1990 IPCC Report Said That Climate Models Were Considerably Skillful

4.11 Conclusions and Recommendations

the performance of current global climate models has shown that there is considerable skill in the simulation of the present day climate by atmospheric general circulation models

You can see their skill here :

ScreenHunter_1849 Oct. 25 09.03

Maybe That IPCC 95% Certainty Was Correct After All


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to 1990 IPCC Report Said That Climate Models Were Considerably Skillful

  1. gator69 says:

    Skillful at what? Producing more fear and funding?

  2. darrylb says:

    This whole debacle may turn out to be one of the greatest sources in the study of shortcomings of human nature. We have had many before—-Witch Trials, eugenics, McCarthyism, Spanish inquisition, and on and on, however, worldwide organizations, worldwide media, errant NGO’s, seclusion from reality of many in ivory towers, and more, all of which thrive on negativism and abundant financial resources have made the current AGW, now CAGW religion more penetrating
    and insular. In many circles it is a crime even to question it. It should be considered a blessing that the earth has not warmed, instead there is a rising and desperate chorus of ad hominem attacks. Stay cool earth!!!

  3. Pathway says:

    Maybe McCarthy was right.

  4. craigm350 says:

    Steve you are being disingenuous. It takes a tremendous amount of skill to run such a successful racketeering tax siphoning exercise on a global scale and keep up the pretence despite the walls caving in. The mafia would be proud…oh hang on didn’t they siphon green funds in Italy?
    We will look back in years to come and wonder at how such a massive criminal enterprise existed, but quietly laud the gargantuan effort it took to maintain for so long in face of the reality in respect to the stench of being told more snow means it’s warmer or how Hansen & Mann were not imprisoned for fraud. More importantly historians may question how a populace could be so incredibly blinkered to make Chicken Little president. 😉

  5. Robertv says:

    Germany pretends to be a pioneer in the green revolution. But Germans are pumping more climate-killing CO2 into the air than they have in years.


    • Paul in Sweden says:

      Well the UK govt. is finally going to allow the building of a Nuke Plant(maybe two) but they have guaranteed the French company that will be building/operating the nuke plant twice today’s going rate for the electricity that it will be producing. Sounds to me like the rate payers are going to be screwed even more.

      [ Because the government has maintained all along that it will not provide any public subsidies to the nuclear industry. It would not actually be illegal to do so, but the coalition would need permission from the European Union. Any such u-turn would be hugely embarrassing, however, not to mention hugely unpopular.

      In essence, the government has guaranteed EDF a price of £92.50 per megawatt hour (Mwh), so if the market price of electricity falls below this level, the government has in effect said it will make sure EDF receives the difference between the two prices.

      The wholesale price of electricity at the moment is about £45/Mwh. If the wholesale price remains at this level, then EDF will receive an additional £47.50/Mwh. In practice, this money will not come from taxpayers (that would count as a subsidy), but from consumers of electricity. ]

  6. Eric Simpson says:

    This is big. Though some charts do a more obvious job showing the huge huge disparity between the out of control hockey stick style projections of the dummy climate models and the actual reality of situation: flatline temperatures! For example, the chart in this article is good: http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/02/climate-models-fail-to-match-real-world-temperatures/
    Or the graphic in this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

  7. Andy Oz says:

    Shock News: Global Warming enters the Twilight Zone!
    “and try to help people suffering from the horrendous NSW bushfires, in feeling deep concern about climate change we are moving on to another dimension.”

  8. Andy DC says:

    Climate models are great at their intended purpose, to show catastrophic warming, which in turn generates more funding. Whether the warming acutally takes place is totally coincidental.

  9. tom0mason says:

    Of course the model are skillful as they are put together by the world’s best chemists, physicists, statisticians, & mathematicians advising the climate scientists and professional programmers. These models have been fully verified and validated by outside professional bodies, and kept updated as new measured and verified data comes. They are now able to accurately track, and forecast likely future events with a high degree precision.

    Believe any of that and I’ve a bridge to sell to you

  10. gregole says:

    Hey, hey, hey, stop everybody! Whoa! Just hold on.

    Take a look at the y-axis. Do you all mean to tell me we can (actually) measure earth’s temperature to a sensitivity of 0.2 degree C? Really.

    I call BS.

    Man Made Global Warming measured in increments of 0.2 degrees C? Sorry. Too anal retentive.

    I want to see a resolution/sensitivity of 2 degree C.

    I want to see when the Arctic will totally melt out, I mean no ice whatsoever, so we can ship through there and mine there. My prediction: Polar bears/seals et al will do fine; indigenous peoples (incidentally; I am a scholar of indigenous languages) will do fine – warm is good. Always is for life.

    But mostly I just want to see some model that actually predicts what is happening. After all, as an American tax payer, I am funding all this.

    • Ivan says:

      After all, as an American tax payer, I am funding all this.
      You’re 17 TRILLION dollars in the hole – and you’re worried about this little speed bump on the highway of life?

  11. Bloke down the pub says:

    The versions of Hadcrut and UAH in the graph don’t look like the ones I’ve seen before. There’s not much of a peak in ’98, and the steady incline after certainly doesn’t show so much of an hiatus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s