed for taxes. Doesn’t the top 10% pay 60-70% of the fed income tax, while the bottom 40-50% not pay anything, and in some cases get money back?
The single biggest impediment to getting rich is the face in the mirror and the taxman. Bitter, you bet.
People have the wealth redistribution all wrong. It is NOT take from the rich and give to the poor …. it is take from the public and give to the elites.
That is why they are so vested in pushing this thing through … for their own financial benefit!!
That is why so many unethical “climate scientists” are on the take … because they want a piece of the pie.
The “sheep” who support this crap … otoh, the rank and file zombies, with no brain outside of what they are told to think and say …. well, they will be herded to the slaughter house.
basic difference between liberals/socialists and conservatives. Liberals believe there is a finite amount of wealth, and it must be “appropriately assigned” in a “fair” way. Conservatives believe wealth can be created.
And yes, those in control have no intention of distribution to the poor.
Says it all really.
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled-nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001),
Section 14.2.2.2,
page 774
The models are learning experiments based on hypothetical start points, to see how the system might react to various “fiddles”. They don’t even take real starting points!
Just a quick question on the graphic, which we have all seen a hundred times. The blue line is labeled as UAH lower troposphere. But it looks nothing like UAH over at Roy Spencer’s site. In particular, the very distinctive peak of the 1998 super El Nino is absent in this graphic. Is the UAH data presented here really mid level or upper level trop., and just mislabeled?
Thanks, all.
I have no idea if it is mid level or what, but the peak at 1998 looks there to my eyes.
When you take a 5 year or 60 month running mean, the 1998 peak disappears.
That’s a 60 month smooth? Yikes. No wonder it looks so distorted. But still, the Great Pause, running from roughly 1998 to the present does not seem to be represented very well. An artifact of the smoothing, I suppose.
Thanks for the info.
UAH6.0 shows a pause of 18 years and 4 months from January 1997 to April 2015. I could be wrong, but it sure looks to me as if they are still using UAH5.6 since the 18 year plateau is no where to be seen.
The data has to be chosen carefully to support the argument, then massaged with different averaging, means, start and end dates etc to provide just the right graphic.
By smoothing out El Nino and La Nina outliers, models rid themselves of the very reasons why they diverge above and rarely below observations. These oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected processes not only affect how much solar energy is absorbed but also redistribute absorbed solar energy. Ocean stored heat is sometimes held in, and sometimes released over short and decadally echoed time scales in areas far away from their original storage. This is why Bob Tisdale is the voice in the wilderness staying on point about why models fail to replicate natural short and long term drivers of land and sea surface temperature trends. Yes modelers say ENSO variables are used to produce runs, but they use smoothed data that essentially rids the data of the very ENSO variables they say they use.
Tony L
“Smoothing” is (by definition) a distortion (of reality).
I stopped reading right there:
“Mathematical models may be imperfect but they are extremely helpful to predict the weather, design aeroplanes and even test new vaccines.”
LOL
You REALLY couldn’t make that up.
(That may explain stuff about useless vaccines still being around, and mandatory…)
I should have stopped after the title. These ‘experts’ do not deal with reality. 97% of the Global Warming ‘experts’ have been very wrong for decades. You are not suppose to criticize Global Warming ‘experts’ as it is unlikely you could possibly be as wrong as they have been for so many decades.
Paul, The figure 97% was a fraud. They counted number of publications in one study that were in the least agreeable with the “climate changes” idea. Of, course climate changes. The question is whther climate changes now are due to human CO2 and if so how much. Human carbon from CO2 from fossil fuels is 8 Gigatons (billion tons) a year, maybe slightly larger. Decaying organic plant matter releases 60 Gigatons of carbon . 8 divided by 68 is 11.7% of CO2 from both sources ,one natural, and one man made, are due to burning fossil fuels.
As pointed out by Eric Klemetti in Scince April 4,2015 both these sources of atmospheric carbon have C12-C13 ratios that are unique. Decaying plants have a -25 ration. Burning coal has a -25 ratio. Burning oil has a -13 to -18 ratio. The atmosphere is now -85. It was previous -6.5 . Obviously only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2 is from human’s burning fossil fuels. It is not reasonable to claim anthropogenic CO2 is the “primary driver” of atmospheric warming and discount natural sources of atmospheric CO2. No one is arguing atmospheric CO2 is now 400 ppm and still rising. However for 18 years now the global temperature trend has been a statistical insignificant flat line. This means there has been no statistically significant additional warming for 18 years desoite CO2 still rising and above 400 ppm. That alone has disproven that CO2 is a primary driver of atmospheric warming. However long term temperatures have shown that for 2000 years we had temperatures in the Roman era, Medieval Temepature Optimum period and Little Medieval Warm period that were higher than now an dthey were before juman’s released fossil fuel CO2.
Raymond Borland, If the warmists want to use the 97% figure to paint/tar climate ‘science’ activist researchers let them own the failure. I say leave it up to the researchers whom by their silence allow their field to be a mockery.
This month there was an important retraction by a researcher which demonstrated the integrity and courage which seems all too rare.
How a Grad Student Uncovered a Huge Fraud — Science of Us
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html
People who use mathematical models should be forced to write them from scratch. FEA and FDE especially with their fancy post processing and animations are very “helpful”.
If we could convince programmers of the benefits of writing from scratch, then we would have software that’s a tenth of the size and has a tenth of the security holes. The issue arises because it’s easier to be lazy and reuse old code in the form of libraries than to write it yourself. Yet, most such libraries contain screeds of unwanted junk, plus they date from the pre-Internet era when security was not considered greatly important..
The fact that the models use Fortran suggests that they may contain code dating even from the 70’s or 60’s. Not that there’s anything wrong with Fortran itself, it’s arguably a better language than C, but the ancientness of the code itself is likely an issue.
Ian,
“the models use Fortran”
Is that so? I’m no programer but back in the mid 70’s I did take a computer science class at IU. Those were the days of time share and key punched card input. And we used Fortran! And that is still used today after so many advances? Amazing!
FORTRAN ha, my first programming was done in 1958 using interpreted FORTRAN running on an IBM 1401 at General Motors Institute. Just before I retired from GM, I had an “expert” from a consulting firm tell me my data (measured with calibrated equipment) was “wrong” because it didn’t agree with the output of his FEA model.
If the modern users of established matrix procedures (FEA) knew how sensitive the results were to the boundary conditions of the many boundaries, I doubt they’d be willing to make such outrageous claims. – The old guys who wrote those ground breaking codes were rather amazing.
As Judith Curry recently said, If the pause continues for 20 years (a period for which none of the climate models showed a pause in the presence of greenhouse warming), the climate models will have failed a fundamental test of empirical adequacy.
Twenty years of progressive policies, government grants, and indoctrination of the youth, the facts will no longer matter. Just like UN Sustainable Development it will have become fact regardless.
Remember though we are already 18+ years in, according to recent blog entries here – we are talking less than 2 years to go
In some data sets we are already at 23 and 26 years respectively. This meme should already been long dead and buried.
If the models did reasonably model the most material mechanisms affecting global temperature the you would expect their results to be scattered about the observational record and not biased so obviously to one side. The fact that the ‘models’ all start with the same value also distorts the general picture as it reduces the apparent divergence. What would happen if the models started at the same temperature as HadCrut in say 1900 or even 1850?
PS “(reviewed by John Cook) ” LOL. Say no more.
Has anyone looked at the 2/3 of abstracts in Crook’s 0.3% “consensus”. Around 788 abstracts that mention either global warming or climate change should fall in only a few categories – there aren’t that many options.
Link to Crook’s brainwashing manual. Does he still have his SS selfie posted?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
cassidy,
Since you axed:
I’ll drink to that. Truth is I just did. Reviewed by a cartoonist?????????
“Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.”
You mean “unpredictable”in the sense that the science simply cannot be settled? I sympathise enturely that the science is not up to modelling “centennial scale simulations” but does that also not simply underscore the fact that the science is not ‘settled’.
On what basis are people who critique overconfidence in the models as a predictive device get smeared with the disgusting term “denier”. They are denying what? An “unpredictable” phenomenon that cannot be modelled at the “centennial scale”?
Can you imagine the CAGW case being brought as a criminal prosecution? In fact even as civil proceedings? Counsel for the defence/respondent would have a picnic at cross examination. It would make legal careers, a lot of money and for a lot of fun up on one’s hind legs.
If these ocean current changes, which are variable and largely unpredictable, can “absorb heat and mask warming” , doesn’t it go without saying that they could release heat and mask cooling?
Yeah but that’s not climate science it’s only common sense.
Which probably means that it’s supported by observation and scientifically sound.
appinsys.com has multi-decade graphs of AMO, PDO, etc; variable and unpredicable? To the UN, which realizes that climate cycles have a ‘catastrophic” effect on the fascist AGW-sham.
At least they’re finally admitting that there is more to climate change than just CO₂. But if global temperatures start warming again, they’ll be back to giving CO₂ all the credit. Other factors only kick in when they need an excuse for why it isn’t warming as expected.
I was under the impression that the IPCC reports said that the natural variability was swamped by the wonder gas CO2.
We now have this man telling us it’s the other way round.
OH how convenient!!!
James Bull
Who collects the data? Climate scientists. Not those who post to websites like this claiming some (superior) knowledge on the subject.
Instruments collect the data, not scientists.
Climate scientists, those using land based surface data, then adjust it to their liking — infill, homogenization, TOA, algorithm, etc.
You do have a point though, no one posting here has knowledge as to why the adjustments are valid or needed. It’s a black box.
Er, no. Instruments measure the data, scientists collate and collect. Interpretation of data is where the subjectivity arises. Remember, if you repeat a complex study and get the same exactly the same results as a previous study, there is a serious flaw in the methodology.
Radiative physics! Oh, the HUMANITY!!
While I don’t claim “superior knowledge” I do claim that I got a college education before our colleges and universities became leftist indoctrination centers-and understood early on that AGW was a crock of pure,unadulterated horsepucky.
Maybe now that it’s been determined that higher levels of CO2 increase the potency of marijuana-the Gaia worshipers will go back to getting stoned, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Has Al Gore resumed inhaling since it’s now legal in a few states?
I think manbearpig has been inhaling the whole time,and with the recent study that stated the increased CO2 levels are increasing the potency of pot-he’s more clueless than ever.
Well 82 F is hotter than 76 F and 68 F is not. But then, that’s just me.
“And when the stations reported those numbers, I corrected them. And when an impartial observer attempted to interfere, I corrected him too….”
Cecil I doubt if you know the qualifications of some who do post on this site. If you did I think you would be in for a shock.
Hello Cecil, welcome to WUWT.
Had you been a regular reader/participant in the long conversation, you would have known that quite a number of scientists- “climate” and otherwise- often join the fray, here. You would have also known that your post is a fine example of certain kind(s) of logical fallacy.
Stick around and find out for yourself.
Really?? It sure as hell doesn’t prove its right!
Reblogged this on "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising… and commented:
Climate Fear Mongers Hate the Facts….Models are Easier to Manipulate!
“On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations.”
Well, 12 years ago Hansen proclaimed that this is complete nonsense since at least 2003.
“As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.”
Hansen et al., 2003 bulletin, Columbia University
So the natural forces that drove the Viking Warm Period (Medieval Warm Period) and those that drove the LIA were “small forces”!
What about the forces that drove the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period (all of which were warmer than the Viking Warm Period)?
What we do know about the drivers of the above is that they were not driven by manmade CO2 emissions, and if the proxy data is correct (and the claim of climate scientists that CO2 levels during the Holocene prior to the industrial revolution were stable), not by CO2 at all.
Excellent response.
So you stopped the HADCRUT at 2013 (La Niña year, how did I know) when it was in the 0.40 C. But the last three months are at 0.62C. Go look at your graph for 2015. Pretty close.
A five year running mean has to have its final date 2.5 years before the present date.
I suspect trafmadore needs a more detailed explanation as to why.
He seems to think that you can average temperatures that haven’t been measured yet.
Perhaps, in his mind we can, we just substitute in model data instead. What’s the difference between reality and the Matrix after all?
Wooo…
A centered 5 year average? First, there can’t be a value for 2013; the latest would be Sept of 2012.
HADCRUT global? The correct value for the last time point is 0.50 C to the graphic’s 0.38. And with a 5 year average there is never a warmer 5 year period than the last data point, although there are ties due to the 2007 and 2010 El Niño years, at both at 0.50. That graphic has highs in 0.03C above present in the 2003 time frame.
So I don’t know what is being graphed really.
@Pippen Kool:
There is an error in the original annual HadCRUT data; viz., 2015 is assigned a value, although the year is not yet over. Carelessly accepting that allows a five-year centered average to be calculated for 2013.
Additionally, the HadCRUT data (at least; I haven’t checked the UAH data or the model outputs) appear misaligned; what are labeled 1983-2013 running means seems to be for 1981-2011.
0.22 degrees warmer. Oh my gawwdd!!!! Quick, put the a/c on as that couple of tenths of a degree has got me frying!!!!
(Runs around screaming and waving his hands in the air)
@Cecil, Reg, and Babsy hang on to your impudence you are not posting on a site that suffers fools
@ur momisugly fossilsage
I think you misinterpreted my post. I was pointing out the fallacies with Cecil’s post
sorry
Anytime I see the term “factcheck” in a URL address I steer away from it.
Saw the link to “theconversation” earlier today while (whilst?) looking for reports on the Atlantic AMO story.
Mainly crickets.
Dr. Gupta appears to be non-convergent of natural variability. Global temperature rise as presented by IPCC shows a 60-year cycle with -0.3 to +0.3 oC. In the case of Indian rainfall — all India Southwest Monsoon rainfall that constitutes 78% of the annual mean — presents 60-year cycle. The data was published by IITM in 1995. In the case of Brazil, the rainfall presents 52 year cycle — the paper was published in Brazilian Journal. The Durban Rainfall presents 66-year cycle [Canberra] in Australia, the sediment data show the same cycle], Mahalapye in Botswana presents 60 year cycle and Catuane in Mozambique presents 54 year cycle but all three presents a similar “WM” pattern. The same is the case with Fortaleza in Brazil. Indian onset of monsoon over Kerala coast present the same 52 year cycle. The Hurricanes present a year cycle similar to Indian southwest monsoon precipitation and Typhoons followed the opposite pattern. In the case of the two Southern states that receive rainfall in two monsoons and pre-monsoon and post-monsoon cyclones. The annual rainfall presents a 132 year cycle and the individual monsoon precipitation presents 56 year cycles in opposite pattern. The Bay of Bengal cyclones follow the northeast monsoon 56-year cycle. All these are published in my books starting from 1993 and they are available in internet.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“Mathematical models may be imperfect but they are extremely helpful to predict the weather, design aeroplanes and even test new vaccines.”
Please note; aeroplanes are designed using VERIFIED models, this verification process started with two brothers (Wilbur and Orville) who invented the wind tunnel before they got their aeroplane to fly. Then they build physical scale models of different aeroplane wing shapes and tested them in the wind tunnel. This process has been ongoing and improved on ever since. Create a model, verify the model (with small scale tests), improve the model, verify again, and so on and so on.
NOBODY but NOBODY creates a math model of how an aeroplane will fly and then builds a full sized aeroplane and puts passengers inside and takes off based on the output of the model without verification steps along the way.
It sure seems like the AGW aeroplane’s tires are still firmly in contact with the runway even though the “extremely helpful models” claim it is soaring in the heaven’s.
Cheers, KevinK.
You think the wheels have tyres?
I was giving the climate modelers the “benefit of the doubt”.
Since they seemed to “gloss over” the effect of clouds on the climate I expect that a climate modeler’s version of an aeroplane would just assert that “wings provide lift” and not bother to model the wings in any detail.
Heck, wings are just a “forcing”, no need to bother about the details, there are grant applications to write first…..
Modelling the climate of the Earth is a fool’s errand, and like most fools the climate modelers don’t even know how much they don’t know. But they are quite certain that anybody that does not “believe” in their models is “as dumb as a box of rocks”.
Cheers, KevinK
You think the fuselage even has wings?
Ok, slight correction, Wilbur and Orville may not have “invented” the wind tunnel, it appears that others may have built one before they did. But they (Wilbur and Orville) certainly were several of the first scientists (aeronautical engineers) to apply the concept of “verifying” models against actual observed data. Verification, it’s a good thing.
Model all you want, but if you don’t verify then you should be subject to significant scorn….
Cheers, KevinK.
Speaking as a modeller of such things. I can confirm that there’s a lot more to building a plane than a few model runs. We wouldn’t trust a model in its own. All the models we use are limited and constrained. They are merely useful tools… there’s wind tunnels scale models prototypes etc etc. Even though we have sufficient understanding to mostly build planes that stay in the air on average. We do not… and I emphasise this for clarity do NOT have a full enough understanding of it all to build planes from models.
99.999% of models agree – the earth is wrong about global warming!
http://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/198431.jpg
Still trying to sell the idea that the deep ocean ate the global warming.
I thought that it had slipped down between the cushions on the couch.
Some of it has been photosynthesized and converted to chemical energy. Greening of arid zones.
Nah, it’s rolled under the kitchen ‘fridge
“Such fluctuations are unpredictable beyond a few months (or possibly years), being triggered by atmospheric and oceanic weather systems. So while models do generate fluctuations like ENSO and IPO, in centennial scale simulations they don’t (and wouldn’t be expected to) occur at the same time as they do in observations.”
I love this new but well known to be presented BS excuse. No models are tracked on long range time scales because the error bars increase vastly and they keep climbing and climbing to new highs…. to the point where if you let a global warming model run long enough the Sol system becomes a binary star system.
Further yes people who believe in global warming are creationists… but even creationists believe the earth is older then a few hundred years so they should be able to model it a bit better then they do.
Gupta is clearly a denialist bed wetting fundamentalist Koch paid scum deliberate liar.
The consensus agrees, so it must be settled science, that CO2 is THE driver of climate.
Only a subhuman denialist who hates his grandchildren would dare to put forth the lie that anything other than Fossil Fuel Industry subsidized CO2 emissions are responsible for every rain drop, every puff of wind, every drought and flood, increased Antarctic ice cube and all the missing Arctic sea ice.
Gupta must have his grants cancelled, his tenure terminated, his publications withdrawn, and be spat upon by his post-doc students before they can be allowed to leave his wicked non-conformist faux skeptic machinations.
hunter,
You’ve convinced me. Where do I send my money?
Hunter, Are you the staff writer for Kim Jong-Un 🙂
I blame you for my recent coffee/keyboard interaction incident.
“Pauses as long as 15 years are rare in the simulations, and ‘we expect that [real-world] warming will resume in the next few years,’ the Hadley Centre group writes…. Researchers … agree that no sort of natural variability can hold off greenhouse warming much longer.”
– Richard Kerr, Science (2009)
“The Pacific Ocean has been in a natural ‘cooling’ mode, which has slowed the warming of the globe, but we expect that to reverse in the near future.”
– Michael E. Mann, co-author, Science ( 2015 ) published paper, as told to Quartz ( http://qz.com/about ) in an email.
“To some extent it may also be a chance fluctuation that will go the other way in a few years.”
Comments of Steven Sherwood ( University of NSW, Australia ) on August 11, 2013
“The influence of all these “climate drivers” are included in modern climate models. On top of this, our climate also changes as a result of natural and largely random fluctuations – like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, ENSO and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, [IPO] “
and, since these fluctuations are not included the modern climate models, the models are not reflecting what actually happens.
Now it’s “confusion,” not “denial.” The predictions are wrong because so many of us are confused about the causes and linkages between CO2 and global warming? OK, so now I’m confused.
I’m confused too Mark… as in why the ecoloon scientists keep using most of those models that are so far off.
If a business owner had a 100 financial plan runs and 97% of them were so far from reality after 20 years like these climate models, they’d throw them out, not lump them together or call it a valid average. Any potential investor doing due diligence would laugh at that business owner for doing things that way, and walk away.
You’d think that someone in the climate modeling world should see that 97% of those models are worthless, and they’d stop producing them and definitely stop showing them as valid, and start over with empirically-based assumptions, not the now thoroughly discredited ‘CO2 science’ as represented by the 97% failures.
oops, I meant “…would laugh at that business owner for doing things the way climate modelers do projections, and walk away.
Why do you suppose that the average tenure of Chief Executive Officers is 5 years? Because in five years either he does very well, and can then go on to higher and better things – with a superb exit package – or it is going pear shaped, he can see it, and is getting out before the excrement hits the rotary air disturber.
There’s no dispute about the warming effect of CO2 on its own namely ~+1C for every doubling of concentration.
It’s the assumed add-ons, the positive feedbacks attributed to mainly water vapour, that push the models to extremes way beyond the observations, feedbacks for which there has been no observational evidence in the 150 or so years of the rising CO2 concentration.
Incidentally CO2 started to rise about 100 years before human emissions took off just after WW2.
In fact the basic CAGW relationship: human emissions –> rising CO2 –> global warming is exactly the chronological reverse of the observations: most recent global warming (starting ~1750) — rising CO2 (starting ~1850) — human emissions (starting ~1950).
Yes, the ice cores tell us rise in CO2 lags temperature rise by 800 years. And what happened 800 years ago? Can you say Medieval Warm Period? I knew you could.
Only rarely do I see that pointed out, and I don ‘t know why that is.
Willing to spend? More like already spent.