Category Archives: Climate Models

Perceived Scientists Consensus is No Substitute for Scientific Correctness

“In May of 2016, a survey by Nature revealed that over two thirds of researchers surveyed had tried and failed to reproduce the results of another scientist’s study. Over half of them had been unable to reproduce their own results. Fifty two percent of researchers polled said there was a “significant crisis” of reproducibility.” click here

The “End of Snow” is near in California.

“Climate scientists regularly embarrass themselves with “end of snow” predictions, because they are an inevitable consequence of the “projections” (don’t say predictions) of their runaway climate models.” click here

Climate models for the layman

From the Executive Summary (here):

There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. GCM outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.

Key summary points

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.

IPCC Objectives and Methods Biased Against Sound Science

“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer model projections are unfailingly wrong. Projections for three scenarios, High, Medium and Low, are consistently high compared to the actual temperature. There is something fundamentally wrong with their work and claims. They should not be the basis of any policy, public or private. The following statement from Assessment Report (AR4) is untenable given the projection results.” click here

ClimateGate Peer-Review Nonsense

A reminder from the past about how peer-review can be abused: 

“So, what’s going on here is that Phil Jones is trying to influence a review of a paper that officemate Tim Osborn is doing, but he wants people he’s asking to “forget” that he ever inquired about the issue so that Phil [ensures Tom] is “squeaky clean” when it comes to his opinion.”  Click here for WUWT

 

Dicaprio’s Film “Beyond the Flood” Debunked

““Beyond the Flood” even pays lip service to now debunked climate research, the “hockey stick” graph. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the hockey stick for years to illustrate rapid global warming, but it has proven it to be fabricated. Rather than interviewing climatologists who disagree with the concept of imminent catastrophic man-made warming, the documentary labels dissenters as scientifically ignorant deniers.” click here

Is the NASA Surface Temperature Record an Accurate Representation?

T. Heller. Chapter 3 – Is the NASA Surface Temperature Record an Accurate Representation? Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)
Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming
2016, pp.49-59.

It is widely accepted that there has been about 1.5°C surface temperature warming across the planet since about 1880, and this is causing polar ice to melt and an increase in the frequency of hot days. Multiple data sets from NOAA, NASA, and CRU show approximately the same behavior.

However, earlier versions of the same data sets from the same organizations showed much less historical warming. Historical data has been systematically altered over the past 15 years to cool past temperatures and increase more recent temperatures. The amount of warming from 1880 to 2000 is now shown by NASA as double what was shown in 2001. Going back further to the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report, we see a completely different story—where all 1900–40 warming was lost by 1970.

This chapter shows evidence of data tampering, historical obfuscation, and collusion—to reach the current consensus among the small group of people who control this critical data. It also shows that periods of Arctic/glacial melting are cyclical and have been seen in the recent past.