While some social scientists continue to undertake purported survey’s of the literature they claim show almost all scientists agree humans greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous climate change, real climate scientists are showing the climate is far more complex than climate models and those who rely almost solely on them to predict climate disaster acknowledge.
In his March 29 testimony before the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s hearing on “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method,” climate scientist and satellite expert John Christy, Ph.D. notes when climate model projections are tested against actual observations and measurements, the model’s outputs fail to match observed phenomena and data, and as a result, they should not be used to shape climate policies. As Christy observes the time and experience tested scientific method is to is not a set of facts but a process or method establishing a way for humans to discover information in the pursuit of understanding and knowledge. He explained, “In the method, a ‘claim’ or ‘hypothesis’ is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again.”
Christy points out the average outputs of the models grossly misrepresent climate variations and changes of recent decades. From 1979 through 2016, climate models project significant warming should have occurred due to ever-increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. The average warming estimated by 102 model runs from 32 groups of modelers over the period is 1°C. By contrast, the actual observed warming experienced during the period, as recorded by three independent sources – weather balloons, satellites, and weather center reanalyses – is less than 0.5°C, less than half the amount predicted by climate models.
The most likely reason for the failure, Christy testified, is “the models are simply too sensitive to the extra [greenhouse gases] that are being added to both the model and the real world.”
Christy said “applying the traditional scientific method, one would accept this failure and not promote the model trends as something truthful about the recent past or the future.”
If not carbon dioxide, what could be behind climate changes so much in the news? Three international studies may provide at least part of the answer.
Three studies from researchers from France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland reinforce the fact solar activity has a significant effect on climate changes. Research funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation quantified the contribution solar fluctuations make to temperature changes on Earth. While the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes solar activity has an insignificant effect on Earth’s temperature, historical data show that is not true. Using robust computer models, the Swiss scientists say as solar activity reaches its next minimum, the weaker sun should result in temperature falling by a half a degree during this century.
Temperature reconstructions of data for the Iberian Peninsula for the past 400 years published in Climate of the Past find temperature changes in the region track solar activity well. Using tree- ring data for the period 1602 through 2012, the Spanish-led research team shows warm phases coincide with periods of high solar activity. The region as a whole has warmed almost 3°C over the past 400 years, reflecting the recent recovery from the Little Ice Age, but even during the Little Ice Age, there were phases around 1625 and 1800 when temperatures were as high as the present for short periods of time corresponding to increased solar activity.
Reinforcing the Climate of the Past study, research in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, using data from three Portuguese meteorological stations from 1888 to 2001, finds a statistically significant association between temperatures and changes in solar and geomagnetic activity. Temperature changes consistently track the 11-year solar cycle and the 22-year solar magnetic cycle, lagging by approximately one to two years, showing solar forcing significantly affects temperature.
The sun, the very center of our solar system, affects climate. Who would have guessed?