The Weather Is Making Alarmist Gavin Schmidt ‘Uneasy’

Written by Climate Discussion Nexus on November 29, 2024. Posted in Current News

Gavin Schmidt, a leading American government climate alarmist who goes by @ClimateOfGavin on X, just made a startling statement in the New York Times along with the like-minded Zeke Hausfather: the science is not settled

Instead:

“the unusual jump in global temperatures starting in mid-2023 appears to be higher than our models predicted (even as they generally remain within the expected range)….

While there have been many partial hypotheses – new low-sulfur fuel standards for marine shipping, a volcanic eruption in 2022, lower Chinese aerosol emissions and El Niño perhaps behaving differently than in the recent past – we remain far from a consensus explanation even more than a year after we first noticed the anomalies.

And that makes us uneasy.”

Funnily enough it has the opposite effect on us.

It’s absolutely vital that scientists, whatever they believe, are willing to notice and say out loud when something happens that doesn’t fit their theory and admit that it matters.

It doesn’t mean they’re in our camp on the “climate crisis”. But it does mean they’re thinking and talking more like scientists and less like members of Agitprop. And it’s a good thing.

Now when it comes to admitting uncertainty, don’t expect too much too soon. In the elision in our opening paragraph they wrote:

“We know human activities are largely responsible for the long-term temperature increases, as well as sea level rise, increases in extreme rainfall and other consequences of a rapidly changing climate.”

And we left in their hyperlink because it’s to a New York Times op ed by that selfsame Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, back in 2018, which began by discussing multiple influences on climate only to deep-six them with:

“even taking into account uncertainties in the amount of air pollution in the 19th century or in estimating global temperatures through time, scientists have concluded that the current warmth is impossible to explain without human contributions.

It is on a par with the likelihood that a DNA match at a crime scene is purely coincidental.”

The younger Schmidt felt no doubts:

“Even more convincingly, these trends aren’t just being attributed in hindsight.

The rate of surface warming was predicted in the 1980s, the cooling in the upper atmosphere was forecast in a 1967 scientific paper, and specific measurements from space indicate that the total greenhouse effect has been enhanced exactly as theory would predict.”

Maybe older wiser Schmidt has learned some humility since the famous models have been shown systematically to overstate warming because of their singular fixation, even obsession, with CO₂, and measurements of the ‘greenhouse effect’ from space have been going in the opposite direction from predictions.

And maybe he shouldn’t be citing himself to prove that uncertainty is certainty and that “The forensics have spoken, and we are to blame.”

Oh well. One thing at a time. And both Schmidt the Elder and Hausfather now say:

“Why is it taking so long for climate scientists to grapple with these questions?

It turns out that we do not have systems in place to explore the significance of shorter-term phenomena in the climate in anything approaching real time.

But we need them badly. It’s now time for government science agencies to provide more timely updates in response to the rapid changes in the climate.”

Which at least clarifies the paradox, noted by many in our audience, that scientists say the science is settled and more money is needed for research. Specifically theirs, though it’s the ‘deniers’ who are in it for the money.

Worse, after clamouring for more and better data when the problem is dubious speculation about data, they say regarding information that “can take years to collect and process” that:

“Scientists should be able to provide ‘good enough’ estimates of these inputs faster using reasonable assumptions.”

Assumptions, Right. As in cover gaps in data by assuming the theory is right, and then use the “results” to prove the theory is right.

So these lads have a long way to go before they become real climate scientists, a term here meaning people who use real scientific methods to understand climate.

But at least in a small way they have admitted that the science is not settled, that things are happening in the real world that the models can’t predict or even explain, and that the solution is not to blame the world but to improve the models.

See more here climatediscussionnexus

Some bold and italic emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.