Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040

[Media_Truth]

How was the crow?

According to the National Climate Assessment, the climate models have been shown to be extremely accurate. If anything they are erring on the side of being too Conservative.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

 

[Jack Hays]

According to the National Climate Assessment, the climate models have been shown to be extremely accurate. If anything they are erring on the side of being too Conservative.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview

It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed. The only real surprises have been that some changes, such as sea level rise and Arctic sea ice decline, have outpaced earlier projections.

Sorry, but they're not allowed to grade their own papers.

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but they're not allowed to grade their own papers.

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

 

[Media_Truth]

Is Jack blogging again?

 

[Media_Truth]

Sorry, but they're not allowed to grade their own papers.

[h=2]Climate Models are a Joke[/h]
[h=3]An update on the graph that is death to climate models[/h]Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.

TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS
5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
​

The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)

Read the whole Climate Reality PDF here.​

"They". The old "They" conspiracy. Did you look at the link? Here is a list of contributors to the NCA. It must be the peer review that you object to. Bloggers tend to not like peer reviews.

A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Media_Truth]

BTW Jack, that's quite a statement in your link. That the study of Climate Change is "PAGAN". Not only do they Politicize scientific work, they also Secularize it. I wonder what GOD thinks of that?

 

[Jack Hays]

BTW Jack, that's quite a statement in your link. That the study of Climate Change is "PAGAN". Not only do they Politicize scientific work, they also Secularize it. I wonder what GOD thinks of that?

There is no doubt that AGW advocacy has religious overtones. I've had a thread about it for some time. Here's the passage from my link, which is right on point.

". . . climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather."

 

[Jack Hays]

"They". The old "They" conspiracy. Did you look at the link? Here is a list of contributors to the NCA. It must be the peer review that you object to. Bloggers tend to not like peer reviews.

A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

Grading their own papers, as I said.

 

[Jack Hays]

Achievable only by playing games with the start point.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]In an attempt to discredit Judith Curry, Gavin at RealClimate shows how bad climate models really are[/h][FONT=&quot]From the “whoopsie, that’s not what I meant” department Guest essay by Thomas Wiita A recent poster here wrote that they had stopped looking at the Real Climate web site, and good for them. It has become a sad, inwardly focused group. It’s hard to see anyone in the Trump Administration thinking they’re getting value…
[/FONT]
April 26, 2017 in Climate Models, Gavin Schmidt.

 

[Jack Hays]

An oldie but a goodie:

Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot

Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg The current climate models are running way too hot. Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)

September 16, 2013 in Climate News, Modeling.

[FONT=&quot]Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h][FONT=&quot]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
[/FONT]

 

[Threegoofs]

 

[bubbabgone]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/why-climate-models-run-hot/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Why Climate Models Run Hot[/h][FONT="]by Rud Istvan, EPA administrator Pruitt wants to “Red Team” the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) consensus best reflected in the IPCC assessment reports (AR). At its core, CAGW rests on just three propositions: 1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas retarding radiative cooling. This should not be in serious dispute since Tyndall experimentally proved…
[/FONT]

I was just reading a piece from a meteorologist who noted the reality that we've been in a cooling period.
He even used terms like "new paradigm" because of the cooling and natural "cycle".
IOW, he knew enough to go beyond your typical weather forecaster.
Cycles can, after all, precisely describe climate behavior from ... forever.

 

[Threegoofs]

I was just reading a piece from a meteorologist who noted the reality that we've been in a cooling period.
He even used terms like "new paradigm" because of the cooling and natural "cycle".
IOW, he knew enough to go beyond your typical weather forecaster.
Cycles can, after all, precisely describe climate behavior from ... forever.

The cycle seems to be.... not cycling.

And LOL at ‘reading a piece’. You’re reading denier blogs. We all know it.

 

[Jack Hays]

The cycle seems to be.... not cycling.

And LOL at ‘reading a piece’. You’re reading denier blogs. We all know it.

On the contrary, your graph shows the beginning of cooling.

 

[Threegoofs]

An oldie but a goodie:

Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot

Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg The current climate models are running way too hot. Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)

September 16, 2013 in Climate News, Modeling.

[FONT=&quot]Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

LOL. It’s from 2013.

If you look at 1980 as the baseline, the current temps are about 0.7 degrees above it.

Which is exactly where the ‘model temp’ line is.

It IS a goodie... but not in the way you think.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL. It’s from 2013.

If you look at 1980 as the baseline, the current temps are about 0.7 degrees above it.

Which is exactly where the ‘model temp’ line is.

It IS a goodie... but not in the way you think.

I suggest you look again. You're off by . . . 71%.

 

[Buzz62]

The cycle seems to be.... not cycling.

And LOL at ‘reading a piece’. You’re reading denier blogs. We all know it.

:lamo

I often wonder what makes some people fight like hell to prove something that they know is based on faulty assumptions and bad science.
Do you, perhaps, have some sort of stake in convincing folks that the sky is falling?
The sky is not falling. The global temperatures fluctuate and that's just the way it is.
To even think that this global warming scare has any traction at all anymore is...well it's just silly.
But...as I figure you do have some sort of stake in this asinine idea...please...do proceed.
Would you like a bigger shovel...maybe?

 

[Threegoofs]

I suggest you look again. You're off by . . . 71%.

I see it quite clearly. In fact, the anomaly might be more like 0.8 degrees, which puts it well over the line for models.

That’s why using 2013 data in 2018 is not just stupid, its dishonest.

But you cant see that, anymore than you can interpret your own post!

 

[Threegoofs]

:lamo

I often wonder what makes some people fight like hell to prove something that they know is based on faulty assumptions and bad science.
Do you, perhaps, have some sort of stake in convincing folks that the sky is falling?
The sky is not falling. The global temperatures fluctuate and that's just the way it is.
To even think that this global warming scare has any traction at all anymore is...well it's just silly.
But...as I figure you do have some sort of stake in this asinine idea...please...do proceed.
Would you like a bigger shovel...maybe?

Thanks for the science update.

I see you’re really in the loop.

 

[Buzz62]

Thanks for the science update.

I see you’re really in the loop.

I don't need to be "in the loop" anymore. I already know what's going on...and why.
But for argument's sake...
What makes you figure anyone at all would take a person seriously, when every post they do, exhibits the following grand proclamations?
"Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people."

Gee...that's a cool thing to say...:roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't need to be "in the loop" anymore. I already know what's going on...and why.
But for argument's sake...
What makes you figure anyone at all would take a person seriously, when every post they do, exhibits the following grand proclamations?
"Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people."

Gee...that's a cool thing to say...:roll:

I’m guessing you don’t get it.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see it quite clearly. In fact, the anomaly might be more like 0.8 degrees, which puts it well over the line for models.

That’s why using 2013 data in 2018 is not just stupid, its dishonest.

But you cant see that, anymore than you can interpret your own post!

What part of "oldie" did you not understand?

 

[Cassandra]

There is no doubt that AGW advocacy has religious overtones. I've had a thread about it for some time. Here's the passage from my link, which is right on point.

". . . climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather."

Judging from your posts, you don't appear to have a relevant science background. Anyone who hasn't the scientific background to understand the research is taking other people's expertise 'on faith'- that includes you. Trust in science - a discipline that continually revisits theories and conclusions- is the opposite of doctrinal theology. My unenthusiastic acceptance of C.C. science comes with the acknowledgement that it is too complex for anyone to know precisely what we will see 20 yrs from now. However, visible affects of C.C. are quite apparent even to a non scientist such as myself- quite the opposite from religious faith. In my neck of the woods, one only has to observe the lobster fishery:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-07-08/feast-or-famine-life-lobstering-maine

“They were molting in June rather than July,” White says. “They were doing repeat molting where they were molting more than once in the summer, maybe twice, maybe again in the autumn — unheard of, really.”

In addition — to support the third theory — lobsters were going through early maturation. Females that had usually only bred once they were of legal size were now breeding up to seven times in their life cycle.

In 2017, the overall amount of lobsters caught in Maine dropped 16.4 percent — from 132 million to 110 million. Another drop like that in 2018, White says, can really “spell trouble” for the lobstermen.


My friends tell me that 2018 has not been a good year for fisherman but the numbers are not in as far as I can tell.