Guest post by David Middleton

There has been some recent “buzz” about the upcoming Fourth National Climate Assessment (NC4), including some moonbat conspiracy theories that the Trump administration will try to suppress or otherwise interfere with the scientific integrity of the report. The New York Times has already been forced to essentially retract such a claim in a recent article.

If NC4 actually builds upon 2014’s NC3, EPA Administrator Pruitt’s Red Team will have even more material to work with.

Fourth National Climate Assessment Development of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) is currently underway, with anticipated delivery in late 2018. Below you will find information related to NCA4, including a list of chapters, explanation of author roles, and opportunities to participate in the process. What’s New in NCA4 NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment. Find out more: LEARN MORE

“NCA4 will build upon the successes of the Third National Climate Assessment”… What success?

Here’s a link to the NCA3 overview

The first “sciencey” graphic is titled: Projected Global Temperature Change.

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/nca_01.png

And then just enlarged the Epic Failure bits to get the Red Team’s QED:

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/nca_02.png

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/nca_03.png

The predictive run of the models begins in 2006. By 2014, the observations were tracking the bottom of the 5-95% probability band.

Since 1988, the observations have consistently tracked strong mitigation scenarios, despite a general lack of mitigation. Even if you tack on the 2016 El Niño, the observations only spike into the model-mean area.

I overlaid GISTEMP from Wood For Trees on the NCA3 models to see how these models have fared since 2014:

The NSA3 models are in °F; so I had to stretch the GISTEMP image to fit the models…

The MONSTER 2016 El Niño barely spikes back to the “P50” range of the models. If I use HadCRUT4, the epic failure of the models is even more apparent.

HadCRUT4 clearly demonstrates that the observations are racing back down toward the bottom of the 5-95% probability band.

Yes… I know the datum differences between GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 make comparisons problematic. And I know that I should have converted the temperature data to °F to match the models. But, if I did all that, the Red Team wouldn’t have anything left to do in order to “stick a fork” in this piece of schist.

Addendum

Now that I’ve taken a closer look at the NCA4 draft, there is clear evidence of Adjustocene shenanigans.

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/nca_07.png

They adjusted the observations to match the model in the current draft report.

https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/webp-net-gifmaker-2.gif

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...