Posted originally on Mar 19, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The World Economic Forum has spoken and chosen its newest climate change darling – Xiye Bastida. Greta Thunberg has been replaced by a more diverse candidate from the Otomi-Toltec Indigenous community in Mexico who is based in New York City. The WEF said she is one of the top 10 women to watch in 2024, as she will become the new voice of the climate change movement.
The 21-year-old was selected to mobilize 600 college students from the University of Pennsylvania to strike against climate change initiative. She then was selected to head a 300,000 person climate strike in New York City. She is the co-founder of Re-Earth Initiative and an organizer with Fridays for the Future. President Joe Biden invited her to speak at the Climate Summit in 2021, and she was also invited to participate in the World Leaders Summit at COP26.
“Xiye is a leading speaker about climate justice activism, Indigenous and immigrant visibility, and the power of Generation Z,” her website claims. This girl is absolutely everywhere – CNN, Forbes, The Hill, The Guardian, BBC, Vox, La Repubblica, Elle, The New York Times, Teen Vogue, HuffPost, and others are suddenly launching articles featuring Xiye. They have been building her character line for years and are ready to launch her into the spotlight.
She is the perfect candidate for the WEF agenda since she can reach a bilingual audience but has footing in the USA. “Climate change is a generation injustice,” she told the crowd at COP26, stating that emissions simply must “stop.” She then asked the COP2 to deliver an astounding $100 BILLION to the “most vulnerable nations” but would like to see that figure rise anywhere from $140 to $300 BILLION by 2025. Good luck, kid.
The attached report on Global Weather for February 2024 Data has charts showing the relationship we tween CO2 growth and Temperature increases going up since we started to accurately measure CO2 in the atmosphere in 1958. These Charts were created by showing CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up by about ~34.0% from 1958 to February 2024. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.
Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature also from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the actual change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) is about ~.3% and may reach .5% by 2028. To even be able to see this minuscule change we had to reduce the scale of the CO2 axis by a factor of ten.
This Chart 8 uses unaltered values from NOAA and NASA properly displayed ,and the Blue and Yellow projections are created by Microsoft Excel not me.
The NOAA and NASA numbers tell us the story of the Changes in the planets Atmosphere As Carbon Dioxide goes up geometrically.
The attached 40 page report explains how this chart was developed .
Posted originally on Mar 14, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, you know law like no other analyst. My air conditioner bit the dust, and it was a 14-seer 2-ton split heat pump. The repair company told me that I had to put in a whole new system because Biden changed the specs, and you now must have a 14.5-seer, so everything has to be changed. This raises the cost from at most $1,500 to $12,000 to $25,000, depending on the model you get today.
I remember you did a post on John Kerry complaining about air conditioners contributing to global warming. How can they retroactively now require you to change your complete system instead of a normal repair?
SL
ANSWER: Legally, they cannot. That violates every principle of the rule of law. The Ex Post Facto clauses, in a legal context, are typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively. In other words, the government cannot declare something is now criminal that was legal when originally performed and then prosecute you for a crime that did not previously exist. I’m sure they would come up with something in New York City since they do not respect the Constitution ever.
Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Article 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Article 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
What the Biden Administration is doing in the environmental arena violates every principle of a free society. There needs to be a class action suit, for I am sure you are not the only one. These regulations will impact every home in the United States. Those making these decisions in the Biden Administration are a threat to our very civilization. This maybe a morbid joke, but they do hate your guts. You mean absolutely NOTHING to the Biden Administration. Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted originally on Mar 13, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The coronavirus lockdowns gave the world a glimpse of what could happen if our economy was suddenly shutdown. NASA has a space program called Parker Solar Probe (PSP) that aims to fly “into the outermost part of the Sun’s atmosphere, the corona, for the first time.” Why? Scientists at NASA predict an “internet apocalypse” may occur within the next year due to the uptick in the sun’s solar activity.
I’ve long touched on sun spots and solar activity in relation to weather patterns and a predictable chain of events. A giant dark hold opened on the sun’s surface in December 2023, emitting streams of unusually fast radiation, known as solar wind, right at Earth. Since December 4, the solar void has been pointing directly at Earth. Experts initially predicted this most recent hole could spark a moderate geomagnetic storm that could trigger radio blackouts and strong auroral displays.
For most of its history, science believed the sun’s output was constant. They finally realized that a thermal dynamic cycle beats like your heart so the sun could not exist without a steady outflow of energy. One degree less, and it would blow itself out. Hence, it is cyclical, rising and falling in intensity.
The eleven-year cycle in sunspots itself builds in intensity like the Economic Confidence Model (ECM), reaching “grand maxima” and “grand minima” over the course of 300 years. The last grand maximum peaked in 1958, after which the sun has been steadily quieting down. We have seen sunspot activity decrease at its steepest in 9,300 years, but the climate change zealots refuse to acknowledge naturally occurring cyclical weather patterns.
You can read more about this phenomenon here, but we are in the midst of a solar minimum. The media has been promoting the idea that we are amid asolar maximum despite it being extremely rare for a coronal hole to form during a maximum period. There are no publicly published scientific papers showing data before 1850 as it would uproot their agenda.
Now, these scientists, funded by the government, are predicting that solar storms could cause an internet black or an “internet apocalypse.” “We’ve never experienced one of the extreme case events, and we don’t know how our infrastructure would respond to it,” Sangeetha Abdu Jyothi, a computer science professor at the University of California at Irvine, told The Washington Post. “Our failure testing doesn’t even include such scenarios.”
Did I mention Robert Kegan is an editor at the Washinton Post which Jeff Bezos owns? Well, we can come back to that one.
Now there is absolutely nothing scientists can do to alter solar activity. They can spend millions or billions studying solar activity to prepare, but that is not what is occurring. They believe that our satellites in space will be taken down due to solar storms, resulting in widespread internet outages. Simultaneously, these same governments that are funding these very studies are pushing for the elimination of hard cash in favor of digital currency.
They can immediately eliminate our access to currency with CBDC. If they needed an excuse, which they do not, blaming the weather is a favorite tactic. Are the people unruly? Is civil unrest is rising with a revolutionary wave approaching? Starve them out by eliminating their ability to access digital money as alternative sources will not be available. Eliminate their ability to communicate with one another. Eliminate everything at the click of a button.
Again, these are theories, but these agencies always tell us what they plan to do in advance. They told us about plans for the coronavirus before it occurred, they are telling us about Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset. No one wants to accept that there is a concrete plan that results in YOU WILL OWN NOTHING AND BE HAPPY. The computer indicates we will be in a solar minimum until the 2050s, and who knows what the world will look like by then. Rest assured that any blame on the sun is a lie. The computer also indicates that these sinister plans WILL FAIL but the road to 2032, when the situation turns, will come at a cost.
Posted originally on Mar 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Hello Martin, been reading your passages for a few months now. I had a question for you.
What currency do you think BRICS will use to settle trades in the future and if that he bitcoin could be a viable option? Since you don’t see the USD being the world currency by 2035.
Thanks for the wisdom.
ANSWER: The only benefit of Bitcoin is that it is neutral. But it is insufficient for world commerce because it cannot be used for lending or credit, or you end up in the same situation where it is just leveraged – the very complaints about fractional banking. You deposit $100 in a bank, and they lend out $92, and then two accounts show the same cash. The money supply can be multiplied many times through credit. The nonsense that Bitcoin would replace the dollar as the reserve currency only shows that those people do not understand the world financial system. To accomplish that, you will destroy everything – mortgages can no longer be made, and the entire world is plunged into a truly monumental depression, sending us back to the Dark Ages.
The primary argument against the dollar is that the Neocons have turned it into a political weapon by sanctioning Russia and removing it from SWIFT. That woke up many countries, who then realized that the dollar had become a weapon and no longer an impartial currency in world commerce.
The de-dollarization is NOT economic-based but POLITICAL. Wake up! This is not the standard fiat money nonsense. This is about political power to force countries to do the bidding of American Neocons or else!
The more practical neutral element would be gold. But there cannot be a “GOLD STANDARD” whereby you fix the price. With time, such a system will collapse, as did Bretton Woods. A monetary system MUST float, as does the economy and everything else. During a depression or recession, people sell assets and run to cash. In inflationary booms, you buy assets and get rid of the cash. LOOK – I am NOT an academic! I advise on trillions of dollars and have watched how capital responds for about 50 years. It is always self-interest – not theories of equality.
400 oz Central Bank Gold Reserves
I have been called in by central banks worldwide BECAUSE we have been the largest institutional adviser since we have focused on capital flows and currency markets. I can tell you that central banks are NOT buying gold because they think it will go up. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with such decisions. They are buying gold because it is NEUTRAL, and you can no longer trust the dollar, British pound, or the Euro, no less the Yen, etc. All Western currencies are now subject to political intervention as we enter the mere risk of war and Neocon intervention.
The only way to create a neutral, NON-POLITICAL world currency would be one where international transactions are carried out in gold – BUT on a FLOATING RATE – not fixed. During the 14th century, even Florence had a two-tier system where gold was used for international transactions and silver for domestic transactions. The more practical monetary system would be for each country to maintain its own currency for domestic use, and the international settlements would be in NON-POLITICAL gold.
This is the problem with the Euro. They eliminated the currencies to end the fluctuations between the member states. Still, the refusal to consolidate the debts meant that the volatility that once existed in the currencies was merely shifted to the bond market where each member’s debt trades according to their credit rating, as is the case among the 50 states in the USA.
Posted originally on Mar 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Liberal California lawmakers are proposing new legislation that would grant illegal migrants zero-down, zero payment home loans. Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula, D-Fresno, who penned the bill, states, “The social and economic benefits of homeownership should be available to everyone.” This completely insolent maneuver is a slap in the face to all taxpaying citizens who can barely afford homes of their own.
The program would expand the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans that began in 2023 with a $300 million budget intended to house 2,300 applicants. This fund failed in 11 days as the people who pass these laws have absolutely no concept of basic finance. This time around, they’re ensuring that only people who do not work full-time will be qualified as the new qualifications are that someone must earn under 120% of the median county income, and be the first GENERATION in their family to own a home on US soil.
The changes to the failed legislation is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1840, as amended, Arambula. California Dream for All Program: first-time homebuyers. eligibility.
Existing law establishes the California Housing Finance Agency in the Department of Housing and Community Development, and authorizes the agency to, among other things, make loans to finance affordable housing, including residential structures, housing developments, multifamily rental housing, special needs housing, and other forms of housing, as specified. Existing law establishes the California Dream for All Program to provide shared appreciation loans to qualified first-time homebuyers, as specified. Existing law establishes the California Dream for All Fund, which is continuously appropriated for expenditure pursuant to the program and defraying the administrative costs for the agency. Existing law defines “first-time homebuyer” for these purposes. Existing law authorizes moneys deposited into the fund to include, among other moneys, appropriations from the Legislature from the General Fund or other state fund.
This bill would specify that the definition of “first-time homebuyer” includes, but is not limited to, undocumented persons. an applicant under the program shall not be disqualified solely based on the applicant’s immigration status. By expanding the persons eligible to receive moneys from a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. The bill would recast the fund so that appropriations from the Legislature from the General Fund or other state fund are deposited into the California Dream for All Subaccount, which the bill would create and make available upon appropriation by the Legislature for specified purposes.
In fact, this is not a “loan,” but another taxpayer-subsidized program, as qualified applicants will receive the funds to put 20% down on a home without making a payment on the loan or to the CHFA. The funds will only need to be repaid if the borrower sells or refinances the home, but the property may be held for an indefinite amount of time.
California has the largest homeless population in the nation who are discarded members of society, even the veterans who served our nation. The average price of a home in California is about $750,709 based on Zillow’s estimates, marking a 4.4% YoY increase, which makes a typical 20% downpayment around $150,141.80. Due to high prices, California boasts the second largest renter-occupied market in the nation behind New York, with 49.7% of the population opting to rent largely out of necessity.
This should receive bipartisan backlash and open the eyes of even the most liberal citizens. The government is using the resources it collects from you via taxation to push a political agenda through the use of illegal unvetted migrants who are toppling state budgets and destroying America from within.
Posted originally on Mar 7, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
A new billboard launched in New York City’s Times Square is sounding the alarm on America’s growing national debt crisis. “Scared of the national debt? You should be.” US national debt spiked past $34 trillion at the top of the year and continues to rise due to massive spending packages. Now that America is committed to funding two largescale wars and 7.2+ million new migrants, America will continue sinking deeper in a hole.
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity (CTUP) funded the billboard and said its aim to inform the voting public on the policies that will destroy this nation. CTUP says that this is a bipartisan problem that must be revealed to average person. Their websitequotes Milton Friedman:
“Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax … If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The thing you should keep your eye on is what government spends, and the real problem is to hold down government spending as a fraction of our income, and if you do that, you can stop worrying about the debt.”
The average person does not realize that these “free” aid packages to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, the migrants, climate change, etc., come at the expense of the US taxpayers. YOU are paying for all of these measures. Government has and will raise taxes in order to fund these fiscal measures but they will NEVER collect enough revenue from the people to cover their spending. Then these measures lead to rising inflation where goods cost significantly more and our dollar is worth significantly less.
The Congressional Budget Office stated that national debt reached 97% of GDP by the end of 2022. I repeatedly point to Jerome Powell’s 60 Minute interview where he breaks with Washington to point out how utterly unsustainable government policy has become. “How do you asses the national debt?” the interviewer questioned the Fed chairman. “We mostly try very hard not to comment on fiscal policy and instruct Congress on how to do their job,” Powell answered, adding that Congress has oversight on the Fed and not the other way around.
“In the long run, the US is on an unsustainable fiscal path. The US federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path and that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy,” Powell finally warned, later adding, “effectively, we are borrowing from future generations.” He warned that we must begin to prioritize fiscal policy immediately to fix this unending crisis. Again, his comments were unprecedented as his agency is largely unable to criticize Washington. How is the Federal Reserve supposed to regulate price stability when their overlords are doing everything possible to steer the nation’s economy off the deep end?
So what can the public do and what’s the point of this billboard? It begins with your voice and ends with your vote. Stop supporting these endless wars, they are only hurting the nation from within and are NOT meant to attain victory or liberate anyone. We are not helping the people of Ukraine by prolonging their war. We are not saving the world by throwing money at climate change policies. We simply do not have the resources to fund millions of migrants who continue to show up at the border every minute. All of these policies are hurting the economy and, ultimately, the future of America and the American people.
There are three types of scientific models, as shown in figure 1. In this series of seven posts on climate model bias we are only concerned with two of them. The first are mathematical models that utilize well established physical, and chemical processes and principles to model some part of our reality, especially the climate and the economy. The second are conceptual models that utilize scientific hypotheses and assumptions to propose an idea of how something, such as the climate, works. Conceptual models are generally tested, and hopefully validated, by creating a mathematical model. The output from the mathematical model is compared to observations and if the output matches the observations closely, the model is validated. It isn’t proven, but it is shown to be useful, and the conceptual model gains credibility.
Figure 1. The three types of scientific models.
Models are useful when used to decompose some complex natural system, such as Earth’s climate, or some portion of the system, into its underlying components and drivers. Models can be used to try and determine which of the system components and drivers are the most important under various model scenarios.
Besides being used to predict the future, or a possible future, good models should also tell us what should not happen in the future. If these events do not occur, it adds support to the hypothesis. These are the tasks that the climate models created by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)[1] are designed to do. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2] analyzes the CMIP model results, along with other peer-reviewed research, and attempts to explain modern global warming in their reports. The most recent IPCC report is called AR6.[3]
In the context of climate change, especially regarding the AR6 IPCC[4] report, the term “model,” is often used as an abbreviation for a general circulation climate model.[5] Modern computer general circulation models have been around since the 1960s, and now are huge computer programs that can run for days or longer on powerful computers. However, climate modeling has been around for more than a century, well before computers were invented. Later in this report I will briefly discuss a 19th century greenhouse gas climate model developed and published by Svante Arrhenius.
Besides modeling climate change, AR6 contains descriptions of socio-economic models that attempt to predict the impact of selected climate changes on society and the economy. In a sense, AR6, just like the previous assessment reports, is a presentation of the results of the latest iteration of their scientific models of future climate and their models of the impact of possible future climates on humanity.
Introduction
Modern atmospheric general circulation computerized climate models were first introduced in the 1960s by Syukuro Manabe and colleagues.[6] These models, and their descendants can be useful, even though they are clearly oversimplifications of nature, and they are wrong[7] in many respects like all models.[8] It is a shame, but climate model results are often conflated with observations by the media and the public, when they are anything but.
I began writing scientific models of rocks[9] and programming them for computers in the 1970s and like all modelers of that era I was heavily influenced by George Box, the famous University of Wisconsin statistician. Box teaches us that all models are developed iteratively.[10] First we make assumptions and build a conceptual model about how some natural, economic, or other system works and what influences it, then we model some part of it, or the whole system. The model results are then compared to observations. There will typically be a difference between the model results and the observations, these differences are assumed to be due to model error since we necessarily assume our observations have no error, at least initially. We examine the errors, adjust the model parameters or the model assumptions, or both, and run it again, and again examine the errors. This “learning” process is the main benefit of models. Box tells us that good scientists must have the flexibility and courage to seek out, recognize, and exploit such errors, especially any errors in the conceptual model assumptions. Modeling nature is how we learn how nature works.
Box next advises us that “we should not fall in love with our models,” and “since all models are wrong the scientists cannot obtain a ‘correct’ one by excessive elaboration.” I used to explain this principle to other modelers more crudely by pointing out that if you polish a turd, it is still a turd. One must recognize when a model has gone as far as it can go. At some point it is done, more data, more elaborate programming, more complicated assumptions cannot save it. The benefit of the model is what you learned building it, not the model itself. When the inevitable endpoint is reached, you must trash the model and start over by building a new conceptual model. A new model will have a new set of assumptions based on the “learnings” from the old model, and other new data and observations gathered in the meantime.
Each IPCC report, since the first one was published in 1990,[11] is a single iteration of the same overall conceptual model. In this case, the “conceptual model” is the idea or hypothesis that humans control the climate (or perhaps just the rate of global warming) with our greenhouse gas emissions.[12] Various and more detailed computerized models are built to attempt to measure the impact of human emissions on Earth’s climate.
Another key assumption in the IPCC model is that climate change is dangerous, and, as a result, we must mitigate (reduce) fossil fuel use to reduce or prevent damage to society from climate change. Finally, they assume a key metric of this global climate change or warming is the climate sensitivity to human-caused increases in CO2. This sensitivity can be computed with models or using measurements of changes in atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperature. The IPCC equates changes in global average surface temperature to “climate change.”
This climate sensitivity metric is often called “ECS,” which stands for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, often abbreviated as “2xCO2.”[13] Modern climate models, ever since those used for the famous Charney report in 1979,[14] except for AR6, have generated a range of ECS values from 1.5 to 4.5°C per 2xCO2. AR6 uses a rather unique and complex subjective model that results in a range of 2.5 to 4°C/2xCO2. More about this later in the report.
George Box warns modelers that:
“Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.”[15]
Box, 1976
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC has published six major reports and numerous minor reports since 1990.[16] Here we will argue that they have spent more than thirty years polishing the turd to little effect. They have come up with more and more elaborate processes to try and save their hypothesis that human-generated greenhouse gases have caused recent climate changes and that the Sun and internal variations within Earth’s climate system have had little to no effect. As we will show, new climate science discoveries, since 1990, are not explained by the IPCC models, do not show up in the model output, and newly discovered climate processes, especially important ocean oscillations, are not incorporated into them.
Just one example. Eade, et al. report that the modern general circulation climate models used for the AR5 and AR6 reports[17] do not reproduce the important North Atlantic Ocean Oscillation (“NAO”). The NAO-like signal that the models produce in their simulation runs[18] is indistinguishable from random white noise. Eade, et al. report:
“This suggests that current climate models do not fully represent important aspects of the mechanism for low frequency variability of the NAO.”[19]
Eade, et al., 2022
All the models in AR6, both climate and socio-economic, have important model/observation mismatches. As time has gone on, the modelers and authors have continued to ignore new developments in climate science and climate change economics, as their “overelaboration and overparameterization” has become more extreme. As they make their models more elaborate, they progressively ignore more new data and discoveries to decrease their apparent “uncertainty” and increase their reported “confidence” that humans drive climate change. It is a false confidence that is due to the confirmation and reporting bias in both the models and the reports.
As I reviewed all six of the major IPCC reports, I became convinced that AR6 is the most biased of all of them.[20] In a major new book twelve colleagues and I, working under the Clintel[21] umbrella, examined AR6 and detailed considerable evidence of bias.
“AR6 states that “there has been negligible long-term influence from solar activity and volcanoes,”[23] and acknowledges no other natural influence on multidecadal climate change despite … recent discoveries, a true case of tunnel vision.”
“We were promised IPCC reports that would objectively report on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, yet we find numerous examples where important research was ignored. In Ross McKitrick’s chapter[24] on the “hot spot,” he lists many important papers that are not even mentioned in AR6. Marcel [Crok] gives examples where unreasonable emissions scenarios are used to frighten the public in his chapter on scenarios,[25] and examples of hiding good news in his chapter on extreme weather events.[26] Numerous other examples are documented in other chapters. These deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth do not speak well for the IPCC, reform of the institution is desperately needed.”
Crok and May, 2023
Confirmation[27] and reporting bias[28] are very common in AR6. We also find examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect,[29] in-group bias,[30] and anchoring bias.[31]
In 2010, the InterAcademy Council of the United Nations reviewed the processes and procedures of the IPCC and found many problems.[32] In particular, they criticized the subjective way that uncertainty is handled. They also criticized the obvious confirmation bias in the IPCC reports.[33] They pointed out that the Lead Authors too often leave out dissenting views or references to papers they disagree with. The Council recommended that alternative views should be mentioned and cited in the report. Even though these criticisms were voiced in 2010, I and my colleagues, found numerous examples of these problems in AR6, published eleven years later in 2021 and 2022.[34]
Although bias pervades AR6, this series will focus mainly on bias in the AR6 volume 1 (WGI) CMIP6[35] climate models that are used to predict future climate. However, we will also look at the models used to identify and quantify climate change impacts in volume 2 (WGII), and to compute the cost/benefit analysis of their recommended mitigation (fossil fuel reduction) measures in volume 3 (WGIII). As a former petrophysical modeler, I am aware how bias can sneak into a computer model, sometimes the modeler is aware he is introducing bias into the results, sometimes he is not. Bias exists in all models, since they are all built from assumptions and ideas (the “conceptual model”), but a good modeler will do his best to minimize it.
In the next six posts I will take you through some of the evidence of bias I found in the CMIP6 models and the AR6 report. A 30,000-foot look at the history of human-caused climate change modeling is given in part 2. Evidence that the IPCC has ignored possible solar influence on climate is presented in part 3. The IPCC ignores evidence that changes in convection and atmospheric circulation patterns in the oceans and atmosphere affect climate change on multidecadal times scales and this is examined in part 4.
Contrary to the common narrative, there is considerable evidence that storminess (extreme weather) was higher in the Little Ice Age, aka the “pre-industrial” (part 5). Next, we move on to examine bias in the IPCC AR6 WGII report[36] on the impact, adaptation, and vulnerability to climate change in part 6 and in their report[37] on how to mitigate climate change in part 7.
IPCC is an abbreviation for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. agency. AR6 is their sixth major report on climate change, “Assessment Report 6.” ↑
There are several names for climate models, including atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM, used in AR5), or Earth system model (ESM, used in AR6). Besides these complicated computer climate models there are other models used in AR6, some model energy flows, the impact of climate change on society or the global economy, or the impact of various greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. We only discuss some of these models in this report. (IPCC, 2021, p. 2223) ↑
(Manabe & Bryan, Climate Calculations with a Combined Ocean-Atmosphere Model, 1969), (Manabe & Wetherald, The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model, 1975) ↑
(McKitrick & Christy, A Test of the Tropical 200- to 300-hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models, Earth and Space Science, 2018) and (McKitrick & Christy, 2020) ↑
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (UNFCCC, 2020). ↑
Usually, ECS means equilibrium climate sensitivity, or the ultimate change in surface temperature due to a doubling of CO2. but in AR6 sometimes they refer to “Effective Climate Sensitivity,” or the “effective ECS” which is defined as the warming after a specified number of years (IPCC, 2021, pp. 931-933). AR6, WGI, page 933 has a more complete definition. ↑
Confirmation bias: The tendency to look only for data that supports a previously held belief. It also means all new data is interpreted in a way that supports a prior belief. Wikipedia has a fairly good article on common cognitive biases. ↑
Reporting bias: In this context it means only reporting or publishing results that favor a previously held belief and censoring or ignoring results that show the belief is questionable. ↑
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the tendency to overestimate one’s abilities in a particular subject. In this context we see climate modelers, who call themselves “climate scientists,” overestimate their knowledge of paleoclimatology, atmospheric sciences, and atomic physics. ↑
In-group bias causes lead authors and editors to choose their authors and research papers from their associates and friends who share their beliefs. ↑
Anchoring bias occurs when an early result or calculation, for example Svante Arrhenius’ ECS (climate sensitivity to CO2) of 4°C, discussed below, gets fixed in a researcher’s mind and then he “adjusts” his thinking and data interpretation to always come close to that value, while ignoring contrary data. ↑
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 