Climate Science: Put Up or Shut Up

The brilliant Rowan Dean.

Science Matters

That’s the theme of an article by Rowan Dean in The Courier-Mail, Australia:  Time for climate scientists to produce evidence that carbon dioxide emissions affect climate  Full text below with my bolds and images.

IT’S time for so-called climate scientists to either cough up one single, solitary shred of genuine scientific evidence that proves that the climate is being changed by mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions, or ‘fess up and admit that the whole thing is a gigantic hoax.

That’s the bottom line.

Asked at the beginning of this year for one of those “predictions for 2017”, I claimed that this would be the year the Australian public wakes up and realises they are being hoodwinked by the whole climate change/renewables scam.

I told Paul Murray’s lively late night TV show on Sky News that 2017 would be the year the climate con comes to an end. So how is my prediction…

View original post 689 more words

Advertisements

1970’s Climate Hysteria : Global Cooling – The Coming Ice Age

Time and GC.jpg

DEEP within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.

THE biggest selling environmental books in history, predict the mass destruction of the planet. Rachel Carson’s 1962 international bestseller “Silent Spring” predicted mass cancer from plant pesticides and DDT. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” 1968, argued on malthusian lines that population explosion would mean mass starvation around the world. People buy this stuff. They lap it up and books like this sell in droves, in a way that more reasonable books that say “hang on, lets look at the facts”, don’t.

THIS short YouTube video via our friends @Carbongate needs no introduction, and is a must watch..

•••

1970’s Global Cooling (Climate Change) Eco-scare related :

MORE 1970′s Global Cooling Scare Related :


NEW STUDY: Global Warming “Pause” Confirmed, Climate Models Wrong

Scafetta et al.png

FOLLOWING on from the landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience that concedes the world has not warmed as predicted this century, comes a new paper from Scafetta et al, confirming that the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” indeed lives on!

via GWPF :

ABSTRACT

The period from 2000 to 2016 shows a modest warming trend that the advocates of the anthropogenic global warming theory have labeled as the “pause” or “hiatus.” These labels were chosen to indicate that the observed temperature standstill period results from an unforced internal fluctuation of the climate (e.g. by heat uptake of the deep ocean) that the computer climate models are claimed to occasionally reproduce without contradicting the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) paradigm. In part 1 of this work, it was shown that the statistical analysis rejects such labels with a 95% confidence because the standstill period has lasted more than the 15 year period limit provided by the AGWT advocates themselves. Anyhow, the strong warming peak observed in 2015-2016, the “hottest year on record,” gave the impression that the temperature standstill stopped in 2014. Herein, the authors show that such a temperature peak is unrelated to anthropogenic forcing: it simply emerged from the natural fast fluctuations of the climate associated to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. By removing the ENSO signature, the authors show that the temperature trend from 2000 to 2016 clearly diverges from the general circulation model (GCM) simulations. Thus, the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.

1. INTRODUCTION

As explained in part 1 of this study [1], in the last decade future climate scenarios have been used to develop and politically enforce energy expensive policies to contrast catastrophic climate warming expectations for the 21st century. This has been done mostly by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2, 3, 4]. Several studies based on general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the Earth’s climate concluded that the 20th century climate warming and its future development depend almost completely on anthropogenic activities. Humans have been responsible of emitting in the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 throughout the combustion of fossil fuels. This paradigm is known as the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGWT).

However, before trusting GCM projections about future climatic changes, it is necessary to validate these models by testing whether they are able to properly reconstruct past climate changes. In Ref. [1], the authors have argued that since 2001 AGWT was actually supported by the belief that the “hockey stick” proxy temperature reconstructions, which claim that an unprecedented warming occurred since 1900 in the Northern Hemisphere, were reliable [2,5] and could be considered an indirect validation of the available climate models supporting the AGWT [6]. However, since 2005 novel proxy temperature reconstructions questioned the reliability of such hockey stick trends by demonstrating the existence of a large millennial climatic oscillation [7-10]. This natural climatic variability is confirmed by historical inferences [11] and by climate proxy reconstructions spanning the entire Holocene [12, 13]. A millennial climatic oscillation would suggest that a significant percentage of the warming observed since 1850 could simply be a recovery from the Little Ice Age of the 14th – 18th centuries and that throughout the 20th century the climate naturally returned to a warm phase as it happened during the Roman and the Medieval warm periods [9, 11, 14- 16].

To test the reliability of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) GCMs, in Ref. [1] it was shown that for the period 1860-2016 they predict an excessive warming relative to four independent global surface temperature reconstructions. This was a first significant discrepancy between observations and models. Then, it was noted that AGWT advocates had claimed that discrepancies between observation and modeled predictions could occur because of an unforced internal variability of the climate system that the same GCMs are able to predict [17].

These people were very explicit by providing the following scientific criterion to validate the models: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 year or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate” [18].

By using such a 15-year interval criterion, in Ref. [1] we tested the CMIP5 GCMs against the observations in the periods 1922-1941, 1980-1999 and 200-2016. The first two periods were selected because they are characterized by a strong and compatible warming rate but by very different rate of anthropogenic GHG emissions. On the contrary, the 2000- 2017 period is characterized by a very strong increase of anthropogenic GHG emissions while the temperature has been quasi stationary. Our statistical analysis [1] confirmed with a 95% confidence that the GCMs fail to properly reconstruct the temperature trends in 1922-1941 and in 2000-2017. Thus, according to the very criterion proposed by the AGWT advocates themselves, the GCMs used to support the AGWT are demonstrated to be flawed.

Herein, a detailed study of the natural climatic variability observed after 2000 in six available global temperature records versus the performance of the GCMs is carried out. We also critically analyze the year 2015-2016, which has been famed as the hottest year on record. We show that this anomaly is simply due to a strong El-Niño event that has induced a sudden increase of the global surface temperature by 0.6 oC. This event is unrelated to anthropogenic emissions. In fact, an even stronger El-Niño event occurred in 1878 when the sudden increase of the global surface temperature was 0.8 oC: see Figure 2 in Ref. [1]. Finally, for the post 2000 period we compare the predictions of the CMIP5 GCMs used by the IPCC [2013], against that of two semi-empirical models proposed a few years ago [15,19].

These models were based on a specific number of natural oscillations suggested by astronomical considerations plus an anthropogenic warming effect strongly reduced by 50% relative to the GCM predictions. We stress that the latter result is consistent with recent scientific literature findings [20] confirming that the real climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is about half, that is between 1 oC and 2 oC, than what predicted by the GCMs supporting the AGWT, which is about 3 oC [4].

Full paper

Warmist paper Millar et al confirming the warming slowdown in the first fifteen years of this century, contradicting UN IPCC Climate model simulations :

100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!

Times CMIP5.png

AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES

IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.

Christy CMIP5

UN IPCC CMIP5 Climate models Vs Observations – presented by John Christy PhD to US Senate Congress on Climate Change

 

SEPTEMBER 2017

Dr. Christy was 100% correct …

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

Screen Shot 2017-09-26 at , September 26, 6.46.02 AM

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” Myles Allen – professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford 

 

SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.

cagw.jpg

The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop

AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?

DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :

The pause is alive and well!

 

 

There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.

I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!

But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.

Climate change predictions — what went wrong? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :

The Writing Was On The Wall :

Global Warming “Pause” Related :


CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could

tim-flannery.jpeg

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

GLOBAL WARMING alarmists like to bully you into belief by attacking your apparent ‘overindulgent’ lifestyle, claiming that your AC, SUV, even your diet will leave a diminished planet for our “children’s, children’s, children!”. Dire forecasts always pushed out by generations so no one can keep tabs.

 

flannery rain.jpg

YET, as the Malthusians preach their favourite eco-memes from the comfort of their air-conditioned / centrally-heated, inner suburban eco-palaces, they care little about those who live on planet ‘struggle-street’, right now.

SUCH catastrophic prognostications will inevitably continue from hysterical climate pontificators, even as a landmark paper by warmist scientists in ‘Nature Geoscience’ now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. Begs the questions; who are the real science “deniers”? And, is that “science” really “settled”?

the-tim-flannery-prediction-years.jpg

Long term rainfall map for Melbourne showing the very short dry period when Professor Flannery made his predictions. Everything back to normal now! | Climate Change Denier

ANDREW BOLT writes an excellent piece in The Herald Sun on one of our favourite global warming climate change hysterics, Tim Flannery, whose alarmist predictions have led to radical climate policies that have cost Australian’s literally billions upon billions in green schemes and scams – virtuous offerings to the green faith that have helped to destroy Australia’s once thriving economy and ruined people’s livelihoods.

A MUST READ…

Billions wasted. Desalination plants mothballed. Power prices through the roof. Pensioners unable to pay for their heating. It’s time to count the shocking price we’ve paid for listening to global warming scaremongers like Tim Flannery.

Andrew Bolt: We’re paying for scientists’ climate of fear

AS THE panic ends, check out the shocking price we’ve paid by treating global warming scaremongers like Tim Flannery as our gurus.

Listening to these preachers cost us billions. In fact, we’re still paying the bills — just as some climate scientists are waking up to themselves and saying, “whoops”.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

BLAME YOUR POWER BILL SPIKE ON POLITICIANS’ GLOBAL WARMING CON

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ALL PAIN AND NO GAIN

Haven’t you heard? It turns out the science was not settled, after all, and sceptics were right to laugh at Flannery (pictured) and his richly paid gabble of Chicken Littles.

A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”

Another author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”

MORE ANDREW BOLT

Former chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery. Picture: Sam Mooy

That is actually not news to sceptics. Dr Roy Spencer, who runs one of the four main measurements of world temperature from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has pointed it out for years, but most journalists ignored him. Likewise, they’ve largely ignored that the predicted climate catastrophes have not happened, either.

We have had not more cyclones but fewer; not less rain in Australia but more; not fewer polar bears but more; and not worse crops but record ones, here and overseas.

So why have we wasted a fortune to cut the emissions we now learn aren’t actually causing a warming catastrophe — or certainly not as fast as first said? Why do we have horrendously expensive and mothballed desalination plants in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, still waiting for the drought we were told would be permanent?

Why have we also destroyed our cheap and reliable electricity system, replacing “dirty” coal-fired generators with so much dodgy wind and solar power that we now face blackouts and world-record prices?

True, it’s not all Flannery’s fault. It obviously takes more than one panic merchant to create such mayhem. But Flannery’s career should stand as a reproach to us all, particularly to hypsters who promoted him — the ABC, above all — and to the sheep who believed him.

Flannery is the mammologist who somehow emerged as our high priest of global warming, warning of Armageddon unless we repented our sins against Mother Earth. Our emissions had caused the rains to fail, he proclaimed. Perth could become the world’s first “ghost metropolis”, he warned in 2004.

Former Greens leader and environmentalist Bob Brown. Picture: Chris Kidd

“In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months,” he cried in 2007. And he topped it all that year with this: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

As I said, he wasn’t alone. Greens leader Bob Brown in 2006 agreed we faced the “spectre of permanent drought” and The Age quoted armies of alarmists, including the Bureau of Meteorology’s Bertrand Timbal: “We are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

So up went the desalination plants. Then down came the laughing rain, flooding Brisbane and filling dams.

You’d think that cosmic joke would have ended Flannery’s career and the global warming scare in one great thunderclap.

But no. Flannery, made our Chief Climate Commissioner by the Gillard Labor government, still heads the Climate Council and still bobs up as an ABC presenter and honoured guest.

And he’s still at it. For instance, two years ago he exploited the category 5 Cyclone Pan that hit Vanuatu, telling the ABC: “Elements of the damage wreaked by that cyclone are being influenced quite strongly by climate change.

“Sadly we’re more likely to see them more frequently in the future.”

In fact, that very next cyclone season our Bureau of Meteorology recorded a first in its satellite records — not a single severe cyclone hit Australia, compared with 11 in 1982.

Why did we ever listen to Flannery and scaremongers like him?

See now what their panic-making has inspired — global warming schemes that have hurt us infinitely more than global warming itself.

MORE ANDREW BOLT

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

•••

More On Flannery Here :

Dud-Prediction and Failed IPCC Model Related :

97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong About Effects Of Global Warming, related :

 

 


Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data

THE emperor really has no clothes!

Earlier this week we learned Michael Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick have been slapped down in a Canadian court. Mann was ordered to produce the data on which his fake claim was based (as good science demands). He refused the request and Contempt of Court charges will follow!

Add EPA Pruitt’s “red team” to the mix and the house of climate cards is looking like a dangerous place to reside!

Don’t expect the Goebbels Media to utter a peep about any of this.

Watts Up With That?

Cartoon by Josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch

A new study found adjustments made to global surface temperature readings by scientists in recent years “are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”

“Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming,” according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician.

The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments.

Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming…

View original post 719 more words


Warmist Scientist Admits: Our Models Were Wrong

MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !

via PA Pundits…

 

UPDATE via Climatism:

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.

There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.

Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.

It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.

Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.

From the abstract:

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.

The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.

Sceptical scientists identified this problem years ago:

John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…

View original post 93 more words