Study: Tropical Hotspot ‘Fingerprint’ Of Global Warming Doesn’t Exist In The Real World Data

But the (missing) “Hotspot” exists in junk-in, junk-out computer models, which are apparently evidence enough to justify the destruction of capitalism, and the spending of trillions of taxpayers $£€¥ on useless schemes and scams in a hubristic attempt to control the weather and halt an increment of (modelled) warning that, most probably, would be beneficial to humanity.

The “Missing Hotspot” IMHO is one of the most important (missing) pieces of the global warming aka climate change debate…

No Hotspot = Global Warming theory fail.

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-missing-hot-spot/

Watts Up With That?

One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers.

evans_wellmixed_hotspot What the tropical hotspot is supposed to look like. Graphic courtesy Dr. David Evans

Guest essay by Michael Bastasch, reprinted with permission

Researchers analyzed temperature observations from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations and buoys and found the so-called “tropical hotspot” relied upon by the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant “simply does not exist in the real world.”

They found that once El Ninos are taken into account, “there is no ‘record setting’ warming to be concerned about.”

“These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world,” reads the report…

View original post 915 more words


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


South China Morning Post : People would be idiotic not to question climate science

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

Screen Shot 2014-02-18 at , February 18, 4.42.49 pm

More climate scepticism from the mainstream …

via South China Morning Post

People would be idiotic not to question climate science

by LAI SEE, Howard Winn

The debate over climate change and global warming shows no sign of losing its intensity. Those that disagree with the view that man’s activities are contributing to global warming are branded as right wing, in the pockets of business, Fox News junkies, on the take from vested interests and a lot more. Only idiots we are told deny or are sceptical of “science.” Yet the scientific method thrives and moves forward on scepticism.

It is true that science and its discoveries have been a powerful engine of growth. But its not all been one way. The bedrock of scientific research is that the same experiments yield the same results no matter who does them. However scientists at the biotech company Amgen, a few years ago attempted to replicate 53 cancer-related studies, but were only able to replicate six. Bayer HealthCare had a similar experience in only being able to reproduce a quarter of the result of 67 studies.

We are frequently told that we should believe that global warming science is irrefutable because the UN Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change report is supposed to be based on the work of 9,136 scientists and their 2,239 peer reviewed articles. However it’s worth bearing in mind that the IPCC is not a scientific organisation. Its charter restricts it to looking for human induced global warming, rather than what occurs as a result of natural climate forces. In practice it is not interested in views which do not support the influence of human activity, specifically carbon dioxide.

However it is not unheard of in the past for the scientific consensus to be wrong. Tom Quirk, a former research physicist and a member of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, notes that for many years it was received medical opinion that “ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid.”

Subsequently two Western Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that they were mostly caused by a bacterium and were better treated by antibiotics and not by surgery and drugs. The pair were awarded the Nobel Prize for their efforts but not before enduring criticism that they were peddling nonsense.

There are parallels with global warming with huge vested interests within the science community, finance, politics maintaining that anyone that denies global warming is idiotic. A huge one trillion US dollar industry has grown up around global warming. Making sense of climate is a difficult and highly complex operation. Climate models attempt to replicate, natural variability ocean currents, the intensity of sun cycles, estimate changes in cloud cover, vegetation and the changes brought on snow and ice cover. Then the impact of increasing levels of man-made C02 are combined with this.

However there is considerable disagreement among the scientific community about the efficacy of the models. The models have difficulty in replicating previous temperature let alone forecasting the future. There are a host of issues about the IPCC reports which have been raised by the Inter Academy Council, the world’s premier scientific body, which are critical of the IPCC. Its August 2010 report on the UN’s climate body identifies: political interference, conflicts of interest, bias, claiming certainty in absence of evidence, vague statements not supported by evidence, management problems and so on. Given all this it seems perfectly justified to be at least sceptical about the claims of the IPCC, and the so-called catastrophic consequences of global warming. Indeed if nothing else it is scepticism that has kept science honest. Given the billions of dollars that are being poured into policies on the basis of alarmist climate forecasts people need to be asking a lot of questions about the science.

(Climatism emboldened)

•••

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

UN and IPCC Related :

Related :

Climatism Trending :