Climate Models Are So Flawed They Fail History

[Geee]

Investors Business Daily:

Environment: The alarmists want to place the world in servitude to the models that are predicting global warming. But those models can't even reconstruct the past.

A researcher at Sweden's University of Gothenburg analyzed climate models to see how closely their predictions fit with history, in this case, precipitation in China from 1961 to 2000. What Tinghai Ou found should crimp the alarmists' plans to establish regimes that punish and limit man's use of fossil fuels.

"Only a few climate models were able to reproduce the observed changes in extreme precipitation in China over the last 50 years," says the university's Department of Earth Sciences.

Ou himself said that the "results show that climate models give a poor reflection of the actual changes in extreme precipitation events that took place in China" during the period he examined.

"Only half of the 21 analyzed climate models were able to reproduce the changes in some regions of China," he said. "Few models can well reproduce the nationwide change."

Ou's work is important. If the models can't get the past right, how can they be trusted to predict future climate?

Seems more like guesswork than solid science to us.

[Valin]

 

Pleistocene Glaciations

From: U.S. National Park Service Website, Ice Age Floods, 2002

 

During the Pleistocene Epoch Ice Age, beginning about 2.5 million years ago, virtually all of southwestern Canada was repeatedly glaciated by ice sheets that also covered much of Alaska, northern Washington, Idaho, Montana, and the rest of northern United States. In North America, the most recent glacial event is the Wisconsin glaciation, which began about 80,000 years ago and ended around 10,000 years ago.

 

 

I Love Global Warming!!! Call me crazy but I believe mile thick ice sheets on top of Mpls are a bad thing very bad thing. But I could be wrong.

[NCTexan]

I can tell that we're in for an extended drought across the east coast for the next twenty years.

 

We have clear skies this morning as yesterday.

 

BTW, my conclusions were checked out and confirmed by my resident Wooly Bear.

 

[Valin]

The Meltdown Of Global Warmists Reveals Their True Priorities

*James Taylor

3/28/13

 

Prominent global warming activist Michael Mann threw down the gauntlet against evangelical Christians this week, calling a distinguished climate scientist and well-known Christian an “evolution denier” while refusing to participate with him in a global warming debate. In the wake of Mann’s unprovoked attack, prominent ‘evangelical’ global warming activists, who target evangelical Christians by claiming to also be evangelicals, declined to stand up for the Christian scientist against Mann’s ugly and unprovoked assault.

 

Fox News Channel apparently invited Mann to appear on the air and debate climate scientist Roy Spencer on the topic of global warming. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is one of the most knowledgeable climate scientists in the world. He has been a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, receiving NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Spencer currently holds the position of U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is frequently invited to testify before Congress and in state legislatures regarding climate science.

 

(Snip)

 

Prepare yourself for a shock....

 

 

Mann declined Fox News Channel’s invitation to debate Spencer. Not content to be a gracious invitee, Mann took to his Twitter account to pour out venom at Fox News Channel, Roy Spencer, and Spencer’s religious beliefs. “No, @FoxNews, I’m not interested in ‘debating’ #climatechange and #evolution denier Roy Spencer on your ‘news’ network,” **wrote Mann.

 

(Snip)

 

 

*No not the singer of songs, the evil ultra radical extremest James Taylor

 

** In Crayon?

[Valin]

I can tell that we're in for an extended drought across the east coast for the next twenty years.

 

We have clear skies this morning as yesterday.

 

BTW, my conclusions were checked out and confirmed by my resident Wooly Bear.

 

 

 

It's the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh Global Warming machine! (pat. pend.)

[NCTexan]

It's the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh Global Warming machine! (pat. pend.)

 

Evidently they failed...

 

Here's the SIL at the "shore" on Spring Break holiday earlier this week.

 

[Valin]

It's the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh Global Warming machine! (pat. pend.)

 

Evidently they failed...

 

Here's the SIL at the "shore" on Spring Break holiday earlier this week.

 

 

Last year here in MPLS the temp was in the 60's/70's right now 36°F with a high of 54°. That is as warm as it's been since last fall.

 

 

Theater of the Absurd Seasons, Revisited

3/20/13

 

Last Year

 

3/14/13

[clearvision]

You all are missing the whole point. It is no longer global warming or even climate "change".... now it is extreme events caused by CO2....

[Valin]

You all are missing the whole point. It is no longer global warming or even climate "change".... now it is extreme events caused by CO2....

 

 

I'm Concerned!

[Valin]

Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

Steven Hayward

3/29/13

 

In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:

 

Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?

 

The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.” The question in my mind the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.

 

That day appears to have arrived. The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity. That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

 

 

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire. As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle. Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line. Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown in Figure 2 here.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

 

Climate Change is Here, Ready or Not. So What Now?

Welcome to a warmer, wilder world! We need to stop debating and start accepting that climate change is happening. Eugene Linden on how adaptation and market forces (hint: insurance companies) might temper the coming catastrophe.

Eugene Linden

Mar 30, 2013

 

To paraphrase Hemingway, climate change first comes gradually and then all at once. Now that the negative impacts of changing climate have become undeniable, there is also a dawning realization that—at this point—climate change is unstoppable. This puts into wistful perspective the developing consensus that we should do something about it. Witness Obama’s bold statement in the State of the Union Address that he is prepared to use executive powers if Congress doesn’t act. A cautious politician, it’s doubtful that he would have been so bold unless he felt that he had the public’s backing. And it’s great—except it’s too late. We’re in for it, and the rash of extreme weather events is giving us a taste of what “it” might be.

 

The time to act was at least 25 years ago—back when George H.W. Bush promised to take action (he deep sixed that promise almost immediately after his inauguration). Given the lag in the climate system, the extreme floods, droughts, storms, storm surges, and tornado swarms are partly a response to greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere of past years that we have since exceeded. The accelerating release of the greenhouse methane—the crystal meth of global warming—from the melting permafrost in the warming Arctic will continue regardless of whatever actions the developed nations agree to take in the coming years. It’s quixotic to think that humanity can take any action to reverse the overtaxing of the oceans’ ability to absorb CO2 (evidenced by the seas’ increasing acidity) on any timeframe meaningful to those living today.

 

The most unsettling thing about the accelerating pace of extreme weather events is that they may signal that even as the momentum in the rise of CO2 makes it difficult to reverse the cause of climate change, we are entering a new period in which change itself comes ever more rapidly. The retreat of the Arctic sea ice shows us how this works. The white surface of sea ice reflects about eight times the heat of open water. So, as the ice retreats, heat that previously was reflected from the surface and trapped below the ice is now absorbed and released, vastly amplifying the pace of change.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Gene has spoken, so that should end this silly debate.