I am reblogging a posting from realclearscience.com titled “Climate Models Botch Another Prediction”. Tom Hartsfield is the posting’s author and he sums up the issues of the continued failures of climate models and the way the warmers view themselves in a holy war and must stop the skeptics at all costs.
Today’s news tells of another mistake of exaggerated climate science prediction.
I’m not getting in the foxhole with the warriors on either side of the raging climate war. But I think there’s something more alarming going on than the spike in CO2 level charts.
Our global system of air currents, ocean currents, cloud patterns, resonant temperature cycles, energy storage and release mechanisms, and further processes is mind-bogglingly complex.
Presently, the best climate models fall many orders of magnitude short of the power and intricacy needed to effectively predict the long-term climate patterns that emerge from the interactions of all these planetary systems. And that’s not a failure of science; it’s just the reality of how tough the problem is.
Predictions are made by building models using the smartest simplifications we have thought of and running them on the most powerful computers ever built. Basically, it’s the best we can do right now.
Reddit.com has a site called AskScience where an inquiring mind submits a question and expert scientist answer the inquiry. Recently a question was submitted by a person concerned that the IPCC was underestimating the problem of catastrophic man-made global warming. The questioner wanted to know the answer to the following:
” Given the nonlinear nature of the atmosphere, how can we have any confidence in long term predictions of temperature rise? “
A Major warmer scientist from MIT answered the question as follows:”
We are worried about that too. Climate is an enormously complex system and we do not pretend that we can predict is with much accuracy, which is why, for example, in the IPCC reports there is a generous range of possible outcomes. (K.E.) (My emphasis.)
Kerry Emanuel (KE) answered that question. Are you asking who he is? Well, see the following introduction that he provided:
“I’m Kerry Emanuel, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I do research on hurricanes and other types of severe weather, on climate change, and how climate change might affect severe weather. My research is mostly theoretical, but I also build computer models and occasionally participate in field experiments and build and use laboratory experiments. I have flown research aircraft into hurricanes, and wrote a book called “Divine Wind: The History and Science of Hurricanes”, aimed at a general reader and covering both the science of hurricane and how they have influenced history, art, and literature.”
If one googles Dr Emanuel, the source will almost invariably call him a “conservative warmer”. At one time he did vote for a Republican candidate. However he voted for President Obama because Emanuel admits that he is a single-issue voter and Obama signs the warmer’s songs. So much for being called a conservative.
Anyway, almost all of us agree with Dr Emanuel that warmer’s predictions are unlikely to be accurate.
I want to respond to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video titled “Neil deGrasse Tyson explains the real problem with climate change deniers” so here goes. The problem according to Tyson is that “deniers” do not understand science. “They can not sort out what is true and what is not true,” says Tyson.
If you watch late night TV or mainstream TV news you probably know Tyson. He and Bill Nye “the science guy” are their favorites when the media want someone to talk about “deniers” and global warming. Tyson is reasonably informed about the theory of man-made global warming while Nye is an embarrassment. See Nye’s debate with Marc Morano of Climate Depot.
Back to Tyson. Climate Depot has assembled a list of 700 or so prominent scientists that are skeptics. Most of them have as much or more understanding of climate science than does Tyson. Is Tyson overwhelmingly arrogant or living in a cocoon? I suspect the answer to that is probably both. With regard to the cocoon, he probably never looks at any of these Skeptics work or their reasons for being skeptical.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 7, 2016. The event was focused on the “threat” of climate change. A CNSnews.com posting “EPA Chief: Climate Change Is Certain But You Can’t Predict the Future” related the comments made by the Administrator at that meeting.
A CNS News reporter asked the Administrator the following question:
“According to the Energy Information Administration – although alternative and renewables are growing slightly – fossil fuels will still account for 80 percent of U.S. energy needs through 2040. Federal data also shows that U.S. carbon emissions are at almost a 20-year low right now. How do those facts fit into the picture the EPA is painting of the U.S. energy landscape?”
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS) has had three directors since its founding in 1961. It’s first director was Robert Jastrow. From 1981 to 2013, GISS was directed by James E. Hansen. In June 2014, Gavin A. Schmidt was named the institute’s third director.
The last two are noted for their complete commitment to the theory of man- made catastrophic global warming (CGW). Hansen is considered by many as the godfather of this movement. His testimony in a Congressional hearing was the “alarm bell” for the liberal politician. He presented charts that were very alarming and have subsequently been shown to be very wrong. He was (and still is ) an activist having been arrested many times for impeding coal trains and other tricks in an attempt to gain publicity for his cause. But it seems he has been wrong much more than he has been right. The following is one of his many scary predictions that have not been realized. Hansen is informing the newly elected President Obama in January 2009 that there were only 4 years left to save Earth.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Doesn’t Hansen contradict himself when he says that Obama can save the Earth but that “current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming”? Sounds like a mixed message to me. And of course, those 4 years pass almost 8 years ago.
Can you trust the science that Hansen communicates?
Hansen’s successor, Gavin Schmidt, gained his notoriety as a climate modeler. Dr Schmidt does promote the theory of CGW but seems to have an aversion to actually debating the topic. The last time he was to debate, he agreed to show up but not at the same time as his debate opponent. HUM, wonder what that means.
According to Wiki he has received recognition for his communicative skills: “In October 2011, the American Geophysical Union awarded Schmidt the Inaugural Climate Communications Prize, for his work on communicating climate-change issues to the public.”
Yet he doesn’t think he can communicate with Texans. Well, let him explain as he does on the Youtube below:
So it is because a Jewish, atheist from New York cannot communicate with Texans. That explains it. He obviously is an open-minded person of the type that is needed to sort though the differences between warmers and skeptics, of course unless they are Texans.(sarc)
By the way, he was born, raised and educated in England.
The Scientific Consensus on the theory of man-made global warming.
First is a peer-reviewed paper showing that only 36% of 1,077 geoscientists and engineers surveyed believe in the man-made global warming crisis as defined by the United Nations’ Kyoto model.
According to the paper, the Kyoto position expresses “the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Thirty-six percent is not insignificant. But it certainly is a long way from the oft-cited 97% “consensus” among scientists that man is causing temperatures to change.
Researchers behind “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change,” which appeared in Organization Studies, also found “the proportion of papers” collected from a science database “that explicitly endorsed anthropogenic climate change has fallen from 75%” between 1993 and 2003 “to 45% from 2004 to 2008.”
The Heartland Institute’s James Taylor reminds us in Forbes that “survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.”
A number of you have written telling me that you liked the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change—Science. So I will add the NIPCC’s second reference book: Biological Impacts. Click here to link.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues a report every three or four years about global warming. This UN agency’s charter is not to examine the science of global warming but rather to show that man produced greenhouse gases will result in catastrophic damage to the globe. IPCC does as directed by giving little consideration to data, science or reports that would contradict the charter.
A relatively new report, compiled by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has been written to answer the IPCC’ reports. The first installment is Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II). This installment is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute. Real data and unbiased studies were used in the preparation of this installment.
The National Review.com posted “Why Climate Change Won’t Matter in 20 Years”. They subtitled the posting “The perilous business of predicting the future.” The subtitle accurately depicts what happens when politicians or anyone for that matter, think they can safely make the future an extension of the present.
First of all, the warmers should be willing to take seriously the abject failure of their vaunted climate models to make prediction on any time frame. Yet they insist that the Earth in 2100 will be x degrees hotter and the sea level will be y meters higher than today because the climate models told them so. The odds are that they might do just as well talking to Madame Charmaine, the village palm reader.
The author of this posting, Josh Gelernter, put in a lot of effort into showing why projecting the present as a representation of the future is very unlikely to be successful. So I will let him speak:
“Michael Crichton — the brilliant novelist and thinker — posed this question in a speech at Caltech in 2003, re climate predictions for 2100. What environmental problems would men in 1900 have predicted for 2000? Where to get enough horses, and what to do with all the manure. “Horse pollution was bad in 1900,” said Crichton. How much worse would someone in 1900 expect it to “be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?”
Will the current El Nino be a record setter? Will it create bigger temperature and precipitation events than the current record holder that happened in 1997-98?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) say for the moment, they do not think so, but it still too early to rule out that possibility.
For the US, this probably means a warmer and drier period from December through mid-March in the North and Northeast and a cooler and wetter period in January through April in the South and Southwest. The December’s temperatures in the Northeast are high enough to be record setters. NOAA says that there is typically about a month’s delay to see the effect in the South and Southwest.
NOAA forecasts of the US weather resulting from El Nino can be seen in the following two charts. NOAA hedges their bet by showing three possible forecast US weather bands. The highest percentage being the most likely. First the forecast temperatures:
The Northern part of the US has a 62% chance of a warm winter. And almost no chance of being cooler than normal. The midsection is a coin toss. The South will be cooler than normal.
Climate Change Sanity 