AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Most climate scientists have stated that human activity affects climate change.

One explanation for why climate change has become such a partisan issue is that it is not the idea of climate change per se, that conflicts with conservative ideology, rather it is the most commonly proposed solutions to climate change: pollution taxes, emissions restrictions, and government intervention. A fascinating recent study examined what happens when solutions to climate change are framed in a way that doesn’t conflict with conservative ideology. When the researchers mentioned “how the United States could help stop climate change and profit from leading the world in green technology”, the likelihood that Republicans reported that they believed in climate change rocketed from 22% to 55%:

This data may explain the behavior of the candidates in the recent Republican leadership debates who shied away from discussing climate science, instead preferring to attack solutions to climate change with such words of wisdom as “America is not a planet” from Marco Rubio. No, America is not a planet and yes, of course we will have to unite around the world to fight climate change.

In last week’s debate, three Republican candidates: Rubio, Christie and Walker, at least accepted that climate change is real, which suggests the party may be in the midst of taking an important step forward, even though all the candidates stubbornly refused to agree on any action to prevent climate change.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/science-and-policy/chaos-theory-and-weather-prediction.pdf

An article published today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society may be the
last interview with the father of chaos theory, MIT professor Dr. Edward Lorenz, and has
essential implications for climate modelling. In the 2007 interview, Dr. Lorenz confirms that chaos theory proves that weather and climate cannot be predicted beyond the very short term [about 3 weeks], and that even with today's state-of-the-art observing systems and models,weather [or climate] still cannot be predicted even 2 weeks in advance.

Dr. Lorenz notes that although other fields that deal with complex, non-linear systems have accepted the implications of chaos theory, some meteorologists and climatologists remain reluctant to accept the implications of chaos theory, namely that long-term climate forecasting is impossible.

According to chaos theory, all the current "initial' conditions throughout the atmosphere must
be known precisely to predict what the atmosphere will be doing in the distant future. In
addition, one must know all the current conditions throughout the oceans as well, since the oceans control the atmosphere. “In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long-range forecasting would seem to be non-existent,”
Lorenz concluded.

So even if the molecules in the air all interacted non-randomly, in a totally cause-and-effect (deterministic) manner, you still couldn’t predict with certainty what they would do or what the weather would be."
Chaos theory also debunks the claim of some climatologists that although models cannot predict short-term climate variations such as the current 20 year "pause," they can still be used for long-term projections. Chaos theory instead proves that uncertainty of projections increases exponentially with time, and therefore, long-term climate model projections such as
throughout the IPCC AR5 report are in fact impossible to rely upon

By the way not only are we a long long way from having models that can predict climate changes with given factors but there is sadly a good chance that the earth climate is too must of a Chaos system to allow for any predictions by way of models in the future even the far future.

And let’s face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree — but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don’t have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/2014-nasa-hansen-climate-model-output-vs-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html




2014: NASA/Hansen Climate Model Output Vs. Climate Reality - Failure Is Always Ugly
The updated NASA/Hansen climate model chart with the latest GISS and HadCRUT4 observations remains a testament to abject climate model failure by the anointed "experts"...chart includes updated GHG growth trends from IPCC AR5...not surprisingly, climate reality is very unkind to the CO2-centric computer simulation predictions...one could fairly surmise from the actual performance of models and experts that they can't predict squat...just say'n.....
2014 nasa hansen climate model vs reality dec2014 020615
(click on chart to enlarge)
No matter how many years go by, the trend towards ever worse climate model predictions continues.
Case in point: The NASA/Hansen climate model that was used by climate experts to convince the politicians, the media and pubic that the world was at severe risk for massive global warming if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not drastically cut.
This model's predictions came to the forefront when NASA's James Hansen provided testimony to the U.S. Senate in 1988. As it was discovered much later, the Hansen testimony was stage-crafted for maximum fear-mongering impact, which should have been the first clue that there was a credibility issue regarding the climate model.
Before diving into the details, a short glance at the accompanying chart provides the critical policymaker insight:
Essentially, the NASA model predicted temperatures would follow the bright green curve if GHGs were not curtailed. The cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed. Greenhouse gases have continued their accelerated growth, yet the observed temperatures (the green and pink circles) closely match the cyan curve. Simply, the model's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, worsening by the year.
The following provides more details:
The newly published 2014 IPCC AR5 summary report bemoaned the recent significant growth increase of GHGs. The IPCC established the per year growth, prior to 2000, to be at a 1.3% rate. The IPCC AR5 reports that GHG growth has now jumped to 2.2% per year through 2010 (see more details here).
[Editor: Speaking to CO2 emissions more specifically, using the 1999 year-end global CO2 emission level as the base year, CO2 emissions have grown at an average 3.0% per year pace as of the end of 2013. That's 14 years of exceptional growth. In contrast, the 14 years of CO2 growth prior to 1988 is only 1.8% per year (read below as to why prior to 1988).]
To say that GHGs have exceeded the 'business-as-usual" (BAU) scenario would be an understatement - according to the IPCC AR5, a 70% increase has taken place, on a per year basis.
Of course, the BAU scenario was made famous by during that 1988 U.S. Senate hearing.
Per Hansen: "We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which would totally eliminate net trace gas growth by year 2000."
In a peer-reviewed article supporting his testimony, he stated that the 1970s and 1980s had an approximate annual growth average of 1.5% (prior to 1988). This was the paper's BAU 'Scenario A' that he spoke of in his testimony. In his written Senate statement, he included an appendix that verifies the ~1.5% BAU estimate for GHGs, plus a chart that depicted the scenarios A, B and C.
That chart is replicated above, with Scenario 'A' being the green curve; the 'B' scenario is the orange curve; and the cyan curve is the 'C' scenario, which represents the 'draconian' emission cuts Hansen states are required to minimize potential global warming.
As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.
Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.
As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.
Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.
Additional climate model, greenhouse gas and global temperature charts.
Notes: This updated NASA/Hansen chart now uses the current HC4 and GISS V3 datasets, as of 12/31/14. Instead of plotting individual year datapoints for observed temperatures, plotted 3-year (36-month averages ending in December): this reflects an expectation that models can't predict accurately every annual period, but over longer 3-year periods the model and observation trends should better match. Starting in 1960, both GISS and HC4 3-year averages were offset to start at zero (0.0°C) anomaly. To reduce the clutter on chart, only 'even' year observed 3-year temperature datapoints were plotted. The small insert chart is data from IPCC AR5 summary report. The green, orange and cyan Hansen model plots came from this climate-doomsday site.

an agreement that the climate is warming and some of that warming is likely cause by humans doe not mean that there is an agreement that we are looking at a climate catastrophe no matter how you and others try to state otherwise.

a chaos system is beyond the ability of long term modeling as in beyond a few days.

9 Global Disasters That Never Came to Pass

Quote:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5943220/9-global-disasters-that-never-came-to-pass

It's easy to get caught up in apocalyptic paranoia. After all, it's 2012, the economy is fucked, the oceans are rising, and all our coolest fictional heroes are post-apocalyptic one way or another. But let's just take a moment to remember all the calamities that didn't happen. Over the past few decades, people have predicted plenty of Earth-shattering catastrophes. And we're still here, for now.

Here are nine worldwide, massive disasters that people were warning about, which never happened. Some of them were real possibilities, while others were never more than just mass hysteria or widespread delusion.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=985641c9-8594-43c2-802d-947d65555e8e


The "fluff," Prof. Dyson explains, comes from climate-change models that predict all manner of catastrophe. The models count for naught as predictive tools.

"I have studied their climate models and know what they can do," Prof. Dyson says. "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects.

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states.

Prof. Dyson learned about the pitfalls of modelling early in his career, in 1953, and from good authority: physicist Enrico Fermi, who had built the first nuclear reactor in 1942. The young Prof. Dyson and his team of graduate students and post-docs had proudly developed what seemed like a remarkably reliable model of subatomic behaviour that corresponded with Fermi's actual measurements. To Prof. Dyson's dismay, Fermi quickly dismissed his model.

"In desperation, I asked Fermi whether he was not impressed by the agreement between our calculated numbers and his measured numbers. He replied, 'How many arbitrary parameters did you use for your calculations?' I thought for a moment about our cut-off procedures and said, 'Four.' He said, 'I remember my friend Johnny von Neumann [the co-creator of game theory] used to say, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.' With that, the conversation was over."

Prof. Dyson soon abandoned this line of inquiry. Only years later, after Fermi's death, did new developments in science confirm that the impressive agreement between Prof. Dyson's model and Fermi's measurements was bogus, and that Prof. Dyson and his students had been spared years of grief by Fermi's wise dismissal of his speculative model. Although it seemed elegant, it was no foundation upon which to base sound science.

Unlike many scientists today, who seek the comfort of consensus as opposed to thinking for themselves, Prof. Dyson has always been happy to be in the minority. He tells the story of his stint as an analyst during the Second World War in the U.K.'s Bomber Command, when he proposed ripping out two gun turrets from R.A.F. Lancaster bombers. Without the turrets, they could fly 50 miles per hour faster, be much more manoeuvrable and cut the U.K.'s catastrophic losses to German fighters. Those at the top preferred to delude themselves: "To push the idea of ripping out gun turrets, against the official mythology of the gallant gunner defending his crewmates ? was not the kind of suggestion the commander in chief liked to hear."

Today's official mythology involves global warming, in a societal mobilization of another kind. The allure of the conventional wisdom has not changed. "Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models." A heretic he remains, and, as history has shown, much more often right than not.

[email protected].

Sorry but those doomsday prediction have no scientific backing and in fact never can have any scientific backing.

There, Bill was pretty much declaring that his mind won't be changed by evidence. Reminds me of the Nye-Ham debate

An you either and god I remember