Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Influence

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Observational uncertainty, errors, biases, and estimation discrepancies in longwave radiation may be 100 times larger than the entire accumulated influence of CO2 increases over 10 years. This effectively rules out clear detection of a potential human influence on climate.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis rides on the fundamental assumption that perturbations in the Earth’s energy budget – driven by changes in downward longwave radiation from CO2 — are what cause climate change.

According to one of the most frequently referenced papers advancing the position that CO2 concentration changes (and downward longwave radiation perturbations) drive surface temperature changes, Feldman et al. (2015) concluded there was a modest 0.2 W/m² forcing associated with CO2 rising by 22 ppm per decade.

Again, that’s a total CO2 influence of 0.2 W/m² over ten years.

In contrast, analyses from several new papers indicate the uncertainty and error values in downwelling (and outgoing) longwave radiation in cloudless environments are more than 100 times larger than 0.2 W/m².

In other words, it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate.

1.  Kim and Lee, 2019   Measurement errors of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) reach 11 W/m², more than 50 times larger than total CO2 forcing over 10 years. Cloud optical thickness (COT) and water vapor have “the greatest effect” on OLR – an influence of 2.7 W/m². CO2 must rise to 800 ppm to impute an influence of 1 W/m².

Image Source: Kim and Lee, 2019

2. Kato et al., 2018   Downward longwave radiation (DLR) responds to variability in water vapor and cloud. (CO2 isn’t mentioned in the paper as a factor influencing DLR.) CO2 rose by 20 ppm during 2005-2014, but total DLR was negative (-0.2 W/m²) during this decade, insinuating rising CO2 had no net warming climate impact. Uncertainty in DLR is 6 W/m² per year, whereas CO2 forcing is just 0.02 W/m² per year – 300 times smaller.

Image Source: Kato et al., 2018

3. Wild et al., 2019   Observations vs. model bias/discrepancy ranges in downward longwave radiation span between 22 W/m² to 26 W/m², which is 120 times larger than CO2’s total influence over 10 years.

Image Source: Wild et al., 2019
4. Stephens et al., 2019   “Gross assumptions” must be made about cloud physics due to a lack of observations. Sources of error in models yield an uncertainty of ~80%. Models of cloud processes are 3-5 times discrepant from observations.
Image Source: Stephens et al., 2019
5. Frank, 2019    “An AGW signal … will never emerge from climate noise.” Cloud forcing “error is ±114 times larger than the annual average increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] forcing.” “A temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot … be evidenced in climate observables.”
Image Source: Frank, 2019
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

29 responses to “Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Influence”

  1. bonbon

    Great to see Pat Franks paper here. It is the only one, as far as I can see, that deals explicitly with uncertainty – note very carefully the +/- numbers. These are the precise uncertainties, not as some read, energy flux swings.

  2. SebastianH

    Again, that’s a total CO2 influence of 0.2 W/m² over ten years.

    Feldmann gave uncertainty values for his time series measurements. Why do you mix them up with completely different uncertainty values?

    In contrast, analyses from several new papers indicate the uncertainty and error values in downwelling (and outgoing) longwave radiation in cloudless environments are more than 100 times larger than 0.2 W/m².

    In contrast? You are comparing apples to oranges, of course there is contrast 😉

    And why mention the Patrick Frank “paper”? In case you didn’t know, Patrick Frank has a very interesting view on math / usage of units: https://patricktbrown.org/2017/01/25/do-propagation-of-error-calculations-invalidate-climate-model-projections-of-global-warming/#comment-1459

    Should we even bother to look at the other papers you list here?

    In other words, it is effectively impossible to clearly discern a human influence on climate.

    If you want to believe that … sure.

  3. tom0mason

    The assumption made is that humans control the level of atmospheric CO2. This is completely wrong!
    Nature with the way the oceans and the biosphere react to atmosphere CO2 levels are in command of CO2 levels, not puny, insubstantial humans.

  4. 5 nuovi studi: Gli scienziati citano incertezze, errori e carenze nei modelli per affermare che l'influenza sul clima umano non è rilevabile

    […] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]

  5. Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Influence – Truth is difficult but essential…
  6. David

    “Again, that’s a total CO2 influence of 0.2 W/m² over ten years.”

    Actually that’s the *instantaneous* average over ten years. It’s constantly present. It’s equal to about 1 kW per football field.

  7. David

    The Pat Frank paper was roundly criticized for its poor methods. See Nick Stokes.

    1. Yonason

      Nick Stokes?!

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted/

      https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted-part-2/

      https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/nick-stokes-busted-part-3/

      https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/nick-stoke-busted-part-4/

      Beacuaz, mathematically modeled adjustments based on ad hoc untested assumptions, made in order to force data fit a preordained model are definitely more “real” than actual measurements.

      May the farce be with you, too!

    2. bonbon

      Pat Frank dealt professionally with Nick Stokes over at WUWT. Various criticisms and misunderstandings were brought to light.

      1. P Gosselin

        I don’t know if Kenneth has, but I haven’t blocked yours. If yours were blocked, then it was because they did not meet even the minimum editorial standards. Overall alarmists need to get away from the misconception that they are the Beholders of the Truth and Science Scripture and so treat non-believers like sinners who need to be preached to. People are tired of the “how dare you!” attitudes alarmists walk around with.

        1. Yonason

          I’m guessing you meant that to be directed to the rotten apple, below? Certainly not bonbon.

      2. Yonason

        Oh, dear me!
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/propagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/

        So many quotable items from his article that it’s hard to choose, so I’ll just give a general summation of the effect it SHOULD have on warmunism.

        Thanks, bonbon. I wasn’t aware of his work.

  8. CO2isLife

    Dr. Hill in today’s impeachment hearing provided evidence that AGW is nothing more than a communist hoax designed to destroy the US Fracking Industry. All this climate change nonsense is one huge lie and it was recorded into the Congressional Record.

    BOMBSHELL: Dr. Hill Exposes Russia’s Propaganda Campaign to Kill US Fracking Industry
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/11/21/bombshell-dr-hill-exposes-russias-propaganda-campaign-to-kill-us-fracking-industry/

    1. tom0mason

      CO2isLife,

      Thanks for the heads up. Excellent, maybe the American people will hear this — somehow.

    2. Yonason

      Ditto what tomO said!

      Thanks, CO2isLife.

  9. Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Influence | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, November 21, 2019 in […]

  10. David Appell

    Still blocking other opinions, huh?

    Weaklings.

    1. Yonason

      “Still blocking other opinions, huh?”

      There’s good precedent for that, eh!
      https://motls.blogspot.com/2012/07/have-muller-or-watts-transformed-agw.html#comment-605585774

  11. Weekly Energy and Climate News Roundup #387 | Watts Up With That?
  12. Weekly Abstract of Power and Local weather Data No. 387 – Next Gadget

    […] Scientists Cite Uncertainty, Error, Model Deficiencies To Affirm A Non-Detectable Human Climate Infl… […]

  13. Yonason

    Not only is there no proof of unusual warming, or of CO2 causing any warming at all, there is plenty of proof that the UN is the last agency in the world we should trust. They are utterly morally bankrupt.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/media-silence-un-human-rights-council-votes-in-country-that-enslaves-black-people-video/

    If the post-modern scum want degenerate liars to rule over them, they should move to the worst third world country they can find, and stop trying to force the rest of us to become like them!

  14. Brian G Valentine

    If it is not possible to measure a physical quantity supposedly given some physical justification, then how is it possible to claim “existence” of the thing at all?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close