Climate scientists admit their models are wrong

Written by Bud Bromley

Climate scientists who support human-caused global warming, for example Ben Santer and Michael Mann, authored a peer reviewed paper which acknowledges that their climate models are wrong, although their admission is buried in weasel words and technical jargon:

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the first line of the abstract of lead author, climate scientist Ben Santer’s recent paper in Nature. In other words, the actual temperature trends were less than their models.

Their models cost taxpayers billions of dollars and they want trillions more dollars.

Michael Mann (of the infamous and now repudiated “hockey stick” warming graphic in Al Gore’s science fiction movie) as well as other alarmists are co-authors on the paper. (Link below.)

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, MODEL tropospheric warming is substantially larger than OBSERVED,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.” (Capital letters are mine for emphasis.) In other words, their computer models substantially overestimated the global warming which has been observed in the real world.

For three decades in thousands of peer-reviewed science papers, tens of thousands of scientists have been pointing out the large differences between climate models and real world observations or measurements of climate.  But, these works have received very limited coverage by mainstream media and are very rarely taught in schools.  And, there has been a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” or “pause” in global warming which the climate models failed to predict. These climate models fail to replicate known climate conditions. This means their computer models are not validated and should not be used for decisions, much less to justify the expenditure of trillions of dollars.

Since CO2 has been climbing steadily during the same period as this “hiatus” or “pause” in the temperature trend, their hypothesis that human-produced CO2 causes climate change is falsified under the scientific method. The CO2 trend cannot be forcing the temperature trend if the CO2 trend and temperature trend are diverging. Furthermore, there was a well-known period of ‘global cooling’ from the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s while at the same time the CO2 concentration trend was increasing. These direct contradictions of the global warming theory have never been adequately explained by global warming alarmists.

And, by the way, the commonly used words “hiatus” and “pause” presume that global warming will re-start at some point in the future. The evidence does not support that presumption. The climate could cool instead, or it could continue as a flat trend for millions of years, as has happened in the past.

In the scientific method it is not the obligation or responsibility of skeptics or “deniers” to falsify or disprove hypotheses and theories proposed by climate scientists.  It is the obligation and responsibility of climate scientists to present evidence and to defend their hypothesis.  Alarmist climate scientists have failed to do so despite the expense of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

http://climatechangedispatch.com/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real-admits-climategate-scientist/

Christy graph of models
Read more at budbromley.blog
***

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (70)

  • Avatar

    JaKo

    |

    IPPC’s (~ IP Policy Change) models have always been “controversial.” Their (model’s) principal “forcing” by CO2 seems very wrong.
    With the enormous complexity of what makes-up the climate — wouldn’t it be possible to demonstrate that spike in CO2 concentration may be a “harbinger” for global cooling?
    (a) The ice cores analysis may show compressed levels of this life-giving gas (due to e.g. diffusion) and current level peak may be just normal pitch for all recent (400kybp+) swans songs of interglacials
    (b) CO2 and other constituents of our atmosphere are not one-way-mirror; they block a bit of the incoming as well as outgoing IR radiation (an inconvenient fact?)
    (c) As the famous physical chemist himself mentioned, not CO2, but carbonic acid is the “thing;” little is done (nothing I can find on the IPPC) on the effect of its dissociation in the humid atmosphere — not only on its IR absorption spectrum (etc.) but on cloud formation/precipitation and other, thermodynamic, chemical (e.g. w. O3) and even its mechanical qualities…

      • Avatar

        Trevor Marr

        |

        Ever notice that all the ones telling us we are all gonna die, have the biggest carbon footprints in their Countries and none of them actually walk their own talk but tell us that we must? Do you remember the scene in the movie ‘Wizard of Oz’, where Toto pulls back the curtain and exposes who the Real Wizard is? Check out Tony Heller on YouTube and you will understand how they are playing us for fools! Stand against the Climate Cult… AGW stands for Al Gore’s Wrong!!!

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        I’ve always thought it plainly obvious that this is a BS assertion. If humans chop down and burn a tree is it going to have a different isotope signature if the same tree burns in a forest fire? Same for fossil deposits. If they vent/burn naturally are they going to have a different isotope signature? How is it that global warming advocates never consider these kind of simple questions?

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          They do, duh. You’re the one who needs to think deeper

          The RealClimate link was pretty clear about the details of the science. Is there some specific part of the scientific reasoning you have a problem with, other than that, again, you don’t like the result?

      • Avatar

        John Conway

        |

        David Appell, the carbon isotope ratio is not evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. It’s actually stupid to suggest it is. Think of it like this: a lake has many inflows, you put a die in one of those inflows, and you increase the inflow into the lake from another source. You then observe the water level in the lake rises and there is more die in the lake – you conclude the source with the die is the cause of the water rise in the lake, but your conclusion would be wrong

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          John you didn’t understand the physics in the RealClimate link at all. Did you even read it?

          Your lake analogy isn’t pertinent. We’re discussing flows of carbon isotopes, not water flows.

        • Avatar

          Tra

          |

          I’ve never bought into the whole climate change mess, the whole media & political frenzy.. but also not a scientist & didn’t quite understand. Just a person with God given common sense, & I want to say Thank You for that analogy.. because NOW I can see it & understand it. Don’t know why the guy your talking to, can’t see something so clear as that.. but Thanks.

      • Avatar

        Richard Willson

        |

        Appel – you are wrong!

        Humans are responsible for less than 4% of atmospheric CO2 at any given time – the ocean dominates its continuous exchange between ocean, atmosphere and landmass biota.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Humans are responsible for about 46% of the CO2 in today’s atmosphere.

          This is baby science.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          PS: The ocean is gaining CO2 as well — that’s why it’s acidifying.

  • Avatar

    David Appell

    |

    It’s more likely the data model is wrong. UAH is an outlier and always has been. RSS’s warming trend is 50% higher.

    All this happened before, in the last ’90s, and it was UAH model that was wrong, not the climate models.

  • Avatar

    Larry

    |

    We should celebrate. Not very often do commies admit mistakes.

  • Avatar

    Roger Payne

    |

    Given the very large number of factors which are known to interrelate to climate and weather, clouds, gravity, earth tectonics, sun, sun cycles, moon, the large planets in the unified solar system, Earth axial tilt shifts, orbital shifts, cosmic rays. patterns of oceans and ocean currents, land mass, poles, volcanoes on the surface and deep undersea, ENSO variants and time lag effects, etc etc. how can one trace gas CO2 be singled out as the supposed cause of climate shifts? is oit because the models are first programmed to say so?

    • Avatar

      LindaL

      |

      I think the answer is they have only looked at one possible cause for global warming. Interestingly, it is a cause they can tax. Imagine trying to tax us for earth’s orbit or cosmic rays.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      No, models are programmed to correlate temperature to CO2, they’re programmed to solve the physics equations that regulate climate.

      CO2 isn’t the only factor that regulates climate, of course, but given the strong infrared absorption properties of CO2 — some IR emitted by Earth’s surface is almost all absorbed in the bottom meter of the atmosphere — it’s hardly surprising it has a large impact on climate. That’s why Arrhenius was able to estimate it in 1896 doing calculations with pen and pencil.

      Observations from the top of the atmosphere make it clear CO2 has a large effect on temperatures:

      https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

      • Avatar

        David Appell

        |

        Should be, models are NOT programmed to correlate temperature to CO2 — that arises from the physics. And it’s very simple and straightforward physics that was discovered in the 19th century.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    I see David Appell is trying to lie his way through since CO2 levels have been much higher than 280 ppm as pointed out in several published papers:

    “Before climate science was hijacked by politics and coerced into a consensus view by the same, there was a fairly sizable body of work that showed that during the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels have been as high, or higher than the present during the various warm periods.

    In the later 1980’s climate science decided that atmospheric samples derived from ice cores that showed CO2 levels higher than the present were not acceptable and were thus tossed out…samples that showed CO2 levels that were lower than the present were acceptable and kept since they supported the alarmist narrative.”

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/co2-levels-were-this-high-800-000-years-ago-so-whos-responsible.772626/page-3#post-22984857

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Got any actual science? Journal papers? Reports?

      Message boards aren’t science. Don’t be so gullible.

      • Avatar

        Sunsettommy

        |

        Ha ha,

        it is clear you didn’t click on the link, yes it is to a forum, where warmists morons like YOU are getting creamed in climate debates. They look smart standing next to you…….

        In the link you are too scared to peek in, has SIX published papers in it, but you will never know, but here are the names of the publisher:

        Nature
        Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan
        Journal of Geophysical Research
        21 Sky Tech
        University of Oslo

        Ohhhh, I bet that scared you a lot.

        Why don’t you take your lazy bigoted climate bullcrap back to your failed blog, you offer nothing called an honest debate. It is why you have been banned all over the place.

        It is why so many people consider you one of the worst warmists believers in the world, with your continual lies and B.S. I know that you are getting closed to being sued since you are a known stalker…, the person is fed up with it.

        Go get a life in your home town!

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Yes, I looked at that page. It’s a pretty messy, junky page full of ads and hard to understand who’s referring to whom. I just looked again and I still don’t see any links to journal papers.

          Just link to the papers themselves if you think they support your claim.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          You know what, don’t bother replying until you can be civil and decent. You won’t get a reply until you do.

          And you’ll need to apologize for your the name calling and accusations in your comment above.

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Sunsettommy, David Appell, and Any One Else Who Believes That Rational Debate IS Science,

          Of course, I expect that what I write will fall upon the blind eyes of those who believe that rational debate is SCIENCE. But my hope springs eternally.

          I claim to know what real science is about because I spent hour after hour massing sample vials to a reproducible mass of a few millionths of a gram with a Mettler Micro Balance in the 1960’s so my diffusion data, which I was measuring and calculating for my thesis research, would not look like a shotgun pattern.

          Without the Mettler Micro Balance my research would have been impossible. Without a few other instruments my research would have been impossible.

          I doubt, but don’t know, that those who believe that rational debate has a role to play in SCIENCE, have ever tried to mass vials to a few reproducible micrograms. Or like Tycho Brahe, tried to make the most possible precise naked-eye measurements of the positions of stars and planets relative to each other. I doubt, but don’t know, if these people who believe that rational debate is SCIENCE, would understand, what Tycho understood, that he had to do to make his quite precise naked-eye measurements. For he not only designed and had his large Brass Quadrant Azimuthal made, he also designed and had built an observatory on an island which provided reproducible horizons. No, I am not an astronomer but I can image that ‘reference’ horizons’ might have been critically important.

          SCIENCE is all about observation (measurement). It is claimed that Galileo wrote (as translated by someone): “Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.” But I am sure the Galileo and Brahe knew that measurements needed to be analyzed in order to find possible relationships. So we should not overlook what Johannes Kepler did, or Edmund Halley, did before there were calculating machines. What they did was SCIENCE too for without some analysis (pondering) measurements are meaningless.

          And as a former teacher, I accept something else that Galileo is said to have stated: “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”

          Have a good day, Jerry

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Science has progressed far, far beyond naked eye measurements. Other than that, what is your point?

      • Avatar

        Ken

        |

        I was hoping Canada was on a warming trend

  • Avatar

    Julian Fell

    |

    I sense the half story popular in warmista assertions. CO2 intercepts 15 micron surface radiation as demonstrated by a black out of 15 micron band when looking down. Hunc demonstrandum est. The public is also induced to believe that the more CO2 is added to the atmosphere the greater is the amount of heat trapped.

    The trouble with this scenario is that it is not CO2 which is in least supply and therefore the rate controller. It is the 15 micron radiation that is in short supply. A CO2 level of 250 ppm is all that is needed to capture all the 15 micron emissions. This capture takes place close to ground level and the only effect of more CO2 is to bring the capture a few meters closer to the ground. It does not increase the quantity of capture. The captured energy is overwhelmingly passed on to N2, O2, Ar and H2O by kinetic collision. Water is also a radiative gas with a difference, it absorbs and radiates over a broad spectrum and can absorb at one frequency, (or receive energy by kinetic collision) and then radiate it at another frequency. So all CO2 does is capture all the 15 micron band, hand it off to other gases and quickly it ends up being sent into space in a range of different emission frequencies by water. The heating effect, if it can be called that since it is really only a delay, only lasts a few minutes and in quantity of energy involved there is no difference between different levels of CO2.

    • Avatar

      Matt

      |

      I watched a video recently where Dr Will Happer explained how an incrase in Co2 in the atmosphere is like something painted red and if you paint it red again it does not get any redder.
      Thank you for the reiteration Julian.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Julian Fell wrote:
      “A CO2 level of 250 ppm is all that is needed to capture all the 15 micron emissions. This capture takes place close to ground level and the only effect of more CO2 is to bring the capture a few meters closer to the ground. It does not increase the quantity of capture.”

      This is wrong; it’s called the Saturation Fallacy. It’s wrong because the atmosphere itself radiates in all directions.

      If CO2 were saturated at 15 microns, there would be none of it escaping out the top of the atmosphere. But measurements by satellite clearly show there is:

      https://media.springernature.com/original/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5/MediaObjects/40641_2016_39_Fig2_HTML.gif

      You can read more about the Saturation Fallacy in a sidebar to this excellent article, page number 37:

      Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Physics Today (2011).
      https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

  • Avatar

    Julian Fell

    |

    My observation is that Saturation Fallacy is one of those terms (like white privilege and toxic masculinity) tossed around by the Social/Climate Justice crowds. Lets stick to real science, not manufactured (consensus) science. CO2 black out is not absolute and 15 micron radiation is going to occur, just in diminished amounts. Both radiative gas emissions and Stefan-Boltzmann spontaneous radiation are in all directions in an under Kombayashi-Ingersoll environment but due to adiabatic effects on temperature the radiation that goes down is not going to be absorbed, only reflected. Back radiation heating is a myth except for those in the consensus science school who have agreed to repeal the second law of thermodynamics. Water vapour also absorbs-radiates in the longer end of the 15 micron band. Upward radiation can be from either water or CO2. Water vapour is a competitor to CO2 in the overlapped frequencies and since water vapour occurs at levels up to 80 times that of CO2 it pretty much fogs out any CO2 effects except in the driest environments, which is to say over deserts only.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Julian Fell wrote:
      “Back radiation heating is a myth except for those in the consensus science school who have agreed to repeal the second law of thermodynamics.”

      You don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics. Go read about its adiabaticity clause — neither the Earth or the atmosphere is an adiabatic system.

      Back radiation is, of course, real, it carries energy, so it heats. In fact, 2/3rds of the heat that the surface receives comes from “back radiation,” which is just radiation from the atmosphere. It’s why night time temperatures don’t plunge drastically.

      https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere

      “Water vapour is a competitor to CO2 in the overlapped frequencies and since water vapour occurs at levels up to 80 times that of CO2 it pretty much fogs out any CO2 effects except in the driest environments, which is to say over deserts only.”

      Also the poles, where there is little water vapor. Also above the tropopause.

  • Avatar

    julian fell

    |

    My radiation meter which measures in the 6 to 12 micron band says you are dead wrong. In a clear sky the back radiation is equivalent to the emissions of an object of -20 C, The ground level temperature is +16 C. However when it is overcast the back radiation is equivalent to emissions of an object of +2 C. When it is foggy the zenith radiation is equivalent to emissions of an object of +9 C. Cloud is liquid water and it is liquid water that catches and holds radiated energy. CO2 cannot do anything like this. CO2 holds the absorbed energy of 15u photons for an unusually long time, up to a second. this gives it millions to billions of chances of passing its energy on kinetically compared to re-radiating it. Second law of thermodynamics (quantum mechanics really) says the -20 emission radiation cannot be absorbed by objects 30 degrees warmer. CO2 back radiation heating is a myth. Energy retention by liquid water is a reality. Water is still a net coolant. Although it is capturing and storing heat radiated from ground level, it is also preventing sunshine reaching the planet surface and results in net cooling. The atmosphere is adiabatic with a jog occurring when there is an inversion interface. This condition actually further works against back radiation as there is a temperature layer boundary with colder (=denser) layer below. Night time temperatures drop much faster under clear skies. Just check out night-day range in southern Arizona (20 C). Where there is water vapour at the dew point layer then yes the night cooling is reduced to about a third of this but this comes from liquid water holding heat (and latent heat from condensation). Again CO2 has nothing to do with these processes.

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Julian Fell wrote:
      “Second law of thermodynamics (quantum mechanics really) says the -20 emission radiation cannot be absorbed by objects 30 degrees warmer.”

      That’s just wrong — it’s flat out wrong. You don’t understand the 2LOT.

      If a photon is emitted from a -20 C object in the direction of a +30 C object, what do you think happens when it gets there? Does it do a U-turn? Does it pass straight through?

      From the article I linked to above:

      “The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”

      Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

    • Avatar

      David Appell

      |

      Moreover, you can’t honestly think that a scientific hypothesis would last for 125 years if it violated basic laws of thermodynamics. A few million scientists have looked at the greenhouse effect before you. If it was violating the 2LOT they would have said so. Therefore, you should be asking yourself, where have I gone wrong in my understanding of the 2LOT.

      (If what you claimed is true, a refrigerator would never work, since it transfers heat from cold to hot.)

      • Avatar

        julian fell

        |

        Are you serious? A refrigerator works by using fluids that evaporate at very low temperatures to absorb heat and then compresses those fluids to adiabatically create a hotter than atmosphere fluid which then passes its heat to the (relatively cooler) atmosphere (and condenses in the process) leaving a heat depleted liquid which is then reduced to low pressure which then is able to absorb heat and evaporate again. There is no violation of 2nd law involved. A -20 sourced photon reflects off a +19 surface. It cannot be absorbed. The Pierrehumbert quotation refers to direct sunlight (very hot) falling on a planet. It does not imply back radiation.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          How does a refrigerator compress anything?

          • Avatar

            julian

            |

            Drop one on your foot.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            A refrigerator HAS AN OUTSIDE ENERGY SOURCE to drive the compressor.

            Hence even though a refrigerator transfers heat from cold to hot, it doesn’t violate the 2LOT because it isn’t an adiabatic system.

            Neither is the atmosphere, which has the energy of sunlight entering from outside the system.

            Again, read Pierrehumbert.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            Refrigerators don’t transfer cold to hot. They blow out hot, and push in the cold.

            Take a shovel and scoop up burning coal, replace with ice cubes. David will think this is cold heating hot.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Blowing out heat” is the same as transferring it out.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            No, David, moving the molecules via external work is not heat transfer.

          • Avatar

            Zoe Phin

            |

            “Why not?”

            It’s the difference between moving your furniture, and having it move itself.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            I don’t understand your simile.

            A refrigerator needs an outside energy source to transfer/move heat from cold to hot. Hence it is not in contradiction with the 2LOT.

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          BTW, photons don’t have a temperature.

          Or perhaps you can give the equation for it.

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        David:
        Moreover, you can’t honestly think that a scientific hypothesis would last for 125 years if it violated basic laws of thermodynamics.

        JMcG:
        Surreal. You are so naive. Meteorology’s convection model of storm theory has been around since the 1840s. That’s 170 years. It’s scientific justification is based on nothing more than a rough analogy to the similarity of thunderclouds to the plume of moisture coming off a pot boiling on a stove. Variations of this model posit moisture turning gaseous at temperatures far below the boiling temperature/pressure that anybody can look up in H2O phase diagrams. Yet it persists because it is deeply believed. Even some of the most fervent critics of AGW fall silent when this sacred notion is shown to be nonsense.

        The truth is that global warming is just to scratch the surface of the nonsense that is believed in the atmospheric sciences:
        Read this:
        http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17188

        • Avatar

          David Appell

          |

          Sounds like it’s not a very good model. Is it the one state of the art meteorology uses today, or is it mostly now for heuristic purposes?

          The Bohr model of the atom is wrong. But it predicts most of the hydrogen spectrum and serves as a excellent entry into the teaching of quantum mechanics

          The greenhouse model as represented in mainstream climate models would not be around if it obviously violated the 1LOT or 2LOT. Physicists aren’t stupid.

          “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
          — George Box, statistician

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            DA:
            Sounds like it’s not a very good model. Is it the one state of the art meteorology uses today, or is it mostly now for heuristic purposes?

            JMcG:
            Both.

            Consensus based arrogance is the norm anytime you are dealing with humans. People fool themselves into thinking they are independent thinkers. This is the delusion. This is our deepest misconception. The reality is that people that actually are independent thinkers, like myself, do so by way of strict adherence to scientific method. I know my limitations. I know that if I don’t adhere to scientific principles I will regress into the behavior of pretending to understand what I really don’t. Most people never realize this and live their whole live never suspecting it.

            Humans have a huge capacity to pretend to understand and a very low capacity to be cognizant that they are pretending.

            After I made the discovery that the notion that moist air contained gaseous H2O was a myth and it actually contains liquid H2O I didn’t think it would be that controversial. Instead people get real emotional, arrogant, and desperate. They start deploying all kinds of political tactics, including name calling. Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O. I pointed him to phase diagrams (based on experiments done in laboratories) that clearly indicate that I am right and he is wrong. He refused to acknowledge this evidence. Instead this self-righteous moron kept blabbing on and eventually blocked me from his twitter.

            https://twitter.com/SolvingTornadoe/sta … 3521546240

            The world is full of self-righteous morons who having once read something in a book are sure they know the truth.

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Blah blah blah. You always change the subject when you encounter questions and points you can’t answer.

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            DA:
            You always change the subject when you encounter questions and points you can’t answer.

            JMcG:
            You made the claim that, “The greenhouse model . . . would not be around if it violated the 1LOT or 2LOT.” You then go on to claim that, “Physicist are not stupid.”

            I don’t disagree with your second statement (afterall I myself am a physicist). But you state this as if to suggest this notion has been defined, measured, and tested. Well, where is it? All I see is a vague conjecture. Where is the concisely defined hypothesis? All of the rest of your arguments seem to be based on some absurd delusion that there are thousands of highly qualified scientists out there constantly doing experiments to hone the theory. The reality is that there is no theory. Like Meteorology’s convection model of storms, it is just a parable.

            This link involves the rare event that I actually talked to a meteorologists about storm theory:
            Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
            http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16613

            James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            If you don’t think there’s a theory of greenhouse warming, you haven’t read nearly enough. Why haven’t you tried to learn? That’s an odd trait for a physicist.

            Here’s a succinct article that’s very good to get you started:

            “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature,” Raymond Pierrehumbert, Physics Today 2011.
            https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3541943

            Then you could read a textbook to get all the math. A good one is

            https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Modern-Climate-Change-Dessler/dp/1107480671

            also

            https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Planetary-Climate-Raymond-Pierrehumbert/dp/0521865565/

            The first warming calculation was published in 1896, and of course there has been an enormous amount of work since. Here’s a short list of some of the progression:

            http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

          • Avatar

            James McGinn

            |

            None of this verbiage adds up to a concise testable theory that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm catastrophically. You have nothing testable. it’s just hyperbole.

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

            http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1
            “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007).

            http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

            Review – “The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change,” Brindley & Bantges (2016)
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5

            Abstract: “Spectrally resolved measurements of the Earths reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere intrinsically contain the imprints of a multitude of climate relevant parameters. Here, we review the progress made in directly using such observations to diagnose and attribute change within the Earth system over the past four decades. We show how changes associated with perturbations such as increasing greenhouse gases are expected to be manifested across the spectrum and illustrate the enhanced discriminatory power that spectral resolution provides over broadband radiation measurements. Advances in formal detection and attribution techniques and in the design of climate model evaluation exercises employing spectrally resolved data are highlighted. We illustrate how spectral observations have been used to provide insight into key climate feedback processes and quantify multi-year variability but also indicate potential barriers to further progress. Suggestions for future research priorities in this area are provided.”

            Citation: H. E. Brindley, R. J. Bantges (2016), Current Climate Change Reports, DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5. Full text:
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5

            More papers on this subject are listed here:
            http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

            “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

            “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007).

            Review – “The Spectral Signature of Recent Climate Change,” Brindley & Bantges (2016)
            https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40641-016-0039-5

            Abstract: “Spectrally resolved measurements of the Earths reflected shortwave (RSW) and outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere intrinsically contain the imprints of a multitude of climate relevant parameters. Here, we review the progress made in directly using such observations to diagnose and attribute change within the Earth system over the past four decades. We show how changes associated with perturbations such as increasing greenhouse gases are expected to be manifested across the spectrum and illustrate the enhanced discriminatory power that spectral resolution provides over broadband radiation measurements. Advances in formal detection and attribution techniques and in the design of climate model evaluation exercises employing spectrally resolved data are highlighted. We illustrate how spectral observations have been used to provide insight into key climate feedback processes and quantify multi-year variability but also indicate potential barriers to further progress. Suggestions for future research priorities in this area are provided.”

            Citation: H. E. Brindley, R. J. Bantges (2016), Current Climate Change Reports, DOI: 10.1007/s40641-016-0039-5. Full text:

            More papers on this subject are listed here:
            http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

          • Avatar

            David Appell

            |

            Re: verbiage

            Read Pierrehumbert’s textbook, chapter 4. If you can handle the math.

  • Avatar

    Bud Bromley

    |

    Since the increasing trend in total atmospheric CO2 concentration does not reveal a measurable anomaly, deviation or increase associated with the contribution of CO2 by humans from burning fossil fuels, then it is not logical to expect that human-produced CO2 will result in a measurable change in temperature nor a change in sea level, nor glaciers, nor in myriad other natural events. All of these measurements of other natural events are confounded by numerous additional simultaneous biases which are absent from the simple measurement of trend in total atmospheric CO2 concentration versus time.

    The paper below is exceptionally informative science by Professor Jamal Munshi. The examples used are helpful to understanding the statistical tools used. Since this work only involves two components of a single climate variable, CO2, the many other climate variables cancel out and may be ignored for the purpose of this work. This is extremely important because simultaneity bias, which should always be removed from the many entangled, interdependent climate variables but unfortunately has been rarely considered in climate studies, requires difficult math including many assumptions and uncertainties, which are not needed in this method. This is a home run.

    Summarizing, the human contribution to CO2 by burning fossil fuels is so small that it has no measurable effect on the overall natural growth rate of CO2. By logical inference, human CO2 cannot have any measurable effect on global temperature.

    Dr. Munshi is Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University. He taught applied statistics in the Business Administration department. He earned a BS Chemical Engineering at San Jose State University, MS Chemical Engineering Colorado School of Mines, and PhD from University of Arkansas.

    I have copied below only the abstract, introduction and conclusions. I strongly encourage you to take the time to read and consider the other sections of this excellent and brief paper including the excellent graphics and references. A link to the online paper is below where you can download a pdf version.

    Bud

    RESPONSIVENESS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS:

    A NOTE
    JAMAL MUNSHI

    8/8/2015, Revised 12/13/2015

    ABSTRACT: A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.1

    INTRODUCTION

    The theory of anthropogenic global warming is that since 1750, human activity, involving the use of fossil fuels, the manufacture of cement, and changes in land use, has been injecting an artificial flow of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere at such an accelerated rate that it has overwhelmed nature’s delicate carbon balance and caused a steadily rising unnatural and unprecedented accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The change in atmospheric composition has enhanced its greenhouse effect causing surface temperatures to rise unnaturally and dangerously and threaten catastrophic consequences in terms of climate change (Hansen, 2006) (IPCC, 2007) (IPCC, 2014) (Plass, 1956). An important policy implication is that since these changes were created by artificial means they can also be moderated by artificial means simply by making significant reductions in our emissions of CO2 (IPCC, 2014).

    Since the recent accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is ascribed solely to human emissions, a testable implication of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between the rate of anthropogenic emissions and the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere; and this correlation should be observable at the inter-annual frequency level (Patra, 2005) (Raupach, 2008) (Keeling, 2001) (Plass, 1956) (Lorius, 1990). This means that, net of long term trends, we should find that years of higher annual emissions should correspond with years of greater annual increase in atmospheric CO2 and years of lower emissions should correspond with years of lower rates of accumulation of atmospheric CO2. In this short note, we test this hypothesis by applying detrended correlation analysis, a tool that is often used by financial analysts to detect higher frequency changes net of long term trends (Prodobnik, 2008) (Granger, 1964) (Haan, 2002). The method tests the relationship between two variables that share a common direction in their long term drift in time by removing the drift component and comparing the detrended series in terms of correlation at shorter intervals. When applied to atmospheric CO2, this procedure shows that the correlation between the annual rate at which anthropogenic emissions are introduced into the atmosphere and the annual rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, though significant, does not survive into the detrended series and is therefore likely to be spurious or an artifact of the common direction of their long term drift in time to which no anthropogenic cause can be ascribed.

    ………………..

    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

    A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. It was found that the observed correlation between these variables derives solely from a common direction in their long term trends and not from a correspondence in their annual fluctuations. As a corollary to this finding, a further study reveals that change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to surface temperature both in long term trends and in short term annual fluctuations. The results have significant implications for interpreting the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 in terms of the climate system and the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    All data and computational details used in this note may be downloaded from its online data archive (Munshi, 2015).

    https://www.academia.edu/14863648/RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

  • Avatar

    David Appell

    |

    First, you should be asking yourself why Munshi never published his “paper” in a peer reviewed science journal. That’s what professional scientists do. If he’s really a professor emeritus then he knows that. Don’t just believe something because it supports your prejudices.

    Your guy said:
    “This means that, net of long term trends, we should find that years of higher annual emissions should correspond with years of greater annual increase in atmospheric CO2 and years of lower emissions should correspond with years of lower rates of accumulation of atmospheric CO2.”

    This is wrong, because more than just human emissions determine how much CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Once big factor is ENSO — atmo CO2 tends to increase during El Ninos and decrease during La Ninas. This is very obvious in the data. Secondly, warming itself increases natural CO2 emissions. Warmer oceans emit more CO2 (the coke can effect), as do shifts in ocean circulation. CO2 fertilization increases the amplitude of the annual CO2 cycle. And so on.

    So your guy starts off with a wrong assumption, meaning his conclusion is useless. If he’d tried publishing in an actual scientific journal (or even just talked to a single climate scientist) they’d have pointed this out and his paper would have been quickly rejected.

  • Avatar

    Nick Schroeder

    |

    Sit in front of a roaring campfire on a chilly autumn eve.

    Raise a blanket (atmosphere) up between yourself (earth) and that campfire (sun).

    Are you warmer now or colder?

    Drop that blanket down.

    Are you warmer now or colder?

    This simple experiment just trashed the greenhouse effect theory which says you get warmer with the blanket & colder without it.

    No atmospheric greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change.

    (The atmosphere obeys Q = U A dT same as the insulated walls of a house.)

Comments are closed