MIT's Lindzen: IPCC Report "Hilariously Flawed"

Indeed. Bear in mind, the IPCC is claiming that they are more sure than ever that warming is driven by carbon... despite the fact that there's a 17 year pause in warming and yet ever-increasing carbon.

And despite the fact all their models called for continued straight-line (mostly) warming.

So, having failed to predict anything, they claim they're more confident of their predictions than ever.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

Bear in mind this business about the deep oceans sequestering all that Global Warming!!! where we conveniently can't measure it is what we call a Pure Speculation.

There's no evidence for this. It's in the category of "Things Which Possibly Could Be True But We Have No Real Reason to Think Are True."

Thus, the Science Is Settled this-is-a-fact-not-a-hypothesis theory now relies, crucially, on Something They Just Made Up a Year Ago.

@comradearthur asks, "If the ocean sequesters heat (through processes we don't understand), could it be that at other times, it releases heat (through processes we also don't understand), thus accounting for 1975-1998's warming?"

Sure could be the case. When you're down to mere speculation, many things could be true.

But the Warmists insist that of all the out-of-your-ass speculations that you could make, only their preferred out-of-your-ass speculations -- the ones that don't directly rubbish their claims -- are "Science."

Um, no. This is all pure speculation. This is step one of the scientific process -- these are guesses.

Talk to me when you've gotten some evidence for your speculation. Let's at least get to Step 2 here.

More: ICYMI, Ga. Tech's Judith Curry has a great post on how the IPCC gets to "95%". [Andy]

And, Open Thread.

posted by Ace at 08:07 PM

| Access Comments