Shonky Climate Change Models By James Reed
With the COP27 talkfest of the elites in its second week, with climate fanatics falling over each other in mechanisms of social control. But, what if there is no climate change crisis at all? Then the fundamental premise underlying this debate will collapse. And that is what Dr Roy Spencer, a leading climatologist. He writes: “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.
Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections
Today’s example comes from global-average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project that explains global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s with a 1D climate model, I thought I would show you just how the observations are comparing to climate models simulations.”
So, if this is right, the entire climate change hysterics is simply wrong. I note that those who are critics of science reporting will simply allow dangers like climate change hysterics to continue.”
“Dr. Roy Spencer, a very well-known climatologist and global doom skeptic (not a climate change skeptic to my knowledge) posted this article on October 20th. It got little notice but the title here should have some influence on thinking humans. There are two key points you should know. First, Dr. Spencer was one of the main people involved in satellite temperature measurement and is currently the team leader for the top/only satellite-based microwave global temperature radiometers used by NASA. There is a rumor that he turned down the opportunity to be an astronaut, which I can’t believe because life is for living but whatever. There is no possibility that I can do his credentials justice so go to the link. Satellite temperature trends typically run lower than surface temperature trends for a variety of valid reasons. The point I’m making is that the surface temperature trends (blue bar on the left) are warming MORE than any other measurement. And by MORE, I mean a tiny, barely measurable bit more.
How is it possible that EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL predicts higher warming than observation. Climate science is one of the most gratuitously funded fields in the history of science. They get satellites, flights, conferences, an entire MASSIVE division of the United Nations, buildings, university departments, supercomputers, ridiculous paychecks, insane monetary awards, international recognition, television commercials…hugs from hot girls… on and on……
This is all money from government, taken from taxpayers and given to the brightest minds on the planet.
AND NOT A SINGLE GENIUS, AND THEY ARE GENIUSES, YOU CAN ASK THEM HERE, CAN FIGURE OUT THAT THEY effed UP!!!!!!
They literally, screwed the pooch. To be clear, Dr. Spencer is not the problem.
They have tweaked every measurement to make the OBSERVATIONS as hot as possible. Well, to be fair, they did miss the single best way to calculate temperature trends ever created in the history of climate science — posted right here on my blog. But they don’t want to copy from a lousy aeronautical engineer climate skeptic (admittedly who copied from an actual genius to make it work). They won’t touch an obvious regression method with more ACCURATE results than they have personally produced, even though it creates slightly HIGHER warming.
EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE MODEL IS RUNNING HOTTER THAN OBSERVATION
ALL OF THEM
YET WE BELIEVE THEY ARE ACCURATE IN PREDICTION A FULL CENTURY INTO THE FUTURE?
If your weather model predicted hurricanes weakening and driving straight to the arctic circle every single time, would you???
- Correct the observations?
- Fix the model?
For those of you who picked B. CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE JUST OUTPERFORMED AN ENTIRE 100 BILLION DOLLAR PER-YEAR INDUSTRY.”
Comments