Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPA Administrator McCarthy: “I do not know what the models actually are predicting"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EPA Administrator McCarthy: “I do not know what the models actually are predicting"

    Unfrackingbelievable...
    EPA Chief Gina McCarthy struggled to answer questions, at a recent Senate Environment and Public Works committee hearing, refusing to provide immediate answers even to basic questions, such as whether IPCC climate models were skilful at forecasting global temperature. The EPA is seeking an inflation busting 6% increase to their budget.

    According to Yellow Hammer News (video below)


    “Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years,” Sessions asked, “that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”


    “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded.

    “This is a stunning development,” Sessions shot back, “that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase—doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/0...-are-accurate/

    16
    Fired.
    43.75%
    7
    Ordered to dismantle the EPA and the be fired.
    31.25%
    5
    Sued for fraud
    18.75%
    3
    Charged with Treason.
    6.25%
    1
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    “This is a stunning development,” Sessions shot back, “that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—who should know more than anybody else in the world
    I would think it was all those Scientists who knew the most, but Sessions doesn't want to toe to toe with them, because he would lose.

    Muddy the waters, don't engage, nit pick and cat call and try to land a misleading headline or sound byte.

    Mission Accomplished.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is what happens when you are lying your ass off to push a political agenda rather than doing your job in a competent manner and basing decisions on facts, and in this case science.

      That's the problem here. The EPA is currently chock-a-block with Progressive Environmentalists who are putting a political agenda ahead of science. When you add a general "zero tolerance" mentality to that bureaucracy you get results like the director stammering and lying his way through questioning.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
        I would think it was all those Scientists who knew the most, but Sessions doesn't want to toe to toe with them, because he would lose.
        He would win. Since 1988 the climate models have consistently lacked predictive skill.

        From Remote Sensing Systems [with my commentary]:
        Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:
        • Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

          [All of the warming occurred in one step-shift in the late 1990's.]

        • Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

          [Only because climate models are programmed to do so. The models are programmed with very high sensitivities to CO2. Then they are paramaterized (fudged) with assumptions about albedo effects of past anthropogenic aerosol emissions in order to retrocast past temperature changes. The climate models almost totally fail to incorporate cloud albedo effects and natural climate oscillations.This is why they lack predictive skill.


        • The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

          [Yep. Most of the warming is occurring at night and in the coldest air masses in the Northern Hemisphere.]



        But....
        • The climate has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.
        [Because the models lack predictive skill.]


        To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.

        […]




        […]

        http://www.remss.com/research/climate

        RSS shows no warming since 1997...



        In fairness, the models have demonstrated precision. They precisely miss the mark to the high side...



        The first modern AGW model from 1988 has essentially proven that the climate is relatively insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. Subsequent models have confirmed that the Gorebots are wrong...




        James Hansen, formerly of NASA-GISS and now a full time criminal, first proved that AGW was wrong 25 years ago and then delivered an endless stream of idiotic alarmism.

        Back in 1988, he published a climate model that, when compared to his own temperature data, substantially disproves AGW...






        GISTEMP has tracked the Hansen scenario in which a [email protected] utopia was achieved more than a decade ago.

        Hansen's model used an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.2°C per doubling of pre-industrial CO2. The IPCC "consensus" is 3.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS is 2.0°C. The maximum physically possible ECS, consistent with the observations, is 1.0°C. Recent papers have concluded that solar forcing has been underestimated by a factor of six and CO2 forcing is much lower than the so-called consensus estimate.

        "Scenario B" might be the most relevant prediction because CH4 and CFC's have followed closest to the "C" trajectory, while CO2 has tracked "A".

        If you look at the model results, there is little difference between "A" and "B" in 2010...



        Hansen describes "A" as "business as usual" and "B" as a more realistic or "Lite" version of "business as usual." "C" represents a world in which mankind essentially undiscovered fire in the year 2000. The actual satellite-measured temperature change from 1988 to last month tracks below "C", apart from the monster ENSO of 1998...



        Since CO2 tracked "A", CH4 and CFC's tracked "C" and temperature tracked below "C"... The atmosphere is far less sensitive to CO2 than Hansen modeled... The atmosphere was essentially insensitive to the ~50ppmv rise in CO2 over the last 24 years.

        Hansen may have inadvertantly provided solid support for this "inconvenient truth."

        The Gorebots have already proven that AGW is wrong - Part Quatre: A model of failure.

        Let's give Gorebot Prime, Jimbo Hansen, a pass. His 1988 model reflected old science and old computers and surely the models have gotten better over the last quarter-century... Or not.
        STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

        June 6th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

        [...]



        In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

        In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

        It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

        If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

        Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change.

        [...]

        Dr. Roy Spencer
        [Assuming whiny Gorebot voice]... Oh... That tricky Roy Spencer. That's just the tropics and it goes way back to 1979... That's unfair! The science is verified! The models are right!

        Or not... The following CMIP5 model was parameterized (fudged) to accurately retrocast HadCRUT4 from 1950-2004.



        Eight years and out! Within eight years, the observed temperature is on the verge of dropping out of the lower error band.

        This model from Kaufmann et al., 2011 simulated natural and anthropogenic (primarily CO2) forcing mechanisms from 1999-2008. Natural forcing won by a score of 3-1.

        [/I]

        Originally posted by Paddybhoy
        Muddy the waters, don't engage, nit pick and cat call and try to land a misleading headline or sound byte.

        Mission Accomplished.
        That's exactly what EPA Administrator McCarthy did...
        “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to,” McCarthy responded.

        She didn't engage. Either she is ignorant of the total failure of the climate models to accurately forecast warming over the past 25-30 years or she was dodging a very inconvenient question.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          The IPCC = 20 Years of Epic Fail





          Last edited by The Doctor; 10 Mar 15, 21:50.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            That's assuming the trend continues along the lines of the past decade's "pause" due to the interference of La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It is a brief hiatus that will soon pass. The rate of warming over the past 150 years has been unparalleled in recent geologic history.

            When these predictions were made there was no indication that the current 'pause' would happen, and they reflect projected temperature increases that would have taken place had it not.

            Your argument is based off of data gathered over the past 20 years. It ignores the larger context of today's warming in comparison with recent history. There was a similar pause in the temperature increase in the mid-1940s that lasted until the '70s, but the upswing continued from then. This is no reason to dismiss anthropogenic global warming as falsified or wrong.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              That's assuming the trend continues along the lines of the past decade's "pause" due to the interference of La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It is a brief hiatus that will soon pass. The rate of warming over the past 150 years has been unparalleled in recent geologic history.

              When these predictions were made there was no indication that the current 'pause' would happen, and they reflect projected temperature increases that would have taken place had it not.

              Your argument is based off of data gathered over the past 20 years. It ignores the larger context of today's warming in comparison with recent history. There was a similar pause in the temperature increase in the mid-1940s that lasted until the '70s, but the upswing continued from then. This is no reason to dismiss anthropogenic global warming as falsified or wrong.
              The trend starts in the 1990 and includes all of the actual warming from 1990-1998. The models all start in 1990. None of the models predicted the hiatus because none of the models incorporate the natural cyclicity of the climate.

              A scientific theory has to have predictive skill in order to be a scientific theory. A scientific theory which lacks predictive skill is, by definition, falsified.

              Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
              he rate of warming over the past 150 years has been unparalleled in recent geologic history.
              Absolutely wrong.
              Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Mar 15, 07:06.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X