Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, by Ste

[Peter1469]

An interesting article that explains climate science is much less mature than we assume. And why it matters.


Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, by Steven E. Koonin

On January 8, 2014, at New York University in Brooklyn, there occurred a unique event in the annals of global warming: nearly eight hours of structured debate between three climate scientists supporting the consensus on manmade global warming and three climate scientists who dispute it, moderated by a team of six leading physicists from the American Physical Society (APS) led by Dr. Steven Koonin, a theoretical physicist at New York University. The debate, hosted by the APS, revealed consensus-supporting climate scientists harboring doubts and uncertainties and admitting to holes in climate science – in marked contrast to the emphatic messaging of bodies such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


At one point, Koonin read an extract from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report released the previous year. Computer model-simulated responses to forcings – the term used by climate scientists for changes of energy flows into and out of the climate system, such as changes in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – “can be scaled up or down.” This scaling included greenhouse gas forcings.


Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming.

The ensuing dialogue between Koonin and Dr. William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – a lead author of the climate model evaluation chapter in the Fifth Assessment Report – revealed something more troubling and deliberate than holes in scientific knowledge:

Read the rest of the article at the link.

[MMC]

Cmon man.....theres a Climate crisis donchaknows. Its settled.

[Peter1469]

Apparently not. Notice the discussions of computer models and the admissions about gaps in the data filled with guesses. And removing some data in the conclusion which raises projected temps a lot more than we see occuring.

[skepticalmike]

Steve Koonin isn't a climate scientist an isn't qualified to give intelligent opinions on the subject. He has a history of making misleading and erroneous statements.

RealClimate: Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science This article points out errors and flaws in Steve Koonin's 56 minute video on the need for a red team.

The climate models vary greatly in their accuracy so one cannot conclude that climate models over project future warming by 30%.

• Dr. Koonin: But if the model tells you that you got the response to the forcing wrong by 30 percent, you should use that same 30 percent factor when you project out a century.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief 2017 article


Difference in 1970-2016 mean warming rate versus observations


IPCC 1 +17%

IPCC 2 -20%

IPCC3 -14%

IPCC4 +8%

IPCC5 +16% (+9% based on a model using blended land/ocean fields)


Conclusion

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

[Chris]

Steve Koonin isn't a climate scientist an isn't qualified to give intelligent opinions on the subject. He has a history of making misleading and erroneous statements.

RealClimate: Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science This article points out errors and flaws in Steve Koonin's 56 minute video on the need for a red team.

The climate models vary greatly in their accuracy so one cannot conclude that climate models over project future warming by 30%.

• Dr. Koonin: But if the model tells you that you got the response to the forcing wrong by 30 percent, you should use that same 30 percent factor when you project out a century.

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief 2017 article


Difference in 1970-2016 mean warming rate versus observations


IPCC 1 +17%

IPCC 2 -20%

IPCC3 -14%

IPCC4 +8%

IPCC5 +16% (+9% based on a model using blended land/ocean fields)


Conclusion

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.

Your first source suffers the same thing you claim for Koonin: "isn't a climate scientist an isn't qualified to give intelligent opinions on the subject." The arguments there are really pretty poor.

Koonan's argument seems to be that climate models show a lot of variation. IPCC is not a climate model. It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One supposes they base their opinions of models but those opinions too show a great deal of variation.

Even you admit models show great variation: "some were too low and some too high."

That "they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred" is a value judgment.

[skepticalmike]

My first source is Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.org who is: Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award-winning climate science blog RealClimate.

I can say without equivocation that I would not have made the mistakes that Steve Koonin made if I had wrote a book on the state of climate science. He cherry picks data, makes straw man arguments , and doesn't seem to know basic things

about the climate that I know and that anyone who as spent quite a bit of time studying the subject would know.


This article at Climate Feedback exposes many of his errors: Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’ – Climate Feedback

[Chris]

My first source is Gavin Schmidt at realclimate.org who is: Gavin A. Schmidt is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, and co-founder of the award-winning climate science blog RealClimate.

I can say without equivocation that I would not have made the mistakes that Steve Koonin made if I had wrote a book on the state of climate science. He cherry picks data, makes straw man arguments , and doesn't seem to know basic things

about the climate that I know and that anyone who as spent quite a bit of time studying the subject would know.


This article at Climate Feedback exposes many of his errors: Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin’s new book ’Unsettled’ – Climate Feedback

Well, great, Gavin's a climatologist who can't write worth a lick and lacks all logic. I'm not addressing Gavin the person, but Gavin's article.

No one has here pointed to a single mistake by Koonin. You make the claim but do nothing to demonstrate it, and no, I'm not going on another wild goose chase to find those mistakes oer yonder.