…was told there would be no math:
His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
How could the sun possibly effect climate? Why, that’s just crazy talk!
I don’t see how this invalidates anything regarding global warming theory, other than CO2 being the culprit; the same remedy proposed to deal with CO2 can work to stop solar-caused warming.
Just tax the emissions (solar thermal emissions.). That’d work just as well as CO2 taxes would have had CO2 been the culprit.
It is surprising the lengths people go to claim the science is settled when the scientists know there is so much uncertainty on many different variables built into the models.
It isn’t ethical to gloss over failed predictions, failed models, or not to acknowledge the uncertainties built into these models.
I am told, and also believe, that one need not be religious to have ethics and morals but from time to time it would be nice to see the community that views science as a replacement of religion, it can’t btw, demonstrate a shred of ethical and moral behavior.