Guest “double take” by David Middleton
September 2017
21 September 2017
Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming
ZEKE HAUSFATHER
A new study published in the Nature Geosciences journal this week by largely UK-based climate scientists has led to claims in the media that climate models are “wrong” and have significantly overestimated the observed warming of the planet.
Here Carbon Brief shows why such claims are a misrepresentation of the paper’s main results. In reality, the results obtained from the type of model-observation comparisons performed in the paper depend greatly on the dataset and model outputs used by the authors.
Much of the media coverage surrounding the paper, Millar et al, has focused on the idea that climate models are overestimating observed temperatures by around 0.3C, or nearly 33% of the observed warming since the late 1800s.
[…]
Carbon Brief
May 2022
Use of ‘too hot’ climate models exaggerates impacts of global warming
U.N. report authors say researchers should avoid suspect models
4 MAY 2022 11:00 AM BYPAUL VOOSENOne study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.
All three studies, published in the past year, rely on projections of the future produced by some of the world’s next-generation climate models. But even the modelmakers acknowledge that many of these models have a glaring problem: predicting a future that gets too hot too fast. Although modelmakers are adapting to this reality, researchers who use the model projections to gauge the impacts of climate change have yet to follow suit. That has resulted in a parade of “faster than expected” results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science, some researchers fear.
Scientists need to get much choosier in how they use model results, a group of climate scientists argues in a commentary published today in Nature. Researchers should no longer simply use the average of all the climate model projections, which can result in global temperatures by 2100 up to 0.7°C warmer than an estimate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “We need to use a slightly different approach,” says Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at payment services company Stripe and lead author of the commentary. “We must move away from the naïve idea of model democracy.” Instead, he and his colleagues call for a model meritocracy, prioritizing, at times, results from models known to have more realistic warming rates.
[…]
Science!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Zeke Horsefeathers seems to have had an attack of conscience. It’s made him forget that the purpose of all those models is not to accurately predict the future state of climate – it is to alarm the public and politicians, and to justify restrictive, repressive and expensive laws that aim to undermine the prosperity of western democracies.
I suspect that he foresees a period of cooling coming and this is the first of more excuses that will come.
Well, how about Hausfather and all those other attribution geniuses answer the criticism which was brought up be McKitrick last year that the attribution methodology could be fundamentally flawed, because as long as this stands in the way ANY attribution is meaningless!
Well that settles the last cooling off period-
Climate crisis: what lessons can we learn from the last great cooling-off period? (msn.com)
“ results that threatens to undermine the credibility of climate science”: What “credibility” may I ask ? As long as model outputs are given more importance than analysis of actual data, their credibility has more to do with credulous than with credible.
Soooo, they are saying that the “scientific consensus”, which was built on interpretation of climate models, has been wrong all this time!
So not only are their previous claims about rising temperatures wrong, but so are all the other claims made based upon it.
I was wondering why the ski resorts are still doing great, and the West Side Hwy is still above water, and there is more sea ice extent in the Arctic now than there was this at time in 1989, and why so many other predictions they have made have been absolutely falsified!
Now I know!
Let me show how strange the concept of “feedbacks” is. In the graph below we have the planets of our solar system (including Ceres and some moons) plotted against the theoretic black body temperatures. On the x scale is the distance from the sun in AUs, on the y-scale temperature in K.
Moving Earth closer or further from the sun would be a “forcing”. This forcing would keep Earth very close to the blue line, the other celestial bodies align to. But that is without feedbacks. Even if feedbacks only doubled forcings (consensus rather suggests a trippling), Earth would follow the red line instead, eventually falling below 0K!?
Then there is another interesting feature. With gas giants the 1 bar pressure level is defined as “surface”, to make them more comparable to Earth. That is opposed to Venus, where the surface is at a pressure level of 92 bar. To make things actually comparable, I added the temperature of Venus at 1 bar, and that of Jupiter and Saturn at 92 bar in light blue. I think that solves the mystery over the “runaway GHE” of Venus 😉
https://greenhousedefect.com/about-the-physical-impossibility-of-feedbacks
“But there is no serious disagreement that continued emissions will lead to dangerous levels of warming.“
Zeke is just a liar. Anytime somebody suggests warming isn’t dangerous, they’re shouted down or canceled.
“A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries”
The source of the extinction can’t be from fossil fuels since fossil fuel reserves will be depleted a couple centuries before that.
When Will Fossil Fuels Run Out?https://chariotenergy.com/chariot-university/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/
Which makes the premise of using a fake climate crisis for actions even more ludicrous and illogical.
Why not just be honest and use science and facts and state:
Fossil fuels will be running out in XX years, so we need to find other ways to generate energy.
Wait, I know that answer.
Because 50 years ago, energy experts on peak oil started giving us that message…… we would run out ion XX years.
Instead of each year passing, making it XX-1, then XX-2, XX-3 years until we run out………we just find more oil(conventional sources like shale, for instance) and in some cases, despite production, reserves never get depleted/closer to running out of oil.
There are also reasons for entities to OVER state the reserves of fossil fuels, so part of this could be OVER stated future oil too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Regardless of the numbers projecting the amount of fossil fuels left being NOT reliable………. it would still be a more honest approach than to take a climate optimum for life, on a greening planet and twist the interpretation of many metrics and realms to trick people into thinking that it’s a climate crisis.
This is like asking to place your bets at the horse track after you already know the winners.
Cake and eat it too problem.
The climate alarmists use the hot models to scare people and promote their agenda, but resent when the hot models are shown to be too hot – even though they know they are too hot.
Someone needs to name and shame the hot models and put their money on the table for the ones they have faith in, then time will tell if they are right or wrong.
But, just as averaging a bunch of models doesn’t make sense (since the models are already averaging their own calculated effects), neither does saying “the models work” because a handful appear to be closer to actual temps than others.
Who is the “now that’s funny right there” man – does he have a name?
Larry the Cable Guy… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_the_Cable_Guy
A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.
They mean presumably ocean anoxia. That’s pie in the
skysea. In the real world increased CO2 in air increases, not decreases, the ventilation of the deep ocean by downwelling of more dissolved oxygen arising – unsurprisingly – from more photosynthesis.https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/atmospheric-co2-is-good-for-the-deep-ocean/