Rosanne D’Arrigo once explained to an astounded National Academy of Sciences panel that you had to pick cherries if you wanted to make cherry pie – a practice followed by D’Arrigo and Jacoby who, for their reconstructions, selected tree ring chronologies which went the “right” way and discarded those that went the wrong way – a technique which will result in hockey sticks even from random red noise. Her statement caused a flurry of excitement among Climategate correspondents, but unfortunately the NAS panel didn’t address or explain the defects in this technique to the lignumphilous paleoclimate community.
My long-standing recommendation to the paleoclimate community has been to define a class of proxy using ex ante criteria e.g. treeline black spruce chronologies, Antarctic ice cores etc., but once the ex ante criterion is selected, use a “simple” method on all members of the class. The benefits of such a procedure seem…
View original post 528 more words
And Santer, who is firmly in the alarmist camp, arrived at his conclusions despite an obvious and pervasive attempt at skewing the results by purposely ignoring the well established and well known data that he doesn’t like, aka “Cherry Picking”.
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(the following is mostly based upon information provided by Dr. John Christy)
Dr. John Christy’s congressional testimonies on 8 Dec 2015 and 2 Feb 2016 in which he stated that climate models over-forecast climate warming by a factor of 2.5 to 3, apparently struck a nerve in Climate Consensus land.
In a recently published paper in J. Climate entitled Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data, Santer et al. use a combination of lesser-known satellite datasets and neglect of radiosonde data to reduce the model bias to only 1.7 times too much warming.
Wow. Stop the presses.
Part of the new paper’s obfuscation is a supposed stratospheric correction to the mid-tropospheric temperature channel the satellite datasets use. Of course, Christy’s comparisons between models and satellite data are always apples-to-apples, so the small influence of the stratosphere on the MT channel is…
View original post 530 more words
A just published paper in Nature Geoscience by Santer et al confirms, yet again, that the models are wrong, have been wrong for decades, and they consistently, and substantially overestimate global warming. The paper concludes:
“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%).”
It goes on to note that the problem is caused by “systematic deficiencies” in the model simulations. In other words, the models are wrong!
Trump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from Paris
President Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty – walked America away from the Mad Hatter tea party that was the entire multi-decade, often hysterical and always computer model-driven UN climate process. My article this week explains why this bold move was the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do: for the economic security of American workers and families … and the betterment of all mankind.
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
I can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing…
View original post 1,388 more words
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
President Trumps great and defining global decision to exit the flawed and unnecessary Paris climate agreement has driven the climate alarmist mainstream media (MSM) over the brink with articles frantically supporting that only government dictated mandates should be used to establish how global energy demand and use must be controlled.
An L. A. Times article for example falsely implies that state governments lead by California (OMG!!) must take command of future U.S. emissions performance and deliver Obama’s ill-advised emissions reduction promise that President Trump has now wisely decided to abandon.
The emissions reduction leadership role for California championed by the L A Times is touted despite the fact that our state doesn’t have the foggiest idea of how it can achieve its SB 32 emissions goals nor does it have any idea of how many tens of billions it will cost nor care at all…
View original post 482 more words