The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Jan 1, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm has dominated climate science in recent decades, certainly since about 1995. See Bernie Lewin, Searching for the Catastrophe Signal. In a nutshell, the AGW paradigm holds that greenhouse gases are the vastly predominant driver of climate change in our time. The paradigm has however failed its test, as we shall see. I recently re-read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, within which the following passage is found (p.144, University of Chicago Press, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition):

    "In so far as he is engaged in normal science, the research worker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of paradigms. . . . Therefore, paradigm-testing occurs only after persistent failure to solve a noteworthy puzzle has given rise to crisis. And even then it occurs only after the sense of crisis has evoked an alternate candidate for paradigm."

    The noteworthy puzzle is the specification of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and the failure to solve it presents the crisis of the AGW paradigm. Professor Nir Shaviv put it well.

    Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

    "The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set, are you ready for this, in a federal committee in 1979! (Google the Charney report). All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and pounds) invested in climate research we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better? This is simply amazing I think."

    Meanwhile, research to specify ECS has pushed the likely range lower.

    [​IMG]Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero

    By Kenneth Richard on 16. October 2017
    Updated: The Shrinking CO2 Climate Sensitivity A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response […]
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As Kuhn requires, has an "alternate candidate for paradigm" been presented? Yes. Professor Shaviv:

    My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion


    [​IMG]"This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . .

    [FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776. The low climate sensitivity one obtains this way is actually consistent with other empirical determinations, for example, the lack of any correlation between CO2 variations over the past half billion years and temperature variations."
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  4. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A graph of the cherrypicking fallacy. The author just ignored any data points that didn't fit the trend he wanted to see.
     
    Hey Nonny Mouse likes this.
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The LIA had completely ended by 1850 at the latest, so recovery from the LIA can not explain the current fast warming.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is false.
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Irrelevant deflection. 20th century warming was significantly driven by solar output.

    ". . . Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
    [​IMG]
    Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
    [​IMG]
    Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming. . . . "
     
    bringiton likes this.
  8. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Typical science and evidence free counterpoint.

    You claim Cherry Picking a lot, that isn't a credible reply to the first post because every one of those ECS points in the chart are based on individual published research.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your claims continue to be objectively false. First, the LIA was part of a millennium-scale temperature cycle whose up-phases and down-phases could thus be expected to last up to ~500y, far longer than the 170y that have elapsed since 1850. Second, there is no current fast warming. There was fast warming ~1910-1940 and ~1970-2000, but temperatures have shown little increase since then, and have fallen since 2016 at the latest.
     
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Huh? The data points on the graph itself show that claim is false, absurd, and disingenuous.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody says the points he plotted weren't valid. They were. The point is that there a whole lot of data points studies that did not match his curve, and the author deliberately left those out. That make his results cherrypicked garbage.
     
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep, up to around 1970, solar forcing was the primary climate driver. But after that, temperature and solar output headed in opposite directions. Solar output dropped, but temperatures kept rising.

    AGW theory explains that perfectly. How does your theory explain it?
     
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's just nonsense handwaving on your part. High vulcanism started the LIA, then it was reinforced by a low sun and negative feedbacks.

    The LIA was totally over by 1850. Global average temperature by 1850 was above where it was before the LIA started. That's kind of the definition of a full recovery. Thus, it makes zero sense to say that the current fast warming is a recovery from the LIA.

    That sort of lunacy is looking more deranged with each passing year, as the warming inexorably continues. A La-Nina-dominated 2019 tied the El-Nino-dominated 2016 for record high average global temperature.
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Factually incorrect. Please see my #7.
     
  15. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That post did not address the fact that temperature and solar output started going in opposite directions around 1970.

    [​IMG]

    Your post did not address that issue at all. It just went of on a tangent about cosmic rays. Temperature has gone in the opposite direction of what the cosmic ray climate theory predicted, so nobody pays any attention to that failed theory either.

    AGW tehory explains the observed data. No other theory does, so AGW theory is the accepted theory.
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. TSI is not a valid indicator. As pointed out in my #7:

    ". . . Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). . . . "

    And:

    THE SUNSPOTS 2.0? IRRELEVANT. THE SUN, STILL IS.
    ... will still continue to ignore it. Am I surprised? No I’m not. First, what’s the story? A group led by Frédéric Clette had a ... of all of them. This is not unreasonable since the number of sunspots would more directly reflect the amount of closed magnetic field lines, ...

    ". . . The bottom line is that the sun appears to have a large effect on the climate on various time scales. Whether or not the sunspots reflect the increase in solar activity since the Maunder minimum (as reflected in other datasets) is not very important. At most, if they don't reflect, it only strengthen's the idea that something associated with the solar wind does (such as the cosmic rays which they modulate)."
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They also did not all match the curve, proving your claim false, absurd, and disingenuous.
    No, that claim is without basis in fact, like Trump's claims that the election was stolen. I think it might be instructive for you to consider the similarity between a lot of your claims and Trump's claims.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
    Jack Hays likes this.
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it's a fact of objective physical reality that proves you wrong.
    No, your claims are just objectively false, like Trump's claims. Vulcanism wasn't even particularly high at the start of the LIA, which was caused exclusively by low solar activity, just as the modern warming was caused by a sustained, multi-millennium high in solar activity during the 20th century.
    No, that is just objectively false, like all your other claims:

    https://www.temperaturerecord.org/

    The temperature in 1850 was not even close to where it was before the LIA, and it is still below the Holocene Optimum temperature.
    Except that the actual temperature record proves you are objectively wrong:

    https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years
    There is no credible empirical evidence that the warming since the LIA has been predominantly caused by CO2 rather than natural variations.
    The adjusted global temperature, not the actual temperature. There's a difference.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's the opposite of reality. So says the science. Owens et all 2017.
    https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html
    ---
    Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.
    ---

    So is your problemn that you can't read a graph, or are you fudging the dates of the LIA?

    You mean besides every bit of the actual evidence. That's why your crank theories are ignored.

    Oh, low CO2 levels explain part of the LIA, as does vulcanism and low solar output. Population drop due to plague resulted in a lot of farmland returning to forest, sucking up the CO2.

    Sure. The adjusted shows _less_ warming than the unadjusted. That makes your conspiracy theory especially funny, as it posits that the scientists fudge the data to make the warming look smaller.
     
  20. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And none of that said or implied in any way that TSI isn't a valid proxy. You have this odd habit of saying you've proven things when you've done no such thing.

    Temperature closely tracked TSI up until around 1970. Then it went in the opposite direction. AGW theory explains that perfectly, as does common sense.

    However, you can't admit that. That forces you to discard reality and substitute your fantasy. In that fantasy, TSI doesn't matter. Instead, some mysterious magical factor that you can't quantify is the real driving force.

    As invoking unknown magic is not regarded as good science, you theory does not get any support in the scientific world.
     
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not magic, science.
    Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)
     
    bringiton likes this.
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, that paper is nothing but more anti-scientific CAGW garbage. It gets the chronology completely wrong, ignores the Sporer and Dalton minima, claims volcanic cooling effects without offering a scintilla of empirical evidence therefor, and arbitrarily dismisses all solar effects other than TSI. It's utter trash intended to deceive.
    Right: climate model simulations based on wildly false and empirically unsupported assumptions.
    It is the utterly dishonest paper you have cited that fudges the dates of the LIA, baldly lying that it was 1440-1920 when all credible climate chronologies put it a century earlier.
    Idiocy contrary to known fact.
    By those who hate the truth because they are married to CAGW lies.
    But only a tiny part.
    Garbage. CO2 levels barely budged, and the decrease was caused by the lower temperature, not the other way around. That is why the paper you cited lied about the dates.
    :lol: That garbage again? Please.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ?? Proxy for what? TSI is (alleged to be) the causal factor, not a proxy for something else.

    You have this odd habit of saying you've proven things when you've done no such thing.
    Baldly false.
    AGW theory perfectly explains data that have been systematically altered to match it! What a surprise!

    The claim that there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency" can be called many things, but "common sense" is not one of them.
    CAGW liars demand that ONLY TSI be used as the measure of solar activity because they know it doesn't vary enough to matter.
    Solar activity may be considered mysterious as it is not well understood, but there is nothing magical about it, and it is certainly quantifiable. I.e., you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
    Calling empirically observable and quantifiable phenomena "unknown magic" is not only not good science, it is bald deceit.
    The scientific world is increasingly embarrassed by the theoretical inadequacies and empirical predictive failures of CAGW theory.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  25. Hey Nonny Mouse

    Hey Nonny Mouse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2016
    Messages:
    1,106
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you think you have grounds to overturn scientific orthodoxy, start by posting your views on scientific forums and see what professional scientists say.
     

Share This Page