Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Scott Adams, author of the famous Dilbert Cartoon, has challenged readers to find a qualified scientist who thinks climate models do a good job of predicting the future.
The Climate Science Challenge
I keep hearing people say that 97% of climate scientists are on the same side of the issue. Critics point out that the number is inflated, but we don’t know by how much. Persuasion-wise, the “first offer” of 97% is so close to 100% that our minds assume the real number is very high even if not exactly 97%.
That’s good persuasion. Trump uses this method all the time. The 97% anchor is so strong that it is hard to hear anything else after that. Even the people who think the number is bogus probably think the real figure is north of 90%.
But is it? I have no idea.
So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.
Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.
Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.
Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.
Then report back to me in the comments here or on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.
This question is a subset of the more interesting question of how non-scientists can judge the credibility of scientists or their critics. My best guess is that professional scientists will say that complicated prediction models with lots of variables are not credible. Ever. So my prediction is that the number of scientists who ***fully*** buy into climate science predictions is closer to zero than 97%.
But I’m willing to be proved wrong. I kind of like it when that happens. So prove me wrong.
Source: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155073242136/the-climate-science-challenge
He also tweeted this:
Climate Science Challenge. Find a scientist — just one — who says the climate prediction models are credible: https://t.co/SpJcVPcHmJ
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) December 28, 2016
Climate models are the core of the climate scare, but even the scientists who produce them know their predictive powers are weak. The scientists bundle model output up into an ensemble on the assumption that this will help cancel individual errors, but in doing so they make a very shaky assumption that errors in individual models are independent from each other, and that an averaging process will therefore tend to cancel them out. If the models all share underlying systemic errors, such as shared mistakes in their basic assumptions, bundling the models into an ensemble will do nothing to improve accuracy.
The following presentation by Pat Frank details some of the devastating predictive weaknesses of climate models, especially their poor statistical management of uncertainty.
Will any scientist rise to the Scott Adams challenge?
Update (EW) – turned the Scott Adams Says ReplyTo link into a hyperlink
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve posted the links to Dr Brown’s article here and at slashdot.org about it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
and
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5790561&cid=48073849
So far just the standard “he’s not a climate scientist” type reply. This one made me laugh and then crack a beer:
“So a random Dr with no specialisation whatsoever in the subject?”
Because physics has nothing to do with climate science. ROTFLMAO.
Yes, that first link was another wonderful, educative post by RGB. Said it all.
I’ll quote some of RGB’s words directly from that article, to reinforce why the models suck, so suckily.
And that is as good a description as you can get, as how supporters of the models bastardize reality to bend it to their will.
The really funny part is why do they need over 100 of them?
Oh well, now he get’s black balled, labeled a denier and placed on the watchlist by source watch…lol!
Scott, and WUWT readers, may be interested in a current project by British Antarctic Survey.
Project started April 2014 and ends March 2017. Title.
‘Poles apart: why has Antarctic sea ice increased, and why can’t coupled climate models reproduce observations?’
So they have a 3 year study to come up with a convoluted answer to why The Computer Model Toys do not match observations.( We are all aware of Richard Feynman and his comment about Beautiful theories versus Observations and which wins the contest when they are conflicted)
Not that it be Newish News. They are just slow to catch up.
Climate Models Fail at Antarctic Warming Predictions.
Anthony Watts / May 7, 2008.
Maybe British Antarctic Survey can just declare The Antarctic The Worlds Biggest Denier in the pay of Big Ice and Big Snow Company. (A recently evil purchase by the ever more Evil Koch Boys)
That will be just as fanciful as the ‘answer’ that they finally go with.
Scott is baiting them. He has something in mind, but we don’t know what it is yet…
…maybe he wants material for his next series of Dilbert. I’ve seen few strips that have made me laugh as much.
True. He is a tricky one. Maybe he is testing to see who actually uses the persuasion techniques he’s taught over the last year on his blog. Maybe he just picked climate because he knows he’ll get a lot of responses and reposts.
Tricky tricky. Got to keep our eyes on him (and not just his gorgeous neighbor).
And maybe he picked it because it is The Mother of All Persuasion Struggles.
Perhaps he actually wants to find someone who believes these models are predictive.
Despite the sparring and point scoring seen on this thread, that person has not raised the flag.
Ad Nauseum: Why are all adjustments up? 😉
Possibly because there is a i ln e -ikx component at real stations. A sawtooth forcing caused by land use changes. Mosher who goes hot on adjustments has never explained why he thinks you can cut a real station series in two without a good reason. No, he has explained it does nothing, but that is not true.
The one thing that destroys any veracity climate modeling might have is the fact that a 95% confidence limit on GCM models is plus/minus 15 degrees 100 years out.
Need we go further?
LOL…nope don’t think we do
http://www.remss.com/research/climate
A great link posted at Scot’s blog. Shows the models vs RSS measurements from 1980 onward.
Folks, listen up.
Scott has issued a challenge. So far all we have heard is the usual highly informed arguments about the details of the climate models. Scott’s election prediction was based on his understanding of the fundamental principles of how Trump and people in general, use information. The Demos spent their time spewing bureaucratic technobabble, while Trump said “Build a wall.” Scott is suggesting we use the fundamental principles of information in just the way Trump did.
We used to say, “When you are up to your ass in alligators, it’s easy to forget the initial objective was to clear the swamp.” Scott is suggesting how to clear the swamp. First we have to deal with the alligators.
Get some frozen chickens (or fresh, whatever, just not your neighbors), and a fishing pole. Dangle the chickens in front of the biggest alligators – The Gavin, The Trenbeth, etc. Lure them out of the swamp. The lesser alligators will flee in terror of becoming handbags. Then drain it. Scott is providing the chickens.
Anyone who doesn’t endorse the climate models 100% is damning them with faint praise. Failure to respond means that they don’t endorse. Check that box and make it public.
Funny enough, just a few days ago I published a blog article about how Scott and Dr. Adrian Bejan, an eminent expert on thermodynamics. had independently predicted the Trump win – both on basic principles, which in fact arise from the fundamental connection between physics and information, my current topic of research. Trigger alert: Geeky stuff, but may provide insight on how to proceed with the challenge.
http://constructalinfonomics.org/infonomics-thermodynamics-and-trump/
That is some deep sh… stuff.
If you need a primer on the Constructal Law, Willis has posted several excellent articles on WUWT. Here is the most basic. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/15/the-constructal-law-of-flow-systems/
I’ve got the book coming from my library shortly. I’ll start with it and see where that leads. Thanks for the interesting material.
Fascinating comment, Marko. Loved the line “The lesser alligators will flee in terror of becoming handbags.”
“Scott has issued a challenge. “
It’s a bizarre challenge, as tweeted. There is a whole chapter, 9, in the AR9 on assessment of models, with many eminent scientists as authors. It includes FAQ 9.1, which concludes:
“So, yes, climate models are getting better, and we can demonstrate this with quantitative performance metrics based on historical observations. Although future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated, climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles and are able to reproduce many important aspects of past response to external forcing. In this way, they provide a scientifically sound preview of the climate response to different scenarios of anthropogenic forcing”
Sounds like credible.
Which model is credible?
“climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles”. And to a small extent on a pure fantasy. For example, a modelled latent heat of water evaporation does not depend on temperature.
“you are yet to come up with a name.”
Well, I may not be climate-relatd enough, else I’m in. But As I said, the authors of Chap 9 of the AR5 clearly do qualify. That would include Gregory Flato (Canada), Jochem Marotzke (Germany) as coordinating authors.
Sorry, Nick, that quote from FAQ 9.1 sounds like something my buzzphrase generator creates. I bet one could take the phrases individually and mangle them into another, seemingly, authoritative piece of BS.
Yep. Love the feedbacks in Table 9.5. And the difference in some of the feedbacks that actually have numbers. Factors 4 to 5.
Scott will probably just be mocked that’s usually the evasion of choice.
But the models estimate reality… in limited frames of reference in both time and space. The conflation of logical domains in modern science has lead people to the edge of the universe, beginning of time, and beyond.
The models don’t estimate anything – the measure the reliability of modelling.
To Scott Adams: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , the formula for Forcing is “delta F” = 5.35 ln(C/C0) . This means that if CO2 is doubled, C/C0 = 2 , and “delta F” = 5.35 ln2 = 3.7 W/m^2. This supposedly results in global warming of 3 degrees (3K); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity . From 1850 to 2016, CO2 increased from 280 to 400 ppmv (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html ). Thus if C/C0 = 400/280 , then “delta F” = 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9 W/m^2. This would correspond to 3K(1.9/3.7) = 1.54 K warming. The ACTUAL warming from 1850-2016 was 0.8 +/- 0.1 K (see the first page at http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ ). This is only 0.8/1.54 = 0.52 , or only HALF of that predicted if the value of 3K were correct. When theory does not match experimental measurements, the theory is WRONG. It doesn’t matter how smart the theorist, or who the theorist is, or how many Nobel Prizes she has won. This simple scientific truth is stated in the first 60 seconds by physicist Richard Feynman at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw (if this link doesn’t work, Google “Feynman scientific method”). Because there has been a hiatus in overall warming for the last 18 years, and three El Nino events came and went during that time, a decades- or centuries-long lag (time constant) for warming is BS (there would be a slow temperature increase even if CO2 stopped increasing, if such a long time constant existed). Therefore doubling CO2 can at most result in only 1.5 K warming. Detailed calculations from infrared (IR) spectra obtained by satellites show that doubling CO2 produces only 0.6-0.7 K warming (including water vapor and cloud feedbacks), not the 1.5 K easily shown above to be the maximum, Thus it should be no surprise that all computer projections of future warming based on a climate sensitivity of 3K will be shown to be increasingly in error when compared with actual observations over time.
” This supposedly results in global warming of 3 degrees “
For the umpteenth time, 3 degrees when equilibrium is reached.
Because heat is still flowing into the ocean sinks.
“Nick Stokes December 30, 2016 at 1:42 am
Because heat is still flowing into the ocean sinks.”
What heat from where? Don’t say atmosphere as you would be wrong.
“What heat from where? Don’t say atmosphere as you would be wrong.”
From the imbalance observered at the TOA.
The LWIR that is inhibiting the ocean surface from cooling as efficiently as it was.
That is the effect LW has on the skin surface. It reduces the deltaT from depth by warming the skin and so reduces it’s heat flux through and into the atmosphere.
Heat is entering the oceans.
It.s not from the Sun (ask Leif).
It is because of GHG’s.
It can be nothing else.
No it’s not clouds (again ask Leif about GCR’s)
For the umpteenth time: the sun heats the surface, the surface heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere does NOT heat the surface. It is virtually always at a lower temperature than the surface.
CO2 absorbs but does not radiate. It’s emissivity is .002.
“the effect LW has on the skin surface. It reduces the deltaT from depth by warming the skin”
It would actually Increase the delta T from depth if it did warm the skin during the day, but this is not important. The surface is cooler than the ~50 micron profile of the skin itself due to evaporation and radiation. You have it backwards. Increasing the surface temperature will increase energy transfer out of the ocean to the fourth power for radiation and by some amount by evaporation as well.
If you want to warm the ocean, you must cool the surface.
Toneb: “Heat is entering the oceans. It.s not from the Sun (ask Leif). It is because of GHG’s. It can be nothing else.”
Or, it could be something else such as less upwelling cold water. The only studies that have looked into this found the energy was flowing upward. Of course, you are in denial of a very simple explanation because it doesn’t support your bias.
I don’t want to be rude, but heat, almost all energy entering the system, comes from the Sun, as you know. The flow can either go back to space, or it may be out of balance so that the two flows are unequal. If oceans sink energy, the system is retaining heat. The more oceans take heat in, the more they can also deliver it into the air. Of course, serious upwelling would temporarily cool ocean surface, and theoretically improve heat uptake, and the cool atmosphere, so the ocean balance may be positive and yet we have a cooling atmosphere.
Now, it is fairly difficult to say how much the balance has ever been perfect, but really the ocean takes more heat in than out. And the proof? Sea levels are rising. They must be warming up because Greenland and Antarctica are not melting, at least not nearly enough.
What I fear currently is that while sea level rise is not accelerated for real, the continuous rise will eventually put some Antarctic ice forward and that could be a big issue for humans.
Wow!
I would ask, “Does there exist a ‘climate scientist’?”
Of course the Politicians and Religions will elevate their favored ‘Hercules’ of the moment with big $$$ but doing so is nothing but a beauty contest and does not answer the question.
Ha ha
First rule of computing :- Garbage in, garbage out.
(repeated from thread where above Adams article was cited in a comment)
Note: “The basic science of CO2” is of such limited use outside a highly controlled laboratory setting as to make it USELESS for knowing anything about climate shifts on earth.
(See, e.g., “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast and Climate Models,” Dr. Christopher Essex — this deals with “the basic science of CO2,” as well as the failed models, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY&t=4s )
That is, BOTH the “basic science of CO2” and the unfit-for-purpose, failed, GCMs are worthless (vis a vis climate projections).
(Source: me, here, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/28/an-example-of-squeaky-clean-climate-science/#comment-2384165 )
Repeated also is Alx’s excellent amplification of the above:
Absolutely, it is astoundingly obvious and yet…here we are with people like you and others having to repeat the obvious over and over.
There is no basic science of climate, we understand parts. But of the chaotic, dynamic eco-system called earth we have only scratched the surface as to the complex relationships and components involved. Climate science is like the blind-man who having felt the tail of an elephant concluded that elephants were remarkably similar to snakes since he had felt snakes “in the lab”.
(Source: Alx, here, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/28/an-example-of-squeaky-clean-climate-science/#comment-2384822 )
I have said this before.
I don’t see why anything needs to be adjusted. We just want to know “is it getting hotter or colder” so we measure the difference. any bias is there anyway so what should come out is the difference.
‘Zackly, zemlik.
The trend is what’s important, not tenth- or hundredth-degree wiggles.
“I didn’t have any accurate numbers so I just made up this one.” Still my favorite.
http://dilbert.com/strip/2008-05-08
lol — Thank you, Arild, for sharing that. You come up with some great things to share around here. 🙂
…I was waiting for “97%”.
If you read Scott’s book, “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big” you will recognize where this come from. He worked for a big phone company putting together budgets from different departments. Their spreadsheets were full of calculation errors, but he ignored them because the input numbers provided by the departments were total BS anyway. If anything, he says the errors may have helped smooth out the BS.
I believe there is a prediction boundary– the Lyapunov time boundary–for any chaotic, dynamical system, which has been accepted and studied for over a hundred years. Why do we continuously beat a dead horse? I don’t think it matters how many known fluid dynamic equations, grid averages, or finite initial conditions we define for input into super computers—the output is still not reflective of the climate system. Maybe it would be better if we used the models to analyze the number of angels on the point of a needle.
There is no need to analyze the number of angels on the point of a needled. We already know the answer: 42
Are you sure it is not 42!
Absolutely correct! It’s been modeled!
As per usual when those with vested interest in misinterpreting models post on this site, they compare mid-troposphere data to projected surface temperatures. Then they kvetch that the observed apples do not look like the projected oranges. In point of fact, the modellers know exactly what they are doing. And by any normal standard of science these projections have confirmed that the augment in mean surface temperature best fits the hypothesis that the greenhouse effect has been augmented by an increase in atmospheric CO2. But the point is moot. Currently in fact the vast majority of AGW sceptics admit that AGW is real – they merely argue that it is weak and/or beneficial. These “sceptics” are lukewarmers or GW-is-gooders. However, the majority of comments on this page appear to be by people who do not understand what they are saying. These commenters seem to be either slayers or conspiracy theorists.
By what “normal standard of science” is a model able to predict the effects of a perturbation hundreds of times smaller than its limit of resolution?
‘So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.’
Can you step up to this mark?
I suppose, Mr. White, you hope to fool people into thinking that the enormous gaps in the AGWer’s computer grid are no problem anymore…
(From Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy Report linked and quoted here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/ )
Also discussed in detail by Dr. Christopher Essex in his “6 Impossible Things” lecture video linked within this WUWT article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/
Dr. Essex in the above lecture on physics equations not yet solved and computer math gross inadequacies for climate modeling {with approx. times in video}:
{25:17} 1. Solving the closure problem. {i.e., the “basic physics” equations have not even been SOLVED yet, e.g., the flow of fluids equation “Navier-St0kes Equations” — we still can’t even figure out what the flow of water in a PIPE would be if there were any turbulence}
{30:20} 2. a. Impossible Thing #2: Computers with infinite representation and math skill. {gross overestimation and far, far, misplaced confidence in the ability of computers to do math accurately (esp. over many iterations) — in this section he discusses the 100 km square gaps {specifically mentioned at about 46:00} (i.e., cell size) — e.g., to analyze air movement, the cell would need to be, per Komogorov microscale, 1mm (aerosols even smaller, microns)).
At about 44:00, Dr. Essex discusses the fact that even IF the basic equations were known, there isn’t enough time since time began to calculate even just a TEN–year forecast, even at super-fast speeds it would take approx. 10 to the 20th power years (the universe is only 10 to the 10th power years old)}.
**********************************************
If all that was too complex, explain this, Mr. White:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
*******************************************
Finally, people who “admit that AGW is real” have proven nothing.
The projected heat is still MISSING.
A “travesty,” per Kevin Trenberth.
Heh.
For anyone confused by Mr. White’s vague remarks,
some good (and free!) reading for you:
Available here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/
Thank you, Bob Tisdale! 🙂
The “hot spot” in the mid troposphere has yet to be observed.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
(Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/ )
Ross McKittrick made that point (about the mid-tropespheric hot spot) a decade ago. He even placed a bet on it (that it would not occur).
Janice Moore,
Notice that Nick Stokes,DWR54 and others who are in deep love over unverifiable long into the future (Year 2100) 100 plus climate models with a large projected temperature spread,are completely silent on what you posted here,which is based on the recent past and current time frame?
The CURRENTLY missing “hotspot” modeling guesses is a massive failure.
“are completely silent on what you posted here”
There’s only so much nonsense that can be chased down, and a 2010 blogpost by JoNova rates pretty low. There is a whole lot of modern evidence that contradicts stuff like
“Thousands of radiosondes, and three decades of satellite measurements show unequivocally that there is no hot spot, not a hint, or glimmer, nothing within a standard deviation of what the catastrophic models expected”
in 2011, an extensive review paper concluded:
“The state of the observational and model science has progressed considerably since 1990. The uncertainty of both models and observations is currently wide enough, and the agreement in trends close enough, to support a finding of no fundamental discrepancy between the observations and model esti mates throughout the tropospheric column.”
Here is a 2013 paper:
” Using these approaches, it is shown that within observational uncertainty, the 5–95 percentile range of temperature trends from both coupled-ocean and atmosphere-only models are consistent with the analyzed observations at all but the upper most tropospheric level (150 hPa), and models with ultra-high horizontal resolution (≤ 0.5° × 0.5°) perform particularly well. Other than model resolution, it is hypothesized that this remaining discrepancy could be due to a poor representation of stratospheric ozone or remaining observational uncertainty.”
And Sherwood et al did a more careful analysis of the radiosonde data here in 2015
“First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. “
There was a review paper on the matter in 2011
And Po-Chedley et al, 2014, on satellite data:
“It is shown that bias corrections for diurnal drift based on a GCM produce tropical trends very similar to those from the observationally based correction, with a trend difference smaller than 0.02 K decade. Differences between various TMT datasets are explored further. Large differences in tropical TMT trends between this work and that of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) are attributed to differences in the treatment of the NOAA-9 target factor and the diurnal cycle correction.”
“The CURRENTLY missing “hotspot” modeling guesses is a massive failure.”
Try looking for the science my friend.
As Nick has linked.
it will (obviously) amaze you.
Oh, and BTW, a hot-spot would occur whatever cause the warming.
Whereas a cooling strat can only occur due to GHG accumulation.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLS/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Colour me confused. If climate scientists understood the climate, surely they wouldn’t have dozens of models… there’d only be one model. That’s why I have more respect for economists (admittedly the bar is very low) because they are willing to debate the flaws in their models. Climate models don’t appear to warrant any more respect than the CGE models of whole economies some economists use to justify their existence. I am the first in line to call them out as complete garbage.
Another parallel I see, is the lack of certainty about key variables. It is as difficult to get agreement over something as simple as inflation, for example, as a measure of global temperature. Why is it that scepticism of economic models is acceptable, but scepticism of climate models is heresy? Both fields are heavily politicised, after all.
The 97% agreement with AGW by government funded climate scientists seems like the same result one would expect if a poll of evangelical preachers were made concerning the virgin birth. Their entire livelihood depends on a faith.
Then why did the Exxon climate scientists conclude AGW was a real risk back in the mid 70’s.
Were they “government funded” (rhetorical).
Get some perspective please.
In support of Janice Moore’s above comment.
Ask someone to explain the latitudinal warming paradox.
Ask someone to explain the observational fact that the tropical troposphere (at roughly 8km above the earth’s surface in the tropics) did not warm as predicted by the greenhouse theory.
1) Latitudinal Warming Paradox
The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does not match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.
The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase.
As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.
The amount of warming is also proportional the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation to space. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg
There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. The observed warming is at high latitudes rather than in the tropics. This observational fact and the fact that same high latitude regions of the planet have warmed and cooled cyclically in the past correlating to solar cycle changes supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Tropical Troposphere at 8km above surface of the planet did not warm paradox:
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
William Astley on December 29, 2016 at 8:30 pm
Are you aware of the fact that you present here links to two papers which are
– about 10 years old
– written by the same people (David H. Douglass, John R. Christy)
During these ten years, lots of things happened I guess.
John von Neumann
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
My comment at the referenced Facebook page
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1194762210620366&id=671468936283032&_rdr#1195013813928539
“This video confirm my belief that climate scientists haven’t the faintest idea about climate change, falling back to the “it’s physics” line at the end. I think time is running out for this cabal.”
Hell, find a climate scientist who can explain how actual temperature at sea level affects thickness of atmosphere.
They’ll look at you and get lost in their ignorance.
Nobody ever checks the atmosphere’s DENSITY at sea level… just pressure with the assumption that the density doesn’t change.
Why is density important? Because energy is held within molecules, not between them. It doesn’t matter how hot the air gets if the density drops off because there’s barely a difference in specific heat per cubic meter.
This is what drives convection.
And expands the atmosphere.
Its *not* a closed system.
This is so-called Stunning Kruger law.
I think that global climate forecast models can be accurate, if only they’re tuned to consider that about .2 possibly .22 degree C of the warming from around 1973 to around 2004-2005 was from a natural multidecadal oscillation or set of natural multidecadal oscillations as opposed to being man-made. But most scientists paid to study man-made climate change have a groupthink of not considering that a natural cycle or set thereof contributed to the warming during roughly the last 30-32 years of the CMIP5 models being hindcast (1975-2005).
Notably, look at HadCRUT3 or HadCRUT4. My attempts at using Fourier on HadCRUT3 as of around 2009 showed a sinusoid with peak-to-peak amplitude of .218 degree C, period of 64 years, and most recent positive peak at 2005 and most recent negative peak at 1973. My method was a crude one, and I expect “more proper” methods to show slightly different figures – only slightly different.
Donald, I’ll point out what you’ve described here is a pure empirical model and though the technique you’ve used may give you a good fit to observation, it can’t be used for prediction, no empirical model can. It’s not to say your method may not have discovered a repeating pattern that’s worth investigation, but without capturing the underlying physical theory that drives the behavior you’ve observed, it doesn’t “take the brass ring” so to speak.
To give a related example, regressing tree ring data against observed temperature results in an empirical model that can be used within the calibration range to estimate temperature, but it can’t be legitimately used to re-construct temperatures outside of that range (as so many, including Michael Mann, did during the 90’s). It’s never valid to use an empirical model outside the range it’s been validated in. They aren’t predictive.
I think the only conclusion that can be drawn from the fine lecture Janice Moore cites above by Dr. Essex is one I’ve been trying to put similar words to for at least 15 years; climate models aren’t even wrong. The mathematical intractability alone should convince anyone, most especially scientists involved in that pursuit, that we don’t have the technology necessary to produce a useful theoretical model of Earth’s climate.
I communicate with a bunch of “Climate Scientists” but it never occurred to ask the question posed by the amazing Scott Adams.
I will get back to y’all.
I don’t have a PhD in any climate-science related field; just an MS in geology, but I do have an answer:
The models are all random and chaotic in their predictions.
….just like our climate.
What’s more, the models are also biased (as a geologist I believe earth will eventually fall into another Ice Age) but none of the models indicate another onset although we’ve seen at least 30 in the past 5 million years.
It wouldn’t matter how many thousands of years they project them out–they’ll still show temps going up!
That the models are demonstrably biased toward warmer temperatures is irrefutable proof that this whole charade is contrived….that is, until an Ice Age is upon us and the “climate scientists” will conspire in the meme that CO2 is responsible for that, too.
Reply to Rocky Road comment on December 29, 2016, at 9:23pm
The models start with the conclusion of runaway global warming.
They are designed to reach that pre-existing conclusion.
The models are not random or chaotic at all — their predictions just appear that way for the first few decades — but, these are 100 year predictions, so you must wait 100 years to know if they are right or wrong.
You say you don’t have 100 years to wait — well, whose fault is that?
A few decades where model predictions and actuals seem to have nothing in common, are just temporary — the actuals are obviously wrong, and will be gradually “adjusted” to better support the models.
Since the goobermint that owns the models, also owns the temperature actuals, they have the authority to make the actuals fit the models … and have been doing just that … a little at a time, every year, so no one notices.
So, you have no PhD?
That means your opinions on the climate and the climate models must be discounted 100% — only PhD’s can understand the models, and predict the future climate.
So, you have an MS in Geology?
What’s that have to do with “climate science”?
Geology is all in the past.
Old stuff.
“Climate Science” is all in the future … always in the future !
New stuff>
And since you are a geologist, or so you say, I shouldn’t have to correct you on this, but …
We are now in an interglacial period (Holocene) of an ice age.
The current ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch.
We have to be in an “ice age” in 2016 simply because there are huge ice sheets over Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctica.
Unless they have already melted, per Al Bore’s predictions in 2007, and I didn’t notice.
Sorry I gave you a hard time — it’s my nature!
You are skeptical, so could be a good geology scientist.
There’s no skepticism allowed in “climate science”,
just like there’s no crying in baseball.
And don’t you forget it.
PS to Rocky Road
You make great ice cream!
Loved every word, Richard, even the corrections; thanks.
The current ice age actually began at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary (33.9 Ma), with the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet. Or maybe that was the start of an ice house.
The Northern Hemisphere glaciations did however begin at the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary, making the ice age global.
When we finally run out of patience for this fake problem of “global Warming”, we may ( hopefully not too late) get around to concerning ourselves with a potential REAL problem. If, as I suspect, CO2 has no effect on global temperatures whatsoever, are we going to have a new glaciation and how will we cope with it? Unbelievable that our national and global governance organizations make mountains out of molehills on this tripe while ignoring the disaster that really could be coming.