Joe Bastardi: ‘No wonder warmists scream no ice’ — they never verify their models

Joe Bastardi says the reliance on climate models is absurd. Check out the atrocious jobs the cfsv2 model did on sea ice.

The image on the left is for Nov-June. The image on the right is for reality going forward. note the mismatch.

Screen shot 2013-06-04 at 8.35.20 AM

10 thoughts on “Joe Bastardi: ‘No wonder warmists scream no ice’ — they never verify their models”

  1. Solar scientists support that idea as well if things keep going as they’ve observed/predicted.

  2. they don’t dare publish such a model or they’ll get tossed out on their ear for heresy which is why you’re seeing most of the debunking coming from independents and investigative journalists

    In point of fact, in the original set of about three dozen models only one predicted global warming (regularly), several predicted global cooling, and the majority of them kept switching sides on every run yielding coin-toss odds. It was just one guy who took the original draft and MADE it say AGW. Quite a few participating scientists demanded their names be withdrawn from the report after it got into the wild because there was NO clear cut evidence for the stupid AGW and more so the CAGW crusade until selective editing took over.

  3. Morrel1: Google up Habibullo (or Habibullah, the transcription varies) Abdussamatov, boss at Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg. His research group have models that predict global cooling starting some time this decade and lasting perhaps 40 years or so.

  4. We often hear of climate models that project global warming but I’m not aware of any researchers that have developed models that project global cooling. Do these models exist but get suppressed because they undermine the warmists politcal agenda or are there, in fact, no models that reach a cooling conclusion? If a researcher prepared a climate model that revealed global cooling or perhaps no net temperature change would their findings be rejected for publication by the major peer-reviewed journals?

  5. BTW to see how temps have been cooling
    also the AMSU site will show the mid level temps have essentially been levels while RHS have fallen, even more starting since it means wet bulbs are falling. This is opposite the IPCC theory of trapping hot spots causing low level warmings, the hot spots because the air in the mid and upper levels is becoming more warm and moist creating the traps. I dont have time to show everything to folks, if I plant the seed, you have to go till the field to see if it has fruit


  6. Joe:
    You are depending too much on science. You need to paste photos of polar bears playing on the ice with a caption saying “look how happy the bears are now that the ice has returned.”

  7. There’s a remark in the movie, “A Night to Remember”, where the skipper of the Californian says, “It’s been a mild winter in the Arctic” as a partial explanation of why there’s so much loose ice along their route. I dunno if that was true of 1911-1912 but it reminds us that Arctic seasons vary just as seasons vary everywhere else.

  8. I cut it at June because its a June forecast vs the June verification, But looking art the new forecast for July from June and the July forecast that is extended out of this. July would be a bigger bust. We will post that when we get to July. But you could see why they were so cock sure of themselves because of the ice melt of last year and the forecast they were staring at. The fact is though that while summer ice melt has resulted in lower points, lately winter recovery has been on the rise. Still no true recovery of the ARCTIC ice to where its a constant thorn in the side to them , as opposed to occasionally now can occur until the AMO flips.. still a few years off, perhaps as much as 8

  9. How are skeptics anti-science again? Whenever I see our position vindicated, it confuses me that somehow I’m on the anti-science side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.