100% Of Climate Models Prove That 97% Of Climate Scientists Were Wrong!
Posted: September 26, 2017 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist Predictions, Carbon Dioxide, Climate models, Climate Money, Climatism, Dud predictions, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Failed Climate Models, Global Temperature, Global Warming Stasis, IPCC, Sceptics, The Pause | Tags: "The Pause", Alarmism, Climate Change, climate models, Climate science, Climatism, Dud Predictions, failed climate models, Failed CMIP5 Models, Global Warming Hiatus, IPCC, nature, UN 11 Comments
AS egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong. | THE TIMES
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
***
IN February 2016, climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that the UN IPCC’s CMIP5 climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures. Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately three″.
UN IPCC CMIP5 Climate models Vs Observations – presented by John Christy PhD to US Senate Congress on Climate Change
SEPTEMBER 2017
Dr. Christy was 100% correct …
A landmark paper by warmist scientists in Nature Geoscience now concedes the world has indeed not warmed as predicted, thanks to a slowdown in the first 15 years of this century. One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”
ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” Myles Allen – professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford
SO, the sceptics – the “climate deniers” – were spot-on, again.
The global warming backpedalling begins. “It’s less worse than we thought” | Tallbloke’s Talkshop
AND yet we have spent literally trillions of dollars of other peoples’ (taxpayers) money on alarmist global warming climate change policies, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills, solar panels, mothballed desal plants, pink bats, carbon taxes etc) on the advice of overheated, predictive computer models that do not even observe real-world reality!?
DON’T expect an apology or your money back anytime soon. The climate juggernaut will keep digging at your hip pocket a little while longer – too much money is on the line and too many reputations are now at stake.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS
Via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT :
The pause is alive and well!
Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD
There has been a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the findings of the new paper. This article mentions a letter to the Times by the phoneys, Lords Krebs and Stern.
I have also seen a similar letter in the Mail from Myles Allen. It stated that the difference of 0.3C was really rather insignificant, and that we were still all going to die if we did mend our evil ways, only slightly later!
But the difference is actually really huge, bearing in mind that this is over a period of just 15 years, and particularly when the authors admit that emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed.
Climate change predictions — what went wrong? | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
•••
Related :
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
97% Of Climate Scientists Got it Wrong Related :
- Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’
- How scientists got their global warming sums wrong — and created a £1,000,000,000,000-a-year green industry that bullied experts who dared to question the figures | The Sun UK
- Climate scientists admit they were wrong on climate change effects | Watts Up With That?
The Writing Was On The Wall :
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
Global Warming “Pause” Related :
- The Pause | Search Results | Climatism
- Establishing Propaganda Is Vital For Climate Action | Climatism
Would like to add that the study you cited, though projecting lower warming rates, still suffers from the “cumulative emissions” flaw that permeates climate science. Please see
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000932
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. Though, the findings to be expected from ‘warmist’ scientists. And, of course, to guarantee publication in non-political ‘Nature Journal’ 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it interesting that many of Dr. Christy’s colleagues disagree with his views on climate change. In the AR5 IPCC, it is believed that the effect of anthropogenic forcings on climate change is a well-established fact. The coauthors of the Nature Geoscience are also disturbed by the misinterpretation of their paper and have issued a statement, “…Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels].”
I’m curious on your thoughts on this matter.
LikeLike
A lot of back-pedalling has gone on in the alarmist community after the Millar et al paper was released.
And let’s not forget what the authors of Millar et al said of their findings:
One of its authors, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, admits his past predictions of runaway warming were too alarmist.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. We are in a better place than I thought.”
ANOTHER author, Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, confessed that too many of the mathematical models used by climate scientists to predict future warming “were on the hot side” — meaning they exaggerated.
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
I blogged in 2014 a plethora of “Nature Journal” “Peer-reviewed” papers citing the global warming “Pause” or “Hiatus” and the overestimation of GCM models from 1998-2014 :
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/establishing-propaganda-is-vital-for-climate-action/
2015-17 we saw a spike in temps with El Nino, and now have dropped back to post 1998 levels. i.e. the “Pause” lives on:
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/new-study-global-warming-pause-confirmed-climate-models-wrong/
LikeLike
[…] recently put under the microscope by a group of ‘warmist’ climate scientists who published a bombshell paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience […]
LikeLike
What is a “desal plant?” did you mean “diesel plant?” Anyway good article.
LikeLike
*Desalinisation
LikeLike
[…] rialzato, che porta alla grande e ampiamente riconosciuta divergenza tra osservazioni satellitari, modelli climatici e temperatura GISS della NASA […]
LikeLike
[…] not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and […]
LikeLike
[…] REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models. […]
LikeLike
[…] REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models. […]
LikeLike