New report on climate change released today

[PyramidHead]

Imagine taking issue with a journalist using too-sensational language to describe the sea level rising more rapidly than it has in hundreds of thousands of years

 

[George S]

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has rejected the unscientific bases of the doom-mongering over a purported climate crisis. His work has not yet been picked up in this country, but that is about to change. Writing at the Australian site Quadrant, Tony Thomas introduces the English-speaking world to the truth-telling of Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (hat tip: Andrew Bolt, John McMahon).

There's a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry "Nonsense!"on the "global warming crisis" evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He's as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises — the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.

The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on "the sorry state of climate science". It's titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He's published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.

Today's vast panoply of "global warming science" is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers' black boxes as a given.

Dr. Nakamura has just made his work available to the English-speaking world [on Kindle]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...icizes_nonsense_of_global_warming_crisis.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has...

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

And based on reading the excerpts, the guy isn't necessarily saying that warming isn't correct or won't be bad.

 

[bilby]

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has...

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

We must always accept the advice of the experts. (But only the handful who agree with us. The majority of them are plain wrong).

An endorsement by Andrew Bolt certainly gives me great confidence in this individual who just happens to have overturned the consensus, but for some reason cannot persuade his colleagues that he has done so, and instead has to depend on tabloid hacks to spread the word amongst their highly discerning audience of knowledgeable and well educated citizens.

 

[George S]

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has...

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

And based on reading the excerpts, the guy isn't necessarily saying that warming isn't correct or won't be bad.

Perhaps for the same reasons you don't. By the way I have posted only about one or two which show support for the AGW theory, but quite a few skeptical ones.
Being a religious skeptic and all I believe we should be skeptical of all claims.

In my area of expertise, computer modeling, I have long held that the climate models are inappropriate for this application. Climate is driven by too many factors to be modeled accurately.
Weather modeling for more then a few days is error prone. Climate models for more than a few years are error prone.

I AGW therefor ruled out? No. It is just that climate models are not the way to go. Perhaps an AI, given all the data, including much irrelevant data and give it a goal of making 10 year predictions from the past data that match the future 10 years out. An AI which learns to model given only data and a goal is what I might want to look at. Regrettably neural-network learning is later than my retirement or else I'd program it myself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

And based on reading the excerpts, the guy isn't necessarily saying that warming isn't correct or won't be bad.

Perhaps for the same reasons you don't. By the way I have posted only about one or two which show support for the AGW theory, but quite a few skeptical ones.
Being a religious skeptic and all I believe we should be skeptical of all claims.

Your views on AGW aren't skeptical at all. They are wildly inconsistent, varying from day to day based more on your personal agenda and whatever the latest anti-AGW blog posts there are on the Internet.

In my area of expertise, computer modeling, I have long held that the climate models are inappropriate for this application. Climate is driven by too many factors to be modeled accurately.
Weather modeling for more then a few days is error prone. Climate models for more than a few years are error prone.

Well sure. So why is that a reason to not find the warming we are experiencing as a problem and that things could be much worse than the models indicate?

I AGW therefor ruled out? No.

For a person that hasn't "ruled out" AGW, you seem to like to post a whole lot of stuff, from all sorts of different angles disputing it, from denial of there even being a warming temps to models suck.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

We must always accept the advice of the experts. (But only the handful who agree with us. The majority of them are plain wrong).

An endorsement by Andrew Bolt certainly gives me great confidence in this individual who just happens to have overturned the consensus, but for some reason cannot persuade his colleagues that he has done so, and instead has to depend on tabloid hacks to spread the word amongst their highly discerning audience of knowledgeable and well educated citizens.

bilby, I'm not sold that the author is anti-AGW. He wrote a book in Japanese, which was recently published on Kindle to English. Based on the quotes provided in the link, he is raising issues that are not necessarily out of step with taking a position that accepts climate change is occurring. He is complaining about limitations in the modeling. I don't recall seeing anything saying that global warming is a lie. I could be mistaken.

 

[bilby]

So you care what "highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials" believe, but only when they share your view?

And based on reading the excerpts, the guy isn't necessarily saying that warming isn't correct or won't be bad.

Perhaps for the same reasons you don't. By the way I have posted only about one or two which show support for the AGW theory, but quite a few skeptical ones.
Being a religious skeptic and all I believe we should be skeptical of all claims.

In my area of expertise, computer modeling, I have long held that the climate models are inappropriate for this application. Climate is driven by too many factors to be modeled accurately.
Weather modeling for more then a few days is error prone. Climate models for more than a few years are error prone.

I AGW therefor ruled out? No. It is just that climate models are not the way to go. Perhaps an AI, given all the data, including much irrelevant data and give it a goal of making 10 year predictions from the past data that match the future 10 years out. An AI which learns to model given only data and a goal is what I might want to look at. Regrettably neural-network learning is later than my retirement or else I'd program it myself.

Error prone isn't a thing though, is it? It's a movable feast.

Sure, the weather forecast for two week from today is almost certainly going to be wrong about what the exact maximum temperature will be. But there's wrong, and there's wrong. The maximum temperature on October 10th may be hard to predict; But I as a non-meteorologist with no maps, models or forecasting tools can be very certain that in Brisbane it will be more than 10°C and less than 40°C. It's possible that it could be outside that range; But not likely at all.

How do I know this? Because basic physics sets upper and lower bounds on the probable temperature. There's a seasonal variation, so even my almost totally uneducated forecast for January will differ from my forecast for July.

And when you stop worrying about the noise of daily temperatures, the accuracy of long term forecasts goes up very sharply indeed. Nobody's dumb enough to try to run a perfect forecast of daily temperatures into the distant future - that's impossible. But it's NOT impossible to forecast very accurately what the average maximum temperature for a month will be a year ahead; Or what the average temperature across the entire planet will be in fifty years. Statistical forecasts can be very accurate indeed.

In the same way, I can predict the path of an artillery shell very precisely. But as any physicist can tell you, the shell, the gun, the propellant, and the air the shell travels through are all made up of vast numbers of individual quantum particles, whose position and momentum cannot be accurately known. I cannot possibly tell you where a given electron in this system will end up, and modelling it would require more computing resources than are available in the observable universe - and then I need to model all the other particles, and all their interactions, and so on. A quantum physics approach cannot forecast the point of impact of an artillery shell. And a weather forecast cannot model climate change. But newtonian physics can model the gun-laying problem well enough to hit a precise target. And climate models can forecast climate changes on a global scale with great (but not arbitrary) accuracy.

It's impossible to predict what number will come up when you roll two dice. But it's nevertheless possible to tell, with only a fairly small number of rolls, whether the dice are loaded - because the statistical distribution of repeated results is easy to predict with astonishing accuracy.

Errors can multiply. But they can also average out, and disappear.

The idea that climate models cannot be accurate because weather models have large errors on smaller timescales is attractive; But deeply wrong. You might as well declare that gun-laying is impossible, because of the vast number of quantum particles involved. Or that as I don't have an accurate weather forecast for Brisbane on October 10th, it might snow (it last snowed in Brisbane in June of 1927).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your views on AGW aren't skeptical at all. They are wildly inconsistent, varying from day to day based more on your personal agenda and whatever the latest anti-AGW blog posts there are on the Internet.

Yup, I noticed that, too. I think his posts likely contradict each other.

 

[George S]

Your views on AGW aren't skeptical at all. They are wildly inconsistent, varying from day to day based more on your personal agenda and whatever the latest anti-AGW blog posts there are on the Internet.

Yup, I noticed that, too. I think his posts likely contradict each other.

Interesting way of phrasing it. My "inconsistency" might be because I don't have an agenda. I'm just reporting when I stumble upon something related. I don't always support or agree with what I reference. Read and judge for yourself.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Your views on AGW aren't skeptical at all. They are wildly inconsistent, varying from day to day based more on your personal agenda and whatever the latest anti-AGW blog posts there are on the Internet.

Yup, I noticed that, too. I think his posts likely contradict each other.

Interesting way of phrasing it. My "inconsistency" might be because I don't have an agenda. I'm just reporting when I stumble upon something related. I don't always support or agree with what I reference. Read and judge for yourself.

So you don't vet what you post. That explains a lot.

 

[angelo]

Top-level climate modeler goes rogue, criticizes 'nonsense' of 'global warming crisis'

A highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials has rejected the unscientific bases of the doom-mongering over a purported climate crisis. His work has not yet been picked up in this country, but that is about to change. Writing at the Australian site Quadrant, Tony Thomas introduces the English-speaking world to the truth-telling of Dr. Mototaka Nakamura (hat tip: Andrew Bolt, John McMahon).

There's a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry "Nonsense!"on the "global warming crisis" evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He's as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises — the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.

The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on "the sorry state of climate science". It's titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He's published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.

Today's vast panoply of "global warming science" is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers' black boxes as a given.

Dr. Nakamura has just made his work available to the English-speaking world [on Kindle]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...icizes_nonsense_of_global_warming_crisis.html

But, but, but, the 97% UN consensus says otherwise! If this Professor is correct, and I fully endorse him, thousands of pretend climate modelers will be out of a job! And the brat Greta won't receive tho " famed" Nobel Prize! The very same prize Obummer received for doing absolutely nothing but make a submissive speech to the muzzie world in Cairo.

 

[scombrid]

Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity". He says, "It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No."

So it has not varied at all in the decades that we have been measuring it.

But you think that a model that holds it constant while testing the effects of other variables is unreasonable.

Yeah, that's the way to develop useful working models.

 

[scombrid]

Pretty awesome how coordinated they are. Somebody posted that same article to a local surfing forum yesterday and a couple of people have spammed the "South Florida Clean Water Movement" page with it.

 

[scombrid]

Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he write

If the data are fake, can you explain to me why mangroves are moving north and inland and replacing spartina and juncus marshes?

 

[scombrid]

What explains the changes in rainfall patterns over the eastern CONUS in the last few decades?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting way of phrasing it. My "inconsistency" might be because I don't have an agenda. I'm just reporting when I stumble upon something related. I don't always support or agree with what I reference. Read and judge for yourself.

So you don't vet what you post. That explains a lot.

I'm not saying I believe the moon landing was faked, I'm just pasting links.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pretty awesome how coordinated they are. Somebody posted that same article to a local surfing forum yesterday and a couple of people have spammed the "South Florida Clean Water Movement" page with it.

You look up the title, and the Google hits are all blogs and forums.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Saddest part for me about global climate change is that those who had the biggest hand in causing it either own't be alive when it is at its worst (because they were a generation ago) or won't be as badly effected by it because they are rich. I can assure you that folks living without air conditioning in the Philippines feel climate change quite readily. They don't call it a myth. Same goes for others around the world who are effected without the means to mitigate those effects.

People are already dying.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he write

If the data are fake, can you explain to me why mangroves are moving north and inland and replacing spartina and juncus marshes?

And the corn belt is moving to the northeast.