The Map is Not the Territory. The Model is Not the Reality
In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. …
1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.
As for the variables affecting climate, Just The Facts has done a superb job compiling many of them on WUWT’s Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page.
… I will just give the main topics, but note that all main topics have an array of sub topics.
1. Earth’s Rotational Energy
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Orbital Spiral, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity), Wobble (Axial precession) and Polar Motion
4. Solar Energy
5. Geothermal Energy
6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Effects
7. Earth’s Magnetic Field
8. Atmospheric Composition
13. Known Unknowns
14. Unknown Unknowns
After reading the above-linked article with an open and honest mind, you are not likely to consider climate science to be “settled” in any way.
We have known for a long time that climate models omit a number of crucial — but inconvenient — parameters, which have the power to change model outputs completely. Since these parameters can be difficult to model — and because they might interfere with “the narrative” — climate modelers feel free to omit them at their leisure.
Trying to Justify all the Temperature Datasets
The climate apocalypse crusade is well on its way to further degrading the economic condition of all advanced nations in Europe, the Anglosphere, and non-communist East Asia. This destructive pseudoscientific scam has the full backing of political clowns such as Trudeau, Obama, Hollande, Sen. Mitchell (Canada), Sen. Whitehouse (US), etc. There is just one problem: The cataclysmic warming that has been predicted by quasi-scientists Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Karl, Jones, etc. is failing to appear on temperature records — unless they have been intentionally butchered by activist “scientists.”
Climatologist Judith Curry has more on the datasets and the current “hiatus” or “pause” from model-predicted temperature rise:
So, what is the ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’, and why does it matter? Here are three criteria for the hiatus to matter:
1) the rate of warming over a particular period of at least 10 years is not statistically significant from zero (with the context of a nominal 0.1C uncertainty). Note the IPCC AR5 cited: “As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)”
2) the rate of warming over a particular period of at least 10 years is less than the warming projected by the IPCC AR5: “The global mean surface temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to 1986–2005 will likely be in the range of 0.3°C to 0.7°C (medium confidence).” This translates to 0.1C to 0.233C/decade. (Note the AR4 cited a warming rate of 0.2C/per decade in the early 21st century).
3) Periods meeting the criteria of either 1) or 2) are particularly significant if they exceed 17 years, which is the threshold for very low probability of natural variability dominating over the greenhouse warming trend.
The various data sets show pretty close agreement on the interannual variations and the magnitude of the trends over this period. While the trends for each data set vary slightly, all them have decadal trends sufficiently small to satisfy hiatus criteria 1) and 2).
… The bottom line with regards to the hiatus is all of the data sets except for the new NOAA/NCDC data set show a hiatus (with NASA LOTI being the other data set coming closest to not showing a hiatus).
The real issue of importance is comparing the climate models with recent observations. Here, even the latest NOAA/NCDC analysis still places the observations at the bottom envelope of the climate model simulations.
So it is premature to declare the hiatus dead
In other words, the preponderance of evidence from temperature records (including those that have been butchered by activist “scientists”) reveals a high likelihood of a temperature “hitaus,” or a lack of correspondence between predictions by climate apocalypse computer models, and real world temperatures. The better the dataset, the greater the divergence between computer model and observation.
Inconvenient Numbers for Climate Apocalyptics
Some important numbers that will affect the global warming debate came out in the media this week and they are worth reviewing. First — and most incredibly — the New York Times revealed that the amount of coal China burns has been underreported by about 1 billion tons a year, and has been underreported for the last 15 years. The Times states, “Even for a country of China’s size, the scale of the correction is immense … [and] the increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.” Oops! This revelation obviously raises questions about the overall accuracy and dependability of the sea of numbers that drive the policy decisions advocated by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. If the climate change activists were off by 1 billion tons of emissions just from coal use from one country and that’s data they used to contrive the models that “prove” the “settled science” of man-made global warming, what else are they wrong about? And what makes us think these numbers are accurate now?\
… “By the count of researcher Marcia Wyatt in a widely circulated presentation, the U.S. government’s published temperature data for the years 1880-2010 has been tinkered with sixteen times in the past three years.” This is politics at its worst: With 16 recounts, you can rig any outcome.
… According to NOAA data, the amount of total CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is approximately three one-hundredths of 1 percent, or .0003 of the total atmosphere. And the man-made contribution to that total amount of CO2 is only .0004 of that number — bear with me; yes, they will be talking about only four one-hundredths of that three one-hundredths of a percent in Paris. Never has so much been spent on so little.
… The numbers associated with the global warming crusade aren’t settled, but the
Democrats’lefty-Luddite faux environmental climate apocalyptic conclusions about global warming are settled. Bottom line: They want to dictate your lifestyle. They don’t really care what the numbers are or what inconvenient truths keep turning up.
A parallel $trillion dollar scam that is being perpetrated upon the taxpayers of Europe, Anglosphere, and non-communist East Asia, is the “green energy scam.”
In the US alone since 1977, roughly $100 billion has been squandered on government subsidies to green scammer political cronies. A higher relative level of corruption in green energy subsidies is taking place across Europe and the UK. Only the politically connected benefit, since these legions of multi-$billion projects are destined to lie derelict across the countryside, polluting otherwise lovely landscapes with expensive, unsightly, non-productive garbage.
Despite almost forty years of subsidies, despite renewable mandates, despite carbon taxes, despite cap-and-trade, despite a hundred billion dollars spent on this Quixotic quest, solar and wind have barely gotten off the floor. Look at that chart, and give me a guess for how long it will take for solar and wind to catch up with fossil fuels.
… As far as I’m concerned, giving one more dollar to either solar or wind subsidies is a crime against the taxpayer, as well as against the economy … after almost forty years of fruitless subsidies, they’ve had their chance and they still don’t measure up. Time to stop throwing good money after bad. __ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/thirty-eight-years-of-subsidies/
Another take on the “missing variables” that are so inconvenient to the climate apocalypse crusaders:
|Factor||Understood?||Contribution to models’ predicted future warming|
|Water Cycle||Partly||(built into Water Vapour, below)|
|Galactic Cosmic Rays (and aerosols)||No||0%|
|Water Vapour||Partly||22% but suspect|
|Clouds||No||41%, all highly suspect|
|Other (in case I have missed anything)||0%|
The “Science” of Climate Apocalypse is not Settled — But the Religion May Be
Modern faux environmentalism, the corrupt monstrosity that spawned the climate apocalypse hoax and the green energy scam, is a religion every bit as damaging as modern Islamism and the Roman Catholic religion of the 12th thru the 16th centuries. It has its own dogma, its own inquisition, its own mechanism of torture and purge.
The Golden Age myth has been one of the most long-lived and popular in Western history, for obvious reasons. It imagines a lost paradise that offers psychic refuge from the complexities and trade-offs of civilization, especially the impact of the technologies that mediate our existence. It speaks to our anxieties about the power of science and the dangers of its meddling with nature. All these attractive consolations help explain why certain strains of modern environmentalism, despite their patina of science, have echoed the motifs of this ancient myth.
… The psychic solaces of myth, when limited to consoling those who need it, are not a problem. But they can be pernicious when applied to public policy. The solutions to the alleged apocalyptic consequences of global warming––such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which recently proposed draconian regulations for coal-fired electrical plants––comprise a war on carbon that will damage our economy and compromise our well-being, especially that of the poor on whom the higher costs for gasoline and electricity fall most heavily. And in the case of the Clean Power Plan, this economic cost would buy a negligible 0.019˚C reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2100.
… Policies that impact human well-being should be based on reliable science, not consolatory myths. Even if global warming is true, the attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by attacking carbon-based energy will not in the long run do much for slowing global emissions, even as they damage the world’s economies and retard the economic development that can improve the material well-being of billions of people. Those people should not suffer because comfortable, well-fed Westerners indulge their mythic longings for a lost paradise that never existed.
The climate apocalypse cult has infiltrated all levels of western academia, government, media, nonprofits, corporations, religions, and other cultural institutions. It is one of the largest rots at the core of a rotting civilisation, but it is not the primary rot. It is, nevertheless, potentially fatal to several nations of Europe, the Anglosphere, and non-commie East Asia.
The derivative “green energy scam” is likewise a source of significant rot and damage not only to economies but to energy infrastructures themselves.
In Germany, Spain, and other European countries, the green rot is even more deeply entrenched — and thus a greater and more immediate danger to those nations’ futures.