Science journal admits: science not settled

In a stunning announcement, fresh research in the journal Science has invalidated all the computer models used by the UN IPCC and relied on by uppity bloggers.

Essentially, say researchers, "we got it wrong".

Al Gore gave a hint of the backdown on CO2 earlier this week, but now the full research has just been published, and Doug Hoffman summarises it:

Global Warming Predictions Invalidated

Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 11/05/2009 - 13:39

A new study in the journal Science has just shown that all of the climate modeling results of the past are erroneous. The IPCC's modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has caused climate scientists' assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to the climate catastrophists' computer generated apocalyptic fantasies.

In a stunning article entitled "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions," a group of researchers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University in New York, led by Drew T. Shindell, have called into question the values used to calculate the "forcing" due to various greenhouse gases. "We calculated atmospheric composition changes, historical radiative forcing, and forcing per unit of emission due to aerosol and tropospheric ozone precursor emissions in a coupled composition-climate model," states the paper's abstract. "We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol."

The news throws into question the huge focus on CO2 emissions, and the point of even bothering to turn up to Copenhagen, given that much of what climatologists thought they knew about global warming turns out to be wrong.

Comments

[Hans Schreuder]

Best news in years! Now for the admission that there is no greenhouse effect in the open-to-space atmosphere, then we're really going to get to the truth, finally. Before anyone screams at me, remember that no evidence for it has ever been found.

[Thomas Everth]

Get a grip!

This paper does NOT say that the radiative forcing of CO2 is any different than it is (in fact the author refers to the existing IPCC data for that). So unlike your hype here, the paper invalidates nothing about CO2's role in GW forcing at all.

What it does say though is that Methane has a stronger forcing than previously assumed.
For your case (a.k. debunking human caused GW) this is rather bad news. We already knew that Methane molecule by molecule has a much higher GW forcing than CO2, now that number has gotten worse as per this research. Methane is a byproduct of many human activities from clear felling of rain forests to drying out of wetlands to farming.
So perhaps rightly so, more emphasis should be put into researching ways to reduce its release.

Also, as pointed out earlier, Methane is the gorilla in the cupboard as huge amounts are stored in the arctic permafrost waiting to be released as the are thaws further. Note that the largest temp changes have been in the arctic so far. So if anything this paper makes the forecast of future GW worse.

[robk]

The point of the article seems to be that the computer models (that have caused the panic about AGW) have been shown to be so far off track that there is a requirement for a complete re-think of the possible consequences of continued CO2 release.

As a minimum, there would seem to be no sense in legislating against CO2 if Methane is the main culprit!

[Thomas Everth]

No, methane is not (yet) the main culprit. CO2 is leading the game. But Methane has been proven to be more concerning than first thought. This is a worry as there are natural feetbacks (permafrost, clathrates) that once triggered will be beyond our control.

However CO2 emissions we can reduce looking forward, by switching to more efficient energy use and more sustainable generation. The biggest hindrance on this way are the incumbents (Carbon trading companies such as the Oil, Gas and Coal industries). A single percent of market loss to the carbon traders is worth tens of billions of dollars annually. So a huge war purse is currently involved with the attempt to confuse the public through 'think tanks', 'institutes' and all sorts of lobbies and an unholy alliance of hip-shooting bloggers, wayward scientists and crafty oil industry business folk have taken aim at sustainable energy projects and forward thinking legislation.
It's like the tobacco industry's fight against health laws on steroids and with some of the same shameless players too.

[fletch]

I think they call off Copenhagen altogether. There should a public outcry to call it off, what with more and more evidence coming out everyday calling into question the "Science".

[peter]

Thomas
Sterling efforts - against young Earth creationist, Roman Catholic, extreme right wing.

In parallel to this, Ian Wishart may not have heard of shennanigans surrounding ACT and Maori Party.

Ian - Rodney Hide thinks John Key has done nothing but come up with the cycle way idea!

How many abortions since National led government was elected. How many civil unions?

Hmmm yes, a bit embarrassing I suppose.

[Hans Schreuder]

Thomas, you're right about your interpretation of that paper. After initially receiving an email summary of it, I was taken in by the slant given in that email. Thanks for correcting it.

[robk]

Peter

Again you say: "How many abortions since National led government was elected..."

That's just sick. Abortions are no laughing matter whichever side of the debate you are on. It was sick last time you made a joke of it, and its still sick now.

Your flippant comment is disgusting.

[CM]

Great posts Thomas. You've nailed it.

[Ian Wishart]

The issue is not that the inherent physics of GHGs have changed. It is that our understanding of them was flawed in the context of atmospheric interactions.

To clarify it for Thomas, up until now, 100% of the warming of the past century was broken down into its assumed component parts, each allocated a percentage of responsibility. These are the equations pumped into GCMS.

The new study finds that of that original 100%, the breakdowns should have been different.

We are not suddenly more at risk from methane than we were. Clearly the methane was doing what it has always done, just as CO2 was. However, we were concentrating too much on CO2 because of our lack of full understanding.

Thus, we prove that the science was not settled after all, which all thinking people knew anyway.

The 0.7C rise in temperatures over the past century (assuming purely for the sake of this point that the IPCC is correct and it is entirely anthropogenic), remains a 0.7C rise, but on their figures methane caused more of it than previously thought, and CO2 less.

Are we all clear now?

[Thomas Everth]

"Thus, we prove that the science was not settled after all, which all thinking people knew anyway."

This is an example of the wicket spin you put on things. Science unlike Religion carries on to discover whats true by experiment, observation and refinement of theories. This is the definition of the scientific method. Science is not working by dogma or decree. Science in that sense is never 100% settled as the process of widening the understanding continues forever.

BUT and this is the main point here: major elements of scientific discoveries do get 100% settled.

The Earth is not flat (we might refine its true shape by a few meters here and there), the Sun is but a small star among gazillions (we might understand more over time about all the details of its nuclear reactions),
the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old (give or take a bunch of millions),
Evolution happens (we learn more about the drivers of it all the time) and CO2's GW forcing coefficient is pretty well established (we might refine our measurements).

Now new pathways showed how Methane (besides its own GW forcing coefficient which remained settled) interacts with and destroys some aerosols that were thought to offset some of the GW forcing of CO2 and Methane. So add that to the tally of Methane and presto more GW forcing caused indirectly by Methane than before!
It means that the figures of the IPCC models might need indeed revising upward (i.e more warming coming our way than was thought).
So I am not so sure what exactly excites you about this so much.

[Mack]

What a load of crap you talk Everth .
"CO2's GW forcing coefficient is pretty well established"
AHhahahahahaha.
Nothing has been "established" in the earths open atmosphere let alone a mythical CO2 "forcing"

[Music_master]

I think you are not quite right and you should still studying the matter.