Guest mocking by David Middleton
From the No Schist Sherlock files of the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America…
Originally published by E&E News
Top researchers are huddled with government officials in South Korea this week to confront the scientific consensus that maintaining a safe global climate will require immediate and aggressive action…
[…]
WTF is a “a safe global climate”? Is that a climate with puppies and a crying room? Who writes nonsense like this?
Jean Chemnick
3rd degree connection
Reporter at E&E News
Washington D.C. Metro Area
Boston University
MS, Journalism
2004-2005
Western Washington University
BA, Theater/English
1995-2000
Linkedin also notes that she was a reporter for Platts from 2007-2010. So her energy and science credentials are: 3 years at Platts and having attended the same university where Don Easterbrook (author of my geomorphology textbook) is an emeritus professor.
I wish Linkedin still provided a means of tracking how you are connected to 2nd and 3rd degree connections… Because, somehow, we are 3rd degree connections… weird… or maybe not… There’s that whole Kevin Bacon thing.
Anyway… On to the No Schist Sherlock bits…
The United States, which has declared a retreat from the Paris accord, is represented in South Korea by Trigg Talley, director of the State Department’s Office of Global Change.
In comments obtained by E&E News, the United States and other countries took issue with 66 elements of the draft summary prepared by scientists.
The United States complained that the report focused too much on sustainable development, which is “beyond the mandate given the authors of the report and beyond the mandate of the IPCC itself.” It admonished the authors to play up areas where it said there were “significant uncertainties,” including on core scientific questions of climate sensitivity and the so-called carbon budget, or the amount the world can still emit while staying within a certain range.
The United States also noted that global poverty has lessened in the last few decades as fossil fuel use has “exploded” in the developing world.
“The report and SPM do not present a balanced assessment of the economic, social and development costs associated with the trade-offs of pursuing actions consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 C,” state the comments, which would have been prepared by the State Department with sign-off from the White House National Economic Council.
“Too often,” the comments continue, “authors dismiss tradeoffs as being solvable by using redistributive policies or by pursuing actions that are deemed consistent with sustainable development.”
There you have it. The Trump administration objects to Marxism… And therefore deplorable… No schist Sherlock!
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
–Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change
How about that uncertainty?
Here are the RSS satellite temperature data and a suite of climate models:
95% of the model runs predicted more warming than the RSS data since 1988… And this is the Mears-ized RSS data, the one in which the measurements were influenced to obtain key information (erase the pause and more closely match the surface data).
Their “small discrepancy” would be abject failure in the oil & gas industry.
The observed warming has been less than that expected in a strong mitigation scenario (RCP4.5).
RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.
RCP 4.5:
The RCP 4.5 is developed by the MiniCAM modeling team at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI). It is a stabilization scenario where total radiative forcing is stabilized before 2100 by employment of a range of technologies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The scenario drivers and technology options are detailed in Clarke et al. (2007). Additional detail on the simulation of land use and terrestrial carbon emissions is given by Wise et al (2009).The MiniCAM-team responsible for developing the RCP 4.5 are:
Allison Thomson, Katherine Calvin, Steve Smith, Page Kyle, April Volke, Pralit Patel, Sabrina Delgado, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Marshall Wise, Leon Clarke and Jae Edmonds
Regarding “climate sensitivity,” the only question is: How low does it have to get before the IPCC and UNFCC have to close up shop and get real jobs?
Regarding the value of fossil fuels
It’s the biggest No Schist Sherlock in the history of the Vishnu schist.
Not to mention the fact that fossil fuels feed nearly half of the people on Earth…
A retreat from the Paris accord?
“Retreat, hell! We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.”
–Major General Oliver Smith, 1st MARDIV, USMC, Chosin Reservoir, North Korea, December 1950
Setting aside the fact that key aspects of the “science” are extremely uncertain and that the proposed solutions range from the technically un-achievable to the economically nonviable… Thank God we have a President who represents the interests of these somewhat United States over the interests of a handful of un-elected Marxist bureaucrats and Third World tin-horn dictators…
RETREAT HELL!!! MAGA!!!
It’s appropriate that these climate talks are being held in Incheon (Inchon), Republic of Korea. The 1st Marine Division under General Smith landed at Inchon on September 15, 1950 and advanced all the way to the Chosin Reservoir in the DPRK (North Korea) by December. It was there that they were forced to advance in a different direction in the face of an onslaught by Communist Chinese forces, which outnumbered them 4:1.
curious observer here.
that fig 1 indicates that the models more or less agree with the actual recorded change 1991 – 1994.
When were those models’ results published ?
2017…
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
zemlik, you are falling for the trick. It is tuned to be as near as possible but fails horribly.
The reaction to Mt P is about twice as strong as in the data, as the underlying rate of warming is about twice what the data shows . It’s just wiggle matching. Now look at how well it matches the 1982 El Chichon eruptions which was nearly as strong. It’s upside down. They have no idea.
They start with exaggerated CO2 and then try to rig the other ( arbitrary ) parameters to to fudge a fit. You can do this with just about any data if you have enough supposed causative variables.
The basic trick is amplify the effect of volcanoes to counteract the exaggerated CO2 warming. That kind of works to fool the masses while you have both. Since 1990s there have been no major events and the excessive warming in models have become apparent.
If eruptions had continued at about every 10y or so , they would still be conning us that the models fitted about right. They still claim that but we can at least see they’re lying.
Greg,
If all the models were fudged to fit the record, you’d think they would have done a better job.
Models are tuned quite differently by different groups. For example, in a survey of 23 groups of modelers, 74% tuned in a coupled land-surface mode in pre-industrial times, while only 21% used a coupled 20th C mode. 39% used coupled present-day mode, so there is some overlap (modelers use more than one mode in tuning their models), but the point is that it’s not a general truism that models were tuned to simulate the 20thC.
Full article that talks about tuning and the survey (I recommend it – you seem to have a misguided idea of the process of tuning):
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1
Supplemental materials:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/suppl/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1/suppl_file/10.1175_BAMS-D-15-00135.2.pdf
If you consider agreement to be the measurement trending towards and apparently hanging on the the low end of the models. Keep in mind that models are tweaked to fit historical data and the apparent agreement with the past is contrived. The important result is the clear trend indicating that the over-estimation by models is increasing.
You might also notice than whenever there’s an El Nina spike, the estimates of the future get worse. This is a result of curve fitting that pretty much assumes all change is monotonic and in the same direction.
To prarphrase Yogi Berra:
extrapolation is very tricky, especially when you go outside the range of the data.
One gets the sense that the only thing standing in the way of UN over reach into your pockets and global policy fail is the U.S. ballot box.
This is a good point and is largely true, although the enthusiasm for renewable energy and transfer payments varies widely among those who profess it. For example, in Germany, where they’ve actually walked the talk on renewable energy, the enthusiasm is waning as economic results play out.
The U.S. is the only large industrial democracy that has not yet drunk the Kool-Aid. We can thank the huge fossil fuel lobby for this – let’s be realistic. They have spent hugely and wisely. There are other special interests nipping at their edges, but the oil and gas industry has done a great job explaining the manifold benefits of their fuels, and they truly have a great story to tell. In a perennial ritual of gratitude, the savvy American voter has rewarded them and has rewarded themselves with a promise of further prosperity.
California is a fascinating exception to this and they have placed themselves far outside of the mainstream, all the while robustly supported by the populace. Will this aberation be successful? I doubt it but it’s a great question.
Huge industrial authoritarian countries like China And Russia have half-heartedly talked the talk on renewables, all the while stoutly ignoring the talk. The advantages of cheap, reliable power are too important to their countries. India is largely the same – they have too many poor people for them to indulge in the unproven promise of renewables.
Climate change is not a serious problem but it could turn out to be. If that happens the U.S. voter will have to make some difficult choices. I feel comfortable, though, that turning over important policy decisions to the U.N. will not be one of them.
“all the while robustly supported by the populace”
It’s only robustly supported by those who lack the skills or desire to perform their own due diligence, i.e. Progressive/Socialist Democrats. Despite the loony left having a stranglehold on California politics, they definitely aren’t representing a large and growing segment of its citizens.
Somehow I sense that you live in California.
@spalding craft
No, actually we can’t thank the fossil fuel industry for this – they largely are enablers of the Climate Nazis, often in their own self-interest (a beat down of coal is “good” for an oil & gas co., etc.) or to appease the “green” NGO attack groups. We can thank the existence, at least in some portion of the populace, of common sense in their refusal to be sucked in by blatant propaganda.
Climate change is not, in the way you’re using it, a serious problem – in fact, it’s not a “problem” at all and it’s never going to be. CO2 does NOT drive the temperature of this planet, never has, and never will. There is NOT a SCRAP of empirical evidence that says it does (and no, poorly controlled experiments in closed containers are NOT a reasonable proxy for what happens in the atmosphere).
As for California’s aberration, it WILL be an ABJECT FAILURE, just like EVERY sizable application of weather-dependent “renewable” energy schemes. There isn’t even a shred of doubt about that. So-called “renewables” lack the required energy density to provide for the energy needs of humanity, period. And their intermittency, lack of predictability, reliability, and dispatchability simply pour gasoline on this fire (no pun intended).
Spalding craft: “The US is the only large industrial democracy that has not drunk the Kool-Aid. We can thank the huge fossil fuel lobby for this- let’s be realistic. They have spent hugely and wisely. … the oil and gas industry has done a great job of explaining the manifold benefits of their fuels.”
Partly correct. America is technically not a Democracy-but a Constitutional Republic, a mixed form of governance that was designed with features that combined Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Democracy in equal, independent branches, in its founding documents in order to suppress the worst outcomes of populism, mob rule. That we are living in a post Constitutional nation is apparent with the events of the last few weeks in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings of Judge Kavanaugh.
It’s also not universally true that no Americans have drunk the Kool-Aid of AGW/CC. Many have. Actually a large minority of Americans believe the Social Democratic Leftist propaganda about man made CC; they’re ill informed about the true incidence of extreme weather events and resource matters related to energy and energy reserves, ignorant of the long term economic trends of commodity prices in documented by Julian Simon in The Ultimate Resource 2, are idealists about the benefits of renewable energy sources replacing fossil fuels in a decade or less, and likely think Malthusian/Erlich/Gore apocalyptic prophecy just a matter of common sense, though such prophets are proven wrong time and again, without consequence to their academic standing, and agree that humanity is consuming natural resources of all kinds in an unsustainable manner. They don’t read much technical or scientific material not even the books written for laymen: if they do read it’s not in a critical manner that would lead them to question or doubt the integrity or truth of their beliefs; they shy away from discussions that confront them with contradictory evidence; they are reluctant to go against the herd or change their minds or admit error-ever; they acquire their information on MSM in an easily digestible form, infotainment. They are manipulated emotionally by the tools of the American Left: fear, shame, and the shared victimhood of identity politics. They are easily swayed by political slogans devoid of meaning and falsified by subsequent events. They like to call Conservatives or anyone else that disagrees with their political agenda-Fascists, neatly revealing that they don’t know what either term means or whom they have become: Marxists-Leninists. Yet they nearly won the 2016 US Presidential race. They identify as Democrat Party voters.
Maoist Marxists is what they have become Chinese corruption dominates the America, the ”cultural” marxist = Maoism.
Well, you’re probably right. These Democratic Party people probably should not be allowed to vote.
spalding craft:
” These Democratic Party people probably should not be allowed to vote.”
I always though HRC’s comment about “deplorables” was wrong and despicable.
Your comment, though, gives some credence to hers.
Gerard O’Dowd,
You seem to imply that “they” are all part of one group that all think alike. If a person has one of these traits, do they have them all?
Are all conservatives immune to manipulation by the media and others? Are they resistant to confirmation bias? Do they not believe empty political slogans? Are they all well-informed, and read technical and scientific material? Are they all able to critique what they read?
Do all conservatives practice true skepticism, in that they question their own reason and the evidence they are shown?
Are they able to identify propaganda? Do they quietly accept it, or call it out for what it is?
Do conservatives make broad generalizations and assumptions about groups, and in doing so perpetuate hate and prejudice? Is this productive and rational? Is it good for the nation as a whole?
Is it better to condemn than to converse? Better to rant than reason? Better to insult than inquire?
……………………………………………………
“They like to call Conservatives or anyone else that disagrees with their political agenda-Fascists, neatly revealing that they don’t know what either term means or whom they have become: Marxists-Leninists.” (It’s “who,” not “whom.”)
Don’t you realize you are making the exact same mistake? Next to real Marxists-Leninists, the “socialists” of America are a tame bunch of bunnies. They (in general, mostly) want “fairness,” not the means of production to be owned by the state. In their rejection of the wealth and income disparity created by free market capitalism, the only other well-known economic system is socialism, so that’s what people call it, but it doesn’t mean the same thing as the socialism of Marx or Lenin.
Nor do “redistributive policies” equal Marxism, as David suggests – or did you fail to see the propaganda in that? This is the kind of absurd assertion that has spread the fallacy, and like so many others, you have fallen for it.
Conservatives are no less victims of manipulation than liberals. In my experience, after years of online discussions, they have the same propensity for making false assumptions based on little information, and the same self-righteous arrogance.
BTW, I have nothing against conservatives. My best friend is very conservative, and loves Trump.
We are all human.
Wake me up when they:
— ask China to reduce its emitted tons per annum below 3 billion
— propose abolishing the auto industry worldwide.
At that point we will know that they may be insane, but at least they are logical and consistent and are eating their own dogfood and are proposing doing things which will actually affect what they claim to think is the problem.
At the moment they are in the position of a group who claim to be trying to clean up a river but refuse to ask the ones putting two thirds of the crap into it to stop or even reduce.
+1
While also not asking about real enviro problems that are not global.
Actually, the real environmental pollution coming from the developed world is a global problem.
Back before I began realize that we were being lied to about global warming, my criticism was, who and what army is going to tell the world’s population to stop burning stuff?
They already want to abolish independent personal transport and so does your govt.
You need to wake up now, not when it is too late.
Wake ME up when they no longer propose swapping out the world’s energy supply for windmills and solar, thereby transferring massive amounts of non-Chinese currency into the Chairman’s hands, and instead propose universal, global, free contraception for all, thereby reducing the expected numbers of new users of coal and emitters of verboten gasses.
“michel October 4, 2018 at 7:03 am
Wake me up when they:
— ask China to reduce its emitted tons per annum below 3 billion”
China will likely meet that and probably better it. Africa is China’s China, cheap labour abundant resources. It’s where China is making stuff now.
In the recent California climate lawsuits the judge indicated that it is necessary to consider the benefits of fossil fuels. link
Once people are forced to seriously consider the benefits of fossil fuels, the arguments for renewable energy get a lot weaker. Reality bites … hard …
According to the leftists that I know, you are not permitted to care about anything that they don’t care about.
necessary to consider the benefits of fossil fuels.
=====
that is the weakness in the lawsuits when fossil fuels are compared to tobacco. Aside from reducing total heath care costs by killing people early, tobacco has shown limited benefits.
Attempting to convince the average liberal that the younger a person dies, the less their total lifetime medical costs will be.
… is a fool’s mission
considering the benefits of fossil fuels for leftists is like the guy in the Monty Python skit “what have the romans ever done for us” that keeps discounting all the things the romans had done:
“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
LMAO.
Thomas Sowell uses a lot more words to say the same thing. Conquests and Cultures
Diversity and multiculturalism, so worshiped by the SJW left, are actually quite hazardous.
Once people are forced to seriously consider the benefits of fossil fuels, there are no arguments for unfit-for-the-purpose “renewables,” or for “climate policies” in general.
We can adapt, far faster and far more effectively and efficiently, to whatever climate changes actually DO occur much better by employing fossil fuels than we can “prevent” or “reverse” or “manage” or “control” climate changes, regardless or source. “Climate change policy” is the ultimate hubris, since WE aren’t in control of the climate and never will be.
Bring in new English majors for another round of spin with a fresh take on manipulation while not acknowledging failed predictions and harm to science process.
The trouble is, they are still assuming that we have a problem with our climate, and that we are to blame. All of this wrangling about what to do, and who pays, and how much/when is based on a sham.
In regards to the climate sensitivity chart,
I note that over the last 5 years the vast bulk of the papers put climate sensitivity between 1 and 2C, with only one going as high as 3C, yet the usual trolls keep citing the IPCC claim that senstivity is between 2.5 and 4.5C.
Over the last 3 years, the vast bulk of papers have dropped sensitivity to less than 1C.
Yet the usual trolls will keep telling us that we are the ones denying science.
The ECS of ANY body absorbing and emitting radiant energy is absolutely deterministic and given by, 1/(4eoT^3), where T is the average surface temperature (288K), o is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e is the ratio between the bodies emissions (Pout=240 W/m^2) and its emissions at T=288K (Psurf=390 W/m^2).
1/(4*0.615*5.67E-8*288^3) = 0.3C per W/m^2
If not for the atmosphere, e would be 1 (Pout == Psurf) and the sensitivity at the current surface temperature would be,
1/(4*5.67E-8*288^3) = 0.18C per W/m^2
Nowhere in all of climate science has anybody been able to show any physics that can override the sensitivity arising from the SB Law and COE. These are the only relevant laws that any planet or Moon without an atmosphere must conform to. Claiming that the Earth’s atmosphere can increase the sensitivity by a factor of 4 or more is insane, yet the IPCC asserts an ECS between 0.4 and 1.2C per W/m^2.
All they have in support are claims of impossibly large positive feedback and tenuous trends tortured from sparse, highly adjusted data. The only thing that’s being denied is first principles physics and it’s not by the skeptics.
“the usual trolls keep citing the IPCC claim that senstivity is between 2.5 and 4.5C.”
I thought the IPCC’s range was 1.5 to 4.5.
This is a very interesting development. The SPM rarely follows that actual IPCC findings. Rather it is a political document published 1 month before the actual IPCC report. As a result the political SPM is typically used in news reports, while the much larger scientific IPCC report is ignored.
However, the SPM must be approved by the IPC member states. And this means the rest of the nations are going to have to get the US to agree, or the SPM doesn’t get approved. At a minimum it is a stalemate, and perhaps a checkmate.
Which could lead to the end of the IPCC.
John Houghton, who was formerly a co-chair of IPCC Working Group I,[6] has stated:
It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries.
============
Are we going to see the Trump administration agree? Only if they get what they want.
This explains why Trump didn’t withdraw from the IPCC, simply cut off funding. The US in effect will have a veto on the SPM.
WOW! The Trump strategy for the IPCC now looks much better than what people originally assumed!!
Ding ding ding
I suspect that tossing them out will now be on the cards for exactly that reason. The greens are not enjoying having someone in the house kicking all the cards over.
David,
You said, “Not to mention the fact that fossil fuels feed nearly half of the people on Earth” Yes, in the way that modern, mechanized agriculture works, fossil fuels are essentially being converted into food.
Then it’s actually way more than half of the world population.
The Haber-Bosch process feeds almost half the people on Earth. If you add in mechanized farm equipment, transportation, power for refrigeration, processing and cooking, it’s probably close to 100%.
Only the blind do not see that only the most brutal geoengineering actions can save us from the catastrophe. These are cheap solutions, but it’s true that they only work in the short term. A long-term solution can only be the elimination of fossil fuels.
Exactly how does increasing the temperature by a few tenths of a degree lead to “catastrophe”?
The planet is still cooler than it has been for 90% of the last 10,000 years, why didn’t this “catastrophe” happen then?
Why am I bothering to respond to someone who is already gone and will never be back?
Because you are doing it not for that trolls benefit, you are doing it for the benefit of all the people who are reading the thread.
Well said.
Good point, MarkW. Your comment putting things in perspective will possibly enlighten others, so it’s not a complete waste of time.
“Good point, MarkW. Your comment putting things in perspective will possibly enlighten others, so it’s not a complete waste of time.”
Too bad it’s not true.
As a proud member of the Climate Wrecking Industry, I can assure you that we are getting rid of fossils fuels as quickly as we can drill and produce oil & gas wells.
Yes, we are burning it as fast as we can!
David Middleton: I would call it the “Climate Industry Wrecking Crew”
Slowly the Climate Industry demolition project is coming down as more of the base supporting structure is blown apart.
Inorganic hydrocarbons are abundant in the universe, but who’d get rid of fossils?
O/T, on universal abundance, I’m reminded of a scene in an SF novel, where two characters were discussing the purpose of humans in the Galaxy. One said: “You know that astronomy has shown that many of the nebulas in the sky contain alcohol?”
“Yes”
“Well, the purpose of humans is – to DRINK it all!”
I think I’ll go eliminate some fossil fuel and cut my grass.
I only WISH I could cut my grass. We got 30 cm of snow two days ago bringing a horrible and abrupt end to the golf season, which come to think of it mostly ended about mid-September when daily highs went from the high 20s Celsius to single digits. If any of you wouldn’t mind giving up your share of global warming, please send it to me. I will pay $250 trillion (Canadian) for each complete one degree you can send.
$250 trillion (Canadian)
==========
about 98 cents in real money.
Trolling nugget.
I Mean this nugget.
malkom700
Lol! Unless you’re being sarcastic, that’s one serious case of delusion you got going on there.
IPCC faithful have painted themselves into a corner. This graph shows it:
Background and sources: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/un-stretches-co2-goals/
The phrase, “You can’t get there from here,” springs to mind.
: How low does it have to get before the IPCC and UNFCC have to close up shop and get real jobs?
The answer to this, lower than what ever the current number is at any time including minus ones .
Nothing really dies at the UN once its been set up , it just fads away and becomes a back-stop for the truly useless whose end only comes on retirement.
As I have been saying since 2006 or so, the main problem is climate sensitivity is grossly overestimated in every model. Because of this gross over estimate, we have continually overestimated how much warming will occur.
At the moment, the actual data suggest that climate sensitivity is very low, less than 1 degree C. It would not surprise me to learn it is zero, and there is an outside chance it is even a small negative number.
That changes the entirety of the outcome and our plans going forward. While warming may still be a problem, it is a problem with such a long time horizon as to be essentially irrelevant – we have decades to fix the problem and may well run out of fossil fuels before it becomes serious.
The models don’t explicitly set the sensitivity, but expect the correct one to emerge from a bottom up calculation. One of the problems is that many of the bottom up calculations are based on heuristics which themselves are very uncertain and driven by many thousands of equally uncertain coefficients which enables tweaking models towards expectations.
Best practices system modelling would use both a top down model and a bottom up model while making sure they get the same answer where the top down model is usually the authoritative model. The top down component is missing from all climate modelling and is why unconstrained results are consistently produced. This is unfortunate, as the top down model is absolutely deterministic and is just the required bulk behavior of matter absorbing and emitting energy as dictated by Conservation of Energy and the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW.
The top down math is equally simple. If Pi is the power arriving from the Sun, Po is the power leaving the planet, their instantaneous difference (what the IPCC calls ‘forcing’) is the rate that energy is added to or removed from the energy, E, stored by the system.
Pi = Po + dE/dt
T = kE
Po = eoT^4
The temperature, T, is linearly proportional to the stored energy, E, yet Po goes as T^4. It’s not a first order LTI as the IPCC’s assumption of approximate linearity assumes, but is a higher order LTI where the assumption of approximate linearity breaks the analysis and can not be applied. Some of the heuristics used by models also incorrectly assume approximate linearity.
Thanks David for this article, check your Yahoo email please.
Roger that.
From the article: “The United States complained that the report focused too much on sustainable development, which is “beyond the mandate given the authors of the report and beyond the mandate of the IPCC itself.” It admonished the authors to play up areas where it said there were “significant uncertainties,” including on core scientific questions of climate sensitivity and the so-called carbon budget, or the amount the world can still emit while staying within a certain range.”
I think this is very encouraging! That’s just what we want, isn’t it? “The Science” is being challenged by the Trump Administration right in the heart of the Beast!
And as ferd berple says above “The US in effect will have a veto on the SPM”, so this may turn out to be *very* interesting. 🙂
I haven’t read the comments yet, but from the legend in figure 1; “The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.”
Oh phucking yeah?
When, exactly, did they predict the Pinotubo eruption and subsequent cooling?
This is a post hoc prediction and should be described as such, specifying when the models started making their retrospective predictions. Of course they will say “We never said it was a prediction”, but they damn well know that they are presenting it such that the uninformed might think it was.
Prior to 2005, the model is historical. You have to follow the link to the RSS web page, where this is explained.
“maintaining a safe global climate will require immediate and aggressive action…”
——————-
Gee, that sounds so familiar. Probably because the alarmists have been saying the same thing for25 years. If that was true, it would have long ago been to late to save the world and we might as well party till we die.
So the average world temperature has increased by nearly 1 degree C since pre-industrial times. And the result? The world is growing much more food to feed a much larger population, and in most places the air is much cleaner than it used to be.
Yet the alarmists would have us believe that another 0.5 degrees C of warming will be catastrophic. Pull the other one. But just in case, would all alarmists please lead by example – starting tomorrow, stop using fossil fuels for heating, cooling, refrigeration, driving, flying, communicating. What a wonderful world for the rest of us!
Anyone else take umbrage with the use of the word “complain” in this context? I know I am yelling into the wind here but I would say a more accurate phrase would have been “pointed out” or “called attention to the fact”.
dang, ended my blockquote wrong.
[There? .mod]
I admit I didn’t read everything.
But I object to “MAGA”.
Not because I don’t want America to be great again but because, especially for third world countries, dumping all the CAGW restrictions and policies related to energy can help make the All great again!
AGA!
Oh, wait. Third world countries have never been “great”. But they could be for the first time.
AG(including)3WC?
(Better stick with “MAGA”. It’s a start.)
It is good to have an administration that has the guts to recognize that the UN has no clothes.
” Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satelllite observations”
A “small” discrepancy? It’s out by nearly half a degree C. As the total warming showd by the graph is about one degree, the models are out by a massive amount. We could probably predict the climate better by tossing a coin – and it wouldn’t cost billions of dollars.
Chris
”RCP4.5 is a strong mitigation scenario with the atmospheric CO2 concentration leveling off below 540 ppm in the second half of the 21st century.”
Oh No, ….We’re already there, ahead of schedule.