Climate models – worse than we thought

Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
Do you want to see the truth? Do you want to see what the environmentalists don’t want you to see?

OP – “Basically, the models don’t work.”
Why does everyone say this, when it’s quite obviously reality that’s broken.

Without the exaggerated alarm conjured from overly pessimistic climate model projections of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels—coal, oil, gas—would regain their image as the celebrated agents of prosperity that they are, rather than being labeled as pernicious agents of our destruction.

Here are some of the embarrassing questions I like to ask your typical Warmist.
1) Do you currently use fossil fuels?
2) Do you own and drive a petrol or diesel driven car?
3) Do you have 24 hour electricity? If yes, do the people in Kenya? If not, why not?
……………and other similar hypocritical finding questions. You will be amazed that there is a 97% hypocritical matching rate among warmists. I refer you to Prince Charles (many mansions), Al Gore, (oil, tobacco, oil, 2 mansions, green investment dumping, Oil Gozeera selling TV), George Monbiot, (book promotions by flight, fossil fuel driven auto), James Cameron – director (ULTRA HYPOCRITE, NO JOKING 3 adjacent villas with heated pools, autos, helicopters et. al.), and so on………………………….
How do honest people tackle hypocrites? They expend more co2 than me!!!!

Not only do they “They expend more co2 than me!!!!” they expend much, much more than me.
Here is how the game is played. Release your own co2 without a care in the world, then go on TV and tell people that they should learn to live with less. Prince Charles and James Cameron have said so, yet they do whatever they want. We the UNWASHED IDIOTS should simply do as we are told because the biosphere will be destroyed by the trace rise of the trace gas carbon dioxide, all the while the biosphere is greening, no extreme weather trends, melting glaciers like the 30s and 40s, soot ignored, Antarctica defiant, temperatures heading downhill, polar bears frolic, snowfalls a thing of the present. The climate is changing again and Warmists know it. Time is running out, they painted themselves into a corner because of money and fame. It’s that simple folks.

Matt says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:10 pm
‘they’re not’ = three words, not two.
================
I saw that too, but can you explain why it is three words ?
Contractions don’t count ?

rogerknights says “I thought it meant “very likely.””
You are correct, Roger. A slip of the pen by me. Thx!
Maybe Anthony can correct that.
-Chip

Janice Moore on November 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm
I’m pretty certain those flying machines have a much smaller carbon footprint than the rather massive Air Force One. If Obama continues to drink up what the IPCC says, and exhibit executive orders (like the one last Friday) in response, perhaps we could recommend he make a trade. I think it’d be fun to watch. And, compared to that grotesquely overweight personal jet, far more economical for us – his employers (a fact he often forgets).

More people need to read and understand the significance of this. I’m looking at you, Obama.

“Virtually likely” could mean something to the effect of “almost likely” or something more like “computationally likely”. Semantic trick to hide the uncertainty?
virtually (adverb):
1. nearly; almost.
2. by means of virtual reality techniques.
by means of a computer; computationally.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/virtually

They’re going to update the models to backcast what happened, claim a breakthrough, greater confidence than ever, and predict extra doom.

I may be wrong but I do not think you caught the nastiest trick the IPCC played.
One of the reasons they are “projections” and not predictions is because the models represent different “Storylines and Scenarios” (I think) If this is true then the Models that are close to reality represent drastic cuts in CO2 emissions. In other words they are mixing apples and donuts.
This is the e-mail that makes me think this is what the different climate models are doing and why there are over a hundred. I have shortened it considerably but I recommend reading all of it. It is not just about CO2 but the planning out of our futures and our grand children’s future in minute detail. No wonder it has sucked in so many scientists! Who can resist play God?
Ged Davis (Shell Oil) Climategate e-mail.

Dear Colleagues:
I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis’ IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on
storylines and scenarios. The text is appended below, but I am also
attaching versions in MS Word and in Rich Text formats so that you can
better view the graphics.
Please send any comments directly to Ged Davis at…..

Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios…
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Scenarios – overview
3. Golden Economic Age (A1)
4. Sustainable Development (B1)
5. Divided World (A2)
6. Regional Stewardship (B2)
7. Scenario comparisons
8. Conclusions
Appendix 1: Scenario quantification
1. Introduction
The IS99 scenarios have been constructed to explore future developments in the global environment with special reference to the production of GHGs….
1.1 What are scenarios?
Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their pertinence, in this case, is derived from the need for climate change modelers to have a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Their plausibility is tested by peer review, in an open process, which includes their publication on the World Wide Web.
There are clearly an infinite number of possible alternative futures to explore. We have consciously applied the principle of Occam’s Razor, seeking the minimum number of scenarios to provide an adequate basis for climate modelling and challenge to policy makers…
2.1 Scenarios: key questions and dimensions
Developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new field. Within that period we might expect two major technological discontinuities, a major shift in societal values and a change in the balance of geopolitical power. A particular difficulty is that people are not trained to think in these time-spans, are educated in narrow disciplines and our ability to model large-systems, at the global level, is still in its infancy….
The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st century, neither of which we know the answer to:
– Can adequate governance — institutions and agreements — be put in place to manage global problems?
– Will society’s values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.
The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
– Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with the emergence of global governance
– Sustainable Development (B1): in which global agreements and institutions, underpinned by a value shift, encourages the integration of ecological and economic goals
– Divided World (A2): difficulty in resolving global issues leads to a world of autarkic regions
– Regional Stewardship (B2): in the face of weak global governance there is a focus on managing regional/local ecological and equity
Within these scenario families we examine plausible energy industry and other developments which will contribute to GHG emissions. Although the storylines cannot have explicit climate change policy measures in them there are examples of indirect mitigation measures in some of the scenarios. The scenario quantifications of the main indicators related to growth of population and economy, the characteristics of the energy system and the associated greenhouse gas emissions all fall within the range of prior studies.…
[This is an example of the energy part of one scenario the e-mail is ~20 pages long.]
3. Golden Economic Age (A1)
This scenario family entitled “Golden Economic Age”, describes rapid and successful economic development….
.2 Scenarios
The core bifurcation (with respect to GHG emissions) of the scenario family unfolds around alternative paths of technology development in the agriculture and energy sectors….
3.21 Energy Resources/Technology
…Per capita final energy use gradually converges as income gaps close. Final energy use per capita in non-Annex-I countries would reach approximately 85 GJ (2 tons of oil equivalent) by 2050 and approximately 125 GJ (3 toe) by 2100, i.e., about the current average of OECD countries outside North America. Despite improvements in productivity and efficiency, the high income levels lead to resource use close to the upper bounds of the scenarios available in the literature. For instance, global final energy use would increase to approximately 1000 EJ by 2100….
For the scenario quantification, a number of contrasting cases, characterised by the main energy form used in the second half of the 21st century, have been evaluated with the aid of formal energy models:
1. The dominance of Non-Fossil fuels — the “Bio-Nuclear” scenario (A1R).
2. The dominance of unconventional gas, including hydrates, and oil (A1G)
3. The dominance of “Clean Coal” (A1C)
A brief scenario taxonomy is given below.
Scenario
Dominant
Oil/Gas Resource
Technology Improvements
Fuel Availability Coal Oil/Gas Non-fossil
A1R Non-fossil Medium (75 ZJ) Low High Low
A1C Coal Low (<35 ZJ) High Low Low
*
Depending on the assumed availability of oil and gas, (low/medium/high) and corresponding improvements in production and conversion technologies for coal, oil/gas, and non-fossil technologies, different energy systems structures unfold….
In the event that such technology dynamics do not materialise, energy costs and prices would be significantly higher than suggested above — illustrative model runs suggest energy demand would be up to 20 percent lower for a fossil scenario without significant cost improvements.…
4. Sustainable Development (B1) [This is UN Agenda 21]….
…Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:
1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries.
2. A more rapid development of renewables, replacing coal and oil; the bulk of the remaining energy coming from natural gas (scenario B1R).
[/attachment]
NOTE: Natural gas replacing coal and oil is sprinkled through out the attachment…. I wonder why.

I just want to be clear. The graphs are actually the slopes of the change?
It is a very revealing analysis, and hard to imagine that the IPCC has not performed this analysis as well. Yet they cling to a falsehood that has no bearing on reality (or as Jquip pointed out, our reality has no bearing on their model output).

The Iconoclast says:
November 5, 2013 at 5:46 pm
They’re going to update the models to backcast what happened, claim a breakthrough, greater confidence than ever, and predict extra doom.
********************************************************************
I can’t see how that will fix it given that they’ll be using their downward adjusted temperatures.
In fact, it will make it even more ludicrous than it already is, surely.
but maybe we shouldn’t tell them that.

imbo says:
November 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Release your own co2 without a care in the world, then go on TV and tell people that they should learn to live with less. Prince Charles and James Cameron have said so, yet they do whatever they want.
============
they want you to do with less, so there will be even more for them. if the rest of us lived like them, they would be miserable, even though their lives would be exactly as they are today.
it is not enough for the rich and powerful to be rich and powerful. they need to feel important, which can only be achieved if the rest of us are poor and powerless.

So, all of this is a fancy way of saying the models projected warming and the surface temp did warm, but so much this last decade. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the deep oceans have continued to warm. The “skeptics” don’t want to consider ocean Ph changes. The scientists acknowledge the pause is mysterious but have found several mechanisms that could account for it including ocean currents sequestering heat in the deep oceans for now, changes in SO2 emissions and stratospheric water vapor changes whose causes are admittedly not well understood. None would likely prematurely reverse the effect of heat trapping gasses. But “skeptic” corporate funded think tanks surely know what is best. Did I miss any thing?

There was warming between 1910-1945 by 0.8 deg C. Models show none of it. Result: models have no clue about natural background.

No problem , rule one of climate ‘science’ takes care of this . When reality and models differ in value its reality which is in error .
remember when your ‘saving the planet ‘ ANYTHING is justified.

JBear says:
November 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm
“”Did I miss any thing?””
Maybe, with all that frantic hand-waving you missed placing a /sarc tag at the end of what would otherwise appear as ranting and appeal to authority.

Write it up as a short paper and submit it to a journal.
Or have you done this already?

Tom J says @ November 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm
So sad to be brought up in a system that causes one to be scared of the climate on a day when we’re really supposed to be scared of demons, ghouls, vampires, zombies – you know, our representatives in Washington.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here I have always thought they were parasites.
I got interested in the subject and took a quick look at the US Government’s parasites and “Creative Statistics”

Too Many Government Workers?
Much of the concern with government deficits in countries as unlike as the United States and Greece focuses on public employees, viewed as overpaid parasites who, being paid by the government, contribute directly to the public debt. And there are indeed good economic reasons to expect the public sector to be less efficient than the private sector. The principal reasons are four: the incentive provided by the profit motive is absent; public agencies tend to be monopolies; public employees are voters; and public employers tend to substitute nonpecuniary for pecuniary emolumens, such as tenure and generous retirement benefits, because the public notices and reacts adversely to high government salaries.
Therefore one might think that the larger the fraction of public employees in a nation’s workforce, the less efficient the nation’s economy, and so the lower per capita GDP would be….
I decided to examine that question empirically, with respect to 27 countries, including the United States and Canada from the Western Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore from East Asia, Israel, and all the countries of Western, Northern, Central, and Southern Europe, plus Poland. The countries were not chosen at random, but instead selected as being at least roughly comparable to the United States in their economic system and political culture.
The percentage of public employees in the workforces of these countries ranges from 6.35 percent in Singapore to 33.87 percent in Sweden. Indeed the three lowest countries, and the only ones with fewer than 10 percent public employees, are Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. The highest countries after Sweden are Denmark…
The United States is in approximately the middle, with 16.42 percent. Surprisingly, it is well ahead of Israel, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Portugal….
Regression analysis reveals no systematic correlation between percentage of public employees and per capita GDP….

I calculated the USA at ~25% several years ago but I included, state and local employees, welfare recipients, lawyers, accountants, and regulatory compliance officers and technicians, all of whose jobs are directly linked to the government.
After reading “GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU’VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!”

…The popularly followed unemployment rate was 5.5% in July 2004, seasonally adjusted. That is known as U-3, one of six unemployment rates published by the BLS. The broadest U-6 measure was 9.5%, including discouraged and marginally attached workers.
Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%…

Despite all the MSM reports the actual unemployment rate was ~22% in 2009 and has steadily risen to ~ 23% Link
So my next question was, Is the USA government cheating… Again?
GDP is SUPPOSED to measure “The sum of all goods and services sold” Alternate Gross Domestic Product Chart At least that is what we are told but it doesn’t . Not the way the US Government does the statistics.

Government Hiring and GDP
GDP, Gross Domestic Product. The number gets a lot of attention, deservedly. You’d be foolish to use it as your sole economic statistic but you’d be just as foolish to ignore it and go with your gut.
Today I’d like to draw attention to one of the peculiarities of GDP. For your consideration:
Scenario 1. Tomorrow, ExxonMobil spontaneously hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for $100K per year. She spends a year looking for new oil, finds nothing.
Scenario 2. Tomorrow, the federal government spontaneously hires an unemployed petroleum engineer for the same $100K. She spends a year looking for new oil, finds nothing.
So, how do these two alternative scenarios impact the official GDP figures?
Scenario 1 has zero impact on GDP: No oil to sell=no extra consumer purchases=no extra GDP. As the Bureau of Economic Analysis says, “Personal consumption expenditures…is goods and services purchased by persons…”
Scenario 2 raises GDP by $100K. As BEA says, “Government consumption expenditures…consists of…compensation of employees…”
Hiring a worker who (through no fault of her own) accomplishes absolutely nothing raises GDP if the government does the hiring. Hiring a worker who (through no fault of her own) accomplishes absolutely nothing does nothing to GDP if the private sector does the hiring.
Why? Because GDP counts government salaries as “government expenditures” as soon as the government hires a person. But the “consumption” and “investment” parts of GDP only count genuine purchases by the private sector (leaving the oddities of imputed spending for the coda below).
So if a private sector product spends years in the incubator, burning through thousands of person-hours of work and millions of dollars of salary–but never sees the light of day–then the product never shows up in GDP. But if the government had hired those same workers who worked just as long on a similarly fruitless project, their labor would give a big boost to GDP.
Government hiring creates GDP by definition. Private hiring only creates GDP if the worker actually creates a product….

So we can fix our declining GDP by the Government hiring EVERYONE. This will cause GDP to skyrocket. (chortle, snort)
No Wonder the politicians have zero problem with the Climate Models. It is business as usual for them!

JBear says: @ November 5, 2013 at 10:19 pm
…. The “skeptics” cannot explain why the surface temps warmed….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
We DO NOT HAVE TO! It is called the Null hypothesis. It is up to Climastrologists to prove it is not business as usual. (natural)
Here is what they have to refute: GRAPH of five million years of temperature change based on work by Lisiecki and Raymo (L. E. Lisiecki and M. E. Raymo (2005) – A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic δ18O records, Paleoceanography 20, 2003) link published on line in 2005.
This graph shows a gradual COOLING over the last five million years including the present AND an increase in the oscillation with the last half million years having the widest and LOWEST temperature swings. The swings increased from ~ 2°C to ~ 8°C
This Graph of 65 million years shows even more cooling. LINK (Vostok)
Oscillation and abrupt changes in climate are the rule. We are VERY lucky the Holocene has been so benign.
Abrupt Climate Change:
Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. for well over a decade and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore. In 2002, the NAS (alley chair) published a book “Abrupt Climate Change”
From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:

…Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….

NOOA: Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events
Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events were first reported in Greenland ice cores by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger. Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling…
Related to some of the coldest intervals between D-O events were six distinctive events, named after paleoclimatologist Hartmut Heinrich, that are recorded in North Atlantic marine sediments as layers with a large amount of coarse-grained sediments derived from land (Figure 4). These layers, which are continuous across large areas of the North Atlantic, are evidence for both an increase in icebergs discharged from the Laurentide ice sheet in North America and a southward extension of cold, polar waters…
The cause of these glacial events is still under debate…

If they can not at this time explain D-O and Heninrich (and Bond) Events they don’t have a leg to stand on because you first have to RULE OUT natural causes.
Climastrologists want to try and scare us with a couple tenths of a degree per decade? Why don’t they just say BOO!
It is cold that kills and the “tipping point” of ~ 9°C to rapid glaciation worries me a heck of a lot more than a maximum rise of at MOST 2°C especially since we are in a Glacial Age with ‘Rapid Cycles’

Oh, there’s that sweet and sexy teeeaaaabaggerrrr! Janice makes my heart go race. Here’s you a happy Halloween!!!!! ‘n a haunted cave in to the opposition. 😉
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd74/sunbeamfireking/BHC5.jpg
Oh, and for Smokey, can’t say I never gave you anything!
http://policelink.monster.com/nfs/policelink/product_photos/0000/6031/Troll_Spary_max192w.JPG?1202766315
Been here four years and I’m still a troll!

JBear,
Fact-checking wouldn’t hurt you. Approximately 95% of Cato’s operating budget is from private, individual donors, people like you, but, unlike you, people who rightfully fear their government, especially when it is in the knowledge business, such as being the sole provider of global warming research funding. Our private percent is probably the highest for the top ten think tanks.
Would you prefer instead that we ran our Institute on money expropriated from people with the threat of a gun?

Its worse then that, its dead jim. It worse then that its dead jim, its dead jim.
Cane someone make something fun of it?

Key point- the data points used BEFORE a model is constructed are not predictions- they are postdictions. Its a poor model indeed that cant predict what it is programmed to already know.

“””””…..Gail Combs says:
November 6, 2013 at 2:35 am
Tom J says @ November 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm
So sad to be brought up in a system that causes one to be scared of the climate on a day when we’re really supposed to be scared of demons, ghouls, vampires, zombies – you know, our representatives in Washington.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And here I have always thought they were parasites.
I got interested in the subject and took a quick look at the US Government’s parasites and “Creative Statistics”
Too Many Government Workers?…….””””””
ALL government workers, should be made exempt from income taxes; and of course have their “government” (aka “taxpayer”) wages and salaries reduced by their computed taxes (on pay).
If I hand the store owner ten dollars for seven dollars worth of some merchandise, and then immediately take three dollars of that back, out of his hand, he really didn’t sell me his goods for ten dollars, nor did I get a three dollar discount..
So then all those government workers; excuse me, that’s employees, would understand that THEY are NOT taxpayers; they are tax consumers. (whether necessary or not. Didn’t the Federal government give 800,000 unnecessary federal workers, a fully paid vacation recently ?

I would I think give serious thought to abandoning the scientifically meaningless “multi-model mean” and start narrowing the family of considered models to ones whose results best match the data.
Who knows? It may be that the surviving models are doing something right. It’s also possible that they got lucky, but given enough time, the luck aspect will also sort itself out,
It’s possible that by throwing out models from inclusion, a loss of so-called confidence will occur. But the way it’s being used, “confidence” doesn’t mean anything connected with its conventional usage.

[SNIP – A valid email address is required here, fake ones don’t cut it – mod]

george e. smith says: @ November 6, 2013 at 12:35 pm
“””””…..Gail Combs says:
Too Many Government Workers?…….””””””
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ALL government workers, should be made exempt from income taxes; and of course have their “government” (aka “taxpayer”) wages and salaries reduced by their computed taxes (on pay).
…So then all those government workers; excuse me, that’s employees, would understand that THEY are NOT taxpayers; they are tax consumers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EXACTLY!
Parasites not producers.
It is a complete farce to include their salaries in the GDP because they produce nothing except the regulations (and enforcement) that strangles the actual producers.
You could have a country that is 100% government employees with a great GDP that is until it collapses, like the USSR.