Another bold forecast – destined for “climate FAIL”

Here’s the headline from the press release today, which will undoubtedly be regurgitated worldwide:

Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers

Oh gee, where have wee seen this before? It’s another example of model madness, and it fits in with the now famous: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. Let’s compare expert quotes:

A. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Right, we saw how that worked out.

B. “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh

From Eurekalert

Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists. The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change.

In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see “the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat” in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America – including the United States – are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.

“According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. The study is co-authored by Stanford research assistant Martin Scherer.

“When scientists talk about global warming causing more heat waves, people often ask if that means that the hottest temperatures will become ‘the new normal,'” Diffenbaugh said. “That got us thinking – at what point can we expect the coolest seasonal temperatures to always be hotter than the historically highest temperatures for that season?”

Climate models, past and future

To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years. The analysis revealed that many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years.

“We also analyzed historical data from weather stations around the world to see if the projected emergence of unprecedented heat had already begun,” Diffenbaugh said. “It turns out that when we look back in time using temperature records, we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well.”

According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest. “We find that the most immediate increase in extreme seasonal heat occurs in the tropics, with up to 70 percent of seasons in the early 21st century (2010-2039) exceeding the late-20th century maximum,” the authors wrote.

Tropical regions may see the most dramatic changes first, but wide swaths of North America, China and Mediterranean Europe are also likely to enter into a new heat regime by 2070, according to the study.

Environmental impact

This dramatic shift in seasonal temperatures could have severe consequences for human health, agricultural production and ecosystem productivity, Diffenbaugh said. As an example, he pointed to record heat waves in Europe in 2003 that killed 40,000 people. He also cited studies showing that projected increases in summer temperatures in the Midwestern United States could reduce the harvest of staples, such as corn and soybeans, by more than 30 percent.

Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly the new, potentially destructive heat regimes are likely to emerge, given that the study was based on a relatively moderate forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century.

“The fact that we’re already seeing these changes in historical weather observations, and that they match climate model simulations so closely, increases our confidence that our projections of permanent escalations in seasonal temperatures within the next few decades are well founded,” Diffenbaugh said.

###

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank.

This article was written by Donna Hesterman, a science-writer intern at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Modeling and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Another bold forecast – destined for “climate FAIL”

  1. Doug Proctor says:

    The more extreme the forecast, the more observation will differ from expectation.

    But, you notice, there are no specific dates? What we want is the warmist to say, “In 2015 you will fry eggs on the sidewalks, if the chickens haven’t already died from too much heat.”

    The rise in CO2 is the one item the warmists cannot ignore. It drives every forecast, but you can’t fudge the number. Each day the CO2 rises should make Hansen more uneasy – the End-of-Time is supposed to happen during his retirement.

  2. bushy says:

    Ooh, ok within 60 years. Yup that gets you out of the poo if you are not quite on target, Git.

  3. Roger Longstaff says:

    I hope so – can’t come soon enough!

    Even though 2010 was the “hottest year ever”, here in London we started the year buried under snow and ice, had a miserable summer (mostly cold and wet) and then ended the year buried under snow and ice again.

    But hey, they may be right – the world might end, pigs might fly…………..

  4. Typhoon says:

    GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out

  5. John F. Hultquist says:

    This article was written by Donna Hesterman, a science-writer intern at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

    A female intern! Poor thing, she must be traumatized. A pronouncement this grave is usually reserved for high level government officials or a UN bureaucrat – trained in the delivery of bad news.

    Can we nominate Donna for a fantasy fiction writer award?

    “. . . fantasy is the literature of longing: instead of writing about the world as it might some day become, it writes about the world as we wish it could be or have been.

    http://www.treitel.org/Richard/sf/fantasy.html

  6. Steven Hill says:

    Oh sure, I remember 1977 very well, the ICE AGE has returned. I am sick of stupid.

  7. Bob Mount says:

    Presumably, this is another “peer reviewed” paper of what computer models “predict”. But where is the peer reviewed science?

  8. Theo Goodwin says:

    The authors of this report are not scientists. No scientist would touch such claims with a ten foot pole. The claims are based on no actual physical hypotheses and cannot be genuine predictions for that reason alone. The claims are not falsifiable, obviously, because they are based on models, no less than 60. So, if the claims turn out to be false in 2071, what gets rejected? Is there some element of one model that can be rejected and thereby improve the model, as is normal scientific practice? Of course not? You have to reject the whole model; that is the nature of models. In this case, you have to reject 60 of them. Of course in 2071, no one will be able to find so much as one reference to these models. The authors are worthy of a middle school newspaper trying to hype something. Pathetic! Stanford needs to clean house big time.

  9. Mycroft says:

    Sounds like some one pushed the reset button,could have come from Hansen’s 88 diatribe!
    And what about South America and Australia, New Zealand.thought is was Global Warming??
    And can some one verify this statement:

    “According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest”.
    I seem to remember it was the Arctic was heating up the fastest?

  10. PhilJourdan says:

    These quacks seem to be using the scattergun technique. They will forecast everything – so at least something will come true. Now if we examine how much they get correct, then we see that a monkey has a better score than the experts.

  11. DJ says:

    Permanently hot summers?

    Apparently they didn’t read the comment of this article at the Reno Gazette Journal about chains and snows required on Mt. Rose Hwy and I-80!!

    http://www.rgj.com/comments/article/20110606/WEATHER/110606003/Chains-snow-tires-required-stretches-80-Mount-Rose-Hwy-

    Read the comment…it’s hysterical!!!

  12. TerryS says:

    Lets shamelessly take a quote out of context:

    The fact that we’re already seeing these changes in historical weather observations,

    They are obviously using NASA GISS and have noticed how the historical weather observations keep on changing.

  13. Latitude says:

    So what are we talking about here….
    1/100th of a degree hotter?
    1/10th of a degree hotter?

    “According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest”

    No they are not, there’s been no change at all…..

  14. Alpha Tango says:

    LOL “…likely to enter a new heat regime 2070″

    Could it be any more vague? How likely? What sort of new heat regime? How big was the grant?

  15. DesertYote says:

    “The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank.”

    All one needs to know, 4 organizations with extreme Marxist agendas.

  16. Gaelan Clark says:

    These alarmist “forecasts” are not benign. I often get asked by my friends, “Who cares if they are not right?”
    Take for instance the “no snow” mantra being cast around in ’06-’07 winter in Europe, they said ski resorts would need to find alternative activities in order to survive. The banks listened to the alarmists and stopped lending money to cash-strapped resorts in need of snow blowers, new lifts, etc, and those resorts suffered as a result of not being able to get capital investment to endure the lower turnout as a result of the vacationers listening to the alarmists.

  17. Engchamp says:

    So far, it is impossible to create a reliable model for predicting climate cycles; there are too many variables, and not enough is known yet about extraterrestial interaction.
    This post would appear to be yet another pile of misanthropic twaddle in an effort to maintain the dying embers of the AGW fanatics’ fire, funded by, inter alia… the World Bank, for which read “the UN”.

  18. oeman50 says:

    From the subject article:

    “….. simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years…….”

    At least the news writer had the sense to put “predicted” in quotes. The last time I checked, “prediction” required anticipating the future, not hindcasting. Any model can be tweaked to represent the past….

  19. crosspatch says:

    many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years.

    It depends on what one means by “permanent”. If you mean permanent, permanent, then there is nothing at all “permanent” about Earth’s climate. The variation over any given 100,000 year period is astounding. If by permanent you mean a change lasting the duration of most people’s lifetimes, sure, that is going to happen anyway, it always does.

    For example, a change right now that lasts for 30 years would be “permanent” for most people over 40 years old. It is my personal opinion that we will see a regimen of cooler temps over the next 30 years compared with the past 30. And at the end of that 30 year period we will likely see a shift upwards again (warm PDO cycle).

    This from Stanford is basically stating that water is wet. Yes, within the next 60 years we will see a pattern that is warmer set in for a duration that will be “permanent” for many people, particularly aging academics. This statement from them really doesn’t mean much.

  20. John F. Hultquist says:

    DJ says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:27 am
    Read the comment…it’s hysterical!!!

    Thanks for the link to that. May be the best comment ever. I’ll save that.

  21. Enduser says:

    “According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest.”

    Wait. I thought that it was established that the poles will heat up the fastest.

  22. Layne Blanchard says:

    When Elvis returns from the heavens astride a purple Unicorn, I’ll consider that AGW might have some merit.

  23. glacierman says:

    Is this a prediction, or a scenario? Because climate scientists are not very good at predictions, but they are absolute experts at scenarios. Of course one deals with reality, which they are also not very good at.

  24. Sam Glasser says:

    Predicting Weather: within 6 hours – most likely; within 6 days – pretty iffy; but “within 60 years”? You have to be kidding yourself!

  25. ZT says:

    1st rule of climatology: never make predictions that can be tested during your career.

  26. pat says:

    “The fact that we’re already seeing these changes in historical weather observations, and that they match climate model simulations so closely, increases our confidence that our projections of permanent escalations in seasonal temperatures within the next few decades are well founded,” Diffenbaugh said.

    I have no idea what he is talking about. Previous predictions, based upon the very models they used in this study, demonstrably failed. So I presume at this point Diffenbaugh is simply relying upon his personal feeling that he is seeing proof of AGW around the globe.
    And why is the tax payer paying for a study on the cumulation of model predictions? Everyone knows what the warmists models predict. Why not a study on how these predictions failed?

  27. Latitude says:

    DJ says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Permanently hot summers?

    Apparently they didn’t read the comment of this article at the Reno Gazette Journal about chains and snows required on Mt. Rose Hwy and I-80!!

    http://www.rgj.com/comments/article/20110606/WEATHER/110606003/Chains-snow-tires-required-stretches-80-Mount-Rose-Hwy-

    Read the comment…it’s hysterical!!!
    ==================================================
    saved it! thanks!

  28. M Carpenter says:

    “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh

    Hope he has his Ark ready!

  29. John Tofflemire says:

    Let me get this straight – TROPICAL regions of the world could “see the emergence of unprecedented summer heat”? But what happens in these places in the winter??

    And, just when Jim Hansen had me convinced the Arctic was heating up the quickest, these guys come along and tell us that, nope, it’s been the tropics that have been heating up the fastest all along. Thank God, they’ve straightened that out for us!

    Arrhenius must be turning over in his grave at the stupidity of these people that call themselves scientists.

  30. icecover says:

    These predictions are a godsend to the skeptic movement keep them coming!

  31. Tom T says:

    Oh goody the tropics are going to heat up faster than the poles. Oh boy that is the opposite of what global warming theory predicts, so I guess we can forget about that nonsense about CO2 causing global warming.

  32. Frank K. says:

    Your tax dollars at work yet again…

    “The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank.

    We know that NSF, DOE, and NIH are CAGW junk science junkies. But why is the World Bank involved in junk science???

  33. philincalifornia says:

    Maybe they could double check on the historical weather data from the tropics, ponder for a while as to how the peer reviewers didn’t catch that critical error, and then retract this garbage before it is published ??

    I’m not holding my breath.

  34. SSam says:

    “he pointed to record heat waves in Europe in 2003 that killed 40,000 people.”

    No… lack of air conditioning, electricity, proper hydration, acclimation and the common sense to go find a shade tree when it gets oppressively hot “killed 40,000 people.”

    AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL, and yes, even GA have seasonally dealt with that level of heat since those states were populated. While on deployment, we stopped at Covb Ireland and I was struck at just how much the country side looked like any place in MS or AL. That sort of explained why my ancestors settled in those states. (plus the lack of an idiotic government)

    The only real difference was that it wasn’t 98° to 105°F with 80% humidity.

  35. Once again we have a study that relies on un-questioning faith that +ve feedback exists and only +ve feedback exists, no hint of -ve feedback, no siree!

  36. James Sexton says:

    So, let me get this straight. Summers are suppose to get hotter in about 60 years from now. They don’t say how much but I’m sure we’re suppose to panic about this statement. They also state the tropics are heating up faster, but that flies in the face of the posit that most of the warming is occurring at the poles. And like Lat shows, it isn’t.

    “Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly the new, potentially destructive heat regimes are likely to emerge,…..” Interesting choice of words, “quickly”. Quickly? After over 30 years of this hyperbolic nonsense they’re saying we may have to wait another 60 to see the dire consequences of warmer summers (we don’t know by how much, but they seem to imply that this will be really bad!)

    I can’t wait for the intellectually stimulating “results” to be published…….

  37. Mike McMillan says:

    John F. Hultquist says: June 6, 2011 at 8:22 am
    Can we nominate Donna for a fantasy fiction writer award?

    Nominations are closed for now, but you may nominate her for the next year. A WSFS attending membership is all that is required.

  38. Steve C says:

    “To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments …”
    (sarc)
    Only 50 climate model “experiments”? Not very “robust”, that!
    (/sarc)

  39. Frank K. says:

    Hmmm…this is sooo last year…

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100708122617.htm

    Is it being regurgitated just in time for summer or perhaps a new funding cycle is beginning???

  40. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Extreme [fill in the blank] in 60 years… is not a bold forecast. Even their children will have retired. We are getting hood-winked by the Ivy league. Where are the keys to the departmental wine cabinet…oh and shut the doors. I hear protesters.

  41. steveta_uk says:

    “we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well.”

    According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest. “We find that the most immediate increase in extreme seasonal heat occurs in the tropics, with up to 70 percent of seasons in the early 21st century (2010-2039) exceeding the late-20th century maximum,” the authors wrote.

    So according to then the historical weather data already shows the extreme heat from 2010 to 2039.

    Time machine, anyone?

  42. Richard111 says:

    “analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments” golly, cutting edge stuff.
    ” –including computer simulations of the 21st century” um.. Lost me now.
    What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?

  43. NikFromNYC says:

    “Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments”

    I added “Computer model outputs are “experiments”.” to my Authority poster scrapbook:

  44. DavidG says:

    Theo, your comment is so on point i’m repeating it and will include it as a response when I send out this piece of ( plaktah-klingon word for bs)!:]

    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:27 am
    “The authors of this report are not scientists. No scientist would touch such claims with a ten foot pole. The claims are based on no actual physical hypotheses and cannot be genuine predictions for that reason alone. The claims are not falsifiable, obviously, because they are based on models, no less than 60. So, if the claims turn out to be false in 2071, what gets rejected? Is there some element of one model that can be rejected and thereby improve the model, as is normal scientific practice? Of course not? You have to reject the whole model; that is the nature of models. In this case, you have to reject 60 of them. Of course in 2071, no one will be able to find so much as one reference to these models. The authors are worthy of a middle school newspaper trying to hype something. Pathetic! Stanford needs to clean house big time”
    All

  45. Neo says:

    An obvious “fit of stupidity”

  46. JamesD says:

    How about giving us a prediction for the front years? If you can’t predict that, then how the heck can you have any confidence in a prediction 60 years in advance?

  47. Paul Nevins says:

    This is based on results of 50 climate models. How embarassing. Take 50 climate models all of which are already known to be completely incorrect and combine them. Then publish the WAG as if it is important.

  48. Tenuc says:

    Shameful that a once respected institution like Stanford would employ someone with as little understanding about climate science as Noah Diffenbaugh.

    This paragraph is a representative sample of the large body of twaddle which makes up the paper. How it ever got through the peer review process beggars belief!

    “To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years…”

    Noah is not telling the whole truth here. I have never seen a model that could accurately represent climate over the last 50y and none of the ‘forecasts’ made are anything like the reality observed. Sorry Noah, this paper is a FAIL – your fired.

  49. Philip Finck says:

    The crap just keeps getting more bizarre!

  50. pat says:

    Why does the World Bank finance such nonsense?
    NTERVIEW-W.Bank to suggest CO2 levy on jet, shipping fuel

    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE75407H20110605?sp=true

  51. gallopingcamel says:

    Can these modelers explain the hot summers throughout Europe around 1540?

    http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1500_1599.htm

  52. Septic Matthew says:

    The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change.

    should be an interesting read. By then it will probably be a part of consensus science. I wonder where they got models to make accurate backcasts of average global temps.

  53. aaron says:

    If those temp increases weren’t actually due to a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans, which they were.

  54. Steve Keohane says:

    Richard111 says: June 6, 2011 at 9:52 am

    “analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments” golly, cutting edge stuff.
    ” –including computer simulations of the 21st century” um.. Lost me now.
    What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?

    I think the former has three dimensions, the latter, only two?

  55. James Sexton says:

    Tenuc says:
    June 6, 2011 at 10:42 am

    “Shameful that a once respected institution like Stanford…….”
    ==============================================
    Funny, I don’t remember a time that it was respected. I think they’re just carrying on their tradition.

  56. Stacey says:

    “Climate change – a story too often told the same way”
    About 40 years ago now, the world used to hear a lot from a futurologist called Herman Kahn. Of ample girth and unquenchable volubility, Herman Kahn, who died in 1983, was always making confident pronouncements about what would happen in the future.
    So and so, he would say, would happen 10, 20, 25 years years from now. It wouldn’t happen tomorrow, so that you could check up on it straightaway, but it would happen 10, 20, 25 years from now.
    Some of us realised that he had invented a new unit of time, and we gave it a name. In tribute to Fermi, who could measure electrons, we called his new unit of time the Hermie. The merit of the Hermie, as a unit of measurement, was that, while being vague, it sounded impressive.
    The prediction itself might or might not have been right. Herman Kahn predicted that within one Hermie everyone in the West would fly his own helicopter and have access to free-fall sex. That didn’t happen within one Hermie, but it still might happen in the next Hermie.
    All we can be sure of is that Herman Kahn’s language exemplified an impressive way of talking about the future, a way of sounding impressive that sounded less impressive only when you realised that sounding impressive was its main motive. Big things would happen. It was big talk. And it paid the penalty of all big talk. As you got used to it, you got tired of it.”

    By Clive James
    Read here:-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8408386.stm

    View here:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00p6vln

  57. Theo Goodwin says:

    DavidG says:
    June 6, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Thanks. You might want to include the hot off the presses information that I have acquired my own supercomputer and my initial runs show that by 2071 all scientists will be using supercomputers and no scientist will know anything about Earth or any aspect of human experience.

  58. Theo Goodwin says:

    Richard111 says:
    June 6, 2011 at 9:52 am
    “What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?”

    A simulation is one run of a computer model. A computer model is some mathematical software, usually designed for the task, such as linear programming software, and some set of heuristics created by programmers not scientists that make the software solve when some numbers are plugged into it.

    The reason I say that programmers are not scientists is that if you have mastered the heuristics used on a supercomputer then you have not had time to be a scientist, and vice-versa.

  59. Matt G says:

    Must be concerned already with not much happening in the Arctic, so as usual change goal posts. No studies (proper science, not computer based) have found the tropical oceans to change no more than 1 or 2c during the past 4 milllion years. This includes the coldest ice ages and the warmest ever periods. In short this computer (Zx81) has shown you can hit a line with a dot, for it to return again if the dot at the other side knocks the line back. Completely opposite results to the global warming theory and proxy ocean data from all studies. Looks like harold Camping is set up for a big loss again.

  60. Theo Goodwin says:

    oeman50 says:
    June 6, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Well said, Sir! Hats off to you. You are perfectly welcome to use the word ‘hindcast’ but I prefer ‘retrodict’. It makes a nice contrast with ‘predict’. As you suggest, one can retrodict everything but predict nothing.

  61. Matt G says:

    Should be.

    This includes the coldest ice ages and the warmest periods.

  62. jorgekafkazar says:

    Frank K. says: ““The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank….why is the World Bank involved in junk science???”

    Today the Nation, tomorrow the World!

  63. AnonyMoose says:

    “simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years.”

    So they used simulations that didn’t “predict” what happened in the 1940s.

  64. ann r says:

    Stanford Magazine has been carrying articles like this for several years. They are totally committed to this point of view. Various alums write in long letters to the ed with factual information disputing SU’s stand. Some of the letters get printed in the next edition, but it makes no impact whatsoever. Funny! Hoover Institute is considered to be “far right.” But the university faculty and admin are really pretty much all far left.

  65. Interstellar Bill says:

    In an article saturated in lies, the biggest one:
    “Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly…”
    As with all Lefties, the more they are exposed
    the more they double down on the BS.
    They were SO surprised that their predetermined conclusion was reached!

    I especially love the multitudinous evasions:
    “quickly” only means that once it starts
    it will be the usual Hockey Stick.

    I can well remember previous ‘predictions’,
    such as 1980-Hansen “Doom in 30 years,”
    so now its a forest of ‘may’ and ‘likely’.

    As the world cools down, sea-level falls, and snowpacks last all year,
    they prattle about ‘these changes’ as if they were anything but the Cabal’s typical data-revisionism.

    The sooner and more disastrous the impending LIA,
    the sooner will the AGW crowd finally go away.
    Has even a single one of them offered what they would accept as a falsification signal?

  66. jorgekafkazar says:

    Engchamp says: “…This post would appear to be yet another pile of misanthropic twaddle in an effort to maintain the dying embers of the AGW fanatics’ fire…”

    If you talking about the press release, I didn’t think it was as good as all that. The post was excellent, as is usually the case.

    Richard111 says: “What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?”

    One is a postdicting circle jerk and the other for jerks to predict with.

  67. David Schofield says:

    “many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years”

    You can’t have a permanent spike.

  68. Martin Brumby says:

    These clowns couldn’t “project” their way out of a wet paper bag.

    “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years”
    Oh Noah!!! Wuss than we thought!!

    Next time we hear from him he’ll no doubt be on about rising sea levels.
    To get my retaliation in first:-

    http://monologues.co.uk/3Hapence.htm

    Might have been written with him in mind.

  69. Darren Potter says:

    Said by Noah Diffenbaugh: “To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century…”

    Wonder if Mr. Diffenbaugh has ever heard of the old adage of “Garbage-In; Garbage-Out”? What Mr. Diffenbaugh is saying is they wrote a summary of both questionable and known flawed climate model experiments and simulations. Talk about your beating a team of dead horses…

    From Eurekalert: “In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see …”

    How scientifically accurate “… that many tropical …” and so definitively scientific “… could see …”. There needs to be a new name for non-scientists involved in the Global Warming alarmist scare-mongering, such as ‘fictional-scientists’ so as to differentiate them from scientists.

  70. TomRude says:

    Next they’ll predict daylight during the day…

  71. frederik wisse says:

    Anybody familiar with the famous room-plant Diffenbachia ? Will it be hothouse proof in future ?

  72. Mariwarcwm says:

    Of course Stanford climate scientists predict hotter summers. How else can they keep their annual salaries rolling in except by frightening the gullible with hell and damnation. Where have we seen that simple mechanism before?

  73. BradProp1 says:

    Predictions are just that, predictions. If you see a person driving down a highway that leads to the next town, you can predict that that person is going to that town. But with 50 roads crossing that highway; that’s 50 other places that person could be going. Predictions can not account for all the variables. Especially if many of the variables are not fully understood, and some are yet to be discovered. Mother Nature regularly makes climate scientist’s predictions into jokes.

  74. Dodgy Geezer says:

    Is there a site where Tamino’s Bet is being tracked? The one he made about warming trends?

    There is a discussion going on elsewhere that I would like to introduce this on, but I would prefer not to have to do all the graphing myself…

  75. Theo Goodwin says:

    The real insanity in all this is that the modelers are committed to a wholistic account of Earth’s climate. Apparently, they really believe that the only way to research Earth’s environment is to simulate the whole thing. That is sheer, unadulterated metaphysics. It does not have the leavening needed to merit the name religion.

  76. F. Ross says:

    “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
    – attributed to that great philosopher Yogi Berra

  77. Latitude says:

    “According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest”
    =================================================
    I see this in print several times lately….
    …they can’t all be that stupid or crooked

    Can someone point me to what they are looking at?
    The historical weather data that says the tropics are heating up the fastest………

  78. Paddy says:

    I am just an old retired lawyer. The proper use of words is essential in law and should be in science too.

    To me “climate” is a compendium of regional weather related anomalies over a period of several decades from or more from which average global anomalies are extracted. Climate is an open ended historical record, not a force of nature.

    If I am correct, how can climate be a factor that influences or forces how weather forms and changes over extended periods? At best, climate indicates weather trends that may carry over into the future. Or, the trends may not occur, which is indicative of cycles or natural variation over time.

    I hate the term “climate” because it has been high-jacked in order to control the AGW narrative. It is time for new verbiage to be inserted into the climate change dialog.

  79. Bill Illis says:

    There are no climate models that predict cooling.

    They all have temps at 2.0C to 3.5C by the middle of century.

    Nobody gets funded or gets results published for a climate model that predicts cooling. Even the IPCC in AR4 restricted climate models to having sensitivity between 2.0C and 4.5C per doubling. The lowest one was programmed with 2.1C and the highest one was programmed with 4.4C sensitivity.

    The results do not magically pop out. They are programmed in.

  80. Bill Sticker says:

    You know, all this reliance on models is all very well, but like the toy Spitfire I once made as a boy, they share only the most general semblance to the real thing. ‘Analysing’ even a hundred such models would give an observer only the vaguest idea of aerodynamics, and little about how the real thing worked.

    Empiricism and observation rule.

  81. tallbloke says:

    The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank.

    Figures.

  82. rbateman says:

    simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years

    That’s not a prediction, that’s a hindcast.
    It does not guarantee that warming will continue.
    The warming of the 1930’s ended, and so did the cooling of the 70’s, when the climate rolled in it’s trend and changed course.
    Climate Changes. Yes, it does that too.

  83. Theo Goodwin says:

    Paddy says:
    June 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    “If I am correct, how can climate be a factor that influences or forces how weather forms and changes over extended periods?”

    To the modelers, climate is the cloud of CO2 that embraces Earth. It is also their sky god. They won’t say these things directly, but after a while you can read between the lines.

  84. JPeden says:

    Bill Illis says:
    June 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    There are no climate models that predict cooling….

    ….The results do not magically pop out. They are programmed in.

    Likewise, there apparently aren’t any models that allow their…er…”predicted” warming to be reversed. But on the bright side, dear skeptics, although there is no black box inside of the models whose unknown unknowns magically prove “the physics”, it looks like anthropogenic rule of the whole Solar System next is not at all out of the question!

  85. Ralph says:

    Obviously these Stanford climate scientists haven’t spent much time in Florida.

  86. John Marshall says:

    Where do these people live? Venus? Not on this planet.

  87. Blade says:

    “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh”

    So in a roundabout way these alarmists are unwittingly endorsing a forecast which just happens to correlate to the non-alarmist approximate 30 year cycles.

    If circa 2000 for end of warming, figure cooling phase out to like 2030-ish, another turnaround with warming out to 2060-ish (covering his by the middle of this century prediction).

    It looks to me like there is a plus/minus 5-10 year attached to the 30 year-ish phase resulting in like 20 or 25 year segments (e.g., IMHO warming was from about 1985-2005), so the dates are of course flexible.

    So the alarmist quoted here can actually be correct for all the wrong reasons! Of course if he thinks that ‘warming’ will last and not turnaround again, say 2060-ish, well I say he is wrong.

    Freeze me today and thaw me out in 2090 and I gurantee there will be plenty of snow and wicked blizzards in the previous decade: 2080-2090. Oh, and Greenland will still be white.

  88. Alexander K says:

    I know it could get to be boring endlessly quoting Willis’ classic post, but this is obviously ‘Models All The Way Down’ – again!

  89. JP says:

    These people are all over the place. It was not half a decade ago that the “experts” said with confidence that AGW will be most felt in the poles, during winter, and at night. The IPCC issued several signatures of AGW, and one of the most iconic (outside of the Hockey Stick) was the mid tropesphereic tropical hotspot. Yes, the tropics would warm, but the warming would be aloft.

    The goalposts have changed so much in recent months it is impossible to figure out what these people are saying. Perhaps this study is just following the tradition of publishing AGW warmists studies during a period of heat waves. I still remember a Yahoo story form July of 2006 which predicted that Pheonix Arizona would suffer really hot summers due to AGW.

  90. Ken Hall says:

    Whoever wrote all that clearly had a lot of left over stupid they had to use up before it went off.

Comments are closed.