I've written for years and years about how the Climate Temperature Models seem hopelessly broken. So just how broken are they? This broken:
A major survey into the accuracy of climate models has found that almost all the past temperature forecasts between 1980-2021 were excessive compared with accurate satellite measurements. The findings were recently published by Professor Nicola Scafetta, a physicist from the University of Naples. He attributes the inaccuracies to a limited understanding of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), the number of degrees centigrade the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of carbon dioxide.
File this under "prediction is hard, especially about the future". Gosh, it almost seems like the climate system is massively chaotic and difficult to understand, or something ...
The paper groups dozens of models used in the CMIP 6 reference model into low, medium, and high ECS. Here are the four major temperature databases and their results against the three groupings:
The black lines are the actual temperatures; the yellow bands are the model's predicted temperatures. Notice that the actual temperatures have diverged outside the yellow predicted ranges (i.e. recorded actual temperatures are lower than predicted for all temperature data bases and all model groups). Long time readers know that I prefer the UAH satellite temperature record because (a) it is truly global and (b) it is only minimally adjusted. I have been vocal for a long time that adjustments to the other temperature records are excessive, and may be wildly excessive.
Let me emphasize here that the models have been wrong for 40 years.
There is another paper just out that corroborates Prof. Scafetta's results. In other words, the accepted scientific consensus for ECS is out of whack. Gosh, it seems like "Consensus Science" doesn't understand things as well as they tell us they do.
17 comments:
It's tough enough to get correct large scale weather data under favorable circumstances. It's impossible when those collecting the data have a nefarious
agenda to push.
The Climate Change-ists will just claim that all their activism, legislation and "green energy" projects have reduced the temperatures from what was projected.
After all, both they and "settled science" are never wrong - or so they claim.
Concur. UAH IS the most accurate.
People also need to remember that the folks in various positions, particularly government funded, WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. And the only way they can do it is rely on the most up-to-date buzzwords. Because the people who give them money are, by and large, dumb as posts concerning the science they oversee.
What's worse, is some models us other model output as "data".
EVERYTHING said about supporting global warming can be proven false.
"Gosh, it almost seems like the climate system is massively chaotic and difficult to understand, or something ..."
How arrogant must we humans be--well, SOME humans, that is--that we can assume our knowledge of how the planetary ecology functions is so complete that we can launch reflecting chaff into space to deflect the sun's rays, in the name of "fixing" climate change?
Have they ever figured out how to model clouds? I've never heard they did.
Wake me up when they can do that.
People also need to remember that the folks in various positions, particularly government funded, WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS.
ProudHillbilly, yup.
How arrogant must we humans be--well, SOME humans, that is--that we can assume our knowledge of how the planetary ecology functions is so complete that we can launch reflecting chaff into space to deflect the sun's rays, in the name of "fixing" climate change?
Mike, yes, but many fine lunches and dinners will be enjoyed at conferences where they discuss precisely which chaff is most "Scientific".
Have they ever figured out how to model clouds? I've never heard they did.
Graybeard, nope. Clouds are too hard to model, so everybody uses fudge factors. If the fudge factors are close to actual climate impact then that's even better.
If you were as nasty and suspicious as I am, you might think that this is a big scam to get grant funding. Oh, wait ...
- Borepatch
It is all a giant scam. Everyone at the heart of it knows that. It's all about money.
This is the idolatrous religion of Environmentalism and little else.
MMCC is one of the biggest scams ever inflicted upon the world.
Also note that most of their "data" comes from improperly located "weather stations" or is just invented out of whole cloth! There are specific criteria for choosing a location for an accurate weather site. Many of them are located in parking lots or airport taxiways. Think there might be some external non-weather influences at either of those? And others simply do not exist, but are "calculated" from data from sites hundreds of miles from their alleged location!
To underline something matism says, I started diving into the whole climate change narrative back around '05, when I stumbled across Watts Up With That. Actually, I don't think the website was called that back then. Anthony Watts was doing his Surface Stations Project. It all started with him asking an interesting question. NOAA switched the way they finished the wood around their weather stations from whitewash to paint and he wondered if that would affect their readings.
It did.
Along the way, he recruited volunteers around the country to go find their surface station and photograph them for him. It turns out that over 90% of surface stations were not located properly. Instead of being in grassy fields some distance from anything, the official temperatures were taken over asphalt parking lots, near air conditioner heat dumps or places where jet exhaust could reach them. Civilization had encroached on them and NOAA had done nothing.
They just finished a 20 year update to it. Watts says, "it's even worse." It's at the Heartland Institute.
Like the others, I highly recommend the website;
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Also, the heartland website had a recent report about the condition of our weather stations.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/media-advisory-96-of-us-climate-data-is-corrupted
The short answer is that they're doing the modeling using corrupt data but that's OK because they use it to sell their programs.
Climate change is just more quasi-pseudo-science used by the rich and powerful to excuse them doing politically what they have always wanted to do since democratic principles and widespread ownership of firearms did away with their feudal monarchies a couple of centuries ago ... which is to cull us peons down to a pathetic obedient mass of wage-slaves who produce what they want but consume far fewer resources than we do now.
These people do not want to share the planet with the rest of us. And they are actively carrying out their plans to make sure they don't have to.
So the models are still warmer than the data, which has been "corrected" to show more warming than actually occurred.
It was never about science.
If CO2 is the enemy, Nuke plants are the solution. We haven't even proposed building one after 20+ years of this bullshit. Plus some countries like Germany are closing nuke plants (afraid of tsunamis?) and replacing them with coal plants.
If that doesn't tell you this climate story is bullshit nothing will.
Civilization had encroached on them and NOAA had done nothing.
Worse. NOAA Retired the stations in the big parks. In ,IIRC,in 1984 they announced they were relocating the stations to more convenient locations. Admitting the new locations would report higher temperatures, they SAID they would Adjust the temperatures down to make them accurate. That being scientifically impossible went right by everyone,, I guess.
Post a Comment