Climate modeling and decision milestones

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's because they've been driven out, not because there is any more certainty. Not just people being driven out, but new skeptics being deterred from entering the field. All of the people joining the climate industry now are already convinced activists. What would be your choices, if you were skeptical, and thinking of a career? No skeptic in their right mind would go into climate science. 

To interpret the consensus of opinion in climate science as some sort of validation is just stupid. The consensus is self perpetuating. It's nothing to do with evidence.

It's a bit like the consensus for the existence of god among Catholic priests. Not exactly suprising. 

I think you’re misusing “skeptic” here. A skeptic is one who is unconvinced without an examination of the evidence. Which is fine for someone entering a field, when they lack exposure to the evidence and haven’t learned the science.

If you instead meant a denialist, then sure - you aren’t likely to enter a field that requires such time and effort if you’ve already decided it was bunk. But people who are saying that something is wrong while not understanding the topic or not being aware of the evidence - they aren’t skeptics.

You’re also misrepresenting or misunderstanding scientists when you say all of them entering this field are activists. Some of them might be, but I’d guess that most just want to go and do the science. This is the same BS leveled at other areas of science, e.g. people who think scientists support relativity only because they worship Einstein, when scientists would be ecstatic to discover new science. To make any comparison to self-selection based on belief misses the mark. That’s the price of admission for religion. All that science requires is the ability to make objective assessments of evidence in comparison to models we have of nature.

 

 

[mistermack]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

But people who are saying that something is wrong while not understanding the topic or not being aware of the evidence - they aren’t skeptics.

That's just stating the obvious. If you declare that something's wrong you are not being skeptical, you're being as unskeptical as people who say that it's right. Especially something as fuzzy and nebulous as climate science. 

All you get from climate science when you ask for the evidence is "we made this model". A skeptic doesn't declare the model right or wrong. They question the evidence, the method and the conclusions. That questioning is what's missing in CS. There might be some very good work done, but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned. 

[TheVat]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 

All you get from climate science when you ask for the evidence is "we made this model". A skeptic doesn't declare the model right or wrong. They question the evidence, the method and the conclusions. That questioning is what's missing in CS. There might be some very good work done, but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned. 

I have been following the fields of climatology and atmospheric chemistry for a couple decades.  The acquisition of data has been exhaustive and continually upgraded, because the scientists are constantly testing digital modelings against observational data.  And in peer review, they constantly question, ruthlessly poke holes in how data is collected, interpreted, and extrapolated from.  Any consensus that now exists is a result of massively unequivocal real-world measurements of the changes going on.

Very sad to hear climate science slandered like this.  It is a respectable field, and hardly an "industry" as you slurred it in another post.  If anything, it is the large fossil fuel companies that are, through sponsorship of denialist groups like The Heartland Institute, cranking out pseudoscience flatulence on an industrial scale.  

You should crack open a book or two, learn something about the complexities and concepts of climate science, before issuing such flat and dismissive comments.

 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

learn something about the complexities

OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?

[Doogles31731]

Thanks again SwansonT, for the reference -- Gregory et al (2002; https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3117_aobeot_2.0.co_2.xml) in An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity

These authors acknowledged the same the same range of climate sensitivities as you did (1.5 to 4.5), although I have seen other references to climate sensitivities as high as 9. In their Introduction to that paper, the authors also identified this field of inquiry as a problem -- “Despite considerable improvements in many aspects of the simulation of twentieth-century climate by GCMs, the range has remained essentially unchanged during the last two decades, and is the greatest source of uncertainty in climate change projections for the twenty-first century.”

Their conclusion was “the 5%–95% confidence interval for ΔT_2× from this method would be 1.7–2.3 K. A range as narrow as that would be a great improvement on the current state of knowledge.”

I would find that acceptable; it is somewhere near my extrapolation of the Mauna Loa real life data. The graph is certainly skewed but is uni-modal.

The authors also claim that radiative forcing is the greatest cause of uncertainly, but my crude calculations from TheVat’s paper suggest that radiative forcing is not as important as the effect of peripheral GHG activity on Stevenson Screen temperature recordings.

I note that this paper by Gregory et al was listed in the original graph I uploaded as claiming a value of 6 for Climate Sensitivity. After reading the paper I now state that in my opinion, the figure of 6 was erroneous and misleading. The value Gregory et al claimed was 1.7 to 2.3. I would think now that ALL of those figures, in the graph I presented, need checking. But I cannot find the original reference whence it came, and the clarity of the names in the graph is not good.

But thanks you for your effort and comment.

 

....................................

I can't see where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes into the issue? I would have thought that the only source of energy that can change is the Sun. Certainly there are sunpot cycles, but they are generally regarded as having nowhere near the effects on our near-surface temperatures as the atmospheric changes. I’m curious again.

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's because they've been driven out, not because there is any more certainty. Not just people being driven out, but new skeptics being deterred from entering the field. All of the people joining the climate industry now are already convinced activists. What would be your choices, if you were skeptical, and thinking of a career? No skeptic in their right mind would go into climate science. 

To interpret the consensus of opinion in climate science as some sort of validation is just stupid. The consensus is self perpetuating. It's nothing to do with evidence.

It's a bit like the consensus for the existence of god among Catholic priests. Not exactly suprising. 

Do you have evidence of people being driven out, or of "new sceptics" being deterred from entering the field? Where does this come from? 

And what do you mean when you say there is no more certainty? I should have thought the evidence of rapid warming and increases in extreme weather events was becoming clearer by the day.  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

I note that this paper by Gregory et al was listed in the original graph I uploaded as claiming a value of 6 for Climate Sensitivity.

Yes. That’s what I stated.

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

After reading the paper I now state that in my opinion, the figure of 6 was erroneous and misleading. The value Gregory et al claimed was 1.7 to 2.3. I would think now that ALL of those figures, in the graph I presented, need checking.

That was my point. They would all have error bars, and could be further misrepresenting the information.

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

But I cannot find the original reference whence it came, and the clarity of the names in the graph is not good.

I did an image search on “the shrinking co2 climate sensitivity” and quickly found places it was posted with its attribution: “Scafetta 2017”

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

And what do you mean when you say there is no more certainty? I should have thought the evidence of rapid warming and increases in extreme weather events was becoming clearer by the day.

Should have thought isn't science. It's just buying into the constant drip drip.

If you look at the graphs of CO2 levels against global temperatures, you will see that there was rapid warming from 1885 ish to 1950. With only very tiny increases in CO2 levels.  Which PROVES that you can have rapid warming for other reasons. So you can't just point to warming as some sort of proof that CO2 is the cause.  

And the link to extreme weather is just someone's hypothesis. There IS no proven link. It's just repeated so many times that people think it must be right. Show me where this link is proved. Anybody ? 

I could mine the internet for extreme weather in the past, there was plenty of it. Dust bowl? Summer of 1976? Floods of 1947? Big UK freeze of 1963? All of it, if it happened today, would be quoted as evidence for global warming. And anyone questioning it would be called a denier. 

People bang on about fires in California, quoting global warming as the cause with total confidence. When these fires are occurring not far from (one of) the hottest places on Earth, Death Valley. Wikipedia says : 

On the afternoon of July 10, 1913, the United States Weather Bureau recorded a high temperature of 134 °F (56.7 °C) at Furnace Creek in Death Valley,^[5] which stands as the highest ambient air temperature ever recorded on the surface of the Earth.^[6] This reading, however, and several others taken in that period, a century ago, are in dispute by some modern experts.^[7]

You can see why they would like to dispute it, it doesn't fit the theory. 

 

If facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

[exchemist]

31 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Should have thought isn't science. It's just buying into the constant drip drip.

If you look at the graphs of CO2 levels against global temperatures, you will see that there was rapid warming from 1885 ish to 1950. With only very tiny increases in CO2 levels.  Which PROVES that you can have rapid warming for other reasons. So you can't just point to warming as some sort of proof that CO2 is the cause.  

And the link to extreme weather is just someone's hypothesis. There IS no proven link. It's just repeated so many times that people think it must be right. Show me where this link is proved. Anybody ? 

I could mine the internet for extreme weather in the past, there was plenty of it. Dust bowl? Summer of 1976? Floods of 1947? Big UK freeze of 1963? All of it, if it happened today, would be quoted as evidence for global warming. And anyone questioning it would be called a denier. 

People bang on about fires in California, quoting global warming as the cause with total confidence. When these fires are occurring not far from (one of) the hottest places on Earth, Death Valley. Wikipedia says : 

On the afternoon of July 10, 1913, the United States Weather Bureau recorded a high temperature of 134 °F (56.7 °C) at Furnace Creek in Death Valley,^[5] which stands as the highest ambient air temperature ever recorded on the surface of the Earth.^[6] This reading, however, and several others taken in that period, a century ago, are in dispute by some modern experts.^[7]

You can see why they would like to dispute it, it doesn't fit the theory. 

 

If facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

Well "should have thought" is an opinion, I would agree, but it's a bit more than just buying into propaganda. I spent a 30 yr career with an oil major and my employer conceded the issue was real at some point in the 1980s.  So it's not just an issue manufactured by activists. 

What about these people being driven out of research, and the new sceptics deterred from entering the field? What sources do you have for those?   

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

If you look at the graphs of CO2 levels against global temperatures, you will see that there was rapid warming from 1885 ish to 1950.

From ~1885-1950 it’s 0.3 degrees in 65 years - 0.046 degrees per decade

From 1980-2020 it’s 0.8 degrees in 40 years - 0.2 degrees per decade

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

If you look at the graphs of CO2 levels against global temperatures, you will see that there was rapid warming from 1885 ish to 1950. With only very tiny increases in CO2 levels.  Which PROVES that you can have rapid warming for other reasons. So you can't just point to warming as some sort of proof that CO2 is the cause.  

And the link to extreme weather is just someone's hypothesis. There IS no proven link. It's just repeated so many times that people think it must be right. Show me where this link is proved. Anybody ? 

If you let your bias think for you: one tends to think proof is needed, rather than evidence.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You can see why they would like to dispute it, it doesn't fit the theory. 

 

If facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

Whilst I accept your examples, I don't think they lead to your proposed conclusion.

 

Does anyone have an update on this question of whether CO₂ leads or lages temperature change ?

 

Quote

NASA 2013

Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?

 

Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age, the CO2 response to temperature was that the temperature would go up and CO2 would go up. Or if the temperature went down, CO2 would go down. And the reason for that is when the temperature went up, the whole biosphere revved up and emitted CO2, and we had more CO2 in the atmosphere. So we understand that process.

In the post-industrial age, the opposite is true. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to increased temperature. So two different things happened, one pre-industrial, where temperature was driving the CO2, and post-industrial, where CO2 was driving temperature. Which means a completely different physical-biological process is going on. And we don't understand what the consequence of that change is.

It is a fundamental change to how the earth works and the earth's radiation balance works. And so, we're very concerned because we don't see any restraining force on continued increase in temperature due to continued increase in CO2. And that's a problem.

 

As for measurement in Stevenson screens.

About 2/3 of the Earth's surface is water.

How many Stevenson screens are there in the middle of the ocean ?

Proper global temperature measuement needs to take a variety of forms.

[mistermack]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

From ~1885-1950 it’s 0.3 degrees in 65 years - 0.046 degrees per decade

From 1980-2020 it’s 0.8 degrees in 40 years - 0.2 degrees per decade

If you look at your own graph, from 1918 to 1942 it's 0.7 degrees in 22 years - 0.3 degrees per decade.

Proof that you don't any significant CO2 rise for a rapid temperature rise. 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you look at your own graph, from 1918 to 1942 it's 0.7 degrees in 22 years - 0.3 degrees per decade.

Proof that you don't any significant CO2 rise for a rapid temperature rise. 

I was going by your argument, which you now have changed. 

Yes, you can cherry-pick individual dates to come up with different answers. But why make this about intellectual dishonesty?

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?

Palaeoclimate research.  Included in this summary, which is a good intro to the major lines of evidence.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Palaeoclimate research.

So nothing from you then? You don't know, but these people do?  No surprise there then. That's all you get. "these people think so, so you should too". 

Their very first claim " The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit (1.18 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century" contains the first deception. 

CO2 levels only started to significantly rise in 1950, but climate alarmists ALWAYS quote the rise from the late 19th century. In fact, the only years that are relevant are from 1950 till now, and they know it, but they want to mislead. 

I'm afraid your link is a fail, when it starts out by blatantly trying to pull the wool over my eyes. In any case, a temperature rise doesn't prove a CO2 cause. As I proved in my post above.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

But why make this about intellectual dishonesty?

I wouldn't dream of muscling in on your territory.

You posted the graph. I commented on it. You have to expect that sort of thing. 

[Ken Fabian]

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?

I've recently been through drought - the most extreme here recorded - and fire (the most extreme experienced, with extreme and unusual fire behavior) with local average temperatures raised above pre-industrial by 1.4C (1C global). The previous worse drought was only a decade earlier. Droughts and fires with global temperature at 3-5C higher - perhaps 4-7C average higher locally, potentially higher again during heatwave conditions WILL be catastrophic. It doesn't take specific study to have high confidence that such temperatures will be regionally catastrophic - but if you have to have them to take it seriously there are studies looking at the impacts on crop yields, infrastructure etc. As there are for attribution of climate change contributions to extreme weather events - https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/10/04/attribution-science-linking-climate-change-to-extreme-weather/

But maybe it won't ... get that hot? Be catastrophic if does? Because climate science doesn't look at the possibility that it won't? That all the understanding of climate processes they've built up and how they interact might be wrong and no-one is checking? Nonsense. Climate science checks it's assumptions all the time - and finds the fundamental ones to be sound.

I think the kinds of questioning you think should be done has already been done and to be active in climate science you surely need to keep up;  re-arguing the fundamentals that were subjects of intense scrutiny in the 1970's and 1980's is taking climate science backwards.

If you quack like a duck - bring out the worn thin old doubt and deny arguments - and hold the science to be wrong until and unless you understand it and agree with it, hold it to be wrong because you think it is a conspiracy of incompetence or grant grabbing (or blind ideology or perhaps globalist/socialist/environmentalist conspiracy so remarkable even the top Intelligence agencies in the world can't find evidence) you probably are a closed minded climate science denier.

Climate science isn't fuzzy and nebulous - like the "but they don't allow anyone to question", "it was hotter someplace a  century ago", "they question the accuracy of someplace hotter a century ago, typical" those kinds of arguments (paraphrased rather than quotes) are just typically fuzzy and nebulous and false criticisms that climate science deniers use in place of showing where the fundamentals of climate science are wrong.

 

[StringJunky]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

CO2 levels only started to significantly rise in 1950, but climate alarmists ALWAYS quote the rise from the late 19th century. In fact, the only years that are relevant are from 1950 till now, and they know it, but they want to mislead.

Has it occurred to you that the apparent 'significant' rise might be due to scientists eyes being opened to see clearer, with better instruments and processes?

Quote

Methane: In 1859, John Tyndall determined that coal gas, a mix of methane and other gases, strongly absorbed infrared radiation. Methane was subsequently detected in the atmosphere in 1948, and in the 1980s scientists realized that human emissions were having a substantial impact.[81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

This is what John Tyndall had to work with mid-19th century:

You can't put that in your bag of tricks and go roving around for data.

Edited February 5, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I've recently been through drought -

Join the club! The east coast of Australia over the last 4 or 5 years has gone through horredous drought, the worst most catastrophic bushfires in recorded memory, and now El Nino! and floods.

26 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Climate science isn't fuzzy and nebulous - like the "but they don't allow anyone to question", "it was hotter someplace a  century ago", "they question the accuracy of someplace hotter a century ago, typical" those kinds of arguments (paraphrased rather than quotes) are just typically fuzzy and nebulous and false criticisms that climate science deniers use in place of showing where the fundamentals of climate science are wrong.

I fully support the climate change models and scientific predictions, based on the evidence. But even if the evidence was slightly "wishy washy"(which it obviously isn't) and even if it was less then 100% certain, and only a smidgin of doubt, isn't the proposed worst scenario consequences, a reason to understand that if we are going to err, we must err on the side of caution? I just recently renewed my driver's license, and in NSW once you reach 75 years of age, you must undergo a full medical, which I passed with flying colours. After thinking somewhat, I decided voluntarilly to go on a restricted license limiting me to only drive within 10 kms of my  home. We now rely mostly on public transport. A small reduction in my carbon foot print.

Edited February 5, 2022 by beecee

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You posted the graph. I commented on it. You have to expect that sort of thing. 

You made a claim. I posted actual data to show it lacked merit. Then you moved the goalpost and cherry-picked some data. Unfortunately yes, I do expect that sort of thing, but that doesn’t mean I have to let it pass unchallenged.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

CO2 levels only started to significantly rise in 1950, but climate alarmists ALWAYS quote the rise from the late 19th century. In fact, the only years that are relevant are from 1950 till now, and they know it, but they want to mislead. 

This glosses over the logarithmic nature of the impact; the climate impact is tied to a doubling of the CO2 levels, not the value itself. Meaning that a given numerical increase has a bigger impact when the levels are low. So going from 285 ppm (ca 1850) to 310 ppm (ca 1950) had a bigger impact on temperature than going from 355 ppm (~1990) to 380 ppm (~2007)

The recent rise is more dramatic, and so is the rise in temperature. But there’s nothing misleading in including earlier data.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I'm afraid your link is a fail, when it starts out by blatantly trying to pull the wool over my eyes. In any case, a temperature rise doesn't prove a CO2 cause. As I proved in my post above.

Nobody claimed otherwise. Do you have any inclination to discuss science? I doubt I’m the only one tired of the rhetoric and posturing.

[Ken Fabian]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

CO2 levels only started to significantly rise in 1950, but climate alarmists ALWAYS quote the rise from the late 19th century. In fact, the only years that are relevant are from 1950 till now, and they know it, but they want to mislead. 

They go back to late 1800's is because they have that data, from weather records, albeit with increasing measurement uncertainty the further back, and therefore they should not leave it out.

Using 1950 as a starting point would include most historic emissions and most of global warming to date. It will show a higher warming trend over that period than the ones that go back as far as temperature records - leaving less room to argue global warming isn't happening, not more.

Suggesting (accusing) climate scientists of deliberately misleading by doing so is kind of weird - as well as kind of slanderous. Pretty much any suggesting climate scientists are seeking to mislead is slanderous. Speaking of a burden of proof, and the allegations you make about climate scientists seem quite broad, some extraordinarily serious -

but climate science, the least proved, is the only one that's "settled".

That's because they've been driven out, not because there is any more certainty.

The consensus is self perpetuating. It's nothing to do with evidence.

All you get from climate science when you ask for the evidence is "we made this model".

but they want to mislead. 

If facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned. 

It comes across as trollish. Casually hurtful too, I would think - accusations and presumptions of serious professional misconduct with blanket nasty character judgements, of working climate scientists you've never met, without any evidence. Myself, I don't doubt lead scientists especially feel the great weight of responsibility that comes with being asked to provide the studies and reports and advice on something this serious, but you want to believe they are running an elaborate con-game?

I can point out that global temperatures are rising, ocean heat is at record temperatures, that ocean heat does records most years now, that new daily record high temperatures occur a lot more frequently than new record cold temperatures, that global sea levels are rising, that the rate that sea levels are rising is rising... etc. To what point? You know this stuff, or can if you choose to.

Or you can choose to believe all those measurements are unreliable, have been misinterpreted or even that they have been falsified; clearly you must be thinking along those lines.

So, is it really a requirement that you be convinced for concerns about global warming to be credible. Is it really up to us here to convince you and if we can't then you can feel justified in holding to global warming fears being exaggerated or falsified?

Governments have called for studies and reports, going back many decades and we know what they say - the same whether governments lean Left or lean Right and a credit to our scientists that they haven't bowed to the almost overwhelming political pressure to produce less alarming conclusions.

[Doogles31731]

Ken Fabian, and beecee, your answers do not fit mistermack’s question “OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?” Serious droughts have been very common in Australia’s history -- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

.....................................................

SwansonT, you are a genius. I typed several computations of that title into Google Scholar and PubMed looking for the original article, without success, but it never occurred to me to use Google and look for images. Thank you.

You and exchemist have been very helpful with references for a curious person such as myself and I have used the green tick for both of you accordingly. Although I must add that exchemist has made some badly mistaken assumptions about my motives in my posts.

Like TheVat, I have taken a passing interest in Climate Science for a couple of decades now and have not been happy with many of the inconsistencies and conclusions. But I’m not a climate scientist. As you know I have been looking for the basic science on which the calculations and models were constructed, since Tyndall.

I notice that mistermack received a red tick from somebody when he stated " A skeptic doesn't declare the model right or wrong. They question the evidence, the method and the conclusions. That questioning is what's missing in CS. There might be some very good work done, but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned.“ I support him in that statement.

Apropos of questioning the basics of the data on which climate science and calculations are based, I found a 2019 paper by Scafetta who did just that. You can read his interpretation of the literature yourself and draw your own conclusions. I think that what he says, sounds right, but the paper is of such a nature that it would be hard to summarize. If he’s right, then many of the current climate models need modification and if he’s wrong, then climate science is still too inconsistent.

 

Scafetta (2019; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola-Scafetta/publication/334746460_ON_THE_RELIABILITY_OF_COMPUTER-BASED_CLIMATE_MODELS/links/5d496ede4585153e5940b019/ON-THE-RELIABILITY-OF-COMPUTER-BASED-CLIMATE-MODELS.pdf) in On the reliability of computer-based climate models. It’s in the peer-reviewed Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment.

The Introduction states “In this short review, I will briefly summarize some of the main reasons why the AGWT should be questioned. A reader should consider that a recent survey among more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et alii, 2016) revealed that 96% of the respondents acknowledges that a climatic change is taking place. However, with regards to its physical causes, only 29% of respondents agreed with the claim that 80-100% of the global surface warming observed since 1960 has been induced by human activity. Another 38% claimed that humans were responsible for 60-80% of the observed warming, while 26% claimed that natural climatic factors have contributed from 40% to 100% of it. 6% could not answer and only 1% thinks that a climatic change did not really occur. So, only a minority, probably far less than a third of the US meteorologists agrees with the claim of the IPCC that the totality (100%) of the warming observed since 1870 or 1960 has been anthropogenic. Thus, it is not true that there is a nearly total consensus on the IPCC’s main claims. I will try to explain why so many people with some expertise on this topic are skeptical of the AGWT of the GCMs.”

So it’s not just people with a passing interest who question climate science, but a fair percentage of 4000 members of a Meteorological Society.

This is part of Scafetta’s conclusions, but as I said, you’d have to read the paper yourself. “I have finally proposed a semi-empirical climate model calibrated in such a way to reconstruct the natural climatic variability since medieval times because it includes the millennial oscillation observed throughout the Holocene (Scafetta 2013a; 2013b). I have shown that this model projects very moderate warming until 2040 and a maximum additional warming of about 1.5°C from 2000 to 2100 using the same anthropogenic emission scenarios adopted by the CMIP5 models: see Figures 18-19. This result suggests that climatic adaptation policies, which are less expensive than the mitigation ones, could be sufficient to address most of the consequences of climatic changes that could occur during the 21st century. A major scientific implication of this research is that the climate is significantly modulated by astronomical oscillations which may generate solar-associated forcings different from the total solar irradiance forcing. This eventuality would further suggest that the current models are not reliable because important space weather climate forcings are still poorly understood and not included in the GCMs.”

It's an article that mirrors my concerns as well as those of a high percentage of meteorologists. If any members reject the findings of this article, please present case arguments to substantiate your case.

Nicola Scafetta is the author or co-author of about 70 publications up to 2016.

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, Doogles31731 said:

Ken Fabian, and beecee, your answers do not fit mistermack’s question “OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?” Serious droughts have been very common in Australia’s history -- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

.....................................................

I wasn't specifically answering mistermack, I was simply quoting Ken Fabian's post and while agreeing, adding the thought that if we are going to err, it is best to err on the side of caution, considering what is at stake. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Droughts, bushfires etc do seem to be increasing in frequency and severity, and from your own link re drought.....

"Australia has experienced a marked decrease in precipitation levels since 1994.[5] Deficiencies in northern Australia increased in 2013–14, leading to an extended drought period in certain parts of Queensland. Between 2017 and 2019, severe drought developed once more across much of eastern and inland Australia including Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, also extending into parts of South and Western Australia"

[Doogles31731]

That's okay. But I would like to see a serious answer to mistermack's question. I'm curious about the answer myself. And I think it's a fair enough question.

 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Doogles31731 said:

Ken Fabian, and beecee, your answers do not fit mistermack’s question “OK. What is the biggest and best piece of evidence you can quote me, for CO2 causing a warming disaster this century?” Serious droughts have been very common in Australia’s history -- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia

.....................................................

SwansonT, you are a genius. I typed several computations of that title into Google Scholar and PubMed looking for the original article, without success, but it never occurred to me to use Google and look for images. Thank you.

You and exchemist have been very helpful with references for a curious person such as myself and I have used the green tick for both of you accordingly. Although I must add that exchemist has made some badly mistaken assumptions about my motives in my posts.

Like TheVat, I have taken a passing interest in Climate Science for a couple of decades now and have not been happy with many of the inconsistencies and conclusions. But I’m not a climate scientist. As you know I have been looking for the basic science on which the calculations and models were constructed, since Tyndall.

I notice that mistermack received a red tick from somebody when he stated " A skeptic doesn't declare the model right or wrong. They question the evidence, the method and the conclusions. That questioning is what's missing in CS. There might be some very good work done, but the bad stuff, the over the top conclusions are not questioned.“ I support him in that statement.

Apropos of questioning the basics of the data on which climate science and calculations are based, I found a 2019 paper by Scafetta who did just that. You can read his interpretation of the literature yourself and draw your own conclusions. I think that what he says, sounds right, but the paper is of such a nature that it would be hard to summarize. If he’s right, then many of the current climate models need modification and if he’s wrong, then climate science is still too inconsistent.

 

Scafetta (2019; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicola-Scafetta/publication/334746460_ON_THE_RELIABILITY_OF_COMPUTER-BASED_CLIMATE_MODELS/links/5d496ede4585153e5940b019/ON-THE-RELIABILITY-OF-COMPUTER-BASED-CLIMATE-MODELS.pdf) in On the reliability of computer-based climate models. It’s in the peer-reviewed Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment.

The Introduction states “In this short review, I will briefly summarize some of the main reasons why the AGWT should be questioned. A reader should consider that a recent survey among more than 4000 members of the American Meteorological Society (Maibach et alii, 2016) revealed that 96% of the respondents acknowledges that a climatic change is taking place. However, with regards to its physical causes, only 29% of respondents agreed with the claim that 80-100% of the global surface warming observed since 1960 has been induced by human activity. Another 38% claimed that humans were responsible for 60-80% of the observed warming, while 26% claimed that natural climatic factors have contributed from 40% to 100% of it. 6% could not answer and only 1% thinks that a climatic change did not really occur. So, only a minority, probably far less than a third of the US meteorologists agrees with the claim of the IPCC that the totality (100%) of the warming observed since 1870 or 1960 has been anthropogenic. Thus, it is not true that there is a nearly total consensus on the IPCC’s main claims. I will try to explain why so many people with some expertise on this topic are skeptical of the AGWT of the GCMs.”

So it’s not just people with a passing interest who question climate science, but a fair percentage of 4000 members of a Meteorological Society.

This is part of Scafetta’s conclusions, but as I said, you’d have to read the paper yourself. “I have finally proposed a semi-empirical climate model calibrated in such a way to reconstruct the natural climatic variability since medieval times because it includes the millennial oscillation observed throughout the Holocene (Scafetta 2013a; 2013b). I have shown that this model projects very moderate warming until 2040 and a maximum additional warming of about 1.5°C from 2000 to 2100 using the same anthropogenic emission scenarios adopted by the CMIP5 models: see Figures 18-19. This result suggests that climatic adaptation policies, which are less expensive than the mitigation ones, could be sufficient to address most of the consequences of climatic changes that could occur during the 21st century. A major scientific implication of this research is that the climate is significantly modulated by astronomical oscillations which may generate solar-associated forcings different from the total solar irradiance forcing. This eventuality would further suggest that the current models are not reliable because important space weather climate forcings are still poorly understood and not included in the GCMs.”

It's an article that mirrors my concerns as well as those of a high percentage of meteorologists. If any members reject the findings of this article, please present case arguments to substantiate your case.

Nicola Scafetta is the author or co-author of about 70 publications up to 2016.

OK @Doogles31731, let me come back on that.

I'll be frank. The chief reason I suspect (or suspected)  your motives is your use  of a well-known disinformation site to bolster your position. I have got burnt in the past, you see, wasting my time on talking points from creationists which turn out to come from their bank of disiniformation sites. There is a lot of this sort of practice about these days, from people who start with a fixed belief and then try to find all sorts of doubtful, or even fake, "science" to back it up. This smelt to me like the same sort of thing, especially when at the start you seemed to represent yourself as some sort of science historian, familiar with climate science and just trying to join the historical dots, when it fact it subsequently turned out that you don't understand the basics and that you had an agenda. This has coloured my opinion of your motives.

However I am willing to accept that I may be being unfair to you. So I am prepared to engage further, cautiously, on the provisional basis that you are enquiring in good faith. On the internet, one is dealing with unknown people: building trust in their good faith takes time and we do not have much to go on.