Christys redegjørelse til U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

Started by Telehiv, 03.02.2016, 20:05:44

Previous topic - Next topic

Telehiv

Dr. John Christy, University of Alabama Huntsville (jfr. UAH-satelittdataene) er en av de tyngste i dagens klimaforskning og har bl.a. denne bakgrunnen:
- Lead Author, Contributing Author og Reviewer av FNs IPCC assessments,
- tildelt NASAs medalje for Exceptional Scientific Achievement,
- i 2002 valgt inn som Fellow i American Meteorological Society.

Christy har vært en nøkkelperson i satelittprogrammene fra starten, og i går avga han en redegjørelse (testimony) for U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology om klimaspørsmålet.

Han delte inn sin analyse av dagens situasjon slik:

(1) the temperature datasets used to study climate,
(2) our basic understanding of climate change, and
(3) the effect that regulations, such as the Paris agreement, might have on climate.


Videre presenterer han sitt testimony slik:

I have also attached an extract from my Senate Testimony last December in which I address
(1) the popular notion that extreme climate events are increasing due to humaninduced climate change (they are not), and
(2) the unfortunate direction research in this area has taken.


Om sin egen "klimaplassering" skriver han dette:

My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why â?? an activity I began as a teenager over 50 years ago. I have used traditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document the climate story. Many of our UAH datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change.

Christys "Summary of Extract" er i all sin neddempede stil en udetonert granat i kliamalarmismens tvilsomme databehandlingspraksiser:

The messages of the two points outlined in the extract above are:
(1) the claims about increases in frequency and intensity of extreme events are generally not supported by
actual observations and,
(2) official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies through
(a) funding choices for research and
(b) by the carefullyselected (i.e. biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and the National Climate Assessment.


Noen som hørte glass single!?

Jeg vedlegger derfor hele testimoniet - som er fullt av meget illustrative grafer og eksempler på klimamodell-manglene og de tendensiøse IPCC-framstillingene - for de av dere som ønsker å lese det:

LINK : https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

PS: På WUWT kan dere også finne link til video fra denne høringen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/in-defense-of-satellite-temperature-data-dr-john-christys-powerful-senate-testimony-yesterday/

Telehiv

I kjølvannet av Christys blottlegging av svakhetene i IPCCs datahåndtering, metoder og klimamodeller, har WUWT nå lagt ut en meget utfyllende og tankevekkende artikkel innenfor samme problematikk av hydroklimatologen Michael G. Wallace (som ikke bør forveksles med en 30 år yngre påstått sexovergriper med samme navn, om noen skulle få den ideen...):

"Initialization practices disqualify UN IPCC global circulation models from use for most climate change forecast purposes"

Her er litt av bakgrunnen for at Wallace går så tydelig ut mot IPCC og tilstandene rundt deres globale klimamodeller (GCMs):

"This post is written to explore the surprisingly poor predictive skills, along with the equally poor calibration documentation of these GCMs. In introducing this topic, I primarily draw upon my recent experiences in comparing my own businessâ??s climate results to these GCMs and their regional surrogates. In this effort I also learned of the UN IPCCâ??s unprecedented and opaque practice of replacing model results with undisclosed data. This practice is a new variation of standard model initializations."

Dette er, med tilsynelatende milde ord, en av de klareste påpekinger av mindreverdig forskning jeg har lest på lenge.

Begrepet "initializations" og "re-initializations" står altså sentralt i denne kritikken. Innledningsvis gir Wallace et hint om hva denne problematikken dreier seg om:

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change UN IPCC features and endorses decadal global climate forecasting products. Those in turn feed into numerous downscaled regional climate forecasts. In published representations of forecast skills to date, all within this collective appear to include the poorly disclosed practice of annual boundary condition re-initializations. At one time, such initializations were isolated to obscure attempts to improve forecasts of seasonal climates (lead time 4 months). Now the initializations have become institutionalized, and they direct multi decadal predictions throughout the field of global and regional climate forecasting. The results would be more transparent to peers and the public if the true decadal history matching skills of the models (without initializations) were highlighted." 

Han løfter også litt på lokket om hva hans egne forskningsresultater har blitt utsatt for av IPCCs datamekkere i dette systemet:

"Those familiar with my past encounters with ocean pH data (Wallace, 2015) may share the irony. In the ocean pH case, vast amounts of observation data were replaced with non disclosed model output. In this GCM case, vast amounts of model output were replaced with non disclosed observation data."

Det er jo helt utrolig at forsker etter forsker - her Wallace, og før ham dusinvis andre opp gjennom årene - kan opplyse om slik kokkelimonke under dekke av "forskning", og der ingenting blir gjort for å rydde opp! Snakk om at institusjonsmakt dekker ryggen på de ansvarlige! Og media forstår jo ingenting av dette, de våkner jo bare når IPCC-systemet flagger en ny mulig katastrofe.

Til slutt, hans bekymring over hvordan han frykter at IPCC-systemets feilaktige klimamodeller vil fortsette å dominere hvis ikke fagkritikken får bedre innsyn (transparency) enn hva som er tilfellet idag:

"It appears that without transparency demands from the public, the multi â?? billion dollar CMIP â?? blessed GMS machine will endure. What is to be done about a titanic and misguided enterprise? I recommend to start, that the skill of any climate change Vendorsâ?? decadal forecasts, predictions, projections, and hindcasts be clearly disclosed with and without initializations. Otherwise, at the very least, the playing field is not level for small independents who offer less alarming but also more accurate solutions."

Anbefaler å lese denne kommentaren grundig, for her er det godt med dynamitt i borehullene:

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/initialization-practices-disqualify-un-ipcc-global-circulation-models-from-use-for-most-climate-change-forecast-purposes/

Ryddegutt

Curry har også en post om denne høringen:

Quote
Based on the written testimonies, this looks like a very interesting and informative hearing.


https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/03/paris-climate-promise-a-bad-deal-for-america/#more-21032

Telehiv

Quote from: Ryddegutt on 04.02.2016, 15:32:27
Curry har også en post om denne høringen:

Quote
Based on the written testimonies, this looks like a very interesting and informative hearing.


https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/03/paris-climate-promise-a-bad-deal-for-america/#more-21032


Ja, flott at du la ut denne, Ryddegutt!
Denne bør alle lese. Og følge linkene i linkene.

Her er Currys kommentar om Christys testimony:

JC comments: 
Christyâ??s testimony is a must read.  It provides an excellent description of the different temperature datasets and the critiques of these datasets.  It also provides some very interesting new analyses.


Curry har f.eks. merket seg dette fra Christy:

"Climate change is a wide-ranging topic with many difficulties. Our basic knowledge about what the climate is doing (i.e. measurements) is plagued by uncertainties. In my testimony today I have given evidence that the bulk atmospheric temperature is measured well-enough to demonstrate that our understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate is significantly inadequate to explain the climate since 1979. In particular, the actual change of the fundamental metric of the greenhouse warming signature â?? the bulk atmospheric temperature where models indicate the most direct evidence for greenhouse warming should lie â?? is significantly misrepresented by the models. Though no dataset is perfect, the way in which surface datasets have been constructed leaves many unanswered questions, especially for the recent NOAA update which shows more warming than the others. Finally, regulations already enforced or being proposed, such as those from the Paris Agreement, will have virtually no impact on whatever the climate is going to do."