SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.
Vic Dale wrote: All of the democratic state institutions serve a single purpose, to protect the property rights of the ruling class which they serve. No president or prime minister will ever be permitted to do anything, or pass any laws which harm the money making machine,
We the people have absolutely no say in what goes on in the world, unless it serves the great economic purpose - see billionaires.
Vic Dale wrote:At the time of writing I do not know what to believe about climate change, but when the good and the great say anything about it, I know it is likely to be a lie - I mean dissemblement.
Callandar’ work is fascinating in part because of its simplicity. As I mentioned above, the fact that the GCMs can give us predictions or projections about other things does not imply that they meaningful or useful. Let me repeat my abuse of Shakespeare from above:
"I can call regional projections from the vasty GCMs."
"Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come true when you do call for them?"
You are claiming that an inaccurate prediction is better than no prediction at all. I think that in fact, an inaccurate prediction is worse than none. The problem with predictions is that they come as a package with imputed causes. If we accept the prediction, we accept the cause.
For example, someone could come in with a model that shows a correlation between sea level rise and the barycentric rotation of the sun. If we accept his prediction about sea levels, we can forget about preventing sea level rise. We won’t change the barycentric motion. But if the same prediction comes from a GCM, it comes with an implicit cause which is the simplistic idea that global temperatures linearly follow forcings. In that case we are accepting that the cause is greenhouse gases.
As a result, accepting the results of a model includes accepting the world view of the model as being correct … and we have little reason to think that of the GCMs. For the canonical measure of a GCM, the hindcast of the historical temperatures, I and others have shown that they are functionally equivalent to a simple lagged function of the inputs … and I see no reason to assume that their model of sea level rise is any more sophisticated.
So to the contrary, I think that people are far too slow to dismiss the value of GCMs. People seem hypnotized by their size and complexity, and overawed by the pretty pictures they can generate. .......
Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.
German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies.
Dave Saxton wrote: Socialist political policy and climate policy are one in the same.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest