We are shown the results of computer model programmes that predict an apocolyptic future, these programs are based on modelling 16 (yes thats right only 16) parameters, many are considered by the IPCC as having a very low and low level of scientific understanding. Do the models incorporate the ocean cycles? or the atmosphere/ocean interactions? No they dont. There are many more parameters that they do not incorporate, but wait thats not all. We are expected to believe in these computer programmes because the IPCC scientists are in general agreement with them even though they predict a hot spot where no such thing exists. Without a hotspot there is no global warming.
I think crakar means 16 forcings are incorporated into model hindcasts and future projections. This is more or less in accord with what I have read. I am curious as to which important forcings have been omitted? I don’t find that a shockingly low number and where is the reason to believe it has not been very carefully and fully considered by climate modelers?
The next part of his point is the appeal to uncertainty. It never fails to amaze me how this argument can be raised in completely obliviousness to the fact that uncertainty cuts both ways. So we don’t have a firm grasp on the complexity of clouds in the climate system, why must that mean that models are over estimating the potential warming? They could as easily be underestimating. In fact, we have a great example of an uncertain set of models drastically underestimating change in the arctic sea ice. Not one credible scientific source (er..that I know of…) from, say, 10 years ago was predicting the minimum extents and volumes of arctic sea ice we are seeing now. Five years ago? I don’t think so. These models failed, but they did not fail on the side that climate ostriches assume they must.
As to the hotspot, we had a thread on this already. This is an example of using an uncertain and developing area of research to draw wildly over confident conclusions. For starters, it is no simple matter measuring temperatures in the troposphere. The WUWT crowd loves to point out how unreliable a good old fashioned thermometer sitting in a box can be, but have not a whit of hesitation in accepting readings from weather ballons that can’t control their altitude or orientation and satellites trying to measure microwave radiation from all levels of the atmosphere as a proxy for temperature. Those are hard problems.
But the key fallacy of the missing hot spot argument is that it is the finger print of CO2 enhanced warming, it is actually an expected signature of warming from many causes, including solar driven warming. Stratospheric cooling on the other hand, well documented by those favoured satellite measurements, is distinctive and related to an enhanced greenhouse effect. It is not related to solar driven warming, warming caused by ocean cycles like the PDO or warming caused by galactic cosmic rays. This cooling is very clear and very pronounced.
Without a hotspot there is no global warming.
(image taken from this page)