Source: Science Bits
Posts Tagged ‘models’
Source: American Thinker
Imagine that you are a climate scientist and the Earth is threatened with a climate disaster. You need to warn the people of Earth and lobby Earth’s governments. If you are tired of poring over boring computer printouts, you may be only too ready to accept this mission of transcendent importance.
On the other hand, maybe you have lost touch with reality. Maybe you have become a true believer fighting a dubious battle. Maybe you are Dr. James Hansen, high civil servant, recipient of cash awards from left-wing foundations, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen was arrested in front of the White House, dressed up to look like J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 1950s scientific martyr. Hansen wants CEOs of energy companies to be prosecuted for “crimes against humanity.” (more…)
Source: National Affairs
CLIMATE researchers should spend less time in front of computer screens building predictive models and more time in the field observing and interpreting “hard or real data”, an internationally recognised coastal science expert and publisher has warned.
Charles Finkl, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Coastal Research, which published a peer-reviewed study by NSW researcher Phil Watson that rekindled a fierce debate about sea level rises, said modelling was necessary but should be taken with a grain of salt.
He accused the CSIRO of refusing to consider questions raised by Mr Watson’s research for its modelling, predicting a worst-case scenario sea level rise of up to 1.1m by 2100. (more…)
Prediction That Global Warming Causes More Storms Fails Empirical Testing – IPCC Climate Models WrongThursday, August 11th, 2011
Source: C3 Headlines
Read here. The IPCC’s climate models and its “consensus” of 97% of climate scientists have proven to be robustly wrong again. The prediction that global warming will cause an increase of storms with greater frequency does not hold up to empirical-based scrutiny.
Alexander et al. published a peer-reviewed study that found storms in the southeast region of Australia showing a significant reduction since the late 19th century.
“…analyzed storminess across the whole of southeast (SE) Australia using extreme (standardized seasonal 95th and 99th percentiles) geostrophic winds deduced from eight widespread stations possessing sub-daily atmospheric pressure observations dating back to the late 19th century…The four researchers report that their results “show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the past century.” More specifically, they say that “in nearly all regions and seasons, linear trends estimated for both storm indices over the period analyzed show a decrease,” while “in terms of the regional average series,” they say that “all seasons show statistically significant declines in both storm indices, with the largest reductions in storminess in autumn and winter.” [Lisa V. Alexander, Xiaolan L. Wang, Hui Wan, Blair Trewin 2011: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal]
Sundal, A.V., Shepherd, A., Nienow, P., Hanna, E., Palmer, S. and Huybrechts, P. 2011. Melt-induced speed-up of Greenland ice sheet offset by efficient subglacial drainage. Nature 469: 521-524.
According to Sundal et al. (2011), “fluctuations in surface melting are known to affect the speed of glaciers and ice sheets,” but these authors say that “their impact on the Greenland ice sheet in a warming climate remains uncertain,” citing Meehl et al. (2007), while further noting, in this regard, that “although some studies suggest that greater melting produces greater ice-sheet acceleration (Zwally et al., 2002; Parizek and Alley, 2004),” others have identified a long-term decrease in Greenland’s flow despite increased melting (van de Wal et al., 2008).”
In a study designed to further explore this important subject, and based on data for five different years (1993 and 1995-1998), Sundal et al. used “satellite observations of ice motion recorded in a land-terminating sector of southwest Greenland to investigate the manner in which ice flow develops during years of markedly different melting.” So what did they find? (more…)
by Patrick Michaels
There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?
If you read the news stories surrounding a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and three colleagues, you’d say yes, indeed. It’s China’s fault. By dramatically increasing their combustion of coal, they have increased the concentration of fine particles in the atmosphere called sulphate aerosols, which reflect away solar radiation, countering the warming that should be occurring from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. (more…)
A new report by the US National Research Council, “America’s Climate Choices,” reaffirms the above
observation. The report calls for urgent action to stop carbon dioxide emissions and states that uncertainty
about climate science and the sensitivity of the planet to increasing greenhouse gases is not a reason for
inaction, but “a compelling reason for action.”
The scientific section “Advances the Science of Climate Change” was published in 2010. It repeats the,
now, usual litany of disasters that will result if carbon dioxide emissions are not controlled. The report is
based on the findings of the IPCC and its models. The following quote from the “Report in Brief” is
Source: CO2 Science
by Craig and Sherwood Idso
This week we announce the release of our newest major report, Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path. Based on the voluminous periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has come to be viewed as a monumental danger — not only to human society, but to the world of nature as well. But are the horrific “doomsday scenarios” promulgated by the climate alarmists as set-in-stone as the public is led to believe? Do we really know all of the complex and interacting processes that should be included in the models upon which these scenarios are based? And can we properly reduce those processes into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future? At present, the only way to properly answer these questions is to compare climate model projections with real-world observations. Theory is one thing, but empirical reality is quite another. The former may or may not be correct, but the latter is always right. As such, the only truly objective method to evaluate climate model projections is by comparing them with real-world data. (more…)
by P. Gosselin
The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the German media are now in full panic mode. They can no longer get their stories straight.
Desperate to stem the flood of doubt now sweeping Germany, as the country is gripped by its harshest December in 100 years, including record snowfalls in Potsdam, the hyper-alarmist PIK and the German media are now throwing all they’ve got to explain away the embarrassing cold.
For years they preached endlessly that Germany would be experiencing balmy, southern European-type winters. Snow indeed had been relegated to the history books. The tables have since turned.
Everybody had predicted a brutal winter
Back in late summer and fall, meteorologists like Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi, and other German private forecasters, were all predicting cold winters ahead. Even Russian and Polish scientists had forecast the possibility of the harshest winter in a 1000 years. But the PIK and Met Office climatologists scoffed. The Met Office in England even went so far as to forecast a mild and wet winter, again.
Climate science has painted itself into a corner, seriously damaging the public’s faith in the field — as precious a commodity as there is in civil society. Like lab rats that will do anything to keep the cocaine flowing, climate scientists, universities, and federal laboratories are addicted to the public’s money.
The latest illustration of this sad new reality is the letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) of one of the lions of science, Harold Lewis, emeritus professor at University of California–Santa Barbara.
In his letter, Lewis rightly states that it is the global-warming-research industry, “with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS with it like a rogue wave.” Specifically, Lewis objects to the heavy-handed way in which APS quashed and impeded any attempt to modify its outrageous 2007 “national policy” statement on climate change. (more…)
Models Warm the Lower Troposphere Too Much: A Fingerprint Test with Updated Data (22 Sep 2010)
Climate models predict a hotspot of atmospheric warming in the tropical troposphere, but a new analysis suggests that real data do not show this hotspot, based on several types of surface and tropospheric data. Read More
Improved Analysis of Grace Data Shows Ice Accumulation in Greenland and Lower Global Ice Loss than Previous Studies (22 Sep 2010)
Estimates of current rates of ice loss for Greenland and Antarctica have been reduced by a factor of two, suggesting that almost none of the sea level rise over the past decade is due to glacial ice loss, which finding is rather odd if you believe the climate alarmist claim that the earth has experienced unprecedentedly warm air temperatures due to global warming over this interval. Read More
The Medieval Warm Period at Lake Silvaplana in Switzerland (22 Sep 2010)
Results of a new temperature reconstruction from Switzerland reveal that there is nothing unprecedented, unusual or unnatural about the level of warmth that has been reached during the Current Warm Period. Read More (more…)
Source: Resilient Earth
Doug L. Hoffman
With all of the hype over CO2 emissions, one fact that is not usually addressed is where all the CO2 is supposed to come from. Most assume that, in order to avoid the ravages of global warming, we need to shut down all our fossil fuel electric plants, park our cars and take to planting trees 24×7. But the assumptions used in the IPCC scenarios are seldom examined in detail. In reality they are based on projected changes in population, economic growth, energy demand, and the estimated carbon intensity of energy over time. A new study in the journal Science calculated cumulative future emissions based on existing infrastructure and found a surprising result. The investigators concluded that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to be built. In other words, they made the whole thing up—the IPCC’s models are making predictions based on a future that will never happen. (more…)
Source: Debunk House
by David Middleton
Dr. James Hansen is the Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is right up there with Al Gore, Michael Mann and the Climategate CRU on the list of people helping the UN to swindle the United States and other western democracies out of trillions of dollars through his promotion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.
Hansen kind of got the ball rolling in 1988 with his publication of a climate model that predicted dire global warming over the next 20 years if mankind did not stop burning fossil fuels… Hansen et al. 1988.
Hansen constructed three scenarios… “Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” (more…)
Source: CO2 Science
by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
In his 26 April 2007 testimony before the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives entitled “Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate,” NASA’s James Hansen stated that life in alpine regions is “in danger of being pushed off the planet” in response to continued greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. Why? Because that’s what all the species distribution models of the day predicted at that time. Now, however, a set of new-and-improved models is raising some serious questions about Hansen’s overly zealous contention, as described in a “perspective” published in Science by Willis and Bhagwat (2009). (more…)
Source: World Climate Report
One of the standard tenets of the global warming bible is that malaria will get worse as temperatures rise. We’ve addressed this many times before, primarily by noting that the link between high temperatures and high malaria infection rates is anything but straightforward. Infectious disease expert Paul Reiter is quick to point out that malaria has been observed inside the Arctic Circle…and this is obviously not typical of a so-called “tropical” disease. (more…)