Flawed Climate Models Predict More Warming Than Actually Occurs
Public policy should be based on hard data and not software-manipulated numbers, and scientists should return to the labs and collect real data rather then generate it.
Dr. Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) after being a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA. He is a meteorologist, has published research on various weather and climate problems, and co-developed (with John Christy, UAH) the original method for monitoring global atmospheric temperature variations from Earth-orbiting satellites.
Therefore, Spencer must be considered a true expert on climate, temperature, and temperature measurement issues. He recently published a report for Heritage, which he summarized on the Watts Up With That blog, where he detailedly analyzed recorded temperatures over the last 50 years, comparing those values to those predicted by computer programs.
The flawed climate models have produced warmer temperatures than those measured. Spencer has three key takeaways:
- The real rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than that predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
- Climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
- Public policy should be based on climate observations rather than climate models that exaggerate climate impacts
Climate models overestimate observed warming over the past 50 years by 43%. Interesting new report by Roy Spencer. https://t.co/ywT8ft8A8l pic.twitter.com/0vrnzs4oAW
— Marcel Crok (@marcelcrok) January 26, 2024
The entire article is a must-read for those who appreciate good science. However, one section struck me…as it goes to the cherry-picking I noted when describing how only science aligning with political narratives is supported.
Climate models are not only used to predict future changes (forecasting), but also to explain past changes (hindcasting). Depending on where temperatures are measured (at the Earth’s surface, in the deep atmosphere, or in the deep ocean), it is generally true that climate models have a history of producing more warming than has been observed in recent decades.
This disparity is not true of all the models, as two models (both Russian) produce warming rates close to what has been observed, but those models are not the ones used to promote the climate crisis narrative. Instead, those producing the greatest amount of climate change usually make their way into, for example, the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the congressionally mandated evaluation of what global climate models project for climate in the United States.
When climate models predict on the order of 2-10X more warming than observed and drive policy decisions the result is bad policy. At the observed 0.1C/decade of warming in the corn belt, corn does just fine…
Source: https://t.co/c5w2ulK72J pic.twitter.com/o3nsmruBPi
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) January 25, 2024
Interestingly, a new study also reveals that Colorado’s climate is much drier than projected by climate models.
The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation shows that water vapor capacity increases by about 7% for every one degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) of warming.
But just because the atmosphere can hold more moisture doesn’t mean it is.
“It turns out that in all arid and semi-arid regions of the world, there hasn’t really been a rise in water vapor,” said climate scientist Isla Simpson with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “This is contrary to traditional thinking and a very surprising finding.”
She said since places like Colorado and the rest of the southwest U.S. have not seen any additional atmospheric water vapor, they are already about 7% drier than what climate models projected for the current period.
Perhaps it is time for scientists to return to the labs and head to the fields to collect accurate data rather than generate it via software.
For those of you who wish to pursue more on this subject, here is a great lecture given by Spencer on “global warming” (before it became a climate crisis) and policy.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If the “Science Community” has been this wrong for 45 years or more, perhaps they need to find other work.
The best way to achieve this is to no longer fund “Climate” researchers.
If I were to be that wrong for 45 days I’d be out of a job.
We all should be watching the Mann vs. Steyn climate trial of the century. You can watch it via Web Ex.
https://www.steynonline.com/14056/the-emperor-has-no-clothes AND click on the web ex and go to room 132 for the trial
https://www.steynonline.com/14055/steyn-the-opening-statement Mark Steyn’s opening statement (reenacted)
Dare I post today’s YouTube video? Sure, it doesn’t appear to be peer reviewed, in fact, he presents the data then, makes suppositions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Owk4vEQRc
This is an article it’s not peer reviewed and its by an oil shill who has no credibility. This is vs actually peer reviewed studies which come to precisely the opposite conclusion.
Pardon us for paying no attention to your attempt at spin. Peer review has been showing itself to be a game of the academic publishing cabal…. part of the “publish or die” model of academic advancement. That system has been crapping in its own nest for a long time, and the result is that it is almost a joke.
If you have actual valid support for your position here, please share with us.
What lol, firstly your description of peer review is nonsensical. Do you have a valid reason to hold your criticism. See two can play at that game. Second the notion that an article is of a higher standard than peer review is patently absurd just based on that fact alone. Thirdly the article cited has serious issues see here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/. Fourth if you are going to criticise peer review papers you need to have an actual basis for it. An assertion just doesn’t cut it.
As a matter of fact I do. Try this one on for size.
https://apnews.com/article/danafarber-cancer-scandal-harvard-sleuth-science-389dc2464f25bca736183607bc57415c
This article casts a shadow on the process with the examples that actually name names. I fear you are about to feel like Pickett as he started up that hill…..
@amateurwrangler
Well done you provided some substance to 1 of my points. It’s quite entertaining that you would cite an article about research fraud when I’ve demonstrated that the roy spencers article is an example of that but more blatant.
Here is Professor Spencer’s reply to Gavin Schmidt:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/31/spencer-vs-schmidt-spencer-responds-to-realclimate-org-criticisms/
Sure…let’s just ignore Spencer’s expertise in the area and smear him as well, LOL.
The days of climate hysteria are over.
YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE.
Thank you Leslie for the follow up article on climate predictions. I don’t find Dr. spencer to be an oil shill mainly because I don’t think Goddard hires those. Further, I think his credibility is spot on and ad hominem attacks fail spectacularly. Between his publications and Tony Heller’s on YouTube and Rumble, I believe they are the reasoned voices that the MSM and peer reviewed publications stay away from.
I’ve already provided an actual scientific rebuttal to spencers nonsense
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
If he was such an expert why isn’t a peer reviewed paper. Oh wait he is an oil shill and can’t actually justify his work under scrutiny
Oh and by the way he absolutely is an oil shill
https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html
I’m replying here because replies are cut off below. I read the criticism of Spencer in your link to Realclimate, and I think they’re off-base. Yes, the climate models have a spread. He was comparing the satellite record to the average. Secondly over time, those error bands on the models get so wide they will encompass almost any actual temperatures, even cooling temperatures. Furthermore, Realvlimate pulls a fast one by changing the metric from the UAH satellite record to the GISS surface record. One glaring difference between the two is that GISS does not cover the poles, but UAH does. Another glaring difference is that GISS simply cannot cover the entire earth. There are large swaths of the earth where there are no temperature recordings; GISS interpolates those missing areas. UAH doesn’t have to. Also the siting of surface temperatures is often in urban area in airports. Such areas are prone to the notorious urban heat island effect. Finally, there was a change at some point from mercury glass thermometers to metal electronic thermometers. The latter are much more sensitive to temperature extremes than mercury glass thermometers, and have tended to show higher average temperatures. The satellite data do not have that defect. So, at the end of the day I think Professor Spencer is correct, and that the models are giving faulty forecasts that must be re
@jacksilversprings
No they are not off base. He cherry picks both time and studies, doesn’t set the graph up properly, doesn’t allow for any spread AT ALL.
No spread does not go particularly wide in the time period we are talking about nor does that negate the fact that it shows incompetence/malfeasance on spencers part
No it’s not a fast one, anyone familiar with the topic knows that there are gaps in the data sets which are plugged by a combination of statistical tools and other data sets.
No land weather stations are not ‘often’ cited near urban areas and even if they are that can be adjusted for. People understand urban island heat effects and have means to measure the impact it has.
Again your comment about changes in temperature measurements is nonsense if you use the raw data set it shows a trend that’s worse.
Your making excuses for poor science. Do better
Robert Spencer is not an oil shill. He is a professor at the University of Alabama Huntsville. What he is presenting is based on data from satellites meant to measure temperature on earth. Indeed, he has reported that the last several months have been extremely warm. If he is a shill for the oil companies, why would he do that? But even if he is wrong, and the models are correct, why should we impoverish ourselves and starve ourselves when we have technology that would allow us to adapt to the warmer temperatures.
It’s demonstrably the case that he has extensive ties to pilot money. That’s how he is funded.https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html
The contrarian narrative has slowly drifted from outright denial to minimisation. It’s a narrative and not substantive.
Actually the economy benefits from investment in ecological solutions. Economists have known this for some time. The cost of do nothing in monetary terms is more than actually dpijg something. This is reflected in the fact that coal in the US is dead, no one wants to invest in it.
The notion that tech can be a panacea for rapidly increasing temperature is silly. Some of the effects of the temperature changes will be drastic including for example large sea level rises as ice melts.
And all the climate change promoters are funded by huge grants from the government and industries that produce green products or energies. And if they want more than one grant their study better show that the earth is warming and humans are the cause.
Coal is not dead, but it might be if the Brandon Administration has its way. Investment in ecology pays off when private investors do the investing, because there are profits to be earned. When the government does it by heavy subsidies, it’s a money loser and not worthwhile. As for Roy Spencer, his calculations are more than likely open to all to examine and replicate. But even other measurements show the models are wrong. Note, too, the models are a series of iterations over time, so the error bands on the models get wider and wider over time, rendering the forecasts meaningless. Finally, to reiterate what I said earlier, we are going to be much better allowing technologies of adaptation to progress rather than trying to mitigate warming, which I doubt we can, and which will lead us down the path to impoverishment and starvation.
@ttucker99
Research grants dint predicate an outcome they are neutral and the green energy lobby has been miniscule compared to the oil lobby. That’s an absurd notion and one that you can’t actually demonstrate.
@jackinsilverspring
Coal is dead because private investment sees zero future in it. It has no growth potential it has nothing to do with the Biden administration
I’ve already provided a link that demonstrates spencers article to be complete crap. And no there aren’t other studies supporting his position unless you count his last failed attempt at the same thing.
With respect to forecasting sure they have error bars giving upper and lower limits is true but to say that makes them meaningless is nonsensical besides which the models have already been validated by actual peer reviewed studies when compared with real world data. And let’s be honest out real world experience has been recording breaking temperatures practically year on year. Your asking normal people to disbelieve the evidence of there eyes AND the science.
Your final point is silly, because the contrarian lobby you support actively go against green tech. Your simultaneous trying to pretend the issue isn’t serious whilst saying a solution you don’t want is the answer and won’t accept pulling your finger out your arse because you can’t be bothered.
Great article that highlights the real problem with the models; the lack of accuracy in the temperature both predicted in the future and their inaccuracy when measured against historical data. When the models can’t reliably match the historical temperature data their predictive ability should be rejected.
Unfortunately for decades public policy has been made using flawed models. This is slowly changing as the general public gains awareness of the flaws. The example of the Michael Mann hockey stick chart being the most prominent. Hopefully the libel case brought by Mann v Mark Steyn will put the final dagger into the heart of the hockey stick. Good articles on this and on other climate/ net zero Cray Cray at Manhattan Contrarian.
I spent a lot of years building econometric models to forecast sales. It’s quite common to inject “dummy variables” to make the model fit reality, especially when there is some kind of shock to the economy (think Arab oil embargo or COVID).
If a knowledgeable modeler were to dig into these climate models, I’m sure that he (she) would see that the climate alarmists had tweaked their models to conform to their apriori assumptions.
Simple as that.
Except the models are peer reviewed , there are lots of different models modelling different scenarios and real world data according to peer reviewed studies shows them to be accurate. The roy spencer article isn’t even peer reviewed and has numerous errors and issues. It appears that you are baselessly dismissing models based on your own biases and assumptions
Peer reviewed, schmeer reviewed. Bull crap. As we have repeatedly seen, the ‘peer review’ process is oftentimes a circle jerk held in a fever-dream echo chamber.
Being ‘peer reviewed’ does not mean a study is correct, or as we have seen, in a very high percentage of the time it doesn’t even mean its results can be repeated.
Peer reviewed does not equal scientifically rigorous.
Actually peer reviewed does mean that scientifically a standard has been applied. A standard which is a hell of a lot higher than an article by a hack for a political non scientific organisation. You seem to be applying a higher standard to the actual science vs the “science” that suits your poorly thought out narrative.
BartE — You’re sadly naïve. The peers are just as biased as the folks who created the models.
The models purport to predict things >40 years out. NO ONE today will be around to validate that the models predicted accurately. Yet billions of dollars are being spent on policies that might—or might not—have any meaningful impact.
Trust me sir, if you tried that crap in the private sector, you’d be bye-bye … and deservedly so.
What lol they are climate scientists interested in good science. Your trying to assert biases without actually demonstrating anything.
The early models have already been demonstrated to have accurately predicted the temperature curve https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
The private sector is already on board with climate change hence why insurance companies have increased premiums or cancelled insurance in florida why companies heavily invest in green tech. The economic trends for green tech growth for out strip oil and gas
This is the ‘black swan’ effect. Predictive models only consider those variables that the modelers think of. When trying to predict the future for complex systems it is impossible to account for everything. This is why models may look to be highly accurate for a long time, until something unexpected occurs. For example, the most widely used credit score in the finance industry was highly predictive as a measure of someone’s propensity to repay their debts. It’s performance was stellar for decades, right up until the 2008 financial crisis occurred when suddenly it ‘broke.’ The modelers had never considered the fact that people would simply walk away from their homes. Derp.
This is a silly argument. The climate is pretty well understood comparing opaque financial tools with climate science is apples to oranges. Your argument appears to be just in case we are wrong let’s not apply the brakes even though the evidence is we will hit a building. It’s just silly
The idea that one can model something as complex as the earth’s climate with a degree of precision that allows for minute predictions decades into the future is just plain stupid.
Your argument appears to be just in case we’re right, let’s destroy the global economy and relegate several billion people to poverty, killing hundreds of millions in the process.
And no, credit scores are not ‘opaque financial tools.’ They are highly regulated by the government, with banking and insurance industry regulators / actuaries examining them for accuracy and bias on a regular basis. The data upon which they are based is highly normalized, extensive and well understood in the industry (consumer credit reporting databases).
Who said anything about credit scores lol. I was talking about the sub prime mortgages etc. Instuments that packaged debt in such a way that no one knew where the debt actually was
My post, to which you responded, specifically mentioned credit scores, you f*cking idiot.
@ Paul
It’s embarrassing that you don’t understand what is ment by sub prime mortgages in context of 2008s financial crisis.
One good sign that they’ve tweaked their models to conform to the assumptions is when they won’t release their data and/or their code.
The models have already been demonstrated to accurately reflect the temperature curves we have seen https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Climate change policies benefit the economy so your argument is incoherent. Why do you think places like China heavily invest in solar and wind. Sure its great from a green perspective but it also makes a shit ton of money
The data has been manipulated, this has been demonstrated repeatedly. Crap in, crap out. And as I stated earlier, these models are crude toys when compared to the complexity of the earth. Just because they’ve been fudged to ‘fit’ some tiny period of time does not really mean crap in the large scheme of things.
And seriously? China? They’re building coal powered power plants at a feverish pace.
Pro tip: go spew your nonsense somewhere else. You’re tiresome. Idiot.
@paul
No paul the data has been made comparable which contrarians like to pretend is somehow magically invalid even though the raw data sets make the temperature curve look worse.
Just because your ignorant on the subject and doesn’t mean actual experts don’t have a pretty good understanding of climate systems.
Lol China building coal plants for energy security doesn’t negate the fact they still have the largest solar and wind capacity does it. You really need to learn to think through your comments.
Models need accurate data. Currently 30% of the NOAA long-term temperature stations are ghosts. They have been retired and all the data is estimated.
In order to predict 1 single degree rise over a century, you would need evenly spaced temperature stations equally spaced across the globe (including the oceans) operating for 100 years. And, those stations must record temperature to within a hundredth of a degree.
Even then, an unexpected solar maximum or a Krakatoa level volcanic event will sink your forecast. However, if you predict 100 years into the future, you won’t be around to see how wrong you were.
The average NOAA temperature station covers and area in excess of 12,000 square miles in size.
Now, I can look at the weather stations around town on any given day and see that the temperature from one end of town to the other may vary by 3-5 degrees. Rain may fall on my house but not on my neighbor. Weather is highly localized,
So the idea that they can accurately calculate the ‘average global temperature’ on any given day right now is preposterous on it’s face. Anyone who knows anything at all about telemetry data collection over large areas understands this.
The idea that they can predict the temperature 100 years into the future is outrageously retarded. The only people who will claim this are stupid climate cult zealots or Marxist tyrants who are trying to steal your liberty and your money.
And the idea that that can prescribe that predicted rise to some specific variable is so retarded that the people spewing this nonsense should be committed to a mental institution.
Dude this is an article, published by non scientific political organisation. Actual peer reviewed studies come to exactly the opposite conclusion. It’s entertaining to watch the pretzel like logic in action
Contrarians: it doesn’t matter that all the peer reviewed research debunks our position
Also contrarians: look at this one article written by a hack it proves us right.
Dude no one who isn’t already in your cult is buying your BS. The models do not accurately reflect temperature data. Not historically and not currently.
Your cult of climate has swapped thr coming ice age in the ’70s for catastrophic global warming that will melt the polar caps causing coastal areas globally to be covers by the rising oceans. When neither of those alarmist predictions panned out nor any of the ‘we only have X years or until X date’ or we all gonna die BS materialized y’all started losing members and interest.
I get that y’all need the govt $ and corporate $ to fund the grift which is why y’all shifted gears to ‘climate change’. No kidding, the Earth’s climate absolutely does change. We are in a natural warming period following the little ice age.
In my lifetime, I have seen at least a dozen or so “tipping points” and various other predictions come and go, but the cult leaders keep making them and cultists like BartE keep believing them.
In my lifetime I’ve seen plenty of contrarians pretend and misconstrue what the science says as well as conflating journalism with science as if they are the same thing.
Your the one in a cult mate, it’s demonstrably the case that actual peer reviewed papers show the temperature record to match the models. Your rather creduliusly assuming Spencer who’s a complete hack writing an article has any credibility.
What lol are you seriously conflating journalist articles about ice ages which you clearly have taken out of context and never understood with being somekind of argument. Oh dear.
Oh and rhe predictions or climate science has largely been accurate, sea levels are rising that why soem areas of florida can’t get insurance.
Government grants funds research not the person. The corporate interest is with contrarians. Are you really that gullible?
You have zero evidence that we are in a natural warming cycle precisely because those cycles don’t match the temperature curves that have been shown nor would things like solar activity explain ocean acidification.
Tell me can you find any peer reviewed papers that actually make your argument. I’ll wait
Nope the nitty gritty predictions were wrong. The amount of sea rise was wrong. The amount of temperature rise was wrong. The timeline for both was wrong. Formulating public policy requires far more accuracy and transparency of the models and their methodology. Your boy Mann and his hockey stick are finding that out this week in court.
No one, not me anyhow, doubts the temperature is increasing as we move out of the little ice age. Why would we doubt a natural cycle of cooling then heating then cooling and on and on throughout not only the historical written record but shown by archeology and fossil records? The question is how much, is it accelerating or decelerating, for how long? Then we need to know how the natural cycles impact it such as decreased solar activity created the Maunder Minimum. Can’t make policy on human impacts until we understand what % is unquestionably from human actions AND how much of that is in excess of what the Earth’s natural cycle can handle. If it doesn’t exceed that point no worries.
You can yell the TREND all you like to somehow convince yourself the models hold any predictive value. Unless they can accurately predict shorter term changes accurately we can’t formulate a response, assuming that a response is required or feasible.
If the same folks yelling about the end of the world were not also largely the same folks who blocked Nuclear power and are now blocking Natural Gas and Hydropower I might be more willing to listen. Unfortunately your fellow travelling ‘watermelons’ (GREEN on the outside RED in the middle) seem far more interested in destroying modernity than actually caring about the environment. Cast out the Marxists and socialists and you might be taken more seriously.
It doesn’t help that the public face of the climate cult is composed of celebrities and washed up politicians who have amply demonstrated they can’t be expected to stop using fossil fuels or downsize their lifestyle. Hard to sell the average person on the idea of the WEF’s 15 minute city and a subscription or paying rent for every item v ownership. We view it as no more than reheated Malthusian nonsense.
@Commochief
Good grief to believe your own bs 😂
I’ve already demonstrated that the climate model temperature predictions are accurate, the article cited here has been debunked. Your just wrong
Sea level rises are continuing, you asserting some mind numbingly dumb silly statement like a 12 old year old spoiled brat that they are ‘wrong’ is the silliest thing I’ve heard all day given the fact that a) ice loss is really high and b) the sea level rise has already been measured
As for Mann in court he is the one seeking damages for his name being defamed.
Read this very carefully. Natural cycles do NOT match what we observe in the data. It simply is not scientifically credible to say natural cycles are responsible for the temperature curve.
Do better
BartE,
You haven’t proven or demonstrated jack shit.
Tell you what show me a climate model in which every naturally occurring process that impacts climate is included. Of course all of these processes would have have to first have a proven without a doubt measured amount of impact. Release all the raw data of how these processes were selected, why any potential for greater or lesser impact was eliminated. Give us the methodology and the data showing how they built the model. Release any ties to any govt or group or industry by the researchers so we can determine for ourselves if the researchers are biased.
IOW provide the public the tools necessary to replicate it. Then run that model v historical record. If it is not in 100% alignment with the record for whatever it is measuring to the same decimal place the study is wrong.
No partial credit b/c it manages to show the same trend line especially when the amount of change is so far off.
You can troll us all you want. Your ad hominem attacks and poor salesmanship is not convincing anyone. You must convince folks like me in order to have any further impact on policy. You do understand that waving your so called proof and yelling trend is just sky screaming until you get the bulk of the folks outside the blue bastions to buy into your arguments? Maybe you don’t. Either way until we are are convinced we won’t participate in the Cosplay.
Damn right I’ve proven my point and its telling that you can’t respond with anything meaningful. All you’ve done is deflect from that.
Your points are absurd, you seem to have a nonsensical view of how any of this works. Creating a giant gish gallop fallacy interwoven with your own ignorance isn’t much of an argument. The FACT is that the climate models accurately predict the temperature trend no amount of hand waving on your part changes that no matter how much you wish to naively belief roy soencers debunked article over peer reviewed confirmation of the models. And to make matters worse you simply cannot explain the temperature curve using natural variability. If you actually knew anything about those variables you’d know that they a) don’t fit the curve or/and b) don’t explain other observations like ocean acidification.
You simply don’t have anything to offer in rebuttal do you.
There is no scientific “consensus” on the issue. If there was, it wouldn’t matter. That’s not how science is done. Models prove nothing. They merely demonstrate how a theory may work, not that it does work in the real world. The IPCC itself says its reports shouldn’t be used for “planning” purposes.
The models themselves are flawed, and the researchers know it. The original version of the “Climate Models” bar chart (above) lists 36 different climate models. The proliferation of climate models demonstrates that no research group has faith in the accuracy of the models being used by any other group, meaning that the “consensus” of the research community is that their models are not reliable.
Roy spencer has written an article that’s utter crap for numerous reasons https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
It’s an article and not peer reviewed and that alone should raise a red flag for you. That’s vs actual studies which show that the climate models accurately predict real world data. That is just fact for example. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
Your point about there being numerous models is nonsensical. Modelling requires making underlying assumptions about future events and trends therefore there are bound to be multiple scenarios and methodologies looking at the issues.
“Actual peer reviewed studies come to exactly the opposite conclusion.”
Really? All of them? There are no peer-reviewed studies to the contrary?
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
The classic contrarian gish gallop. Pretending a list of peer reviewed papers deny climate change. Firstly it’s littered with letters and articles, secondly many if the papers are on specific topics and don’t actually say anything of the sort about ‘climate change being wrong’. Indeed the first one I chose to look athttps://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v23/n1/p1-9/ states that its only with respect to the more conservative scenarios not that climate science is wrong. You should really check your sources better
List of rebuttals (starting at this link) to complaints identical to yours:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#list97%
BTW, you’re an absolute marvel having already reviewed all 1300+ articles and being able to conclude within a few minutes that’s they’re all “gish gallop.”
Funny, a little while ago you were contending that there were no contrary peer-reviewed papers at all. That’s an astounding feat there – no papers went to 1300+ and all without a brain freeze. Cognitive dissonance much?
Oh, and ad hominem attacks – check!
Roy Spencer, “hack”:
Ph.D. in meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (where he received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites).
NASA’s U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite
Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
That’s some “hack.”
@daveginoly
The rebuttals you cite are neither identical to my claims or well thought out. For example it appears to pretend the contrarian position is that climate models lower band of clinate sensitivity is THE skeptic position whereas in reality as evidenced by this very thread the position is of outright denial. It also pretends that all criticism of the list have been rebutted when it’s patently obvious that many of the papers don’t actually support the contrarian positions
The contrarian position has always been antithetical to reason, logic and good science so when the sample of studies looked at verify this I’m not going to credit the source with anything other than being typical of a contrarian source. It’s a crap source. Do better
@daveginoly
Oh BTW the whole point of a gish gallop is to present to much stuff to verify esch and every claim. That’s the whole point of the fallacy. You don’t seem to understand that basic point. So instead of providing me with 1300 papers that a random shit website claims proves the point provide me with 1. That would do fine thanks. Of course that would require you to actual resd the peer review papers, let’s see if my cynicism is justified.
“…it’s littered with letters and articles, secondly many if the papers are on specific topics and don’t actually say anything of the sort about ‘climate change being wrong’.”
“The rebuttals you cite are neither identical to my claims or well thought out.”
If fact, these specific objections of yours are answered in the rebuttals. The “letters and articles” are not counted in the number of peer-reviewed articles. Including “letters and articles” in what is a bibliography has no impact on the number of peer-reviewed articles in same, nor upon their quality. Also, some journals publish peer-reviewed articles but call them “letters.” Only these “letters” are included in the count articles that are peer-reviewed. There are at least two rebuttals dedicated to these complaints alone.
There are several rebuttals to your claim, and variations thereof, that many articles don’t support “climate change being wrong.” But that is not what the list purports to present. It presents articles that support skepticism concerning of the official “climate change” narrative. For instance, an article that supports 0.5 degrees C change per century doesn’t say “climate change is wrong,” but it is counter to more extreme claims supported by the official narrative.
If you had actually read the rebuttals, you would have known 1.) that your specific claims were rebutted; 2.) that “letters and articles” weren’t counted in the claimed 1300+ peer-reviewed papers in the bibliography; and 3.) that the collection is not presented as “papers that deny climate change.” You clearly did not read the material. I can only imagine (but don’t need to) that many of your other statements are similarly pulled out of your hat (to put it politely).
Responding here since this site cant cope with reply more than a few times apparently.
“If fact, these specific objections of yours are answered in the rebuttals. ”
No they are not, but we will get to that later.
The “letters and articles” are not counted in the number of peer-reviewed articles. Including “letters and articles” in what is a bibliography has no impact on the number of peer-reviewed articles in same, nor upon their quality. Also, some journals publish peer-reviewed articles but call them “letters.” Only these “letters” are included in the count articles that are peer-reviewed. There are at least two rebuttals dedicated to these complaints alone.
This smacks of ‘Trust me bro’ – contrarian sources frankly lack any credibility. Decades of continuously misrepresenting, lies, distortions etc don’t exactly add up to being credible sources, and as I pointed out I doubt anyone has gone through and checked the validity of the bibliography. I refer to issues with this approach later.
“There are several rebuttals to your claim, and variations thereof, that many articles don’t support “climate change being wrong.” But that is not what the list purports to present. It presents articles that support skepticism concerning of the official “climate change” narrative. For instance, an article that supports 0.5 degrees C change per century doesn’t say “climate change is wrong,” but it is counter to more extreme claims supported by the official narrative.”
No, this is a poorly thought out response. Climate science and the climate change narrative includes a number of scenarios all projecting increased temperature trends based on the notion that a) natural variability doesnt explain the temp curves and b) that human activity is the primary cause. A paper that supports that narrative, even where on the more optimistic scenarios doesn’t support the contrarian position despite the claims of the opposite. As I pointed out the papers I looked at actually supported the climate change narrative and not the contrarian position which is further evidence of the poor quality of this source.
If you had actually read the rebuttals, you would have known 1.) that your specific claims were rebutted; 2.) that “letters and articles” weren’t counted in the claimed 1300+ peer-reviewed papers in the bibliography; and 3.) that the collection is not presented as “papers that deny climate change.” You clearly did not read the material. I can only imagine (but don’t need to) that many of your other statements are similarly pulled out of your hat (to put it politely).
‘Trust me bro’ isn’t much of an arguement against my point that its a giant gish gallop is it. You seem not to understand what that means. Your making massive assumptions about the specific papers listed which as I’ve pointed out when doing a sense check did not actually live up to the expectation at all.
Further the way the site is set up is garbage in garbage out. It states the criteria for inclusion for example is merely being a skeptic or purportedly being on the skeptic side. There is no quality control or methodology for removing out of date papers, or papers that are methodologically not good. This includes issues with rebuttal papers, the lack of quality control means that papers that have been widely panned are still listed. Of course at a contrarian site it never actually acknowledges that instead pretending that all contrarian papers are somehow immune to scrutiny. You might as well have a giant sign saying this site is trash on it. The literature moves on which is why many of the cites supposed rebuttals are frankly scientifically illiterate. Do better
Oh it gets worse haha. It’s laden with misrepresentations and falsehoods.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/spencers-shenanigans/
If the climate change alarmism is the bedtime story you need to help you get to sleep …go right ahead. Leave the rest of us out of your Cosplay.
Is that really the best you can look childish comments? What are you a teenager? You seem to take facts rather badly
I ain’t the one who predicted an ICE Age, or rising sea levels swamping coastal areas or the polar caps melting or host other failed predictions from your side of the debate.
I ain’t trying to convince you my boy. Quite the contrary you need to convey me along with a sufficient number of US Citizens to voluntarily make huge lifestyle changes to combat ‘climate change’. Also gonna need to convince China, India and most of Africa not to aim for modern Western standards of living. Good luck with proselytizing to those very non receptive audiences by telling them they can’t have sufficient electricity. Heck good luck dealing with the coming revolt in the UK as they figure out how badly mismanaged the net zero nonsense was implemented based on faulty assumptions and ….flawed models. Seems to be a pattern.
If you want to be a retard and destroy your standard of living, you go right ahead. Don’t expect the rest of us to come along with you. It’s been a fraud forever and it’s finally been pointed out and it’s finally been pointed out in a method that even the slowest communist idiot like you can look at the graph and see it.
@ commochief
It’s pretty obvious you have no idea what those predictions actually were and who made them. It’s quite funny watching you demonstrate how ignorant you are on the subject.
Ice age https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Sea levels are rising, and ice in both caps are melting that’s just fact. The question is to what degree https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/#:~:text=December%202023%20compared%20to%20previous%20years&text=Based%20on%20the%20linear%20trend,times%20the%20size%20of%20Texas.
The answer being about 2m sq km since the 70s
The fact is thatvyouve bought into a contrarian narrative that hasn’t got any substance. It’s foundation is misrepresentations, lies, and dogma
China etc have already set climate goals the question is whether that’s enough. So the very substance of your question is silly
Simply take a page from the transgender movement. Use directed technology to heat the planet in order that it may conform to the cherished belief.
Worse than that, the blue line (observations) on the graph is not going up nearly as much as it shows due to faked adjustments in the data and ‘phantom’ temp monitoring stations that don’t actually exist but for which data is extrapolated and entered into the record. Practically all of the real temp rise in the last century falls inside the standard error rate of the measurement, but that doesn’t earn billions of dollars for the climate scammers.
The models aside, I still can’t get anybody to tell me what the “correct” global temperature is. If somebody does answer I’ll want to know how they arrived at that figure.
“The correct global temperature is what I say it is when I say it is. How much more clearer do I have to be? Now, can I have another $450 billion to continue my research?”
The very fact that the models are wrong means that they must be rejected. Paraphrasing Richard Feynman, no matter how elegant your theory is, if it doesn’t agree with reality, it must be rejected. I should add that the models are more wrong than they appear. The models mis-model whole regions. They run hotter in the Southern hemisphere and cooler in the Northern hemisphere. Furthermore, based on these faulty models, Western governments are spending gobs of money on promoting technologies that will impoverish us. Finally, anyone dissenting from the “consensus” is labeled anti-science (the same technique used in the Wu-flu debates). It appears that the dissenters are the ones who are right, and the consensus is wrong.
“…anyone dissenting from the “consensus” is labeled anti-science (the same technique used in the Wu-flu debates).”
I suspect that the ferocity of the defense of the pandemic/vaxx narrative was due in part to fear that its collapse could lead to the collapse of the “climate change” narrative, as people recognize the parallels in the tactics and techniques used by the supporters of both. They are the same scam. Fear this. Trust us. Do what we say. Give us more money and control. Don’t do your own research. Your safety is more important than your liberty. Rely on only “approved” authorities. Contrarians are poopie-heads.
Dave, you’re exactly right.
The whole “man-caused global warming” theory was always a scam, just like global cooling was a scam, and the man-caused hole in the ozone layer was a scam.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
“A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.”
H.L. Mencken
Watts Up With That posts pictures of temperature monitoring stations fairly often. They’re often surrounded by concrete/asphalt and buildings. The data is supposedly adjusted to account for such things, but I’m skeptical given that the so-called climate scientists routinely lie, e.g. the CRU, Mann’s nonsense graph, etc.
If the sky is not eminently falling the funding dries up.
“Climate models overestimate observed warming over the past 50 years by 43%” Off by 43%?? Wow. That greatly exceeds the “error” category, and falls squarely in the “whopping lie” area. It is becoming difficult to distinguish actual “science” from “political science.”
Being off by that much just tells me that these people don’t have a grasp on what they are estimating and that they’re confirming what they’re paymasters want to hear. Governments, NGO, etc. all have an outcome in mind when granting these “scientists” money.
Settled science???
As Col. Potter would say, “Horse hockey!”
There is, in fact, such a thing as “settled science.” “Settled science” are those theories that have been falsified. A theory only need be falsified once to be proven invalid.
Note that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is over 100 years old, yet it is still tested by scientists who believe it might yet be falsified. Science, not even 100-year-old “accepted” science, isn’t “settled” until it’s proven invalid.
It’s looking more and more like the theory of “anthropogenic climate change due to the emission of greenhouse gases” has been “settled.” Like many invalidated theories, many adherents will continue to cling to it, some unto the grave (or at least until the money dries up).
The thing that annoys most about all this is that when you look at that jagged line, be it the overestimated or the accurate there is no glaring announcement that one is looking at tenths of ONE degree.
One.
These are not wild oscillations. They are ‘rises’ in temperature that you are physically incapable of noticing.
AND they are occurring when you would notice them least.
Microscopically warmer winters. In both hemispheres.
Save us.
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree (C) rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.”
Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University
The chart shown in the article starts both measurements at the same point (-0.4 deg C) and 50 years later the measured is a 0.3 C (my interpolation of the chart on a computer screen) and the model’s prediction is at 0,6 C. All in all the total increase in temp is 1 deg C . [-0,4 to +0.6, worse case]
Big whoop!
I’ve done traffic accident reconstruction and one unofficial rule is that no one should go to jail for 5mph. We round all calculations to the lower whole number to avoid unwarranted appearance of precision. You don’t get tenths from calculations where the original data is distance paced by the officer and data from the manufacturer’s website.
All this effort at fractions of a degree, F or C, is nothing more than implying an accuracy that is not supported by fact. If they worked in whole numbers there would be almost no change noted.
There appears to be a growing body of science that the Sun is entering a cooling period.
This means that global politicians must get Climate Change plans together before the cooling kicks in, else they won’t get any credit for saving humanity.
Climate models: very good at backcasting, notoriously bad at forecasting.
Only good at Hein casting when they go back and alter the older data sets. This they have done repeatedly trying to quote unquote correct nearly Century old measurements. And I want to know how you managed to correct a measurement that’s a century old unless you’re borrowing doc Brown’s time machine
Flawed. Is there any other type of climate model?
Lucrative?
It just struck me: Wouldn’t the “climate change deniers” be the people who are trying to stop the climate from changing?
That would be a lost cause since the climate has been changing constantly for the last four and a half billion years
You know what? Over the time humans existed on this planet, when they continuously experienced climate change, I believe their response was always adapt to the given reality. I don’t think at any time in the past, the answer was to collect more tax money so the government could fund more studies, or reward those authors who’s studies help their position with a bigger piece of the grant pie.
I will listen to the bankers and actuaries. When they stop lending for beach front property because of the risk of “the rising tide”, maybe then I will give the loosely defined “climate change” some more thought.
That + watch wait the prominent proponents do in their own lives v what they say. When the folks at the WEF, the celebrity mouthpieces and the washed up politicians like John Kerry adjust their own lifestyle and stop flying, junk their HVAC, go off grid using solar and wind, use a bicycle for transportation and sell their soon to flooded coastal estates….then I will become more concerned. Not until then.
The warming earth after the last glacial period caused rising sea levels forcing early Native Americans living along the coasts of North America to move inland as the sea encroached on their villages. They blamed the gods. We blame ourselves because we’re the gods now.
For decades, a principal not heeded, GIGO garbage in, garbage out. This applies in all areas of the world.
First off, the “observed temperatures” in graphs like that of ground observations – which have been modified for some 25 years now to show a warming trend, are a complete fraud. Satellite data proves it.
Then, the models. There have been hundreds. Typically, they show that for a linear increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere there will be an exponential growth in global temperatures. Here, in reality, CO2 blew past the IPCC’s predicted “point of no return” of 360 PPM and kept climbing and the effect on temperatures was either zero or so small that no one’s ever been able to measure it.
If you want all of those computer models to actually match global temperatures, all you have to do is set the CO2 effect to zero.
Insane that anyone ever believed the 360 ppm nonsense to begin with, given that everyone already knew that this planet had experienced millions of years with CO2 above 2,000 ppm and the atmosphere never “boiled off” as the alarmists predict.
we allow lefty to control these narratives and so they keep winning
the climate has been changing from day 1
its their lefty solutions which is to stay in power by flipping our monetary system upside down and shifting the energy power structure as the laundering of their agenda
take back the schools and the left will collapse
PAY TEACHERS DIRECTLY
NO MORE UNIONS etc
I see the cultist is still telling us that “The End Is Nigh”. The End has been peer reviewed by other cultists, so it must be true! And those cultists are just dedicated to The Science™️ and would never, ever, ever doing anything untoward with the data. Integrity thy name is the climate cult.
I’m old enough to remember the “Coming of the ICE AGE”! What happened to that one?? I’m 71 and I recall years when it was so cold in OCTOBER that it kept the hootchie cootchie girls from appearing out front at the County Fair! When I was a kid it was COLD – REALLY COLD from Oct – mid March! I do believe we were at the apex of the “ICE AGE” during my HS years and early 70’s and THEN – whoosh! Global Warming! Go back and look at the CYCLE!
The elites wanted more money to fund fighting the cooling,, then ozone hole, global warming, then because we had some really cold winters and people started questioning how the warming was responsible for more hurricanes, severe storms, hail the size of softballs all of which was going to decimate the planet within ten years.the warming moniker changed to climate change. Besides what all of our ancestors lived through, how exactly are we defining climate change. After all, Death Valley has aquatic fossils found there, now that’s climate change, it must have been recognized and any population moved to other locations or adapted before the change finished.
the GCM use outdated estimates of warming from GHGs
thanks to CERES we now have direct observational evidence of GHG warming
but as it turns out, the longwave GHG contributions is very small, and nearly all the warming since 2000 was instead driven by changes in the shortwave radiative budget — by daytime cloud cover, in other words
have not yet seen a good cloud-prediction model but this is where research efforts should focus
reasonable people might still accept an ECS as high as 0.7 per doubling but the 2-9 degree scenarios at IPCC are just absurd
I’m replying here because replies are cut off below. I read the criticism of Spencer in your link to Realclimate, and I think they’re off-base. Yes, the climate models have a spread. He was comparing the satellite record to the average. Secondly over time, those error bands on the models get so wide they will encompass almost any actual temperatures, even cooling temperatures. Furthermore, Realclimate pulls a fast one by changing the metric from the UAH satellite record to the GISS surface record. One glaring difference between the two is that GISS does not cover the poles, but UAH does. Another glaring difference is that GISS simply cannot cover the entire earth. There are large swaths of the earth where there are no temperature recordings; GISS interpolates those missing areas. UAH doesn’t have to. Also the siting of surface temperatures is often in urban area in airports. Such areas are prone to the notorious urban heat island effect. Finally, there was a change at some point from mercury glass thermometers to metal electronic thermometers. The latter are much more sensitive to temperature extremes than mercury glass thermometers, and have tended to show higher average temperatures. The satellite data do not have that defect. So, at the end of the day I think Professor Spencer is correct, and that the models are giving faulty forecasts that must be rejected.
The climate issue led me to an alternate way of checking.
Unrelated sources.
Unrelated sources are people who are checking the same data for different reasons.
Like harbormasters. Harbormasters are acutely aware of sea levels–because they have to get ships in and out safely. They tell a very different story from Bart and his IPCC cultists.
Sea ice? Fishermen. Particularly crab fishermen who use the ice edge as a good fishing spot. While the alarmists were screaming about ice free north poles, the fishermen were cheering record (to them) sea ice.
And this kind of thing is everywhere.
Want to know the state of the global temperature? Pick 20 places, ten in the north, ten in the south all around the globe. Check commuter weather reports. Best is to check the day prior because that’s updated to what it actually was rather than a forecast.
None of these is looking for climate change data, but all are looking at the same data. Except these sources can’t lie. Because it could, in some cases, kill someone.