Further evidence has emerged that climate models are useless for the purpose of forecasting future temperature rises. A recent survey using American summer temperatures (June, July, August) over the last 50 years, found that 36 major climate models showed nearly twice the warming rate observed by the surface temperature measurements recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the high end, a number of models forecast warming nearly three times greater than observed data show (blue bar below).
The research was carried out by Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the compiler of the UAH monthly satellite temperature record. He says that the importance of his findings should be obvious. “Given that U.S. energy policy depends upon the predictions from these models, their tendency to produce too much warming (and likely also warming-associated climate change) should be factored into energy policy planning,” he said. But he doubted it was being, ”given the climate change exaggerations routinely promoted by environment groups, anti-oil advocates, the media, politicians, and most government agencies”.
The Spencer work follows recent research published by Professor Nicola Scafetta of the University of Naples. He found that almost all the global temperature forecasts produced by models between 1980-2021 were excessive, some extremely so, compared with the accurate satellite record. One of the reasons given as to why there’s no climate emergency in the World Climate Declaration is that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global tools”.
Yet as we have seen in numerous articles in the Daily Sceptic, climate models are ubiquitous and are at the forefront of promoting the climate scares pushing the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. They are at the heart of the pseudoscientific work that tries to ‘attribute’ single extreme weather events to long-term changes in the climate claimed supposedly caused by fossil fuels. In simple terms, computers compare an imaginary climate without human-caused carbon dioxide with the current one full of unknown complexities, and then the modellers announce they’ve ‘proved’ the ‘climate emergency’ hypothesis. Since the outputs of these models are unfalsifiable – how can you prove that a wholly imaginary scenario is ‘false’? – the notions are no more than worthless opinions.
The results of Spencer’s work will hardly come as a great surprise, but the conclusions are almost certainly more damaging to the climate catastrophisers’ case than the figures suggest. Spencer uses NOAA surface temperatures and, as we have seen, these are subject to ‘corruption’ from a number of causes in recent years. As Spencer notes, the NOAA figure could be an over-estimate “if increasing urban heat island effects have spuriously influenced trends over the last 50 years, and I have not made any adjustments for that”.
Earlier this year, the U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watts published his latest survey of NOAA’s nationwide weather stations. Describing the temperature record as “fatally flawed”, Watts found about 96% of US temperature stations failed to meet what NOAA itself considered to be acceptable and uncorrupted placement. Watts defined ‘corruption’ as caused by the localised effects of urbanisation, producing heat bias because of a close proximity to asphalt, machinery and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. According to Watts, data that had not been corrupted by faulty placement showed a rate of warming in the U.S. “reduced by almost a half compared to all stations”.
There is further substantial evidence that NOAA’s U.S. surface temperature figures are too high. In 2005, it started compiling data from a select group of 114 stations across the country that had been specifically sited away from urban development. Called the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), it was intended to aim for “superior accuracy and continuity in places that land use will not likely impact during the next five decades”.
The graph above shows the rarely referenced record up to last month. It shows oscillating temperature changes, but very little evidence to indicate a warming trend over the last 17 years.
Considering what is known about the ‘corruption’ of the NOAA’s main temperature dataset, it would be reasonable to significantly reduce the blue NOAA observational bar in Spencer’s graph. This of course provides further confirmation that the temperatures forecasts of most climate models have long lost any connection with reality.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
For a while I thought the current Chinese leadership were smarter than their predecessors but it looks like success has gone to their heads.
If the Chinese people decide enough is enough and really kick-off all hell will break loose and the result will be utter carnage.
The Chinese people are a fully domesticated, neutered population.
They will put up with anything and everything.
And we’re being taken down the same path. They’re just further ahead than us.
They decided that in Tiananmen Square and look where that got them. The current numbers of the PLA are estimated at 2.5million. That’s an awful lots of guns and tanks etc etc to overcome.
They aren’t smart at all they are corrupt idiots.
Of the corruption I never had any doubt. But for a time they seemed like they were playing a clever game of balancing authoritarianism with providing material prosperity. But they seem to have got carried away – I guess a common character flaw.
And here net zero is the new zero COVID policy.
It had to be zero something.
Could be have zero-rulers?
So very true, unfortunately.
I had thought for many years that I would like to visit the Chinese Civilisation (for it is not a country, as most understand a country to be).
The last few years have, well…. altered my plans, in that regard.
You have to go through long quarantines and plenty of dehumanising rituals.
Unless you are part of an accepted global elite, like the German Chancellor, in which case you can enter and exit easily.
Funny that the most protected individual in China, Xi Jingpin, is somehow allowed to meet a visitor who hasn’t gone through the strict health control measures they demand of everyone.
Either Xi is a very brave man, putting himself at risk like that to take an important meeting, taking one for the team as it were. Or maybe he doesn’t really think ‘the virus’ is actually a danger.
Hmm, I wonder which one it is…
Tricky question ….
China’s Zero Covid policy dehumanising evil
Yellow Freedom Boards – next event
Monday 7th November 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction B3430 Nine Mile Ride &
New Wokingham Road,
Wokingham RG40 3BA
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
This article I think gets somewhere near the truth but still misses the point to me. Yes ‘Zero Covid’ is about totalitarian, and not infection, control, but the author can’t seem to explain WHY. China already had enough control to manage its vast population through profound economic and social changes and is poised to become the most powerful nation on earth. Covid is a run-of-the-mill cold virus. So the alleged outbreak is being used either as cover for something, or in lieu of something. I agree with Denis Rancourt that covid is a war measure, designed to put pressure on supply chains and thereby inflict economic harm to its competitors, whilst ensuring the total compliance of its domestic population in a time of war.
Or to descend the rabbit hole, it could be a continuation of population control measures but less explicit than a one child policy. In this case other governments have made common cause through their use of lockdown and mass injections.