Global warming trend is only half of what climate modellers have predicted
By Paul Homewood
Roy Spencer on the failure of climate models:
The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.
Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.
While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies.
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
An unscientific eyeballing of Roy Spencer’s graph shows no net global warming since around 1998 and a falling trend since 2016. And of course the spikes in 2016 and 2019 were so sudden as to be obviously natural, caused by El Nino events which have nothing to do with man-made CO2.
No global warming surely means no climate change over the past 23 years, so what is the “climate emergency” the alarmists go on about?
It’s the same type of emergency as the Covid one. Exaggerated propaganda and scare tactics driven by assumptions, not facts.
The sad thing is that the majority of the population has such a poor scientific education that they are taken in by all this tripe.
Only 1 in 50 has a Physics A level…
That many, I’m gobsmacked!!
devonblueboy: Indeed. I covered the establishment’s misuse of science on both Coronavirus and climate change in this article: https://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkbusiness/articles.html?read_full=14543
Thank you
Covid was/is a national emergency. Or do you not value the lives of the elderly or the ill?
No more or less than I value the education of the nation’s children, the lives lost to other illnesses because the NHS became fixated on Covid 19 to the exclusion of all else and the businesses that have failed and the people who have lost their jobs; all as a result of the hysterical over-reaction to extremely exaggerated, doom laden forecasts driven by mathematical modelling. As with the “climate change emergency”
..and don’t forget that even the ERSSTV5 line is itself very heavily fiddled. The clue is in the first two letters in the acronym – ER stands for Extended Reconstructed. “Scientists” can do what they like with the raw data and the processes will not violate those terms. I rest my case m’lud.
I believe that it is in the interests of those individuals and companies who stand to profit from climate change to promote it. Secondly there are individuals and organisations who want to pursue a particular political philosophy and use climate change as a means of achieving political power and influence.
Spot on
It would help if the scenarios used by the assembly of climate models were mentioned. Models using the extreme and unrealistic RCP8.5 are never going to look accurate.
Thank you for this very useful information.
Time to call the Warmists ‘ Einstein deniers ‘. See Albert’s 1917 paper on CO2.
But Einstein is on TV telling me to get a smart meter.
More barf than bath.
One wonders what the tiny statement at the bottom of the screen ‘consumer action required’ means to most people? and what percentage of the population would recgognise ‘Albert’ in the first place?
Plus he can’t count.
The graph shows clearly, and unsurprisingly, that the mathematical models of the climate are incorrect. Modelling the climate remains far beyond our ken, as even the IPCC accepted, but the believers believe in the magic of the predictions.
I recall (almost) and old statistics poem, (being a sad person):
A curve is a line is a bend,
But, where and how does it end,
Does it fall to the floor or rise to the sky,
Or just asymptote at the end?
The modellers assume (a delusion of grandeur) that they have accounted for all eventualities properly.
The UN IPCC is only mandated to study alleged human risk to the climate. Hence the climate modellers use flawed assumptions on what drives the global climate and ignore climate natural variability (NAT), see http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Attribution-forcing.png.
Because without their delusions and consequent alarmist predictions they wouldn’t get any research funding?
Can it really only be us lot who take this viewpoint on ‘climate change’?
I try to engage people in rational debate and apart from one group of freinds who are all technically minded (and even one of them who is really bright is convinced that covid is coming for all of us) most ‘normal people are either disinterested, incapable of any thought on it or just believe the MSM, but still after reading say the Daily Male or similar will not change their way of doing things.
“A model will produce any result you care to name, depending on the assumptions fed into it.” A quote from Jonathan Sumption about Covid modelling but equally valid about climate models. He also said “As aids to policymaking and public understanding, they are at best useless and at worst extremely misleading. The problem is that they are not evidence.” But none of the policy makers or those seeking to inform the public take any notice, preferring to believe the models no matter how far from reality the models diverge.
If a Genie was to grant me but ONE wish it would be to see this report and chart given full coverage on BBC with Harrabin made to try and gainsay it.
I’m sure most thinking people, being shown that graph, would immediately see the scam for what it is but, like the Dems trying to sabotage the Maricopa County Audit, there are enough fifth columnists in this country to prevent me getting my wish.
considering that little ice age does not exist in the models, nor do the XXth Century fluctuations, warm in the 30-ies, cooling in the 70-ies, then warming again, you can not really speak seriously of a “prediction”. Model output, is more like it.
Yesterday I listened to an extract from Biden’s earth day leaders climate summit with his VP and climate ‘advisor’ John Kerry. Although not verbatim this is what I heard from Mr Kerry, ‘we need to get to net zero by 2050 but we must go further and get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.’ There was no clarification or questioning from Biden or Harris so I assume they agreed with Kerry? These people are dangerous;
they will destroy Western economies and I fear this Conservative government will go along with it. Time is running out we need to form another political party.
Agreed.
I recall a few months ago there was a claim that the heat was hiding, a sort of monster stealing it and hiding it in the depths to come back on us later. Maybe the models are missing the climate monster. However, when the measured temperatures have been adjusted the story may be different.
A splendid article on this site a few weeks ago showed how the HITRAN database provides the data needed to assess the absorbance of IR by different concentrations of water vapour and carbon dioxide. It seems that climate scientists need climate models to tell us about similar things. I had to choose my words carefully here because as Dr Spencer observes, the models run very hot compared with reality.
But my main point is this, climate models are hugely complex. They seek to simulate the entire climate, though clearly they cannot handle clouds or the many aspects of climate that are currently not understood. The models require extremely fast computers. The Met office is currently planning yet another new one with the government pledging £1.2Bn. Climate models are therefore only available to government agencies and those who are granted access.
So if you want to control the climate science, you therefore need access to a government funded computer costing Billions. That explains why they don’t look up the HITRAN Dataset to get the answer. Also, it would not give the answer that they want.