JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

All the expert climate models are still tuned too high — at double the real warming rate

Here’s the next iconic graph in the climate non-debate.

It’s just another day in the continuing failure of climate models. In 68 simulations the climate experts repeatedly discover how a fantasy Earth was warmed twice as fast as the real Earth has.

The skillless failure of these models is obvious but it works as modern art.

The angry birds of confirmation bias lifted off in 1998 and haven’t landed on anything real for twenty years.

We paid researchers to find a crisis and we got what we paid for:

Comparison of climate models and observed warming trends. Graph, Roy Spencer, 2021

The latest model predictions versus what really happened.  |    Roy Spencer  UAH

Many thanks to the great legendary Roy Spencer for his exemplary work at Royspencer.com

The Black line is the ERSST — The Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature data (the floating ARGO buoys, Hadley, and other acronyms.)

The models appear to have been retuned lately so that some of the coolest model runs barely include reality. It probably avoids more awkward questions.

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

170 comments to All the expert climate models are still tuned too high — at double the real warming rate

  • #

    “How dare you.”
    They have “The Science”
    They use the best “Assemble of computer models” evah.
    All you and I have is reality.
    And the last thing The Cult of Calamitous Climate is going to accept,is any input from the real world.

    Actual measurements,data as we understood it,is completely unacceptable in the “High Culture of Climatology”.

    The true peak achievement of this mindless cult is the utter rejection of history and evidence,how else can you explain an error rate of 100% over 30 years?
    100% wrong is no small achievement.

    480

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    [Off Topic]AD

    70

  • #

    “All the expert climate models are still tuned too high — at double the real warming rate”

    Being a natural troublemaker, I strongly object to the title of this article (above).

    “EXPERT” ?
    How does one get called “expert” while making wrong predictions for the past 40 years (excluding the decent Russian INM climate model.)

    “COMPUTER MODEL” ?
    Is it really a “computer model” when it makes wrong predictions and the accuracy has never improved over many decades — seems like a computer game to me, used to create fear, not a real model of climate change on this planet, with the goal of making accurate predictions.

    The following two lines from the article summarize the coming climate crisis — always coming, but it never arrives — exceptionally well:

    ” The angry birds of confirmation bias lifted off in 1998 and haven’t landed on anything real for twenty years.

    We paid researchers to find a crisis and we got what we paid for … “

    120

  • #
    TdeF

    Again you can see the start of the very sharp drop in temperatures which was predicted from the two cycles which match the last 250 years. In a few years we could be back to the minimum of the Little Ice Age, shedding 2C. That is when the creators of Climate Change will start to blame Global Cooling on excess CO2. Somehow.

    400

    • #
      Sean

      No, when the temperature starts falling (beyond what can be hidden through ‘corrections’, so that they finally have to admit that it’s not still warming), the AGW community is going to be short-stroking it all over the world as proof that the policies that they’ve been able to get put into place are working, and that we have to double our efforts.

      10

  • #
    Lance

    600 Non-Warming Graphs https://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/

    Let’s see the “models” analyze known history and reproduce known temperatures and anomalies.

    Then I might be convinced of the model’s reliability.

    260

    • #
      TdeF

      Great stuff. Fully agree that models have to reproduce the past to have any credibility at all in predicting the future.

      The irony is that a third of a century which was in the future is now the past and is also wrong. So they are all busted.

      There has to come a point where the producers of these graphs admit they were completely wrong.

      It is also amusing to see the incredibly fine variations in these failed models. If you cannot get the general trend right in what is a long term model, what is the point of showing a thousand points of inflection which are also wrong? And to answer my own question, to make it look like real science.

      230

      • #
        el gordo

        As there has been massive model failure, perhaps we should look to the future with greater confidence.

        This European summer will be cool and wet.

        https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html

        50

      • #
        Mike Jonas

        The models have enough parameters to reproduce a lot of the past quite accurately. For the 20th century, for example, they used higher aerosol concentrations for the 1960s and 1970s when they needed lower temperatures. The models with higher climate sensitivity to CO2 needed more aerosols.

        The climate models are random number generators, with parameters to keep them within the required bounds. For past temperatures, the bounds can be set very tight against observation. For future temperatures it depends on what the modeller wants.

        This is a beautiful demonstration of the random-number generation capability of climate models, using a vastly smaller number of variables:
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bZV8nos_opg
        It takes about 20 seconds to show what I mean, whereas a climate model would take maybe 2 or 3 simulated days. [I should h/t the person who first put this online in a climate context, but regrettably I didn’t note their name. Apologies.]

        40

    • #
      ivan

      Lance you are suggesting they actually use validated models just as we do in industry when the company money depends on it.

      Unfortunately that will never happen in the La-La land climatologists live in because its not their money they are spending. Make their grant money dependent on the graphs getting it right and we would see a totally different result, one that actually means something.

      50

  • #
    graham dunton

    On the fantasy land dance floor, tweekinn with models?
    The turnover of deep oceans can take up to 4000 years, I am sure you will find a reference to that?

    But there is this

    (Q)For seawater in the deep reaches, it can take between 300 to 1,000 years for seawater to go through a complete turnover (EQ)
    https://www.maritime-executive.com › features › ocean

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      And the proponents of industrial CO2 being dominant use this number to argue that the 98% of CO2 dissolved in the ocean is trapped in these deep currents. Which is a convenient fantasy and wrong, like the rest of the story.

      The IPCC also officially admit the industrial CO2 exchanges with the oceans but their official published figure is 80 years for the half life. It’s what they need to argue that the CO2 increase is man made. I have even read that 40% of the CO2 from WW1 is still in the air. None of this is true. The half life of CO2 in the air is 6 years and CO2 and O2 are in fast and constant equilibrium with the ocean, which every fish knows. Ask the phytoplankton which turn CO2 back into oxygen. Their output vastly exceeds ours.

      230

      • #
        Dennis

        We (USA) will remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere.

        John Kerry
        Special Presidential Envoy For Climate

        100

        • #
          Ronin

          They better not do that, we’ll all die.

          110

          • #
            TdeF

            Greenpeace once banned Chlorine. An element in the periodic table. Goodbye all life on earth. At least the oceans would no longer be salty, if they could raise enough money. And that’s what Greenpeace is all about. Cash.

            190

            • #
              sophocles

              Greenpeace didn’t ban Chlorine. They wanted to. They discussed the idea. But when the ocean content of Sodium Chloride (kazillions of tons) was pointed out and how any attempt to ban it couldn’t and wouldn’t work, they gave up on the idea.

              I don’t know if anyone pointed out the human — and many other animal’s — digestive system’s reliance on chlorine, or not. If they hsd tried that idea, all humans would die from starvation. We wouldn’t be able to digest our food.

              Our stomachs secrete hydrochloric acid as the first step in digesting breakfast/lunch/dinner/food.
              That is HCl. The Cl is chlorine.

              Fortunately for MacDonalds et al, they gave up that idea.

              20

        • #
          another ian

          Him in public first to show the way would fix a lot of things

          20

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          The divine power of John Kerry…
          I wonder if he ever heard of King Canute?
          Or perhaps he could just demonstrate his power by stopping the incoming tide at Derby WA?
          (Just for pedantic clarity, WA above is Western Australia.)
          Cheers
          Dave B

          60

          • #
            sophocles

            His ignorance would be risible if he wasn’t Biden’s “Climate Ambassador.”

            Somebody should put him out of his misery …

            Life is a Gas, CO2, the Gas of Life.

            10

        • #
          R.B.

          John Kerry isn’t suggesting that we remove all CO2 from the atmosphere. You get that right?

          Riiight?

          A reply to my comment taking the p%%, elsewhere. The person has no issues with claiming that Trump recommended injecting bleach even though he never did in what was not a prepared speech but taking a question and, although clumsily, passing the suggestion on to an expert. Surely Kerry noticed when proof reading a speech?

          12

          • #
            Serp

            Let’s not run away with the idea Kerry and Biden proofread speeches; they’re there to enjoy themselves and outdo each other with saying stupid stuff –eliminate carbon dioxide whips Joe’s hundred and sixty million dead innit?

            10

          • #
            sophocles

            True: Kerry didn’t use the word “all” but it was certainly implicit.

            10

  • #
    Cheshire Red

    The black line and below average reality only tells half the story.

    The other huge takeaway is those high end model runs are MILES out. They’re constantly cited as being possible by alarmists via the hysterical (but never proven) ‘runaway warming’ theory.
    ‘Up to 4, 5 or even 6C of warming by XXXX’ is thrown around as a legitimate worst case scenario, purely keep extreme numbers ‘in play’ and thus in the discussion. ALL those claims are now effectively falsified. In turn high climate sensitivity adopts Dodo-esque status.

    This graph ought to be the best news ever for humanity and on every front page around the world. Instead…climate crickets! We all know why; we’re being played.

    260

  • #
    Lance

    The “experts/scientists” have been scaremongering for 120 years.

    Still can’t make up their minds on warming or cooling.

    1895-1924, Cooling
    1929-1969, Warming
    1970-1976, Cooling
    1980-present, Warming

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/120_years_of_climate_scares.html?fbclid=IwAR0fsx12mn2ZgGmRayQWRmnQLMYzHTitU2FQDm1

    160

  • #
    Fundo

    It’s my understanding that the coolest model runs are the Russian models. The main difference between the Russian models and the others is that the Russian models place a negative value on clouds whereas the others all give a positive value to clouds.

    160

    • #
      Richard Owen No.3

      Fundo:

      At least one Russian model ignores CO2 as an effect.

      40

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      I reckon the Russians know the IPCC stuff is wrong, know there is no point in discussing it with any officialdom or conferences in the west, and are enjoying selling oil and gas in Europe in great quantities while seeing them and the USA destroy themselves in the process. And us..

      130

      • #
        another ian

        And building a fleet of big icebreakers

        70

      • #
        BruceC

        It’s obvious the Russian’s know something the IPCC doesn’t when they are currently building the largest and most powerful ice-breakers on the planet – replacing what is already the largest and most powerful ice-breakers on the planet.

        What’s more, they have plans for even bigger ice-breakers on the drawing-boards.

        40

  • #
    Lance

    50 years of failed predictions. Batting average: Zero.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/04/earth_days_legacy_of_failed_apocalyptic_predictions.html

    Kind of difficult to trust a group that has never been correct. Ever.

    200

  • #
    Simon

    We know what the energy imbalance is and how much additional heat is being added to the system over time. If there is less heat at the ocean surface than we expect, then it is present somewhere else.
    There is error around the ERSST and we only experience one probabilistic outcome. Perhaps ocean circulation is faster than accounted for in the models. More sampling and research is required.

    333

    • #
      David Wojick

      We do not know what the energy imbalance is, or what is causing it if there is one. All of the warming in the satellite record since it began has come in two small steps that are coincident with super El Ninos. There is no GHG warming whatsoever.

      https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/

      441

      • #
        TdeF

        I have read that none of these models can predict El Nino/La Nina. So when they are wrong, the problem is that they cannot predict the biggest single influence on our weather other than the sun itself. What sort of models are these?

        My continual point is that the sun shines mainly on the oceans which covers 75% of the planet. And this is a huge mass. 340x that of the air and 4x the specific heat so 1400x the heat capacity. It is a giant very long term solar battery and never freezes. So the heat in the oceans is stupendous, thousands of years of stored heat insulated from the air above, like the molten core of our planet. However there are currents in this mobile 3D mass and until we map this movement of energy, we cannot predict a thing.

        So it’s no surprise that the sun is the primary source of heat but also no surprise that the ocean oscillations, currents, eddys, plumes are so important, especially as their heat is conveyed in evaporation, storms, hurricanes, winds, weather.

        And it’s no surprise that high atmosphere scientists like James Hansen thinks the high atmosphere controls the weather. In fact they are near irrelevant, trying to present effects as causes.

        They are closer to soothsaying than real science. And when they are wrong, they blame the ocean.

        The fundamental and only argument of self appointed Climate Scientists (not one a meteorologist) is that a 50% increase in carbon dioxide causes rapid tipping point deadly warming. And the ‘pause’ proves them wrong.

        Is there a single prediction of these Climatebaggers which has proven right? So why is the world being crippled with carbon dioxide taxes? Why are we building windmills and shutting working power stations? And why is the maximum possible power of a windmill in perfect conditions considered an adequate description? In any other world the vendors of windmills would be sued for deception.

        320

        • #
          Tilba Tilba

          My continual point is that the sun shines mainly on the oceans which covers 75% of the planet. And this is a huge mass. 340x that of the air and 4x the specific heat so 1400x the heat capacity.

          [ … ]

          So it’s no surprise that the sun is the primary source of heat but also no surprise that the ocean oscillations, currents, eddies, plumes are so important, especially as their heat is conveyed in evaporation, storms, hurricanes, winds, weather.

          I would expect climate scientists are also quite aware of oceanic heat storage, but it might be the case that it can be set as a background level or “constant”. Global warming is attributed to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases – and that is the cause of temperature increases, and the world-wide effort to emissions.

          I don’t know nearly enough about the modelling process to comment on the wide deviations (overshoot) in the models. But I retain my usual scepticism about who has done the graph, and whether they have an agenda.

          And why is it just SSTs – are land and air temperature not just as relevant? Hasn’t it just been said that the oceans are a huge but inert heat sink, therefore it’s always going to be harder to move the dial?

          So are land-air models likely to show the same overshoot as the SST ones?

          113

          • #
            TdeF

            “it can be set as a background level or “constant”.

            Why would anyone set such things as constant?

            Is El Nino is constant? The Indian dipole which brought so much unpredicted rain to Australia. The PDO? What about the Gulf stream? The list is endless, sources of heat, moisture, weather so great that they overwhelm local climates. After all, London is at 50 degrees North, the latitude of Heard Island. And it would have the climate of Heard Island without the Gulf Stream.

            Even the slightest variation in these things is used as the excuse for every failure. You cannot just go setting things you cannot predict to “constant”.

            120

          • #
            tom0mason

            Tilba Tilba,

            YOU SPOUT (yet again) UTTER COMPLETELY FANTASTIC, ILLOGICAL & IRRATIONAL NONSENSE!

            “I would expect climate scientists are also quite aware of oceanic heat storage, …” You say. Well provide some evidence that this is so. I doubt you’re factually correct.

            “…oceanic heat storage, but it might be the case that it can be set as a background level or “constant”.” You say. Yet more evidence free irrationality.

            “But I retain my usual scepticism about who has done the graph, and whether they have an agenda.” You say, and yet a cursory glace at the graph has the information on it — Roy Spencer drew the graph. And if you were truly interested you could go to his blog site which tells you among many things that he is very well qualified scientist (and unlike you NOT some advocate for nonsense).

            Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

            By the way the graph is from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/

            So Tilba Tilba you have often in the past commented utter tripe but this time you’ve managed to plumb the depths of even your well evidenced stupidity.

            130

          • #
            R.B.

            There is a peer-reviewed paper from about 9 years ago that claimed ocean circulation was essentially ignored, and it shouldn’t be. More than 20 years since Hansen gave evidence to the US senate using his modelling, someone in the climate change community tweaked that understanding ocean circulation was essential.

            40

          • #
            R.B.

            My quick back of envelope (still a little to complex to write here) for the difference between the mean temperatures of an orb with a surface of individual black bodies and an actual black body, everything else being the same, is the latter should have a mean temperature 2.7 times the former. Neither the Moon nor Earth are like this but the Moon is closer to the former than the Earth. Just the spread of temperatures at the moons equator of -180 to 120°C compared to the 30°C spread of SST can explain the 33°C difference in mean temperatures, and this difference in spread is because the oceans are a huge heat sink that absorbs, stores and circulates. Phase changes also keep the range low. Something like 100 W/m2 of energy lost from the ocean by evaporation. compare it to the 1 W/m2 that is supposedly causing Thermogeddon.

            30m of ocean that that brings up heat to the surface being 0.1°C warmer or cooler has enough extra heat capacity to warm or cool the whole atmosphere a degree. Why would you assume its a constant! Remember the argument for the science being robust?

            what else could it be?

            40

            • #
              Tilba Tilba

              Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is causing global warming – and quite rapidly – there is no mystery, as far as I’m concerned.

              05

              • #
                sophocles

                CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated which means a doubling of CO2 (from the current 420ppm to 840ppm) will be no more than about 1 degree Celsius and that’s only if the global warming theory is correct (which it isn’t but that’s another topic).

                20

              • #

                CO2 in the atmosphere is saturated

                which is plain wrong.

                02

              • #
                robert rosicka

                We won’t and can’t double the human contribution , as has been said before 97% of the 0.04% is natural and only around 3% of that 0.04% is ours so doubling effectively zero isn’t going to make one iota of difference to anything in reality.

                20

      • #

        That is data mining in the article.

        The temperature trend has been warming since 20,000 years ago, and since the 1600s, and since the mid-1970s.

        El Ninos and La Ninas have offset each other in the long run (30 years),

        Saying there is no GHG warming is just as wrong as saying all warning is caused by GHGs.

        The correct answer is “No one knows”.

        The percentage of warming since the mid-1970s that is man made is from 0% to 100%.

        Claiming to have the right answer is science fraud.

        [Steady on RG. “Claiming to have the right answer” is just free speech. Opinion is allowed here fergoodnesssake. Claiming to know “that no one knows” is science fraud by your own definition. How could you possibly know that? – Jo]

        60

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          My green tick is for Jo.

          80

        • #

          My first sentence referred to Mr’ Wojick’s article (not yours) where he implied no global warming in recent years except from two strong El Ninos.

          That was his data mining — ignoring La Ninas, while talking about El Ninos, and the arbitrarily fitting of linear trend lines to short periods of non-linear temperature data.

          Concerning my “no one knows” comment:
          — There has been not one correct global average temperature forecast since 1957, when Roger Revelle warning of a coming climate crisis.

          64 years of over-predicting global warming is strong evidence “we don’t know” has been correct for the past 64 years.

          That could change tomorrow.

          But I doubt it.

          The biggest problem in climate science, IMHO, is people claiming they fully understand the climate change process, and long term temperature predictions are simple — just estimate future CO2 emissions.

          Sometimes “we don’t know” is the right answer.

          And “free speech” includes me objecting to people claiming to know something about climate science, accompanied by data mining … when they obviously don’t know.

          10

      • #
        cohenite

        Another way of looking at it is that ALL the 20thC warming was due to 2 +PDOs (ie El Nino patterns) and only one -ve PDO in the middle of the century where temps fell and that the 2 +ve PDOs were asymmetrically bigger then the -ve PDO; all natural.

        60

    • #
      el gordo

      Simon the build up of energy in the system through human endeavour is minuscule in comparison to the Western Pacific Warm Pool. Its the heat pump of the world and it remains something of a mystery.

      120

    • #
      Gary Simpson

      Simon says;’ More sampling and research is required.’ And cash of course.

      40

    • #
      R.B.

      More sampling and research is required.

      If taxpayers money is to be spent on this, maybe giving it to better researchers also.

      10

  • #
    Penguinite

    I’ve taken a screen print of the graph presentation and reconfigured the text to read GWBS

    90

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    To create a true “model” that has meaning there needs to be a clear overview of a relevant process.

    Consider first;

    The high energy Radiation from the Sun has only ONE ENERGY PATHWAY.

    Away from the Sun and towards Earth in part.

    It must always be degraded in it’s INTENSITY and capacity to heat an object or do work.

    Inbound solar is high energy short wave.

    From there it degrades and eventually leaves Earth’s holding bays, ground, ocean and Atmosphere, as low intensity IR – Long Waves.

    The Warmer theme that you can store up low energy radiation (Ground Origin IR ) and convert it to high energy – shorter wave radiation and beam it back to ground is Scientifically NUTSO.

    That is the only way to describe it.

    Totally Impossible.

    All of this “Climate Science” has been done on PAPER or inside the bounds of a COMPUTER and there has never been any associated physical measurement or experimentation.

    The only experiment I have ever seen or heard of that closely resembles the CO2 heating meme was done by the TV Programme, The Myth Busters.

    It was in true warmer Style, a total scientific FARCE.

    There’s No model without a basic bit of measurable relationship between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature.

    140

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Myth Busters used sealed soft drink bottles didn’t they KK which doesn’t mimic the system we live in there is no lid on the earth I live on.

      50

    • #
      el gordo

      Artificial Intelligence able to forecast solar activity and look back in time to fill the gaps.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/23/scientists-use-ai-to-predict-sunspot-cycles/

      00

    • #
      Tilba Tilba

      The Warmer theme that you can store up low energy radiation (Ground Origin IR ) and convert it to high energy – shorter wave radiation and beam it back to ground is Scientifically NUTSO.

      That’s not my understanding of the “warmer theme” – it is that greenhouse gases work … like a greenhouse does. High-frequency radiation reaches earth, and low-frequency energy radiates back out into the atmosphere and then space.

      Additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere inhibits a percentage of the re-radiated heat that escapes, thus the earth stays a bit warmer, increasing each decade. I don’t think there is anything NUTSO about the theory.

      We can debate the rate and the extent at which it is occurring, but a lot of very smart people are certain that the GHG theory is correct, and that it’s necessary to reduce emissions.

      013

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Are you really Tilba Tilba?

        Your comments are more Tai Tchi; smooth flowing, controlled but falling down in the reality department.

        Like this one which has an aura of ageless UNIPCCC believability about it;

        “Additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere inhibits a percentage of the re-radiated heat that escapes, ”

        Yes it’s partly true but you left out the two important bits.

        First, this “scooping up” of ground origin IR occurs in a narrow band of the atmosphere between the ground and a height of approximately thirty metres agl.

        Nothing else happens to the dreaded CO2 as it then rises because it is then part of that atmosphere and must behave correctly, or else!

        Yes, PV= nRT is strictly enforced.

        At the next critical point, corresponding to a temperature of 243°K and 11,000 metres altitude that naughty CO2 gives off what little energy it can, and cools the Earth.

        Second, if there was No CO2 in the atmosphere at ground level, the surplus raging energy being emitted from the ground would have to be dealt with by the main process of “conduction” which involves all other gases in the air.

        So, are you still there, whatever energy is there at ground level to be sorted you can be sure that it will be dealt with, one way or the other; that’s thermodynamics.

        Summing up, neither natural origin CO2 nor the paltry human origin CO2 has any special role to play in controlling movement of energy from ground level to deep space.

        And most importantly this response is not for you Mr. T but for those who read your comments and think that they mean something.

        Regards KK.

        91

        • #
          tom0mason

          Also of note Kalm Keith, is that Tilba Tilba, like most of these advocates, mix-up radiation energy, energy fluxes and exchanges with real heat (as well as ‘warming’ and temperature changes).
          Radiative energy has no ‘heat’. It has the potential to heat matter or do work. This energy can be resolved to an equivalent temperature through the S-B algorithm for a blackbody temperature but until it interacts with matter (the constituents of the atmosphere) the temperature of the air does NOT change. From what I recall CO2’s re-radiation blackbody temperature amounts to -18°C, that temperature is to total potential heating it can do!

          It is like all those numbskulls who say that the vacuum of space has a temperature when in reality it does not. The often cited temperature is 2.7K, and this is the equivalent blackbody temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is NOT the temperature of space! It is a grave error to miss this crucial and fundamental point here. Radiant energy can be equated to a temperature which a material blackbody would have in equilibrium with it via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It is fundamental error to think that space may have a temperature.

          50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Yes true, but the discussion we are having with the warmers is so far below that level that I just use the “temperature” concept to indicate that energy is available to do work in space if something solid goes there.

            The other issue I have with Warmers is that they constantly invoke the black body concept of Stephan and Boltzman and assume that all you have to do it pop some values into their equation and hey presto, you have another plank in the global warming drama.

            The main point I would make for Mr. T is that the energy potential of the ground, even at night, is going to be higher than any gas at altitude could dream of, and that this eliminates the possibility of energy moving from CO2 back to ground.

            From so many perspectives the concept of CAGW doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

            I’ll believe in CAGW $$$ when Mr T finally captures one of those returning photons in a glass jar for us to examine.

            🙂

            30

            • #
              tom0mason

              “The main point I would make for Mr. T is that the energy potential of the ground, even at night, is going to be higher than any gas at altitude could dream of, and that this eliminates the possibility of energy moving from CO2 back to ground.”
              Yes Kalm Keith, and that is the truth of the matter.

              20

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                And so we are being snowed by the Politicians, their Elite backers and sponsors, and the mouthpieces they employ and control to pretend to be “Scientists”.

                Snow job extraordinaire.

                If politicians really believed all this Global Warming rubbish they wouldn’t go out at night for fear of being hit on the head by falling Photons.

                🙂

                10

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        ‘A lot of very smart people are certain’ . . this means nothing. A lot of smart people have been wrong before and if one of them is wrong then they are all wrong.
        GeoffW

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘We can debate the rate and the extent at which it is occurring …’

        Or we could debate why observations make a mockery of the warming meme, do you have a problem with the ERSSTvS?

        10

  • #
    David Maddison

    With various weather bureaux such as “our” BoM constantly altering or deleting temperature measurements that don’t fit their agenda it will become increasingly difficult to compare genuine measured data with the model outputs.

    They are altering the data to fit the models.

    1) What happened to what used to be a computer modeling concept of GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out?

    2) What happened to honesty in science?

    As Orwell said in his prophetic work, Ninteen Eighty Four:

    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.

    270

  • #
    RickWill

    It is interesting that Roy Spencer does not use his UAH data set for this comparison. Maybe he wanted a separate source. Maybe he recognises the UAH TLT bears little resemblance to what happens on the surface.

    31

    • #
      John F Hultquist

      I’m going to guess the 13 models and 68 simulations came courtesy of the folks that do them. Because these are Sea Surface temperatures, and the UAH numbers are for the atmosphere, it would be inappropriate to compare them. Yes? No? Maybe?

      40

      • #
        RickWill

        The models do not distinguish between sea surface and land. He would have just placed a sea surface mask so he got the model coverage for oceans. The UAH also has an ocean mask but he did not use that for comparison.

        The UAH has an upward trend in the Nino34 region where there is none. This compares UAH TLT with the NCEP optimally interpolated SST:
        https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhCO9MiyzIfZU8fR0
        So maybe he thought better to use a record that is related to the surface rather than way up in the atmosphere near freezing.

        20

  • #
    John R Smith

    From what I can see, computer models “tuned too high” predicting a pathogen spread, finally accomplished the goal that climate models “tuned too high” failed to.
    Reset.
    Build back better.

    130

    • #
      Lance

      From what I can see, the computer models are politically influenced propaganda.

      They are “tuned too high” intentionally to produce a desired outcome that supports an intended control over energy, activity, liberty, property, economies, and political power.

      140

  • #
    PeterS

    PM Morrison disagrees. He still believes we need to reduce our emissions, eventually to 0%. If one is truly honest and sincere about this issue, it’s time to stop voting for either major party. Otherwise, anyone who votes for them will be approving of the emissions reduction scam, and they ought to just stop whining, and deservingly take it up their you know what. The choice is yours.

    160

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Realpolitik is a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.’ (wiki)

      Morrison is caught between a rock and a hard place, so green hydrogen and transitional gas are prudent measures to adopt in this political climate.

      23

      • #
        David Maddison

        el gordo, Morrison is a fence sitter and doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, assuming he has any. He is not a leader, has no vision, and is continuing down the same treacherous path as Turnbull was taking us.

        The ONLY good thing that can be said about him is that he’s slightly less bad than the Labor/Green alternative.

        130

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Morrison is a fence sitter…’

          He maybe a lukewarmer, no concern of mine. The states determine the energy mix and the Feds try and fit into it, but when Morrison walked into parliament with a lump of coal he said enough.

          The problem is that we haven’t convince him that global cooling has begun, that is why he is sitting on the fence.

          21

          • #

            But how much do the states determine? The AEMO is a Fed entity. Policy about subsidies for unreliable unsellable energy is a Fed thing (as well as a state thing). Policy about interconnectors and giant-pumping-batteries that cost $10billion is Fed policy. Policy about which giant multinational complex is allowed to own competing generators is a Fed policy.

            If all our generators were separately owned, we might have actual competition.

            201

        • #
          PeterS

          The lesser of two evils is still evil.

          60

        • #

          Dave
          Maybe Morrison and his handlers have no clue about the actual science. If so one would ask why they are in the jobs they are. Or they know global warming and climate change are complete bulldust, but in a cynical exercise to retain power kowtow to the deluded.

          Either way they are not helping…

          20

      • #
        PeterS

        If Morrison is caught between a rock and a hard place then he ought to resign. It is only his doing. He is a coward or clueless, or more likely both.

        60

        • #
          el gordo

          World leaders don’t resign over frivolities, he is neither a coward or clueless. Morrison has to wait until the climate changes

          00

    • #
      David Maddison

      Morrison was Turnbull’s pick.

      60

  • #
    Kevin kilty

    I have blogged about this at WUWT some time ago, but the updated graphic at the head of this blog gives me a chance to speak about it one more time. The ensemble of models is quite a lot like the scaffolding behind the construction of a statistical process control (SPC) chart. We use this in manufacturing to monitor processes. Doctors use it monitor patients, etc.

    The idea is that if the parameters describing a process are correct, and staying within limits, then there will be random deviations around the center of the chart, but not unusual features such as many readings outside of the control limits, nor persistent trends. Here we have a persistent trend heading outside the ensemble on the lower limit. Surely there are many readings outside the control limits, and despite the random wiggles in the observations the 24 year long trend across the graph is a suspicious feature.

    We would conclude either that the process is well understood and characterized, but that something very unlikely, like a long string of random variations on the low side has, in fact, occurred; or, that the process is not well understood and the true process parameters are deviating from modeled expectations beginning about 1998 and persisting to this day. My bet would be the latter.

    190

    • #

      Well said Kevin. Feel free to add links.

      100

      • #
        Kevin kilty

        Thanks, I will.

        The original blog contribution is found here. This was in September of 2019, and I faced a bit of blowback at the time for using data that had been collected only through year 2014; but this criticism missed the point. The graph through year 2014 had some alterations made to it to try to salvage its value as evidence and I needed to show that even with these “face saving” features added, it still failed from a process control standpoint.

        At any rate the course of this departure of reality from expectations has not changed with seven more years of data.

        40

    • #
      Lucky

      Or, that the model construction was dominated by the perceived need to produce output to fit the dominant paradigm.

      20

  • #
    Lance

    Do the fancy models account for the heat and CO2 released from some 139,096 active, undersea, volcanic vents?
    The vented lava, CO2, and super-heated steam, are released at about 1,177 C. That’s pretty hot, and lots of it.

    https://www.iceagenow.info/more-than-three-million-underwater-volcanoes/

    The IPCC estimates 7.8 Gt/yr C is produced by Humans from all activities.
    The reference paper at link below, estimates between 24.2 and 121 Gt/yr from volcanic vents.
    So, Earth releases some 300% to 1,500% more C into the ocean and atmosphere than all human activity combined.

    And the “models” don’t address this at all? Great. A single variable model that ignores a major source.

    https://www.principia-scientific.org/volcanic-carbon-dioxide.html/

    110

    • #
      Lucky

      My summary of the article-
      There is a vast amount of heat and CO2 produced by submarine volcanoes. This heat goes first into the Earth’s oceans which consequently release dissolved CO2 as described by Henry’s Law. The CO2 from the volcanoes adds to that.

      20

  • #
    Dave in the States

    So we have actually had less than 1/2 a degree of warming since 1979. I shouldn’t need to point out the significance of a starting point of 1979.

    80

  • #
    Murray Shaw

    Reckon if they were to run their “models” backwards they would hit an Ice-Age about 1900.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      Good point. Of course if we run them forward they are telling us the world will burn up soon. So, the world better stop using fossil fuels RIGHT NOW, not by 2050 or whatever. But guess what? Hundreds of new coal fired power stations are still being built. Of course all that means is the whole emission reduction scare is a scam and a hoax, clearly the biggest in history. People have gone to prison for life for far smaller scams.

      100

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    So – it does not say which models, which locations and if those other models were measuring sea surface temp, and where it was.

    This is a good example of twinsting data to fit your bias

    113

  • #
    TdeF

    And all this worry about 1.5C in an average. Who said it would be disastrous? We are 140 years into this slight warming. So is it a disaster? Where?

    Almost nothing about an average is serious or process so temperature sensitive. In the equatorial world, temperatures are water moderated anyway. In temperate zones they vary 40C summer to winter. And in arid, high altitude or low latitudes, 80C. What process exactly is so affected by 1.5C or 3C?

    The only process which matters is melting ice and only the Arctic is sensitive with an average temperature of 0.0C. But if it all the floating ice melted the sea would not rise at all. It’s a fake scare. In summer it has reached 25C at the North Pole. So what? That’s not new.

    As for the giant ice masses, they would take thousands of years to melt and given that summer in Antarctica is -25C and winter -50C, it’s not going to happen. Greenland is only above zero four months of the year and then only slightly. It used to be Greener.

    Vast coverage of ice and snow melts every year across Canada, Europe, Russia, Siberia, America, China, Japan but drowning is rare and yes the rivers can flood in spring, but no one drowns at the docks anywhere. The seas hardly move.

    Personally, the world would be a much better place a bit warmer on average. More food, more places to live. Europe and much of North America has only been habitable for 10,000 years and now we want to reverse the warming and bring back the ice age?

    And we now know that +1.5C has made no difference anywhere. The coming drop to the Little Ice Age temperatures though will make life miserable in many countries as the Thames freezes up and the fog returns.

    So why is the world spending trillions trying to prevent CO2 going up and alleged warming, even if we humans could. It puts Stonehenge, Easter Island, Mayan Temples and Egyptian pyramids to shame in cost and uselessness.

    Oh, I remember. Computer models are the new absolute truth, even though none of them are right. And they can’t predict the past, 33 years of which used to be the future. And it doesn’t matter anyway.

    200

    • #
      TdeF

      And by the way, Global Warming is not a problem any more. We now have millions of refugees from Climate Change according to sleepy Joe. Except no one can define it and it seems to include cooling. And all due to ’emissions’. Plus China and India are exempt, being third world countries. In fact most countries are exempt, except the patsies. And we know who they are.

      170

    • #
      RickWill

      And all this worry about 1.5C in an average.

      Anyone who bothers to look at the temperatures that the models produce rather than the anomaly will see that they cove a range of 2 degrees C. If you were worried about warming then choose the Chinese FGOALS model. If you feel it is currently too cold then choose the EU MIROC model:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNhBlQt8jdeBoZ9NhY
      Sort of makes any claim of another 0.5C being catastrophic a tad overblown.

      100

  • #
    TdeF

    There is also the need to point out in the 68 computer simulations that presumably tried and failed to predict the future based on the assumption that the contribution of CO2 to warming is significant. What if it isn’t? Then they are all just useless wavy lines. And they were all wrong.

    What if a warming ocean surface releases a little more CO2? And it’s no one’s fault. And no atmospheric models are needed.

    But then there was no need for windmills and solar panels and carbon taxes and carbon credits and a whole division of the United Nations and thousands of newly christened ‘Climate Scientists’ and economists and legislators and public servants and ‘Clean Energy’ commissions and targets and merchant bankers trading in credits. And tens of thousands of students doing higher degrees on global warming and ocean acidification and the ecological impact of it all.

    Nah. Computers do not lie. It’s all our CO2 and we did it. End of days. Rising seas will engulf us. Soonish. We should be punished with endless taxes. And I use all of my white male patriachal privilege to say this. But I wish to be identified as a skeptic.

    220

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    Those who tell popular lies make a lot more money than those who tell unpopular truths. Just ask climate scientists …

    220

  • #
    Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Can anyone point to an actual island disappearing? (as opposed to traffic islands?) The Maldive islands were supposed to have been inundated years ago, but you can still have holidays there without needing a scuba suit. And one of the Solomon Islands gained ground because of volcanic activity.

    110

    • #
      ivan

      You are not supposed to point out such things – it means you are thinking rather than being a sheeple and doing as you are told.

      70

    • #
      Furiously curious

      60 minutes did a program on an island disappearing somewhere in the Solomon’s area. That area would be about he most unstable area on the planet, constantly shaken by earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. The island was uninhabited and about 200×50 m. It did have trees, but really scraping the barrel.

      50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Real, honest to goodness “Models” are sometimes used in chemical engineering and metallurgical processes where complex interaction of components and effects occurs.

    Modeling is made necessary by the interaction of secondary effects that are not part of the core work being done but the presence of those effects may cause uncertainty in the main process.

    An example is the operation of a blast furnace where iron ore, coke, hot pumped gases and flux come together in a turbulent hot environment.

    In this situation modeling is very useful because the presence of so many factors makes direct calculation of gas temperatures and material flow rates very difficult.

    The point is this; there are core processes at work but the complexity of the interactions makes things hard to quantify without modeling.

    Unfortunately with the Man Made Global Warming and death by incineration due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, there is No identifiable process at work and the whole idea is simply to make a complex mess that covers over the deceit.

    The IPCCCCC does not have models that link atmospheric temperature with CO2 levels.

    The whole thing is Politics at its Lowest.

    KK

    50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    KinkyKeith
    October 2, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    I have never been happy with the continued concession made about doubling of CO2.

    Statements that are aimed at defusing the Amplification theory concede that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.2 C deg increase.

    I am not at all sure that this is correct and it certainly hasn’t been tested empirically.

    It may also be taken to mean that after the first doubling you can “double up again” and get another 1.2 C.

    The asymptotic reduction in temperature gain for each doubling says that it won’t ever be 1.2C again but something much smaller.

    There is also the issue that is continually pushed that man made CO2 is responsible for the overall increase in atmospheric CO2 when the natural component of atmospheric CO2 is 97% of total.

    This begs the question as to how mankind could ever hope to be the cause of a “doubling” of CO2 in the first place.

    If there ever was a doubling it would logically come from some natural source and be beyond human control.

    If there was any real need to stop a doubling then a thinking person would buy shares in cement companies because we are going to need a lot of very big plugs to stop CO2 from venting from volcanoes and undersea ocean floor vents.

    The whole business is inherently unstable, nutty science and I’m not sure that the idea of 2 >< CO2 = 1.2 C. is at all correct or useful.

    There are other more technical issues relating to gas laws that are probably more relevant but from a very simplistic view the doubling meme should be left alone as an idea that has had it's day.

    kk

    40

  • #
    Albert Facey

    This is a comparison of sea surface temperatures vs models.
    What would a comparison of land surface temperature look like ?

    00

  • #
    Serge Wright

    Having watched the media reports coming out of the USA over the past few weeks, we can now say with some clarity that the satellite data sensors must be racist. Their data is represented by a black line and is clearly being suppressed by the paler lines that sit above it, in positions of authority. To resolve this issue, a quota system is needed to ensure only satellite data samples that are higher than the paler lines should be used in the final data set and all other data samples should be cancelled.

    Remember, black lines matter !

    80

  • #

    None of the climate models are tuned too high.

    Because the models are not intended for accurate temperature forecasts

    They never have been.

    Proof is that: They have become less accurate over time (CMIP6 versus CMIP5)

    The so called models are intended to scare people about the future climate.

    So, on average, they MUST predict rapid warming.

    The historical global average temperature data can be gradually “adjusted” to better match the models’ predictions.

    The faster the warming predicted by a model, the better the model will be for meeting the intended purpose — scaring the general public.

    That’s why CMIP6 models will predict faster warming than CMIP5 models.

    And CMIP7 models will predict faster warming than CMIP6 models.

    Leftists are very predictable.

    80

    • #
      Lucky

      RG has it!

      Not all models of course fit that description. Many / most are designed to investigate aspects of nature or human behavior in order to assist decision making.
      But for the really big topics, where governments are expected to intervene, and big money is involved, then the right word is ‘corrupt’.

      40

  • #
    JB

    There are tons of vents spewing heat and CO2, and vortical heat pumps in the form of volcanoes on the ocean floor. But, they’re not a factor in ocean temperatures to anyone but about 3 people on this planet: James Kamis, Christopher Pett, and Wyss Yim. Truly amazing…that so many people can turn utterly blind eyes to such a huge feature of this planet.

    https://saltbushclub.com/2019/07/16/climatic-impacts-of-the-southwest-indian-ocean-blob/

    https://arcticvolcanoes.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/volcanic-cyclogenesis/

    http://www.plateclimatology.com

    10

    • #
      Kevin kilty

      El Gordo and I had a side discussion regarding this topic perhaps a month ago over the warm blob in the South Pacific, and I have no idea what El Gordo now thinks, but I came to these two conclusions.

      1) No one makes a careful measurement of the heat input these volcanoes make. If a person assumes as an upper limit that each one is Krakatoa-sized, then you can just about get into the same order of magnitude as the warm ocean anomaly suggests. This encourages people to see significance in this input of heat from Earth’s interior.

      2) If you take as a lower limit the heat input suggested by the pumice rafts found above Volcano F near Tonga, then you are about six orders of magnitude short of explaining the warm water. This suggests that the warm water results from a solar influence, possibly because of a prolonged period of unusual sunniness, because the solar input is so much greater than volcanism.

      If a person looks more generally around the planet at the mid-ocean ridge system, the augmented heat flow in the rift itself is only about 1Wm-2 despite all the thermal features (pillow lava, black smokers, hot springs) found there. This is pretty puny compared to solar input.

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        This anomalous heat in the North Pacific has attracted my attention, what do you make of it?

        https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-189.89,20.92,265

        00

        • #
          Kevin kilty

          That is quite a blob of anomalous water. I wonder if it is greatly out of the ordinary? How large is it in comparison to the blob that people were fixated on a few years back.?

          At 5.7 degrees of anomalous temperature, and at the size shown, there is no way volcanoes or rifts can contribute anything significant. The South Pacific blob you and I discussed before. I had taken the 12 million cubic meters of pumice raft, and figuring a reasonable temperature at expulsion, leaves us about at one-millionth of the heat one needs to warm all that water.

          I suppose volcanoes seem so awesome that they ought to be able to do whatever, but the water involved is a million times more awesome. Three volcanoes east of NZ…ok we are now only a factor of 300,000 short.

          20

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘I wonder if it is greatly out of the ordinary?’

            You’re probably right, a natural phenomenon caused by blocking high pressure.

            My main focus is on the WPWP.

            ‘ … we compile thermocline temperature records of the Indo-Pacific warm pool over the past 25,000 years, which reveal a major warming in the Early Holocene and a secondary warming in the Middle Holocene. We suggest that the first thermocline warming corresponds to heat transport of southern Pacific shallow overturning circulation driven by June (austral winter) insolation maximum.

            ‘The second thermocline warming follows equatorial September insolation maximum, which may have caused a steeper west-east upper-ocean thermal gradient and an intensified Walker circulation in the equatorial Pacific.’

            Dang et al 2020

            00

      • #
        el gordo

        Remember the warm blob to the east of New Zealand.

        https://saltbushclub.com/2020/04/28/south-pacific-blob/

        The heat is in the oceans.

        00

  • #

    Not to get too cynical,but This whole meme is Chicken Little as told by our bureaus.
    With a fine dash of The Emperor’s New Clothes applied to the evidence.

    Gullibility is endless,especially inside the Parasitic Overload.
    Now for sure I am becoming a cracked record(Days of vinyl for the kiddies),but the Fable of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is entirely a creation of our governments.

    Even the so called NGOs doing the loudest propaganda are funded by tax dollars (or tax deductible donations).

    We Canadians are guilty of allowing this Huge Lie to grow,as Dear Uncle Moe,Maurice Strong is one of the key creators of this Doomsday Myth,all the while paid by Canadian taxpayers.
    Our Cancerous and Corrupt “Liberal Party” shaped and have pushed this scam for decades.

    The rot has spread so deeply,that all our institutions are rusted right out.
    The irony of “Environment Canada’s Science” went whoosh right over the bureaus heads,although I am sure the minion who shaped that phrase was a Heretic.

    Once the institutions of government are lying,there is no saving them.
    We have gone from evidence based policy making to policy based evidence making.
    A thing we once mocked.

    The contrast between”The Science” and the scientific method is stark and frightening.
    If you fear the consequences of having an Official Government Religion..

    Because the Cult of Calamitous Climate has every marker of being just that,The official International Religion of Government.

    look at the IPCC,funder and promoter of these “Computer Projections of Future Climate”.
    100% a government creation.
    And all the hallmarks of a Custom Made Cult.

    Future Doom.
    Original Sin.
    A “Earth God” to judge us.
    Taboo Acts.
    Indulgences to buy.
    Virtue to be signalled.
    Enemies to “Other and Attack”.
    CAGW has it all.

    Now relabeled as Water Wet..I mean Climate Change..
    As meaningless a term as one can create.
    For when did Climate not change?

    All brought to you, the taxpayer, by the creatures who live to feed off of you.Your very own “Civil Servants”.

    For what a way to steal.

    And the Parasitic Overload desperately need a new source of food,more taxes..
    Cause our nations are bankrupt.
    These parasites have been engaged in a feeding frenzy for the last 6 decades.
    Their population has swelled to enormous and unsustainable proportions.
    Productive citizens,willing and able to pay taxes are vanishing.

    Hence the Massive uptick in State lies and Propaganda.
    Global Cooling,Global Warming,Climate Something,Dread Covid 19..What do they all have in common?
    Besides being Mass Hysteria incited by our Government Institutions?

    We have run the experiment.
    More,bigger,”better” government destroys everything a civilized society holds dear.

    The maniacal abandonment of all our rights and freedoms by these “Helpers” has been a real exposure of their hatred and malice.
    A civil society cannot survive this kind of help.

    Actions are the only truth in an age of universal deceit.
    Every one of these elected and appointed “leaders” has acted..
    Against everything we hold dear.
    Betraying every trust they swore to uphold.
    Your enemies are fully self exposed.

    To quote our Progressive Comrades..”FORWARD”.
    All the masks are off.

    60

    • #
      Dave in the States

      “We have gone from evidence based policy making to policy based evidence making.”

      Particularly enjoyed that one.

      50

  • #
    William Astley

    I totally agree. And, the same Climate ‘Scientists’ who cannot predict or explain what causes El Nino events to occur.

    Also, cannot explain why there are cyclic 30 year spikes of warming in the paleo record. The regions that warmed in the past and the amount of warming in the past, follows the same pattern which happens to be the same pattern of warming observed, in the last 30 years.

    https://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

    Assuming incorrectly that the recent warming was caused by CO2…. And then scientifically analyzing the recent warming… to put an upper limit on the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 doubling, and the upper limit is based on actual warming vs CO2 levels is 0.6C, rather than the IPCC predicted 3C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. And this amount agrees with other instrument based/data based calculation of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214242817300426

    The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated.

    This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods.

    This weird warming (Dansgaard-Oeschger warming, named after Climate Scientists). also occurs during the glacial period and the mechanism overrides the GCR cloud mechanism. Cloud cover closely correlate GCR changes based on long term satellite measurement until 1996. Prior to 1996 specific regions where the cloud cover changed correlating with GCR changes… Agreed with GCR cloud theory as high latitude regions are where the effect is the largest.

    In 1997, satellite cloud measurement Vs GCR… showed that the GCR high latitude cloud cover correlation suddenly stopped and there was a step reduction in cloud cover in higher latitude regions which unexplainably continued. There were papers written noting the change, without explanation as to physical cause. As noted in the below paper, the amount of warming caused the reduction in cloud cover…. post 1996 can explain all of the warming in the period.

    http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
    The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
    “Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.

    This paper shows that the past warming affected both hemispheres simultaneously. There is cyclic periodic warming in both hemispheres…. with more warming in the Northern hemisphere.

    Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml
    Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf

    10

    • #
      TdeF

      All this starts with three strong assumptions

      a. there is a problem.
      c. we caused it.
      b. we can do something about it

      None of these are proven.

      Yet the money flows because the United Nations, the EU, China and Joe Biden base their business on it.

      And every middle man, climate scientist, merchant banker, politician and energy company.

      It is the greatest plundering of national wealth in history. To save the planet. From what?

      100

  • #

    Hey, In United States, the type of government is a Federal presidential constitutional republic. In United States, the legislative power is vested in a Congress. The head of the government is Donald Trump. The governmental structure of a country determines the manner in which laws are written, approved, and interpreted.

    [Leaving this one for you Jo.]AD

    00

  • #
    RT

    A real good article on WUWT today. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/ The non climate “emergency”. Jo Nova puts up another good one showing the GIGO models. Showing only the corrupt bias of the “Green Religion”. And the length of what they do to destroy the western world.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      Agreed. Excellent summary of the nonsense and includes Jo’s graph.

      However there was this..

      “we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”
      IPCC Third Assessment Report, The Scientific Basis 14 2 2 2, p.774″

      So the IPCC has announced the historic graphs and the models on which they were based were expected to be wrong. Wow. That’s the IPCC damning all historic Climate models and holding no hope for the future of forecasting.

      This is why I give so much credence to Prof Weiss with his blind Fourier analysis of temperatures for the last 250 years which found two and only two cycles explain the last 250 years and correspond to two of the biggest actual cycles, the De Vries 200 year solar cycle and the AMO/PDO related ocean cycle. And he goes on to show that this 200 year cycle is verifiable for the last 2500 years in the temperature record. So this chaotic system has an oscillating behaviour fully explained without CO2.

      The point of that is that when systems are “coupled non-linear chaotic” they are near impossible to simulate but they are amenable to analysis and the dominant forces or trends can become clear.

      So the IPCC announcement that “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” is also wrong. (The IPCC no longer talks temperature, it’s all Climate) With the simple analysis of Professor Weiss, we have a tool which predicted the past perfectly, give us confidence we can predict the future.

      There is going to be a dramatic drop in temperature over the next 60 years, undoing all the changes since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1880. So button up. And forget those solar panels in winter where most of humanity lives. The windmills might be handy though. And we will pray for CO2 driven warming and be very disappointed.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        And the money men, the political manipulators, the communist parties know this. So as the temperatures begin to plummet (as expected), they are ready.

        It’s all Climate Change and they will segue into the idea that they predicted this. Any pretence of science rationale has been quietly dropped. Any talk of warming has been dropped from the language. And they hope that two generations of children indoctrinated in Climate Change will believe without question. Greta Thunburg is the most famous child victim of indoctrination.

        Who really believes the seas are going to rise rapidly in the next ten years when they haven’t risen at all in the last 33 years? And who believes in Global Warming in Texas and France and Victoria? Forget the talk of Arctic Vortexes. It’s getting colder. Fast.

        Climate Change is coming. We warned you!

        50

    • #
      Robber

      Agreed. A simple but effective summary of many facts about the climate by Willis Eschenbach that should be sent to every politician and scientist who claims that we are doomed.
      As Willis says: “Despite my asking over and over in a host of forums, to date nobody has been able to tell me just what this supposed “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!” actually is and where I might find evidence that it exists. Here are some facts for the folks that think that the climate is a real danger to humanity.”

      40

  • #

    The land temps are much better. But only because they throw out those unscientific “satellite” temps and use thermometer-based datasets. These seem to match models quite well for some reason.

    [Apologies for the delay in approving. Check your email. – Jo]

    10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Is it possible for temperatures to rise? As long as they control the data collection, storage and interpretation the world can keep warming forever.

    By this statement, everything in science is false. I will wait for guidance from our lizard overlords, meanwhile looking at the moon that is made of green cheese

    [This is just pure rubbish are you short on your quota for the week?]AD

    00

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Should have put the quote marks in (it was Jo’s comment) – who is this ‘they’? are they only doing temps?

      conspiracy theories anyone?

      [And which part was the host’s and which part was yours? ]AD

      02

    • #

      Well Peter, just campaign like me for all raw data to be kept in public repositories, and all adjustments to be described in full and kept separately, and not done by the same teams of people.

      How about it. Everything in science is false if we don’t have the data and the code.

      50

      • #

        So you are sticking to this theory that “they” control data.

        What data is not in the public domain that you require?

        01

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Bom won’t say what the confidence level or margin of error is with their acorn sat temp data , in senate estimates they refused to answer this question by repeating what they were doing was best practice but refused to put a number on it .
          Look for Gerard Rennick questions BOM on the net but here’s his interview on “Outsiders” .

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFSUiSHEous

          10

  • #
    Flok

    Pre-emptive approach to any predicament is the set of assumptions.

    The chart is over engineered through ignorance of real data. Perhaps it does represent the volume of funds consumed over time.

    Assumptions are the cancer of this society. Statement that I don’t mind repeating.

    20

  • #
    CHRIS

    TdeF is spot on with the fact that climate (and weather) is 3 dimensional and non-linear, which only Chaos Theory even comes close to explaining. As someone with a degree in Climatology, I can never get over the baseless conclusions that idiots like Mann come up with to explain CAGW. There has been no warming since 1998, and nobody knows how long the “Pause” will last. The average global temperature rose about 1.2 degrees C between 1900 and 2000 (almost totally due to natural phenomenon). I’m predicting that it will rise by only about 0.5 degrees C for the 21st Century, and then the cooling trend will permanently take over (a la MWP to LIA).

    50

  • #
    another ian

    “Unsettled, Steven Koonin’s new book”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/26/unsettled-steven-koonins-new-book/

    Some relevant comments there

    00

  • #
    Peter

    Just a minor point – ERSSTv5 is NOT observations. It is a reconstruction (the R) and infilling / interpolating based largely on the ICOADS data set. It you look at that dataset you will see just how sparse actual SST observations really are. https://icoads.noaa.gov/

    20