Holocene Logic – Simplified – 2

OPS-36 This post is an important rehash of earlier posts (just laid out in a different format).  The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist crowd is fixated on CO2 (to the detriment of all other natural (and more important) climate drivers). But they do not just fixate on the molecule, they fixate on a sliver of time (the Modern Temperature Record (MTR), 1850 to the present). Their basic argument, they can model the temperature over the MTR effectively using just CO2 as the variable (refer to OPS-22). Obviously (in their mind), there is no need to (and effectively they do not) incorporate any pesky natural forcings. There are a few things wrong with that “logic”.

To start with, a computer model that relies strictly on CO2 is useless. The temperatures fluctuated continually over the Holocene (with no CO2 contribution). The natural forces active over the Holocene (primarily solar (directly and indirectly)), have not shut down just because the IPCC programmers have decreed it to be so. The IPCC computers simply cannot model the temperatures pre-MTR and are therefore useless for modelling temperatures post-MTR.

#showusthedata #globalwarming #climatechange

Secondly, as I showed in the Addendum to my Open Letter (and OPS-8), the MTR temperatures can also be modelled using just Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). Ironic that a simple spreadsheet can be just as effective as the supercomputers the IPCC uses (and for billions less). My model is over-simplified (but probably more accurate) than the ideological IPCC’s CO2 focussed options. And not surprisingly, my model also agrees with beta testing of the new CMIP6 computer protocol. Once high energy particles and cosmic rays (solar forcings not included in CMIP5 protocol) were included in the programming, the MTR temperature could be modelled without CO2. To be fair, CO2 needs to be included in the models, just not at the stupid levels used by the CAGW alarmist crowd.

And there are still those two little problems that the CAGW alarmist crowd refuses to acknowledge. Computer models cannot be used to prove any theory, let alone an unscientific narrative like CAGW. Garbage In (and there is plenty of garbage when it comes to CAGW), Garbage Out (GIGO). Finally, I am still waiting for someone (scientist or not) to put forward an empirical CO2/Temperature dataset that shows CO2 driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. You know, the scientific proof needed to back the CAGW narrative. Backup data and discussion is available at my website climatechangeandmusic.com, showing the many solar influences (and minimal CO2 influence) on climate.