Faulty Forecasts and False Climate Narrative Hold Nations Hostage

by Vijay Jayaraj

The United States is the only major Western country that is not part of the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to restrict and reduce fossil fuel consumption across the world. But the country is not immune from the impacts of the restrictive energy policies the agreement imposes on its trade partners. One of those is my own country, India.

India imports large amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas from the U.S., mostly to generate affordable power for its electric grid. That grid must grow rapidly to meet the needs of over 1.3 billion people. Over 300 million of them—comparable to the whole U.S. population—currently have no electricity. But they need it desperately for their health and their escape from severe poverty.

The justification for reducing fossil fuel use is the claim that climate change will create havoc in the future unless we reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But this claim is not as black and white as the mainstream media and politicians make it out to be.

In fact, data on temperature suggest that the claim is exaggerated and tends be informed by incorrect interpretations from faulty models.

The Never-Ending Problem with Models

The Paris climate agreement and other major climate recommendations from the United Nations are strictly based on the guidelines provided by Assessment reports produced by a climate wing known as the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC uses forecast data processed by a large set of computer climate models to arrive at the policy recommendations in its assessment reports.

Among them are forecasts from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP). CMIP consists of 100 distinct climate models, run by leading modelling groups across the world. Their predictions drive the IPCC’s reports. In 2013, the IPCC fifth assessment report (AR5) featured climate models from CMIP5 (fifth generation).

But the forecasts from these models proved wrong. They exaggerated the temperature trend and differed markedly from temperature data derived from ground-based thermometers; sensors on weather balloons aircraft, ships, and buoys; satellite remote sensing; and “reanalyses”—the latter integrating the input of many different data sources.

Yet, political appointees in charge of determining climate and energy policy around the world used these forecasts to justify international climate agreements like the Paris agreement. And they do no stop with that.

The upcoming IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6), forecast for release in 2021, features forecasts from CMIP6. But the CMIP6 models are turning out to be no better than CMIP5 models. In fact, CMIP6 they’re worse!

Senior climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer has observed that the “CMIP6 models are showing 50 percent more net surface warming from 1979 up to April 2020 (+1.08 degree Celsius) than actual observations from the ground (+0.72 degree Celsius).”

Beyond doubt, comparing both CMIP5 and CMIP6 forecasts to official HadCRUT temperature data sets reveals a very old story: models are always way off the mark, and—suspiciously—always in the same direction, namely, upward, in predicting real-world temperatures. 

So, not only were we lied to about the climate, we are going to be misled again by the next IPCC assessment report. And with more extreme false forecasts, there will be calls for more restrictive energy policies.

It is quite astonishing how the unelected politicians at the UN can convince and persuade global leaders to adopt climate policies that are based on unscientific conclusions from faulty models.

The mainstream media have also played their part. Public perception on climate change has been heavily influenced by biased coverage on the climate issue, with no major attention to the huge discrepancies between the model forecasts and real-world observations.

It is not clear how much faultier the projections will become by the time the new assessment report is finally released. But one thing is clear: energy sectors across the globe are being held hostage by pseudo-scientific interpretations from the United Nations’ flagship climate wing.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation living in New Delhi, India.

50 thoughts on “Faulty Forecasts and False Climate Narrative Hold Nations Hostage

  1. I love the delicious irony that Vijay got his Masters from the University of East Anglia!

    • On the contrary. He clearly realises that it is pseudo-science central and couldn’t get out of there fast enough.

  2. The CMIP6 models run even warmer than the CIMP5 ensemble which is attributed to a ‘better’ inclusion of low-level clouds. You would have expected the opposite because it implies a strong positive feedback on watervapour content, which imho is utter balloney.

    • Ed Zuiderwiijk:
      Yes balloney., due IMO to the models not being aware that the Hydro Cycle operates as a Rankine Cycle. If they were then they would conclude that water provides a net NEGATIVE feedback.

  3. Burger King Reduces Global Warming by Changing Cows’ Diets

    Burger King worked with scientists at the Autonomous University at the State of Mexico and at the University of California, Davis to test and develop its formula of adding 100 grams of lemongrass leaves to the cows’ daily diets. Preliminary tests indicate that the lemongrass leaves help the cows release less methane as they digest their food.

    On Tuesday, Burger King introduced its Reduced Methane Emissions Beef Whopper, made with beef sourced from cows that emit reduced methane, in select restaurants in Miami, New York, Austin, Portland and Los Angeles.

    https://twitter.com/search?q=%23COWSMENU&src=promoted_trend_click

    • Sasha – at 6:32 am
      Burger King Reduces Global Warming by Changing Cows’ Diets

      So if the global cattle herd were to eat lemon grass on a daily basis, how much would that reduce the global warming trend?

      I’ll answer first:

    • Our Burger King was destroyed (not replaced) by Hurricane Harvey, just saw the clever Whoper ad on TV. Texas has plenty of good hamburger outlets, restricted now mostly by politics. Just had a very competent A/C repairman with Austin connections showing me the idiot mob from the University on his cell phone. Us Aggies always joked about the teasippers, even stole Bevo (UT longhorn mascot) once, wasn’t made into hamburgers.

      Plenty of longhorns left. Survive in difficult places, don’t require computer models.

    • If it doesn’t cost much and doesn’t harm the cows, no big deal.

      BTW, what happens to the carbon that isn’t going into methane? If it remains in the poop, then it just becomes methane later.

  4. Time for this one:

    IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 774 Paragraph 14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles, They say:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

  5. Is it possible for Vijay Jayaraj to actually say anything other than “Every thing is wonderful” when he has signed up to “We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting,…”. It must be difficult!

    he says “In fact, data on temperature suggest that the claim is exaggerated and tends be informed by incorrect interpretations from faulty models.”
    But most real temperature data shows that 2020 is a very hot year globally despite being at solar minimum.
    where does he get the data to back up his statement?

    he also states “It is not clear how much faultier the projections will become by the time the new assessment report is finally released. ”
    Why does he not provide projections that are not faulty and show that we are not heading for 4°C rise.
    The problem with average global temp rise of even 1°C causes a arctic rise of more than 3°C rise. What will the rise be with an average of 4°C rise globally.

    What projections does he base his “it’ll be alright” on?

    • Ghalfrunt. July 15, 2020 at 6:45 am
      It’s coming up on 33 years since Dr. James Hansen sounded the alarm before Congress. And exactly what climate-wise has happened in almost a third of a century since then besides not too much? The polar bears continue to increase their population, extreme tornadoes have decreased in frequency, hurricanes are about the same, precipitation has increased slightly, and sea level continues to rise at about the same rate as it did 200 years ago when the first tide gauges began to keep records. To use the latest term, there doesn’t seem to be any Climate Crisis.

    • Notice how the trolls are eager to proclaim weather is climate whenever the temperature is slightly more than it was last year.

      Also, notice how he can’t be bothered actually defending the models, he just declares that the world has warmed up since the depths of the Little Ice Age, therefore CO2 is evil.

      Of course he has to throw in the obligatory attack on other people’s religion.

      • MarkW July 15, 2020 at 7:40 am
        he just declares that the world has warmed up since the depths of the Little Ice Age, therefore CO2 is evil.
        ———————
        The word has cooled significantly since 3billion years ago – are you saying that this is the correct timescale for climate?

        • Typical troll. Since it can’t win on facts, it tries to be utterly ubsurd.

          Since we are talking about CO2, why include the time prior to the earth actually having an atmosphere? Unless your only goal is to make yourself look even more stupid?

        • PS: If you can provide evidence that the heat from 3 billion years ago was caused by CO2, I would love to see it.

    • GRAPEFRUIT
      WE have had 325 years of global warming since the late 1600s.

      Most likely more than +1.5 degrees C.

      No one was hurt.

      The warming was good news.

      The current climate is wonderful.

      Climate alarmists would have us belive the warming will continue, which is a reasonable guess, but continued warming would only.be bad news?

      That makes no sense.

      Actual warming since 1975 has been mainly in colder areas, mainly during the six coolest months of the year, and mainly at night.

      Are you going to tell us that warmer winter nights in Alaska have been bad news?

      The future climate can not be predictef.

      It will get warmer
      … unless it gets cooler.

      And don’t you forget it !

      My climate science blog, with over 61,000 page views;
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

    • I wish you would just buzz of with your written diarrhoea. That was totally unintelligent.

  6. VJ says “It is quite astonishing how the unelected politicians at the UN can convince and persuade global leaders to adopt climate policies that are based on unscientific conclusions from faulty models.”

    I suppose you suggest that the WHO were totally wrong to warn the world on January 2020 WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the 2019-nCoV outbreak a Public Health Emergency

    I suppose VJ thinks that people other than the UN should distribute aid (medical / food) to those in need?

    I suppose VJ thinks that people other than UN should provide shelters to refugees
    sending UN troops to secure peace is more tricky – they’re under equipped an not supposed to kill. Without a magic ray gun they’re hamstrung.

    • Typical troll logic. Since a UN agency was right in one instance, that proves that every UN agency is always right.

      In regards to WHO, they have already admitted that they lied earlier when they claimed that their warnings were based on input from China.

      PS: Isn’t it amazing how the troll actually believes that if the UN doesn’t distribute medical supplies, the poor won’t have medical supplies.

    • I suppose you suggest that the WHO were totally wrong to warn the world on January 2020 WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the 2019-nCoV outbreak a Public Health Emergency

      I notice this is more or less undated, only “…January 2020…”, no day. It has become apparent that the WHO only acceded to the obvious and declared an emergency after the leaks became impossible to control and/or ignore. On Jan 22 the WHO was declaring all was well, the ChiComs had everything under control and BTW we don’t see any evidence of human-human transmission. So if by “totally wrong” you mean, like, um, totally wrong, yeah, they were.

      • Red94ViperRT10 July 15, 2020 at 1:22 pm
        I notice this is more or less undated, only “…January 2020
        ————-
        Apologies I miss copied the info:
        30 January 2020 WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the 2019-nCoV outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, following a second meeting of the Emergency Committee convened under the International Health Regulations.
        Acknowledging that cases have been reported in five WHO regions in one month, the Committee noted that early detection, isolating and treating cases, contact tracing and social distancing measures – in line with the level of risk – can all work to interrupt virus spread.

        Trump::jan 30 Working closely with China and others on Coronavirus outbreak. Only 5 people in U.S., all in good recovery.

        I’m sure that the US would not have been happy if WHO had declared a pandemic when it could have been a bad case of flu.

        Of course The US and UK now spent a month taking no action :
        Trump::Feb. 24 (tweet): “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. … Stock Market starting to look very good to me!”
        Trump::Feb. 26: “Because of all we’ve done, the risk to the American people remains very low. … When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. That’s a pretty good job we’ve done.”
        Trump::March 10: “And it hit the world. And we’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.”
        Trump::March 12: “It’s going to go away. … The United States, because of what I did and what the administration did with China, we have 32 deaths at this point … when you look at the kind of numbers that you’re seeing coming out of other countries, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it.”

        • The funny thing is that when Trump did act, trolls like GhoulFont were whining that Trump was over reacting. After all, both China and the WHO were still saying that there was nothing to worry about.

  7. Here is the money quote, at least for me: models are always way off the mark, and – suspiciously – always in the same direction, namely, upward, in predicting real-world temperatures.” The reason for this continued failure to achieve modelling corresponding to reality would be attributable to the complexity, even to chaotic, nature of climates, however, always on the upward direction suggests that social engineering, not science, is involved in the modelling. Any reputable computer modeler with a science background would quickly recognize the models bias and seek to correct/eliminate the bias. But no, they continue too warm, because that is the objective, to support the socialist agenda of wealth transfer.

    • “Any reputable computer modeler with a science background would quickly recognize the models bias and seek to correct/eliminate the bias. But no, they continue too warm, because that is the objective…”

      and that’s how we know they are not serious scientists. It is inconceivable that they have not made some changes that matched a physical process better, or a better fit with observations, but went the “wrong way” when it came to the conclusion on CO2 and therefore shelved. Those model runs don’t see the light of day, a major scientific no-no similar to changing data or ignoring inconvenient results. I wonder how many times that has happened and whether it really bothers any of them that they are, in effect, lying about their work.

  8. Measurements, projections, models are a multibillion dollar waste, because of the 1900 Planck Radiation Law, which makes CO2’s ability to cause global warming zilcho because it can’t melt an ice cube with its -80C radiation. The rest is fake physics and deliberate misinfo. for propaganda purposes. No amount of money can change physics. Like my Cousin Vinny, CO2 has been framed, and the case against it is thinner than a playing card. It’s a matter of time before the public will wake up and laugh the climate Communists out of business, forcing them to try a new hoax to foist global Marxism.

    See:

    http://www.historyscoper.com/mycousinco2.html

  9. Ghalfront, I have a few issues with your post:
    1. You employ an ad hominem argument to slur Vijay because of his Christian beliefs and his advocacy of Intelligent Design, neither of which were even mentioned in his post.
    2. You show that you didn’t carefully read his post because you say he didn’t provide the projections to show the faultiness of CIMP 6, but he sited Dr. Roy Spencer’s work. For your benefit, please reference:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/hot-summer-epic-fail-new-climate-models-exaggerate-midwest-warming-by-6x/

    • dr. spencer shows a plot from one area and 3 months:
      “I realize this is just one season (summer) in one region (the U.S. Midwest), but it is immensely important. The U.S. is the world leader in production of corn (which is used for feed, food, and fuel) and behind only Brazil in soybean production…”

      To say the model is incorrect on this one observation is nonsense.

      The model is for projecting the GLOBAL climate not the climate outside my house.

  10. Overall the problem with these models is group Cognitive Dissonance.
    Originally the IPCC was set up to :—-“to assess ——-and understand the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change ———“.
    It not surprising then that RISK was found; as otherwise the IPCC would have been disbanded. Appropriate science was then used to provide the required conclusion to the exclusion of the rest, resulting in basically flawed models.
    The UN and its acolytes such as the IPCC is thus stuck with the problem and is now exhibiting all the symptoms of major group Cognitive Dissonance in defending its position.
    It really is a huge problem, which has done extraordinary damage to the scientific community.

    You can’t really call it garbage in – garbage out; but it is akin. More like censored in – required conclusion out. A practice found in so many articles and papers now being published.

  11. To me the take-away quote from this post is:

    ” Over 300 million of them—comparable to the whole U.S. population—currently have no electricity.”

    “Them” of course, refers to the population of India. Think for a moment – the whole U.S. without electricity! How can the U.N., or for that matter any individual developed country in the world, not only not help, but actually hinder these people from getting electricity? That is what the Paris Accord is doing.

    What if the U.N. canceled just one COP meeting and used the money spent on the meeting to invest in a coal-fired power plant in India? Or the 6 million given to NYU to have lawyers wage lawfare on the oil companies, invested in dispatchable electricity generation in India? That certainly would do more for humanity than the money is doing now.

  12. I think India could be very important in the push back against agenda science and UN orchestration of policy around the world. That requires more leadership and less silent treatment like so many countries are conducting.

    • We are actually doing it. Investing heavily in Fossil. And implementing makeshift renewable projects to appease Paris donors.

  13. “It is quite astonishing how the unelected politicians at the UN can convince and persuade global leaders to adopt climate policies that are based on unscientific conclusions from faulty models.” It has been a while since I read Agenda 21 but I remember it quite distinctly saying the way to get states to comply to a One World Government (ie, the UN) is through “shaming, ostracizing, withholding trade”, and other nefarious means. Nations are held hostage by the UN using these methods already. Look how large the UN has grown and deviated from its’ intended mission of keeping peace. We disbanded the League of Nations and the UN sprung up using the identical premises right under our noses. The UN is nothing more than a Marxist clearing house.

  14. For the benefit of poor old Ghalfrunt who obviously believes in the fairies and the fable of naughty anthropogenic CO2 warming the world, I offer a few facts.

    If you bothered to take the time to study the electromagnetic radiation spectrum of radiation received from the Sun and that emitted from the Earth, and the part played on these by the various greenhouse gasses, you would quickly realise that it is impossible for the minor greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to become the principle cause (as claimed by the IPCC) of the current mild, highly beneficial warming period we are currently enjoying.

    In a nutshell, emissions from Earth must equal input from the Sun or we would either heat up or cool down.

    The major greenhouse gas is water vapour and it blocks emissions over two wide spectral bands either side of a large radiation ‘window’ centred around the wide peak emission area (~ 8 – 12um wavelength), where there is little restriction imposed on emissions at all, and they are free to escape to space.

    Carbon dioxide effectively operates only at a narrow spike centred on 14.9um, which is also partially covered by water vapour, limiting any additional restriction on emissions.

    If you further allow for the fact that man’s emissions, estimated by the IPCC AR5 at 3.8% from burning fossil fuels and .5% from Land Use Change (carefully hidden in the main Report), means that 95.7% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from readily explained natural sources.

    This makes a complete mockery of the IPCC’s claims (and nullifies the reason for its existence) and exposes the basic ignorance of the relevant facts by every advocate of anthropogenic climate change.

    Ignoring the facts, does not change them.

  15. Ian McClintock July 15, 2020 at 4:29 pm
    … the electromagnetic radiation spectrum of radiation received from the Sun and that emitted from the Earth, and the part played on these by the various greenhouse gasses, you would quickly realise that it is impossible for the minor greenhouse gas carbon dioxide to become the principle cause …
    In a nutshell, emissions from Earth must equal input from the Sun or we would either heat up or cool down.
    The major greenhouse gas is water vapour …
    —————–
    gh
    Water vapour is indeed as you say but water vapour requires heat to evaporate water. Some will be from CO2.
    ——————–
    and they are free to escape to space.
    ————————
    gh
    No they are not free until the MFP is sufficiently long (low atmospheric pressure) that the collisions to other molecules does not transfer all the h2o energy away from and back to the h2o. At the emission altitude the temperature lowers the humidity and co2 is significant.
    ——————-

    If you further allow for the fact that man’s emissions, estimated by the IPCC AR5 at 3.8% from burning fossil fuels and .5% from Land Use Change (carefully hidden in the main Report), means that 95.7% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is from readily explained natural sources.
    ————————-
    gh
    over thousands of years the natural sources have become balanced with the natural sinks. Add an extra 4.3% and the balance is no more.
    ———-
    This makes a complete mockery of the IPCC’s claims (and nullifies the reason for its existence) and exposes the basic ignorance of the relevant facts by every advocate of anthropogenic climate change.
    —————–
    gh
    right or wrong there needs to be scientific research into AGW. You should not stifle this research. If it is wrong then provide your corrections and your own projections.

  16. “India imports large amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas from the U.S., mostly to generate affordable power for its electric grid. That grid must grow rapidly to meet the needs of over 1.3 billion people. Over 300 million of them—comparable to the whole U.S. population—currently have no electricity. But they need it desperately for their health and their escape from severe poverty”

    India is a non-Annex country and as such had no emission reduction obligation under the unfccc. The “intended nationally determined contribution” it submitted is just an intention and not an obligation.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/04/11245/

  17. Those 100+ climate models all have differing assumptions and many key variables differ significantly…so these are actually a collection of differing mini-theories.

    In what time and place was it ever acceptable to take the average of many theories as a representation of the truth ?

    That is actually childish. It defies all logic. But it remains the centerpiece of the “Science” for setting energy and economic policies costing many $Trillions.

    • The good news is : it won’t cost trillons
      The bad news is : it won’t cost trillions beause we in the west are broke, bankrupt, skint , living on hope and a dollar. The only country with money, or at least the potential to make it is China, and it won’t waste it, and is not wasting it , on dubious technology.

  18. Question: What is the Man Made contribution to the warming of the planet now – 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 degrees? Or more?. And what was it 5, 10, 20 and 30 years ago. The data is in. If the climate modelers cannot answer then what worth is their projections for 20 to 100 years hence.
    Claims have been made for man made warming for 30+ years, where is the actual graph displaying the man made contributions to that warming.

  19. Yesterday there was an intewiew on Deutsche Welle with a climate scientist about the warm tempeatures in Siberia. He said that Global Warming accelerated in Siberia six times as much as in the rest of the world.

    If it is Global Warming it cannot be local. Stupid Morons.

  20. It is important to note that the forcing code (that translates the additional net CO2 in the atmosphere to a projected temperature increase ) is provided to all the climate modellers as a version number. Thus you have CMIP6, CMIP5,CMIP4,CMIP3….. etc . This was confirmed by my conversation with Dr. Greg Flato who runs the Canadian climate model and sits on the committee that develops the special forcing code kernel . He currently serves as co-chair of the WCRP Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) . I suspect that the Russian model is the only one that doesnt use this special forcing code kernel, because the Russian one is the only computer climate model that gets it right.

Comments are closed.