Climate Change- Computer model output is not evidence.
“90% of the climate scientists hold that CO2 induced climate change is underway and presents serious risks.”
What they leave out is that those 90% of so called scientists have never agreed on what percentage of climate change is caused by Fossil fuels, the most current information puts the number anywhere between 0.000001% to 0.004%, or a .07 degree Fahrenheit change over the next 50 years.
Our natural climate drivers <(sun, moon, oceans, electromagnetic forces, orbital precession and eccentricities, along with our ever changing equatorial tilt)> that don’t include anything that man has done, in earth’s history has changed by up to 14 degrees Fahrenheit over a 50 year span.
The alarmists have NO evidence. That’s aparently why they spend all their time inventing bogus “surveys”, or other distractions.
It’s been warmer than now several times during this interglacial period, The IPCC argues that the current temperature is a record going back several hundreds (highly likely) and somewhat less likely going back to the MWP. But they provide no justification for that. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence from peer-reviewed studies indicating that the temperature was as high, likely higher during those earlier warm durations.
The alarmists deny that the Medieval Warming Period was a global event, and that it was likely warmer back then than it is now (more of Mann’s Mann-made climate). As usual, no basis for that claim. (The reason for their claim is that they cannot explain ANY earlier warming period which experiences temperatures higher than now because rising CO2 is the only cause the computer models deal with. CO2 had been constant for hundreds of thousands of years at the time of the MWP. )
However, in order to provide actual evidence of their claim that the MWP was not global and not was warm as now, it would have been necessary to obtain proxy temperatures around the globe. Mann didn’t bother doing that. But wait..! It has been done by others. First of all, there are 6,000 bore holes around the globe, and these readings are not restricted to areas where ice cores are the only option. The boreholes temperature trends show conclusively that the MWP trend was global. An enlightening discussion of the borehole results can be found at Joanne Nova’s website. Her spouse, Dr David Evans, is well acquainted with climate models. ( Evans has become as big a target as Lord Monckton. The alarmists begin foaming at the mouth at the mention of either name.)
But there’s more ….. google the Greenland study (gisp2). That study demonstrates that Greenland also experienced the MWP trend (and is distant from Europe) and was warmer than now.
Next, the Mendenhall glacier in Alaska recently receded sufficiently to expose a shattered 1,000 year-old forest still standing in its original position. (A similar situation has recently been exposed in the Alps, but dated that forest is dated 4,000 years old.) In either case there are obviously no trees now growing at that latitude anywhere near those sites. Conclusion: it was warmer back then than it is now. The Alaskan exposure indicates Alaska was also experiencing the MWP trend. (Note: Alaska is remote from both Greenland and Europe).
There are also ancient vineyards which have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Ancient graves found beneath the perma frost don’t help the alarmist situation either. All indicate that it was warmer back during this interglacial than now. http://www.livescience.com/…
Next, there are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. These have been performed by researchers and science organizations around the globe. A subset of these studies specifically address temperatures (rather than such things as rainfall, droughts, etc.) Almost every MWP study has been catalogued by co2science.org and those studies also happen to be accessible at that website by region. I’ll leave it to the readers to go there, select half a dozen regions (don’t forget the southern hemisphere) and choose in each (if one exists) a temperature based study. We already know from the boreholes that the MWP was global. With these studies you will almost invariably find that the study selected also shows it to be as warm, likely warmer than it is now.
There is an overwhelming amount of REAL evidence conflicting with the alarmists’ denial that the MWP was a global event and likely warmer than now. And… there are new studies confirming the earlier ones which continue to arrive. Also, keep in mind that many of these studies were performed decades ago, and the IPCC acknowledged those in its earlier reports by admitting that the MWP was global and warmer than now. However, there was little interest in asking questions about the conflict after Mann came up with his dubious “hockey stick” graph. (Keep in mind that his 12 tree study conflicts with McIntyre’s study which used 34 trees, and in any event was NOT even close to a global study.)
Surely Obama, a president who claimed climate change was his number one priority, would, with the help of his advisers, justify his claim. Unfortunately, the alarmist “science” was exposed after his visit to Alaska, where he pointed out two receding glaciers as evidence of “climate change” (which means, at least to that cult, “warming caused mostly by human activity”). However, it turns out there are also other GROWING glaciers, both in Alaska and elsewhere on the globe, which thoroughly disables that claim insofar as evidence. We are, after all, enjoying a relatively brief warming period between ice ages. But, it gets worse… one of the two receding glaciers, “Exit” by name, has been receding since 1730. That’s 100+years before CO2 (the supposed human caused culprit) began increasing. And THAT pretty much sums up the alarmist position on evidence.
Computer model output is not evidence. It merely reflects the author(s) understanding, at best. But, keep in mind that it may also represent confirmation bias and/or some other agenda. Even the IPCC has admitted that climate can only be represented by a nonlinear system that includes various known and unknown chaotic influences, so it remains unlikely that we will be able to produce accurate predictions.
The IPCC has also acknowledged the current temperature “hiatus”. That hiatus rules out the supposed alarmist rebuttal of the MWP because they claim that the MWP, to have been global, must show a multi-decadal synchronous warming. That supposed rebuttal leads to the fact that our hiatus indicates we are not now experiencing global warming either!
Our current warming (such as it is … stalled since 1998) began NOT in the mid 1850s (a cherry-picked date), but, BY DEFINITION, at the first bottom (the low temperature) during the Little Ice Age. That was around 1630-1650, so 200 years BEFORE co2 began increasing, and also 200 years before the industrial revolution. Co2 began increasing around the mid 1800s and it is well known that there is little possibility (at an average annual increase of 2 ppmv per year) that co2 total increase would have been sufficient to impact temperature measurements before another 100 years of measuring the temperature. This implies that we have recorded 300 years of temperature which reflect only NATURALLY caused temperature increase. and this takes us to about 1950. (So, why all the talk about temperatures going back into the 1800s?)
But from the 1940s to the 1970s there was a mild COOLING. (Another hiatus!) So the current alarm about temperature increase is constrained to a bit more than 2 decades of warming, running from 1975 to 1997/1998, which has been followed by a bit less than 2 decades of NO statistically significant ADDITIONAL temperature increase. And 1997/98 are not a “cherry-picked el Nino because the hiatus runs into 2015/16 which is was also an equally (or more) powerful el Nino.
NOAA made a desperate attempt to make the “hiatus” disappear. It was called their “pause-buster”. They replaced the 3,000+ ARGO buoys (specifically designed for environmental measurements) with less reliable temperature readings from ship intake, which, among other problems, has a known .12C temperature bias. The same suspects also attempted to introduce a new (not yet vetted) terrestrial database. Dr. John Bates, a whistle blower at NOAA pointed this out, although some skeptics had recognized earlier what was going on. Dr. Bates does not appear to be a skeptic (aka “denier”) either, but he’s clearly now a heretic in the eyes of the alarmists.
NOAA’s data machinations are highly suspect. And how much ruckus have we heard about which year or month has been “hottest”, courtesy NASA?. What these “scientists” neglect to mention (either that, or the major news media don’t understand, or ignore it) is that the difference betwixt recent year annual temperatures involve a FEW HUNDREDTHs of one degree, whereas the uncertainty error is greater than ONE TENTH of a degree. This means they are babbling about NOISE. REAL scientists wouldn’t stand for that kind of stuff.
Finally, even Obama’s EPA administrator admitted during congressional testimony that there is nothing we can do which will impact the temperature in the out-years. (And that assumes an ongoing effort, involving expenditures of TRILLIONs to supposedly solve this likely non-problem.)
By Denis Ables.
There is no evidence showing that CO2 level has EVER had any impact on the global temperature, not even over geologic periods when CO2 level was 10 to 20 times higher than now. In fact, the only correlation between temperature and CO2 variation which tracks both up and down trends shows the opposite. It is temperature variation which occurs FIRST and only hundreds of years later do similar variations show up in CO2 level. So you don’t even have a correlation, let alone any evidence.