Claim: climate effects violence

I have definitely become more violent, over the past ten years, since moving from the uplifting, bitter cold winters of Southern Australia to the depressing tropical heat of South East Asia.
/sarc.

Yet another ‘global warming causes everything’ agitprop study.

Does anyone actually believe the constant, daily climate BS being drilled into them anymore?! Studies on belief and interest on majority man-made ‘warming’ suggest they don’t…
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/triumph-of-the-sceptics/

Watts Up With That?

From the “murder rate must be highest near the equator” department comes this odd piece of research

Researchers offer new theory on how climate affects violence 
Climate impacts life strategies, time orientation, self-control

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Researchers have long struggled to explain why some violent crime rates are higher near the equator than other parts of the world. Now, a team of researchers have developed a model that could help explain why.

This new model goes beyond the simple fact that hotter temperatures seem to be linked to more aggressive behavior.

The researchers believe that hot climates and less variation in seasonal temperatures leads to a faster life strategy, less focus on the future, and less self-control – all of which contribute to more aggression and violence.

“Climate shapes how people live, it affects the culture in ways that we don’t think about in our daily lives,”…

View original post 651 more words


Climate Models Don’t Work

97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on alarmist climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.

CMIP5 IPCC climate models don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).

What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.

RCP8.5 BS in = Alarmist BS out.

It’s no wonder ‘Climate models don’t work’!

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that 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 3″.

clip_image002

NOAA climate activist scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt challenged Dr. Christy’s work claiming that it was “partisan” and using vague statistical arguments claimed that Christy’s work improperly presented the performance of climate models. These claims by government scientist Dr. Schmidt peaked the interest of statistics expert Steven McIntyre who was one of the most prominent  experts to expose the flawed science (proxy shenanigans) and mathematics (statistical errors) behind the now disgraced thousand year long global temperature profile infamously known as the “hockey stick” (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf).

Mr. McIntyre conducted a review of Dr. Schmidt’s claims (https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy

View original post 752 more words


Introducing the global warming speedometer

Watts Up With That?

A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.

clip_image002

The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.

Observed reality

RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports

IPCC (2007, 2013) are…

View original post 292 more words


Freeman Dyson: Democrat Supporter, Climate Skeptic

Maybe the smartest man since Einstein, Freeman Dyson, on CO2 and climate change:

An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

On climate models:

“it’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago.”

On ‘Paris’:

“Whatever the rest of the world agrees to, China and India will continue to burn coal, so the discussion is quite pointless.”

H/t: Garth Godsman

Watts Up With That?

Freeman_Dyson_scr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s most prominent physicists, has given an interview to The Register, in which he discusses climate change, and his disappointment that President Obama, whom he strongly admires, chose the wrong side of the Climate issue.

Freeman Dyson on Politics;

An Obama supporter who describes himself as “100 per cent Democrat,” Dyson says he is disappointed that the President “chose the wrong side.” Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does more good than harm, he argues, but is not an insurmountable crisis. Climate change, he tells us, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”

Freeman Dyson on Climate models;

Are climate models getting better? You wrote how they have the most awful fudges, and they only really impress people who don’t know about…

View original post 271 more words


Real World Data Sinks The Great Global Warming Swindle

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

CGafZRMUcAAm1Y4

•••

via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because their argument is unsound

Mark Steyn on the despair of the warmists:

The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:


The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.

As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds:

That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.

Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.

UPDATE

Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?

Jo Nova:

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said…

If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%.  Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.

Atmospheric scientist John Christy contradicts our Bureau chief:



Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’

•••

See also :


The IPCC’s ‘inconvenient truth’

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

I have a fairly lengthy op-ed that has been published in The Australian.

View original post 898 more words


Modelling Climate Alarmism

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

98% 99% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong.

Model FAIL

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1

Dr Roy Spencer:

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise. Keep reading »

 

Joanne Nova:

Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO²: Models are proven failures:

This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do. Keep reading »

 

WattsUpWithThat:

Climate modeling EPIC FAIL – Spencer: ‘the day of reckoning has arrived’

I was aware of this story yesterday, but I didn’t like the original plot, (see at the end of this post) since use of straight line linear trends doesn’t accurately reflect the reality of the observation data. While it is often hard to find any reality in climate models, linear trend lines mask the underlying variance. Today, Dr. Spencer has produced a graph that I feel is representative and very well worth sharing, because it does in fact convey an EPIC FAIL speaking directly to the accuracy of an ensemble of climate models. – Anthony Keep reading »

•••

‘Forecasting’ Climate Alarmism with 73 IPCC CMIP5 state-of-the-art, billion dollar climate models:

Using overheated climate models in scientific studies, to generate climate forecasts and outcomes, creates a problem of accuracy as projections are based on unverifiable predictive models which do not accord with observed reality. Findings are invariably exaggerated by a warming bias leading to panic and costly climate policy overreach.

Media outlets like the Guardian and BBC, promulgating the CO²-centric global warming scare, take full advantage of the warming bias with often catastrophic and alarmist headlines:

Screen Shot 2013-08-15 at , August 15, 5.17.54 PM

Heatwave deaths in New York city could rise by up to 22%, study shows ~ New temperature norms under climate change will increase weather-related deaths in metropolitan areas in coming decades. New York city could experience up to 22% more deaths from extreme summertime heat in the coming decade under global warming, according to a study of the impact of climate trends. Keep reading »

Climate model astrology (above) versus observable trends based on empirical-evidence:

screenhunter_342-dec-12-06-29 (1)

Heatwaves Peaked In Manhattan During The 1950s

UPDATE

73 ‘overheated’ climate models predict within 87 years, most of America will be ‘partially’ underwater:

More than 1,700 U.S. cities will be partially underwater by 2100: study

Forecast Flashback:

1979 : NCAR Forecast 15-25 Feet Of Sea Level Rise By The Year 2000

Screen Shot 2013-07-30 at , July 30, 2.24.22 PM

The Palm Beach Post – Google News Archive Search

Since that forecast was made in 1979, tide gauges in California show 0.00 cm of sea-level-rise. Schneider was only off by a factor of infinity.

LA SLR

UPDATE

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook debunks ‘absurd’ new warmist study claiming 1,700 U.S. cities will be below sea level by 2100 — Easterbrook: ‘The rate used by [Lead Author] Strauss for his predictions is more than 10 times the rate over the past century!’

Easterbrook: ‘The accelerated rise is based on postulated accelerated warming but there has been no warming in the past 15 years and, in fact, the climate has cooled during that time. So no climatic warming means no accelerated sea level rise as postulated by Strauss…the huge rise of sea level rates proposed by Strauss are absurd and that the maximum sea level rise by 2100 will be less than one foot’ Keep reading »

UPDATE

via JoanneNova.com

WARNING: Using a different computer could change the climate catastrophe

How bad are these global forecast models?

When the same model code with the same data is run in a different computing environment (hardware, operating system, compiler, libraries, optimizer), the results can differ significantly. So even if reviewers or critics obtained a climate model, they could not replicate the results without knowing exactly what computing environment the model was originally run in. Keep reading »

UPDATE

via NoTricksZone

12-Minute Video Clip Clearly Shows Why “Climate Models Are Fundamentally Flawed”!

By P Gosselin on 6. August 2013

Hard fact: global temperature has not risen as the models predicted – not even close! Conclusion: models are fundamentally flawed. Watch the following well-done video:

Hat-tip: Rog Tallbloke & NoTricksZone

UPDATE

via JoanneNova.com

Climate Models cannot explain why global warming has slowed

 

Finally climate scientists are starting to ask how the models need to change in order to fit the data. Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita and authors in Germany pointedly acknowledge that even at the 2% confidence level the model predictions don’t match reality. The fact is, the model simulations predicted it would get warmer than it has from 1998-2012. Now some climate scientists admit that there is less than a 2% chance that the models are compatible with the 15-year warming pause, according to the assumptions in the models. Keep reading »

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat

Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

Knobs for climate control Image: Wikipedia

From the Institute for Energy Research:

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract: 

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: Keep reading »

UPDATE

via WattsUpWithThat

National Academy of Sciences: climate models still ‘decades away’ from being useful

Climate Model: resolution still too coarse to provide useful predictions

From the National Academy of Sciences report A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling: 

Computer models that simulate the climate are an integral part of providing climate information, in particular for future changes in the climate. Overall, climate modeling has made enormous progress in the past several decades, but meeting the information needs of users will require further advances in the coming decades.

 

climate-model-1[1]The fundamental science of greenhouse gas-induced climate change is simple and compelling. However, genuine and important uncertainties remain (e.g., the response of clouds,
ecosystems, and the polar regions) and need to be considered in developing scientifically based strategies for societal response to climate change.

 

Description:

As climate change has pushed climate patterns outside of historic norms, the need for detailed projections is growing across all sectors, including agriculture, insurance, and emergency preparedness planning. A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modelingemphasizes the needs for climate models to evolve substantially in order to deliver climate projections at the scale and level of detail desired by decision makers, this report finds. Despite much recent progress in developing reliable climate models, there are still efficiencies to be gained across the large and diverse U.S. climate modeling community. Evolving to a more unified climate modeling enterprise-in particular by developing a common software infrastructure shared by all climate researchers and holding an annual climate modeling forum-could help speed progress. Keep reading »