“Clear Mismatch Between Climate Models And Paleoclimate Data,” New Peer-Reviewed Book Finds

Climate science critical geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Professor Fritz Vahrenholt informed readers here that a new book has been recently published: “Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming“.

evidence-based

The book’s publisher is glacier geologist Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.

At their site Lüning and Vahrenholt write that the emphasis of the peer-reviewed book is on natural cycles, which they say “unfortunately were not adequately accounted for in the IPCC models“.

The book comprises 21 different articles from a groups of authors, among them a paper by geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt which looks at solar cycles. The abstract can be read here (click on Chapter 16).

NTZ contacted Dr. Lüning and asked about what he thinks the results of the book mean and about the status of climate science thus far. Here’s the answer He sent (emphasis added):

We identified a clear mismatch between climate models and paleoclimate data with respect to the role of solar activity changes. This is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed open mindedly by the climate science. Before wide ranging political conclusions are drawn and action taken, obvious model weaknesses need to be seriously addressed and clarified.

Our new paper does not answer this point quantitatively but indicates that there have always been warming and cooling phases in the past 10,000 years which in most cases appear to have run in parallel with solar activity changes. These natural climate and solar changes are of “millennial-scale” with a typical cycle length of 1000-2000 years. A key task is to better understand how much of the warming of the past 120 years is part of this millennial-scale cyclicity and how much is driven by CO2. All facts point at the direction that a sigificant part of the recent warming is actually due to an increase in solar activity whereby the sun has reached some of the strongest intensities of the entire past 10,000 years during this period.

In our paper (Chapter 16) we urge climate modellers to run alternative scenarios which honour the historical climate/solar relationship. Notably, current climate models are not able to reproduce the historical climate cyclicity of the past 10,000 years. With this “hindcast” failure, these models normally would be reliable for future modelling. An increased role of the sun may in the end mean that the warming until 2100 is much less than is currently pognosed, possibly less than 1°C.”

The book is available at Amazon, or can be ordered from the Elsevier online store.

 

20 responses to ““Clear Mismatch Between Climate Models And Paleoclimate Data,” New Peer-Reviewed Book Finds”

  1. Kevin Benn

    ” With this “hindcast” failure, these models normally would be reliable for future modelling.” This should surely be UNRELIABLE…?

  2. Dr Tim Ball-Climatologist

    I would like to tell you of my latest book, “Human Caused Global Warming”.
    The Biggest Deception in History.
    Available on ‘Amazon.ca’ and ‘Indigo/Chapters’.
    Trial date for Dr Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball, February 20th, 2017.
    http://www.drtimball.com

    1. Graeme No.3

      I am currently reading your previous book and think it should be widely read (except by sod who doesn’t grasp facts).
      Good luck in February.

      1. David Appell

        Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

        After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

        In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

        1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

        2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

        3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

        4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

        5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

        Ball dropped his lawsuit.

        Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

        1. AndyG55

          “Tim Ball is not a climate science expert”

          Neither is Mann, no matter what he thinks..

          and you certainly are not. !!

        2. DirkH

          “Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.”
          “Ball dropped his lawsuit.”

          Who “admitted” it? You didn’t say. You say Ball dropped his lawsuit. That’s something entirely different. Why are you trying to misdirect people, David?

          Why are you plastering this blog with copies of your misdirection, David? It seems to be important to you to spread misdirections. Why?

    2. David Appell

      Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.

      After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.

      In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:

      1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

      2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

      3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

      4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

      5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”

      Ball dropped his lawsuit.

      Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).

      1. DirkH

        “Tim Ball is not a climate science expert, and this has been admitted in a court of law.”
        “Ball dropped his lawsuit.”

        Who “admitted” it? You didn’t say. You say Ball dropped his lawsuit. That’s something entirely different. Why are you trying to misdirect people, David?

        1. AndyG55

          “Why are you trying to misdirect people, David?”

          His ONLY modus operandi. Misdirection.

        2. yonason

          David Appell, like sod, probably wants us to believe John Cook?

          http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

          http://joannenova.com.au/tag/skepticalscience-debunking/

          They would be laughable if they weren’t so pathetic.

          You still haven’t answered my question, at least not where I asked it, “what have YOU ever published?”

          1. yonason

            Oh, and that “YOU” is David Appell who hasn’t answered my question about what he has published on climate, not you, Dirk.

            ALSO NOTE – Lubos Motl has some choice comments about him. Here is one.
            http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/07/have-muller-or-watts-transformed-agw.html#comment-605585774

          2. AndyG55

            The rotten Appell always runs away from providing answers to questions.

            He still hasn’t shown us those surface station pictures..

            Nor has he shown any pictures of birds killed by coal fired power stations.

            He squirms and hides like a little worm.

      2. DirkH

        Why are you plastering this blog with copies of your misdirection, David? It seems to be important to you to spread misdirections. Why?

        1. AndyG55

          He is still RUNNING and HIDING from supporting things he cannot show

          He still HIDES from showing where surface station data comes from

          He still RUNS from showing pics of birds killed by coal fired power stations

          Keep RUNNING.. Keep HIDING, rotten-appell.

      3. Dave Fair

        Those are all “Statements of Defense” from the defendants, not court rulings nor “admissions in court.” One can say whatever one wants in such documents. They are not Truth.

        Who pays you, David?

  3. David Appell

    I suspect this book was only “peer reviewed” by fellow deniers.

    1. AndyG55

      As opposed to your junk which is only ever viewed by fellow sci-fantasy writers.

  4. Bryson

    any explanation for the extreme warmth in the arctic region it is very strange several degrees Celsius warmer that normal.

    1. AndyG55

      Remnants of the El Nino, then the Atlantic blob got dragged up through the Bering Strait.

      The planet’s mechanism of balancing itself. The excess heat from the NATURAL solar driven El Nino and Blob is being slowly discharged.

      Russia and northern Europe are heading into a very chill period. !

  5. David Appell

    “The book’s publisher is glacier geologist Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University.”

    That’s a pretty sad book, if they have no option but to find a denier to publish it.

    I assume all the real publishers turned them down.