Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Marc Morano – From the “anyone can hit a barn with a scattergun department”; Climate Scientists Andrew Dessler and Daniel Cohan are so confident in their models, they claim there are no plausible mechanisms other than CO2 to explain the modern warming period (as opposed to all the previous natural warming periods).
We’re scientists. We know the climate’s changing. And we know why.
Andrew Dessler, Daniel Cohan
Oct. 22, 2018 Updated: Oct. 22, 2018 3:05 p.m.At this point, just about everyone recognizes that the climate is changing. Even Donald Trump says, “I think something’s happening.” Now, the question being debated is why the climate is changing.
Though there may be a public debate, there’s no debate among scientists like us — decades of research have demonstrated that human activities, primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, are driving the climate change we are experiencing.
To understand why we are so confident, it’s useful to think about climate change as a whodunit. Climate does not change by itself, so scientists are detectives trying to solve the mystery of what has been warming the Earth for the past century.
…
There is an entire list of suspects that scientists have looked at, and they have not identified a single viable one. With one exception — greenhouse gases.
…
The timing of warming, beginning just after the industrial revolution, and the magnitude of the warming, match our theories almost exactly. The figure below shows that the rapid warming of last few decades was accurately predicted in 1975. Such predictions are the gold standard of science — if you can make a non-obvious prediction about some physical system, then it means that you understand something fundamental about it. This prediction shows that we really understand the warming of the climate system.
…
What is the source of all that confidence?
In my opinion, this confidence comes from the fact climate scientists have never faced any real possibility of being proven wrong; not because they are right, but because the bulk of what they do cannot be falsified by any remotely plausible physical observations.
No matter what the physical observation, someone, somewhere has created a model which can be dusted off and fitted to observations. Even an abrupt plunge in global temperatures to near ice age conditions would not invalidate modern climate theory, because the possibility of a future temporary return to ice age conditions is covered by a climate model.
I’ve read the Broecker paper a couple of times now here: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf The predictions in the Houston Chronicle article are directly out of Broeckers Table 1.
If I am reading his table correctly, it is showing the temperature increase caused by the increased CO2 – ie only the CO2 component, not the natural variation. His table does not show the cooling from the 1940’s peak to the 1970’s that he describes in the text as a being a natural cooling cycle overcoming the CO2 increase over that period that is due finish in a few decades.
Never mind a “whodunnit”. Watching “Climate Science” is like the Hindenburg all over again. Oh, the innanity.
From the article: “There is an entire list of suspects that scientists have looked at, and they have not identified a single viable one. With one exception — greenhouse gases.
Editor’s correction: “There is an entire list of suspects that scientists have looked at, and they have not identified a single viable one. With one exception — BIG DOLLAR PAYOFFS from whacko environmental groups, pro-faux-green govts, and pro-faux-green NGO’s.”
I’m not confident of the understanding or intentions of anyone who leads their article with that image as if it speaks for itself.
The answer to your question.
What is the source of all that confidence?
They are paid large amounts (of other peoples money) to be right so they cannot be wrong simples!
Also if anyone points out the flaws in their science there are always the attack dogs in the media to defend them.
James Bull
Andrew Dessler is a parody of a scientist at this point. History wont remember that clown
I’ll add my post to an earlier one.
The chart provides an outstanding visual criticism of the “forecasting” models.
It needs to be updated.
TKS–somebody.
Isn’t Dessler the one who predicted a permanent Texas drought based on climate models? How did that work out? Has he now totally forgotten how wrong he was? How wrong his models have been over and over again?
Are CO2 levels correlated with global temperatures? A tale of two graphs:
http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
Their reasoning is infantile…not scientific.
“Climate does not change by itself, so scientists are detectives trying to solve the mystery of what has been warming the Earth for the past century”
Lindzen’s description of the climate system-“Two turbulent fluids on an unevenly heated rotating sphere with varied surface texture” do not require any outside forcing to be constantly out of equilibrium.
Just a common sense analysis of Dessler’s statement finds it false. To state that it must be CO2 because we cant find anything else is a statement of incompetence not scientific proof.
+100
Fellow Denizens:
The correct explanation of climate change is that it is simply a response to the amount of dimming Sulfur Dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere, of either volcanic or anthropogenic origin.
This premise has been tested and validated multiple times via large volcanic eruptions: Injection of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling, and when they settle out, cleansing the air, warming to pre-eruption levels, or even higher, occurs.
All La Ninas are caused by increased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and all El Ninos are caused by reduced amounts of SO2 aerosols.
This should be the end of the discussion!
For supportive information, I have a post at the pre-print site https://OSF.io/bycj4/
Hogwash.
Prove your assertions!
Atheok:
Read the referencec
ATheoK:
“Prove your assertions”
Hopefully, by now you have read the reference that I provided.
However, the fact that the premise has been tested and validated multiple times is proof in itself that my assertions are correct”
I get
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request. Either the server is overloaded or there is an error in the application.
for your link
BillP:
??When I click on the link, it takes me directly to the pre-print site.
Have you tried again?
BillP:
I revisited your comment of Oct. 26, and see that the fault is mine:
No problem from my computer, with AOL, but the reference for other providers should probably be:
https://www.Osf.io/bycj4j/
BillP:
Sorry, got it wrong again:
It is https://www.OSF.io/bycj4/
“Climate does not change by itself …”
I suppose the sun doesn’t rise by itself either?
Their entire world is delusion, with hubris borne from egotist narcissism. When faced with failure, they refuse to accept their fault in committing errors or using baseless assumptions.
Their confidence comes from never having been held responsible for their parts in the climate scam.
Base their salaries entirely upon accurate predictions matching specifics. Dock their earnings for all missed predictions.
The best result is their eternal embarrassment for their articles, research and constant disaster bleating. May their names be held infamous forever ranking with piltdown and Madoff.
Mankind created climate change during the industrial revolution when CO2 emissions started. They imagined the LIA, MWP, the Roman warming period not to mention getting into and out of Ice ages.
Trust me, I’m a climate scientist.
Psychics, mediums and witch doctors all KNOW they are right, too.
the poster child of “contradiction in itself” –
___________________________________________________
We’re scientists. We know the climate’s changing. And we know why.
Though there may be a public debate, there’s no debate among scientists like us —
___________________________________________________
by Andrew Dessler, Daniel Cohan:
that rare scientist specimen that never debates.
___________________________________________________
Earth’s climate changed drastically and dramatically for 4.55 billion years without any assistance from humans.
It has varied from a planet covered by an ocean of molten rock to water ice, and everything in between.
The CACA hypothesis was born falsified. CO2 took off after 1945, but Earth cooled to such an extent until the PDO flip of 1976-77 that scientists in the ’70s worried about the coming next ice age.
“Such predictions are the gold standard of science — if you can make a non-obvious prediction about some physical system, then it means that you understand something fundamental about it.”
Let’s try some golden standard prediction:
no one but a handful followers of
Andrew Dessler, Daniel Cohan will ever remember their names.
Johann Wundersamer:
With respect to “Gold Standards”, my post of October 25 regarding SO2 aerosols meets that standard, having been tested and validated multiple times, with respect to both volcanic and anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions.
But it seems that only a very few are capable of understanding the concept and its ramifications.
The graph is obvious fake. CIMP5 are prediction starting in 2005. They’re actually impossible to be different from observations before that date.
Simply observations on the graph are from different places (heights) then predictions.
Of course they can. Not saying that they are not fake, but they can be different from observations, even if tuned to match the observations at that time.
Don’t forget we’re living in Adjustocene. The values matched in 2005 were adjusted afterwards, now there are other values, different than the ones they tuned the models to 🙂