A Critical Analysis of the Fifth National Climate Assessment
The Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) is a comprehensive governmental report detailing the impacts of ‘climate change’ on the United States
While the report provides valuable insights into the current and future state of ‘climate change’, it also contains some inconsistencies that warrant further scrutiny not to mention a host of conflicts of interest.
One of the key criticisms of the NCA5, and most such reports in my opinion, is its apparent contradiction between observed trends and future projections regarding, for example, hot days.
The report acknowledges a historical decrease in the number of hot days in many parts of the country. However, it simultaneously projects a significant increase in the frequency of hot days in the future.
Figure 2.7 of the report shows a decrease in the number of hot days, box ‘a’ below shows the number of days >95F, in most of the United States between 2009 and 2021.
This is a critical observation as it suggests a divergence from the commonly held perception of unilaterally increasing temperatures due to global warming.
Such data is essential for understanding regional climate dynamics and should ideally serve as a foundation for future climate models and projections.
Contrasting with the historical observation, the report projects an increase in the number of hot days in the future.
This projection is based on climate models that account for various factors, including ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions scenarios, atmospheric composition changes, and other climate variables.
Figure 2.11, in the same report and the same chapter, projects an increase in hot days across the country in the coming decades, box ‘a’ is the increase in days >95F.
This apparent discrepancy raises questions about the validity of the NCA5’s projections, particularly given that the report itself acknowledges the observed decline in hot days.
The report attributes this decline to regional variations in climate, land-use changes, and interactions between atmospheric circulation patterns and topography. However, it fails to adequately explain why these same factors would not continue to influence hot day trends in the future.
Moreover, the NCA5’s projections rely heavily on climate models, which have been criticized for their oversensitivity to ‘GHG’ emissions. Critics argue that these models exaggerate the warming potential of ‘greenhouse gases’, leading to overly dire projections of future ‘climate change’.
While the NCA5 attempts to provide a valuable overview of the impacts of ‘climate change’ on the United States, its inconsistencies raise concerns about the reliability of its projections, as do the vast conflicts of interest of its authors.
Further research is needed to reconcile the observed decline in hot days with the projected increase, and greater transparency regarding the limitations of climate models is crucial.
In conclusion, the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), a seemingly authoritative report detailing the impacts of ‘climate change’ on the United States, is riddled with inconsistencies and conflicts of interest that undermine its credibility.
The inconsistencies and questionable methodologies employed by the NCA5 erode public trust in climate science and will lead to poor policy decisions in the future.
See more here substack.com
Header image: American Society of Adaptation Professionals
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Trackback from your site.
Koen Vogel
| #
“Critics argue that these models exaggerate the warming potential of ‘greenhouse gases’, leading to overly dire projections of future ‘climate change’.”
The climate models did. There’s no waffling there: 2-4 times the amount of the observed heating. In other words, all the climate policies of the nations “combatting climate change” relied on disproven, false models. A few 100’s of billions to trillions later we have not achieved anything, in order to combat a problem that was misdiagnosed thanks to faulty models. If you are a leftie (more money to the poor) or a rightie (more money to bolster the economy) it can’t have escaped your attention that we have just wasted trillions, in the adoration of false idols.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
To my mind, Figure 2.7 shows we are dealing with a heating sea, but a cooling land. The result is more moisture in the atmosphere leading to cooler land temperatures during the day and very little change in night temperatures.
The cooling land temperature is the real problem. If that continues we will get an increase in high altitude permanent snow cover, followed by increased albedo and an extreme cooling event.
Reply
Lorraine
| #
We are in an interglacial period. Climate is always moderating. Earth has been far warmer and far cooler in its past having nothing to do with either the existence or the actions of man.
Reply
BrandieKat
| #
Today’s top 14 Part Time Online jobs in USA. wc Leverage your professional network, and get hired. New Part Time Online jobs added daily. part time/Full time/home/data Entry/typing Freelance Jobs/Online Work From Home/Online Jobs For Students/Part Time Jobs.
Here……. https://HiringNetworkJobs74.blogspot.com
Reply