We all have those acquaintances or maybe family members that have drunk the Kool-Aid about a Climate Catastrophe. The ones who seriously believe the nonsense that it's a critical, problem and the world is going to end in 10 years or whatever we're down to. Admittedly, most True Believers aren't going to believe what I'm going to show you. There might, however, be people you talk with who are more data-driven and this will be like putting a pebble in their mental shoe. They'll have to pay attention to it.
This graphic is from Dr. Roy Spencer, posted at Watts Up With That and at his own blog. For those who don't know Dr. Spencer, here's his bio page. What this shows is the predicted sea surface temperature trends predicted by 13 different CMIP6 climate models that were run 68 different times. Those are plots in the various colors, behind the bolder, black line. The black line is 42 years of measured data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Clearly, for most of the plots, starting around 1992, the CMIP6 models dramatically over predict the temperature rise.
If you're not familiar with this sort of plot, the Y-axis is the temperature anomaly, stated as the difference between the 1979-1983 average and the measured or predicted data, plotted per year. Dr. Spencer concludes that the real warming is half of the model predictions, but the model predictions are spread out over a wide band. The latest observation (right end of the black curve) is approximately 0.3C warmer than the 1979 start of these series, while the predictions range from one lower than the measured temperature at 0.1C to 1.5C higher.
Dr. Spencer is a reasonable scientist, he admits there are things he doesn't know and more.
Last words to Dr. Spencer:
This graphic is from Dr. Roy Spencer, posted at Watts Up With That and at his own blog. For those who don't know Dr. Spencer, here's his bio page. What this shows is the predicted sea surface temperature trends predicted by 13 different CMIP6 climate models that were run 68 different times. Those are plots in the various colors, behind the bolder, black line. The black line is 42 years of measured data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Clearly, for most of the plots, starting around 1992, the CMIP6 models dramatically over predict the temperature rise.
Dr. Spencer is a reasonable scientist, he admits there are things he doesn't know and more.
A related issue is how much the deep oceans are warming. As I have mentioned before, the (inarguable) energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 Watt per sq. m) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.That's the big issue we're facing: the reliance on models that don't match measured data and a reluctance to actually do the work to test a model. The data is often hard to measure and truly global. Just what does global average temperature even mean and how can it possibly be measured with the accuracy?
This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.
What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.
I’m not claiming that is the case. I am merely pointing out the level of faith that is involved in the adjustments made to climate models, which necessarily produce warming due to increasing CO2 because those models simply assume that there is no other source of warming.
Last words to Dr. Spencer:
Why does it matter?There's no reason to spend trillions of dollars on the climate. That will create real suffering and buy nothing good.
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
The deep oceans are warming? SHOCK! HORROR! It MUST n=be man made warming that is somehow not warming the surface water but somehow bypasses that to go literally miles under the ocean to warm the deep water.
ReplyDeleteThere can be no other explanation ... or is there?
https://www.iceagenow.info/the-mid-ocean-ridge-is-the-most-extensive-mountain-chain-on-earth/
https://www.iceagenow.info/massive-range-of-underwater-volcanoes-heating-the-worlds-oceans/
https://www.iceagenow.info/massive-range-of-underwater-volcanoes-heating-the-worlds-oceans/
Who would ahve estimated that Iceland would have produced one third of the lava ejected over the last 500 years (and it is at the Northern end of the underwater mid Atlantic mountain chain.
But surely sea level rise is caused my mankind and the Antarctic ice shet is meltingdue to evil mankind? Errr ... parhaps not. Just as Iceland is at the Northern end of the mid Atlantic ridge, Antarctica is at the Southern end and guess what is under all that ice?
https://www.iceagenow.info/at-least-138-volcanoes-buried-beneath-the-antarctic-ice-sheet/
The hubris of mankind and the Climate Change high priests is massive ...
Phil B
Who would have estimated that Iceland would have produced one third of the lava ejected over the last 500 years
DeleteThat's pretty cool. I wouldn't have thought of them, they're not a big island. Now I've got to find out where it is.
We need to get the UN more involved.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is - are the measured surface temperatures before or after NOAA cooked the books to always show warming?
ReplyDeleteSea Surface temperatures pre-2002 are the least reliable "global" temperature database. That's changed with the ARGO sensor network post 2002 but the chance that 1979 reported SST data is remotely accurate is basically zero.
ReplyDeleteWhich doesn't change the point of your (or Spencer's) post, but I wish he'd used one of the land data sets for more credibility.
If we can't replicate the Vikings settlements on Greenland where they had crops and cattle, and vineyards in North East Canada, they there is NO warming to be concerned with in the least! Warming my ass!
ReplyDeleteSo over 40 years, you have a 0.3° C. increase? Pfft.
ReplyDeleteUnder the heading, Lying With Graphs, that increase where an ENTIRE YEAR of 365 days 24 hours long each over a total surface area of 138,000,000 mi² is summarized into one single data point
could be explained by a few days a degree or two above normal, with most days most of the year being the exact same as the year before, creating no measurable effect or change...on anything.
We also have no idea how volcanic activity or deep currents affect those numbers.
We also have no idea how much changing levels of solar radiation and/or cloud cover affects those numbers.
You might as well try forecasting the earth's climate a century from now by measuring how hot the roof of my my car is for forty years, without knowing whether I moved to Buffalo or Phoenix, whether I parked indoors or out, or whether I painted it white or black.
This sort of "science" is entirely achieved by deep rectal mining by the proponents (probably of each other), to the elbow at least.
Next problem, please.
And BTW, for all we know (because of all the millenia with zero data), if that graph were stretched out over just 6,000+ years of recorded history, let alone the millenia alleged to be the time of human habitation on the planet, it could very well be that the entire line becomes essentially flat.
DeleteThis is why some "scientists" should be met in the parking lot after the lecture, and smartly beaten to a pulp with Louisville Sluggers, to acquaint them firsthand with the concept of "skin in the game".
I consider 0.3C over 40 years exceptionally well regulated. That must mean there are lots of feedback systems in operation to keep the temperature in a narrow window.
DeleteThey're not worth paying attention to until they can produce an array of predictions and proof that they can predict anything.
The models can't predict what clouds will do, and have never been able to.
Here's an article from 1958, where two scientists predicted a period of warming, followed by a prolong cooling period.
ReplyDeletehttps://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
And here's a recent one where a scientist is predicting that we're entering a new ice age (a "super grand solar minimum").
https://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/
I once attended a meeting as a team member wherein the PI showed a data set that appeared very much like a saturated amplifier: rising to a certain magnitude then leveling off (not saying this was the cause; not saying it isn't).
ReplyDeleteThis did not fit the linear model. The response? "We're developing an algorithm to adjust the data to fit the model."
It's amazing to note the correlation between results and funding.
SiG: you know of the organization of which I speak.
Sad ... and apparently an unstoppable attitude. Now add "diversity" to the mix.
Q