Scroll down to read this post.

 

In celebration of my birthday on February 5, 2023, I am running a campaign to raise money to support my work here at Behind The Black. I do not run ads. My only support comes from my readers, which leaves me utterly free to speak my mind openly about space, culture, and politics. Please consider supporting me in this work by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, in any one of the following ways:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Donate through Gabpay, using my email address zimmerman @ nasw dot org.
 

3. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

4. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:


5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


Not one climate model predicts global temperature; all predict too much warming

Climate models versus actual observations for the past 50 years

Even as we wait for the final results in numerous elections yesterday, I thought I would throw the chart to the right out for my readers to digest.

The chart was created by climate scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, who has also been one of the principal investigators for one of NASA climate satellites.

As seen in the accompanying plot, 50-year (1973-2022) summer (June/July/August) temperature trends for the contiguous 48 U.S. states from 36 CMIP-6 climate model experiments average nearly twice the warming rate as observed by the NOAA climate division dataset.

…The official NOAA observations produce a 50-year summer temperature trend of +0.26 C/decade for the U.S., while the model trends range from +0.28 to +0.71 C/decade.

Not one climate model predicted the actual global temperature for the past half century. All predicted too much warming, with about half the models predicting twice as much warming as actually occurred.

In other words, the models continue to express opinion, not science. To rely on any model for establishing climate policy is not only foolish, it is downright irresponsible.

But don’t worry. Joe Biden and the Democrats are on their game, and will shut down all fossil fuel energy sources, because it simply feels right to them.

Meanwhile, on a related side note, the fact that it is no longer possible to finish counting the votes on election day — something that Americans did routinely for more than two centuries long before computers — either is another sign that serious election tampering is going on, or is a clear demonstration that we have entered the new dark age, where it will no longer be possible to accomplish some of the most basic tasks of a true civilization.

In either case, the barbarians rule, and we all suffer because of it.

Conscious Choice cover

Now available in hardback and paperback as well as ebook!

 

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

All editions are available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all book vendors, with the ebook priced at $5.99 before discount. The ebook can also be purchased direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit, in which case you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

 

Autographed printed copies are also available at discount directly from me (hardback $24.95; paperback $14.95; Shipping cost for either: $5.00). Just email me at zimmerman @ nasw dot org.

17 comments

  • Cotour

    “Meanwhile, on a related side note, the fact that it is no longer possible to finish counting the votes on election day — something that Americans did routinely for more than two centuries long before computers — either is another sign that serious election tampering is going on, or is a clear demonstration that we have entered the new dark age, where it will no longer be possible to accomplish some of the most basic tasks of a true civilization.”

    “Alaska Results Won’t Be Decided for Two Weeks Under ‘Ranked Choice”

    Our American election system has been systematically dulled by all of the many modes of “creative” voting and tabulation that have been instituted in America and they have been instituted primarily by the Democrat party machine for the obvious reasons.

    That being said it is Trump that suffers and takes the weight and responsibility for this red dribble political result in this election cycle.

    Like it or not.

    LIKE IT OR NOT

    As it stands right now early on the morning of November 9th, the morning after.

    What happened yesterday, November 8th, 2022, midterm election day and the country NOT delivering the massive red wave rebuke of the now radical authoritarian Democrats that should in all rational expectations have happened IMO is an indicator that Trump, although massively popular with his base he tends to turn away and repel independents and unhappy Democrats. Trump was lurking backstage in this midterm election.

    And a significant percentage of those Independant and unhappy Democrat Americans is who needs to be attracted to voting differently and rejecting the now radical authoritarian Democrats. And they will never under any circumstance vote solely for Trump.

    You MUST present these now key Americans with a palatable choice they can tolerate in order to overcome any fair or unfair election day advantage the Democrats through their well-oiled machine they may command.

    And the rising star political alternative as it stands right now by the numbers to a Trump 2024 presidential candidate run will at this point in time be Ron Desantis’s opportunity to run and possibly prevail in 2024.

    Not an ideal political position to be in to my thinking, like it or not this appears to be the reality of the situation based on the day after data. And to drive this point home the Democrat controlled DOJ and FBI and the remaining Democrat powers that be will intensify their lawfare actions against Trump to continue the chaos and confusion spectacle that so many are so tired of.

    The only possible political power solution? A Trump / Desantis presidential ticket, 4 more years of Trump and 8 years of Desantis. That may be the only solution to this as of today evolving political conundrum. (Political cannibalism is not an option.)

    But I do not know if that is a rationale that two men in their situation and personalities can arrive at.

    Sometimes you must choose the greater good than oneself.

    https://apis.mail.aol.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-_95qz8vtNQnj2guvJpSi615JXjYizy9bcZuM2MCqJDk8zBIwKj0CmLH_qmCDE5NsTJVJXmOu9vG5vVhaOWavzw/messages/@.id==AHksEkZTflXmY2wMZw70ICuolxQ/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appid=AolMailNorrin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=2

  • John

    Does the model say anything about the difference between US, China, and Indian carbon? Ie, why does ours cost so much more?
    There must be a reason for the payments into the green climate fund of the Paris accords?

    And they could ID voters and count most of the votes on election night if they wanted to.

  • MDN

    I think the adoption of “extended” voting, be that weeks of early voting in person or 30 days to mail ballots in, are what is swinging the electorate. The reason is that the younger generation are all tech savvy snd social media accessible, and with today’s tech based Get-Out-The-Vote tools the democrats have been able to dramatically increase youth vote participation.

    I am personally sanguine wrt the election results. Yes, I am disappointed that the Rs did not do even modestly better (and praying they can land Nevada and Georgia to gain 51 seats in the senate to block truly bad behavior, but that is very iffy still), but the D policy impacts have just started to be felt and worse is certain to come soon.

    Gas and food costs are not going to go down and winter heating will hurt BAD the next 2 years leading into 2024. And Fed policy necessary to stem inflation where it is and worldwide economic conditions are most probably going to trigger a serious recession on top of it. So, for the first time in their lives the millennials are going to feel some real pain and the D contribution to these problems will be difficult to ignore.. So long term this should all trigger some necessary life lessons that will alter our course back toward sanity.

    Note too that the 2024 Senate class is VERY favorable to the Rs, so surviving these next 2 years are the big challenge.

    Hope springs eternal anyway.

  • Jeff Wright

    I am pleased with results being so close. Democrats bled a bit as a result of Covid-over-reach….and the collapse of the Red Wave was the result of Scott trying to sunset Social Security and the fist-bump against Veterans that earned a beer can aimed at Cruz-and resulted in a record low turnout in the most Red of all states-Alabama. Between Greens that want to shut down coal…libertarians who attack Huntsville-and fiscal hawks who are enemies of the working class-us poors sat this one out.

  • I have this thing about computer models, and I’ve talked about it. I have had work where I developed models to predict building performance, which has to take into account the local climate. Before the model is used for prediction, it has to be calibrated: historical (known) data introduced should yield similar results to historical results. When the model results’ variance is within the contract variance, it’s OK to use for predictive models.

    I don’t recall ever seeing anything of the sort for the climate models on whose recommendations we’ve spent trillions of dollars, and intervened in the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    Does this make sense, to you?

  • Cotour

    Blair:

    There are many, many modes of ways to “Shape” data (read cheat) in our now “Politically correct” system in order to arrive at the “Proper” solution that is “Best” for all concerned (Read the Liberal, Leftist, Radical Democrats agenda of absolute power and control).

    From ranked choice voting, to mail in voting, to no ID required to vote, to giving illegals drivers licenses and then requiring drivers licenses to vote, to wide open borders and flooding the country that has a welfare state with those very same illegals, to using climate data in a very convenient manner that has no real connection to reality.

    Does this make sense to me?

    Yes, it does, it makes perfect sense to me.

    And it has nothing to do with real reality as the data collected indicates.

    Would you use the data collected in the manner that it is being characterized and used to either build a building or build and launch a rocket?

    (That is a rhetorical question)

    Politics: The dirtiest most corrupt activity that human beings participate in.

  • Cotour

    And here I find this morning a stellar example of my point: https://youtu.be/gNWQHF6YOtI

    Does any of the observable and documentable data support such a conclusion?

    (That again is a rhetorical question)

    And so, then you must ask where does this come from?

  • Andrew_W

    But on the other hand you have this, which argues that model predictions have been remarkably accurate. It’s easy to get evidence to support the claims you want to promote, in this game, just use models that are based or emissions scenarios that didn’t actually occur, or just be selective in choosing which of the many thousands of model runs that have been done.

    https://climate-nasa-gov.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16680997861739&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fclimate.nasa.gov%2Fnews%2F2943%2Fstudy-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right%2F

  • Andrew_W

    The IPCC projections through to 2100 are based on climate models, those projects average at around 2.5C warming through to then using the most likely emissions scenarios, so around 0.25C a decade, which is what we’re seeing, so what scenarios are the much, much higher rate warming models that Spencer has found based on?

  • Andrew_W: You didn’t read closely. Spencer is not comparing the models with made-up scenarios. He is comparing them with the actual observations. The models fail to duplicate those observations.

    So, who cares if the IPPC politically projects 2.5C warming through 2100, using these models. The models don’t work. Their predictions are worthless and untrustworthy.

    Note too that your previous comment proves my point wonderfully. The data here is very uncertain, and thus you can almost come up with any answer you want, by picking and choosing.

    In other words, the science is not settled. We don’t know what is going to happen. To assume we do know is to lie to one’s self. As I have been saying for two decades. And apparently as you now agree with me.

  • Andrew_W

    Mr Zimmerman, the IPCC projections are based on models, obviously, and the projections say around 2.5C is most likely because the models they use say that, and observation agrees. But if people want to go find models that project warming well above levels the IPCC things likely under current scenarios it’s easy to do, there’s plenty of choice, especially if they cherry pick models based on very high emissions scenarios.

  • Andrew_W: As far as I can tell, Spencer is using all the models relied on by the IPCC. He isn’t picking and choosing. If he left one or two off, it matters little, since he attempted to include most.

  • Edward

    Blair Ivey asked: “Does this make sense, to you?

    Yes, but one more test is needed: to accurately predict future results. It is one thing for a model to predict historical data. I can create a model that uses a Fourier transform of the data to create a perfect model, or so it would seem. It may not accurately predict future data.

    Keep in mind that models only say what they are told to say. Climate models of the era shown here have based part of their predictions on an assumed increase in water vapor in the air, due to the increase in temperature from CO2 emissions. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and its increase would further increase the temperature. A difficulty that modelers had at the time of the creation of those models was the factor the relationship of increase in temperature due to water vapor to increase in temperature due to CO2. It is possible that all these models overestimated this factor. It is also possible that there are other relationships between real conditions that are not accurately modeled, since CO2 emissions continued throughout the “pause” that occurred from the mid 1990s until … well … we don’t know when, because NOAA and other agencies tracking temperature data redefined historical data and “recalibrated” current satellite thermometers.

    Which raises another question as to whether Spencer was using the historical data for NOAA’s observations or whether he was using the current — post modification — fudged data. If he was using current data, then the 1973 temperatures are now lower than they were when measured.

    Half a decade or so ago, NOAA and NASA had modified their historic data and now it matches the models better*. It is noteworthy that this better-matching data still does not match well. Clearly, their campaign to modify the historic data has not done the job that they had hoped.

    When the “pause” was first reported, shortly after Al Gore’s infamous movie, there were many attempts to rationalize why a pause would have occurred despite the increasing amounts of CO2 being emitted from countries immune to the scourge of the Kyoto Accords and the Paris Agreement. The most popular excuse was that the heat was “hiding” in the oceans, a phenomenon not accounted for by the models. Clearly, the models need to be updated with additional factors in order to better match the real world, rather than the data being updated to better match the models.

    Once the “hiding in the oceans” excuse fell apart, “global warming” became “climate change,” because whether or not the globe warms, cools, or stays the same temperature, climates around the world change continuously, even if only a tiny amount. So, when we decide that we must combat climate change, we need to define how little it may change and still match the desired climate.

    We also have to define which climate is the desired climate. Today’s climate? Gore’s 2006 climate? The climate of the 1992 Kyoto Accords? The climate of 1973 or of 1937? How about the Little Ice Age of the 17th or 18th centuries, when the River Thames Frost Fairs occurred? How about before the Little Ice Age, when Britain’s wine industry was larger than it is today? 1 BC? 4,000 BC? 20,000 BC, during the most recent glacial period of the Ice Age? Those glacial periods tend to last longer than the interglacial periods, so that may be closer to the Earth’s natural climate.

    Of course, when our only tool is control of CO2 emissions, how do we prevent a local climates from changing when CO2 emissions have global effects?

    * The modifications to this data were discovered by users of this data as they received new datasets and compared them with their previous datasets. Since the modifications had not been announced or justified, it meets the very definition of fudged data. Since it makes the models seem less unreliable, we have a motive for the modifications.

  • James Street

    “What I think they’re doing is slow rolling our victory. They want to take the air out of this movement and they can’t do it because it’s a movement and we the people are fed up and we’re not going to slow down. We’re not going to let them take the fire out of our belly. And so they slow roll the results. You know Ron DeSantis goes out and gives this big speech to make it look like the Trump Republicans don’t have a chance. We do. We’re going to win. I’m 100% sure of that. I think that Blake may even win with the look of what is left to be counted. These votes are going to go Blake’s way as well. And so they just want to control the narrative. And they can do that by how quickly the release results.”
    – Kari Lake on Crowder
    40 second video
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PapiTrumpo/status/1590901817571184642

  • Edward reminded: “Keep in mind that models only say what they are told to say.”

    And that’s the trick, in’nint? You have to define the problem. Except, we haven’t. What is the entire AGW industry working *toward*? Heck if I know. At this point, it just seems like institutionalized hysteria.

  • Star Bird

    The model are only as honest as those who design then and a model from Gore the Bore is not good at all

  • Cotour

    THEY WERE ALL EATING FRIED CRICKETS!? NAAAAAH

    “For nearly three decades the UN has been bringing together almost every country on earth for global climate summits – called COPs – which stands for ‘Conference of the Parties’. In that time climate change has gone from being a fringe issue to a global priority.” What is COP 27?

    https://ukcop26.org/uk-presidency/what-is-a-cop/

    These are the people who work to fix “Runaway” “Climate Change”. The addition of the word “Runaway” to the term “Climate Change” is a *NEW* term fear magnifier / modifier addition. The term has come such a long way from its original just plain old “Global Warming”.

    And ALL of the participants have all flown into Glasgow Scottland on 400 private jets and they are all eating everything that they insist you no longer be able to grow and eat, only the best for them. They literally want you and everyone else to begin to get used to eating insects like crickets and meal worms. Don’t believe me?

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-22508439#:~:text=Eating%20more%20insects%20could%20help%20fight%20world%20hunger%2C,people%20worldwide%20already%20supplement%20their%20diet%20with%20insects. (World hunger and “Climate Change”, they are directly related)

    I would have some modicum of respect for these very superior humans if the entire menu at the COP27 meeting consisted of all of the many tasty ways that insects can be prepared. And we all know they can be deeeelicious! And that will never happen.

    Are you understanding what is going on yet? Do you get it?

    “Climate Summit Boasts Opulent Beef, Seafood Menu Despite Spearheading Anti-Meat Initiatives”

    https://images.dailycaller.com/image/width=1280,height=549,fit=cover,f=auto/https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/COP27-VIP-Set-Menu-1-e1668621224819.png

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *