Yesterday, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) published a letter yesterday to U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, admonishing him for having the temerity to doubt that carbon dioxide is the “primary driver” of global warming.
Here is the text of the letter.
Source: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-doe-secretary-perry-on-climate-change/ (PDF)
Here are a few of my thoughts.
The AMS, in their letter, say skepticism is welcome:
In the interview you also mentioned that it should be quite acceptable to be a skeptic about aspects of the science. We agree, and would add that skepticism and debate are always welcome and are critically important to the advancement of science.
Yet, the very letter they sent contradicts this, suggesting that there is no debate nor room for skepticism about carbon dioxide being the primary driver of temperature change.
The fundamental problem of our knowledge boils down to the sample size. We only have about 100 or so years of temperature records that are worth anything and even the most recent records on all that good because they’re terribly polluted by the infrastructure of human existence itself. And further our understanding of atmospheric and oceanic cycles is even more limited in time than the case of global temperature data.
If you were to line up our period of first-hand scientific knowledge of Earth’s processes, against the period of humanity’s intelligence, it would just be a small speck on the timeline. To assume we have certainty in knowledge about Earth’s processes, when new processes are still be discovered, is pure folly.
Even today, we are discovering more about our atmosphere than we knew 30 years ago in June 1988 when Dr. James Hansen first declared it a problem, and there are studies that show that recent record breaking warmth, such as a paper just published in Nature, Yao et al. Distinct global warming rates tied to multiple ocean surface temperature changes. covered here on WUWT.
For the AMS to admonish Perry that there’s no room for debate on Carbon Dioxide as being the primary driver, is essentially to deny the process of science itself. Science is often right, and also often wrong, but just as often, it is self-correcting. If global warming hadn’t become such an entangled and messy social and political issue, it’s likely that science would have done some levels of self-correction on the issue already.
For example, it was once believed that the Earth’s plates did not move, until plate tectonics came along. Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912, but it took until the 1960’s for it to become generally accepted, when a drastic expansion of geophysical research, driven by the cold war, produced evidence that reopened and eventually settled the debate.¹ Science self-corrected, but it took decades because scientists are often reluctant to embrace change which threatens the validiity of their own work. It was also generally believed that stress caused stomach ulcers, until a clinician, exasperated by lack of attention to his pointing out that the real cause was the bacterium Heliobacter Pylorii infecting the stomach lining², had to prove it against the consensus, and drank a bacterial cocktail and developed an ulcer himself. He won the Nobel prize for defying that consensus³.
Science that fails to account for the possibility of being wrong is of no virtue.
The AMS should lead in science by setting an example, by showing that even in the face of overwhelming consensus on an issue, there must be room for doubt, and thus room for self-correcting science. It only takes one finding in science to refute consensus, no matter whether it’s 97%, 99%, or 100%. Science is not infallible.
Anthony Watts
1. http://www.nature.com/news/earth-science-how-plate-tectonics-clicked-1.13655
2. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/mar/07-dr-drank-broth-gave-ulcer-solved-medical-mystery
3. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html
Note: about ten minutes after publication the article was updated to correct a spelling error, add an omitted phrase, and add references.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did the AMs red the paper of Santer, Mann et al. that stated the existence of the socalled pause and that the models couldn’t predict that and the models could not calculate it afterwards. So the conclusion is: the models are wrong!!!
The AMS would presumably have the same standard reply to Santer, Mann et al; you can be skeptical about anything you want except what they tell you!
The Worthlessness of the AMS Letter is Exemplified by the Sentence; “However, there are also very solid conclusions that are based on decades of research and multiple lines of EVIDENCE.” I will grant decades of Model Research but, please indicate ANY evidence of which is spoken here. The main reason there is skepticism about CAGW is the complete and utter LACK OF EVIDENCE that this is Manmade and not part of several Natural Phenomena affecting Planet Earth! Models and Theories are NOT EVIDENCE, especially since those “decades of research” have proven to be totally without validity in regard to the Predictions they have espoused!
There are indeed multiple lines of evidence that contradict the CAGW hypothesis.
* CO2 ppm has historically lagged temp
* almost 20 year hiatus in warming, while CO2 emissions increased dramatically during the same period.
* more extreme weather events occurred at lesser CO2 ppm (e.g., early 1900s, 1896)
Anyone care to mention other lines of evidence?
I Came — I was referring to supporting EVIDENCE from the CAGW Side as referred to in the AMS Letter. We have a PLETHORA of Evidence on the “Skeptic” side indicating the CAGW Hypothesis is so much BS!
Yeah i know. I was just stating what you said in a different way.
there was the 2009 “E-mail” release that was great at showing lies of evidence:-))
Antarctica
No interference from water vapor. The perfect place to do a study.
a 30 year cooling trend from 1940 – 1970 while CO2 emissions increased dramatically … a 60+ year heating trend from the early 1800’s until the late 1800’s when CO2 remain relatively constant …
just this, correlation does not equal causation … BUT and this is the big one on the other side of that coin for causation their MUST be correlation … 1940 – 1970 CO2 up, temperatures down … 1970 – 2000 CO2 up, temperatures up … CO2 and Temperatures are simply NOT correlated … thus rising CO2 cannot be the causation of rising temperatures …
Unless you smother rising CO2 with convenient aerosols in your models, Kaiser.
Lack of tropospheric hot spot, the diagnostic signature of increased greenhouse warming.
Kaiser, what you say is true for a situation in which there is only one driver, or where the driver you are studying is by far the strongest driver.
There could be correlation, but it is masked by other factors that you haven’t learned how to control for yet.
missing hot spot ? Seems particularly important to me since the issue is almost qualitative, not quantitative, with less room for hair-splitting arguments about data reliability, length of record, El Nino spikes, feedback factors etc etc etc.
Exactly, OE!
It either is or it isn’t. It doesn’t depend on the meaning of “is.”
If it isn’t, the whole CAGW edifice collapses. Since it isn’t, everything else the warmistas trot out is worthless drivel. IPCC climate models are bunk.
They built the roads ……… oops, sorry……. wrong movie 🙂
but it is masked by other factors
===================
you don’t know that. you might believe it is masked, but it could be that the science has causality backwards.
look at the ice age records. temperatures always shoot up when CO2 is low, and temps drop when CO2 is high. the exact opposite of what the AMS says should happen.
There is theoretical and lab-based evidence that additional CO2 should warm the planet slightly, everything else being equal. “Evidence” that assumptions about feedbacks leading to 3 times CO2 warming is just speculation, not science. The dynamics of our water and atmospheric systems is obviously not well modeled, given the dismal record of models’ projections of each and every climatic parameter.
The gradual, up and down warming of the planet since the end of the Little Ice Age is evident. The end of the 20th Century increase, used to tune climate models, is qualitatively no different than early 20th Century warming. Glossing over this fact with unfounded and differing assumptions about aerosols in the various climate models is fundamentally misleading, if not outright lies.
The lack of significant warming in the 21st Century, with increasing and record levels of CO2, would lead a normal scientist to question how that could happen. Instead, we get politicized entities telling us that the science is settled. Hogwash!
Real scientists would look into the obvious deviations of radiosonde and satellite atmospheric temperature estimates from surface based estimates. In the 20th Century they were in general agreement. The last two decades have shown significant deviations. Why? Is this consistent with their “multiple lines of evidence?”
We know the CAGW craze is a product of self interest by well-funded NGOs, rent-seeking by green energy profiteers, bureaucratic and academic grant-seeking and career enhancement and so on. Politicians jump on this for obvious reasons. Then there is ego gratification through media attention. Hollywood!
“There is theoretical and lab-based evidence that additional CO2 should warm the planet slightly, everything else being equal.”
But, it is far from equal.
1) The CAGW “science” says that the upper tropical troposphere has to be warming faster than the surface below it. All attempts to find this “hotspot” have failed and, in fact, NASA has reported that this region of the atmosphere has been warming gently for woy over 30 years,
2) That is the least of the problem with this “science”. As this region of the atmosphere is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C, there is no possible way for the upper tropical troposphere to warm the surface; just thermodynamically impossible.
With this horrendous failure, CAGW simply stopped touting their “science” and opted for “the science is settled, sit down and shut up” as their defense.
3) As the climate models do not model night-time, they are patently failures. CO2 and water vapor may convert some IR radiation to heat in the atmosphere during the day but they just as readily do the opposite, such that during the day , they are saturated and have zero effect, working both ways.
It is at night that these gases, more correctly called “radiative gases,” work unopposed, converting heat energy in the atmosphere to IR which is then lost to space. As the surface is always hotter than the air, downwelling IR is reflected back upward, which is why “lost to space” applies quite well. This explains why the air chills so quickly after sunset and why breezes kick up so quickly around the shadows of scudding clouds on a sunny day. The latter gives an idea how fast these gases can work.
Dave, the issue is all else isn’t the same. Water vapor alters the night time cooling rate nonlinearly.
And clouds. And evaporation. And … use your imagination.
the obvious deviations of radiosonde and satellite atmospheric temperature estimates from surface based estimates.
========
this shows the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, which is opposite what was predicted for GHG warming. strong evidence that whatever is causing the warming, it isn’t GHG.
Ferd, our exchange:
[Me] “the obvious deviations of radiosonde and satellite atmospheric temperature estimates from surface based estimates.
========
[You] this shows the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, which is opposite what was predicted for GHG warming. strong evidence that whatever is causing the warming, it isn’t GHG.”
It amazes me that climate science types do not analyze nor respond the implications of this rather obvious fact, at least publicly. All I have seen is attacks on and misinterpretation of radiosonde and satellite estimates.
When Dr. Christy presents data to Congress showing a divergence between models and radiosonde and satellite estimates, one of the tricks of his critics is to ignore radiosonde estimates in their entirety. It is revealing that they do not criticize radiosonde estimates, even though radiosondes show the same magnitudes and trends of satellite estimates.
Real scientists would publicly bend over backwards to explore data critical of their hypothesis.
IPCC climate models are bunk.
Ferd,
Or evidence that someone put their thumbs on the scale for the surface temperatures!
Hello, Dave, I just read the following reply submitted by a reader to the Yahoo news article that summarized the Rick Perry/AMS story. It sounds like a really good thumbnail of the debate, but I’m no expert, so I’d love to hear what you (and anyone else here) thinks about the following. Thanks!
Aka M.W.Plia. There should be, in understandable language such as a lawyer uses when addressing a jury, a detached and reasoned explanation of the uncertainties surrounding the issue of man-made global warming. The following is my attempt. The man-made climate change concern originates with the atmospheric portion of CO2 increasing from 0.028% (measured in ice cores at 280 parts per million) for pre-industrial times to the current 0.04% (400ppm) and the portion of that increase that is from fossil fuel combustion. The 150 year instrumental record indicates an increase of 0.8 degrees C. to the mean, which coincides with the climate’s recovery from The Little Ice Age (1250-1850AD) that started with the end of the Medieval Warm Period (750-1250AD). The actual mechanism (the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect) is not in question. CO2 is a radiatively active molecule, it is largely infrared resonant at an amplitude of 15 microns for which the corresponding temperature is over 50 degrees C. below zero. This is why the AGW play occurs well above the cloud deck (still within the troposphere) where there is no water vapor. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the ERL (Effective Radiation Level) to a colder level thus disturbing the equilibrium where outgoing terrestrial longwave IR (infrared radiation) balances incoming solar shortwave IR. The accepted math yields a forcing calculation of 3.7 watts/meter squared per atmospheric doubling of CO2 (560ppm) from pre-industrial levels (280ppm) which translates to roughly an increase of +1 degree C to the surface mean temperature. To the extent this “increase” can change the climate is where the science ends and the supposition begins as 3.7 is less than .3% of incoming solar at 1362 watts/meter squared. Where the concern kicks in is the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis. The IPCC endorsed numerically modeled temperature projections to 2100 include an assumed feedback response over and above the “known” effect of CO2 (estimated .5 to 1.5C per doubling of concentration) due to increased water vapour from the Anthro CO2 warming. Water vapour is the most abundant and forceful ‘greenhouse’ gas in the atmosphere, ergo even more greenhouse warming, supposedly two or three times as much as the original increase in CO2. The higher estimates of climate sensitivity, the origin of the catastrophic scenarios thus the need to mitigate, are based on the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW concept. However, there are uncertainties. More water vapor from increased evaporation (itself a profound cooling effect) means more daylight clouds in the lower atmosphere which reflect incoming solar while shading the surface, thus a significant cooling effect to counter the AGW effect along with the nightly warming effect of the low level clouds. CO2 has risen monotonically since we began measuring it 60 years ago. During this time there have been decadal periods where the temperature mean has risen, fallen and times when it has gone in neither direction. So the instrumental record either does not support AGW theory, or the effect is statistically negligible. Either way the need to impose taxes, a cap and trade system and other costly methods (think replacing coal with wind/solar) to reduce combustion emissions is not justified. Regards M.W.Plia.
The ground would roll under us during B-52 strikes!
Anyway, B-52, yours appears to be a good thumbnail sketch of the CO2 discussion. However, I am not a physicist; but have a good math, engineering and science background and have followed the debate for awhile.
It is demonstrated that IPCC climate models fail to account for water vapor and clouds accurately, among other failings. Their hindcasts of the various climatic features outside their late 20th Century tuning period are dismal, especially at the regional level. They also failed to predict the nearly 20-year hiatus in global warming.
Dr. Judith Curry has stated that IPCC climate models are not sufficient to fundamentally alter our society, economy nor energy systems. When people bandy about “multiple lines of evidence” for catastrophic CO2 warming, they really mean models. All the rest of it relies on those. Minor warming and its effects on other climatic parameters (ice, etc.) is not proof of CO2 warming.
A few minutes ago I had the great joy of listening to a scientist with integrity on BBC Radio 4, she is the Chief Scientist of the Scottish govt. The BBC presenter kept trying to get her to be a scientiVIST, by expressing a view on the ban on GM crops. The BBC regularly encourages scientivism, giving unquestioning platforms to those who do it, such as presidents of the Royal Society.
The wonderful lady from Scotland declined the invitation, saying that her job was just to give advice on scientific knowledge. She should have talked about risk, science attempts to quantify it, but must not stray into political decisions about whether or not particular risks are worth taking.
Heard it, Climanrecon. Had to keep allowing for the fact that she started every (non) answer with the word: ‘so’. She most definitely did not commit to offering her (scientific) opinion on whether to advise the Scottish Parliament that GM was OK to pursue – as her predecessors had done. Quite an object lesson in dodging the issue.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjk5
Starts about 17:22
“we accepted very slowly” … huh? They were on board before Hansen even got done spewing his nonsense in 1988.
Hansen has been lead propagandist longer than many people realize. In the late ’60s, when the Club of Rome apparently decided on anthropogenic “climate change” as a useful trope for social control, the scientific consensus (of one, i.e., James Hansen) was that global cooling caused by industrial soot was going to end civilization, by about 1990. Hansen was simply projecting the cooling period that lasted from 1940-1970 into the indefinite future. Today of course they are projecting the warming period that lasted from 1970-2000 or so. Since then, a plateau, despite rising emissions. Better hide that inconvenient truth!
So now Keith Seitter speaks for all members of the AMS? This type of behavior is why I quit GSA, I don’t want my opinion lumped in with a bunch of buffoons.
Here are two wonderful clips a la “Yes Minister” from JoNova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/06/if-only-yes-prime-minister-re-elected-had-done-the-global-warming/#comment-1921035
Unfortunately, the AAAS, APS. and AGU (among others) have also climbed aboard the alarmist train. And it is chugging away toward a cliff where the rails end. The members are never consulted about these open letters or published statements. They don’t even open them up to comment from the members before they are released. If you were to complain about it they would kindly explain to you, “Shaddup!”
Let’s face it, this letter and the statement on global warming are all about virtue signalling. The governing bodies of the these scientific societies are less concerned about the science then they are about appearing to be on the right side of history. Last stop Wile E. Coyote-ville.
But, but, if you AVERAGE your opinion with that of the 99 buffoons that will be really, really important! NO?
From the letter:
Yet, not a shred of detail is provided in the letter to clarify any understanding of what these unresolved questions are. Instead, the letter just bullies this statement aside, in favor of sticking to the stance that IGNORES these very questions. It’s a fake way to look open, while being totally closed.
Interpretation of the letter: Rick Perry, we, the media, environmental groups, and about half of all politicians have been lying/prevaricating to the public about globul warming. And now you want to come and tell the truth and spoil it? Our motto is that if you tell the big lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. Don’t ruin it for us.
My letter to Rick Perry: Please defund and stop all environmental grants for which you have any influence. Please fire every gov’t employee and contractor under your purview. Shut down the DOE. And having done these good works, ask Mr. Pruitt to do the same with the EPA, then resign your post – job well done.
See this episode of “Yes Prime Minister” “Global warming, etc.”
Anything using the phrase “these indisputable findings” is engaged in writing a catechism, not doing science.
I can’t find that exact phrase in this story. Is my browser broken?
Last sentence of first paragraph.
It is a word for word quote.
Thanks.
Got it. The letter is a scanned image, not text. Trying to find the quote by word searching doesn’t work. My browser isn’t broken but I’m slightly defective.
Incontrovertible … Everyone quotes “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” from the Princess Bride. A bad guy, Vizzini, is in love with his theories. He’s incapable of seeing the obvious facts of the case and realizing that his logic and theories are defective. One of the great scenes in the movie involves him trying to logic out which of two goblets of wine is poisoned.
He suffers from the false premise that only one goblet is poisoned.
I look on Vizzini as a great example of expert over-claiming and expert overconfidence. It helps that he kinda looks like a certain climate scientist if you squint right.
A couple of false premises bring the whole CAGW edifice crashing down like a house of cards.
It isn’t your browser that is the problem commieBob, it is your brain. The letter is an image not simply-searchable text. You need to use your brain to find it.
You have fallen into something like a corollary to Muphry’s Law called Skitt’s Law which states:
Basically you have restated exactly what I said.
Apparently your brain didn’t find that. 🙂 And, yes, I realize that Muphry’s law and its corollaries make it almost certain that the above post contains some kind of error.
“Muphry’s law”
Yep, spotted it, Mr Murphy.
if something is indisputable, it really should not take more than a million in grant funding per year, no?
The fundamental problem of our knowledge boils down to………repeating a lab experiment in the real world
I’m reminded of some of Osborn’s laws: Variables won’t; constants aren’t.
Thus I present a corollary: Indisputable findings aren’t
There certainly seems to be a great bit of dispute regarding these indisputable findings.”
I find these indisputable findings to be quite disputable.
“They keep using that word ‘indisputable’, I don’t think it means what they think it means.”
I think they are disreputable.
Thanks Tom. Couple of my favorites.
Also consider.
CO2 is not a pollutant, is is plant food!
Yeah, and the often used “overwhelming evidence” = “zero fkin evidence”. Hello young people. Watch out for these catch-phrases as you grow up into their world of deceit. Vote accordingly.
Rick Perry is more intelligent about climate science than leaders of the AMS. Who would have guessed that?
The funny thing is, you do not need to know a darn thing about climate science to see through this: All you need is the basic social skill of knowing how to spot a liar.
Its the glasses
The money assertion, “[I]ndisputable findings have shaped our current AMS statement on Climate Change, which states, “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-caused increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases…”
… shows that the AMS has abandoned the scientific method. Apart from unverified and inaccurate climate models, there is no reason whatever to think that so-called greenhouse gases have, or even can, induce changes in the climate.
And — Earth to AMS, over — the change in climate over the past half century has not been particularly rapid.
The entire consensus position is a mockery of science.
Thank you Pat.
It is nice to hear the unvarnished truth from time to time.
Thanks, Menicholas. The whole thing makes me ill.
Ditto.
“Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.” HUH???
What evidence would that be? Predictions ARE NOT EVIDENCE. How about, skeptical of the validity of the evidence..
Let’s turn the phrase back at them:
“Dogma that persists in the face of contradicting evidence is not science but religion.”
Very good. What’s the best kind of dogma? Ans: The kind that pays the bills.
Thanks rocket and clay. How about:
“Dogma that persists only when there are tons of taxpayer money to support a broken theory is graft.”
I cannot wait until skeptical Karma runs right over their warmista dogma.
That is my dharma.
Rocket and Clay – a good name for a band.
Amen!!!!
This defense of the “science is settled”, “debate is over” position is exactly what causes skeptics to dig in their heels even more.
There are levels of confidence that can be objectively “estimated” regarding how much warming has been caused by humans. Along with that, there are many benefits from increasing CO2 on this greening planet. Over weighting global climate model projections of temperature, while under weighting nature climate cycles, beneficial weather patterns recently, biology, agronomy, photosynthesis and other relevant science, especially what life on this planet prefers(outside of this group of humans that claim to be speaking for all of life) for its CO2 and temperature level……is closed minded.
Reading a letter like this one from the AMS causes skeptics to be even MORE skeptical because it shows that this side is unable to grasp many authentic points. It provides disingenuous, general statements/claims of representing skeptical science, while promoting an idea that contradicts skeptical science.
When somebody fails to see what you see as fact backed evidence that supports your position and instead, tries to convince you(again) of their position(that you have been looking at for 2 decades) using the “we are the authorities” narrative, it often has the complete opposite effect…….you resort to defending what you believe to be authentic in an even stronger manner.
Notice the overconfidence in decadal-level relationships when those are the most likely to be subject to unrelated cyclical factors and mis-assignment to CO2 correlation. That is a major overstep and generally unscientific assertion. Their mixture of uncertainty statement followed by strident certainty in the letter is misplaced and looks to be the result of advocacy-driven pressure in its construction. So who stacked the votes in the phrasing committee?
Perry’s sensible reply to them:
A pity they didn’t read their seal to remind themselves what’s important for the survival of mankind.
Public Health, Agriculture, Engineering, Industry, Commerce, Aerial and Marine Navigation.
And the global warming agenda will harm all of those things.
That says it all in a nutshell Robert!
+100
Similar statements of fidelity to the Paris accord are signed by joiners of the “We are still in” movement, led by Gov. Brown, Bloomberg and others.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/pledging-climate-fidelity/
Water vapor is the terrestrial control knob of Earths Atm. And in fact provides almost an exact cancelling negative feedback to the effects of increasing Co2.
Series like BEST, aren’t temp series at all (really), but they are calculation of what they think surface temps are, it’s the Drake equation of climate science.
“It’s the Drake equation of climate science.” Ouch. I never slammed our out-house door that hard.
Apt
But I think the Drake Equation could easily be corrected … by my calcs it should be gives an estimate that is 1.76284% to high.
DonM wrote: “I think the Drake Equation could easily be corrected … by my calcs it should be gives an estimate that is 1.76284% to high.”
Wickedly funny, Don. Thanks from nerds everywhere (at least, those nerds who understand irony).
Thanks Mickey … my cat’s name is Mickey and my dog’s name is Reno & my other dog’s name is … (well that dog doesn’t really matter unless your middle name is Vala).
My cat’s name is Astrophe and by other cat’s name is Aclysm.
“Drake Equation” is a misnomer. It should be deemed “the Drake cocktail napkin doodle.”
I think you are insulting cocktail napkin doodles (CND for short), Neil Young’s Cinnamon Girl was written as a CND.
Bingo!
I see these both being for all intents, the same.
Captured my thoughts exactly!
Did the AMS happen to mention what caused the Medieval Warm Period? Did they explain why increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has failed to warm the planet in a significant way during this century? Can they produce evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide caused 20th Century warming and not natural effects?
The answer to all of your questions is, “No, of course not, because THEY do not see their role as explaining anything, but, like the defense-department assessing national security risks associated with climate change, they merely appeal to the IPCC’s authority on such matters.”
Answering the hard questions is not our job. We merely apply the supreme authority’s answers to those hard questions.
IPCC = The Wizard of Oz [sing the tune now – We’rrrrrrrrrrrrrrre off to see … ]
Weather.com tells me that I am currently enjoying light rain–looking out the window, I see only blue sky. Such happens often–suppose it has to do with “models” , climate or otherwise.
Warmistas never attempt to explain inconvenient facts or justify their sweeping assertions.
They do science by decree, not by using the scientific method, or even by dint of logical argumentation.
There are at least ten separate lines of evidence that by themselves ought to have been enough to forever disprove the notion of CO2 as the temperature control knob of the atmosphere…and those are just the big ones off the top of my head.
Never has anything disproven so thoroughly been believed by so many.
In my view, anyone who is on board with any of these ideas… that CO2 controls temperatures of the whole Earth over time, that warmer temps are not just assuredly bad but catastrophic, that humans can adjust the future temperature of the Earth with nonsensical political agreements and international extortion, that sea level rise is accelerating, that higher CO2 will cause the oceans to acidify and that this is bad for marine life and especially shelled organisms, that the climate regimes of the earth have been highly stable for centuries and millennia until the past few decades, that sea, mountain, and continental ice concentrations and amounts has not been undergoing long term cycles of waxing and waning since observations of such have been made, that anything unusual or unprecedented is or has occurred regarding weather or changes in the weather in recent decades as compared to all the time which came before industrialization, that 97% of scientists believes in any of the above, or that even if they did that this constitutes evidence of anything at all being true or not…well…that person is no scientist.
In fact they are the opposite of one.
There is no room for allowing for honest mistakes anymore…all warmistas, every single one of them, is either an ignoramus who parrots what others say while not actually knowing enough determine the veracity of such, or is deliberately looking the other way while others lie, cheat, and exaggerate, or is an outright liar.
Those are the only three possibilities.
Which category any particular person falls into is relatively unimportant…all are complicit and thus responsible.
Time to stop sugarcoating it.
Time to call an ignoramus and ignoramus.
Time to call a dishonorable enabler a dishonest enabler.
Time to call a liar a liar.
The great thing about indisputable theories ( hypotheses, actually) is that you don’t have to defend them or explain them or do anything really. Especially not science! That would be like the world’s self professed best trick skier doing actual stunts-where something could go wrong!
There was a time I believed what a scientist said, sorry to say, no more. How sad.
There is no observational evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has caused warming.
Satellite observations of global atmospheric temperature anomaly conclusively show that the global temperature now is within 0.2C of 1980. That’s not significant.
Surface temps are known to be faulty due to improper merging of data and unjustified post hoc adjustments. Properly maintained Individual surface stations in stable rural locations show zero warming. For example, the Amundsen-Scott science station shows zero warming since 1958.
Changes in atmospheric CO2 follow natural temperature changes on all time scales.
MODTRAN shows zero surface warming when CO2 is changed from 300ppm to 400ppm.
Global precipitation anomaly using NCDC KNMI explorer shows no change since 1900, the monthly data plot is a flat line, that’s a slope of zero.
Proxy data show that temps can and do meander naturally on century and longer time scales.
The next significant shift in global climate will certainly be to the cold side. That’s a historical fact.
Anecdotal glacial melting in the recent era is simply explained by increased surface soot.
Really not that unexpected from a bunch that routinely rely on models that fail to predict tomorrow’s weather.
The AMS was hijacked by climate extremists some time ago. Mr. Perry should thank them for their political advice and tell them that he will see that science is not held hostage to their politics.
Do you seriously believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?
You don’t really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad? In Siberia? Are you kidding?
Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?
Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”
Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?
Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.
Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).
Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?
Are you kidding me?
All this is even prior to considering the adjustments made for the UHI effect.
These are measurement error and uncertainties in excess of the putative change in global temperatures.
The truth of the matter is that climate “science” has absolutely no idea whatsoever whether there has been warming or not.
I think there is some fairly solid evidence that there was a Little ice Age, and that it influenced the climate regimes of the Earth on a global basis for several centuries, and that it ended sometime in the mid to late 19th century.
There is also strong evidence that the period of time centered on the 1930s was far warmer in all of the places that have records with any degree of reliability…provided one uses the actual records as they were measured at the time and disregard the fraudulent “adjusted data” sets that do one thing and one thing only…make the historical records conform to the changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
But you are right John…when the people who keep historical records and create the new records are known to be falsifying those records, they are worthless and unfit for any purpose of science.
And how much fraud does it take to know when people are lying and the truth is the opposite of what they say? Generally speaking…people with the truth on their side do not make up big giant lies.
Regarding changes that may or may not have occurred over the whole earth for the past 150 years or so…serious thought must be given to whether it is possible that the United States is somehow not representative of the whole Earth, broadly and over the long term of years and decades.
We have very good records for the US going back quote a while, and those records, when examined as recorded, show cooling periods and warming periods…but mostly cooling.
It is more than a stretch of credulity that the one place we have good records for and is a large continental area which borders several oceans, has a full range of landforms and is broad in north-south and east-west extent…that this one place is somehow diverging from the rest of the world over many decades.
Over a period of months…sure.
Over a period of a decade? Seems very doubtful.
Over a multi-decadal period? I would like to hear the explanation for how that is possible.
The one place we know about for sure…
Which other places are bucking a long term global trend?
And what kid of long term records do we have for those places?
Facts? They don’t need no stinking facts! ( Now that’s indisputable!)
They obviously haven’t been keeping up to date with latest 300 odd peer reviewed papers showint that it is not CO2, or noticed that Hansen & Mann are hedging their bets already.
“or noticed that Hansen & Mann are hedging their bets already.”
The AMS is getting on a CAGW bandwagon that is running out of steam.