November 26, 2022

A large number of Climate Models Wildly Exaggerate Extent of Global Warming

Further evidence has surfaced that climate models are useless for the purpose of forecasting upcoming temperature rises. A  current survey  using American summer season temperatures (June, July, August) over the last 50 years, found that 36 major weather models showed nearly twice the warming rate observed by the surface temperature dimensions recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric […]#@@#@!!

Further evidence has emerged that climate versions are useless for the purpose of forecasting future temperature rises.

recent survey   using American summertime temperatures (June, July, August) over the last 50 years, discovered that 36 major climate models showed nearly twice the warming rate observed by the surface temperature dimensions recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the high end, a number of versions forecast warming nearly three times greater than observed data display (blue bar below).

The research was carried out by Dr . Roy Spencer, the main research scientist at the College of Alabama in Huntsville, and the compiler of the UAH monthly satellite temperature report. He says that the importance of their findings should be obvious. “ Given that U. S. energy policy depends upon the predictions from these models, their tendency to produce too much warming (and likely also warming-associated weather change) should be factored in to energy policy planning, ” he said. But he doubted it was being, ” given the climate modify exaggerations routinely promoted simply by environment groups, anti-oil advocates, the media, politicians, and many government agencies”.

The Bradzino work follows  current research   published by Professor Nicola Scafetta of the University of Southwest florida. He found that nearly all the global temperature forecasts made by models between 1980-2021 were excessive, some extremely so , compared with the accurate satellite record. One of the reasons given why there’s no climate emergency in the World Climate Declaration is that weather models are “ not really remotely plausible as worldwide tools”.

However as we have seen in numerous posts in the  Everyday Sceptic , climate versions are ubiquitous and are at the forefront of promoting the particular climate scares pushing the particular command-and-control Net Zero agenda. They are  in the middle   of the pseudoscientific work that tries to ‘ attribute’ single extreme climate events to long-term changes in the climate claimed supposedly caused by fossil fuels. In simple terms, computers compare an imaginary climate with out human-caused carbon dioxide with the present one full of unknown complexities, and then the modellers declare they’ve ‘ proved’ the ‘ climate emergency’ speculation. Since the outputs of these versions are unfalsifiable – how may you prove that a wholly fictional scenario is ‘ false’? – the notions are no more than worthless opinions.

The results of Spencer’s work will hardly come as a great surprise, but the conclusions are almost certainly a lot more damaging to the climate catastrophisers’ case than the figures recommend. Spencer uses NOAA surface area temperatures and, as we have seen, these are subject to ‘ corruption’ from a number of causes recently. As Spencer notes, the NOAA figure could be an over-estimate “ if increasing metropolitan heat island effects possess spuriously influenced trends over the last 50 years, and I never have made any adjustments meant for that”.

Recording, the U. S. meteorologist Anthony Watts published his  latest survey   of NOAA’s countrywide weather stations. Describing the temperature record as “ fatally flawed”, Watts found about 96% of US heat range stations failed to meet what NOAA itself considered to be appropriate and uncorrupted placement. W defined ‘ corruption’ as caused by the localised associated with urbanisation, producing heat prejudice because of a close proximity in order to asphalt, machinery and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating items. According to Watts, data that had not been corrupted by faulty placement showed a rate associated with warming in the U. Ersus. “ reduced by almost a half compared to every stations”.

There is further substantial evidence that NOAA’s U. S. surface area temperature figures are too higher. In 2005, it started compiling data from a select group of 114 stations across the nation that had been specifically sited away from urban development. Called the Oughout. S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), it was intended to strive for “ superior accuracy plus continuity in places that will land use will not likely impact during the next five decades”.

The chart above shows the hardly ever referenced record up to last month. It shows oscillating temperature changes, but hardly any evidence to indicate a warming trend over the last 17 yrs.

Considering what is known about the ‘ corruption’ of the NOAA’s main heat range dataset, it would be reasonable in order to significantly reduce the blue NOAA observational bar in Spencer’s graph. This of course offers further confirmation that the temperature ranges forecasts of most climate models have long lost any connection with reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *