Source: Climatesense -Norpag
Source: Climatesense -Norpag
Source: Daily Caller
Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog. (more…)
Source: CO2 Science
Long, M.C., Lindsay, K., Peacock, S., Moore, J.K. and Doney, S.C. 2013. Twentieth-century oceanic carbon uptake and storage in CESM1(BGC). Journal of Climate 26: 6775-6800.
The authors indicate that over the last two centuries the world’s oceans have absorbed 25-30% of the total amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere by fossil-fuel burning, cement production and land-use changes, citing Sabine et al. (2004) and Le Quere et al. (2009); and they say that this oceanic carbon sink has partially mitigated the CO2-induced warming of the globe by slowing the rate-of-rise in the air’s CO2 content. Hence, they state that “mechanistic representation of oceanic carbon uptake and storage is essential to robust climate prediction.” (more…)
Source: Utah Policy. Com
The website, Utah Policy.Com, sports itself as where “political junkies get their daily fix.” However, one current offering is a bit of fantasy, featuring another model driven “alarm in – alarm out” study (sic) concerning water resources in the Rockies:
Trashing real science to protect grants, prestige, and desire to control energy, economy, lives
by Paul Driessen and Dennis Mitchell
Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.
The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures; cyclical droughts and floods in Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years. (more…)
Source: Global Warming.org
by Marlo Lewis
In a new report, Heritage Foundation analysts Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer examine the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy, or DICE, model — one of three computer programs the EPA uses to calculate the social cost of carbon (SCC).
The SCC is an estimate of how much damage an incremental ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions allegedly does to the economy over time periods as long as 300 years. The model examined by the Heritage analysts is called Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy, or DICE. Dayaratna and Kreutzer find that DICE is “flawed beyond use for policymaking.” Fittingly, they title their report: Loaded DICE: An EPA Model Not Ready for the Big Game.
They find that DICE estimates “shift substantially with reasonable alternatives to just a few assumptions” made by the EPA. Specifically: (more…)
Source: Climate Etc.
by Judith Curry
How should we interpret the growing disagreement between observations and climate model projections in the first decades of the 21st century? What does this disagreement imply for the epistemology of climate models?
One issue that I want to raise is the implications of the disagreement between climate models and observations in the 21st century, as per Fig 11.25 from the AR5.
Panel b) indicates that the IPCC views the implications to be that some climate models have a CO2 sensitivity too high — they lower the black vertical bar (indicating the likely range from climate models) to account for this. And they add the ad hoc red stippled range, which has a slightly lower slope and lowered range that is consistent with the magnitude of the current model/obs discrepancy. The implication seems that the expected warming over the last decade is lost, but future warming will continue at the expected (albeit slightly lower) pace. (more…)
Source: FOX NEWS
The Earth has changed in “unprecedented ways” since 1950, the U.N. says, and its scientists are 95 percent certain that humans are responsible.
Yet the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years, data shows — and a landmark report released Friday by the U.N.’s climate group could not explain why the mercury has stopped rising.
Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office, a trend current models of the world’s climate have been unable to predict. A draft of the report leaked in early September acknowledged that trend and put it bluntly: We simply can’t explain it.
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.”
by Dr David Whitehouse
The media’s handling of the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature has been a failure for science communication and science journalism.
This week’s IPCC AR5 report will state that the ‘pause’ in the global land and sea surface temperature observed since 1997 is a real and unexplained phenomenon, despite the IPCC’s head Rajendra Pachauri’s puzzling denial on the BBC Today programme (no link available yet) that it even exists.
The fact is nobody predicted it, and it’s inclusion in the IPCC report is central to any assessment of the climate, where it has been and where it is going. At a stroke this takes away one of the major lines of argument against anyone who had questioned the previous orthodoxy that the global surface temperature showed a steady and predictable rise.
It has been said many times that computer models can explain the global temperature for the last 30 years – the period of the recent global warming spell. Even if that was true some years ago it is no longer. The fact that the ‘pause’ is unexplained means that the last 30 years are not reproducible in a way that is satisfactory. (more…)
Source: Rush Limbaugh
All of these models that they constructed over the years predicted calamity by now, and the calamity never happened. I was still living in California 1985, and I’m watching This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday morning, and there’s this guy named Oppenheimer, and he’s a global warming guy. He’s saying, “We’ve got 20 years!” This is 1985, and he says, “We’ve got 20 years! I don’t know if we’re right, we’re not sure if we’re right, but we can’t take the chance! (more…)
Source: FOX NEWS
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990′s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred. (more…)
By MATT RIDLEY
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet. (more…)
The British Met Office [formerly, Metrological Office] produced three reports with titles starting with “The recent pause in global warming:” David Whitehead observes that the reports may say more about the messenger than the message. Among other things, the reports imply there is nothing unusual about the current standstill. Which would come as a surprise to the EPA and its certainty in its findings. One of the models that was run multiple times reproduces the pause – which speaks to the lack of rigor in the models.
Perhaps the models can be likened to a pot of hot water in which gelatin has been dissolved. The final form depends upon the mold in which it is cooled, with temperature data being the mold.
The reports also suggest the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean. How a warming of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect takes place, thousands of feet above the surface enters the deep oceans without leaving is trace is a mystery to be explained.
The reports also state that the highest level of projected warming has been reduced, and that the most likely level is reduced by 10%. Although the terms verified and validity are mentioned, there is no effort to rigorously validate the models. At least the Met Office recognizes there is a pause, which is something that the US Administration does not.
Full SEPP report here
By P Gosselin
Now that global temperatures have not risen in 15 years, a number of scientists find themselves having great difficulty coming to terms with that new reality.
The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) in Hamburg is no exception. For years the institute insisted that the man-made climate catastrophe was real and happening now. Today it finds itself scrambling for a backdoor. “Otto et al” is that back door. (more…)
Source: Bishop Hill
It has been widely claimed that the increase in global temperatures since the late 1800s is too large to be reasonably attributed to natural random variation. Moreover, that claim is arguably the biggest reason for concern about global warming. The basis for the claim has recently been discussed in the UK Parliament. It turns out that the claim has no basis, and scientists at the Met Office have been trying to cover that up.
The Parliamentary Question that started this was put by Lord Donoughue on 8 November 2012. The Question is as follows.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government … whether they consider a rise in global temperature of 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880 to be significant. [HL3050]
The Answer claimed that “the temperature rise since about 1880 is statistically significant”. This means that the temperature rise could not be reasonably attributed to natural random variation — i.e. global warming is real. (more…)