AR5 Climate Forecasts: What to Believe | Watts Up With That?

CMIP5 climate models are unable to predict global surface air temperature even one year in advance. Their projections have no particular physical meaning and are entirely unreliable.

Following on from the title of this piece: there will be no reason to believe any – repeat, any — CMIP5-level future climate projection in the AR5.

Climate projections that may appear in the IPCC AR5 will be completely vacant of physical credibility. Attribution studies focusing on CO2 will necessarily be meaningless. This failure is at the center of AGW Climate Promotions, Inc.

Anyone, in short, who claims that human-produced CO2 has caused the climate to warm since 1900 (or 1950, or 1976) is implicitly asserting the physical reliability of climate models. Anyone seriously asserting the physical reliability of climate models literally does not know what they are talking about. Recent pronouncements about human culpability should be seen in that light.

The verdict against the IPCC is identical: they do not know what they’re talking about.

Does the IPCC really believe anyone can predict the future? | JunkScience.com

For those who insist on having the bottom line up front, in its most succinct form, it’s “The IPCC is full of crap.”

Twitter / UN_ClimateTalks: The August, pre-Bangkok edition ...

The August, pre-Bangkok edition of the UNFCCC Newsletter is out! http://newsletter.unfccc.int/en/aug2012.html