Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
I ran across that headline in Google News today. With the thought, what animals would I like to see go extinct first due to climate change? I had great hopes for the answer.
Sadly, the linked article here at NationalGeographic.com was an introductory alarmist blurb about the 2015 paper by Mark C. Urban Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. As they note in the NationalGeographic article:
Mark Urban, an associate professor of ecology at the University of Connecticut, found that so many studies [about species extinction] used so many different methods that scientists could point to whichever ones confirmed their points of view.
“Depending on what study you looked at, you could come up with an overly pessimistic or optimistic view,” he says.
Hmm. That’s climate science in a nutshell.
But Urban was not satisfied. As the NationalGeographic article continued:
To try to sort it out, Urban reviewed 131 extinction studies and used computer models and other statistical techniques to combine their data into one global estimate.
We can toss away that study, of course, because it relies on climate models, and the studies it studied had to have relied on climate models.
My hoped-for answer to the title question of What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change? was somewhat different.
The animals I was hoping would go extinct first were the science-funds leeches who waste valuable tax dollars on nonsensical studies that rely on climate models, which are not simulations of climate on this Earth as it has existed in the past, or as it exists now, or as it might exist in the future.
The fact that climate models are not simulations of Earth’s climate was first introduced to the general public in the 2007 blog post Predictions of Climate by Kevin Trenberth at Nature.com. He wrote:
…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
The following are a collection of blog posts that illustrate how poorly climate models simulate surface temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice.
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures as anomalies
- Satellite-Era Sea Surface Temperatures in absolute form
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 as anomalies
- Global Surface Temperatures (Land+Ocean) Since 1880 in absolute form
- Global Precipitation
- Global Land Precipitation & Global Ocean Precipitation
- Sea Ice
We also discussed and illustrated climate models and the modes of natural variability called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the post Questions the Mainstream Media Should Be Asking the IPCC.
As I’ve noted numerous time in the past, climate models at present have no value other than to illustrate how poorly they perform.