Uncertainty. Climate Drivers and Modelling Concerns -- New Science Posts. Climate Models for the Layman. Claims that the planet is threatened by man-made global warming are based on science that is based on inadequate computer modelling.
That is the conclusion of a new briefing paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The report’s author, eminent American climatologist Professor Judith Curry, explains that climate alarm depends on highly complex computer simulations of the Earth’s climate. But although scientists have expended decades of effort developing them, these simulations still have to be “tuned” to get them to match the real climate. This makes them essentially useless for trying to find out what is causing changes in the climate and unreliable for making predictions about what will happen in the future.
Professor Curry said: “It’s not just the fact that climate simulations are tuned that is problematic. Prof Curry recently announced that she was abandoning academic life due to the attacks on her research and the “craziness” of the climate debate. Evaluation of Climate Models. Climate scientists can restart the climate policy debate & win: test the models! – Fabius Maximus website. Summary; Public policy about climate change has become politicized and gridlocked after 26 years of large-scale advocacy.
We cannot even prepare for a repeat of past extreme weather. We can whine and bicker about who to blame. Or we can find ways to restart the debate. Here is the next of a series about the latter path, for anyone interested in walking it. Climate scientists can take an easy and potentially powerful step to build public confidence: re-run the climate models from the first 3 IPCC reports with actual data (from their future): how well did they predict global temperatures? The Reference Frame: Scott Adams sees through 15 of 20 main alarmists' tricks, still calls himself a believer. Eclectikus told us that Dilbert's creator Scott Adams – who has correctly predicted Trump's triumph and described a psychological theory behind Trump's victory – has written a wonderful guide telling the climate alarmist propagandists How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem.
It's basically a detailed list of 14-15 features in the alarmists' talk – or their interactions with the skeptics – that obviously look fishy to a rational person such as himself. Nevertheless, at the top, he still introduces himself as a believer in the claims of the currently (and for a few more months?) Dominant (i.e. alarmist) climate scientists. Some alarmists have reacted angrily. I tend to agree with this "insight into Adams' skull". It's plausible. The Reference Frame: Selection of climate model survivors isn't the scientific method. I was surprised that several TRF readers (Marthe, Abbyyorker, John Moore, and perhaps others) don't understand why the methodology keeping "ensembles of inequivalent models" that have survived some tests isn't science i.e. why Scott Adams is right in the recommendation #1 to climate fearmongers.
On Monday, Scott Adams actually dedicated a special blog post exactly to this problem. He wrote that when some media promote an old paper from the 1980s that apparently made rather accurate predictions of the climate for the following decades, it doesn't mean anything because it was one paper among many and we're not told about the number of similar models whose predictions were wrong. So everything he knows is compatible with the assumption that the successful model was just one that was right by chance – it was cherry-picked but there doesn't have to be any reason to think that its authors know something that others don't. They were just lucky. An eminent climate scientist describes the frontiers of climate science. Freeman Dyson: A Global Warming Heretic.
SeaLevel.info climate feedbacks. Note: This page is intended to contain a complete list of all significant known or hypothesized climate feedback mechanisms.
If you notice any errors or omissions, please tell me. -DAB. Harvard Physicist/New Study Say Daily Insolation Errors Not Accounted For! By P Gosselin on 29.
March 2017 A new paper is out by Rodolfo G. Cionco and Willie W. H. 20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability. By Kenneth Richard on 27.
February 2017 Last week, the newly published Gagné et al. (2017) paper received some attention because the authors pointed out that Arctic sea ice grew substantially between 1950 and 1975, consistent with the in-phase cooling trend during that period. Gagné et al., 2017 “Updated observational datasets without climatological infilling show that there was an increase in sea ice concentration in the Eastern Arctic between 1950 and 1975, contrary to earlier climatology in-filled observational datasets that show weak inter-annual variations during that time period.”
Feedback on Feedbacks. Guest essay by Rud Istvan In recent weeks, there have been a number of WUWT guest posts on climate sensitivity related matters.
Sensitivity is determined by feedbacks to increased CO2. The delta T to doubled CO2 in the absence of feedbacks is 1.1-1.2C. Monckton calculated 1.166C in his new (and unfinished) ‘Feet of Clay’ series of posts; Lindzen used 1.2 for simplicity (below). The slight difference is of no matter for this mostly conceptual post. There have been a number of ‘skeptical’ comments and even guest response posts (FUBAR) that have gotten a lot of things ‘not quite right’ on this very important general subject including: 1. Negative Climate Feedbacks are Real and Large. Guest essay by Leland Park Global warming theories propose positive feedbacks to explain magnified greenhouse effects that might trigger catastrophic warming.
Ocean cycles, The Pause and Global Warming. By Andy May h/t Joachim Seifert There is a new post by Dr.
This is How Climate Works – Part 1. Guest essay by Mike Jonas This is how climate works. It’s all about seeing the ocean and atmosphere separately: The sun directly warms the ocean.Cloud cover changes naturally, affecting the sun’s warming of the ocean.Cloud cover changes have only minor effect on the atmosphere.Ocean oscillations warm the atmosphere.Greenhouse gases (GHGs), including man-made CO2, warm the atmosphere too.The atmosphere has little effect on the ocean, except over very long periods.If the ocean cools, the atmosphere radiates excess heat to space. This is How Climate Works – Part 2. This is How Climate Works – Part 3. Guest essay by Mike Jonas /Continued from Part 2 6. The Awful Process 6.1 Paradigm Shift In Part 1, I referred to the truly awful process by which science currently operates. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, and Karl Popper described the process by which this should be achieved: empirical falsification.
Why John Christy’s Missing Hotspot Matters. German garden gnome. By Colibri1968 at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons Guest essay by Eric Worrall One thing which struck me about the recent climate science hearing is how little attention was paid to Dr. John Christy’s demonstration of a flawed climate model prediction – the missing Tropospheric hotspot. A flawed prediction does not automatically mean the models are totally wrong – but it is a strong indicator that something isn’t right. Consider the primary observation. Climate Model Dependence and the Ensemble Dependence Transformation of CMIP Projections.
On the Reproducibility of the IPCC’s climate sensitivity. Guest essay by Dr. Antero Ollila The highest ranked scientific journal Nature published on the 28th of July 2016 an article based on the survey for 1,576 researchers. Climate Sensitivity: A Simple Inverse Model. Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors. Yesterday, WUWT was honored to have a guest essay by co-author Nic Lewis on the new Otto et al paper that pegs Transient Climate Response (TCR) at 1.3°C along with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity at 2.0°C. Lewis , who had previously published a solo paper on his ECS estimate was roundly panned as a “single study” by the advocates over at “Skeptical Science” in a scathing post by Dana Nuccitelli, who will now have a hard time honestly reconciling the Otto et al paper, because it is co-authored by several IPCC authors who previously had considered higher climate sensitivity values to be likely.
While this isn’t an end-game paper for the overblown threat of AGW, this paper represents a sea-change in thinking of some prominent IPCC authors that will be hard to ignore, and even harder to criticize. Its timing is especially good since Cook and Nuccitelli just published a ginned up claim about “97% consensus” of climate science papers. A ground-breaking new paper putting climate models to the test yields an unexpected result – steps and pauses in the climate signal. A ground-breaking new paper has recently been published in Earth System Dynamics that really turns the idea of direct linear warming of the atmosphere on it’s ear, suggesting a “store and release mechanism” by the oceans, which explains why there seemed to be a shift in global temperature during the 1997/98 super El Nino followed by a “pause” in global temperatures.
Remember the “escalator” graph from wrongly named “Skeptcal Science” designed to shame climate skeptics? The Trouble with Global Climate Models. Leading climate scientist Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory. Manufacturing climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions. Summary: Scientists and journalists bombard us with news about the coming climate catastrophe, described as certain unless we drastically change our economy. Detection and Attribution of Man-Made Climate Change.
The models are wrong (but only by 400%) McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman 2010: It’s been a long time coming. A humdinger of a paper. International Journal Of (Popular) Climatology. Climate Models Don’t Work. Problems in Modeling and Forecasting Climate Change: CMIP5 General Circulation Models versus a Semi - Empirical Model Based on Natural Oscillations. Cloudy modeling problems: Today’s clouds might not be the same as pre-industrial ones. CMIP6. Another 100 Year CMIP5 Hindcast of Temperature and Precipitation. Seemingly Unresolvable Biases of CMIP3 and 5 Climate Models. Extreme Precipitation Events As Represented in CMIP5 Models. Winter Frontal Precipitation Problems of CMIP5 Climate Models.
Precipitation and Pacific Storm Track Problems in CMIP5 Models. Problems with CMIP5 Models Predicting South African Rainfall. CMIP5 Problems Modelling Extreme Precipitation Indices in China. CMIP3 and 5 Model Predictions of Precipitation and Temperature. Problems of CMIP5 Models Representing African Easterly Waves. The Ability of CMIP5 Models to Hindcast Basic Climate Features. The Subtropical Ridge as Represented in CMIP5 Climate Models. Problems in CMIP5 Modeling of Atlantic Multi-Decadal Variability. CMIP5 Models Predict the Future of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. A Portrayal of Inter-El Niño Variability in CMIP5 Climate Models. The Weak ENSO Asymmetry in CMIP5 Climate Models. Upper Atmosphere Temperature Trends Models vs Measurements.
Biases in CMIP3 and 5 Simulations of the Indian Ocean Basin Mode. Climate Change in Northern Europe as per CMIP2, 3 and 5 Models. Problems Modelling Antarctic Ice Sheet and Southern Ocean Temps. CMIP5 Models Attempting to Replicate Antarctic Sea Ice Trends. Modeling Tropical Cyclones: The Seemingly Never Ending Effort. CMIP5 Projections of Australian Summer Monsoon Onset and Retreat. CMIP5 Simulations of 1850-2005 South Asian Summer Monsoons.
Continental Energy Storage in CMIP5 Climate Change Simulations. Important study: Waste heat is a major source of national warming, significantly pollutes climatic record. Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming. Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming–part 2. Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming – part 3. The Difference Between Energy, Work and Power – and Why it Matters to Climate Prediction. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.