100% Confidence Of Incompetence In The National Climate Assessment

Page 14 of the National Climate Assessment says that there are only three factors which influence the climate – Humans 101%, Solar 1% and Volcanic -2%.

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Somehow, the world’s top scientists forgot about the oceans, which actually drive the climate. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has a 60 year cycle, and shows almost perfect correlation with lower troposphere temperatures.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Note that there is one spaghetti strand in the graph above, where the satellite temperatures are diverging from the AMO. Roy Spencer appears to be concerned about the quality of recent satellite data. Keep an eye on that.

UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2017: +0.63 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

It defies explanation how the world’s top climate scientists could have forgotten about the oceans.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to 100% Confidence Of Incompetence In The National Climate Assessment

  1. Steve Case says:

    It defies explanation how the world’s top climate scientists could have forgotten about the oceans.

    It’s a matter of what the world’s top climate scientists are interested in, and they aren’t interested in the oceans if they don’t support the narrative. It’s that simple.

  2. gator69 says:

    Solar 1%, they say? Clearly they have no idea what a solar system is, does, or what a ‘solar’ even is. What dimented dimension do these sun denying freaks come from?

    I’m willing to bet that the content of the National Enquirer is more accurate and factual than the crap found in many (most?) scientific journals today.

    • arn says:

      I wonder how climate could even exist before humans started releasing co2.
      Simple math tells me ,when humans influence climate about 100%,than there was no influence at all in the 4 billion years befors industrial revolution.

  3. Brad says:

    So without humans climate has always been stable because all other forcing is insignificant? Or as a I said before: “no natural variablity in global climate.” Worst “science” I’ve ever seen.

  4. Henk van der Wilt says:

    Don’t get me wrong, but if you talk about contribution in percentages, I doubt that humans can contribute 92%-123%? There is only 100% contribution possible!! So for humans to contribute more than there is, would be absolutely impossible. (an increase in lets say 5 degrees by all the factors combined, if humans cause 123% we would not have a 5 degree increase but a 6.15 degree increase)

    If it were possible, I would say I am open to the suggestion that the government contribute 123% of the pension I receive from now on!

    But besides the silly talk here. There are so many different factors (way many more than 3!!) that play a role in changing weather data, and some of these factors influence other factors. Temperatures go up or down, pressure changes, wind velocity changes, this changes temperatures again. Now humidity is altered and cloud formation changes, as a result the temperatures change again….and on and on we go. Now to say that CO2 a trace gas can impact any of these factors and to blame this man made CO2 as the biggest cause in the change in climate that we are supposedly experiencing is utter arrogance!!

  5. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    Why does the climate change?
    Fluctuations in:
    the albedo, i.e. more albedo = less heat and cooler, less albedo = more heat and warmer,
    a 92 W/m^2 ToA variation from perihelion to aphelion due to the elliptical orbit,
    a 700 +/- W/m^2 ToA variation from summer to winter due to the tilted axis.
    The W/m^2 contribution of GHGs RGHE “theory” amounts to little more than a rounding error.
    And mankind can neither cause nor cure it.

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    I think terming them “The world’s top climate scientists” needs a /sarc :-)

  7. Ulric Lyons says:

    It defies explanation how the world’s top climate scientists could have forgotten about the Sun. It is normal for the AMO to be warm during a solar minimum, as low solar increases the negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions that drives a warm AMO phase. That’s why ships reported great loss of Arctic sea ice 1815-1817, and why many extreme Atlantic hurricane seasons have been during solar minima, because the AMO was warm. E.g. in 1675, 1815, 1816, 1886, 1893, and again in this solar minimum. The solar metric that modulates the AMO is the solar wind. Stronger solar wind in the early-mid 1970’s gave a positive NAO regime, driving a very cold AMO and multi-year La Nina. From the mid 1990’s solar plasma has weakened, increasing -NAO conditions and driving a warm AMO (and Arctic).
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

  8. RW says:

    The AMO vs. iceland station data was compelling a few posts back.

    What % of variance in the u.s. data is explained when you throw the pacific decadal oscilation (PDO) into the mix as well?

    Funny thing is, is that there won’t be a single published paper on this, since the authors, every one of them, would have used the adjusted data which shows no cyclic pattern at all and, therefore, would show hardly any correlation with either the AMO or PDO.

  9. Lance says:

    If you might like mathematics, Ed Lorenz (“father of climate modeling) said that long term climate predictions were mathematically impossible in 1963. Albeit without feedbacks. IF the system is periodic and deterministic, then the feedbacks must be negative or else “we” wouldn’t exist. If the system is nonperiodic or not deterministic, then nobody can say anything about the system because it is inherently chaotic.
    Have a nice read.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281963%29020%3C0130%3ADNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  10. Jimmy Haigh says:

    The “spaghetti strand” could be recalibrated against the best fit line.

  11. Neil Hampshire says:

    I am surprised you didn’t show AMO v HadCRUT4
    This shows a similar correlation over 150 years

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2017/plot/esrl-amo/from:1850/to:2017

    • RW says:

      Hadcrut looks equally as tampered with.

      NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley group use overlapping raw data, and they make similar linearizing adjustments to the raw data to create a linear increase which will track co2.

      The amo tracks the raw temp data exceedingly well as Tony showed.

      AMO and PDO:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2017/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/to:2017/scale:5

      Very strong coherence during the 30’s 40’s rise and again during 70’s decline. Interesting decoupling during ‘the pause’ too…

      …I wonder how strongly the stadium wave hypothesis stands when fed the raw data.

      Tony, you should reach out to Marcia Wyatt and/or Judith Curry.

  12. richard verney says:

    Whilst you are correct to point out that there appears to be no consideration of natural factors other than solar and volcanos, I consider that the plot on page 14 is more fundamentally flawed on the basis of lack of observational; data. It is simply made up since the data does not exist to make the plot set out.

    As I noted on another thread:

    The plot is of radiative forcing (in W/m2) since 1750.

    This begs the question: how was radiative forcing measured in 1750, what equipment was used and where is the observational data record set kept, and what does it show for each year as from 1750 onwards?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *