The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore.
Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication. Every single one of the 73 IPCC climate models in the upcoming report exaggerate global warming. Even the IPCC admits the models have not been validated and that they don't even know how to validate the models.
Several recent peer-reviewed papers have lowered climate sensitivity estimates to a third to one-half [or less] than assumed by the IPCC models.
In addition, US & EU envoys are pressuring the UN to explain why the leaked AR5 report doesn't explain why there has been no global warming for past 15-20 years, which no climate model predicted.
Furthermore, the leaked report claims an increased confidence of 95% without any basis in statistical analysis or explanation why warming has stopped, removing all doubt that the AR5 is a political document, not scientific.
The 95% number seems like the new "the science is settled" line. If they persist with it ,they will lose credibility.
ReplyDeleteIn claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
ReplyDeleteOften, in the literature of climatology, authors treat "predict" and "project" as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a "prediction" is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.
For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
OK, not falsified. How about "shown not to provide information useful for evaluating human impact on the global climate"?
DeleteAnonymous:
DeleteThat's perfect!
@Oldberg - You're kidding right ?
DeleteI hope you don't mean to stand up for the failed climate models with such a nebulous trife position as "definitions" ?
Honestly, the cult is still strong for some...
I'm not kidding.
DeleteLooking at the 73 different IPCC climate models, since they all get different results, without even considering reality, they are all verifying that each one is wrong. Looks like they all guessed wrong. How much money was spent on this guess work?
ReplyDeleteThe models used by IPCC are "not even wrong" since they exclude important climate variables such as the AMO, PDO and effects of EuV variability on the upper atmosphere. In fact, they don't include much of the atmosphere above the tropopause in the models at all.
ReplyDeleteJunk. Science.
Yes, and many more, including clouds, which the models all assume are a positive feedback, while the observations indicate a net negative feedback.
DeleteTerry:
ReplyDeleteThe climate models have been falsified at >98% certainty by comparing models' hindcasts with actual observation. The hindcasts used actual GHG concentrations and other forcings, not projections or predictions of forcings.
See: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=680
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11063505.htm?PID=4003003
ReplyDeleteMany good comments at WUWT regarding this post and refuting Terry Oldberg's assertion:
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/
More reasons why the AR5 is toast
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/can-the-ipcc-do-revolutionary-science/
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/30/inadequate-uncertainty-analysis-in-climate-change-assessments/
ReplyDeleteKen Gregory:
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to reply.
The appearance that the climate models have been falsified is not matched by the reality. A model is falsified when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the observed relative frequencies. For the IPCC climate models there are no events, hence are no outcomes or relative frequencies. The misleading appearance that the models have been falsified is based upon applications of the equivocation fallacy wherein the term "predicted" (among many other terms) is polysemic.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/10/an-unequivocal-rejection-of-the-scientific-method.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/thomas/2013/09/chapter-and-verse-on-the-great-climate-con
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/09/20130911-073919.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/
ReplyDeletehttp://drtimball.com/2013/ipcc-ar5-renews-demand-governments-buy-their-climate-change-pig-in-a-poke/
ReplyDeletehttp://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/areas-where-debate-is-not-over-national-academy-of-sciences-admits-climate-sensitivity-sea-ice-loss-precipitation-extremes-need-more-work/
ReplyDeletehttp://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/shock-admission-ahead-of-ipcc-report-national-academy-of-sciences-says-climate-models-not-ready-for-decision-making/
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-climate-modeling-not-meeting-needs-of-users-usefulness-decades-away/
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/09/06/true-courage/
ReplyDeleteIn interview with Hans Von Storchl:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-p...
SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.
SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.
Storch: Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.
SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?
Storch:, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.
SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipcc-ar5-will-reduce-sensitivity-by-30.html
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/national-academy-of-sciences-climate-models-still-decades-away-from-being-useful/
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/temperatures-rise-over-inconsistencies-in-un-climate-change-report/story-e6frg8y6-1226720483150#sthash.FYzYPVgw.dpuf
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/16/lomborg-climate-models-are-running-way-too-hot/
ReplyDeletehttp://junkscience.com/2013/09/16/australian-global-warming-science-not-about-belief-it-is-facts-rather-than-belief-that-matter/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/16/a-response-to-the-csas.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/pr-wars-ipcc-fights-for-relevance-halves-warming-claims-to-be-95-certain-of-something-vaguer/
ReplyDeletehttp://notrickszone.com/2013/09/16/german-professor-ipcc-science-finds-itself-in-a-serious-jam-5ar-likely-to-be-the-last-of-its-kind/
ReplyDeletePeer-reviewed paper:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
"The forecasts in the [IPCC] Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and
obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We
have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/politics-interferes-in-the-process-of-science/story-e6frgd0x-1226720469959
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/
ReplyDeletehttp://m.washingtonexaminer.com/global-warming-report-could-backfire-on-environmentalists/article/2535889
ReplyDeletehttp://www.humanevents.com/2013/09/17/global-warming-report-could-backfire-on-environmentalists/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/blog/peer-reviewed-or-not-ipcc-accepts-our-conclusion
ReplyDeletehttp://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/terence-corcoran-the-tide-is-rising-on-climate-models-and-policies/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/18/ipcc-to-once-again-illustrate-climate-model-failings-in-ar5-summary-for-policymakers/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/18/ipcc-to-once-again-illustrate-climate-model-failings-in-ar5-summary-for-policymakers/
ReplyDeleteDr Judith Curry on "pause denial" by the IPCC
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/09/19/peer-review-the-skeptic-filter/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/blog/ipcc-pretty-much-dead-wrong
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/quote-of-the-day/
ReplyDeletehttp://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/
ReplyDeletehttp://junkscience.com/2013/09/24/lord-monckton-devastates-ap-reporter-on-ipcc-95-confidence-claim/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/09/27/climate-change-what-climate-change
ReplyDeleteIPCC unprecedented uncertainty
ReplyDeletehttp://euanmearns.com/ipcc-ar5-unprecedented-uncertainty/#more-138
http://www.energytribune.com/79293/ipcc-5th-assessment-is-very-confident-that-theyre-not-sure#sthash.ydLrlL4L.dpbs
ReplyDeletehttp://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc-the-hiatus-in-warming/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/ipcc-admits-gap-between-models-and-reality.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.science-skeptical.de/klimawandel/der-weltklimarat-ipcc-korrigiert-die-spannbreite-seiner-temperaturszenarien-bis-zum-jahr-2100-um-rund-1c-nach-unten/0010877/
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/10/17/uncertain-future-of-climate-uncertainty/
ReplyDeletehttp://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/10/21/critique-of-the-ipccs-summary-for-policymakers/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/scientific-critique-of-ipccs-2013-summary-for-policymakers/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/lack-of-data-for-all-phases-of-water-guarantees-failed-ipcc-projections/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs.jpg
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/statistical-analyses-of-surface-temperatures-in-the-ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/
ReplyDeletehttp://american.com/archive/2013/october/the-science-of-global-warming-part-2
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/ipcc-s-bogus-evidence-for-global-warming/
ReplyDeletehttp://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidencePdf/4187
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.principia-scientific.org/the-climate-views-of-an-independent-physicist.html?utm_campaign=newsletter_January_02_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
ReplyDelete