Quote of the Week:
“The basic problem with the IPCC’s extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research…
is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.” Harold Doiron, et al. TRCS research team
“The basic problem with the IPCC’s extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research…
is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.” Harold Doiron, et al. TRCS research team
=========
Un-Validated [Climate] Models:
“The basic problem with the IPCC’s [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide]and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.
Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations.
This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.
“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public.
For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG [US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)
“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)
The above statements by part of the team that proved they could successfully model human landings on the moon, without any texts or similar guidance, illustrates what SEPP believes to be the most glaring deficiency (pink flamingo) in climate science as supported by the IPCC and many governments, including the US – the failure to validate a climate model.
Using government documents, mainly from the General Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the White House, SEPP estimates that the US government has spent at least $40 Billion on what it classifies to be Climate Science, since 1993. These sums do not include the more than $100 billion in expenditures, both actual outlays and tax expenditures (tax exemptions and credits for selected purposes) for the research and deployment of forms of energy creation in the name of combating global warming/climate change, mainly solar and wind generated electricity.
According to “Our Changing Planet” by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, the FY 2014 self-reported – not independently analyzed – enacted budget of the USGCRP was $2,503,000,000 and the FY 2015 requested budget was $2,512,000,000 (p. 32). The report was sent to Congress in October 2014, signed by John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The fiscal year (FY) ended on September 30, 2015, but SEPP was unable to find an update.
Interestingly, the reports identifies Thomas Karl as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, Mr. Karl has earned dubious fame as leading the effort to re-calculate historic records of sea surface temperatures in a manner many find unfitting, and, recently, refusing to respond to a subpoena by the relevant committee in Congress, the House Science and Technology Committee, to explain the basis for these re-calculations.
But, the main point is the failure of the USGCRP, or any government entity, to validate any global climate model, or express interest to do so. Yet, the forecasts (projections, predictions or other) are a fundamental reason for the Administration’s power plan, which is opposed to fossil fuels and other forms of reliable electricity. These non-validated models are the justification for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) scheduled between November 30 and December 11. Without a valid model able to predict dire consequences from human use of fossil fuels, COP-21 can be considered un-validated.
Given the deficiencies in their science, the motto of the USGCRP “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science” is inappropriate, perhaps changed to Limit the Nation to our Vision?
“The basic problem with the IPCC’s [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide]and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.
Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations.
This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.
“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public.
For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG [US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)
“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)
The above statements by part of the team that proved they could successfully model human landings on the moon, without any texts or similar guidance, illustrates what SEPP believes to be the most glaring deficiency (pink flamingo) in climate science as supported by the IPCC and many governments, including the US – the failure to validate a climate model.
Using government documents, mainly from the General Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the White House, SEPP estimates that the US government has spent at least $40 Billion on what it classifies to be Climate Science, since 1993. These sums do not include the more than $100 billion in expenditures, both actual outlays and tax expenditures (tax exemptions and credits for selected purposes) for the research and deployment of forms of energy creation in the name of combating global warming/climate change, mainly solar and wind generated electricity.
According to “Our Changing Planet” by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, the FY 2014 self-reported – not independently analyzed – enacted budget of the USGCRP was $2,503,000,000 and the FY 2015 requested budget was $2,512,000,000 (p. 32). The report was sent to Congress in October 2014, signed by John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The fiscal year (FY) ended on September 30, 2015, but SEPP was unable to find an update.
Interestingly, the reports identifies Thomas Karl as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, Mr. Karl has earned dubious fame as leading the effort to re-calculate historic records of sea surface temperatures in a manner many find unfitting, and, recently, refusing to respond to a subpoena by the relevant committee in Congress, the House Science and Technology Committee, to explain the basis for these re-calculations.
But, the main point is the failure of the USGCRP, or any government entity, to validate any global climate model, or express interest to do so. Yet, the forecasts (projections, predictions or other) are a fundamental reason for the Administration’s power plan, which is opposed to fossil fuels and other forms of reliable electricity. These non-validated models are the justification for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) scheduled between November 30 and December 11. Without a valid model able to predict dire consequences from human use of fossil fuels, COP-21 can be considered un-validated.
Given the deficiencies in their science, the motto of the USGCRP “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science” is inappropriate, perhaps changed to Limit the Nation to our Vision?
