A Sustainable Oregon

Is Accomplished by

Equal opportunity for all Oregonians

Putting average citizens first in all government actions

Maximize Oregonian's standard of living

Government encourages, rather than inhibits competition

Maximum access to plentiful jobs

Government that welcomes all non polluting industries

Fast and low cost transportation that is self financing

Ending government discrimination against cars.

Maximum opportunity for jobs creation

Limit regulations to those for safety and fraud prevention

Government based on sound principles and science

Outreach to ordinary people not special interests

Home What is Real Science Climate Facts Its Warming,But Acidification Warming Stopped IPCC_Flawed Harming People CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Extreme Weather? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? Big Money Scaring green money 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Real Cause of Climate Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts Mann's Book Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food IPCC&CLouds Threats Wegman Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 450 realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution IPCC Scientists DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Email WebMaster

More from AR5:  AR5 Chapter 11; Hiding the Decline (Part II)

How accurate are IPCC Predictions?

Another View

From http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee50f906b970d-pi

NASA (Jim Hansen)

From: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee50f8f6c970d-pi

AR5_Fig.4_Orig-c.png
AR5_Fig.4_02-c2.png

IPCC AR5 draft Fig 1.4  as reproduced here on this page.

Colored bands are the predictions made in FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4.

 

Notice that AR4 was published in 2007, but the prediction starts in 1988. Much of the graph is actually “hindcast” - tuning the model to match actual history, NOT really a prediction. We have removed these “hindcasts” from the chart at the right.

Modified IPCC AR5 draft Fig 1.4

 

“Hindsight” predictions removed - each prediction starts at the actual publication date.

 

Notice that:

 

Here is an actual IPCC graph of their own accuracy

Added straight line

Paper: IPCC Models Flawed

From: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/03/new-paper-finds-large-calculation.html

Saturday, March 7, 2015

New paper finds large calculation errors of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere in climate models

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds astonishingly large errors in the most widely used 'state of the art' climate models due to incorrect calculation of solar radiation and the solar zenith angle at the top of the atmosphere.

 

According to the authors,

 

   Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere (TOA) should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results.

 

The alleged radiative forcing from all man-made CO2 generated since 1750 is claimed by the IPCC to be 1.68 W/m2. By way of comparison, the up to 30 W/m2 of "spurious variations" from incorrect calculation of solar zenith angle discovered by the authors is up to 18 times larger than the total alleged CO2 forcing since 1750.

 

Why wasn't this astonishing, large error of basic astrophysical calculations caught billions of dollars ago, and how much has this error affected the results of all modeling studies in the past?

 

The paper adds to hundreds of others demonstrating major errors of basic physics inherent in the so-called 'state of the art' climate models, including violations of the second law of thermodynamics. In addition, even if the "parameterizations" (a fancy word for fudge factors) in the models were correct (and they are not), the grid size resolution of the models would have to be 1mm or less to properly simulate turbulent interactions and climate (the IPCC uses grid sizes of 50-100 kilometers, 6 orders of magnitude larger). As Dr. Chris Essex points out, a supercomputer would require longer than the age of the universe to run a single 10 year climate simulation at the required 1mm grid scale necessary to properly model the physics of climate.

From: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/03/new-paper-finds-large-calculation.html

 

 

From Geophysical Research Letters

On the Incident Solar Radiation in CMIP5 Models

Abstract

Annual incident solar radiation at the top of atmosphere (TOA) should be independent of longitudes. However, in many Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we find that the incident radiation exhibited zonal oscillations, with up to 30 W/m2 of spurious variations. This feature can affect the interpretation of regional climate and diurnal variation of CMIP5 results. This oscillation is also found in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We show that this feature is caused by temporal sampling errors in the calculation of the solar zenith angle. The sampling error can cause zonal oscillations of surface clear-sky net shortwave radiation of about 3 W/m2 when an hourly radiation time step is used, and 24 W/m2 when a 3-hour radiation time step is used.

 

DOI: 10.1002/2015GL063239

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063239/abstract