Mother Nature Vs. Climate Models

Here is an excerpt from a New York Times story titled “Anxiety Grows as Thousands Remain Stranded and in the Dark After Storm” dated 10 February 2013.

Grabbing shovels large and small, residents and emergency workers across the Northeast struggled to dig out on Sunday after a gigantic midwinter storm left much of the region buried under drifting snow.

City streets resembled ski slopes or mountain passes, with cars and even some houses obscured by a thick blanket of white. More than three feet of snow fell in parts of Connecticut, and more than two feet accumulated on Long Island and in Massachusetts, where the storm caused coastal flooding that forced evacuations.

Armies of snowplows and workers with shovels were making slow progress, and many cars remained abandoned along impassable roadways. Anxiety was growing among those unable to escape their homes and neighborhoods.

So, what was predicted by the climate models of 2005?

These results suggest that snow cover may be a sensitive indicator of climate change, and that North American snow extent will probably decrease in response to greenhouse gas emissions, although the magnitude of the response may be nonlinear.

Go figure.

 

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 10, 2013.
Filed under Global Warming, Nature, New York Times, Weather.
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane. [*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • kudzuisedible

    Meh. The current generation of climate models are all useless, and the “scientists” who want to use their results to predict disaster are only scamming governments to get more grant money. Anthropogenic climate change hasn’t started yet, and won’t be a significant phenomenon in my lifetime. It’s all the biggest anti-science HOAX since Trofim Lysenko, and the perpetrators of this current AGW hoax are socialists seeking a world government of socialist tyranny. Tell us something we don’t know.

    Still, I appreciate and applaud your pointed calling out of the latest “Gore Effect” phenomenon. Now, how do we penetrate the “whiteout” being perpetrated by the MSM (Marxist Socialist Media)?

  • jim_m

    Here’s a timely post on WUWT. Even NOAA inadvertently admits that their AGW models are BS

    NOAA says the following:

    ”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    In other words if there has been no statistical warming for 15 years then their models are BS. So how does measurement compare to the computer models?

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 7 months. (goes to November)

    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 15 years, 7 months. (goes to November)

    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat
    since December 2000 or an even 12 years. (goes to November)

    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 2 months. (goes to December.)

    5. For Hadsst2, the slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 10 months. (goes to December)

    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since October 2004 or 8 years, 3 months. (goes to December)

    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1
    month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    The following graph, also used as the header for this article, shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the sloped wiggly line shows how CO2 has increased over this period:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/offset-0-34-v2.png?w=584&h=438 Nice graph shows that the CO2 levels continue to rise but global temperature remains flat through multiple data sets collected by multiple researchers and institutions all of which are warmists.

    • jim_m

      For Steve and other warmists who still maintain that the earth is getting warmer, here is a list of major data sets and how long it has been since they demonstrated any significant warming:

      For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

      For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

      For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

      For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

      For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

      All those sets show no warming at a 95% confidence level. I love how they claim to be following science while ignoring the actual science itself.

      • 914

        I wish it would hurry up! I’m freezing..

    • herddog505

      But… but… but… CONSENSUS! SCIENCE!!!! DOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!

  • fustian24

    At the core of this whole hoax is the notion that temperature is supposed to be stable.

    Here’s a clue: it’s not. Long before people showed up on the scene there were wide variations in temperature. Ever hear of an ice age?

    So, once carbon dioxide was fingered as a culprit in modern climate change, the lefty scientists set about proving it. But how?

    Sure, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. How would you prove it drives today’s climate?

    Computer models are used to predict future temperature increases based on projected CO2 levels. If future temperatures increase like the model predicts, it would suggest that CO2, and by extension, our industrial development was actually causing climate change.

    Unfortunately, this is all nonsense.

    Because we have no way of knowing what the temperature is supposed to be without us here. Let’s say as we come out of the “Little Ice Age”, we should expect the Earth to warm 1/2 degree per decade over a number of decades. If the global warming models predict 1/2 degree increase in temp per decade, the AGW people would declare victory, when instead the actual data would be showing absolutely zero effect from CO2!

    In order to prove anything at all about AGW, you need to know what the temperature would be without us here, and you simply cannot know it.

    So, all this global warming hysteria is just model based crap. And here’s the thing. Those models predicted exponential warming. And we haven’t had measureable warming in over a decade.

    There’s a name for models that fail to predict the data.

    Wrong.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      I’ve been asking that for years – “What temperature should we attempt to maintain?”

      Never had anything resembling a reasonable answer – usually just replies saying I wasn’t a climate scientist and don’t know anything about it anyway…
      But one thing I’ve found over the years is that someone who really knows their field can make important info clear to a semi-knowledgeable layman – even if they’ve got to go something on the order of “Well, you’ll need to read this, and that, and google up something else – but you put the three things together and you’ll have a basis for my work”. They can explain clearly their processes used to get their conclusions.

      This has never been so with AGW. You’ve got black-box models that they wouldn’t release code on, you’ve got data sets specially selected (like the Yamal tree rings – the discredited Hockey Stick graph boiled down to the data from ONE tree…) and then adjusted as if given to a chiropractor after he sucked down five quarts of coffee and three hits of speed. At a certain point your models stop being scientific and become science fiction. (Usually after, in my opinion, you’ve started ‘adjusting’ raw data inputs to make sure your outputs are what you want to get.)

      There’s never been any willingness to share data and have others replicate their results – there’s always been an insistence that “The Computer Models Predict DOOOM, And We Must Do Something NOW or We Will All Die.”

      No time to share the data and see if others come up with the same results or not, no time to waste, legal fights to keep all code and data sets proprietary – if the ‘science was settled’ then there wouldn’t be any problem sharing things out, wouldn’t you think? If an astronomer said a civilization-killer asteroid was on course to hit the Earth, wouldn’t you think it a bit odd if he refused to tell other astronomers the right ascension and declination of the thing?

      At first, AGW was a ‘hmm, that’s interesting’ concept. But as time went on, it looks more and more like a scam, and I think the folks involved in pushing it knew from the first their models were bogus.

  • fustian24

    Also, one of the things that most people do not know about Climatology is its background. When scientists realized that weather was so non-linear, that their meteorological forecasts were only good for about 3 days, a new discipline sprang up to look back at weather history to see if there weren’t some long-term cycles that could help make longer-term predictions.

    They were pretty much the Farmer’s Almanac part of Earth Science.

    The AGW theory put these guys on the fast track and with the vast amounts of large cash coming into the field many otherwise reputable Earth Scientists sold out and went into Climatology.

    The way to think about a Climatologists is that they are an Earth Scientist that decided to take the Global Warming money.

    Getting objective truth from this crowd is not really to be expected. They have skin in the game.

  • GarandFan

    AGW, aka “Climate Change” isn’t “science”, it’s “$cience”. Just ask The Goracle.

    • fustian24

      Climate “science” is a lot like fortune telling, but without the intellectual rigor.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        @fustian24:disqus

        Climate “science” is a lot like fortune telling, but without the intellectual rigor.

        for the Win.

      • jim_m

        Ouch. That one’s going to leave a mark.

  • herddog505

    Oh, the gorebots have wasted no time: it’s “climate change” that’s driving the snow this year. Natch, had it been a mild winter with little snow, it would have been “global warming” (whether the weather was “global” or not: “Hey, we’ve had a warm winter in Walla Walla: ZOMG!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!”).

    “The weather we’ve seen in the past couple of days completely fits with the tendency that was identified a couple of years ago, that we are going to to see much stronger, intensive bursts of precipitation in the future,” said Alexei Kokorin, director of the climate and energy program at WWF Russia. “In the summer, we will probably see stronger bursts of rain.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/05/heaviest-snowfall-in-a-century-hits-moscow-wwf-has-logic-fail/

    As if it’s just a brief, passing storm…