World Heritage At Risk From Global Warming – UCS

When all else fails, like empirical (scientific) evidence, not supporting your hypothesis/theory of man-made “global warming”, “climate change”, “global cooling”, or “global whatever it may be”, target human emotions. In this instance – World Heritage sites.

More classic UNEP agitprop to attempt to scare, deceive and convert you.

Remember all these fears and scares are based on failed (overheated) UN/IPCC CMIP5 RCP8.5 climate *models*.

Predictive (UN IPCC) models are not science and do not observe reality. They are predictions based on perceived inputs in and desired results out. Then the CAGW complicit MSM media simply runs with the output because those same modelled outputs suit their agenda nicely too, objectivity denied absolute.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/world-heritage-tourism-sites-climate-change-risks#.V01lp74wJ60

The Union of Socialist Concerned Scientists have teamed up with the UN for their latest scare story, how thousands of world heritage sites are at risk from climate change.

Their British offerings include the remarkable neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkneys.

image

View original post 208 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


Hockey Stick Finally Located


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


Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

•••

Via The Wall Street Journal

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

By Dr 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.

[image]
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.

Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.

Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.

A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (“very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies). Keep Reading »

•••

Related:

Climatism related:


97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong

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

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

•••

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

Model FAIL

SPencer 73 CMIP5 model FAIL

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

Via Dr Roy Spencer UAH

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.

If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!

Forgive me if I sound frustrated, but we scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the ‘humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens’ juggernaut. The public who funds their work will not stand for their wilful blindness much longer. Keep reading »

•••

“Global warming is just HALF what we said” : World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online :

Screen Shot 2013-09-17 at , September 17, 12.10.41 AM

•••

via The Australian

We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

  • GRAHAM LLOYD, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR
  • THE AUSTRALIAN
  • SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 12:00AM

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain’s The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”. Keep reading »  

•••

Global Warming Without Fear

Professor Bjorn Lomborg says man is warming the planet, but the evidence now shows global warming theorists have vastly exaggerated the problem. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report will grudgingly dial down the alarm:

Screen Shot 2013-09-17 at , September 17, 12.19.06 AM

Global Warming Without Fear by Bjørn Lomborg – Project Syndicate

The IPCC admits that “models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in the surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years.” This matters, because if the models overshoot for recent decades, the century-long forecasts are open to doubt.

CommentsView/Create comment on this paragraph Compared to the actual temperature rise since 1980, the average of 32 top climate models (the so-called CMIP5) overestimates it by 71-159% (see graph). A new Nature Climate Change study shows that the prevailing climate models produced estimates that overshot the temperature rise over the last 15 years by more than 300%. Keep reading »  

 

•••

On September 23 through 26, representatives of the world’s Environment Ministries will meet in Stockholm to agree on the final draft of a key portion of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers gospel which is expected, once again, to keep the political climate cauldron steaming.

Will they maturely discuss the real mystery in climate science, that is the ever widening temperature divergence between what the climate models tell us and what observed reality shows? Or will the fear mongers continue their alarmist propaganda crusade, in order to implement draconian climate policy to attempt to stop a planet heating that hasn’t heated in 17 years, and try to change a climate that’s been changing by itself for 4.5 billion years?

The IPCC’s continued biased support for CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) nonsense is designed to support their crooked ideology to extend the powers of government, to raise taxesto weaken the capitalist system, to curtail personal freedom and in the IPCC’s own words to “redistribute the world’s income through climate policy“.

See also “Andy’s Rant” –  97.4% of climate predictions made in 1990’s overestimated the amount of warming

•••

UPDATE

Via Telegraph UK

EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner

Screen Shot 2013-09-17 at , September 17, 4.23.00 PM

EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner – Telegraph

“Say that 30 years from now, science came back and said, ‘wow, we were mistaken then now we have some new information so we think it is something else.’ – Connie Hedegaard, Europe’s climate commissioner

•••

UPDATE

via Financial Post

IPCC models getting mushy

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | 16/09/13 | Last Updated:17/09/13 9:23 AM ET

Screen Shot 2013-09-17 at , September 17, 10.10.15 PM

AR5 IPCC Graph

Keep Reading »

•••

UPDATE

February, 2014

Screen Shot 2014-02-23 at , February 23, 8.16.49 pm

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong « Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

•••

Related:


SHOCK NEWS! Climate Change Causing Climate Models to Fail

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

Post image for Is Climate Change Causing Climate Models to Fail?

Via GlobalWarming.org

STUDY: Climate change causing climate models to become less reliable

A groundbreaking new study has shown that climate change is the underlying cause of increasingly frequent and severe climate model failures. Researchers at Pennsylvania State Community College have discovered a critical link between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration and general circulation model errors.

“Climate change has made it increasingly difficult to predict climate change,” says Dr. Manyard Michael, the lead scientist behind the study. “The current 16 year pause in global warming illustrates just how serious this situation has been; if not for climate change, we now know that we would have been able to accurately predict the current break in warming and clearly show that climate change is actually accelerating faster than forecast – not stopping as climate change is making it appear to those outside of the climate science community.” Dr. Michael also noted that they stumbled on this important finding almost by accident. “We just happened to notice that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations climbed, the more we had to adjust the data to get the results we knew to be right, and the more we adjusted the data, the bigger the error in the models. It’s a very strong positive feedback.”

This research has been quietly in the works for several years, and was almost compromised by the 2009 research theft known as “climategate.” For example, one particular email that has been cited repeatedly said in part, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Skeptics have misrepresented this quote to suggest that climate scientists can’t explain why the climate is not behaving as forecast and thus there is no climate change happening when in actuality, the researcher was lamenting exactly the opposite. He knew the fact that climate models did not predict a lack of warming meant climate change had progressed much faster than previously thought, and he was expressing sadness that man has brought the climate to this point.

Climate change deniers and anti-science websites have long grasped at the seemingly endless string of model failures and ever increasing forecast error as a way to argue the theory that humans are causing global warming is somehow falsified. Noted climate modeler Dr. Hans Jameson of the National Model Rocket Association commented, “thanks to this research, we can say with certainty what we in the climate research community [have] known all along, that the bigger the climate model errors, the more confident we can be that manmade climate change is happening.” Because climate change continues to accelerate faster than at any time since before the dinosaurs, the scientific consensus is that that there will be some truly stunning model failures on the horizon.

The researchers also stressed that mainstream climate science has demonstrated a remarkable ability to hindcast. As Dr. Michael points out “we can now predict the lull in warming of the past 16 years with surprising accuracy.” He further remarked that “given how well we can predict the past, the only thing that explains the difficulty of forecasting the future with equal success is the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses. This research changes everything.” And while they are yet unable to fully explain the exact mechanics behind the correlation, the researchers expressed 99% confidence in their conclusion.

The study which is set to be published in every scientific journal is expected to open up new areas of unprecedented spending in the emerging field of climate research research.*

* Editor’s note: The phrase “climate research research” is not a typo. With Dr. Michael’s study, the greenhouse theory has matured to the point where it can not only explain climate-related phenomena, but also its own apparent inability to explain such phenomena. Craig might also have called Dr. Michael’s study meta-climatology or climatolology. Sort of like the all-seeing eye that can see even itself.

If you find that confusing, then just look at the diagram below:

Eye of Agamatto

 

* This hilarious yet 100% true parody of the outright failure of climate models was a comment posted on Anthony Watt’s blog, Watts Up With Thatby reader identified as “Craig”.

 

Related:  Modelling Climate Alarmism