[Oldeconomybuyer]

[MortMan]

Using estimates to validate a model.

What happened to science?

[cuban leaf]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

[Da Coyote]

I’venot seen the actual math, but my firsi impression would be to give them a C-.

Been teaching at grad and undergrad level for 30+ years. These folks would never get through some real physics and enginnering curricula.

[GOPJ]

They’ve gussied up the words to sound ‘scientific’ - liberal elite reporters who can’t do math will be impressed.

[Lake Living]

I know I’m probably giving them too much credit but I wonder if the IPCC and all the other government pushers of global warming don’t know and understand point #5 in the 22 Inconvenient Climate Truths?

5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)

That way any phony attempts (now) to reduce temperatures by these charlatans could be used to say, “See... it’s working! (Therefore give us all your money and give Us the power and we will save you.). The longer the pause, and possible reversal of temps, the higher pitched and unhinged the alarmists message becomes. They must know we’re on them. Hee, hee!

[The_Reader_David]

We found that unforced variability is large enough so that it could have accounted for multidecadal changes in the rate-of-increase of global average surface temperature over the 20th century. However, our estimate of unforced variability was NOT large enough to account for the total warming observed over the 20th century. Therefore, our results confirm that positive radiative forcings (e.g., from human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) are necessary in order for the Earth to have warmed as much as it did over the 20th century.

Having looked at the actual paper, I would claim they can conclude nothing of the sort: they assume that the excess "forced variability" is due to human greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of considering only volcanic aerosols, solar irradiance and human greenhouse gas emissions as possible sources of external forcing. They have omitted variation in cosmic ray flux (as modulated by solar magnetism) as a driver of cloud formation, soot emissions changing the albedo of the Arctic (but not Antarctic) ice pack, and (of necessity) all the unknown unknowns that bear on the earth's climate.

We were still coming out of the Little Ice Age (caused by changes in cosmic ray flux -- the most important cause they omit consideration of) in the early part of the 20th century.

The school of climatology based on astrophysics and planetary motion can easily make models that match data back millions of year. The school of climatology based on general circulation models of the earth's atmosphere struggles to make models that work on the scale of centuries or even decades.

The sun is blank. No spots. Winter is coming.

[sand88]

Do you know that realclimate.org is a far-left site funded by the evil Soros.

I have watched this site for years. It has many very well educated utterly EVIL mathematicians and utterly EVIL so-called scientists who directly attack "real" science by publishing articles filled with high-sounding B.S.

This site professes to be real science by real scientists but it is nothing but part of the leftist totalitarian's push to impose absolute control.

[Steve_Seattle]

A few weeks ago my local newspaper featured a story claiming that researchers had found the FIRST EVER experimental evidence (evidence not based on computer models) that increased CO2 levels were related to global warming. What jumped out at me was the admission that this was the FIRST empirical evidence, even though we have been told for years that "the science is settled."

As for the research itself, my layman's mind struggled to understand it, but there were several red flags. The claimed energetic effect of the increased CO2 was so infinitesimally small that it was hard to see how it could be "driving climate change." And I noticed that the effect was not measured in units of TEMPERATURE, but of some other scientific unit (I forget which).

If I recall, the claimed energetic effect of the increased CO2 was roughly equivalent to the energy expended in snapping your fingers once every ten years, and this effect was said to apply to every square yard of the earth's surface.