How useful are climate models? My perspective on climate change #7

If the alarm about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) originated in the 1980s when Dr Hansen saw a powerful correlation between the rise in temperature and the rise in carbon dioxide accumulations in the atmosphere, and projected the rises forward almost indefinitely, then the later proliferation of fearful climate scenarios for the future have obtained their rationale through what are called Global Circulation Models, or Global Climate Models — GCMs. A ‘model’ is a small version of something much larger, and a GCM is mathematical  model of the planet’s atmospheric system. Here is an example.

climateSystem2

The square diagram shows you what is going on at one point in the sphere. The thick covering there is the atmosphere, with as many as 20 layers. The grids are 100km in extent, and you need to imagine that there is a kind of weather station at the extremities of each grid, sending information via a satellite to the control room. Since there are no such weather stations, especially on the sea, the model provides the data from the information that actually exists, and estimates the values where it does not exist. In fact there are some real data, while the known physics and chemistry of the atmosphere and the oceans provide the theoretical basis of the models. Time-points are also important. How frequently is the model to be run? One standard is 20 minutes. You can see that the computational requirements of a global model are simply enormous, and we would not even be talking about GCMs had not parallel computing become possible. Today’s computers are vastly more powerful than the first generation of parallel computers with which I was involved (in policy terms) in the late 1980s.

Nonetheless,  there are other areas which are important but for which there is little useful information. One such is the domain of clouds, which we all recognise are most significant in affecting how hot it is wherever we are. Clouds form and reform, and  have a short temporal life — fair-weather cumulus clouds, for example, can last from 5 to 45 minutes. For this reason they are not easily measured, and by and large they are given a standard value in GCMs. Whether or not there are cyclical patterns in climate, of short or long phase, remains an issue in climate science, but as far as I know such patterns are not included in the parameters of the models.

Temperature is the standard datum that goes into averages, and is based on the average of the highest and lowest temperatures for that day in the location. For each grid cell, therefore, the temperature data represent the average of averages for that grid cell. In Canberra, where I live, the average for today will be somewhere around 15 degrees C, with a range of 8 to 23 degrees C. Within a radius of 100 km there will be some rather different averages. Thredbo, for example, will be somewhere around 4 degrees C with a range of 1 to 9 degrees C. Coastal areas to the east of both Canberra and Thredbo will have higher averages. How much sense does it make, given the brevity and artificial construction of the observations, to average these averages?  Oh, and the models don’t include el Nino and la Nina conditions, mostly because no one is yet able to predict them more than a few months ahead. These conditions have a great deal of consequence for the weather in the USA, Asia and Australia, as we have seen recently, and they are not caused by carbon dioxide accumulations — or perhaps more cautiously, no one has yet been able to show that they are, and there are excellent reasons for supposing that they are natural perturbations of the ocean/atmosphere link.

I’ve gone on at some length in the last paragraphs, because for most people what happens in the models is mysterious. One more theoretical comment: the IPCC, in its Third Assessment Report, said that climate was essentially chaotic, and that linear models could not grasp its complexity. That is another debate, and I am not competent to decide whether or not that is the case. In any case, the IPCC no longer makes the same point. If you want to read further, here is a most useful and readable summary, by an AI and neural networks expert. If you do read it, make sure you read the comments too, because there are some sustained objections to his presentation. I guess you could say that here too, the science is not settled. Above all, there is, and has to be, great uncertainty about the accuracy of model outcomes as representations of future reality.

Models need to be tested to determine how good they are. The standard processes are ‘validation’ and ‘verification’. If a computer model has been validated it provides a satisfactory range of accuracy consistent with its intended application. If it has been verified that tells us the model’s internal program, its theory of relationships, seems to be accurate, and it works as it should.

Model-building is done to try to understand the relationship of the variables to other variables in some kind of dynamic way. That knowledge might then help in producing a better aeroplane, a better car, or a good prediction of the behaviour of the Australian economy under, say, GFC-like conditions.  To the best of my knowledge, the Australian Government does not rely on Treasury’s econometric models when it is formulating economic policy. One reason is that there is more than one of them.

Model-derived information has also been used to present ‘projections’ or ‘scenarios’ about the world’s climate in the future under certain conditions. I have much the same feeling about GCMs, of which there are dozens. All of them, except a Russian model, assume not only that carbon dioxide is the powerful ‘forcer’ of climate, a dynamic that pushes climate out of some kind of equilibrium, but assume also that there is something called ‘climate sensitivity’ that multiplies the effect of a doubling of CO2. In consequence, the most recent display of those models shows them to projecting temperatures that are much hotter than those found by observation. I’ve shown versions of this graph before , and it is to me the most powerful testimony that climate models have a long way to go before they can provide us with useful information on which to base policy. It is the Russian model whose track lies below the observations. There are several different examples of this comparison, and this one is the most recent I can find. It is by Dr Roy Spencer. Others use radiosonde balloons. They show the same poor fit between model predictions and observations.

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024x921

It is fair to say that it will be a long time before these models are verified, because we simply don’t have a lot of experience with them, despite the billions of dollars that have been spent internationally on developing them — and in building newer, more powerful and faster computers. In its most recent report, the IPCC said that models had shown a ‘modest improvement’ in modelling clouds and aerosols, and accepted that none of them had been able to predict what was then a 15-year hiatus in global temperature. So you either accept them as they are, or wash your hands of them altogether. The IPCC remains highly confident in their worth, despite all the limitations which it acknowledges. In my humble opinion, neither the models nor the average of them (!) are valid, because they cannot model what has actually occurred. The orthodox argue that they do, they do, and that it is those pesky aerosols that somehow prevent the effects of CO2 being plain and obvious. The trouble is that observationally, those pesky aerosols can’t be found in the necessary quantity, and measuring them gets you into the same problems that come with trying to measure clouds, as the IPCC admits.

In sum, the models are an ambitious exercise that so far has not produced results that ought to be taken seriously, by governments or anyone else. Maybe they will improve, and we might hope so, because of the great expenditure on them. But at the moment, I don’t take any of their projections seriously. Even if one of them turns out to be realised in some sense, that will likely be more the result of luck than of predictive skill.

Next: Why do so many people believe in all this?

Later: A recent essay on this subject passed my notice when I was writing my own piece. You can read it here. If you do read it, please read the comments too, which have some objections. I’m not as confident about all this as is the writer, but he does have some useful data.

Later still: I found this long explanation most enlightening.

Join the discussion 85 Comments

  • Alister McFarquhar says:

    Grateful for this summary for my open minded contacts

    tho few folk interested in evidence rather than narrative

    seek only observations that support their prejudice or hypothesis

    including news and science papers

    Depending on Government for funds science is now politicised

    Dead as Fukuyami s History [ The Debate is over} or Monty Pythons Parrot

  • Neville says:

    This post at Judith Curry’s blog from Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explains why climate models have failed. Currently they are a joke and the Lewis and Curry study plus all recent attempts at forecasting the future show a much lower climate sensitivity. Given time this sensitivity will probably be reduced again.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reali ty/

  • Neville says:

    Here is a talk from maths Prof Christopher Essex about the science and modeling behind AGW . Here is a quick summary of the video—————
    Published on Feb 17, 2015

    A talk by Dr Christopher Essex – Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada

    Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic
    physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties. Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two.

    But even if you don’t have some spare afternoons to solve problems that have stymied the best minds in history, this talk will cure computer cachet even for laymen, putting climate models into their proper perspective.

    Here is the Chris Essex Feb 2015 video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY

  • Neville says:

    This study by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen makes some interesting points about calculating the temp of the planet etc. Here is the study——–
    http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/essexmc%20k.pdf

    Here is the abstract————-

    Abstract
    “Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show
    that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in
    the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct
    statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range
    of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide
    no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical
    rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of
    computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given
    temperature field can be interpreted as both ‘‘warming’’ and ‘‘cooling’’ simultaneously,
    making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of
    global warming physically ill-posed.”

  • David says:

    Don have you been able to follow up why the text in Spencer’s graph states “1979 to 2013” but the time series begins 1983? I am fairly sure John Brignell’s book “Chartmanship” would have an entry on the importance of accuracy, etc.

  • Neville says:

    This column by Miranda Devine is similar to the column she wrote for The Australian at the end of 2015. She gives a quick summary of Maths expert Dr David Evan’s new climate modelling study. The maths at his wife’s ( Jo Nova) blog is far too advanced for most of us, but I guess we will have to wait and see whether he is correct about the very low climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 levels.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrica l-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1f e0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6

    • David says:

      “Very low sensitivity”? Yes, well my understanding is that Evans is predicting cooling over the next 10-“ish” years. So I think that implies a negative climate sensitivity.

      At any rate I do not understand why any serious scientists would publish their results on their partner’s blog. Obviously a certain element of “in-house” bias.

      • Don Aitkin says:

        I think if you search you’ll discover that what he is doing is putting out his hypothesis on the net for comment before revising it for publication. That is very common these days — indeed there are journals devoted to just that.

  • Lenny says:

    Don,
    As an Engineer models are just models. Sometimes they are goog, sometimes they are bad.
    In this case they are a poor fit to what we are seeing. This should result in the parameters used to tune the model, to account for the assumptions, that fit what we are seeing being used going forward, and likewise the parameters that are producing outcomes that do not fit removed from future model runs.

    Problem is that this is no longer science it is a religion…

  • Neville says:

    At the start of the Ind Rev ( 1750 to 1800) atmospheric co2 levels were about 280ppm and this has increased to about 400ppm today. That’s an increase of about 100ppm ( actually 120ppm) in the last 250 years. That’s an increase of about 1 part co2 to 10,000 parts of the air we breathe.
    So a doubling since the IR would give us a co2 level of about 560ppm, perhaps by 2070. This would be an increase of about 280ppm by 2070. This is an increase of about 2.8 parts co2 per 10,000 parts of the atmosphere.
    Sure we can argue that is also an increase of over 33% in the last 241 years and could be 100% increase by 2070, but it also means that co2 must be a strong driver in the system to deliver their future CAGW. There certainly doesn’t seem to be much evidence of any catastrophic changes so far.

    • Aert Driessen says:

      Neville, in the Cambrian Period of the Geological time scale, atmospheric CO2 was around 7000 ppm. The Cambrian, by the way, was the time when multi-cellular life on the planet really took off; it was a time (and provided the environment) conducive to life and its evolution. I’m not specialised in either aspect of that scenario (palaeontology and the atmosphere) but common sense tells me that those comparatively very high levels of CO2 have been sequestered over time by the process of evolution to build the limestone deposits (coral reefs) and forests of today. Our planet is currently in a state of CO2 deprivation.

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Thank you Don. Your essays are providing a sound understanding of this hugely-expensive and wasteful exercise for non-scientists and scientists not specialised in these fields. As I see it, this very unwise focus on trying to model a chaotic system is changing the culture of science and undermining (even killing) the Scientific Method that fuelled the Enlightenment that served mankind so well. Some weeks ago I attended a presentation on ‘communicating science’ at Geoscience Australia. The presenter, a young lady who had recently had conferred on her a PhD degree and was probably presenting the crux of her thesis, did NOT once mention the word EVIDENCE. I found that disturbing and said so. The crux of the Scientific Method as I was taught it says that in any scientific investigation, EVIDENCE TRUMPS EVERYTHING. There is no evidence that I have seen that says that CO2 is a mayor driver of climate, nor that warming, should it occur, is dangerous. Your contributions to this debate are very valuable and helpful.

  • Neville says:

    Unbelievably former IPCC chief Pachauri now blames sceptics for his own problems of sexually harassing young women. More hide than Jessie the elephant.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/facing-prison-ruin-and-disgrace-rajendra-pachau ri-claims-climate-sceptics-are-behind-sexual-harassment-case/

  • Ross says:

    So even if there predictions are correct, it’ll be be because they got lucky. This is why no one of any importance listens to you, Don.

  • Neville says:

    Willis Eschenbach looks at the IPCC’s estimate of total fossil fuel reserves that are available to be used by humans before we run out.
    Using the IPCC numbers he finds that it would be impossible to double co2 emissions from today’s 400ppm to 800 ppm by the year 2100. There just isn’t enough fuel left and even increasing co2 levels to 600ppm would be a challenge. That’s using IPCC estimates.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/27/double-the-atmospheric-co2-fugge ddaboutit/

    • gnome says:

      That’s why they invented “tipping points”.

    • Ross says:

      Fascinating, Neville. Just fascinating. We may run out of fuel, but Nev will never run out of blogsters to reblog. A true renewable.

      • gnome says:

        It’s a problem isn’t it Ross? The official sites just don’t want you to question anything or know anything, which is only OK as long as you never want to question anything or know anything.

        You’ll be OK though Ross.

  • Neville says:

    Over the last 100 years there seems to be little correlation between temp rise and co2 emissions. The planet cooled slightly from 1945 to 1975 while co2 emissions increased over that time. And we’ve had a pause in warming recently according to satellite/balloon data while co2 levels have risen sharply over the last 18+ years.
    But if we go back to temp and co2 data over the last 600 million years we find that correlation completely ceased for tens of millions of years. And of course the ice core data always has temp leading co2 over the last 800,000 thousand years. In fact the lag time for co2 after temp change can be many thousands of years.
    Here is the Scotese, Berner temp/ co2 graph showing the last 600 million years.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/CO2_Temp_O2.html

  • Neville says:

    Bob Tisdale has had a number of posts highlighting the failure of climate models. Here’s his latest post and he provides links to his other recent posts on the subject. Note please that Bob uses DATA NOT DOGMA.
    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/series-climate-models-are- not-simulating-earths-climate/#more-10557

  • David says:

    Don in my opinion intemperate comments like

    “In sum, the models are an ambitious exercise that so far has not produced results that ought to be taken seriously, by governments or anyone else.”

    do you no service.

    • Neville says:

      David, I think Don is just using common sense, particularly when tens of billions of $ are at stake. Look at the video above from an experienced, early climate modeller and you might start to wake up. Of course he uses proper maths and science. But please ( again) tell us how to mitigate your so called CAGW?

      • David says:

        Nev the ten of billions are at stake either way. Try to concentrate.

        • Neville says:

          David says,
          ” Nev the ten of billions are at stake either way. Try to concentrate”
          Please explain?

          • Ross says:

            Just think about it, Neville. You don’t have to refer to another blog. Just use your brain. David’s point is falls into the ‘bleeding obvious’ category. But have a guess any way.

          • Neville says:

            Geeezzzz Fawlty Towers and some silly nonsense about how not to fix a possible non problem. Well you’ve started down this dangerous road so tell us how wasting those countless billions/ trillions $ will fix your so called problem?
            Lomborg’s maths profs and economists tell us it will deliver an umeasurable 0.05 C by 2100 and your guru Dr Hansen tells us it is all BS and a fraud. Try harder.

        • Neville says:

          Still waiting David or Ross. Stop your BS and provide some evidence.

          • Ross says:

            Hi Neville. Not ignoring you, just slipped out for some lunch. So…
            If all the scientists are wrong, and all the research and money invested in renewable industries and ways to make mining cleaner was found to be not as vital as first thought, then yes, Nev, those Billions (?) could be considered ‘wasted’.
            If All the scientists and governments, are correct, and we spend decades simply denying that fact, one could be fairly confident that it will cost us billions trying to correct our wilful blindness. Thus, Neville, one would say billions are at stake… “either way”.
            A pretty simple proposition. A fairly obvious point.
            If you couldn’t figure that one out in your head, Neville, I suggest you stay right away from CAGW as a point of argument. Reposting from other people’s blog sites will only get you so far. Hope this clears things up for you.

          • margaret says:

            Neville did you see the episode of Fawlty Towers where Polly has to pretend she’s Sybil and the friends gather around her bedside to commiserate with her illness and most of them are willing to believe that it is Sybil but Roger cracks jokes and knows its another desperate Basil scenario … well …

          • Ross says:

            Neville, the so called problem is CAGW. It’s not ‘mine’. The vast majority of world scientists and governments believe it to be accurate and a global problem that must be addressed. This was still the case as of one minute ago. What your problem is, is anyone’s guess.
            Regards to Lomborg.

          • gnome says:

            Ahhh Ross (why am I bothering to respond to Ross? ) Not all the scientists are wrong, just the ones who say coral won’t live in warm water.

            Might I suggest that the best way to work out if someone is interested in the truth or is simply interested in polemics, is to ask them if they believe that coral can survive in warm water. If they say no, the simplest truths are beyond their understanding and they can be written off intellectually. They may have an axe to grind, but they aren’t scientists.

          • Ross says:

            Hello again, Gnome.
            I honestly don’t know why you keep responding to me, either.
            But it’s an interesting question. And it’s good to ask questions.
            That’s how you learn, apparently,
            Coral? Scientists? Warm water? What now? You are fun.

        • margaret says:

          Yes

        • margaret says:

          Focus the mind – I’d rather spend tens of millions on finding alternative sources of power and building the infrastructure for its use than tens of millions trying to prove that AGW is a crock and that coal and oil and anything else that can be dug from the ground or pillaged from the oceans is proof of man’s genius and is of continuing benefit to humanity.

      • David says:

        Nev to mitigate AGW, I would propose putting a moderate broad-based price on CO2 so that incentives were introduced across the economy to move from fossil fuels to renewables. The aim is to not only reduce demand for fossil fuels but also provide the incentives to increase the supply of renewable energy and or other energy conservation measures.

        Two economists, I could highly recommend are Professor Nordhaus from Yale University and Professor Quiggin from the University of Queensland. Both are excellent. Professor Nordhaus emphasises the importance of slow change and I agree.

        http://economics.yale.edu/people/william-d-nordhaus

        In addition, I would also like to see investment in R&D for nuclear fusion, which is potentially a clean source of abundant power. Most of important of all Nev, I think we need to develop an education system that develops creative optimistic people rather than pessimistic naysayers who constantly bring the rest of us down telling us what can’t be achieved.

        • Neville says:

          David I agree about more R&D, but it won’t make a scrap of difference to co2 levels or temp or SLR or extreme weather events or etc .
          Over 90% of new co2 emissions will come from the developing world ( until 2040) and they’re not listening. But by all means take your protest to India, China etc, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a positive response.

  • Neville says:

    This section of Don’s update link above is relevant because even the IPCC doesn’t know what should be included in the models. See IPCC AR4 and 5 quotes. Cognitive dissonance indeed. Here is the quote———–

    Section IPCC AR4 WG1 8.6 deals with forcings, feedbacks and climate sensitivity.It recognizes the short comings of the models.The conclusions are in section 8.6.4 which concludes:

    “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections, consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

    What could be clearer. The IPCC in 2007 said itself that it doesn’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability (i.e., we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2). This also begs a further question of what erroneous assumptions (e.g., that CO2 is the main climate driver) went into the “plausible” models to be tested any way.
    Even the IPCC itself has now given up on estimating CS – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)
    “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”
    Paradoxically they still claim that UNFCCC can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be irrational. There is no empirical evidence which proves that CO2 has anything more than a negligible effect on temperatures.

    Equally importantly the climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming delusion rests are structured without regard to the natural 60+/- and more importantly 1000 year periodicities ( observed emergent behaviors) so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. The models are back-tuned for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Dear people,

    Politicians will NEVER admit that anything they have done, or intend to do, might possibly be (or have been) mistaken.

    An assumption (depressingly) disproven by history.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    While I think Don’s arguments are reasonable and justified, I fear he is still a politician.

  • margaret says:

    Sorry for this long except of Solar but what a hilarious novel and what a gross character Beard is.
    Here he’s delivering a speech to “a roomful of pension-fund managers, trying to persuade them to invest in the artificial photosynthesis project he’s working on:

    The basic science is in. We either slow down, and then stop, or face an economic and human catastrophe on a grand scale within our grandchildren’s lifetime … How do we slow down and stop while sustaining our civilisation and continuing to bring millions out of poverty? Not by being virtuous, not by going to the bottle bank and turning down the thermostat and buying a smaller car. That merely delays the catastrophe by a year or two … Nations are never virtuous, though they might sometimes think they are. For humanity en masse, greed trumps virtue. So we have to welcome into our solutions the ordinary compulsions of self-interest … and the satisfaction of profit.

    Before beginning his speech Beard has gobbled down nine smoked salmon sandwiches. During the applause he steps behind the curtain at the back of the stage to throw up, driving home to readers, if not to Beard’s audience, the point about greed trumping virtue.”
    Read the novel people it’s funny – this is how I see that as Ross said, billions are at stake either way. Beard’s character is a metaphor for the greed of humanity even though to my mind he is on the right side of the debate which like most debates is only about point scoring not about solving anything.

    • gnome says:

      Ahhh Margaret- I agree that this debate is mainly about point-scoring, and not about solving anything, but since only one side here thinks there’s anything that needs solving, the side scoring the points (mine- just ask me) has the moral as well as the intellectual high ground.

      (No-one eats so much smoked salmon they throw up. Smoked salmon is one of those foods that you don’t want to face long before it gets to that point. Prawns maybe, oysters, easter eggs…?)

      • margaret says:

        Aaah gnome, “Solar resolutely avoids coming down on either side of the argument – in the process neatly nailing the economic interests that could be seen to drive both. ‘The deniers, like people everywhere, wanted business as usual,’ McEwan writes. ‘They feared a threat to shareholder value, they suspected that climate scientists were a self-serving industry, just like themselves.’”

      • Ross says:

        Gnome is right, Margaret. As he points out.
        That he is both a moral, and intellectual giant, cannot be disputed.
        What he forgot to mention was his modesty.
        Huge, huge modesty, Margaret. So great, you could fill two rooms with it!
        That he thought you worthy of a response, should be cause for some considerable celebration.
        I know I always get a kick out of it.

        • margaret says:

          I guess it’s the 18 hors d’oeuvres – smoked salmon with capers and lemon making me feel a little squeamish …

          • Ross says:

            Okay Margaret, too much information. Feeling a little green myself’ now. (There’s an opening there for you , Gnome).

  • Neville says:

    For those interested in the data here is the US govt’s projections for total world co2 emissions now and up to 2040. Go to page 21 and add up the OECD compared to the TOTAL non OECD emissions.
    In 2015 OECD emissions were about 13 BTs and non OECD about 19.5 BTs. By 2040 this will be about 14 BTs for OECD and about 32 tonnes for non OECD.
    This is why Hansen , Lomborg and anyone who can understand simple Kindy maths know that COP 21 is BS and a fraud. A total waste of time and money. It can’t change anything at all, and certainly won’t reduce co2 emissions. And don’t forget this is the Obama govt’s source for this data.

    http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_07252013.pdf

    • Neville says:

      Sorry, that 5th line above should read “and about 32 BTs tonnes for non OECD.”

    • Ross says:

      So Neville, why not take this vital information to the CSIRO (They are over kindy maths) so they can see how stupid they, and all the rest of the worlds scientists are. Blow it wide open, so we can forget about this global warming nonsense. Every major oil and mining company will beat a path to your door, to thank you. Do it today, Neville, because rebloging info from a thousand different web sites is clearly not working.
      (However, it might be best if you left Lomborgs name out of your presentation).

      • Neville says:

        Ross I know you’re a dogma man and now once AGAIN you’ve proved it. If I can’t show you where you’re wrong using Obama’s data then what hope is there for you? If you want to believe in a fantasy world riddled with religious dogma that’s your problem , but don’t expect the rest of us to take you seriously.
        BTW there has been a Sept 2015 revision by the EIA concerning China’s use of coal. It has now been revised up. Of course Lomborg’s team has Nobel Laureates providing the maths and economic muscle to counter delusional nonsense relying on silly religious dogma.
        http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22952

  • Neville says:

    Here is another reference for the EIA emissions per country comparing OECD and non OECD ( China India etc) from 1980 to 2012. Just to confirm again that OECD emissions will only increase by about 1 billion tonnes PA by 2040 and non OECD will increase by about 13+ billion tonnes pa over that time.
    You can also find individual country’s emissions at this link.
    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid= 8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1980&eyid=2012&unit=MMTCD

  • Neville says:

    Hansen’s replacement Schmidt comes clean at long last and throws silly Mann under a bus. Incredible that years after McIntyre’s work exposing this hoax that once fronted an IPCC report, we now have the head of NASA GISS admitting the obvious.
    HIPPO Schmidt should also remember it was he who didn’t have the guts to face Roy Spencer in public debate. He stated his case and then fled from the stage. What a creep.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/31/friday-funny-dr-gavin-schmidt-th rows-manns-tree-rings-under-the-bus/

  • Neville says:

    More modelling problems at NOAA and Roy Spencer using an update from Ryan Maue tries to clarify their position. We could see a La nina developing by the end of this year. We’ll have to wait and see.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/impact-of-cfsv2-model-fix-on-2016- la-nina-forecast/

  • Neville says:

    Amazing how many people plead ignorance about the future of Co2 emissions. Here’s the EIA main points in their report to the US senate in 2013. The last point highlights that co2 emissions will increase from 32 bts today to 45 bts in 2040. I repeat Hansen’s statement, Paris COP 21 is a fraud and BS.

    Key findings of the International Energy Outlook 2013
    2
    Adam Sieminski, IEO2013
    August 12, 2013

    With world GDP rising by 3.6 percent per year, world energy use will grow by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040. Half of the increase is attributed to China and India.

    Renewable energy and nuclear power are the world’s fastest-growing energy sources, each increasing by 2.5 percent per year; however, fossil fuels continue to supply almost 80 percent of world energy use through 2040.

    Natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel in the outlook, supported by increasing supplies of shale gas, particularly in the United States.

    Coal grows faster than petroleum consumption until after 2030, mostly due to increases in China’s consumption of coal, and slow growth in oil demand in OECD member countries.

    Given current policies and regulations, worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase 46 percent by 2040, reaching 45 billion metric tons in 2040.

  • Neville says:

    The March UAH V 6 update is 0.73 C , that’s 0.1 C lower than February. Dr Roy Spencer seems to think we may see cooling now as the next la nina starts to develop later this year.
    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/04/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-f or-march-2016-0-73-deg-c/

  • Neville says:

    March 2016 was not the hottest March ever, in fact a number of earlier Marchs were warmer. But their ABC love to trumpet more of their nonsense whenever they can. Good work once again by Warick Hughes.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/hottest-ever-march-is-due-to-warm-nig hts-in-places-hardly-anyone-lives/

  • […] been validated or verified, and their success in predicting what will happen has so far been poor (#7). A 16-year long pause, or hiatus, in global warming, from about 2000 to the elNino if last year […]

Leave a Reply