By Andy May
The Old Farmer’s Almanac has been making yearly long-term weather forecasts for 230 years. We pay attention to them because they are normally 80% accurate. They did not do as well last winter but were 72% in predicting the direction of temperature change, and 78% accurate in the change in precipitation. This is pretty remarkable because while the U.S. weather forecasts are 90% accurate five days in advance, they are only 80% accurate seven days out. The Old Farmer’s Almanac forecasts are far less specific, they only predict the direction of change, but their forecasts are for twelve months in the future, quite impressive. Figure 1 is their forecast for the lower 48 United States, for this winter.
Their forecast is by season, not day-by-day and they only predict temperature and precipitation direction of change relative to the average for the area. The lower 48 United States are divided into the 16 areas shown on the map in Figure 2. If their forecast is correct, we are in for another cold winter this year.
While they predict the temperature changes for many locations in each region numerically, they only grade themselves on their predictions of the change in direction of temperature and precipitation by region. This is a lower bar than NOAA uses, but still significant. Remarkably their 80% accuracy target is nearly always met over the past 230 years.
How do they do this? Consider that the IPCC, even after spending billions of dollars, has never accurately predicted climate changes—and they admit it. Besides missing the amount of global warming, they have often missed the direction for significant periods of time. The IPCC wrote in AR6, their latest report:
“There is medium confidence that most CMIP5 and CMIP6 models overestimate the observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the period 1979–2014, in part because they overestimate tropical SST warming.” (page TS-37)
“… all report that CMIP6 models on average overestimate warming from the 1970s or 1980s to the 2010s, although quantitative conclusions depend on which observational dataset is compared against…” (page 3-15)
“That overestimated warming may be an early symptom of overestimated equilibrium climate sensitivities (ECS) in some CMIP6 models (Meehl et al., 2020; Schlund et al., 2020)” (page 3-15)
“… studies continue to find that CMIP5 and CMIP6 model simulations warm more than observations in the tropical mid- and upper-troposphere over the 1979-2014 period (Mitchell et al., 2013, 2020, Santer et al., 2017a, 2017b; Suárez-Gutiérrez et al., 2017; McKitrick and Christy, 2018” (Page 3-24)
“… some studies suggest that climate sensitivity also plays a role (Mauritsen and Stevens, 2015; McKitrick and Christy, 2020; Po-Chedley et al., 2021). Hence, we assess with medium confidence that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models continue to overestimate observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the 1979-2014 period by at least 0.1°C per decade, in part because of an overestimate of the tropical SST trend pattern over this period…” (page 3-24)
IPCC AR6 quotes
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel and it gets old after a while.
Suffice it to say, the Old Farmer’s Almanac, with its 230-year-old algorithm, while not as specific as the IPCC forecasts, does better and has a longer track record. Ross McKitrick and John Christy tested the AR5 models versus observations in the tropical troposphere and nearly all of them failed the test in a statistically significant way (McKitrick & Christy, 2018).
In a 2021 presentation to the Irish Climate Science Forum in Dublin, John Christy presented his evaluation of the AR6 models, it is shown in Figure 3. The historical or hindcasted model results are displayed from 1975 through 2014. The forecasted results are from 2015 through 2020, these are steadily up in temperature. Using the weather balloon data (light green) we can see temperature went up in 2015, this is also true of the UAH satellite data for the tropics in that year.
The weather sonde and reanalysis data ends in 2016, so if we substitute the UAH lower troposphere satellite data for the tropics, we see that temperatures went down in 2016 and 2020. In other words, directionally, the IPCC was only correct four out of six years in AR6, a success rate of 67%.
In Figure 3, notice the direction of the AR6 modeled temperature change is wrong from 2005 to 2010 and 1995 to 2000, even though these years were hindcasted. That is, the modelers knew the answer and still got it wrong. The red, yellow-filled boxes are the average of numerous climate models, and the spread of model results is ±50% or more. Further the observations are half (-50%) of the prediction.
Six years of predictions are not a lot. Thanks to Ross McKitrick and John Christy we also have their analysis of the AR5 models, which forecast temperatures from 2010. The plot from their paper is shown in Figure 4.
.
The model projections in Figure 4 are only from 2010 to the present, or eleven years. In this period, they get the direction of temperature change correct 8 times or 73% of the time. They hindcasted the period from 2005 to 2010 and got everyone of those years wrong, which tells us a lot. It is interesting that the spread in model results between AR6 and AR5 has not narrowed. It is generally acknowledged that the direct effect of doubling CO2 is about one degree of warming, which is modest. The true debate is over the possible feedbacks to that warming. Some think they could be net negative, especially in the tropics (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), and the IPCC thinks they are net positive. However, the uncertainty in the net feedback has not narrowed in AR6, in fact, it is slightly larger, as illustrated in Figure 5.
As always, the largest uncertainty in the feedback are the effects of clouds, cloud feeback varies from slightly negative (cooling) to positive (warming). As you can see on the left side of Figure 5, the net uncertainty in AR6 is larger than in either the CMIP5 models or the CMIP6 models. Billions of dollars and we know less than we did when AR5 was published in 2013.
The Old Farmer’s Almanac Methodology
The Old Farmer’s Almanac tries to predict the direction of change in both precipitation and temperature. The IPCC model ensemble, over two short forecast periods, achieves an accuracy of 67% to 73%. In 230 years of forecasts, the Old Farmer’s Almanac is normally 80% accurate. How do they do this?
Their primary metric has always been solar activity, as measured by sunspots. The predominant input they use in their forecasting model is the solar cycle and it has been the most important input for 230 years. They have found that the solar cycle strongly affects weather teleconnections, these are longer-term weather patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Pacific/North American Index (PNA), and ENSO (La Niña/El Niño). Teleconnections are very large-scale weather patterns that can sometimes have global weather effects. For example, El Niños and La Niña’s in the equatorial Pacific strongly affect North American weather. What the forecasters at the Old Farmer’s Almanac do, is forecast the changes to the 32 teleconnections they monitor using the state of the solar cycle as a guide. Then they use the teleconnection predictions to build their forecast.
The teleconnection predictions and the predicted impact of each are guided by their 230 years of detailed records. For more on how Old Farmer’s Almanac uses teleconnections in their forecast see this blog post by Mike Steinberg.
The methods used by the Old Farmer’s Almanac stem from an algorithm developed by Robert B. Thomas in 1792, when George Washington was still president. It has obviously been refined over the years, but the basics are still the same. The staff assure us that folklore, such as acorns, persimmons, apples and wooly caterpillars are not used in their process. Thomas firmly believed that changes in solar activity, as revealed through sunspots, are the primary influence on our weather. Figure 6 is a portrait of Robert Thomas.
Like NOAA, the Old Farmer’s Almanac uses 30-year climate temperature and precipitation averages as the basis for their predictions. NOAA’s averages are often called “climate normals.” So, when the Old Farmer’s Almanac says warmer than normal or colder than normal, the normal they are referring to is NOAA’s most recent 30-year average.
The IPCC has concluded that solar variability is unimportant for predicting climate change since, in their view, it just goes up and down every 11 years or so and has no long-term trend. This idea is discussed here, especially see the third figure, it is from the AR5 IPCC report and shows they assume the long-term change in solar output is zero to 0.1 W/m2. Thus, we have a 230-year solar-based algorithm, with a good track record, pitted against a relatively new algorithm that ignores solar variability, costs billions of dollars, and has a poor track record over the past 30 years.
Michael Steinberg writes the following for the Old Farmer’s Almanac in 2019:
“The Old Farmer’s Almanac‘s long-range forecasts are based predominantly upon solar activity, with their basis being that changes in activity on the Sun do indeed directly cause changes in weather patterns on Earth.”
As Steinberg mentions, the IPCC and other agencies do not believe that solar variability matters, however, the Old Farmer’s Almanac believes changes in the Sun control our climate to a large degree. He cites recent work by Russian meteorologists that postulate that very small changes in the Sun can affect Earth’s thermosphere, and that these changes can work their way down to the troposphere and affect our weather.
The thermosphere and the mesosphere are quite high, and their air density is quite low, so the effect on the troposphere is probably small, but the stratosphere definitely affects our longer-term weather, as past wobbly polar vortexes can attest (Kretschmer, et al., 2018). Solar UV varies more than total solar irradiation, and as solar UV output changes so does the stratosphere.
Discussion
So, we have a 230-year-old seasonal weather forecasting method that depends upon solar activity and historical records of the effects of weather teleconnections at different stages of the solar cycle. In opposition, we have a billion-dollar set of complex computer models that assume the Sun doesn’t matter and greenhouse gases control the climate (Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, & Ruedy, 2010). The 230-year-old method has a good record, and the billion-dollar models, not so much. The billion-dollar models can’t even get it right when they know the answer!
Criticism of the Old Farmer’s Almanac and the younger Farmer’s Almanac (a different publication) generally revolves around their use of solar variability to make the forecast. Meteorologists, such as Marshal Shepherd, will say there is no evidence that solar activity influences weather. Perhaps, but if so, why are the Old Farmer’s Almanac predictions better than the IPCC predictions when compared in an apples-to-apples comparison, as we have done above? Critics of the IPCC forecasts suggest they ignore evidence that solar variability is important (Connolly et al., 2021).
The Old Farmer’s Almanac accuracy has dropped a bit over the last decade, and is now in the range 72% to 79%, but they are working to get back to their normal 80% range. Either way, they are clearly more accurate than the billion-dollar IPCC climate models when forecasting trends a year in advance or in the past. The magazine is only nine dollars. No wonder it is an Amazon best seller.
Look at it another way, if the Old Farmer’s Almanac has a better forecast record, for 230 years, than the IPCC has for 30 years, doesn’t that tell you something? What is the IPCC doing with the billions of dollars we give them? Their forecasts are almost straight lines, why not replace them with an Excel spreadsheet? Once I made a mistake in predicting the performance of a gas well, my boss said he was going replace me with a pair of dice. He didn’t thankfully, but he had a valid point. I had set my forecasting target and missed it, a model’s value is determined by its track record.
Download the bibliography here.
I just can’t see why they imagine that a huge fusion reactor that makes up 99% of the solar system has more to do with the temperature than 1 molecule of CO2 in 10,000. It makes no sense.
The argument is that the sun’s output varies very little. That’s why it’s called the solar constant.
I think it’s safe to assume the sun’s output of thermal radiation is close to constant. The other things the sun does are far from constant. In particular we have to consider the sun’s magnetic fields and ionizing radiation. Those, directly and indirectly, seem to influence cloud formation.
Even the alarmists admit clouds are poorly understood with respect to their effect on the climate. (I remember a Trenberth comment to that effect but I can’t quickly find it.)
The bottom line is that treating the sun as if it’s only a source of thermal energy is bogus. If we don’t fully understand the sun’s effects on cloud formation, we are certainly not allowed to assume they don’t exist.
CB you say: “I think it’s safe to assume the Sun’s output of thermal radiation is close to constant”.
For those of us less knowledgeable, why is this so? Surely variations that would affect the Earth’s climate would only need to be small (without knowledge I’m guessing of the order of 1%)? Are such random or cyclic variations not plausible?
I am sure that the Sun’s influence is the lock that we have to unpick before understanding variations in our climate and I fully accept your point that this influence goes well beyond the pure thermal aspect. I am confused, however, as to why the thermal radiation would be so consistent.
Why is this topic a ‘big deal’?
If you want to argue that CO2 is the only cause of global warming, you have to argue that solar variability has no effect.
So, what we’re dealing with is not dispassionate seekers of the truth. We are dealing with people indulging in motivated reasoning to support their CAGW quasi-religion.
As to the points you make, I’m agnostic. My point is that, even if you accept that solar thermal radiation doesn’t change much, you still can’t ignore the large variability in the Sun’s magnetic field as well as that of its ionizing radiation. For one example, there’s evidence that the Sun’s magnetic field modulates cosmic rays and that has an effect on cloud formation.
It appears to me that Habibullo Abdussamatov does not agree with you.
Energy Imbalance Between the Earth and Space Controls the Climate.
Earth Sciences.
Vol. 9, No. 4, 2020, pp. 117-125.
doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.11
Isn’t this assumption based across the whole EM spectrum, when in fact if you examine individual wavelengths or groups of wavelengths there are larger changes in output across the Hale and Schwabe cycles.
Yes
commieBob, TSI (total solar irradiance) may not vary much over short periods (~50 yrs), except for the solar cycle. But, UV output varies a lot and it has a significant affect on the stratosphere, which in turn does affect our weather. Further the teleconnections do not have the same period as the solar cycles and are much affected by them.
Perhaps variations in the solar wind and magnetic field matter also, but that is less clear.
Fully agree.
Long wave UV imparts thermal energy. Short wave UV, on the other hand is ionizing. link As you say, it varies a lot and has a profound effect on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere.
“The argument is that the sun’s output varies very little.”
Sorry, that is not an “argument“: it is an “assumption“!
I should have said it better.
The argument, made by those who deny the effect of solar variability on the Earth’s climate, is that the sun’s output varies very little. They, being experts, will present data to support their argument. (Experts can always muster facts to support their arguments, no matter how crackpot those arguments are.)
My point is that, even if we accept that solar thermal energy is close to constant, the Sun’s magnetic field and ionizing radiation are far from constant and do appear to affect the Earth’s climate.
commieBob, clouds are part of chaos, which is essentially unpredictable. Meteorologists can do some predicting, based on atmospheric conditions like water vapor and temperature, but if they predict a sunny day and it turns cloudy, are they wrong? No, they are only using what they have available to predict chaos activity.
It’s like that old 1980s song “Both Sides Now” by Judy Collins:
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still, somehow,
It’s clouds’ illusions I recall.
I really don’t know clouds at all.
That’s about as accurate a description of clouds as part of chaos, as you can get.
It is constant after correcting for the Earth-Sun distance variation, i.e. to one AU. The annual top-of-the-atmosphere irradiance (air mass zero) changes by more than 10%.
“The bottom line is that treating the sun as if it’s only a source of thermal energy is bogus.”
Yes, this doesn’t take into consideration other things the Sun does such as regulating the amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth’s atmosphere, determined by how strong the solar wind is. Cosmic rays have an effect on cloud formation. More clouds can cool the Earth. Fewer clouds allows the Earth to warm.
The claim is that the sun establishes a steady state, and that any divergence from a calculated normal, can only be accounted for by a transnatural source. Meanwhile, they infer a base state from circumstantial artifacts, assume an efficacy characterized in isolation, herald the risk of point events as progressive (i.e. monotonic) conditions, and massage the data to force a consensus with observation.
Thanks, Andy. I’ve often thought the Farmer’s was the standard to beat for long term ( greater than a month ) weather forecasting. But I still can’t see what weather has to do with climate, or the reverse.
Climate is the average weather observed, measured, calculated over a 30-year period. Point events including hurricanes and blocking events, and temporary conditions including subsidence and deforestation, are recorded, interpreted, and presented as an apology for climate change and justification of mitigation demands.
A made up and totally bogus figure. If the climate follows a roughly 60 year cycle, and it certainly appears to, then 30 years is a criminally stupid period to invent for evaluation of climate changes.
The same is true for sea level rise. The rate for the 30 year run-up to 1950 was about 3 mm/yr and the current rate for the last 30 years is about 3 mm/yr. BUT the rate for the 30 year run-up to 1980 was was about 1.5 mm/yr. Here’s a linky-pooh
Warmists have changed the definition of “climate” from its traditional usage. It is now based upon “Global Average Temperature” rather than the total average conditions around various latitudes of the globe and then broken down further into biomes.
From my readings regional and local description of climate shown by the GCM are abysmal. This makes one wonder how the GAT can possibly have any significance at all. It is basically using different parts to achieve a whole. That can’t be correct in anyone’s book.
Climate should include things like precipitation, humidity, temperature, cloudiness, winds, etc. These are the things that define biomes along with flora and fauna. Here is my take: I have not seen any major biome changes in my lifetime. Deserts world wide are still deserts. Grasslands are still grasslands. Rain forests are still rain forests. The poles are still ice covered. I also doubt that any GCM comes close to predicting these things accurately.
Lastly, fear is being used to drive the human population just like driving horses or cows. A 3 degree increase in temperature is nothing to fear. It will only have a marginal effect on biomes that have survived for millennia. It is no more than driving from the north side of a fly over state in the U.S. to the south side. Soil conditions have more variation in that drive than temperature does.
And yet Hansen himself admitted that Global Average Temperature was “not a useful metric”.
This dimwit’s conundrum of the day is: how is it possible to hindcast something and get it wrong? More than once!
Jim, I am with you on your points. I frequently tell people that the warmunists’ worst predictions are like moving from northern Iowa to southern Iowa. Meanwhile, New Englanders retire to Florida for a desired climate change that is five times the IPCC’s worst predictions.
Yes! Why don’t the climate “scientists” use the whole time baseline for which we have any kind of data for? Certainly good cases could be made to use 1000, 2000, 10000, a million years as the climate baseline, but 30 years is just a weather baseline.
Isn’t it the Old Farmers Almanac itself that claims 80% accuracy & not some independent analysis of said accuracy rate? Asking for a friend who is the most interesting man alive – handsomest too!
U.of Illinois meteorologists J.Walsh & D. Allen check from 1975 to 1980 the OldFarmersAlmanac 16 forecast regions against data from 32 cities there-in. The Almanac prediction of an above or a below temperature &/or rainfall was accurate 52% of the time. The Almanac’s highest season temperature prediction(s) rate was apparently best for it’s home base region, the northeastern USA; ranging from 47-62% accuracy there. [As per “Weatherwise 34, 212” published Oct. 1981.]
Another look in the 1980’s by then National Weather Service chief D, Gilman reported the OldFarmersAlmanac temperature predictions covering all winter months is around 65%. And the accuracy for 12 month period published is around 60%.
Not many old farmers in cities. Not all that much correlation between cities and the majority of their regions, either.
Observation:
Ex: Old Farmers Almanac temperature predictions over the winter Nov 2013 to March 2014 accuracy a toss up
What about 2013/2014 winter precipitation forecasting?
A different 2016 & 2017 period look said in regions where the Old Farmers Almanac made predictions the precipitation predictions were “good” in 25% of 57 regions & temperature predictions were “good” in 32% of 57 regions.
gringojay, They cherry picked their data and they are reporting the accuracy of day-to-day predictions rather than the more accurate seasonal and annual forecasts discussed in this post. I compare the Almanac seasonal forecasts to the IPCC annual forecasts in the post, neither are day-to-day. Your comparisons compare daily meteorological forecasts to seasonal. The Almanac is in between weather and climate.
The Almanac accuracy calculations are just for the seasonal predictions, not for the more detailed, month-to-month or week-to-week predictions in the book. Those more detailed predictions are about 50/50.
They also did not include all the cities and towns the Almanac does. As everyone who has lived on a farm and in the city knows, the city centers have different weather than the nearby farms. They are warmer and have less precipitation. Depending upon the locations used in each region you can manufacture the number you like. The Almanac is not very useful for day-to-day forecasting in any case, that is not what it is for.
Farmers are far more interested in seasonal forecasts than in day-to-day. Seasonal forecasts are far more useful in deciding what to plant, when to plant, and when to expect harvest to occur. These directly impact net revenue from the farm operation than do some kind of day-to-day or month-to-month forecasts, especially when they include city measurements.
Yes, that is their claimed season prediction accuracy. The day-to-day accuracy is around 50%. They go through the details of the calculation every year and it seems like a legitimate calculation to me.
The calculations are done here out back in the barn:
Please view the 2 color maps posted immediately above, which are seasonal references since you differentiate relevance of “season prediction”. [Source = opensnow dot com.]
Now, your original post discussion that is specifically about climate models is itself worthwhile of WUWT. I have posted no criticism of that.
Thanks, but when I went to opensnow dot com to see how they evaluated the Old Farmer’s Almanac (OFA) seasonal forecast, I couldn’t find anything but a vague description, which is what I’ve normally seen. The only detailed evaluation I’ve seen applied to the detailed, week-by-week predictions and it was 50/50. I’ve not seen a solid outside study of the seasonal forecasts, which is all I’m interested in.
I’m not trying defend OFA, but if you have a reference to detailed analysis of their seasonal forecasts, I’d like to read it. As far as I know the 80% number is correct.
The point of comparing them to IPCC was just to show the IPCC projections are not better and probably worse. Since there are no measurements of man-made climate change and no evidence climate change (natural or man-made) is dangerous, that pretty much ends the discussion.
Their arguments are all based on projections that are no good.
The Old Farmer’s Almanac does make projections for the weather for 3-5 day periods for the year. It’d be impossible to even agree on a method for evaluating that, but I remember when the Super Bowl was held outdoors near New York City, it predicted the snowstorm that hit after the game within 12 hours – better than the NWS and local predictions made the week before the game.
Great breakdown, Andy!
I’d say that the IPCC ought to hire Neil Ferguson to help them with their modeling accuracy, but it looks like they already have!
Does the average reader of wuwt even know who this clown Neil Ferguson is.?
How do the predictions made by the woolly caterpillars compare with the IPCC predictions?
Caterpillars are in the pay of Big Oil.
Can’t be trusted.
How do the Almanac prdictions compare with the NOAA seasonal predictions?
I saw an official government prediction the other day, although it wasn’t from NOAA, and it predicted above normal temperatures for the coming season.
IPCC uses non-wooly caterpillars
The IPCC takes being wrong to another level. Not only are they numerically challenged, but they got the cause wrong as well. The oceans have been driving climate for the last 40+ years and it’s beyond obvious.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Increasing CO2 cannot warm the planet because it absorbs/radiates to space from the stratosphere. Any CO2 increase will raise the effective radiation height to a warmer altitude which then leads to more energy being lost to space. It really is that simple.
So the heat that’s warming the atmosphere is coming out of the ocean – which is also warming. That’s a neat trrick.
Some of you need to study some thermodynamics. The ocean is a body being both heated by absorption from a source and cooling by radiating to another, cooler body, the atmosphere. It can do both.
The atmosphere is nothing more than an insulator with a hot source on one side and a cooler insulating body on the other side. Do you think the insulation in your house doesn’t approach the house’s temperature at the boundary of wall and insulation? Does it have a temperature gradient toward the atmosphere outside? The atmosphere is more complicated because it has several gradients due to multiple substances and varying heat conductivities.
Really, so if I turn on the hot water and run it into the tub while closing the bathroom door either the water in the tub will immediately turn cold or the air won’t warm???? Is that what you really believe?
Face::palm.
I’ve seen this absolutely ridiculous claim before. It is pure nonsense and a person has to be very dense to repeat it. Are you still in grade school?
I’m trying to make sense of this…
“There is medium confidence that most CMIP5 and CMIP6 models overestimate the observed warming in the upper tropical troposphere over the period 1979–2014…”
Given that it’s 2021 and we can compare predictions and observations, shouldn’t they be 100% confident about whether or not the models overestimate the warming between 1979-2014?
No – it depends on which set of cooked books they consult for “observed warming.”
This would be the same Almanac that in 2008 stated that “the earth had entered a global cooling period that would probably last decades.” Doesn’t seem particularly accurate. Plus multiple studies have found that it’s accuracy is not significantly better than 50%. It is no where near close to 80%.
The linked citation supposedly backing the author’s claim that The Old Farmer’s Almanac is “80% accurate” takes us to… The Old Farmer’s Almanac website.
Izaak, As noted above the 50% accuracy claims are for the detailed month-to-month and week-to-week forecasts. The 80% number is for the whole season. In the post I compare their seasonal forecasts to the yearly IPCC forecasts. I mention the NOAA daily forecasts, but they are not what we are going for here.
Are you sure we haven’t entered a cooling phase? Did the almanac predict cooling rates? Could they have missed it by a few years? Your criticism is pretty picky for something that NO ONE has been able to forecast accurately. Give us YOUR prediction for areas around the U.S. if you want to have any credibility in the future!
The global temperatures have cooled by about 0.4C since the “hottest year evah!, 2016.
Yes, it’s cooling. Whether this is the beginning of a longer-term phase or not remains to be seen. It’s early yet. But it is defintely cooling in the short-term.
Hello, first time making a comment on this site. I’m here because I’m looking for a hopeful solution/answer. I’m 37 years old, definitely not the smartest guy out there. Never very good at science or math. If I come off sounding like a foolish idiot to you all I do apologize in advance. I’m here because what is now referred to as eco-anxiety is ruining my life and I honestly don’t know what to do anymore. I constantly worry about climate change 24/7. I definitely don’t want to. I want to live a worry free life, happy and in complete confidence belief of the skeptics argument when it comes to this topic. Because I don’t understand it I’m constantly on the fence about it all. I want to understand if the skeptics are so completely sure that they’re right in the matter then how come so many argue against it? I’m sorry. I mean absolutely no offense. It’s just very difficult for someone like me who doesn’t understand the science and can’t stop questioning ‘what if?” This topic has become so severe in my mind and I just want it to stop. I look so hard for concrete evidence that debunks the alarmist claims and then there’s always people who argue against it or praise the science that the alarmists present. Between people who continually claim that it’s now irreversible and that we’re all going to die, IPCC saying we’re dangerously close to a climate catastrophe and that we’re on our way to hell on earth, if that’s truly not the case, if that isn’t going to happen, can you please show me something that proves otherwise. Why would they make such a claim? Is it just for money or do they actually believe that and if so why? What in their science and technology makes them think that all of this is happening if it really isn’t? I know it may sound like I’m doubting the skeptics side but I assure you I’m not. I just don’t understand this and I’m looking for answers that will hopefully ease my anxiety. Then there’s doomers like Guy Mcpherson who I blame the most for my anxiety, that and the arctic news blog website done by the mysterious Sam Carana, the whole claim that because of the methane from the thawing permafrost in the arctic and the Siberian ice shelf releasing into the atmosphere is going to make temperatures raise 10 degrees by 2026 and kill all of us. I want to tell myself that this is so outrageous and something that could never ever happen but there are people who say that their science is amazing and spot on. That they have a better understanding of climate change than others and that we really are doomed. This is what scares me to no end. I want to believe that they’re all wrong and that everything is going to be fine but it’s so difficult to find people who can solidly debunk them. It also doesn’t help that I live in San Antonio, TX and it seems like our winters are not as cold as they used to be or that we’ve been hitting highs of at least 90 degrees every day this month and that is unusual and above average for our Octobers here. I mean if it’s not because of climate change then what else is it? Why did the west/southwest have such high triple digit temperatures this Summer? Why the extreme wild fires every year now? I’m 37 years old, I’m married, I can’t discuss these concerns with my wife anymore because she’s not a denier but believes it isn’t happening as quickly as so many are claiming and is sick of discussing it with me. And that’s another thing, all the claims that the warming is happening faster than the models or scientists could predict. I’m so sorry for all of this but I’m just deathly afraid that I’m going to live through and die by a dangerously apocalyptic event and if there’s hope, if there’s something here that you people can show me, something to help give me undoubtful hope that I don’t need to listen to these claims regardless of how many articles are being put out, regardless of how many people think or say or believe that this is really happening then I will be truly forever grateful. I’m so sick of this always being on my mind and scaring me and me feeling so hopeless. I’m so scared of the doom methane claims mostly but everything else I mentioned is scaring me as well. Another big reason why I’m here, actually the biggest is at the end of this year I’m going to become a father. We’re having a girl and I don’t want to be living my life in fear for hers and I definitely don’t want to push these fears on to her and I want to believe that she’s going to get to live a long and full life so I’m here because I’m asking for help. I know it’s a lot to ask to a bunch of total strangers who have better things to do with their time but I’m so desperate here. I want to stop questioning “what if?” I just want to have a full confident belief in what the skeptics say. How are you so completely sure that you’re right and that the alarmists are wrong? What can you show or tell me that will help me understand this? I’m just a guy who’s dealing with severe eco-anxiety and I’m looking for a helpful healthy way to get away from it. Please.
I pitched up here around 10 years ago wondering about what was going on as well. I’m pretty thick so just read everything until I felt I could post some comments. If you’re prepared to listen and learn, everyone around here is friendly and helpful, they can be inclined to go into detail that’s still beyond me though.
A year or two ago I wrote an article, never imagining it would be published here, but it was and people were very complimentary. So I guess I must have learned something.
I put together something for the laymen like you and me. Everybody here will be bored with it by now, but, they’re generally patient so tolerate me posting it, so far…….
This is the calculation, using internationally recognised data, nothing fancy, no hidden agenda, just something you can do by taking your socks and shoes off.
Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution): ~280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostock Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021: ~410ppm. (Manua Loa)
410ppm minus 280ppm = 130ppm ÷ 171 years (2021 minus 1850) = 0.76ppm of which man is responsible for ~3% = ~0.02ppm.
That’s every human on the planet and every industrial process adding ~0.02ppm CO2 to the atmosphere per year on average. At that rate mankind’s CO2 contribution would take more than 20,000 years to double which, the IPCC states, would cause around 2°C of temperature rise. That’s ~0.0001°C increase per year for 20,000 years.
One hundred (100) generations from now (assuming ~ 25 years per generation) would experience warming of ~0.25°C more than we have today. ‘The children’ are not threatened!
Furthermore, whilst the Manua Loa CO2 observatory (and others) can identify and illustrate Natures small seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2, they cannot distinguish between natural and manmade atmospheric CO2.
Hardly surprising really; mankind’s CO2 emissions are so inconsequential this ‘vital component’ of Global Warming can’t be illustrated on the regularly updated Manua Loa graph.
Man’s atmospheric CO2 emissions are independent of seasonal variation and would reveal itself as a straight line, so they should be blindingly obvious.
Not even the global fall in manmade CO2 over the early Covid-19 pandemic, estimated at ~14% (14% of ~0.02ppm CO2 = 0.0028ppm), registers anywhere on the Manua Loa data.
Hopefully this is sufficient to allay your climate anxiety.
And Carbon Dioxide is not as it is often described by the climate hoaxers “carbon pollution”.
Breathe deeply and have a few beers…
The other thing to consider is that it’s impossible for computer simulations of future climate to be right, for (at least) one very straightforward reason, clouds.
It is impossible to measure every cloud, over every part of the earth at any given moment in time. Were it even possible to do that by stopping the earth, five minutes later that picture has changed dramatically.
How do the computer modellers do it then?
They guess (if they bother with clouds at all). Is there an international standard for ‘scientific’ guesswork?
Somehow, I doubt it. In other words, these people are free to include clouds, or not, or any variation therein, in each of their models. Tweak just that parameter and their models can be controlled to predict precisely what they want.
Then there’s data homogenisation. Most land based temperature measurement stations are concentrated in Europe and North America, often subject to the Urban Heat Island effect. Meanwhile, there are millions of square miles of Russia and Africa, for example, totally devoid of weather stations. So the boffins take the data from one station in hundreds (if not thousands) of square miles and take another ‘scientific guess’ at what the weather/clouds/temperatures are doing everywhere around them, then plug that data into their computer models, homogenisation (crudely speaking).
I live in the UK and am well aware that temperatures between Glasgow and London (roughly only 400 miles) can vary wildly from one day to the next, as can cloud cover and precipitation. In fact it can vary minute to minute. How can that possibly be allowed for when there are no weather stations in that 400 miles?
As for renewable energy, there’s a good overview of the waste that wind turbines represent here. https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
Bobby, that’s not a simple question to answer at all. I’ll try a little, although I’m no expert.
First of all, the issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or CAGW. Taking these in reverse order:
1. Is it getting warmer?
2. Is the whoke planet getting warmer?
3. Is the warming caused by our CO2 emissions?
4. Will that warming cause catastrophe?
If any of those are not true, then it’s either not a problem, or it’s something that we cannot stop.
If you read the actual IPCC reports, and not the summaries that are 100% political, and are hyped up even more by the media, there’s no major problem anyway. The warming is likely to be 1.5C a century as far as existing measurements show compared to the various scenarios. Also they state that any changes to climate will be mitigated by changes to society and technology. If you think about all of the changes to society and technology since 1921, I’m sure you can understand that this is very likely to be true.
So, according to the supposed global authority on the matter, there is no problem!
The only way it could be a problem, and not just a benefit like the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, is if the supposed positive feedbacks exist. They obviously do not, or any warming in the past, for any reason, would have led to runaway warming, and it never has.
The other problems with the hypothesis appear to be that the measurements start at the end of the Little Ice Age, when it was bitterly cold. Obviously it’s warmer than that now, and we should be glad. Taking the modern era baseline as the 70s is also deceptive, since that was a particularly cold decade, and scientists were concerned about a coming ice age. Additionally, we’ve cleaned up a lot of real pollution since then, which may well have caused cooling through aerosols from coal etc. These factors are generally swept aside as irrelevant.
But why are we constantly told that there is a problem? That’s a more difficult question. There seem to be significant numbers of people who push the alarm:
1. Political activists who want to impose ‘solutions’ that conform to their political views.
2. Politicians who want to tax more.
3. Grafters who get rich off government subsidies for ‘solutions’.
4. Misguided activists, and generally those who hate capitalism and will support anything to destroy it.
5. Media trying to generate scary stories that sell advertising.
6. Organisations that subsist on public donations who want to raise the scare to raise donations.
7. Some people whose research grants would dry up if there was no scare.
8. Some people who truly believe it.
Secondly, it’s an almost impossible hypothesis (it’s not even a theory as yet) to disprove. Ask any alarmist what would disprove CAGW for them, and they will be hard pressed to answer.
Thirdly, we are now bombarded with news, 24/7, from all over the world. In earlier times, we got very little news, and from few places. It’s easy to mistake all the additional coverage of natural disasters as an increase in disasters instead of merely an increase in coverage.
Anyway, the IPCC tell us it’s not a problem, even if it’s really happening. So don’t worry about it.
“The only way it could be a problem, and not just a benefit like the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, is if the supposed positive feedbacks exist. They obviously do not, or any warming in the past, for any reason, would have led to runaway warming, and it never has.”
This is probably the most important part Bobby should focus on.
CO2 has been in the Earth’s atmosphere for a long time and has been at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere in the past, yet the Earth has never experienced a runaway greenhouse effect because of it.
The alarmists say CO2 will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. History proves them wrong.
Another thing that is argued is that the little ice age and the roman and medieval warm periods were not global occurrences. Now I don’t know one way or the other but do you have any insights or references to show that they actually were? Anything to debunk alarmists claims helps.
Bobby K,
No one can predict the future climate. Just remember that the so-called “preindustrial” period was the Little Ice Age, which lasted from around 1500 to 1850. This was the coldest, most miserable time in human history. In 1816 it snowed in July in New England and The Old Farmer’s Almanac predicted it.
Yes, winters are warmer and so are nights. Daytime and summer temperatures have not changed much. This is largely beneficial to humans and the additional CO2 in the air has improved plant productivity a lot, the agricultural benefit from 1961 to 2010 is 3 trillion dollars. This benefit will grow. The world is now 17% greener due to more CO2 and higher temperatures.
The oceans and evaporation limit maximum ocean surface temperatures to 30-32 degrees C, so the temperature will not change much in the tropics. Temperatures rise (whether due to man or nature) in the polar regions, again benefiting man.
Finally, the long-term average temperature for Earth’s surface is estimated to be about 20 degrees C by the Smithsonian and Chris Scotese. Currently the Earth is cold, with an average surface temperature of about 15 degrees.
In short the climate is getting better, but still cold. There is an upper limit to the surface temperature set by the oceans of around 32 degrees, we will not burn up, nor will we drown due to rising sea level.
Climate is not global, it is regional. It will always be dry somewhere and wet somewhere else, same with temperature. Each community needs to protect itself, global solutions will cause more problems then they solve.
“In 1816 it snowed in July in New England and The Old Farmer’s Almanac predicted it.”
I didn’t know that. Thank you.
Just remember one thing: Warmer is better.
People have claimed since the begging of civilization that the world is coming to an end, guess what it hasn’t. So ask yourself why do people in power get out of scaring people? They get your obedience.
As to the weather in Texas. It’s weather averages are just that averages, nothing that is happening now hasn’t happened before, I lived a long time and every time someone says this has never happened before I shows them it has. Your heat wave in Texas is a cold wave in Europe. That’s not new. I remember 90 degree heat waves in Pa in October. It happens. Even per the IPCC most of the warming is happening at the poles and at night not during the day. The biggest difference today verse 50 years ago is that people had to deal with it now everyone has AC units. FDR said it best the only thing you have to fear is fear itself, stop being afraid the world is not ending, even the IPCC doesn’t say it is.
First thing is to sit down and write out what you are frightened of. Things like atmospheric temperature rise, flooding, severe storms, sea level rise, etc. Then rank them so you can target your research. Don’t just take the comments here for gospel, look in other places.
Assuming temperature is you main concern as that is what is always, always promoted as the major concern. Learn about it.
1) Make it personal. In the morning just as you wake up, go outside for a minute without looking to see what the temperature is. See if you can “guess” what it is. Do the same during the middle of the day. Make it an experiment so you purposefully have no idea what the temperature is, say on the weekend. I’ll bet you’ll be lucky to guess within ±3 degrees. That should be the first indication of how severe a 3 degree rise will be.
2) Go outside temperature to things like heating or cooling degree days. You’ll have to look around on the internet to find data, and some of the sites may require payment for getting a lot of data. Heating/cooling degree days are a more accurate depiction of how temperature affects us. HVAC people use this measurement to size furnaces, boilers, and cooling devices. They DON’T use temperature alone.
3) Investigate soil temperatures, not just the atmospheric temperatures that the warmists always tout. Agricultural colleges usually have some data on this. It is enlightening.
4) Investigate growing degree days. This will give you an appreciation of what is happening to average temperatures. Again, agricultural colleges will have good links and even data. Along with this look up state high and low temperatures, when they occurred, and how often temperatures have approached this. Another record to look for is consecutive days above 100 degrees or below 32 degrees.
5) Nobody ever does this, but go to seed company’s and pretend you are a farmer. Monsanto, DeKalb, Pioneer, and other brand names offer all kinds of seed developed for different temperatures, soil varieties, and precipitation amounts. See how a few degree change can be handled by different seed varieties. This should help alleviate any fear of food failure.
6) Investigate how higher CO2 levels have helped flora growth, especially food crops. I’m sure you will see references about CO2 harming nutritional percent’s but take these with a grain of salt. A small nutrition loss is many times only checked on minority seed varieties and ignores a larger percent of food gain. That is each kernel may have a slightly smaller nutritional value but you grow 30% more of it.
7) Investigate some of the things that researchers are finding as some glaciers are retreating. Things like forests, graves, settlements, etc. Here is a link: 8 Amazing Things Uncovered by Melting Glaciers and Ice | Mental Floss There are other things also. This is the beginning of a trip to find information about various warm periods like the Roman, Medieval, and Holocene Optimum as well as the Little Ice Age which we are obviously still warming from. This is one of the big questions on Global Warming. How could lower levels of CO2 caused the end of the LIA and warmed until 1900 or so.
You have been reading and hearing much from various sources, on both sides. The only way to really assuage your fear is to do some personal research and find out for yourself what some of the affects of warming are. You don’t need a lot of math or science to investigate some of these things. Remember, the CO2 warming folks believe we have experienced a major warming due to CO2 from 1950, not long ago.
Like me, many folks feel some warming is nothing to worry about. So far, only temperature is being worked on and is used to predict some amazing things. More deaths from heat, bigger storms, more droughts, more flooding, crop failures, etc. Little is broadcast about longer growing seasons, less energy used to heat buildings and homes, less need for wardrobes with both cold and hot clothing, and on and on.
“Because I don’t understand it I’m constantly on the fence about it all.”
I think this applies to most people.
“It also doesn’t help that I live in San Antonio, TX and it seems like our winters are not as cold as they used to be or that we’ve been hitting highs of at least 90 degrees every day this month and that is unusual and above average for our Octobers here. I mean if it’s not because of climate change then what else is it?”
I live in Oklahoma, and my local weather forecaster was talking about how our area of Oklahoma might set a record for the number of days over 80 degrees F this summer. When was the record set? In 1931.
What else is it? It’s natural variation, i.e., Mother Nature. You see, it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so when alarmists tell you we are experiencing unprecedented warmth today, they are not being accurate.
We are no warmer today than in the recent past,yet there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was back in the 1930’s, so CO2 has had little to no effect on the temperatures between then and now.
And we are currently cooling to the tune of 0.4C since the temperature highpoint of the 21st century, which was the year 2016.
Ask yourself: How can it be cooling when CO2 is increasing? The alarmists say CO2 causes warming, but it’s not happening now, yet CO2 is increasing.
CO2 increased from the 1940’s to the 1980’s, yet the temperatures cooled during that period to the point that Science News magazine was asking the question on its front page: “Ice Age Cometh?”.
CO2 amounts do not correlate with temperatures.
Interesting. I grew up and currently live in San Antonio. I thought that this summer was a particularly cool summer. I remember some summers in the past where it was over a 100 for weeks at a time. This one not so much, not to mention that it remained green almost the entire summer because of our extended rain over the summer.
Assuming this is a real concern you have, I am going to suggest that facts are not going to make a difference. There is something in our makeup where we want to believe the worst. The chicken little syndrome. Interesting, the story of chicken little is repeated across many cultures with variations. I believe it has to do with the fact that humans are not apex predators. When our ancestors started yelling run, everyone ran or feared being killed and eaten even if the threat wasn’t apparent. Even as our species started getting smarter that inclination has remained. All you have to do is look at the history of doomsday cults.
I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at all the doomsday cults and ask yourself why you wouldn’t have fallen for those. It is so obvious now but back then people did fall for them. I think you will find a lot of parallels.
I spent a summer in the Middle East in 2018 courtesy of our government. I remember one day the temperature hit 120+ with a humidity of 98%. Being outside was like a blast furnace. Yet, people survived and civilization in that part of the world continued. A few degrees is nothing.
I think you are just looking at things the wrong way. I have 30 years on you. I just finished a 46 mile bike ride this morning out to La Vernia (700c riders if you are interested). I started off the ride with a bunch of 20/30 year olds but eventually couldn’t keep up. I remember when I was younger and had those kind of legs. As I let them go I thought of the saying that “youth is wasted on the young.” I didn’t appreciate what I had when I was your age.
Rather than be 37 and fearful for the future, you need to appreciate each day and the what you have. You are young, hopefully in good shape (worry more about that if your not), and have plans for the future. Understand that some day you will wake up and be 67. Don’t spend your youth worried about a future that will likely never occur. If it does, deal with it as it occurs but don’t worry about the future and definitely don’t be scared of it. You are on a glorious journey through your life. Enjoy it. Take care
Thank you all so much for your comments and feedback. You’ve definitely given me more to think about and look into. Though do you mind if I ask about your thoughts or views or possibly debunking about Guy Mcpherson and “Sam Carana” and the whole methane doomsday human extinction this decade possibly by 2026 theory? I’m sorry to ask it’s just it seems like so many people are very worried of what will happen if the ice thaws and the methane gets released because it’s such a stronger greenhouse gas and it seems like so many people praise and believe in the science provided by Guy Mcpherson and also what’s posted on the arctic news website. This is what terrifies me more than anything. I want to believe it’s such a ridiculous theory but the fact that others say it’s spot on really concerns me. Any feedback about this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Your best bet, Bobby, is to keep reading WUWT. All the subjects you are worried about have been and will continue to be covered here.
If you see a scary climate change story in the news, come over here and look for it and more than likely there will be an article on the subject and experts from all areas of science will weigh in on it, and you can make your own mind up from what they say.
That’s what I do.
You might try searching the WUWT archives for “methane”. There have been numerous conversations about it here over the years.
Methane has a negligible impact on the “heat budget” of the atmosphere where it is less than 1% of the total and is a hyper trace gas with tiny IR absorption range in the IR spectrum.
Methane (CH4) also decompose in the atmosphere into CO2 and H20 in just a few months time.
Heck the two small absorption area is in the low end of the already very low energy IR spectrum area 3.3 Microns and 1.64 Microns which are well outside the Outgoing Terrestrial IR area meaning Methane has a negligible effect.
By comparison CO2 has a much larger IR absorption range and straddles the Outgoing Terrestrial IR at 14.7 microns its main band of the three the other two are negligible at 2.7, 4.3 microns
CHART
just remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and ask for that, reminding them that they are making the claim so the requirement is on them to prove their claims most will then try to change the discussion to something else because they have no evidence all they have are second rate models that are not fit for purpose.
Here is one post that was posted 6 months ago right here at Watts Up With That? will help you immensely since it makes clear there is NO climate emergency happening all based on official data:
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? – Watts Up With That?
===
I posted this article at a forum and the replies to it by warmists/alarmists are pathetic.
FORUM
Here is the first reply:
It goes on like this where they don’t even try to address the numerous sourced charts showing no evidence of climate emergency brewing at all.
Please read the two links to see for yourself why you can relax and sleep well again.
At least by observation of other G-class stars within 100 or so light-years, we have an amazingly stable star powering our solar system.
That we have all these sheep bedwetters scared crazy by the Green Marxists and their climate scam is a travesty. The Green Marxists are depending on making more sheep and canceling the sheep dogs.
Protip: Invest in bedsheet company futures.
The physics & thermodynamics and thus ‘science’ of the IPCC is that of the Kindergarten
Clouds do not have a positive feedbacks, the cloud appeared in the sky because a bubble of warm air rolled in from somewhere else.
The warm air made the cloud, not vice-versa
The wilful ignorance is criminal.
At the tempertures and pressures of Earth’s atmosphere, CO2 effectivly has zero emissivity – it simply can not do what it’s cracked up to.
The temperature of the atmosphere, the ‘trapped heat’ if you like, is dependant on how much it radiates to space, yes.
But, that radiation is determined only by its own temperature (varying as the 4th power) but also its emissivity – as per The Authority on this thing says (Josef Stefan)But again and as per the mehodology of another ‘authority’ (Roy Spencer), the very low emissivities of Earth’s atmospheric gases vary according their temps and pressures – themselves being interconnected variables.
For those gases as nicely exemplified by CO2, the emissivity falls off a cliff at low temps.
The Alert Reader might be now seeing how the temperture of Earth’s atmosphere is pretty well controlled by a tempertaure/power relation that varies as the 6th power of absolute temp.
Stefan’s Law moves at the 4th power but the emissivity factor inside that calculation itself is temperature dependant – it falls as temp falls.
Also the emissivity for any given temp depends on pressure – as pressure drops so does emissivity.
Thus you can see that any temperature rise has a very steep and rapidly steepening, hill to climb
But and where trapped heat comes in, that effect comes into reverse if/when temps fall, heat loss drops away very rapidly.
Picture the classic quadratic curve of y=x^2 centred on x=0
Temperature is a marble lying at the bottom of that curve – see how difficult it is for the marble to escape.
Now make that a y=x^6 curve. That marble ain’t going anywhere.
hello hello, does that explain the Faint Sun Paradox?
= how when the sun was 25% dimmer than now (whenever billions of years ago) Earth was still at pretty much the same temp as it is now
But we know Earth back then was a similar temp to now because of the record left by the life that existed then.
Uh Oh, the Alert Reader sees Gaia coming through the door.
Is that a problem?
Because the Alert Reader is here & now praising the Farmers’ Almanac and Gaia is effectively the very principle the Almanac is using.
Because Gaia has inertia – Gaia says that The Weather tomorrow is never very much different from what it is/was today.
No matter if tomorrow is = tomorrow or if it’s next week/month/year
haha you then say, Almanac uses ‘Solar Activity’
Yes fine very lovely.
And what goes on inside Solar activity if not El Sol changes its spectrum, its colour.
The Total Emitted Power is just the same but the rainbow is a different shape
The Alert Reader is now truly horrified (##) to learn that young seedling plants much prefer, grow better stronger faster under blue light than they do under the red tinted light their older siblings/parents prefer
If that ain’t Gaia at work, what is?
## Said ‘Reader’ would not have been horrified if they’d previously met/read/understood what went on inside the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
Why: Because what we see here inside contemporary Climate Science is actually a re-run of that – an ignorance of how colour/wavelength is in many cases vastly more important than the sheer amount of Watts per square metre grunt.
And there are the criminal levels of wilful ignorance because the authorities that climate science now always calls upon are the very guys who worked out and resolved, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
We are racing headlong into a new Dark Age….and it is entirely of our own making.
CO2 didn’t make it – seriously and badly dysfunctioning minds are making it
edit to fix a bad spelling of ‘temp’ and a minus sign where an = should have been
not too bad for 05:30 of a Sunday morn.
where next? I have an urge to burn some diesel today……
It’s all witchcraft, in 2001 the IPCC noted: “… The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible …” (TAR).
Ignoring the presumed temperature fluctuations before human GHG emissions could have been significant (~1945) both in the measured and many proxy temperature records (apart from Mann et al.) they have carried on to predict the future climate using models assuming only one forcing factor viz. human GHG emissions.
I just order my 2022 Alamac yesterday
Then you’ve wasted a few dollars
Better than handing over $millions to the IPCC to get things wrong.
” It is generally acknowledged that the direct effect of doubling CO2 is about one degree of warming, which is modest. “
To make simple, if CO2 doubled instantly, about how long does it take for this “about one degree of warming”?
gbaikie,
The direct warming would happen almost immediately, then the feedbacks to the warming would start. They could net to about zero(Happer), be negative (Lindzen), or be two degrees (IPCC). No one really knows. It is the feedbacks that take a lot of time.
None of the three scenarios are dangerous, IMHO.
What direct warming?
Has anyone considered that increasing atmospheric CO2 lags temperature rise by many (hundreds?) of years?
I do. I assume that doubling of CO2 will cause, 0 to .5 C within 100 years.
It might be a lot more in 1000 years, but 1000 years, is too far in the future to reasonable predict. In 1000 years a trillion human could believing in Venus orbit.
No one has clue what humans will be doing in 100 years.
It seems to me, China will reach “peak coal” within 30 years.
Part of peak coal is it not worth doing. One say China has already reached peak Coal, but too stupid to realize it. Or factor in Peak anything is how stupid are people. We obvious are way past Peak wood burning for electrical powerplants, but there is the stupid factor to include. It seems we getting closer the peak wood.
“but 1000 years, is too far in the future to reasonable predict.”
But 100 years is entirely reasonable to predict?
Dear God, doubling of atmospheric CO2 will do squat. So far the insane predictions of CO2 causing warming have been entirely discredited by observable temperature recordings.
Mankind can only reasonably function on experiential, logical principles. It has evolved on those terms for tens of thousands of years. Science is now being weaponised to misrepresent everything it claims to explain.
FFS, a weeks weather forecast out is about the best mankind can do and it’s still a guess. This is our experience, this is our logic, this is our science.
Science is observable fact, it is not a glimpse into the future other than by coincidental hypothesis or sheer luck.
The moment a scientist steps into predicting the future, he becomes a shaman.
Science is a process, and the moment one hypothesis can’t be disproven, a nanosecond later in the lab next door, it might be.
Science is a precious commodity being weaponised, and wasted, by scientifically illiterate politicians presenting it as fact.
Science creates questions, not conclusions.
–“but 1000 years, is too far in the future to reasonable predict.”
But 100 years is entirely reasonable to predict?–
Global climate is a long duration thing.
It’s my guess that the average temperature of entire ocean has
been about 3.5 C for thousands of years.
If one wants to talk about global climate rather than weather, 100 years is short time period.
But if topic relates to public policy, 100 years is unreasonable.
In terms global climate, it’s accepted that there was period called the holocene climate optimum. Wiki:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in roughly the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. “
During HCO the sandy desert of Sahara was grasslands, rivers, lakes, and forests. And the northern forest, called the largest forest in the world, was a larger forest than it is right now.
That is climate change.
But during the peak temperatures our Holocene period, we were still in an Icehouse climate. And Earth has been in this icehouse climate for about 34 million years.
Why, HCO was not as warm as peak temperatures in past interglacial periods, would a topic of global climate. And if we going get another peak temperature of Holocene period is not known- it’s possible, but maybe if we knew why your Holocene wasn’t apparently as warm as other interglacial periods, then it could be helpful in this regard.
It’s also accepted that the last 2 millions years have the coldest years within the 34 million years of Earth’s icehouse climate. Again, if we knew why the last 2 million years was the coldest, it might indicate if or when, that we might get a “double peak” in our Holocene period.
So far, there is not any evidence that we get a double peak.
What we have, is a slight decline over 5000 years and this cooling trend is on going.
This make me imagine, the during HCO the ocean was somewhere near 4 C and seems to me it would have to take on the order of centuries to warm from 3.5 to 4 C.
Our cold ocean is why we in an Icehouse climate, and notable peak ocean temperature in past interglacial period were about 4 C or warmer.
And our cold ocean is why we have low CO2 levels.
An interesting question is that everyone knows Earth had much higher CO2 levels, and was it, because the ocean was warming or was there more “natural” CO2 emissions?
I have always contended that idea adding a lot CO2 to the atmosphere would be futile in order to prevent the next glaciation period from occurring.
And rather than worry about warming, what the plan for the glaciation period which will come.
I think if we have lots of ocean settlements when this happens, a glaciation period, won’t be much of a problem.
And ocean settlements would useful if we were to get double peak.
Whilst we seem to largely agree on climate change being a load of old bunk, your means of arriving at that conclusion seems confused, at best.
There is no such thing as a ‘Global Climate’ only regional climate systems which are local weather patterns on a regional or continental scale. In short, climate is weather.
The best that might be said is that there might be an Average Global Temperature.
“It’s my guess that the average temperature of entire ocean has
been about 3.5 C for thousands of years.”
Your guess? Not very scientific, is it?
Thanks, but I don’t need a history lesson on the HCO.
“This make me imagine, the during HCO the ocean was somewhere near 4 C”
“This makes me imagine”. Again, hardly scientific.
The rest of your post is just speculation.
“There is no such thing as a ‘Global Climate’ only regional climate systems which are local weather patterns on a regional or continental scale. In short, climate is weather.”
There is your problem. We are in an icehouse global climate.
[I like to call it an icebox global climate].
Not that Wiki is always correct or anything, but it’s fairly easy to use:
“Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth. Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years. There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations”
Greenhouse and icehouse Earth – Wikipedia
And Late Cenozoic Ice Age is what we are in, which is said to started about 34 million years ago.
So 34 million years ago is when earth’s ocean began to get cold- there are ideas about why the ocean got cold, but there no argument about the fact that it got cold. And everyone agrees our low CO2 levels are because our ocean is cold.
There was idea the weathering of land areas caused the lower CO2 levels- this was silly idea and has been disproven. Anyhow this silly idea was that weathering lowered CO2 levels and this caused the ocean to be cold. Graph:
65 Myr Climate Change – Geologic temperature record – Wikipedia
An obvious factor related to this cold ocean is the movement of Antarctic to south pole. And there was other plate tectonic activity, such India crashing into Asia which also thought to related.
And what causes Interglacial and Glaciation periods appear to somehow related the Milankovitch cycles.
There is debate about how much warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels. There not a debate that CO2 caused us to be in icehouse global climate, or CO2 level are causal factor related to Interglacial or Glaciation periods. As indicated above. There clinging to idea that CO2 levels play some role. It’s possible CO2 play some role. But it seems everyone knows, rising CO2 levels, follow warming, rather than cause warming.
What think is important is this claimed, fact:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean”
Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
Or I will say it differently, roughly everything related to global warming is warming our cold ocean which is said that over 90%
of the ocean is 3 C or colder, and said average ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
I would also say that we not accurately measured global surface air temperature and we have not accurately measured the ocean average temperature. We “have” a guess, of average ocean being about 3.5 C and average global surface air temperature of about 15 C.
An effort has made to measure global land surface temperature and global land temperature is about 10 C. And 70% of Earth surface of ocean has average surface air temperature of about 17 C.
And part of reason the ocean has average temperature of 17 C is the warm tropical ocean which is about 40% of Earth’s ocean, and about 26 C average surface temperature.
And it seems quite obvious and accepted that the ocean surface temperature controls global surface air temperature.
OR global air temperatures are controlled by the temperature of surface [directly} and the temperature of entire ocean.
OR land surface air temperature results from what going on with the ocean. This is accepted in regards to Europe and warming of
Europe from the tropical Gulf stream current.
It also accepted that the tropical ocean is the world’s heat engine.
If ocean surface control global air temperature, what happens if “you” control the surface temperature of the Ocean.
Since ocean is mostly cold and ocean surface is quite warm, if mix cold ocean with warm surface waters, one would cool global surface air temperature.
What important is you are not added any heat, rather just whatever energy is require to mix the ocean waters.
Or Earth is big, but it’s within Human capability to mix the big ocean, but one might focus on mixing the warmest surface water {tropics} with it’s deeper cold water. One would get more bang for the bucks spent.
But in simple terms, if the ocean was somehow caused to have uniform temperature rather then average temperature of 3.5,
an uniform ocean of 3.5 C would drop our global air temperature by a lot- and cause warming in poles and very cold land temperatures everywhere else.
Or result would much lower global air temperature, but it does warm the ocean by little bit, and Earth start absorbing a lot energy from the sunlight, and long term, cause global warming.
How could warming in an Ice Age be “dangerous”.
The tropical zone is much warmer than elsewhere.
The tropical zone has far more greenhouse gases and far more sunlight
than elsewhere.
The expression of tropical island paradise, is not ironic. It’s literal- it’s a paradise-
people like it, a lot. It’s NOT hell.
If there a cannibals, it is a problem. But minus the cannibals, it’s nice weather.
And if there is good surfing, excellent.
So, roughly global warming is more tropical like conditions, outside of the tropics.
One has more uniform temperatures. Or less extreme conditions of mostly really cold conditions, such as less -40 C nights/winter.
Why anyone or any creature need -40 C so much is beyond me. And why people want more tornados and hurricanes, also escape me.
Did the Almanac accurately forecast that summer 2021 would be the warmest on record in the US?
I’ll say it did not predict that. So, another win for the Almanac, eh?
Did the IPCC predict the Northern hemisphere ‘snow mass season’ would open 250 gigatons above the 1982 – 2012 average?
No? Thought not…..
You know what a Strawman is?
“What is the IPCC doing with the billions of dollars we give them.”
Nothing actually. It is a protection racket. Governments take money from tax payers give it too the IPCC who gives it to “climate scientists” and NGOs so they won’t say bad things and the government can remain in power transferring other tax payer money into their own & their cronies bank accounts.
Y’know, it occurs to me that they could be onto a real winner if they pocketed the millions of dollars, bought a $9 Old Farmers Almanac and published some reports on that data – accuracy goes up, everyone’s a winner!
Stupid is to the bone. NOAA should huddle up with the staff at the Almanac; but then, that would be presuming their goal to be accurate forecasting.
IPCC predictions don’t “Run Hot”, they are just Wrong.
wish we had that for aus
old friend whos since died was damned good at forecasting but since then…I have to guess or hope
I normally really enjoy your articles Andy, and I’m no fan of climate models, but this one seems a little contrived.
Climate believer,
Maybe, but it is hard to come up with a way to show how uncertain the IPCC forecasts are. Since I grew up in the middle of nowhere in western Kansas and was familiar with the Old Farmer’s Almanac, I thought I would try and compare them. Certainly to the farmers I knew in Kansas, it was the final word on planting times and type of crops for the upcoming season, still is as far as I know.
“The Old Farmer’s Almanac forecasts are far less specific, they only predict the direction of change, but their forecasts are for twelve months in the future, quite impressive.”
What’s “impressive” is that there are people who are prepared to buy this sort of Snake-oil bollocks.
So you are seriously saying that they come up with 80% accuracy for a seasonal forecast?
Because they say so?
Better than the professionals:
By what magic can they do that … that they are not prepared to share with the Meteorological community. Eh?
Now let’s see …
They are judge and jury.
Yet you are not sceptical?
Would you allow a legitimate weather service to do that?
Of course not – you would demand an independent analysis and/or do you own.
They know no one is going to verify what they say and if they do no one who buys into their bollocks will read or care.
What are the criteria for a success/fail ?
Are those criteria set out before the “forecast” is made for all to see?
And you say “They go through the details of the calculation every year and it seems like a legitimate calculation to me.”
That is laughable in regard to statistical merit.
From their website ….
“We derive our weather forecasts from a secret formula that was devised by the founder of this Almanac, Robert B. Thomas, in 1792. Thomas believed that weather on Earth was influenced by sunspots, which are magnetic storms on the surface of the Sun.
There’s a guy called Piers Corbyn here in the UK who claims similar results for his snake-oil formula of “sunspots” that the gullible lap-up.
This is the usual amateur forecasters “I’m better than the Met Office”, I’ve been hearing all my life.
With just them saying so.
It’s just pseudo-science that some ideologically motivated types will always think superior to an “Official” forecast.
Snake-oil with the secret recipe.
Sunspots indeed.
So the particular configuration of SS now/before now/forecast for after now??
is somehow magically going to account for the weather over the continental US and Canada for the whole of the coming winter – such that each state can be apportioned a particular seasons weather?
Well – mild/cold/snowy/wet anyway.
Pull the other one
Also the main premise of this is article, of course, is to rubbish the IPCC.
FYI:
They do not forecast for a season.
They don’t Forecast at all, as they do not know and cannot forecast the direction of the Earth’s fossil carbon burning.
They project forward scenarios over decades and come up with a statistical mean from hundreds of ensemble runs a range for GMST.
30 years are needed to average out NV, chief among which is ENSO – which this winter will be a La Nina …. NOW that has a v good statistical correlation to US winter weather.
BTW: you do know that the “Old Farmers Almanac” has a competitor called …..
“The Farmers Almanac”.
How do their forecasts compare?
I have looked but the “forecasts” there are just as wishy-washy.
Here is an appraisal of a meteorologist … and it is mine also as a meteorologist (retired).
https://news.psu.edu/story/141165/2007/09/24/research/probing-question-farmers-almanac-accurate
“Penn State meteorologist Paul Knight is more than a little skeptical.
“The ability to predict events that far in advance is zero,” says Knight. “There’s no proven skill, there’s no technique that’s agreed upon in science to be able to do that.”
The Farmers’ Almanac’s Web site explains that its forecaster (referred to only by his pseudonym, Caleb Weatherbee) uses a “top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors” to predict weather sixteen months in advance for seven different U.S. climate zones.
According to Knight, the Almanac’s secrecy is part of the problem.
“If you have something that’s really innovative and shows skill, then bring it before your peers,” he says. “You don’t have to show us everything in case you want to make a business out of it, but give us some idea.”
Until the modern era of meteorology, many people relied on publications like the Farmers’ Almanac for long-range weather forecasts. Today, radar, satellites, and computer simulations help meteorologists more accurately predict everything from an afternoon rain shower to a tropical cyclone.
Says Knight, even with the advanced technology, it is still difficult for meteorologists to forecast things like rainfall very far in advance. “For precipitation, I don’t know anyone short of the prophet Elijah who has any skill in foretelling precipitation more than a couple weeks, perhaps a month in advance,” he says.”
“They say from November 5 thru 10, for that whole period: sunny/cool. If one day is sunny and cool, does that count? Does every day have to be sunny and cool? If you held them to every single word for the entire area and every word for the entire period, then I say they might not even be right one third of the time. In fact, they might be right 10 percent of the time.” Acknowledges Knight, “I don’t think they’re holding themselves to that degree of accuracy, and I don’t think other people are either.”
Nice rant, Banton, I give it about a 7.
Why are you discussing other things than what Andy did? Address seasonal temperature being up or down in different regions. That is all. Everything else you mention is foo fa ra!
Anthony, Your article discusses the Farmer’s Almanac, I discussed the Old Farmer’s Almanac. They are different magazines. Further, your cited “fact check” was very nonspecific and provided no statistics or methodology, like most I’ve read. In any case, the IPCC is certainly wrong and as your source said, no one can predict the weather more than two weeks out with any precision. This also applies to the IPCC.
““If you have something that’s really innovative and shows skill, then bring it before your peers,” he says.”
Tell it to Michael Mann.
Okay, okay, okay: here’s something to think about, ponder, consider.
Titan is a satellite of Saturn, right? We’ve put equipment on Titan to learn about it. It’s kind of big, for a moon, but it’s still a moon of Saturn.
So that exploring equipment found that Titan – so far away from the Sun that its methane atmosphere is mostly clouded over – has seasons and seasonal changes. Methane, being the sensitive soul that it is, can be frozen; granulated when frozen just as if it were Earth dirt; perform as clouds and fog; freeze solid but melt when the “season” changes and become liquid, just like water. All of this depends on Titan’s position in relation to the Sun as it orbits Saturn. Saturn does have some influence on its moon’s conditions, yes, but methane is very sensitive to the small changes it receives in solar radiation.
To pare it down to simple: Titan has seasonal changes and has weather, just like Earth, even though its methane-based atmosphere on a methane-covered planet isn’t anything like Earth’s oxygen-based atmosphere.
So if the Sun has no influence on atmospheric stuff, why does Titan have seasonal changes that are similar to those of Earth?
If it weren’t for the Sun’s warmth, solar cycles, and seasonal changes, we might not be here today.
Pluto also has seasonal changes powered by the Sun.
Yeah, I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder!
I would argue that the spectacular decline in the strength of the solar magnetic field seen in the 25th solar cycle is deliberately kept quiet by scientists. This is due to human powerlessness in the face of climate change, which is inevitable. It will especially affect people in the middle latitudes.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Send in the trend-line jockeys to paper over reality…
The reason for their drop in accuracy may be their much ballyhooed addition of a new forecaster and a computer climate model which they announced a few years ago. Modernizing. No more of that old hokum. Well, the result the first year was a disaster. The computer model of course predicted warming, everywhere. Of course it didn’t work that way.
The Farmer’s Almanac is not as good as the Old Farmer’s Almanac on this point. The FA uses modern methods and computers more and is consequently less accurate that the OFA. As to how they do it so far in advance, the reply is they use three inputs: solar activity, planet positions and what the weather was recently.
The forecasts are completed by the end of March for the next 18 months. It them goes to print and is available to buy in August. The IPCC is useless 18 months out. Environment Canada has regional forecasts for a briefer time and they are wrong 85% of the time.
Crispin,
Well, add more computers and more scientists then. In no time the OFA will be as inaccurate as the IPCC!
It is worth noting that with La Niña advancing, the western equatorial Pacific shows no surface anomalies.
I hope their prediction for our region is accurate, tired of cold winters with little or no snow.
Rather than IPCC guesses being “It’s like shooting fish in a barrel,” It seems more like bobbing for fish in the Pacific. Good luck!
I seem to remember the place you used most often to find the Almanac was hanging on a string in the outhouse…
Sorry, griff, that was the old Sears catalog where I grew up. The latest Old Farmer’s Almanac was in the living room, next to the Bible.
There is also the book “Unstoppable Global Warming” co-authored by S. Frederick Singer, who also makes his “predictions” based on a study of the sun. Personally I am a firm believer in what he says in general terms. However, I have also been looking at Milankovitch cycles very seriously most recently, especially the so-called 100,000 year cycle, and especially in view of that most interesting conjunction of Jupiter and Mars in the evening sky this past December. While the 100,000 year cycle is certainly a long one, it is anything but gradual when the chips go down. It is more like a canyon which we fall into after a relatively short warm period, and then climb out of after a long, cold ice age. I am watching world weather patterns with a great deal of interest these days. My study of the matter is why I say that I moved to Florida from New Hampshire back in 2016 so as to get away from that “terrible global warming up north”.
Incidentally, although I never intended to be a physicist, I was a physics major in college and managed to get my bachelor’s degree in the top quarter of my class overall in Schenectady, NY.
Sears and Monkey Wards!
Old Almanacs.
“Their forecast is by season, not day-by-day and they only predict temperature and precipitation direction of change relative to the average for the area.”
What does that actually mean? If they are just scoring themselves based on whether they predict a particular region will be warmer or colder than the previous year, I suspect you could get pretty good results just predicting a below average temperature will be warmer next year, and vice verse.
To test this I tried it with the last 10 years of CET monthly temperatures. Using just this technique I got an 80% success rate forecasting the change for each month.
Bellman, Then you are also better than the IPCC.
This would be a good point, if the IPCC were claiming the models could predict year to year variation, and if they brought out a new forecast every year, just for the coming year, and you only judged them on the basis of that 1 year ahead projection.
I consult the Old Farmer’s Almanac as well as the NWS. I’ve noticed that although the dates of weather predictions may slip a week or two forward or backward, the prediction sequence tends to track the actual weather fairly well.
do you understand this IS NOT A FORECAST. Its like saying Texas hot, humid in summer. It has no reference to actual metrics we use to evaluate forecasts. They use descritpive terms subject to large-scale interpretation, The actual metrics are temperatures in relation to average, snowfall in relation to average, precip amounts in relation to average. Its akin to the probability game, Suppose you move to Michigan from Florida ( though much more likely the opposite). A winter 2 above average with 75% ave snowfall is still cold and snowy to you. An energy, retail, snowfighting company can not use this, I got an idea, A wuwt one year forecast for the west…. here it is. hot and dry most of the time with wildfires that will make the news. BTW what is cold and dry in Fla? is it 1 below normal 10 below normal like 77-78. A forecast has to have metrics that can be quantified and measured
Here is a forecast ours first made in July and can be accessed here:
https://www.weatherbell.com/prelim-2021-22-winter-outlook. Those are actual metric you can score and compare. Is mild normal? Or warmer than normal? or a bit cooler than normal? Its not a forecast no more than a PROBABILITY of occurrence is an actual forecast. Try making a bet on a football game saying we will have good game, but no actual spread
Joe, I was comparing the OFA forecast to the IPCC, not a weather forecast. The IPCC forecasts are also very general and non-specific. It was not a perfect comparison, the IPCC is a global average and the OFA is only for the US and Canada, also I used yearly IPCC numbers and seasonal OFA numbers, but in the ballpark and neither is a weather forecast.
“Solar Thermal radiation is close to constant” Close to a constant.. but how close? How much does the existing variation matter to climate? How good is our long term measurement and monitoring of total solar thermal radiation? There has been endless debate in WUWT regarding the solar cycle variation, and thermal radiation, cosmic radiation impact on clouds and the impact of the variation in the sun’s magnetic fields in the earth’s climate variation. As a layman, after years of reading all the debates in WUWT, there seems to be big knowledge gaps…. or no answer…. just randomness. Maybe it really isn’t relevant even to bother to ask the question? Maybe weather and climate are just a flow random events, or random by virtue of existing within a confines of unknown or poorly understood factors? Could it be us people who are the non-random factor? Could I be the only bulwark against the random flow of gigantic variables like the sun and the earth’s core? To make that assumption is just stupid and grandiose. Grandiosity is far more predictable in humans than the direction of the earth’s climate. The only reason the science questions are at all interesting is the political question. So politics drives the science questions on climate and climate science builds tools and models to measure relationships. The cool part are the tools. How much more would we better understand surface, sea surface temperature variation if we had continuous gravitation variance monitoring. Such monitor would enable questions about relationships between… volcanism, earth quakes, solar magnetic variation, sea ice variation etc? But who cares unless there is a political movement that is seeking to be the power pivot in determining the future of the political governance of the world. Then scientific tools become the power for truth against the lies that have to be assumed in any propaganda originating from a power grab political movement. One hell of a way to do science. I am glad I am a social worker. LOL