The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

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

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for posting this. Her analysis of the data confirms my conclusion that the effect of doubling CO2 will simply be to increase the effective emission altitude a bit, with no effect on the earth's net radiation budget and little effect on surface temperature because the abundant water vapor in the lower troposphere blocks the effect from propagating back down to the surface.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are most welcome.
     
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Compensation between cloud feedback + ECS and aerosol-cloud forcing in CMIP6 models

    Posted on March 5, 2021 by niclewis | 21 comments
    By Nic Lewis

    An important paper, Wang et al.[1], on the relationships between cloud feedback, climate sensitivity (ECS) and aerosol-cloud interaction in the latest generation of global climate models (CMIP6) has just been published. The key conclusion of the paper is:

    The seeming consistency of global-mean temperature evolution between more positive cloud feedback (high ECS) models and observations requires a strong aerosol indirect cooling effect that leads to an interhemispheric temperature evolution that is inconsistent with observations.

    The new open-access paper – the senior author of which, Gabriel Vecchi, is a well known professor of geosciences at Princeton University – provides further evidence that high ECS CMIP6 models do not realistically simulate the behaviour of the Earth’s real climate system. . . .

    Continue reading →
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scientists Continue To Affirm Rising Incoming Solar Radiation Drives Recent Warming In Europe
    By Kenneth Richard on 11. March 2021

    Share this...
    Two new studies refer to the natural decline in cloud and aerosol reflectivity and consequent rise in incoming solar radiation or sunlight duration as the explanation for warming trends across Europe. CO2 is not even mentioned as a factor in climate change.
    Scientists point out that, for Europe, “the decrease in cloud cover is caused by the predominance of high-pressure systems in the last two decades of the 20th century and in the second decade of the 21st century” (Bartoszek et al., 2021).

    Because there is less solar radiation reflected to space by clouds (and sulphate aerosols), Europe has experienced an increase of “1.9 and 2.4 Wm−²” per decade−¹ in incoming solar radiation (S) and shortwave radiation imbalance (S*), respectively, from 1983-2015 (Kejna et al., 2021). . . .
     
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Failure to specify ECS.
    The Problem with Climate Models
    Guest Blogger
    So it may well be, no, it is likely that once the underlying physics is properly understood, climate models will emerge that produce an ECS value considerably smaller than 1.8C.…
     
  8. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I have to admit... that I found it rather moving how much Mr. Al Gore respected his
    professor who had given him the theory that his film "An Inconvenient Truth" was mostly based on.

    It is nice to see a student speaking so highly of their professor but.....
    I thought that the way that Mr. Gore approached the topic was extremely divisive......
    and tended to polarize Americans.

    A New Mexico biologist and I attempted to get Mr. Gore thinking in more of a win - win - win - win - win manner back in 2007.


    My two somewhat humorous submissions for $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge.


     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2021
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    New Study: Models Fitting Modern Period “Just An Illusion”… CO2 Role Much Less Than IPCC Claims
    By P Gosselin on 3. April 2021

    Share this...
    A new paper authored by distinguished climate researcher Nicola Scafetta and published in the journal Atmosphere titled Reconstruction of the Interannual to Millennial Scale Patterns of the Global Surface Temperature concludes that humans are only responsible for half, at most, of the recent warming.

    The IPCC climate models fail to properly take natural oscillations into account.

    Hat-tip Die kalte Sonne.

    Dr. Scafetta, a research scientist at the University of Napoli Federico II, and formerly an adjunct assistant professor at Duke University, examined data and identified an array of internal climate system and external cycles to explain the ongoing discrepancy between IPCC models and the past climate.

    Scafetta’s reconstruction since 1000 A.D. yielded a curve that fit extremely well to that of the 2005 Moberg reconstruction and the modern HadCRUT 4.2 dataset:

    [​IMG]

    Once the natural and the anthropogenic components were accounted for, it could be determined how much each impacted the climate. Scafetta’s result, highlighted in yellow:

    [​IMG]

    Scafetta’s 1.5°C climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is only about half of the IPCC’s expected average of 3°C. . . .
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A Request For Peer Preview
    Willis Eschenbach
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Well, for my sins I’ve been working on a paper with the hope of getting it published in a journal. Now that it’s nearly done,…

    The Emergent Thermostat

    Abstract

    The current paradigm of climate science is that the long-term change in global temperature is given by a constant called “climate sensitivity” times the change in downwelling radiation, called “radiative forcing”. However, despite over forty years of investigation, the uncertainty of the value of climate sensitivity has only increased.1 This lack of any progress in determining the most central value in the current paradigm strongly suggests that the paradigm itself is incorrect, that it is not an accurate description of reality. Here I propose a different climate paradigm, which is that a variety of emergent climate phenomena act in concert to keep the surface temperature within tight limits. This explains the unusual thermal stability of the climate system.
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Physics Prof. Concludes CO2 Climate Effect Is ‘Fairly Negligible’ – Adds Just 0.5°C For A Doubling To 760 ppm
    By Kenneth Richard on 29. April 2021

    Share this...
    A new CO2 climate sensitivity study suggests that, beyond the 300 ppm threshold, “any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.”
    Dr. Schildknecht is a Bielefeld University physics professor affiliated with the Max Planck Institute in Munich.

    His equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate (0.5 or 0.6°C for a doubling of CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm) is identical to manyother recent estimates (Stallinga et al., 2020, Ollila, 2019, Smirnov, 2017, Smirnov, 2020, Harde, 2016, Bates, 2016, Kissin, 2015, Abbot and Marohasy, 2017, Gervais, 2016). . . .
     
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Surface Response to Increased Forcing
    Willis Eschenbach
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Thanks to the excellent comments by folks here on my post “A Request for Peer Preview“, I thought I’d go down the rabbit hole of…

    ". . . . And the bottom line of the analysis? An increase of 3.7 W/m2 in downwelling surface radiation, which is the theoretical increase from a doubling of CO2, will only increase the surface temperature by something on the order of a third of a degree C. . . . "
     
    bringiton likes this.
  13. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your last two posts makes clear on something I have been pointing to warmist/alarmists that CO2 by itself generate very little warming and that it isn't remotely a climate driver. It is the POSITIVE Feedback nonsense is what they bank on for the big warming whoopie!

    It is so dumb since it has NEVER happened in the last Billion years, with periods of much greater warming than now not generating anything of the sort they fear so much.

    That is why I point this out a lot these days, they ignore it because they are thoroughly brainwashed to fear our normal weather and climate patterns that we live in, in the other thread about climate emergency, they never show any evidence of anything to say we are in big danger, heck their replies are downright delusional since they base it on modeling scenarios.... and normal weather events of the past.

    Even more amazing is the rank and file warmist/alarmists IGNORING warmists scientists agreeing that CO2 by itself generate very little warming!
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The debate continues.

    An Electronic Analog to Climate Feedback
    Charles Rotter
    Here we simulate a “test rig” for illustrating the difference between Christopher Monckton’s approach to projecting equilibrium climate sensitivity (“ECS”) and what he says climatology’s approach is. (ECS is the…
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Failure on climate sensitivity remains the Achilles heel of "consensus" climate science.

    [​IMG]
    Climate Sensitivity


    Climate Sensitivity is Likely Low Enough to be of Little Concern

    Predictions of substantial global warming assume high climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. For decades, scientists have debated the effect of climate sensitivity, due to the uncertain nature of climate feedback in various models and estimates vary widely.

    Estimates in peer reviewed studies range from 0.8°C warming to almost 6.0°C warming by 2100. Such a large range of uncertainty means climate model temperature projections remain dubious, at best.

    The best evidence indicates climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range, unlikely to exceed 1.5°C in the 21st century.
     
    bringiton, Sunsettommy and Robert like this.
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another flaw in the ECS thinking of AGW advocates.
    A fiery past sheds new light on the future of global climate change
    Charles Rotter
    Many of today’s climate models rely on past levels of greenhouse gasses and aerosols to validate their predictions for the future. But there’s a problem: While pre-industrial levels of greenhouse…

    ". . . By underestimating the cooling effect of smoke particles in the pre-industrial world, climate models might have over-estimated the warming effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in order to account for the observed increases in surface temperatures.

    “Climate scientists have known that the most recent generation of climate models have been over-estimating surface temperature sensitivity to greenhouse gasses, but we haven’t known why or by how much,” said Liu. “This research offers a possible explanation.”. . . ."
     
    bringiton likes this.
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again IPCC claims of climate sensitivity are put to the test and found wanting. This is truly the Achilles heel of "consensus" climate science.
    Climate Sensitivity to CO2, what do we know? Part 1.
    Andy May
    The first version of this post had an error in Figure 1. It has been fixed along with the associated text (7/5/2021). By Andy May The IPCC claims, in their…

    ". . . It is worth repeating that the AR5 report does not provide a best estimate of ECS because of a lack of agreement in their various estimates. It is also significant that they think that TCR is extremely unlikely to be more than 3°C/2xCO2, but they do not offer a lower limit they are confident in. A summary of the IPCC estimates of ECS and TCR is presented in Box 12.2 of AR5 (IPCC, 2013, pp. 1110-1112). . . ."
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ummmm - you DO a understand how science works don’t you? One person will present a hypothesis/research outcome and the next will critically analyse it but within those limitations once identified it is refined or if research maybe added to the body of knowledge on that subject. This is why a systematic review of literature with a meta analysis of the research is the pinnacle of science research

    https://www.ccace.ed.ac.uk/research/software-resources/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why are they talking of the AR5 when the AR6 reports are currently being written and due next year? There is a process, an open one where you can feedback on errata

    https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

    It is calling for volunteers


    https://www.ipcc.ch/about/engage_with_the_ipcc/

    And this goes back to the point I made about science being about refinement of hypothesis - particularly when dealing with complex systems such as climate modelling
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    OMG! You haven’t you couldn’t!

    the “guest blogger” is……… drumroll please!

    Christopher Monckton

    :roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol::roflol:

    Now you are REALLY a scraping the barrel!

    https://independentaustralia.net/po...kton-lord-of-the-lies-on-climate-change,15179

    He has been caught in nearly more lies than Trump
     
    Patricio Da Silva and Cosmo like this.
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For over forty years (since 1979) ECS has remained an unsolvable puzzle for the AGW paradigm. Sooner or later that paradigm will be supplanted by one that can solve the puzzle or render it moot.
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The AGW paradigm continues to stumble on the questions of ECS and TCR.
    Climate Sensitivity to CO2, what do we know? Part 2.
    Andy May
    By Andy May In Part 1, we introduced the concepts of climate sensitivity to CO2, often called ECS or TCR. The IPCC prefers a TCR of about 1.8°C/2xCO2 (IPCC, 2013,…

    ". . . It is terribly sad that, after spending billions of dollars and untold man-hours, we have not narrowed the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 since 1979. It is time to grow up and realize that measuring these tiny numbers cannot be done today. We also should recognize that the climate sensitivity numbers we need to measure are so small, it is unlikely they matter. As Möller wrote in 1963:

    “The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.” (Möller, 1963).

    This is still true today. An exceedingly small change in cloudiness, or a small change in the distribution of cloud types, or a tiny, imperceptible change in total atmospheric water vapor could completely wipe out any change due to additional CO2. As Lindzen and Newell showed decades ago, these changes (or feedbacks) may be automatic. It is especially important for the climate establishment, the media and the “climatariate” politicians and bureaucrats to recognize how little we know. Model results are not observations, they may help directionally, but they are useless for determining climate sensitivity unless they can predict future climate accurately, something that has not happened to date. As far as climate change goes, humans likely don’t matter as far as anyone can see today. We didn’t matter in 1979, we don’t today, and if we did make a difference, we couldn’t measure it anyway.

    Download the bibliography here."
     
    bringiton likes this.
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And so, the saga of hapless "consensus" treatment of climate sensitivity meanders pointlessly on. At least now we are beginning to understand why.
    How to constrain unconstrained global-warming predictions
    Charles Rotter
    Suddenly, the hitherto-unconstrainable equilibrium sensitivities become constrained – and their entire interval turns out to be below the lower bound of the currently-imagined interval. Inserting the 255 K emission temperature…

    ". . . There, then, is the answer to Andy May’s question. Suddenly, the hitherto-unconstrainable equilibrium sensitivities become constrained – and their entire interval turns out to be below the lower bound of the currently-imagined interval. Inserting the 255 K emission temperature in the equations for the relevant feedback-related variables calms the entire system down, and leads us to expect a small, slow, harmless, net-beneficial warming over the coming century.

    Unless, that is, the solar grand minimum first adumbrated by Soon and Baliunas, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Valentina Zharkova, David Archibald, David Evans and others, and now beginning to be anticipated even by official climatology, cancels much or perhaps all of the 1.1-1.2 K 21st-century warming that is all that we can realistically hope for."
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is how "consensus" climate scientists backed themselves into a corner on climate sensitivity.
    1970s-’80s ‘Physics’ Said Doubling CO2 Produced Just 0.2°C – 0.8°C Warming. Then ‘Physics’ Changed.
    By Kenneth Richard on 22. July 2021

    Share this...
    Forty to 50 years ago there was “general agreement” in estimates of the resulting radiative forcing (1 to 2 W/m²) and surface temperature change (0.5°C ±0.3°C) when directly doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 to 560 ppm. By the late 1980s the “consensus” estimates doubled to 3.7 W/m² forcing and 1.2°C warming instead. Apparently “basic physics” changed.
    It is today considered IPCC-endorsed “settled science” that doubling CO2 concentrations from their preindustrial value (280 ppm to 560 ppm) directly leads to a temperature change of 1.2°C without the alleged positive feedbacks with water vapor and clouds to amplify this warming further. . . .
     
    bringiton and Sunsettommy like this.
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,936
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do you suggest for legislators, then? Do nothing, there is no problem, or do something, no matter the cost, because there might be a problem?

    I mean, Scientists have all sorts of nuance to get into, you have the luxury of scientific knowledge, but a legislator does not and needs to know what to do, if anything should be done, so what is your proposal?

    I understand that 'science is not a democracy' and that's fine, but DEMOCRACY is given the responsibility of laws to deal with climate change, if, indeed, there is something to be done that can be done.

    As much as any scientist hates the notion, they have to deal with democratic institutions, and is not a good part of science funded by government grants?

    Moral of the story is that politics is unavoidable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2021

Share This Page