Judith Curry gør op med et konsensus

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 10, 2015 at 9:04 pm

En af de mest sejlivede myter i klimadebatten er myten om det videnskabeligt konsensus. Ofte citeres en undersøgelse, der påstår at 97% af alle relevante klimaforskere er enige i fortællingen om global opvarmning. Men, som Larry Bell forklarer til Forbes, har undersøgelsen en lang række gravende fejl, som den kun måler på to udsagn; 1) er temperaturen steget siden forrige århundrede? 2) Har mennesket indflydelse på klimaet?

FNs klimapanel blev nedsat med det formål at formulere et konsensus, således at politikerne havde lettere ved at orientere sig. Men selv om politiseringen af den videnskabelige debat ganske udadtil har skabt en illusion om konsensus så eksisterer uenighederne og tvivlen desuagtet. Judith Curry forklarer her hvorledes offentlige forskningskroner fordrejer klimaforskningen til at passe med konsensus

Og på Master Resource er der et sammendrag af hendes ponter, som de kom frem ved en høring for House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Bias from Climate Change Orthodoxy

The censure of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC consensus was particularly acute during the period 2005-2010. As revealed by the Climategate emails, there was a cadre of leading climate scientists that were working to sabotage the reviews of skeptical research papers (and presumably proposals for research funding). Further, scientists challenging climate change orthodoxy are subjected to vitriolic treatment in news articles, op-eds and blogs, damaging the public reputation of these scientists. I have heard from numerous scientists who are sympathetic to my efforts in challenging climate change orthodoxy, but are afraid to speak out or even publish skeptical research since they are fearful of losing their job.

Since 2010, things have improved somewhat especially in Europe; I think this has largely been due to reflections following Climategate and the fact that disagreement about climate change is not as starkly divided along the lines of political parties (i.e. the issue is somewhat less politicized). In the U.S., with President Obama’s recent pronouncements about climate denial and climate deniers (as anyone who does not agree with the consensus) has increased the toxicity of the environment (both academic and public) for scientists that question the IPCC consensus on climate change.

Climate Model Overwarming/Problems

Particularly for the past decade, climate models have been running too hot, predicting more warming than has been observed (refer to the figure on page 6 of my testimonyhttp://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/.

The discrepancies between observed surface temperatures and climate model simulations indicates that climate models are not useful for predicting climate on decadal time scales (out to 20 years) or for regional spatial scales. If the so-called warming hiatus continues for another few years, then the observations will be completely outside of the envelope of climate model predictions.

I have argued that climate models are not fit for the purpose of simulating decadal scale and regional climate variability. Climate models are mainly useful for scientific exploration of mechanisms in the climate system. Whether they are at all useful for projections of century scale climate change remains to be seen, but I am doubtful.

Lower-Sensitivity Modeling?

For the main climate models used in the CMIP5 simulations for the IPCC AR5, climate sensitivity is an emergent property and not one that is easily tuned. For simpler climate models, such as MAGICChttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/, climate sensitivity can be tuned, seehttp://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

10553515_10152287856623869_8189818733335583637_n

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress