Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds
Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.
That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.
Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.
More: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/
================================================================
================================================================
.@JoeSquawk @PeteFleck Joe! That’s exactly what scientists do: improve models with new data/info. And climate models are already excellent.
================================================================
Underlying ocean melts ice shelf, speeds up glacier movement
Warm ocean water, not warm air, is melting the Pine Island Glacier’s floating ice shelf in Antarctica and may be the culprit for increased melting of other ice shelves, according to an international team of researchers.
================================================================
===============================================================
By Jason Samenow,
After I posted news that Greenland soared to its hottest temperature on record this summer, it came to light that the toasty reading was under review by the Danish Meteorological Society (which maintains Greenland’s records) and might be rescinded.
Today, John Cappelen, senior climatologist at the Danish Meteorological Society, emailed me to let me know the record high of 25.9 C (78.6 F) set on July 30 at Maniitsoq stands.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/10/confirmed-greenland-recorded-hottest-temperature-in-modern-record-this-summer/
================================================================
PR Firm Enlisted [by IPCC] to Convince Leaders to Ignore Public
The UN’s Climate Secretariat will get free PR advice so it can inspire politicians to take action. But the UN’s own survey says the public ranks climate change last among 16 priorities.
click to enlarge
I’ve observed previously that the public relations community plays a disturbing role in the climate change debate.
==============================================================
Poll reveals climate change less of a ‘hot button’ topic
Compared to the 2008 poll, the percentage of people seeing climate change as something people can control fell by 10 percent to 41 percent. The number of people who believe climate change is just part of normal climate patterns increased by 10 percent to 47 percent…fewer rural Nebraskans believe immediate action from the government is necessary – 38 percent, down from 53 percent in 2008.
==============================================================
Bishop Hill blog – The end of Sternonomics?
In a really good article in the New York Times, Eduardo Porter explains the economic end of the global warming debate in terms that even the most rabid green could understand. His starting point is the competing estimates of the social cost of carbon
…
If he’s right then it may be that sanity has broken out in Washington. The Americans are going to reject Sternonomics out of hand. How long before politicians in Westminster follow suit?
=============================================================
The study reveals that 67 eagles were killed in 5 years by US windfarms other than Altamont Pass.
“Still, the scientists said their figure is likely to be “substantially” underestimated, since companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The study also excluded the deadliest place in the country for eagles, a cluster of wind farms in a northern California area known as Altamont Pass*. Wind farms built there decades ago kill more than 60 per year.” – AP news, published by Time Magazine & Daily Mail 11 Sept. 2013
http://science.time.com/2013/09/11/study-wind-farms-killed-67-eagles-in-5-years/
=============================================================
Gore loses his mind.
Al Gore tells Sharknado joke at NASCAR Green Summit
Al Gore, speaking in Chicago at the 2013 NASCAR Green Summit, opened his keynote speech by telling a Sharknado joke. No, he didn’t poke fun at how the film was destroyed on Twitter, or the (lack of) acting skills possessed by Tara Reid.
Former Vice President of the United States & Chairman of The Climate Reality Project, Al Gore said that he used to think NASCAR and green were as closely related as sharks and tornadoes.
Gore then went on to say how auto racing and environmentalism are now synonymous, thanks to the initiative that he and NASCAR CEO Brian France started five years ago.
Al Gore also said Sharknado was the sleeper hit of the summer.
$3.2 quadrillion. And they say we can afford it. the Fed better get printing and work over time!
> Al Gore also said Sharknado was the sleeper hit of the summer.
Well, maybe the sleeper hit of one day of the summer….
The temperature of Gore’s brain is millions of degrees.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were all wrong. In fact, I’d expect that. But what I want to know is the following – Why aren’t half the models too high and half too low? Just sayin’
You’ve not seen a Sharknado until you’ve seen a Category 6 Sharknado.
“Gore loses his mind.”
You have to have one before you can lose it.
Bah, Sharknados are for wimps. Orcanado is the wave of the future.
So 114 /117 = .97. So climate scientists are 97% certain they are right but get 97% of their predictions wrong. At least they are consistent.
There’s your 97% consensus.
It’s just wrong.
in re: The model study in Nature Climate change: The rhetoric from these failed climate scientists is always the same: “We’re wrong, but we’rel important and you have to take us and our scary predictions seriously.”
pimf
[snip – irrational rant – mod]
“The study reveals that 67 eagles were killed in 5 years by US wind farms other than Altamont Pass…”
Here in Wisconsin, we have one of the largest American Eagle populations in the country (behind Florida I think), and I have had the great pleasure of spotting one here on occasion.
As someone who has a lot of respect for the animal kingdom, there is nothing about wind farms that makes my blood boil more than the hypocrisy and double standard associated with the killing of birds and bats that these wind farms are allowed to get away with. The magnificent American Eagle is supposed to be protected, but here we have a case where a ‘sweetheart’ (and lousy) energy source favored by government is allowed an exemption to the rule that it does not deserve. And then there are all the tax dollars being spent to subsidize them besides. Disgusting.
As for bats, there are of course not exactly the most popular creatures in the animal kingdom because of their appearance and Old Wives tales about them.. They do though play an important role where they eat insects that help to control the insect population.
The wind farm industry is probably not going to go away until we get a president and congress who understand the uselessness of wind farms and pulls the plug on a artificially created industry
that will make little or no meaningful contribution to this country’s energy needs.
The sooner these monstrosities disappear, the better. In the meantime, I can only dream about the day when I might be able to take a mallet to one of them…..
Mickey Reno says: “You’ve not seen a Sharknado until you’ve seen a Category 6 Sharknado.”
Thanks. Made me laugh.
So the consensus is that 97% of climate models are wrong (by an average of 100%),
Are we supposed to laugh or cry?
Nigel Farage shows EU Parliament NASA Arctic Ice cap photos and schools them on global warming. See at 2:30 into this video.
Nigel Farage offers Barroso some cooling news Shows
The Ig Nobels Are (‘were’ given my time zone) Tonight (Harvard University, Mass., Boston USA).
Reading from theGuardian (u supply the url I’m too busy),
“The probability prize was awarded to animal scientists at Scotland’s Rural College for making two related discoveries. ‘First, that the longer a cow has been lying down, the more likely that cow will soon stand up,’ read their citation. ‘And second, that once a cow stands up, you cannot easily predict how soon that cow will lie down again.'”
Now there is the IPCC in an O’Reilly Books Nutshell. These chaps at Scotland’s Rural College need to be sequestered (Bush/Obama style capture, rendition, torture, detention and then imprisonment at GITMO) buy the IPCC and milked for all they know.
In a related matter at the Ig Nobel proceedings, Al Gore was again NOT selected for an Ig Nobel Prize and cannot claim to be an Ig Nobel Laureate, so say the Ig Nobel committee.
😉
I love that Melanie Fitzpatrick spouts the warmest in a decade canard. You’d think a geophysics PhD would have more integrity than that.
Anthony, have you been following the floods in drought plagued Colorado? Funny stuff that global warming, impersonating everything it isn’t.
Mark
Jeff Alberts says:
September 12, 2013 at 6:53 pm
Bah, Sharknados are for wimps. Orcanado is the wave of the future.
—————————————————
Nah, THIS is the future (or was it the past)… http://www.transformer-ivan.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Raptor-Shark.jpg Raptor-Sharknado rules!
“Global surface temperature is still rising … 2012 was in the top ten warmest years on record. The period 2001-2010 was the warmest on record since instrumental measurements began,”
As for 2012, on RSS it was only 11th. And as for the “still rising” part, the average anomaly from 2001 to the end of 2010 was 0.265 on RSS, but only 0.183 since then, for a drop of 0.082 on the average.
114 / 117 = 0.97 = 97%.
Hence 97% is the magic number in Climate Science.
CD (@CD153) says: @ September 12, 2013 at 7:21 pm
The sooner these monstrosities disappear, the better. In the meantime, I can only dream about the day when I might be able to take a mallet to one of them…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah make the Hansen’s and Gores and Gleicks take the bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes down with tools they have to made themselves out of rocks and wood.
Let the punishment fit the crime.
PeteP says: September 12, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Bah, Sharknados are for wimps. Orcanado is the wave of the future.
You’ve been taken in. Close examination reveals that image was probably Photoshopped. (97% confidence level.)
CD (@CD153) says:
September 12, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“…The sooner these monstrosities disappear, the better. In the meantime, I can only dream about the day when I might be able to take a mallet to one of them…..”
*
I imagine firing a bazooka – a nice big FOOMP! Bang! Exploding bits and fire raining down. Honestly, I can’t drive past one of those fields and not think FOOMP! Bang!
Now joins the equally inane Precautionary Principle as a Gimme All Your Money Or AGW Will Getcha meme.
This from my blog . . . http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/about/
THE FINAL CHAPTER
This is a fictional tale and any relation to persons living today is purely coincidental.
Prince Tony said climate change was “crap”, and he firmly believed any changes in Earth’s climate were not caused by human activity.
He was not concerned in our survival on Earth, as our immediate future did not appear to be at risk.
But he was interested in his own survival and immediate future at the helm of his powerful realm.
For him to survive, he must keep his “Powerful Big Business” friends happy by allowing them to continue polluting at a minimum cost to themselves.
He devised a fiendish plan, a solution for the happiness of his “Powerful Big Business” friends.
He would pay them to pollute.
Their continued pollution would not affect the earth’s climate, contrary to the opinions of the climate scientists who had not yet been arrested and imprisoned.
As the years went by, Prince Tony found it harder to breathe, but he was not worried, as all around him had similar problems.
The food shortages had not troubled him either, for there was enough left to feed those who had not yet drowned in the rising oceans.
He had authorised his “Powerful Big Business” friends to cut down and burn as many trees as they wished, regardless of the naysayers and increasing sand storms.
His “Powerful Big Business” friends suggested he not alarm himself over the eastern skies which became darker each day, as this was a minimal risk factor and would one day disappear.
Yet the dark clouds grew, the sun was rarely seen and people died from the cold whilst others starved to death.
Undeterred, Prince Tony, in his infinite wisdom, increased the taxes to raise more money to pay for his food and warmth.
But no monies came, there were no people left, no “Powerful Big Business”, for all had perished in the climate change which he believed was not of mankind’s making.
. . . . and as the dark clouds sank slowly in the west, our lonely Prince Tony finally realized that climate change was not “crap”, it was his plan which was “crap”.
cartoonmick:
Your post at September 13, 2013 at 1:16 am concludes saying
No, it is your post that is “crap”.
“Powerful Big Business”, notably oil companies, have been supporting the global warming scare from the start. Even the UEA Climate Research Unit was established using oil money.
Either you have been duped or you are trying to dupe others.
Please do not pollute WUWT with such rubbish again.
Richard
cartoonmick
This article was funnier.Oh wait..you were serious.
http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/a-bad-political-game/
“cartoonmick says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:16 am”
Did you go to the same cartoon skool as Cook because your post is equally as unfunny as Cook’s cartoons. BTW, as usual with alarmists, comments are taken out of context. Prince Tony said the SCIENCE behind (Human induced) climate change is crap. You can even do a google search for it if you like. And in that context Prince Tony is 100% (Not 97%) correct.
This is what we knew with confidence over ten years ago:
“When compared to the observed response of the climate system, the computer simulations all have forecast warming trends much steeper over the last several decades than measured. The forecasts exaggerate to some degree the warming at the surface, and profoundly in the lower troposphere.”
– Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae, PEGG November 2002
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
[Excerpt]
This surface warming would suggest a temperature trend of about 1º C per century, which is less than that predicted by the computer simulations, but it is unlikely that even this recent trend in surface warming is primarily attributable to human-made greenhouse gases….
Both records show that the temperature of the lower troposphere does vary as a result of natural factors, e.g., the strong El Niño warming pulse of 1997-98 is obvious. However, no meaningful human warming trend, as forecast by the computer simulations, can be found…
Although the radiosonde record lacks the dense spatial coverage from satellites, it does extend back to 1957, a period that includes the recent rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The radiosonde record shows no linear warming trend in global average temperature prior or subsequent to a dramatic shift in 1976-77. That warming, known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-1977, is not attributable to human causes but is a natural shift in the Pacific that occurs every 20 to 30 years.
When compared to the observed response of the climate system, the computer simulations all have forecast warming trends much steeper over the last several decades than measured. The forecasts exaggerate to some degree the warming at the surface, and profoundly in the lower troposphere.
@cartoonmick
First off, for anyone with even rudimentary understanding of biology and chemistry, calling carbon dioxide pollution is akin to calling oxygen pollution.
Secondly, while your narrative is mostly without merit it does raise one good point. One “powerful realm” such as China that doesn’t cooperate with the rest of the world can annihilate any efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations via emission limitations.
Moderators/Anthony:
I went to check that Greenland temp record here:
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2013/08/late-season-warmth-extends-2013-greenland-melt-seasonbriefly/
I got a splash page and:
With the dams breaking and the unprecedented(?) flooding, their servers are down?
What is their IT infrastructure that local flooding has knocked out a National global website?
[could it be a DDS hack? . . because if it is true it is bizarre and incompetent . . mod]
The Arctic Sea Ice Area from the Cryosphere Today has probably reached its low point for the year (average date is Sept 10th and it doesn’t vary from this by more than just a few days).
So it is the highest since 2006 and about 50% above 2012.
http://s12.postimg.org/z04colyu5/Cryosphere_Ice_Area_Sept10_2013.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
“Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.”
They’re wrong, of course. The models are fundamentally-flawed. They are junk. There is no fixing them. The climate modelers need to find new jobs. I hear Walmart is looking for Greeters.
Bruce Cobb:
In your post at September 13, 2013 at 5:20 am you say
Here in the UK Walmart trades as Asda. I have my lunch in the Asda cafe most days (I am about to leave for there now). And I find the staff at Asda to be both efficient and helpful.
I am writing to object to your suggestion that Asda should lower its employment standards.
Richard
I have to comment on this statement:
“.@JoeSquawk @PeteFleck Joe! That’s exactly what scientists do: improve models with new data/info. And climate models are already excellent.”
The fact that climate modelers do not see their failure as “particularly troubling” reveals their profound state of naiveté. This misinformation has been used to set environmental and tax policy which increases governmental and bureaucratic control over every citizen. We have seen a direct response to climate predictions by state governments, the Supreme court and of course the EPA.
If the data used for your predictions is wrong 114 out of 117 attempts your method is worthless. If your data and predictions are used to wrongly establish public policy that robs the public you are an accessory to theft.
Looking at it in another way, when they’re hawking a new prediction “it’s all about saving the planet”; when their great prediction is proven wrong they claim to be hard working meteorologists trying to update the weekend forecast………………………….
@Tom Norkunas
Wasn’t there a chart some years back showing some model runs actually do a tail spin into an ice age, but they get excluded from the flock because they’re obviously unrealistic and just a bad unstable chaotic run?
I’m getting some kind of talk-over advertisement when I enter the site. Please turn it off.
richardscourtney says: @ September 13, 2013 at 1:57 am
cartoonmick:
No, it is your post that is “crap”…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beat me to it.
Folks notice how Mick does not address any science he just says the sky is falling AND IT IS ALL OUR FAULT!
………………….
cartoonmick,
Around here you have to PROVE the sky is falling not just make up scary stories. We are not unintelligent sheep we are scientists and engineers or those with interested in science and engineering.
Also we are Conservationists.
That is we are the ones who are appalled at the polluting in China so rare earths can be supplied to the solar and wind industries. We are appalled at the loss of protected raptors (birds) and bats and the fact ‘Wind Turbines’ and solar panels are given a free pass to pollute and kill and desecrate our wild lands.
We also know that it is the energy companies who have been behind global warming because they want to rid themselves of cheap competition from the coal indeustry which they do not control. In the USA Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. Where was that ‘room’ in the office of President Bush. In the UK it was Maggie Thatcher who supported CAGW because she wanted to break the hold of the coal unions.
Interesting that it was the CONSERVATIVES in the USA and UK that gave CAGW the really big political push isn’t it?
And that Big OIL funded the push. link
Oh and do not forget IPCC chair Robert Watson was working for the World Bank at the time. The same World Bank that left the Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak showed that it would hand ” effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank”
I can’t help but wonder about predictions and how crappy they are. Anyone who thinks that in 25 years we will still have the same energy and transportation systems we have now is dead wrong.
There is an inexorable movement toward nuclear power (perhaps Thorium based) and electric cars. And it’s not because of emissions. Given a cheap enough battery, an electric car will finally
achieve the domination that Henry Ford attempted with his buddyThomas Edison. And nuclear power is just as sustainable as any other power source – even if we only use conventional nuclear
fast reactor designs, there is enough uranium in the oceans and on land (recoverable at prices that allow the fuel costs of fast reactors to remain the same as today – which is trivial ) to last for 5 billlion years, the expected time remaining fo our sun.
Col Mosby says: @ September 13, 2013 at 6:15 am
I can’t help but wonder about predictions and how crappy they are. Anyone who thinks that in 25 years we will still have the same energy and transportation systems we have now is dead wrong….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I certainly agree with that statement. My Grandmother watched the world change from horse and buggy/foot as the common means transportation to a man on the moon during her life time. (She was born 1877 and the Tin Lizzy was produced by Ford in 1908.)
Hello Gail,
I will not argue with you about the deplorable role of certain energy companies and their executives in promoting CAGW alarmism.
However other energy companies and executives fought CAGW alarmism, because they recognized the scientific falsehoods of global warming alarmism and understood better than most the human and societal costs of foolish and wasteful disruptions to the energy industry, which in our complex modern society is what keeps most of us, at least in Northern climes, from freezing and starving.
Global warming alarmism was and remains an important ethical issue, and some of us do care deeply about our ethical stance.
In 2002, we wrote with confidence:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
The above statement was based on strong evidence available at that time that the Sensitivity of Earth Temperature to increased atmospheric CO2 was not significant and was vastly over-estimated by the climate models cited by the IPCC.
We also wrote in the same article in 2002:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
I suggest that our track record to date is infinitely superior to that of the global warming alarmists including the IPCC, who have been wrong in all their very-scary predictions.
Based on their track record of consistent falsehood and failure, the global warming alarmists have no credibility.
Regards, Allan
Cartoonmick, well at least you got the “fiction” part right.
“Study: ‘All 65 climate-models used by IPCC to predict future impact of CO2 on climate – every last one of them – failed to foresee 17-year pause in temp rise’ ”
Shouldn’t that be “…failed to predict the temp for the last 17 years”?
Whether this is a “pause” or not has yet to be determined.
97% of climate scientists agree that excellent climate models prove Category 6 sharknados will be commonplace by 2017 as temps reach millions of degrees.
cartoonmick says:
September 13, 2013 at 1:16 am
This from my blog . . . http://cartoonmick.wordpress.com/about/
THE FINAL CHAPTER
This is a fictional tale and any relation to persons living today is purely coincidental.
Prince Tony said climate change was “crap”, and he firmly believed any changes in Earth’s climate were not caused by human activity.
blah blah blah etc etc
———————————————————————————————————–
You really need to stop having these wet dreams Cartoonmick. Prince Tony won twice as many seats as the now Labour party opposition in an election landslide victory. The majority of Australians don’t agree with your silly fantasies and are well aware of the climate change nonsense being spread by “scientists” who wouldn’t know the difference between a cold front and a cold beer.
Dr Dennis Jensen the only person with scientific qualifications in Parliament in Oz is likely to become the science Minister in the Abbott government. Jensen is a global warming skeptic (i.e. some minor contribution due to CO2 but not the primary cause) and does not believe that governments need to reduce CO2 emissions. He is quoted as saying, that in the climate area there is appeal to authority and consensus. Neither of which is scientific.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-mp-dennis-jensen-wants-to-be-science-minister-20130912-2tltt.html
At last some alternative view into the CAGW nonsense.
NB: warmists he’s a skeptic not a denier – got it!
philjourdan says:
September 12, 2013 at 6:30 pm
You wrote: “$3.2 quadrillion. And they say we can afford it. the Fed better get printing and work over time!”
When it’s other peoples’ money, it used to be ‘The sky’s the limit’. With numbers as large as what you quoted the new limit will be the edge of the observable Universe!
I think hubris is the word you were looking for. Or arrogance, delusions of grandeur, megalomania, take your pick based on scale.
“National Snow and Ice Data Center”; you may want something listed instead under “hydrology”:
. . . http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/
.