.
On November 30, 2020 Roger Pielke, jr posted “The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science”. It was subtited : “Much of climate research is focused on implausible scenarios of the future, but implementing a course correction will be difficult”.
It is almost a year and a half since posting but the problem still exists.
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, fossil fuels, IPCC, Uncategorized
Open Letter to Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy
Your leadership regarding Climate Change is very important. Your members must weigh in on the nearly a half of trillion dollars of subsidies for the so-called renewable energy projects and directing legislation to stop the urge of the Democrats to rush headlong into unproven schemes to replace fossil fuels.
Your Email for contributions has a list of your objectives beyond just energy that are things I hope you can obtain though it will be uphill with the Senate and Executive in the hands of the Democrats. I hope you can find ways to block the Biden Administration’s plans.
This letter is to focus on just one part of the House’s objectives and that is to counter the disinformation that the global warming alarmists have been spewing. The way things work now are—-Media support the alarmist’s “experts” and they know that there will be no significant effort by skeptics to counter the alarmists.
Now that you can control the Committee’s agenda, your members should standup to the global warming alarmists. This will take some courage on everyone’s part because some members are afraid of the media. Fox’s post titled “Politico Urges readers don’t believe the polls showing sinking levels of trust of media” One of Politico staff protested the results of the Gallup poll. But the poll says:
“The recent polling showed only 16% of Americans said they have a “great deal or quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers with only 11% of Americans having confidence in television. It represented a 5% decrease since 2021 and was also the lowest rating given towards newspapers since Gallup’s original poll back in 1973.
And there is no need not be afraid of the title “skeptic”. Almost without exception skeptics believe that the globe is warming.
The skeptics need a microphone that is so big it can work around the media. I think the House of Representatives can do this.
The House could have regular sessions of skeptical testimony. The House should rely on the skeptical experts, of which there are many, to counteract the alarmists. Don’t be afraid to allow the alarmists “experts” to testify, too. The alarmists usually get beaten in debates with the skeptics. In fact they have a reluctance to debate. Try getting Al Gore to debate any skeptical expert. No way, he always backs out. You will be doing this to help educate all of the Members of the House of Representatives. Record all the sessions and publish them on YouTube.
Who are these skeptic experts? You can find them on The Clintel website that has posted “There is No Climate Emergency.”
The site names 1010 experts listed by country. (The site needs to update the list as it has now grown to 1499 experts.)
The Skeptical Daily post a summary regarding the skeptics on the lists and some notable quotes. They call the list of the skeptic experts a Declaration.
“The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. A lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth; additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yield of crops worldwide.”
Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiraled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.
These experts get printed in skeptic websites, but we need to widen the audience.
First and foremost the media, the alarmists and some educators have convinced the young that they may die soon. This poisoning of our childrens minds must be stopped.
From a November 27, 2022 posting by EuroNews.Green “More than two thirds of children between the ages of seven and twelve are worried about climate change, a new survey reveals.
“The climate crisis can be overwhelming. (Click on that climate link. See what the kids are being taught.)
Statistics often paint a dire picture of the earth’s trajectory. The UN has warned that existing climate pledges provide ‘no credible pathway’ to preventing temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Deadly floods and fires are on the rise, while global wildlife populations have shrunk 70 per cent since 1970.
Presented with these facts, it’s easy to sink into eco-anxiety. Previous studies have proven that this distress is heightened in children and the new survey confirms this.”
Secondly, the public should know that the basis of the catastrophic climate change is the computer forecasted global temperatures. It goes, things get very hot, glaciers melt, sea level rises, cities are deluged with sea water, crops cannot survive, creatures cannot adapt to temperatures and huge extinctions occur, etc.
The following chart shows that the forecast temperatures by the alarmist are higher than the actual temperature readings and that the forecast temperatures become more ridiculous as time goes by. These temperatures are the ones They use to forecast catastrophe.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature. The actual temperatures noted in the chart are based upon weather balloons and satellite measurements. The actual temperatures are rising but not at the rate that will cause a catastrophic outcome. The computer produced temperature forecasts are used to brain wash our children.
“In 2023 it’s hard to avoid seeing images and headlines like these. The result for many is a deep seated fear[5], anxiety[6] [7], and pessimism[8] [9] about the future. The topic of Climate Change (CC) has seeped into nearly every facet of our lives, and never in a positive way. It’s always present as a dark cloud hanging over society; a source of guilt for those who indulge in some of life’s most basic pleasures, the basis of moralistic judgments by those who like to signal their concern, and the cause of nihilism[10] [11] and hopelessness[12] felt by many in the youngest generations.
Why does CC have such deeply negative connotations and harmful effects on people’s mental well being? Because we are constantly reminded of the six dark and destructive consequences of CC:
1) heat will cause millions to die or live in misery
2) tens of millions (some say billions) will be forced to migrate
3) a million or more species will become extinct in just a few decades
4) sea level rise will have disastrous world-wide consequences
5) agricultural production will be devastated, causing widespread famine
6) humanity will suffer floods, droughts, and other terrible natural disasters
These are the six pillars of climate change despair that activists and the media obsess over. The activists do it because they think they are saving the planet; the media do it because bad news gets more clicks than good news. Plus, they both do it to appear virtuous. They both keep ramping up the rhetoric so that with each passing year the predictions about each of these consequences become even more frightening and apocalyptic. There are some lesser concerns (eg. Arctic and glacier melting), but these six are the catastrophic ones.
No wonder so many people are depressed and pessimistic about the future. It shouldn’t be surprising there’s an epidemic of “climate change anxiety”.
But is it in any way justified? What is the truth (if any) behind these catastrophic predictions? That’s what I want to examine here. The fact is, every one of these pillars is made of sand, and crumbles apart when subjected to the slightest critical scrutiny.
The author, Doug R Rogers, puts together a comprehensive essay. Please read it to it end by clicking here.
The Fourth issue is the headlong race to decarbonize the world. Renewables (mostly wind and solar) are believed to be the future energy sources, leaving fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) to be only available chemical feed stocks, for example. Combined with electric vehicles (EV) the globe will be free of carbon dioxide gas vented into the atmosphere they say.
The benefits accrued by fossil fuels are discounted in this rush to decarbonization. The benefits from vented CO2 are enormous. The greening of the globe has been the result of the vented CO2. Crops, such as wheat, oats, rice, potatoes, cane, etc. have skyrocketed in quantity feeding billions of new people.
Renewables are not reliable. What we know is that wind and solar are dependent on the weather. No wind, no sun, no renewable produced electrical energy. No where has a major grid sourced by solely wind and solar been demonstrated. No plans have been made to prove a grid can actually run solely on wind and solar. Grids have to be supplied 24/7 with NO interruptions. Yet we find that the politicians, urged on by the media, are willing to build more wind and solar capacity and prematurely shut down fossil fuels before they can prove that renewables can provide 24/7 with no interruptions.
The enormous upset that has occurred in western Europe would not have been so serious if renewable could have done the job. For example, Germany has renewables with name plate capacity greater than the nation’s electrical needs. But at times in September ‘22 the wind did not blow, and the sun shined only intermittently. So no matter what their nameplate capacity was, wind and solar were producing little to no electricity. That happened and they stumbled through, saved by natural gas and coal based production of electricity.
Obviously, there are many more issues than the several I have mentioned. I picked them because the first one, traumatizing our children has to be stopped NOW. The other three go right to the heart of the problem. The experts could line up excellent debates or testimonies at House Committee requests.
Expert testimony by skeptics has been ignored by the media. So how can we get around that?
Another interesting team is the Center of the American Experiment. The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles.[5] One of their tasks has been to target the objectional courses that public schools in Minnesota are putting into their schooling. The Center of the American Experiment has people and programs to show what is going on and how to change it. The group will speak to PTAs school boards or other interested groups. This group has been successfully getting schools to drop radical racial material. This could be a model for another skeptical group to copy.
.
Work with the local TV stations. They are often in need of topics to produce for their locality. Hire people that know how to do communications. Make sure that Federal Departments that award research money gives skeptics fair treatment. If they don’t, you can have your way with their funding.
I hope that some of the ideas are useful to you.
Good luck
cbdakota
Judith Curry is an eminent scientist and a skeptic. Most of the discussion in this posting, comes from her blog Climate, ETC., titled: “The climate ‘crisis’ isn’t what it used to be”.
Growing realization by the climate establishment that the threat of future warming has been cut in half over the past 5 years.
Summary: The climate “catastrophe” isn’t what it used to be. Circa 2013 with publication of the IPCC AR5* Report, RCP8.5 was regarded as the business-as-usual emissions scenario, with expected warming of 4 to 5 oC by 2100. Now there is growing acceptance that RCP8.5 is implausible, and RCP4.5 is arguably the current business-as-usual emissions scenario. Only a few years ago, an emissions trajectory that followed RCP4.5 with 2 to 3 oC warming was regarded as climate policy success. As limiting warming to 2 oC seems to be in reach (now deemed to be the “threshold of catastrophe”),[i] the goal posts were moved in 2018 to reduce the warming target to 1.5 oC. Climate catastrophe rhetoric now seems linked to extreme weather events, most of which are difficult to identify any role for human-caused climate change in increasing either their intensity or frequency.
The main stream media is currently awash with articles from prominent journalists on how the global warming threat less than we thought. Here are some prominent articles:
At the heart of this good news is abandonment of RCP8.5 from UNFCCC policy making. The hero of science behind this abandonment is Justin Ritchie, a recent Ph.D. graduate (whose work has been cited.
The COP26 and now the COP27 have quietly dropped RCP8.5 (and SSP5-8.5) from their considerations, focusing on the envelope between RCP4.5 and RCP2.6. The grand poohbahs of the IPCC apparently didn’t see this coming (or preferred to keep spinning the alarm), since they instructed climate modelers for CMIP6 to continue a focus on SSP5-8.5, and climate researchers continue to focus on this scenario in their impacts publications. The IPCC AR6 prominently featured SSP5-8.5, although WGI did make this lukewarm statement
The second so-called scientific advance is lower values of climate sensitivity. The so-called advance is associated with the IPCC AR6 decision NOT to include values derived from climate models (which have dominated previous IPCC reports). They implicitly acknowledge that climate models are running too hot and that you can pretty much get whatever value of climate sensitivity that you want from a climate model (this has been blindingly obvious to me and many others for over a decade). The IPCC AR6 lowered the upper likely bound of ECS to 4.0oC (from 4.5oC previously); this further acts to reduce the amount of projected warming. The IPCC AR6 also raised the lower likely bound of ECS to 2.5oC (from 1.5oC). Raising the lower bound of ECS is on very shaky ground, as per the recent publication by Nic Lewis
The COP27 is working from a value of expected warming of 2.5oC by 2100. This is arguably still too high for several reasons. IPCC expert judgment dismissed values of climate sensitivity that are on the lower end (that should not have been dismissed as per Nic Lewis’ paper). Further, the IPCC projections do not adequately account for scenarios of future natural climate variability. See these recent posts:
X https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/23/crossing-or-not-the-1-5-and-2-0oc-thresholds/
X https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/
In addition to an insufficient number of solar and volcanic scenarios, the climate models ignore most solar indirect effects, and the climate model treatment of multidecadal and longer internal variability associated with ocean circulations are inadequate. While in principle these factors could go either way in terms of warmer vs cooler, there are several reasons to think these natural factors are skewed towards cooler during the remainder of the 21st century:
Once you include alternative scenarios of natural variability, temperature change by 2100 could easily be below 2oC and even 1.5oC. Recall that this warming is with reference to a baseline of 1850-1900; 1.1oC warming has already occurred.
*AR stands for Assessment Report. These are based upon the content in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) full reports, assembled by working groups. AR6 is the most recent report. The reputation of the ARs is in dispute. The full report, the 6th, is condensed to an AR6. The dispute is that many nonscientific personnel, such as delegates from industry, NGOs, etc. can force change that make the AR inconsistent with the full report.
cbdakota
The alarmist’s climate crisis is encountering some serious headwinds. Not just from we skeptics but also from the ranks of the man-made global warming adherents. This posting will be to set the table for the subsequent postings that will illustrate the headwinds. Another posting that will illustrate the profound damage that the crisis crowd are doing to the young people will also be posted.
I posted in April 2021 how the alarmist’s computer forecasts were biased. Two concepts are the primary tools that the computer operators use to make predictions of future temperatures. One is the representative concentration pathway (RCP) and the other is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time.
The chart below shows the range of RCPs the computer programmer can use. The chart has RCPs portraying the forecasted amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere out to the year 2100. The chart has a bit of dialog as well. More on this will appear in the upcoming posting on this topic.
ECS
Theory is that temperature will rise approximately 1C due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Further, the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in creating water vapor. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C. Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise.
ECS is controversial. There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all. They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP, but the posting is addressing what the Alarmist believe. Most buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much less than a 3C rise,
This is how the ECS theory works. Surface warming due to doubling of the atmospheric CO2. Going from the nominal 400ppm atmospheric CO2 to 800ppm would result in 3C rise. But other test data says it is less.
Jonova chart
The computer programmer puts in the RCP and the ECS. He can get whatever temperature forecast he wants.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, Global Temperatures
From Politico’s bog: “New U.S. message on climate change: Make China pay.” Is our President out of his mind— wait, wait, I guess that is already answered. He says the US will pay reparations if China does.
First of all, why would he think the US taxpayer should pay reparations. Why not ask the underdeveloped nations to pay reparations for our medical discoveries, our thousands of inventions that have made their life easier, our pitching in to save starving people that routinely occur in Africa, etc.
Moreover, reparations are hard to get right. China and India, combined, are emitting more CO2 than the rest of the world. Every nation in the world has been using some level of fossil fuel. Would we get to reduce our reparations payments for that?
Secondly, China will not do reparations. And thank God for that because if they did, Biden then would have us hoisted by his own petard.
And the third reason is that there is no crisis. It is an invention by the alarmists and the Great Reset group. Is the world warming? Yes, because the UAH satellite global temperature measurements tell me that.
For at least the last million years, the globe cycles, roughly, every 100,000 years between cold and warm. Does that without any SUVs on the road, by the way.
But I do not believe the alarmist’s computer forecasts of future temperatures. Those forecasts have always exceeded the actual global temperatures. The alarmists recognize this. That is why they changed the narrative from “global warming” to “climate change”. But still, they use those faulty forecasts.
And how do they know that we are really, really going to be sorry if, since the year 1890 until now the global temperature will have increased more than 1.5C. Their ability to make accurate predictions has been non-existent. Why should we believe this one?
So, the answer is too back off global catastrophe predictions and focus on doing adaptation when and if necessary. In the meantime, the Earth will continue to green because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
cbdakota
The forecast global temperatures are the basis of the catastrophic global warming theory. The alarmists use temperature as the goal post when they tell us that the global temperature since 1890 must not rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. They say if the temperature exceeds that number, it could mean Armageddon. Surely you have heard them tell us that we have about 10 more years to live if we don’t act now. And telling our young people learning in schools that their life span is going to be very short.
So shouldn’t everyone be versed in how the forecasts of global temperatures are derived by the alarmists.
The alarmists have a bunch of computers with various settings that proport to be able to capture the vast number of variables that produce the Earth’s temperature. In fact, almost none of them provide a comparable forecast into the future. When plotted out the projections by the many computers looks like bed of spaghetti.
All the squiggly lines are individual computer forecasts. The Red line is the average global warming temperatures predicted by the computers. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. Note that as the years go by, the computer forecast gets further away from the actual measured temperature.
As aside observation, can you imagine what each line would look like if not mixed in with all the others. Can you imagine how much confidence you would have for a computer that predicted temperatures that would rise and drop so precipitously over very short times. Real temperatures don’t do that.
In science, it is said that if you have a theory and you make predictions from it and it does not match actual results, your theory is WRONG, So the alarmist’s temperature forecasts are wrong and should NOT be used to make public policy.
I have worked at this topic a number of times. Pretty much the same narrative. Secrets That Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know https://wordpress.com/post/cb-dakota.com/108-Part 3 Biased Computers is a posting that shows how the computer programmers can make the temperature forecast hotter.
Cbdakota
The chart was made by Dr. John Christy. On many occasions he has given testimony before Congress.
In the previous postings, the computers predicting global temperatures were shown to be much higher than the actual measured temperatures and that you are not being told that the actual measured global temperatures are currently falling and do not seem to have a link with the rising CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. This posting looks at the future predictions of global temperatures and how they are biased to make you think they are going to be rising quickly.
To have some understanding how the computers are programed one needs to be acquainted with Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP).
ECS
Firstly, an examination of ECS. The 1979 Charney Report, named for the Chairman of an Ad Hoc group stated:
“We believe, therefore, that the equilibrium surface global warming due to doubled CO2 will be in the range IC to 4C, with the most probable value near 3°C”.
That means, for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, global temperature will rise approximately 1C due to CO2, and the CO2 induced increase in temperature will result in more water vapor. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. That and some other minor changes in atmospheric gases will result in an additional rise of 2C. Thus, CO2 doubling does not just create 1C rise but rather a 3C rise. They acknowledged that there was a lot of uncertainty about this number. How water vapor and clouds interact are not yet known with any certainty.
Climate sensitivity is expressed two ways. Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is the initial effect of the change in CO2 concentration. ECS does not happen until the oceans heat come into equilibrium with atmospheric heat, for example.
ECS is controversial. There are those that do not believe in the CO2 effect at all. They may not appreciate this postings discussion of ECS and RCP but the posting is addressing what the Alarmists believe. Also, many others buy into the concept but conclude that the effect is much lower than the 3C rise due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Down as low as 1C. As well, there are alarmists that use ECS in the 4C range.
As can be seen in the Part 1 posting, the ECS being used has yielded too high of global temperatures.
Tests of the new CMIP-6 climate computer programs conducted by McKitrick and Christy reported: Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers – McKitrick – 2020 – Earth and Space Science – Wiley Online Library
It has long been known that previous generations of climate models exhibit excessive warming rates in the tropical troposphere. With the release of the CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) climate model archive we can now update the comparison. We examined historical (hindcast) runs from 38 CMIP6 models in which the models were run using historically observed forcings. We focus on the 1979–2014 interval, the maximum for which all models and observational data are available and for which the models were run with historical forcings. What was previously a tropical bias is now global. All model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and midtroposphere, in the tropics, and globally. On average, and in most individual cases, the trend difference is significant. Warming trends in models tend to rise with the model Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), and we present evidence that the distribution of ECS values across the model is unrealistically high.”
If you are a climate computer programmer, you can increase the ECS, and it will result in an increase in forecast temperature.
RCP
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is an estimate of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time. After studying numerous scenarios, more than the available computer time would allow, they settled on just 5 RCPs.
It is my understanding that the upcoming IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report will use somewhat revised versions of the original 5 pathways. These revisions are to accommodate current thinking about the options and potential pathways. Only RCP 8.5 remains as orginally conceived. At least one of the pathways will meet Paris Agreement goal of of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5C . In between 1.5 and 8.5are three others that do not meet the objective but are considered potential outcomes depending on mitigation policies. The pathways keep track of the forecast fossil fuel emissions of CO2” versus “years” beginning at the current time continuing out to the year 2100.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Global Temperatures, Paris Agreement
A dramatic global temperature rise has been forecasts by the alarmists for decades. Sea level is forecast to reach record heights as the globe’s ice melts. At every opportunity they tell us that any major storm or weather disruption is due to rising temperature. We are told that this rise in temperature must be stopped. A little more than degree C has the potential to be existential. How do they know this? Their climate computers tell them. These computers tell them that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuel will wreak this havoc.
The good news is that these computer forecasts of dramatic temperature rise are disproven by actual measurements of global temperature.
One of the recent examinations of the latest batch of climate computers (CMIP-6) was conducted by McKitrick and Christy.
The above is a screen capture is from a Zoom lecture given by John Christy. The upper straight line is the mean temperature forecast of the CMIP-6 and historical forecasts made by earlier computer models. The lower Green straight line is the mean of the actual measured temperature for this same period. The two lines , computer and observed global temperature trends, intersecting at zero in 1979 and based on 1979 to 2019 only.
The actual temperature measurements are a blend of satellite and radiosondes (weather balloons) . They confirm one another.
These are the predictions from which generate their alarming pronouncements. They are not reality.
Science News, for 2/29/20 carries an article titled “Earth’s hot future” and subtitled “As climate models improve, worst-case scenarios are hard to pin down.” The subtitle does not inspire confidence is the predictions. Then the article talks about how good these models are but they are missing an important piece of knowledge, that being the impact of clouds on climate.
Note the jumble the computer ensemble produce. The individual computers shoot up and then drive downward with a vengeance. If you could see it clearly, you would reject its output. Real temperatures do not swing that wildly. So they put all the computer’s output together to average out a mean. The one consistent feature of these computers is that they all show rising temperatures. Is that a “man-made” program bias having little to do with the science? (If the climate computers worked, they would only need one model, not dozens.)
Another way of visualizing this is the following chart:
The forecast from the computers is for warming to rise at +0.40C per decade. The observed (actual) warming has been +0.17C per decade.
Christy says about the performance of the Climate Models used by the warmers:
”You know in any other science, if you have a period of time you’re testing and you go through the first period and you’re already off by a factor of two and a half, on the rate of warming.
You say I better stop i’m going to go back and see if I can fix something that isn’t the way and climate moms they let it go, because the scary story is the one that seems to get the most attention.”
The charts are from an ICSF Zoom Meeting featuring John Christy as the main speaker. The link is ICSF Zoom Meeting – Zoom. You will need a password and it is S+R$j6N%.
The Christy and McKitrick format for the tests of the CMIP-6 can be found on this website Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers (wiley.com).
The computers +0.40C per decade imply that the global temperature would increase by 1.2C by 2050’s. The alarmists target is to achieve net zero CO2 by that date.
Dr Roy Spencer’s recent posting reviews sea surface temperature versus climate computer prediction. He shows a chart that demonstrates that “Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections”. It is another good gauge showing how the alarmists are not playing it straight. He wraps up his posting with the following :
“Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.
Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.”
The climate predicting computers overstate the global temperatures by a wide margin as can be seen when compared to actual temperature measurements. Alarmists use them to put fear in to the pubic. Their predictions should never be used for making policy.
OK, now show this to your kids.
cbdakota
I have been consulting or blogging about climate change for some 20+ years. I began in an advisory role to a member of Delaware’s Legislative body. That followed by setting up a climate change website. Alas, I gotten older. My zeal has not changed but my reduced stamina for research has resulted fewer postings. And my level of frustration is peaking.
Unfortunately, one thing is unchanging. That is the alarmists’ predictions are way over the top. I mean by that, their global temperature forecasts, principally made by their computers, are always higher than the measured temperature. Their statements pronouncing that things are worse that they ever have been, like tornados, hurricanes, droughts, sea level rise, disappearance of the polar ice, end of snow, etc. are refuted by the data regarding those issues.
I believe that the number of skeptics has increased over those 20+ years, thanks to the increase in number of outstanding skeptic blogs, like WUWT, Icecap, Climate Depot, Principia Scientific, Junk Science, DrRoySpencer, SePP, GWPF and a whole host of other outstanding ones—-just too many to name.
But the skeptics still have trouble getting through the walls erected by the mainstream media. Why the media have dropped their investigative role and adopted a full- throated support for the alarmist is beyond my ability to understand. Because the predictions of apocalypse by apocalypse made by the alarmers that have not come true, you would think that the media would treat the continuing barrage of over-the-top predictions with distain. Instead, the predictions get headlines and sycophantic stories.
The alarmist’s kind of “science” should not be the basis for formulating legislation. Politicians may be good lawyers, but they are typically poor scientists. Some are opposed to capitalism and want socialism. Look at President Biden’s Green New Deal site and you will find many of them. Others are swayed by the media pressure and think they better go along with the crowd. Some may actually believe the alarmists rants. Very few of them are scientifically knowledgeable enough to see through the scam. Today, I do not have confidence that a majority of the Senate Republicans are skeptics.
The science is not settled so no new legislation, please!
It seems to me that there are only a few things that will swing the pendulum our way. One is a decline in the living standards and the economy. Higher prices for everything caused by the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, the cost of home heating, and generally the subsequent rise of the cost of living. These are issues that the typical citizen feels and that might change the politicians.
As former President Obama said,
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket – YouTube
The other pendulum swinger is for the global temperature to go flat or begin to drop. The global temperature went flat for about 15 to 18 years around the turn of the century. It began to climb again when two El Ninos happened. They are natural causes, not atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I have been researching what may bring about big cost of living rises and what are the factors that will cause global temperature to rise or fall in the future. If I can get something cogent on those two topics, I will post my thoughts.
cbdakota
Let’s see how you answer this question—Yes, No.
“It worth it for the American taxpayers to pay $1.7 trillion to lower the Earth’s temperature by 0.1C (0.18F) “
If you answered YES, I dub you Captain “Gullible”. Oh, by the way, maybe you would like to buy some of my ocean front property in Arizona.
The $1.7 trillion is the cost estimate of Joe Biden’s planed phase out of fossil fuels in the US. The Biden plan would lower the global temperature by 0.1C as calculated by the Alarmist’s Climate Action Tracker.
All of this comes from the pages of the UK Guardian newspaper. This newspaper is perhaps the world’s biggest media supporter of the climate change alarmism. The stated cost and the results are Guardian’s bona fide.
My guess is that when 2050 arrives, there are three likely outcomes.
Outcome A
The plan was dropped after it was clear that no apocalypse was going to happen.
The Alarmist’s computers that predict the future temperatures have been much higher than the actual temperature measurements. The Alarmists are alarmists because they refuse to recognize the facts that their computers are flawed.
See posting “Michael Shellenberger Exposes Global Warming Alarmists”
Outcome B
The plan was dropped because it was too costly and that adaptation, if necessary, was deemed less costly.
Let’s assume that in 30 to 70 (2050 to 2100) years, sea levels rise several feet, mankind would have the capability to adapt to the change. It would not happen overnight, but rather slowly over years. And the odds are that equally good that it will not raise several feet.
Outcome C
The plan was dropped when the West realized the Chinese were never planning to follow any carbon reduction program. Consequently, China dominated the globes economy because their energy costs were vastly lower, and it was more reliable than the nations of the West’s energy.
Wind and Solar will be deemed failures. They are unreliable and must be backed up. Currently, it is necessary to have fossil fuel-based production facilities that can supply the demand reliably. During this time as more wind and solar are added, the price of electricity would “skyrocket” (as predicted by Former President Obama.) China has world domination as their target. The Biden plan will be a big help to the Chinese toward realization of their objective.
Ultimately, nuclear energy-based electricity production will become the major source. The alarmist does not want nuclear to succeed as they have seen it as a threat to imposition of wind and solar.
I see anyone of the three as likely to happen. Maybe it will be all of them will be realized and that will cause the Biden plan to be dropped.
And a commonsense addition—- how many people are going to believe the stopping a global temperature rise of just 0.18F as worth S1.7trillion is worth it? Less that one fifth of one degree! Or even necessary!
cbdakota
Climate Change Sanity 