Policy Implications of Climate Models on the Verge of Failure

Why are policymakers even using model projections? They aren’t data. At All. They are the product of suppositions, now clearly demonstrated to be wrong at best, and biased-wrong at worst…This is akin to climate-policy-by-witchcraft. HOW can anyone be so myopic? How can this be presented as the ‘greatest challenge of our time’ when it can’t even be defined in physical reality? This is way more troubling than all the alarmism that it feeds. It’s wrong, and yet, Obama forges ahead with a stupendously sloppy misinformation campaign…to remedy what doesn’t exist. This is madness!

Eric Simpson says:
June 28, 2013 at 12:56 am
///////////////////////
The energy market has become so distorted in the UK as a consequence of (i) the subsidies given to renewables to encourage tehir roll out, (ii) the minimum floor price paid for the energy they produce, and (iii) the payments being made to compensate them for not producing energy, that even if local shale was to come on the market, it is doubtful whether it would significantly drive down energy costs, at least not in the short term, since if it were to be used in priority to renewables, there would be huge compensation payments to be made to those engaged in renewables which would significantly erode the cost benefit of shale.
One often hears government spokes-people suggesting that the UK will not see the energy revolution seen in the States, and/or that shale will not significantly reduce energy costs. There is some element of truth in this, and the government is not explaining why. It is because they have screwed up the energy market and there would be huge compensation payments to be made if shale were to be exploited to the full.
There should be only 2 concerns on the mind of the Department of Energy, namely (i) the production and supply of stable, secure and sufficient energy; and (ii) at a price as cheap as possible. .
The Department appears to have gone for a policy that achieves the very opposite, namely unsecure and inadequate stable supply and at a price as high as possible.
A crazy world we live in.

Ian H says: @ur momisugly June 27, 2013 at 10:39 pm
“…..These guys actually sound like scientists whereas the typical AGW supporting climate scientist these days sounds more like a political hack activist.”
There fixed it for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Janice you are correct and clearly illustrate why people who use classic scientific language have been losing the battle.
“Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? These may be complex questions, but they demand answers.” ~ Pascal Lamy Director-General of the World Trade Organization
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” ~ Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not and never has been about science. The IPCC was formed to come up with a whip to drive people in the direction the bureaucrats wanted.
Pascal Lamy comes right out and says it.

The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.
All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

The Bretton Woods system gave us the IMF and the World Bank. It was setup by a soviet spy within the US treasury, Harry Dexter White.
From a book report by The Council on Foreign Relations on a book title: The Battle of Bretton WoodsJohn Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World Order

…Leading the discussions were John Maynard Keynes, the great economist who was there to find a place for the fading British Empire, and Harry Dexter White, a senior U.S. Treasury official. By the end of the conference, White had outmaneuvered Keynes to establish a global financial framework with the U.S. dollar firmly at its core. How did a little-known American bureaucrat sideline one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, and how did this determine the course of the postwar world?…..
In a book the Financial Times calls “a triumph of economic and diplomatic history,” author Benn Steil, CFR senior fellow and director of international economics, challenges the misconception that the conference was an amiable collaboration. He reveals that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Treasury had an ambitious geopolitical agenda that sought to use the conference as a means to eliminate Great Britain as a rival.
Steil also offers a portrait of the complex and controversial White, revealing the motives behind White’s clandestine communications with Soviet intelligence officials—to whom he was arguably more important than the famous early–Cold War spy Alger Hiss. “Everything is here: political chicanery, bureaucratic skulduggery, espionage, hard economic detail and the acid humour of men making history under pressure,” writes Tony Barber, reviewer for the FT….
http://www.cfr.org/world/battle-bretton-woods/p29748

Why is this important?
Because former IPCC chair Robert Watson (from 1997 to 2002 ) was a World Bank employee and the World Bank Carbon Finance Report for 2007 says

The carbon economy is the fastest growing industry globally with US$84 billion of carbon trading conducted in 2007, doubling to $116 billion in 2008, and expected to reach over $200 billion by 2012 and over $2,000 billion by 2020…

So we have the IPCC mandate which states:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

It is not and never has been about trying to figure out what drives the climate. It has always been about finding clubs and whips to drive humanity.
Here is the clincher: Why academia has aided and abetted this giant hoax.
Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement: ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus

It’s not every day that left-leaning academics admit that they would discriminate against a minority.
But that was what they did in a peer-reviewed study of political diversity….
This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”
One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”
More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”….
Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy…..
… Harvey Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, argues that the anti-conservative bias is real and pronounced. He says conservatism is “just not a respectable position to hold” in the academy, where Republicans are caricatured as Fox News enthusiasts who listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats. Other studies reveal that 5 percent to 7 percent of faculty openly identify as Republicans. By contrast, about 20 percent of the general population are liberal and 40 percent are conservative.….
Mr. Inbar and Mr. Lammers found that conservatives fear that revealing their political identity will have negative consequences. This is why New York University-based psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a self-described centrist, has compared the experience of being a conservative graduate student to being a closeted gay student in the 1980s….

This is also why WUWT commenters are so often accused of being Republicans or conservatives when often we are not. This is why in the Climategate e-mails we have “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.” ~ Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008

And the IPCC models assume that all the recent warming is due to CO2. So the real sensitivity is anywhere from 2C down to a mere couple tenths C.

There is one problem with all models: they attempt to calculate warming from carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. It does not exist. It is no secret that there has been no warming for the last 15 years. At the same time, carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere has been the highest ever. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this carbon dioxide is not causing any greenhouse warming now, and has not done it for fifteen years. It is also quite certain that it did not suddenly change its behavior 15 years ago. It is very clear now that it has never caused any greenhouse warming at all and that warming attributed to it in the past is misappropriated natural warming. Except for the non-existent late twentieth century warming which is an outright scientific fraud. But instead of accepting observations of nature what you see now is various “climate” scientists trying to explain away the current lack of warming. One of their favorites is the claim that the missing greenhouse warming can be found at the bottom of the ocean. This is so ridiculous as to be laughable. How can that OLR that CO2 is supposed to capture and turn into heat avoid capture, turn around, and head for the ocean bottom is incomprehensible. It is purely a rear-guard action, a last-ditch attempt to avoid the inevitable conclusion that CO2 is not warming the world and that AGW does not exist. If understood by politicians this just might turn off the spigot of money from Uncle Sam that they are all feeding from.

OMG, space models are also no good: said Voyager project scientist Ed Stone of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, lead author of one of the new studies and co-author of another.
“But it’s speculation, because none of the models we have, have this particular region in them,” Stone told SPACE.com. “So none of the models can be directly and accurately compared to what we’re observing. What we’re observing is really quite new.”

beng says:
June 28, 2013 at 6:49 am
And the IPCC models assume that all the recent warming is due to CO2. So the real sensitivity is anywhere from 2C down to a mere couple tenths C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is worse than that as I have said before. This is a clear statement of the thinking of a warmist by a Physical Chemist.

…Water is an extremely important and also complicated greenhouse gas. Without the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas, the earth would be uninhabitable. Water is not a driver or forcing in anthropogenic warming, however. Rather it is a feedback….
http://how-it-looks.blogspot.com/2010/03/infrared-spectra-of-molecules-of.html

Two of the most important drivers of the earth’s climate are the sun and water, yet the backa$$wards thinking of these modelers is that a miniscule amount of CO2 (400ppm) in the atmosphere is DRIVING 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (332,519,000 cubic miles) of water.
From NOAA:

…97 percent of the Earth’s water can be found in our oceans…. Of the tiny percentage that’s not in the ocean, about two percent is frozen up in glaciers and ice caps. Less than one percent of all the water on Earth is fresh. A tiny fraction of water exists as water vapor in our atmosphere.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are over 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (332,519,000 cubic miles) of water on the planet…. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html

I guess none of these people ever heard of Henry’s Law.

William Henry, an English chemist, showed that at constant temperature, the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. This is known as Henry’s Law.
C=kPgas
where
C is the solubility of a gas at a fixed temperature in a particular solvent (in units of M or mL gas/L)
k is Henry’s law constant (often in units of M/atm)
Pgas is the partial pressure of the gas. (often in units of Atm)
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids,_Henry's_Law

…Henry’s law assumes that the temperature is fixed. Of course, when temperature changes, the corresponding constant “k” and consequently the fraction of CO2 held in the oceans changes, too. This is nothing else than the reason behind outgassing – the mechanism that determines the relationship between CO2 and temperature during the ice ages and interglacials. When oceans get warmer, they become less able to store gases (think of an exploding Coke can in a heated car in the summer) which means that they release them to the atmosphere: the constant “k” explained above increases, too. When temperature is higher, the atmospheric concentrations and partial pressures “p” of all gases – not just carbon dioxide – increase…. – Luboš Motl (Physicist)

In other words the temperature of the oceans DRIVES the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by outgassing as the oceans warm up.
The ClimAstrologists think that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is ‘Warming’ the oceans. Aside from the 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers vs 400ppm problem you have the fact that IR wavelengths from CO2 can not penetrate the ocean beyond a few microns while the visible to extreme ultra violet wavelengths from the sun, which have a lot more ‘energy’ penetrate to depths of 100 meters
Graph of Sunlight at Top of Atmosphere, surface and 10 meters below ocean surface
Graph of Solar Radiation Intensity and Wavelengths at specific Ocean depths
This graph is the clincher: Relative Energy of incoming solar radiation and out going terrestrial radiation Note the exponential scale so it is like comparing billions of dollar (solar energy) to nickels and dimes (terrestrial energy) However the ClimAstrologists much prefer to use this Graph
This graph gives where CO2 vs water, O3, N2O absorption bands are with relation to the incoming solar radiation and out going terrestrial radiation. (Note H2O is a much more significant GHG and CO2 is not absorbing at the peak radiation wave lengths as H2O does.)
Of course the ClimAstrologists had to also get rid of this older article from NOAA showing Sunlight has varied from 1950 to 2000. (This is the rewrite without a date change).
Unfortunately for the ClimAstrologists, new data is showing the visible to extreme UV varies a lot more than originally thought even though the total insolation may remain more or less constant. NASA link and NASA: UV Exposure Has Increased Over the Last 30 Years, but Stabilized Since the Mid-1990s

…In the tropics, the increase has been minimal, but in the mid-latitudes it has been more obvious. During the summer, for example, UV has increased by more than 20 percent in Patagonia and the southern portions of South America. It has risen by nearly 10 percent in Buenos Aires, a city that’s about the same distance from the equator as Little Rock, Ark. At Washington, D.C.’s latitude — about 35 degrees north — UV has increased by about 9 percent since 1979….
Despite the overall increases, there are clear signs that ultraviolet radiation levels are on the verge of falling. Herman’s analysis, which is in agreement with a World Meteorological Report published in recent years, shows that decreases in ozone and corresponding increases in UV irradiance leveled off in the mid-nineties….

UV and Ozone and its effect on climate is another entire subject and worth your while looking up.
To put it bluntly the ClimAstrologists do not have a scientific leg to stand on but that doesn’t keep them from saying CO2 is the ‘Control Knob’ and then calling the effects of water on the climate a ‘Feedback’ and therefore part of ‘the forcing in anthropogenic warming’. That was the only way they could show increases in CO2 are ‘Catastrophic’. Mother Nature of course is now calling them liars.