Posted on 01/26/2015 1:26:22 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Near-term global warming projections (brick-red region) on[0.13, 0.50] K decade-1, compared with observations (green region)that fall on [0.0, 0.11] K decade-1, and the simple model's 21stcentury warming projections (yellow arrow), falling on 0.09 [0.06,0.12] K decade-1. Credit: Science China Press
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 °C warming instead - and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.
The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.
When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models:
Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN's climate panel predicted with "substantial confidence" that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.
The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC's 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.
The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is about half the IPCC's central prediction in 1990..................
“U.S. President Barack Obama is boosting protection of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and will ask Congress to designate more than 12 million acres as a wilderness area, including its potentially oil-rich Coastal Plain. The designation would seal off the area in Alaska’s northeast corner from oil exploration, and give it the highest degree of federal protection available to public lands. Obama and the Interior Department announced the effort on Sunday.”
It all has to do with destroying the US economy.
And, as no "relevant range" is provided, for example, call this just silliness.
Yes.
>> the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel
** the Chinese Academy of Sciences **
I’m equally suspicious of both IPCC and CAS. And that’s not really fair to either party. But that’s the unfortunate consequence of politicizing environmental issues.
I’m equally suspicious of both IPCC and CAS.
"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs,"
The Chinese Academy of Sciences did not write the paper, they merely published it. Lord Monckton et.al. wrote the paper. Western science journals are, for the most part, in lock step with the IPCC and often act as gatekeepers preventing the publication of opposing views. The accuracy and validity of the paper are what matters, no matter who publishes it.
>> The accuracy and validity of the paper are what matters, no matter who publishes it.
Did I condemn the content?
So the two major errors are that the planet has no positive amplification to CO2 warming. That is obvious because otherwise Greenland would be green by now. And there is no hidden warming being stored in the magical pipeline. That is obvious because satellite temps show no continued warming. Well being wrong never stopped crooks before, so we should expect they will double their efforts to freeze mankind.
Climate change is real and caused by humans, majority of senators believe
Global Warming on Free Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.