Phil Jones Proves ALL IPCC Computer Models are WRONG!

Quoting the U.K. Mail Online:

“[Phil Jones, of ClimateGate infamy] said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming”

Click the image & read the rest:

Click here for the BBC Q&A.
The most overwhelming significance of this admission has been overlooked by EVERYBODY!

The alarmists at NOAA are on record admitting that:

“The [computer model] simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends [in global temperatures] 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.”

That’s it! Game OVER! The AGW Hysteria cult is officially DEAD and BURIED!

According to the very core of the alarmist cabal, the IPCC computer models -- the SOLE SOURCE of all the hysterical predictions of climate catastrophe -- have been invalidated!
Additionally, the alarmists at NOAA admit there has been no global warming since 1998:

“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”

Click here for a single factor explanation as to why.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

IPCC Computer Models vs. Direct Measurement

Quoting The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
(RESPONSE TO US ENERGY SECRETARY CLIMATE STATEMENT):

“CO2’s warming effect is best determined by measurement. It cannot be measured directly. However, it can be derived from the relationship between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space…

All UN models (11 are shown in red) wrongly predict that as the sea surface warms by 1 Cº (1.8 Fº), the outgoing radiation escaping from the top of the Earth’s atmosphere to space diminishes by about 3 Watts per square meter. The UN wrongly assumes temperature feedbacks cause water vapor – the most significant greenhouse gas – to accumulate in the upper air.

However, direct measurement with the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite (green: center) shows that as the sea surface warms by 1 Cº (1.8 Fº) the outgoing radiation escaping to space does not diminish by 3 W m–2: it increases by 4 W m–2.

The graphs from the models’ predictions actually trend in a direction opposite to that of the graph from observed reality…

Lindzen and Choi calculate that the ‘global warming’ to be expected in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is not the UN’s 2.0-4.5 Cº (3.5-8.0 Fº) but a small, harmless, and beneficial 0.5-0.8 Cº (1-1.5 F). By patient, painstaking measurement, the two researchers have trumped the computer models’ unanimously erroneous guesswork, and have definitively ended the debate over the question how much warming CO2 causes.”

Click the image & read the rest:

Click here to read the abstract.
Click here to read the entire paper.
To say that this paper “definitively ended the debate over the question how much warming CO2 causes” probably overstates the case. Others may well question these conclusions (via published, peer reviewed papers like this one). Time will tell.

But, based upon what we know about historic CO2 levels, my bet is that the Iris Effect which Dr. Lindzen has long hypothesized and which this study demonstrates is -- indeed -- a big part of the explanation for why CO2 levels at about 20 times current levels did NOT cause runaway catastrophic global warming 520 million years ago.

This study and, at least one other (abstract here) support this Iris Effect hypothesis. There may well be others I am unaware of.

This question of how water vapor responds to the tiny amount of warming directly caused by CO2 has always been the linchpin of climate change theory. Expect the alarmists to pull out all the stops in defending their assumptions. If those assumptions are sufficiently invalidated, it’s game over for the alarmists.

Click here for some basic climate science.

IPCC Computer Models

Quoting Dr. Tim Ball at Canada Free Press
(I inserted the links):

“Media and the public generally believe the IPCC is making predictions and that is clearly the assumption for government policies. Sadly, members of the IPCC do nothing to dissuade the public from that view. All previous ‘projections’ were wrong. The most recent example is the period from 2000 to 2008. IPCC predicted warming but temperatures went down while CO2 increased. Finally, the IPCC AR4 itself explains why IPCC model projections fail.

‘Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.’ (AR4, Chapter 8. p.600)

It is hard to imagine a better example of Beadle’s axiom paraphrased as follows, ‘Half the work done by the IPCC is to make things appear what they are not.’ ”

Click the image of Dr. Ball
& read the rest:

Remember, in 1971, climate alarmist-in-chief James Hansen, warned the world “of an impending ice age within 50 years”. Of course, peer reviewed science suggests Hansen -- relying solely upon his computer model -- was off by about 49,950 years. Click here for more insight into that chapter of the Hansen saga (including a now obsolete link to the Washington Times story which I linked to).

Today, both Hansen and the IPCC are still trying to scare the world with their equally flawed computer models. Aside from trying to scare us with exactly the opposite alarm, the only other difference is the alarmists now have an even more complicit and even less reliable self-described propaganda machine behind them.

Click here to quickly put current temperatures into proper perspective.
Click here for some basic facts and peer reviewed science on climate change.