The Crazy Beliefs of AGW Alarmists
To be and remain an alarmist you must believe some really crazy things. To baseline my beliefs let me clarify the definition of Climate. From here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate
<b>Climate</b>
1.the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
<b>Alarmist Beliefs</b>
1) Foremost for me is the belief that the warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is bad for mankind and the biosphere.
2) Also among those hard to support beliefs is the belief that mankind is the cause or primary cause for the warming since the LIA.
3) Belief in the validity of the out put from the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and the conclusions in the scientific studies reliant upon them.
<b>Warming since the LIA is bad</b> There is almost no historical evidence for this belief. Indeed, history shows us that both the biosphere and mankind have significant exist in improved conditions and expanded largely die to these improved conditions. There is no point to list some of the results from those improvements since we all can list many in our own life times.
<b>Mankind is the cause for that warming</b> To believe this you have to think that some thing changed directly due to man eventuating in the change from LIA cooling to warming. Usually alarmists point to industrialization and its pollution. To consider that a cause takes an understanding that was bad, but more importantly that industrialization was a net loss for the biosphere and mankind, an absolutely wrong conclusion. Mankind continues pursuing industrialization because it has been such a benefit. Whether the increase in CO2 due to it is a net loss for the biosphere is still not well defined.
To counter these findings alarmists point to recent history, picking years since the 50s, as the change point when man's influence over whelmed nature or natural variability. This ignores most of the natural changes which have occurred to shows natures continued influence in Global Warming.
<b>The GCM outputs are accurate and valid</b> Alarmists believe surface temperatures have been the primary indicator of climate change. Indeed they are so pervasive to make climate change and surface temperature changes used interchangeably by alarmists.
The definition above shows that climate is far more than just surface temperature. Accordingly using such a restrictive definition leads to much of the confusion over its change (climate change) aND many of the conflict in the discussions. Too many times during the discussions, although using similar terms, the meaning for them are too general and not understood by the specific side, or just the inverse specific and not understood by the general side.
Using surface temperatures as the quality measure for the GCMs it is clear that their projections have been too high since the release of IPCC's AR5. A recent article from Dr Judith Curry's blog has reviewed the GCM's outputs witha comparison of recent alarmist claims. https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/#more-23412
This chart is included in the article:
The explanation for it:
"The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report also acknowledged model over-estimation of recent warming in their Figure 9.8 and accompanying discussion in Box 9.2. I have updated the IPCC chart as follows. I set the CMIP5 range to gray, and the thin white lines show the (year-by-year) central 66% and 95% of model projections. The chart uses the most recent version of the HadCRUT4 data, which goes to the end of 2016. All data are centered on 1961-1990.
<b>Even with the 2016 EL-Nino event, the HadCRUT4 series does not reach the mean of the CMIP5 ensembl</b> Prior to 2000 the longest interval without a crossing between the red and black lines was 12 years, but the current one now runs to 18 years.
Belief in the veracity of the GCM temperature projections are misplaced.
These strange and historically or scientifically unsupported beliefs still drive alarmist emotional views. They are just wrong!
<b>Climate</b>
[klahy-mit]
<b>Alarmist Beliefs</b>
1) Foremost for me is the belief that the warming since the Little Ice Age (LIA) is bad for mankind and the biosphere.
2) Also among those hard to support beliefs is the belief that mankind is the cause or primary cause for the warming since the LIA.
3) Belief in the validity of the out put from the Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and the conclusions in the scientific studies reliant upon them.
<b>Warming since the LIA is bad</b> There is almost no historical evidence for this belief. Indeed, history shows us that both the biosphere and mankind have significant exist in improved conditions and expanded largely die to these improved conditions. There is no point to list some of the results from those improvements since we all can list many in our own life times.
<b>Mankind is the cause for that warming</b> To believe this you have to think that some thing changed directly due to man eventuating in the change from LIA cooling to warming. Usually alarmists point to industrialization and its pollution. To consider that a cause takes an understanding that was bad, but more importantly that industrialization was a net loss for the biosphere and mankind, an absolutely wrong conclusion. Mankind continues pursuing industrialization because it has been such a benefit. Whether the increase in CO2 due to it is a net loss for the biosphere is still not well defined.
To counter these findings alarmists point to recent history, picking years since the 50s, as the change point when man's influence over whelmed nature or natural variability. This ignores most of the natural changes which have occurred to shows natures continued influence in Global Warming.
<b>The GCM outputs are accurate and valid</b> Alarmists believe surface temperatures have been the primary indicator of climate change. Indeed they are so pervasive to make climate change and surface temperature changes used interchangeably by alarmists.
The definition above shows that climate is far more than just surface temperature. Accordingly using such a restrictive definition leads to much of the confusion over its change (climate change) aND many of the conflict in the discussions. Too many times during the discussions, although using similar terms, the meaning for them are too general and not understood by the specific side, or just the inverse specific and not understood by the general side.
Using surface temperatures as the quality measure for the GCMs it is clear that their projections have been too high since the release of IPCC's AR5. A recent article from Dr Judith Curry's blog has reviewed the GCM's outputs witha comparison of recent alarmist claims. https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/#more-23412
This chart is included in the article:
"The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report also acknowledged model over-estimation of recent warming in their Figure 9.8 and accompanying discussion in Box 9.2. I have updated the IPCC chart as follows. I set the CMIP5 range to gray, and the thin white lines show the (year-by-year) central 66% and 95% of model projections. The chart uses the most recent version of the HadCRUT4 data, which goes to the end of 2016. All data are centered on 1961-1990.
<b>Even with the 2016 EL-Nino event, the HadCRUT4 series does not reach the mean of the CMIP5 ensembl</b> Prior to 2000 the longest interval without a crossing between the red and black lines was 12 years, but the current one now runs to 18 years.
Belief in the veracity of the GCM temperature projections are misplaced.
These strange and historically or scientifically unsupported beliefs still drive alarmist emotional views. They are just wrong!
Comments
Post a Comment