![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Have you seen the figure on the left before?
Chances are you have if youโre actively involved in the climate change debate. If not, let me break it down.
The figure, adapted from Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers, is often touted as the โsmoking gunโ that proves virtually all observed global warming since 1850 is due to mankindโs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The figure implies that global climate models (GCMs) skillfully reproduce observed warming (see black curve) since the โpre-industrialโ era. They claim that this chart is synthesized from โmultiple lines of evidence,โ and that GCMs cannot skillfully reproduce the observed temperature trends without extra GHGs.
๐https://t.co/5lspFokYOu(p. 6)
However, this graph is not the โsmoking gunโ that many people think it is. So, let me explain why.
First, itโs important to understand exactly what Figure SPM.1 is showing.
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The observed global mean surface [air] temperature (GMST) anomaly (1850โ2019) from four surface station-based datasets. It shows ~1.2ยฐC of warming since 1850, though there is slight divergence between datasets (e.g., Berkley Earth, HadCRUT, NOAA, etc.). The likely range falls between 1.1โ1.3ยฐC, and I do not dispute these estimates, although I do not care much about what the GMST is.
๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The CMIP6 multi-model mean (MMM) GMST response to natural forcings and internal variability only. These are primarily solar forcing (e.g., changes in total solar irradiance, which is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident at the top of the atmosphere), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) from major volcanic eruptions (think Mount Tambora, 1815; Krakatoa, 1883; El Chichรณn, 1982; or Mount Pinatubo, 1991), and the El Niรฑo Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST response due to aerosol forcing only. Aerosols are fine solid or liquid particlesโnatural or anthropogenic in originโthat are suspended in the air and generally have diameters of <1 ฮผm (1 ร 10โปโด cm). Depending on type, aerosols can either act to warm or cool the Earthโs atmosphere. For instance, bright aerosols (e.g., sulfate particulates from coal burning) scatter incoming solar radiation back to space, which causes net cooling. Dark aerosols (e.g., black carbon from diesel exhaust), on the contrary, absorb incoming sunlight, resulting in net warming.
๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated ensemble GMST response to manmade GHG emissions only. These primarily are carbon dioxide (COโ) and methane (CHโ), and to a lesser extent, include ozone (Oโ) and nitrous oxides (NOx).
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST change due to natural forcings / variability + aerosols + GHGs. In other words, itโs the sum of the green, blue, and red curves.
As we can see below, the IPCCโs figure implies that GCMs have done remarkably well to explain why the globe has warmed [๐ด๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ญ๐บ] since 1850. The verdict, so weโre told, is that GHG emissions from our energy consumption, industrial activities, and transportation are squarely to blame. And whoโs going to argue with that? After all, scientists and climate activists routinely tell us that โItโs just basic physicsโ and that โThe science is settled.โ
Thereโs just one problem: the conclusion depends heavily on GCMs whose historical behavior (called hindcasting) is not an independent test in the way that the general public has been misled to believe by much of the scientific community.
GCMs are not simply pure radiative physics machines that can be turned on, run out to a certain date, and allowed to speak for themselves. They contain many parameterized processes such as cloud feedbacks, aerosol forcing, convection, land-surface exchanges, and ocean-atmosphere coupling that must be calibrated during model development.
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐๐ ๐ช๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ
Paleoclimate proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, and sediments) show significant multidecadal to centennial temperature fluctuations in pre-industrial times. The Greenland and Antarctic ice core-based temperature reconstructions, for instance, make that abundantly clear.
๐https://t.co/5PpWXs3cak
The models in CMIP5/6 smooth temperature curves and fail to reproduce the known amplitude of natural internal variability exhibited in multiple temperature reconstructions both regionally and globally (i.e., the more accurate pre-Hockey stick reconstructions). So, when modelers claim that natural forcing and internal variability cannot explain any warming since 1850, we should ask: Is that because nature truly could not have contributed much? Or is it possible that GCMs underrepresent natural variability?
That's not a trivial distinction.
2โฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ก๐๐
Because GCMs struggle to independently reproduce observed historical temperature variations, modelers often pre-tune parameters (turn โknobsโ) until the GMST output aligns with the observed GMST record.
This is not a conspiracy theory; itโs a demonstrable fact. The question is not whether tuning occurs. It does. The question is how much confidence we should place in attribution claims when models are essentially fudged to agree with the same historical record that is later used to demonstrate their alleged success.
Figure 3.8 on the right from IPCC AR6 WG1 illustrates this perfectly. It shows the assessed contributions to global warming from GHGs, aerosols, and natural forcings / internal variability over the period 2010โ19 minus 1850โ1900.
Letโs break it down:
๐ฉ The green boxes in Figure 3.8 show the spread in modeled GMST change ascribed to natural forcing / internal variability. The MMM is centered around the zero mark with little variation between the individual models in the ensemble. This is, once again, due to the fact that GCMs cannot hindcast well. So, the modelers assume that natural contributions to warming must be near zero.
๐ฆ Aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) carries enormous uncertainty: the MMM suggests a modest net cooling of ~0.5ยฐC, but the range spans from a strong cooling of โ0.9ยฐC to a weak warming of +0.1ยฐC over the period 1850โ2019. The uncertainty arises because it is unknown whether the net warming from black carbon is offset by the cooling from sulfate aerosols (HโSOโ). The MMM of 0.5ยฐC thus has a 100% margin of error, which means that no scientists know exactly how much aerosol forcing has dampened (or enhanced) GMST change.
Does that sound like โsettled scienceโ to you? It sure doesnโt to me.
But modelers need to reproduce warming of ~0.9ยฐC to 1.1ยฐC. If aerosol emissions result in net cooling, then that cannot be the cause. So, what do these modelers td? They jack up the GHG forcing.
๐ซ Extra GHGs also have uncertainty, though the margin of error is smaller in these estimates. The MMM suggests a strong warming of 1.5ยฐC ยฑ ~45%. All this tells us is that โthe expertsโ have no clue just how sensitive the climate system is to extra GHGs in the Earthโs atmosphere.
Add these forcings together and the ensemble mean output lands near observations.
๐https://t.co/6RS5rVXTRZ (p. 440)
Thereโs just one problem. Different models can get similar historical warming curves that resemble observations, but they use different combinations of aerosol cooling and GHG warming. That means the match to observed temperature trends does not uniquely prove the exact partitioning between GHGs, aerosols, and natural variability. For example, a model with strong aerosol cooling requires strong GHG warming to offset it. A different model with weak aerosol cooling requires a weaker GHG warming. Both will produce near-identical GMST curves that have high correlation to observations, but one cannot put much stock into these coefficients. This is a curve fitting exercise rather than real physics.
Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020), for example, openly describe tuning the Max Planck Institute model (MPI-ESM1.2) to match historical warming by adjusting cloud feedbacks and targeting an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3ยฐC (this is the IPCC's โbest estimateโ). With the known physics of radiative heat transfer, MPI-ESM1.2 produced an ECS of 7ยฐC, more than double their target. Therefore, the modelers arbitrarily adjusted the cloud parameter scheme until the model output aligned with GMST observations.
In the closing remarks of the paper, the authors of Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020) say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ค๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ญ.๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ข๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ; ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐จ๐ช๐๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ช๐ก. ๐๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐พ๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ช๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ก๐ค๐ช๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐จ, ๐๐จ ๐ค๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค๐จ๐ค๐ก ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐.โ
๐https://t.co/uBatWfdyvQ
๐https://t.co/8Ntgszrz3a(p. 44 for IPCC ECS โbest estimateโ of 3 K)
The โbasic physicsโ did not yield correct values, so the scientists arbitrarily turn knobs on various parameters until they get their desired result.
This transparency is useful, but it also exposes the problem. If a model is tuned to the instrumental GMST record, then its ability to reproduce the 20th-century temperature record cannot be treated as independent proof that the model has correctly identified the cause(s) of that warming. This is a circularity problem. It does not mean that GHGs have had no effect. They definitely have, at least to some extent. But one cannot confidently claim that all of the warming since 1850 has been anthropogenic because โthe models match observations.โ
Scientists also havenโt always been transparent about this. For decades, modeling centers refused to inform the public exactly how GCMs are calibrated. The IPCC subtly admitted this in Chapter 9 of AR5 WG1, stating,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ง๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ฆ๐น๐ค๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด (๐๐ข๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2012; ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2013) ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ ๐๐ค ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ง๐ค๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐๐ง๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ.. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ท๐ข๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ.โ
๐https://t.co/z2jHU1IbkD (pp. 749-50)
This initial lack of transparency became the focus of an editorial in Science Magazine in October 2016,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ต ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต, ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฎ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ช๐ง๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐จโ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ๐. โ๐๐ต'๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ต,โ ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐๐ด๐ข๐ข๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ, ๐ข ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ๐บ.โ
The Science Magazine article continues, stating that climate scientists had been reluctant to come clean about tuning practices for years because they feared that skeptics would use their practices against them to downplay global warming,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ค๐ง ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐จ, ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ข๐ช๐ข ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ โ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ด๐ข๐ถ๐ค๐ฆโ: ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐บ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด. ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐ค ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐ช๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐จ๐๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ช๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จโ๐๐ฃ๐, ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ญ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ ๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ-๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฃ๐. โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ,โ [Bjorn] ๐๐ต๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด[a director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology] ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด. โ๐๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ข๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ญ๐บ ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ.โโ
๐https://t.co/PImzcNbUQu
A fair test of GCM skill uses temperature data that the models are not pre-tuned to match, such as satellite-based lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). CMIP6 models, initialized in 1979, show roughly TWICE the warming rate observed in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v6.0) TLT dataset as shown in the bottom right time series (e.g., Christy & McNider, 2017; Christy et al., 2018) Recent events, such as the strong El Niรฑo, reductions in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, and perhaps the Hunga Tonga eruption have narrowed the gap temporarily, but the systematic warm bias persists in many model simulations.
๐https://t.co/zueJLn9sY4
๐https://t.co/vUJgmigsAe
3โฃ ๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก; ๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐จ๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ก
No serious analysis denies that there is some human influence on global warming. It is a scientific fact that COโ absorbs infrared radiation. Increasing COโ changes the radiative balance of Earthโs atmosphere. All else equal, that produces a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere.
The direct radiative forcing from doubled COโ concentrations is ~3.7 W/mยฒ, implying ~1ยฐC direct warming before feedbacks act to amplify or dampen that change. However, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ยฑ 3.3 W/mยฒ of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Trenberth et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2012). When the error bars on baseline energy fluxes exceed the incremental forcing of increasing GHGs, precise attribution to GHGs becomes challenging.
๐https://t.co/mlZbsIe8KQ
๐https://t.co/5z5iMdb7H9 / open-access version: https://t.co/51Ys5w99LR
How much warming observed is due to increasing GHGs?
How much warming has been offset by aerosols?
How much warming is due to natural variability [which hasnโt been researched enough]?
What is the net effect of cloud feedbacks? Warming or cooling?
How do clouds respond to global warming, if at all? How do clouds change due to unforced internal variability? Are these changes observed in low-, mid-, or high-altitude clouds? Two of the three? All three? What about stratiform, cumuliform, and cirriform?
Have urbanization and land use changes been accurately removed from the GMST record as claimed by most government scientists and scholars?
These are all questions that remain unanswered, even if the scientific community at large refuses to acknowledge them for the sake of employment, to get research funding, or their choice to promote โthe causeโ for environmentalism.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMk9OMFW0AACt_b.jpg)
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Have you seen the figure on the left before?
Chances are you have if youโre actively involved in the climate change debate. If not, let me break it down.
The figure, adapted from Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers, is often touted as the โsmoking gunโ that proves virtually all observed global warming since 1850 is due to mankindโs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The figure implies that global climate models (GCMs) skillfully reproduce observed warming (see black curve) since the โpre-industrialโ era. They claim that this chart is synthesized from โmultiple lines of evidence,โ and that GCMs cannot skillfully reproduce the observed temperature trends without extra GHGs.
๐https://t.co/5lspFokYOu(p. 6)
However, this graph is not the โsmoking gunโ that many people think it is. So, let me explain why.
First, itโs important to understand exactly what Figure SPM.1 is showing.
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The observed global mean surface [air] temperature (GMST) anomaly (1850โ2019) from four surface station-based datasets. It shows ~1.2ยฐC of warming since 1850, though there is slight divergence between datasets (e.g., Berkley Earth, HadCRUT, NOAA, etc.). The likely range falls between 1.1โ1.3ยฐC, and I do not dispute these estimates, although I do not care much about what the GMST is.
๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The CMIP6 multi-model mean (MMM) GMST response to natural forcings and internal variability only. These are primarily solar forcing (e.g., changes in total solar irradiance, which is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident at the top of the atmosphere), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) from major volcanic eruptions (think Mount Tambora, 1815; Krakatoa, 1883; El Chichรณn, 1982; or Mount Pinatubo, 1991), and the El Niรฑo Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST response due to aerosol forcing only. Aerosols are fine solid or liquid particlesโnatural or anthropogenic in originโthat are suspended in the air and generally have diameters of <1 ฮผm (1 ร 10โปโด cm). Depending on type, aerosols can either act to warm or cool the Earthโs atmosphere. For instance, bright aerosols (e.g., sulfate particulates from coal burning) scatter incoming solar radiation back to space, which causes net cooling. Dark aerosols (e.g., black carbon from diesel exhaust), on the contrary, absorb incoming sunlight, resulting in net warming.
๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated ensemble GMST response to manmade GHG emissions only. These primarily are carbon dioxide (COโ) and methane (CHโ), and to a lesser extent, include ozone (Oโ) and nitrous oxides (NOx).
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST change due to natural forcings / variability + aerosols + GHGs. In other words, itโs the sum of the green, blue, and red curves.
As we can see below, the IPCCโs figure implies that GCMs have done remarkably well to explain why the globe has warmed [๐ด๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ญ๐บ] since 1850. The verdict, so weโre told, is that GHG emissions from our energy consumption, industrial activities, and transportation are squarely to blame. And whoโs going to argue with that? After all, scientists and climate activists routinely tell us that โItโs just basic physicsโ and that โThe science is settled.โ
Thereโs just one problem: the conclusion depends heavily on GCMs whose historical behavior (called hindcasting) is not an independent test in the way that the general public has been misled to believe by much of the scientific community.
GCMs are not simply pure radiative physics machines that can be turned on, run out to a certain date, and allowed to speak for themselves. They contain many parameterized processes such as cloud feedbacks, aerosol forcing, convection, land-surface exchanges, and ocean-atmosphere coupling that must be calibrated during model development.
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐๐ ๐ช๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ
Paleoclimate proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, and sediments) show significant multidecadal to centennial temperature fluctuations in pre-industrial times. The Greenland and Antarctic ice core-based temperature reconstructions, for instance, make that abundantly clear.
๐https://t.co/5PpWXs3cak
The models in CMIP5/6 smooth temperature curves and fail to reproduce the known amplitude of natural internal variability exhibited in multiple temperature reconstructions both regionally and globally (i.e., the more accurate pre-Hockey stick reconstructions). So, when modelers claim that natural forcing and internal variability cannot explain any warming since 1850, we should ask: Is that because nature truly could not have contributed much? Or is it possible that GCMs underrepresent natural variability?
That's not a trivial distinction.
2โฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ก๐๐
Because GCMs struggle to independently reproduce observed historical temperature variations, modelers often pre-tune parameters (turn โknobsโ) until the GMST output aligns with the observed GMST record.
This is not a conspiracy theory; itโs a demonstrable fact. The question is not whether tuning occurs. It does. The question is how much confidence we should place in attribution claims when models are essentially fudged to agree with the same historical record that is later used to demonstrate their alleged success.
Figure 3.8 on the right from IPCC AR6 WG1 illustrates this perfectly. It shows the assessed contributions to global warming from GHGs, aerosols, and natural forcings / internal variability over the period 2010โ19 minus 1850โ1900.
Letโs break it down:
๐ฉ The green boxes in Figure 3.8 show the spread in modeled GMST change ascribed to natural forcing / internal variability. The MMM is centered around the zero mark with little variation between the individual models in the ensemble. This is, once again, due to the fact that GCMs cannot hindcast well. So, the modelers assume that natural contributions to warming must be near zero.
๐ฆ Aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) carries enormous uncertainty: the MMM suggests a modest net cooling of ~0.5ยฐC, but the range spans from a strong cooling of โ0.9ยฐC to a weak warming of +0.1ยฐC over the period 1850โ2019. The uncertainty arises because it is unknown whether the net warming from black carbon is offset by the cooling from sulfate aerosols (HโSOโ). The MMM of 0.5ยฐC thus has a 100% margin of error, which means that no scientists know exactly how much aerosol forcing has dampened (or enhanced) GMST change.
Does that sound like โsettled scienceโ to you? It sure doesnโt to me.
But modelers need to reproduce warming of ~0.9ยฐC to 1.1ยฐC. If aerosol emissions result in net cooling, then that cannot be the cause. So, what do these modelers td? They jack up the GHG forcing.
๐ซ Extra GHGs also have uncertainty, though the margin of error is smaller in these estimates. The MMM suggests a strong warming of 1.5ยฐC ยฑ ~45%. All this tells us is that โthe expertsโ have no clue just how sensitive the climate system is to extra GHGs in the Earthโs atmosphere.
Add these forcings together and the ensemble mean output lands near observations.
๐https://t.co/6RS5rVXTRZ (p. 440)
Thereโs just one problem. Different models can get similar historical warming curves that resemble observations, but they use different combinations of aerosol cooling and GHG warming. That means the match to observed temperature trends does not uniquely prove the exact partitioning between GHGs, aerosols, and natural variability. For example, a model with strong aerosol cooling requires strong GHG warming to offset it. A different model with weak aerosol cooling requires a weaker GHG warming. Both will produce near-identical GMST curves that have high correlation to observations, but one cannot put much stock into these coefficients. This is a curve fitting exercise rather than real physics.
Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020), for example, openly describe tuning the Max Planck Institute model (MPI-ESM1.2) to match historical warming by adjusting cloud feedbacks and targeting an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3ยฐC (this is the IPCC's โbest estimateโ). With the known physics of radiative heat transfer, MPI-ESM1.2 produced an ECS of 7ยฐC, more than double their target. Therefore, the modelers arbitrarily adjusted the cloud parameter scheme until the model output aligned with GMST observations.
In the closing remarks of the paper, the authors of Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020) say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ค๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ญ.๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ข๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ; ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐จ๐ช๐๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ช๐ก. ๐๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐พ๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ช๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ก๐ค๐ช๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐จ, ๐๐จ ๐ค๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค๐จ๐ค๐ก ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐.โ
๐https://t.co/uBatWfdyvQ
๐https://t.co/8Ntgszrz3a(p. 44 for IPCC ECS โbest estimateโ of 3 K)
The โbasic physicsโ did not yield correct values, so the scientists arbitrarily turn knobs on various parameters until they get their desired result.
This transparency is useful, but it also exposes the problem. If a model is tuned to the instrumental GMST record, then its ability to reproduce the 20th-century temperature record cannot be treated as independent proof that the model has correctly identified the cause(s) of that warming. This is a circularity problem. It does not mean that GHGs have had no effect. They definitely have, at least to some extent. But one cannot confidently claim that all of the warming since 1850 has been anthropogenic because โthe models match observations.โ
Scientists also havenโt always been transparent about this. For decades, modeling centers refused to inform the public exactly how GCMs are calibrated. The IPCC subtly admitted this in Chapter 9 of AR5 WG1, stating,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ง๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ฆ๐น๐ค๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด (๐๐ข๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2012; ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2013) ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ ๐๐ค ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ง๐ค๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐๐ง๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ.. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ท๐ข๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ.โ
๐https://t.co/z2jHU1IbkD (pp. 749-50)
This initial lack of transparency became the focus of an editorial in Science Magazine in October 2016,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ต ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต, ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฎ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ช๐ง๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐จโ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ๐. โ๐๐ต'๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ต,โ ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐๐ด๐ข๐ข๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ, ๐ข ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ๐บ.โ
The Science Magazine article continues, stating that climate scientists had been reluctant to come clean about tuning practices for years because they feared that skeptics would use their practices against them to downplay global warming,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ค๐ง ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐จ, ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ข๐ช๐ข ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ โ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ด๐ข๐ถ๐ค๐ฆโ: ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐บ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด. ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐ค ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐ช๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐จ๐๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ช๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จโ๐๐ฃ๐, ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ญ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ ๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ-๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฃ๐. โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ,โ [Bjorn] ๐๐ต๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด[a director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology] ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด. โ๐๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ข๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ญ๐บ ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ.โโ
๐https://t.co/PImzcNbUQu
A fair test of GCM skill uses temperature data that the models are not pre-tuned to match, such as satellite-based lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). CMIP6 models, initialized in 1979, show roughly TWICE the warming rate observed in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v6.0) TLT dataset as shown in the bottom right time series (e.g., Christy & McNider, 2017; Christy et al., 2018) Recent events, such as the strong El Niรฑo, reductions in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, and perhaps the Hunga Tonga eruption have narrowed the gap temporarily, but the systematic warm bias persists in many model simulations.
๐https://t.co/zueJLn9sY4
๐https://t.co/vUJgmigsAe
3โฃ ๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก; ๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐จ๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ก
No serious analysis denies that there is some human influence on global warming. It is a scientific fact that COโ absorbs infrared radiation. Increasing COโ changes the radiative balance of Earthโs atmosphere. All else equal, that produces a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere.
The direct radiative forcing from doubled COโ concentrations is ~3.7 W/mยฒ, implying ~1ยฐC direct warming before feedbacks act to amplify or dampen that change. However, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ยฑ 3.3 W/mยฒ of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Trenberth et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2012). When the error bars on baseline energy fluxes exceed the incremental forcing of increasing GHGs, precise attribution to GHGs becomes challenging.
๐https://t.co/mlZbsIe8KQ
๐https://t.co/5z5iMdb7H9 / open-access version: https://t.co/51Ys5w99LR
How much warming observed is due to increasing GHGs?
How much warming has been offset by aerosols?
How much warming is due to natural variability [which hasnโt been researched enough]?
What is the net effect of cloud feedbacks? Warming or cooling?
How do clouds respond to global warming, if at all? How do clouds change due to unforced internal variability? Are these changes observed in low-, mid-, or high-altitude clouds? Two of the three? All three? What about stratiform, cumuliform, and cirriform?
Have urbanization and land use changes been accurately removed from the GMST record as claimed by most government scientists and scholars?
These are all questions that remain unanswered, even if the scientific community at large refuses to acknowledge them for the sake of employment, to get research funding, or their choice to promote โthe causeโ for environmentalism.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMk9IpfW4AA1LuA.jpg)
Olivia
Online
SilverSurfer
@silversurf1111
No particular side...
Joined February 2010
530 Following
222 Followers
4K Posts
What's happening on the Swedish grid right now is not only hard to believe, but a window into the future regarding the Bitcoin usecase the world embraces first.
Here's a snapshot.
๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ๐ฐ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ข๐: ๐๐๐๐๐
Die complotwappies hรฉ. Die waarschuwen al jaren over iets met de naam HAARP en dat ze met HAARP ons klimaat systematisch beรฏnvloeden en dat zo mogelijk kunstmatige hittegolven, droogtes, overstroming,... kunnen gecreรซerd worden. Dan krijgt de term "door de mens gecreรซerde klimaatopwarming" plots een heel andere betekenis.
Maar tja, dat zijn de wappies. Daar moet je niet naar luisteren hรฉ want die zijn gek.
Wel blijkbaar is het Europees Parlement dan ook een complotwappie want die hebben in 1999 al een verslag uitgebracht waarin ze waarschuwen voor het gevaar van HAARP op ons klimaat.
https://t.co/MMpzC6I0ac...
https://t.co/NvaszxHtMq
"HAARP is een onderzoeksproject waarbij gebruik wordt gemaakt van een op de grond geรฏnstalleerde installatie, bestaande uit een reeks antennes die elk door een eigen zender worden gevoed, om delen van de ionosfeer met krachtige radiostralen te verwarmen."
Hieronder een samenvatting van de belangrijkste dingen. Onderaan dit artikel vind je een aantal citaten uit dit verslag.
โ Er wordt militair onderzoek uitgevoerd naar beรฏnvloeding van het milieu als wapen (HAARP)
โ Men wijst erop dat HAARP ingrijpende gevolgen heeft en een gevaar betekent voor het milieu en de mensen
โ Welke gevaren dit allemaal inhoudt, is zelfs niet onderzocht
โ Blijkbaar staat er niet enkel in Alaska een HAARP installatie. Ook Noorwegen en Rusland voeren soortgelijke proeven uit
โ Blijkbaar is HAARP een wapensysteem dat het klimaat ontregelt
โ HAARP kan veranderingen in weerpatronen met zich meebrengen
โ HAARP kan zelfs van invloed zijn op het hele ecosysteem
โ HAARP veroorzaakt gaten in de ionosfeer. Deze ionosfeer beschermt ons tegen straling.
โ HAARP is bij de publiek opinie vrijwel geheel onbekend
โ Niemand weet momenteel zeker welke gevolgen HAARP met zich kan meebrengen
Dus het Europees Parlement geeft zelf toe dat HAARP bestaat, dat het een gevaar betekent voor ons klimaat maar dat dit alles voor het grote publiek geheim gehouden wordt.
๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ een ๐๐จ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
CITATEN
"[23] De opgewekte energie verwarmt delen van de ionosfeer; dit leidt tot gaten in de ionosfeer en zorgt voor kunstmatige โlenzenโ."
"HAARP - een wapensysteem dat het klimaat ontregelt"
"Door de enorme gevolgen voor het milieu is HAARP een mondiaal probleem en het is te betwijfelen of de voordelen van deze systemen werkelijk opwegen tegen de gevaren. De ecologische en ethische gevolgen moeten diepgaand worden onderzocht voordat verder onderzoek en proeven worden uitgevoerd. HAARP is bij de publieke opinie vrijwel geheel onbekend en het is van belang dat het algemene besef inzake dit project wordt verruimd."
"HAARP is gekoppeld aan vijftig jaar intensief ruimte-onderzoek van duidelijk militaire aard, o.a. in het kader van "Star Wars", met de bedoeling de bovenste lagen van de atmosfeer en de communicaties te beheersen. Dit soort onderzoek moet als een ernstige verstoring van het milieu worden beschouwd, die eventueel onvermoede gevolgen voor het menselijk leven kan hebben. Niemand weet momenteel zeker welke gevolgen HAARP met zich mee kan brengen. De cultuur van geheimzinnigheid in verband met militair onderzoek moet worden bestreden. Het recht op openbaarheid en democratische controle van militaire onderzoeksprojecten en van parlementair onderzoek moet worden bevorderd."
"ziet het systeem van het Amerikaanse leger voor manipulatie van de ionosfeer, HAARP, dat in Alaska is opgesteld in het kader van de ontwikkeling en opstelling van elektromagnetische wapensystemen voor zowel externe als interne veiligheidsdoeleinden, als een van de ernstigste nieuwe militaire bedreigingen voor het wereldklimaat en de volksgezondheid, aangezien het ontworpen is om het uiterst gevoelige en energierijke deel van de biosfeer voor militaire doeleinden te manipuleren, terwijl nog niet alle effecten
daarvan duidelijk zijn, en verzoekt de Commissie, de Raad en de lidstaten er bij de regeringen van de VS, Rusland en alle andere landen die zich met dergelijke activiteiten bezighouden op aan te dringen hiermee te stoppen en zich in te spannen voor een
wereldwijd verdrag om dergelijk wapentuig te verbieden"
![WimdenOudsten's tweet photo. ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ๐ฐ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ข๐: ๐๐๐๐๐
Die complotwappies hรฉ. Die waarschuwen al jaren over iets met de naam HAARP en dat ze met HAARP ons klimaat systematisch beรฏnvloeden en dat zo mogelijk kunstmatige hittegolven, droogtes, overstroming,... kunnen gecreรซerd worden. Dan krijgt de term "door de mens gecreรซerde klimaatopwarming" plots een heel andere betekenis.
Maar tja, dat zijn de wappies. Daar moet je niet naar luisteren hรฉ want die zijn gek.
Wel blijkbaar is het Europees Parlement dan ook een complotwappie want die hebben in 1999 al een verslag uitgebracht waarin ze waarschuwen voor het gevaar van HAARP op ons klimaat.
https://t.co/MMpzC6I0ac...
https://t.co/NvaszxHtMq
"HAARP is een onderzoeksproject waarbij gebruik wordt gemaakt van een op de grond geรฏnstalleerde installatie, bestaande uit een reeks antennes die elk door een eigen zender worden gevoed, om delen van de ionosfeer met krachtige radiostralen te verwarmen."
Hieronder een samenvatting van de belangrijkste dingen. Onderaan dit artikel vind je een aantal citaten uit dit verslag.
โ Er wordt militair onderzoek uitgevoerd naar beรฏnvloeding van het milieu als wapen (HAARP)
โ Men wijst erop dat HAARP ingrijpende gevolgen heeft en een gevaar betekent voor het milieu en de mensen
โ Welke gevaren dit allemaal inhoudt, is zelfs niet onderzocht
โ Blijkbaar staat er niet enkel in Alaska een HAARP installatie. Ook Noorwegen en Rusland voeren soortgelijke proeven uit
โ Blijkbaar is HAARP een wapensysteem dat het klimaat ontregelt
โ HAARP kan veranderingen in weerpatronen met zich meebrengen
โ HAARP kan zelfs van invloed zijn op het hele ecosysteem
โ HAARP veroorzaakt gaten in de ionosfeer. Deze ionosfeer beschermt ons tegen straling.
โ HAARP is bij de publiek opinie vrijwel geheel onbekend
โ Niemand weet momenteel zeker welke gevolgen HAARP met zich kan meebrengen
Dus het Europees Parlement geeft zelf toe dat HAARP bestaat, dat het een gevaar betekent voor ons klimaat maar dat dit alles voor het grote publiek geheim gehouden wordt.
๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ een ๐๐จ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ
CITATEN
"[23] De opgewekte energie verwarmt delen van de ionosfeer; dit leidt tot gaten in de ionosfeer en zorgt voor kunstmatige โlenzenโ."
"HAARP - een wapensysteem dat het klimaat ontregelt"
"Door de enorme gevolgen voor het milieu is HAARP een mondiaal probleem en het is te betwijfelen of de voordelen van deze systemen werkelijk opwegen tegen de gevaren. De ecologische en ethische gevolgen moeten diepgaand worden onderzocht voordat verder onderzoek en proeven worden uitgevoerd. HAARP is bij de publieke opinie vrijwel geheel onbekend en het is van belang dat het algemene besef inzake dit project wordt verruimd."
"HAARP is gekoppeld aan vijftig jaar intensief ruimte-onderzoek van duidelijk militaire aard, o.a. in het kader van "Star Wars", met de bedoeling de bovenste lagen van de atmosfeer en de communicaties te beheersen. Dit soort onderzoek moet als een ernstige verstoring van het milieu worden beschouwd, die eventueel onvermoede gevolgen voor het menselijk leven kan hebben. Niemand weet momenteel zeker welke gevolgen HAARP met zich mee kan brengen. De cultuur van geheimzinnigheid in verband met militair onderzoek moet worden bestreden. Het recht op openbaarheid en democratische controle van militaire onderzoeksprojecten en van parlementair onderzoek moet worden bevorderd."
"ziet het systeem van het Amerikaanse leger voor manipulatie van de ionosfeer, HAARP, dat in Alaska is opgesteld in het kader van de ontwikkeling en opstelling van elektromagnetische wapensystemen voor zowel externe als interne veiligheidsdoeleinden, als een van de ernstigste nieuwe militaire bedreigingen voor het wereldklimaat en de volksgezondheid, aangezien het ontworpen is om het uiterst gevoelige en energierijke deel van de biosfeer voor militaire doeleinden te manipuleren, terwijl nog niet alle effecten
daarvan duidelijk zijn, en verzoekt de Commissie, de Raad en de lidstaten er bij de regeringen van de VS, Rusland en alle andere landen die zich met dergelijke activiteiten bezighouden op aan te dringen hiermee te stoppen en zich in te spannen voor een
wereldwijd verdrag om dergelijk wapentuig te verbieden"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMsiEAZXkAA6BXS.png)
Links, niets aan de hand.
Rechts, 6 maanden cel (2 effectief)
Nederland anno 2026 is verrot en het begint steeds meer te stinken.
(Letterlijk & figuurlijk)
Novak Djokovic, shunned by the Big Pharma Media Complex for not complying to the Covid "vaccine" hoax, wins longest Wimbledon quarter final ever of 5hr 15min against a 25 year old at 39 years. Don't do "vaccines" kids.
@HuubBellemakers Welke ongelijkheid?
@CryptoJelleNL Done as well!
Le Pen vervolgd
AfD vervolgd
Farage vervolgd
Vlaams Blok verboden
Salvini vervolgd
Vox (Spanje) vervolgd
Tommy Robinson vervolgd voor het tonen van de waarheid.
Zouden ze een beetje in paniek zijn, de extreem linkse elite?
Een van de grootste misverstanden in de politiek is het idee dat een staat,hoe groot, rijk of slim ook, een samenleving kan ontwerpen en besturen alsof het een bedrijf is. De Oostenrijkse economische school, met denkers als Friedrich Hayek en Ludwig von Mises, legt uit waarom dat onmogelijk is.
De kern is simpel: niemand beschikt over alle kennis.
Een moderne samenleving bestaat uit miljoenen mensen die elke dag miljarden beslissingen nemen. Welke producten willen ze? Welke vaardigheden hebben ze? Welke technologie ontstaat morgen? Welke grondstoffen worden schaars? Welke mode slaat aan? Welke medicijnen werken? Welke prijzen zijn mensen bereid te betalen? Al die informatie zit verspreid in de hoofden van individuen. Ze verandert bovendien elke seconde.
Geen ministerie, geen AI, geen supercomputer en zelfs geen wereldregering kan al die kennis verzamelen, begrijpen en op tijd verwerken.
Neem brood. Om รฉรฉn brood in de supermarkt te krijgen zijn boeren, zaadveredelaars, kunstmestproducenten, machinebouwers, transporteurs, bakkers, softwareontwikkelaars, banken, verzekeraars, energiebedrijven en winkeliers betrokken. Daarnaast spelen duizenden factoren mee: het weer in Argentiniรซ, gasprijzen, consumentenvoorkeuren, wisselkoersen, nieuwe baktechnieken en lokale concurrentie.
Niemand overziet die hele keten.
Toch werkt zij. Niet omdat iemand haar plant, maar omdat prijzen informatie bevatten. Stijgt de prijs van tarwe, dan gaan boeren meer produceren en zoeken bakkers naar alternatieven. Zonder dat iemand bevelen geeft, passen miljoenen mensen zich aan.
Dat noemt Hayek de spontane orde.
Hetzelfde geldt voor woningen. Een ministerie kan wel bepalen dat er 100.000 huizen moeten komen, maar weet niet welke woningen mensen werkelijk willen, waar zij willen wonen, welke materialen het goedkoopst zijn, welke architectuur populair wordt of welke innovaties morgen beschikbaar zijn. Centrale planning levert daardoor vaak tekorten op de ene plek en overschotten op de andere.
Gezondheidszorg is nog ingewikkelder. Een centraal plan kan onmogelijk voorspellen welke behandelingen over vijf jaar bestaan, welke arts de beste methode ontwikkelt of welke patiรซnten andere voorkeuren hebben. Daarom ontstaan wachtlijsten, bureaucratie en verkeerde investeringen wanneer รฉรฉn organisatie alles probeert te sturen.
De ironie is dat hoe groter de staat wordt, hoe groter het kennisprobleem wordt. Een hiperstaat moet beslissingen nemen over energie, zorg, onderwijs, pensioenen, woningbouw, klimaat, landbouw, transport, technologie, migratie en duizenden andere onderwerpen. Elk nieuw beleid beรฏnvloedt weer tientallen andere sectoren. De complexiteit groeit niet lineair, maar explosief.
Daarom mislukken centrale plannen zo vaak. Niet omdat politici per se dom of kwaadaardig zijn, maar omdat de taak onmogelijk is.
De Oostenrijkse school concludeert daarom dat bescheidenheid beter werkt dan centralisme. Laat miljoenen mensen experimenteren, fouten maken, leren en vrijwillig samenwerken. Slechte ideeรซn verdwijnen vanzelf doordat ze verlies maken; goede ideeรซn worden gekopieerd. Dat proces is rommelig, maar veel slimmer dan een centraal plan.
Een vrije samenleving is dus niet succesvol omdat mensen perfect zijn. Zij werkt juist omdat niemand perfect is. Omdat kennis verspreid is, moet ook de besluitvorming verspreid zijn. De markt is geen machine die bestuurd moet worden; zij is een ontdekkingsproces waarin miljoenen mensen samen voortdurend informatie creรซren en verwerken. Dat is precies wat geen enkele hiperstaat ooit volledig kan vervangen.
@Net_Arts Je voorbeeld klopt al niet, maar in optie A werk je dus 5 maanden in het jaar voor de overheid die het geld aan Oekraรฏne, domme klimaatmaatregelen en het in de lucht houden van economische 'vluchtelingen' spendeert en optie B is pure diefstal. Heel eerlijk ja...
This is absolute Proof of the Hypocrisy!
So true.
๐๐ฌ๐ง๐ฉ๐ชBRITAIN DECEIVED GERMANY AND REFUSED TO PAY INSURANCE FOR THE NORD STREAMS SABOTAGE
The gas pipeline was insured by Lloyd's of London โ they were supposed to pay Germany about 580 million euros.
๐คฉThe Germans detained suspects from Ukraine and, while carefully avoiding the word "terrorist attack," recognized the incident as "sabotage" โ which is an insured event.
The British, in turn, argue that clause 2.i of the contract does not cover losses or damage directly or indirectly caused by armed conflict.
โ๏ธA court in Germany ruled that the pipeline explosion was sabotage and therefore an insured event โ but the British court refused to recognize that decision and allowed Lloyd's of London not to pay the insurance.
โผ๏ธ๐จIt seems that German elites have been fucked by globalists several times in different poses. However, the citizens suffer
@NUnl Ja als de meerderheid zelf niet zo groot bedrag zullen erven snap ik dat wel....maar het blijft diefstal.
Echt weer gekleurde en belachelijke propaganda.
Het heeft in Nederland geen zin om hard te werken en boven de rest uit te steken...ze pakken het toch wel af.
Most people think the big story in crypto this week was prices.
Let me show you what happened and why it matters more than anything else going on right now.
UBS started it. They ran a tokenized fund subscription and redemption, end to end, live, not a testnet. 6 trillion dollars in assets under management, and they didn't build a single piece of blockchain infrastructure to do it. No wallet setup, no key management, no engineering team spending two years wiring things together. They sent a Swift message. The same kind of Swift message they've been sending for forty years. @chainlink's runtime picked it up, translated it into onchain actions, executed the fund subscription, settled it, synced the data back, and ran compliance checks through their automated compliance engine. The bank didn't touch a blockchain. It just worked.
That alone would be the story. But it's not what happened.
Because at the same time, Fidelity International was putting their $6.9 billion liquidity fund onchain through @zksync with NAV data flowing through Chainlink. WisdomTree, $130 billion in assets, was publishing live NAV for a tokenized private credit fund on Ethereum using the same rails. Amundi, the biggest asset manager in Europe, launched a tokenized mutual fund on the stack. Sygnum tied the whole thing together with institutional-grade NAV infrastructure.
And here's what makes it stick.
Every one of these firms used the same pieces: Chainlink's runtime environment for orchestration, CCIP for moving data between chains, ACE for jurisdiction-aware compliance, NAVLink for verifiable pricing, and that Digital Transfer Agent standard for bridging Swift into the whole thing. They didn't bolt these together themselves. Chainlink packaged the entire stack and handed it to them ready to go.
Think about what that means.
There are 11,000 banks on the Swift network. Trillions of dollars move through those messages every day. Every single one of those banks can now trigger blockchain actions the exact same way UBS did, no new systems, no new hires, no blockchain expertise. Send a message, Chainlink handles the rest.
Chainlink stopped being an oracle company a while ago. They're building the operating system that the global fund industry runs on, and they're doing it before the regulations are even written. By the time the legal framework lands in the US, UBS and Fidelity and WisdomTree will already be live in production. The compliance patterns will be battle-tested. The standards will be set.
You don't rip out infrastructure that's already running. You build on top of it.
Have you seen the figure on the left before?
Chances are you have if youโre actively involved in the climate change debate. If not, let me break it down.
The figure, adapted from Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers, is often touted as the โsmoking gunโ that proves virtually all observed global warming since 1850 is due to mankindโs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The figure implies that global climate models (GCMs) skillfully reproduce observed warming (see black curve) since the โpre-industrialโ era. They claim that this chart is synthesized from โmultiple lines of evidence,โ and that GCMs cannot skillfully reproduce the observed temperature trends without extra GHGs.
๐https://t.co/5lspFokYOu(p. 6)
However, this graph is not the โsmoking gunโ that many people think it is. So, let me explain why.
First, itโs important to understand exactly what Figure SPM.1 is showing.
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The observed global mean surface [air] temperature (GMST) anomaly (1850โ2019) from four surface station-based datasets. It shows ~1.2ยฐC of warming since 1850, though there is slight divergence between datasets (e.g., Berkley Earth, HadCRUT, NOAA, etc.). The likely range falls between 1.1โ1.3ยฐC, and I do not dispute these estimates, although I do not care much about what the GMST is.
๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The CMIP6 multi-model mean (MMM) GMST response to natural forcings and internal variability only. These are primarily solar forcing (e.g., changes in total solar irradiance, which is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident at the top of the atmosphere), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) from major volcanic eruptions (think Mount Tambora, 1815; Krakatoa, 1883; El Chichรณn, 1982; or Mount Pinatubo, 1991), and the El Niรฑo Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST response due to aerosol forcing only. Aerosols are fine solid or liquid particlesโnatural or anthropogenic in originโthat are suspended in the air and generally have diameters of <1 ฮผm (1 ร 10โปโด cm). Depending on type, aerosols can either act to warm or cool the Earthโs atmosphere. For instance, bright aerosols (e.g., sulfate particulates from coal burning) scatter incoming solar radiation back to space, which causes net cooling. Dark aerosols (e.g., black carbon from diesel exhaust), on the contrary, absorb incoming sunlight, resulting in net warming.
๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated ensemble GMST response to manmade GHG emissions only. These primarily are carbon dioxide (COโ) and methane (CHโ), and to a lesser extent, include ozone (Oโ) and nitrous oxides (NOx).
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST change due to natural forcings / variability + aerosols + GHGs. In other words, itโs the sum of the green, blue, and red curves.
As we can see below, the IPCCโs figure implies that GCMs have done remarkably well to explain why the globe has warmed [๐ด๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ญ๐บ] since 1850. The verdict, so weโre told, is that GHG emissions from our energy consumption, industrial activities, and transportation are squarely to blame. And whoโs going to argue with that? After all, scientists and climate activists routinely tell us that โItโs just basic physicsโ and that โThe science is settled.โ
Thereโs just one problem: the conclusion depends heavily on GCMs whose historical behavior (called hindcasting) is not an independent test in the way that the general public has been misled to believe by much of the scientific community.
GCMs are not simply pure radiative physics machines that can be turned on, run out to a certain date, and allowed to speak for themselves. They contain many parameterized processes such as cloud feedbacks, aerosol forcing, convection, land-surface exchanges, and ocean-atmosphere coupling that must be calibrated during model development.
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐๐ ๐ช๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ
Paleoclimate proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, and sediments) show significant multidecadal to centennial temperature fluctuations in pre-industrial times. The Greenland and Antarctic ice core-based temperature reconstructions, for instance, make that abundantly clear.
๐https://t.co/5PpWXs3cak
The models in CMIP5/6 smooth temperature curves and fail to reproduce the known amplitude of natural internal variability exhibited in multiple temperature reconstructions both regionally and globally (i.e., the more accurate pre-Hockey stick reconstructions). So, when modelers claim that natural forcing and internal variability cannot explain any warming since 1850, we should ask: Is that because nature truly could not have contributed much? Or is it possible that GCMs underrepresent natural variability?
That's not a trivial distinction.
2โฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ก๐๐
Because GCMs struggle to independently reproduce observed historical temperature variations, modelers often pre-tune parameters (turn โknobsโ) until the GMST output aligns with the observed GMST record.
This is not a conspiracy theory; itโs a demonstrable fact. The question is not whether tuning occurs. It does. The question is how much confidence we should place in attribution claims when models are essentially fudged to agree with the same historical record that is later used to demonstrate their alleged success.
Figure 3.8 on the right from IPCC AR6 WG1 illustrates this perfectly. It shows the assessed contributions to global warming from GHGs, aerosols, and natural forcings / internal variability over the period 2010โ19 minus 1850โ1900.
Letโs break it down:
๐ฉ The green boxes in Figure 3.8 show the spread in modeled GMST change ascribed to natural forcing / internal variability. The MMM is centered around the zero mark with little variation between the individual models in the ensemble. This is, once again, due to the fact that GCMs cannot hindcast well. So, the modelers assume that natural contributions to warming must be near zero.
๐ฆ Aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) carries enormous uncertainty: the MMM suggests a modest net cooling of ~0.5ยฐC, but the range spans from a strong cooling of โ0.9ยฐC to a weak warming of +0.1ยฐC over the period 1850โ2019. The uncertainty arises because it is unknown whether the net warming from black carbon is offset by the cooling from sulfate aerosols (HโSOโ). The MMM of 0.5ยฐC thus has a 100% margin of error, which means that no scientists know exactly how much aerosol forcing has dampened (or enhanced) GMST change.
Does that sound like โsettled scienceโ to you? It sure doesnโt to me.
But modelers need to reproduce warming of ~0.9ยฐC to 1.1ยฐC. If aerosol emissions result in net cooling, then that cannot be the cause. So, what do these modelers td? They jack up the GHG forcing.
๐ซ Extra GHGs also have uncertainty, though the margin of error is smaller in these estimates. The MMM suggests a strong warming of 1.5ยฐC ยฑ ~45%. All this tells us is that โthe expertsโ have no clue just how sensitive the climate system is to extra GHGs in the Earthโs atmosphere.
Add these forcings together and the ensemble mean output lands near observations.
๐https://t.co/6RS5rVXTRZ (p. 440)
Thereโs just one problem. Different models can get similar historical warming curves that resemble observations, but they use different combinations of aerosol cooling and GHG warming. That means the match to observed temperature trends does not uniquely prove the exact partitioning between GHGs, aerosols, and natural variability. For example, a model with strong aerosol cooling requires strong GHG warming to offset it. A different model with weak aerosol cooling requires a weaker GHG warming. Both will produce near-identical GMST curves that have high correlation to observations, but one cannot put much stock into these coefficients. This is a curve fitting exercise rather than real physics.
Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020), for example, openly describe tuning the Max Planck Institute model (MPI-ESM1.2) to match historical warming by adjusting cloud feedbacks and targeting an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3ยฐC (this is the IPCC's โbest estimateโ). With the known physics of radiative heat transfer, MPI-ESM1.2 produced an ECS of 7ยฐC, more than double their target. Therefore, the modelers arbitrarily adjusted the cloud parameter scheme until the model output aligned with GMST observations.
In the closing remarks of the paper, the authors of Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020) say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ค๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ญ.๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ข๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ; ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐จ๐ช๐๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ช๐ก. ๐๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐พ๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ช๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ก๐ค๐ช๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐จ, ๐๐จ ๐ค๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค๐จ๐ค๐ก ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐.โ
๐https://t.co/uBatWfdyvQ
๐https://t.co/8Ntgszrz3a(p. 44 for IPCC ECS โbest estimateโ of 3 K)
The โbasic physicsโ did not yield correct values, so the scientists arbitrarily turn knobs on various parameters until they get their desired result.
This transparency is useful, but it also exposes the problem. If a model is tuned to the instrumental GMST record, then its ability to reproduce the 20th-century temperature record cannot be treated as independent proof that the model has correctly identified the cause(s) of that warming. This is a circularity problem. It does not mean that GHGs have had no effect. They definitely have, at least to some extent. But one cannot confidently claim that all of the warming since 1850 has been anthropogenic because โthe models match observations.โ
Scientists also havenโt always been transparent about this. For decades, modeling centers refused to inform the public exactly how GCMs are calibrated. The IPCC subtly admitted this in Chapter 9 of AR5 WG1, stating,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ง๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ฆ๐น๐ค๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด (๐๐ข๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2012; ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2013) ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ ๐๐ค ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ง๐ค๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐๐ง๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ.. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ท๐ข๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ.โ
๐https://t.co/z2jHU1IbkD (pp. 749-50)
This initial lack of transparency became the focus of an editorial in Science Magazine in October 2016,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ต ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต, ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฎ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ช๐ง๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐จโ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ๐. โ๐๐ต'๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ต,โ ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐๐ด๐ข๐ข๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ, ๐ข ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ๐บ.โ
The Science Magazine article continues, stating that climate scientists had been reluctant to come clean about tuning practices for years because they feared that skeptics would use their practices against them to downplay global warming,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ค๐ง ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐จ, ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ข๐ช๐ข ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ โ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ด๐ข๐ถ๐ค๐ฆโ: ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐บ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด. ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐ค ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐ช๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐จ๐๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ช๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จโ๐๐ฃ๐, ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ญ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ ๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ-๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฃ๐. โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ,โ [Bjorn] ๐๐ต๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด[a director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology] ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด. โ๐๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ข๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ญ๐บ ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ.โโ
๐https://t.co/PImzcNbUQu
A fair test of GCM skill uses temperature data that the models are not pre-tuned to match, such as satellite-based lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). CMIP6 models, initialized in 1979, show roughly TWICE the warming rate observed in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v6.0) TLT dataset as shown in the bottom right time series (e.g., Christy & McNider, 2017; Christy et al., 2018) Recent events, such as the strong El Niรฑo, reductions in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, and perhaps the Hunga Tonga eruption have narrowed the gap temporarily, but the systematic warm bias persists in many model simulations.
๐https://t.co/zueJLn9sY4
๐https://t.co/vUJgmigsAe
3โฃ ๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก; ๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐จ๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ก
No serious analysis denies that there is some human influence on global warming. It is a scientific fact that COโ absorbs infrared radiation. Increasing COโ changes the radiative balance of Earthโs atmosphere. All else equal, that produces a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere.
The direct radiative forcing from doubled COโ concentrations is ~3.7 W/mยฒ, implying ~1ยฐC direct warming before feedbacks act to amplify or dampen that change. However, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ยฑ 3.3 W/mยฒ of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Trenberth et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2012). When the error bars on baseline energy fluxes exceed the incremental forcing of increasing GHGs, precise attribution to GHGs becomes challenging.
๐https://t.co/mlZbsIe8KQ
๐https://t.co/5z5iMdb7H9 / open-access version: https://t.co/51Ys5w99LR
How much warming observed is due to increasing GHGs?
How much warming has been offset by aerosols?
How much warming is due to natural variability [which hasnโt been researched enough]?
What is the net effect of cloud feedbacks? Warming or cooling?
How do clouds respond to global warming, if at all? How do clouds change due to unforced internal variability? Are these changes observed in low-, mid-, or high-altitude clouds? Two of the three? All three? What about stratiform, cumuliform, and cirriform?
Have urbanization and land use changes been accurately removed from the GMST record as claimed by most government scientists and scholars?
These are all questions that remain unanswered, even if the scientific community at large refuses to acknowledge them for the sake of employment, to get research funding, or their choice to promote โthe causeโ for environmentalism.
![ChrisMartzWX's tweet photo. Have you seen the figure on the left before?
Chances are you have if youโre actively involved in the climate change debate. If not, let me break it down.
The figure, adapted from Figure SPM.1 in the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers, is often touted as the โsmoking gunโ that proves virtually all observed global warming since 1850 is due to mankindโs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The figure implies that global climate models (GCMs) skillfully reproduce observed warming (see black curve) since the โpre-industrialโ era. They claim that this chart is synthesized from โmultiple lines of evidence,โ and that GCMs cannot skillfully reproduce the observed temperature trends without extra GHGs.
๐https://t.co/5lspFokYOu(p. 6)
However, this graph is not the โsmoking gunโ that many people think it is. So, let me explain why.
First, itโs important to understand exactly what Figure SPM.1 is showing.
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The observed global mean surface [air] temperature (GMST) anomaly (1850โ2019) from four surface station-based datasets. It shows ~1.2ยฐC of warming since 1850, though there is slight divergence between datasets (e.g., Berkley Earth, HadCRUT, NOAA, etc.). The likely range falls between 1.1โ1.3ยฐC, and I do not dispute these estimates, although I do not care much about what the GMST is.
๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: The CMIP6 multi-model mean (MMM) GMST response to natural forcings and internal variability only. These are primarily solar forcing (e.g., changes in total solar irradiance, which is a measure of the solar power over all wavelengths per unit area incident at the top of the atmosphere), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) from major volcanic eruptions (think Mount Tambora, 1815; Krakatoa, 1883; El Chichรณn, 1982; or Mount Pinatubo, 1991), and the El Niรฑo Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
๐ฆ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST response due to aerosol forcing only. Aerosols are fine solid or liquid particlesโnatural or anthropogenic in originโthat are suspended in the air and generally have diameters of <1 ฮผm (1 ร 10โปโด cm). Depending on type, aerosols can either act to warm or cool the Earthโs atmosphere. For instance, bright aerosols (e.g., sulfate particulates from coal burning) scatter incoming solar radiation back to space, which causes net cooling. Dark aerosols (e.g., black carbon from diesel exhaust), on the contrary, absorb incoming sunlight, resulting in net warming.
๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated ensemble GMST response to manmade GHG emissions only. These primarily are carbon dioxide (COโ) and methane (CHโ), and to a lesser extent, include ozone (Oโ) and nitrous oxides (NOx).
โฌ๏ธ ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฒ: Simulated GMST change due to natural forcings / variability + aerosols + GHGs. In other words, itโs the sum of the green, blue, and red curves.
As we can see below, the IPCCโs figure implies that GCMs have done remarkably well to explain why the globe has warmed [๐ด๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ญ๐บ] since 1850. The verdict, so weโre told, is that GHG emissions from our energy consumption, industrial activities, and transportation are squarely to blame. And whoโs going to argue with that? After all, scientists and climate activists routinely tell us that โItโs just basic physicsโ and that โThe science is settled.โ
Thereโs just one problem: the conclusion depends heavily on GCMs whose historical behavior (called hindcasting) is not an independent test in the way that the general public has been misled to believe by much of the scientific community.
GCMs are not simply pure radiative physics machines that can be turned on, run out to a certain date, and allowed to speak for themselves. They contain many parameterized processes such as cloud feedbacks, aerosol forcing, convection, land-surface exchanges, and ocean-atmosphere coupling that must be calibrated during model development.
1๏ธโฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐๐ ๐ช๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ง๐ฌ
Paleoclimate proxies (e.g., tree rings, ice cores, and sediments) show significant multidecadal to centennial temperature fluctuations in pre-industrial times. The Greenland and Antarctic ice core-based temperature reconstructions, for instance, make that abundantly clear.
๐https://t.co/5PpWXs3cak
The models in CMIP5/6 smooth temperature curves and fail to reproduce the known amplitude of natural internal variability exhibited in multiple temperature reconstructions both regionally and globally (i.e., the more accurate pre-Hockey stick reconstructions). So, when modelers claim that natural forcing and internal variability cannot explain any warming since 1850, we should ask: Is that because nature truly could not have contributed much? Or is it possible that GCMs underrepresent natural variability?
That's not a trivial distinction.
2โฃ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ก๐๐
Because GCMs struggle to independently reproduce observed historical temperature variations, modelers often pre-tune parameters (turn โknobsโ) until the GMST output aligns with the observed GMST record.
This is not a conspiracy theory; itโs a demonstrable fact. The question is not whether tuning occurs. It does. The question is how much confidence we should place in attribution claims when models are essentially fudged to agree with the same historical record that is later used to demonstrate their alleged success.
Figure 3.8 on the right from IPCC AR6 WG1 illustrates this perfectly. It shows the assessed contributions to global warming from GHGs, aerosols, and natural forcings / internal variability over the period 2010โ19 minus 1850โ1900.
Letโs break it down:
๐ฉ The green boxes in Figure 3.8 show the spread in modeled GMST change ascribed to natural forcing / internal variability. The MMM is centered around the zero mark with little variation between the individual models in the ensemble. This is, once again, due to the fact that GCMs cannot hindcast well. So, the modelers assume that natural contributions to warming must be near zero.
๐ฆ Aerosol effective radiative forcing (ERF) carries enormous uncertainty: the MMM suggests a modest net cooling of ~0.5ยฐC, but the range spans from a strong cooling of โ0.9ยฐC to a weak warming of +0.1ยฐC over the period 1850โ2019. The uncertainty arises because it is unknown whether the net warming from black carbon is offset by the cooling from sulfate aerosols (HโSOโ). The MMM of 0.5ยฐC thus has a 100% margin of error, which means that no scientists know exactly how much aerosol forcing has dampened (or enhanced) GMST change.
Does that sound like โsettled scienceโ to you? It sure doesnโt to me.
But modelers need to reproduce warming of ~0.9ยฐC to 1.1ยฐC. If aerosol emissions result in net cooling, then that cannot be the cause. So, what do these modelers td? They jack up the GHG forcing.
๐ซ Extra GHGs also have uncertainty, though the margin of error is smaller in these estimates. The MMM suggests a strong warming of 1.5ยฐC ยฑ ~45%. All this tells us is that โthe expertsโ have no clue just how sensitive the climate system is to extra GHGs in the Earthโs atmosphere.
Add these forcings together and the ensemble mean output lands near observations.
๐https://t.co/6RS5rVXTRZ (p. 440)
Thereโs just one problem. Different models can get similar historical warming curves that resemble observations, but they use different combinations of aerosol cooling and GHG warming. That means the match to observed temperature trends does not uniquely prove the exact partitioning between GHGs, aerosols, and natural variability. For example, a model with strong aerosol cooling requires strong GHG warming to offset it. A different model with weak aerosol cooling requires a weaker GHG warming. Both will produce near-identical GMST curves that have high correlation to observations, but one cannot put much stock into these coefficients. This is a curve fitting exercise rather than real physics.
Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020), for example, openly describe tuning the Max Planck Institute model (MPI-ESM1.2) to match historical warming by adjusting cloud feedbacks and targeting an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of ~3ยฐC (this is the IPCC's โbest estimateโ). With the known physics of radiative heat transfer, MPI-ESM1.2 produced an ECS of 7ยฐC, more than double their target. Therefore, the modelers arbitrarily adjusted the cloud parameter scheme until the model output aligned with GMST observations.
In the closing remarks of the paper, the authors of Mauritsen & Roeckner (2020) say,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ค๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ญ.๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ข๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ฉ๐ง๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ก ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐ ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ; ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ท๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฌ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐จ ๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐จ๐ช๐๐๐๐จ๐จ๐๐ช๐ก. ๐๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ก๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐พ๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ช๐จ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ก๐ค๐ช๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐จ, ๐๐จ ๐ค๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ค๐จ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค๐จ๐ค๐ก ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐.โ
๐https://t.co/uBatWfdyvQ
๐https://t.co/8Ntgszrz3a(p. 44 for IPCC ECS โbest estimateโ of 3 K)
The โbasic physicsโ did not yield correct values, so the scientists arbitrarily turn knobs on various parameters until they get their desired result.
This transparency is useful, but it also exposes the problem. If a model is tuned to the instrumental GMST record, then its ability to reproduce the 20th-century temperature record cannot be treated as independent proof that the model has correctly identified the cause(s) of that warming. This is a circularity problem. It does not mean that GHGs have had no effect. They definitely have, at least to some extent. But one cannot confidently claim that all of the warming since 1850 has been anthropogenic because โthe models match observations.โ
Scientists also havenโt always been transparent about this. For decades, modeling centers refused to inform the public exactly how GCMs are calibrated. The IPCC subtly admitted this in Chapter 9 of AR5 WG1, stating,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ง๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ฆ๐น๐ค๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด (๐๐ข๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ต๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2012; ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ข๐ญ., 2013) ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ ๐๐ค ๐ฃ๐ค๐ฉ ๐ง๐ค๐ช๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐๐จ๐๐ง๐๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ก ๐๐ค๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ.. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฆ, ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ต๐ฐ๐ธ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ด ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ข๐ท๐ข๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ.โ
๐https://t.co/z2jHU1IbkD (pp. 749-50)
This initial lack of transparency became the focus of an editorial in Science Magazine in October 2016,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ญ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ด ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ต ๐ช๐ต ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต, ๐ฃ๐๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฎ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก ๐๐๐จ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ง๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐๐จ๐๐ก๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ ๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ช๐ง๐ฎ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ค๐ง๐๐จโ๐ค๐ฉ๐๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐จ๐. โ๐๐ต'๐ด ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ด๐ข๐บ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ต,โ ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐๐ด๐ข๐ข๐ค ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฅ, ๐ข ๐ด๐ค๐ช๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐บ๐ด๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ ๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ช๐ค๐ด ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐บ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ฆ๐บ.โ
The Science Magazine article continues, stating that climate scientists had been reluctant to come clean about tuning practices for years because they feared that skeptics would use their practices against them to downplay global warming,
๐จ๏ธ โ๐๐ค๐ง ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐จ, ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐จ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ฃ ๐ข๐ช๐ข ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ โ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ด๐ข๐ถ๐ค๐ฆโ: ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จ ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐บ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ด. ๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ค๐ค ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ง๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐๐ฉ๐ ๐๐ค๐ฃ๐ฉ๐ง๐๐ง๐๐๐ฃ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ช๐ก๐ ๐ช๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฃ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐ฉ๐ค ๐จ๐๐๐ ๐๐ค๐ช๐๐ฉ ๐๐๐ค๐ช๐ฉ ๐ข๐ค๐๐๐ก๐จโ๐๐ฃ๐, ๐๐ฎ ๐๐ญ๐ฉ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐๐ค๐ฃ, ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐ค๐ ๐๐ช๐ข๐๐ฃ-๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฃ๐. โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ค๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ท๐ฆ,โ [Bjorn] ๐๐ต๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด[a director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology] ๐ด๐ข๐บ๐ด. โ๐๐ต ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ข๐ง๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ญ๐บ ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฎ.โโ
๐https://t.co/PImzcNbUQu
A fair test of GCM skill uses temperature data that the models are not pre-tuned to match, such as satellite-based lower tropospheric temperatures (TLT). CMIP6 models, initialized in 1979, show roughly TWICE the warming rate observed in the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH v6.0) TLT dataset as shown in the bottom right time series (e.g., Christy & McNider, 2017; Christy et al., 2018) Recent events, such as the strong El Niรฑo, reductions in low- and mid-altitude stratiform cloud cover, and perhaps the Hunga Tonga eruption have narrowed the gap temporarily, but the systematic warm bias persists in many model simulations.
๐https://t.co/zueJLn9sY4
๐https://t.co/vUJgmigsAe
3โฃ ๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ก๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฃ๐ข๐๐๐ก๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐ก; ๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ง๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐จ๐ก๐๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐๐ก
No serious analysis denies that there is some human influence on global warming. It is a scientific fact that COโ absorbs infrared radiation. Increasing COโ changes the radiative balance of Earthโs atmosphere. All else equal, that produces a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere.
The direct radiative forcing from doubled COโ concentrations is ~3.7 W/mยฒ, implying ~1ยฐC direct warming before feedbacks act to amplify or dampen that change. However, the average radiation flux into the atmosphere is on the order of 239 ยฑ 3.3 W/mยฒ of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) averaged over a year (Trenberth et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2012). When the error bars on baseline energy fluxes exceed the incremental forcing of increasing GHGs, precise attribution to GHGs becomes challenging.
๐https://t.co/mlZbsIe8KQ
๐https://t.co/5z5iMdb7H9 / open-access version: https://t.co/51Ys5w99LR
How much warming observed is due to increasing GHGs?
How much warming has been offset by aerosols?
How much warming is due to natural variability [which hasnโt been researched enough]?
What is the net effect of cloud feedbacks? Warming or cooling?
How do clouds respond to global warming, if at all? How do clouds change due to unforced internal variability? Are these changes observed in low-, mid-, or high-altitude clouds? Two of the three? All three? What about stratiform, cumuliform, and cirriform?
Have urbanization and land use changes been accurately removed from the GMST record as claimed by most government scientists and scholars?
These are all questions that remain unanswered, even if the scientific community at large refuses to acknowledge them for the sake of employment, to get research funding, or their choice to promote โthe causeโ for environmentalism.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HMk9TgIXEAAZdC2.jpg)
More CO2 is good CO2 -- because we are still in a CO2 famine.
De politie geeft dus toe dat ze Marokkanen vrij spel gaven en niet ingrepen bij zogenaamde "kleine vergrijpen", omdat het anders โoorlogโ zou worden.
โขZwaar vuurwerk afsteken en het gooien van rookbommen naar de politie
โขGemaskerde gasten die rondreden, tegen rijdende politieautoโs schopten
โขMarokkanen die op politieautoโs stonden te springen en te dansen
โขEen Oranje-fan die werd aangevallen met een fietskettingslot (poging tot doodslag)
Dit noemt de ME-commandant van Amsterdam dus โkleine vergrijpenโ waarbij ze bewust niet handhaafden.
Hij denkt serieus dat hij hiermee verdere escalatie voorkomt. Dat is echt bizar.
Ze laten gewoon vandalisme en geweld toe uit angst voor de Marokkanen, terwijl andere groepen keihard door hetzelfde korps worden aangepakt! Zwak, laf, onvergeeflijk en onacceptabel!
Zsm kamervragen!
Terwijl wij ons moeten schamen voor onze VOC, kunnen de Noren heerlijk trots zijn op hun Viking-verleden.
Woke = pathologische zelfhaat.
@marcje74 Je bio zegt het: just a guyโฆzonder kritisch werkende hersenen.
Wetenschap is geen wetenschap meer. Bought and paid for a long time agoโฆ
https://t.co/PcsQ4MS7Ys
#followthemoney
The editors of the world's most prestigious medical journals are sounding the alarm, and nobody is listening.
"We have peer reviewed, high impact editors in most of the journals that are the most high impact, saying that they don't believe what is being published in those journals is trustworthy anymore."
"The BMJ, The Lancet, all of those editors have come out and said, we have a huge problem. We can't replicate this research and we actually don't even know who did the research."
"Everywhere we've looked for corruption, we've found it."
Emily Kaplan, co-founder of the Broken Science Initiative.
@broken_science
Zuchtโฆhad Messi rood gekregen dan?
Al had de fokking koning gebeldโฆmaakt mij โgeen reetโ uit. Maar Messi ontzien en Balogun rood geven is meten met twee maten.
Dat die hele FIFA bende corrupt is wisten we al lang, daar hoorde je ze bij NU niet eerder over. Nu ze Trump er aan kunnen koppelen zijn ze er als de kippen bij.
Trump neemt niet het besluit heโฆdat is de FIFA. Dat ze bij de FIFA direct voor Trump bukken is ook de FIFA.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Siputsedut012
Seen from Malaysia
ๆญชๆฏๅทดBO
Seen from Malaysia
20cm dick long
Seen from Indonesia
Mapo
Seen from Thailand
$ome $exy $hits 4U๐
Seen from France
Pu
Seen from Singapore
ุงุนุชุฑุงูุงุช ุฎุงุตุฉ ู
ุญุงุฑู
Seen from Saudi Arabia
bro da
suka sempak
Seen from Indonesia
Trung Niรชn Hร Nแปi
Seen from Vietnam
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.8M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.1M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.8M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.3M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.1M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers