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.
There are three issues here.
One is : is the average temperature rising? The answer is “yes” and that is what the 97% answered .
the second: is the rise in temperature correlated with the rise in CO2 in the data? The answer is “not really” imo, example :since CO2 is merrily rising and data have a hiatus of over fifteen years.
the third is based on “correlation is not causation”. Is the rise in CO2 causing the rise in temperature?
The models are all about modeling CO2 as a causative factor, with the feedback loop with H2O the lynch pin.
When a model or the models are falsified it does not mean that there is no rise in temperature or that there is no correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature. The CO2 feedback loop with H2O as the cause of the observed variation is what is falsified.
In physics, when a model is falsified it is rejected, or goes back to the drawing board for drastic reformulation until it agrees with the data. This is not happening with these models.
If one takes a complete set of functions, like a Fourier expansion, one can always fit the data. This fit gives no predictability for ranges of the variables not fitted. It is just a mathematical map of a contour. IMO this is what the models do, a map of the available contours. There is no guarantee that projecting the variables outside the region of the fit, new data will follow the contour fit. This claim is supported by the list of disagreements of models with data in unexplored variable regions.
More than ten years ago I had a list of 7 strong disagreements with data .
• There is no hot spot which is predicted in the troposphere data
• There is no positive feedback
• Specific humidity is decreasing, not increasing ι
• The missing energy is not hiding in the oceans.
• The models do not reproduce absolute temperatures
• Hydrological predictions of the models fail with respect to data
In physics , even one disagreement with data sends the model to the drawing board.
I have links to papers for these claims , but they are from 2004 or so. When I was convinced that there is no solid physics coming from climate models which are just playing with functional fits on very complicated chaotic data, I got bored and stopped following in detail, though I look at this site every day.
The CO2 meme is a king Canute over again, but it is costing us a lot of money.
To: anna V
Assuming you are a woman, then you are a very bright woman … except for one thing: The computer models have nothing to do with science!
– PhD scientists and their computer games are merely props for a scary story told by politicians.
– The politicians want more power (more socialism).
– They claim they don’t really WANT more power for themselves, but they NEED more power to save the Earth from the evil corporations and their satanic gas CO2.
– One way to get more power is to scare people.
– People have been scared by the false claims made about CO2.
– The climate models start with the conclusion about CO2 (runaway warming) and work backwards to reach that pre-existing conclusion.
– That’s not science.
In fact, climate science concerning CO2’s greenhouse effect has made no progress since 1896 — in fact, I think it’s obvious “climate sciences” has regressed in the past 50 years, rather than progressed.
A very nice , concise summary Anna, one I just happen to agree with.
Watch the video in the article about the climate models. He repetitively points out that they are simply “linear” extrapolations of climate “forcing.” He even point out you can do the calculation on a hand calculator. I’m not a climate scientist but I understand modeling, and I’ve repetitively pointed out that the fatal flaw of these models is that they are trying to make a logarithmic function linear. This flaw is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the actual climate “scientists” don’t understand that basic concept. If these climate “scientists” don’t understand the importance of that flaw, their degrees aren’t worth the paper they are written on. Also, that model is basically a single variable model, putting 100% of the variation of temperature on the variation of CO2. That alone is a complete joke. The climate is infinitely complex, and to try to reduce it down to a single variable is like me trying to model the S&P 500 using only the book value of a company. Complex models simply aren’t that simple, and the results you will get is pure garbage. If climate modelers were anywhere near as good as they seem to think they are they would all be working on Wall Street. The very fact that Wall Street ignores these people and their predictions pretty much proves the people that rely on objective facts and accuracy, don’t put much value in the field of climate “science.” This graphic demonstrates why linear climate models will never be very accurate, and the error will grow with each ppm increase in CO2, and the models will ALWAYS overestimate temperature with in increase in CO2, ALWAYS.
@CO2isLife,
Could you write some more about this? How are the models making a logarithmic function linear?
It would be a good idea if instead of asking co2 to write more about this, if you READ more about it.
To help you get started:
1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/
2. a comment by Willis Eschenbach in the thread accompanying the above article:
Willis Eschenbach:
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/16/new-paper-from-lindzen-and-choi-implies-that-the-models-are-exaggerating-climate-sensitivity/#comment-721819 )
3. a comment on another WUWT article:
Olaf Koenders:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/07/what-400-ppm-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1299890
Many, many, more articles and comments about the logarithmic nature of CO2 and the linear properties of the climate models await you.
Happy reading!
Janice,
I’m fully aware that CO2 is logarithmic, and that the more you add, the less impact it has. I wasn’t asking co2islife to explain that. I wanted a couple of sentences about the models. I want to see it, I want a specific example of how a model fails to shows that. If anything, I need to finish watching Pat Frank.
Or, Janice as Scott Adams writes in the follow-up article to the one quoted above:
I don’t have a PhD either – but I do observe that sometimes meteorologists cannot even get a weather forecast correct 2 days ahead of time – sometimes not even hours. If weather models can be that faulty, what does it say about climate models? I can also gather from observation that we will, unless something upsets the poles, speed around the sun, and output from the sun somehow, have virtually the same climate next year, and the year after that, etc., with variable weather such as we’ve had over the last 50-100 years. Which is probably better than what a climate model would get. Just sayin’.
The Issue is correlation or causation. Just because two things change together that does not show that one is causing the other. The basic method of science is
* state a hypothesis (e.g. that light travels faster than sound, frogs mate for life or CO2 causes warming),
* devise an experiment or test
* predict the results of the experiment or test that you would expect if your hypothesis is true
* perform the test or experiment
* check the results against your prediction
* publish your hypothesis, your experiment or test methods, the results/data and your conclusions
Broadly, if your predictions were right your hypothesis becomes a theory and others devise experiments/tests to confirm your results. If on the other hand your prediction was wrong, it is “back to the drawing board” as your unconfirmed hypothesis remains an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Here is a classical example of the process: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/natural_experiments
Whether they choose to call them “projections” or “predictions”, these models are the only experiment or test on the CO2-related warming hypothesis, the only way way to show causation. If they fail we may still observe a changing climate but no confirmation that it is caused by anthropogenic CO2
OK, Arrhenius stated a hyothesis (with strong arguments to back it) that emitting CO2 would cause warming. We emitted CO2. It warmed.
Nick that is a grotesque parody of what I meant and not in any case wholly true
We emitted CO2. It warmed.
And then it unexpectedly stopped….
There’s your problem.
“Nick Stokes December 30, 2016 at 1:19 am
We emitted CO2. It warmed.”
More alarmist nonsense from an ex-CSIRO “scientist” Stokes. I am disappointed that my taxes went to pay your wages, and now my taxes pay your super. Did you forget temperature rebound from the little ice age? CO2 up, temperatures up and down and static and down and static and up and static and down. Please explain, and bear in mind the hypothesis it is ONLY the ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 that is the driver?
…And it’s only that very special ‘man-made’ CO2 that warms. Apparently.
Man has been emitting CO2 since they came upon the face of the planet. Yet it has not “warmed” during that entire period. Your hypothesis is disproven.
Perhaps you want to go back and re think it.
No. But if you mean that anthropogenic CO2 increase does not exist, you’ve been listening to wrong people. Stop doing that.
And the rat population has also increased drastically in Paris- proof that rats cause global warming?
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=851091091009083095092126121109073099034023058067019062072066004100009102081020100123034016097101060099003106115096004088116081026058012038004027001113111103077000101042026047065072123064093093088069010123099096114084021086030023095031011084127100085069&EXT=pdf
.
It was warming way, way BEFORE “We emitted CO2”, Nick.
The stupidity of your argument is there for everybody to see.
Except you, apparently.
He revised his position with his 1906 paper,greatly reducing the warming factor of additional CO2.
You are supposed to be a scientist Nick,but I wonder………………….
Really Nick are you ready to explain this chart,that completely demolished your silly one note claim:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-800wi
LINK that explains is here,
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html
Then why isn’t there a matching CO2 rise for the 1930s? Why doesn’t the record show that?
“Then why isn’t there a matching CO2 rise for the 1930s?”
We hypothesise that if you swallow ipecac, you’ll vomit. That can be tested. Doesn’t mean you can’t vomit without swallowing ipecac.
Nick,
Vomit is not a constant like the atmosphere. Inapt reference, in my view.
Nick,
As you know, human CO2 emissions accelerated after WWII, but the earth cooled dramatically from the ’40s to the late ’70s, which is why the global cooling scare you don’t believe happened happened.
The world started warming in the early 18th century, before man-made CO2 took off. In fact the warming from the depths of the Maunder Minimum was stronger and of longer duration than was the late 20th century warm cycle. Also, the early 20th century warming was virtually indistinguishable from the late 20th century cycle.
There is no CO2 fingerprint in the unmanipulated temperature record.
Nick, I honestly can’t understand why you’d even bother making a comment like that? I know there are still active alarmists on this site but one of the things that differentiate it from others is the general quality of alarmist commentary is slightly higher here.
You’re bringing down the average with stuff like this. Seriously.
MRW: It appears from more than one of your comments that you need to do a lot of background reading to get up to speed on the issue of human CO2. You come off as asking people to do your homework for you.
CO2 lags temperature (in the ice core record) by a quarter cycle or, approximately, 800 years.
Here is a video to help you get started:
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, 2013
(youtube)
It is in English, after a brief introduction in German.
Also see Allen M. R. MacRae’s comments on WUWT on this topic as well as many, many, other articles and comments by scientists affirming this fact about CO2.
Oh Janice, I know that.
I’ve known it since Gore hid it in his Inconvenient Truth movie, and lied. And I’ve watched Salby’s talk twice. I realized after I saw my post in print that it was inartfully stated, confusing. What I meant to ask Nick was that if it’s his belief that CO2 drives increased temperature (his “We emitted CO2. It warmed) then how does he explain the hot 1930s in the US? There was no spectacular rise in CO2 before that heat hit. Furhtermore, how would he explain the CO2 rise of the past 15 years with the flat-lined gobal temp, the ‘pause’?
I believe the opposite of Nick’s “We emitted CO2. It warmed,” and haven’t seen anything concrete and scientific that would prove otherwise.
Hi Janice and Happy New Year!
Background information and my conclusions are in this 2015 paper.
Best regards, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
Personally I think that global climate models do a good job of modelling the current climate. The can
predict the average temperate of the earth to within 0.2 K which is an error of less than 0.1%. The models
reproduce the large scale ocean currents (gulf stream, thermohaline circulation, etc) the show el niño like
effects, monsoons etc.
well no, they can’t “predict the average temperate of the earth to within 0.2 K”
Even supposing there was such a thing ….
-Geronimo
They get it wrong 99.9% of the time. Maybe you should divide or multiply your number by that? Or carry the one at least. Your math is too advanced for me.
Thermometers don’t even read 1/10th of a degree. At least the ones at the weather stations gathering data.
here’s why that trope is inane:
let’s say you can read a thermometer to 1/3 of a degree.
if you tell a computer 1/3, that’s going to come out as 0.33333333333333333333333333333333333333
nobody in his right mind thinks a thermometer reads to 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001
but if you round it down to the nearest tenth you get 0.3 (if you round it down to the nearest half, you get ZERO)
now, when you multiply 1/3 by 3 you no longer get 1.
so you don’t round down – you do your math with the highest precision you can.
We cannot even model “weather” successfully more than 10-Days. “Until or if” there is a
correct parametrization of cloud cover, no model ever created will be valid.
This is an interesting German survey among German climatologists:
http://www.kepplinger.de/files/Die_Klimaforscher_sind_sich_laengst_nicht_sicher_0.pdf
by Kepplimger and Post, published 9 years ago in ‘Die Welt’.
WUWT: Still using that boilerplate plot for a slice in time (up to 2013), a slice of the atmosphere (mid-troposphere) and slice of the Earth: (20N-20S). Why?
Where do models work well? Land?
Ocean?
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/161230/k3ukwpyo.jpg
Figures generated with KNMI Climate Explorer.
Correlations above 0.6 shown.
Further questions?
Any model should stand or fall on its own. To rely on model suites/averages is to have belief in the accuracy of the Texas sharpshooter.
HP: So go and look for your favorite model: http://berkeleyearth.org/graphics/model-performance-against-berkeley-earth-data-set/#section-2-1
“Many Models Still Struggle With Overall Warming; None Replicate Regional Warming Well”
PS: The model with the lowest RMS is inmcm4 which has a more realistic TCR of 1.3.
Some marvellous, reasoned and rational posts in this thread that show again and again which side is offering up evidence-based science and which is cheating, lying, obfuscating and deceiving its way through this debate. Trump cannot come soon enough and when his team start to drain the climate swamp the pained howls of protest from Team Climate will be magnificent to behold. Bring it on.
PS,PS: the lowest value for Mean difference * RMS
What will our descendants be saying about climate in the year 2116 if global mean temperature increases at a long term rate averaging +0.1 C per decade over the next one-hundred years?
In the year 2116, will America’s climate activists be cursing the memory of Barack Obama for not demonstrating the courage and the leadership needed to begin enforcing strict anti-carbon regulations against all major sources of carbon emissions in America, not just against emissions from coal-fired power plants?
So, +1.0 C in 100 years (10 x +0.1 C)? This is a worry?
Please.
Compare climatology with nuclear physics. Most of us don’t have our own atom smashers, and wouldn’t know where to start when questions regarding nuclear particles arise. In contrast, ALL of us have experienced climate, and most of us have traveled to different parts of the country or world, and experienced different climates. The average person knows quite a bit about weather and climate, and can come to reasonable conclusions based on personal experience, in contrast to some other fields of science.,
Yes, everyone pays attention to the weather.
Good luck with that Scott, the Retardarati will be after you in droves. Probably proving your point!
Man, so many of you people keep banging on and on about who has the right data/chart/numbers. NOBODY has the right numbers! Reliable data for temperatures pre-1960 just do not exist. Sloppy records, poorly read thermometers that were never accurate much better than one degree F, inadequate geographic coverage, missing days/weeks/months, on and on, and yet we get these incessant debates.
Cheer up, looks like a mild winter here, so far anyway…
I am rather surprised that no one has referred to the Bray and van Storch latest study. It gives great distributions of scientist’s opinions on about 100 issues to do with climate change – e.g. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to simulate a global mean value for precipitation values for the next 50 years? https://www.hzg.de/imperia/md/content/hzg/zentrale_einrichtungen/bibliothek/berichte/hzg_reports_2016/hzg_report_2016_2.pdf One of the more interesting distributions is “How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?” Only 48% are absolutely convinced
Thanks.
Wouldn’t it be fun if Trump turned the tables and funded research to prove that the primary reason for climate change is natural variability and that CO2 emissions are a minor contributor?
Seriously, I consider the current, deliberate, imbalance in research to be a major factor in the incorrect attribution of the majority of climate change to greenhouse gases.
There are two important aspects to come from this challenge. Firstly,Models that cannot predict the past certainly cannot predict the future. There is no doubt that all of the models need dubious adjustments to past data to even come close to replicating the past. As a layman sceptic I don’t concede even that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature. Too many sceptics seem to concede the greenhouse effect that there is some causal link between increased CO2 and temperature. This concession by science trained sceptics concedes some credibility of models to the warmists. Perhaps the relationship is the other way round ie that there is a causal link between increased temperature and CO2 levels. Maybe any perceived link either way is random coincidence. Whatever the answer the lack of certainty is at such a level that to base GDP sapping expenditure on policies derived from such models is lunacy.
Which brings one to the second point that many less fanatical supporters of AGW argue that yes there is some uncertainty but wouldn’t you want to take out insurance. That argument is the biggest crock out. I think when one analyses the response to the challenge in this post that the 97% is closer to 0% then one could just as easily argue we should be spending trillions to protect the world from destruction by asteroid collision. The 97% fraudulent certainty claim has been fundamental in justifying policy makers actions.
Very late to this party, and have read through most of the comments. A serious question: aren’t different models testing different hypotheses? And if so, why is it valid to create an ensemble of them and an average?
There are MANY WUWT articles and articles from many other places which will answer your question about model ensemble averaging.
The bottom line is, even if they models are not “averaged,” they are ALL proven failed and unfit for purpose.
Hey there Colin, you may want to forgive Janice for the terse response, she’s working on a 10 year retrospective of WUWT transactions and probably knows more about what’s already been discussed here than anyone else on the planet.
If you follow Dr. Pat Frank’s video at the beginning of this article he does a very good job of describing not only invalid to combine and average the model’s predictions, it’s actually stupid. I highly recommend it, and I’m a measurement/stats guy.
I don’t always complete my sentences. That should read:
“he does a very good job of describing not only why it’s invalid to combine and average the model’s predictions, it’s actually stupid.”
Some models are designed to try out different assumptions, but they all rest on the same repeatedly falsified hypothesis that the control knob on climate is man-made CO2.
Which is why they fail so miserably and epically.
Climate scientists remind me of the horse racing scam. [Spend] 10,000 tips on one race to mug punters for nothing. Some tips come true. Invite the winning punters to buy your tips. Like all scams eventually you run out of idiots.
Climate science
‰
If a proposed theory does not accurately predict, it is merely a superstition. It does not matter if the method of testing its accuracy relies on tweaked up math models or sheep entrails stirred with a stick.
That simple minded understanding is the challenge we face. A scientific illiterate society lacks the critical thinking skills to even understand how wrong they are.
1) We warmed plenty of times without CO2, that is how we emerge from ice ages
2) Ice Ages begin when CO2 is at a peak, so temperatures tumble when CO2 is high
3) Atmospheric CO2 is controlled by ocean temperatures
4) We are at record high CO2 for the Holocene, and temperatures are below the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warming periods
5) We both warm and cool when CO2 is high
No, it’s standard scientific reasoning. We figured emitting CO2 would cause warming; we did it and warming ensued. It doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it supports it. You then have to analyse, as people do, to see if something else might have been causing the warming. And of course, observe to see if it continues.
1) According to MODTRAN, CO2 in the lower atmosphere has a 0.0000000W/M^2 impact. It does not “cause” warming in the lower atmosphere where all the ground measurements reside.
2) There is no statistical significant to the temperature variation over the past 50 to 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene.
3) Never in 600 Million with an M years has CO2 caused catastrophic warming, even when it reached 7000 ppm.
4) Coral and Sea Life developed during periods of much much much higher atmospheric CO2.
5) The rate of change in temperature is linear, CO2 absorption of IR is logarithmic, the physics of CO2 doesn’t support the linear temperature increase.
6) The atmospheric temperature follows sea temperatures which have nothing to do with CO2.
7) If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the atmosphere.
Thanks co2tolife.
Re Nick Stokes:
** We figured emitting CO2 would cause warming; we did it and warming ensued.**
Which warming did CO2 cause? Why was there cooling from the 1940’s to 1970’s while CO2 increased?
It was not “figured”. It was a bad assumption by a few looking for some excuse. Unfortunately, it was seized by those in charge, and the rest is history.
You have not MEASURED the temperature change due to CO2.
Nick’s comment reminds me of the rooster. He figured that his crowing raised the sun. So he crowed and the sun rose.
The simplicity of logic.
“The simplicity of logic.”
That is the difference between inductive and deductive inference. The difference here is that the prospect of warming was deduced from principles. It wasn’t based on past observation of emissions and warming. Unlike sunrise, the emission experiment is happening now for the first time.
Except that is not what you used. You clearly stated (falsely) “We emitted CO2. It warmed.”
That is observational. Nor is it accurate. CO2 has been emitted since fauna walked the earth. It has not always warmed. Ergo your hypothesis is disproven. But I do understand it was a simplistic childish statement instead of a reasoned scientific argument (much like the rooster crowing).
Perhaps if you crowed less, you would not make such simple mistakes.
Nick,
Emission might be happening now for the first time, but that’s irrelevant, since for most of earth’s history, CO2 levels have been much higher than now, including during most of the past 550 million years, when solar output was at most only five percent less than at present. Indeed, for most of that time, CO2 concentration was two to twenty times current levels. Yet no sign of Hansen’s Venus Express.
Just 55 Ma, when solar power was only half a percent less than now, CO2 was about five times current concentration, for instance.
Can someone please explain to me why the feedback variable in every climate model is positive. If one looks at nature the vast majority of feedbacks are negative.
In any system, an increasing output without increasing the input indicates that the feedback is positive.