April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.
Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.
While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies.
Global Ocean Temperatures are Warming at Only ~50% the Rate of Climate Model Projections
Today’s example comes from global-average sea surface temperatures. The oceans provide our best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system. Since John Christy and I are working on a project that explains global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s with a 1D climate model, I thought I would show you just how the observations are comparing to climate models simulations.
The plot below (Fig. 1) shows the monthly global (60N-60S) average ocean surface temperature variations since 1979 for 68 model simulations from 13 different climate models. The 42 years of observations we now have since 1979 (bold black line) shows that warming is occurring much more slowly than the average climate model says it should have.
In terms of the linear temperature trends since 1979, Fig. 2 shows that 2 of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.
Deep Ocean Warming Could Be Mostly Natural
A related issue is how much the deep oceans are warming. As I have mentioned before, the (inarguable) energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent decades is only about 1 part (less than 1 Watt per sq. m) in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system.
This is a very tiny energy imbalance in the climate system. We know NONE of the natural energy flows to that level of accuracy.
What that means is that global warming could be mostly natural, and we would not even know it.
I’m not claiming that is the case. I am merely pointing out the level of faith that is involved in the adjustments made to climate models, which necessarily produce warming due to increasing CO2 because those models simply assume that there is no other source of warming.
Yes, more CO2 must produce some warming. But the amount of warming makes all the difference to global energy policies.
Seldom is the public ever informed of these glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell us.
Why does it matter?
It matters because there is no Climate Crisis. There is no Climate Emergency.
Yes, irregular warming is occurring. Yes, it is at least partly due to human greenhouse gas emissions. But seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned, or the benefits of more CO2 in the atmosphere (which is required for life on Earth to exist).
But if we waste trillions of dollars (that’s just here in the U.S. — meanwhile, China will always do what is in the best interests of China) then that is trillions of dollars not available for the real necessities of life.
Prosperity will suffer, and for no good reason.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Make no mistake — the science does not support the hysteria. The science shows there is no climate crisis.
But facts and reason be damned. President
DependsBiden will sell our futures down the river in exchange for China’s promises to make changes in the future. China will continue to do what’s best for China. India, the same.Expect an agreement worse than Obama’s deal with Iran — We paid them billions in hard currency and dropped sanctioned and in exchange Iran made promises the ayatollah’s never had any intention of honoring.
“Models Predict”
Project, please. Climate models can’t, and don’t, predict anything.
Fantasize !
Dr. Frank: I agree completely; yet the point of running a climate model past the present time is to glean information about what will happen in future, even if the authors ignore the lack of actual information conveyed because of uncertainty. From a statistical standpoint, I would say a better term is extrapolation.
Your statistical extrapolation has no physical meaning, Carlo. What’s the point?
They play games and misrepresent them as science.
Also, please call me Pat.
Pat, I mean extrapolation in the regression sense, where the standard deviation increases outside of the input data limits (and as anyone who has done polynomial curve fitting knows, the fitted curve itself can go wild outside of the data limits).
Agreed. Information-free.
And, in truth, the polynomial fit inside the data limits conveys no causal information, either.
Pat, I’m sorry but the two words become synonymous in the hysterical media, so trying to put the cork back in that bottle is pointless. Not only are the verbs predict and project synonymous, the word guarantee also means the same exact thing. Just ask Sandy Cortez, Greta T, Rosie O’Donnell and sleepy Joe, if you don’t believe me.
That’s only because none of these people understand how to propagate uncertainty. It’s like it isn’t taught in schools anymore. It’s just make a guess and then assume its 100% certain!
Congress should ban the sale of calculators, if only for the sake of the children and the children’s children. Plus, it’s the exact antithesis of virtue-signaling and is probably racist and misogynistic.
Defund calculator manufacturers.
Still, Mickey, integrity demands we stick to our guns in the face of unreason.
True, we should try. And let’s get rid of the terms “ocean acidification” and “greenhouse gas” while we’re at it.
Recently I wrote, with the inevitable bit of irony associated to the mostly negative reactions to my comments:
” I LOVE these DOWNVOTINGS! ”
But… I think WUWT would improve its credibility by removing these up/downvoting icons.
You just need to see that everything what fits to the average narrative gets plusses, and everything what doesn’t gets minusses.
I apologize for the critique, but this is kindergarten level.
J.-P. D.
I downvoted you. Friday evening – kindergarten thinking rules.
Bindidong is a computer animator , he doesn’t know thermodynamix from aerodynamix, he draws straight lines through snippets of data extended 100 years to the future and calls it a forecast.
The whining about dislikes is awesome , how about you stay in the safe space on Facebook
Eben
As usual, from Eben: stoopid superficial discrediting polemic instead of arguments.
I upvote you, Eben!
J.-P. D.
I entirely agree with you.
It’s a beauty contest where beauty is in the eye of the beholders. Most of whom are repulsed by ideas they disagree with.
On the other hand I’ve had +31 comment and -35 in the last week alone. So at least the variation gives a measure of unconventional thought.
If it reported the commenter’s standard deviation score as well as the comment score it would be of value. It would show independence of thought.
But as of now it is entirely worthless.
Excuse me, but didn’t Joe Biden promise to US citizens during his campaign to be President, and even after he took office as such, to “follow the science”?
Oh well . . . it sounded good (to many) at those times.
Environmentalist scientists have been predicting the world would end in 10 years for more than 40 now. If they’re only off by half, we’ve already been through it twice.
As concerns the “deep ocean warming” , if we do not know any of the natural sources of warming to the accuracy( one part in 300) then we do not know that there is an “inarguable” energy imbalance. We cannot make claims on the accuracy if we are not aware of all the variables. Define what is to be measured, define all variables affecting that measurement. Absolutely basic requirements for measurement. Without the second any attempt is mere speculation.