All climate models continue to be wrong, overstating warming to significant degrees
Click for full resolution graph.
According to a new analysis comparing actual satellite observations of the climate since 1979 with all the climate models used by the IPCC and global warming activitists, it appears that every single climate model continues to overstate significantly their predictions of warming, with that error increasing with time. From the paper’s abstract:
Warming of the global climate system over the past half-century has averaged 43 percent less than that produced by computerized climate models used to promote changes in energy policy. In the United States during summer, the observed warming is much weaker than that produced by all 36 climate models surveyed here.
While the cause of this relatively benign warming could theoretically be entirely due to humanity’s production of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, this claim cannot be demonstrated through science. At least some of the measured warming could be natural. Contrary to media reports and environmental organizations’ press releases, global warming offers no justification for carbon-based regulation.
The research was done by Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, who has also been the principal investigator on one climate satellite. The graph to the right, chart 2 of his paper, shows the error of every single climate model, with some models so wrong they are essentially useless to predict anything.
What is significant about this research is not that these models are wrong, it is that they are all wrong in the same direction. If the climate science community was approaching this work honestly with an effort to be unbiased, we should should expect some models to predict too little warming, and others too much. That all predict too much warming suggests that every single one of these models is tainted by politics and confirmation bias. The people who write the models want global warming to occur (almost certainly for political reasons), and so their models always lean in that direction.
What is even more disturbing is that Spencer’s work shows that the difference between the models and observations is growing, as indicated by chart 3 from his paper, below.
Click for original graph.
The graph to the right, chart 3 from the paper, shows the growing discrepancy between the predictions of 38 climate models and observations from three different data sets. Note how the datasets generally agree. Note too how, beginning in 2000, the models began to overstate warming, and that the difference appears to increase with time. You would think that by 2010, after almost a decade of data showing this discrepancy, the modelers would have reworked the models to correct the error. Instead, over the next dozen years the error increases, once again suggesting that the goal of these modelers is not to predict the climate better but to provide a talking point for politicians who wish to use the “crisis” of global warming as a tool for imposing restrictions on the freedoms of everyone.
This situation is the same as at the beginning of the COVID panic. Scientists then pushed fake models that said millions would die if lockdowns and mandates weren’t immediately imposed. That the models were quickly found to be junk, unable to predict anything, never mattered to the power-hungry politicians who used the fear those fake models engendered to grab power.
Climate scientists and their models have been doing the same now for decades. They also want power, and are using their generally inaccurate models to engender fear in order to make that power grab possible. You will eat crickets, have your gas stove and gasoline-powered cars banned, all because they think you should. They however will still attend their climate conferences in nice resorts in the tropics during the winter, paid for by tax dollars. None of these rules are intended to apply to them.
Worse, these models indicate clearly the growing incompetence and dishonesty that is now poisoning the entire scientific community. Since 2000 climate modelers have become entirely uninterested in doing any science at all. They have become politicians purely. Science, honest research, and the search for truth can go to hell.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
I am reminded of one of the lyrics in the song “Natural Science”, by Rush.
“The most endangered species: the honest man”
The scientists are lying about global warming, The politicians are lying about global warming. The media are lying about global warming. The teachers and professors are lying about global warming.
“At least some of the measured warming could be natural. ”
I would assume that the majority of measured warming is natural.
Could be natural?
The question remains: To what degree does human activity measured by the increase in the production of CO2 contribute to an increase in global temperature?
Could be natural?
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/about-climate-change
I think North America has done its share to mitigate this farce of a new religion.
Its time the rest of the world starts coming up to our standards. Like China and India,
Now that we are getting good temp readings off of Mars and great sun spot reports I would like to know if they line up with Earths temp changes year to year and decade to decade.
Could solar activity be a leading or lagging indicator?
Actually a research paper was just published in the peer reviewed literature that looks to take a shot at legitimize a closing of this gap. Not sure how it got past the stewards of “truth”, but it did and is now in place to start fighting back against this perpetual hyper scare mongering. Here is a link to an essay on WattsUpWithThat about it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/24/new-journal-of-climate-study-reduces-doubled-co2-climate-sensitivity-by-40-to-0-72c/
Also, here is an excellent dissection of how flawed today’s climate models are by Pat Frank, a staff scientist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Complex (SLAC). He has a PhD in chemistry and the presentation is fairly nerdly, but if you understand statistics and mathematics to a college level in the sciences you will learn how these vaunted models are in fact childishly simplistic at their root and completely ignore the rigor that would be applied to research in almost any other field.
It is not that they are necessarily wrong, it is simply that the uncertainty inherent in them makes anything they predict no more than a wild guess because propagated uncertainty in the equations creates error bars 10 times larger than the values they claim to predict. This doesn’t mean temps could possibly be 10X worse yet (as the model proponents naively assume when reviewing his work), simply that the models are useless for actually trying to predict anything. It’s like trying to write the Declaration of Independence with a white board marker on toilet paper. You can make all the motions you want, but the noise in the tool will completely obscure everything, so the document is worthless for its purpose. As are the climate models.
Dr. Franks tried to get this published in the peer reviewed climate domain but the guardians of the journals would have none of it. It is solid work nonetheless.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA
I am to blame for the discrepancy between models and reality. Here is my story. In 1986, I was responsible for running a large atmospheric infrared brightness program to see if missile sensors could see soviet missiles through a nuclear disturbed atmosphere. The code said “no problem” but IR measurements taken during the Fishbowl test series in the early 60s said big problem.. actual sounding rocket spectra of the Aurora also said the atmospheric brightness would be too high due to apparent water vapor at about 90 km.
The atmospheric model was the Air Force Geophysics lab model that is still the basis of warming models.
I was told to physically remove 6 punch cards giving H2O density fro 60-120 km and put in a density of 10x to see if that caused the models to agree with measurements. I did this.
I was suddenly offered a different job with another contractor and I took it. Due to the classified nature of the atmospheric model work, I was forbidden to talk about it even with previous co-workers.
To the best of my knowledge, the correct H2O density cards were never put back in. ALL subsequent models would show enhanced IR brightness hence enhanced warming.
These computer models were intentionally constructed to demonstrate that CO2 is the driving mechanism – and the ONLY mechanism – behind global warming. These models have also been “massaged” as needed, to obtain the desired answer. The desired answer being the replication of the actual climate since 1979.
And the climate modelers STILL get the wrong answer !!!
What does this tell us?
It tells us that other factors determine the climate and that CO2 has an insignificance (or ever ZERO) affect upon the climate, OR climate scientists do not understand the mechanisms that drive climate.
By the way, has anyone noticed that climate scientists have been unable to explain the historical climate?
What caused the ice ages?
What caused the ice ages to come to an end?
What caused the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)?
What caused the MWP to end?
What caused the Little Ice Age (which began very soon after the MWP ended)?
If the historical climate can not be explained, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the climate many years hence.
Got climate? It will change.
JohnTyler: Scientists do have a solid explanation for the past ice ages, and have had that explanation since before the 1960s. It appears long term natural shifts in the Earth’s orbit and rotational tilt cause these cold periods.
Also, both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age appear linked to solar sunspot activity, though this conclusion remains circumstanial. More sunspots equals a warmer Earth. Less sunspots and the Earth gets colder.
Notice however that both of these explanations have nothing to do with fossil fuels and human activity, so many of these climate models ignore them, especially solar activity. We all should ask why, repeatedly.
The focus on gas stoves was bogus
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-global-carbon-overcredit-cookstove-greenhouse.html
rebuilding wetlands is pollution itself
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-term-wetlands-source-pollution.html
Food filled skyscrapers and vegan space food? um…
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-food-urban-agriculture-carbon-footprint.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-salad-space-healthy-choice.html
But the left still does its BS
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-qa-climate-scientist-reveals-nature.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-opinion-australia-tuvalu-global-framework.html
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-carbon-dioxide-play-god-climate.html
And now they want critters to vote
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-animals-voting-rights.html
Look at all those models!
Good grief everyone of them represents a giant pile of money and they are all wrong.
Seems like it is/was a pretty lucrative business.
Next up….
Someone needs to have a study to study the models!!!
Related:
“The words that come out of the mouths of those empowered front persons within the entity government rarely if ever have anything to do with your definition of truth. Rarely if ever and I mean NEVER. ”
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/what-is-gaslighting
Two things that I noted from the second graph, the line graph.
First, the “pause” in Global Warming from 1996 to the early 2010s is not in the “observed” data. This tells us that the “observed” data is based upon the fudged datasets that the keepers of the data had sent out to researchers without notice and without explanation. the fudged datasets were created in order to better match the models, with historical temperatures lowered and current temperatures raised.
When the historical datasets were modified in secret, satellite instruments were also “recalibrated” in order to help remove the “pause,” allowing the climatologists to stop being embarrassed that they didn’t predict the “pause.” It ceased to exist. We can see that this didn’t work out for the keepers of the data, because the models continue to deviate from the modified reality.
Post fudging, the datasets are still not matching the models. All the fudged historical data did was to completely destroy climate science. Either the historical papers were all written based upon bad data and modern papers that reference any papers that even reference the old, unreliable papers cannot be trusted, negating all climate science performed before 2012, OR the modern papers, based upon the fudged data, cannot be trusted, negating the value of all modern climate science. We have either restarted climate science from scratch, or we have destroyed climate science entirely. It all depends upon whether the fudged data can be justified — the change in each and every modified datapoint, not merely justifying the change in the datasets — or whether the fudged data is bogus.
Second, 1992 is the year that all the models have used as their start point for their predictions. This is why the models and the observations are most in agreement at that point in the graph. In the early days of comparing these models with reality, they announced that this was the start year for these models. It took a decade before the climate scientists began to worry that reality was deviating from the models, and it took another decade before these scientists decided to do something about it: modify the record of reality.
A major problem with fudging the historical temperature data is that the models were all based upon the non-fudged datasets, so if the fudged data turn out to be correct, then the models are based upon incorrect data. On the other hand, if the fudged data and recalibrated satellite data are bogus, as is almost certain, then the data that we are collecting now is being improperly processed into giving us bogus, higher-than-reality post-calibration temperatures.
Robert wrote: “Worse, these models indicate clearly the growing incompetence and dishonesty that is now poisoning the entire scientific community. Since 2000 climate modelers have become entirely uninterested in doing any science at all.”
I agree. It is as though their love of their theory is the root of all scientific evil. (Darwinism was originally rejected for the love of theory.) Climatologists refuse to change their models, to match reality, but they have changed reality in a failed attempt to match their models, their theory. Worse, the rest of the scientific community failed to call them on their fudged reality. The rest of the scientific community seems to be taking their lead and performing lousy science, doing the easy thing and writing papers based upon poor workmanship. Alternatively, scientists may be drawing conclusions that conform to the desires of their benefactors (e.g. government). Science is being broken by these lazy or corrupted scientists.
William Briggs, who has published papers on climate, has a slightly different takeaway from this report.
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/50345/
Briggs may have a wait for those sighs of relief. When the temperatures stopped increasing in 1996, instead of everyone sighing in relief as they realized that the Kyoto Accords had worked and that we have all been saved from global warming, the climatologists declared it to be a mere “pause” and that the temperatures would soon rise again. When they didn’t rise, climatologists fudged the historical datasets and recalibrated the satellites, calling it a new crisis: Climate Change. This is the perfect crisis, because no matter how little the weather differs from the historical average for each day, it is declared as proof positive that the climate has changed, and always for the worse, too.
Briggs believes that science is already broken.
https://brokenscience.org
Aphorism: when consensus replaces predictive value, science becomes nonsense.
Don’t worry, though. The world comes to an end in the year 2000. Al Gore promised us, back in 1988.
Or maybe Briggs is right that the effects are not going to be as bad as predicted, just as the cause, global warming/climate change/whatever are not as bad as predicted.
But I still ponder what will happen with the arrival of the next glacial period — the Ice Age. Rather than our port cities being flooded by melting ice caps, they will be left land-bound by growing ice caps. Arable land becomes tundra or buried under miles of ice.
Tens of thousands of years into the future, after adapting to the cooler temperatures and building new port cities at the new coastlines, what will those people do when the next interglacial period begins, and their coastlines will be inundated with hundreds of feet of ocean water.
Maybe we will all be lucky, and Gore’s prediction will come true, the world ends in the year 2000, and we can stop worrying about future climate changes, unskilled models, and fudged climate data.
Suggest anyone truly interested in a review of Dr. Spencer’s report go to RealClimate. The article is titled Spencer’s Shenanigans. Between the article and subsequent conversations in the comments section, you can see a number of folks who seek to address some of the weaknesses and mistakes of this report.
In my opinion, once again, an article not subject to peer review is hotly presented here and elsewhere as some sort of impactful fact by those who fail the test of true skepticism and science journalism. And of course gobbled up by far too many of the usual who seem to represent what conservative thinking has devolved into where matters concerning the environment are concerned.
Oh look—they’re gaslighting
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-people-climate-deniers-reveals-unexpected.html
And once again, no one denies that the climate changes:
“Do climate change deniers bend the facts to avoid having to modify their environmentally harmful behavior?”
The climate changes all the time, for the last 3 billion years or so?
Word games are powerful gaslighting tools to make one think one thing or another.
Now, if you would like to have a discussion on the amount human activity on the planet in the many ways that that occurs and contributes to climate change in one way or another, that is a conversation that can be had.
But that conversation is less based in gaslighting and obfuscation, so what use can it serve?
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/what-is-gaslighting
https://www.sigma3ioc.com/post/about-climate-change
“Corrupt scientists will always find in favor of the financier of the study”.
Even Nature is guilty of that, they also indulged in some bs covid propaganda.
Who can you trust for the truth now?
We have only been recording weather for little over 200 years. Now we are suddenly experts on millions of years of unrecorded weather patterns !?
Nobody talks about the fact that we are at the natural end stage of the lastest ice age cycle.
Scotland in the UK is still gaining altitude annually as it springs back out from the sea, as a result of the sheer weight of a 2 miles thick glacial ice sheet removed from the island.
Alaska, Greenland, Antarctica were all green lands once, and they will be again. It’s Springtime again so, yeah, it will get warmer.
Not a peep from anybody in the media or government regarding the Milankovitch cycle.
No mention of the 1960’s – 70’s “think tank” scaremongering that “we will all be in a mini ice age by the turn of the century” (projected for year 2000 – 2020’s).
(Does anybody remember that guy in the 1990’s who was accurately predicting weather using sunspot activity markers?)
“Global Warming” is just another weapon to use against competing industrial nations. Also, it is a great excuse to control the public and create new tax levies (aka racketeering protection money).
The sabotage of Nordstream was not just about cutting Russia off out of petty childish spite. It was also to damage the strong German economy and Europe (a strategy used in WWII, destroy the two most powerful industrial and banking nations in the world, Britain and Germany).
Germany had recently heavily invested in replacing coal with gas for a new cleaner/cheaper tech regarding steel production. Now that the cheap and plentiful gas is cut off, the German economy sufferes again. All that industry and investment is up in smoke but, the debt sure remains.
Nordstream was also an irresponsible release of gas into the atmosphere. That has resulted in unstable weather events around the global North this winter. All that political noise about “carbon emissions” and “Global Warming” while secretly blowing up a major gas pipeline at the same time, what a scam.
Now they can falsify their nefarious stats on greenhouse gas levels to push further their antisocial agenda. It is very clear they don’t give a damn about pollution or the life supporting environment. They are as greedy and power hungry as they are insane.
We are all in serious danger from these criminal parasites. “Do as we say, not as we do.”
Geez… how could I forget !?
Remember the old 1980’s CFC’s and the hole in the Ozone that nobody talks about these days ?
Their solution was to replace the CFC’s with HFC’s that were even worse. Interesting that has been dropped from the conversation. How much CFC’s are still leaching from old landfill sites and the geat industrial dumpster that we call the ocean ?
Also… what damage did the 2000+ nuclear bomb tests do to our atmosphere ?
Naturally, global warming is all my fault for constantly leaving my TV on standby right ?
(I don’t even have a TV since 1994 ha ha)
There is no Anthropocene
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-human-era-earth-geological-history.html