“Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming” except when they do…

Guest “double take” by David Middleton

September 2017

21 September 2017

Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming

ZEKE HAUSFATHER

A new study published in the Nature Geosciences journal this week by largely UK-based climate scientists has led to claims in the media that climate models are “wrong” and have significantly overestimated the observed warming of the planet.

Here Carbon Brief shows why such claims are a misrepresentation of the paper’s main results. In reality, the results obtained from the type of model-observation comparisons performed in the paper depend greatly on the dataset and model outputs used by the authors.

Much of the media coverage surrounding the paper, Millar et al, has focused on the idea that climate models are overestimating observed temperatures by around 0.3C, or nearly 33% of the observed warming since the late 1800s.

[…]

Carbon Brief

May 2022

Use of ‘too hot’ climate models exaggerates impacts of global warming
U.N. report authors say researchers should avoid suspect models
4 MAY 2022 11:00 AM BYPAUL VOOSEN

One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.

All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. Although modelmakers are adapting to this reality, researchers who use the model projections to gauge the impacts of climate change have yet to follow suit. That has resulted in a parade of “faster than expected” results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science, some researchers fear.

Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates.

[…]

Science!
5 27 votes
Article Rating
263 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
May 9, 2022 2:06 pm

The Aztecs had some things right.

n.n
Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 2:40 pm

Human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

Reply to  n.n
May 9, 2022 2:53 pm

They also expended disproportionate amounts of their wealth on temples, monuments and alters for the cause. Today, this is done for green infrastructure and for the same cause and rationalization,

Scissor
Reply to  n.n
May 9, 2022 3:18 pm

No, the losers were sacrificed.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 4:04 pm

And eaten.

n.n
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 9, 2022 7:13 pm

Cannibalized. Today, we mock them, then indulge clinical cannibalism, including Mengele mandates.

Duker
Reply to  n.n
May 10, 2022 12:01 am

It’s the virus that cannabilises, 15 Mill excess deaths

Derg
Reply to  Duker
May 10, 2022 4:07 am

How many?

Last edited 1 month ago by Derg
n.n
Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 7:12 pm

50 shades of Africa, Asia, Europe, etc., yes. However, sacrificial rites were held for virginal human lives. NOW, with unprecedented scale, and unprecedented diversity (number, not color).

Reply to  Scissor
May 9, 2022 8:28 pm

The losers were sacrificed for spite, but the virgins they sacrificed during special appeals to the weather gods were bred and indoctrinated to believe that their sacrifice is for a greater cause. The ignorant were just as easily manipulated then as they are now.

Surrr
Reply to  Scissor
May 10, 2022 2:38 am

Yes, human sacrifices.

Tom Halla
May 9, 2022 2:07 pm

So Hausfather is only using the Russian model?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 9, 2022 2:22 pm

Russia Colluuuuuiuusion!

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 9, 2022 2:08 pm

Moving Way from ‘model democracy’.

How about ditching the lot?

n.n
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 9, 2022 2:43 pm

Model democracy/dictatorship is the modern measure of political congruence (“=”).

zemlik
May 9, 2022 2:20 pm

does this mean we can stop panicking ?

Reply to  zemlik
May 11, 2022 8:01 am

Zemlik: How dare you, Sir, suggest we should not panic!
There’s an even worse PANdemIC coming this winter.

Arjan Duiker
May 9, 2022 2:30 pm

And how do they determine which models are more realistic?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Arjan Duiker
May 9, 2022 3:04 pm

Consistency with (valid) paleo reconstructions and fidelity to pre- and post-tuning periods of historical measurement estimates are a couple of ways of pruning. My personal opinion is any model with an atmospheric hot spot should be rejected; with the modeled hot spot the only way to get consistent model vs observed surface comparisons is to fudge model parameters somewhere.

observa
Reply to  Arjan Duiker
May 9, 2022 5:49 pm

The sooner and the doomier the better silly.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  Arjan Duiker
May 9, 2022 6:59 pm

They’re the ones that follow the adjusted temperature record the best.
/s.

David Brewer
Reply to  Arjan Duiker
May 10, 2022 7:43 am

They determine which ones are more realistic based on which outcome is desired by their sponsors.

Arjan Duiker
Reply to  David Brewer
May 10, 2022 8:10 am

Exactly. If they really had a way to determine which model has the ultimate predictability all other models would be obsolete.

Mike H
Reply to  Arjan Duiker
May 11, 2022 6:42 am

The ones which raise the most $$

Danley Wolfe
May 9, 2022 2:34 pm

graphics such as this shirtsleeve-less chap do not add to the story, but just the reverse … looks like a far right looney blog… hmmmm.

M Courtney
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 9, 2022 3:06 pm

It is a (quite) far right loony blog. The politics is way out there, especially by global standards.

The economics is laughably out of date – still stuck in the 80s and baffled by the slowing growth.

But this site allows discussion of the science. That’s considered obscene on most websites. The flaws in climate science (even the method) are so terrible that the only defence is to shut down all discussion and hope the bandwagon keeps rolling on it’s own inertia.

Free speech is good. That means we must put up with the crazy. Because at least we are allowed the science here.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  M Courtney
May 9, 2022 3:48 pm

That image is ‘Larry the cable guy’, a comic posing as a southern backwoods red neck. Look it up. The image is very appropriate here.

Rich Davis
Reply to  M Courtney
May 9, 2022 4:38 pm

Yes free speech is good. And Climastrology is irretrievably flawed. So much common ground. You’re welcome to all your wrong opinions as well.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Rich Davis
May 10, 2022 12:04 am

To paraphrase a famous American, “I may not agree with a word you say, I but defend to the death your right, to be wrong!”. 😉

Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 11, 2022 8:06 am

Mark Twain?

Reply to  Rich Davis
May 11, 2022 8:05 am

Nice one, Rich. Climastrology!

Reply to  M Courtney
May 9, 2022 4:54 pm

I think that very few here are “baffled” by the slowing economic growth. Some of us are mildly amazed at the inertia that has prevented the complete collapse that the neo-Marxists are so busy working to engineer.

philincalifornia
Reply to  writing observer
May 10, 2022 1:59 am

neo Fake-Marxists

Alan the Brit
Reply to  writing observer
May 10, 2022 5:07 am

As a retired engineer, I rather resent the suggestion that Marxists engineer anything!!! What they do is create/invent/manufacture propaganda, lies, deceit, corruption, etc!!!

David Brewer
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 10, 2022 7:45 am

Marxists often “engineer” death, pain, and suffering. As in they create these things where they didn’t exist. It feels appropriate.

Ted
Reply to  M Courtney
May 10, 2022 5:32 pm

“The politics is way out there, especially by global standards.“ – Just like the science, and for the exact same reason.

Doonman
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 9, 2022 3:34 pm

We The People
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now that’s funny right there I don’t care who you are.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
May 9, 2022 4:54 pm

What’s so funny about establishing the greatest nation the Earth has ever seen?

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Middleton
May 9, 2022 7:08 pm

😁

My mother always threatened us boys with tattooing a battleship on our transmissions.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Fraizer
Reply to  David Middleton
May 10, 2022 8:39 am

I see what you did there.

Doonman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 12:03 am

Whats funny is the poster I replied to thinks the preamble is far right looney.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
May 10, 2022 9:11 am

Since that’s not what he said, what makes you suspect he “… thinks the preamble is far right looney?”

Doonman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 10:28 am

Because it is right there in the center of the photo he made the comment about. Duh.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Doonman
May 10, 2022 11:28 am

Since he didn’t mention the Preamble nor Larry’s tattoo, what makes you believe his comment related to the Preamble? Why do some people have to reach to make inane comments?

Disputin
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 2:07 am

You mean China?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Disputin
May 10, 2022 9:13 am

China hegemony would not make it great: That would be just more despotic rule on a larger scale.

DonM
Reply to  Doonman
May 9, 2022 5:03 pm

The types of people (eg Danley Wolfe) that have been sucked into the global warming (etc) scam are the same types of people (eg Danley Wolfe) that make their decisions based on emotion, built in bias, and on how the individual decision makes them feel like a ‘more important’ part of their bubble.

The biases of these people (eg Danley Wolfe) restrict them from seeing bigger picture. They (Danely Wolfe) only look as far as is necessary to hit upon an idea that reinforces their built in bias; after that any conceptual development is immediately arrested.

As such, Danley Wolfe will have no idea what you were trying to convey, and why.

(If Danley Wolfe comes back, Danleys narcissistic tendencies will lead it here … then maybe it will spend a little time trying to figure out your comment).

Last edited 1 month ago by DonM
n.n
Reply to  Doonman
May 9, 2022 7:18 pm

“our Posterity” judged, labeled, excluded, selectively, opportunistically, violently, for convenience under the Twilight fringe of legal precedent and “secular” religious fervor.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  n.n
May 9, 2022 7:50 pm

Please, no more drugs.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  n.n
May 10, 2022 3:37 am

You need to drink less in the mornings.

Rah
Reply to  n.n
May 11, 2022 12:59 pm

The preamble is a statement of intent and purpose for the document that follows. It is however, not law.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Doonman
May 9, 2022 7:37 pm

Doonman, you’re so right. Those conservative Yankee rubes couldn’t get anything
right the first time. If they had had the wisdom & intelligence of their liberal French
peers they would’ve nailed it the first time. Those libs started a revolution that
initially led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people, after which another five
million people were killed because the megalomaniac Napoleon rose to power in
the vacuum left by the anarchy that followed said revolution. When it comes to
death & destruction, no one does it better than liberals. They rock! 😮

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 9, 2022 3:48 pm

… graphics such as this shirtsleeve-less chap do not add to the story, but just the reverse looks like a far right looney blog …

Yes he looks like one of Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ — you know one of those guys that builds things, fixes things, grows and maintains supplies of food fuel and other essentials and generally protects and keeps civilization from collapsing into chaos.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 10, 2022 2:52 am

We would love you to tell us exactly what the Right says which is wrong.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 10, 2022 3:35 am

It’s a meme. It’s a concept called “humour” – crack a dictionary and look it up.

b.nice
Reply to  Danley Wolfe
May 10, 2022 5:28 am

oh dear,, danley didn’t have his soy decaf latte this morning !

May 9, 2022 2:34 pm

Ipcc 2 said that climate was chaotic and thus past performance is no indication of future performance.

Thus the proposed solution is nothing more than cherry picking which ever model fits your already preconceived idead of future climate.

In other words selecting the “best” model doesnt predict the future. It simply document what the model analyst believes the future will be.

Last edited 1 month ago by ferdberple
Reply to  ferdberple
May 9, 2022 3:01 pm

The climate system is chaotically self organized which is far more predictable then simply chaotic. Chaotic self organization has a strange attractor, that for natural systems, guides optimizing the use of available resources, usually energy, along fractal like paths.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  ferdberple
May 9, 2022 3:50 pm

It was AR3 WG1, but your point is still well taken.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 5:10 pm

TAR 14.2.2.2 … 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.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Steve Case
May 9, 2022 5:41 pm

Ok. You are right. But then the IPCC repeated it in AR3. Twice is better than once.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 7:25 pm

Isn’t “TAR” an acronym for “Third Assessment Report?” Hell, I could swear that’s what it means.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 7:50 pm

There’s a FAR- First ” “.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 9, 2022 7:54 pm

FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, AR5 and AR6 IIRC. Each one more politicized than the last.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 12:13 am

Apologies, Dave, I hadn’t read through all the comments!!!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 7:51 pm

Unless you add feathers…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 9, 2022 7:56 pm

I couldn’t find enough rails for the usual suspects.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 12:12 am

Yes! However, that is also why the limp-tards had to change their nomenclature for the future reports, i.e. FAR, SAR, TAR, FAR err………..AR4, AR5,AR6, you see these peeps are so busy trying to propagandise society they as always forget to think it through properly. Makes one wonder what else they have failed to think through, properly or otherwise!!! 😉

Herbert
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2022 2:28 am

Rud,
According to Wikipedia, it appears Recommended Concentration Pathways ( RCPs) first appeared in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5,2013).
In AR 4, they used Emissions Scenarios, Scenario B1,AIT,B2,A1B,A2,and A1F1.Each Scenario reflected the assessment of warming in 2100.
This is significant given the acknowledgement mentioned here that climate is a chaotic system with future predictions being impossible (TAR3).
Now in AR6,(2022) we have RCP 1.9, RCP 2.6, RCP 3.4, RCP 4.5, RCP 7, and RCP 8.5.
This is before we include the new Shared Socioeconomic Pathways(SSPs),however they line up with the RCPs which continue in use.
Nick Stokes has been clear on threads here that these RCPs are just scenarios not predictions(quite true),as are mainstream scientists, but why should we accept that any one of these scenarios is correct?
They seem a scattergun of guesses based on models.
In AR5 for the first time no “best estimate” of ECS was given.
With RCP 1.9 ( and SSP1-1.9)now introduced, could it be that the correct scenario is RCP 1.6,aka SSP1-1.6,in line with a series of low emissions papers?

Rxc
Reply to  Steve Case
May 10, 2022 5:15 am

This is the exact conclusion of the new paper, stated by one of the chief modelers. It is very carefully crafted to say that they only need a few billion more $, to keep producing “projections” that do not describe reality, but no one should depend on any particular model for any use, because the system is too complex to model. That statement is buried in verbiage, and it amounts to an admission that the codes are not fit for purpose. There is no “scientific” basis for any statements that humans are warming the planet. The whole thing has been a con.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rxc
May 10, 2022 9:35 am

Rxc, you seem to be mixing up true science with UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. The science of radiative (misnamed “greenhouse”) gasses is solid. It is the effects on temperature of increasing their concentrations in the atmosphere that is in dispute. The papers I’ve read by atmospheric physicists indicate the effect is de minimis. But that would not fund politicians, Deep State bureaucrats, academics, NGOs nor crony capitalists with OPM. Fearmongering is very profitable.

Rxc
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 11, 2022 5:25 am

I am not saying that the scientific measurements of radiative properties of gasses are wrong. It is only one phenomenon among very many that interact to generate what we call climate. The CAGW modelers have to pick and choose and simplify the mathematical representations of all of these phenomena to make a prediction.

They do not know what all the various phenomena are, and they know only a very few of them pretty well. Many of them, like clouds, are known to be very important, but are inherently unpredictable. Zeke calls out clouds, specifically, in the paper as a difficult phenomenon to model.

As a result, he is admitting, in a way that does not jeopardize his funding, that the climate models cannot make any predictions that can be relied on for making any public policy decisions.

This is stunning. He is pulling the rug out from under all of the propaganda we are currently bombarded with. Maybe he realizes that it is all reaching a real tipping point, and he is trying to protect himself against the inevitable, when it becomes obvious to everyone.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rxc
Jim Gorman
Reply to  Rxc
May 11, 2022 8:21 am

If you can’t model clouds correctly you are looking for a light in the dark when there isn’t one.

Ever wonder why you haven’t seen model temperature studies of cloud sensitivity, i.e., various kinds of clouds at various altitudes and various coverage factors? Maybe they don’t get the answers they want?

n.n
Reply to  ferdberple
May 9, 2022 7:20 pm

Chaotic as in non-linear, incompletely, and, in fact, insufficiently characterized, and unwieldy, thus scientific philosophy and theory observed and practiced in the near-domain.

CD in Wisconsin
May 9, 2022 2:38 pm

This sort of reminds me of the story of someone making 49 wrong predictions in a row. Then the person makes a 50th prediction which turns out to be true and he says, “See, I told ya!”

Wade
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 9, 2022 3:47 pm

Except these models have never been right and will never be right, not even accidentally.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Wade
May 9, 2022 10:19 pm

Mainly because they are modeling what they would like to happen.

MGC
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 9, 2022 8:11 pm

“49 wrong predictions in a row” sounds an awful lot like the so-called “skeptical” (i.e. denier) track record.

The deniers said “it hasn’t warmed in 18 years” .. but it has
The deniers said “Arctic ice is recovering” … but it isn’t
The deniers said “Antarctic ice is increasing” … but it isn’t
The deniers said “there is no scientific consensus on global warming” … but there is
The deniers said “the satellite data are the best we have and show no warming” …. but they do
The deniers say “sea level is not increasing” … but it is
The deniers say “the warming is natural” … but it isn’t
The deniers say “humans activity can’t affect the climate” …. but it is
The deniers say “there is nothing we can do about it anyway” …. but there is

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 8:30 pm

Has warmed for last 9 years.. Was warmer fro nearly all of the last 10,000 years

Arctic sea ice is above all the last 8 years, also above 2004, 2006, 2007

Antarctic has been cooling for last40-50 years, Antarctic sea ice was increasing until the 2015 El Nino (no human cause)

Consensus is nothing to do with science.

Satellite data shows no warming for 9 years, also shows warming has come only at El Ninos events.. El Nino events are not human caused

Sea levels have been increasing since way before CO2 rise, There is no possible scientific mechanism for CO2 to cause SLR. There is no acceleration in SLR at world tide gauges.

Warming is natural.. always has been in the past and you have absolutely no evidence that humans have caused any of the slight but very beneficial warming since the LIA (coldest period in 10,000 years.)

There is no evidence that human CO2 causes warming.

Destorying current electricity supply systems will have a hugely detrimental effect on basically everything, world wide. That is the far-left aim.

So, basically everything you said is either a manifest LIE , or based on a twisted and warped lack of basic understanding.. ie just religious mantra.

Antarctic extent_anom1.jpg
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 9, 2022 9:11 pm

Sadly, b.nice blindly parrots so many long proven false denier propaganda talking points:

“Arctic sea ice is above all the last 8 years”

b.nice wants to pretend (i.e. misrepresent so as to LIE) that the trend shown in the graph below somehow represents arctic sea ice “recovery”, LOL.

“Consensus is nothing to do with science”

A typical tired old laughably false denier talking point lie. Deniers pretend that consensus in science is not important because the consensus doesn’t support their fairy tale fantasy world narrative.

“There is no possible scientific mechanism for CO2 to cause SLR.”

Ridiculously lying poppycock. CO2 as a cause of temperature increase has been known scientific fact since the 19th century. Sea water expands with temperature increase and sea level rises. Ice melts with temperature increase, flows into the oceans and sea level rises. Duh.

“There is no acceleration in SLR at world tide gauges.”

Another lying denier falsehood. IPCC AR6: “robust acceleration (high confidence) of global mean sea level rise over the 20th century”

“There is no evidence that human CO2 causes warming”

Sadly, the lying track record with this one just goes on and on. Warming from CO2 in the air has been known scientific fact since the 19th century. Human emissions causing CO2 increase is also proven scientific fact. And changes in the earth infrared spectrum due to those emissions have actually been measured. Even a grade school child could put these scientific facts together and realize that b.nice is lying.

“So, basically everything you (b.nice) said is either a manifest LIE, or is based on a twisted and warped lack of basic understanding.. i.e. just religious denier mantra.”

arctic sea ice 2022.JPG
Chris Hanley
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 9:50 pm

‘Cherry picking’ the period of satellite observations proves nothing, longer-term surface observations suggest there is nothing happening in the Arctic that hasn’t happened before, probably related to the ~60 year AMO cycle.

b.nice
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 10, 2022 2:57 am

Arctic sea ice, only fractionally down from largest extent in 10,000 years.

Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-now.jpg
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 10:20 pm

Still LYING about everything, hey !

The only thing you can do.

Absolutely zero real science to back up your manic zealotry.

Trying to pretend that the data doesn’t show Arctic sea ice increasing over the last 8-10 years, and FAR ABOVE what it has been for nearly ALL the last 10,000 years. Is it just ignorance?

Since you think consensus is science, I can only assume you are totally clueless about what science actually is.

Again, you could produce real scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming.. or just keep ranting… because you sure haven’t produced any yet. You are incapable of that.

The satellite tide data is highly adjusted at each new satellite. It is not real..

I defy you to find a single tide gauge that shows any SLR acceleration.. you are yet again using faked data, as is the AGW way.

Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been a fact.. barely even a conjecture.. it is totally unproven. Yes it is a radiatively active gas.. everyone knows that.. but that is the only thing proven.

Again it comes down to comprehending actual science, and you make it more and more obvious that you are totally clueless, and just basing your rantings on anti-science mantra.

You have NO SCIENCE, and you have no idea what science actually is.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 8:20 am

re: “The satellite tide data is highly adjusted at each new satellite. It is not real.”

Thanks for demonstrating your woeful ignorance yet again.

The satellite data has been continuously calibrated from day one via matching to surface tidal gauges. The data is most certainly real. You haven’t the first clue what you are talking about.

Not that this is any surprise. WUWT constantly spoon feeds you nonsense, distortions, misrepresentation, and outright lies. Heck, Willis E has even publicly admitted that WUWT publishes content that the WUWT propaganda puppet masters know is false, LOL! And yet you naive anti-science dupes swallow it all hook, line and sinker. What a joke!

“I defy you to find a single tide gauge that shows any SLR acceleration”

Many, perhaps even most tidal gauge records are now showing an increasing rise rate over time. For example:

NY City Battery Sea Level Rise Rate by Century:

19th century: 2.4 mm/yr
20th century: 3.0 mm/yr
21st century: 5.3 mm/yr

See graph of another example below.

Brest France SLR.JPG
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:13 pm

Ignorant fool.

That is subsidence

Try again.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:00 pm

Typical zero evidence “response” from the WUWT denier fool. No evidence whatever to support his (false) claim. Just childish “because I say so” blabber.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 10:26 pm

“There is no possible scientific mechanism for CO2 to cause SLR.” “

CO2 doesn’t cause warming..

You will continue to be totally incapable of producing any real scientific evidence that it does.

But it will be hilarious watching you ranting and carrying on. 🙂

Laughter is good medicine, and you are providing it in shovel-loads, along with all you other BS.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 8:08 am

re: “CO2 doesn’t cause warming.”

OMG LOL !! Even your high priest propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, admits that CO2 warming is more or less scientific fact.

Laughter is good medicine, and you, b.nice, are providing it in shovel-loads !!”

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:14 pm

Just rant.. avoid any science or evidence…,.. that’s the way.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:03 pm

Yep, b.nice, just ignorantly rant and avoid the fact that even your propaganda puppet master Anthony Watts himself refutes your laughably lying nonsense, LOL.

So typical. So infantile. So deliberately dumb.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:31 pm

A petty parrot, avoiding any evidence whatsoever

Always the way with AGW junkies..

Do you inject Klimate Koolaid morning, noon and night.. or just snort it?

That would explain your total manic delusional state.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:12 pm

Sorry that you are still so ignorant, b.nice, that you are unable to realize that even your propaganda puppet master himself, Anthony Watts, is totally against you. What you are blindly babbling here is nothing but brain dead, boneheaded, delusional denier buffoonery.

But what else is new. “Brain dead, boneheaded, delusional denier buffoonery” is par for the course for you, LOL.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 12:25 am

Why do you quote political documents created by political agencies as opposed to scientific data? ALL UNIPCC reports are political publications designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, the Climate-gate scandal demonstrated that conclusively!!!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 10, 2022 12:29 am

PS. Last 2 million years or so, Ice-Ages have lasted between 90,000 & 130,000 years, with the modestly warm periods in between called Inter-Glacials lasting between 10,000 & 20,000 years, our current Holocene Inter-Glacial started around 11,500 years ago, so, as I have said before, in theory we’re living on borrowed time!!! Enjoy the warmth while it lasts!!!

MGC
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 11, 2022 7:58 am

“in theory we’re living on borrowed time”

The CO2 we’ve already put into the air will keep any new glacial ice age period at bay for centuries if not millennia.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:15 pm

It won’t actually have any effect whatsoever except on plant growth..

But keep your fantasy.. ignore reality.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:15 pm

b.stupid once again forgets that even his propaganda puppet master, Anthony Watts himself, says otherwise, LOL.

That’s a super special kind of dumb, LOL!

ATheoK
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 7:00 am

“MGC

Reply to Alan the Brit  May 11, 2022 7:58 am

“in theory we’re living on borrowed time”

The CO2 we’ve already put into the air will keep any new glacial ice age period at bay for centuries if not millennia.”

Utter nonsense.

CO₂’s lifetime in the atmosphere is a few years. Not centuries or even decades.

Mankind’s 0.04 (4%) contribution to Atmospheric CO₂ is quickly absorbed back into Earth’s CO₂ cycle.

The is no mechanism for any possible CO₂ warming to continue past a few years, much less than a decade.

We are in a far colder period of the Holocene with temperatures declining, leading Earth back into glaciation.

Mankind should be grateful for every shred of warmth. Whether contributed by the sun, water vapor or the miniscule CO₂ effect.

MGC
Reply to  ATheoK
May 12, 2022 8:29 am

ATheoK says:

“CO₂’s lifetime in the atmosphere is a few years. Mankind’s 0.04 (4%) contribution to Atmospheric CO₂ is quickly absorbed back into Earth’s CO₂ cycle.”

Another blind parroting of this moronic denier idiocy, that intentionally and dishonestly confuses the lifetime of a single CO2 molecule with the lifetime of the total CO2 content increase. They are not at all the same.

Less than half of annual human CO2 emissions go back into the biosphere every year. Only enough to decrease CO2 content by about 1.5 ppm per year.

Human emissions have increased CO2 in the air by almost 140 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. At 1.5 ppm decrease per year if we stopped all emissions right now, it would take 93 years to take it all back out at that rate. But the rate slows down as the CO2 level decreases. So it would take even longer.

ATheoK also bleats: “There is no mechanism for any possible CO₂ warming to continue past a few years, much less than a decade.”

The simple grade school arithmetic just shown already proved this ignorant twaddle to be laughably wrong. Not to mention that there will also be more continued warming because of less reflective white ice that has been melted away.

Once again, deliberately dumb deniers like ATheoK just blindly parrot utterly ludicrous anti-science nonsense that’s been vomited into their empty skulls by their lying propaganda puppet masters.

Shame on such brain dead zombie drone cultists.

MGC
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 11, 2022 8:06 am

Ah, other blind parroting of that tired old “political documents” denier excuse.

The IPCC statement about sea level rise is, of course, based upon the latest research evidence published in the scientific literature. The research evidence that WUWT deniers childishly make fun of and ignorantly try to pretend away.

“designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, the Climate-gate scandal demonstrated that”

Sigh. Another sorry spew of willful ignorance. Since the so-called “climategate scandal”, numerous other researchers, from various nations all over the world, from a variety of scientific disciplines, using a wide variety of different methods, have only further corroborated the results of those so-called “climategate conspirators”.

Sorry, bub, but no, it was no “pre-determined conclusion”. It was what the data actually demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:16 pm

More mindless ranting.. no science.

And IPCC political propaganda.. has you sucked in, that’s for sure.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:17 pm

Another typical head-in-the-sand “Nuh Uh because I say so” from the willfully ignorant WUWT peanut gallery.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:29 pm

They got sprung cooking the books.. yet they keep doing it.
The only way they can keep gullible morons like you fed.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:21 pm

The mindless ignorance of the WUWT cultist sadly continues.

How can any rational person claim that they “cooked the books” when numerous other researchers, from many different nations and many different scientific disciplines, using a wide variety of different techniques, have all (yes ALL) found essentially the same results?

Talk about your “gullible morons”, LOL !!!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 5:37 am

Maybe because they use the same data and just manipulate it a little differently – while still winding up with about the same results?

MGC
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 12, 2022 8:31 am

Another ignorant denier cultist has spoken.

Sorry, wrong, Gormanian fool. Not just “the same data”.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:34 pm

Even the most ignorant and blind mindless moron can see the acceleration applied at each change in sea level satellite.

Close your eyes and ears, keep that mind of yours soaked in AGW mantra.. Ignore reality.

That way you will “feel safe”

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:26 pm

re: “the ‘applied’ acceleration”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

More laughably lying nonsense from the brainwashed buffoon..

It is not an “applied” acceleration, willfully ignorant fool. It is the actually measured acceleration, from satellites that are calibrated by matching their measurements against surface tidal gauges.

“Close your eyes and ears, keep that mind of yours soaked in WUWT lying denier mantra.. Ignore reality.”

MGC
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 11, 2022 8:31 am

Ah, the tired old “political documents” denier excuse again.

The IPCC statement about sea level rise, is, of course, based on the latest research evidence published in the scientific literature. Evidence that WUWT deniers childishly make fun of and try to pretend away.

re: “designed to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, the Climate-gate scandal demonstrated that”

Oh please. Since the so-called “climategate scandal”, numerous researchers from all over the world, from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, using a wide variety of different techniques, have only further corroborated the results of the so-called “climategate conspirators”.

Its not a “predetermined conclusion”. Its what the data showed, and continues to show.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 2:54 am

Arctic sea ice 8th May, 1989 v 2022

Arctic sea ice 1989-2022.png
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 3:00 am

You do know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you.!!

If you think it has, show us where.

Or just continue to rant.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 7:55 am

And the WUWT denier lies just keep on coming …

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006

Chen et al Environmental Science 2007

“satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.”

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:19 pm

Wrong again. Absorption in CO2 lines is transferred to much wider atmospheric window.

Your ignorance is showing at every comment.

radiative change 2.jpg
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:30 pm

What a ridiculous joke.

b.stupid ignorantly imagines that the babble he uttered “transferred to a much wider atmospheric window”: and the irrelevant graph that he posted actually “mean something”. But of course they don’t. They’re nothing but pseudo-science jibber jabber.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:36 pm

“You do know that warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you.!!”

Still waiting …

do you intend to remain empty and ignorant all your life ?

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:34 pm

One: Lie.

Two: Ignore evidence that refutes your lies.

Three: Babble the same stupid lies all over again.

Four: Return to Step One.

Five: Repeat Ad Infinitum.

That’s the b.stupid denier mantra.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:33 pm

You have stated the steps that you operate by.

Why bother, its been obvious all along. !

You are certainly incapable of sane, rational scientific discussion.

ATheoK
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 7:06 am

“satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.”

appearance of changes”, is not proof of warming!

Appearance means they don’t know, so they assume!

Neither does this little paragraph measure CO₂’s atmospheric warming.

MGC
Reply to  ATheoK
May 12, 2022 8:37 am

Thanks for once again demonstrating your woeful and no doubt intentional ignorance, ATheoK.

The word “appearance” in this context means having shown up so as to be observable. As in “the evening star appeared in the western sky shortly after sunset”.

According to your woefully stupid twaddle, the existence of the evening star (i.e. the planet Venus) is thus merely an “assumption”, and its appearance in the sky is “not” proof of its existence.

So moronically idiotic.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 3:03 am

Hadcrut4 shows no warming in the Arctic since the 1930s,40s.

Arctic-Surface-Temps-Since-1920.jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  b.nice
May 10, 2022 11:39 am

Live by Arctic Amplification, die by Arctic Amplification.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 3:06 am

Apart from the 2015 El Nino effect, (all gone now) there has been no Arctic warming this century.

UAH_Nopol 2022.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 7:53 am

Don’t know what piece of garbage “data” this is, or where you got it, but there’s no other temperature dataset that shows any such thing. Below is just one example.

Sorry, bub, but reality is this: the Arctic is the portion of the globe that is warming the fastest.

RSS Arctic Temps.JPG
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:24 pm

You certainly know how to come up with garbage data.

No source.. just fudged numbers from urban expansion

Please show us where this data was measured. Bet you can’t.

Reality is that NH is no warmer now than in the 1940s

arctic_temp.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:35 pm

And the ludicrous lies sadly continue. So disgraceful.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:34 pm

Data = lies in MGC land.

Failed yet again , you poor little monkey.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:40 am

“just fudged numbers from urban expansion”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!

Yeah right, blind buffoon, it is “urban expansion” up in the middle of the desolate Arctic Ocean that is causing all the warming up there.

My God, don’t you ever get tired of playing such a totally ignorant MORON?

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:27 pm

You probably weren’t even aware that the Arctic COOLED from 1980 – 1995, and that only NON-human forced El Ninos provided any warming

Your mantra based ignorance is hilarious.

UAH nopol 1980-1995.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:37 pm

And the laughably ludicrous b.stupid denier lies sadly continue. What lying denier idiocy is this now?

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:35 pm

Anyone can download the data and prove me correct.

You are so incompetent, you probably wouldn’t even know where to start.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:44 am

Already did download the data and posted it here, proving that whatever nonsense you posted is nothing but gibberish.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:38 pm

RSS V4.. “adjusted” using climate models.. to match climate models

You HAVE TO BE JOKING !!

How can any sane rational scientific person use that load of rubbish.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:41 pm

re: “How can any sane rational scientific person use that (RSS)”

You denier fools used RSS all the time, LOL, until their data didn’t agree with your predetermined denier fairy tales, that is. So then you threw them under the bus.

So infantile
So obviously disingenuous.
So intentionally ignorant.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:32 pm

Still no science from MGC..

Just the yapping of a brain-numbed chihuahua.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:48 am

Science already posted. Still nothing but close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, refuse to accept real science intentional ignorance from b.stupid.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:57 pm

While were at RSSV4 model adjusted non-data.

Did you know that it shows no warming from 1980 – 1997

And no warming from 2000 – 2015.

So only El Nino (NOT CO2 caused) warming.

You fail yet again.!!

RSS V4 before El Nino.png
Last edited 1 month ago by b.nice
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:43 pm

OMG LOL !! Why do you show the temperature trend JUST BEFORE A HUGE WARMING EPISODE?

Talk about disgracefully dishonest bias ! What a putrid moron.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:30 pm

OK, so you are clueless about El Nino events..

Your utter cluelessmess has been blatantly obvious from the start.

Last edited 1 month ago by b.nice
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 1:57 pm

and between El Ninos

RSS V4 bewteen El Ninos.png
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:48 pm

The ignorance is SO STRONG with this one. He pretends to himself (i.e. LIES) that there is “no” human component here.

But of course the moron is just intentionally fooling himself. Those El Nino episodes were releasing years and years of heat accumulated because of HUMAN CO2 emissions.

But of course this brain dead buffoon is far too brainwashed by his propaganda puppet masters to actually understand any of this. He sadly remains intentionally ignorant and deliberately dumb.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:29 pm

You have yet to produce one single bit of evidence

All you have is your mindless bluster.

Science.. not regurgitated mantra. Do you have any?

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:50 am

All you have is blind parroting of long refuted denier lies that have been vomited into your empty skull by your propaganda puppet masters, who even ADMIT that they LIE to you, LOL!

So totally clueless.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:37 pm

CO2 cannot heat oceans… except in fantasy anti-physics land

Don’t you know anything about radiation physics?

You poor nil-educated sap.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:55 am

re: “CO2 cannot heat oceans”

More utterly moronic idiocy from the delusional denier hand puppet.

CO2 warms the air.
Air warms the oceans.
DUH.

Derg
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 4:12 am

Are you a Holocaust denier?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 9:25 pm

The deniers said “it hasn’t warmed in 18 years” .. but it has

At the time this was said it was true. If it weren’t true, then why would Trenberth, a math
PhD, make a full-fledged fool of himself by claiming that the missing heat that was
causing the Pause was hiding in the deep ocean- a lame dog-ate-my-homework excuse?
It was quite entertaining watching more than 75 dumb bass warmistas fall all over
themselves chiming in with other silly, lame excuses! They made the Three Stooges look
like geniuses! Bwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhh! 😮 😮 😮

b.nice
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 9, 2022 10:23 pm

There was actually no warming from 1980-1997, and no warming from 2000-2015.

The only warming in the satellite data comes at NON-HUMAN-CAUSED El Nino events

CO2 has absolutely zero impact on these, they are totally natural.

Therefore, all the warming in the satellite era is totally natural.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:52 pm

Yet another laughably moronic “Nuh Uh because I SAY SO” babble of utterly brain dead denier delusions.

Even b.stupid’s propaganda puppet master, Antony Watts himself, says b.stupid is just “being stupid”, LOL

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:28 pm

Another 10 year old style tantrum,

hilarious. 🙂

Try some actual science, bozo

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:57 am

Try checking what your propaganda puppet master Anthony Watts says on the topic of CO2 warming. You’re so stupid you don’t know that even he refutes your laughable nonsense.

MGC
Reply to  Old Man Winter
May 11, 2022 7:42 am

It was quite entertaining watching countless “dumb bass” deniers eat crow once the so-called “pause” ended.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 2:00 pm

Its hilarious to watch totally ignorant AGW zealots trying to produce scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

There problem is, that CO2 warming exists ONLY in models.

Not in reality.

Keep proving me correct.. you are doing a great job of producing SFA at the moment.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:56 pm

The b.stupid denier moron is so deliberately dumb that he doesn’t even realize that his clueless clima’tard claims have already been refuted … even by his propaganda puppet master Anthony Watts himself, LOL.

What an imbecile !!!

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:27 pm

So.. still ABSOLUTELY ZERO SCIENCE.

Nothing unusual there.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 8:59 am

Thanks for stating that even Anthony Watts, who also refutes your lying nonsense, produces “absolutely zero science”, LOL.

ATheoK
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 7:13 am

It was quite entertaining watching countless “dumb bass” deniers eat crow”

There it is!
mgc jumps the shark with another baseless unprovable lie.
Must be tough, being a pathological liar…

MGC
Reply to  ATheoK
May 12, 2022 9:16 am

Wow, talk about living in a delusional dreamworld of denial.
The so-called “pause” having ended decisively in 2016 is historical fact denier bozo.

aussiecol
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 10:21 pm

”The deniers say “sea level is not increasing” … but it is”

Now I know no one can take a troll like you seriously. No one here has ever ‘denied’ sea levels are not increasing. They always have been since the little ice age, just more evidence that it was global, but you ‘deny’ that existed too! So you know, you can’t have it both ways

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 9, 2022 11:55 pm

No “deniers” here.

Tell us what we “deny” that you have real scientific evidence for.

We look at science and data.

Maybe once you get more than an Al Gore style “climate 101” education, you also can join in.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 7:41 am

b.nice, your comments here laughably demonstrate that you intentionally hide from science and data.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 2:09 pm

So.. nothing you can point to..

You have absolutely zero science to offer.

But we knew that would be the case.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 9:58 pm

Says the “Nuh Uh because I say so” denier dunderhead.

So ironically disgraceful.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:26 pm

And you continue to produce NOTHING.

…. because that is all you have

No wonder you have to spend your time with mindless bluster. !

Last edited 1 month ago by b.nice
MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 9:18 am

“spend your time with mindless bluster”

Time with your mindless bluster, you mean, LOL.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 12:20 am

FYI, there is no such thing as a scientific consensus, consensus is the stuff of politics, whereas science is science, based on observation & experimental facts!!! On top of which, do you seriously believe that the big shiny ball in the sky that is a giant fusion reactor turning billions of tons of Hydrogen into Helium every second, & possesses in excess of 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, from which we get all our natural light & heat, has no effect whatsoever upon the Earth systems including its climate? Naive or what?

MGC
Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 11, 2022 7:40 am

re: “there is no such thing as a scientific consensus”

Utter lunacy.

Any new scientific claim, made by anyone, is checked for accuracy and is then replicated to make sure it is correct. In other words, a scientific consensus develops that, yes, it is correct.

If scientific consensus did not exist, then we would be subject to accepting any old crackpot theory that comes down the pike. Like, say, cold fusion.

re: “that big shiny ball .. blah blah blah blah blah”

Thanks for demonstrating that you are unaware that solar activity has been flat to declining during the warming trend of the past several decades. Sorry, but that tired old “its the sun” denier excuse has long been shown to be false.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 2:10 pm

Poor little scientifically ignorant muppet.

Consensus is never part of any real science.

But as you have never been anywhere near any real science, you wouldn’t know that.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 10:00 pm

Yet another wildly moronic “Nuh Uh because I say so” spew of pure denier idiocy from b.stupid.

John Larson
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 3:49 pm

Any new scientific claim, made by anyone, is checked for accuracy and is then replicated to make sure it is correct. In other words, a scientific consensus develops that, yes, it is correct.”

It seems to me, nobody special, that such a procedure works rather well for simple things, like how fast objects of mass fall in a vacuum (through controllable experimentation). But when numerous untestable things are involved, like how much surface warming is caused by additional CO2 in the actual atmosphere above that surface, for example, it’s just consensus Siants (sounds like science ; )

“We” can’t measure temps at a point on the surface of the planet, and then distribute/introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere above that surface, while everything else remains the same, and then repeat that at will to determine the “accuracy”; Can we?

(Could you show us how that was done if your answer is yes?)

MGC
Reply to  John Larson
May 11, 2022 10:14 pm

Larson now wants to pretend that some of the most pertinent climate change results are “untestable things”. But they’re really not.

Larson also wants to pretend that the “only” way to test CO2 warming is to “measure temps at a point on the surface of the planet, and then distribute/introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere above that surface, while everything else remains the same, and then repeat”

That would be a fairly ideal way, yes. But “everything else.remains the same” is pretty difficult to arrange.

But of course, this is not the only way.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Pretend. Pretend. Pretend.

Make childishly false “conclusions” based on your pretending..

Then make believe that you “won” the argument.

That’s the denier way!

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:25 pm

More mindless anti-science ranting..yawn !!.

A sadempty sac

Poor MGC

John Larson
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 1:57 am

“Larson now wants to pretend that some of the most pertinent climate change results are “untestable things”. But they’re really not.”

I’m not pretending, sir. Could you list a few of those “most pertinent “climate change results”? (and tell me what exactly a “climate change result” is?)

Last edited 1 month ago by John Larson
MGC
Reply to  John Larson
May 12, 2022 9:22 am

You’re most certainly pretending, Larson. You put up a fake strawman “argument” (“bu bu bu bu there’s been no controlled experiment done”) as your “objection”. But there are lots of things we know about the natural world that are not the result of “controlled experiments”. Like, evolution, for example.

ATheoK
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 7:16 am

Pathological liar.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  John Larson
May 12, 2022 6:11 am

Actually, if you look at a CO2 concentration map, you can see areas with higher density. It should be possible to discern from surface temperatures within and outside those areas to get a differential.

Do you wonder why no one has done that? What do you think it might show?

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 12, 2022 9:26 am

Gorman once again sadly demonstrates that he has no proper understanding of the greenhouse effect, or science, or critical thinking.

Transfer of heat from one location to another via convection (i.e. wind) makes such an endeavor a total waste of time. That’s why nobody’s done it. Duh.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
May 12, 2022 5:21 am

Never learned much about science, did you?

Unless it can be *proven* mathematically, a hypothesis remains a theory, not a law. Only scientific laws have a consensus, like Gauss’s Law.

Not even Einstein’s relativity is a law. It is a representation of a body of knowledge. Different experiments trying to prove it give different results, many times agreeing with the theory but sometimes not. Thus it remains a theory and does not have a consensus.

CAGW is a theory and will remain a theory far, far into the future. So much is unknown about our biosphere and how it operates that literally nothing can be proven mathematically so climate change will never become a scientific law, it will remain nothing but a theory long after all of us alive today are gone.

In fact, I would not even classify CAGW as a theory. It is a hypothesis and an incomplete one at that. It is certainly not holistic at all. The uncertainties in the climate models are large enough to totally swamp the differences the models attempt to identify. The models are only useful to those willing to ignore the innate uncertainties of the current temperature conglomerates.

MGC
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 12, 2022 9:30 am

More handwaving word games and utterly delusional ignorance from the WUWT cultist.

“Different experiments trying to prove it (relativity) give different results”

Pure lying nonsense. As usual. Experiments consistently support Einsteinian Relativity. “give different results” is nonsense.

“Thus it (relativity) remains a theory and does not have a consensus.”

More utterly delusional, totally lying nonsense. There’s a huge international consensus. Wow, you really are way, way, WAY out there in anti-science La La Land, aren’t you, Gormanian fool.

Not to mention that nothing is ever “proven” in science.

michel
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 12:26 am

You are missing the point, with this and your other posts. The point is in your last line.

There is nothing that has been proposed so far that is going to reduce global emissions to the level the activists claim is necessary, in the timeframe they claim is necessary. They are currently 37 billion tons and rising, and most activists claim its necessary to get them below 15 billion by sometime like 2040. It is not going to happen.

It really doesn’t matter whether ice is increasing and all the other things you claim people are in denial about. Whether it is or not, emissions are going to carry on rising.

What matters is that we in the West cannot take our grids to wind and solar because of intermittency. We cannot take our homes to heat pumps and our cars to EVs because when we go to wind and solar, there will not be enough electricity to power them. Not to mention there are not enough installers and not enough manufacturing capacity and people don’t have enough money to pay the premium for the cars.

So it is not going to happen in the West. Our emissions are not going to fall much if at all. Any political party which gets on the way to the steps needed to reduce emissions substantially, basically bring about a huge shrinkage in the economy, will get thrown out at the next election.

But even if it did happen, no-one else in the world is even trying to get to Net Zero. In fact, they are installing coal fired generation as fast as they can. Look at the Chinese and India coal figures if you don’t believe me.

It really does not matter how much the planet is warming, and whether its warming due to CO2 emissions. The plain fact is that the West, which is trying to reduce emissions, or at least is talking about doing so, has no idea how to do it and no policies that will achieve it. The other emitters of 75% of global emissions are positively intending to increase.

It is just about certain given the record from Paris to COP26 that emissions will be over 40 billion tons a year by 2030, probably something like 45 billion by 2040. You can find reasonable forecasts to roughly this effect, with explanations, on the IEA site.

You can rant all you like about deniers on Watts, but these are just facts about the real world. If you really believe the hysteria, get outside the Chinese embassy with some placards. They are the ones who have to do what you advocate. But they have no idea how to do it either, and no intention of trying.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 3:11 am

“there is nothing we can do about it anyway” …. but there is

More mantra garbage

CO2 doesn’t cause warming, but even if it did,….

… China , India, Germany, Africa, Asia, and other countries are all rapidly increasing coal fired power.

Nothing the USA does will make even the slightest difference,
(except to increase their own poverty levels…. which is, of course the aim of the whole scam)

Derg
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 4:11 am

Back on your meds please.

Slowroll
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 9:26 am

Science institutions and universities (they tend to be related,  incidentally) have been  staffed by fools and frauds for centuries, and promoted wild theories for centuries; usually then disproved by one renegade researcher. I suppose you are still a believer in phlogiston, the luminiferous aether, and epicycles?  How about antiseptics and doctors washing up? For hundreds of years the consensus was that there was no need for a  surgeon to wash between patients until Lister and Pasteur.  That was all consensus science.  Recall that Einstein said that it only takes one person  to prove him wrong, not hundreds. Ernest Rutherford I believe it was, said over a hundred years ago that all could be discovered in science, has been discovered. You are gulled by fraud and rent-seekers.

MGC
Reply to  Slowroll
May 11, 2022 7:33 am

slowroll says:

“Science institutions and universities have been staffed by fools and frauds for centuries, and promoted wild theories for centuries; usually then disproved by one renegade researcher.”

Not correct. Yes, “one renegade researcher” makes an initial discovery that upsets the apple cart. But that discovery is then checked for accuracy and replicated by others, to make sure it is correct. Or in other words, a scientific consensus develops that it is indeed correct.

If we did not have this method of developing a consensus that “renegade” claims were in fact correct, then we would be left believing any old nonsensical claim at all that anyone pulled out of the woodwork.

Sorry, slowroll, but your own example, followed to its complete conclusion, demonstrates itself the primacy of scientific consensus.

Last edited 1 month ago by MGC
b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 2:12 pm

Another ignorant mindless post from MGC showing just how clueless it is about science.

Consensus is totally immaterial in real science..

Only real in politics and cults and brain-washed morons..

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 11, 2022 10:20 pm

re: “Consensus is totally immaterial in real science”

Another blind babbling of this utterly ludicrous denier LIE.

Consensus in science is vitally important for verifying results of individual researchers. Were it not for consensus, we’d be accepting any old crackpot claim whatever. Like, for example, laughably ignorant, delusionally dunderheaded, laughably lying WUWT DENIER claims.

Denier dunderheads want to pretend (LIE) that consensus “doesn’t matter” simply because their delusional fairy tales LIES do not jive with the known scientific consensus.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 11, 2022 10:24 pm

The ignornace of MGC is writ loud..

He even yells it at the top of his voice.

It his is only feature.

MGC
Reply to  b.nice
May 12, 2022 9:34 am

b.stupid can’t accept that his ludicrous claim “Consensus is totally immaterial in real science” is nothing but pure nonsense and was just totally ripped to shreds. So he just babbles ad hominem stupidity as a “response”.

Again. As usual. As always.

So tragically disgraceful.

Climate believer
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 1:44 pm

“The deniers said “there is no scientific consensus on global warming” … but there is”

“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ~ R. P. Feynman

… or at least it used to be.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  MGC
May 10, 2022 3:16 pm

I guess you can claim anything you wish if you don’t take responsibility for backing it up with objective evidence. But then you are just a used car salesperson and not a very good or honest one.

Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 2:38 pm

Well, if we move to Zeke’s ‘model meritocracy’ to solve the ‘run hot problem’ noted by Zeke—based on accurately predicting future temperatures (not tuned past temperature hindcasts), features thereof, and ECS—then there are only two climate models to use, both from INM in Russia. The rest (over 60 from at least 32 distinct climate model groups) can be scrapped and defunded, to the horror of their modeler groups who would be out of ‘work’. (Sort of like the CSIRO kerfuffle when they said the climate science was settled, so parliament said ‘OK, we don’t need to finance you on that anymore’.)

INM CM4.8 and CM5.1 :

  1. CM4.8 closely matches UAH 6 since CMIP5.
  2. CM5.1 does NOT produce a tropical troposphere hotspot, unlike all the rest of CMIP6. (See previous posted comment image proof here at WUWT).
  3. CM4.8 has ECS at 1.8; CM5.1 has ECS at 1.9. Observational energy budget methods have ECS about 1.7. Close enough in model world.
stinkerp
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 5:37 pm

Based on measurements, RCP2.6 is clearly the closest to reality.

-Projected warming per century, based on measured 42-year trend, UAH: +1.3 C
-RCP2.6 projected warming from models: +1.0 C (mean), range of +0.3 to +1.7

-Projected global sea level rise, based on satellite-measured 29-year trend: 330mm
-RCP2.6 projected sea level rise from models: 400mm (mean), range of 260 to 550mm

The premise of RCP2.6 is that atmospheric CO2 rises to no more than about 430ppm by 2040 and declines to 400ppm by 2100. It’s 420ppm now. It also assumes global human CO2 emissions start declining by 2020 and drop to zero by 2100, something that obviously isn’t happening. Despite these unrealistic restrictions on CO2 emissions, the Earth is following the RCP2.6 projection closer than any of the others.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  stinkerp
May 9, 2022 10:28 pm

But their “reality” for rcp2.6 is for no growth in CO2 isnt it?

stinkerp
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 9, 2022 11:36 pm

Exactly. The RCP scenario that most closely matches measurements is the lowest one, RCP2.6. But in the fictional world of climate scientists modelers alarmists who tell us “climate sensitivity” to increasing CO2 is vastly higher than observations suggest, RCP2.6 is their fairy tale scenario that expects the nations of the world to hold hands, sing kum ba yah and cooperate in a way that they never have before in history, and end CO2 emissions; literally bring them to zero by 2100. How is that even possible without destroying economies and reverting to 18th century technology like windmills, waterwheels, and burning wood, peat, and dung? Oh, and hydroelectric dams (but not nasty concrete ones) and PV panels. Those are unrealistic technologies for a global population of billions.

The great irony is that despite zero cooperation to globally limit CO2 emissions, with China and India rapidly increasing their emissions, the actual rate of warming and sea level rise tracks most closely to their fantasy scenario. Don’t worry, be happy. Unless you’re an alarmist. Then be unhappy if that makes you happy. Just keep your misery to yourself.

michel
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 10, 2022 12:00 am

Yes, as he said. But I think his point is, the CO2 emissions are not following RCP 2.6, and almost certainly will not in future. But so far the temperatures are following RCP 2.6.

The models say you can only get the present low level of temperature and the present low rate of increase from a max emission rate of RCP 2.6. But in fact we are getting it from an emission rate well over that.

The models are obviously therefore way overestimating the effects of emissions. If they were right temperatures would be higher and rising faster.

Mark BLR
Reply to  stinkerp
May 10, 2022 6:19 am

Based on measurements, RCP2.6 is clearly the closest to reality.

[ … Blinks … ]

As it happens I was looking at this recently (a few weeks ago), and I’m fairly sure that isn’t the case … using my “Reference Period” at least …

Hang on a second … Yes ! Here we go …

The closest RCP (used in AR5, 2013, with common “Historical Data” to 2005) “right now” (the GMST “measurements” in the graph below only go up to December 2021) looks more like RCP 6.0 to me

The closest SSP (used in AR6 — September 2021 for the “Draft” or “Accepted” version, May 2022 for the “Final” one — with their “Historical Data” inputs updated to 2014) is SSP3-7.0, but note that all the SSP “projections” remain higher that all the RCP ones in 2022.

RCP-SSP_GMST-anoms_1985-2022_thin_AR6.png
michel
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2022 12:11 am

I have always wondered what the reason was for not just throwing out the failing models. In one exchange Nick Stokes gave an explanation to the effect that you cannot assess any model on past performance. The analogy of the stock market gurus was used. So its pointless to look at models versus observations, just as its pointless to look at a guru’s previous stock picking record.

I didn’t understand this either, because logically it seems to imply, if you cannot tell whether any model is good or bad, that there is no basis in predictions from the set of all of them, no matter how averaged their results.

Its like the market. If you cannot assess any of the gurus on their past record, averaging their picks is not going to help. You have avoided assessing them on their record at the price of being unable to tell the good ones from the bad ones, or even if you have any good ones.

If you reject screening models bases on performance, surely you also cannot then demand the world rely on the ensemble of them for policy making? You have basically conceded they are useless.

Rud is surely right. Throw out all except the ones with a track record, and that means going with the Russian ones, until you have some observational reason to reject them. That is just ordinary science, no?

DaveS
Reply to  michel
May 10, 2022 4:33 am

Ah, but climate science is extra-ordinary science so the usual rules don’t apply.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DaveS
May 10, 2022 11:16 am

CliSciFi

pat michaels
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 10, 2022 12:00 pm

Searched the climate model chapter of AR6 for Volodin or INM-CM and of course not one hit. But it’s output does appear in at least one illustration, of projections for the past 40 years grouped by model ECS, There are two dots under ECS less than 2.0…and they also provide a great match to observations!

Tony Taylor
May 9, 2022 2:45 pm

Peer reviewed cherry picking.

n.n
Reply to  Tony Taylor
May 9, 2022 7:22 pm

Peer, pear, pare reviewed… cherry picking.

DMacKenzie
May 9, 2022 2:54 pm

….more consistent consensus science is their goal…..

Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 2:56 pm

What did Zeke know about CliSciFi models’ accuracy and when did he know it? An about face in less than 5 years sounds like a case of “his opinion has evolved” with no underlying justification. The discrepancies were known by the establishment even back then.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 3:13 pm

To answer my own question, Zeke is simply reflecting the politicians’ admission in AR6 that some models were so far out that they had to be removed from consideration. When dogma changes smart cadre fall in line quickly. Otherwise, “off with his head.”

Steven Candy
May 9, 2022 3:16 pm

But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming.”

How can you even have a disagreement or heaven-forbid a debate given such vague statements such as “lead to…” and “dangerous levels…”? What is the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to “luke-warming” since the industrial revolution and what is “dangerous” when there are mitigating benefits like CO2 fertilisation and corresponding improvements in food security?

RickWill
May 9, 2022 3:32 pm

Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections,

How could any consensus scientist support a claim that one model was better than another. They are on a slippery slope to reality if they start comparing modes with measured data.

What will this do for the homogenisation process. How will homogenisers know how much to cool the past if consensus science is broken?

MarkW2
Reply to  RickWill
May 10, 2022 6:33 am

Averaging the results from models is an absurd way of doing science. How anyone believes this makes any sense is beyond me.

How are they allowed to get away with such an unscientific approach?!?! Journalists who should be challenging the climate community about this, especially in the scientific media, are just not doing their jobs.

It’s either lazy journalism, complete ignorance or complicity and, very possibly, all three. Whatever the reason, some journalist is going to wake up one day and make a name for themselves by exposing the truth behind what’s really going on.

MarkW2
May 9, 2022 3:36 pm

Of course the predictions from models are wrong. I’ve just been involved in a discussion with Nick Stokes on the subject of confidence intervals — or lack of them — for climate models on this very site.

The plain truth is that using climate models for predictive purposes is no better than throwing dice. This doesn’t mean that climate models aren’t useful, because they are for helping to build understanding, but it absolutely means that predictions based on them should be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are too many variables, many co-linear, for what is a non-deterministic system — and climate is certainly that — for any predictions based on models to be taken seriously. Anyone who claims otherwise is talking utter nonsense.

It’s high time that statisticians spoke out about this.

Reply to  MarkW2
May 9, 2022 4:57 pm

There’s not enough salt in the ocean, Mark…

Robert B
Reply to  MarkW2
May 9, 2022 5:50 pm

He is from the school of average more numbers and the error disappears.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert B
May 9, 2022 6:58 pm

While ignoring the conditions required for canceling random variations.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  MarkW2
May 9, 2022 6:07 pm

This doesn’t mean that climate models aren’t useful …

For some official data collectors and curators (e.g. RSS) models are useful to establish what the data ought to be showing and how to make the necessary adjustments:
“The denialists [sic] like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics … I haven’t seen any” (Carl Mears 2014) 😂 .

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chris Hanley
May 9, 2022 6:46 pm

Its funny that Mears would say that. I assume his RSS product doesn’t show a hot spot that the models insist exist. If it isn’t “fundamental model physics” causing that, then what is it?

kwinterkorn
Reply to  MarkW2
May 9, 2022 8:28 pm

I think that models could be useful, but only if they are created without needing to have an outcome that predicts catastrophe caused by humans at the creation of the models.

Eg: Take a fairly well performing model extant, then add in the likely negative feedbacks, such as Willis’s thunderstorm work. Make tunable the net effect of clouds on climate using a variety of positive and negative feedback values. Add in the issue of overlap of the absorption spectra of H2O and CO2 with a set of numeric guesses. Add in ocean current variables.

Make a range of predictions using variable inputs of these factors running the models in various balances. And finally measure the real world for a decade or two and see what correlates with what.

Until then stop the fear-mongering and grant-seeking nonsense. Maybe some good science could happen and knowledge advanced.

People who begin their science with hatred of humanity or hatred of free enterprise (or oil companies) or anger because girls don’t like them or their parents didn’t love them enough will keep coming out with “science” that predicts apocalypse due to the evil ways of us humans. And they say to themselves, “If only the fools would listen to me….”

Taphonomic
May 9, 2022 3:45 pm

“climate research lead at payment services company Stripe”

Payment services companies need climate research leads?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Taphonomic
May 9, 2022 4:00 pm

I had to look it up. In 2020 ‘green’ Stripe based in Ireland and CA started a new subsidiary, Stripe Climate, to help its clients invest in and benefit from climate change. So they gotta have a warmunist on board that subsidiary, and chose Zeke. Who is apparently now concerned that the whole climate house of cards based on wrong models is falling down. No more model spaghetti charts, only meritocracy charts—which will cancel the alarm and bankrupt Stripe Climate. Oopsy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 9, 2022 6:39 pm

Rud, I’m not sure that’s what Zeke is saying. “… he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates.”

1) At what “times” is prioritizing needed? What “times” is it not needed? Will they advise individual model output users as to the best approach to determining which models to use or just list general guidelines? [Alarmist papers about increasingly extreme weather, high extinction rates, greatly accelerating SLR & etc. need ultra-hot models driven with wildly unrealistic GHG emissions scenarios. Conversely, for unknown political reasons the UN IPCC politicians decided that “more realistic warming rates” (but still high) were needed for AR6.]

2) How are “realistic warming rates” (I assume its a range) determined. Expert opinion based on model outputs? Energy balance models? A combination of the two?

3) What are the criteria used to “prioritize” individual models? Do they “prioritize” every model one by one from hottest to coolest? Do they have simple Three Bears ‘too hot,’ ‘too cold’ and ‘just right’ ranking blocks with models being broken out by block only (no individual model ranking)?

4) Will they attempt to identify appropriate future scenario(s) that are consistent with the purposes of individual users?

I don’t know Zeke. Will someone on WUWT please contact him asking the above questions?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 8:03 pm

They keep going on the basis of a “global temperature”, which is completely un-realistic. As long as they keep doing that, nothing they do will be right.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 9, 2022 11:13 pm

Global average temperatures are a useful metric for determining the current trend direction and comparing it to the past, with the usual caveats about instrument accuracy. You are correct, Jeff, in that regional weather patterns are the only thing that really matters.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 4:27 pm

The only problem is that the average loses all the data you need to tell what is going on. It’s not just an uncertainty issue but a knowledge issue.

In the US agricultural scientists are pretty sure growing seasons are getting longer while heat accumulation during the growing season is either stagnant or going down. That conclusion is directly opposite of what so much climate science literature claims which is that we are going to see food shortages due to ever increasing maximum temps. Increasing max temps *should* cause increased heat accumulation during a longer growing season.

Not only does a global average temp have an uncertainty larger than the differences it supposedly shows, it represents a data loss needed to make rational decisions.

tommyboy
May 9, 2022 4:02 pm

The hotter the model the more popular.
Less hot models just don’t get much attention.
Maximum hotness equals maximum success and wealth.

Derg
Reply to  tommyboy
May 9, 2022 7:41 pm

Hahah…take my up vote.

Tim Gorman
May 9, 2022 4:33 pm

Does anyone remember the E.E. Doc Smith series on the Lensmen? What did the Arisians have to say about predicting the future? Something about needing complete knowledge to correctly predict the future I think. How many climate scientists have complement knowledge about *anything* having to do with our biosphere?

b.nice
May 9, 2022 4:45 pm

As soon as you see Zeke’s name, you know that what follows will be a load of totally twisted alarmist BS.

b.nice
May 9, 2022 4:50 pm

Do any of the models show current temperatures in the NH being about the same as in the1930s, 1940s ?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  b.nice
May 10, 2022 9:38 am

“…current temperatures in the NH being about the same as in the1930s, 1940s ? …”

Not even close . High summer temps east of the Rockies have been decreasing for 80 years .
1936 had a 10 day heatwave here where I live with >100 deg highs , peaking at 114 degrees .
And I don’t want to match that now .
😉

Ron Graf
May 9, 2022 5:53 pm

Hi Zeke,

Some models may be better than others. But if there is a problem of determining which are better doesn’t that expose the bigger problem: How do we know any of them are useful?

Unlike fighter jet physics, climate physics cannot be tested in less than several decades. If that is the case we received no new information from the model that we wouldn’t already have after that time for free. Even if we have 42 models and one tracks correctly we cannot say that is the best model due to selection bias. To be validated we would have to predict which of the 42 would succeed prior to the test.

This is my sense on the topic but I would greatly appreciate it is someone could explain the big picture of the usefulness in scientifc terms of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.

Thanks,
Ron

David Dibbell
May 9, 2022 6:05 pm

The planet knows nothing of meritocracy or democracy in modeling. But let’s just state the obvious: the atmosphere is the perfectly authentic model of its own performance. In respect to the claim that heat energy will accumulate in the land and oceans to a bad outcome by what CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs do, we can watch.

Here again, with apologies for repeating this comment here at WUWT, is a link to the NOAA full-disk visualization for Band 16 – the “CO2” band of wavelengths centered at 13.3 microns. The data is from the GOES-EAST geostationary satellite. My point is that this 2-km resolution visualization implies there should be no concern about CO2. Why not? Because it is obvious that the planet performs as a huge array of highly variable longwave emitter elements. The movement and the influence of clouds dominates whatever the totalized output will be. The emitted energy comes only partly from the surface through the “atmospheric window” and mostly from the absorbed and stored energy of the atmosphere itself. It is all highly self-regulating, especially concerning the formation and dissipation of clouds.

For numbers folks, the radiance at a “brightness temperature” of 50C on the color scale is 13 times the radiance at -90C.

So in my view, there is no large-grid, discrete-layer, parameter-tuned, step-iterated computational scheme that will ever possess diagnostic or predictive authority as to the past or future outcome. By direct observation of how it works, one can appreciate that the mildly stronger radiative coupling of the lower atmosphere to the surface from slow increases in GHGs simply helps drive the heat-engine motion from the equator to the poles and the surface to high altitude.

Short version: Watch from space. It’s not a radiative “trap” when you consider the circulating motion.

This link is to an 8-hour series of images. You can select longer or shorter.

https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=48&dim=1

Last edited 1 month ago by David Dibbell
anthony robert timms
May 9, 2022 6:08 pm

I work in Architecture in Canada and i have often wondered why CO2 is not used as a heat trapping gas inside sealed glazed units in exterior windows. After all, this gas is apparently so good at trapping heat and reflecting it back, it would be the perfect gas to use in lieu of more expensive options such as Argon. Well i looked around and found the following article:

Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless In Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling
Does carbon dioxide have the physical properties of heat trapping/delayed cooling as alleged by climate scientists? Well, according to experiments conducted by experts in the ‘hard’ sciences at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory CO2 just doesn’t do what climate science says it does.

For three decades now academics have been warning governments and scaring the bejesus out of policymakers about the ‘dangerous’ warming properties of CO2 and other ‘greenhouse gases’ if we allow human emissions to build up in the atmosphere.

But in their study Berkeley laboratory test experts Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin revealed something truly remarkable when setting out to apply those assumed properties of carbon dioxide – enshrined in climate change theory – to create better performing insulated double-glazing window manufacture.

What was discovered was that under stringent lab conditions it can be shown that regular air delays/traps heat better than greenhouse gases such as CO2!

This important empirical data shows the opposite of one of the key axioms of consensus climate science theory: that carbon dioxide traps heat and/or delays cooling in the atmosphere. Instead, the Berkeley scientists’ rigorous tests designed to exploit a supposed known feature of ‘greenhouse gases’ actually discredits the very cornerstone of the accepted science of ‘greenhouse gas theory’ and man-made global warming.

THE BERKELEY LAB EXPERIMENT

What the scientists did: They took ‘greenhouse gases’ (SF6, CO2, NH3, and N2O) and some other gasses, put them between panes of glass and tested and measured their abilities to trap heat and/or inhibit heat loss.

Or, in more technical terms they tested, “the existing heat transfer model of multipane windows filled with gasses to include the effects of infrared absorption within the gasses.”

Berkeley’s lab experts Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin meticulously applied “a one-dimensional, finite-element, control-volume approach for calculating the heat transfer across a horizontal window filled with an infrared absorbing gas.”

If greenhouse gas theory is true and not just the computer modelers’ musings then what would be apparent would be “gas-fills for such windows [that] should have a low thermal conductivity and a high kinematic viscosity.”

Crucially, Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin ensured they tested for the coupled effects of conduction and radiation (not convection because climate science isn’t concerned with convection). What the techie trio turned up was an extensive body of experimental data on the heat transfer rates through windows filled with infrared absorbing gasses and heated from above (to minimize that unwanted convection).

After exhaustive experiments Berkeley’s brightest and best reported that “the effect of the infrared radiation properties of CO2 is unnoticeable.” And that infrared absorbing gasses “are not as effective as low-emittance coatings for reducing radiative heat transfer.”

In effect, the results for CO2 being a good trapper of heat/delayer of heat loss, showed a big fat zero. And that’s why you don’t see double glazing manufacturers eager to fill the voids between the glass panes of their windows with carbon dioxide.

WHEN THE FACTS DON’T FIT THE THEORY

But this discovery isn’t ‘new.’ Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin conducted this important work at the Applied Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California in 1989. Once again it provides another example of the wilful negligence of a powerful clique of government ‘scientists’ unwilling or incapable of digesting hard-won applied scientific knowledge.

By contrast, engineers and practitioners from the ‘hard’ sciences have long known that carbon dioxide only serves as a coolant in industry applications (e.g. with dry ice, pre- CFC era refrigeration). There is no known industrial application where carbon dioxide operates to trap heat or delay cooling.

But academia is a closed shop to applied sciences – it is a cloistered world of bookishness, pal review and mutual self-interest geared to winning their slice of lucrative government ‘research’ grants.

As in much of the ‘soft’ sciences practiced in academia there is little or no need to know two cents about how the real world works. “Who needs a PhD in Physics or Chemistry to do climate science when computer models are ‘right’ and the science is ‘settled’?” bemoans retired Analytical Chemist, Hans Schreuder (Principia Scientific International).

But it gets worse.

Contrary to consensus science beliefs carbon dioxide wasn’t so much ‘trapping’ or delaying heat in the system, it was very effectively losing it – and the wider the gap in the double-glazed panes the more the CO2 gas filler showed U-value energy loss.

So much so, the Berkeley lab results proved that “the gas, however, emits infrared radiation thus degrading the performance of the SF6-filled window.” In other words, putting a ‘greenhouse gas’ into double-glazing does the opposite of what double-glazed windows are supposed to do: retain/retard heat loss.

Indeed, the Berkeley Laboratory tests proved that:

“Not only do the absorbing gasses generally have low kinematic viscosities, but the infrared emission from the gas adversely affects the window performance….in fact, air outperforms SF6 [Sulfur hexafluoride – a greenhouse gas] at gap widths greater than 9 mm in a vertical window and the benefits from infrared absorption by SF6 have been negated by the magnitude of the convection.”

The Berkeley trio prove “Not only do the absorbing gasses generally have low kinematic viscosities, but the infrared emission from the gas adversely affects the window performance.” This study showed that, “For small vertical gap widths and for windows heated from above, where convection is negligible, our model agrees well with experimental data. For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use of infrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue, convection effects will begin to take effect and negate the positive impact of going to larger gap widths.”

In other words, even the every-day ‘normal’ air we breathe delays/traps heat better than greenhouse gases such as CO2! And when the effect of convection (wind to you and me) is added to the thermal mix, cooling predominates.

Thus, whereby cooling in the atmosphere occurs by a mixture of radiation, conduction and convection it is convection (heat loss by movement of air) that is king; so pervasive and dominant is convection that heat transfer by radiation and conduction are easily overwhelmed by it in a gaseous environment (such as earth’s open atmosphere).

These facts are in line with those evidenced in 2011 in the ground-breaking work performed by Professor Nasif Nahle, Monterrey, Mexico [2]. Nahle showed that by application of standard gas equations any “trapping” effect by CO2 could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists.

Industry experts with PhD’s in thermodynamics have long been saying that CO2 is shown to do the opposite of what government-funded academics say it does. Even renowned experts like Dick Topping Director of Appliance Research (TIAX, LLC) are routinely ignored. Topping writes: “The use of CO2 as a refrigerant dates back more than a century, but it fell out of favor in the air-conditioning and refrigeration industry with the development of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1930s.” [3]

And as recently as 2009 applied scientists in Japan were showing how money is to be made exploiting CO2’s proven cooling properties. There Sanyo developed that country’s first commercially-viable CO2 refrigerant which they say (ironically) could “greatly contribute to the prevention of global warming.”[4]

In fact, nowhere will you find alarmist academics showing you a practical use of carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping agent.

But do we think the climate ‘experts’ in universities (paid to promote climate alarm over CO2 emissions) are soon going to admit their errors – will they ever bite the grant-giving government hand that feeds them and admit to such real-world truths? No chance.

I find this article to be stunning, give that the profession of Architecture is working so hard to design Carbon Neutral buildings by 2030, but for what? If this article in fact represents the truth, and if some sectors of the scientific research world have known this for a very long time, whilst other sectors of science have ignored it, this is an obvious and astounding fraud that is being perpetuated on all of us. Carbon Neutral my arse!

Dave Fair
Reply to  anthony robert timms
May 9, 2022 7:06 pm

CO2 trapped in a small enclosure cannot act as it does in the huge, dynamic atmosphere. The experiment seems to only show CO2 is not a good insulator. I’ll stick with physicists like Dr. Happer on radiation physics in the atmosphere.

Derg
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 7:46 pm

I thill find it funny that it doesn’t trap heat at micro level. 🤓

Dave Fair
Reply to  Derg
May 9, 2022 8:01 pm

CO2 trapped in any container is on a macro level. 👀

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 10:15 pm

To the down-voters: I assume that CO2’s absorption and emission of photons occurring on a molecular level could be considered acting at a micro level. Using it as an insulator in an enclosed space occurs on a macro level. I’m done playing word games. Thank you for playing.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 4:00 pm

Two things.

CO2 both absorbs and emits the same (Kirchhoff). It also absorbs and emits based on temperature. So the higher you go, the less is absorbed/emitted.

Technically, photons are not emitted like bullets. Molecules radiate spherical electromagnetic waves isotopically in a sphere meaning like a balloon. It is why power is shown by steradians. As the sphere increases, the intensity at any point decreases so you need to discuss power based on angles. The EM waves carry power than can be absorbed in quanta or photons. The power defines how many quanta (photons) are available to be absorbed.

Technically, radiation is not 50% up and 50% down. The same power is radiated in all directions. Also, less and less in absorbed and reradiated as CO2 cools via the lapse rate.

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 8:36 pm

CO2 trapped in a small enclosure cannot act as it does in the huge, dynamic atmosphere”
Exactly so. Scale is the key. In fact all they deduced is that convection was on that scale by far the dominant mode of heat transfer, and CO2 offers no advantage there. But all these experiments on a cm scale bear no relation to the passage of IR through many km of atmosphere.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 9, 2022 10:51 pm

I agree Nick. Their experiment, however, showed the strong action of convection in their experimental setups. Similarly, conduction, convection, advection and ocean currents are predominate in moving the vast quantities of heat around in Earth’s climate system.

At an estimated approximately 1% effect of additional CO2 on Earth’s energy budget since the beginning of the industrial revolution, CO2 is a minor player in the vast energy movements in the Earth’s climate systems. The energy impacts of identified cloud changes have as large or larger estimated energy effect, even without the energy effects of ocean current changes. Estimates of CO2’s net effect on Earth’s total energy balance and extreme weather events are entirely speculative.

I believe it is unwise to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems based on political conclusions without adequate scientific support. Extreme weather frequency and intensity have not increased in over hundred years of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There is no valid reason for assuming extreme weather frequency and intensity will significantly increase over the remainder of the 21st Century.

Slowroll
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 10, 2022 9:55 am

Sounds like you are equating this experiment with the difference between quantum effects and gravity. This experiment is not of that orders of magnitude Ilevel of micro versus macro.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 10, 2022 4:05 pm

What they did show is the CO2 does not absorb and TRAP heat over time. If it was able to trap heat, some temperature rise would have been measured. In addition, a low heat conductance would have shown a gradient across the volume.

Trapping heat must follow a different process if CO2 is warm temperatures.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 9, 2022 10:57 pm

Are there any atmospheric physicists in the down-voting group? There were none in the group performing the experiment.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 11:58 am

What are the bases of the down-votes?

Slowroll
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 10, 2022 9:46 am

It shows also that CO2 is not a good reflector as you warmistas claim. Something that is .04% of the atmosphere cannot overwhelm the other 99.96 %. That is claiming a thermodynamic free lunch.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Slowroll
May 10, 2022 12:00 pm

I didn’t say any of that nor contradict that.

Tom.1
May 9, 2022 7:36 pm

97% of scientists agree that we should believe a “democracy of models” because, well, it’s democratic. It is a tacit admission that while they were relying on the “democracy of models”, they didn’t really know what they were doing, but now that they are using selected models, they should be believed… right.

b.nice
Reply to  Tom.1
May 10, 2022 5:21 am

Its like in kindy, where everyone gets a “participation” price, just for being there.

I think they also do it in Arts degrees at Uni.

If they stop doing that, and start selecting models on merit, a lot of climate modellers are going to need a new “safe space” to virtue-seek in.

Last edited 1 month ago by b.nice
Gary Pearse
May 9, 2022 7:39 pm

Every chemist (used to?) know that any applied change (perturbation) to a system of multiple interacting components, say, the atmosphere (molecular composition, pressure, volume temperature, enthalpy …) and its coupling with the ocean and the land (their chemical, physical biological etc components …), the system will react to resist the change.

It does this automatically through each of the hundreds of components responding by changing its contribution to the collective properties of the system matrix in such a way as to resist change to the original system. The the new system settles on a new collective equilibrium that is much less changed than “the physics” is telling you it should be.

This, my friends, is not an hypothesis but an immutable fact. It is known as the LeChâtelier Principle (LCP). Chemical engineers use it to deliberately perturb a manufacturing process to obtain higher yields of a more pure product at lower cost. Moreover, the induced change in the system vis à vis the perturbing factor is always negative, i.e. ‘feedback’, in the aggregate in such systems as chemical solutions and climate change is is negative in the aggregate.

A simple case is the sun heating the ocean surface. Willis E covered this phenomenon thoroughly. Immediately, the surface water increases its rate of evaporation (cooling it). At a certain point increased heating increases evaporation and the water vapor rises and forms clouds which then reflect sun’s rays back upwards blocking this heat source. Hundreds of other things are also developing. In the extreme, Thunderstorm activity and winds all drive cooling in response to the induced heating. Increase CO2 and the Planet greens and generates bumper harvests…..

Using “the Physics” in their models, climate science calculated increased warming for the first decade of the new millennium that proved to be on average double subsequent observed changes and triple the observed in the top half of their projections (not 30% too high as the article suggested).

Instead of parameterizing what they didnt know of the physics. They should have recognized that this is squarely in the territory of LCP! From their result, an LCP coefficient of the ‘unknown physics’ would be about 0.3 to multiply their result by seems appropriate.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 10, 2022 3:17 am

Le Chatelier’s Principle only applies to systems at equilibrium. This is not true for the Earth’s atmosphere, which is never at equilibrium.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 10, 2022 2:23 pm

Graeme, wikipedia used have it correct before this idea was presented for climate and then they changed it to hook the non chemist because they saw the power of the LCP. You will see the logic that I’m about to give you in simple terms. A chemical reaction doesnt jump to equilibrium. However as soon as you introduce a change in reactants, the solution immediately begins its journey TOWARDS a new equilibrium. As in climate change, there are many lags in the process.

Let’s imagine you like a spoon of sugar in your coffee. By experience you know how it tastes. If you simply drop the spoonful in the coffee, it is no mystery to you that it doesn’t immediately taste sweet. Stirring it is your recognition of a lag in the process. If you just wait, eventually it will dissolve and taste as you expected at equilibrium.

If halfway toward dissolution of the sugar you throw in a teaspoon of vinegar, now the sugar continues to dissolve, but the solution is also forced to deal with the new perturbation and it alters TOWARDS a new equilibrium.

Graeme, the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere and the land are also made out of molecules! CO², O² N², iron, lime
…….. dissolve (chemical!) in the oceans, react chemically in biochemical reactions in combination with lime to form carbonate shells triggered by plankton, shellfish, coral…..

When CO2 rises from burning fossil fuels, bacterial action, etc., the increase in atmos CO² results in more carbon dioxide being dissolved in the ocean as carbonic acid – aha, acidification! Ah, no. The carbonic acid is chemically buffered by the formation of calcium ions that react with it to form neutral calcium carbonate. Chemistry and LCP in action. “The physics” of acidification gets trumped by LCP, converting all alarmist literature into birdcage liner.

On the land, The Great Greening snaffles the popular molecule CO² out of the atmosphere and makes it into sugars and woody cells before we get to find out what it’s real warming power can be detected. Photosynthesis is also endothermic – a chemical term meaning causes cooling.

Graeme, now it’s clear to you
how pathetically naive the linear thinking in the scandalous CO² Control Knob is and why there is a nervous walking back on overheated models.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Graemethecat
May 10, 2022 4:17 pm

Le Chatelier’s Principle only applies to systems at equilibrium.”

This is from: Le Chatelier’s Principle – Chemistry LibreTexts

Le Chatelier’s principle states that if a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium shifts to counteract the change to reestablish an equilibrium. If a chemical reaction is at equilibrium and experiences a change in pressure, temperature, or concentration of products or reactants, the equilibrium shifts in the opposite direction to offset the change. This page covers changes to the position of equilibrium due to such changes and discusses briefly why catalysts have no effect on the equilibrium position. (the bold IS NOT by me)

There is a reason for dynamic equilibrium, and not just static equilibrium.

Smart Rock
May 9, 2022 8:06 pm

Zeke Horsefeathers seems to have had an attack of conscience. It’s made him forget that the purpose of all those models is not to accurately predict the future state of climate – it is to alarm the public and politicians, and to justify restrictive, repressive and expensive laws that aim to undermine the prosperity of western democracies.

rah
Reply to  Smart Rock
May 10, 2022 8:23 am

I suspect that he foresees a period of cooling coming and this is the first of more excuses that will come.

Laws of Nature
May 9, 2022 8:12 pm

Well, how about Hausfather and all those other attribution geniuses answer the criticism which was brought up be McKitrick last year that the attribution methodology could be fundamentally flawed, because as long as this stands in the way ANY attribution is meaningless!

observa
May 9, 2022 10:43 pm
Eric Vieira
May 9, 2022 11:15 pm

 results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science”: What “credibility” may I ask ? As long as model outputs are given more importance than analysis of actual data, their credibility has more to do with credulous than with credible.

Rah
May 10, 2022 2:32 am

Soooo, they are saying that the “scientific consensus”, which was built on interpretation of climate models, has been wrong all this time!

So not only are their previous claims about rising temperatures wrong, but so are all the other claims made based upon it.

I was wondering why the ski resorts are still doing great, and the West Side Hwy is still above water, and there is more sea ice extent in the Arctic now than there was this at time in 1989, and why so many other predictions they have made have been absolutely falsified!

Now I know!

May 10, 2022 6:04 am

Let me show how strange the concept of “feedbacks” is. In the graph below we have the planets of our solar system (including Ceres and some moons) plotted against the theoretic black body temperatures. On the x scale is the distance from the sun in AUs, on the y-scale temperature in K.

comment image

Moving Earth closer or further from the sun would be a “forcing”. This forcing would keep Earth very close to the blue line, the other celestial bodies align to. But that is without feedbacks. Even if feedbacks only doubled forcings (consensus rather suggests a trippling), Earth would follow the red line instead, eventually falling below 0K!?

Then there is another interesting feature. With gas giants the 1 bar pressure level is defined as “surface”, to make them more comparable to Earth. That is opposed to Venus, where the surface is at a pressure level of 92 bar. To make things actually comparable, I added the temperature of Venus at 1 bar, and that of Jupiter and Saturn at 92 bar in light blue. I think that solves the mystery over the “runaway GHE” of Venus 😉

https://greenhousedefect.com/about-the-physical-impossibility-of-feedbacks

Captain Climate
May 10, 2022 9:55 am

“But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming.“

Zeke is just a liar. Anytime somebody suggests warming isn’t dangerous, they’re shouted down or canceled.

Mike Maguire
May 10, 2022 1:15 pm

“A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries”

The source of the extinction can’t be from fossil fuels since fossil fuel reserves will be depleted a couple centuries before that.

When Will Fossil Fuels Run Out?https://chariotenergy.com/chariot-university/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/

Which makes the premise of using a fake climate crisis for actions even more ludicrous and illogical.

Why not just be honest and use science and facts and state:
Fossil fuels will be running out in XX years, so we need to find other ways to generate energy.

Wait, I know that answer.

Because 50 years ago, energy experts on peak oil started giving us that message…… we would run out ion XX years.
Instead of each year passing, making it XX-1, then XX-2, XX-3 years until we run out………we just find more oil(conventional sources like shale, for instance) and in some cases, despite production, reserves never get depleted/closer to running out of oil.

There are also reasons for entities to OVER state the reserves of fossil fuels, so part of this could be OVER stated future oil too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Regardless of the numbers projecting the amount of fossil fuels left being NOT reliable………. it would still be a more honest approach than to take a climate optimum for life, on a greening planet and twist the interpretation of many metrics and realms to trick people into thinking that it’s a climate crisis.

Screenshot 2022-05-10 at 14-40-51 When Will Fossil Fuels Run Out Chariot Energy.png
Charles Martel
May 10, 2022 1:40 pm

In reality, the results obtained from the type of model-observation comparisons performed in the paper depend greatly on the dataset and model outputs used by the authors.

Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, .. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates.

This is like asking to place your bets at the horse track after you already know the winners.

Charles Martel
May 10, 2022 1:55 pm

All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast.

Cake and eat it too problem.

The climate alarmists use the hot models to scare people and promote their agenda, but resent when the hot models are shown to be too hot – even though they know they are too hot.

Someone needs to name and shame the hot models and put their money on the table for the ones they have faith in, then time will tell if they are right or wrong.

But, just as averaging a bunch of models doesn’t make sense (since the models are already averaging their own calculated effects), neither does saying “the models work” because a handful appear to be closer to actual temps than others.

May 10, 2022 2:42 pm

Who is the “now that’s funny right there” man – does he have a name?

May 10, 2022 2:52 pm

A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.

They mean presumably ocean anoxia. That’s pie in the sky sea. In the real world increased CO2 in air increases, not decreases, the ventilation of the deep ocean by downwelling of more dissolved oxygen arising – unsurprisingly – from more photosynthesis.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/atmospheric-co2-is-good-for-the-deep-ocean/