Using faulty computer models to forecast climate chaos condemns millions to untimely deaths
Guest opinion by Dr. Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi sensibly refuses to attend yet another climate summit – this one called by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in New York for September 23, under the auspices of the United Nations, which profits handsomely from the much-exaggerated climate scare.
Environmentalists have complained at Mr. Modi’s decision not to attend. They say rising atmospheric CO2 will cause droughts, melt Himalayan ice and poison lakes and waterways in the Indian subcontinent.
However, the UN’s climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has already had to backtrack on an earlier assertion that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone within 25 years, and the most comprehensive review of drought trends worldwide shows the global land area under drought has fallen throughout the past 30 years.
Mr. Modi, a spiritual man and thus down-to-earth, knows that a quarter of India’s people still have no electricity. His priority is to turn on the lights all over India. In Bihar, four homes in five are lit by kerosene.
Electric power is the quickest, surest, cheapest way to lift people out of poverty and so to stabilize India’s population, which may soon overtake China’s.
The Indian-born Nobel laureate in economics, Professor Amartya Sen, recently lamented: “There would appear to be an insufficient recognition in global discussion of the need for increased power in the poorer countries. In India, for example, about a third of the people do not have any power connection at all. Making it easier to produce energy with better environmental correlates (and greater efficiency of energy use) may be a contribution not just to environmental planning, but also to making it possible for a great many people to lead a fuller and free life.”
The world’s governing elite, however, no longer cares about poverty. Climate change is its new and questionable focus.
In late August the Asian Development Bank, for instance, based on UN IPCC rising carbon dioxide (CO2) scenarios, predicted that warmer weather would cut rice production, rising seas would engulf Mumbai and other coastal megacities, and rainfall would decline by 10-40% in many Indian provinces.
Droughts and floods have occurred throughout India’s history. In the widespread famine caused by the drought of 1595-1598, “Men ate their own kind. The streets and roads were blocked with corpses, but no assistance can be given for their removal,” a chronicler in Akbar’s court reported.
Every Indian knows that too much (or too little) monsoon rainfall can bring death. That is why the latest computer-generated doom-and-gloom scenario by the Asian Development Bank is not merely unwelcome – it is repugnant. Garbage in, gospel out.
In truth, rice production has risen steadily, sea level is barely rising and even the UN’s climate panel has twice been compelled to admit that there is no evidence of a worldwide change in rainfall.
Subtropical India will not warm by much: advection would take most additional heat poleward. Besides, globally there has been little or no warming for almost two decades. The models did not predict that. The UN’s climate panel, on our advice, has recently all but halved its central estimate of near-term warming.
Sea level is rising no faster than for 150 years. From 2004-2012 the Envisat satellite reported a rise of a tenth of an inch. From 2003-2009 gravity satellites actually showed sea level falling. Results like these have not hitherto been reported in the mainstream news media.
More than 2 centuries of scientific research have failed to make the duration or magnitude of monsoons predictable. Monsoons depend on sea and surface temperature and wind conditions in the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, timing of El Niños in the equatorial Pacific, variations in Eurasian and Himalayan winter snow cover, even wind direction in the equatorial stratosphere.
Earlier this year, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 1 in 4 chance that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be below the long-term average, leading to a year of drought
The prediction was wrong. Widespread floods in northwestern India and Pakistan have killed several hundred people. Many environmentalists and governmental officials are now insisting that rising atmospheric CO2 is the culprit. Yet the one cause of the recent floods that can be altogether ruled out is global warming, for the good and sufficient reason that for 18 years there has not been any warming.
Worse still for CO2 alarmists: 20th and 21st century warming did not occur in the western Himalayas, and paleo-temperature records from for the last millennium confirm no exceptional recent warming in this region, although the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today almost everywhere else.
Regardless of the numerous political manipulations of fact and reality, the scientific problems of forecasting monsoon self-evidently remain unsolved.
In 1906 the forecasts depended on 28 unknowns. By 2007 scientists from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology were using 73. So insisting that just one variable – CO2 concentration – will drive future monsoons is unscientific.
Professor Nandakumar Sarma, vice-chancellor of Manipur University, recently confirmed that “even supercomputers cannot predict what will happen due to climate change within 10-20 years, since there are millions of variable parameters.”
Models said monsoons would become more intense. Instead, they have weakened for 50 years.
As for the floods in the north-west, a study of three major rivers floods in Gujarat by Dr. Alpa Sridhar confirmed that past floods were at least 8 to 10 times worse than recent floods such as that of 1973. CO2-based climate models have been unable to “hindcast” or recreate those floods.
Models also fail to replicate the 60-yr and 200-yr cycles in monsoon rainfall linked to solar cycles detected by studies of ocean sediments from the Arabian Sea.
A new study led by Professor K.M. Hiremath of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics shows the strong, possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve) in Figure 1.
The red curve is actually the result of a simulation of the Indian monsoon rainfall for the past 120 years using solar activity as a forcing variable. The sun is visibly a far more likely influence on monsoon patterns than changes in CO2 concentration.
Governments also overlook a key conclusion from the world’s modelers, led by Dr. Fred Kucharski of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics: “The increase of greenhouse gases in the twentieth century has not significantly contributed to the observed decadal Indian monsoonal rainfall variability.”
Not one climate model predicted the severe Indian drought of 2009, followed by the prolonged rains the next year – up by 40% in most regions. These natural variations are not new. They have happened for tens of thousands of years.
A paper for Climate Dynamics co-authored by Professor Goswami, recently-retired director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, shows why the models relied upon by the UN’s climate panel’s recent assessments predict monsoons inaccurately.
Figure 1. There is a possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve).
All 16 models examined had the same fatal flaw: they made rain too easily by artificially elevating air and water masses in the atmosphere.
Models are not ready to predict the climate. Misusing computers to spew out multiple “what-if” scenarios is unscientific.
Most fundamental problems in our immature understanding of climate have remained unresolved for decades. Some cannot be resolved at all. The UN’s climate panel admitted in 2001 what has been known for 50 years: because the climate is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic object,” reliable long-term climate prediction is impossible.
Misuse of climate models as false prophets is costly in lives as well as treasure.
To condemn the poorest of India’s poor to continuing poverty is to condemn many to an untimely death. Mr. Modi is right to have no more to do with such murderous nonsense. It is time to put an end to climate summits. On the evidence, they are not needed.
______________
Willie Soon is a solar physicist and climate scientist at Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Lord Monckton was an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC.
To news and opinion websites September 22, 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some good points in the OP article, but it smacks of the same alarmist tone: “Millions will die” kind of stuff.
“Yes,” the authors would respond, “but our alarmism is correct, while the other alarmism is not correct.”
Perhaps.
Better to leave the alarmism out altogether. Otherwise, this drops to the level of the CAGW alarmists and becomes just another scare story that won’t be taken seriously.
Ahh Carbon Pollution, what a concept for a Carbon Based Lifeform.
Perhaps we shall enquire further of the fools.
Carbon Pollution? Tell me more what form of carbon?
What concentration shall be pollution?
As a solid? A gas? or organic compounds?In solution?
Which isotopes there of?
Should carbon be banned?
Are you willing to have all the carbon extracted from your body?
Will you take the pledge to have a carbon free lifestyle?
(Note not a carbon free life as that will be very brief).
The zealots are all that remains of the great cause, evidence for this is the complete lack of coherence in the babbling of these parasites.
Carbon Pollution…a magnificent own goal.
This is what I sent to the Stu Ostro of the Weather Channel. Their constant hype of AGW is just too much to listen to and not respond.
Sent: Tue, Sep 23, 2014 10:46 am
Subject: My prediction : The Weather Channel and Company will be falling flat on their faces before this decade ends.
The Weather Channel will not entertain debate from the likes of folks like myself who can refute every argument put forth in support of AGW theory.
Reasons why the AGW theory will be obsolete in the very near future:
The climate models in current use to predict the future climate are based on inaccurate, and incomplete data not to mention leaving out factors that can exert an influence on the climate completely out of the picture.
My five climate factors:
Solar Variability- with primary and associated secondary effects
Initial State Of The Climate
Ocean/Land Arrangements
Earth Magnetic Field Strength
Milankovitch Cycles
All largely ignored by the climate models hence they are way off and will continue to be in their climate predictions.
Historical past climatic data which shows the climate has ALWAYS changed and the change has often been much more abrupt and in a degree of magnitude many times greater then what has taken place recently which was approximately a .6 C degree rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years up to year 1998.
Ice core data showing CO2 and thus the GHG effect is a result of the climate not the cause in that CO2 always follows the temperature trend never leads it.
Recent data despite what the Weather Channel cherry picks does not support AGW theory from Antarctic Sea Ice at record highs, to a stabilization of Arctic Sea Ice , to NO lower tropospheric hot spot /increase in El Nino activity, to a lesser zonal atmospheric circulation pattern (which AGW theory now tries to cover for with the lack of sea ice in the Arctic as the bogus explanation) to the lack in an increase in global droughts to no increase in global temperatures for 18 years and counting.
Heat waves becoming less frequent not more frequent to the record ice coverage of the Great Lakes this past season blowing away previous data. To N.H. snow coverage showing no signs of shrinkage especially during recent past winter seasons.
Salvatore – don’t bother with the Weather Channel. The have already proven themselves unfit to report the weather by childishly naming low pressure systems (and thereby trivializing truly dangerous tropical storms and hurricanes).
Just DIVEST yourself of the lame, self-focused mainstream media and encourage your friends and family to do the same.
That’s all well and good Frank but the majority of people get their information from those channels so we need to be after them whenever possible. They suck and they lie and they over simplify everything but they are a serious source of information for folk who are just too busy to try alternatives.
I am sorry to say, and I mean no offence, but Salvatore is right. We need to fight them where they are not where we would like them to be. War, for that is what we are engaged in, is a dirty business and we have to get down there in the dirt with them to win.
“possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve) in Figure 1.”
It must be causative as such correlation is immensely unlikely to be a coincidence, unless Monsoons can affect the Sun.
If the modelled sun-induced monsoon activity is correct (and we have no guarantee that it is) then there is no doubt that the sun is the key driver of climate as monsoon activity is an extreme water vapour system and it shows that the sun has a definitive and powerful effect on the largest GHG H20, and of course the low level cloud albedo effect.
The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
Models are often tuned by running them backwards against a few decades of observation, this is
much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the multi-decadal and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables.
The modelers, and those who promote the model outputs as a basis for climate and energy policy are guilty of gross scientific incompetence. It is as if NH weather forecasters took the temperature trend from say March – to July in one year and projected that trend forward in a straight line for 10 years or so.
The whole UNFCCC travelling circus has no empirical basis for its operations and indeed for its existence depending as it does on the predictions of these inherently useless climate models.. The climate is much too complex to model – but can be predicted by simply knowing where we are in the natural quasi -periodicities which are plainly obvious in the Holocene and recent temperature record.
For forecasts of the timing and amount of a possible coming cooling based on the 1000 year and 60 year periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count and 10Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity ” see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Running models backward in time has always seemed a problem to me. When modeling an inherently entropic process, the arrow of time is invariant. The fact of entropy brings this particular process into question.
If I was going to check the “hindcast”, I would define a starting condition at a time before the period in question and let it run in the correct direction. After the run completed, I would check the output against the known data.
Of course if entropy isn’t part of the model, there is a non-starter right there.
The models aren’t right going forward or backwards or any points in between. Even with the most comprehensible data available. Have you seen a hindcast that shows the LIA or the MWP? Have you seen a model that’s show the current pause? Not arguing with you, just adding. They can’t possibly show the LIA or the MWP. It’s an issue that will not go away for them. By definition AGW, temperature is tied to co2 levels, and as the graph shows by the IPCC co2 levels were flat and so were temperatures during those 2 time periods. Additionally, by definition the pause can not be happening. CO2 levels have increased. Temperatures have not. No where in their records do they show heat from the past being hidden in the ocean. Is this a new phenomenon?
Entropy is the least of their problems.
Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy and commented:
Predictions of doom and gloom persist, the alarmists continue to shout and calmer for governments to “do something” about climate change, (as though it would make a difference), but it’s time to stop all the fear mongering and propoganda. The fact is, climate change happens, with or without humans. That’s a fact and the alarmists don’t like it.
Global Warming is nothing but a political construct, based on cherry-picked and manipulated data
With reference to the orchestrated marches occurring that are designed to bring the Climate Summit into the news,on the BBC news today,a member of Friends of the Earth was interviewed.There was no one to give the counter argument.This is counter to the remit of the BBC which is to give fair,and balanced reporting.The Govt. turn a blind eye of course,which should tell you everything.
Don’t you just love those weather forecasters – 50% chance of rain tomorrow? So, heads or tails they win!
Yet our climate “scientists” can forecast with 97% confidence the climate in 2050??
The alarmists don’t want to listen about the Sun or the million other variables because they are out of our control and cannot be used as a basis for taxation and control of low-information populace.
The error margins for surface GAT just increased 100 fold.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/E___E_algorithm_error_07-Limburg.pdf
There is no doubt that CO2 emissions from India and other developing countries will increase with electrification. The nut cases want developing nations to reduce their CO2 emissions to unsustainable levels to offset this. In my view, trillions will be wasted (or forgone in economic activity) to reduce CO2 emissions, but CO2 emissions will continue to rise. Either temperatures to up, oceans rise, and we deal with it, or nothing happens as this article suggests. The bottom line is we are screwing around with the economy, assessing energy taxes, making cars more expensive, and destroying jobs in the developed nations for no good reason.
I don’t believe it!.
Obama speaking live at UN at 1:00 on Climate Change and guess who is carrying it live?
The Weather Channel and
CSPAN2. That’s it.
CNN, CNNI, HLN, BBC World, FoxNews, MSNBC, AJAM
These all were on Syria, Pentagon, Airstrikes,
FoxBus CNBC were business as usual.
CNBCW was a documentary re-run
Don’t know about OANN
Bloomberg broke away in mid-talk to the anchors within 10 minutes.
Talking about SpaceX by 1:21. still on SpaceX at 1:27
AJAM had some Climate Chate at 1:27
1:22
The weather channel stayed on Climate. “Climate Week” Call for action on Social media
1:30-36+ CNN Wolf Blitzer was even broadcasting from the UN and the top story is War with ISIS.
1:36 CSPAN2 ISIS.
1:37 TWC – Obama UN. recap. Anchors: “Cut Carbon Pollution to save the Planet.”
Cut Obama to save the USA!!!
I can. when you support a political agenda, sometimes it is best to omit coverage when your comrades are shooting their feet off.
Obama’s speech will be the standard mindless rubbish, Carbon Pollution” really?
While the real problems continue to bite at taxpayers pocket books.
Not just disengaged but firmly off in Pixie Dust and Unicorn land.
Hardly a way to positively influence voters, this close to the Midterms.
Fox understands that speeches by Obama tank ratings, and that their audience has heard all they need from the serial misinformer.
The other, former lovers, are trying to save what they can.
Presstitutes will do what they have to.
Try following Obama’s connections back to Chicago and the wind industry connections there.
Are you saying that no one televised poohtus at the UN ?
mpainter,
No. What I wrote was that the only people to televise was The Weather Channel and CSPAN-2. BLOOM showed the first half and then (tellingly) broke away to commentary.
I cannot speak about what I didn’t see. OANN, AJAN, and broadcast ABC, CBS, NBC.
I just reported what I saw: CNN, CNNI, HLN, BBC World, FoxNews, MSNBC, AJAM didn’t broad cast Obama live in its entirety or even the majority of it. Frankly I’m surprised FoxNews didn’t start live and then break away (they alerted he was speaking and directed you to watch on the website). But I’m dumbfounded MSNBC, BBC World, and CNN weren’t hanging on his every word. Heck, Wolf Blitzer was broadcasting live from the UN grounds; there was obviously a change of plans.
so stop telling me the truth about it cooling, I am in Maine and already see -20 F and colder nights 🙂
that’s a hell of a lot more worrisome than warming…
Are you serious? Where in Maine are you?
Etna
to be honest I see -15 F or so a lot more than the -28 I have seen here but being below 0 is not a big deal for me. as long as there is no wind…
Ah! So that is your meaning. I thought you meant you were experiencing -20 here at the equinox. I am glad for you that is not the case!
LOL yeah that would suck for sure 🙂
usually its late Jan to early Feb I see those temps.
“From 2003-2009 gravity satellites actually showed sea level falling. ”
I am very interested in seeing a source for this statement.
They had to send Envisat’s sealevel data to the re-education camp…
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/sea-level-rises-to-new-lows/
The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a narrative of fear with no merit.
i) fear of man made rising temperatures
ii) fear of melting ice cap’s
iii) fear of rising seas
iv) fear of acidic oceans
v) fear of extreme weather
vi) fear of species extinctions
vii) fear of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s)
viii) fear, fear and more fear
oop’s item “vii)” was meant for another political thread but you get what I mean.
Fear is a very effective political tool and very hard to dispel as the big lie of WMD’s demonstrated, their are still many people that chose to believe that porky.
– – – – – – – – –
Willie Soon,
As you are both a solar physicist and climate scientist, please address the relative magnitudes of forcing variations from solar energy impacting the EAS*** compared to the internal forcings (which of course include anthropogenic sources) on the EAS. If you cannot address here due to space limitations or format considerations then please link to where you have most recently and comprehensively addressed that.
*** EAS means the Earth Atmosphere System (which means the total of solid material, liquid material and gaseous material)
John
tommoriarty
September 23, 2014 at 10:48 am
“From 2003-2009 gravity satellites actually showed sea level falling. ”
“I am very interested in seeing a source for this statement”
Could this be it?
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atlantis-press.com%2Fphp%2Fdownload_paper.php%3Fid%3D8340&ei=xr0hVNz3D-b7igL1voGwDw&usg=AFQjCNFPdjD-PUvKHQZh2L5TbuyjrXb0lg&bvm=bv.75775273,d.cGE
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
It’s long past time to stop with the scare stories. And there’s a reason we call them “climate alarmists:” sowing fear is the only way they can cover for their lack of a rational argument.
Need to stop calling them “alarmists” and start calling them for what they are or want to be, terrorists, Literally, May be someday we can just laugh them off, but they are trying to usurp everyone’s rights and have gotten away with a lot already.
Fear and hate are humanity’s two most powerful and primeval emotional responses, which leftists have wantonly exploited to brainwash the masses into feeling CAGW is an existential threat.
The efficacy of this strategy is that fear and hate are primarily controlled by the limbic portion of the brain, which deals with instictive feelings and emotional responses, thereby ostensibly circumventing the frontal cortex’s rational/logic/reason part of the brain.
CAGW propaganda is all about evoking emotions and feelings rather than appealing to logic and reason. That’s why leftists always make it about “saving the children”, since procreation and child rearing are also instinctive behaviors hard-wired into our DNA.
It also explains why it is so difficult and frustrating to use logic, facts, and reason when trying to explain simple concepts to leftists, because so much of their epistemology is faith and emotional based. Even if their beliefs can easily be shown to be irrational and illogical, they still cling to them because it feeeeels right– the old limbic override system kicks in…
Conservative– I think therefore I am.
Leftist– I feel, therefore you’re an idiot….
The LA Times news is even getting on board:
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
Still, they let Kevin “it’s a travesty…” Trenberth get away with another alternate reality. This is probably the most controversial LA Times story since http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19-story.html
Here is a really scary environmental story about what happens when the smart guys in government make grand plans for the rest of us. Not a capitalist in sight.
I had a project in the Kyzl Orda region of Kazakstan, where there were irrigation schemes to grow crops in the desert, diverting the waters of the Syr Darya River that flowed to the Aral Sea. Not only was the Aral Sea destroyed, but the irrigated land upstream was salted and ruined due to poor irrigation practice.
This is what happens when you let scoundrels and imbeciles run the show – similar to the global warming scam.
If solar activity is a metric that can predict Indian monsoonal activity then India is in trouble in the coming decades.
– – – – – – – –
The balanced and reasoning person hears a climate focused scare story, no matter the source. Panic is not a reasonable response, so the person doesn’t panic. The person applies reason to the scary situation claimed by the source. Reasonable response to the scare story’s panicky message ensues.
Who is at risk from the scary stories about climate? Looks like strictly those who are unreasonable panicky.
I doubt you can stop scare stories. But you can significantly mitigate panic caused by them through educating those at risk of panicking on the most basic principles of common reasoning. Open public dialog in many open venues and media outlets is the mitigation technique.
Intellectual messes allow climate focused science scare stories to be created. Intellectual messes in climate focused science result from ideological messes used as the basis of climate focused science. So to eliminate scare stories just remove the ideologically informed philosophy of science used by the IPCC Bureau’s intellectuals. Voila!
John