This is Expertise the UN can bank on
In the GWPF 2018 Lecture, Richard Lindzen pointed out the genius of Arctic climate models
First, for something to be evidence, it must have been unambiguously predicted. (This is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.) Figure 1 shows the IPCC model forecasts for the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice in the year 2100 relative to the period 1980–2000. As you can see, there is a model for any outcome.
It is a little like the formula for being an expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target.
Graph of the Year: Arctic sea ice predictions of the worlds top models in 2011. Spaghetti.
This will definitely happen according to the worlds top scientists at NASA, CSIRO, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (NOAA), National Centre for Atmospheric Research, The Hadley Meteorological Centre, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology – Germany, the Institute of Numerical Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Tokyo, JAMSTEC (Japan), the Climate Research Division of Environment Canada, The Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway, the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL), plus experts from Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV).
Twenty one IPCC expert models can’t fail, unless of course, the world cools.
REFERENCE
Eisenman et al (2011) Consistent Changes in the Sea Ice Seasonal Cycle in Response to Global Warming, Article, Journal of Climate 24:5325-5335
“Shoot first & declaring whatever you hit the target.”
150
This is caused the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. That is shoot at a barn door, then draw a target around the most prominent cluster. It is an easy fallacy to fall into, but one that objective academics will take steps to avoid.
170
In this case it’s a new twist on it. They draw a target on everything, then shoot.
61
In this case they draw 21 targets on the side of the barn, close their eyes and let it rip. Then, no matter what they hit they declare themselves the worlds greatest marksmen. And the world laps it up and gives them awards.
91
It’s politics personified, ‘You only ask questions that give you answers that you want.’
‘Yes, Prime Minister’ comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
50
I remember when a reporter at the London Olympics shooting comp. told us that “so and so was disappointed because he had missed the podium.”
50
Why are you quoting 10 year old data when the latest is available? Here is the data from the last 10 years.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2017/10/monthly_ice_09_NH_v2.1.png
00
Its actually worse than the majority of the models
00
Predicting every possible outcome isn’t a prediction at all.
140
They aren’t predictions or forecasts, they are projections – see my comment below. Fig 1 has a correct label, with an incorrect label below it.
20
Well, I believe the world IS cooling.
00
The big question is ‘have any of these models been validated and verified’. If they haven’t then any output they give isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
At the moment all this looks like is a version of groupthink ego stroking and just about as useful.
152
It’s Science, but not as we know it. I mean graphs such as this look good and impresssive.It looks good at the gate but what does it look like out back.
30
“The big question is ‘have any of these models been validated and verified’.”
They have not.
At current resolutions, it is impossible for them to do so. Yes, I said “impossible” and I mean it.
I do not have the reference handy, however there is a paper on changes in model output when resolution changes. The output varies significantly in overall pattern when resolution changes by <10%, indicating insufficient resolution to demonstrate convergence of the discrete solution and the continuous solution. The models used therefore FAIL at step one of the validation process. A model that fails validation is not reliable even where it appears to pass verification – that is to say, if you can’t demonstrate that the specific implementation of the maths is doing what you think, then the model producing the “right” output (ie, matching the past) cannot be known to be skillful, it may just be lucky. Given that they need to “tune” the heuristics they require to get what resolution they have, “luck” seems generous and I am more inclined to believe, ummm let’s just say, significantly less flattering descriptions.
Furthermore, any model that is “simple physics” – which is the oft-heard claim of climate models – should match every other model of the same system, which should match reality. Is this really the limit of our predictability – “in 2100, somewhere between 0% and 90% of arctic sea ice will remain”? Really? When all of them start with the same inputs? To get to the standard required by theoretical physics for example, you need a 6 sigma signal. 6 sigma on “0% to 90%” – sufficient to say that even a sanity check calc says there is NO WAY we would EVER get to this level with less than 100,000 years or so of high resolution data… which we don’t even have for the present as yet.
@modellers: go away and come back when you have a validated model and enough data to verify it too. Until you can do that, all your output is, is numerical noise.
90
Here is an example of what happens without enough resolution:
Top row left to right shows image with an 11, 10 and 9 pixel “pixelisation” filter.
Bottom row left to right shows 220,200 and 180 pixel “pixelisation” filter.
The top row shows that we are definately “converging” with reality at this level.
But can you say the same about the bottom row?
Would you be happy to say these are from the same base image?
If you were creating “tomorrow” from these images, then the top row seems like it doesn’t really matter which one you used, they are all pretty close. But the bottom row seems like you could get significantly divergent answers, especially the part between where the man in white is walking past in the background and the man who is the main focus of this image.
Running an edge detector gives a better idea of significant patter changes, so…
10
Damn, no images!
top image:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Su2AWFU3Euacsuc78
edge detected image:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ks6HraRVKU8GwmFs5
00
The Only “Real” and useful model of the extent of Arctic sea ice is provided by the near half million year history of the Milankovic cycles.
Anything based on minor “noise” such as the current “models” is is Nonsense, albeit, expensive Nonsense.
These so called models are evidence that humanity has lost touch with scientific reality and this point will become clear at the end of this current Interglacial when New York is once again under a one mile deep ice flow.
KK
131
Ok….so what about the preceding 50 years of data?
They are playing “selective data” by only showing the forecast, not past data as well……
60
The trend is undeniable, but there was a small uptick recently.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/02/arctic-sea-ice-update-3/
10
Actually gordo, if you cherry pick (as alarmists do) and start at around 2007, there is definitely an upward trend!
00
Expect them to “homogenise” polar bear numbers soon, in fact I think they are trying to do it already to falsely show numbers are decreasing rather than actually stable or increasing.
101
There are as I’m sure you’re aware, two camps in the polar bear numbers. Those who do a fly over and count the number they see, and extrapolate that to the whole continent. They get low numbers. And those who visit the towns along the coast and look at the monitors around the towns, they get high numbers.
It seems that life is neatly divided between those who want everything to be bad and all our fault. And those who believe life is great and everything is humming along sweet. There appears to be no middle ground.
122
The apocalyptic, self-made-climate demise of humanity was ordained long before “the graph of the year” models existed:
1989: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
UN 1982 : World To End Before The Year 2000
“Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness such devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o5tlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TYwNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5103,351973&dq=ecological+holocaust&hl=en
Praise
Gaiaman-bear-pig they are correct this time, and we survivors of the failed apocalypse don’t have to suffer anymore of these fraudulent UN ‘reports’.No more money for the UN, but accountability.
20
If they all used the Hadley data as a base to develop their models on and to propound the subsequent predictions that have arisen from those models, then their predictions are worth an rather obvious sweet FA.
It would be far cheaper for society to just put all of those sea ice and climate modellers onto the dole rather than pay them the lavish funding they are getting today as anything they produce seems to have little or no relevance to society let alone being in anyway an accurate prediction on the future of the extent of the Arctic and Antarctic seasonal sea ice.
And it would also allow a sense of composure and common sense to develop around any discussions on the future of the climate and of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.
Is there anything at all that is of actual importance to civilisation in sea ice extent except for navigation purposes, in both the extent or otherwise of sea ice and with large numbers of the climate science and rabid green elites apparently being seriously obsessed with the extent or otherwise of the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice as so many so called [ psuedo ] climate scientists and assorted ignorant propaganda spouting rabid green climate activists appear to be?
111
Putting them all on the dole.
Now that is an interesting idea. It’s a bit too Socialist for my liking but it’s about 25% of the cost of imprisoning them all. I can just imagine all the Institute of Propaganda for Climate Catastrophe staff, authors and mouthpieces/diplomats looking for new jobs. It’s a thought which thoroughly amuses …
Given the now known inaccuracy of the Hadley data, the famous/notorious models are now irrelevant—solutions looking for problems. The world seems to survive whatever the sea-ice extents appear to be. They can’t affect sea-level because the sea-ice is floating anyway. More sea-ice coverage could make life for penguins more marginal for retrieving food, but that’s about all. Less sea-ice coverage? May impact the food stocks a bit more than otherwise for the predatory animals but I can’t see anything much in the variation apart from your mention of navigation.
50
If they had a real theory, they would only have one model as the only variable they have is CO2.
100
`They’ allow +/- 0.1% for Solar TSI variation. But I don’t know if `they’ even use it in the models because the Institute of Propaganda for Climate Catastrophe talks about a ‘Solar Constant‘ … for a known variable star …
With a now known Not Fit for Purpose temperature database and ignoring 96.9% ( ~97%) of our star’s variabililty, why do we wonder why nearly 30 years of predictions are so … constantly inaccurate/incorrect/wrong?
So, to your Unreal or Fantasy Theory I’ll see you with Unreal or Fantasy Data and raise you with an Unreal or Fantasy Solar Constant … 🙂
10
It’s Unicorns all the way down … 🙂
Who has the Fairy Dust?
10
The fairy dust sophocles? Isn’t that what they sprinkle around the country side to magically grow eco-crucifixes that cause no harm whatsoever to the environment, not where they are planted – they don’t kill birds or bats, impact on health or damage the hydrology, they are beautiful to look at and admire, nor in China, where the fairy dust is collected.
The fairy dust is so powerful that those who believe in it are convinced of its magical ability to produce reliable and economic baseload energy and that coal is not needed, not even to manufacture the fairy dust or to provide backup power when the wind doesn’t blow, or it blows to hard.
10
Somewhat o/t
“Delingpole: ‘Who Drew It?’ Trump Queries IPCC’s $38.4 Trillion Ransom Note”
“At the beginning of the week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented the world with a $38.4 trillion ransom note: pay us da money or Gaia gets it.
President Trump’s response: “Who drew it?”
That is, “Why should I trust these people?”
Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not hand over sums like $38.4 trillion without doing a bit of due diligence first. (That sum, by the way, is how much the IPCC insists the world must spend – $2.4 trillion per year over the next 16 years – if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. It’s the equivalent of the half the global economy.) And as it turns out he is more than right to be suspicious.”
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/12/delingpole-who-drew-it-trump-queries-ipccs-38-4-trillion-ransom-note/
121
And if we don’t pay and Gaia doesn’t get it? Do we get to use them for target practice?
“Right, this is a law suit. As you can see, it’s loaded.”
30
And more in that vein
Rex Murphy on the IPCC report
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-un-climate-change-panel-that-cried-wolf-too-often
Via
“Y2Kyoto: Last Gasps”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2018/10/13/y2kyoto-ill-miss-our-fevered-planet/#comments
20
Ice-free Arctic? Party like it’s 1817!
100
What about the drinks? I like some ice in mine so could I suggest 1812?
(Napoleon could tell you about ice and snow then!) 🙂
10
Actually, it does not need the world to cool, just the Arctic. NASA Gistemp, (which may have slight statistical biases 🙂 ) produces temperature data by 8 zones of latitude, which I have graphed.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/gistemp-zonal-7yr-mav.png
For the Arctic+ 64-90N, there was about 2C of warming from 1880 to 1940, Then cooling to about 1970, then another 2C of warming to the start of this year. The end of the data finishes with a strong El Nino spike.
Earlier this year I did my own zonal data analysis from the HADCRUT4 data set, to mirror the Gistemp.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/hadcrut4-zonal-7yr-mav.png
The 65-90N has a peak in the mid-1930s almost 2C higher than in the 1880s, then cooling >1C to the mid-1960s.
Why not cooling again?
40
Antarctica had its warmest ever month (I think Sept) , they only had 14 blizzards during the month the poor things .
41
robert said:
Hmmm … I can’t see why.. 🙂
30
No wonder they are never wrong. No matter what happens, there is a model that covers it, therefor everyone was right.
You would have to call that zero predictive skill.
60
Greg,
In climate you do not need an alternative model to cover a different outcome, just a few tweaks to existing models. As Richard Feynman said in a 1964 Lecture on the Scientific Method.
In terms of climate models, there is a huge of range of options available. For instance, I have been looking at the assumptions behind the 1.5C and 2.0C emissions forecasts in the IPCC AR5. These include
1. A doubling of CO2 leads to 3.0°C of warming in a range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Despite over 30 years of research, they are unable to say where in the range it lies.
2. It takes an infinitely long time to reach full ECS. Why? For all the warming in 2100 projections AR5 used the same transient climate response of 1.9°C. At one end were zero or net negative emissions for 30 years, at the other were emissions nearly three times those in 2010.
3. All GHGs together in were a CO2-eq level of 430 ppm (uncertainty range 340 to 520 ppm) when CO2 levels were 392 ppm. However, negative forcings, such as aerosols (with the large uncertainty ranges) neatly offset methane, halocarbons etc. so CO2 alone can be considered. The 2006 Stern Review also quoted the 430 ppm CO2-eq level, when CO2 levels were 382ppm.
There are other issues as well.
10
“It is a little like the formula for being an expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target.”
Looking at that graph, they cant even use the other bit of shooters spin, “its off target but its a nice group”
51
Y
Precision v/s accuracy
If you have the precision you can adjust the sights
40
More from shooting
Adjust the sights on a bad shot and you’re “error chasing”
20
… mmmm, but it works. It’s `sighting in.‘
Just changing to a different brand of ammunition can cause that, so it’s best to wait for about 14-15 shots before any adjustments …
10
But they don’t have any precision. Their models are all over the side of the barn. They even hit the farmer’s wife in her herb garden.
20
The term farmer’s wife appears to have disappeared from usage. Now they are all “Farmers”. Maybe to do with Sustainable Development Goal 5: “Promote women and girls”. 🙂
11
CO2 level follows average global temperature. Temperature measured by RSS is slightly lower than it was in 2002. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpL5GB5UUAAxvH-.jpg
CO2 is still catching up having increased since 2002 about 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002.
42
It’s a shame that average global temperatures mean nothing.
42
Average global temperatures mean something to those who understand them.
00
This mini El Nino won’t cause havoc, too little too late, but the anomalously cool waters along the GBR is worth watching.
https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/anomp.10.11.2018.gif
60
Not to mention the warm off the NW. Something quite different to last 6 months.
50
This gives us a window of opportunity to test a theory. If the waters remain cooler than average and coral bleaching still occurs, then we know its because of El Nino induced sea level fall. Polyps hate being irradiated.
50
Why doesn’t someone go ask a polar bear and be done with it? After all, the complaint was, “Oooo, the poor polar bears are drowning.” I think a polar bear could tell you if he was drowning or not, don’t you?
Problem solved.
70
You would think so. That female bear which went for a bit of a paddle about four years ago, while wearing her radio-tracking collar, did us all a favour. She `swam’ for about four or five days, then hauled out after having swum c. 630km in that time. Polar bears are like otters: when they want a rest or a snooze, they roll over onto their backs and rest or snooze. Or eat that nice fresh fish they caught.
They aren’t called Ursus Maritimus, the Sea Bear for nothing.
We only know about this lass, because she was wearing her radio collar and was tracked all the way. That was when a lot of the crocodile (no crocodiles in the Arctic … yet) tears about `there’s no ice, the poor polar bears are drowning’ stopped. Dead. Her performance had very effectively `put a plug in it,’ as it were. 🙂
80
Just go to any zoo where they have a polar bear and you’ll see a large pond there for them to swim in, in other words, evidence that they like to swim.
But then zoos are not PC anymore so you might not find a zoo. It’s always got to be throw the baby out with the bath water.
00
Auckland City has a well-established zoo, involved in a number of animal conservation breeding programs. It used to have a polar bear which was, supposedly, quite mad. Understandably so. It was not replaced after its death because it couldn’t be given sufficient space. They are a large animal. This one lived to quite a ripe old age being well fed and not having to hunt for itself.
10
So, there I was leaving Woolies the other day when I was accosted by a pair of 20-ish female WWF fanatics. One of the frootloops tried to force a pamphlet into my hand, but I was too fast for her and pulled my hand out of reach lest I become another victim of the green contagion. She then proceeded to ask me if I knew how much a polar bear weighs.
“Which particular polar bear did you have in mind?” I enquired. She was momentarily fazed by my question, pulling that kind of blank, far-off expression that you see on dead mullet. However she was not going to be put off by my question as she proceeded to answer her own with a well-worn patter.
“Heavy enough to break through the thin ice in the Arctic because it’s all melting away. They’re drowning,” I was informed. Unfortunately I didn’t get to hear the rest of her spiel as I quickly talked her into submission and gave her a brief but forceful lesson in actual polar bear population dynamics. I could have waited to hear her whole tale of Arctic woe, but I’m of a red-haired, red-tempered disposition, not given to being force-fed green drivel by illiterate 20 year olds who work for corrupt green NGOs.
“Oh, alright,” was her parting response as I walked away half giggling, half enraged at the slop these people try to shove down our throats at shopping centres and malls. I’m certain that 5 seconds after I departed they went back to telling anyone stupid enough to listen that the polar bears are all drowning, but at least I got my 20 seconds of satisfaction seeing the stunned looks on their ignorant faces. I’ve been back since then and for some reason the girls are none too keen to make eye contact.
61
I would have asked her if it was an Antarctic or Arctic bear just for fun .
50
Robert:
That might have been the gist behind Beowulf’s question of “Which particular polar bear …” 🙂
But my thanks for your idea. I’ll remember that.
Ha. A sea bear with fur and another with feathers … chortle
00
When all this polar bear nonsense started I want to the trouble of sending a very polite and neutral request to Environment Canada asking for their assessment of the polar bear’s state of health. It took a long time for my request to filter up to the top but I got back a fairly detailed area by area opinion of Canada’s position about PBs.
I came from (if I remember) Virginia Poter, head of Environment Canada at that time and in all but one of the 5 or 6 areas where they monitor PBs, they were holding their own or increasing and only in one of those areas were they listed as “of concern”. In Alaska of course, dumb old George W. Bush let the pressure force the U.S. to list them as endangered. The Alaskan bears are laughing to this day.
Now that was right from the horse’s mouth. You can’t get more authoritative than that. It’s already a long time ago but it settled the question for me from then on.
It goes without saying that Al Gore and his buddy James Hansen along with all their followers are not honest.
Interestingly the report I got talked about PBs that swim from Canada to Greenland and back and were thus a shared monitoring responsibility. No matter how you measure it that’s a long trip in open ocean. At least some polar bears are part modern ocean liner — really, better than a ship, the Titanic went down on her maiden voyage.
The whole flap started because someone was flying over the area where a severe storm had passed through and he saw 4 polar bear carcasses floating in the water. So there was instant evidence that polar bears are drowning. Yet so far those 4 are the only 4 known to have drowned and they drowned because they got caught too far out to make it to safety befor the storm overwhelmed them. Even the mighty polar bear is not invincible. It was a tragedy for those 4 and any cubs they may have left behind but hardly a tragedy for the species. It’s also more good evidence of the sad state of science and journalism.
40
I was right about the name. A search reveals that she was head of the Canadian Wildlife Service. I also found her obituary.
10
thats the problem when you guess stuff for a living and none of your guesses have so far been any good ,increase the amount of guesses and law of averages says you’re bound to get at least one right .
Cover all bases and voila you eventually nail it .
This is the quality of science that the watermelons and trolls say we should trust in .
71
RR
See 13.1.1
10
OT but the ABC have outdone themselves with this drivel , most of the Reef is dead or dying apparently, well in that case no need to sink $443 million.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-13/climate-change-ipcc-life-in-2040/10359104
51
Well not quite.
All the models show Artic Sea Ice decreasing. If the Ice should increase then all of the models a wrong.
We are already 18 years into the study period and so far more than half of the models are seriously in error.
121
The cooling should really get underway in or around 2021 or so. It will be interesting to see what happens. We should be able to throw big rocks at the Institute of Propaganda for Climate Catastrophe for this BS when that doesn’t pan out for them.
I’m looking forward to it not panning out for them. The Queen song:
Another one bites,
Another one bites,
Another one bites the dust.
will be apropos.
70
It really makes no difference to them when they’re wrong. They’ve been wrong since the beginning.
Why would they be right now? And, it makes no difference to the green-left fake media either. Or to the so-called “professsional” scientific bodies like the AGU (why anybody remains a member is a mystery).
Remember Maslowski in 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
They’re shysters. All of them.
10
As the summer average at the North pole is 0.0C, winter -25C and the maximum temperature at the North Pole is a remarkable +13C, this is an indication only that there is a very light temperature rise over a very long time.In perspective, this means nothing at all.
If the Arctic was ice free in summer, that would be great and would affect no one adversely, not even the polar bears. Their cover is blown and they sit on the brown dirt anyway. There is no sea level rise at all. Consider how far South the ice and snow goes in winter and that is unchanged.
However an ice free Arctic might have great commercial advantages for everyone. Even Captain Cook on his last voyage in 1778 was perhaps seeking an Arctic route around what was then Russian Alaska and sailed his little boat to 70North. A safe passage around Alaska and Canada was a dream for many years. Now it is pictured as a disaster. For whom? This is a fake scare.
The large Russian city Murmansk is at 70 North and has a population of 300,000 and a summer maximum of 33C. Try telling them that you would prefer they were buried in snow for summer too. As for the Polar bears, they really like a do nothing summer just as much as anyone else. Food is short when you can be seen from miles away with no vegetation for cover but polar bears clearly prefer it to winter hibernation like their cousins, the Brown bears.
By the way, a polar bear’s skin is black. They are just adaptions like the arctic fox, arctic owl, ermine. It pays to be white. These carnivores are not cute. They are not endangered by a 0.0C rise in ‘world’ temperature in the last twenty years. Like everywhere else, they have hot years and cold years, but that’s the weather.
82
TdeF:
And the polar bears have been around at least 280,000 years by the least estimate, and perhaps over 800,000 years.
There have been periods of much higher temperatures (hence much lower Arctic ice) for thousands of years, which they have managed to survive.
It appears that polar bears are much smarter than IPCC ‘scientists’.
100
Polar bears don’t hesitate to turn cannibal if they need to. I’m not sure about IPCC scientists …
40
… insufficient evidence …
10
Well, Greenpeace certainly eats its own:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/greenpeace-disappears-a-founder-much-like-the-commissar-vanishes-in-soviet-russia/
And, a quick search would find many an IPCC contributor who has be put in the big green cast-iron pot, broiled and eaten in front of the green-left media for having the temerity to contradict the IPCC’s groupthink.
You can be sure about the IPCC. They eat their own.
10
Cannibal bears? Doesn’t bear thinking about. They certainly do not get much in the way of green leafy vegetables or berries or honey in the Arctic. Brown bears feast on Salmon runs but you do not read about Polar bears having fish in their diets. You rarely see picture of polar bears at lunch because it is all too gruesome.
10
Richard Lindzen. you mean real science. Perish the thought, the IPCC, ABC and Fairfax won’t tolerate that.
50
Someone once remarked that if you have many standards, you don’t really have a standard. Similarly, if predictions run the gamut through all probabilities, then the predictions are worthless, unless there is a way of validating the best prediction(s) before they actually happen. The state of future temperature and Arctic ice coverage is dismal!
40
The fact that no models predict increasing ice speaks volumes. We don’t understand ice age cycles but it does not matter because one variable is more powerful than anything else which is proven through consensus the question it seems is how powerful based on the various outcomes.
This is the outcome you get when you preorder the result you want
55
Have you heard of the Milankovitch Cycles?
The modern paradigm, that CO2 causes global warming, has been falsified. So now we are seeking a paradigm shift towards a sharper astronomical understanding of climate change.
For example, the impact of a blank sun on the North Atlantic Oscillation or does the electromagnetic system of Jupiter have an effect on earthly climate?
40
Yes el Gordon as usual your grasp of english has failed you
11
I couldn’t tell if you were speaking tongue in cheek.
30
The IPCC have history in spaghetti art.
https://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
50
It looks more like a representation of a brush-tailed possum. Pretty it is but useful it is not.
50
Wow, Steve’s article and the responses is worth the read.
30
I can’t reply at Climate Audit, but a comment by Rdcii made me think.
You can’t just shift the output of the models down. Surely if the models were using the temperatures at those shifted locations, the different temperature would have affected the model output. This is a massive cheat, and a very poor one at that.
40
It is easy to be a prophet. Predict enough things often enough and long enough you will be right sometime. Then all you have to do is ignore all the times your predictions did not work out.
There was a time that worked and the prophets made out like bandits. The internet changed all of that. Every prediction of every wannabe prophet is recorded in perpetuity and available to be recovered and compared to the actual events. Oops!
Guess why many governments are in such a panic to take over the internet and centralize control over what people can see.
70
No need for the govt to censor ,Google do it for free anyway.
31
Australia and China simply block pages they don’t want you to see.
51
Lionel:
Statistically, a scatter-gun prophet would be right about 25% of the time.
The IPCC really excels: they haven’t been right once in 25 years.
10
Here’s 12 power stations the Greens want closed by 2030 so the arctic will be saved .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-13/coal-power-stations-needed-to-close-to-meet-ipcc-target-report/10368194
21
No one is commenting on the fact that this is one case where the models are (mostly) NOT exaggerating the decline in Arctic sea ice. Far from it, they are mostly predicting a lot slower decline. Of course, they are still wrong but are lagging well behind the observed rate. Perhaps we will see a concerted effort to make the predictions match the terrible reality.
On the other hand, the models do predict a strong decline in the Antarctic, which is not seen at all. For many years, the models showed symmetry around the equator, yet the Arctic warms twice as fast as the tropics and the Antarctic warms not at all. Some symmetry breaking has clearly occurred over the full 39 years of satellite observations, but the performance in this sea ice effort suggests they have not found the answer.
30
A fairly recent paper illustrates that this modern climate optimum is at Holocene’s end.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
10
Fantastic analysis by Lindzen as usual. Declare whatever you hit to be the target ……how true.
No matter what event occurs….it is an omen….a climate omen ! Hilarious .
And the only thing that can stop it is a Great Big Transfer Of Wealth from Western democracies to Socialist Banana Republics ! Viva the BS.
10
There is an error here. Figure 1 does not show the IPCC model forecasts, it shows the projections. Projections are just continuation of trends and exhibit zero skill. They should be totally ignored, especially by policymakers.
20
Phillip Bratby,
If they were “continuations of trends,” I would expect to see straight lines (linear regressions). They should then be called linear extrapolations. Instead, I see lines going up and down like real data. I’m of the opinion that claiming that “projections” and “forecasts” are not the same is a distinction without a difference. They are an attempt to avoid responsibility for forecasts that are simply wrong.
00
If we intend to dispute them on this then we’ll need some solid evidence.
‘The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.
‘This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.
‘One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”.
Guardian
10
The Guardian?! I’d be looking for independent verification before incorporating this story into my dataset.
40
They have satellite verification.
https://i0.wp.com/www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NorthGreenland.jpg?ssl=1
We have nothing to counter their argument that two temperature spikes, confirmed by thermometer, created two seperate gaping holes in the ice. This grew larger with the warm offshore winds, apparently.
There is no way of proving it happened during the Medieval Warm Period.
20
When I first saw that graph it reminded me of the bane of all software engineers, spaghetti code. That’s code that wanders all over the place jumping here and there completely undisciplined.
I suspect that’s a pretty good analogy for all those models. In both cases you have a mess that you have more and more trouble working with until you give up and go home.
20
I’ve written a hydraulics program for work, calculating rainfall events over multiple catchment areas, lagging and accumulating overland flows, retention basins, ponding over field inlets, storm water inlets, culvert flows and lag within the culverts, backwater calculations forcing hydraulic gradeline back up the system, and surcharge out of pits where the system can’t take the full flow of water.
It has it’s own complexity, and even though all the maths are well defined, I’ve still had to make many assumptions and compromises. Mostly it was the 1 minute calculation reporting requirement that caused the biggest challenges. You just can’t have a large flow entering a small retention basin and multiply by 60 seconds to get an answer. My calculation output looked just like those graphs, jumping up and down as the numbers tried to balance themselves.
My program only used water and gravity, time and flow rates. Moderately simple compared to modeling the atmosphere over a rotating planet in space while trying to calculate the interactions of the sun’s radiation upon the atmosphere at all levels, oceans, land, ice, and the various gasses. That would be an insane number of dependent calculations.
The output of all those models tells us the viewers much. Every one of them is going down, and every one of them is very different from the other. I for one don’t believe they can do anything worth a spit. The differences between the models show that the models are producing junk.
41
The intervention required to get GCMs to solve appears to render the results they produce rather useless. The GCMs employ a ‘bottom up’ analysis method. A ‘top down’ analysis method, appropriate for ‘emergent structures’ like global climate, avoids the problems and produces credible results. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
00
STOP BEING SKEPTICS YOU IDIOTS
00
I became a skeptic because life taught me I had to be skeptical. Otherwise I got screwed. If that makes me an idiot then I will proudly wear the title, IDIOT.
I suspect you were being sarcastic but that doesn’t change the reply to what you said. If you don’t dig for the bottom of the issue you end up at the bottom of the pyramid where those above you are dictating what you do and think, a very detrimental and vulnerable position to be in. 🙂
00