Mathematical modeling illusions

The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – are based on models that do not work

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris1
CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means
Tropical Mid-troposphere 20S-20N Models and Observations from drroyspencer.com.

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to Continue reading “Mathematical modeling illusions”

A 1D Model Of Global Temperature Changes, 1880-2017

Dr. Roy Spencer

[Dr. Spencer’s post originally appeared on his blog on February 22nd, 2018.  The link to his 2/23/18 update of the post is here.]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/1D-model-1880-2017-results-Tsfc-plot-revised-1-550x303.jpg

UPDATE(2/23/18): The previous version of this post had improper latitude bounds for the HadCRUT4 Tsfc data. I’ve rerun the results… the conclusions remain the same. I have also added proof that ENSO is accompanied by its own radiative forcing, a controversial claim, which allows it to cause multi-decadal climate change. In simple terms, this is clear evidence the climate system can cause its own, natural, internally-generated climate changes. This is partly what has caused recent warming, and the climate modelling community has assumed it was all human-caused. Continue reading “A 1D Model Of Global Temperature Changes, 1880-2017”

A Brief Look at Climate Models Developed by Skeptics

Skeptical modelers show a more realistic view of past, present, and future climate change that follows mostly natural temperature patterns. These models indicate a more benign climate outcome than do the IPCC models. Since they are able to bound the problem of cause and effect, they dramatically reduce the wide uncertainty range of expected global temperature increase due to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Bernie McCune

When Alarmists say “climate change is real!” I think yes it is, but “real . . . what?” My perhaps flippant answer to that question is real normal, real natural . . . among a few.  I think human caused climate change is real small.  These are some of the real issues that I want to explore here.

Photo courtesy of PublicDomainPictures.net

The first point is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) climate models are actually not real at all.  In fact based on the real data, they are turning out to be fairy tales.  Based on the real data, more realistic models are now being developed by very qualified groups and individuals. The improvement in modeling results over those by the IPCC appear Continue reading “A Brief Look at Climate Models Developed by Skeptics”

STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

[This short post was published by Roy W. Spencer on June 6th, 2013 and has been reproduced here with the permission of the author.  Ed.]

In response to those who complained in my recent post that linear trends are not a good way to compare the models to observations (even though the modelers have claimed that it’s the long-term behavior of the models we should focus on, not individual years), here are running 5-year averages for the tropical tropospheric temperature, models versus observations (click for full size):

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means
In this case, the models and observations have been plotted so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the coming years. I frankly don’t see how the IPCC can keep claiming that the models are “not inconsistent with” the observations. Any sane person can see otherwise.

If the observations in the above graph were on the UPPER (warm) side of the models, do you really believe the modelers would not be falling all over themselves to see how much additional surface warming they could get their models to produce?

Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!

Forgive me if I sound frustrated, but we scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced have been virtually cut out of funding and publication by the ‘humans-cause-everything-bad-that-happens’ juggernaut. The public who funds their work will not stand for their willful blindness much longer.

________________________________

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.  He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.