by Ross McKitrick
A number of authors, including the IPCC, have argued that climate models have systematically overstated the rate of global warming in recent decades. A recent paper by Millar et al. (2017) presented the same finding in a diagram of temperature change versus cumulative carbon emissions since 1870.
View original post 2,222 more words
by Javier
A possible mechanism for the effect of solar variability on climate, whereby solar variability acts over the stratospheric pressure system transmitting the changes top-down, and over ocean temperatures bottom-up.
View original post 2,689 more words
by Frank Bosse
Increasing evidence of small aerosol forcing supports the importance of internal variability in explaining inter hemispheric differences in temperature variability.
View original post 1,064 more words
by Judith Curry
The climate change debate has entered what we might call the “Campfire Phase”, in which the goal is to tell the scariest story. – Oren Cass (twitter)
View original post 1,689 more words
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”.
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!
by Judith Curry
Tough days on The Hill for the enforcers of the climate consensus.
View original post 2,779 more words
ClimateTheTruth.com 