Judith Curry: Natural variability – does she get it?

I finally got around to reading the great article in the Spectator about Judith Curry:

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

Which is interesting, because she’s starting to understand the “boundary problem” of academia which rejects anything it doesn’t like as “outsiders” and should any “outsider” dare to propose anything scientific, the response is to attack them as “pseudo-science” and “science deniers”.
However, far more important is this phrase:

Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles.

As I wrote in Formal concepts of noise within Science climate science lacks any concept of “natural variation”. The consequence, is that it assumes the climate is driven by “external forcings” – and then it divides up any changes between those “drivers”. And because CO2 is a conveniently increasing “driver” that starts being recorded in 1958 -leaving only a decade of “global cooling” to be explained – and alongside temperatures till 1998 – it was very easy to assign the total temperature rise to CO2. (By using a scaling factor increasing the predicted warming from CO2 on its own of 0.6-1.2C** by fabricating “mythical” feedbacks to raise the CO2 warming as high as 5.8C.
Thus by (falsely) asserting that there was no natural variation – and therefore there was nothing else could have caused the change – by ignoring the patently obvious changes in the historical record of CET that proved natural variation has always been present – by picking just a few select “drivers” that were then the only things allowed to explain the (naturally varying) global temperature – ignoring the fact the curves did not fit, and that there was one almighty pause from 1998 when temperatures did not rise but CO2 levels did – the alarmists (falsely) justified up to 5x increase in the expected warming from CO2 from around 1C up to 5.8C.
That was not just unscientific, it was criminally fraudulent – as this fabrication of a link  was intentionally hidden from the gullible politicians so that they were wholly misled about the validity of this scaling resulting in fraudulent predictions.

Natural Variability explains all the 20th century climate change

The simple fact as I demonstrated in Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal is that we expected climate to vary as it did in the 20th century. So, far from seeing anything abnormal, what we saw was the normal natural changes that have occurred in the earth’s climate for billions of years and will continue to occur for billions of years and nothing any of us do can change that.
And once we accept that simple provable fact, that all the 20th century change can be explained by natural variation – there is absolutely no need to invent bogus mythical feedbacks to scale up the supposed effect of CO2 from 0.6C (latest Hitran calcs) or 1.2C ** to up to 5.8C warming as they did. Instead, the best we can say is that “CO2 is expected to cause some warming – but the scale of that warming is less than natural variation – so we cannot attribute previous warming, nor can we predict any more warming than around 0.6-1.2**C in the next century
**The 1.2C figure is that still used by the IPCC, but it is way out of date & now arguably fraudulent because calculations by Hermann Harde using the later versions of the HITRAN database give a much lower figure. This smells of fraud – because there appears to be no reason why an older figure would be used except that it gives a higher figure of warming.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.