Nature is ‘conspiring’ against climate models

From the abstract of Gavin Schmidt’s latest

Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations. Conspiring factors of errors in volcanic and solar inputs, representations of aerosols, and El Niño evolution, may explain most of the discrepancy.

Hubert Lamb offered this thirty years ago

it is clear beyond any doubt that there are other influences which also change climate and which were deeply involved in the last glaciation in particular. (The Earth’s orbital changes and volcanic dust can both be specified in this case). So, one must be suspicious of attempts to explain all the major turns of the Earth’s temperature history in terms of just one variable such as carbon dioxide alone.

Sometimes, the whole rise of world temperature in recent centuries (indicated by receding glaciers as well as available thermometer records) since the industrial revolution has been, perhaps more plausible, attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide. However, even this case seems more than doubtful when we examine the longest actual thermometer records.

The great oscillation of the prevailing temperature level amounting to almost 1.5 degrees in the 10-year means, that affected much of Europe, as well as Iceland, and perhaps wider regions of the world, between about 1690 and 1740—by far the greatest change in the record—cannot be explained by carbon dioxide changes or any human agency. It may be, but cannot be proved, that changes in the amount of volcanic activity or a fluctuation of the Sun were the dominant influences. Whatever models we produce must express a balance between the influences at work and their possible interactions.

h/t Bishop Hill


2 thoughts on “Nature is ‘conspiring’ against climate models

  1. A choice of words from Dr Schmidt that is most revealing about the state of mind of those holded up in the bastion of the virtuous. It reminds me of Hubert Lamb’s investigations of another conspiracy of nature against the hubris of man. Maybe Schmidt, with his robust models, feels a bit like that Spanish duke when an extraordinary alignment of circumstances produced the weather pattern that caused his invincible armada of ships to be smashed to pieces.

  2. yes, ”nature” is not cooperating with the models; because those ”models” are not taking in consideration the ”earth’s SELF ADJUSTING MECHANISM”

    Also, ”nature” doesn’t cooperate with Hubert Lamb’s &Ian Plimer’s crap. Small example: they made LIA as ”global event” because Thames river was frozen for few days…?
    Last year ”nature” frizzed Danube river, Danube is 10 times larger river and 1000 miles closer to the equator than Thames = under their lies; previous year should have being declared as; Midi Ice Age for few hundred years. b] locust damaged African crops = less harvest; should be declared as ”global warming or global cooling” blame the locust for changing the global temp… WOW

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s