How to improve climate modeling and prediction

Review outlines techniques to achieve better climate simulation

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail. Increasingly detailed, physics-based models are improving steadily, but an in-depth understanding of the persisting uncertainties is still lacking. The two main challenges have been to obtain the neccesary amount of detail in the models and to accurately predict how anthropogenic carbon dioxide disturbs the climate’s intrinsic, natural variability. A path to surmounting both of these obstacles are now laid out in a comprehensive review published in Reviews of Modern Physics by Michael Ghil and Valerio Lucarini from the EU Horizon 2020 climate science project TiPES.

– We propose ideas to perform much more effective climate simulations than the traditional approach of relying exclusively on bigger and bigger models allows. And we show how to extract much more information at much higher predictive power from those models. We think it is a valuable, original and much more effective way than a lot of things that are being done, says Valerio Lucarini, professor in mathematics and statistics at the University of Reading, UK and at CEN, the Institute of meteorology, University of Hamburg, Germany.

Such an approach is urgently needed, because nowadays climate models generally fail in performing two important tasks.

First, they cannot reduce the uncertainty in determining the mean global temperature at the surface after a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This number is called equlibrium climate sensitivity and in 1979 it was computed to 1,5-4 degrees Celsius. Since then the uncertainty has grown. Today it is 1,5-6 degrees in spite of decades of improvement to numerical models and huge gains in computational power over the same period.

Second, climate models struggle to predict tipping points, which occur when a subsystem i.e. a sea current, an ice sheet, a landscape, an eco system suddenly and irrevocably shift from one state to another. These kind of events are well documented in historical records and pose a major threat to modern societies. Still, they are not predicted by the high end climate models that the IPCC assessments rely upon.

These difficulties are grounded in the fact that mathematical methodology used in most high resolution climate calculations does not reproduce well deterministically chaotic behavior nor the associated uncertainties in the presence of time-dependent forcing.

Chaotic behavior is intrinsic to the Earth system as very different physical, chemical, geological and biological processes like cloud formation, sedimentation, weathering, ocean currents, wind patterns, moisture, photosynthesis etc. range in timescales from microseconds to million of years. Apart from that, the system is forced mainly by solar radiation which varies naturally over time, but also by antropogenic changes to the atmosphere. Thus, the Earth system is highly complex, deterministically chaotic, stochastically perturbed and never in equilibrium.

– What we are doing is essentially extending deterministic chaos to a much more general mathematical framework, which provides the tools to determine the response of the climate system to all sorts of forcings, deterministic as well as stochastic, explains Michael Ghil, professor at Ecole Normale Supérieure and PSL University in Paris, France and at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

The fundamental ideas are not that new. The theory was developed decades ago, but as a very difficult mathematical theory which calls for cooperation between experts in different fields to be implemented in climate models. Such interdisciplinary approaches involving the climate science community as well as experts in applied mathematics, theoretical physics and dynamical systems theory have been slowly emerging. The authors hope the review paper will accelerate this tendency as it describes the mathematical tools needed for such work.

– We present a self-consistent understanding of climate change and climate variability in a well defined coherent framework. I think that is an important step in solving the problem. Because first of all you have to pose it correctly. So the idea is – if we use the conceptual tools we discuss extensively in our paper, we might hope to help climate science and climate modelling make a leap forward, says Valerio Lucarini.

###

The TiPES project is an EU Horizon 2020 interdisciplinary climate science project on tipping points in the Earth system. TiPES is coordinated and led by The Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

From EurekAlert!

68 thoughts on “How to improve climate modeling and prediction

  1. Note the main objective is to ‘reduce the uncertainty in determining the mean global temperature at the surface after a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.’ This is not the same as making the model match real world observations more accurately. So we will end up with models that are more accurately inaccurate.

    BTW what is the chemical composition of ‘anthropogenic CO2’?

    • As with normal CO2 but with biscuit crumbs!

      One day, some scientist is going to wake up and think, “what can I do today that is different? I know; I’ll imagine that CO2 doesn’t drive climate and see what happens.”

      Assuming he gets past first base we could see some interesting results!

    • They can’t reduce the uncertainty because they will be forced to admit serious errors. What makes their position so preposterous, is even their lower bound for the effect of the next W/m^2 is significantly larger than the effect of the average W/m^2 while their upper bound effect from the next W/m^2 is about 5x times larger than the steady state effect of the first, last and average W/m^2 of actual solar forcing. COE requires that each average W/m^2 of solar input MUST contribute equally to the resulting average surface emissions. THIS IS AN IMMUTABLE REQUIREMENT OF FIRST PRINCIPLES PHYSICS THAT”S ABJECTLY IGNORED BY THE IPCC AND THE SELF SERVING CONSENSUS IT FABRICATED AROUND THE REPORTS IT GENERATES.

      Examining the climate sensitivity in the energy domain makes their erroneous analysis so obvious they should be embarrassed to even suggest such insanity. To see this clearly, the many layers of obfuscation and misdirection between the physics and the presumed sensitivity must to be peeled back.

      We start with the LINEAR physical sensitivity which in the energy domain is expressed as W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of solar input. The requirement of COE that each W/m^2 must have the same influence on the surface emissions is what infers linearity. For Earth, this is about 1.62 W/m^2 of average surface missions per W/m^2 of average forcing.

      The first level of misdirection is to convert a linear relationship into a non linear one by converting the output W/m^2 into a change in temperature using the SB Law resulting in a temperature sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2 of solar forcing. The 1.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 resulting in an ECS of 0.3C per W/m^2 is certainly reasonable where the ‘feedback’ of 0.62 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is less than the forcing, as also required by COE. They convert W/m^2 of output into a temperature because while 1.6C per W/m^2 sounds plausible, the roughly 6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing required for the high end ECS of 1.6C per W/m^2 is obviously impossible because the extra 5 W/m^2 in excess of the forcing required to offset the emissions has no identifiable source. In other words, 1 W/m^2 of forcing would requires 5 W/m^2 of magic positive ‘feedback’ and no amount of pixie dust can create this much energy out of thin air. If each W/m^2 from the Sun resulted in this much feedback, as COE requires, the average surface temperature would be well over 100C.

      A sensitivity of 0.3C per W/m^2 is too small for the IPCC to be relevant and corresponds to only about 1.1C for doubling CO2 since doubling CO2 is presumed to be equivalent to 3.7 W/m^2 more solar energy while keeping the system, i.e. CO2 concentrations, constant. Of course, they don’t actually tell you about this equivalence and instead try to convince the world that the 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent ‘forcing’ from doubling CO2 is new energy equivalent to energy arriving from the Sun and is added to that solar energy, which once more is an obvious violation of COE since the origin of all W/m^2 of feedback power is surface emissions arising from previous solar forcing that have been absorbed by the atmosphere and returned back to the surface at a later time.

      So to hide this, they add another level of indirection by calling the sensitivity the change in surface temperature arising from doubling CO2. They do this so they can plausibly add magic amplification from positive feedback by calling the steady state average effect of the next W/m^2 of 0.3C per W/m^2 the ‘zero feedback’ sensitivity which is then massively amplified by positive feedback, while in truth, this is the final steady state sensitivity after all feedback like effects, positive, negative, known and unknown have had their entire effect on each and every W/m^2 of actual forcing from the Sun. Then they magically apply an unstable amount of positive feedback to amplify this by as much as a factor of 5 to achieve the high end of their presumptive ECS even as the laws of physics precludes their low end from being possible since any amount of feedback in excess of 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing is both unstable and requires the otherwise missing implicit power supply or else it also violates COE.

      In fact, any physical sensitivity in excess of 2 W/m^2 of surface missions per W/m^2 of forcing can be trivially shown as violating COE as it would require the excess W/m^2 replacing the emissions to be magically created out of thin air. This is a direct result of the atmosphere emitting what it absorbs in roughly equal proportions to space contributing to the planets energy balance and back to the surface contributing to the surface energy balance. The absolute upper limit is when the atmosphere absorbs all W/m^2 emitted by the surface. If the surface emits 2 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing and all is absorbed by the atmosphere, 1 W/m^2 of this absorption is returned to the surface to offset the W/m^2 of emissions in excess of the forcing while the other W/m^2 of absorption is emitted into space to offset the forcing. This establishes a hard limit on the maximum possible physical energy domain sensitivity of 2 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing and their lower limit of 1.5C per W/m^2 of forcing already exceeds this upper limit dictated by first principles. They get confused by considering Venus as a proxy for Earth and consider that every W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere is ultimately returned to the surface, which couldn’t be more wrong.

      Any scientist who accepts the IPCC’s insane quantification of the ECS should give back their degree(s) as they obviously didn’t learn first principles thermodynamics. Moreover; any skeptical scientist who doesn’t point out the obvious violations of COE is equally culpable for allowing the horribly broken science coming out of the IPCC to persist. If fact, it’s an embarassment to all skeptical scientists that this obvious and immutable truth hasn’t already resulted in the IPCC’s and UNFCCC’s dissolution.

  2. “We are changing the Earth system ….. ”
    Sorry, I didn’t read any further.
    If it had said “The Earth sytem is changing … ” I might have read more.

    • Oldseadog, you have more self control than I do. I read the entire opening sentence of that paragraph, “We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail.”, before I stopped, and started shaking my head at their nonsensical belief in their modeling abilities.

      Stay safe and healthy, all.
      Bob

      • Oldseadog and Bob Tisdale, you both have more self control than I do, because I read the whole thing. The climate models don’t work and the Earth system is chaotic, but give us more money and we will press on anyway, because, you know, tipping points and doubling and stuff. Jeez!

  3. “Extending deterministic chaos . . . “

    By pretending it doesn’t really exist – that’ll make it go away! ROTFLMAO!

    • Right, Graemethecat –

      How can chaos be deterministic? Asking for a friend…

      Graemethecat,

      – when they say “deterministic chaos” they hope for the “butterfly effect” myth helping them out, chaos theory, Mandelbrot set et.al.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=mandelbrot+set&oq=mandelb&aqs=chrome.

      Sorry, no “deterministic chaos” in the line.
      __________________________________________

      What exists in the real world, in the real Universe is quantum mechanics –

      https://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+mechanics&oq=qua&aqs=chrome.

      and, and as Harald Lesch explains, without quantum mechanics neither we nor the real Universe would be. Real.

      While quantum mechanics is complex – https://www.google.com/search?q=who+understands+quantum+mechanics&oq=who+understands+&aqs=chrome.

      – the need for quantum mechanics to support a real existing Universe is easy told:

      A however “symmetrical” Universe would destroy itself by “matter vs antimatter” – Tata!

      With quantum mechanics

      antimatter FOLLOWS matter,

      so there’s a GROWING asymmetrie between matter / antimatter.

      __________________________________________

      What’s gained is some smear, kind of pollution – our Universe and We.

      Leaves to mention – time is made by this way,

      antimatter FOLLOWS matter,

      And to our convenience we get served the existence of reason and cause.

      Ain’t that good news, man ain’t that news!

    • Needless to say – very chauvinistic of us to name US “matter.”

      But in this special case sure we’re on the winning side. That matters.

  4. The problem may be in the first paragraph of the abstract:
    “. . . The two main challenges have been to obtain the necessary amount of detail in the models and to accurately predict how anthropogenic carbon dioxide disturbs the climate’s intrinsic, natural variability. . .”

    They weigh much too heavily the influence of what carbon dioxide and methane have on the climate system.
    Just sayin…

    – JPP

  5. Here’s a step-by-step method of improving climate models by 1000%:
    Step one: Remove CO2 as a driver.

  6. ‘We are changing the earth system at an unprecedented speed…….”. Please show the changes and compare speeds. I believe the venerated IPCC can help. Oh, sorry, they cannot find any ‘extremes’. So you are really victims of the hysterical groupthink. As scientists you should be ashamed. As ‘climate scientists’ not so much.

  7. Climate model Cargo cultism run amok to ever higher levels.
    These authors are making a claim that finally after decades of failures they have found a new runway layout will finally bring those long absent cargo planes to show up.

  8. The problem of lack of data is often not adressed.
    More sophisticted models and even quantum computers are of little use if you have sparse data and are looking for accuracy to 0.01C.
    Statistical assumptions, such as the data are independent and identically distributed , give confidence limits which are very tight. In practice, the confidence limits are probably better approximated using Chebychev’s theorem, which works for any distribution. (The probability of obtaining a value greater than n standard deviations from the mean is less than 1/n^2 (one over n squared).

    • Walt D. August 1, 2020 at 3:34 am

      The problem of lack of data is often not adressed.
      More sophisticted models and even quantum computers …

      are good hints to help them out of their catch 20/20.

      “Climate is a coupled system of nonlinear functions with chaotic behavior” –

      Give them quantum computers for a start, maybe they produce a non-algorithmic REAL WORLD random Number.

      But in the life of the real existing Universe you won’t pair the the real quantum computer random number with the contemporary running real existing Universe just in time. NOW.

  9. Time for this one again:

    IPCC’s TAR Report Chapter 14
    Page 774 section 14.2.2.2 which among other things, says:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    • However, they use this to their advantage.
      “A butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil and there is a tornado in Texas”.
      However, they turn is around – the tornado in Texas was caused by the butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil (or a minute year on year increase in annual global temperatures).
      So every extreme weather event is attributed to this very small change in temperature, and this results in a Climate Change crisis, which they try to milk at every opportunity.

      • Undeniable, unfalsifiable, an opportunity for manipulation by social “scientists”… activists, politicians, corporations, and their patrons. A double-edged scalpel for anyone not practiced or without leverage to dabble in the arts of human evolution.

  10. “We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail.”

    We are changing our economies at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences, over lies about the weather.

    “Increasingly detailed, physics-based models are improving steadily, but an in-depth understanding of the persisting uncertainties is still lacking. ”

    The main physics is completely lacking, ocean phases act as negative feedbacks to changes in the solar wind. That makes tipping points impossible.

    “The two main challenges have been to obtain the neccesary [sic] amount of detail in the models and to accurately predict how anthropogenic carbon dioxide disturbs the climate’s intrinsic, natural variability.”

    No details can be predicted without predicting the solar forcing of the annual modes and the inverse response of the ocean modes. The consensus of IPCC circulation models predicts increasingly positive NAM conditions with rising CO2 forcing, that already failed from the mid 1990’s. And moreover if they really had the physics right, they should be predicting a colder AMO and Arctic with increasingly positive NAM. Their choice of language is overtly alarmist, rising CO2 forcing may project upon natural variability, but disturb it?
    https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

  11. “blah blah prediction blah blah” “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” Adapted from The Princess Bride, with apologies.

  12. The name reveals the bias. Tharp are looking for tipping points. I wonder what would be learned if as much effort went into self regulation mechanisms like the iris effect of more clouds in a warmer world.

  13. How to improve climate models: first you have to understand natural variation. And to put that in context I looked at a very expensive book on predictability of climate models, and there was only one sentene on the subject and that was to say natural variation does not exist.

    So the basic fallacy of climate science is that natural variation does not exist. Which bizarrely is true – but also false, in the same way as saying atoms don’t move randomly – but they do when considered as a thermodynamic system. And a climate model is a macro model not an individual atom model.

    And I would try to explain more – but well, to be honest, I’ve yet to find a climate scientists who understand basic statistical mechanics, so I’ve yet to find one to experiment on and work out how to make them understand the concepts necessary to understand natural variation.

    • Mike,
      Perhaps you should try reading the paper. Fig. 12 shows the “power spectrum of climate variability
      across timecales … from hours to millions of years”. So they are well aware of natural variability and
      even try to characterise it. I am also willing to bet that most climate scientists understand more about
      statistical mechanics than you do. It is part of any basic undergraduate physics or chemistry degree.

    • Mike, Izaak,

      “So the basic fallacy of climate science is that natural variation does not exist. Which bizarrely is true – but also false, in the same way as saying atoms don’t move randomly – but they do.”

      Electrons do move randomly – the Orbits of electrons around the atomic nucleus are not closed, fixed orbits.

      But sojourn probabilities, probability distributions.

      probabilities, probabilities, more probabilities.

  14. To improve models.
    Step 1 .Consult Pat Frank
    Step2.Consult Bob Tisdale
    Step3Consult Christopher Essex.
    Step 4.Realise you don’t understand what they are talking about.
    Step5.Give up.
    Step6 Examine real data.

    • Why did you omit the most critical step?
      Step 0. Get computers that work trillion times faster.

  15. It’s good to see an article skeptical of climate models at an alarmist site like Eureka. Lucarini and others were questioning the lack of thermodynamics in climate models at least six years ago (BG–Before Greta). For instance,
    “In particular, it is not obvious, as of today, whether it is more efficient to approach the problem of constructing a theory of climate dynamics starting from the framework of hamiltonian mechanics and quasi-equilibrium statistical mechanics or taking the point of view of dissipative chaotic dynamical systems, and of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, and even the authors of this review disagree. The former approach can rely on much more powerful mathematical tools, while the latter is more realistic and epistemologically more correct, because, obviously, the climate is, indeed, a non-equilibrium system.”

    Lucarini et al 2014
    Click to access http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.1190.pdf

    My synopsis https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/climate-thinking-out-of-the-box/

    • You mean an English professor (someone who professes properly written English is racist) and someone with an advanced degree in ethnic transgendered studies with an emphasis in racism are part of the team?

        • Back in 1979, one of the first conversations I had with some students was about the “stratification” of the Pilippine Society by skin tone. (That’s almost worthy of a Social Science “study” title.)
          Basically I was told that in the Philippines the tone of your skin identified your social status. The lighter the higher on the social totem pole. (Cultural appropriation?)
          The cast system in India.
          Using lighter toned actors in TeleNovelas for the “heroes”, darker for the “villains”.
          Light toned, European featured models in Japan.
          I’m guessing that at some point if you categorized African (Southern, not Northern) leaders by skin tone you get a surprising result. That skin tone needs to be by country, not overall.
          Where was I going with this? Oh, right.

          It is not weight, but LIGHTNESS that is feared.

          Hmm, “light” = “right”? Another whole discussion or debate.

        • BlueCat, stratification by Teint makes sense.

          Visitors in https://www.google.com/search?q=Bust+of+Cleopatra+VII+-+Altes+Museum+-+Berlin+-+Germany+2017+…&oq=Bust+of+Cleopatra+VII+-+Altes+Museum+-+Berlin+-+Germany+2017+…&aqs=chrome.

          first and only ask “where’s the Cleopatra, show me to Cleopatra”.

          Only the elites can afford staying home in the Palace, bathed in milk and honey by slaves or Amazon™.

          And leaving the Palace for sovereign political events only accompanied by Fans = slaves serving with glamorous Bird feathers fronds.

  16. Here’s a radical thought: Why don’t we wait until computer models have an established track record of successful predictions before using them in making public policy?

    • You mean use common sense?????
      Aw, c’mon, common sense is only used by practical people like farmers, geologists, seamen and the like. You can’t expect climate modellers to use it, they wouldn’t be able to say anything about what they do.

  17. Excerpted commentary, to wit:

    Chaotic behavior is intrinsic to the Earth system as very different physical, chemical, geological and biological processes like cloud formation, sedimentation, weathering, ocean currents, wind patterns, moisture, photosynthesis etc. range in timescales from microseconds to million of years. Apart from that, the system is forced mainly by solar radiation which varies naturally over time, but also by antropogenic changes to the atmosphere. Thus, the Earth system is highly complex, deterministically chaotic, stochastically perturbed and never in equilibrium.

    And some still think it possible to create a “computer modeling” program to forecast earth’s future climate.

    Well, …… the government pay is great and the entitlements are the best of any employer, ….. so why not believe?

  18. put half this much time, effort, and money into something that really matters…

    ….like better hurricane predictions

    Isaias is less than 10 hours away…..and they’ve had the damn thing jumping all over the place

  19. I am not sure Professor Niels Bohr would have acknowledged CAGW, tippingpoints, etc. as sound science.
    Some years ago I had a meeting with his his grandson. It occurred to me he would have equal difficulties convincing his grandfather about the ethics of virtue and politically driven science these days.

    In a way I understand the position of the woke ignorance in Denmark, towards the Green Climate politics and Agenda21 template. Denmark has most likely improved it’s GDP over the years from development, production and sales of wind turbines, a question Bjørn Lomborg most likely could answer.
    Although their 6.23GW boilerplate installation of wind turbines on average only supply a relative small part of the around 4.5GW need, the Norwegians and the Swedes help the former self contained kingdom by the sea. I assume the costly way Denmark is producing and importing electricity, is compensated by the sales of wind turbines.
    These employment and financial benefits makes it easy to accept even unsound science under these circumstances.

    May I finish by saying that the Niels Bohr Institute is still generally a great place, educating many smart people.

  20. The new improved models will allow them to have greater accuracy and certainty about their belief system as long as no one expects them to validate those models and compare their output to reality.

  21. A chaotic system and processes by virtue of incomplete, insufficient characterization and a computationally unwieldy problem space. A scientific (i.e. limited frame of reference) problem with cause.

  22. These difficulties are grounded notin the fact that mathematical methodology used in most high resolution climate calculations does not reproduce well deterministically chaotic behavior nor the associated uncertainties in the presence of time-dependent forcing.,” but rather that there is no physically valid, monosemous, complete and falsifiable physical theory of the terrestrial climate (my addition and bold).

    And that includes physical theory able to resolve the cloud response to an annual 0.035 W/m^2 change in CO2 forcing.

    One cannot calculate what one does not know. One would think Michael Ghil (BS ME,; PhD Math) and Valerio Lucarini (BSc, PhD, Physics) might understand that.

  23. Curious George and Dark Lord – I stand corrected.(Who am I to suggest that they waste Pat Frank Bob Tisdale and Chris Essex’s time ?)

  24. The Eureka Alert press release says, … tipping points, which occur when a subsystem … suddenly and irrevocably shift [sic] from one state to another.” Other than the formation of the Earth’s solid crust, and the Oxygen Revolution, I can’t think of any other “tipping points” from which the Earth has not recovered.

    Unexamined assumptions are a significant problem in reaching logically correct conclusions.

    • That’s what I was thinking. What atmospheric tipping points?

      There has never been a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth in the past, even when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were many times higher than today, so why should we expect one in the future?

  25. Make it a contest. All models are currently funded. They must all make predictions about the future climate. In 10 years cut funding to zero for the bottom half. Repeat.

    Any new comers who claim to have a great idea get one try with funding.

  26. “We are changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail.”

    This says much and should properly have been amended to: “ARE WE changing the Earth system at a unprecedented speed without knowing the consequences in detail. “?

    The first statement ensures bias in the models as it requires the models to support the statement ; hence affecting any fine tuning or weight given to what might be considered inconvenient science. The second would be considered proper scientific practice.

    The article is a good example of Groupthink not quite sure about what it is thinking.

    Meanwhile back on earth it might be a good idea if the models took a better note of the thermodynamics of water , particularly during phase change where the sensitivity coefficient is a big fat Zero. The trouble here being that this bit of science lies outside the groupthink box and could be inconvenient.

  27. [[First, they cannot reduce the uncertainty in determining the mean global temperature at the surface after a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This number is called equlibrium climate sensitivity and in 1979 it was computed to 1,5-4 degrees Celsius. Since then the uncertainty has grown. Today it is 1,5-6 degrees in spite of decades of improvement to numerical models and huge gains in computational power over the same period.]]

    How many times do I have to repeat it. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on Earth surface temperatures is ZERO, ZED, ZILCHO, NADA, BUMPKIS!

    The Sun’s radiation causes all Earth surface temperatures, which fall within the range of -50C to +50C. The surface cools via conduction, convection, and Planck radiation. CO2’s absorption wavelength of 15 microns only absorbs -80C radiation, completely outside that range. If it can’t absorb it, then it can’t trap it or reradiate it, and if it didn’t it couldn’t melt an ice cube. All of the real heat that’s radiated by the surface goes straight to space, and CO2 can’t stop it.

    Looks like the hardcore Marxists at the U.N. and its IPCC picked the wrong getaway driver.

    If you think my physics is wrong, please tell me. I’d really like to know why cold is hot, and how -80C photons of any power can cause heatwaves, droughts, thunderstorms, etc. The silence is deafening from the gigantic IPCC money machine that keeps perpetuating the CO2 global warming hoax and never offers a refund.

    http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

  28. Modelers still think they can model the world without applying empirical tests and validations. I guess if you shower them with money and make no attempt to audit what they do, then they will ‘believe’ just that. They will believe in whatever gets them most freedom and least accountability.

    We aren’t actually changing the climate at any speed at all. Their climate models continue to change an imaginary model climate.

Comments are closed.