Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs?

OPS-71 Climate Change is Complicated! Unless you believe the Catastrophic Anthropogenic “Global Warming” (CAGW) alarmist narrative (i.e.: “Climate Change” is controlled by trace gases in our atmosphere (primarily CO₂)). Full stop, no further discussion required, we need to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars to reduce (or more accurately delay by a few years) the projected ±0.2 °C temperature rise a century from now (based on “the IPCC science”). Just one little problem. There is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. There is no proof without empirical data (a basic Scientific Method Requirement).

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The lack of empirical data is technically enough to discredit the CAGW alarmist narrative all on its own. But to be fair, let us evaluate their perceived concept of proof in a little more detail. The starting point is the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present). Temperatures have risen (1.07 °C according to the IPCC AR6 report) since 1850 (one of the cold lows (the Dalton Minimum) of the Little Ice Age (LIA)). And the atmospheric CO₂ concentration has also risen. That gives you some (but not great) correlation. Causation, that is another story. There are a couple of key points that need to be kept in mind. Temperatures started climbing (out of the deep cold of the LIA (the Maunder Minimum) centuries before CO₂ began increasing and 86%+ of human emissions are post-1950. CO₂ may be contributing to temperature change, but CO₂ does not act on its own. Over the last 10,000 years (the Holocene Interglacial Warm Period we are living through), temperatures fluctuated regularly despite a virtually flat CO₂ concentration. Those fluctuations are due to natural radiative forcings (primarily solar (directly and/or indirectly)). Those natural forcings were still active during the MTR and will continue to be active in the future.

The amount of warming that can be credited to rising CO₂ concentrations is completely dependent on its climate sensitivity. Effectively, how much does the planet warm if CO₂ concentrations are doubled? That brings us to their preferred concept of proof of everything, their computer models. First, let us remember the first rule of computer simulation, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO). So, where do the IPCC modeling experts stand on the GIGO rule? Well, their models have not exactly “settled the science” surrounding CO₂’s Climate Sensitivity. Their models use a variety of sensitivities that range from 1.8 °C to 5.7 °C for every CO₂ doubling. Obviously, the IPCC does not know the CO₂’s climate sensitivity. Bad enough on its own, but literally every model they use drastically overestimates the observed Lower Troposphere temperature rise over the satellite period (December 1978 to the present). The two Russian Models and one of the six Chinese models come close because they use the low end of the sensitivity scale (1.8 °C).

For some context, Drs. Christy and Spencer (from the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH)) have shown the model versus measured temperature discrepancy to be true many times. The UAH satellite data had been considered the outlier (despite being the closest comparison to the radiosonde (weather balloon) data). That changed recently when the NOAA-STAR satellite data was recalibrated and now corroborates the UAH measurements, leaving the RSS satellite data as the outlier. Why has NOAA moved away from the alarmist friendly RSS method, back to the UAH and radiosonde data-based methods? Are they starting to change their narrative? We shall see.

These are all problems for the CAGW alarmist narrative. But the bad news (for the alarmist community) does not stop there. The modelers have self acknowledged themselves that their models run too hot. That is a broad statement that does not begin to lay out how badly the models perform. The models are running too hot even when they use a reasonable emission scenario (like ssp2-4.5 W/m²). Sadly (or seemingly maliciously), they continue to use much more aggressive emission scenarios (ssp3-7.0 and ssp5-8.5 W/m²) in their evaluations despite being labeled as low likelihood by the IPCC and implausible by most researchers. Remember GIGO.

Given what I have laid out here, you can see why the models run too hot. But there is more. The models ignore the more important solar forcings and add in an unsubstantiated positive water vapor feedback hypothesis. Ignoring the solar forcings (both direct and indirect) is a dangerous position. Many solar/astrophysicists (including NOAA) are forecasting a Grand Solar Minimum (which have historically led to colder temperatures and societal upheaval (more than we are already experiencing).

The existing IPCC computer models could easily be adjusted to model the MTR temperatures (and have a chance at matching pre-MTR temperature changes). They just need to turn on the additional solar forcings (like Cosmic Ray Flux and High Energy Particle Flux) that are already programmed into the CMIP6 protocol. That was done during beta testing of the CMIP6 protocols, and the modelers were able to match the MTR without CO₂ input. That was not good for the narrative, so those parameters were quickly dialed back down. In past posts, I have showed that the MTR could be modeled very well using just the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) and the sun’s Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, as a proxy). The longer Central England Temperature record can be modeled much more effectively with AMO, TSI and CO₂, than CO₂ alone.

The flow chart presented here may appear complicated at first glance, but it is not. The initial question, “Does atmospheric CO₂ concentration affect the global temperature?” might be considered important in the climate change discussion. The obvious answer is yes. That leads to the most important question in Climate Science. What is CO₂’s Climate Sensitivity? A low climate sensitivity means that the minor CO₂ increases that we are capable of inducing are not dangerous and explains why there is no visible statistically significant evidence of CO₂ influence in the historical climate data (i.e.: in the real world, CO₂’s influence is there, but the natural forcings (solar, ocean, etc.) dominate). End of story. Let’s get to work fixing the real problems in the world (and there are plenty).

A high climate sensitivity takes us down a different path. The one that the alarmist community believes we should be on. The flow chart takes us down that path but ultimately brings us right back to the same point we reached with the low climate sensitivity case. There is no empirical proof that CO₂ concentrations are “the” primary climate driver. Along the path, the flowchart points out the many self-acknowledged problems associated with the climate models.

• The Climate models that underpin the entire CAGW alarmist narrative, run too hot. Not my words, that is the modeler’s position. I have looked at the model projections and the empirical data and can confirm their assessment.
• The IPCC has self-acknowledged that the higher emission scenarios (like ssp3-7.0 and ssp5-8.5) have a low likelihood of coming to pass. Many prominent researchers have been more direct and labeled them as highly implausible.
• We can tie the first two points together for a little more context. A reasonable (in my opinion) emission scenario, like ssp2-4.5, still runs too hot in the models. Only a couple of the many modeling groups (2 Russia and 1 of 6 China models) even come close to observed temperatures. And somehow, these models are still being used to dictate climate policy?
• NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has officially recognized that the sun is going into a Grand Solar Minimum later this decade. GSMs are associated with colder temperatures and societal upheaval (over and above what we are already experiencing). Temperatures have already been dropping since 2015. That drop will continue and potentially accelerate over the next few decades.
• NOAA also produces a satellite temperature dataset (STAR) that was recently recalibrated. STAR used to lean to the alarmist viewpoint (along with RSS (Remote Sensing System)), leaving UAH (the University of Alabama, Huntsville) as the outlier. As the outlier, UAH was routinely dismissed even though they were the only satellite dataset that agreed with the radiosonde (weather balloon) data. RSS is now the outlier, which begs the question, is NOAA trying change their narrative to conform with the skeptical/realist viewpoint?
• Even our Canadian federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Officer has thrown water on the alarmist dumpster fire. Showing that full global compliance with the 2015 Paris Accord will only improve Canadian GDP by 0.8%, 80 years from now (roughly $17 billion dollars at a 2%/year growth rate). All those savings (and a delayed global temperature rise of just 0.17 °C for, at best a few years) for just a few trillion dollars. Apparently, Justin believes that represents a good business case.
• And finally, there is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset (a basic Scientific Method requirement) that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale.

You do not have to understand climate science, to understand that there are some serious problems with the CAGW alarmist narrative. They are operating on a narrative that has no scientific proof behind the premise, they are using computer models that run too hot and emission scenarios that are implausible, all to justify “green” initiatives that offer no economic, societal, or even environmental gain. I do not make that statement lightly and can produce the data that backs that statement up.

In my opinion, we, the world’s broader population are under siege. Our political and corporate elites (with the help of a captured media) are pushing their unnecessary, uneconomic, unscientific, dangerous, idiotological “green” initiatives down our throats to advance the totalitarian Agendas set out by their masters at the UN/WEF. The attack on our energy, food, supply chain, medical and financial needs is reaching ridiculous extremes. Millions will die under these programs, with the poor and minority groups taking the brunt of that attack. The only justification for these “green” initiatives comes from the computer models. Those same models that run too hot, use implausibly high emission scenarios, cannot accurately model the MTR let alone pre-MTR temperature fluctuations, ignore virtually all the well established solar forcings and cannot provide empirical evidence that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale.

At some point our political and corporate leadership must stop pandering to the CAGW alarmist community. Wasting hundreds of trillions of dollars on wind, solar, Electric Vehicles, Carbon Capture and Underground Storage (CCUS), NetZero, ESG, etc. etc. will not save the planet. The planet does not need saving from CO₂ emissions. The planet needs more CO₂ (if the emission stream is just CO₂ and H₂O). The more we waste on “green”, the closer and quicker our societies approach full economic suicide. Once that happens, the funds for any environmental concerns (justified or not) will not be there. Finding general security, basic food, shelter, energy, and clean water will be far more important to all of us (except that 1% that are pushing these totalitarian initiatives).

Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion.

Henry’s Law – Kauppinen & Malmi, April 2023

2304.01245.pdf (arxiv.org)

Open Letter Addendum

Addendum

Then THEY Came For Me

Interview Links (Audio and Visual)

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-7 – CO₂ – The FECKLESS Greenhouse Gas

CO2 – The FECKLESS GreenHouse Gas

CSS-21 – CO₂ – Visualized Temperature Contribution

CO2 – Visualized Temperature Contribution

CSS-25 – Incremental Homogenization – HadCRUT4 to HadCRUT5

Incremental Homogenization – HadCRUT4 to HadCRUT5

CSS-27 – Is CO₂ Really the Primary Climate Driver

Is CO2 Really the Primary Climate Driver?

CSS-29 – Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂

Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2

CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models

CMIP6 Climate Models

CSS-40 – Satellite Temperature Comparisons

Satellite Temperature Comparisons

One Page Political Summary (OPPS)

OPPS-22 – Parliamentary Budget Office – Climate & GDP

Parliamentary Budget Office – GDP & Climate Change

OPPS-23 – PBO – Trudeau’s Business Acumen

PBO – Trudeau’s Business Acumen

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model

Basic Climate Model

OPS-52 – Solar Activity – NOAA Forecast

Solar Activity – NOAA Forecast

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

Political Short Story (PSS)

PSS-4 – Who is Justin Listening To?https://climatechangeandmusic.com/who-is-justin-listening-to/