by Rud Istvan,
EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions:
1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved it in 1859.
2. The Earth is warming. Although the details are in dispute because of temperature data quality problems and ‘adjustments’, the general fact is not. The Earth has been intermittently warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended. For example, the last Thames Ice Fair was in 1814.
3. CO2 and its knock-on effects caused the recent warming, and climate models (such as the CMIP5 archive for IPCC AR5) predict this will continue to catastrophic levels. This is an extremely dubious proposition.
This guest post addresses proposition 3. It does so in a short sound bite ‘abstract’ useful for debating warmunists, and then in a typical WUWT full climate science guest post. It is a modest Red Team contribution.
Sound bite ‘abstract’
Climate models have run hot since 2000. Except for the 2015-16 now fully cooled El Nino blip, there has been no warming this century except by Karlization or (newly) Mearsation. Yet this century comprises about 35% of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (Keeling Curve). The climate models went wrong on attribution. The warming ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from that of ~1975-2000. AR4 figure SPM.4 said the earlier period was mostly natural (because not enough change in CO2). The CMIP5 archive assumes the latter period is mostly CO2 (and other GHG). That assumption is fatally flawed; natural variation did not magically cease in 1975.
Fully documented post
CMIP5 climate models have run hot since before 2000, and the divergence of CMIP5 from observations is highly statistically significant. Details are in Dr. Christy’s 29 March 2017 Congressional written testimony (available on line), from which Figure 2 provides sufficient up-to-date evidence.
This divergence is rooted in the attribution problem between natural and anthropogenic warming. It is unavoidably inherent in CMIP5 models for a very basic reason.
To properly model essential climate features like convection cells (thunderstorms), a grid cell needs to be less than 4km on a side. The finest resolution in CMIP5 is 110km at the equator; the typical resolution is 280km. This is because halving grid size requires an order of magnitude more computation. So adequately simulating such atmospheric processes from first principles is computationally intractable. Details are in my 8/9/2015 WUWT guest post “The Trouble with Climate Models”.
The solution is to parameterize such processes (for example, put a number on the probability of how many thunderstorms per grid cell per time step –a conceptual rather than actual example as parameters are a bit more complicated). Parameters are obviously just guesses. So they are tuned to best hindcast compared to observations; for CMIP5 the ‘experimental design’ was from yearend 2005 back three decades to 1975.[1]
Parameter tuning implicitly drags the attribution problem into CMIP5.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor emeritus, first made the observation that the period of warming from ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable to that from ~1975-2000. This is readily apparent visually, and is also true statistically.
IPCC AR4 WG1 figure SPM.4 and the accompanying text make clear that the earlier period (circled in blue) was mostly natural; there simply was insufficient change in atmospheric CO2 to explain the rise in temperature without natural variability. A portion of figure SPM.4 (readily available via the IPCC) is reproduced below as sufficient evidence.
The IPCC intent of AR4 WG1 figure SPM.4 was to convince policy makers that the second warming (circled in red) had to be AGW. But that IPCC logic is fatally flawed. The SPM did not tell policy makers about model parameter tuning, which clearly drags natural variation into the model parameter tuning period assumed by IPCC to be AGW. So the warming is falsely attributed only to CO2. Note also the subtle “cheat” in Fig SPM.4 of models using only natural forcings. The issue is not guessed natural forcings. We do not know why natural variation occurs, only that it does (no model of ENSO periodicy, for example). Natural forcings are not the issue; only the resulting natural warming variation is. Natural temperature variation, not ‘forcings’, is the proper statement of the attribution problem. The AR5 WG1 SPM makes IPCC’s erroneous and unscientific belief explicit:
§D.3 This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. [Bold mine]
Natural variation did NOT stop in the mid-20th century. And that is why CMIP5 models now run hot.
[1] Taylor et. al., An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experimental Design, BAMS 93: 485-498 (2012).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The main point why most models are running hot is that most models were developed in the years ’80 and ’90 of the last century, when there was an increase in temperature between 1976-2000. As all warming was attributed to CO2, they needed a cooling “knob” to explain the cooling in the period 1945-1975, when CO2 was slowly increasing. That they found in human aerosols, mainly SO2 emitted from coal and oil use.
See the discussion in the early days at RC:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/an-aerosol-tour-de-forcing/
with my comment at #6.
As the cooling by SO2 aerosols is just an estimate, one can take that higher or lower at any level, where the opposite influence of CO2 must follow. In all cases on can fit the model to the 1900-2000 range, including the 1945-1975 cooling.
Problem is that the 1945-1975 cooling can be explained that way, but not the 2000-2014 “pause”, as SO2 didn’t change much, only shifted from the western world to S.E. Asia. That makes that those models with the highest influence of SO2 aerosols, and thus from CO2, now run hottest…
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
Ultimately though they had ignored other natural factors and had sulphates as there pet theory. Sulphates don’t even explain the 1945-1976 period because China has warmed despite huge increases in these.
Also …
4. Annual changes in atmos co2 are driven by annual fossil fuel emissions
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997420
Jamal:
The IPCC carbon budget concludes that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driven by fossil fuel emissions on a year by year basis.
That is not what the IPCC says. Their graph only shows averages within wide margins of error and year by year variability.
Changes in the atmosphere are driven by human emissions at one side and variable sinks at the other side, which in average are driven by the total CO2 level above steady state for the current ocean surface temperature (NOT the human emissions of one year) and which variability in sink capacity is largely dependent on the influence of temperature variability on (tropical) vegetation and to a lesser extent ocean surface temperatures.
Ristvan
In the models,
What allowance is made for the annual transfer of heat by atmospheric transport. The primary factor in Arctic warming, was the heat transported in from warmer locations.
What allowance or consideration is there for a variance in the volume of atmosphere available for transport This volume varies annually, with variations on the destination of the atmospheric flow and heat.
Regards
Mod – A rather long post (apologies for that, but there was a lot to write) of mine appears to have been waylaid. Can you see if you can find it? Thx…
http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/
Does the new team get conferences in pleasant locations, funding for life and groupies?
Thought not.
I won’t hold my exhaling of life giving.. sorry, polluting gas.
I guess that the models run hot because at the height of the warming they decided that correlation meant causation. The rate of CO2 increase/warming was baked into the climate models.
Now there is no correlation but the models continue to show one.
Point 3 is all about the suspected feedback of vapor. If temperatures go up just mildly, vapor will increase, and as it is a super powerful GHG, climate disaster takes place.
That is why my modest analysis of nocturnal cooling patterns may be somewhat relevant. As it shows, there is a massive correlation between cloud condition and night time cooling, which necessarily puts the cloud forcing to a magnitude corresponding to the total(!) GHE.
example Parkersburg, WV
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/parkersburg1.png
(average cooling relative to cloud condition, starting with sunset, initial temperature = 1, x scale gives minutes x10)
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/parkersburg%20rel%20humid.png
(average cooling relative to rel. humidity, starting with sunset, initial temperature = 1, x scale gives minutes x10)
On the other hand however, there is no correlation between cooling rate and relative humidity, which leaves a couple of conclusions.
1. The cloud effect, which may be correlated to relative humidity, is independent from this correlation. In other words, clouds ARE the ONE driving factor.
2. Vapor on the other side, will not have any effect on night time cooling, which means it does not act as GHG at all. That falsifies the biggest chunk of the “GHE”.
3. This is not of a surprise, as point 1 already accounts for the “GHE”. It’s clouds, not vapor.
We can independently check this insight by looking at our planet. We know that by comparison to a PBB earth is about 9° Centigrade warmer (288K vs. 279K) on average. This gap is however lower at the equator – roughly only 5° Centigrade (27°C vs. 22°C). So the (gross) GHE is at its lowest, where we have the highest concentration of the strongest perceived GHG. This is impossible, unless of course, we give up the idea vapor was a GHG.
Surprisingly temperatures in the very dry Sahara dessert are even higher than at the equator. Again this fact must be wrong, according to the theory of a GHG vapor. In the wide absence of vapor, the dessert must much colder, which it fails to do.
So .. we have a theory falsifying reality, or the other way round, for the more rational thinkers.
Not to disagree with your overall premise re. clouds, however, while daytime T is higher in the Sahara, at higher latitude than the equatorial moist tropics, nighttime T is a lot lower.
Right, daily temperature variations are higher in the desert, like up to 20°C. That is just the same as anywhere (except for sea bound places), when the sky is clear. Of course in the desert the sky is clear most of the time. It is a fascinating fact, how vapor, in other words humidity, will not play any role in that either. Which of course it had to, if it was a GHG.
However, what I was actually talking about were average temperatures, and these may reach 28-29°C in the desert. That is despite less solar input (compared to the equator), some elevation (245m might cost about 2°Centrigrade in this case), and again stronger temperature variations, which cause relatively higher emissivity at any given average.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau
(Rud, this is a great example of the sort of “basics” article I have suggested a few times ought to be a part of an introduction to the debate section here at WUWT. An addition to the “drop down” menu up top, I imagine, which newbies who come here can immediately and easily go to for help in understanding the basic points of contention, and perhaps for some lexiconic familiarity and the like. (I suggest ‘Watts Light ~ Basics’ as a heading).
My hunch is that many “civilians” end up here at some point, but drift away without actually learning much because they feel overwhelmed by the apparent expertise gap they face. A handful of articles like this one (perhaps adapted a bit in this case to the specific purpose ) could rather easily be assembled “collectively” I suspect, because there are so many writers who contribute here that are very good at “keeping it simple” when they wish to . . and those newbies would have a way to get acclimated, and ask some “dumb” questions perhaps (and see the results of previous inquiries in the comment sections), without feeling they are interrupting/burdening the “mainline” discussions/authors.
So . . I want you to push for it . . ’cause the ogre might listen to you ; )
See tomorrow’s guest post, I completely agree with your general observation. Now lets do something about it. That requires positive input, not just negative criticism. So get busy yorself.
I have begun, ristvan . . that’s an example of “positive input” right there, to me . . It’s not something I can make happen, so I’ve been trying to get some other people thinking about such a “section”, and how it might be organized/presented, and how the material might be collaborated on in such ways as to make it “civilian” friendly, yet expert acceptable . . and be as uncontroversial as possible, and so on. (When I said “collectively”, I meant it ; )
John,
Remarkable that you’re willing to be educated about atmospheric physics and chemistry but not biological physics and chemistry, ie the fact of evolution, which cannot help but happen given the genetic code.
Gabro,
To me, you are as the climate alarmists, suggesting I “educate” myself about climate change being a fact . . meaning essentially that I ought to memorize some orthodoxy-centric pablum and accept it as absolute truth. I have educated myself about Evolution theory (from a very young age, and saw it as virtual fact until just a decade or so ago), but have come to have the distinct impression it’s become a “settled science” realm, that went the same way “climate science” would go a few years later; Skepticism free ; )
John,
You have it completely back-a$$ward. Creationists are as CACA adherents.
As all scientists here know full well.
I told you the truth, you are as the climate alarmists to me. And I have asked you things like; How could it be a “scientific fact” that what we see in reality-land, with regard to something like “domestic” species that have evolved substantially with no new genetic coding coming into existence, is not what we are seeing evidence of in the fossil record?
You having great faith that something else happened, is hardly worthy of being called a basis for scientific certainty, in my book . . ; )
John,
Domestic species do indeed have new genetic coding, but mostly they’re the result of selective breeding, favoring certain genetic traits, such as shorter legs, over others. Same thing happens in the wild, when there is selective pressure in one direction.
Both adaptation and natural or artificial selection are evolutionary processes. But they’re not the only evolutionary processes. As would be obvious to a rational person.
There is no way, given the genetic code, that novel sequences cannot arise. It’s built into the system. One important way that that happens is by whole genome duplication, so that the old coding is preserved, but enormous amounts of material are now available for experimentation.
This has all been explained to you at great length, but you can’t handle the simple truth.
John Knight,
Wow! This is a real treat for me, and yet another benefit of reading WUWT, where so many creationists congregate.
I’ve never actually met a creationist, so am all the more excited at the possibility of finding out what you actually believe, when all of reality is so obviously arrayed against you.
I’d really appreciate your enlightening me on these aspects of creationist belief, as I’ve been able to ascertain them.
1) Please tell me what evidence you adduce for earth being only about 6000 years old, rather than the 4.6 billion years shown by every line of physical evidence. Thanks!
2) Please tell me what evidence you see for a global flood, covering the highest mountains, a mere 4500 years ago, which necessitated tens of millions of species being sequestered on a boat for months and months, cared for by a handful of humans. Thanks!
3) Please tell me what evidence you have that evolution does not occur. Do you agree with professional liars that genomes are fixed and immutable, or do you accept the fact that nothing is easier than changing genomes through a whole variety of mechanisms, as repeatedly observed every day in the real world? Thanks!
4) Please tell me what evidence you have that organisms don’t adapt to their environments via natural selection, as seems unavoidable, given genetic diversity and differential survival and reproductive success. Thanks!
5) Please tell me how creationists explain away the fact that new species have been seen arising from old ones by a variety of evolutionary processes which take only a single generation, such as hybridization and polyploidy. And how species separated by some barrier to interbreeding evolve into new species, simply by stochastic processes, without natural selection. Thanks!
6) Please tell me what evidence you have that incremental changes cannot lead over time to the development of new species. Is there some barrier that stops adaptation and other genetic change from eventually creating new species, as has been observed over and over and over again in reality? Thanks!
7) Please explain why every possible line of scientific evidence shows the fact of evolution, i.e. Fossils, biochemistry, molecular biology, anatomy, embryology, biogeography, genetics, etc, yet you chose to d@ny these facts? I’d really like to know upon what scientific basis. Thanks!
I’m really excited to be able to communicate with a real, live creationist in this forum. Thanks to you, to Ant@ny and the m@derators for providing me with this rare opportunity to find out how prescientific believers think.
Gabro,
So, your basic argument is; You think it could have happened, and hence it did happen?
Not scientific anything, to me, kiddo ; )
Willy,
I don’t argue phantom evidence and reasoning, nor do I consider sweeping generalizations about “every line of physical evidence” anything worthy of consideration. I grew up ; )
I get that there is essentially ZERO skepticism (among atheist scientists anyway) about the grand stories they tell of the distant past, because we can confidently assume that “running things backward in time” indefinitely is a valid proxy for observation (and once upon a time I saw things that way myself) . . but if there is a God, that’s obviously (I feel) not a valid assumption. Hence, much assuming about the distant past is done essentially without any significant “competition”. There simply HAD to be an Earth (or it’s eventual components coming together “naturally”) 4.5 billion years ago, many assume, and see ALL evidence as necessarily comporting with that supposed fact, without hesitation. One or another such “hindcast story” is assumed to be ultimate truth . .
Please consider, carefully; Faith in the nonexistence of God is, by definition, faith in something imagined to be so . . while faith in the existence of God is not . . since God’s can, by definition, make themselves known, if they exist.
Readers, please note this (to me) blatantly mindless or disingenuous BS;
“Domestic species do indeed have new genetic coding, but mostly they’re the result of selective breeding …”
Now, for the umpteenth time, I am faced with a person who (I believe) knows damn well I didn’t mean just any old genetic mutations, but the actual coming into existence of new functional genetic coding that caused a significant change in the species. (This would not be happening over and over if this person was informed and honest, it seems to me.)
And note how the word games become the focal point of the discussion, while the underlying point of contention just gets lost in the dithering . . like CAGW theory ; )
JohnKnight July 6, 2017 at 9:09 pm
Dunno to what you refer, but new species arising from old occurs every day.
JohnKnight July 6, 2017 at 10:50 pm
Your willful obtuseness never ceased to amaze. You were talking about artificial selection in the domestication process, so I responded to that particular evolutionary process.
However, that new, novel, innovative changes in genomes occur all the time is not the least bit in doubt. As you’ve been showed over and over again, yet still refuse to recognize or admit, novel changes in genomes not only happen continuously, but have been observed repeatedly to give rise to new species and genera. Again, this has been shown you over and over again. But clearly, you can’t handle the truth about reality.
At one end of the spectrum of genetic change, you’ve repeatedly been referred to nylon-eating bacteria, which evolve from sugar-eating bacteria by a single point mutation, the deletion of a single base pair.
On the other end is whole genome duplication, which has given rise to 30 to 80% of all plant species. Animal genomes, including humans’, also record instances of whole genome duplication.
In between are all the other sources of genetic novelty, which I’ve outlined for you time and again and which have allowed genomes to grow from a single gene per protocell to tens of thousands in the most complex organisms over the course of four billion years of evolution. Among these in the human line have been the gross chromosomal change associated with upright walking (the fusion of two smaller standard great ape chromosomes into the large human #2), and the simple mutation which led to brain growth. Again, these facts have been repeatedly brought to your attention.
Sorry, but the Bible is not a science text. For reality, check out the Work of God, not His alleged Word, actually authored by prescientific people.
John Knight:
Not surprised you couldn’t answer my questions. Predictions made by creationists are always wrong.
The entire science of evolution is founded on skepticism. Belief in the anti-scientific bible, not at all.
Science requires skepticism, which attitude can only be overcome by evidence from the real world. There is no evidence against the fact of evolution and all the evidence in the world for it.
Scientists recognize the fact that the earth goes around the sun, just as they do the fact that new species arise from old. Both facts are observations made every day, so these conclusions are inescapable.
Now if you want to be skeptical of the fact of evolution, you’ll have to present some scientific evidence against it, rather than religious faith. You won’t because you can’t, since there isn’t any scientific evidence against the fact of evolution.
New species are made from old every day in every way everywhere, in the lab and in nature. New genetic material evolves continuously and creates new species in the process. Today it’s an industrial and commercial process.
We wish we could stop pathogens from changing their genomes in every 20 minute generation, but we can’t. Thus the constant need for new antibiotics.
John,
The basic attitude of science is skepticism, while of religion is faith.
But to be skeptical of a particular scientific theory, hypothesis or discovery, you need to have specific reasons. You can adduce none in support of your opposition to the fact of evolution.
As you’ve been shown over and over, there are innumerable instances of observed evolution and even more inescapably inferred. Evolution is now an observation, not “just” a theory or hypothesis, although in science a theory requires lots of support. Same as the heliocentric theory used to be an inference or insight, but has since been observed objectively to be true. Evolution, like gravitation, has a body of theory which attempts to explain and understand it, but evolution is far better understood than gravity.
Not only is the fact of evolution constantly observed all around us, but it cannot help but happen, given the nature of the genetic code. Every individual in every generation has mutations. On average, humans are born with four, and we acquire more during our lives. If they occur in our germ cells, then those innovations too can be passed on. Evolution is a consequence of reproduction.
Since you can’t offer even a single scientific reason for imagining that evolution is not a fact, your opposition is purely religious, based upon faith rather than evidence and reason.
Willy,
We no longer need rely just on fossils, embryology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, etc to reconstruct the history of evolution. We can look in detail at the molecular biology of genes.
We can see specifically what genetic changes allowed colonies of choanocytes to evolve into sponges, sponges into radially symmetrical animals, radials into bilaterally symmetrical animals, bilaterians into deuterostomes, deuterostomes into chordates, chordates into vertebrates, vertebrates into bony fish, bony fish into lobe-finned fish, lobe fins into tetrapods, early tetrapods into amphibians, amphibians into amniotes, amniotes into reptiles and mammal-line animals, protomammals into mammals, egg-laying mammals into marsupial and placental ancestors, ancestral placentals into modern placentals, placentals into primates, primates into the monkey-ape line, lesser apes into great apes and great apes into humans.
Not every change has been discovered, but key genetic innovations in each of those transitions have been identified. The genetic alterations confirm observations from rocks, etc.
Five year-old technology permits humans to take precise control of our own evolution and that of other species, to include extinction.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gene-editors-are-only-getting-started-1499461756
Gabro July 7, 2017 at 5:33 pm
Erratum:
In the above, please read “choanoflagellate” for “choanocyte”. The former are the unicellular ancestors of the feeding cells of sponges, ie choanocytes. Both types of cell have collars to capture bacteria upon which to feed.
“New species are made from old every day in every way everywhere, in the lab and in nature.”
Bullshit, I say. Just name games, played by some whose entire careers and reputations depend on churning out such meaningless crap.
John,
Not name games. Just the facts.
You’ve been shown hundreds of instances of new species made in the lab and evolved in the wild, over and over and over again, repeatedly, without reality penetrating your brainwashed noogin. Businesses nowadays even patent the new species they make. It’s a big industry.
Here’s just one of the innumerable patents issued just in this century for new species, in this case of a plant (arguably in fact a new genus):
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2004057947A1/en
New species are now so common that species and genus distinctions are an active area of patent law:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2131_02.html
When will you learn to quit spewing lies out of complete, total and utter ignorance?
Truly a hopeless case of willful blindness. You simply can’t handle the truth.
Another promising lab technique is reprogramming the genetic coding of cells to be implanted in (for now) animals and (eventually) humans:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140825100049.htm
Genetic material is not immutable, as you so ignorantly imagine.
The climate simulations started as existing weather simulations but were modified to simulate climate and to execute in finite time. Accordingly they increased the spatial and temporal sampling intervals. In my experience such an increase in the sampling interval can cause instability which dominates the results So the simulated warming could be caused by the numerical instability. Another thing that they must have done is hard code in that an increase in CO2 causes warming. Hard coding in that CO2 causes warming begs the questions and renders the simulations as usless
That’s the problem with computer simulations. At best, they only tell you the implications of your assumptions. They don’t tell you if the assumptions are any good.
As always, a pretty interesting discussion here through integration of knowledgeable, thinking participants’ contributions. If I had a criticism of it, it is that it is nearly all physics and inorganic chemistry buffs attacking the subject of global warming. Even Gavin Schmidt’s ‘evidence’ that the models are all running cold is the same stuff.
There seems to be a big elephant hiding in plain sight because it isn’t ‘hard science’ stuff. I’ve mentioned it a number of times in several posts but my comments didn’t even slow down the main stream stuff. The elephant is the big surprise of an unexpectedly rapid and widespread greening of the planet. Could someone kindly correct me on a few points I’ve tried to make concerning its effect?
1) It is exponential in character: concentric fringes grow inward into arid regions, first fringes are growing more robust, entirely new ones sequester more, reducing the trend in added CO2. Plus added biocarbon to all plants everywhere else. Plus phytoplankton doing the same thing in the oceans (think Cliffs of Dover for magnitudes).
2) It is endothermic (cooling)! I’ve read here a lot of iffy stuff about CO2 causing cooling, but here we are, expansion of life is a refrigerator. A negative feedback caused by a big carbon sink.
3) The plant stomata are reduced, making plants more resistant to drought, preserving moisture, retaining more in the soil.
4) Greening, an unappreciated reason models running cooler and… just maybe.. a partial factor along with natural variation creating the dreaded “PAUSE” with which it coincides! Da daaaa!
Note, our antagonists have noticed this more than we have, jumping all over it with a flurry of papers on how horrible man caused greening is for the planet!
Oops… models running hotter!
I have read the main post and many of the comments, but didn’t catch anybody actually explaining why the models run hot. In other words, the whole point of this exercise.
My own opinion on why the models run hot is simple: They don’t model the Earth, as it actually works; instead they model an idealised Earth which is built like an onion.
Their idealised Earth is built like an onion, whereby heat only transfers from layer to layer by “radiative forcing”. The models ignore the much larger effects of conduction (from the surface to the atmosphere) and convection (within the atmosphere). Any localised heating effect from the “CO2 blanket” will be transferred into the higher atmosphere and goes into cloud formation. The increased cloudiness will prevent further heating at the surface.
My opinion is that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to CO2 increase must therefore be zero for this reason. In other words, the Earth’s temperature is completely unaffected by the CO2 level.
The difficulties of experimentation have led to the exaggerated importance of modelling but observation must always be the reality check.
During the twentieth century we had warming at lower levels of CO2 followed by identical warming at higher levels of CO2. What do these observations prove? Nothing.
Adding a model that demonstrates correlation suddenly justifies the global warming scare. This is getting science back to front.
Now, back in the real world, CO2 continues to increase but the warming has stopped. What does that prove? If anything, it suggests the model is wrong.
Rud,
A question on your examination of point 3.
On 8/3/2010 and 14/10 2014 on WUWT,there were discussions of the logarithmic effect of increasing CO2 on global temperature.” Diminishing effect of increased CO2 etc.”
Since Tyndall and Fourier and others, there has been acknowledgement that the effect of increasing CO2 is negatively logarithmic.
This is famously confirmed in TAR3.See also Wikipedia- “Radiative Forcing”.
However it is claimed that the acknowledgement in AR5 -WG1 (AR4 also?) does not find its way into the Summary for Policymakers.
There now seems to be resistance to the claim of logarithymic effect across the full concentration of CO2 into the future.
At page 8 of the AR5 Summary for Policymakers-
“Multiple lines of evidence indicate a strong, consistent almost linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and projected global temperature change to the year 2100 in both the RCPs and the wider set of mitigation scenarios analysed in WG111 ( Figure SPM 5b).Any given level of warming is associated with a range of cumulative CO2 emissions and therefore e.g. Higher emissions in earlier decades imply lower emissions later.(2.2.5 Table 2.2)”.
Any thoughts?
Well the weather’s changed after an unusually calm dry month and wind turbine owners looking down in the mouth-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/possible-rainfall-up-to-70mm-forecast-for-adelaide-mount-lofty-ranges-by-the-end-of-monday/news-story/e83faa9e6fe4cfed3712d1037dac36e5
but do watch the priceless video where it seems our weathermen are going to use 8 million laptops and climate models to help them better forecast the weather.
How many models are required for F=ma ? When we actually know something there is one model.