Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Climate Reality at JoNova - data rules scientific 'authority'

richard says:
Prof Christopher English destroys Climate models.

Global warming protest, Stockholm, Sweden. The...Global warming protest, Stockholm, Sweden. The sign says "Warning - climate chaos". (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Climate justice and water justiceClimate justice and water justice (Photo credit: Toban B.)

Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line

We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:
Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.
( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3).
Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.
The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.

Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work. Water vapor in the tropics is the most important feedback, yet the models get it wrong. See Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models”:
Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}
“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)
“Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).”

  • #
    Konrad
    “Only the collectivists would try and house their beliefs in such an edifice”
    And that is just what all the increasingly panicked shrieking is about. The global warming hoax is in full collapse and many members of the Professional Left have realised that in the age of the Internet the putrescent stain of global warming advocacy and the vilification of sceptics will never wash off.
    Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
    No matter how the Professional Left thrash and flex, there is no escape. They were all so foolish they believed adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. That’s industrial strength stupidity. You can’t laugh that one off.

#
thingadonta
Have a look at this, from the SMH:
“Indeed, the panel calculates that food demand is rising at a pace of 14 per cent per decade. But it estimates that climate change is already reducing wheat yields by 2 per cent each decade – compared with where they would be in the absence of climate change — and corn yields by 1 per cent.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/is-the-world-going-to-run-out-of-food-20140402-35xf5.html#ixzz2xgqjf1cY
‘Compared with what they would be’… is not the same as what actually is, it’s also, most importantly, not verified. These people live in another reality. In other words, models supplant reality. Yields have been increasing for some time, which is spun to mean they are somehow decreasing based on a non-verified model, (or ‘decreasing’ based on what they would have been if…), .
‘what it would be without .’
Surely the world’s scientists and other bodies are going to start waking up to this nonsense from the IPCC and do something about it. Anyone can see there is a flaw in the reasoning.
Sceptical Sam
Spot on Neville.
And to add to the IPCC’s stupidity the IPCC agrees:
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. {Box 6.1, 12.4, 12.5}” P 26
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

Ross
Well done Jo. I love it when I see problems/issues boiled down to the bare bones. It makes it so much easier for the average person to get to grips with it and much harder to argue against.
Information from Donna Laframboise I linked to yesterday allows a similar “boiling down” of the politics. Firstly in October 2013 the bureaucrats take the scientist’s Summary for Policy Makers to Stockholm and go line by line with it over several days to come up with a politically acceptable revision. The 10 pages of changes are sent back to the lead authors of the various chapters to alter the wording / data to align with the new Summary doc.
( remember the scientists have spent several years writing these chapters so it hard to see how they could make so many “errors” –or maybe they are not experts afterall)
Then we find out that the amended Summary is amended again by the UN bureaucrats due to pressure from probably anyone with a vested interest. This is again gone over line by line in Yokohama in a four day meeting, last week.
So how much “factual” data is in the final Summary and how much political spin is in it, is anybody’s guess.

scaper...
Just listened to a podcast, Alan Jones talking to Miranda Devine.
What makes me angry, has been stated by Jo and mostly all here is the fact that this diversion has actually been a pause in science to serve humanity.
Certain warmists have stated that the sceptics should be jailed for a crime against humanity, democracy should be suspended and even worse.
I believe that the perpetrators should and will be pursued not long into the future for their crimes against humanity as the pause in real science will have unseen, as yet, repercussions on humanity.
So much could have been achieved for half the funding that has been soaked up in the name of AGW. Personally, I believe climate science at this time is not much further in understanding the complexities than when the wheel was invented.

TdeF
You have to love the idea that the computer models were all completely wrong, but the IPCC now know precisely why they were wrong. Ha! You can fiddle a model to predict anything in hindsight, but that does not make it right either. Just add a plausible fiddle factor in a super complex system until things go down again, for a while.
So what is their certainty that their error is now corrected with water vapour? I would suggest their certainty has an uncertainty of 98%.
What is necessary is a model which predicts all the known past, the previous warming periods, the ones which were rubbed out and cooling periods and for good measure, El Nino and La Nina. It is one thing to come up with a great Spanish name for the events, but does that mean we understand enough to predict the biggest single events in world meterology? Nope. Get tomorrow’s weather right first and establish some credibility. In Melbourne we seem to get climate change every day, or is that the climate?


 Konrad
“Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.”
Jo,
This is exactly where sceptics should be focusing their attack, because the foundation hypothesis, the idea of a net radiative GHE, is the weakest link.
I understand you may be a “lukewarmer” like Anthony Watts, but the “warming but less than we thought” position only provides short term gain. Science is still wounded if the idea of a net radiative GHE persists in any shape or form.
Have a look again at the calculations behind the radiative GHE hypothesis and have a think what they really mean in terms, not of maths, but actual physics. The claim of the Church of Radiative Climatology is that radiative gases in our atmosphere raises the surface temperature by around 33C.
That would mean that the atmosphere is warming the oceans from -18C (255K) to +15C (288K). This is essentially claiming that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans. Given the oceans lose most of their absorbed solar energy via evaporation to the atmosphere, does the claim of a net warming effect of the atmosphere over the oceans sound even remotely plausible?
Could a non-radiative atmosphere provide the same cooling to the oceans? No, because such an atmosphere would have no way to cool itself.
To see how hideously wrong climastrologists are, have a look at solar pond storage technology. When water is prevented from cooling to the atmosphere, water temperatures can reach 90C.
Another sanity check. -18C would mean our oceans were a solid block of ice. Where is the “snowline” in the solar system? It’s out at 3AU.
The mistake is that climastrologists treated our oceans as a blackbody in their calcs, not as a transparent material heated at depth. They got the temperature for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR out by around 98C!
Our oceans need the atmosphere to cool them and our atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool it.
Yes, the “strongly positive water vapour feedback” thing is provably wrong, but there is actually a far greater error in WG1. Normal science cannot be restored until the very idea of a net radiative GHE is destroyed.



The World Meteorological Organization
Headquarters in Geneva. IPCC Secretariat
is hosted by WMO
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

[PDF] FAQ: Research on Climate Change and Disaster Loss Costs and ...

accepted for publication in November 2006. This was a few weeks outside of the cut-off date for the IPCC 4th Assessment ... sensitive to small changes in assumptions, so it was concluded that it was not possible to show a statistically convincing linkage
support.rms.com/Publications/2010_FAQ_IPCC.pdf 

WMO | OMM (WMOnews) on Twitter

The latest from WMO | OMM (@WMOnews). The World Meteorological Organization is the U.N.'s authoritative voice on weather, climate and water. Geneva, Switzerland
twitter.com/WMOnews

authoritative - Definition of authoritative

The definition of authoritative is someone or something having power, influence or the right to control* and make decisions.
yourdictionary.com/authoritative

* ( Remember King Canute ? His renouncement/debunking of divine authority is a morality tale and cautionary warning against imperial arrogance ) 

Definitions of authoritative - OneLook Dictionary Search

Quick definitions from WordNet (authoritative) adjective: sanctioned by established authority ("An authoritative communique") adjective: having authority or ascendancy or influence ("The captain's authoritative manner")
onelook.com/?w=authoritative
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: