Error in major climate study revealed – warming NOT higher than expected

A very good point, but the errors pointed out so far in climate science is not about findings in the wrong direction, but the exact magnitude of the findings. There has to be a balance that recognizes science is never settled (in the sense that it is 100% certain), and when to enact policy based on scientific findings.

I have always felt that climate change is one of the weakest arguments for reduction of pollutants into our ecosystem from a public perception standpoint. A much easier argument is for the protection of water, air and land. We are already seeing many negative health effects because of our reliance on extremely dirty energy. Pointing to possible future implications of changing climate is just not an effective way of changing public opinion. Point to the direct effects on the health of the public. These are much more salient and understandable issues for the average american

 

Did you even read what you posted ?

Their STILL WARMIING......

 

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

 

This is just a full misrepresentation. Scientists for decades have been exploring the natural mechanisms of warming. There are hundreds of papers that describe it. The tougher aspects of climate science is understanding the interactions between man made mechanisms of warming and the naturally occurring ones. This is what scientists have been exploring and grappling with. Not whether or not climate change is man made. It is a strawman argument on the side of climate change deniers. Finally, the collection of current data has only been around for a limited time, but there is plenty of data stored as records of climate. Trees, sedimentary records and other sources can be used to gain insights on past changes in the climate.

 

And why should they? The only ones have utterly failed at climate predictions are those that intentionally ignore known climate forcing agents. AGW advocates do a pretty decent job all things considered because fully incorporate all known physical processes.

 

So I guess you dismiss general relatively, quantum mechanics, medical sciences, astronomy, and pretty every scientific discipline because this is par for the course in science. No theory is perfect and never will be. And mistakes are common place; often numerous. If all of this rubs you the wrong way then you're not going to be very satisfied with science in general.

 

As long as the climate scientists are raking in billions on the man-made-global-warming hoax they will keep it going

Why mess up a good thing?

 

You can't refute the science so you call it all a hoax. You realize this is essentially a "nuh-uh" argument right?

 

I dont have to prove a negative

The science is hocus pocus and has failed to prove its case

 

What does this even mean?

If you don't think modern climate science best explains past climate and predicts future climate then which alternate theory do you think does it better without invoking anymore complexity than is absolutely necessary?

 

No I dont think climate science proves humans are responsible for climate change

 

Interesting statement. You should review Hansen's model from 1988. Not far enough back? Try Callendar's model from 1938. Still not far enough back? Try Arrhenius' model from 1896.

Also, did you know Arrhenius even figured out that the polar regions would warm faster than equatorial regions. And even though he didn't have the full quantum mechanical explanation for the effect the laboratory experiments available to him at the time were still good enough for him to predict the magnitude of warming within reasonable margin of error. In fact, his original estimation formula is still in use today because it's quick and simple.

Now, show me a prediction made by someone who selectively and specifically ignores the greenhouse gas effect who has made a better postdiction of past climate and predictions of present climate. Nevermind, that's impossible and it's unfair of me to demand that. How about this. Just show me one who can even get the direction of the temperature changes correct. Good luck!

 

This isn't some faith based belief system. If you can present a physical process that is wholly modulated by natural mechanism which can explain the warming of the troposphere/hydrosphere simultaneously with the cooling stratosphere and which can solve other mysteries like the faint young Sun problem among others then lay your cards on the table. Scientists and myself included are convinced by an abundance of evidence that best match observations both past and present. We don't like "nuh uh" arguments. That's the exact opposite way to convince us.

In lieu of your failure to present an alternate theory which makes better explanations of past climate and predictions of present climate then I have no choice but to go with the best theory available to me. That theory is the consensus theory presented by modern science.

 

Its not my responsibility to prove a negative

The climite has changed from hot to cold and back to hot countless times since the earth was created

It makes sense to assumed more of the same than to think we are the cause this time

 

So?

All previous Inter-Glacial Periods, save one, were warmer than present (and the one that wasn't ended abruptly after 8,000 years for reasons that are not understood).

Don't you want to know why it is colder than usual?

Probably not, because that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

If you want me to consider an alternate theory you need to show that it works better without unnecessary complexity than what we already have. And you need to be convincing. If you want me to completely abandon a theory that has demonstrable explanatory and predictive power for no theory then you're barking up the wrong tree. You might as well ask me to abandon quantum mechanics or whatever for no reason at all while you're at it because it's no less irrational.

Yep. And it was climate scientists working in coordination with many (or even most) other disciplines of science who figured this out. I'm not entirely sure what your point was here, but if you're claiming that the Earth has warmed in the past then all you're doing is piling on more evidence that it can change today as well give the appropriate nudge.

Well, I don't know what to tell you here. The CO2 molecule (or aerosol particles or whatever) don't behave any differently when they are emitted by humans. The laws of physics work the same way regards of who or what emitted them. CO2 does not have some magic physics defying property just because it was emitted by humans. All of the same things that caused climate change in the past are still in play today. It's the net effect of all climate forcing agents that drive climate change. Just because greenhouse gases started dominating over the other factors after WWII doesn't mean the laws of physics are any different.

 

It's a good question. Why is it colder today than it was 500 million years ago or 250 million years ago or whatever? I mean after all the Sun was 5% and 2.5% dimmer back then respectively.

And why has the Earth been warming since WWII in regime with less solar radiation and higher aerosol optical depths?

And why is the troposphere and hydrosphere warming while the stratosphere cools?

If only there were a physical process that could help solve the faint young Sun problem and the cooling stratosphere. Oh, that's right. We identified that mechanism 150+ years ago and even quantified it's effect 120 years ago. Greenhouse gases.

 

Natural, normal climste change is not an alternate theory

Its the only explaination for the past million years

You are the one trying to reenvent the wheel

 

Simply stunning, please read the whole thing at the link:

 

Him and pretty much everyone knowing more about the subject than you. But of course, you're right and experts are wrong… So what's the point of showing you proofs? You are right by default and will find any excuse to keep it that way, even if you have no data and they do. You're even still using "Climate has changed naturally before".. as if people on the other side of the argument don't agree with that statement and haven't taken it into consideration. It's like someone claiming cigarettes can't cause cancer because cancer existed before cigarettes. How dumb would that sound to you?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"The Earth's climate has changed throughout history.... Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives."

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

"Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale."

"The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response."

They have data and you don't. But you are still right and they are wrong… What kind of data would make you change your mind? Honestly, tell me what needs to happen for you to say that global warming is connected to human activity?

 

If you put a fan behind a large pool of ice water and then sit yourself in the breeze, you will feel a chill. Such air cooling systems are actually in place in some office buildings for this very reason.

 

I think there is some confusion here. In the context in which the terms are used neither natural or nor anthroprogenic are fundamental causes. The causes are the fundamental physical processes that produce a radiative forcing. Those physical process can be modulated by both natural or anthroprogenic mechanisms. The terms natural and anthroprogenic are just categories under which one can place or categorize these mechanisms. Some physical process like the greenhouse gas effect are modulated by both natural and anthroprogenic mechanisms because there are both natural and anthroprogenic emissions of these gases. It's the same way with aerosols. Volcanoes and pollution both cause aerosol levels to increase in the atmosphere. The fundamental process by which they reduce solar radiation is exactly the same. It's just that one is modulated by nature while the other is modulated by humans.

The modern theory of climate change is one that includes all fundamental physical processes. It doesn't really matter how those physical processes are modulated because the laws of physics are the same regardless. AGW is just a moniker for how the modern theory plays out in the post industrial era. It doesn't really matter that it was humans pumping all that CO2 into the air. The exact same effect would have occurred if nature pump that excess into the air as well. The dominating factor in the warming today is CO2. CO2 isn't always the dominating factor in climate change though. There are many fundamental physical process that produce a radiative forcing and these processes ebb and flow over time. Sometimes solar radiation dominates the change. Sometimes volcanoes dominate the change. And sometimes greenhouse gases dominate the change. We just happen to find ourselves in an era where it is the greenhouse gas effect that is dominating the change.

Note that the modern theory which includes all physical process regardless of whether they are naturally or anthroprogenically modulated best explains past climate change and predicts present climate change. So if you're asking me to throw it away then you need to replace it with something that is at least as good without adding any unnecessary complexity. So in lieu of the dozens of fundamental process including but not limited to solar radiation, aerosols, greenhouse gases, albedo, etc. what new theory do you have that you want me to consider?

 

I agree. This is a huge problem. Most experiments have a control. But unfortunately we've started this experiment without the control. That makes it very difficult to discern which variable is causing the change. There are ways around the problem like using paleoclimate, other planetary bodies, etc. as proxies for the control. None of them are perfect controls though. However, when you consider all of these proxies in aggregate we can come up with a pretty good idea of which variables are causing which changes. But, yeah, in an ideal world you'd want to planets with identical characteristics. You'd leave one untouched and then pump the other with CO2 or whatever and watch what happens.

What we do know so far is that after 200 years after Fourier (of Fourier analysis fame) first postulated the greenhouse effect as being a significant factor in increasing Earth's temperature beyond an ideal blackbody radiator we've searched high and low for a physical process that could explain it. The search has led us to not one or two physical processes but a multitude of them that act in unison and combine to modulate the temperature together. These individual processes ebb and flow with time. We just happen to live in an era when CO2 is the dominating factor; or so we think. The problem is that when we try to eliminate CO2 as a contributing factor the final picture never seems to match observations. This is a pretty good indicator that CO2 really is an essential piece of the puzzle. When you remove that piece from consideration the picture that the puzzle makes never looks right.