Ah, the marvel of modern climate science. For decades, we’ve been reassured that climate models are finely tuned instruments of prediction, capable of telling us what our planet will look like in a hundred years. But every so often, like a plot twist in a mediocre whodunit, we discover a brand-new “game-changing” variable. Enter methanethiol (MeSH), the newly crowned darling of aerosol cooling over the Southern Ocean.
According to a recent study published in Science Advances, MeSH—a sulfur compound previously relegated to obscurity due to its reactivity—is now recognized as a key player in climate cooling.
The discovery shows that emissions of MeSH, derived from marine biological activity, enhance the sulfate aerosol burden by up to 70% over the Southern Ocean. These aerosols scatter sunlight and cool the atmosphere, reducing the radiative bias of climate models in this region. Oh, and this isn’t a minor tweak. We’re talking about a 28% boost in the direct radiative effect of aerosols over a vast area. Oops, missed that one for decades.
Abstract
Ocean-emitted dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is a major source of climate-cooling aerosols. However, most of the marine biogenic sulfur cycling is not routed to DMS but to methanethiol (MeSH), another volatile whose reactivity has hitherto hampered measurements. Therefore, the global emissions and climate impact of MeSH remain unexplored. We compiled a database of seawater MeSH concentrations, identified their statistical predictors, and produced monthly fields of global marine MeSH emissions adding to DMS emissions. Implemented into a global chemistry-climate model, MeSH emissions increase the sulfate aerosol burden by 30 to 70% over the Southern Ocean and enhance the aerosol cooling effect while depleting atmospheric oxidants and increasing DMS lifetime and transport. Accounting for MeSH emissions reduces the radiative bias of current climate models in this climatically relevant region.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adq2465
But let’s not get too hung up on the past. Sure, we’ve been modeling oceanic sulfur emissions for years and conveniently left MeSH out of the equation because, well, nobody thought it was important enough. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) got all the attention. It was the prom queen of sulfur compounds while MeSH lurked in the shadows, its impact obscured by inconvenient analytical challenges. If only we had better tools earlier—or more curiosity. Instead, climate models hummed along, blissfully ignorant of this overachieving sulfur source.
The “Settled Science” Myth
This latest revelation underscores a glaring truth: the so-called “settled science” of climate prediction is about as settled as a house of cards in a windstorm. For years, we’ve been told the models are robust, the predictions reliable. Meanwhile, every few years, another critical factor—like MeSH—emerges, requiring significant recalibration, yet we’re continuously reassured of both the past accuracy and the future reliability of these models, as if such revelations are mere footnotes rather than paradigm shifts. Are these models approximations of reality, or are they haphazard guesses dressed up in complex mathematics?
The study’s authors painstakingly compiled global data on MeSH concentrations, feeding it into a chemistry-climate model to quantify its effects. The results? Not only does MeSH enhance aerosol cooling, but it also extends the lifetime of DMS, amplifying its cooling impact. Essentially, the climate system has been operating with a hidden double feature of sulfur-driven cooling—and we’re just now cluing in.
Why Does This Keep Happening?
Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that climate models, while valuable, are not omniscient. They’re as much about what we don’t know as what we do. MeSH joins a long list of overlooked or misunderstood variables—like cloud microphysics, ocean circulation anomalies, and feedback loops—that fundamentally alter our understanding of Earth’s climate system.
In this case, the ramifications are clear. The additional cooling effect attributed to MeSH may mean we’ve been overestimating certain warming scenarios. Or perhaps it simply adds another layer of uncertainty to already imprecise projections. Either way, the narrative of “settled science” takes another hit.
Lessons in Humility (or Not)
To the climate science community: congratulations on this groundbreaking discovery. Truly. But let’s not pretend this is the last time something will crawl out of the data and rewrite the story. The next unconsidered variable might already be lurking, ready to wreak havoc on those supposedly “final” IPCC models.
To everyone else: remember this the next time you’re told to trust the models without question. They’re useful tools, but they’re only as good as the data and assumptions behind them. And as MeSH has shown, those assumptions have a habit of being incomplete.
So here’s to MeSH: an unsung sulfur hero proving once again that “settled science” is more about marketing than reality. What other surprises does climate science have in store? Stay tuned. Or don’t. The climate will keep changing whether we’re ready for it or not.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Climate science” has been settled since 1988 without knowing all sources, sinks, aggravators and mitigators of “global warming”.
Because it’s not science but a political ideological cult, based upon GIGO computer games.
Because science is the search for better explanations of how stuff works, it can never be settled. How can the search for understanding possibly be settled for once and for all?
Dogmatic assumptions about scientific understanding get overturned or made irrelevant all the time. That’s how science is supposed to work.
And yet we are constantly instructed to “trust The Science” as if it were an absolute, incontrovertible truth, and denigrated, insulted and cancelled if we question it.
Strange, isn’t it?
It exactly like what they mean when they talk about “our democracy”.
It means ‘agreeing with the Party position’.
Science will never be settled, everyone talking about settled science is a liar or is far away from the scientific way.
Oh, but you need to understand. “Climate science” is settled. Absolutely. Settled in its purpose is to backup and validate all of the political decisions. It is settled but it has nothing to do with the earth’s coupled dynamic chaotic energy systems.
“everyone talking about settled science is a liar or is far away from the scientific way.”
Everyone talking about settled science is writing on WUWT or some other contrarian site. It is a strawman. No scientists are actually quoted saying that as a general proposition. If science were settled, then why do scientific research? Or publish research papers.
People may say the science is settled on some particular matter, eg gravity, heliocentrism, the atomic theory etc. The common term is scientific Laws.
So what does he say? He starts out.
“I’m a scientist, and if I thought the science was done, I wouldn’t be a scientist”
No Nick, you have selectively nit-picked what Gavin said.
Disingenuous as always.
The point is, voters are being told by politicians and the ‘news’ media that the science is settled. They naively think that nobody would say that unless that is what scientists think. Then there are sophists who consider themselves scientists, who will dance around hard questions about disagreements between the current consensus paradigm and inconvenient measurements — such as yourself.
Never heard so much deliberate BS is one video !!
Crap. The IPCC (which takes it’s advice from – and is the voice of – climate scientists) now claims that AWG is real (it just is) when before they said….quote.. ”we cannot detect the expected signal”
No further evidence has come to light since that quote.
Why do you go out of your way to remain so thick? You must let go and join the realists. There is nothing to worry about, you will be ok.
Well, quote them. What did they actually say? I don’t hear anything about “settled science”.
Poor nick.. always LYING to defend the indefensible. Sad and pathetic.
Gives his life some meaning I suppose.
IPCC….. quote
”Observed warming is human- caused, with warming from greenhouse gases (GHG), dominated by CO2 and methane (CH4), partly masked by aerosol cooling”
Seems pretty settled eh Nick? What say you?
“If science were settled, then why do scientific research? Or publish research papers.” Good question. To keep the money flowing perhaps?
“Al Gore took his climate-change crusade to Congress on Wednesday…The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers.” NPR March 21, 2007. Granted, Gore is not a scientist but he certainly is not a contrarian as you use that term.
And none of the self-styled climate science glitterati came out to negate his comment.
Some minor parts of the wide field of science may be seen as nearly settled, but i.a. climate science is not and most of others too.
What is ‘settled Science’?
Republican strategist Frank Luntz famously advised party leaders to emphasize the lack of ‘;scientific certainty’ about global warming because, once the public became convinced of a scientific consensus on global warming, they would accept it and policies responding to it. But philosophical work on scientific methodology puts absolute certainty out of reach. Today almost all philosophers are fallibilists, holding that every belief is subject to correction. Does it follow that an honest report of what science has to say about any topic cannot claim that the matter is settled? I defend a more confident view: much of what science has to say about the world is settled. On this view, settled science doesn’t require philosophical certainty.
Any model that doesn’t address cloud cover is without merit.
Also, any model which presumes an ECS is without merit.
Agreed but I would expand to say any model that gets ECS wrong is without merit.
> ECS estimated from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models lies between 2.0 and 4.7 K (mean of 3.2 K), whereas in the latest CMIP6 the spread has increased to 1.8–5.5 K (mean of 3.7 K), with 5 out of 25 models exceeding 5 K.
At what point does their presumed ECS in the model exceed the threshold of WAG?
What’s the odds that CO2 increases the production of MeSH?
One time, when I resided in Houston, I was mowing outside my back fence that was located adjacent to a bayou. As I mowed, I noticed a faint unpleasant odor as I passed back and forth by a group of bushes (growing wild). Upon inspection, I determined that the odor was coming from one bush in particular.
The next day, I got a plastic bag and a gas-tight syringe from my lab, and I took a gas sample from a branch that I covered with the bag. I took a sample into my lab for GC sulfur analysis. I recall finding a handful of sulfur compounds, but most prominently were methyl and ethyl mercaptans. Methyl mercaptan is MeSH. (All mercaptans stink to some extent.)
Anyway, I have a feeling that since CO2 makes plants grow, MeSH emissions would be correlated with it at least to some extent.
I’m not going to take time to go back and read the original article, but I think it mentioned something about biological activity increasing with warming. It certainly makes sense since chemical reactions and biological activity increase up to some optimum temperature.
I’ve sometimes followed the ‘old wives’ tale’ that a 20-degree change in temperature usually doubles (or halves) the reaction time.
It is a mistake to treat Science as though it is an infallible deity whose ‘teachings’ are interpreted by a priesthood, to obeyed by all followers of the faith.
Who has said this? Climate scientists have explicitly enforced the idea that models to not provide predictions of future climate state, they provide a range of projections and inherently carry significant uncertainty.
The paper you cite is providing an improvement to the models, it is neither raising the need for considerable model recalibrations nor is it introducing a new source of uncertainty, it is actually addressing a well-known radiative bias and bringing model results into even better alignment with observations.
If only policy makers recognised that the models are just projections, to be measured against future observations as a test of our understanding.
Instead the policies are predicated on the models actually reflecting reality – not the other way round.
They are being used as predictions.
Projections provide actionable information about potential future outcomes. The alternative to using models to guide climate policy is to… use no information at all. No sane person genuinely believes this is preferable.
“Projections provide actionable information about potential future outcomes”
TOTAL BOLLOCKS !!
Using AGENDA-DRIVEN, UNVALIDATED models is far worse than using nothing, because it steers you in the direction of the agenda.
Fox in the henhouse situation.
In your opinion, doing the wrong thing is preferable to doing nothing? Because that’s the risk you take when you bad data to inform your actions.
Informed inaction is a de facto action, so there is no “doing nothing” in this scenario. Choosing inaction might also be wrong, with the downside that inaction is contrary to the available evidence.
Kamal-speak.. Meaningless word salad.
What available evidence ??
You have none.
This would be funny if it was not soooo stupid.
It takes a wise person to do nothing when it is called for.
History, from geology, chemistry, human records, seems to provide considerable information about the results of changes in temperature, CO2, and other factors. The reasonable policy decisions based on that accumulated evidence is that to do something about particular symptoms in particular local places (build up a seawall, drain another swamp) but otherwise do nothing. Many reasonable people have written about this in detail. There are many other far important aspects of life on this planet that deserve attention.
Lol.
They once used to use the word prediction in the 1990 IPCC report, when that blew up in their faces, they changed it to the word Projection in the 1995 report which means:
Merriam-Webster LINK
Why don’t you stop projecting your ignorance and stupidity….
Knowingly using bad models is criminal because one knows that the answer will be wrong. There are times that it is probably better to wait and act when it is thought that the model problems have been resolved. This article is a good example of this. The models have left out a significant contributor of cooling aerosols. Including them will probably go a long ways towards accounting for the past and extant models running warm.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
— “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research.
— “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
AlanJ, where are you?
I think you’re trying to make an argument, but you’ve failed to articulate exactly what the argument is supposed to be, or how it relates to anything I’ve said. A handful of out of context quotes from some random people?
A range of projections IS a prediction!
I have NEVER seen a NASA pronouncement or press release that has emphasized any SIGNIFICANT uncertainty of any climate model. Exactly what IS the probability that any specific model is wrong? Exactly what IS the probability that *all* the models are wrong since their results are so similar?
It is not. Projections recognize that we don’t know everything that is going to happen in the future. There may be a major volcanic eruption, or a string of eruptions, or a breakthrough in carbon capture technology, or another world war, etc. Instead of trying predict the future, scientists instead can assess a range of possible scenarios and then evaluate likely outcomes given that range of scenarios. And all of these scenarios include structural uncertainty in the models themselves, represented by ensemble model experiments. So we get a range of possible scenarios, each with a range of possible outcomes. We take that information and make the best decisions we can make based on it.
We could, in theory, wait until we have exactly perfect information at our fingertips before making any policy decisions, but of course then it’s too late to make the decisions. So we use the tools that we have and make the best decisions we can, while continuously trying to improve the tools.
The consensus on this website seems to be that it’s better to not act than to act on imperfect information, a notion which I wholeheartedly disagree with. If my doctor tells that me that I am likely to develop lung cancer if I continue smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, it is not wise of me to choose to wait until my deathbed to decide whether or not to quit smoking, despite the fact that waiting will yield 100% certainty about my decision.
You smoking a pack a day is not a basis for a shakedown of the taxpayers of the western economies to fund some irrational notions of taking control the planet’s climates.
No. The consensus on this website is to approach pragmatically. What we are seeing is a rush of lemmings to the cliff and most of us do not wish to go along with that.
The pragmatics believe that there are unexplored alternatives and until a valid analysis of alternatives is completed, picking one for a political agenda and destroying civilization in its pursuit is not the optimum plan.
CO2 is not the control knob, nor is it a major contributor to a mildly warming earth.
The actions being proposed are based on decades of research and risk assessment, they are hardly rushed or irrational. You might disagree with them, and are free to propose your own solutions, but it is necessary and appropriate to take some measured action in the face of the available evidence.
When you believe something that is at odds with all available evidence, of course you will feel that the policies based on the available evidence are bad policies.
The available evidence taken from the past 4.5 billion years of climate on this planet, shows that temperatures are not connected to CO2 concentrations.
“at odds with all available evidence”
ROFLMAO !!! Just AGW mantra BS !
There is no empirical scientific evidence of CO2 atmospheric warming.
If you think there is, then produce it.
There is no indication of CO2 warming in the UAH data.
“your own solutions”
Solutions are only needed if there is a problem.
THERE ISN’T !!
Except in the fevered delusional minds of paid AGW stall-warts.
Are you up to date on your boosters?
Of course. I don’t enjoy being sick. Do you?
Then you need to see a psychiatrist, perhaps they can help with your mental sickness.
I often forget that the Venn diagram of climate contrarians and anti-vaxxers is nearly a circle.
You, Alan, appear to have difficulty discerning cause and effect, truth and lies.
Yes, do something. Anything! Rubbing your belly and patting your head simultaneously is doing something and is unlikely to do any harm, but is still doing something. Good forbid that some fool will do something that makes the situation worse and triggers a change that can’t be stopped.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
“Good forbid that some fool will do something that makes the situation worse”…
…. like deliberately collapsing multiple western economies !!
No one is saying we need perfect knowledge. This is just a red herring you are using to avoid answering my questions. I’ll repeat:
“Exactly what IS the probability that any specific model is wrong? Exactly what IS the probability that *all* the models are wrong since their results are so similar?”
There is a 100% chance that all the models are wrong, as models must be. That does not preclude their usefulness in decision-making.
You *have* to be kidding! If there is 100% chance they are wrong then it means there is 0% chance they are right. Meaning we are basing CAGW on models that are *NOT* useful for decision making.
Wrong does not mean not useful. We cannot have a “right” model unless we build an earth-sized model earth in a solar system-sized model solar system and so on. The models are unequivocally closer to right than pure guessing, ergo they are unequivocally useful for decision-making.
“Wrong does not mean not useful”
In the case of climate models, they are DELIBERATELY wrong to push an agenda
You have no way of showing the models are closer to right than pure guess work, especially as they are based on pure guesswork.
Using wrong models to make decisions is based on superstition, nothing more…
… and is currently doing FAR MORE DAMAGE than any possible “climate change” could do.
Jezzuz Christ!
He probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy.
“unequivocally closer to right than pure guessing”
What a complete load of scientifically unsubstantiated bollocks !!
Is your body trying hard to get into a pretzel position to keep up with your baloney coming from your mouth, you already stated…. he he he… ha ha……,
then your next reply shows that you will anything despite it total contradiction because you so wedded to the AGW delusion.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
“The models are unequivocally closer to right than pure guessing, ergo they are unequivocally useful for decision-making.”
And yet every prediction that has been made based on the model outputs has turned out to be wrong. More hurricanes, more tornadoes, lower food production leading to massive starvation, more desertification, disappearance of the Arctic ice cap, massive climate migrations, and on and on and on.
The only conclusion that can be reached is that all of these are wrong because they are based on model outputs that are wrong.
Thus the models are *not* useful for decision making.
You unfortunately need to cite the literature you are referencing, or you’ve only done half your job. Which studies predict that we will definitively see these things by 2024? Primary references please and thanks.
Let me ask the question in a different way. Are the ensemble models near the bottom of the ‘heap of spaghetti’ closer to being correct than those at the top (warmer)? If so, then why is the average typically reported instead of the Russian models near the bottom?
It’s because the Russian models aren’t scary enough! Money dries up!
Who is reporting the average and in what context? The IPCC uses a TCR-screening approach to constrain the ensemble they use to assess climate sensitivity.
This must be how the alarmists actually think
That would only be true if there was solid evidence that doing nothing would be catastrophic. No such evidence exists.
We do have solid proof that getting rid of fossil fuels will have a devastating impact on humans.
We also have proof that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are helping every single person get fed.
It most certainly does preclude making any meaningful decisions.
Making decisions on fantasy superstitions and modelled garbage is the very epitome of gormless stupidity. !
Yes it does.
Complete ideologically motivated bollocks due the hatred of climate science:
If models weren’t useful they wouldn’t be constructed – for myriads of scientific applications ….
https://www.mathvalues.org/masterblog/mathematical-models-useful-but-invariably-false
EG:
“The fact is, the “electricity flows through wires” story is not a factual description; it’s a (mathematical) model. A very useful and reliable model to be sure; but a false one.
For most of us, including the electrician who you hire to fix your home circuits, that falsity doesn’t matter. Among the people who know that it’s false—who have to know it’s false—are the engineers who work on the nationwide power grid that delivers electricity to our homes and factories.
Typically, power engineers will describe themselves as delivering not “electricity” but “power” (or sometimes “energy”), presumably because that terminology avoids giving the false impression they are sending stuff through wires. Rather, they would say, what they are doing is making power available, by creating/assembling it in one location and transferring it to another.
Those words creation and assembly require stories all of their own, but that’s for another day. But here’s the scoop. The electrical energy they sell you does not flow through the wires. It is transmitted through the air that surrounds the wires.
[This helps explain how the high voltage current in (actually around, not in) a high-voltage transmission wire can give rise to the 120v current that comes into your home through (i.e., around) the completely separate cable that runs from the transformer on the pole to the supply box inside your home.]
So what is really going on? Well, first of all, no one really understands electricity. But if you get into quantum electrodynamics you’ll encounter a bunch of equations (a mathematical model) which to date is the closest anyone has come to answering the question, “What is electricity?” Though many power-system engineers may not have mastery of all the mathematics, they know enough about what that mathematics says is going on for them to be able to design, build, and operate the world’s power grids. See for example, this article from the international power organization EnergyOne.
In other words, the People-Who-Know have access to a better model than the rest of us, one that is adequate for their professional needs. But it’s still just a mathematical model. Like most mathematical models, what it does is provide a sound utilitarian framework for what, ultimately, we might as well describe as “magic”. (But notice that most incantations of the word “magic” cannot be meaningfully modeled by mathematics. Many people may be gullible; mathematics is not. Electrical power is part of the universe’s magic.)
Another example is Newton’s laws of gravity.
Perfectly accurate for getting us around the solar system … but not for the galactic Universe.
Useful but incorrect.
That excerpt was from a piece written by a Pure mathematician. It shows.
‘Suppose I have N models that all predict a different ECS value. Mother Nature is difficult, but she is not malicious: there is only one “true” value of ECS in the real world; if that were not the case, any attempt at a model would be pointless from the outset. Therefore, at best only one of those models can be correct. What is then the probability that none of those models are correct? We know immediately that N-1 models are not correct and that the remaining model may or may not be correct. So we can say that the a priori probability that any model is incorrect is [(N-1+0.5)/N] = 1–0.5/N. This gives a probability that none of the models is correct from (1-0.5/N)^N, about 0.6 for N>3. So that’s odds of 3 to 2 that all models are incorrect; this 0.6 is also the probability that the real ECS value falls outside the interval 1.8C-5.6C.’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/14/the-problem-with-climate-models-2/
99.999999% right is not correct but it is not incorrect either, so your probabilistic assessment falls short of being helpful.
What a moronic comment !!
He is unbelievably stupid!!!
🙁
In other words, if the true answer is 3 and we estimate 3.001 and 2.999, we are wrong twice, but we have a very useful estimate of the right answer. The framework used above can only tell you the odds of getting 3 assuming independent normally distributed estimates.
In climate modelling, there is no way to test if the true answer is ”3.001” In fact there is no way to even know if the correct question is being asked.
You are talking nonsense.
AJ does “nonsense” as his only output.
Seems to have the IQ of a brick !!
In fact there is exactly such a way; we are running a grand global experiment to answer the question as we speak. But this is utterly, wholly irrelevant to my point above and smacks of an attempt at deflection.
But the climate models have ZERO clue if the answer is “3”…
… could be -3, and there is no way you would know.
It is a totally USELESS estimation taking you in totally the wrong direction.
What climate models spew out is meaningless gibberish based on what the programmer puts into the model.
REALITY is not in its purview.
Like Mike said. You don’t know the true answer. You don’t even have an estimate of the true answer let alone an uncertainty interval to go with it.
IPCC, AR6, WG-I assessment report, page 1025 :
FAQ 7.3, Figure 1 | Equilibrium climate sensitivity and future warming. (left) Equilibrium climate sensitivities for the current generation (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6, CMIP6) climate models, and the previous (CMIP5) generation. The assessed range in this Report (AR6) is also shown. (right) Climate projections of CMIP5, CMIP6 and AR6 for the very high-emissions scenarios RCP8.5, and SSP5‐8.5, respectively. The thick horizontal lines represent the multi-model average and the thin horizontal lines represent the results of individual models. The boxes represent the model ranges for CMIP5 and CMIP6 and the range assessed in AR6.
.
Even assuming that “The Earth’s climate system” has a constant ECS value, that “nice round number” of 3[.000] degrees Celsius came from “expert judgement” in AR6 … i.e. it’s a SWAG (*).
The actual “multi-model average” for CMIP6 was approximately 3.8, not 3.0.
The range was from ~1.85 to ~5.6, which is slightly larger than your +/-0.001, and the IPCC’s “expert judges” decided to arbitrarily reduce that to the “nice round values” of 2 to 5 degrees instead anyway.
Look more closely at that Figure.
“You” were even more wrong with CMIP6 than you were with CMIP5 (the range increased), with a marked preference for climate models that “run hot”.
.
(*) [S]WAG = [ Scientific ] Wild-Assed Guess
You are arguing against a point I didn’t make, most likely because you read my comment with an intent to disagree with it rather than a good faith effort to understand it. I’m not arguing that the ECS is 3.000 degrees or that any model yielded an estimate of 3.001 degrees, I’m explaining conceptually why the assessment of model “rightness” is not a binary. Models can give good estimates without giving an exact value, so determining the odds of the models landing on the exact value is a pointless exercise.
this also glosses over the fact that the probability assumes a normal distribution of independent estimates, neither of which is true for the models.
Inferring motivation is always prone to error.
If you do precisely what you are accusing others of doing you leave yourself open to accusations of either “hypocrisy” or “(psychological) projection”.
The main “point” I was making was that the IPCC’s climate models don’t give a range of values in the 3 +/- 0.001 range, making them (almost ?) completely use-less.
The uncertainty does not need to be +/- 0.001 degrees to be a good estimate of ECS. The simple fact that we know there is almost no probability of an ECS < 1 degree is vitally useful information, having a best estimate is more useful still. The fact that models don’t yield a single exact value of ECS is thus quite irrelevant.
The models provide imperfect information that is objectively better than zero information, so using the models to inform policy decisions is unequivocally better than basing policy decisions on no information whatsoever.
Even the “ensemble” is way off from the real world. The models do *NOT* give a good estimate of anything.
The model ensemble is pretty darn close to the real world:
Particularly when forcing-adjusted or screened for TCR.
Are all your friends strawmen
Another moronic analogy in a petty attempt to justify unjustifiable garbage.
Un-validated models do not provide ANY information except that which the activist AGW-cult modellers wish the model to convey.
The climate models are built on fallacies many layers deep.. starting from Arrhenius, M&W etc etc.
Liquid quicksand is their foundation.
The demand is that the world (in theory the whole world, but in practice only Western countries of course) should move to Net Zero as fast as possible. This is supposed to be necessary because otherwise there will be a disaster caused by rising temperatures.
What is the status of the statement that business as usual will result in disastrous rising temperatures? It looks like a prediction, it smells like one, and it is treated by media and the political class in the English speaking countries as a prediction. It is to avert this prediction that governments are enacting laws and hugely expensive programs to reduce CO2 emissions.
However, when confronted with the reply that these predictions are extremely unlikely, not confirmed by observations and so not a sound basis for policy, the activists then come up with two other ways of attempting to justify their programs.
One way is to invoke Pascal’s Wager, aka the Precautionary Principle. The version invented by Pascal was that you should accept the Catholic religion, because, while it may be very unlikely to be true, the cost of disbelief, if it is true, is eternal damnation – bordering on infinite. But the cost of belief is small.
The logical difficulty is that the same argument can be made for any religion incompatible with Pascal’s which also promises eternal damnation for erroneous disbelief. For instance Islam. So it doesn’t work, you cannot get away from assessing the plausibility of the claims of the religion being promoted in this way.
The version used by climate activists is to say that the chances that global warming from human CO2 emissions will lead to the extinction of human life and civilization on planet Earth may be small. But the cost for us humans is close to infinite, therefore we should stop emitting ASAP,
The logical difficulty is the same. The same argument can be made for anti-asteroid or anti pandemic measures of the most resource intensive kind. The same form of argument can even be made for standing on our heads every morning to avert the earth being eaten by giant space lizards. Yes, its a very very small chance, but think about the cost if its true and we do nothing!
But we cannot do them all, and so in this case too there is no getting away from assessing probabilities and evidence for the apocalyptic predictions.
There is also the difficulty in the climate case that the cost of compliance is enormous. With Pascal it was a case of Sunday prayers. With climate and energy its trillions.
The second argument the activists make, when they lose the arguments from plausibility of their predictions, is to change the name. They are not predictions, they are projections. But projections, the claim goes, are all we need for policies.
Here is a passage from the post which does this, with Pascal lurking behind the curtain:
So we get a range of possible scenarios, each with a range of possible outcomes. We take that information and make the best decisions we can make based on it.We could, in theory, wait until we have exactly perfect information at our fingertips before making any policy decisions, but of course then it’s too late to make the decisions. So we use the tools that we have and make the best decisions we can, while continuously trying to improve the tools.
The consensus on this website seems to be that it’s better to not act than to act on imperfect information, a notion which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Did you see how it was done?
The first step is that what started out as not a prediction but a projection becomes a prediction again, but one which is less than certain. Like many predictions. Then this prediction is supposed to justify, if valid, only one response – because if we lose time making it certain, presumably it may be too late for this response to be effective. The suggestion is that the costs of being too late will be well, disastrous.
If these projections are not conditional predictions they have no bearing on policy. But they are predictions, of course. The problem is that they are weakly evidenced, or not evidenced at all. So there is no reason to make policy based on the idea that they are correct. And if you now start to argue from the costs of being wrong, never mind about the likelihood…?
Pascal has come out. And the problem is the same as it always is: if the evidence for your predictions is too flimsy to justify the costs of your policies, you cannot get away with invoking the Precautionary Principle, or by calling your predictions projections.
You have to get down to justifying the use of limited resources on CO2 emission reduction rather than any of the other demands on them. You have to argue that its worthwhile. That the cost/benefit equation holds up.
But of course, your inability to make that case is the reason you invoked the PP and “projections” in the first place…
I’ve never seen anyone make this argument, and I certainly am not. I am arguing that we have evidence of what the range of potential outcomes is likely to be given different emissions scenarios, and that we can use that evidence to guide our decision-making. Climate change need not be wholly catastrophic to warrant action to curb it, and there is an entire broad spectrum of possibilities outside of “catastrophic” or “benign” that we need to weigh our actions against.
There is a distinction, and your protestations do not diminish it. The IPCC stated in the TAR that “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” If you don’t grasp this distinction, it’s vital to wrestle with the concept until you do, because your objections to climate models as useful tools for decision making hinges on your misunderstanding here.
“we have evidence of what the range of potential outcomes is likely to be given different emissions scenarios”
Which is total BS.
We have a range of wild-ass guesses from a group of climate activist computer games, based on wild unproven conjectures and anti-science.
They are not evidence of ANYTHING except what the programmer “believes” and wants as output.
Meaningless against reality and should never be used to influence decisions of any sort in the real world.
I do grasp the distinction. The thing I do not grasp is why people say that its impossible to make predictions, then go on and make them, and then demand that we make very important policy decisions based on them.
I am also not objecting to the use of climate models or any other evidence. I am simply saying, you cannot get away from the need to carefully scrutinize the evidential base of proposed policy decisions. Not by invoking the precautionary principle, not by calling your predictions projections or scenarios.
In the end its how likely the prediction, how effective the proposed policies, what the costs are, what the competing demands for resources are. All things that the climate activists try to avoid even discussing. And take refuge in denigrating critics instead.
I explain in another comment why models cannot make predictions:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/12/13/climate-science-settled-until-its-not/#comment-4007040
im not invoking the precautionary principle, so that is just a straw man. Nor am I saying no one should evaluate the evidentiary basis of climate policies, thousands and thousands of hours are spent doing exactly this by scientists and policy professionals. It’s a bit daft to pretend like no one has thought them through.
You really should stop now.
He really should because I am wondering if he is being paid to be this profoundly stupid.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You seem to be unaware that you are making a complete fool of yourself.
A range of projections is a prediction where prediction = guess.
“improvement to the models”
Another layer of glitter !!
No, the models do NOT provide “projections”….
They provide activist driven games simulations that are used as propaganda.
The politicians have been proclaiming that the science is settled for decades. I have yet to hear a single so called climate scientist have yet to publicly disagree.
That and the whole “consensus” BS show that politics has completely corrupted climate “science.”
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English ‘projection’ and ‘prediction’ are synonyms.
Climate projections are not predictions. A prediction is a definitive statement about a future state. “A is going to happen therefore B will result.” But we cannot say this about the climate because we cannot say exactly what A is going to be, and if we could, the system is chaotic and so we can’t expect to get exactly B.
imagine we spin a spinning top on a table with a known torque. A prediction would be “the top will rotate 1000 times and come to rest 3.4 centimeters from its starting place.” Well we don’t know if someone is going to push the top, or if a gust of air might come along. And even if we knew all of those factors, microscopic variance in the tabletop will produce slightly different outcomes even when all macro-conditions are held constant. Thus no prediction is possible. Instead we can make projections – realistic outcomes that rely on a given set of circumstances. “If no one touches the top and no gust of air comes along, the most likely number of rotations is between x and y and the most likely distances from the starting point are between a and b” might be one such projection.
And AJ comes up with yet another FAKE, MEANINGLESS analogy.. hilarious.
Then goes off on yet another Kamal-speak rant.
Imagine.. That is all climate models do.
They are the epitome of ANTI-SCIENCE.
They don’t “project” anything.
They run imaginary simulations, which are utterly meaningless when compared to reality.
May as well use Nostra-dumb-ass prophecies.
If climate models were imaginary simulations that were utterly meaningless, they would not reproduce real features of the climate system as emergent phenomena. Whatever arguments you wish to make against climate models need to be grounded in the factual reality we inhabit.
“were imaginary simulations that were utterly meaningless”
Thanks for agreeing with me that they are utterly meaningless. !
They produce imaginary emergent phenomena.
Climate models are not grounded on anything “factual”.
You inhabit a fantasy la-la-land !!
what real features? More hurricanes? More tornadoes? lower food production? All of these are based on the climate models even if the climate models don’t produce these projections directly. And all of them are *wrong* – because they depend on climate projections that are wrong.
Models produce things like cyclones, the jet stream, ocean currents, thunderstorms, etc. as emergent properties. They would be categorically unable to do this if the basic physics were not right.
Contrarians are pathologically incapable of researching the topics they object to so strongly.
Bla bla bla bla bla, you are spouting Kamala grade gibberish now.
Some whine with your word salad today, monsieur?
This happens in business all the time. You are trying to forecast unit demand for a new product. You make a prediction with a range of possible values, figure out the financial results. Its called expected value – a subset of Net Present Value analysis. Climate and energy policy is no different. 100 year old financial management techniques.
What you are always trying to do is make your proposed policies exceptions to the general rule that we do proper analysis, how likely, how effective, how much cost.
There is nothing different about climate and energy decisions. But people never do this kind of analysis because they know the policy of moving to electricity generated by wind and solar is completely nuts, but they want it regardless, so they find all kinds of convoluted ways or pretending that normal methods of analysis don’t apply.
Ever considered this one? We should apply the Precautionary Principle to the move to wind solar and electricity, to EVs and heat pumps. The chances of a catastrophe may be very small, but the costs are so high we should obviously not risk it….
No, they almost always leave out the uncertainty. Most of them have no idea how to determine uncertainty anyway.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
Ahahahahaha. So they admit the models are COMPLETELY useless then.
That is probably because the uncertainties are so large — mostly because the emissions scenarios are unpredictable. Yet, climatologists do a poor job of rigorously providing uncertainties, and when they do provide an uncertainty, it is usually only a 1-sigma probability because anything larger would be painfully obvious to have low skill.
Model spread is often presented as the 95% envelope, indicating 2-sigma uncertainty. But you are right that uncertainty in forcing is one of the most significant components of model uncertainty, which is why scientists always discuss outcomes in terms of emissions scenarios.
The model spread of models that give wrong outputs is useless. You can’t average wrong measurements to get an accurate one.
Only in climatology!
The model spread is unequivocally useful for evaluating the models, claiming otherwise is too goofy to warrant a serious response.
The 2-sigma range of the ensemble says nothing about the absolute accuracy or precision. It just demonstrates that there is little agreement amongst the various models of the ensemble. How useful is it to say that a number lies between zero and infinity? What is needed is an ensemble, or a single model, that will give repeatable results to within 10% (1% preferably) of measured values of the heat index, precipitation, cloud cover, and wind speeds at a spatial resolution of the Köppen-Geiger climate classes. We aren’t even close.
I would add that the models should give repeatable results for hardiness zones since they are so widely used in the US to make decisions concerning agriculture. The day the climate models beat out the Farmers Almanac for future predictions is the day they could be considered useful
This study is BS and so is the article
Whatever effect the oceans have on the climate was already included in the UAH satellite data. This study changes nothing.
The study merely says the previous wild guess about a minor element of the ocean’s effect on the climate should be replaced by a new wild guess. That is junk science.
Here is a quote from the study write-up:
Study Limitations
The team acknowledged the scarcity of historical data on MeSH concentrations, with most measurements taken during the summer months. Their global emissions estimates relied on statistical models, which inherently carry some uncertainty.
Climate change ‘greatly overestimated’? Oceans cooling Earth far more than we thought
“Whatever effect the oceans have on the climate was already included in the UAH satellite data. “
And shows that El Nino events provide ALL of the warming in the UAH data.
Your comprehension on this is lacking.
The El Niño models of Schellenhuber running 2019 and based on observations predicted a strong El Niño for 2020 with 80% certainity, because they showed indicators not found in other models as Shellenhuber proudly announced.
The reality in 2020 was a several year long La Niña, you remember?
Once again, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand what that article is about.
This (MeSH level) is a blow to the goofball doomsters once again throwing a monkey wrench into their precious garbage in garage out models.
They’ll probably figure out that if cooling aerosols have been higher than they have in current models, a nifty way to compensate is to dial up the CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to match homogenized temperature trends. Then they’ll publish papers that anthropogenic CO2 warming is worse than we suspected!
”Settled science” is like a “Carnivorous Vegan”, an oxymoron. If it is settled, it is not science.
I disagree somewhat, Newtonian physics has been mostly settled since the mid 17th century, most biology is (AFAIK) settled, likewise chemistry.
What is key is the evidence basis for saying that the “science is settled”, if the basis is strong and repeatable experiments then I’m happy to say that “the science is settled”, if the basis is speculative models that we know are at least partially wrong, and the only people claiming that “the science is settled” are political activists, that’s a different matter.
There is a difference between “highly probable” and “certain”. One cannot prove a negative.
Newtonian physics is not settled. It went through the scientific method, include null hypotheses testing and was PROVEN. It is also acknowledged that it requires a specific frame of reference, which is a subset of the theory of relativity.
Conjecture, then hypothesis, then theory, then law.
And in all of this, the major thrust is to always disprove.
Yep. AGW falls within the realm of conjecture and hypothesis, and those bastards are loathe to do hypothesis testing.
Maybe a more relatable message for the masses would be to liken climate statements to those ubiquitous disclaimers on everyday things like medical procedures, credit card user documents, stock investments, tax returns, etc etc.
To wit –
EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED TO THE CONTRARY IN THIS CLIMATE ARTICLE, THE PUBLISHERS AND AUTHORS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES TO ANY OTHER PARTIES CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC QUALITY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY STATEMENTS, EFFECTS OR PROJECTIONS ABOUT CLIMATES. THE PARTIES DISCLAIM, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE OF BELIEVABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARISING FROM COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING, OR FROM USAGES OF THE SUBJECT CLIMATE PUBLICATION.
Your font size is WAY too big.
Jealous? 🙂
Yes, but very difficult to do in the usual small-almost-invisible “Disclaimer” font on this forum. !
Side effects may include mild death.
More good news.
I’ve mentioned this before a few times. I had subscriptions to Nature and Science for decades before eventually dropping them due to their politically correct attitudes (like editorials for gun control). One of the constant puzzles was how their could be one or two articles a year on new factors in climate models, like cloud cover, humidity, mountains, and so on.
Wether MeSH plays a significant part in global warming will become clearer with more data and more research. My concern remains with climate modelling. Suppose for now that MeSH is important and accounts for X deg C of global warming/cooling. This means that past climate model projections had an error of +/- X. Was an error of this size listed in projections as something like “Magnitude observed, but cause not yet known”?. If so, how many other errors are in this category?
Surely this points again to the importance of dealing properly with errors and uncertainties. Authors like Pat Frank have published about model uncertainties with a response that was hostile instead of causing reasoned debate as ideal science would require. I do not know the answer to the next bit here, but are climate modellers in possession of inferences that large uncertainties remain, even large enough to invalidate the methods, but the uncertainties are deliberately concealed or downplayed for fear of a halt being called? That is consistent with abuse of critics of climate modelling. Geoff S
“All models are wrong. Some are useful.”
That famous quote doesn’t specify the amount of error that is unacceptable, making them “wrong,” nor does it say anything about the range over which they are useful. Those points are important, but rarely mentioned.
I would not be surprised if the number of papers I seen over the past two decades about significant factors not included in climate models total at least 50.
Then there is the fact that really major factors like clouds and storms are not understood well enough to be anything but parameter values, as well as, while being extremely common, are individually smaller than the model resolutions, so not realistically portrayed even though real evidence says they are rather important.
Then there is the fact that the models are built around a simplified idealized planet not especially similar the our planet.
Thus the idea that they are “useful tools” vis a vis reality can certainly be put into the questionable category.
While one might wonder why “climate science” has been
settled or not, one has only to look at Microbiology for a big hint as to why. As this article shows, the microorganisms of the entire planet constantly react to changes in their environment which ultimately has some effect on the planet’s climate. Is that a lot? Who knows?
Microbiology is still one of the few places in the analytical laboratory where the blinking lights do not rule. They cannot analyze or predict results with any certainty because they are dealing with living organisms.
It takes decades of experience to interpret the reactions of these organisms in their environment.
No wonder the climate appears chaotic.
Haven’t we had news that CO2 is absorbed at a nearly 40% higher rate in some areas than the computer games – er models – say? And now broad leafed trees production of isoprene seeds clouds that cool the planet.