Your two statements highlighted in
RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
Science is never "settled" and any argument using the lack of finality as a justification for inaction should be seen for what it is, denialism. Faith is settled. Science is always open to revision and exploration, testing, and retesting. That goes on in biology, in medicine, and in physics, and of course in climate science. Scientists reach a consensus when the evidence strongly points in one direction. Tobacco causes cancer, DDT is not good for the environment, clean air and clean water are better than dirty water, wash your hands and get some exercise, and the activities of humans are a significant factor in the rise of temperatures over the last 50 years. There never was a consensus or even serious consideration about global cooling. The potential impact of solar variation, and of volcanoes have been included in climate models and are not significant drivers of the rise which has been observed.
Claims that predictions have failed to be met by reality are the result of cherry-picking the most dire models. Even Dr. Hansen, one of the most vigorous and outspoken scientists in the climate science field would be proud of the accuracy of the predictions he made in 1981.
|