by Antero Ollila, November 21, 2017 in WUWT
The error of the IPCC climate model is about 50% in the present time. There are two things that explain this error:
1) There is no positive water feedback in the climate, and 2) The radiative forcing of carbon dioxide is too strong.
See also here
by Paul Homewood, November 25, 2017 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
“Science” is not a set of facts but a process or method that sets out a way for us to discover information and which attempts to determine the level of confidence we might have in that information. In the method, a “claim” or “hypothesis” is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again.
by Steve McIntyre, November 18, 2017 in ClimateAudit
(…) What does this all mean? Are models consistent with observations or not? Up to the recent very large El Nino, it seemed that even climate scientists were on the verge of conceding that models were running too hot, but the El Nino has given them a reprieve. After the very large 1998 El Nino, there was about 15 years of apparent “pause”. Will there be a similar pattern after the very large 2017 El Nino?
by Dr. Shaviv, November 9, 2017 in ClimateDepot
(…)The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity.
by Freeman Dyson, November 10, 2017 in WUWT FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. His professional interests are in mathematics and astronomy
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.
by Dr S. Lüning and Prof. F. Vahrenholt, March 26, 2017, in NoTricksZone
In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”
by Dr Pat Michaels, November 3, 2017 in WUWT
Under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government has been charged with producing large National Climate Assessments (NCA), and today the most recent iteration has arrived. It is typical of these sorts of documents–much about how the future of mankind is doomed to suffer through increasingly erratic weather and other tribulations. It’s also missing a few tidbits of information that convincingly argue that everything in it with regard to upcoming 21st century climate needs to be taken with a mountain of salt.
by Douglas Maraun et al., November 2, 2017 in Nature
Biases in climate model simulations introduce biases in subsequent impact simulations. Therefore, bias correction methods are operationally used to post-process regional climate projections. However, many problems have been identified, and some researchers question the very basis of the approach.
by Pat Frank, October 23, 2017 in WUWT
Regular readers at Anthony’s Watts Up With That will know that for several years, since July 2013 in fact, I have been trying to publish an analysis of climate model error.
The analysis propagates a lower limit calibration error of climate models through their air temperature projections. Anyone reading here can predict the result. Climate models are utterly unreliable. For a more extended discussion see my prior WUWT post on this topic (thank-you Anthony).
by CERN Courier, November 11, 2017
Future global climate projections have been put on more solid empirical ground, thanks to new measurements of the production rates of atmospheric aerosol particles by CERN’s Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment
by T. Edimburgh and J. Day, November 21, 2017, in TheCryopshere
In stark contrast to the sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, there has been a steady increase in ice extent around Antarctica during the last three decades, especially in the Weddell and Ross seas. In general, climate models do not to capture this trend and a lack of information about sea ice coverage in the pre-satellite period limits our ability to quantify the sensitivity of sea ice to climate change and robustly validate climate models
by Michel de Rougemont, September 30, 2017 in WUWT
(…) We are left with conjectures and other speculation, both in the recent past and for the future. For this, climatologists develop models with which they can test their hypotheses. But these models are obviously overheating. (…)
See also here
by K. Richard, September 28, 2017 in NoTricksZone
It was four months ago that an article entitled 80 Graphs From 58 New (2017) Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Global-Scale Modern Warmingappeared on this website. The article received international attention and was “shared” tens of thousands of times.
In the last 4 months, 40 more graphs taken from 30 more new peer-reviewed scientific papers have made their way into the ever-growing volume of evidence that today’s climate is not only not unprecedented or unusual in the context of the last millennium, but modern temperature values are still among the coldest of the last 10,000 years.
by Ross McKitrick, September 26, 2017 in ClimateEtc.
A number of authors, including the IPCC, have argued that climate models have systematically overstated the rate of global warming in recent decades. A recent paper by Millar et al. (2017) presented the same finding in a diagram of temperature change versus cumulative carbon emissions since 1870.
by C. Monckton of Brenchley, September 26, 2017 in WUWT
In the climate debate, though, it pays to read the small print. Official climatology does not usually admit its many errors: instead, we are ordered to obey the “consensus”, as the Party Line is these days rebranded. On reading the headlines, I suspected at once that the true purpose of the latest admission, by Millar et al. in the current issue of Nature Geo“science”, is to minimize and thus to conceal the true magnitude of past over-predictions.