Just add volcanic dust whenever climate models some cooling
Original image by NASA
By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
The temperature of the last 100 years was also the topic of a new publication by Folland et al. 2018. The authors are very much at home in the camp of the IPCC and had to admit that there have been phases of cooling, stagnating or even slow warming: 1896 – 1910, 1941 – 1975, and 1998 – 2013.
Climate models struggle with this because CO2 is climbing steadily. So why does climate warming stall under these conditions? Folland and his colleagues examined the models and are convinced that despite the small problems, the models function perfectly well and thus no other climate factors need to be accounted for.
In 1940s it was a bit too warm and the models were unable to reproduce this. Given, the authors say. Greenhouse gases have been responsible for almost all the warming of the last 125 years. Here’s the abstract:
Causes of irregularities in trends of global mean surface temperature since the late 19th century
The time series of monthly global mean surface temperature (GST) since 1891 is successfully reconstructed from known natural and anthropogenic forcing factors, including internal climate variability, using a multiple regression technique. Comparisons are made with the performance of 40 CMIP5 models in predicting GST. The relative contributions of the various forcing factors to GST changes vary in time, but most of the warming since 1891 is found to be attributable to the net influence of increasing greenhouse gases and anthropogenic aerosols. Separate statistically independent analyses are also carried out for three periods of GST slowdown (1896–1910, 1941–1975, and 1998–2013 and subperiods); two periods of strong warming (1911–1940 and 1976–1997) are also analyzed. A reduction in total incident solar radiation forcing played a significant cooling role over 2001–2010. The only serious disagreements between the reconstructions and observations occur during the Second World War, especially in the period 1944–1945, when observed near-worldwide sea surface temperatures (SSTs) may be significantly warm-biased. In contrast, reconstructions of near-worldwide SSTs were rather warmer than those observed between about 1907 and 1910. However, the generally high reconstruction accuracy shows that known external and internal forcing factors explain all the main variations in GST between 1891 and 2015, allowing for our current understanding of their uncertainties. Accordingly, no important additional factors are needed to explain the two main warming and three main slowdown periods during this epoch.”
Now isn’t it a bit odd that the authors made absolutely no mention of the ocean cycles in the abstract? As our regular readers know, the ocean cycles run surprisingly synchronous with the fluctuations in global temperatures, i.e. the key factors here are the AMO and PDO.
At phys.org we find a short explanation of the paper. In it we find the culprits for the three hiatus/slowdown phases which Folland and his colleagues wish to believe they have found:
They then offer possible explanations for the three main observed slowdowns in GST increase. For the first slowdown, they found evidence of El Niño and La Niña weather patterns that likely reduced heating by producing more cloud cover. For the second slowdown, they found evidence of increased volcanism—smoke and ashes from volcanoes can block sunlight. The team asserts that the third slowdown, which is also the one on which many global warming skeptics rely, was likely caused by a combination of La Niña events and volcanism.”
The first slowdown was supposedly caused by the El Nino/La Nina. An ocean cycle, in any case, but it’s odd there’s no mention of the PDO.
The second slowdown (1941-1975) supposedly was caused by volcanoes. Haha – now that’s good for a loud laugh. Naturally it was due to the PDO, which went negative during the period:
PDO ocean cycle and its fluctuations in the global temperature development. Source: Book ‘Die kalte Sonne‘.
And the third slowdown supposedly had something to do with a combination of El Nino volcanoes. Folland and his colleagues are pulling tricks like real troopers.
In the abstract the authors mention the sun putting the brakes on the recent slow warming. But at phys.org there’s no mention of that. And if the sun can put the brakes on, then it can also accelerate. Yet in the models there is no room for that because supposedly almost all the warming of the last 120 years has been caused by greenhouse gases.
Under the bottom line the authors concede nothing to climate variability. Instead the volcano card gets played when all else fails. Whenever there’s need for some cooling, volcanic dust gets sprinkled in the computer climate world.
39 responses to “German Scientists: Chris Folland’s Findings On Climate Models “Good For a Loud Laugh”…”Pulling Tricks Like Troopers””
One has to wonder how rubbish like Folland et al makes it through peer review.
Oh silly me with IPCC compliant papers it is “pal review”.
Must be volcanic dust keeping the temperature down to a measly 0.21ºC above the “average” of the climb out of the coldest period since the LIA.
Maybe there has been an increase in volcanic activity, to cool all the non-warming from human CO2.
Except it works THE OTHER WAY AROUND
I could not resist this. http://cfys.nu/noaadata/R83ZAmacDBL.f
This is from Nasa’s (James Hansens) GMCII modeling radiation. You don’t have to know any programming just read the comments what the program tries to do.
I find it hilarious, but maybe thats just me…
Care to enlighten us what specific comments you mean?
COMMENT DESCRIBING FUNCTION BLOCK
I thought it was funny to see how much he wanted to do with so many unknowns and volume of static parameters.
He had huge faith in that little machine and his assumptions.
Strategy looks to have been if I guess about plenty enough errors will cancel out and result gets accurate.
Guess it was only my type of humour.
“Guess it was only my type of humour.” – MrZ
No. I found it mildly amusing as well. But you don’t have to apologize to SebH about anything he doesn’t find amusing. Chatbots have no sense of humor.
“Strategy looks to have been if I guess about plenty enough errors will cancel out and result gets accurate.” – MrZ
You called it. Sorry, but I can’t find the article I thought I had bookmarked on that, where the attempt to average the results of all models and pretend it’s a meaningful result is shown to be wrong. But, since I hate to leave you with nothing, here’s what I consider one of my best refs on climate modeling, which is in essential agreement with the quote tomOmason is justifiably fond of – “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Thanks for the link and the support.
If still ice and above 0 then goto melt a bit more
If still ice and below 0 then goto extend ice to maximum 2m
If not ice then goto Earth energy imbalance
It is fun 😄😄😄
For above example you must read a bit more carefully
A little something from Bill Grey on James Hanson’s errors, in a video on why the models are wrong.
I added a response to this post 4 hours ago. It was not offensive in any way.
It’s interesting that variability should be the root cause for global warming. Perhaps you also believe humans aren’t causing a general CO2 concentration increase because the seasonal variability is large compared to the yearly increase?
Why shouldn’t variability account for warming? Or sometimes cooling?
And who cares whether humans are causing an increase in CO2 concentration? It’s an entirely beneficial trace gas with no adverse side effects on human beings below 1000ppm atmospheric concentration.
Graphs of 20th century temperature show at best spasmodic correlation between GAT and CO2 concentration and ice cores show that historically changes in CO2 concentration lag temperature changes by up to eight centuries.
Which ought, to any scientist with an open mind, be enough to cast doubt on the hypothesis that late 20th century warming is being caused almost exclusively by an increase in CO2 concentration from 0.03% to 0.04%. In any event, according to Arrhenius, a doubling of CO2 concentration ought to result in a GAT increase of ~1.1°C. Anything beyond that would be pure speculation.
So an increase in CO2 to 800ppm might increase GAT to ~15.3°C and it would need a further 800ppm increase to raise the GAT to 16.3°. Colour me less than thrilled!
Answering with a question.
Misunderstanding the topic (what higher CO2 concentrations do) on purpose.
Correlation seeking, not understanding the connection between temperatures and CO2, only looking at one side of the equation
Any scientist with an open mind does not shut down his mind and tries to spread nonsense while simultanously claiming that all the experts are wrong and the amateurs in blogs like this one are right 😉
Besides: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RAeTALG6HSs/UXPTtRa9oSI/AAAAAAAABBw/-oe2a9Dy648/s1600/KnuttiAttributionGraph.png (From https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1327)
Ignorance of feedbacks.
So you don’t have any answers, Seb. Right?
Just locked in your cAGW-obsessed little bubble. Somebody quite reasonably puts forward an argument and it’s “ one side of the equation”,
Oh, the irony!
Answers? Did you ask anything? You made some hilarious claims, some in form of questions. That’s all.
But I am curious, how would you classify your reply in this case since you failed to further elaborate why you think your claims are true?
We are all living in bubbles, Newminster. Me being here is me investigating your bubble. Have you ever left your bubble?
“one side of the equation” is referring to your mention of CO2 concentrations lagging temperature. It’s not a reasonable argumenent when you forget to mention that CO2 variations also causes temperature to change. We have limited information on past times when the CO2 concentration increase was caused by something other than a temperature increase, but we are currently in such a phase with us causing the CO2 concentration increase. Do you disagree?
… indeed. I’ll repeat myself: great talk.
“It’s not a reasonable argumenent when you forget to mention that CO2 variations also causes temperature to change.”
Again with the ANTI-SCIENCE BS.
There is ZERO- EVIDENCE that CO2 causes temperature changes.
You certainly are in a bubble , seb
A bubble of ignorance and an EMPTY bubble of any actual evidence.
Mindlessly chanting the AGW meme is NOT evidence.
But its all you have.
Let’s see you RUN AWAY like a headless chook, from those two questions, yet again.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
There is ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming of anything, seb
There is MASSES of evidence of cyclic variability in the Sun, and the Oceans and the seasons
Arrhenius used a glass bottle to come up with his “idea” about CO2 atmospheric warming..
I suspect that seb thinks the world resides in a glass bottle.
Yep, the models show that absolutely anything is possible but can not indisputably show that CO2 is the culprit of man-made climate change… it is after all just a very inadequate model of climate and not the climate itself.
If it wasn’t for those pesky volcanoes, desert dust, solar variation, ocean cycle variations, clouds, etc. The main problem is that the basic climate science is not well known or understood. That is to say it’s not understood at least to level where computer models can be used to accurately mirroring how currently our climate works, or predict anything meaningful.
The laughable thing is the UN-IPCC’s utter reliance on computer models despite saying “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” and knowing that the models have many basic flaws. This is because they can not show any observed detrimental effect of rising atmospheric CO2 levels, and so these models are used by the UN-IPCC as very inaccurate proxy evidence for the imaginary effects of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere.
Folland et al is SebH approved propaganda.
Speaking of talking donkeys, I wonder if the fantastic volcanic fairy dust has any other magical properties, like this. I mean, if it can make the models fly… 😉
The laughable thing is the UN-IPCC’s utter reliance on computer models despite saying “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” and knowing that the models have many basic flaws.
The part that is NOT laughable is that on the back of this fake UN-IPCC virtual evidence about CO2, the UN wishes to ensure that all Western governments pay their tithe (aka Carbon Tax), and that national economies, society and commerce, and the very way we live and trade should be altered radically.
It started as Agenda 21 which changed to the UN’s ‘2030 Agenda’, both documents are a blueprints for UN socialists to rule every nation. With these documents, and the funding from ‘Carbon Tax’, the unelected, unaccountable UN will become a dictatorship of elites, technocrats, and crony capitalists. When your children grow-up they will be ‘encouraged’ into large cities, dissuaded from living the countryside as that will increasingly become over-expensive and turn into ‘protected’ wilderness areas.
And the German government like all European governments have signed-up for it.
Read for yourselves —
The UN document HERE.
And look-up their plans for cities and wilderness areas.
Now HERE’s what the EU Commission wishes to do to you on the back of it
That IS what all this argument about CO2, sustainable development, renewable electricity supply is about, the politic of the ‘New World Order’. The politics of the UN elites affecting everything in your life.
People like SebastianH will say it’s all ‘conspiracy theory’, he’s just a UN_IPCC advocate so of course he’ll say that.
Of course it’s not, the documentation above shows its not, those documents assume that man-made climate change is real and that all humans’ lives must change now because it is so.
And if you read those document remember who issued them, and consider just 3 things
1. Am I better off from doing this, do I have more freedom?
2. Who or what entity is in charge, and to who and how are they accountable.
3. With so few checks and balances offered in these documents, what will it cost, who pays, and who oversee the money?
The laughable thing is that you don’t understand that even chaotic systems can be predicted to a certain level. I mean I can say that as people age their hair will become gray, their eyesight will become worse, their reaction time will become worse and they will become more stubborn and as time progresses they will live longer and longer. I can even put numbers on these predictions using statistics. However I can not predict the individual fate of one person, even though I think you guys are pretty stubborn already …
No, these models have been derived from observations. Those equations did not drop from the sky as god given to annoy skeptics. Pseudoskeptics like you just feel annoyed by the fact that they don’t understand how these models might work internally, they just feel that since there is math involved it’s the 1% oppressing them or something …
Just get off the internet, it’s nap time already! Take your meds and sleep the anger off for a while.
Now we’re comparing hair color to weather and climate. Anything to avoid addressing the subject directly.
Try using them on the topic at hand: What will the average temperature of Vostok, Antarctica, be during March, 2044? Is there a model that can “put numbers on these predictions”? Yes or no?
Uh, no. Predictions of future climate states based on modeling are not observations.
Your insults and dishonest misrepresentations of what others have written are becoming even more sophomoric than usual. I would delete this, but then you would complain that you have been victimized.
“but then you would complain that you have been victimized.”
seb is definitely a VICTIM..
Of his own lack of brain functionality and lack of education in science, maths, physics, biology..
or any actual REAL science..
.. his own manic GULLIBILITY and egotistical ARROGANCE.
He is constantly seeking attention in a pathetic attempt at self-validation, which he KNOWS he can never achieve.
A psychiatrist could write a whole series of books on his self-delusional, self-preening behaviour.
These attention seeking claims are really funny when you repeat them over and over while seemingly seeking for attention yourself. You should post less often if you want to convince people that it isn’t you who is seeking for attention here.
Poor EMPTY seb
You prove me correct by responding
How long ago was it you said you were going to respond to me anymore.??
LYING even to yourself.
But you just LUV the attention, don’t you petal.
Your ONLY reason for posting.
You can’t stop can you seb.
Thanks for admitting you are a professional troll.
That has been obvious from the start.
Although, why anyone would pay for your INEPTITUDE and IGNORANCE is beyond me.
You should post less, so you don’t continually make a goose of yourself with your headless chook ranting, but you need the income..
Thanks Kenneth for the apt reply to SebastianH’s laughable repost. 😉
I re-enforce it more —
And what SebastianH willfully ignores is that that basic climate science is still an ongoing work in progress and no amount of modeling, of chaos and others processes, can not, will not fit. The models can not tell you how this earthly climate functions when basic parameters are misunderstood or are missing.
Only the deranged could believe the models are by any stretch of the imagination, anywhere near correct now.
Even the IPCC knows it is not so, as evidenced by this missive from them https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm.
Why should they call for so many expensive improvements? That document outlines in detail that their dependence on the models’ have MASSIVE shortcomings.
That document SebastianH tells you that you are wrong (again!).
But still the UN via the IPCC wish to inflict gross change on the world without undeniable evidence that CO2 changes the climate. SebastianH believes CO2 does so without any evidence, only belief, and belief like a religion does not require proof it require unskeptical obedience to what the elites say. And that is all SebastianH has!
Good job on losing context (again). Oh Kenneth …
That is exactly my point. Thank you for playing along even though I doubt you really understand my point if you think I was “comparing hair color to weather and climate”.
Comprehension issues? I wrote: “No, these models have been derived from observations.” Not that predictions are observations. Why do you think that I wrote this?
Really? You think this is a misrepresentation? You haven’t read the comments of your fellow skeptics on this blog here then (spike55 is always eager to provide an example of what he replies when the math goes over his head).
And even you display this behaviour from time to time. If the model is to complicated you blank out and explain that you don’t see a correlation. Not everything is a simple linear correlation though … tried to show that to you many times now. The standard excuse most of the times seems to be that whatever example of non-linear correlations I bring up you decide that since they have nothing to do with climate you can ignore them 😉 (or it might be just because it was me who brought it up)
I should not reply in kind to someone who tries to insult me constantly? At least I didn’t call him “a talking donkey” … or did that context also get lost while you replied?
just more mindless ranting.
All this empty headless-chook yapping from him by NOTHING when it comes to two simple questions
Do you need a refresher on those two questions you keep cowardly avoiding ????
“No, these models have been derived from observations”
More FANTASY from seb-troll.
NO they are NOT derived from observation.
They are mostly derived from anti-science conjecture and baseless suppositions.
There are ZERO OBSERVATIONS of atmospheric CO2 causing warming, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, ANYHOW.
The most laughable thing is your deliberate misunderstanding of chaos.
You totally mischaracterize how, in trying to predict the result chaotic system, a very small a very small error in magnitude or alignment of any parameter sends the prediction off to a result completely at odds with reality.
Your dishonest misrepresentations of comparing climate variability to the aging process, is hogwash! That analogy is NOT a close representation to how the climate works, it is a nonsense analogy.
Your characterization thus shows that you are a charlatan and someone attempting to dupe others in to believing you are mathematically able. You are not you are a sham, a spreader of mathematical nonsense to cover up the total lack of evidence that increases in CO2 are anything but beneficial.
Willis Eschenbach (mostly on the WUWT site) has looked at volcanoes, actually the role of v., in atmospheric cooling.
I think, so far, he has found nothing.
There is no doubt that a large proportion of the temperature rise shown in that temperature graph was caused by humans
A mix of human UHI and airport heat spread out over huge areas of non-urban land, and a farcical agenda-based “adjustment™” regime that allows them to “create” basically whatever they want to create.
Is there any skeptic on this blog who finds this claim problematic? If so, speak up. Otherwise, don’t speak up when people like me call you conspiracy theorists … since you are one. Alex Jones would be proud of you 😉
So you DENY that many basically FRAUDULENT “adjustments” have taken place.
The EVIDENCE is OVER-WHELMING..
Just DENY seb….
Your only way out for your feeble mind.
You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND anything about computer modelling and the methodology behind homogenisation,
.. and just HOW EASY it is to produce the “desired” result.
But IGNORANCE always was your only asset.
Yeah right, you are the expert. Go tell them what they did wrong, I am sure no one will find your opinion strange and maybe they’ll even make you climate president so you can be the one who tells us what the “real” temperatures are and were. /sarcasm off (to Kenneth: don’t overlook this last part of the comment when you reply to this comment)
You KNOW you don’t understand the homogenisation mechanisms, and how easy they are to use as a tool for warming “adjustments”
But you have displayed you ignorance of basically every facet of maths, science, physics over and over and over again
Nobody expects ANYTHING of rational understanding from you any more.
You really ought to seek your attention elsewhere, because you have been an ABJECT FAILURE at anything except mindless distractions here.
With your abject ignorance and total inability to scientifically support even the most basic AGW meme, you are sending the AGW agenda crashing backwards into the dark pit it came from.
Thanks for helping us by continually displaying your ignorance and manic anti-science brain-hosing 🙂
You what I think? You’ve read that somewhere in your skeptic bubble and now repeat it here because that sounds like a very disarming argument. Am I right? 😉
Oh the irony …
You are not aware that anyone who comes here and reads your comments must think skeptics are clowns, are you? If you are not a clown, then why lead a comment with “Empty [name]” and then continue on and on without saying anything of meaning? You are just here to have a place where you can vent your (creative – i give you that) insults …
Poor EMPTY seb
Yet again sprouting gibberish
Where is that evidence of CO2 warming, seb?
That is what you should be producing.. but EMPTY!!
Nothing, DEVOID of evidence.
You have shown over and over and over again, that your junior high level comprehension of maths, science, physic, biology etc are just not up to the task of rational debate.
The fact that your comprehension of REALITY is further held back by your baseless arrogance and your hard-held anti-science AGW beliefs, makes you sound even more irrational.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/07/25/german-scientists-chris-follands-findings-on-climate-models-good-… […]