Why Are Rahmstorf And Foster Wrong? The Same Reasons All The Models Are Wrong


Over a year ago I wrote a post, If only……..

Here’s part of what I wrote……

If only we had a test earth that would include all of the variables, oscillating and cyclic events, and all of the other factors that go into our climate.  We could then drop in some CO2 and see how the test earth would react!

Then I did a little calculating…… please mind the emboldened verbiage. 

We have over 130 years of temperature measurements with the start point of atmospheric CO2 levels at ~280ppm.  Since then atmospheric CO2 has increased by almost 120ppm.  Or, 43% increase towards a doubling of CO2.  GISS puts the temperature rise at about 0.7°C – 0.8°C.  If GISS is accurate, and, if the posit of the relationship CO2 has with temps is correct, such as the logarithmic effect, then calculating a linear relationship would somewhat overestimate the expected heating.  The 0.8°C represents 43% of the next doubling of CO2.  0.8/0.43 = 1.86 expected linear increase to represent the high end.  0.7/0.43 =1.63 to represent the lower end.  Subtract the 0.8 from 1.86 for the already accomplished warmth and the 0.7 from the 1.63 for the high and low expected resultant.  Again, assuming the veracity of GISS is acceptable and the CO2/temp relationship exists, completion of the next doubling of CO2 (560 ppm) we can expect less than 1 degree increase when factoring in the posited logarithmic relationship.  Linearly we could expect a high/low 1.06/0.93 degree increase when atmospheric CO2 is at 560ppm.  All known and unknown cyclic and intermittent occurrences are included in the calculation except for those which occur outside the 130 year parameter.

Now, this is a bit simplistic, but, this is in essence how all models derive their projections.  Sure, some of them attempt to input some amplification values, such as assuming loss of albedo and then throwing those calculations into the formulas, but, in validation, all of them backcast!  That is to say, they create their formula and then see how it fits historically.  All of them assume a strong relationship between CO2 and temps.  When one looks at it that way, and the way I expressed above, the calculations include all ENSO events, all volcano eruptions, all solar variances, and everything else known and not known. 

Now, using this simple calculation it projects about a 1 degree rise in the temps.  Let’s say we go through a period of time where we have a couple El Ninos hit us, let’s say we have some solar activity, and the temps rise beyond the 1 degree the calculation projected.

Would it be correct for me to say my projection was correct if we subtracted the El Ninos from the end results?  Of course not, the original projecting included ENSO variances.  Such is the sophistry of Foster and Rahmstorf.  It becomes even more silly when one believes they can quantify the affects of volcanoes and ENSO.  You can’t.  See here for another view about how one can’t with ENSO.

Of course, these are just very few of the unquantifiable but known events which affect our climate.  And that’s why the models are consistently wrong.  We don’t know all of the factors which go into our climate, and we can’t know.  More, if we did know, we couldn’t possibly quantify them because our climate system is chaotic.  Are we in the middle of some yet unknown cyclic event beyond the 130 year parameter?  Probably.  This is why we end up with this… a continuation of the first graph which in no manner follows what the calculation projected, even though it included ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar variance. 


Even the idea one can average atmospheric CO2 is absurd. 


Note:  I don’t believe for a second the calculation in any way can predict reality.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Why Are Rahmstorf And Foster Wrong? The Same Reasons All The Models Are Wrong

  1. philjourdan says:

    ” I don’t believe for a second the calculation in any way can predict reality.” – Coincidences do happen. However coincidence is not causation.

  2. Latitude says:

    and on that note….
    There’s one on WUWT about predicting droughts…
    …..some nubnut sent a bunch of undergrads out to collect dirt – soil moisture
    People are posting crap about “good science”

    ….I don’t care if they sent them out to count the hairs on bull testicles
    this has nothing to do with ‘predicting’ droughts!

    Note: I don’t believe for a second the calculation in any way can predict reality.

    • suyts says:

      Yeh, I saw that. I didn’t think it appropriate for me to comment “LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL”

      The thing that frustrates me about some at WUWT is that they selectively buy into some of the silliness, when the bases of the silliness is of the stuff they reject.

  3. tckev says:

    I’ve been to Dollar Fried Chicken to get some more parts (bones) for my climate modeling set-up.
    The entrails only model did not accurately track the transfer energy from hot to cold via evaporation/condensation air thermal changes as clouds form.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I can poke a hole in Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 with one graph.

    This one, from Scafetta 2010 Fig 10.

    This is HadCRUT 3v global teperature dataset detrended by a quadratic equation, leaving the oceanic cyclic signal. I replicated it using the yearly average HadCRUT 3v dataset (link – note all info is there for anyone to replicate this themselves).

    One guess as to which period Foster & Rahmstorf used to draw their terrifying straight line trend.

    Draw a line up the slope of a sine curve you get a rising trend. That is not what scientists do. Political activists do this, not scientists.

    I love it when CAGW people bring up Foster & Rahmstorf which they do often. It makes it so easy to falsify their arguments, what few that they have. Almost always afterwards they get that glassy stare and wander off back to Huffpo and SkS where their religion is no longer painfully challenged.

  5. Jim Masterson says:

    I get tired of people telling me I’m not a climate scientist. (Climate scientist is an oxymoron anyway.) I’ve seen nothing in climate science that a typical second year engineering student couldn’t grasp in 30 seconds. As for math, I’ve taken advanced calculus, linear algebra (matrix theory), Boolean algebra, thermodynamics, and all that EE stuff like Laplace transforms and Bessel functions.

    As I said, I’m tired of their stupid nonsense. I was looking through my February issue of Nuts and Volts and saw an article on home 3D printers (http://www.nutsvolts.com/index.php?/blog/post/the_stuff_dreams_are_made_of). Now, there’s something to sink your teeth into. My grandson would fill the house full of amazing things (mostly cars), and he’s only in the second grade.

    Jim 😎

    • suyts says:

      That’s the thing about climate scientists. If there were such a thing, they wouldn’t know half about what they need to know to be an effective person of their vocation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s