Thursday, September 26, 2013

Climate models wildly overestimated global warming, study finds

Can you rely on the weather forecast? Maybe not, at least when it comes to global warming predictions over short time periods.

That’s the upshot of a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.

"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models," climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told

But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.

"This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist," Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told "The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that," she added.

The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.

But John Christy says that climate models have had this problem going back 35 years, to 1979, the first year for which reliable satellite temperature data exists to compare the predictions to.

"I looked at 73 climate models going back to 1979 and every single one predicted more warming than happened in the real world," Christy said.

Many of the overestimations also made their way into the popular press. In 1989, the Associate Press reported: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010."

But according to NASA, global temperature has increased by less than half that -- about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit -- from 1989 to 2010.

And in 1972, the Christian Science Monitor reported: "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." That also proved wrong.

But people should still be concerned about global warming, Fitzpatrick says.

"The paper in no way diminishes the extensive body of observations that global warming is happening and that it is largely due to human activity," she added.

"Global surface temperature is still rising ... 2012 was in the top ten warmest years on record. The period 2001-2010 was the warmest on record since instrumental measurements began," she added.

Christy agrees that there has been some warming over time, but says man-made greenhouse gasses are not as big of a driver of climate change as many think -- and that many scientists are in denial about their mistakes.

"I think in one sense the climate establishment is embarrassed by this, and so they're trying to minimize the problem," he said. "The fundamental thing a climate model is supposed to predict is temperature. And yet it gets that wrong."

The study authors did not answer questions from about the policy implications of their research.

Why were the predictions off? The study authors list many possible reasons, from solar irradiation and incorrect assumptions about the number of volcanic eruptions to bad estimates about how CO2 effects cloud patterns.

Christy said he believes the models overestimate warming because of the way they handle clouds.

“Most models assume that clouds shrink when there is CO2 warming, and that lets in more sun, and that's what heats up the planet – not so much the direct effect of CO2, but the ‘feedback effect’ of having fewer clouds. In the real world, though, the clouds aren't shrinking,” he said.

The study also says that an overestimate of the power of CO2 as a greenhouse gas could be why the models over-predict, but that they do not know why the models are wrong at this point.

Christy said he is not optimistic about the models being fixed.

"The Earth system is just too complex to be represented in current climate models. I don’t think they’ll get it right for a long time."



Temperatures have been declining since the start of the millennium. Until the Warmists can explain that, any future predictions are meaningless.

Remember All Those Predictions About A rapidly melting Arctic?

Remember all those claims last year about accelerating Arctic ice loss and an ice-free Arctic by 2015 or 2020? Well, actually you don’t, because nobody ever made those claims. In fact, you heard exactly the opposite. You may think you heard claims about accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent ice-free Arctic, but they were merely figments of your imagination. You were merely hallucinating. How do I know this? Global warming alarmists just told us so.

Writing in Monday’s UK Guardian, alarmists John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli claim global warming alarmists predicted this year’s record growth in Arctic sea ice. And all those claims of doom-and-gloom predictions about Arctic sea ice in 2012? They were apparently just figments of our collective imagination.

So when you click on this article published by the very same UK Guardian last September 17, you really aren’t reading the article title that you think you are reading:  “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years.”

You really aren’t reading this gem of a quote from the story’s central “expert,” either:  “This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates.”

When you click on this New York Times article, you also aren’t seeing what you think you see, because global warming alarmists apparently told us last year the 2012 Arctic ice season was unlikely to be repeated in 2013.  According to our collective hallucination in the September 19, 2012 New York Times:

“‘The Arctic is the earth’s air-conditioner,’ said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the snow and ice center, an agency sponsored by the government. ‘We’re losing that. It’s not just that polar bears might go extinct, or that native communities might have to adapt, which we’re already seeing — there are larger climate effects.’”

“Now, some scientists think the Arctic Ocean could be largely free of summer ice as soon as 2020,” the Times continued, according to our collective hallucination.

“Scientists said Wednesday that the Arctic has become a prime example of the built-in conservatism of their climate forecasts. As dire as their warnings about the long-term consequences of heat-trapping emissions have been, many of them fear they may still be underestimating the speed and severity of the impending changes,” the Times apparently never reported.

Of course, the UK Guardian and the New York Times are just two of many publications that warned us about rapidly accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent loss of the entire polar ice cap. Er, I mean, the UK Guardian and the New York Times are just two of many publications that we falsely thinkwarned us about rapidly accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent loss of the entire polar ice cap.

These hallucinations are strikingly similar to when we erroneously believe alarmists warned us about less snowfall, more hurricanes, shrinking Antarctic sea ice, the Gulf Stream shutting down, etc. When the earth’s climate reacts exactly in the opposite manner as predicted by global warming alarmists, they pretend they never made such scary predictions in the first place.

No, alarmists never predicted Arctic sea ice would recede this year. They all predicted record Arctic sea ice growth, instead. Any such memories to the contrary are mere hallucinations. We know this because if the alarmists ever had made such doom-and-gloom predictions, it would prove to be yet another epic fail in the annals of silly and disproven global warming predictions


Schism in the church of Warmism!

Environmental activist Naomi Klein published an open letter this week eviscerating Center for American Progress front man Joe Romm for making ignorant statements and irresponsibly making hatchet-job attacks on people with differing points of view.

In an interview published last week by, Klein said Big Green environmental groups are engaging in “very deep denialism” that is causing more harm to the goal of limiting carbon dioxide emissions than the efforts of global warming skeptics. Klein said many Big Green groups are soliciting and accepting large amounts of cash from corporations who stand to profit from asserted global warming solutions and then are beholden to the corporations’ quest for corporate welfare, even when they are proposing ineffective or counterproductive programs to address global warming.

“I think it’s a really important question why the green groups have been so unwilling to follow science to its logical conclusions,” Klein added.

The Center for American Progress, funded by renewable energy lobbyists seeking massive taxpayer subsidies and renewable power mandates, apparently felt threatened by Klein’s observations. Center for American Progress front man Joe Romm posted an article on the organization’s website blasting Klein.

“She is not just wrong, she is profoundly wrong. Her revisionist history is wrong, too, and contradicted by her policy prescriptions,” wrote Romm.

“Klein saves much of her wrath for cap-and-trade — the favorite whipping boy of the counterfactual crowd – but to understand why her analysis is so wrong we need to first look at her revisionist history,” wrote Romm, before adding, “There are so many misleading statements packed in there, it is hard to know where to begin.”

“Klein is the queen of conflation and revisionism,” Romm piled on.


Britain: The Green Party want to become Ed Miliband's worst nightmare: a Ukip of the Left

When my train arrived at Brighton Station yesterday, I did not expect the first politician I saw to be Caroline Lucas. This was the Labour Conference, so what the hell was the Green Party’s MP doing, eager to chat to anyone as they came out of the station?

Lucas was there precisely because it was the Labour Conference. Taking advantage of location – Lucas is the Honorable Member for Brighton Pavilion – she has used it to remind everyone that the Green Party still exists. And it needs disillusioned Lefty votes, pronto.

A reminder comes with the Green Party billboard you encounter on the way to the Labour conference. “Welcome to Brighton: Home of the true opposition in Parliament”, it declares. "PS – Labour is down the hill on the right." In case the message isn’t clear enough, the revolving billboard also has a checklist of all the things the Greens stand for and Labour, we can assume, do not. Saving the NHS. Tick. Fighting Austerity. Tick. Railways in public hands. Tick. Scrapping Trident. Tick.

Despite Ed Miliband’s reply when asked about bringing back socialism – “That’s what we are trying to do, sir” – there is a lot of grumbling on the Left of the party. In a fringe meeting yesterday the suggestion that Labour propose a Financial Transaction Tax received nods of approval. There weren't many when Chuka Umunna warned that, unless there was a concerted international effort, banking jobs would be lost.

Since the formation of the Coalition, Labour has monopolised the political Left. But this year the Greens have tried to fill the vacuum. Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett, the Green Party leader, were both founding members of the People’s Assembly Against Austerity in February. The more time they spend sharing a stage with Owen Jones, Ken Loach and company, the more the Greens can present themselves as an attractive Leftist alternative to Labour. Caroline Lucas says: "We know that a lot of the policies we're putting forward – against NHS privatisation for example – do strike a chord with disillusioned Labour voters. And I think a lot of Labour members want to see their leadership follow our lead and take a stronger line against austerity." She also stresses that "I've voted against the Government on a range of issues where Labour have supported them."

The Greens may dream of becoming the “Ukip of the Left”. That isn’t going to happen. Ukip's obsession with immigration captures the public imagination; CO2 emissions do not. But the Greens are still a force that could take crucial votes away from Labour in 2015. The party "has been good at concentrating its limited resources in areas where it has a toehold", says Joe Twyman, a YouGov director. The Greens have over 150 councillors (only 60 fewer than Ukip) and, of course, an MP.

Ed Miliband’s great advantage has always been that, while the Right is a house divided, the Left is not. Now the Greens are making an explicit pitch to disgruntled Labour voters. How successful they are could go a long way to determining whether Miliband gets to Number 10.


Regulatory Commissars: EPA Issues Rules

Two weeks ago we outlined what to expect when the Environmental Protection Agency was to present new climate regulation ordered by Barack Obama through executive power in June. The EPA's official report released Friday affirms our report: “[N]ew large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.”

The result will be intentionally disastrous for coal-powered plants that will now be forced to install costly carbon capture technology. “No coal-fired power plant has done that yet, in large part because of the cost,” observes The Wall Street Journal. “And those plants that the EPA points to as potential models … have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants and tax credits.” Imagine that: An expensive (and likely subpar) technology in need of a government subsidy. We have a good idea how this will turn out.

Perhaps the most egregious comments come from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. While testifying last week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, McCarthy was asked what effect any of the EPA's 26 climate regulations have had on curbing global warming. “It's unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having … a visible change in any of those [indicators],” McCarthy admitted.

So let's get this straight: An administration working to “save the planet” from “climate change” admits it's likely none of the regulations have done anything to actually curb warming. And yet, the answer is to instate more carbon rules. This administration will do whatever it takes to destroy the coal industry in service to its leftist ideology.


Australia's public broadcaster hearts Greenies

The hysterical David Suzuki is treated as a VIP

Tonight provides further evidence of bias at the ABC. David Suzuki appears on Q&A without any other panelists. Normally Q&A consists of a panel of six people with Tony Jones. Occasionally there will be just two (and Tony Jones) – such as when Chris Bowen and Joe Hockey appeared on 19 August 2013.

Very rarely there will be just one panelist, like tonight’s show with David Suzuki. The previous examples are:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2 September 2013 and 8 February 2010)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard (6 May 2013, 11 June 2012, 11 July 2011, 14 March 2011, 9 August 2010)

Former Prime Minister John Howard (25 October 2010)

Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott (16 August 2010)

Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull (13 October 2008)

Retiring Leader of the Greens Senator Bob Brown (23 April 2012)

With the exception of Bob Brown (who was at least leader of a minor party in the Parliament of Australia), all the others have been Prime Ministers or Opposition Leaders.

Now comes David Suzuki with no particular claim to fame except on the Q&A website as a: "Renowned Environmental Scientist and Campaigner"

How much did the ABC pay David Suzuki to appear? Have they provided young ladies to accompany him as is his wont?

It is time to privatise the ABC.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: