Michael Bastasch
9:16 AM 09/20/2017
A climate model expert told The Washington Post there would be “extra eyes really scrutinizing” a new study claiming climate models predicted more global warming than has been observed this century.
And he was right.
Climate scientists have rushed to criticize a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, which found that less warming in the early 20th Century suggests it’s slightly easier — though still difficult — to meet to goals of the Paris accord.
One would think climate scientists, especially those alarmed about warming, would see this as positive, but prominent researchers were quick to express their skepticism of results questioning the integrity of climate models.
Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann told Seeker he was “rather skeptical” of the research. Mann doubted meeting the Paris accord goal of keeping future warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times was impossible without “highly speculative negative emissions technology.”
University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins said media headlines “have misinterpreted” the new study that questioned models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Hawkins contributed to the IPCC’s major 2013 climate report.
“A recent study by Medhaug et al. analysed the issue of how the models have performed against recent observations at length and largely reconciled the issue,” Hawkins wrote in a blog post.
“An overly simplistic comparison of simulated global temperatures and observations might suggest that the models were warming too much, but this would be wrong for a number of reasons,” Hawkins wrote.
Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the models matched observed global temperatures “quite well.”
A quick reminder that, reports in British tabloids notwithstanding, climate model projections agree quite well with observed temperatures. pic.twitter.com/7NxGUlBkFu
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 20, 2017
Study authors, however, contend the models and observations diverged in the past two decades during what’s been called the “hiatus” — a period of roughly 15 years with little to no rise in global average temperature.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” study co-author Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, told The Times on Monday.
“The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower,” study co-author Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said, according to The Washington Post.
The study seemed to confirm claims made by scientists skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming claims that models were showing more warming than actual observations.
For example, Cato Institute scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have noted the climate models have been over-hyping warming for decades.
Climate scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville has shown climate models show 2.5 times more warming in the bulk atmosphere than has been observed.
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
“highly speculative negative emissions technology.”
He must have meant “highly regressive negative emissions technology.” since the only viable negative emissions ‘technology’ is to preempt economic growth and prosperity.
Their paychecks, reputations and egos are at stake if this proves correct- which it will.
Per the source article (bold mine):
“Climate scientists have rushed to criticize a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, which found that less warming in the early 20th Century suggests it’s slightly easier — though still difficult — to meet to goals of the Paris accord.”
Per Zeke Hausfather (bold mine):
Silly Hausfather, Straw Men are for kids!
Heh. Who are the deniers now. 😄
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end, instead of the end of the beginning.
Climate consensus team is harming science again while denigrating anyone daring to analyze climate consensus findings only to discover that climate consensus advocates buggered results.
That Manniacal quote is amusing. Odds are that many manniacal didn’t read the research. meaning that many manniacal invents fiction climate consensus.
Future climate scenarios suffer from a fatal statistics flaw put there by a reliance on correlations between cumulative values of time series data.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000932
Just looking at their own figures defeats their message.
Temperatures should be above the model average between 30-70% of the time. Since 1997 they have been above the model average only at two times, 1998 and 2016.
The model average is equivalent to a permanent very strong El Niño. That’s what Hausfather calls “agreeing quite well.”
Zeke’s conveniently starts with global temps warmer than the models in 1970.
A bit late for Michael Mann to become skeptical, and even worse that his skepticism is aimed toward a study determining that the previous studies may be flawed. So, Mann is skeptical about skepticism?
Talk about hubris.
The few times I am wrong are when I questioned whether I might not be correct.
All their graph shows is that their friends are covering for them. UAH does not agree.
shouldn’t it be 21st century not 20th since we are in the 21st century, the 1900’s was the 20th…
Nothing like a breath of fresh air to improve the morning.
Well, well, well, they are starting to eat their own. The failure of models to replicate temperatures even ‘reasonably’ for 15-20 years is cause enough to have an overhaul of who is getting funded to produce them. Implementing GE’s method of firing the 10% least accurate modelers each year would soon instill some rigour into their works. We only need one good model.
If, after two years of funding your results are not in the top 2/3 in terms of matching the real world, you are out. In fact a first round cut of 2/3 of them would concentrate minds wonderfully.
How many of these models have been “adjusted” and rerun with corrections to better approximate the actual measured data, and how many are reporting their past “future predictions” from the model as it was originally constructed? After much tweaking can these models even predict yesterday’s data?
I have a few questions about Mann and his ilk.
1 – Do they wear expensive cotton shirts?
2 – Do they enjoy having regular meals and/or eating in rather expensive restaurants as well as being warm in winter and cool in summer?
3 – What do they plan to say when winter comes early, stays past normal spring thaw, increases the snow pack thickness and extends its southern or northern** borders, and reduces crop growth periods, raising prices on foods/commodities that most of us take for granted, including heating fuels and electric power, AND this becomes a permanent weather fixture?
Those are just a few. I could come up with more, but I am having difficulty trying to understand people with that mentality.
**Referencing areas in the southern hemisphere subject to snowy winters, e.g., New Zealand and Chile and southern Argentina and even southern Africa. There’s been heavy winter snow in the Arabian peninsula, more than usual, including snow in Kuwait, which has not seen snow in anyone’s living memory, and snow sticking around in the Saharan dunes of Morocco, plus a very high snowpack in Chile (this season).
I think charting the average of all the model outputs is not unlike calculating the average of a bowl of mixed nuts. You get a number that is meaningless. The average of disassociated data is an undefined value.
“climate scientist Michael Mann”?
Oxymoron or editing error? or sarcasm – no then it wold be “”climate scientist” Michael Mann”.
Warmunists eating their own. Miles Allen writes a Nature paper on the provably obvious and Mann immediately says isn’t so. The models run hot for a simple reason. Computational intractability forces parameterization which drags in attribution via parameter tuning. And the AGW via GHG attribution assumption is simply wrong, yet there is no way to correct it without calling off the whole alarm. See guest post why models run hot for the basic problem ‘proof’. Reaction to this paper is another very visible indication of the wheels coming off the CAGW bandwagon.
Zeke Horsefeathers sez; “climate model projections agree quite well with observed temperatures.”
Oh really? On what planet?
“Settled” science?
Fake law. Give a bunch of perpetually hungry class-action lawyers a carcass, and they’ll bûgger it, then rip at it, then howl before the cameras, then gnaw the bones loudly, then eventually give up when the Bear comes along and makes their parasitic existence less toothsome.
GoatGuy
Hopefully, the oil companies deal with it by cutting off all fossil fuel deliveries to these cities.
Yes, but it won’t be difficult or impactful. The lawsuit will fail for two easy reasons, both sayingnit is frivolous and should not have been brought. 1. No ability to prove imminent real harm. No way under US law to get damages to future speculative harm. As the judge in the equvalent Massachusetts lawsuit said in dismissing that suit against Exxon, “If the plaintiffs believe there will be SLR harm to Boston Harbor in 2050, perhaps they can refile in 2045.” 2. The oil companies are responsible for zero CO2 emissions. It is their customers who do the emitting. San Fransico should sue its own voting/driving population.
Maybe they’ll (Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc.) stop selling fuel in California. That’ll go a long to achieving the socialist utopia so many Californians want.
Time for moonbeam to build a wall around California. The warmunists wouldn’t all of us deplorables flocking to the left coast to partake in their budding utopia.
And if moonbeam won’t build the wall, Trump should extend the border wall to include California.
Maybe the citizens can counter sue the city for having used petrol fueled vehicle for decades.
It is possible to model electronic circuits where all the factors are known to within 1%.
To model climate within 1% where all the factors are not known is indeed a miracle. 1% of 300 °K is 3 °.C.
Which is to say. we know nothing. And the error bands get bigger the farther into the future you project.