Surprise: Climate Models Vastly Overstate Actual Warming

Climate models have long been shown to be garbage. Among the many studies of varying degrees, one of the best was the most poignant was when Dr. Roy Spencer showed that 95% of the models were wrong. And then we have this

Climate Models Are Warming Earth Two Times Faster Than Reality

Climate models show twice as much warming during the 21st Century than what’s actually been observed, according to a new report highlighting the limitations of global climate models, or GCMs.

“So far in the 21st century, the GCMs are warming, on average, about a factor of 2 faster than the observed temperature increase,” Dr. Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech climate scientist who now runs her own climate forecasting company, wrote in a report for the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. (snip)

“The reason for the discrepancy between observations and model simulations in the early 21st century appears to be caused by a combination of inadequate simulations of natural internal variability and oversensitivity of the models to increasing carbon dioxide,” wrote Curry.

Climate models assume carbon dioxide is the control knob for average global temperature and fail to take into account “the patterns and timing of multidecadal ocean oscillations” and “future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate,” Curry explains.

It’s long been a case of making the output of the models match the preconceived notions of Warmist scientists. In actual science, if the data doesn’t fit, then the models and hypothesis must be wrong. When it comes to members of the Cult of Climastrology, they flip the notion, and simply change the data and force the models to give them the prognostications of doom they want.

But climate model problems predate the recent warming “pause.” Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute, have long criticized most climate models, which they say have not accurately predicted global temperature rises for the past six decades.

The models do not even work when you apply them to past warming (and said warming is utterly within the norm of a Holocene warm period).

Even the recent string of “record warm” years are below what most climate models predicted. A recent El Nino temporarily brought global average temperature in agreement with most climate models, but the globe is expected to cool in the coming years as the tropics cool.

Which, of course, prompts Warmists to trot out all sorts of Excuses, usually blaming nature. In their world, though, nature cannot cause the warming.

None of this matters to the Cult of Climastrology in the least: the movement is not about the climate, it’s about being anti-capitalist and creating massive centralized government that controls all aspects of people’s lives, private entities, and economies.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

50 Responses to “Surprise: Climate Models Vastly Overstate Actual Warming”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: when Dr. Roy Spencer showed that 95% of the models were wrong.

    All models are wrong. — George E.P. Box

    Unfortunately, the graph doesn’t show the margins of error. In any case, the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for the last two years puts the graph right in the middle of the projections.

    2016 0.77
    2015 0.76

  2. Jeffery says:

    and said warming is utterly within the norm of a Holocene warm period

    Teach: I’ve called you out on that lie numerous times and you never respond. Can you support your claim?

    Roy Spencer’s graph has been demonstrated to be wrong for reasons of fudging the baseline etc. Models are models.

    The facts are that the Earth is warming and the cause is an increase in atmospheric CO2 from we humans burning fossil fuels. The rest of your caterwauling is simply… well, caterwauling.

    You’ve won! trump and the deplorable Republicans will work overtime to INCREASE CO2 emissions!

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The facts are that the Earth is warming and the cause is an increase in atmospheric CO2 from we humans burning fossil fuels.

      I’ve called out the little guy many times to provide scientific evidence of his erroneous assumption but he never provides any.
      Wonder why?

    • Teach: I’ve called you out on that lie numerous times and you never respond. Can you support your claim?

      Can you prove that the current warm period is outside the norm for what happens with warm periods? You and your ilk have made the case that this is abnormal. Prove it.

      • Jeffery says:

        Climate scientists have shown this the current period is abnormal and from CO2. YOU are making the objective claim that other warm periods during the Holocene are similar. Show your work, or at least link to a scientific explanation of your claim.

        said warming is utterly within the norm of a Holocene warm period

        How about just pointing out a “typical Holocene warm period”?

  3. GOODSTUFF says:

    “future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate,” Curry explains.

  4. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: provide scientific evidence

    The most direct evidence is that the surface and lower atmosphere are warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

  5. jl says:

    Actually, there’s no “proof” warming caused by “we humans”. Show me the difference between natural warming and man-made warming, and how it’s detected.

  6. jl says:

    Warming isn’t evidence of AGW warming.

  7. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Where’s the evidence of CO2 warming caused by burning fossil fuels?

    You are confused. Science works with evidence, not proof in the mathematical sense. In particular, science is characterized by hypothetico-deduction. In this case, tropospheric warming accompanied by stratospheric cooling is entailed in the hypothesis of greenhouse warming, a prediction made over a century ago from first principles.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      No, I’m not confused.
      You presented some graphs with different colored lines representing temperature anomalies.
      Hardly evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossils fuels.
      We’ve gone through this before, kiddies…

    • And right there is a big problem, Zach. Hypotheses are made, data is looked at, and when the data doesn’t conform to the hypothesis, the data is changed, massaged, “smoothed”, adjusted, and just created out of thin air. Then we’re told about future doom, using models that fail.

  8. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: You presented some graphs with different colored lines representing temperature anomalies.

    Ignoring evidence is not much of an argument. Do you understand hypothetico-deduction? We have a hypothesis, a deduction, and a confirming observation. You might argue the deduction is faulty, or that there are other causes for the observation.

    William Teach: Hypotheses are made, data is looked at, and when the data doesn’t conform to the hypothesis, the data is changed, massaged, “smoothed”, adjusted, and just created out of thin air.

    We used the same data sources that were cited in the original post. What you mean is that if the data confirms your preconceptions, then the data is okay, but if it doesn’t, then it must be fraudulent.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      You might argue the deduction is faulty, or that there are other causes for the observation.

      I might but still you presented graphs of temp. anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming by the caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
      Sorry, kids, that’s not evidence.
      Last time you said I was handwaving…

  9. Zachriel says:

    Zachriel: Do you understand hypothetico-deduction?

    drowningpuppies: that’s not evidence.

    Apparently, you do not understand hypothetico-deduction, the characteristic methodology of science. It takes the following form: Given the hypothesis, we deduce the observational entailment. If we observe the entailment, then the hypothesis is supported. If we do not observe the entailment, then the hypothesis is falsified.

    Let’s take a historical example. If the Earth rotates, then (deduction from Newtonian Mechanics) the Earth will exhibit an equatorial bulge. This implies that equatorial regions of the Earth will be farther from the center of gravity (deduction from Newton’s Theory of Gravity), and the force of gravity less at lower latitudes when compared to higher latitudes. This implies that a pendulum will have a lower period (retardation) near the equator when compared to, say, in England (deduction from Newtonian Mechanics).

    The retardation of the pendulum was first observed by Sir Edmond Halley at St. Helena in the tropical South Atlantic in 1677. This is evidence, by hypothetico-deduction that the Earth rotates. It doesn’t “prove” the Earth rotates. Any link in the chain of deduction could be fallacious. The observation could be faulty. Or the effect could be due to some other, unknown cause. However, it is considered evidence to support the claim that the Earth, in fact, rotates.

    An increasing greenhouse effect implies that the surface and troposphere will warm, while the stratosphere cools. This is what we observe, so this supports, that is, provides evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing over time.

    • Zachriel says:

      So, given that we have provided apparent evidence, you could argue that the observation is not entailed in the hypothesis (Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896). You could argue the observation is faulty (however, it is supported by many different independent data sources). Or you could provide an alternative hypothesis that the effect is due to some other cause.

      • Ydrowningpuppies says:

        So, given that we have provided apparent evidence,…

        Took y’all all night to come up with that?
        Read the second definition of the adjective apparent.

        Anyway, still you presented graphs of temp. anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
        It’s not. It’s an assumption that has not been proven. (And please don’t get into that hypothetical bullshit about theories are never proven. We’ve been through that before.)

  10. Jeffery says:

    Stupid Antarctic glaciers didn’t get the memo that the Earth and oceans aren’t warming after all.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/a-huge-antarctic-glacier-just-lost-another-chunk-of-ice-%e2%80%94-and-we-know-because-of-nasa/ar-AAnegMs?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp

    Of course, this info is from NASA who shouldn’t be looking at glaciers anyway, and are probably faking the data. trumpy will teach them a lesson.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Yep, Antarctica never loses chunks of ice during the summer down under.

      It’s a catastrophe of epic proportions!!!

      OMG, what about the PENGUINS???

  11. Zachriel says:

    Ydrowningpuppies: Read the second definition of the adjective apparent.

    2: clear or manifest to the understanding

    As is clear from context, we were using the fourth definition.

    4: manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid

    We explained why the phenomenon is evidence for an increasing greenhouse effect. We explained you might contest the evidence. Instead you simply wave your hands at the dictionary.

    Ydrowningpuppies: It’s an assumption that has not been proven.

    It’s an assumption (also called the hypothesis) which has been supported (evidence of entailed observations).

    • Ydrowningpuppies says:

      ap·par·ent
      əˈperənt/
      adjective

      -clearly visible or understood; obvious.
      “it became apparent that he was talented”
      synonyms: evident, plain, obvious, clear, manifest, visible, discernible, perceptible

      -seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.
      “his apparent lack of concern”
      synonyms: seeming, ostensible, outward, superficial

      Apparently I should have spelled it out for y’all but I got the expected response.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Anyway, still you presented graphs of temp. anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

  12. Zachriel says:

    Ydrowningpuppies:-seeming real or true, but not necessarily so.

    That’s right. Here’s the form:

    H, hypothesis
    O, observation

    if H then O. O, therefore H is supported; ~O, therefore H is falsified.

    We provided observations that apparently support the hypothesis. You could argue that the deductions are fallacious, that the observations are faulty, or that there are other possible causes.

    Ydrowningpuppies:anomalies implying that’s evidence of CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    Let’s look at the hypothesized chain of causation again. CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation, resulting in the greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. An increasing greenhouse effect will warm the surface and cool the stratosphere. Atmospheric CO2 has increased, so we would expect to observe a warming surface and cooling stratosphere, and that is what we observe. That’s called scientific evidence.

    Refusing to address the specifics is just handwaving.

  13. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: CO2 warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    You seem to be trying to make a point, but are being oblique about it. Are you saying atmospheric CO2 is not increasing? Or that it is not due to anthropogenic emissions?

  14. drowningpuppies says:

    I said neither of those things.

    Once again, read slowly…

    Nice graph.

    Where’s the evidence of CO2 warming caused by burning fossil fuels?

    Still waiting…

  15. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: I said neither of those things.

    Um, they were questions. That how people try to clarify.

    drowningpuppies: Where’s the evidence of CO2 warming caused by burning fossil fuels?

    Once again, read slowly… The evidence is in the observation that the troposphere and surface are warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling, as entailed in the hypothesis.

    • Zachriel says:

      These are the links of causation:

      • Humans burn fossil fuels;
      • Burning fossil fuels emits CO2;
      • Emissions of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere;
      • CO2 is a greenhouse gas;
      • Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect;
      • Increasing the greenhouse effect will result in a warmer surface and cooler lower stratosphere.

      Which step do you find problematic?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Humans burn fossil fuels; yes

        Burning fossil fuels emits CO2; yes, along with other things that emit CO2

        Emissions of CO2 accumulate in the atmosphere; somewhat, yes

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas; yes, 4 parts/10,000 (along w/H2O and others)

        Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect; maybe not proven

        Increasing the greenhouse effect will result in a warmer surface and cooler lower stratosphere: maybe not proven.

        So, once again… evidence kids, where is it?

  16. Jeffery says:

    Numerous times we’ve asked the Covian Deniers to outline simply what they believe would constitute “proof”. Crickets…

  17. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; yes, 4 parts/10,000 (along w/H2O and others)

    Increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect; maybe not proven

    How do you reconcile these two claims, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but increasing CO2 will not increase the greenhouse effect?

  18. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Yep, comparing the earth’s temperature to the temperature of a human is really a stretch even for y’all.

    No. Scientific evidence is what matters to determining the validity of scientific claims.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The internal temperature for a healthy human being is ~98.6 F.

      Could y’all tell me what is the accepted normal temperature of a ‘healthy’ earth?

      Y’know science and all.

  19. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: And the answer is maybe, not proven.

    If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Your claim is “maybe”. Please explain how it could not be so.

    drowningpuppies: Could y’all tell me what is the accepted normal temperature of a ‘healthy’ earth?

    Humanity has built a vast civilization, much of it on low-lying coastal areas, and dependent upon relative stability for agriculture. A significant increase in temperature will inundate coastal areas, while leading to massive dislocation, and the resultant political turmoil. In addition, it will cause permanent damage to the humanity’s ecological inheritance. Life will persevere. Indeed, humans will adapt. However, the sooner mitigation is taken, the lower the cost, and the less the overall damage to the environment.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Did y’all figure out what the normal temperature of the earth is?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Still waiting for your answer… because scientific evidence is what matters to determining the validity of scientific claims.

        Soooo the scientifically accepted normal temperature of the earth is…?

        And how does that relate to the scientifically accepted body temperature of a normal healthy human being…?

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      First of all Zachriel, I think drowningpuppies was looking for a number in either degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius, not a lecture.

      Second, we like to think of it as improving the overall environment rather than your dismal view of “overall damage to the environment”. After all, we won’t know until it arrives if it’s good or bad. A new environment could be exactly what mother earth wants so she can introduce new species and fauna and such.

  20. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: Soooo the scientifically accepted normal temperature of the earth is…?

    “Normal” is not a useful term in context. Earth’s temperature has varied considerably over its history, from a frozen Earth to one without ice caps. Now try to answer the question. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Your claim is “maybe”. Please explain how it could not be so.

    Rev.Hoagie®: I think drowningpuppies was looking for a number in either degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius, not a lecture.

    The answer is that human civilization evolved in a narrow range of temperatures. Rapid fluctuations are detrimental to humans and ecosystems.

    Rev.Hoagie®: After all, we won’t know until it arrives if it’s good or bad. A new environment could be exactly what mother earth wants so she can introduce new species and fauna and such.

    While life can survive (and has survived) mass extinction events, humans may not want to live through a mass extinction event, much less be the avoidable cause of a mass extinction.

    We’re rather fond of the featherless bipeds. Consider it a peccadillo, if you like.

  21. David7134 says:

    Z,
    So, you prove you have no background in science and no knowledge of logic. You state CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it goes up with temp. So how much CO2 results in a given rise in temp. Now how does a tax and global government result in lowering CO2. Unless it throws us into poverty. Now using your logic we could aye that the vast majority of terror is caused by people who believe in Islam so getting rid of Muslims would restrict terror and reduce CO2 production as they produce CO2. Same goes for numerous other assumptions. Provide a scientific paper that follows scientific methods or shut up.

  22. Jeffery says:

    dave typed:

    So, you prove you have no background in science and no knowledge of logic.

    Based on what, please?

    So how much CO2 results in a given rise in temp.

    An increase in CO2 from 280 up to 400 ppm has resulted in an approx 1C increase, but CO2 is not the only determinant of average global surface temperature. As the Arctic melts less sunlight will be reflected, the oceans are massive heat sinks and redistribute heat from the surface to the ocean deeps and back again, volcanoes can cause cooling. Note too that even if CO2 stops increasing, warming will continue until a new equilibrium is reached between the energy reaching Earth and that leaving.

    how does a tax and global government result in lowering CO2

    Market principles tell us that raising the price reduces consumption for commodities where there are valid alternatives. Why do you invoke “global government”, as it’s not necessary to reduce overall CO2 emissions.

    Provide a scientific paper that follows scientific methods or shut up.

    There are thousands of scientific articles containing evidence that supports the theory of AGW. If one is cited are you really in a position to evaluate it and discuss whether it “follows scientific methods”? Why would you tell someone who has been making polite and meaningful arguments to shut up?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Sooo, little dipshit guy, maybe you can provide us with the scientifically accepted normal temperature of a healthy earth…
      The Zeta fratboys sure couldn’t.

  23. Zachriel says:

    David7134: You state CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it goes up with temp.

    We stated no such thing. We stated increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.

    David7134: So how much CO2 results in a given rise in temp.

    A doubling of CO2 will directly lead to about 3.7 W/m^2 radiative forcing. By itself, this will lead to about 1°C of warming at the surface. As warmer air can hold more water vapor, this is expected to be amplified, an effect called climate sensitivity. For a basic overview, see Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

    David7134: Now how does a tax and global government result in lowering CO2.

    According to market principles, if carbon emission has an associated cost, then businesses will work to reduce their emissions, either through conservation, or through new technologies.

    David7134: Unless it throws us into poverty.

    The transition to a low-carbon energy infrastructure will require healthy economic growth in order to develop the new technologies required.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5477 access attempts in the last 7 days.