The State of Climate Science

OPS-55 2021 has been a very interesting year in climate science (from both the IPCC’s simplistic, unscientific CO₂ approach and from the perspective of the real-world science community that recognizes that the sun (that bright yellow object that supplies 99%+ of the energy that reaches our planet) has a significant (dare I say dominant) contribution to the temperature cycles (both warming and cooling) experienced on our planet. And what better place to start than the IPCC’s own recent revelations. As described in a July 2021 AAAS article, the modellers self proclaimed that the models are running way too hot. Specifically, “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast”. Gavin Schmidt (Director at NASA-GISS) summed up the model projections with this statement. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong”. Combine that with the IPCC’s August 2021 AR6 Report that produced this little gem, “the likelihood of high emission scenarios such as RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 is considered low in light of recent developments in the energy sector.” and there is NO scientific evidence or any reason to believe that a Climate Emergency exists.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The story does not stop there. You need to ask a simple question. What are the implications of the models projecting warming that is implausibly fast? Firstly, that simple statement calls the whole IPCC AR6 Report into question. The report relies very heavily on the computer models. If the computer models are running too hot (they are and always have been), then any work based on those models is rendered useless (i.e.: the IPCC AR6 Report). I should take a moment here to remind the reader that 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 and computer models are not a scientific proof. Computers are completely subject to their programming (i.e.: Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)).

In the Real World, the IPCC would take some steps to fix their programming problems. Unfortunately, the fact that they have officially recognized the problem, just means they are getting ready to change the narrative. NOAA recognizing the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) we are just entering is just another path to the revised narrative. I do not believe that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist narrative is going away anytime soon, but we are headed in the right direction. A lot more people must wake up, but based on experience, it is hard to wake the woke.

Fixing the IPCC’s programing problems is actually quite simple. They could start by recognizing that they already had (past tense is intentional) a model in their stable that could match the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the Present) temperatures. That would be the Russian INM-CM4 run using the older CMIP5 protocols. Why was the Russian Model successful? They used a low CO₂ Climate Sensitivity, a negative cloud albedo and a higher ocean heat capacity. Strange how that works. In the newer CMIP6 protocol, additional but not all solar forcings have been added to the modeller’s tool kit (specifically Cosmic Ray Flux and High Energy Particles, supplementing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) used in CMIP5). During beta testing, the new solar forcings were able to model the MTR without using any CO₂ forcing. Not surprising, considering that I have shown that the MTR can be matched closely using just the TSI (as a proxy) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO). That simple Climate Model (much cheaper than the billions wasted on the IPCC modelling) is laid out in my Open Letter Addendum and my OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model posts. The CMIP6 beta testing and my simplified model are not all encompassing. There are hundreds of other climate forcings (including CO₂ and other ocean cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, (PDO), el Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), etc.)) that can be added in to tighten up the MTR match. CO₂ does play a role but just a minor one and its effects are hidden in the historical data by the much more powerful natural forcings.

Dr. John Christy has reviewed and compared the CMIP5 and CMIP6 protocols (CSS-6 – January 2021 Presentation Analysis). The quick summary, the CMIP6 projections are more erratic and inaccurate than the CMIP5 projections. Even the Russian Model INM-CM4-8, was indistinguishable in the chaotic mess that the various models produced. What went wrong? The CO₂ climate sensitivity range was actually increased and the new solar forcings were either turned off or way down. Those are narrative changes, not scientific changes.

Once again, the story does not stop there. History began before the MTR. The pre-MTR Holocene temperatures fluctuated significantly while CO₂ levels remained virtually flat. This data is presented in my Holocene Logic posts (generally summarized in my OPS-44 – Temperature Averaging Effects, OPS-51 – Late Holocene – CAGW CO₂-Temperature and OPS-54 – CO₂-Temperature Properly Scaled posts). Those natural forcings were still active during the MTR and will continue to be active in the future, despite the IPCC modeller’s decree that they are virtually zero during the MTR. The current models are useless for matching the pre-MTR Holocene temperatures and are therefore useless for projecting future temperature changes. The temperature drops associated with the GSM forecasted by NOAA will not be recognized in the current IPCC computer programming.

The Russian technique (while a step in the right direction) is insufficient on its own. As discussed previously, CO₂ is flat over the pre-MTR Holocene. The natural forcings (primarily solar and solar related) must be included despite the IPCC’s reluctance to recognize their importance. And that is where the real-world science comes into play. There have been some very comprehensive and important scientific papers released in 2021. And they can all be used to help the IPCC correct their, the models are running too hot problem.

1. Atmospheric ionization and cloud radiative forcing | Scientific Reports (nature.com), Henrik Svensmark et al., October 2021. Svensmark’s work is not new, but this most recent paper was published in Nature (making it much harder for the CAGW alarmists to ignore). What does this paper provide to the Climate Change Discussion? The scientific proof that Cosmic Ray Flux does affect the planet’s cloud cover. Cosmic Ray Flux goes up during Solar Minimums, increasing cloud cover and dropping temperatures. Might be time for the IPCC modellers to turn the CMIP6 solar forcings back on? CSS-12 – Cpsmic Ray Discussion.
2. How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate – IOPscience, Ronan Connolly et al., 2021. This a very in-depth analysis of the Solar influences on the Global Climate/Temperature by 23 climate scientists from around the world. One more factor that can help the IPCC fix that the models are running too hot problem. The sun is the most important climate driver through a variety of direct and indirect means.
3. Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules (yorku.ca), W. A. van Winjgaarden, W. Happer, 2021. A detailed technical paper that highlights the drastically declining CO₂ warming effectiveness. In fact, “the forcings from the 5 naturally occurring greenhouse gases are saturated”, “H₂O, CO₂, O₃, N₂O and CH₄ as well as CF₄ and SF₆”. CSS-7 – CO₂ the FECKLESS GreenHouse Gas.
4. Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment | SpringerLink, Ross McKitrick, 2021. This is highly technical paper that outlines the statistical mistakes that the climate science community is making in their application of optimal fingerprinting.
5. Atmosphere | Free Full-Text | An Assessment of ERA5 Reanalysis for Antarctic Near-Surface Air Temperature | HTML (mdpi.com), The Antarctic temperatures have been declining for the last 40 years. Not a very convenient fact for the CAGW alarmist narrative. CSS-13 – A Look at Homogenization.

The CAGW alarmist crowd is still and will continue making political moves in a scientific chess game that has already been won but not acknowledged by our idiotological political leaders and the propagandistic media outlets that serve them. Mother Nature will continue to show how wrong and dangerous the CAGW narrative really is (i.e.: the Texas deep freeze in early 2021, the unusually high Northern Hemisphere snowfall the last 4 winters and the projected upcoming winter, the record cold in Antarctica, this winter’s energy crisis that is already starting to play itself out, etc.). But unless the general public wakes up and starts pushing for some commence sense reform (i.e.: we can start with dumping our Canadian UN cheerleader in chief), the questionable lockdowns from COVID-19 will just transition into long term climate lockdowns. Remember the Great Regret, by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy.