The sky warriors hold the climate models that have been predicting global doom to be sacrosanct. But as we have reported many times in the past, they’re flawed. A new research paper confirms our warnings. It would be helpful if the brand name media would make note of it. We won’t be holding our own hot air, though.
A January report from Berkeley Earth – self-described as a “non-profit research organization” that “has been preparing independent analyses of global mean temperature changes since 2013″ – starts out as anyone would expect: with a frightful declaration “that 2022 was nominally the fifth warmest year on Earth since 1850.” Which of course means nothing.
It goes on to say “the last eight years have included all eight of the warmest years observed in the instrumental record,” another string of words that sound ominous but aren’t.
What is important, however, is buried near the bottom of the report.
Since 1980, Earth’s temperature trend “has changed little.” The researchers reckon that global temperatures have increased 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade over that period. The data was pulled from 50,498 weather stations combined with sea-surface temperature data.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at the predictions that have been made by the climate models. Their forecasts indicate that temperatures should be increasing at the rate of about 0.28–0.29 degrees Celsius per decade. That’s about 50% higher than the increases Berkeley Earth found.
Other measurements have produced similar results, says Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey.
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that the global average temperature has been increasing at the rate of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade since 1981. NASA’s GISTEMP data set reports an increase of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The U.K.’s Hadley Centre finds the increase is about 0.20 degrees Celsius per decade.
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts reports the global average temperature trend generated by its fifth-generation atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5). Reanalysis is a blend of observations with past short-range weather forecasts rerun with modern weather forecasting models. From 1979 on, the ERA5 calculates that the global average temperature has been increasing at a rate of 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. The Japan Meteorological Agency’s JRA-55 reanalysis finds the per-decade rate of increase is 0.18 degrees Celsius.
Meanwhile satellite measurements, which we’ve argued are the standard and the only gauges that can be trusted, tell us global temperatures have averaged an increase of only 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade since Dec. 1, 1978. Taking variables such as “the orbital decay of satellites, the deterioration of instruments, and changes related to replacing satellites over time” into account, Bailey says, produces a rise of 0.18 degrees per decade.
So we have further confirmation that the climate models are running hot. It’s an honest assessment that has been made by the United Nations, Nature Geoscience researchers, scientists at Geophysical Research Letters, other assorted experts and modelers themselves.
Will the media now back off their doomsday reports, laden with nonsense from the likes of John Kerry, Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Al Gore, Bill Nye, King Charles III, U.N. functionaries and an entire cast of narcissists, attention seekers, virtue signalers, screeching hysterics, and blind zealots?
Unlikely. The press has been carrying the narrative for decades and is fully invested in perpetuating the fear as long as possible. It doesn’t hurt that the “solutions” for global warming also happen to be Democrats’ favored policies for wealth redistribution and the capture of our free market economy. The mainstream media have become a subunit of the Democratic Party responsible for disseminating its never-ending torrent of propaganda.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
20 years ago, global warming deniers were saying that it would be cooling any year now. 10 years ago, they were saying that there had been no warming in 15 years. It’s good to see that now they’re saying it’s been warming all along, even if they deny that it is a problem.
Currently, as a result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation having entered its negative phase the climate is cooling, has been for several years and will continue to do so for a couple of decades or so.
The last time it changed phase was around 1980 when it entered its positive phase which was marked by “climate scientists” segueing from the great Man Made Ice Age scare to the Anthropogenic Global Warming scare.
Here’s a quote from one of the many peer-reviewed papers predicting cooling:
“We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere.
It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.
There are no statistically valid models with predictive validity in the real world that relate man-made greenhouse gasses to climate. Feel free to cite your sources. Real science has validated models.
Leif Ericson says man-made global warming is a myth. During the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), 950-1250 CE, fields in Greenland were cultivated. During the Little Ice Age (LIA), 1300-1850 CE, these fields became permafrost and still are. That says the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is right now. Fossil fuels weren’t a factor in MWP or LIA.
Look up the Wikipedia entry for Paleoclimatology. The graphs shows the earth has had both no ice and been an ice ball. In neither case did man exist as a species yet.
It is statistical folly to use about 100 years of data to extrapolate climate cycles that last hundreds or thousands of years. Only the gullible or math challenged believe in the statistical validity of models built on 100 years’ worth of data, that have failed to predict future temperature patterns.
Scientists still don’t know what’s causing the warming. However, scientists do know that it’s not carbon dioxide and have known that for more than a century. Forty years ago, some climate scientists were worried that the release of methane gas from permafrost could cause global warming. A convoluted mechanism for the release of methane involved squeezing a tiny bit more warming out of water vapor and CO2 (even though the warming potential of both is believed to be maxed out). Politicians dumbed down the entire hypothesis to; “carbon dioxide is warming the planet and must be stopped”. This then gave them the excuse they needed to gain control over all human endeavors.
The next couple of shoes to fall are these: 1) the oceans are warming most recently between 60N-60S at higher than typical rate. What this means is anyone’s guess, but what we can be assured of is more alarmism, 2) At some point, possibly this summer, there will be an el nino which always spreads ocean warmth, stored over multiple years in the southwestern Pacific warm pool, over the rest of the globe. This goes on intermittently anyway. It is an irregular feature of the planet. We can expect that the temporary spike in surface temperature accompanying an el nino will lead to more alarmism.
When climate change narrative is that it will always lead to less of everything good, more of everything bad, and generated more alarmism, it is difficult to not become a skeptic.
The purveyors of climate doom won’t stop because “there’s gold in them thar hills.”
Overconfidence is the norm for those engaging in climate change debate. With only 50 years of satellite data and not much more than 100 years of reliable terrestrial global temperature data, proxies with all kinds of limitations, suspect corrective factors, and natural cycles which extend far beyond human lifetimes, confidence should be a warning sign. Obviously the climate changes and humans (as with beavers) can have an impact, but we don’t even understand all the ramifications of what we’re trying to “solve.” Much better to take a humble approach to both scientific understanding and resource usage.
It’s been warming for 300+ years. Show me one person who denies that. Though there are some people, like you, who seem to be ignorant of it.
What makes you think post 1950 warming can only be due to human increments to CO2 when you, and the IPCC, have no explanation for the previous 250 years of warming?
Warming which was a great boon to humanity, as continued warming will be, if we are lucky enough to get it. That is not the rational expectation though.
The last 300+ years of warming has coincided with 300+ years of a very high average level of solar activity, but the sun dropped into a state of deep quiescence 15 years ago. If we are lucky it will bounce back and warming may continue until Greenland is green (around the edges) again.
But if solar activity stays in an extended low state (as it did going into the Little Ice Age) we will most likely see global cooling, which unlike warming really is dangerous, regularly burying half the planet under a mile of ice in 100k yr long glaciations, with the next one due any millennium now.
The only actual climate danger always has been and always will be global cooling. Unplugging the modern world in fear of a very small human warming effect is madness.
For CO2 to be at all dangerous its tiny temperature forcing effect would have to be multiplied up several times by water vapor feedback effects, but all direct estimates suggest that these feedbacks are almost certainly net negative.
What, you’ve heard that these feedback multiplier estimates are large? Those are the numbers for what the feedback multiplier would HAVE to be in order for CO2 to account for observed warming. They are a measure of how unrealistic the IPCC models are.
In fact these models have been thoroughly falsified. They are inconsistent with observed reality, and as warming keeps falling well below IPCC predictions (earth has been cooling for seven years) that falsification keeps getting more extreme.
Has anyone proven that warming of the type we’ve seen in the past half century will have, on balance, negative consequences? Who is to say it won’t be primarily beneficial?
There are many papers that demonstrate that the warming and increased atmospheric CO2 are beneficial, this for example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
This whole Global Warming/Climate Change scam is only filling the Bank Accounts or Greenpeace and Gore the Bore as well as Trial Lawyers and producing a false Idol Greta Thunberg
Greta Thunberg is my favorite climate “expert.” Actually, Greta has no real expertise, so she’s described as a “activist.” Greta’s tag line is, “How dare you?” Let me explain, calmly and without emotion, why I dare.
First off, unlike Gretta, I have some actual credentials. I have an MS in Statistics from the University of Illinois, and an MS in Management from Northwestern University. I had a career of more than 45 years in IT before I retired.
Let’s first look at the practicality of net zero, the stated goal of climate alarmists. Please note that most software or engineering projects have a test or pilot project phase to make sure the proposed solution actually works. Where’s the net zero test or pilot project? Sri Lanka? Without affordable energy storage, net zero is a one way ticket to poverty and starvation. As even the strongest European Greens are finding out, you need natural gas from somewhere to make it work. “Sustainable” wind and solar are intermittent sources. On winter nights without wind, you freeze in the dark. Where in the world is their demonstration project?