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.