Prof in NYTimes: Failure of climate models vs. reality not important since we use them to predict the future
Prof in NYTimes: Failure of climate models vs. reality not important since we use them to predict the future
Thomas Lovejoy writes in the New York Times: Does the leveling-off of temperatures mean that the climate models used to track them are seriously flawed? Not really. It is important to remember that models are used so that we can understand where the Earth system is headed. Read more…
Sent by gReader Pro…
Warmists: Shutdown preventing NOAA employees from interpreting IPCC report for media, policymakers
Warmists: Shutdown preventing NOAA employees from interpreting IPCC report for media, policymakers
ClimateScienceWatch reports: On the government shutdown and climate research Posted on October 2, 2013 by Rick Piltz “Every day, this shutdown is having adverse effects on a wide range of climate research across the federal agencies,” we said to Climate Wire. “Rick Piltz, director of the Climate Science Watch program at the Government Accountability Project, […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
‘Political manipulation of a ‘scientific’ document’?! 10 Pages of UN IPCC Science Mistakes? ‘In Chapter 2 alone, the 52 authors are collectively responsible for 18 instances of scientific mistakes that now need fixing’
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/
10 Pages of IPCC Science Mistakes?
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
click to see the 10-page list of alterations being made to this section of the IPCC report
Last week, during a four-day-long, behind-closed-doors meeting, political operatives (diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from more than 100 UN countries) rewrote an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document.
The re-written Summary for Policymakers is 36 pages long and purports to highlight the really important bits embedded within the first 14 chapters of the IPCC’s new report.
In my view, the fact that the summary was drafted by IPCC personnel and then re-written in secret by politically motivated third parties tells us everything we need to know. The IPCC isn’t an organization in which scientists are in the driver’s seat.
Five days ago, the IPCC released its new, improved summary. Two days ago, it made draft versions of the 14 chapters public.
One of the reasons these chapters are still in draft form is that changes now need to be made to them. Evidently, it wasn’t just the summary that was being messed with during that four-day meeting. In many cases the alterations were so substantial that the IPCC now says the text of nine of its 14 chapters needs to be re-visited.
It’s as though an English teacher started off by presenting a short story to her classroom. She makes a fuss about how famous the author is, and how many awards the story has won. She then invites her students to write a summary of the short story.
But this is a Communist country and the teacher mustn’t offend the leading Communist official. So when the son of that official produces a summary that diverges from the short story, the teacher announces that the short story will be changed “to ensure consistency.”
How many alterations will the IPCC be making? Ten pages worth – all carefully listed in a document you may examine for yourself. Entire paragraphs will be inserted, dates and numbers will be altered, italics will be added, and some material will simply disappear.
How can this level of political manipulation be taking place, right out in the open, in what we’re told is a scientific body? Over at the BishopHill blog I shared some of these thoughts a …
Analysis: ‘What could justify the increase in confidence from 90% to 95%, and it what sense has the evidence for human influence grown since AR4 was published in 2007?’
#
Analysis of key points UN IPCC report:
‘It is extremely likely (95%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century’
No best estimate of climate sensitivity, but a likely range given of 1.5 – 4.5C. The low end is slightly lower than it was in AR4 (2.0).
Misleading graph of ocean heat content
Graph of snow cover for March/April only
Decadally averaged temperature graph (hide the decline?)
Graph of Arctic, but not Antarctic, sea ice.
…
Analysis: The UN ‘IPCC statement claiming very high confidence in decreasing snow cover is not true’ — ‘Picking cherries in the snow’
…Analysis: ‘Perhaps the most ridiculous graph in the IPCC AR5 SPM is this one showing “decadal mean” temperature’
…Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: IPCC: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data
…U.S. TV Networks report on UN IPCC report: CBS News airs ‘irresponsible’ claim about temperatures rising 212 degrees — ‘CBS aired a claim about temperatures rising “more than 200 degrees’
…Media huddles to re-hype global warming — Anger over allowing skeptical voices to be heard: Panel to convene to discuss whether or not they have ‘blown it
The panel will include: Daniel Grossman, contributing
editor, National Geographic News Watch; Katherine Bagley with InsideClimate News; Peter Dykstra with Environmental Health News and The Daily Climate; Joseph Romm with ClimateProgress.org and the chief science editor of the Showtime TV series, “Years of Living Dangerously.”
The description of the panel on global warming and the media reads: “Have We Blown it? The impacts of global warming have been a concern since about 1988. How well has the media done in reporting on this issue? How can it do a better job in the future?”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/02/liberal-media-huddles-to-re-hype-global-warming/#ixzz2gaZoWuKy…
Meteorologist Art Horn: IPCC Is Very Confident That They Are Not Sure
Art Horn: IPCC Is Very Confident That They Are Not Sure
http://www.thegwpf.org/art-horn-ipcc-confident/
The IPCC is confused and desperate.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released their 5th assessment (big report) on how human activity (using fossil fuels to make energy) is causing global warming (that’s not happening). Actually the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) has been “leaked” for months. The SPM is a watered down version of the big report so that even politicians can sort of understand what it says.
The new report states clearly that with 95% confidence, humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming. The only difference in the percent of confidence from the previous reports is that the 95% figure is higher than all the other reports. This higher level of confidence is rather odd since they state that the climate systems sensitivity to forcing from greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is unknown! The report states that “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. Without a solid understanding of what the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide and other forcings is, the whole “dominant cause” statement has no meaning. It’s a statement designed to inspire confidence in what they admittedly don’t understand.
What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes. Yea, that inspires confidence for sure. Based on that “high level of confidence” we should abandon what works (fossil fuels) and gamble our future and prosperity on so called “renewables” that can’t survive without massive government support.
To further inspire this 95% confidence level we have the musings of the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. In October of 2008 he stated that “We’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate”. A glance at the actual temperature data at that time shows that there was no such thing occurring. Even earlier in 2007 he said “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.” Gee, here it …