You are overemphasising the role of models. There are various lines of evid ence including direct measurements and palaeoclimate research.
But they all exhibit the same general trends. Any model is a simplification . Different models will emphasise different aspects of the physics. Differe nt runs will assume different conditions. This is why an ensemble of model s and runs is often used. Predictions are broadly in line with measurements .
Models don't try to predict the future as you can't predict boundary condit ions. All you can do is say: if the boundary conditions are X, then the output is Y. Retrospectively you can apply the actual boundary conditions to see what th e model would have predicted.
Which secret processing is this then?
I'm not really sure what you are referring to here.
As I mentioned to NP, surface temperature records are in line with predicti ons as long as you aren't too naive in interpreting them, i.e. you need to take into account ENSO effects etc. If you are not happy about doing that then all you can really do is look at the statistics and from that you cert ainly can't conclude that surface temperatures disprove predictions. Given current solar output, dominance of La Nina, and levels of aerosols we shoul d really be seeing cooling at the moment. Anyway, surface temperature is j ust a noisy proxy for the real thing, which is the earth's total heat conte nt. If you want evidence of that increasing, look at arctic ice extent, an tarctic ice volume, sea levels etc. NP disagreed with all of this of cours e and I'd still like to understand why.
Because it is essentially a lie. Surface temperatures are WAY off predictions, out to 3 sigma or more. You have to be excessively naive to believe the predictions at all. The theory is being propped up by one excuse after another in a massive process of plausible deniability. It's totally clear that the real deniers are those who refuse to admit that AGW is dead and busted.Its now got so many 'extenuating circumstances that the 'extenuating circumstances now allegedly affect the climate more than the CO2 is supposed to do. IN which case the same 'extenuating circumstances' are MORE likely to have caused 'global warming' than CO2!!!
And support is ebbing: Hansen is out of the IPCC now supporting nuclear power FFS, Geoffery Lean in the telegraph - the oldest warmist in the mediai, is now saying 'it might not be as bad' and 'climate scientists' are starting to say 'we only said "might"'.
Even the economist., a bastion of leftish scaremongering finally is beginning to wake up to the fact that AGW has gone AWOL.
formatting link
/On the subject of climate change do you think: The world is becoming warmer as a result of human activity The world is becoming warmer but NOT because of human activity The world is NOT becoming warmer Not sure/
In 2008 , 55% thought human activity was making the world warmer, 25% thought the world was getting warmer, but not because of humanity, 7% thought the world was NOT getting warmer. 13% weren?t sure. * In 2010 , 39% thought human activity was making the world warmer, 27% thought the world was getting warmer, but not because of humanity, 18% thought the world was NOT getting warmer. 16% weren?t sure. * In 2012 43% thought human activity was making the world warmer, 22% thought the world was getting warmer, but not because of humanity, 15% thought the world was NOT getting warmer. 20% weren?t sure. * Now 39% think human activity was making the world warmer, 16% think the world is getting warmer, but not because of humanity, 28% thought the world was NOT getting warmer. 17% weren?t sure.
formatting link
so the majority of people no longer believe the dogma and 44% either don't believe the world IS gettng warmer, or think its not our fault.
And that poll didn't even say 'substantially warmer'
Al I can say is that you are simply lying again,. as all the protagonists of AGW have done ever since it became apparent that the science wasn't settled and there was strong evidence refuting it.
You will live to regret calling people 'deniers' in the biggest possible way. Sure someone is in denial, but it aint the skeptics, babe.
Which mean nothing as far as GW caused by CO2 is concerned. There is nothing at all to support man changing the climate in those records as they pre-date man by quite a bit. They also show that cold spells and worm spells have occurred when CO2 was both higher than now and lower than now.
The accepted models show the same trend, but they are fudged to show that trend and they got it wrong as actual data shows.
But the whole of man made GW is based on the models. So as you say they can't get it right so welcome to the sceptics camp.
They select the data, using criteria that they refuse to publish, giving them data they copyright and prevent you from viewing and put it into models (remember those things you said can't work) and predict the future.
You need to read about what started the GW green movement then.
Probably because most of that is unknown still. While you can measure the extent of the ice they can't really say what volume of ice is there now and certainly not what was there 10, 20 years ago. There aren't even accurate records of surface temps from more than a few years ago, for example all the sea surface data from the early weather satellites was declared inaccurate by NASA/the met office when it didn't show a rise in temp.
Of course even if you assume the above does show a rise in energy/temps how are you going to link that to CO2 without using a model that, as you say, can't give a valid answer?
Can you give an example of that? In say a weather model, you have to put in your starting conditions and then run it forwards to predict tomorrow's weather. So, you have to give it the data from all the weather ships, balloons, satellites, etc. That is stuff you measure. You can't, it would seem to me, predict or define it.
You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment.
A typical weather model will have many thousands of cells. You wont have the measured data for all the cells so you will assume some of them. Even with ones where you have a measurement you will assume that it doesn't vary across the cell even if the cell is quite big.
Of course you then change the assumptions and run it again, and again, and again. If the predictions all come out the same you can be fairly sure what the prediction is, if they diverge you don't have a clue.
In other words before you have boundary conditions, you need to draw a boundary, and if your fence goes across a cliff top., a second order differential equation isn't going to work.
No, but you define what is in fact relevant.
And therein lies the rub. IF you define the ONLY relevant unknown climate driver as CO2, then you neglect to measure things like cosmic ray intensity cloud cover, and a million other things because you HAVE ALREADY dismissed them as 'irrelevant'.
ALL you are doing is constructing a hypothetical question that says 'how does temperature vary with CO2'
And with today's data, the actual answer is 'almost completely independently of it'. Wrong boundary, wrong answer.
Its the reason mathematicians and scientists need to study philosophy. To avoid making that sort of mistake.
Just because you can construct a plausible causal link, show a bit of correlation, and do a bit of curve matching over a 20 year span doesn't make science settled. Its the general problem of induction. It might be pure coincidence.
No one can 'prove' the sun will come up tomorrow. All we can say is that it always has done. We may posit reasons why this happens, but we haven't really changed anything, just moved the problem a layer further away. We say te sun will come up tomorrow because its existence and behaviour are governed by immutable and time invariant laws of nature. But we have no proof the the laws wont change tomorrow, all we can say is they never have before..or the sun wouldn't have always come up. So this magical process of describing laws of nature is in fact a simple algorithmic compression of our experience.
I.e. the logic is
- the sun has always come up before
- one way of looking at that is to posit 'something that causes' this to be the case
- the cause may them be written as a series of mathematical equations that exactly predict that the sun will rise every day.
But you haven't said a damn thing about whether or not 'gravity' 'nuclear fusion' etc etc are REALLY THERE in the same way the sun is apparently really there.
Neither have you excluded other possible causal relationships that GIVE THE SAME ANSWER IN THIS CASE.,
As I keep saying this philosophical point is DEEPLY RELEVANT to the whole AGW debacle.
Correlation is not causality. It may be sheer coincidence. Sure we can produce a computer MODEL of a planet that seems to track observed data, but its not a real planet. Its a model whose boundary is drawn by the preconceived notion that CO2 and global temperatures are related!
But most importantly,its a model whose boundary excludes many things that it is trivial to show could be much more relevant than CO2.
Lets consider clouds. we know they have a significant effect in keeping nightime temperatures up, but they also have a significant effect in keeping day time temperatures down. The average insolation of the planet is of the order of a few hundred watts per square meter. a cloud passing te sun will INSTANTLY reduce that by 50% to 75%. That's an instant change on radiative forcing of maybe 50-75W /sq m. At the very BIGGEST estimates the AGW proponents are talking about 1-2W per square meter change in surface flux as a result of CO2 increase. Clouds are capable of doing ten to a hundred times more..as anyone who has looked out of the airliner window onto dazzling white clouds, or dark land, will tell you, the clouds reflect a HUGE amount of light that the earth does not.
which is why volcanic dust from Krakatoa that reduced sunlight directly and also acted as a cloud nucleation catalyst gave 'two years without summer' and it was 5-6 years before things returned to normal. I have even heard it said that droughts in Africa and global warming (before we wittered into CO2) were caused by us cleaning up US and European emissions...in the 60s and 70's...
And you don't need to go further than a cloud chamber to see that high energy particles cause cloud nucleation under the right conditions, either. So there is good practical scince to give a causal link between cosmic rays and clouds, and clouds and global temperatures.
All of which has been 'defined out of' the IPCC models as 'not relevant'. It lies outside their boundary conditions.
(but is being rapidly incorporated to 'save' the theory of course..) Howver, again the rational man will immediately recognise that any extra stuff that is brought in to explain why global warming has halted in its tracks completely is at least as powerful as CO2 was alleged to be, and if we start cooling, more powerful. From there any reasonable man would say 'and is therefore a least as important, if not more impoartnt, than CO2 was alleged to be'
Which makes the AGW theory not disproven, but supremely irrelevant.
And clouds are not the only one. The earth is warm not just because the sun warms it, but because its still molten from when it was formed and because its stuffed with radioactive elements that are decaying
formatting link
The earth is about 500T sq meter.s
its core radiates about 50TW of which maybe half is down to radioactive decay. So thats not a huge amount - comaored with 174 petawatts
from the sun, but at 0.1W/sq meter its still significant.
Now if that heat in the shape of magna gets near the crust surface, the losses will be greater until a new crust forms. That process is happening all the time . Sub sea volcanic eruptions heat the deep oceans and set currents moving. They also form MORE LAND and that absorbs heat better than sea does.
I dnt presonally think geothermal fluctuaions havce MUCH inflence of climate, clouds have far far more potential to do that.
But its another thing absent from IPCC climate models.
About 30% of the incident solar energy is reflected straight back into space by ice, clouds, water and the ground, in that order of importance. and the rest is eventually radiated from the night time side of the planet. Its has to be or we would just get hotter and hotter.
CO2 is a minor player in preventing that nighttime radiation. AS are clouds - especially high clouds., But clouds are the biggest variable in reducing day time insolation.
a 3% change in global cloud cover (assuming nearly all reflection is by clouds) represents a change in insolation of about 1% more or less. using the T^4 methodology of radiative physics, and roughly 290K average global temperatures I make that about 0.72 degrees C colder if average cloud cover increased to reflect 3% more incoming radiation. All other things being equal.
You can see its far from being as insignificant as CO2 is, where a doubling of it only represents that sort of increase, if that.
likewise how much of the building work changes the earth's albedo? London on google maps is dark and absorbs more than the surrounding countryside. Can onbe trust a thermometer aywhere in the vicinity of London? My car used to show a regular 2C difference between london and the Suffolk countryside.
None of these things lie inside the IPCC's boundary..
Its a massively simplistic model that left so much out as to be worthless from the start. Only by fudging the constants to curve fit it to reality did it work at all, and the fudged constants are what give rise to the scary predictions. Take them away, and substitute other drivers like cloud cover and thermal heat islands and the like, and suddenly CO2 is simply not worth bothering about.
But that wont butter any windmills...or justify World Government to Handle The Global Crisis.
It's a transient problem so the boundary conditions are time dependent. If they are in the future you can't measure them. You have two options. You make assunptions about what they might be (i.e. predict them) them for vari ous scenarios, or you wait until they happen, measure them and apply them r etrospectively. Which is pretty much what I said first time!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.